Something went wrong. Try again later

Video_Game_King

So is my status going to update soon, or will it pretend that my Twitter account hasn't existed for about a month?

36563 59080 823 928
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Anyone else think game critics are playing a big prank on gamers?

               (Or are they really deluded enough to think these two games are decent?) The games I speak of, of course, are Halo 3 and The Ooze. Yes, both these games are hideously overrated. Now I know what many of you are thinking: of me dying a horrible death for insulting your messiah. Just remember that I didn't start the Flame War. And in an attempt to keep the hatred to a minimum, I'll start with The Ooze and end with Halo 3. So as I alluded to in the last sentence, The Ooze. It was a Genesis game released when the system was pretty much dead, so don't expect major quality. Anyway, there was a story here, but I decided to make up my own: you play as Fred Fredburger (oozified, of course (at 1:39)), who....eh, the story they provided was better than the one I'm trying to come up with. As I said before, you play as a pile of ooze, and you have several ways to attack your enemies. You can shoot ooze balls at your enemies, strike them with your oozy appendages, or collect an instant death poison power up. Speaking of power ups, there are only a few I found: aside from the poison thing, there's super speed, DNA for the "good" ending (more on that later), and extra ooze. Ooze acts as your health and form of attack, and it's really fun to roam around levels as a huge nuclear mess.
               Wait, "roam around levels"....isn't that where the big flaw comes in? Exactly. What could've been a good game was ruined by awful level design. Most of your time will be spent looking for switches to activate or random holes in the architecture that lead somewhere. Some of these switches and holes are hidden out of vision with no hints as to their existence! Who designed these levels, sadists with an unusually random train of thought? Naturally, this means the game is hard. You'll spend a lot of time on this game, just figuring out where the hell you're supposed to go. So you'd think that this would make for a decent ending, right? Well, The Ooze suffers from Ghosts 'n Goblins Syndrome, throwing a crap ending at you for 100%ing it.
               While I'm bashing the game, I might as well bring up exploding enemies. Aside from collecting goo orbs, you also collect extra ooze by beating enemeis. However, kinda late in the game, you encounter exploding enemies. "No problem, right? I'll just collect a large amount of ooze, stay at a distance, and attack them with my oozy appendages." Not gonna work, Mr. Optimistic. Some of these enemies are actually dragged into you as soon as you beat them. And they explode within an inch of your life (literally). The only way to avoid this is to shoot your goo at them, which again, uses up health. Either way, you're gonna lose health.
               It's a shame that The Ooze sucks so hard, because there were some good ideas behind it. After all, who doesn't want to control a poisonous puddle of muck, destroying everything in that dares cross their path? And the idea itself is well executed, as I mentioned earlier. Graphics are decent, and the music pushes the limits of the system, so you'd think the game would be great, right? Too bad crap level design ruined the whole thing. So I give it the Chakan Award for Bad Genesis Level Design.

               *sigh* Well, it had to come to this eventually, didn't it? Gonna review Halo 3. I know a lot of you are going to bash my head in like a furious Sonic, but I'm going to state my opinion anyway! But first, a bit of useless backstory. On my experiences, obviously. Through a series of tough negotiations, I was allowed to borrow one Xbox 360 game from somebody. I chose Halo 3 just to see what the fuck everybody loved about it. Before I played the game, I found a poster in the box unclaimed. Why do I say this? Well, I already had a Halo 3 poster. Being the massive idiot I am, I now have two Halo 3 posters adorning my walls.
               However, none of this answered my original question: what's so great about Halo 3? After playing it for a few days (ooh, short game, not getting off to a good start), I can safely say that I still don't know what people love about it so much. I must admit that I didn't play the two previous Halo games, but why should I?; a truly great game doesn't have to use other games as a crutch. Given the previous, I had no idea what was going on storywise. Apparently, some purple chick was stolen, and bad aliens are trying to do something with their god that involves proposal rings of death. So some good aliens (who rebelled against the bad aliens) team up with you to win back th-I CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE OF THIS!!! I seriously had no idea what was going on throughout the entire game, and although stories don't always hold back a game, it really helps to know what the hell you're doing.
               Whatever, I didn't understand the story, let's move onto something else. How about the mandatory gameplay explanation? Well, this is a first person shooter, and you get a variety of weapons, ranging from swords and hammers to rifles and grenade launchers. Too bad you can only carry two at a time. Why is there this asinine weapon limit on the player? To make it feel more realistic? First off.....no. Real soldiers are trained to carry pounds upon pounds of heavy equipment daily; I think Master Chief can live with another weapon. Second, why realism? Realism isn't always good. And this wouldn't be so bad if all your weapons could pick up and restock on ammo, but no, only a select few can. So you're forced to scavenge weapons on the fly, a strategy which usually gives you a shit weapon. I fail to see the appeal in this, one of the series' hallmark concepts.
               The other hallmark of the series? The cover system. Rather than a simple HP system that would encourage conservation, strategy, and not running in like Rambo, you get regenerating health. If you're low on health, don't worry; just find something to hide behind, and you'll get it back. It doesn't even have to be decent cover, since enemies suddenly forget of your existence if you happen to hide behind a nearby pebble. It removes all strategy from battle, all of them devolving into one common tactic: pump the aliens full of lead until they're completely magnetic, hiding behind anything if you lose enough health. However, unlike the limited inventory, I can see how this might have worked. If Bungie decided to make a Vietnam based shooter, where the atmosphere and scenarios would have encouraged active cover and plodding combat, then I (and gamers worldwide) would most likely enjoy it more. After all, how many Vietnam based shooters have you played? Exactly. But instead, Bungie wanted to have their cake and eat it, too (original meaning heauh), by making it a crappy action-oriented FPS.
               Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. The graphics are OK. At times, it looks a bit like Ninja Gaiden II, and I thought that game had decent graphics...most of the time. Howevecr, Halo 3 has some sort of lighting problem; the game constantly osscilates between "surface of the sun" and "dear God, I'm blind." I tried turning up the

Where I would rank this game.
Where I would rank this game.
brightn ess both on my television and the game itself, yet neither fixed the problem. Maybe there should've been a feature to bring down the contrast, maybe? Aw, who the hell am I kidding, nothing could make this game better. I tried listening to music from good games while playing it, thinking that would make the game better, but like Duke Nukem 64, it fixed nothing. The deployable cover system remained useless; the final boss was still piss easy; the combat was still mindless and patronizing; and the story was still more confusing than the damn Voynich manuscript.
               Seriously, what has happened to gaming that this is considered good? This game is not good at all. I'd say this is what happens when you apply film philosophies to the video game medium, but that would sound pretentious. Besides, Final Fantasy XII displays that with far more gusto than Halo 3 ever could. No, wait, I will say that is what happens when you do what I just said. The story is up its own ass far enough, and the music is the passive ambiance crap you see (OK, hear) in big name movies. Why do you think I listened to all that music? I came into this game expecting a fantastic adventure, but I wouldn't rank this in my top 10 games of all time. I wouldn't even put it in my top 20. I don't know where I'd put it, but it definitely goes below my crap threshold (the point where games stop being good and start sucking). So I give this game the Kefka was Onto Something Award for Destruction of Humanity, and await your inevitable complaints, whether they're directed at my actual opinion, or towards the length of this blog. And of course, there are alternatives...

  

(Oh, that reminds me of a few things I forgot, like how the vehicles control like crap, or how your allies can't be trusted with 4th grade safety scissors. Just had to put that in here.)
289 Comments

289 Comments

Avatar image for crunchuk
crunchUK

6052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By crunchUK

I never found out how halo 3 is overrated. I Guess thats why it's top xbox live title for almost 2 years running with 1 billion games played (more than halo 2 managed in 5 years), 20+ million items of DLC downloaded, the MLG flagship game with prize money enough in tournaments to buy houses and ferraris, etc. Oh wait.... YEah..... i think it's you

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
HandsomeDead said:
"I'm not reading a word of the poorly formatted OP but it all comes down to opinion and just because you don't share it, it doesn't mean you're getting trolled."
Care to explain that one? (Not a lack of understanding on the concept, just poor wording.)

crunchUK said:
"I never found out how halo 3 is overrated. I Guess thats why it's top xbox live title for almost 2 years running with 1 billion games played (more than halo 2 managed in 5 years), 20+ million items of DLC downloaded, the MLG flagship game with prize money enough in tournaments to buy houses and ferraris, etc. Oh wait.... YEah..... i think it's you"
Keep in mind those are all statistics outside the game's quality. What if I said Drake of the 99 Dragons was an award winning game that has stayed in the hearts and minds of gamers for years, and has been mentioned time and time again by respectable critics like X-Play or GameSpot? Does that change the fact that the game is crap? And can you justify your opinion with material from the game? You know, not stuff that came after it?

Avatar image for thekidnixon
TheKidNixon

1619

Forum Posts

2182

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Edited By TheKidNixon
Video_Game_King said:
"Psych0Penguin said:
" " Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. " - I LOL'd! 
Anyway its just their opinions and this is just yours neither is fact - not a massive fan of Halo 3 myself but I can see why people enjoy playing it, its just I suck at it and I don't enjoy it - basically reviewers are people too and reviews are just opinions that also inform. 
"
But part of being a reviewer is objectivity; if a lot of reviewers think a game is 9.4, it better be 9.4. I've played previous games where I didn't like them, but could see the appeal (original Resident Evil, the entire Earthbound series, etc.); I felt nothing with this game."
See, I was going to remain a silent observer of the mass chaos that was this thread (though I am curious how the Ooze fits into everything, but that's neither here not there) but I have to respond to this.

Objective reviews are a myth. Reviews are fundamentally the written opinion of a reviewer on the quality of a game and the experience they had playing it. There is no game out there that deserves a particular score, be it a 10, a B, or a collection of pineapples. To try to break the quality of a game and the experience of playing a game into some sort of objective, scientific mathematical equation is a frustrating prospect. And this isn't just for games: there is no such thing as the "best" movie, TV show, pizza, hammock or sexual partner on a definable, universal level. Personal opinion and perspective plays too much of a role in this to say if anything is THE best, period.

I enjoy the Halo series. I enjoy it because from moment to moment, the combat encounters that I have excite me and give me an enjoyable play experience. I enjoy the weapons, the vehicles, the graphical style. I think that the limitation of two weapons allows you to have to make by and improvise with what you have and what your enemies drop, and its not like the game isn't somewhat generous with ammo unless you want some high-end specialty weapon anyway. I enjoy the tight, controlled experience that Bungie offers and the sense of scale that the games create.

But none of those OPINIONS of mine are objective FACT. You don't like Halo. That's fine. There are design choices in the game that limit your enjoyment, which you've well documented. You can even say Halo is a shitty game. Go right ahead. Say it. (Even though you already have.) But to say that there is some way that you can approach that opinion as more than just your personal experience is seriously misguided. Again, disagree with critics and gamers who like Halo, and even enter into lively debate, but telling them their play experiences are objectively incorrect is ignorant and elitist.
Avatar image for crunchuk
crunchUK

6052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By crunchUK
Video_Game_King said:
"HandsomeDead said:
"I'm not reading a word of the poorly formatted OP but it all comes down to opinion and just because you don't share it, it doesn't mean you're getting trolled."
Care to explain that one? (Not a lack of understanding on the concept, just poor wording.)

crunchUK said:
"I never found out how halo 3 is overrated. I Guess thats why it's top xbox live title for almost 2 years running with 1 billion games played (more than halo 2 managed in 5 years), 20+ million items of DLC downloaded, the MLG flagship game with prize money enough in tournaments to buy houses and ferraris, etc. Oh wait.... YEah..... i think it's you"
Keep in mind those are all statistics outside the game's quality. What if I said Drake of the 99 Dragons was an award winning game that has stayed in the hearts and minds of gamers for years, and has been mentioned time and time again by respectable critics like X-Play or GameSpot? Does that change the fact that the game is crap? And can you justify your opinion with material from the game? You know, not stuff that came after it?"
The fact that all that stuff came after it is testament to how great it is - whether you like it or not
Avatar image for toowalrus
toowalrus

13408

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By toowalrus

Yeah, I was going to do a big bullet point post about the OP's analysis, but it's really not necessary. I see why people don't like the Halo games, but his reasons for hating it are pretty dumb. He doesn't like the fact they you can't drink potions or collect gold coins for health. He doesn't say that it's got a bad story, he just said he doesn't get it, because he didn't play the first two. Seeing as the slogan for Halo 3 has been "Finish the Fight" all along, bashing it because you don't understand is pretty pointless. He also doesn't like the fact that the Cheif can't keep a rocket launcher shoved down his pants at all times. So whatever.

Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"Psych0Penguin said:
" " Wait, I can hear it now. "Vincent, you can't call Halo 3 crap!" Yes, I can. Shut up. "But there have to be some good things about it, like the graphics." No, and I told you to shut up. " - I LOL'd! 
Anyway its just their opinions and this is just yours neither is fact - not a massive fan of Halo 3 myself but I can see why people enjoy playing it, its just I suck at it and I don't enjoy it - basically reviewers are people too and reviews are just opinions that also inform. 
"
But part of being a reviewer is objectivity; if a lot of reviewers think a game is 9.4, it better be 9.4. I've played previous games where I didn't like them, but could see the appeal (original Resident Evil, the entire Earthbound series, etc.); I felt nothing with this game."
opinions ftl"
Care to expand, or are you going to leave it at that?"
What is there to expand on? It's an opinion clearly.
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
TheKidNixon said:
See, I was going to remain a silent observer of the mass chaos that was this thread (though I am curious how the Ooze fits into everything, but that's neither here not there) but I have to respond to this.Objective reviews are a myth. Reviews are fundamentally the written opinion of a reviewer on the quality of a game and the experience they had playing it. There is no game out there that deserves a particular score, be it a 10, a B, or a collection of pineapples. To try to break the quality of a game and the experience of playing a game into some sort of objective, scientific mathematical equation is a frustrating prospect. And this isn't just for games: there is no such thing as the "best" movie, TV show, pizza, hammock or sexual partner on a definable, universal level. Personal opinion and perspective plays too much of a role in this to say if anything is THE best, period. I enjoy the Halo series. I enjoy it because from moment to moment, the combat encounters that I have excite me and give me an enjoyable play experience. I enjoy the weapons, the vehicles, the graphical style. I think that the limitation of two weapons allows you to have to make by and improvise with what you have and what your enemies drop, and its not like the game isn't somewhat generous with ammo unless you want some high-end specialty weapon anyway. I enjoy the tight, controlled experience that Bungie offers and the sense of scale that the games create.But none of those OPINIONS of mine are objective FACT. You don't like Halo. That's fine. There are design choices in the game that limit your enjoyment, which you've well documented. You can even say Halo is a shitty game. Go right ahead. Say it. (Even though you already have.) But to say that there is some way that you can approach that opinion as more than just your personal experience is seriously misguided. Again, disagree with critics and gamers who like Halo, and even enter into lively debate, but telling them their play experiences are objectively incorrect is ignorant and elitist."
Since many people haven't played The Ooze, they've chosen to ignore it. And although I'm not going to read that :P, I will say that you have justified your opinion well. Sure, reviews can never be truly objective, but the goal is to get as close to it as possible. Try to eliminate all prejudices you've had before or any expectations, blah blah blah.
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
TooWalrus said:
"Yeah, I was going to do a big bullet point post about the OP's analysis, but it's really not necessary. I see why people don't like the Halo games, but his reasons for hating it are pretty dumb. He doesn't like the fact they you can't drink potions or collect gold coins for health. He doesn't say that it's got a bad story, he just said he doesn't get it, because he didn't play the first two. Seeing as the slogan for Halo 3 has been "Finish the Fight" all along, bashing it because you don't understand is pretty pointless. He also doesn't like the fact that the Cheif can't keep a rocket launcher shoved down his pants at all times. So whatever."
No, I don't like how every time you're damaged, you have to run behind a nearby tree and wait for your wounds to heal. Imagine if in Dragon Warrior, you didn't have any healing spells. Instead, you just had to wait for your HP to heal. That'd remove quite a bit of strategy, wouldn't it? And why does a super-powered soldier from the future have to hide from the enemies to recover his HP? What happened to the days where if you were low on HP, you started playing more strategically? And the atmosphere doesn't exactly permit the health system at hand. And again, games should not rely on other games to be good. I didn't see any Indy movies aside from Crystal Skull, but I understood the story of Lego Indy...kinda. And you know why I don't like limited inventory? The limited part. People have complained about limited inventory in Resident Evil for years (and for good reason), but it's good in this game? What exactly was changed to make it better? The lack of pre-rendered environments?
Avatar image for tbone81889
tbone81889

177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By tbone81889

My first complaint with your blog is that you never go back to the topic of the title.  Your title is  "Anyone else think game critics are playing a big prank on gamers? " which leads readers to think that you are going to talk about how some critics are pressured into giving good scores to games that does not deserve them for money (i.e. the main cause for this sites existence), yet you never even touch that subject.  Instead you talked about how you believe Halo 3 and The Ooze are overrated which are two completely different topics.  You should've just made the title.  "Halo  and The Ooze are hideously overrated."

My second complaint is that you say these games are overrated be expressing it as a fact.  It's just your opinion and should be stated as such.  If you believe I'm wrong and your opinion is a fact then how can you prove it?  You can't.  No one can.  But I can prove that Halo 3 is loved and played by many which can attest to how much fun the game is.  Essentially thats what it is all about.  It is about having fun and Halo 3 delivers on it for most people.
1) Has a huge community that is supported by the developers.  (bungie)
2) All three games are the best-selling games for their respective system.  (wiki)
3) Halo 3 is the most played game over xbox live for the past two years.  (2008)(2007) 
4) Loved by the majority of critics (metacritic)

My third complaint is that Halo is not realistic and it is not trying to be.  The only reason why you can hold two weapons is for balance.  Thats it.  It is a multiplayer game after all.  Besides your arguement about how soldiers are trained to carry X amount of weight.  Well Master Chief is wearing armor thats suppose to be freaking heavy.  No real soldier can withstand that amount of weight. 

My fourth and final complaint is that you complain about there not being a cover system.  Halo is a first person shooter.  I have never seen a first person shooter with a cover system.  If you want a cover system play a game such Rainbow Six or GRAW.  Also, you better be complaining about Call of Duty, because that game is the same way.

Now I have never played the Ooze so I am not even going touch on that game.

In the end, you could've done a better job.  You should've had a suited title for your subject, you should not of expressed your opinions as facts, and you should analyze what the game is trying to do.  Halo knew what it was and it accomplished what it set out to do.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
crunchUK said:
The fact that all that stuff came after it is testament to how great it is - whether you like it or not"
Not exactly. Crap can sell well, too. How do you think all those Parody Movies (Meet the Spartans, Disaster Movie, Date Movie, etc.) got so many sequels? Donald Trump/Oprah/Bill Gates wasn't/weren't funding it.
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
tbone81889 said:
"My first complaint with your blog is that you never go back to the topic of the title.  Your title is  "Anyone else think game critics are playing a big prank on gamers? " which leads readers to think that you are going to talk about how some critics are pressured into giving good scores to games that does not deserve them for money (i.e. the main cause for this sites existence), yet you never even touch that subject.  Instead you talked about how you believe Halo 3 and The Ooze are overrated which are two completely different topics.  You should've just made the title.  "Halo  and The Ooze are hideously overrated."

My second complaint is that you say these games are overrated be expressing it as a fact.  It's just your opinion and should be stated as such.  If you believe I'm wrong and your opinion is a fact then how can you prove it?  You can't.  No one can.  But I can prove that Halo 3 is loved and played by many which can attest to how much fun the game is.  Essentially thats what it is all about.  It is about having fun and Halo 3 delivers on it for most people.
1) Has a huge community that is supported by the developers.  (bungie)
2) All three games are the best-selling games for their respective system.  (wiki)
3) Halo 3 is the most played game over xbox live for the past two years.  (2008)(2007) 
4) Loved by the majority of critics (metacritic)My third complaint is that Halo is not realistic and it is not trying to be.  The only reason why you can hold two weapons is for balance.  Thats it.  It is a multiplayer game after all.  Besides your arguement about how soldiers are trained to carry X amount of weight.  Well Master Chief is wearing armor thats suppose to be freaking heavy.  No real soldier can withstand that amount of weight.  My fourth and final complaint is that you complain about there not being a cover system.  Halo is a first person shooter.  I have never seen a first person shooter with a cover system.  If you want a cover system play a game such Rainbow Six or GRAW.  Also, you better be complaining about Call of Duty, because that game is the same way.Now I have never played the Ooze so I am not even going touch on that game."
That was a half-joke to lead into two examples of those. I thought it was OK, but at least I can see your problem with it. But who would've read a blog about The Ooze :P?

Wait, so if I say the game is crap, I can't prove it, but you can prove the game rocks by the fact that many people say it rocks? How exactly does that work? Does the louder voice win? At least be consistent. Can't prove the game rocks, can't prove the game is crap.

How can Halo and Halo 2 be the best selling game for one system? I find that weird. (Just saying.)

I can get other critics who found it overrated, like Yahtzee or GameSpy. (Overrated in a bad way, obviously.)

If it's not trying to be realistic, why is it placing arbitrary limits on me? A lack of realism is all about a lack of limits, just like Halo 3 (from my point of view) is all about the single player campaign. Look at the ads. They said "finish the fight," which, as I interpret it, means that the story wasn't finished in the first two and must be in this one. Seems to imply a single player focus, right? After all, how many games have told their story through capture the flag or deathmatch? And I believe real soldiers are trained to wear heavy body armor and helmets and etc. The name "supersoldier" sort of implies that the capabilities of Master Chief should be above those of regular soldiers, and given how he's the only one in the armor, the game seems to support this notion. So why can't he carry more weapons? Is it a weight issue? Then why not make a weight system in the game, sort of like Counter Strike (run faster with the knife, remember that?).

And as I recall, I complained about how the game focuses too much on the cover system while simultaneously trying to be a kickass action game. You can't have both, Bungie. (I can't complain about COD due to a lack of having ever played it.)
Avatar image for crunchuk
crunchUK

6052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By crunchUK
Video_Game_King said:
"tbone81889 said:
"My first complaint with your blog is that you never go back to the topic of the title.  Your title is  "Anyone else think game critics are playing a big prank on gamers? " which leads readers to think that you are going to talk about how some critics are pressured into giving good scores to games that does not deserve them for money (i.e. the main cause for this sites existence), yet you never even touch that subject.  Instead you talked about how you believe Halo 3 and The Ooze are overrated which are two completely different topics.  You should've just made the title.  "Halo  and The Ooze are hideously overrated."

My second complaint is that you say these games are overrated be expressing it as a fact.  It's just your opinion and should be stated as such.  If you believe I'm wrong and your opinion is a fact then how can you prove it?  You can't.  No one can.  But I can prove that Halo 3 is loved and played by many which can attest to how much fun the game is.  Essentially thats what it is all about.  It is about having fun and Halo 3 delivers on it for most people.
1) Has a huge community that is supported by the developers.  (bungie)
2) All three games are the best-selling games for their respective system.  (wiki)
3) Halo 3 is the most played game over xbox live for the past two years.  (2008)(2007) 
4) Loved by the majority of critics (metacritic)My third complaint is that Halo is not realistic and it is not trying to be.  The only reason why you can hold two weapons is for balance.  Thats it.  It is a multiplayer game after all.  Besides your arguement about how soldiers are trained to carry X amount of weight.  Well Master Chief is wearing armor thats suppose to be freaking heavy.  No real soldier can withstand that amount of weight.  My fourth and final complaint is that you complain about there not being a cover system.  Halo is a first person shooter.  I have never seen a first person shooter with a cover system.  If you want a cover system play a game such Rainbow Six or GRAW.  Also, you better be complaining about Call of Duty, because that game is the same way.Now I have never played the Ooze so I am not even going touch on that game."
That was a half-joke to lead into two examples of those. I thought it was OK, but at least I can see your problem with it. But who would've read a blog about The Ooze :P?

Wait, so if I say the game is crap, I can't prove it, but you can prove the game rocks by the fact that many people say it rocks? How exactly does that work? Does the louder voice win? At least be consistent. Can't prove the game rocks, can't prove the game is crap.

How can Halo and Halo 2 be the best selling game for one system? I find that weird. (Just saying.)

I can get other critics who found it overrated, like Yahtzee or GameSpy. (Overrated in a bad way, obviously.)If it's not trying to be realistic, why is it placing arbitrary limits on me? A lack of realism is all about a lack of limits, just like Halo 3 (from my point of view) is all about the single player campaign. Look at the ads. They said "finish the fight," which, as I interpret it, means that the story wasn't finished in the first two and must be in this one. Seems to imply a single player focus, right? After all, how many games have told their story through capture the flag or deathmatch? And I believe real soldiers are trained to wear heavy body armor and helmets and etc. The name "supersoldier" sort of implies that the capabilities of Master Chief should be above those of regular soldiers, and given how he's the only one in the armor, the game seems to support this notion. So why can't he carry more weapons? Is it a weight issue? Then why not make a weight system in the game, sort of like Counter Strike (run faster with the knife, remember that?). And as I recall, I complained about how the game focuses too much on the cover system while simultaneously trying to be a kickass action game. You can't have both, Bungie. (I can't complain about COD due to a lack of having ever played it.)"
Because halo 3 is incredibly finely balance and a "weight system" would ruin that and really, just be rather retarded and 2 weapons only is a GAMEPLAY DECISION to make it more tactical and team based. Instead of "ok i blew up that vehicle with my rocket launcher now i'll just whip out my sniper OH DEAR someones close i'll just whip out my shotgun.. WOOT I got that guys chaingun as well now! YES!"
Avatar image for toowalrus
toowalrus

13408

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By toowalrus
Video_Game_King said:
"Imagine if in Dragon Warrior, you didn't hav-
Yeah, there's the problem right there. Comparing a modern American FPS to an ancient Japanese RPG.
Avatar image for deactivated-6308c1821738f
deactivated-6308c1821738f

287

Forum Posts

444

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 5

It seems you really like Final Fantasy games. That's great but they personally do not appeal to me.  So if Final Fantasy has a huge fan base and I don't like it does it make the game overrated? NO!!!  Everyone has different opinions.  Im sure there are plenty of games that I don't enjoy that other people love and that definitely does not make them overrated.  Don't be upset because a lot of people enjoys a game that you dislike.  (You might have enjoyed the Halo 1 though, it was the first time I really enjoyed a FPS on a console and I will agree that out of the three, I liked Halo 3 the least, but I still had fun with it.)

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
crunchUK said:
Because halo 3 is incredibly finely balance and a "weight system" would ruin that and really, just be rather retarded and 2 weapons only is a GAMEPLAY DECISION to make it more tactical and team based. Instead of "ok i blew up that vehicle with my rocket launcher now i'll just whip out my sniper OH DEAR someones close i'll just whip out my shotgun.. WOOT I got that guys chaingun as well now! YES!""
Wait, team based? Since when was the game team based or tactical? Rarely did I confer with my idiot teammates, and when I did, it was usually to steal their weapons when I was low on ammo. That wouldn't have been a problem if I could carry as many guns as I want, or if every weapon could collect more ammo. And the game didn't give off much of a tactical air. Again, the only tactic I felt was "run in, shoot up, run back, wait for health to recover, repeat ad infinitum."

TooWalrus said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"Imagine if in Dragon Warrior, you didn't hav-
Yeah, there's the problem right there. Comparing a modern American FPS to an ancient Japanese RPG."
OK, fair enough. However, that was only here, not when I was playing the game. Just an example.
Avatar image for penguindust
penguindust

13129

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By penguindust
Video_Game_King said:
The name "supersoldier" sort of implies that the capabilities of Master Chief should be above those of regular soldiers, and given how he's the only one in the armor, the game seems to support this notion. So why can't he carry more weapons? Is it a weight issue?
I'm still trying to figure out why my character in Mass Effect is carrying around a bunch of weapons if she can only use a pistol & shotgun.  I suggest you compose a stern letter to the Times outlining your position.
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
bolsita_de_te said:
"It seems you really like Final Fantasy games. That's great but they personally do not appeal to me.  So if Final Fantasy has a huge fan base and I don't like it does it make the game overrated? NO!!!  Everyone has different opinions.  Im sure there are plenty of games that I don't enjoy that other people love and that definitely does not make them overrated.  Don't be upset because a lot of people enjoys a game that you dislike.  (You might have enjoyed the Halo 1 though, it was the first time I really enjoyed a FPS on a console and I will agree that out of the three, I liked Halo 3 the least, but I still had fun with it.)"
Depends on the Final Fantasy. FF4? Eh, kind of overrated, maybe. FF6? Not at all. FF12? OF COURSE THE PIECE OF CRAP IS OVERRATED!!! And keep in mind that there has to be a big enough gap for a game to be called overrated. Maybe at least 2 points on a 10 point scale. (And I played several FPSes before this one, like Goldeneye, Half Life 2, Perfect Dark, etc.)
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
PenguinDust said:
"Video_Game_King said:
The name "supersoldier" sort of implies that the capabilities of Master Chief should be above those of regular soldiers, and given how he's the only one in the armor, the game seems to support this notion. So why can't he carry more weapons? Is it a weight issue?
I'm still trying to figure out why my character in Mass Effect is carrying around a bunch of weapons if she can only use a pistol & shotgun.  I suggest you compose a stern letter to the Times outlining your position."
I haven't played that game, so I wouldn't know. And I don't know what the point of that last sentence was. (I'm being as candid and frank as I possibly can, here.)
Avatar image for crunchuk
crunchUK

6052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By crunchUK
Video_Game_King said:
"crunchUK said:
Because halo 3 is incredibly finely balance and a "weight system" would ruin that and really, just be rather retarded and 2 weapons only is a GAMEPLAY DECISION to make it more tactical and team based. Instead of "ok i blew up that vehicle with my rocket launcher now i'll just whip out my sniper OH DEAR someones close i'll just whip out my shotgun.. WOOT I got that guys chaingun as well now! YES!""
Wait, team based? Since when was the game team based or tactical? Rarely did I confer with my idiot teammates, and when I did, it was usually to steal their weapons when I was low on ammo. That wouldn't have been a problem if I could carry as many guns as I want, or if every weapon could collect more ammo. And the game didn't give off much of a tactical air. Again, the only tactic I felt was "run in, shoot up, run back, wait for health to recover, repeat ad infinitum."


In other words, you are garbage at halo 3. If you want, i'll show you into level 40+ ranked. I think you'll get quite a shock
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
crunchUK said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"crunchUK said:
Because halo 3 is incredibly finely balance and a "weight system" would ruin that and really, just be rather retarded and 2 weapons only is a GAMEPLAY DECISION to make it more tactical and team based. Instead of "ok i blew up that vehicle with my rocket launcher now i'll just whip out my sniper OH DEAR someones close i'll just whip out my shotgun.. WOOT I got that guys chaingun as well now! YES!""
Wait, team based? Since when was the game team based or tactical? Rarely did I confer with my idiot teammates, and when I did, it was usually to steal their weapons when I was low on ammo. That wouldn't have been a problem if I could carry as many guns as I want, or if every weapon could collect more ammo. And the game didn't give off much of a tactical air. Again, the only tactic I felt was "run in, shoot up, run back, wait for health to recover, repeat ad infinitum."
In other words, you are garbage at halo 3. If you want, i'll show you into level 40+ ranked. I think you'll get quite a shock"
What are those other words? I didn't die that often, and when I did, it was in isolated events where I made stupid decisions I could've easily avoided. I didn't suck, I was under presumptions (like that one level was the final level and that I should save my ammo for the final boss).
Avatar image for penguindust
penguindust

13129

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By penguindust
Video_Game_King said:
"PenguinDust said:
"Video_Game_King said:
The name "supersoldier" sort of implies that the capabilities of Master Chief should be above those of regular soldiers, and given how he's the only one in the armor, the game seems to support this notion. So why can't he carry more weapons? Is it a weight issue?
I'm still trying to figure out why my character in Mass Effect is carrying around a bunch of weapons if she can only use a pistol & shotgun.  I suggest you compose a stern letter to the Times outlining your position."
I haven't played that game, so I wouldn't know. And I don't know what the point of that last sentence was. (I'm being as candid and frank as I possibly can, here.)"

I was being glib in a effort to lighten, what I see as, the downward spiral of this conversation.  The more I read into deeper into this thread, the more your remarks seem to loose the focus of your original position.  At what point did realism ever connect to any of this?  You don't like the game, and you have your reasons.  You apparently want the game have options that it does not and fault that game for those failings.  Like Mass Effects weapon catalog, somethings are the way they are just because that is how they are...if that makes any sense.  If players enjoy the experience enough, they look past those shortcomings and except the game for what it is.  I know I looked past them when playing Mass Effect, Uncharted and even Halo 3.  As you can see, a lot of people disagree with you.  It doesn't mean you should immediately be swayed and like the game, and I doubt anyone will change their positions to follow your lead.  But, if you want to continue to argue your position, don't subcomb to nit-picking every little criticism.  It comes across as petty.  And, eventually,  you'd have to explain the lunacy of the over-sized weapons and the utility of long flowing hair in Final Fantasy.  (that was a joke, too)
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
PenguinDust said:
I was being glib in a effort to lighten, what I see as, the downward spiral of this conversation.  The more I read into deeper into this thread, the more your remarks seem to loose the focus of your original position.  At what point did realism ever connect to any of this?  You don't like the game, and you have your reasons.  You apparently want the game have options that it does not and fault that game for those failings.  Like Mass Effects weapon catalog, somethings are the way they are just because that is how they are...if that makes any sense.  If players enjoy the experience enough, they look past those shortcomings and except the game for what it is.  I know I looked past them when playing Mass Effect, Uncharted and even Halo 3.  As you can see, a lot of people disagree with you.  It doesn't mean you should immediately be swayed and like the game, and I doubt anyone will change their positions to follow your lead.  But, if you want to continue to argue your position, don't subcomb to nit-picking every little criticism.  It comes across as petty.  And, eventually,  you'd have to explain the lunacy of the over-sided weapons and the utility of long flowing hair in Final Fantasy.  (that was a joke, too)"
(First off, I hope you weren't one of the people complaining about paragraphs :P.) I remember somebody mentioning realism or how soldiers are carrying body armor 24/7. And I fault the game for poor decisions and execution. And why should I accept "things are the way they are because they're the way they are?" That feels a lot like a cop-out argument. There were tons of great FPSes before Halo, so maybe Bungie could've used those as a reference. (IE "What did these guys do, and how can we apply it to our project?") I can see looking past flaws if those flaws are minor or don't affect the game too greatly, like the new Prince of Persia, but that wasn't the case here. The flaws were major parts of the game and kept it from being good. And in Final Fantasy, at least the game is taking place in another universe, so I can look past the lack of realism (there's a talking dog, what can I say about the game at this point?).

(And that's my argument style: I pretty much nitpick every point I can. I find it to be a decent argument style.)
Avatar image for smugdarkloser
SmugDarkLoser

5040

Forum Posts

114

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By SmugDarkLoser

ah, so original, hating on halo.
here's a tip, play the game.   Way too broad to be taken seriously, completely lost once you tried for detail.  Hint, hint, there's no deployable cover system. 

Seriously, come up with an actual point, then repost.  Because you really didn't say anything about it.

Avatar image for crunchuk
crunchUK

6052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By crunchUK
Video_Game_King said:
"crunchUK said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"crunchUK said:
Because halo 3 is incredibly finely balance and a "weight system" would ruin that and really, just be rather retarded and 2 weapons only is a GAMEPLAY DECISION to make it more tactical and team based. Instead of "ok i blew up that vehicle with my rocket launcher now i'll just whip out my sniper OH DEAR someones close i'll just whip out my shotgun.. WOOT I got that guys chaingun as well now! YES!""
Wait, team based? Since when was the game team based or tactical? Rarely did I confer with my idiot teammates, and when I did, it was usually to steal their weapons when I was low on ammo. That wouldn't have been a problem if I could carry as many guns as I want, or if every weapon could collect more ammo. And the game didn't give off much of a tactical air. Again, the only tactic I felt was "run in, shoot up, run back, wait for health to recover, repeat ad infinitum."
In other words, you are garbage at halo 3. If you want, i'll show you into level 40+ ranked. I think you'll get quite a shock"
What are those other words? I didn't die that often, and when I did, it was in isolated events where I made stupid decisions I could've easily avoided. I didn't suck, I was under presumptions (like that one level was the final level and that I should save my ammo for the final boss)."
Please

Wait, team based? Since when was the game team based or tactical? Rarely did I confer with my idiot teammates, and when I did, it was usually to steal their weapons when I was low on ammo. That wouldn't have been a problem if I could carry as many guns as I want, or if every weapon could collect more ammo

You are totally clueless about halo 3

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
SmugDarkLoser said:
"ah, so original, hating on halo.here's a tip, play the game.   Way too broad to be taken seriously, completely lost once you tried for detail.  Hint, hint, there's no deployable cover system. "
I did play the game. And by deployable shield cover system thing, I meant picking up things like invisibility or bubble shield. I never figured out how or why to use them.

crunchUK said:
Please

Wait, team based? Since when was the game team based or tactical? Rarely did I confer with my idiot teammates, and when I did, it was usually to steal their weapons when I was low on ammo. That wouldn't have been a problem if I could carry as many guns as I want, or if every weapon could collect more ammo
You are totally clueless about halo 3"
Well, can you explain how I'm clueless? I beat the game on Normal difficulty, I think I can qualify as having some sort of clue.
Avatar image for crunchuk
crunchUK

6052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By crunchUK
Video_Game_King said:
"SmugDarkLoser said:
"ah, so original, hating on halo.here's a tip, play the game.   Way too broad to be taken seriously, completely lost once you tried for detail.  Hint, hint, there's no deployable cover system. "
I did play the game. And by deployable shield cover system thing, I meant picking up things like invisibility or bubble shield. I never figured out how or why to use them.

crunchUK said:
Please

Wait, team based? Since when was the game team based or tactical? Rarely did I confer with my idiot teammates, and when I did, it was usually to steal their weapons when I was low on ammo. That wouldn't have been a problem if I could carry as many guns as I want, or if every weapon could collect more ammo
You are totally clueless about halo 3"
Well, can you explain how I'm clueless? I beat the game on Normal difficulty, I think I can qualify as having some sort of clue."
Essentially you have no idea on what competitive halo 3 is and say that the game should have incredibly retarded things like infinite weapon pickup (which is incredibly obsolete from a gameplay standpoint) and how he should urn fastr or slower dependiung on the weapon he has


lmao...
Avatar image for smugdarkloser
SmugDarkLoser

5040

Forum Posts

114

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By SmugDarkLoser
Video_Game_King said: Video_Game_King said:
"SmugDarkLoser said:
"ah, so original, hating on halo.here's a tip, play the game.   Way too broad to be taken seriously, completely lost once you tried for detail.  Hint, hint, there's no deployable cover system. "
I did play the game. And by deployable shield cover system thing, I meant picking up things like invisibility or bubble shield. I never figured out how or why to use them.

crunchUK said:
Please

Wait, team based? Since when was the game team based or tactical? Rarely did I confer with my idiot teammates, and when I did, it was usually to steal their weapons when I was low on ammo. That wouldn't have been a problem if I could carry as many guns as I want, or if every weapon could collect more ammo
You are totally clueless about halo 3"
Well, can you explain how I'm clueless? I beat the game on Normal difficulty, I think I can qualify as having some sort of clue."
If you never figured out how to use them, you haven't played the game, simply put.  Press X

I also find your comment on the lighting rather awkward.  Maybe your tv truly does suck, but halo is one of the few games that does lighting just right.  YOU can actually see things and they have a really neat effect that's used properly when exiting a cave or whatever where you'll have the light adjustment.

And as a response you wanted from the other poster, hye's probably thinking about playing online, not single player.   So beating it on normal wouldn't mean anything.   And he probably said you were clueless because you sort of can collect more  ammo...
Seriously, regardless of whether you did play it or not (i'd obviously assuem you did since you said so), you don't have a clue about the game. 
Next time you might want to play on heroic.  Normal is made to be pretty easy. It sounds like you pretty much don't know how to play and you had to hide behind walls to advance.  On heroic you actually have to play the game and not about hiding.
Halo's sort of applauded for its AI as well....

In the end, I think you just came in wanting to hate the game, it sounds like it.  Might want to play some multiplayer too. 



Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
crunchUK said:
Essentially you have no idea on what competitive halo 3 is and say that the game should have incredibly retarded things like infinite weapon pickup (which is incredibly obsolete from a gameplay standpoint) and how he should urn fastr or slower dependiung on the weapon he haslmao..."
How is it obsolete? Not sure how being able to choose what weapon you want when you want to so long as you have it is outdated. And I'm only purporting the weight system if somebody says "but all those weapons would be heavy."

SmugDarkLoser said:
If you never figured out how to use them, you haven't played the game, simply put.  Press XI also find your comment on the lighting rather awkward.  Maybe your tv truly does suck, but halo is one of the few games that does lighting just right.  YOU can actually see things and they have a really neat effect that's used properly when exiting a cave or whatever where you'll have the light adjustment. And as a response you wanted from the other poster, that has to do with playing online, not single player.   So beating it on normal wouldn't mean anything. "
Huh? I always thought you had to do something with the left trigger, but in a way that was different from the grenades. At least that's what I interpreted from the poster. *goes to look at poster* Damn it.

No, I remember times when I couldn't see that well due to the lighting. I tried turning up the brightness on my TV, but it just looked like somebody put a gray shield in front of it. Same thing when I tried this with the game.

Again, they advertised it as single player. Don't tell me this is one of those games where single player was thrown in for the hell of it. What about those people who don't have online? What are they supposed to do? And several problems in the single player campaign would logically carry over to multiplayer, like the limited inventory and vehicles controlling like crap.
Avatar image for smugdarkloser
SmugDarkLoser

5040

Forum Posts

114

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By SmugDarkLoser

Halo is made to be essentially the fullest package shooter there.  It has a full single player and a full multiplayer.  Both are great.  You will stay for the mp though.
Anyway, something is up with your tv.  If you couldn't see well and had to turn your brightness up, somethings weird.  Halo isn't exactly a dark game (except on gloom setting in mp). 

Anyway, I need to know.  You said the vehicles controlled like crap.  What buttons/sticks were you using?


-and as for the weapons, come on, every single shooter limits this now.  It's not about a realism thing, but it's more of a choice system.  It's essentially classes on the go and has been for a while.  That obviously contributes for single player and allows balance in mp.

Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60

Who cares if it was advertised for singleplayer? That still doesn't mean the multiplayer isn't good, so stop going back to that lame argument. And you ahve already proven you have no clue what you are talking about in this game, you didn't even know how to use the deployable cover and such...

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
SmugDarkLoser said:
"Halo is made to be essentially the fullest package shooter there.  It has a full single player and a full multiplayer.  Both are great.  You will stay for the mp though.Anyway, something is up with your tv.  If you couldn't see well and had to turn your brightness up, somethings weird.  Halo isn't exactly a dark game (except on gloom setting in mp). 

Anyway, I need to know.  You said the vehicles controlled like crap.  What buttons/sticks were you using?

 -and as for the weapons, come on, every single shooter limits this now.  It's not about a realism thing, but it's more of a choice system.  It's essentially classes on the go and has been for a while.  That obviously contributes for single player and allows balance in mp."
I was using the left and right analog sticks. That worked in Katamari Damacy due to the fact that it was always from a behind perspective, but here it changes, so not so much.

Full single player? I finished it in a few days, and there isn't much replay value, how full can it be? And what's MP? Multiplayer? Again, I and many other people simply don't give a crap. What about those of us who want an enthralling single player campaign? If I wanted a good online shooter on my Xbox 360, I'd start playing Team Fortress 2 again. And there were times I thought the game was a bit dark. Just saying.

Exactly: Halo did a bad thing, and I really wish shooters wouldn't limit you. And what do you mean by "choice system?" How is an unlimited inventory limiting your choice? If anything, that expands your choices. And I don't buy the "classes on the go" thing for several reasons, like the fact that this isn't an RPG, that a lot of the weapons control the same, that the differences aren't significant enough to warrant the "class" label, and so on. And aren't there other ways to balance the game other than limiting the inventory? We all know that the two weapons people go for first in this game are the energy sword and gravity hammer. That doesn't balance much, does it? Give them far more limited use, or punish the player for missing (maybe they have limited movement for a few seconds).
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
CL60 said:
"Who cares if it was advertised for singleplayer? That still doesn't mean the multiplayer isn't good, so stop going back to that lame argument."
No, it means that the developers must have really wanted you to play the single player campaign, which would logically mean they put a lot of effort into it. I find it to be a very valid argument.
Avatar image for crono
Crono

2762

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 6

Edited By Crono
Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"Who cares if it was advertised for singleplayer? That still doesn't mean the multiplayer isn't good, so stop going back to that lame argument."
No, it means that the developers must have really wanted you to play the single player campaign, which would logically mean they put a lot of effort into it. I find it to be a very valid argument."
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Avatar image for greggd
GreggD

4596

Forum Posts

981

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By GreggD

King, you shouldn't have made this a thread, look at all the idiots attacking you. Seriously, it's not fair, and I greatly agree with you. I liked the first Halo, but after that, I just don't care.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
Crono said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"Crono said:
Yes, I can give you some clues/examples.  I am not home right now, but when I get home later I will PM you."
There's something very weird about this post..."
?????"
Ambiance music. Just like in my blogs. (And I'm waiting for the PM. Serious, no joke or insult or anything.)

CL60 said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"Who cares if it was advertised for singleplayer? That still doesn't mean the multiplayer isn't good, so stop going back to that lame argument."
No, it means that the developers must have really wanted you to play the single player campaign, which would logically mean they put a lot of effort into it. I find it to be a very valid argument."
You really have no idea what you are talking about."

How so? Can you convince me that the major focus of the game was multiplayer, and that Bungie focused on that to the point that they wanted players to play the game for the multiplayer? Because I've made a good argument against it. (I never said that the multiplayer wasn't good, just that you can write if off as unneccessary.)
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
GreggD said:
"King, you shouldn't have made this a thread, look at all the idiots attacking you. Seriously, it's not fair, and I greatly agree with you. I liked the first Halo, but after that, I just don't care."
It wasn't a thread, just a blog. Besides, it has the most responses of any blog I've ever made :P. (Plus I have a policy on always blogging about games I've beaten.)
Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60

How can you say that this games multiplayer is lackluster simply because the ads all said things about the multiplayer? That's the stupidest thing ever. Obviously that's what the ad will be. Whens the last time you seen a game with single player and a actual storyline be advertised as a multiplayer game? It doesn't happen, that doesn't mean it isn't a multiplayer game. Just look at how many people play halo online.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
CL60 said:
"How can you say that this games multiplayer is lackluster simply because the ads all said things about the multiplayer? That's the stupidest thing ever. Obviously that's what the ad will be. Whens the last time you seen a game with single player and a actual storyline be advertised as a multiplayer game? It doesn't happen, that doesn't mean it isn't a multiplayer game. Just look at how many people play halo online."
Based on what I've seen in the campaign and what I've seen of the community, I don't have high expectations for the multiplayer. And it seems you admitted that the focus wasn't on the multiplayer, so why should mine be? And how many people play Halo online compared to the overall number of people who own the game?
Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"How can you say that this games multiplayer is lackluster simply because the ads all said things about the multiplayer? That's the stupidest thing ever. Obviously that's what the ad will be. Whens the last time you seen a game with single player and a actual storyline be advertised as a multiplayer game? It doesn't happen, that doesn't mean it isn't a multiplayer game. Just look at how many people play halo online."
Based on what I've seen in the campaign and what I've seen of the community, I don't have high expectations for the multiplayer. And it seems you admitted that the focus wasn't on the multiplayer, so why should mine be? And how many people play Halo online compared to the overall number of people who own the game?"
Well players that have played in the last 24 hours are 743 thousand and the game came out like...2 years ago. That is fairly impressive for a game that apparently has terrible multiplayer and isn't focused on it AT ALL.
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
CL60 said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"How can you say that this games multiplayer is lackluster simply because the ads all said things about the multiplayer? That's the stupidest thing ever. Obviously that's what the ad will be. Whens the last time you seen a game with single player and a actual storyline be advertised as a multiplayer game? It doesn't happen, that doesn't mean it isn't a multiplayer game. Just look at how many people play halo online."
Based on what I've seen in the campaign and what I've seen of the community, I don't have high expectations for the multiplayer. And it seems you admitted that the focus wasn't on the multiplayer, so why should mine be? And how many people play Halo online compared to the overall number of people who own the game?"
Well players that have played in the last 24 hours are 743 thousand and the game came out like...2 years ago. That is fairly impressive for a game that apparently has terrible multiplayer and isn't focused on it AT ALL."
I said the developers didn't focus on it. And what's the average number of players? (Right now, it'd be 743K out of 8M. That means 9% of Halo 3 owners have played online today.)
Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"How can you say that this games multiplayer is lackluster simply because the ads all said things about the multiplayer? That's the stupidest thing ever. Obviously that's what the ad will be. Whens the last time you seen a game with single player and a actual storyline be advertised as a multiplayer game? It doesn't happen, that doesn't mean it isn't a multiplayer game. Just look at how many people play halo online."
Based on what I've seen in the campaign and what I've seen of the community, I don't have high expectations for the multiplayer. And it seems you admitted that the focus wasn't on the multiplayer, so why should mine be? And how many people play Halo online compared to the overall number of people who own the game?"
Well players that have played in the last 24 hours are 743 thousand and the game came out like...2 years ago. That is fairly impressive for a game that apparently has terrible multiplayer and isn't focused on it AT ALL."
I said the developers didn't focus on it. And what's the average number of players? (Right now, it'd be 743K out of 8M. That means 9% of Halo 3 owners have played online today.)"
having that many people still play a game that according to you sucks on multiplayer and wasn't at all focused on it and came out  2 years ago is impressive, and you are pathetically blind with hate if you can't see that.
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
CL60 said:
having that many people still play a game that according to you sucks on multiplayer and wasn't at all focused on it and came out  2 years ago is impressive, and you are pathetically blind with hate if you can't see that."
You might want to edit your sentence structure. Kinda confusing. And again, only 9% of eligible people played it. That's not a big number. And why resort to ad hominem? I could say the same thing and say that you're a stupid fanboy blinded by your devotion to a company who could not give two craps about you, but I won't. Even if I just did :P. Again, many of the problems in single player will naturally carry over to multiplayer, unless there's a completely different gameplay system in multiplayer.
Avatar image for gamer_152
gamer_152

15090

Forum Posts

75463

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 71

User Lists: 6

Edited By gamer_152  Moderator

I could really get deep into where my opinions on these games fall and what I think of the whole situation but that's really not what I wanna say here. What I've been seeing throughout this thread is a constant battle of whether these games are good or bad as if it is a fact. Ok, you don't like Halo 3 or Ooze, fine, but this is just your opinion, you've read what all the critics have said and you've no doubt read the countless explanations from fans as to why they love these games, but no one can really explain to you why they enjoy the game so much and you suddenly share the same undying love for these titles. If after all your discussion, observation and interaction you really don't like these games then a forum post isn't going to change that and you're just going to have to accept you have a different opinion from the majority.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
Gamer_152 said:
"I could really get deep into where my opinions on these games fall and what I think of the whole situation but that's really not what I wanna say here. What I've been seeing throughout this thread is a constant battle of whether these games are good or bad as if it is a fact. Ok, you don't like Halo 3 or Ooze, fine, but this is just your opinion, you've read what all the critics have said and you've no doubt read the countless explanations from fans as to why they love these games, but no one can really explain to you why they enjoy the game so much and you suddenly share the same undying love for these titles. If after all your discussion, observation and interaction you really don't like these games then a forum post isn't going to change that and you're just going to have to accept you have a different opinion from the majority."
Yea, I know, but I love debating pointlessly on the Internet :P.
Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
having that many people still play a game that according to you sucks on multiplayer and wasn't at all focused on it and came out  2 years ago is impressive, and you are pathetically blind with hate if you can't see that."
You might want to edit your sentence structure. Kinda confusing. And again, only 9% of eligible people played it. That's not a big number. And why resort to ad hominem? I could say the same thing and say that you're a stupid fanboy blinded by your devotion to a company who could not give two craps about you, but I won't. Even if I just did :P. Again, many of the problems in single player will naturally carry over to multiplayer, unless there's a completely different gameplay system in multiplayer."
I don't even play the game, and it's obvious you have no damn clue what you are talking about based on what you have said as of yet. You come of as a moron simple as that.
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King
CL60 said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
having that many people still play a game that according to you sucks on multiplayer and wasn't at all focused on it and came out  2 years ago is impressive, and you are pathetically blind with hate if you can't see that."
You might want to edit your sentence structure. Kinda confusing. And again, only 9% of eligible people played it. That's not a big number. And why resort to ad hominem? I could say the same thing and say that you're a stupid fanboy blinded by your devotion to a company who could not give two craps about you, but I won't. Even if I just did :P. Again, many of the problems in single player will naturally carry over to multiplayer, unless there's a completely different gameplay system in multiplayer."
I don't even play the game, and it's obvious you have no damn clue what you are talking about based on what you have said as of yet. You come of as a moron simple as that."
Wait, you don't even play the game? Then why are you arguing that the multiplayer is good? Not sure how that works. And I feel that I justified my opinion; are people calling me an idiot simply because I disagreed with the common opinion? What if I said "HALO 3 IZ TEH ROX I PWNED A BUNCH OF F@GS IN FORGE LOL"? Would people have called me a fool, or would they have agreed with me at face value?
Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
having that many people still play a game that according to you sucks on multiplayer and wasn't at all focused on it and came out  2 years ago is impressive, and you are pathetically blind with hate if you can't see that."
You might want to edit your sentence structure. Kinda confusing. And again, only 9% of eligible people played it. That's not a big number. And why resort to ad hominem? I could say the same thing and say that you're a stupid fanboy blinded by your devotion to a company who could not give two craps about you, but I won't. Even if I just did :P. Again, many of the problems in single player will naturally carry over to multiplayer, unless there's a completely different gameplay system in multiplayer."
I don't even play the game, and it's obvious you have no damn clue what you are talking about based on what you have said as of yet. You come of as a moron simple as that."
Wait, you don't even play the game? Then why are you arguing that the multiplayer is good? Not sure how that works. And I feel that I justified my opinion; are people calling me an idiot simply because I disagreed with the common opinion? What if I said "HALO 3 IZ TEH ROX I PWNED A BUNCH OF F@GS IN FORGE LOL"? Would people have called me a fool, or would they have agreed with me at face value?"
Because I used to play it? DURRRR think before you speak. and I say what I say about you because it's obvious, you say the game has terrible multiplayer and singleplayer, yet you've barely even done anything in either of them, and I bet you never even used forge...EVER.
Avatar image for superfluousmoniker
SuperfluousMoniker

2929

Forum Posts

5086

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 4

Big sequels to big games with great graphics and lots of hype tend to get 4 and 5 star (or 9 and 10 out of 10) reviews they don't deserve. It happens. Gears of War 2, God of War 2 and Resident Evil 5 are prime examples. None are bad games but none of them lived up to their predecessors in anything but review scores (imho).

And woah, woah, woah, is that Lufia 2 on  the borderline of your crap threshold? Wassup with that? Lufia 1 maybe, and I didn't play that recent sequel but I heard it was bad, but 2 was a quality game. It was like Final Fantasy but with some really good puzzle stuff going on, and the story was decent despite being generic.

Avatar image for luce
luce

4056

Forum Posts

39

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By luce
Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
"Video_Game_King said:
"CL60 said:
having that many people still play a game that according to you sucks on multiplayer and wasn't at all focused on it and came out  2 years ago is impressive, and you are pathetically blind with hate if you can't see that."
You might want to edit your sentence structure. Kinda confusing. And again, only 9% of eligible people played it. That's not a big number. And why resort to ad hominem? I could say the same thing and say that you're a stupid fanboy blinded by your devotion to a company who could not give two craps about you, but I won't. Even if I just did :P. Again, many of the problems in single player will naturally carry over to multiplayer, unless there's a completely different gameplay system in multiplayer."
I don't even play the game, and it's obvious you have no damn clue what you are talking about based on what you have said as of yet. You come of as a moron simple as that."
Wait, you don't even play the game? Then why are you arguing that the multiplayer is good? Not sure how that works. And I feel that I justified my opinion; are people calling me an idiot simply because I disagreed with the common opinion? What if I said "HALO 3 IZ TEH ROX I PWNED A BUNCH OF F@GS IN FORGE LOL"? Would people have called me a fool, or would they have agreed with me at face value?"
basically your speaking your opinion..but the way you word it makes it sound like you think its a fact

on top of that it really doesn't seem like you played it right, and like others have said, it looks like you came in wanting to hate the game

your points are flimsy and you seem to rely on the same old "it was advertised like this so it MUST be this type of game" argument ..so obviously you have no clue on how the world works

do you know what ads are for dude?

anyway, i played the game (loved the first halo) and was sort of disappointed but at the same time i never really got into the multiplayer, but i definitely wouldn't call it a bad game. It's also sort of ironic that you call people that defend halo "fanboys" yet keep referencing final fantasy games for story and gameplay (you're comparing games that shouldn't be compared btw)

just sayin
(oh and congrats on getting 4 pages worth of comments on this stupid ass topic)