Zero Punctuation: Halo 3

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 16 NEXT
 

symphonycometh:
So what? Yahtzee's review kicked aces in so many levels for speaking the truth. Overhype is overhype. Period.

What do you define as overhype? He spoke his opinion. Whether or not it is the truth is another matter.

If I happened to disagree with him on pretty much every point, does that mean I am merely a hype machine, that I cannot have an opinion on my own?

Maybe I am a hype machine. Maybe I loved the game. Maybe I hated it.

Or maybe, Yahtzee's review is bias, and that he's just an entertaining reviewer.

I guess what I'm saying is that I dislike getting into absolutes. I don't believe in them.

.... This isnt getting anywhere. To each his own and leave it at that.

Alex Karls:

symphonycometh:
So what? Yahtzee's review kicked aces in so many levels for speaking the truth. Overhype is overhype. Period.

What do you define as overhype? He spoke his opinion. Whether or not it is the truth is another matter.

If I happened to disagree with him on pretty much every point, does that mean I am merely a hype machine, that I cannot have an opinion on my own?

Maybe I am a hype machine. Maybe I loved the game. Maybe I hated it.

Or maybe, Yahtzee's review is bias, and that he's just an entertaining reviewer.

I guess what I'm saying is that I dislike getting into absolutes. I don't believe in them.

I admit there's a serious bias when someone who hasn't played Halo before enters the game for the first time and doesn't like it.

Well,that's the thing,just when you get one to a point of understanding that it's an opinion piece,as are all reviews,someone else signs up and starts the whole thing over again. And if you don't deal with each one as they come up,you end up with flames.

And Alex,Halo 3 was overhyped. Most games simply don't get that kind of publicity. The real question is,does it live up to the hype? For me,no. There's simply no way it could for me. For you? I dunno. That's something only you can answer. But that Halo 3 was overhyped is fact. It's just a fuckload of hype. And it's everywhere.

While I'm fairly new, I would like to add into this discussion that in terms of Console First-Person Shooters (a distinction that needs to be made for reasons I'll get to later), the shooter element hasn't had a true leader for most of it's history. Previous generations (NES until say Genesis/SNES) were technologically inferior to home computers at that time, so having a First-Person Shooter was destined to be a failing effort. As the consoles bridged the gap, FPS games on consoles became more possible, though many of them were clunky and controls were imprecise. This is where Halo (the original) shined. As a console shooter, the controls in Halo were spot on. This combined with very good weapon balance, made Halo the first console shooter to truly put everything together (with respect to Goldeneye being wonderful, that N64 controller is a bitch to play with). In that respect, Halo pushed the envelope in console FPS games. The second game was quite a bit of the same, except it made use of the Xbox Live system to a degree that ensured it would lead the rest of the generation...which it did.

As for Halo 3, the multiplayer is without fail, the pinnacle of the generation thus far. Forge (while a novelty, and editing objects and spawns is amateurish, is still a first for the series and well done) and Saved Films is sending the multiplayer in a whole new direction. Basically, there are a number of things that the end user can do with those two things to ensure that the game never loses the fun appeal to them. In that respect, it is one of the best games out. It isn't without it's flaws, single player included, but all the same, the entire package needs to be judged, or you've done the idea of reviewing a disservice.

I did find it hilarious that through this thread, there's the one snobby guy saying things about Bioshock (shock horror, it's really good!), all the while throwing insults abound. The utter elitism of it is humorous to me.

If it's all the same, as long as the reviews are funny (which they most certainly are), I couldn't care less whether they bashed a game or praised it. I will say this, to review half a game, while simultaneously panning the part that was reviewed in Halo 3's case, yet to completely ignore the fact that Bioshock was released on the Xbox 360 (with a very large base for multiplayer) yet had no multiplayer offering at all...would you not consider it half a game then? If not, then why overlook that, yet shine a spotlight on Halo 3, even though you willingly ignored the multiplayer? Seems a bit off to me. I never did rely on reviews though, it's a sheep mentality that sees a review and rushes out to buy a game based solely on an arbitrary and completely subjective score.

Merlynn:
And Alex,Halo 3 was overhyped. Most games simply don't get that kind of publicity. The real question is,does it live up to the hype? For me,no. There's simply no way it could for me. For you? I dunno. That's something only you can answer. But that Halo 3 was overhyped is fact. It's just a fuckload of hype. And it's everywhere.

i'm going to have to agree here. i love the halo series, but halo on my burger king cup is sort of a reach.

Actually,it'd be more accurate to say FPS games were pretty much impossible until the 16-bit era (SNES,Turbographix 16,and Genesis),tho attempts at first person gameplay go back at least as early as the Intellivison era (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Treasure of the Minotaur) through the 8-bit era (Phantasy Star 1) and even the Genesis used the same thing for Shining in the Darkness. However,towards the end of the 16-bit era,the SNES got a version of Doom and the Genesis made it's own Doom-clone called Zero Tolerance. ZT was technologically somewhere between Doom and Wolfenstein 3D. While not as cool as Doom,it did have a number of neat features.

At the time of ZT's release,PC FPS games were only slightly better,as they were still in the "Doom-era". They looked nicer,but were the same "2.5D" engines that ran Doom,so the differences were minor at best. Mostly cosmetic with better graphics,sounds,and larger screen size. Once 32-bit gaming hit consoles (PS1),FPS games were easily doable. So it wasn't for a lack of power that FPS games weren't on consoles. They just weren't invented and made popular until near the end of the 16-bit era. Doom was released in 93,ZT was released in 94,the PS1 was launched in 95,and Duke Nukem and Quake were released in 96. With the PS1 on the market,3D games,especially FPS games,were entirely possible on consoles.

So your assertion that consoles lacked the power to play FPS games or keep up with PCs is untrue. Most of the successful PC FPS games saw a port to consoles.

Sure PC games saw a port, but it was a lackluster port, and more often than not, the controls didn't make the journey in one piece. If the whole of the game looks close enough, but the controls are not good, then the game isn't going to live up to the name. Way to ignore the larger point though, which is the original Halo did console shooters justice, Halo 2 did multiplayer on consoles in a revolutionary way with existing services, and Halo 3 built on all that success by additions to the multiplayer field. Each one has built on the last one.

The guy in here who keeps pushing Bioshock willingly allowed it to pass based on his arbitrary designations about its story and scale, but was not able to see that by not including the multiplayer options of Halo 3, he's completely missed the point of the game.

Merlynn:
I am the source of the math. I took a basic number,3 million copies sold,took into account hardcore,casual,and fan boys playing Halo,the fact it was just released and so a lot of people are playing it like mad,and then made an educated guess which should be obvious to anyone who bothered to read my post. I'm saying that 1 million players on-line playing Halo 3 wouldn't be too far from believable. In other words,it's plausible,but I can't prove or disprove it.

So unless you want to come up with something to disprove it,like logging into Xbox Live with Halo 3 and seeing how many are on playing it,don't just dismiss the fact it *could* be happening. Doing things like that makes you blind to possibilities and once you've done that,you've locked into a mindset and nothing short of being tortured will get you out of it.

The fact remains,1 million people playing Halo 3 is hardly impossible. But we're only dealing in possibility cause none of us have a means to check. And the one guy who does in this little mess seems intent to stand by the "1 million people on playing it" statement.

True, while in multiplayer, it can tell you how many people or in the same mode as you (Social Slayer, Rumble pit, ect) it only tells you how many are on that mode at that time, and the highest number ive ever seen is around the 50-60'000 mark, which is surprising cause Im in the UK, and I go on late at night around what would probably be the peak time for america...

You're my hero...

That was awesome.

Alex Karls:

symphonycometh:
So what? Yahtzee's review kicked aces in so many levels for speaking the truth. Overhype is overhype. Period.

What do you define as overhype? He spoke his opinion. Whether or not it is the truth is another matter.

If I happened to disagree with him on pretty much every point, does that mean I am merely a hype machine, that I cannot have an opinion on my own?

Maybe I am a hype machine. Maybe I loved the game. Maybe I hated it.

Or maybe, Yahtzee's review is bias, and that he's just an entertaining reviewer.

I guess what I'm saying is that I dislike getting into absolutes. I don't believe in

them.

I define overhype as a game that IS okay or good at best...but reveives much more praise than a game that actually put forth an effort to be different, has a decent multiplayer or not, SWEET storyline, awesome music...downplayed why? Because a game (Halo) that does okay and great in ONE of these fields is telling everyone:
"Why put forth the effort if we can just do another Halo?" Killzone 2 will do this as well I'm sure.

His review isn't bias, its open. A GAME can't get a perfect score if it's NOT perfect. If you need an excuse, it's NOT perfect. I don't know too many other ways to explain that for you...let's just hope Yahtzee was wrong about games in the future being all similar because of the success of...a overhpyed OKAY game. See?

Halo did NOTHING extremely new to the table and Shadows of the Collossus and the likes that tried and succeeded in doing something new...never will see the type of hype Halo 3 got.

Good job gamers. That's why we have so many dang similar games now this gen!

MattDark:

True, while in multiplayer, it can tell you how many people or in the same mode as you (Social Slayer, Rumble pit, ect) it only tells you how many are on that mode at that time, and the highest number ive ever seen is around the 50-60'000 mark, which is surprising cause Im in the UK, and I go on late at night around what would probably be the peak time for america...

You're looking at the wrong screen. It tells you the total too. The other day there WAS 960,000,000 people on, but ive never seen it hit a million.

Edit: 960,000 not 960,000,000 sorry

So great I literaly fell of my chair laughing! Great work keep em coming!
If possible I'd like to see Team Fortress 2 or Half life 2 Portal this week

Well,you don't correct what isn't incorrect,now do you? Ever occur to you that maybe I didn't comment on it because I had nothing to add? But since you seem to want a comment,here's one. Halo might be an improvement to CONSOLE FPS games but it still doesn't stack up to it's PC counterparts. I'll gladly take the multiplayer on Unreal Tournament 1,a game that's,what,8 years old by now,over Halo 3. Also,the single player game is very weak and Bioshock does outshine it there. Just like Bioshock doesn't stand a chance against Halo 3 in multiplayer simply because it doesn't have that option. And,frankly,Yahtzee flat out said he didn't give a shit about multiplayer so he didn't review that part of the game,huge though it is. Which,while not the most fair or through review one can give,is very much honest. Now,if he'd said he had reviewed the multiplayer when he hadn't,that I could see complaining about. But the fact is,you're just going to have to get your multiplayer review somewhere else. And having a weak single player game does mean that Halo 3 is not perfect.

To add to symphony's definition,I define overhype 2 ways. 1. When a game gets more hype than it really deserves. 2. And this is the different one,when a game recieves so much hype it becomes annoying. Much like Yahtzee claimed to feel in the Bioshock review. It just comes to a point where it's all you're hearing about and that's when you just start to become bias against it because they keep going on about how great it is even though you've already expressed as much interest as you're going to in a game. Halo 3 hit the second definition for me.

And I think Easy added a few extra zeros there,but frankly,960,000 is pretty much close to a million to the point where you could only say it wasn't if you're being nitpicky. And I did say 500,000 was a more realistic number for a 24 hour average,so,yeah.

I definitely don't disagree that Halo 3 was overhyped. In terms of what it can do, I wonder whether or not Halo 3 would've sold as well if it weren't overhyped. However, that's one of the only useful questions I can think of when it comes to saying something's overhyped. Beyond that, it offers very little useful critical information, if any.

If you're saying that a game is a bad game because it has been overhyped, you're just saying that it's too popular for your tastes, too advertised. If we're going to criticize it, wouldn't it be better to stick to what we can really criticize about the game? And another reason I dislike hype is because of how it affects gaming journalism. If we're getting a fair shake from the reviewers, then hype shouldn't affect their reviews too much...which doesn't always happen.

Completely disregarding EVERYTHING Yahtzee said because he hasnt played the other 2 halos is moronic. This being true for 2 reasons-

1. In my opinion, the Halo series never was and never will be a FPS heavily dependent on its story, as you may find Bioshock to be. Saying its not "heavily dependent" is in itself a stretch, because the story is completely average, unoriginal, and poorly executed. Halo is about running and gunning, and so not having played the previous 2 halos, in my opinion, has NO affect on wether or not you can produce a good review of the halo 3 campaign.

2. The other 2 halos where on xbox, and so, not many people played them. I cant say that as fact, but I belive it to be true. With that mindset, you can safely say that, being the first halo on 360, Halo 3 was going to have a large supply of people who had NEVER played Halo before. Heck, I never played Halo 1, and I played Halo 2 once. That doesnt change the fact that I had fun playing the campaign in Halo 3, and being able to have fun DOES allow me to review it without people completely disregarding my review solely because I didnt play Halo 1.

And thats that. My 2 cents. Fantastic review Yahtzee, I agree with every word.

Well,it's Halo 3. It would've gotten tons of sales just having Master Chief on the cover. As much as I bash the game,the fact is it's the best multiplayer FPS on consoles,so that fact alone is going to pump up sales to ungodly amounts. I'm not saying the game shouldn't have been advertised,but when it's getting perfects scores and called "teh best game evar!" when it's obvious to anyone "teh best game evar!" is a matter of opinion and not fact,the whole thing starts coming over as a lot more phoney. Saying it's the best multiplayer FPS on the current generation of consoles is a much more reasonable claim and a lot harder to argue against.

And no,overhyping doesn't make a game bad. However,it does set it up to be disappointing and make people judge it unfairly. This is for 2 reasons. 1. The best games history are that way because they had innovation,good coding,clarity of purpose,and excellent execution on their side. And even then,they weren't perfect either. So when you come up and say this game is "teh best game evar!" it's immediately compared to the best that went before it. Needless to say,this puts it up against very stiff competition right out the gate. It becomes difficult to judge the game on it's own qualities because it has to measure up to the best games ever made.

2. The more you tell people something,the less they believe it. When practically everyone you can think of,in this case,reviewers who got advance copies of Halo 3,uniformly tell you something is better than sex,you generally start to wonder if they've been paid off or something's in the water. It just gets to the point of being "too good to be true" and it becomes hard to believe. It gets to where people start to want to hear something bad about the game just to know they aren't alone in their opinion the game didn't just fall out of god's ass. Noone here believes Halo 3 is a bad game,they just think it's undeserving of the high scores it got and endless praise it sees.

So in the end,it's nice to hear an unfavorable opinion every so often simply because it's something different from the usual "This game is awesome! Buy this game now!" line you get with big name title releases. But when everything's said and done,what games I buy are not going to be influenced by Yahtzee and what he has to say,nor any other reviewer. I'm going to buy what I want to buy. However,I'm still going to watch ZP,I'm still going to want a "bother this nonsense" t-shirt,and I'm still going to think Yahtzee is at least correct in stating his own opinion.

I actually do kind of have to agree that in terms of skill-based shooting games on consoles, Halo 3 is right up in, at the very least, the top 3.
But thankfully it seems everyone agrees here that, no matter how great the game was, it WAS overhyped. For the record I kinda agree with Merlynn on the definition. The "until it's annoying" part is true, but only because at that point living up to the hype would mean the game is PERFECT. Which it's not. (so save those 10/10's, you idiots!)

Also; thanks for clarifying that player statistic. I kinda had doubts but thought it could be possible, and just wanted you to have something to back it up.

You know what I find weird, specifically with the marketing campaign. That Mountain Dew, which primarily, at least over the last couple years, has focused its marketing on the Extreme Sports crowd, suddenly decided to target us sedentary couch jockeys. When did video games become an extreme sport?

Well, I guess if you were doing a death match at the edge of a volcano and every time you got powned you were lowered another meter into the fiery pit below... that would be extreme.

Anyone else up for a volcano death match?

My side note for the day:

10/10 should not be reserved for perfect games. There's no such thing. 10/10 should be reserved for games that are just really really good, because if you want to hold back for a perfect game, you'll never get it. That's also why I believe in not using a 10/10 scale, because I rarely see games get lower than a 5. To me, that's another way of saying that a scoring system is broken.

And yes, I'd probably give Halo 3 a 10/10, perhaps a 9/10.

An 8.5 right along side MP3, Shadows of the Colossus, Heavenly Sword, and the rest of the crew.

I gurantee this:

Hype free= Halo 3, 8.5 with no fear of backlash. Yahtzee is the only one with guts...apparently.

@Alex Karls:

Did you ever get the feeling that great...no...grand games are marked down too much for the smallest thing recently just so Halo 3 would appear a bit shinier than its competition?

symphonycometh:
Did you ever get the feeling that great...no...grand games are marked down too much for the smallest thing recently just so Halo 3 would appear a bit shinier than its competition?

No, I don't get that feeling. While I do think that game reviewers frequently fail in their duties to properly rate a game, I don't think that they do it to boost other games.

Although I'm sure in some cases I am wrong, as we do hear the occasional story about journalistic impropriety in gaming journalism mags.

This is my first time in here at The Escapist.

I saw Yatzee's review and I fell of my chair because I was laughing so hard.

As a 14 year old and long time PC gamer, I never got this Halo game. All my friends were telling me that the game is the shit, but the when I played it on my PC, I just saw the game like an average shooter.

What I mean is that I saw nothing revolutionary for Halo on the PC, of course the game revolutionized the CONSOLE shooters, but it wasn't the big thing for the PC gamers, we said things to Halo like "Been there, done that".

So I agree with Yatzee's review, a game that is supposed to be perfect wouldn't need anything to excuse it, so in this situation, Halo 3 was excused by its multiplayer because the SP part was short.

He's the only person I've seen who has the balls to express Halo's weak points, and without throwing perfect scores at it just because it's Halo.

(Going off topic)

I saw some posts that this review made it to Metacritic, if it is true, then can someone give me a link to it?

jt2002tj:
i'm going to have to agree here. i love the halo series, but halo on my burger king cup is sort of a reach.

Except when said cup falls over. When that happens, it becomes the "Fall of Reach".

symphonycometh:
An 8.5 right along side MP3, Shadows of the Colossus, Heavenly Sword, and the rest of the crew.

I gurantee this:

Hype free= Halo 3, 8.5 with no fear of backlash. Yahtzee is the only one with guts...apparently.

@Alex Karls:

Did you ever get the feeling that great...no...grand games are marked down too much for the smallest thing recently just so Halo 3 would appear a bit shinier than its competition?

Shadow of the Colossus getting an 8.5- The biggest gaming travesty ever. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Just thought I should throw this out there.

First of all, many of you are complaining that the review is biased because he failed to play the other games. I find that while this argument may have some grounds for basis, it's not entirely true. One does not need to play the original Half-Life to understand the brilliance of Half-Life 2. Not understanding the original story does not affect how the current story is told or presented.

Likewise, it's not as if Halo was only about the story. Even with a story, a video game should still be primarily judged upon the gameplay. In the case of this review, it's clear that Yahtzee was not overly impressed with the overall gameplay of the singleplayer. While some of you may disagree with this viewpoint, it's also a viewpoint shared by numerous FPS veterans.

Finally, many of you complained about a lack of review of the multiplayer. Of course, this is a perfectly legitimate complaint. Not reviewing such a large portion of a video game doesn't give you any sort of position to make a judgment of the overall game. However, whatever you do play does give you the position to make a judgment of that certain part of the game. This is why I feel that this "review" should almost be taken as simply a review of the singleplayer.

In the end, Yahtzee illustrated several key points that many others have been bringing up long before him. If a large portion of a game's is indeed half-decent (this case being Halo 3's singleplayer), you can't really give the entire game a perfect score, as many other reviewers were doing, no matter how good the rest of the game is. While Yahtzee certainly presented his points in a manner that seems that he was making broad, sweeping statements of the game, I feel that if you look at the review simply as a single-player review, he was spot on in many aspects.

Hopefully, Yahtzee will take the time in his future reviews to fix the little problem of reviewing the game as a whole when only playing a certain portion of it.

Oh, so funny. I think everyone else has said enough.

I find that there are Halo fans, people who find it okay and people who have no idea what the big deal is about. I hink that to truly like Halo 3, you need to be in the first category an that really only comes with having played the first two games.
Halo 1's story was actually good and interesting, while Halo 2 and 3s were okay- however the Halo 3 storyline is not uncomprehensible if you had played the 1st two games as Yahtzee hadn't. Furthermore Halo 3, while probably not perfect, is certainly a lot more than run of the mill for the simple reason that sometimes i have noticed 1 000 000 people playing it at one time.
Halo 3 was overhyped but it's still a great game
I respect the opinions of those who don't like Halo 3, but i fail to respect it when they pass judgement on a storyline that required the previous two installments to understand (take the 3rd LOTR movie, who here thought they could've understood it if they hadn't seen the previous two movies?), and they completly dismiss the opinions of up to a million people who play it.

I just noticed Yahztee's sword (you can see it when he's talking about not giving a shit about multiplayer) is a Sword of Darkness 2. ( http://www.swordsdirect.com/sword_of_darkness.html ) This sword was also Moltar's "knife" in the Space Ghost Coast to Coast episode "Knifin' Around". I also happen to have one. :p

this is epic almost 300 post WOW~!

Mursam:
I find that there are Halo fans, people who find it okay and people who have no idea what the big deal is about. I hink that to truly like Halo 3, you need to be in the first category an that really only comes with having played the first two games.
Halo 1's story was actually good and interesting, while Halo 2 and 3s were okay- however the Halo 3 storyline is not uncomprehensible if you had played the 1st two games as Yahtzee hadn't. Furthermore Halo 3, while probably not perfect, is certainly a lot more than run of the mill for the simple reason that sometimes i have noticed 1 000 000 people playing it at one time.
Halo 3 was overhyped but it's still a great game
I respect the opinions of those who don't like Halo 3, but i fail to respect it when they pass judgement on a storyline that required the previous two installments to understand (take the 3rd LOTR movie, who here thought they could've understood it if they hadn't seen the previous two movies?), and they completly dismiss the opinions of up to a million people who play it.

This works until a game with a better story/multi-player gets a lower score...because it's not Halo.

Sorry, but Shadows of the Colossus deserved at least a 9.6 . It was being 100% original, GREAT music, touching storyline (Without much talking.), and the gameplay was literally epic....

And here comes the 8.5 solely because it wasn't Halo hyped. Sorry. Unsold.

Reviewers got scared of backlash, obviously, and only Yahtzee has guts, apparently.

@Yahtzee:

Screw the narrow minded that attack you. I laughed when you were doing the Heavenly Sword demo (Which I have the actual game) with no offense, I don't see why the overhype has to blind so many people.

I don't consider myself blinded. I LIKED the game so if people are giving it high ratings I prefer to think that they think like I do instead of them just taking the path of least resistance, which will ultimately be worse for their career than telling the truth anyways.

Katana314:

Alex Karls:

symphonycometh:
So what? Yahtzee's review kicked aces in so many levels for speaking the truth. Overhype is overhype. Period.

What do you define as overhype? He spoke his opinion. Whether or not it is the truth is another matter.

If I happened to disagree with him on pretty much every point, does that mean I am merely a hype machine, that I cannot have an opinion on my own?

Maybe I am a hype machine. Maybe I loved the game. Maybe I hated it.

Or maybe, Yahtzee's review is bias, and that he's just an entertaining reviewer.

I guess what I'm saying is that I dislike getting into absolutes. I don't believe in them.

I admit there's a serious bias when someone who hasn't played Halo before enters the game for the first time and doesn't like it.

Next you'll say a bad game is a good game because the first 2 were "ok"..... Halo is overhyped and as far as overall quality goes it goes down a point per release making 3 at the least no better than 2,the trouble with the bloat machine is that it tends to sque ratings for better games and sque ratings for "ok" games that got overhyped like Bioshock.

I love the rantings system it turns 6's and 7's into 9's and 10's and any real 9+ game to come along they just do not understand it and lower its score...

I dont own Bioshock. I played the demo and I played for like 15 minutes at a friend's house but it didnt really strike me as gods gift to gaming either. The story was cool but the fighting was kinda repetitive, it seems its impossible to die, and if Yahtzee's review of it is accurate then it isn't really original either because it rips System Shock off. It had faults, and in my opinion it was over-hyped. Halo 3 has some faults but its still a great game, just like Bioshock. So don't say Bioshock is a better game, just that you like it better.

I'm one of the few americans who hasn't bought this poor excuse for a game.

Thank you for the laugh.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here