So sidelining the Chief equals innovation? How does it make for a better Halo game?
So sidelining the Chief equals innovation? How does it make for a better Halo game?
This is really like Halo 2 when people found out Arbiter shares almost equal if not more screen time than Chief and he ended up being a fan favorite character.
I'm pretty sure this game is called Halo 5, not Master Chief 5. Face it, while Master Chief will always be an iconic character in the Halo Universe, he's just one character in a larger story. 343 wants to try something new, breaking the mold of normal Halo games from the Chief perspective. As for if it works or not, I'll get back to you once I play the game through. But I'm not going to yell and moan about such changes until I play through it.
wow there's that troll review.
At least that's the marketing pitch. When you actually play the game, with the borderline-incompetent AI controlling your teammates and on default difficulty, this pattern soon becomes a slog. Your team doesn't operate as one, and even chooses to ignore orders you send to them when you're trying to make them do something useful for once, limiting tactical potential and reducing every encounter to a straightforward shootout.
...........
That poor intelligence on the computer-controlled characters' part bleeds into every element - enemies in combat not using cover, enemies out of combat ignoring your presence and walking into walls, friendlies in or out of combat being thoroughly useless - it all adds up and ends up frustrating.
It's also rather repetitive an experience. With almost every encounter following the pattern laid out above, it becomes difficult to really get excited by what's going on - and when you have to, say, face the same boss character in eight different incarnations (that literally happens), it becomes even harder to maintain enthusiasm.
Arby >>>>>> ChiefThis is really like Halo 2 when people found out Arbiter shares almost equal if not more screen time than Chief and he ended up being a fan favorite character.
lol i have no idea. These guys man....they just dont get it. Ive come to accept it now. If i wanted to play a fucking halo game without Chief, id play ODST. They take the idea from the worst halo game (Halo2) and make a new game out of it. Who makes these decisions at 343........
Arby >>>>>> Chief
An ODST style game with him as the main character would be amazing.
This is really like Halo 2 when people found out Arbiter shares almost equal if not more screen time than Chief and he ended up being a fan favorite character.
0_o
Oh my lord that would be amazing.
Since the "Metacritic Scores Are Lower Now" question came up, I decided to check what actually got a 90+ this year.
I excluded late ports/remasters and used the most reviewed SKU for each game.
2015:
Undertale (94)
Metal Gear Solid V (93)
The Witcher 3 (92)
Bloodborne (92)
Out of the Park Baseball 16 (91)
Mario Kart 8 DLC Pack 2 (90)
Tales from the Borderlands: Episode 5 (90)
This year was very strong critically as well compared to last year.
2014:
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U (92)
Bayonetta 2 (91)
Kentucky Route Zero - Act III (91)
I think it's going to be quite different here. I think Arbiter ended up being a pretty fantastic character.
I'd be surprised if the GAF consensus ends up with people liking Locke as a character.
So sidelining the Chief equals innovation? How does it make for a better Halo game?
But how you quantify reviewers who give things like thumbs up and stars? Is one thumb up, 50/100 on metacritic?
I mean, Digital Spy chose 5 stars system over 100 point scale for a reason, and yet it becomes 60/100 which is technically what 3 out of 5 stars is, but you don't view it like that no?
Man, Witcher 3 is criminally underrated.
![]()
Your favourite food sucks yo. Learn to accept that not everyone is gonna like what you like.
I don't remember the BioGamerGirl incident, and that makes me sad.
But people say Locke is one of the most boring characters in the game... I mean why replace Chief with someone who seems to be so much like him.
I'd rather play as Chief too by the way.
The Master Chief missions are hugely enjoyable. And though Osiris does feature more than Blue, it's still an enjoyable experience, complete with Nathan Fillion.
Nathan Fillion: the man is awesome! Need I say more?
GIF please...
Since the "Metacritic Scores Now vs. Then" question came up, I decided to check what actually got a 90+ this year.
I excluded late ports/remasters and used the most reviewed SKU for each game.
2015:
Undertale (94)
Metal Gear Solid V (93)
The Witcher 3 (92)
Bloodborne (92)
Out of the Park Baseball 16 (91)
Mario Kart 8 DLC Pack 2 (90)
Tales from the Borderlands: Episode 5 (90)
This year was very strong critically as well compared to last year.
2014:
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U (92)
Bayonetta 2 (91)
Kentucky Route Zero - Act III (91)
From the ones currently announced, you could be right. Maybe Quantum Break but I doubt it. But I'm sure the next Forza Horizon will crack the 90.
Honeslty, almost everything 2016 has to offer has a shot. They have a chance at bringing another "Lost Odyssey" Jrpgforaconsolethathasnone in Scalebound, and platinum games working on a dream project gives me some hope.
Then Crackdown has a chance purely because if the game works as intended, it will be some revolutionary shit.
If they do a Forza Horizon 3 next year, that has a chance as well.
I kind of expected lower for Halo 5 tbh, at this point its just so many things to so many people, expecting to please all of them is impossible.
I'll give you 2013 (Last year of last gen)
GTA V (97)
The Last of Us (95)
Bioshock Inifinite (93/94)
Super Mario 3D world (93)
Fire Emblem: Awakening (92)
Rayman Legends (92)
TLOZ: A Link Between Worlds (91)
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons (90)
Dota 2 (90)
Were some remakes etc. but they don't count.
And that's why we should move to OpenCritic already. Get all the reviews in one place and you can customize it to your exact liking, excluding review outlets that you think poorly represent your tastes and such.
I'll give you 2013 (Last year of last gen)
GTA V (97)
The Last of Us (95)
Bioshock Inifinite (93/94)
Super Mario 3D world (93)
Fire Emblem: Awakening (92)
Rayman Legends (92)
TLOZ: A Link Between Worlds (91)
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons (90)
Dota 2 (90)
Were some remakes etc. but they don't count.
I'd say criminally overrated. Way too buggy. More so than the average Assassins Creed.
GTAV holy hell how did this crap game get 97. Even 4 was better
86 is by no means bad, its excellent.
but people should stop pretending they expected 60s and 86 is a huge earth shattering victory.
it is still the lowest scoring halo ever.
jesus i mean how badly did you expect 343 to screw up?
so bad that you need to post celebration gif upon it just not sucking?
I might have put 140 hours into some other Witcher 3 then. Cool.
On another note, this is just a genuine question on how often Metacritic misinterprets a score:
Just checked Metacritic to see a 100/100 rating by Gaming age:
(https://gyazo.com/9825241b5a2f84ab2f24cad0a7704faa)![]()
But...Gaming Age awarded Halo 5 an "A"
(https://gyazo.com/7ad7a6b1a073a413ae75c095825a7105)![]()
....which actually equates to 95 rather than 100 (you can check their review guidelines below); this is obviously different to what Metacritic registered it as
(http://www.gaming-age.com/review-guidelines/)![]()
Just something I found weird...not that it matters much, but I just figured since this is a review thread you know...which begs the question if other reviews are also like this and if it has affect the average score (and thus devs bonuses etc...)
Master Chief has to die sometime./s Remember how everybody hated how Halo 2 was only one half Masterchief? Let's double down on that.
Seriously though I buy Halo to play MC. Not a bunch of ODST, random Spartans or Elites.
lol i have no idea. These guys man....they just dont get it. Ive come to accept it now. If i wanted to play a fucking halo game without Chief, id play ODST. They take the idea from the worst halo game (Halo2) and make a new game out of it. Who makes these decisions at 343........
Scores are pretty much what any sane person should expect from a shooter franchise that's been going for 14 years. Main reason its not 90s across the board anymore is simply due to the fact the games are mind blowing like 1 and 2 were back then. When Halo first came out, it was one of the best looking games out across everything, even pc, maybe not the best but truly a sight. Not to mention what Xbox LIVE brought to consoles with online gaming and Halo 1 and 2 mutliplayer being as solid as it could be, its not hard to realize why 2001 and 2004 this meant straight 90+ review scores and doesn't today.
Instead of bitching that the game isn't the pinnacle of the franchise, you should be happy to see that after 14 years and many game releases, that the franchise is still as relevant to people today as it is.
Also, pretty damn funny reading MC is only in like 3/15 missions after that whole thing IGN did about him.
GTAV holy hell how did this crap game get 97. Even 4 was better