- BTE
- |
- Senior Legendary Member
Posted by: BTE
Posted by: Xharpan
it doese'nt look nextgen , looks good but not nextgenIf by next-gen you mean crappy, dark and colorless, I agree. It doesnt look next-gen at all.
Great post.
Posted by: Spartan999
I think Reach needs to be more like Halo 2.
Despite the fact that Halo 2 has the least popular campaign, I think it was the best. This opinion of mine is not meant to put down Halo CE, but games are supposed to get better with new technology and taking user feedback into consideration.I'm not sure about Halo 2. I didn't really like some of the missions in the game but I have to admit that the way the story progresses throughout the game was the best of all of the Halo games. Seems to me that in Halo 3 they pulled out the Cliche Bible and started quoting it on every important scene. Don't get me wrong i enjoyed all of the missions in Halo 3 even if half the time i really didn't know what the hell i was fighting for (seems the missions themselves didn't have a real purpose)
Posted by: Spartan999
Yes Halo 2 changed things up more than people liked. But the only way for this not to happen is to just remake the same game every time.Agreed, It seems that people always whine about whenever the developers try something new yet they also whine when something doesn't evolve. Goes to show you that you should not listen to what everyone has to say.
Posted by: Spartan999
Halo 2 greatest strong points are 1) its more rounded and refined gameplay, and 2) its vastly superior narrative, contributed to by the more intricate story and skills of its actors.
I don't know who the hell directed the acting in Halo 3, but it couldn't have been the same as the director of Halo 2's acting. I find it hard not to laugh at Ron Perlman's crappy acting skills in Halo 3, and all the sentence fragments(David Scully!) had me weeping for the English language.My thoughts exactly on the narrative comparison from Halo 2 to Halo 3
Posted by: Spartan999
You are definitely right about the quality of individual levels, But they need to be careful not to make levels feel like seperate mini games. Halo CE's levels were connected by the isolated, compact story. Halo 2's levels were connected by the fact that they actually run into each other. But even though Halo 3's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th levels are no farther than 100 feet of playspace away from each other, I can't feel it because gameplay shifts so radically between them.This is what i meant about not really knowing what the hell or why the hell i was fighting for. No sense of cohesion.
Posted by: Spartan999
Now lets talk about visual appeal. I think that the designers put all their time into Sierra 117 (beautiful level) and said, "oh what the hell," for the rest of Halo 3. Halo 2 was beautiful and Halo 3 was just boring to look at. There is no excuse for The Ark, and all that grey rock on The Covenant was like watching a 50's space invader movie. I love mountain climbing, but I have never seen a straight up greyscale mountain with any vegetation on it (point is, nature likes color, and the Forerunners like to copy nature).For some reason though i dont fully agree with you here. In my opinion Halo 3 had the best use of color out of all of the games... maybe i might be going colorblind or senile (last time i played Halo 3 campaign was 2 years ago)
Posted by: Spartan999
I think the biggest hit to ODST was the fact that it had the same engine as Halo 3. ODST was better than Halo 3, but it has some aspects that feel just too cartoony and cliche. I had the highest expectations for ODST than any of the other games, but it let me down when I realized there is nothing to do in the hub city and that this city is just one huge mirror image of it's self (on multiple axes, which is just shameful and lazy.) Actually what made ODST campaign great was that it had the Cohesion Halo 3 lacked. That and the fact that it went back to the roots. You felt vulnerable as an ODST, something that i never really felt on Halo 2 or 3 (you feel it in CE once your health goes red).
Posted by: Spartan999
The enemies also need some changes. ODST improved on the drones, I've nothing to say there. Halo 2 Brutes > Halo 3 Brutes. The Elites need a redesign. They were made crouched over in Halo 2, and even more so in Halo 3, to be equal in height to Spartans in multiplayer. Elites are supposed to be a whole 12 inches taller than they are in Halo 3. One of the reasons they were so fun to fight in Halo CE was the fact that they are agile and mobile. Halo 2 managed to get rid of the jerky movements, but also slowed them down too much. Halo 3 makes this problem even more apparent as the Elites feel like they are wearing solid rock for armor. Jackels, Grunts, and Hunters are all ok. I think the main problem with Elites being the enemy and Brutes is the fact that on Halo 2 and 3, you have a vast amount of headshot capable weapons. On Halo CE you only had the Pistol. Once you ran out of ammo, you would lose the only headshot capable weapon. Thus enemies felt stronger because even if you took their shields down you would still have to pump them full of lead so that they would die.
Posted by: Spartan999
All the Halo games are very fun to play; they are Halo after all. But considering that in Reach, the whole world will basically be coming to an end, we need to see a more serious attitude and a more realistic depiction of war. I think Halo 2 steers closest to this idea, which is why Reach needs to use Halo 2 as a model of basic deign.Here is where ODST shined. Even if the city felt empty, all the cars, the silence and some of the destruction you see (not much but its there) makes the game feel real. I hope we get more destruction, corpses and maybe blood stains on the wall and floor. I want to feel as if I'm on a planet that's getting invaded, and people are dying around me.
[Edited on 11.11.2009 8:28 PM PST]