×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Impressions of Halo 3

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the hail-to-the-chief dept.

83

1up and EGM have had some time in the last month with the next iteration of Microsoft's Halo series. Several folks at the site have put up their impressions of the current build of the game, including some multiplayer feelings from EGM editor-in-chief Dan Hsu, a bunch of nice crunchy details from Mark Macdonald, a nostalgia-laiden look at the game from Luke Smith, and a potpourri of details from Crispin Boyer. From Luke's writeup: "Maybe it was the first shooter I played that had some substance? Maybe it was that my best friend bought me a copy of the game for my birthday and I didn't even have the console yet. Maybe it was all of the traveling to play in Halo tournaments on weekends in college, but somewhere between Halo: Combat Evolved's release and now, Halo became my Mario. It is the game that made me care about video games like I did when I was 10."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

83 comments

Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (1, Flamebait)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16742535)

Sounds like the entirety of the Halo series to me. Not that interesting. I'd rather go for something with some substance, like Half-Life 2.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (-1, Troll)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16742779)

Half-Life 2 had substance? I found that to be the worst FPS (single-player wise) that I've ever played. All it was was finding various scientists, then assaulting a tower. Oh, and a level to play around with the Gravity gun. The ending was even worse than Halo 2's ending, and that's saying a lot.

I'm really not sure where you see all this substance, for in the three times I've played thru it, I don't see it.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16743479)

Agreed.

(oh yeah, saying that word makes me sound so important)

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (3, Insightful)

Carbon Copied (909743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743821)

You obviously havnt played Half Life 2 or if you have seem to be confusing it with something else.

Finding various scientists and assauling a tower?

The game spans roughly 14 chapters, ranging from fighting in a zombie invested rebel township to running through giant insect infected beaches.
In no part of the game do you have to find 'various scientists'. I believe what you may be refering to is the section of the game where you have to drive through City 17's sewers and water ways in order to meet Eli Vance after a failed teleportation. You could make the argument that this section is an unneccesary, and a waste of time, or that it is a interesting section of gameplay that helps immerse the player in the artistic universe of the game. Either way, that section is only an hour tops if you are exceptionally slow, and so refering to this as "all it was" is just misleading.

How can you say "I found that to be the worst FPS (single-player wise)"? Half Life 2 was one of the most critically acclaimed single player games of all time (for the PC), if you take the time to read www.metacritic.com you will find little to no mention of the multiplayer aspect.

As for only a level to play around with the gravity gun. A) you have the gravity gun for about half the game. B) The game is not split into levels put chapters, i can only assume you are talking about the brief 5 minute section you first get the gravity gun. If all you could find from 15+ hours of gaming was "finding various scientists, then assaulting a tower. Oh, and a level to play around with the Gravity gun" then i suggest you need to replay the game in order to make a better assesment.

What you are saying is baseless waffle, however, the post you are replying to that was labelled "trolling" has some grounding in fact, namely, based from current previews Halo 3 looks extremely similar to the previous games with a few new weapons and 1 new vehicle. The argument that we should withheld judgement as this is in the early stages is irrelevent and senseless, as if people were saying "It looks AWESOME!" no one would be saying wait till the finished product comes out. That is the point of a preview, you comment on the available information.

Half Life 2 may have some flaws, but if you are going to criticize it at least make it relevant to the game, not just spray whatever you can remember from screenshots.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16745899)

Yep, HL2 sucked.

I bought it after hearing all the good reviews and people raving about it, and found it to be the worst game I've ever bought. It sucked that much (and I bought Constantine and Van Helsing for the XBox, so that tells you how bad I found Half-Life 2 to be ;).

I see however, the Half-Life fanbois and the PC gamers are out in force with modpoints... I don't understand why they hate Halo that much. They seem oddly obsessed with trying to "prove" just how great HL2 and PC games are, even when the thread is about an XBox game...

Nothing to see? How about a hot, hot pussy? (3, Funny)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743129)

At least that'll be the case if you buy the super-dooper collector's edition of Halo 3. Granted, the internet isn't a 100% reliable source of information but apparetly the replica helmet you get with this edition will be cat-sized. So presumably we can look forward to Halo 3 hitting the news with reports of cat owners having to take their sweltering animals to the vets after cramming the helmets onto their moggy heads and being unable to get them off again.

Re:Nothing to see? How about a hot, hot pussy? (1)

spezz (150943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745681)

apparently the replica helmet you get with this edition will be cat-sized.

w3rd [kotaku.com]

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (1)

AP2k (991160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743211)

Trolling? I can think of at least a dozen games with more substance than Halo.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745147)

Agreed completely, sounds like the Halo fanboys have the modpoints today.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743733)

How'd this get marked troll? This is dead on my opinion. Half Life 2 was pure brilliance. Beautiful, great story and depth. Halo is severely overrated. It's this generations Goldeneye, which was also overrated. Call me sometime next year when there's a good shooter on the Wii, the only viable console to play a shooter on.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744291)

Goldeneye wasn't that overrated, and you could do some much more fun things in multiplayer with it. Hell, the levels were more original and varied than Halo's, and they were patterned after a frigging movie. Then you had Halo. I used the pistol whip, the sniper gun, and the pistol itself. That was it for multi. The other guns were just crap. Meanwhile most of hte guns except for the AK clone weree fun to dick around with. Not to mention explosive mine goodness.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16747605)

Halo and Half Life are both good games you goddamn zealots. Stop acting like it's an either/or and embrace the synergy that is both/and!

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (1)

@madeus (24818) | more than 7 years ago | (#16750385)

Call me sometime next year when there's a good shooter on the Wii, the only viable console to play a shooter on.

Millions of of people that do play first person shooters may disagree with you. It's all about the control mechanism and game mechanics, as long as you build them with the target platform in mind, it's perfectly viable.

Compare, GRAW on the 360 vrs GRAW for Windows. Despite the PC version having more interactive environments and allowing for more fine grained controller of your squad members it's not nearly as much fun to play as the 360, which has a different control system and mechanics specifically geared for the platform (much like has been done for Gears of War).

I agree that Goldeneye was vastly overrated (I wasn't a big fan of it's control mechanism), and Halo was a little too (though it's got it's the best control mechanism and mechanics of any console FPS I'd played prior to GRAW) but so was Half Life 2. Personally I didn't enjoy Half Life 2 nearly as much as the origional.

Throughout most of the game I felt the visbily elderly graphics engine compared poorly to other games like ones using the Unreal engine or in the BF series (let alone something like PlanetSide) as the outdoor maps ended up feeling cramped and artificial. I also felt the game left much less room for tactical gameplay than was present in the origional.

This is because so much that happend in HL2 was heavily scripted meaning you couldn't really 'attack objectives as you want to' but rather you were placed in situations where very specific things happened when you triggered them (doors closing behind you, gangways falling down blocking your path), forcing the same tactics on everyone.

I'd much rather have an open map (like a large BF2 map - which are very detailed) where it's more of a sandbox, but where I'm guided to objectives and targets. Scripted events and triggers are good things, but people generally don't prefer "on rails" gameplay.

I would note that the best levels in the origional Halo were the ones where you had an outdoor enviornment that you could tackle in a number of ways, achieving objectives in any order (and conversely the worst were the levels in The Library (IIRC) where you are walking down a narrow corridor having enemies thrown at you for about 30 minutes or more).

I felt the same was true of Halo 2 - you can complete the tunnel section in under 5 minutes if you go back to get a Warthog and then put you foot down and race all the way to the other side (great fun too, with all the jumps, obstacles and enemy fire to dodge), or you can get in the abandoned Ghost that is left waiting for you by the entrance and spend a good 45 minutes slogging it out killing everything between you and the exit. Of course Halo 2, while interesting in some of the story being told - much more of a story than was present in HL2 I would note - was not so dynamic.

Multiple ways to meet an objective (while not really something GRAW had that much of, and was admittedly fun never the less) is definately something I think more games should aim to allow for.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along. (1)

animejoe (900182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16748681)

Sounds like the entirety of the Halo series to me. Not that interesting. I'd rather go for something with some substance, like Half-Life 2.
Yes, by all means, let's get the obligatory "This game pwnz that game!" stuff out of the way. Move along indeed.

WTF? (2, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#16742639)

"Maybe it was the first shooter I played that had some substance"

Some how the above quote makes me think he's a fanboy and not someone we should be listening to. FPS games have substance before halo and if anything lost a lot of it's substance in the Halo generation.

Re:WTF? (3, Funny)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 7 years ago | (#16742757)

FPS games have substance before halo

Exactly. I think the first one was called "Marathon". Shame those guys aren't making games anymore.

Re:WTF? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743065)

I assume that you liked the Star Wars prequels just as much as the originals?
(of course, this is coming from a person who liked the sequels to the Matrix--I'm just showing an example that will convince the majority of /.ers that past performance != present performance. Oh, and Han never really shot first even when he shot first. Mal Reynolds really shot first.)

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16761583)

I assume that you liked the Star Wars prequels just as much as the originals?

I'm confused. Are you implying that Marathon is not as good as Halo (Marathon being the "Prequel" to Halo), or that Halo is not as good as Marathon (Halo being made years later). Certainly Marathon's Doom style 2-D graphics weren't in the same league as Halo, but the storyline was much better. (So was the fan made heavy metal Marathon song in Marathon II :)

Well no, it is more like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16757677)

Shame those guys are now making "My Baby's First FPS" games.

Oh well, I wish Microsoft luck in releasing an incompleat game & in microtransactioning the hell out of Halo 3.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16742839)

Agreed, Halo is for kids who missed doom/quake.

Missed It's a Wonderful Life? Go watch Adam Sandler's Click.

Re:WTF? (2, Insightful)

J. T. MacLeod (111094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743035)

How many FPS games with substance have most gamers, or even reviewers, played? Doom? Quake? Both revolutionary, but mostly devoid of substance.

Oh, there was--wait, no.

Bottom line is that there just haven't been many. It's entirely possible that Halo was the first substance-filled FPS he played.

Re:WTF? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743099)

Half-Life? Seemed to me that Half-Life(and its sequel but that came after the original Halo) has more substance than Halo.

Re:WTF? (1)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743297)

The first one had me from the beginning, but I got totally lost in the story in HL2. I never did fully understand what was going on or what I had missed since HL1. Recently, I went back and found a site [members.shaw.ca] that described the timeline of events and pulled all the pieces together. I'm gonna go back and replay both HL1 and HL2 now that I understand what's going on; I want to re-experience it. For me, HL2 didn't fill in the blanks in the storyline. I do like it, though, now that I understand.

I do like Halo; both "episodes" did a good job (to me) with the storyline; I didn't feel like I was left out like I was in HL2.

YMMV

Re:WTF? (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16752813)

Marathon pre-dates Half-Life and has just as much substance and depth. Compared to what else was out in that time frame (Doom) it was pretty damn revolutionary.

Does Halo have the same depth as Marathon? No. But it has a cohesive story that isn't horribly cliche, and there is enough background developed to keep everything anchored. Plus, Bungie is really good at subtly, and they cram a lot of plot hints and details that many players completely overlook. (The same could be said for Half Life)

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16743475)

Pathways into Darkness. Marathon. Deus Ex. That's just off the top of my head.

Halo wasn't even substance-filled--there was a thin shell of story there.

Re:WTF? (1)

PriceIke (751512) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743599)

Never played Pathways, but the Marathon storyline [bungie.org] was riveting. I was playing through levels not so much because all the fragging was fun, but because I really wanted to know what was next in store, what was going to happen next. That entire series of games was some of the best I've ever played in my life.

Re:WTF? (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743615)

How many FPS games with substance have most gamers, or even reviewers, played? Doom? Quake? Both revolutionary, but mostly devoid of substance.

Half-Life, System Shock, Deus Ex and Thief come to mind.

The problem with Halo is that the level design is ridiculously repetitive, and that really kills the game. After playing the aforementioned games, Halo seemed really lame.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16743765)

Thief isn't really an FPS, unless you consider FPS to stand for First Person Shooter/Sneaker.

However, it does have more substance than Halo.

Re:WTF? (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746507)

Thief is a little borderline, yes. Not because it's a sneaking game, but because there are no firearms.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16746921)

So would you say that, say, Hexen isn't an FPS? No firearms in that either...

Re:WTF? (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16749861)

Thief is a little borderline, yes. Not because it's a sneaking game, but because there are no firearms.

What do firearms have to do with it? You spend half your time in Thief shooting various kinds of things with various kinds of arrow. I'd say a first person game where you spend a lot of time shooting could fairly be described as a first-person shooter.

Besides, if a fire arrow isn't a firearm, I'd like to know what is. :P

Indeed (1)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743119)

Interestingly I can remember thinking the exact opposite when I first sat down and played Halo - "where's the depth to this?" The actual combat seemed relatively repetitive and the at-times impressive graphics didn't seem to have much effect on the gameplay.

This guy needs to get a Ninty and play some Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, then perhaps an old PC and really get into some serious Half Life, Unreal Tournament, BF1942 and Quake II action if he wants to legitmately use the word 'substance.'

Re:Indeed (2, Insightful)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743723)

You know, I liked Golden eye and PD as much as the next guy. For gods sake though, why can't we move on. Golden Eye was good, but it is not the ultimate FPS, I enjoyed jet force gemini way more than Golden eye, for both single and MP, limited as it was.

Halo was fun, it was fluid and it was a good time at a party. The story was good for an FPS and it has a fairly well thought out plot. It Did have substance, so does HL, SS, SS2,Deus Ex, so do enumerable games in the genre. Why the hell do we have to act like a bunch of music snobs who sit around discussing what music/band/sound/bs is better instead of just going out and enjoying every bit of it that we like, why do we have to shove our opinions about what game is the "ultimate" experience.

Hell why an old PC? all of those run fine on my current one?

Re:Indeed (1)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745945)

Why the hell do we have to act like a bunch of music snobs who sit around discussing what music/band/sound/bs is better instead of just going out and enjoying every bit of it that we like, why do we have to shove our opinions about what game is the "ultimate" experience.

Um.... because the guy in TFA was the one who said that Halo was the first FPS he's played with 'substance', and this is a place to discuss the content and merits of the article? And because personally, I strongly dislike the whole 'consoles will replace PCs' movement, of which Halo fanboyism is one of the most significant afflictions, and so it's worth making the point that Halo isn't a patch on many great PC shooters.

As for Goldeneye, you're talking about my religious beliefs there. I have never enjoyed multiplayer gaming more than 4 player license to kill deathmatches, and that includes plenty of moderately hardcore Quake III and CS:Source playing.

And I'm sorry, if you think the depth of Halo is in the same league as Deus Ex or Half Life then you're just plain crazy. Remember, he said 'substance', not 'fun' or whatever other adjectives you want to toss in there.

Re:Indeed (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746695)

Very few games can ever hope to reach the same level as Deus Ex.

Eventually the console and "PC" will be dead, we will have moved onto another computing paradigm. I am an avid PC gamer, I enjoy mapping in Source and I used to like mapping in goldsrc. I hate CS with a burning passion. After 2 good years of playing it I got sick of it, it lost all its fun. Still fun for a quick lan match, but i think people should just move on.

I used to run a q3 or q2 dedicated server at my HS. We didn't do work in the lab, we played q3 or Q2, I was hated for my rail gun prowess in both.

The average 14 yearold has no clue in hell where technology is going to go. That is the average halo fanboy idiot. Hell the average console gamer doesn't either. They talk a lot but its not going to happen. I also don't see how liking halo makes you think PC gameing will die.

Re:Indeed (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16752477)

...but i think people should just move on.

If you were talking about NetHack, you'd probably get lynched around here.

Re:Indeed (1)

Reapy (688651) | more than 7 years ago | (#16752599)

Halo = Golden Eye for a younger generation.

Consol fps games are a different experience due to being a LAN in the box for 4+ players, as was said above. Internet gaming is cool, but I didn't know the goodness of LAN play until I went to college and blew someone's head off in unreal, only to hear "FUCK" shouted down the hall. What great feedback that was.

I hated bond at first, controls sucked, graphics sucked, the little tiny box in the corner of my scren sucked. But I kept at it, and by the end of the year 007 matches happened all the time, and I have great memories of it.

Halo is the same thing, one of the best consol FPS's out there. A lot of people are new to gaming, and halo is their first taste of it, and in turn, it has become their religion.

So, let them have their memories. We are the lucky ones, we got to watch the gaming explosion that happened through the late 90's first hand. Back then I was on new genera overload. Not so much anymore. Don't ruin the book of halo for people! :)

Not always... (1)

Criterion (51515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16771581)

And then there are those of us who *were* into pc gaming when FPS were just beginning to walk and witnessed Id's rise to glory in the age of Wolf 3d, and have still come to see the light that is Halo. Went through Doom, Quake, DN3d, Golden Eye etc.. etc.. then became totally bored with more of the same over the years. Halo re-awakened my love for the game, with it's overall appeal, the combination of story, music (yes to me that is a very important part.. and the music in Halo is second to NONE) and the sheer fun of it's gameplay has me begging for more. I must say that I am happy that it is on console, as I have come to find that the couch and a bigscreen with friends is a much more comfortable gaming environment than the solitary one of my pc work area.

Re:WTF? (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743125)

It may not be a popular opinion, but Halo was pretty crappy as far as single player games go ... Where Halo was a very good game (and worthy of its hype) was in a 16 player lan game. Certainly PC gamers had large lan-parties for years before Halo was released, but a lan party that size was quite difficult to set up and there were (always) tons of technical problems. To get a Halo lan game to work you just needed 4 people with a reasonable sized TV (hopefully over 27 inches), and 4 consoles (either owned or rented) a router and some cables. Personally, I think any game would be fun like that, but Halo was the first game to make it that easy.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16744913)

I read a review of Mario Party 7 once where the reviewer basically said, "It's fun to play if you're hanging out with friends, but Nintendo doesn't make it fun to hang out with your friends." I agreed then and it applies here. Halo sucks.

Re:WTF? (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16749893)

Where Halo was a very good game (and worthy of its hype) was in a 16 player lan game. Certainly PC gamers had large lan-parties for years before Halo was released, but a lan party that size was quite difficult to set up and there were (always) tons of technical problems. To get a Halo lan game to work you just needed 4 people with a reasonable sized TV (hopefully over 27 inches), and 4 consoles (either owned or rented) a router and some cables.
Um, it sounds like you're describing how to make a four-player Halo lan game work, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the difficulty of setting up a 16-player PC lan part. All you need for a four-player PC lan game is, uh, four PCs, a router, and some cables.

How easy was it to set up a 16-player Halo lan game? I'm guessing you need at least 4 large TVs, for a start.

Re:WTF? (1)

Criterion (51515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772139)

It is just as easy as setting up as was described, 4 tv's, 4 xboxes, some cat5, and the amount of controlers equal to the amount of available warm bodies up to a total of 16. More warm bodies optional to be hot-swapped as required.

This is surely easier than finding space in your abode to stick 16 pc's.

Or maybe.... (1)

hudsonhawk (148194) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743225)

Or maybe when he said "...it was the first shooter I played that had some substance" he meant that it was the first shooter he had played that had some substance.

I don't see anywhere where he indicates that it was the first shooter EVER with some substance.

Re:Or maybe.... (1)

AP2k (991160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743275)

Can we post every other person's first impressions to playing Doom, Quake, Halo, et al then?

Re:WTF? (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745069)

I listen to the 1up netcast every week.
Luke is a hard hitting whiner, I actually like it - he bitches on microtransactions and generally tries to get to the bottom of things.

That being said, one thing I can't agree with is his love for Halo, he's most definately a Halo fanboy.
As far as I'm concerned the game was ok, but is likely one of the most over-rated games of all time.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16745729)

He didn't say it was the first FPS to have substance. He said it was the first that *HE PLAYED*.

Re:WTF? (2, Insightful)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746537)

It probably just means that he only plays FPS on console.

But yeah, he is probably just a total fanboy. They seem to go hand in hand. If Halo is the first FPS/Deathmatch game you've ever played, you seem to come away thinking it's the best thing since sliced bread and you refuse to listen to any opposing opinion. Even when it's been done better many times prior and many times since, and even on it's own merits the game is very poor, especially single player. And it's not that hard to get MP right, and co-op makes any game fun.

Re:WTF? (1)

Inoshiro (71693) | more than 7 years ago | (#16748759)

"It probably just means that he only plays FPS on console. "

See also: all those people who thought Golden Eye was a good game!

It's the Septmeber that never ended for video games. Thanks, Microsoft and Sony.

Re:WTF? (2, Insightful)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 7 years ago | (#16750275)

while you're probably right, I must say that as a person who has played nearly every first person shooter since ken's labyrinth (not including the crappy PSX/PS2/xbox bond games) I did enjoy goldeneye, halo, and halo 2. I think the real fanboyism in this discussion is the "PC is better than console mentality". Is it really that hard for people to accept that some people like games that they didn't like or vice versa?

Re:WTF? (1)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16754189)

My FPS playing goes back to Wolf3d, and has made Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Half Life, Thief, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, CounterStrike, Descent, Aliens vs. Predator, and who-knows-what other stops, at various version numbers, along the way. If you toss in console FPS, you can start counting Turok, Goldeneye, that Aliens game for the Jaguar, Perfect Dark, TimeSplitters, Metroid: Prime, and maybe a couple more I'm forgetting. Hopefully, this qualifies me to comment on FPS games.

I like Halo.

I had more fun with Halo than I'd had since my first time through HL, or the last time I'd played Quake co-op in dorm room with my roommate. I certainly had more fun with the Halo main story than I did with the Goldeneye main story, though I like Goldeneye's multiplayer more.

Halo 2, not as much, but still a game I enjoy.

I apologize, though, if I'm breaking your compartmentalization/judgement scheme.

Re:WTF? (1)

Criterion (51515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16772439)

"I apologize, though, if I'm breaking your compartmentalization/judgement scheme."

That's cool though, you fit right here in the compartment with me :D. We can wait for Halo 3 together. Old skoolers moving into the future, waiting on our new game.

Thanks for reminding me about Descent.. man, the times we used to stay at work till 10 at night playing that.. it's the game that showed me how much fun lan gaming is. I still have my 3d orb buried in a box somewhere, along with all my old thrustmaster joysticks and throttles for Mech Warrior and flight sims.

But will there be split screen? (1)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16742949)

Because it seems few 360 games have split-screen options. Given how heavily Microsoft are pushing Live, it wouldn't surprise me if Halo 3 only offered co-op and MP via Live.

Head Like a Hole (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16742971)

Why did Bungie have to copy the names of Nine Inch Nails records? Halo 3 is the Head Like a Hole maxi-single [wikipedia.org].

Re:Head Like a Hole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16743317)

Yeah, and like Reznor said: I'd rather die than give YOU(MS) control.

Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16743247)

Back when Halo was released there were still a large number of people who were still impressed with that 'shiny metal' effect. It was synonymous with system power. For many of my pc developer friends 'bumpy/shiny' metal was the Holy Grail of graphic effects. It was almost all they worked on or were impressed with.

Fast forward to late 2007 and Halo is going to be facing probably some twenty, or more, other 'guys in bulky shiny armor' games already on the market to have to compete with. And the 360 hardware isn't getting any better/faster, so Halo 3 will face the same problems current 360 games face - the EDRAM problem. Either deal with the jaggies that 720p and no tiling give you or bite the bullet and write a performance draining tile renderer to fit into the too small 10megs of EDRAM to allow 4xAA.

As anyone who has seen the real, not the silly touched up/high rez marketing, shots of gears of war, the gap between the perceived and real graphic power of the 360 is huge. And the Halo team has recently come out and stated that they are not going to be able to match Gears of War due to the larger scale of the Halo environments.

High rez renderings and highly touched up marketing shots will most likely keep the core Halo audience on board till next year, but any hope of Halo 3 being some savior that will attract significant new console fans to the 360 is certainly false hope.

Re:Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (3, Insightful)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743409)

How is halo the 360 "Savior?" The system is doing okay, it has decent line up for when the PS3 hits, It is going to do better than last time.

Re:Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744383)

This is a bit like saying that shooting your little toe off is a better thing to do than shooting your dick off.

Re:Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744709)

When you have the resources to win a war of attrition, and your enemy doesn't, sometimes it is your best option to defeat them.

Re:Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (1)

Stealth Potato (619366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744387)

And the Halo team has recently come out and stated that they are not going to be able to match Gears of War due to the larger scale of the Halo environments.

Good! I'd rather have immersive huge-scale environments that merely look good rather than small environments that sacrifice gameplay potential to add a little extra smoothness to the zillion+ triangles already being pushed out by the GPU.

Re:Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (2, Insightful)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 7 years ago | (#16747771)

Small and tight vs. large and open. I don't really see why you're making this comparison. What gameplay is Gears of War sacrificing? Are they not laying out a map and then adjusting the detail to suit as always? If some comparison has to be made between the companies, I think Halo 3 vs. UT2007 would make more sense since that's sure to have some larger open environments for Onslaught and such. Gears is tight by design, not because it's encumbered by flashy graphics. The company can, and does, approach both kinds of gameplay. Gears has dynamic loading so just because what's onscreen won't be huge open fields, but (imho) satisfying mid-sized 'arenas', it doesn't mean the maps are small overall (and therefore not immersive?).

That said, I fully expect Halo 3 to take Halo 2 to the next level and give us all more Halo goodness. I expect to see both of these blockbuster titles to be very good at what they do.

Re:Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (1)

Stealth Potato (619366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16750083)

Well, I was replying mostly to the AC's apparent claim that sacrificing some graphical performance for larger environments was a bad thing. The way he phrased it sounded like he was saying that the graphics were the only important consideration.

Re:Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#16745181)

Interesting post, I recall hearing something similar about the EDRAM myself somewhere.

I can't do the math, perhaps someone else can but what is 1280x720 in memory size? for the EDRAM to be able to re-sample it?
If I recall 1280x720 is ever so slightly over (12mb or something) so they can't AA the scene in a single pass, kind of making it pointless :(

That being said, they could always pull the cheap PGR3 trick and simply render at a lower resolution then use the TV chip to upsample it >:(

Re:Microsoft Is In Trouble With Halo As 360 Savior (1)

cinexero (983612) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746045)

24 bits per pixel (usually)

yields

1280x720x24 bits = 21.01 Mb = 2.64 MB

I have to agree. Halo does have more substance... (3, Insightful)

JL-b8 (862188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16743361)

Than most console FPSs. For starters I was only into computer gaming until I got a playstation, then I had a fall out of gaming altogether. I bought PS2 at launch, bought GTA3 and all that, but it just never stuck with me. Then I got a taste of Halo at a friends and it was over from there. It turned into my new mario or zelda. Halo 3 is the one true game that I'm looking forward to and I think whatever bungie does following halo will be at the same caliber and possibly better.

Re:I have to agree. Halo does have more substance. (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746353)

Is it any wonder us "hardcore" long-time gamers just groan when people talk about Halo? The parent post is the perfect example..

Fucking Halo...

Re:I have to agree. Halo does have more substance. (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16753279)

I've been playing FPS's since Wolf3d. I hope that classifies me as a 'Hardcore' long-time player. In my expert, experienced opinion: Halo is the second console FPS to be worth playing. (The first being Goldeneye) Is it the greatest FPS ever? No. Is it a steaming pile of dogshit? No. It's a good game, and worth playing. I don't understand why people feel the need to be so extreme about these things. It's just a game, so get off your soapbox and chill.

Re:I have to agree. Halo does have more substance. (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16765839)

Well first of all, I forgot my tag, ie. I meant it mostly tongue-in-cheek.

But Halo was not the second worthwhile console FPS, IMO. Red Faction was reasonable, and Half-Life for the PS2 was a better game than Halo(not including MP). And there were some other really fun FPSes on the N64 too. Halo was certainly the best multiplyer console FPS of it's time. I played a decent amount of Halo. I was, in fact, a fan. I was eager to play Halo 2.

But then Halo 2 sucked =P

I was very disappointed by Halo 2. To me, the shields-only health system seriously screwed up the gameplay. The multiplayer maps weren't much better than the first game. And the single player campaign was boring and annoying. Maybe there was just too much competition by then. Killzone for the PS2, as so-so as I found it to be, was far more entertaining than Halo 2 for me.

But, I'll have you know, Steve Ballmer is on the record saying that Halo is THE BEST GAME EVER MADE!

First with substance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16743575)

Quake 2.

And yes, I remember Wolf3d and Doom. And Quake 1 even.

I just hope.. (1)

wrackedmind (902061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744267)

That the game is not delayed impossibly long like 2, that tons of features I was looking forward to are not removed like 2, and that the game looks at least as good as 2 was supposed to look. Even as different as it was from the hype, Halo 2 still rocked, and I would bet that Halo 3 will as well.

Re:I just hope.. (1)

Tarison (600538) | more than 7 years ago | (#16744377)

I hate to break it to you, but the odds are you'll only get two of your wishes. Choose carefully.

IMHO, Halo brought PC game tech to the console (1)

newgalactic (840363) | more than 7 years ago | (#16746401)

I've been playing games since Atari, Coleco, and NES. My brother had a 3do, and I mostly skipped over later Nintendo and Sony PS for PC Games. Halo MADE me get an XBOX because it was one of the first console games that captured the freedom/substance of PC FPS. Halo 3 is probably the only game I'm looking forward to in this latest generation because of it's history. Other games/consoles are good, but Halo CE was very groundbreaking for the console gaming industry. While there are of course better games today, Halo CE did bring something to the console market that wasn't there before. Compairing it to modern day equivilents is unfair. ...MHO

No "insert game here"? (2, Insightful)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#16754519)

Halo is the best he could come up with?

No: Medal of Honor series (started the whole WW2 game being popular), FEAR, SOCOM, Ghost Recon series (cept for #2), Splinter Cell series, Max Payne(s), Half-life, countless others, etc???
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...