Halo 3 is only the begining!!!

[Sardaukar]

As far as the debate on games from the PC and from the Xbox go, I acknowledge that not all of the games on my list were as old as or older than Halo. However, if a game is great, it will never cease to be great- and if you don't believe me, ask someone what they think of something like Elite or Nethack. For that reason you can see a few very old titles on the list (Battlezone, for instance). I also went out of my way to get games that were PC exclusives, for the most part (Battlezone, again, has also graced the Nintendo 64 in a slightly degraded form). Now then, the list you've provided sort of broke that rule, as I can only spot a few titles on it that are through-and-through Xbox exclusive. In fact, several of them are originally from the PC.

As far as story goes, Halo was a supreme letdown. At first, it was incredible- like Half Life, the surface story was fairly meh, while those who really dug into the details and hidden bits could discover something rich. The problem here is that Halo 3 essentially smashed any hopes that the details would add up and the end would be mindblowing. People who frequented Halo.bungie.org/story know what I mean- there were so many little things scattered throughout Halo CE and Halo 2 (and the novels) that the possibility existed for a really phenomenal and revelatory ending. Instead, we got a story ending that was the result of everything taken at face value, virtually devoid of twists or logical leaps. There was no delving into the war of the Prophets and the Elites, there was no revelation as to why, as 343 Guilty Spark put it so teasingly, the Flood were necessary to the survival of the Forerunner. For those of us expecting our hours of digging Bungie's seeded details and conjecturing their meaning to bear fruit, the ending was a gigantic letdown.

On the side- I actually didn't mind the level layouts of Halo CE. In fact, the levels of Halo 2 and Halo 3 didn't feel right to me. I guess I preferred classic and easily replayed set pieces of Halo CE (mostly, the two levels revolving around the Control Room) to the increase in linear tunnel-ish levels of the sequels. As far as I'm concerned, Halo's real forte is the vehicle combat, so I only really care for the vehicle segments, of which only Halo CE and the last parts of Halo 3 really delivered on.

 

[qbert4ever]

I guess in the end it all comes down to your oppinion. I can't make anyone like the games as much as I did, and nobody can convince me that they were no good. So in the end, can we all at least agree that it was an importent part of the x-box's life, people that hate or love somthing just because it's the "cool thing to do" are all a bunch of idiots, and let everybody get back to the most important thing that this website is about, having fun playing games?

 

[Mylon]

Halo 3 has succeeded in an area where most other shooters fail. Not necessarily the multiplayer, but the matchmaking. The ability to hop online, find a group of people of roughly similar skill, play a mix of game types (instead of team deathmatch after team deathmatch), chat online while you're killing stuff or waiting for the game to load, and generally have a good and steady experience.

I disagree with a lot of the game design choices (shields, leaping 3 meters into the air, and guns with ranges of 15 or less, weird spawn points, and most definitely the fact that no official keyboard and mouse support has ever been released), but overall the game is more enjoyable to play than, say, Counterstrike Source because of the variation and voice chat.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

Deary me, another Halo 3 argument. IMO the original Halo was the best of the three, for the simple reason that it introduced the mechanics of Halo with buggies, epic landscapes and music, rechargeable shields and genuinely satisfying weaponry.

The problem is that Bungie haven't really changed the formula apart from making the battles bigger. Halo 2 and 3 aren't really sequels, they're Halo:CE episode 2&3. A true sequel should expand in every way, not just revamping the graphics and changing the weapons e.g. Half-Life 2. A brand new physics engine, a brand new graphics engine, a much grander cast and a whole new world to fight in. In addition to this you have new weapons, enemies and all of the usual sequel stuff. Halo just continues to stay exactly the same, which may be enough for the fans, but it's not enough for me.

Ps, I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, just uninspired.

 

[Santhenar]

Yes another Halo 3 argument, but what do you expect from the most over-hyped game EVER.
I think most people would agree that the multiplayer is excellent, but I found the single player so boring that I couldn't bring myself to play past the third level.

 

[PurpleRain]

Yes another Halo 3 argument, but what do you expect from the most over-hyped game EVER.

Actually, I'd say it's because it's the most over-hated game ever. If you look at the first seven comments, at least six of them have nothing to do with the topic, but are just comments by people who feel the need to express their dislike anytime the words Bungie/Halo/Xbox are mentioned.

And of course lament how nothing sells but Halo and it'll be the death of all quality gaming. And then go on to mention other games that are supposedly much better and no one is buying because of Halo.

The fact that these games are actually beating projected sales figures and other facts that render those arguments totally unsound notwithstanding.

They only say these things because they're sick of hearing about Halo and how magnificent it is or how people don't understand why people don't like the game.

 

[EzraPound]

As the world grows smaller, and you can now play an FPS game with literaly more than four 'people', the need for bots became useless.
Bots were introduced to make non campaign matches bigger, longer, and more challenging. As Halo allows you to play via the internet, Bots would have been a useless feature.

If you read my post, you'd notice that I wasn't talking about 'Halo: The Societal Phenomena' but Halo: Combat Evolved - which isn't supported by Xbox live.

Microsoft, much like other companies, doesn't feel the need to cater to those without HD, or high speed internet. As the vast majority won't care to pay online, or already does.

There is always a use for bots, insomuch as as that a) Halo 2 will not always enjoy online support/a bustling community, and b) not everyone is willing to shell over the monthly payments for Xbox live. If Microsoft doesn't give a damn, fine. But that in no way excuses Halo 2's lack of bots - it's a feature that the game is worse for not having, plain and simple. Further, I would add that Halo 2's lack of bots is particularly frustrating since a cynic might conclude that Microsoft will inevitably make more money on Xbox Live subscriptions for discluding the feature (or for Bungie's discluding the feature, anyway).

Bots are useless in Halo as the game focuses less on AI, and more on graphics and playing with other people, not yourself. Goldeneye was pretty for 64 bit, and had the space for intelligent AI, it also did not have co-op campaign. Halo, obviously did not have impressive AI with the way it was built.
If you can't enjoy an FPS without bots, there's your answer. It's not apologetic, it's an "F-U play online then."

1) So bots are "useless" in Halo 2 (I assume this is the game you're talking about) because the game focuses on "playing with other people, not yourself"? I guess that's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy - because there are no bots, you don't want to play the game by yourself. And you're trying to tell me that Halo 2 doesn't suffer for lacking that dimension? It's as if someone tried to defend Bomberman Hero's lack of multiplay by claiming that the game's focus is single-player - well, since it doesn't have multiplayer, no shit.

2) I don't even understand what you're saying about GoldenEye. Are you trying to say that a co-op mode and intelligent AI are mutually exclusive? I will add, however, that Perfect Dark (GoldenEye's de facto sequel) not only had bots, but also included a feature whereby you could adjust their personalities, i.e. you could set a bot to hoard certain pickups - all a year before Halo hit store shelves.

3) I pointed out initially that the absence of bots in Halo detracts from the game's quality. That criticism stands. Whether I can 'enjoy an FPS without bots or not' is immaterial; presumably others have lamented their non-inclusion. Just ask yourself this: would Halo: Combat Evolved or Halo 2 be better with bots? If the answer is 'yes' (and you'd be hard-pressed to argue otherwise) then lecturing me about what the general focus of Halo permits, or telling me it's okay for Microsoft to ignore non-XBL subscribers is - as mentioned before - apologetic.

 

[EzraPound]

Just ask yourself this: would Halo: Combat Evolved or Halo 2 be better with bots? If the answer is 'yes' (and you'd be hard-pressed to argue otherwise) then lecturing me about what the general focus of Halo permits, or telling me it's okay for Microsoft to ignore non-XBL subscribers is - as mentioned before - apologetic.

Ehh, but according to that logic Bungie should apologize for not including a DVD full of porn with Halo, since that would make Halo better.

It's a great, deep question, though--what exactly is a 'game'? Where does 'the game' as opposed to 'the extras' stop and start? What's the difference between 'leaving something out' and 'taking a new focus'?

Except that it's not industry expectation that a game come with a DVD full of porn (unfortunately). Several other shooters on Xbox - TimeSplitters, XIII, Unreal Championship, among them - include bots. Unreal Championship is a multi-player focused shooter, with Xbox Live support. So is TimeSplitters: Future Perfect. Why, then, should Halo be exempt from the reasonable criticism that the inclusion of bots in it would 1) place it on par with a myriad of other shooters, in terms of features, and 2) simply make it a better game?

(That said, I do agree with you assigning value to the question of what is reasonable to expect from a game, in broader terms)

Here's your problem, you apparently don't listen/read. You only see what you want to see. Your argument here is that all the Halos needed bots, hands down, the game is shit, because it has no bots.

If you're finished telling me my argument, allow me to quote from an earlier post:

Halo is by no means a bad game - an 8.5, maybe, to throw out a figure. But nor it the killer app to end all kiler apps, or "the most significant launch title in recent history" (forgive me if I'm misquoting). In my opinion, its good qualities probably place it somewhere between Return to Castle Wolfenstein (good) and Deus Ex (brilliant) in terms of memorability.

...So much for not listening.

Halo doesn't have bots because they don't focus on one person playing alone, wether or not they wish to pay. Clear and simple, but you seem to think of that more as an excuse. Just because you don't have friends, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't. (This is all figuritive, not a personal attack)

You still haven't responsed to my question, 'is the game better for not having bots?'. This is partly unsurprising, since the answer is fairly clearcut, and relegates what you're saying to apologetics, but I'll reiterate what I asked before: Unreal Championship has bots. TimeSplitters: Future Perfect has bots. Why, then, does it not detract from Halo's quality for it to not have bots?

And nor do I appreciate the personal attack, however you justify it as 'figuritive'. Your comment about me allegedly not having 'any friends' brings no weight to the argument, and is inflammatory.

And in no effing way am I apologising to you by saying Microsoft ignores non XBL users.
Why should they seriosuly care about people who fork them 400 bucks at most once, and that's it.

Actually, you are utilizing apologetics. Allow me to illustrate:

- You cannot argue convincingly that Halo's lack of bots makes it better
- You therefore have provided a slew of reasons for why bots in Halo would be not as neccessary as they are in in other games, or why Microsoft has no reason to give credence to non-XBL subscribers, without refuting the charge that Halo is a worse game for not having bots. Thus, the dictionary definition of apologetic:

1. Offering or expressing an apology or excuse: an apologetic note; an apologetic smile.

The game was made to be played with other people and they focused on that. To my knowledge that means that bots will be useless, and people will pay to play against each other. If I'm wrong, then why aren't there bots in the game; there was certainly enough room.

Unreal Championship was made to be played with other people, too. In spite of this, it still benefits from having bots. Therefore, bots in Halo 2 would not have been any more "useless" than they were in Unreal Championship - they would've made the game better, a point you still haven't straightforwardly addressed.

On a seperate note, Halo 2's lack of bots suggests to me that the designers were trying to plug XBL subscription at the expense of the game's features. Still, my rebuttle isn't contingent on this point.

Microsoft doesn't care if 5% of it's users wanted bots, that's not what they made it for. So the other 95% still paying for gold, bring in enoguh revenew for them not to give to shits. That's how it is, live with it.

This is all a question of degrees. Obviously, the majority of Halo fans (so more than 5%), if surveyed prior to Halo 2's release, would've stated they'd like to see bots in the game. Therefore, your phraseology is incorrect: it is not a question of what percentile of Halo's fan base 'wanted' bots, but to to what extent they wanted them. This is sensical enough, since - like I said before - the inclusion of bots would've obviously made the game better.

As for your second point, I want to state that I find it dangerous critically to entertain the notion that Halo 2's lack of features (in this case, bots) are excused by the game's creators' zeal for profits. Are we assessing the decision to not include bots as a monetary one, or one that implicates gameplay? I thought the latter. In which case, Halo 2's lack of bots puts the game squarely behind several other XBL shooters in terms of that aspect of multiplayer experience, and should be duly noted.

 

[The Poet]

Bots wouldn't have made Halo any better. I am not much of a Halo 3 fan and the only time I truely enjoy it is when I have a game of zombies or campaign with friends. And it has been said Erza that you are argueing for such a small minority. Most people who have an Xbox 360 have Xbox Live. Bots are mostly made for single player games or local multiplayer matches, not for things like Halo. What could have been added was NPCs that you can place. Wouldn't it be fun to make a match in forge that is a giant maze and put Hunters in that run around it. It would give me the feeling that Jason had fighting the Minotaur. But having bots would be quite dumb. New games have no bots. The only game with bots that I still play and can think of would be Perfect Dark, and I only play that local with a friend. To conclude, bots are only really good for local multiplayer games and not for massivly online ones. While Halo could use an NPC menu it wouldn't be something that would make or break the game just like bots.

 

[shadow skill]

You know I am not really sure the whole bot thing is coming from a "minority" of gamers. Not that any of us have any real idea just how many people would have liked to have bots in the game. As far as bots not being good for "massive" multiplayer games I would have to argue that the UT series can demonstrably show this assertion to be false. Though I do agree that bots would not have done much since the multiplayer in Halo is so full of fail compared to other games.

 

[Saskwach]

Yes another Halo 3 argument, but what do you expect from the most over-hyped game EVER.

Actually, I'd say it's because it's the most over-hated game ever. If you look at the first seven comments, at least six of them have nothing to do with the topic, but are just comments by people who feel the need to express their dislike anytime the words Bungie/Halo/Xbox are mentioned.

And of course lament how nothing sells but Halo and it'll be the death of all quality gaming. And then go on to mention other games that are supposedly much better and no one is buying because of Halo.

The fact that these games are actually beating projected sales figures and other facts that render those arguments totally unsound notwithstanding.

They only say these things because they're sick of hearing about Halo and how magnificent it is or how people don't understand why people don't like the game.

The problem is they're clearly sick of hearing that Halo 3 is so grand on OTHER forums because I don't hear anyone praising it to the heavens for no reason(ie when people aren't bashing it and often implying that liking it makes you deficient in some way or other) in THIS one. If you don't like hearing about "lol Halo 3 revoluotisned gaimng" stop going to the Bungie forums, or any other ones that are clearly silly. Better yet, vent over THERE where it might be new.
Halo fanboyism isn't a problem here. What's much more aggravating is people saying HERE that Halo is terrible as if it's somehow revolutionary thinking at the Escapist. You've made your point people. Move on.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I've been trying to form a response to the idea that Halo has only a rudimentary story, but I guess I'm too close to it to do a good job. However, Ciaran over on the bungie.org forums [http://carnage.bungie.org/haloforum/halo.forum.pl?read=862460] managed to enunciate my point better than I could so I'll simply link to his post without further comment. (Save to note that there is a significant amount of debate on the subject even within the Halo community, as you can see by the comment thread in which this post resides.)

-- Steve