Jump to content
N-Europe

Halo: Reach

Dyson

By Dyson
in Other Consoles

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 663
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

drahkon Proficient

drahkon

Posted
Posted

I've ordered Arkham Asylum the other day and I only want to get one more game until Christmas (besides Castle Crashers for the PS3)...the thing is: I can't decide.

 

Currently on top of the list is Halo: Reach but I need to buy a gold subscription. Halo: Reach plus gold is by far the most expensive choice.

 

But it looks so good. And a couple of mates will get this game, too. And many guys here...

Charlie Newbie

Charlie

Posted
Posted

Get Reach. It might be more expensive but you'll spend far more hours playing it if you play the multiplayer. You can obviously also use your Gold for other games too. Just start off with either a month or 3 month subscription to see if you like it or not and indeed if you will still be playing it in a few months time.

 

I think I can safely say I won't be playing another game (other than FIFA) for a long time after Reach comes out. Halo blows every other game out of the water when it comes to multiplayer. The matchmaking system is far better than, say, MW2, because it matches you with people your own standard so you can have a good game. And you also start every game at the beginning and not half way through or even at the end like MW2!

Cube Community Regular

Cube

Posted
Posted

Halo also doesn't give more experienced players better weapons, equipment and perks. Just more armour design options.

dwarf Newbie

dwarf

Posted
Posted

Halo is a much more frantic game, weapons are handled with ground spawns i.e. the harder to Reach, the better the weapon, and players have a lot more health.

 

Maybe this is just my interpretation of an arcadey shooter.

Aimless Newbie

Aimless

Posted
Posted

I'd say they're both 'arcadey' in different ways.

 

MW2 places a lot of focus of Killstreaks and positive reinforcement via points. It's a lot about twitch skill and fast movement, with the weapon you're using being relatively unimportant; a pimped out assault rifle is good, if not optimal, at all ranges and in all situation.

 

Halo's slower moving with the various weapons handling very differently, range from the enemy drastically altering your style of play. Twitch aiming skill certainly helps, but as you won't be one-shotting players most of the time each combat tends to go through phases as both players close in on one another; it's like jousting with guns.

dwarf Newbie

dwarf

Posted
Posted
MW2 places a lot of focus of Killstreaks and positive reinforcement via points.

 

Eughhh.

 

What isn't an arcadey shooter to you? For me, arcadey stuff is about being able to run around without fear of instant death, and you have the chance to take out multiple opponents in a 2v1 situation if you're skilful enough.

Whilst that's still possible in Cod, Cod can be a lot slower and more about precision, and hide and seek. You can't really hide in Halo, or camp that effectively.

 

I'm guessing a more hardcore shooter would be Counterstrike.

Shorty Explorer

Shorty

Posted
Posted

Are we actually considering what Arcadey really means here? It's like something you would play in an arcade... a fragger where you do a lot of spray and pray. Where it takes whole clips to bring an enemy down, rather than precise headshots. Explosion are going off everywhere, you can get in a tank and blow up 4 people at once. It's not a negative comment, arcade games are awesome.

 

Halo is arcadey. Modern Warfare is not. The points you get are XP, used to level up, something you don't get in an arcade. You can spend a whole game sitting on a rooftop with a Sniper Rifle - and it's nothing like Silent Scope before anyone says it.

 

Rainbow Six Vegas has points/XP but that's definitely not arcadey.

Nolan Apprentice

Nolan

Posted
Posted

I take Arcadey to mean who has the best twitch reflexes. CoD=whoever shoots first lives 90% o the time. Halo is like that as well, but only slightly different in that the weapons change things up, still arcadey.

 

To me a non-arcade shooter would be something that requires a semblance of strategy, Team Based games like MAG or TF2 perhaps GRAW or Socom as well.

 

Of course Halo and CoD both pale in comparison to Quake or Unreal Tournament multiplayer in terms of how arcade like they are.

Shorty Explorer

Shorty

Posted
Posted
Of course Halo and CoD both pale in comparison to Quake or Unreal Tournament multiplayer in terms of how arcade like they are.
If you use Quake and Unreal as paragons of arcade-style gaming then you're saying CoD is closer to Quake/UT than Halo? :hmm:
Aimless Newbie

Aimless

Posted
Posted

So I'm imaging all the people running around in MW2 stabbing players from 6 foot away, hosing the environment with akimbo hip-firing and setting ablaze to the level with constant grenades, underslung launchers and killstreaks raining down from above?

 

Yes it can be played more technically — far more of a necessity on Hardcore — but the same could be said of SWAT in Halo. I'm trying to compare vanilla to vanilla, and I find both games to be exceptionally ridiculous and pretty selfish experiences. I think both are fantastic multiplayer games, however.

 

Something like BFBC2 I wouldn't really class as 'arcadey' as there's far more of an emphasis on teamplay — spawning on other players, spotting, healing, ammo drops, reviving, etc — and matches tend to move at a slightly more sedate pace, with the frontline moving back and fourth rather than conflict being speckled all over the map. The shooting is also slightly more technical in general.

 

I do appreciate it's something of a nothing term, though. Arcades comprise all sorts of games, from knockabout novelty titles to ridiculous bullet hell shmups, so 'arcadey' doesn't really mean anything!

dwarf Newbie

dwarf

Posted
Posted
So I'm imaging all the people running around in MW2 stabbing players from 6 foot away, hosing the environment with akimbo hip-firing and setting ablaze to the level with constant grenades, underslung launchers and killstreaks raining down from above?

 

Yes it can be played more technically — far more of a necessity on Hardcore — but the same could be said of SWAT in Halo. I'm trying to compare vanilla to vanilla, and I find both games to be exceptionally ridiculous and pretty selfish experiences. I think both are fantastic multiplayer games, however.

 

Something like BFBC2 I wouldn't really class as 'arcadey' as there's far more of an emphasis on teamplay — spawning on other players, spotting, healing, ammo drops, reviving, etc — and matches tend to move at a slightly more sedate pace, with the frontline moving back and fourth rather than conflict being speckled all over the map. The shooting is also slightly more technical in general.

 

I do appreciate it's something of a nothing term, though. Arcades comprise all sorts of games, from knockabout novelty titles to ridiculous bullet hell shmups, so 'arcadey' doesn't really mean anything!

You have to remember that MW2 was the start of all that bullshit though.

 

Quake and UT3 are ridiculous, they're unpolished, unbalanced, hilariously hectic, basically my idea of 'arcadey'. On the scale, they would be 10, Halo an 8, Cod (in general) a 6, BF a 4.

 

Of course there's no true defining factor, it's more intuition than anything.

Zell Newbie

Zell

Posted
Posted

I clocked up 4000 games on Halo 3, so I absolutely can't wait for this. Well actually I can, it's not coming out at the best time for me. I'll still end up playing it to death though.

Dyson Newbie

Dyson

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just an FYI to anyone looking to purchase XBL Gold, Microsoft have sent out 12+2 (yes, two!) month cards which retail for the same as 12 month cards to retail stores. We started selling them today in GAME. Methinks me shall pick one up soon - staff discount is a godsend :heh:

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...