VivaLebowski

@zLMalificent When I said the truth of the matter, I meant reality. Not what he thinks matters. Of course people's priorities are subjective...That's because our thought processes are f'd up. I can't follow your arguments here. I don't know what something is, I don't know what single situation your talking about. I don't know what specific assertion your referring to. Ditto with the previous counterpoint. I don't know what your point is. I might think myself smart but even I can't follow your arguments when your using all these big words. Do you think that's the case with this argument? Are we both neither wrong or right here? Is this entire argument your making subjective? Your probably thinking "well, obviously, I didn't mean to include this argument in that statement" since the statement need not necessarily include means it can still include...but I never meant to apply what I was saying to all arguments either. Here's my basis thesis: In arguments where you have two people putting forth two opinions which cannot both be right at the same time (I say, 2 + 2 = 5, he says 2 + 2 = 4), there are two possibilities...both people are wrong, or one person is right and one person is wrong. Sure, you might say, well that depends on what values we apply to the number two, or the equals sign, or 5 and 4, but in the end, in mathematics, completely independent of flawed human perception and reasoning, if you have 2 of a thing, and it meets another two, you have four. Even if no one says so...even if no one labels it as such, where once you had .. and .. you now have .... So yeah, some arguments are not necessarily exclusive...we don't have to be contradictory. But this particlar argument has two perceptions of reality which cannot both be correct at the same time. I percieve and argue that he overreacted, he perceives that he is completely justified in what hes saying and is not overreacting. These two "subjective" opinions cannot both be right because for one to be right excludes the other. Either he overreacted or he didn't. I mean, really, what are you criticizing here? You don't seem to think that all disagreements are completely subjective and neither right nor wrong...and here, we definitely have an argument which is objective in the respect that one persons position reflects objective reality (even if they hold that position for the wrong reason). Yet, your going after me because it seems to you unreasonable to even suggest "hey, you shouldn't dismiss an entire game just because of a cosmetic thing" ... I do not understand this one bit.

Not sure if your serious or just making fun of people who support 343. Whats the point of being a fan of something if you won't be dissapointd if it starts sucking?

Puce. Definitely Puce.

Forge is becoming God.

How come everyone is talking about "the new version of Firefight" when the GI article says that they have no plans to reintroduce firefight?

All hell just broke loose.

Correct, sir! It was on the tip of my tongue. What WE THINK is subjective. The truth of the matter is something else entirely. If Mr.Elite whats-his-face decides he cant play Halo beacuse the pixels on a tree don't quite meet his specifications. he's wrong to do so. He might not think he is...but he is. If he's not, that means I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong, that just proves that not everythings subjective, just as me being right and him being wrong shows that things arent subjective. And its not as if we can both be right. Our "opinions" are exclusive and contradictory. We both have a right to them, but one of us has to be wrong. We are getting into deep territory here.

All I'm saying is, these "Sensible people" your talking about should stop using such high minded language as "Oh Ive been part of something for 8 years!" or "Well its a cause!" for something which matters about as much as Chicken **** in the grand scheme of things.

I did find the 343 Reach maps a bit more interesting than the Bungie ones, but the map design in Reach was substandard compared to previous halos across the board.

Your point, good sir?

Spartan Missions...no no no wait...Spartan Maneuvers...Spartan Activities...Spartan Flakes...Spartan Funtime. Goddammit, 343 isnt paying me! I shouldn't have to think to come up with a name which isn't dumb...that's their job. Hell, just think of a name for the Deep Space Mission, like Operation *BLANK* Manuevers or something and slap that on there.

When I read this I was thinking of the Super 8 Hotel. "You could go Bowling, or SCUBADIVING!"

Heres my theory about Reach; it failed beacuse it tried to retain classic Halo gameplay while introducing COD esque design elements. 343 is completely changing the game, so while they risk failing in implementing those changes, they will not fail because they change too little.

Doesn't sound like the best of Marty, still sounds pretty good though. If I were 343 and this guy, I would save the real good stuff anyway. As with everything, we'll just have to wait and see (or hear). Just hope he preserves some of Halo's weirdness and doesn't follow Hanz Zimmer too much. Really hope we get more of that style of music from the concept art video. It had a real feeling of Halo combined with Blade Runner combined with Inception.

This feature is going to take a whole lot of time for 343 to maintain any good output of stuff.. 343 would be better put implementing AI enemies and scripted events in the forge. Then they would rely on the community to do their work for them.

"If you've been devoted to a cause for so long, it is near enough impossible to give up." Oh for Gods sake dont be so melodramatic. I was very sad when they removed Elites from Reach. I was less sad when it was reported they wouldnt be in this one, but not so much as with Reach. But so what? Its a cosmetic difference. You want a cause? Become a Communist or a Christian. At least they believe in something important, even if they are on opposing sides of the spectrum.

Is that sarcasm? Saying Halo 4 is going to be "great" is like saying it automatically sucks. You have no reason to think that is a certainty.

"And I personally think that if Bungie made this game those narrow minded people would praise Bungie into heaven but instead they just go bananas on 343i." I'm not a veteran of the Halo community by any notion, the only game where I payed attention to the forums was Reach BUT judging by that, if your Bungie and you introduce Bloom or Armor Lock, regardless of the merits of these things, your going to piss of these arch-conservative (with regards to the gameplay) Competitive types. So people would in all likelihood be going Banana's if these changes were authored by Bungie. The players dont care overmuch for Bungie...after all, Bungie started this push towards Modernization, customization, etc with Reach. 343 is merely continuing that. From my point of view, Reach's critical flaw was that it tried to keep Halo's classical gameplay intact while introducing COD/BF/modern elements. The thing is you cannot do that. You either make a classical Halo game (which is infeasible from a financial standpoint, it seems to me) or you try to radically alter it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. 343 is taking risks and being Ballzy here, so its perfectly fair that people are concerned. That said, 343 might pull it off. I certainly hope they do. I dont have "faith" in 343. There's no reason to think they have to get things right here. They have no proven track record working on independent projects. In fact, the "changes" they are making might very well be the result of Profit-minded Microsoft execs breathing down their necks, rather than the result of a carefull process to make a good game. Halo is becoming more COD-esque (this is not a statement of derision, just a statement of the fact), it is being changed, radically, and the classical Halo experience did indeed just go out the window. ALL THAT SAID, Halo needs to change. It needs to be financially successfull. As easily as they could fail epically, they could succeed spectacularly. No doubt allot of talent and money is being invested in this thing. And the elements of classical Halo design which are being maintained ensure a unique product in the end.

It seems like your arguing with someone else...I said Halo cant be financially successful playing to a small group of people (competitive pro diehard fans). The reason I said that is because 343 has to appeal to casuals because they are the majority. I ain't putting out an opinion here on individual features, nor do I think 343 should necessarily cater to the competitive diehards. To make a good AND financially successful game (because 343 needs to make bank if we want them to keep making Halo) 343 must try to make a good game while also going where the money is. I;m not stating an opinion of planned changes, only stating the facts.

I'm not disappointed, just allot more apprehensive. Had to happen some time considering it was only a matter of time until 343 decided it needed to modernize Halo dramatically, and that meant risky changes. I don't have "faith" in 343, nor do I think Halo 4 has to be bad. I have little idea whats going through their minds right now, other than they 1) Are pushing Halo back to its roots in some elements (map design, Campaign, focus on the Chief) and 2) Are radically changing the basic formula. I'm still very much excited for the game, if I had to bet I would say its likely to be good, though probably unlikely that it will top H3 for me, at least as an MP experience.

I dont want Elite Slayer, I just want Elites mixed in as they were in H2 and H3. But what once was may never be again.

That's one thing where I cannot understand the hate this new feature is getting.

One has to wonder to what extent 343's new "vision" is bring driven by profit-minded Microsoft execs who are looking at BF's and COD's sales numbers with Hungry eyes and riding herd over 343 as a result. As has been said elsewhere, Halo's modernization isnt necessarily a bad thing...but its worth pointing out that if you had a whole bunch of Halo fans being given license to make another Halo game but not being tied down to Sales, the final product would probably be much more conservative in its changes than what we are going to get now. Food for thought.

343 isn't motivated simply by what the competitive core of Halo players want. They are motivated by sales. They can't make a financially successful game based simply on playing to a small group of Halo fans. They are being forced to modernize, one way or another. If people want a remake of previous Halos, get over it. Nostalgia and the previous trilogy just left the building, for better or for worse.

I just wish they had come up with a different name...Firefight was good in ODST but I dont particularly feel the need for it this time around. If I were 343 I would just focus exclusively on Forge, Matchmaking and Campaign. Whatever add-ons they try to add are never going to justify the time spent making them in terms of people who consistently play them and/or are encouraged to buy the game beacuse of their inclusion.