I love Lost Odyssey, great JRPG. One of the best this gen alongside Tales of Vesperia and The World Ends With You.

[QUOTE="millwrought"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] It's Hollywood, the point is money.Chutebox

Isn't that always the point?

I just mean how could they do better then what the game already did? They had the perfect actors (They could create them) they could give them any voice they wanted, and by using a digital camera they could make any camera angle they wanted. And the game was about 8 hours longish, I'm sure if you cut most of the combat and such it would be shorter, but the little stuff in there really built up Drake as a character.

So what I'm trying to say is, this is stupid. Just like the Shadow of the Colossus movie being writtin by the guy who wrote that new Street Fighter movie.

I'm glad they killed the Halo movie, and I'm sure the Gears movie will do okay, it really didn't have a story anyway.

Okay, just thought I wasn't making myself clear :P . (Probably wasn't anyway)

Really don't like Fighting Games, but I pick Killer Instinct.

Because C-C-C-Combo Breaker! Is awesome.

[QUOTE="millwrought"]

Uncharted the game was basically already a movie.

I don't see the point.

Chutebox

Isn't that always the point?

I just mean how could they do better then what the game already did? They had the perfect actors (They could create them) they could give them any voice they wanted, and by using a digital camera they could make any camera angle they wanted. And the game was about 8 hours longish, I'm sure if you cut most of the combat and such it would be shorter, but the little stuff in there really built up Drake as a character.

So what I'm trying to say is, this is stupid. Just like the Shadow of the Colossus movie being writtin by the guy who wrote that new Street Fighter movie.

I'm glad they killed the Halo movie, and I'm sure the Gears movie will do okay, it really didn't have a story anyway.

Uncharted the game was basically already a movie.

I don't see the point.

It's a Wii game, we all kinda knew what it would look like AT BEST.

Arbiter just was there, they didn't do anything with his character. he was just there. After all the the development in Halo 2, he just seemed like he was there. And they never officialy said it was suppose to be 2, but early on in the Halo 2 lifecycle it was suppose to be the last Halo...until Bungie had some procrastination issues. The vehicle sections were awesome, except for the end. I don't know what it was, but it lacked the thrill that was in HALO CE. The thing with Cortana was it was handled poorly, the only time it really felt like Chief was in it for Cortana was when he disobeys Lord Hood, and goes to High Charity. Other than that they just misstepped with that idea imo. Cortana was a character that needed to have been around for much longer than the final run through of the game, but yeah i see what you mean as well. If they make a game based on alot of the intel in marathon man, than Holy crap....will it be so amazing :P ....if they could pull it off.....which isn't going to happen because the budget would be huge, and the amount of devs needed would be HUGE.jg4xchamp

Well, in the end of Halo 2 he just realized he was a decieved by the people he trusted for years and he wanted revenge, and we wanted to stop the rings from being lit. He wasn't already too complex of a character anyway, or at least the game presented him as. You get a better feel for him as a character if you read The Cole Protocol.

I would say because of the timer in Halo:CE, it was a more visible way of seeing that if you didn't get out of here within this time, you were screwed. Kinda' like the timer in Pikmin or Dead Rising. In Halo 3 you just kinda had to guess, which didn't always work so well.

I always believed that the story in Halo was told in a very non-obvious way, to really understand it you would have to dig deep into it for yourself and kinda discover it for yourself without it all being told to you, kinda' of a lazy way for developers to tell a story, but it's a interesting method all the same which I enjoy. Though I know many who don't.

Bungie really tried to remind you that you didn't have Cortana and that she needed to be found and treasured, character dialogue would mention her, where she was. You also get to see how Master Chief feels sorta' in the end cutscene in Floodgate, where he is in distress seeing Cortana in the state she is, and when Guilty Spark starts messing with her he get's angry. Even Johnsons words at the end of game, Cortana is very important to Chief, but he won't show it, or doesn't know how to. He doesn't know how to express himself since he was kidnapped from his family as a child and raised to be the perfect soldier.

While Master Chief is the Eternal Champion of Mankind, he can never be one of them, a human. He was raised to be a soldier, and is bascially a cyborg. He could never really live among normal humans because he is raised a soldier, and train to be unfeeling and disattached to achieve perfect status, he is bascially a machine of war. But Cortana love him for who he is, and Cortana is the only person left alive that Master Chief cares about since all of the Spartans are dead (Or so he thinks) and his only home (Reach) is glassed, she is all he has.

A Forerunner-Flood War game would HAVE to be a Space Combat Sim.

[QUOTE="millwrought"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]
it was just poorly done, the franchise was never meant to go more than 2 games.....Bungie was all set to finish with just Halo 2. A scenario that was botched when they waited for the final year of there deadline to do the heavy duty work(Halo 2 CE owners know this from the damn bonus disc) A lot of story mistakes were made in 2, that effected 3(although yeah 3 did fix some things with 2) First Switching from the Elites to Brutes, plain and simple Elites are more fun to fight. Second the Arbiter Character, What they should have done was build him up as a character, show how his name was tarnished and then give him some epic showdown with MasterChief. Like Boss and Grey Fox in the MGS franchise, the enemy doesn't necessarily have to be evil completely. He can just be one of strong faith.

The Prophets provided the covenant higher archy but ugh......the way they were designed to be almost incapable of fighting was just a big WTF? how did they get incharge if the Elites and Prophets were once in a war? I mean everything about Halo 2 rushed, the plot was filled with more interesting ideas than Halo 1, but it just wasn't as tightly written. Halo 3....oh my god...first THey destroy the arbiter character they built up in Halo 2(completely wasting that entire story arch for the most part). He was an after thought in the 3rd game.

The lack of Cortona took away what was the best character of the entire franchise. She was witty, smart, and likeable. The player was the Chief, and she was your guide/and woman in your ear helping you progress...taking her out took away from any connection you could have with the universe. You were just a walking shell, and lord knows the Chief doesn't exactly say some glorious thought provoking lines like a Max Payne.

Then there was how it was you versus covenant, or you versus flood. never both at once. Its a WAR and Bungie Hyped scale. Where is the scale? It should have been some epic throwdown with Chief versus Flood versus Covenant like The Maw in Halo 1. Like the covenant Civil War in Halo 2. IMO the franchise fell apart with its final 2 games. They are great games overall(mostly because the multiplayer got really good with 2 and 3). and the campaigns were good for the most part, it just never lived off to the glorious potential that Halo 1 showed, or the rich lore that the Halo Universe has. Especially all the stuff you find out while doing the Marathon Man achievement.

jg4xchamp

I always thought Halo was always supposed to be a trilogy? Interesting, a 2 part series is a odd number. But yes, the Elites were much more interesting foes then the Brutes.

I believe it was because the Prophets had learned to use Forerunner technology, and overpowered the Elites with advanced technology. Also was the character of the Arbiter ruinned? I'm just curious for I thought they did well with advancing the Arbiter in a side-character role without forcing him on the player.

That was the point, over the games you grew to be attached to Cortana, she was your best friend, and the books/games even hinted a little that Master Chief loved Cortana in the way of a little sister or even of a lover. They stole her from you, and you were going to burn the universe down to find her. Master Chief WAS a shell without Cortana, he was empty and lonely without her, as we felt when she was taken away. I believe that was the entire point.

The vehicle sections in Halo 3 are probably the best in the series, but the Forerunner vs. Flood vs. Covenant battle in Two Betrayals is probably the most epic battle to-date in the Halo series.

I don't think they could EVER make a game based off the stuff in Marathon Man, it would be to...giantic...It's almost imposible to comprehend. They have a new writer writing up some Halo books based around the Forerunner and Flood war I hear.

[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]

Gravemind and High Charity were some of the worst levels Bungie has made right up there with Library and Cortona. Halo 2 seemed rushed, the story was far more incohesive. If anything Halo 3 does everything better than Halo 2. The only that is that Halo 3 still underdelivers and falls apart at the end to make a thrilling climax and conclusion. Halo CE hands both Halo 2 and Halo 3 there asses in terms of pacing, combat scenarios, and plot development.

jg4xchamp

Agreed, in Halo: CE we see Halo EXPLODE! It was awesome.

in Halo 3 we don't even really get to see the epic finale like Halo: CE.

Though the after-credits ending was probably the best out of the whole series to date, as Master Chief's words almost turned him into the Eternal Hero of Humanity, akin to Link from Legend of Zelda.

True, Cairo station was the only level I did'nt like. At least outskirts was continually moving forward, and the many small hiding places and vantage points you could take advantage of. No to mention the vehicle sections in New Mombassa were better than anything in Halo 3. Scarab battle was linear, but you were'nt really fighting the scarab, you were fighting the smaller vehicles and gound forces inside it. It was Bungie's debut of the machine, it had better be improved upon in Halo 3. Heretic leader was not garbage, at all. Tartarus was good to although Prophet of Regret felt really phoned in. Thats another reason I liked playing was Arbiter more, he had better boss fights. Gravemind and High Charity were nowehere near as bad as Cortana, mainly because the Flood was a worthy advesary in Halo 2. They were so pathetic in H3 to the point most of them could be taken down with a single punch... Halo 2 may have had a cliffhanger, but the game had to end sometime. And be thankful it was a cliffhanger done right. At least it ended with a boss fight instead of just driving. My purpose in that game was to shoot whatever attacked me. And it was more fun playing as Arbiter thanks a lot to the invisibility.TheGrat1

There's always a sense progression for levels in Halo game, and I'm not sure how anyone could like those tiny vehicle sections in New Mombasa compared to massive battles in Halo 3 or Halo: CE's Two Betrayals, but it's all a matter of taste.

And that was the problem of the Scarab battles, you were just fighting the same dudes you normally dude, the Scarab was just another platform for you to fight on, not fight against. Another section of the level where you just shot more Elites and Grunts. In Halo 3 that giant and fearsome enemies actually became open for you to fight anyway you chose. You wanted to play them like you wanted to do in Halo 2? Go ahead and board them and take them out like you did in Halo 2.

Halo 2 FORCED on you the way you were to fight the Scarab, Halo 3 opened it up to you.

The Heretic Leader didn't really add anything accept to tell us right we already knew, that the Halo Ring's = bad news and that the Covenant = evil empire. And we already knew of it, and the battle itself was just fighting copies of him with jetpacks. OK, whatever. I found it boring but that's just me.

The Prophet, I agree, was bad as in the end he was just some vehicle you had to jack. Tartarus was just like any other Brute, and was very similar to the Gravity-Hammer Brutes in Halo 3, just was slightly stronger and you just had to run in circles around him until you could shoot him. He was also a very archetypical and boring villian, and I really didn't feel satisfied in killing him in the end, because he was just a deillusional dude like the rest of Brutes were, nothing too special about him.

The reason the Flood were stronger in Halo 2 was because only so many of them could be in a battle at once so they had to boost their strength, in Halo 3 that was expanded that you could fight many more, so they toned down their strength. It's like fighting the Zerg in Starcraft or Tyranids in Warhammer 40k, they're supposed to be weak but many, they would confuse you with their numbers and overwhelm you.

The ending wasn't bad in the actions, but in the actions un-done. In Halo 2, very little changed in the end compared to the beginning of the game expect Earth got screwed and the Flood have High Charity. While Halo 3 seemed stupid for just having the driving thing at the end, it was supposed to be a reflection on the Halo seres so far and tieing itself back into Halo: CE to show how far Halo has come since Halo: 3 and that things are tieing together, kinda like the end of MGS4 where you got[spoiler] to go back to Shadow Moses [/spoiler] , a lot more happened in Halo 3. The Covenant had a full invasion of Earth going on, The Ark was founded, The Flood Arrived on Earth, and other stuff I rather not get into for spoiler purposes.