|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 4, 2007 21:02:21 GMT -5
Inochi: Source quotes please
Also, there is a key Mechanic Seldane points out that is very key to Halo's gameplay: You don't die easily. Your shield, when its not being pounded, restores itself pretty quickly. I think part of the appeal is that with this and leaving an escape route, it's not very hard to get far in Halo. At the same time, it also lets them make encounters that pound the everloving piss out of you, because you can take it. And that does sound pretty spiffy. BUT! I don't know if that is how they design things. Seldane?
Wyrdy: Who are these "a lot" of people who dislike Halo because it's military? Because "a lot" so far has been "Wyrdwad". You are the only person I've seen across a number of forums and chatrooms who has complained about that aspect with any real vehemence. I've heard it's piss easy, I've heard it's simple and mindless. But never have I heard it's military as a drawback.
In conclusion: Mindlessly hating on Halo makes about as much sense as mindlessly fanboying over it. It's no revolution in gaming, but it's a solid FPS. Or to summarize the summary of the summary, Deuce is stealing my thoughts when I sleep.
|
|
|
Post by Inochi 命 on Oct 4, 2007 21:18:44 GMT -5
I took those quotes from seldane's post a couple posts up. It's from Microsoft's PR madness on how much Halo has helped them in concurring the world. here's a link if you want one.and just to clarify, I don't hate Halo... much like I don't really hate any game. Like I said, it's the way Halo is being "pedestalized" that is touching a nerve. I have no problem if people enjoy Halo, let their boats float. But I can't see how it's the gaming equivalent of the invention of the wheel. Compared to Halo 3, I really think Bioshock deserves that kind of recognition. But now that I think about it, it's not really everyone that's saying that stuff about halo, though... it's Microsoft themselves. They've hyped it to the heavens, and instead of at least getting nudged by a plane or something on the way after the Halo 3 launch (by reviewers or something), they've just kept going and going. below almost every article I read about Halo, there's about 20 people saying Halo isn't so great and about 2 people defending it. It really is just Microsoft that won't shut up, no one else. The game has a 8.4 gamer average in comparison to it's press average of 9.4. That doesn't warrant for much competition against other games that have been touted as the best games of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 4, 2007 21:45:02 GMT -5
So your a lot people is a small group of personally known friends. I'm going to have to say that's kinda anecdotal evidence, which is the worst sort of evidence due to its limited scope.
This being said, I do agree with you on FPS being uninteresting in general. But I can also say that Halo does have the one thing FPS was original made to do, have huge and frantic battles. And it strips away other things that get in the way of such, like puzzle solving and hunting for keys and such. And I can respect that, the same way I respect Ys for not having an attack button in many of its games.
I do disagree with it being not being fun to watch, though. But I've watched people who really know their business playing it, so perhaps I got the bestest instead of average.
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 4, 2007 22:10:05 GMT -5
...So essentially, you don't like the theme because it's not Japanese enough?
And you're gonna have to give some supporting evidence for that first statement of yours.
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 4, 2007 22:36:52 GMT -5
Have you played them?
Just curious, mind you, not trying to screech that you can't make a decision until you've beaten it. But I do think you sell the series a little short on the weird/unusual factor.
|
|
|
Post by Inochi 命 on Oct 5, 2007 15:37:44 GMT -5
The way I look at it, both east and west have their horrible cliche ridden plots and characters. They're both getting on my nerves. There's American pop, but there's also Japanese pop, and both are putrid. I learned all too quickly that the Japanese aren't the advanced, blessed aliens from a better planet that some make them out to be. Japanese games may try to seem to be more "quirky" or strange, but that in its self is getting cliche. Why be strange just for the heck of being strange? Why fill a serious plot with cuteness? The jokes have gotten old. It all bugs me just as much as military and alien plots... not to the point of making a game untouchable, but definitely sticks some minuses in it's hat.
and if Master Chief has a name, why doesn't anyone call him by that? Because, honestly, Master Chief does sound pretty bad. I used to think it was Mister Chief, and now I find myself misreading "Master Chef" all the time.
also, wyrdwad, Halo isn't a realistic game... it's full of crazy aliens, biblical references, and futuristic weaponry. It's about as realistic as Gundam or Neon Genesis Evangelion. Actually, Halo has always reminded me of Jet Force Gemini, just not as interesting or fun. I actually once thought Halo was developed by Rare, because of how similar the aliens looked to Rare's creations.
|
|
|
Post by Inochi 命 on Oct 5, 2007 17:03:22 GMT -5
I thought they called him Solid Snake because it sounded cooler... No, I get you... it's dumb to think they wouldn't call him Master Chief when the game is always referring to him as that. But at least Snake sounds better than Master Chief.
|
|
|
Post by afiqys on Oct 5, 2007 17:37:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Inochi 命 on Oct 5, 2007 17:51:30 GMT -5
Already been discussed, afiqysI really have no idea what all the fuss is about. Just because it's in the charts one week doesn't mean it's the no.1 game in the market. Besides, those two Pokemons really should be considered one game, they really are the exact same game. It was kind of a slow week for new releases. Although, I can't confirm it, but I did read from various people that all the Halo 3 copies in Japan sold out...
|
|
|
Post by afiqys on Oct 6, 2007 8:02:49 GMT -5
ooops my bad..sorry for that. i agree with the pokemon games.....they just separate it to make more money....darn them. we never had that problem with western games...
|
|
|
Post by FM-77AV on Oct 6, 2007 8:10:48 GMT -5
I've never understood the purpose for those damn dual releases. There really are no differences other than the box. Capcom, King of Milk even make triple releases, with their horrible Mega Man games. Pests.
The only thing I can think of is that they make two seperate versions so that parents can give one to each of their two kids so that they won't mix them up. I mean, since these games don't support multiple save files, those cheap bastards.
This is why piracy rocks so much. Big companies like these don't deserve our money.
|
|
|
Post by afiqys on Oct 6, 2007 13:12:29 GMT -5
omg....another statement that i agree with.... pokemon games are fun and addictive....but now with all those new pokemon species...i'm lost. i cant even follow it anymore....theres just too much. now that i think about it...xbox 360 games also have only 1 save slot....unless you make another profile account...and save it there....which i just dont understand why. just a waste of time really. everytime i want to play co-op e.g. Halo, i always have to sacrifice my single player mode...because it cant be saved somewhere else...why?
|
|
|
Post by sideshow on Oct 7, 2007 14:44:03 GMT -5
I completely understand the taking away money from the development teams of games but 60, 70 dollars for a game is quite expensive especially when you have necessity bills like food, water, rent, insurance. When your a hardcore gamer, you don't really want to buy 1 game and play it for a month straight but rather buy 5 games and play each game a little bit for a month. Brand new 360, PS3, Wii games should be 30 dollars and then go down to 20 after a year or so. Although production cost are so huge nowadays for games i can understand why they charge 60 bucks for a game in order to cover costs.
|
|
|
Post by sideshow on Oct 9, 2007 23:39:32 GMT -5
Hell ya. I remember paying 60 dollars for brand new Turbo Grafx games in the 90's. Its funny how people bitch about the PS3 being 600 dollars but wasnt the NES about 300 dollars when it first came out? Console back then pretty much were only designed to play games. Consoles nowadays give you so much more entertainment options to music, movies, etc. 300 dollars was a hell of lot of money in the 80's especially for a kid with no job.
I guess if your poor yet want to play a larger piece of the games that come out, renting is a great option. Or just be like 2 years behind on the modern games as they do drop in price the longer there on the shelves.
|
|
|
Post by Falcom Director of Fanservice on Oct 14, 2007 7:57:05 GMT -5
Actually, I am pretty sure the NES started closer to $150, if not $100. Definitely not $300.
And I don't think the Internet has anything to do with it, Deuce. It would exist just the same without it. Only difference is that the Internet lets us indulge it.
|
|
|
Post by FM-77AV on Oct 14, 2007 10:09:15 GMT -5
For its North American release, the NES was released in two different configurations, or "bundles". The console deck itself was identical, but each bundle was packaged with different Game Paks and accessories. The first of these sets, the Control Deck, retailed from US$199.99, and included the console itself, two game controllers, and a Super Mario Bros. game cartridge. The second bundle, the Deluxe Set, retailed for US$249.99, and consisted of the console, a R.O.B., a NES Zapper (electronic gun), and two game paks: Duck Hunt and Gyromite.
|
|
|
Post by sideshow on Oct 14, 2007 21:02:23 GMT -5
The Apple II computer from 1977 was 2,500 dollars and it was equipped with 48k of ram. Talk about a ripoff but in the late 70's that was high tech.
|
|
|
Post by Inochi 命 on Oct 14, 2007 21:31:59 GMT -5
Neo Geo...
but then again, that was considered really expensive for it's time. But it did bring teh awesome grafix.
|
|