Overwritten.net
Games => General Gaming => Topic started by: HxCeddie on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, 10:00:50 AM
-
Downloading now, will give everyone an update later on today about the beta. From what I've seen in the videos, it looks really cool, so hopefully it lives up to the hype.
*waits for Que to say how much he hates Halo*
-
haha...
According to a lot stuff I am hearing on the net, the opinion is split on the beta download. A lot of people are disappointed in the visuals though, especially after playing something like Gears of War.
-
Don't wait for Que: Halo sucks!
-
The first Halo was quite excellent. Haven't played the second though.
-
Well, I played a couple of rounds, so here are some quick impressions.
-Graphics wise, I'm highly disappointed. From what Pug said earlier, after playing GoW, I know that the 360 is capable of graphics that are outstanding. Halo 3 has graphics that are only marginally better than Halo 2, which is just stupid.
-Gameplay wise, it's same thing as Halo 2. I haven't played Halo 2 in forever, but right when I started to play the demo, it felt exactly the same. Little disappointed in that respect.
-I fucking hate the new Spartan laser. It is so goddamn fucking cheap. It's like th energy sword in Halo 2.
And that's just my quick impressions. Disappointed, yet I can't stop playing it even though I have a shitload of work to do.
-
Graphics wise, I'm highly disappointed. From what Pug said earlier, after playing GoW, I know that the 360 is capable of graphics that are outstanding. Halo 3 has graphics that are only marginally better than Halo 2, which is just stupid.
WOW! That's pretty horrible. You know in a strange way it is comforting... maybe they gave more development time to gameplay?
Aynway I had a look and this seems like it is the same engine as Halo 2 which was just an improvement on the Halo 1 engine... so yea that's pretty screwed up. Especially when you consider the fact that when Halo was about to debut on the PC (before it was nabbed and delayed for a year to meet the Xbox launch), it looked out of this world.
Anyway that just sounds lazy.
I just have this feeling that they didn't concentrate on the visuals because they are about to deliver some stellar gameplay. However if it is the same engine, what more can they give? I find it inexplicable that they didn't do a new engine.
-
Rumor that I heard is they are just using Halo 2 assets for the beta to first keep the filesize down, and then later they can wow players when they show the "real" graphics.
Though thats just a rumor thats only found in xbox forums and no real site that I've seen reported anything like that. Maybe its just wishful thinking from the players.
-
I can get it since I bought Crackdown, but I probably won't. I just don't have any interest.
-
That sounds like the kind of justification that Halo fanboys love to make for something like that. Common sense would tell you that Bungie and Microsoft would go all out with the beta since every site is bound to (and has) do(ne) extensive articles on how the game is panning out. You don't put the preview to a big game like Halo out half-assed unless it really is half-assed. If you are going to, you at least put out awesome screenshots from the real game and maybe some videos to blow everyone away. Considering Bungie wasn't even good enough to remove the pop-up on the scripted cutscenes that had more detailed models and effects for Halo 2, they aren't exactly at the top of the graphics game.
I still have a soft spot for the Halo universe and stuff, but Bungie itself has fallen from grace. I place them next to people like Valve; developers who earned a high spot in the public's mind then stopped giving it their all.
-
It doesn't have anything to do with Halo 3, but I've found myself laughing thrice in this thread...
Anyway:
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/topics.aspx?forumID=122419
The console kiddies make me laugh. They are trashing Bungie/MS like anything, and are bitchin' about everything you could think of. Here are some of the gems:
For me, I was excited to be playing the halo 3 beta today, and now after being bored all day and no beta, it is going to effect my opinion of the beta now. I just don't care if it was to come out now to tomorrow, it won't be the same as it would have if it came out this morning. Thanks for leaving us hanging Bungie.
m so pissed at customer service this fukin guy just told me he has information regarding Halo 3 beta for crackdown but he is uable to give us the information do to microsoft and bungie not wanting them too so. I argued with him for 4 min and I was like just give me the fuking information its not that big of a deal ive waited 11 hours this is bullshyt! hes like sorry sir :@
Why ?, they made a promise, and MS sold lots of crackdown, they dont care, just get it, they dont care, halo 3 will sell anywhey!!!! and this will be forgotten by that time.
Its the same thing again with MS and Bungie, hyping everything, letting the world talk about it.
If they tested they knew and we would have known in time, just think the hole button doesn t work.
It has nothing to do with downloading.
How many times do have i to say this, we are fooled.
There already 19000 people playing this!!!!!!!!!!
And people for free play this and the people like me who are dumb to pay for this are left in the cold?
Just think, its not a normal demo its free publicity fot them al over again.
Just think.
I am a halo fan , but not so more.
BUNGIE DID THIS ON PURPOSE!
Anyway just visit the forums. It is SO worth it. :D
-
just to reiterate, yeah - the graphics are highly disappointing. i've only seen the videos thus far, but i'm not at all impressed. given what we've seen on unreal engine projects, i thought we might get a bit more from xbox's biggest franchise. i like halo well enough - it's my favourite console shooter (for multiplayer, anyway), so i'm not trashing it for the sake of it. i genuinely thought we'd be looking at something far more impressive than what the beta has shown so far.
i hate being a graphics whore, but after gears - well, this is just sub-par.
-
Release Date: Sep 25
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/788/788731p1.html
Plenty of time for them to improve some of the visuals. :P
-
Halo sucks. Go play a real game.
-
Halo sucks. Go play a real game.
what, like postal? ;)
-
That's not a real game. The difference is nobody (barring drug addicts) claim it to be.
-
I love Halo but I never loved it for the multi-player. I played it for like 20 minutes on Halo 2 before I stopped.
That being said I can't wait till the 3rd one comes out! woooo!
-
Yeah, I've always liked Halo, but not for the MP.
Anyways, I'm suprised...I always assumed that the poor graphics in the videos I've watched were just because it was low quality footage. That's pretty messed up.
"Especially when you consider the fact that when Halo was about to debut on the PC (before it was nabbed and delayed for a year to meet the Xbox launch), it looked out of this world. "
It was a completely different game and the original PC version looked like shit compaired to what was launched on the xbox.
-
Not when the first footage was shown. The game looked absolutely amazing, and would have continued to look amazing had it been anywhere near on time with the original release schedule. As it stood, I didn't think it even looked all that great when it was released. It wasn't a real slouch like Halo 2, but it still wasn't the best in the business by any stretch of the imagination. Apparently the graphics get worse in ratio for each game. 3 is looking pretty bad.
EDIT - GSpot actually has a comparison thing (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6170862/index.html) so you can see for yourself just how little the graphics have evolved. Decidedly last-gen. Kind of a shame, I actually kind of liked the way the first one looked.
-
Edit:
After looking at the above link.... there are improvements but... it just doesn't seem like enough of an improvement. Seems like a lazy effort when compared to Vegas and GoW.
-
You're right, those screens must have looked really sweet in 1999...but then it was a game that wasn't going to hit for about 2 years anyways.
As it was, right before MS bought bungie it the game was looking to hit at either the end of 2000 or begining of 2001 (assuming they hit their projected 'rough date' I don't know how likely that was anyways). Looking at the latest shots of that version, it wasn't anything special. I'd say that both RtCW and Max Payne ended up looking a lot better and the final version of Halo that hit on the Xbox beats it hands down, which is saying quite a bit considering that the 'delay' was less than a year. The level of improvement between the two versions is pretty big, and the lag between the original and probably very optimistic release date and the actual street date wasn't all that big.
-
I just played this at my friends house for a few hours. No the graphics aren't much improved but the gameplay is vastly different from the second, and adheres more to the original. The gameplay is based more on skill than the second game, and there are lots of cool new weapons and whatnot to fool around with. I'd have to think that the graphics will be improved by the time it comes out. We will just see by how much.
-
I love Halo but I never loved it for the multi-player. I played it for like 20 minutes on Halo 2 before I stopped.
That being said I can't wait till the 3rd one comes out! woooo!
Que and W&C agreed on something (http://www.overwritten.net/forum/index.php?topic=2131.0), and now you and I are in some semi agreement. What is going on here?
-
For games like this, nothing that dramatic never changes within four months time. People always say, "Game X has six or less months left in developement. Things can improve." I can't think of a single major game that has managed to look substantially different or play differently within the last half year of developement. You have to remember, huge games always need to go gold around a month before release and all they really should be doing in the last months is fine tuning. You don't add polygons, major effects, new levels, or a texture overhaul pass this phase or, if you do, you delay the game another year.
Honestly, September seems pretty generous for the game. I'll be suprised if it makes Christmas.
-
Gamespot does a visual preview (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6170862/index.html?tag=topslot;title;1&om_act=convert&om_clk=topslot)
The Halo 3 beta only includes three maps, but they all offer huge graphical upgrades over the maps in Halo 2. The Valhalla alpine-gorge-like map uses high-resolution granite textures, new plant life, new water effects, and excellent landscape design to create a breathtaking view. Bungie has also given caves and even building interiors a dramatic upgrade. Snowbound's icy tunnels have replaced harsh angles and bland wall textures with more believable curves and subtle surfaces. We got ourselves killed several times while examining the new water effects in Valhalla and High Ground. On the bright side, we've confirmed that your corpse will in fact float on top of the water for a few seconds before sinking to the floor.
The comparison screenshots have shown us that Halo 3 on the Xbox 360 has the graphics to be a worthy successor to Halo 2. We can't wait to see how the game looks when it ships on September 25, 2007.
Come on gspot!
I know gamers tend to bitch a lot, but it seems to me during the past year that journalists are out of touch with fan opinion. You just have to check out the gamespot, pcgamer and IGN forums to notice how opinions seem to differ. Again I know people just like to bitch a lot, but there seems to be a growing sentiment that these websites don't share the frustrations of their readers. Sometimes instead of being scathing they seem to be making excuses for these developers.
PCG was the only publication to acknowledge what a mess Dark Messiah and Double Agent were. Double Agent was particularly shitty for me, because bugs screw the game up the moment you change the default settings. PCG gave the game 66%, while IGN gave it 9.0 and Gamespot gave it 8.5. You just have to check out the gamespot forums to know how pissed people were.
I've been seeing tons of threads like these (http://www.pcgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23784) across the net. I personally tried to defend the writers of PCG and Gspot in that thread, but it seems to be a growing trend across the net. While I think people just like to bitch, and display their own immaturity by implying reviewers are corrupt whenever they have a different point of view, I do think there is a growing gap between fans and reviewers. It just annoys me when reviews act like the biggest fanboys and make excuses for any shortcomings a game has. Most writers seem to be very pro STEAM, Windows LIVE and a lot of this other crap.
IGN has been far more in touch with fan opinion with their Halo 3 impressions:
Link to IGN coverage page (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/787/787729p1.html)
The Halo 3 multiplayer beta is, um, well, more Halo.
I don't know what I was expecting. The hype is getting so great that I would not have been surprised if a harem of Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders wearing nothing but gold body-paint exploded out of the console as soon as I hit start.
Instead I got more Halo.
It's no revolutionary new sequel, it's not set in an open-world and it doesn't now feature a stealth meter or cover system. It's the same action-packed, bunny-hopping, grenade-lobbing, beat-down-from-behind multiplayer shooter that we've come to know and love. In the same way Halo 2 felt like the original Halo with additional vehicle jacking, dual wielding and a crappier pistol, Halo 3 feels like Halo 2 with additional bubble shields and giant lasers.
And man cannons.
What you notice first about Halo 3 is literally the first thing you see: the graphics. Maybe Microsoft shot itself in the foot with the gorgeous CG "Starry Night" trailer, or even the very first trailer that shows the Chief looking over a giant crater as dozens of Covenant ships invade Earth. We were expecting a bit more. Instead, the visuals look like a high-res Halo 2 with some nice new rag doll physics and pretty water. The rocks and trees are especially bland. It's still a great looking game, but fans were probably expecting Halo 3 to at least challenge Gears of War as one of the best-looking games on the console. As of now, it does not
Anyway I had a look at some of the vids. While the game still looks like a lot of fun, it just looks like Halo 1 Expansion 2. Everything looks the exact same to me, and they haven't changed the weapons at all. I find that really odd.
All this makes me thing Bungie are a lazy bunch. They are basically using an update of the technology they made a decade ago. Mind you, it still looks like a lot of fun...
-
I don't think it's a matter of question that reviewers are corrupt. Game review places get preview copies and I think in exchange for getting the game early they are kind of expected to prop it up a bit. And I've heard all kinds of stories where the publisher of a game that was advertised on a site was given a poor review and the publisher was pissed off.
It's kind of like, "We give you money for your site and we gave you the game early. Now its time for you to scratch our back."
Some of these reviews I've seen of the Halo 3 beta practically scream advertisement rather than unbiased critical review.
-
The more I play the beta, the more it's growing on me. You know, it really is the same thing as the previous Halo games, but shit, it's still so much fun on multiplayer (Aside from the bro dudes who act like jackasses and keep TKing). Now that I've learned to take my expectations down a little bit, I've come to realize that the transition from Halo 1 - Halo 2 wasn't that drastic either, so why should it be drastic from Halo 2 - Halo 3?
So yeah, I'm having fun for now, but as of right now, Mass Effect and Too Human take over as my most anticipated releases for Fall for the 360.
P.S. - FUCK THE SPARTAN LASER!!!! SO FUCKING CHEAP!!!! AHHHHHHH!!!!!
-
One more thing, I will hand it to Bungie when it comes to the sound department because the gun fire sounds are awesome in the game. When playing Valhalla, you can hear the muted, echoing gunfire in the distance and it sounds amazingly good with surround sound speakers.
-
the transition from Halo 1 - Halo 2 wasn't that drastic either, so why should it be drastic from Halo 2 - Halo 3?
why? because it's on an entirely new console! if games are no more visually impressive on the new hardware, then what was the point of upgrading?
-
but as of right now, Mass Effect and Too Human take over as my most anticipated releases for Fall for the 360.
Wow. Too Human actually has a release date? I thought I'd never see the day.
-
Some of these reviews I've seen of the Halo 3 beta practically scream advertisement rather than unbiased critical review.
You should read some of the Halo 2 Vista reviews. So far they all read like they are going off some MS supplied review template. First mention how this is still the "same great Halo 2 you remember" instead of, you know, reviewing the game itself. I got into an argument with someone over that. They said we shouldn't compare it to more recent PC games because it was originally released 2.5 years ago. I argue that we should compare it to new PC shooters as long as MS wants to charge new PC game prices. $50 for Halo 2 when I can get Stalker or Fear instead?
But I digress. The reviews are: assume the reader has played and loved Halo 2 instead of talking about the gameplay, mention how awesome tray-and-play is, GFW Live is just like the Xbox (which is great!), multiplayer is the same and as awesome as you've obviously played before, theres a map editor, and final score. Of the 4-5 reviews I've read they have all been like that. Heh...one actually had this to say
Graphics: 9.4
Even brighter and cleaner than before, a complete overhaul was done and it shows. These are some of the finest visuals out there, and explains why you need a very hot PC and graphics card.
Obviously a site that you can't really trust. Some of the finest visuals out there? Have they not looked at any game in 4 years?
-
Hahaha. No kidding. That's pretty bad. What's the site? Maybe I'll send them an e-mail.
-
Gamezone (http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r20880.htm)
Enjoy.
-
E-mailing as well.
-
You should read some of the Halo 2 Vista reviews. So far they all read like they are going off some MS supplied review template. First mention how this is still the "same great Halo 2 you remember" instead of, you know, reviewing the game itself. I got into an argument with someone over that. They said we shouldn't compare it to more recent PC games because it was originally released 2.5 years ago. I argue that we should compare it to new PC shooters as long as MS wants to charge new PC game prices. $50 for Halo 2 when I can get Stalker or Fear instead?
I'd rather go for STALKER or FEAR, myself.
I was so dis-enchanted w/ Halo 1 PC --- namely after The Flood and w/ the horrid technical execution of the game -- is that I expect Halo 2 PC to be "more of the same".
But I digress. The reviews are: assume the reader has played and loved Halo 2 instead of talking about the gameplay, mention how awesome tray-and-play is, GFW Live is just like the Xbox (which is great!), multiplayer is the same and as awesome as you've obviously played before, theres a map editor, and final score. Of the 4-5 reviews I've read they have all been like that.
The true mark of a great game is if say it was on the consoles a few years ago and you never played it, but then you play it on the PC many years later -- yet, it plays great and you really like it. Jade PC was that way.
Halo 1 PC was not. It felt like the average run-of-the-mill shooter, once The Flood came and b/c of the technical performance issues -- which should've never been there, in the first place.
Obviously a site that you can't really trust. Some of the finest visuals out there? Have they not looked at any game in 4 years?
Oblivion and F.E.A.R. -- now *those* visuals look great.
-
It's stuff like this that makes me weep for the industry. We're going to become just another fucking Hollywood.
-
It's stuff like this that makes me weep for the industry. We're going to become just another fucking Hollywood.
For every FPS mediocrity like Halo PC, there'll be a great FPS like Deus Ex that won't get the recognition it deserves.
Bah!
-
man! forget you Halo haters! i will play Halo 3 and it will own and i will probably wet my fanboy pants.
kk tmi
-
You just knew this was gonna happen... (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3162859)
Halo 3 Ending Already Leaked
One grainy video, potentially millions of crying voices.
By Kris Pigna, 09/17/2007
You won't find the video here, nor links to where to see it -- consider this more of a friendly warning. Kotaku reports that a cell-phone-captured video of Halo 3's ending has been leaked onto the net.
After just a little digging, we indeed found a video that -- while grainy and of low quality -- seemed to be legit. No word on how it got leaked or who the evil, unscrupulous culprit was, but considering ostensibly real copies of the game can already be bought on eBay right now, the world may never know.
So, be wary, Halo fans -- Master Chief's grand finale lurks in the shadows of the Internet.
-
mmmm halo 3
-
So, I was planning on getting this, but I started thinking about how much the first two kind of sucked ass. Well, they were okay games I guess. I just kind of want it for the multiplayer. I'm sure the single player campaign like the previous two are lackluster as all hell.
-
Me and my Bro' are getting this and we're also going to drink our selves stupid as we play through the SP campaign via split screen. So basically if it does suck we won't care too much :P
-
omg i cant wait
-
I could give a crap about this game. Everyone I tell this to stares at me, aghast. My take is that the single player campaign is pretty mediocre and the multiplayer -- while good for a console -- is nothing compared to some of the things some online PC shooters have to offer (for free, I might add).
-
Halo 2 was vastly overrated. I'm wondering if this will be more like the original or the second. I played the multiplayer beta and it was o.k.
-
Halo 3 branded Mountain Dew "Game Fuel"
That pretty much sums up the who and why of Halos popularity.
-
Sometimes I truly wonder if Halo was actually a good game at all, even on a console. I mean the title was highly anticipated, almost like nothing I'd ever seen. Why? I mean it's not like people were feeding off of the popularity of some awesome, earlier Bungie title (from what I understand they were a Mac game dev?) or a previous iteration in the series.
It was a brand new property from a relative unknown developer on a platform that was a newcomer in the console race that was widely predicted to be a catastrophic failure.
I just don't get why it is so huge. There have got to be other console games with better multiplayer or something that people just aren't playing. Halo does nothing new or different and in fact I'd say it's a good five years behind online PC games in terms of what it offers players.
I just think it's all hype and popularity. Too many people don't question its shortcomings or see what else is out there.
-
At this point its popularity in multiplayer is so deep that its hard to unseat it. Its the Counter-Strike syndrome. Are there better multiplayer games? Yeah, but they won't surpass CS in player numbers because the players are so comfortable with the game they will never leave it. Why try another multiplayer game where you'd be the "n00b" again when you can just keep playing Halo/CS and "pwn" instead?
-
Sometimes I truly wonder if Halo was actually a good game at all, even on a console. I mean the title was highly anticipated, almost like nothing I'd ever seen. Why? I mean it's not like people were feeding off of the popularity of some awesome, earlier Bungie title (from what I understand they were a Mac game dev?) or a previous iteration in the series.
It was a brand new property from a relative unknown developer on a platform that was a newcomer in the console race that was widely predicted to be a catastrophic failure.
I just don't get why it is so huge. There have got to be other console games with better multiplayer or something that people just aren't playing. Halo does nothing new or different and in fact I'd say it's a good five years behind online PC games in terms of what it offers players.
To sum it up: X-Box and PS2 didn't really have many ½ way decent FPS's on their system, at that time.
X-Boxers found their first FPS to be somewhat decent to fall right on their lap -- and that was Halo: Combat Evolved. Back then, SP and MP FPS's weren't a big genre on the console system, really. And the XB was definitely lacking in that genre.
When PC gamers got Halo PC, they weren't too thrilled w/ it b/c everything Halo had done, it had been done before -- and done a hell of a lot better before, too.
I just think it's all hype and popularity. Too many people don't question its shortcomings or see what else is out there.
Halo SP's first half was pretty good, w/ lots of variety in action; sniping, run and gun shooting, etc etc. But, it really lost its steam and everything it had going for it, when the Flood came. Suddenly, the game felt like more like Serious Sam w/ its actions, many of the INDOOR levels looked like cut & paste of each other (hence the spaceship levels and the Monitor levels), there were levels w/ backtracking, the checkpoint save system sucked, and the game just had "rushed" written all over it.
Just then throw on top of all of that the fact that it ran like shit out-the-box on most brand-new powerhouse PC's on release, and you got yourself a mediocre shooter, at best.
-
Sometimes I truly wonder if Halo was actually a good game at all, even on a console. I mean the title was highly anticipated, almost like nothing I'd ever seen. Why? I mean it's not like people were feeding off of the popularity of some awesome, earlier Bungie title (from what I understand they were a Mac game dev?) or a previous iteration in the series.
It was a brand new property from a relative unknown developer on a platform that was a newcomer in the console race that was widely predicted to be a catastrophic failure.
I just don't get why it is so huge. There have got to be other console games with better multiplayer or something that people just aren't playing. Halo does nothing new or different and in fact I'd say it's a good five years behind online PC games in terms of what it offers players.
I just think it's all hype and popularity. Too many people don't question its shortcomings or see what else is out there.
The reason that I loved it so much was largely due to my environment -- The last few years of high school, and all my close friends were really good at it. The competition was intense. Plus, the multiplayer is nearly perfect. The graphics aren't top notch but the gameplay is.
But yeah, the game itself isn't amazing -- it's good. But when you have a ton of fun people to play with and great competition I think it makes it that much better.
-
I'll take a bit of the middle ground here; Console gamers give Halo too much credit, PC gamers give it too little. The reason the first was so popular when it came out was because it honestly deserved it. No one else had done an FPS on a console as well as Bungee did with Halo. Beyond that, the graphics and combat (for the first half) were far above anything we had seen on a console, and a lot better then most PC FPS games at that time.
At the same time, it wasn't as revolutionary as some people would have you believe, and it has many, many problems. They're good games, and I'll probably play through the first one, but I personally think it's a little interesting how the franchise is so polarizing.
-
My first and only play through Halo was fairly underwhelming, even for the time. There was definitely cool stuff mixed in, no question, and it had moments of greatness, but the experience as a whole really didn't work for me. It was one of those games that seemed cool at first, and then became a huge disappointment.
And many of the people who truly love the franchise love it for the MP, and to me that's really the only reason it does so well. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, either, as MP-focused games have a place in the world. To be honest, I've tried the MP and wasn't impressed there either... but I chalk that up to taste rather than lame design. It seems perfectly functional, I just prefer something faster.
-
It seems perfectly functional, I just prefer something faster.
In terms of fps's, pc games seem to go faster than console games, just because of the medium. Using a controller for fast paced movement in these games just isn't ideal. Of course, we had this crazy korean in our group of friends who turned up his sensitivity to 10 and was just a crazy asian.
But the multiplayer is very methodical, if you know what you are doing. One pistol clip = 3 kills if you are good enough. xxy = reload while swtiching weapons, know your jumps. Add them all together, etc.
*sigh*, I miss my Halo 1 days.
-
I can't figure out why there's so much resistance to good FPS control on consoles. There has to be a way to do it, and thumbsticks ain't it (at least not for aim/look). Everything else is covered. How about a mouse and a tabletop pad of some sort? Track ball?
I can't deny that I'm curious about Halo 3. MP doesn't interest me, but I do wonder about the SP campaign. I haven't rented a game in a long time. This may be the one to break the trend.
-
I've said for years that console controlers should have a trackball instead of a 2nd stick. They only genre I could think that would be hurt by this move are flight games.
-
Yeah, trackball would be great. It wont happen because you'd have to keep it clean, and kids (heck, most people) are pigs.
-
My first and only play through Halo was fairly underwhelming, even for the time. There was definitely cool stuff mixed in, no question, and it had moments of greatness, but the experience as a whole really didn't work for me.
Halo PC had some great controls for when in a vehicle -- and that's with the KB/mouse, which was a surprise. The KB/mouse controls turned out great.
It was one of those games that seemed cool at first, and then became a huge disappointment.
Agreed.
The game started off so good w/ loads of a variety....
Then fell apart, losing what made is so good in the first place.
A damn shame.
And many of the people who truly love the franchise love it for the MP, and to me that's really the only reason it does so well. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, either, as MP-focused games have a place in the world. To be honest, I've tried the MP and wasn't impressed there either... but I chalk that up to taste rather than lame design. It seems perfectly functional, I just prefer something faster.
Halo PC's MP was solid, but nothing truly special.
What I really dug about Halo PC's MP was that the vehicle combat was fun. :)
-
I can't figure out why there's so much resistance to good FPS control on consoles. There has to be a way to do it, and thumbsticks ain't it (at least not for aim/look). Everything else is covered. How about a mouse and a tabletop pad of some sort? Track ball?
I can't deny that I'm curious about Halo 3. MP doesn't interest me, but I do wonder about the SP campaign. I haven't rented a game in a long time. This may be the one to break the trend.
I agree with you completely, it just all comes down to marketing. Why take a risk with something like a track ball when you can stick with the current control stick theme and play a commercial with pretty graphics?
We know how the current industry works. Nintendo has taken some risks, but everyone else pretty much just goes with what makes money. It sucks but it's to be expected.
I would still probably buy this if I owned a 360, though. The single player campaigns are usually pretty fun, especially with other people.
-
9.5 from IGN for Halo 3 (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/821/821911p1.html)
-
I know a few people who have somehow been able to grab this early. They all say it is worth every bit of the wait and hype, and does an excellent job of wrapping up the story arc.
But, I expect people will still hate on it because it's cool to do so.
And once you spend some time with the control stick setup it becomes second-nature, at least it did for me.
-
IGN gave the Lasting Appeal Score a TEN
Lasting Appeal
The campaign won't take you long to complete, but this is a game that can be played for years. There are so many things to do, and it's so much fun to do them.
They make it sound like the SP is some sort of fuckin' RPG here....
....yet, they say the SP portion's only 10-13 hours....
Presentation
An amazing replay editor, four-player online co-op, map editor, and community support make this the most robust feature set ever in a videogame.
Maybe on the X360, yeah -- but most of that shit, it's been done before by numerous other FPS's on the PC....
-
Lots of reviews for Halo 3, boys....
9.5 from GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halo3/review.html?sid=6179646&autoplay=6179743&tag=topslot;link;1&om_act=convert&om_clk=topslot)
5 stars (out of 5) from GameSpy (http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/halo-3/821976p1.html)
10 (out of 10) from 1Up (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3163125)
9 from GameDaily (out of 10) (http://www.gamedaily.com/games/halo-3/xbox-360/game-reviews/item/5186/1768/)
GamePro's review -- high scores, of course... (http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/reviews/135749.shtml)
9.7 (out of 10) from CAVG (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=172449)
9.8 (out of 10) from GameTrailers.com (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/25485.html)
-
Yeah well...thats what they rated Halo 1. So I don't really trust reviews on this one.
I did read that the SP is short as hell, though. Like one guy said he plowed through it in 5 hours. So we'll see if thats true or not. Insert "they stopped cut and pasting levels which made the game shorter" joke here.
-
you guys just suck.. die in a fire
WOO HOO HALO 3!! ALMOST MINE!!
-
Yeah well...thats what they rated Halo 1. So I don't really trust reviews on this one.
I did read that the SP is short as hell, though. Like one guy said he plowed through it in 5 hours.
Sounds like expansion pack length, if that's the case! :P
From what I've read on reviews, most of all have said this -- it also sounds like the default difficulty is TOO EASY.
So we'll see if thats true or not. Insert "they stopped cut and pasting levels which made the game shorter" joke here.
Hehe.
From what I've read from the reviews, seems like the overall complaint of the SP is around "10-13 hours" in length, though they went all-out for the MP. Given that, I'm wondering when Bungie will stop doing SP components and start doing just only MP side for Halo series -- like say Unreal Tournament and Quake Wars.
-
I did read that the SP is short as hell, though. Like one guy said he plowed through it in 5 hours.
It looks like a rental then. There's no way I'm spending full price on that.
-
Who knows, the reviews say longer. Could have been some dude just hating on it and exaggerating.
I thought this was great and will be relevant to this games release:
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c100/vscm05/bc5c9407.png)
-
haha, idol wins the thread.
-
But, I expect people will still hate on it because it's cool to do so.
People hate on the Halo franchise because of its massive, possibly unearned popularity. People act like it is the best game of all time, and it isn't even really all that good. In my opinion, the single player isn't very good at all. I can't speak for the multiplayer too much since I wasn't part of a clique of people that played it. But I've seen it played and it looks like a horrific cross between Counter-Strike (bunny-hopping and mind-blowingly annoying idiots), a simple Battlefield (vehicles), and Unreal Tournament (team deathmatch).
Now I don't contend that people aren't having fun with it, but I do contend that a lot of these people have simply not given better games a chance. They certainly haven't played any of the good PC multiplayer games, practically all of which make Halo's gameplay seem like it was conceived 20 years ago. Instead they are told that Halo is the greatest game ever, drink their Game Fuel, and blindly believe it.
I mean Nintendo milks their franchises too and has their own blind sheep, but at least most people acknowledge that Super Mario Sunshine, for instance, kind of sucked.
-
I really don't care about Halo 3 at all. I didn't like the first since the PC experience was very underwhelming. I never bothered with Halo 2.
I might pick up Halo 3 in the future, but I want to finish up Bioshock first if I do. Not to mention Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed are coming out within two months.
-
I thought Halo's singleplayer was pretty much excellent at the time of the game's release... i.e. until the flood showed up.
-
More reviews! (http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/2007/09/obligatory-halo-3-review.html)
-
Both IGN and G-Spot gave it 9.5
-
Hmm. OK, so, should I go through idol's flowchart and see if my branch has the word "faggots" in it or not? Without Kasavin in the picture, I'm tempted.
10-15 hours for "most" people to complete single player. What does that really mean?
Dammit, I wish I could trust them.
-
I thought Halo's singleplayer was pretty much excellent at the time of the game's release... i.e. until the flood showed up.
The Flood = pretty much the 2nd half of the SP game.
So, basically, you're telling me it's half of a SP...
-
ORIGINAL POST:
QuarterToThree rips on Halo 3. (http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/news/365/)
Halo 3: The Juggernaut, or Nothing You Read Here Will Make a Whit of Difference
TomChick - News - 09/23/07 - Link
So, yeah, Halo 3. Biggest gaming event of the year, I suppose. Last night, I got from it everything I'm going to get from the single player game. It's short. I finished the Normal mode in a single evening, clocking maybe eight or ten hours, most of them out of a sense of obligation rather than wanting to know what happens next.
Ouch.
I could complain again about how Bungie has never put bots in the game, but no one expects it and it's no longer any surprise, given that Microsoft wants Halo to move Xbox Live accounts. And, to be honest, I am looking forward to jumping online when the game goes live Monday night. But I still wish I could practice the maps on my own.
Okay.
But as far as a single-player experience, Halo 3 is a colossal disappointment, largely for how little it's advanced since the series began. The big hook for Halo 1 was that it proved that console shooters could hold their own against PC shooters. Or "re-proved", considering Perfect Dark had already demonstrated this, but only for the subset of gamers who had an N64, which is not the subset of gamers who was playing shooters on the PC. Halo laid the ground work for the the genre to thrive on console systems, at the other end of gamepads, on big screens television and home theater audio systems. Bungie showed everyone how it could be done: solid graphics and sound, liberal use of autoaim, carefully laid out battles that didn't involve too much 180 degree turning, not too many weapon choices, and enough personality to give it some kick.
Ouch.
But like id with their engines, Bungie struggles with the creative part of the equation. Nowhere is this more evident than in Halo 3. Six years later, it's still repeating the formula established in Halo 1. Virtually every single moment and location is recycled from the first two games (the "new" area was done just as well in at least two other games). The engine doesn't even look much better and, frankly, the gunplay is so very 2001. This is the same Halo you knew and loved, or didn't love, as the case may be. I'm sure it'll be a wonderful multiplayer game, mostly because millions will play it. But as a single player game, it's a classic case of the arrested development that makes our hobby the domain of teenage boys, grown up and otherwise.
I'm hoping Id will come through w/ something a little different from their past few games -- Rage.
The story is at once convoluted and glib, an unholy partnership of exposition and assumption. There's no attempt to catch up players who don't remember the specifics of the previous games. Even reading the little "Story So Far" section in the manual will leave the average non-Halo fan scratching his head. Instead, Halo 3 banks on everyone being a Halo fan. A hardcore Halo fan who would understand why Master Chief wakes up in a crater. Duh.
Hehe.
What bothers me most is that Bungie still can't tell a story worth a damn. Because it's an established franchise with enormous hype, this is going to be a huge game. Like Metroids and Zeldas, it'll get unswervingly positive reviews from people who wouldn't know narrative from nonsense, people who make sweeping misguided assumptions about the average guy jumping online and having a grand ol' time getting teabagged and called a faggot. And for those average guys and the occasional average girls, whether they play online or not, this single player story will be the face of gaming: as retarded, confusing, and juvenile as ever.
Ouchie.
About The "Two Relationships" In The Game
There are at least two interesting relationships that should have been explored in Halo 3: Master Chief and Cortana and Master Chief and the Arbiter. Each gets a single moment. Yep, one single moment. The supporting cast gets some obligatory maudlin war movie moments, which include Ron Perlman being saddled with the phrase "howling dark" at exactly the wrong moment, and a random half-hearted boss battle without explanation when someone turns out to the obligatory bad guy. And for Zod's sake, if you're going to have Terence Stamp fill in for John Hurt, don't obscure his voice behind some sort of filter.
LMAO!
More Viciousness, w/ Spoilers...
It's no wonder Halo isn't exactly a hot movie prospect. At this point, it's nothing but a suit of armor, a set of guns, and a handful of supporting characters. Alex Garland's rejected script had some nice moments between Master Chief (unmasked, by the way) and Cortana. Bungie has no concept of this as anything beyond a convenient device. "Always protect her, Chief," a dying character says about Cortana, who is, umm, just an AI, so like, what's the big deal?
Damn....
It's hard to look past the blatant corridor level design. I use the term quite literally. Bungie gets a lot of mileage out of reusing entire areas. You'll get a few instances of "go here and do this", followed by "now go back where you were before through respawned monsters, which will save our level designers some time". At one point, you have to revisit a copy of an area. Bungie makes no bones about it. Three teams split up, each to pull a lever in an identical area. What do you know? One of the teams couldn't make it so you get to replay exactly the same area to pull exactly the same lever!
WTH....?
Then there's the "ledge" level design. It's really a corridor, but if you drop one side off into a skybox, it makes it seem more open. Mombasa? Ha ha. Right. I've seen a more convincing Africa in low-budget studio backlots.
Ouch
There are terminals hidden in the game, but Halo was never about exploration, and it's clearly not built for that sort of gameplay. In fact, when it comes to visiting alien worlds, the contrived and cramped Metroid has a far better sense of plunging you into boxes and making them feel vast. Halo is almost entirely the same places you've been already.
It's worth noting that my expectations for the single-player game weren't very high. I was looking forward to it, but didn't expect anything too different from the last Halos. I got exactly what I was expecting: Halo in HD, a few new weapons and vehicles, and not much more. Yeah, I'm looking forward to trying co-op, but not because of anything in the actual game. The feature interests me more than anything about the content.
It'd be cool if more games had a Co-Op mode where you could tackle a campaign ONLINE.
Finally, the BioShock factor can't be overlooked. Irrational's "masterpiece of the art form" (if ever there was a game deserving that phrase...) raised the bar for what we can expect not only from our shooters, but from our games at large. Halo 3 is five years behind in terms of clearing that bar. In a world that rewards talent instead of hype, BioShock would be the big holiday hit. Instead, we get an impassive gold faceplate aimed vaguely in the direction it's supposed to be staring thoughtfully while I wonder just what the heck is supposed to be going on. Oh well. I'll just shoot some more grunts until I get to the end of Bungie's idea of a ring trilogy.
Would you kindly say that Bioshock was freakin' awesome? :P
Yeah, I'd say....
EDIT:
I guess you really can't have a new Rated M game w/out Jack Thompson trying to get involved.
Next for Thompson to go after -- Halo 3. (http://gamepolitics.com/2007/09/21/jack-thompson-seeks-to-have-halo-3-declared-a-public-nuisance-block-its-release-in-florida/)
-
"Or "re-proved", considering Perfect Dark had already demonstrated this, but only for the subset of gamers who had an N64, which is not the subset of gamers who was playing shooters on the PC."
Lost me there. That faggot wouldn't know a good game if it came up and bit him on his ass.
-
I'm only chiming in on the 8-10 hour deal. If that's true, which seems to be the general consensus on the deal, then what exactly are people complaining about? That's only a bit shorter than what was more or less understood as the standard game length from the entire last generation, if not more. Given the huge multiplayer focus of Halo 3, how is that even an issue?
I'm not really trying to defend Halo 3, but that's just an example of a larger issue here. That is, people are going too far in both directions with the game. It seems there are very few voices who can just say the games have been cool and leave it at that.
Of course, Halo is pretty much the polarizing game of the times and it has to be a appreciated on that level. For a while it was Final Fantasy and whenever a game came out you'd have huge groups line up on both sides saying how great the game was while the other saying while the other would try to debase it on the basis that it doesn't deserve the popularity it has. Sound familiar? It guess its at least entertaining on that front, although I really wouldn't put any other Halos with your average Final Fantasy in terms of quality.
Oh, and Mr D. We get it. You can stop repeating your usual stock of one-liner rips on Halo.
-
who that fuck are Quartertothree?
stop linking trash, D
-
I'm only chiming in on the 8-10 hour deal. If that's true, which seems to be the general consensus on the deal, then what exactly are people complaining about? That's only a bit shorter than what was more or less understood as the standard game length from the entire last generation, if not more. Given the huge multiplayer focus of Halo 3, how is that even an issue?
It's only an issue for me, and whoever else cares only about the single-player components of the game. Bungie opted not to provide AI opponents for deathmatch or other typically MP components. That leaves them out of the picture for someone with no interest in playing against strangers. The SP campaign is all that remains, and if that is thin, it's not worth $60 to me.
I guess it depends on whom you believe. If the focus is multiplayer at the expense of solo play, then it's not for me. If the SP campaign is a reasonable game on its own, then it may be worthwhile. I still don't know who tells the whole truth on this game.
8-10 hours is short, period, I don't care which generation it hails from. If a game is going to be that short, then it needs to be exceptional, or appropriately cheap. It's not cheap.
-
You do bring up a good point though. I don't think 8-10 hours is deal breaking short. I'm fairly certain I finished the first God of War in about the same amount of time, and I'd probably get the same amount of enjoyment out of a Halo game - nothing awe-inspiring, but entertaining from start to finish.
As with Cobra, if I was to play the game I'd probably rent it because of the length - why buy it now when I know I can beat it in a few days, wait a few months and buy it for less then half the price if I decide to. That, however, doesn't say anything about the overall quality of the game. Something a lot of people would have you believe otherwise.
-
It's only an issue for me, and whoever else cares only about the single-player components of the game. Bungie opted not to provide AI opponents for deathmatch or other typically MP components. That leaves them out of the picture for someone with no interest in playing against strangers. The SP campaign is all that remains, and if that is thin, it's not worth $60 to me.
Even though the game does have multiple difficulties (like most games) and them "skull" challenges, who's gonna go through it again to try and find everything???
I guess it depends on whom you believe. If the focus is multiplayer at the expense of solo play, then it's not for me. If the SP campaign is a reasonable game on its own, then it may be worthwhile. I still don't know who tells the whole truth on this game.
If the true focus for Halo 3 is really MP, then why don't they go the Quake Wars route and just have a MP-only component???
I remember back when Battlefield 1942 first came out and all, the game's SP mode and MP mode were the same, basically. Difference? The SP was offline and you played w/ bots -- it was basically a good way to practice for the MP mode and a good way to play offline without any real players. Halo 3 could've done that, including some sort of SP Skirmish Mode. I'm pretty sure not everybody actually has X-Box Live. I'm sure some gamers would like some practice w/ the maps, offline and all, with just bots - -especially if you don't have XBL. Plus, I'm sure an SP Skirmish mode would be fun to mess around with, for a few hours, if you need a quick fix to just practice and/or fight stuff and whatnot -- especially w/ that new "Recording" Tool, which could make it an even more worthwhile.
8-10 hours is short, period, I don't care which generation it hails from. If a game is going to be that short, then it needs to be exceptional, or appropriately cheap. It's not cheap.
Agreed.
-
"Even though the game does have multiple difficulties (like most games) and them "skull" challenges, who's gonna go through it again to try and find everything??? "
Seriously, you could say that about most action games. As for the lack of bots, I'd imagine that they didn't include them because if you're going to fuck around with bots you're going to want to play multi-player, so why not just do that anyways? Lets not pretend BF1942 half-asses 'SP mode' is a good thing. It was basically completely pointless to even have in there.
-
"Even though the game does have multiple difficulties (like most games) and them "skull" challenges, who's gonna go through it again to try and find everything??? "
Seriously, you could say that about most action games. As for the lack of bots, I'd imagine that they didn't include them because if you're going to fuck around with bots you're going to want to play multi-player, so why not just do that anyways? Lets not pretend BF1942 half-asses 'SP mode' is a good thing. It was basically completely pointless to even have in there.
Absolutely agree with GP! If this was Bio Shock D you would have said the exact opposite.
-
Bots have their place. They are apparently popular. Epic has said that something around half of the people that bought UT2k4 never took it online. And for something like Halo 3 where you've written AI routines anyway, it probably wouldn't take all that much effort to turn them into MP bots.
Lets face it, its not like the Halo community is known for being a particularly nice one. Some people just don't want to play with a bunch of total fuckwads. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19) I play CS:S with bots because they aren't a bunch of douchebags, they try to complete the objectives, and when they "voice chat" its all relevant.
And now, the real reason I'm posting. I don't like Halo, everyone knows it. But my hats off to Bungie, Forge (http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=574) sounds fucking awesome. Sounds like an idea that should have been around for a while now. Its like...Trackmania meets Garrys Mod. While you can't edit the map architecture, you can edit entities, their properties, their placement, weapons...tons of things. And it sounds like they let you tweak a lot of parameters, not just a few on/off switches.
Sure you can mod PC games, but even the most "user friendly" ones need code. A truely easy to use "editor" like Forge is a great idea. I can imagine some cool things coming out of it. Reminds me of the early days of Quake modding where all the graphics will be the same, but the gameplay will vary quite a bit.
-
I think what it comes down to is what scott said - the reason people like me hate Halo has nothing to do with Halo being crappy, and has everything to do with (as Sy said) how many people line up for it and bow down to call it God. If Halo was marginally popular, made money, and went on its merry way, nobody would say a damned thing. It's the fact that it's lauded as this amazing story with amazing design behind it, when it has neither thing in any capacity. At least that's my beef with it. I've never claimed the games to be total shit, I just don't think they're particularly great, particularly in the level design department.
But yeah, I don't think I'd have much interest either unless there was something amazing about the gameplay or story. I mean, I paid my 60 bucks for The Darkness on 360, but that's because it did some amazing things in terms of storytelling and had some amazing acting. It was a brilliant game, if a somewhat standard shooter with fun twists here and there. Halo 3, even if it wasn't Halo 3, still wouldn't interest me just because I can't afford 60 dollars for 8 hours of game. How much is that an hour? 7 something? That's a very poor ratio for what is essentially a stock standard FPS game experience. Most games I buy now give me roughly a 2 buck an hour pricetag, which is a lot easier to swallow.
And again, even though I don't like Halo MP that much, I make no bones that people shouldn't be allowed to play and enjoy Halo MP and form their communities and love every minute. I have absolutely no beef with that element of Halo. I have a beef with people calling an apple an orange. Don't call bad level design anything but, don't call unimpressive graphical updates anything but, don't call derivative design anything but. *That's* why Halo polarizes people, and for reasons far more fundamental than those of, say, Final Fantasy... because most of the people lambasting Halo are simultaneously playing other shooters that they feel are better, whereas most who hated Final Fantasy back in the day just hated that type of game in general. This is a bit different.
-
i like halo
i dont care how popular it is or whatever. i will buy the game, play it and enjoy it.
i dont play its multi-player or take part in its community..at all. I like the single player story and the universe. i even bought the damn books to read because i enjoyed it so much.
that is all.
-
I couldn't agree with Keeb more.
-
8-10 hours is short, period, I don't care which generation it hails from. If a game is going to be that short, then it needs to be exceptional, or appropriately cheap. It's not cheap.
I have to admit, I can't think of many shooters during the past two years that were any longer. I remember F.E.A.R. was pretty short, yet it was some of the best dough I spent on a game.
I also think of it this way. I'd rather have 8-10 hours of quality gaming, versus 10 hours of quality gaming and 5 of repeating corridors.
I really loved Halo till the flood came, and then it felt like an artificial extension -- which I still enjoyed, but it didn't give me the same feeling.
-
Absolutely agree with GP! If this was Bio Shock D you would have said the exact opposite.
I often don't replay games b/c of the game has extra difficulties. If there ain't extra endings to the actual game and/or extra results to "Quest"s (like in some RPG's), I often will NOT return to the game.
The only reason I'm actually replaying Bioshock's SP is because it has more than one ending. Yes, the game has two endings -- good and bad. I got my 20 hours worth of this one, first time around.
Multiple endings, I feel, are always a good reason and replay the game a different way and manner, as far as I'm concerned.
Same goes for STALKER, too -- which has a staggering amount of endings. SEVEN, in total.
Does Halo 3 have multiple endings???
Bots have their place. They are apparently popular. Epic has said that something around half of the people that bought UT2k4 never took it online.
Given that UT2K4 is really made for MP, that's something GREAT to note. They did something right w/ their Skirmish SP mode, to even cause THAT to happen.
And for something like Halo 3 where you've written AI routines anyway, it probably wouldn't take all that much effort to turn them into MP bots.
Agreed.
And now, the real reason I'm posting. I don't like Halo, everyone knows it. But my hats off to Bungie, Forge sounds fucking awesome. Sounds like an idea that should have been around for a while now. Its like...Trackmania meets Garrys Mod. While you can't edit the map architecture, you can edit entities, their properties, their placement, weapons...tons of things. And it sounds like they let you tweak a lot of parameters, not just a few on/off switches.
I do agree about that -- Forge does sound cool.
Can you use Forge offline to build your own SP stuff?
And I do admit, the entire "Game Video Recording" thing sounds great.
Sure you can mod PC games, but even the most "user friendly" ones need code. A truely easy to use "editor" like Forge is a great idea. I can imagine some cool things coming out of it. Reminds me of the early days of Quake modding where all the graphics will be the same, but the gameplay will vary quite a bit.
I'm guessing, given Halo's PC track record, Halo 3 will in a few years or so come over to the PC -- probably to Vista or whatever the hell their next OS after that will be. It'll probably require Windows Live, too...
I'm guessing Forge and the "Recording Video Thing" will be very popular. I wish more games will include something as cool as that, myself. Kudos to Bungie on those implementations -- though, I'm sure they'll be more popular on the MP side of things more so than anything. (I could be wrong on that).
I think what it comes down to is what scott said - the reason people like me hate Halo has nothing to do with Halo being crappy, and has everything to do with (as Sy said) how many people line up for it and bow down to call it God. If Halo was marginally popular, made money, and went on its merry way, nobody would say a damned thing.
It's the fact that it's lauded as this amazing story with amazing design behind it, when it has neither thing in any capacity. At least that's my beef with it.
I agree w/ that 100%.
I've never claimed the games to be total shit, I just don't think they're particularly great, particularly in the level design department.
Also agree again w/ that.
But yeah, I don't think I'd have much interest either unless there was something amazing about the gameplay or story. I mean, I paid my 60 bucks for The Darkness on 360, but that's because it did some amazing things in terms of storytelling and had some amazing acting. It was a brilliant game, if a somewhat standard shooter with fun twists here and there. Halo 3, even if it wasn't Halo 3, still wouldn't interest me just because I can't afford 60 dollars for 8 hours of game. How much is that an hour? 7 something? That's a very poor ratio for what is essentially a stock standard FPS game experience. Most games I buy now give me roughly a 2 buck an hour pricetag, which is a lot easier to swallow.
And again, even though I don't like Halo MP that much, I make no bones that people shouldn't be allowed to play and enjoy Halo MP and form their communities and love every minute. I have absolutely no beef with that element of Halo.
Halo MP was okay, though it was nothing special.
I have a beef with people calling an apple an orange. Don't call bad level design anything but, don't call unimpressive graphical updates anything but, don't call derivative design anything but. *That's* why Halo polarizes people, and for reasons far more fundamental than those of, say, Final Fantasy... because most of the people lambasting Halo are simultaneously playing other shooters that they feel are better, whereas most who hated Final Fantasy back in the day just hated that type of game in general. This is a bit different.
My beef w/ Final Fantasy goes back to the fact that w/ rest of the RPG world evolving (namely w/ more non-linear styles of gameplay, in the gameplay department), FF didn't even really try even the tiniest bit to even do the same way. And that is why I felt, after NINE or so FF games, nothing has evolved in FF series except the graphics. Don't get me wrong -- some of the FF games were okay (FF8), some of them were good (FF, FF4, FF9), and some of them were even great (namely that would be FFV, VI, and VII for the "great" FF's).
I have to admit, I can't think of many shooters during the past two years that were any longer. I remember F.E.A.R. was pretty short, yet it was some of the best dough I spent on a game.
I agree. I do wish FEAR was longer and had more to it for replay value (like more endings, more hidden secrets, etc etc), but it didn't.
I also think of it this way. I'd rather have 8-10 hours of quality gaming, versus 10 hours of quality gaming and 5 of repeating corridors.
I really loved Halo till the flood came, and then it felt like an artificial extension -- which I still enjoyed, but it didn't give me the same feeling.
Agreed, to an extent. Halo's first half of gameplay was great. The variety of levels and the gameplay was very good. The story, eh -- nothing special. It was okay.
Then, The Flood came and really messed things up. While you still somewhat enjoyed the game when the Flood came, I really didn't. I think the only level I cared for after the Flood was the final level, when you had to drive out of the level to finish it off.
-
I'm not going to respond to you sardonic comment about multiple endings other than to say; what you are saying is the exact opposite like I said it would be, but the reasons you've given, while very valid, are personal and do not necessarily reflect that of the Halo fanbase (and I’m certainly not talking about the idiot fanboys here either) which I do not believe D you subscribe to.
I'm going to get this game when its back in stock, and I'm most likely going to enjoy playing it.
-
I just beat it. It is short, but it's incredibly fun. Totally, totally fun. And it is definitely something that you can play through again and again (just like the other 2).
It felt more like Halo 1 than Halo 2, which was awesome. It's a total blast. I did it on Co-op with a friend. We did it on Normal and it was WAY easy(granted we are both Halo 2 vets), which is why we flew through it.
Can't wait to play through it again tomorrow on a difficulty.
-
OK, so that confirms it's a one-sitting game. How long? Just a ballpark figure. I'm sure you didn't time it.
-
Well, I didn't beat all of it. A friend played for the first little bit. I have no idea how long that part was, but I am guessing about 2 hours. We played for 4 hours, so that makes it possible to do in about 6 hours.
It'll be stretched a lot further for most people, though. We died about 5 times throughout the whole game because it was REALLY easy. And there were 2 of us instead of 1.
Can't stress enough how much replayability it has, though. Honestly, I feel like playing it again right now.
-
A friend of mine from work got it and played it at 1:30am, and beat it at around 9:30am.
I got it, but I haven't played it yet. I kind of just wanted to play some MP right off the bat, but I think xbox live is dead atm. I could almost care less about the campaign. If it's like the first 2...meh.
-
Anything Microsoft which is Live-related is DOA right now. No forums, no marketplace, no nuthin'. They knew this was coming, and still didn't prepare adequately for it.
-
I'm not going to respond to you sardonic comment about multiple endings other than to say; what you are saying is the exact opposite like I said it would be, but the reasons you've given, while very valid, are personal and do not necessarily reflect that of the Halo fanbase (and I’m certainly not talking about the idiot fanboys here either) which I do not believe D you subscribe to.
I'm going to get this game when its back in stock, and I'm most likely going to enjoy playing it.
Max Payne 2, a completely ridiculously short length-wise and very linear FPS, had another ending given to the player, if you actually beat it on the game's hardest difficulty. Outstanding game, though -- from start to finish.
If they really wanted to stick w/ one ending for Halo 3's SP, since it is linear and all, they could've given an extended ending to the player, to make it really worthwhile for the player to complete the game a 2nd time through, on the hardest difficulty or something -- especially since it seems the game can be finished in under 10 hours.
-
Actually, the Halo games can have varied dialog as well as special extended endings depending the the difficulty you beat the game on. You only get the "real ending" of Halo 3 if you play on Legendary or something.
-
So I've been playing for a while, I'm a few hours into the game. Meh...is all I got really. It's good, and it's fun, but it's just like the previous two in it's bland-ness. It feels, and plays exactly like 2. AI isn't that great, same as 2. Music kind of just pops in at random moments and doesn't seem to go with the battle. And the weapon sound effects are terrible. It doesn't do anything new at all really besides add some new weapons and vehicles. There are new power ups and shields and such, but they don't do all that much to change the game play up any.
So pretty much, it's a good game, it's fun. But it doesn't do anything new at all, and it's a bit bland. Unless it gets a ton better, I don't think it's deserving of all this praise...much like the last two.
I pretty much just got it for the MP to play with people from work, and school. Thats where all the fun in it is for me.
-
I just bought it today on a whim, seeing as I was never a Halo fan. I flat-out disliked the first two, but I really enjoyed this one. I don't know why exactly, but I had a blast playing some co-op with the roomies.
To be honest, 10 hours is a massive stretch. We beat it co-op today in about 5. Like Shock said, it's fun as hell and definitely can be played through multiple times (which I rarely say about games), but damn it's short. I haven't jumped into the MP yet, so I can't comment on that, but I checked out the options for it and there are fucking endless modes for MP. I can see this game lasting.
-
Well into the campaign and i absolutely love it. (you all knew i would)
so yeah fuck you guys
-
NO FUCK U!
-
UR MOM
-
*smells Spam...*
-
*smells Spam...*
Welcome to the most ironic comment ever. EVER.
EDIT - Okay, so I just wanted to point something out over at GSpot. The Halo fans needn't take this as a dig at Halo 3, because it isn't meant as one. This is purely a dig at GSpot for writing pointless material that panders to morons. [They have this article up about graphics comparisons between Halos 1, 2, and 3 (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6179901/index.html?tag=topslot;title;1&om_act=convert&om_clk=topslot), and it's just... sad. I quote:
We're relieved to say that Halo 3 has certainly lived up to the hype. The new Xbox 360 hardware and a larger development team gave Bungie the horsepower to bring Master Chief into the "HD Era." The game's overall resolution has increased to 720p. Game environments and character models look sharper. They also look more detailed, thanks to larger textures and excellent art direction. The Xbox 360's graphics capabilities allowed Bungie to add in complex lighting, shadowing, longer shaders, high dynamic range lighting, and spectacular-looking water effects.
Why do you have a graphics article talking about what is easily the most non-next gen-looking next gen game evar? Seriously, I'm not a graphics whore so I'm not saying that it makes the game bad in any way. I'm just saying that they're literally writing an article that serves no purpose. They're taking a graphically unimpressive game and comparing it to how much better it is from earlier games in the series. What's the fucking point? Yes, children tend to grow, as do plants, and house pets. You get bigger, you advance, etc. So what? Halo 3 really doesn't look particularly great, especially not for a game that makes the kind of money it does. Where is all that money going? I'm asking this honestly.
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/263/reviews/926632_20070921_screen001.jpg)
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/263/reviews/926632_20070921_screen006.jpg)
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/263/reviews/926632_20070921_screen003.jpg)
Now you look at that and tell me it's impressive. No, really, I dare you. I dare you to tell me that you can't find 360 launch titles that didn't look significantly better.
Now take a look at these:
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/191/928117_20070710_screen011.jpg)
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/233/928117_20070822_screen001.jpg)
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/191/928117_20070710_screen005.jpg)
Seriously, I'm not trying to knock Halo 3 for not being a graphical powerhouse, and it's slightly unfair to compare it to a game that won't even be coming out on its platform (UT3 will be PS3 exclusive console-wise, as far as I know)... but... seriously. Okay, I don't get why Halo 3 isn't a graphical powerhouse exactly, given how much money those people should have to throw at it, but graphics aren't everything and shouldn't be viewed as such. What I don't understand is why you have an article comparing 3 graphically unimpressive games to one another. I hate pandering bullshit, and GSpot didn't used to do that so much. It seems like they're marching ever onward down roads IGN has already paved quite thoroughly. I'm pretty sure that I won't be renewing my subscription.
This is only one example, and it's a small one, but I think those who have been with me in disliking many changes since Kasavin left will see what I'm getting at.
EDIT x2 - Added the tank images just because I'm sort of having fun finding comparison pictures.
-
Welcome to the most ironic comment ever. EVER.
That was the point. :P
-
That was the point. :P
No, you missed my ...
...
Uh, that is to say... never mind. :-\
-
Let me handle this, Que.
Shut up, D.
-
PS3 UT3 is a timed exclusive, there will be a 360 version.
While I wouldn't say Halo 3 looks bad (the lighting in that ariel shot is kinda nice), it's certainly not overly impressive. Some say that its because later on there are massive battles going on, so if that was true I could understand. But I haven't seen any screens of this.
You make an interesting point. Halo/Halo 2 has made them a shitload of money. They should be in a position to create not just a fun game, but an amazing looking one as well. They are owned by MS, the company that makes the damn console. They probably have access to internal help that no one else gets. And Halo is the flagship title for Xbox, you'd think they'd put a touch more effort into it.
UT3 is just "off the hook", as the youngin's say. Every screen I see I'm still thinking "That just can't be gameplay, can it?" Epic sold their souls to the devil to make that shit.
-
"I'm not trying to knock Halo 3 for not being a graphical powerhouse"
Im surprised you went this far. I fail to see how taking prepped screens from a game thats not released yet and comparing them to one that has can have a fair bearing on judging which is better. Your not trying to knock, but thats the only thing I got out of your post. We can argue all day about its visuals with examples, its really just taste, but thats just it, you dont want to settle it there. I hate to come off sounding like one of those fanboys, I hope I dont, I'm just trying to get you to see your over hate mongering at the games, which I really do find excessive. I do agree with you that its popularity is hard to believe and a tad annoying at times, but I will acknowledge Halo as a very well refined and solid FPS, with a very appealing universe, maybe not the best, but it deserves some of its praise its garnered. For me, I dont find it that easy to get bent out of shape from some of the annoying attention it sometime gets.
-
I see what you're saying Pyro, but he could just as easily post screens from Gears of War, a game that came out well before Halo 3, and likewise wipe the floor with it.
-
True, but I didn't know every game from Gears of War release to after must look just as good. It's really spoiled a lot of people.
-
I wasn't even really talking about Halo, I was talking about GSpot pandering to fanboys by writing filler articles that don't contain anything of substance, and how they didn't used to do that. All that article came down to was "Halo 3 looks better than Halo 2". Don't you find that kind of... stupid? It's not a crime or anything, it's just the kind of shit IGN tends to do. Besides, I even said exactly what you did if you go back and read my post - that it isn't fair to compare a game that isn't even out to one that is, especially when the scheduled release of the other game isn't even on the same system (despite the fact that this sort of isn't true... I mean, Unreal engine 3 is already widely in use, and recent Doom 3 engine games like Quake Wars are also looking more technically proficient than Halo 3, which isn't even worth mentioning on its own as we've established that I'm not a graphics whore and I don't count that as a knock as long as the game doesn't look like total ass, but it *is* contextually interesting when you consider the point idol and I already made about how they've got so much money, so where does it go when the campaign was so short, etc. etc. ... and again, that doesn't qualify as hate either, it's legitimate curiosity).
Anyway... enough bitching, enough disclaiming. I suppose I should have just made another thread about GSpot hate instead, but I just posted it here because it seemed sort of relevant. So I thought I'd just move the post to a new thread and everybody'd be happy, but it seems this is sort of relevant again? I don't know. Anyway, I wasn't trying to be a dick.
-
Well see, you have this web site that only deals in reviews and news to do with video games. You have a massive video game launch and most other publishers aren't stupid enough to release anything of substance the same week. Yet you have to somehow make work for the 'journalists' you employ. BAM! Stupid articles.
As for where the money with Halo 3 goes, I'd imagine a large part of the money taken in by MS Game Studios goes to counter the massive profit loss on the hardware. That's the return they expect so it'd be a bit stupid to just push it right back into development costs. I'd also go so far as to say that Unreal makes a ton more money than Halo. The actual money they make off UT3 is a drop in the bucket - their bread and butter is licensing the engine out. It's compairing single instance return with that of a steady stream of return.
-
I suppose you have a point there, and to top it off... why try? Halo will sell copies regardless of whether or not it looks particularly great. All it has to do is look better than Halo 2, which it achieved. I suppose I'm just overestimating Halo Power simply because I can't fucking get away from it. No less than 8 people this week at my work who wouldn't know a video game from a shovel to the face have asked me if I plan to pick up Halo 3. My own mother even asked me about it, and she avoids such topics like the plague most of the time. *Everybody* knows what it is. It's some kind of sick fucking cultural phenomenon.
As for your prior thought... yeah, that's all true, but GSpot just didn't seem to do that so much before. It's starting to seem like every other article is about as worthwhile as that one was, though, and the journalists apparently still have better things to do, as there are a couple games that seem as though they should have been higher profile and have gone unreviewed. It's just a trend I'm noticing, not this one big instance that's so huge. A lot of us think they've been going downhill, and this was just an opportunity to illustrate the point.
-
Yea I saw your point with Gspots article and I agree it is pretty stupid. I just didnt see the point with posting the other screenshots and there was some comments I felt were more Halo 3 knocking.
"but it *is* contextually interesting when you consider the point idol and I already made about how they've got so much money, so where does it go when the campaign was so short, etc. etc. ... and again, that doesn't qualify as hate either, it's legitimate curiosity)."
I don't know, Im not very curious about that, then again I dont find the visuals as lacking as most people do, its enough to get by I think. I've played the beta, and it looked great. I dont know the details on the individual designers and their pay grade, again, I just find it an effortless nicpic. If anything, the game is showing at how high we set a standard for graphics.
-
My only reason in posting the pics was to indicate that if you're going to have an article about graphics, it shouldn't be about Halo 3. That's not that unreasonable, right? It just isn't a technically impressive game, that's all. I'm not saying it's the worst looking thing ever, it just isn't pushing the envelope at all, and most of the screens seem to look almost more last-gen, hence the article ends up seeming like the kind of silly IGN-style pandering that GSpot used to generally avoid. The game definitely has enough graphical prowess to get by, I've already said as much. There have been plenty of other high profile games that had somewhat lackluster visuals in certain areas, and a lot of them were games I liked... that's not something I find to be a necessity at all if you've got a great game. It just seems odd to me that Halo, which by all indications is the hottest thing in the universe right now, seems so obviously under par when compared to most other stuff on the market. That's all. It just stands out as strange to me.
-
I see what you're saying Pyro, but he could just as easily post screens from Gears of War, a game that came out well before Halo 3, and likewise wipe the floor with it.
Different environment, different strains and requirements on the engine. GoW doesn't require nearly the draw distance H3 does. Most of Gears' environments were in close quarters/indoors and you had a very limited range of movement. And GoW gets a knock because it had a horrible case of the "shiny effect"
Anyhow, arguing about whether or not the Halo series are good games is retarded. There's obviously something there to cause millions of people to want to play them. Maybe...I dunno... THEY'RE HAVING FUN WITH THE GAME. Which is the point, really. Who cares that it doesn't have the prettiest graphics on the system? I sure as hell don't. I got exactly what I wanted, which was more Halo. Why tinker with the formula if it works?
I hate these threads.
-
And there are some genuinely beautiful portions in the game. Some that make you just stand there and go "wow"
-
I think what you have to understand is that when you've got a franchise like Halo that's just HUGE, if people don't like it, they want to explain WHY, especially when people go around saying that "it's just cool to hate on Halo", etc. We don't want people to make us out to be mindless robots who just hate something because it's cool to do so, we want to indicate that we have legitimate reasons why we find the game to be lacking. I don't think that's unreasonable. Flame wars happen only when people DO actively attack a game for no reason like a flock of idiots, or when people get too overzealous defending it, which is usually because they feel like their own taste is being attacked, not just the game. Which is an understandable reaction that I'm sure we've all gone through at some point, and realized later that maybe we took things too much to heart. A bunch of us like Halo. A bunch of us don't. It's all good.
And again, the whole graphics thing got taken way out of context. Nobody here is saying anybody should dislike Halo because it isn't pretty enough. That's just stupid.
-
I'll promise to always bash Elder Scrolls as long as you always bash Halo..
Lets feel the love.
-
See, keebs is wise. Mutually acknowledged hate is what brings true peace.
-
I just "finished the fight" as it were. Great ending. Legendary's was even better. helloooooo new series.
-
Heres something I thought about with the Halo 3 launch.
Halo 3 Sales Smash Game Industry Records (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202102318) Microsoft's Halo 3 racked up $170 million in sales on its first day of availability, making it the hottest selling title in video game history.
Microsoft said late Wednesday that the game's sales easily surpassed first day sales for Halo 2, which previously held the record. Halo 2 launched in 2004 and posted $125 million in sales on its first day.
I wonder, though, if it actually sold more copies than Halo 2. It made more money, but remember Halo 3 is $10 more for the basic release, then you have another $10 on top of that for the Limited Edition, and then a whopping $130 for the Legendary edition. I'd love to see the actual units sold figures.
Extra funny is how the article describes the game, including calling the Covenant a "shadowy terrorist group"...no mention that they are aliens or anything.
-
Bungie is responding to some people's Halo 3 backlash on the not-so-spectacular graphics and all... (http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/26-09-2007-6537.html)
-
Heres something I thought about with the Halo 3 launch.
Halo 3 Sales Smash Game Industry Records (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202102318) I wonder, though, if it actually sold more copies than Halo 2. It made more money, but remember Halo 3 is $10 more for the basic release, then you have another $10 on top of that for the Limited Edition, and then a whopping $130 for the Legendary edition. I'd love to see the actual units sold figures.
Extra funny is how the article describes the game, including calling the Covenant a "shadowy terrorist group"...no mention that they are aliens or anything.
I bet it sold less copies. I bet there is a smaller installed base of 360's now than there was of Xbox's at the time of Halo 2's release.
-
We think it's a beautiful game at Bungie. Folks who have complained about the graphics in the large part have said 'I don't like the way it looks' then they pick it up and they play it for half-an-hour and then four hours later they're still playing and that's the last time you hear them saying anything about the game.
Then an hour later they beat it and wonder where the hell their $60 went.
Sorry, I just had to. Come on! You know I had to. Right?
... please don't hit me again.
-
*hits que*
i've been playing it through on co-op and it's a lot of fun. no massive leap forward, but i think it's still the best multiplayer shooter on a console. i've never been the halo series biggest fan, completely ignoring the first, and then only playing the second because my housemate picked it up. i think the main reason i disliked it was because i came from pc fps games and was expecting something entirely different. after being forced into many multiplayer games of halo 2 though, i started learning the maps and weapons, and really got a taste for it.
so from someone who used to hate halo, i'd have to say that it's dissenters probably just don't get (or for some reason, like) what makes halo good. it's slower pace, weapon combos, grenades and melee attacks make for superb and hugely varied combat mechanics. it's not on a par with games such as bioshock in terms of atmosphere, graphics, or story - but the combat, the co-op, the vehicles and the varied multiplayer make it a hell of a lot of fun. it will never compete with pc fps's in my mind, but then i'm not looking to play a pc game when i play halo - i want something more arcadey, that i can play in my living room with friends.
-
We think it's a beautiful game at Bungie. Folks who have complained about the graphics in the large part have said 'I don't like the way it looks' then they pick it up and they play it for half-an-hour and then four hours later they're still playing and that's the last time you hear them saying anything about the game.
Then an hour later they beat it and wonder where the hell their $60 went.
Haha! That's exactly what I thought when I read that part, almost verbatim.
-
Even more graphical troubles for Halo 3: Its not really 720p (http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12821).
One item making the interwebs rounds this week was the scandalous revelation that Halo 3 runs at “640p” which isn’t even technically a resolution. However, the interweb detectives did notice that Halo 3’s vertical resolution, when captured from a frame buffer, is indeed 640 pixels. So what gives? Did we short change you 80 pixels?
Nice fake out. The difference between 720p and the resolution Halo 3 is running in isn't 80 pixels, its 184,320 pixels.
Naturally it’s more complicated than that. In fact, you could argue we gave you 1280 pixels of vertical resolution, since Halo 3 uses not one, but two frame buffers – both of which render at 1152x640 pixels. The reason we chose this slightly unorthodox resolution and this very complex use of two buffers is simple enough to see – lighting. We wanted to preserve as much dynamic range as possible – so we use one for the high dynamic range and one for the low dynamic range values. Both are combined to create the finished on screen image.
No, you can't argue that, how dumb do you think we are? Just because you decided to render the same frame twice to do your HDR doesn't mean you can say you're giving us 1280 pixels of vertical resolution. If the Wii renders a game to framebuffer twice, can we say the game is really running in HD?
This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels. Making this decision simpler still is the fact that the 360 scales the “almost-720p” image effortlessly all the way up to 1080p if you so desire.
Which is a completely logical and understandable position to take. It was a trade off they chose: slightly lower resolution to be able to do HDR this way, and generally no one will be able to tell the difference. You don't need any other excuse.
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference.
Take an image, scale that image up a little bit, and you can't really tell the difference? No shit, Sherlock. The true test would be take the scaled image and compare it to the game rendered natively in 1280x720.
We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings.
Tinfoil hats and toenail clipping? The resolution *is* lower, whether you think it matters or not. They were correct and called you out on it. You confirmed their findings, so how are they suddenly a group of crazy people?
Honestly, I don't really care that the res is lower. I still run most of my games in 1024x768. But don't call people crazy or make shit up (its really 1280 vertical pixels lol math is fun!). You had a good reason to do what you did, don't make excuses, just be straight with people. You couldn't do HDR at full resolution with an acceptable framerate, so instead of dropping HDR you lowered the image size a bit until it worked. I generally lower my resolution before turning features off, too.
-
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with admitting they had to lower the resolution to get the game to run smoothly and looked cool at the same time. Riddick did it on the Xbox and no one screamed bloody murder. They were honest with it and it was accepted.
The other thing Bungie's isn't exactly giving consistant excuses on the matter. This is kind of a nitpicky thing based on their choice of words, but it does show part of the problem.
From the new article:
This ability to display a full range of HDR, combined with our advanced lighting, material and postprocessing engine, gives our scenes, large and small, a compelling, convincing and ultimately “real” feeling, and at a steady and smooth frame rate, which in the end was far more important to us than the ability to display a few extra pixels.
From the article someone posted a few days ago. (http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/26-09-2007-6537.html)
It's completely immersive. The art direction is immaculate. It's not trying to be incredibly photo realistic or painting this grimy world. It's vibrant and it's fun and it's accessible.
Bungie could have simply said the path they chose made the motion feel more natural, but they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. The real point is that this isn't the first time Bungie's has done stuff like this. Anyone remember there were problems with the 720p with Halo 2. The box said it would be there, and it wasn't for some reason or another. You'd think with a game as big as Halo, problems like this would be addressed, especially given how much of an icon is it for the Xbox. Make it at 720p and show off what the system can do. Flat out. No tricks, no gimmicks. It's also kind of exemplified by the huge pop-in problem Halo 2 had that is something that should have been fought against tooth and nail when graphics are such a huge part of the game. It's just the sort of thing that helps prove that Bungie isn't exactly the AAA developer they've been propped up to be. Given the resources they have, they shouldn't be letting stuff like this through.
-
Wait, wait, wait. This thing is releasing almost a year later than Gears of War, is a first party game, and looks worse and isn't even HD? What the hell is Bungie's problem? Clearly they aren't that talented a developer, at least as far as the technical and art side of things go.
-
This whole incident it worth it just for the people that harp on the Wii for not being HD now saying that having using lower resolutions is fine. "If it runs well and is fun, who cares about resolution?"
-
I don't think anyone everyconsidered Bungee a AAA developer, except for maybe hardcore MS fans and, before that, mac users.
Idols point is quality. IT's also really funny to see Wii fanboys point out the lower reolution and low quality graphics of Halo3 when previously, "graphics don't matter. Gimicky mini-games do".
-
Of course it matters, or people wouldn't talk about it. Different people have different expectations and place higher valuations on different aspects of games, but of course it matters.
I am just really surprised how unimpressive of a technical feat Halo 3 is given the virtual warchest of a budget available to it and how late it is releasing on the 360.
-
See, that's what I'm saying. I don't care that much about graphics as long as it looks decent enough to not look like ass, and Halo 3 does that fine. It isn't impressive, but it doesn't look shitty, either. But the way it's been handled still confuses me just because of its position at the forefront. I can understand certain things, but not the picture as a whole.
And what are you talking about, gpw? Bungie has been considered top tier for years now. Maybe not by the gaming elite or by industry analysts/obsessive weirdos, but by most people, and if you look at reviews you'd be hard pressed to argue that the press doesn't find them to be masters of design. Which confuses me too, given my thoughts to the contrary... but I'd still say that they're highly respected. Maybe not from a purely technical standpoint, which would make sense given that those hailing them as superamazingawesome are probably more casual (Halo reaches a much broader market than most franchises ever dream of), but either way, it seems odd.
I think what Sy said is really what it comes down to. Nobody would care about any of this if they just came out and said it. Even I wouldn't care, despite my general dislike of the franchise. Hell, I'm not so inclined to say that I ever care *now*... I just dislike the fact that instead of being nice about it, they more or less come off sounding like total dicks any time they try to defend what they've done. Tinfoil hats and toenail clippings? Fuck you, asshole. Your explanations are now worth nothing.
-
Do we expect anything less from Bungie and/or whomever ports their games to the PC? Seriously, though -- they were never really technical masters at their craft. Repeating Cut & Pasting levels (Halo: CE), not utilizing technology to the best of their ability (see Halo 2 PC), and some not-so-great storytelling, etc etc.
Halo 1 for the PC -- ran like shit upon release, regardless of your system.
Halo 2 for the PC -- ran only on Vista YET didn't really take advantage of Vista's DX10 capabilities.
Halo 3 for the X360 -- now, people feel shorted 80p. Worst of all is they didn't even tell anyone they were doing this, ahead of time! Why didn't they just tell the people???? At least w/ Riddick, Starbreeze let the world know ahead of time; wasn't really too big of a big deal. Can't do nothing about it, except accept it, ahead of time. At least you know. I'm sure, given how Halo has a big fanbase already, people wouldn't have cared too much, if they knew about this ahead of time. Now, as much as I like outstanding graphics, I'm not a graphics whore -- I think the most important thing is to get your game looking good while still running at a nice framerate. They took the best option they could come up w/ to jack the res' and pixel count down, which is fine and all -- but, they didn't bother to tell anyone ahead of time and they didn't even put that down on the game's actual box!!!
And now, w/ the truth exposed, Bungie decides to act like they're almighty, like their some game developing Gods w/ the "tinfoil hats" remark and whatnot b/c someone actually noticed something was off w/ the pixels and all. At least a company like say Obsidian has the balls to admit their problems; that they need to improve w/ the technical aspects of things -- namely w/ trying to get NWN2 running well, optimizing the game and to try and please the fans of the game -- and that they will continue to do so, as long as they are in charge of developing the game.
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference.
Not that impossible -- someone noticed it, didn't they? :P
We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet’s propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings.
Translation: "Shit, we got caught and dunno' what to say, so we'll just insult those who caught us red-headed!!"
-
See, that's what I'm saying. I don't care that much about graphics as long as it looks decent enough to not look like ass, and Halo 3 does that fine. It isn't impressive, but it doesn't look shitty, either. But the way it's been handled still confuses me just because of its position at the forefront. I can understand certain things, but not the picture as a whole.
And what are you talking about, gpw? Bungie has been considered top tier for years now. Maybe not by the gaming elite or by industry analysts/obsessive weirdos, but by most people, and if you look at reviews you'd be hard pressed to argue that the press doesn't find them to be masters of design. Which confuses me too, given my thoughts to the contrary... but I'd still say that they're highly respected. Maybe not from a purely technical standpoint, which would make sense given that those hailing them as superamazingawesome are probably more casual (Halo reaches a much broader market than most franchises ever dream of), but either way, it seems odd.
I think what Sy said is really what it comes down to. Nobody would care about any of this if they just came out and said it. Even I wouldn't care, despite my general dislike of the franchise. Hell, I'm not so inclined to say that I ever care *now*... I just dislike the fact that instead of being nice about it, they more or less come off sounding like total dicks any time they try to defend what they've done. Tinfoil hats and toenail clippings? Fuck you, asshole. Your explanations are now worth nothing.
That's a good point. I should probably have said that I don't consider Bungiea top tier developer, and won't until they release a non-Halo game that's quality.
-
Mr D, you can hardly hold the PC releases of Halo against Bungie. They never handled the ports. While I suppose you can say something about them handing their baby over to be butchered, it's not really their fault it ran like crap on the PC.
-
Mr D, you can hardly hold the PC releases of Halo against Bungie. They never handled the ports. While I suppose you can say something about them handing their baby over to be butchered, it's not really their fault it ran like crap on the PC.
Yeah, well they did put it in bad hands...
Shall we blame Gearbox then for Halo PC? :P
And "Hired Gun" of MGS for Halo 2 PC?
-
I doubt they had any say in it at all. MS likely pulls the strings as far as farming out ports goes. They probably wanted Bungie to stick to Halo 2 when they ported the original game, hence the gave it to someone else... who fucked it up. Actually, the same scenario happened to Infinite Interactive, the developers of Puzzle Quest. They were creating Puzzle Quest, and D3, their publisher, farmed the ports out to VCS. Well, at least the PSP port. And VCS, who I've come to appreciate through Dead Head Fred and their support of that game via community channels, completely fucked the port to hell and back. It's all but broken. And even if they wanted to fix it, it again falls on D3 for the problem... because most likely VCS has no say in the matter either, and would only fix the Puzzle Quest PSP issues if D3 mandated that they do so.
-
I'd agree - blaming bad ports on the parent developer is a bit unnecessary.
-
Wait, wait, wait. This thing is releasing almost a year later than Gears of War, is a first party game, and looks worse and isn't even HD? What the hell is Bungie's problem? Clearly they aren't that talented a developer, at least as far as the technical and art side of things go.
I honestly do think they held back, and probably would have produced a far better looking game had there been pressure on them to do so. I say this because I remember at the time when Halo looked like a PC exclusive, and the tech demos were rolling out, the game looked gorgeous. In fact Halo came six months to a year after it was ready, purely because it was supposed to be a Xbox launch title.
I still remember how excited everyone was about this beautiful looking game ready to hit the PC. I think PC Gamer was doing massive coverage every issue. But then Microsoft happened.
There also has been this trend in franchises to recycle old engines for all they are worth. Apparently developers want to juice the fuck out of their old tech. Games like Freedom Force, Splinter Cell , Dungeons Siege etc all had impressive looks during their very first titles but then for a sequel or two the looks were extremely disappointing and were an obvious attempt to cash in with a minimum of design effort.
In fact Scott, a lot of people have pointed out that Halo 3 isn't more than 5 hours. You know what Halo 3 would be called if it were released on the PC? A standalone expansion.
-
The draw for Halo seems mostly to be on the multiplayer front at this point, though. Or at least most of it. People dig the story, but I don't think they pay the 60 clams for it. They pay ten for that, and fifty for the MP.
-
But the MP isn't that good is it? But right, I have a lot of casual gamer friends, who love the Halo MP.
I am interested to know. Are there are any major changes between Halo 2 and 3 in terms of multiplayer?
-
It depends on who you ask. Supposedly Halo rewards slower play with more thought, etc., but I find it slow as molasses and boring as fuck. I also owned the crap out of everyone I played Halo 1 with, but in all fairness I never touched 2 and haven't cared to try 3. I think it's just different... and if you like it's style, it's good. I mean, it seems solid enough. It just isn't to my taste.
No idea about changes from 2 to 3, though.
-
How many MP maps are there for H3?
And do they plan to release more via XBL?
-
I honestly do think they held back, and probably would have produced a far better looking game had there been pressure on them to do so. I say this because I remember at the time when Halo looked like a PC exclusive, and the tech demos were rolling out, the game looked gorgeous. In fact Halo came six months to a year after it was ready, purely because it was supposed to be a Xbox launch title.
I still remember how excited everyone was about this beautiful looking game ready to hit the PC. I think PC Gamer was doing massive coverage every issue. But then Microsoft happened.
Totally different game. The PC version was scrapped completely and the xbox version was built from the ground up with vastly improved graphics. Honestly, I wonder how great the pc version would have turned out, considering Halo didn't have the deepest MP. I mean, it's fun, and some people love it, but it's not the kind of mp which holds it's own as a standalone game on the PC.
-
I didn't know the Xbox version was built from the ground up.
-
Wait, wait, wait. This thing is releasing almost a year later than Gears of War, is a first party game, and looks worse and isn't even HD? What the hell is Bungie's problem? Clearly they aren't that talented a developer, at least as far as the technical and art side of things go.
That's my take too. Idol's post (#128) is terrific. He hit the nail squarely after every quote. The only thing that I would add, and which MysterD touched on, is that no matter how you slice it, it's dishonest--from both Bungie and Microsoft. Bungie withheld the information which they were sure to know is controversial, and Microsoft allowed a game under its control to violate their own 720p-resolution promise to 360 buyers. Bungie's explanation would have been satisfactory if it had appeared on their site ahead of time, with an abridged version on H3's game box.
-
It is a lose-lose situation, regardless -- they wanted to meet the ship date, so they had to jack the res' down to get it running decent. Though, whether they told the world ahead of time or afterwards, they were still gonna lose on this one. But, they took the way, way, way, way much worse route -- they didn't let anyone know ahead of time and explain ahead of time why they did what they did. But worst of all, they didn't even put it on the box!
People would've been bullshit less, if they were told ahead of time that they were being short-changed some 80p b/c they would've at least had time to digest the matter and then the gamers probably still would go out and buy it b/c it's Halo 3; they'd get over it, eventually, I'd bet. Of course, this would need to be on the box, what res' the game supports and all...
But, no -- now, they consumer got the product in their hands and find out after its too late, the box isn't giving what's advertising on the box. Buyer beware written all over it. So, is Bungie gonna put forth on any new Halo 3 boxes what the real res' supported actually is? And is Bungie gonna patch this thing if they can fix the issue?
-
So I had the chance to expose myself to a little extra Halo (I totally wore a trenchcoat), and I have some updated thoughts.
Firstly, this is a game that really, really doesn't screenshot well. Nearly all screenshots look universally like ass, but the game is much better looking in motion. Now that's at least moderately common, but I think it applies particularly to Halo 3. Not because the game looks like the best thing ever in motion, but just because it looks really lousy in screens. I think on the whole it's a pretty good looking game, actually, it just has several weak points that sort of stand out a bit and bring the rest of the visuals down a few pegs. Environmentally, for instance, there are some jarring areas of geometrical simplicity that look pretty terrible, whereas there are also some really sweet-looking areas like K-Man said, that actually make you want to stop and look at them. They should have just worked harder on hiding seams and stuff. Models too suffer from this sort of design. On one hand, they animate decently most of the time and have really awesome shadows (the game seems to be shadows really well), but on the other hand, sometimes the lighting seems to show them as more simple, which kind of makes you feel like when they do look really good you're just being fooled... and some of the animation falls below the generally higher standard. Another area that I think looks much cooler than I first thought is explosions. A lot of the crazy energy weapons and grenades and stuff have cool effects that look good, and some of the vehicles seem to spark and fume in pretty cool ways.
Anyway, I'd still say this is a better looking game than it's getting credit for on the whole, it just has a hard time hiding some of the weak points. What's good looking is very nice, it's just those little things that get in the way a bit.
Also, whereas all elements of Halo 1 and 2 art design bored the living fuck out of me, some of the vehicles and stuff from 3 are actually awesome. I didn't expect that so much, as I'd only seen a little bit of that outside the game... but yeah, these look really cool. I hate the way when, say, a guy is riding one of the open-topped things and itgets flipped, and you can still see him sitting inside the model as though nothing were happening... even though his ass should be getting pummeled to death as he rolls his vehicle down the side of a hill... but that's about the only complaint. Otherwise, a lot of the stuff looks really sweet, at least design-wise. Vehicles also look a lot better in motion than in screenshots, because in motion the low texture res doesn't stand out so much, and the other elements of their design seem actually pretty nice. This is the first Halo game that I think has done something good artistically, so that's definitely a plus over the previous 2 which I found utterly bland. 3 definitely adds some flavor.
Gameplay seems about the same just with much, much better environments in which to do it, which actually helps *a lot*. That to me was the biggest problem with the first two by far. Other than the art issues and level design issues I thought the games were fine, but I felt like those two areas just killed things utterly. Given that Halo 3 manages to fix that stuff to a pretty good degree, I suspect the game to be a lot more fun to play on the whole.
The sacrifice is, of course, the super-super-super short campaign, which is really a shame, because with a little more meat to it, I think the game could actually have turned out awesome. As it stands, I just can't fucking believe anybody could give it Editor's Choice and scores of 9+ based on the severely short length. Again, if it did a few more amazingly creative things maybe it would be forgivable, but it doesn't. If it had a little more beef to it and a couple more hours, you could forgive it for being a little short, but... it is what it is.
Anyway... from a die-hard Halo unfanboy, I can say that 3 definitely looks like a huge improvement over the other games in all ways. It's just a shame that there isn't more to it and that they didn't try to shake up the formula a little more. It definitely plays like Halo 2, which is fine because the level design is so much better, but it could have stood a few more improvements.
So yeah, take that for what you will. I was able to see the game at somebody's house for a while, and so while obviously my thoughts aren't totally comprehensive, they're at least a lot more positive than they'd been before. I still don't think Halo deserves the endless popularity, and I never will, but if the other 2 games had the apparent quality of 3, I don't think anyone would care because they'd be having fun playing along with everyone else.
-
Your review tempted me to buy the game, but I would only be interested in the single player since I don't feel like paying for Live again. And I'm not going to buy it for a 5 hr campaign.
-
Gameplay seems about the same just with much, much better environments in which to do it, which actually helps *a lot*. That to me was the biggest problem with the first two by far.
Good to hear.
Other than the art issues and level design issues I thought the games were fine, but I felt like those two areas just killed things utterly. Given that Halo 3 manages to fix that stuff to a pretty good degree, I suspect the game to be a lot more fun to play on the whole.
Cool.
The sacrifice is, of course, the super-super-super short campaign, which is really a shame, because with a little more meat to it, I think the game could actually have turned out awesome.
Man, that's a damn shame...
As it stands, I just can't fucking believe anybody could give it Editor's Choice and scores of 9+ based on the severely short length. Again, if it did a few more amazingly creative things maybe it would be forgivable, but it doesn't. If it had a little more beef to it and a couple more hours, you could forgive it for being a little short, but... it is what it is.
Bah!
Anyway... from a die-hard Halo unfanboy, I can say that 3 definitely looks like a huge improvement over the other games in all ways. It's just a shame that there isn't more to it and that they didn't try to shake up the formula a little more.
Bummer about the length...
It definitely plays like Halo 2, which is fine because the level design is so much better, but it could have stood a few more improvements.
That's good that the design's improved w/ each iteration of Halo.
-
The sacrifice is, of course, the super-super-super short campaign, which is really a shame, because with a little more meat to it, I think the game could actually have turned out awesome. As it stands, I just can't fucking believe anybody could give it Editor's Choice and scores of 9+ based on the severely short length. Again, if it did a few more amazingly creative things maybe it would be forgivable, but it doesn't. If it had a little more beef to it and a couple more hours, you could forgive it for being a little short, but... it is what it is.
I've been resisting chiming in here because without playing he game, gut feelings have no foundation. Since you mentioned it, and I trust you, I'll at least be able to say that your comments don't surprise me at all. I cannot believe that on the heels of an astounding game like Bioshock, out comes the 3rd iteration of an old game, virtually unchanged except for looks, and trumps it on Gamespot. The ridiculously short campaign alone should have knocked off more than half a point. What's going on, really? Again, without playing it, and without ever giving a damn about what most people want out of Halo (multiplayer) these feelings are strictly personal. They don't hold much water in any other context.
-
I honestly think it's a bad idea to score based on the length of a game at all. By all means, it should be mentioned, but I don't really think it should change the score. For one thing, MP is a huge component of the game and I'd imagine the majority of people buying it are mostly buying it for the multi-player. The other reason I have this point of view is because a lot of the better games I've played are pretty damn short. REZ, Panzer Dragoon Saga, and a few others come to mind.
-
If you reach the end credits and your reaction is "That was AWESOME!" then its ok to be short. If you get there and its "WTF, thats it?!" then it should probably be docked. Kind of a hard thing to quantify, with lots of factors involved.
A game should leave you wanting more, not feeling like you should have gotten more.
-
Oh, I agree. I think the thing is that it's all completely opinionated. I mean they mention the single player is short, and that's all I really need to read, but for a lot of people it doesn't matter either way, they're buying it for the MP. By all means mention it in the review, but if you're going to start docking points based on length it gets into questionable territory.
-
I've been resisting chiming in here because without playing he game, gut feelings have no foundation. Since you mentioned it, and I trust you, I'll at least be able to say that your comments don't surprise me at all. I cannot believe that on the heels of an astounding game like Bioshock, out comes the 3rd iteration of an old game, virtually unchanged except for looks, and trumps it on Gamespot. The ridiculously short campaign alone should have knocked off more than half a point. What's going on, really? Again, without playing it, and without ever giving a damn about what most people want out of Halo (multiplayer) these feelings are strictly personal. They don't hold much water in any other context.
This makes me look at what Unreal did -- split the SP and MP components, into separate games.
The MP games, Unreal Tournament, are just stuffed w/ stuff galore.
Though, Unreal 2's SP was only around 10 hours, according to most....You'd think w/ them splitting the game, it'd be at least 15 hours or so. I guess that's why they added the XMP component, later to it for free download...heh!
Hell, I need to eventually get Unreal Anthology (when it I can find it cheap), since the only Unreal game I own is the original Unreal. I don't own the original expansion, either...
What am I getting at? Well, Maybe Halo should've split the SP and MP into two separate but much bigger games??? What do y'all think...?
-
Well, well -- rumor has it, Bungie might be leaving Microsoft, to become an Indie Studio again...
...And MS will retain the Halo IP. (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163310)
Bungie and MS: What the Hell is Going On?
Random blogger causes massive net meltdown. Microsoft avoids answers.
By Patrick Klepek, 10/01/2007
Earlier today, 8Bit Joystick caused a simultaneous WTF across the Internet when they claimed to have a source with information on the latest rumblings between Bungie Studios and Microsoft. The source -- who doesn't work at Bungie, but "knows" someone that does -- alleges Microsoft has agreed to allow Bungie become an independent studio again. Expectedly, Microsoft would retain the rights to the Halo IP, not unlike what happened with Bizarre Creations and the Project Gotham Racing IP. In that case, however, Microsoft didn't own Bizarre.
The source goes onto claim the split stems from increased friction between the developer and publisher as they both raced to get Halo 3 out the door. While shocking that Microsoft would knowingly release another company producing high-profile first-party games, the reaction by Microsoft and Bungie today leads credence to the idea there may be some truth to what's going on behind the scenes.
Given the source also claimed NDAs expired today, everyone should be ready to talk, right? Well, not so much.
1UP first got in touch with Bungie, who pointed us in the direction of Edelman, Microsoft's (and thus Bungie's, as they are currently a Microsoft-owned studio) PR outlet. We ended up contacting several Microsoft representatives at Edelman for comment, receiving two slightly differing responses.
"To your question, there's been no such announcement. We can't comment further." -- Microsoft representative #1
"There's been no such announcement. We continue to celebrate the tremendous success of the global phenomenon that is Halo 3." -- Microsoft representative #2
Canned PR responses differ company to company. Representative #1's "we can't comment further" is telling, considering the responses share some identical phrasing, making the official PR line within Microsoft "there's been no such announcement." When a PR company expects requests for comment from a number of outlets about the same piece of news, there is usually a canned response -- "there's been no such announcement" is Microsoft's canned response for today. "We can't comment further" suggests there actually is something more they simply can't talk about yet.
Elsewhere is activity on the Bungie.net and NeoGAF forums, popular hangouts for notable Bungie public figures Frank O'Connor and Luke Smith. Both are usually quick on the posting gun -- snarky or otherwise -- yet while both are actively online (as can be evidenced by NeoGAF's "currently active users" section at the bottom of the board), neither are responding to the quickly exploding thread of virtual shock and awe.
Hmm.
If wheels are churning, it would make sense Bungie's keeping their mouths shut until official word hits, supposedly expired NDAs or not. No reason to spoil the current love fest, especially when they're all continuing "to celebrate the tremendous success of the global phenomenon that is Halo 3." Right?
We'll keep digging. Stay tuned.
-
That would be interesting if true.
Would let us see what someone else could do with the Halo franchise, and would also allow us to to look at Bungie's skills outside of Halo.
-
That would be interesting if true.
Would let us see what someone else could do with the Halo franchise, and would also allow us to to look at Bungie's skills outside of Halo.
Imagine if M$ contracted someone like say Epic do a Halo IP-based game....heh.
About Bungie, I wonder what they'll do next....
-
I heard they are hiring someone to shoot you in the face.
-
*yawns*
-
Imagine if M$ contracted someone like say Epic do a Halo IP-based game....heh.
About Bungie, I wonder what they'll do next....
I've known for aa while that Peter Jackson (and I think Weta) were working on a game someone more recently told me that te game was set to be in the Halo universe.... I hope this is true!
-
Hmm... interesting. On one hand, it's good for Microsoft because most of the people that play Halo don't do so out of any sort of love affair of Bungie. Also, Bungie's technical skills seem to be suspect, and it is possible that another developer would do a better job in that area. But people really seemed to like the MP. Would another company be able to hammer out, tweak, and balance the kind of gameplay that Halo players have come to love?
-
I don't think this would have a huge effect on either company. Well, maybe Bungie, they have a lot more to lose.
Oh, and can someone find the M$ penny-arcade comic? We really need to throw that into every post D does that in.
-
And it gets even more interesting....
Looks like for ALL of Bungie's future games, Microsoft has the "first right of refusal on future games."
Link! (http://bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=81479)
More Bungie Rumors [October 02, 2007, 11:24 pm ET] - 10 Comments
Bungie Actually Leaving Microsoft? on GameInformer lends a little of their credibility to rumors that a Bungie split from Microsoft is in the offing (story). Word is:
While the majority of Internet denizens are stating that this could never happen and that it’s not true, we’ve heard the opposite. From a source close to Bungie, Game Informer has learned this rumor has some merit. It looks like with Halo 3, Bungie really is finishing the fight.
Our source stated that Bungie is “tired of Making Halo, and didn’t want to do future Halo games.” For an unstated, but significant amount of money, Bungie shareholders bought the studio name back from Microsoft. Our source also revealed that even though Microsoft will retain the rights to Halo, Microsoft also has “the right of first refusal on future games.” This means that Microsoft has the first shot at publishing Bungie’s future titles. How this will come into play if Bungie decides they want future game X to appear on the PlayStation 3 and Wii alongside an Xbox 360 release will make things quite interesting.
-
If Bungie had any desire to ever be even remotely independent, selling their souls to Microsoft was probably not the wisest idea, much less developing their flagship franchise for them.
-
If Bungie refuses to make more Halo titles then MS really has little use for them right now. Of course the reason for the "right of first refusal" thing is so Bungie can't make anything Halo-like for other systems. Like...how does MS own the rights to Halo? Name obviously, but what about what makes it really Halo (characters, concepts, etc)? Could Bungie make a "Not Halo" game set in the same universe? Don't really want a FEAR/Project Origin or Crysis/Far Cry situation. And you especially don't want a Bungie made "Not Halo" game on the PS3. So they keep first publishing rights to prevent that.
-
Though honestly, don't most publishers hold on to the entirety of the creative rights when it comes to that stuff? I got the impression that Monolith's retaining of its characters was just something they worked to get on their own, not something that's the norm for your average developer. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I've always gotten.
-
Depends on the deal they made, I suppose. This particular case is interesting because Halo become the flagship title for MS, and they had no way of knowing that before the contract was signed.
But seeing as how MS owns Bungie proper and wasn't simply publishing, they probably do own it in its entirety. Hence Halo Wars pawned off on another studio.
I'm glad Bungie wants to do other things. Some studios would just run Halo into the ground because they know people will pay for it, but Bungie seems to aspire to be more than just "the company that makes Halo." Just...hire some new level designers. Please?
Also, calling it now: MS will produce a "Halo Tournament" multiplayer only game set in the Halo universe. Thats really all people want anyway. Now that the trilogy is complete they don't have to worry about pesky story.
-
Though honestly, don't most publishers hold on to the entirety of the creative rights when it comes to that stuff? I got the impression that Monolith's retaining of its characters was just something they worked to get on their own, not something that's the norm for your average developer. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I've always gotten.
Yea I think that's about right.
-
I read the right to first refusal to simply mean that Microsoft can say "yeah, we're publishing this title" and therefore keep it off other systems. It doesn't sound like they can say "No, we're not publishing this title, and you're not making it for anyone else either."
So if there was a Halo-like game, the only way Microsoft could keep it off other systems would be to accept the publishing rights.
-
Yes, exactly. First refusal is exactly what its name implies - they simply get first dibs. If they pass on it, anyone else is welcome to it, but they get the opportunity to snatch it up or pass on it before anyone else does.
-
It'll be REALLY interesting to see what future Bungie-made titles Microsoft will want to publish and won't want to publish...
-
Zero Puncuation takes on Halo 3
Ah, you gotta' love this one.... (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2304-Zero-Punctuation-Halo-3)
-
WOW MYSTERD POSTS MORE ANTI-HALO CRAP
DID NOT SEE THAT COMING
-
Unfortunately, I don't give a flying shit about multiplayer, and neither do a lot of people.
That's the most memorable quote, to me. The review goes right along with what I've been thinking. (Everything else is details about the game, which I can't know about, not having played it.) Decent, but overly short game, hyped to the stratosphere so far that even the mainstream reviewers got blown upwards into it. The expectations of the masses are too strong to oppose. And that's the better scenario. It assumes they're honest journalists.
-
But first you have to assume that they're even journalists.
Anyways, if you like Halo, buy it or rent it, if you don't then whatever. I don't get why so many people still argue over this series.
-
Zero Puncuation takes on Halo 3
Ah, you gotta' love this one.... (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2304-Zero-Punctuation-Halo-3)
I like him even when he rips on games I like. But yes, that was awesome.
-
I like him even when he rips on games I like.
Agreed.
I loved Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation on Bioshock, which is a game I absolutely loved.
-
Agreed.
I loved Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation on Bioshock, which is a game I absolutely loved.
Yes D we know.
-
I love those reviews. Hilarious.
I'm enjoying Halo 3 right now, but it is by no means revolutionary. I haven't tried the multiplayer aspect though; I will once I finish the campaign.
-
Anyways, if you like Halo, buy it or rent it, if you don't then whatever. I don't get why so many people still argue over this series.
Amen to that.
I'm playing through Halo 2 currently, never did get a chance to check it out due to the fact I didn't have an Xbox at the time. So far its really impressing me, I plan to make the Halo 3 purchase as soon as I get paid.
-
Why do people argue about the merits of film or literature? Why do people bother discussing the finer details of instrumental technique or the creative twists of music theory in a song? I think it's plainly obvious why, and it's no different here than it is anywhere else. I even gave you an alternative answer if you're inclined to ignore the obvious ones, and my guess is you simply don't care for it. Sadly, this makes it no less viable. You may find it annoying, but a majority of what I personally enjoy *doing* with my hobby-life is discussing the artistic and mechanical merit of the things that I enjoy, and I imagine plenty of others do as well. Just because it comes down to a matter of taste doesn't make the discussion worthless. We've already well established that Halo mostly comes down to a matter of taste and what deficiencies one is willing to put up with in their games (this stuff is different for everyone), and hence the conversation in regards to all that has pretty much stopped. So my only point is directly in relation to the comment that someone wouldn't get why people argue and discuss this stuff.
Games are one of my biggest hobbies. What in God's name makes you think I'm not going to want to discuss what is one of the biggest franchises that exists? You may not like my opinion of said franchise, but that shouldn't mean that you find it unfathomable that I might have one, or that I might be interested in the opinions of others in regards to the same thing. I don't really care if others feel differently than I do. Even if I don't like Halo, that doesn't mean I'm not interested in *why* others do. In fact, it would stand to reason that I'd be *more* curious, not less. If I liked it, I'd probably like it for most of the same reasons that everyone else does, so what need would I have of anyone else's opinion on the matter?
And as I've stated already, my interest in making my own viewpoint known and detailed here in the past is so that I wouldn't come off as a tool who's just bashing the games for no reason. Many people will accuse one of such in the face of a popular franchise (and it's happened here already), so I want people to know the actual reasons I have for it not being my cup of tea. That doesn't need to equal condemnation, confusion as to why I might want to discuss it, or disbelief that a cultural phenomenon might get talked about, made fun of, or just be something of a general public spectacle either under praise or admonition. We don't have to fight over it, but at least acknowledge that people are going to talk about things because... it's what people do. Why else do we come to a message board? To talk.
EDIT - I hope that didn't sound too confrontational. Not trying to get anybody's ire up, I'm just trying to state why exactly people like to talk (and maybe sometimes argue) about these things. I hate it when I get made out to be a troll just because I'm interested in discussing something. I wasn't that big on Half-life 2 either in certain ways, and I got really fucking tired of being sniped for making legitimate complaints about its design. That didn't mean I was trying to rag on it just because, or that I was just trying to piss somebody off... it was simply part of a discussion. Same thing here. It isn't personal, it isn't with the intention of being belligerent, and I don't think any less of someone that likes Halo (Pyro, Keebs, and K-Man all do, and I think they're all pretty fucking nifty people, and I generally share similar taste in games with them anyway)... I just find the whole sense of division here interesting for a variety of reasons.
Maybe it just comes down to people wanting threads where the only posts within them are about the game itself as it relates to people who like it. Certainly not every thread has to be a discussion of the merits of one thing or another, and it would make sense that this might get on people's nerves when all they want to do is talk about what they liked with other people who liked it too. So I guess in that sense maybe I understand, but... maybe that just means we need a separate thread in these instances just for people who want to gush about something and talk about SuperAwesomeMoments A - F instead of whether or not somebody liked where the developers put the shotgun on level 42. Or something.
-
Is it time to compare someone to Hitler yet? :-[
-
I'm with Que on all of this, for the most part -- except for the part that I really liked Half-Life 2, though. :P
(Despite having to deal w/ sucky-ass STEAM).
I'll definitely take Quake 2, Bioshock and F.E.A.R. all over HL2 any day, though.
-
i dunno, i tend to keep my mouth shut about games that i haven't even played. i don't have a problem with people criticizing the game, but the majority of the criticism seems to come from people who are already predisposed to a dislike of the halo franchise *and* haven't actually played the game themselves. if you want to discuss something, that's cool - but i personally would never form my own critique of something (be it film, book, music or game) based on someone else's review.
-
You got me there. As I said earlier, I've kept my feelings on H3 mostly to myself because I haven't played it (and have no intention of playing it). That becomes harder to do when someone I respect (e.g., ZP/Yahtzee) puts out a review that point for point seems to be coming out of my head.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck. I don't need to dissect the thing, do I?
-
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/926632.asp
thats one highly praised duck..
-
Yep, and aren't the reasons for that worship the focus of our recent discussion? Dissent is allowed.
-
"Why do people argue about the merits of film or literature?"
If you want to break it down completely, I've heard it argued that even doing so is illogical because you're arguing about something so abstract and subjective anyways that you have no basis to form pretences on. That said, I don't know if I buy that.
My point here is we haven't covered any new ground in a conversation about Halo since the series started. We know who likes it, we know who doesn't like it and the reasons never change. We've had pretty much this exact thread three or four times now. It's not even that anyone is arguing about this game, because most of the people talking here haven't even played the thing.
-
oh, as far as i'm concerned, dissent is allowed. i encourage dissent. the game is flawed, it is not perfect at all. it's a lot of fun, but i don't think it deserves 10/10 reviews. i just hate seeing people caught up in backlash as much as i hate seeing people caught up in hype. i don't think it's really fair to judge it unless you've played it. for the record i think the zeropunctuation review was very funny and pretty much spot on as far as his criticisms go, but his style is clearly to be overly negative and skipping (or plain not getting) the things that make a game endeared by millions.
-
"Why do people argue about the merits of film or literature?"
If you want to break it down completely, I've heard it argued that even doing so is illogical because you're arguing about something so abstract and subjective anyways that you have no basis to form pretences on. That said, I don't know if I buy that.
Well, I definitely don't buy it. There's room to consider that all things are on certain levels subjective, but to claim that it goes all the way to the root of everything is ridiculous. *Everything* can only be subjective to those with a sincerely crippled viewpoint.
And I only half agree with beo. I think you can easily judge things before playing them, just not 100% conclusively. Most of my pre-judgments given to games turn out almost exactly right, as game development hasn't really had a lot of room to throw big surprises out there. Even obscure games I'd never heard of (Ico, REZ, Disciples II) generally turned out pretty much the way I expected they would after doing a little research. This may change as the industry continues to grow and get more nuanced, and I'm not saying you can rely on it fully, just that it's certainly possible to determine the likelihood of your enjoying something before you actually plunk down your money. But yes, it's hard to argue specific details if you haven't experienced something firsthand. Because of the fact that all things are, as we've said, subjective at least on certain levels, you never know how you'll feel about something completely until you go out and experience it. People should be careful to not let their opinions become concrete when they've not yet played something and verified their suspicions (or the opinions they've read about).
-
Cevat Yerli of Crytek lays it down on Halo 3 and console shooters. (http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200710/N07.1004.1210.04388.htm?Page=3)
I tried to play Halo 1, I tried to play Halo 2. (laughs) I really didn't get it. It didn't get me, well I bought copies though. Again, conversely the Bioshock demo got me. It's not that it's not possible, but console shooters are at the level of PC shooters 5-6 years ago.
-
Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been saying.
Edit: I didn't realize that Halo 3 is now the fastest-selling videogame ever. What was it previously? I would think it would have a tough time challenging Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. It is surprising to me. But the 360 library is pretty thin, so I guess it's not a bombshell, necessarily.
-
I just gotta say, this stuff still gets me:
Last week, Halo 3 topped Spiderman 3 to become the highest earning entertainment launch in history with more than $170 million in single day receipts.
Ok, how many people had to drop $60 at the cheapest to watch Spiderman 3 in theaters? This was touched on in a recent 1UP Yours podcast. Like...sure you made a lot of money, but which one had more people going to see/play it?
On a similar note MS stated that Halo 3 had 2.7 million people play online. According to that same podcast, this is a little untruthful. Since Halo 3 does stat tracking and game recording and shit all the time, even in singleplayer...it all counts as connecting to Xbox Live. So if you played Halo 3 in any fashion, it counted towards that total.
Hmmm...thats funny. All the news stories I can find on "Halo 3 is fastest selling game ever" only mention dollar amounts and no actual number of units sold.
-
Hmmm then again Spider-Man gave 2 hours of entertainment, while Halo 3 gives thrice as much in singleplayer and much more in multiplayer. As long as we are measuring value...
Also in terms of sales I hope Diablo 3 > Halo 3. :P
-
Good point about entertainment length, but they were talking day one sales. Whats the bigger entertainment event: one where you get 50 million people paying $1 or one where you have 1 million paying $50?
-
Hmmm then again Spider-Man gave 2 hours of entertainment, while Halo 3 gives thrice as much in singleplayer and much more in multiplayer. As long as we are measuring value...
Also in terms of sales I hope Diablo 3 > Halo 3. :P
Speaking of Diablo 3, when the hell is Blizz gonna announce that???
-
Good point about entertainment length, but they were talking day one sales. Whats the bigger entertainment event: one where you get 50 million people paying $1 or one where you have 1 million paying $50?
$1? Where have you been? The price of movie tickets around here is at or near the $10 mark. So while you're right, the scale is not nearly that huge. Halo would need to make about 6 times the box office of a movie in one day to equal the opening head count.
But would the money people care how the numbers racked up?
-
$1 was just for the example, smarty pants.
-
Cobra has a point though. To the people in charge, they could care less how many people latch on. They just care about the profit margin. To them, the one that is more successful is the one that makes more money.
-
Yes yes...I just don't like MS's "biggest entertainment launch ever" crap. They made the most money, sure...but the product was more expensive than most other entertainment launch items and it probably involved far less people than others. Thats all.
-
Voodoo Extreme compiles their list of Their Top 10 Candidates for who'd they like to see make a Halo 4 (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/34696/Top-10-Most-Wanted-Halo-4-Developers)
Top 10 Most Wanted Halo 4 Developers
Oct 07, 2007 at 3:45 AM - Robert "Apache" Howarth - 9 Comments
Since Bungie made it pretty clear that they're sick of making Halo games, where does that leave Microsoft? Who can the publisher hire to finish the fight? Here's our short list:
10) Gearbox
Why? For starters, Gearbox made the insanely popular Halo: Combat Evolved PC port. Besides that, the company is bursting at the seams with talent. With multiple teams, and lots of Halo experience under its belt, Gearbox would be a great fit.
9) Irrational (2K Boston/2K Aus)
Why? For starters, you might’ve heard of a little game called BioShock that sold a few copies. While the studio has little multiplayer experience, I doubt Microsoft is going to want to reinvent the wheel when it comes to Halo 4's online play. I bet 2K would rent them out for a few years on the cheap...
8 ) Ubisoft Montreal
Why? Bungie is sick of making Halo, and by now, I’m sure Ubisoft is tired of making Tom Clancy games. Ubisoft has the manpower, single and multiplayer savvy, not to mention the ability to make Halo 4 a legit sequel in less than 4 years.
7) Monolith
Why? Monolith is a veteran FPS developer, is located in Kirkland, plus is owned by Warner Brothers. You know, the movie studio. Microsoft wants a Halo movie. The game nets half a billion bucks, the movie loses a hundred mill. You do the math.
6) Retro Studios
Why? By now Retro has to be tired of making games for old hardware. I think they’re up to the challenge of trying its hand at a next-gen AAA title. Not to mention, I bet they could use a little break from making Metroid sequels.
5) Pandemic
Why? Bono digs Halo, right?
4) Rare
Why? Well, Microsoft already owns the studio, Rare is due for a hit after Perfect Dark Zero, and is savvy world of the 360 and would be able to provide a superlative multiplayer experience.
3) Infinity Ward
Why? By now we’re digging pretty deep into the fantasy Halo 4 developer list, but since Microsoft has deep pockets, lets run with it. Awesome single player developer, exceptional multiplayer as well. By the time they get to Call of Duty 10, it’ll be set in space anyways. Why not just skip to the creamy filling?
2) Valve
Why? Okay, we’re really dreaming now. I’ll let you in on a little secret though. When the Halo guy takes off his helmet... guess who it is? IT’S GORDON FREEMAN! Work with me, here!
1) Epic
Why? Obviously, the studio best suited to make Halo 4 would be Epic Games. They have the technology, the experience and CliffyB. Just give Cliffy a bucket of Skittles and watch the miracles happen.
Who do you think would make the best Halo 4 developer?
-
Halo 3 PC Rumors
No surprise -- already rumors of Halo 3 PC are already happening.
If they do bring it here, hopefully it won't be an exclusive for their OS-after-Vista. (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/40484/Halo-3-for-the-PC-Confirmed)
EDIT, 8/7/2008:
Halo 1 PC - No CD Patch Released by Bungie
Bungie patched Halo 1 PC to remove the CD Check and fix a handful of security issues w/ the game.
If you play Halo 1 MP, beginning Friday, you will NEED this patch to play Halo 1 PC online. (http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=24577876&viewreplies=true)
-
An article from XBoxFocus on why they think Halo 3 was nothing special.
One huge long rant, really... (http://xboxfocus.com/columns/2-the-xbox-guy/790-why-halo-3-underwhelmed/index.html)
-
I never played Halo 3 (or Halo 2 for that matter), so I can't really comment on any aspect of the game at all, but I thought I'd see the people responding to his article in the comments section ripping him to shreds. Instead, almost everyone seems to agree: Halo 3 was hugely disappointing.
-
It's interesting, because a lot of people could deal with what I always felt was boring, stilted gameplay of the first two games, yet they took a lot more issue with *other* problems of the third one. Like with the way certain characters were handled and such. It's interesting, because I think it demonstrates just how much people like the universe and the fiction, and it seems Bungie really dropped the ball there.
-
It's interesting, because a lot of people could deal with what I always felt was boring, stilted gameplay of the first two games, yet they took a lot more issue with *other* problems of the third one. Like with the way certain characters were handled and such. It's interesting, because I think it demonstrates just how much people like the universe and the fiction, and it seems Bungie really dropped the ball there.
I was kind of thinking about this the other day when reading about Too Human. People who wait on these games generally really set themselves up for disappointment. Halo 3 is an excellent example:
There was little evidence that it was going to be nearly as good as people thought it was going to be. The first one had massive flaws. Don't get me wrong, I still think it was a very fun game, but nothing like what the press and a lot of people made it out to be. Halo 2 was pretty much exactly what I expected, but some people were really let down by the SP campaign. I can see where they're coming from because that cliff hanger sucked and the original video showed much more intense and epic game play than what we were left with in the final product, but at the same time it improved on the first in most of the ways that mattered (thats not to say it improved on it enough to make it the greatest game ever some people claim it is). Yet, the rest of console FPS games had caught up in the SP portion, but people looked beyond the somewhat disappointing SP because the MP was much more fleshed out.
Then, for some magical and stupid reason, people tricked themselves into believing that Halo 3 would be the greatest thing ever. Why? Probably because Halo 2 had a cliff hanger ending and that totally left people anticipating more. Except, they mistook the cheap anticipation for something with substance and convinced themselves that H3 would be everything the first two weren't. When it delivered more of the same (which is what people wanted) and didn't deliver the epic and awe inspiring story conclusion that people had no reason to believe it would in the first place, they were really let down because they had created so much baseless hype in their own minds.
Bungee didn't let anyone down; the people built themselves up to expect something that they had no reason to believe would be delivered. The Arbitar as a compelling and deep character? Fuck off.
-
Fuck it, Im just going to troll some shit because this argument has taken the dead corpse of the horse and splayed it all over of its rotting maggot infested coffin.
People still play Halo 3 multiplayer to this day as it still competes the biggest games out there. I couldnt give two shits about the multiplayer, tried it out, its got some interesting things going for it, but its not my cup of tea. As for the single player, I was greatly satisfied by all 3 games and what they brought out to the table individually. FUCK YOU ALL AND FUCK YOU D FOR BRINGING THIS SHIT BACK.
IM OUT.
-
I stopped reading that article midway when I realized the expectations of the writer were ridiculous. I have yet to play this game, so I can't judge it. But it is just a fucking game, not Tolstoy. I liked the first Halo just fine. If 3 is like that only bigger and prettier, the crowd got its money's worth. The endless deconstruction is so much wasted energy.
Pyro, don't take the whole thing too seriously. Not a big deal, really. I agree that some people need to quit resuscitating ancient dead horses.
-
We should all get in one huge argument about Halo because it's totally worth it. Best fucking game ever made and not overrated at all.
-
Come on Pyro, it was just an interesting note that some fans took issue with Halo 3. I thought it was interesting because it had nothing to do with gameplay and wasn't just somebody who isn't a fan (like me) saying he thought the game sucked. I've heard some people who were big Halo fans that felt disappointed by some stuff, so I thought it was interesting to see that it was mostly related to the way the story was handled and stuff. If you thought it was perfectly fine, cool, don't sweat it... but it doesn't mean we were just here to troll the game. Like I'm a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls games and Oblivion, but a lot of people who didn't mind the gameplay still had issues with the story for that game, which I thought was interesting to note, and even some who didn't have a problem with the story at all had an issues with the way some fictional elements were treated (myself included, because I know way, way too much about the backstory and history of certain game elements, so inconsistencies or missed opportunities were very obvious to me).
-
Come on Pyro, it was just an interesting note that some fans took issue with Halo 3.
Exactly.
I thought it was interesting because it had nothing to do with gameplay and wasn't just somebody who isn't a fan (like me) saying he thought the game sucked. I've heard some people who were big Halo fans that felt disappointed by some stuff, so I thought it was interesting to see that it was mostly related to the way the story was handled and stuff.
The thing is Que, if the rumors are true of a PC port coming, they can make Halo 3 better. They can add more content to the game a la Gears of War PC and a la Assassin's Creed PC. Hell, maybe even add a fair amount of more story and character depth (a la Witcher: Enhanced, but probably not to the insane lengths of Witcher: Enhanced will go). You know, that would be great for PC Gamers -- to get extra content and extra story. Hell, let me go one further -- of course, if we PC'ers get some extra content, there's no reason X-Box 360'ers shouldn't get it in a DLC, Patch, and/or Expansion Pack either.
If you thought it was perfectly fine, cool, don't sweat it... but it doesn't mean we were just here to troll the game.
Exactly.
I resurrected the thread b/c I found the article interesting and b/c there are PC port rumors starting to float for Halo 3.
Like I'm a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls games and Oblivion, but a lot of people who didn't mind the gameplay still had issues with the story for that game, which I thought was interesting to note, and even some who didn't have a problem with the story at all had an issues with the way some fictional elements were treated (myself included, because I know way, way too much about the backstory and history of certain game elements, so inconsistencies or missed opportunities were very obvious to me).
Que, you're just a ES Fanatic.
You're the type that reads a great majority ES in-game fiction/lore books, eh? :-P
You must've spent like over 300 hours with each ES game then. :P
-
Oh, I've spent well over 250 hours on each TES game individually. I have a file of printouts from the Imperial Library site with pages probably numbering in the hundreds.
But D, I don't think there's any way in hell Halo 3 is getting extra content on PC. These people have churned out barely-functional PC ports in the past, I see no reason to think they're suddenly going to give us a robust port or, much less, extra stuff on top of that.
-
Oh, I've spent well over 250 hours on each TES game individually. I have a file of printouts from the Imperial Library site with pages probably numbering in the hundreds.
Damn! :)
But D, I don't think there's any way in hell Halo 3 is getting extra content on PC. These people have churned out barely-functional PC ports in the past, I see no reason to think they're suddenly going to give us a robust port or, much less, extra stuff on top of that.
Point taken, Que.
I mean, it'd be nice to get extra content on the PC -- I mean, two Microsoft-published companies did with their ports; Lionhead (Fable: TLC PC) and Epic (GoW PC). No reason it can't be done with another Microsoft game; namely, their (so-called) "flagship" FPS.
It'd be nice if at the very least if Halo 3 PC gets ported, Microsoft could put the Halo PC ports in better hands, so the technical-performance aspect don't wind up so botched (upon release).
I probably would've got Halo 2 PC by now, if it wasn't a damn Vista exclusive. If I can find that cheap enough, you damn right I will -- and when I get a Vista PC, I'll check it out.
-
Fine Im just gonna take a break from the gaming boards for a bit, till the MysterD ratio of threads to actual substance threads changes.
-
Good job D, mission accomplished. So, should we do this through pay pal or do you just want me to mail you cash?
-
Fine Im just gonna take a break from the gaming boards for a bit, till the MysterD ratio of threads to actual substance threads changes.
You know, you can start some threads too, bro.
Seriously, I thought this one (http://www.overwritten.net/forum/index.php?topic=4269.0) you recently got going was pretty good, myself.
-
Yeah, Pryo I have to say that you're way overreacting on this one. It's not a bunch of people here talking about how lame Halo 3 is. We're commenting on an article that was written about the game and that's it.
-
I think it's the combination of factors that got to him. I sympathize with the emotions brought out by one of them.
-
It isn't hard to understand. There are a number of us on here who've given the games a lot of grief. I know he's sick of hearing it... the only reason I thought this was pretty interesting was since it was from a fan's perspective.
-
GameSpot has an analysis up on Bungie's new cryptic trailer for what Bungie's working on.
Looks like it could be a Halo 3 Expansion of some kind.
We don't know if it'll be Stand-Alone entirely (like Crysis: Warhead) or pure DLC for Halo 3 owners...yet.
It's also possible, this could be a more tactical-Halo game, as well -- i.e. Halo meets Ghost Recon. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6198181.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;1)