Halo 3 'Feels' Like Halo 1

1up reports on comments from Bungie, who has come out to say that their next title Halo 3 will 'feel' like the first Halo: Combat Evolved. From the article: "'I have been playing through Campaign mode purely for kicks. Exploring, in fact,' [Frank O'Connor] says. 'There's lots of the feel of the original Halo, where you'll find yourself in a huge (dangerous) and intrinsically fascinating environment and just want to go tool around and check things out.' At the same time, O'Connor is quick to dismiss that Bungie's developing a sandbox, Grand Theft Auto-inspired shooter."

Comments

Because no one wants a radically new game.

[kinglink]

Seriously how many people have complained about the fact that while Halo 2's online was improved, there was little if any true improvement in Halo 2. Yeah you got dual wielding, yeah car jacking but the fact is it's the same game. Even GTA which people bitch about being the same every time has had huge improvements. Vice city got motorcycles and working planes, San andreas was radically bigger, with gang wars. These changed the game itself.

I just can't stand Halo fanboys who act like their game which has had about the same improvements that madden gets in a year is radically different. I can respect a new story, but I'm also expecting changes to the actual gameplay too. Just because Doom 2 didn't have any major improvements doesn't mean that you can get away with the same type of leap nowerdays. I hope Halo 3 does something new, rather then just hanging onto the name, because for my money even Perfect dark zero was more unique than Halo was. If I really wanted the FPS games I'd have stayed with my PC.

And this wasn't meant to offend Halo fans. It's just that people act like Halo is a great series, and it's really hasn't shown anything to prove itself to be that unique. Even Half Life 2 has amazing physics, Doom 3 has the creep factor, Fear had the graphics to kill even the hardiest machine's framerate. Halo didn't have anything that it really called its own.

Re:Because no one wants a radically new game.

[Andrew Nagy]

Even Half Life 2 has amazing physics, Doom 3 has the creep factor, Fear had the graphics to kill even the hardiest machine's framerate. Halo didn't have anything that it really called its own.

The key with Halo (and 2) is that they had enough of everything but not too much of anything. They were basic, first person shooters in the tradition of 007 Goldeneye. Something easy to play while absorbing and entertaining. PC FPS tends to get a bit too complicated for my tastes. While I like games that allow me to "advance" and develop, sometimes I just want to blow crap up in predictable settings. i.e. Halo. The best video game filler around.

Re:Because no one wants a radically new game.

[EotB]

The first Halo is around about 5 years old now, and in comparison to the other games of the time was excellent. If I remember rightly, this was mostly due to the gameplay, with the beautiful worlds and well-designed vehicles as a second. Not to mention that it was just an immensely fun (if simple) game to play. There were a few innovations in there as well, such as only carrying 2 weapons and the seperate button for grenades. I remember playing Halo for the first time and thinking 'Wow, why the hell doesn't everyone do this'. Comparing it to the games that you have is a little bit apples-to-oranges as these games are far more modern. A more appropriate comparison would be the original Half-Life.

That said, I'm not defending Halo 2 in any way, that was more like a lazy Halo: CE expansion pack really... Although the multiplayer Co-Op is something that would be nice in a lot of more modern FPSs

Re:Because no one wants a radically new game.

[PaganRitual]

Oh god here we go again. The Halo fanboys charge out to defend their champion of mediocrity. I'm waiting for a build at work so I'll bite.

Side question : Do you write for Edge magazine? The people there seem to have an eternal boner over this game as well.

Vehicles that can be more fun than moving on foot.

The only valid point you have. For it's time Halo did FPS+vehicles quite well, even if it did go to a third person perspective and somewhat break that feeling of 'being' the character. At least you had the sense to make the point up front before delving into the masturbatory fanboy garbage I'm reading further down. The vehicles in Halo were fun. In fact, the largest critisism of Halo is that it's single player is so amazingly boring to play, and that you end up just waiting for the next open vehicle section.

Insane amount of polish for its time.

Please tell me you don't honestly believe this. The game went thru more changes than any other that immediately comes to mind. First it was an RTS, then a third person strategy/shooter/something, while finally settling on a generic FPS. It moved from Mac to PC before being bought out by Microsoft in order to save their otherwise probably failed console. It was rushed to release to come out as early as possible with the console (or was it actually a launch title), and the level design is obviously almost non existent in many places (Library, destroying the three cores, virtually all ship interiors etc etc). And of course, this apparently gave them time to write the awe inspiring 'Legendary AI', which, for anyone that has played that difficulty level without the aid of rose-colored fanboy glasses, can clearly see is simply a wallhacking aimbot setting with perfect leading skills. Soldier of Fortune 2 (PC) did the exact same thing and everyone hated it. Maybe that's cause PC gamers have had enough experience with FPS games to be able to pick good and bad ones and not just cream themselves over the first FPS game they play.

The game made the console.

I think you're confusing 'made' with 'saved'. The Zelda argument is a moot one, because Zelda has a million fanboys that will buy pocket calculators en masse if they come out with a Zelda game for it. People buy the Playstation 2 because all the games come out for it, and tons of exclusive popular franchises (Tekken, FF etc) and plenty of exclusive new games (Disgaea, God of War etc). The Xbox is the haven of graphically superior multiformat ports and rare decent titles that were either bought out by Microsoft or needed the graphical horsepower of the Xbox (Ninja Gaiden, Forza etc), not to mention plenty of crap ones (Brute Force et al). That's not me saying that the PS2 has no crap games of course, because it clearly does, but in the PS2s case the crap games are more often than not the shitty budget titles that would have sucked anyway. The Xbox had plenty of big name games that were overhyped and failed or were just generally poor (Fable, anyone). Halo became popular because the vast majority of console gamers had never played LAN/WAN deathmatch/co-op before, and it's awesome fun regardless of the game itself, not because the game itself is a 'masterpiece'. Deathmatch makes any game better (people loved SOF2 DM), and co-op makes people see thru the worst flaws.

Amazing soundtrack. Compelling, epic story. Beautiful artwork.

Pure fanboy bullshit not worthy of argument. So you like ugly games with orchestral music and shallow sci-fi tales. Good for you.

Master Chief.

Hahahaha, this whole section is awesome, pure comedy fanboy gold. The Master Chief character looks like a douchebag in a sci-fi knight armor that his mom made for him before stepping into battle, and he might as well be a robot for all we know/see about him. Hell, the only other person he really talks to is a fucking hologram AI. You wan't a well created ch

Cut + Paste?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that the areas feel kind-of original for a little while, and then start feeling like the level designers started cutting and pasting sections in order to make it a longer game? Because that is exacltly how Halo felt to me (and many others).

Re:I didn't like Halo

[josteos]

I loved Niven's Ringworld series. And Halo took my breath away when I finally set foot on the surface. I thought it was a fantastic rendition of a ringworld. And the early level, where you are looking for the cartographer, felt so much like cruising around and ancient & mysterious & abandonned ringworld.

Then I learned just how important a game designer really is. The game started to suck when I had ot ross the bridge, fight through 3 large rooms full of enemies, then cross another bridge and fight 3 large rooms full of enemies then cross another bridge..... well, you get the point.

It achieved true suckdom with the flood. After about 4 levels of the same fricking levels I wanted to scratch out an eye. I think I would have been blind once I finished even if I was a spider.

Re:Un-nerf the Magnum, please.

[XenoRyet]

Killing people from half a map away with three pistol shots is fun. It takes a certain ammount of skill, and is satisfying, furthermore it differentiated Halo 1's play from other spray-n-pray shooters. The battle rifle is not an adiquate replacement because it slows the pace down too much. That is why people want it back, and it seems logical to me.

Also, I don't belive your assessment of the pistol as being unbalanced is accurate. It wasn't overpowered, it was simply the most versitile of the light weapons. There are many situations where an AR, Shotgun, or PR would be preferable, and would defeat a pistol. Also, the heavy weapons will all defeat a pistol unless improperly used. Then there is the fact that in any properly set up multiplayer match, everyone has a pistol to start, which should solve any perceved unfairness.

Frankly, I think at least half those opposed to the pistol's performance in Halo 1 simply have a problem with the smallest of the light weapons being the most powerful.