Jump to content


Photo

The Halo 3 Review Thread

Halo 3

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#21 GhaleonEB

GhaleonEB
  • Member
  • 314 posts

Posted 04 October 2007 - 02:35 PM

I can't possibly review the game yet, as I've only beaten it on Heroic and am halfway through Legendary, both solo. Still have co-op, skulls, terminals, Campaign Scoring, Forge and Multiplayer to check out. I'll add my review next year sometime when I've given them the proper level of attention. Seriously, this game is a monster.

#22 Va1or

Va1or
  • Veteran
  • 1,789 posts

Posted 19 October 2007 - 04:13 AM

After extensive playtime with Halo 3 I have a few critiques to add to my formerly glowing review of the campaign.

-Linear Campaign

The campaign is striking me as disappointingly linear more and more. As Voc said, there is no "Halo" or "Silent Cartographer" here. You are never put in a large environment and then given freedom as to which part of the level you choose to explore or which enemy stronghold you choose to assault. Again, I think it was Voc who said something like, "You simply start at A, move to B, to C, to D, to the end of the level."

- Epic environments?

Sure the game has sweet art design and distant skyboxes and horizons, but how much real estate can you actually get to, without glitching? Not much. Even if you remove an expectation of freedom to go about a level the way you like, there are still no huge and sprawling environments for the player to explore.

The closest thing we get to a huge, explorable environment might be the tank section in Ark or Covenant and they really aren't that big or long. Much more often you are walking down narrow alleys or corridors. Sections that appear to be huge playgrounds, like the beginning of Covenant are just deceptively so. You are cut off by invisible walls or cliffs in all directions but the "right" path that you must take.

- Story letdowns

The absence of Forerunner info and the mysterious ending are really irking me now. I don't care to read through 20 pages of terminal mumjo jumbo to get basic information about the Forerunner that I thought would and should be explained in the "final game in the trilogy, that ends this story arch" etc. etc. Maybe I'm just not hardcore enough or maybe I'm just losing interest. I think it's the latter.

Also, the Flood is apparently alive and well on the other installations. Um, isn't that a problem? The two greatest foes in Halo 2, Truth and Gravemind were both dealt with pretty anticlimactically. First Truth, the mighty leader of the Covenant doesn't put up much of a fight after a non-epic (in a very cool environment, granted) battle with a few handfulls of Brutes. I mean, couldn't this battle have been built up a little more? Here is the leader of the Covenant that has been butchering humanity and destroying their planets and I have to kill, what?, 15 Brutes and a few Grunts to get to him lying on the ground whimpering?

OK, so the absence of Gravemind is lame. He was probably the most dangerous foe in the Halo series and we just see some of his new shiny tentacles and are forced to listen to his game-stopping dialogue and that's pretty much it? No battle, no confrontation? It's implied we killed him when we activated the ring and that's that.

- Gravemind and Cortana interruptions

These are terrible in co-op or in solo after your first 1 or 2 playthroughs. They are a bad design choice and should have been cut or the player should have been given the option to edit them out during play after completing the campaign. This could have been done an entirely different way in the first place and should have.

- Neglected vehicles in Campaign

I feel like some vehicles were given way too little playtime in campaign. The Banshee and Troop Hog come to mind. Would have liked to see more action in the Prowler and Hornet as well. Then again, this is probably a symptom of not having huge open worlds to explore.


In the end I give the campaign a 9. Not nearly as epic as I had hoped, but still a great romp with epic elements (hello Scarabs). Halo 1 was a better campaign for it's time then Halo 3 is now. I think a next-gen Halo campaign should have been something more grand, honestly. I think a number of us feel this way. I am getting a slight feeling of "more of the same" even though I know that there have been many new additions and improvements. I was expecting monstrously epic confrontations and I feel like Bungie delivered semi-epic ones. The Scarabs were probably the single greatest addition to the Covenant in Halo 3. They really felt awesome and epic and I'm glad there were a number of them.

I would honestly have preferred Halo 2 graphics with truly epic worlds and battles than the gorgeous linear experience I got here. There will be a game that will come along and leave our mouths wide open as we look at legions of soldiers assaulting our position, all waiting to be battled by us, the hero, in real time, without tricks or gimmicks. Sadly, that game isn't Halo 3.

#23 mattacus

mattacus

    I get the sneaking sense that Gamble is NOT a douche.

  • Veteran
  • 3,518 posts
  • Xbox LIVE:Old Mattacus
  • Steam:oldmattacus

Posted 19 October 2007 - 05:33 AM

Hey, hey! I spent an inordinate amount of time participating in a single activity! As a result, what were once tiny and, perhaps, unnoticed flaws have become glaringly obvious, requiring me to nitpick an otherwise enjoyable experience to hell! /I love you, Va1or.

#24 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 19 October 2007 - 05:55 AM

Hey, hey! I spent an inordinate amount of time participating in a single activity! As a result, what were once tiny and, perhaps, unnoticed flaws have become glaringly obvious, requiring me to nitpick an otherwise enjoyable experience to hell!

I've been waiting for this since 2001, so pardon me if I hold Bungie to their own standards of quality (see Halo:Combat Evolved). :blink:

I played Halo: Combat Evolved's campaign literally hundreds of times and much of it still holds up, years later, as complete awesomeness. :wink:

Didn't expect my rant to be this long, but I've divided it up for those who care to read...

Valor, your experience and feeling is equally warranted and echoed, my friend. For me, Halo 3's campaign is greatly superior to Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2's campaign, but it fails capture anything close to what was advertised in the updates and previews. Interestingly, Jironimo, Cocopjojo and I talked about this at length after playing through 'The Covenant' and 'The Storm' last night (err- well, for me it was a few hours ago). With those battles fresh in our minds, we were wondering how those levels ?should? have played out.

You've already mentioned the linear level design. Apart from a few encounters which give you a short list of options to deal with them specifically (something that appears in Halo 2 even), there's very little room for creative movement through the levels. You are told which way to go and you must follow it with little to no deviation.

Why I believe Halo 2 and Halo 3 were/are linear...

I believe there is a clear reason for the fact that Halo: Combat Evolved has levels like 'Halo' and 'The Silent Cartographer,' while Halo 2 and Halo 3 do not. I offered this up at GAF before Halo 3, which Tyson Green quickly attempted to shoot down: Halo 2 and Halo 3's campaigns were designed to implement online cooperative play which is why it is incredibly linear, Halo: Combat Evolved was designed for offline campaign and therefore it didn?t need to be linear.

They've already expressed how important online cooperative play was to them (and we know how important it was to us), so the idea of having an entire level where one player could cross it, literally a half a dozen kilometers, and be on the opposite end, fighting Covenant separately from his cooperative allies without latency wasn't (and probably isn?t) feasible. Although we?ve seen this from lower-conflict, higher-scripted games like Crackdown, from the ground up, Bungie designed Halo 2 and Halo 3 to be linear. This whole linear design came from story-telling is completely ridiculous and easily defeated by three words and a colon: Halo: Combat Evolved.

Was it a good choice for Halo 3? It was a reasonable choice, but in the wake of such advertisements about openness and choice, it wasn't accurate. It felt like a big, well-executed Halo 2, not the best of Halo: Combat Evolved, as had been suggested. Levels like ?Tsavo Highway? carried with them high hopes of choice and options, none of which were executed. It is, perhaps, one of the most linear levels of the game.

How an open environment really should be...

How should Halo 3's levels like, ?Tsavo Highway,? 'The Ark' and 'The Covenant' should have been developed? I offered a suggestion about them last night. 'The Ark,' identical in concept to 'The Silent Cartographer' (in both you're looking for the map room), should have played out like its predecessor. Put the map room at one location and require the player to choose how to get there by throwing hurdles, obstacles and objectives within a sandbox environment. The primary objectives would be to get to the map room, but doors and keys have to be open, and this can be approached by heading in any direction at the start of the mission, from area to area, on occasion given gifts like heavy vehicles.

How much more satisfying would 'The Covenant' (which is essentially the end of the major enemy of the series) if the player was merely air/ground supported by the Elites and the Marines rather than functioning as a separate part of a three-pronged group. Send the Master Chief and the Arbiter in groundside letting them push through wave after wave of Brutes as they made their way to each tower on their own. I can imagine, massive, sprawling environments, underground warrens, air battles over lakes and a great deal of other, open-ended environments as the Chief goes from tower to tower in any order and to any effect during that level. In one area, you might get a tank, in another, the Hornet, but all locations and directions, at least at the beginning of the level, allow the player choice.

Not choices like ?should I board the Wraith or destroy it? or ?should I shoot the Scarab?s legs or drop down from above? but choices like: If I go north, there?s a massive collection of heavy armor which I can face now with great difficulty or I can go to an enemy encamped weapon/vehicle cache west before heading there, patiently acquiring the appropriate weapons ?OR? I could go south and meet up with a pack of Marines defending their downed Pelican, help them out and set up and LZ for a Hornet and then there?s east, where a ridge can take me over the northern environment and allow me opportunities to stealthily snipe enemies in that armored that detachment.

I remember when I was first described campaign scoring, oddly enough around the time of E3. I had been spoon-fed stories of openness both publicly and privately, so when they announced a point-centric manner in which players could play against each other in campaign, I was stoked. I assumed that players would jump into an environment like Crackdown's, head off in different directions (not always apart, but at least have that choice to do so), and attempt to gather as many points as physically possible, before being funneled into a smaller, more personal environment together - then being expelled into another open environment like the first. That type of scoring would work far better than having to fight, tooth-and-nail against the enemies and griefing from your allies who rightfully attempt to steal kills as points are the objective of the metagame to begin with.

My problems with the story itself...

The Cortana/Gravemind vignettes should have been removed for campaign scoring, the most casual way to play through the campaign. Don't know why it wasn't, as we easily saw this as an issue on our third or fourth playthrough.

For me however, the story wasn't much of a letdown as you described. I adore the terminals, the way they were presented and I really think the story of the Forerunners was handled appropriately being that they are peripheral characters. My biggest problem is the Legendary ending. It reeks of them ruining the Chief in the long run, something, as a fan, I don't want to be a part of. Hopefully, they don't intend to do this, but as it stands and with the information provided to us, it certainly appears that they have plans to.

Even with all of this said, I find myself wanting to play campaign way more than the multiplayer for the most part. Multiplayer is and can be fun, but I have had better multiplayer moments in Halo 2 than anything in Halo 3's multiplayer thus far - even with the horrible gameplay rule system the predecessor had (BELIEVE it, Bungie). I'm hoping we get some sort of Halo MMOFPS similar to Huxley with large-scale campaign/multiplayer environments, mission choice and an actualized fulfillment of promises. That?d be nice.

The Flood are used properly, not at all...

They?re better to fight (on non-Skull induced difficulties) than in the previous games, but did Bungie completely ignore my (perhaps our) requests for the Flood-centric portions of the game to be largely vehicle-based. Frank stated that only one level didn?t have a vehicle in it, which I stupidly assumed he was referring to operable vehicles, right? Y?know, the ones which actually matter. No, he wasn?t apparently as ?Sierra 117,? ?Crow?s Nest,? ?Floodgate? and ?Cortana? readily do not.

I was well aware, thanks to the hex code which leaked and the achievements that the Chief would go to High Charity and rescue Cortana. I wasn?t aware that we would be crouching through a cramped, ridiculously-crafted Flood-turret infested ass caverns. A more frustrating ?Library? with a prettier paint job. The sad part is that I told Bungie what the community wanted and what they would enjoy considerably more ? and even more sad, Bungie designed it with different enemies called it ?The Storm.? As Cocopjojo pointed out to me last night, that level?s close-quarters/large-quarters design is perfectly balanced.

That should have been how ?Floodgate? and ?Cortana? should have been designed. Small, short and intense skirmishes within an eerie environment intermingled with large-scale, vehicle-centric battles. They had a perfect opportunity to have those on ?Floodgate,? being that you?re going through the same environment, but before you can even get to those, they throw you down another crate-strewn ?tunnel? heading alongside a ridge surrounding the Ark. Yawn.

Considering about how awesome High Charity?s background city structures looked in Halo 2, I always assumed we would be inserted in the dilapidated and horrifically altered city of High Charity, moving through the lower levels on foot and vehicle until you found the Gravemind. A vehicle battle with a hulking tentacle-swinging Gravemind, much like the Scarab battle, would have been interesting in four-player coop. Not saying it would have worked, but it would seem a more fitting end to an enemy who is essentially the bane of the sentient galaxy. A better boss battle then one against, say, a metal sphere that shoots a laser (WTF?).

If you want to have a survival horror shooter, do it on one of the remaining rings and with great effect, but don?t make Halo 3 into it, especially after it was so completely unsuccessful in Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2.

#25 Va1or

Va1or
  • Veteran
  • 1,789 posts

Posted 19 October 2007 - 06:52 AM

So much truth in what you just wrote Voc. I think that if some of us are going to be honest about the experience and not let fanboyism cloud our judgment, we are going to admit it was a letdown. At least, I do. Still a great game, but not what Halo:CE's 2nd sequel should have been, by a long shot.

#26 quickshade

quickshade
  • Banned
  • 408 posts
  • Location:somewhere sweet

Posted 19 October 2007 - 10:11 PM

As Bungie has pointed out many times Halo is their game. I respect Voc for telling Bungie what we wanted, but at the same time 5 other people wanted it this way. Personally I don't get what all the hype over Halo 1 being the greatest game on earth is all about. The more I go back and think about it the more I say wow I didn't like that at all. I think what people liked about it is that the choice option was there. But to me that doesn't make a game. We all should know why halo 3 was a "straight forward game" To make it easy for anyone to pick up and play. Bungie has made that a point all along and I can't say I don't blame them. When you have a gap the size of new york between your most skilled player and the complete newb you have to make choices on how the game should play. Now does that mean Halo 3 sucked. Nope not at all, in fact I had more fun with Halo 3 than any other Halo so far. Halo had it's moments but I think it was because we had never seen that before. Just like Gears was an awesome game because we hadn't seen something Like gears in a long time. I think you guys want to many options from a game. But it wasn't going to happen. Now i do challenge some things that Bungie did and now know Frankie overhypes anything he plays but I still enjoyed Halo 3. It had battles that I often replay in my head and say how could I do that better. I don't think the multiply ways to do something was what Bungie wanted. I think they were going for a more dynamic once you get into a fight how do you take it on. They had multiply sections where you had 4-5 options to complete the section. The 3 wraiths in Tasvo Highway come to mind. Those were some of my favorite parts from Halo 3, As if you died you knew how to try again. and sometimes you saw something and died to try that only to see the A.I react differently. I do challenge Bungie at alot of it's features not really being complete and do wonder if the timeline they built really matched what they were trying to do. I think the doubling of employees made coding the game a little more stressful as what 50 guys who had all worked with each other and knew each others habits had to suddenly learn a whole bunch of new guys and their coding habits and it caused alot of behind the scenes drama. However I still enjoyed Halo 3 and will play it at least until Alan Wake comes out. BTW note to Cuse Halo 1 multiplayer was good and the pistol was sweet. So don't flame me for that.

#27 mattacus

mattacus

    I get the sneaking sense that Gamble is NOT a douche.

  • Veteran
  • 3,518 posts
  • Xbox LIVE:Old Mattacus
  • Steam:oldmattacus

Posted 20 October 2007 - 06:12 AM

quickshade, it's "multiple," not "multiply."

#28 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 20 October 2007 - 10:51 AM

I don't think the multiply ways to do something was what Bungie wanted. I think they were going for a more dynamic once you get into a fight how do you take it on...

The latter was in Halo 2, so if by saying that they wanted you to pick how you approached each encounter rather than how you approached each entire mission, then they were essentially gunning for Halo 2's linear level design. Playing through 'Uprising' and 'The Great Journey' on Halo 2 are as close as you will get to the campaign in Halo 3, from either of the first two games. That being said, it wasn't what was advertised. Bungie's staff revisited the idea and notion that this game plays more like Halo: Combat Evolved in that it is more open, and that's simply not the case. The scale is massive, far larger than anything they've done before and the level design is impressive, but it is very linear and apart from the short list of options available for each encounter.

I think you guys want to many options from a game.

I want what was promised/hyped/advertised. Nothing more; nothing less.

#29 quickshade

quickshade
  • Banned
  • 408 posts
  • Location:somewhere sweet

Posted 20 October 2007 - 11:31 AM

So does everyone else that post on the Bungie.net forums. Go take a look at how many people complain over there about whats broken and how much Halo 3 sucks. Halo 3 is a product of people overhyping games that are honestly just good games. In fact the same was said about Halo 2. Halo 2 was way overhyped and look what happened. Everyone complained saying Halo 2 sucked and that it didn't compare to Halo 1. The reason being was that no hype was generated for the original Halo, At least no where near how much hype there is for Halo 2 and 3. I guess everyone just wants a Halo 1.5 which won't ever happen. The repeat level design, A.I that wasn't fun and sometimes downright terrible gameplay in the original Halo were overpassed by the epic story, The fun co-op and multiplayer and the great levels that were in halo 1. Halo 3 turned around the repeat environments and the A.I is amazing now but the game suffers for other problems like you suggested Voc. I don't know, I guess you can keep saying that the game was great but not what you expected. But was that your fault for believing a company that is known to overhype things, or Bungie's fault for knowing we'd believe them. The way I look at it: If T.V ads can overhpe products that don't work like promised and not get in trouble, then why can't Halo??? I think the only real answer here is to not hold high standards for video games and to ignore media hype, then maybe the game will be good.

#30 Blaze

Blaze
  • Veteran
  • 3,231 posts
  • Location:m cheif's house

Posted 20 October 2007 - 11:36 AM

wat

I think you complain too much about people complaining.

#31 quickshade

quickshade
  • Banned
  • 408 posts
  • Location:somewhere sweet

Posted 20 October 2007 - 11:46 AM

I think you complain too much about people complaining.

just my personally thoughts on Halo 3 and how I disagree with people. I don't think they are idiots or anything, and I'm not trying to come off as complaining but maybe I am. I just think people are being a little to critical of a game that minus the hype would have been a great game. It still is but the huge amount of hype makes everyone go crazy and say it sucks.

#32 urk

urk

    Don't tase me, bro!

  • Member
  • 474 posts

Posted 20 October 2007 - 12:46 PM

Halo 3 is a great game, but it's not exempt from criticism. Bungie heard their fans cries and fixed some of the early issues with Halo 2's multiplayer. There is a chance they will do the same now. We criticize because we love.

#33 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 20 October 2007 - 01:10 PM

Disappointments

The thing that surprises/confuses me is that, going into the 25th, I thought all of us had recognized that this game was the sequel to Halo 2 (and only Halo 2). Voc and I actually traded PM's that discussed exactly this phenomenon in the weeks leading up to release - Halo 3 was going to be Halo 2, tweaked, refined, and made the way Bungie would have wanted if they hadn't wasted so much time with their first attempt. I guess I must not have read the situation correctly, however, because everyone else (including people who professed to have loved Halo 2 - color me confused by their responses, then, to this game) seems to have had some truly incredible expectations for something above and beyond that. Going in, I knew that Halo 3 was all about what Halo 2 would have been. I had little hope for a true successor to Halo 1. In fact, in a number of places on this forum, I refer to Halo 3 as the 'epic conclusion to the duology' or 'Halo 2 2.'

The apparent successor to the M6D represented my last great hope that maybe Bungie hadn't forgotten where they came from, but, well, the Beta and subsequent interviews have made it abundantly clear that Bungie finds Halo 1 utterly detestable. Hence, the M6G, which might as well not even be in the game.

Do I think Halo 3's the greatest game ever? No, not really, but it's a hell of a lot better than Halo 2 and one of the best I've ever played. Still, I've played 2 games this year that I've found to be much more engrossing single player experiences (Bioshock, Portal). The Campaign is still amazing, with a number of unforgettable moments and incredible (and incredibly replayable) gameplay sequences. The 8th level... is probably the worst level in any of the three Halo games - I was recently looking back at what Ghaleon wrote regarding that level and wondering whether he quit the forums simply because he knew his statements made him look like an idiot.

Similarly, the implementation of Forge (where Bungie included incredibly overpowered weapons that players could choose to use with their maps if they wanted - Fuel Rod Cannon, Missile Pod, Flamethrower, Hornet) without an M6D is truly heartbreaking to me, even as I recognize that Forge is the best thing this game has going for it. The multiplayer, again, is not the best I've ever played (I think we all know which game I would give that distinction to), but it is, again, a hell of a lot better than Halo 2's. To hear some of you pretend to long for the days of Halo 2 is downright laughable to me, because this is the same game, with a number of issues fixed (admittedly, a few new ones have reared their ugly heads).

Bottom line (Have you guys noticed I really like saying this recently? What is my deal?):
I'm not sure when everyone at this forum turned into me and when I turned into an average Halo fan again, but I'm just not nearly as frustrated with this game as you guys seem to be, which is confusing. My best explanation is that I simply had realistic expectations, and some of you did not. I knew that, as soon as Halo 3 was released, I'd never touch Halo 2 again. Ever. If some miracle of epic proportions leads to a re-release of Halo 1 with online capabilities, you can bet I won't be spending very much time with Halo 3 either. But I won't be rushing out the door to sell or destroy it - it's a fun game, and I could see myself playing the Campaign again from time to time, when a break from Damnation CTF was necessary. This series is not a true trilogy, a point I've argued since I first stated that Halo 2 is not a true to sequel the first game in any real sense (you'll find this argument repeated ad nauseam in the Halo 2 Sucks thread, and, yes Ivan, elsewhere). Halo 3, however, is as true of a sequel to Halo 2 as there could ever be. Every design decision was a response to issues in that game, and most have been addressed admirably. It took a game that frustrated me to no end and made it fun, balanced, and feature-packed. I guess I just don't understand how all of you have suddenly come out of the woodwork with Cuse rant-esque frustrations, when guys like Mattacus and myself (the closest thing to Halo purists this forum has) are just not that upset about the direction Halo 3 has taken.

For the record, here are posts representing the point where I knew I didn't need to get my hopes up too high, from the Halo 2 Sucks thread, 7 months ago

Putting this here so that those among us who don't like the Cuse rants don't have to read it, though it actually pertains to Halo 3.

Can anyone tell me why Bungie has NOW decided that weapons from a previous game are sacred and shouldn't be changed? The BR55 returns, almost untouched. The carbine returns, almost untouched. The sniper returns with the same fast bullets and 5x zoom.

Fuck apples.

...And 8 months ago

Excerpt from a Ripp0n interview that came out a while ago.


Phreak: Why do you prefer H1 over H2?

Rippon: I dont even think this should be a question. In my mind, its a fact that halo1 is better than halo2. I mean Halo2 isn't a bad game, it's just in my eyes it's a really bad sequel to the greatest console game ever. People think its just the "Pistol" that the "pros" like about halo1, but its everything...the entire game. The weapons, the physics, everything. The skill and strategy to me is so much greater. I mean the map damnation, there is so many possibilities, of strat, skill, and weapon skills. You can go through portal, drop down, CROUCH the fall, which takes more skill than anything in halo2, Jump for os, nade up, which unless your host you coudln't do in halo2, then you could throw a nade off the wall, jump to the platform above ladder and catch rocket. And in between that anyone on the map could of naded camo down, to sooo many different spots. And another thing is camping, the game pace is always steady, and not too slow. Because at every minute there is a battle for powerups. You know, damn well at 1:45 both teams are setting up for getting os-camo-rocket, rocket particularly. You know they wont be dual weilding pistols running around with no motive.

Phreak: What do you hope for in H3?

Rippon: Honestly, I have no hopes for halo3, period. As far as im concerned, they've gone so far off on halo2 trying to remake such a unique game, there is no turning back.


Word.



#34 Va1or

Va1or
  • Veteran
  • 1,789 posts

Posted 20 October 2007 - 01:31 PM

Well, I certainly think Halo 3 is still a great game. As a total package it is one of my top games of all time and a 10. I think the MP is fantastic. Forge and Saved Films are both excellent icing on the cake. I just think the campaign was disappointing on a number of levels. I don't think I had unrealistic expectations. I just expected a much more wide open and epic campaign. A campaign that could absolutely be made with current technology. A game that will probably be made this generation, under a different name. I don't hold Halo 3 in anywhere near the contempt you held Halo 2 so I wouldn't label my comparatively sweet and mild criticisms "Cuse rant-esque." Your refusal to acknowledge Halo 2 or 3 as sequels to Halo 1 strikes me as silly. Maybe they suck as sequels, but sequels they are.

#35 quickshade

quickshade
  • Banned
  • 408 posts
  • Location:somewhere sweet

Posted 20 October 2007 - 02:35 PM

I'm just trying to figure out where the massive disappointments came from. Everyone was saying this game was awesome the first week it released and now all of a sudden it sucks and isn't a sequel. Bungie has said they will never go back to Halo 1 style gameplay. So Cuse hit that right in the head with his post. But it seems like everyone was saying they were promised something that we all knew wasn't going to happen. Must be just me but besides a few levels in campaign I've enjoyed the game alot and just because you can't choose how your going to get to a base doesn't mean it's not fun. I like the fact that we don't get all spread out, It makes the game fun in a sense. I'd rather have battles were I have to figure out how to take down the packs of Brutes or flood rather than running around trying to get somewhere. To me getting somewhere in a game is just a goal like in all games. So no matter how I play it out we already know what is going to happen once you get there. I liked the fact that getting though the A.I was the challenge this time and that you could try 3-4 different things and they would know and react differently each time. But you know what, I stopped caring what other people think. The game was fun, it was worth the wait and possible worth the hype over all the internets but as of right now I just don't care for it anymore. Halo has gotten old Just like Half life got old to me. I'm glad the story is over and I'm ready to start something new. I think Halo wars should make most of you guys happy as it looks to have a more open feel. But as for me. I'm enjoying re watching Alan Wake videos. I think GTA 4 and Alan Wake are both going to be awesome games and I could care less about what Halo 3 did wrong. It did alot right and thats why it was fun.

#36 Nightshade

Nightshade

    ↓ I'm with stupid. ↓

  • Veteran
  • 3,328 posts
  • Location:Nebraska

Posted 20 October 2007 - 04:21 PM

What?s Nightshade's opinion on all this? I'm sure no one asked.

I love Halo 3. It's a good game. But I feel I can sum it up with one picture.

Posted Image

For those who don?t get it. We get promised too much, and the developer just gets crushed under its own hubris.

#37 Drew

Drew

    Waifus R Us

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts

Posted 20 October 2007 - 06:09 PM

I pretty much echo everyone's opinions on it. A great game that has its flaws. Nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully they'll iron out some of the issues with a post-launch patch, but whatever. I can't wait to see how their next project turns out.

Edited by Drew, 20 October 2007 - 06:09 PM.


#38 Blaze

Blaze
  • Veteran
  • 3,231 posts
  • Location:m cheif's house

Posted 20 October 2007 - 07:10 PM

I pretty much echo everyone's opinions on it. A great game that has its flaws. Nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully they'll iron out some of the issues with a post-launch patch, but whatever. I can't wait to see how their next project turns out.

What? That doesn't sound like an "infinity/10" post.

#39 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 20 October 2007 - 07:15 PM

Well, we've definitely had the sequels debate before, and you and Ivan both made me look pretty silly the first time around, so you definitely have a very solid point there. I'm not trying to make the outlandish claim that things like plot, character, theme, setting, etc. are disqualifying the last two games from being grouped with Halo 1. No, if the Halo games were movies or novels, they would be a trilogy in every sense of the word (at least to my satisfaction). The point I guess I'm trying to make is this: Pac-Man's window dressing didn't matter at all. It was the core gameplay that made Pac-Man what it was. Pac-Man himself could have been a green dot or a blue dot, and the ghosts could have been alligators or lions. Keep the gameplay the same, no matter how you dress the game up, you still have Pac-Man. We're not fooled when we play some Flash game online that calls itself Jackman or something. It's just Pac-Man. However, put a yellow dot and ghosts in the midst of a game with completely different mechanics? It hardly seems fair to group this new game with Pac-Man, no matter how similar the two may look. This new game is something different entirely, even though it's very clear to everyone that the game took visual and 'story' cues from Pac-Man.

Halo and the subsequent two games certainly share the same window dressing, the same yellow dot and ghosts. To my mind, however, the core mechanics are completely different - you'd be hard pressed to point to something from the first game that even remotely resembles its counterpart (even if it uses the same models or animations in the second and third game - I'm using 'resembles' in a gameplay sense - the models and animations certainly make it resemble the old object from Halo 1 in a literal, visual sense). I've made statements like these before. I had a few particularly ridiculous rants on this page that compared Halo to Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath and the pistol to Polly Pocket in order to demonstrate my feeling that gameplay is the more important consideration - I could care less what the game looks like beyond a certain point. I believe the Halo story is represented well by the trilogy designation. I believe that Halo games, however, can not be grouped in the same way, for the reasons I've listed above. I'll leave it at that - it is my belief that a trilogy of games has to meet different requirements than a trilogy of novels or films.

The 'Cuse rant-esque' statement applied mostly to Voc, who I hope I do not insult with that comparison, as he's ten times the writer I am. We've seen a number of lengthy posts from him recently, and even a few (hopefully) jokes about going back to Halo 2 to get away from Halo 3's faults. I just find it kind of surprising because he never seemed particularly over expectant in the weeks leading up to the game - he put a good bit of effort into making sure that I had tempered my anticipation, especially after that damned beautiful M6-something first made its appearance and everyone scrambled to figure out what the deal was with it (remember the website goof?).

And WOW, Drew, that's quite a turn around. Do you remember how you initially reviewed this game?

Edited by Syracuse022, 20 October 2007 - 07:32 PM.


#40 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 20 October 2007 - 07:39 PM

Wow. I can see that my prefacing about how much I love Halo 3 before almost every critical rant is completely ignored by some of you. Let me say this again: Halo 3 is one of my all-time favorite games. Period. It has, at least for the time, usurped Mario Kart for the SNES, something which no other title in 15 years has done. It's an awesome package and I've said nothing collectively to berate it. I just got off the phone with Ivan yesterday saying how it's definitely the best game of this console generation thus far, and poised to be that of the entire generation. My opinion of Halo 3 is immovably high.

The thing that surprises/confuses me is that, going into the 25th, I thought all of us had recognized that this game was the sequel to Halo 2 (and only Halo 2). Voc and I actually traded PM's that discussed exactly this phenomenon in the weeks leading up to release - Halo 3 was going to be Halo 2, tweaked, refined, and made the way Bungie would have wanted if they hadn't wasted so much time with their first attempt. I guess I must not have read the situation correctly, however, because everyone else (including people who professed to have loved Halo 2 - color me confused by their responses, then, to this game) seems to have had some truly incredible expectations for something above and beyond that. Going in, I knew that Halo 3 was all about what Halo 2 would have been. I had little hope for a true successor to Halo 1. In fact, in a number of places on this forum, I refer to Halo 3 as the 'epic conclusion to the duology' or 'Halo 2 2.'

So there's quite a few things I need to clear up here. Firstly, I stated, or should have more accurately, that Halo 3's multiplayer and gameplay mechanics would feel more closely to that of Halo 2's than Halo: Combat Evolved. I told you that specifically so that your expectations, which were in flux at the time, could be appropriately set. I was accurate. The mechanics of the game, the melee system aside, are much closer to that of Halo 2 than some of the elements of Halo: Combat Evolved. Although I know you don't care for this transition (and I'm sincerely sorry that you don't), this is one of the best parts of the game for me! In fact, the one mechanical thing they changed from Halo 2 (the melee system) is the one thing I now find broken.

There are understandable reasons to be upset by a number of things within Halo 3, specifically some of the things which didn't meet the standards of Halo: Combat Evolved or Halo 2 and for this, I'm shocked, surprised and frustrated. Maybe it took me a few dozen playthroughs of campaign, maybe it took me some serious Ben Franklin charts in my minds eye, but I've arrived at a conclusion which I feel is well-founded, accurate and true.

None of these problems, however, have to do with the mechanics and the feel (resembling Halo 2) which I enjoy. Although I agree, my expectations were inappropriately high for some things based on promises and statements made by Bungie, you're right about that, Cuse. But, as I stated above, you're exactly not right about why. One thing I do miss and can't explain its lack of existence in a world of Hornets, Flamethrowers and invincibility powerups is the absence of the M6D. Didn't think I would miss it, but if there's one thing I can completely and '100%ly' (real word) agree with you about - that weapon should have been part of Halo 3, one way or another. End of story. Particularly after using the M6GAY in Team Tactical today with Sub.

I'd also, as Valor did, like to say that I'm not in the same 'hate camp' on Halo 3 that you are about Halo 2. I do feel the three games are a series and a trilogy (the latter two are clear sequels of the first to me) and I find them all enjoyable. My contentions about Halo 3 have to do with campaign level design, customization options being gimped, and multiplayer maps having less character and being overall weaker than Halo 2's set, as well as a small variety of other things. I've spent enough time efficiently articulating my contention about those items, I won't waste anyone else's time with that.

So does everyone else that post on the Bungie.net forums. Go take a look at how many people complain over there about whats broken and how much Halo 3 sucks.

Dude, the next time you make a comparison between myself and the forum goers at Bungie.net, you'll be doing it on Bungie.net.

I never said this game sucked and I don't need some half-wit who claims to know Bungie employees tell me otherwise. Normally I handle myself with a bit of frugality and reserve concerning my vociferously disbursed personal comments in a public non-gaming domain, but your argument is so disjointed and haphazard that I can't even respond to it. It gives me a headache to read your posts. I've spent the last two years promoting Bungie and Halo 3 without fail, I don't need some kid who is performing e-cunninglus (sic/accurately metaphoric) on Bungie's ego trying to tell me what I should or should not have expected.

Bye bye.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Halo 3

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq