It looks and sounds gorgeous.
It's considerably behind the curve on FPS games for the 360.
It looks like it was built more for the online multiplayer crowd than the at-home single player audience because it seems awfully short.
More detail:
The music, surround sound, gun fire, etc., are all awesome. Noticably better than other games, including Gears. As good as Bioshock's, which I thought was quite good.
The graphics are very nice, especially the vista-views. The foliage and water is pretty good, though it's not quite in a same class as Far Cry's foliage or Bioshock's water. The weapons/bad guys/character models aren't as crisp as many other games, which is a shame since that doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to do, but I suspect it plays into the target audience thing.
As far as what I mean by it being behind the curve, I mean that in other FPS games, like Gears, Rainbow Vegas, or GRAW II, there is a very useful, very nifty, fairly realistic "cover" system. You can flatten against walls, reach over obstacles, and those games, while different systems for each, were fairly intuitive and an intergral part of the game. Halo 3 has none of it. No cover system at all, which makes it feel very dated to me. Would it have been so hard to incorporate one of those systems? I really had trouble with that for the first few minutes playing and then it faded into the background, but overall I think it's a pretty big deal. I think that's also true of the aiming (which is too arcade-like for me) and ally and enemy tactics, which are better in those other games. Now someone might say those are tactical shooters and this is a run and gun shooter, but I had a dastardly time getting used to having my allies run around and ignore me, run into the open, trip new bad guys arriving, etc., when I've been so used to (basically since I got the 360), having tight control of my team/allies, or at least having them not be idiots.
Also, from what I've read, the game is very short. 10-15 hours depending on how quickly you go. By comparison, I'm not even halfway through Oblivion and I'm into 80 hours of gameplay. Now I know they are not the same kind of game, but it would be nice to have a more thorough story. GRAW II took me 25 hours or so; Gears a little less, but both those appear to be twice as long as Halo 3. I spent not even an hour last night and finished the first chapter already. That seems to bode ill for a long game. The first Halo took me a long time and had a long story. The second one I blew through in a few days. I'm afraid this third one is more the latter than the former.
So overall I'd give it a 3 out of 5 stars. Very pretty, very smooth, but technologically lacking for a shooter, if it it's as short as people say, it's main value will be in multiplayer, which isn't my cup of tea.
I wouldn't run out and buy a 360 just to play this game. Rather, go out and buy your 360 to play Gears of War or Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter II or Oblivion or something, but not for Halo 3.
[UPDATE:
I just finished the game. It only took about 12 hours, which seems rather short. That said, I have two new comments:
1. The game gets even more intense-looking and the graphics are beautiful. The story really picks up and gets kind of interesting towards the end, but...
2. I literally could not understand the cut-scenes. I don't mean that they didn't make sense (they may not have) I mean that throughout the game the giant uni-mind of the Flood is talking at you, as is Cortana, in these weird dream-like sequences. But I can't understand what they are saying. I turned the volume way up and it was still unintelligible. Did no one else have this problem? I tried replaying them even. I would only catch a few words per sentence, and it really ruined these scenes for me. I still can't figure out how the one ship ended up at the old Halo, or how Cortana was being tortured by a giant flood creature when she's a software construct, and this may all have been explained, but I think I need to read the book to figure it out because the dialogue was unintelligible).
It's considerably behind the curve on FPS games for the 360.
It looks like it was built more for the online multiplayer crowd than the at-home single player audience because it seems awfully short.
More detail:
The music, surround sound, gun fire, etc., are all awesome. Noticably better than other games, including Gears. As good as Bioshock's, which I thought was quite good.
The graphics are very nice, especially the vista-views. The foliage and water is pretty good, though it's not quite in a same class as Far Cry's foliage or Bioshock's water. The weapons/bad guys/character models aren't as crisp as many other games, which is a shame since that doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to do, but I suspect it plays into the target audience thing.
As far as what I mean by it being behind the curve, I mean that in other FPS games, like Gears, Rainbow Vegas, or GRAW II, there is a very useful, very nifty, fairly realistic "cover" system. You can flatten against walls, reach over obstacles, and those games, while different systems for each, were fairly intuitive and an intergral part of the game. Halo 3 has none of it. No cover system at all, which makes it feel very dated to me. Would it have been so hard to incorporate one of those systems? I really had trouble with that for the first few minutes playing and then it faded into the background, but overall I think it's a pretty big deal. I think that's also true of the aiming (which is too arcade-like for me) and ally and enemy tactics, which are better in those other games. Now someone might say those are tactical shooters and this is a run and gun shooter, but I had a dastardly time getting used to having my allies run around and ignore me, run into the open, trip new bad guys arriving, etc., when I've been so used to (basically since I got the 360), having tight control of my team/allies, or at least having them not be idiots.
Also, from what I've read, the game is very short. 10-15 hours depending on how quickly you go. By comparison, I'm not even halfway through Oblivion and I'm into 80 hours of gameplay. Now I know they are not the same kind of game, but it would be nice to have a more thorough story. GRAW II took me 25 hours or so; Gears a little less, but both those appear to be twice as long as Halo 3. I spent not even an hour last night and finished the first chapter already. That seems to bode ill for a long game. The first Halo took me a long time and had a long story. The second one I blew through in a few days. I'm afraid this third one is more the latter than the former.
So overall I'd give it a 3 out of 5 stars. Very pretty, very smooth, but technologically lacking for a shooter, if it it's as short as people say, it's main value will be in multiplayer, which isn't my cup of tea.
I wouldn't run out and buy a 360 just to play this game. Rather, go out and buy your 360 to play Gears of War or Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter II or Oblivion or something, but not for Halo 3.
[UPDATE:
I just finished the game. It only took about 12 hours, which seems rather short. That said, I have two new comments:
1. The game gets even more intense-looking and the graphics are beautiful. The story really picks up and gets kind of interesting towards the end, but...
2. I literally could not understand the cut-scenes. I don't mean that they didn't make sense (they may not have) I mean that throughout the game the giant uni-mind of the Flood is talking at you, as is Cortana, in these weird dream-like sequences. But I can't understand what they are saying. I turned the volume way up and it was still unintelligible. Did no one else have this problem? I tried replaying them even. I would only catch a few words per sentence, and it really ruined these scenes for me. I still can't figure out how the one ship ended up at the old Halo, or how Cortana was being tortured by a giant flood creature when she's a software construct, and this may all have been explained, but I think I need to read the book to figure it out because the dialogue was unintelligible).
Other than that, the rest of my review is the same.
I didn't play the original Halos, so I don't feel like I'm going to come at this game with a predetermined bias. Comparing the game to others I have played on the 360 (Gears, Prey, Call of Duty 2/3, Bioshock) I would compare the overall experience most closely with Call of Duty 3) and based on the pre-release hype, this is a dissapointment. The game has nice graphics, but this game plays pretty much like a typical run and gun. No innovations that I noticed beyond what COD3 brings to the table. On-line play may be better, but for those who play predominantly single player campaigns, I would defintitely recommend Gears, Bioshock and even Prey as a substantially better overall experience. If you are a single campaigner, I would defintely rent first, because to me, this game is not a must buy.
I was a late comer to the Halo franchise. But once I played the first one I was fairly impressed. The huge maps, the funky vehicles, and the crazy covenent critters all were great.
I enjoyed Halo 2 as well although it did seem a bit short compared to the first one.
And now for Halo 3!
Right away I noticed how beautifully detailed the jungle was. The graphics and lighting are quite good. There were a few times when I couldn't help marveling at the shininess of the vehicles and weapons.
I played the normal difficulty first and finished it within roughly 6 hours. It was fairly easy but I thought it was well done. I also finished on the harder difficulty levels. Legendary is the one to play! It was quite a bit more challenging as you mostly faced the brutes. I think the AI is pretty damn good. There were a few spots where my weapons were limited and their positions were well protected. I think those were the most fun.
The multiplayer was really disappointing. I've been playing Battlefield 2MC and the multiplayer on that is one of the best I've ever played! Halo 3 doesn't allow you to choose the map. All of the maps are tiny compared to BF2MC. Some of the maps are clever and different but I'm still disappointed by how small they are. Not to mention you don't get to use the bigger vehicles.
I found the theater mode to be very intriguing and fun to play with although the inability to rewind is extremely annoying.
I still haven't played with the Forge section. It would be nice to customize the maps but again I think they're too small to begin with.
Overall, I say Halo 3 is pretty good. I've beaten the solo game 3 times in just a couple of weeks but find it challenging enough and fun enough that replayability factor is high for me. It's not a huge change from the previous games but then that's fine. I wasn't expecting it to change too drastically. There's still room for improvement but we'll have to wait and see if they make another one. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
And to all the complainers of the $60 price tag: Suck it up. At least we don't have to play in arcades anymore at a quarter a pop! I feel like I got my money's worth already.
Link: http://freeonlinebusiness.info/
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น