What I meant in that statement is that I wasn't sure if I thought it was worth 60 bucks out of my wallet, as they seem to be veering way too far away from the Halo that I've come to enjoy, at least in terms of multiplayer and related modes. The campaign looks fantastic - that's why I'm at least renting - but dropping 60 bucks to keep it and get a multiplayer that won't really appeal to me and a co-op mode that looks pretty cool but probably won't keep me hooked? That's my problem. I need a reason to come back besides unlocks that shouldn't exist in Halo (in my eyes) and a couple of co-op missions (once again, cool, but not good enough standalone to me) Not to mention I'm not sure if I want to support this change from the classic formula by paying. If I pay for it, it's essentially giving them my approval to contunue going along this path. I'm not necessarily inclined to do that right now. Sure it's worth their time, but not yet my approval.
It's cause this is the June issue of OXM (UK version), and that was the May issue of GameInformer. Ans as a precautionary warning: No leaked content on our forums. This includes scans, youtube videos, and any other outlet for pre-released images, video, or information.
Heres the problem... People set their standards too high and they end up disappointed with the results. People set their standards too low and they dont care for the game when it comes out. People complain about reach (i do too) and yet, its been proven worthy of attention and has entertained millions and millions. Look back when h3 was just announced. People didnt criticize, they anticipated. Its because they WANTED Change. They wanted something new. look at it this way people, when a game company takes something out of a game, its never enough to entertain, when they dont change anything, people lose interest, when the tiniest bit is changed to give an entirely new aspect, people want them to get rid of it because of stupid selfish reasons. Look at it as a videogame, not a vehicle you have to depend on to get to wherever you're going. Besides, its waaaaayyy too soon to make judgements on the game yet.
So what you're complaining about is people getting bitched at for having a negative opinion yet you're also saying people who have a positive opinion are in the minority? I had a positive opinion(however poorly argued) and I was eviscerated. I would say most of the people in this thread are complaining about Halo 4, so I don't really understand your complaint. Aw hell naw. We are not about to get into a whether-piracy-should-be-considered-theft-or-not argument. So just enjoy it as a new game. Or do you only buy games similar to games you have already played from franchises that have gone on for years? I can't blame you for at least renting and trying it out. This seems to be what most naysayers here are doing, which is fine. I just think that anyone who publicly downplays this game with no intention of playing it at all (which is probably no one here) is an idiot.
See I would (no sarcasm intended if it sounds like it, honest), but I want an arena shooter with even starts for all, no custom options affecting individual gameplay choices and such. If I wanted a casual, variable shooter with those elements I can play TF2, or some new mech game on PC my friend has been bugging me about (I should really look into what it's called; it looked pretty neat). I get this game because it's Halo; and it fit that niche of competitive shooters as well as satisfied my appeal to nostalgia after 8 years of playing Halo games. Halo 4 does not seem to be fulfilling the empty spot; I have another game, F2P I might add, that basically fits the niche that it is becoming. I have an RTS, Action, Casual Shooter, Arena Shooter, MMO on the side, and Sandbox/Adventure (Minecraft). I don't need another game, and unless Halo 4 can be different enough and entertaining in its own way, I don't see it fitting into my little collage of games. Not to mention I sort of hold a grudge for its betrayal of the spot for an Arena/Competitive Shooter in my little circle. So I'll admit I may be biased, but still, it doesn't fit. It's trying to become a totally different game from the multiplayer perspective, and I have no need for the type of game that it is becoming. Sorry. Yes it may be fun, but it isn't what I'm looking for in Halo multiplayer and a competitive FPS in general.
Thats the other thing. Why is every opinion/point in the world called a complaint in this thread? I wasn't complaining about anything, I was making a simple observation on the behavior of this thread, in hopes of discussing it, and seeing if anyone agreed or disagreed. Tis the point of a forum. I find it most relevant how I have only received hostile reactions after expressing negativity thus far. Like I said before, this thread is full of negative reactions to something, both justified opinions and unjustified bitching, and then someone coming in that can't stand all the negativity that feels the need to lash out at everyone for being so by using snarky comments and "grow up, get used to it, and adapt" arguments. There's that testy comment that I was talking about. Scorch gave practically one request based on his opinion of a good gameplay mechanic (player equality), and people have to target him by saying that he is being a total buzz-kill to the idea of innovation by saying "you just want (insert game title, normally being "Halo 3.5" here)." Most of the people here don't hate additions, new features etc... The people complaining here hate the new features that totally delete what was good and make a complete degradation (in their opinions). Note, that this is just one example of what happens like 75% of the time that people say that that they want something to be like it used to on just about any forum.
Really RST? You're going to spoil one of the greatest scenes in a movie that just came out? Not cool.
Was a great scene. Loscocco, the point is a Halo 4 discussion should be about what is in Halo 4, not what you want based on past games. But, by all means you can discuss what you want to discuss, my problem with the discussion is when it starts going after the developers for doing what their job is.
Don't know if shared already. I couldn't really tell if it is just speculation or otherwise... Xbox 360 Feature: Halo 4's "ancient enemy": Prometheans, rogue AIs, the Didact - Xbox 360 - The Official Magazine
How is wanting a past mechanic implemented into a future game irrelevant to that future game? And every criticism/complaint/request is still relevant to what is in Halo 4; it is their expression of dissatisfaction with what is in the game. I'm pretty sure the Halo 4 Discussion thread is about anything related to the topic of the game Halo 4, not solely the confirmed details. Just because people want something doesn't make it irrelevant. With this logic, if I became a soldier, completed my job by killing the enemy, but recklessly murdered several innocent people in the process, I should be immune to harsh criticism, punishment, etc...? I mean, I was just doing my job. In 343's case, their punishment would be not making any sales, but they should be immune to hatred/judgment? There's a difference between doing a job, and doing a job poorly. Every complaint and negative opinion is based on a person's opinion on a poor job done with Halo 4 and the decisions that 343 took.
And their wants have been detailed, for more or less all of this discussion. You think the thread is filled with people complaining about the negativity? Try four or five people. So far all I've been able to count is me, unfrozenlynx, security (every once in a while), and neo for a small period, and every blue moon or so another person. And we don't chime in after every post, at least I don't. I think that's pretty justified in its own right but again, as I said, feel free to discuss what you want to discuss, I stated my opinion on what I find relevant to a new game discussion, you are not bound to it nor do I expect you to respect that opinion. Now don't take that as I want more people to "complain", I never wanted that in the first place, just for people to try something before predetermining it to be "crap/****/polished ****/worst game ever" whatever. Strong language gets thrown around so much in this discussion it has lost all meaning at this point. Must be great for <60 metacritic games who previously been called ****. They must feel godly being elevated to games that made or will make hundreds of millions. Yes, because that analogy is completely ok. No, no, being a soldier and killing people totally equal to making a video game. Nothing more needs be said, I agree 100% with this analogy. No, that's crap in every conceivable definition of it, and this time I use the word with it's implied weight. Doing the job poorly would imply there are glitches with the game, shitty netcode, horrible plot holes in the story, things actually wrong with the gameplay. Wanting a game to be like a past game is not grounds for a developing company doing a poor job. So angry at that statement I could right a god damn Doctoral thesis on why that statement is crap but as my opinion doesn't hold up much in this thread (and I completely understand why, it is a Halo fan site after-all, predicated on the belief that Halo be made for us specifically) I don't feel like entering into the massive text walls I'd have to write up either clearing up the semantics of every other sentence and what horrific metaphors will be derived from them (soldiers killing people...man...) or delving into base insults on my character or the characters of others. So I wash my hands of it, have at this response, I'll probably post again after cluckinho posts another link with information as he does.
Out of the 10 or so active members on the thread in total, that's still half... The only thing I can understand that is getting annoying is the repetition; just as some people finish discussing, in length, their opinions on a topic, someone comes back in, without seeing the thing that was written 3 posts ago, and repeats the entire conversation. That, and the people that come in and say a one-liners with zero content like: "Derp, this game is gonna be ****. Kthxbye" I don't care if you state your opinion, it is that you guys swoop into the discussion every few pages, attack everyone that has an opinion that you don't agree with (rather than simply disagreeing with it in a civilized fashion), fling the same flawed argument that has been spewed since Reach came out ("grow up, adapt, stop asking for Halo 3.5") at them, sit back, and watch the thread asplode: ex: Etc... I didn't hear a single bit of a reason to why the analogy fails in that sea of bitter sarcasm. Two jobs + failure = criticism. Same proportions, different scales. I don't see how doing a half-assed job with something like the story, leaving plot-holes due to poor writing, can't equate to doing a half-assed job in the multiplayer due to poor multiplayer design. Especially in a game centered (focuses most of its replay-ability) around multiplayer. Also, creating an unbalanced game is something that is actually wrong with the game. ...and you don't consider whether the game actually attracts people as part of the job? I'm pretty sure the whole basis of their job, the whole reason that they are getting something done in a specific way, is to appease people. If they can't do that, then they're doing a shitty job. That is pure "crap in every conceivable definition of it." I ****ing despise how so many people defending Reach, H4, etc... pull the nostalgia card. No... People don't hate change, people hate retarded change as I said before. People defend bloom with "you just want your precious BR back, sorry this isn't Halo 3.5" on Reach. God no, people hate bloom because it is luck-based inconsistency that completely throws out the idea of "better man wins." Same with armor abilities; people hate that it turns the game into Rocks-Paper-Scissors, picking the right choice will hopefully prolong your life the best, not the fact that it is a new concept. ...and please, if you want to prolong this, let's take it to a PM.
This is a poor argument and it disappoints me how regularly it's been trotted out in this thread. If you don't like what others have to say about the game, argue against what they say, not what you suspect their motive is. Doing the latter opens you up to the possibility that you're completely misinterpreting their motive and are delving into non-sequitur. Here's a for-instance: it's been stated and re-stated a hundred times why the competitive community generally dislikes a loadout-based design. If you think loadouts can be sufficiently balanced to be competitive, if you think buying and unlocking weapons that others may not have won't be problematic, then make your case. Or acknowledge the concern and say, "We won't really know for sure until the game comes out," and leave it at that. When you reduce it to its fundamentals, those guys have a point; it's clear and it's been strongly made; so responding to it by saying, "You just don't like change" is disrespectful. My counter to the same argument has been entirely different: it's that 343 doesn't make the game for competitive players, and except from a personal/subjective standpoint, we have no grounds to complain. Bungie never designed primarily for competitive players either, and CE was (as Pegasi theorized) likely a happy accident. If you self-classify as competitive and want a game designed from the ground up for you, you need to either find a lot more people willing to spend money on said game, or you need to make the game yourself. You can vote with your dollars (by taking them away) - after all, this is how capitalism works - but the probable scenario is that there aren't enough of you to make a dent in their philosophy, and if they're correct, your dollars will be offset by those of others just playing their first Halo game. Regardless of what we think, Halo 4 is going to be another loadout shooter like Reach. You can't turn back the tide.
You mean like you did just now? Where in that sentence did you pull out assuming people's motives are. I said people wanting past games because that is what had been said time after time about all the past things they want. Not making it up for the sake of argument, if you want me to provide a quote list I certainly can do that although it would be most of the last 10 pages of discussion. The part that you ignored in your response is that I said they can spout their disappointment to their heart's content. The purpose of me saying that sentence is that wanting of certain features over other ones does not mean the developer did a "poor" job by not doing them. Maybe "poor" has a different definition to you and loscocco (especially when the same word is used to describe someone killing real people as the same as a group of employees making a game). Noone ever promised these features to anyone so its not even like you can fault the developer for false hype or marketing. Expecting something and not getting it is different from the developer promising and not delivering. The latter case is a "poor" job by the developer. The former is all on the consumer. They control what they expect, sometimes unreasonably so, sometimes justifiably so. I define a "poor" experience by the mechanics of the game which can only be judged after playing the game or at least after it comes out and others have teared into it for awhile. Then things like glitches, real design oversights (and I use words like real and actual because having Loadouts is not a design flaw, it is a design direction that people may like or not like. A real design oversight is if a loadout is broken or really overpowered), and actual problems with the complete game, not just multiplayer (and the further specificity of vanilla matchmaking). ...I have said the "wait until the game comes out" line in most of my posts. Now your generalizing what wasn't said into what was said. No argument here, well said. As I said, this knowlege of it being a loadout based multiplayer does not constitute poor design of any sort unless there are real problems with it that will be found out eventually. I dont doubt that there might be design oversites, I can't and won't defend a developer who ships a game with real problems but a choosing one gameplay mechanic over another is not that, and we can't know if there are real problems until the game comes out or someone gets some real uninterrupted time with it.
What the f*ck? Has this been confirmed? I hope it's one of those Precusors/Prometheans/Forerunners whatever Weapons, cause this would be a lame Covenant or Human weapon.
This guy had the right idea and his statement went totally ignored. People seem to have this idea that Halo 3 was the perfect Halo game, but as I recall when I used to play H3 fervently people often complained about how it had changed too much from Halo 2's multiplayer. Going even further back when I used to play H2 religiously people bitched about how it had strayed too far from from CE's multiplayer. In my eyes, the real genesis of this debate stems from the movement from CE to H2. Granted, I wasn't as involved in the Halo community as I am now, but I remember back then when news about the Halo 2 multiplayer schematic was dripping ever so gradually onto our grimy paws we couldn't get enough of it, but what stood out to me the most is that it seemed like ALL of the things they were announcing were new and revolutionary to the classic CE multiplayer that everyone (including myself) had come to love. Dual-wielding weapons, A Battle-Rifle (that, not-to-mention, shot one shot in scope and burst shot not in scope), Melee Combos, The ATV (which was ultimately cut), Playing as ELITES!, etc. I mean the list goes on and on, but the argument here is that most people embraced these proposed changes because (whether you care to admit it or not) playing the same Halo everyday became dull. Would people have anticipated H2 so highly if they had announced that it was going to be the exact same as its predecessor? Hell no. People saw these things as enhancements to the game and took them for what they were until the game came out. Each Halo has its own problems: CE; Pistol or GTFO. H2; Sword is god. H3; BR or GTFO. Reach; AA unbalancing issues. I can easily say I'm expecting that one thing that will stigma the experience because the system IS NOT PERFECT. Will it annoy me? Hell yes. Just as CE, H2, H3, and Reach annoyed me, but I'll continue playing because it is the only franchise that satisfies my competitive needs. With that said, much like the transition between CE and H2 and the info I received in between, I'll embrace the information I've been given (wary as I am) and hope for the best. I will say though that if I feel that H4 begins to feel like COD I'll sell that **** quicker than Activision releases those shitty games.