Halo 4

CivBase wrote:

dragoon9105 wrote:Hey cool they bothered to include "Forward onto dawn" on the ship being sucked in though it doesn't exactly look like it.

Weird.... it looks more like a pile of debris than the Forward Onto Dawn.... Can't imagine why that is

It would help if you guys didn't develop prejudice against the game before you even know anything about it.

I know that it's the 4th installment of a game series I once liked that doesn't exactly need a fourth. I also know that it's made by 343 Industries. Prejudice is well justified in any case.

No, it's not. Criticizing every single thing from the game, even the damn cover art, is too far. Caution is understandable, but complaining about cover art? Really?

I criticized the aspects I think should have deserved some criticism. The cover art is beautiful indeed, I simply remarked that it's only cover art and doesn't say anything about the game.


That's all, it's all cool here broskis.

You know, the last time we were being told not to complain about every little thing, it was at the end of Aloysius's banhammer.

Literally judging a book(or game) by its cover?

Come on, guys.

Yeah. I've got some problems with it, but I've never been a fan of Halo's cover art in the first place. The armor is off, and the Forward Unto Dawn... I'm not sure about it.

Still my favorite out of all Halo cover art.

If this game comes out on the next Xbox system......I may get it.

No one here is judging the game by its cover. Quite the opposite, most people seem pleased with the cover, but are saying that the cover is not indicative of the quality of the game, and that all of the other factors, like the history of the new developer, the content we've seen, the premise, etc are indicative of the quality of the game.

Rotaretilbo wrote:No one here is judging the game by its cover. Quite the opposite, most people seem pleased with the cover, but are saying that the cover is not indicative of the quality of the game, and that all of the other factors, like the history of the new developer, the content we've seen, the premise, etc are indicative of the quality of the game.

Yeah. I guess that is what we're all saying.

I'm not saying you can't talk about it or even complain about things you don't like. You just shouldn't be determined to hate it before you even know what it is.

A lot of people here absolutely hated Halo 4 before they even saw the teaser trailer. I agree that they should have stopped MC's story at Halo 3, but at least give the game a chance. You'll never appreciate something that you're determined to hate no matter how good it is.

There's a difference between being critical about a game and being an obnoxious... well... hater. I think everyone remembers how ringleader went after Halo Reach. Don't do that.

Nobody here has "absolutely hated" Halo 4, they just all have their doubts it will be good.


I myself doubt it will be good and it seems they are just trying to cash in some more MC because they can't think of a new direction for it.


Having doubts about it is perfectly acceptable and no one is hating on the game in it's entirety yet because nothing has been released yet. They are reserving judgment and criticizing what HAS been released so far.


I doubt it will be good, but I do not "absolutely hate it"

I don't hate halo 4 specifically, I hate what halo's become.

It's just become a cash cow and they're milking it for all it's worth, and that pisses me off.

Now Halo 4 I do in fact dislike for the reasons enumerated in this thread.


Where am I being an obnoxious hater for all of that? I'm being rational here.

The fact that you think prejudice against the game is rational is just wrong. The list of things that you know about the game is that it wasn't necessary, and that it is being made by 343i. Neither of those are good reasons to dislike the game.

To Rot, did we criticize the cover art though? Saying that the Forward Unto Dawn's debris field doesn't look just like the Dawn is just bullshit. It's a fucking debris field. The ship was torn in half, "attacked", and crash landed on a planet. It should look different afterwards, it should look battered and destroyed.
Saying to Aloysius that the Cyclops is bullshit, or the story is crap, that's alright. You can judge the quality of a story, and you can tell that a glorified forklift punching and alien tank to death is bulllshit, but saying that a debris field of a destroyed ship doesn't look just right. That's wrong. We're not banning people because we don't want negative stuff said, but complaining about everything is just wrong.

but AT LEAST its been 2 years since the last Halo game

(I'm looking at you CoD)

Saying it's made by 343i, completely unnecessary, and only being made to satisfy the greed of 343i is totally enough to say "I don't like it."

Why is the line arbitrarily drawn at who's making it and whether it's necessary or not?

How about we get your view on why anyone should like it? I would like some context.

Angatar wrote:The fact that you think prejudice against the game is rational is just wrong. The list of things that you know about the game is that it wasn't necessary, and that it is being made by 343i. Neither of those are good reasons to dislike the game.

If I know that I don't like any product produced by a certain company, then it is not unreasonable for me to have serious doubts about that company's next product. The only person being irrational here is the starry eyed forummer insisting that we ignore 343i's really shitty history because this time will be different. When they announced Halo 4, I was upset, because what little evidence we had was not promising. When they released content, I reviewed it, and it only further evidenced how I had originally felt. No one is saying "Halo 4 will suck!" We're saying "this and this and this and this lead us to believe that Halo 4 will not live up to the hype or the standard of previous Halo games." Meanwhile, we have a handful of forummers who keep insisting "no, you haven't seen everything yet; it will be good." Tell me, which is less rational: the person judging the content or the person insisting that we ignore the content and just have faith in 343i?

Angatar wrote:To Rot, did we criticize the cover art though?

What's your point? Of course you didn't. No matter what you see, it's always flowers and rose petals with you.

Angatar wrote:Saying that the Forward Unto Dawn's debris field doesn't look just like the Dawn is just bullshit. It's a fucking debris field. The ship was torn in half, "attacked", and crash landed on a planet. It should look different afterwards, it should look battered and destroyed.

It isn't that it looks too broken, Angatar. It's that it doesn't look particularly broken, and the not-broken part doesn't look anything like the Dawn we know. It's like they told some artist who had never played Halo 3 "draw this; here's a picture of the Chief" and afterwards they stamped the name onto the ship.

Angatar wrote:Saying to Aloysius that the Cyclops is bullshit, or the story is crap, that's alright. You can judge the quality of a story, and you can tell that a glorified forklift punching and alien tank to death is bulllshit, but saying that a debris field of a destroyed ship doesn't look just right. That's wrong. We're not banning people because we don't want negative stuff said, but complaining about everything is just wrong.

No Angatar, that's bullshit. There is nothing wrong with saying we don't like the cover art. We have every right to express our opinions about the cover art. Just because it isn't a core aspect of the game does not mean we have to lie and say we like it. No one here is saying the game will be bad because the cover art is bad. As I already said, most of the people here who don't expect the game to be some kind of second coming of Christ were saying that the cover art was nice, but that this does not mean the game will be good. Demanding that we not voice our opinions is no different than what Aloy did, except that you don't have the authority to carry it through.

Fun Fact: I banned Aloy from this site.

Now now Pheonix, an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.

Fun Fact #2: I was never banned from HWF

Fun Fact #3: LP didn't go out with a bang on HWF, he went out with a whimper.

Well I initiated the Rapture and led all the survivors of the site to the Ark bringing them to the Holy Land.



Not so much a whimper.




And the Beta Spam.

Who all was there when we started the beta spam? That seems so long ago now...

I remember Leafy being MVP with like 200 PM's.

Gauz wrote:Saying it's made by 343i, completely unnecessary, and only being made to satisfy the greed of 343i is totally enough to say "I don't like it."

Why is the line arbitrarily drawn at who's making it and whether it's necessary or not?

How about we get your view on why anyone should like it? I would like some context.

343i has yet to release a game, that's why it's not right to judge it. You said it yourself, you have no information on this game other than whos making it (a new developer that you have never seen work from) and that it's unnecessary. But what about Halo actually is necessary? If HCE had been the only game released, how many of you would have fought for a sequel... not many I'd bet. Halo 2 wasn't necessary because HCE had ended the conflict pretty damn well. Master Chief had destroyed the Covenant Armada, the Flood, and escaped alone with Cortana. Exactly the same ending as Halo 3, which is just magically the end in your mind. Why is Halo 2 necessary, and Halo 4 not?

I am not saying that you need to like it, but you're not giving it a chance to be good because you guys always get caught up on the tiny details.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:The fact that you think prejudice against the game is rational is just wrong. The list of things that you know about the game is that it wasn't necessary, and that it is being made by 343i. Neither of those are good reasons to dislike the game.

If I know that I don't like any product produced by a certain company, then it is not unreasonable for me to have serious doubts about that company's next product. The only person being irrational here is the starry eyed forummer insisting that we ignore 343i's really shitty history because this time will be different. When they announced Halo 4, I was upset, because what little evidence we had was not promising. When they released content, I reviewed it, and it only further evidenced how I had originally felt. No one is saying "Halo 4 will suck!" We're saying "this and this and this and this lead us to believe that Halo 4 will not live up to the hype or the standard of previous Halo games." Meanwhile, we have a handful of forummers who keep insisting "no, you haven't seen everything yet; it will be good." Tell me, which is less rational: the person judging the content or the person insisting that we ignore the content and just have faith in 343i?

That's right, it's not unreasonable to not trust a product from a company with bad history- but what is 343i's history? Changing Reach's multiplayer for the better, and releasing an updated HCE. That's it. We don't have anything original from them yet, so it's not right to judge them. Gauz or whoever I was quoting before said it themself, all they know is the developer and that it's "unnecessary". Neither of which are substantial because of the lack of history and the nebulous statemant that it's unnecessary. HCE and H3 both end exactly the same, one is just a larger scale. There is so much more to the universe, why is it impossible to expand it further?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:To Rot, did we criticize the cover art though?

What's your point? Of course you didn't. No matter what you see, it's always flowers and rose petals with you.

Of course it's all flowers and rose petals, because I am such a sheep, right? I hated seeing Halo Wars go from good to bad, but when the time came to buy it I decided against it. I do love Halo, and I did love Ensemble, but as information was released it just started to look worse and worse. I decided that it was bad. You can do that, but we haven't gotten to that stage yet. We very little about the game, and you should atleast wait to find out more information before saying it's going to be bad.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Saying that the Forward Unto Dawn's debris field doesn't look just like the Dawn is just bullshit. It's a fucking debris field. The ship was torn in half, "attacked", and crash landed on a planet. It should look different afterwards, it should look battered and destroyed.

It isn't that it looks too broken, Angatar. It's that it doesn't look particularly broken, and the not-broken part doesn't look anything like the Dawn we know. It's like they told some artist who had never played Halo 3 "draw this; here's a picture of the Chief" and afterwards they stamped the name onto the ship.

The only thing I can see the looks different are the two shields on the top, other than that it just looks like a more detailed and destroyed Dawn. Oh no, two shields, the game is ruined!

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Angatar wrote:Saying to Aloysius that the Cyclops is bullshit, or the story is crap, that's alright. You can judge the quality of a story, and you can tell that a glorified forklift punching and alien tank to death is bulllshit, but saying that a debris field of a destroyed ship doesn't look just right. That's wrong. We're not banning people because we don't want negative stuff said, but complaining about everything is just wrong.

No Angatar, that's bullshit. There is nothing wrong with saying we don't like the cover art. We have every right to express our opinions about the cover art. Just because it isn't a core aspect of the game does not mean we have to lie and say we like it. No one here is saying the game will be bad because the cover art is bad. As I already said, most of the people here who don't expect the game to be some kind of second coming of Christ were saying that the cover art was nice, but that this does not mean the game will be good. Demanding that we not voice our opinions is no different than what Aloy did, except that you don't have the authority to carry it through.

The two shields on a debris pile. That's what you're complaining about now. It will escalate to you guys complaining about everything. You will criticize them unless they stay within the constraints of Bungie's Halo, and even then you will find something to complain about. Come Fall, you guys will nitpick everything there is just to find something wrong.

I don't care if you criticize something when you have information on it, but that's not what you're doing here. You guys need to take a step back and calm down from Halo Wars because you have a serious grudge, and it seems unhealthy. You're not even giving the game a chance to be good because you nitpick everything. You are not looking at the game, you are not looking for entertainment, you're just looking at something to get back at Ensemble for taking liberties with something you like. It's been five years since Halo Wars looked good, just calm down now.

I don't know where this Aloysius crap came from, but you're wrong. I would not ban you, or delete your posts, or edit them. Maybe I am trying to censor the negative, but would coming into the thread and not having to see posts about how the game is ruined forever because the cover art has a tiny error or two, which has been in every Halo cover so far. It doesn't reflect on the game at all, and you have seen nothing from 343i, but you just have a preconception that it's going to be bad so it will be bad for you. I'm sorry that you and others get caught up on the tiny errors, I really am, but does that cover art diminish the game that much that you think it will suck? Does 343i releasing a graphical update for HCE that fans were asking for make them suck? No, for both. You really want this game to fail, which is why you won't give it a chance.

You know i pointed out the Dawn looked a bit diffrent, Not that it was a reason to hate the cover art. *eyeroll*

And if you look No it is the Dawn the "shields" are the Engine housing, But now they are more Angular instead of a pair of bulky Blocks, in a similiar Manner to the SoF's Shape, which is consistent with the streamlined less bulky look they gave the chief's armor.

For Comparison Sake



All thats really changed are the angles but since its Cover art not a damn assembly Manual who cares.