350 réponses à ce sujet

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
Which is the problem with the hardlight theory these guy have with the ending of Halo 4. For MC to servive the nuke that goes of before him, the hard light has to come around him in fractions of seconds

So, mere fractions of a second make it space magic in Halo 4, while the drastic leap for Synthesis and other disconnects in ME3 make it ok?

Cool story bro.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Da_old_Boss wrote...

Halo 4 will likely win many things. ME3 however will NOT.

Jen hale got my vote for ME3, probably won't win though.

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Not a split second.

Yes, it is.

No. it's not. A split second is like a light bulb going on. The bridge fades in.

No it doesn't.

The bridge fades in.

Nope.

I'm with Arcian and others on this. It doesn't even look like the same bridge in you link Drreman. And it clearly doesn't need that same hardware to make it work. Not to mention how Cortana herself was already in the bridge...

But the quetion here still how fast it takes to cover MC. Added we have nuke right under mc the has to be knock out of his hand as soon as he hits it and with a dying and slowed down cortana. Or even the question of hom much damage a hard light Sheild can take. Can it take on a point blank nuke?


It 's farfetch to say that " hard light "is the reason MC lived.

Modifié par dreman9999, 20 novembre 2012 - 07:51 .

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Which is the problem with the hardlight theory these guy have with the ending of Halo 4. For MC to servive the nuke that goes of before him, the hard light has to come around him in fractions of seconds

So, mere fractions of a second make it space magic in Halo 4, while the drastic leap for Synthesis and other disconnects in ME3 make it ok?

Cool story bro.

Itnot just speed.
we have nuke right under mc the has to be knock out of his hand as soon as he hits it and with a dying and slowed down cortana. Added we even the question of hom much damage a hard light Sheild can take. Can it take on a point blank nuke?
 
The fact MC servived is farfetched.

[KingZayd]

dreman9999 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Not a split second.

Yes, it is.

No. it's not. A split second is like a light bulb going on. The bridge fades in.

No it doesn't.

The bridge fades in.

Nope.

I'm with Arcian and others on this. It doesn't even look like the same bridge in you link Drreman. And it clearly doesn't need that same hardware to make it work. Not to mention how Cortana herself was already in the bridge...

But the quetion here still how fast it takes to cover MC. Added we have nuke right under mc the has to be knock out of his hand as soon as he hits it and with a dying and slowed down cortana. Or even the question of hom much damage a hard light Sheild can take. Can it take on a point blank nuke?


It 's farfetch to say that " hard light "is the reason MC lived.

Have we ever seen a hard light shield fail due an explosion?

It's farfetched to say that it doesn't make sense, if you have no idea of the capabilities of hard light shields.

[Jadebaby]

Cortana was getting better because she had disseminated her rampant personalities throughout the system...

Maybe that light we saw when MC went whack wasn't light from the nuke but light from the bridge protecting MC...?

No, "hard light" isn't the reason. "Cortana" is the reason.

[CDRSkyShepard]

dreman9999 wrote...
But the quetion here still how fast it takes to cover MC. Added we have nuke right under mc the has to be knock out of his hand as soon as he hits it and with a dying and slowed down cortana. Or even the question of hom much damage a hard light Sheild can take. Can it take on a point blank nuke?


It 's farfetch to say that " hard light "is the reason MC lived.

Cortana finds your lack of faith disturbing.

When it comes down to it, Cortana has always come through for Chief.

And nobody really knows how much damage a hardlight (non-personal-use) shield can take. Thus its potential is whatever the writers want it to be.

[Seboist]

Wow, they equated Borderlands 2 with the drek that's this McRPG Gears knock off. That's low.

[111987]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

111987 wrote...

Halo 4 has plenty of space magic guys, come on. Just because it's been seen before doesn't mean it's okay. Like, how the hell does the Composer work? It just turns humans into Prometheans? Um, okay...

In any case, I think Mass Effect 3 gets credit over a game like Halo 4 because of the scale of the game and what it accomplished or tried to accomplish. ME3 has a vast amount more of content than most other games, including Halo 4. With so much extra content, you're bound to slip up in a few places. Sure, if you take it too far (i.e. Resident Evil 6) it can ruin the game experience, but that wasn't the case in ME3.

It's like comparing Super Mario Bros. with Skyrim. Everything in a Mario platformer can be perfectly honed (visuals, audio, controls, level design, etc...) but that's because the team can focus on those things far more. Skyrim sets out to do much more than Mario and shouldn't be unduly penalized because the experience isn't as perfect. Is it better to have 6 hours of 98% perfection or 100 hours of 90% perfection?

Space magic is perfectly fine if it's established in-canon. Most of the stuff you see in Halo 4 that is "space magic" is some form of highly-evolved Forerunner tech that we don't completely understand yet. There is an understanding of origin there.

Space magic at the end of ME3? Or the entire Crucible in general? Oh no, no no no. Not only were we never aware that the Protheans had attempted such a feat, we didn't have any information on it until *TA-DA!* we needed it. In other words, someone pulled that out of their butt because they couldn't think of anything better. Not to mention there was never any kind of knowledge of a powerful force that could combine organics and synthetics, or let you become Reaper-God Shepard. Hell, who knows where that came from. (Read: I'm much more likely to forgive space magic if you give me some kind of idea as to its genesis and/or origins. And definitely don't whip it out as a last-minute band-aid fix-all for your entire plot, not just the safekeeping of one character.)

Also, RPGs tend to have more content than straight-up shooters with linear plotlines. Not by much, though, if you cut out all side quests in RPGs. So you're comparing apples to oranges in the content department. If content alone were a factor in deciding GOTY, an RPG would win every time. Rather, it should be the quality of content that is there which should be judged. Considering ME3 left a lot to be desired in the quality vs. quantity argument, even excluding the endings, I think Halo 4 is overall a much more solid game from beginning to end. Hell, Portal was hailed as an amazing game even though it was small and short. Why? Because it was like a perfectly-packaged box of goods where no space is wasted and everything fits in perfectly. "Tight as a walnut corset" as Yahtzee puts it.

So, to me, a game that has so much wasted potential and filler fluff doesn't deserve to be GOTY over a game that is much more neatly packaged and presented. But, that is my opinion and how *I* determine what is GOTY-worthy. Not everyone has the same standards.

You make some good points, I'll try to respond to all of them.

I think the Crucible gets a lot of flak for being 'bad' space magic because the current races are building it and don't know what it will do. But if you think about it, all the Crucible is, is advanced technology from highly advanced races in the past. It's given no more or no less explanation than basically anything in Halo 4. Besides, the only really difficult thing to understand about the Crucible is Synthesis; Destroy and Control are pretty easy. But really, synthetic integration isn't something that uncommon in the series. Take Saren or Paul Grayson for example; organics enhanced by Reaper technology very quickly. The only difference is the organics in Synthesis are not indoctrinated or controlled by the Reapers.

As for the suddenness of the Crucible's appearence, I do agree. I thought it was way too convenient that we discover it literally moments before the Reapers arrive on Mars. I'm not bothered about not knowing the Protheans attempted it though; it wouldn't have made sense for Vigil to be all-knowing about the Prothean war effort when effectively isolated on Illos.

Control was foreshadowed basically the entire game. Synthesis was not, I'll definitely grant you that. But I figured basically back from the first TIM convo on Mars I would have the option of using the Crucible to control the Reapers.

I agree, quality always wins over quantity. But i think there has to be some kind of balance. Like in my example of Mario vs. Skyrim, while you can definitely argue Mario is the better game, I feel like it isn't fair for Skyrim to be penalized for not being as polished as Mario because Mario does much less than Skyrim. Halo 4 was very short, and thus easier to tighten up and streamline things.

[Conniving_Eagle]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

Mass Effect 3 better than Halo 4. Child please.

Assassin's Creed III ****s both of them sideways.

I hope you're trolling, Nihlus.

Anyway, I'll give my thoughts on the VGAs and Game of the Year nominations.

First of all, let's make sure we have a similar criteria of what the Game Of The Year should be. The Game Of The Year should be the best game that was released in its respective year. It should be a game that everyone should play and pick up. In the past years, I've been fairly pleased with the winners of GOTY - Elder Scrolls, RDR, Uncharted 2, FO3, CoD4, Elder Scrolls... This year I'm very disappointed with the nominations. I don't think I'd like to see any of them win.

AC3
Dishonored
Journey
Mass Effect 3
The Walking Dead: The Game

I don't want any of these to win. I'm not into Thief games anymore so I haven't played Dishonored, I don't know what the heck Journey is, and I've only played AC3 and ME3 and both of those were disappointments. That being said, I guess I'd probably have to route for TWD. I don't know about the game, but I've heard great things from people who watch the show. If not, I guess AC3 would be my second.

There are three big categories - multiplayer, single player, and co-op. For a game to win GOTY, it should be a really solid in at least one category. This has been consistent with the previous winners. Skyrim offered an amazing single player, Red Dead Redemption offered a surprisingly deep, non-competetive multiplayer and a great story, Uncharted 2 and the other BGS games offered solid single player experiences as well, Call of Duty 4 had an innovative and addicting, great multiplayer. Neither of the two games I've played excel in any of these categories. Mass Effect 3 was a rushed out product with a disappointing and anticlimatic single player experience, along with a tacked on, weak multiplayer (we're not factoring DLC). Assassin's Creed 3 has a good, detailed multiplayer (which I never cared for), but the single player was very inconsistent, rushed/needs development in some areas, and left something to be desired. And like ME3, though not even in a relatively similar league, the ending was ****.

There are three games that I wanted to be nominated and think deserve to win - Borderlands 2, Halo 4, and Black Ops 2.
Halo 4 and Black Ops 2 not only are one of the only games that have the 'Big Three', they excel in those categories. Spartan Ops in fantastic, and is bound to keep people interested with its new episodes. The Single Player is great and leaves you with a bitter sweet feeling at the end (clap clap, Armando Troisi). The multiplayer has been refined very well while staying true to the Halo franchise. Black Ops has an amazing single player, top notch for an FPS. The single player is also affected by the choices you make, and your choices matter! Wish I could say the same for Mass Effect 3. The writing is good and consistent and the game includes a fantastic easter egg at the end of the credits. Zombies is better then ever and the multiplayer has been noticably tweaked, although it has lost its spark for me personally.

On the other hand, there is Borderlands 2, which offers an incredible and addicting co-op experience. And while the story is bland, the writers still get props because the game is hilarious! I am baffled as why to none of these games have been nominated, they all deserve GOTY much more than the current nominations (at least the ones I have played).

What surprises me about Mass Effect is that it didn't get nominated for best song in a game or best original score. The best thing about the damn game is probably the soundtrack.

Also, I will Lol if Leviathan wins best DLC - what a joke.

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 20 novembre 2012 - 08:24 .

[dreman9999]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Cortana was getting better because she had disseminated her rampant personalities throughout the system...

Maybe that light we saw when MC went whack wasn't light from the nuke but light from the bridge protecting MC...?

No, "hard light" isn't the reason. "Cortana" is the reason.

What you here in the last mission form Cortana is not her getting better.

[dreman9999]

CDRSkyShepard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But the quetion here still how fast it takes to cover MC. Added we have nuke right under mc the has to be knock out of his hand as soon as he hits it and with a dying and slowed down cortana. Or even the question of hom much damage a hard light Sheild can take. Can it take on a point blank nuke?


It 's farfetch to say that " hard light "is the reason MC lived.

Cortana finds your lack of faith disturbing.

When it comes down to it, Cortana has always come through for Chief.

And nobody really knows how much damage a hardlight (non-personal-use) shield can take. Thus its potential is whatever the writers want it to be.

I'm not questioning whether Cortana saved MC. I'm questioning how she saved him. It' clear she save MC, but how she did it is not clear at all.

Modifié par dreman9999, 20 novembre 2012 - 08:25 .

[dreman9999]

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Not a split second.

Yes, it is.

No. it's not. A split second is like a light bulb going on. The bridge fades in.

No it doesn't.

The bridge fades in.

Nope.

Thats not a fration of a second.

You're right. That's instant.

That's not an instant.

[dreman9999]

Seboist wrote...

Wow, they equated Borderlands 2 with the drek that's this McRPG Gears knock off. That's low.

You know , if you don't like ME why are you here?

[Binary_Helix 1]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...


 people like me? Lol you're an ignorant troll. You know nothing about me or the games I play lol. Clown. Besides, I only ever play on insanity. But unlike you, I don't use difficulty as a primary basis for deciding if a game is GOTY material. Nor do I think any publication really does. Things like Story, Characters, gameplay....they tend to be what people look at before they start handing out awards.

Guns packed more punch? Idk what game you were playing. Every gun had little to no kickback, and pretty much were all cookie cutter. Thankfully that problem was rectified in ME3. Each weapon now feels unique.

I know exactly who are what you are. Your crap posts pollute BSN. Also you've bragged about trolling retakers on other gaming forums so spare me your high and mighty attitude. I never said gameplay should be the only measure of GOTY.

Kickback was a stupid new mechanic that runied more guns than it helped. Revenant and Vindicator don't even play like their ME2 counterparts anymore. Most of the popular guns in ME3 are DLC weapons which have ME2 type stats like inate armor piercing and damage multipliers. That's not good weapon balance and an indirect admission of a mistake in my view.

haha ignorant trollin still. I brag about trollin Retakers on other gaming forums? Lol. No all I have ever said was that pro-Ender/anti-Enders correlation is the exact opposite of what it is here on the BSN. The ending haters are outnumbered on other forums and their ******-poor attitude gets trolled, whereas here the people that have some praise for the game get trolled. By the way, I supported the Retake movement.....genius. Try harder

All that mental masturbation and attempt to spin but basically yes you troll retakers and enjoy it. Good job idiot.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 20 novembre 2012 - 08:28 .

[xAmilli0n]

*Thinking to myself* Hmmm, I wonder if people are still arguing about Halo 4 in this thread?

*looks in thread* Yup.

All this silly bickering about the details light shield/bubble thing is kinda missing the point. The point it that is doesn't break willing suspension of disbelief. During the finale, I thought Chief was dead for sure, but I was surprised. The important thing is that I was able to stay in the moment, because everything worked (or at least was plausible) within the universe. In the end thats the key, and why ME3 disappointed many.

Now I know this will be ignored, so I'll just let you all continue your discussion.

Modifié par xAmilli0n, 20 novembre 2012 - 08:46 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

First of all, let's make sure we have a similar criteria of what the Game Of The Year should be. The Game Of The Year should be the best game that was released in its respective year. It should be a game that everyone should play and pick up.

Like I said: Journey or TWD ftw!

[crimzontearz]

you people also fail to realize Cortana teleported the chief with the transit grid of the didact's ship BEFORE the hardlight shield came up

Yes forerunner teleporting has been established in halo CE

[111987]

Shouldn't Game of the Year's be at least somewhat revolutionary? Games that truly change gaming, or genres, or notions about gaming? Games like Mario 64 or Mario Galaxy (3D platformers), Skyward Sword (fully realized and perfected motion control gameplay), Portal (a FPS that is actually a puzzle solver). I mean, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare got some GOTY awards, but while subsequent games may have been technically better, the other additions in the series have never been considered in the same light.

[Ticonderoga117]

xAmilli0n wrote...

*Thinking to myself* Hmmm, I wonder if people are still arguing about Halo 4 in this thread?

*looks in thread* Yup.

All this silly bickering about the details light shield/bubble thing is kinda missing the point. The point it that is doesn't break willing suspension of disbelief. During the finale, I thought Chief was dead for sure, but I was surprised. The important thing is that I was able to stay in the moment, because everything worked (or at least was plausible) within the universe. In the end thats the key, and why ME3 disappointed many.

Now I know this will be ignored, so I'll just let you all continue your discussion.

A very important point. Some do it better than others. ME1 and ME2 did it in spades for me. ME3... ugh. At points sure, but then end shatters it like glass.

[Mcfly616]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...


 people like me? Lol you're an ignorant troll. You know nothing about me or the games I play lol. Clown. Besides, I only ever play on insanity. But unlike you, I don't use difficulty as a primary basis for deciding if a game is GOTY material. Nor do I think any publication really does. Things like Story, Characters, gameplay....they tend to be what people look at before they start handing out awards.

Guns packed more punch? Idk what game you were playing. Every gun had little to no kickback, and pretty much were all cookie cutter. Thankfully that problem was rectified in ME3. Each weapon now feels unique.

I know exactly who are what you are. Your crap posts pollute BSN. Also you've bragged about trolling retakers on other gaming forums so spare me your high and mighty attitude. I never said gameplay should be the only measure of GOTY.

Kickback was a stupid new mechanic that runied more guns than it helped. Revenant and Vindicator don't even play like their ME2 counterparts anymore. Most of the popular guns in ME3 are DLC weapons which have ME2 type stats like inate armor piercing and damage multipliers. That's not good weapon balance and an indirect admission of a mistake in my view.

haha ignorant trollin still. I brag about trollin Retakers on other gaming forums? Lol. No all I have ever said was that pro-Ender/anti-Enders correlation is the exact opposite of what it is here on the BSN. The ending haters are outnumbered on other forums and their ******-poor attitude gets trolled, whereas here the people that have some praise for the game get trolled. By the way, I supported the Retake movement.....genius. Try harder

All that mental masturbation and attempt to spin but basically yes you troll retakers and enjoy it. Good job idiot.

Ahh again appearing as an ignorant moron flinging false statements. How comical. Lol keeping trying. As I said, I supported Retake. If I find myself trolling someone its usually people that mindlessly bash the entire game due to their distaste for the ending.....like you. Lol this is fun


If you're grouping Retakers into the same group of people that mindlessly bash the game, well, that's your own little delusion. And is quite frankly not how it is lol

Modifié par Mcfly616, 20 novembre 2012 - 08:55 .

[xAmilli0n]

111987 wrote...

Shouldn't Game of the Year's be at least somewhat revolutionary? Games that truly change gaming, or genres, or notions about gaming? Games like Mario 64 or Mario Galaxy (3D platformers), Skyward Sword (fully realized and perfected motion control gameplay), Portal (a FPS that is actually a puzzle solver). I mean, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare got some GOTY awards, but while subsequent games may have been technically better, the other additions in the series have never been considered in the same light.

Well, when there is something truely revolutionary (like some of yoru examples) that succesfully achieves its goal, then yes its an easy decision.  I don't really think there is anything like that this year though, making it tougher.

[Ticonderoga117]

111987 wrote...

Shouldn't Game of the Year's be at least somewhat revolutionary?

Going by that, not many games would be up there. I'd say that they must be the best crafted. Or to say it the opposite way, nothing of the game should be broken. I consider ME3's story to be broken. Since story is a major reason why I play Mass Effect, having that be broken is like the portals in Portal not working or Halo's controls to be completely non-functional.