Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Anybody played reach yet?
-
04-09-2010 9:34pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Cleared the Campaign on Legendary with 3 friends over system link on Monday. Enjoyed it alot.
Character development I though was poor though, but gameplay was great and have no real interest in the characters anyway. Pretty short game though. Started playing about 16.30, with about an hour of a pizza break at around 19.00 ish, the credits were rolling by 22.30.
Multiplayer is great, some classic maps back in the frame.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
NeoKubrick wrote: »That's a poor benchmark, because Halo 3 is a poor single-player game.The Freeman wrote: »poor benchmark eh?!
what would you compare an original alien first person shooter against?
its well received predecessor or Modern Warfare?
0 -
-
-
docdolittle wrote: »
Don't see how he is trolling, he makes a fair point.
If not for the Multiplayer Halo 3 would have been quickly forgotten about. It has a bad storyline, so-so AI, features possibly the worst level of any FPS ever (Cortana) and the climax involves driving. It also doesn't create the feeling that you are involved in a huge ongoing war, you're basically one person running around with a gun and you can't feel part of the story, Something that is not a problem in MW2 or Gears 2.0 -
-
-
NeoKubrick wrote: »Obviously, you haven't read my posts in this thread, specially:
It's a Halo sub-forum, not Halo 3. Halo 3's single-player is poor, especially relative to the great games which have preceded it in the series. Therefore, if you were to critique the new game, you should compare it to the better games in the series and their great levels rather than Halo 3, because it'll produce a more accurate sum of the game's worth.
Halo 3 had one decent level (Tsvao Highway) and two very good levels (The Storm and The Covenant). The rest were average (The Ark), and poor (Sierra 117, Crow's Nest, and Floodgate), and two of the worst levels in a reputable series (Cortana and Halo). The Brutes were competent in Halo 2 as another enemy to battle with, but as the main enemy, they were not as interesting as the Elites were. They dared to introduce the Arbiter in Halo 2, but pussied out of completing his journey (zing!) in Halo 3; they resigned him to being playable in co-op. A story over three games needs a sufficient send-off. Halo 3's send-off was a drab chase in the middle of nowhere with uninspired and banal art design.
By the lofty standards of the series, it is a poor single-player campaign. That said, it's all the more worse then that it has one of the greatest moments in the series: taking down a Scarab. It's a shame the rest of the game didn't follow suit.
Now if you had put a point across like that in the first place I wouldn't of posted the troll picture
I also said it before you said
or anything that added to the thread whatsoeverI would compare it to Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2: specifically, the Silent Cartographer, Assault on the Control Room, Mombasa, and Delta Halo levels which is where the benchmark was set.
I apologise now though.NeoKubrick wrote: »That's a poor benchmark, because Halo 3 is a poor single-player game.
That by itself did just seem like you're going onto the Halo forum just to get reactions from people.
You make some pretty interesting points, but I didn't actually mind Halo 3 single player, thought it was a decent enough game. There were some levels that I wasn't too fond of, but I still went back for a legendary run at it :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Yeah, my previous post was directed at wotzgoingon, because it's understandable that someone would think I was trolling from the first post alone. No apology needed.docdolittle wrote: »Now if you had put a point across like that in the first place I wouldn't of posted the troll picture I also said it before you said or anything that added to the thread whatsoever I apologise now though.0 -
-
-
DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »i was never a halo fan before but got reach last night and wow its fantastic.....
ill be picking up halo 3 and odst as a result of playing this game..
How'd you get it? Or is it on a need to know basis.
0 -
i know someone who reviews games and he did me a small favour lol be aware you are about to become anti-social because of this game:eek:pljudge321 wrote: »How'd you get it? Or is it on a need to know basis.0 -
-
-
Not to give away anything, but there are a good few old/remade maps from previous games. One of them is NOT hang em' high, but someone I played online today created a near perfect version of it with forge world! :eek:
It was awesome, seems to have limitless possiblities.... Every Halo map ever in one game. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 51590
I thought Halo 2 had an absolute stinker of a single player campaign. The flood were in it far too often and whose stupid idea was it to have another Library level? The story was utter rubbish as well. Halo 3 was a return to form but I felt that FPS gaming had moved on so much that it felt horribly dated.
0 -
-
Retr0gamer wrote: »Halo 3 was a return to form but I felt that FPS gaming had moved on so much that it felt horribly dated.
Moved on in what way? Halo defined console fps in a way which hasn't been seen since the N64 days. Every fps made since Halo:Combat Evolved's arrival has borrowed heavily from it. Despite Reach's campaign being too short, it's well put together and plays fantastically. The multiplayer is a nicely balanced mix of old and new and manages to remove some small things (although very annoying) I disliked about the previous games.
Almost brings me back to the days of xbox 1 old school LANS.
Also, turns out my shítty meteor usb dongle internet toally works fine for multiplayer online.
Anyway, Have a pre-order in Gamestop Stephen's Green for the mid-night launch to pick up my retail copy for LIVE goodness, but reckon I could chance hitting local xtra vision before they shut at 10 and chancing my arm.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51590
Halo wasn't as influential as people make it out to be. It's control scheme was borrowed from the PS1 verion of Quake 2 and Alien Ressurection and a few other previous console FPS games and the shield was first introduced in Tribes. I'm not sure but it could have been the game that introduced auto aim to console FPS making them more manageable, fair enough there if it's true. At the time it was released it seemed like a massive step forward for console players but for someone with a PC they'd seen it all before even if Halo was a quality game for it's first half and an ok one when the flood arrived.
I don't really see any of the top FPS games borrowing from Halo really they seem to be using the same console FPS setup that was used on dual shock PS1 pads.
And I did feel FPS games had moved on a lot before Halo was released. Multiplayer had turned class based with games like TF2 and mission based like with the Battlefield series and also RPG levelling up mechanics introdced in battlefield 2 and improved on in CoD MW. As for single player Halo 3 was dumb fun but I kind of want more from my FPS games these days and had been spoiled by Bioshock, and the vastly superior CoD 4 that was released around the same time.
I'm not going to criticise Reach, I've not played it and it does look sufficiently different and no bloody flood so I might enjoy it whenever I get around to playing it.
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 51590
I much preferred the CoD MW campaign and the multiplayer kept me more interested than Halo's although the 4 players online on one 360 in Halo 3 was an excellent addition. The weapon set kind of bores me in Halo. I was used to playing Half-Life deathmatch and Unreal Tournament and found the weapon set much more interesting.
I'm being diplomatic here anyway. Halo 1 was a great console FPS when it came out, Halo 2 was **** (single player,not much experience online) and when Halo 3 came out, well Half-Life 2 was my benchmark at the time and it fell well short.
There's a reason that sites like eurogamer don't give the Halo reviews to PC reviewers like Kieron Gillen. Just look at the review scores for Halo 1 and 2 on the PC.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51590
Well you could argue that but the levelling up in CoD kept in fresher for longer for me although I think they play too differently to each other. Saying that Halo is closer to the skill based FPS games like Quake but then again I'd argue that PC multiplayer games that went before it in a similar vein to Halo were better and required way more skill, stuff like Quake, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, counterstrike, half-life deathmatch, etc.
0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51590
True but it did have unlocks and rewards. It's far from perfect but you'll see it in every MP game from now on, Reach is implementing it iirc, since it taps into that addictive WoW grinding nerve centre.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51590
NeoKubrick wrote: »It's a romantic notion to think that any PC game had revolutionized combat how Halo: Combat Evolved revolutionized it, but, unfortunately, it's not true. You are either ignorant or disingenuous, because quite obviously, no PC player had seen it all before.
I never said any PC FPS had revolutionised combat and neither did Halo either. It's been changing little by little, an evolution if you will. To say Halo revolutionised combat would be ignorant or disingenuous. And PC gamers had seen it all, Halo did nothing new. It did some things well though, the sandbox AI was probably the best example of it at the time. Prehaps the 2 weapon limit in a fantastical shooter was new, can't be sure.NeoKubrick wrote: »Influential doesn't mean what game had what feature first; it means what game implemented what feature right and better which subsequently inspired other developers. Otherwise, by that logic, no FPS game other than Wolfenstein 3D could be classed as influential, because it was the first and all other FPSs derive from it.
Perhaps your precious Halo wasn't devinely inspired either and took influence from dual shock FPS games. Sure Quake 3 on the DC had some hybrid control schemes and it doesn't take a genius to know to map wasd and the mouse to the two thumbsticks. In fact I set this up manually myself on the first medal of honour myself. I was so ahead othe curve and didn't patent it.NeoKubrick wrote: »Halo's control scheme was innovative: separate button for grenades. The shield wasn't first introduced in Tribes.
Absolute nonsense. I remember Team Fortress Classic had a separate button for grenades, it wasn't the last game to do it and it certainly wasn't the first. Also Starsiege: Tribes did have the recharging shield, it's the earliest I can remember anyway, there might be one before it. That was back in 1998, 3 years before Halo.NeoKubrick wrote: »The genre hasn't advanced at all from the ground Halo broke: to your examples, Call of Duty 4 was scripted, largely linear and encouraged boring tactics, and BioShock was a game of all style and no substance which relied upon gimmicks to create interesting battles.
The genre has broken new ground, just not on the consoles. Stalker, Operation Flashpoint, Deus Ex and System Shock 2, amoungst others all advance the genre in new directions and some adding hybrid elements. When you think about it Halo is a more advanced Doom with vehicles.
See you probably wouldn't have been impressed by Halo if you hadn't of been nursing a console noob pad for so long. I'd been PC gaming since 1996 and part of the superior PC gaming master race since then and thought Halo was a good game but undeserving of the reverent zealotism that it's fans defend it with.
0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 51590
You keep saying it's revolutionary but you never say how. I'm not sure how a simplistic shooter like Halo could be classed as revolutionary.It's combat certainly isn't. You've got a selection of weaponry that isn't very good. You've got vehicle combat, no surprises there. You have grenades. And you have enemies with good AI. I think I've just described most FPS games of that era right there. Even if Halo did it better than any game of the time it's still not revolutionary, evolutionary maybe. How did Halo advance the genre really? Primary coloured aliens?
You can keep telling me that Tribes wasn't the first to have a recharging shield. You can even tell me what game was but it doesn't change the fact that the original fact that recharging shields in Halo are not innovative because Halo didn't do it first. Also stop trying to change the subject here the topic was innovation and not about game design. Don't try to use worn out debating tactics here. You tried tosay the shields and grenades were innovative, you were proven wrong, deal with it. I think everyone knows a game is more than a sum of it's parts. Global Defence Force strings to mind.
I never said that good gameplay was platform specific, stop putting words in my mouth, another poor debating tactic right there. As a PC gamer I wasn't as impressed with Halo as someone that had no experience of PC gaming at the time. Halo was a decent shooter with a poor second half. Halo 2 was hopelessly outdated when it did come out as was Halo 3 compared to PC FPS games.
Halo 3 was a return to form over the awful Halo 2 because it mostly got rid of the Flood and went back to the gameplay of Halo 1 before the flood arrived. It's telling that the worst level in the game involved the flood. Anyone that thought the single player in Halo 2 was good with it's mess of flood levels and copying and pasting of level architecture still prevalent is lying to themselves. Halo was an improvement. Less flood, more of the combat that made Halo a good shooter.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement