Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CarloOos

  1. 3 hours ago, Boothjan said:

    Been chipping away at the campaign - got enough valor to unlock the Wasp - so mopping up the spartan crates etc is so much easier.


    I think I'm approaching the start of the section that appears to have caused so much criticism - I've done the 4 beacons.


    I absolutely love the open world and liberating UNSC troops/FOBs etc etc - I really do hope I enjoy the section ahead of me....

    If you’re going in expecting the worst, you’ll probably find it fine. That specific section isn’t too long, about an hour if you take it slow. You do get immediately funnelled into the next few levels but they’re much more entertaining.

  2. You’re not guaranteed to die on the EMMI’s, they aren’t trial and error. Once I figured out how the first couple worked I rarely died on the rest. There’s almost always a circular route around any EMMI section so you can retreat and loop back around to where you were going, and even if you do get cornered there’s a literal invisibility button which stops them from looking for you.

    They’re well designed encounters so long as you use your tools and observe your surroundings rather than banging your head running into them repeatedly.

  3. 14 minutes ago, Zio said:


    Really though? A lot of people seem to really like this movie. Does it's existence somehow ruin the original for you?

    Not at all, but it doesn’t enhance or compliment it in any way either. 

    I think all the back-and-forth over this page has been misconstrued, I don’t hate this film, I just think it’s a load of nothing which will be swiftly forgotten about. I only piped up because I found the suggestion that the haters were actually entitled Ghostbusters fans absurd. It’s a glorified fan film, all the self-confessed Ghostbusters fanboys in this thread loved it. 

    Prior to the toxic reaction to Answer The Call I didn’t even realise Ghostbusters fandom was a thing. 

  4. 1 hour ago, schmojo said:


    Is the original Ghostbusters 'brilliant', or do you 'not have any great emotional attachment' to it and see Afterlife as 'a film in its own right'?

    These aren’t mutually exclusive, the original Ghostbusters is a good film which was a victim of its own success. The reason the original works is because it’s actually a blue collar satire about a con-man who launches a pest-control business for ghosts, with the joke being that the ghosts actually end up being real. It’s a silly film which actively takes the piss out of itself, a joke that only works once, like any number of other 80s comedies.

    Bill Murray was right all along, they should have left it there.

  5. 5 minutes ago, Thor said:

    @CarloOos It's pretty clear from your posts that you were never going to like this film.


    Well no, I’ve already said the film was quite good until the third act, but that third act ruins the whole lot. Everything from the supermarket scene onwards is a supremely shoddy exercise in rehashing things regardless of whether they make any thematic sense. 

  6. I’m still not sure where you’re getting that from. The people who were most toxic about Ghostbusters 2016 generally love Afterlife because it has the appropriate amount of fan pandering (‘affection’).


    The people who don’t rate Afterlife are almost entirely those without have any great emotional attachment to Ghostbusters, viewing it as a film in its own right.

  7. 1 hour ago, schmojo said:


    Not at all. Whilst it's a great companion piece to the first, and made with tons of affection for it, you just have to see where the praise is coming from (basically all demographics), and where the criticism is coming from (the 40+ audience of Ghostbusters nerds). You don't make a film for that particular audience with women and children as leads, because they're vociferous about not liking that.

    You see ‘tons of affection,’ I see total cynicism from a studio with whiplash from their last attempt to exhume this corpse and a director whose last four films flopped. You can tell where Reitman’s strengths lie because the coming of age stuff in the first half is actually pretty good, but the second half is so absurdly forced it retroactively derails everything for the sake of a few callbacks to a film that was never designed to hold any reverence.

  8. On 08/01/2022 at 10:27, schmojo said:


    I feel like most of the people who didn't like it will quickly realise that it wasn't made for them. And that's fine. The 40+ male audience of Star Wars/Ghostbusters fans are not the golden goose demographic they believe themselves to be.


    You’ve got this completely backwards, that 40+ audience of Ghostbusters nerds is exactly who this was made for. The people reacting with bemusement are those who (correctly) see Ghostbusters as a brilliantly irreverent one-off satire which has been bizarrely deified by people who can’t let go of a cartoon that finished in the 80s.

  9. 2 hours ago, K said:

    I would probably say it was dropped because it sounded awful, and the game is hard enough as it is without Johnny Griefer being airdropped in to fuck up your shit. 

    What were the ‘special’ enemies that popped up during the campaign occasionally? They’d be highlighted like a Dark Souls invader and they wouldn’t appear if you redid a checkpoint. I always presumed they were players but couldn’t figure out where they were coming from.

  10. 33 minutes ago, Flanders said:

    Standard Brutes and even worse, Elites, have been completely nerfed - the only Elites in the game that are any kind of threats are the ones with cloaks and loads of extra health. The perfect dance of the Bungie Halos, where on higher difficulties a single standard Elite was a dangerous opponent because it fundamentally had the same abilities as the player, has gone. The grapple absolutely kills it.

    I adore the purity of CE but the Halo dance hasn’t been like this since Halo 2, where dual wielding allowed you to rush Elites by out-gunning them and the addition of the battle rifle changed the focus of combat from a close range battle of attrition to popping headshots from a distance. After that there’s no Elites at all until Reach, at which point they’d already started adding super powered ones that can shrug off sticky grenades and rocket launcher hits. If anything the power of the player has been brought back in-line with the strength of the enemies. 

    I wouldn’t be averse to an ODST-style scenario with a nerfed character though. Re-use the map, set it during the missing six months or something. 

  11. I really struggled with the gondola bit at first but if you tap the sentinel beam like a pistol it zaps them in two bursts. And to be fair, those weird baby things are so close to sentinels that I’m not sure why they were introduced. They’re just sentinels with guns. Hope that’s not a taste of whatever they had planned for ‘The Endless’.

  12. 16 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

    I don't see where these comments about it being better than previous games are coming from. The mission where you fight nothing but Sentinels, the most boring enemy, in the same corridors for an hour and half has to be the worst mission out of the whole Halo franchise, right? What's worse? At least Cortana in H3 had a unique environment and more enemy variety. At least the Library had some sense of scale to it. And most of the other missions aren't much better - where would you rate the Conservatory against missions from the old games? The Foundation? The Spire? It's all proper bottom tier.


    The open world is fun until the fatigue at the lack of enemy and world variety sets in I guess, when they said it was going to be the second mission of Halo applied to the whole game I didn't think they meant it literally.

    You’ve said this twice now, but you’ve literally made it up. There’s no mission in the game where you fight nothing but sentinels for 90 minutes. The level you’re talking about is nowhere near that long and has a single room (the gondola section) where you fight sentinels on their own. It’s barely 5 minutes long. The rest of the time you’re fighting a mix of Sentinels and Banished as usual. 

  13. They could definitely refine their approach to open world design by placing a much larger emphasis on things catching the player’s eye on the horizon, prompting organic discovery. You should be able to spot the marine’s distress flares from miles away, but they’re far too small and the geography too cluttered to see anything until you’re right on top of them. Likewise the beacons, it would have been more fun to follow the blue trails into the sky rather than having them marked on the map. Ingredients are all there, but they’d benefit from a more nuanced approach. I expect this is closer to how the original ‘Halo of the Wild’ pitch looked. 

    Just adding a basic ‘fog of war’ to the map would probably go a long way. 

  14. It’s a 7/10 campaign with a 10/10 combat loop, but being glib about that combat does it a massive disservice. It’s not just a recreation of CE nor of 3/ODST/Reach, it’s much faster and more aggressive. The only other single player FPS doing anything half as good as this mechanically is Doom Eternal, and that’s a very different beast.  

    It’s clearly rushed and I wish it had a few grander set-piece moments, but ultimately Halo 5 was a much nicer looking game made up almost entirely of those grand set-piece moments and it still fucking sucked, because that loop was no good. They’ve focused on what actually matters this time, which is why people keep saying it’s a good base to build on. 

    It’s the polar opposite of something like Far Cry 5 which, for all its polish and content, I barely played for five hours.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.