Halo 3 - ODST (Formerly known as Recon)

[riderkid]

god i jsut saw the we are odst trailer and im like this...


if we can have traielrs like this why can we not get the FUCKIN MOVIE???

seriously, uwe boll can crank out 3 shitty movie a year, all of them games, anderson can get an re4 and we cannot get a halo movie? helll the gears of war movie is being worked on and were gonna get a fuckin WOW movie by 2012 so WTF

[Member_of_STARS]

HALO movie would be quite nice if it was based on the novels instead of the games.

As for "why", I think its the cautious approach by the studios as none of the franchises has really hit that big of a mark, ironically because of greedy corporate BS that caused the movies to be terribad in the first place.

Even one of the most accurate game-to-movies, "Silent Hill", didnt make that much money. Tomb Raider and Resident Evils "success" probably wont justify a 100-250M dollar budget.

In short. As a HALO fan, youre screwed until WoW movie comes out and makes 300M.

[Carnivol]

god i jsut saw the we are odst trailer and im like this...


if we can have traielrs like this why can we not get the FUCKIN MOVIE???

seriously, uwe boll can crank out 3 shitty movie a year, all of them games, anderson can get an re4 and we cannot get a halo movie? helll the gears of war movie is being worked on and were gonna get a fuckin WOW movie by 2012 so WTF

You know, I wonder what making "We are ODST" cost vs the making of "Landfall".

Anyway, Uwe Boll and Anderson's productions have been rather questionable. Microsoft's been doing a pretty good job at staying on top of their game (har har) when it comes to Halo. So I guess they wouldn't want it to end up like most Uwe Boll movies, or how Anderson's movies were received by many of the dedicated fans.

MS would probably want to make the Halo movie be 110% "in universe + canon", which probably means that whatever studio and/or director they'd buddy up with would have to be incredibly understanding towards this + capable of bowing down to all sorts of design guidelines/rules set by the "Halo Universe".

At least we've got the Legends shorts coming! (It's a good start, right?)

Im sorry, but thats precisely the way you worded yourself. Youre saying that Starcraft lacks a dedicated "controller" with already predefined keys and which happens to be not a keyboard.

I'm saying Starcraft cannot be properly played via a controller (gamepad), Halo Wars managed to map most key functionality to a pad, perfectly fine.

Functionality which you apparently found yourself incapable of utilizing, as in your own words you knew all about, but "Its only that youre better off creating groups by using the "local units" function", and that you supposedly needed "superhuman abilities" in order to use the shortcut keys. I guess your lack of super human abilities is what made you forget that you a couple of posts earlier said: "You can select "all units" or "local units" with your pad and send them all to a location. Theres so much depth here, that its staggering.", as a reply to me mentioning how you've got all of the input functionality you need, right there on the controller.

Couldn't be arsed to learn a new controller setup =/= Controller Limitations

#1 Starcrafts terrain is only limited to passable and unpassable areas
#2 Starcrafts campaign missions utilize the same concepts all other RTS games do, at which point you bring up the Scarab mission example, where its basically tried and done "destroy X nodes to be able to destroy main objective" type mission. But I guess we call a "slight twist" a "major revolution" these days
#3 Same faction COOP lacking in SC. While not in campaign, theres such a thing available in multiplayer mode. And there are actually a number of games that allow for this. Amusingly, one of them is AoE2.
#4 That RTS games have nothing to do with the ammount of tasks you perform (an obvious sign of being oblivious to the genre). If HW was a turn based strategy game, I would have agreed, and you could have thrown in a whole truckload of gameplay elements, though.
#5 Comparing flashy graphics to elements that are fundamental to gameplay, saying both are equally wrong.
#6 Claiming that HW doesnt have RPS and/or/vs horde type of balance

#1 - As far as the "out of the box" experience goes; it is. Though, the editor's scripting system allows for unit type detection on zones, so technically you could add this feature, but Starcraft does not utilize this, "out of the box", in any form or shape, other than for "Objective Completed" triggering on escort and "Make unit playable/Follow" on retrieval/rescue. Anyway, a lot of stuff features external customization through editors and such, but they're hardly valid points when racking down on the initial out-of-the-box experience. Additional functionality available only through external editors does prolong longevity of a lot of things. As a side note; Halo Wars does currently not possess a means for creation of additional unique maps, but it has means of adjusting rules for those that're already there.)


#2 - Scarab Mission features the sweep/laser, (roughly comparable to how a camera "sweep" works in Metal Gear Solid) Destroying the nodes were also only an optional goal, iirc. You also just skipped the other mission I mentioned; Go play the one on top of the Spirit of Fire. Don't bother replying to anything in this post until you've found an RTS that utilizes a similar set of rules as that mission does (and audio-visual presentation for that matter, since it adds to the overall experience)

#3 - News for you; Age of Empires 2 is not StarCraft, last time I checked, Age of Empires 2 was also not "most other RTS". Age of Empires 2 is also an Ensemble game (but that much I suppose you already knew)

#4 - Yet you bring up samples of how "Perfect" Starcraft features plenty of missions with limited unit availability and otherwise vaguely similar limitations. Missions that, according to you, "actually require you to micromanage, against an enemy AI", which entirely contradicts that what, in your own words; "Mouseclicks and the number of units you have to move around directly makes up the skill required to play the game efficiently.

#5 - The fact that they used limited units allowed them to keep the flashy graphics at a good framerate ('cause certain other console ports of PC RTS failed hard here). Besides, having a proper audio / visual presentation adds to the experience (which is why people bother with certain other highly praised franchises that, unlike Halo Wars, are rather deprived of actual gameplay and functionality)

#6 - "Perfect Balance" is overrated, and as with most game types, it's heavily narrowed down and affected by playstyle. By capping the amount of active units, you heavily limit how much you can shake things out of balance. Balance often ceases to exist the very moment you introduce certain rules (such as most stuff involving ground to air combat, or cheap ground units. It's not without reason mass production of a single type of unit often works as a perfectly good tactic, unless you're playing against someone who's somewhat seasoned)

To reword the thing about balance; Halo Wars is a much better entry point for "getting the idea" of how to handle unit diversity. You depend on a smaller group, with heavy variety.

seems to me the whole internet disagrees with you

I feel honored that such a person as a representative of the entire internet is posting here on The Hor... Oh! Wait! This just in;
Member_of_STARS =/= The Whole Internet

Damn...


Anyway, all we've gotten out of this is;
It's bad if Halo Wars does it, but good if Starcraft does it (regardless of whether or not it's the same). I think I get it now. You are absolutely right! Although you might've been referring to KB+M when you said you worried about it, it at least should apply to this too; You do come off as a fanboy.

[Member_of_STARS]

I'm saying Starcraft cannot be properly played via a controller (gamepad), Halo Wars managed to map most key functionality to a pad, perfectly fine.

Have you asked yourself what does this actually mean? Unit, map, base and opposition manipulation wise? Youre still arguing against the simple fact that HW is a simplified PC RTS. But its the difference in control methods that is directly responsible for it, and in turn resource gathering and management, macromanagement and unit control are also affected by it.

In simplified terms, you can do a lot more, in any given timeframe, in a conventional RTS (and certainly SC), than you can do in HALO. You see, a reasonable, experienced RTS vet would say "fair enough, I get what youre saying, and I see that you cant have SC on a console, but its still a fair attempt". Instead, you come up with complete nonsense just to save face.

Functionality which you apparently found yourself incapable of utilizing, as in your own words you knew all about, but "Its only that youre better off creating groups by using the "local units" function", and that you supposedly needed "superhuman abilities" in order to use the shortcut keys.

Heres the thing. A game is poorly done if the options you can use are way too complicated and the simple doubles are easier, although more limiting to use.

Couldn't be arsed to learn a new controller setup =/= Controller Limitations

Its not about learning, its about not wasting valuable time. Youre there, trying to micromanage your units into specific strokeforces, and it takes you minutes to do so.

Tell me this, have you played HW in PvP?

#1 - As far as the "out of the box" experience goes; it is.

Ignoring once again the terrain differences and the rather huge difference in creates in attacks, defenses, harassment and macromanagement. In short. Its not.

#2 - Scarab Mission features the sweep/laser, (roughly comparable to how a camera "sweep" works in Metal Gear Solid) Destroying the nodes were also only an optional goal, iirc. You also just skipped the other mission I mentioned; Go play the one on top of the Spirit of Fire. Don't bother replying to anything in this post until you've found an RTS that utilizes a similar set of rules as that mission does (and audio-visual presentation for that matter, since it adds to the overall experience)

Amusing. The main idea behind the Scarab fight was all about slowing the Scarab laser down so you can have a chance to fighting it. The laser/searchlight was a simple mechanic to see where its looking at but the main idea was still behind destroying the nodes to slow it down. Of course, if you were playing the game on "easy", you could have taken it head-on groups and groups of massed units (you know, like amateurs do) but the whole level design gave you enough hints to not to do that. The whole level works in a simple logic- destroy enough nodes, hide your units, use decoys to redirect the cannon, leap your units out. I vaguely remember every large RTS game to utilize a similar set of rules, with the searchlight aspect excluded.

So I ask you this again- does a small addition to the general idea really mean "revolutionary" for you?

#3 - News for you; Age of Empires 2 is not StarCraft, last time I checked, Age of Empires 2 was also not "most other RTS". Age of Empires 2 is also an Ensemble game (but that much I suppose you already knew)

Please try to read the post more carefully before responding in an arrogant and ignorant way. AoE2 was given as an example to your ignorant idea that HW does a lot of things differently from "conventional" RTS titles. AoE2 was also brought in as a slice of irony to the whole "originality" notion.

#4 - Yet you bring up samples of how "Perfect" Starcraft features plenty of missions with limited unit availability and otherwise vaguely similar limitations. Missions that, according to you, "actually require you to micromanage, against an enemy AI", which entirely contradicts that what, in your own words; "Mouseclicks and the number of units you have to move around directly makes up the skill required to play the game efficiently.

You have no idea what "micromanagement" means?

Limited unit availability puts an immense pressure on micromanagement (which a lot of SC levels are entirely comprised of, as youre not doing any base building or expanding, not producing any additional units). And micromanagement is, in simple terms- "mouseclicks (and keyboard utilization), and the number of units you have to move around"

#5 - The fact that they used limited units allowed them to keep the flashy graphics at a good framerate ('cause certain other console ports of PC RTS failed hard here). Besides, having a proper audio / visual presentation adds to the experience (which is why people bother with certain other highly praised franchises that, unlike Halo Wars, are rather deprived of actual gameplay and functionality)

Thats not really the problem though, is it? The problem is in your absolutely flawed comparison. So how about you go back and rewrite a better comparison and try again. If youre into condescending and arrogant approach. Because I got your point, Im just saying your comparison was flawed.

The games youre talking about right now are CnC and AoE series mainly, but CnC on its own is a really straightforward RTS for the so called casual market and AoE is only a slight step above that. In case youre trying to dish Supreme Commander and SupCom: Forged Alliance, then youre way off in this one, as SupCom is a game which main focus has always been on micromanaging resources (which is a true bitch to do) and building your base appropriately, amassing units and with limited micromanaging, sending them to hell. Even when youre utilizing less of your capacity for keypresses, the game still demands a whole lot of strategic thinking on most levels throughout the whole round.

#6 - "Perfect Balance" is overrated, and as with most game types, it's heavily narrowed down and affected by playstyle. By capping the amount of active units, you heavily limit how much you can shake things out of balance. Balance often ceases to exist the very moment you introduce certain rules (such as most stuff involving ground to air combat, or cheap ground units. It's not without reason mass production of a single type of unit often works as a perfectly good tactic, unless you're playing against someone who's somewhat seasoned)

Heavy contradiction. You say "perfect balance" is overrated and then go ahead and praise HALOs balance, which comes from simple RPS method, along with capped units. There are very few games which let you amass a certain "general attack" unit and let you get away with it. SC´s Protoss do have Dragoons, but they get countered with massez zerglings + Dark Swarm combination or Siege Tanks. In CnC, you could deploy Mammoth tanks, but they put a massive strain on your economy and are easily outmicroed. So what games are you really talking about? And the only way you can mass all-aspect cheap infantry and get away with it, is when you secure more resources and simply outstarve the opponent, while hammering into them with those masses, while losing every unit in the assault.

You cant do that even a "less than seasoned" player who knows the basic balance concepts.

[EDIT] Forgot to mention. HALO Wars is balanced "so well" that you dont even have to send out an early scout to see what the enemy is doing, as the strategy and building orders are simple to predict (which works, which doesnt), also, its almost game breaking to send a scout out early, because youre going to be behind in unit production. So doublecontradiction there.

In short, you really have no idea how RTS balance works, and you certainly have no clue how much it affects gameplay. If your idea of "perfect balance" is unit cap, then you should know that most games have unit caps

To reword the thing about balance; Halo Wars is a much better entry point for "getting the idea" of how to handle unit diversity. You depend on a smaller group, with heavy variety.

Actually, HALO Wars would be "a much better entry point" to general RTS concepts for a *console player*. Thats how it really is.

I feel honored that such a person as a representative of the entire internet is posting here on The Hor... Oh! Wait! This just in;
Member_of_STARS =/= The Whole Internet

Damn...

Considering that the only other person commenting here has played both games and knows what they are talking about, you should already see youre way behind "in the polls". But all you really need to do is venture out to some forums and see the same consensus- Halo Wars is OK-ish for a console RTS, but not even in the same league when were talking about different platforms. No fanboys, no bias, simple comparison.

Anyway, all we've gotten out of this is;
It's bad if Halo Wars does it, but good if Starcraft does it (regardless of whether or not it's the same).

Amusing, because this is exactly your position. If its terrain properties, its good for Halo. If its standard missions already done before, its good for Halo. I dont think its terribly hard to see who the fanboy in denial is

I think I get it now. You are absolutely right! Although you might've been referring to KB+M when you said you worried about it, it at least should apply to this too; You do come off as a fanboy.

Only a fanboy is unable to grasp the simple concept that no control device is universally good for everything.

[EDIT] Watching high level HALO Wars scrims. Oh man...

[Zombie Fred]

Infaune's visit to Bungie the other day. So awesome.

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3175986

Music is so goooood!

[riderkid]

were never getting life size replicas are we...hell i would preorder reach the minuet it starts for a replica assault rifle

[I_Am_Nemesis]

well i preordered this game and with it i should be getting the code for johnson and the beta for reach im so excited i love the halo series the games are great fun and have a great story cant wait for this!

[Zombie Fred]

Glad to hear that matey

[Zombie Fred]

Bam said the Lady

New Vid Doc from Bungie to show how big the scale is for this game. It's sweet!

[I_Am_Nemesis]

wow they made it in a year? thats pretty godd i was going to say the graphics didnt look all that great but if it was made in just a year then they are pretty damn good. then again maybe the graphocs will look better in the finished game

[Stu]

There's nothing wrong with the graphics as they are.

[Beanovsky Durst]

Not all in gaming is graphics... Watched the video, ODST is starting to get into my "must get" list... Sure buy for Christmas at least.

[I_Am_Nemesis]

Not all in gaming is graphics... Watched the video, ODST is starting to get into my "must get" list... Sure buy for Christmas at least.

Yea thats true, im not one of those people who needs good graphics to like a game but they really do help. Although i am just wathcin the vids on youtube and such so I imagine that the graphics will look better on my TV at home . I wonder if the online play for ODST will end up more like COD4 as this time around you're not a super soldier but rather a normal person

[riderkid]

i personally want that recon armor, definately a reason to get EVERY achievement

[I_Am_Nemesis]

true it would be great to get it nice and quick too because you know that after a while every one will have that armor just like the Hayabusa armor lol