As you can tell from my avatar, I'm a pretty huge Baldur's Gate fan. I consider them to the be pinnacle of storytelling excellence in the medium. However, I would choose BioShock. Granted, it is a retelling of System Shock 2's story and the endings were pretty poor, but the setting is totally original and the story is quite compelling. It even explored themes that would consider to be taboo. I was going to choose Half-Life, but the original Half-Life's story wasn't anything to write home about.
Ebert already retracted his statement of games not being able to adapt as an artform. He was quite fascinated by Shadow of the Colossus, which many would consider to be one the most artistically designed games created from the last decade.
" @EdIsCool: How is it shallow? It is the only FPS that deals with any type of strategy. Just because you get your respective ass kicked at a game online, doesn't mean its shallow. I personally don't have this experience because I'm good at video games. "
the only FPS that deals with strategy....yeah that's one hell of statement I'm not saying Halo dosent involve strategy but that statement is so ridiculous. There are loads of PC games such as Arma which make Halo look like a kiddies paddling pool. These games are nothing like as fun as Halo,but they are infinitely more tactical.Halo's stories are generic hard sf rip offs with some added Larry Niven. Half Life has ideas behind it,System Shock and Bioshock have huge ideas behind them and world and atmosphere quality that Halo games simply don't Halo games dont even try to be honest,so thats generic story and shallow covered. As for formulaic this one is more subjective, it depends on your opinion of the "30 seconds of fun" design philosophy,it was great in Halo:CE but when you repeat it as often as they have this is the fifth game(ODST had minor tweaks) then people like Jeff will say things like "the enemy layouts are very predictable", there is a formula to a Halo firefight which is fun,but its five games in 9 years with little innovation. I like Halo games but I like them as solid shooters, 8/10 buy it and enjoy it. I'm delighted with the bump in graphics quality; a truly next gen halo, 3 was such a shitty looking game. "
You can't really compare Halo's tactical elements to that of Arma. Arma goes for realistic military combat, where as Halo is strictly arcadey. Halo's plot and story is about as derivative as any game cant get. Half-Life's plot premise isn't particular original in any conceivable way. It's basically another retelling of Stephen King's novella Myst, and it burrows heavily from an episode from a sci-fi TV show like the Twilight Zone which title I've forgotten. System Shock narrative wasn't particularly original, but it was a well told and well written story with a memorable villian. However, to say Halo is "uncreative" would be basically dismissing how most modern FPS play today. As Halo pioneered elements that would inspired many modern first-person shooters, such as; regenerating shield/health, two weapon limit, and bludgeoning melee attacks. Halo: CE was very unique and innovative for it's time, and while many have burrowed Halo's elments, few actually copy it's style of play. The only games that play similarly to Halo's gameplay are Crysis, F.E.A.R., and the original Resistance.
There was also Mace Griffon Bounty Hunter, but that game was utterly forgettable.
Anyway, on topic. Congratulations for receiving an early copy of the game. I hope it's not as disappointing as Halo 3's campaign, or as disappointing as Halo 3: ODST. I liked Halo 3: ODST, but it was a cash cow tie in for what is merely a DLC at full price.
" Play Halo 3 and pretend there are new guns in it. There you go, Halo Reach. "
Yes, of course. Because Halo 3 already had armor abilities, health bars, short melee lunges, floaty jumping, space battles, assassinations, Firefight, Forge World, Elitie in multi-player with distinct abilities, sandbox levels and Elites as the main opponent in the campaign... -_-
Log in to comment