As long as games react when I press the buttons, I couldn't care much less if games run at 30, 60, or 900 fps. The only thing I care about with the future tech of fighting games is making online closer and closer to local VS. I think once they hit the next level of the already fantastic GGPO, everything will be peachy.

Seriously, where is "Road Rash"? I'm sorry but a GBA version of a PS1 game 5 years later doesn't count.

MACE: The Dark Age - While it wasn't a big hit, it was a cool game. If you can look past some issues, its clear that it could be awesome if it was brought up to speed on modern tech. It was basically a 3d weapon based fighter like a slimmed down Soul Calibur or maybe a Star Gladiator but with blood, special moves, and "Executions" (read Fatality) like MK with a bit of a Killer Instinct influenced announcer and combo listings. Although it borrowed or stole from a bunch of existing games, it was the only one that had them all in one game. For some reason no one makes really violent FIGHTING games anymore. MK is pretty much the only one left but that lacks the mechanics to back it up. P.S. Thats MKII's Scorpion in my avatar

Kirby's Dream Course - Yes yes, laugh away but that game was awesome.

And Portal definitely needs one but I think that one will actually happen.

Both. Other than being in the same genre these two are completely different games. Some people only appreciate the realism of CoD4 from its weapons to the damage you inflict. If you're serious about those things then Halo is a joke to you. The ability to sprint and go prone are big pluses and you'll cuss Halo for not having them. You'd find fault in Halo's high jumping, shields etc.

Others appreciate the fictional weapons like plasma grenades, energy swords and gravity hammers and vehicles. They like the sci-fi atmosphere and the completely ridiculous kills that can come about.

I understand both points of view and can say they are both awesome at what they do. Its just up to your personal style preference. But I jump from CoD4 to Gears to Halo 3 to GoldenEye 007 on the N64 and back again and have a blast in each one.

They don't, though. Halo 1 and 2 was much more challenging. Let me just use Halo 1 as an example:

The grenades had a huge kill radius, making it harder to avoid/live grenades
The sniper rifle was spammable (semi auto) making it harder to avoid the sniper's line of fire.
The rocket launcher's kill radius was also much larger making it harder to live.
Basically all weapons were made so they do more damage.
You weren't able to do the noobish "lunge" whenever you bashed. Dumbest thing I've seen in Halo 2 and 3. You just HIT them. You don't lunge like a fencer at them with the butt of your gun.
A charged plasma pistol took down an enemy's shields...not completely disabled their vehicles.
Like I said before, the motion tracker was at full range, making it harder for you to sneak up on people in multiplayer (and making it more satisfying).

So, anyone who doesn't see the logic in my reasons is simply a noob. No other way around it.

Or must I simplify it?

LOGIC:

Anything HARDER means the game requires more skill. "Balanced" is just another term instead of, "for noobs". Making it easier for noobs to get kills and what not. Making it easier for them to sneak up behind people. HARDER generally means the game is more difficult and therefore not noob friendly. Halo 1, was much, much harder than Halo 2 and 3.

And of course there will be people to flame me. Your message will be ignored unless you use your brain and give me some actual real logic to prove my errors. Otherwise, you're obviously not intelligent at all and are clearly just trying to defend a game you like.

Ironfungus

From what I'm reading, you're saying that rockets and frags have a smaller blast radius, there are less bullets per clip, fewer grenades, a smaller frag blast radius, slower sniper firing rates, and less auto aim, no Rocket Target Lock, short needler range and no ability to dual weild... and all of these things make it much easier to STAY ALIVE which is your justification that its been "dumbed down". Because according to you, now its easier to stay alive (harder for players to die). Whereas everyone else is saying that those things make it harder to KILL someone. Harder to Die / Harder to Kill. Thats a Half Full/Half Empty argument. You're basically saying the same thing. If its now easier to STAY ALIVE, that means it was easier to DIE before... which means it was easier to kill someone to earn points... which means virtually everyone could rack up points... but now that people are harder to kill then only the skilled or "clean up crews" can get any points. Sorry man, I can't help you. I think some of you guys are saying "Its too dark in here" and the others are saying "No, its not bright enough!"

I don't have a problem with any of them. I wonder though, do people try to like them if they don't at first, or do they instantly go for the "its different therefore it shall suck" approach? Are the levels really so bad? I mean, I don't know. You guys probably put in more MP time in a day than I have total. I just play occassionally with friends in between Gears, Soul Calibur, Street Fighter... even Tetris Attack and tons others... so its fun. They're friends, no ones cheap, we can get violent first hand if necessary so its all good times. I don't play with all the lame online players that have "victory" as the only goal.

I think the levels are like any other place, regardless of how it looks, its whether you enjoy being there. Example: Dentist Office.... not the funnest place. But its not the building that sucks. Is the music, the lack of energy in the people around you, the fact that you're there to waste time, money, and probably get some teeth drilled. But even in that same place, if you turned on some music, kicked out the lame people that are taking up valuable space and fill the place with friends, some chicks, and whatever else, then that building just got way cooler. Seems like thats what the editer is for. I mean, if weapon placement is a problem that is. If its not the weapon or the player... then I don't know. Are the hallways placed in irritating ways? The only game that I was real picky about was the old Splinter Cell versus mode. But thats because there are 2 completely different players and balance is an issue. In Halo, EVERYONE is the same. So, even if you're all in just a big freakin box, its still fair.

And I'm not trying to be a jerk... suprisingly enough. But I think a lot of it is the generic, "Dislike the newest". Everyone liked to hate on Halo 2 when it came out because "OH how we wish fall damage was back" and "They messed up whatever". Halo 3 comes out, and "OH how we wish we could play those Halo 2 maps". I'm not a Halo freak. I like the game just fine but its not my favorite so I'm neither hating on it or trying to defend it. I can understand where you'd want stuff from the old games. There are special moves in Soul Calibur 3 that are missing that were in the first one, and it pisses me off. But at the same time there are things in 3 that aren't in 1. I guess we want it ALL in one package. Every move, every stage.

So I wonder, most people think the campaign was too short, and now the MP maps suck... so why are you even bothering to play it? Is it because you hope that at some point you can enjoy it? If you want to enjoy the game more than you do now, maybe you should have asked the vets out there "Could someone explain whats good about these maps, so I can maybe LIKE them". Maybe I don't understand the delicate details about weapon placement and such but, in the beginning you seemed mad that you couldn't just run in and shoot whatever, so I doubt thats a concern. Either way, I like them just fine.

I get the "I can only afford one" scenario because it is a bit on money. But you're worried about the consoles lifespan... which means you're worried about how long they'll be making games for it... which says to me that you must have enough money to buy all the good ones that are out now and the ones that are coming out soon. Truth is, if you're broke to where its REALLY going to matter that this system last for 10 years, then you probably can't afford all of the games you want now anyway.

scarface_tm431

Haha, thanks. Not to be intentionally corny... but I honestly got a kick out of your avatar.

Now THATS how you OWN someone. :P

If you're refering to protecting your discs, I don't think it matters. If your 360 is evil then it does what it wants to. Its like asking if you should close your eyes before you jump. You're either screwed or you're not. Its "Powerdown/Powerup Speed Change" VS "Repetitious Inserting/Removing from Case/Tray"

Its not guaranteed SAFE or DOOMED either way. Its a very inconsistant thing.

Heres my "Fan Art" on the matter, with a little about my experience with it.

http://crescentdebris.deviantart.com/art/All-You-Can-Eat-62431776