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

I've often wondered..

[BigZaphod]

What does a halo feel like? Is it rubbery? Slippery? Does it maybe feel like glass or is it more like taffy? Perhaps like a feather? Oh wait... uh.. wrong forum...

Re:I've often wondered..

[orasio]

I have seen RMS's halo live, and I can tell you, it's round, and heavy, and kind of metallic.
I suppose it must feel like an old HDD platter.

Re:I've often wondered..

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno, but I'll check it out. There's one hanging from the corner of my girlfriend's bed. I'll see if I can borrow it for the weekend, maybe.

Re:I've often wondered..

[Mark Programmer]

It feels floaty.

Honestly, that was always my favorite part of Halo 1, the sense that everything was operating under reduced-gravity, with a bouncy shroud around it. I called it "squishy physics." Made the Banshee a helluva lot of fun to fly.

Re:I've often wondered..

[Dorceon]

Did you meet her at the dog show? And did the shriners loan you cars?

Un-nerf the Magnum, please.

[Kadin2048]

All I want to know is, did they make the pistol suck less than it does in Halo 2? Because that was a bit disappointing.

Re:Un-nerf the Magnum, please.

[Braino420]

All I want to know is, did they make the pistol suck less than it does in Halo 2? Because that was a bit disappointing.

Couldn't agree with you more; that and the damn sword really made Halo 2 multiplayer suck ass. Halo 1 multiplayer is a much more enjoyable experience. I stopped playing Halo 2 when I got lost for the 141241st time; the only challenging part was finding out where to go.

Re:Un-nerf the Magnum, please.

[Control Group]

Huh?

Granted, the SMG's only useful for dual wielding (and not worth sacrificing grenades for even then), but how can you prefer the assault rifle to the battle rifle? The assault rifle is inaccurate, low damage, and pretty much forces either spray-n-pray or knife range combat. The battle rifle is accurate, reasonably high damage, and has a scope thrown in for good measure.

The only possible drawbacks to the BR compared to the AR are no full-auto and a limited ammo capacity. I wouldn't mind having a full-auto option on the rifle, I suppose, but I never really felt the lack. The ammo capacity I'll give you - it's kind of a PITA. On the other hand, it's not like you can carry a hundred shotgun shells, either, and that's still a quality gun.

Now, the magnum...well, that's just unfortunate all 'round.

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.

GTA: Ringworld sounds like a blast though!

[twilightzero]

Grab the jeep, run around shooting crap randomly, get the local authorities pissed off, then duck into the nearest Covenant camp for a Deathrace 2000-inspired mowing festival. Presto, new color for the jeep!

"I swear Arbiter, it wasn't me! The guy that did it was in a green jeep, not a red one!"

Besides if you ever get lost, just keep drivin, you'll come back around in a while ;)

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.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Here's what I've seen in Halo, but rarely anywhere else:

• Vehicles that can be more fun than moving on foot. No othen FPS (GTA doesn't count) did vehicles as well. The Ghost is just fun. Yet it's still balanced enough that a person on foot can reasonably expect to beat a person in a vehicle, without making vehicles feel gimped.
• Insane amount of polish for its time. From what I remember, we were just inching along on Half-Life improvements, and PC gamers were scoffing at console gamers, even as they mostly played Counter-Strike. Then there was Halo. Counter-Strike... then Halo. It would have been a shocking leap forward in graphics, gameplay, and AI, even if it was a PC game -- and it was a console game.
• The game made the console. You could argue that Zelda made the Gamecube, but most people who had an N64 bought a PS2 instead, so that was a failure. The PS2 simply had more games, but I'd imagine almost no one bought a PS2 because of any one game -- or if they did, I know there aren't a significant number of people who bought a PS2 for the same game. People bought the Xbox because of Halo, and developers made other games for the Xbox because it was popular -- because of Halo.
• Amazing soundtrack. Other games have had good soundtracks, but the Halo and Halo 2 soundtracks are worth buying even if you don't like the game. Very rarely does the soundtrack alone sound like a symphony. Very rarely does a game soundtrack evoke emotions other than headbanging adrenaline.
• Compelling, epic story. Especially Halo 2. Naysayers will break down the story to the point where it sounds stupid, but you can do that with anything. As an aspiring author, I've discovered that it's all about the execution, even in a book. It's an epic story, with characters you actually care about.
• Master Chief. It's all about characters, and this one in particular is just a fun character to play. It means the game can be as realistic as possible, but there's good reason that when you win, your character has done such impossible things -- he really is unique, he really would be able to do that. Compare that to, say, Quake 4, which is the closest anything else comes -- your character has a reputation, but it's not really explained why he's so unique. And in creating this character and the game around him, they've done what every Superman game and every Hulk game has failed utterly at -- creating a character that really is too much of a badass, too powerful, and creating a realistic challenge to match. This is how you can have an epic first-person game, where you play as only one character -- make the character that good.
• Beautiful artwork. Goes with the territory. Beautiful music, beautiful artwork, beautifully put together.
• They did it again. People debate about whether Halo 2 is better or worse than the original Halo. But the fact is, they can actually have that debate. With most sequels, you can't -- either the original was so bad no one cares (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time faced no competition from its predecessors), or the new version sucks so blatantly compared to the original (Doom 3), or not enough has really changed for anyone to care (your point about Madden). The fact is, Halo 2 did significantly change compared to Halo -- and I'm not talking about carjacking, swording, or dual-wielding. Subtle tweaks all around -- the pistol is no longer the hand of God, needlers finally have a purpose, Flood heads actually hurt. Halo 2 was every bit as good as Halo, but it was different enough, in gameplay and storyline, that anyone who played Halo will want to play Halo 2.
• All of the above. Think of it this way -- I don't like Linux because it's unique. I like it because it has everything that every other OS has, and more. If I wanted something truly unique and innovative, I'd be using Plan 9, HURD, or Minix. Halo doesn't improve much on the first-person shooter, i

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

Actual marketing slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Halo 3: It feels like a four year old game

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).

Exploratory reflection

[angrychimp]

from the article:

...there's also time for exploratory reflection and the, "Oooh, maybe I can climb up there and check that thing out," sort of play," he continued.

I'm not usually one to read into things, but to me that implies the ability to climb things. Am I the only person who's been playing a FPS title and thought, "Why can this guy climb over simple obstacles?" If you can actually climb objects in Halo3, I will consider it a vast improvement.

I didn't like Halo

[Bender0x7D1]

Am I the only one who didn't like Halo?

I enjoyed the expansive environment for the first hour or so, then it just became annoying. If you miss one thing, then you have to run around making sure you didn't miss a small path that leads to the next area - or you need to perform a perfect jump to get onto a ledge and you aren't sure if you're supposed to jump to it or find a different way up. While I don't claim every game has to be linear, don't hide the route you have to go.

Also, I found a lot of the levels boring and repetative. (Library anyone?) Sure, it's realistic to go through a few levels, get something, and fight your way out - but if I wanted realistic I wouldn't be playing a game. Why not make another way out so the levels are different? Or, if it isn't necessary for gameplay, give an elevator/shuttle/monorail/teleporter/cutscene so I don't have to do the same thing twice!

If I wanted to see cool environments and just "tool around and check things out" I would play the Myst series.

I don't mean this as a troll, but I didn't find Halo to be a game that should be repeated in a sequel. Of course, I haven't played many games where I want a sequel that is very similar to the original - I like diversity in my games. Why should I pay $60 for the same game that has added a few new weapons and enemies and updated the graphics a bit? Why not call the new game what it is - an expansion pack.

Re:I didn't like Halo

[grumbel]

Am I the only one who didn't like Halo?

Nope, you are not alone, I am not much a big Halo fan either. Especially the Flood levels where just boring and repeating over and over and over again, Library of course too. There was also a bit running around in circles to find out how to continue, but I didn't found that much worse then most other games. My main problem with Halo was however the story, it was just so very damn pointless, run around in circles for a few hours till everybody of your comrades is killed just to then return to where you started and blow your own ship up, well great, so why again did I play this game? The last level was also extremly annoying, actually one of the worst I have ever seen, not sure if there actually is a way to drive around that track in anything remotly fluid, but I certainly didn't manage to and it turned into a try&error where the outcome was more luck then anything, certainly wasn't fun.

Art direction of Halo on the other side was quite good, the large bright outdoor environments are certainly a lovly change compared to all those games that try to be all dark and ugly. Enemys tend to look a bit to much like Muppets here and there, but that aside they looked nice and colorfull stuff. Vehicles and transporters also looked great.

Can't say anything about multiplayer, but the singleplayer mode didn't hold up to my expectations, it wasn't the worst I have seen, but neither was it anything I would bother to play again, never touched Halo2.

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.

This sounds foreboding

[Psykechan]

I really enjoyed the original Halo until I got inside to the Zork segments (a maze of twisty little passages all alike) and it became a more boring FPS than Robotica.

If it "feels" like the beach segments than I'm all for it 'cause that felt great. If it "feels" like the cheese grater on my kneecaps that was The Silent Cartographer and everything after, then it's good that I know this now so I can prepare for absolutely no anticipation for this game.

Not every game needs a gimmick.

[Kadin2048]

Halo didn't have anything that it really called its own.

Halo had a plotline, which IMO is severely lacking in the FPS genre. True, the technical improvements in the game between 1 and 2 were minimal (and in some cases regressed; see my comment about the Magnum, above), but I don't think that's as horrible as you're making it out to be.

If they can continue to refine the gaming experience that people have gotten used to with Halo 1 and 2, I'd take that as a success. I'd rather they continued the plot, refined gameplay, and took basically conservative steps than if they changed something radically for the sake of change, and messed up a good thing. Not every game needs some kind of "hook" that's been cooked up to make it artificially unique: particularly if the appeal of the game is that it's just a really good shooter.

The Halo games at this point are a known quantity; there are other games you can buy if you want something gimmicky (or "innovative," the difference between an innovation and a gimmick being rather difficult to tell without the benefit of hindsight). I think it takes a certain amount of balls to realize when you've got a good thing and should just stop changing it.

With that said, unfortunately I doubt Microsoft will ever let Bungie just stop making new Halo games; they'll flog the franchise as long as they possibly can, until it becomes ridiculous.

Re:Not every game needs a gimmick.

[kinglink]

Yes because you know games like Half-life didn't have a plot back then. Nor did Perfect Dark, system shock 1 or 2, or Sin. so I guess it's a radically different then the industry?

So long as it doesn't feel like Halo 2

[payndz]

Halo 3 'Feels' Like Halo 1

Well, good! Because I got fed up with Halo 2 well before the end of the game and have never been back to it since, whereas I played Halo right up to the finish, infuriating as some parts of it were.

I got the impression that all the effort in Halo 2 went into the multiplayer and the single-player game was kind of an 'oh yeah, we need to throw this thing in too'. H1 had an interesting story (in an interesting environment); H2 was just a series of events.

As far as multiplayer goes, I don't have Xbox Live; I don't want Xbox Live. I don't want to drop into a game to have a bunch of fat American teenagers call me a fag in disguised voices. To me, that's not entertainment. (YMMV.) But there seems to be this shift towards making online multiplayer the core of a lot of titles at the expense of the one-player game, and if that's going to be a continuing trend then frankly I'll be keeping my money for things that are actually, y'know, fun. Even by MS's own figures, Xbox Live players are still very much the minority of Xbox owners, so why is 40-50% of the gameplay that people are paying for only available to them?

How about Halo 0 ?

[Tom]

Why don't they instead make Halo 3 like Halo was supposed to be, you know the game that they hyped and we all got excited about before MS bought them out and it turned into yet another FPS?