Editorial: Halo 3 Has Spoiled Xbox Live Gamers
By Jonathan on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 10:06 AM PST In Bungie, Editorials, Features, Game Companies, Gamer Life, Games, Halo, Microsoft
I see its effects everywhere. I see it in gaming forums. I see it in reviews for other games. And I can’t help but think one thing: man, Halo 3 has spoiled Xbox 360 owners.
Let’s put the sub-par single-player campaign and the disputes over how good the multiplayer is aside for a second and get one thing straight: for an online gamer, Halo 3 has more options than any title before it. Online multiplayer with multiple modes, online co-op, splitscreen co-op, splitscreen multiplayer, theater mode, Forge: the list goes on. That’s a large part of the reason you can find plenty of people to play with at any hour of the day; there’s just that much to do. But now that I’ve been exposed to all these options in one package, I find myself viewing newer games in a much different light.
Let’s take Call of Duty 4, for example: I can’t help playing the game without thinking how awesome it would be to have online split-screen multiplayer, so me and my 360-less friends could work together. Or for that matter how incredibly fun any type of campaign co-op would be. Frankly, the absence of such elements — not to mention my personal preference for a mouse and keyboard — are what pushed me to buy the PC version over the 360 version. But why? Call of Duty 2 lacked those options as well, and I never gave it a second thought. Well, that’s probably because I hadn’t seen them as an option before. The game is spectacular as it is, but I keep thinking how it could be more spectacular.
Another case in point: Assassin’s Creed. I haven’t played it yet, so I haven’t formulated my own opinion about it; but I’m sure most of us have seen the less-than-stellar reviews. And in the midst of some of these reviews, comments on news articles, and forum posts, I’ve seen a number of people complain about the lack of co-op and online multiplayer. Let’s just stop and think for a minute about how ridiculous it would be to have not one, but two Medieval assassins running around killing higher-ups. Or for that matter, if there were a whole bunch of them just running around trying to kill each other. To cite another stealth game, no one complained about a lack of co-op or online play when Metal Gear Solid 2 came out (possibly because they were too busy complaining about Raiden). Or, to cite a more recent title, BioShock didn’t have any of that either; and there were complaints, but not as many. Enter Halo 3, and now everyone expects multiple robust online modes to make a game perpetually replayable.
Maybe Nintendo had the right idea not making an easy online mode for their system. After all, people are enjoying Super Mario Galaxy, and no one seems to be complaining too much about a lack of online features. And they’re adding online multiplayer to Smash Bros. Brawl, which is probably the one Wii game the most people would want that feature for.
I’m not saying I don’t prefer games with online features — far from it — but it doesn’t make or break a game in my opinion. I’ve seen far too many games that tried to tack a multiplayer aspect onto a great single-player game only to hurt the overall experience. More co-op and multiplayer modes would be great, but if it comes with the possibility of a less enjoyable core game, I’d rather go without. Games were fun before the advent of the internet, and there will always be games that are just fun to play on your own.
buncha whiny sobs
That’s the new generation of gamers. So wrapped up in online play and graphics that they don’t remember how great games like FFV were… Graphics and online play don’t = greatness. I am a satisfied Halo 3 player btw, but I don’t expect that from all games.
Co-op campaign would have been the greatest thing for Call of Duty 4. Even if it were just the Chernobyl sniper missions, it would have me beating my friends over the head to play.
I don’t think it’s a case of being spoilt, more a case of “well, I got LOADS for my money in one game…why can’t others do it?” and it’s true. Bungie have almost told other developers, “well, look guys…..we can do it, so should you.” Perhaps it does have a hint of being spoilt, but I belive it’s gamers simply wanting more from their games, which is rightfully so consdering they’re not cheap.
I got loads for my money in Half-Life 2, why can’t Halo do the same thing?
Personally, I wasn’t all that impressed by Halo 3. However, I think Jonathan raises an interesting point here. Is multiplayer becoming the only viable gameplay type? For me, it’s a definite no. I enjoy multiplayer, don’t get me wrong. However, singleplayer games with story (like The Witcher) are just as much fun.
What I’m looking for from a game is entertainment. I don’t care if it’s singleplayer, multiplayer, or coop, as long as the game provides a fun, enjoyable experience. I know that there are a lot of gamers these days that judge everything based on multiplayer, but I think that can sometimes lead to a skewed look at a game’s value.
Online coop ruined what was supposed to be a challenge in halo 3 and that is Legendary difficulty. Halo 3 multiplayer sucks, and the story in the game was absolutly boring and predictable. Books are much better. The weapons are rehashed again and so balanced out that no weapon clearly holds an advantage. Let’s not even start on graphics, while they are definatly an improvment over halo 2 there are much better found on the 360.The gameplay is so stagnant that I havent touched halo 3 or it’s MP a week after getting it.
COD 4 on the other hand has far superior graphics, single player campaign, and multiplayer. The single player campaign is absolutly astounding and extremly tough on veteran and im thankful that there is no coop to help beat it. The weapons in multiplayer actually do what they are meant to do in each situation so they each hold in certain cases a tactical advantage over another. Sorry BUNGIE watered down each weapon so much that they all do the same amount of damage. COD 4’s weapons are so badass that it is by far the most realistic shooter I have ever played. I actually feel as though im in a war and am running for my life. There hasn’t been a FPS that has done that to me in a long time.
Another plus to cod4 is the fact that the super weapons if you want to call hem that can be used by anyone. it’s not everyone running to the spot on the map and seeing who survies. UAV, airstrike and the helicopter was well thought out. And lastly lets not forget about the perks and weapons accesories, these truly make each person playing there own soldier. and add countless possibilities.
Bashing something that alot of other people like or enjoy doesnt make any of you any cooler, it actually makes you look pretty ignorant. Also, COD 4 is an excellent game, but so is Halo 3. Why is that so hard to deal with for some of you?
I think Ron makes a good point. More and more games have a single-player section now more because of tradition and they have to. They’d much rather spend time on multi-player and whilst that’s fun, constantly being ‘owned’ or ‘pwned’ or whatever the hell you want to call it gets annoying after a while and loses its entertainment value, making having a single player component all the more important (even if, to some degree, it’s multi-player offline).
I remember reading a few pieces about Command and Conquer 3, where a few commentators raised a good point that for many who don’t want to venture online, the offline skirmish is ‘their multiplayer’ (that additional component after playing through the campaign). With the advent of the internet, more and more effort seems to go into online games. I dislike that, I’d rather have a healthy mix and whilst we’re on the subject, I think Halo 3 does an excellent job at that, providing what I believe to be a fantastic single player experience combined with split-screen and online friend play (someone said that made Legendary too easy…use some of the skulls, they are NASTY, such as the one where if one player dies, you all go back to the beginning. THAT’S hard)which has a predictable-but-enjoyable story coupled with a rich and varied multiplayer that few other games can really boast about, even those that feature only online play.
And for those critics of grpahics…remember Super Mario Bros. on the NES? Crap graphics compared to now, but amazing game. If graphics made games, we’d have left it all at Pong.
To “xhusker1nationx” who said Halo 3 on Legendary-coop was too easy, take a look at this:
The mythic skull unlocks the ‘next’ difficulty: from Heroic, to Legendary, to… Mythic. Enemies are twice as tough
Other skulls make them dodge more often, throw more grenades, etc. For gamers who want the fullest experience, they should get the skulls (at least one partner) and use them
i play COD and halo if i want to do different things. If i want to feel like a man part of a squad i’ll play COD for the teamwork, the tactical-ness etc.
If i want to feel like a super soldier with faster paced action, i’ll pick up Halo
the co-op in halo 3 needs match matching! Forge needs match making. NOt everyone has their friends on line all at the same time! The Halo 3 single player is fun but not fantastic. It is fun though
I agree, when I first played COD4 I was amazed but a few hours into it I found myself comparing it to Halo and saying man I wish this had the saved films feature. I think there both amazing games but after seeing Halo saved films I want every game to have it. Thats just my opinion.
To xhusker1nationx, just pointing out that CoD 4 has REAL life based weaponary and yes i do agree with you on the Halo 3 weapons they just make no sense, anyways CoD 4 is like the perfect game, the health slowly recharges WHILE being shot at, the guns a just fantastic since their real, scary plot line to- it could happen…
I can definitly see your point. I find myself comparing Halo 3 to other games.
One thing that I like about Halo 3 is that it offers online coop and 2 person offline coop (4 would be fun, but obviously harder to see). I like playing games with my friends that do not have 360’s so offline abilities are important to me. Halo 3 helps meet some of those needs. It also works great for LAN parties.
Another feature that Bungie offers that others don’t is the Online Stats. I look at another favorite game of mine: Rainbow Six Vegas and I can only wish that they had the type of stats that Halo 3 has. Those are enjoyable to see and they probably have most of the data available anyways. In-Game aspects are great, but why not offer the ability to see your career stats as well?
I do compare games to Halo 3 just because I think they have done a great job in what they offer to the consumer (in and out of the game). I look forward to seeing what new games will come out with such as more games supporting coop campaign options and more multiplayer abilities.
OK let me get this straight, your complaining that Halo 3 has done there multiplayer system to well. WTF dont we want games to push the envelop ok maybe it does make you see recent releases differently but (A) it is pushing multiplayer forward and (B) this will lead to a huge step in the multiplayer features in upcoming games, Isent that what we want.
Hahaha this is funny just b/c PS3 only users do not have Halo, doesn’t mean we don’t have to enjoy the exclusives? I personally have Wii, PS3, Xbox 360 and don’t care
the game didn’t really have that much anyways. Master Chief DIES!
for the record, assassin’s creed is a hell of a lot better than what the critics give it.
i enjoy it more than halo 3 personally
Well, the fact is that Microsoft had everything envisioned pretty damn well. What Halo does right is that you can have friends over to play multi-player, but throw the online element into it. The fact that a game costs 60$ now, I’d like to have the replayability of the internet on a lot of games. Obviously some games aren’t made for the internet. I can’t see Mario Galaxy working, or say a game like Mass Effect. COD4 had an awesome but short single player, if it had no internet play I’d be outraged. So in my opinion, the games expensive, if it can have an online THEN DO IT. Not every game will be as good as Halo 3, but give me some replayability. I don’t know how an online mode makes the single player suffer. It’s an added bonus.
I know a lot of gamers, myself included, haven’t touched a single player campaign in years. Beating the computer just isn’t that satisfying. To me, games like Quake, Counter Strike, Halo, Starcraft, and Warcraft are so much fun because the main focus of those games are the multiplayer aspect, and the satisfaction of beating other breathing, thinking human beings.
More poker, less solitare!
Wow, you are criticizing Halo 3 for raising the bar? Of course people expect more out of games now, why is that a bad thing? This will only push developers to innovate even more. Praising the wii for being so simple is completely counterintuitive to the industry. Would you be happy if Halo 3 was a piece of garbage, that way developers would never have to step up?
Don’t forget there has been NOTHING like bungie.net a game ever. I can’t tell you how much water cooler talk revolves around what so and so’s kill to death ratio is. The fact that all of our multiplayer stats are out there has really added a tremendous amount to the game experience (at least in my office) our CFO, CIO and Chief Architect all look at them during work and has made Halo3 a sort of corporate bonding/sh*t talking experience. COD4 is awesome but dosen’t have the internet accessible stats and so we don’t play it as much. You can see the stats in game but it’s not quite the same as seeing what everyone’s screenshots are or how they finished in the last team deathmatch. People who don’t even play halo are interested in how last night’s halo went and how we are progressing based purely on bungie.net sh*t talking.
Heh–kind of funny here, but I have the opposite view of some. Unless it’s a game designed primarily/entirely for multiplayer (Unreal Tournament for example), I’d say it better have a good single-player game with it. I have little interest in multiplayer FPS games, personally–if I wanted to run around listening to foul-mouthed little brats, I’d hit blogs…
So wait you want every single game that comes out to have online play or multiplayer split screen. OMG. What a noob. It’s called cost and it plays a very big part into what is put into the game not to mention not every game is prefect for online play.
Personally i only play online games, mainly because i just get bored playing single player. the only single player games i do play would be sports games but im more a fps person anyway.
and with COD4 i found that yes it does lack the guest part to online it is really dissapointing mainly due to cod3 had it even though that was made by another company i thought they would put it in still considering halo 3 made it up for 4.
and for online co-op or just co-op i really couldn’t give a shit.
in the end it just comes down to your own opinion.
and for whoever said halo was a faster game then cod your wrong. cod 4 is alot faster then halo. you run faster all the time plus you can sprint and you kill people alot quicker.
and im not to sure if cod 4 is more stragetic either. you dont need to work together in cod 4 to own where as in halo you do. in cod 4 one person can dominant the whole other team. in halo you dont really see that..
1. Don’t work for a game company.
2. Complain.
3. ?????
4. PROFIT!
This topic has sparked a lot of discussion, and as such, we’re going to take it on as a podcast topic. You should see the podcast for this week on Wednesday. I hope you all take a second to check it out.
I don’t think this is spoiled at all. People expect good games with replay value and a lot of options. If a game doesn’t have multiple game modes, or cooperative play, or balanced online deathmatch then it is a relic of the past, and in turn, a shitty game. Game companies are too antsy to get a new game on the shelf and make a buck instead of making a quality game with replay value. They have no incentive to make good games, especially if there game isn’t part of a series. Your replay value means that you won’t go buy their next awful game. Ultimately most games are shit bags, and games that are good tend to open peoples eyes as to the shittiness of other games.
I think this is a very interesting take on the ways first player shooter multiplayer has been improving. Truly, Halo 3 is the crown of Bungie’s Halos in terms of multiplayer, and I do find it strange that we do not see more of it’s features in games. Saved Films and Garry’s Mod-esque game modes are nothing new to the multiplayer genre. Oh, and i just have to say this to ConsoleUpdates, YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT WATCH THE CREDITS! Sorry, just had to get that out of my system
.
For you who are complaining about online stats, have you seen the new Steam Community. Not only do they keep track of stats, but they keep track of time played for each class, best weapon, most rounds, kills, maps, the list just goes on. Personally Bungie is kinda behind the ball on starting to record stats, as companies like EA and Valve have been doing it more successfully and longer. Personally I don’t really like the Halo series. People move too god damn slow on a console for me, I don’t understand how people can handle waiting 20 seconds to turn around, but that’s just me. Like Jonathan said, if you want to keep in touch with good pricing, and good games with good features, go to PC gaming.
From reading some posts, I’m sure this game is gonna be loads of fun for me and my family, we just haven’t gotten it yet.
@ Freddy
20 seconds to turn around??? Have you even played Halo? How about changing your sensitivity. You can do that you know. You will be turning so fast you’ll get dizzy.
it didn’t ruin anything, by your logic you’d be happy if devs put out the same kind of game over and over again. It’s not cookie cutter like that and it SHOULDNT be. Then we’d never have anything new, it might not be great now because Halo 3 trumps a lot of games as far as replayability and options, but that’s fine, developers will learn to mimic what worked and build upon it, and then we can expect the cycle to repeat with Halo 4, and Halo 5…etc.
Welcome to 1999, when Unreal Tournament, Game of the Year was unleashed. Multiple game modes, mutators to mix things up, tons of maps, player models, weapons, voice packs, all built in to the game. Fast forward a year or two and literally hundreds of new maps, mutators, weapons, characters and more were available. Lets not even get into the retail-quality games that were released for free using the game engine.
Fortunately, Unreal Tournament 3 will be coming to consoles, so console gamers will finally be able to get their hands on a game with that kind of feature set.
Everyone makes good points in all thier posts…but everyone also needs to realize that their all opinions..here is my opinion…I love the halo series…i loved COD4 ..good things about both games some bad things about both games but still really good games…the story in both are awsome halo more specifically becuase their is three games and a deeper story.(Storouldy based off the book called “Ringworld”) anyway my opinion is definatley games should focus on the singel player game that to me is the most important thing…i usually get pissed playing MP anyway…this is just my opinion but there are tons of good games…no game is going to be perfect all games have their flaws we jsut have to except that >Except Zelda:ocarina of time to me that was a perfect game…But just my opinion ive always loved LOZ..
Okay I’m sorry but this article is absolutely wrong. You are essentially saying “I hate how Halo 3 had so many great aspects that it makes games that aren’t as good seem unimpressive.” That is the evolution of the gaming industry. When color tv’s were invented people didn’t complain because it made black and white sets seem like crap. Improvement is the natural unavoidable path of the gaming (and any) industry. We should celebrate the Bungie is setting the bar high so other games will strive to reach and surpass it. Do you hate Sony for bringing 3d graphics mainstream since now there aren’t many 2d games?
“Let’s just stop and think for a minute about how ridiculous it would be to have not one, but two Medieval assassins running around killing higher-ups.”
You think the existence of two assassin’s in the same time period is ridiculous but two Master Chief’s is not a stretch at all.
“Or for that matter, if there were a whole bunch of them just running around trying to kill each other.”
16 Master Chiefs trying to kill each other….enough said.
“More co-op and multiplayer modes would be great, but if it comes with the possibility of a less enjoyable core game, I’d rather go without.”
Blame the game developer for skimping on the single player then – they should concentrate on making both aspects fun.
“Maybe Nintendo had the right idea not making an easy online mode for their system. After all, people are enjoying Super Mario Galaxy, and no one seems to be complaining too much about a lack of online features.”
As for the most part, it is a completely different group of people playing on the Wii. Your reasoning is a complete fallacy. You are saying that because Nintendo essentially prevents good online play, that is why people don’t complain about it? That doesn’t even make sense. If anything, reduced online play would warrant MORE complaints about lack of good online play. The reason is because the type of person that plays Wii is into a more casual style of play. People who play 360 are generally more hardcore gamers which is why you see the much more critical comments about the game.
Fail.
Though most of those features were in far cry….coop single player and online was in doom…. I think people just need cultured but… the new generation only wants graphics …. halo wasn’t anything revolutionary it just remembered something about what games did before it……
I did email you this, but I figured you might like it here as well.
Hello,
I do hope Jonathan is able to read this email. I just finished picking myself up from the floor laughing after reading “Editorial: Halo 3 Has Spoiled Xbox Live Gamers”
Now If you could please talk off your Microsoft hat off for a moment and maybe we could go over this thing you wrote.
”But why? Call of Duty 2 lacked those options as well, and I never gave it a second thought. Well, that’s probably because I hadn’t seen them as an option before. The game is spectacular as it is, but I keep thinking how it could be more spectacular.”
Granted, Call of Duty is very spectacular, and as spectacular as it could have been, if it was able to be any more spectacular as it already is. This is the fun thing about video games. As new spectacular titles continue to come forth, developers are able to use spectacular ideas from other spectacular games. The end result one giant spectacular game!
“Assassin’s Creed. I haven’t played it yet, so I haven’t formulated my own opinion about it; but I’m sure most of us have seen the less-than-stellar reviews. And in the midst of some of these reviews, comments on news articles, and forum posts, I’ve seen a number of people complain about the lack of co-op”
How Assassin’s Creed and Halo can be compared is beyond me. I mean last I checked assassins work alone 100 percent of the time. But ya..if you’re able to explain that to me, I would really appreciate it. Secondly I would do some research before commenting on something like that since you seem miss informed. (look up for perfect example)
“Enter Halo 3, and now everyone expects multiple robust online modes to make a game perpetually replayable.”
Simple things for simple minds. Funny saying isn’t it? Granted how much of the same levels are you able to play before it becomes a snore fest? Then again, maybe I do not see Halo 3 as a spectacular game as you do.
“Maybe Nintendo had the right idea not making an easy online mode for their system. After all, people are enjoying Super Mario Galaxy, and no one seems to be complaining too much about a lack of online features. And they’re adding online multiplayer to Smash Bros. Brawl, which is probably the one Wii game the most people would want that feature for.”
I’m assuming you are 14 at this point. Granted, not every man, women and child in god’s green earth care about spectacular online games (there’s that word again) Ever stop to think people enjoy solid single player complain? Ever stop to think after playing online over and over again, running into the same 14 year olds using profanity when you kill them becomes a bore? Ever just want to finish a game on your own? Ever think that Wii and 360, hell even the Playstation 3 are directed to different genre of people? Case in point my girl friend loves her Wii and DS, ahhh you wouldn’t get it….
“I’m not saying I don’t prefer games with online features — far from it — but it doesn’t make or break a game in my opinion”
You could have fooled me..no really that was a pretty spectacular ending to this little story here. So I must ask the following,
Who approved this?
Was drugs or alcohol or any illegal substances used before or after the period you presented this “spectacular” pile of rubbish to them?
Are you over the age of 19? (Be honest)
Also do you mind changing your site name to xboxdefenceforce.com I don’t think you screamed fanboi loud enough.
To sum up : you are mad, since people are….? Sorry I couldn’t find a real reason to your post.
Look forward to hear from you..
Just a thought to ‘John’…bad example, man. 16 Master Chiefs (or to be more accurate, 16 Spartans with the same capabilities as MC) running around make some sense, because it’s a military game. A gaggle of kiddies running around as a big group in a stealth game like Assassin’s Creed…doesn’t make sense at all, any more than 16 Solid Snakes, Garrets, or any other similar character. (And before you whip out MGS4, it looks like the multiplayer there is mostly another tactical game, with the same kind of stealthiness found in any other such game–other than having Snake as one of the characters, it doesn’t look particularly outstanding).
“Online multiplayer with multiple modes, online co-op, splitscreen co-op, splitscreen multiplayer,”
I hope this isn’t declaring that H3 is at all a pioneer with those.
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (pretty much launched with the 360 here in Aus) had all that and more too. Not trying to bash Halo, but putting it up on a pedestal for features that have already been done is quite a n00b move!
wah wah wah. what you really want is a PC. All the options you talk about (and many many more) have been on PC games for years now. Give it another generation or two and consoles will just be standardized PC’s in a pretty package.
Holy hell, people. Holy hell. I step out for half a day, and this is what happens?
To the people who at least read the article before posting a comment: Thank you. It’s nice to see some actual discussion on the topic among the comments of “Halo rulez/suxor.” Honestly, I appreciate it…unless you are also one of the following:
To the people who attacked me personally: I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better at matching your opinions next time.
To the people who wrote comments longer than the actual article: I get paid to write this stuff. What’s your excuse?
And to the people trying to label me a fanboy: Is it that hard to handle someone playing a system other than your own? Can’t a guy own a damn console and enjoy a game without being a “fanboy.” I haven’t touched Halo 3 since CoD4 came out, which I’ve been playing on the PC. When I don’t feel like playing a multiplayer game, I’ve been playing Super Mario Galaxy. I don’t have a PS3 because I just haven’t bought one yet, plain and simple. I would, but I barely have enough time to play the games I have for my other systems; not to mention the harsh burdens of friends and a social life. I’ll play any game that looks fun no matter what system it’s on. Of course I’m not going to be playing anything for a week, because I’m going to visit game-less relatives over Thanksgiving, and I’m not connected to any gaming device by an umbilical chord. I think if you look in your high school anatomy text books, you’ll find this is quite possible. Why don’t you give it a try?
Alright, back to the issue at hand…
There seems to be some confusion on what I was saying, which I can’t tell is from people not reading the article past the title, general misinterpretation, or me not being clear enough the first time. At any rate, let me clarify: my point was that, as great as a bevy of multiplayer features can be, to completely rule out a game because it lacks multiplayer features just seems plain ridiculous to me. I used Halo 3 as my prime example simply because it’s a recent title that the majority of people have some familiarity with, and because it’s the one I see brought up the most when I hear someone complain about a lack of multiplayer in other games. Of course Halo wasn’t the first game with all these multiplayer features, but it did feature all of them in one complete package and was bought by the most people; making it influential on the industry for better or for worse. Ever since the game was released, it’s been compared to every game that’s come out in the short span of time since. And that’s what I was commenting on: this weird change that seems to have happened since the game came out, where everyone automatically expects every new game to have better or similar features. But what worked for Halo 3 won’t necessarily work for other games, and I personally don’t see a problem with that. Different games are obviously going to have different features and appeal to different people. Nothing wrong with that.
Anyhoo, thank you all for the traffic, and good night. Read a book.
Some good points Jonathan. I am still puzzled at the number of people that think that a game sans multiplayer is a poorer one for it. Not only is it ridiculous, the fact of the matter is that some games are not designed well for multiplayer. A game that is designed to produce a powerful and immersive single player experience may not work well with voice chat and gamertags floating around and other players doing lord knows what they want. Bioshock’s weapons and plasmids are far less about accuracy and much more about the right tool for the right job. Putting that into deathmatch would be incredibly boring, and no developer should have to tweak their single player design in order to accomodate multiplayer.
Also, I’m laughing at the idea that Mario Galaxy is for casual players. Mario has been host to some very, very challenging games in his time, and Galaxy is a pretty damn amazing piece of platforming. Just because it is on the “casual” console doesn’t mean a thing.
Let’s see how many of these kids could beat Lost Levels, or even just beat Mario Bros. 1 with a save feature.
I agree with most of what you’ve said here, however I think the major source of disappointment with Call of Duty 4’s lack of support for online-split-screen is the fact that even its predecessor Call of Duty 3 incorporated that element, not any effect of Halo 3. Granted it was done by a completely different developer, but to remove such a popular element was in my opinion incredibly foolish when creating another sequel.
The point some have made.. that you tried to defend is that you mentioned titles in this article that really have no point being mentioned.
All you had to say is that .. Due to Xbox live support in games that many single player titles have had the bar raised for what people expect a full-featured game should have. You’re article was poorly written and researched. you can’t sit here and try to suggest folks are attacking you personally when you site games You haven’t played! You left yourself open to that. This article does come off fanboish instead of being researched and written with the care an adult should have.
Step back and have some one Edit you’re work. And I think many people with an objective mine would have said.. John? WTF is you’re point? and can you actually make it without sounding as if it was written on the can while reading some gaming magazine. You make piss poor attempt to insult readers being able to type longer responses then your article.. Because our thought’s were clearer and better written then what you just crapped out.
IF you consider yourself a journalist … Learn to write first.
“To the people who wrote comments longer than the actual article: I get paid to write this stuff. What’s your excuse?”
http://www.ps3news.com
http://www.consoletech.net
I’m just sayin is all…
Lets try this again shall we?
“To the people who attacked me personally: I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better at matching your opinions next time.”
Once again you miss the point, it isn’t “matching” anyone opinions at all, maybe people are…call me crazy, looking for any reason behind this..
“And to the people trying to label me a fanboy: Is it that hard to handle someone playing a system other than your own? Can’t a guy own a damn console and enjoy a game without being a “fanboy.”"
“Of course I’m not going to be playing anything for a week, because I’m going to visit game-less relatives over Thanksgiving, and I’m not connected to any gaming device by an umbilical chord. I think if you look in your high school anatomy text books, you’ll find this is quite possible. Why don’t you give it a try?”
Didn’t you try to clear this up, or make a point you have friends or something along those lines? We get it, congrads, you win first prize.
You are more then welcome to enjoy any systems you own, its your right!
But reading this post, I’ve gathered the following, thanks to xbox and halo 3, they feed they poor, and help stray puppy’s find homes.
“To the people who wrote comments longer than the actual article: I get paid to write this stuff. What’s your excuse?”
We can go down this road again, but then again, it would turn into the special Olympics, at the end does anyone win?
“Is it that hard to handle someone playing a system other than your own?”
I happen to own xbox 360, xbox 360 test unit, ps3, wii..wait, wait this is turning into my penis is bigger then yours argument, yet again pointless…
“I haven’t touched Halo 3 since CoD4 came out, which I’ve been playing on the PC. When I don’t feel like playing a multiplayer game, I’ve been playing Super Mario Galaxy”
Could have fooled me..
“I have for my other systems; not to mention the harsh burdens of friends and a social life.”
The point if brining this up is….you have friends? You have other systems?…I..I can’t see the reason behind this once again.
“There seems to be some confusion on what I was saying, which I can’t tell is from people not reading the article past the title, general misinterpretation, or me not being clear enough the first time.”
You speak very high of yourself, this is good, in the work force you should carry extreme amount of confidence in what you do. Now making a bogus claim “me not being clear enough the first time” as you can see many times since this has been posted you haven’t been clear. Might want to rephrase that.
“Ever since the game was released, it’s been compared to every game that’s come out in the short span of time since.”
Halo 3 was good, not grate, the lack of maps online is a joke, also for short period of time far to many shooty snipers matches.
“But what worked for Halo 3 won’t necessarily work for other games”
That and the fact, hyped game, large cult following, but I guess that also didn’t work for it as well.
But you’re welcome for the traffic, and I leave you with this
http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg
Also I hope you do not take this as personal jabs towards you, I do hope you use this in hopes to make a proper editorial, maybe you hitting the books yourself wouldn’t hurt. Maybe one day you will be able to make a “spectacular” editorial.
_skitzo_,
“Lets try this again shall we?
“To the people who attacked me personally: I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better at matching your opinions next time.”
Once again you miss the point, it isn’t “matching” anyone opinions at all, maybe people are…call me crazy, looking for any reason behind this..”
Should he really have to make it obvious that the comment was somewhat sarcastic? Of course he isn’t going to try to match people’s opinions. Also, are you the editorial police? lol
There are no real laws written on how an editorial needs to go. I think he did a great job with this article.
I completely just happened upon this site, and honestly don’t know Jonathon from Adam, so don’t think I’ve taken sides due to some sort pre-established relationship, but I must ask:
_skitzo_, what did you think of Team Fortress 2? I’m just wondering, since both times your only real argument against Halo 3 has been the lack of maps… that and shotty snipers being too prevalent in the matchmaking lists (which you admit was fixed quickly). So again, I’m wondering… how’d you like TF2? I personally can’t understand the orgasms this game seems to elicit, and with only 6 maps to boot! And even more… with only 1 game type per map! I’m not saying that you enjoyed TF2, since you never expressed opinion either way, but often I’ve seen the two compared and one exclusively chosen over the other due to their close timeframe of release. So if this is true, I’m wondering how “the lack of maps online is a joke” compares to TF2’s offerings?
I enjoyed the game for all of 2 hours, and then I really wasn’t that impressed. The classes seemed to lack meaning when all you had to do was build a team of engineers and turrets. I played the longest game of CTF of my life with no winner because of the impenetrable walls of shotguns and turrets (that were honestly present on both sides).
While I agree that any game can become stale if played for too long, Team Fortress did so in record time for me. But I’m also experienced/mature/learned enough to realize that this is only MY opinion, and that opinions will ALWAYS differ with no chance or reason to be swayed otherwise.
I was very unimpressed with TF2. I can understand and accept that I’m in the minority. You seem unimpressed with Halo 3. You must understand the YOU’RE in the minority.
Good games come down to doing more things right than wrong, while at the same time being FUN. If it has these two things, it’s a good game. The problem is, fun is an opinion, and therefore whether a game is ‘good’ is a strikingly varied phenomenon.
I also admit to not being a professional writer, as you are most likely able to tell from this post, and to that end understand that I’ve gotten heavily off topic, but your post struck me as biased.
To get back on topic, I think what many of you can’t seem to get through your head is that jon is NOT PRAISING Halo 3. All he said is that after Halo 3 many people on forums seem to be comparing ridiculously unrelated games to Halo 3, and even he, himself, played COD 4 wishing it had some of the features Halo had. His conclusion? For many people, Halo has broken other games for many other people. He also concluded that while he understood (and personally experienced) the inevitable comparison of shooters to Halo, he thought it was crazy how past the line those comparisons have gone (to games where they don’t belong).
“But reading this post, I’ve gathered the following, thanks to xbox and halo 3, they feed they poor, and help stray puppy’s find homes.” As far as I can tell, YOU are the only one coming up with this conclusion. And how, I might add, I’ll never know. He wasn’t saying that Halo 3 cures disease. He’s saying that from what he’s seen, everything seems to be compared to it, so much that any game that lacks Multiplayer has been declared an abomination. Were exactly does he say, “Halo owns the universe, and any game that isn’t it is pure shit” ? Cause I sure didn’t see that.
“How Assassin’s Creed and Halo can be compared is beyond me. I mean last I checked assassins work alone 100 percent of the time. But ya..if you’re able to explain that to me, I would really appreciate it.”
HOLY SHIT, that’s his WHOLE POINT! Go back and re-read his paragraph again. He was saying exactly that. “And in the midst of some of these reviews, comments on news articles, and forum posts, I’ve seen a number of people complain about the lack of co-op and online multiplayer. Let’s just stop and think for a minute about how ridiculous it would be to have not one, but two Medieval assassins running around killing higher-ups.” He used the word ridiculous. Not awesome, or kitty or dope… but ridiculous. In case you weren’t aware, the word has a negative connotation.
If you’re going to talk down to someone, make sure you’ve read their view points well enough; it’d be embarrassing to find they have the same ones you do.
I think you’re seeing what YOU want to see. Attacking this guy for writing that he’s seen an overly abundant amount of halo vs the world comparisons is just… odd. That was his only point. Halo 3 has destroyed many 360 owners expectations of other games. Thats it? What’s with all this other shit you’ve pulled out of your ass?
I think you found this space as place to play out your own agenda, and boost your own ego, claim you’re a better journalist all while throwing out a few plugs along the way.
Pathetic.
Webster’s Dictionary defines the word editorial as such:
1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.
2. a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station or channel.
3. something regarded as resembling such an article or statement, as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.
I really wish that people would realize that editorials are OPINION pieces, and most likely will not include any sort of “research” beyond what has formed in the writers thoughts.
Generally, if a vast amount of research is involved it becomes a “feature” or an “investigative” piece. Also, editorials do not have to be formed in the same sense as a normal item of news/review etc. so to tell him that it was poorly written is just silly. Anyone who has ever taken a journalism course would know this, and if they have not, maybe they should do a little research themselves before slamming the writer. It is ok to disagree with someone, but to bash them on their writing or research skills when commenting on an editorial is basically an uneducated and ill-informed thing to do.
That being said, thanks for visiting.