Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 09, 2006, 12:38:38 PM
We all knew it was announced. I just wanted to make a topic about it. With it announced, all Microsoft needs to do is say it comes out before the PS3 and that's the last nail in Sony's coffin.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 09, 2006, 12:52:10 PM
Post by: TrueNerd on May 09, 2006, 12:53:09 PM
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 09, 2006, 12:57:49 PM
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on May 09, 2006, 02:06:51 PM
edit: or was it nov. 11?
Post by: mantidor on May 09, 2006, 02:25:07 PM
Post by: jasonditz on May 09, 2006, 02:31:22 PM
What Microsoft really needs to do is drop the price of the premium to $300 (and probably just phase out the core). No single game could hurt Sony's launch quite as much as a nearly comparable console getting almost all the same games and selling for half the price.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 09, 2006, 02:32:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Seriously, whats so special about this games? I try to look objectively and I trully find them so generic that its painful.
I don't own an X-Box, but I've played it enough with a friend and did enough research to know more then the average gamer, and the biggest reason is online play. It's a great online FPS. Really lackluster single player campaign, though. It's one of those games that has a magic you only understand after you've stuck a guy with a plasma grenade from halfway across the map.,
Post by: blackfootsteps on May 09, 2006, 04:21:45 PM
Yeah online makes up for the most boring campaigns in the history of shooters. (Along with PD0)
Post by: odifiend on May 09, 2006, 04:21:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_StabbalotQuote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Seriously, whats so special about this games? I try to look objectively and I trully find them so generic that its painful.
I don't own an X-Box, but I've played it enough with a friend and did enough research to know more then the average gamer, and the biggest reason is online play. It's a great online FPS. Really lackluster single player campaign, though. It's one of those games that has a magic you only understand after you've stuck a guy with a plasma grenade from halfway across the map.,
Nah, that wouldn't explain the success of the first one. I would say it is because it is an FPS that is very forgiving if you can survive an encounter between another player. The healing makes confrontation more heated and lets the survivor talk louder because he'll be fine within 30 seconds. And that is really what it is all about when you get a group of guys together... trash talking. Growing up on Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, the aspect irks me but I can see why it appeals to what some would call 'casual' gamers.
Post by: Caliban on May 09, 2006, 07:23:51 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on May 09, 2006, 08:16:57 PM
Now DOA: Xtreme, that's what I've really been waiting for! I haven't seen boobs jiggle this much since the heady days of the N64 and Dreamcast, when programmers were just starting to experiment with the black art of breast physics, like a sweaty teenager trying to unhook his first bra....
Post by: wandering on May 09, 2006, 09:41:05 PM
Perhaps this'll forever harm my reputation as a NIntendo fanboy, but I did find Halo's multiplayer kind of fun.
Post by: Kairon on May 09, 2006, 10:18:11 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: TrueNerd on May 09, 2006, 11:43:38 PM
Halo's single-player = teh SUCK.
It's a very refined game. It's also a very social game. It's so great to smack a guy in the back of the head with a battle rifle and tell the jerk you just smacked how badly you just pwned him. Same goes for a headshot with the sniper rifle.
Post by: blackfootsteps on May 10, 2006, 12:17:55 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on May 10, 2006, 06:08:35 AM
So it's kind of interesting, because there are lots of folks at MS who probably agree with you, blackfootsteps...Halo 3 should launch this Christmas. Personally, I agree with Fries, I think if it makes Halo 3 a better game, Bungie should be allowed to have launch next year.
Post by: Jin-X on May 10, 2006, 10:54:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: blackfootsteps
The trailer was disappointing wasn't it? I thought MS would go all out and at least show some gameplay footage. I think it is a mistake on their behalf to not have Halo 3 launch simultaneously with the PS 3, or just before hand.
You know what's an even bigger mistake? A rush job.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on May 10, 2006, 10:59:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: blackfootsteps
The trailer was disappointing wasn't it? I thought MS would go all out and at least show some gameplay footage. I think it is a mistake on their behalf to not have Halo 3 launch simultaneously with the PS 3, or just before hand.
Heh, there wasn't any gameplay shown, but the little hints it left (Cortana seemingly gone insane, the Earth ravaged and the Ark being finally shown) were enough to start massive debates about the plot.
Post by: SixthAngel on May 10, 2006, 03:03:49 PM
Post by: wandering on June 06, 2006, 10:08:15 PM
Mostly just people saying how great the game they're making will be, but the section on the music was interesting.
Also, stuff on the new insane Cortana. I'm going to guess she's on the side of good, just because they talk about how evil she could be.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 07, 2006, 05:54:52 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 07, 2006, 07:22:10 AM
But I think this is a very interesting topic for long-time Bungie fans. Apparently, Bungie has some previous lore with AI entities in their previous games and I'm not exactly sure how Marathon ties into Halo and all that.
Either way, I expect this game in Spring 2007. Gears of War will be X360's launch against the playstation.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on June 07, 2006, 07:33:04 AM
Post by: Kairon on June 07, 2006, 08:10:45 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on June 07, 2006, 10:51:36 AM
Many recent games have borrowed from Warhammer's distinctly exaggerated imagery, most notably the Warcraft universe. The particular green-skinned Warhammer Orcs and Goblins have infiltrated games as diverse as Warcraft, Magic: The Gathering, and Mage Knight. Warcraft also features a creation story very similar to that of Warhammer, with a creator race being driven off by daemonic forces from a dimension of magic. --Wikipedia
Post by: Kairon on June 07, 2006, 10:59:45 AM
Either way, I'm not a Bungie fan, I just ran across this discussion one time!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ThePerm on June 07, 2006, 11:21:06 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 07, 2006, 11:20:10 PM
Post by: bustin98 on September 12, 2007, 06:29:46 PM
</whine>
Yes, can I have some cheese with my wine?
BTW, my Gamestop manager friend called me the other evening from Las Vegas. Todd McFarlane was there. They had him set up on a couch and the managers got to sit next to him and shoot the sh!t. He tried to call while he was sitting next to him, but I was away from the phone. But what the heck would I say to him over the phone? 'Thanks for giving action figures the shot in the arm they needed'? 'Thanks for getting Spawn off on a good foot, then ruining it from issue 19 on'? Still, I guess it would have been cool to say I spoke with him on the phone than not at all...
Post by: ShyGuy on September 12, 2007, 07:44:35 PM
Post by: UERD on September 18, 2007, 03:25:02 PM
Nevertheless, I will definitely be picking up a copy for the PC (when they inevitably port it over...by then I should have a computer good enough to play it). Or maybe I'll find someone with a 360. I can't stand dual-analog, though, which is why I'm glad Microsoft is porting so many XBox games.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on September 18, 2007, 04:44:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UERD
I'm sure the game will set all sorts of milestones
No. The fanboys will ACT like it sets all kind of milestones, but in actuality, it will all have been done before.
Post by: UERD on September 18, 2007, 05:02:37 PM
I vehemently hate console FPSes because of the limitations of the dual-analog, but I really think Nintendo (or a third party) should make a multiplayer-oriented sci-fi FPS. Just because of the controls, it'll be leaps and bounds above the competition.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 18, 2007, 09:24:22 PM
Post by: Kairon on September 18, 2007, 10:51:53 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 18, 2007, 11:34:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Doesn't the Halo 3 XBox also only have a 20GB HD?
Yep you are 200% right!
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 19, 2007, 08:52:22 AM
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on September 19, 2007, 11:21:54 AM
And I was thinking about this... You know how in Halo 3 it's possible to customize your armor? I REALLY hope they add in a helmet that looks like the Cobra Commander's. The 80's one with the silver helmet, not the new crappy one with the hood.
COBRA!!!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 19, 2007, 12:12:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
I still don't see why anyone would buy it... Besides if said gamer was a Halo fanatic and as such had ordered the Legendary Halo 3 pack. I know I'd pick up the regular 360 Pro instead.
And I was thinking about this... You know how in Halo 3 it's possible to customize your armor? I REALLY hope they add in a helmet that looks like the Cobra Commander's. The 80's one with the silver helmet, not the new crappy one with the hood.
COBRA!!!
Hey now I bought the Legendary Edition because of that cool helmet! It was kind of funny this guy in 40s almost had an orgasm over some Halo 3 carry case and an action figure.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 19, 2007, 04:54:02 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 19, 2007, 04:59:15 PM
Post by: UERD on September 19, 2007, 05:05:27 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on September 20, 2007, 04:21:17 AM
I like the Halo campaigns...when played in co-op mode. I've heard a lot of so-so things about it from regular single players.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 20, 2007, 07:48:54 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on September 20, 2007, 09:15:38 AM
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 20, 2007, 10:23:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
I can't play Co-op because you can't play on Live yet, either that or just not enough people have it already. It's decent, and the single player graphics are absolutely beautiful, but it's basically Halo 2 with a squad following you around...and the Arbiter.
And yet, it'll probably recieve scores just as high if not higher then the other Halo's from most places even though these same places deducted Metroid Prime 3 points for being similar to the other Primes.
It's going to be like 2004 all over again. Halo 2 was not that different from the first Halo yet it's praised by everyone while Metroid Prime 2 which was similar to the first Metroid Prime gets condemned for being a rehash. Even though in reality Metroid Prime 2 had more to seperate it from the first Prime game then Halo 2 did from the first Halo.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 20, 2007, 10:27:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Luigi DudeQuote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
I can't play Co-op because you can't play on Live yet, either that or just not enough people have it already. It's decent, and the single player graphics are absolutely beautiful, but it's basically Halo 2 with a squad following you around...and the Arbiter.
And yet, it'll probably recieve scores just as high if not higher then the other Halo's from most places even though these same places deducted Metroid Prime 3 points for being similar to the other Primes.
It's going to be like 2004 all over again. Halo 2 was not that different from the first Halo yet it's praised by everyone while Metroid Prime 2 which was similar to the first Metroid Prime gets condemned for being a rehash. Even though in reality Metroid Prime 2 had more to seperate it from the first Prime game then Halo 2 did from the first Halo.
Heck Metroid Prime 3 has more to separate it from either of the previous two games than Halo 2 did from Halo 1.
Post by: Kairon on September 20, 2007, 10:45:16 AM
I'm okay with other games being rehashes. Good for them.
But a NINTENDO game should be more than that. It should be fresher, better, more innovative, more refined, more perfected, more surprising... and if it isn't, it's got no excuse. After all, it was developed by Nintendo (or a second party) and therefore can't hide behind the third party label.
Post by: Stogi on September 20, 2007, 11:00:09 AM
So take what you want from that.
Post by: Caliban on September 20, 2007, 11:06:43 AM
Post by: UERD on September 20, 2007, 11:49:50 AM
Post by: Caliban on September 20, 2007, 03:01:27 PM
WARNING! HALO 3 SPOILERS! DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINKS BELOW!
WARNING! HALO 3 SPOILERS! DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINKS BELOW!
WARNING! HALO 3 SPOILERS! DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINKS BELOW!
WARNING! HALO 3 SPOILERS! DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINKS BELOW!
This is what happens.
And this is what happens after the credits.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 20, 2007, 03:05:24 PM
As for gameplay, a friend has already played quite a bit of it...Says multiplayer is still good fun...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 20, 2007, 03:06:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
The story was awful in the first two games, why would this be any different? =)
As for gameplay, a friend has already played quite a bit of it...Says multiplayer is still good fun...
But pales in comparison to about every good PC FPS.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 20, 2007, 03:19:52 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 20, 2007, 03:21:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
In multiplayer? FPS multiplayer is only fun when you have that classic "friends in the room" atmosphere... =3
Halo doesn't even have that though.
Post by: UERD on September 20, 2007, 03:28:19 PM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 20, 2007, 04:13:21 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 20, 2007, 04:32:58 PM
Post by: oohhboy on September 21, 2007, 12:24:45 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 21, 2007, 02:10:46 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 21, 2007, 05:47:47 AM
Post by: Stogi on September 21, 2007, 08:21:08 AM
It's like saying you love to watch soccer, and wondering when Pele's next match is.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 21, 2007, 08:04:59 PM
Quote
I still think that Bungie intentionally made sooo much hype about the game. And because they did so, (and took their merry time making the game,) that this game WILL own all games before. They simply wouldn't allow it to be anything less than an A+. The Bungie guys are smart and they've made gold. I bet that the game will outsell the entire PS3 system and whatever their top game may be together.
Every Copy sold, is a tear from a PS3 owner's eyes.
Post by: Kairon on September 21, 2007, 08:18:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
All I have to do is use this quote from random IGN poster in regardsQuote
I still think that Bungie intentionally made sooo much hype about the game. And because they did so, (and took their merry time making the game,) that this game WILL own all games before. They simply wouldn't allow it to be anything less than an A+. The Bungie guys are smart and they've made gold. I bet that the game will outsell the entire PS3 system and whatever their top game may be together.
Every Copy sold, is a tear from a PS3 owner's eyes.
Even before we heard about the Revolution, I was already looking forward to this generation. I knew that all I'd need was a bucket of popcorn and a good seat to enjoy the slugging match between MS and Sony.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on September 21, 2007, 10:21:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Oohhboy: But Halo is this generation's Star Wars how could you not want to see advertising for it like every second. STAR WARS!!! HALO!!!
Never insult Star Wars like that.
Post by: Mashiro on September 22, 2007, 12:14:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Dirk TemporoQuote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Oohhboy: But Halo is this generation's Star Wars how could you not want to see advertising for it like every second. STAR WARS!!! HALO!!!
Never insult Star Wars like that.
Yeah seriously . . .
I can't wait for Halo-mania to be said and done with.
Post by: Sessha on September 22, 2007, 12:06:17 PM
Post by: Kairon on September 22, 2007, 12:10:31 PM
Post by: Ceric on September 22, 2007, 01:33:06 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 22, 2007, 05:23:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Dirk TemporoQuote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Oohhboy: But Halo is this generation's Star Wars how could you not want to see advertising for it like every second. STAR WARS!!! HALO!!!
Never insult Star Wars like that.
I wasn't insulting Star Wars. I was mocking an (obviously paid for) article in Wired Magazine talking about the making of Halo 3...and the new science of game development. It was a complete puff piece about how Bungie was supposed doing things for game design never before done.
Like watching average gamers play the game and seeing if they are having fun, and noticing if they see the items and weapons to pickup and use and understand the mission objectives. This is supposedly revolutionary? I have read interviews of Nintendo doing this since the Nintendo 64 possibly earlier. Shiggy would do this all the time observe and watch people play and could tell if they were "getting the game."
They also said that the cultural phenomenon that is Halo is the same as Star Wars and that Halo will ultimately be this generation's Star Wars. It was a disgusting, horrible article...and quite annoying.
Halo will never be Star Wars. Star Wars was a movie that literally revolutionized special effects and film making. It was a movie that has spawned countless space series on television and film. Yearly conventions, novels, and fans that will love the series for the rest of their life sharing the movies with their children and grand children.
Halo is just a FPS series that has not revolutionized anything, and will be forgot when the next great FPS series is created, and everyone moves on.
I would not be surprised if Halo 3 is the game that causes people to move on. As it will "end" the series...and it will have stiff competition proving that Bungie are not gods in gaming design, and other FPS can do everything Halo can do and sometimes better.
Post by: UERD on September 22, 2007, 07:47:28 PM
Also, Halo would have been much better as a Macintosh RTS (like was originally planned).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 22, 2007, 09:22:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UERD
I thought the whole point of Dirk's post was that comparing Star Wars to Halo was an insult to Star Wars. Which would bring you two in line in terms of opinion.
Also, Halo would have been much better as a Macintosh RTS (like was originally planned).
If there is one genre Bungie excelled at it was the RTS genre, I have fond memories of Myth 1 and 2.
Post by: Kairon on September 22, 2007, 11:02:05 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 23, 2007, 01:42:23 AM
I bet they are going to be forced to work on another FPS project...probably for the next Xbox system and it just not be called Halo. Then exactly what is the point of needing the Halo trilogy if in reality you could have continued it with the same results of another FPS. Oh that is right, conclusion stories make lots of money.
Post by: SixthAngel on September 23, 2007, 03:57:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
How much does it suck that Bungie isn't developing Halo Wars then?
At one point I would have been excited for Bungie to do an RTS because I loved Myth but now I don't know. It has been ages since the Myth games, Bungie has been bought by Microsoft and people have left the company, including one of the founders. There have been two Halo sequels with a few additions so before I go crazy for a new game I would like to see how much of the creative side is still there and how well they will be able to work under Microsoft when making something different.
Besides, who wants to play an RTS with dual analog?
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on September 23, 2007, 09:04:41 AM
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 23, 2007, 10:44:43 AM
Quote
For example, the gameplay doesn't stray too far from Halo 2, which, in turn, didn't exactly reinvent the original Halo. Don't take that as a negative, because it means that Halo 3 plays extremely well, with the same types of light tactical considerations that have made the series stand apart from other, faster-paced shooters.
This is coming from the same guy who said this last fall about Twilight Princess.
Quote
But once you get over the rush of excitement from a big, new Zelda game having finally arrived, it's hard not to feel a tinge of disappointment--there's a very noticeable lack of evolution here, which makes aspects of the game seem more dated than classic.
Not to mention what Gamespot's review of Metroid Prime 3 said last month.
Quote
The Bad: Doesn't do much different than the previous two Metroid Prime games. Streamlined controls make the game easy to play. 20 hour campaign, but the lack of multiplayer is disappointing, you may not be able to shake the feeling that you've done all this before
So Halo 3 gets a 9.5 for being the same, Twilight Princess gets an 8.8 and Metroid Prime 3 gets a 8.5.
Let the hypocrisy begin.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 23, 2007, 12:00:30 PM
Heck from reading the review it sounds like only "new" modes is a level editor (wow never seen that before) and saved films. Also I had to laugh at Halo being praised for its artistic merits.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on September 23, 2007, 12:31:31 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 23, 2007, 12:58:48 PM
ha. ha. ha.
Post by: SixthAngel on September 23, 2007, 03:49:23 PM
A strange thing I read at Kotaku will also definitely affect the reviews since they were flown out to whatever dark corner of the world they review these games and given two days to review it. That means one day of playing the campaign nonstop and another day of being able to mess with the multiplayer a little bit. Besides the relatively short time for a review it is a completely Bungie/MS controlled environment. The reviewers are surely surrounded by big fans like themselves to boost opinions as well. I would assume being forced to play 12 hours a day wouldn't go over well with everyone though, I know I wouldn't like it. With a hype machine this big the scores were basically given out weeks ago though. The reviews do show that the game is worth picking up if you have the box though.
Post by: wulffman04 on September 23, 2007, 05:13:36 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on September 23, 2007, 07:01:46 PM
The Halo 3 reviews are just repulsive. Everytime I read one I want to throw up all over the place. The stuff LuigiDude posted is just a giant load. It really just proves how big of a joke these big gaming publications are and how they crap all over Nintendo for no reason whatsoever.
But seriously, f*ck Halo. F*ck that whole sh!tfest of a series. Halo has ruined console FPSs with it's crappy regenerating health and floaty-ass controls. I can't stand that series and the number of idiots who splooge all over it. Halo is a run-of-the-mill FPS, NOTHING MORE. I wish somebody would buy me a copy of the game so I could wipe my ass with it.
/End Very Angry Rant
Post by: UERD on September 23, 2007, 07:20:29 PM
Quote
penultimate chapter is so bad, just thinking about it puts a rotten taste in my mouth. It's the kind of level where, if playing through Halo 3 again, I might just stop once I reached it and not bother finishing the skirmish, much less the fight.
So if IGN thinks this about the game's single-player mode, exactly why did they still give it a 9.5? If MP3 had faced the same issue, would it have gotten anything higher than a 7.5?
Quote
Enjoy watching your supposed equal getting shot in the face repeatedly and generally making himself utterly useless. What is the point of sticking you with an AI compatriot if all he's good at is respawning?
Hey, look, more AI problems. Wasn't Daikatana crucified in part because of this very same issue?
Quote
This new addition [Forge mode] to the Halo series will keep these eleven maps fresh for years.
I don't see how a gimped level editor with no terrain editing capabilities and very, very limited scripting could ever provide that much replay value.
Quote
Now imagine if you could keep a visual record of everything you ever do in Halo 3. It's not only possible, it happens automatically. Every time you play Halo 3 -- be it a campaign level, Forge, or multiplayer -- the 3D game data from your match is saved to your hard drive or memory card.
Now you can be a tool on YouTube using technology that was implemented in freaking Starcraft (!) at least three years ago.
Quote
<art design>
Halo had ugly art design, and Halo 3 doesn't really look much different. Even UT2004 had more interesting levels. Generic post-apocalyptic plains terrain for the win.
Now, I don't think the game is *bad* persay, or anything less than 'very good'. I will eventually get it for PC when MS does the inevitable feature-enhanced port. But as was mentioned, the content of these reviews really, really bites. And I really hate how features that are neither new to games nor particularly innovative or interesting are touted as the 'next greatest thing ever'. People would laugh if Toyota or Ford advertised their newest car models by focusing on how the steering wheel or air conditioning are both options you can get, but apparently the 'Halo casual' gamer is too dense (or ignorant) to do the same.
Post by: Svevan on September 23, 2007, 09:16:02 PM
This one's not bad either.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 23, 2007, 10:00:48 PM
In many ways it is kind of sad that games like the MP series will be ignored by gamers. Heck even Bioshock is getting ignored, its sales are far from stellar, and that game has far more style then the Halo series combined. Oh well, not much that can be done about it.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 23, 2007, 10:53:05 PM
However, I wouldn't be so quick to say that the rating is inaccurate based only on the description, ratings aren't a bullet point and checklist affair, a game can have loads of flaws but if they don't hurt the fun much they shouldn't weight into the score.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 05:05:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
However, I wouldn't be so quick to say that the rating is inaccurate based only on the description, ratings aren't a bullet point and checklist affair, a game can have loads of flaws but if they don't hurt the fun much they shouldn't weight into the score.
That may be true in some cases, but when you downgrade a game's score based on certain things, yet the next time around you don't shows a potential bias in the review. Everything I've read about Halo 3 is that it is basically more of the same, almost ridiculously so, but the reviewers let that slide because of what? A barebones level editor and some video replay? I'm not buying that.
Post by: Kairon on September 24, 2007, 06:34:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
However, I wouldn't be so quick to say that the rating is inaccurate based only on the description, ratings aren't a bullet point and checklist affair, a game can have loads of flaws but if they don't hurt the fun much they shouldn't weight into the score.
That may be true in some cases, but when you downgrade a game's score based on certain things, yet the next time around you don't shows a potential bias in the review. Everything I've read about Halo 3 is that it is basically more of the same, almost ridiculously so, but the reviewers let that slide because of what? A barebones level editor and some video replay? I'm not buying that.
That's why in the reviews thread, I really support a vague 5-point EMOTIONAL-TOUCHSTONE index. To think that games can be rated objectively with a 10 point system is ludicrous to me. And to break it down into graphics, sound, etc. is even more ridiculous. You need a certain amount of vagueness in their appraisal, especially because game's aren't tools that can be measured to have a 91% failure rate or to have X number bugs or deliver exactly N milligrams of arousal, they're art. And they are a holistic experience, not a functional segmented one. (note: this statement is in danger of Svevan coming here and blasting it out of the water)
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 24, 2007, 07:48:14 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 08:11:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
This game is weak.
Still will be more fun than Killer7!
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 24, 2007, 08:19:30 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 24, 2007, 08:42:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
That may be true in some cases, but when you downgrade a game's score based on certain things, yet the next time around you don't shows a potential bias in the review. Everything I've read about Halo 3 is that it is basically more of the same, almost ridiculously so, but the reviewers let that slide because of what? A barebones level editor and some video replay? I'm not buying that.
I'm not sure they were downgraded only because of those points, either. If I were to rate MP2E I'd rate it lower than MP1, not because it's too similar but because it doesn't feel as fun.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 09:57:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
I at least I provided as much logic as the Halo 3 reviewers.
You know, I can't disagree with you there!
Post by: ShyGuy on September 24, 2007, 03:37:37 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 03:40:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
So who among us is standing in line at midnight for this game?
I'm getting it tomorrow night, or the next day. Can't believe people started standing in line last night. Some kid was being interviewed and his mom gave him permission to miss school and stay for Halo.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on September 24, 2007, 03:58:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
So who among us is standing in line at midnight for this game?
I'm getting it tomorrow night, or the next day. Can't believe people started standing in line last night. Some kid was being interviewed and his mom gave him permission to miss school and stay for Halo.
Man, kids have it so easy these days!
Back in my day we had to play HOOKY from school! We had to avoid all authority figures just so we could enjoy our games!
Now kids just beg the parents and BOOM! Where's the fun in asking?
And that's why today's kids are a bunch of whining crybabies.
Post by: TrueNerd on September 24, 2007, 05:13:17 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 24, 2007, 05:21:33 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 24, 2007, 05:35:23 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 05:45:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
I'm standing in line, but not for my own copy. Some of my friends are apparently too weak to stand in a line by themselves.
They do realize you can go into the store the next day and get one right? Frankly I am quite disgusted by the display by the gamestop by me, they are screaming and acting like idiots, I guess it all makes sense why Halo 3 is so anticipated, it has all the bloody idiots sucked in. I've been to console launches for all 3 systems and I've never seen anything quite so repulsive and eye rolling. It makes me feel even more ashamed that I'm getting the same game they are tomorrow.
Post by: Stogi on September 24, 2007, 06:19:18 PM
What kind of bullsh!t is this?!
Post by: Adrock on September 24, 2007, 06:47:42 PM
On a related note, while I stood in line with my friend, I got a bunch of free stuff (the best being a Halo 3 shirt that I'm giving my Halo-whore brother) then I went inside and was the only person to just buy a copy of Knocked Up.
Post by: UncleBob on September 24, 2007, 07:24:13 PM
One guy, at the back of the line (like, the last person to check out), apparently heard about this online and opened his copy before leaving - scratched. Swapped and opened a second copy... Scratched. Swapped and opened a third copy - scratched. Fourth copy was the charm.
I mentioned something about "Microsoft Quality" - to which he asked if I was a "PS3 Fanboy". I said no, I'm a fan of Quality... and asked how many 360's he's gone through. I really expected him to say something like "Oh, that's bull, I'm on my first one"... Instead, he was honest and said he was on his fourth.
Seriously, you go through four systems in less than a year and still stand in line to buy a $70 game from the same company?
Would you like some KY with that game, ma'mn?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 07:28:55 PM
Post by: UncleBob on September 24, 2007, 07:32:53 PM
However, the design of the Halo 3 Collector's Edition Tin is such that it simply does not hold the game in properly. It would appear to me a pretty big issue if a guy comes in to get one the night of the release and already read about it online - then has to go through four of our 15 copies to find one that isn't scratched.
Post by: UncleBob on September 24, 2007, 08:06:35 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Early+Halo+3+Limited+Edition+Owners+Plagued+by+Scratched+Discs/article9010c.htm
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 08:10:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
More on the scratched disks.
http://www.dailytech.com/Early+Halo+3+Limited+Edition+Owners+Plagued+by+Scratched+Discs/article9010c.htm
Well maybe it is for the best, considering the crowd that got the game, Karma is coming back to bite them square in the butt! I really hate those types of designs too, I don't remember what game it was, but it got dislodged and that same crappy foam design. Anyway that is why I got the Legendary Edition!
Post by: UncleBob on September 24, 2007, 08:11:57 PM
Wow... and this game's been out how long?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 08:14:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
http://news.google.com/news?q=scratched+Halo+3&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
Wow... and this game's been out how long?
Gamespot on it
"These scratches give Halo 3 a unique advantage over the competition which doesn't have them. You will get to play Halo like you've never played it before so therefor we give it a 10/10".
Post by: IceCold on September 24, 2007, 09:38:51 PM
QuoteI said wow.
One guy, at the back of the line (like, the last person to check out), apparently heard about this online and opened his copy before leaving - scratched. Swapped and opened a second copy... Scratched. Swapped and opened a third copy - scratched. Fourth copy was the charm.
I mentioned something about "Microsoft Quality" - to which he asked if I was a "PS3 Fanboy". I said no, I'm a fan of Quality... and asked how many 360's he's gone through. I really expected him to say something like "Oh, that's bull, I'm on my first one"... Instead, he was honest and said he was on his fourth.
Post by: Svevan on September 24, 2007, 10:44:11 PM
I'm so jaded by this thread. It really disappoints me that we are so negative about something so great. However, I will admit that the people standing in line for the game were, for the most part, retards. But I stood in line at midnight for Harry Potter 7 (which, like Halo 3, did not run out of stock that night; no one expected it to) and encountered some strange and obnoxious people there too. I would venture to say that standing in line at midnight is one of those nerd things that only attracts the really antisocial folks with no lives. Though I do not count myself among them, I have seen them a lot, since I have stood in line for many things over the past few years (mostly movies). I understand the double standard involved with criticizing midnight lines and participating in them - it's just the truth.
The problem with midnight lines is that they take advantage of the hype machine, which is a dreadful device that preys on young people with lots of disposable income. The reason shallow cgi crap movies keep getting made is that the best of the bunch, like LotR and Spider-man, get so much attention. The modern media has set its sights on this young demographic and creates art geared for their easily pleased palettes. So all those terrible Halo imitators are, like those terrible fantasy, comic book, and pirate movies we are bombarded with, just imitating the greater thing that happens to be appreciated by the unwashed. And its the unwashed that stand in line at midnight.
I do have to say that the Wii midnight line had a nice diversity of people, though the ages (and maturity) went down the closer you got to the front - also, I stood in line at Fred Meyer, which is not the same as standing in line at EBGames.
Halo 3 makes me want an Xbox 360 more than any other game I've played on 360 thus far.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 25, 2007, 02:11:19 AM
I think the frustration is coming from Microsoft either buying hype or game publications overselling/over hyping a product they are excited about. Halo is good. It does a great job at online play and really tries to push the limits in replay...which is exactly what a video game should do.
BUT, the story really isn't that great. None of the games had this awe inspiring story, which is what everyone is talking about. And Halo should not be compared to any movie trilogy. Halo fans are not Trekkie fans...are not Star Wars fans. The truth is, that if this is truly the last Halo FPS then the series will die with nobody caring, because some better FPS will be out there to play and devour our time.
I will say Halo 3 probably deserves all its reviews, but it does not deserve the hype.
Post by: SixthAngel on September 25, 2007, 02:24:22 AM
I think most of the negativity here is coming from the extreme over hype (I only see the stuff on the internet and I am already sick of it) and the double standard that is used when reviewing games. Somebody bump the game ratings thread because you wouldn't have this complaining with a 5 star review system since games this close would have the same number of stars.
Post by: Nick DiMola on September 25, 2007, 03:29:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
I think most of the negativity here is coming from the extreme over hype (I only see the stuff on the internet and I am already sick of it) and the double standard that is used when reviewing games. Somebody bump the game ratings thread because you wouldn't have this complaining with a 5 star review system since games this close would have the same number of stars.
Sure there is some more negativity due to the extreme over-hyping and double standards in reviews. But generally speaking, I can't stand Halo. The story is boring and useless, the character design and art direction is bland and boring. The enemies are repetitive and the gameplay is boring. I hate the controls and the weapons and how so much of being good at the game depends on knowing the levels. Halo has done 3 things right and that's all I can give it. 1) It has really done a great job of Online play, as much as I hate the game I can't take that away from it. 2) Coop play in FPSs has become pretty much standard as a result of the efforts of Halo. 3) The vehicles have always been fun to control and play with.
Unfortunately, it has also brought the concept of rechargeable health which in it's own right it the biggest destruction of console FPSs. I absolutely hate rechargeable health. It ruins multiplayer and encourages running away and camping, which just pisses me off to no end. The mediocrity of Halo just pisses me off. Just because it is a solid offering doesn't make it ground breaking. Halo never did anything that hasn't been done before and didn't do anything that has done before necessarily better. The game was geared for the mainstream gamer, and those idiots gobbled it up and have since hailed it as the greatest creation known to man.
Halo is nothing special, end of story. I'm sick of people telling me I should like it just because they do, it just makes me hate the game more.
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 25, 2007, 04:16:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. JackQuote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
I think most of the negativity here is coming from the extreme over hype (I only see the stuff on the internet and I am already sick of it) and the double standard that is used when reviewing games. Somebody bump the game ratings thread because you wouldn't have this complaining with a 5 star review system since games this close would have the same number of stars.
Sure there is some more negativity due to the extreme over-hyping and double standards in reviews. But generally speaking, I can't stand Halo. The story is boring and useless, the character design and art direction is bland and boring. The enemies are repetitive and the gameplay is boring. I hate the controls and the weapons and how so much of being good at the game depends on knowing the levels. Halo has done 3 things right and that's all I can give it. 1) It has really done a great job of Online play, as much as I hate the game I can't take that away from it. 2) Coop play in FPSs has become pretty much standard as a result of the efforts of Halo. 3) The vehicles have always been fun to control and play with.
Unfortunately, it has also brought the concept of rechargeable health which in it's own right it the biggest destruction of console FPSs. I absolutely hate rechargeable health. It ruins multiplayer and encourages running away and camping, which just pisses me off to no end. The mediocrity of Halo just pisses me off. Just because it is a solid offering doesn't make it ground breaking. Halo never did anything that hasn't been done before and didn't do anything that has done before necessarily better. The game was geared for the mainstream gamer, and those idiots gobbled it up and have since hailed it as the greatest creation known to man.
Halo is nothing special, end of story. I'm sick of people telling me I should like it just because they do, it just makes me hate the game more.
I guess it comes down to can people admit that games they personally do not like may still in fact be great games that deserve the reviews and respect they deserve.
I do not like Halo, because I thought the game control was difficult and I did not like the speed of the character movement...I always felt like I was moving through mud. But I realize that the game is great. I know several friends that love the game, and I have played the game with them and have really enjoyed myself, even though Halo is not my style of FPS.
I think we all just need to realize different people have different tastes. For example: I do not enjoy RPGs, Turn Based Strategy, Sports Simulations, Realistic Racing games, or Sand Box games like Grand Theft Auto. In fact I don't like super violent games either. However, I can respect all those genres when a particular game is well designed...and sometimes I find myself playing a game of that genre and really enjoying it.
I just wish that the gaming press was able to be so open minded, but the fact is they are not, and they can easily get carried away by personal bias, hype, and more. I think the best example of this is games that play only average but have great graphics and get really high scores, or they will let an above average story enhance their score and coverage even though other aspects fall short.
But then games on the Wii are compared against other systems instead of on their own merit. And they don't get the graphics benefit...but they do get the Nintendo scrutiny because Nintendo is EXPECTED to be quality.
It is very frustrating. because what this proves is the hype machine is very successful, but it disgusts me, and it just feels dirty.
By the way, the genres I love are: Classic gaming, Platformers, Shooters, Fighting games, Adventure games, Puzzle games, Cartoony grahics...ect
Post by: UERD on September 25, 2007, 04:37:35 AM
Ultimately, I don't like what MS is doing because they are fundamentally lowering standards. Online play? It's free for almost every relevant PC game, but apparently it costs you $50 a year on the 360. Downloadable maps and content? Again, free for PC games, but a veritable money-maker for MS. The controls are great for many games, but terrible for the first-person shooters that comprise the 360's core line. Dumbed-down difficulty and level design on traditionally 'hard-core'/challenging games because of this need to make shooters appeal to the mass market. And now level editors and saved replays, mainstays of PC games for years, show up crippled and beaten half to death on a 360 game, and are given a standing ovation.
MS could be doing so much better. But between their PC ports of their top-line 360 games, their unreliable hardware, and the questionable choices they are making with regards to content, they are jeopardizing both consumers and their own business...which is really strange, considering the fact that their console gaming division could really become a moneymaker for the company in the future.
Post by: SixthAngel on September 25, 2007, 05:09:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
Sure there is some more negativity due to the extreme over-hyping and double standards in reviews. But generally speaking, I can't stand Halo. The story is boring and useless, the character design and art direction is bland and boring. The enemies are repetitive and the gameplay is boring. I hate the controls and the weapons and how so much of being good at the game depends on knowing the levels. Halo has done 3 things right and that's all I can give it. 1) It has really done a great job of Online play, as much as I hate the game I can't take that away from it. 2) Coop play in FPSs has become pretty much standard as a result of the efforts of Halo. 3) The vehicles have always been fun to control and play with.
Unfortunately, it has also brought the concept of rechargeable health which in it's own right it the biggest destruction of console FPSs. I absolutely hate rechargeable health. It ruins multiplayer and encourages running away and camping, which just pisses me off to no end. The mediocrity of Halo just pisses me off. Just because it is a solid offering doesn't make it ground breaking. Halo never did anything that hasn't been done before and didn't do anything that has done before necessarily better. The game was geared for the mainstream gamer, and those idiots gobbled it up and have since hailed it as the greatest creation known to man.
Halo is nothing special, end of story. I'm sick of people telling me I should like it just because they do, it just makes me hate the game more.
Everyone jumped on the rechargeable health bandwagon. While I personally like it I wish every developer didn't just jump on something popular immediately. There is no reason that both types of games can't be made.
The designs are almost directly ripped from Aliens (guns, marines, evac ships). While I know they are complete ripoffs and I should be obliged to hate it I still liked how it gave automatic personality to the marines and humans because I now saw them as the marines from aliens.
I just wish they stopped pretending all the little features were the best thing ever. Co-op was done before Halo came out but the reason Halo made it so popular as because the people were in the same room. Co-op being available offline was what made it cool, no playing with a random schmuck or hoping a friend had the same game and computer to play. Strangely enough I think one of the best things the xbox did was move something offline. One game and one system was all that was needed. Forge and replay offer no such advantage so they become a neat extra and nothing more.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 25, 2007, 05:18:25 AM
People that are huge fans of Halo make me wonder if they have actually played many PC FPS games, which have far surpassed the Halo series, heck when Halo first came out it was outdated. Besides the shield (which I fine to be a a cheap way to NOT design a game) and the grenade throwing button Halo did NOTHING new. So yes, I think it is an overrated game and it is even more frustrating when reviewers have the exact same criticisms about it yet end up giving it a higher score then something like Metroid Prime 3, heck they've went on to say that the final level in the single player is horrendous to play which does not sound like a near perfect game to me.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 25, 2007, 08:29:34 AM
Also, some of the dialogue has made me cringe...Soldier: "Where do you want them to go?" Lady in Charge: "To WAR." Seriously? Ugh...
At least the gameplay has been fairly solid so far, though I keep hitting the stupid equipment button when I want to reload...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 25, 2007, 08:42:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
One thing I want to point out is how bad the animation in this game is...I mean, Master Chief has some cool line or whatever, then you watch him walk off like he's got a heat rash on his crotch...It's hilarious...
Also, some of the dialogue has made me cringe...Soldier: "Where do you want them to go?" Lady in Charge: "To WAR." Seriously? Ugh...
At least the gameplay has been fairly solid so far, though I keep hitting the stupid equipment button when I want to reload...
Is it superior to MP3 in every way?
Post by: ryancoke on September 25, 2007, 09:08:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
One thing I want to point out is how bad the animation in this game is...I mean, Master Chief has some cool line or whatever, then you watch him walk off like he's got a heat rash on his crotch...It's hilarious...
Also, some of the dialogue has made me cringe...Soldier: "Where do you want them to go?" Lady in Charge: "To WAR." Seriously? Ugh...
At least the gameplay has been fairly solid so far, though I keep hitting the stupid equipment button when I want to reload...
Is it superior to MP3 in every way?
Obviously Halo just isn't your type of game. Millions of people have a great time playing it. That's all that matters. I'm sure you'd like it if Nintendo made it.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 25, 2007, 09:10:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ryancokeQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
One thing I want to point out is how bad the animation in this game is...I mean, Master Chief has some cool line or whatever, then you watch him walk off like he's got a heat rash on his crotch...It's hilarious...
Also, some of the dialogue has made me cringe...Soldier: "Where do you want them to go?" Lady in Charge: "To WAR." Seriously? Ugh...
At least the gameplay has been fairly solid so far, though I keep hitting the stupid equipment button when I want to reload...
Is it superior to MP3 in every way?
Obviously Halo just isn't your type of game. Millions of people have a great time playing it. That's all that matters. I'm sure you'd like it if Nintendo made it.
Must be why I'm buying it right?
Post by: UERD on September 25, 2007, 10:17:33 AM
Quote
Millions of people have a great time playing it.
I'd wager that they'd have even more fun if they tried out a computer FPS, or alternately that even more people would be having fun playing Halo 3 if the XBox came with a mouse-like input.
Quote
I'm sure you'd like it if Nintendo made it.
I hated dual-shock console FPSes before Halo came out, and I still hate them now. GP likes BioShock, and I like Starcraft, and neither game really has anything to do with Nintendo.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 25, 2007, 10:30:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UERDQuote
Millions of people have a great time playing it.
I'd wager that they'd have even more fun if they tried out a computer FPS, or alternately that even more people would be having fun playing Halo 3 if the XBox came with a mouse-like input.Quote
I'm sure you'd like it if Nintendo made it.
I hated dual-shock console FPSes before Halo came out, and I still hate them now. GP likes BioShock, and I like Starcraft, and neither game really has anything to do with Nintendo.
I don't hate Halo either, I just think it is an extremely overrated series and gets WAY more hype then it ever deserved, with that said I still think it is a quality series.
Post by: Kairon on September 25, 2007, 10:40:42 AM
Post by: TrueNerd on September 25, 2007, 11:04:38 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 25, 2007, 12:37:21 PM
I can't believe they still have backtracking! THROUGH FLOOD...AGAIN!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 25, 2007, 12:38:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
It's like the previous two games as far as I can tell...Starts off strong, thens plummets off a cliff as you near the end...
I can't believe they still have backtracking! THROUGH FLOOD...AGAIN!
DO you have to once again have to fight hordes of them?
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 25, 2007, 01:18:10 PM
Post by: bustin98 on September 25, 2007, 01:24:32 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 25, 2007, 01:26:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
Man, that's totally what I hated about the first two. Awesome fights all the way up that stupid part. Then you enter the frustration zone. Oh well, I mainly play for the online multiplayer.
You know that is sad when people play it for multiplayer, yet you hear people bragging about the plot all the time. Makes no sense to me!
Post by: that Baby guy on September 25, 2007, 01:36:08 PM
Post by: wulffman04 on September 25, 2007, 02:59:05 PM
----------------------------
It's Hammer Time!
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 25, 2007, 03:17:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wulffman04
and the flood is super creepy as always
Super creepy, more like super annoying and pointless...But yeah, the hammer is fun to use...
Post by: bustin98 on September 25, 2007, 05:05:46 PM
I hear that Halo3 ups Gears of War in the difficulty department. More enemies, extra turret guns, smarter AI depending on the level you play at. Exactly what I was looking for.
I don't think I've complimented Halo on its story. Hell, I don't even have an interest in reading the paperback books. I probably would read them if given the opportunity but I'm not going out of my way for them.
Mass Effect might be different depending on if there are multiple ways it ends based on what you do and say. And I don't mean a 'good' ending and a 'not-so-good' ending.
Post by: wulffman04 on September 25, 2007, 07:01:10 PM
-Ultimately I'm not sure we would be able to handle Legendary, and we played Halo 2 pretty often, but if we had 4 people (instead of just 2) playing at once I bet we could take on the campaign on legendary.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 25, 2007, 08:18:55 PM
Post by: Shift Key on September 25, 2007, 08:51:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
I really wish at least one person here would admit that Halo 3 is an excellent game. It is no longer as innovative as it was, but that's because the formula still works. It is the standard for console fps (cue GP chiming in that there is no such thing as a good console fps). I played number 3 tonight for a few hours and enjoyed it quite a bit, as much as the others. I really can't talk about single player (and, hello, there's nothing wrong with that) but the mechanics are so tight and so, honestly, perfect that I'm sure single player will be a fun experience.
Get off your soapbox Burchfield. Why should I heap praise on a polished version of Halo 2?
I'll probably play it later this week (some of my mates were lining up at midnight for it) so I'll pass judgment after that. Until then I shall maintain my skepticism, no matter what other people think my opinions should be.
Quote
Halo 3 makes me want an Xbox 360 more than any other game I've played on 360 thus far.
... which makes me question why the 360's attach rate is so high.
I'm interested in how Halo 3 has affected 360 sales (given that Halo 2 was a Xbox title and all of the Halo players I know have already bought a 360).
Post by: Svevan on September 25, 2007, 09:21:52 PM
edit: above comment not sarcastic. I really love the Internet right now. And I love you Shift Key. More than life itself.
After having played Halo 3, I really don't know how I could go back to 2. I don't think that's just because of polish (people).
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 25, 2007, 10:26:33 PM
Why do people make the next-gen jump to 3 when previous games in the past decade provided a similar, relatively complete feature package?
Is it just "hey it's the new 2008 Toyota, I guess I should get with the program so I can participate on the same roadway that everyone else is enjoying?
it's the madden of space-marine games
Post by: Svevan on September 25, 2007, 10:59:39 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 25, 2007, 11:13:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Well, I don't think so at all. For gameplay mechanics (grenade types, dual-wielding), graphics, level design, multiplayer options, Live options, and everything else, 2 really outpaced 1. 3's jump is less substantial, but we have to consider all the new weapons, vehicles, levels, new control scheme, the X-Button items, and again with more shlt to do on Live and in LAN, and of course the graphics. It's a far cry from the Madden series, since the first Halo came out in 01, and the second came out in 04. That's the exact same frequency as the Metroid Prime games, and (oh I'm gonna piss someone off) Halo has shown much more advancement within its own formula than Metroid Prime ever did.
The Metroid Prime series has always been unique in gameplay to about any game out there, Halo 1-3 has been a poor man’s PC First Person Shooter (which is why it is always ripped when it is ported to PC). In fact your opinion completely falls apart because the Halo series has had a myriad of far superior FPS games to build off of, while the Prime series doesn't have the convenience of ripping off features left and right since it is a gameplay design that really is its own unique creation and is NOT an uninspired FPS whose artistic merit is terribly generic, where gameplay mechanics are ripped right from far better games on the PC (though dumbed down for the gamepad), or being outdated instantly by more complete first person experiences on, once again, the PC.
At least MP3 doesn't have a final level that the reviewers even admitted was flat out terrible and something they cringe at ever doing again. You seem like a walking contradiction sometimes Evan, you have always been this RAW RAW for independent films and BOOOO to Big Budget movies, yet in gaming you are defending perhaps gaming own monster budget "cool" movie. Yet you criticize Bioshock which actually has a lot of artistic merit and does a heck of a lot more in its single player campaign then the Halo series has ever done, which has been basically Serious Sam with a bit more polish. Not to mention the fact that I don't think it is a ringing endorsement for the Halo series that you don't think you can go back to the previous games. If a series is truly a great series you should find value in each game because it is special. As much as I like Madden I wouldn't call it a great series because I never want to play a previous installment.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 25, 2007, 11:14:37 PM
(Laugho, trying to compare Halo's single-player campaign to the Prime series results in Halo slaughter...)
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on September 26, 2007, 03:55:58 AM
So in my route I would rather wait for the Orange Box or even Call of Duty 4.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 26, 2007, 07:08:32 AM
Post by: hudsonhawk on September 26, 2007, 07:58:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Wait, wait, wait. What formula advancements has Halo done that are bigger than the Prime series? You gotta back wild claims like that. If you say dual wielding....
Within the series, which is what he's talking about, Halo has added online play (which it did in an innovative and perfect way - the virtual couch is brilliant), a map editor, sharable instant replays, online coop, competitive coop, and a nice ladder system that does a good job of matching you against people of your skill level.
I love the Prime series as much as anyone, but the series hasn't really changed at all since the first one, save for the different control scheme in the third.
Halo deliberately caters to a broad audience with its simple gameplay, and it took something that was too complicated and intimidating for most casual gamers (online gameplay) and made it easy in a simple and innovative way. It doesn't make things any more complicated than they need to be, instead focusing on simply having fun.
For me the fun of Halo isn't just that it's a fun game - it is, don't get me wrong - but its mass-appeal means that I get to enjoy it with people I wouldn't otherwise get to enjoy a game with - my brother, my casual-gaming friends, my wife's brother - and its so popular that it means there's always matches to jump into, usually with people I know.
Mass appeal, simple fun gameplay that brings casual and hardcore gamers together, innovative simple solutions to complex problems... reminds me of another company that I like an awful lot. Only difference is that Halo gets faulted for it.
Post by: bustin98 on September 26, 2007, 08:07:40 AM
I have a heck of a time going back to the original Halo, mainly due to the controls. Timing is off, no dual weilding, melee attack is different, gernades are different, and the way enemies spawn is a cop-out (you'll approach an area with no enemies, then suddenly they are all over the place). Its not un-playable, just not as fun as it was originally.
Apply that to Metroid Prime. Its not exactly fair to compare the Wii version, but between the first and second, you can go back and forth without any trouble. Maybe because it was already as good as it gets?? Gameplay wise, I have trouble with Prime 2, but I think almost everyone hated switching from light side to dark side.
From a certain point of view, some games need to have elements grow beyond the original, others don't.
Post by: Adrock on September 26, 2007, 08:25:09 AM
Quote
At least MP3 doesn't have a final level that the reviewers even admitted was flat out terrible and something they cringe at ever doing again.
I'll refrain from getting into this whole Halo argument since I'm not a fan of the series or FPS in general, but I can't let you make that comparison without saying something, GP.
MP3's final level was flat-out terrible. What was the point of getting all those upgrades........ and you couldn't even save when you got there.......
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 26, 2007, 08:33:17 AM
Post by: that Baby guy on September 26, 2007, 08:38:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
There's something to be said here. If a game is released and gains praise, then the sequel is released and makes strides above the original, could it be that the original was really gimped and we just didn't realize it?
I have a heck of a time going back to the original Halo, mainly due to the controls. Timing is off, no dual weilding, melee attack is different, gernades are different, and the way enemies spawn is a cop-out (you'll approach an area with no enemies, then suddenly they are all over the place). Its not un-playable, just not as fun as it was originally.
Apply that to Metroid Prime. Its not exactly fair to compare the Wii version, but between the first and second, you can go back and forth without any trouble. Maybe because it was already as good as it gets?? Gameplay wise, I have trouble with Prime 2, but I think almost everyone hated switching from light side to dark side.
From a certain point of view, some games need to have elements grow beyond the original, others don't.
Brilliant observation. Seriously. I think it goes to show that if a game that young has already aged, maybe there wasn't much there initially. It's a game that would have been tremendous regardless of how good it actually was.
This Halo 3 stuff makes me sick. Heck, even The Gainesville Sun called them out in a non-confrontational kind of way. They said it was a decent game, but not nearly the best on the front page today, which is a lot, coming from non-gaming media. It's sad that they can see that, but few others can.
Post by: vudu on September 26, 2007, 09:09:17 AM
QuoteJust jumping in here to point out that lots of reviewers seem to have a big problem with the "fetch quests" at the end of Wind Waker and Echos. However, both are terrific games according to most reviews I've seen.
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
At least MP3 doesn't have a final level that the reviewers even admitted was flat out terrible and something they cringe at ever doing again.
/vudu troll
Post by: Svevan on September 26, 2007, 09:37:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Well, I don't think so at all. For gameplay mechanics (grenade types, dual-wielding), graphics, level design, multiplayer options, Live options, and everything else, 2 really outpaced 1. 3's jump is less substantial, but we have to consider all the new weapons, vehicles, levels, new control scheme, the X-Button items, and again with more shlt to do on Live and in LAN, and of course the graphics. It's a far cry from the Madden series, since the first Halo came out in 01, and the second came out in 04. That's the exact same frequency as the Metroid Prime games, and (oh I'm gonna piss someone off) Halo has shown much more advancement within its own formula than Metroid Prime ever did.
The Metroid Prime series has always been unique in gameplay to about any game out there, Halo 1-3 has been a poor man’s PC First Person Shooter (which is why it is always ripped when it is ported to PC). In fact your opinion completely falls apart because the Halo series has had a myriad of far superior FPS games to build off of, while the Prime series doesn't have the convenience of ripping off features left and right since it is a gameplay design that really is its own unique creation and is NOT an uninspired FPS whose artistic merit is terribly generic, where gameplay mechanics are ripped right from far better games on the PC (though dumbed down for the gamepad), or being outdated instantly by more complete first person experiences on, once again, the PC.
At least MP3 doesn't have a final level that the reviewers even admitted was flat out terrible and something they cringe at ever doing again. You seem like a walking contradiction sometimes Evan, you have always been this RAW RAW for independent films and BOOOO to Big Budget movies, yet in gaming you are defending perhaps gaming own monster budget "cool" movie. Yet you criticize Bioshock which actually has a lot of artistic merit and does a heck of a lot more in its single player campaign then the Halo series has ever done, which has been basically Serious Sam with a bit more polish. Not to mention the fact that I don't think it is a ringing endorsement for the Halo series that you don't think you can go back to the previous games. If a series is truly a great series you should find value in each game because it is special. As much as I like Madden I wouldn't call it a great series because I never want to play a previous installment.
You're taking all my words out of context. I support big-budget films if they're good. Quality is more important than hype. I never attempted to compare Halo to MP3 in a broad sense - certainly one has a higher level of game design, but both have similar levels of "fun" content, in two very different ways. You make it seem as though I'm questioning the basic design of MP3, which I'm not. I am merely saying that Halo, compared across three games, has done a ton of new things and refined itself close to perfection. Metroid Prime has not done that, but that doesn't make it a bad game. Also, greater difficulty in game design does not make a game automatically good. The accomplishment of Retro should be honored, but being critical of Halo's advancements while heaping praise on MP3's repetitions is the height of dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Throwing in and manipulating my BioShock comments (which you admitted were incomplete; I never criticized the art style) is a straw man argument if ever there was one. And have you ever played Serious Sam (I know you have, rhetorical question)? Because Halo is so much more fun than Serious Sam I don't even have to say why. I don't know how anyone could take anything you've said above seriously. Moving on.
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Uh oh, Svevan's cover has been blown!
(Laugho, trying to compare Halo's single-player campaign to the Prime series results in Halo slaughter...)
I never said that. I said advancement within the formula. I got deja vu playing MP3 way more than I did playing Halo 3. I have never called Halo 3 a better single player game than MP3. I am merely speaking of the formula. And Bungie has done more to advance the Halo formula than Retro has done to advance the MP3 formula. This does not mean that Retro and Bungie started with the same level of "innovation" (an unquantifiable detail) or "originality" (which is not the mark of a good game). Retro made an amazing play system with Metroid Prime. And then they made two more games with a few upgrades and new worlds. The overall gameplay of Metroid Prime is more inspired, for sure. Bungie's game is more traditional, but the first Halo DID add lots of features to first person shooters, making console FPS gaming viable again, and introducing multiplayer to the world in a way unheard of since Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.
And the two games are so different that comparing them is retarded. The only reason I compared them is because Pro thought it necessary to call Halo the Madden of space marine games, a spurious and flat out incorrect claim. I was wrong about something else: Metroid Prime came out in 2002, which means the MP games have been churned out faster than the Halo games. I stand by my previous statement: for advancements within the playing formula, Halo has been tweaking weapon balance (including dual wielding), vehicles, maps, control scheme, HUD layout, multiplay options, and more. Metroid Prime still has morph ball areas, still has ice weapons, still has the same old puzzles I've been playing for years. So what? Repetition isn't bad; Nintendo gamers have a double standard when it comes to Halo.
edit: Hating a game because of its hype is like hating a movie because of its audience. And who's better at hyping their three main franchises than Nintendo?
Post by: vudu on September 26, 2007, 09:43:25 AM
Post by: Svevan on September 26, 2007, 09:45:44 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on September 26, 2007, 09:54:20 AM
Don't get me wrong I think Halo's multiplayer is very good, and it hits that magical sweetspot that games like Counter-Strike and GoldenEye did in the past.
To summarize,
Quote
I love the Halo series as much as anyone, but the series hasn't really changed at all since the first one, save for the different online scheme in the second.
fix'd
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on September 26, 2007, 10:01:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
The overall gameplay of Metroid Prime is more inspired, for sure. Bungie's game is more traditional, but the first Halo DID add lots of features to first person shooters, making console FPS gaming viable again, and introducing multiplayer to the world in a way unheard of since Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.
Is it so hard to find praise for Halo 3 that you have to make up crap qualifications like that? "It's the first to do X since the last time someone did X!"
Quote
And the two games are so different that comparing them is retarded. The only reason I compared them is because Pro thought it necessary to call Halo the Madden of space marine games, a spurious and flat out incorrect claim.
Wait. You said something "retarded" because Pro said something entirely unrelated?
Quote
Metroid Prime still has morph ball areas, still has ice weapons, still has the same old puzzles I've been playing for years. So what? Repetition isn't bad; Nintendo gamers have a double standard when it comes to Halo.
A lot of the complaints in this thread have been about the double standard reviewers apply to Metroid Prime 3 and Halo 3, wherein Halo 3 is rated highly in spite of its similarity to earlier games while Metroid Prime 3 is derided for the same thing. How did you manage to take people asking for equal treatment and twist it around into Nintendo fans being the ones with the double standard?
You're just doing this because you like to argue, aren't you?
Post by: Svevan on September 26, 2007, 10:32:59 AM
I suppose my statement is that if the reviews are being hypocritical about repetition of formula in MP3, Nintendo fans need to not match that hypocrisy in their own comments about Halo. How's that?
Post by: ShyGuy on September 26, 2007, 10:39:47 AM
Post by: Kairon on September 26, 2007, 10:48:55 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on September 26, 2007, 10:57:12 AM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on September 26, 2007, 11:00:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
I don't think you're being very nice, PartyBear.
I'm sorry you read it that way. I just don't find your arguments compelling, and it's not because I have anything against Halo. I find the excitement over it annoying, but I respect Bungie's talent.
Post by: IceCold on September 26, 2007, 11:04:59 AM
QuotePost of the year. I'm still laughing at the "first to do X since the last time someone did X" comment
Originally posted by: PartyBearQuote
Originally posted by: SvevanThe overall gameplay of Metroid Prime is more inspired, for sure. Bungie's game is more traditional, but the first Halo DID add lots of features to first person shooters, making console FPS gaming viable again, and introducing multiplayer to the world in a way unheard of since Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.
Is it so hard to find praise for Halo 3 that you have to make up crap qualifications like that? "It's the first to do X since the last time someone did X!"Quote
And the two games are so different that comparing them is retarded. The only reason I compared them is because Pro thought it necessary to call Halo the Madden of space marine games, a spurious and flat out incorrect claim.
Wait. You said something "retarded" because Pro said something entirely unrelated?Quote
Metroid Prime still has morph ball areas, still has ice weapons, still has the same old puzzles I've been playing for years. So what? Repetition isn't bad; Nintendo gamers have a double standard when it comes to Halo.
A lot of the complaints in this thread have been about the double standard reviewers apply to Metroid Prime 3 and Halo 3, wherein Halo 3 is rated highly in spite of its similarity to earlier games while Metroid Prime 3 is derided for the same thing. How did you manage to take people asking for equal treatment and twist it around into Nintendo fans being the ones with the double standard?
You're just doing this because you like to argue, aren't you?
Post by: Svevan on September 26, 2007, 11:08:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Prime 3 had a large advancement, the control scheme. Like it or not, this changes what you do in the game, and how the players experiences the formula in a big way. Halo 3 simply rearranges what was already there. I guess saying that makes me a hypocrite.
I won't deny MP3's control refinements, and you're making a good point, Shy, that I ignored. I just found the gameplay to be more of the same (which is to say, it was excellent).
Post by: Svevan on September 26, 2007, 11:11:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuotePost of the year. I'm still laughing at the "first to do X since the last time someone did X" comment
Originally posted by: PartyBearQuote
Originally posted by: SvevanThe overall gameplay of Metroid Prime is more inspired, for sure. Bungie's game is more traditional, but the first Halo DID add lots of features to first person shooters, making console FPS gaming viable again, and introducing multiplayer to the world in a way unheard of since Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.
Is it so hard to find praise for Halo 3 that you have to make up crap qualifications like that? "It's the first to do X since the last time someone did X!"Quote
And the two games are so different that comparing them is retarded. The only reason I compared them is because Pro thought it necessary to call Halo the Madden of space marine games, a spurious and flat out incorrect claim.
Wait. You said something "retarded" because Pro said something entirely unrelated?Quote
Metroid Prime still has morph ball areas, still has ice weapons, still has the same old puzzles I've been playing for years. So what? Repetition isn't bad; Nintendo gamers have a double standard when it comes to Halo.
A lot of the complaints in this thread have been about the double standard reviewers apply to Metroid Prime 3 and Halo 3, wherein Halo 3 is rated highly in spite of its similarity to earlier games while Metroid Prime 3 is derided for the same thing. How did you manage to take people asking for equal treatment and twist it around into Nintendo fans being the ones with the double standard?
You're just doing this because you like to argue, aren't you?
I don't think that's fair. Could you go back to Perfect Dark multiplayer today? I have, and it's still fun, but the refinements of Halo are better. Goldeneye and PD created a new wave of FPS multiplayer on consoles. Halo took it a step further. They didn't do "the same thing," they just reinvigorated a realm of gaming that got lost by adding a bunch of cool stuff and making it fun again.
I don't want to play the martyr, nor do I believe everyone's being unfair. I just hate hearing fanboyish comments about how terrible Halo is. If it needs to be knocked off a pedestal, so do many of Nintendo's beloved franchises.
Post by: UERD on September 26, 2007, 11:12:42 AM
Also, reviewers are not known to play games in-depth (which is why their RTS reviews are nearly useless, for example it takes months of online play before you can figure out whether a game is unbalanced or not). I wonder how many MP3 reviewers set aiming mode to 'Advanced, Free Lock-On' when they played the game, and how that would have affected their perception of the game if they had.
I'm not saying that Halo 3 is a bad game. I did say that I hated dual-analog FPSes. Does that mean I hate Halo? Think about that carefully. Halo X on the PC and Halo X on the XBox (360) are superficially the same game. But when you have two radically different input methods, a core part of the game, can you still call them the same game? For me (and a lot of other people), Halo or any other shooter is unplayable on a console. But I tried Halo 1 on PC a long time ago and it was not too bad. And it will be interesting to play through 2 and 3 once I get a new computer and MS releases the latter for the PC.
Post by: IceCold on September 26, 2007, 11:20:34 AM
QuoteI have no problem agreeing with that, and I don't doubt the game is fun, either. But every game should technically improve on others and add modes and be more playable than past ones. They have the advantage of hindsight at the expense of those past games, which obviously helps them avoid previous mistakes. Halo did this, but that doesn't really make it special.
I don't think that's fair. Could you go back to Perfect Dark multiplayer today? I have, and it's still fun, but the refinements of Halo are better. Goldeneye and PD created a new wave of FPS multiplayer on consoles. Halo took it a step further.
Plus there are just so many better FPSes out there, even console ones (TimeSplitters).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 26, 2007, 12:07:13 PM
Quote
Throwing in and manipulating my BioShock comments (which you admitted were incomplete; I never criticized the art style) is a straw man argument if ever there was one. And have you ever played Serious Sam (I know you have, rhetorical question)? Because Halo is so much more fun than Serious Sam I don't even have to say why. I don't know how anyone could take anything you've said above seriously. Moving on.
Perfect way to avoid any of the other points I made, such as Halo having a myriad of other games to build off of. And in regards to Serious Sam, have you even played the Halo FLOOD levels? If that isn't Serious Same like gameplay I don't what is. Even in regards to Bioshock, it has more gameplay variety than any of the Halo's have ever had, which have been basically run and shoot, throw some grenades, and watch your retarded allies get killed. Halo at its heart is a full blown run n gun shooter that throws tons of enemies at you, I'm sorry but that is Serious Sam's formula (although Serious Sam at least had some good boss fights here and there, which Halo has never had) regardless if you want to shove your head in the ground and pretend it isn't. Is Halo a far better game than SS? Yes it is, but the basic core gameplay follows that formula.
Let me be flat out blunt here, I feel if people are so in love with Halo, like you are Evan, that they are IGNORANT, yes you like that term so I'll use it. They obviously haven't played far better and more complete experiences elsewhere, and so are impressed by a dumbed down, mainstream FPS, who's biggest "advancement" in Halo 3 is a video replay feature and a barebones level designer. What I want to know is how my PC FPS shooters have you played? You were willing to harpoon Mashiro for his ignorance by not playing Killer7, so I want to know what your experience is, because frankly that is what I'm going off of. I've been playing FPS games since Wolfenstein 3D, and I think if anyone should know what is or is not a unique FPS experience, it would be myself.
Post by: Kairon on September 26, 2007, 12:09:21 PM
Gee, you're real Harsh GP. It's almost Like Halo is another Alien Syndrome for you.
Post by: Svevan on September 26, 2007, 12:13:18 PM
P.S. the video replay is not just video, it's interactive and you can fly the camera anywhere. Not a huge deal, but more fun than you want to paint it. Your dismissal of Forge is funny, but I can't rebut since I haven't played much of it.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 26, 2007, 12:13:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SvevanQuote
I don't want to play the martyr, nor do I believe everyone's being unfair. I just hate hearing fanboyish comments about how terrible Halo is. If it needs to be knocked off a pedestal, so do many of Nintendo's beloved franchises.
Haha, that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard you say. Many of Nintendo's games (at least the bigger franchises) have not been accurately replicated nor SURPASSED by other games, even when they first came out. For someone that purports to be so logical, your defense of Halo is quite lacking, especially defending it against its competition. Nintendo's franchises have revolutionized gaming, if you deny that, well I can't do anything but laugh. What has Halo really revolutionized? Rechargeable shields? Give me a break, please before you make such a ridiculous statement think about what your saying. In fact lets go down the list of Nintendo franchises and what they have done, that should be fun.
Mario:
-Basically revolutionized 2D gaming
-Once again revolutionized 3D gaming
-Spin-offs like Mario Party and Mario Kart even created brand new genres
-Smash Brothers gave a new twist on fighting games
Zelda:
-Basically created the exploration action/adventure genre
-Once again showed what could be done with 3D
-Took cel shading in a new direction
Metroid:
-Once again basically created the genre that spawned games like Symphony of the Night
-A revolutionary use of First Person perspective, mixed with puzzle solving, exploration, and yes even some brilliant devices such as the morph ball which added a new layer to gaming
Kirby:
-Not nearly as impactful as the others, but provided an interesting twist on the platformer genre with the ability to gain abilities
Star Fox:
-Perhaps one of the most repetitive series in recent years, but even the first two games helped set up on-rails shooters.
Ok that is all the games I wish to go over now. Let's look at Halo and see how it revolutionized or added to gaming or the FPS genre in general:
-Rechargeable shield
-Gernade button
-Dual Analog control? (Not even sure if it was the first)
Really rechargeable shields is the only thing that impacted PC gaming much (and IMO for the worse) though it could have been developed the same time as Call of Duty 1, so even that may not be true. So yeah, once again Nintendo's biggest franchises deserve their spot for what they have done for gaming. What has Halo really done for the FPS genre? That's right, not a whole heck of a lot. Even GTA which I have been critical of did quite a bit for gaming, at least when it comes to kicking off a new genre. Halo has really done nothing for gaming, at least from a creative or inspiring sense. So once again, yes I think the series is overrated. Heck even Goldeneye did more for FPS than Halo. On the flip side, I will say that the replay feature is an impressive technical feet but I wouldn't call it anything other than "cool" because it has been done so many times in the past, maybe not exactly the same way but close enough. Need to play around a bit more with the Forge but it seems to be quite barebones, and dumbed down for the consoles.
Call me a hypocrite if you want, but I am willing to give leniency to Nintendo's franchises because their formulas cannot be improved much at all, while on the flip side Halo is so far behind the times, that they have alot to borrow (steal) from games that have actually made a difference, they did it with Halo 1 and they are still doing it with Halo 3. It is far easier to improve on something that is gimped comparatively, but it is much harder to improve on something that is already excellent, in fact you are at a bigger disadvantage to KEEP it that way. Any brainless developer can throw in a video replay feature or add a barebones editor, it is the great developers that can create excellent gameplay designs that impact gaming for years to come.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 26, 2007, 12:15:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
I don't even have to rebut GP's comments sometimes, she does it herself.
P.S. the video replay is not just video, it's interactive and you can fly the camera anywhere. Not a huge deal, but more fun than you want to paint it. Your dismissal of Forge is funny, but I can't rebut since I haven't played much of it.
Wow Evan, brilliant stuff there. Have you played Madden before? You can do the same thing. My point is that those things are nothing new whatsoever, espeically a level editor which the PC has had for years. Also this is a bit unrelated, but I'm surprised you have praised the visuals because I've heard nothing about whining about them from the majority of Halo's user base (I don't really agree but oh well).
Oh well though, maybe I should just post this "I don't even have to rebut Evan's comments, he contradicts himself". That is the intellectual way to go, right?
Quote
I don't want to play the martyr, nor do I believe everyone's being unfair. I just hate hearing fanboyish comments about how terrible Halo is. If it needs to be knocked off a pedestal, so do many of Nintendo's beloved franchises.
This is a strawman argument if I've ever heard of one, I have no doubt some here think Halo is terrible but I am not one of them. Saying something is overhyped and gets more praise then it deserves is not saying I hate it. If I hate it would I have gotten the Legendary Edition? I think the Halo games are fun games, but at the same time don't compare to better FPS experiences elsewhere. Let me think of an example of a game I thought was fun but wasn't revolutionary. Um, well a quick one would be the Madden series, I love each years Madden game, but I think the hype is undeserved, granted this is not the best example since there aren't really any "better" games out there. I can't even really put the GTA games in as comparison because there really aren't any better sandbox style games. Regardless just because something may be alot of fun (along with hyped) but isn't revolutionary or does anything new, does not make it a "terrible" game, but on the flip side it doesn't make it amazing either if there are better experiences in the genre.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 26, 2007, 12:24:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SvevanQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Prime 3 had a large advancement, the control scheme. Like it or not, this changes what you do in the game, and how the players experiences the formula in a big way. Halo 3 simply rearranges what was already there. I guess saying that makes me a hypocrite.
I won't deny MP3's control refinements, and you're making a good point, Shy, that I ignored. I just found the gameplay to be more of the same (which is to say, it was excellent).
I don't care what Golden Phoenix says about you Evan, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 26, 2007, 12:26:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuyQuote
Originally posted by: SvevanQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Prime 3 had a large advancement, the control scheme. Like it or not, this changes what you do in the game, and how the players experiences the formula in a big way. Halo 3 simply rearranges what was already there. I guess saying that makes me a hypocrite.
I won't deny MP3's control refinements, and you're making a good point, Shy, that I ignored. I just found the gameplay to be more of the same (which is to say, it was excellent).
I don't care what Golden Phoenix says about you Evan, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
Haha, just say something he doesn't agree with, and then he'll blindly ignore you or insult you.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 26, 2007, 01:53:56 PM
Essentially, if every game sold were the low end $60 or $50 package, respectively, Halo 3 sold 2.83 million copies, while Halo 2 sold 2.5 million.
But, there's a problem: Halo 3 most likely sold more bonus edition packages, which cost either $130 or $70. So, while game revenue has set a new opening record, I think the numbers Halo 3 actually sold will be about the same as Halo 2. That's not a bad thing, obviously, but it isn't the number MS needs for a real profit.
Post by: Luigi Dude on September 26, 2007, 03:00:40 PM
Considering how Halo 3 is going to be the best selling 360 game, if it wasn't able to help it's system outsell the market leader, then NO 360 game will. Plus there's the fact that Microsoft has shipped so many 360's to stores, anyone that want's one can easily buy one.
So the NPD data for September is going to be most interesting to see since it'll tell us if Nintendo's won, or if Microsoft might actually have a chance.
Post by: bustin98 on September 26, 2007, 03:25:46 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 26, 2007, 03:46:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
Gamasutra has a report indicating that Halo may have inspired 300,000 Xbox 360 units to be sold in the months leading up to its release.
That seems like a pretty off the wall statistic there, how do they know? Anyway regardless of my feelings of how great Halo is, I hope it propels MS far ahead of Sony and puts them back on track.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 26, 2007, 06:58:48 PM
Post by: UERD on September 26, 2007, 07:21:28 PM
Post by: IceCold on September 26, 2007, 08:02:38 PM
QuotePlus we have yet to see the impact on hardware sales - that's a much more important factor..
But, there's a problem: Halo 3 most likely sold more bonus edition packages, which cost either $130 or $70. So, while game revenue has set a new opening record, I think the numbers Halo 3 actually sold will be about the same as Halo 2. That's not a bad thing, obviously, but it isn't the number MS needs for a real profit.
EDIT: Luigi Dude beat me to it. But also,
QuoteOH SNAP! Svevan gets a taste of his own elitism!
Let me be flat out blunt here, I feel if people are so in love with Halo, like you are Evan, that they are IGNORANT, yes you like that term so I'll use it. They obviously haven't played far better and more complete experiences elsewhere, and so are impressed by a dumbed down, mainstream FPS, who's biggest "advancement" this next game is a video replay feature and a barebones level designer. What I want to know is how my PC FPS shooters have you played?
*brings out the popcorn*
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on September 27, 2007, 03:00:51 AM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on September 27, 2007, 03:56:41 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 27, 2007, 09:56:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
Im just curious has anyone heard about the bonus disc controversy on the Legendary Edition, where there was supposed to be a disc with all the Halo 1 and 2 cutscenes remastered in widescreen and high def? Well unfortunately the folks at IGN and NeoGaf found out that all those cutscene were remastered alright except in glorious 4:3 youtube/VCR quality.
I haven't watched it yet, but I will soon.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 27, 2007, 11:44:23 AM
by presenting bad quality movies of your previous bests.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 27, 2007, 11:51:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Great way to lead the HD revolution, Microsoft.
by presenting bad quality movies of your previous bests.
Yeah it is inexcusable if what I've been hearing is true, not just the 4:3 but that the quality is poorer than the cinematics within the game itself.
Post by: that Baby guy on September 27, 2007, 12:21:05 PM
Anyways, in order to combat professionalism, The Alligator, my school's independent paper, included a short article today, saying that Halo 3 was worth all the hype or something like that.
An excerpt:
I played Halo 3 for the first time from 12:15 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. Tuesday until my thumbs were too tired to go on.
My friends, who by no means can be considered hardcore gamers, also dedicated their nights to "finishing the fight," even though they had another battle in calculus four hours later.
That, however, is the beauty of Halo. Casual gamers become hardcore.
No, I'm not making this up. He talks sales numbers, but not true implications of these numbers, and he says that although it's basically the exact same thing as Halo 2, Halo 2 was already pretty much the bees knees, so that makes Halo 3 awesome. He also notes that pretty much every new feature has been in PC games for years, but it's ok, because Halo 3 is on a console.
I'll see if they haven't put the entire article online and link to it, but it makes me sick.
Edit: Found it: http://www.alligator.org/articles/2007/09/27/the_avenue/features/halo3.txt
And GP- I'm not doing this because of Evan, I'm doing it because I'm disgusted. Oh well, at least Nintendo can make a profit.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 27, 2007, 01:22:11 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 27, 2007, 01:24:06 PM
Working link...
Post by: bustin98 on September 27, 2007, 02:13:30 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 27, 2007, 02:27:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
You need to get your 360 hooked up to the Internet. And I need to get a copy of this game.
I have my 360 hooked up to the internet, in fact I bought a 1 year gold subscription mainly for Halo 3.
Post by: UERD on September 27, 2007, 03:08:31 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 27, 2007, 03:16:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UERD
Now that the core Halo series is done, MS needs to find its next cash cow franchise pronto.
Gears of War has potential to be their next big series.
Post by: UERD on September 27, 2007, 03:21:36 PM
Also, they really need to diversify. Right now GTA and Madden are probably the games that anchor the 360's line. They need more types of games, or they'll saturate their target audience too soon.
Post by: bustin98 on September 27, 2007, 03:31:34 PM
People are posting issues on the Xbox 360 official forums and on Bungie.net.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 27, 2007, 03:59:53 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 27, 2007, 04:19:10 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 27, 2007, 05:13:41 PM
That is just the friendly AI being absolutely horrible...
You know you are a Halo marine when:
1) When someone gets on a turret, you will always feel the desire to run in front of it...
2) You end up killing more friendlies than enemies when you toss a grenade...
3) When you plow over Master Chief while driving a Warthog without a care in the world...
4) When Master Chief gets in your vehicle you desire to drive in circles over and over until he finally decides to jump out and toss a grenade under it...
5) When firing rockets from your vehicle, you don't take into account blast radius, so you end up blowing up enemy vehicles when they are right next to you...
6) When you want to ride shotgun in a Warthog being dropped by a Pelican, and you end up getting crushed by it (I'm not kidding, this happened once...The guy just RAN UNDER the dropped Warthog...)
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 27, 2007, 08:25:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
"Well I haven't had any problems with glitches. Actually I take that back, anytime I control the turret on the vehicles, the AI takes forever to drive up a hill"
That is just the friendly AI being absolutely horrible...
You know you are a Halo marine when:
1) When someone gets on a turret, you will always feel the desire to run in front of it...
2) You end up killing more friendlies than enemies when you toss a grenade...
3) When you plow over Master Chief while driving a Warthog without a care in the world...
4) When Master Chief gets in your vehicle you desire to drive in circles over and over until he finally decides to jump out and toss a grenade under it...
5) When firing rockets from your vehicle, you don't take into account blast radius, so you end up blowing up enemy vehicles when they are right next to you...
6) When you want to ride shotgun in a Warthog being dropped by a Pelican, and you end up getting crushed by it (I'm not kidding, this happened once...The guy just RAN UNDER the dropped Warthog...)
Are you saying that maybe the Halo series isn't as polished as people make it out to be? BLASPHEMY!
Post by: Smash_Brother on September 28, 2007, 07:52:10 PM
That's not a bad thing, per se, but it irks me that piles of Halo fans have no idea that Bungie had a legacy before MS bought them out.
However, while playing it, I can't shake the feeling that Unreal Tournament already did this before even Halo 1 came out. I'm just not seeing what separates this from all the other run n' gun FPSes, except that I'm playing it with a pair of cumbersome analogue sticks instead of the accuracy of a mouse and keyboard.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 28, 2007, 08:59:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Been playing it online for the first time: this game IS Marathon, I mean, Marathon + Grenades, a melee attack and vehicles, but it's STILL Marathon.
That's not a bad thing, per se, but it irks me that piles of Halo fans have no idea that Bungie had a legacy before MS bought them out.
However, while playing it, I can't shake the feeling that Unreal Tournament already did this before even Halo 1 came out. I'm just not seeing what separates this from all the other run n' gun FPSes, except that I'm playing it with a pair of cumbersome analogue sticks instead of the accuracy of a mouse and keyboard.
Actually when I think about it, you are right. The game feels like Unreal Tournament, I knew I got the same feeling elsewhere. Not to say the online player isn't fun, because it is, but it isn't groundbreaking (Also like you said the controls dampen the experience a bit). Though I will definately admit a team 16 player battle is fun for a console FPS, though I personally would rather play BF2, or even Unreal Tournament, then again you can't play any of those while relaxing in the bedroom.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on September 29, 2007, 05:15:30 AM
The story's pretty basic and the characters are sandwiched between "mildly interesting" and "a bore", so I don't know how THAT got a ton of praise. In fact, my nephew keeps telling me that Master Chief reminds him of Solid Snake. I admit that he's an interesting character and does push the game forward but he's not great enough that people should consider him the best character ever.
The graphics are beautifully dull. Seriously, there are times where the graphics are beautiful. The textures are amazing and the lighting gives it a sometimes eerie natural effect and the creature and ship design is good. But then there are some rather dull environments and the character design is rather boring. Its like the guys grabbed a book called "Basic sci-fi design", nothing is totally bad but I don't understand how reviewers have been pounding the crap out of Metroid Prime 3 because of its graphics when clearly Halo 3 doesn't push it either.
In fact, I'll be very blunt; the Halo series is the videogame equivalent of Paris Hilton, a one shot celebrity that became famous because of ONE thing. In short, a stupid spoiled whore.
Post by: Kairon on September 29, 2007, 05:25:00 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on September 29, 2007, 06:05:02 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on September 29, 2007, 06:13:34 AM
Post by: SixthAngel on September 29, 2007, 07:21:55 AM
While I don't really care about high definition (I bought a Wii because I don't see much of a difference) Halo apparently runs at 640p, which is apparently below HD standards. It wouldn't bother me but it is hypocritical of MS to advertise their console as the HD console and pretend it is so important and yet have their biggest game not be native HD.
Post by: Svevan on September 29, 2007, 11:54:00 AM
It doesn't matter if this stuff is original or not (most of my friends were noticing the same Unreal Tournament vibe that GP did); it's still miles ahead of anything else on console.
Multiplayer is a huge aspect of why this series is popular, but it also has a lot to do with the polished presentation, both in controls and the world. Even if the levels are very linear, the worlds Master Chief explores are huge and gorgeous, with extremely long draw distance and sharp details. Playing single player Halo, from the first game to the last, has always been fun for me almost entirely because of its beauty.
I used to play Quake pretty competitively when I had a PC that could run it (98-99, I think), and I dabbled in Unreal Tournament just a tiny bit. Though I can see the improvements in aiming with a mouse and keyboard, a controller feels more physical and involved, like its an extension of me, especially in a big group of people. Also, PC shooters always felt a little 'thin' to me, as did most PC games, whereas console stuff (especially on Nintendo's 3-d consoles) always had a lush, fully rendered look - PC's look generically sharp and artificial. This is by no means a knock on PC shooters, just a matter of preference - comparing Halo to any of these for an FPS fanatic might be silly (I'm not a connoisseur of PC FPS, so my opinion matters less). Nonetheless, Halo as a series has done more, more, and more than any other console FPS, and there's a reason millions of people play it, both campaign and multi.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 29, 2007, 12:18:01 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 29, 2007, 12:28:20 PM
edit: I forgot that we were playing "Save One Bullet" which I believe is a Bungie created variant included with the game. It removes all the ammo from the map so you only have what you carry with you, meaning that if you fight off the zombies for too long, eventually all you have is melee attacks. And you die.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 29, 2007, 12:32:08 PM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on September 29, 2007, 12:33:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I've never noticed anything beatiful about Halo, the world designs always came across as extremely generic to me. The only real level that I can say was pretty neat artistically was the first FLOOD level. Still it has the same repetitive design as the previous games, there is just no substance to the single player campaign mode, you shoot lots of stuff while going down a linear path. Multiplayer is fun though, but also like I said I'd rather play PC multiplayer modes, but then again also like I said you can't do those in the comfort of your own room. Still haven't played infection, but it sounds a heck of alot like a mode in one of the mods for Half-Life 2 which had a similar premise.
Ditto. Like I said earlier, the game is an odd mix of the beautiful and the generic. Beautiful textures, lighting and effects but uninspired character design.
Post by: Svevan on September 29, 2007, 12:42:30 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 29, 2007, 12:46:14 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 29, 2007, 01:17:24 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 29, 2007, 02:04:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Does that even work when it's the more expensive console? =O
Ok, the desperate man's Halo 3! ROFL
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on September 29, 2007, 04:21:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Does that even work when it's the more expensive console? =O
Ok, the desperate man's Halo 3! ROFL
I wonder if that would mean that Team Fortress 2 would trump them all when Orange Box fever comes out.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 29, 2007, 05:42:57 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on September 30, 2007, 04:04:28 AM
