Halo 4 Review

I have been a long time fan of the Halo series, and every one has been a slam dunk...except for the newest title, and maybe the forgotten Halo Wars. Don't get me wrong, Halo 4 is a great game and deserves the acclaim that it has garnered, but it isn't the ground breaking next installment of a game that always outdoes its predecessors.

Let us start with a little history. Halo: Combat Evolved was so revolutionary in the scope of the world and the fluid feeling of the games controls. The vehicles controls were smooth. The bad guys, though always in the same place could be fought in many different ways and seemed intelligent. The good guys were useful. The graphics were some of the best ever seen. The story was epic and not as predictable as others.

Halo 2 lived up to the hype as well. The campaign picked up where Master Chief left off in the first installment and the epic story continued. The biggest change to the game that kept people hooked to Halo 2 was the online multiplayer. No longer did friends have to connect four Xbox consoles together to be able to have chaotic 16 player wars. It was a real game changer. The title also boasted new lighting effects, guns, dual wielding, and baddies. It would be the last of the series to be designed for the Xbox.

Halo 3, the last of the first trilogy was, again, a major step up from the last title. It was on the new 360 system which allowed higher graphics, better performance and all the other capabilities nobody really cares about when I'm writing about Halo. It was just great. The multiplayer maps were large, the physics just felt great and the graphics were to die for. Players could play for days online for the next unlock and not realize it.

The next release in the first person shooter series was Halo: ODST. Nothing big changed with this game, in fact it was a stand alone expansion of the previous title. It was still worthwhile because you got to see the Covenant in the eyes of an Orbital Drop Shock Trooper. The players abilities in the campaign, though still seeming more than human, were much less powerful in comparison to Master Chief. Sneaking around was important for the weaker protagonist when compared to Master Chief always jumping in, guns blazing. The player also had a totally different hub, and planning routes played a role in the game.

Following ODST was the release of Halo Reach. Which was in reality a granny step up from the previous titles, but again the campaign was grand, focusing on a doomed planet, and for the first time the player gets to join other Spartans in the quest to destroy the Covenant. Improvements to the multiplayer helped level the playing field, and make it more enjoyable for players who had less skill. This title still rode the epic wave that Bungie created when it released the first title. It would be their last title.

As Bungie exited the Halo franchise, 343 Industries entered. Responsible for the 10th anniversary release of Halo: Combat Evolved, 343 Industries showed much promise polishing and updating the original title. New maps were released, new firefight locations were released. It was completely addicting, just as past titles were.

Halo 4 falls short of what was expected in the newest installment in all areas. Though it introduces new baddies, guns, vehicles and multiplayer functions, some of the most fun aspects of the Halo series are missing. The campaign, though good, seems to be less epic than past titles and some areas don't seem finished. The initial map, as an example, out of nowhere, throws Crysis/Call of Duty button pushing to climb, then immediately makes the player sidestep to climb again. It was just awkward and took me two minutes hanging in the shaft to figure out I needed to side step. The vehicles didn't seem as fluid. The enemies weren't a step up in intelligence as I expected. The grunts didn't look..right, and the campaign just seemed to end out of nowhere.

After ending the campaign feeling half fulfilled, I jumped into the life sucking, addicting multiplayer...or so I thought. After playing an hour or so of team battles, free for all, and other game modes I came to realize that I missed armor lock and some of the other abilities. The maps are large, competitive, and fun, but they don't have a new feeling. It has a digressed, re hashed feeling, with a few changed toys. The loadouts are an interesting addition, but it hinders beginning players. It's more reminiscent of Call of Duty. The shield and sentry are useful, but nowhere near as fun as the older armor abilities. It creates a frustrating gap between seasoned high ranking Reach players that waited to buy Halo 4, and the guys that bought Halo 4 the first night and played for a week without sleeping.
Getting frustrated with trying to build a loadout, I switched to the replacement for firefight, Spartan Ops. It is an interesting twist on firefight, but more than five levels should have been released with the title. Though 343 says more are coming, it is frustrating not being able to build, customize, or randomize firefight as in past titles. You are given what they give you.

Resistance to change and overfed expectations are the death of the "WOW" factor. That is pretty much what happened in this case. The ability for Bungie to create such great games, the ability for 343 Industries to polish old titles up so well and design great multiplayer maps, and the weekly release of the live action videos brought great expectations of an EPIC next installment. Though not the epic Halo title that I expected it is still good, and worth buying. My opinion of the campaign will stand, but as time goes on, and new miltiplayer content is added, I will most likely forget my favorite aspects of the past titles, and grow to love the change that 343 brought to the Halo franchise.

I give it an 8/10

Gun Picks for Preppers.

Gun choices for the prepping type is a highly debated topic on the forums. With this said, I'm sure someone will argue with me over these picks. Before you argue though consider the logic following the decision.

Here is my breakdown of what people should consider for their arsenal based on the situation and the uses for each gun.

For the rural household planning on bugging in.-

1- A medium range semi-automatic rifle should be the first gun added to the collection. Some of the choices include the popular AK-47 rifles and their variants, and AR-15 variants. I personally own a Smith and Wesson M&P-15 MOE Edition(about $1200 out the door). Its not the current version that is offered in 2012 and I hunted for it for about three months before I tracked down an older version of the gun. The reasoning behind this was because the new version doesn't have a chromed bore, which increases the durability as round after round is fired quickly. Non-chromed barrel bores initially have a slightly higher accuracy, but as hundreds of rounds pass through the barrel it degrades and hurts overall accuracy. This is particularly true when firing quickly and getting the barrel smoking hot.

2- A 12ga shotgun.I would recommend a Remington 870. It isn't expensive and there are a lot of modifications than can be done to the gun. I personally own an older, but like new Savage 5 shot pump action that was picked up for a steal at a gun show. Another option would be a Sagia 12 because it is semi-automatic and can get alot of shot downrange quickly. About any pump gun around $300+ ought to do the trick.

3- A long range, accurate scoped rifle. The Remington 700 is a hands down choice here. It is the best quality, most accurate, out of the box bolt action rifle you can buy for under $1000 dollars. Another good choice would be the Springfield Armory M1. It is more expensive, over $1000 but the difference is worth it because its semi automatic. These guns should be of a larger caliber than the medium range gun. I would say a .308 is a good choice. My current long gun is a Mosin-Nagant M91-30. Its not my primary choice, but at $80 for a good quality gun and super cheap high power ammo, it will work till I buy one of the rifles mentioned before.

4- A side arm. Any good pistol can fit into this category. I bought a .40 S&W Sigma last year, and it seems to be a popular choice around central ohio. Glock like, without the Glock price.

5- A good .22LR like the Ruger 10/22. Not really meant as a defense gun, but it is good for hunting small game and practicing without killing your wallet.

For those bugging out-

The point is to pack to save weight and you have to balance protection against supplies.

1- A lightweight rifle that can be carried long distances such as an AR-15 or AK.

2- A side arm.

3- If you are big and strong and can deal with the extra few pounds I would recommend a AR-7 survival rifle for hunting small game.


Another thing to be concerned with is ammunition. For those defending their home, you can never have too much ammo. The worst thing in a SHTF moment is lack of bullets. Chances are your life will depends on outgunning raiders/zombies/Russians or other bad guys. Try to coordinate your arsenal if you have multiple weapons. Having to try to buy 20 different types of ammo for 20 different guns is tedious and expensive. Keeping your guns fed with common ammo will help amass a large arsenal. .223, 12ga, 9mm, .308, 40S&W and many other common examples are good choices.
Something else to think of when buying ammo is that you are buying something that can be traded VERY easily when SHTF. I would rather have 1000 common rounds than an ounce of gold.

Headline 11/13/2012

Obama's first meeting about the fiscal cliff not bipartisan.

Leaders from the teachers union, AFL-CIO, SEIU, Center for American Progress all attending. Where is the congressional reps? Instead of inviting your cronies work with your actual co-workers.

Foreign Newspaper Election Revelation

Before the election a point was made that was noteworthy. The funny thing is that this wasn't a point made domestically. It was made by a foreign newspaper.

Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung on Barack Obama…
October 28, 2011

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince."

"The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Their point is well made and really makes me think. It is closely associated with something that I learned of the other day about some precincts voting results. Obama won 9 precincts in Cleveland and 59 precincts in Philly unanimously, not one vote for Romney....hmm. I think I would have better luck throwing a tennis ball through a brick wall than something like that ever happening. 

"The Prince of Fools" isn't at fault for our problems, the American population that votes for a "Santa Clause" life is.