That doesn't mean they are shit tbf, it just means they were praised way more than they should have been. Halo 2 tried too hard with the changes and dual weapons and all that, and lost something. Halo 3 suffered from even worse level design than 1 and they noticeably had to scale back the A.I for the graphics.
If you are going to attempt to wum, at least make an effort man!
Eh? I played the game from start to finish. I lost count of the amount of shrines that simply consisted of 'kill the robot'.If you are going to attempt to wum, at least make an effort man!
Gotta disagree. It's probably the best game I've played, spent months just driving around those country roads.
There's 20. Out of 120.
Twenty goddamn times. Not repetitive. Okay.
Never mind one of the major reasons it's so highly rated is because of the shear openness of the game, the amount of choice in how you play on offer. But you think 1/6 of the shrines being combat training shrines makes it repetitive and over rated? You are aware that they are the games in built tutorials right? And the very fact you can still be creative in how you beat them is choice in itself.
As I said, no story, repetitive, shitty NPCs, fetch quests, the weapon breaking mechanic, terrible frame rate (I have the Wii U version).... It is genuinely the most overrated game I've ever played. 7/10 is a fair score, in my opinion. Yet 97 on Metacritic from over 100 reviews.Never mind one of the major reasons it's so highly rated is because of the shear openness of the game, the amount of choice in how you play on offer. But you think 1/6 of the shrines being combat training shrines makes it repetitive and over rated? You are aware that they are the games in built tutorials right? And the very fact you can still be creative in how you beat them is choice in itself.
Still, opinions mate
Halo 1 is the defining first person shooter?
Killing 20 enemies is too repetetive for you?
Twenty identical shrines is repetitive to me, yes. You could argue that ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY similar shrines is excessively repetitive, too.
Gotcha. Still, the list of more important ones is pretty long.
20 similar enemies in 100+ hour game is too many. Good one.
You could if they were. But they're not so you can't.
That's the cool things about opinions and debating, it's interesting to see the differences.
I believe we've had the debate on here before (not you and I specifically I don't think). Halo is actually underrated when you start throwing list of genre defining shooter. For example, there still hasn't been a single game since that has taken any kind of A.I leap like that did. Ditto with the physics, also with the graphics techniques. It has a lot of massive leaps forward to it's name, whereas the other major shooters add maybe one or two if they are lucky.
Fair enough, different strokes for different folks. For me just wasn't enough of a step up gameplay wise. The countryside and stuff was cool though.
The bit where you claim that optional shrines containing a single enemy each defines the game.
It came out 2 years later than Quake 3 but couldn't touch that game for the sophistication of its graphics engine, even allowing for the limitations of the console it was on. The AI was fun at the time, but hardly a radical improvement on Unreal's Skaarj, Half Life's squads or Unreal Tournament's bots, all of which came out several years earlier. And while it was a key game on the Xbox, GoldenEye was the the most significant proof that an FPS on a console could be as good, or better, than the PC shooters of the day.
Except that I never claimed that and you just made it up. Quit while you're behind.
Behave, Halo 1's repetitive level design alone is a massive flaw.Halo 1 still stands as a defining game of it's genre, no way that can be over rated. The others since though, yeah I completely agree.
The likes of Witcher 3 and Last of Us are also games I find people really do over praise, since the former has just so much that is mediocre at best, and the latter has gameplay that is ok and nothing more. However the sum of those games really are masterpieces so I totally get why they are so highly rated.
feck off with Mario Kart though
It's only a defining game because it did those things on a console, though. Nothing in Halo 1 really outdoes what was seen years prior on PC in games like Half Life (single player/story), Quake & Unreal (arena FPS gameplay). I don't think it's anything special mechanically or narratively.Halo 1 still stands as a defining game of it's genre, no way that can be over rated. The others since though, yeah I completely agree.
The likes of Witcher 3 and Last of Us are also games I find people really do over praise, since the former has just so much that is mediocre at best, and the latter has gameplay that is ok and nothing more. However the sum of those games really are masterpieces so I totally get why they are so highly rated.
feck off with Mario Kart though
Final Fantasy just suffers from having truly fanatical fans. As you say, Final Fantasy VII is a very good game, and a very important game in introducing RPGs to my generation, but the best game ever?
So the example you gave doesn't show that the game is repetitive? Think you're getting confused.
Ff12 is a good game with great story. Before speed adjustments it was insanely annoying with all the grinds, rng and not being able to keep anything from trial mode etc etc.
Only amazing FF games for me are 6 & 9 (7 if we're including impact & legacy), but 12 is definitely the strongest PS2/PS3/PS4 entry.
Yes, that's the actual point in fact! It's a defining game in it's genre, console fps. Oh and as for the A.I, there are papers out there on this, but it's one of the last great leaps on any platform. It was also a damn fine game in it's own right, when you add how tight everything was, the squad based A.I and smooth co-op.
CoD has been dead for years, I agree. I started off on CoD 2 - now THAT was an online game, pumped so many hours into it. Unfortunately they went down the futuristic route and it went completely to shit with lazy gun designs and audio they just regurgitated. I used to play CoD up until Black Ops 2, then gave up and turned to Battlefield. Never looked back, Battlefield 1 still gives me huge enjoyment and now that the CoD developers have seen the success it generated around WW1, they've released CoD WW2. Pathetic.
I agree with this.
This i can agree on.
Yes, it does. I never claimed it defines the game. That's something you made up and attributed to me.
So even though you say the game is repetitive, and you yourself gave the shrines as an example of that repetitiveness, they can't be seen as "establishing the character or nature of" the game?
