Sorry about this, got a bit carried away with the wall of text. I have an inkling this is going to result in another wall of text vs wall of text debate:P
They can, and they did. But if you were expecting something different, then please ask them next time to do something different as opposed to doing them something well (yes, that was what was asked of them).
It would've been much easier on them to create a CoD or Half Life experience with smoke and mirrors everywhere but no real sense of pushing boundaries within their own type of gameplay. Halo 2 and Halo 3 may look superficially similar (and I've even once mistaken Halo 2 for Halo 3 when someone was playing), but under the hood, Halo 3 is leaps and bounds ahead of Halo 2, let alone the original game. I'm actually glad Bungiedidn't resort to tricking the senses, such as running through a blatantly scripted antlion guardian section in which you cannot kill the damn thing in HL2: Episode 2, or pretty much every single section in Call of Duty 4 (to the point where you can tell which soldiers appeared at a doorway just when you turned the corner). Upon first encounter it was damn enjoyable. In hindsight, they were truly archaic decisions.
There was no BS string pulling in Halo 3. If you wanted to interrupt a sequence, you could (yes, you could even skip some of the cutscene sequences and start laying waste before the scripted piece unfolds while you play). If you wanted to shoot down that dropship, you could if you had the firepower. If you wanted to shoot an entity in the game, there was very little chance you couldn't shoot it (haven't tried Keyes, but you could shoot the Arbiter and Johnson). No enemy was inorganically scripted (ant lion guardian, every enemy in CoD 4), and every enemy presently on the stage was an 'active' participant instead of waiting for you to activate a script (check the Saved Films of levels to see what I mean).
That is amazing, isn't it? As a developer, wouldn't you be proud of doing something that just felt 'organic' instead of 'artificial'?
Too bad no teenager really cared about that sort of ingenuity. What did they want? Blood, shouting, lots of music, and 'badassery' *looks at CoD 4*. Sadly, no gamer would really take a step back and see just how great Halo 3 was, but remember just how lukewarm the Theatre of War had demonstrated itself in front of their 70 degrees of tunnel vision.
I'm not too sure whether I should be excited about Bungie's newfound inspiration in Infinity Ward. I don't want 'badassery'. I don't want 'artificiality'. The non-cheating, organic nature of Halo 3 felt very well-placed in the general nature of the game. But I'm just one person. But I dislike the idea that the new ODST hero will parade onto our systems with amazing (and bloody rigid) scripted sequences coupled with a brand new Covenant enemy that you can't kill just because Bungie decided you were going to spend five minutes running around in fear of it until you came upon the deus ex machina weapon that was going to kill the thing anyway.
Archaic, but that's apparently what it takes to create an appreciable game these days.
FrozenLiquid
I was not expecting something different.
I was expecting something better. Much better single player wise quite frankly, especially from a developer of such high caliber. Though I guess when you look at the quality of Halo 2's single player its no surprise really... I guess... in that regard it was an improvement.
Halo 3 is different to HL2 or COD4. Difference is its these scripted sequences that involve the player far more than simply sticking a player in a level full of goons to kill. Its these that make the games memorable, and have moments that shine amongst the constant killing of waves of drones.
Problem was with Halo 3 is that much of the game design felt like the standard FPS template. You have 1. A level with linear progression 2. Enemies in different zones of the level, of different variety in certain sections 3. Other assets like vehicles and particular weapons - then repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.
A game like COD4 or HL2:Ep2 gives you a variety of situations, and cinematic moments. Yes its heavily scripted but this is what makes many shining moments in the game, and carries it forwards, whereas in a game like Halo 3 each encounter with enemies became less and less meaningful as your progressed.
Nearly every environment could have been the same location, just skinned differently, and particular levels like the Hive Ship, could have been amazing- however had some of the worst level design in any shooter to date. Nearly every stage followed a similar design pattern, and it repeats itself so much, the game became tiresome, even though it was so short.
It did not feel organic at all - it felt as though you were playing a level of a game, not involved in something. 100meters - jackal snipers, brutes, more grunts - next 100meters repeat, except change placement of terrain, repeat again. This constant barrage of repeating patterns, is not organic game design at all - instead its an artificial design template.
Honestly in terms of COD4 its single player was damn good - however while it did have its huge share of faults, however its single player design was better than halo 3's. Iward uses (and abuses) the heavily scripted events well ,in a very convincing (and powerful, such as the nuke aftermath / detonation) way, and Iward knows very well how simple the core mechanics of the game pplay are, so they shake it up with different situations and circumstances; e.g. Jumping from location to location - eastern Europe, to middle eastern cities - to a former presidents execution, and the unusually haunting perspective of an AC-10 gunship gunner. Iward simply knows how to exploit and utilise its game design better (of course it has it share of faults).
Though badassery? I'd say COD4 is all guns shooting, and bombardment of the senses - to the casual gamer; however it offers that bit more. I wouldn't call it a game that prides itself so much on badassery like Gears of War, however though the game does tread the line. Stuff like the finale right after All Ghilled up seems like great evidence of it - and quite frankly it was one of the worst bits in the game. However even in Halo 3, bungie seems to try and be too 'cool' for its own good (e.g. Miranda Keyes 'speech') , and (tries, way too hard) to be emotional (e.g. Keyes death, the cowering soldier when the floor reappears).
Honestly in terms of FPS i'd like devs like Bungie to try and find their footing again - shooter wise, trying something different, instead of another FPS, however not going down the path of a team based BiA sty-le shooter, or a 3rd person GeOW styl-e one. Just something... Different.
They have established themselves as one of the best multiplayer shooter devs - and rightly so, I just think they need real re-directing in the single player department, and new fresh ideas and concepts to go by.
Its not really a matter of using scripted sequences, or making it more cinematic, its just a matter of finding a better way to shake up their template, as other developers have done.
Even with the current Halo template there is so much that could be done, I just dont think its reached its potential at all (and I think in some respects Valve is similar). Games like Halo 2 and 3 felt very recessive in evolving it, compared to what was achieved with Halo CE.
Personally I think its due to, way too much focus on multiplayer - particularly online, where much focus and attention has gone into, and where the game has gotten most of its popularity and success commercially (and rightly so).
-
Oh as for Iward: I'd like them to try something different than the same Medal of Honor game design, that every COD has gone by. In all due respect treyarch with COD5 focusing on a coop experience is pretty admirable, even if they do seem a bit like 2nd rate Iward, however this sty-le of shooter needs to evolve beyond using the same core design template; I think its almost reached its used by date, and potential.
Even developers like DICE are branching out into new boundaries and IPs, doesn't hurt for other developers to try something new and inspiring.
I just think Bungie has missed the boat, and should try something different, rather than going back to the same formula - especially after halo 3 - even if the formula has not nearly reached its potential. Why dwell on it. I guess Recon is supposed to put a twist on things, and even though its apparently going to be a similar formula to the... same old one.... Maybe Bungie might get much more out of it this time around. Or maybe, as you suggested, they try and be a master of a design styl-e / 'be inspired by' one (in this case Iward's) that they clearly are not.
Ah well, here's to the future!
Log in to comment