Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Halo: Reach


Doc Holiday

Recommended Posts

Am I the only one who thinks Halo is overrated and boring now?

depends who you talk to, I'm still a pretty big fan of the series(hence the starting a topic about it). Military sims are very popular atm but IMO that's more of a fad.

but if that's your opinion watch the vid and tell me if you still think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depends who you talk to, I'm still a pretty big fan of the series(hence the starting a topic about it). Military sims are very popular atm but IMO that's more of a fad.

but if that's your opinion watch the vid and tell me if you still think that.

I watched it, and I'm not impressed at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of like how Mass Effect is the best trilogy of all time. Halo is probably the worst. I'd probably like it more if I had never played any PC shooters and was 10 when the original released.

I'm sorry I love both Mass Effect and Halo but would never compare the two, they may both be sci-fi but that's where the similarities end.

For example nobody played Mass Effect 1 because on the combat but Mass Effect 2's combat is outstanding, and one of the best things about Halo is the Co-op and multiplayer modes, halo 3 is still to this day my favorite co-op game of all time and that's something a lot of people forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant as a complete work, not comparing how the two games play. The only reason anybody cared about Halo from the get go, was that it was the first one to do PC shooter on a console and do it right. Then came along CoD and GoW and they're better, so not many people care about Halo, which still feels the same as Halo 1/2.

I've played them all, and they still call it "the trilogy", even though this will be the fifth game. It's a cash cow, and nothing more. Bungie is not a good developer. They made one game, and they won't stop making it.

And btw, I bitch about what I know I don't like because I get some kind of enjoyment out of hating bad games/movies/etc. Pretty much the reason why I rented Dante's Inferno. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant as a complete work, not comparing how the two games play. The only reason anybody cared about Halo from the get go, was that it was the first one to do PC shooter on a console and do it right. Then came along CoD and GoW and they're better, so not many people care about Halo, which still feels the same as Halo 1/2.

I've played them all, and they still call it "the trilogy", even though this will be the fifth game. It's a cash cow, and nothing more. Bungie is not a good developer. They made one game, and they won't stop making it.

And btw, I bitch about what I know I don't like because I get some kind of enjoyment out of hating bad games/movies/etc. Pretty much the reason why I rented Dante's Inferno. :lol:

odst was an expansion pack and halo wars was almost a different game all together(not to mention the best strategy game released to date on a console) so it's still a trilogy ATM and honestly I consider bungie a far better developer then infinity ward and you want to know why? I've never stopped playing any halo game because of glitches mw2 was near unplayable until the last patch came out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

odst was an expansion pack and halo wars was almost a different game all together(not to mention the best strategy game released to date on a console) so it's still a trilogy ATM and honestly I consider bungie a far better developer then infinity ward and you want to know why? I've never stopped playing any halo game because of glitches mw2 was near unplayable until the last patch came out.

How so? I've played thousands of matches and only ran across a glitch ONCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...