Halo 3 trailer, yes its awesome.

[Jedinator]

Originally Posted by Erigion

I think I'm missing something, where are the in-game shots? That looks like a bunch of pre-rendered footage made for E3. Why should I care about it?

I think video game trailers are even more worthless than movie trailers since most of the time you see very little, or absolutely no, in-game footage. What're they trying to do? Sell a game based on graphics that won't be in the game? Sell me a game based on its story? Go make a movie or write a book if you want to tell me a story. I want a game, show me the game itself.

And about the whole "Halo is overrated" issue. It happened because this was the first console FPS that blew up. Yes, there have been some good ones like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark but your average console gamer didn't get them because they were on the N64. Meanwhile your gamer who has access to a PC has been fed a steady stream of great FPS games: Half-Life, Tribes, Counterstrike, Battlefield: 1942, Call of Duty, etc. Compared to those games Halo isn't revolutionary at all. So when you have console gamers screaming that Halo is the best FPS ever, you get plenty of blank stares from PC gamers.

Ummm ok, trailers are made to get people excited and I think that this trailer acheived that.

[Erigion]

Originally Posted by Jedinator

Ummm ok, trailers are made to get people excited and I think that this trailer acheived that.

Maybe it got the Halo fanboys excited, who probably would have been excited if Halo Development Studio showed a detailed render of Master Chief doing a salsa dance.

And something is wrong with the gaming industry if it needs teaser trailers now.

[Griveton]

Originally Posted by Erigion

I think I'm missing something, where are the in-game shots? That looks like a bunch of pre-rendered footage made for E3. Why should I care about it?

Actually, that seems to be a real-time rendering. Aside from what bungie has said, seeing it in something closer to it's normal definition (I watched it through the XBL marketplace download) you can actually see some of the polygons and notice the oh-so-slight framerate drops, as well as the movement of the ships and SFX, which betray it's real-time rendering.

Originally Posted by Erigion

And about the whole "Halo is overrated" issue. It happened because this was the first console FPS that blew up. Yes, there have been some good ones like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark but your average console gamer didn't get them because they were on the N64. Meanwhile your gamer who has access to a PC has been fed a steady stream of great FPS games: Half-Life, Tribes, Counterstrike, Battlefield: 1942, Call of Duty, etc. Compared to those games Halo isn't revolutionary at all. So when you have console gamers screaming that Halo is the best FPS ever, you get plenty of blank stares from PC gamers.

Then again, Halo is fun. Don't misunderstand me. I grew up on Wolf 3D (seriously, spent every computer class at elementary playing that on mute), Doom, the Quakes, the Unreals, Serious Sams, and more recently Half-life 2 and FEAR. Hell, I've been a FPS fan for almost all my gaming life (that is, once I was old enough to actually pick which game I wanted). I've loved them all.

Is Halo the biggest one out there, the most revolutionary? I don't think so. I do believe it was a good FPS with a relatively fresh experience. The Squad mechanics in an action FPS, with wide open spaces and vehicle interaction were not so commonplace back then. It also had one kickass Co.op feature, an option I always regard very highly.

I believe Halo has been an outstanding videogame series, taking into account both incarnations, even if people feel like nitpicking (which oftentimes feels like potshots from detractors who hate Halo because it's microsoft/successful/Xbox/whatever, or any combination of those... um, not talking about you Erig), on a single basis: It's fun. It keeps me coming back from time to time. It has a good Single Player campaign, which is available in Co-op. It has a good multiplayer system. It even has a decently interesting story.

Originally Posted by Erigion

Maybe it got the Halo fanboys excited, who probably would have been excited if Halo Development Studio showed a detailed render of Master Chief doing a salsa dance.

And something is wrong with the gaming industry if it needs teaser trailers now.

Oh yes. Chief Salsa dancing. That would make me hot. In there.

Originally Posted by f1rst children

Real time trailers: Halo 3, MGS 4

I'm having my doubts regarding MGS4. It could be a render, but I highly doubt the PS3 hardware was the one rendering it all. It's not below Sony (or any one of the big three, for that matter) to do so, and the fact that the original trailer was called actual footage when it was shown moths before the Cell processor was ready doesn't help matters.

[Senshi]

Looking over this thread, I get the impression that Jetfire and others really miss the flame wars we had on the HL2 thread and wants to start another one...

* Senshi sings...

Memmmmoorriiiieeeesss light the corners of my mindddd misty water colored memmmmoorriiiieeeesss of the way we werrrre

Originally Posted by Erigion

And about the whole "Halo is overrated" issue. It happened because this was the first console FPS that blew up. Yes, there have been some good ones like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark but your average console gamer didn't get them because they were on the N64. Meanwhile your gamer who has access to a PC has been fed a steady stream of great FPS games: Half-Life, Tribes, Counterstrike, Battlefield: 1942, Call of Duty, etc. Compared to those games Halo isn't revolutionary at all. So when you have console gamers screaming that Halo is the best FPS ever, you get plenty of blank stares from PC gamers.

thank you... you have summed up my opinion on Halo very succinctly

[RuKiAsShAdOw]

Looks aaaawwwwwsssooooommeeeeee. But......2007!?!?!?!? WTF!?!?!?
Ugh, well, I guess that leaves plenty of time for me to raise the funds needed to buy a 360...

Originally Posted by Erigion

So when you have console gamers screaming that Halo is the best FPS ever, you get plenty of blank stares from PC gamers.

Well, I half-heartedly agree with you that PC shooters have been more revolutionary than Halo and its sequel, you're forgetting that these so-called "console gamers" that say this are usually only adept at playing console games and have little or no interest whatsoever in PC games. So really for them it isthe "best FPS ever".

[Erigion]

Originally Posted by RuKiAsShAdOw

Well, I half-heartedly agree with you that PC shooters have been more revolutionary than Halo and its sequel, you're forgetting that these so-called "console gamers" that say this are usually only adept at playing console games and have little or no interest whatsoever in PC games. So really for them it isthe "best FPS ever".

Just because they ignore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I will give Halo 2 this, the Co-op mode is great.

[Akimichi Choji]

Originally Posted by Erigion

Just because they ignore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I will give Halo 2 this, the Co-op mode is great.

The co-op mode is only good when one decides his partner no longer needs to live...........

And this for all your Halo 3 needs.

http://www.halo3site.com/

[Psiknight]

I'm psyched. Yep.

[Ghostmaster]

Well I must say that trailer psyched me up. Great trailer and great looking graphics. I don't know what the plot will be, but im sure it will be an exciting game.

[Akuhei]

As far as console shooters go, I think Halo is considerably better than the others (yes I'm including Goldeneye, the N64 controller blew). Halo, however, did not make as big a splash as alot of people probably think it did. I've been into competitive gaming for a few years now, and Halo was actually the first game I played competitively. CAL (or the Cyberathlete Amateur League) is usually pretty selective about what games it has leagues for. They thought that Halo was going to be really popular and so they gave it a shot. Halo lasted for a total of 3 seasons, and the 3rd season was a complete and utter joke and had only about 20 teams (they tried to introduce new gametypes to keep competition fresh, but nobody wanted to play 6v6 CTF on tiny unorganized maps like Prisoner, it's just stupid). Granted it was a horrible port, had absolutely no support from Microsoft or Bungie (they were convinced that nobody would be able to create hacks for their game, they were wrong), it was still entertaining in it's short life, but just not popular enough.

Then you look at games like CS:S, even CS 1.6. CS:S is currently I believe in it's 9th season of CAL and has well over 100 active teams of 5+ people. Even CS 1.6 has a MUCH larger following than Halo PC ever did, and the game is ****ing 10 years old. Call of Duty 2 is currently on the rise to popularity (it had a slight dip when there was no punkbuster/antihack out for it, which was just added in a patch by activision).

In all honesty, I would probably rather play a FPS on a PC rather than a console. Halo worked pretty well on XBOX, I'll admit, but the PC is just BUILT for first person shooters. Aiming with a mouse gives you 100 times more control than using a joystick that you only control with your thumb. Halo was pretty innovative and definitely scared off alot of PC gamers (usually headshots, even with pistols, kill in one shot, and the whole pacing and style of play in Halo is completely different from what most CS:S/CoD players would be used to). Halo was a really really good game and deserves most of the credit it gets, although it is sometimes overpraised.

Now to get a little more off subject and talk about Halo 2. Halo 2 was a beautiful looking game, and the coop/single player was alot of fun, it was definitely 50 dollars well spent. Then we get to the issue of multiplayer. Microsoft/XBOX Live come up with this horrible rediculous idea of matchmaking. Matching you up with people of equal "level", which almost never has to do with skill. Then they make the game so "noob friendly" that competition is nearly pointless. Granted it makes it alot more fun for a casual gamer, as it's extremely easy to "be good" at Halo 2, we often make jokes that nobody is actually "good" at Halo 2. There's an extremely accurate auto-aim system, the characters heads gigantic, rockets follow people, and lock onto vehicles, takes away alot of the fun factor for some of us people, but it looks really cool! Then they took away the pistol, which made Halo 1 unique, kind of ruined it for all of us H1 fans.

Halo 3 is probably going to be a really good game. I'm going to buy it, and I'm going to play it. The trailer looks beautiful, and hopefully they'll do a really good job finishing up the story. Right now it's really up to Microsoft what they want to do with the multiplayer/single player. They can't simply take away the dual wield ability, I really don't think they care about competitive gaming at all since it is a console game. I'm just trying to give the general view of the Halo series from a competitive PC Gamer's perspective (granted I don't share everybody's opinion).

Good lord that post is a mess...

[Mike]

Let me just say that the Halo games have very good gameplay (in terms of controls, and the actual combat), but very bad everything else. It has some of the most uninspiring, boring level design ever seen in a game.

I've played through the first two on my Xbox, then traded them in afterwards. They were both somewhat fun the first time through, but I wouldn't play through them again. I'll be getting part three aswell, just for the sake of finding out what the ending is.

Really though, the whole reason that part 2 was such a hit was because of its multiplayer portion, which consists of nothing BUT combat, so I guess in that respect they are pretty good.

[jetfire]

Originally Posted by Mike

Let me just say that the Halo games have very good gameplay (in terms of controls, and the actual combat), but very bad everything else. It has some of the most uninspiring, boring level design ever seen in a game.

I've played through the first two on my Xbox, then traded them in afterwards. They were both somewhat fun the first time through, but I wouldn't play through them again. I'll be getting part three aswell, just for the sake of finding out what the ending is.

Really though, the whole reason that part 2 was such a hit was because of its multiplayer portion, which consists of nothing BUT combat, so I guess in that respect they are pretty good.

I'm just actually curious, and not bashing here. What do you actually want in your level design that's so different from Halo? Don't most FPS games either revolve around moving through corridors or more open spaces? I've played games like the Doom and Quake series, where you mostly move through dark underground corridors, which felt uninspired. Red Faction had you walking through mine after mine, Half-Life kept you in buildings or tunnels quite a ways through, Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games put me in some pretty unique war settings (but after a while, all war settings start to look alike and unoriginal), etc...and yet, some people say some of these games were revolutionary in design. I'd just like to know what type of environments you mean. How could it's environments actually be better?

[Mike]

Originally Posted by jetfire

I'm just actually curious, and not bashing here. What do you actually want in your level design that's so different from Halo? Don't most FPS games either revolve around moving through corridors or more open spaces? I've played games like the Doom and Quake series, where you mostly move through dark underground corridors, which felt uninspired. Red Faction had you walking through mine after mine, Half-Life kept you in buildings or tunnels quite a ways through, Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games put me in some pretty unique war settings (but after a while, all war settings start to look alike and unoriginal), etc...and yet, some people say some of these games were revolutionary in design. I'd just like to know what type of environments you mean. How could it's environments actually be better?

In Halo 1, any room in any particular level looked exactly the same. It was almost impossible to tell which way you were actually meant to be going after a firefight. Add many of these identical rooms, connected with similarly identical corridors and you have a very boring gaming experience.

Halo 2's was a lot better, but much of the combat boiled down to huge open areas with enemies that spawned in waves, and once you defeat the onslaught in one location, you move onto another and do the same. The vehicle levels were better in that regard, since they were atleast constantly changing from beginning to end, making them interesting.


I guess it's all because I was brought up on PC first person shooters like Quake 2 and Half-Life (and more recently, Half-Life 2 and F.E.A.R.). Halo just reminds me more of a Serious Sam style kill-fest, than a crafted experience.


As for some of the games you mentioned:

- Half-Life's levels were quite varied, and you'll never find two rooms that are the same. They also mix up the gameplay and keep things interesting by mixing in creepy, suspenseful interludes between combat areas. Then, there's the atmosphere.
- I can't say much for Quake 1, but Quake 2's level design was actually quite good to me. Sure, all had the same dirty, rusty look to it, but each area had its own theme, and also shared many similarities with Half-Life.

In both those games, the levels were made from scratch, piece by piece, and crafted to give the player the exact gameplay experience that the creator wanted. To me it just feels like Halo 2's levels started off as a bunch of set pieces that were just stuck together like a LEGO set.

[jetfire]

Originally Posted by Mike

In Halo 1, any room in any particular level looked exactly the same. It was almost impossible to tell which way you were actually meant to be going after a firefight. Add many of these identical rooms, connected with similarly identical corridors and you have a very boring gaming experience.

Halo 2's was a lot better, but much of the combat boiled down to huge open areas with enemies that spawned in waves, and once you defeat the onslaught in one location, you move onto another and do the same. The vehicle levels were better in that regard, since they were atleast constantly changing from beginning to end, making them interesting.


I guess it's all because I was brought up on PC first person shooters like Quake 2 and Half-Life (and more recently, Half-Life 2 and F.E.A.R.). Halo just reminds me more of a Serious Sam style kill-fest, than a crafted experience.


As for some of the games you mentioned:

- Half-Life's levels were quite varied, and you'll never find two rooms that are the same. They also mix up the gameplay and keep things interesting by mixing in creepy, suspenseful interludes between combat areas. Then, there's the atmosphere.
- I can't say much for Quake 1, but Quake 2's level design was actually quite good to me. Sure, all had the same dirty, rusty look to it, but each area had its own theme, and also shared many similarities with Half-Life.

In both those games, the levels were made from scratch, piece by piece, and crafted to give the player the exact gameplay experience that the creator wanted. To me it just feels like Halo 2's levels started off as a bunch of set pieces that were just stuck together like a LEGO set.

I can mostly see what you mean. I will admit, there are plenty of areas in Halo 1 that had reused elements (The library, The ship of the Truth & Reconciliation and Keys were the same level, the two snow levels were the same level (only the 2nd had you backtrack), and the first and last levels were basically the same. So I guess the only truly original levels were Halo, and the Silent Cartographer. However, I'd moreso say that the 2nd half of the game was unoriginal, since from the 7th level, they reused everything. Still, as you've said, the gameplay itself kept it fun. It would have been more refreshing if there were different areas. However, Halo 2 solved this problem. Many of the levels didnt have reused bits. I know the covenant ship level was used twice, and parts of the library got repetitive, but many of the other levels (especially the city levels and other outdoor areas) were done well, and differed a lot along the way. I hope Halo 3 will progress even more, and have every bit of every level never look the same.

Still, I guess the reason I can ignore the repetitive elements, is because the Halo games offer quite a bit of interesting outdoor areas, which give you a lot of freedom for fighting. If there's one thing that bores me in a game, is constantly running through dark underground tunnels and static rooms only coloured in greys and browns. I guess this is why Quake and Doom never appealed to me. Maybe it's because Halo offered up some colour, and small immersive touches to give some areas feelings of life. Also, like you said, the gameplay is what keeps you hooked, even though the areas can get repetitive or unoriginal.

Anyways, as I said, it would be really nice if Halo 3 differed it's environments even more. I can definately understand what you're talking about. It's just about finding a good balance. I hope they add more open areas like Halo 1 did (remember the huge snow field, or outdoor sections of Halo?), and keep more areas varied like they did in Halo 2. They've made quite a bit of progression with differing areas between Halo 1 and 2. Who knows? Maybe we'll even see less repetitiveness in Halo 3.

[RuKiAsShAdOw]

OK, no matter what, you're not gonna get the perfect FPS. Halo and Halo2 are sorta meant to be fantastical, mindless fighting games at first because, well, you're pretty much alone and surrounded by enemies everywhere you go. But as you progress in difficulty I find that it takes a little more tactical ability to get through the games. As for games like CS, F.E.A.R., Call of Duty, etc., its all tactical and dark corridors and tunnels are a tactical duck-and-hide staple. So really, it boils down to whichever sub-genre of FPS you fancy.