Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Halo 3 'Feels' Like Halo 1 133

1up reports on comments from Bungie, who has come out to say that their next title Halo 3 will 'feel' like the first Halo: Combat Evolved. From the article: "'I have been playing through Campaign mode purely for kicks. Exploring, in fact,' [Frank O'Connor] says. 'There's lots of the feel of the original Halo, where you'll find yourself in a huge (dangerous) and intrinsically fascinating environment and just want to go tool around and check things out.' At the same time, O'Connor is quick to dismiss that Bungie's developing a sandbox, Grand Theft Auto-inspired shooter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Halo 3 'Feels' Like Halo 1

Comments Filter:
  • by BigZaphod ( 12942 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @02:13PM (#15957120) Homepage
    What does a halo feel like? Is it rubbery? Slippery? Does it maybe feel like glass or is it more like taffy? Perhaps like a feather? Oh wait... uh.. wrong forum...
  • All I want to know is, did they make the pistol suck less than it does in Halo 2? Because that was a bit disappointing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Braino420 ( 896819 )
      All I want to know is, did they make the pistol suck less than it does in Halo 2? Because that was a bit disappointing.
      Couldn't agree with you more; that and the damn sword really made Halo 2 multiplayer suck ass. Halo 1 multiplayer is a much more enjoyable experience. I stopped playing Halo 2 when I got lost for the 141241st time; the only challenging part was finding out where to go.
    • And will we get the assualt rifle back? Please!
      Best weapon in Halo 1, replaced by the sucky SMG and "Battle Rifle" in Halo 2.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)


        Granted, the SMG's only useful for dual wielding (and not worth sacrificing grenades for even then), but how can you prefer the assault rifle to the battle rifle? The assault rifle is inaccurate, low damage, and pretty much forces either spray-n-pray or knife range combat. The battle rifle is accurate, reasonably high damage, and has a scope thrown in for good measure.

        The only possible drawbacks to the BR compared to the AR are no full-auto and a limited ammo capacity. I wouldn't mind having a full-auto
        • The magnum wasn't horrible until they applied the Halo 2 1.5. If you remember way back when the dual pistols actually were something to fear.
        • The SMG's are underpowered and use up their clip far too quickly.

          The BR is powerful, but a pain to use. eg. When a brute charges you, you get a maximum of 3 bursts (9 shots), which is not enough to take it down.
          With the AR, the rapidly closing range would mean that the accuracy issues would be less important and you would almost certianly take it down.

          It is the best possible weapon against hordes of flood, the inacuracy actually helps here. Although the shotgun is great against individual flood bipeds.

          And f
          • I think you're overestimating the damage potential of the AR. In Halo 1, once you were playing a difficulty setting higher than normal, a full AR magazine at close range wasn't enough to take down a healthy blue elite with body shots (and, given the inherent inaccuracy of the rifle, consistent headshotting with the AR is difficult). I don't know the actual numbers, but I always got the impression that Brutes are tougher than elites.

            Your point about the inaccuracy vs. hordes of facehuggers/headcrabs/whatcham
          • by Wolfrider ( 856 )
            --Combine the SMG with the purple alien blaster for maximum damage (purple blaster should be in the Right hand so you can drop the SMG.) I call it the "Shredder".
        • The assault rifle was more fun than either the SMG or the battle rifle. It looked and sounded cooler. The battle rifle is annoying; it feels like it takes forever to do any damage with it.
    • I'll still never get why, a.) everyone wants the pistol back after it being so unbalanced in Halo 1, and b.) why people don't realize that the battle rifle is an adequate replacement. You shouldn't be able to kill someone from half a map away with three pistol shots. Conversely, you can kill someone with three pulls of the trigger with a battle rifle if they're all headshots, although it simply takes a bit longer since each pull is a three shot burst. Sure, the pistol is almost useless as a weapon by itelf
      • by e03179 ( 578506 )

        I'll still never get why everyone wants the pistol back after it being so unbalanced in Halo 1

        Because that weapon was a great equalizer to heavy weapons like Rocket Launchers and Fuel Rod Cannons. If that pistol was in Halo 2, I would die a lot less because of the sword because I would be able to kill the swordguy before he got to me. With the Halo 2 Battle Rifle, I can't pull of the shots fast enough to kill the swordguy. The pistol in Halo 1 makes the game a first person shooter (not a first person s

        • I think maybe you just need to play with the battle rifle more. All those things you mention are pretty easy with a battle rifle. Sure, it takes more skill than the pistol, and a little bit longer, but it's not that hard to take out someone with a sword if you back up while firing and get headshots, or taking on someone with a rocket launcher if they're using it properly, trying to get splash damage on the ground, you can do some timely jumping and firing to dodge two rockets. The battle rifle is easily the

      • by belgar ( 254293 )
        Agreed (though, the power of the pistol in H1 was fun as hell, if not realistic). Our group of LAN players all agree that, those who complain about the BR sucking, just don't know how to use it. I was one of them for a long time -- now it's one of my favorite weapons.
        Although, to be fair, the SMG is actually really effective in a dual-wield scenario, if you alternate bursts from hand to hand. Fast bursts = no recoil climb. Fairly deadly then.
      • by XenoRyet ( 824514 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @03:52PM (#15957849)
        Killing people from half a map away with three pistol shots is fun. It takes a certain ammount of skill, and is satisfying, furthermore it differentiated Halo 1's play from other spray-n-pray shooters. The battle rifle is not an adiquate replacement because it slows the pace down too much. That is why people want it back, and it seems logical to me.

        Also, I don't belive your assessment of the pistol as being unbalanced is accurate. It wasn't overpowered, it was simply the most versitile of the light weapons. There are many situations where an AR, Shotgun, or PR would be preferable, and would defeat a pistol. Also, the heavy weapons will all defeat a pistol unless improperly used. Then there is the fact that in any properly set up multiplayer match, everyone has a pistol to start, which should solve any perceved unfairness.

        Frankly, I think at least half those opposed to the pistol's performance in Halo 1 simply have a problem with the smallest of the light weapons being the most powerful.

    • Also, un-nerf the Banshee. What did you replace its guns with, spitballs? And removing the bombs in multiplayer, what were you thinking? Ugh.

      On the other hand, nerf the energy sword, or at least make it run out of "ammo" in multiplayer.
  • Grab the jeep, run around shooting crap randomly, get the local authorities pissed off, then duck into the nearest Covenant camp for a Deathrace 2000-inspired mowing festival. Presto, new color for the jeep!

    "I swear Arbiter, it wasn't me! The guy that did it was in a green jeep, not a red one!"

    Besides if you ever get lost, just keep drivin, you'll come back around in a while ;)
    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by onkelonkel ( 560274 )
      Sig - Triplanetary?
      • Good call, Conway Costigan as George Washington Jones in a uranite mine on Eridan :D

        Didn't know anybody reads quality writing like that any more...
      • by ptomblin ( 1378 )
        Onkelonkel - regarding your sig, are you a son of Martha too?
        • I understand that there is/was a society of civil engineers in eastern Canada that took that name. I'm not a member of that.

          I am E.E. early 80s UBC. Mostly I take care "that the switches lock." but sometimes I get to "piece and repiece the living wires." I first encountered Kipling's poem a few years ago and it resonated strongly and emotionally with my "self-image". I can see why engineers have adopted it as their own.
          • by ptomblin ( 1378 )
            I understand that there is/was a society of civil engineers in eastern Canada that took that name. I'm not a member of that.

            Actually, I use it more of a code word to mean "have you participated in the Ritual of the Calling of An Engineer" (aka "The Iron Ring ceremony").
      • Actually, it's from First Lensman.

        One of my favorite lines in literature.

        (And yes, my name is a form of "Gray Lensman".)
        • by boskone ( 234014 )
          Very Cool!

          It's great that there are some of us readers still out there!

          Looks like it's time to reread them all again.
    • GTA: Ringworld? Run over Prill and get your money back?

      I want to see what Jack Thompson does with that.
  • by kinglink ( 195330 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @02:24PM (#15957197)
    Seriously how many people have complained about the fact that while Halo 2's online was improved, there was little if any true improvement in Halo 2. Yeah you got dual wielding, yeah car jacking but the fact is it's the same game. Even GTA which people bitch about being the same every time has had huge improvements. Vice city got motorcycles and working planes, San andreas was radically bigger, with gang wars. These changed the game itself.

    I just can't stand Halo fanboys who act like their game which has had about the same improvements that madden gets in a year is radically different. I can respect a new story, but I'm also expecting changes to the actual gameplay too. Just because Doom 2 didn't have any major improvements doesn't mean that you can get away with the same type of leap nowerdays. I hope Halo 3 does something new, rather then just hanging onto the name, because for my money even Perfect dark zero was more unique than Halo was. If I really wanted the FPS games I'd have stayed with my PC.

    And this wasn't meant to offend Halo fans. It's just that people act like Halo is a great series, and it's really hasn't shown anything to prove itself to be that unique. Even Half Life 2 has amazing physics, Doom 3 has the creep factor, Fear had the graphics to kill even the hardiest machine's framerate. Halo didn't have anything that it really called its own.
    • You seem to attibute "improved" with "unique". For my money as long as it's fun and has enough new features to enchance my interest then it's worthwhile.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Andrew Nagy ( 985144 )
      Even Half Life 2 has amazing physics, Doom 3 has the creep factor, Fear had the graphics to kill even the hardiest machine's framerate. Halo didn't have anything that it really called its own.

      The key with Halo (and 2) is that they had enough of everything but not too much of anything. They were basic, first person shooters in the tradition of 007 Goldeneye. Something easy to play while absorbing and entertaining. PC FPS tends to get a bit too complicated for my tastes. While I like games that allow
    • Halo didn't have anything that it really called its own.

      Halo had a plotline, which IMO is severely lacking in the FPS genre. True, the technical improvements in the game between 1 and 2 were minimal (and in some cases regressed; see my comment about the Magnum, above), but I don't think that's as horrible as you're making it out to be.

      If they can continue to refine the gaming experience that people have gotten used to with Halo 1 and 2, I'd take that as a success. I'd rather they continued the plot, refined gameplay, and took basically conservative steps than if they changed something radically for the sake of change, and messed up a good thing. Not every game needs some kind of "hook" that's been cooked up to make it artificially unique: particularly if the appeal of the game is that it's just a really good shooter.

      The Halo games at this point are a known quantity; there are other games you can buy if you want something gimmicky (or "innovative," the difference between an innovation and a gimmick being rather difficult to tell without the benefit of hindsight). I think it takes a certain amount of balls to realize when you've got a good thing and should just stop changing it.

      With that said, unfortunately I doubt Microsoft will ever let Bungie just stop making new Halo games; they'll flog the franchise as long as they possibly can, until it becomes ridiculous.
      • by kinglink ( 195330 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @03:11PM (#15957547)
        Yes because you know games like Half-life didn't have a plot back then. Nor did Perfect Dark, system shock 1 or 2, or Sin. so I guess it's a radically different then the industry?
        • The best early FPS storytelling was in a game series known as Marathon. Guess who developed it? (Hint: It's Bungie.)
        • by grumbel ( 592662 )
          Lets not forget good old DarkForces or how about Outlaws? Story certainly was there long before Halo came around.
        • by NekoXP ( 67564 )
          Perfect Dark's plot was stupid.

          Young woman agent works for secret agency happens to be involved with aliens, evil megacorporation, go to Area 51. It was SO contrived.

          Halo is worse.

          And of course both games suffered from having the shittiest control systems on the planet. Why nobody came up with a better controller for FPS on console systems before the Wii, I have no idea. I mean other than a PS/2 keyboard and mouse attached to an adapter on your PS2 :)
      • With that said, unfortunately I doubt Microsoft will ever let Bungie just stop making new Halo games; they'll flog the franchise as long as they possibly can, until it becomes ridiculous.
        Supposedly Halo 3 will be the last Halo in the series... hence the tag-line "finish the fight" IIRC Bungie said they wanted to move on to other things while the series was still on top rather then letting it get overproduced and sequeled to death like a lot of other franchises.
      • Dunno about that; Bungie's stated pretty clearly that Halo is to end a trilogy, with H3 being the big finale which ties things up. I would maybe expect some derivatives from the universe being farmed out to other studios, but I think Bungie might juyst be a bit sick of Halo itself for a while...MS might be many things, but it recognises the value of new IP (even if it kinda seems Bungie might not...Marathon->Halo :P).
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by EotB ( 964562 )
      The first Halo is around about 5 years old now, and in comparison to the other games of the time was excellent. If I remember rightly, this was mostly due to the gameplay, with the beautiful worlds and well-designed vehicles as a second. Not to mention that it was just an immensely fun (if simple) game to play. There were a few innovations in there as well, such as only carrying 2 weapons and the seperate button for grenades. I remember playing Halo for the first time and thinking 'Wow, why the hell doe
    • I do appreciate your point, but I don't think the core gameplay of the Halo games will ever radically change: you will always be running around, shooting Covenant/Flood. The only features that will ever be added are ones that allow you to battle Covenant/Flood more effectively. I guess it depends on whether or not you like shooting Covenant/Flood.

      Having played a lot of both Halo 1 & 2, I find it hard to go back to the original now. While the original is still fun, it just feels like something is miss
    • by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @03:22PM (#15957636) Journal

      Here's what I've seen in Halo, but rarely anywhere else:

      • Vehicles that can be more fun than moving on foot. No othen FPS (GTA doesn't count) did vehicles as well. The Ghost is just fun. Yet it's still balanced enough that a person on foot can reasonably expect to beat a person in a vehicle, without making vehicles feel gimped.
      • Insane amount of polish for its time. From what I remember, we were just inching along on Half-Life improvements, and PC gamers were scoffing at console gamers, even as they mostly played Counter-Strike. Then there was Halo. Counter-Strike... then Halo. It would have been a shocking leap forward in graphics, gameplay, and AI, even if it was a PC game -- and it was a console game.
      • The game made the console. You could argue that Zelda made the Gamecube, but most people who had an N64 bought a PS2 instead, so that was a failure. The PS2 simply had more games, but I'd imagine almost no one bought a PS2 because of any one game -- or if they did, I know there aren't a significant number of people who bought a PS2 for the same game. People bought the Xbox because of Halo, and developers made other games for the Xbox because it was popular -- because of Halo.
      • Amazing soundtrack. Other games have had good soundtracks, but the Halo and Halo 2 soundtracks are worth buying even if you don't like the game. Very rarely does the soundtrack alone sound like a symphony. Very rarely does a game soundtrack evoke emotions other than headbanging adrenaline.
      • Compelling, epic story. Especially Halo 2. Naysayers will break down the story to the point where it sounds stupid, but you can do that with anything. As an aspiring author, I've discovered that it's all about the execution, even in a book. It's an epic story, with characters you actually care about.
      • Master Chief. It's all about characters, and this one in particular is just a fun character to play. It means the game can be as realistic as possible, but there's good reason that when you win, your character has done such impossible things -- he really is unique, he really would be able to do that. Compare that to, say, Quake 4, which is the closest anything else comes -- your character has a reputation, but it's not really explained why he's so unique. And in creating this character and the game around him, they've done what every Superman game and every Hulk game has failed utterly at -- creating a character that really is too much of a badass, too powerful, and creating a realistic challenge to match. This is how you can have an epic first-person game, where you play as only one character -- make the character that good.
      • Beautiful artwork. Goes with the territory. Beautiful music, beautiful artwork, beautifully put together.
      • They did it again. People debate about whether Halo 2 is better or worse than the original Halo. But the fact is, they can actually have that debate. With most sequels, you can't -- either the original was so bad no one cares (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time faced no competition from its predecessors), or the new version sucks so blatantly compared to the original (Doom 3), or not enough has really changed for anyone to care (your point about Madden). The fact is, Halo 2 did significantly change compared to Halo -- and I'm not talking about carjacking, swording, or dual-wielding. Subtle tweaks all around -- the pistol is no longer the hand of God, needlers finally have a purpose, Flood heads actually hurt. Halo 2 was every bit as good as Halo, but it was different enough, in gameplay and storyline, that anyone who played Halo will want to play Halo 2.
      • All of the above. Think of it this way -- I don't like Linux because it's unique. I like it because it has everything that every other OS has, and more. If I wanted something truly unique and innovative, I'd be using Plan 9, HURD, or Minix. Halo doesn't improve much on the first-person shooter, i
      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time faced no competition from its predecessors

        The fuck are you talking about? Prince of Persia and Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame were at least as good as SoT--I'd argue dramatically better. Maybe instead of "predecessors" you mean "single, immediate predecessor"?
        • Perhaps he means that the 'Sands of Time' have destroyed most people's original Apple II floppy disks?

          Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time faced no competition from its predecessors

          The fuck are you talking about? Prince of Persia and Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame were at least as good as SoT--I'd argue dramatically better. Maybe instead of "predecessors" you mean "single, immediate predecessor"?
        • It's a matter of taste. I unlocked PoP 1 as a secret area of SoT. I also unlocked the first level of PoP 1, redid with the SoT engine. And, disregarding all fancy graphics, do you know what I discovered?

          PoP had an absolutely horrible control scheme.

          Maybe it's just that I'm bitter because I was unskilled, but it was entirely too easy to be killed by even the lowliest swordsman, it was too easy to fall to your death doing simple things like climbing back up, timing jumps was near-impossible, and it felt sl
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PaganRitual ( 551879 )
        Oh god here we go again. The Halo fanboys charge out to defend their champion of mediocrity. I'm waiting for a build at work so I'll bite.

        Side question : Do you write for Edge magazine? The people there seem to have an eternal boner over this game as well.

        Vehicles that can be more fun than moving on foot.

        The only valid point you have. For it's time Halo did FPS+vehicles quite well, even if it did go to a third person perspective and somewhat break that feeling of 'being' the character. At least you
      • Why doesn't GTA count? What about Battlefield 1942?

        Polish...yup, no other game has polish.

        Again, what about GTA? That made the ps2 in those ways in which you said other games except Halo couldn't.

        Story...yeah...Thief, story. gotta be kidding me. Halo is not the only FPS with a decent (yeah, MC is only decent) lead character...there are many FPS' with better ones.

        Artwork...oh, jeez. The FPS is the opne single genre which lives on it's graphics...which means the application of
    • by tilde.d ( 994884 )
      Halo brought multiplayer FPS action to the mass console market. And by multiplayer, I mean full online games, not single system games. This was strongly supported by the XBox Live service but also allowed networked games so even in a single location, you could very easily set up a fairly large Halo game.

      Besides which, not all those games you mentioned necessarily were the first to bring something forth... Have you ever played System Shock 2? You want creep factor... that game just freaks me out especially l
    • Something people either forget or didn't have the sense to notice because it wasn't flashy was the AI. It was vastly improved in H2 and was probably one of the best - not only on an individual level but how the individuals worked as a group.
  • The graphics are completely different - it's entirely different to any of the previous 23,523 FPS that have been dumped onto the market in recent years!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @02:28PM (#15957227)
    Halo 3: It feels like a four year old game
  • Cut + Paste? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @02:30PM (#15957238)
    Does this mean that the areas feel kind-of original for a little while, and then start feeling like the level designers started cutting and pasting sections in order to make it a longer game? Because that is exacltly how Halo felt to me (and many others).
    • by slycrel ( 610300 )
      For what it's worth, after tha game was released the developers said they wanted to completely change the atmosphere on the way back, after you found the flood. it would be the same corridors, but look a lot more like the rooms where you found the flood initially.

      Too bad, it would have really been better that way.
  • by angrychimp ( 885088 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @02:32PM (#15957249)
    from the article:
    ...there's also time for exploratory reflection and the, "Oooh, maybe I can climb up there and check that thing out," sort of play," he continued.
    I'm not usually one to read into things, but to me that implies the ability to climb things. Am I the only person who's been playing a FPS title and thought, "Why can this guy climb over simple obstacles?" If you can actually climb objects in Halo3, I will consider it a vast improvement.
    • Why climb when you can just jump?
    • "Why can this guy climb over simple obstacles?"

      You're not the only one by far. I've often wondered why FPS designers insist on bounding playable areas with items that I, who am not any kind of cybernetically enhanced soldier, ubermarine, hazard-suit wearing professor, or whatnot, could easily get over in real life. Call of Duty did a pretty good job of have realistic-seeming boundaries, but aside from that, it's always seemed to be a problem.

      The other fairly minor thing I'd really like to see is a game that
      • I stopped playing Fallout Tactics when I realized that my team couldn't get over a three foot high pile of sandbags at the base of some stairs because the level designers willed it. I tried jumping, moving, knifeing to let the sand out, TNT to blow the damn things up, then I realized that, no, it's not a puzzle, it's just a stupid barrier, and the designers want you to go all the way around the GD map to get to the roof of that building.

  • I didn't like Halo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bender0x7D1 ( 536254 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @02:38PM (#15957290)
    Am I the only one who didn't like Halo?

    I enjoyed the expansive environment for the first hour or so, then it just became annoying. If you miss one thing, then you have to run around making sure you didn't miss a small path that leads to the next area - or you need to perform a perfect jump to get onto a ledge and you aren't sure if you're supposed to jump to it or find a different way up. While I don't claim every game has to be linear, don't hide the route you have to go.

    Also, I found a lot of the levels boring and repetative. (Library anyone?) Sure, it's realistic to go through a few levels, get something, and fight your way out - but if I wanted realistic I wouldn't be playing a game. Why not make another way out so the levels are different? Or, if it isn't necessary for gameplay, give an elevator/shuttle/monorail/teleporter/cutscene so I don't have to do the same thing twice!

    If I wanted to see cool environments and just "tool around and check things out" I would play the Myst series.

    I don't mean this as a troll, but I didn't find Halo to be a game that should be repeated in a sequel. Of course, I haven't played many games where I want a sequel that is very similar to the original - I like diversity in my games. Why should I pay $60 for the same game that has added a few new weapons and enemies and updated the graphics a bit? Why not call the new game what it is - an expansion pack.
    • I don't get it. I was never lost in Halo. I wished they let you explore *more*

      As for the similarities between game 1 and game 2, I like sequels to be mostly plot sequels, but that me. My opinions notwithstanding, the second game was geared more towards team combat and less about single-handedly owning.
      • by Hast ( 24833 )
        I got lost a couple of times when you are leaving the base where you find the flood. I was playing it coop (it's too boring for single play IMHO) and both of us (both avid FPS players) got lost a few times. It doesn't help when all the rooms look the same.

        The outside leves of Halo where very impressive. The indoors level were complete and utter crap. They felt flatter (IMHO) than the levels in Doom/Duke3D.

        They put it well in a Penny Arcade strip "No the level design is the genious of it. It's like the Coven
    • by grumbel ( 592662 ) <> on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @03:08PM (#15957524) Homepage
      Am I the only one who didn't like Halo?

      Nope, you are not alone, I am not much a big Halo fan either. Especially the Flood levels where just boring and repeating over and over and over again, Library of course too. There was also a bit running around in circles to find out how to continue, but I didn't found that much worse then most other games. My main problem with Halo was however the story, it was just so very damn pointless, run around in circles for a few hours till everybody of your comrades is killed just to then return to where you started and blow your own ship up, well great, so why again did I play this game? The last level was also extremly annoying, actually one of the worst I have ever seen, not sure if there actually is a way to drive around that track in anything remotly fluid, but I certainly didn't manage to and it turned into a try&error where the outcome was more luck then anything, certainly wasn't fun.

      Art direction of Halo on the other side was quite good, the large bright outdoor environments are certainly a lovly change compared to all those games that try to be all dark and ugly. Enemys tend to look a bit to much like Muppets here and there, but that aside they looked nice and colorfull stuff. Vehicles and transporters also looked great.

      Can't say anything about multiplayer, but the singleplayer mode didn't hold up to my expectations, it wasn't the worst I have seen, but neither was it anything I would bother to play again, never touched Halo2.

      • The last level was also extremly annoying, actually one of the worst I have ever seen, not sure if there actually is a way to drive around that track in anything remotly fluid, but I certainly didn't manage to and it turned into a try&error where the outcome was more luck then anything, certainly wasn't fun.

        Feel free to dislike the game as much as you want, but this is unwarranted. Yes, with good enough driving skills, you can make it through the last level in a quite fluid manner. I've played through t
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by josteos ( 455905 )
        I loved Niven's Ringworld series. And Halo took my breath away when I finally set foot on the surface. I thought it was a fantastic rendition of a ringworld. And the early level, where you are looking for the cartographer, felt so much like cruising around and ancient & mysterious & abandonned ringworld.

        Then I learned just how important a game designer really is. The game started to suck when I had ot ross the bridge, fight through 3 large rooms full of enemies, then cross another bridge and fig
      • My main problem with Halo was however the story, it was just so very damn pointless, run around in circles for a few hours till everybody of your comrades is killed just to then return to where you started and blow your own ship up, well great, so why again did I play this game?

        The Covenant has nearly wiped the human kind to extinction, with only the presumably hidden Earth still untouched by the war. Our heroes are on a mission to find out what interest the Covenant has with that Halo thing. One crash lan

    • by kfg ( 145172 ) *
      Why not call the new game what it is - an expansion pack.


    • I'll just wing in my 2 cents and agree with you. It was the first FPS that I've played where I was honestly bored. I still can't understand how the game became so intensely popular.
    • it was fun enough, and i played it through the the (abrupt and anticlimactic) ending, but i really didnt get what the MASS of hype was about. although i never played it online and only played multiplayer once coop with one other person, so maybe thats what it missed.

  • Halo 3 isn't going to be the only new game this generation with bigger, more open environments. This is because the size of environments was one of the few gameplay elements that was restricted last generation due to hardware limitations. Granted, there were some games like GTA where you had a large area to explore, but they had to make some major graphical sacrifices as a result.

  • by Psykechan ( 255694 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @02:45PM (#15957344)
    I really enjoyed the original Halo until I got inside to the Zork segments (a maze of twisty little passages all alike) and it became a more boring FPS than Robotica [].

    If it "feels" like the beach segments than I'm all for it 'cause that felt great. If it "feels" like the cheese grater on my kneecaps that was The Silent Cartographer and everything after, then it's good that I know this now so I can prepare for absolutely no anticipation for this game.
  • No One Cares (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There was one thing and one thing only that stood out about the first Halo game - the stupid shiny green metal effect.

    There are easily 20 space marine in bumpy and shiny metal armor games coming out for the 360 between now and the end of next year. Halo will be just another one in the crowd with a larger marketing budget from Microsoft.

    Take away that stupid green metal effect and no one would even talking about this dreadfully medicore series. There are fantastic fps games coming out between now and 2007 -
  • If it feels like the first one, then how has combat evolved at all?
    • by Zardus ( 464755 )
      I think the point is that there was a rapid evolution of combat prior to Halo 1 (via natural selection), but once the combat evolved to a certain point and developed society, natural selection stopped driving evolution and so combat has stagnated and stayed the same. In fact, it sounds as if its devolving.
  • To me, Halo is the peanut butter and jelly sandwich of videogames. Back in the day, it was a great comfort game as playing it with your friends was a blast and it was rather easy to pick up and play. And I played it a lot. Heck, I don't own an Xbox, but I managed to accumulate an obscene amount of game time on it. Now, however, I can't even fire a single shot in Halo without feeling annoyed, flustered, and even a little nauseated. I don't know what happened but now I can't stand to touch the game in any way
  • by payndz ( 589033 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @05:48PM (#15958703)
    Halo 3 'Feels' Like Halo 1

    Well, good! Because I got fed up with Halo 2 well before the end of the game and have never been back to it since, whereas I played Halo right up to the finish, infuriating as some parts of it were.

    I got the impression that all the effort in Halo 2 went into the multiplayer and the single-player game was kind of an 'oh yeah, we need to throw this thing in too'. H1 had an interesting story (in an interesting environment); H2 was just a series of events.

    As far as multiplayer goes, I don't have Xbox Live; I don't want Xbox Live. I don't want to drop into a game to have a bunch of fat American teenagers call me a fag in disguised voices. To me, that's not entertainment. (YMMV.) But there seems to be this shift towards making online multiplayer the core of a lot of titles at the expense of the one-player game, and if that's going to be a continuing trend then frankly I'll be keeping my money for things that are actually, y'know, fun. Even by MS's own figures, Xbox Live players are still very much the minority of Xbox owners, so why is 40-50% of the gameplay that people are paying for only available to them?
    • by nerreg ( 997154 )
      I think it's obvious to all but the most devoted Halo fanboys that games like Halflife (1+2) or Farcry have a better single-player game. However, the one real true point that Halo has over most other games is the multiplayer experience, which is, frankly, a blast, especially compared to other games where it seems like the multiplayer is tacked on. Grabbing 3-15 friends, having access to a basement and 10 hours on a saturday made life worth living. Especially with Halo 2, where multiplayer rewarded player
  • So is there going to be Co-Op mode over a LAN or XBox Live in this one? Because that was seriously lacking in the first two and let's face facts, split-screen gaming sucks. Doom had it over 10 years ago. Doom 3 had it on XBox. Seriously, there is no reason for a game with the budget and backing of Halo 3 to not have this feature. So, how about it, Bungie?
  • How about Halo 0 ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2006 @03:50AM (#15960802) Homepage Journal
    Why don't they instead make Halo 3 like Halo was supposed to be, you know the game that they hyped and we all got excited about before MS bought them out and it turned into yet another FPS?

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.