ahh i see, I did not know this about the xbox. well good thing it has halo.

Yeah so how is halo 3? Just another hyped up pos...

Did you like Halo 2? If so you'll like Halo 3. If not then you could probably find a better game to play.

To tell you the truth i havent play Halo 1 or 2. I think i messed around with 1 a bit but it was boring and just played mp with some friends for a bit. I just dont get the hype about it.

I don't get halo. Sometimes it rips off halflife with the headcrab things and then sometimes your shooting muppets. The guns just look ridiculous and cartoony. There is nothing about this game that i like. I've never found the story to be that engaging. The vehicle combat is mediocre. The pacing and gameplay is slow and feels clunky. All in all I think its just a really mediocre shooter, I don't understand why it gets such awesome reviews from everyone.

Halo 3 has a 6 hour single player with a mediocre story line and the same multiplayer that every other halo game has ever had ever. The only difference is, this one got its own flavor of mountain dew as well.

The big thing with halo was being able to play a decently paced shooter with 16 people on 4 boxes with 4 TVs. It did redefine the console shooter, but that's it. It redefined the CONSOLE shooter. Given the demographics of this board, I would not expect the series to impress anyone here. In fact, I will go so far as to say that we here would rate the game lower than an objective outsider (someone new to games as a whole) due to the use of a controller and the "fudge factors" involved with that.

The only things I ever found remotely impressive about Halo are the LAN parties you get going with it (Hardly unique to Halo), and the sticky nades. In every other regard, it's been done and done better. As Yogurt says, it revolutionized the console shooter, and more importantly, it introduced FPS gaming to a whole new selection of people in the same way that FF7 did for RPGs. Neither of them are spectacular examples of their genres, yet many many people cling to one or the either as the 'best' example of what they have to offer simply because of that. Before they came along, things were a lot more niche.

I suppose I preferred them that way though. The alternative is a bunch of blundering idiots singing praises out their ass about a mediocre game, and completely refusing to expand their horizons by playing any other game of the genre which offers alot more depth and innovation. In fact, not only do they refuse to play other games, but they naysay them to the point that game designers are afraid to take chances and make something new and fun.

The result is a bunch of mediocre, cookie cutter, generic shooters which if you're lucky offer some kind of gameplay gimmick to break up the monotony of an otherwise completely uninspired gaming experience. All game developers do is try to capitalize on a concept that's already been done 100 times over. To me, that's what i see the x-box as, a console of generic shooters and sports games that college students eat up with their gilded halo spoon.

Such is the way of, well, everything. Music, video games, movies, television shows, the motivation to try something new is minimal, while the motive to repeat a known formula at nauseam is overwhelming from an effort to profit perspective.
_________________
"If I won't be myself, who will?" - Alfred Hitchcock
Thothie

ugh cant delete double posts

Its the rinse and repeat society.

I believe Yahtzee put it best. The 360 caters to the casual gaming beer drinking frat boy demographic.

Have, suden, urge, to find Fantasy World Dizzy ROM for C64 emu.
_________________
"You have torn your Shuba. If only you had some Pan Bread to sell."
Thothie