if halo 3 came to ps3 would u buy it?

Syphonz

New member
Aug 22, 2008
1,255
0
0
LordSpectreX said:
I hate how Halo 3 is the 360's 'super' exclusive game. Like how Super Mario Galaxy is the Wii's, or Metal Gear Solid 4/Killzone 2 is the PS3's.

Why can't it be Gears, Mass Effect or Left 4 Dead? Then we could be proud of it.
I have to agree, while I'm still not big fan of Gears of War, It's better to make that the 'super' exclusive rather than Halo (a franchise that is just being milked now). Also Mass Effect isn't an exclusive and Mass Effect 2 is going multi-platform. L4D is miles better on PC and Valve is better known as a PC developer rather than a console.
 

jboking

New member
Oct 10, 2008
2,694
0
0
irishdelinquent said:
Wargamer said:
Hmm, let's see...

Inferior graphics to Resistance 2.
Arguable. While there are rough patches, the textures and materials in Halo 3 are quite impressive.
It's not a fair argument to make in the first place, R2 came out a year later.
Wargamer said:
Inferior weaponry balance to Resistance 2.
QTF? How are the weapons unbalanced? I have never encountered any problems with the weapons balance in Halo 3.
you mean to tell me you find nothing wrong with the spartan laser existing in its current form?
Wargamer said:
Smaller games than Resistance 2.
Fair enough. Resistance had larger online matches. But then again, Xbox Live is MUCH busier than Playstation Online/Home. Trying to run so many matches of a larger size would cause hell for the servers; remember, Xbox Live has more than a handful of games online that people are playing.
I was under the impression that insomniac ran private servers? Might be wrong there. Anyone know for sure?
Wargamer said:
No Class-based gameplay, unlike Resistance 2.
This isn't such a big deal. I prefer to look at it this way; Halo 3 has much more fluid gameplay, with players in co-op not forced into a specific class.
I always found Halo co-op to be more focused around having two independent master chiefs running around. R2 actually makes you rely on one another, it is actual co-op as opposed to, "Blow the shit out of everything in the room just like you would if you were playing alone." Also, The fact that the multiplayer is not class-based shows that R2 provided more diversification in the playstyle.
Wargamer said:
More bugs than Resistance 2.
I have played quite a bit of Halo 3, and have never really run into any bugs. Hell, I've barely encountered slowdown.
Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. For proof that there are numerous bugs and glitches in Halo 3 I would direct you to youtube.

Wargamer said:
Less Character Customisation than Resistance 2.
Thank God, IMO. Halo 2 made the mistake of trying to make me give a crap about the Arbiter. Try and cram too many characters into a game, and it becomes one of the latest Sonic entries, or nothinf but fanservice like MGS4.
First off, there was nothing wrong with MGS4 fanservice, it was necessary. Just getting that out there. Secondly, I think you misunderstood what he was saying. He wasn't saying more characters are in R2, because there really aren't any more campaign characters than there are in Halo 3. What he meant was customizing your character for things like online play(I assume). That, however, is extremely arguable.
 

jboking

New member
Oct 10, 2008
2,694
0
0
letsnoobtehpwns said:
I think you need to check your resources. You said lots of thing that are false.
Nothing personal, but I wanted to know who you were claiming was telling lies and that is a little hard to do when you don't quote people. There is a tiny quote button in the bottom right of each post box.
 

Nia-san

New member
Mar 29, 2009
180
0
0
Only if it had the backwards computability that the PS2 has on top of that.

I heart my PS2
 

Ghadente

White Rabbit
Mar 21, 2009
537
0
0
Would def buy it, it is undoubtedly the best game on the xbox, and Halo is practically the only reason i was ever considering getting an xbox (but i never did). There are no other games xbox has that appeals to me. since i played halo (quite a bit) over my cuz's house i had no need to waste money on getting halo myself. Plus i played the first one on the computer for free and there isn't so much single player Halo can offer you after that. Multiplayer would be the only reason for getting it, but since you have to pay to play on xbox (which is idiotic) its just not worth it.
If it came out on PS3, it would be kickass, cause halo is one of the best FPS out there, and online would be free! freedom is righteous :)
 

jboking

New member
Oct 10, 2008
2,694
0
0
Syntax Man said:
okay in order then

1. bollocks, colour with lower rez textures and lower poly models>high rez grey


and killzone 2 does nothing new, it uses a gears style cover system in first person "omg it's like new or something" and it has pretty graphics, not really a 'halo killer'
Alright, I'm gonna call you out on this one. Have you ever played Resistance 2 or Killzone 2? My money is on no. Why? Because Killzone 2 uses a color palate as opposed to high rez gray and is very colorful and vibrant. Also, the Killzone 2 cover system is NOTHING like gears. It is essentially crouching, just like you can crouch while there is no cover to be behind. Also, you have to hold the crouch button if you want to stay behind cover. It really isn't much of a cover system period.

In the future, please don't make accusation without even a shred of evidence or actual experience.
 

Novania

New member
Feb 5, 2009
536
0
0
I dont have a PS3 or a 360 but if it ever goes to PC im sure as hell gonna buy it
 

Hazy

New member
Jun 29, 2008
7,423
0
0
Probably not. Already own it on the 360, and it's nothing spectacular. The online is Good, but thats about it.
 

CriticallyAcclaimed

New member
Apr 6, 2009
194
0
0
assuming that i didnt already own halo 3, i still wouldnt buy it for PS3 because its already old. sure it still has a ridiculous amount of people online (myself included occasionally) but all of those people have played so long their equivolant to mods anyways and a noob would be destroyed. there are better FPS's anyways
 

Daezd

New member
Mar 1, 2008
343
0
0
<---PS3 owner and Sony fan.

No, and this thread is pretty useless. Console shooters, for me anyway, always get a resounding "MEH." Yes, even Resistance 2 and Killzone 2. I'd much rather be playing TF2, HL, or BF than those games. My PS3 is for adventure games, RPG's, the random action game, and whatever the hell Katamari is labeled under.

Go PC!
 

justacop

New member
Nov 1, 2008
10
0
0
i have halo 3 and wouldnt reccommend it to another xbox owner (if they didn't already have it lmao) it is a bit crap so just keep hoping gears comes to the ps3 or stick with killzone or wait for modern warfare 2 :D but you probably wouldnt be interested if you are looking for a fun, fast action packed game even the multiplayer is boring. all of it. i was ripped off. lol
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Not for the PS3.

Maybe on the PC: I prefer a mouse for shooters. I'm more into Unreal anyway. Redeemer FTW.
 

VoltySquirrel

New member
Feb 5, 2009
462
0
0
I would say, no. Personally, the game is already blown way outta preportion about how great it is. It's a good game, don't get me wrong, it just doesn't deserve all the attention it gets. It also doesn't deserve the utter scorn it recieves, and the endless milking Microsoft is doing to keep it alive when the Halo cow is completly dry.
 

bodyklok

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,936
0
0
No I don't think so, I'd get it for the multiplayer but it doesn't seem like I'll have many people to play along side.