Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: 5 Reasons why there sould be no new vehicles in halo 3
  • Subject: 5 Reasons why there sould be no new vehicles in halo 3
Subject: 5 Reasons why there sould be no new vehicles in halo 3
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: RedFallout
Posted by: Xenogear
The only reason why people wouldn't want new vehicles is because they are going to be stuck on halo 2 like people were stuck on halo 1.

My feelings exactly. The game has to change and grow, or it will be stale.


Exactly. You guys are thinking the same as bungie, whoever doesnt think that there should not be new vehicles totally missed the conception that all the Halo games came with a kick to make gameplay more challenging...You cant say that halo 2 multiplayer is not less challenging than halo:ce. than u are just being insane. Assult and CTF is much more challenging and halo 3 will find ways to make it even more challenging just like new vehicles and or bigger maps and more players.

  • 07.23.2006 11:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

they should put in a tigermoth or a slow flying plane

  • 07.23.2006 11:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ok, I do thinkk they should have new vehicles, and while I support some new human flying craft and hopefuly a pelican or covenant dropships, the one thing I do not want is a plane. Putting in a pelican or dropships adds to the game, but putting in a plane adds a whole dimension that I do not think should currently exist in the Halo universe.

  • 07.23.2006 11:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'd like to be able to ride the HORNET(covenet jet pack).

  • 07.23.2006 11:55 PM PDT
Subject: 5 Reasons why there should be no new vehicles in halo 3

hey look where i live, LOL

their should not be any more humane vehicles on the earth, because the earth has been petty much been over run by the covenant,entire city were destroy look at new mombassa. but new covenant vehicles wound be acceptable.and when I say any more I mean none. Its just an observation of the battlefield.

[Edited on 7/24/2006]

  • 07.24.2006 12:21 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: High Mage
their should not be any more humane vehicles on the earth, because the earth has been petty much been over run by the covenant,entire city were destroy look at new mombassa. but new covenant vehicles wound be acceptable.and when I say any more I mean none. Its just an observation of the battlefield.


So you are saying that in taking over the better parts of Earth we have not retained any new technology and we are just biding the time to our untimely doom? It does not have to be new to the Halo universe, but just something we haven't seen before. I think it would be ridiculous to have Halo 3 and no new human vehicles, I would be severely dissapointed. As far as I know the only new human vehicle they included in Halo 2 was the Gausse variant of the warthog. I think if Halo 3 will live up to its hype its going to have to have new vehicles and weapons, and ways of warfare. It should not stay the exact same for T3H 0B3R HAL0 PR0S who wasted countless months trying to get good at a game that they all knew would be usurped by the new, and when I say new I mean new gameplay new content, by the new Halo 3.

  • 07.24.2006 12:38 AM PDT
Subject: 5 Reasons why there sould be no new vehicles in halo 3

hey look where i live, LOL

hello have you even played halo 2 the rocket luncher only damage they guns of the phantom, you'd need a tank to even stand a chance of shoot it down.

  • 07.24.2006 12:42 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: High Mage
hello have you even played halo 2 the rocket luncher only damage they guns of the phantom, you'd need a tank to even stand a chance of shoot it down.


no but maybe a scarab or take a banshee and hop out to board it

  • 07.24.2006 12:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: DUDEHALO3
Posted by: High Mage
hello have you even played halo 2 the rocket luncher only damage they guns of the phantom, you'd need a tank to even stand a chance of shoot it down.


no but maybe a scarab or take a banshee and hop out to board it


Or have you ever considered that simple gameplay just never allowed it and that was the only way they could support you damaging it? I'm sure that a rocket could damage a Phantom and that a few rockets could effectively take it down.

[Edited on 7/24/2006]

  • 07.24.2006 12:47 AM PDT
Subject: 5 Reasons why there should be no new vehicles in halo 3
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

u are very short sighted indeed. If you include large troop carrying type vehicles (pelicans, phantoms, trucks, those covenant things in the tunnel in halo 2 we all expected to see more of) that opens up all kinds of new option, imagine instead of all small arena maps which most of the halo 2 maps were, it would allow for large maps with expansive areas in them. Open sky for ariel fights, Plains and hills for tanx and infantry fights.

And what's wrong with Battlefield? I personally think the battlefield 1942 multi blew away halo 2 multi. Halo 1 was a different story.

I also wouldn't mind finding out how they collected and redistributed almost all new weapons and you don't see any of the old ARs, Pelicans or those U shaped covey D-ships. I thought those were cooler than the phantoms n e ways.

  • 07.24.2006 12:54 AM PDT

hey look where i live, LOL

okay Xenogear were do you think will build all are new humane vehicles have them pop out of thin air. the covenant have control of the earth. our cities are in ruin are homes destroyed. watch the trailer and you well see the huge covenant fleet seating over new Mombassa.

  • 07.24.2006 12:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Uh I never said that we will have to build new stuff, I said that we already have it we just haven't used/seen it yet. It is rediculous to suggest that we are just infantry, no, thats not the case. If the whole Earth is taken over how are we surviving in the first place? I believe there is a VERY strong Covenant precense surrounding the excavation site and expanding every day but I do not think that they would be able to take all of Earth, all of our cities so quickly.

  • 07.24.2006 1:00 AM PDT
Subject: 5 Reasons why there sould be no new vehicles in halo 3

hey look where i live, LOL

it a alien spacecraft met for dropping off troops into battle I think it would be heavily armored if not have so type how electromagnetic shield to repulse small arms.

  • 07.24.2006 1:01 AM PDT
Subject: 5 Reasons why there should be no new vehicles in halo 3
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

:Yeah, plus you're on earth, if you go to a major metropolis (bigger than Mombasa) you'd probably find an ONI center where they have the cutting edge stuff hanging around.

Don't forget, the new pelicans, the phantom, the gauss hog and the major changes to the scorpion, wraith, banshee, ghost, behaivor and strength of all enemies except the grunts, the marine's armor, the dissappearance of the ball stationary turrets and U shaped dropships, seem to have happened overnight, unless both the PoA (okay could be) and the fleet attacking reach were extremely out of date. So it's reasonable to have a change in military tech with little to no transition.

  • 07.24.2006 1:06 AM PDT

hey look where i live, LOL

around new Mombassa their were at least 12 covenant capital ships and their were 50 to begin which wears the rest. and maybe even more on the way. one word (glassing)



[Edited on 7/24/2006]

  • 07.24.2006 1:07 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

or the other 38 are in little bitty pieces. who knows but I don't think a large presence around the dig site is a sign they won. In Halo 2 they rushed it in the first place they didn't even bother to fight they just rushed Mombasa and then the Ark seemed to give them the location of instilation 06

  • 07.24.2006 1:11 AM PDT

hey look where i live, LOL

way do you think its instilation 06 ? It seem a litte more important then that. this is my last post see ya its 200 am.

[Edited on 7/24/2006]

  • 07.24.2006 1:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm sorry, I meant which ever halo they pop over too in halo 2 I thought it was six, I know halo 1 was 04. oops.

  • 07.24.2006 1:24 AM PDT
Subject: 5 Reasons why there sould be no new vehicles in halo 3
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Pecwae
ok mr mission, heres where your wrong.
battlefeild doesnt have aliens, or lasers or plasma stuff. so why even compare a futuristic shooter like halo, to a WWII shooter like battlefeild?
theres just no point

plus, a big map wouldn't be confusing, it would just be like a really large canyon or sumtin.

And a pelican isn't a sucide mission, because they would make it a little more durable than a damn banshee or ghost or warthog. plus, you could move large amounts of guys quicker than 3 in a warthog, or every1 runnin over the massive stretch of level.

plus, there would be more than one pelican, so not just 1 pelican to go get destroyed in.


ps. aphantom would be cool to fight against a pelican, with marines shooting out the back :D



Heh, alright Mr. Pecwae, here's where your wrong. You're saying a large canyone would do? I know I'm going to hear every single person in the world that plays Halo 3 being mad, because they can't drive the stupid Pelican anywhere.

It will rush maps. I like to think you have to earn where you are in a map, it eliminates playing on a level, people will instead stay in their base, and shoot it down as soon as you drop off.

You would need a map easily the size of about 20 Containments in order to satisfy the people who like Pelicans. But in that eliminate talking to your team. And also eliminating the fact that everyone is vital to victory.

No, it will be the guy with the Pelican who rules the day, we're turning this into Star Wars Battlefront, a game with aliens and futuristic weapons Pecwae.


There is a point to comparing those two games. That is the fact that they have the same mechanics, you're talking about the plot almost.

No matter what the style of the weapon or what time period, it still has a realistic counterpart, usually. The mechanics are the same.

To buff up a Pelican to the point where it is not easily destroyed makes it a God weapon, with 3 turrets? You have got to be kidding me. Then the ground force means nil, and they also have to have artillery to shoot it down.

I don't see a suitable idea here, or even possible map that would make the Pelican work. It would eliminate the stuff that makes Halo, Halo. Methinks, getting rid of the small maps. Well, not entirely. But in the rare, very rare event that they include Pelicans, they'll have to have a gametype specificaly for them, like, Very Big Team Battle or something.

  • 07.24.2006 7:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Doesn't matter what insane or sane vehicles or bizarre creatures Bungie puts in HALO 3. All that matters is that HALO 3 will either go out with a BANG or a whimper. MY opinion (you all agree) it'll go out in with a BANG.

  • 07.24.2006 8:21 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The Pelican wouldn't be a god weapon just it would take like 2 rockets or 3 if you hit certain sections so basically a flying tank. ANd go back to the halo1 vehicle theory. Have the vehicles destroyable but have a finite amount of damage involved. None of this "The vehicle stays alive as long as the guy inside does." Have it have life meter and if you don't bail before it blows too bad.

  • 07.24.2006 9:54 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yes, so why have it carry people? A flying tank, that carries people, like 6 people, and it's high in the air, that takes about 3 rocket hits, and you bail?

That's not smart. To have an easily destructable transport system for many people, not smart.
I don't like the idea of transport vehicles at all, well, I kind of like the transport Hog, but something tells me that it will result in complicated matches.

The Transport Hog is probably the best solution. Only about 4 people, and when it gets hit by a rocket, the passengers don't neccesarily die, unless the rocket is aimed at the back.

But I still don't like the idea of a transport vehicle at all.

  • 07.24.2006 10:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I stilll say Longsword and Pelican will be good in mulit player. Don't Like it dont put it on the map

  • 07.24.2006 11:26 AM PDT
Subject: 5 Reasons why there should be no new vehicles in halo 3
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

We need a change New Vehicles.

  • 07.24.2006 11:27 AM PDT

Posted by: NAPOLEONROKZ X
well ive slept walked all the way upstairs and started pouring me a bowl of lucky charms before I woke up

Posted by: arcaine light
autopilot

I believe the word is Superfluous not superflous.

  • 07.24.2006 11:28 AM PDT