Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

IGN Claims Halo 3 At E3 78

IGN says that 'sources' have confirmed Halo 3 will be part of Microsoft's E3 Event. From the article: "The video is allegedly two minutes long, although its contents weren't divulged. We're guessing a wild breathtaking battle on Earth. Knowing Microsoft, the publisher will want to show all real, in-game engine footage to counter Sony's fantastical CG videos from E3 2005. When Microsoft was contacted, the company issued its standard reply, 'We don't comment on speculation and rumors.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IGN Claims Halo 3 At E3

Comments Filter:
  • by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @01:47PM (#15222359)
    Halo has such great innovative gameplay.
    I just love how you can either do an immersive solo mission back and forth through the library, or in multiplayer how you can go into different teams, with different classes and compete for changing objectives.

    Oh wait, what I'm trying to say is that Halo solo play sucks. And cooperative mode of Halo has nothing on cooperative mode of Enemy Territory.

    • Wow, a first post flame. Surely, not on slashdot.
      • Well, come on, it's Halo we're talking about. Color me bitter because I didn't like walking up and down the library and what I heard was a nonending of Halo2.
        But thanks though, I always hate when my flames get modded as trolls. (Either you've told the mods what to mod me, or all the cool and informed mods are modding "Games", the best section of ./ )
        So, for those unsure of the difference between the troll and flamebait, here's an explanation on trolling: Link. []
    • You are right. Though I did play both Halo 1 and 2 on my xbox, I wish I could get that time of my life back. It just wasn't a fun game. The terrain and environment was repetitive and the gameplay itself was very repetitive. Aiming is hellish with a freaking control pad. I say consoles are the worst platform for FPS games. Leave them to the comptuers.
      • Ever heard of HALO for PC/MAC? Also, HALO 2 is headed toward Windows Vista.

        The point is that you CAN play HALO on the PC/MAC. You will eventually be able to play HALO 2 on the PC (and likely the MAC).

        So, you can't complain about not being able to play HALO with a keyboard and mouse.
        • Halo 1 on the PC sucked. It was slow and clunky, and what's worse, it felt designed that way. Instead of nice fluid movement with a mouse, it still felt slow and jerky like using a control stick. Movement was slow and awkward, and key customization was almost non-existent. It completely felt like a console game, which isn't what it should feel like on a PC.

        • Auctually, I did play Halo on the PC. It was ok. I have a rather powerful system so it ran smooth as butter on my system, but the gameplay was still repetitive and the scenery was also very repetitive. Keyboard and mouse didn't matter. It just made it way tooooo easy compared to Unreal Tournament and others.
      • You know, if you didn't like it, there's this little round thing called the "power button". Next time use it, then you won't have wasted your time!
      • Yeah - it was terrible the way those Bungie guys would actually stand over you in your own home, making you play the game. Those bastards! Being forced against your will to do something that you don't enjoy is just wrong.
      • I say consoles are the worst platform for FPS games. Leave them to the comptuers.

        Yeah, that explains why no-one liked Goldeneye and it flopped.

        Better to play a PC game with two hundred different keys that need thirty fingers to use, and where the developers and players are more interested in the framerate than the gameplay.
      • And not only is the game pathetic, the fans are worse
      • The controls were acceptable. What wasn't were the number of bugs. Cameras would disapper into the walls in third person mode (Halo 1) and there are not a lot of good multiplayer maps in either.
    • Enemy Territory has co-op? Oh wait, Enemy Territory is MULTIPLAYER ONLY. Way to pull things out of your ass. At the very least you could've pointed to Doom 1 + 2's co-op (backstabbing has never been quite as fun) or Sven's Co-op Mod for Half-Life 1 (a good game with a great co-op mode).
  • by GundamFan ( 848341 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @01:52PM (#15222391)
    I respect that people have diffrent taste... but my tastes are for a very diffrent kind of FPS.

    It's not that I haven't tried to like Halo for the sake of Co-Op and competitive play with my friends but I always feel like I am playing in a vat of Jello.

    After playing the great PC first person shooters growing up I guess I have higher standards.

    This is a big part of the reason I don't want a 360... like the Xbox it has very few games that appeal to my taste that are not ports.
    • True. People who think Halo's good are totally ignorant to the FPS games available to the PC. Halo sucks compared to titles like Quake, Counter-Strike, Half-Life, Battlefield, and Enemy Territory.

      I think the Halo games are the most overrated games in history.
      • But remember what we all thought about Halo when that first video from bungie came out? That was years ago.

        If Halo came out when it should have for the PC ages ago I think we might have been happier than with the pile of crap that it is today. I tried Halo for the PC when it was finally available and it looked like an older game at the time. It just didn't hold a candle to other games at the time (I was really enjoying Medal of Honor around then) and in some ways it looked like crap. There was some re
      • Jeebus....

        I think Halo is good.

        And I play a shitload of PC FPSes. Hell, I played some ET at work today.

        My attraction to Halo has nothing to do with it being an FPS. Great story, great graphics, and (for a console), great control scheme.

        So get off your generalizing high horse already.

      • I think you definitely could say that Halo was average. I wouldn't say that it completely sucked because the game was playable and I found it fun. The first Halo was THE game that got me back into consoles. Before that, I was strictly PC only. I think there were a few things that definitely contributed to me liking it. First, the control scheme was actually pretty decent to handle. Second, the game actually had a likeable story. Third, it came out while I was in college and it definitely was the game

        • i find it amusing that the reason you give for not playing Halo 2 is that it was a rehash of the first Halo...yet the reason you give for liking the first Halo was that it was the second comming of golden eye (a rehash, if you will).
    • by aafiske ( 243836 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @04:21PM (#15223494)
      "It's not that I haven't tried to like Halo for the sake of Co-Op and competitive play with my friends but I always feel like I am playing in a vat of Jello.

      After playing the great PC first person shooters growing up I guess I have higher standards."

      No, but you seem to have a well-developed sense of arrogance. Just because a game is _different_ does not make it _worse_. I personally prefer Halo's speed to, say, Half-Life 2 or Farcry. I don't get nauseous playing for long periods, big open areas actually _feel_ big, etc.

      When I play half-life 2 I feel like I'm running around like a spastic rodent on speed, and I don't find it enjoyable. On the other hand, I don't go around saying I have more refined taste than everyone else because of it. Nor do I hop in on articles and expound on how much I don't care about the topic. I guess I have higher standards, eh?
      • Perhaps I should have said diffrent standards or even tastes, all I am saying is a prefer a diffrent kind of shooter... and no that does not mean the endless WWII shooters.

        Hey... have fun with Halo 3 I really honestly hope anyone who is a fan of the series will be happy with the game but unfortunatly I seem to dislike the elements that make it appealing to it's fan base.
    • After playing the great PC first person shooters growing up I guess I have higher standards.

      If higher standards means preferring manic speed, insta deaths, constant respawning, poor framerates, abysmal textures, and running up and down omaha beach over and over and over, then high standards you shall have. The rest of us on the other hand, will have fun.
      • Well I may have been a little quick with the way I worded that... some of the things that I like about PC shooters (I mostly like Sci-Fi ones they tend to be a little more fun and a little less "accurate") are clearly some of the things you dislike about them, the reverse is true of Halo I think.

        In the end I grew up playing Doom 2 and that will alway flavor my opinion... I think if I had played more Golden Eye I might think diffrently.
        • Doom/Doom 2 is a bad example, because most of the console versions completely blew the DOS version away, especially in the control department. I can get the argument against a controller in a true 3D environment, but in Doom's 2.5D world the mouse/keyboard combo was cumbersome and inefficient, and the keyboard alone was no better.
    • Clearly you do care. Otherwise you wouldn't bother posting anything.

      So your post is really a jab at Halo because it didn't meet your standards. That's fine - there was a lot to criticise (the never ending library being one, playing all the levels back through in reverse is my point of contention). but there was a lot of fun in the game as well. Just don't pretend you don't care.
    • Nonsense. While Quake and Q3CPMA will always reign supreme in terms of most forms of adversial combat, such as 1on1 and Clan Arena, I honestly can't think of a game that impliments better 'objective' gameplay than Halo 2. Including CounterStrike, considering Halo 2 has far more objective variety. After seeing CTF on most 'professional' FPS's devolve into "Who can cap the flag the fastest?" speedrapes, Halo 2's slow and deliberate movmeent is a breath of fresh air, and in my opinion is far more suited for
  • No Choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikeisme77 ( 938209 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @02:00PM (#15222452) Homepage Journal
    If MS doesn't want to be COMPLETELY buried this E3 (at least in terms of press coverage), they don't have a choice BUT to show SOMETHING on Halo 3. I mean, it's their biggest franchise and they're competing with launch data about the PS3 and Wii. Not to mention competing with Nintendo's launch lineup--which will contain at least 5 (if not 7 or more) of the most talked about games of the show (Zelda, Mario, new IP, Metroid, DS Zelda--although to a lesser extent, Super Smash, etc.) To not show SOMETHING from Halo 3 would mean to not get much, if any, press coverage. Sony's news will be HUGE (expect a lower than anticipated price to make it look like a bargain--I'd say $400 or less). Nintendo's news will be HUGE. Microsoft, without Halo 3 has little to show...
    • Re:No Choice (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Winterblink ( 575267 )
      Isn't it sad that the only way they can maintain some kind of central focus of the press coverage is with a single game franchise? Surely there are other 360 things coming that are interesting to people. Gears of War for instance.

      Don't get me wrong, I own a 360 and I'm looking forward to whatever news comes along on that front. But as a GAMER I'm excited about what Nintendo and Sony are going to be showing as well.
      • Gears of War should be good, but it just doesn't have the huge cult base that the Halo franchise has. I'm sure Gears of War will be reported on, but I just don't see it being strong enough to make a large enough dent in all the propaganda that'll be spewing from Sony and Nintendo. Halo has the power to potentially drown out some of the news from the other camps though.
        • And if it's a no-show, or isn't as mind-blowingly good as everyone's hyping it up to be, then what? Will people pan the 360 as a crap platform and move on? Right now if I were Microsoft, I'd be filling my pants. With no killer app and supply problems that are only now starting to lift, they've got consoles on shelves without a large library of must-have games. And even then, the current batch of A-list titles are mostly all available on the PC or other platforms anyway.

          At this point, Halo 3 has to be no
          • I think Microsoft's biggest worry is the PS3 price point. If Sony can find a way to launch it at a price between $300-350 then the 360 is dead. At $300 with the features it has it will be considered "a bargain" and people will flock to buy them--as long as Sony can keep the supply up. The 360 has no killer app that's exclusive for it as of right now, and even if Halo 3 launches by Thanksgiving, it still only appeals to one segment of the market (the FPS fans). Even with Gears of War and one or two other "ki
            • That's a good point, but to be honest with the amount of brand loyalty Sony has in Asia (and North America too of course), even if the price was a hundred bucks above the 360's it will still fly off the shelves. I do agree though, if they can knock the price point down just that little extra bit, a lot more customers will clamor for it.

              Keep in mind that even if Halo 3 comes out this year, it won't help the 360 in Japan since FPS-style games typically do not do well there at all. And if it comes out at Tha
              • Unless you're a broke gamer about to start grad school... :( Then you just get to look at all the neat new games/systems and wish you had cash for them... I'll find some way to at least get the Wii (since $200 or less, I think I can manage) at launch though, but I'll (unfortunately) have to wait to get either the 360 or PS3 (or both). This current generation, I played the XBox the most (sold my PS2 to my younger brother because there weren't enough original games on it that I was interested in enough and I
                • Oh I agree. :) There's a lot of friends who picked up a Gamecube and started buying games for that instead. I think a lot more so-called "hardcore gamers" did that than they'd admit, and a lot of those guys will pick up a Revo. The price sure is right, and you can be sure to get an innovative experience out of the games there due to the controller. And after all, wasn't that what being part of the NEXT GENERATION OF GAMING was supposed to be all about?
      • Your stance here is a little insane. Lets flip the situation around a bit and see how it looks. Lets say the PS3 had already been out for 8 months, but both the Revolution and 360 were being enveiled at E3 there isnt much Sony could do. Point blank they would be overshadowed by the two other consoles. Even video of the next Final Fantasy or Gran Tourismo would have an extremely hard time getting any press coverage.

        Frankly, Microsoft doesnt have many cards to play because its already launched. Plus, t
        • I'm not disagreeing with you on any partcular point, and if you read my post again you'll see that I'm merely expressing distaste for the overshadowing that occurs.

          I understand fully the WHY of it all, it's just silly that the whole event has devolved into a game of Hungry-Hungry-Hippos for press coverage instead of marbles.

          • Well, to be blunt thats become game magazines are one giant clusterfuckathon.

            Really in many ways, these people are the lowest of the low. Almost every article I have read in a game magazine for a game in development had almost a deific praise of game developers. Hard to expect anything good to come from this group, neh?

            Sorry... hit on a weak point for me. But gaming "journalists" are pathetic
    • I don't know... Obviously, E3 will be mostly and Wii and PS3 since they are the new consoles, but I'm actually much more interested in seeing what MS has to say about Gears Of War than Halo3. Sure I'd like to see what is coming for Halo3, but unless they give a real shocker like "its playable and will ship this year" I don't have the patience to get too excited about a game probably at least a year out. For me, give me info on Gears Of War and Too Human (the next potential big franchises) which are expec
      • See, the launch of Halo 3 would be what I'd expect from MS if they want to seriously compete on the publicity front of E3. If they don't have anything that big (or bigger: like a TRULY impressive visual experience or an innovative new game) then they might as well just lay low at E3 and let Nintendo and Sony duke it out... Why waste the money promoting stuff if nobody is going to hear you over all the other noise?
  • and I heard Doom 4 [] and other rehashed FPSs are going to be there, too! Yea!
    • I am impressed. I had always ignored Dvoraks rantings. I decided to read that one. I can't understand why nobody likes reading him. I mean, don't we all like to watch someone make a complete fool of oneself? Isn't that why reality TV is so popular? Because we like to watch idiots make themselves look like complete tools? Wow, he can really make himself sound more stupid than the average bear.
      • Come on, i like laughing at Dvorak as much as everyone else, but he made some damn good points in that particular article. I know i'm not the only one not excited over game/console announcements anymore, just because they're more of the same. But hey, the graphics are nice!
  • by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @02:06PM (#15222495) Journal
    I hope that's not all Microsoft plans to unveil. The Xbox line has failed to interest me, and many titles I prefer were either available on the PS2 or GCN only. I've played Halo, but not being much of a FPS fan, wasn't that impressed.

    Microsoft needs to unveil more than a new Halo, less that's all they want to be known for having.

    • I'd _hope_ they'd have something from BioWare to show off. (I'm sure I heard about BioWare coming out with something for the 360 in the next decade or two). Otherwise you're right, the 360 is unfortunately lacking in really great titles at the moment.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Because microsoft is a trustworthy company.

    Sony might have shown some crazy demos. But remember that most of the stuff they showed at the original PS2 showing, were finally achieved and surpassed (the famous tekken shot with the hi-poly abdos was thought to be fake, when in fact those were graphics for Tekken 4, due a couple of years later).

    On the other hand, microsoft never really had a good console. Xbox was succesful only in the US due to their bizarre taste for american football sequels and inane "US ar
  • by spoogle ( 874602 ) on Friday April 28, 2006 @02:53PM (#15222828)
    Hopefully Halo will be "Halo on Earth", rather than "Halo in twisty mazes inside space ships and buildings".

    I played Halo 2 first and found the environments all a bit^H^H^Hlot samey.

    Then I played Halo (1) and loved the way it alternated interior with exterior levels.

    I guessed that they tried to save money on Halo 2 because outdoor environments are more demanding on the machine and time-consuming to develop.

    Here's hoping - lots of luscious outdoors environments, please!

  • We're guessing a wild breathtaking battle on Earth.

    You mean just like the one they showed for Halo 2 before it came out? Yet none of that entire sequence was actually in the game?

    • but...but...only sony lies to us! don't say microsoft will fake us out! It's not true! it's not True!

      Only Sony shows off those EVIL CGI demos that don't EVER come to pass, where as microsoft shows off REAL demos that never come to pass.

      yes I am joking since just about every single demo that was shown for the PS2 has been achived. No one has patience anymore, they see a demo and are quick to shout "Bullshit!" even though they don't have a clue what will happen within the next 4 years.

      Compare the Fin
    • Perhaps they moved that to Halo 3? Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised.
  • Don't hold your breath guys. If this is going to be anything like the Halo 2 run through Bungie gave at E3 2004, it will be a test level (or footage) to show off the capabilities of the 360 running the Halo 3 engine. Nothing more. Watch the Halo 2 LE DVD and you can get a sense of how things are run at Bungie now. I don't think I've ever heard a bunch of people say "we didn't have enough time" more frequently.
  • Bungie's announced several times that their next game is not going to be a Halo game. Since they haven't announced that game yet, I can't see how they would possibly have any Halo-related news to give us... unless they've passed Halo off to another development team.

    More likely, we'll see an announcement of what Bungie's next project (non-Halo, remember?) is, and some video related to that. I bet we're at least a solid year away from another Halo title, at best.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there's a script a
  • When Microsoft was contacted, the company issued its standard reply, 'We don't comment on speculation and rumors.'

    Unless it's a Vista ship date, which are their own speculations and rumors...

    Sorry, the door was wide open, I couldn't resist. ;P
  • Hopefully Halo 3 will at least feature more than a couple of levels on Earth, which, in my opinion, was the biggest thing lacking from Halo 2. Let's face it, everyone was looking forward to kicking arse on Earth, and Bungie played that whole part of the game up, only to have two levels (if memory serves) on Earth before taking us to ANOTHER Halo. I couldn't wait to take the fight to the Covenant, but with Halo 2 I felt like Bungie couldn't figure out quite where they wanted to take the game, so they just d
  • So, any chance it'll be worth playing? Anyone? I remember playing Halo, I never saw what the fuss was about. Half-Life with prettier graphics, drivable vehicles and a few other quirks. Nothing special. I'm still waiting for Starcraft 2 at E3 dammit...
  • I for one, hope that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. [] will be there. It seems to be taking forever!

It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence. -- The Earl of Birkenhead