Halo 4 out November 6th!!

anyone else noticing how good the assault rifle is for firefights on war games? and the fact that i can have the light rifle and assault rifle together in a class i awesome. and pormethean vision is fucking useful.

but the btb maps are shit. besides ragnaraok, they suck. i think it is due to the generally odd layouts of the map, and that they all tend to be circle shaped with multiple bases for each team. cause people to get ambushed really easily. infinity slayer, slayer pro, or flood are the best playlists to play imo. until they add swat and grifball...

and no betrayals in btb? that's weak.
 
metacritic is not the end all be all. for one thing, they completely pick and choose what sites to include. and it's not even the same sites over and over. sometimes you'll see a site included on a game review and sometimes the site isn't included even though the site did review it. so even though you have reviews from gaming journalists at Time or USA Today or LA Times or NBC News, etc. etc. etc., they aren't included in the rankings. or let's say you only want reviews from gaming dedicated sites. well, you don't see the reviews from Gamer Dad or any number of smaller blog sites.

so when you pick and choose what sites are included, that skews the validity of the score.

i think metacritic should be more like rotten tomatoes. rotten tomatoes includes every one. every site that does reviews is included. RT doesn't pare it down to sites it thinks have the most relevant opinions.

It shouldn't be. Well, we see 100 opinions on the game but we think these 20 opinions are the only ones that matter.
 
I personally stopped giving all these different review sites any type of validity years ago. I got sick of seeing different shows, websites, magazines basically kiss a developers ass for anywhere from 6 onths to a year just to get info and fill page space/time and then when the game comes out shit all over everything they hyped up for the last said timeframe. It shows nothing but hypocrisy. Even better is when they shit all over one game for the same things they praise another one for on a routine basis.

To me, the only thing these review sites are good for is to get some of the basic info on the game, when type of stuff is in it, and then decide for myself if it is something I want to play or not. I have honestly enjoyed games that most reviews have given less than a 50% rating.

Anyways, back onto the topic of Halo 4. Is there a CAG clan/group by chance? Will there be some sort of dedicated night for Cag members getting together for spartan ops and other shenanigans? If so I would love to be involved in this.
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']Still surprised this is only getting a 87 on meta and might hit 86. It's definitely better then Reach was.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the yearly iteration cycle has hit Halo as well.

2007: Halo 3
2009: Wars and ODST
2010: Reach
2011: Anniversary
2012: Halo 4

They're not all new games, but I have a feeling that series' doing this are getting a little banged up by having a new title every year.
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']Still surprised this is only getting a 87 on meta and might hit 86. It's definitely better then Reach was.[/QUOTE]
Some of those sites are giving silly low scores to draw attention to themselves. Say what you will but it's not a 70, not an 80, this isn't a Section 8 or a Spec Ops. It's being held to a higher standard due to its popularity.
 
[quote name='The Ebbtide']The low gravity part? That was where I began to get bored.
[/QUOTE]

I love the game but Legendary in this one is a joke. I've finished all the others on Legendary (minus Anniversary, but did it on the original). I don't mind a challenge, but it's just mind numbingly boring in 4. Peek head into battle, shoot an enemy, retreat to recharge shield, wash and repeat. Oh, and hope you don't run out of bullets. Grunts should not be bullet sponges. Also, it shouldn't take 3-4 well placed headshots to take down an enemy.

[quote name='RELISCH']i honestly fucking hate the maps. the forge world maps made by the community in reach were 10x better.[/QUOTE]

Mmm... I'm not a fan of the maps in this game but I'd say 99% of the Forge maps in Reach were garbage. The only ones I liked were Bungie developed ones.

Another problem i have with these maps are just silly shit scattered around the level. Too many little walls, barriers, holes in floors, etc. It kills the flow of a match. It's impossible to strafe in a lot of cases because you get caught on something silly on the map.

[quote name='dafoomie']Guy must be playing on an SDTV with rabbit ears if he thinks 4 looks like 2.[/QUOTE]

Or a PS fanboy trolling. There is no way one can play through this game and not come out thinking it's one of the top 3 best looking 360 games, if not #1.

[quote name='Soodmeg']Yeah that kinda of a cop out dude. There has been a bunch of different weapons in games that would qualify as not run of the mill.[/QUOTE]

I agree, there have been plenty of unique weapons over the years but his original point is still valid. There are basically 7 or so types of human weapons, then there are the Covenant analogs and now the Promethean analogs. They're all variations on the same thing.

I will give 343 props to doing something Bungie never could, and that's making alien weapons (Promethean) that you actually want to use. In the previous 5 games, you'd pick Human over Covenant weapons 99% of the time. Now I have no problems grabbing a Promethean weapon in a pinch or even choosing it over a human weapon.

Oh and the Saw is a beast. That thing needs to be rebalanced somehow. Short of a Rocket Launcher if you go against someone with that, you lose. Period.
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']Still surprised this is only getting a 87 on meta and might hit 86. It's definitely better then Reach was.[/QUOTE]

Some tard gave it a 20 and it went from 90 to 87. Think about how important a metacritic score is when one troll with a geocities quality blog can do that.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Metacritic is stupid as well as 99% of all reviews. Until we actually use the entire scale and not just 7-10 its completely pointless. Also, I still do not get why so many people are so emotional invested in what numbers are shown even when the difference is slight.OMG!!!! It might drop to a 86 from an 87? Call the national god damn guard!!!

This game is a perfect example of why the gaming review system is so broken...you can tell that the vast majority of people started their review at a 9.5 and anything negative would only bring it slightly down.

Halo 4 is missing a bunch of stuff that was in the previous ones (scoring system for campaign which game a purpose to the skulls for example) the plot isnt really anything special and there isnt really anything new to add to the franchise. Like I said before they are recycling a good portion of the game each time..Halo 4 could just as easily be Halo 1 as they are not (as far as I can tell I am only on the 4th mission on Legendary) furthering any real plot.

Plus 343 like a bunch of fucking coward caved to the Call of Duty crowd with this load out multiplayer. I am not saying that the load out system wont work but its clearly pandering, you would have went any way in the world but you chose to go that route.

Again, I am not saying the game is bad but its clearly based on the Madden Football scale, basically short of anthrax on the disc would get you an 8 and you can only go up from there.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree that they were cowards for caving into progression style online systems. Everyone has made the move towards that style, and had they not done so they would not have been seen as brave but unwilling to adapt. You may not enjoy it, but progression system are here to stay. Hopefully someone will do something more with it than just filling up an experience point bar to unlock stuff, but they've managed to speed up the multiplayer and add in a progression system AND it still feels like Halo. I was worried about how they would deal with it, but it works great and feels like a step forward instead of rushed pandering to a specific audience.

There is plot progression within the series, though like action movies a lot of it is to set up context for the next action sequence.
 
4th mission of the campaign....
WHY IS IT SO LONG WITH SO FEW CHECKPOINTS?!?! Must have died 15 times in that section before you enter the LZ area and the Mantis seems far less effective than it used to be. I dont mind a challenge at all but this mission seems to be taking forever.
 
New Spec Ops stuff is out. I beat all 5 Episodes on Heroic, just like the Challenge said, and no extra XP from the listed Challenged. It didn't even give me any Progress for it on the Challenge. There's also one Challenge that's mislabeled (Core on Artifact, even though it's in Departure).

Great Q&A there, 343. You're at Capcpom's level of reading/writing.
/sarcasm

Honestly, they didn't balance that at all. It lagged so many times it's not even funny. UGH.
 
[quote name='Doomtime']Best Halo multiplayer since Halo 2. I can't put it down.[/QUOTE]
Same here, I just wish there were a greater variety of maps in slayer.
 
[quote name='mikejenks']Some tard gave it a 20 and it went from 90 to 87. Think about how important a metacritic score is when one troll with a geocities quality blog can do that.[/QUOTE]

That reviewer looks like he's trolling for added hits to his website. Here's Metacritic's breakdown of his reviews:

For 95 reviews, this publication has graded:
27%higher than the average critic
6%same as the average critic
67%lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 11.3 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)
Click to expand...

He panned Journey, Max Payne, Sleeping Dogs, and quite a few other high-profile games. Can you imagine if 343's bonus structure depended on Metacritic overall ratings (as I've read some developer bonus structures do) and they lose a significant bonus because the game is not rated 90 or higher due to this moron?

Seriously, Metacritic has got to do a better job of quality control. It's getting out of hand. At this point, the only purpose it serves is to help put all the review links on the same page.
 
It does seem pretty arbitrary sometimes which blogs Metacritic chooses to include or exclude for a particular game.

I don't know about you guys but I am having a blast with the multiplayer. Before this I had only ever played Reach and I tended to stick with Invasion because I usually did poorly in the purely competitive gametypes. I don't know what's different in 4 but I'm performing way better than I ever did in Reach and having a ton of fun too.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Same here, I just wish there were a greater variety of maps in slayer.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely love this games multiplayer. 2 was easily my most played Halo. I played it more than the combined time of 3, ODST, and Reach. 4 may surpass 2 though. They do need more maps. It seems like the same 3 maps every time. I know the big ones are left out but arg...


Are there any maps that people really struggle with? That jungle map with the base in the middle is always a pain for me.


I played one game of big team infinity slayer and I went something like 31-2. The tank is so ridiculously over powered its not even funny
 
@Soodmeg

Then go play something else. There are plenty of other games out there and no one is stopping you from playing them. You can hate all you want here, It won't get you anywhere.
 
@soodmeg... if you've shot 6 billion grunts, maybe it's time you try out some other games.

I'm not a diehard Halo fan. None of them resonated with me except the original Halo (or the Anniversary remake). But Halo 4 does. And I haven't put much time in any Halo beyond the story campaign and dabbling in multiplayer. Maybe that's why I can see Halo 4 for how great it is rather than you who expects a revolution after shooting 6 billion grunts.

Already enough people are complaining that too many changes were made to Halo. So it's not pleasing people who expect the same and it's not pleasing people who want more difference? You can't please everyone I guess.
 
Head shots. You can try to assassinate them but head shots. Get the mask open and one shot to the dome....

Seriously. What game were you expecting exactly? You keep complaining about the game over and over which is fine because you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems like you are just finding stuff to complain about. The story isn't retarded just because you don't understand it. We all have gripes with the game, but it seems like you are hoping for a completely different game...

Yes the covenant, human, and forerunner weapons basically share the same base traits: pistol type, rifle type, shotgun, but if they didn't people would complain about balance. The guns are fine. This isn't armed and dangerous or serious sam. Its meant to be based in a realistic future universe. They added the rail gun, sticky detonator, all the forerunner weapons....

If they just did away with the covenant, which you keep complaining that they don't, then people that actually know Halo canon would go berserk. It would make no sense to just get rid of them. The covenant are split which you would know if you followed past games. So some still believe that the Halo rings are part of the great journey and that the forerunners are gods. The rest, led by the arbiter, know the truth. They will probably show up in Halo 5 or 6 so get used to it. And if they covenant weren't in the game, what would you propose? Just fighting the forerunners? Another random Alien race just showing up? The flood?

If you don't like the game, don't play it. BLOPS 2 comes out tonight so you can go enjoy its convoluted, mess of a story where your character dies 9 times and you get to shoot the same 2 enemies all game. Seriously, do you go into the Call of Duty threads, or the Battlefield threads and complain about shooting the same 3 terrorist looking guys all game?
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I disagree with you guys and I kinda feel you guys are playing right into the hands of what developers want.

Because I am not a fan of too many gaming franchise just a fan of gaming itself (just like the NBA..I dont have a favorite team I just watch a bunch of games because I love the NBA) I always come across as the devils advocate on AAA titles.

Yes, that guy gave it a horrid score but his reasoning was sound, especially if you include legacy. (as in taking into account that there has been 10 other halo games) I can not believe how safe 343 played it for such a flagship franchise. This game is as bland as they come and in no way does it deserve anything other than a average score on a real scale not the we only use 7-10.

How many grunts, jackles and elites are we going to face here? How many of the exact same weapons are we going to use here? (No I do not count reskinning a battle rifle to look like a forrunner rifle anything special.) The plot, which I finally had someone explain to be is simply retarded. Guys, we are shooting robot dogs here?

I just think many people were already in love with the game before you even touched it which is great for fans but horrid for reviewers, from a completely neutral perceptive the game isnt bad but its no where near life changing that will impact the way I look at games. I have no emotional attachment to anything....I am in my 40th planet valley shooting my 6 billionth fucking grunt so I can make it to my 20th space corridor level.

I cant believe 343 didnt take any risks at all. Granted I am on like the 6 level on legendary but unless we go back to earth and I end this fight inside of Time Square preventing the aliens from blowing up the Statue of Liberty then I doubt my opinion is going to change.

Meh, again not trying to ruffle feathers but I just dont get it.[/QUOTE]

If you think 343 didn't take any risks at all, then you haven't played anything outside of the single player campaign.

I didn't mind the reasoning of the guy who gave it a 2 personally. I also think if you show a big gun, let me shoot that gun, dammit. However when reviewing media if you take into account the technical expertise of the game, everything from lighting to direction, to voice acting and so on, then even if you feel the story is bland but they've nailed everything else then it's hard to comprehend giving it nearly the lowest score. I don't see how that can be defended, even though I think he made good points. A movie with good action, camera work, direction, etc but a bland story wouldn't get a 1 star from a movie reviewer. Being against a game in advance is as bad as being overly for it.

As far as the story goes, I don't understand how you aren't more familiar with the plot if you've played so many of the other games. The Forerunners and Covenant have been explained. The Didact is something that could use more explanation certainly, and it shouldn't require having read the books prior to understand.

I feel that the single player and multi were almost made by different teams. There are certainly new strategies to use now in the single player, but otherwise while you lament the lack of risk, as someone who was a fan of previous Halo games I think they did well to stick to the familiar beats while establishing the first part of their trilogy. As a fan of Halo games, I'm glad that the single player feels definitely like a Halo game. They can't please everyone though.

I have gripes with it. I don't like that the single player is so separate from the multiplayer, the skulls/scoring could've had XP advancement so that they were interconnected. My wife plays co-op with me locally, but you need a Gold account to play Spartan Ops for whatever reason and that's absurd that I can't play it locally with her. The video/map/screentshot system isn't integrated with Halo Waypoint yet.

It's certainly cool to have issues with the game(it's not like you are the only person who has a negative opinion of the game), though if you weren't a fan of the campaign from previous games I'm not sure what to tell you about not enjoying this one. As someone who did enjoy the past ones, I do. Sorry you don't enjoy it. Hope the multiplayer suits you better so that you can feel you got your moneys worth.
 
Realism in that they try to ground things based on what could realistically happen in the future (Humans colonizing space, advanced warfighters, galactic space travel) . Yes the chances of a covenant or forerunner race aren't realistic, but again the guns makes sense for what they are and for balance.

You want them to go back to fighting the covenant for earth? Something that was realized and finished in Halo 2 and 3. Are you just going to completely ignore the fact that the convenant are split and half of them are still trying to activate Halo rings? Oh and lets not forget that the covenant were the main bad guys for 6 games. They added a whole new set of bad guys, but you're sick of the covenant being filler. Your arguments make zero sense. You claim you are sick of fighting the same enemy over and over again in the same locations. Yet you want the old contrived story line of aliens invade earth. With the kicker being that it's against enemies that they have faced off against in 6 straight games?

If you think they lack innovation, then do you care to share your thoughts on what guns they should create?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Soodmeg']Thats a good question and the only thing I can tell you is....anything that doesnt look like a human could have made it.

Make a weapon that is slightly confusing to use since its not made for humans to interact with. We already had beams of light for ammo with the covanet (by the way I know I am spelling it wrong I dont care enough to fix it) pick something else. Maybe they shoot giant boulders out that pin people instead of bullets persay....I notice that the Knights have sword could you have done something with that?

Jesus guys seriously, who the hell is even using these guns? All of the bad guys I have run across are either dogs, flying robots, or Knights with swords....who the fuck is even using a pistol? Who is using that sniper?

I wish they would have included that Knight charge stab thing that they do sometimes as an armor ability.[/QUOTE]


Wow...are you serious? The crawlers have the pistol, suppressor or sniper rifle in the middle of the character. Literally right in the middle of their face. The thing that's shooting at you. The knights hold a gun in their right hand and a sword in their left hand. The flying machines come out of their back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: campaign ending
Really surprised it isn't more of a cliffhanger. Thought for sure they'd leave it even more open than Halo 2 in an attempt to hook people in for the next console ASAP.
 
[quote name='whiptcracker']I don't think I'd agree that the Banshees can be 'easily' taken down by starting weapons, however this change hasn't bothered me. It keeps players from just taking the Banshee and avoiding the battlefield, and I haven't seen any time where a player with a Banshee just dominates the entire match, like in Halo 3. While I can understand the argument that claustrophobic level design is a poor choice for maps that have flying vehicles, I understand the choices they made and don't have a problem with it.
[/QUOTE]
You can shoot down a Banshee in less than 30 seconds with a DMR or BR. It's even faster if more than 2 people are shooting at it. That's not including any of the Covenant or Prothean starting weapons. It completely fits my explanation of easily. When you play more games, you'll see that it doesn't even last a minute in games of Big Team Battle or Domination (like I said, one person shooting at it can destroy it in less than 30 seconds). Or try it in Forge. You can see how tight most of the maps are, making it one of the worst vehicles for use in the game.

I have no problem with vehicles taking damage from weapons, but the tight design affords little room for the ship to move in the levels. Most of the higher parts of maps are exposed, while ground level has obstacles around. This means that ground vehicles have coverage to hide behind to prevent being constantly fired on, as well as ground players. The air is too exposed, so Banshees are a huge target that starting weapons can take down.

My complaint is that the levels need greater area to make the Banshee at least moveable, but instead it's confined to a small space. Even in the Campaign the AI have height and open areas to move around with, as the ship is an easy target when it has no maneuverability.

[quote name='slickkill77']I thought the Halo 4 story was very well done, but if you take the time to look into other parts of the canon its amazing. It's not 343i's fault if you don't bother reading up or watching other parts of the universe.
[...]
The one thing I will agree with. The terminal videos should be in the game. Apparently they weren't because of time constraints, but having those in would clear up a lot for people. But really if people care enough they can find them on youtube.[/QUOTE]
That makes no sense, as the story should be self-contained. If at the end of this game I don't feel like I understood what happened, and there wasn't much explanation, it's poor story telling. That's like saying you need to see the Star Wars prequels to get the original trilogy, or in the opposite order. This game should tell a coherent story, with the ancillary media being ancillary. I'm seeing topics on gaming sites from people who have played all of the games, but still aren't understanding the plot of this game. That's not a good sign.

--

And I don't know why people are ignoring Soodmeg's Campaign observations, which are totally valid.
3 new enemies are introduced to battle, along with the standard mix of enemies that we've faced for the past 5 games (not including Halo Wars). The only one of interest is the Knight, as the Crawlers and Watchers don't insert anything new into the game. Watchers are like a Drone merged with an Engineer, and Crawlers are basically Jackals that can climb. And an Elite with an energy Sword still seems more intimidating than the Knights do.

There's no real 'new weapon.' The Prothean weapons essentially are re-skins. This is even evident in the multiplayer loadouts. Part of what made Halo distinct was that the Covenant weapons were different than the Human weapons; humans used bullets and reloaded, the Covenant used energy and batteries; human bullets seemed to move immediately from the shot, Covenant shots seemed to float through the air. These Prothean guns use ammo, and are just a pistol than can be used as a shotgun, or a machine gun like the SAW, just horrendously inaccurate, or a Carbine that works like...a Carbine. The armor abilities are essentially the same, with only Prothean Vision and Sentry being introduced, and Armor Lock being removed.

This is not a terrible game, it's just disappointing. It's the start of a new trilogy in the Halo franchise, with a completely new, large studio, with some employees who have worked on other great games, seemingly coming to this new Halo title to introduce new ideas, as well as some former Bungie employees to carry the series into a new direction. This new studio is allowed what seems like limitless resources from Microsoft, and this game still doesn't feel like it's enhanced the series.

I wouldn't have minded if the Covenant were an initial enemy, but I wanted to see more Prothean enemies. I wanted to see this Prothean world, not just more desert or jungle that we already saw in Halo 3. I wanted to see more to justify the need for another Halo sequel as well as a new trilogy.

The story is lackluster, and the whole Master Chief and Cortana storyline is distracting and dull. They already did this in Halo 3. They already had their 'love story' campaign, as Bungie even explained in Halo 3, so it's redundant. We're not truly explained why the Didact is irrational, especially after the Librarian explains why humans were a 'threat,' we're just encouraged to kill, and kill some more, without real justification.

Frank O'Connor's explanation for Contana's impending rampancy was to give the campaign urgency, but the campaign gains that by the 3rd level. The whole Cortana part slows the campaign down. We're talking about two of the most bland characters in modern gaming, and we're supposed to care about either one? Meanwhile, Halo: Reach actually had characters, and people seemed to dislike that game's Campaign. I completely don't understand gamer logic. Perhaps it's because stoic loner Master Chief is worried that his virtual, busty girlfriend could die, and he couldn't live without her; maybe that's a relevant storyline for some gamers?

Meanwhile, in the previous Halo's, the Covenant were ruthlessly killing humans for religious goal, and would not cease until they achieved their objective. The war was explained. The Covenant in this game, naturally, follow the same plot...yet the Prothean reasoning is just because it's what they do.

The level design is odd at parts, and far too long. In previous Halo's the levels consisted of an area. In this game you might move to several different areas, with really no reason, and follow the same goal of kill. How many times can you 'portal' to some strange place, where you have to kill some more enemies, who may or may not be aggressive, depending on the AI's random mood.

Had this game earned a high 7 to a low 8, I'd be fine with that score, personally. People seem to not understand numbers, though, so 7-8 seems like a travesty of a game. What that should mean is that it's decent game that doesn't really introduce anything to standout. But instead, people buy into hype, and will defend it, regardless of how absurd it is. This game is not a 9 or 10, it's a passable game that does little to distinguish itself from the previous entries with it's start of a new trilogy. Perhaps the next 2 games will do more to make them prominent in the Halo legacy.
 
no one really cared about the Spartans in Halo Reach because when you have a big cast and you have only 8-10 hours to develop them (as opposed to a television series or a book series), you can't go too far into understanding any of those characters. Do people even remember any of their names? Only the diehard Halo fans remember the names of those Spartans.

There was no real story in Reach. It was just chaos from battle to battle. Which is fine because war is not always poetic and in linear order but is actually chaotic.

Halo 4 actually has a story. maybe the reason why the promethean weapons are human-like is because the prometheans were formerly human?

If you're going to score Halo 4 as a 7, then by that scale, Reach should be a 5. an okay game. okay graphics. okay sound. average story. terrible cutscenes.
 
Why did everyone want swat so bad? This is how I'd describe my first game of it. Everyone get really high up on the map and camp. No me gusta
 
Jesus, TL;DR

I'm loving the multiplayer. I was big into Reach so I'll say I'll be playing H4 for a while and it feels like Bungie made the online as well. The custom loadout is really cool, don't knock it before you try it. Using different loadouts gives you a lot of choices off the bat, also have to think of counters to what other player will bring to the battlefield. To talk about not doing enough new when they take on the reigns of such a beloved franchise, you're nuts. They gotta make a foundation with the first game, the sequel (2nd) of any series is when developers are allowed any freedom to pursue what they initially wanted to do. We the fans give them a little bit more leeway because they prove themselves with the initial installment. The fact that Halo 4 feels like Halo isn't a con, it's the whole point with a new developer taking over.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='slickkill77']Why did everyone want swat so bad? This is how I'd describe my first game of it. Everyone get really high up on the map and camp. No me gusta[/QUOTE]

Haha that sounds more like flood actually.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']That is true...I dont even plan on playing the MP I am mostly a single player only guy for many games. What is also true is that I am not a fan of Halo BUT that doesnt mean I disliked the other campaigns. I thought most of them were fine.

I know the storyline (at least up unto this one) but as I said in the post above I think they completely missed the mark in advancing the story. Did we really need yet another mysteries species that wants to kill the human race? We already have the covanent, the flood, the covanent that fights for humans, arbiter, high priest people, guilty spark, the halo rings themselves blah blah blah.

I just would rather fully finish one of those 219 active storylines before adding 10 more branches. We are so far removed from saving Earth that I couldnt give a shit what happens. Thats all I was saying about the story and why I thought it was retarded.


Thanks for the reply without yelling and telling me to play another game. Since that is such a default response to everything.[/QUOTE]

If you know the storyline then you know the forerunners aren't just a sudden new race out to kill humans. Not all of them were for activating the Halos the first time around. I'm not sure why they leave these guys locked up on planets, so I hope it'll explain that
 
[quote name='whiptcracker']If you know the storyline then you know the forerunners aren't just a sudden new race out to kill humans. Not all of them were for activating the Halos the first time around. I'm not sure why they leave these guys locked up on planets, so I hope it'll explain that[/QUOTE]

I believe it is explained in one of the terminals. The librarian locks the Didact up so that basically he can learn to be more sympathetic and understanding of the humans rather than trying to kill them. It also saved him from the Halo rings. The Forerunners are supposed to protect the universe, but the librarian wants the humans to take over that responsibility. That pisses the Didact off. It also pisses him off that the humans brought the flood to the forerunners while trying to eradicate them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C76rnDdsIF4

Go to the 8:27 mark and it'll explain why they fired the rings, why he hates humans, and why he was locked up


13:49 the reason she locks the Didact up
 
[quote name='slickkill77']I believe it is explained in one of the terminals. The librarian locks the Didact up so that basically he can learn to be more sympathetic and understanding of the humans rather than trying to kill them. It also saved him from the Halo rings. The Forerunners are supposed to protect the universe, but the librarian wants the humans to take over that responsibility. That pisses the Didact off. It also pisses him off that the humans brought the flood to the forerunners while trying to eradicate them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C76rnDdsIF4

Go to the 8:27 mark and it'll explain why they fired the rings, why he hates humans, and why he was locked up


13:49 the reason she locks the Didact up[/QUOTE]

Gotcha, I'm currently on Chapter 4 (wife gets motion sick from too much so we play it one chapter at a time when we get a chance) so I'll watch these when I'm done. I haven't read the books or anything, but it certainly doesn't surprise me to see the Forerunners make a return, or that there might be conflict about it.

As far as weapon variety goes, I'm fine with it given that the cultural influence one of the species has had on the rest, but they should get some past Insomniac guys to help them think of new weapon types.
 
[quote name='slickkill77']Why did everyone want swat so bad? This is how I'd describe my first game of it. Everyone get really high up on the map and camp. No me gusta[/QUOTE]
played it since halo 2 and it's a classic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top