What makes Halo special. (An argument you have probably never heard)

[Pimppeter2]

[HEADING=2]Just a general reminder. Keep things civil. If you don't respect each other to do so, then at least respect me.[/HEADING]

 

[Halo Fanboy]

I am 110 percent with Pimppeter in the "fixed spawn points being more fabulous than randomness" remarks. I'm a bit of an aspiring (but currently not so great) speed runner so I like to be able to have high confidence in whats going to happen in a game I've played before, even if I have no interest in speed running Halo games. However as a correction I would like to pint out that there is the similar spawning phenemon as seen in Call of Duty such as the fight on the scarab in Halo 2 where there are a finite number of enemies that spawn within the hall of the scarab and also during The fights with both Regret and Tarturus where enemies will spawn (perhaps indefinitly) to fight you while you try to eliminate your target. Also in Outskirts in the opening the jackals on the rooftops seem to be spawned in a random order but in a limited number of different positions on the map but I might be completely wrong about this.

Ururu, I apoligise in advance for being such a sceptic but I do find remarks about how easy the Halo series (particularly Halo 2) on Legendary mode are make me become incredulous. I'm completely willing to accept that I don't know anything about FPS and am complete novice compared to the vetrans so its not to say I feel like you're insulting my skills or anything. However, I would really love to see you play with the amount of skill you have, if you could make a save film for a Legendary playthrough of a Halo 3 level that you could link to on Bungie.net. Even better if you can somehow show me the Halo 2 level Regret as Regret himself has always been a difficult point for me. If in the event that you are truly a divinity among FPS players I could definitely take a few pointers and since you find a lack difficulty to be such a huge flaw you might want to check out the skull difficulty sliders which can be used to make challanges that I personally find near impossible.

 

[Azure Sky]

Halo is all well and good, but to be honest, I mainly bought them for their multiplayer. (<3 LANs back in the day)
I think the story in all 3 was a little... Meh..?

Side note, I did find myself enjoying the story ODST.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Halo is all well and good, but to be honest, I mainly bought them for their multiplayer. (<3 LANs back in the day)
I think the story in all 3 was a little... Meh..?

Side note, I did find myself enjoying the story ODST.

Yea. The story in Halo 3 was a big let down. They pretty much just had the basics for the people who only value gameplay, and then told the rest to go buy the books. Which I guess was the best approach for them as a company.

Despite everyone calling the voice acting phenominal, I found it pretty meh. I didn't really care for the characters. I liked the setting itself more. It was creepy running around in the dark. I once ran into a group of hunters, It did not end well for me or my pants.

 

[Azure Sky]

Halo is all well and good, but to be honest, I mainly bought them for their multiplayer. (<3 LANs back in the day)
I think the story in all 3 was a little... Meh..?

Side note, I did find myself enjoying the story ODST.

Yea. The story in Halo 3 was a big let down. They pretty much just had the basics for the people who only value gameplay, and then told the rest to go buy the books. Which I guess was the best approach for them as a company.

Despite everyone calling the voice acting phenominal, I found it pretty meh. I didn't really care for the characters. I liked the setting itself more. It was creepy running around in the dark. I once ran into a group of hunters, It did not end well for me or my pants.

Agreed, the series as a whole had so much promice too...
/sadpanda

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

I couldn't tell you. I love the lore, the gameplay, the multiplayer, the characters and I just... I don't know. I can't get enough. I've played all of the games, Halo Wars included. I've read all the books, comics excluded (But I want that to change). It's nearly magical the hold it has over me.

 

[MR T3D]

-self-snip-

So, wait, if in COD4, you were say....a lower ranking official, say a squad leader, suddenly everything would be fine, because your allies are SUPPOSED to suck?

That is a horrid reasoning process I might add.
Marines and such are trained for a long time to do their job, and yet the ones we get can't drive vehicles worth a damn. How is that any better than the micromanaging that COD4 implies?

It isn't. The AI issues in both are unacceptable, and that rationalization is simply silly.

no, because we know humans are roughly equal, therefore there shouldn't be an imbalance in AI from friend to foe. if i were some sort of advisor for a hasty-trained force, then there's something to excuse friendly AI being worse than the hostile.
yeah, halo's AI suck at driving, but whatever, i like to drive anyway. and i'd rather there be a rationalization, albeit silly, over a wall-banger.

That is a pretty bad rationalization. Halo AI's also love to throw themselves at enemies, shoot in ways that can't possibly hit, etc etc. They are basically all retarded to a degree that no human being with a gun should be.

but a rationalization nonetheless. i have no delusions that its bad, but at least its THERE.
something>nothing.

Really? -1 is "something", where as 0 is "nothing". would you argue that -1 > 0?
A bad rationalization is worse than none at all.

sorry, i consider rationalizations as absolute values; |something|>nothing.
I enjoyed halo, it WORKS as far as i'm considered, challenge(s) are clearly presented to me, and i can try assorted things to complete them, while often in later CoD games i found myself in the predicament of trying to get enough of them dead long enough to sprint to magically stop them from respawning. often i'd get through with luck, and that cheapens the experience for me. I enjoy the former, not so much with the later, ergo, i enjoy halo.

Just working is sufficient for you?
Way to set the goals high.

Enjoy your Model T.

The problem with Halo is not that it doesn't work, but that it is a step backward from Half Life and System Shock, and indeed, its runty children that it spawns like zerglings are all lacking compared to, ironically, older titles.

:sigh:
one final argument from me here, really don't want to get into a flame WAR here, but i can feel a little heat, in fact, i think anyone whom has read our exchange has:
it's a game on the xbox, i just want it to be fun. maybe halo 1 is a step back, its been a very long time since i played it, but the halo 3 and ODST are very well refined in many respects. as far as console shooters are concerned, i think they are pretty damn close to the best, because they are solid. the reason the first one did well is because it was PRETTY DAMN GOOD doing the things described, especially for a console at the time.

 

[Pendragon9]

I guess I just dislike all shooters that take themselves seriously. Be it MW2 or Halo or COD.

Don't get me wrong, they do things right, but for some reason they don't seperate themselves from the mold.

Either that or they all just lack one thing I demand in every single game: a good boss fight.

Take for example probably the only two shooters I'll even touch nowadays: Metroid Prime and Lost Planet. Do you ever see the bosses in those games? Hot damn, when you fight and beat them, it makes you have a feeling of accomplishment. Gigantic Phazon induced akrid monsters spewing lazers and acid at you! Nothing in Halo even compares. And I should know. I've played through the entire campaign of Halo 2 and saw nothing that compared. Maybe Halo 3 does, but I've yet to see it.

Overall, that;s what I want in a game: a sense of feeling like I accomplished something big.

This is also why I partially dislike Metroid Prime 3, besides the obvious shelling out of good gameplay for Wiimote crap. Look at all the bosses. Sure, they technically fit the mold, but where's the feeling of getting crushed to death by a humongous demon?! All I see are tiny people in supposed "boss fights". Not to mention it got up it's ass in dialog and emotional cutscenes. No thank you. And this is also why I'm looking forward to Lost Planet 2. DID YOU SEE THE BOSSES THEY HAVE?! Hot damn Capcom, easy up on the awesome or you'll explode my Ps3.

 

[Pimppeter2]

snip

Yea, I agree with that. I miss boss fights. It seems like games have become too cool for them.

 

[Azure Sky]

snip

Yea, I agree with that. I miss boss fights. It seems like games have become too cool for them.

Speaking of things that games are abandoning.
Bring back the damn health meters!!!!! >.>

 

[Pimppeter2]

snip

Yea, I agree with that. I miss boss fights. It seems like games have become too cool for them.

Speaking of things that games are abandoning.
Bring back the damn health meters!!!!! >.>

And the muffins!!!

[sub]I could use some muffins right now[/sub]

 

[sauerkraus]

Halo is good because the shooter gameplay isn't loaded with useless switching weapons and toggle aiming and grenades that take a long time to use. It's a shooter. You shoot things.

The premise of being a super soldier fixes the problem of most games in which you're a regular guy yet everyone counts on you to do everything. A convenient setup.

The AI is realistic, rather than things running around randomly, they patrol areas where they are stationed. They get in vehicles when they see you. They man the turrets. It is fun because it's what would really happen when you shoot at a group of dudes.

The story is a standard 'hostile aliens made first contact' sci-fi theme. It's not Hemingway, but for a game it's much more than just random cutscenes to occupy loading screens.

And then there's zombies. Everyone likes to shoot zombies. Everyone hates zombies. When I ran into the flood the first time I felt like I was in a survival horror game.

Then there's the sequels. Every good game makes the fans scream for more. There were some great innovations in the next two games, (dual weilding, nifty grenades) and the level design is excellent. It might be a linear game, but I don't care, I'm playing it to shoot shit.

The first one, Halo: Combat Evolved, will always be my favorite FPS. The multiplayer was expertly balanced, the graphics weren't great but they were very sufficient, and the maps were genius. The sequels got rid of the one shot one kill feeling, nerfed the explosions, and made everything too shiny.

 

[Antiparticle]

Even assuming set enemy amounts and positions is better than endless spawning (and I'm not sure it is, they both have their pros and cons), does having fixed enemy locations and limited numbers really make Halo 'special'? I think there are plenty of games where the exact enemy distribution is part of the map layout. Even if you can convince me that fixed locations are better than respawn points, that doesn't convince me that Halo 3 is a special game.
I guess you could use it as one argument to say that Halo 3 is better than CoD4 (as you seem to be doing), but since I never played CoD4 I can't really comment on that.

 

[HE Shaunshaun]

So, wait, if in COD4, you were say....a lower ranking official, say a squad leader, suddenly everything would be fine, because your allies are SUPPOSED to suck?

That is a horrid reasoning process I might add.
Marines and such are trained for a long time to do their job, and yet the ones we get can't drive vehicles worth a damn. How is that any better than the micromanaging that COD4 implies?

It isn't. The AI issues in both are unacceptable, and that rationalization is simply silly.

their is a difference between being a human being higher ranked and being a super soldier. spartans were trained from birth to be war machines and also have masses of armour and shields. higher ranking officers however have none of this, but what they do have is that littl bit of extra skill and knowledge as to be the first to advance and the one in charge.

ot: in halo 3 the enemies are of set amounts and are in set positions, which is more like a real life situation. if you were setting up an attack or defense strategy you would place your troops in the best positions to defend/attack against the opposition. cod does this in the same way, but once you have taken down these troops, why would they come back? this is the part that gets me. everyone complains about halo 3 being 'unrealistic' but how can you tell. halo 3 is set in the future by 1000 years, where we have obviously made a lot of technological advancements and inevitably entered another war. but how is cod more realistic when in the campaigns there are an infinate number of enemies in one area? if you were thrown into combat where the enemies were cleverly positined to take you out at first sight, you wouldnt be able to just re-do it. this is why 'remembering enemy placement' doesnt really mean you used any skill, it just means you had a lot of time on your hands.

the most complained about thing in halo 3 is the jumping and the amount of shots to kill. someone please remind me why noone complained about samus in the metroid games being able to jump incredible hights, because this is the same situation. a suit designed for combat and combat only will allow these super soilder spartans to jump high, and take lots of damage to their shields.

now im not here to say 'durr durr durr, halo free rulez, cod suks' because it doesn't. i do enjoy playing both games, but in my opinion halo takes more skill. on cod if you are spotted by an enemy, you are dead. thats it. straight dead because you were spotted. in halo if you are spotted first you can take cover or turn around and possibly kill them, if not just gettin in a few shots for another team mate to take them down. this, i beleive, takes more skill than just one burst into an enemy for a kill.

tl;dr enemies spawning in cod makes no sense. halo 3 is futuristic, not unrealistic.

 

[Ben Legend]

Wow long thread. The thing is, I'm the opposite, its with the Halo series not the Call of Duty series that I find myself thinking... What the hell am I supposed to be doing, going, achieving... etc.

Think I should just add that I think both series are great, and I understand why they are two of the strongest First Person Shooters in the gaming industry today...Until Timesplitters 4 arrives.

 

[Mr.Black]

As those of you who are familiar with my writing will know, I love Halo, and I have tried numerous times to explain what makes it such a great game. I have also spent some time highlighting the crippling design faults in other very popular games [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.161187], which prevent me from enjoying them. The more I think about it though, the more Halo seems to share many of these design peculiarities, and so I ask my self, why am I never bothered by them in Halo.

Spoiler: This is long, you have been warned

If I start a campaign level in Call of Duty 4 (This applies to most, but not all of them), I immediately feel annoyed that the game has thrown my into a situation which doesn?t seem to make sense to me. I don?t know what my goals are, and I don?t know what parameters to expect things to go by. Let me explain. As far the goals are concerned, since it?s a pretty standard FPS, I expect my goal to have something to do with killing the enemies shooting at me, but there are a number of possibilities within that. Am I supposed to kill them all, assuming there are a finite number of them? Or are they respawning, in which case, how am I supposed to stop them respawning? This second question is where the problem of the games parameters is introduced. Supposing one parameter is clear: that enemies will always respawn, until you do x to stop them (in reality, the game offers no such consistency, but let?s supposes for now that it did). Firstly, how do I stop them? Often there is an invisible boundary which, when crossed by the player, triggers the enemies to stop spawning.

It goes without saying, that this is a very unrealistic and unintuitive phenomenon. We can guess that it is designed to force the play to approximate a familiar battle scenario where one side has to constantly push up for one reason or another, rather than simply sitting back and picking off all of the enemies until the path is clear. Without delving into the limitations of this system, let?s except that this could potentially lead to some fairly interesting gameplay scenarios.

The important thing here is that it is very much a computer game device, and for it to achieve the effect I imagine it desires, the system around it must be crafted with that in mind. This means you can?t just craft the rest of the game to communicate to the player based on the game world acting like the real world, when you have this core which is so unlike the real world. When such a device as respawning enemies is introduced, I expect videogame parameters along side it. If a game says, push forward against respawning enemies to push their spawn points back, I say, ?fine, but what are the parameters. Can I get blown up at any moment by artillery from a few miles away which I could do nothing to avoid, as in real life? Surely not.? And indeed the game says, ?No, of course not, rest assured that as you are pushing up, employing good tactics, running from cover to cover, you will not be randomly blown up through no fault of your own.?

?Ok good?, I say, ?now what can I expect of these invisible barriers? If barrier x stops enemies spawning from spawn point X, then surely barrier x must come a Suitable distance before spawn point X, such that I, the player, can get to it knowing that I am not running right into the incoming waves of enemies. I?m not saying that such a game would be bad, that?s a different matter, but for me to make informed decisions on how to play, I must know that one or another sort of parameter exists on this subject?? Alas, dear reader, I?m afraid that no such parameter exists in Call of Duty 4. Often the spawn points on the enemies front will be pushed back when you get within, say, 10 meters of them, but sometimes you can get within a couple of meters of the room from which they are conspicuously waltzing. How can the player make an informed decision now on what strategies to employ when they don?t know what parameters they are dealing with?

?Ok?, I say, ?despite this major blunder, the majority of the game may still be playable. At least you were apt enough not to throw in random artillery strikes. Now what other parameters can I expect to shape my strategies around? Can I expect to have always 1 clear enemy front to attack? Or if there are to be more, can I expect them to be clearly stated? Surely if the game revolves around me pushing up against enemy spawn points, then I must know roughly where these points are that I am to push against??

?No?, says the game, ?Spawn points may pop up at any time from any position. Poor player, you might as well do away with any hope of strategy, for while you may think you are doing the right thing to deal with the enemy in front of you, this may turn out to have the adverse effect when enemies start spawning from your left and your right.

?What am I to do then?? I ask. ?Am I to push against each one of these spawn points one after the other? How can I even plan this when I don?t know where the respective invisible boundaries are for each, nor whether you might decide to throw in another spawn point at any time.?

Don?t get me wrong, reader; I am not particularly complaining that I find the game difficult; rather I tend to push through it rather quickly. This, however, is not down to my skill (aside from the moment to moment skill of aiming accurately and ducking out of fire when a few shots come my way). On the contrary, I feel I am just clumsily stumbling towards victory with a few deaths on the way, without any real understanding of why. This is because the game rarely gives me the information I need on which to base effective strategies.

Of course the reality is much worse still, because not even the premise of pushing up against spawn points is consistent. Sometimes, believe it or not, the enemies do not respawn, but the player is given no indication as to when. Once again, he cannot know what strategies to employ: should he push up, assuming the enemy is respawning, or stand back and pick them off, assuming there is a finite supply?

Now let us look at Halo. Obviously there is no spawning in Halo, most enemies exist in the level from the beginning, and those who make their entrance in dropships, from pipes and such, come in a limited supply, so every one that the play kills, is one less they have to worry about. If we look more closely however, we might think that similar problems of a lack of information might exist. If you enter one of Halo?s many large battle scenarios for the first time, you don?t know where the snipers are, you don?t know where all of the pockets of ground troops are, or which are going to jump into vehicles, you don?t know where the reinforcements are going to come from until you see the drop ship approaching, which may be too late. Say, for example, that you are in one of these battles, and you find yourself near a building with your shield almost down and some elites firing their plasma rifles in your general direction. Do you go into the building? You don?t know, is the answer. You don?t know whether or not there are a couple of grunts waiting to finish you off the moment you step in. So there you have a lack of information resulting in the player not being able to make an informed decision. So why do I restart with nothing but glee after being finished off by the grenade which happened to rebound off the explosion of another from a good 20 yards off, which flew, unexpectedly, into the doorway just as I entered?

When that happens, instead of being frustrated at dying, perhaps without even making a mistake, I am simply grateful for the rock solid laws which govern the Halo universe, and appreciative of the scenarios which develop naturally from them. Here we have a scenario which is perfectly understandable by the player: ?you are in a battle, contained in this single open space, where most objects are governed by a certain consistent set of physics. You are up against a finite number of enemies, you do not know where all of them are, or what they are going to do, since all of them are governed by dynamic AI, but use your wits soldier, to kill them all, before restocking and advancing to the next arena.?

But what?s so different in COD4? Could we not equally say, ?You are in a battle, contained in this single open space, where most objects are governed by a certain consistent set of physics. Spawn points will pop up in various locations and it is your job to get near enough to the spawn points for them to deactivate. Once you have deactivated all of the spawn points, you may advance to the next battle. No, the enemy AI is not very dynamic, but you can deal with them nevertheless.?? Indeed, I see why not, and when I imagine such a game, it seems like quite an enticing proposition, if in need of a little adjustment. So why can?t I stand COD4?s single player mode? Perhaps I have been underestimating the impact of the narrative and style of both of these games. Undoubtedly, Halo has terrific core mechanics, which allow for far more depth and mastery then those in COD4. Also, there is undoubtedly room for improvement in the structure I identified earlier, with the spawn points randomly popping up, and the invisible boundaries placed with no consistency. But I don?t think that these are what make me put the game down in disgust after every short play session. I fancy it may be the narrative which makes me refuse to engage with the gameworld. It is made very clear that you are simply one soldier in a unit, and not a high up one at that. Also just from our general impression of the sas from TV and what not, we have an idea of a very tight, coordinated team, who know exactly what they?re doing and why they?re doing it (I don?t mean in terms of the politics). So when I?m dropped into a battle with a load of superiors who seem to know what they?re doing, I do not expect to be left to my own devices in leading them against randomly occurring spawn points. When we?re fighting through the streets in Iraq, and we?re being shot at from the 1st floor of an overlooking building, I do not expect to go alone, and of my own appointment, into the building full of enemies, and take them all out as they spawn from the bloody bathroom. When I?m a genetically improved super soldier named Mastercheif, however, I do.

As I?m writing, though, I don?t believe it, that something seemingly so trivial could have such an impact on the game. What do you think?

Please keep on the topic that I have presented. I don't want to hear the average Halo hating comments. Please read this and adjust your views (hating or loveing the game) to the discussion I have brought. If it is too long for you to read, just skip to the last paragraph, or not at all.

-Thanks, Pimppeter2

So CoD4 is harder? I don't mean that in the sense that since you're having a go at CoD4 you must suck at it, but in the sense that since Halo's mobs are in pre-determined areas, you know what to expect, when to expect it, and where to expect it. CoD4 is a little different because each play-through you might be forced to go a slightly different direction and encounter enemies from your flank (for example). It has that sense of randomness about it. Of which I personally have no problem with.

Now with the whole "I really have no idea why I'm going this direction, I'm just told to" thing; you're just a grunt for most of the game. You're following orders, and you never know the true motives of why you were sent where you were sent anyway. I guess that's either adding to the realism, or lazy development (I prefer to think the former, because if we actually new 100% of what was going on, we may as well be the President).

You've thought about this a lot, but I think this just comes down to opinion (on the spawn thing, not Halo vs CoD), if you like pre-determined mobs over random spawns, then that's fine. I don't particularly like the rainbow ride that is Halo and that's just my opinion too. Each to their own.

About the spawns. From what I can remember it was more of a "depletion race" than "pushing back". Eventually they ran out of respawns and you progressed forward, but if you decided to rambo the level and passed "the barrier" (so to speak) you can push their spawn to progress the level faster (if you didn't die in the process).

 

[Miles Tormani]

If I'm writing an OP I'll give a shit about the spelling and grammar, if not, I won't - simple really.

If you want to rip on someone else's grammar and spelling, make sure your own grammar and spelling is up to par. Makes you look like a hypocrite.

And this has to do with....what exactly? Nothing. The main point still stands, the fact you can point to one example to the contrary means nothing when my point is correct for the majority of the game, besides - the core mechanics of CoD and Halo are so different that trying to replicate the Halo in CoD wouldn't work.

This is the example that stands out in my mind. The rest of the game is pretty much the same as I recall. I'd keep listing examples, but you'd probably just keep responding with comments along the lines of "that's an exception that proves the rule," like you just did.

Also, no shit trying to replicate Halo actions to the letter wouldn't work. Mostly because Infinity Ward doesn't even attempt to have any vehicle physics aside from the pre-scripted variety.

Not true, the enemies may spawn in vague areas but they do not spawn in the exact same spot every time.

Yes. They. Do. They will keep respawning in their specific respawn points (the bus, the building on the right, the corridor that you need to take to get to the broadcast room, the barn) until you cross that invisible barrier.

Good for you, I see nothing wrong with it, because it's part of the story - if the character had died before the explosion would it have made the same impact on the player - not seeing the explosion? No.

If I had to repeat a specific section ten fucking times over, the last thing I want to see after a successful finish is my mission failing because that's how the story is supposed to advance. Nothing changes aside from this super special specific perspective that you supposedly "need" to see to get that impact. It wouldn't have been too much of a loss to, say, see it from a different perspective. See the nuke go off anyway from your death location.

This is especially true with that last part where you have the time limit to save the helicopter pilot. What happens if you don't do it in time? The nuke goes off and you die. What happens if you do? The nuke goes off and you die. The only difference would be that you see the blast go off from the ground.

But the Call of Duty games are not like that - the gameplay isn't built around hiding in a corner sniping, it's about unrealistic action - you can use the sniper to pick people off and advance, as the enemies will spawn in different places, but the game would be far to easy if your method was used (hell, look how easy Modern Warfare 2 on veteran was - the easiest game in the CoD series by a long way)

Unrealistic action. Yeah. Like enemies having guns that have way more accuracy than your own, but only if you step off the beaten path. Unrealistic like being able to shoot down the entire population of the planet and still not make any progress due to the endless respawn. Unrealistic like my "veteran" squadmates being complete dipshits, running into my bullets and causing me to fail because "friendly fire will not be tolerated," even if it was their fault. Unrealistic like said idiot squadmates suddenly gaining 100% accuracy because I crossed the respawn line and the "mop up" script triggers.

You want a fail-safe against people who camp and snipe? Put in some counter-snipers. Makes a hell of a lot more sense than dead foes returning literally seconds later.

Which seems to be the feeling the game is meant to be giving you...the claustrophobic areas and spawning system wanted you to feel confined.

If that's the case, it may as well force me to only use the guns I start with, using the same ID tag reasoning that Metal Gear Solid 2 did, because the game already seems to go out of your way to make sure that any guns you pick up will likely be inferior for the situation, compared to what you start with. If I find a sniper rifle on the ground, my first instinct is to snipe. Not go around charging into people's faces and attempting to headshot at point blank. CoD4 had a tendency to try to force me to do the latter.

Nice, so at the beginning your all "Here we go... Time to pick apart an entire argument, again." but you don't want me to argue back against your flawed points? Nice, real classy - next time don't bother quoting me at all if you don't want a reply - what kind of attitude is that to take in a debate thread?

Considering everything you said is pretty much "You're wrong, and you're missing the point," all I really can do is reiterate my points over and over, re-wording it until you get it. Since that'll never happen, it's pointless to keep debating. My last statement of my opinion not being changed still stands.

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

You probably say that cause hes agreeing with you. When it comes down to it, Halos campaign is boring. Replay value? None except for finding skulls for achievements. Cause once you do a battle once, you're going to know where they're going to spawn, how many there are and what weapons you'll need. It also feels really less epic than CoD4 or MW2. And I know epciness (lol) can only get a game so far, cause once you see the epic part the first time, it loses its epicness the second time you see it. But I found myself going back and beating MW2 and CoD4 a lot more times than Halo 3. With Halo it was for the story the first time through, then achievements the second time. Also maybe it was just me, but Bungie is particularly terrible at character development. I played all 3 Halos and ODST and by the end of all games, I couldn't care less about which character died or which one lived. Both storyline were kinda weak, but MW2 made it feel more personal, if not less realistic. But we don't escape reality only to be brought back into reality. if you want the most realistic shooter out there, join the damned army. Reality is good, but don't overdue it. CoD4 was good at balancing the two, with more on the realistic side. MW2 created an alternate universe which was filled with cinematic events, pretty good storyline for a modern war game, and characters that were well developed (but less developed than in CoD4). Also with the dumb-shit marines, it dumbed down Halo 3 and made it feel like a one man army kind of game, even if you were surrounded by 50 soldiers. I mean by God the only time they were good was in turrets (arguable) and when given rockets and put in the passenger seat of a warthog. CoDs infantry isn't as stupid and useless as you make them think. They take out a lot of enemies actually, and i'd LOVE for you to show me some marines take out a Hunter. Or and damned Elite or Brute for that matter. Halos multiplayer is fun too, but the amount of things you can do is much more appealing than vehicles to me. And no MW2 is no a tactical shooter, but none really are.

Giant Wall-o-text alert!

Anyway, from what I've gathered, you've said CoD 4 has more epic battles and is more personal. I would like to say that is false, but I am unsure if that is actually what you said...

This thread is a giant wall o text thread. In case you didn't notice the giant walls of text. And well I guess its opinion, but I don't think the battles are more personal, I think IW just builds better character than Bungie. Therefor making it harsher when they possibly die or get into a jam. battles to me just seem more epic because of the amount of enemies and friendlies. And I'm talking about friendlies that can actually kill an enemy. I've only really seen UNSC marines finish off a grunt I melee'd and forgot about.

 

[Nomanslander]

To be honest coming from a Halo hater I'll tell ye!

Number 1: the music, the first time I heard it I was like "wow," this must be more than a game.
it's just so epic and makes the game feel as epic.

Number 2: driving sections, it just feels right, and doesn't feel tacked on like most games.

Number 3: Sticky grenades, first time I tried it I almost fell in love with this game....to bad I ended up hating it.

Number 4: Some of the aesthetics....the worlds can really look beautiful...for instance in the first game being on the halos look awesome for the first time...and it worked.

Number 5: Shield regeneration, since you'll see nothing but this feature in just about every FPS game now, it has become cliched and annoying...but I do remember how cool it felt seeing this in the first game back when it came out.

As for the things that made me yawn:

Guns: they look silly, and they feel silly...either than that wide scope sniper rifle...you have to be a fanboi to like the guns in this game...although I kinda like the pistol from the first game too...sorta

Enemies: the midget aliens really annoy me! and the brutes look generic....the flood seem like a knock-off...and well the alien aesthetics suck in this game.

That whole Spartan thing.....what is this 300? every time I hear Spartans it makes me roll my eyes that some how a developer from Bungie went to see 300 and thought...."Oh wow, I know what would make this game look cooler...let's call the elite human force Spartans0o0o"....now I'm not sure if they were called Spartans before the film 300 came out...but by the time I heard it it sounded like they were blatantly trying to hard.

And finally...Master Chief: honestly I like the character, but he's really not that interesting, at first he seems like the introverted type like Gordon Freeman that doesn't say anything...but MC does talk and he always has some "don't worry I'll save the day" generic thing to say that kills that mood.

As for characters that are cooler than him, the list is huge....Snakes cooler, Marcus Fenix is cooler, Gordon Freeman can stomp his ass up and down the forge, hell so can Niko Belic....MC is just over rated...and I think it has to do a lot with how cool the name Master Chief sounds when it's really a Navy Enlisted rank to begin with...

I was in the Navy, I worked under "real" Master Chiefs....that is all.

 

[Nomanslander]

Half Life 2 is the better game though, so if you can only buy one, make it HL2.

I always liked the first game better, second one is awesome it's just so segmented to where I lost the overall feel of the game, and the first one flowed better.

The first HL is the best game ever made in my eyes....and the funny thing is I just played it 6months ago for the first time and it beat out every other FPS I had played that had come out recently..

Half-Life= greatest game ever made....fuck ocarina of time and mario bros. 3...lol