Halo 3 and You

[JJJ]

Well, I've got it. Played it for a couple of hours yesterday.

Its alot of fun. Its nothing revolutionary (like Gears was last year) but its so very polished. Single-player starts slowly but gets much better after a weak first level. And multi-player is amazing. Hugely playable. Checking out the film of a multi-player battle is an awesome touch too.

I'm quite happy with it so far. I just wish for:
-more multiplayer maps. 11 is too little. But then, of course MS will sell us these... Cheapasses
-a better map editor. Forge is pretty lame, not being able to alter level geometry at all.

[Mozgus]

Forge is pretty lame, not being able to alter level geometry at all.

Yet another reason why, in my opinion, the Unreal Tournament series beats Halo in every aspect

On the topic of the editor, one user asked whether UT3 will include a simple, stripped down editor similar to that of Halo 3's Forge. Rein used the opportunity to work in a slight dig at Bungie's tool. "You mean an in-game editor that lets you rearrange the furniture as opposed to the professional tool we actually made the game with?" he asked. "No, we give you the real editor we use and all the power you can handle."

[JJJ]

Forge is better than nothing... Certainly I've played Halo 1 and 2 maps where it felt like if I could alter slightly the weapon, spawn or powerup placement - it would be a much better map. So thats nice to have. But really, its a incomplete feature - and Bungie has no excuse since they had
i. virtually unlimited time to create Halo 3
ii. unlimited resources courtesy of MS

When you refer to UT3, are you saying it will have a map editor on PS3? Or just PC as usual? UT3 is coming out eventually for X360 and I'm pumped for that... And disappointed that PS3 gets it first.

One more thing on the topic of UT vs Halo: Halo 3 should have the amount and quality of multiplayer maps that UT2004 does. Or at least close. I know that UT is a multiplayer franchise and thus multiplayer maps are most of the focus, but Halo 3 only shipping with 11 is ridiculous. UT2004 has what, 50+ out of box? + many more after the editors ed patch! Sure, some are throwaway - but if even just 1/4 of them are excellent, then thats still more than Halo 3s entire map selection!

Does this cost too much in terms of time/resources for Bungie? No excuse once again, see i and ii.

Forge is pretty lame, not being able to alter level geometry at all.

Yet another reason why, in my opinion, the Unreal Tournament series beats Halo in every aspect

On the topic of the editor, one user asked whether UT3 will include a simple, stripped down editor similar to that of Halo 3's Forge. Rein used the opportunity to work in a slight dig at Bungie's tool. "You mean an in-game editor that lets you rearrange the furniture as opposed to the professional tool we actually made the game with?" he asked. "No, we give you the real editor we use and all the power you can handle."

[Gamerforlife]

Gears of War was revolutionary? I must have been playing a different game. What? Is hiding behind objects in a shooter revolutionary? Oh yeah, like that's never been done before.

I RENTED Halo 3, I refuse to give Bungie my money just because "everybody else is doing it", unless I know the game's worth it. Seriously, I have NEVER seen gaming peer pressure on the level of the Halo franchise.

What I've played so far isn't impressive. The game is EXACTLY like Halo 2 thus far. In fact, the game feels like an Xbox 1 title. Are we ever going to see a TRULY next-gen game, or is it finally going to happen once the NEXT batch of consoles are ready to role out. I mean freaking Shadow of the Colossus seems more next-gen than much of what it out now.

I don't know, maybe Halo 3 does get better, but I'm not at all impressed so far. Somehow neither Halo 2 or 3 seem as fun as the very first one was for me. Maybe I'm just tired of the same formula. I'm playing on heroic by the way. If nothing else, I can praise the game for being fairly challenging on this difficulty setting. I can't stand those brutes, they're so uninteresting. I want my Elites back. They were more fun to kill.

Oh well, whatever. Bottomline, it's just another Halo game. I don't know why people are making this out to be some kind of huge, historical gaming event. And the hype machine just keeps on rolling

I agree with you Mozgus about having trouble playing games for more an hour. I think part of it is because I value time more now than I did when I was youger, and part of it is just me having other interests now. When I was younger, it was all about gaming. Now, there's movies I want to watch, albums to listen to, graphics novels to read, etc. Only the best games will draw me in for two to three hours or more. Viva Pinata managed to pull that off, but very few of today's games suck me in that way. Viva Pinata was just a soothing, easy to play game with a lot of charm. It was hard to put down simply because it was not a very demanding game the way something like Halo or Gears of War is. You could just relax with it. Seems like tough action games tend to exhaust me too much to want to play for long sessions. I'll just beat a level and then put the game down for another day. Course I can sit down and blow through something like Contra Hard Corps in a sitting, but those older games were a lot shorter

[JJJ]

Gears of War was revolutionary? I must have been playing a different game. What? Is hiding behind objects in a shooter revolutionary? Oh yeah, like that's never been done before.

Well, I did play kill.switch for Xbox (often cited as a game with many of Gears mechanics before Gears was released). Its pretty bad. Hmm, what else... Winback? Then of course MGS, but thats not a shooter really.

Gears basically made the 3rd-person shooter into a viable nextgen genre. Let me say it this way: my brother works at EA, and was working on Army of Two when Gears came out. EA took one look at Gears and nearly crapped their pants. They delayed the game a whole year because the 3rd-person shooter now had a standard of quality they weren't even close to.

[RadarScope1]

Joystiq has taken all those negative comments from high-scoring reviews and compiled them. It's really funny reading all of these and realizing they ALL come from 9 or 10 reviews.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/26/nega-review-halo-3/

[durkada]

When you refer to UT3, are you saying it will have a map editor on PS3? Or just PC as usual? UT3 is coming out eventually for X360 and I'm pumped for that... And disappointed that PS3 gets it first.

I didn't refer to UT3, but, I'll agree with whomever said its the best FPS. Well, let me rephrase, its certainly the most promising. And I can base that on the fact that I've enjoyed the UT series more than any other. But, in regards to the level editor -- I don't know if the PS3 will include one. Its entirely possible. But what the PS3 is going to allow which 360 isn't, is user created content. I'm sure the 360 will will have something -- approved level packs for a fee, which you can buy along with the icon packs so your gamer-tag will look all buff. All those wonderful mods and levels you play on the PC are supposed to be available on the PS3. Get a bluetooth keypad and bluetooth mouse, and it should be a pretty sweet deal.

Real question for me is whether we will see UT3 for linux... I've already got a PC hooked up to my HDTV, and would prefer not to have a second for Winders.

[Gamerforlife]

Gears of War was revolutionary? I must have been playing a different game. What? Is hiding behind objects in a shooter revolutionary? Oh yeah, like that's never been done before.

Well, I did play kill.switch for Xbox (often cited as a game with many of Gears mechanics before Gears was released). Its pretty bad. Hmm, what else... Winback? Then of course MGS, but thats not a shooter really.

Gears basically made the 3rd-person shooter into a viable nextgen genre. Let me say it this way: my brother works at EA, and was working on Army of Two when Gears came out. EA took one look at Gears and nearly crapped their pants. They delayed the game a whole year because the 3rd-person shooter now had a standard of quality they weren't even close to.

This may sound like a mini-rant. No offense to you, you're entitled to your opinion but I have to say a few things since I didn't think Gears was really all that.

In addition to the games you've already mentioned, Perfect Dark Zero lets you take cover, and there are many times in practically every third or first person shooter I've played where you need to take cover or get quickly gunned to death. Heck, you can even play a light gun game like Time Crisis 2 that is built around you taking cover. There are even a few very realistic last gen games where you have to take cover because one bullet will actually kill you, like Full Spectrum Warrior I believe. People talk about Gears like, "Oh my god, a game where you have to use cover! That's never been done before! Most realistic shooter ever!!!!!!!"

The fact that Gears makes you constantly use cover is actually to its detriment I think. It made the game very repetitive and boring for me. Fine for a simple light gun game like Time Crisis 2, but a third person shooter should be a little less repettitive. The weapon selection was lame except for ONE weapon. The Hammer of Dawn. Of course, when you have a game where players are just constantly hiding behind stuff, it's not like there's any point to having a varied weapon selection. You might as well just keep it simple

I think Gears gets so much attention for two reasons. There's the amazing graphics. I never read a single review for Gears that didn't gush over its graphics for like three paragraphs and make me feel like it was mandatory to get a big high def tv to play it on. It's all about the graphics these days. The only other reason it got so much attention is because people were tired of waiting for Halo 3, so the gaming media latched onto another game to hype to high heaven.

I guess I can see what you mean about Gears being the first next-gen third person shooter to get a lot of attention. I think there are a lot of last gen third person shooters that are much better though.

The Max Payne games have a better story.

Mercenaries Playground of Destruction has nice open ended gameplay with lots of firefights and tons of stuff to blow up.

Armed and Dangerous has MUCH more creative weapons and a lot of humor. MDK 2 has some great third person firefights with a mix of funny weapons, power ups and a dog who can fire like four guns at a time! Heck, the Ratchet and Clank games have better weapons than anything you'll see in Gears of War.

Freedom Fighters has REAL squad based gameplay. Not the best I've seen, but it still adds to the game, while your teammates in Gears are just there to die and wait for you to take care of business. I know there are even better squad based games out there, but I haven't played them.

Then there's the generic vehicle riding level in Gears, which was so utterly pointless. A lame level for anyone who's seen the tons of vehicles in Halo.

Gears is a good game. Fairly well designed, with good graphics and sound, but it's so generic. I've seen EVERYTHING the game does before and done better.

Maybe that's why I'm so into retro gaming, because with very few exceptions it's all been done before. Next gen is mostly about doing it all again with better graphics and less creativity.

[NebachadnezzaR]

I just have two things to add to your post:

1 - The setting. Yes, I know, post-apocalyptic games are everywhere, but the setting created for GoW is just awesome. The struggle for emulsion, the Pendulum Wars, the Locust, the whole decaying civilisation... It's a shame the story is so simple, because they really could have done a lot with the source material.

2 - The Lancer. It's a machine gun with a freaking chainsaw! I think it's the best weapon in a game since the BFG!

[JJJ]

Hey, its all good. I'm not offended.

Just about some games you mentioned:
PD Zero: Haven't tried it. I'm going to buy it soon as I really loved the old PD. However, I have muted expectations since I did download the multiplayer demo and its pretty average.
Time Crisis: Great series, obviously not related to Gears in any real way since its a gun game though.
Full Spectrum Warrior: Nice idea, bad exectution. Its like a puzzle game. When you are in good cover, nothing can hit you ever. Same with the enemies. So its a puzzle to figure out where to flank the enemy from. Not really a battle simulation, with its millions of variables.

I absolutely disagree with you that taking cover is implemented poorly in Gears. It makes me wonder if you have played Gears multiplayer much or if you just don't like the idea of Gears. Same for the weapons. The shotgun/pistol/lancer combination you start with in every match is perfection. Each has its own strength and can be hugely powerful in the right hands and right situation. The pickup weapons (sniper, Hammer etc) are awesome too. Very powerful but with limited ammo and reloads to balance it out. The only weapon that sucks is the alien SMG (can't remember its name). Its in no way better than the Lancer you start with. The fact you don't think there is a point in the varied weapon selection really makes me wonder once again if you have played enough Gears to really understand whats available there.

Max Payne: Loved it. Loved the sequel as well. However it has no multiplayer and there is no cover usage at all.

Mercenaries: Loved it. Once again no multiplayer or cover though. More like a GTA clone with more explosions.

Armed and Dangerous: Couldn't get into this, though I did try. I loved Planet Moon's Giants though.

Freedom Fighters: got great reviews but I couldn't get into it. Can't remember why. Anyway there is no cover or multiplayer afaik.

I do get where you are coming from with the 'new games are just prettied up older games' angle. I agree with you in many cases. But Gears just isn't one of those games with all flash and no substance. Its a game with amazing graphics but even better gameplay. I would say that if you aren't a multiplayer gamer - and of course some people just aren't into that - then I do understand the single-player Gears is underwhelming. But if you like gaming with friends, on or off the internet, then there really hasn't been a game of Gears quality and polish for an extraordinarily long time. Its almost the Street Fighter II of 3d shooters - deep as you can imagine, and rewarding to those who learn it.

Back on topic, while I've really enjoyed Halo 3 multiplayer so far - it still seems quite a long way off from the precision of Gears. Oh well, they are both fun in their own way.

No offense to you, you're entitled to your opinion but I have to say a few things since I didn't think Gears was really all that.

In addition to the games you've already mentioned, Perfect Dark Zero lets you take cover, and there are many times in practically every third or first person shooter I've played where you need to take cover or get quickly gunned to death. Heck, you can even play a light gun game like Time Crisis 2 that is built around you taking cover. There are even a few very realistic last gen games where you have to take cover because one bullet will actually kill you, like Full Spectrum Warrior I believe. People talk about Gears like, "Oh my god, a game where you have to use cover! That's never been done before! Most realistic shooter ever!!!!!!!"

The fact that Gears makes you constantly use cover is actually to its detriment I think. It made the game very repetitive and boring for me. Fine for a simple light gun game like Time Crisis 2, but a third person shooter should be a little less repettitive. The weapon selection was lame except for ONE weapon. The Hammer of Dawn. Of course, when you have a game where players are just constantly hiding behind stuff, it's not like there's any point to having a varied weapon selection. You might as well just keep it simple

I think Gears gets so much attention for two reasons. There's the amazing graphics. I never read a single review for Gears that didn't gush over its graphics for like three paragraphs and make me feel like it was mandatory to get a big high def tv to play it on. It's all about the graphics these days. The only other reason it got so much attention is because people were tired of waiting for Halo 3, so the gaming media latched onto another game to hype to high heaven.

I guess I can see what you mean about Gears being the first next-gen third person shooter to get a lot of attention. I think there are a lot of last gen third person shooters that are much better though.

The Max Payne games have a better story.

Mercenaries Playground of Destruction has nice open ended gameplay with lots of firefights and tons of stuff to blow up.

Armed and Dangerous has MUCH more creative weapons and a lot of humor. MDK 2 has some great third person firefights with a mix of funny weapons, power ups and a dog who can fire like four guns at a time! Heck, the Ratchet and Clank games have better weapons than anything you'll see in Gears of War.

Freedom Fighters has REAL squad based gameplay. Not the best I've seen, but it still adds to the game, while your teammates in Gears are just there to die and wait for you to take care of business. I know there are even better squad based games out there, but I haven't played them.

Then there's the generic vehicle riding level in Gears, which was so utterly pointless. A lame level for anyone who's seen the tons of vehicles in Halo.

Gears is a good game. Fairly well designed, with good graphics and sound, but it's so generic. I've seen EVERYTHING the game does before and done better.

Maybe that's why I'm so into retro gaming, because with very few exceptions it's all been done before. Next gen is mostly about doing it all again with better graphics and less creativity.