Not bad. Graphics are pretty, but it'll all be for nothing if they don't have a good ending planned. Seriously, if I don't get closure, i'm bustin' skulls.
Is there anything new gameplay wise?
Is there anything new gameplay wise?
Much larger scale battles and equipment.
So they reversed course on nerfing the Master Chief? One of the things about Halo 2 that annoyed me a lot was that the scale of combat tended to have shrunk...because you would never have survived engaging the same number of enemies as you used to.
Also, I see no screenshots involving the Arbiter. But the Elites seem to have discovered proper, closed helmets now so you can't fire rounds down their throats.
So they reversed course on nerfing the Master Chief? One of the things about Halo 2 that annoyed me a lot was that the scale of combat tended to have shrunk...because you would never have survived engaging the same number of enemies as you used to.
Also, I see no screenshots involving the Arbiter. But the Elites seem to have discovered proper, closed helmets now so you can't fire rounds down their throats.
*Images*Wow! Look at those awesome quality generic and linear maps! They look so awesome, it almost looks somewhat half-way original in concept! I'm definitely gonna buy an X360 today, just for the eye candy of this truly awesome cookie cutter game!
It would be a different story if something innovative came along... Something along the lines of a semi-MMO aspect (hundreds on a battlefield, not tens), or gameplay that didn't indicate the domination of two dimensional thinking.
Yes, it does look very polished and of decent quality, but it offers nothing new. It is just like every other game of its type. The FPS rage was cool when UT came out. Then came Tribes 2, which added a lot of new things. By the time UT2k4 came out, the genre was showing its limitations.
Spoiler:Elites are actually siding with humans against Covenant this time around so your going to see Arbiter around but you don't play as him
But that's just me. I'm not saying it's a bad game, per se, but it's just based on a bunch of hype because it looks better. And agreed, for each their own.
Oh, I have no hostility towards Halo, but FPSs in general, Halo happens to be one of them.Its true...there hasn't been too much in the way of innovation in the FPS genre. But then I think most of the genres are suffering from a lack of innovation. There are some interesting bits here and there that push things along but the whole games industry has settled down a bit. Its a bit more like TV now where most of the big ideas have been fleshed out before and sales are made on capturing people that like the same thing just with different scenery (sort of like sitcoms which I see as generally all being the same but with different actors and sets).
Yes, it does look very polished and of decent quality, but it offers nothing new. It is just like every other game of its type. The FPS rage was cool when UT came out. Then came Tribes 2, which added a lot of new things. By the time UT2k4 came out, the genre was showing its limitations. It was becoming stale. Now we have Halo 3, a game just like every other one before it. A newer version of the same thing.
I know that's a gross generalization of FPSs, but generalizations are usually true. Halo 3 looks like it would rawk if it were its own game, but I'm rather tired of the whole FPS craze. It would be a different story if something innovative came along... Something along the lines of a semi-MMO aspect (hundreds on a battlefield, not tens), or gameplay that didn't indicate the domination of two dimensional thinking.
But that's just me. I'm not saying it's a bad game, per se, but it's just based on a bunch of hype because it looks better. And agreed, for each their own.
Can you clarify your second point? As for scale of conflict, well, Halo 3 has scale coming out of it's a** considering you go from this:2 dimensional thinking meaning that while one map may involve several planes of levels, your primary targets will be on the same plane, or all in the same immediate vicinity. Not often you see a non-sniper shooting up or down at medium range.
*snip*
to this:
*snip*
And like I said earlier, some encounters have enough units apparently to reach into the 100s.
I find it interesting you cite games known for their multiplayer, whereas things like Halo and Gears of War made their reps on their single player. In fact, two of those I know for certain are multiplayer-only. (Not sure about the original UT, I've frankly never given a flying **** about the series.)True, I suppose it needs clarification. I was referring to the common DM style FPSing. I can't judge Halo based on its single player attributes, as I have never played it. But being more of the same is obvious for the sake of multiplayer. Nothing but Run n Gun, Spray n Pray, and the like. Whoever has the fastest twitch wins. There is no such thing as tactics in DM FPSes. That's my beef :).
I couldn't give a damn about improved graphics. The only reason I want to play Halo 3 is for the storyline. I kinda want to find out what happens and I figure the gameplay should be worth sticking with the game long enough to find out.Arr, me too. It's the only reason I played Halo, in fact. Usually, I stay away from FPS games because I can't play for longer than 30-60 minutes at a stretch without getting debilitating motion-sickness.
http://nonciclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Immagine:Halolol.jpg
I'm interested on Halo!
The camp fest is the core of Rainbow Six gameplay. I enjoyed the fact that I could go into that game and be strategic without being called a camper. The game had so many ways to defeat a camper that it didn't seem to matter anyways...grenades, heart beat sensor, thermal sights on sniper rifles. Just required a proper approach to get the guy in the corner.
I like this one better.
(http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/631.jpg)
I like this one better.
(http://newmedia.funnyjunk.com/pictures/631.jpg)
I'll wait 3 years for the PC version. And then pirate it in protest at having to wait 3 years. :p