***Halo 5***
- Thread starter cu3ed
- Start date
Associate
RKO OUT OF NOWHERE!
I have searched the net for the sticky nade assassination I did on breakout, can't find any clips. That one is awesome.
I have searched the net for the sticky nade assassination I did on breakout, can't find any clips. That one is awesome.
In what way..hes getting rown apart right now.
He didn't understand the REQ system...he thinks you HAVE to pay for everything...you don't.
He didn't even know why Forge was coming later....as if he was using it on day one.
He pretended to not know their no Couch Co-Op.
He said he played the campign in about 4hr 30 mins..when he played it on Normal with Co-Op lol.
I agree it's to short no matter what difficulty.
The story is pretty crap not enough of the chief.
Paying for extras in an MP game is wrong especially how long it takes to get them otherwise.
Halo should have split screen.
The ending is awful and you fight the same boss numerous times.
Just some of them. I did not hate the game but tbh I was left a bit disappointed....
The story is pretty crap not enough of the chief.
Paying for extras in an MP game is wrong especially how long it takes to get them otherwise.
Halo should have split screen.
The ending is awful and you fight the same boss numerous times.
Just some of them. I did not hate the game but tbh I was left a bit disappointed....
How long did it take you?
He failed to mention he played it on Normal with 4 way Co-Op...that's as bad as speed running the entire game.
What extras do you have to pay for when everything can be earned in game and you can play the game just fine without paying for a single thing?
And it ONLY effects Warzone..if even that, all Arena slayer etc have nothing to do with REQ packs as they arnt used for those.
That..and if itif you do CHOOSE to buy any packs..it subsides it for everyone else to get free DLC Maps..I know what I would take.
Figting the same kinds of Boss is pretty open..considering how its the norm on most single player games you face the same enemy over and over.
The ending is a cliff hanger....remember the "finish the fight" trailers and Halo 2?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 11,015
No one liked the halo 2 ending either mate, jus saying^
Agree with moogleys points tbh, campaign could have been stringer and yes you dint need to spend money on reqs so the option shouldnt be there, its pure greed
Someone argued with me on fb saying all the money from reqs is to fund halo tournaments.. this is microsoft, im sure they can afford to host a lan.
Agree with moogleys points tbh, campaign could have been stringer and yes you dint need to spend money on reqs so the option shouldnt be there, its pure greed
Someone argued with me on fb saying all the money from reqs is to fund halo tournaments.. this is microsoft, im sure they can afford to host a lan.
Theirs an oxymoron if I ever read one, its pure greed they made it a complete option...okay.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 11,015
Just my opinion. Asking for money in a full price game for extras you can earn anyway is just greedy. Dont worry its not just halo, so dont feel im attacking it, any game that does this after asking roughly £40-50 is bad
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 11,015
Maps used to be free and i believe they still should be. Not paid for a map pack on console, bought bf3 ones on pc and regretted it.
Anyway "free" maps is a great thing these days, fully fledged maps, not just forge ones i hope
*just to add i feel the content in the game is fine, dont need extra stuff personally. And at the end of the day its there choice to do maps for free, and then i suppose its there choice to offer charges for packs. I dunno i just dont like it optional or not. But its the way things are
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 11,015
True, ive played a few matches but onky tend to use the br and pistol. Maybe a shotgun sometimes. Which is more why i dont really understand why the req system is needed, must have been another way to do it!
Anyway its early days and the best bit of halo usually is the community playlists and fun modes so lets hope they come in time!
1 more point i hated about the campaign is that they say theres 15 missions but come on, 3 of those barely count imo! Basically playable cutscenes
Soldato
Just sent out friend requests to everyone that's in the Spartan Company.
Gamer Tag is BEN 01UK
Gamer Tag is BEN 01UK
Associate
+1
How could you say that about Halo 2?!!? Haha, I will admit that sequel bait endings are the worst when it comes to fiction, but without that 'finish the fight' line, the ending to Halo 2 was pretty decent. I enjoyed the last level and the boss battle. But I do agree that a story shouldn't have to rely on it's successors.
Whoever defends micro-transactions in a full price $60 game is a fool, justification or not, there shouldn't be any micro-transactions in a $60 game, full stop. Ask yourselves this: if people don't need to spend money on micro-transactions, if they are so obsolete, then why are they in the game in the first place? No company would add micro-transactions if they believed nobody would use them. Fact is, whether consciously or sub-consciously, games with micro-transactions are modified to accommodate for said MTs.
But the worst thing isn't just Halo 5. When other companies look at this, they see that MTs are viable profit in $60 AAA titles. Thus the success of this, will shape the industry and more AAA $60 games will release with MTs (as if there weren't enough already). And even if folks think Halo 5 has done it well, I doubt every game from now on that will have MTs will also 'do it well.'
To all those who are fanatically defending the existence of micro-transactions in Halo 5 I say this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHszeYz5Mi0&index=12&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0E1Id3NHchFaxikvCvAVQe
In addition to abstaining from pre-ordering games, I've now decided that I will not buy any full price AAA games that have micro-transactions in them. Not that I have bought many before now (only 1 game I can think of). And I'll also not buy games that run at 30fps on current-gen consoles, in that respect Halo 5 was a beacon of hope. I may be one person, but I'll stand by my beliefs.
SO you don't own the game then?
I assume then you also wont buy ANY game that has a "season" pass or any maps that you have no choice but to pay for?
Again, seeing as Angry Joe got torn a new one, and has no had to admit he doesn't under stand how REQS work in the actual game, and how they are completely and utterly optional and are not a pay to win service, some here just seem to copy and paste with absolutely no clue about what they are talking about..or that it even only effects ONE game mode in all of multiplayer....or that about 2/3 games in if you played half well, you can actually buy a gold pack with in game points lol.
SO not going to buy games with paid for after content and games that don't run over 30fps...LMAO....yea...have fun.
I assume then you also wont buy ANY game that has a "season" pass or any maps that you have no choice but to pay for?
Again, seeing as Angry Joe got torn a new one, and has no had to admit he doesn't under stand how REQS work in the actual game, and how they are completely and utterly optional and are not a pay to win service, some here just seem to copy and paste with absolutely no clue about what they are talking about..or that it even only effects ONE game mode in all of multiplayer....or that about 2/3 games in if you played half well, you can actually buy a gold pack with in game points lol.
SO not going to buy games with paid for after content and games that don't run over 30fps...LMAO....yea...have fun.
Associate
I don't see what the big deal is with microtransactions. If the option is there, people can pay for it or not pay for it. Companies will overstep the mark, have too much content behind a pay wall, or even have pay-to-win mechanics, and that's fine also - people will vote with their wallets and the game won't sell well, and so companies will have to adapt.
People seem to think that having microtransactions in games is setting a dangerous precedent, but that assumes that we, the consumers, have no control which is frankly ridiculous.
I've been buying console games for years. I still remember saving up for months and then handing over £65 each for Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES. That was 20 years ago. Do games cost £65 now? No. In fact, with inflation, that's the equivalent of £120 today. Do games cost £120 now? Hell no!
The cost of games crept up, sales went down, and so the cost came down again. On PS1, games started off at £50 but gradually came down to the sweet spot of £35-40. That £40 cost has held firm for over a decade despite each new generation attempting to raise it to £50+. And who can blame publishers for trying to increase the cost? I was paying up to £65 for games that cost an absolute fraction to develop and publish the games of today. Lots of good companies have gone out of business over the years due to not being able to turn a profit, but that's just a fact of life.
The same will happen with microtransactions. The waters are being tested and a sweet spot will be found of what consumers see as good value and allows companies to continue selling games at a reasonable price but still be able to make enough profit to re-invest into their next game.
We seem to believe developers/publishers are charities and shouldn't make any money. We want big blockbuster games but don't want to pay for them. When a new sales model comes out that allows us to continue paying what we're used to, get a similar quality of gaming experience, but also allow the developer/publisher to make enough money to not go under, we're outraged! Gamers are stupid.
People seem to think that having microtransactions in games is setting a dangerous precedent, but that assumes that we, the consumers, have no control which is frankly ridiculous.
I've been buying console games for years. I still remember saving up for months and then handing over £65 each for Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES. That was 20 years ago. Do games cost £65 now? No. In fact, with inflation, that's the equivalent of £120 today. Do games cost £120 now? Hell no!
The cost of games crept up, sales went down, and so the cost came down again. On PS1, games started off at £50 but gradually came down to the sweet spot of £35-40. That £40 cost has held firm for over a decade despite each new generation attempting to raise it to £50+. And who can blame publishers for trying to increase the cost? I was paying up to £65 for games that cost an absolute fraction to develop and publish the games of today. Lots of good companies have gone out of business over the years due to not being able to turn a profit, but that's just a fact of life.
The same will happen with microtransactions. The waters are being tested and a sweet spot will be found of what consumers see as good value and allows companies to continue selling games at a reasonable price but still be able to make enough profit to re-invest into their next game.
We seem to believe developers/publishers are charities and shouldn't make any money. We want big blockbuster games but don't want to pay for them. When a new sales model comes out that allows us to continue paying what we're used to, get a similar quality of gaming experience, but also allow the developer/publisher to make enough money to not go under, we're outraged! Gamers are stupid.
Soldato
Finished the campaign last night, took ~5-6 hours total I think.
I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed
Too short, poor character development, story was all over the place and didn't feel involving at all, stupid AI Spartans in every single mission, no big open missions etc. It just didn't feel like a Halo campaign.
I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed
Too short, poor character development, story was all over the place and didn't feel involving at all, stupid AI Spartans in every single mission, no big open missions etc. It just didn't feel like a Halo campaign.