Gaming Halo 3: ODST Review

I tend to read reviews to find out whether or not I will like a game, I don't decide from hype or prejudice beforehand.

 

Lol, nice way of contradicting yourself there..

 

I read the review and decided it was the same as ever. No contradiction. The review stated these things, lightbulb goes on - same old, same old I think. What's so complex about that?

 

Sorry, but I can't agree with this; Halo was revolutionary for its day, with its combat, AI, free roaming sand box environments, vehicles and cinematic scope. You can see the legacy it has left in nearly every major FPS that's been released since. So it really does deserve its reputation along with Wolfenstein, Doom, Deus Ex and HL 1 & 2 as one of the most influential and definitive FPS's ever made.

 

I'm sorry but the criticisms in general do seem to be justified. Having said that, you certainly do not need to apologise for liking the game. We're all individuals. (Although I very much doubt that any great games drew inspiration from Halo - sorry).
Nevertheless, it seems to me that console exclusives such as this seem to fall into much the same category - good perhaps but not great. (Bit-tech never did a Killzone 2 review - not the time or couldn't be bothered?)

Speaking of console exclusives, wasn't there a WET review on the way? I was interested to see whether the verdict was that it was rubbish or a mindless way to spend some time (reviews tend to conclude one or the other).

 

I see your point, but I would argue that it still would have gone unnoticed. Most people I know who played Halo:

1. Were not PC gamers
2. Just experienced their first semi decent fps
3. And most importantly, played it coop

All 3 of these combined created a unique experience that I believe would have been largely missed on PC.

At the time when Halo came out, most of my weekends were spent at my mates house playing 8 player splitscreen/xbox lan halo multiplayer with him and his cousins. It was a great time socially etc, but in the evenings we'd go back to playing UT2k3/4, it was simply a better fps experience. Halo was there for a social aspect over gameplay.

 

And then came Gears of War lol.

 

There wasn't a Killzone 2 review for the same reason there wasn't a Metal Gear Solid review. Sony, for various reasons, don't talk to us and have basically told us they don't consider our audience as an important part of the market. For the very large games we do try to get hold of the games anyway, which is why there was a LittleBigPlanet review, but at that time we decided there were better games on the PC for us to focus on. Thankfully individual publishers do still support us on the PS3, so we're able to review on that platform from time to time.

There should be a WET review, yes. Our copy has been caught in the postal strikes though and I've been out of the office a fair bit the last few days, looking at Tokyo Game Show stuff.

As for Halo - it's the Doom or Quake of the console world. It's popular, beautiful, a cultural phenomenon, great fun and awesome in multiplayer. Just like Doom wouldn't work very well if ported to an Xbox 360 though, Halo doesn't work fantastically ported the other way. The series is great and is revolutionary on it's own platform, not others.

 

Doom was ok on the 360 (there's an XBLA version ), although it would have been better if they'd updated the graphics from the old 486 version...

 

From what iv read - an average score seems pretty justified...
i mean, ODST is kind of like glorified DLC - it doesnt feel worth the price tag, that in itself has to make it a 7 or below which is fair considering it really brings nothing too new or exciting to the table.

 

First up, I would like to point out that I'm not a fanboy of any platform, just a fanboy of gaming. I love PC gaming and have done ever since the original Doom came out, but I'm also a console fan as well. As a result I've always judged games on their merit and not by the platform their released on. However, I do detect a degree of PC fanboy snobbery in some of these comments and I'm just left wondering if 1 or 2 of you are still holding a grudge?

I mean, I remember all too well the controversy surrounding the original Halo; the way it started out life as an under the radar RTS for the Mac and then evolved (pun intended) into a highly anticipated PC FPS, before Billy boy and his mates highjacked it as an Xbox launch title. Unsurprisingly, this did not go down well with the PC gaming community, many of whom spat their dummies and called Bungie and MS every name under the sun. Then when it did finally arrive on the PC the negative reaction it got was pretty predictable. I remember Edge magazine wrote - "PC gamers hatred of Halo has little to do with logic and everything to do with spite!"

Anyway, I'm not here to get involved in a pointless argument about wether Halo is a great game or not, because as has already been rightly point out, its all about opinion. The point I was trying to make is wether people like it or not as a game doesn't change the fact that it was a ground breaking title at the time, which had a massive influence on both FPS's and the gaming world as a whole.

As for great PC FPS's that have clearly been influenced by Halo, why not start with HL2; if people can't see some Halo-esque gameplay mechanics at work there, then maybe they need to think about it for a while.

Also, look at how many FPS's across all platforms now come complete with rechargeable shields, vehicles and AI controlled squaddies full of jarhead banter; coincidence? - I think not.

 

I did think the concept of having recharging shields in addition to health a great concept. It's too bad they took out the health in Halo 2 and EVERY subsequent FPS ever made. So sick of it now. If Half Life 3 has recharging shields I think I'll self harm.

 

I have thought about it and I don't think personally that Half Life 2 was influenced in any great way by Halo. I suppose the only way to know would be to ask Valve. With these things, one always have to take into account development time. I would guess that any similarities were already planned before Halo. It is just the natural evolution of gameplay. Same would go for Far Cry, etc. (That is my guess). At any rate, the ideas (wherever they came from) were much better implemented in my humble opinion.

(By the way, I would be wary of quoting from Edge...)

 

I can't see any way that HL2 was influenced by Halo at all.

 

Motion carried. HL2 was exactly what you'd expect from a sequel to HL - there's nothing Halo-ish about it at all.

 

Well there's Freemans auto regenerating shields, his really powerful assault rifle you get at the start and the help and guidance you get all the way through from the voice of the computer living in your HEV suit not to mention the clear structure at the start of the game leaving you in full knowledge of exactly what you should be doing how you got there and who the G-man is. Err sorry wrong game.

 

I always like the voice in the HEV suit, as it was such a huge disconnect between the supposed reality and the player feedback. It's helpful and immersive for a player to be told "Massive...Bloodloss...Detected" by the digital voicebox, but it somewhat shatters the suspension of disbelief.

"Multiple...Fractures...Detected"
"No ****! I just jumped off a building!"

 

My favourite was always "severe laceration detected" (or something like that) - sooo I'm still protected right? Those lacerations didn't penetrate the suit?

The closest real life equivalent is "the <tube line> has been delayed due to a person on the track" - suitably clinical and detached imo.

 

Influences or just coincidences?

1. Sandbox level design that gives the illusion of freedom, but actually keeps you on a linear path.
2. Vehicle based sections.
3. NPC squad members to fight along side.

On a sarcastic side-note to CardJoe and HugoB; in regards to similarities:

1. They are both FPS's.
2. Guns.
3. Central character wears a rechargeable suit with some AI assistance.
4. Cinematic style set pieces.
5. They are both sci-fi based.

But apart from that; no similarities at all...lol

Anyway mute1, I except your point on development schedules and that such similarities (as the 3 I mentioned) could just be a coincidence and not a direct influence. However, I do find it a little bit hard to believe that Valve and Crytek would not have been keeping their fingers on the pulse while their titles were in development, watching and reacting where possible to any changes in trends ahead of their games being released.

However, the facts remain:

1. Halo was a commercial and critical success.
2. It brought some innovative ideas to the FPS table.
3. It has had a considerable influence on its genre and on the video games industry as a whole.

As for HL2 vs Halo; I wouldn't disagree.

As far as my very small quote from Edge - it's a back issue from years ago, so hopefully they'll forgive me just this once.

 

I agree but I was trying to be charitable and open-minded. My emotions urge me to say that Halo was a load of... whatever, but I try to keep those in check. After all, it is just my personal opinion. There must be plenty of games I love that people think are rubbish.

By the way, the recharging suit was in Half Life 1, years before Halo.
The more I think about it the more I come up with PC games that were innovating already. We'll just have to agree to differ, Carcharodon.

Also, you have every right to quote from Edge. No need to worry there. It's just that they are not exactly a venerated authority on gaming. (Mind you, who is? Apart from Joe and myself. )