[QUOTE=Charles]Yes, the "monument to their sins" parasite scene immediately springs to mind whenever I criticize the plot. It ruins the development of the Arbiter. Although Master Chief is a flat character whose encounter with this mysterious being has absolutely no bearing on his development, since there is in fact, there is no development to be had, the Arbiter at that point in the story is somewhat of an enigma. There's an opportunity to explore personal reflection and some kind of inward searching before he arrives at the truth. Instead, an oracle and a prophet just happen to be in the clutches of the beast also. They deliver their prophecies, the parasite then follows with its commentary, removing any semblance of mystique from the two views. It's as if Bungie suddenly grew lazy, and instead of developing the plot on a slow curve, took the easy way out and took several strides forward in only one scene.
Which directly ties into my other complaint regarding the scene. The meeting between Master Chief and The Arbiter could have been done much better, with plenty more build-up. It should have been more significant, with more verbal, and possibly physical exchange between the two over the course of several encounters. I don't feel however, that we should have been bashed over the head with what was essentially plot summary.
Exactly. There wasn't enough diversity between the two characters other than Master Chief's ability to use a flash light and Arbiter's cloaking skill. Some variation between jumping, speed, and strength would have been nice at the very least. At its best, the gameplay for both characters would have been completely different, with the Arbiter's levels built up as sneaking missions since he's obviously not a walking tank like Master Chief. There are traces of that idea with the cloaking ability, but it's never developed. The level designs or physical abilities of The Arbiter don't reflect the stealth style either.[/QUOTE]They were two characters that needed to confront each other throughout the game, not "find" each other when it was convenient for the plot. They could have been hunting each other throughout the entire game--which could have been an incredible experience, both plot- and gameplay-wise.
When the characters collide, there would be an initial struggle and conflict, as the Arbiter is ordered to assassinate MC. This would also constitute the need for a tangible difference in the attributes and approach, because if the Arbiter is playing the Predator, essentially (and the Cloaking has traces of that idea), then I certainly think he should play like the Predator, perhaps also a different visual scheme--perhaps something akin to the "HUD" variations in the Alien vs Predator series.
And I think this assassination plot would work very well with a dual campaign. In something akin to the Resident Evil series, specifically, RE2, where players can choose whether they want to play as Master Chief or the Arbiter, both sides of the story could be very effectively told, and the Covenant cutscenes can be further developed in the Arbiter?s campaign, and similarly, the scenes on Earth and Marines would be used in MC?s campaign.
In order to better establish the Assault on Earth plotline, MC?s campaign would be based entirely on Earth, and I?m borrowing a page from one of the Doom novels from 1996 here, but if MC?s mission was something as straightforward and yet plot-sensible as reach the main relay station of the Covenant invasion and destroy it, as to disrupt the flow of Covenant forces, MC?s campaign would be absolutely breathtaking, because it would feature what gamers wanted (invasion on Earth), a plot and objective that stands on its own, is logical and?not boring/stale, heh, and still allows the open-endedness necessary for the sequel (or trequel, I suppose).
In Arbiter?s campaign, I feel the Heretic split is an important plot to develop, because without the Heretic to reveal the ?truth,? the irony behind the Covenant?s name and their view is entirely lost (that irony being they aren?t the ?Abrahams? of the story, even though they believe themselves to be).
We would be shown the inner turmoil/internal Jihad, and the Arbiter?s mission would still be to quell the Heretic?s campaign, but eventually head down to Earth to assassinate MC, as MC is a threat to the Covenant.
This dual campaign is useful for a variety of reasons, some gameplay-related, some plot-related.
One, we would get to see both plot-lines in a fully-realized singleplayer mode, instead of the schizophrenic switching we get in the campaign mode, effectively doubling the campaign time by having two interconnecting plots yet separate gameplay experiences, with two characters that would actually require a different play style.
Two, we would also be able to more or less omit entirely the lazy "monument to their sins" scene, and through the Arbiter's campaign, as he confronts MC, MC tries to show him the dangers of Halo, because throughout the course of the game, MC is certainly encountering evidence that proves the Covenant is acting irrationally, and that the Heretics are the ones with the realistic grasp on the situation.
In fact, in MC's campaign, he could very well stumble across a Heretic leader, who doesn't attack him because the Heretic knows that MC can be a powerful ally in the fight to bring down the Covenant. The Heretic doesn't have to fully explain why the Covenant is so dangerous, however, because MC is already well-aware. This becomes an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario, and doesn't eliminate tension at all, because the Heretic and MC are still enemies, just merely uniting against a common foe.
This avoides the need to have pointless exposition for plot development (goodbye, parasite), and would then further propel the conflict between the Arbiter and MC, because MC then isn't trying to kill the Arbiter, instead trying to convert him (again, bringing in traces of the Doom novels). This also sets more of a suspicion/weariness for the Arbiter/MC interaction, because the Arbiter won't be open to the idea at first, thus warranting a few confrontations.
In the Endgame of Halo 2, the result will probably be largely the same (Arbiter and MC are going to bring down the Covenant), but at least the Endgame was elicited through a more rational storytelling, instead of the convenient plot device of the parasite tripe.
[QUOTE]But, as I said above, the introduction scenes showed promise--at least in terms of direction. I especially liked the quick transitions between witnessing the glory of those who found victory in war, and the Arbiter, who found shame. These cinematics were poignant as far as Halo goes and really set up the Arbiter nicely as a character to be developed. It's too bad Bungie stumbled through the rest of the game.[/QUOTE]It was a nice parallel, but they didn't capitalize on it, like you said. Sloppy writing.
[QUOTE]The stale plot, or boring plot, as you described it is admittedly so on some level but I don't think it's much of an issue in the context of a video game. Should I be walking into a movie theater, I definitely wouldn't want to see yet another story revolving around marines battling alien attackers to save mankind. When it comes to video games, and the genre we're talking about here, it's possible to get away with such an angle because up until Half-Life 2, Earth wasn't represented particularly well under these sorts of invasions. Halo 2 has always been billed as an attack on our world; I was excited to see how Bungie would handle this completely different kind of level design. There were a lot of great possibilities (think of the opening cinematics from Onimusha 3).
That turned out to be just wishful thinking unfortunately since they pulled a case of false advertising and only one measly level was set on Earth. That is how we ended up with more of the same. You know, alien environments that looked all too familiar to those of us who had played the first game. Earth, I'd say, would have been a nice change. It would have impacted Bungie in the sense that it would have forced them to change the style of Halo significantly. Just think--how many barren fields would we have had to navigate through with the Earth setting? There would have been streets teeming with chaos. It would have been an ambitious route to take and it's also probably why they backed out of the idea (despite still falsely advertising to the contrary).[/QUOTE]It?s like a quick orgasm and then an extended snooze, pardon the sexually-oriented simile?first comparison that came to mind. That?s why Half-Life 2 obliterates the game: because in Half-Life 2, you?re not in combat the entire time, so it feels like an alien occupation.
The particular little touches I mentioned to you earlier today, after class, really, really build the atmosphere. My jaw dropped within 5 minutes of exiting that train station, as I glanced up and saw the broadcast screen on the pillar, and then to the right, a Combine guard blocking a slightly ajar door. Inside that door is a police line-up of sorts. Then later, in the hotel, you get to see a raid happening, complete with breach, bang, and clear, and the screams of innocent civilians as they?re mercilessly beaten. Simply breathtaking stuff. ^_^
[quote]Be careful here. It is humanizing them; make no mistake about it. I argue that it's stripping their culture and giving them our own. They do not have their own language, they speak English. Language is obviously a big part of culture--in fact, it's one of the defining aspects of culture. Also, we see a corrupt political structure amongst the Covenant that could easily be lifted from the context of an alien race and be placed directly on Earth. That is, if you replaced the Covenant character models with human models in those scenes--it would work. They would just seem like a religious cult instead of an entirely separate culture.
I would have rather Bungie kept the Covenant mysterious to a point. It makes a situation more frightening when one doesn't know their enemy from the inside out. Furthermore, based on the constant undercutting/betrayal of allies from within the Covenant and the constant chaos, I'm still not convinced that they're a developed organization. I'm also not convinced that we needed to see about ninety percent of it.[/quote]They spoke English in the first game. We just rarely got to hear it because we only heard it over Plasma and conventional gunfire.
Charles, I?m not sure if you?re aware of this, but the Covenant is a religious cult (again, those painfully obvious names and such?Abraham and the Covenant with God? The Covenant believe themselves to be the chosen ones?), so I think your assessment of their seeming like a religious cult if they were made human actually validate the Covenant scenes, because that is the intent all along, and the similarity to a religious cult that you say becomes clear seemingly only when you use human models instead of Covenant models is actually there all along. My headache is pretty bad right now, so I?ll translate that before you go cross-eyed, lol.
The similarity to a religious cult is there all along in the Covenant, whether they?re human character models or Covenant character models. The name, Covenant, is a direct reference to the story of Abraham. Abraham forms a Covenant with God, basically a deal that sets-up Abraham as?the first prophet or something like that. Either way, Abraham?s Covenant with God means he is the chosen one. In Halo, the Covenant believe themselves to be the chosen ones. If that wasn?t enough, even just the obviousness of the name of the aliens (the ?Covenant?) should point to that religious cultish nature.
And while we certainly can?t speak from any real experience regarding aliens and political structure, it?s not unheard of that an alien race (or really, any race at all, human or otherwise) founded on heavy-handed religious indoctrination will eventually collapse, or undergo severe revolution, or even just be confronted with a small number of Heretics who break away from the ?church.?
And really, I think that?s just common sense?just regular theocratic theory, and isn?t really exclusive to humans.
The Covenant is a brutal militaristic theocracy founded on heavy-handed religious misinterpretation. That's pretty much guarantees their internal collapse, especially when those (like the Heretic) start asking questions.
Considering the juxtaposition of the inner chaos of the Covenant with the organization and structure of the humans, I don't think that's really humanizing the Covenant. If anything, it's portraying them more and more as misguided and bloodthirsty, who will slaughter their own without any hesitation--who will slaughter those within their ranks who speak the truth.
Yes, that has happened in the past, with various human nations, but like I said before, when you've got any government/society so heavily, heavily based on twisted religious doctrine, that society will collapse, its members will turn on each other, and there will be massive internal bloodshed. It's just basic sociopolitical theologic theory.
Plus, I don't think that showing the inner turmoil within the Covenant is humanizing them...not at all. I mean, what rational human society tortures their failed generals? If anything, showing the disgrace of the Elite, his torture, his branding, and his exile, essentially, is in fact putting more of a distance between the Covenant and the humans.
[quote]Yes, I agree. The same can be said of most sequels--like Metroid Prime Echoes for example. In the case of Halo, however, the development cycle was especially long, and we were promised a completely new setting so I was hoping it wouldn't be the standard sequel. Bungie took the easy way out unfortunately. The only new gameplay type it offered was online play--which was just enough to sustain the title's quality for now. It won't be so easy next time though.[/quote]I?d actually use Doom I and II as a discussion point here.
While there are enough new gameplay features and abilities in Metroid: Echoes to justify separating it from the ?more of the same? label, I think Halo I&II falls into the Doom I&II category, the sequel that is just an expansion pack to the first game. In the case of Halo II, I think that expansion pack is a multiplayer-focused expansion pack, because through the course of this discussion, I think it?s becoming clearer and clearer that the only real change in Halo 2 was the enhanced multiplayer; apart from that, it?s Halo 1.
[quote]Oh, I don't know about that. If anything, I feel that Halo would control better on other platforms such as the GameCube. It'd be quite easy to map the controls onto the pad. The left trigger could still throw grenades, the right could still fire, the analogs would maintain their respective purposes, the A button could jump, the B button could be used to take weapons, Z could be used to dual wield, and the Y/X buttons would replace the black/white buttons. How would that be any worse? It'd be easier to access functions such as the flashlight; everything would be more natural and accessible. It'd probably feel more comfortable in my hands as well.[/quote]I notice you?re missing a few crucial abilities in that control scheme: Crouching, Manual Reload, and Action.
It would do better to map Crouch to X, and have it a Crouch Toggle.
Y is Jump.
A is used for Action, as well as holding A and hitting either L or R to pick-up weapons in the respective hand. Sounds funky on paper, but Rogue Agent nails it. This effectively combines two face buttons into one (B+Z=A), and is a much more intuitive system than using B as a weapon swap and Z as a Dual-Wield.
B is Manual Reload.
Taking up a precious face button with something so easily mapped onto one of the D-pad directions is silly, so the Black/White functions can easily be mapped to the D-pad. Frankly, swapping grenade types and turning on the flashlight aren?t more important than something like Crouching or Jumping, especially in Halo 2. And, since we?ve eliminated the need to map a function to Z, it?s certainly possible now to map the grenade type command to the Z button.
There are enough buttons themselves on the GC controller to map the controls effectively, but the response of both the buttons and the joysticks may prove detrimental, because L and R are not exactly conducive to firing quickly, as in many FPS on GC, the shoulder buttons need to be pressed down entirely to fire, which doesn?t utilize the pressure sensitive feature of the shoulder buttons.
Plus, in a firefight-intensive FPS, would you really want to be continually slamming down on those shoulder buttons? Maybe it?s just me, but the springs in them feel and sound much more delicate and fragile than the Xbox controller.
FPS is all about aiming precision, and I don?t think FPS Precision is what the C-stick is capable of?at least, not to the extent that the Xbox joysticks are.
[quote]Of course it's not unplayable. It just doesn't play well. I don't remember saying otherwise.[/quote]But surely you?re able to play it competently, and do reasonably well in it?
[quote]Come on. lol
We both know that that's rubbish. You're calling my well-founded, and widely-shared comparison inaccurate while bringing references to obviously B.S. quotes to defunct my points? We both know you're too intelligent to believe that Rogue Agent ushers in the familiar gameplay of Goldeneye 64. They're nothing alike.
It plays nothing like Goldeneye 64 and its story is completely unrelated. The name is the only aspect that's familiar and it was only employed for marketing purposes.
Forget dual-wielding for the time being. It's been around for a long time and it totally irrelevant to my Halo comparison. Also, although it's done well in Rogue Agent, it's probably the only aspect of the gameplay that's exceptional. Everything else is mediocre. So, whereas Rogue Agent has excellent dual-wielding and poor gameplay, Halo has great dual-wielding and manages to focus on a number of other aspects of the gameplay such as vehicles and improved jumping mechanics.
The copycat gameplay is more obvious than all that though; Rogue Agent uses a Halo weapon set-up (i.e., two weapons and a grenade). It's a run-and-gun shooter that drives players to find cover, continually move and shoot on the go, and rely on a combination of weapons to achieve their goals.[/quote]You?re saying that the development team of GoldenEye: Rogue Agent has been trying to hide their intent through about a year of development?
Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent (their true intent being to copycat everything that Halo has ?innovated?) by stripping down their Bond FPS franchise, ripping out all of the ?extra? gameplay facets of Nightfire and AUF, and distilling it into what is simply a run-n-gun shooter set in the Bond universe?
Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent by creating a Bond FPS that bears absolutely no resemblance to their previous efforts (Nightfire and AUF) and then name it GoldenEye above all else?
Rogue Agent features multiplayer stages ripped directly out of various Bond films?how many previous EA Bond FPS featured Hugo Drax?s jungle launch site as a multiplayer arena, and how many Rare Bond FPS featured a level that was identical in visual design to Drax?s launch site?
Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent by including classic GE64 levels like the Cradle as a multiplayer stage? Keep in mind that the Cradle Multi in GE64 was intact within the memory of the game, but only accessible through the Gameshark.
And let's not forget that the gadgets in GE64 have been "remade" in the form of the GoldenEye of the main character in Rogue Agent.
[quote]It plays nothing like Goldeneye 64 and its story is completely unrelated.[/quote]?It plays? and ?the design approach used? are entirely different things. Rogue Agent doesn?t play as well as GE, because EA has consistently proven themselves to be unable to match the fluidity of GE. The approach, however, is identical. The type of gameplay used, especially when compared to EA?s previous Bond FPS, is certainly more a throwback to GE than Nightfire ever was.
The stories of most Bond games are entirely unrelated to each other (this has been a trend in the films themselves, as well, apart from a few recurring appearances by Ernst Stavro Blofeld), so I don't see how criticism of the story of Rogue Agent being unrelated to GE64 lends validity to the (shaky) doubts about the intent of the developers of Rogue Agent.
[quote] The copycat gameplay is more obvious than all that though; Rogue Agent uses a Halo weapon set-up (i.e., two weapons and a grenade). It's a run-and-gun shooter that drives players to find cover, continually move and shoot on the go, and rely on a combination of weapons to achieve their goals[/quote]The Halo weapon set-up still relates to the Dual-Wielding system. Your comments regarding what Rogue Agent is, and how it?s so blatantly copying Halo, instead of its namesake (GE64), specifically, your description of Rogue Agent, is a description of GE64:
[quote]It's a run-and-gun shooter that drives players to find cover, continually move and shoot on the go, and rely on a combination of weapons to achieve their goals.[/quote]Just because GoldenEye: Rogue Agent uses run-and-gun gameplay means it?s automatically copying Halo? That seems to be what you?re saying here.
If you want to accuse GE:RA of copying Halo, that?s your prerogative, Charles. If you want to point out run-and-gun gameplay and say, ?Look, that?s so Halo,? that?s your prerogative. If you want to doubt Dev comments and call them ?[obvious] BS,? that?s your prerogative. If you want to accuse GE:RA of just copying Halo and not, as Devs have stated, and as the game design and EA Bond FPS franchise progression shows, of actually serving as a throwback to GE64, that?s your prerogative.
But I think the franchise history, the Dev comments, the gameplay itself (and your own comments about the gameplay itself), the multiplayer stages, and the design approach all suggest other than what you?re saying.
If your criticisms of Rogue Agent and EA trying to copy Halo stem from its release date, then I?m going to say that EA was screwed no matter what.
Had they released RA a month before Halo 2, they would have taken flack (?Oh, look at that, they?re trying to get their game out before Halo 2 comes out, because they know Halo 2 will totally pwwnzzor their POS game.?).
Had they released on the same day, ?Oh, look at that, EA are such dumb little shits for trying to compete with Halo 2, the game that will totally pwwnzzor their POS game.?
Had they released it a month or two later, ?Oh, look at that, they released their game months after Halo 2, the game that would have totally pwwnzzored their POS game. EA are a bunch of cowards.?
EA was in a no-win scenario no matter what. They were going to be accused of copying Halo no matter what, despite what Rogue Agent turned out to be, what it was throughout its development, what the concept behind it was, and what the developers were saying throughout the development of the game.
[quote]Again, the Nintendo 64 controller can't completely account for the original Goldeneye's control. The sensitivity levels were handled well; the controls were both fluid and responsive. At least for the time anyway. Now, I find those same controls slippery since the bar has been raised.[/quote]Yes, Rare were wunderkids back then, but GE64 wasn?t the only FPS that handled well. I recall Doom 64 was very easy to control (except, of course, not being able to look up and down was a turn-off), and Turok 1&2 were made easier, control-wise, thanks to the N64 controller.
[quote]On the "Legendary" difficulty setting the AI isn't so bad. Obviously there are going to be hiccups and I never said the AI is the best ever, but compared to most console shooters it's more than adequate and not really something that should face heavy-handed criticism compared to more obvious flaws such as story and a "blah" single player campaign.[/quote]The AI is why I yearn to play against human opponents; humans learn and adapt. The AI only runs along its programming.
[quote]I agree up to the last sentence. This isn't a PC game where gamers can create mods and their own levels. Bungie created some solid level designs, a nice interface that takes full advantage of Xbox Live's 3.0 features, and solid gameplay that's perfectly suited for online match-ups. The highjacking and plasma sword particularly add some interesting elements to the games. Plus, the tweaking Bungie did to allow higher, floatier jumps without the risk of taking damage from landing also helped. I find the online play fast, responsive, and fun. So, I'd say that the Xbox Live mode benefited the most from Bungie's tendency to nail the basics.[/QUOTE]Again, I think you?re misunderstanding what I?m saying. I?m not talking about gamer mods or anything. I?m talking about how the game by itself is ?okay,? but what gives it replay value and substance are gamers themselves, through gamer-to-gamer interaction and multiplayer (i.e., the game doesn?t make the game; the gamers make the game).
I think I covered everything. Oh, by the way, we need two more students for Lisa Zeidner?s Advanced Fiction Workshop. If you?re interested, drop her a line, lol.
