Will you play Halo 4? Thread

Joe_Shmoe wrote: :confused: Uhm... Dont you guys think your off topic just a weeee bit?

Yes, we are just stalling until the next "good" news comes from Microsucks.

l0rdx3nu wrote:

Joe_Shmoe wrote: :confused: Uhm... Dont you guys think your off topic just a weeee bit?

Yes, we are just stalling until the next "good" news comes from Microsucks.

Well, it's not news from Microsucks -- but if we're going to be dancing around crazily, Ubisoft apparently just realized that making their Beta so restricted defeats the whole purpose of having an open Beta. Now all PSN users can have it.

Don't worry, like how Microsoft will find some way to make Halo 4 feel valid, Ubisoft will find a way to provide us with a sequel that still somehow involves Ezio. Every chapter, you play one minute of his dying breathe!

Edited by: TheUnabridgedGamer

l0rdx3nu wrote: Yes, we are just stalling until the next "good" news comes from Microsucks.

Oh you mean like when they reinvent something that that already exists, take credit for it and call it their own, and then charges you an arm and a leg for it, followed by milking the shit out of it.

Hmm, yeah, something like that.

l0rdx3nu wrote: Hmm, yeah, something like that.

Reminds me of my thoughts about Bioshock's future. A 2K executive apparently said, when the first game was sucessful, that 2K would be willing to make entire 6 entry series. Now I'm wondering if that'd be a good thing... or a bad thing.

If they keep doing what they did with Infinite, and making a similar game in a different world, I think it won't be that bad.

ambershee wrote: If they keep doing what they did with Infinite, and making a similar game in a different world, I think it won't be that bad.

Yes, that's my point. If they keep to the core philosophy Ken Levine's been pushing, then they'll keep it interesting.

Thus, if you see anyone looking like they're some hoody-wearing assassin standing near Ken Levine, summon a bigga fish on his arse.

ambershee wrote: If they keep doing what they did with Infinite, and making a similar game in a different world, I think it won't be that bad.

Sounds almost like... CoD... Similar game, different war's... And how is that doing for the CoD series? orrr I might have gotten the wrong end of this

Joe_Shmoe wrote:

ambershee wrote: If they keep doing what they did with Infinite, and making a similar game in a different world, I think it won't be that bad.

Sounds almost like... CoD... Similar game, different war's... And how is that doing for the CoD series? orrr I might have gotten the wrong end of this

The difference between CoD and Bioshock is that Bioshock isn't focused on multiplayer reflex matches and macho male plots (Cod:MW2 had -one- female character model that was only used four times in -one- level). Bioshock is about presenting you a new, in-depth, incredible fantasy/sci-fi world. It's more like a book that you can play, rather than a game with a story. That, and it's changing actually a good number of mechanics in the upcoming sequel (regenerating health will be present for the first time, in Infinite).

Paradigmthefallen wrote:

Inbredguppey wrote: Enough with the legos, jeez.

Anywho, I would definately play halo 4 and all of its predecessors, no matter how bad they get, simply because I am collecting all of the halo games.
Otherwise, I seem to be leaning towards the horror games other than the shooters.

If you want to collect bad games -- try to get things like Super-Man 64 and E.T. the game. Halo will at least remain as playable at the original Killzone game.

So, you are saying that Halo games are bad? I actually think they were all pretty good until Reach came out.
And also, I try not to think of any games as being "Bad", but more on the lines of "Not at full potential".

The real problem isn't so much Halo 4 but the inability to let an IP die when it is complete. Halo 4 is merely a symptom.

Inbredguppey wrote:

Paradigmthefallen wrote:

Inbredguppey wrote: Enough with the legos, jeez.

Anywho, I would definately play halo 4 and all of its predecessors, no matter how bad they get, simply because I am collecting all of the halo games.
Otherwise, I seem to be leaning towards the horror games other than the shooters.

If you want to collect bad games -- try to get things like Super-Man 64 and E.T. the game. Halo will at least remain as playable at the original Killzone game.

So, you are saying that Halo games are bad? I actually think they were all pretty good until Reach came out.
And also, I try not to think of any games as being "Bad", but more on the lines of "Not at full potential".

I didn't say this. It sounded a little like you were encouraged to collect it based upon our unexpectant thoughts on its lacking success. I pointed you to some other games that actually would be good for collecting over the matter of their lack of quality, hence why I said "Halo will at least remain as playable at the original Killzone game".

Edited by: TheUnabridgedGamer

Inbredguppey I wouldn't say "Not at full potential" but more like "Not living up to the hype".

Icedecknight wrote: Inbredguppey I wouldn't say "Not at full potential" but more like "Not living up to the hype".

I do wonder....will halo 4 get more or less hype than 3?

masternerdguy wrote: I do wonder....will halo 4 get more or less hype than 3?

If the fanbase is anything like CoD (which it is), then probably more. I'm guessing the casual shooter gamers will think "Hey, Master Chief is back, its gonna be bad ass!".

Inbredguppey wrote: So, you are saying that Halo games are bad? I actually think they were all pretty good until Reach came out. And also, I try not to think of any games as being "Bad", but more on the lines of "Not at full potential".

I can't wrap my head around this, why do you think Reach was bad?

l0rdx3nu wrote:

Inbredguppey wrote: So, you are saying that Halo games are bad? I actually think they were all pretty good until Reach came out. And also, I try not to think of any games as being "Bad", but more on the lines of "Not at full potential".

I can't wrap my head around this, why do you think Reach was bad?

I believe you missed my reply, X3nu:

Someone wrote: I didn't say this. It sounded a little like you were encouraged to collect it based upon our unexpectant thoughts on its lacking success. I pointed you to some other games that actually would be good for collecting over the matter of their lack of quality, hence why I said "Halo will at least remain as playable at the original Killzone game".

No. Halo is dead in my eyes. The canon/story is messed up since the game Reach. "Halo: The New CoD".

Edited by: TheNodCommander

AtlasTasume wrote: No. Halo is dead in my eyes. The canon/story is messed up since the game Reach. "Halo: The New CoD".

Well it's looking like Gears of War 3 is the end of the Gears of War games, so there's a never-continuing cinematic trilogy if you want one . There's even been rumors that they might port the whole trilogy via a nice combo pack to the PS3.

Edited by: TheUnabridgedGamer

Gears 3 is not the last game. A fourth game was confirmed way back in January.

Microsoft is the publisher. Gears is not going to be on the Playstation.

ambershee wrote: Gears 3 is not the last game. A fourth game was confirmed way back in January.

Microsoft is the publisher. Gears is not going to be on the Playstation.

I was unaware of the anouncement, but:

Gameinformer.com

Ahem.

Edited by: TheUnabridgedGamer

It's not announced, only confirmed. It's cropped up a few times in various interviews that have alluded to both its existence and content.

Capps also stated unequivocally that the Gears IP belongs to Epic, and that it's their call which platform they release on, but that Microsoft has kept them happy in the past. "Time and time again, when it came down to figure out what we do next with Gears, we sat down with Microsoft and they've given us really good, compelling reasons to work with them again."

It's extremely unlikely Gears will get a sudden port to the Ps3. Hell, it hasn't even made it to the PC after the first outing.

ambershee wrote: It's not announced, only confirmed. It's cropped up a few times in various interviews that have alluded to both its existence and content.

Capps also stated unequivocally that the Gears IP belongs to Epic, and that it's their call which platform they release on, but that Microsoft has kept them happy in the past. "Time and time again, when it came down to figure out what we do next with Gears, we sat down with Microsoft and they've given us really good, compelling reasons to work with them again."

It's extremely unlikely Gears will get a sudden port to the Ps3. Hell, it hasn't even made it to the PC after the first outing.

They've stated in an interview before now that the reason Gears of War 2 was a 360 exclusive was because of PC piracy rates of the first Gears game. The industry's zeitgeist is that console piracy is less sizable than the PC piracy. Thus, it is more likely that Gears of War 1-3 will be on PS3 than PC. It doesn't matter if it's a competitor console -- too many triple-A devs treat PC as either a dead zone or only worth a half-done port of their game (usually a month or two after the console release). Also I never said it'd get a sudden port. Likely, if they do port it, then it would be around Gears of War 4's release (and likely the 4th game would be a 360 exclusive). Thus you get them hooked, make them want to buy a 360, and get more profit from a part of the audience you originally never had.

Also there's no need to get angry over this.

Paradigmthefallen wrote: Also there's no need to get angry over this.

lol

The Ps3 is nearing the end of it's lifecycle. Releasing ports of three titles, anything other than within the next 12 months or so (pending the inevitable successor announcement at next years E3) could be foolish.

Paradigmthefallen wrote: Also there's no need to get angry over this.

Eh?

ambershee wrote: The Ps3 is nearing the end of it's lifecycle. Releasing ports of three titles, anything other than within the next 12 months or so (pending the inevitable successor announcement at next years E3) could be foolish.

Paradigmthefallen wrote: Also there's no need to get angry over this.

Eh?

I think he means treating the audience like morons shouldn't offend the audience.