if halo 3 came to ps3 would u buy it?

[AndyFromMonday]

I already have it, so no.

Anyways, do you really expect any of these angry PS3 fanboys to say yes? That would be like Poland saying I love Germany during WW2.

You do, of course, realize that not every one who doesn't like Halo is a fanboy, correct? Some people just don't think it's a good game. Like I said, I don't understand what's so great about it, I find it pretty average, but to each his own, I suppose.

That's not what I said either.

Xbox 360 fanboys would never say that Killzone 2 is good, just like PS3 fanboys will never admit that Halo 3 is good.

I own a Xbox...and I admit Killzone 2 looks pretty amazing. But I won't comment since I didn't play it, if I ever get the chance too then that would be pretty cool.

 

[Breno]

I already have it, so no.

Anyways, do you really expect any of these angry PS3 fanboys to say yes? That would be like Poland saying I love Germany during WW2.

You do, of course, realize that not every one who doesn't like Halo is a fanboy, correct? Some people just don't think it's a good game. Like I said, I don't understand what's so great about it, I find it pretty average, but to each his own, I suppose.

That's not what I said either.

Xbox 360 fanboys would never say that Killzone 2 is good, just like PS3 fanboys will never admit that Halo 3 is good.

im sorta a ps3 fanboy like when someone says 360 rules i wud have to say ps3 the best but i dont start fight or anything and i have no problem saying halo 3 is great because i honestly think it is great and i would love to have it on the ps3

 

[tk1989]

it seem people hate halo 3 just cause people with it always go on about how good it is i myself dont have a 360 but i love it and i would buy it if it came to ps3 would u?

ofcourse there no chance of it happing

Hmm, let's see...

Inferior graphics to Resistance 2.

Inferior weaponry balance to Resistance 2.

Inferior weaponry in general to Resistance 2.

Smaller games than Resistance 2.

VASTLY inferior single player mode to Resistance 2.

No Class-based gameplay, unlike Resistance 2.

More bugs than Resistance 2.

Less Character Customisation than Resistance 2.



Where, exactly, is the reason to buy this game AT ALL, let alone if it hypothetically came to PS3? The only thing it seems to have going for it is you get vehicles, which is not in itself always helpful; go try playing Warhawk as a footslogger, and you'll soon be sick to fucking death of vehicles.

u are forgetting forge and the movie maker type thing and the way in wich the game are played for instance in reistance 2 team deathmatch 60 players it is just runing aimlessly looking for someone to shoot at when u find them u of corse u start shooting but wheil u are fireing there is a big chance another player from ur side or theres will come along and help u or them whiel in halo u will proble ending up jumping around throwing granade around the corner and its very much a 1 on 1 most of the time oka sure in R2 u can have smaller match or play skirmis but its the small diffences that makes the game. things such has how powerful is a punch or if u move dose ur accuracy go down or stay the same that and the way u can has very custom custom games(and i tought resistance 2 graphics look bad just the way they where presented it look really stupit to me anyway)

i am not a halo 3 fanboy i do not own halo 3 i play R2 and K2 but i just dont think halo 3 deserves the crap it gets

First off, my god! i think there was only one full stop in that whole post. Please learn to use grammar as it is impossible to read what you have written.

Secondly (this is directed at wargamer) my problem with Resistance 2 is that it seems it can solve all its problems by putting larger numbers on the end; more guns; more levels; more people playing.. I've never really felt that more numbers = better gaming experience. You haven't taken into account, for example, the differences in general gameplay, controls, multiplayer etc. Whilst i have not played Resistance 2 enough to comment on which is better or not (fyi i am not fan of Halo 3 either, i thought that the storyline was pretty arbitrary and boring) I still think that your main argument is flawed. Listing a bunch of differences in the manner that you have done does not mean that one is better than the other, and some of your arguments seem pretty pointless; I would personally choose having the forge system over more character customisation, bigger games and what you call better weaponry any day (considering that i am pretty happy with the Halo 3 weaponry as it is). Whilst many of those features that you have listed may make this game a must buy for you, by stating that it makes the game better as a result of them is foolish; from the sounds of it both games are extremely different and each has their own advantages.

Anyway.. what was the thread topic again?


I think if halo 3 came out on PS3 the majority of owners would buy it.
Also, don't bash the thread starter, it was a hypothetical question

 

[Wargamer]

u are forgetting forge and the movie maker type thing and the way in wich the game are played for instance in reistance 2 team deathmatch 60 players it is just runing aimlessly looking for someone to shoot at when u find them u of corse u start shooting but wheil u are fireing there is a big chance another player from ur side or theres will come along and help u or them whiel in halo u will proble ending up jumping around throwing granade around the corner and its very much a 1 on 1 most of the time oka sure in R2 u can have smaller match or play skirmis but its the small diffences that makes the game. things such has how powerful is a punch or if u move dose ur accuracy go down or stay the same that and the way u can has very custom custom games(and i tought resistance 2 graphics look bad just the way they where presented it look really stupit to me anyway)

i am not a halo 3 fanboy i do not own halo 3 i play R2 and K2 but i just dont think halo 3 deserves the crap it gets

That's quite an impressive block of illiteracy you've got there. Let me see if I can make any sense of that.

Your argument against the 30 vs 30 Deathmatch is that, as I understand it, someone will run up and get in your way. That happens on just about every FPS I've ever played. I have spent most of a 60-player match sat on a roof sniping away happily at people on the far side of the level, whilst behind me a close-quarter street-fight is taking place, and in front a rolling gun brawl over a No Man's Land. There is a lot of potential gaming style in the mega-battles.

Most of Resistance 2's Deathmatch play is pretty solid. Team-Deathmatch punishes players who just want to wander off and do their own thing, because the 'group spawn' system always puts you back close to squad-mates, and thus encourages players to stay close and fight as a team. If you find this to be a bad system, then you're just not a team player. You seem to be arguing this is a bad feature, but I would argue Team Deathmatch is about working as a team! You haven't got the right to ***** that you can't "1 vs 1" people in a Team game!

If you want 1 vs 1, Resistance 2 allows "Ranked" Deathmatch play for up to 20 people, and possibly more Unranked (I've never checked).

I don't really follow what you're on about with melee, but Resistance handles it well; it's a useful move, does quite a lot of damage, but it should only be done if you are certain the enemy will go down; mis-time a Melee, and you probably won't survive long enough to finish off your opponent.

I've not explored the full degree of customisation in Resistance 2 (I mostly play Ranked games, and you can't adjust their settings at all), but Resistance 1 allowed a LOT of customisation, so I'm going to assume it's similar.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

No, but not because of a fanboyish reason.

I already own a copy for the 360, and it's only competent, it's not the 'b3st geam EVARR!!!' and neither is most of the crap the PS3 has published.

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer my PS3 to the 360, but there are much better shooters out there (and they are NOT resistance 2 and Killzone 2, tho they are both good in their own ways.)

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Hypothetically, it isn't good enough to make me buy a PS£, but if I had one then I would definitely buy it. Assuming I don't have it on 360 of course. Which I do.

 

[ingsoc]

Well, I don't own a PS3, yet. I will as soon as the forthcoming price drop actually arrives. However, I did not own a copy of Halo 3 when I did have a 360 (prior to it red-ringing and me returning it) so the likelihood of me picking it up would be next to nothing. If Bungie had actually put real effort into the single player mode versus the pedestrian multi-player, perhaps I would have but they did not. The franchise had a great start with the first game but went downhill after that after making the conscious decision to make half a game and sell it at full price.

 

[jthm]

/sigh

Killzone 2 has better enemy AI. Give me a marine or the Arbiter over that worthless bum team mate from KZ2 any day.
Killzone 2 has no co-op. On or Offline. That alone is enough to make me partial to Halo.
How many gamers actually appreciate better audio? 7.1 or not it's still going through the same stereo I've had for 20 years.
The gameplay is debatable. The cover system works selectively, the controls aren't fun. Even with the fix in the new patch, the Dual Shock design simply isn't as good for FPS as the 360 controller. Never has been, never will be.
Halo 3 has better music.

Wait, wait. Killzone 2 does nothing new for the genre. It borrows from every other shooting game. What it does do is it takes those borrowed elements and implements them exceptionally well. What it fails to do is innovate. Halo 3 had forge mode, 4 player co-op and a more varied multiplayer.

You're quite right in that it has better graphics, but given the hardware specs and the comparative release dates, it should. I'm not sure how Aliens from space is less realistic than Humans from another planet, but frankly, they're both shooters. Who cares about the story? Physics and imagery wise, KZ2 is more realistic, but you're also right in pointing out that isn't a good or bad thing. Fact is I play games to escape realism, not immerse myself in it. If you want realism, go join the army.

To be honest, both games disappointed me upon release, but Killzone 2 was the larger disappointment. I can't call this a Halo Killer though. It just doesn't have the substance.

The team mate AI is fine, and end of the day, a game should be about you vs. the enemy. It's somewhat lame if the enemy is a bunch of babbling bullet magnets.
Co-op is good, but why would I want to play the missions of Halo 3 on co-op? Playing it once was enough for me as it was such a let down, I wouldn't want to repeat it.
Considering 5.1 surround sound is dirt cheap, I think a lot of people would be happy with some surround sound support.
The controls are fine. There is no 'finger twister' as people claim. L2 for cover, R1 fire, happy days, we're not talking about a Path of Neo pad setup with Killzone 2.
Halo 3 has a good orchestral score, but I'd prefer to know where I'm being shot from.
Killzone has a cover system which is new, has seemless mode transition, which is new and has vast, complex map design. As much as that's not a new idea, it is much better then anything else on the market.
Oh yeah Forge is so inovative. Play timesplitters 2. Forge is nothing new at all.
Aliens from space and death rings vs. colonial war. Because the latter has never happened before. I'm pressuming from that comment you havn't played Killzone 2 or it may be time to replace those speakers.

Halo 3 was dated before it was released. It's AI was pityful considering it was released 2 years after FEAR, and the resoltion is only 640p. Killzone didn't do many new things to the genre, but at least it took ideas and gave them an almost flawless gleam. Halo 3 just repeated ideas and did nothing new, or even anything worth giving it credit for.

After reading your response, I'm not sure we have played the same Killzone 2. The one I've played has a team mate who walks directly into a room filled with plainly visible turrets and promptly gets mowed down and whines for me to come save him for ten minutes while I kill the guys on the turrets, thus ruining the game experience for me.

The controls are fine for you perhaps, but given the sheer number of complaints on this board and others, I think we can safely say that not everyone agrees with you and in fact the majority may be on my side here. Fact is, no one had those complaints about any game in the Halo franchise. Why? Because they did it right the first time and Guerrilla clearly hasn't.

As to sound vs. music, we'll have to agree to disagree. You want to use the sound to know where you're being shot from. I'll go out on a limb here and say this is because you want "realism" in your games. I on the other hand want an entertaining, cinematic experience which for my money isn't complete without an orchestral score. Realism is over rated, that's why we play video games in the first place.

As to story, Weapons of mass destruction, religious extremism and allies of necessity are very "realistic" (there's that word again). Colonial war with evil mutated humans who look like nazi storm troopers? Nah. Why invade if they're this evil force? Just nuke the planet from orbit. But that's all beside the point. We can each interpret the stories from these games until they suit our arguments, but the fact is that these games are SHOOTERS. If I cared about a story, I'd be playing Final Fantasy right now. I have and do play KZ2 to do just one thing. Shoot at stuff.

Games are not about "you vs. the enemy". They're about having fun, and playing with friends is a lot more fun than playing alone. Even playing a bad game co-op is a ton of fun just so you can share the funny moments mocking the game and the badass moments where you and another person act in concert to accomplish a goal and it comes off seamlessly, then you turn to said other person and say "hell yeah."

I won't argue that Halo 3 was a good game, because I'd be on the wrong side of that argument. It wasn't a bad one either, it just didn't live up to the expectations the previous 2 set. I'm saying Killzone 2 wasn't much (if at all) better. Stop defending it because the console doesn't have many good exclusives and you really want to like it and just look at it for what it is.

By the way, spellchecker is your friend. Use it.

 

[DistinctlyBenign]

Considering I own a 360 as well as a PS3 and don't yet own Halo 3... No. I wouldn't buy a port.

Halo 1 amused me. Halo 2 bored me to death. I only have played 3 briefly with some friends, not impressed.

 

[Sir Ollie]

Hated Halo 3 so not really plus i don't own a PS3, the only game i ever wanted to play on the PS3 was MGS4 and it was fun!

 

[Breno]

Well, I don't own a PS3, yet. I will as soon as the forthcoming price drop actually arrives. However, I did not own a copy of Halo 3 when I did have a 360 (prior to it red-ringing and me returning it) so the likelihood of me picking it up would be next to nothing. If Bungie had actually put real effort into the single player mode versus the pedestrian multi-player, perhaps I would have but they did not. The franchise had a great start with the first game but went downhill after that after making the conscious decision to make half a game and sell it at full price.

it wasent half a game if halo 3 is half a game then mirros edge is 1 eight of a game with a 4-7 hour game and pretty much no multyplayer. so lets stop the halo bashing please

 

[alwaysrockon]

no. i wouldn't buy halo 3 for the ps3 in fact the entire idea seems ludicrous to me. halo 3 is not a good game. dont get me wrong, its not a bad gam, its just not good. i find it to be very mediocre. in fact , for me, the only redeeming factor is the forge.

But forge has been done before in other games, and it has been done better. whereas in halo forge is simply place "guns and baracades" however other games, such as timesplitters, you actually make levels. yes, i know that many amazing levels can be made from forge it is most likely not meant to be played that way.
but thats just my personal opinion.

ps: sorry if i am crazyspeaking.

 

[RYjet911]

I was playing Halo 3 earlier today as it happens and it was a lot of fun. It's actually one of the few multiplayer games I really enjoy. Obviously the campaign is pants (although still fun in coop) but the online is great fun with a few friends. Yes the game is buggy but that's honestly half the fun. Most of what happens online in Halo 3 is total bullshit but that's why it's so fun - because it's unpredictable and fast paced. You can pretty much throw tactics out the window too. Sounds like a criticism again but it's not. Just don't take the game seriously and you can have a blast.

Any game can be fun if not taken seriously. That's not the debate with Halo 3's (And the Halo franchise as a whole) shitness that a lot of Escapists agree on. It's the fact that it's bland, samey, has no original ideas and doesn't work as the art form that gaming media should be taken as, as well as a game's entertainment factor. A game that's fun is all well and fine, I can have a lot of fun with Halo (Specifically the first one) when I go in with the mindset of "I wanna blow up some aliens". But if I'm up for a more serious session of gaming, looking deeper than just pure entertainment, I won't pick up and play Halo.

To answer the OP, I would probably buy Halo 3 for PS3, for the simple reason that I would get free multiplayer. Also, it would likely get a graphical upgrade, something Halo 3 really needed. Maybe a little less bloom.

 

[Grayjack]

No, I played Halo 3 and I don't see anything special about it.

 

[RYjet911]

Well, I don't own a PS3, yet. I will as soon as the forthcoming price drop actually arrives. However, I did not own a copy of Halo 3 when I did have a 360 (prior to it red-ringing and me returning it) so the likelihood of me picking it up would be next to nothing. If Bungie had actually put real effort into the single player mode versus the pedestrian multi-player, perhaps I would have but they did not. The franchise had a great start with the first game but went downhill after that after making the conscious decision to make half a game and sell it at full price.

it wasent half a game if halo 3 is half a game then mirros edge is 1 eight of a game with a 4-7 hour game and pretty much no multyplayer. so lets stop the halo bashing please

Ingsoc never said anything about Mirror's Edge... Don't start bringing in unnecessary views of games to try and bring your own up. As far as I know, it's quite agreed that Mirror's Edge was a pretty bad game. I personally haven't played it.

But if I am correct, it was at least somewhat original, unlike Halo 3.

 

[ZeroFusion]

no... because i allready have it on 360
also i always thought the PS3 controller was to small in my hands so another reason