Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

Ringleader wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:

Ringleader wrote:

CivBase wrote:The changes that are worth $60? A high-res version of my favorite game that comes with added online coop and multiplayer. THAT is what's worth $60.

Obviously when you said "I don't have a problem with them mixing up a few things." You weren't referring to the HD aspects and coop multiplayer...

I assume you were referring to mixing up aesthetic changes, and story changes? You know, what we've been talking about this whole time.

I mean, I KNOW the HD aspects and the coop multiplayer are good additions, no one here has really contested them as far as I know, or said the game wasn't worth it for the GOOD additions. the bad additions and senseless alterations? That's an entirely differnt story.

Uh, why WOULDN'T he have been referring to HD?

Since, you know , we've been talking about that this whole time...

Well, because preceding posts as well as the bulk of them made in regards to differences between CE and the Anniversary including the one I made that he responded to dealt with it.

Also, nowhere has the HD component of the Anniversary edition been described as a change in the frame of all our conversations had on the subject. Purple to Blue, Aliens magically changing shape, Marines changing shape from being on a space ship, yes, that is "mixing up a few things." HD graphics, not really.

HD meaning high definition graphics, and graphics meaning things such as color change... and Marines and aliens 'changing shape'? What do you mean by that?

Ringleader wrote:

Divine Virus wrote:I liked the AR in Reach because it actually looked like a prototype or unfinished gun. Then the one you see in CE and 3 looks like the finished and polished product of said gun.

That's just me.

The AR is a prototype too? The UNSC really needs to step up their game.

He said he liked it because the gun looked seemed to be more polished as the timeline progressed.

Yeah, and?

What exactly is your point? I wasn't disputing that the old one looked like a prototype or that the newer ones looked polished, I was merely commenting on the lengths most will go to reconcile frivolous, unnecessary and illogical changes, when it's basically JUST the devs wanting to add polys in the wrong way, changing the overall design and then calling it a prototype of something, instead of just upping the detail.[/quote]Frivolous, illogical and unnecessary... polys added in the wrong way...

If those comments were true, then why would people (such as me or Rock) like the new look and not really care if it changed one minor thing in the story? After all, it's really just a graphical change.

I'm the one that said it "looks" like a prototype, not them.

But as Noc put it perfectly, I was just saying how I liked how the prequal AR looks older then the one we know the best.

I understand that CE takes place almost immediately after Reach but still, this is just how I like to think of it.

KrAzY wrote:For campeign all of the original stuff is supposedly being restored.... hopefully that means a New AR model, as I really dislike the MA5K model that was used in reach

MA37.
I like it, because there's a decent explanation for it looking different, and because the UNSC has three major manufacturing centers (Earth, Reach, Mars) at the time of Reach. They can afford to field variants.

And I like the way it looks, just as much as I like the MA5C.

Ringleader wrote:

Divine Virus wrote:I liked the AR in Reach because it actually looked like a prototype or unfinished gun. Then the one you see in CE and 3 looks like the finished and polished product of said gun.

That's just me.

The AR is a prototype too? The UNSC really needs to step up their game.

No. The MA37 is an Army-only variant of the MA series. Assuming '37' is a model year, that means it's been around for 15 years as of Reach.
It's just a utilitarian model that Devine Virus thinks looks like a prototype.

Little did RL know, his "The AR is a prototype too? The UNSC really needs to step up their game." Comment would land him in a whole mess'a trouble.

But wait a second, if Divine originally said it looked like a prototype, why didn't Rasq then tell him it's actually a different model then? The world may never know

Fuck it, I'm out.

Debate at your own risk.

Lol Nocbl2, you kinda started it when you over analyzed my comment for no reason, but hey, that's just dandy.

Ringleader wrote:Lol Nocbl2, you kinda started it when you over analyzed my comment for no reason, but hey, that's just dandy.

You're one to talk.

Ringleader wrote:But wait a second, if Divine originally said it looked like a prototype, why didn't Rasq then tell him it's actually a different model then? The world may never know

He kinda just did. Now I do know.

TNine wrote:

Ringleader wrote:Lol Nocbl2, you kinda started it when you over analyzed my comment for no reason, but hey, that's just dandy.

You're one to talk.

I don't bail though.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Assuming '37' is a model year, that means it's been around for 15 years as of Reach.

um, I have never heard of any weapon system using its year as a designation.

KristallNacht wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Assuming '37' is a model year, that means it's been around for 15 years as of Reach.

um, I have never heard of any weapon system using its year as a designation.

AK-47.
Designed and first fielded in the year 1947.
AK-74.
Again, designed and first fielded around 1974.

Just off the top of my head. More as I find them on Wikipedia.

The Nazi's did it too.

MG34
MG42
MP40
StG44

What about the 357 Magnum?

Ringleader wrote:What about the 357 Magnum?

thats the caliber of the round, not the year it was made.

Divine Virus wrote:The Nazi's did it too.

MP-38
MP-40
MG-42
FlaK-37, FlaK-41, FlaK-43
Pak 38, Pak 43
Infanteriegeschütz 37
Kar98k (Based off the Gewehr 98, manufactured in 1898)

Japanese did it, but they based it on their own calendar year (Zero comes from '00, or 2600) I think the Chinese still do it.
And .357 magnum refers to the cartridge size.

Lol, I know, yeesh.

speaking of PAK 38, how's that coming along?

Ringleader wrote:Lol, I know, yeesh.

speaking of PAK 38, how's that coming along?

Shush, you!
It's the FlaK 88 now. Finals are this week, so I won't get significant work done until Friday.

Ringleader wrote:

TNine wrote:

Ringleader wrote:Lol Nocbl2, you kinda started it when you over analyzed my comment for no reason, but hey, that's just dandy.

You're one to talk.

I don't bail though.

Fair enough.

NT, how did you NOT know that many weapons use their release date as a designation? A few more that people missed: CZ-75, M1911, M1903....

Makes naming them a really easy task

Nocbl2 wrote:

Ringleader wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:

Ringleader wrote:

CivBase wrote:The changes that are worth $60? A high-res version of my favorite game that comes with added online coop and multiplayer. THAT is what's worth $60.

Obviously when you said "I don't have a problem with them mixing up a few things." You weren't referring to the HD aspects and coop multiplayer...

I assume you were referring to mixing up aesthetic changes, and story changes? You know, what we've been talking about this whole time.

I mean, I KNOW the HD aspects and the coop multiplayer are good additions, no one here has really contested them as far as I know, or said the game wasn't worth it for the GOOD additions. the bad additions and senseless alterations? That's an entirely differnt story.

Uh, why WOULDN'T he have been referring to HD?

Since, you know , we've been talking about that this whole time...

Well, because preceding posts as well as the bulk of them made in regards to differences between CE and the Anniversary including the one I made that he responded to dealt with it.

Also, nowhere has the HD component of the Anniversary edition been described as a change in the frame of all our conversations had on the subject. Purple to Blue, Aliens magically changing shape, Marines changing shape from being on a space ship, yes, that is "mixing up a few things." HD graphics, not really.

HD meaning high definition graphics, and graphics meaning things such as color change... and Marines and aliens 'changing shape'? What do you mean by that?

What a delightful free association: HD meaning high definition graphics, and graphics meaning things such as color change...

Aliens changing shape, like this:
http://terminalgamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Halo-Elite-Evolution.jpg
Changing shape as in, not having the same shape? Design? Appearance? Aesthetics?

Ringleader wrote:

Divine Virus wrote:I liked the AR in Reach because it actually looked like a prototype or unfinished gun. Then the one you see in CE and 3 looks like the finished and polished product of said gun.

That's just me.

The AR is a prototype too? The UNSC really needs to step up their game.

He said he liked it because the gun looked seemed to be more polished as the timeline progressed.

Yeah, and?

What exactly is your point? I wasn't disputing that the old one looked like a prototype or that the newer ones looked polished, I was merely commenting on the lengths most will go to reconcile frivolous, unnecessary and illogical changes, when it's basically JUST the devs wanting to add polys in the wrong way, changing the overall design and then calling it a prototype of something, instead of just upping the detail.Frivolous, illogical and unnecessary... polys added in the wrong way...

If those comments were true, then why would people (such as me or Rock) like the new look and not really care if it changed one minor thing in the story? After all, it's really just a graphical change.

Well, he gave it an explanation, presumably because it didn't make at least some sense otherwise without one? He liked to think of it as a prototype. This is exactly what I said before, but again, I must say I'm surprised my comment started so much Chop.

At the time, I wasn't aware that it was a differnet model and gun all together.

But when I said prototype, I didn't mean that it was literally a prototype.

So sorry, my mistake.

I know it's not really that important, as what I originally said wasn't even that serious to begin with.

tiny tim wrote:NT, how did you NOT know that many weapons use their release date as a designation? A few more that people missed: CZ-75, M1911, M1903....

lets see:

m249 Saw.....not made in any X249
M16...not made in any XX16
M240
m289
m203
m2
M26
M187
M4
M2
M89

every single weapons system I've used uses arbitrary numbering.

Are you suggesting the M187 isn't from the year 3187 when the HUMONS battled the machine armies in WWXII?