theacidskull's forum posts

Avatar image for theacidskull
#1 Posted by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for theacidskull
#2 Posted by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

Geralt would win against all live-action versions. This is someone who duels monsters twice his size on a regular basis, not to mention that he's fought against hordes enemies, both human or otherwise.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#3 Posted by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

I can dig it. Hopefully the removal of "she" implies some new found savagery for Jen. I mean, makes sense, given the recent events and everything.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#4 Edited by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

Lois is a apathetic bitch who cares about no one but herself. Peter's just a sad idiot who causes horrible chaos and destruction and pays no real price for it. You can argue that Homer is an asshole too, but he's at least a likeable character, and when push comes to shove he really does love his family, even his son bart.

I'd say Chris is sort of useless....but then again his sudden "dark side" moments and bursts of awareness and intelligence is very entertaining. As for Meg, I've never found her bullying funny, but as a character she's far better off then the others.

The best characters are probably Stewie and brain (with the former taking the lead), especially when together. Yeah, Brain's an egotistical prick, but he sort of always gets his comeuppance because of it, usually by stewie's hand, which is why they work so well together. Like when Stewie smashed Brian's fake "glasses" while he was wearing it with a baseball bat and proceeded to nonchalantly tell him when they were having dinner.

At any rate family guy has become a horrible show, mostly because it lacks any authentic portrayal of the characters. I've seen plenty of films, shows, etc with shitty ass characters but they way they were presented made them likable. Stewie would be a good example of an authentically presented character, sadly he's in the minority when it comes to family guy.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#5 Edited by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't ever recall will smith playing anything remotely similar to Frank Castle, so no.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#6 Posted by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

@theacidskull: I honestly have given up on Halo in my eyes 343 is just too incompetent and too full pride to actually see that these new ideas and concepts. That they're implementing into Halo are actually ruining it, all they have to make a good Halo game is take what worked in the past ones and put in the new ones, while adding a few new things and most importantly listening to the fans. Just look at CSGO it make a complete 360 in quality to how it was when it first launched, and I know lot of people bash COD on being the same every year. But it follows a good philosophy if it ain't broke don't fix it, a philosophy that 343 needs to adopt quickly before Halo is completely dead if it isn't already.

COD is a bad example to be quite honest. In fact the original developers were planning on some serious innovations, but then, for reasons I can't exactly remember, they left the franchise and started developing titanfall, which, despite the story, or lack there of it, had some unique and interesting gameplay elements. So COD was supposed to become like titanfall, but that never came to pass.

Sadly what we have now of COD is a pathetic excuse for a video game. I'm not jumping on the hate bandwagon, in fact I keep occasionally giving it a chance but it's just so unremarkable I can barely keep with it. It's not even a bad game, just painfully bland. The saying "if it's not broke don't fix it" doesn't really work if other developers and designers come up with a better product. The expression only ever works if you're the best in the business, which at one point COD was, however the game is seriously passed it's prime.

Though what developers fail to understand when something works, you don't have to scrap it entirely and start from scratch, you need to build on what you have. So yeah, I'm all for bringing back the classic Halo formula, but keeping it the same for 100 games won't really amount to anything.

That said, the gameplay wasn't the issue for me, honestly. The Multiplayer was pretty fantastic given how much they've changed, it was the story and campaign experience that they botched for me. Plus the removal of split screen really takes away from why Halo was so fun in the first place. For me at least, the charm lied in the fact that me and a friend of mine could reminisce about "that one time when we..." did so and so during one of our many game sessions.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#7 Posted by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

I feel this has something to do with the whole case with Mary Jane.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#8 Posted by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

@frozen said:

@theacidskull: I have no idea how 343 managed to fudge up so badly, it must have been in the writer change. Halo 4's story set up a few key character points that could have been developed upon greatly - in Halo 4, for the first time in a Halo game, we finally saw Chief's vulnerability and humanity. So if Halo 5 saw Chief actually going AWOL against ONI, then that would have actually been solid progression. Throughout most of the Halo games he is just a soldier taking missions, but in the books and Halo 4 we see him question his orders. Halo 5 barely touched upon this, and chose not to develop Chief's character like Halo 4 did, which left me so disappointed.

I could write several paragraphs on why the story for Halo 5 was terrible, but I think I've stressed my points enough. Hopefully Halo 6 can rectify these mistakes. 343 listened to fans when it came to multiplayer and massively improved upon Halo 4's pathetic multiplayer, so now that they've gotten the multiplayer right, all they need to do is listen to fans about the story. Eric Nylund should be on the writing team IMO.

It's not even the fact that the messed up the story, none of the elements presented in the trailers were even utilised during the game. The way the commercials painted the game, it made me genuinely think that this would have been the most morally conflicting Halo to date, which would have been an interesting direction from the black and white "humans vs aliens and parasites" storyline.

Locke was supposed to be the source of this conflict, he was supposed to be the key to the grey area 343 advertised, instead, he was a typical soldier with no memorable character traits. His only moment worth of a highlight is when he punched chief a couple of times and then got his ass handed to him. That's it.

343 really need to get their head in the game, considering that there are dozens of shooters taking far greater risks with their gameplay and story-telling (COD not included obviously), while others are reinventing certain old experiences for the new generation. DOOM would be a great example of this, so Halo needs to hit a serious mark with 6 otherwise it'll slip deeper into the rabbit hole and slowly become just another shooter, if it hasn't already.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#9 Edited by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm ashamed to say that I nearly teared up after reading the fallen, and hopefully Banner's death will be kept intact long enough for him to come back in full blazing glory, WITHOUT the involvement of Bendis.

And and it seems Banner's death is setting cho in a much more Hulk oriented direction. Acting as his drive, of sort. Also, it seems that even without his gamma powers, Skaar is still a serious force to be reckoned with.

Avatar image for theacidskull
#10 Posted by theacidskull (21570 posts) - - Show Bio

@frozen said:

Halo 3. It is a masterpiece of modern gaming, so is Halo 2; but I think Halo 3's epic scale and satisfying conclusion just edge it.

@static_shock said:

Gameplay-wise, probably Halo 3.

Universal opinion says Halo 2, though.

Halo: Reach was probably my favorite.

Does it really though? Both Halo 2 and Halo 3 are acclaimed games, whenever I see comparisons between the two it usually seems pretty even. I think though that the oldest Halo fans (who were old enough to follow it clearly since CE) usually choose Halo 2, whereas people who were late teens around the time of Halo 3 choose Halo 3 over Halo 2. Both are great games IMO.

Reach has the most addictive multiplayer for me, a few games on BTB and I amhooked.

@theacidskull said:

Story-wise I'd argue Halo 2, followed by 3. They are objectively the best.

My favourite Halo game will always be Reach. My experience with it was by far the best. I've never had as much fun with any other multiplayer, even outside of the FPS genre. I haven't played in 3 years, but all I know is that I still remember the endless all-nighters me and my friend pulled back in high school playing online.

Though there is something I want to address here.

Technically, as a game, Halo 5's Multiplayer is still pretty sweet, at least when I'm bored, it kills time. But honestly it hardly holds any fond memories for me because they literally killed the one component that made Halo stand out, which was the split screen. Even though objectively Halo 5 is better than Halo 4, I might still recall the latter more fondly because I got to experience it with someone else. Halo's online matches were always a team effort, without it, it doesn't really hold much significance to me.

Halo 5 has a good multiplayer but I find the maps to be really uninspiring. Some of the DLC maps are cool. The Halo 5 campaign was awful though, I think it has the worst Halo story by far.

Agreed. And to think I was so hyped...

The story is what makes me come back, and they basically butchered the great premise they had.