- OrderedComa
- |
- Noble Member
Posted By: Beowolfe
No, I'm looking for logic. Games are focused on gameplay,not logic. In a Halo (excluding Halo Wars) game, no automatic weapon can get headshots, you're limited by the game mechanics in terms of what you can do, and the story is only as good as the cutscenes.
Gameplay can be a little illogical sure, but that doesn't mean that games are illogical, they can be just as logical as a book or a movie, or just as illogical. You can't really tell where an automatic weapon's projectiles are hitting in, it's not like real life where you can see on the corpse where your bullet hit, the only automatic Halo weapons that you can see where you hit your opponent are the Spiker and Needler, and I've had those hitting people in the head quite a few times, so you can get headshots with them, it just doesn't give the medal for headshots.
You're probably right. Not 100% of players who play both will agree with me. Only 99%. It's like asking if someone thinks $1000 is more than $500. It's just that obvious. Halo doesn't show your super-soldier might through gameplay, the player just knows that you play as a super soldier, but you never actually use abilities that would prove to be so.
First of all, your friend...well, he's your friend, so he's probably going to side with you, and second, I don't know what he's smoking because Crysis 2 isn't actually released yet. (not the retail version anyways)And honestly, whenever someone say that they honestly just sound like they're fairly narrow minded and set on the simple idea of "everyone wants to copy from mainstream games". Just like how when everyone hears of Guild Wars 2, they immediately think "they're trying to copy World of Warcraft". On another note, if your friend is making judgments based on the recent fail of the Crysis 2 MP demo, then I doubt he can make a proper judgment. If, however, he's gotten himself on a copy of the leaked beta, well, I personally have only seen an friend play that as well, so I can't comment on that.
I don't even think 99% percent would say that, I wouldn't take that as fact unless there was some concrete evidence of such staring me in the face. I'm sorry if you disagree, but Halo does show your super soldier abilities in game play, as I said, you are always much faster than everyone else, you do much more damage when you punch enemies, you can flip any vehicle (granted the Elephant is only able to be flipped over for the sake of gameplay and the lolz), and you can easily dispatch threats the average mook gets slaughtered by.
He was talking about what he'd seen of the promo material for Crysis so far, I don't know how much he's seen, or played, of what has been released by Crytech so far, but it doesn't sound that impressive. Even if it isn't rip-offs of the mainstream games, it sounds like just another average shooter like Halo and CoD on the market.
I probably am years behind in PC gaming, last PC game I got was Battle for Middle-Earth II. And as for the whole "mindset" thing, I've known games can show exactly the same stuff a movie could, but as you said the technology is limited, so if you wanted a lot of "movie" style graphics or scenes you'd have to sacrifice other things to get there.
There is a difference between knowing that the player is special and having the game actually SHOW you, the latter being portrayal. For example, what would make you feel like a soldier more during World War II? Being enlisted in the army reserves, or actually being sent to the front-lines?
If a game tells me I am a super-soldier, and yet from my capabilities are limited compared to other sources (novels) or other portrayals (competing games or movies) then I find it kind of hard to actually believe that I'm special.
There is a fine line between plot and ability...and I think you should learn that before you step into that argument again. In any case, I'm talking about player-controllable abilities, not abilities as you would describe a character.
And I just love when people say that. There are ways to make NPCs better without making them play the entire course of the game. Look at Gears of War. Look at Mass Effect, or even look at CoD. First, there's nothing wrong with making NPCs who are good enough to match that of an average player, that just means you get to put more enemies on the field. Secondly, these NPCs can be demonstrated to be special through other means than making them so smart the game plays itself, namely, cutscenes that occur more than once that reinforces this specialty throughout the course of the game.
Brawl is not a FPS, is it? Many game genres sport the "drain health and yet still alive thing", but that doesn't fit well in FPS games. Then again, this is a small issue; as I've said before, all that they had to do was trigger the cutscene as soon as the shields were drained, and everything would make much more sense.
You don't need to be shown something to know you're not ordinary, it helps, but one should not have to be -blam!-ing shown the character doing something special and out of the ordinary to know they're different.
Every time I've played the allies in CoD have been just about as effective as my NPC teammates in Halo. I think everything's pretty good for Halo's friendly AIs, except for driving, that is not so hot. I was more saying that if the AI for Noble Team was as good as Spartan are supposed to be the game would play itself, I'm not talking about if they were excellent AI, and except for Emile's shot-gun "sniping" I think they're very effective and an excellent AI.
No, it isn't an FPS, but it's still a common thing in gaming, whether something is an FPS or not. I thought it worked fine in Reach, but that's just me.
Yea...I CAN use it as evidence, because that's simply a comparison to see how gameplay can be used as a tool to fill in the descriptions, it's not about whether Spartans should do this or that, but rather that if they were fleshed out properly, it would look much more like Crysis than Halo. Go watch a Halo match in theatre mode...So arcade it's not even funny.
Yea, Spartans are stronger than marines in game, but that and flipping vehicles (which automatically flip when you hit a button) are the only times you really see their strength in gameplay. In Crysis, you can actually use that strength in situations other than hitting people, and the actions are usually portrayed more similar to how you would see in Mirror's Edge, where you can visually see your characters perform the actions.
I now have a little better knowledge of Crysis since I went and watched some gameplay earlier, and from what I saw the enhanced speed or whatever it was worked like the Sprint AA in Reach. I saw nothing special about it at all, it looked like every other FPS I've seen. And I doubt either of us is going to make any headway in our argument with the other on this point, I think the Spartans are fine, and you don't, I doubt anything is ever going to change, at least on my part.
That's because, from what I saw, Crysis had a much more destructible environment than Halo. If Halo had a more destructible environment then you would of course have more uses for your strength, but that would take away from Halo's feel as primarily a shooter. Crysis also seemed to have a much more "open world" feel than Halo, destructible environment works well in those kinda games, not so much in a straight up shooter.