> > Canon should never come before gameplay and aesthetic design, especially with such a trivial issue as weapon model designation. The MA5B remake right now is ripped straight from Halo 3 and as has been illustrated already, poorly so. The pistol is also identical to the Halo 3 model currently beyond new textures. Is this what you want to spend money on? Because those assets have currently undergone zero improvements since Halo 3, a game released in 2007. The more information that comes out concerning Anniversary, the more it appears to be a cheap cash-in.
> It’s a remake of Halo 1 with better graphics, it’s not a reimagination, they must stick to what they already have. If not, they’ll piss off people who like Combat Evolved as well.
> And is an assault rifle’s design so important?
Just to make sure you understand, the current models for the Assault Rifle and Pistol in the trailer are actually directly ripped from Halo 3. The Assault Rifle as was illustrated earlier has been ripped from the wrong person perspective (third person as compared to the first person), lending to its even less detailed than normal look. The Pistol is identical to the Halo 3 Magnum in its model and has only been retextured as of now. These are models that were made pre-2007 being inserted into a game scheduled for a 2011 release.
To further drive home my point, the largest change for this release is that the game is being graphically redone and updated. How can you call this an update or blame the new graphics engine for using a model from Halo 3? If we want to be really technical, the model in Halo 3 is actually a different canonical designation than the one from Halo: CE; so is the Magnum model they’re using. But again, keep this in mind: They are using models directly ripped from Halo 3; models that are years old at this point and of the wrong designation (this eliminates canon being important) for a game that is focusing primarily on improving visuals.
Does the cash-in value of this game strike you yet?