If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   The final Easter egg from Halo 3 has been found, turns out to be a sweet message to a Bungie employee's wife   (uproxx.com) divider line 31
    More: Cool, YouTuber Lord Zedd, Bungie  
•       •       •

4198 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jul 2014 at 11:36 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-10 09:04:12 AM  
I thought I was hot sh*t for finding the shortcuts in Wario Stadium and D.K.'s Jungle Park in Mario Kart 64.

Meh the only worthwhile shortcut was the Rainbow Road jump
 
2014-07-10 11:52:11 AM  

scottydoesntknow: I thought I was hot sh*t for finding the shortcuts in Wario Stadium and D.K.'s Jungle Park in Mario Kart 64.

Meh the only worthwhile shortcut was the Rainbow Road jump


That level was such a pain in my butt until I started nailing that short cut. Now that level means nothing but an easy win in 5 minutes or less instead of a 15 minute fight for first with blue shell dodging.
 
2014-07-10 11:59:35 AM  
Halo 4 much > Halo 3.

/Just my opinion.
//Which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
///Which means my opinion is worth $5.00 to you Total Farkers.
////Hah!
 
2014-07-10 12:04:08 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Halo 4 much > Halo 3.

/Just my opinion.
//Which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
///Which means my opinion is worth $5.00 to you Total Farkers.
////Hah!


Never really got into Halo... I played and beat Halo 1 and thought it was average at best. Tried Halo 2 and shrugged it off. Never even played Halo 3 through Reach. My cousin had an extra copy of Halo 4 so he gave it to me so we could play multiplayer. Still thought the game was average at best. But the multiplayer does have a Goldeneye 64 feel to it. So it has that.
 
2014-07-10 12:18:40 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Halo 4 much > Halo 3.


Eh... Aside from expected improvements for the campaign (graphics, gameplay), I didn't like the multiplayer for Halo 4. Reminded me too much of CoD/Battlefield, where the better you were, you could start with better gear. It made it kind of pointless for anyone to get into it months after it came out, since you'll be pitted against someone who has unlocked the most powerful weapons and armaments. For me, multiplayer definitely peaked with Reach.

While the story was also good in 4, if you really liked it and want to get a good grasp on the Didact and the Forerunners as a whole, I can't recommend enough the books Cryptum, Primordium, and Silentium on Audible.
 
2014-07-10 12:29:41 PM  

yves0010: Summer Glau's Love Slave: Halo 4 much > Halo 3.

/Just my opinion.
//Which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
///Which means my opinion is worth $5.00 to you Total Farkers.
////Hah!

Never really got into Halo... I played and beat Halo 1 and thought it was average at best. Tried Halo 2 and shrugged it off. Never even played Halo 3 through Reach. My cousin had an extra copy of Halo 4 so he gave it to me so we could play multiplayer. Still thought the game was average at best. But the multiplayer does have a Goldeneye 64 feel to it. So it has that.


Halo 2 was the low point of the series. The third one was good, Reach was really good, and ODST is criminally underrated. Not only is ODST a great game, but the voice cast means you're basically fighting alongside the crew of Firefly.
 
2014-07-10 12:32:53 PM  
 
2014-07-10 12:59:05 PM  
I thought ODST was the best of the bunch.  But it was also the first (within Halo) firefight/wave co-op mode, so I like it for that alone.  Reach did a good job at it also.  The newest Halo skipping it was criminal.
 
2014-07-10 01:01:15 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Halo 4 much > Halo 3.

/Just my opinion.
//Which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
///Which means my opinion is worth $5.00 to you Total Farkers.
////Hah!


Halo 3 did a lot more that console shooters had never seen before between the downloadable maps and game modes (remember rocket race) movable bases in that one map, the theater and integrated xbox dashboard elements it was way a head of it's time.  It just wasn't particularly fun, and then COD 4 came along shortly afterward.
 
2014-07-10 01:38:01 PM  

NeoCortex42: Halo 2 was the low point of the series. The third one was good, Reach was really good, and ODST is criminally underrated. Not only is ODST a great game, but the voice cast means you're basically fighting alongside the crew of Firefly.


Reach was a great game, even with it being a foregone conclusion. Hell the live-action commercial is one of my favorite video game commercials ever.

Halo 2's biggest fark up was the clusterfark of a story. They just had no clue what they wanted to do and it felt like there should've been some ending but there wasn't.

Halo 4 was pretty damn good. My only complaint was the anti-climatic ending. But the Cortana going rampant storyline was really good.
 
2014-07-10 01:48:58 PM  

yves0010: Summer Glau's Love Slave: Halo 4 much > Halo 3.

/Just my opinion.
//Which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
///Which means my opinion is worth $5.00 to you Total Farkers.
////Hah!

Never really got into Halo... I played and beat Halo 1 and thought it was average at best. Tried Halo 2 and shrugged it off. Never even played Halo 3 through Reach. My cousin had an extra copy of Halo 4 so he gave it to me so we could play multiplayer. Still thought the game was average at best. But the multiplayer does have a Goldeneye 64 feel to it. So it has that.


Halo 1 was average at best? What other game at the time was even close? Please. Halo 1 is what made shooters what they are today.
 
2014-07-10 02:04:25 PM  

scottydoesntknow: NeoCortex42: Halo 2 was the low point of the series. The third one was good, Reach was really good, and ODST is criminally underrated. Not only is ODST a great game, but the voice cast means you're basically fighting alongside the crew of Firefly.

Reach was a great game, even with it being a foregone conclusion. Hell the live-action commercial is one of my favorite video game commercials ever.

Halo 2's biggest fark up was the clusterfark of a story. They just had no clue what they wanted to do and it felt like there should've been some ending but there wasn't.

Halo 4 was pretty damn good. My only complaint was the anti-climatic ending. But the Cortana going rampant storyline was really good.


I really liked Halo 2, though mostly because if the gameplay; I agree that the storyline was mediocre. The ability to hold two small weapons was a great improvement over the first game (as was the 'kick' imparted by the SMG). It was far from polished, but I had hoped they'd continue to refine the two-handed system throughout the series rather than revert back to the single-weapon/no-recoil model. Oh well.

The other thing was the ability to explore most of the maps without running into invisible walls; and that made things really, really fun once word about the skulls got out. My buddy and I wasted many an hour exploring maps looking for the skulls (we'd never look up the exact location; only the maps on which a skull might be found). The skull menus on subsequent games just never held the same charm. And the scarab gun, though functionally worthless for proceeding through the story, was always a blast to play with.

Wasn't really a fan of 3 or Reach; enjoyed 4 a lot due to the customization options during multiplayer and the fact that most power weapons only spawn during ordinance drops. Enjoyed ODST as well due to the style of storytelling. Count me in with those who miss the original firefight.
 
2014-07-10 02:20:24 PM  
My biggest complaint of 4 was the multiplayer maps.  I always liked the SWAT gametype best, but every map except one or two were huge and terrible for SWAT.
 
2014-07-10 02:20:50 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Halo 4 was pretty damn good. My only complaint was the anti-climatic ending. But the Cortana going rampant storyline was really good.


I also rather enjoyed the Spartan Ops episodes. I'm actually rather interested in seeing what Halsey's going to try to pull off
 
2014-07-10 02:31:48 PM  

RoxtarRyan: I didn't like the multiplayer for Halo 4. Reminded me too much of CoD/Battlefield, where the better you were, you could start with better gear. It made it kind of pointless for anyone to get into it months after it came out, since you'll be pitted against someone who has unlocked the most powerful weapons and armaments.


It's not really like that at all though. COD is a huge treadmill, whereas everything in Halo 4 gets unlocked fairly quickly.

Plus, there isn't anything really superior about one kit over another (it all depends on your playstyle), and there are plenty of playlists that don't even allow custom loadouts.

However, I've moved from halo 4 over to titanfall, because it feels like they kinda abandoned halo 4 early on and the population dropped like a rock (compared to prior halo games).

No new Spartan Ops for months and months.
No to real tweaking of gametypes.
No friendly fire in team snipers.
No real goals/unlocks (after SR50, there's nothing to do vs halo reach and getting Inheritor rank).
No cool kits (where is inclement weather? Flaming skulls? Where are the really cool customizations?)
 
2014-07-10 02:55:59 PM  

Truncks1: Halo 1 is what made shooters what they are today.


Which is average at best.
 
2014-07-10 02:57:52 PM  

lordargent: It's not really like that at all though. COD is a huge treadmill, whereas everything in Halo 4 gets unlocked fairly quickly.


Eh, I still like the "even playing field" Reach offered, even with the different pre-established loadouts. That was really what made Reach pretty damn fun (nothing greater in the first rush of the game than to armor lock an incoming packed Warthog coming with the bomb). For someone who is more of a casual console gamer, I'd rather not put in weeks of time to unlock stuff that really shouldn't have to be unlocked in the first place (really? I need to unlock the ability to pick up friggin' ammo from players I killed?). It's things like that, that ruined it for me. I'd rather do co-op multiplayer on the campaign, or just pop in Reach, where it seems like the number of players is still pretty damn high.

I spent about 10 minutes finding the site that has the top games played on XBL, but can't seem to track it down. Maybe they stopped releasing the numbers?
 
2014-07-10 03:25:13 PM  

Mangoose: Truncks1: Halo 1 is what made shooters what they are today.

Which is average at best.


Agreed.  Resistance 3 wasn't an outstanding game but it sure reminded me how much I miss the pre-Halo game mechanics.
 
2014-07-10 04:17:26 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Eh, I still like the "even playing field" Reach offered, even with the different pre-established loadouts


Yeah, they could have resolved your issues by having more playlists as well.

I've always thought that multiplayer playlists (for many different games) should have had tiered lists, or do a better job of matching folks based on skill.

I stopped playing pickup team snipers games, because I was ending up in lobbies with people who had just bought their XBoxes (ex, someone with 20 gamerscore), needless to say, team snipers was NOT the playlist for them and they ended up quitting the game after dying a lot and leaving the team at a huge deficit.

It would be nice if there were a casual team snipers (maybe have friendly fire off), and then have a pro team snipers list (that requires you to reach a certain level or finish some sort of challenges with the sniper rifle before you can play in it). If you're a casual, you can't enter the pro list.

If you're a pro, I dunno, you can't enter the casual list ... or maybe you can enter it but have a handicap or something to even the playing field.
 
2014-07-10 04:23:36 PM  

RoxtarRyan: I spent about 10 minutes finding the site that has the top games played on XBL, but can't seem to track it down. Maybe they stopped releasing the numbers?


I think I remember that (or a similar) site and used them as a data source.

I do BI for a living, and video game data was my 'demo' data source.
(IE, unsecured data that I can use to make charts for training people with new tools).

I haven't done training for a while so I wouldn't have had a big reason to go visit them.
lordargent.com
 
2014-07-10 04:34:55 PM  

lordargent: I do BI for a living, and video game data was my 'demo' data source.


...I know how to make a "sum of all numbers in a column" command in excel....

/lowers head, walks away in shame
 
2014-07-10 06:33:53 PM  

Mangoose: Truncks1: Halo 1 is what made shooters what they are today.

Which is average at best.


So you just hate all shooters?

Well congratulations
 
2014-07-10 08:31:34 PM  

Truncks1: Mangoose: Truncks1: Halo 1 is what made shooters what they are today.

Which is average at best.

So you just hate all shooters?

Well congratulations


I hate bad things.  I have no strong feelings about average things. They're just sort of...eh.

And that is what pretty much every shooter after the second or third shooter I played was. Just sort of eh.
 
2014-07-10 09:33:43 PM  
Loved ODST. Thought 4 had a really awful ending. I feel like there is more they can so with this franchise. Some of the promo shorts have been brilliant.
 
2014-07-10 10:16:43 PM  

Mangoose: Truncks1: Mangoose: Truncks1: Halo 1 is what made shooters what they are today.

Which is average at best.

So you just hate all shooters?

Well congratulations

I hate bad things.  I have no strong feelings about average things. They're just sort of...eh.

And that is what pretty much every shooter after the second or third shooter I played was. Just sort of eh.


Regardless of your level of discontent, calling Halo 1 mediocre implies that you have to compare it relatively to something else, and if you are comparing it to other shooters, it was amazing, and if you compare it to video games in GENERAL then yeah, it wouldn't rank up with me either, as I do not enjoy many shooters. But then why wouldn't you just come in and say "I dont like shooters. Meh." and leave the thread instead of shiatting on one of the best shooters that basically has shaped every shooter that has come after it?
 
2014-07-10 10:31:24 PM  

Truncks1: yves0010: Summer Glau's Love Slave: Halo 4 much > Halo 3.

/Just my opinion.
//Which is worth exactly what you paid for it.
///Which means my opinion is worth $5.00 to you Total Farkers.
////Hah!

Never really got into Halo... I played and beat Halo 1 and thought it was average at best. Tried Halo 2 and shrugged it off. Never even played Halo 3 through Reach. My cousin had an extra copy of Halo 4 so he gave it to me so we could play multiplayer. Still thought the game was average at best. But the multiplayer does have a Goldeneye 64 feel to it. So it has that.

Halo 1 was average at best? What other game at the time was even close? Please. Halo 1 is what made shooters what they are today.


I used one FPS that has been acknowledged as one of the best console FPS in history. Goldeneye 64 as a reference point. And it works as at the time, it was still a fresh game at the time. With Perfect Dark being a game built on Goldeneye 64. Leaving out PC FPS, but in this case I would use it as I played the PC version of Halo 1 all the way through the story, So I placed it against games like Half Life and Quake as well.  As I mentioned earlier, the multiplayer had a feel of Goldeneye 64 which is very pleasant. But the story felt very lacking. And I usually rate games on their stories over multiplayer any day (unless its a pure multiplayer game like MAG on the PS3). That is why I rated it as average as best.

Allow me to add that I did give it a chance and it just did not click with me. So a rating of average means I would play with friends but I would not play it on a regular basis outside of a play through of the story.  I think I ranked a total of 50 hours between single player and multiplayer between my PC version and my friends X-Box version. Compare that to some of the other games I placed hundreds of hours in (Battlefield series, Wolfenstein, DOOM and Killzone for examples).
 
2014-07-10 11:07:07 PM  

lordargent: RoxtarRyan: Eh, I still like the "even playing field" Reach offered, even with the different pre-established loadouts

Yeah, they could have resolved your issues by having more playlists as well.

I've always thought that multiplayer playlists (for many different games) should have had tiered lists, or do a better job of matching folks based on skill.


The thing is, with more playlists, there's less of a player pool to draw from.

Halo's "competitive" non-joinable matches only exacerbated that, and it got even worse when they tried to balance team sizes.(match a party of 4 up with another party of 4 if possible).

Long matchmaking times really put a damper in the whole console FPS thing as other dev's tried to make it more "fair" as well.

Restricting matchmaking based on location, connection type, and then also adding lag compensation that ended up heavily favoring certain styles of play.

All that while not fixing other more pertinent problems is what drove me off the console pretty much altogether.

/promoted myself to PC master race.
 
2014-07-10 11:32:01 PM  

omeganuepsilon: The thing is, with more playlists, there's less of a player pool to draw from.


Without giving people playlists that cater to their personal preferences, you won't have a player pool to draw from in the first place (that's part of what happened with 4. No team snipers or team swat at the outset == lots of people didn't even bother).

I know lots of people who only played team snipers, others who only played griffball.

If it wasn't for team snipers, I wouldn't have played halo 3, reach or 4 for as long as I did.
(actually, I was just about done with 4 until they finally re-released team snipers ... and that injected a few more months of gameplay for me ... until titanfall came around).

// now I'm in Titanfall where I just play Last Titan Standing (with the occassional Attrition game to burn some burn cards and finish some non-titan challenges). CTF, nope, pilot hunter, meh, etc.

// saw some Criterion news the other day, damn, it's been forever since a real Burnout game came out (Paradise doesn't count).
 
2014-07-11 12:08:37 AM  

lordargent: omeganuepsilon: The thing is, with more playlists, there's less of a player pool to draw from.

Without giving people playlists that cater to their personal preferences, you won't have a player pool to draw from in the first place (that's part of what happened with 4. No team snipers or team swat at the outset == lots of people didn't even bother).


Well yea, you can't just have one playlist.

But you don't need 47 of them either, and then a hardcore version of each, and then add a *quickplay* playlist with less waiting times between matches of a handfull of other games to "solve" the waiting times.  Those 100 people total in the bottom 5 playlists were not worth the effort to maintain and balance the playlists, not when TDM / CTF constitute 80% of the regular players.

TDM, CTF/objectives, Hardcore/No shields(ie a swat/snipers playlist), maybe a rockets / cqc, and a novelty one for the Infection/grifball and other insanity.

Bungie knew what it would do when people started whining for any/every playlist on the forum, everyone was warned.  They did it anyways because they cave easily.  Others yet came on a week by week basis or such, a rotation to give those playlists but not have a million playlists each with a handfull of players.

IMO, the better way would be to allow a sort of mode where it's something like a ded server combined with a private match(but you pick from default gametypes to put a limit on boosting), a floating player made playlist that needs no maintenance or balancing.  However you manage it behind the scenes, allow XP at say, 1/4 rate.

Have your 7-10 normal playlists, and let people make joinable games where it's less competitive yet less of a reward.

I'd have loved a rockets/heavies playlist even at reduced xp.(played the hell out of them on Halo PC), but they came around once in a blue moon.

I'm not complaining, just stating that there is a reason those playlists didn't exist on a full time basis.

Halo's multilayer problem is that it expanded itself into irrelevancy.  Online numbers quickly dwindled because of rapid/drastic changes from game to game on top of what I mentioned above.
 
2014-07-11 02:50:37 AM  
yves0010:I used one FPS that has been acknowledged as one of the best console FPS in history. Goldeneye 64 as a reference point. And it works as at the time, it was still a fresh game at the time. With Perfect Dark being a game built on Goldeneye 64. Leaving out PC FPS, but in this case I would use it as I played the PC version of Halo 1 all the way through the story, So I placed it against games like Half Life and Quake as well.  As I mentioned earlier, the multiplayer had a feel of Goldeneye 64 which is very pleasant. But the story felt very lacking. And I usually rate games on their stories over multiplayer any day (unless its a pure multiplayer game like MAG on the PS3). That is why I rated it as average as best.

Allow me to add that I did give it a chance and it just did not click with me. So a rating of average means I would play with friends but I would not play it on a regular basis outside of a play through of the story.  I think I ranked a total of 50 hours between single player and multiplayer between my PC version and my friends X-Box version. Compare that to some of the other games I placed hundreds of hours in (Battlefield series, Wolfenstein, DOOM and Killzone for examples).


I think thats a good explanation of your feelings and at least I can make sense of it now.

That said...
Goldeneye 007 was 4 years old at the point that Halo 1 came out. Goldeneye was basically the one of the last and best of the 'old' FPS shooter where you could hold as many weapons as you could find, players took a very large amount of bullets to kill, multiplayer was basically deathmatch or team deathmatch, and health packs were the only way to regain your life. Goldeneye wasn't anything new, but it did it very well. It was also my fav FPS before Halo came along.

Halo gave us the 'two' weapon system, the sheild/health combo, players still took a while to die but for other reasons than they could eat a lotta bullets, better multiplayer maps and game types, among many other things. Much of it had been done a little bit but Halo was the first to put it together so damn well and in one package.

Halo didn't come out on the PC until 2003, which was 2 years later, and it was a crappy port. I played both and after playing on Xbox for so long, I couldnt even stand the PC version. There is a reason all the Halos havent been ported over to Windows and it isn't because they don't want to do it. Halo's speed is meant for a console controller. People running and jumping are extremely slow which is fine when you have to use a joystick to aim. When people are that slow using a mouse, it just feels dumb.

It just reminds me of when people say FF7 wasn't that great because they didn't play it when it actually came out and tell me what crappy graphics it had.
 
2014-07-11 08:57:47 AM  

Truncks1: I think thats a good explanation of your feelings and at least I can make sense of it now.

That said...
Goldeneye 007 was 4 years old at the point that Halo 1 came out. Goldeneye was basically the one of the last and best of the 'old' FPS shooter where you could hold as many weapons as you could find, players took a very large amount of bullets to kill, multiplayer was basically deathmatch or team deathmatch, and health packs were the only way to regain your life. Goldeneye wasn't anything new, but it did it very well. It was also my fav FPS before Halo came along.

Halo gave us the 'two' weapon system, the sheild/health combo, players still took a while to die but for other reasons than they could eat a lotta bullets, better multiplayer maps and game types, among many other things. Much of it had been done a little bit but Halo was the first to put it together so damn well and in one package.

Halo didn't come out on the PC until 2003, which was 2 years later, and it was a crappy port. I played both and after playing on Xbox for so long, I couldnt even stand the PC version. There is a reason all the Halos havent been ported over to Windows and it isn't because they don't want to do it. Halo's speed is meant for a console controller. People running and jumping are extremely slow which is fine when you have to use a joystick to aim. When people are that slow using a mouse, it just feels dumb.

It just reminds me of when people say FF7 wasn't that great because they didn't play it when it actually came out and tell me what crappy graphics it had.


I actually played it more on the X-Box while in school due to everyone bringing their system in and the game. So I think I have a little more play time on the console version then my PC version. And I think the idea of having 2 weapons, a primary and a side arm, has been around for a while. But I can not be 100% sure on that. I think it was mainly based on FPS games with a class system more then anything, example is the Battlefield series. But I never really considered Halo as the greatest FPS of all time, much to the anger of Halo fanboys. I reserved that title for the few FPS's that deserve said title that really felt like it changed the game. Wolfenstein, DOOM and Quake are among the list of greatest along with Half-Life and Goldeneye 64. Since then, I really do not think there has been an addition to the list in a while. Most just copy each other with very few "new additions" to the field. Although I would argue MAG came close as it was a lot of fun getting caught in what felt like an actual battlefield on scale of size and people, largest battle had 256 players in it.

But the reason I have not really added to the list is because I have not really been into FPS's for some time. I lean more towards RPGs and Action / Adventure games more now. I only have 3 FPS on the PS4: Killzone, Battlefield and Wolfenstein. Although, now that I think about it, Borderlands might be added onto that list for pure fun and excitement. But thats another argument for another day.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report