|Frequently Asked Forum Questions|
|Search Older Posts on This Forum:|
Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST|
|Posted By: Narcogen <firstname.lastname@example.org>||Date: 9/21/09 5:03 a.m.|
In Response To: Re: Ars Technica pans ODST (Cody Miller)
: This same person reviewed Halo 2 for Arstechnica and liked it, so you're not
: Why does everyone cry foul when more and more publications are not praising
: This isn't the golden days of Bungie when they could do no wrong.
You mean, like back when they took fire and ambient life out of Myth?
Or when they ported Marathon 2 to Windows and the mouse controls didn't work?
You mean, those times when Bungie could do no wrong?
Or maybe it was the time when Bungie created a great multiplayer game that was marred only by a single weapon so powerful you'd be crazy to ever drop it, but that lacked Internet multiplayer?
Or the time they added online multiplayer to that game, but took out everyone's favorite weapon?
Those times when Bungie could do no wrong?
I think it'd be incorrect to assume that there's been some kind of sea change here, or that if there has been one, that it occurs between Halo 3 and ODST.
I think the more likelier trends at work here are, in no particular order:
1) No matter how popular a company is, nobody likes everything they do
Certainly I think some outlets might still have concluded that the value in the box of ODST isn't quite what it was for the previous titles, but I think it'd be far fewer if it had been priced that way from the start.
Frankly I think there's some value in getting something out the door in less than three years. If they could put out something like ODST every year for that price, I might wince a bit but I'd probably do it. A short campaign, a new multiplayer mode, a few new maps, perhaps a new weapon or two and a vehicle, in 12 months... I'd go for that.
Heck, that'd be close to being episodic. Like Half-Life 2 was supposed to be before it turned out each episode took as long to make as the original game (which is about as long as it takes to make a full Halo title anyway).
One last word on that review:
"I've since gone back to play the game again on Heroic difficulty in single-player, and I can see where the six-hour playthrough times are coming from."
He went back to play on Heroic. Meaning the first playthrough, the one he said you could finish "on your lunch hour" was on Normal.
He's going to chastise Bungie for the hub and spoke model as being "filler" because Halo fans "don't want to explore an empty city" and then plays a new title on Normal? I'm not sure he knows what Halo fans want. I count myself a Halo fan, and what I love more than anything are the worlds Bungie creates. I want to spend more time in them, not rush through as fast as I can. And I don't start out on Normal. If I start out on Heroic it's because I know I suck. Reviewers seem to play games on lower difficulties so they can breeze through and finish the game to write a review, and then blame the game for being short. It's a self-fulfilling property. Maybe Bungie ought to send out special reviewer copies locked to Heroic or above.
|Ars Technica pans ODST||Jordan117||9/21/09 12:36 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||PsychoRaven||9/21/09 12:42 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||Hedgemony||9/21/09 12:47 a.m.|
|SPOILER (not really)||Lord Osiris||9/21/09 1:03 a.m.|
|Re: I'm right there with you *NM*||Hedgemony||9/21/09 1:07 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||Cody Miller||9/21/09 2:11 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||PsychoRaven||9/21/09 2:56 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST whoa, whoa||Hedgemony||9/21/09 3:03 a.m.|
|You're right||PsychoRaven||9/21/09 3:07 a.m.|
|Ugh I'm calling it.||PsychoRaven||9/21/09 3:09 a.m.|
|Re: Ugh I'm calling it.||Hedgemony||9/21/09 4:56 a.m.|
|Sorry about the angry reply||PsychoRaven||9/21/09 3:05 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||Narcogen||9/21/09 5:03 a.m.|
|Re: Ever the voice of reason, Narcogen||Hedgemony||9/21/09 5:50 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||Blackstar||9/21/09 5:52 a.m.|
|Stacker.||Narcogen||9/22/09 2:55 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||rolandk73||9/21/09 6:20 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||PsychoRaven||9/21/09 11:01 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||Cody Miller||9/21/09 12:18 p.m.|
|Blame Microsoft's Men in Black?||kapowaz||9/21/09 7:03 p.m.|
|Saxaphone trouble||Rockslider||9/21/09 7:53 p.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Narcogen||9/22/09 3:00 a.m.|
|I hope I'm not the first to say this...||stan||9/22/09 10:33 p.m.|
|The only thing I don't like about it...||Jordan117||9/22/09 10:50 p.m.|
|Re: I hope I'm not the first to say this...||Ibeechu||9/23/09 9:27 p.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||FyreWulff||9/23/09 12:16 p.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Louis Wu||9/23/09 12:25 p.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Narcogen||9/23/09 11:50 p.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||FyreWulff||9/24/09 12:56 a.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Narcogen||9/24/09 2:05 a.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Rockslider||9/23/09 5:13 p.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Bry||9/23/09 5:40 p.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Narcogen||9/23/09 11:51 p.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)||9/25/09 11:08 a.m.|
|Re: Saxaphone trouble||Rockslider||9/26/09 7:00 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||Ragashingo||9/21/09 12:51 a.m.|
|Re: Ars Technica pans ODST||electrojew||9/21/09 2:13 a.m.|
|How odd...||Anton P. Nym (aka Steve)||9/21/09 10:51 a.m.|
|Re: How odd...||DogCow||9/22/09 10:38 a.m.|
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33.