Why would they give us the mammoth in forge? I hope for it too, but the problem here is, were would you put it? On ravine it cant drive 3 meter forward before falling in the sea. We dont really have the space to do that. In halo reach we had all the space of the world, but not the budget and we have framerate issues. Now in Halo 4, we have the budget but not the space.. And my problem with the forge-maps is mostly the pre-made buildings, you cant move those, and sometimes they just have to be in your map. And in some maps that will be good implemented, but im sure people are getting annoyed with it too. Man, the maps are nice, but they are not "Forge-maps" to me with those pre-build structures. I also they just expanded the space on ravine, all the way to those beautifull islands in the distance, i hoped for an desert and/or snow map, but there is always DLC... But i cant judge so much i guess, but thats my opinion.
qft I agree with every part of that. Halo 3 forge was intended for just throwing down some new weapons, vehicles and scenery but people decided to make real maps so we got foundry then sandbox. Then with reach they gave us the space to really make our own maps. Now Halo 4 is coming along and we're going back to small canvases with existing structures. The open space Impact should at least be close to the open ocean of Forge World but we still have those buildings and spotlights sitting out there awkwardly.
I'm not going to name names or anything, but there are more than a few people around here who make a big thing of doing any/all of the following: - Saying Halo has sucked since x (x = Reach, sometimes Halo 3) - Saying they stopped playing Reach months ago (leaving you to guess why they still post here and constantly talk about Reach...) - Saying game x is far better than Reach (game x = use your imagination, but this being a forge forum, it's usually something with a map editor: Far Cry, Trials, Murder Miners) and how they quit Reach to play it - Bagging on 343 in general and Frankie in particular; before that, bagging on Bungie. In both cases, it's predominantly related to how they "changed Halo to cater to casuals" And of course they're entitled to have these opinions and post here if they like; I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But I would definitely categorize them as self-identified anti-Halo posters. It reminds me of a friend I have on Live who, every time we get in a game together, makes a point of saying how much Reach sucks. Literally, every time. Yet he's on the game constantly and I've played with him dozens of times - figure that one out. Some people seem to be addicted to hate-playing this game; it must be fun for them the same way regular playing is for everyone else.
But what 343 is making isn't really Halo, so does that mean people who bash on 343 are actually pro-Halo?
Would there would be a problem with that? Halo 4 isn't Episode IV: A New Hope. It's the ****ing Phantom Menace. It isn't a Halo game, it's the sequel to Reach, a spin-off game. Gee, why would someone mention the last Halo game to come out while in a discussion talking about the soon to be released successor? I'm vexed. No. Just no. No inverted commas necessary. They changed Halo to cater to casuals, and to mix things up to keep them from getting stale too fast. They've failed. Trying to keep a series running and improving on it while keeping it new and exciting is no easy task, but that doesn't mean I give them a pass because they tried. If anyone can say they've enjoyed each Halo game more than the last, I feel happy for them. They're clearly easier to please than I am. Or you could just call them "people who hated Reach and aren't optimistic about Halo 4". **** it, Anti-Halo posters is shorter, even if grossly misstated.
I assume you mean "sequel" in terms of gameplay, at which point the use of that word at all becomes questionable. Aside from how the point you're quoting didn't just deal with mentioning the last game, even as a strict point of comparison, but people who's posting habits seem unduly focused on saying how much they hate the game which forms the premise for this whole site. Yes. Just yes. Isn't this fun? Says the guy who cites Halo 3 as the pinnacle of the series? You do realise that you've picked an arbitrary point along a line, right? I'm guessing you missed the 3 year long torrent of abuse that Halo 3 got for "pandering to casuals," "ruining the BR," "OP'ing the AR+melee" etc. You seem to be taking this quite personally, and tbh I don't think Nutduster was talking about you or people with similar posting habits to you. I may disagree strongly with many of your stances, but you talk with relative balance about the game and series as a whole. Do you really deny that there are posters (more numerous on MLG than here, but who have always had a presence here and seem to be increasing of late) who seem to come here solely to validate their "old school" stance on the series? Think what you will of Reach or Halo 4, there are undeniably posters who take what is essentially a hipster stance, precluding any enthusiasm due to a veil of largely self imposed alienation. This attitude heads off any potential redemption of the series.
A) Yes and B) I think it's a fair enough word usage. I didn't like Reach terribly, and Halo 4 definitely takes after Reach. There's a gaping disconnect between Halo 3 and Halo 4 that's worth at least acknowledging. I very much doubt the Reclaimer series is going to get closer to the original trilogy as the games wear on, and seeing as Halo 4 is going to colour the direction of the entire series, it's better to notice now than later. Hate is a strong word. "Dislike strongly some aspects of" I can get behind. People don't play games they hate for hundreds of hours. I'm honestly getting pissed off that people get snippy every time someone admits they don't go dewey-eyed with reverence every time someone mentions Halo. And yet I still stick to my personal and subjective assessment that it had the most enjoyable Halo Multiplayer experience. Different people, different tastes. I know that Chuck personally thought that Halo 3 was a step down from Halo 2. He also (If I remember correctly) liked Reach. I honestly love that he feels the opposite the way I do. You make is seem as though the people vocalising their dislike of the gameplay departures from the predecessors of Halo 4 are doing it to enhance their image as older "true fans", when really most of the complaints are about the game not pushing the boundaries hard enough, or making irreconcilable (and unalterable) changes to things that were fine the way they were. Eventually there'll be one change too many and "It feels like Halo" will still be true, but playing the game will be a chore.
Do you know why I'm excited for Halo 4? I'm excited because Reach is so awfully unenjoyable that Halo 4 can't possibly be worse. They've added enough positives and customization to at least make it on par with Reach. Then, since it would be at least on par with it, I would enjoy it solely for it being new and fresh because currently all I have is Reach and that's stale and not fun for me to play. On another note: weapon dropping system sounds so awesome. I've always wanted to be able to customize weapon drops that much.
i think youre seriously underestimating the size of the forge maps. no, none of them are as large as forge world as a whole, but the entire space of forge world wasnt needed for any single map, it had all those different areas. ravine is easily as large as the canyon, and im fairly sure just one of the two asteroids on impact could support a BTB map by itself. and the structures really arent that bad, im sure everyone will easily be able to work around them. if you block the holes in that building on impact, it would effectively be the same thing as if it were just more of those mountain things on the other side of that asteroid. just natural geometry. it may not look quite as nice, but its really not a huge deal if you ask me.
I know we would like more space to forge and have mammoths. but maybe reducing the Forge map size to what they did is something they had to do to remove FR lag?.. heres to hoping that is why we dont have 3 forgeworld sized maps
The good thing about the smaller maps is that it doesnt take much time to render every space, unlike forge world. This will decrease frame rate issues, im certain about that. And wood wonk, i dont underestimate the space, im simply saying that one : A mammoth, as much as we like to have it, wont fit on any of the three maps. Maybe as an base but thats it. And two : Im sure the structures can be implemented well enough in a map, as i said, but sometimes it will also get in the way, even if you block the entrances.
I think a mammoth would be fun enough to use to justify just having at least one map designed around it. I think enough people have fond memories of using the elephants on sandtrap. Most people on this site don't, but I do.
mammoth might work on Ravine, but i dont see it having much space to drive on the others. personally, i am not hoping for the mammoth. im hoping for something smaller and new promethean equivalent to a mongoose revenant's equivalent (have they confirmed revenant?) are we even sure there is still going to be a new vehicle at this point? it seems like something they would have announced by now edit- i know this image is old, but for the sake of discussion, what helmets do you guys like the best? i really like the engineer, stalker, and venator the fotus is pretty crazy. it looks cool but i would not use it. oceanic is pretty cool... bioshock spartans
oceanic, war master, and it looks weird in that image but in one of the armory videos aviator looked really good. and of course mark vi classic.