Halo 3 in Swedish Mag!

Or perhaps some people look for different things from their fps? Wouldn't that be crazy!?

Halo is only repetitive if you play on an easy setting and are not very good at it ;)

That is rubbish. :p
 
How so?

I play Dust 2 almost every day, that doesn't feel repetitive. My point is we all have different expectations from games, because you found Halo to be boring doesn't mean the rest of us do. I found HL2 to be dull on the first play through, yet love the original. What does that say?

Most shooters I finish in a week on the hardest setting, yet Halo took me almost a year to really get good at. In that respect it has FAR more depth than other fps. Of course, if you're looking for an immersive story driven experience, convincing characters, cut scenes and a story well told, it's going to leave you feeling a little cold (which obviously it has)

Horses for courses an all that.
 
Sure, it always boils down to what you are looking for but the combat in Halo is all it has going for it. I've completed it in legendary, I've had fun, and I've had fun playing coop with my cousin, but surely the lackluster level design and highly repetitive gameplay knocks it down several notches.

The gameplay is the combat, and after the first few levels or so it gets tiresome and boring. There are no layers whatsoever, and I cannot understand where the praise comes from, because it really isn't that good.
 
Sure, it always boils down to what you are looking for but the combat in Halo is all it has going for it. I've completed it in legendary, I've had fun, and I've had fun playing coop with my cousin, but surely the lackluster level design and highly repetitive gameplay knocks it down several notches.

The gameplay is the combat, and after the first few levels or so it gets tiresome and boring. There are no layers whatsoever, and I cannot understand where the praise comes from, because it really isn't that good.

Nailed it.
 
Nailed it.

Not quite.

It depends how much time you want to invest into it. There's a big difference between surviving Legendary and being able to complete the game, and being able to charge through levels and pretty much own everything (I could argue the challenge begins after finishing the game on Legendary).

What makes Halo special for me is there's scope to improve your game a great deal. A little like Golden Eye, there's a big learning curve - something HL2, or FEAR or *name other recent fps* simply doesn't have. Beating GE on 007 is pretty hard, but most fans will tell you it's unlocking all the cheats and beating other timed runs that makes it great.

A month or so back I loaded up Halo for the first time in a year - completely out of practise, I was shite. In contrast, I ran through Far Cry a few weeks back. It took minutes to get back in the swing of things, even on the hardest setting it didn't matter that I was out of practise, it doesn't need any. This is the difference (and don't start me on HL2. It does so many things well, but in combat and challenge it fails)
 
Halo 1 was shit.
Halo 2 was probably shit.

Halo 3 looks like complete shit.

My god gamers are complete ****ing morons.
 
Fat 14 year olds, lying on a sea of their own obesity and filth. These gentlemen will pronounce the Halo franchise as supremely awesome.

I find it abhorrent!
 
Mmmm, stereotypes. Mr-Fusion, your just to original!

No bots? Again? Christ, c'mon man. Although most games with bots usually have them as pretty stupid, I do always enjoy a game on my own with them. Ah, well. Looks cool anyway, although some of the weapons just sound horrible. Spartan Laser? Wooooo, I can see they've gone on the long run for thinking up a name for that one. But regardless, I look forward to it muchly.
 
Or perhaps some people look for different things from their fps? Wouldn't that be crazy!?

Halo is only repetitive if you play on an easy setting and are not very good at it ;)

I can play this game too.

Or perhaps the popularity and accessibility of consoles, combined with the surrounding hype of the biggest software developer on the planet releasing a new "next-gen" console (Xbox back in 2001), turned the consoles best opening game into an unparalleled over-hyped phenomenon?

That's actually pretty accurate too. Halo was fun, don't get me wrong, but i prefer No One Lives Forever over Halo anyday of the week.

NO YOU MOROCCAN SWINDLER, HE DOESNT WANT TO BUY YOUR ****ING MONKEY! TAKE THAT!

BRUUUUNOOOOOOOOO!!!!

(unless we're talking MP, Halo MP was good stuff, but not enough to warrant the hype or the praise)
 
Or perhaps it's just a good game that appeals to many people - it just happens to centre on something most pc fans don't look for in a fps. Either way the arguing is tiresome - 'my opinion is right'!, 'no, mine is'!

I enjoyed NOLF too - still, a poor man's Golden Eye ;)
 
Or perhaps it's just a good game that appeals to many people - it just happens to centre on something most pc fans don't look for in a fps. Either way the arguing is tiresome - 'my opinion is right'!, 'no, mine is'!

I enjoyed NOLF too - still, a poor man's Golden Eye ;)

But poor men demand fun too.

Also

Warbie said:
it just happens to centre on something most pc fans don't look for in a fps.

Such as, fun?

You knew that was coming, it was so obvious. I don't mean it though, its just that arguing on the internet can be fun :D that's all.

Poor mans fun.

Like the poor man who only has an iMac at the moment...

*cough*

Whats wrong with iMac's?
 
I was expecting 'varied level design'.

Nothing wroing with iMac btw. They're fun, if you're poor :)
 
Can I just ask, as I've seen it quite a bit in this thread, as to why so many people care that Halo was hyped up and such? I mean seriously, it's such a petty thing to hate a game over. It's like hating a band because of the things the lead singer does in his own time or something. So it scored well in magazines and people play it everyday and enjoy it - who cares, really? I know I don't, I'd rather care about what I think. Magazines can masturbate over it all they want, I've better things to do than give two damns about what they or anyone else thinks.
 
Not quite.

It depends how much time you want to invest into it. There's a big difference between surviving Legendary and being able to complete the game, and being able to charge through levels and pretty much own everything (I could argue the challenge begins after finishing the game on Legendary).

What makes Halo special for me is there's scope to improve your game a great deal. A little like Golden Eye, there's a big learning curve - something HL2, or FEAR or *name other recent fps* simply doesn't have. Beating GE on 007 is pretty hard, but most fans will tell you it's unlocking all the cheats and beating other timed runs that makes it great.

A month or so back I loaded up Halo for the first time in a year - completely out of practise, I was shite. In contrast, I ran through Far Cry a few weeks back. It took minutes to get back in the swing of things, even on the hardest setting it didn't matter that I was out of practise, it doesn't need any. This is the difference (and don't start me on HL2. It does so many things well, but in combat and challenge it fails)

I enjoyed the combat in HL2, it isn't meant to be Halo combat. It has better gameplay, which I'd pick over combat any day. Unlocking cheats? Time runs? Thats backwards gaming, surely. :p
 
Admittedly it is challenging gaming but really if you have to add to a game to make it more fun you're looking at not the best design ever.
 
Anything that makes a game more fun and satisfying is good design. Having to finish a level in a certain time to unlock a cheat in Golden Eye is no different than playing on a harder difficulty setting for some more challenge in any game - it added many hours of gameplay for 1000's of fans.

I agree that HL2 wasn't trying to be 'Halo combat' - it just isn't very good in this area fullstop. It's all gameplay btw - take away the combat in HL2 and you're just running around looking at things. Ok, there's the occasional simple puzzle and you get to chuck stuff around with the grav gun as well.
 
I liked Halo, disliked Halo 2, and if they magazine is anything to go by, will hate Halo 3. Ugly graphics and stupid gameplay idea. A Spartan Cannon? What the **** is that?
 
Anything that makes a game more fun and satisfying is good design. Having to finish a level in a certain time to unlock a cheat in Golden Eye is no different than playing on a harder difficulty setting for some more challenge in any game - it added many hours of gameplay for 1000's of fans.

I agree that HL2 wasn't trying to be 'Halo combat' - it just isn't very good in this area fullstop. It's all gameplay btw - take away the combat in HL2 and you're just running around looking at things. Ok, there's the occasional simple puzzle and you get to chuck stuff around with the grav gun as well.

There is nothing at all wrong with the combat. It is fun. You can't say it isn't very good in the area fullstop, because it is. Perhaps not to your idea of good combat, but certainly isn't anything wrong with it.

And no, you aren't just running around looking at things. Sure, there really won't be much to do, but the combat itself gives rise to so much actual depth in the gameplay that Halo doesn't have a patch on it. There's a huge amount of gameplay depth in there - more than any Halo title will ever have for that matter.
 
Ok, the combat isn't to my taste then (it doesn't seem any different to fighting in HL, and isn't very involved). I don't see what extra gameplay it gives rise to either, but I guess it's not something I looked for at the time. I actually enjoyed the walking about and looking at stuff part of HL2 a whole lot more than the action.
 
Halo definitely has far more depth in gameplay than HL2. Halo has better AI than HL2 for chrissakes :|.

I agree with Warbie. The first two levels and Black Mesa East? Probably the best levels in all of HL2. Oh, but then the shooting begins...
 
Halo definitely has far more depth in gameplay than HL2. Halo has better AI than HL2 for chrissakes :|.

Depth in combat, perhaps. Half-life 2's depth isn't limited to unloading automatic weapons into generic aliens over and over again. I agree about the AI, however. HL2's AI is probably its weakest quality.

Halo 2, despite what anti-fanboys may say, was one of the best games of 2004. In my opinion, it is one of those titles that really seal the deal on a genre, more or less perfecting conventional mechanics. Halo has never been about straying out of the norm; just making the norm good enough that it feels fresh. But, really, Halo 3 needs something extra. We've seen the "Vehicles + Great Graphics + Great Multiplayer" for a long, long time now, and the technical jump won't be enough to earn any Game of the Years unless new mechanics are introduced.
 
Exactly. I'm not saying HL2's a bad game or even worse. I'd pick HL2 over the Halo games anyday.

But I'm not going to sit here and act like HL2 is a flawless game.
 
I agree with halo 3 needing to have something new and not just the same formula with a few addons, it is supposed to be next-gen after all...

Edit: New Info: Bungie states the new use for the X button will "Change the whole game", but they are not ready to reveal it yet.

:O
 
Personally Ive given up on trying to judge games before I actually play them. :|
 
Halo 2, despite what anti-fanboys may say, was one of the best games of 2004. In my opinion, it is one of those titles that really seal the deal on a genre, more or less perfecting conventional mechanics.
I'd beg to differ. Halo 2 is effectively the inverse of Halo - great multiplayer and mediocre singleplayer. Halo had the cool story, the interesting levels (yes, I liked the library, so sue me :p), the fun combat... And Halo 2 comes along, pushes a story through cutscenes and events that don't connect, and turning Legendary into a hundred-hour checkpoint-whoring combat grind.

ChiChi: :LOL:, yeah, I'm not sure what the hell the Spartan Cannon is going to be like. I really hope that it's like the APC pods in BF2142's Titan mode, because otherwise all I can think of is a middle-ages wooden trebuchet mounted on a Warthog.
 
Halo definitely has far more depth in gameplay than HL2. Halo has better AI than HL2 for chrissakes :|.

I agree with Warbie. The first two levels and Black Mesa East? Probably the best levels in all of HL2. Oh, but then the shooting begins...

As someone has said, gameplay is not limited to combat. Better AI does not equal depth in gameplay. Not by any stretch of the imagination. :|
The AI of HL2 is actually pretty damn clever, it just never actually shines in the game.

Depth in combat, perhaps. Half-life 2's depth isn't limited to unloading automatic weapons into generic aliens over and over again.

Woop, you summed up the Halo experience.
 
***Warning, insanely long post to follow***
Looking through this thread I'm trying to figure out why any first person shooter fan would possibly think Halo1 is a horrible game and judging from the replies my only logical conclusion is that Halo1 haters are just graphics whores and PC elitists.

The first halo had everything you could want in a fps: inventive and satisfying weapons, wide open vistas, intelligent (and fun to fight) enemies, vehicles, etc. For its time it had some of the best graphics on the market, and was really the first game to successfully implement drive-able vehicles in an FPS. The game was challenging and fun to play against a single enemy or in the midst of an huge battle between dozens of enemies and allies.

Your constantly moving through different areas, from the cramped corridors of a spaceship to the awesome island level on the halo, from the underground corridors under the island to desert like canyons and snowy mountains. All the while your coming across new vehicles to drive, weapons to blow shit up with, and enemies to be blown up. Also the game only gets better playing through coop with a friend.

Theres really only a few realistic complaints about the game. For one, despite being the best controlling FPS on a console it still doesn't feel half as good as a good ol' mouse does, but myself and many others were willing to accept it for what is it and still enjoy the hell out of it. The other part is the level design in the inside areas and the Library level. Very boring and bland design in these areas which is really only a problem in the Library level since it just goes on for far too long. The other areas are excusable I think because the gameplay is still awesome in these parts and given the technology they had to work with the inside areas aren't that big a deal since they are short sections anyway.

As for the multiplayer, I never cared for it. It just didn't interest me like counterstrike or tfc did. Which is probably the reason that I absolutely hate Halo 2. I think they did something to the game that killed the fun and challenge of the combat and made the singleplayer linear and subdued compared to the epic, openended feeling of Halo1. It also seemed like they didn't try anything new outside of some gimicky dual wielding and car jacking (which is actually an awesome addition), so it felt kinda samey to me without nailing the greatness of the first one. It left such a bad taste in my mouth that I haven't touched Halo 1 since (I used to play through the campaign every couple of months all the way up to the release of Halo2).

I disliked Halo2 so much that it has lowered my expectations for Bungie and Halo3, and yet here I am looking at the screens of it and its worse than I thought it could have been. It looks like ass, and it sounds like they aren't going to try anything new or innovative to take the gameplay to the next level. They've got new hardware to work on and the chance to create something truly epic in the multi and singleplayer department, yet it seems like they are only trying to add a new gloss of paint to their old capture the flag and other vanilla gametypes.

So I'm obviously not a Halo fanboy, I can be objective and see the first game for what it is, a great addition into the lineup of incredible FPS games, while also seeing its flaws and the crap that is Halo2. So I ask myself why would anyone who loves FPS games or games in general hate what I consider to be still one of the top 5 FPS games currently. It seems like you guys either haven't given it a chance because its "console trash" or you went into it with your elitist PC prejudices and couldn't let yourself enjoy it.
You guys say the only thing it has going for it is combat and then spout off HL2 like it has better gameplay because its environments are more pleasantly designed. Even if that was the case I hate to break this one to you guys but gameplay in a first person SHOOTER is all about the combat. Which is why HL2 hasn't be as universally revered as HL1 once was. Some people just don't fall over in amazement because they saw a pretty scripted spectacle in a video game, we play games to have fun and fun in a FPS comes mainly from the combat. HL2's boring weapons and simple AI just makes the combat a boring mess that is only interesting as it gets more chaotic from Valve throwing 20 different things at you at once just so you don't fall asleep.

Same thing can be said about many other FPS games which is why the combat in Halo1 I believe is still the best you can find in the FPS genre with really only FEAR coming close to stealing its crown. Only problem with fear is the battles are over quickly and are not epic in scope as in Halo due to limited level design, rudimentary weapons, and enemies on screen, etc.

So ask yourself whats your real reason for hating Halo and then come back to me with some realistic complaints about the game. Its fine to be a PC elitist as long as you admit that's the reason you don't like something just don't run around saying the game is crap like its a fact due to your nonobjective opinion. Don't say level design because it may be bland in some places but it doesn't detract from the gameplay. Don't say its generic either because you couldn't give me a single example of a game that is similar.
 
I'd beg to differ. Halo 2 is effectively the inverse of Halo - great multiplayer and mediocre singleplayer. Halo had the cool story, the interesting levels (yes, I liked the library, so sue me :p), the fun combat... And Halo 2 comes along, pushes a story through cutscenes and events that don't connect, and turning Legendary into a hundred-hour checkpoint-whoring combat grind.

I found the singleplayer of both games to be equally mediocre. The presentation and gameplay made it fun rather than any masterful level design or pacing. Granted I never touched Legendary mode on either, and found both quite easy.
 
The AI of HL2 is actually pretty damn clever, it just never actually shines in the game.

....

How does that even make sense :|. So this damn clever AI that is NEVER SEEN IN HL2 is supposed to be better than the AI I HAVE SEEN in Halo? That's what you're telling me.
 
Alright, I wasn't completely serious about you saying the AI being better than the other, but I'm failing to see your point. The AI is pretty damn clever, but its never actually seen....? So this means what?
 
I'm simply stating a fact that the soldier AI is 'pretty damned clever', but you never actually get chance to see it in game. I am not arguing any points, I am simply stating something. Valve didn't design it in such a way for the soldiers to act out their full potential (an intentional game design decision, I'd wager).

That may sound daft, but it really isn't. :p
 
***Warning, insanely long post to follow***
Looking through this thread I'm trying to figure out why any first person shooter fan would possibly think Halo1 is a horrible game and judging from the replies my only logical conclusion is that Halo1 haters are just graphics whores and PC elitists.

The first halo had everything you could want in a fps: inventive and satisfying weapons, wide open vistas, intelligent (and fun to fight) enemies, vehicles, etc. For its time it had some of the best graphics on the market, and was really the first game to successfully implement drive-able vehicles in an FPS. The game was challenging and fun to play against a single enemy or in the midst of an huge battle between dozens of enemies and allies.

Your constantly moving through different areas, from the cramped corridors of a spaceship to the awesome island level on the halo, from the underground corridors under the island to desert like canyons and snowy mountains. All the while your coming across new vehicles to drive, weapons to blow shit up with, and enemies to be blown up. Also the game only gets better playing through coop with a friend.

Theres really only a few realistic complaints about the game. For one, despite being the best controlling FPS on a console it still doesn't feel half as good as a good ol' mouse does, but myself and many others were willing to accept it for what is it and still enjoy the hell out of it. The other part is the level design in the inside areas and the Library level. Very boring and bland design in these areas which is really only a problem in the Library level since it just goes on for far too long. The other areas are excusable I think because the gameplay is still awesome in these parts and given the technology they had to work with the inside areas aren't that big a deal since they are short sections anyway.

As for the multiplayer, I never cared for it. It just didn't interest me like counterstrike or tfc did. Which is probably the reason that I absolutely hate Halo 2. I think they did something to the game that killed the fun and challenge of the combat and made the singleplayer linear and subdued compared to the epic, openended feeling of Halo1. It also seemed like they didn't try anything new outside of some gimicky dual wielding and car jacking (which is actually an awesome addition), so it felt kinda samey to me without nailing the greatness of the first one. It left such a bad taste in my mouth that I haven't touched Halo 1 since (I used to play through the campaign every couple of months all the way up to the release of Halo2).

I disliked Halo2 so much that it has lowered my expectations for Bungie and Halo3, and yet here I am looking at the screens of it and its worse than I thought it could have been. It looks like ass, and it sounds like they aren't going to try anything new or innovative to take the gameplay to the next level. They've got new hardware to work on and the chance to create something truly epic in the multi and singleplayer department, yet it seems like they are only trying to add a new gloss of paint to their old capture the flag and other vanilla gametypes.

So I'm obviously not a Halo fanboy, I can be objective and see the first game for what it is, a great addition into the lineup of incredible FPS games, while also seeing its flaws and the crap that is Halo2. So I ask myself why would anyone who loves FPS games or games in general hate what I consider to be still one of the top 5 FPS games currently. It seems like you guys either haven't given it a chance because its "console trash" or you went into it with your elitist PC prejudices and couldn't let yourself enjoy it.
You guys say the only thing it has going for it is combat and then spout off HL2 like it has better gameplay because its environments are more pleasantly designed. Even if that was the case I hate to break this one to you guys but gameplay in a first person SHOOTER is all about the combat. Which is why HL2 hasn't be as universally revered as HL1 once was. Some people just don't fall over in amazement because they saw a pretty scripted spectacle in a video game, we play games to have fun and fun in a FPS comes mainly from the combat. HL2's boring weapons and simple AI just makes the combat a boring mess that is only interesting as it gets more chaotic from Valve throwing 20 different things at you at once just so you don't fall asleep.

Same thing can be said about many other FPS games which is why the combat in Halo1 I believe is still the best you can find in the FPS genre with really only FEAR coming close to stealing its crown. Only problem with fear is the battles are over quickly and are not epic in scope as in Halo due to limited level design, rudimentary weapons, and enemies on screen, etc.

So ask yourself whats your real reason for hating Halo and then come back to me with some realistic complaints about the game. Its fine to be a PC elitist as long as you admit that's the reason you don't like something just don't run around saying the game is crap like its a fact due to your nonobjective opinion. Don't say level design because it may be bland in some places but it doesn't detract from the gameplay. Don't say its generic either because you couldn't give me a single example of a game that is similar.
While I agree with you, I must point out:
Long posts will do nothing.
Short posts will do nothing.

The fact is when you see someone bashing a game, that they probably never even played......move on about it. Whatever you say will probably mean nothing to them, and only give them some laughs that your taking the time to write out a long post about it.
 
I have Halo on PC, I quite enjoy the concept of the game and yes I really like the vehicles. The warthog is just a very cool vehicle that controls very well. I played a lot of Halo multiplayer on PC and appreciated most of it, nothing was incredibly out of balance and the vehicles weren't overpowered mainly because sticky nades were dangerous.

Despite what most people feel I enjoyed the multiplayer in Halo more than a lot of the single player. The levels in Halo were the biggest issue for me. Huge sections of the game consisted of very few rooms copied and joined together with slight differences and then they would repeat again. Then you had missions that would take you back through those sections with more enemies to kill. To it's credit Halo would not have lasted nearly as long if the combat was boring. But it still detracts from the gameplay, "Hey wasn't I just in this room? I have to go through this bit again with the exact same enemies?" That's what I found bad about Halo and that is a legitimate reason. I would have felt the same about Half-Life if there was so much repetition.
 
Halo 2 was deffo worth my money; I play it everyday on X-Box Live. I loathe it completly - I can't stand the same old game types (If I have to play Terminal AGAIN... oyy), the people that play it, the lag (although thats me, partly, but I only get it in Halo and no other game) and the minor things that annoy me like why the shotgun sucks when I have it yet I get killed by it so fast from other players. But with freinds, it's a very enjoyable game, so I can only hope for the same, but better, from Halo 3.
 
***Warning, insanely long post to follow***
Looking through this thread I'm trying to figure out why any first person shooter fan would possibly think Halo1 is a horrible game and judging from the replies my only logical conclusion is that Halo1 haters are just graphics whores and PC elitists.

When I finished Halo/Halo 2, I had this bad taste in my mouth...how did I cure it? I played Goldeneye and Perfect Dark with a bit of Metroid Prime as a side dish. I prefer my Gamecube over my PC anyday and yet I still hate Halo.
 
Valve didn't design it in such a way for the soldiers to act out their full potential (an intentional game design decision, I'd wager).

:|

"Okay guys listen up. WE HAVE THIS INCREDIBLE AI IN THE GAME, and when I say incredible I mean peoples brains will ****ing explode when they play the game, but I decided were not going to use it :D LOLOLOLOLOL"
 
Back
Top