As far as I can tell, except for the little details, Halo's story is basically watered down from StarCraft, which in turn was watered from Warhammer 40,000. So I guess it's all fair in the end.

Having not followed Warhammer 40k much, I can't address that. But, I have played both Halo and Starcraft. I'm having trouble seeing the parallels which lead you to say this.

Yes, they both take place in space (but I don't see you using that to say its essentially Star Wars).
Yes, there are essentially 3 species/factions (Starcraft: Zerg, Protoss, and Human [ignoring various political splits within those species]/Halo: Flood, Covenant [consisting of 6 species, which I can think of], and Human). But, within that, the roles that each faction plays are quite different. I see strong parallels between the religious zealotry of the Covenant and the Protoss, and, gee, Humans are Humans, but I see very few parallels between the Zerg and the Flood, except that they were both drawn/designed to inspire a sense of disgust.

The STORY, as opposed to the SETTING, is different in more ways than I can enumerate. Lacking further defense of your statement from you, I don't know what else I can say.

Well, the Zerg and the Flood both exist to consume and infest, so to speak. And from what I've seen, the Gravemind might = Overmind? >_>

CantFaketheFunk:
Bongo... how else would you have suggested they do multiplayer if not the Internet? >_> there's always split-screen and system link if you'd rather not deal with XBL.

I was referring to the Internet as a social milieu, not the Internet as a technology or communications medium. It's the lowest-common-denominator problem.

I personally find the re-playablity of all the Halo series excellent. If you do something a bit differently in any level you will receive a somewhat different experience. I've done 'Assault on the Control Room' level in Halo 1 at least 50 times throughout the years, and they were each a separate gaming episode. No, they were not drastically different, but enough to encourage me try the level in a new way each time. And they were FUN! Halo is not Half-life....I love that game but it's a very diffrent kind of gaming experience. It's a lot more cerebral, and less twitchy, but not as much shear fun. All of the Halos are great FPS games, and let's not forget that Halo set the standard for console shooters. 10-15 hours is a bit short for me, but there are the almost endless possiblities of co-op campaign play.

However, it appears obvious to me that Halo 3 is essentially a multiplayer juggernaught. There is no game out now on PC or console which can match it, as the early and mind-boggling figures on Bungie prove. It will take over within the week [probably sooner] as the Xbox Live king of online games. And Xbox Live is where the Xbox clobbers the competition for online experiences. PS3 and Wii cannot begin to match the Live process.

I believe there is no such thing as a 'BEST' game. There are great games and lousy games, and a lot of games in between. What you like is based on your own preferences and experiences. I am a big fan of all of the Halos, but I love the Half-life series also, and just about anything from Bethesda [minus Star Trek--sorry]. Bioware produces top quality stuff just about every time...can't wait for Mass Effect.

It seems fashionable for some rather smug folks to bash Halo 3 for the sole purpose of establishing thermselves as superior to the spaz-fingered, brainless console fanboys. True, there are a lot of those types out there, but I feel they are not the majority any longer. I'll have great fun with Halo 3, as I have had with it's ancestors. It's what counts for me.

CantFaketheFunk:
Well, the Zerg and the Flood both exist to consume and infest, so to speak. And from what I've seen, the Gravemind might = Overmind? >_>

Except that the Zerg are not a parasite, whereas the Flood are (as far as I know right now, not having played Halo 3, yet). The Flood need other living things to sustain them (as I understand it), and once they've consumed the galaxy, would themselves cease to exist. The Zerg, on the other hand, infect individuals as a strategy (absorb their knowledge into the Overmind, absorb their genetic information to add to the varieties of Zerg, etc), and once they got everything in the galaxy, would continue to exist just happily as the Zerg. I don't know that that is true of the Flood. The Grave/Overmind is a parallel I had overlooked, though it seems that the Zerg have sentience/intelligence spread around more, and the Gravemind of the Flood is the sole source of intelligence in the entire entity.

If Halo 3 changes all of this around, then I'm running on incomplete information.

Did they include a hypegun?

I played Combat Evolved (and forced myself through some of the most boring levels ever made).
I skipped Halo 2.
I just wonder if the third is that good. I understand how console gamers cream their pants, but when you come from the PC world, Halo is just another FPS with nothing really tentalizing to offer.

Kuzdu:
As far as I can tell, except for the little details, Halo's story is basically watered down from StarCraft, which in turn was watered from Warhammer 40,000. So I guess it's all fair in the end.

Starcraft clearly owes a lot to WH40K, but the studio initially worked on a RTS adaptation of AVP.

once again we have way too much bickering over stuff that in the end doesn't even matter. it is about choices and preferrences. if you like killing hundreds of aliens, than odds are you will like it. if you think FPS's suck, than don't. its that simple. my thought though ends with this...

Is it a beautiful and exciting and action packed FPS that is really fun to play? absolutely
Is it a bit overhyped by trigger-happy beer drinking frat boys as the best game ever? yes
In the end, does it matter if it's the best game ever or not? fuck no
play it or don't, but don't argue over its mythology when to me it seems like they didn't think that far into the story for any of them.

Now I'd just like to say that there is much more to the storyline in Halo 3 then you can understand strickly from playing the game. Through out the game there are references to Halo: The Fall of Reach (the first in the Halo book series), in these references Cortana talks about her memories that she got from the person that she was created from and also from when she originally chose John as her partner. There are also references to a series of cryptic e-mails that were sent to a game site by an employee of Bungie before the release of Halo: Combat Evolved. These e-mails were supposedly supposed to be sent by Cortana (for more information on these just wiki them) and in which she makes statements that she quotes in the new game. There's also the hidden panels through out the game which tell more about the For runners, the Arc, and the everything that had happened to their society.

Anyways, just judging the storyline of Halo from the basic game play really isn't enough to fully grasp it all. So I recommend to everyone that likes the game to go out and read up on some of it.

Russ Pitts:
Also: see the opening cinematic for a clear example of over-the-top pulpiness (see, you really do need to play the game before you get all up in my grille about it). I'm not going to spoil anything, but I want you to remember the phrase "The gel layer absorbed the impact." Remember it, and get back to me ... ahem .. after you've played the game.

This opening scene was a reference to many events through the novels in which the Chief is forced to jump out of a craft due to one reason or another. There suits are laced with a bio gel that can change it's density - in other words it's like their air bags. If you remember Johnson saying something along the lines of "You always jump", that would be because he's had to do it so many times. There's also the case of Halo: The Ghosts of Onyx where the main story follows the Spartan III group which attempt to do the same when jumping from a damaged pellican. Many of the Spartans were killed upon impact. You shouldn't be so quick to judge on the things that happen in this series until you've read up on all the literature about it. For the most part it actually has a far amount of detail about the sciences behind most of the technologies.

CantFaketheFunk:

Bongo... how else would you have suggested they do multiplayer if not the Internet? >_> there's always split-screen and system link if you'd rather not deal with XBL.

There's all sorts of ways XBL could be enhanced so that you're doing more than playing against arbitrary scumbags on the Internet.

For example, what if anyone could set up groups - public, private, restricted... - and in game options the player can ask for a game made up only of group members, or "members of groups I am in" or whatever. Bongo notes that most people commenting here won't be homophobic 14 year olds; imagine being able to tell XBL you wanted to play with fellow Escapist group members.

I's also love to see XBL able to manage more structured "appointment gaming" -- if the service allowed people to set up leagues and knockout competitions, with scheduled games (forfeit if you don't turn up), team/clan matches etc. I gather Links approached this ideal -- make it part of the core XBL service.

ice232:

Russ Pitts:
Also: see the opening cinematic for a clear example of over-the-top pulpiness (see, you really do need to play the game before you get all up in my grille about it). I'm not going to spoil anything, but I want you to remember the phrase "The gel layer absorbed the impact." Remember it, and get back to me ... ahem .. after you've played the game.

This opening scene was a reference to many events through the novels in which the Chief is forced to jump out of a craft due to one reason or another. There suits are laced with a bio gel that can change it's density - in other words it's like their air bags. If you remember Johnson saying something along the lines of "You always jump", that would be because he's had to do it so many times. There's also the case of Halo: The Ghosts of Onyx where the main story follows the Spartan III group which attempt to do the same when jumping from a damaged pellican. Many of the Spartans were killed upon impact. You shouldn't be so quick to judge on the things that happen in this series until you've read up on all the literature about it. For the most part it actually has a far amount of detail about the sciences behind most of the technologies.

Well, the question is who wants to read some Halo literature?

ice232:
This opening scene was a reference to many events through the novels in which the Chief is forced to jump out of a craft due to one reason or another. There suits are laced with a bio gel that can change it's density - in other words it's like their air bags. If you remember Johnson saying something along the lines of "You always jump", that would be because he's had to do it so many times. There's also the case of Halo: The Ghosts of Onyx where the main story follows the Spartan III group which attempt to do the same when jumping from a damaged pellican. Many of the Spartans were killed upon impact. You shouldn't be so quick to judge on the things that happen in this series until you've read up on all the literature about it. For the most part it actually has a far amount of detail about the sciences behind most of the technologies.

Personally, I don't think it is a reviewer's responsibility to be as steeped in the mythology of the game as the bleeding edge of the fan-base in order to review the game. I enjoy the Halo mythology, I have read the mediocre books, and look forward to playing Halo 3. But if the reviewer is to review the game, I think its perfectly within their prerogative to review JUST the game, and not the game as it fits into the entire scheme of merchandise. Did the people that followed I<3BEES get more out of Halo than others? Yes. Those that read the books? Probably. Same for the graphic novels. It would be perfectly valid for you to point out that this makes more sense in the context of everything else, but I don't see that as any reviewer's job, if all they are reviewing is the game.

And EVEN then, as I already stated, gels are cool, gels are awesome, gels are really useful. But they don't counter inertia, they just spread it around. When a gel armor layer stops a bullet, the body is still absorbing all of the energy from that bullet. The gel prevents the bullet from penetrating (which would be far more damaging), and distributes the impact over a wider area, thus lessening the amount of energy absorbed by a single location. If you covered yourself in gel armor, and ran into a brick wall at full speed, it would still hurt, the impact would just be spread over larger areas than our pointy bodies would typically contact when encountering a flat surface. Plus, gels don't do anything for the organs slamming around inside the body (like your brain slamming into the inside of your skull, woooo concussion!) Same for if you stood in front of a train. Same for if you jumped off a building, or out of a plane. And at a certain height, it doesn't matter how much higher you get, because of terminal velocity. In this case, I don't think Russ is ignorant of the wonders of gels, I think he does not believe that gels have been invented which convert inertia into something else. Especially in the context of the game (and the books), where no explanation is given to that extent.

Geoffrey, I'm not really suggesting that the details of the narrative are exactly the same, just that you can trace a pretty clear line from Warhammer 40k through StarCraft to Halo. Each has Space Marines, a technologically advanced and religiously-minded alien race (Tau, Protoss, Covenant), and an alien-races that is basically mindless and all consuming (Tyranids, Zerg, The Flood). I think that your distinction between Story and Setting is a good one, but there are some strange parallels even in the details.

Kuzdu:
Geoffrey, I'm not really suggesting that the details of the narrative are exactly the same, just that you can trace a pretty clear line from Warhammer 40k through StarCraft to Halo. Each has Space Marines, a technologically advanced and religiously-minded alien race (Tau, Protoss, Covenant), and an alien-races that is basically mindless and all consuming (Tyranids, Zerg, The Flood). I think that your distinction between Story and Setting is a good one, but there are some strange parallels even in the details.

As they say, "There is nothing new under the sun." In this case, maybe around the sun. Even then, with Warhammer 40k, I'd be surprised if they were the first to have the good guys, versus the religious zealots, where a 3rd "evil" spoiler group was entered into the fray.

And I agree, my distinction between Story and Setting is a good one, which is why I took such issue with your comment about Halo's "story" as opposed to its setting.

And, personally, I've always felt that if ever there were going to be a military force in space, it would be the Navy, and the Marines. So space Marines as a commonality, to me, seems the natural progression, and could as easily be convergent evolution of imagination, rather than straight up copying.

But, I grant you your points. There are a fair number of striking similarities in each of their setups. Enough difference to make them all worthwhile for me though.

What difficulty where you even playing on in the first place? 90% of the time any allied units would be killed in the first few minutes of combat. Also, did you even pay attention to "Aim for the joints" and "Destroy the power core" being shouted at you left right and center while fighting that scarab? This game, and the story behind it is vastly detailed. Theres what? 5 books worth of supplement material? But I guess you'd think the game was short, the AI was too good, and the story was cliche and bland if you were playing on easy mode and had your TV muted.

Try playing the game again, paying attention, and then writing an article that makes some sense.

i'd like to say it's much harder to shoot someone on 4 player split-screen than having a whole tv to yourself.

and with all this halo 3 buzz, you'd think burger king wouldn't run out of their halo 3 king sized cups, but noooo....

Great review! Although I don't think I know exactly what you think of the game. Win or no win.
I agree 100 percent that the story wasn't fleshed out enough in the games. But the books do a good job of supplementing. They explain some of the science, but probably doesn't explain it enough for you. But I think the lack of back story helped the game itself. I mean if I wanted to sit quietly and hear about all sort of amazing science I'd probably read a science book. But I don't want to hear about it in my video game.

The following comments had me worried. Someone mentioned being spoiled as a PC gamer when it comes to great FPS titles, but I can only think of a handful.
And for those who drone on about the quality of life on XBL, lets not forget Counter Strike.
At least on XBL people are limited to speech.

Geoffrey42:

ice232:
This opening scene was a reference to many events through the novels in which the Chief is forced to jump out of a craft due to one reason or another. There suits are laced with a bio gel that can change it's density - in other words it's like their air bags. If you remember Johnson saying something along the lines of "You always jump", that would be because he's had to do it so many times. There's also the case of Halo: The Ghosts of Onyx where the main story follows the Spartan III group which attempt to do the same when jumping from a damaged pellican. Many of the Spartans were killed upon impact. You shouldn't be so quick to judge on the things that happen in this series until you've read up on all the literature about it. For the most part it actually has a far amount of detail about the sciences behind most of the technologies.

Personally, I don't think it is a reviewer's responsibility to be as steeped in the mythology of the game as the bleeding edge of the fan-base in order to review the game. I enjoy the Halo mythology, I have read the mediocre books, and look forward to playing Halo 3. But if the reviewer is to review the game, I think its perfectly within their prerogative to review JUST the game, and not the game as it fits into the entire scheme of merchandise. Did the people that followed I<3BEES get more out of Halo than others? Yes. Those that read the books? Probably. Same for the graphic novels. It would be perfectly valid for you to point out that this makes more sense in the context of everything else, but I don't see that as any reviewer's job, if all they are reviewing is the game.

And EVEN then, as I already stated, gels are cool, gels are awesome, gels are really useful. But they don't counter inertia, they just spread it around. When a gel armor layer stops a bullet, the body is still absorbing all of the energy from that bullet. The gel prevents the bullet from penetrating (which would be far more damaging), and distributes the impact over a wider area, thus lessening the amount of energy absorbed by a single location. If you covered yourself in gel armor, and ran into a brick wall at full speed, it would still hurt, the impact would just be spread over larger areas than our pointy bodies would typically contact when encountering a flat surface. Plus, gels don't do anything for the organs slamming around inside the body (like your brain slamming into the inside of your skull, woooo concussion!) Same for if you stood in front of a train. Same for if you jumped off a building, or out of a plane. And at a certain height, it doesn't matter how much higher you get, because of terminal velocity. In this case, I don't think Russ is ignorant of the wonders of gels, I think he does not believe that gels have been invented which convert inertia into something else. Especially in the context of the game (and the books), where no explanation is given to that extent.

Well, there actually was an explenation given and that was that it's not just the gels that are responsible for the reduced damage on impact. They can control the size of their shields and essentially turn them into a giant air bag. That's normally what they account the survival of jumping to.
As for the review, I suppose you're right about only judging the game. On the other hand, I don't think it's right to judge what Halo is as a whole unless you've read up on the novels etc.

ice232:

Russ Pitts:
Also: see the opening cinematic for a clear example of over-the-top pulpiness (see, you really do need to play the game before you get all up in my grille about it). I'm not going to spoil anything, but I want you to remember the phrase "The gel layer absorbed the impact." Remember it, and get back to me ... ahem .. after you've played the game.

This opening scene was a reference to many events through the novels in which the Chief is forced to jump out of a craft due to one reason or another. There suits are laced with a bio gel that can change it's density - in other words it's like their air bags. If you remember Johnson saying something along the lines of "You always jump", that would be because he's had to do it so many times. There's also the case of Halo: The Ghosts of Onyx where the main story follows the Spartan III group which attempt to do the same when jumping from a damaged pellican. Many of the Spartans were killed upon impact. You shouldn't be so quick to judge on the things that happen in this series until you've read up on all the literature about it. For the most part it actually has a far amount of detail about the sciences behind most of the technologies.

As true as this may be, why then does playable Spartan take damage when jumping from great height, or perish when jumping off a cliff (or into water - helloooo swim engine) but un-playable (i.e. cutscene) Spartan survive a fall from space?

Regardless of how well this sort of thing may be explained in auxiliary literature, within the confines of the game it appears to be fantastic, and therefore, not exactly plausible.

how very true russ. you cannot have that kind of inherent continuity error in a game like that. and to those who keep mentioning the novels, i've read the first two and am in the middle of first strike. even with this extra back story and mythology explained in them, it still doesn't make it a fabulous story line. its decent, but not anything special still. the basic premise is this: man has colonized other worlds. everythings going good for a while, until some pissed off aliens appear from nowhere and start beating the shit out of us. meanwhile, government is making some super soldiers. super soldiers kick tons of ass but it isn't enough yet to turn the tide. all but one dies and he ends up saving the universe somehow when new aliens show up and kick both human and alien ass alike. and somewhere there is a superweapon that could fuck all us up. i've seen it time and time again, just with different specifics. that doesn't mean its a bad story and bad game; its just unoriginal and uninspired. i just get aggrivated when people say that its so special or its genius.

Russ Pitts:
As true as this may be, why then does playable Spartan take damage when jumping from great height, or perish when jumping off a cliff (or into water - helloooo swim engine) but un-playable (i.e. cutscene) Spartan survive a fall from space?

Regardless of how well this sort of thing may be explained in auxiliary literature, within the confines of the game it appears to be fantastic, and therefore, not exactly plausible.

You don't take damage from falling. They eliminated that in Halo 2. You die if you fall too far, but otherwise you're unharmed. This is a fairly obvious concession to gameplay.

Secondly, Master Chief didn't fall from space. I'll elaborate.

1) Fall distance:

In the cutscene, they clearly said that he fell from 2 kilometers, which a quick Wikipedia check tells me is within our troposphere. The troposphere is the first layer of atmosphere from ground up, meaning that he's falling through the same air that skydivers fall through.

2) Terminal Velocity

Due to the height of his jump, he likely accelerated to terminal velocity. People have survived falls from skydiving height without parachutes, depending on what they're impacting. These are people without futuristic powered armor that absorbs impact and has energy shielding. Most people hit terminal velocity at around 120 mph, but the Master Chief would come in at 300 mph, given that he's 7ft tall and weighs around 1000lbs.

3) Was he moving at terminal velocity?

I'd say he was likely moving slower than terminal velocity, as his trajectory was distinctly not straight down. That suggests he had some way of influencing his direction.

4) The crash site

As we saw in the The Arrival, the crash site is in the middle of a jungle, and he landed in soft ground. Aside from freshly tilled earth, you couldn't pick a more ideal landing spot.

5) Energy shields

His shields absorb impacts as well, perhaps even better, than energy. Given that he was likely fully shielded coming in, another point in his favor.

6) Crazy radical gel layer technology

Well, as people have pointed out before, people today have invented some pretty scary things. I think it's feasible that whatever the corresponding tech was in the 26th century, it likely helped the Master Chief survive his fall in addition to all of his other advantages.

There is one thing I haven't been able to explain as of yet. That's the fact that Master Chief was on fire. Was he on fire because he was moving too fast, or for some other reason? Or, because Bungie thought it would look cool? Also, let's not forget, in that very same cutscene, Cortana reminds us that she picked Master Chief for his luck.

danimal1384:
how very true russ. you cannot have that kind of inherent continuity error in a game like that. and to those who keep mentioning the novels, i've read the first two and am in the middle of first strike. even with this extra back story and mythology explained in them, it still doesn't make it a fabulous story line. its decent, but not anything special still. the basic premise is this: man has colonized other worlds. everythings going good for a while, until some pissed off aliens appear from nowhere and start beating the shit out of us. meanwhile, government is making some super soldiers. super soldiers kick tons of ass but it isn't enough yet to turn the tide. all but one dies and he ends up saving the universe somehow when new aliens show up and kick both human and alien ass alike. and somewhere there is a superweapon that could fuck all us up. i've seen it time and time again, just with different specifics. that doesn't mean its a bad story and bad game; its just unoriginal and uninspired. i just get aggrivated when people say that its so special or its genius.

I get aggravated when people throw around words like unoriginal and uninspired. Let's just assume you don't like the storyline, and move on.

What makes a story special isn't what it is. There is nothing new under the sun. What makes it special is how it's told.

Alex Karls:

4) The crash site

As we saw in the The Arrival, the crash site is in the middle of a jungle, and he landed in soft ground. Aside from freshly tilled earth, you couldn't pick a more ideal landing spot.

I hear cranberry bogs are a pretty ideal place to attempt a parachute-less jump.

I get aggravated when people throw around words like unoriginal and uninspired. Let's just assume you don't like the storyline, and move on.

What makes a story special isn't what it is. There is nothing new under the sun. What makes it special is how it's told.

No, lets not ASSume i don't like the story and move on...if you don't like words like uninspired or unoriginal, then maybe you shouldn't be on forums based on reviewing something, especially a game, cause alot of things are UNINSPIRED or UNORIGINAL; particularly your comment just now. i'd mostly agree that there isn't much original out there these days, but you can take an old story and add new things or take out existing things and put a spin on it and its mostly a new story. its not that hard to do if you have a high school diploma. criticizing a story doesn't mean i don't like it. i enjoy the story enough otherwise i wouldn't have read the second book and wouldn't be reading the third book right now. just because i critique it doesn't mean i dont like it. it just means that i have enough of a critical and unbiased mind that allows me to see things in the cold light of day. every game, movie, tv show, ect. can be criticized even if you love it as a whole.

and on another subject, i'm going to say one thing and not discuss the topic again. when people review or critique a game on how long it is, there is a standard on its length. the length of a game is based on playing it on normal mode, and how long it goes for. a higher difficulty doesn't make the game longer. because no matter how hard the difficulty curve is, if it only has six levels, it only has six levels.

Alex Karls:
You die if you fall too far, but otherwise you're unharmed. This is a fairly obvious concession to gameplay.

As far as falling "too far" and dying, within the confines of the game, "too far" is usually defined as "off a cliff" and yet, in the cutscene, MC survived a fall from the Troposphere, as you say (I still say "space" bowing to the scene as presented in the finale of Halo 2, but whatever). Show me a cliff that's taller than the troposphere and I'll buy your explanation, else wise it's an anachronism. How can you survive a fall from the troposphere, and yet be felled by a measly fall from a cliff? Answer: voodoo. In other words: pulp.

In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Russ Pitts:
In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Careful Russ, that way lies madness. Do this for just one of us, once, and some of us may consider arguing with you about games we haven't played just for the possibility that it earns us a free game...

Where can I get me one of these gel layers?

Geoffrey42:

Russ Pitts:
In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Careful Russ, that way lies madness. Do this for just one of us, once, and some of us may consider arguing with you about games we haven't played just for the possibility that it earns us a free game...

Hmm. Good point. So the rational man, at this point, should probably just walk away. Let's see which way I roll ...

Russ Pitts:
As far as falling "too far" and dying, within the confines of the game, "too far" is usually defined as "off a cliff" and yet, in the cutscene, MC survived a fall from the Troposphere, as you say (I still say "space" bowing to the scene as presented in the finale of Halo 2, but whatever). Show me a cliff that's taller than the troposphere and I'll buy your explanation, else wise it's an anachronism. How can you survive a fall from the troposphere, and yet be felled by a measly fall from a cliff? Answer: voodoo. In other words: pulp.

Hmm...I think you're still rejecting the logic of video games. They simulate reality up to a point. The developers can't let you jump off a cliff because they haven't defined any play space at the bottom of it, and there's a chance that all you could do is revert to your last saved checkpoint. Again, this seems like nothing at all to do with the physics of what sort of fall would actually kill Master Chief.

Russ Pitts:
In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

Played and beaten. My Xbox 360 bricked as soon as I got the game, but the morning after it started working long enough for me to beat the campaign and play a bunch of multiplayer. It bricked again during my 2nd go through to gear up for Legendary and pickup all of the skulls.

Finally, it's always good to know that instead of offering a real counter-argument to backup your statements, you can call me rabid. Thanks. Russ, you definitely sound like a polite forum goer, who said:

Russ Pitts:
I like pulp. I also like Halo 3. And you.

Again, thanks.

Alex Karls:

Russ Pitts:
As far as falling "too far" and dying, within the confines of the game, "too far" is usually defined as "off a cliff" and yet, in the cutscene, MC survived a fall from the Troposphere, as you say (I still say "space" bowing to the scene as presented in the finale of Halo 2, but whatever). Show me a cliff that's taller than the troposphere and I'll buy your explanation, else wise it's an anachronism. How can you survive a fall from the troposphere, and yet be felled by a measly fall from a cliff? Answer: voodoo. In other words: pulp.

Hmm...I think you're still rejecting the logic of video games. They simulate reality up to a point. The developers can't let you jump off a cliff because they haven't defined any play space at the bottom of it, and there's a chance that all you could do is revert to your last saved checkpoint. Again, this seems like nothing at all to do with the physics of what sort of fall would actually kill Master Chief.

Alex, give me a break. We're not talking about reality versus game reality, we're talking about the rules of the gameworld as defined by the game. In the case of Halo3 they give us two sets: 1) rules that apply to the character in cutscenes and 2) rules that apply during play.

I'm not entirely unaware of the process of game design, and the difficulties of designing content to take into account every player action. However, when your character can survive a fall from space in a cutscene and yet take damage and/or die from jumping off a cliff during normal play, you're breaking your own rules, realistic or not.

It's not that I necessarily want to see what's at the bottom of the cliff, or really expect that my character be able to survive a fall from great height, but when "survives re-entry" is advertised _within the first five minutes of the game_ death by falling from a far less significant height afterward feels like a cheap copout.

However, I'm not really finding fault with that, per se, because, as you said, one expects a certain amount of unreality when playing a game. After all, we are talking about a cyborg with a hologram in his head. The reason I brought it up at all was to use as an example of why Halo3 can't in all seriousness be considered "hard" SF, which, I believe, was the matter at hand once upon a time.

The existence of a "gel layer" which can soften blows and increase survivability in various situations is plausible. Such a thing making it possible for a human (augmented or no) to survive a fall from space (outer or inner) is too fantastical to believe, and therefore shunts Halo3 off into pulpville.

As for the rest of your statement, if you'd be so kind as to address the issue at hand rather than continuing to drag all manner of ancillary debate fluff into the conversation then perhaps I'd have reason to believe your intentions were less inflammatory. As it currently stands however, I'm having a hard time taking you or your arguments seriously.

Russ,

In as much as I've posted, there has only ever been one issue at hand. That issue was my criticism of your Bioshock and Halo 3 reviews. From there, you jumped into criticising my terming of Halo 3 as a hard sci-fi storyline. That's the issue that I walked away from. I came back to comment about the falling from space issue because I found, six days later, that you were still hammering on about it. Given what points hadn't been voiced yet, I figured elaborating on them might be of use to the conversation. Apparently I was wrong

As for my own ownership of this mess, in response to two people, I was slightly condescending, which could be rude depending on how you take it. Beyond that, nothing I've said here was inflammatory. That said, I completely understand how tone can be difficult to read and write online, so if anything I said seemed inflammatory, it wasn't intended to be.

Despite the fact that I haven't been rude, I've had to listen to you say that I'm mouthing off, and then that I'm rabid. I can't believe I'm going to sound like a walking cliche by saying this, but there's really no point for me to continue any discussion when this is the way that you respond to a counter-point.

Alex,

You'll note that I haven't had much to say in response to criticism of the review proper. In general, I don't respond to criticism of my work. I prefer my writing to speak for itself. In the rare instances where it doesn't, I'm happy to provide clarification, but if I lapse into self-defense during occasional moments of weakness, feel free to chalk that up as an anomaly and move on.

In any case, I responded to your concerns as far as I was willing, but for some reason we got hung up on whether or not Halo3 is "hard" which, I have to admit, is a far more interesting subject to me than whether or not I'm a shitty reviewer. Perhaps I'm biased.

As far as your tone goes, I was under the impression that we were speaking to each other as good-natured friends and colleagues. If that isn't or wasn't the case, then I suppose I do have to consider your tone to be somewhat over the line, not just to me but to a few others in this thread, and in that case, as a moderator, must ask you to give it a rest.

For my part in creating an atmosphere of ire, I apologize.

Russ Pitts:
Alex, give me a break. We're not talking about reality versus game reality, we're talking about the rules of the gameworld as defined by the game. In the case of Halo3 they give us two sets: 1) rules that apply to the character in cutscenes and 2) rules that apply during play.

I'm not entirely unaware of the process of game design, and the dificulties of designing content to take into account every player action. However, when your character can survive a fall from space in a cutscene and yet take damage and/or die from jumping off a cliff during normal play, you're breaking your own rules, realistic or not.

It's not that I necessarily want to see what's at the bottom of the cliff, or really expect that my character be able to survive a fall from great height, but when "survives re-entry" is advertised _within the first five minutes of the game_ death by falling from a far less significant height afterward feels like a cheap copout.

AERIS DIES.

In other words, since when did games ever have the same rules in the actual game as they do in plot-guided events? Maybe someday there'll be a sci-fi shooting game that lets you get up again after jumping off a cliff. Have a nice time climbing up the mountain again. Until then, one man can take out a horde of zombies, splicers can't use vita chambers, and game developers aren't mean enough to make you live one life per game. Steel Battalion notwithstanding.

However, I'm not really finding fault with that, per se, because, as you said, one expects a certain amount of unreality when playing a game. After all, we are talking about a cyborg with a hologram in his head. The reason I brought it up at all was to use as an example of why Halo3 can't in all seriousness be considered "hard" SF, which, I believe, was the matter at hand once upon a time.

The existence of a "gel layer" which can soften blows and increase survivability in various situations is plausible. Such a thing making it possible for a human (augmented or no) to survive a fall from space (outer or inner) is too fantastical to believe, and therefore shunts Halo3 off into pulpville.

Sure, the soft/hard sci-fi debate was what originally sparked this whole argument about gels and crap. But then there's the fact that you're treating Halo like something with an actual story. The plot ended in Combat Evolved. The other two may as well have been expansions for the multiplayer. Yes, there is a whole load of literature and hidden in-game information. I've even read the four books, bought the graphic novel, and lapped it all up like the obsessive fanboy I may well be. However, when I turned the final page, all I had was a refreshed desire to play Halo again. I didn't enjoy the plot, didn't care about the "fate of the Earth", or feel perturbed by the moral dilema of forcing children through a barbarian training regime for the good of the planet. I just enjoyed experiencing the battles of Halo through another medium. If you rely on all the frilly plot details and paper-thin atmosphere to fuel your enjoyment of something, then I'm wondering what the hell you're doing attacking some addrenaline-fueled action fragathon like Halo for having more holes than the mountain of corpses the Master Chief leaves behind him, when you could be quite easily enjoying an actual book and being excited about a plot.

As for the rest of your statement, if you'd be so kind as to address the issue at hand rather than continuing to drag all manner of ancillary debate fluff into the conversation then perhaps I'd have reason to believe your intentions were less inflammatory. As it currently stands however, I'm having a hard time taking you or your arguments seriously.

Are you actually saying that? With a straight face? Please, please tell me that was irony. I mean, how can it be anything else from the man who gave us such great hits as:

In any case, I'm betting you still haven't played the game yet, which makes your rabid defense of the logic contained therein seem somewhat ... off. I'm willing to buy you a copy if you'll freakin' play it so we can have a reasonable conversation about it.

But like I said, please play it and get back to me so that we can have a reasoned debate.

Sing with me:

Someone
is running his mouth
about a game
he hasn't played.
Yeah!

And:

As for the rest of your statement, if you'd be so kind as to address the issue at hand rather than continuing to drag all manner of ancillary debate fluff into the conversation then perhaps I'd have reason to believe your intentions were less inflammatory. As it currently stands however, I'm having a hard time taking you or your arguments seriously.

Using the fact that someone hasn't played the latest game to completely ignore his points about the plot of a series as a whole is somewhat "inflammatory", wouldn't you say? If his arguments were that flimsy, then it would be no bother at all to disprove them, instead of acting cocky.

Oooh look! Bunnies!