Grahamhsu said:
thismeintiel said:
voty2000 said:
MAFKKA said:
I just watched the 50min single player campaign of ODST. Graphics are good and the story seems good. The first map however was really dark! And the Visor that helped out with highlighting friends and foes looked like the same thing L4D does, its good but personally i dont like it. And i didnt like how the game looked so smooth (not a good type of smooth). There was almost no recoil, and when you run theres no movement with he character. And when you jumped around it looked like you were under water because of the "smoothness". And is it autoaim? Looked like the crossair was really stuck to some enemies, but that might be the greatness of the FPS controller that the 360 has.
But overall id say the game is definitely a 8/10.. based on what i saw, which once again was just a short 50min. |
THe ODST's are super soldiers so they are no supposed to have recoil. That's part of their and Master Chief's charm and what makes them so deadly.
|
That seems more like a cop out so they don't have to program it in. But the real reason I'm posting is, guys don't take critizisms about Halo as personal attacks. Everyone has differing opinions. I've only played multiplayer on Halo 2. It was fun. And some kudos have to be given to Bungie for bringing online gaming to the majority of games. I don't believe they invented FPS, the control scheme, or online gaming, like some blind fanboys claim. But I will give them credit for polishing these components and putting it in an overall fun package. Having said that, I still feel original X-box owners were looking for something to cling onto to make their purchase justifiable, and Halo was it. The same argument that was used last gen is used this gen, too. "Well, we have Halo."
Now for this review. What I find sad is how gaming sites and magazines have started to allow either their own console prejudices, or the fear of hundreds of messsages from mad fanboys cloud their reviews. As a reviewer, your supposed to rate these games as an overall package, while allowing your own opinions to only SLIGHTLY sway your final judgement. As someone pointed out earlier, you can't rate something with below average or average graphics, with fun gamplay, the same as another game that has spectacular graphics and fun gamplay. To do that just slaps developers who spend years prefecting a game in the face, while rewarding mediocrity. Now consider if this game was released on the PS3 with the same graphical traits as this game has. It would be Haze all over again. Lower scores than it deserves (6.9 average) because the graphics aren't up to snuff. But because it's Halo, fanboys won't except games lower than 9, no matter how little polish is put into it.
|
uh no it's not a cop out...if you knew about the Halo universe and read about some of it you'll find that actually voty is correct. Master Chief's armor weighs an actual ton (no joke), and he can jump super high, which should mean he has quite a bit of muscle mass, I'm pretty sure if you were able to run that fast wearing a 1 ton armor suit and jump 15 feet high in the air, recoil is the least of your worry. My question to Master Chief is how he is able to ride in Banshees/Ghosts/Warthogs without their suspension completely collapsing.
Comparing Halo to Haze...OK I've never played Haze but tell me an FPS that has these types of combos...
Regen + Sword/(Hammer)= Win
Bubble Shield + Shotgun = Win
Active Camo + Sticky/Shotgun = Win
Overshield + BR = Win
Flare + Needler = Win
Power Drain + Grenade = Win
Active Camo + Radar Jammer = Win
And than tell me an FPS that eliminates you from the radar if you crouch...
Now go back and try to tell me how Halo is similar to other FPSes in gameplay...I'll list out some more Halo 3 win Combos to show the differences.
|
I wasn't really comparing Haze to Halo, at least gameplay wise. I was comparing the reaction to Haze to the reaction to ODST. When Haze was released it's graphics weren't spectacular, not the worst but definitely not the best. Gamplay wasn't too bad, nothing original though. And there were some flaws in the AI. But because people had gotten their own hype machine going for the game, when it was released people trashed it. I believe IGN gave it a 4.5, when games just as bad or worse have gotten higher scores. Gamespot was one of the few who actually reviewed without their unfulfilled hype clouding the review. They gave it a 6, not great but average. I was just pointing out that if this game did not have the Halo name attached to it, it would have been recieved in a like manner. I'm sure it would have gotten at least a 7, but none of these unjustified 9's or above. Again because graphics and some flaws in the AI are supposed to count against you. It is a review after all. And games that aren't polished as much as others have no business getting scores just as high.
And as far as your gameplay comment goes. What you list are weapons. Yes they do change the gameplay slightly and make it more fun taking down enemies. But in the end, the gameplay is still nothing revolutionary. Run. Shoot. Get from Point A to Point B. Open door. Run. Shoot. From Point B to Point C. Blow something up. Drive to Point D. Level over. It's all been done before. The original Halo just polished it further than most had. Which isn't a bad thing. I just don't see why people make it this revolutionary title that forever changed the FPS genre.
