That part of Halo CE was so fun in fact that they did something very similar at the end of Halo 3. Best warthog section ever.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Halo 3
- Thread starter Keyvias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Halo: Combat Evolved was innovative. Halo 2 and Halo 3 built upon and refined those innovations. There were a number of subtle, yet cleverly implemented mechanics, some had already been seen before in similar form, but nowhere had they been brought together so expertly as Halo: Combat Evolved, or in its sequals. I also found it a refrehing change from the Half-Life formula, which every story-driven action adventure game seemed to be adopting at the time. Here is a quick list of innovations off the top of my head:
(1) The rechargable shields, both on the Master Chief and some opponents. This simple system diffused a common problem in similar games; namely, surviving a confrontation with barely any health, and then proceeding to the next confrontation with little or no chance of success. The rechargable shields guarunteed at least a minimal level of health for each confrontation, and enough to pass any of them. There were also many interesting strategic options opened up by this mechanic, both defensively and offensively. For example, chasing down an Elite before he can take cover and recharge his shields.
(2) The two weapon limit. This solved one problem and opened a new level of strategy. Regarding the former, it solved the problem of navigating through a menu to select from a dozen weapons, which is a particular nuisance on the consoles with control pad. Regarding the latter, it opened the way for tactical decisions, such as deciding which weapons to carry into battle, and how best to make use of the weapons which you have. I think this contributes someway to the "never the same fight twice" effect which many experience with the Halo series.
(3) Overheating Covenent weaponary. In the Halo series the Covenent weapons rarely need reloading, rather, they have a set charge to use before being disposed of. This means that they are absent the standard problem of reloading, which usually injects a subtle layer of strategy to confrontations. This is compensated for by overheating, which provides a similar deficit to reloading, but with its own unique quirks. The same mechanic has reappeared many times since where weaponary does not need reloading, most recently in Bioware's Mass Effect.
(4) Melee attacks as a useful alternative. Chalk this up to my bad memory or lack of experience, but I do not remember melee attacks being the same before Halo: Combat Evovled. They were something you used at the beginning, often before acquiring a proper weapon, and were pathetically weak against stronger opponents. Throughout the Halo series, melee attacks were interesting and powerful alternatives, and in the right context would open up new tactical choices.
Half, if not all, of these innovations have made it into subsequent games, such that they seem to have been taken for granted. The main exception is Half-Life 2, which seems to have ignored the pack entirely. I should note, I do not consider this a bad thing, since I like the variation and Half-Life 2 is one of my favourites, but I just think it is mistaken to say that the Halo series is generic and unoriginal. There is plenty of innovation and refinement to be found, and its influence can be felt on almost every release since.
(1) The rechargable shields, both on the Master Chief and some opponents. This simple system diffused a common problem in similar games; namely, surviving a confrontation with barely any health, and then proceeding to the next confrontation with little or no chance of success. The rechargable shields guarunteed at least a minimal level of health for each confrontation, and enough to pass any of them. There were also many interesting strategic options opened up by this mechanic, both defensively and offensively. For example, chasing down an Elite before he can take cover and recharge his shields.
(2) The two weapon limit. This solved one problem and opened a new level of strategy. Regarding the former, it solved the problem of navigating through a menu to select from a dozen weapons, which is a particular nuisance on the consoles with control pad. Regarding the latter, it opened the way for tactical decisions, such as deciding which weapons to carry into battle, and how best to make use of the weapons which you have. I think this contributes someway to the "never the same fight twice" effect which many experience with the Halo series.
(3) Overheating Covenent weaponary. In the Halo series the Covenent weapons rarely need reloading, rather, they have a set charge to use before being disposed of. This means that they are absent the standard problem of reloading, which usually injects a subtle layer of strategy to confrontations. This is compensated for by overheating, which provides a similar deficit to reloading, but with its own unique quirks. The same mechanic has reappeared many times since where weaponary does not need reloading, most recently in Bioware's Mass Effect.
(4) Melee attacks as a useful alternative. Chalk this up to my bad memory or lack of experience, but I do not remember melee attacks being the same before Halo: Combat Evovled. They were something you used at the beginning, often before acquiring a proper weapon, and were pathetically weak against stronger opponents. Throughout the Halo series, melee attacks were interesting and powerful alternatives, and in the right context would open up new tactical choices.
Half, if not all, of these innovations have made it into subsequent games, such that they seem to have been taken for granted. The main exception is Half-Life 2, which seems to have ignored the pack entirely. I should note, I do not consider this a bad thing, since I like the variation and Half-Life 2 is one of my favourites, but I just think it is mistaken to say that the Halo series is generic and unoriginal. There is plenty of innovation and refinement to be found, and its influence can be felt on almost every release since.
The problem is that almost all of the story in the Halo series comes from the books, not the games. While it's all well and good that the universe has external material, you shouldn't have to read a book in order to enjoy the story in a game. Different mediums should be independent of each other, and it's Bungie's own fault that they didn't actually put any of the so-called great Halo story into the games.Iceman23 said:
<quote=intplee>
(2) The two weapon limit. This solved one problem and opened a new level of strategy.
This didnt add a new level of strategy , it just allowed the player to use their preferred weapon. Well, except in the case of the rocket launcher - which was always placed just before you needed it, thereby eliminating any strategy.
<quote=intplee>
(4) Melee attacks as a useful alternative. Chalk this up to my bad memory or lack of experience, but I do not remember melee attacks being the same before Halo: Combat Evovled. They were something you used at the beginning, often before acquiring a proper weapon, and were pathetically weak against stronger opponents. Throughout the Halo series, melee attacks were interesting and powerful alternatives, and in the right context would open up new tactical choices.
The one hit kill stealth melee attacks were in Goleneye
Melee attacks as a secondary weapon function were in Perfect Dark - Goldeneye's spiritual sucessor.
<quote=j-e-f-f-e-r-s>
Grenades for instance. Simple, ie- you throw them, they blow up. But also incredibly fun: bounce 'em, plant 'em, even stick 'em (oh the joy of sticking a plasma grenade to the torso of an elite).
may i also add that sticky grenades are essentially timed mines - also from Perfect Dark
<quote=j-e-f-f-e-r-s>
the levels were mahoosively epic
You mean like in Perfect Dark?
i could go on listing the features in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark that were copied and pasted into Halo. However i am instead going to advise you all to play these two games before making any more stupid comments about Halo and its so called innovations.
(2) The two weapon limit. This solved one problem and opened a new level of strategy.
This didnt add a new level of strategy , it just allowed the player to use their preferred weapon. Well, except in the case of the rocket launcher - which was always placed just before you needed it, thereby eliminating any strategy.
<quote=intplee>
(4) Melee attacks as a useful alternative. Chalk this up to my bad memory or lack of experience, but I do not remember melee attacks being the same before Halo: Combat Evovled. They were something you used at the beginning, often before acquiring a proper weapon, and were pathetically weak against stronger opponents. Throughout the Halo series, melee attacks were interesting and powerful alternatives, and in the right context would open up new tactical choices.
The one hit kill stealth melee attacks were in Goleneye
Melee attacks as a secondary weapon function were in Perfect Dark - Goldeneye's spiritual sucessor.
<quote=j-e-f-f-e-r-s>
Grenades for instance. Simple, ie- you throw them, they blow up. But also incredibly fun: bounce 'em, plant 'em, even stick 'em (oh the joy of sticking a plasma grenade to the torso of an elite).
may i also add that sticky grenades are essentially timed mines - also from Perfect Dark
<quote=j-e-f-f-e-r-s>
the levels were mahoosively epic
You mean like in Perfect Dark?
i could go on listing the features in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark that were copied and pasted into Halo. However i am instead going to advise you all to play these two games before making any more stupid comments about Halo and its so called innovations.
You really should learn how to use the english language first before you call someone dense. In this context the fact that fps' have simillar characteristics because they belong to the same genre is not at issue because it is a given! What people mean when they speak of things being "generic" is that they do not do anything to really stand out from the other (in this case games.) items that belong to the group in question.Kermi said:
I'm going to expand on intplee's list.
The original Halo was a groundbreaking game, it was up there among the best FPS's ever created. A lot of people hate it because its on a console, those people are idiots. Halo 2/3 followed the formula with minor improvements. Many things halo did had been done before, but no game had integrated them so well.
A lot of times, even Halo fans have problems identifiying what makes the games so great. It's actually many little things. This is what makes them so brilliant IMHO, they're subtle. You're just enjoying it without knowing, that is great design.
So what made HALO CE so great?
1) The fight triad. You can use guns, grenades or melee, all immediately accesible -each type of attack mapped to a button-. This leads to very dynamic battles. A sort of rock-paper-scissors situation.
2) The two weapon limitation. It's been pointed out, as an element of strategy
3) The control scheme. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I think they *created* the standard control scheme for FPS's on consoles.
4) The vehicles. Seamlessly integrated into the game. A variety of distint vehicles are available you you to choose.
5) The control scheme for vehicles. Where you control the camera, not the vehicle and the vehicle follows. Sounds weird until you try it.Its actually brilliant
6) The rechargeable shields. Its been pointed out
7) No bosses. Did you notice that Halo has no bosses? -Mr Yahtzee didn't get this one-. Allow for faster pacing.
8) Cortana. She's actually a plot device. A way of moving the story forward without pausing for cutscenes. Again, for pacing. She's not a sidekick running around near you getting killed, just brilliant.
9) The storyline is pretty good. Specially on the first one.
10) The AI. Its quite convincing, both in allies and foes. Did you notice how much your allies make comments on what's happening? Helps make the whole thing more believable. Did you see the grunts running away when their elite leader was killed?
11) The levels. All three games have fantastic levels. Do I need to mention the Silent Cartographer? The first level of Halo 3 is just amazing, you can see they spent more time on that level than on the others. However, I must also concede that they have a couple of pretty sucky levels as well -library anyone? There is also something about their level design that is confusing - sometimes I found myself backtracking without knowing it, this happened in all 3 games.
12) The music. Distinct, unique. Helps build the atmosphere. You won't be confusing Halo's music with anything else.
That's just a list of thing's I've noticed. I'm sure there are more little things that I din't notice, but that enhanced the experience anyway
In the end, its an amazing balancing act.
The original Halo was a groundbreaking game, it was up there among the best FPS's ever created. A lot of people hate it because its on a console, those people are idiots. Halo 2/3 followed the formula with minor improvements. Many things halo did had been done before, but no game had integrated them so well.
A lot of times, even Halo fans have problems identifiying what makes the games so great. It's actually many little things. This is what makes them so brilliant IMHO, they're subtle. You're just enjoying it without knowing, that is great design.
So what made HALO CE so great?
1) The fight triad. You can use guns, grenades or melee, all immediately accesible -each type of attack mapped to a button-. This leads to very dynamic battles. A sort of rock-paper-scissors situation.
2) The two weapon limitation. It's been pointed out, as an element of strategy
3) The control scheme. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I think they *created* the standard control scheme for FPS's on consoles.
4) The vehicles. Seamlessly integrated into the game. A variety of distint vehicles are available you you to choose.
5) The control scheme for vehicles. Where you control the camera, not the vehicle and the vehicle follows. Sounds weird until you try it.Its actually brilliant
6) The rechargeable shields. Its been pointed out
7) No bosses. Did you notice that Halo has no bosses? -Mr Yahtzee didn't get this one-. Allow for faster pacing.
8) Cortana. She's actually a plot device. A way of moving the story forward without pausing for cutscenes. Again, for pacing. She's not a sidekick running around near you getting killed, just brilliant.
9) The storyline is pretty good. Specially on the first one.
10) The AI. Its quite convincing, both in allies and foes. Did you notice how much your allies make comments on what's happening? Helps make the whole thing more believable. Did you see the grunts running away when their elite leader was killed?
11) The levels. All three games have fantastic levels. Do I need to mention the Silent Cartographer? The first level of Halo 3 is just amazing, you can see they spent more time on that level than on the others. However, I must also concede that they have a couple of pretty sucky levels as well -library anyone? There is also something about their level design that is confusing - sometimes I found myself backtracking without knowing it, this happened in all 3 games.
12) The music. Distinct, unique. Helps build the atmosphere. You won't be confusing Halo's music with anything else.
That's just a list of thing's I've noticed. I'm sure there are more little things that I din't notice, but that enhanced the experience anyway
In the end, its an amazing balancing act.
I can only deduce from analysing available evidence that when people call Halo "generic" they are referring to the 'move around in first-person view shooting things' format, unless you can offer some other explanation as to what makes it so much more generic than the other four hundred shooters released in the past five years.shadow skill said:
Like Halo or hate Halo, that doesn't bother me one bit. But if someone is going to spout off a deliberately contrary opinion about anything in an open forum, I want to see some evidence to back those claims up.
So far, no one has convincingly explained to me why Halo is bad. They complain about the short campaign length but forgive other games for it. They complain about a weak story, but if you name an FPS that has a better one I can name two that don't.
Halo 3 is consistently number 1 in the most played Xbox Live list and has been every week since its release, making it the first game to dethrone Gears of War which was the first game to take the number one spot away from Halo 2. The typical defence against this argument is to call Halo 3 players 'MS drones' or 'Bungie whores', but give the gaming community some credit. We don't play bad games, not with this kind of passion, and at the end of the day you just might have to accept that beyond your own opinions and personal bias, there is a good game that hundreds of thousands of people are genuinely enjoying every day.
Is it overhyped? Good god, yes. Does that automatically equal a poor or generic game? You tell me, boss.
I enjoyed the hype. Of course, nobody should have expected anything to live up to that kind of hype, ever. It was, however, very good and absurd fun, like a celebration of the entire videogame industry, and recognition of how many people enjoy the fruit of its labours.
To repeat myself:
I have yet to see someone come up with a reason why it is a good game that did not devolve into "Millions of people are playing it." argument much like your post is.shadow skill said:
How does this make it unfair to call Halo 3 Generic? The statement implies that there are in fact shooters that do not have plots that are as weak as Halo's which would make said games less generic in this respect by definition. Therefore it would mean that stating that Halo 3 is generic is completely valid no matter how many other games are since there is at least one game that is not in fact generic.
1. I don't see why the grunts being afraid of the Master Chief is quite the affront that you feel it is. From the first moment they see him (in terms of the story) he wades through their rank and file leaving a trail of corpses. The grunts are the weakest of the weak, the front line which can be fearsome in large numbers but the Chief is a new foe that is singlehandedly decimating their forces. Would it make more sense to you that they continuously throw themselves at him, knowing they're going to die?
We see them running away, even hiding behind bigger, badder enemies and taking potshots at you before running back behind cover. This makes sense to me in the context of things. Sorry you apparently don't feel the same way.
2. I'm actually racking my brains trying to figure out what was so mind bogglingly confusing about the Halo button layout on the Xbox that had you begging for a way to change it up. Would this have been a nice feature to have? Maybe, for the small percentage of people who wanted it, I'll acknowledge that. But frankly, this is the least consequential gameplay issue I've ever seen addressed.
3. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to. You (presumably) like games where you choose your map, tweak a few settings, and let people join your game. And this is fine. You can do this with your friendslist in Halo 3 incidentally.
The general Halo 3 matchmaking is pretty much random - you choose a non-specific gametype and get thrown into a match at random, sometimes with party members/friends if you're playing socially or in team games. I'm not ignorant of the alternatives, friend. I prefer Halo 3 matchmaking. I decided I was sick of your preferred method when I logged into Rainbow Six: Vegas and every available Terrorist Hunt game was being held on LVU campus. Halo 3 is a faster paced game, a big part of it is being able to think on your feet and make snap decisions that decide whether you score or the enemy does (saying "live or die" is far too dramatic). So you get thrown into a game of Oddball on Epitaph and you have to adapt. The next game is Slayer on Highground and you adapt again. Even with the same people on the same map there is no constant set of tactics that will always serve you well, especially with Bungie offering alternatives like the Team Hardcore playlist which eliminates abuse of certain weapons (most notably shotgun camping the tunnels on the Snowbound map).
4. So you're annoyed about the striking similary between the behaviour of the flood and the behaviour of headcrabs from Half-life. Let's get past that for a moment and actually look at what you're saying: Bungie were unsatisfied with the Covenant as an enemy for the Master Chief, so instead of making them better, they added an extra enemy, packed the game with badly thought out pseudo-religious commentary, and turned everything into a sci-fi clusterfuck.
Well while we're deliberately missing the point of things by poorly informing ourselves, I'd like to take this opportunity to call Half-Life 2 a game about a man who is kidnapped by underground terrorists hellbent on upsetting the social order instated by the peaceloving Combine forces and spends the next few days trying desperately to escape them as they lure him to a junkyard to be the human plaything of a violent robot then send him to a decrepit ghost town once he no logner amuses them.
An elementary assessment of the actual story of either game would make us both look a lot less ignorant, but who has time for that?
Lastly, this brings us back to my original point. You can't call anything generic without establishing what generic is. Either no shooter can be called generic because there are significant differences from game to game that prevent any kind of mass pigeonholing, or we call them all generic because they consist of the same basic elements. Generic does not mean average. It doesn't even mean mediocre. It means it contains no unique characteristics - this is an inaccurate assessment of Halo.
We see them running away, even hiding behind bigger, badder enemies and taking potshots at you before running back behind cover. This makes sense to me in the context of things. Sorry you apparently don't feel the same way.
2. I'm actually racking my brains trying to figure out what was so mind bogglingly confusing about the Halo button layout on the Xbox that had you begging for a way to change it up. Would this have been a nice feature to have? Maybe, for the small percentage of people who wanted it, I'll acknowledge that. But frankly, this is the least consequential gameplay issue I've ever seen addressed.
3. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to. You (presumably) like games where you choose your map, tweak a few settings, and let people join your game. And this is fine. You can do this with your friendslist in Halo 3 incidentally.
The general Halo 3 matchmaking is pretty much random - you choose a non-specific gametype and get thrown into a match at random, sometimes with party members/friends if you're playing socially or in team games. I'm not ignorant of the alternatives, friend. I prefer Halo 3 matchmaking. I decided I was sick of your preferred method when I logged into Rainbow Six: Vegas and every available Terrorist Hunt game was being held on LVU campus. Halo 3 is a faster paced game, a big part of it is being able to think on your feet and make snap decisions that decide whether you score or the enemy does (saying "live or die" is far too dramatic). So you get thrown into a game of Oddball on Epitaph and you have to adapt. The next game is Slayer on Highground and you adapt again. Even with the same people on the same map there is no constant set of tactics that will always serve you well, especially with Bungie offering alternatives like the Team Hardcore playlist which eliminates abuse of certain weapons (most notably shotgun camping the tunnels on the Snowbound map).
4. So you're annoyed about the striking similary between the behaviour of the flood and the behaviour of headcrabs from Half-life. Let's get past that for a moment and actually look at what you're saying: Bungie were unsatisfied with the Covenant as an enemy for the Master Chief, so instead of making them better, they added an extra enemy, packed the game with badly thought out pseudo-religious commentary, and turned everything into a sci-fi clusterfuck.
Well while we're deliberately missing the point of things by poorly informing ourselves, I'd like to take this opportunity to call Half-Life 2 a game about a man who is kidnapped by underground terrorists hellbent on upsetting the social order instated by the peaceloving Combine forces and spends the next few days trying desperately to escape them as they lure him to a junkyard to be the human plaything of a violent robot then send him to a decrepit ghost town once he no logner amuses them.
An elementary assessment of the actual story of either game would make us both look a lot less ignorant, but who has time for that?
Lastly, this brings us back to my original point. You can't call anything generic without establishing what generic is. Either no shooter can be called generic because there are significant differences from game to game that prevent any kind of mass pigeonholing, or we call them all generic because they consist of the same basic elements. Generic does not mean average. It doesn't even mean mediocre. It means it contains no unique characteristics - this is an inaccurate assessment of Halo.
Lets look at a few things objectively, shall we?
Plot: Halo CE's plot was good. Halo 2's plot was okay (but with the religious context of leading a civilization onto mass suicide due to beliefs etc). Halo 3's plot was okay but had an element of epicness to it. Furthermore you cannot judge Halo 3 storyline as being bland (aliens are invading) while ignoring the 1st 2 games. The books are not necessary to get the plot, but provide a good backstory and flesh out some of the characters and background events.
Hype: Hype is bad. But you can't blame a game for being hyped, you can only blame a game for not living up to hype. Furthermore, another word for hype is marketing. Something that all gaming developers want done.
Popularity: Halo CE attracted fans with it's innovative new features. Halo 2 brought on those fans, plus new fans who found the multiplayer easy to use, polished, balanced and FUN. Remember that thing? Halo 3 carried over those fans plus new ones who still enjoy the multiplayer.
High score: Personally i think Halo 3 was rated too highly, being a 9 at most but I hate unjustified critisms.
The Flood: The flood were an excellent plot device in the first game, where they were accidentaly released by the covenant suddenly shifting the entire battle on Halo in an entirely different direction.
In conclusion, Halo 3 is not the best game ever, it is not overly brilliant in it's story or innovativeness (Halo CE doesn't count here). What it is, is polished, balanced and fun for millions of people. There are some shooters that are certainly better than it's singleplayer, but virtually none better than its multiplayer, a few are on par.
Plot: Halo CE's plot was good. Halo 2's plot was okay (but with the religious context of leading a civilization onto mass suicide due to beliefs etc). Halo 3's plot was okay but had an element of epicness to it. Furthermore you cannot judge Halo 3 storyline as being bland (aliens are invading) while ignoring the 1st 2 games. The books are not necessary to get the plot, but provide a good backstory and flesh out some of the characters and background events.
Hype: Hype is bad. But you can't blame a game for being hyped, you can only blame a game for not living up to hype. Furthermore, another word for hype is marketing. Something that all gaming developers want done.
Popularity: Halo CE attracted fans with it's innovative new features. Halo 2 brought on those fans, plus new fans who found the multiplayer easy to use, polished, balanced and FUN. Remember that thing? Halo 3 carried over those fans plus new ones who still enjoy the multiplayer.
High score: Personally i think Halo 3 was rated too highly, being a 9 at most but I hate unjustified critisms.
The Flood: The flood were an excellent plot device in the first game, where they were accidentaly released by the covenant suddenly shifting the entire battle on Halo in an entirely different direction.
In conclusion, Halo 3 is not the best game ever, it is not overly brilliant in it's story or innovativeness (Halo CE doesn't count here). What it is, is polished, balanced and fun for millions of people. There are some shooters that are certainly better than it's singleplayer, but virtually none better than its multiplayer, a few are on par.
Halo CE implemented the standard control scheme. Left analog stick for movement, right to move the camera. It also implemented recharging shields. Almost every FPS complies with those two standards.
Halo 2 was one of the first major X-Box live capable games. It's matchmaking system has been copied in many games since then. It allowed and opened the door to competitive online play and is the main reason MLG has become so popular. MLG Halo 2 matches have been aired live on g4.
Halo 3 looks to perfect the ideas from the other Halos and add in items such as the forge and saved films, that will probable become industry standards.
Anyways Halo 2 was my first taste of online play. I loved the competitiveness, emphasis in skills such as the ability to shoot someone i the head, and matchmaking system. Playing a game with rooms who's host is always adding in stupid rules and making sure his team wins are sub par to me. As a result while games like GoW were coming out I stuck with Halo 2. Other games with more that 8 people on a team irritate my because its impossible to use any teamwork. Game without a ranking system drive me must because I'm almost always playing people who asses I can cook.
Halo 2 and then Halo 3 offered the best online multiplayer for someone very competitive such as my self. Lately other games have been coming close and I think a few have past it in areas but Halo 3's multiplayer is more solid than any other game I've come across in both PC and X-Box.
Though they really should have added a cover system like GoW, R6 Vegas, or GRAW 2. Can't get everything I suppose.
All three halo's were over hyped with it getting worse each time. However, the first two set industry standards and the third may do the same but in much smaller ways.
Halo 2 was one of the first major X-Box live capable games. It's matchmaking system has been copied in many games since then. It allowed and opened the door to competitive online play and is the main reason MLG has become so popular. MLG Halo 2 matches have been aired live on g4.
Halo 3 looks to perfect the ideas from the other Halos and add in items such as the forge and saved films, that will probable become industry standards.
Anyways Halo 2 was my first taste of online play. I loved the competitiveness, emphasis in skills such as the ability to shoot someone i the head, and matchmaking system. Playing a game with rooms who's host is always adding in stupid rules and making sure his team wins are sub par to me. As a result while games like GoW were coming out I stuck with Halo 2. Other games with more that 8 people on a team irritate my because its impossible to use any teamwork. Game without a ranking system drive me must because I'm almost always playing people who asses I can cook.
Halo 2 and then Halo 3 offered the best online multiplayer for someone very competitive such as my self. Lately other games have been coming close and I think a few have past it in areas but Halo 3's multiplayer is more solid than any other game I've come across in both PC and X-Box.
Though they really should have added a cover system like GoW, R6 Vegas, or GRAW 2. Can't get everything I suppose.
All three halo's were over hyped with it getting worse each time. However, the first two set industry standards and the third may do the same but in much smaller ways.
No, it didn't, and people really need to stop claiming this like it's a fact.ClassicThunder said:
Both TimeSplitters and Red Faction had the same control scheme about a year earlier than Halo, and I believe there were at least a few PSX games that also had the same control scheme once the Dual Shock controller was released.
Do research before you post such a ridiculous claim, please. Just because Halo is the most popular game to have implemented the controls doesn't by any means make it the first.
Well you see here is the funny thing in Halo 3 is that if you happen to play southpaw like I do an interesting thing happens it becomes virtually impossible to jump and move at the same time because in order to press A you have to stretch over to the right in order to press the button. Its doable but its not confortable at all. So you switch to bumper jumper the only problem with that is that you end up with the same problem for reloading! It may not matter to you but it matters to people who do like to use those kinds of options. It's a fact that the controls break down if you begin to use anything but the defaults, but now its a minor concern because it doesn't bother you. (Don't believe me, then ask yourself why A,X,Y,B are not mapped to the dpad by default....)Kermi said:
What I want from the online interface is to have it not be random unless I go and create a room on my own at which point I would have to wait for people to join my room. My only other option is to allow the matchmaking algorithm to pick for me which lo and behold does not always work nicely. Why is it that in games like Resistance I can go ahead and use Halo like Matchmaking and also have access to a proper manual selection system that does not require me to become the host and wait for people to join?
Uhh where did I say Halo was doom? Please tell me where what I said was that those aliens being cute did not make sense witin the context of Halo. I illustrated the point by using Doom and fliffy bunnies as an example of this.