Probably not. I'm going to go play campaign because it is now the main reason of me purchasing the game. I'll forge after that though.
I'll probably get to campaign but not til a week or so in, unless multiplayer picks up and I plan on playing that, in which case I'll need to beat campaign first to avoid spoilers.
they cant really **** up the balance of campaign, i'll play it because it looks gorgeous. i'll probably try it all, just to give it a chance. If bad, forge and customs all day and all night [br][/br]Edited by merge: i didn't know they released the game already!
Is anyone else dreading more multiplayer news? A massive forge announcement, Spartan Ops info and Campaign info would give me sufficient reason to purchase Halo 4. I'm doubting the return of Invasion, but it could be interesting if it does return with the new class system and either Spartans Versus Spartans or Spartans versus new enemy.
I don't know about that. I think it's actually LIKELY to change, but perhaps not a lot, or in a way that will please the people who are unhappy already. If 343 is anything like Bungie (and the TU mess indicates that they are), they'll probably be tweaking things right up to launch, and well after. Weapon damage/bloom/ROF/recoil is all very easy for them to tweak, and I'm sure with us being many months from release, tweaks will still happen.
I just feel like people use the 'it's just an old build'/'it's not final, they might change it' card a bit too often. I also don't see it as a reason to not complain about it like someone else suggested.
You're right, but honestly at this point it's just people showing their biases on both sides. Vague information comes from someone other than 343, who spent part of one afternoon with the game, months before release - and the people who were convinced Halo 4 will suck are (surprise) even more convinced. Then the people on the other side pull the "it will change" card like usual, and the discussion progresses not at all. You can see the exact same argument with a few different words subbed in on geek entertainment sites like Ain't It Cool - a trailer for a movie comes out, half the commenters say the CGI looks like **** and is proof the movie will suck, then the other half say it looks pretty good and anyway it's not final CGI. It's just silliness - when you boil it down it's mostly people who have some vested interest in seeing the thing fail or succeed, yelling at each other.
Pretty much the cycle. Most of the people going, "wait till the game comes out to form an opinion on something," do this. Remember Reach (ha...)? The same things were said.
Thing is though, why would you advertise your product with footage that isn't final or anywhere near final? It's just quite silly.
If they have the gay assassination animation thing like they do have in reach... i hope they fix it so that it doesn't happen when you've already turned around and punched your opponent. ...it happened to me three times yesterday. I was annoyed
I think it's now a case of theres more asassinations, but you have a choice on if you want to or not. Hopefully it will work in that you can do it pregame, or simply press B twice to do the animation.
Simply Making the hold detection a fraction longer would solve the problem. I've lost count of the amount of times I've done it when I didn't want to and not done it when I wanted it.
Why would anyone show anything early. To build hype. People are expecting some mega information dump which would defeat the purpose of advertising. Also, the general strategy is to advertise what is new and different not what is exactly the same. Judging by that halo 4 preorder number (bla bla bla vhchartz unreliable bla bla bla) it seems their tactics are working despite the bitching. Most of what is being bitched over are tiny things so the journalists could have very well played a "final" build and it is also true that they could have had them play a custom setup just to show specific things and not reveal other things. It is also true with enough pullback from the proper channels, things with negative feedback could be changed. Do you know what is known for certain? Time. The game isn't released yet and won't be for awhile. I could make an educated guess at how things will end up but that is all it could ever be until told otherwise by official sources.
Pac, I think you have my point in a different context to waht I was saying it as. I was addressing it as a response to those who moan "its not a final build." Anything that could change MASSIVELY simply wouldn't be shown, unless there was some serious intention for it to be in there (Halo 2 new mobasa level at E3 permitting. Damn. THAT WAS AWESOME DUDE)
Everything I said was in response to that context. What has been shown that you would think would need a "massive" change. Respawn timer? Completely configerable setting (which is why I was surprised Reach and Halo 3 don't let you remove it but increase it) Number of shots the br/dmr/magnum etc take to kill? Again completely tweakable with just a variable change. Loadouts? A bit more significant an addition but also not an impossible thing to alter. If there were no loadout gametypes in Reach there could be no loadout gametypes in 4. The hardest thing to change out of what has been revealed would be weapon customization because that would be built into the structural integrity of the game. And again, all of that is just what would be advertised to get new people interested. The installed base will buy the game regardless (despite what the .1% of the "hardcore" community thinks)
Or don't want to say. Fanboys stick with their game, just like I (embarassingly) support Leeds United. damn they suck.