XXXXXX

64 results
1
2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

9675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 9675 Posts

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="JPOBS"]
why do people assume that the sequel to a great franchise always has to be a revlutionary and ground breaking as the first?
If halo had sucked, no one would care if halo 2 or 3 didnt.
because halo was one of the best games of last gen, people compare its successors to its success.
Its foolish to assume that halo 2 or 3 could be as ground breaking as halo 1. If it aint broke dont fix it. Keep the same formula and make a great game.
People like you who expect each entry in the series to be as revolutionary as the first are delusional.
mjarantilla

I don't expect revolutionary. I expect DIFFERENT. Same gameplay mechanics, but with key differences and improvements. I think Halo 2 adding online multiplayer, dual-wielding, AND a second perspective (the Arbiter) was different enough. I DO NOT think that adding "equipment" is different enough.

well halo 3 still has online multiplayer, loads of new weapons and vehicles, a new game mode, and the like, and thats not different enough for you?

you expect to much.

Weapons don't make any difference at all. 90% of the time, people will be using the standard vanilla weapons every shooter has. Vehicles, MAYBE. Have you a list? Simply modifying an already top-notch multiplayer system will not net any extra points. I think the new territory mode is a good idea, and that might put Halo 3 over the top. Basically, all I'm saying is that if all that Halo 3 offers are incremental improvements over Halo 2, I don't think it'll get AAA, or at most it'll get low AAA.

weapons dont make any difference at all, yet dual wielding was a big deal to you in halo 2? gotcha.

improving upon a great multiplayer inst good enough? would you rather them make it worse?

you're basically trying your hardest NOT to see the good in halo 3.

17 years ago

436

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 436 Posts

[QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]] [QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="nowakawon"]
My head is about to explode. I'll start with an about me. I'm 16 and I live in Austi, Texas. I love video games. I love halo. I am a lemming.
Now, to get to the point. Your logic isn't making sense to me. Other then Halo, I haven't really ever played a series game. However I'll take God of War for example. God of War 2 was very much like God of War. I'll take SSB now. SSB is an awesome game series. And with every new one they are essentially the same, yet have improved on one another to make a better game. Halo and Halo 2. While there are some large differences, they are still VERY similar. Some would argue, but Halo 2 is an improvment on Halo. It's called a god damn sequel my friends. Halo 3 isn't met to be an RTS, or turn into a 3rd person shooter, or become a RPG. No, Halo 3 is supposed to be HALO. This **** is tiring. Maybe it's because i'm in systems wars.. and there is no logic here.
mjarantilla

great post. That's a really good way to sum everything up really.

agreed 100%

No, POOR post. Bad comparisons with God of War and SSB. First of all, God of War II may have had the same gameplay as God of War, but action-adventure games depend entirely on the variety and enjoyment of their CAMPAIGN, not just their gameplay, and GoWII went through a HELL of a lot of content that GoW didn't even touch. And SSB was a fighting game, and fighting games almost by definition only change incrementally. Completely different standards of judgment.

It's opinion really. So no, you fail.

The games he used were good games, and their sequels were also good, because they didn't stray too far from their original gameplay. Halo 3 isn't any different.

Get over ittt

You're oversimplifying. GoW and GoWII use the exact same gameplay MECHANICS, but their campaigns are VASTLY different, their storylines are vastly different, and so GoWII and GoW come off as two uniquely different games.

You say this, yet you have no idea what Halo 3's storyline is. And already Halo 3 has different gameplay mechanics from Halo 2 unlike God of War 1 and 2 did.

17 years ago

8389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 8389 Posts

Simply addidng more weapons is never enough....

Take BF2142 for example....While good....It didnt score nearly as high as BF2....for being virtually the same, with just new weapons, a new upgrade system and a new game mode......

Then again it works differently on Consoles.....since you cant possibly critisize a game for adding nothing that a mod couldnt add.

17 years ago

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#54 mjarantilla

Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="JPOBS"]
why do people assume that the sequel to a great franchise always has to be a revlutionary and ground breaking as the first?
If halo had sucked, no one would care if halo 2 or 3 didnt.
because halo was one of the best games of last gen, people compare its successors to its success.
Its foolish to assume that halo 2 or 3 could be as ground breaking as halo 1. If it aint broke dont fix it. Keep the same formula and make a great game.
People like you who expect each entry in the series to be as revolutionary as the first are delusional.
JPOBS

I don't expect revolutionary. I expect DIFFERENT. Same gameplay mechanics, but with key differences and improvements. I think Halo 2 adding online multiplayer, dual-wielding, AND a second perspective (the Arbiter) was different enough. I DO NOT think that adding "equipment" is different enough.

well halo 3 still has online multiplayer, loads of new weapons and vehicles, a new game mode, and the like, and thats not different enough for you?

you expect to much.

Weapons don't make any difference at all. 90% of the time, people will be using the standard vanilla weapons every shooter has. Vehicles, MAYBE. Have you a list? Simply modifying an already top-notch multiplayer system will not net any extra points. I think the new territory mode is a good idea, and that might put Halo 3 over the top. Basically, all I'm saying is that if all that Halo 3 offers are incremental improvements over Halo 2, I don't think it'll get AAA, or at most it'll get low AAA.

weapons dont make any difference at all, yet dual wielding was a big deal to you in halo 2? gotcha.

improving upon a great multiplayer inst good enough? would you rather them make it worse?

you're basically trying your hardest NOT to see the good in halo 3.

Yes, weapons make no difference. Adding dual wielding is a GAMEPLAY change that allowed COMBINATIONS of existing weapons.

improving upon a great multiplayer inst good enough? would you rather them make it worse?

I'd rather they spend time coming up with something new rather than laying another brick on top of a completed house.

17 years ago

8619

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 8619 Posts

The problem with HALO2 campaign was: too short, for some reason I found myself wandering through just about every level trying to figure out where the next group of things to kill was, and playing as that stupid alien. I didn't have any problems like that in the first game so if they make the campaign longer, give you a clear idea where you are going as you progress through the level, and get rid of that stupid alien it SHOULD be a very high nine because we know the multiplayer is just plain fun.

17 years ago

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#56 mjarantilla

Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]] [QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="nowakawon"]
My head is about to explode. I'll start with an about me. I'm 16 and I live in Austi, Texas. I love video games. I love halo. I am a lemming.
Now, to get to the point. Your logic isn't making sense to me. Other then Halo, I haven't really ever played a series game. However I'll take God of War for example. God of War 2 was very much like God of War. I'll take SSB now. SSB is an awesome game series. And with every new one they are essentially the same, yet have improved on one another to make a better game. Halo and Halo 2. While there are some large differences, they are still VERY similar. Some would argue, but Halo 2 is an improvment on Halo. It's called a god damn sequel my friends. Halo 3 isn't met to be an RTS, or turn into a 3rd person shooter, or become a RPG. No, Halo 3 is supposed to be HALO. This **** is tiring. Maybe it's because i'm in systems wars.. and there is no logic here.
nowakawon

great post. That's a really good way to sum everything up really.

agreed 100%

No, POOR post. Bad comparisons with God of War and SSB. First of all, God of War II may have had the same gameplay as God of War, but action-adventure games depend entirely on the variety and enjoyment of their CAMPAIGN, not just their gameplay, and GoWII went through a HELL of a lot of content that GoW didn't even touch. And SSB was a fighting game, and fighting games almost by definition only change incrementally. Completely different standards of judgment.

It's opinion really. So no, you fail.

The games he used were good games, and their sequels were also good, because they didn't stray too far from their original gameplay. Halo 3 isn't any different.

Get over ittt

You're oversimplifying. GoW and GoWII use the exact same gameplay MECHANICS, but their campaigns are VASTLY different, their storylines are vastly different, and so GoWII and GoW come off as two uniquely different games.

You say this, yet you have no idea what Halo 3's storyline is. And already Halo 3 has different gameplay mechanics from Halo 2 unlike God of War 1 and 2 did.

Now you're not making the distinction between action-adventures and first-person shooters. The two genres have different priorities. What was the last FPS that succeeded based on the strength of its storyline? I'd go out on a limb and say none. Or at least so few that it's hard to think of one. Whereas action-adventures almost always rely on their storylines to carry the player through to the end. Most FPSs succeed based on level design, the quality of their firefights, and the scenarios the player is made to experience (i.e. the setpieces; Gears had great setpieces). Also, extra plusses are given to FPSes that manage to distinguish themselves from the competition with inventive new gameplay features.

17 years ago

9675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 9675 Posts

. I'd rather they spend time coming up with something new rather than laying another brick on top of a completed house.mjarantilla

your making no sense. they are adding to a great multiplayer. what may i ask, could you possibly want other than that? You want them to invent and entire new game mode other than single/multiplayer? that seems to be what you're getting at.

17 years ago

436

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 436 Posts

[QUOTE="nowakawon"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]] [QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="nowakawon"]
My head is about to explode. I'll start with an about me. I'm 16 and I live in Austi, Texas. I love video games. I love halo. I am a lemming.
Now, to get to the point. Your logic isn't making sense to me. Other then Halo, I haven't really ever played a series game. However I'll take God of War for example. God of War 2 was very much like God of War. I'll take SSB now. SSB is an awesome game series. And with every new one they are essentially the same, yet have improved on one another to make a better game. Halo and Halo 2. While there are some large differences, they are still VERY similar. Some would argue, but Halo 2 is an improvment on Halo. It's called a god damn sequel my friends. Halo 3 isn't met to be an RTS, or turn into a 3rd person shooter, or become a RPG. No, Halo 3 is supposed to be HALO. This **** is tiring. Maybe it's because i'm in systems wars.. and there is no logic here.
mjarantilla

great post. That's a really good way to sum everything up really.

agreed 100%

No, POOR post. Bad comparisons with God of War and SSB. First of all, God of War II may have had the same gameplay as God of War, but action-adventure games depend entirely on the variety and enjoyment of their CAMPAIGN, not just their gameplay, and GoWII went through a HELL of a lot of content that GoW didn't even touch. And SSB was a fighting game, and fighting games almost by definition only change incrementally. Completely different standards of judgment.

It's opinion really. So no, you fail.

The games he used were good games, and their sequels were also good, because they didn't stray too far from their original gameplay. Halo 3 isn't any different.

Get over ittt

You're oversimplifying. GoW and GoWII use the exact same gameplay MECHANICS, but their campaigns are VASTLY different, their storylines are vastly different, and so GoWII and GoW come off as two uniquely different games.

You say this, yet you have no idea what Halo 3's storyline is. And already Halo 3 has different gameplay mechanics from Halo 2 unlike God of War 1 and 2 did.

Now you're not making the distinction between action-adventures and first-person shooters. The two genres have different priorities. What was the last FPS that succeeded based on the strength of its storyline? I'd go out on a limb and say none. Or at least so few that it's hard to think of one. Whereas action-adventures almost always rely on their storylines to carry the player through to the end. Most FPSs succeed based on level design, the quality of their firefights, and the scenarios the player is made to experience (i.e. the setpieces; Gears had great setpieces). Also, extra plusses are given to FPSes that manage to distinguish themselves from the competition with inventive new gameplay features.

Halo. Multiplayer was fun, but Halo 1's campaign is what made the game.

Once again though, I've proved to you there are large amounts of changes from Halo 2 to Halo 3. Even more to yet be revealed.

17 years ago

4172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 4172 Posts

I've already seen enough from the beta videos to say this game will be a huge success.TheOwnerOner

how?

the new gameplay doesnt look all that significant, and who knows if itll even be an improvement

17 years ago

4172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 4172 Posts

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]] [QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="nowakawon"]
My head is about to explode. I'll start with an about me. I'm 16 and I live in Austi, Texas. I love video games. I love halo. I am a lemming.
Now, to get to the point. Your logic isn't making sense to me. Other then Halo, I haven't really ever played a series game. However I'll take God of War for example. God of War 2 was very much like God of War. I'll take SSB now. SSB is an awesome game series. And with every new one they are essentially the same, yet have improved on one another to make a better game. Halo and Halo 2. While there are some large differences, they are still VERY similar. Some would argue, but Halo 2 is an improvment on Halo. It's called a god damn sequel my friends. Halo 3 isn't met to be an RTS, or turn into a 3rd person shooter, or become a RPG. No, Halo 3 is supposed to be HALO. This **** is tiring. Maybe it's because i'm in systems wars.. and there is no logic here.
nowakawon

great post. That's a really good way to sum everything up really.

agreed 100%

No, POOR post. Bad comparisons with God of War and SSB. First of all, God of War II may have had the same gameplay as God of War, but action-adventure games depend entirely on the variety and enjoyment of their CAMPAIGN, not just their gameplay, and GoWII went through a HELL of a lot of content that GoW didn't even touch. And SSB was a fighting game, and fighting games almost by definition only change incrementally. Completely different standards of judgment.

It's opinion really. So no, you fail.

The games he used were good games, and their sequels were also good, because they didn't stray too far from their original gameplay. Halo 3 isn't any different.

Get over ittt

You're oversimplifying. GoW and GoWII use the exact same gameplay MECHANICS, but their campaigns are VASTLY different, their storylines are vastly different, and so GoWII and GoW come off as two uniquely different games.

You say this, yet you have no idea what Halo 3's storyline is. And already Halo 3 has different gameplay mechanics from Halo 2 unlike God of War 1 and 2 did.

besides new weapons, how is the gameplay all that different??

17 years ago

436

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 436 Posts

Also, last I checked Gamespot reviews ALL games by the following. Graphics, Gameplay, Sound, Value, and Tilt. Wether it be a FPS or Action-adventure.

17 years ago

436

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 436 Posts

[QUOTE="nowakawon"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]] [QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="nowakawon"]
My head is about to explode. I'll start with an about me. I'm 16 and I live in Austi, Texas. I love video games. I love halo. I am a lemming.
Now, to get to the point. Your logic isn't making sense to me. Other then Halo, I haven't really ever played a series game. However I'll take God of War for example. God of War 2 was very much like God of War. I'll take SSB now. SSB is an awesome game series. And with every new one they are essentially the same, yet have improved on one another to make a better game. Halo and Halo 2. While there are some large differences, they are still VERY similar. Some would argue, but Halo 2 is an improvment on Halo. It's called a god damn sequel my friends. Halo 3 isn't met to be an RTS, or turn into a 3rd person shooter, or become a RPG. No, Halo 3 is supposed to be HALO. This **** is tiring. Maybe it's because i'm in systems wars.. and there is no logic here.
mestizoman

great post. That's a really good way to sum everything up really.

agreed 100%

No, POOR post. Bad comparisons with God of War and SSB. First of all, God of War II may have had the same gameplay as God of War, but action-adventure games depend entirely on the variety and enjoyment of their CAMPAIGN, not just their gameplay, and GoWII went through a HELL of a lot of content that GoW didn't even touch. And SSB was a fighting game, and fighting games almost by definition only change incrementally. Completely different standards of judgment.

It's opinion really. So no, you fail.

The games he used were good games, and their sequels were also good, because they didn't stray too far from their original gameplay. Halo 3 isn't any different.

Get over ittt

You're oversimplifying. GoW and GoWII use the exact same gameplay MECHANICS, but their campaigns are VASTLY different, their storylines are vastly different, and so GoWII and GoW come off as two uniquely different games.

You say this, yet you have no idea what Halo 3's storyline is. And already Halo 3 has different gameplay mechanics from Halo 2 unlike God of War 1 and 2 did.

besides new weapons, how is the gameplay all that different??

If you would read the entire thread rather then coming in here to try and prove a point, you would know.

17 years ago

15721

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#63 mjarantilla

Member since 2002 • 15721 Posts

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]. I'd rather they spend time coming up with something new rather than laying another brick on top of a completed house.JPOBS

your making no sense. they are adding to a great multiplayer. what may i ask, could you possibly want other than that? You want them to invent and entire new game mode other than single/multiplayer? that seems to be what you're getting at.

Well, that's the quandary of developing so-called "next-gen" games. Everything has pretty much already been done to death last gen, there isn't much room left for innovation beyond storytelling and incremental modifications. I think one way to really guarantee a good score for Halo 3 would be to just JACK UP the scale of EVERYTHING in the game. Less emphasis on "one man against an army" battles, and more on the whole, "All the armed forces of the planet Earth are fighting against all the armed forces of the Covenant." I expect at least one level in Halo 3 to involve a huge battle setpiece. Also, adding more varied melee attacks would've been great, too. FEAR had a few, after all. I don't see why the only melee attack you can do is to hit the guy with your weapon.

17 years ago

2276

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2004 • 2276 Posts

I've never understood the obsession some people have with Bungie games. I remember back in the day a friend of mine was fixated on Marathon 2. I like shooters, but I've yet to be impressed with anything that Bungie has made.DeadlyZodiac

Marathon was Bungie?!? :lol: That just blew my mind. I remember that game from way back when, it was the Mac's inferior answer to Doom, or was it Quake? Now I understand where the goofy-ass marine suits came from.

Anyway, I haven't owned a Halo game, but I think there is almost no chance this game will flop (even if you consider 8.5ish a flop, which I don't). It will get AAA even if it doesn't quite deserve it. My guess is it will deserve it though. I think they'll expand the campaign, which was the main complaint about the last game, tweak the multiplayer and beef it up a bit, and that's all it needs. Unless this game is an utter disaster, I'll be picking it up, along with a 360 to play it on.

17 years ago

64 results
1
2

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment