130 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain Crash]

I thought Halo 4 ending was very well done. Sad but left with a air of continuation and a new horizon ahead.

Also in contrast what ME3 did was kill off a lot of the speculation it was trying to create. With Halo 4 im constantly thinking is there way to retrieve Cortana? Was part of her program saved somehow? She was installed into a Forerunner artifact, could she have been transferred in a last second data transfer somewhere? Who knows, probably not, but im thinking a lot more about it then I did with ME3. In all honesty I think 343 actually had a good look at how not to do it. There will always be some who are disappointed, but I think the reception to it has been overall positive.

[Ghost]

someguy1231 wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...
1. Most players take a lot longer to complete Halo games without being on legendary. Halo 4's length is about as short as ODST which is not good considering ODST was made in 1 year as opposed to Halo 4 which started development in 2009.  This is probably the most common complaint.

2. It's a completely wasted antagonist. He gets an introduction scene and a death scene. That's it. What was the point of the Didact? It's worse that he's killed with a QTE.

3. Why didn't Master Chief ask the crew of the Infinity about the Covenant? Why didn't Del Rio debrief MC? I'm aware that the newer novels touch up on what happened before but the explanation ingame is just terrible.

4.  The music for me is forgettable with the exception of a few key tracks which were excellent.

5. The scenes were longer in the other Halo games even ODST. Either way, I would have preferred they not show Chief's face in the games and leave the EU for that.

6. People are complaining about the repetition and lackluster design(i.e. go through corridor shoot, go through corridor shoot,  go through corridor shoot/press button). Halo Reach's mission design was almost excellent. Another complaint would be the overuse of QTE's in the campaign with it being worse in Coop because other players are forced to wait on the particular player that has activated it. Also, the "return to battlefield" sign in Campaign was very annoying. 

7. All the maps are too restrictive or small. Options for Custom games is less than what is was in Reach. Filesharing for Public is still not up.Specializations give new players a harder time becuase they have less abilities than those who have been playing. Firefight at least allowed Variety, SPOPS is just a XP helper.

EDIT: Here's a good thread on custom games. forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postst127421_Custom-game-options-are-unacceptable--343.aspx

1. Like I've said, that depends how you go about doing the campaign. When I played Halo 3 (the first Halo game I've played), the campaign took me about 10 hours, but that's because I was taking my time looking for skulls and getting used to the controls. When I played through it again a few days ago, it took me less than half that time. Halo 4's campaign felt about as long as 3 or Reach to me. Besides, I'll take an excellent 5-hour campaign over a mediocre 10-hour campaign (Halo 2, IMO). I know you'll retort that you didn't find Halo 4's campaign "excellent", but that's subjective and that's how I felt about it. 

2. I always viewed the Didact as similar to the Reapers. He works much better if he appears aloof and mysterious. ME3 tried to take the mystery away from the Reapers, and look how that turned out. And killing him with a QTE worked because Halo games have never been good at boss fights (Prophet/Tartarus in Halo 2). 

3. Conservation of Detail. The player didn't need to know why they were fighting the Covenant, and if they do want to know they can read about it in the EU. 

4. Again, subjective. Tracks like "Revival" and "117" easily rivalled O'Donnell's best.

5. I agree about showing MC's face, but the EU had already described his face many times, so perhaps it was only a matter of time before it appeared in the actual games. 

6.  "(i.e. go through corridor shoot, go through corridor shoot,  go through corridor shoot/press button). " And that's different from previous Halo games how? And there's barely five QTEs throughout the entire campaign, and I personally found them to be better implemented than most games. How is that "overuse"? 

7. Maps too small? I've been hearing complaints that the maps are too big much more often. Specializations are still no substitute for skill. I joined Halo 4's MP late in the game and still easily defeated higher ranked players than me, due to dozens of hours in 3 and Reach's MP. Variety in Firefight? In Reach Firefight always played out the same for me no matter what map was used. Agree about public FIlesharing and Forge though -they need to expand that beyond Friends only and make the editing tools more reliable.

1. I won't change your opinion, if you like Halo 4's campaign then keep liking it. It is after all your opinion. I still like the campaign and it is better than most shooters today. 
2. I agree but it would have been cool if they implemented Cortana grabbing the Didact as a gameplay element while you fight.
3. I don't really agree with this point but either way Covenant > Promeatheans
4. Those are on my top lists along with a few others.
5. I guess so... its not like 343 is gonna take it out.
6. I liked how Reach mixed it up...in one mission it was flying through crumbling skyscrapers and the next was doing a Stealth mission in a forest at night.
7. I seriously hope 343 does big things with the MP. 

[CDRSkyShepard]

Captain Crash wrote...

I thought Halo 4 ending was very well done. Sad but left with a air of continuation and a new horizon ahead.

Also in contrast what ME3 did was kill off a lot of the speculation it was trying to create. With Halo 4 im constantly thinking is there way to retrieve Cortana? Was part of her program saved somehow? She was installed into a Forerunner artifact, could she have been transferred in a last second data transfer somewhere? Who knows, probably not, but im thinking a lot more about it then I did with ME3. In all honesty I think 343 actually had a good look at how not to do it. There will always be some who are disappointed, but I think the reception to it has been overall positive.

Completely agreed.

To further elaborate, I think much of the Retake movement focused on trying to convince people that sad or bittersweet does not automatically equal bad. We thought the ending was bad because it was mishandled and other points, not because it was sad or bittersweet like the gaming media claimed. Halo 4 succeeded where ME3 failed: I felt sad, but in a good way, not in a way that made me go puke. Sad, not distressed. Halo 4 also has the advantage that if there are loads of unanswered questions...well, it's the first of a new trilogy. There is plenty of room to explore in the future. None of this, "That was it?" crap. I think that's what contributes to the fact that I, like Crash, had many excited questions at the end of Halo 4 versus a lot of frustrating, hair-pulling questions at the end of ME3.

Modifié par CDRSkyShepard, 26 novembre 2012 - 10:31 .

[Seboist]

"Retakers" just like the ITers were/are just fanboys bitter that they couldn't get their happy ending with space waifu/manfu at the end. They ain't kidding anybody.

Anyone that wasn't too caught up in the michael bay-esque explosions and pew pew could recognize the ending(s) were merely the culmination of all the failures and derps of the sequels. Once you start killing the protagonist for plot contrived idiocy the only direction for the story is down.