Halo Behind The Curve

Newest IGN editorial on Halo: Reach being behind the curve compared to modern FPS's. IGN is notoriously known for its ridiculous editorials but this one is one I agree with and have been saying for some time now.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/112/1123549p1.html

Comment.

" If it ain't broke, don't fix it. "

But...it was broke.

Who sets the curve? That's what I want to know.

The editorial more or less complains about how long it took for sprint to be implemented and the lack of the constant scoping mechanic. If Bungie chooses to conform to the expectations of the rest of the shooter community, then we will start to delve into ridiculous things like killstreaks and whatnot. Halo: Reach is not Call of Duty, and in the future, I hope 343 keeps it going as it is. Just because the games are different doesn't mean their behind.

Basically, if you want to play Call of Duty, play Call of Duty.

That being said, the editorial presents a pretty weak argument IMO.

Super Mega King wrote:Who sets the curve? That's what I want to know.

The editorial more or less complains about how long it took for sprint to be implemented and the lack of the constant scoping mechanic. If Bungie chooses to conform to the expectations of the rest of the shooter community, then we will start to delve into ridiculous things like killstreaks and whatnot. Halo: Reach is not Call of Duty, and in the future, I hope 343 keeps it going as it is. Just because the games are different doesn't mean their behind.

Basically, if you want to play Call of Duty, play Call of Duty.

That being said, the editorial presents a pretty weak argument IMO.

Agreed. I play Halo because it has a distinct gameplay feel. The more CoD-ish mechanics they incorporate, the less I feel like I'm playing Halo. Like Super Mega King said, if I want to play CoD I'll play CoD.

game of the year. NUFF SAID

Super Mega King wrote:Who sets the curve? That's what I want to know.

The editorial more or less complains about how long it took for sprint to be implemented and the lack of the constant scoping mechanic. If Bungie chooses to conform to the expectations of the rest of the shooter community, then we will start to delve into ridiculous things like killstreaks and whatnot. Halo: Reach is not Call of Duty, and in the future, I hope 343 keeps it going as it is. Just because the games are different doesn't mean their behind.

Basically, if you want to play Call of Duty, play Call of Duty.

That being said, the editorial presents a pretty weak argument IMO.

+1

Forget even about sprinting. We are talking here about every previous Halo game having the most drab and boring level design out of any other AAA title. I'm talking about the same old boring corridors and forerunner contructs over and over and over again for 3 games. The graphics and art direction have finally reached the rest of the market.

DeadApe wrote:Forget even about sprinting. We are talking here about every previous Halo game having the most drab and boring level design out of any other AAA title. I'm talking about the same old boring corridors and forerunner contructs over and over and over again for 3 games. The graphics and art direction have finally reached the rest of the market.

Yeah, your right.

The whole, desert battlefields and destroyed buildings theme is very new and refreshing, Good thing those other "AAA" titles are so ahead of the curve and so easily distinguishable from one another.

Agreed

Cry Vengeance wrote:

DeadApe wrote:Forget even about sprinting. We are talking here about every previous Halo game having the most drab and boring level design out of any other AAA title. I'm talking about the same old boring corridors and forerunner contructs over and over and over again for 3 games. The graphics and art direction have finally reached the rest of the market.

Yeah, your right.

The whole, desert battlefields and destroyed buildings theme is very new and refreshing, Good thing those other "AAA" titles are so ahead of the curve and so easily distinguishable from one another.

At least they had detailed environments and some variety. Try playing any other halo game and looking at the same bland hallway with absolutely no detail for 3 hours.

I think you need to take a look at those hallways again.

So for the next halo game we should reskin MW2 with spartans, elites, DMRs, and plasma rifles?

Only person here making sense is Super Mega King.

If you think they are comparing Halo to MW2, guess again, they are only comparing it to a high production quality game. The only reference to MW2 directly is the sprint mechanic which is in pretty much every single FPS to date. Stop whining about how you don't want Halo to be a MW2 reskin, thats not the point they are making.

And WHY would Halo need to have a sprint button or be able to aim down the sight? Othen than, of course, "everyone else does!"

DeadApe wrote:If you think they are comparing Halo to MW2, guess again, they are only comparing it to a high production quality game. The only reference to MW2 directly is the sprint mechanic which is in pretty much every single FPS to date. Stop whining about how you don't want Halo to be a MW2 reskin, thats not the point they are making.

What is your point, kind sir?

This is taken from the article,

 That being said, the final release of the game still sees sprinting present merely as its default Armour Ability, forcing players to abandon the capability in order to use others like decoys or jet packs. Granted, many would argue that the lack of such a basic function is a signature feature of the series, but here is an element that not only helps the pace of a title, but has come to be expected by the wider shooter community. The same can also be said about the lack of any constant scoping mechanic. Conspiracy theorists could speculate that Bungie is purely against modern day FPS mechanics, or that the studio refuses to admit it may have fallen behind its opposition. Either way, the highly regarded developer was left in a game of catch up"

I do think it's a signature feature and I'd argue that it would ruin, if not unbalance the game, if sprinting was standard. I also think it helps the pace of most titles, not all. 
Btw I wasn't aware the "wider shooter community" wanted sprinting a full-feature.

In my opinion Bungie isn't "purely against modern day FPS mechanics", just partly. They probably feel that their game works best without them.

Idk I don't really like the articles writer becuase I feel like it's his opinion that what he says is fact.

DeadApe wrote:Stop whining about how you don't want Halo to be a MW2 reskin, thats not the point they are making.

If anything EVERYONE should stop whining and just play Halo.

Could someone finally explain WHY the sprint button and aiming down sight is needed?!

What sprint button basically does is it makes you move slower normally, and if you want to move full speed you need to push a button. What fucking sense does that make? Just make the character move full speed by default. And if you WANT to move slower, don't push the stick all the way up. In Call of Duty it's semi-usefull because you can't shoot or aim while sprinting, but again HALO IS NOT CALL OF DUTY! In Halo, you can move full speed ahead while shooting, and that's how it should be in Halo.

And aiming down sights? If you have a cursor on screen showing where the bullets are going to hit, then why the fuck would you need to bring up an iron sight? Again, in Call of Duty it makes sense because when you're not holding the aim down sight button, you're holding the gun on your hip and the bullets don't go straight to the middle of that cursor. And yet again, HALO IS NOT CALL OF DUTY! In Halo, the bullets fly straght without having to push a fucking extra button just to aim. and that's how it should be in Halo

And take Counter-Strike for example. In it, you can't aim down sight AND the bullets don't fly straight. It's like playing Call of Duty with no aiming down at all. Yet it is thought to be the best competitive FPS game so far. Having a fucking iron sight to aim down is not a requirement for an FPS game.

Halo looks, well fine and all but, it seems like they ramped up their multi-player based off of BFBC2 and MW2. Granted it is still the Halo I still know and love but, I expect more creativity from Bungie. The game itself isn't mind blowing or for that matter, anything THAT different.

Sure there is forge, but I enjoyed Far Cry's map making much more. Sure there is a heavily up dated multi-player force, but I still find Left 4 Dead 2 to have a much higher replay value. Sure the campaign is legendary in story, but Bioshock 2 brought me to a whole new level of emotional contact with the game.

The point being, Halo is kind of like a slacking mash-up of all my favorite games. There was some great aspects Bungie brought to the table last installment with Halo 3, but it just seems like a slightly improved version. Even with some of the new aspects that Fin stated, it seems like this is just a conforming series rather than being the trend setter I expected it to be.
I just look at Halo as the game to end all games. I just look at the whole Halo Series as a series of game in their own. Though these reasons will not stop me from playing Reach, I just will always have this disappointed thought as to what Bungie could have done with and done without.