Forerunner, Male, from London, UK
How time flies, what has happened to this once great site?
damn man, the sites looking very different. Has had the same look since '08, hmmm
I read the report but even that bit of slightly less shitty news comes with a few caveats. First of all I believe the reports say that family members will be able to play games in the shared library at the same time but not the same exact game.
Second, how does Microsoft define "family". This isn't the same distinction apple uses when it says you can play iTunes stuff on 10 other computers you authorize. Those computers can be anyone. Will Xbox's "family" distinction work the same way where you can just send a code to anyone to authorize their Xbox or do they mean only people tied to the same credit card paying for live count as "family".
And finally, will this sharing be allowed to non gold members?
Tge way things are going I'm highly inclined to believe the negative of each scenario.
I understand dude. Get a good night's sleep. It's just, I tend to defend companies a lot because usually people get overzealous with the slightest hint of a rumor of something and I always like to understand decisions from the other side, like what positives Microsoft gets out of it, but this time...I've got nothing. They deserve every single bit of ire they get until they change their policies (and what's said is it sounds like the polices being revealed now were changed from worse versions before the reveal happened)
Peg, you on, I need to rant about Microsoft to someone
For me it's not just the gameplay elements you mention, but those intangibles like the HUD and even the menus. I quite like Dominion, but then we lost things like One-Flag and Firefight. Obviously forging took one of the biggest hits, too.
I didn't see the panel, was there something specific that makes you say that?
So if your opinion of Reach hasn't changed much with hindsight, how do you feel about 4 in general then? Any hope for 5 either?
I never even mentioned sprint, though it does contribute. I was saying base movement speed is generally slower in Halo than other shooters. For instance, you mention the kill times of arena shooters, but ignore the absurdity of the movement allowed there.
Either way, I don't believe slower is a bad thing, and regardless of how slow you perceive the Halo series to be, I think you'd have to admit that the departure from that mellow speed has hurt H4, among other factors.
I know you won't consider Reach's AA's good because of your issues with AL and the like, but I'd rather have something like AL than something as useless as HLS. You might even say that neither is good, but on different ends of the spectrum.
The speed is not my own opinion. You look only at kill times, I'm also considering movement speed, respawn timers, objectives, etc. Movement speed will be the main reason that people have always called Halo slower, or even "too slow", but when you look at what Halo 4 has done across the board to speed up the game, it becomes more obvious. Even if we look only at weapons as you do, it's still clear that we are given far more power weapons, damage/speed boosts, and even non-precision weapons that kill more quickly than earlier games. Factor in other core gameplay changes like dramatic loss in movement speed while being shot to allow more kills to be secured, and you're left with a much faster game than the Halo series has traditionally been. I don't think this should even be a question, because this is a very intentional move, and I don't believe it's for the better.
I'm not really making an argument about it, I was asking you if your perspective changed at all, remember?
As for kill variance, or whatever you feel like calling it, I never cared about it in Halo because it was never an issue. I know you've complained about how the game was "slowed down" in the past, but Halo has always been considered a slower shooter, and I don't think it was a problem. I play a lot of BF3, and you can actually take more damage and survive for longer than you do in H4 now, and I think that's kind of ridiculous. A comparison to such shooters does not have to be an insult, though it's often used that way, but you ought to know I'm not doing that.
Yes, they've pushed kill times closer to military shooters like CoD and BF, but Halo isn't a realistic military shooter, so it's wrong to do that. The only aspect they needed to emulate is progression.
The whole point about change is that people should be able to tell the difference now. I also said Reach was a more significant change, as opposed to a change like hijacking vehicles. There were a lot more knee-jerk reactions in the first month than there should have been.
It's not a matter of change done right, it's the fact that there was change at all. Reach introducing AA's for a significant enough change that people seemed to reject the game despite massive improvements to the overall game in terms of what you're getting and what you're able to do. Those AA's didn't alter the core gameplay the way 4 has, so even if you don't like them, you can't claim they failed. The fact that I can now say "the way 4 has" should only serve as a way to highlight that point.
We know H4 has lost some features, but I would argue that its shift toward CoD is a much more dramatic gameplay change than the addition of AA's, but people don't seem to be rejecting it like they did with Reach.
I think, or at least hope, that 4 has given people a better appreciation of what Bungie was able to accomplish in Reach because I was always disappointed with how many people were driven away from it. In other words, there are distinctions between types of change in a series, and there is no need to shun change if it works (Reach introducing AA's) just for the sake of doing do. Now that people have seen change that doesn't work (4's "perks" among other things), I would hope people can tell the difference now.
Grenades are a good example of why perks have hurt gameplay so much, because their power has been tampered with to accommodate a perk for nades, and you can see the same trend across the board. As for AA's, they are either useless like HLS or overused like MLG vision. I personally find one of the worst AA's of the relatively balanced Reach set, Hologram, to be on of the best in a very polarizing H4 set; there's something funky about that.
I've been curious to know if the shortcomings of 4 have given any of Reach's critics, including yourself, a different perspective on it. I would think the complaints about Reach would now seem petty compared to the substantial issues we have in 4. Since we often discussed the subject and you usually know what you're talking about, I thought I'd ask.
This may be random, but now that H4 has been out for some time, I'm interested to know if your perspective on Reach has changed at all?
Ha. Yeah, that kind of post just gets under my skin. Misinformed and basically just a cynical person spewing negativity because that's their default mode... very annoying.
Just to let you know you're on my ignore list now and your posts will no longer show up for me. have a good day. :)
You've been much ruder than me and you sir are just as much of a hypocrite. I have no wounded pride, lol. I walked away from you being rude and completely missing every point I made. I'm allowed to have my opinions, so are you. Your opinions don't take precedence over mine and mine over yours. Get over it and go belittle someone else who actually cares.
You feel like a bigger man now?
Cool story bro. Never said anything I said wasn't insulting. Now dust your hands off and move on as your still acting very childish, making your points, public and all instead of post a much more suiting private message.