Halo |OT2| Hyper-Athletic Speed And Mass And Weight and Power

Remember when you and your buddies played Zombies during Halo CE LANS? No? Then why the fuck is it in the FFA playlist celebrating H:CE? Oh that's right they tied an achievement to Zombies on the Anni maps so badscrubs have even more of a reason to block vote for it.

The framerate is telegraphed and in some ways, predictable. There is variation, however.
Amazing
 
So Marty was working on the music for Halo 4? Congratulation, TOO, you found out the secret composer!

Anyway. That's not the tour I was talking about. He does another tour during the Halo 2-3 interim where he does a far funnier impression of Marty...and Marty walks in on him. As I said, can't find it on Youtube. :(
I realize you posted a google video link - but for anyone who wants a download version...

It was originally hosted by Microsoft - linked from here. That link no longer works, but we hosted both the original .mov file and a re-encoded .wmv, back in the day (both of those links still work).

On a totally different subject:

Fact of the matter is, we got burned by Reach. Badly. So badly that it's hard to accept almost all change.
Compared to other Halos, I think it's weaker, but compared to pretty much every other non-halo shooter, it's the best. When everything works correctly, it's brilliant.
These two comments were posted by the same person, about the same game, 25 minutes apart.

When your hyperbole gets this absurd, I can't listen to what you're saying any more. If you want to discuss something intelligently... USE REASONABLE WORDS.
 
These two comments were posted by the same person, about the same game, 25 minutes apart.

When your hyperbole gets this absurd, I can't listen to what you're saying any more. If you want to discuss something intelligently... USE REASONABLE WORDS.
Halo is so good that even at its worse, it's among the best console FPSs out there. That doesn't mean we shouldn't want the game to be at its best.

Halo wasting its potential (through bad gameplay and playlist decisions) hurts.
 
Halo is so good that even at its worse, it's among the best console FPSs out there. That doesn't mean we shouldn't want the game to be at its best.
No, absolutely, you SHOULD want the game to be its best. (Even if what YOU think is its best is not what I think is its best.)

But you can't really expect people to engage you in a discussion about that if all of your comments boil down to "IT SUCKS!" and "IT'S FANTASTIC!" (look at those two quotes again) in nearly the same breath.

A lot of people on GAF dislike armor abilities. I get that. And they're disappointed that 343 would ignore their unhappiness and bring those armor abilities back for the next game. I get that, too. (They're disregarding the fact that this community is NOT the bulk of 343's market, but that's fine - almost all sub-communities do that.) What bothers me is that 343 has said, over and over and over again, that they've heard the complaints and concerns, and developed a game that addresses some of these - but the majority of posters are ignoring that and jumping to conclusions because they simply cannot imagine HOW someone could include armor abilities that they might live with.

And I fully agree that when all is said and done, and the game comes out, we MIGHT find that what we get is exactly what the complainers have been worried about. At THAT point, they'd have every right in the world to bitch and scream and vote with their wallets, and find another game to play. But who knows? Maybe they'll find something they actually like!

We're a bit over half a year from release. We're past the point where major features can be added or removed - things you're worried about are either IN THE GAME, or NOT IN THE GAME. (Hmm. I could be wrong about that, I guess. I don't think so, though.) All this yelling about 'preorder cancelled' and 'I'm never buying another 343 product again' is absurd - until you actually know what you're talking about. :(

That's all I was saying.
 
I can neither confirm or deny but I heard that there will be a video where Hitmonchan is dancing and I move some body parts.

Otherwise I was a guest with Mig, Duststorm and GrimIV on the Waypoint Modcast. Nothing special and I said nothing but yeah I just want to tell you that.

"Not at all." And given that it's a new group of enemies, with different classes – a "new Covenant" – I don't think it is the Forerunners.
Why? We literally know nothing about the Forerunners. Cryptun gave us some hindsight in the Forerunner society but not much. The warrior class can still be divided in different groups.

And Tashi: I should have retweeted a hilarious pic of me.
 
I'll be honest, before Reach was announced I was getting tired of Halo 3's gameplay.

When Reach was announced I expected a radical departure. Something more like Ghost Recon with Spartans. Tactical as shit, but far more fast paced due to them being Spartans.

I would have been fine with that. I want Halo games to either do something completley different, or stay true to some tightly held Halo Design Staples. You can change some stuff around, but keep it true to Halo. Reach still played and felt like Halo, but it felt like a sloppier version of it.

Reach took a dump on a lot of Halo staples.
-Uneven Starting Abilities
-AA's like camo, jetpack, armor lock.
-Inconsistencies with bloom

And honestly, Halo 4 is looking to go down this path again.
I'll give 343 the benefit of the doubt with the "random" power weapon drops. Maybe it really predictable.
Maybe sprint won't fuck up the strafing and base speed of the spartans
But the fact that we have loadouts again? And gameplay changing "modifications" That you unlock through leveling up?

Bleh.

I'll still buy it, I'll still love it... but it feels like some of Halo's integrity is being lost. Not entirely its fault, more of CoD's fault and the new trends in shooters. Halo needs to be successful and you need to evolve with the times. Unfortunately the times suck.
 
Maybe it's because I'm older (though not yet Wu-old) and have gone through the Halo release cycle so many times (all but Halo 1, here on GAF). But I'm just weary of the kind of hyperbolic responses that Wu was just lamenting. I find I can't get worked up about the most objectionable thing I've read, because they are either devoid of context (implementation and balance, for starters) or not described adequately.

We know how this works: after the Game Informer details have been able to breathe, clarifications come. Podcasts, interviews, Bulletins, forum posts. And then finally, the game, at which point I'll be bitching right along with everyone if there are things I find objectionable (and there are sure to be). So I just don't understand the knee-jerk freakout cycle. I've been through it many times (and participated many times) and am content to simply wait for more information and then the game itself to worry.

Two cynical responses, and then some positive thoughts:

One could interpret the "new missions after release" strategy as meaning they simply won't be done by the time the game ships. Or, there wasn't room on the disc for them.

Or (and I really like this one), the remaining modes are so ambitious, the dev schedule had to prioritize them to make sure they didn't stretch their resources out too far, and give the Ops missions the proper, focused attention post-ship. Which would be a very good thing.

Regardless, the post-release schedule is pretty neat. I enjoy unlocking content, but having new content scheduled and dropping regularly for a while post-release will be a lot of fun. I just hope there are at least a couple good missions on disc to tide us over, as I suspect I'm going to be all over this mode.
 
Why? We literally know nothing about the Forerunners. Cryptun gave us some hindsight in the Forerunner society but not much. The warrior class can still be divided in different groups.
We only know of one – Prometheans – and neither Forerunner book has heavily implied different classes of fighting Forerunners. The GI information made it out to be a "new Covenant." I just don't see it.
 
On a totally different subject:





These two comments were posted by the same person, about the same game, 25 minutes apart.

When your hyperbole gets this absurd, I can't listen to what you're saying any more. If you want to discuss something intelligently... USE REASONABLE WORDS.

His posts were certainly full of hyperbole but they echo my sentiments. Reach as a Halo game was a burn, thats not to say its a bad game, but as a Halo game it felt like a lot of what I enjoyed about Halo had been removed. Essentially while its a good game, to be it didnt feel like Halo.

If we take the GI article as black and white (which it certainly isnt) Halo 4 could be a brilliant game, one which I may enjoy, it would be quite the departure from why I enjoy Halo though and would almost feel like another I.P. I would enjoy it but be resentful that Halo has taken a direction I do not care as much for. That said, the GI article is far from clear, I am just talking in extremes here for the sake of the point I am trying to make. Halo Reach is a pretty good game in its own right, but to me feels like a poor Halo game.

One thing that kept me going back to Halo 3 when CoD4, WaW, MW2 BO and even Reach came out was the fact that everyone started off on an even footing, I am not a fan of AA's or Perks which add elements of rock paper scissors gameplay. With CoD while I enjoy those games immensely (I played a ton of Black Ops!) I enjoyed traditional Halo more.

For all I know the direction taken with Halo 4 is just fine, but if its as heavily influenced by CoD/ Battlefield as GI makes out then I reason that other directions for innovation could be taken which allow the core of Halo to remain intact.

We're a bit over half a year from release. We're past the point where major features can be added or removed - things you're worried about are either IN THE GAME, or NOT IN THE GAME. (Hmm. I could be wrong about that, I guess. I don't think so, though.) All this yelling about 'preorder cancelled' and 'I'm never buying another 343 product again' is absurd - until you actually know what you're talking about. :(
Halogaf will all be there day one, personally I will be there day one with nerves on edge to see how it plays, but I know I will be there day one lol.
 
I really hope all the mp existing in some giant ship doesn't mean it's Forge World v2. Do not sacrifice framerate for some boring canonical reasons or sense of scale please please please please please.
 
I'm in two minds about Wu's post.
Yes, the hyperbole is absurd. It always is, and unfortunately, it always will be. And it's stronger than it has been previously because of feeling burned by Reach.

But people want to like the game, they want Halo 4 to be great. There are certain members who have strong reservations about what they have seen so far and expressed these reservations in a non-hyperbolic manner.
I don't think people should feel bad for reacting negatively to data they don't like, even at this stage in the year. People's hyperbole will always frustrate me, but there are plenty critical posts that exist in the thread without it.

I'm not sure where I stand. After the showcase a few weeks ago, 1up wrote an article where they described their fear that Halo 4 was going in a very COD direction and that was sad. I, based on the vidoc & previews disagreed with them and we had a discussion about it over twitter, they maintained they got a COD vibe.
Now we see this glut of information and part of me has to wonder if I was too quick to defend 343.
I'm not judging the game before it is out, I am commenting on the data I have before me.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
I'm reading this funny, and need a bit of clarification. Is multiplayer a part of Infinity or is Infinity a part of multiplayer?
Infinity contains every aspect of MP, except campaign co-op.

Instead of seeing

Campiagn
Multiplayer


You will see:

Campaign
Infinity

With new and traditional modes under that umbrella. Infinity will have zero effect on the scale, size, content or appearance of MP spaces.
 
I'm reading this funny, and need a bit of clarification. Is multiplayer a part of Infinity or is Infinity a part of multiplayer?
Infinity is the multilayer, according to the GI article. The multiplayer aspect of H4 takes place on the UNSC Infinity, and since they want to focus on the story driven aspect of the MP, they really want to drive it into peoples heads that the Spartans have a reason to be fighting eachother, and for them to be fighting in the (virtual) places that they are.

How are the pillars support structures? Link to what? Isn't the "star" in the center of the entire thing?
I'll try to find the section of the article that said it. I may be remembering completely wrong.
 
Infinity is the fictional and structural wrapper for Multiplayer.
That would make more sense than how I was interpreting it. I was reading it as if it were like the Armory, and have it just be a name for a suite of options that are more multiplayer focused.

Infinity contains every aspect of MP, except campaign co-op.

Instead of seeing

Campiagn
Multiplayer


You will see:

Campaign
Infinity

With new and traditional modes under that umbrella. Infinity will have zero effect on the scale, size, content or appearance of MP spaces.
So for what we know already; Spartan Ops, Multiplayer, and Forge will be under the umbrella of Infinity. Makes me wonder where Theatre will fit into all of this. Will each umbrella(Campaign and Infinity) have their own dedicated theatre?
 
If there are any frame rate issues, it won't be because of the fiction.
Well, I just hope we're not always reminded of being in a ship's hologram or whatever while playing MP. I don't need faintly glitching walls or faint outlines of a ship when I look to the sky as some lame sense of "place" in this Infinity thing. We have no confirmation of locked 30fps, which in and or itself is basically unbearable in this day and age. That map with the mech is already terrifying. Superfluous robots, labyrinthian hallways, staircases, and an aesthetic straight out of Orbital.

Simplicity + high framerate = A+.