- DonVinzone1
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Posted by: dahuterschuter
Posted by: DonVinzone1
Still: it's unfair to really make a problem out of the AI (like IGN does for instance) when a game like MW3 fails at even reaching what CE did 10 years ago(!) and it's not even mentioned at all. People, including the media complain about games being too easy these days and giving the player too much guidance to navigate....here's a game that has near perfect pacing, lets you explore the world and doesn't litter your screen with markers and hints every 2 seconds and it's suddenly a bad thing...
It's hypocrite to really zoom in on those elements of CEA and completely ignore it when it's MW3 just to name something.
Judging by your replies in this thread and your original post, you seem to have an oh so subtle anti-CoD streak in you. Ideally, you would be able to argue the merits of one thing without having to bring up the shortcomings of another. It's poor form.
Anyway, I'm about to make a bit of a disconcerting statement to you, and I'm sorry, but you need to know. CoD's current AI and Halo's AI from CE to now are par, and I'll tell you why. Halo's friendly AI is atrocious, CoD's friendly AI are actually pretty solid to sometimes even helpful. Halo's enemy AI have always been pretty smart and challenging, CoD's run at you in a straight line and just try to overcome you with fire. To say one is generally better than the other is to ignore the flaws of one and accentuate the flaws of the other.
And no: 8's are no bad grades. Man, I am really happy with every 8 I get on my exams. Still, for a game that is better than most modern FPS games it's a bit harsh. That site that gave it a 6 esspecially misses the mark in my opinion. Edge and Destructiod seem to nail it better.
I do have to agree that a six just seems ridiculous. I haven't read that review, but I can't imagine what points they came up with to justify it.
I don't like CoD but that's got "nothing" to do with my argument. I'm merely using MW3 as an example because it's the most recent, and most obvious example of the complete opposite of what Halo CEA is. I might just as well have replaced MW3 with the campaigns of BFBC2, or BF3 because the arguments of really weak AI hold up in those games too. And I could have replaced Halo with the FarCry games, or F.E.A.R seris, Half Life seris or Crysis for instance.
The fact that friendly AI in MW3 is better than that in CEA is no suprise....Marines actually don't have any AI in CEA ;)
But the enemy AI definatly is better in CEA. What CoD, and most similar shooters like MoH and BF do is what you describe: running at you. That's nothing more "complex" than what the ghosts in Pacman do for instance. In other words: anybody with basic knowledge about writing AI can make that. The fact that it works doesn't make it good. Every battle is exactly the same and incredibly stale. It just results in a very static shooting gallery, while Halo's/FarCry's/FEAR's/Half-Life's battles are all more dynamic, engaging and can suprise you every time you play. That is good AI design.
My main gripes with the reviews is that they are so stupid.
Complaining about the leveldesign, as if they were expecting that would change.
Complaining about the Flood, as if they were expecting them not to be included.
Complaining about Kinect, without even having used it as the Kinect functionality doesn't get released until tomorrow.
Complaining about the multiplayer not being stand alone, while completely ignoring the fact we're getting some of the very best maps in Halo history.
Oh and IGN claiming it's the best of the HD remakes of this generation....then giving it an 8 while they gave the MGS HD bundle a 9 last week or so is also weird...
Again: I can live with the scores, but for God's sake: be consequent in your reviews. If one thing is "bad" than also mention that in other, new games, no matter what series it is.