Halo Wars officially announced

[Pop]

I'm the destroyer of hopes and dreams and all things fun.

 

Now, back on topic.

 

Someone sell me on Halo.

 

I've heard it rips a lot from Aliens Vs. Predator.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Less from AvP than from Ringworld. God, does it steal from Ringworld. And Halo 2 was a derivative of just about every Jerry Bruckheimer production ever created. All it's missing is an Aerosmith song (I guess they settled on Incubus, which is just as well).

 

I could not be less excited about all of this. Not that I was expecting the bloated Halo franchise to drag itself off to die with #3, but I was hoping.

[kumquatq3]

Half-Life 2 was a game.

Halo was an experience.

 

Is Half-Life 2 a better game?  You bet your ass.  Problem is I can't sit in front of my big ass T.V. with a beer on my right, and 3 friends on my left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So....you like to have "experiences" with your buddies while drinking beer "

 

(it was there, I had to)

 

HL2 added more than your average FPS to the genre. The physics was ground breaking for the genre, for one. I sure as hell noticed that when the copters were hunting me and I was trying to get a shot off with the rocket launcher. The "movie"/production value of it also set quite the bar. In that sence, HL2 was QUITE the expirences.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is something to be said for killing the guy next to you. My friends and I still play Mario Kart 64.

 

Point being this: If I'm talking about the "best" FPS, then I'm focusing on single player expirence, as it is a TOTALLY different animal than Multiplayer. Multiplayer is fun, really fun, but it's short term. Single player is memorable. I've played thousands of games of StarCraft, but I can't remember any of them specifically. In that way I suppose it would be more apt to compare Markio Kart 64 to Halo2 than Halo2 to Half Life 2.

 

I forgot where I was going with this

[Shadowstrider]

It's the opposite, actually. Multiplayer is the long term fun, single player is short term.

 

Games are all about fun. You can't distinguish multiplayer from singleplayer and then say "Half-Life 2 was better." You have to judge the entire product.

 

That said, even with the co-op and multiplayer, Half-Life was a better game. An awesome multiplayer and coop mode can move more units than a groundbreaking story. Why? Because the game is more fun, and provides better value.

 

If I have 2 games, both 49.99, one has multi+coop and the other is solely single player, both games got 8.5+ average scores from critics... I'd go with multiplayer.

[Llyranor]

Mr Fallout is right. Coop is awesome.

[kumquatq3]

It's the opposite, actually.  Multiplayer is the long term fun, single player is short term.

 

When I said "fun", I don't mean how long I can play a game and stil enjoy it.

 

I meant in the sense that, I've played Starcraft 3000+ times online, but I can't recall anything specifically about any of them. All were likely fun games, but none of them special enough to be remembered. Same holds for GoldenEye, Mario Kart 64, Twisted Metal 2, and Smash Bros. The "fun" was short term in the way it left an impresion. The expirence was not there.

 

But I sure as hell remember taking down my first walker-thingy in Half LIfe 2. I remember riding Epona across Hyrule field the first time. Fighting off zombies while stuck in a barn in RE4. You remember the expirence.

 

Because those things were just soooooo fun/badass/magical that they left a impression on me.

 

So I guess my point is that Halo 2 is a fun game that you can replay. Half Life 2 is a expirence.

 

If I have 2 games, both 49.99, one has multi+coop and the other is solely single player, both games got 8.5+ average scores from critics... I'd go with multiplayer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure, but do HL2 and Halo 2 get similar scores because they both have outstanding MP? No, HL2 got it on SP and Halo 2 got it on MP.

 

man we like to debate minor stuff

Edited September 28, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Llyranor]

But I sure as hell remember taking down my first walker-thingy in Half LIfe 2. I remember riding Epona across Hyrule field the first time. Fighting off zombies while stuck in a barn in RE4. You remember the expirence.

You can have an even more enhanced experience by going through those events in coop.

[kumquatq3]

But I sure as hell remember taking down my first walker-thingy in Half LIfe 2. I remember riding Epona across Hyrule field the first time. Fighting off zombies while stuck in a barn in RE4. You remember the expirence.

You can have an even more enhanced experience by going through those events in coop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure, but co-op may take some of the polish of such events. Harder to balance the event for 2 players apposed to 1.

 

The contra syndrome, if you will

[Shadowstrider]

Fun is not the same as memorable.

 

I remember the time my dad yelled at me for skipping school, but that was no fun.

 

People buy games for fun, not for memories. If they could foresee their memories they would be some kind of augur, and would never have fun playing any games.

 

Just because something is memorable and fun does not make it more fun.

 

Also, you suck at MP experience.

 

I remember much more about Halo nights with 15 other guys than I do about Half Life's story.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Shadowstrider

[Krookie]

Not the case of Halo though. If I remember correctly, the only difference is that one of the characters doesn't talk. He's still present in the scene though. I'm pretty sure they change the dialouge to plural forms when talking to the player too.

[Llyranor]

But I sure as hell remember taking down my first walker-thingy in Half LIfe 2. I remember riding Epona across Hyrule field the first time. Fighting off zombies while stuck in a barn in RE4. You remember the expirence.

You can have an even more enhanced experience by going through those events in coop.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure, but co-op may take some of the polish of such events. Harder to balance the event for 2 players apposed to 1.

 

The contra syndrome, if you will

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it's badly balanced, then it's bad design. Don't compare good design with bad design.

 

Those memorable situations have everything to do with the situations themselves and nothing to do with the fact that they were singleplayer. Sure, it's easier to do for singleplayer, but this isn't a discussion about ease of design.

 

Sure, killing that strider was nice. I'd have preferred killing it alongside a buddy. For the majority (if not all) defining gaming moments - related directly to gameplay - I don't see how I wouldn't have enjoyed them more if they were coop.

[kumquatq3]

Fun is not the same as memorable.

 

I remember the time my dad yelled at me for skipping school, but that was no fun.

 

Things are memorable for a reason though. The games I meantioned are memorable because they are fun.

 

Your dad yelling at you is memorable because you didn't like it.

 

Also, you suck at MP experience.

 

:'(

 

 

I can remember times I played with my friends, but I don't remember the games themselves.

[kumquatq3]

If it's badly balanced, then it's bad design. Don't compare good design with bad design.

 

Getting 2 things balanced is harder, more costly, and more time consuming.

 

I want all my games to be 50+ hour epics, but I'm realistic.

[Shadowstrider]

If it's badly balanced, then it's bad design. Don't compare good design with bad design.

 

Getting 2 things balanced is harder, more costly, and more time consuming.

 

I want all my games to be 50+ hour epics, but I'm realistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not particularly more difficult to balance for 2 people, or more time consuming. Costly, maybe, but not for the reasons you mention.

 

There are two people playing... so put another creature on screen. That's a pretty simple solution. There are a slew of other ways, but those are top secret. So secret that if I told myself I would have to kill... myself.

[kumquatq3]

It's not particularly more difficult to balance for 2 people, or more time consuming.  Costly, maybe, but not for the reasons you mention.

 

There are two people playing... so put another creature on screen.  That's a pretty simple solution.  There are a slew of other ways, but those are top secret.  So secret that if I told myself I would have to kill... myself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So it's kind of like that video from the ring or something?

 

 

If it's not harder, why o' why are most Co-Ops MUCH easier than playing by yourself?

[Llyranor]

Bad design?

[kumquatq3]

Bad design?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Constant bad design would suggest some problems with doing it correctly, wouldn't it?

[Llyranor]

Wait, you're just saying you're a bad player, and that your friends are better than you are.

[kumquatq3]

Wait, you're just saying you're a bad player, and that your friends are better than you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm the Ian of co-op. I just shoot my buddy in the back.

[Shadowstrider]

No, not really. Everything is easier with more players, inherently.

 

A cleric can buff a fighter into a beast that is nigh-unkillable and then heal him as needed. This allows a fighter to fight as if he is 2, perhaps even 3 men for a time, and the priest can fight at a diminished capacity if needed.

 

Really, though, there is more to designing for multiple players than simply the difficulty of the monsters, or the number of monsters.

 

Go try to play Rerturn of the King on Xbox with a friend in coop. The game is more difficult on some levels because of camera fencing. Issues like that are what make it difficult for production, not really design.

[Calax]

Not the case of Halo though. If I remember correctly, the only difference is that one of the characters doesn't talk. He's still present in the scene though. I'm pretty sure they change the dialouge to plural forms when talking to the player too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nope... they just put the guy who was at the trigger point first in the cutscene... didn't change a blessed thing.

 

Personally I find that multiplayer, while fun, doesn't do it for me. For example, Fighting games are primairly multiplayer because of the way they are designed. I'll play a fighting game but because I don't have any friends (that can be drawn away from THEIR single player XP's) I find it extremly boring to play a game.

 

Others, primarily from the FPS genre, are almost entirly based around Multiplayer. This causes me no end to fits because I keep hearing how this is such a fantastic game. But when I play it I find it's a dull and forgettable experiance because A) the single player is garbage and B) when you take it online there are two catagories, HORRIBLE! and 1337. the "leet" are usually the ones who are trained (yes... trained... damn I thought games were supposed to be fun!) to use breaks in the system to get around. Like in battlefield 1942 on normandy people would go onto the second terrace and promptly set a satchel at their feet and blow themselves up to the last victory point so that they could get free kills.

In Call of duty and a few others there are ways to work around and swap teams fast enough that you dont' get - points but do get pretty much free kills.

 

Halo multiplayer generally is on Xbox and the only times I've ever seen somthing with more than four people I ended up with kids that would literally hang the fact that their score was higher than yours over your head for the next seven days.

 

So Honestly? Multiplayer shouldn't be the centerpiece for any game worth it's cards. To base a score in a review entirly on multiplay is utterly stupid because 90% of that score will be based on who's playing with you.

 

 

And openendedness should be hit with a hacksaw and dumped in the marinaris trench never to be heard from again.

[alanschu]

So it's kind of like that video from the ring or something?

 

 

If it's not harder, why o' why are most Co-Ops MUCH easier than playing by yourself?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Co-Ops are typically easier because when you die, it's not game over. I don't know what it was like in Halo, but many of the coop games I have played make it so that the players respawn on death.

 

 

If I have 2 games, both 49.99, one has multi+coop and the other is solely single player, both games got 8.5+ average scores from critics... I'd go with multiplayer.

 

Then this probably wouldn't be the case for Half-Life 2, since the single player only version of Half-Life 2 was a cheap version, sold for $19.99 IIRC. Maybe a bit higher. I got the boxed Collector's Edition, which gave me multiplayer via Counterstrike: Source. I also got Half-Life Deathmatch for free once it was available, though it didn't grab me as much as CSS did.

Edited September 28, 2006 by alanschu

[Pop]

CS:S > Halo MP

[alanschu]

I do enjoy CS:S.

 

I played some Halo MP on the PC and did enjoy it, but I found BF1942 to be a much better MP experience, and started playing that instead.

[Blank]

My brother gets a bunch of his friends from school to go online with Halo 2 and they form a private game, where only people who are invited can play. It's basically like having the guys in the room over when you overhear them in their headsets screaming after you kill them.

 

When Halo for Xbox first came out, I don't remember much else like it. You could tool around in levels for long periods of time with a buddy on co-op, accumulating all the grenades in the level into one spot, then sticking a vehicle next to it all, and it is all beside a rock and an overshield, and then grabbing the overshield and blowing up the pile while your friend watches you fly away. Good times. We would take the warthog into places it wasn't meant to go (note: they fall through elevator lifts). We would just play through the level really quickly and mow down everything. Distracting an enemy while your buddy runs up behind him and breaks his neck.

 

Multiplayer was just 16 player Lan parties, made easier for everyone because it is on a console that has the same specs as everyone, and you just plug them in to a hub and go.

 

I am not saying it was the best game, but Halo, when it first came out, was great. Gameplay is still fun too. If you like FPS's, Halo and Halo 2 are at least average, and the multiplayer aspects make it last for as long as you and your friends still enjoy killing each other. Sure, other games allowed you to do this, but for Xbox, this was all we had, and we loved it.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Blank

[mkreku]

Co-op is a powerful beast. I enjoyed Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel because of it!!1