i hope they realese more maps in the future, because from what i have expierenced, there are only a few. and thats bull. singleplayer is all fun and good, but for christs sake - there needs to be like 20 mulitplayer maps.
and whats with all this freggin waiting to play a multiplayer game? they try and make the UI so intuitive - but it just gets lame and hard to play the game\type\ect you want. i just want to hit a button that lets me play a ranked game, pick the map and options and amount of players and press go. what happened to that? is that like - only the PC gets good multiplayer UI?
the thing that pisses me off the most is that ALL chatting has been screwed with. that was one of my favorite parts, talking smack to everyone. having to press the Dup pad to chat within a certain radius is just plain retarded. ok - ranked matches i can assume that people would 'cheat' and give away players locations or something? there should be an option when creating a game to enable all\distance\off\team chatting.
ugh, i dunno. IMO - lack of multiplayer maps, lack of new weapons (having ~10 weapons in a game is not enough for me), terrible UI, nuked chatting, lots of mplayer waiting, and the same game i played before makes me not like it as much as id hoped.
there are a few cool things that i like - but it is virtually the same game with some new grenades and maps.
Originally Posted by Jamie The 640p complaint is all hot air, get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fwalm
Plus Bungie sayed on a post in there forums about how the 360 coudl'nt handle the lighting effects they where using and also anti-aliasing, that's why there is'nt any, so Bungie picked lighting, either way Bungie was always going to lose, because people always whinge about everything and anything.
my point exactly, Xbox360 lacks the power of a PC, that's why they have lowered the resolution, disabled AA.
i admit, for a console, Halo 3 looks superb. and it's probably the best an average console gamer can get. but as a die-heart PC gamer, i demand more
I don't think I'm ever going to understand this ridiculous infatuation with Halo.
I have it on reasonable authority that Bungie was forced to cancel a sequel to Oni to do the first Halo. Oni, if you want something revolutionary, is or was an innovative and interesting game with lots of good new ideas. Halo, as I discovered when I played the first one, is a first-person shooter, identical in many respects to a great raft of first-person shooters which existed before and continue to be made now.
There is nothing special about Halo; there wasn't ever anything special about Halo. All Halo was ever intended to be was an easily-created, crowd-pleasing game which is minimally objectionable to all the Xbox owners of the world. Interesting, genuinely innovative games tend not to be minimally objectionable - they tend to target a fairly narrow sector of the community, which is poor business, but often makes for great games if you happen to be in that sector.
But all this moralising aside - how any serious journalist can use that sort of language to describe such a screaminly average, undifferentiated, everyday, homogenised, unexceptional game as Halo is beyond me. It's just another FPS. It's no better or worse than AvP or Unreal. What the hell is everyone hyperventilating about?
I dont really understand why you are comparing Halo with Goldeneye. Goldeneye was made years ago, based on a film. Halo is made now, and based on a book, its almost totally different.
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes I don't think I'm ever going to understand this ridiculous infatuation with Halo.
I have it on reasonable authority that Bungie was forced to cancel a sequel to Oni to do the first Halo. Oni, if you want something revolutionary, is or was an innovative and interesting game with lots of good new ideas. Halo, as I discovered when I played the first one, is a first-person shooter, identical in many respects to a great raft of first-person shooters which existed before and continue to be made now.
There is nothing special about Halo; there wasn't ever anything special about Halo. All Halo was ever intended to be was an easily-created, crowd-pleasing game which is minimally objectionable to all the Xbox owners of the world. Interesting, genuinely innovative games tend not to be minimally objectionable - they tend to target a fairly narrow sector of the community, which is poor business, but often makes for great games if you happen to be in that sector.
But all this moralising aside - how any serious journalist can use that sort of language to describe such a screaminly average, undifferentiated, everyday, homogenised, unexceptional game as Halo is beyond me. It's just another FPS. It's no better or worse than AvP or Unreal. What the hell is everyone hyperventilating about?
Phil
... you know, you could apply that to any game. "It's just a(n) *insert game genre here*, what's there to get hyped about?" Nearly no games are innovative within the bounds of what you're asking for. It'd be too big of a business risk to really make a good game after all.
/thus we have madden
//and mario party
///and franchises in general
Originally Posted by mikeuk2004 Perfect Dark is crap and very poor. Golden Eye is old and had its day. Halo is the new Golden Eye.
:(
Noobs, all of you/ Perfect Dark wasn't my favourite game, but even I recognise it as revoloutionary. I never played Golden Eye, but from what I hear and have seen and from how I've seen and been told by developers that it has influenced their approach to their own games, I can see that it was fantastic.
Either way, Half-life is the new Perfect Dark for singleplayer. For console multiplayer, Timesplitters is the new Goldeneye for the obvious Rare/Free Radical reasons. Halo 3 is awesome for multiplayer - but Timesplitters wins out for me purely because it has monkeys.
Originally Posted by CardJoe but Timesplitters wins out for me purely because it has monkeys.
But Halo 3 has Samurai Armour! What more do you need?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samkiller42 Halo is made now, and based on a book, its almost totally different.
Sam
Actually, the books were written from the game technically, the game script was conceived first, then the books were written to give it a more "life" just like the Mass Effect game.
Goldeneye was revolutionary at the time (FPS on a console?) Timesplitters on PS2 was let down by the DualShock pad for me, but felt too much like a toy on XBOX. Yes it was a fun game, but didn't give me replayability.
Halo has revolutionised gaming aswel because people are talking about it. It's in newspapers, gaming is becoming mainstream getting itself a higher profile.
There are still people that say "Oh Halo is rubbish", "Why?", "Well it's FPS on a console". Have they gone into it without any prejudice? No. Will they? No.
That's the problem I have, people love to hate things, a friend of mine (D3s3rt_f0x on here) went into Halo 3 expecting a rubbish game, so what did he get when he played it on his own? A rubbish game.
You get from a game what you put in. Joe, you of all people should understand that.
How am I supposed to take a games journalist seriously if they have never played Golden eye, :p will have to ignore him till he finds an n64 and plays it.
I'm not rusing out to buy Halo 3, I really like the first 2 but multiplayer fps do nothing for me, mainly cause I suck at them. so I'll wait for the price to dropa bit or pick it up second hand.
You get from a game what you put in. Joe, you of all people should understand that.
I do get that, but I also recognise that sometimes quality is a seperate entity to the effort/reward of playing a game. I've played some AWFUL games and really enjoyed them (Sin Episodes). I've played some 'great games' and hated them (doom 3, quake 4). That isn't my problem with Halo at all because I enjoy it fine and I recognise it as being a good game seperate to my enjoyment. My issue is that it isn't substantially different to Halo 2 or Halo 1.
I know, I know - if it ain't broke, but I just have issue with that from a developer like Bungie who have worked on some truly inventive, great games that I have really enjoyed. It feels like they've sold out and are settling for rehashing the rehashed in order to get mainstream appeal, which results in the cultural phenomenon of Halo 3 and gets them accolade but which isn't really a showcase of what they can do.
Halo 3 is a great game, an awesome game.
But it isn't a perfect game or even a clever game which brings a lot of new to the table.
The first sentence there gets it a score of 9/10. The second sentence knocks it down a point.
Evolution, not revolution dammit.
Oh, and don't get me started on the whole goldeneye thing. You have no idea how badly they took the piss out of me for that at Free Radical Design. I know all about Goldeneye, in and out, but it just somehow passed me by when it came out and I haven't ever been persuaded to pick up an N64 since then, mainly because a lot of what I want to play on that system was re-released.
Originally Posted by CardJoe I do get that, but I also recognise that sometimes quality is a seperate entity to the effort/reward of playing a game. I've played some AWFUL games and really enjoyed them (Sin Episodes). I've played some 'great games' and hated them (doom 3, quake 4).
I've done that too. In fact I just (about) finished playing Two Worlds on the 360 which is a completely bug ridden (with glitches which should never have made it in the retail version), oblivion-lite wannabe with questionable enemy AI... but I enjoyed it, even though I know it is a bad game (I borrowed it from a mate who is about to trade it in for Halo).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe Oh, and don't get me started on the whole goldeneye thing. You have no idea how badly they took the piss out of me for that at Free Radical Design. I know all about Goldeneye, in and out, but it just somehow passed me by when it came out and I haven't ever been persuaded to pick up an N64 since then, mainly because a lot of what I want to play on that system was re-released.
I borrowed Goldeneye from a friend when it came out and I just didn't get on with it at all.
I must agree....for as much hype/money this game has received and how it's supposed to be the game that brings people "over the fence" to buy a 360...I just didn't find it as good as I was expecting...(and I wasn't expecting THAT much over Halo 2)....and I agree with Joe that the game deserves an 8/10 and maybe 9/10 on a good day because of it.
The graphics are something that needed to be there...I mean you didn't buy a 360 to play a game that was only halfway better in terms of graphics/realism than the previous Xbox did you?....don't get me wrong, the graphics/physics are better than Halo 2 in campaign mode (mainly in texturing and certain lighting)...but it's not as good as I had expected....and I still noticed lagging in certain situations where there shouldn't have been....
Besides that, the gameplay still plays just as smooth as I had hoped and the cut-scenes are brilliantly rendered, but the lip-syncing is very off and it makes me appreciate just what Heavenly Sword offers in that arena....I have yet to beat the game, but with 6 hours into the campaign the experience has been good, and I can't wait until the ending just to see how they leave it off.....
Originally Posted by mikeuk2004 Perfect Dark is crap and very poor. Golden Eye is old and had its day. Halo is the new Golden Eye.
There classic games, they don't get outdated. Shame so many people jumped on the hype ride to Halo 3. So many people are saying its crud, or just okay! Not what was expected, perfect dark and goldeneye for filled what was promised and more! END OF!
Originally Posted by CardJoe I thought so, but it wasn't technically anythign compared to the competition.
True enough that it was nothing amazing or particularly special, but I really have to chime in and say that I don't think it deserved at all to be called awfull, there have been far, far, far worse games out there, many of them attempting to swindle there way into peoples collections with no more content and at much higher prices ;)
Been playing the game since yesterday, I've never played any of the other halo's but i am really enjoying this one, i personally like the graphics i guess i'm not that nit picky though, the gameplay is great but one thing that bugs me is the music i suppose it make more of an atmosphere while playing but it sure does annoy me.
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes I don't think I'm ever going to understand this ridiculous infatuation with Halo.
I have it on reasonable authority that Bungie was forced to cancel a sequel to Oni to do the first Halo. Oni, if you want something revolutionary, is or was an innovative and interesting game with lots of good new ideas. Halo, as I discovered when I played the first one, is a first-person shooter, identical in many respects to a great raft of first-person shooters which existed before and continue to be made now.
There is nothing special about Halo; there wasn't ever anything special about Halo. All Halo was ever intended to be was an easily-created, crowd-pleasing game which is minimally objectionable to all the Xbox owners of the world. Interesting, genuinely innovative games tend not to be minimally objectionable - they tend to target a fairly narrow sector of the community, which is poor business, but often makes for great games if you happen to be in that sector.
But all this moralising aside - how any serious journalist can use that sort of language to describe such a screaminly average, undifferentiated, everyday, homogenised, unexceptional game as Halo is beyond me. It's just another FPS. It's no better or worse than AvP or Unreal. What the hell is everyone hyperventilating about?
Phil
I thought I was the only one that felt this way!
As I was arguing the point with someone yesterday, there are games with better story's, better game play, and the same, if not better, multiplayer already out there.
It's been all done before and Halo3 brings nothing really new to the gaming arena, and some have even done it with better graphics/art (I know, graphics does not a game make), even Rainbow 6 which came out before it has better game play what with a decent cover system and all.
Halo plays like it came from 1996 and I guess to all intents and purposes is great for people new to FPS games who have not sampled anything more refined, but for seasoned gamers imo its really a no-go.
The whole "zomg, lets give it 9/10 or 10/10 because its halo!!!1111oneoneoneelevens!" fanboy-isms of review sites really annoys me, that or the reviewers have not played any other games in the last year and a half.
I just wish bit-tech wouldn't have ridden the hype train and actually objectively broken the game down where you can get the same game play else where and realise that it's all been done before and better on many accounts.
Comments 26 to 50 of 59
Perfect Dark is crap and very poor. Golden Eye is old and had its day. Halo is the new Golden Eye.
and whats with all this freggin waiting to play a multiplayer game? they try and make the UI so intuitive - but it just gets lame and hard to play the game\type\ect you want. i just want to hit a button that lets me play a ranked game, pick the map and options and amount of players and press go. what happened to that? is that like - only the PC gets good multiplayer UI?
the thing that pisses me off the most is that ALL chatting has been screwed with. that was one of my favorite parts, talking smack to everyone. having to press the Dup pad to chat within a certain radius is just plain retarded. ok - ranked matches i can assume that people would 'cheat' and give away players locations or something? there should be an option when creating a game to enable all\distance\off\team chatting.
ugh, i dunno. IMO - lack of multiplayer maps, lack of new weapons (having ~10 weapons in a game is not enough for me), terrible UI, nuked chatting, lots of mplayer waiting, and the same game i played before makes me not like it as much as id hoped.
there are a few cool things that i like - but it is virtually the same game with some new grenades and maps.
i admit, for a console, Halo 3 looks superb. and it's probably the best an average console gamer can get. but as a die-heart PC gamer, i demand more
I have it on reasonable authority that Bungie was forced to cancel a sequel to Oni to do the first Halo. Oni, if you want something revolutionary, is or was an innovative and interesting game with lots of good new ideas. Halo, as I discovered when I played the first one, is a first-person shooter, identical in many respects to a great raft of first-person shooters which existed before and continue to be made now.
There is nothing special about Halo; there wasn't ever anything special about Halo. All Halo was ever intended to be was an easily-created, crowd-pleasing game which is minimally objectionable to all the Xbox owners of the world. Interesting, genuinely innovative games tend not to be minimally objectionable - they tend to target a fairly narrow sector of the community, which is poor business, but often makes for great games if you happen to be in that sector.
But all this moralising aside - how any serious journalist can use that sort of language to describe such a screaminly average, undifferentiated, everyday, homogenised, unexceptional game as Halo is beyond me. It's just another FPS. It's no better or worse than AvP or Unreal. What the hell is everyone hyperventilating about?
Phil
Sam
... you know, you could apply that to any game. "It's just a(n) *insert game genre here*, what's there to get hyped about?" Nearly no games are innovative within the bounds of what you're asking for. It'd be too big of a business risk to really make a good game after all.
/thus we have madden
//and mario party
///and franchises in general
:(
Noobs, all of you/ Perfect Dark wasn't my favourite game, but even I recognise it as revoloutionary. I never played Golden Eye, but from what I hear and have seen and from how I've seen and been told by developers that it has influenced their approach to their own games, I can see that it was fantastic.
Either way, Half-life is the new Perfect Dark for singleplayer. For console multiplayer, Timesplitters is the new Goldeneye for the obvious Rare/Free Radical reasons. Halo 3 is awesome for multiplayer - but Timesplitters wins out for me purely because it has monkeys.
But Halo 3 has Samurai Armour! What more do you need?
Actually, the books were written from the game technically, the game script was conceived first, then the books were written to give it a more "life" just like the Mass Effect game.
Goldeneye was revolutionary at the time (FPS on a console?) Timesplitters on PS2 was let down by the DualShock pad for me, but felt too much like a toy on XBOX. Yes it was a fun game, but didn't give me replayability.
Halo has revolutionised gaming aswel because people are talking about it. It's in newspapers, gaming is becoming mainstream getting itself a higher profile.
There are still people that say "Oh Halo is rubbish", "Why?", "Well it's FPS on a console". Have they gone into it without any prejudice? No. Will they? No.
That's the problem I have, people love to hate things, a friend of mine (D3s3rt_f0x on here) went into Halo 3 expecting a rubbish game, so what did he get when he played it on his own? A rubbish game.
You get from a game what you put in. Joe, you of all people should understand that.
I'm not rusing out to buy Halo 3, I really like the first 2 but multiplayer fps do nothing for me, mainly cause I suck at them. so I'll wait for the price to dropa bit or pick it up second hand.
I do get that, but I also recognise that sometimes quality is a seperate entity to the effort/reward of playing a game. I've played some AWFUL games and really enjoyed them (Sin Episodes). I've played some 'great games' and hated them (doom 3, quake 4). That isn't my problem with Halo at all because I enjoy it fine and I recognise it as being a good game seperate to my enjoyment. My issue is that it isn't substantially different to Halo 2 or Halo 1.
I know, I know - if it ain't broke, but I just have issue with that from a developer like Bungie who have worked on some truly inventive, great games that I have really enjoyed. It feels like they've sold out and are settling for rehashing the rehashed in order to get mainstream appeal, which results in the cultural phenomenon of Halo 3 and gets them accolade but which isn't really a showcase of what they can do.
Halo 3 is a great game, an awesome game.
But it isn't a perfect game or even a clever game which brings a lot of new to the table.
The first sentence there gets it a score of 9/10. The second sentence knocks it down a point.
Evolution, not revolution dammit.
Oh, and don't get me started on the whole goldeneye thing. You have no idea how badly they took the piss out of me for that at Free Radical Design. I know all about Goldeneye, in and out, but it just somehow passed me by when it came out and I haven't ever been persuaded to pick up an N64 since then, mainly because a lot of what I want to play on that system was re-released.
I'll eagerly play it at the first chance though.
I've done that too. In fact I just (about) finished playing Two Worlds on the 360 which is a completely bug ridden (with glitches which should never have made it in the retail version), oblivion-lite wannabe with questionable enemy AI... but I enjoyed it, even though I know it is a bad game (I borrowed it from a mate who is about to trade it in for Halo).
I borrowed Goldeneye from a friend when it came out and I just didn't get on with it at all.
I thought so, but it wasn't technically anythign compared to the competition.
The graphics are something that needed to be there...I mean you didn't buy a 360 to play a game that was only halfway better in terms of graphics/realism than the previous Xbox did you?....don't get me wrong, the graphics/physics are better than Halo 2 in campaign mode (mainly in texturing and certain lighting)...but it's not as good as I had expected....and I still noticed lagging in certain situations where there shouldn't have been....
Besides that, the gameplay still plays just as smooth as I had hoped and the cut-scenes are brilliantly rendered, but the lip-syncing is very off and it makes me appreciate just what Heavenly Sword offers in that arena....I have yet to beat the game, but with 6 hours into the campaign the experience has been good, and I can't wait until the ending just to see how they leave it off.....
There classic games, they don't get outdated. Shame so many people jumped on the hype ride to Halo 3. So many people are saying its crud, or just okay! Not what was expected, perfect dark and goldeneye for filled what was promised and more! END OF!
True enough that it was nothing amazing or particularly special, but I really have to chime in and say that I don't think it deserved at all to be called awfull, there have been far, far, far worse games out there, many of them attempting to swindle there way into peoples collections with no more content and at much higher prices ;)
I thought I was the only one that felt this way!
As I was arguing the point with someone yesterday, there are games with better story's, better game play, and the same, if not better, multiplayer already out there.
It's been all done before and Halo3 brings nothing really new to the gaming arena, and some have even done it with better graphics/art (I know, graphics does not a game make), even Rainbow 6 which came out before it has better game play what with a decent cover system and all.
Halo plays like it came from 1996 and I guess to all intents and purposes is great for people new to FPS games who have not sampled anything more refined, but for seasoned gamers imo its really a no-go.
The whole "zomg, lets give it 9/10 or 10/10 because its halo!!!1111oneoneoneelevens!" fanboy-isms of review sites really annoys me, that or the reviewers have not played any other games in the last year and a half.
I just wish bit-tech wouldn't have ridden the hype train and actually objectively broken the game down where you can get the same game play else where and realise that it's all been done before and better on many accounts.