Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous & Games v. Novels
  • Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous & Games v. Novels
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous & Games v. Novels

Remembering 20 years of the best developing around.
Good luck, guys you always have my support.

Don't complain, it doesn't help the situation at hand, and even if there was a situation it's just a matter of your opinion. And besides you shouldn't take it seriously, it's a game what's the point of anything? Just enjoy the excellent story, and gameplay made by the excellent company.

  • 09.21.2011 7:28 PM PDT


Posted by: M94 Mushroom Man

Posted by: Ruby of the Blue

>.>


o.o

  • 09.21.2011 7:33 PM PDT


Posted by: TheCubsfan8
Don't complain, it doesn't help the situation at hand, and even if there was a situation it's just a matter of your opinion. And besides you shouldn't take it seriously, it's a game what's the point of anything? Just enjoy the excellent story, and gameplay made by the excellent company.


Well, you should take it seriously because the game can serve as a means to address serious topics of conversation. For example, entertainment shouldn't be bound by the same constrictions as reality is in order to fulfill it's function as an escape.

The "oh, it's just a game" attitude which this very point covers isn't going to lead you anywhere because it itself is based on a faulty assumption, that games exist outside of reality and so you can only take them as flippant and inconseq. They don't, despite "the lack of realism," because everything from the developers design to the processing that turns that into something you can play still rests in a physical universe. The representations on screen might not be 1:1 translations of real phenomena, but that still doesn't mean that you can't make serious connections between games and other things with what kernels of fact and reason there are.


And questioning someone's right to complain is a bit assinine. You're on an internet forum, you should well understand that people like to use the information technologies at their disposal to make a point in order to express an opinion.

It's natural, it's healthy, it's what people do.


And "just enjoy the excellent story" is also a little assinine. That presumes too much, namely that the game is, in fact, excellent. It may be your opinion that gameplay and story work together in glorious harmony to produce a euphoric entertainment experience, but someone else might not agree with you on that and in which case you are not in a position to otherwise dictate to them what they should enjoy. They have their own ideas on the subject, so why not just leave them to play whatever they will and judge it however they like?

[Edited on 09.21.2011 7:49 PM PDT]

  • 09.21.2011 7:44 PM PDT
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.


Posted by: Silverback Elite
Also, it wouldn't be very fun if you died every 2 seconds.


That, my friend, is called Call of Duty; the most rage inducing game ever to exist on this Earth.

  • 09.21.2011 8:07 PM PDT
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous & Games v. Novels
  • gamertag: Poy357
  • user homepage:

Gage Yevgenny. Survived 27(? not sure on exact date) years fighting the covenant. Was an ODST.

This simply shows that in war, anything can happen.

Posted by: BlueRuby2k10
You may say that gameplay =/= canon. That's partially correct, but Campaign gameplay is made for two reasons: to be enjoyable and satisfying, and to REPRESENT the context of the canon and universe you're taking part in.

Having a "canon" difficulty, per say. Like the Realism mode in Left 4 Dead 2! But knowing Bungie...


...

What exactly do you want, anyway? A difficulty level where you die in 2 shots? A canon version of ODST, where a stray plasma bolt will cause more grief than a LASO run?

Please, do note in the following word: "Gameplay."

While is it ridiculous that it takes so many shots to down an ODST, it is still a game.

---

And your assumption is wrong. Play Halo:CE, and read The Flood. Notice a difference in MC's actions? Yeah, he can dodge bullets and shoot from behind cover. Are those actions restricted in real life?

[Edited on 09.21.2011 8:15 PM PDT]

  • 09.21.2011 8:14 PM PDT
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous

Oops. I think I just lost your mind.

Dude
Chill
Just pretend the plot of the game happened, but the squad was luckier.

  • 09.21.2011 8:44 PM PDT
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous & Games v. Novels

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

A cannon version could not be at all similar in terms of gameplay to the Halo we know, it would be more of a "Battlefield meets Crysis 2" sort of a thing, with a cover system and very intense fire fights.

Imagine fighting a hunter with an AR, bullets just bouncing off it, and you're not a spartan. you can't jump over it's head. You can't even out run the thing.

And then if the game had destructible environments... *Hunter blasts through wall*

  • 09.21.2011 8:44 PM PDT

An ODST can also beat down a Wraith with their bare hands in the game, yes?

That was odd.

Bungie seems to come up with ideas that they want to try (ex: ODST being a game where you're really outmatched and have to use better thought out tactics to defeat Covies; Reach where the player is supposed to be able to get to know and become emotionally attached to the other squad members) but don't really know how to do it.

  • 09.21.2011 11:15 PM PDT

Death to rank junkies.

If you're complaining about realism, video games are not for you.

  • 09.21.2011 11:36 PM PDT
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous & Games v. Novels

gameplay > canoninity (err...?)

Simple fact.

  • 09.22.2011 12:28 AM PDT

It is a game. They change around stuff like that to make it more fun. For example, a banshee in the game moves pretty slow, in the books they are very fast. If you were playing a game trying to shoot a banshee flying at 200 mph it would not be much fun.

I have seen games in the past that try to be as close to real life combat as possible. One shot your dead, bullet drop, realistic load times. They fail miserably. A developer cannot make a game to please 2 people. They have to apply to the masses to make money.

  • 09.22.2011 7:08 AM PDT
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous

Yay yuh!!!!!

spartans can flip tanks because they are awesome

  • 09.22.2011 7:24 AM PDT
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous & Games v. Novels

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.


Posted by: BlueRuby2k10
Upon attempting to play Halo 3: ODST as if it were real life, (playing on Heroic, going with the pretend mindset that a few plasma bolts would drop me) I have now concluded that the combat in that game cannot be considered realistic, or even canon within context of the universe.


This is the flaw in your argument.

Gameplay =/= canon

So my question is this: How the hell can this game be considered canon if you're always taking so many shots.

See above.

and to REPRESENT the context of the canon and universe you're taking part in.

The story, yes. The method in which the story is told (through gameplay), no.

That said, the Campaign of ODST is automatically rendered absurd and unrealistic because of this. Opinions?

No, the gameplay is rendered unrealistic. You're just beating a dead horse here, all your points lead to the same conclusion.

  • 09.22.2011 8:17 AM PDT

Ha, wonder if they'd accept this among the crowd who uses gameplay number of kills as canon fact for Chief :P.

  • 09.22.2011 8:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: adzent
  • user homepage:

The gameplay mechanics are like this so that anyone can pick it up and play. Bungie wants to make as much money as it can, so it's not going to cater for a minute niche' market such as us who actually give this topic a second thought.

However, i do agree with the notion that this game betrays canon. A plasma weapon would melt through their armour with ease.

I personally would like to see a game where brute force is not an option.

Ex: A plasma pistol, relatively weak compared to the rifle, could cause some superficial injuries thanks to the armours protection. A more powerful weapon could cause more serious injuries, such as a shot in the leg causes massive bleeding and a limp, where only a biofoam dispenser could get you back to normal. A single headshot means death. A shot to the abdomen by a powerful weapon causes massive internal injury and you have seconds to get to a biofoam dispenser. And imagine all of these injuries being listed on your hud...personally i think that would be alot more interesting.

Unfortunately, they would probably have to employ a 3rd person mode so that you could use cover as you would in deus ex or gears of war.

  • 09.22.2011 9:45 AM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Ha, wonder if they'd accept this among the crowd who uses gameplay number of kills as canon fact for Chief :P.


I would say that there's a pretty clear difference between the two, the number of enemies you face is something far closer to canon than how weapons, players, and enemies perform. You can't really get anything too exact from it, but I believe that that sort of thing is completely valid information.

OT: I don't think the way the books portray things is really that accurate either, Ruby. Most of the time the Covenant come off as improbably overpowered and really not very believable to me. Because of that I really can't take the battle aspect of the books seriously. I usually come up with own medium ground between what's depicted in the games and the outrageous depiction in the books, because neither one is really all that realistic.

  • 09.22.2011 11:25 AM PDT

Cave Johnson here, we're done!

PS: If you are reading this comment while imagining my voice, don't panic. That's just a side effect of the testing.


Posted by: BlueRuby2k10
So my question is this: How the hell can this game be considered canon if you're always taking so many shots. The whole ODST squad would have been killed off in all of their own levels before long.
You may say that gameplay =/= canon. That's partially correct, but Campaign gameplay is made for two reasons: to be enjoyable and satisfying, and to REPRESENT the context of the canon and universe you're taking part in.

That said, the Campaign of ODST is automatically rendered absurd and unrealistic because of this. Opinions?



To address the first topic I have to address the second topic.

SECOND TOPIC
This leads to the natural conclusion that it's really up to the player/reader to decide what's right or wrong. With the argument I've presented in my first post, it's clear that with the novel's reasoning, Buck and his squad would have perished in no time.
So, what's your pick?


The conclusion that you come to is a bit ridiculous. You approach gameplay as not 100% canon, and yet you base the enemies that you fight in game as canon. That's the problem here. Cutscenes are for the most part canon, not 100% canon because of graphical limitations and misrepresentations of certain things like the fire rate of weapons and small things like that.

But here is the fact, the ODST team survived, what they had to face up against was small units in a near abandoned city.

Who they had to fight specifically is not represented with gameplay, the amount of enemies you have to fight in gameplay is not canon. So if there was a book about ODST, it would have to describe situations that ODST's could survive, just like how The Flood is not the same as the gameplay of CE.

Now on to the first subject;

The shots you take in game is not representative of canon, I wouldn't really describe any difficulty level as canon, I might consider some as closer than others to canon, but none of them would I describe as canon.

Also in game you can not take as good cover as you can in real life, the idea you are proposing that "I can't take cover in game without dying, therefore they can not either in a canon situation" is ridiculous. ODST's can swing their gun over the top and fire, other troops present can give you covering fire, the dark of the night would actually be helpful to them. They could travel from apartment to apartment even though the doors might be closed in game.

Also does it matter if the game is realistic? Only the story has to be for the most part, and that's where we draw the line on campaign discussion. Events not gameplay described actions.

  • 09.22.2011 11:50 AM PDT

Am I supposed to write something funny here?

Has to be remembered that "realistically" covies also drop from few shots. And I doubt that even zealot shields can take one mag from AR.

  • 09.23.2011 11:51 AM PDT
Subject: Halo 3: ODST's Concept is Ludicrous

"Where ere thou hast been, here or in yon world manifest? Canst thou tell what is, or what was, or what is to come? No thing shall last. Yet there are some things that will never change. History is written in blood, yet are battles really lost on the battlefield? Canst thou tell me where thou comest, and where thou goest, and what is, or what was, or what will be? For everything remains, AS IT NEVER WAS."

Posted by: BlueRuby2k10
Also, it wouldn't be very fun if you died every 2 seconds.
Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. It would be extremely frustrating to die that rapidly; while I like the game, have you ever tried to play Mirror's Edge? Dying after what seems two or three shots is one of the most rage-inducing situations imaginable. In Mirror's Edge I can stand it, because you're an unarmed runner in street clothes. In ODST you're in ballistic battle armor. To die that easily would almost seem unrealistic, though canonically it would not be. And we are in an age when gamers are immensely impatient.
Posted by: BlueRuby2k10
Does flipping a tank play such a large part in that game? No.

Actually, yes it does. You can also do this in ODST. Play through with the active decision/perception that every flipped vehicle you encounter can now not be flipped. See how good of a game that would make. Then, for the canon of events, assume that the vehicle being flipped (when possible, as in Warthogs,) was a group effort by several Marines.
Posted by: Matu Flp Krawfe
And "just enjoy the excellent story" is also a little assinine. That presumes too much, namely that the game is, in fact, excellent.

Labeling a game as "bad" simply because the gameplay is unrealistic is far more asinine than chastising someone for outrageous criticisms. Would you criticize an MMO for not having characters require food, water, and restroom facilities? Imagine the septic poisoning and malnourishment of the average RPG character.
Posted by: PlasmaSnake893
An ODST can also beat down a Wraith with their bare hands in the game, yes?

That was odd.

That was based of Halo 3 game engines, in which such a feat is possible. Again, if you want it to be so realistic (and I do realize you're not the OP,) then take out that Wraith using weapons only.

  • 09.23.2011 1:56 PM PDT

United Armed Forces

It's a GAME. Wouldn't be very fun, if you died in two seconds, no?

No, not irrelevant.

Perhaps you should go complain to 343 that you want a "canon mode" that's near-impossible, but until then, your argument is irrelevant.

It's a game. Gameplay>All other elements. You want story? Read a book. I love them - there's SO many out there.

  • 09.23.2011 2:03 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2