Halo 4 Review - ZGR
Daniel thought that the Halo series was done when Bungie gave up the franchise to 343. Boy was he wrong! Halo 4 Review – ZGR
Posted By James C. about 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Halo 4 Machinima Forward Unto Dawn Begins, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating
Halo 4‘s Forward Unto Dawn, the machinima tie-in with the long running first-person shooter title, has begun with Part 1. While the first moments teased of the fate of the Master Chief, kept in cryostasis after the events of Halo 3, the rest deals with Hastati Squad, the newest UNSC cadets at the famed Corbulo Academy of Military Science. Things go awry in a practice skirmish on campus as Thomas Lasky, the focus character of this episode, leads his team to failure. As the top brass and his own teammates come down upon his ideals that the enemy insurrectionists can be reasoned with, it is clear that Part 2 will have a breaking point with Lasky and his war comrades.
Halo 4 is on course for its release date of November 6th, 2012, and you can see more on Forward Unto Dawn at their YouTube channel here.
Daniel thought that the Halo series was done when Bungie gave up the franchise to 343. Boy was he wrong! Halo 4 Review – ZGR
A bunch of bros bras battling it out big time by blasting their big boomers and banging their buddies.
Master Chief reporting for duty, ready to shoot up your space planet. Take that, monsters!
Spartans Birdman and Jamie land on Requiem to follow in the Master Chief’s footsteps on this strange new world. Does this game live up to the legacy that Bungie left behind?
Can they pull it off or are they standing in Bungie’s shadow?
Perhaps Halo 4′s most exciting new addition has its own trailer at last.
You also get to see Master Chief’s face! (Sort of)
Avast! The good ship Banhammer is out on patrol!
Posted By Shaun K. about 6 months, 2 weeks ago
Perhaps Halo 4′s most exciting new addition has its own trailer at last.
Posted By Austin Yorski about 7 months ago
You also get to see Master Chief’s face! (Sort of)
Posted By Gabriel B. about 7 months ago
Avast! The good ship Banhammer is out on patrol!
Posted By Robert G. about 7 months, 1 week ago
Halo fans rejoice!
Posted By James C. about 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Axios! I. AM. WORTHY!
Posted By Austin Yorski about 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Have you ever seen somebody get tea-bagged by a Gundam?
Posted By James C. about 7 months, 4 weeks ago
Show of hands, who knows someone from Earth?
Posted By Robert G. about 8 months, 1 week ago
Check out this new gallery of enemies and weapons from Halo 4!
Posted By Shaun K. about 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Halo fans currently sporting small hard drives take note, because Halo 4 is going to have some requirements that may leave your mood dark and your wallets emptier.
Posted By Robert G. about 1 year ago
All the details regarding this $100 package inside!
Posted By Yousif A. about 6 months, 2 weeks ago
Halo 4 Machinima Forward Unto Dawn Begins, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating ![]()
When I saw the original announcement for Halo 4 I was skeptical. Sometimes when something ends, it should be left alone. Without Bungie behind the wheel it seemed like Microsoft was just using the name for income, ignoring the legacy of a legend they had helped create. When creative director of 343 Industries Ryan Paton quit the company, claiming that he “wasn’t creatively excited about the project anymore,” I honestly started feeling sorry for Halo fans that were going to shell out for the game regardless of quality.
Then I saw the recent trailers. A spark of hope ignited in me, remembering that winter years ago when I rushed to the shop to buy my original Xbox and Halo: Combat Evolved. Could it be that despite my reasonable reservations, Halo 4 would avoid doing a Phantom Menace?
Could it be?
| PROS | Chief and Cortana’s relationship, Local co-op, Loads of modes |
| CONS | Story, Weaponry, Enemies, Level and mission design |
| WTF?! | The amount of things Microsoft said I couldn’t talk about in this review! |
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Master Chief is brought out of cryostasis and teams up with Cortana. They accidentally stumble across an artificial Forerunner planet. After landing on said planet you discover that it could contain a device that while constructed for good, could be used for evil. Then the Covenant also randomly appear at this location and are dead set on you not getting it. Unless Master Chief stops the bad guys, Earth could be at risk.
If that sounds like a lack of creativity and new ideas, then you should wait until you get into the game. Halo 4 is nearly completely devoid of originality. Even when something new does come up it has been poorly implemented. I hate to say this Halo fans, but this is not the game you deserve.
Now, when I say that Halo 4 lacks many things, that doesn’t automatically make it bad. Building upon the foundation that is the Halo series, no matter how badly, is never going to produce something outright poor. This effort simply feels like the early Treyarch Call of Duty games did: cool, but ultimately rehashing sections from an Infinity Ward CoD. Halo 4 just doesn’t have the creative energy that Bungie gave it.
If I may be allowed to come back to the story, a large amount of important information goes by without ever being explained. I would like to know why the Covenant are enemies again, despite clearly having allied/declared peace with Earth. I would very much appreciate knowing how Spartans have been recreated and who these named Spartans are. Giving a character a name does not give them character. Perhaps answers to these questions and more can be found in books or videos that I haven’t had the opportunity, nor the inclination, to watch, but I find it appalling that the game starts where Halo 3 left off and yet I find myself lost in a universe that I was previously comfortable in. You would think at least Master Chief himself would have questions.
The story is poorly told and the pacing is all over the place. Characters often express a need for urgency, but the gameplay, often at these moments, crawls to a halt, forcing long slogs upon you rather than quick firefights. The supporting cast is thrown at you with next to no establishment of character, and no believable interaction. Among the few characters that do get some exposition, many are the worst kind of stereotype. Brace yourself for the hard-ass commander who cares little for Master Chief’s crazy stories about danger–he has a job to do, dammit.
I found this myriad of poorly conceived narrative blunders all the more frustrating when compared to the superb script writing that develops the relationship between Master Chief and Cortana. At times the dialogue between these two is genuinely touching and serves to expand upon the wonderful framework Bungie left behind. It’s an emotional rollercoaster taken by two non-human characters that wish to be more than they are.
Despite everything I have said about the plot, the final 2 chapters of the game take a massive leap away from the rest of the adventure and really deliver memorable moments which genuinely leave me wanting to experience the next part of the new trilogy. While I may spend the majority of the remaining review bashing the hell out of this title, this game may be well worth slogging through for these couple of hours alone.
It won’t take you long to get to the credit sequence either. I didn’t feel as annoyed as I did with Halo 2, as this new title wraps things up a little more neatly, but I was very much aware that the ride had only really just started when it ended. At an overly generous guess, I would say that Halo 4 took around 8 hours to complete, and a lot of that is story. Let’s put aside the bits where people speak to you and get down to the bits where you shoot stuff.
Halo 4 plays very much like a Halo title. The controls have hardly changed, if at all, from Halo Reach. You immediately feel at home with the whole experience and once you have that UNSC assault rifle in hand, you know some ass is going to be kicked. The problem is, the ways in which you can kick ass have been nary improved. In fact, it could be said that they have been limited.
While many guns make a return, ranging from human shotguns to Covenant carbines, several weapons are noticeable missing. The Covenant Plasma Gun in both purple and red form are AWOL and the human submachine gun has also left the building. Dual-wielding also strangely disappeared from John-117′s list of skills, decreasing your damage output significantly. There are some brand new weapons in the game after a couple of hours though, so believe me when I say that when you pick one up the first words coming out of your mouth will be “awesome.” However, the smile soon leaves your face as these ‘new’ weapons are simply re-skinned and slightly tweaked versions of other weapons in the game. In the end they only serve to fill the ammo gap between missions. I never found myself intentionally dropping human or Covenant weapons for this new selection.
The enemy seems to have decreased in size and intelligence too. Expect to see only the Covenant types from Halo: CE in this new iteration, with buggers noticeably missing. In addition, the absence of the Flood, and indeed Brutes, really stifles the variety in gameplay. One one hand, I’m glad both races remained out of the new title, with each having good reasons for not appearing, but I also worry that without them the dynamic of the game is fundamentally lacking in depth. The new enemies are just too similar to the remaining Covenant forces to mix things up enough for combat to remain interesting. The new antagonists make an appearance around the same time the new weaponry turns up, but again, despite the cool design, the tactics used for defeating them are much the same as the ones implemented against the Covenant.
These tactics can be written on the back of a match box because, as I previously mentioned, smarts don’t seem to be the alien’s greatest weapon. After a couple of firefights, you can call in exactly the moves the enemy will make, literally. I spent 5 minutes of the game narrating the actions of the enemy a couple of seconds ahead of their movements with 100% accuracy. Even when the enemy does something you don’t expect, you will find yourself wondering why they did it. For instance, enemies often step out into the open or teleport to a location only to run back to where they were moments before. After a few hours of this, killing them just felt cruel.
Kill them you will, however, and in droves. Missions very rarely involve anything other than “Go here” or “Blow up 3 (no more, no less) targets.” These often take place in bland flavorless environments, leaving the rich well-designed locations of ODST and Reach well behind. I could honestly describe 70% of the game as “the library from Combat Evolved, but with new paint.” There is a jungle bit and a desert bit, but both of these are over quite quickly and the latter possibly being one of the most boring levels in recent FPS history.
The objectives are bland, the enemies are bland, the weaponry is bland, the level design is bland, and so it came as quite the shock when not only did the story improve in the last 2 chapters, but the gameplay did too. Suddenly the enemies start coming at you in numbers that create a genuine challenge and the pacing takes off with several defense objectives challenging you to hold the line. Suddenly, you feel like a hero again. The final mission itself is actually of the highest quality and made me realize what 343 Industries are capable of. Shame it took until that point, but hope for the future and all that.
I am going to admit that I never liked Halo‘s competitive multiplayer. It just never grabbed me. There must be something about it, as Halo 3‘s multiplayer is still–to this day–one of the most played games on Xbox Live, so I honestly understand that I am in the minority here. With that out of the way, I am unsurprisingly going to announce that I don’t think much of the competitive multiplayer on offer in Halo 4.
The multiplayer still reeks of “the person who shoots first wins,” with map knowledge often accounting for more kills than skill. Combine this with the fact that some weapons are just genuinely better than others and the right skill load-out will see you smashing the opposition, and you have a multiplayer mode that doesn’t do it for me.
There are more modes than you can shake a stick at though, with a pretty decent amount of maps to take part in. There is also a fair amount of load-out options to choose from and unlike most FPS games, where weapons and skills are unlocked in a predetermined fashion, you are rewarded with Spartan points at every level up, and it’s up to you which items you purchase. Herein lies further evidence to support my claim of certain weapons/skills being more useful than others, as some unlocks cost more.
On the few occasions I found enough players online pre-release, the connection was next to perfect. I can’t say that I once suffered from lag or connection loss. I got the impression at all times when playing online that the multiplayer had received some considerable attention and the quality of the production was evident, it’s just a shame that I personally just don’t get on with it.
There is a new co-operative multiplayer mode called Spartan Ops, which can also be played single-player. This replaces the firefight mode, presenting a mission-based adventure rather than a horde style arena battle. Alongside others, you can battle your way through enemy lines, progressing the story as you go. It’s here we find the only inkling that the Spartan revival story might be revealed, and perhaps it is, but during the review period I unfortunately kept finding the server down and was unable to play, as the mode requires an online connection.
What I did get to play of Spartan Ops varied very little from the gameplay found in the main campaign and the “story” seemed simply to be a series of voice clips that suggest that the events are coinciding with the main campaign. The most noticeable thing about Spartan Ops was the intro, with pelican gunships floating through the air like some Gary’s Mod creation, clearly showing that production time had not been well allocated to this mode. The dramatic cutscenes seen in the trailer for Spartan Ops were oddly missing from the opening mission, dumping you straight into the game without so much as a hello. It appears later on, but feels misplaced.
Ultimately, that’s the problem with Halo 4. The game almost seems to lack faith in itself. It’s like the new developers were so worried about stepping on toes that they didn’t stick their head out at all. Even the orchestral backbone of the original experience is missing. It’s almost unfathomable. I want the Covenant to scream “Daemon!” every time I come into view. I want epic music to announce Master Chief’s rampage through enemy lines while UNSC soldiers cheer and taunt as they follow behind. More than anything else, I want the Spartan super solider I am playing as to feel like a true badass.
343 Industries have created a title here with sparks of brilliance, making me really get into the Chief/Cortana relationship for the first time, but the whole experience is let down by lackluster gameplay and poor pacing. This studio obviously has it in them to produce, and the last few sequences show promise that hopefully can be expanded upon in the sequels. Despite this, I fail to see how I can possibly rank this game anywhere above average. However, I cannot wait to see what they do with some critical response to work from, because let’s face it, even if every other review site agrees with me, Halo 4 is still going to sell better than 99% of the games released in 2012.
This game was provided by the publisher on Xbox 360 for review purposes. The game was played for roughly 20 hours and was completed. The campaign mode was played for around 12 hours on a variety of difficulties and was completed. The competitive multiplayer was played for around 5 hours. Spartan Ops co-operative mode was played for around 3 hours, but was played in solo mode.
Rehash and cash-in? Somebody shoot me in the face.
Dafuq do you mean he can’t dual wield?? WHAT WERE THEY THINKING??
Wow… Diametrically in opposition to mainstream reviews.
Maybe this is the Dark Knight Rises of video games this year.
Thank god you dont show up on Metacritic lol. Halo 4 deserved more score than Reach and this review would just drop the score like hell.
God forbid an aggregate scoring system include the bad scores to. That may cause it to reflect diverse opinions instead of just the fanboys and sell-outs dropping 10/10s.
While most of the other reviews I have read so far don’t seem to agree with you, your review will make me approach this title a little more cautiously.
I do follow the novels closely (which contain way better stories than what is found in the games), so I do know what is up with the Spartans and the Covenant, but the fact that they would leave such important plot details out of the game makes no sense when there are so many people who only play the games.
Story: Thin and poorly-paced. Maybe 3 significant characters in the entire story, all stereotypes, and the only well-done part is the relationship between the male and female leads. Unoriginal plot ripped straight from previous games.
Gameplay: Boring, extremely predictable enemies, and a distinct lack of variety. Extremely linear, and prone to completing objectives in sets of three. Weapon options more limited than previously.
Sounds like a pretty mediocre game, all around. But what I just described isn’t Halo 4, which I have never played (and so can’t comment on), it’s Skyward Sword, which was released a little under a year ago. I wonder what score you gave it?
Oh, right, a 9/10.
I’m all for holding games to a certain standard, but if you don’t hold them to the same standard, there isn’t any point.
While that comparison may be apt in your eyes, I never used any of those words to describe Skyward Sword. If I had i could understand your criticism of my review.
I do try and hold myself to the highest standard I can, and I am sorry you feel differently. Not everyone is going to agree every time and certainly when looking at metacritic, it would seem I am one of the only reviewers to have scored Halo 4 as average.
I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy Skyward Sword, but like me and Halo 4, it would appear you are in the minority, with the game not only holding a 93 on Metacritic, but featuring in Blistered Thumbs 25-in-25 Wii games.
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2012/10/wii-25-in-25-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/
My criticism of your review is that you observed these issues in this game, and completely ignored them when playing Skyward Sword. Or more, that you were willing to overlook them in another game, and still emphasize them here. I consider this a failure of the gaming community in general that people are unable or unwilling to acknowledge these flaws.
You are more than welcome to like or dislike a game to your heart’s content, but making a statement of quality, as a reviewer does, entitles your reader to an informed opinion, grounded in common standards, if not facts. I don’t see that here.
You made a big deal about repetitive enemy behavior here, but not in Skyward Sword, where it was undeniably present.
You emphasized the pacing in this game, and yet have no problem with the hour plus introductory sequence in Skyward Sword.
You call out the poor storytelling and stereotyped characters in this game, but said nothing of the hackneyed tropes of the Zelda cast, or the hours of busy-work between relevant plot points.
Whether you enjoy the game or I don’t is irrelevant. Your inability to consistently apply the same standard is what irritates me.
This does make me curious now, what exactly are the standards you are describing? I don’t mean in the reviews themselves, I mean in the games you are comparing to? What makes the characters deep and complex, what makes the gameplay not boring?
Just to clarify, the “boring” in my comment was directed at the enemies, not the gameplay in general. Whether something is boring or not is a matter of experience, not quality.
As far as standards go, complexity in a character concerns factors that affect their personality (background), while depth concerns how those factors interact to drive their actions (personality). For example, if we consider Link on his own, he lacks both depth and complexity. His only relevant character trait is that he is friends with Zelda. His lack of background means he is not complex, and his lack of relevant character traits means he is not deep.
For a point of comparison, take Batman from Batman Begins. What we know about his past makes him complex, and the way those factors have shaped his personality, and by extension his actions, makes him deep.
This is not to say the characters in SS are all lacking complexity and depth (or that it would necessarily be bad if they were), but they are all under-developed stereotypes. Ghirahim, Zelda, Groose, Impa; all of them are ripped straight from decades-old manga/anime tropes, and not a single one of them has an arc.
But see, what is the point of Link as a character? Is he supposed to have a controllable personality? A fixed one? We see no talking or character moments that way, but what about emotions and gestures? Doesn’t that reveal more character to Link than any background information given? Or maybe, that he is not supposed to have a background at all?
Also keep in mind which Link are we talking about. There are at least 10 different incarnations, so should it be the same as the other Links? After all, each game, barring sequels, are self-contained adventures with a different protagonist each time.
See, this is the danger of setting standards. Your comparison with Batman, for example, is apples and oranges because Batman as a character is driven by a trope that is just as cliched as Link, the only difference is the usage and the direct stating of his actions. His complexity is shackled by his backstory, whereas Link’s complexity is defined by his actions over his backstory. That is the difference between the two, so they work as different types of characters.
And in regards to reviews,a good writer would be able to point out the differences. Saying Link is a bland character misses the point of Link as a character. Saying Master Chief is a bland character is more appropriate because he actually has a personality that is defined. So if both games have bland characterizations, then Link as a character should have failed to engage the player into the adventure through actions, emotions and motivations, whereas Master Chief should have failed in both dialogue, pathos, pacing, and delivery of his storyline.
So no, I don’t see how they can fit the same standard when their standards are fundamentally different. It also doesn’t matter because in the end it is Yousif’s call for the review score. Maybe both games failed for you on those levels that I described, but for Yousif maybe it didn’t, but you got to ask him that.
I advise you to stop making assumptions and read what I wrote.
You asked what made a character deep and complex, and I did so by providing a definition, with multiple examples. I never, at any point, suggested that his lack of depth or complexity was an issue.
You seem to have completely ignored what I wrote, in favor of an argument I didn’t make, but which better fits your narrative. Here is what I ACTUALLY wrote:
“This is not to say the characters in SS are all lacking complexity and depth (or that it would necessarily be bad if they were), but they are all under-developed stereotypes.”
Your original question doesn’t even have any relevance on my original post. I never used the words “deep” or “complex” before you did, and as I pointed out, “boring” referred the lack of diversity in enemy design, not gameplay.
By the way, if you’re going to inject yourself in a conversation that has almost nothing to do with you, don’t conclude by telling me to talk to the person I already was before you interrupted.
I did read what you wrote.
You said Link was not deep or complex because of a lack of background.
You then say that that it doesn’t matter if characters are lacking in complexity or depth, but they are still under-developed anyway, and are central casting characters because of their given tropes.
Other than a possible contradiction in your own post, my charge is that your criteria doesn’t fit with the point of Link, or the Zelda franchise, which is why such a standard is somewhat irrelevant. And your comparison to Batman is a poor example because Batman’s motivations are wholly different than Links.
So just to be clear, complexity of characters does not concern just their background or personality. They can help in creating that complexity, but its not exclusive or even needed to make a good character. And considering the point of what Link is, setting him to that standard would be disingenuous to the design of the Zelda games, which has been classically been about the exploration and design of the world, over the characters.
As satisfying as it would be to cure you of your ignorance when it comes to character construction, I’m not going to have a protracted conversation on a site that doesn’t provide reply notifications, with someone who is willing to use terms they don’t actually know how to use, concerning a subject that is completely tangential to the original topic.
Yeah… pretty sure we all knew this was going to happen. It was just a matter of how bad. Honestly, given Yousif’s review, I have to applaud them for not screwing it up -completely-. He did say he has hope for the inevitable continuation. But… still, it is a shame how this one turned out.
Also somehow not surprised that IGN gave it a 9.8. Who could have possibly seen that one coming?
Microsoft when they paid them off lol.
And it somehow has a 90 on metacritic… huh…
One has to be amused that Halo is now little more than a CoD/Battlefield clone, stripping away any scope and depth to shove in a half-hearted single player campaign so they can focus on multiplayer.
I think Halo 4 being mediocre is probably the result of it trying to cater to the CoD audience.. which when you think about it is pretty funny/sad.
Of course, I’m not surprised, because I’ve been told time and time again by Halobros (not to be confused with actual Halo fans) that “No one” buys Halo for the campaign. Microsoft knows the bros vastly out-number the fans, and made the story mode as small as possible so they didn’t waste money on the less-profitable portion of the fan-base.
I would say that this shows when a studio walks away from their baby, its time to let the series go. But, we all know Halo 4 is gonna make millions regardless of how good or bad it is. It was a game made to cash in on fan-boys who will buy anything with Master Chief in it, and it will accomplish that goal.
If you really think that Halo 4 is now a little more than a CoD or Battlefield clone because of certain elements the it’s safe to say you’re a dumbass.
I’m a bit confused as to what Microsoft would say that you can’t discuss.
Anyway, I take the same position I always have. You don’t get credit if you don’t show your work. You cannot say ‘go find out the important story details in some other work’. No, if it is anything that is important to the main story then it should be included in the whatever tells the main story. If a war has started that is very important to the main story you can’t say ‘go read about it here’, you need to explain the war in the main story.
I knew this would happen and unfortunately when I show this to the guys waiting for Halo 4 they are going to shove shit in my face for disgracing their precious halo game. Its sad that they could only show potential near the end of the game but nowadays the FPS generation of gamers only care about the multiplayer and not the story of the games.
When did people ever care about story in FPS.Are you going to tell me you played doom for the narrative.
very intresting makes me wounder if microsoft can really use halo to push there next xbox console. since if this story fails to take you in you will not be willing to drop the cash for a new console to play the next game since it is only multiplayer you would be intrested in.
next gen is gonna be very intresting to watch how the market gose.
Halo 4?! Disappointing?! NO! How shocking! When in the history of anything has something been so hyped up and it actually lived up to it?!
Aside from that, from what I heard about the story, I am absolutely disgusted. Did they think of this story during a writers strike or something?!
Considering I won’t be able to experience the multiplayer since I’m only a silver player and refuse to pay a monthly subscription for ANYTHING, the most important aspect of a Halo game is the singleplayer experience, but it’s made clear that they didn’t care one bit about that detail.
And to think that Microsoft doesn’t want these details shared because they don’t want to spoil the surprise! WHAT’S THERE TO SURPRISE US WITH IF ALL YOU DID WAS REHASH EVERYTHING?!
No thank Microsoft, this is clearly just a cash in on the franchise and you just want a little extra coin by milking this cash cow until it’s dry, just like everything you’ve ever made that was successful.
I never thought I’d say this… but you’re dead to me Halo. I’m not even going to even consider GLANCING at Halo 5 when it’s announced.
Daniel thought that the Halo series was done when Bungie gave up the franchise to 343. Boy was he wrong! Halo 4 Review – ZGR
A bunch of bros bras battling it out big time by blasting their big boomers and banging their buddies.
Master Chief reporting for duty, ready to shoot up your space planet. Take that, monsters!
Spartans Birdman and Jamie land on Requiem to follow in the Master Chief’s footsteps on this strange new world. Does this game live up to the legacy that Bungie left behind?
Can they pull it off or are they standing in Bungie’s shadow?
Spartans Birdman and Jamie land on Requiem to follow in the Master Chief’s footsteps on this strange new world. Does this game live up to the legacy that Bungie left behind?
Music Mondays revisits the band that brought us tunes from Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and Bit.Trip Runner.
Good episode.
And it’s not a machinima, by the way. Just thought I’d let you know.