Halo 4

Vicxas

Just seen the trailer on E3, thoughts?

Will it be Sh*t without Bungie?

Mr E

You say that like Halo 1, 2, 3 and Reach were good.

DarkJager

Mr E wrote: »

You say that like Halo 1, 2, 3 and Reach were good.

They were (except the ending of 2 and most of Reach ).

Same as COD really, people enjoy playing them and will be happy to see a new one. The guys who will throw the digs in are the ones who pretend to be an elite taste in gaming.

Retr0gamer

Not much to go on. It was a CGI teaser showing zero gameplay.

wes

They have lot to live up to, with this. I am sure the MS have there best guys on it, as I doubt they want to **** up the first post bungie Halo game.

DarkJager

wes wrote: »

They have lot to live up to, with this. I am sure the MS have there best guys on it, as I doubt they want to **** up the first post bungie Halo game.

If Bungie had left their legacy at Halo 3 it would have been grand, Reach sort of sullied it a bit (and in the context of things was a pointless addition to the series).

ShadowHearth

Mr E wrote: »

You say that like Halo 1, 2, 3 and Reach were good.

so true... but dont dare to say that in xbox forums, you will be hanged...


so much for halo 3 to be a conclution? love this marketing ****.

Retr0gamer

They should have finished the fight like they promised. Seeing Halo 4 being made makes me feel like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAZ8xwXE5UY

wes

DarkJager wrote: »

If Bungie had left their legacy at Halo 3 it would have been grand, Reach sort of sullied it a bit (and in the context of things was a pointless addition to the series).

I liked Reach, not as good as some of the other games, but I think it was a good Halo game.

Jazzy

DarkJager wrote: »

Same as COD really, people enjoy playing them and will be happy to see a new one. The guys who will throw the digs in are the ones who pretend to be an elite taste in gaming.

or they are people that are realistic and have played 100+ games that were better and didnt get caught up in hype

DarkJager

Jazzy wrote: »

or they are people that are realistic and have played 100+ games that were better and didnt get caught up in hype

Personal taste and all that. Hype or no hype people find games they enjoy and like it when a new title comes out in that series. I loved Halo up to 3, didn't like Reach very much at all but I might find the interest to play a 4th. Obviously, I've played games I consider much better than Halo but that doesn't mean I wouldn't play a Halo title still.

Same as COD - the ones that bitch about it are the guys that are burned out from the same MP year after year. I personally play that series for the SP (never touched an MP mode in any COD title) and thats what I enjoy from each new release in it.

Azure_sky

Mr E wrote: »

You say that like Halo 1, 2, 3 and Reach were good.

They were good but not great like everyone seems to think they are. They won't stand the test of time like Mario, Tetris, Zelda, Street fighter, Metroid, Sonic, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and Mortal Kombat though.

cherryghost

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They should have finished the fight like they promised. Seeing Halo 4 being made makes me feel like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAZ8xwXE5UY

No point letting a lucrative and exclusive game fall by the wayside, no matter how rubbish it is

GamesDontSuck

CORaven

Bungie really set a high bar for 343 to try equal. I hope 343 do well with the next trilogy and offer a good multiplayer experience throughout.

TerrorFirmer

Azure_sky wrote: »

They were good but not great like everyone seems to think they are. They won't stand the test of time like Mario, Tetris, Zelda, Street fighter, Metroid, Sonic, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and Mortal Kombat though.

You mean not as good as everyone thinks they are, or not as good as you think they are? Surely, if 'everyone' thinks - or at least, the majority - they're great, then by assumption, they are great? Unless you can actually show me a game that's sold millions of copies despite a combination of poor user response and critical failure?

I don't get why people have such a stick up their ass about Halo. If a game has a massive user base, is one of the most successful titles on the 360, can claim consistant critical acclaim, and forms one of the most important parts of the E3 lineup, by what do you measure it's quality?

I've been playing Halo since CE on the original Xbox - and I have played hundreds of games across all platforms, and critically, primarily FPS, thank you very much - and personally speaking, Halo is absolutely the business, primarily in MP but I also love the SP campaigns too.

As DarkJager pointed out, people enjoy different games, hence the versatile market in existance. I mean, there are plenty of games out there that I personally don't like nor understand the acclaim, but I acknowledge that it must be doing something right regardless of how it clashes with my taste - whereas with other certain games, it's the done thing to moan about the game and about how (allegedly) crap/overrated it is. Black Ops is the worst example of the game everyone loves to hate beyond Halo - constantly moaned about it's graphics/sound/mechanics, but wait, hang on....best selling game in history. :rolleyes:

Bottom line - it's a uphill battle to assert a game is over-rated/crap/poor (as opposed to expressing a personal dislike of said title) when it's the title that floated the Xbox original and forms a solid backbone to the 360, too. Fans and critics alike love the game, and given the numbers, I would say those that argue that Halo is a poor game are in the considerable minority.

TerrorFirmer

CORaven wrote: »

Bungie really set a high bar for 343 to try equal. I hope 343 do well with the next trilogy and offer a good multiplayer experience throughout.

Is it Sabre doing this one as well as the CE remake? Because that revelation shook me somewhat, seeing as Sabre develeped the not terrible but decidedly medicore Timeshift - seems a great responsbility to place in the hands of a relatively unproven developer. Only thing on their listing actually, is Timeshift and Will Rock, which was also decent, but so long ago as to not really be relevant. Also, I seem to recall Sabre being involved in Battle: Lost Angeles, which was abysmal.

All in all though, extremely excited for a new Halo title.

Stev_o

God another IP that needs to die(in a polite way) already.

Stuff like this is what will make gaming lose it's place as the best form of entertainment.

I really can't get excited for Halo^64. It's getting ridiculously boring at this stage.

Azure_sky

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

You mean not as good as everyone thinks they are, or not as good as you think they are? Surely, if 'everyone' thinks - or at least, the majority - they're great, then by assumption, they are great? Unless you can actually show me a game that's sold millions of copies despite a combination of poor user response and critical failure?

I don't get why people have such a stick up their ass about Halo. If a game has a massive user base, is one of the most successful titles on the 360, can claim consistant critical acclaim, and forms one of the most important parts of the E3 lineup, by what do you measure it's quality?

I've been playing Halo since CE on the original Xbox - and I have played hundreds of games across all platforms, and critically, primarily FPS, thank you very much - and personally speaking, Halo is absolutely the business, primarily in MP but I also love the SP campaigns too.

As DarkJager pointed out, people enjoy different games, hence the versatile market in existance. I mean, there are plenty of games out there that I personally don't like nor understand the acclaim, but I acknowledge that it must be doing something right regardless of how it clashes with my taste - whereas with other certain games, it's the done thing to moan about the game and about how (allegedly) crap/overrated it is. Black Ops is the worst example of the game everyone loves to hate beyond Halo - constantly moaned about it's graphics/sound/mechanics, but wait, hang on....best selling game in history. :rolleyes:

Bottom line - it's a uphill battle to assert a game is over-rated/crap/poor (as opposed to expressing a personal dislike of said title) when it's the title that floated the Xbox original and forms a solid backbone to the 360, too. Fans and critics alike love the game, and given the numbers, I would say those that argue that Halo is a poor game are in the considerable minority.

I actually like Halo, and I'm quite looking forward to Halo 4, but I'm not one of these people who think everything is relative. Some games are objectively better than others and appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

Retr0gamer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Bottom line - it's a uphill battle to assert a game is over-rated/crap/poor (as opposed to expressing a personal dislike of said title) when it's the title that floated the Xbox original and forms a solid backbone to the 360, too. Fans and critics alike love the game, and given the numbers, I would say those that argue that Halo is a poor game are in the considerable minority.

I wouldn't say Halo is poor (well the single player of Halo 2 was) but it is over rated. Good game but not much special. The thing about Halo is that while it set a milestone for FPS games because it was the first FPS that was comparable to FPS games on the PC, there were plenty of PC games that were better than it. The game gets far too much credit or credited erroneously for innovations it didn't come up with from people who don't know the PC market at the time. For someone with no experience of PC games it was a huge shift in quality at the time and many reviewers of the time had no PC experience and reviewed it that way. Compare it to the eurogamer review by someone with PC game experience that gave it a much fairer review, good game but nothing too special.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/r_halo_x

I think it's mor frustration at a game getting lauded and not deserving it. My own personal grieveance is MS contsantly trying to pretend that a game about the most generically designed space marine battling aliens is some kind of event in videogaming deserving of it's pretentious adverts.

Healium

I don't get all the Halo hate. What's wrong with it? I'm not some mega-fan or anything, but I do like the franchise. I actually like it for the story, not so much the multiplayer. I think it's a really great universe. Not so sure about a new trilogy. Said this in the Halo forum, but surely the light in the trailer has to be the Forerunners? Couldn't see them introducing a new race, and aren't there 3 Forerunner origins books coming out over the next few years?

Excited about the Halo: CE remake. Not excited about the developers. Also not excited about the Reach engine and assassinations. I missed Halo 1 and 2 multiplayer, would like to play them in a pure form. But, I don't think this'll be it...

Aldebaran

I'm really looking forward to this, I've always found the Halo series to be enjoyable, especially the multiplayer side of things.

Vyse

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The thing about Halo is that while it set a milestone for FPS games because it was the first FPS that was comparable to FPS games on the PC, there were plenty of PC games that were better than it.

Yeah, but that's what's great about Halo. It WASN't on the PC. There were a great many people (myself included) who hadn't played too may FPS games, mainly due to the fact that it was a genre reserved exclusively to the PC. Halo changed all that. It could be argued that if it wasn't for Halo we wouldn't be playing COD: MW or Crysis 2 today.

I don't judge Halo as a console game by comparing it to its PC counterparts. I judge it as a gaming experience on its own merits. And as a gaming experience it was f**king awesome, a genre defining title (for the console gamer at least).

Vyse

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Compare it to the eurogamer review by someone with PC game experience that gave it a much fairer review, good game but nothing too special.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/r_halo_x

In fairness I think even Eurogamer take the piss out of this review at this stage. The "Better than Halo" quote comes to mind (they even had t-shirts printed on this one). You might think Edge's 6/10 review for Gunstar Heroes was a bit fairer:D

paddy kerins

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Is it Sabre doing this one as well as the CE remake? Because that revelation shook me somewhat, seeing as Sabre develeped the not terrible but decidedly medicore Timeshift - seems a great responsbility to place in the hands of a relatively unproven developer. Only thing on their listing actually, is Timeshift and Will Rock, which was also decent, but so long ago as to not really be relevant. Also, I seem to recall Sabre being involved in Battle: Lost Angeles, which was abysmal.

All in all though, extremely excited for a new Halo title.

343 doing Halo 4

Retr0gamer

Vyse wrote: »

I don't judge Halo as a console game by comparing it to its PC counterparts. I judge it as a gaming experience on its own merits. And as a gaming experience it was f**king awesome, a genre defining title (for the console gamer at least).

Well the thing is people get annoyed when say it was a genre defining title for all FPS games and not just console FPS games. Halo really was very by the numbers when it came out while on PC you had games that did everything Halo did but better. Check out games like Tribes and Operation Flashpoint on the PC to see how much more advance FPS gaming was before Halo came out. The dual analogue control scheme was also taken wholesale from PS1 FPS games and not invented by Halo or anything. You could give it the recharging shield mechanic but even that was influenced by a charging shield mechanic from Tribes. A lot of people talking about Halo and giving it praise where it isn't due were people who's previous experience of FPS games before Halo was goldeneye and Perfect Dark and not someone with knowledge of what was going on on PCs at the time. It gets to me when people get this stuff wrong and it gets published since it could go down as a false historical record.

Vyse wrote: »

In fairness I think even Eurogamer take the piss out of this review at this stage. The "Better than Halo" quote comes to mind (they even had t-shirts printed on this one). You might think Edge's 6/10 review for Gunstar Heroes was a bit fairer:D

If you were reading eurogamer back then you'd have known the significance of it. Ever review after that review that got a 9/10 had some Xbox fanboy come on the comments and say 'better than Halo' which would result in a a big argument that usually ended up in the reviewer coming on saying how it was a much better game than Halo and how the Halo review was spot on. It's not because like the Gunstar Heroes review in Edge where they got it horribly wrong it's because the Halo fanboys created a meme that made them look stupid that eventually became humourous and then annoying. Eurogamer were one of the few that didn't get carried away with the hype because at the time in their early days their staff was very PC orientated.

TerrorFirmer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I wouldn't say Halo is poor (well the single player of Halo 2 was) but it is over rated. Good game but not much special. The thing about Halo is that while it set a milestone for FPS games because it was the first FPS that was comparable to FPS games on the PC, there were plenty of PC games that were better than it. The game gets far too much credit or credited erroneously for innovations it didn't come up with from people who don't know the PC market at the time. For someone with no experience of PC games it was a huge shift in quality at the time and many reviewers of the time had no PC experience and reviewed it that way. Compare it to the eurogamer review by someone with PC game experience that gave it a much fairer review, good game but nothing too special.

Firstly, that very review calls the game a 'flawed masterpiece' in its final summary, not quite 'good but nothing too special' as you've implied.

But the problem is that you're equating unoriginal gameplay mechanics with the quality of the game in itself. I don't particularly - in fact, I flat out don't - care whether or not the mechanics of the game in regards to weapons/design/innovation are original or taken from preceeding games. What works about Halo, is the sheer playability of it. It's not the most original premise sure, agreed, but then again, there's nothing wrong with a good take on an unoriginal theme. Plenty of games offer what, on paper, is a tired formula, but the only thing that sets them apart from those before them is the quality of the game itself. Look at something like Modern Warfare 2; ridiculous storyline, but a hell of an SP regardless; Black Ops, similarly, is cliche and predictable but it just works because the attention and effort is there and evident in all considerations and it's a hell of a ride while it lasts.

It would be fair to say 'Halo is credited far too much with innovations that were actually taken from earlier games', but it's hardly fair to say that Halo is overated on the basis of having issues with said credit, when the game itself is highly rated based on the general quality of the game.

As for the consoles versus PC argument, I also don't buy into that quite the way it's lauded around here. What Halo did was prove that consoles could offer an FPS experience equal to those on the PC, not solely prove itself the king of console FPS titles. It's often said that Halo was a great game "but...." relative to what it offered in comparison to what consoles had produced up to that point. Personally, I was a massive PC Gamer. I've been playing FPS titles since Wolfenstein, right through pretty much every FPS title you could imagine as I upgraded my machine each and every year to allow me to run said games without compromise at cutting edge detail (including Crysis), so I'm as familiar with PC gaming as much as anyone realistically could be and similarly, I viewed consoles as the inferior option, particularly because I was such a stalwart FPS fan. I never bothered with consoles much, I did own them, but they were decidedly a background interest in comparison. Halo came along and changed my perception of consoles absolutely, from an inferior platform to a totally viable alternative to PC gaming, relative shortcomings in graphics capability aside. Halo sucked everyone in; the PC Gamers, the PS2 owners, even the non-gamers. As the only person who owned an X-Box, weekends were a cramped Halothon at my place until 6am. And I can say that as a diehard PC Gamer, Halo is the sole reason that I now own the 360 and use it exclusively for gaming these past few years. The MP mode across all Halo games is the finest and most fun I've personally ever played, and I was a rabid fan of MP games right from Quake through Unreal, to Day of Defeat and Battlefield and it's various incarnations, Call of Duty right through to MW2, and beyond. And I can state that as a hardcore PC gamer.

People don't like Halo, I get that. Even the best selling games in the world will have critics, as with any medium. But it's hard not to acknowledge it's doing something right when you've got millions of eager fans and reviewers alike. Personally, there are an infinite number of games I personally dislike, but I chalk it down as a taste difference rather than lack of quality.

343 doing Halo 4

343 are in charge of the franchise, and are over the Halo remake, but the game itself is being developed by Sabre for 343. So I'm curious as to who's developing H4, another developer, or a new inhouse one.

As for the trailer itself, really, pretty - rather, totally - unexciting aside from the fact itself that Halo 4 is incoming.

Retr0gamer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

But the problem is that you're equating unoriginal gameplay mechanics with the quality of the game in itself.

Well again I'm not saying it's a bad game at all justnot something as special as some people make it out to be. Anyway another thing to remember that this is the internet and there's people that inflate thinking something is ok into hate when they talk about something so I very much doubt the people that say they hate Halo really hate but just have a few problems with it.

Jazzy

halo 1 was excellent, really good game.
halo 2 was the beginning of this overly cheesey, over hyped plot that had a touch of being up its own arse. poorer multiplayer also
halo 3 was up its own arse. the hologram girl that gives you missions randomly talking to you through psychic means was retarded. better multiplayer though

halo reach... stopped playing due to boredom with it. just the exact same gameplay as the others with little or no excitement. also had a plot that was up its arse from what i can tell.

in short, if the halo sequels weren't as far up their own arse (hmm, maybe it was bungies writing team that were up there) they could have made better games. the single player of 2 & 3 comes, and i want everybody here to understand this, nowhere near the likes of system shock 2, bioshock, half-life(any of them), stalker, deus ex, unreal or painkiller.
the first one was great, good blast, fantastic co-op, very very fresh at the time, story was good enough - did the job, great set pieces, great last level.. had a lot going for it. 2 & 3 seemed to ignore a lot of this and were constantly trying to tell you how great they were instead of understanding what made 1 great in the first place.

Zombrex

I think the reason people find Halo annoying (and are bewildered by how some hold it as a masterpiece) is largely down the some very odd design choices taht Bungie carried over into the other 2 games.

These mostly centre around level design, or lack of. I've never played a game since some of the Doom clones that recycled so much freaking level design. Boring does not adequately sum up how repetitive the game got at some stages.

Enter a room, kill badies, enter exact same room, kill badies, enter the same room again kill slightly more powerful babies. Repeat 10 times. Then make the player go back through the whole level.

Halo was at its best when you were moving through large battlefields with a lot going on around you. It was at its worst when you were moving down another completely generic boring corridor simply trying to get to another completely generic boring corridor.

The only thing that could make such poor level design even worse was exactly what Bungie did with the introduction of the Flood, one of the most annoying (in a bad way) enemies in gaming history.

Other aspects, such as a silly convoluted story, add to a general feeling that Halo had good bits but over all was a bit of mess. But to be honest I think its over rating is what annoys people the most. Anything that is over praised and over hyped, be it a movie, band, or game is going to annoy people who really can't see what all the fuss is about. If Halo was a 8 out of 10 game that people enjoyed and found interesting in how it did some things, such as shield regen and limited weapon space, I don't think it would have caused such a fuss. But because it was hailed as some sort of utter revolution in game play, particularly since it game after true revolutionary FPS such as Half Life, people found this annoying.

mawk

Wicknight wrote: »

Enter a room, kill badies, enter exact same room, kill badies, enter the same room again kill slightly more powerful babies. Repeat 10 times. Then make the player go back through the whole level.

Halo; Baby murder Evolved

Overheal

Frankly I'd like to see what another team will do with the Halo IP.

People think Halo was "nothing special" but then again it did basically become one of the Standards. I don't think I've seen a game since, where you can carry a dozen odd rifles and rocket launchers in your pocket. The levels were quirky but the action and story were great. Not without it's complaints, but you can't say it wasn't perhaps one of the first truly great console FPS games. Before that the genre was pretty much confined to the PC. It went a long way to proving the Mouse and Keyboard (while still my preference by a long shot) was not the only good way to shoot something in the face.

hooradiation

Recently played Halo: reach and Halo: ODST in co-op mode, enjoyed the hell out of both.
More please.

Gi joe!

Even as a hardcore Halo fan, I still found it strange that they're deciding to go with another trilogy. It seemed with the end of Halo 3 that things were pretty well tied up and anything extra was unneeded.

Regardless, it will be very interesting to see where they go with this.

Captain Chaos

Overheal wrote: »

Frankly I'd like to see what another team will do with the Halo IP.

People think Halo was "nothing special" but then again it did basically become one of the Standards. I don't think I've seen a game since, where you can carry a dozen odd rifles and rocket launchers in your pocket.

You can only carry 2 weapons at a time in Halo and a handful of grenades. Half Life on the other hand has a rogue scientist in a hazmat suit carrying everything from a crowbar to a blackhole gun at once.

Still, I enjoyed all the Halo games and the ones with co-op, great fun to be had and the music at some set piece fire fights top most games hands down. Not bad games at all but not ground breaking either, good solid alien shooters.

Overheal

Captain Chaos wrote: »

You can only carry 2 weapons at a time in Halo and a handful of grenades. Half Life on the other hand has a rogue scientist in a hazmat suit carrying everything from a crowbar to a blackhole gun at once.

Yeah but that was carried over from the 1998 original. Probably done in a couple "Old School" games, but there are few of those left. Closest thing is Mass Effect but they do a good job of showing how the weapons Package up and fit on yer man's back.

Retr0gamer

Halo wasn't the first game with a 2 weapon limit either. A lot of tactical shooters at the time were going for the same thing. I won't argue that it was Halo that made it catch on. I'd still rather the more interesting weapon load outs of stuff like Half-Life than CoD or Halo.

DjFlin

I dont see why people go on about it being Milked, there are 5 now (1, 2, 3, ODST, Reach) with another trilogy on the way. Who cares? Nobody's giving out about Final Fantasy, or the 9 Ratchet and Clank games.

And I guarantee that if you give Sony time, and God Of War and Uncharted will have just as many games.

I say let them make as many as they like, some will be great, some wont be.

Sticky_Fingers

DarkJager wrote: »

If Bungie had left their legacy at Halo 3 it would have been grand, Reach sort of sullied it a bit (and in the context of things was a pointless addition to the series).

I don't think Reach did too much damage to Halos reputation, not after ODST managed to drag IMO a rather bland shooter franchise into the gutter, smear itself with sh!t and then have the gall to ask full price from the gaming public for the privilege of playing a glorified (and piss poor) expansion pack.

DjFlin wrote: »

I dont see why people go on about it being Milked, there are 5 now (1, 2, 3, ODST, Reach) with another trilogy on the way. Who cares? Nobody's giving out about Final Fantasy, or the 9 Ratchet and Clank games.

And I guarantee that if you give Sony time, and God Of War and Uncharted will have just as many games.

I say let them make as many as they like, some will be great, some wont be.

I have a bit of a problem with it since it gives the developers carte blanc to sell any old tat knowing full well that the Halo brand alone will result in massive sales as the fanboys lap this bilge up. This is the Bobby Kotick school of game design, wring every last grubby penny out of the customer by pushing bland, tired sequels into the market when the money could be better spent developing new and exciting games that move the entire industry forward. I find it hard to imagine games such as Portal or Dragon Age: Origins being allowed to be created in such an enviroment where the quantity of your releases mattered much more then the quality.

* I realise the irony in mentioning DA:O considering the complete and utter clusterfu@K DA:2 turned out to be

Overheal

GamesDontSuck wrote: »

You know, that tries to be full of action, and "Ooooh" factor, but it misses the mark on all attempts. It just manages to be cliche.

hooradiation

For a teaser it's perfect.

WolfForager

I bet Bungie are really pissed that they don't own the IP, pretty sure they would have let it rest after Reach. H3 was a great ending to the story.

Retr0gamer

I got the feeling that Bungie had been gagging to get away from the Halo franchise and try something new.

maximoose

Meh. As others have said, cant get too excited from that teaser. Much more looking forward to play Halo:CE again than a new instalment, it should be left alone now. ODST was f*cking awful, Reach was a good addition IMO but thats enough now.

Played through Halo:CE a couple of months ago and it was great, would love to give it another go in nice polished HD graphics.

Mr E wrote: »

You say that like Halo 1, 2, 3 and Reach were good.

I hope that was trolling, if not it's just idiotic.

hooradiation

I enjoyed ODST a lot more than the other games in the series. Not being tuppin' master chief was a refreshing change. That and it was essentially Halo: Firefly edition.
I don't get the hate.

CiDeRmAn

maximoose wrote: »

I hope that was trolling, if not it's just idiotic.

Nice, way to call the category mod of being an idiot!

But everyone knows that the Halo series are the greatest games ever made, faultless and awesome, never to be topped in terms of the experience it provides the participants, or am I mixing it up with sex with women?....

maximoose

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Nice, way to call the category mod of being an idiot!

But everyone knows that the Halo series are the greatest games ever made, faultless and awesome, never to be topped in terms of the experience it provides the participants, or am I mixing it up with sex with women?....

I think you're mixing it up

I'm not a Halo fanboy by any means. I do think the first game was magnificent, and each instalment after has been a disappointment compared to it but still very good games (bar ODST, which was awful). But to say that one of the most successful games in recent years, commercially and critically, isn't even "good" is just daft. Or trolling. Mod or no mod

Retr0gamer

maximoose wrote: »

I'm not a Halo fanboy by any means. I do think the first game was magnificent, and each instalment after has been a disappointment compared to it but still very good games (bar ODST, which was awful). But to say that one of the most successful games in recent years, commercially and critically, isn't even "good" is just daft. Or trolling. Mod or no mod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

You do know the critics can get it wrong and a look at the charts each week shows that people buy alot of **** games.

Korvanica

Good god a lot of people love halo bashing...

Honestly if you've nothing decent to say about the next halo coming out you shouldn't be posting here...

Can someone start a thread for people to bitch and moan about their most hated games... so people can then chat about games they like without it being ruined by people who cannot stop themselves from showing their dislike for the game in question...

BOT

I myself love halo... and cannot wait for the next one... I wonder if they'll add anything new to the game (weapons etc)...

And is this new threat the covenant again? or a new alien race?

Retr0gamer

It's a discussion forum. People have differing opinions. It's what makes it interesting. It would be a lot less interesting if we were all going around patting each other on the back congratulating each other on our great taste in games.

hooradiation

People love to bash games like halo because most people who self identify as gamers are just hipsters.