I'm sure Wiki will take it down, anyone can edit that stuff.
Wow, that's despicable. People can be selfish jerks. Thanks for the heads up.
I'm sure Wiki will take it down, anyone can edit that stuff.
Damn, batten down all the hatches.I just read the end of Halo 4, fuckers.
Do not go near Wikipedia, in case that wasn't obvious to everyone.
fun fact
Quake came out 1 day before Mario 64
Mario 64 was outdated by the time it came out.
But base game mechanics are direct derivatives of quake/half-life
Mechanics used on top of it though are incredibly influential. Regenerating health, two weapons at a time, removal of auto pick up of weapons... Grenades as a standard (remember quake 2 grenades? Yikkkesssssss) and melee. These things were basically non-existent at time halo was released.
Quake 1 may actually start the 3D environment trend before mario. But one thing most people don't realize is that Mario 64 laid down the foundations in which ALL modern 3D games on console is based upon:
The Analog sticks.
1. To control said 3D character is space in one stick.
2. To alter the camera movement in the other.
But then again, Mario can be said to redefine how D-pads, shoulder buttons, the diamond face shaped buttons (heck almost EVERY modern aspect of the controller owes to this character)
The Wii-mote is the ONLY controller other than a M/KB set-up that can simultaneously move the character, camera and can register button input at the same time. The standard dual-analogs on the other hand can't since your "thumb" is allowed to choose between stick and face buttons.
Quake 1 may actually start the 3D environment trend before mario. But one thing most people don't realize is that Mario 64 laid down the foundations in which ALL modern 3D games on console is based upon:
The Analog sticks.
1. To control said 3D character is space in one stick.
2. To alter the camera movement in the other.
But then again, Mario can be said to redefine how D-pads, shoulder buttons, the diamond face shaped buttons (heck almost EVERY modern aspect of the controller owes to this character)
The Wii-mote is the ONLY controller other than a M/KB set-up that can simultaneously move the character, camera and can register button input at the same time. The standard dual-analogs on the other hand can't since your "thumb" is allowed to choose between stick and face buttons.
Face buttons perhaps but not triggers, shoulder, and/or stick buttons. How often is the typical CoD player on Xbox 360 simultaneously moving their character, camera, and registering button inputs? Constantly.The Wii-mote is the ONLY controller other than a M/KB set-up that can simultaneously move the character, camera and can register button input at the same time. The standard dual-analogs on the other hand can't since your "thumb" is allowed to choose between stick and face buttons.
I just read the end of Halo 4, fuckers.
Do not go near Wikipedia, in case that wasn't obvious to everyone.
Most open world games can be finished fast if you actually just go through the missions. Most open worlds have nothing in them.Single player campaign was beat in 5 hours? A speedrun, or a regular runthrough?
It's absurd how much money these FPS games, or any console/"AAA" game supposedly costs -- it's questionable to say the least.
Seriously, though, I doubt it takes more than 10 hours at most to beat the campaign (Multiplayer doesn't really add more content -- you just fight other players on a couple of maps, or custom made maps with basic FPS mechanics, but that's not related to this.)
200 people, 100 million dollars, 10 hours (At the most) content. How is it even possible to spend that much money on such a project? And why would they openly admit that a 5-10 hour FPS game is the most expensive game they've ever made? I'd expect a massive open world game, or atleast a game with a massive amount of content with that budget.
And yes, I'm not a big fan of the massively overbudgeted Hollywood movies. The bigger the budget, the more generalized (And mediocre.) the movie will be, because they want it to appeal to as many people as possible when they've invested so much money.
Single player campaign was beat in 5 hours? A speedrun, or a regular runthrough?
It's absurd how much money these FPS games, or any console/"AAA" game supposedly costs -- it's questionable to say the least.
Seriously, though, I doubt it takes more than 10 hours at most to beat the campaign (Multiplayer doesn't really add more content -- you just fight other players on a couple of maps, or custom made maps with basic FPS mechanics, but that's not related to this.)
200 people, 100 million dollars, 10 hours (At the most) content. How is it even possible to spend that much money on such a project? And why would they openly admit that a 5-10 hour FPS game is the most expensive game they've ever made? I'd expect a massive open world game, or atleast a game with a massive amount of content with that budget.
And yes, I'm not a big fan of the massively overbudgeted Hollywood movies. The bigger the budget, the more generalized (And mediocre.) the movie will be, because they want it to appeal to as many people as possible when they've invested so much money.
You don't just play Halo's campaign and then you're done with the game for good.
When I first got CE: I played through the game on Normal, then Heroic, then I had a bunch of friends come over and we played through on Normal, then Heroic, then we played HOURS of local multiplayer, then we played the game co-op on Legendary which took hours of passing the controllers around, then even more hours of local multiplayer, then I attempted to solo the game Legendary, then we had LAN parties every few weeks, and so on.
Then factor future additions to the series, such as internet multiplayer (adding hundreds of hours), Forge allowing for infinite custom gametypes and maps, Theater, Firefight, now Spartan Ops, the list goes on. The amount of time you can spend with a game isn't limited to how much concrete "content" is in the game, but rather the amount of fun you can have within the framework the game provides. Let's not forget that some of the undeniably best games ever made have been no more than a couple of hours long, but the "gameplay loops" there are so fun you don't mind doing them over and over and over and over for hundreds of hours.
Besides, you can't just equate content with money, it's not like "well, we can add fifty more quests, but it's going to cost us $50k, so we might be better off investing that $50k into getting us +50 graphics points"
Have you ever played a Halo game? Going by this post i would assume you haven't . Halo games have never had overly long campaigns , its never needed to. Halo's campaigns lend themselves to multiple playthoughs thanks to the sandbox. Huge levels and excellent ai that reacts diffrently everytime you play it, unlike heavily scripted corridor shooters or the glorified shooting gallery that is COD single player.
Every Halo game since 3 has had massive amounts of content, between saved films and forge alone not even counting the mp.(which is played for years, Halo 2 went strong from 04 till well after H3 was released took MS to shut down the servers for people to stop ) Even Halo 4 taking into account the loss of campaign theater mode is more content rich than most other games. Also like a few others here have already said , you need to realise that a whole new dev studio with top not talent was created from the ground up to make this game .That ain'texactly cheap .
Halo didn't set any standards. Online was already done to death by Doom, Quake and Unreal. The dual stick control scheme was virtually identical to Turok Dinosaur Hunter from 1997. Even Goldeneye had the same control scheme. I think self replenishing health is the only thing that Halo brought to the industry.Not even close. Halo set standards that are still in games to this day, and not just first-person shooters.
Factor in Campaign, Spartan Ops, Forge, Multiplayer, ongoing multiplayer and Spartan Ops maps being made, ongoing content updates, set-up of a whole new trilogy, setting up a whole new studio, hiring top talent, hiring talent for each mode, concept stage, dealing with also publishing side, merchandising and marketing.I have played them all, except 2 I think. Might have played that as well. Not a big fan of any of them, but I did enjoy Reach.
Anyhow, was it really necessary to make a team of 200 people for an FPS game? I wonder what they all did -- seems excessive for an FPS game with a short campaign. I assume CoD also had a ridiculous budget compared to content. Where does all the money go? Polish?
In Team Slayer Pro, how do weapon spawns work? If I understand correctly, there are initial weapon spawns at the beginning of the match, but after that everything is random. Does it work like that in objective games too?
Doom.
Factor in Campaign, Spartan Ops, Forge, Multiplayer, ongoing multiplayer and Spartan Ops maps being made, ongoing content updates, set-up of a whole new trilogy, setting up a whole new studio, hiring top talent, hiring talent for each mode, concept stage, dealing with also publishing side, merchandising and marketing.
You seem to be thinking that all the money goes into the campaign.
Halo didn't set any standards. Online was already done to death by Doom, Quake and Unreal. The dual stick control scheme was virtually identical to Turok Dinosaur Hunter from 1997. Even Goldeneye had the same control scheme. I think self replenishing health is the only thing that Halo brought to the industry.
GIMME MA HDR lighting, 343.
I frankly wouldn't give a fuck. HALO 3 still looks beautiful to me.
Just wait for Destiny. I'm confident it will be impressive.
On new hardware sure. but I dont want resolution to be sacrified for HDR...on the 360
GIMME MA HDR lighting, 343.
Halo didn't set any standards. Online was already done to death by Doom, Quake and Unreal. The dual stick control scheme was virtually identical to Turok Dinosaur Hunter from 1997. Even Goldeneye had the same control scheme. I think self replenishing health is the only thing that Halo brought to the industry.
But on consoles Goldeneye and Turok set the standard for fps shooters.
Halo didn't set any standards. Online was already done to death by Doom, Quake and Unreal. The dual stick control scheme was virtually identical to Turok Dinosaur Hunter from 1997. Even Goldeneye had the same control scheme. I think self replenishing health is the only thing that Halo brought to the industry.
But on consoles Goldeneye and Turok set the standard for fps shooters.
It would be impossible to tell. It was literally just a four sentence breakdown.Just out of curiosity, was it any good? (No spoilers, of course.)
Gaf didn't like Reach? Great game made even better that the elites were back, I hated fighting the Brutes in H3.
Gaf didn't like Reach? Great game made even better that the elites were back, I hated fighting the Brutes in H3.
Oh, I'm waiting. I've been waiting for a long, long time. I have the utmost faith in whatever they're slowly cooking up. Haven't they been working on it since mid just before HALO 3 launched in 2007?
On new hardware sure. but I dont want resolution to be sacrified for HDR...on the 360
Resolution is really, really overrated in my opinion. The only thing that bothered me somewhat, at the time, in Halo 3 was the aliasing, which in theory could be fixed with a low cost post process method. The common symptoms of a low res game include blurry texture/ low detail overall IQ. Apart form the aliasing, Halo 3's IQ was great at the at time. The textures were crisp and the lighting was amazing.
the problem with halo 3's iq was the lack of anti-aliasing. i take hdr over 720p anytime. h3 is still a fantastic looking game (human faces aside).
Bungie went completely nuts with the use of colors in Halo 3 and I loved it. It's the most colorful Halo game to date and will probably stay that way - brutes in light purple armor with sunlighting bouncing off it looked incredible, and were a stark contrast to games of that period that went for muted colors (Gears of War, Call of Duty, etc.).
I loved this too. For about a year my desktop background was just Halo 3 screens from the in-game screenshot feature because it was so gorgeous. IIRC there was a brilliant thread on here with some beautiful ones as well.Bungie went completely nuts with the use of colors in Halo 3 and I loved it. It's the most colorful Halo game to date and will probably stay that way - brutes in light purple armor with sunlighting bouncing off it looked incredible, and were a stark contrast to games of that period that went for muted colors (Gears of War, Call of Duty, etc.).
I think it'd be amazing if MS published a Sony-style HD collection of X360 Halo games but on the next Xbox, with 1080p native res, FXAA and good texture filtering (and rock solid 30fps, Reach being the main culprit here). Basically playing Halo 3 photo mode in real time would be an incredible experience. The game holds up so well gameplay-wise I'd replay it multiple times.
Bungie went completely nuts with the use of colors in Halo 3 and I loved it. It's the most colorful Halo game to date and will probably stay that way - brutes in light purple armor with sunlighting bouncing off it looked incredible, and were a stark contrast to games of that period that went for muted colors (Gears of War, Call of Duty, etc.).
I think it'd be amazing if MS published a Sony-style HD collection of X360 Halo games but on the next Xbox, with 1080p native res, FXAA and good texture filtering (and rock solid 30fps, Reach being the main culprit here). Basically playing Halo 3 photo mode in real time would be an incredible experience. The game holds up so well gameplay-wise I'd replay it multiple times.
All this insane money they throw at developing it and it's not even multi-platform. Awesome!
All this insane money they throw at developing it and it's not even multi-platform. Awesome!
Do people still consider halo 3 to be the best halo?
It's certainly my favorite.
All this insane money they throw at developing it and it's not even multi-platform. Awesome!