Quantcast
GT: Halo reach falling behind, Epic mickey needs work, SMG2/RED DEAD = GOTY

Forums - Gaming Discussion - GT: Halo reach falling behind, Epic mickey needs work, SMG2/RED DEAD = GOTY

Wagram said:
Seece said:

"Shane satterfield, editor and chief of gametrailers, believes compared to KILLZONE 3, HALO REACH is very well behind and not just visually, but he believes it is far too arcady, in fact he considers it one of his biggest dissapointments at E3"

Lol fuck Shane satterfield, everyone else is fucking pumped for Reach.

oooh, is Shane that blonde twat? Yeah I watched the first ep of that bonus round and could tell he only talks shite.

I can't believe that you are a writer for this website.

Zing.



Around the Network
Wagram said:
Seece said:

"Shane satterfield, editor and chief of gametrailers, believes compared to KILLZONE 3, HALO REACH is very well behind and not just visually, but he believes it is far too arcady, in fact he considers it one of his biggest dissapointments at E3"

Lol fuck Shane satterfield, everyone else is fucking pumped for Reach.

oooh, is Shane that blonde twat? Yeah I watched the first ep of that bonus round and could tell he only talks shite.

I can't believe that you are a writer for this website.


lol, the swears were a little excessive I guess.

But he supposed to be acting like hes at work or something? On the clock and cant write stuff he feels like? I think not.

 



To be honest if any of those games mentioned gets GOTY it speaks volumes for how bad a year its been.  Although I have not played Alan Wake to be fair, so exclude that from the list.



________________________________________________________________

Well, this kind of reminds me of the Wiitards reactions to that one female gaming journalist's (Jessica Chobot, was it? I don't remember) remarks about Mario Galaxy 2.

 

I'm glad this discussion has been civil, but where are those folks saying he has a right to his opinion? For the record I don't agree with him; I love Halo and really look forward to Reach.



The BuShA owns all!

Shane is also the same guy who said that in Halo Reach you play as a young Master Chief even after we knew he wasn't in the game and you play as Noble Six.  Shane doesn't know anything about Halo so his point doesn't mean anything.



Around the Network
thranx said:
SMC said:

Halo has been miles behind Killzone in graphics, technology, multiplayer and realism since KZ2.

But very few actually care about those things. To many what's more important is:

- Controls/How it plays

-  Fun

And an overwhelming amount of people think that Halo nail those two points spot on. So, my point is that bringing realism and Killzone into a Halo discussion is irrelevant, because nobody in Halo world cares.

Care to elaborate? I will admit I have never played KZ2 but I believe halo's continued online presence and local multiplayer may have an edge over kz2 for multiplayer. What technology? is that the same as graphics? Cause to me having split screen this generation seems to be what is hard for devs, that seems to be superior technology. What is so real about KZ2, I will admit halo is not super realistic, outside of its sci fi theme it is as realistic as most other console shooters. Or what do you mean by realistic? graphics? Physics? Style?

Your opther points I agree with.

 

Edit: Didn't finish reading the thread before I posted this.


can i enter in the conversation? =P i'll do it anyways ^^

Well, IMO, Killzone 2 has an advantage over Halo in terms of Technology in terms of MP&SP because in SP is pulling big set pieces with over 20 enemies AIs and over 20 Allies AIs with those crazy graphics...and in MP because it's hosting matches of 32 users with really big maps fighting with Turrets, Sentinels and destructible environments...

also Realism it's much clear in Killzone 2...when you play the game for the first time, you can see that the controls weight are much more realistic, the recoil is much more present, and the collision detection is pretty much nailed.

but in Multiplayer Mode as a whole...it's subjective, IMO the core MP part of Killzone 2 is much more refined than in Halo where you've lots of modes with none of them being the MAIN mode...let me explain, in Killzone 2 you've Warzone which is a competitive mode with lots of different game modes in it, like capture the flag, team deathmatch, free for all, bodycount, etc. and it's pretty well balanced...and that's all you got. but in Halo you've lots of competitive modes, co-op modes, forge, theater, etc. and it feels like you don't have a classic competitive multiplayer in it. (i'm not saying that having only one game mode is good, i'm saying that the MP in Killzone 2 is more focused and that makes it better in a way)  but like i said, Multiplayer is subjective.



I'm Back! - Proud owner of the best doomed handheld of all time!

iWarMachine said:
thranx said:
SMC said:

Halo has been miles behind Killzone in graphics, technology, multiplayer and realism since KZ2.

But very few actually care about those things. To many what's more important is:

- Controls/How it plays

-  Fun

And an overwhelming amount of people think that Halo nail those two points spot on. So, my point is that bringing realism and Killzone into a Halo discussion is irrelevant, because nobody in Halo world cares.

Care to elaborate? I will admit I have never played KZ2 but I believe halo's continued online presence and local multiplayer may have an edge over kz2 for multiplayer. What technology? is that the same as graphics? Cause to me having split screen this generation seems to be what is hard for devs, that seems to be superior technology. What is so real about KZ2, I will admit halo is not super realistic, outside of its sci fi theme it is as realistic as most other console shooters. Or what do you mean by realistic? graphics? Physics? Style?

Your opther points I agree with.

 

Edit: Didn't finish reading the thread before I posted this.


can i enter in the conversation? =P i'll do it anyways ^^

Well, IMO, Killzone 2 has an advantage over Halo in terms of Technology in terms of MP&SP because in SP is pulling big set pieces with over 20 enemies AIs and over 20 Allies AIs with those crazy graphics...and in MP because it's hosting matches of 32 users with really big maps fighting with Turrets, Sentinels and destructible environments...

also Realism it's much clear in Killzone 2...when you play the game for the first time, you can see that the controls weight are much more realistic, the recoil is much more present, and the collision detection is pretty much nailed.

but in Multiplayer Mode as a whole...it's subjective, IMO the core MP part of Killzone 2 is much more refined than in Halo where you've lots of modes with none of them being the MAIN mode...let me explain, in Killzone 2 you've Warzone which is a competitive mode with lots of different game modes in it, like capture the flag, team deathmatch, free for all, bodycount, etc. and it's pretty well balanced...and that's all you got. but in Halo you've lots of competitive modes, co-op modes, forge, theater, etc. and it feels like you don't have a classic competitive multiplayer in it. (i'm not saying that having only one game mode is good, i'm saying that the MP in Killzone 2 is more focused and that makes it better in a way)  but like i said, Multiplayer is subjective.


KZ2 has bigger set pieces than Halo 3? Lol dude I hope your joking because the battle with the two MASSIVE scarabs, all the marines driving around them in Warthogs, Mongoose's, and Hornets both on air and land with dozens of enemy Covenant AI running around all while being completly open to roam and not a "corridor shooter" FAR surpasses anything K2 has in terms of assets running and scale. And thats not even mentioning what Halo Reach will bring to the table.

KZ2 obviously has a huge advantage graphically though. And is much more realistic.  But Halo doesn't have any desire to be realistic.  I mean your playing as a genetically altered super soldier who has been bred since he was 6 years old to kill every single thing that gets in his way.  Plus your in space fighting a giant alien invasion who's sole intent is to completely turn the human species extinct.  Realism is the last thing Halo is worried about.

Also dude there is not one part of KZ2 with over 20 enemy AI as well as 20 allies on screen.



Vertigo-X said:

Well, this kind of reminds me of the Wiitards reactions to that one female gaming journalist's (Jessica Chobot, was it? I don't remember) remarks about Mario Galaxy 2.

 

I'm glad this discussion has been civil, but where are those folks saying he has a right to his opinion? For the record I don't agree with him; I love Halo and really look forward to Reach.

That would be morgan webb, do not speak of her for too long or they will appear out of nowhere and attack.

And don't call people Wiitards >_< It's not nice.



The arcady feeling is the only reason i like Halo more than other FPS (multi player) which is usually the selling point for FPS. Killzone 2 was boring not bad, but lacked variety and scale. Also Co-Op > single player for shooters, which is why Borderlands was so succesful.



People vote with their wallets so we will see just how far behind Halo: Reach really is!

Shane is known on GT to dislike anything under the xbox brand but Its disappointing that someone in his position has to talk down a game because of it.



My Eyes!!! The Goggles Do Nothing!!!