GameOver22 said:
selnor said:
GameOver22 said:
selnor said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:
He says it needs to be more COD like and then says it needs some fucking soul.... Isn't that a contradiction. The man is a pillock.
|
Not really a contradiction. Saying it needs to be more like COD in some respects does not mean it needs to be like COD in all respects (he does say yes and no in response to the question).
|
He says yes and no and then describes COD.
|
Seems like some of the descriptions belong to COD (iron sights, scripted events, number of bullets to kill an enemy) while others don't (better objectives, better environments, better level design, less backtracking). The later seem like general areas of improvement rather than descriptions of COD. Basically, saying all the descriptions belong to COD seems like its putting words in his mouth. How do we know (from the comment) if he thinks COD has better level deisign, better environments, etc?
|
Its obvious the reviewer was not critising the game. He was plainly being a COD fanboy. He critized a game for having large open environments and methodical combat. Seriously metodical combat. He critized the game for not holding his hand and providing scripted events. He wants a nice easy game like COD. Where theres one simple route where he can stay still behind a crate and pop out every once in awhile and look down his beloved iron sights to get through a mission.
No way in hell is Halo ever gonna be the boringly fickle.
Its disgusting that reviewers are aloud by these companies to do this. Especially when most are saying its the best shooter in years.
|
He actually criticized it for having unnecessary open environment and slow methodical combat. I'm not saying his review is right. I just think some of the characterizations of the review have been disingenuous and clearly intended to create a straw-man argument that's easy to criticize.
|
Halo has always been like that. Thats the formula. Thats the point of Halo. Halo is the last shooter left that is different from the rest. And we love it because it plays this way.
Thats the point.
|
That's perfectly fine, but its also fair to ask a game to innovate. Now, iron sights and such isn't much of an innovation, and that's where I think the review is wrong, but at the same time, the same formula eventually does get old, and I think its fair to ask a game to provide something new.
|
They have thats another point. Reviews have been saying what has changed. They ave changed things but vitally as other people point out, the gameplay of Halo remains. Which is vital to why Halo works. How it plays.
All other shooters are exactly the same premise. All other shooters. Except for Half Life. Another that doesnt follow the COD formula. Halo and Half Life can exist outside COD where other games like KZ,Crysis,Battlefield,MOH for example all struggle as they follow the COD crowd. COD has its fans. But those who dont like COD are pretty muc Halo or Half Life players and vice versa.
Halo 4 sounds like a breath of fresh air in a genre stagnated by COD.
He even says in the comments section. Wait till you play BLOPS 2. Its got an amzing campaign and will blow you away.
Really? Really?
I havnt played it yet, but my guess is by his own admission as to what Halo needs is BLOPs 2 is amazing because it has smaller environments, Iron Sights, Loads of scripted events and most importantly mindless combat as opposed to methodical. Oh and its COD.
They are eating hime alive over at EGM. Hes trying to dig himself out by now saying well the multiplayers actually really good, probably a 8.5.
Its a MESSSSSSS
