Seriously consider a ban please, hes not well equipped to handle the internet.

SRSLY though......



It would have been much cooler if she was just a talking ball of light.

k.

But Not all their choices are bad just most of them.

Cortana looked okay, ignoring the fact she has changed 4 times now. The mantis was cool, Carbine was not bad either & the hard light shield was a damn good idea too.

Forum toxicity, generally. Keep in mind the majority of the online presence is accounted for by middle class suburban 12-14 year olds, and as such, they will behave as if their fragile egos are the most important things in existence.

I'm 20 though.

I think he's talking about mental age.

this is the problem with games today:

Man, I just can't imagine anybody with such a low mental age

(PS only some people here will get the joke ;), at least 2)

Project contingency admins like R93_snipers or Mootjuh will

This joke is based on the fact that R93 (I think it was him) banned me from the contingency forums for 3 months, and in the reason box there stood: grow up

xD

PS, there were more reasons, but R93 has called me childish several times ;)

The most recent Ghost Recon game (future fighter or whatever) really illustrates this.
After almost every minor encounter you get interrupted with a stupid cutscene. It's atrocious.

By coming here and making posts about something that happened elsewhere which concerns nobody here, yeah I think you've exemplified the point I made. Nice job there kiddo, want a cookie?



Please tell me that's a joke
Edited by R93_Sniper on Aug 29, 2015 at 04:30 AM

we need more tactical games

U still mad snipers? cuz u sound mad ;)

Afraid not. I bought it for co-op, and after several (super linear) missions of scripted over-the-top nonsense, combined with a million cutscenes everywhere, I've lost my appetite for it already. Amazing how they destroyed one of the best tactical warfare franchises.

Edit: just a quick shoutout to lolslayer, sorry mate but you're an idiot. Indeed grow up.
Edited by DaLode on Aug 29, 2015 at 08:28 AM

Ow come on, I was just teasing R93 because he banned me for that reason, it isn't like I'm doing this to everybody

Well, at least not on purpose xD

PS, I have no bad feelings against you R93, I hoped that you would enjoy the little joke I made, it wasn't meant to get you irritated again ;)

PPS, plz forgive my past actions on the contingency forums, they were indeed childish (I don't want to start a fight again as soon as my ban is over)
Edited by lolslayer on Aug 29, 2015 at 04:33 PM

Tactical Espionage Action games

I feel like the story in Halo 4 was just another generic story for an action game. People can disagree but I feel like Halo is one of those games that needs to have the story take a backseat to the gameplay. I may be biased with that last one though as I personally don't care about what story most video games are going to throw at my way. I just want to know if the game has a lot more than me just smashing the x button. Personally it felt like Halo 4 was holding up the story more than anything so I just dropped it after finishing it as the story was generally not interesting.

Hmm, with me it is just the opposite

if I would go for gameplay only, I would just play some cod (plz no hate, the game is pretty good, but the fact that the creators spam one out every year is the source of the hate)

But because halo had such a deep story and backstory (and because of the enviroments) I play halo

Im more with slayer on that one. Halo has always been a gameplay and story hybrid. I got in for the gameplay but stayed for the story (as expanse as it is).

Halo 4 just took a really weird twist with the campaign and made the entire thing feel hella cliché, which hurt it a lot. The gameplay didn't feel true to the original trilogy and based more on the negative aspects (or rather, the "modern" aspects) of reach which gave the odd disconnect.

Sure the story tried following the "more human and meaningful" approach, but quite frankly the weird quirkiness of the original trilogy's story that was dotted with moments of serious lore crunching and character developments was better. Reach tried too hard to go that route and failed, whereas halo 4 successfully pulled that route off but because of its lineage, failed in its own right.

Halo 1 gave you a very basic story with intermittent action-y bits to make you feel like a true powerhouse. Halo 2 expanded on that and gave you more character as a player while building your attachment to the pre-existing ones. Halo 3 went full blast and gave you some serious political drama while trying to reach a closing point for the series. ODST helped a bit too, with its slightly off to the side story that connected, but had the narrative approach to characters done far better than reach did.

Halo 4 did something weird, in my opinion. It gave the player an excessive amount of character at once and overplayed the attachment to the characters that remained. Parts of that was ok and played up for drama but I honestly feel like that fact is what broke the story. Nevermind the misrepresentation of the Didact (as I've been told, anyways, I need to look him up and read into his existence a lot more) and the whole Promethean angle.

Actually, I have a perfect Analogue. Go play the Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen 2 and try that on. The game itself played great, but the characters were heavily misrepresented in the story when following the setup that was given by Blood Omen, Soul Reaver, Soul Reaver 2, and later Defiance.

All of this is just opinions, so take what I say with a grain of salt but this is what I've seen halo as, so far.

Everyone tells me Halo is story heavy at points but I have a hard time believing them. With the majority of Halo games I can skip most cutscenes and still have an enjoyable experience and still have a basic understanding of what is going on. With that you could effectively ignore the novels and it won't harm your experience. Reading the novels will only enrich your understanding and appreciation for the universe the developers have crafted.

Along with that the story was often made into small bites during gameplay that ran similar to games like Half Life or any Valve game really where the story is told while making sure the player never loses control of the character. Most heavy story cutscences where the player does lose control was limited to the beginning and the end of the level which was in my opinion the best combination. It was the perfect format for first person shooter story telling in my opinion.

Halo 4 changed all that with simple story elements that were often insignificant having cutscences of their own simply to hit the cinema formula. Most cutscences held vital information at times to get a sense of purpose and knowledge due to the expand characters and setting. Important characters from novels with no real backstory unless you read the novels were given so not reading the novels would harm the story experience to some degree. The game has to become more linear in order to allow a better flowing narrative and while Halo was linear since its inception I felt Halo 4 to be more linear than other Halo games.

I personally never felt the need to read the novels or look into the lore of Halo games. You people may like it but Halo 4 felt like it did need some background information and I didn't enjoy it one bit. Not to mention it was overbearing and every little action seemed to need a cutscence. I'm not entirely against Halo getting a richer story but I am very against the methods chosen to tell the story.

I agree with General 101 there, pretty much on point.

Probably should have been more specific but what you just mentioned is related to transitioning cutscenes. What I was mainly talking about was cutscences ingame like heavily scripted events or picking up Cortana in Halo 3 which is why I mentioned most cutscences. With most transitioning cutscences which go at the beginning and ends of levels you have to have for a story based game and is the best place in my opinion to place story related bits. They are the intro and fin cards for a level if you will. The middle of a level should be left completely in the players control in my opinion with control being only taken away in moments that make sense.

Would Echo 419 death be more dramatic and emotional if they showed a cutscence? Would it be more badass to the player to show him killing things instead of just letting him kill things? Would giving players control or taking away control add to the experience in this area? Questions like these are what I think 343 has never truly asked themselves to a great extent.
Edited by General_101 on Aug 30, 2015 at 10:24 AM

I agree, halo 4 wasn't the best in storytelling, but the conversations were pretty good, also, the relationship with cortana and master chief had some more importance, which was pretty good if you ask me

As one of the few defenders of 343i, it may sound wierd that I find halo 2 the best halo game ;) (I mean, halo 3 wasn't as deep as halo 2, I really can't see why it's better xD)

But ok, just a summary what I find good at all the halo games:

-Halo 1: sometimes a bit cranky, but still a great story, the campaign was great, only the lack of gameplay elements is probably a turn off for modern gamers (not for me though ;))

-Halo 2: yeah, some plot holes in the story, but at the other hand it was just great, and it gave a huge amount of information about the covenant. Great new gameplay mechanics, really good gameplay, great enviroments and cool characters

-Halo 3: Story was pretty decent, nothing really special. Some characters were made worse (Johnson losing his humor, arbiter being too silent and too much in the background for a main person, a really annoying prophet of truth and a weasel gravemind (Really, they never showed him, there was nothing better because of that))

Halo 3 ODST: Good solid story, good characters, nice enviroments, some good new gameplay idea's, but really, too much of the same when playing as rookie, which was a huge turn-down for me (I really dislike halo 3 ODST because of that)

Halo reach: Decent story, still a bit over-dramatic. Nice movie-like feeling, but not a special campaign, a bit generic

Halo 4: Good characters, nice cutscenes, good conversations, maybe not the best story, still good enough though and a basic campaign

that was it ;)
Edited by lolslayer on Aug 31, 2015 at 03:21 AM



I really can't find a counter argument against your reasons why the halo 4 storytelling was bad, but there is one thing i have to mention

with the death of echo 419, I've never seen it before because I didn't know where to look at, if there was a cutscene, my first full gameplay of halo 1 would be much more cooler and dramatic (I really like that scene), but instead of it being much cooler and dramatic, I lost that moment, the only thing I could mention was the voice of echo 419, it is indeed better if you can play the game yourself, but I think that there needs to be some coordination where to look at when there are scripted events, which Always ends up good in cutscenes
Edited by lolslayer on Aug 31, 2015 at 03:28 AM

only with 1 word " 343 İ DAMN SUCKS " 343 i doesnt know how to make halo game as well , fist see the halo 1 - 2 -3 - reach - odst scenarios those are pretty cool and all series are supporting the scenarios, after that when bungie left the halo , 343i came to work with microsoft , and they killed the halo game . halo 4 and halo 5 are not halo game , halo was better with Bungie.
I dont hate 343 , only dislike , 343 just doesnt know how to make halo and scenario thats why people hates 343i







.....

343 SUCKS AND THİS WİLL BE STAY LİKE ALWAYS !!!!!

well since we are talking about halo 5 and 343. I'll just leave this here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44oJi5w2Wjc&feature=youtu.be

dont like ,they just minorize the covenant.

Love sangheili zelots
hate fartstans 4 osiris
Edited by Halonimator on Sep 1, 2015 at 02:53 PM

343i has been doing a good job so far all things considered. Halo 4 is fun and they've done a good job making sure Halo lore is progressing. I don't know anything new about gameplay for Halo 5, but from what I've read it's a new twist on classic gameplay that feels fresh. The thing is that a lot of gamers have issues about game series and game sequels, unless they are of Japanese origin (Final Fantasy and Metal Gear are two that don't have this debate). Given how many games become flat after 4 games in the series (Halo has had technically 6, not counting Wars), 343i has done a great job maintaining the core gameplay mechanics that make Halo feel like Halo, while modernizing the game to compete with other FPS games.

An interesting note is that, since Halo 3, visually the game has changed to the point that people have regular arguments over aesthetic designs in the game. I think that goes to show how amazing Halo has become through all parties involved, not just Bungie or 343i. I know some people who hate Halo 4's aesthetic choices and changes, some who enjoy them and others such as myself who don't mind them.

Now is 343i perfect? Not at all. Neither was Bungie though. There are many gamers who will always see the original developers as the only true developers of the game; after the mantle is handed to a new studio, those same gamers just scoff at anything else put out. These are the same gamers who revere the original studio as practically flawless in their approach and design. Bungie was far from a perfect developer, though, and they openly admitted so regularly. However, they are also proud of their work (as they should because Halo is amazing) and most of the employees' remarks I see all state their enjoyment of 343i's continuations. My point is that the original developer approves, but loyal fans are blinded by loyalty. There's also the "HALO IS NOW A CA$HCOW" complex, but most people understand why that's not a fair reason to hate a game when it's made by passionate developers. Whether or not some you want to believe it, 343i developers consist heavily of artists who really love Halo as much as we do.

The faults I see in 343i's content currently involve small nuances that are simply discomforts over actual problems. Small things like the mundane qualities of Forerunners established in Halo: Cryptum, the aesthetic design changes for Elites, Spartan Ops still requiring a Gold membership to play, the recent Halo 5 intro cinematic where the Spartan 4s are too graceful, and some other small stuff that I can't pick out to bother with. Now are their design choices and generally progressive actions controversial? Absolutely, but 343i has done a good job with Halo. I think most gamers that are regularly bashing 343i at every turn are mostly doing so out of something akin to nostalgia.


Edited by DarkHalo003 on Sep 2, 2015 at 01:21 AM

I see what you did there :P

I don't attack people who like 343i's stuff.... but 343 isn't good at making Halo, the talent that made the original games don't want to make Halo anymore, just let the beatin' horse die. The Halo CE community is nice, but the main games are beatin' to death.

So far I've only saw them good at gfx, not design, but gfx. For example H2A looks amazing(pretty sure 343i did the MP maps?)

But everything else looks bad, like those H5 bug covie vehicles? Eww. And don't even get me started on the gameplay choices they've made. I don't call ripping off elements from popular modern FPS that aren't even arena-based as something to be proud of.

I agree the graphics technology is about the only thing I've been happy with.
As Mootjuh says, technology. Not their graphics designs.

^I think design should always be called into question and scrutinized. That's how it eventually improves. When Halo moved studios, the artists changed and the new artists had the artistic license to make major changes. Do I disagree with a great number of them? Yes, especially to the Banshee and Elite (I believe the H4 Jackals were explained to be a species of Jackal, like Skirmishers) design choices. Is that reason to overall hate 343i and Halo 4? Unless those particular designs were the reason you liked Halo, no, I definitely do not think it's any grounds to disqualify 343i as a competent developer.


That's not exactly what I meant. I mean the prospect of continuing the Final Fantasy series isn't really heckled by gamers. For example, if/when Final Fantasy 16 comes out, no one starts complaining about there being yet another Final Fantasy. I mean sure, SOMEONE is going to crack the joke "When is the FINAL Final Fantasy going to happen?", but nothing like what we see when it comes to a new CoD/Halo/Battlefield/etc being announced. Metal Gear, Monster Hunter, Pokemon and Dragon Quest have the same effect. I was just pointing out how it seems Western continuations always seem to have that "OMG STOP MAKING SEQUELS" outcry compared to the JP market.
Edited by DarkHalo003 on Sep 2, 2015 at 03:49 PM

Yeah, localizations are still pretty stiff for Japanese games. I remember when FF:Type-0 was initially canceled for NA, but released in JP no problem. That's a different case now, but it was especially frustrating because Final Fantasy games on the PSP (Crisis Core, Dissidia) were super fun. When I was studying in JP, a lot of my friends complained about the Yakuza series' lack of localization in NA.

The Halo fans in JP are an interesting bunch. We don't hear much from them and finding clips of JP Halo cutscenes in decent quality on YouTube is difficult. Last time I heard of Japanese Halo players, they were actually in an uproar about a proposed switch of the Master Chief's voice from the first actor to another. Really interesting to say the least.

343 outsourced all of MCC to numerous company's. 343 only did the master menu and putting their name all over it.

343i did mp assets. A different company did menu and networking