Topic: Halo 3!

[MysterD]

It's only an issue for me, and whoever else cares only about the single-player components of the game.  Bungie opted not to provide AI opponents for deathmatch or other typically MP components.  That leaves them out of the picture for someone with no interest in playing against strangers.  The SP campaign is all that remains, and if that is thin, it's not worth $60 to me.

Even though the game does have multiple difficulties (like most games) and them "skull" challenges, who's gonna go through it again to try and find everything???

I guess it depends on whom you believe.  If the focus is multiplayer at the expense of solo play, then it's not for me.  If the SP campaign is a reasonable game on its own, then it may be worthwhile.  I still don't know who tells the whole truth on this game.

If the true focus for Halo 3 is really MP, then why don't they go the Quake Wars route and just have a MP-only component???

I remember back when Battlefield 1942 first came out and all, the game's SP mode and MP mode were the same, basically. Difference? The SP was offline and you played w/ bots -- it was basically a good way to practice for the MP mode and a good way to play offline without any real players. Halo 3 could've done that, including some sort of SP Skirmish Mode. I'm pretty sure not everybody actually has X-Box Live. I'm sure some gamers would like some practice w/ the maps, offline and all, with just bots - -especially if you don't have XBL. Plus, I'm sure an SP Skirmish mode would be fun to mess around with, for a few hours, if you need a quick fix to just practice and/or fight stuff and whatnot -- especially w/ that new "Recording" Tool, which could make it an even more worthwhile.

8-10 hours is short, period, I don't care which generation it hails from.  If a game is going to be that short, then it needs to be exceptional, or appropriately cheap.  It's not cheap.

Agreed.

[gpw11]

"Even though the game does have multiple difficulties (like most games) and them "skull" challenges, who's gonna go through it again to try and find everything??? "

Seriously, you could say that about most action games.  As for the lack of bots, I'd imagine that they didn't include them because if you're going to fuck around with bots you're going to want to play multi-player, so why not just do that anyways?  Lets not pretend BF1942 half-asses 'SP mode' is a good thing.  It was basically completely pointless to even have in there. 

[Jedi]

"Even though the game does have multiple difficulties (like most games) and them "skull" challenges, who's gonna go through it again to try and find everything??? "

Seriously, you could say that about most action games.  As for the lack of bots, I'd imagine that they didn't include them because if you're going to fuck around with bots you're going to want to play multi-player, so why not just do that anyways?  Lets not pretend BF1942 half-asses 'SP mode' is a good thing.  It was basically completely pointless to even have in there. 

Absolutely agree with GP! If this was Bio Shock D you would have said the exact opposite.

[idolminds]

Bots have their place. They are apparently popular. Epic has said that something around half of the people that bought UT2k4 never took it online. And for something like Halo 3 where you've written AI routines anyway, it probably wouldn't take all that much effort to turn them into MP bots.

Lets face it, its not like the Halo community is known for being a particularly nice one. Some people just don't want to play with a bunch of total fuckwads. I play CS:S with bots because they aren't a bunch of douchebags, they try to complete the objectives, and when they "voice chat" its all relevant.

And now, the real reason I'm posting. I don't like Halo, everyone knows it. But my hats off to Bungie, Forge sounds fucking awesome. Sounds like an idea that should have been around for a while now. Its like...Trackmania meets Garrys Mod. While you can't edit the map architecture, you can edit entities, their properties, their placement, weapons...tons of things. And it sounds like they let you tweak a lot of parameters, not just a few on/off switches.

Sure you can mod PC games, but even the most "user friendly" ones need code. A truely easy to use "editor" like Forge is a great idea. I can imagine some cool things coming out of it. Reminds me of the early days of Quake modding where all the graphics will be the same, but the gameplay will vary quite a bit.

[Quemaqua]

I think what it comes down to is what scott said - the reason people like me hate Halo has nothing to do with Halo being crappy, and has everything to do with (as Sy said) how many people line up for it and bow down to call it God.  If Halo was marginally popular, made money, and went on its merry way, nobody would say a damned thing.  It's the fact that it's lauded as this amazing story with amazing design behind it, when it has neither thing in any capacity.  At least that's my beef with it.  I've never claimed the games to be total shit, I just don't think they're particularly great, particularly in the level design department.

But yeah, I don't think I'd have much interest either unless there was something amazing about the gameplay or story.  I mean, I paid my 60 bucks for The Darkness on 360, but that's because it did some amazing things in terms of storytelling and had some amazing acting.  It was a brilliant game, if a somewhat standard shooter with fun twists here and there.  Halo 3, even if it wasn't Halo 3, still wouldn't interest me just because I can't afford 60 dollars for 8 hours of game.  How much is that an hour?  7 something?  That's a very poor ratio for what is essentially a stock standard FPS game experience.  Most games I buy now give me roughly a 2 buck an hour pricetag, which is a lot easier to swallow.

And again, even though I don't like Halo MP that much, I make no bones that people shouldn't be allowed to play and enjoy Halo MP and form their communities and love every minute.  I have absolutely no beef with that element of Halo.  I have a beef with people calling an apple an orange.  Don't call bad level design anything but, don't call unimpressive graphical updates anything but, don't call derivative design anything but.  *That's* why Halo polarizes people, and for reasons far more fundamental than those of, say, Final Fantasy... because most of the people lambasting Halo are simultaneously playing other shooters that they feel are better, whereas most who hated Final Fantasy back in the day just hated that type of game in general.  This is a bit different.

[angrykeebler]

i like halo

i dont care how popular it is or whatever. i will buy the game, play it and enjoy it.

i dont play its multi-player or take part in its community..at all. I like the single player story and the universe. i even bought the damn books to read because i enjoyed it so much.

that is all.

[Jedi]

I couldn't agree with Keeb more.

[Pugnate]

8-10 hours is short, period, I don't care which generation it hails from.  If a game is going to be that short, then it needs to be exceptional, or appropriately cheap.  It's not cheap.

I have to admit, I can't think of many shooters during the past two years that were any longer. I remember F.E.A.R. was pretty short, yet it was some of the best dough I spent on a game.

I also think of it this way. I'd rather have 8-10 hours of quality gaming, versus 10 hours of quality gaming and 5 of repeating corridors.

I really loved Halo till the flood came, and then it felt like an artificial extension -- which I still enjoyed, but it didn't give me the same feeling.

[MysterD]

Absolutely agree with GP! If this was Bio Shock D you would have said the exact opposite.

I often don't replay games b/c of the game has extra difficulties. If there ain't extra endings to the actual game and/or extra results to "Quest"s (like in some RPG's), I often will NOT return to the game.

The only reason I'm actually replaying Bioshock's SP is because it has more than one ending. Yes, the game has two endings -- good and bad. I got my 20 hours worth of this one, first time around.

Multiple endings, I feel, are always a good reason and replay the game a different way and manner, as far as I'm concerned.

Same goes for STALKER, too -- which has a staggering amount of endings. SEVEN, in total.

Does Halo 3 have multiple endings???

Bots have their place. They are apparently popular. Epic has said that something around half of the people that bought UT2k4 never took it online.

Given that UT2K4 is really made for MP, that's something GREAT to note. They did something right w/ their Skirmish SP mode, to even cause THAT to happen.

And for something like Halo 3 where you've written AI routines anyway, it probably wouldn't take all that much effort to turn them into MP bots.

Agreed.

And now, the real reason I'm posting. I don't like Halo, everyone knows it. But my hats off to Bungie, Forge sounds fucking awesome. Sounds like an idea that should have been around for a while now. Its like...Trackmania meets Garrys Mod. While you can't edit the map architecture, you can edit entities, their properties, their placement, weapons...tons of things. And it sounds like they let you tweak a lot of parameters, not just a few on/off switches.

I do agree about that -- Forge does sound cool.
Can you use Forge offline to build your own SP stuff?

And I do admit, the entire "Game Video Recording" thing sounds great.

Sure you can mod PC games, but even the most "user friendly" ones need code. A truely easy to use "editor" like Forge is a great idea. I can imagine some cool things coming out of it. Reminds me of the early days of Quake modding where all the graphics will be the same, but the gameplay will vary quite a bit.

I'm guessing, given Halo's PC track record, Halo 3 will in a few years or so come over to the PC -- probably to Vista or whatever the hell their next OS after that will be. It'll probably require Windows Live, too...

I'm guessing Forge and the "Recording Video Thing" will be very popular. I wish more games will include something as cool as that, myself. Kudos to Bungie on those implementations -- though, I'm sure they'll be more popular on the MP side of things more so than anything. (I could be wrong on that).

I think what it comes down to is what scott said - the reason people like me hate Halo has nothing to do with Halo being crappy, and has everything to do with (as Sy said) how many people line up for it and bow down to call it God.  If Halo was marginally popular, made money, and went on its merry way, nobody would say a damned thing.

It's the fact that it's lauded as this amazing story with amazing design behind it, when it has neither thing in any capacity.  At least that's my beef with it.

I agree w/ that 100%.

I've never claimed the games to be total shit, I just don't think they're particularly great, particularly in the level design department.

Also agree again w/ that.

But yeah, I don't think I'd have much interest either unless there was something amazing about the gameplay or story.  I mean, I paid my 60 bucks for The Darkness on 360, but that's because it did some amazing things in terms of storytelling and had some amazing acting.  It was a brilliant game, if a somewhat standard shooter with fun twists here and there.  Halo 3, even if it wasn't Halo 3, still wouldn't interest me just because I can't afford 60 dollars for 8 hours of game.  How much is that an hour?  7 something?  That's a very poor ratio for what is essentially a stock standard FPS game experience.  Most games I buy now give me roughly a 2 buck an hour pricetag, which is a lot easier to swallow.

And again, even though I don't like Halo MP that much, I make no bones that people shouldn't be allowed to play and enjoy Halo MP and form their communities and love every minute.  I have absolutely no beef with that element of Halo.

Halo MP was  okay, though it was nothing special.

I have a beef with people calling an apple an orange.  Don't call bad level design anything but, don't call unimpressive graphical updates anything but, don't call derivative design anything but.  *That's* why Halo polarizes people, and for reasons far more fundamental than those of, say, Final Fantasy... because most of the people lambasting Halo are simultaneously playing other shooters that they feel are better, whereas most who hated Final Fantasy back in the day just hated that type of game in general.  This is a bit different.

My beef w/ Final Fantasy goes back to the fact that w/ rest of the RPG world evolving (namely w/ more non-linear styles of gameplay, in the gameplay department), FF didn't even really try even the tiniest bit to even do the same way. And that is why I felt, after NINE or so FF games, nothing has evolved in FF series except the graphics. Don't get me wrong -- some of the FF games were okay (FF8), some of them were good (FF, FF4, FF9), and some of them were even great (namely that would be FFV, VI, and VII for the "great" FF's).

I have to admit, I can't think of many shooters during the past two years that were any longer. I remember F.E.A.R. was pretty short, yet it was some of the best dough I spent on a game.

I agree. I do wish FEAR was longer and had more to it for replay value (like more endings, more hidden secrets, etc etc), but it didn't.

I also think of it this way. I'd rather have 8-10 hours of quality gaming, versus 10 hours of quality gaming and 5 of repeating corridors.

I really loved Halo till the flood came, and then it felt like an artificial extension -- which I still enjoyed, but it didn't give me the same feeling.

Agreed, to an extent. Halo's first half of gameplay was great. The variety of levels and the gameplay was very good. The story, eh -- nothing special. It was okay.

Then, The Flood came and really messed things up. While you still somewhat enjoyed the game when the Flood came, I really didn't. I think the only level I cared for after the Flood was the final level, when you had to drive out of the level to finish it off.

[Jedi]

I'm not going to respond to you sardonic comment about multiple endings other than to say; what you are saying is the exact opposite like I said it would be, but the reasons you've given, while very valid, are personal and do not necessarily reflect that of the Halo fanbase (and I’m certainly not talking about the idiot fanboys here either) which I do not believe D you subscribe to.

I'm going to get this game when its back in stock, and I'm most likely going to enjoy playing it.

[shock]

I just beat it.  It is short, but it's incredibly fun.  Totally, totally fun.  And it is definitely something that you can play through again and again (just like the other 2).

It felt more like Halo 1 than Halo 2, which was awesome.  It's a total blast.  I did it on Co-op with a friend.  We did it on Normal and it was WAY easy(granted we are both Halo 2 vets), which is why we flew through it.

Can't wait to play through it again tomorrow on a difficulty.

[Cobra951]

OK, so that confirms it's a one-sitting game.  How long?  Just a ballpark figure.  I'm sure you didn't time it.

[shock]

Well, I didn't beat all of it.  A friend played for the first little bit.  I have no idea how long that part was, but I am guessing about 2 hours.  We played for 4 hours, so that makes it possible to do in about 6 hours.

It'll be stretched a lot further for most people, though.  We died about 5 times throughout the whole game because it was REALLY easy.  And there were 2 of us instead of 1.

Can't stress enough how much replayability it has, though.  Honestly, I feel like playing it again right now.

[ScaryTooth]

A friend of mine from work got it and played it at 1:30am, and beat it at around 9:30am.

I got it, but I haven't played it yet. I kind of just wanted to play some MP right off the bat, but I think xbox live is dead atm. I could almost care less about the campaign. If it's like the first 2...meh.

[Cobra951]

Anything Microsoft which is Live-related is DOA right now.  No forums, no marketplace, no nuthin'.  They knew this was coming, and still didn't prepare adequately for it.

[MysterD]

I'm not going to respond to you sardonic comment about multiple endings other than to say; what you are saying is the exact opposite like I said it would be, but the reasons you've given, while very valid, are personal and do not necessarily reflect that of the Halo fanbase (and I’m certainly not talking about the idiot fanboys here either) which I do not believe D you subscribe to.

I'm going to get this game when its back in stock, and I'm most likely going to enjoy playing it.

Max Payne 2, a completely ridiculously short length-wise and very linear FPS, had another ending given to the player, if you actually beat it on the game's hardest difficulty. Outstanding game, though -- from start to finish.

If they really wanted to stick w/ one ending for Halo 3's SP, since it is linear and all, they could've given an extended ending to the player, to make it really worthwhile for the player to complete the game a 2nd time through, on the hardest difficulty or something -- especially since it seems the game can be finished in  under 10 hours.

[idolminds]

Actually, the Halo games can have varied dialog as well as special extended endings depending the the difficulty you beat the game on. You only get the "real ending" of Halo 3 if you play on Legendary or something.

[ScaryTooth]

So I've been playing for a while, I'm a few hours into the game. Meh...is all I got really. It's good, and it's fun, but it's just like the previous two in it's bland-ness. It feels, and plays exactly like 2. AI isn't that great, same as 2. Music kind of just pops in at random moments and doesn't seem to go with the battle. And the weapon sound effects are terrible. It doesn't do anything new at all really besides add some new weapons and vehicles. There are new power ups and shields and such, but they don't do all that much to change the game play up any.

So pretty much, it's a good game, it's fun. But it doesn't do anything new at all, and it's a bit bland. Unless it gets a ton better, I don't think it's deserving of all this praise...much like the last two.

I pretty much just got it for the MP to play with people from work, and school. Thats where all the fun in it is for me.

[poomcgoo]

I just bought it today on a whim, seeing as I was never a Halo fan.  I flat-out disliked the first two, but I really enjoyed this one.  I don't know why exactly, but I had a blast playing some co-op with the roomies. 

To be honest, 10 hours is a massive stretch.  We beat it co-op today in about 5.  Like Shock said, it's fun as hell and definitely can be played through multiple times (which I rarely say about games), but damn it's short.  I haven't jumped into the MP yet, so I can't comment on that, but I checked out the options for it and there are fucking endless modes for MP.  I can see this game lasting.

[angrykeebler]

Well into the campaign and i absolutely love it. (you all knew i would)

so yeah fuck you guys

[idolminds]

NO FUCK U!

[angrykeebler]

UR MOM

[MysterD]

*smells Spam...*

[Quemaqua]

*smells Spam...*

Welcome to the most ironic comment ever.  EVER.







EDIT - Okay, so I just wanted to point something out over at GSpot.  The Halo fans needn't take this as a dig at Halo 3, because it isn't meant as one.  This is purely a dig at GSpot for writing pointless material that panders to morons.  [They have this article up about graphics comparisons between Halos 1, 2, and 3, and it's just... sad.  I quote:

We're relieved to say that Halo 3 has certainly lived up to the hype. The new Xbox 360 hardware and a larger development team gave Bungie the horsepower to bring Master Chief into the "HD Era." The game's overall resolution has increased to 720p. Game environments and character models look sharper. They also look more detailed, thanks to larger textures and excellent art direction. The Xbox 360's graphics capabilities allowed Bungie to add in complex lighting, shadowing, longer shaders, high dynamic range lighting, and spectacular-looking water effects.

Why do you have a graphics article talking about what is easily the most non-next gen-looking next gen game evar?  Seriously, I'm not a graphics whore so I'm not saying that it makes the game bad in any way.  I'm just saying that they're literally writing an article that serves no purpose.  They're taking a graphically unimpressive game and comparing it to how much better it is from earlier games in the series.  What's the fucking point?  Yes, children tend to grow, as do plants, and house pets.  You get bigger, you advance, etc.  So what?  Halo 3 really doesn't look particularly great, especially not for a game that makes the kind of money it does.  Where is all that money going?  I'm asking this honestly.





Now you look at that and tell me it's impressive.  No, really, I dare you.  I dare you to tell me that you can't find 360 launch titles that didn't look significantly better.

Now take a look at these:





Seriously, I'm not trying to knock Halo 3 for not being a graphical powerhouse, and it's slightly unfair to compare it to a game that won't even be coming out on its platform (UT3 will be PS3 exclusive console-wise, as far as I know)... but... seriously.  Okay, I don't get why Halo 3 isn't a graphical powerhouse exactly, given how much money those people should have to throw at it, but graphics aren't everything and shouldn't be viewed as such.  What I don't understand is why you have an article comparing 3 graphically unimpressive games to one another.  I hate pandering bullshit, and GSpot didn't used to do that so much.  It seems like they're marching ever onward down roads IGN has already paved quite thoroughly.  I'm pretty sure that I won't be renewing my subscription.

This is only one example, and it's a small one, but I think those who have been with me in disliking many changes since Kasavin left will see what I'm getting at.

EDIT x2 - Added the tank images just because I'm sort of having fun finding comparison pictures.

[MysterD]

Welcome to the most ironic comment ever.  EVER.

That was the point.

[Quemaqua]

That was the point.

No, you missed my ...

 ...

Uh, that is to say... never mind. 

[angrykeebler]

Let me handle this, Que.





Shut up, D.

[idolminds]

PS3 UT3 is a timed exclusive, there will be a 360 version.

While I wouldn't say Halo 3 looks bad (the lighting in that ariel shot is kinda nice), it's certainly not overly impressive. Some say that its because later on there are massive battles going on, so if that was true I could understand. But I haven't seen any screens of this.

You make an interesting point. Halo/Halo 2 has made them a shitload of money. They should be in a position to create not just a fun game, but an amazing looking one as well. They are owned by MS, the company that makes the damn console. They probably have access to internal help that no one else gets. And Halo is the flagship title for Xbox, you'd think they'd put a touch more effort into it.

UT3 is just "off the hook", as the youngin's say. Every screen I see I'm still thinking "That just can't be gameplay, can it?" Epic sold their souls to the devil to make that shit.

[PyroMenace]

"I'm not trying to knock Halo 3 for not being a graphical powerhouse"

Im surprised you went this far. I fail to see how taking prepped screens from a game thats not released yet and comparing them to one that has can have a fair bearing on judging which is better. Your not trying to knock, but thats the only thing I got out of your post. We can argue all day about its visuals with examples, its really just taste, but thats just it, you dont want to settle it there. I hate to come off sounding like one of those fanboys, I hope I dont, I'm just trying to get you to see your over hate mongering at the games, which I really do find excessive. I do agree with you that its popularity is hard to believe and a tad annoying at times, but I will acknowledge Halo as a very well refined and solid FPS, with a very appealing universe, maybe not the best, but it deserves some of its praise its garnered. For me, I dont find it that easy to get bent out of shape from some of the annoying attention it sometime gets.

[scottws]

I see what you're saying Pyro, but he could just as easily post screens from Gears of War, a game that came out well before Halo 3, and likewise wipe the floor with it.

[PyroMenace]

True, but I didn't know every game from Gears of War release to after must look just as good. It's really spoiled a lot of people.

[Quemaqua]

I wasn't even really talking about Halo, I was talking about GSpot pandering to fanboys by writing filler articles that don't contain anything of substance, and how they didn't used to do that.  All that article came down to was "Halo 3 looks better than Halo 2".  Don't you find that kind of... stupid?  It's not a crime or anything, it's just the kind of shit IGN tends to do.  Besides, I even said exactly what you did if you go back and read my post - that it isn't fair to compare a game that isn't even out to one that is, especially when the scheduled release of the other game isn't even on the same system (despite the fact that this sort of isn't true... I mean, Unreal engine 3 is already widely in use, and recent Doom 3 engine games like Quake Wars are also looking more technically proficient than Halo 3, which isn't even worth mentioning on its own as we've established that I'm not a graphics whore and I don't count that as a knock as long as the game doesn't look like total ass, but it *is* contextually interesting when you consider the point idol and I already made about how they've got so much money, so where does it go when the campaign was so short, etc. etc. ... and again, that doesn't qualify as hate either, it's legitimate curiosity).

Anyway... enough bitching, enough disclaiming.  I suppose I should have just made another thread about GSpot hate instead, but I just posted it here because it seemed sort of relevant.  So I thought I'd just move the post to a new thread and everybody'd be happy, but it seems this is sort of relevant again?  I don't know.  Anyway, I wasn't trying to be a dick.

[gpw11]

Well see, you have this web site that only deals in reviews and news to do with video games.  You have a massive video game launch and most other publishers aren't stupid enough to release anything of substance the same week.  Yet you have to somehow make work for the 'journalists' you employ.  BAM!  Stupid articles.

As for where the money with Halo 3 goes, I'd imagine a large part of the money taken in by MS Game Studios goes to counter the massive profit loss on the hardware.  That's the return they expect so it'd be a bit stupid to just push it right back into development costs.  I'd also go so far as to say that Unreal makes a ton more money than Halo.  The actual money they make off UT3 is a drop in the bucket - their bread and butter is licensing the engine out.  It's compairing single instance return with that of a steady stream of return.

[Quemaqua]

I suppose you have a point there, and to top it off... why try?  Halo will sell copies regardless of whether or not it looks particularly great.  All it has to do is look better than Halo 2, which it achieved.  I suppose I'm just overestimating Halo Power simply because I can't fucking get away from it.  No less than 8 people this week at my work who wouldn't know a video game from a shovel to the face have asked me if I plan to pick up Halo 3.  My own mother even asked me about it, and she avoids such topics like the plague most of the time.  *Everybody* knows what it is.  It's some kind of sick fucking cultural phenomenon.

As for your prior thought... yeah, that's all true, but GSpot just didn't seem to do that so much before.  It's starting to seem like every other article is about as worthwhile as that one was, though, and the journalists apparently still have better things to do, as there are a couple games that seem as though they should have been higher profile and have gone unreviewed.  It's just a trend I'm noticing, not this one big instance that's so huge.  A lot of us think they've been going downhill, and this was just an opportunity to illustrate the point.

[PyroMenace]

Yea I saw your point with Gspots article and I agree it is pretty stupid. I just didnt see the point with posting the other screenshots and there was some comments I felt were more Halo 3 knocking.

"but it *is* contextually interesting when you consider the point idol and I already made about how they've got so much money, so where does it go when the campaign was so short, etc. etc. ... and again, that doesn't qualify as hate either, it's legitimate curiosity)."

I don't know, Im not very curious about that, then again I dont find the visuals as lacking as most people do, its enough to get by I think. I've played the beta, and it looked great. I dont know the details on the individual designers and their pay grade, again, I just find it an effortless nicpic. If anything, the game is showing at how high we set a standard for graphics.

[Quemaqua]

My only reason in posting the pics was to indicate that if you're going to have an article about graphics, it shouldn't be about Halo 3.  That's not that unreasonable, right?  It just isn't a technically impressive game, that's all.  I'm not saying it's the worst looking thing ever, it just isn't pushing the envelope at all, and most of the screens seem to look almost more last-gen, hence the article ends up seeming like the kind of silly IGN-style pandering that GSpot used to generally avoid.  The game definitely has enough graphical prowess to get by, I've already said as much.  There have been plenty of other high profile games that had somewhat lackluster visuals in certain areas, and a lot of them were games I liked... that's not something I find to be a necessity at all if you've got a great game.  It just seems odd to me that Halo, which by all indications is the hottest thing in the universe right now, seems so obviously under par when compared to most other stuff on the market.  That's all.  It just stands out as strange to me.

[K-man]

I see what you're saying Pyro, but he could just as easily post screens from Gears of War, a game that came out well before Halo 3, and likewise wipe the floor with it.

Different environment, different strains and requirements on the engine.  GoW doesn't require nearly the draw distance H3 does.  Most of Gears' environments were in close quarters/indoors and you had a very limited range of movement.  And GoW gets a knock because it had a horrible case of the "shiny effect"

Anyhow, arguing about whether or not the Halo series are good games is retarded.  There's obviously something there to cause millions of people to want to play them.  Maybe...I dunno...  THEY'RE HAVING FUN WITH THE GAME.  Which is the point, really.  Who cares that it doesn't have the prettiest graphics on the system?  I sure as hell don't.  I got exactly what I wanted, which was more Halo.  Why tinker with the formula if it works?

I hate these threads. 

[K-man]

And there are some genuinely beautiful portions in the game.  Some that make you just stand there and go "wow"

[Quemaqua]

I think what you have to understand is that when you've got a franchise like Halo that's just HUGE, if people don't like it, they want to explain WHY, especially when people go around saying that "it's just cool to hate on Halo", etc.  We don't want people to make us out to be mindless robots who just hate something because it's cool to do so, we want to indicate that we have legitimate reasons why we find the game to be lacking.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  Flame wars happen only when people DO actively attack a game for no reason like a flock of idiots, or when people get too overzealous defending it, which is usually because they feel like their own taste is being attacked, not just the game.  Which is an understandable reaction that I'm sure we've all gone through at some point, and realized later that maybe we took things too much to heart.  A bunch of us like Halo.  A bunch of us don't.  It's all good.

And again, the whole graphics thing got taken way out of context.  Nobody here is saying anybody should dislike Halo because it isn't pretty enough.  That's just stupid.

[angrykeebler]

I'll promise to always bash Elder Scrolls as long as you always bash Halo..

Lets feel the love.