Halo 3 First Impressions

[Russ Pitts]

You die if you fall too far, but otherwise you're unharmed. This is a fairly obvious concession to gameplay.

As far as falling "too far" and dying, within the confines of the game, "too far" is usually defined as "off a cliff" and yet, in the cutscene, MC survived a fall from the Troposphere, as you say (I still say "space" bowing to the scene as presented in the finale of Halo 2, but whatever). Show me a cliff that's taller than the troposphere and I'll buy your explanation, else wise it's an anachronism. How can you survive a fall from the troposphere, and yet be felled by a measly fall from a cliff? Answer: voodoo. In other words: pulp.

In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

 

[Geoffrey42]

In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Careful Russ, that way lies madness. Do this for just one of us, once, and some of us may consider arguing with you about games we haven't played just for the possibility that it earns us a free game...

 

[Chinster]

Where can I get me one of these gel layers?

 

[Russ Pitts]

In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Careful Russ, that way lies madness. Do this for just one of us, once, and some of us may consider arguing with you about games we haven't played just for the possibility that it earns us a free game...

Hmm. Good point. So the rational man, at this point, should probably just walk away. Let's see which way I roll ...

 

[Alex Karls]

As far as falling "too far" and dying, within the confines of the game, "too far" is usually defined as "off a cliff" and yet, in the cutscene, MC survived a fall from the Troposphere, as you say (I still say "space" bowing to the scene as presented in the finale of Halo 2, but whatever). Show me a cliff that's taller than the troposphere and I'll buy your explanation, else wise it's an anachronism. How can you survive a fall from the troposphere, and yet be felled by a measly fall from a cliff? Answer: voodoo. In other words: pulp.

Hmm...I think you're still rejecting the logic of video games. They simulate reality up to a point. The developers can't let you jump off a cliff because they haven't defined any play space at the bottom of it, and there's a chance that all you could do is revert to your last saved checkpoint. Again, this seems like nothing at all to do with the physics of what sort of fall would actually kill Master Chief.

In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Played and beaten. My Xbox 360 bricked as soon as I got the game, but the morning after it started working long enough for me to beat the campaign and play a bunch of multiplayer. It bricked again during my 2nd go through to gear up for Legendary and pickup all of the skulls.

Finally, it's always good to know that instead of offering a real counter-argument to backup your statements, you can call me rabid. Thanks. Russ, you definitely sound like a polite forum goer, who said:

I like pulp. I also like Halo 3. And you.

Again, thanks.

 

[Russ Pitts]

As far as falling "too far" and dying, within the confines of the game, "too far" is usually defined as "off a cliff" and yet, in the cutscene, MC survived a fall from the Troposphere, as you say (I still say "space" bowing to the scene as presented in the finale of Halo 2, but whatever). Show me a cliff that's taller than the troposphere and I'll buy your explanation, else wise it's an anachronism. How can you survive a fall from the troposphere, and yet be felled by a measly fall from a cliff? Answer: voodoo. In other words: pulp.

Hmm...I think you're still rejecting the logic of video games. They simulate reality up to a point. The developers can't let you jump off a cliff because they haven't defined any play space at the bottom of it, and there's a chance that all you could do is revert to your last saved checkpoint. Again, this seems like nothing at all to do with the physics of what sort of fall would actually kill Master Chief.

Alex, give me a break. We're not talking about reality versus game reality, we're talking about the rules of the gameworld as defined by the game. In the case of Halo3 they give us two sets: 1) rules that apply to the character in cutscenes and 2) rules that apply during play.

I'm not entirely unaware of the process of game design, and the difficulties of designing content to take into account every player action. However, when your character can survive a fall from space in a cutscene and yet take damage and/or die from jumping off a cliff during normal play, you're breaking your own rules, realistic or not.

It's not that I necessarily want to see what's at the bottom of the cliff, or really expect that my character be able to survive a fall from great height, but when "survives re-entry" is advertised _within the first five minutes of the game_ death by falling from a far less significant height afterward feels like a cheap copout.

However, I'm not really finding fault with that, per se, because, as you said, one expects a certain amount of unreality when playing a game. After all, we are talking about a cyborg with a hologram in his head. The reason I brought it up at all was to use as an example of why Halo3 can't in all seriousness be considered "hard" SF, which, I believe, was the matter at hand once upon a time.

The existence of a "gel layer" which can soften blows and increase survivability in various situations is plausible. Such a thing making it possible for a human (augmented or no) to survive a fall from space (outer or inner) is too fantastical to believe, and therefore shunts Halo3 off into pulpville.

As for the rest of your statement, if you'd be so kind as to address the issue at hand rather than continuing to drag all manner of ancillary debate fluff into the conversation then perhaps I'd have reason to believe your intentions were less inflammatory. As it currently stands however, I'm having a hard time taking you or your arguments seriously.

 

[Alex Karls]

Russ,

In as much as I've posted, there has only ever been one issue at hand. That issue was my criticism of your Bioshock and Halo 3 reviews. From there, you jumped into criticising my terming of Halo 3 as a hard sci-fi storyline. That's the issue that I walked away from. I came back to comment about the falling from space issue because I found, six days later, that you were still hammering on about it. Given what points hadn't been voiced yet, I figured elaborating on them might be of use to the conversation. Apparently I was wrong

As for my own ownership of this mess, in response to two people, I was slightly condescending, which could be rude depending on how you take it. Beyond that, nothing I've said here was inflammatory. That said, I completely understand how tone can be difficult to read and write online, so if anything I said seemed inflammatory, it wasn't intended to be.

Despite the fact that I haven't been rude, I've had to listen to you say that I'm mouthing off, and then that I'm rabid. I can't believe I'm going to sound like a walking cliche by saying this, but there's really no point for me to continue any discussion when this is the way that you respond to a counter-point.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Alex,

You'll note that I haven't had much to say in response to criticism of the review proper. In general, I don't respond to criticism of my work. I prefer my writing to speak for itself. In the rare instances where it doesn't, I'm happy to provide clarification, but if I lapse into self-defense during occasional moments of weakness, feel free to chalk that up as an anomaly and move on.

In any case, I responded to your concerns as far as I was willing, but for some reason we got hung up on whether or not Halo3 is "hard" which, I have to admit, is a far more interesting subject to me than whether or not I'm a shitty reviewer. Perhaps I'm biased.

As far as your tone goes, I was under the impression that we were speaking to each other as good-natured friends and colleagues. If that isn't or wasn't the case, then I suppose I do have to consider your tone to be somewhat over the line, not just to me but to a few others in this thread, and in that case, as a moderator, must ask you to give it a rest.

For my part in creating an atmosphere of ire, I apologize.

 

[Break]

Alex, give me a break. We're not talking about reality versus game reality, we're talking about the rules of the gameworld as defined by the game. In the case of Halo3 they give us two sets: 1) rules that apply to the character in cutscenes and 2) rules that apply during play.

I'm not entirely unaware of the process of game design, and the dificulties of designing content to take into account every player action. However, when your character can survive a fall from space in a cutscene and yet take damage and/or die from jumping off a cliff during normal play, you're breaking your own rules, realistic or not.

It's not that I necessarily want to see what's at the bottom of the cliff, or really expect that my character be able to survive a fall from great height, but when "survives re-entry" is advertised _within the first five minutes of the game_ death by falling from a far less significant height afterward feels like a cheap copout.

AERIS DIES.

In other words, since when did games ever have the same rules in the actual game as they do in plot-guided events? Maybe someday there'll be a sci-fi shooting game that lets you get up again after jumping off a cliff. Have a nice time climbing up the mountain again. Until then, one man can take out a horde of zombies, splicers can't use vita chambers, and game developers aren't mean enough to make you live one life per game. Steel Battalion notwithstanding.

However, I'm not really finding fault with that, per se, because, as you said, one expects a certain amount of unreality when playing a game. After all, we are talking about a cyborg with a hologram in his head. The reason I brought it up at all was to use as an example of why Halo3 can't in all seriousness be considered "hard" SF, which, I believe, was the matter at hand once upon a time.

The existence of a "gel layer" which can soften blows and increase survivability in various situations is plausible. Such a thing making it possible for a human (augmented or no) to survive a fall from space (outer or inner) is too fantastical to believe, and therefore shunts Halo3 off into pulpville.

Sure, the soft/hard sci-fi debate was what originally sparked this whole argument about gels and crap. But then there's the fact that you're treating Halo like something with an actual story. The plot ended in Combat Evolved. The other two may as well have been expansions for the multiplayer. Yes, there is a whole load of literature and hidden in-game information. I've even read the four books, bought the graphic novel, and lapped it all up like the obsessive fanboy I may well be. However, when I turned the final page, all I had was a refreshed desire to play Halo again. I didn't enjoy the plot, didn't care about the "fate of the Earth", or feel perturbed by the moral dilema of forcing children through a barbarian training regime for the good of the planet. I just enjoyed experiencing the battles of Halo through another medium. If you rely on all the frilly plot details and paper-thin atmosphere to fuel your enjoyment of something, then I'm wondering what the hell you're doing attacking some addrenaline-fueled action fragathon like Halo for having more holes than the mountain of corpses the Master Chief leaves behind him, when you could be quite easily enjoying an actual book and being excited about a plot.

As for the rest of your statement, if you'd be so kind as to address the issue at hand rather than continuing to drag all manner of ancillary debate fluff into the conversation then perhaps I'd have reason to believe your intentions were less inflammatory. As it currently stands however, I'm having a hard time taking you or your arguments seriously.

Are you actually saying that? With a straight face? Please, please tell me that was irony. I mean, how can it be anything else from the man who gave us such great hits as:

In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

But like I said, please play it and get back to me so that we can have a reasoned debate.

Sing with me:

Someone
is running his mouth
about a game
he hasn't played.
Yeah!

And:

As for the rest of your statement, if you'd be so kind as to address the issue at hand rather than continuing to drag all manner of ancillary debate fluff into the conversation then perhaps I'd have reason to believe your intentions were less inflammatory. As it currently stands however, I'm having a hard time taking you or your arguments seriously.

Using the fact that someone hasn't played the latest game to completely ignore his points about the plot of a series as a whole is somewhat "inflammatory", wouldn't you say? If his arguments were that flimsy, then it would be no bother at all to disprove them, instead of acting cocky.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Oooh look! Bunnies!

 

[Break]

Ehehe, bunnies.

 

[danimal1384]

people are getting on Russ' case and i really don't think that there is alot of merit in attacking him. the whole gel layer issue stands at this: you can't allow him to survive a re-entry and not allow him to survive a 40 foot drop, especially if it would result in water. i've survived a 65 ft drop off a cliff into water and i didn't have a gel layer, and that isn't a lie; happend in upper minnesota. Russ' point and mine is that while we aren't expecting you to survive cliff jumping when there isn't really any bottom, you can't just tease us and shit on our face by showing us, "he can survive such ridiculous hieght falls, just not when your playing him." it's not following the rules of any sort of continuity, and frankly is just bad storytelling. and if people want to argue that its a good story, then points like this show that the writers don't give a shit about the story and neither should you.

and as far as Russ' criticism goes, i think he is completely justified and correct in his critiques on the games and his criticism on the counter-arguments others are bringing to him. just because he is smarter and has better rationality than you, doesn't mean he's rude or a jerk. it means that you need to read a few more books or take a film class or whatever. don't take out your inferiority of critiquing on him. now i'm not trying to attack anyone specifically, nor am i saying that anyone here is an idiot. i'm just saying that he's better at what he does than any of the rest of us, and you all should at least acknowledge this and give some respect on the beauty of the difference of opinion.

 

[Necromaniacal]

Lol, I knew H3 would cause some controversy sooner rather than later.

I think Halo 3 was just another in a long line of games that was severly overhyped to match any kind of expectations. (Peter Moleneux should take note of this!!)

While in a "non-fanboyish" opinion i do happen to observe this as one of the best games ive ever played, maybe about 5 in my top ten ever, i will conceid that a lot of the games more "elaborate" features tend to fade into the background after a while.

Campaign mode, while a little short, did what it intended to do, and that was to "finish the fight". It's a shame the fight they managed to drag out over 2 games which intially took me 3-4 days gaming to complete, into a 8-9 hour stroll across some battlefields, and yes you will all be saying at this point "ah but what about legendary mode?" well, yes, legendary is a challenge, and the skulls make it even more so, but honestly, the game is finished now, why do i want to do it again when it suffers from what ive come to call G.O.W syndrome (gears of war if you didnt get that), where the majority of the game is easy, except theese little bits where you respawn a million and one times, before somehow fluking it through, and then tearing through another easy streak of gameplay, only to find ANOTHER bit that takes a million respawns before the god sended fluke occurs again? (And i mean flukes in the sense that youll take out a different enemy first, or you somehow dont get rushed by the three massive guys that beat you in one hit)

Campaign is fine, but alas could have been better, this new emphasis on outdoor vehicle gameplay seems a little devoid of the original game, but maybe thats just me.

Multiplayer however, is where this game obviously shines, my first day online, we'd come up with a new game mode we call chariots, and not only that we had 16 players to do it ith, absolute carnage, but so much fun it was silly.

Ranked ladders are just populated dominatley by clans with to much ego and no mannaers, but hell its xboxlive, you get your rank up here, to have some numerical representation of your skill, so you can compare with other said numerical skill levels and basically have one of those big male bonding grunting session, only to be beat down, and ultimatly, tee bagged by a level 2 graduate, who can't even seem to shoot you propperly.

The social ladders are where most of the fun is had, but also where i made one of the most horrific discoveries about Halo 3, 16 player maximum?, surely not? this is halo three, even the likes of battlefield 2 MC managed 22? but alas, theese modes are still where all the fun is had.

The forge however is a tough one to explain in terms of how good it is.

rebuilding a map from the ground up, is fun, but to be honest takes so damn long, you almost need the 16 players to do it efficently, but even then you have the proplem of creative clashes, and end up have to make everyone invincble to stop them killing each other over the placement of a scorpion tank!!

It is however a fun idea, and we have created a map soley for use of our new game mode (by we, im referring to my mates onlie) and i took us 4 hours to make, and was fine, until we played it, and while it was good, the game ignored our spawn placement markers for the most part and spawned us in random locations, which resulted in an unintentional humerous aspect of getting to said place without being a llowed to attack without dying, on foot, on sandtrap.

Theare mode just adds to the aformentioned social male grunting bonding thing, or to humiliate the weaker member of the clan, who scored three points amd dyed 83 times.


overall, the multiplayer aspect gives this game a horrendous ammount of replay value, but overall with to much to do, i feel its going to make it hard to keep the patches in some sort of logical order.

As a conclusion to this ramble, the game tends to become what you make it, if you dive into legendary with three of your mates, its easy and youll have 1000 gamerscore in no time at all, but if you take 2 mates online, and skull the hell out of the game? youll find the game is rewarding on a level untoild in previous games of any kind.

Necromaniacal. \m/

 

[Chinster]

Those bunnies are terrifying!

 

[Break]

people are getting on Russ' case and i really don't think that there is alot of merit in attacking him. the whole gel layer issue stands at this: you can't allow him to survive a re-entry and not allow him to survive a 40 foot drop, especially if it would result in water. i've survived a 65 ft drop off a cliff into water and i didn't have a gel layer, and that isn't a lie; happend in upper minnesota. Russ' point and mine is that while we aren't expecting you to survive cliff jumping when there isn't really any bottom, you can't just tease us and shit on our face by showing us, "he can survive such ridiculous hieght falls, just not when your playing him." it's not following the rules of any sort of continuity, and frankly is just bad storytelling. and if people want to argue that its a good story, then points like this show that the writers don't give a shit about the story and neither should you.

and as far as Russ' criticism goes, i think he is completely justified and correct in his critiques on the games and his criticism on the counter-arguments others are bringing to him. just because he is smarter and has better rationality than you, doesn't mean he's rude or a jerk. it means that you need to read a few more books or take a film class or whatever. don't take out your inferiority of critiquing on him. now i'm not trying to attack anyone specifically, nor am i saying that anyone here is an idiot. i'm just saying that he's better at what he does than any of the rest of us, and you all should at least acknowledge this and give some respect on the beauty of the difference of opinion.

I love the way you talk about "respecting the opinions of others" after, when your statement that "Halo says bollocks to plot, end of" was questioned with the very words "let's just assume you don't like the storyline, and move on", you replied with this little beauty:

No, lets not ASSume i don't like the story and move on...if you don't like words like uninspired or unoriginal, then maybe you shouldn't be on forums based on reviewing something, especially a game, cause alot of things are UNINSPIRED or UNORIGINAL; particularly your comment just now. i'd mostly agree that there isn't much original out there these days, but you can take an old story and add new things or take out existing things and put a spin on it and its mostly a new story. its not that hard to do if you have a high school diploma. criticizing a story doesn't mean i don't like it. i enjoy the story enough otherwise i wouldn't have read the second book and wouldn't be reading the third book right now. just because i critique it doesn't mean i dont like it. it just means that i have enough of a critical and unbiased mind that allows me to see things in the cold light of day. every game, movie, tv show, ect. can be criticized even if you love it as a whole.

and on another subject, i'm going to say one thing and not discuss the topic again. when people review or critique a game on how long it is, there is a standard on its length. the length of a game is based on playing it on normal mode, and how long it goes for. a higher difficulty doesn't make the game longer. because no matter how hard the difficulty curve is, if it only has six levels, it only has six levels

Now, there you managed to say that your opinion was the only real one, everyone who thinks otherwise is stupid, AND state that anybody who thinks that replay value is worthless in discussions of a game's length is just wrong. And you even went to the lengths of insulting someone for trying to stop arguing about what you look for in a plot. Incredible. And must you cling to Russ quite so desperately? I mean, being pleased that someone who can write with consistent grammar is on your side is absolutely fine. But I'm sure he must be getting somewhat uncomfortable by now.

Now, I was going to take a little breather, let my irritation that someone such as yourself called me stupid cool down, and then write an actual rebuttal to your post, instead of the half-serious pile of cynism above. But then I realised that there wasn't anything in your little rant that actually required someone to poke slightly in order for it to fall flat on it's arse. You did that quite efficiently yourself.

 

[Joe]

OK, this is about 30 posts too late, but let's get back to civility here, folks. One more personal attack and this one's getting locked down.

 

[danimal1384]

i did not say that anyone else's opinion is wrong or stupid. where in my quotes that you sighted do i say that, cause unless your reading it in klingon, i say no such thing. in fact the only thing i state on credibility is that i mostly agree with a part. me calling your comment uninspired and unoriginal is in no way disputing the credibility or validity of your opinion, just that i've heard it a billion times before, and will probably hear it another billion times before the end of next year. i'm willing to let you have your own opinion and respect you for it, as long as it is based on an actual thought process. if the individual states his opinion in an educated fashion with opinion backed with facts or evidence, then i've got no problem. but frankly, your points are not valid to ME anyway. its not my fault that none of your points have enough credibility or fact-based evidence behind it to convince me of anything other than your ineptitude at debating. as for the game length issue, i was stating how game reviews (official ones in magazines) decide lenght of a game. you can't try and tell me that playing sierra 117 on legendary as opposed to normal makes it a whole new level. there is nothing new in it other than the number of enemies. you don't do anything new or different based on the difficulty level your playing it on. therefore, the game's length officially doesn't change based on what level you play it on. I didn't make that call, i just agree with it and i'm sorry that you don't understand this. as for Russ, i simply respect him because he can articulate his thoughts on a game better than the average gamer can because he has a good vocabulary and understands the creative process. Nothing more. i just tend to agree with him because great minds think alike. sorry if i offended you, but i can't help how you will saying how i'm wrong or why you think so. if your going to say i'm an ass and an idiot, then you have to proove it. throwing wild accusations won't get you or this thread anywhere.

 

[Break]

Joe, most of the people who have posted here merely have rather agressive debating styles. There is generally no intent to personally insult someone, and no grudges will be made from it. Agreed, it has gotten a little personal occasionally, but I'm sure we'll all be trying to tone it down from now on if we have half a brain.

i did not say that anyone else's opinion is wrong or stupid. where in my quotes that you sighted do i say that, cause unless your reading it in klingon, i say no such thing. in fact the only thing i state on credibility is that i mostly agree with a part. me calling your comment uninspired and unoriginal is in no way disputing the credibility or validity of your opinion, just that i've heard it a billion times before, and will probably hear it another billion times before the end of next year. i'm willing to let you have your own opinion and respect you for it, as long as it is based on an actual thought process. if the individual states his opinion in an educated fashion with opinion backed with facts or evidence, then i've got no problem. but frankly, your points are not valid to ME anyway. its not my fault that none of your points have enough credibility or fact-based evidence behind it to convince me of anything other than your ineptitude at debating. as for the game length issue, i was stating how game reviews (official ones in magazines) decide lenght of a game. you can't try and tell me that playing sierra 117 on legendary as opposed to normal makes it a whole new level. there is nothing new in it other than the number of enemies. you don't do anything new or different based on the difficulty level your playing it on. therefore, the game's length officially doesn't change based on what level you play it on. I didn't make that call, i just agree with it and i'm sorry that you don't understand this. as for Russ, i simply respect him because he can articulate his thoughts on a game better than the average gamer can because he has a good vocabulary and understands the creative process. Nothing more. i just tend to agree with him because great minds think alike. sorry if i offended you, but i can't help how you will saying how i'm wrong or why you think so. if your going to say i'm an ass and an idiot, then you have to proove it. throwing wild accusations won't get you or this thread anywhere.

And since when did magazines dictate how long a gamer will spend on a game? All they can do is give a recommendation of how likely it is someone will enjoy something. Just because Edge gives a game a two, it's perfectly possible that someone will find it plenty of fun. Why else would games like FIFA be able to be re-released year after year after year by slightly adding a new gimmick and refreshing the player roster? More to the point, why are you judging Halo 3's length on the fact that it's campaign mode is laughably short? The reason most people will be buying Halo 3 - as well as the reason Edge gave it a ten - is the multiplayer. Which has enough features and modes in it to keep it being played indefinitely. People were playing Halo 2 up to 3's launch day, and I wouldn't be surprised if you could still get a match on it in three months. I do not recall saying a word about switching the difficulty up a gear, and suddenly the game is totally different than it was. Saying that, I do agree that, having finished a game, going back through it on hard makes it more interesting and fun, and it will engage my interest longer than the game would have if it had not alternative difficulty levels. While I agree that having two different difficulties in a game doesn't double the playing time, I reckon that being able to play again on a harder setting adds to the replay value. On that note, you've still to correct me when I said that you seem to think that replay value means nothing on a measure of how long a gamer will play a game.

You didn't call my comment unoriginal or unispired, I was just using your critism of someone else for my own point. Although, I've read that post again - trying not to read in Klingon this time, of course - and I noticed that all you seemed to do is agree with him.

I get aggravated when people throw around words like unoriginal and uninspired. Let's just assume you don't like the storyline, and move on.

What makes a story special isn't what it is. There is nothing new under the sun. What makes it special is how it's told.

you can take an old story and add new things or take out existing things and put a spin on it and its mostly a new story.

Isn't the point that "the actual basis of the plot is unimportant, it's what you do with it" conveyed in both arguments? Besides, different people have different standards. Whether something is "uninspired" or "unoriginal" is based on what you expect from a story. They're not concepts set in stone. If you want to take to the extremes, it could quite easily be argued that all sci-fi is just stealing the ideas of the first person to write a space story. And besides, was making a little insult about someone's argument really necessary when you were just going to agree with the guy? Or have I - heaven forbid - mistaken your words again? Perhaps you're right, and I'm a crap debater, and the real way to debate is by combining well-thought out points and arguments with poor structuring and petty insults. I must go back to my debating teacher and tell him all the mistakes the rest of the world has been making all these years.

And when the hell did I throw wild accusations at you? I mean, sure, saying "being called an idiot by someone such as yourself", and that you broke your own argument was unnecessary, but is it really any worse than directly calling people inferior, and acting like you and Russ are the only people on the internet with any intelligence? Would you mind pointing out exactly where my "wild accusations" were, and how any of them is any less groundless than yours?

 

[danimal1384]

your wild accusations and acts of personal attacks come from your claiming that i think everyone else here is stupid; and saying that i cling to russ like a sock fresh out of the dryer. neither of which are at all true. i will leave you to your opinion of the game, but know that when we all voice different opinions, conflicting ideas will occur. and i never said anything on replay value of a game at all. i infact have always thought that replaying a game on harder difficulties prolongs one's interest. but you once again have misread what i have been saying. watch yatzee's zero punctuation review of it, once agian he sums things up really well.
as for plot, of course its not the plot that matters, but what you do with it. but as usual, that didn't do jack squat with it. its nothing i haven't seen, heard, or played before at least 2 dozen times. and sure, maybe you shouldn't mess with what sells: but christ almighty, can't anyone try to do something new. even if it's based to the core on something else, they should give me the benefit of an attempt at covering it up with something different. at least give me a handjob before you hit me on the head with a bat.

and finally, i'm soo disappointed with everyone who bought the game just for multiplayer. to me this shows that gamers don't care anymore about what the story is or could be, they just want to kill each other, or in halo's case, get killed by 9 year old kids who have no life and bad parents. what gets on my nerves when everyone proclaims that its a fantastic game when they only bought it for one aspect of it. cause no matter how you splice it, its not a great game, or a fantastic game, and maybe not even a good game... at least not to me. but you can think whatever you want.
feel better? did i stroke your ego off so that you stop complaining?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Those who complain that there's too little story in Halo certainly need to go back and look again. I've spent a very pleasant couple of days piecing together the Terminal material to find the story behind the story presented in just the gameplay, and how it ties in with the other two games. (For instance, subtle clues are embedded in there on the identity of the unseen character in Halo 2 known only from his reverse-masked dialog embedded in one of the maps of that game.) There's story there; it's just not spoon-fed to you.

I've been playing shooters since Wolfenstein, on an 8088 with a VGA card crammed into it, so I'm not some parvenue or console acolyte ignorant of the alternatives... and I'm frankly sick unto death of hatchet reviews of Halo from those wedded to rival hardware or jaded soi-dissant grognards who claim to have seen it all before. The basics are there in Halo, and for millions of players (from a spectrum far, far broader than screaming 12 year olds) the fun factor is there.

Campaign scoring, co-operative play, difficulty levels, the "skull" system of further fine-tuning difficulty, map exploration, Easter Eggs, and the basics of the game itself will keep my attention... and I'm far from the only one. For the others, the enormously flexible multiplayer options (not just MatchMaking, but local play and "custom" games plus Forge-built gametypes) will keep millions coming back for more.

I gave up on PC gaming because I couldn't afford to keep spending the equivalent of an XBox per year on hardware upgrades just to be able to play current titles. Pooh-pooh the game all you want, call it derivative if you must, but spare me that sense of superiority of yours because I choose to spend my entertainment dollars elsewhere than on graphics cards and motherboards.

-- Steve