Got Halo 3 last night...

[Beev]

No, I said (implied?) that the "changing things on the fly" feature could be scripted. Map making doesn't get much easier than the WYSIWYG editor FarCry (and soon Crysis) has.

 

[michaels]

http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Ga...96&player=mclldavidson
My first game of mp, I better gets the kills while I can

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: slugg
I'm just saying that if you don't play Halo 3, you're not missing out on much.

Lies, if I don't play Halo3, I'm missing out on the conclusion to the story line!

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: michaels
http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Ga...96&player=mclldavidson
My first game of mp, I better gets the kills while I can

hah ... 11 beatdowns, nice!

i don't really like that map either, one that I veto whenever it comes uup.

 

[mode101wpb]

I passed on the original Xbox till they released the original Halo Edition that came with the Halo Game.

I also had Halo 2, both were fun games....sold my Xbox a while ago knowing I'd have to buy a 360 to play Halo 3.

Too bad the Halo Edition 360 doesn't come with Halo 3, as the original, though it's still salty.

Just don't see spending $350 for the Elite 360 just to play Halo 3.

 

[Ns1]

Console vs PC

It is far easier to get 4 guys together and play Halo3 then it is to bring 4 computers together to play HL2. Internet does not count as there is nothing quite like teabagging a guy after you frag em.

PC FPS is far superior. They are good in different ways.


I can't wait to play Halo3. I can't wait to play tf2 either.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Internet does not count as there is nothing quite like teabagging a guy after you frag em.

dude... youre not supposed to physically teabag the guy! but whatever floats your boat. remind me never to come to any of your halo3 parties.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Internet does not count as there is nothing quite like teabagging a guy after you frag em.

dude... youre not supposed to physically teabag the guy! but whatever floats your boat. remind me never to come to any of your halo3 parties.

:laugh:

but honestly, me and my buddies will every now and then bring our systems together and LAN it up. usually was a good time, but then each time it started going sour, maybe only playing one or two games before we all screwed around on our one, some will play WoW, others play their own games, or watch tv or play some console game, etc etc.
half of the problem is the group is sort of splitting up for various reasons. women and their drama, one buddy is in the Army and down in Kentucky (Ft Campbell).

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: slugg
The general trend is that most FPS games on PC have more depth than console FPS games, except for console->PC ports. That's just my opinion.

I _STILL_ stand by my original opinion that Halo 3 is nothing to get worked up about. It's not THAT great. If it was so great, they would've planned to release it on PC as well as Xbox 360 at around the same time to generate an even larger market share. Bungie and Microsoft both know that a parallel release on both platforms wouldn't have generated enough profit to constitute the move.

Why is this relevant? Well it's because if Halo 3 was viable in the PC market, Bungie and Microsoft would have planned from the beginning a PC version to be released in parallel. Microsoft wants as much money as possible, just as any other business, but they didn't do a parallel launch. This shows that Microsoft _knows_ that Halo 3 wouldn't have stood up to the competing PC shooters, whether it be due to marketing, quality, reputation, or any combination of random reasons. Microsoft decided that the money they save in development costs for developing for only one platform is greater than the potential profits from a PC release minus the higher development cost. Want to argue against me? You'd basically have to argue that Microsoft does NOT want as much money as possible. Name a business that doesn't want to maximize profits! You can't.

This further supports my argument that if you compare Halo 3 to most PC based first person shooters, you really don't have to much. It'd be considered average at best. Follow the sales of Halo 1 and Halo 2 on PC versus the sales of Halo 1 and 2 on the xbox. Thus, I think it's fair to say that if you're used to FPS games on the PC, you probably won't be too excited about Halo 3. PC gamers are used to higher standards.

Keep calling me a fanboy, fanboys.

I was still ecstatic about the Halo 3 launch. Why? It's so much fun to be able to play with your RL friends in person and such than trying to play games that would need, 4 seperate GOOD computers, internet connection, and 4 seperate copies of the same game.


It's just wicked fun to shoot it up with your buddies on late night some weekend. The game itself is really solid.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Internet does not count as there is nothing quite like teabagging a guy after you frag em.

dude... youre not supposed to physically teabag the guy! but whatever floats your boat. remind me never to come to any of your halo3 parties.

Are you serious? Fuck, nobody gave us the memo. So is "pwning your ass" a literal term too?

 

[cmdrdredd]

For all of you who say that Halo 3 is the same game as halo2 with new features. That can be said for ANY sequel to ANY game. You cannot use that argument.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Sraaz
Most gamers who game the most on their PC's generally see through the Halo series' bullshit. As far as consoles shooters go, the series freakin' rocks hardcore. But that's not saying much... It's a console shooter. Putting aside the whole "ya but liek u hav 2 pay 5 billion dollerz 4 a pc" garbage, the PC is a far superior gaming machine. Sure, every platform has their awesome exclusives (Halo, MGS, anything by Nintendo), but in the end, PC games have the longevity, because they're formulas are built to last. Look at Counterstrike, people have been playing it for what? A decade now?

Anyway, this is a Halo 3 topic, not a vs argument. There's a thread on the PC Gaming forum about Halo 3 for that.

Console shooter? It's the same type of FPS you can get on your PC. You have a gun, you run around, you kill things. OMG SO ORIGINAL! :roll:

edit: I am not saying Halo3 or any PC FPS is bad in this way. But you can't say "it's a console shooter" well, if it was only for PC you'd be praising it. Talk about double standard.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Console shooter? It's the same type of FPS you can get on your PC. You have a gun, you run around, you kill things. OMG SO ORIGINAL! :roll:

edit: I am not saying Halo3 or any PC FPS is bad in this way. But you can't say "it's a console shooter" well, if it was only for PC you'd be praising it. Talk about double standard.

Agreed. The PC-only elitist crap is nothing but pathetic. These days most of the big PC FPS games get console ports. And guess what? Console gamers aren't blown away by them and they still play games like Halo. I mean, if you prefer KB/M controls, that's one thing... but this sh!t about PC shooters being "deeper" or somehow otherwise better is fanboy nonsense.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Console shooter? It's the same type of FPS you can get on your PC. You have a gun, you run around, you kill things. OMG SO ORIGINAL! :roll:

edit: I am not saying Halo3 or any PC FPS is bad in this way. But you can't say "it's a console shooter" well, if it was only for PC you'd be praising it. Talk about double standard.

Agreed. The PC-only elitist crap is nothing but pathetic. These days most of the big PC FPS games get console ports. And guess what? Console gamers aren't blown away by them and they still play games like Halo. I mean, if you prefer KB/M controls, that's one thing... but this sh!t about PC shooters being "deeper" or somehow otherwise better is fanboy nonsense.

This is true, but earlier PC only shooters(Far Cry) really showed PC gamers what the next gen of PC gaming was supposed to be. Now you have a choice between better controls(PC) or the fun and relaxation of a console shooter.

 

[Beev]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Agreed. The PC-only elitist crap is nothing but pathetic. These days most of the big PC FPS games get console ports. And guess what? Console gamers aren't blown away by them and they still play games like Halo. I mean, if you prefer KB/M controls, that's one thing... but this sh!t about PC shooters being "deeper" or somehow otherwise better is fanboy nonsense.

No, they do the same thing PC gamers do when a console game gets ported to the PC: They don't care. Half Life 2 is an amazing game, but the console version didn't sell as well. Why? Halo 1 was a fantastic game, yet the PC version didn't sell well. Why? Or crap happens like FarCry, where the PC version was brilliant, but the few console versions were absolutely terrible.

More games need to release simultaneously, like Bioshock.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Sraaz
No, they do the same thing PC gamers do when a console game gets ported to the PC: They don't care. Half Life 2 is an amazing game, but the console version didn't sell as well. Why? Halo 1 was a fantastic game, yet the PC version didn't sell well. Why? Or crap happens like FarCry, where the PC version was brilliant, but the few console versions were absolutely terrible.

More games need to release simultaneously, like Bioshock.

I'm sure that's true for many... but a large percentage of those people probably already played the game on a PC anyway, yet they will still turn around play Halo. For the most part it really only seems to be the PC-only guys that have this need to put down console based shooters. They always make these claims about the PC-based shooters being deeper yet offer no reasons to back up their claims. When called on their claims they always fall back on the KB/M vs gamepad debate or resort to counting pixels and frames. As I stated, it's simply pathetic.

 

[Beev]

I wouldn't say any game could ever be "deeper" on one platform than another because then the game could just be ported over...

I loved Halo 1. I bought an Xbox on launch day with it and played it to death. My qualm is that it would have been better if it were built for the PC entirely. Not built, then ported to the Xbox, then ported back for a later release.

 

[KlokWyze]

Shiiit... I totally agree with Thraxen. Alot of the arrogant elitist heads just say all this shit is superior/inferior etc, but its all just subjective personal opinion & they don't even realize it. Very limited dumbass arrogant people.

I play both PC FPS's & Console FPS's & I like'em both. They both have their ups & downs.

Halo 3 is a dope game. If you can't see that because it's "over-hyped" (like many PC games are) or simply because you're arrogant because you prefer to use a PC to game over a console (which is utterly ridiculous in itself) than you are a pathetic gimp.

Multiplayer: Map design, weapon variety/balance, melee, insane myriad of options, vehicles & ease of use are all 10/10. MOST of the games are very smooth, not all... so it isn't perfect.

Singleplayer: Enemy variety, voice-acting, variety of co-ops & fleshed out world are all 10/10. Cheesy story @ times, Good AI (not great), some trial-&-error spots (frustrating as hell)... so not perfect. I am not all the way through yet, but I like what I see a lot.

I logon yesterday & look @ my friends list. Every single person was online in Halo 3...

:thumbsup:

 

[jhbball]

My first impression of this game: unimpressive.

Firstly, I was expecting the campaign to be more 'epic', right from the get go. It's been hyped so much, it's hard not to expect alot from it. The first level is boring, and features a boring level design, the same old enemies. It is fun playing online co-op campaign. But single player, it's fairly dull.

Secondly, the graphics. Ugh. This game literally looks like Halo 2, but running at 60 fps. It's really pathetic. Terrible player animations, blurry textures, uninspired enviroments. I'm running it at 1080p, on a 42'' set, and it looks terrible. I think it really detracts from this sequel.

Overall though, the multiplayer seems fun. Lots of maps, lots of opponents, vehicles etc. The gameplay seems solid, but not fresh.

So, overall, an unimpressive, but fun/standard sequel. Could have been so much more though, imo.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: jhbball
My first impression of this game: unimpressive.

Firstly, I was expecting the campaign to be more 'epic', right from the get go. It's been hyped so much, it's hard not to expect alot from it. The first level is boring, and features a boring level design, the same old enemies. It is fun playing online co-op campaign. But single player, it's fairly dull.

Secondly, the graphics. Ugh. This game literally looks like Halo 2, but running at 60 fps. It's really pathetic. Terrible player animations, blurry textures, uninspired enviroments. I'm running it at 1080p, on a 42'' set, and it looks terrible. I think it really detracts from this sequel.

Overall though, the multiplayer seems fun. Lots of maps, lots of opponents, vehicles etc. The gameplay seems solid, but not fresh.

So, overall, an unimpressive, but fun/standard sequel. Could have been so much more though, imo.

it ain't the best looking game in the world by any means, howver it has some great graphics and lighting.

and when you said it was running at 60fps, your opinion on the graphics became moot.

also have you played more than the first mission? the first 2 missions are somewhat slow imo, but it picks up big time after that.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jhbball
My first impression of this game: unimpressive.

Firstly, I was expecting the campaign to be more 'epic', right from the get go. It's been hyped so much, it's hard not to expect alot from it. The first level is boring, and features a boring level design, the same old enemies. It is fun playing online co-op campaign. But single player, it's fairly dull.

Secondly, the graphics. Ugh. This game literally looks like Halo 2, but running at 60 fps. It's really pathetic. Terrible player animations, blurry textures, uninspired enviroments. I'm running it at 1080p, on a 42'' set, and it looks terrible. I think it really detracts from this sequel.

Overall though, the multiplayer seems fun. Lots of maps, lots of opponents, vehicles etc. The gameplay seems solid, but not fresh.

So, overall, an unimpressive, but fun/standard sequel. Could have been so much more though, imo.

Yep. Exactly like Halo 2. :roll:

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: jhbball
My first impression of this game: unimpressive.

Firstly, I was expecting the campaign to be more 'epic', right from the get go. It's been hyped so much, it's hard not to expect alot from it. The first level is boring, and features a boring level design, the same old enemies. It is fun playing online co-op campaign. But single player, it's fairly dull.

Secondly, the graphics. Ugh. This game literally looks like Halo 2, but running at 60 fps. It's really pathetic. Terrible player animations, blurry textures, uninspired enviroments. I'm running it at 1080p, on a 42'' set, and it looks terrible. I think it really detracts from this sequel.

Overall though, the multiplayer seems fun. Lots of maps, lots of opponents, vehicles etc. The gameplay seems solid, but not fresh.

So, overall, an unimpressive, but fun/standard sequel. Could have been so much more though, imo.

it ain't the best looking game in the world by any means, howver it has some great graphics and lighting.

and when you said it was running at 60fps, your opinion on the graphics became moot.

also have you played more than the first mission? the first 2 missions are somewhat slow imo, but it picks up big time after that.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to judge a game based on playing the first level (did you even get to the end at the hydroelectric dam?), especially when you say uninspired environments. The campaign isn't the best, but overall I'd say its the best in the series. There's some cliched levels (really the game is a big cliche, but its done in a way that its more of an homage, which is what I think most people who don't like it seem to not get), but overall its enjoyable.

I really have no clue where you're getting that the graphics are terrible. They aren't the best, but they should hold up pretty well (for replay value later on) and hardly look bad. Each to his own, but I really don't see how you can say it isn't at least good technically.

Also, I really hope you were not playing on any difficulty lower than Legendary. Sadly, Legendary seems kinda too easy too, and that was on two-player co-op.

There's two things I think you're overlooking. This game supports up to 4 player co-op online, which to my knowledge no other FPS has really done, so thats a pretty big achievement there (co-op is what has made the Halo games so much fun for me personally). Also, go play around with the Theater mode. Both of those are a big reason why they chose to not overwhelm with the technical prowess (they spent way too much time focusing on that for the second one only to get stuck with limitations).

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to judge a game based on playing the first level (did you even get to the end at the hydroelectric dam?), especially when you say uninspired environments. The campaign isn't the best, but overall I'd say its the best in the series. There's some cliched levels (really the game is a big cliche, but its done in a way that its more of an homage, which is what I think most people who don't like it seem to not get), but overall its enjoyable.

I really have no clue where you're getting that the graphics are terrible. They aren't the best, but they should hold up pretty well (for replay value later on) and hardly look bad. Each to his own, but I really don't see how you can say it isn't at least good technically.

Also, I really hope you were not playing on any difficulty lower than Legendary. Sadly, Legendary seems kinda too easy too, and that was on two-player co-op.

There's two things I think you're overlooking. This game supports up to 4 player co-op online, which to my knowledge no other FPS has really done, so thats a pretty big achievement there (co-op is what has made the Halo games so much fun for me personally). Also, go play around with the Theater mode. Both of those are a big reason why they chose to not overwhelm with the technical prowess (they spent way too much time focusing on that for the second one only to get stuck with limitations).

Aye... calling these graphics terrible is ridiculous, its just an obvious overstatement to make an effect. Plus I think the animations are spot on, so I don't really know what they are trying to say.

The amount of dudes they get on screen w/ this level of detail & no slowdown is impressive. That 1st scarab battle was fucking badness!

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Sraaz
Most gamers who game the most on their PC's generally see through the Halo series' bullshit. As far as consoles shooters go, the series freakin' rocks hardcore. But that's not saying much... It's a console shooter. Putting aside the whole "ya but liek u hav 2 pay 5 billion dollerz 4 a pc" garbage, the PC is a far superior gaming machine. Sure, every platform has their awesome exclusives (Halo, MGS, anything by Nintendo), but in the end, PC games have the longevity, because they're formulas are built to last. Look at Counterstrike, people have been playing it for what? A decade now?

Anyway, this is a Halo 3 topic, not a vs argument. There's a thread on the PC Gaming forum about Halo 3 for that.

The 360 is a computer. Only difference between it and the ones PC gamers have is that consoles are all identical. This is a positive in several ways, and a negative only in that the console can't be upgraded. However, since developers always manage to get more out of consoles with time and experience, it's not that bad of a negative. Around the time that the graphic difference is too much to bear, a new console will be coming out.

 

[jhbball]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to judge a game based on playing the first level (did you even get to the end at the hydroelectric dam?), especially when you say uninspired environments. The campaign isn't the best, but overall I'd say its the best in the series. There's some cliched levels (really the game is a big cliche, but its done in a way that its more of an homage, which is what I think most people who don't like it seem to not get), but overall its enjoyable.

I really have no clue where you're getting that the graphics are terrible. They aren't the best, but they should hold up pretty well (for replay value later on) and hardly look bad. Each to his own, but I really don't see how you can say it isn't at least good technically.

Also, I really hope you were not playing on any difficulty lower than Legendary. Sadly, Legendary seems kinda too easy too, and that was on two-player co-op.

There's two things I think you're overlooking. This game supports up to 4 player co-op online, which to my knowledge no other FPS has really done, so thats a pretty big achievement there (co-op is what has made the Halo games so much fun for me personally). Also, go play around with the Theater mode. Both of those are a big reason why they chose to not overwhelm with the technical prowess (they spent way too much time focusing on that for the second one only to get stuck with limitations).

Aye... calling these graphics terrible is ridiculous, its just an obvious overstatement to make an effect. Plus I think the animations are spot on, so I don't really know what they are trying to say.

The amount of dudes they get on screen w/ this level of detail & no slowdown is impressive. That 1st scarab battle was fucking badness!

Maybe a slight overstatement, but the point remains. Halo 3 should have looked better, and it does not look good on a 42'' 1080p set, compared Bioshock, Gears, Call of Duty 4 MP beta. This is for many reasons, in my opinion. Art direction, animation, gun design, and geometry choices in some of the maps. It's also extremely pixelated, which takes away from any detail that the game could provide. You're right, they aren't terrible. But they're not good.

As for the campaign. I cleared through the first level, and was unimpressed. Just my impression. I was expecting something more. I'll save my judgement for the rest of the game after I complete it.

Again, the multi player is fun, and where the meat of the game is. I'll comment on it further after I get a few more hours in.

Also, I'm not a pc fanboy by any means.