Halo 3

agent 47

Is it me or was Halo 3 a big disappointment. The multiplayer is great no question but the single player mode was too short and used a throw-away plot. Like to hear your opinions

cold_filter

Yeah I wasnt a big fan of it, though i have yet to play online. I thought halo2 was very good, yet to play halo1,.

IMO Quake is a far more enjoyable game

TheDoc

think this has been done over and over

single player was a total let down..multiplayer was jsut halo2, nothing particulary wrong with it, but cod came along and washed it away

ranking up was more about playtime then playskill, which annoys me and id say it annoys alot of gamers...who cant dedicate their life to halo


a massivly hyped game, that was a pure let down

Shiminay

Too short (a non-regular, non-360-owning player like me finished it in about 10 hours tops). Didn't get to play the multiplayer online yet, I'd say it'd be alright.

But cold_filter's right, Quake's way better

kaimera

I loved the SP.

Improved on both H1 & H2 and it worked so well. Really enjoyable and some memorable levels and set pieces for me. Never bothered with the MP, rather 4p split screen myself.

Just waiting on a second controller to arrive to go thru SP in co.op

BlitzKrieg

Quake's way better

quake's always better

appletartman

anyone here have the recon armour for halo 3?

Creamy Goodness

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote: »

a massivly hyped game, that was a pure let down

just one hyped game?

the whole series is ****ing over rated piece of ****e it's worse than daikatana in my list of fps tbh.

steviec

The problem wasn't so much the game as it was the hype surrounding it. It's an above average console FPS and nothing more.

djkeogh

was never a huge fan of the Halo series but picked this up and went through the first level the other day. Can't say I'm all that interested in continuing with it. COD4 blows it out of the water

mayordenis

over hyped but still a good game, like if it wasnt halo and wasnt as hyped would people give out **** about it? no, as it stands, and viewed as it is, what comes in the box, is a very accomplished game.

Kiith

I quite like the single player mode. Wasnt anything new or revolutionary, but it was a sold enough FPS with a decent story (i'm a story whore). Havent played multiplayer, but i was never a big fan of getting shouted at by 12 year old americans, something which i hear happens alot in Halo.

johnny_ultimate

I thought Halo 3 was better than the last two. I had fun playing the singleplayer, and fun playing the multiplayer. Just fun. Nothing more.

Better series out there such as Half-Life etc.. Far worse ones too. Not deserving of the hype, but if it wasn't for the brand name, I wouldn't say it would attract half the support / half the hatred Halo inevitably does.

conzy

omg its like the bestest game ever!!!!!!!

But not really....

COD4 puts it to shame

Creamy Goodness

conzymaher wrote: »

omg its like the bestest game ever!!!!!!!

But not really....

COD4 puts it to shame

daikatanta puts it to shame tbh.

Cuddlesworth

Cremo wrote: »

daikatanta puts it to shame tbh.

That was harsh.

thelordofcheese

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

That was harsh.

But not harsh enough.

MooseJam

so whens this coming to pc, it's old enough now that the exclusivity to xbox doesn't matter much, I'd be slightly curious.

Creamy Goodness

pm from appletartman wrote:

Hi can you tell me how to get the recon armour?

Thank you.

i don't think i couldn't of been any clearer on my opinon of the game heheh.

Seeker

I enjoyed both the Single Player and multiplayer. I absolutely love the Halo series. I played it on Heroic and it took me well more than ten hours , which is about the length of time I like playing most games ( unless its something like a Mario or Zelda game) One thing I noticed was that I think the controls in Halo 1 with the Duke controller were more accurate than Halo 3 with the 360 controller.

The story hugely dissapointed me though. I thought the secrets of the Halo universe would be blown right open. Instead we were given absolutely nothing on the Forerunners except for one comment by the Prophet. In the Cortana Letters I was given the impression that Cortana would be a dangerous foe. Instead all she did was give the chief hallucinations. I also thought that those blue beams that were shot up into the sky in Halo 1 would be explained. Silly me

0ubliette

conzymaher wrote: »

omg its like the bestest game ever!!!!!!!

But not really....

COD4 puts it to shame

You could argue that cod4's MP is better alright, but halo 3's SP absolutely pisses all over cod4s. Respawning terrorists with homing grenades, 100% linearity, scripted to death pile of ****cock was all cod4 was. Halo 3 at least had some diveristy and freeform approach to its SP. Its light years ahead of the same old tried and tested clunky 'play it our way or not at all' approach to playing thast cod4 has. Most overrated game in recent memory is cod4. SP wise its barely changed at all since cod1

Cuddlesworth

0ubliette wrote: »

You could argue that cod4's MP is better alright, but halo 3's SP absolutely pisses all over cod4s. Respawning terrorists with homing grenades, 100% linearity, scripted to death pile of ****cock was all cod4 was. Halo 3 at least had some diveristy and freeform approach to its SP. Its light years ahead of the same old tried and tested clunky 'play it our way or not at all' approach to playing thast cod4 has. Most overrated game in recent memory is cod4. SP wise its barely changed at all since cod1

What part of Halo 3's single player campaign was not linear?

Retr0gamer

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

What part of Halo 3's single player campaign was not linear?

There was a part in the game were I had to circumnavigate a rock that split the path. I could have walked left around it but I choose to go right.

CoD4 SP pisses all over Halo 3 for one simple reason, it didn't have the flood.

0ubliette

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

What part of Halo 3's single player campaign was not linear?

lets see, there was the scarab battle. I couldve used a mongoose and rode around the map and let the AI companion blast at the scarab with a rocket launcher, or i couldve nicked a warthog and used the gun turret on it myself against the scarab, or just abandoned vehicles altogether and ran for the rocket turret and taken it down from there. Hell if i wanted to i couldve just hidden in a corner and all my AI teammated would eventually knock it down.
Ditto for the second scarab fight, i could choose to use tanks, hornets, warthogs, or just run up to the scarabs and try and board them myself.
Or on more or less any level of the entire game where i have the option to wade in guns blazing, or snipe, or drive a vehicle through it, or basically do whatever the **** i want to be quite honest.

So lets compare that to cod4 shall we? Where your options are shoot everything until you get funneled down the next corridor to the next choke point, then get funnelled down another corridor until the next choke point, and 5 hours later youre done.

Retr0gamer wrote:

There was a part in the game were I had to circumnavigate a rock that split the path. I could have walked left around it but I choose to go right.

complete bollocks.

thelordofcheese

0ubliette wrote: »

Retr0gamer wrote:

There was a part in the game were I had to circumnavigate a rock that split the path. I could have walked left around it but I choose to go right.

complete bollocks.

No, he's right, i remember the rock. However i went left. Made for a totally different and not-linear-at-all game.

Retr0gamer

0ubliette wrote: »

lets see, there was the scarab battle. I couldve used a mongoose and rode around the map and let the AI companion blast at the scarab with a rocket launcher, or i couldve nicked a warthog and used the gun turret on it myself against the scarab, or just abandoned vehicles altogether and ran for the rocket turret and taken it down from there. Hell if i wanted to i couldve just hidden in a corner and all my AI teammated would eventually knock it down.
Ditto for the second scarab fight, i could choose to use tanks, hornets, warthogs, or just run up to the scarabs and try and board them myself.
Or on more or less any level of the entire game where i have the option to wade in guns blazing, or snipe, or drive a vehicle through it, or basically do whatever the **** i want to be quite honest.

Wow, What a game! Do you mean to tell me that in Halo 3 you can use different weapons to kill the bad guys and it changes the experience? I didn't know that the AI was so good in the game that they could take down a scarab let alone a Brute. I never let them when I played since above the first difficulty level they kept dying from their own stupidity on me or standing around taking ineffectual pot shots.

This is amazing, my memory might be a bit hazy but CoD4 definitely only had one weapon to use on the bad guys and no AI team mates to help you out.

johnny_ultimate

Neither CoD4 or Halo 3 are stellar examples of single player FPS experiences. CoD4 is fun, but so many annoyances - the invisible triggers would be the most irritating aspect of it in my opinion, and damages the game considerably. Some great set pieces though (opening tanker,

nuclear fallout level, sniping, All Ghillied Up

), and it is probably the best squad based single player Ive played (although it is a genre not praised for one player). Same could be said of Halo 3. Terrific moments (the airship Scarab fight being a highlight, due to great production values e.g. soundtrack) but overall little more than a slightly above average shooter. Oh, and the Cortana level was the single worst level in a game I have ever had the displeasure to push through. They are both good single-player games, but nothing spectacular. In multiplayer, they are both wonderful experiences (although CoD4 is considerably superior in my opinion, due to the superbly realised levelling up system). But if you want single player FPS experiences, just play Half Life 2 or BioShock or something. Much better.

armour87

0ubliette wrote: »

You could argue that cod4's MP is better alright, but halo 3's SP absolutely pisses all over cod4s. Respawning terrorists with homing grenades, 100% linearity, scripted to death pile of ****cock was all cod4 was. Halo 3 at least had some diveristy and freeform approach to its SP. Its light years ahead of the same old tried and tested clunky 'play it our way or not at all' approach to playing thast cod4 has. Most overrated game in recent memory is cod4. SP wise its barely changed at all since cod1

Bollocks. Im a big Halo fan but Halo 3s SP was the worst SP off the whole series. I cant seperate them for MP, I might even just tip Halo as it is perfectly balanced imo. But to say it has a better SP is just wrong.

Sarky

thelordofcheese wrote: »

No, he's right, i remember the rock. However i went left. Made for a totally different and not-linear-at-all game.

Don't forget you could jump over the rock for the crazy THIRD option! Man, that rock was great...

The scarab bits were interesting, but not nearly enough to save the rest of it, which has been done before just as well if not better in other games. It played almost exactly like Halo 1, which was hardly amazing but was solid enough to enjoy until the flood came along and turned it into a steaming digital turd. I played Halo in coop rather than stay up drinking port until 6am. Looking back I made the wrong decision.

Cuddlesworth

0ubliette wrote: »

lets see, there was the scarab battle. I couldve used a mongoose and rode around the map and let the AI companion blast at the scarab with a rocket launcher, or i couldve nicked a warthog and used the gun turret on it myself against the scarab, or just abandoned vehicles altogether and ran for the rocket turret and taken it down from there. Hell if i wanted to i couldve just hidden in a corner and all my AI teammated would eventually knock it down.
Ditto for the second scarab fight, i could choose to use tanks, hornets, warthogs, or just run up to the scarabs and try and board them myself.
Or on more or less any level of the entire game where i have the option to wade in guns blazing, or snipe, or drive a vehicle through it, or basically do whatever the **** i want to be quite honest.

So you were funnelled into a area with a selection of weapons and the objective was to kill the scarab to move into the next area. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there is only 1 proper way to kill a scarab, shoot the core, yes? And if you choose not to?

0ubliette wrote: »

So lets compare that to cod4 shall we? Where your options are shoot everything until you get funneled down the next corridor to the next choke point, then get funnelled down another corridor until the next choke point, and 5 hours later youre done.



complete bollocks.

You do realize that both Halo3 and COD4 are completely linear single player games? And that you have just described pretty much every fps ever created and the mechanics for around 90% of games created?

Let me guess, you like Halo a lot right? And refuse to obey the laws of logic when in a argument casting suspicion about it?

TheDoc

i think the criticsms that come from it are that it was a letdown, but when you look and look its hard to wonder what more people wanted.

i never played a halo, picked up H3 and the single player was ok, it wasnt amazing for me, it was decent enough

then i went onot halo3, found it VERY easy to start of well, but after a while it got a tad boring, only playing it with mates made it enjoyable.

But it has the cod4 syndrome, you play with mates online you are going to win every game, no exceptions.

i would rate cod4s sp higher and its multiplayer.

halo3 simply rewards those who can spend all their life on a game, atleast cod4 gives the opportunity for the player to level up quickly.

( yesterday went from 1 to 33 prestige level 1)

halo did however manage to pull me deeply into my xbox that pretty much gathered dust...

however i think its abnormaly strong MP population will disagree, however there is an alarmingly large portion of players that got halo for mp and never touched single player.

ShiverinEskimo

I love it when two sets of fan-boys of 2 different competing games get together on these forums.

Especially when people start every single point they make with "bollocks" or "rubbish".

I played cod4 a month ago on PC and loved it. I enjoyed the battles and the way it forced you to keep moving or enemies will keeps coming. And lets face it the sniper mission was just mesmerising.

I am currently playing Halo3 and loving it. I enjoy the battles and the way the number of enemies in an area are fixed and so I can choose to make full use of my preference for the "boxer" set up on the controller with a shotgun and get into the brutes faces. Or use the sniper rifles/battle rifles to pick stuff off from the distance or a mixture of both.

I've not had the pleasure of playing either online as of yet but as everyone seems to insist on having one game dominate the other's SP experience I thought I'd tell ye all to relax and that no one is forcing you like either, both or none.

He's a free tip though - The commonly considered greatest FPS of all time was Half-Life. It was linear as feck. Who cares. You want non-linear go play Oblivion.

TheDoc

i have to say i laugh when people are moaning about linear gameplay

an fps is linear

rpgs are not

any fps that tries not to be linear is usually piss (minus deus ex)

chamlis

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote: »

i have to say i laugh when people are moaning about linear gameplay

an fps is linear

rpgs are not

any fps that tries not to be linear is usually piss (minus deus ex)

Don't forget System Shock 2

Shiminay

In terms of XBox 360, Halo3 would be the one I'd have for one very simple reason - 4 player split-screen with practically infinite customisation options.

Not too long ago, a gang of us got together in a friend's house and we had 3 360s on the go with 8 players and we have never had so much fun. Tried to play COD4 and realised it wouldn't allow networked + split-screen so it promptly got binned (that said, I play this quite a bit on my PC which is where it excels). We must've spent 5 or 6 hours playing Halo3 that night, playing with gravity, starting weapons, all Power Axes etc, it was a ball.

As I said earlier, the single player was very short, as was COD4's, but if you're looking for a great FPS on the 360 to play with your friends, it has to be Halo3.

koneko

I enjoyed COD4's singleplayer, but I think it has been somewhat overrated.

I'd agree with Kharn, Halo 3 tipped it slightly for me simply because of the co-op, I played through it twice within 2 weeks of release (Heroic then Legendary) with other people and it was *so* much fun. Saving the vids afterwards to watch again was great too.

0ubliette

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Let me guess, you like Halo a lot right? And refuse to obey the laws of logic when in a argument casting suspicion about it?

yeah you got me, because i have a differing opinion im obviously a rabid blind fanboy.
Halo 3 is a great game but im not blind that i cant see its faults. The cortana level sucked, and the graphics couldve done with a bit more spit and polish, but to say that cod4 is a better sp experience is just wrong and thats all im pointing out. Cod4 gives you two fantastic options of walking and shooting to complete your ultimate goal and the maps are painfully linear. Obviously all fps's are linear to a degree but cod4 is linearity incarnate. Its game design from 2001. Its gameplay & level design hasnt changed a bit since cod1. Same linear maps with WOO HOO AN ON RAILS VEHICLE SECTION thrown in to mix it up and OH EM GEE A NON PLAYABLE CUTSCENE OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION WOWZERS!!!!
It may not be rpg levels of freeformness but at least in Halo3 you HAVE an option of how to fight, which is alot more than can be said for bore of duty 4.
The only other fps ive palyed that gives you a level of freedom equal or greate than halos is crysis.

Cuddlesworth

0ubliette wrote: »

yeah you got me, because i have a differing opinion im obviously a rabid blind fanboy.

You made the argument that COD4 was a linear game and that Halo3 was not. I don't think you could have made the fanboy part any better unless you had posted a picture of yourself foaming at the mouth trying to make love to a tv screen with Halo on it.

0ubliette wrote: »

Halo 3 is a great game but im not blind that i cant see its faults. The cortana level sucked, and the graphics couldve done with a bit more spit and polish, but to say that cod4 is a better sp experience is just wrong and thats all im pointing out.

Is just wrong in your opinion. Opinions are like assholes everybody has one.

0ubliette wrote: »

Cod4 gives you two fantastic options of walking and shooting to complete your ultimate goal and the maps are painfully linear. Obviously all fps's are linear to a degree but cod4 is linearity incarnate. Its game design from 2001. Its gameplay & level design hasnt changed a bit since cod1. Same linear maps with WOO HOO AN ON RAILS VEHICLE SECTION thrown in to mix it up and OH EM GEE A NON PLAYABLE CUTSCENE OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION WOWZERS!!!!

The cut scenes and plot were well above anything in the last Halo game. The characters actually had character and personality. Game play in Cod is designed around fast thinking and constant motion. Its trying to imitate a modern day war, you don't just choose to sit back in modern combat, kill 10 guys and walk away. They will keep coming and coming, so you are forced to move. It worked in the first few games and it worked in this one. Halo's design is worse. You get attacked by a set number of people. You kill them and you move on. Thats all it boils down to. And it works. It's worked for plenty of games.

But Halo3 is boring. The characters are lifeless, the plot is weak and when I play I just feel like I'm going through the motions. The was no heart stopping sniper mission, boat rolling squad based terrorist ass kicking or tv station blowing up. They made COD4 fun for me.

0ubliette wrote: »

It may not be rpg levels of freeformness but at least in Halo3 you HAVE an option of how to fight, which is alot more than can be said for bore of duty 4.
The only other fps ive palyed that gives you a level of freedom equal or greate than halos is crysis.

Farcry would be a better example. And you have no choice in Halo3, you have the impression of choice. In reality, you have to achieve a specific goal and the only way to achieve it is to shoot something. That's all that Halo3 boils down to. And for a proper single player experience you need to make the player want to achieve this goal, make him care about what he is doing. Halo3 for me did not do this. I went through the motions.

armour87

Bravo...

Hug?

ShiverinEskimo

Cuddlesworth wrote:

Its trying to imitate a modern day war, you don't just choose to sit back in modern combat, kill 10 guys and walk away. They will keep coming and coming, so you are forced to move. It worked in the first few games and it worked in this one. Halo's design is worse. You get attacked by a set number of people. You kill them and you move on. Thats all it boils down to. And it works. It's worked for plenty of games.

I would have thought that modern day warefare has a set number of enemies in real life.
I mean the arguments here are purely preferential but saying COD is more real because there isn't a set number of enemies doesn't make sense.

Halo is different and its futuristic so it probably has a little more to do in regards to being inventive and what not. Most of the guns in COD4 for example have been used in real life and also in previously released titles leaving them less work to do on weapons (and their sound effects) and character models and more to do on level design and AI/Scripting. And yet having wave after wave after wave of enemies spawn out of nowhere can be as appealing to a halo fan as having a less realitic approach is to a cod4 fan.

My ideal battle is against a fixed number of enemies but with a difficult but no unfair AI system backing them up. COD4's AI was awful - and having the AI run to or have a spawn point behind the door/pipe/crate is not good AI. Commonly the enemy would run straight at you.
I think the Elites in Halo 1 and 2 had decent AI. The sidestepped, dove and shimmied out of the way of your fire/granades.

Halo3's AI is not so great. The brutes are just that - mindless tanks that just stand and take power - only the addition of their jetpacks makes them less of a target and the at least attempt to jump in behind you. Disappointing.

I think both games have a lot to offer. COD4's level diversity from boat to desert to farmland to Chernobyl etc. keeps things fresh and breezy.

But Halo's range of weapons, vehicles, enemies are IMO more interesting and varied.

Like I said though I love both - but we have yet to see the perfect fps. Until then I wont let whether the masses love or loathe a game dictate my opinion of it. Nothing worse than a music fan hating a song because everyone else loves it. Judge it for what it is, not what a million people think it is.

Ross_Mahon

The PS3 is better than the 360 :pac:

Halo 3 was not what i expected...:(

Shiminay

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

but we have yet to see the perfect fps.

That's just not true - we've seen and passed by the perfect FPS, it was called Quake

Anyway, I'd like to get this discussion a bit more back on track and speak a little bit more about Halo 3's Mulitplayer. Have many people played it online and what's the scene like? Are there many clans in Ireland or does it tend to be FFA and maybe the odd random TDM or whatever?

Ross_Mahon

There are loads of clans, if i can remember

The celtic snipers and the IRISH clan

I dont like the idea of clans, i would never be a part of one.

ShiverinEskimo

I stand corrected Kharn. Quake rules. Long live Quake.

I've not ventured online yet in Halo3 - I'm using the SP campaign both to complete the story line (big fan of the story) and to readjust back to the xbox controller having gotten used to PC mouse+kb again to save my pride being bruised by some 13yo calling me a n00b over and over.

armour87

Kharn wrote: »

That's just not true - we've seen and passed by the perfect FPS, it was called Quake

Anyway, I'd like to get this discussion a bit more back on track and speak a little bit more about Halo 3's Mulitplayer. Have many people played it online and what's the scene like? Are there many clans in Ireland or does it tend to be FFA and maybe the odd random TDM or whatever?

Correction, it was Half Life 2

On your Halo question, I used to play online quite a bit, my rank was Commander. I seen quite a lot of irish online, but rarely see any serious clans even from UK & US.

Shiminay

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

I dont like the idea of clans, i would never be a part of one.

Do you mind my asking why? Seems a strange attitude in truth. Some of the best fun you'll have at a LAN (for example) is meeting your clan mates who may be from other parts of the country or even world.

When you go for a game of Halo online (and I address this to all players), what sort of game do you prefer to join?

Retr0gamer

I used to play Halo 3 a bit online when it came out. Was okay felt like a poor mans quake, with vehicles. Levels felt very modular and had little character, very boxy and poor. Was good fun playing something on your TV online when you couldn't be bothered booting up the PC for a much better experience.

Then CoD4 came along. Haven't touched Halo 3 mp since. Although haven't played CoD4 in a while but thats only because my brothers mate has a lend of it

kaimera

armour87 wrote: »

Correction, it was Half Life 2

On your Halo question, I used to play online quite a bit, my rank was Commander. I seen quite a lot of irish online, but rarely see any serious clans even from UK & US.

Correction, it was HL1 tbqh.

Cuddlesworth

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I would have thought that modern day warefare has a set number of enemies in real life.
I mean the arguments here are purely preferential but saying COD is more real because there isn't a set number of enemies doesn't make sense.

Most of COD4 missions involve small strike teams into hostile territory's. Watch the Movie Black Hawk Down for an example of what happens when that goes wrong. Actually watch that movie for a example of what COD4 was going for. Constant waves of attacks by mindless enemy's using numbers.

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Halo is different and its futuristic so it probably has a little more to do in regards to being inventive and what not. Most of the guns in COD4 for example have been used in real life and also in previously released titles leaving them less work to do on weapons (and their sound effects) and character models and more to do on level design and AI/Scripting. And yet having wave after wave after wave of enemies spawn out of nowhere can be as appealing to a halo fan as having a less realitic approach is to a cod4 fan.

My ideal battle is against a fixed number of enemies but with a difficult but no unfair AI system backing them up. COD4's AI was awful - and having the AI run to or have a spawn point behind the door/pipe/crate is not good AI. Commonly the enemy would run straight at you.
I think the Elites in Halo 1 and 2 had decent AI. The sidestepped, dove and shimmied out of the way of your fire/granades.

Halo3's AI is not so great. The brutes are just that - mindless tanks that just stand and take power - only the addition of their jetpacks makes them less of a target and the at least attempt to jump in behind you. Disappointing.

I think both games have a lot to offer. COD4's level diversity from boat to desert to farmland to Chernobyl etc. keeps things fresh and breezy.

But Halo's range of weapons, vehicles, enemies are IMO more interesting and varied.

Like I said though I love both - but we have yet to see the perfect fps. Until then I wont let whether the masses love or loathe a game dictate my opinion of it. Nothing worse than a music fan hating a song because everyone else loves it. Judge it for what it is, not what a million people think it is.

All good points. I would contest a few but it would simply be me reiterating my personnel opinion rather then making any valid arguments.

armour87

Kharn wrote: »

When you go for a game of Halo online (and I address this to all players), what sort of game do you prefer to join?

It depends, If I've got some 'real' friends online we usually go crazy on a game of Big Team Battle (8v8) or some Team Objective (4v4, Bomb, Flag etc).

On my own I'd usually play Lone Wolves (Ranked 6 player FFA) to get my rank up faster but since it naturally becomes more difficult I find myself going into Rumble Pit (Ditto Wolves minus the ranked) or Social Big Team Battle.

With online friends we usually play big games of Infection, or mess about in Team Slayer (4v4)

Btw, I'm super awesome.

Cuddlesworth

Kharn wrote: »

That's just not true - we've seen and passed by the perfect FPS, it was called Quake

Anyway, I'd like to get this discussion a bit more back on track and speak a little bit more about Halo 3's Mulitplayer. Have many people played it online and what's the scene like? Are there many clans in Ireland or does it tend to be FFA and maybe the odd random TDM or whatever?

Halo3's mulitplayer

The ranking and lobby/matchmaking systems are great, fairly quick and intuitive.

The players unfortunately are for the most part the most immature bunch of prats I have ever heard in my entire life. After the first time in a ranked match I realized the civility of Css chat.

The gameplay is quick paced, a good peripheral vision to keep and eye on the radar will help greatly. Vehicles for the most part are kept in check by the fragility of the rider and the target they make you.

The weapon balance is odd. With a good aim the sniper rifle is too powerfull, even unscoped. Compared to nearly every other gun, all of which have horrible range. The lower scale weapons are insane, dual maulers will 1 hit kill at close range.

The dynamics of shield and health regen mean that clever use of cover should always grant the team that uses it correctly the win.

The map Design is very simple, generally revolving around 2 bases with a open area in between and 1 or two very small side passages. Or upper and lower levels with 3 main walkways on the bottom and a open area on the top.

Its good, but nothing new there. Nothing really that interesting.