halo3 video reviews

[Cody]

 

edit..

adding video review from ign

 

 

 

I thought that if its a video you non-xbox owners might wanna watch it, its painless.. so do it http://www.fnfclan.com/uploads/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png

[Cody]

the review from ign isnt working right now..

[Digits]

who here has 360's.. ? Maybe a little FNF Halo night in the future?

[Blue]

Apparently a lil gaming place in South edmonton is selling it, gonna go try to pick it up early today. They've been selling it since Friday though so not sure if they'll have any in stock.

 

I've got a 360, need to get it hooked up to the net again though, moved it far away from any where I can plug it in, so its offline right now. I'm curious how that 4 player co-op would go, would be fun if you had enough people online.

[Nova]

Yea my bro is gettin his 360 back so i cant wait to try it out looks and sounds good, i enjoyed both games rly.

[Joker]

You know what really pisses me off?

 

IGN gives Halo 3 a 9.5 after talking about all of these shortcomings.. it dedicates a whole day to Halo on it's website.. it freaking looked like the main site for Halo.. every article was about Halo 3 and the series and this and that..

 

How is it a quality game when he talks about the shafted 2nd to last level that (Everyone's going to hate) in it's no more than 6 hour campaign.. the fact the arbiter's story was shanked in the jail cells..

 

Honestly, a 9.5 for what? Multiplayer that already existed? Innovation? Something new? Sure, game-modes..

 

The editor is awesome.. no denying that.. But, honestly.. IGN feels like a cop-out.. 17 minute review for a 5 hour game in which we already know what the MP is going to play like?

 

Let's compare with the 9.7 of Bioshock that got a 7 minute review and we hardly see any of the 'length' of the game at all. There's supposedly a lot of Plasmid's with tons and tons of combinations and they highlight.. hmm.. 3? Sure, it's not a walkthrough.. but the mere fact that Halo 3 consumes so much .. gets a great score when it's mediocre at best.. I mean, it's halo.. you could come up and say it's the best series of all time.. which hell, it may be. But, does that mean that the first game should get a 10.. the second game should get a 10.. and when the last game comes out, that changes relatively 'nothing' of it's superiority, it should get a 10? Again, innovation.. something new.. is ripping off a turret 9.5 worthy? We saw that in Lost Planet.. (yes, I'm throwing that down)..

 

They include the editor.. which might be a first for a console game.. but again, is that new? PC games have been doing that for years. Ha, they even have a "Zombie Mod" now.. Which, I'm not going to bash and say that's shit.. but it's been done.. The Halo series always had an awesome SP campaign and dominated on MP.. but what's the deal, now? They shaft the Single-player.. probably have a 'great' ending (for all 5 hours of what it's worth).. and it's mostly MP (again)..

 

Okay, I'll stop =P

[Crilix]

Amen to that Joker. I keep on seeing reviews saying that it's good, but the graphics aren't as high quality as other games (ie GoW), the length is short, and generally it's more of the same Halo-proven formula. And they give the game a 10/10. How does that work? I thought a 10/10 should be a perfect game, one that excels at pushing the envelope and innovation. It seems to me they're just slapping 100% on the review so that there isn't any fanboi backlash.

 

Y'know what else ticks me off? When HL2 was released it didn't get any perfect scores because it "didn't have multiplayer" (which came a month later anyways...) and "was too short". How the hell does that work when Bioshock, with no multiplayer and even SHORTER single player campaign, aces almost every review? Jeez, reviewers can be so inconsistent.

-Cril

[VaderOnIce]

I agree. Halo 3 is as good as Halo 2. But I think it does the FPS thing very well and on that alone, and on the fact that it supposedly ends the story, I don't see why it shouldn't get a good rating. We shouldn't knock them because they've made 2 very good games and the 3rd one is a lot like the first 2.

 

I think Bungie believes in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I think that's good, to a certain extent. The game looks gorgeous. I'm happy with it so far as a single player experience but it shouldn't be getting 10's. It should be getting 9's at most. It does what it does very well. I understand some people are unhappy with parts of the story, but I think more than anything, it shows how emotionally invested people are in the story and characters and to me, that's a point FOR Bungie, not against Bungie.

 

Is it better than Bioshock? Hell no. Bioshock just... creates a whole new world. But if Bioshock 2 came out and it was in the same setting and you did pretty much the same stuff except maybe you got to play as one of the wacky zombie people, and it still had great gameplay, you'd be less likely to give it all the praise the original bioshock got.

 

Poor Bungie, failing because of their success.

[Joker]

It's not failing because of their success.. It's because Halo released damn near 6 years ago to the date and we've seen little as far as progress to change things on the scale the first game did.

 

I could see where you think if it's not broken don't fix it.. but, personally, I don't think they know how to change it. Yes, Halo made a hell of a game.. but if you look at what halo was -going- to be.. You might think they got lucky they even made Halo to make "Bungie" a household name.

 

Now, I'm not entirely saying Bungie sucks at what they do.. or they don't know what they're doing.. I'm griping about the hype "Halo" itself receives from the masses when as I and Crilix pointed out.. It's just the same game.. and in fact.. Halo 3 has more flaws than Halo 2 story-wise. The graphics aren't revolutionary despite going to the Xbox 360 from the Original Xbox.. and as I pointed out earlier.. most everything you can do in this Halo.. has been done with other games. (Zombie Mod, Pulling off the turret, coming with the editor)

 

You see, it's not about what they did wrong or didn't do wrong.. it's that those are the selling points when the game should have already included that whole bundle ages ago. Halo 2 could have had the game modes that Halo 3 has.. -if- Bungie put the editor with it.

 

All in all, if the game reviewers rated the game on the actual "Game" the CORE game.. not the Editor.. not the modes.. but the Core game.. I'm seriously thinking it would be about a 7.7 - 8. Yes, it looks great.. yes, it does things -the same-.. But, if every game "Wasn't broke and they didn't fix it" we would be playing a whole shit-ton of atari games or PONG for that matter. Innovation is Key in the gaming world.

[VaderOnIce]

I agree that the game hasn't changed a lot. I don't even think that new "use item" shit counts as something new. I really think those items are geared more for MP than the "CORE" game. Innovation, though, I gotta argue is NOT key in the gaming world.

 

I'm not saying we don't need innovation. I'm not saying it's right. However, from a business standpoint, why mess with it? How often do successful franchises innovate anything? I'm talking to you EA and Madden xx. I'm talking to GTA, with, ok, let's have the guy drive one new vehicle type and then when we get to motorcylces and helicopters, let's let him swim. I'm talking to Microsoft stealing Halo from the mac and putting it on the Xbox.

 

I hear where you guys are coming from 100%. I think the business of it all doesn't let them innovate too much. Although, to be honest, they probably could have let Master Chief have a gun in the shape of Mario that shoots shells at the Covenant this time and it would've still sold well.

 

As you said, it was all about the hype this time around.

 

Joker, I'm curious, do you have the game? If you do, beside not believing the hype is worth it, was the game fun to you, at least? I mean, an 8 isn't BAD. I have the game and it's been a lot of fun so far. I haven't gotten to what some people have alluded to as "bad" plot points though. I think I still give FEAR the nod for the AI and for the ambiance that you get from the environment getting all shot to hell. But the full package of the game works out: the music, the graphics (which, yes, I know, aren't exactly super hi def or original going on 3 games now, but the designers should still get credit for that and for some of the new stuff), the controls ( I know, unchanged, and I miss the lil white flashlight button on the old xbox controllers), the interface, the story (overall). Sorry, longest sentence ever. I couldn't finish it correctly.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the game maker. You have a successful franchise. You need to make the fans and the money people happy. If it was you making the decisions would you put in some wacky new thing if it didn't work right? That kinda goes back to something Joker said about Bungie's inability. I think the inability was that they failed to do something new with the game. But I don't know if that's really a failure when "GameDaily estimates Halo 3 sold 2.48 mil units day one (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/28/gamedaily-estimates-halo-3-sold-2-48-mil-units-day-one/)". At the end of the day, they are there to make money, not innovate. Nintendo makes money off the wii because it costs them less than they sell it for, not because it has a plastic dick for a controller (and that's innovation, folks). Actually, that's a lie. Nintendo makes money for both of those reasons.

 

The original Halo was not innovative at all and it made lots of money. That tells me people don't care about innovation as long as the game is fun to play.

 

Ok, I have a headache and I'll stop here. I played baskeball this morning on a sausage egg and cheese sandwich, from 9am-12 30pm. I came home, showered, got me some, passed out, and now it's 5 30pm... and no new food in the belly. So excuse the rambling.

[Cody]

halo 3 will have the longest shelf life of any console game to date. Its probably more worthy of my sixty dollars than any other game i can think of. If you are a multiplayer junkie like me, buy this game. If you want to play through a campain by yourself 2 or three times get bioshock, Im definatly not sayin bioshock is a bad game its just i dont think im going to play through it again for a long while.

 

lasting appeal makes games great.

[Digits]

Honestly.. If you havn't played the game don't knock it. I'm not a halo fan in the least, I thought the first one was alright and that the second one was pretty useless so I didn't even bother playing it much past a couple levels. But honestly with the 4 player coop on legendary, it is the funnest single player gaming expierence I have had since Ocarina of time.. Maybe even funner. Every level to me was pretty epic especially the ones were you got to fly some shit and then have your friends jump out of your little plane onto these giant walker things and destroy them. It's just a really fun game to play and I think it deserves the scores it gets. And the multiplayer is really addicting and IMO pretty innovative. The fact that you can still play with your friends and rank up (up to 4 friends) says a lot. That was one of the shitty parts of Vegas, you couldn't play with your friends if you wanted to rank up and everyone likes to rank http://www.fnfclan.com/uploads/uploads/emoticons/default_smile.png.

 

But really, try it before you knock it. And try it with an open mind, don't just hate it because everyone loves it.

 

I think the only console game I like better than Halo 3 is Super Smash Bros Melee.. But that goes without saying for any real super smash fan.

[Crilix]

Ok - in all honesty, take what I say regarding Halo with a grain of salt. I'll come right out and admit that I'm a PC and Half-Life faboi through and through. I did play the original Halo in it's entirety, and I simply didn't get it. It seemed like a pretty mediocre game, and I still don't understand why it was so well received or why it was hailed for being such a HUGE influence and milestone in FPS gaming. I'm pretty bias against Halo for some reason, though I try not to be too irrational about it. I'm sure it's a good game (heck, it HAS to be for all the attention it's been getting), but I still don't see why it's such a huge deal. Maybe it'd help if I played 2 & 3 at some point...

-Cril

[Joker]

Well, first of all, I knew if I never said anywhere in plain text that I -had- played the game that I would be viewed with disdain and the easy argument would surface and people would probably flame me..

 

That not being the case.. The game is Halo.. how can it not be fun? That wasn't my main point, though, either. It wasn't about what Halo Lacked.. or if it was lame.. I never said anything -against- Halo. I said some things about the game that's already present in other games..

 

Also, as a matter of fact, Halo -was- Innovative.. being one of the first and best Co-op games to exist. I -knew- Grand Theft Auto would get brought up.. so I brought my gun if you have the bullets. First of all, GTA -wasn't- 3D when it first came out.. it was a 2D over the head view. The innovation strikes from moving from 2D to 3D and hands down Grand Theft Auto 3 -was- the innovation that made the Grand Theft Auto series and put Rockstar on the map.

 

Madden on the other hand, I surrender. But, I'm not one of the guys that supports the Genre, either. It works about as well as Madden 03 worked.. not because of innovation or lack there of.. because idiots want the new players to play with.. Coding wise.. look at the stats of the players.. it's the same game down the line with new names put on the back of the Jersey and skin color to suit. Personally, I think they're lame.. but they're there for entertainment. Also, I would say that it's quite a hard comparison to put an FPS up against -any- Sports genre game that's been doing the same thing for 20+ years. Madden 96 I recall I had on the SNES and it was the same exact thing it is today. My QB falls back.. and I hit X, Y, B to pass the ball.. Woo.

 

Now, aside from that.. the units that sold are fine.. it's called Fanboy-ism.. Those that owned Halo and spooged (yes, I said it again) themselves for hours upon hours and said "No matter how shitty the 2nd one is.. I'm buying every game in the series".. Some people are/were that Dedicated. Now, I know it sold millions.. but guess what.. Harry Potter did too.. shall we compare Harry Potter to Halo? Didn't think so.

 

Onward! Aside from the 'statistics' about how many units went out.. got bought.. (and probably smashed for money).. Let's say that Halo 3 is the best game in existence (probably World of Warcraft if you look at it in that light).. Do you feel that you can still be playing the same old Halo 3 fifteen years down the road? If all technology stopped -right now-.. That's what is called lack of innovation. Again, I go back to the analogy that you would still be playing PONG if innovation -wasn't- key.

 

If Nintendo makes the Wii-mote a Vibrator for kids.. and it sparks and all households own 3.. guess what.. it's -that- innovation (because yes, it is innovative) that is going to turn heads and make other gaming companies say "Why did that sell so well? Let's find something to match it."

 

Now, more on Halo 3.. I think it's a great game.. I -never- said it wasn't. I think Digits is right when saying the 4 player Coop is awesome. Now, I, honestly, could care less about the Halo series.. fuck, I even went and read one of the books. I still could care less. I think it's a great game.. but it's not something that changed my life as much as some one else would say it did to grant it a 9.5/10 score. If it never existed we wouldv'e gotten past it technology wise. I think the ORIGINAL Halo was the one that pushed games harder to competition. Now, Halo 3 is just a smudge on the proverbial game maker's window. There's nothing Halo 3 has that Game Maker's want to compete with. Except the name itself.. which is impossible. http://www.fnfclan.com/uploads/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png

 

Also, yes, I think Bungie did decide they wanted to just make money (or was it microsoft?) Anyway, they did and they are.. and they're ending the franch-- (damn, forgot about halo wars). Oh well, We'll find out what else Bungie can pull out before we shelve the name. Personally, though. I don't think they're going to have another Halo like Bioware has had -multiple- game titles selling and by that I mean.. KOTOR/NWN/Mass Effect..

 

See, once again, Mass Effect could come out and suck ass (no, not saying Halo 3 did) but, people will still buy it for the Name's Value (Bioware being that name).

 

Peace

[VaderOnIce]

God, I hope Mass Effect doesn't suck... That's one of the reasons I got a 360, along with GTA4.

 

All good points, dude. I gotta give the coop revolution to the original Contra, though. Sorry. LOL

 

Re: Innovation, I'm not saying it's not important, I'm just saying it's not as important doing stuff in a game that makes players feel involved/entranced. You're totally right about the controls for the wii being innovative even though my arm almost fell off playing Metroid Corruption the other day...

 

Back to Madden for a second. Believe it or not, there HAVE been little innovations. Some have worked, some haven't. But I don't think they're why people buy the game. This year's game compared to last year's has NO changes, pretty much. And it still sold. I think "Madden" is just, you know, comfort gaming for lots of people. I think Halo benefits from some of that, too.

 

Good discussion. Back to breakfast for mez.