Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have both of these consols both running on 1080p with a HDMI cable each , i would say that the Xbox360 is much better online as it is more durable and i find that the ability to change your gamertag is very useful. However i do prefer the Playstation 3 console for the fact that you can edit movie clips on it and that you can put your own themes on it to customise it for your personal needs.

PS , i do not have Halo 3 and really need to know if it is worth getting for Xbox simply for the fact that my modelling eats up most of the money that i gain and do not want to waste money on it if it is not worth the price that it costs.

Thanks ~UnDeAd~

You can now get Halo 3 for 25-30 USD. If you've played Halo 1 or 2, you know basically what to expect from it. The biggest difference is the change in the structure of multiplayer, which has the potential to eat up a lot of your time.

At this point, I would just wait a little while for Halo Reach, because that game looks amazing. It's one of the few games that I'm actually anticipating. Even if you hate Halo, you have the potential to love Reach.

The things Goldeneye did were never really appreciated when it came out. First zoomable sniper rifle, the popularization of dual wielding (First seen in Marathon but it never caught on), and MOST IMPORTANT: Area specific damage. Goldeneye was the first game where shooting a guy in the hand did less than shooting him in the chest and head shots always killed in 1 bullet

To Chrysaor686: I thought Medal of Honor did the regen health thing first? I also read up on the AI programmer's notes. While it does some innovative things, a good bit of it is subjective. Ex. You think the AI's smarter when really they just coded him with more hp.

Still, I have notched up my opinion of the series if only for that. And since I did look around I read some things on the Reach that I may keep tabs on. Not gonna buy it but I will probably give it a play if it was at a friend's house.

Halo combined regenerating with med kits actually, you had 2 seperate bars in halo 1. In 2 and 3, healthbar died.

Halo reach is bringing it back though thank god.

Oh, and wasn't halo the first game to put grenades on a seperate button instead of making it one of your main weapons ? (not sure of this though)

And I can vouch for the AI though, I've come up on Elites that after a few shots just hid somewhere, and like 15 minutes later, when I'd completely forgot about it whacked me in the back and that was that.


oh and... ELITES ARE COMING BACK, WOHOO.

Brutes are lame.

mrwhoop wrote:To Chrysaor686: I thought Medal of Honor did the regen health thing first? I also read up on the AI programmer's notes. While it does some innovative things, a good bit of it is subjective. Ex. You think the AI's smarter when really they just coded him with more hp.

Still, I have notched up my opinion of the series if only for that. And since I did look around I read some things on the Reach that I may keep tabs on. Not gonna buy it but I will probably give it a play if it was at a friend's house.

I swear I specifically remember picking up medkits in Medal of Honor, but I could be wrong. I died at a few points in that game because I didn't have enough health to continue? Perhaps it was introduced later in the series.

'Tough' does not equal 'Intelligent'. Having more HP does not account for flanking, hiding behind cover, dodging out of the way when you've got a bead on them, running away to lick their wounds when they're about to die, or running to go get help. This basically blew away every person who picked up the game when it first came out, as most first person shooters before that had nothing more complex than 'Stand and shoot with your nifty auto-aim'.

Actually it does. In a programmer notes he lists 40 something things that they did that was AI but wasn't 'Intelligent'. One of them was that when an elite died they had to make every grunt run every time for people to notice that brilliant piece of programming.

They programmed set 'goals' that the AI had to 'defend' or run back to. You're attributing 'licking their wounds' to at a certain level of health run here every time. Yes they did some smart programming but a number of it is subjective.

Another point they made was interviewing testers. "If the game goes from easy to hard and back again, players attribute the easy parts to poor AI and the hard parts to evil level designers.” Even though it was the exact same programming. "It's the illusion of intelligence" even though it takes good programming to get there, it's still your projection of intelligence on the exact same bots in the same scenarios.

And I will again say this knowledge increased their standing with me, but it's not as big an innovation as you make it out to be.

~UnDeAd~ wrote:I have both of these consols both running on 1080p with a HDMI cable each , i would say that the Xbox360 is much better online as it is more durable and i find that the ability to change your gamertag is very useful. However i do prefer the Playstation 3 console for the fact that you can edit movie clips on it and that you can put your own themes on it to customise it for your personal needs.

PS , i do not have Halo 3 and really need to know if it is worth getting for Xbox simply for the fact that my modelling eats up most of the money that i gain and do not want to waste money on it if it is not worth the price that it costs.

Thanks ~UnDeAd~

I wouldn't get it personally the game. Its just the same as the other 2 and is easy to beat even on hard (Don't do lengedary cause the bots always know were you are) not a good game.

Yak9UT wrote:Don't do lengedary cause the bots always know were you are

Only if you let them. Legendary may be challenging, but the AI doesn't cheat AFAIK.

Yak9UT wrote:

~UnDeAd~ wrote:I have both of these consols both running on 1080p with a HDMI cable each , i would say that the Xbox360 is much better online as it is more durable and i find that the ability to change your gamertag is very useful. However i do prefer the Playstation 3 console for the fact that you can edit movie clips on it and that you can put your own themes on it to customise it for your personal needs.

PS , i do not have Halo 3 and really need to know if it is worth getting for Xbox simply for the fact that my modelling eats up most of the money that i gain and do not want to waste money on it if it is not worth the price that it costs.

Thanks ~UnDeAd~

I wouldn't get it personally the game. Its just the same as the other 2 and is easy to beat even on hard (Don't do lengedary cause the bots always know were you are) not a good game.

Then your doing something wrong, beat it on Legendary on day one.

And mrwhoop, where did you find those notes, cause now I want to see them too

mrwhoop wrote:Actually it does. In a programmer notes he lists 40 something things that they did that was AI but wasn't 'Intelligent'. One of them was that when an elite died they had to make every grunt run every time for people to notice that brilliant piece of programming.

They programmed set 'goals' that the AI had to 'defend' or run back to. You're attributing 'licking their wounds' to at a certain level of health run here every time. Yes they did some smart programming but a number of it is subjective.

Another point they made was interviewing testers. "If the game goes from easy to hard and back again, players attribute the easy parts to poor AI and the hard parts to evil level designers.” Even though it was the exact same programming. "It's the illusion of intelligence" even though it takes good programming to get there, it's still your projection of intelligence on the exact same bots in the same scenarios.

And I will again say this knowledge increased their standing with me, but it's not as big an innovation as you make it out to be.

That's exactly what AI is, and Halo CE was praised for innovating it and it was in fact very innovative at the time.

Don't be fooled by Hollywood. AI will never be sentient, free thinking, or anything like that. A computer can only do what you tell it to do. Even if I were to program it to "learn" it's limited to learning whatever I have programmed it to learn and learning it in the way I programmed it to learn. YOu gan complicate the process infinitely, but in the end, a computer can only follow it's programming; it can't think. That's why it's Artificial Intelligence, as opposed to Synthetic Intelligence.

http://aigamedev.com/open/reviews/halo-ai/
is the link. And no, telling to do the same line of programming isn't intelligence. It's applying what was programmed. It will not run to another area but to where you designate it. Even if that area is past you it will run toward you to get there. This is the same kind of coding that bosses have been using. Get 1/2 hp, go here. 1/4 go here. Halo is the same; that's not innovation. The AI won't go somewhere else, thus not intelligent just clever programming. That's been done. And other shooters before Halo had the AI throw the grenades back, I consider that more impressive than running from it.

Nice shooter, but not defining the 360. PS3 has had innovative games. A number of them weren't liked but they tried to go beyond what the 360 was doing.

Uh, I don't know what PS3 games you've been playing but there's nothing really innovative.

LBP, ModNation Racers, Killzone, Ratchet and Clank.
LBP and Modnation are just creative games, the closest things SONY has to Mario in my opinion, but they let people design their own characters, levels, etc.

Killzone introduced the sway seen in Gears of War when a person runs, not the 3rd person view thing. Killzone also made the illusion that you were actually throwing a grenade by making the screen sway in a way that mimicked the view of actually throwing a grenade with effort. It also let you choose a character during the campaign, each with different load-outs, abilities, and different endings and objectives.

It also made sniping hard as hell by making the view orange due to the sights.

Ratchet and Clank was the first game to introduce a weapon selection wheel IIRC.

Resistance has one of the most bang-up jobs I've seen when it comes to multiplayer. The first could support 40 players with no lag and the second could support 60 players with no lag.

MAG can run 256 players and has less lag than MW2.

40 players on a console was big, 60 players on a console was bigger, and 256 was OMGWTF big.

Metal Gear Solid 4 wasn't too innovative as MGS games go, but hearing that Kojima doesn't like the fact that he's making a MGS game for the 360 and in fact says that there will never be a port of MGS4 for the 360 because it would need multiple disks also speaks for the PS3.

Not to mention Valve saying the best version of Portal 2 is going to be on the PS3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pcworld wrote:"When the PlayStation 3 was introduced, I was the one of the platform's biggest critics," joked president and co-founder of Valve Gabe Newell after striding onstage to howls of surprise. "However, Sony Computer Entertainment has proved that the PlayStation 3 is the most open platform of all the current generation consoles and has worked extremely hard to make the platform the most desirable for consumers and developers.

"As such, we are delighted to announce Portal 2 for the PlayStation 3 and believe the Steamworks support included will make it the best console version of the game."

Presumed to be for Xbox 360 and PC only until today's E3 press show, the surprise PS3 version of Portal 2 will be the only version to include Steamworks.

Killzone was PS2, and that wasn't actually anything new.

Operation: Snowblind had that same "sway" that you're discussing.

I'm pretty sure that the 360 version of Portal 2 will not need Steamworks to be good - valve will not own our gaming souls!

Doesn't matter, once the game developer says the best console version is on PS3, especially when valve the ps3 to "suck it", shows that the PS3 has something to it.

Haven't played snowblind so I will take your word on that part.

Killzone 2 had some of the best fire I have ever seen in a videogame though. Along with enemies that flushed you out of cover, if you were up against 5 enemies 3 would wait while one tried to flank and the other threw a grenade to get you out of cover, when you broke cover the other three would open fire. Really good AI, they also talked about why your allies were not as smart by saying that they were clearing entire rooms before your guy could even enter the room.

The medal of honors did not have a recharging health bar, you had to find health. The first one was med kits, rising sun had noodles, european assault had stims basically.

Call of Duty 2 had recharging health though, and that was out well before Halo.

It also said that Halo was innovative because of drivable vehicles, except for the fact that Battlefield 2 had come to the consoles a year before Halo was released.

The grenade button was cool, but that is simply hot keying. You cannot still fire your weapon while throwing a grenade because the weapon is momentarily switched out for the grenade, you still switch to a grenade, its just faster.

And yes, Goldeneye was innovative as hell whenit came to the damage of various body parts. Even when it came to deaths caused by shooting various parts.

Shoot a guy in the rear and he jumps up grabbing it. Shoot a guy in the neck and he grabs his throat, shoot a guy in the head and he drops like a rock. The red stains also show up too.

OH, and Goldeneye also had the ability to shoot through walls with certain guns. That effectively beat MW over a decade or so.

And the only reason Valce will never own your gaming souls is because you already sold it to xbox-live.

You really need to do some factchecking before you post.

Halo: Combat Evolved came out in 2001, for the Xbox. Halo 2 came out a few years later. Battlefield 2 for the consoles came out on the 360/PS3.

That's a pretty hefty gap for a game to "come to the consoles a year before Halo was released".

Call of Duty 2 came out in 2006, for the 360 and PS3.

Killzone 2 had some of the best fire I have ever seen in a videogame though. Along with enemies that flushed you out of cover, if you were up against 5 enemies 3 would wait while one tried to flank and the other threw a grenade to get you out of cover, when you broke cover the other three would open fire. Really good AI, they also talked about why your allies were not as smart by saying that they were clearing entire rooms before your guy could even enter the room.

F.E.A.R. was the first game to really do such with success. Killzone is a horribly overrated game. Its good, but it's mostly touted by PS players and Sony as they're Halo (Epic, innovative etc) despite not being anywhere near as good. It's good yes. And my opinion of it would likely be higher if people stopped trying to turn it into something it's never been. It's a solid shooter, but it's not spectacular.

Most of the games you list are not innovative at all, but rather high quality products. Resistance is of notable high quality from a very creative developer (but not that creative). Same folks I believe who made Rachet and Clank.

MAGS is another game that much like Killzone is being touted as something it's not. The game is widely known to be glitchy, unbalanced, and lacking in polish. More importantly having a massive number of players means little if the game doesn't work. The entire premise of the game is flawed as it assumes players WANT to work together. Any experience in gaming will tell you they don't. You only find teamwork in video games among close friends and Clans. Never in random pubs, which is what most console players are. Even the console based Clans are rarely clans; just people with fancy stuff in front of their names.

Valve doesn't get to have an opion, seeing as the only games they've ever actually made are HL and HL2

Call of Duty 2 had recharging health though, and that was out well before Halo.

And I thought my sense of time was bad .

Call of Duty 1 wouldn't exist until 3 years after the release of Halo CE.

Infinity Ward has never had an original idea in their lives. All their story lines are ripped from movies, in some cases, they've ripped ENTIRE SCENES! They just produced games with excellent quality. They copied and borrowed from the works of others. That's all well in good, and their games were a blast, but they're not an innovative company.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, while we're talking about original ideas I should point out that Halo 1 was very heavily influenced by the film Aliens.

To be honest I think this thread has descended into fanboy "my console has a bigger willy than yours" (possibly quite some time ago ).

Whoops, the google got me there. Gave me a different Halo release date instead of the original. That was my bad.

Although there were games that did it well before Halo. As far back as 1992 on the sega genesis.

Oh and the PS3 does weigh more than the 360 so it is bigger!

The Dreadnote wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, while we're talking about original ideas I should point out that Halo 1 was very heavily influenced by the film Aliens.

If all we do is look at the design of the Marines, which is a lot like the Colonial Marines. THe Flood are pretty much Zerg/Tyranids with some Head Crab thrown in. Master Chief is a... well he's a Space Marine lmao. Halo's humans draw a lot from Bungies previous work on Marathon.

Halo has a lot of influences in terms of its design and story line; it's fairly common in scifi to draw elements from other science fiction works. More so than in most genres of fiction. Bungie self admitted them a few years ago on a history channel special about Halo and it's development. They describe the game as "Robocop and the Colonial Marines vs Predator and Zombies." Most of Halo's innovations were in technical areas and gameplay. Just because you draw storyline elements from other sources doesn't instantly amount for a lack of creativity until you go the route of IW and copy paste movie scenes into your game .

And they also proved (imo) that drawing ideas from multiple sources can combine into something good.

Oh, and IMO the halo novels have the best space battles I've read so far. (Ship to ship combat) Hurray for keyes loop :3

What about "Double Eagle", I thought that was supposed to be pretty good?

"Double Eagle" isn't space battles.

It's air combat, similar to the Battle of Britain.

Gosh darn. I had my hopes up for space battles in it.

If abnett expanded on that one low-orbit battle in the saint part of the gaunt series, it could be decent. I thought that double eagle would be that expansion. I guess I was wrong.

Is it good though?

It's good, but you really need to actually start reading the backs of books

Anyone have any novels that can 1up halo on epic space battles?

Reach was fun.

Haven't seen an actual copy of Double Eagle in real life. Just the front cover in another book.

Oh, and star wars may beat halo in epic space battles. Star Wars books that is.