Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

He's not dead! What do you think is going to happen to him. I hope the legendary ending is canon so they can cotinue with a Halo 4 or something.

You do realize how old this argument is, right?

 No...maybe...yes.

Gordon Freeman  >  Spartan 117 (John)

His name IS John, by the way. It was in the novels. Anyway... Halflife 2 is better. In every way.

Wow... I feel stupid.  I've been watching Hell's Kitchen all day.  I saw like 8 hour long episodes, and when everytime I read the title here, I kept seeing Master Chef - as in Chef Ramsey or one of the other ones....

Just thought I'd share that with you guys. :p

Is that one pretty good?  I watch Top Chef and Iron Chef, but not Hell's Kitchen.

On an entirely different note:  What's anyone's thoughts on the canonical nature of the novels?  I have a friend who would say that even if the novels are authorized by the game, they are still separate from the game and therefore the audience does not have to accept their reality as truth.  (In other words, Master Chief's name is Master Chief.  It doesn't matter if one of the novelists gave him a name, if the game never says his name, you don't have to accept it.)

I have to admit Gears of war 1and 2 beat halo...all of them.

I think they shoot crack into my eyes from the TV.  I haven't actually sit down and watched TV since October of last year.  It was just one of those shows where you want to see who wins.... And it's Fox, so, my crack theory is probably spot on.

I've never read the novels... I think that' just because I was never too big a fan of the game.  I'm actually not too into XBox in general - Playstation for me. :)  There were some things I did like about Halo, but they were too minor for me to actually get into the game.

Hey, Seth, I also watch Top Chef!

And Zero, you are not alone when you see Master Chef. lol

Yeah, Gordon Freeman could possibly rival Christ. Maybe. Maybe for atheists.

Gears 1 sorta blowed, Gears 2 was a lot more awesome, but it doesn't rape Halo. Well, maybe it rapes Halo 2, but not CE or 3.

Back to Seth: I read all the books (cept for Cole Protocol...I don't know if it's out, though. I bet it is...) and I have to say, the books are cooler than the story in the games. The books make the Halo series feel more like a good action sci-fi than an FPS with a Space Marine. They develop the background of the ships and colonies and Earth and of the insurgency in the outer reaches of the Human Empire that you never know about if you just play the games. It feels more like a military story than a space marine story in the books, mainly because they usually deal with the Marines' side of the story more than the Master Chef Chief.

If you don't live under a rock, you probably have heard about Halo 3: Recon...although now Bungie is calling it Halo 3: ODST...whatever. THAT looks more like the books, focusing on the ODST.

But what I really want out of Bungie is to step away from the Human-Covenant War and make a game exploring the Insurgency. Frankly, they should get some guys from Infinity Ward or maybe SOCOM or some company that has a history of GOOD war FPS's. It should be more of a tactical shooter - but not like Ghost Recon tactical, but you know: less run-and-gun badassery.

And it would be called Halo: Insurgency.

Just an idea.

Impossible, considering the audience Halo is marketed at. Halo (CE, at least) was a good game, but in no way does it require skill in aiming or tactics. Much of it is fail/repeat, so people can just keep trying the same small section in different ways. Which is one of the reasons I hate people bragging about their Halo "skills". Like boasting how you got to level 80 on runescape or WOW. It's just sad.

If you want a more tactical shooter, you could mod Valve's Source engine. Counter-Strike: Source could be re-textured and you could alter the weapons.

Or the Battlefield franchise.

Um, heheh. There's your bias. CCS is a run-and-gun FPS. Halo is a run-and-gun FPS. Call of Duty is more of a realistic FPS, but it is still fairly run-and-gun. I guess we can call it "realistic run-and-gun". A tactical FPS or TPS uses squad commands. Brothers in Arms and Ghost Recon are examples.

And Battlefield is a realistic run-and-gun, even though the maps are ginormous and there are tanks and such.

CSS is not a run and gun game.

If you try and go all solo action hero you will be cut down. No question. The best teams communicate with voice and use tactics to catch their enemies in a crossfire. If CSS was a run and gun, people would have massive health. And by the way, CSS is actually more realistic than COD, due to the weapons. CSS weapons have a more realistic spray than COD weapons. No way can you hit someone at that range with an MP40 at full auto. No way.

Run-and-gun means you have only control over yourself, per se. Talking with your teammates doesn't make it a Tactical shooter. Teamwork is important in any game, but it doesn't mean Halo is tactical, nor that CSS is tactical. That's what I mean with RAG. And Call of Duty has verah realistic weaponry because YOU CAN hit a guy "that far" with an MP40. I mean, honestly. You just can. Range is better than you think with many weapons. But of course not even CSS will compare to Half Life 2: Insurgency (Mod)'s realistic...ness. Anyway, CSS is very much like CoD, at least CoD4. And I doubt you deem CoD4 a tactical game. Tactical games have squad commands that you actually USE, not just say into your mic.

They won't.

You don't need squad commands when you're playing multiplayer. You have mics and message systems. And by the way, I think Red Orchestra is more realistic than any of them. (despite using the Unreal engine)

Aaah, Red Orchestra.

Still CSS is not tactical. It's just a smarter run-and-gun.

I don't know about that. You have to ask yourself the definition of tactics and what "run and gun" means. In CSS you *do* have to use tactics. You have to ensure you don't get outflanked, predict where your enemies are likely to be, predict where they will chuck flashbangs, pick out good cover... These activities are all tactical. And the health of the players is quite low for an action game. One shot to the head with ANY weapon and they go down.

Rommel, you're stretching the definition. EVERY FPS involves "tactics" including flanking and plays for S&D, as well as headshots proving fatal. But CSS is not Ghost Recon. Ghost Recon, Rainbow 6, Bros in Arms, and the like are tactical shooters. They involve squad commands, cover system, etc. CSS does not. CSS doesn't even have an aim down the sight function, and the zooming feature with the STG77 and 552 doesn't exactly count. There's no prone ability. I know CSS doesn't have health regen, but that doesn't change much.

It IS a R&G game because you CAN have one guy be a badass and take down an entire team. This is possible in Ghost Recon, etc., but it's a lot easier in CSS.

That would be because the bullet spread in CSS makes aiming more difficult than "tactical" FPS games. Better marksmen have an advantage. This does not make it a run and gun. In run and guns the guns have slow moving projectiles, no recoil and no spread.

In real life, a single trained soldier could take out a squad of raw recruits because of superior marksmanship. (well, at medium range, anyway.)

Where the hell did you get the idea that R&G's don't have recoil, spread, and slow-moving bullets (wtf?)? CSS is a run-and-gunner. Like Halo, like CoD, like MoH, like Unreal.

And there's a difference between a sniper and a guy with a large clip and many enemies in the room. In CSS, you could rape with an AWP or a M249. Take your pick.

Halo. No difference in the way bullets move no matter how long you fire the gun. Plasma moves slow. Oh, and the strafing. Can't forget souped up strafe spamming. In UT or Halo you can just run circles around the other guy. Not so in counterstrike: source.

Whatever else, you must agree Red Orchestra is the most tactical and realistic

Also, raping depends on the player's skill and the situation. M249s in CSS are useless at long range, while awps are useless at short range.

I keep thinking this is "Master Chef."

Eric Ripert gets my vote for Master Chef by the way.  Tom Colicchio gets honorable mention.

The only reason I went back to Regular Search and Destroy was because of those goddamn TKers. And my friend invited my to a game and I fell in love with Reg Search. Also, gimme a Deagle, Bandolier, and Extreme Conditioning, and I can rape. My trigger finger is crazy and the recoil is surprisingly low on the Deagle, if you know how to use it.

Rommel, I'm not arguing that CSS is AS MUCH a R&G as Halo or UT, but it's not a TACTICAL game. You're using the term "tactical" incorrectly. Games like Red Orchestra, Insurgency, etc. are SMART FPS's, not Tactical. There's a difference of gameplay. CSS is a SMART R&G. RO and Innie could be considered R&G's because there is no cover system - btw, I mean like a Gears of War cover system - although because of the recoil, etc., it's sort of pushing the term.

You keep using the term "cover system"

What exactly do you mean by this? In pretty much any game you can take cover. Even Halo.

I knew you would ask this.

I know every FPS has you hide behind cover, but obviously games like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six have a more...developed cover system than say Halo. You actually latch onto cover and use it like that. Again, see Gears of War.

Oh I agree. Eric Ripert is a f*cking god.  Remember when he told Ilan that the liver ganache was not something that "should be served, for example, in a restaurant?"

I'm not sure it has to be built in to the game as a lean function or somesuch. I'm pretty damn sure Red Orchestra doesnt have a "cover vehicle".

All you need is the ability to shoot while most of your body is covered. So, with the right terrain and crouch abilities, you could do it with any game. What would make it "tactical" though, is if people use it. In Counter-Strike you die very fast, so people take cover when they can. They also tend to do this in Red Orchestra. In Halo or UT, health is more than enough and staying still is what gets you killed. So people don't use cover in those games, if at all.

Do you honestly see no difference between Ghost Recon and CSS?

I'd have to play GR first.

But, regardless of the label, if you try going rambo is CSS, you are doomed. You'll walk into a flashbang, get caught in a crossfire, stumble into enemies using teamwork...

Look Rommel. All I need you to understand is that there's a difference between smart and tactical fps. Smart FPS's, like CSS, are still technically R&G's because of their core control and gameplay aspects, NOT the startegies that one devises. Tactical FPS's incorporate an ADVANCED cover system and squad commands, etc. That's a difference in gameplay mechanics.

Besides, I've talked to people who consider CSS almost as R&G-ish as TF2.

Heh. Those people are noobs who have never gone outside Zombie deathmatch or gungames to play the real CSS.

Nah, seriously? Whenever I play TF2 it *ruins* my aim and my cover instinct.

I wont argue genres, tactics are an integral part of CSS.

Now that I re-read our little debate, it seems it was all about a misuse of the word tactical...

Anyway, nothing is more satisfying than running at the enemy all Kamikaze-style as a Pyro and burning medics and heavies and scouts and then finally dying because of a Sentry. Well, maybe killing someone with the Heavy's inviso-gun is better.

I like backstabbing people as a spy.

It's the one class that requires real skill. The other ones are fun, but not much skill involved as an engie, pyro, medic or soldier...

Of course, this means the best TEAM, not best player, will win, which is good.

What do mean no skill with a Medic!? I once saved my Heavy that I was healing with mah bonesaw. And I saved him four times. It was hilarious because I had more kills than my Heavy, until of course I Ubered him and he raped a room of spies, engies, soldiers, and a few pyros.

It was the best day evarrr.