Halo: Combat Evolved Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why Halo 3 beats Halo 1. *spoilers?*
  • Subject: Why Halo 3 beats Halo 1. *spoilers?*
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Why Halo 3 beats Halo 1. *spoilers?*
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Halo CE, but I enjoy Halo 3 more.


Campaign.
The levels were kinda repetitive. I mean, try 343GS for instance. Or the library. In 343GS, yes it was scary, but easy to be able to say "Hey, I've seen that at least 20 times now. Oh wait, I'm going in circles!" or, "why am I not seeing any enemies?". The library was hard to get lost in, but there's nowhere in the level that you can say "Hey, I remember this part" or "I LOVE THIS PART OF THE LEVEL". It's too damn repetitive. It's too hard to recognize how far you are into the level. Same with the escape part of the maw. Except for the middle part where foehammer is supposed to pick you up, it's all the same. And AotCR, there were WAY too many of the same rooms, and bridges and stuff. Also, first time I played Silent Cartographer, I got lost in this one part thinking "where is the damn door to go farther?".

Multiplayer
I never had the opportunity to play multiplayer without using XBConnect, so I don't know about that kind of multiplayer. But the online part gets fun on Halo 3. In CE, there weren't that many possibilities of games you could play. Now, with Forge, and a crapload more of custom game options, you can do almost anything. In XBConnect in CE, not so much. For one thing, the spawning systems sucked. I was playing team slayer on prisoner, and got killed within 1 second of spawning every single time I spawned. I was lucky to live 5 seconds. I was booted, for the reason "don't suck so much." The only time I played on Blood Gulch was fun, except for the fact my teammate was betraying me every time he saw me. That, and the lack of players. And in CE, you HAD to have another player to start the game. You couldn't just start it and fool around by yourself. And in 3, you get XBL!

Customizability
Is customizability even a word? If not, I just invented it. Anyway, in Halo 3, you get Forge, Armor perms, and alot more options for game variants. In CE, only game variants, and even then, not alot of options. And that's all I have to say about that -Forrest Gump

AI Intelligence
Face it. In CE, the marines were stupid. Shooting each other at least 30 times in a single firefight? Failed their driver's test? Running you over with a ghost? Captain Keyes running out into a firefight on Truth and Reconciliation? In 3, they were alot smarter. The only thing that was good about CE marines was that they'd APOLOGIZE for shooting you.

Gameplay
K, first thing I want to say is, physics. You don't die just by touching an enemy vehicle. Shotgun pellets DO NOT go that far. Your body does not fall into the same exact position every time you die. Medical equipment does NOT heal your wounds, only covers and protects them. If the physics were better in CE, MC would be COVERED in bandages.

That's all the reasons I can think of right now.

  • 01.10.2008 1:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Alister28
Campaign.
The levels were kinda repetitive. I mean, try 343GS for instance. Or the library. In 343GS, yes it was scary, but easy to be able to say "Hey, I've seen that at least 20 times now. Oh wait, I'm going in circles!" or, "why am I not seeing any enemies?". The library was hard to get lost in, but there's nowhere in the level that you can say "Hey, I remember this part" or "I LOVE THIS PART OF THE LEVEL". It's too damn repetitive. It's too hard to recognize how far you are into the level. Same with the escape part of the maw. Except for the middle part where foehammer is supposed to pick you up, it's all the same. And AotCR, there were WAY too many of the same rooms, and bridges and stuff. Also, first time I played Silent Cartographer, I got lost in this one part thinking "where is the damn door to go farther?".

Multiplayer
I never had the opportunity to play multiplayer without using XBConnect, so I don't know about that kind of multiplayer. But the online part gets fun on Halo 3. In CE, there weren't that many possibilities of games you could play. Now, with Forge, and a crapload more of custom game options, you can do almost anything. In XBConnect in CE, not so much. For one thing, the spawning systems sucked. I was playing team slayer on prisoner, and got killed within 1 second of spawning every single time I spawned. I was lucky to live 5 seconds. I was booted, for the reason "don't suck so much." The only time I played on Blood Gulch was fun, except for the fact my teammate was betraying me every time he saw me. That, and the lack of players. And in CE, you HAD to have another player to start the game. You couldn't just start it and fool around by yourself. And in 3, you get XBL!

Customizability
Is customizability even a word? If not, I just invented it. Anyway, in Halo 3, you get Forge, Armor perms, and alot more options for game variants. In CE, only game variants, and even then, not alot of options. And that's all I have to say about that -Forrest Gump

AI Intelligence
Face it. In CE, the marines were stupid. Shooting each other at least 30 times in a single firefight? Failed their driver's test? Running you over with a ghost? Captain Keyes running out into a firefight on Truth and Reconciliation? In 3, they were alot smarter. The only thing that was good about CE marines was that they'd APOLOGIZE for shooting you.

Gameplay
K, first thing I want to say is, physics. You don't die just by touching an enemy vehicle. Shotgun pellets DO NOT go that far. Your body does not fall into the same exact position every time you die. Medical equipment does NOT heal your wounds, only covers and protects them. If the physics were better in CE, MC would be COVERED in bandages.

That's all the reasons I can think of right now.
You're comparing a game that came out in 2001 to a game that was released last September. Obviously there will be a huge difference, for better or worse, and our standards and the way we know video games, let alone shooters, has changed in that time. When I compare Halo and Halo 3 at their release, I find that the original game was more interesting and unique, whereas by 2007 everything in Halo 3 had been done in a game before, and better. Halo is old, so its short comings and flaws that are ever so apparent today are forgivable.

I must agree with the shoddy AI, unbelievable physics, and the recycled level design; it's not perfect, but I like the game play balance over Halo 3's.
Posted by: Alister28
Shotgun pellets DO NOT go that far.

Um, yeah, they do. Last time I checked, a modern shotgun has a range up to forty yards. It's the year 2552, and you'd think they'd have something better than that piece of crap called the M90, when in relative comparison, shotguns of our time can reach distances approximately twice than that in the game. In Halo 2 and 3, you have to be able to freaking tell the color of their eyes before your shotgun becomes effective. That's not realistic. Games can have realistic physics or realistic game play, but this is Halo you're talking about.

[Edited on 01.10.2008 6:46 PM PST]

  • 01.10.2008 6:45 PM PDT

When you play on XBC, you need to play in a noobs only game or you will get spawn killed non-stop. You need to have strategy to break force spawning and your partner has to know how to give random spawns. With people at your skill level (like the kind of noobs you find on XBL H3), CE is much more fun than H3....much more fun. I know a group of guys that would LAN BG CTF 4v4 for 6 hours straight every single Saturday because they loved it so much....and thats only 1 map.

  • 01.10.2008 9:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Also, I made this topic because I'm rebelling against society. EVERYONE ALWAYS loves the original more than the sequels. For ANY game, or movie.
And about the shotgun pellets, I meant that they would be alot more spread out at that distance. I was like all the way across a room and shot once, and every one of the bullet holes were within 3 ft of each other. And Halo 3 is a lot more improved. Except for everyone whining about the melee system and skill system. If you have a low rank and are whining about it, you obviously suck at the game.

  • 01.11.2008 10:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Alister28
Also, I made this topic because I'm rebelling against society. EVERYONE ALWAYS loves the original more than the sequels. For ANY game, or movie.
And about the shotgun pellets, I meant that they would be alot more spread out at that distance. I was like all the way across a room and shot once, and every one of the bullet holes were within 3 ft of each other. And Halo 3 is a lot more improved. Except for everyone whining about the melee system and skill system. If you have a low rank and are whining about it, you obviously suck at the game.
I'm a level thirty-eight in Team Doubles and I'm whining about it. :)

Besides, at least the shotgun rounds reach farther.

  • 01.11.2008 5:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Master Kim
Posted by: Alister28
Also, I made this topic because I'm rebelling against society. EVERYONE ALWAYS loves the original more than the sequels. For ANY game, or movie.
And about the shotgun pellets, I meant that they would be alot more spread out at that distance. I was like all the way across a room and shot once, and every one of the bullet holes were within 3 ft of each other. And Halo 3 is a lot more improved. Except for everyone whining about the melee system and skill system. If you have a low rank and are whining about it, you obviously suck at the game.
I'm a level thirty-eight in Team Doubles and I'm whining about it. :)

Besides, at least the shotgun rounds reach farther.

I'm a level forty-five in Lone Wolves and I'm NOT whining about it.

  • 01.13.2008 10:49 AM PDT

Posted by: Alister28
Also, I made this topic because I'm rebelling against society. EVERYONE ALWAYS loves the original more than the sequels. For ANY game, or movie.

I know. This forum is so active it makes the Halo 3 forum look dead, and look at XBConnect; there are so many people who just won't stop playing Halo: CE. Sometimes I wish it was Halo 3 that had 1 million unique players in the last 24 hours. Sarcasm aside, console gamers happily jump on the newer is better bandwagon. There are plenty of people who prefer Halo 2 to Halo. There are plenty of people who prefer Halo 3 to both of them. However, there is a reason why other people prefer the original a lot of times. Often times sequels are the result of a failed attempt to replicate the greatness of an original, and there is some luck involved, especially with games. Sometimes ideas that sound great turn out to be not all that fun in practice. Usually the original has that kind of luck; otherwise they wouldn't be making a sequel.
Except for everyone whining about the melee system and skill system. If you have a low rank and are whining about it, you obviously suck at the game.
You could just say that a low rank means you suck at the game, but you could also understand the melee system, be able to use it well, and still not like it. There is a difference between acknowledging the flaws of a game, and not being able to adapt to those flaws. Anyway, this is a poor argument. If you criticize a game you must suck at it? That's retarded. What about movies and music; can those be criticized? Criticism can be made about games as well. It's not that much different.
I'm a level forty-five in Lone Wolves and I'm NOT whining about it.
They're different playlists; you really can't compare them.

Posted by: Alister28
Multiplayer
I never had the opportunity to play multiplayer without using XBConnect, so I don't know about that kind of multiplayer. But the online part gets fun on Halo 3. In CE, there weren't that many possibilities of games you could play. Now, with Forge, and a crapload more of custom game options, you can do almost anything. In XBConnect in CE, not so much. For one thing, the spawning systems sucked. I was playing team slayer on prisoner, and got killed within 1 second of spawning every single time I spawned. I was lucky to live 5 seconds. I was booted, for the reason "don't suck so much." The only time I played on Blood Gulch was fun, except for the fact my teammate was betraying me every time he saw me. That, and the lack of players. And in CE, you HAD to have another player to start the game. You couldn't just start it and fool around by yourself. And in 3, you get XBL!

It sounds like you started playing on XBConnect a bit too late. Without many people playing anymore, it's not as fun. That's not the fault of the game, though. You can do almost anything in Halo 3, except of course accurately replicating a Halo: CE CTF game. Vehicles always despawn, and you can never drive while carrying the flag. The flag is returned from a several meter range, rather than actually having to touch the flag. Also, on Halo: CE you could play custom games on XBConnect, with complete strangers. Halo 3 doesn't have a custom games search or list of available games, and it doesn't work on XBConnect because it has a 30ms ping max over LAN. Result: you still have to have people to play the game, just like Halo: CE. All that customization is worthless without people to play the game. You're pretty much in the same situation.


Customizability
Is customizability even a word? If not, I just invented it. Anyway, in Halo 3, you get Forge, Armor perms, and alot more options for game variants. In CE, only game variants, and even then, not alot of options. And that's all I have to say about that -Forrest Gump

Armor perms are kinda cool, but they don't make or break the game. It's a sequel; they should be adding new things to it. All those other options are cool, but most people just play matchmaking anyway. While you may personally play a lot of custom games, your value of rank shows the general mentality of the Halo 3 population.

AI Intelligence
Face it. In CE, the marines were stupid. Shooting each other at least 30 times in a single firefight? Failed their driver's test? Running you over with a ghost? Captain Keyes running out into a firefight on Truth and Reconciliation? In 3, they were alot smarter. The only thing that was good about CE marines was that they'd APOLOGIZE for shooting you.

Agreed. The Xbox had a lot less processing power than the Xbox 360, and AI intelligence had to suffer.


Gameplay
K, first thing I want to say is, physics. You don't die just by touching an enemy vehicle. Shotgun pellets DO NOT go that far. Your body does not fall into the same exact position every time you die. Medical equipment does NOT heal your wounds, only covers and protects them. If the physics were better in CE, MC would be COVERED in bandages.

That nice fall at the beginning of the Halo 3 campaign? That would kill Master Chief. He could not survive an impact like that; it's simply not possible. No suit could protect from that kind of impact. Fall damage is far more realistic, and I think of I've only seen it once in Halo 3, getting one of the skulls. Your suit healing you isn't that much better than med kits. Plus, these are med kits 500 years from now, and maybe they enable the suit to do the healing. Whatever the case, fun is more important than realism, and the health system in Halo makes the gameplay more enjoyable. I would argue that the overpowered vehicles are also more enjoyable, but that's certainly not realistic. However, realism doesn't make a better game.

  • 01.13.2008 1:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

How are med kits related to the game's physics system?

For the fall in H3 we can argue that he used some sort of pod to soften the landing to a point.

  • 01.14.2008 10:42 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Fall damage FTW :)

  • 01.14.2008 3:19 PM PDT

killsnackular.

uhh, yeah. about the shotgun thing: I have a 71 year old 16-Gauge Ithaca Model 37 Featherlite shotgun.....it groups about 3 feet at 35 yards with birdshot and a moderate choke. You'd think that in 544 years (ish) that a military 8-Gauge shotty that shoots 000 Buckshot would group a lot better than my sweet little 16. Just saying.

  • 01.16.2008 7:43 PM PDT

Posted by: Alister28
Posted by: Master Kim
Posted by: Alister28
Also, I made this topic because I'm rebelling against society. EVERYONE ALWAYS loves the original more than the sequels. For ANY game, or movie.
And about the shotgun pellets, I meant that they would be alot more spread out at that distance. I was like all the way across a room and shot once, and every one of the bullet holes were within 3 ft of each other. And Halo 3 is a lot more improved. Except for everyone whining about the melee system and skill system. If you have a low rank and are whining about it, you obviously suck at the game.
I'm a level thirty-eight in Team Doubles and I'm whining about it. :)

Besides, at least the shotgun rounds reach farther.

I'm a level forty-five in Lone Wolves and I'm NOT whining about it.


I can own you with my hands strapped... And I'm also whining about it.
By the way: You are weird. You say you did not get lost on the library, but you got lost on TSC????
And of course Halo 3 is a lot more improved: Bungie had 6 years to do that.

Oh yeah: Everyone who likes Halo 3 is a noob. (that's also what you were saying about people who hate Halo 3)

  • 01.17.2008 1:04 AM PDT

Posted by: Alister28
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Halo CE, but I enjoy Halo 3 more.



Gameplay
K, first thing I want to say is, physics. You don't die just by touching an enemy vehicle. Shotgun pellets DO NOT go that far. Your body does not fall into the same exact position every time you die. Medical equipment does NOT heal your wounds, only covers and protects them. If the physics were better in CE, MC would be COVERED in bandages.


The death by vehicle thing just made the game more challenging, and made you pay more attention. For instance, you couldn't run up to a charging ghost and bounce right off. And the fall damage; There is fall damage in Halo 3, contrary to popular opinion. It is called instant death. but only if you fall far enough, but then you wouldn't reach the ground before dying. And if physics were better in CE, the shots that slightly miss the hitbox of the Chief would actually miss the hitbox of the Chief.

  • 01.17.2008 3:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: chickenlittle
The death by vehicle thing just made the game more challenging, and made you pay more attention.
Instant kill at the touch of a moving vehicle also made it an extremely way to get kills and irritating when a noob does nothing in the game but run people over. One of the most irritating experiences I've ever had playing Halo online was playing on Blood Gulch with my own freaking team mate running over our spawns with the Banshee. It was so infuriating, and he did nothing but shout racial slurs and his verbal regurgitation. Not to digress, but it was one of those, if-I-ever-meet-this-person-in-real-life-I-will-kill-them moments.
Posted by: chickenlittle
And the fall damage; There is fall damage in Halo 3, contrary to popular opinion. It is called instant death. but only if you fall far enough, but then you wouldn't reach the ground before dying. And if physics were better in CE, the shots that slightly miss the hitbox of the Chief would actually miss the hitbox of the Chief.
I'm pretty sure that for the most part the death counter doesn't apply to multiplayer maps unless you fall off the arena into the abyss. In the first game, if you fell from a high place you would die before you hit the ground, however in subsequent titles you don't suffer instant death unless you fall off the map. Fall damage is practically non-existent and it does not affect the overall gameplay to any extent.

Personally, I don't find the lack of fall damage "unrealistic"; maybe a Spartan's armor is built to withstand drops like that? Use your imagination.

  • 01.17.2008 5:59 PM PDT

Posted by: chickenlittle
And the fall damage; There is fall damage in Halo 3, contrary to popular opinion. It is called instant death. but only if you fall far enough, but then you wouldn't reach the ground before dying. And if physics were better in CE, the shots that slightly miss the hitbox of the Chief would actually miss the hitbox of the Chief.

Yes, it's called instant death, not fall damage. Fall damage was experienced in Halo: CE.

Posted by: Master Kim
I'm pretty sure that for the most part the death counter doesn't apply to multiplayer maps unless you fall off the arena into the abyss. In the first game, if you fell from a high place you would die before you hit the ground, however in subsequent titles you don't suffer instant death unless you fall off the map. Fall damage is practically non-existent and it does not affect the overall gameplay to any extent.

Personally, I don't find the lack of fall damage "unrealistic"; maybe a Spartan's armor is built to withstand drops like that? Use your imagination.

Perhaps it could withstand the drop to some extent, but that's still moving quickly and almost instantly stopping. I don't know how the armor could do much to save what's inside, and either way, it still seems inconsistent with vehicle splatters.

I also like how crouching correctly could reduce damage, or increase it, if done incorrectly. It added an additional level of skill. Fall damage also makes it harder to escape when being shot.

[Edited on 01.18.2008 2:01 AM PST]

  • 01.17.2008 10:43 PM PDT

Exactly, so you couldn't just to the bottom of Construct when having no shields, and not even have to absorb the impact and stop running, and still get away with it.

  • 01.18.2008 8:04 AM PDT

Just message me on live.

I agree for different reasons but Halo CE is still awesome.

  • 01.19.2008 3:22 PM PDT

Posted by: chickenlittle
Exactly, so you couldn't just to the bottom of Construct when having no shields, and not even have to absorb the impact and stop running, and still get away with it.

I hate Construct.

  • 01.19.2008 11:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

guys ur all forgetting
its a video game
they dont have to be perfect

  • 01.20.2008 2:16 AM PDT

Posted by: Luke da gronk
guys ur all forgetting
its a video game
they dont have to be perfect

True, but why play the sequels when the original is so close to perfection?

  • 01.20.2008 2:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Luke da gronk
guys ur all forgetting
its a video game
they dont have to be perfect
Of course it isn't, but that's not the argument here and there are no perfect games.
Posted by: SentientGiraffe
Posted by: Luke da gronk
guys ur all forgetting
its a video game
they dont have to be perfect

True, but why play the sequels when the original is so close to perfection?
It is? :)

  • 01.20.2008 6:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
True, but why play the sequels when the original is so close to perfection?

In my opinion, the sequels fixed many problems that plagued the original. Close to perfection? Hardly.

  • 01.21.2008 12:57 AM PDT

Posted by: Master Kim
It is? :)

Yep. :)

  • 01.21.2008 1:51 AM PDT

Posted by: Botolf
In my opinion, the sequels fixed many problems that plagued the original. Close to perfection? Hardly.


What problems might those be? It would appear, to me, that the sequels created problems by changing the near perfection that was in the original.

  • 01.21.2008 1:56 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Posted by: Botolf
Posted by: SentientGiraffe
True, but why play the sequels when the original is so close to perfection?

In my opinion, the sequels fixed many problems that plagued the original. Close to perfection? Hardly.

They did fix problems that the original had.

They also discarded all the stuff that made it good.

I prefer halo 3 to halo 2, because I hated the problems halo 2 had. But even halo 2 had good points, and they binned those in halo 3. Same approach again. Each sequel addressed the problems of the last one, but inexplicably got rid of the stuff that worked well.

  • 01.21.2008 2:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
Posted by: Botolf
In my opinion, the sequels fixed many problems that plagued the original. Close to perfection? Hardly.


What problems might those be? It would appear, to me, that the sequels created problems by changing the near perfection that was in the original.

You really have to look long and hard at the game to find problems? :-/

Posted by: BadJMan
Posted by: Botolf
Posted by: SentientGiraffe
True, but why play the sequels when the original is so close to perfection?

In my opinion, the sequels fixed many problems that plagued the original. Close to perfection? Hardly.

They did fix problems that the original had.

They also discarded all the stuff that made it good.

I prefer halo 3 to halo 2, because I hated the problems halo 2 had. But even halo 2 had good points, and they binned those in halo 3. Same approach again. Each sequel addressed the problems of the last one, but inexplicably got rid of the stuff that worked well.

Stuff changes in sequels, it's just what happens. Devs aren't content to let their games just become empty clones of their precursors, so they try to fix what they think is bad, and add what they think is good. Creating a game designed from the start to "be like Halo 1" would probably suffer from "more of the same" feel.

[Edited on 01.21.2008 9:35 AM PST]

  • 01.21.2008 9:31 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3