Every game feels different, but ultimately people have to put all the games in one merit to decide GOTY etci really agree with a lot of posters here that have said they are different types of shooters. they really are. completely different feel and gameplay approach.
clone01
Revolution_Ali's forum posts
[QUOTE="Revolution_Ali"]
Well I'm not a lemming, and neither favouring anything but I don't get why people are placing Halo Reach as the benchmark of fps. What is so great about it ? I'm not saying that it is just a mediocre game, it is good infact AWESOME but not a "BEST FPS EVERMATERIAL".(only talking about single player experience)
So to all those people (with no offense :P )who think that Halo reach is the best ever then please tellSony that what should they do to make Killzone 3 "A Halo Reach Killer"
Here is my suggestion to them.....just change the name of Killzone 3 into Halo :D,and I m sure people will love it as heavens!!
and on a side note, I personally think that Bioshock had a better single player experience as compared to halo reach.I would give Halo reach campaign 8.5/10 while to bioshock I ll not hesitate to give it 9+ points from 10.
ur gamertag shows that youve never played halo reach
Is it necessary to put up my current gamertag on gamespot besides "December 21st" ? And by the way I don't play online that's why I was talking about "Single Player Experience".Well my observation(after seeing lots of people comments) say that Halo is more about multiplayer,custom,create-maps stuff.In single player experience, it needs to ammend a lot of things, it is not a best campaign material then.[QUOTE="Revolution_Ali"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] You're not going to beat Reach in a feature set battle, but I don't necessarily think you have to. Content doesn't necessarily= superior quality. Where Killzone won't win in customization it can more than make up for in just the general action. jg4xchamp
First even as a Halo fan I'll say Reach is no best campaign ever, but it's actually pretty damn good all things considered. IN that sense it certainly has more going for it than Killzone 2 or Killzone 1 ever did as single player experiences. Halo's lore has always been exceptionally well done, but Bungie's story telling in the videogames has been nothing short of pathetic. With Reach they just straight up did not capitalize on all the potential.
As for the campaign they ammended a ton of the things that bogged Halo 2 and 3 from greatness(in terms of single player). No flood, no obvious horrible level design(basically no Cortana, Library, or Library 2), Elites were back center stage, no bloated weapons list, and the missions were all varied enough to keep it from ever getting as repetitive as ODST(which was too heavy with the shooter gallery). Plus the campaing benefits on replayability skulls and the general design of the campaign is well built for multiple runs. Since it's not so heavily scripted.
What holds Reach back from greatness if anything is
-Poor execution in terms of the story
-A severe lack of umph if you will. There is not enough moments in the campaigns gameplay that are actually memorable. There is no large elaborate set piece or a grand scarab battle. The whole scorpion portion is a bit of a letdown.
-It sticks too close to the Halo formula for its own good. If you're not going to atleast reinvent the wheel you have to atleast freshen it up or crank some things up. The games scale is impressive from a visual sense, but nothing about the gameplay made it feel like a Halo game but with a warzone vibe. The story speaks of a large war going on, but it never played like you were in a giant war for survival(except for one specific segment) Totally agreed.
improve on the lackluster story and forgettable characters that KZ2 had. graphics were great, obviously. and gameplay was awesome. online system must be more robust with more options and features. possibly have coop (local and online). thats all i can imagine right now...slvrraven9Halo itself do not have memorable characters (Reach).All characters in Reach appear to have same psyche , not distinguishing themselves from others very much.Character wise, the best game I could remember is Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil.
I doubt it can. There's just too much to compete with in Reach. Forge, Multiplayer, Firefight, Co-op, Campaign Scoring, Theater, Custom Games, etc, etc.
You're not going to beat Reach in a feature set battle, but I don't necessarily think you have to. Content doesn't necessarily= superior quality. Where Killzone won't win in customization it can more than make up for in just the general action. Well my observation(after seeing lots of people comments) say that Halo is more about multiplayer,custom,create-maps stuff.In single player experience, it needs to ammend a lot of things, it is not a best campaign material then.Put the Halo label on it and say its the 5th installment. It'll be praised for being revolutionary and millions will buy it regardless.EXLINKI.myself ,believe this.It is basically more Name thing than Game one.
Halor reach has not a best story I think.Infact Halo series is quite weak in this plot when you see games like MGS,RE,FF,ZELDA etc[QUOTE="Revolution_Ali"][QUOTE="hoosier7"]More changes in environments, better story telling, map editor, better ranking system...waltefmoney
I thought this was a KZ vs Halo thread?
I used Killzone 3 just as a sample, like I said beforehand that I like bioshock more than Reach and Killzone 2.[QUOTE="Revolution_Ali"] Reach's middle stages were thronged with boredom, is not it ? I just rushed to complete those middle levels, they lost their essence.But the first 3,4 opening levels of Reach were fantastic, a tremendous display of art :). But I believe that killzone 2 had more life(animations,destructions) in it as compared to Reach.lundy86_4
It wasn't, but I actually agree with that. I hated the "Go to and do this..." missions.
Absolutely, even the other mission where you are just rushed to do some certain things ,having no importance.
Log in to comment