Originally posted by Alpha CentauriHow is Halo 3 information in a HALO 3 thread relevant?
A) How is that relevant to anything? Sales mean squat.
You just think about that.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
B) No, apparantly, Halo 3 owns YOU. It truly does own you all, Bungie owns you all. They say jump, you ask what kind of somersault.-AC
You sir jump to conclusions.
Calm down. This was not a personal attack on you or your mother. Just some Halo 3 information in a HALO 3 thread.
Whodathunkit.
Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSo pretty much its the samething you have been saying.
You said you can live with it being Halo 2.5, I think that's just a shocking piece of proof of how far inside people Bungie have put themselves. The game has had $50 million dollars worth of hype, people have ditched college, work and whatever else to play it and they essentially get Halo 2 with better graphics, guns and still complaints that plagued the first two games.To me, that's unacceptable, but then that's just a standard I have.
The excuse that vehicles are enough of an advancement to justify the hype around this game. It just doesn't work, it's not a matter of being pro-Halo or anti-Halo, or even neutral. I think anybody who isn't so corrupted by Bungie would admit they haven't done enough. Even people who ultimately like the game are saying that.
Maybe I didn't see the Gears of War Mountain Dew, lunch boxes, figures etc. Oh...there either were none or there wasn't enough for me to have noticed.
Halo 3 was marketed more because it didn't have enough backing it up. People think that because it's being pushed as "more than a game", that it's somehow some transcendental experience, it's not. It's a generic FPS shooter, not that much different to the one before it, which wasn't much different to the one before that.
That's what I said, though. You can say "That car looks more sleek than the other one.", but if one is factually more aerodynamic than another, you cannot refute it. Gears actually has better graphics, outside of preference.
How do you draw that conclusion? It's the typical Emperor's new clothes syndrome. Everyone is either so blinded by marketing or they feel like if they don't tag along, they'll look silly.
It doesn't deserve the hype it's getting because it's just as you said, Halo 2.5, nothing revolutionary, nothing much different. It's still just a generic FPS. People praise it cos they feel they have to, mostly. People have been hyping it since before there was footage, before there was a beta, so ultimately they'll never admit disappointment.
In your opinion. I would put Goldeneye, Perfect Dark and the like over any of the Halo series in terms of enjoyment.
It's been three games, over 6 years of existence in the series and all they've managed for the third and final game, on a NEXT generation console to the others...is Halo 2.5? That's what's wrong.
The fact that it's being considered nothing more than Halo 2.5? They should be doing much, much more than this with the time and money they have, there's no excuse.
Of course people who loved one and two will love it. It's like Coldplay, they're not pushing boundaries, same album every time, different album cover. They know they have loads of rabid fans by the throat and can rob them of their cash just by putting in a new gun and car, the odd new mode. They're not half as bad as the people who lap it up, though.
It makes total sense.
If an album is coming out that I assume I'll like cos I have previous work to go by, that's as far as I go. If I finally get it and don't like it, I'll say so. I don't go around leading up to its release saying "I LOVE IT! IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO BE AMAZING!", as Halo fans did. They went too far to look back before the game was even out. Halo 3 NEEDED the fan hysteria, it NEEDED the marketing. It has very little else.
Yes there is, you're being ignorant.
My truths? A) It's not an innovative series, that much has been proven and agreed with. B) It's not a dynamic game, when compared to the likes of Gears, when you compare the way you fight. My opinion of whether or not I like it, whether or not it's bad or good? Yes, that's opinion.
People cannot handle even opposing opinions, much less reasonable truth based arguments as to why their favourite game is overrated.
Where have I said it's a terrible game? I swear I've actually said the opposite. It's horribly MEDIOCRE, not horribly shit. Mediocrity is worse when you have what Bungie have at their disposal.
Why do none of you understand the point? THAT IS THE POINT. It's easy, so all they've done is put out essentially the same game three times with a few small changes and ridiculous hype and budget. At least admit that. That IS what's bad.
If you're that easily impressed and you refuse to want more from your games, then up to you. I think if you can make games as advanced as Bioshock, Gears of War, Alan Wake etc, then you should do so.
I'll go around saying what I want. I think it's poor, not terrible, poor.
I prefer Goldeneye to Halo, any of them. I enjoy it far more.
The graphics don't suck, they're not amazing though. The sound IS pretty bad from what I've played, the controls are the same. Unthreatening, simple, not trying anything new, taking the easy way out. Boring plot, annoying aesthetics.
All opinion of course, but that's my take.
Notice how since the game has actually come out far more people have issues with it than loving it.
You did contradict yourself, badly.
Gears of War, Bioshock, these games that it constantly gets lumped in with do not deserve to be lumped in with it.
-AC
It isn't innovative it doesn't deserve this hype. It's a poor game.
Seriously if that is what makes a poor game then every Mario past 1 is poor. Every Metal Gear Solid past 1 is poor.
You have still yet to actually state why the game is bad in your opinion just that you don't like the hype it got is all.
Seriously if that is the best you can do for any type of bad press against the game then obviously your just reaching for things.
The fact is Halo 3 looks good, plays good, has great fighting involved. It is a good game period in design and quality. Innovation has little to do with how good a game is.
So once GOW 2 comes out and is just GOW 1.5 does that automatically mean it will be bad. No it doesn't. I mean seriously what type of changes would you have made to the game to make it so Dynamic? 🙄
Originally posted by InnerRise
How is Halo 3 information in a HALO 3 thread relevant?You just think about that.
I'll quote you:
Originally posted by InnerRise
You sir jump to conclusions.
You said it "PWNS" us all, followed by sales figures. If you were not using them indicative of quality, then you shouldn't have represented it as such.
Originally posted by InnerRise
Calm down. This was not a personal attack on you or your mother. Just some Halo 3 information in a HALO 3 thread.Whodathunkit.
Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
A) Make up your own material, please.
B) Read the above post.
Originally posted by Newjak
Seriously if that is what makes a poor game then every Mario past 1 is poor. Every Metal Gear Solid past 1 is poor.
False deduction. I am not saying it's poor for the very fact that it's a sequel, and if that's the conclusion you gained then you haven't been reading anything I've said.
The worse argument against sequels is to use Mario, considering everything BUT the early ones has featured CONSIDERABLE changes in all. Sunshine and Galaxy are not only entirely different to one another, but to Luigi's Mansion, which was entirely different to Mario 64, so on and so forth. The only similarity is they are essentially platformers that feature Mario. The games, gameplay and features are entirely different each time.
Originally posted by Newjak
You have still yet to actually state why the game is bad in your opinion just that you don't like the hype it got is all.
I did, but here we go again.
The graphics don't suck, they're not amazing though. The sound IS pretty bad from what I've played, the controls are the same; no attempt at changing anything, unthreatening, simple, not trying anything new, taking the easy way out. Boring plot that doesn't coincide at ALL with the very annoying and dull (Despite looking like everything has got into a paintball fight somehow) aesthetics. At this point in time, three games in with plenty way more advanced competition, I believe they took the cheap way out. Marketing to make people feel they should be involved without actually making a game good enough to deserve the attention.
Originally posted by Newjak
The fact is Halo 3 looks good, plays good, has great fighting involved. It is a good game period in design and quality. Innovation has little to do with how good a game is.
That's not a fact, by the way. That's your opinion. I don't think it looks good, plays good, has great fighting or has good designs.
Originally posted by Newjak
So once GOW comes out is just GOW 1.5 does that automatically mean it will be bad.
If they make two more sequels with nothing new but an extra gun, I'll be as critical. The difference is, Gears of War was the debut game, didn't receive half as much hype as the original Halo and was still miles better, in my opinion, than anything Bungie could or will ever muster. THAT game has dynamic fighting, the hiding, the way you move, the way you seriously DO have to rely on brains to fight. Halo doesn't have that to the same degree. Maybe you have to move your sprite behind a rock now and then, but Gears actually makes it PART of the game and environment.
Originally posted by Newjak
I mean seriously what type of changes would you have made to the game to make it so Dynamic?
Who said I would make changes or had changes in mind? I know that games companies are capable of more, much more, because games like Gears of War and Bioshock prove it. There's nothing wrong with not necessarily being innovative, but when you are as hyped as Halo, as expensive as Halo and as rabidly defended and overrated as Halo, I expect more, in any possible area, because Halo is...at the heart of it all, a generic game.
The ONLY thing that gets major praise is multiplayer, and that isn't "Halo", that's Xbox Live.
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Shut up. 😉
Nah.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSo then we have concluded based on your entire post that everything you dislike about the game is based in Opinion and nothing more. It based on the grounds that you feel it could have been better therefore it In YOUR OPINION is not worth the time and effort it went into making it. And that you prefered the gameplay og GOW.
I'll quote you:You said it "PWNS" us all, followed by sales figures. If you were not using them indicative of quality, then you shouldn't have represented it as such.
A) Make up your own material, please.
B) Read the above post.
False deduction. I am not saying it's poor for the very fact that it's a sequel, and if that's the conclusion you gained then you haven't been reading anything I've said.
The worse argument against sequels is to use Mario, considering everything BUT the early ones has featured CONSIDERABLE changes in all. Sunshine and Galaxy are not only entirely different to one another, but to Luigi's Mansion, which was entirely different to Mario 64, so on and so forth. The only similarity is they are essentially platformers that feature Mario. The games, gameplay and features are entirely different each time.
I did, but here we go again.
The graphics don't suck, they're not amazing though. The sound IS pretty bad from what I've played, the controls are the same; no attempt at changing anything, unthreatening, simple, not trying anything new, taking the easy way out. Boring plot that doesn't coincide at ALL with the very annoying and dull (Despite looking like everything has got into a paintball fight somehow) aesthetics. At this point in time, three games in with plenty way more advanced competition, I believe they took the cheap way out. Marketing to make people feel they should be involved without actually making a game good enough to deserve the attention.
That's not a fact, by the way. That's your opinion. I don't think it looks good, plays good, has great fighting or has good designs.
If they make two more sequels with nothing new but an extra gun, I'll be as critical. The difference is, Gears of War was the debut game, didn't receive half as much hype as the original Halo and was still miles better, in my opinion, than anything Bungie could or will ever muster. THAT game has dynamic fighting, the hiding, the way you move, the way you seriously DO have to rely on brains to fight. Halo doesn't have that to the same degree. Maybe you have to move your sprite behind a rock now and then, but Gears actually makes it PART of the game and environment.
Who said I would make changes or had changes in mind? I know that games companies are capable of more, much more, because games like Gears of War and Bioshock prove it. There's nothing wrong with not necessarily being innovative, but when you are as hyped as Halo, as expensive as Halo and as rabidly defended and overrated as Halo, I expect more, in any possible area, because Halo is...at the heart of it all, a generic game.
The ONLY thing that gets major praise is multiplayer, and that isn't "Halo", that's Xbox Live.
Nah.
-AC
Thus every time you say Halo sucks it is opinion. Just like I mentioned it was my opinion that it wasn't.
You even go on to say you don't know what changes you would make just that you would make them. Seriously Bioshock and GOW are very good games but they are their own animals and their own style of play.
I seriously ask what changes could they have made to the game(Halo 3) to make it better and more like GOW and Bioshock without actually changing the gameplay that is Halo?
Originally posted by Violent2DopeHey I don't see a problem with it. It is giving your opinion.
I will never understand why people post in threads about games you dislike.
the problem is he came in here talking about Fanboy Rants and such saying basically we were deluding ourselves for liking the game. Even though his voice is also just an opinion.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriFrom now on you should maybe think about quoting ENTIRE posts so that you may know exactly what it is that you're responding to.
I'll quote you:You said it "PWNS" us all, followed by sales figures. If you were not using them indicative of quality, then you shouldn't have represented it as such.
Nowhere in my post did I say Halo 3 "PWNS" anyone.
Although, why that would offend you I really don't know. Then again you are Alpha Centauri. Kind of ironic being that everyone abbreviates it to AC and here you are always HEATED up in this thread for some reason or other.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThere's no need to. I'll settle for posting Halo 3 related content in this HALO 3 thread even if it means every positive Halo 3 poster will be abused by you.
A) Make up your own material, please.
If stating FACTS angers you..........then you should just super glue your eyeballs shut.
You'll probably still be mad though.
anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
Originally posted by NewjakNo, but he is basically doing what he always does, trying to find a debate wherever he can, on stupid shit that does not need to be debated.
Hey I don't see a problem with it. It is giving your opinion.the problem is he came in here talking about Fanboy Rants and such saying basically we were deluding ourselves for liking the game. Even though his voice is also just an opinion.
Originally posted by Newjak
So then we have concluded based on your entire post that everything you dislike about the game is based in Opinion and nothing more.
That was never in doubt, thanks for joining us here.
It not being innovative or dynamic (At least AS dynamic as games like Gears) is not my opinion, however.
Originally posted by Newjak
It based on the grounds that you feel it could have been better therefore it In YOUR OPINION is not worth the time and effort it went into making it. And that you prefered the gameplay og GOW.
Yes, but the gameplay was factually more dynamic and innovative, combat-wise and gameplay-wise, than Halo. That isn't my opinion. It has nothing to do with me prefering the game.
Originally posted by Newjak
Thus every time you say Halo sucks it is opinion. Just like I mentioned it was my opinion that it wasn't.
Well done, you catch on so fast.
Originally posted by Newjak
You even go on to say you don't know what changes you would make just that you would make them.
Do I? Where? I swear I said this:
"Who said I would make changes or had changes in mind? I know that games companies are capable of more, much more, because games like Gears of War and Bioshock prove it. There's nothing wrong with not necessarily being innovative, but when you are as hyped as Halo, as expensive as Halo and as rabidly defended and overrated as Halo, I expect more, in any possible area, because Halo is...at the heart of it all, a generic game.".
Not "I would, but don't know what.". Please don't make things up.
Originally posted by Newjak
Seriously Bioshock and GOW are very good games but they are their own animals and their own style of play.
Admittedly it's more fitting comparing Bioshock and Halo as they are both FPS, and if you do I think it's obvious that Bioshock is vastly superior, but that's my opinion. Graphically and dynamically? It's not, Bioshock is superior, as is Gears. There are simply more things to the way you play those games.
Originally posted by Newjak
I seriously ask what changes could they have made to the game(Halo 3) to make it better and more like GOW and Bioshock without actually changing the gameplay that is Halo?
Where are you getting this bs? READ my quote that I have told you TWICE, about changes.
Second, who said make it like Gears are Bioshock? I said considering you can make games of THAT QUALITY, I find it rather dumb that they threw away an overall $50 million only to come out with a game not only graphically and dynamically inferior objectively, but overall less fulfilling in my PERSONAL opinion.
If you keep asking the questions I've already answered, don't bother. If you don't get my points, just say so.
Originally posted by Newjak
Give master Chief a crowbar and make him able to hide behind cover. Shooting fire from his hand would be kinda cool too.
Why are you assuming I automatically want Halo to be Bioshock? I'm just saying it's generic at the heart of it, because it is. Never did I say I had a wealth of ideas in mind, I don't care enough about the game itself to think of those, but we are having an overall game discussion regarding that and other games.
My point it's overrated, massively.
Originally posted by Violent2Dope
I will never understand why people post in threads about games you dislike.
Change the title to "Halo Fans and Positive Talk Only!" and I'll leave.
-AC
Originally posted by InnerRise
From now on you should maybe think about quoting ENTIRE posts so that you may know exactly what it is that you're responding to.
I knew what I was responding to.
Originally posted by InnerRise
Nowhere in my post did I say Halo 3 "PWNS" anyone.
True, you said "Owns", my bad there. They mean the same thing, so the implication I was pulling you up for remains valid, so sorry.
Originally posted by InnerRise
Although, why that would offend you I really don't know. Then again you are Alpha Centauri. Kind of ironic being that everyone abbreviates it to AC and here you are always HEATED up in this thread for some reason or other.
I'm not offended, I just find it odd that you would link sales to owning us all, for some reason. Especially since it doesn't mean anything.
Second, it's not actually ironic. I'll let you think about why.
Originally posted by InnerRise
There's no need to. I'll settle for posting Halo 3 related content in this HALO 3 thread even if it means every positive Halo 3 poster will be abused by you.
Abused? You win the Oscar. That's the funny part, because then you say this;
Originally posted by InnerRise
If stating FACTS angers you..........then you should just super glue your eyeballs shut.
And it's me stating the facts that constitute abuse to you. If you had just given the sales numbers rather than suggesting it owns us all because of it, I'd not have found it odd, which is all I found it to be.
Originally posted by InnerRise
You'll probably still be mad though.
Believe as you wish. I'll reply to you if you have anything regarding Halo to say, gotta keep the thread on topic, right?
(Now we have a twist!).
-AC
Actually, me saying it OWNS you all is not the same as saying PWN. As if it really matters and as if it really was cause for concern.
You took that ONE WORD way too seriously.
If that's how I want to present information, major information by the way, then so be it.
Deal.
And this thread is always on topic lately b/c it always involves you in a dispute with someone over HALO 3.
All I did was post facts. Imagine if I had actually come in here and given my own personal opinion on the game and it conflicted with yours.
Calm Down.
Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
Originally posted by InnerRise
Actually, me saying it OWNS you all is not the same as saying PWN. As if it really matters and as if it really was cause for concern.
I never said it was the same as saying the actual word, I said the meaning behind the two words (One of which exists because it's a typo of the other ANYWAY) is the same, because it is.
Originally posted by InnerRise
If that's how I want to present information, major information by the way, then so be it.Deal.
Major in what sense? Explain yourself.
Originally posted by InnerRise
And this thread is always on topic lately b/c it always involves you in a dispute with someone over HALO 3.
Except when you arrive, once again trying to make the thread you enter about YOU. At least I'm always discussing the GAME with people. I'm not dragging the thread off topic.
Originally posted by InnerRise
All I did was post facts. Imagine if I had actually come in here and given my own personal opinion on the game and it conflicted with yours.
You posted facts and implied that somehow we were all owned because of it. I found this odd, I commented on it, deal.
-AC