Halo 3: Recon Will Be Standalone DVD Release
Set prior to the events of Halo 3, Recon follows the exploits of a ODST drop soldier, which Microsoft claims will "greatly resemble that of previous Halo experiences" but "will require players to employ more elements of stealth and cunning than ever before."
Packing exclusive new multiplayer maps, the title will sport all of Halo 3's community features, including four-player co-op, the Forge map editor, and Saved Films.
Halo 3: Recon is currently scheduled for a fall 2009 release.
-
valcan_s
replyAwesome news!
Please tell us that it has an upgraded graphics engine?
Could be the best Halo yet.-
-
"The Best Halo yet" would actually be saying a lot considering it's one of the most successful modern game franchises. Possibly the most successful shooter franchise if you consider the fact that all of the Halo games are Xbox exclusives (pc port not included).
I understand that people have different opinions about games. Halo is very different than Rainbow Six, which is very different than Gears of War. They are all great games (don't believe? read the reviews), which is why I don't understand why so many morons insist bashing games like these just because it's not their jam. I enjoy all of them because they offer completely different styles of play for First Person Shooters.
Do you judge the success of the game based on the opinions of the minority or based on how it was received by the gaming community as a whole? I sir, do the latter.-
-
I don't know where you get 44000 from because if i go on Halo 3 right now it will have at least 100k and thats online, you have to remember halo3 is also a single player game unlike counterstrike. Halo 2 how can you tell?
-
-
You can't judge "best" by "most successful" unless you plan on arguing that advertisement and cost are part of the quality of a game. If I made a great shooter, got lots of publicity through good advertising, and gave it away for free for every platform, I'd "sell" a lot of copies. My numbers would be astounding. But that wouldn't mean it was better than the highest quality shooter.
Halo is a pretty good game. It's fun, but it isn't in the top third of shooters. It succeeds mostly because it was one of the first non-autoaim (GoldenEye) shooters to really work on a console. Also, don't forget that it isn't competing against most truly excellent shooters.
The typical "Halo player" is not an FPS connoisseur. It's not someone with a ramped up PC who has tried every shooter under the sun. Hell, you can tell they're not an FPS connoisseur from the fact alone that they bought a shooter for a console*.
So combine a pretty good game with no real competition, good marketing, and a wide audience (people who could enjoy an FPS and aren't PC gamers) and you've got a surefire recipe for high sales numbers - NOT a great game.-
What? If you were a FPS connoisseur wouldn't you have to judge all FPS games? Suddenly if you buy an FPS on a console you instantly lose all credibility? That'd be like saying if you try anything but French Wine you arn't a connoisseur, which doesn't even make sense, you have to try them all different types in order to know what is unique/different.
Just because a game has "a recipe for high sales numbers" doesn't mean its not a great game.
"great" is an opinionated word, you can't tell me a game is great or not and expect it will apply to the general public.-
If you're a book connoisseur do you have to try reading books that are printed backwards and require a mirror to actually read?
Sure, once or twice just to get the experience, but you can safely say it isn't the best way to be doing things and you can be justified to say that anyone using this method regularly does not have exquisite taste. Console FPS are not THAT egregious but if you'd like I'm prepared to prove definitively that the mouse is more suited for human use than a thumbstick.
I know that just because a game has "a recipe for high sales numbers" does not disqualify it from greatness, but Bill Murray's argument seemed to be based ONLY on sales numbers (I wish I had thought to bring up Counter-Strike, kudos to Smurfy12) and I felt it important to point out that marketing and competition to not influence actual game quality.
Of course I can't expect my definition of "great" to apply to the general public! The general public has bad taste due to low exposure and cultural influence. Most college kids have bad taste in beer - they don't have the budget to try the really fancy stuff and most aren't drinking it for the taste anyway. Just like in this scenario most people playing Halo aren't playing it because it's the pinnacle of the genre, it's just accessible and simple - and that's all they want in it.
And that's okay. If they're enjoying themselves I can't hate on that. But it doesn't make Halo a great game. It makes Halo a pretty good game and it makes the 360 a good system for people who would rather play good games with their friends than great games alone.-
I agree with all of your points.
But just because you are more accurate with a PC doesn't mean its a better control scheme either I'm sure people prefer the thumb-stick even though personally I hate it.
I honestly hate it when people call me not a FPS player because I own halo, shit I own 25 FPS's on PC and somehow I can't judge games because I own halo. Personally I think it would make me a better judge because I've been exposed to more.
I think the whole wording on great is misused and a personal opinion. I don't care what you say, choose a game and I can call it not great if I want to, does that mean it wasn't developed well?
Going back to the original post he said "it could be the best halo yet" with a remark of "that's not saying much", the problem here is....well why isn't it? Something better than a remarkably well selling game has to be pretty good. I think its more of just Halo backlash because North Americans are too...individualist....everyone has to be unique, if lots of people like something, someone has to hate it and try to make their voice the loudest....where if you were in Asia, you don't want to speak out and be "different" because in general they would prefer to conform. Honestly I wonder how many people who say they hate halo so much have even played it, or possibly even enjoy it but say they hate it to be different. (or just don't give it a try with the intent of hating it the whole time) -
erikman... I did NOT ONCE mention Sales Numbers in my argument. Can you point out where I mentioned Sales numbers? 'Cause I sure can't.
But you are right... sales numbers DO offer SOME indication on the quality of the game. You can market and hype the shit out of a game, but if it's not good, people will realize and people won't buy your game.
My argument is simple (for all you knuckleheads):
I believe Halo is a good game. Most people believe Halo is a good game. How do I know? Because all three Halo games received outstanding reviews from nearly all of the most respected journalists in the industry. Case and point.
You don't have to like the game, you just have to be open minded enough to understand that it is a quality game and if this next campaign IS the "best Halo yet" than that would be saying a lot. It would say a lot to the casual Halo player, to the hardcore Halo player, and to the people who pour years of their lives into making these games at Bungie. -
The thing is, evaluations such as "good" or "great" only have meaning within the context of the (subjective) set of preferences and expectations, of the evaluator. So you can take a title like Halo, and approach it like you would a sequel to say Half-Life, expecting finely varied level design with unique environmental challenges, and a large range of enemies to fight - and be disappointed, and consequently judge that Halo is not a great game.
Or you can approach Halo expecting a series of incredibly intense encounters with enemies that are your equal, broken up by freeform vehicular segments that allow you to take part in large-scale battles. And from this perspective, judge that Halo is a great game, even when compared to something like Half-Life.
If you're in the latter camp, and want an intense pick-up-and-play experience ("30 seconds of fun") rather than an epic single player campaign designed to be played through once, then it's understandable if you find Halo to be a great game. If this is the case then in what sense are you mistaken? If you're genuinely enjoying yourself playing Halo, then why can't you say Halo is a great game? If the answer is: because there are better games, then the response is: but are they better for me?
It seems to me that a lot of people (PC gamers especially) played Halo expecting a specific kind of FPS experience, and as a result just saw the game's faults (lack of variation in level design and mission objectives, for example), decided that they couldn't look past these things, and as a result reached the conclusion that the game was no better than mediocre. Which is a perfectly valid assessment, within the context of their preferences.
But then they assumed that because they didn't like Halo, there must be something wrong with those that did, that there couldn't be any justifiable reason for preferring Halo over other PC FPS: which is completely invalid, as explained earlier.
So I ask, when you claim that Halo isn't "great", are you not just superimposing your (or others) preferences over those of the Halo fans? And if not, how do you know that Halo fans would (if presumably they played them) like other FPS so much more than Halo, that they couldn't consider Halo a great game any more?
-
-
-
"It's not someone with a ramped up PC who has tried every shooter under the sun. Hell, you can tell they're not an FPS connoisseur from the fact alone that they bought a shooter for a console*."
Actually, I cut my teeth on Doom 1 for PC and still adore Quake 1 for the PC and I thought Halo was a great game BEFORE I started working here.
I'm a FPS junky and still feel Halo is a great game. What happens now?-
Why isn't Halo successful on the PC?
-
If there was a need to look for reasons, the obvious ones would be that ts gameplay is transparently designed for console controllers and typical TV displays, not to mention that it had a graphics engine that was heavily tuned specifically for the Xbox.
However, It's apparently been an extraordinarily good seller on the PC. It was on the top-10 sellers list for a silly amount of time, and I believe Gearbox has commented that it's still their all-time bestselling game and still a good money-maker for them.
-
Hell, I bought Halo on PC and loved it.
-
-
-
-
"Hell, you can tell they're not an FPS connoisseur from the fact alone that they bought a shooter for a console."
So, this gets debunked every time it gets brought up... I'll just take my turn here this time.
Played most FPS since Wolfenstein. It's my "go-to" genre. Loved Halo.
Can we drop this dumbness now? (No, obviously not.)-
The mouse operates on distance (you move it). Moving the crosshair some exact amount on the screen using the mouse requires moving the mouse by some exact amount. Your brain needs only to process the ratio at which mouse movement translates to screen movement, or (distance = distance).
The thumbstick operates on velocity (the further it's held in a direction, the higher the velocity of crosshair movement). Moving the crosshair some exact amount on the screen using a thumbstick requires holding the thumbstick down for an exact amount of time because (velocity * time = distance).
As you can see, the brain needs to do one additional operation to effectively model thumbstick operation.
I would also argue that in addition to being more intuitive (ratio of the same type) and less neurally strenuous (fewer steps) that you as a human are accustomed to using tools which also translate to distance:distance ratios - you've been using them all your life. Any time you're moving something that extends past your body (a big stick, a hammer, a rolled up poster) you're thinking in terms of movement ratios: how far do I need to move my hands to move this object where I want it?
The closest thing most people have to controlling exclusively velocity is when they're driving a car (they're actually controlling acceleration). While this skill can certainly be acquired, it is very definitely not a natural human instinct in the same way that using simple handheld tools is..
In conclusion, the distance-to-distance scheme of the mouse control mechanism is more natural and more intuitive than the velocity-to-distance ratio that the thumbstick is based on, clearly defining the PC as the optimal FPS environment, other factors (social gaming, for example) aside.-
Holy cow, I feel so educated!
http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=18120528
-
An excellent point regarding different control schemes for the same device. I learned most of my little spiel from my game design professor. The tool-using nature part is my own conjecture.
This doesn't change the fact that I have not seen "this get debunked every time it gets brought up," though admittedly I don't read most Shacknews comments.
-
-
So what's your point, that having a different control scheme makes it unsuccessful? Who cares? The fact that millions of these so-called 'non-FPS connoisseur' players of all skill levels do just fine with a controller make it a moot point. Any difference in intuitiveness that may exist obviously has a negligible impact.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
wait so did he crash land into human territory or the convenant
-
