Originally posted by NemeBro
You revealed that you're a ****ing ingrate who doesn't realize Ryuko belongs with Mako, and that Satsuki has eyes only for Nonon.You know like, unless they're all going together in a quadruple lesbo relationship. That is also good.
The siren call of lesbian incest is too strong to resist. Join me Nemebro, it's not as if both of them haven't had lesbian incest sex in the actual show. It is the Kiryuin way.
Originally posted by Eminence
I think Reach is the best Halo campaign-wise by a bit.
I'd agree, although the series is dreadfully overrated.
Originally posted by NemeBro
There is no difference. I won't pretend there is just to make you feel better.
You cannot see it, therefore it's not there. Niiiiiccceee.
Originally posted by NaiYou seem to be projecting here.
I find it rather nice that, that, after I pointed out exactly why your reasoning is fallacious, you, as a comeback, use that exact faulty logic to try and make a point. Desperate or stupid?A Jedi could disarm him with a single gesture, and Khan could use his healing factor, resiliency and superhuman strength and athleticism to try a fist fight against a lightsaber wielding opponent.
And what would stop a Jedi / Sith from pinning him to a wall with telekinesis, walk up to him and cut him into pieces?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTa1vxmY3M
3:14--3:16 we see a force user force push Grievous but unable to to pin him against a wall and kill him. You make things up and ignore how their powers are portrayed in the films. He pushes him back like all force pushes. I mean you don't even grasp how the attack is used and it's down more than once yet have the audacity to call me desperate.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7oGf-a1Dqlc
You said a Jedi could disarm him with a gesture.
14 or so sends in this video we see Windu can't easily disarm Fett because he's too busy blocking his laser blasts and then jumping away from the flame thrower.
44 seconds in we see him force push his saber back not easily hold Jango in place because that has never happened just you making up feats again.
Jango's jet pack was damaged by the beast so he can't get away when Windu charges and decaps him. That is what Jedi basically do close the distance and attack with their sabers for the most part.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7LJS3YYTCN8
You said any Jedi could disarm any skilled gun user easily. Here is proof I have evidence in the span of two seconds that isn't true at all.
8:12--8:14 Jango easily shoots down a Jedi.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xmR1ee223zQ
I have evidence that supports me while you just make up feats. Like I said keep cooking up feats because evidence will always support me not your fantasies.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
In what sense do you think the franchise is massively overrated?
I don't just think it is overrated. It is possibly the most overrated gaming series ever. The story isn't great, it's not as innovative as everyone claims, and nothing stands out. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. I especially liked ODST and Reach. I had fun with these games and they aren't bad. I just think they're WELL overrated. Reach at least provided me with characters I was somewhat invested in and gave me more to relate to. The primary series couldn't provide that. It tried.
As a game and an entertaining social experience, it gave me a great period of time with my friends that was pleasant, especially headcapping dudes in SWAT. As narrative and as a story, it gave me nothing. It handed me a disheveled torrent of things I'd seen before, with it's gameplay as well. I wouldn't normally have a problem with it giving me "derivative" mechanics, the perceived "standard", or what had come before (Spec Ops: The Line did this with it's game mechanics but it's story was solid as oak) but the problem is that the series is touted as this legendary, almost avant-garde classic, in the respects I had just mentioned.
It is given this epithet numerous times, all while providing gameplay that broke no new ground and a story that was painfully conventional and pedestrian. You look at Half-Life 2, a game that absolutely deserved the acclaim it received on all fronts and you try to rationalize any entry from the Halo series being on top of that same pedestal and it's an uncomfortable fit. It's forcibly pushing the square through the circle hole.
Happy, Blax? You cunt.
The general consensus on Halo, even in its hayday, as far as I'm aware is that its campaign was surprisingly good for its genre (which isn't a high bar to pass), with the majority of praise going to its multiplayer, which I think is a fair judgement. Before Battlefield into its own, Halo provided what was pretty much the best multiplayer experience you could get on a console.
Originally posted by NemeBro
By who?Specifically in terms of story.
That referenced the series as a whole, not the story specifically. Critics, fans, and casual players alike all praised the story as great but me referring to the series as I did in your quote was exactly that.... a reference to the series and the games contained within.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
The general consensus on Halo, even in its hayday, as far as I'm aware is that its campaign was surprisingly good for its genre (which isn't a high bar to pass), with the majority of praise going to its multiplayer, which I think is a fair judgement. Before Battlefield into its own, Halo provided what was pretty much the best multiplayer experience you could get on a console.
Also, on your "high bar" comment, I couldn't disagree more strongly with you.
Also, I don't think it was the best multiplayer experience. This is exactly why I think it's so overrated. I mean, it is fantastic, in it's multiplayer elements, but there's much more to claim it is overrated apart from it's multiplayer reception and, well, even that...
Originally posted by ares834
Halo > HL2
Negative.
What shooters with multiplayer-heavy components can you think of with superior stories to Halo?
The "multiplayer-heavy" component is an important qualifier because you have obvious games like Bioshock that possess vastly superior writing, but on the other hand, 100% of its resources went toward creating that story. Halo exists in a category shared with games like Gears of War, Battlefield, CoD, and Killzone, where the focus is on the multiplayer experience, with the campaigns being secondary.
Regarding the multiplayer, what games did Halo compete with that you would say provided superior multiplayer experiences on consoles?
Originally posted by The Renegade
That referenced the series as a whole, not the story specifically. Critics, fans, and casual players alike all praised the story as great but me referring to the series as I did in your quote was exactly that.... a reference to the series and the games contained within.
All right fair enough, but even then, "avant-garde" was never a term I've heard associated with Halo, and while most people think it was an influential shooter, which it was, very few people thought it was like the Ocarina of Time of shooters (That would be Half Life 2, according to general consensus). I mean sure, Halo is extremely successful, and overall it might be a little overrated. But I've never heard anyone hype it like you're insinuating now. Particularly the story, which you claim is not as innovative as everyone claims. Innovative... Not a term I've ever heard used to seriously describe Halo's story.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
What shooters with multiplayer-heavy components can you think of with superior stories to Halo?
You've added quite the variable. Now it has to have multiplayer components? First, it was the genre (FPS) and now we've narrowed it down in what I presume could be some shitty attempt at trying to isolate Halo so it can preserve it's supposed bar reaching story?
That's quite the assumption, on my behalf, so I'll assume you genuinely left out a detail you meant to add, 'cause I like to say the words "Occam's Razor."
As for the bar surrounding MULTIPLAYER games related to the genre, I'd agree that it's not that high. I originally thought you were referencing the genre specifically so that's that.
The "multiplayer-heavy" component is an important qualifier because you have obvious games like Bioshock that possess vastly superior writing, but on the other hand, 100% of its resources went toward creating that story. Halo exists in a category shared with games like Gears of War, Battlefield, CoD, and Killzone, where the focus is on the multiplayer experience, with the campaigns being secondary.
Whoa, I've never gotten the impression that GoW put the campaign secondary. What gives life to such a claim?
Also, having multiplayer doesn't excuse a story for being lackluster or even average. A good developer should be able to create a well-rounded experience, if it decides to add multiplayer. I don't excuse a game for having a lame story just because there's multiplayer and the devs had to "split their resources."
These companies made decisions to have both story and multiplayer in their games. They obviously planned on excelling at both and tried so I doubt any creator behind a game would propose otherwise.
We can discard that notion, moving forward.
Regarding the multiplayer, what games did Halo compete with that you would say provided superior multiplayer experiences on consoles?
Are you asking overall or around the same time as Halo? I've assumed you obviously mean H:CE.
Originally posted by NemeBro
All right fair enough, but even then, "avant-garde" was never a term I've heard associated with Halo, and while most people think it was an influential shooter, which it was, very few people thought it was like the Ocarina of Time of shooters (That would be Half Life 2, according to general consensus). I mean sure, Halo is extremely successful, and overall it might be a little overrated. But I've never heard anyone hype it like you're insinuating now. Particularly the story, which you claim is not as innovative as everyone claims. Innovative... Not a term I've ever heard used to seriously describe Halo's story.
A critic compared the story to the Aeneid. Like THE Aeneid. Also, this is anecdotal obviously, but I've been exposed to the Halo community and it's fans. It isn't pretty.
As much as I'd love to address the claims to the story being innovative, this wasn't what I stated.
Originally posted by The RenegadeWhat critic is that? Because that is a pretty bizarre claim.
A critic compared the story to the Aeneid. Like THE Aeneid. Also, this is anecdotal obviously, but I've been exposed to the Halo community and it's fans. It isn't pretty.As much as I'd love to address the claims to the story being innovative, this wasn't what I stated.
What?
Originally posted by The Renegade
IThe story isn't great, it's not as innovative as everyone claims
You did, in fact, claim "everyone" says as much.
Originally posted by NemeBro
What critic is that? Because that is a pretty bizarre claim.What?
Not bizarre, it's foolish. It's also goddamn true as fuck.
You did, in fact, claim "everyone" says as much.
You need to read, dude.
Originally posted by The RenegadeAgreed, but how does this relate to most gamers considering Halo's story to be surprisingly decent for what type of game it is, but not overtly special beyond that (which is my experience with the critical consensus regarding the franchise)?
[B]A good developer should be able to create a well-rounded experience, if it decides to add multiplayer. I don't excuse a game for having a lame story just because there's multiplayer and the devs had to "split their resources."These companies made decisions to have both story and multiplayer in their games. They obviously planned on excelling at both and tried so I doubt any creator behind a game would propose otherwise.
Are you asking overall or around the same time as Halo? I've assumed you obviously mean H:CE.Yeah, pretty much. We could go with Halo 2 as well if you'd like, either one.
Originally posted by The Renegade
Not bizarre, it's foolish. It's also goddamn true as fuck.
No, I didn't. A comma separates ideas. The following statement after the one about story, once again, references the fucking game.You need to read, dude. [/B]
I haven't read the Aeneid so I can't comment on the accuracy of the article (Were it The Iliad I might be able to), but what makes it so foolish My son?
All right, I'll admit that there was a bit of a failure of reading comprehension on my part there. Though, if you don't hear people praising the story nearly as much as the other elements, why did criticism of the story make up the bulk of your post?
You should probably also calm down, I don't know why you're getting so aggressive about this.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Agreed, but how does this relate to most gamers considering Halo's story to be surprisingly decent for what type of game it is, but not overtly special beyond that (which is my experience with the critical consensus regarding the franchise)?
Um, is this a question you're asking me now? You didn't before.
Yeah, pretty much. We could go with Halo 2 as well if you'd like, either one.
Aight. Cool.
- Timesplitters 2
- Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
- Counter-Strike
- Phantasy Star Online
- Star Wars Battlefront
- Conker's Bad Fur Day
- Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec
- Super Smash Bros. Melee
- Return to Castle Wolfenstein
- SOCOM II: U.S. Navy SEALs
- Red Faction II
Originally posted by NemeBro
I haven't read the Aeneid so I can't comment on the accuracy of the article (Were it The Iliad I might be able to), but what makes it so foolish My son?All right, I'll admit that there was a bit of a failure of reading comprehension on my part there. Though, if you don't hear people praising the story nearly as much as the other elements, why did criticism of the story make up the bulk of your post?
You should probably also calm down, I don't know why you're getting so aggressive about this.
The story made up the bulk of my post because it is also overrated, albeit not as much as the games are as a whole.
Oh no, I'm not being aggressive. That's just a part of my Sorgo-ing. It's just how I do.