http://www.gametrailers.com/video/x10-vidoc-halo-reach/61845#comments_top (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/x10-vidoc-halo-reach/61845#comments_top)
Seriously looks like the best halo since the first one, and they are still in Alpha.
Impressive.
If it's anything near Halo 1, I'll love it. Halo 2 and 3 were a step backwards and it finally seems like they understand that.
My favorite part about the whole... Doing a story set before Halo 1 is the fact that each iteration that is set before it has newer and newer weapons.
Assault Rifle has been updated to look even more badass... Needle Rifle... etc
Timelines always seem so screwy with games when you do a George Lucas on them and head back to the beginning. You can't take out stuff... but not adding anything would just make it a rehash of the old.
They stated they were fearful of what to add or takeout because of their fans. Wish Ubisoft thought more like this.
Wow, what a overhaul in terms of the graphics, it's a lot more gritty. Halo 2 and 3 should really have gone this way after they had the power to do so (it went a bit cartoony, especially for the alien weapons).
Also glad that the facial system is being redone, they all looked like burn victims in ODST.
People still care about Halo?
Like seriously?
Care... About Halo?
You Fool. I care not for the giant ring that will vaporize all life to make Nom Noms for the Flood.
No... I care about a game to play with shiny new graphics, and a bunch of aliens to slaughter.
Plus Twice Virtual Boobies (1. Game > 2. Cortana (Or Female Virtual AI Equivalent)). AM I RIGHT GUYS!?!?!
....
...guys?
I once played the Halo 1 demo. It wasn't bad, but I couldn't find anything that would justify the hype. This Reach thing looks actually pretty fun for a shooter.
I believe Halo 1 hype was on the grounds of something like,
Guy A:"Doooode, Do you have an Xbox!?"
Guy B:"Xbox... what the hell is that? You mean that big PS2 with the Giagazmo controller meant for a giant?"
Guy A:"Yeah, they got this game coming out called Halo! It's FPS goodness in a glass that you drink and it's smoother than Whole Fat Chocolate Milk"
Guy B:"What's so good about it?"
Guy A:"It's an FPS... what more is there to care about!?"
Guy B:"...An FPS? You mean like Duke Nukem 3D?"
Guy A:"YEAH!!! But with ALIENS!!!"
Guy B:"... But with Aliens... Pshh, I can wait for Duke Nukem Forever to get the same thing..."
*3 Months and 17 delays later*
Guy B:"I NEED MY FIX!!! ALIENS NEED THEIR ASSES KICKED, AND I MUST PROVIDE THE FOOT!!!!"
Quote from: Tidenburg on February 15, 2010, 03:24:45 PM
Wow, what a overhaul in terms of the graphics, it's a lot more gritty. Halo 2 and 3 should really have gone this way after they had the power to do so (it went a bit cartoony, especially for the alien weapons).
Also glad that the facial system is being redone, they all looked like burn victims in ODST.
SPOILER!!
I know. I was so glad when Johnson died because I just felt bad the way they designed his face in Halo 3. I was just relieved they put him out of his clayface misery. In ODST they looked better but still looked poopy, these new guys just look great. However, they'll probably have helmets on most of the time. At least the marines will look good.
Halo ODST was a huge disappointment for me.
The story was okay enough for me.
Gameplay felt like any other Halo game (Albeit a little tougher cause of certain aspects of gameplay that were rightly changed considering the circumstances).
What really brought it down was the overly dated graphics. I'm not one to say that graphics influence my overall judgment of a game, but for ODST it really did. I'll pick Fallout 1 or 2 over 3 any day of the week, but when each Halo game upped the bar in graphics with every new iteration it had become a standard in my head that the next one (being ODST at the time) would have some new flair. Sure maybe the Plasma Grenades looked cooler, but when placed next to the god-awful looking characters (in my opinion) I just felt let down.
(It's the same reason behind the fact that I can't play FF7 anymore after playing 8. FF7 might be funner, but I cannot stand the blocky characters when outside of battle anymore.
...Course then again, I can't play 9 either cause a World full of Midgets just scares me in a Monochrome clown kind of way.)
Halo Reach is obviously the real next step. ODST being a side project like it was always touted as... But I just can't change my thinking of each new game supposed to be making my jaw drop with graphical goodies. Real focus, or not.
Any bets as to when they'll remake the first two halos in the new engine? :D
(Sad thing is, I'd buy it)
A new game announcement will be made by Bungie 4 months after Bungie say they aren't working on any Halo stuff anymore
You can bet that Microsoft will attempt to make a Halo game with this new "343" studio thing. It will probably suck. There will be a fan backlash and maybe another Bungie game because they feel the responsibility. They will make another good one and it will be over. Until Microsoft wants another game.
jk
At least it has a devoted developer who cares about its fans. I wish Bungie made splinter cell.
Errrrmmm... I don't think you'd want to see Bungie attempt Splinter Cell.
They are a great Developer... for FPS games. They, from my knowledge though, have yet to reach anywhere outside of those bounds. (Or really Halo in that sense... Marathon being pre-halo Halo)
I'm sure they'd but a good twist on Splinter Cell or a Splinter Cell style game, but it being their first attempt would make the same type of mistakes they did with Halo 1; as anyone does with their first attempt at something. (No Xbox Live? But WHY?)
Ubisoft MAY be neglecting the Mass of People on their forums talking shit about their game that they are almost done with, but them actually making a new Splinter Cell in general has to count for something.
I'd rather have a Cut up New Game to the series, rather than nothing. Though I'd REALLY rather have a Splinter Cell with all the fixin's; I know I'm not going to get that.
Just my opinion though.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 19, 2010, 03:16:44 AM
At least it has a devoted developer who cares about its fans. I wish Bungie made splinter cell.
When devs make a sequel, they have to toe the line between making too many changes and releasing a re-hashed copy of the original. At some point, they have to do something revolutionary because even the incremental changes get stale (no one complained that Zelda on N64 was drastically different than the SNES one...well, okay, I complained about the lack of difficulty but that's not inherent to the design change). This is especially true after
4 titles. Devs 'care' about their fans because that's how they get paid.
Or they can leave success alone and focus on making something original, but who would want to do that?
Cronky, the reason there was no XBL play for Halo 1 was that there was no XBL when it released.(at console launch)
XBL came around for the public one year after the console launched.
I KNEW there was some reason I didn't own an Xbox till well after it was into it's life.
BUT aside from my horrible example, I'm sure there is SOME misstep they took. I don't want to spend too much time trying to think it up (Lest I make a mistake AGAIN!!), but the game wasn't perfect. Even for it's time.
The point I was getting across was Nobody does perfectly the first time, because if you did there'd be no room for improvement. No need for further development.
So a Splinter Cell game from Bungie wouldn't be as Fantastical (Not to say it wouldn't be GOOD). Just because they made a popular FPS doesn't mean they could make a better Splinter Cell.
Quote from: Spekkio on February 19, 2010, 12:43:10 PM
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 19, 2010, 03:16:44 AM
At least it has a devoted developer who cares about its fans. I wish Bungie made splinter cell.
When devs make a sequel, they have to toe the line between making too many changes and releasing a re-hashed copy of the original. At some point, they have to do something revolutionary because even the incremental changes get stale (no one complained that Zelda on N64 was drastically different than the SNES one...well, okay, I complained about the lack of difficulty but that's not inherent to the design change). This is especially true after 4 titles. Devs 'care' about their fans because that's how they get paid.
Or they can leave success alone and focus on making something original, but who would want to do that?
I agree. But unfortunately I don't think a huge change was warranted in Ubi's case. No one really was calling for a large change in fact the small changes they made to the formula in DA had a huge backlash before the game was even releasedn People wanted evolution not a revolution. If you are going to do a revolution you better make it the best game ever (OOT) or suffer the consequences (Conviction). Bungie is walking that fine line and is managing to keep the series fresh for the fans with the additions and changes that help the gameplay (not hurt it).
Quote from: Cronky on February 19, 2010, 07:59:32 PM
I KNEW there was some reason I didn't own an Xbox till well after it was into it's life.
BUT aside from my horrible example, I'm sure there is SOME misstep they took. I don't want to spend too much time trying to think it up (Lest I make a mistake AGAIN!!), but the game wasn't perfect. Even for it's time.
The point I was getting across was Nobody does perfectly the first time, because if you did there'd be no room for improvement. No need for further development.
So a Splinter Cell game from Bungie wouldn't be as Fantastical (Not to say it wouldn't be GOOD). Just because they made a popular FPS doesn't mean they could make a better Splinter Cell.
I wasn't saying that Bungie should make Splinter Cell I was just saying that I wish Ubi cared about its devoted customer as much as Bungie obviously does.
Quote from: Papa Skull on February 19, 2010, 09:38:11 PM
I wasn't saying that Bungie should make Splinter Cell I was just saying that I wish Ubi cared about its devoted customer as much as Bungie obviously does.
My bad about the misinterpretation of what you said, but no need to dwell on THAT!
I wont say Bungie doesn't care about their fans. They have brought a lot of new and exciting things to the table for both game based play and Fan based. The only thing I see though is that their property... their gameplay... their world they've created ALLOWS them to do that. New weapons are because their game and world allow. Bungie.Net is all because of varying gameplay (I can only watch people headshotting each other so much, or getting a Multi-kill... What you can do outside of that is the heart of why it's there), stats, and community. New Vehicles, Forge Mode, Online Co-op... The list is endless, but at the same time only because what they made allows it. Splinter Cell is a harder cup to find the appropriate saucer for.
Since I wouldn't say Ubisoft doesn't listen to their fans. Hell if they didn't listen to SOMEBODY I think we would of had a Hobo Sam to run around with which also had some kind of "Hero Sense" which is now Sonar Vision. Ubisoft could add things like Bungie.net. Stat tracking is stat tracking... They tried re-vamping SvM 3 times. Co-op is getting it's third(?) iteration now. Deniable Ops is something new to play with.
Where as Halo can be more Fan Attributed cosmetically; Splinter Cell can, but only in a completely different kind of way.
You say they don't care, but I say that you just don't notice the things they are doing.
Splinter Cell isn't the only game Ubisoft has to work on which isn't the case with Bungie (They may want to make a new IP, but they have yet to). They don't have the luxury of spending their time updating their gameplay, the story, the mechanics. Since they have to put a game out, and then move onto a completely different entity. Returning to a Bookmarked page in a book isn't the same as reading the whole book in one sitting. You lose some of that drive, that ambition, and imagination that got you and the character to where you are now.
I still think Convictions is Ubisoft's way of going "How many ways can we take Single Player and make it seem different", but the point is they are actually making a new Splinter Cell. After lackluster reviews of DA. A lesser company would just drop it if they felt they were running out of steam with their creative liberties.
QuoteNo one really was calling for a large change in fact the small changes they made to the formula in DA had a huge backlash before the game was even releasedn People wanted evolution not a revolution. If you are going to do a revolution you better make it the best game ever (OOT) or suffer the consequences (Conviction).
Purely speculation on your part.
Every large company in America has a marketing dept. that analyzes sales data and attempts to predict future consumer desires. These people, while not infallable, have a lot more training in the area than you and I. If DA didn't sell as well as CT (and I'm presuming it didn't), then there is a problem and Ubisoft has to figure out how to fix it.
SCDA's singleplayer wasn't really "revolutionary" at all. Their multiplayer was, but we've already established that Splinter Cell's multiplayer was a very small percentage of the SC fanbase anyway.
QuoteYou say they don't care, but I say that you just don't notice the things they are doing.
Well I think if they cared they'd notice. Right? (good post but I still think they don't care)
Quote from: Spekkio on February 20, 2010, 03:29:57 AM
QuoteNo one really was calling for a large change in fact the small changes they made to the formula in DA had a huge backlash before the game was even releasedn People wanted evolution not a revolution. If you are going to do a revolution you better make it the best game ever (OOT) or suffer the consequences (Conviction).
Purely speculation on your part.
Every large company in America has a marketing dept. that analyzes sales data and attempts to predict future consumer desires. These people, while not infallable, have a lot more training in the area than you and I. If DA didn't sell as well as CT (and I'm presuming it didn't), then there is a problem and Ubisoft has to figure out how to fix it.
SCDA's singleplayer wasn't really "revolutionary" at all. Their multiplayer was, but we've already established that Splinter Cell's multiplayer was a very small percentage of the SC fanbase anyway.
Good points. And you'd think that if DA didn't sell as well as CT then they'd go back to what made CT a good game rather than completely rebooting it - unless they didn't even think CT's sales were good enough. Damn greed.
@PapaSkull
To each his own.
BUT THE POINT OF THIS POST IS!!!!
...You notice that your User Image isn't there anymore, right??? Instead it's that "Oh look, the image isn't available anymore... go check free-image.com" kind of thing!
QuoteAnd you'd think that if DA didn't sell as well as CT then they'd go back to what made CT a good game rather than completely rebooting it
DA was fairly similar to CT singleplayer wise, and since singleplayer is driving 99% of sales...
The next version to a good one sold most.
So SCPT and SCDA sold more than SC1 and SCCT.
I'm unable to back that up with numbers, but you'll have to trust me on that one.
Quote from: Spekkio on February 20, 2010, 12:36:26 PM
QuoteAnd you'd think that if DA didn't sell as well as CT then they'd go back to what made CT a good game rather than completely rebooting it
DA was fairly similar to CT singleplayer wise, and since singleplayer is driving 99% of sales...
I see what you are saying. I'm stuck in the modern sense of things I think. MP is more important to most people than single player is nowadays. Of course you'll have the people who still think SP is important (ala Bioshock 2 backlash) but most people want a good versus/coop mode. Did things really change that fast?
For me personally, if I'm going to buy a game, then it needs to have strong replay value and that usually comes in the form of a deep multiplayer mode. Sometimes not (ala ME2).
QuoteMP is more important to most people than single player is nowadays.
Again, speculation on your part.
You don't think single player is fading, spek?
I think it depends on the game.
For example, Uncharted 2 sold extremely well, and it doesn't have much of a multiplayer at all. Infamous sold well, and doesn't have any multiplayer mode. Same for Batman: AA. On the other hand, CoD 4: MW 2 sold well and its singpleplayer lasts a whopping 6 hours (and I swear the game can be beat without ever shooting your gun, but that's besides the point), so I can only presume that its sales were driven by its extensive choice of multiplayer modes.
I know just as many people who get frustrated by playing video games online with random people as those who enjoy it. When you start to have things like a full-time job (particularly one like mine that comes with a lot of unpaid overtime) and a family, you don't have the time to devote to getting good at online multiplayer, and getting shot from across the map everytime you respawn isn't very fun for a lot of people. Tbh, if I weren't in college at the time when I started playing PT/CT, I probably wouldn't have played the multiplayer mode much at all... one "match" usually takes around 15-20 minutes, and there's a very steep learning curve associated with the game. But I still would've bought the games for the singpleplater, since SC1 is what got me hooked on the series. The only reasons I never bought DA was because I didn't have a computer capable of running it, and the game didn't work for people who did, anyway. I later won the game in the CT tourney, but it just sat collecting dust.
So no, I don't think singleplayer is fading.