I'm having a huge party with a bunch of school friends at midnight, but it would be good to compile the Gamertags in here for the opening day and later on. If you're interested in partying up for some Halo 3, post in here with your GT.
I'm mad I'm not going to have a chance to play Halo 3 until after my sister's boyfriend finishes the game. And it's going to be even longer after that if he chooses to play through it again. But I'm going to do what I can to not spoil the ending of that game or any aspect of the story at all until I get to play it through myself. I love the Halo story more than I love most things (which is probably a bad thing) so I don't want to ruin it.
Muahaha, I'm getting Halo 3 at midnight. The great news is the store I'm going to get it from is extending its hours so we don't have to wait outside. Woot. Btw, GT: Hokori ga Saku Man, I can't wait to try Forge and online co-op... And the constant commercials don't make the wait any easier.
After reading Tom Chick's review (http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/news/365/), I'm preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. I normally hate Chick's reviews as they seem extremely jaded and critical of everything... but he leverages many of the same claims I had against the first two Halo games and says they're still paramount in the third. The horrible level design, "story," backtracking, and similar complaints. I still plan on getting the game at midnight, but I won't hold my breath about it being much of an evolution
I like Bioshock but it does not come close to the replay factor that Halo has. Therefore, in my opinion, it's not as good.
It's not meant to be an evolution of sorts, just an improvement on what has already worked for them. For example, the multiplayer (which is what I'm most focused about) is the same with some obvious graphical improvements, and new weapons/vehicles/equipment. There's Forge and Saved Films, making this game probably the most replayable multiplayer game in history. That being the case, the campaign has a lot less repetitiveness, which I believe is what you talked about earlier on. The AI is better, but do yourself a favor and start on Heroic or Legendary because Normal is way too easy. That's the mistake that reviewer made. Halo 3 has become so big for the casual fan that normal is meant to be a run-and-gun-and-don't-die mode. The challenge is in the Heroic and Legendary difficulties. If you read the 1Up (10/10) or the Gametrailers (9.8/10) reviews, it's much simpler to look at the vast majority of positives this game has.
YES! My Fucking Xbox shipped today from repair, which means it should be here tomorrow! Just in time for midnight! I'm so happy! Ofcourse I have to skip college now to wait for it to arrive, but who gives a shit, a day off and Halo 3! Score.
I'm going to borrow Halo 2 for one day tomorrow, try to play as much as possible so I have at least some feeling with the story and the game and then it's time for Halo 3. Can't wait to play it co-op with my neighbour and some other friends. It's going to own everything.
Anyone know if they are going to be releasing a OST to halo 3 as they have done for the last two games ?
Mark: I meant evolution for Halo, not the genre as a whole or revolution. And I've read many other reviews and watched many, but here's my main problem -- they're all almost exclusively done by hardcore Halo fans. It's not hard to tell given how many of them start of the review. Instead of saying something like 'one of the highest selling games of all time,' they'll say 'one of the best games of all time', etc. I'm cautiously optimistic. I'll get it at midnight and find out.
Improvement on previous installments = evolution Drastically different changes = revolution From what I've been reading it's neither. You said, "It's not meant to be an evolution of sorts, just an improvement on what has already worked for them." An improvement = evolution, IMO. From what I've been reading nothing's really improved.
Well, how was I supposed to know what you consider an "evolution"? So excuse me. There are improvements to gameplay with the introduction of the new equipment, graphics are better because of the 360's engine, and AI is improved in the campaign. I don't know what reviews you've been reading, other than from some narcissistic moron who played the game on normal mode and said it was too easy, but everything I've read from from highly-respected video gaming websites (1Up, Gamestop, IGN, Famitsu) has praised the game for its replayability, improvements to the previous installation (in terms of new in-game features and campaign improvements), and other new features (Forge, Saved Films, etc). From a multiplayer stance, the game has gotten 10s across the board. That's all that matters to me.
Improvements should most definitely be regarded as an evolution, but unless those improvements are redefining the genre they're definitely not going to be considered a revolution. I haven't read one bad review yet (I didn't read that one review), so I'll save my own judgment for when the game can be played by my hands.
Gameplay is not evolved was my entire point, hence why I mentioned the review and specifically commented only on the gameplay. Of course graphics are going to be better and they're going to add a couple of weapons -- it's not a remake or anything like that, people have come to expect those minor improvements. But I'm referencing gameplay. The complaint lodged against the game was not that it was too easy. It was that it was incredibly repetitive, had too much backtracking, had horrible level design, and simply wasn't fun in singleplayer mode. Those are all criticisms that were made against the previous installments in varying degrees as well. Now, I don't like Tom Chick, but he's reviewed games in numerous magazines and respected websites. Why should his negative opinion be ignored when many reviews are from obvious hardcore Halo fans, as I previously stated?