Forums / Games / Halo: Spartan Strike

will there be another?

OP TriedCrowd418

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
What? Spartan Strike was much better than Assault... Much more innovation and UI ease.
What? Spartan Strike was much better than Assault... Much more innovation and UI ease.
Much more stuff - correct, though SpartanAssault felt like aiming towards what is essential rather than aiming towards plenty of stuff that this way or the other boils down to some of them repeating the function of another.

Better UI - arguable, but the pause button in the top down middle of the screen in SpartanAssault was indeed misplaced. In the Strike it was top left corner, which also from time to time collided with aiming, which generally hint towards making the pause button removable entirely in the game main options. Main menu, coins system, general frame aesthetics - Assault is the winner. The Strike is more minimalistic, it has the style of own but fails compared to the predecessor emerging simply empoverished rather than stylish, which means it could perhaps have been done better.

Level design - big, big down is the SpartanStrike here compared to the Assault. Levels are more bleak, recycled over and over, much less detailed. Assault was less rich in functions abundance but what was included in that game was given a lot of attention and thought.

I conclude that Strike looks like a quite well done fandom creation - a mod - based on the Assault engine rather than a legit Microsoft game, taking how empoverished in quality it looks overall.

In terms of story, even though Assault at least looked like it had a professionally developed one instead of a mod-level something that was presented in the Strike, the Strike felt more welcoming, since what was given in Assault seemed like some historical ramble that made no sense to follow, just to have a reason for a shootout.

But, the enemies and the units diversity - the Strike is the winner here, hands down, the diversity of enemies is much better in the sequel and I found it great fun to fight Prometheans.

I may be dull but I dislike "funny" foes like Grunts, it feels like a waste of time combating them, but they are good for pumping up score.

Maybe the AI was better in the Strike I suppose.

When it comes to vehicle controls, I am rather for consistency than making a separate way for every vehicle, which simply spoils the flow. I say vehicle control is flawed in both games comparably.

Turrets shooting indefinitely in the Strike instead of overheating like in the Assault? Dood, WTF? I would even go as far as saying the vehicles should also overheat if abused in firepower.
What? Spartan Strike was much better than Assault... Much more innovation and UI ease.
yeah, strike was definitely the superior of the two. and from what I read, it was more well received than assault
What? Spartan Strike was much better than Assault... Much more innovation and UI ease.
yeah, strike was definitely the superior of the two. and from what I read, it was more well received than assault
Well, you cannot discuss with the statistics. People say it is better, it is better for the people - when people is money and money is what it is all about - but still in a cameral talk one can give reasons why on a second thought the original could be appreciated above the sequel, even if without any further purpose, just for the sake of intellectual exercise. But I really felt like turrets devoid of overheating was a dumbing down element.
What? Spartan Strike was much better than Assault... Much more innovation and UI ease.
Much more stuff - correct, though SpartanAssault felt like aiming towards what is essential rather than aiming towards plenty of stuff that this way or the other boils down to some of them repeating the function of another.

Better UI - arguable, but the pause button in the top down middle of the screen in SpartanAssault was indeed misplaced. In the Strike it was top left corner, which also from time to time collided with aiming, which generally hint towards making the pause button removable entirely in the game main options. Main menu, coins system, general frame aesthetics - Assault is the winner. The Strike is more minimalistic, it has the style of own but fails compared to the predecessor emerging simply empoverished rather than stylish, which means it could perhaps have been done better.

Level design - big, big down is the SpartanStrike here compared to the Assault. Levels are more bleak, recycled over and over, much less detailed. Assault was less rich in functions abundance but what was included in that game was given a lot of attention and thought.

I conclude that Strike looks like a quite well done fandom creation - a mod - based on the Assault engine rather than a legit Microsoft game, taking how empoverished in quality it looks overall.

In terms of story, even though Assault at least looked like it had a professionally developed one instead of a mod-level something that was presented in the Strike, the Strike felt more welcoming, since what was given in Assault seemed like some historical ramble that made no sense to follow, just to have a reason for a shootout.

But, the enemies and the units diversity - the Strike is the winner here, hands down, the diversity of enemies is much better in the sequel and I found it great fun to fight Prometheans.

I may be dull but I dislike "funny" foes like Grunts, it feels like a waste of time combating them, but they are good for pumping up score.

Maybe the AI was better in the Strike I suppose.

When it comes to vehicle controls, I am rather for consistency than making a separate way for every vehicle, which simply spoils the flow. I say vehicle control is flawed in both games comparably.

Turrets shooting indefinitely in the Strike instead of overheating like in the Assault? Dood, WTF? I would even go as far as saying the vehicles should also overheat if abused in firepower.
coin system was in assault too, also turrets never overheated in assault. in strike the pause is smaller and placed in the corner, making it harder to hit by accident. in terms of quality, strike had the better quality of the two. spartan strike had more diversity in level design and style, not to mention, assault only took place in the same general area of one planet, strike was located in two places on earth and two places on delta halo. both games had the same functions. only thing different between them is the story, location, and control layout. and last time I checked strike was widely considered the better of the two by both reviewers and fans.
What? Spartan Strike was much better than Assault... Much more innovation and UI ease.
yeah, strike was definitely the superior of the two. and from what I read, it was more well received than assault
Well, you cannot discuss with the statistics. People say it is better, it is better for the people - when people is money and money is what it is all about - but still in a cameral talk one can give reasons why on a second thought the original could be appreciated above the sequel, even if without any further purpose, just for the sake of intellectual exercise. But I really felt like turrets devoid of overheating was a dumbing down element.
the turrets never over heated in assault, I know this for a fact since I played the game over and over until strike was released.
Cannot agree with your arguments TriedCrowd418 when it comes to evaluating the quality. Also I play Assault on PC and well, the observations contradict your claims when it comes to the turrets thing.

The coins system was in Strike as well, sure, but it also looked properly empoverished.

The public opinion, as I said, you cannot discuss with it, people liked the Strike more, sure, but on the other hand, does that make one mute to express own thoughts?
Cannot agree with your arguments TriedCrowd418. Also I play Assault on PC and well, the observations contradict your claims when it comes to the turrets thing.
both had their flaws. personal what I liked about strike is that it had more diverse locations and scenery, you could tell one location from the rest. however assault always had the same look everywhere you went, you can't tell if you are in a different location or not because everything blends in with each other. I also preferred strike because you consistently played as the same spartan throughout the game, unlike assault which had you playings as Palmer and Davis, not saying theres anything wrong with having two characters as halo 2 pulled it off flawlessly. but with assault it felt like the game was going "so, you are spartan Palmer, oh and theres this guy who wasn't very important but he's include anyway, but you are PALMER", seriously Davis was only in on a and one third of six levels, why introduce a playable character if you are barely be able to play as that character. also, I just opened Spartan assault to test something, guess what, turrets don't over heat in this game.
Cannot agree with your arguments TriedCrowd418. Also I play Assault on PC and well, the observations contradict your claims when it comes to the turrets thing.
both had their flaws. personal what I liked about strike is that it had more diverse locations and scenery, you could tell one location from the rest. however assault always had the same look everywhere you went, you can't tell if you are in a different location or not because everything blends in with each other. I also preferred strike because you consistently played as the same spartan throughout the game, unlike assault which had you playings as Palmer and Davis, not saying theres anything wrong with having two characters as halo 2 pulled it off flawlessly. but with assault it felt like the game was going "so, you are spartan Palmer, oh and theres this guy who wasn't very important but he's include anyway, but you are PALMER", seriously Davis was only in on a and one third of six levels, why introduce a playable character if you are barely be able to play as that character. also, I just opened Spartan assault to test something, guess what, turrets don't over heat in this game.
Strike having more diverse locations and scenery? This is exactly what I said about Assault, that it far surpasses the Strike in this regard. Maybe you mistake the titles? When it comes to zones, I think Assault was fine dividing the environments according to the game chapters, out of which one was jungle, other frost planet, third some crystal structure, other underground caves, also some wasteland and perhaps some others. I did not have any problems differentiating missions or locations.

When it comes to the story, like I said, Assault had issues but at least it kind of seemed shallow professional, but yeah, it was a mess. Strike in this matter did not even try, but it felt like a warm hole at least, so to say.
Cannot agree with your arguments TriedCrowd418. Also I play Assault on PC and well, the observations contradict your claims when it comes to the turrets thing.
both had their flaws. personal what I liked about strike is that it had more diverse locations and scenery, you could tell one location from the rest. however assault always had the same look everywhere you went, you can't tell if you are in a different location or not because everything blends in with each other. I also preferred strike because you consistently played as the same spartan throughout the game, unlike assault which had you playings as Palmer and Davis, not saying theres anything wrong with having two characters as halo 2 pulled it off flawlessly. but with assault it felt like the game was going "so, you are spartan Palmer, oh and theres this guy who wasn't very important but he's include anyway, but you are PALMER", seriously Davis was only in on a and one third of six levels, why introduce a playable character if you are barely be able to play as that character. also, I just opened Spartan assault to test something, guess what, turrets don't over heat in this game.
Strike having more diverse locations and scenery? This is exactly what I said about Assault, that it far surpasses the Strike in this regard. Maybe you mistake the titles? When it comes to zones, I think Assault was fine dividing the environments according to the game chapters, out of which one was jungle, other frost planet, third some crystal structure, other underground caves, also some wasteland and perhaps some others. I did not have any problems differentiating missions or locations.

When it comes to the story, like I said, Assault had issues but at least it kind of seemed shallow professional, but yeah, it was a mess. Strike in this matter did not even try, but it felt like a warm hole at least, so to say.
they put more effort into strike than they did assault. as for spartan assault, it felt like 90% of the game took place on that crystal planet. what I will say that assault had that I liked is the covenant as the only enemy faction in the game. now, I'm not saying that assault is a bad game, I'm just saying that strike is the better of the two. however, both lack factors of replay-ability, there is nothing to grind for or unlock, only achievements which, when you really think about it, don't serve much of a purpose.
wait... why did my spartan turn gold? and my helmet changed?
Cannot agree with your arguments TriedCrowd418. Also I play Assault on PC and well, the observations contradict your claims when it comes to the turrets thing.
both had their flaws. personal what I liked about strike is that it had more diverse locations and scenery, you could tell one location from the rest. however assault always had the same look everywhere you went, you can't tell if you are in a different location or not because everything blends in with each other. I also preferred strike because you consistently played as the same spartan throughout the game, unlike assault which had you playings as Palmer and Davis, not saying theres anything wrong with having two characters as halo 2 pulled it off flawlessly. but with assault it felt like the game was going "so, you are spartan Palmer, oh and theres this guy who wasn't very important but he's include anyway, but you are PALMER", seriously Davis was only in on a and one third of six levels, why introduce a playable character if you are barely be able to play as that character. also, I just opened Spartan assault to test something, guess what, turrets don't over heat in this game.
Strike having more diverse locations and scenery? This is exactly what I said about Assault, that it far surpasses the Strike in this regard. Maybe you mistake the titles? When it comes to zones, I think Assault was fine dividing the environments according to the game chapters, out of which one was jungle, other frost planet, third some crystal structure, other underground caves, also some wasteland and perhaps some others. I did not have any problems differentiating missions or locations.

When it comes to the story, like I said, Assault had issues but at least it kind of seemed shallow professional, but yeah, it was a mess. Strike in this matter did not even try, but it felt like a warm hole at least, so to say.
they put more effort into strike than they did assault. as for spartan assault, it felt like 90% of the game took place on that crystal planet. what I will say that assault had that I liked is the covenant as the only enemy faction in the game. now, I'm not saying that assault is a bad game, I'm just saying that strike is the better of the two. however, both lack factors of replay-ability, there is nothing to grind for or unlock, only achievements which, when you really think about it, don't serve much of a purpose.
I guess we will go nowhere further with that discussion as my primary argument was that Assault received far more attention to details in terms of development than Strike. On one hand this is logical since Assault pioneered the style in the franchise and Microsoft wanted to have everything connected right, with Strike only repeating the pattern in a lazy manner. On the other hand, Strike had much more space for mastering what Assault could have done wrong, nonetheless it appears the first interpretation should be correct, since Strike is technically a much more flawed game, with many more crashes to desktop on PC, ineffectively mixed audio to my reception, as well as irresponsive PS/2 keyboard on a laptop - which is for example why the current moment I even cannot even play it without a USB device - that did not occur with Assault. Assault works just fine definitive most of the time. Just on the basis of that I state Assault is technically superior, having received more polish. Though it seems both the titles hate getting often ALT+TABbed

To give concrete examples of superior level design in Assault, check out such stages as:

Frost planet: E-4;
Desert/Jungle: B-3, the sharp greengrowths facing one world direction are marvelous;
Rocky ground: C-1;
Crystal structure: C-4, probably my favourite of all;
Wasteland/debris: D-2;
Underground/caves: F-4, quite atmospheric one, especially with the calling signal background;

Unnecessarily divided between zones according to the story chapters but there are a good handful of area types, while Strike happens almost entirely in the urban zone switched later to jungle, AFAIR. There is just little comparison between the quality of Assault and the save-a-lot economical approach of the Strike.

UNSC vehicle combat: B-5 [Scorpion], D-3 [Grizzly], F-2 [Grizzly];
Covenant easy vehicle hijack levels: A-4 [Wraith], B-4 [Wraith], C-2 [Ghost, not that easy], C-3 [Wraith], D-2 [Ghost, not that easy], D-4 [Ghost, not that easy], E-1 [Wraith, not that easy], E-2 [Ghost, not that easy], E-3 [Wraith], E-4 [Ghost].

For vehicle combat missions I count in the ones where passing at least half a level is available with the help of the device. In UNSC vehicular combat missions hijacking the Covenant vehicles is also available most of the time, which I absolutely love about the game, that the protagonist remains very much a mobile unit with plenty options at hand.

In the Assault, the worst level is probably D-4, also with the most annoying achievements.

Anyway, what this game lacks is more screenshake along with some little gore.

But I believe both the Assault and Strike were done to promote Windows Phone and we will unlikely have any other isometric shooter Halo release it seems.

wait... why did my spartan turn gold? and my helmet changed?
Because instead of replying in one post you split it between two or three.
Quote:
Cannot agree with your arguments TriedCrowd418. Also I play Assault on PC and well, the observations contradict your claims when it comes to the turrets thing.
both had their flaws. personal what I liked about strike is that it had more diverse locations and scenery, you could tell one location from the rest. however assault always had the same look everywhere you went, you can't tell if you are in a different location or not because everything blends in with each other. I also preferred strike because you consistently played as the same spartan throughout the game, unlike assault which had you playings as Palmer and Davis, not saying theres anything wrong with having two characters as halo 2 pulled it off flawlessly. but with assault it felt like the game was going "so, you are spartan Palmer, oh and theres this guy who wasn't very important but he's include anyway, but you are PALMER", seriously Davis was only in on a and one third of six levels, why introduce a playable character if you are barely be able to play as that character. also, I just opened Spartan assault to test something, guess what, turrets don't over heat in this game.
Strike having more diverse locations and scenery? This is exactly what I said about Assault, that it far surpasses the Strike in this regard. Maybe you mistake the titles? When it comes to zones, I think Assault was fine dividing the environments according to the game chapters, out of which one was jungle, other frost planet, third some crystal structure, other underground caves, also some wasteland and perhaps some others. I did not have any problems differentiating missions or locations.

When it comes to the story, like I said, Assault had issues but at least it kind of seemed shallow professional, but yeah, it was a mess. Strike in this matter did not even try, but it felt like a warm hole at least, so to say.
they put more effort into strike than they did assault. as for spartan assault, it felt like 90% of the game took place on that crystal planet. what I will say that assault had that I liked is the covenant as the only enemy faction in the game. now, I'm not saying that assault is a bad game, I'm just saying that strike is the better of the two. however, both lack factors of replay-ability, there is nothing to grind for or unlock, only achievements which, when you really think about it, don't serve much of a purpose.
I guess we will go nowhere further with that discussion as my primary argument was that Assault received far more attention to details in terms of development than Strike. On one hand this is logical since Assault pioneered the style in the franchise and Microsoft wanted to have everything connected right, with Strike only repeating the pattern in a lazy manner. On the other hand, Strike had much more space for mastering what Assault could have done wrong, nonetheless it appears the first interpretation should be correct, since Strike is technically a much more flawed game, with many more crashes to desktop on PC, ineffectively mixed audio to my reception, as well as irresponsive PS/2 keyboard on a laptop - which is for example why the current moment I even cannot even play it without a USB device - that did not occur with Assault. Assault works just fine definitive most of the time. Just on the basis of that I state Assault is technically superior, having received more polish. Though it seems both the titles hate getting often ALT+TABbed

To give concrete examples of superior level design in Assault, check out such stages as:

Frost planet: E-4;
Desert/Jungle: B-3, the sharp greengrowths facing one world direction are marvelous;
Rocky ground: C-1;
Crystal structure: C-4, probably my favourite of all;
Wasteland/debris: D-2;
Underground/caves: F-4, quite atmospheric one, especially with the calling signal background;

Unnecessarily divided between zones according to the story chapters but there are a good handful of area types, while Strike happens almost entirely in the urban zone switched later to jungle, AFAIR. There is just little comparison between the quality of Assault and the save-a-lot economical approach of the Strike.

UNSC vehicle combat: B-5 [Scorpion], D-3 [Grizzly], F-2 [Grizzly];
Covenant easy vehicle hijack levels: A-4 [Wraith], B-4 [Wraith], C-2 [Ghost, not that easy], C-3 [Wraith], D-2 [Ghost, not that easy], D-4 [Ghost, not that easy], E-1 [Wraith, not that easy], E-2 [Ghost, not that easy], E-3 [Wraith], E-4 [Ghost].

For vehicle combat missions I count in the ones where passing at least half a level is available with the help of the device. In UNSC vehicular combat missions hijacking the Covenant vehicles is also available most of the time, which I absolutely love about the game, that the protagonist remains very much a mobile unit with plenty options at hand.

In the Assault, the worst level is probably D-4, also with the most annoying achievements.

Anyway, what this game lacks is more screenshake along with some little gore.

But I believe both the Assault and Strike were done to promote Windows Phone and we will unlikely have any other isometric shooter Halo release it seems.

wait... why did my spartan turn gold? and my helmet changed?
Because instead of replying in one post you split it between two or three.
maybe the gameplay and technical problems are because the system we play the games on, though I doubt thats what it is, but its happened before, your playing the games on a pc with a Ps/2 keyboard and strike crashes quite bit for you right? I'm plying them on a mobile device, assault is next to impossible open the majority of times and crashes if you try to start a mission.

unfortunately, there apparently will not be another since the company responsible for these two games decided to stop producing top downs and is instead only doing VR stuff. I don't know about you, but this is disappointing

also, my spartan is gold in my profile and customization page, I don't think it has anything to do with replying or posting
Quote:
Cannot agree with your arguments TriedCrowd418. Also I play Assault on PC and well, the observations contradict your claims when it comes to the turrets thing.
both had their flaws. personal what I liked about strike is that it had more diverse locations and scenery, you could tell one location from the rest. however assault always had the same look everywhere you went, you can't tell if you are in a different location or not because everything blends in with each other. I also preferred strike because you consistently played as the same spartan throughout the game, unlike assault which had you playings as Palmer and Davis, not saying theres anything wrong with having two characters as halo 2 pulled it off flawlessly. but with assault it felt like the game was going "so, you are spartan Palmer, oh and theres this guy who wasn't very important but he's include anyway, but you are PALMER", seriously Davis was only in on a and one third of six levels, why introduce a playable character if you are barely be able to play as that character. also, I just opened Spartan assault to test something, guess what, turrets don't over heat in this game.
Strike having more diverse locations and scenery? This is exactly what I said about Assault, that it far surpasses the Strike in this regard. Maybe you mistake the titles? When it comes to zones, I think Assault was fine dividing the environments according to the game chapters, out of which one was jungle, other frost planet, third some crystal structure, other underground caves, also some wasteland and perhaps some others. I did not have any problems differentiating missions or locations.

When it comes to the story, like I said, Assault had issues but at least it kind of seemed shallow professional, but yeah, it was a mess. Strike in this matter did not even try, but it felt like a warm hole at least, so to say.
they put more effort into strike than they did assault. as for spartan assault, it felt like 90% of the game took place on that crystal planet. what I will say that assault had that I liked is the covenant as the only enemy faction in the game. now, I'm not saying that assault is a bad game, I'm just saying that strike is the better of the two. however, both lack factors of replay-ability, there is nothing to grind for or unlock, only achievements which, when you really think about it, don't serve much of a purpose.
(...)
maybe the gameplay and technical problems are because the system we play the games on, though I doubt thats what it is, but its happened before, your playing the games on a pc with a Ps/2 keyboard and strike crashes quite bit for you right? I'm plying them on a mobile device, assault is next to impossible open the majority of times and crashes if you try to start a mission.

unfortunately, there apparently will not be another since the company responsible for these two games decided to stop producing top downs and is instead only doing VR stuff. I don't know about you, but this is disappointing

also, my spartan is gold in my profile and customization page, I don't think it has anything to do with replying or posting
The native PS/2 keyboard for Strike does not respond at all, although suddenly starts responding if to plug in an additional USB keyboard. Then they respond both. Nothing like a good competition, eh? Crashing to desktop is another thing and it is guaranteed if to ALT+TAB the Strike, though sometimes it would bonus that even without ALT+TABbing. Assault is much more solid in this regard on PC. I am playing the WindowsStore version - which is ridiculous, since as for the app, the interrupting windowbars pop out if to drag the mouse to the top or bottom of the screen - dunno about the STEAM one.

Prolly you just gained a level.
Quote:
Cannot agree with your arguments TriedCrowd418. Also I play Assault on PC and well, the observations contradict your claims when it comes to the turrets thing.
both had their flaws. personal what I liked about strike is that it had more diverse locations and scenery, you could tell one location from the rest. however assault always had the same look everywhere you went, you can't tell if you are in a different location or not because everything blends in with each other. I also preferred strike because you consistently played as the same spartan throughout the game, unlike assault which had you playings as Palmer and Davis, not saying theres anything wrong with having two characters as halo 2 pulled it off flawlessly. but with assault it felt like the game was going "so, you are spartan Palmer, oh and theres this guy who wasn't very important but he's include anyway, but you are PALMER", seriously Davis was only in on a and one third of six levels, why introduce a playable character if you are barely be able to play as that character. also, I just opened Spartan assault to test something, guess what, turrets don't over heat in this game.
Strike having more diverse locations and scenery? This is exactly what I said about Assault, that it far surpasses the Strike in this regard. Maybe you mistake the titles? When it comes to zones, I think Assault was fine dividing the environments according to the game chapters, out of which one was jungle, other frost planet, third some crystal structure, other underground caves, also some wasteland and perhaps some others. I did not have any problems differentiating missions or locations.

When it comes to the story, like I said, Assault had issues but at least it kind of seemed shallow professional, but yeah, it was a mess. Strike in this matter did not even try, but it felt like a warm hole at least, so to say.
they put more effort into strike than they did assault. as for spartan assault, it felt like 90% of the game took place on that crystal planet. what I will say that assault had that I liked is the covenant as the only enemy faction in the game. now, I'm not saying that assault is a bad game, I'm just saying that strike is the better of the two. however, both lack factors of replay-ability, there is nothing to grind for or unlock, only achievements which, when you really think about it, don't serve much of a purpose.
(...)
maybe the gameplay and technical problems are because the system we play the games on, though I doubt thats what it is, but its happened before, your playing the games on a pc with a Ps/2 keyboard and strike crashes quite bit for you right? I'm plying them on a mobile device, assault is next to impossible open the majority of times and crashes if you try to start a mission.

unfortunately, there apparently will not be another since the company responsible for these two games decided to stop producing top downs and is instead only doing VR stuff. I don't know about you, but this is disappointing

also, my spartan is gold in my profile and customization page, I don't think it has anything to do with replying or posting
The native PS/2 keyboard for Strike does not respond at all, although suddenly starts responding if to plug in an additional USB keyboard. Then they respond both. Nothing like a good competition, eh? Crashing to desktop is another thing and it is guaranteed if to ALT+TAB the Strike, though sometimes it would bonus that even without ALT+TABbing. Assault is much more solid in this regard on PC. I am playing the WindowsStore version - which is ridiculous, since as for the app, the interrupting windowbars pop out if to drag the mouse to the top or bottom of the screen - dunno about the STEAM one.

Prolly you just gained a level.
to be honest, I wouldn't know much when it comes to gaming via PC or steam, my computer is trash. tried doing steam, couldn't get any games to open, then eventually steam itself wouldn't open, oh well.
Much more stuff - correct, though SpartanAssault felt like aiming towards what is essential rather than aiming towards plenty of stuff that this way or the other boils down to some of them repeating the function of another.
I didn't say much more stuff, I said more innovation. Yes, there was also more content than Spartan Assault, yet not in a way that overburdened the game.

Quote:
Better UI - arguable,
If we're talking about strictly phone interfaces, the pause button was problematic in Spartan Assault. Also in that you had to keep your thumbs in the designated areas. In Spartan Strike, you could place your thumbs practically anywhere - left side was movement, right side was aiming. The pause button being in the top left corner above the radar also would not collide with aiming at all; aiming was right side.

The main menu for both games is practically the same. The only difference is color and the UNSC graphics used. Aesthetics are going to largely be a personal regard, in any case, so there's no "clear winner" that can be statistically shown. So far as the Cr system, Spartan Strike was much more player-friendly; this is hardly a contest. Assault doled out minimal Cr after each mission, leaving much up to either grinding or the ever-dreaded microtransactions. Strike awards Cr so much so that buying perks and alternate loadouts was never an issue.

Quote:
Level design - big, big down is the SpartanStrike here compared to the Assault. Levels are more bleak, recycled over and over, much less detailed. Assault was less rich in functions abundance but what was included in that game was given a lot of attention and thought.
You must have been playing a different game. With a number of foliage-rich areas, New Mombasa, as well as the ONI campus in New Phoenix, Spartan Strike was far from "bleak", level layouts were not recycled in the slightest, and it was FAR more detailed than Spartan Assault. Strike was so detailed that you can see John-117 crossing the bridge from Old Mombasa in the Scorpion; down to every Phantom that passes by in that level in Halo 2. This criticism is just absolutely baseless.

Quote:
I say vehicle control is flawed in both games comparably.
Control of vehicles was much more user-friendly and effective in Spartan Strike. Especially what was done with the Warthog, navigating around was much less of a finesse game and much more direct and responsive as piloting is in the FPS games.

Turrets shooting indefinitely in the Strike instead of overheating like in the Assault? Dood, WTF? I would even go as far as saying the vehicles should also overheat if abused in firepower.This is - again - going to be a matter of preference over pure performace. Turrets don't overheat in Halo 2, yet many would argue that it's a better game than Halo 4.
Much more stuff - correct, though SpartanAssault felt like aiming towards what is essential rather than aiming towards plenty of stuff that this way or the other boils down to some of them repeating the function of another.
I didn't say much more stuff, I said more innovation. Yes, there was also more content than Spartan Assault, yet not in a way that overburdened the game.
Agreed, Strike does contain a lot of new stuff, some necessary and some repeating already existing patterns, but somewhat I think the minimalism, combined with technical excellence in execution of the Assault, does also contain merit. One device for one thing. Too much is noise. In the end, there are always things which are considered better than the other, simply more effective in practical use, such as the battle rifle is probably the ultimate rapidfire rifle you are going to get in the Strike, so what is really the point in having a dozen of rifle types if you can simply pick up a battle rifle, as an example? Bubble shield is basically a regen-field overpowered, with both of them serving similar purpose and working the same way, only that regen-field is more fair without making one dumb invulnerable to all firepower. I understand the Covenant stuff could be lootable, at least the man-compatible one, but unnecessarily would say so about Promethean devices, which in turn should demand reinterpreting and adapting to the SPARTAN use, that takes time. In the Strike, there is just a noise of armour abilities. Further, the binary rifle repeats the ex-exclusive sniper rifle - with "exclusive" meaning "special purchase only" - but is available as a field collectable for free. Actually, in the Strike, there are no exclusive guns, all are collectables at least in one mission, in the end making one ask a question why should one pay currency to buy anything on purpose if basically any version of the gun, slightly stronger or weaker, is a collectable? Get binary rifle instead of wasting the currency to get a sniper rifle, there are plenty of binary rifles all around the game, the binary rifle even has advantages over the regular sniper version. See, the Strike is just a mess in terms of own coherence. It is indeed more friendly than Assault but it makes less solid impression, unfortunately also less solid technically on PC.

Better UI - arguable,
If we're talking about strictly phone interfaces, the pause button was problematic in Spartan Assault. Also in that you had to keep your thumbs in the designated areas. In Spartan Strike, you could place your thumbs practically anywhere - left side was movement, right side was aiming. The pause button being in the top left corner above the radar also would not collide with aiming at all; aiming was right side.

The main menu for both games is practically the same. The only difference is color and the UNSC graphics used. Aesthetics are going to largely be a personal regard, in any case, so there's no "clear winner" that can be statistically shown. So far as the Cr system, Spartan Strike was much more player-friendly; this is hardly a contest. Assault doled out minimal Cr after each mission, leaving much up to either grinding or the ever-dreaded microtransactions. Strike awards Cr so much so that buying perks and alternate loadouts was never an issue.
Cannot tell anything about mobile device gameplay, especially playing using touchscreen, which I dislike. Do not even own a smartphone, but a regular, button-based mobile. Generally I would avoid paying a lot for a phone, instead aiming to get as powerful main use device as possible, which is a laptop for myself, in the worst instance I can imagine a tablet, which in terms of technological efficiency falls short in comparison to laptop, as much as laptop in comparison to a desktop in similar price range. But I just like laptops, dunno. They are neat.

Returning to the topic, the main menu for both the games is the same, true, but there is difference in general aesthetics. Strike has some specific artstyle, it is very minimalistic, emphasizing little detailed but distinctively contoured shapes filled with monotype colours, contrasting between different objects. This artstyle is present to some degree also in the level design, perhaps unfortunately, because the detailed outlook known from the Assault - especially in terms of background depth - is gone, albeit this could only be my impression. Artstyle present in the Strike is unnecessarily faulted itself but what is faulted instead is the way it was implemented. It looks, as I already said, empoverished and save-a-lot economic. The Assault, in comparison, is far from making an impression of trying to save up every penny on design labour, despite the functional essentialism it embraces. But yeah, artstyle evaluation is a matter of personal taste. Nonetheless, this is no reason to make one mute about expressing a thought or two, hopefully in an adequate manner.

Microtransactions present in the Assault are a two-edged sword. I cannot really tell whether I am for or against it. This game involves a lot of grinding, which is kind of tedious. If someone does not have time to do the grinding but instead is willing to pay some little money just to have the ingame currency for the exclusive stuff to buy - which always is optional, even for achievements that by rule do not require any special purchase items to be used - allright then, let them. Grinding is a chore to most. On one hand, suggesting to pay extra money to play the game at leisure without grinding is doubtful, but on the other hand, forcing players to do the grinding by must is also doubtful, even when the payoff is better. This way or the other, to grind or not? Ultimately I would say the Assault looks again more professional with the microtransactions involved, compared to the Strike that once again, being as friendly and playerfriendly as it is, emerges empowerished. Sure it introduces a lot of new utilities in favour, alongside a lot of functional noise.
Continuation, split due to post length limit:

What I am for is full customizability of the SPARTAN, meaning, you just preconfigure one entirely for the mission - with some utilities to choose from among those granted free, as well as from among some exclusive - having to find out what would work best in given circumstances, perhaps with ONI support giving the player some hints beforehand in mission briefings.

The management of ingame currency in the Assault is through proper use of skulls and action efficiency, which is allright. You have to watch your wallet, but also make some effort to get a better rating. Like in everyday life, be it good or bad. If you are willing to pay for additional currency, why should you be skipped from doing it? There is no competetive multiplayer anyway, so it is hard to accuse the developers of vulturing the ambitious. Microtransactions are becoming stable part of the modern games - especially the more casual, "free play" ones - and it is unlikely we will see them recede, at least as long as this is an optional way, instead of something mandatory, which in the latter case indeed should be of doubtful evaluation. Meaning, you must always be able to see the entire contents of the game without paying anything additional, but if you want to save your time in particular, because you cannot sacrifice time for ingame grinding, wanting still to participate, such microtransactions could be a solution for you to buy yourself out.

Level design - big, big down is the SpartanStrike here compared to the Assault. Levels are more bleak, recycled over and over, much less detailed. Assault was less rich in functions abundance but what was included in that game was given a lot of attention and thought.
You must have been playing a different game. With a number of foliage-rich areas, New Mombasa, as well as the ONI campus in New Phoenix, Spartan Strike was far from "bleak", level layouts were not recycled in the slightest, and it was FAR more detailed than Spartan Assault. Strike was so detailed that you can see John-117 crossing the bridge from Old Mombasa in the Scorpion; down to every Phantom that passes by in that level in Halo 2. This criticism is just absolutely baseless.
I guess this is the thing we are not going to reach consensus about.

I say vehicle control is flawed in both games comparably.
Control of vehicles was much more user-friendly and effective in Spartan Strike. Especially what was done with the Warthog, navigating around was much less of a finesse game and much more direct and responsive as piloting is in the FPS games.
When I get used to certain controls scheme, I apply it without reconsidering that scheme every other step. Muscle memory kind of thing, y'know. That is also how you play shooters. WSAD, Q/E, F/G, 1/2/3/4etc., L-SHIFT for running/walking, TAB for scores, mouse for freelook and mouse buttons 1/2 for Fire1/Fire2. If the controls scheme suddenly change on trigger, it is another thing I have to learn, making the experience harder. Consistency is something to be upkept if possible. I found the alternated vehicle controls in the Strike unnecessarily a far better experience in terms of quality of use. Usually the spaces of movement were narrow and collision with objects made a lot of trouble to maneuver out, next to often loosing sense of what is left and right, depending on the direction of movement and whether the forward or reverse speed was employed. It was just kind of complicated instead of the thusfar weird, with both worth one another.
I think the minimalism, combined with technical excellence in execution of the Assault, does also contain merit. One device for one thing. Too much is noise.
Spartan Assault had repeat-class weapons, as well. For example the Plasma Repeater and the M7 SMG. In Spartan Strike, the Battle Rifle is a good long-range power weapon, but the trade-off is a relatively low reserve of ammo. In contrast you can pick up the Assault Rifle, which is a solid medium-to-long-range rifle, and has a larger reserve of ammo for a little less damage. Later on here you compare the Binary Rifle to the Sniper Rifle, citing it as repetition. However the Binary Rifle - while acquirable in-game, fires slower and has far less ammo capacity as it is stronger than the Sniper Rifle. While they fill the same role of high-powered long-range weapons, they are different.
Neither is the Bubble Shield an "overpowered regen-field". It does not boost and regenerate your shields, and the regen field does not block incoming fire.

Quote:
I understand the Covenant stuff could be lootable, at least the man-compatible one, but unnecessarily would say so about Promethean devices, which in turn should demand reinterpreting and adapting to the SPARTAN use, that takes time.
Then, logically, you've also got issue with every instance of Forerunner weapon use since Halo 2.

Quote:
In the Strike, there is just a noise of armour abilities.
Spartan Strike has 10 armor abilities, beating Spartan Assault by only one. There was far from a "noise" of them.

Quote:
Actually, in the Strike, there are no exclusive guns, all are collectables at least in one mission, in the end making one ask a question why should one pay currency to buy anything on purpose if basically any version of the gun, slightly stronger or weaker, is a collectable?
I really don't understand what you're saying here. There are levels where there are no Binary Rifles, so if you want to cruise around New Mombasa with a sniper rifle, it's up for purchase. In a like manner (if memory serves) there's no Rocket Launcher in any of the levels, so purchasing it would be the only way to acquire it.

Quote:
It is indeed more friendly than Assault but it makes less solid impression, unfortunately also less solid technically on PC.
I am quite interested in what ways you think so. With both versions being able to utilize a controller, the level of technical interface is drastically improved. With updates to the mechanics of game elements like driving and grenade throwing, this sets Spartan Strike ahead of Assault on a technical level, beyond personal preference.

Quote:
Cannot tell anything about mobile device gameplay, especially playing using touchscreen, which I dislike. Do not even own a smartphone, but a regular, button-based mobile.
So why try to bring up the (false) point about the pause button's location being a negative for Spartan Strike?

Quote:
Returning to the topic, the main menu for both the games is the same, true, but there is difference in general aesthetics.
Which, again, is to say that there's nothing technically wrong with Spartan Strikes menu UI, which is what you seemed to suggest earlier when you declared Assault the "winner" in this regard. Literally the only difference between the menus is that Spartan Assault is blue with the UNSC Eagle, and Spartan Strike is a greyish-blue with a UNSC pillar design. If anything, Spartan Strike is more clear as to what the game is in-canon, as it's logo states "UNSC Tactical Simulator".

Quote:
This artstyle is present to some degree also in the level design, perhaps unfortunately, because the detailed outlook known from the Assault - especially in terms of background depth - is gone, albeit this could only be my impression.
It literally is your own impression, and one that I think needs re-evaluation. I've already given example of background events shown in great detail, and I've a mind to screen-shot several levels of both Assault and Strike to visually demonstrate the flaw in your claim. Spartan Strike is just as detailed as Spartan Assault, if not more so.

To the notion of "there's no reason to make one mute about expression a thought", we can do without this; you are free to express your opinion, but that doesn't mean your opinion won't be demonstrably wrong, nor does it hinder others from pointing out just how it is wrong.

Quote:
Ultimately I would say the Assault looks again more professional with the microtransactions involved, compared to the Strike that once again, being as friendly and playerfriendly as it is, emerges empowerished.
How, exactly, is Spartan Strike impoverished for removing microtransactions? Even if they are harmless to competitive play and "at the risk" of the user themselves, they are increasingly a black-mark for games. They are far from becoming a "stable part of modern games", as you go on to say - anyone who's been watching the fiasco with EA and Star Wars Battlefront II knows this. Strike sets itself ahead of Assault by removing a paywall in that a grind is much more rewarding, allowing players to utilize boosts and abilities to easier gain achievements and diverse gameplay. That is very far from impoverished game design.

I guess this is the thing we are not going to reach consensus about.
Probably not, but I'm still quite curious as to where your getting Spartan Strike having "recycled" and bleak levels. Any examples?

Quote:
I found the alternated vehicle controls in the Strike unnecessarily a far better experience in terms of quality of use. Usually the spaces of movement were narrow and collision with objects made a lot of trouble to maneuver out, next to often loosing sense of what is left and right, depending on the direction of movement and whether the forward or reverse speed was employed. It was just kind of complicated instead of the thusfar weird, with both worth one another.
There were no altered vehicle controls. They remained the same as they were in Spartan Assault, only with more refinement and precision of control. I also cannot in the slightest see how you would forget which way is left or right, as you're literally viewing from the top down, and control is based on which direction you're pushing the thumb-zone or joystick. There's no way to confuse those directions.
Plasma Repeater doubles Assault Rifle in the hands of the Covenant Minor Elites as a long range meagre damage rapidfire gun with large ammo capacity, but I see it excused in terms of deisgn and balance. Besides, I would anytime pick up Assault Rifle over Plasma Repeater - as well as Battle Rifle in the Strike over Focus Rifle - as long as the game skips to introduce special vulnerabilities of certain types of enemies to certain particular weapons or types of damage. Actually the UNSC seems to have an advantage above their enemies when it comes to delivering and rather arguably sustaining raw damage. Covenant ways have better strategic opportunities with more specialized equipment, though. When it comes to particular vulnerabilities, I had an impression in the Strike the Prometheans were susceptible to damage inflicted with their own technology, especially the basic Suppressor Rifle, which otherwise against the Covenant fell short compared even to the Plasma Repeater, perhaps yet due to low accuracy and more spread line of fire.

When it comes to the Focus Rifle, in the Assault, it seems to be missing a direct counterpart on the UNSC side, but I am okay with lack of symmetry of guns between the partying armies, as long as at least one solid representative of each class is present in every arsenal set. The Assault seems tending towards using looted Covenant tech.

The dually wielded SMG in the hands of the protagonist is technically an unclassified weapon, without spree system bonus, belonging neither to pistols nor rifles or any other recognizable pattern of a gun popular in the game, so I believe this is more of a trivia device, albeit often employed. Use of SMG is a flawed choice in terms of scoring up, but the wide line of SMG continuous fire makes it useful against larger groups of weak enemies, unfortunately solely on a relatively short distance, which makes SMG incomparable with any of the proper rifles, which are all long range types. Shotgun, to my surprise, was classified in both the games as a rifle, minding the utterly close distance and unique nature of this utility, while technically it should also be a trivia. Do not get me wrong, "trivia" only means: "these should seriously be given some sensible category and a spree system". Shotgun also was doubled in the Strike by the Promethean Scattershot, a seemingly more powerful version working on the same basis, also classified as a rifle. One more trivia gun, appearing only in the Strike, the UNSC Grenade Launcher, quite interesting but I have mixed feelings whether it is a necessary implementation.

In the Strike, the Binary Rifle is the only way to one shot a shielded Jackal in a frontal assault, which makes Jackals particularly annoying foes. Sniper Rifle is still the most powerful non-explosive single shot firearm in the game - I am positive it is above the Binary Rifle - capable also of piercing a number of targets with a single bullet, nonetheless against shielded Jackals it fails, which in terms of the penetration value it provides - and in terms of being a gun still available for extra credits - makes it seem implemented as inconsistent to own principles.

That the gun or power up is "exclusive" I mean it is available only and solely for extra credits. In the Assault there are exclusive guns and devices, which are pointed out as exceptions in certain achievement, which states to use all available utilities at least once in the game. This is fair, again, in terms of microtransactions, as paying additional money or even spending the ingame earned currency is unnecessary to legitimately complete the game. In SpartanStrike, there are utilities purchasable for ingame currency, without the neighbouring function of microtransactions - just the grinding - but apart from that, these utilities also are collectables at least in one of the story missions - I am positive about it - which in my terminology negates them as proper "exclusives". If to take it into the context of the mentiioned "use all items at least once" achievement, now the game may require of the player to use such ex-exclusives as Rocket Launcher, Sniper Rifle and Spartan Laser, as well as armour abilities such as Bombardment, Auto-Sentry or Seeker Drone, to gain the mentioned achievement. Not that it is wrong since these are available to pick up, just emphasizing the difference. But the notion of exclusivity is gone. Along with presence of manifold repeat-class weapons, such as Incinerator Cannon versus Rocket Launcher, accompanied by also collectable great variety of powerful armour abilities of Promethean origin, it further diminishes the meaning of purchasing anything specific for the ingame currency.

When it comes to armour abilities and power ups, Bubble Shield and Regen Field serve as area protection, which is what I meant by describing them as functioning in similar fashion. While Regen Field does keep recharging the shields of all compatible forces within the array of the influence it has, the Bubble Shield provides absolute resistance to all ranged attacks, including tank bombardment and grenade blasts - which greatly supports the scoring spree, requiring avoiding being hit by the enemy, maintaining continuous line of kills. Both the Regen Field and the Bubble Shield fill the niche of "sustain protagonist area effect", with Regen Field providing stable shield reinforcement, far though from giving a temporary but absolute anti-firepower safety granted by the Bubble Shield. Regen Field still makes using it requiring of a player some situational awareness, as a well placed grenande accompanied by accurate enemy fire could anytime force the player to change the positioning strategy. Bubble Shield is susceptible only to melee enemies crossing the threshold of it, which lowers the challenge of action to holding the place still without allowing any opposing units to come close, despite what is being drawn against the progatonist through the distance. Notably the Bubble Shield is at a disposal of Major Elites of the Covenant, which makes fighting them a tougher but also more annoying challenge, alike with the already mentioned case of the embettered Jackals. What is then the special ability of the Minor Elites, if to grant everyone a special ability and a unique weapon in an equal manner? Assault seemed somewhat better balanced, with just less amount of quirky stuff blocking the way.

When it comes to the number of armour abilities in the Strike, my friend, only the Promethean devices are couple. Among the Promethean armour abilities, we have this spark type of form looted from collapsed Promethean Knights, which double-classes the UNSC ultraspeed function, without though giving the protagonist an opportunity to perform regular actions, but making him completely invulnerable for a time, also zooming the image out a bit, allowing to see more ahead. There is the forcefield damaging everyone around, collectable after defeating one of the advanced versions of the Alpha Crawlers, which is a useful counter-riot solution, unnecessarily though a more effective one than the UNSC Bombardment, which the latter one in turn recharges very slowly, apart from being a one time strike.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4