Halo day! (Halo 3 new pic, open beta and teaser info)
- Thread starter heavenlyglory
- Start date
Sorry about that 
http://static.flickr.com/102/314627514_87a445321f_o.gif
I too believe the kids were John and Kelly when they were first kidnapped to become Spartans! The ad was so short I thought it was like 30 secs but sure enough that's the fastest minute long commercial I have ever seen.
http://static.flickr.com/102/314627514_87a445321f_o.gif
I too believe the kids were John and Kelly when they were first kidnapped to become Spartans! The ad was so short I thought it was like 30 secs but sure enough that's the fastest minute long commercial I have ever seen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry about that
http://static.flickr.com/102/314627514_87a445321f_o.gif
I too believe the kids were John and Kelly when they were first kidnapped to become Spartans! The ad was so short I thought it was like 30 secs but sure enough that's the fastest minute long commercial I have ever seen.
Kidnapped to become Spartans? Obviously I do not know enough about the Halo storyline. Care to give me a quick summary of exactly what happened?
Thanks,
Dave
Hey Dave, here's a quick background on the Masterchief:
more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Chief_(Halo)
Naw... its 45 seconds not including the fade out, and xbox logos and marquee...
Of course. It's a 60 second commercial.
Hey, 25% of the trailer should then be doable in real-time then, eh?
While MS is also making a Halo movie to get people excited about as well not detract from dev time and were up front about it being CGI (and the POV was definately not Haloish) I am sure some think it was realtime. We are at the stage where many people just cannot identify the differences--or care.
What they shouldn't have necessarily done was put Halo 3 at the end. I thought it was supposed to be about Halo as an IP, not just the game.
That way it's not necessarily part of any game.The pistol is black and it doesn't look like it has an extended magazine or scope, so it seems to be like the Halo 2 pistol:
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r58/holistic845/120506_15201.jpg
However:
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6725/halo3guncopyvh1.jpg
...possible sword attachement?
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r58/holistic845/120506_15201.jpg
However:
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6725/halo3guncopyvh1.jpg
...possible sword attachement?
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Halo Ad Q&A
Question about the pistol was sort of glazed over, hopefully a better interview in the future will give a definite answer, especially regarding changes if it's the Halo 1 pisto (the new assault rifle is the new base/general-purpose weapon, so the Halo 1 pistol shouldn't fit in that niche--and the Battle Rifle I suspect will be knocked down to single-shot as in the E3 '03 trailer, meaning the new pistol either doesn't need the power or doesn't need the accuracy it had before--high-powered close-range weapon possibly?)
Question about the pistol was sort of glazed over, hopefully a better interview in the future will give a definite answer, especially regarding changes if it's the Halo 1 pisto (the new assault rifle is the new base/general-purpose weapon, so the Halo 1 pistol shouldn't fit in that niche--and the Battle Rifle I suspect will be knocked down to single-shot as in the E3 '03 trailer, meaning the new pistol either doesn't need the power or doesn't need the accuracy it had before--high-powered close-range weapon possibly?)
too many weapons for balance issues Maybe they should just have Halo:CE, Halo 2, Halo 3 weapon profiles instead (include what they need to for Halo 3 to make it less of a headache).
So... X button?
It better be in CGI.
Just watched the clip again... it really looks like the Halo 2 pistol.
7 Wraiths, 13 apes. Bungie... bungie... bungie...
Maybe they should just have Halo:CE, Halo 2, Halo 3 weapon profiles instead (include what they need to for Halo 3 to make it less of a headache). So... X button?
It better be in CGI.
Just watched the clip again... it really looks like the Halo 2 pistol.
7 Wraiths, 13 apes. Bungie... bungie... bungie...
Last edited by a moderator:
Sprinting! he does it right in the trailer...which was supposed to have clues about the gameplay.So... X button?
too many weapons for balance issues
So... X button?
My guess is the "bubble shield" is the x-button, as an effectively 3rd type of item (other two being grenade and guns on the shoulders). Probably it will have its own ammo supply too. I'd be surprised to see it as another grenade, since you could have some cool setups if people get too close.
Imagine, drop a frag grenade when a sword-wielding invisible guy is closing in, then almost simultaneously, bubble shield. Boom, alien blood all over the shield while you're safe and sound.
Who knows?
Sorry but the whole hype over "you can see the 2nd weapon on your back" crap strikes me like the hubbub over dual wielding in Halo 2. Aka, a example of misplaced priorities, and not having enough cool features to stand on their own, so some minor thing gets marketed out the wazoo, thereby exposing your game as flawed.
If you cant tell, I'm down on Bungie since Halo 2. Especially since Halo 1, despite the haters, was one of THE best games ever, period. We'll see about Halo 3..
________
WEB SHOWS
If you cant tell, I'm down on Bungie since Halo 2. Especially since Halo 1, despite the haters, was one of THE best games ever, period. We'll see about Halo 3..
________
WEB SHOWS
Last edited by a moderator:
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Being able to see a person's second weapon has some pretty big strategic implications. Imagine the same situation where you have a close range weapon and your opponent has a weak weapon out (say, a single M6C). Do you charge them? Maybe. Now reimagine the situation where you see that said person is weilding a shotgun on his back or a sword on his hip. Do you stay back or go in? And again, this time it's a sniper rifle, and you've heard no complaints of no-scopes throughout the 20 minutes you've been playing with this group--do you proceed to get in close?
Dual-weilding is... whatever. Being able to see the weapon is more important than dual-weilding ever was, IMO. It's a small feature that actually changes the way in which the game is played pretty significantly. Dual-weilding did that as well, but it had too many flaws in it as it broke old weapons. Being able to see the secondary weapon doesn't leave much room to break your foundation as far as I see it, and instead is more like adding reinforcement while you're building that next version of your foundation.
Goes with the above, but who the hell is marketing it, hyping it, etc? I haven't really noticed it. People thought it should have been in Halo 2, now it's like "hey, we have it in the game now." I don't see it being hyped by anybody that matters.
And honestly, as far as "features" go, that's one of the things I really hate about some games. You don't need a certain number of features, you need a few really solid ones. Be a master in 4 areas, rather than a Master at one and Jack with a dozen others. It's as if, some games build these compact, dense objects. There's not many frills, so people are initially like: "hey, this is pretty simple; it's also like EVERY OTHER game I've ever played"--but you play it, you notice that it's actually more complex than it seems, but it's also solid and overall holds together very well. Other games have all these cool "features" to them--they would need a box with 8 times the volume to fit it in perfectly! But you play it, and you drop that 20-ton hammer on it, and all the frills and lace break off. It ends up with a much smaller size than the other game, and you realize that while those features were "nice," they were far from solid.
If the cost of "cool" stuff is creating a game with useless junk, then **** feature lists, and **** innovation. I'll take a dozen well-designed weapons and maps over 3 dozen weapons in which there are 3 weapons for each and every role, or there's nothing but a progression from weak weapon to strong weapon. That's all emphasis on the wrong thing, IMO. If you're going to be innovative, you better make it solid. You can't be a timeless classic without it. If you're not going to innovate, the just evolve the base foundation as much as necessary, and more than anything, you better make it solid.
When a game moves to a sequel, instead of trying to totally change the game design, the highest priority should go towards adding only what is necessary to improve what's there. I played through Halo's campaign a ton. Why? Wasn't it the same thing over and over again? Of course, but it was fun enough that I didn't mind walking into the same encounter again and again, because it didn't actually play out the same every time, and beyond everything else, it was fun. Screw everything else. So, if all Halo 3 does is take Halo, put us in new locations and gives us a bunch more story, and add a shield bubble, change out some of the weapons in the set, and subtlely improve the features it had already built up, I'll be happy for the most part. I don't want to pay $60+ for Halo 1 again, but I'd gladly do it for Halo 1 + improvements in a new sandbox.
Of course, I'm also the type of person that will be glad to see Bungie move on from Halo as the primary creators and onto a new IP, remaining only as a guiding force for others that they allow to play with what they've created in Halo.
Edit: I realized that with one interpretation I dodged a point you made above. Halo doesn't need to market its bullet points from Halo. People know what Halo is about, so those features are sort of underplayed in any presentation--I mean, if one doesn't "get it," then showing more of what Halo is about probably isn't going to convince that person. They don't need to really show gameplay, because it's really Halo with some new things added into the mix (and unfortunately at times, tacked on/placed into a newly-formed crack!). So of course you'll tell people about a couple of the new things you have. Why wouldn't you? The people that enjoy Halo are most likely going to want to know about those things or get excited about them, while hoping/expecting the rest to be Halo in essense and form. I still don't believe that Bungie is overplaying such features, however--or even the journalists that get to play with the game. Most of it seems to be fan(boy)-generated stuff. And like I said before, they aren't necessarily worth listening to. Heh.
That's a discussion worthy of paragraphs of discussion, IMO. I think that most of the fault for that, however, deals with Halo 2's level design, a real lack of mystery (Halo 1 was all about the ring, what it was for, why the Covenant wanted it, what the Flood were, etc.--Halo 2 just didn't have enough of that, and the mystery was sort of glossed over), and such. In many ways, it technically made improvements as far as I see it (but also weakened/broke a few core things as well). The devil is in the details, though, which many other games fail to realize.
I'm also pretty optomistic about 3, because if you've read Dean Takahashi's book on the 360 (and a good portion/most of it is true and not just rumors that he spun into the book), it seems like there's at least a chance that development on Halo 3 will be smoother than Halo 2 (seemingly/according to dean) was--and their comments all seem to be taking the game in the right direction as well, away from the weak corridor shooting and more towards the huge, open battlefield sandboxes that worked very well in Halo's best parts. And probably more than anything, the game really needs memorable locations and encounters. Remember fighting through the cliffs up to the Truth and Reconciliation? Fighting your way to a Banshee so that you can go blow up some more power generators? Defending the Marines while half a dozen dropships come in on your position early in the level Halo? The Maw run?
Halo 2, in comparison, really lacked moments like that. I can't think of any encounter that I really enjoyed enough that I want to play through it all again. Occasionally I'll play Halo 2's campaign again, but it just doesn't measure up the same way.
That's my rant not necessarily directed towards anyone for the month/week/whatever.
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope it is sprinting! I love it in many games like BF2. But alas someone mentioned thaty 1UP poopooed that. I think sprinting (no shield regen during, no straifing, no firing) would be excellent. Sprint+Melee = running kick. That would be sweet. With the addition of anti-vehicles weapons, the sheild grenade, and the mongoose the gameplay would speed up as well as give foot troops a very good fighting chance IMO. I hope it makes it in (and X for sprinting works with the controller... whatever X is will require taking a thumb off a stick).
Yeah I think that if they did that, everybody would be able to get into the game faster and we'd hear less bitching about "dual-weilding's unfair!" and things.
I think you are over scrutenizing a new feature + missing the point.
Halo is about balance. I have only played a little Halo 2, but I have played Halo PC. Like ALL FPS there is a degree of taste in whether you like it or not. But it is a quality game with a strong story and character for a FPS (in which a large number of people are drawn and can identify with) and has excellent balance.
As a game Halo "introduced" many features not quite common in FPS franchises to that point. None were revolutionary, or even the "first time ever" but they were done right, and done well. First is they really hit the controls spot on. Before Halo FPS on consoles were in constant control flux. Halo fixed that. Halo introduces vehicles which wasn't super common at the time, especially for console FPS. It also struck a good weapon balance in variety and power. They also migrated away from the "9 weapon slots" approach to a "You get 2 weapons" and making the gamer decide what weapons best served their goals and style of play. A functional melee as well as instant grenade access were other nice touches that rounded out the gameplay. Halo also had a unique damage system of a recharging shield + armor. Halo 2 added dual wielding (old feature, but with a unique balance), migrated toward a shields only approach (very popular in FPS in general now), allowed for more vehicle melees, and so forth. For a sequal on a fixed platform they evolved the gameplay, which is to be expected.
And that doesn't begin to touch the fact Halo's MP options and filters were excellent and revitalized social gaming (Halo parties) and the fact Halo 2 is a class unto itself in regards to online gaming in regards to features.
But the point you are missing: Balance. Halo as a franchise has millions of fans. Bungie has to weigh the benefit of adding new features to attract new fans while retaining the core of what made the game great and attracted their current fans, all the while keeping the game balanced.
I for one am torn. Bungie is a quality dev house and have the resources to make a flagship title. But I also worry that they will stay too true to the Halo mechanics and the FANS instead of really branching out and testing new ideas (there is a reason that a ton of FPS have moved to a cover system some sort or another, e.g. PDZ, Gears of War, Rainbow Six Vegas, Ghost Recon Advanced War Fighter, etc; and those that have not are looking other directions, e.g. troop communication and control, see Brother in Arms and Battlefield 2 as examples). I also am not pleased with how they will admitt stuff like AI bots for MP are frequently requested and yet they ignore it (MS political [LIVE] reasons is my firm guess).
But as much criticism they deserve for certain short comings in their games (Halo has some slow, open parts, no online out of the box; Halo 2 SP was too short and does have a full story arc in of itself, cheaters), as well as concern for the direction of the new game (will they really evolve the game or will they repackage Halo 2, some new weapons, nice graphics and call it a day knowing the fans will eat it up?) I think your general comments are missing the point that balancing a huge game like Halo isn't easy. You cannot just toss every feature available into the game and call it a day.
I also think your post is overly negative. Take me for example. I dislike the FF series for a number of reasons (traditional RPG gameplay is theick!, stories and characters rarely appeal to me, art direction while high quality isn't my thing) but I can identify 1) what SE does very, VERY well and 2) understand WHY people do love the franchise. Ditto MGS. Great, great game in many ways. It just never clicked with me. Every game has tastes (PC/Nintendo gamer myself with a strong taste for FPS, sports, racing, and "Nintendo" style games, all preferably in social settings/online as I have little desire to play SP games). To be objective though we need to look outside our tastes and preferences and try to identify why a game is good and why people like it.
Especially for FPS gamers. Not all FPS are the same. Just because you like CS doesn't mean you will like BF42. UT fans are not necessarily RB6 fans. Complaining because Halo isn't more like America's Army and lacks features of games X, Y, Z ignores the games own design and balance. Of course great features should be considered in all game designs, but there is always room to grow in new directions. A long time ago straif was added to FPS. A couple games tried side stepping and so forth, but straifing has remained the main course. Gears of War dropped it cold turkey with no complaints, hence not supporting a key mechanic in favor of new mechanics (strong emphasis on cover and third person whbile retaining many core FPS mechanics, although cover on casual on SP less necessary at times) as well as game balance. Straifing would have been unbalanced.
So OMGQTFBBQ they are adding the ability to see weapons... LAME! Yeah, in general not ground breaking. But the real question is how will this impact gameplay.
Anyhow, Bungie has been slow at commenting on new features. Commenting on a couple new features and how it may change gameplay isn't really a reason for your response.
Similar threads
