Originally posted by shin_gear
Halo 3 is nonetheless fun, dammit! 😠
To you. I was bored with the game in a day and I played through the entire game and played online. Sorry I don't want to hear some 10 year old kid trying to act "cool" by overusing the F and S word after every word. (That's not Halo's fault that's the parents fault)
What unbiased fact has you are 005 said?
Bungie has spent $50 million to make Halo 2.5.
And Bioshock is just Systemshock 2.5. Hooray for double standards.
The game offers nothing new that Halo 2 hasn't already established or anything another game has already introduced expect for forge which is a dumbed down version of create a map which many games actually have and theater which again many games allow you to record matches like Battle for Middle-Earth I and II.
Ah.. but despite all that.. Halo 2 had neither of those features.
When it comes down to it the graphics aren't even top notch, they basically threw in the same crap that has appeared in many other games,
As has every other game in existence. Take bioshock for instance. I used a wrench to beat up my enemies in Halflife. I fired with my SMG in one hand while throwing magic with my left in Shadowrun. I've played in a utopia gone distopia in many other games. The decisions I made in Knights of the Old Republic influenced the ending also. I guess Bioshock is just an over hyped piece of sh*t now.
the story can't even stand to other games out there,
In your opinion.
and the gameplay is excatly the same as Halo: Combat Evolved.
Yeah your right.. Halo 3 would have been loads better if it was an RPG. Or maybe if they gave the Chief a wrench.
Congrats you spent $60 for Halo, $60 for Halo 2, and $60 ) for Halo 3. You just gave $180 for the same game.yeah.. that's how I felt after playing a loser orphan in Final Fantasy.. then playing as a loser orphan in it's sequal. That's a franchise for you, though.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
And Bioshock is just Systemshock 2.5. Hooray for double standards.
I'm not the one defending BioShock here. I really didn't like BioShock that much. I have said it was System Shock 2 with upgraded graphics and new characters. I really don't like BioShock and yet I beaten both BioShock and Halo 3 so...
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Considering that I own and have beaten both on there hardest difficulties I'd say my opinion is pretty damn unbiased, thank you.
So have I! I guess my opinion is as unbiased as your's.
I'm not the one defending BioShock here. I really didn't like BioShock that much. I have said it was System Shock 2 with upgraded graphics and new characters. I really don't like BioShock and yet I beaten both BioShock and Halo 3 so...
Mos def, but again just an example.
So have I! I guess my opinion is as unbiased as your's.
It is. I have not said otherwise.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
And Bioshock is just Systemshock 2.5. Hooray for double standards.
Even if that were the case, it would contain far more advancements than anything seen in the Halo series from game to game. We can argue about how much more it did, but it did more.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
As has every other game in existence. Take bioshock for instance. I used a wrench to beat up my enemies in Halflife. I fired with my SMG in one hand while throwing magic with my left in Shadowrun. I've played in a utopia gone distopia in many other games. The decisions I made in Knights of the Old Republic influenced the ending also. I guess Bioshock is just an over hyped piece of sh*t now.
I'm certainly not claiming it to be the most original game out there, I'm just saying that for $50 million, third game in, Halo 3 should have been more, considering you do have games like Gears or Bioshock that have done more in a single game than Halo did in three. Instead, they spent it on marketing and Mountain Dew endorsements, creating an Emperor's New Clothes syndrome that, whether you succumbed to it or not, factually exists and most definitely caused a shit load of people not to go against it because it was so popular.
Fact of the matter is; Bioshock isn't a game that'll be playing catch-up with Halo 3. Halo 3 may be more liked, but Bioshock is praised as more of a general advancement in today's gaming climate to one degree or another.
Your reasons for arguing against ESB are your own, but to deny Spartan005's fanboyisms is downright naive. I'm not saying YOU are a fanboy, I don't believe you to be, I believe he is, I believe that is obvious from his comments and demeanour.
-AC
Even if that were the case, it would contain far more advancements than anything seen in the Halo series from game to game. We can argue about how much more it did, but it did more.
But as you said, how much more is arguable. In my opinion, not enough to claim it to be terribly innovative or worthy of being more refreshing then Halo 3 or Gears of War.
I'm certainly not claiming it to be the most original game out there, I'm just saying that for $50 million, third game in, Halo 3 should have been more,
I'd agree if all 50 Million had been poured into the game,but considering that a whole lot of it was instead poured into hyping it up. So really the game itself didn't have a 50 million dollar budget.
considering you do have games like Gears or Bioshock that have done more in a single game than Halo did in three.
Done more in regards to what? Story? Possibly, but even then the Gears of War story isn't yet over, and a lot of seemed vague.
Instead, they spent it on marketing and Mountain Dew endorsements, creating an Emperor's New Clothes syndrome that, whether you succumbed to it or not, factually exists and most definitely caused a shit load of people not to go against it because it was so popular.
I agree that the game was overhyped.
Fact of the matter is; Bioshock isn't a game that'll be playing catch-up with Halo 3. Halo 3 may be more liked, but Bioshock is praised as more of a general advancement in today's gaming climate to one degree or another.
It is, but whether or not that makes it a better game is arguable, though that has nothing to do with the topic at hand..
Your reasons for arguing against ESB are your own, but to deny Spartan005's fanboyisms is downright naive.
Eh. It's just a thing about me. I don't believe that it's fair on his part to generalize something about him when you don't even know him. I'm a firm believer in the saying "Don't judge less you be judged."
I'm not saying YOU are a fanboy, I don't believe you to be,
I'm flattered 😛
[/B][/QUOTE]
Going to the game of the year Bioshock vs Halo 3 argument.
Bioshock is a much much better single player game. Its pacing and story both wipe the floor with Halo 3. Halo 3 started off really strong as far as pacing goes, in fact, the first 7 levels were great, I think. But it lost a lot of its momentum towards the end with repetitive levels and just rehashing things they did in the prior games in the series. Bioshock's excellent pacing and story never faltered, it stayed strong the whole way through. And the story was much more engaging, emotional and well thought out than Halo 3's.
Also the atmosphere and level design are much more complex and effective in Bioshock. Despite Halo 3 having the best level design in any of the Halo games, it did, at parts, feel like it was just going through the motions (Okay, time for a vehicle segment, okay, time for a flood level, okay, time for an indoor environment). The whole world of Bioshock felt organic and never once broke the suspension of disbelief by taking an easy way out. The each level felt cohesive to the next, and made the world feel complete and together.
Now if you want to take into account multiplayer, obviously that's another can of worms. My personal vote for game of the year so far is Bioshock, because the single player portion of both games are the most important. Bungie has said from the get-go that the Campaign was their main focus for Halo 3, so comparing each games single player aspect, Bioshock wins, I think.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
But as you said, how much more is arguable. In my opinion, not enough to claim it to be terribly innovative or worthy of being more refreshing then Halo 3 or Gears of War.
By definition it is, but I've been there and done that.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I'd agree if all 50 Million had been poured into the game,but considering that a whole lot of it was instead poured into hyping it up. So really the game itself didn't have a 50 million dollar budget.
Why do you think it needed such outrageous hype? People put the cart before the horse, Blax.
It didn't get the hype because it was an amazing game worthy of $50 million dollar hype. It got $50 million dollars worth of hype because it honestly needed it. The bigger something is made to seem, the more left out people feel, the more people try to get involved. Nothing to do with the quality of the game.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Done more in regards to what? Story? Possibly, but even then the Gears of War story isn't yet over, and a lot of seemed vague.
Bioshock isn't a generic FPS, it goes beyond FPS, original or not. Halo is, at its heart.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
It is, but whether or not that makes it a better game is arguable, though that has nothing to do with the topic at hand..
It doesn't, at all, but we seem to be drifting in between what's a better game in our opinions and why, and somehow getting into that, I agree though, not really relevant.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Eh. It's just a thing about me. I don't believe that it's fair on his part to generalize something about him when you don't even know him. I'm a firm believer in the saying "Don't judge less you be judged."
Judge me all you want, doesn't matter to me, I think it's pretty evident he's a fanboy, these are not baseless conclusions.
-AC
Originally posted by BackFire
Going to the game of the year Bioshock vs Halo 3 argument.Bioshock is a much much better single player game. Its pacing and story both wipe the floor with Halo 3. Halo 3 started off really strong as far as pacing goes, in fact, the first 7 levels were great, I think. But it lost a lot of its momentum towards the end with repetitive levels and just rehashing things they did in the prior games in the series. Bioshock's excellent pacing and story never faltered, it stayed strong the whole way through. And the story was much more engaging, emotional and well thought out than Halo 3's.
Also the atmosphere and level design are much more complex and effective in Bioshock. Despite Halo 3 having the best level design in any of the Halo games, it did, at parts, feel like it was just going through the motions (Okay, time for a vehicle segment, okay, time for a flood level, okay, time for an indoor environment). The whole world of Bioshock felt organic and never once broke the suspension of disbelief by taking an easy way out. The each level felt cohesive to the next, and made the world feel complete and together.
Now if you want to take into account multiplayer, obviously that's another can of worms. My personal vote for game of the year so far is Bioshock, because the single player portion of both games are the most important. Bungie has said from the get-go that the Campaign was their main focus for Halo 3, so comparing each games single player aspect, Bioshock wins, I think.
I have to agree with you aside from one thing and that is I also felt the same way with Bioshock with its last couple of levels to be similiar to Halo 3's last level.
I dont think Bioshock has the GOY award just quite yet because there are still a few games that are being touted as great games.
Pardon me for bisecting the current argument, but has anyone else noticed the relatively major changes that Bungie made on the Prophet of Truth?
While I enjoy Terrence Stamp's very commanding, powerful voice, it lacked the charismatic, subtlely manipulative tone of Michael Wincott's. And, on a larger note, has anyone noticed that he went from being an enigmatic puppet-master to a rehash of the Prophet of Regret (aka the right-wing fundamentalist/fanatical loon)?
Superboy Prime playing Halo 3 beta some months ago 😛YouTube video
Originally posted by Gideon
Pardon me for bisecting the current argument, but has anyone else noticed the relatively major changes that Bungie made on the Prophet of Truth?While I enjoy Terrence Stamp's very commanding, powerful voice, it lacked the charismatic, subtlely manipulative tone of Michael Wincott's. And, on a larger note, has anyone noticed that he went from being an enigmatic puppet-master to a rehash of the Prophet of Regret (aka the right-wing fundamentalist/fanatical loon)?
Spoiler:otherwise he wasn't that great.
as was his death sequence
Originally posted by Menetnashté
yeah I wasn't crazy about truth in this one, he was made into a way more minor character to, he had like three scenes. But the scene where he appears in the marines station and tells them they are vermin was awesome.Spoiler:otherwise he wasn't that great.
as was his death sequence
Yeah, it's one of my major complaints with Halo 3. Truth was completely redesigned; Halo 2 did a great job of dividing the personalities of each Prophet: Regret was a completely deluded, irrational religious nut. Mercy was a completely ruthless nut, like that one guy at everyone's local nursing home. Truth? In Halo 2, it made many implications that Truth didn't really believe in the Covenant's Great Journey at all, and he was a devious manipulator.
Now? He's Regret 2.0.
And I agree. He's supposed to be one of three major antagonists in the game, and -- in all actuality -- the immediate threat.