Halo 3

Wiis, PlayStations, iPads, blogging platforms, Facebook and anything else worthy of buzz in the digital world.
MadMind
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:28 pm

Halo 3

Postby MadMind » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:36 pm

Well Halo 3, a game that sold pre-orders faster than any game in history, and perhaps will even end up having sold more (pre-orders) than any other game in history, is slated to arrive on September 25th, a mere week from now.

Question is, will it live up to it's hype?
There were criticisms about the Halo 3 beta's graphics not living up to next-gen expectations, and from what I saw I tended to agree with that sentiment. But then of course it was a beta and not the final product.

Will Halo 3 be overshadowed by other, perhaps superior and more original FPS's like BioShock and the upcoming Half Life 2: The Orange Box (which contains HL2 in it's entireity plus HL2 Episodes 1 & 2), or perhaps the non sci-fi Call Of Duty 4 which received strong buzz at E3?
Last edited by MadMind on Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Beer Moon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Halo 3

Postby Beer Moon » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:10 am

MadMind wrote:Well Halo 3, a game that sold pre-orders faster than any game in history, and perhaps will even end up having sold more (pre-orders) than any other game in history, is slated to arrive on September 25th, a mere week from now.

Question is, will it live up to it's hype?
There were criticisms about the Halo 3 beta's graphics not living up to next-gen expectations, and from what I saw I tended to agree with that sentiment. But then of course it was a beta and not the final product.

Will Halo 3 be overshadowed by other, perhaps superior and more original FPS's like Biohazard and the upcoming Half Life 2: The Orange Box (which contains HL2 in it's entireity plus HL2 Episodes 1 & 2)?


Biohazard is a band.

HL2 is old.

Halo 3 is not trying to be original, it's not even trying to be evolutionary the way I understand it. They're just trying to finish the story and get all the fans to shell out one more time.

If they pull off great graphics, I might buy it. I fully expect BioShock to win more awards than Halo 3 at the end of the year.

If HL 2 wins for repackaging the 20 hours of new content they actually released this year with the last few years of content, that will be sad. Valve REALLY likes their re-releases.
Last edited by Beer Moon on Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

MadMind
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:28 pm

Re: Halo 3

Postby MadMind » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm

Beer Moon wrote:Biohazard is a band.

WOOPS! What a stoopid mistake! I knew something was wrong. Fixed

Beer Moon wrote:HL2 is old.

If Halo 2 wins for repackaging the 20 hours of new content they actually released this year with the last few years of content, that will be sad. Valve REALLY likes their re-releases.

Thing is, it's the first time that episodes 1 & 2 have become available on consoles. So for console owners, that part of it IS new.

Beer Moon wrote:Halo 3 is not trying to be original, it's not even trying to be evolutionary the way I understand it. They're just trying to finish the story and get all the fans to shell out one more time.

If they pull off great graphics, I might buy it. I fully expect BioShock to win more awards than Halo 3 at the end of the year.

Yeah, one can easily criticize the Halo franchise, but thing about the series of games is that they are alot of fun, and when the first Halo came out it introduced some of the smoothest FPS action to ever be seen on consoles.

But yeah, I've never thought much of the story. It's derivative. And I could do without "the flood". To me that's where the games lose their fun and just becomes frustrating.
Last edited by MadMind on Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Postby TAsunder » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:47 pm

I found halo 2 to be a very big disappointment. The original was among the crowning achievements in FPS in my opinion, and by far the most fun co-op game ever created.

Halo 2 I didn't play much multiplayer (aside from co-op), so perhaps that's why I found it to be lacking so much in comparison.

I am not expecting much from halo 3. But then again, I don't have a 360 yet so it's moot.

Half life 2 episode 1 was better than halo 2, IMO, so I find it not terribly implausible that an ep 2 bundle would be better than halo 3.

Beer Moon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:08 pm
Contact:

Postby Beer Moon » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:48 am

Halo was undoubtedly the best FPS ever done ON A CONSOLE at the time, but others have since caught up by mimicing their control scheme and sensitivity settings.

It looked great, had good music and good sound effects, and fairly well balanced weapons that were fun to shoot. Multiplayer was fun too. It was an FPS that played well on a console. That had never really been done before; I certainly had never played a console FPS that played so well.

Greatest FPS ever - which some fans seem to claim - nobody who has played FPS games on PC would ever make a claim like this. It was a triumph in that it managed to make an FPS on consoles actually playable. It deserves a lot of credit for that. Probably not quite as much as it gets imo.

I never bought Halo 2 and only played it a few times. I might buy Halo 3. I'm on the fence. I'm more likely to buy Rock Band, which will cost me an arm and a leg.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Postby TAsunder » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:55 am

Same here... Rock Band looks like tons of fun.

MadMind
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:28 pm

Postby MadMind » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:20 pm

Beer Moon wrote:Greatest FPS ever - which some fans seem to claim - nobody who has played FPS games on PC would ever make a claim like this. It deserves a lot of credit for that. Probably not quite as much as it gets imo.

Halo was and is incredibly overrated. Anyone with any sense would not claim it to be the best FPS ever. It recycled playfields and the game is shallow. Nevertheless it served it's purpose.

As far as Halo 2 goes. Great game - no recycled playfields was a plus, although it left it's linear gameplay nowhere to hide - shorter game, perhaps too short - end boss/lack of climax/ending was disappointing - being able to play as one of the covenant was unwanted and unnecessary.

Beer Moon wrote:Halo was undoubtedly the best FPS ever done ON A CONSOLE at the time...
It was an FPS that played well on a console. That had never really been done before. It was a triumph in that it managed to make an FPS on consoles actually playable.

I'm sorry but these statements just reek of ignorance. It shows just how little you know about console gaming (maybe you never heard of a little game named Goldeneye?). Do us and yourself a favor - stick with what you know.
Last edited by MadMind on Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Postby TAsunder » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:36 pm

Goldeneye was utter garbage. Most overrated console game of all time, possibly. Halo was approximately twelve billion times better than goldeneye.

MadMind
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:28 pm

Postby MadMind » Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:28 pm

TAsunder wrote:Goldeneye was utter garbage. Most overrated console game of all time, possibly. Halo was approximately twelve billion times better than goldeneye.

What a preposterous statement. I couldn't disagree with you more. The team behind Goldeneye set the mother f**king bar, and they followed with more excellent FPS's like Perfect Dark, and the Timesplitters series (particularly #2).
All of which were more involved and challenging than Halo ever was.
Last edited by MadMind on Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Postby TAsunder » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:59 am

Your standards are too low. Goldeneye would have been a poorly rated FPS on a PC. That Goldeneye was the best console FPS to date does not mean a thing to me, because it still was years behind technologically, and had controls barely capable of qualifying as usable (compared to previous FPS which were totally unusable). It did introduce one "useful" concept, that being damage based on what body part you hit. That's about it. Setting the bar in this case would just be picking the bar up off the ground and placing it one inch above the ground.

Yes, it set the bar, but it will forever have to be qualified... "Goldeneye was the best FPS for a console" or "Goldeneye is one of the best console FPS ever". Compare this to Half Life, Doom, Deus Ex, etc... no need to qualify it. Goldeney does not belong among that prestigious list. It simply did not offer that much to the genre overall, only to the console world.

Perfect Dark was a lot better than goldeneye, definitely a good game despite the fact that its engine was by that point criminally outdated. At least when goldeneye came out they could have legitimately claimed that they were working in parallel when all the major innovations in 3d engines came out shortly before it and couldn't incorporate.

You want to talk about a team that set standards for FPS and you somehow don't think Bungie qualifies? Marathon set about 10 standards for the genre that are still used to this day. It took other companies literally years to catch up to some of those standards. Had Marathon been released instead as a console game in 1997 even, it would be the equivalent of a 747 in the dark ages. Instead you had goldeneye which was the equivalent of discovering the wheel 200 years after your neighbor did.

As for Bugnie's Halo, its use of vehicles is still the standard, though Half Life 2 did a decent job as well. It's controls are the standard now by which all are judged (see for example the overwhelming number of complaints about metroid primes controls initially)

Goldeneye, while perhaps the best FPS to date on consoles, is a footnote in the history of the genre overall, noteworthy only in that it brought a barely passable version of a major genre to consoles.

paulie
Forum Addict
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:14 am
Contact:

Postby paulie » Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:01 am

While I agree that Goldeneye was damn fun, the other titles you mentioned were crap, IMO. Also, Goldeneye's longevity/replayability can't even come close to touching Halo.

+1 for Halo being the best console FPS ever, though Halo 2 SUCKED HARD. The online multiplayer was a huge pile of crap, and became unplayable pretty quickly.

Beer Moon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:08 pm
Contact:

Postby Beer Moon » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:36 pm

MadMind wrote:I'm sorry but these statements just reek of ignorance. It shows just how little you know about console gaming (maybe you never heard of a little game named Goldeneye?). Do us and yourself a favor - stick with what you know.


Whatever. I played hours upon hours of GoldenEye the year it came out - along with 1080 - a game whose equal I am still trying to locate.

GoldenEye was fun, but the controls felt blocky. It didn't impress me nearly as much as my first foray into Unreal Tournament. Facing Worlds makes every Halo map I have ever played look like dried up dogshit.

MadMind
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2251
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:28 pm

Postby MadMind » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:15 pm

TSsunder - you are fucking cracked!
So you have a burning hated for Goldeneye - WE GET IT! But you're wrong and basically the whole industry is against you.

Let me remind you that with the exception of Doom, Goldeneye was released before games such as Half Life and Deus Ex which you've mentioned.
All games which I own and have played through, and y'know what, Goldeneye deserves to be mentioned in the same good graces whether you think so or not. Just because it's a console game doesn't automatically mean it's inferior to PC games. Pull that computer mouse outta yer ass and get off your pentium powered high-horse. That goes out to all you PC people.

And Perfect Dark was a great game, but better than Goldeneye? I disagree, and by and large I have the video game critics backing me up on that.

paulie wrote:Also, Goldeneye's longevity/replayability can't even come close to touching Halo.

Now that, is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard.
Halo had nothing new to offer players by going through the game on harder difficulties. I spent more time on Goldeneye than almost any other FPS, unlocking new things and new levels.

And paulie, Halo 2 didn't "suck hard" whether you'd like to think so or not, and I usually don't rate a FPS based on it's multiplayer, but rather it's the single player experience which really counts.

Beer Moon wrote:I played hours upon hours of GoldenEye the year it came out.

GoldenEye was fun, but the controls felt blocky. It didn't impress me nearly as much as my first foray into Unreal Tournament.

To me, games like Halo and Unreal Tournament are fun, but in the end shallow because they are based around nothing more than combat.
On the making of Halo 2 DVD, you hear it straight from the horses mouth, one of the creators of the game, saying that Halo was based around "30 seconds of fun", and that they essentially had to figure out how to stretch that out to last through an entire game.

Anyways, I'm right and you're all wrong. Besides, this thread isn't about Goldeneye, it's about Halo 3, and I hope the game turns out wonderfully. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what is said about the game when it is released.

TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4783
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison
Contact:

Postby TAsunder » Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:47 am

Goldeneye was barely before half life. About a year. Do you really think that all the progress in fps was made in that one year? Guess again. Goldeneye came out after Quake, Descent, Ultima Underworld, and Marathon. All of those "first person 3d" games were noticeably better than it and wayyyyy more advanced. I'd say even Duke Nuke'm was a lot more advanced, but you could at least debate that since it was not "real" 3d.

The point about half life and deux ex is that they were masterpieces of the genre, and Goldeneye wasn't. Goldeneye, had it been released for the PC in 1997, would be about what serious sam is... a fun little game on a wickedly outdated engine that was noteworthy only because it was a decent film to game adaptation.

I don't really have a burning hatred for the game itself. The game was mediocre. What I am sick of is people listing it as a great fps game. It is not. It was great only relative to other console fps games. It did not hold a candle to its fps peers on the PC.

Beer Moon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:08 pm
Contact:

Postby Beer Moon » Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:23 pm

MadMind wrote:Anyways, I'm right and you're all wrong.


I had a movie buff roommate some odd years ago and he used to say the same thing about films.

"What? You liked Being John Malkovich? No. No you didn't. You couldn't have liked it that movie because it was a piece of crap."

It was really easy to wind him up. We used to say we liked crappy movies constantly just to hear him tell us what our opinions should be.

Nice to see you again, Frumpy.


Return to “Technology & Video Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest