Halo 3

[shadow skill]

Alrighty then, first of all, I enjoyed the Halo series. Secondly, I loved Halo 1. Thirdly, I hated and despised Halo 2. Fourthly, I loved (though not quite to the same extent as Halo 1) Halo 3. I'll tell it to you like this. When Halo 1 came out I was a wee little lad with no money. A couple of my friends with money were playing it, but since I was coming out of N64 room where I played Goldeneye and Turok 2, I sucked at the controls. Later on in my life I had reason to go back to the wonders of Halo 1 and I started learning the controls. I'm still not as good as some, but I can manage. I got really excited by the story line. Obviously, me being rather young (and rather poor and relatively bad at games) I hadn't gotten the chance to learn about all these story lines and innovations that I keep hearing Halo ran amok with. It does merit the question, "How does a little known game publisher come out with a game on a new system (that apparently has a lot of games with the same sort of controller scheme) get so much hype that we can all bicker about it like eight year old school boys who think girls have coodies and therefore stay away from them like the plague?" From my standpoint I can't really think of hearing about Bungie before Halo, and I believe that back in the day, they made games for Macintosh. So I'll add to the question. How does a game get all the hype to get game of the year and gather enough of a following for the third and final installment to get record sales in the history of MANKIND, without having something new and innovative? (Notice I'm not using the "millions of people play that" line, sino the "why do millions of people play that?") I mean, come on, it's not like it has sex. I like the freedom of the controls (two sticks instead of one stick and C-directions from N64). Also, people keep saying that Halo steals from a smorgasboard of different games. Now, to make a point, in the martial arts community the dojos with the biggest numbers recently are MMA (mixed martial arts). Why? Because people want the best of everything to defend themselves. Halo combines a lot of innovations from other games, throws in a few of its own, and comes out with MFPS (mixed first person shooter). Why? Because most people want the best of everything. I admit, I could be a little lost on the story if I hadn't read the books, but they were damn good books. The storyline wasn't half bad, but it could draw parallels to the Marathon series (Bungie's FPS for Macintosh that came out around the same time as Doom, and beats Doom shitless, if you ask me.) In all, while Halo has its flaws, why do people play it? Because they enjoy a mediocrity competition? No, because they actually like the game. They find it easy to immerse themselves into the storyline. They like the controls, they like the gameplay. They just FUCKING LIKE IT. And if you don't, nobody's asking you to.

Yet I keep seeing threads here and in other places with jackasses screaming for "proof" of why halo is bad etc. Please It is evident when you read this and other threads like this one that even when you bring up things that are wrong with a game that are not based soley on an opinion that the people starting these threads will instantly try to downplay whatever the problem happens to be because it doesn't fit into their Game X is great world view. I've been told I have been playing game x,y,z for not enjoying being pushed into a certain style of play artificially while the defenders of that game cry about realism even though I can point to simillar games that allowed certain UI choices that had no optionality in game xyz and were turned on by default. So really who the hell are you to start screaming they just fucking like it when the exact opposite is just as valid....Oh wait..

 

[Zeddicus Zhul Zorander]

I'm not speaking for them, I'm speaking for me and quite a few other people who just like the game. If they want proof they can cry to the gods or something. I mean really, people need to start finding their own reasons for liking or disliking something and not depend on everybody else's opinion. I like to do my own thinking, thank you, and I encourage everyone here to do the same.

 

[Zeddicus Zhul Zorander]

By the way, I agree that people try to downplay the flaws of a game just because they like it. People do this in circumstances throughout life. It's called being hypocritical, and everyone at one point or another is a hypocrit. Once again, people who want proof can go cry to the gods. I just know that I really enjoy everything about Halo, and so do lots of people. Maybe they have to be right-handed, I don't know.

 

[shadow skill]

I'm not speaking for them, I'm speaking for me and quite a few other people who just like the game. If they want proof they can cry to the gods or something. I mean really, people need to start finding their own reasons for liking or disliking something and not depend on everybody else's opinion. I like to do my own thinking, thank you, and I encourage everyone here to do the same.

I can tell you this no one who dislikes the game here at least is concerned with the normal people who like the game. I don't go around starting "I hate Halo" threads and I doubt the others here do. I'm just very tired of the retards who are always trying to tell me its my fault for (in this case) not using the default configuration and wanting the same functionality that I can find in other games and almost never have to worry about on the PC. Or the intellectually disingenous assholes crying for "proof" that they ignore whilst screaming "U R RONG!!!!!!!oneeleven!!" I often wonder if these same retards would tell a disabled person that it is perfectly acceptable that they simply not be allowed to entre an establishment even though making the establishment accessible would not inconvinience any able bodied patrons (The only thing really is money and even then how much money depends on how things are made in the first place, and it really only affects the owner.) and in some instances may actually make things easier for the able bodied patrons!

I also wonder if they would actually try to tell someone that a program that constantly leaked ram to the point of crashing the system while performing a task was a good product even with the severe memory leak problem that simillar programs either do not have or do not have to the degree that the program in question does.

 

[Zeddicus Zhul Zorander]

Hey, I understand where you're coming from. I do know people who are left-handed and have no problem with the game. You, obviously, aren't one of those people. It sucks that you can't customize the controller to the point that you want to. I will say that with the way the Halo series plays, and where the buttons are the controller doesn't really do much for a Southpaw. I mean, if you like the game, I would suggest waiting for it to come out one the PC. If not, then don't. I also have a problem with hypocrits. I can't stand the little assholes, but I'm a hypocrit with some things, so I don't begrudge them too much. I just don't waste my time with them.

 

[briantw]

The most attractive thing about Halo is that it is so solid. The story is well written and everything fits in nicely. Its not anything new, but neither is anything esle these days (Nintendo).

How can anyone think the story in Halo is well-written, especially in the latter two games? The dialogue is awful. It sounds like it was written by a five-year-old who only had the previous experience of watching Predator on his resume. The dialogue is disgustingly cliche, particularly when it comes to every single line uttered by Johnson of the Master Chief. The motive of the Covenant is so laughably evil that I can't imagine any one, not even a group of religious extremists, would actually want to accomplish it (much less support it like most of the Covenant forces do). The Flood serve no real purpose other than to make the segments of the game that they appear in suck ass (and since they're not in the least bit scary, I never really feel like they're some enormous galactic threat). The Master Chief is a boring hero with no personality. And the list just goes on and on.

I mean, really, what do people see in the story of the Halo series? The first game told a competent story. Nothing special, but rather about average. However, the two sequels just sucked an enormous amount of ass when it came to the story-telling department.

Now, maybe if you've read the books there's some huge epiphany to be had that will suddenly make the schlock that is Halo's story turn to gold, but, as I mentioned before, different mediums should be independent of one another, and Bungie shouldn't punish their fans by hiring the shitty writers to pen the games and the good ones to do the books. They also shouldn't leave out hundreds of important details in the story of the game as they appear to have done (based on what people have said about the content of the books, this does appear to be the case).

 

[Knight Templar]

the master chief is ment to be a blank slate it means everyone can relate to him -just like gordon freeman- as for the Covenant's motives being odd- well that proves you dont even pay atention. they arnt trying to kill everthing they thig the rings make them gods, thats why the want to turn them on. i dont think the dialog is that bad. if you want cliche look at commarnd and conquere. the flood do seem like a threat, if you dont pick it up thats you not the game. but if you think even religious extremists wont do what the Covenant want to do then you have missed some big events like 9/11. if people think dieing will make them powerful in the afterlife then they will do it (die that is). Halo 3 is fun to play that makes all its shortcomings unimportant. but i will say halo 3 seems to be more like a mulityplayer game then the others. and the flood are as scary as bunny. (but not the monty python one)
P.S. my spelling sucks, i just type fast so it takes a back seat. i know about it so dont metion it

 

[briantw]

the master chief is ment to be a blank slate it means everyone can relate to him -just like gordon freeman-

There is a distinct difference between Gordon Freeman and the Master Chief. You never see Gordon Freeman. Never. He never talks. Never. There are no cut-scenes in Half-Life. Essentially, you are Gordon Freeman.

The Chief is different. You see him plenty of times. He's just really dull. He also talks, just not very often and only in cliches.

as for the Covenant's motives being odd- well that proves you dont even pay atention. they arnt trying to kill everthing they thig the rings make them gods, thats why the want to turn them on.

Actually, I believe that they know the rings will kill everything, but they think that doing so will allow them to ascend into their version of Heaven. All the same, it's a really stupid goal.

the flood do seem like a threat, if you dont pick it up thats you not the game.

The concept of the Flood is a threat, but they never really seem like that in the game. They never seem scary like the headcrab epidemic does in Half-Life 2, probably because you never actually see any semblance of civilization in the Halo series. You're restricted to seeing the military in action, and as such you don't really feel any impact over what's happening to the Earth.

The Flood themselves, though, in the games, are little more than annoying, and not scary in the least.

but if you think even religious extremists wont do what the Covenant want to do then you have missed some big events like 9/11. if people think dieing will make them powerful in the afterlife then they will do it (die that is).

The difference there, though, is that the religious extremists who perpetrated 9/11 aren't seeking to kill every one, only those that don't follow their religion. There's an enormous difference there. Sure, they are willing to die for their beliefs, but they aren't going to do something stupid like wipe out the entirety of existence for them. Even crazy extremists have limits to their stupidity.

Halo 3 is fun to play that makes all its shortcomings unimportant. but i will say halo 3 seems to be more like a mulityplayer game then the others.

I disagree. I think that, when a game is marketed to be some enormous epic, the mere fact that it's fun doesn't remove all of the story-telling shortcomings.

This is especially true when you consider that most people say that the only reason to buy Halo 3 is for the multi-player, and yet the matchmaking system sucks a boatload of ass.

P.S. my spelling sucks, i just type fast so it takes a back seat. i know about it so dont metion it

I'll forgive you for that. I got the gist of what you were saying.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Woah people, You have completely forgotten the point of thsi thread. It was about halo 3 not halo CE and its controls.

After fisihing the HALO 3 storyline (not the complete storyline from the halo arc)I felt a little bit dissapointed. the reason is because the plot just seemed to revolve around linking one scarab battle to the other, and it felt like every mission involved me taking down AA wraiths. The evil preist guy wants to kill everything storyline started to repeat itself and the game broke away from the awesome "you are earths saviour" to the you blow shit up to kill the bad guy.

And frankly I don't like the MP as much as I liked Halo 2. While the Forge and Theater was fun at first I got bored very quickly. It seemed every game was played the same way, Run to weapon, kill and then die and the only gametype that made me stick to halo 3 for around a month was the Normandy Landing forge map. what i liked so much about halo2 is the Tower of Power on accension and swat on thatround level with the four bases.

beacuse halo 3 didn't give me those simple fun moments that halo 2 did, I felt dissapointed by it.

 

[shadow skill]

More than anything making Halo's story work required balls that Bungie does not have, hell I don't think any of these companies have the balls to even try making things like this really come to life. It takes bravery to make a religious extremist that isn't just a cartoon antagonist in the end.

 

[CyberAkuma]

Ugh... I played Halo 3 yeasterday and it reminded me more and more why I disliked the game.

While I do enjoy the massive scenery when huge battles are taking place when it's everyone vs. everyone, but theres one giant flaw about the game and that is that in many cases it is virtually impossible to distinguish the enemies from your allies.

I'm playing as the covenant Elite-dude versus a vast load of Flood-enemies.
The problem lies in that there's Elite-troops in this vast stage fighting the flood and I'm in the middle of it all.
The fact that some of the flood have personal protective shields, they also have beam swords and other covenant weapons and they run around everywhere makes it near impossible to distinguish them from the Elites, (that I am NOT supposed to shoot at) also, the fact that the flood knows how to pilot the covenant veichles makes it even harder for me to know who to shoot at so the best way to describe the situation is using the word 'clusterfuck'.

On the upside, they are trying to create massive battles on very wide open spaces in the game, and hats off to their ambition but in Halo 3 the execution of that is downright horrid.

Also, the entire idea of having the Flood in the game just pisses me off.
The Flood is supposed to be kind of stupid and primitive, and that is clearly displayed on the battlefield were they just simply charge at you without any reasoning, that's OK but could someone please explain to me how it is possible that they can do advanced maneuvers with our tanks, our veichles and how they can even manouver some of our ships and cruisers. That makes very little sense to me.

An example, a flood has taken over a covenant Wraith-tank, (the big purple battletanks that spew out giant blue fireballs) and for some reason, if they spot me they can shoot me from miles away, and if I try to come close to hi-jack the tank they are able to do the most rediculously advanced manouvers to try to avoid me while shooting at me with perfect accuracy.

I just don't get it.

 

[Fire Daemon]

More than anything making Halo's story work required balls that Bungie does not have, hell I don't think any of these companies have the balls to even try making things like this really come to life. It takes bravery to make a religious extremist that isn't just a cartoon antagonist in the end.

I think IW did that well with Call of Duty 4 and Al-Asad.

 

[Saskwach]

Also, the entire idea of having the Flood in the game just pisses me off.
The Flood is supposed to be kind of stupid and primitive, and that is clearly displayed on the battlefield were they just simply charge at you without any reasoning, that's OK but could someone please explain to me how it is possible that they can do advanced maneuvers with our tanks, our veichles and how they can even manouver some of our ships and cruisers. That makes very little sense to me.

An example, a flood has taken over a covenant Wraith-tank, (the big purple battletanks that spew out giant blue fireballs) and for some reason, if they spot me they can shoot me from miles away, and if I try to come close to hi-jack the tank they are able to do the most rediculously advanced manouvers to try to avoid me while shooting at me with perfect accuracy.

I just don't get it.

When did this happen? I'm trying very hard but I cannot think of a single instance in Halo 3 when flood and a wraith tank coexisted in the same area. I also really don't think the flood ever use vehicles in game.

 

[briantw]

More than anything making Halo's story work required balls that Bungie does not have, hell I don't think any of these companies have the balls to even try making things like this really come to life. It takes bravery to make a religious extremist that isn't just a cartoon antagonist in the end.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Halo's storyline could have been very interesting and edgy, but because they wanted to market the game for mass consumption by all the idiot frat boys out there, they needed to over-simplify the story and take away anything that might have been perceived as controversial.

In the end, you're left with an antagonist who is so ridiculously evil that you can't possibly see why any one would follow him. Bungie needs to learn that a truly great antagonist needs to be one that the audience can relate to, even if they despise his methods. Truth, to me at least, was comparable to Fontaine from BioShock. Both were just over-the-top evil, and they both kind of ruined the stories in their respective games for me.

 

[shadow skill]

Mass Effect was on the right track until they fucked things up with the whole indoctrination bit. I think the best antagonists in this respect for the last few years are found in the Metal Gear games.

 

[Ydna]

I don't think the point of the religious leaders was that bad. Yes the game doesn't explicitely outright discuss why these crazy dudes are in power, but you're probably not thinking in terms of the game if you can't relate. From the Covenant perspective, they're not crazy murderous monsters. This is the exact same thing as the perspective of a middle-eastern refugee whose house was destroyed by the superpowers (US et all) whilst they try to reshape the region. Those people are real, and you better believe they don't think too highly of anybody in a Capitalism state (ie, sympathetic to terrorists).

From anyone's perspective who believes in them, those terrorists aren't evil murderous killers. They're necessarially-murderous freedom fighters doing what needs to be done for their homeland. The same thing happened in WWII, when the Nazis killed millions of innocents; they didn't think it was evil either. Covenant wouldn't think they were horrid monsters doing horrible things, they're just following their mislead leaders (misled by our perspective).

I'm not sure where anybody would find fault in that. It has happened half dozen times in the past couple hundred years.

Realistically (in terms of the game anyway) the Covenant were clearly onto something in that their "great rings" would propel them to.....well, somethingorother. But it was presumably the afterlife that they were striving to reach.
It's a given that they would have to die to get there. But think about it for a second: given that the passage to Christian heaven usually requires death, perhaps the Covenant were right all along. That might have been the point of the game creators, who knows.
Of course the counterpoint to that is, to get there[afterlife] you have to kill everybody in the galaxy, so the point of the game's plot is to avoid that. Hey I'm interested to know if they were right, but I wouldn't want to kill everybody around me to find out...I assume you would feel the same. Know what I mean?

I just mean to point out it's difficult to sit there in our nice quaint armchairs and say "I don't believe that is realistic cause I wouldn't do it". You have to actually think about the story and its ramifications, and relate to everybody involved, even if they have two pairs of knees Alleged generic action shooters rarely have you put the thought into it, whic is one of the points in halo...you can still blow stuff up and not think one second about it. It allows the game to please both the fratboys with rocket launchers, and the science fiction fans and historians.

 

[shadow skill]

I don't think the point of the religious leaders was that bad. Yes the game doesn't explicitely outright discuss why these crazy dudes are in power, but you're probably not thinking in terms of the game if you can't relate. From the Covenant perspective, they're not crazy murderous monsters. This is the exact same thing as the perspective of a middle-eastern refugee whose house was destroyed by the superpowers (US et all) whilst they try to reshape the region. Those people are real, and you better believe they don't think too highly of anybody in a Capitalism state (ie, sympathetic to terrorists).

From anyone's perspective who believes in them, those terrorists aren't evil murderous killers. They're necessarially-murderous freedom fighters doing what needs to be done for their homeland. The same thing happened in WWII, when the Nazis killed millions of innocents; they didn't think it was evil either. Covenant wouldn't think they were horrid monsters doing horrible things, they're just following their mislead leaders (misled by our perspective).

I'm not sure where anybody would find fault in that. It has happened half dozen times in the past couple hundred years.

Realistically (in terms of the game anyway) the Covenant were clearly onto something in that their "great rings" would propel them to.....well, somethingorother. But it was presumably the afterlife that they were striving to reach.
It's a given that they would have to die to get there. But think about it for a second: given that the passage to Christian heaven usually requires death, perhaps the Covenant were right all along. That might have been the point of the game creators, who knows.
Of course the counterpoint to that is, to get there[afterlife] you have to kill everybody in the galaxy, so the point of the game's plot is to avoid that. Hey I'm interested to know if they were right, but I wouldn't want to kill everybody around me to find out...I assume you would feel the same. Know what I mean?

I just mean to point out it's difficult to sit there in our nice quaint armchairs and say "I don't believe that is realistic cause I wouldn't do it". You have to actually think about the story and its ramifications, and relate to everybody involved, even if they have two pairs of knees Alleged generic action shooters rarely have you put the thought into it, whic is one of the points in halo...you can still blow stuff up and not think one second about it. It allows the game to please both the fratboys with rocket launchers, and the science fiction fans and historians.

There is just one small problem with what you said, you never really get to see things from the point of view of the covenant save in Halo 2. In every single real life example of extremism it is a means to an end (a very earthly one) not the end itself. If this was not the case we would have already engaged in a full scale nuclear war a very long time ago. When you look at modern terrorism/extremism it is not too hard to figure out where some of it actually comes from because the leaders themselves don't just wake up one day and say "I think I am going to start a Holy War." to suggest that pointing out this failure on the part of Halo is "Armchair critquing" is laughable at best. Especially since there is indeed a way to craft a story in which you have a case for causing that kind of destruction that does not turn out to be so damn cheesy. (See Mass Effect.)

 

[J-Val]

I think IW did that well with Call of Duty 4 and Al-Asad.

Al-Asad was in cartoonish proportions ("Kill da West! Shoot da President! Human suffering is graet!"), and he's not a religious leader, just a warlord. Someone in a position of power who happens to be religious does not consitute a religious leader.

Also, I particularily hate Halo's antagonists because they're so unambiguously evil (apart from the cliche good aliens). How about a game where Mankind attacks an alien planet for once? Or where the aliens are a much better race than us, and only hope to advance our morals and technology? Or, at least, where the leaders aren't completely corrupt and the warriors aren't heartless bags of pure, unaltered beast?

And Halo 3, to me, fails rather miserably. Just as the combat, scenery and plot of the original bored me, so does Halo 3's.
Besides, saying "Well, Halo did this!" or "Halo implemented that!" is beside the point. This is about Halo 3, not Halo: CE. Halo 3 would be considered a great game several years ago, but not now, when we're offered so much more substantial and developed games (Gears of War, Rainbow Six et al). There are a multitude of games that have better multiplayer - nevermind singleplayer - than Halo 3.

Mass Effect was on the right track until they fucked things up with the whole indoctrination bit.

Not really. Mass Effect made the antagonists very well, as all, apart from the REAL leader (who I will not name for spoiler reasons), aren't actually evil. The Geth are just defending themselves, Saren (SPOILER) was an asshole, but not evil, and was technically more of a hapless victim.
Compare that to Halo and its malicious leaders and malevolent aliens, and it reveals just how cliche and generic Halo's plot is.

 

[shadow skill]

Granted Mass Effect was better at the whole thing, I just think that the whole indoctrination thing made Saren less than what he could have been in the end since he was more like a poor bastard than a guy doing what he was doing because he felt it was the best solution. The indoctrination angle screwed that up because the real threat basically took over things. Saren really wasn't Saren anymore. As for the Geth they have moved beyond simply defending themselves because the Quarians no longer are a threat to them. Their movements now have more to do with worshiping certain beings rather than maintaining their own existence.