Halo 3

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The premises are pretty much establish in the original game. Halo is still a new franchise. Mario, Zelda and FF have had their fair amount of sequels. After all Halo Wars is coming so something different is coming.

So? Premise doesn't mean they are the same game, and if you do want to get into that, the stories are always different, or the means to the end is always different.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Name one Mario game that doesn't involve using mushrooms and having a princess. As I said before these franchises are veterans franchises with their premises already establish.

That's the silliest point.

How are they the same game because they contain mushrooms and the Princess? Are you purposefully overlooking the fact that Halo doesn't change much and Mario games, Zelda games etc all have massively significant differences in the way they are played, aside from being platformers? Or have you just not played them?

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The premises are pretty much establish in the original game. Halo is still a new franchise. Mario, Zelda and FF have had their fair amount of sequels. After all Halo Wars is coming so something different is coming.

Expect Halo Wars is a spin-off game that isn't even being developed by Bungie. So are you telling me it takes a completely different company just to change Halo?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Name one Mario game that doesn't involve using mushrooms and having a princess. As I said before these franchises are veterans franchises with their premises already establish.

And yet you fail to see that Mario offers new things for every game that changes gameplay. I never played Super Mario Sunshine and felt like I was playing Super Mario 64 but I have with Halo 3 as it felt just like Halo 2 but with new levels. It's Halo 2.5 and nothing more.

The idea it's the same game because it has mushrooms and the Princess is still baffling me.

That's like saying all films are the same because they have some of the same actors and props. Fight Club was essentially American History X, then. What? It was. It had Edward Norton in them both. Same film.

X-Men, X-Men 2 and X-Men 3 are essentially the same bs, Halo style. It has nothing to do with who's in it, everything to do with main content.

So you see, it's a dead point.

-AC

I know im far behind, but....

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Press a button and some Final Fantasy character tells you the story of his/her orphanage.

😆

So, I never got into Halo and thus never cared about the sequels.

However I am still interested to hear about this hyped up game.

Did it please the Halo maniacs? or did it fail as ends of trilogies have a habit of doing?

It won't end at 3, I can pretty much stake my house on that.

Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

-AC

Originally posted by ESB -1138

And yet you fail to see that Mario offers new things for every game that changes gameplay. I never played Super Mario Sunshine and felt like I was playing Super Mario 64 but I have with Halo 3 as it felt just like Halo 2 but with new levels. It's Halo 2.5 and nothing more.

I don't fail to see anything. Mario offers you nothing but some tweaks and some bells and whistles. Again, the fun factor remains.

Not sure why I was ignored, probably isn't cos I'm making good points, you probably just missed it:

It's not about character, it's about content.

Mario is in a lot of games, that does not make the games the same. The content is always different aside from the fact that at its heart it's a platformer. Halo 3 has already been described as Halo 2.5 and that's because it has far less content and far less change.

If you think it's fun, great, that's not relevant to what's being discussed. Halo being fun and also the same shit doesn't mean Mario is, just because you like Halo. Mario is quite obviously different each time, as is Zelda and FF. Master Chief is a Spartan Marine, there's little else he can be in besides a game about war. Mario is a short, fat, Italian plumber. He can be in, and has been, many kinds of game.

"That's like saying all films are the same because they have some of the same actors and props. Fight Club was essentially American History X, then. What? It was. It had Edward Norton in them both. Same film.

X-Men, X-Men 2 and X-Men 3 are essentially the same bs, Halo style. It has nothing to do with who's in it, everything to do with main content.".

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't fail to see anything. Mario offers you nothing but some tweaks and some bells and whistles. Again, the fun factor remains.

...Mario offers nothing new? Halo 2.5 offers nothing new but a few new fancy guns. Mario on the other hand has actually changed gameplay. What with FLUDD in Sunshine and Yoshi in World and of course the use of motion sensors for Galaxy. Your argument is a sad attempt to try to avoid the fact that Halo 3 is Halo 2.5

..

Or maybe he just doesn't care. Billy Joel's a Halo fan, though.

In his defense, I don't think he's trying to avoid or deny that.

He's just trying to drag Mario along with it, and it doesn't work, cos Mario's content isn't the same shit, Halo's is.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not sure why I was ignored, probably isn't cos I'm making good points, you probably just missed it:

-AC

No, AC you're not been ignore. That you're dying for attention is old and boring. Eventually we'll give it to you.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The idea it's the same game because it has mushrooms and the Princess is still baffling me.

That's like saying all films are the same because they have some of the same actors and props. Fight Club was essentially American History X, then. What? It was. It had Edward Norton in them both. Same film.

X-Men, X-Men 2 and X-Men 3 are essentially the same bs, Halo style. It has nothing to do with who's in it, everything to do with main content.

So you see, it's a dead point.

-AC

It' part of the concept. Mushrooms and a princess are elements of the game. Just like Covenant and Cortana are elements of Halo.

"That's like saying.." no, that's what you're saying. What I will repeat, again, is that Halo is still a young franchise. Zelda and Mario and others took years and sequels to evolve.

Indeed. Mario bros. 1 and 2 where pretty much the same game, Sonic 1 and 2 where the same etc.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

He's just trying to drag Mario along with it, and it doesn't work, cos Mario's content isn't the same shit, Halo's is.

-AC

Does it bother you I mention Mario?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Indeed. Mario bros. 1 and 2 where pretty much the same game, Sonic 1 and 2 where the same etc.

I played New Super Mario Bros for the DS last year....New? It's a total and complete remake. But ask ESB -1138 and he'll prolly will tell you it's new...because it says "NEW".

Originally posted by FistOfThe North

And if Halo's story is "Aliens come, you have to defeat them", then is Gears of Wars story, "Grubs come, you have to defeat them"? What about BioShock, "try and escape alive".

That's not Bioshock's story.

The other two are more or less accurate.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No, AC you're not been ignore. That you're dying for attention is old and boring. Eventually we'll give it to you.

Was there any need for that? I replied to your post, you didn't and probably wouldn't have replied to valid points I made, so I asked you to civilly. Chill down. If you're not confident enough in your argument then blame yourself, not me for asking you to establish why you're telling me I'm wrong.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It' part of the concept. Mushrooms and a princess are elements of the game. Just like Covenant and Cortana are elements of Halo.

No, that's incorrect. It's not part of the content is it? Cortana and Covenant do not make the game the same, the content of the WHOLE game does, the way it's designed, the way you play, the general gameplay.

The same cannot be said for Mario games aside from the fact that they are platformers. Halo isn't just three FPS, it's more or less the same FPS.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
What I will repeat, again, is that Halo is still a young franchise. Zelda and Mario and others took years and sequels to evolve.

No, it's not, the content was always different, even on the original NES, Mario Bros, 2 and 3 were pretty different games regarding content. You're saying Mario games are the same shit because it contains some of the same characters or elements, regardless of the content between the games being massively different.

Fight Club and American History X both had violence and Edward Norton, they're not the same movie. Sunshine, Galaxy, Mario 64 and Mario Kart all have Mario and mushrooms, they're not the same game.

Halo has Master Chief, big levels and new guns, vehicles...actually, that's all it has over the three games. No new anything, still ultimately just the same FPS.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Does it bother you I mention Mario?

No, does it bother you that your argument is falling to pieces, to the point that you just cut off the part where I actually defended your point against someone almost intentionally misunderstanding it, in an attempt to take a jab?

Cos that would be pretty petty, nahhh, you're not doing that.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It' part of the concept. Mushrooms and a princess are elements of the game. Just like Covenant and Cortana are elements of Halo.

"That's like saying.." no, that's what you're saying. What I will repeat, again, is that Halo is still a young franchise. Zelda and Mario and others took years and sequels to evolve.

Keeping the same thing isn't the argument. The argument is keeping the same things as well as the same gameplay which Halo has done. And it took years for them to evolve? Mario Bros was a huge leap over Donkey Kong. Super Mario Bros was a huge leap over Mario Bros. Super Mario Bros 3 was a huge leap over Super Mario Bros. Super Mario World was a huge leap over Super Mario Bros 3. Super Mario 64 was a huge leap over Super Mario World.

Mario has defined gameplay since Donkey Kong. In fact the only Mario game that was alike was Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Bros 2.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Indeed. Mario bros. 1 and 2 where pretty much the same game, Sonic 1 and 2 where the same etc.

You just compared an NES game with a 360 game. Let's see the limits of the NES was far greater than that of a 360 and even then Super Mario Bros 3 completely changed Mario again. Oh and Sonic 2 did offer a lot more. To begin with the Super Sonic Spin Dash and Super Sonic. And the Special Stages were changed and even the two player function to have someone play as Tails offered new ways to play. Also Sonic is known to give you speed and that's what Sega did by making Sonic faster.

And you see the difference is that Nintendo and Sega didn't spend three years and millions of dollars developing the games just to give you Halo 2.5

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Was there any need for that? I replied to your post, you didn't and probably wouldn't have replied to valid points I made, so I asked you to civilly. Chill down. If you're not confident enough in your argument then blame yourself, not me for asking you to establish why you're telling me I'm wrong.

Yes, it was.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

No, that's incorrect. It's not part of the content is it? Cortana and Covenant do not make the game the same, the content of the WHOLE game does, the way it's designed, the way you play, the general gameplay.

The same cannot be said for Mario games aside from the fact that they are platformers. Halo isn't just three FPS, it's more or less the same FPS.

Have the Halo franchise EVER claim to be other than a FPS? Unlike Mario which got into the car racing area and provided nothing but cute and fun game but nothing original.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Halo has Master Chief, big levels and new guns, vehicles...actually, that's all it has over the three games. No new anything, still ultimately just the same FPS.

-AC

And that's ALL it needs. Mario on the other hand....Mario Kart....which is all fine. But really, it only have the Mario image. Remove it and you have nothing but a cute car racing game. That's not innovative.

In simpler terms, let's use the old phrase; "Played one, played 'em all.".

That can not be said about a LOT of the Mario games. Playing one does not inform you very accurately of what the others are like besides, as I said, the general idea that they are platformers.

The same cannot be said for Halo, hence why people who are good at one, are good at them all.

-AC

Originally posted by Newjak

You just said that your thought on GOW and Bioshock being better Quality Games was your opinion and when I pointed out it was a contradiction of you actually saying the games were better factually quality you said that it was just your opinion. Of course you said again that it was just your opinion.

You clearly don't understand the debate, nor the words 'fact' and 'opinion'. At no point has he said that the games are factually better; you think that because you don't properly understand what you are saying or reading.

I have seen pages of you misunderstanding simple points, because you don't grasp simple concepts. In fact, that gives it too much credit, it's a single simple point.

It's annoying to read.