Halo 3 needs to show innovation at E3 (kinda long)

Look, I'm not even a fan of the Halo games, and even I know this. The first 2 games were OK, but nothing extraordinary in my opinion. However, I was just thinking of Halo 3, and I realized this game needs to show innovation in the single player campaign at E3 to prove it's not Halo 2.1. I mean, let's look at Halo 2. The single campaign was almost universally seen as underwhelming. Now, imagine if there was no dual-weilding! (this was innovative at the time)

All I'm saying is that the "30 seconds of fun" that developers strive to achieve has evolved. Gamers want gameplay with options. The Darkness has the powers, but even as shooter it has execution kills to make things more interesting. Turok has stealth kills and guns that complement the AI to provide a variety of strategies to tackle any given situation. Gears of War has the cover system, melee kills, and active reload. Rainbow Six Vegas and Brothers in arms have squad gameplay, environmental destructability, and a cover system.

Bottom line, the bar has been raised, and from what we've heard and seen so far Bungie is content to rehash last-gen gameplay and just add prettier graphics and more characters on screen. This point, shoot, kill gameplay isn't as interesting as it used to be, and Halo 3 needs to do something, anything different. I'm not saying anything about Halo 3 as fact, just assumptions based on what we've seen and heard so far. What I am saying is that Bungie NEEDS to show some surprises at E3 for Halo to contend with high number of innovative games this fall. What do you guys think?

innovation? play the beta and your questions will surely be answered trust me

innovation? play the beta and your questions will surely be answered trust me

ferrari_101

I assure you I have played the beta. While some people really love it, I'm not really amultiplayer type of guy. However, either way you look at it, you certainly can't call the gameplay innovative.

well first off i think the introduction of equipment is a somwhat dramatic step weather you realize it or not. halo is a sand box and you kind just develope your own style of play that you just build on and evolve and when your use to what goes on around you suddely bam! you throw in somthing like a bubble shield or a radar jammer and in an instant the mix up of explosions, gun fire and just all out mayhem changes drastically for a short period of time. ppl always seem to be look for that one thing that makes a game great, and one small thing that sets it apart, and for some reason they seem to call it "innovation" and it's gotten to the point thwere games are being "innovative" just for the sake of being innovative, but where halos fantastic amount of fun lies is in the fact they they have payed attention to every lil detail in the way the game plays and they just make everything com togethor just so well and they do it w/out the use of cheap gimmiks like the chainsaw in gears or it;s cover system. let me tell you that a cover system is nothing new the only the it requires is a wall to move out of the line of fire, but make a button do it for you and boom, all of a sudden it's innovative.

in short the appeal of a game like halo is in how simple it is and it doesn't need some gimmik to be thrown in there just for the sake of caus it only complicates things even further. and from what i can tell the games industry needs to attract more ppl not alienate them.

oh ya i'm also glad that you came up w/ a compelling argument rather than just some stupid comment like "halos is teh suxxorzzzz"

innovation? play the beta and your questions will surely be answered trust me

ferrari_101

Thats not innovation, its the same as halo 2 just optimised and afew new weapons, vehicles and other options, sounds just like a sequel but hardly an innovative one.

IMO, Bungie is a company that actually listens to its audience and learns from previous experiments/mistakes. Skepticism aside, I'm sure Bungie will not disappoint. jake63

Exactly. The SP will be greatly improved. And the MP will stay as great as it is now.

Thanks for the replys, you all made some good points. I agree that games shouldn't innovate for the sake of innovation, as that can lead to a game feeling awkward and unpolished. If it doesn't serve the gameplay and identity of that game, there's not a whole lot of point. I also agree that Halo games have always been extremely polished games. What they do, they do very well.

However, you may be forgetting that Halo 1 was so popular because it was innovative. The problem is that it was innovative 6 years ago, and since then games have evolved, while Halo has not. This is something that people are frustrated with, not just me. Just look at the majority reaction to Halo 2. As I've said, the only thing that made that game feel remotely fresh was dual weilding, and even then most people were disappointed. Halo 3 needs to do something different. Not completely different, but something more substantial than dual weilding.

Oh yeah, and Gears was innovative. No game had implemented a cover mechanic nearly as well as Gears. Add to that beautiful transitions animations, blind fire, and an almost platforming like feel and you've got something no game has ever done. That's innovation, and without even mentioning the little touches like active reload that changed even the small details of gameplay, and melee (chainsaw, etc.) kills that give you more options in combat.

well first off i think the introduction of equipment is a somwhat dramatic step weather you realize it or not. halo is a sand box and you kind just develope your own style of play that you just build on and evolve and when your use to what goes on around you suddely bam! you throw in somthing like a bubble shield or a radar jammer and in an instant the mix up of explosions, gun fire and just all out mayhem changes drastically for a short period of time. ppl always seem to be look for that one thing that makes a game great, and one small thing that sets it apart, and for some reason they seem to call it "innovation" and it's gotten to the point thwere games are being "innovative" just for the sake of being innovative, but where halos fantastic amount of fun lies is in the fact they they have payed attention to every lil detail in the way the game plays and they just make everything com togethor just so well and they do it w/out the use of cheap gimmiks like the chainsaw in gears or it;s cover system. let me tell you that a cover system is nothing new the only the it requires is a wall to move out of the line of fire, but make a button do it for you and boom, all of a sudden it's innovative.

in short the appeal of a game like halo is in how simple it is and it doesn't need some gimmik to be thrown in there just for the sake of caus it only complicates things even further. and from what i can tell the games industry needs to attract more ppl not alienate them.

oh ya i'm also glad that you came up w/ a compelling argument rather than just some stupid comment like "halos is teh suxxorzzzz"

wreak

Well, the main point I'm making here that Halo became popular because it was innovative. Lots of games are fun, but to stand out from the crowd like Halo did you have to be fun and different, and Halo 1 was a leap beyond what FPS games were at that point. However, that was 6 years ago. I just think it's a little sad that such an innovative game in its day would suffer from such a lack of innovation even 6 years later. First person shooters are different now, and the gameplay that we've seen in Halo 1 & 2's SP campaigns just doesn't hold up anymore. Like I said, I'm far from alone on this as well. The games I've listed were meant to be examples of how first person shooters have changed. I really think people are going to be underwhelmed if it is the same gameplay with better graphics and more people on screen, they need to do something more.

well first off i think the introduction of equipment is a somwhat dramatic step weather you realize it or not. halo is a sand box and you kind just develope your own style of play that you just build on and evolve and when your use to what goes on around you suddely bam! you throw in somthing like a bubble shield or a radar jammer and in an instant the mix up of explosions, gun fire and just all out mayhem changes drastically for a short period of time. ppl always seem to be look for that one thing that makes a game great, and one small thing that sets it apart, and for some reason they seem to call it "innovation" and it's gotten to the point thwere games are being "innovative" just for the sake of being innovative, but where halos fantastic amount of fun lies is in the fact they they have payed attention to every lil detail in the way the game plays and they just make everything com togethor just so well and they do it w/out the use of cheap gimmiks like the chainsaw in gears or it;s cover system. let me tell you that a cover system is nothing new the only the it requires is a wall to move out of the line of fire, but make a button do it for you and boom, all of a sudden it's innovative.

in short the appeal of a game like halo is in how simple it is and it doesn't need some gimmik to be thrown in there just for the sake of caus it only complicates things even further. and from what i can tell the games industry needs to attract more ppl not alienate them.

oh ya i'm also glad that you came up w/ a compelling argument rather than just some stupid comment like "halos is teh suxxorzzzz"

wreak

It's funny, I just realized that when I say innovate, I don't just mean in terms of first person shooters, I mean in terms of Halo gameplay. I would be happy if the game just caught up to where first person shooters are at now. Lets face it, multiplayer saved Halo 2 from completely bombing, as the campaign gameplay was outdated even then. However, I'll wait till E3 to pass judgement. I did read somewhere that the highly detailed model in the announcement trailer could be indicative of a cover system (since why do you need a highly detailed model in a FPS), so that's one possibility. The draw distance could alsobe an indication of more open ended environments.

I am on both sides of the Halo 3 innovation argument, but hey. There's one thing you can't deny. Innovative or not, Halo 3 is (will be) mindless, bloody, fun.

But if you seriously looking for innovation, look at the whole X button thing. Bubble shield. Now that's trippy.

Well, the main point I'm making here that Halo became popular because it was innovative. Lots of games are fun, but to stand out from the crowd like Halo did you have to be fun and different, and Halo 1 was a leap beyond what FPS games were at that point. However, that was 6 years ago. I just think it's a little sad that such an innovative game in its day would suffer from such a lack of innovation even 6 years later. First person shooters are different now, and the gameplay that we've seen in Halo 1 & 2's SP campaigns just doesn't hold up anymore. Like I said, I'm far from alone on this as well. The games I've listed were meant to be examples of how first person shooters have changed. I really think people are going to be underwhelmed if it is the same gameplay with better graphics and more people on screen, they need to do something more.

tlcain

Halo didn`t get popular because of innovation, it got popular because it was a great game. People don`t read on the back of covers and think "mmh, that´s innovative, i`ll take it". Think of Halo as Star Wars or Indiana Jones, solid movies with classic storytelling. Innovation? None. it just took what weve seen before and made it better. What u are talking about is a feeling. A feeling of playing a great game for the first time or watching a great movie for the first time, and that`s your problem, you miss that feeling, we all miss it.

And what do u think will happen if they would "innovate" Halo... people would hate it! look at dual wealding... it was an uproar, one little tweaking of gameplay and the audience wen`t ballistic, i hated it myself. And do any of u think they will innovate Gears... off course not! Why would they gamble with it, we love it the way it is.

The goal for Bungie (or Epic) is to take what they have and make it better, new weapons, new vehicles, better gameplay, better online, more choices... and that`s what the beta showed us. And that´s why both these titles will sell millions and recieve great reviews, the personal taste of the minority doesn`t apply, nor should it.

So let`s hope Bungie doesn`t innovate the "second person shooter" or that we see a dual weelding Indiana Jones, with chainsaw and laser guns.

No, actually Halo 3 doesn't need to do a darn thing. People are going to buy it anyway, so what incentive is there for Bungie to do anything inovative.

At this point all of us really don't know if Halo 3 will or will not be "inovative". So stop complaining and wait to actually play the game yourself. Regardless if it's "inovative" or not, it's going to be fun anyway. And fun is the reason we play games, is it not?

Yea seriously how is chainsaws, a great cover system, active reloads, bleeding out, and curb stomping gimmicky, but "man cannons", and bubble sheilds are not!?!? YOU my friend just pissed me off!! Your just a Halo fanboy that doesnt like Gears, well let me tell u something GEARS OF WAR is the next big thing. After the Halo trilogy is over Gears will take over! Gears of War 2 will completely own Halo 3 JUST WATCH!!! I like Halo but the campaign better be epic and the graphics astonshing for the final product. OR ELSE!!

or els??? or els what, who are you threatening, me? bungie? microsoft? and if anyone at all, why? yer argument is so empty that i don't know what your trying to say other than "halo is teh suxors gears FTW", i'm not hear to say i'm right and your wrong, i'm here for the argument it'self, just the debate because i enjoy it. my argument it'self is that games don't NEED to be innovative to be fun, and most games that ppl say are innovative actually arn't caus it's just a buss word for "this game kicks ass".

btw i somtimes dissagree w/ ppl i know on perpose just to see if they can back up there argument weather or not i actually believe in the opposing argument i make.