Halo 3 - to buy or not to buy

the alien guy

JOYRIDE_activeCamoElite2.jpg
 
Arbiter, right Stern? He's so much better than Master 'I need a weapon!' Chief.
 
I think the 'avatar' is the Arbiter.

Edit: Beaten by Samon!
 
lol, arbiter avatar same thing :LOL:

see? couldnt have been that memorable if I couldnt remember his name

ya he's better only in the sense that he could cloak (which was useless cuz the guy I was playing with is an idiot and would always charge uncloaked) ..the arbiter (avatar) guy should have moved differently than master choice ..errr master chief
 
CptStern said:
lol, arbiter avatar same thing :LOL:

see? couldnt have been that memorable if I couldnt remember his name

ya he's better only in the sense that he could cloak (which was useless cuz the guy I was playing with is an idiot and would always charge uncloaked) ..the arbiter (avatar) guy should have moved differently than master choice ..errr master chief
Click to expand...

Interesting thing though... for cloak, arbiter trades in the flashlight. And, one of the levels you play in, the whole place is really really really dark. And because of Halo's lighting engine, it's even darker and stupid.
 
Bah, it was so dark, and I couldn't see where I was going. And every room looked the same, or highly similar at least. And friggin' Sentinals kept gliding up serenely behind me and blowing my shields up, then 12 flood would latch onto my face.
 
I,m buying halo3. Not cause it's good but i just want to know how the triology ends
 
Halo series rocks! The story is so rich its awesome, and the gameplay on Legendary kicks the ass!
 
Reginald said:
I only got the version with OoT and Master Quest. Not sure how to attain the MM version now. :(
Click to expand...
Oh wait, might have been thinking of Master Quest. Not sure if there's a Majora's Mask one too, sorry =/

Anyway, off-topic... *ahem*

I'll get Halo 3 as long as Bungie actually raises the bar somehow with this one. Halo 2 was fine, but it didn't really have anything over the original, and infact seemed to pretty much ignore it's criticisms and just out-right mimic it, save for a few nifty additions (not all of them welcome).

Also when they stop paying off game critics who continue to give their games ridiculously high scores despite their glaring flaws :rolleyes:
 
Warbie said:
heh, that sounds like the most annoying and frustrating trail and error, hindsight fuelled quicksave-tastic gameplay ever ;)

(I did like the beach landing, and shat my pants the first time the game loaded and a world of pain came flying down the beach :) )
Click to expand...

Now, take away the quicksave portion of it ;)
 
Bad^Hat said:
Oh wait, might have been thinking of Master Quest. Not sure if there's a Majora's Mask one too, sorry =/

Anyway, off-topic... *ahem*

I'll get Halo 3 as long as Bungie actually raises the bar somehow with this one. Halo 2 was fine, but it didn't really have anything over the original, and infact seemed to pretty much ignore it's criticisms and just out-right mimic it, save for a few nifty additions (not all of them welcome).

Also when they stop paying off game critics who continue to give their games ridiculously high scores despite their glaring flaws :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Give us some examples, oh prophet of telling me Bungies various flaws! *praises*
 
Jintor said:
Give us some examples, oh prophet of telling me Bungies various flaws! *praises*
Click to expand...
Halo 2's singleplayer sucked for the following reasons:

  • The plot was a complete cop-out. There is little to no logical reasoning behind ANY of the Hierarch's decisions. As it stands, none of Halo 2 made much sense, whereas Halo made sense to those who could buy into the universe (I did, and loved it). Perhaps the new book and Halo 3 will shed light on new information that could legitimize some of the things that occurred, but Halo 2's plot cannot stand on its own two feet.
  • There was a distinct lack of close-quarters combat, which was what made Halo so much fun. All the environments were much more wide-open, leaving very little in the way of strategic options in each level segment.
  • Halo 2's Heroic turned into Halo's Legendary, and Halo 2's Legendary turned into Ghost-Recon-meets-the-Omaha-Beach-landings. You couldn't walk five feet without having an insane battle strategy planned out and completely memorized in order for you to survive, because there were far too many enemies, who could kill you in far too few shots to equate Legendary to any interpretation of the word "fun".
  • The new weapons were poor in every way possible. Visually, they were unimpressive and generic. Aurally, they were muted and character-less. And whatever they added to the gameplay dynamics, they took much more away, because they all threw off the combat balance immensely. And the Needler STILL sucks. (Also, I think they should have kept the plasma weapons' "freezing" effect, but that's just a personal opinion. It's not entirely subjective enough for me to include it in this list :p)
  • The new vehicles are boring. Very, very boring.
  • The levels are too drawn-out and lifeless. Mombasa, while it looked at least somewhat realistic, didn't seem like it ever had anyone actually living there. All there was was generic architectural damage clearly caused by the Covenant invasion. And its vehicle-driving portions were far too long, and felt as if they were "teasing" you with their half-assed wide-openness. In Halo, you were very restricted by the level, but you managed to find freedom in the routes you took. In Halo 2, the level LOOKED wide-open, but your list of routes and options was... well, just as short as before. This goes for almost every level in the game.

I could work out some more if you like :)

And for the record, I enjoyed both games [immensely, just Halo 1 moreso]. I actually bought an Xbox just so I could play both at home.

[edit] And another thing, for the record: It's been pissing me off lately, how people continually (well, here not so much) quote Bungie's lead gameplay design as saying "Halo was pretty much the same 30 seconds of fun over and over again," and pretend that that makes Halo a bad game. So, a message to all of you: You are idiots. He was saying that in order to get a game that's fun to play over and over again, even on the same levels, you have to create a set of AI and combat dynamic systems that are re-usable throughout an entire game, but which also allow for the exact same confrontation to play out in many different ways, showing you a unique result every single time. What differs between one battle and the next is what you're up against, what you've got on your side, and where you're fighting. But if you don't have the framework to allow for unique outcomes every single time, the entire game is going to feel like one battle played out a thousand times.

Simple game design, people.
 
I know. I enjoyed both games, but they pale so much in comparison to HL2... I notice you didn't mention lighting at all. Was that because I mentioned it too much? Lighting was horrible in BOTH games. Nearly impossible to see anything in most places because of the really bad lighting engine. On Delta Halo, everything was peachy-keen until you went inside buildings. Worst bit? Fighting Flood and Sentinals in the room-repeater library in the dark, swirling mist as the Arbiter and No Flashlight. Horrible, horrible, horrible lighting.
 
The problem with Halo, mainly, is that the level designers suck ass. Press the button gameplay FTL.
 
Sucking rare ends would certainly take up valuable time otherwised used to design levels.
 
Samon said:
The problem with Halo, mainly, is that the level designers suck ass. Press the button gameplay FTL.
Click to expand...

No offense Samon, but judging from your posts, your tastes don't seem to be very mainstream. I read that you didn't like Mafia or Halo, both of which IMO were some of the greatest gaming experiences ever. Prove me wrong.
 
Sebastian said:
No offense Samon, but judging from your posts, your tastes don't seem to be very mainstream. I read that you didn't like Mafia or Halo, both of which IMO were some of the greatest gaming experiences ever. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever saying I wanted my tastes to be 'mainstream'. It's all about my opinion. Mafia is pretty meh, I wasn't wowed by it. Halo is fun, but it is severely lacking compared to many other shooters I've played. Two games. Not mainstream enough?

I don't tend to sit down and say "Wow, everyone loves this game. I guess I will too!" I've nothing to prove. Two ok games, but nothing special. That said, I've a great liking for alot of 'mainstream' games so don't sit and judge based on two games.
 
I'll get Halo 2 when it gets released for the PC, and I'll say the same for Halo 3. Yes I am prepared to wait an extra 2 and a half years for it.
 
I thought Mafia was pretty crappy too, but love Halo. There's more depth and challenge to combat than any other single player fps has managed to offer.
 
If we're talking about the depth and challenge of combat only, I think FEAR was a lot better than Halo.
 
I disagree - they really isn't much to the combat in FEAR, certainly not compared to Halo. It's alot easier and, other than the ability to slow down time, is pretty much point and click. That's not to say it isn't fun, and there's plenty of ways to take bad guys out in a cool way, but I really don't think there's much depth to the gunplay.
 
You don't actually have to slow down time, it's actually pretty lame and I forgot it existed after a while. It can be pretty hard if you don't use it, the AI is a lot better than Halo's, there's the psuedo-ironsights, more props for cover, more melee moves, exploding props, more recoil feeling, limited regenerating health, particle effects that obscure your view. What about Halo makes it not point and click compared to FEAR?
 
ElFuhrer said:
What about Halo makes it not point and click compared to FEAR?
Click to expand...

I think the main difference is Halo forces you to think very quick, adapt, and really use your surroundings and cover well. Bump into an Elite and you can be dead in 2 seconds - which will happen alot if you haven't put the time in to practise.

In FEAR I found it easy enough to run around without much care and use the biggest gun available.

Slacker said:
In that factor, there are a LOT of games better than Halo.
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree here. I'm very much into my fps - on and offline, console and pc. The original Halo on the Xbox is still the best single player fps i've found for combat. Games like CoD, Far Cry, Quake etc are (imo) complete no brainers in comparison.
 
Warbie said:
I think the main difference is Halo forces you to think very quick, adapt, and really use your surroundings and cover well. Bump into an Elite and you can be dead in 2 seconds - which will happen alot if you haven't put the time in to practise.
Click to expand...

What the hell. It's the exact opposite. I think you've confused the games here. FEAR is very tactical. Halo is very arcade-y.

Which isn't a bad thing. Granted, Halo 1 and 2 has far superior and more fun MP than FEAR. That's where strategy and tactic come into play.
 
DeusExMachina said:
What the hell. It's the exact opposite. I think you've confused the games here. FEAR is very tactical. Halo is very arcade-y.

Which isn't a bad thing. Granted, Halo 1 and 2 has far superior and more fun MP than FEAR. That's where strategy and tactic come into play.
Click to expand...

Dude, freakin' Extreme Paintball had better MP than FEAR.
 
DeusExMachina said:
What the hell. It's the exact opposite. I think you've confused the games here. FEAR is very tactical. Halo is very arcade-y.

Which isn't a bad thing. Granted, Halo 1 and 2 has far superior and more fun MP than FEAR. That's where strategy and tactic come into play.
Click to expand...
QFT. I was just playing the FEAR: Extraction Point on normal, and even on that difficulty one good burst from and enemy's assault rifle will leave you at < 30 health. On higher difficulties you're as good as dead when an enemy gets a clear line of fire on you, which happens a lot because they're great at flanking. Halo's MP is a lot better though.
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
Do you always offend people with different opinions than you?
Click to expand...
Only when those opinions are formed after completely misunderstanding a statement. Honestly, I'm sorry if I offended you, but people keep pushing that quote in my face as if it "proves" that Griesemer "knew" that he was designing a game that sucked. Or something. It's just frustrating, is all.

And while Halo may be more arcadey than most titles, that doesn't mean it isn't tactical. BF1942 was pretty arcadey, but you could set up some great, great strategies in that game. The same goes for CS/CS Source, BF2, HL2 Deathmatch, Super Smash Bros/SSB Melee...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Gabe Newell's AMA summary (January 17, 2017)
Replies
1
Views
24K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
12K
Barnz
B
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
Back
Top