- CmdrScott1701
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Posted by: Sliding Ghost
If you would like, I can point out some differences between H3 and H1.
H3 is quite different from H1.
Many segments are a cheap copy of CE, particularly, the last level, where we see an unfinished temple, AotCR style rooms, and a hog run.
H3 places emphasis on epicness and that means overrated battles. The Storm battles weren't very fun. The Ark battles aren't that great. The Covenant on the other hand is a gold mine since there's so many strategies one can pull off in the 1st and 3rd tower, not to mention the fights on the bridges.
H1 placed emphasis on realism. Things weren't as fast but 90% of the encounters are fun and have strategic purpose (something I did yesterday...).
Ah I see the conflict now. The core I usually base my opinions on are emotions. The feelings that the games elicit basically jolt me to a conclusion. You, on the other hand, seem to base your critiques on technicalities.
Both are arguably good forms of reason.
I think I know what you mean, now that I have bridged our skew mindsets... Halo 3, while having many conceptual similarities, is a different game due to its game play in terms of battle, tactics, and proceedings.
Would you say this is an adequate assessment, ghost?
PS
<opinion>
In terms of Halo 2, which I would greatly like to talk more about here, it would be more superior to the likes of the remaining trilogy due to its unique concepts and unmatched game play.
<order>
Agree, disagree, elaborate.