Halo 3: ODST

[Asher]

As is Halo ODST.

Bungie's Halo expansion has become the most ambitious and creative Halo title since Combat Evolved - always unique and original in the big city, always intense and exciting in the flashbacks, and always the very best of two very different worlds.

All indications are Halo ODST is a much different game from the previous. From the darker feel to the stealth components to the fact that you're no longer playing a super-tank. Add in the open world aspect of the game (vs the strictly linear style of Halo 1/2/3, Call of Duty 1/2/3/4/5/MW2...), and it's actually quite a bit different.

I buy all the CoD so I'll probably get that, too. But it'll be hard for it to be GOTY if it's the same game that was out a few years ago with new missions.

[Felch]

ODST is definitely open world. I was impressed to see a map - that's usually not something you mess with in FPSs these days. Even jungles and open battlefields wind up being corridors and giant rooms with "outdoors" skins put on them. It's a change to have to look at a map to figure out the next place to go.

Dr. Spike is wrong on so many levels and with such consistency that you really have to wonder if he isn't just a bot programmed to be the perfect troll.

[Asher]

Preach it, brother.

[DrSpike]

I was more countertrolling than trolling (but thanks for the compliment anyway ). Asher said there was nothing new in MW2, which I doubt very much will be true (and he knows it too), so I responded in kind. I agree the stealthier Halo concept looks really interesting, but it has been positioned as an expansion, and until reviews come in hard to know if Bungie really see this as a filler before the next 'real' Halo game. In contrast I think there's more pressure for MW2 to be awesome.

I think both of us will get both games anyway.

[Asher]

I'm serious. From what I've read about MW2 there's no new features or significant changes.

Feel free to actually respond to that with something, rather than your attempt at catty trolls.

[Asher]

The full 2 1/2 minute short is now available online. It's airing on TV (as 2 1/2 minute commercial segments) during some shows, like Band of Brothers last night.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/full-length-exclusive-halo-3-odst/55528

[Patroklos]

Looks like it will be great fun. I hope they don't get sloppy on the story like they did in 3, but from the sound of it they are not.

[Asher]

IGN gives it 9/10

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/102/1025307p1.html

[DrSpike]

IGN are pretty generous. It's 85 at metacritic with a general theme of it being a good game, but not building much on Halo 3, with some sprinkled criticism in harsher reviews for being a full price expansion.

So good but not great, and a filler before the proper sequel. No chance whatsoever of GotY (and probably not shooter of the year either).

Otherwise known as slam dunk for DrSpike.

[DrSpike]

Ouch - this is from a just above average (86) review at IGN UK:

It's hard to balk at the campaign's length – which weighs in at around five hours on normal with another couple of hours on top if you play as God intended on Heroic – when it's admittedly on a par both with Halo 3's single-player and that of the original Modern Warfare. But with an often flawed campaign and a solitary new multiplayer mode, it's Halo 3: ODST's limited scope that sometimes lets it down – something that may not have been a problem if this were an expansion pack as originally intended, but something that means it struggles to justify its full-price status.

[Asher]

Ouch - this is from a just above average (86) review at IGN UK:

It's interesting you deem IGN UK's review as "just above average" when in their words they called the game "great"?

I realize you need to defend your position, but there's no need to lie.

It looks like it has some polarized reviews. A lot of people are obsessing over the price point, which may be a fair point but not one I am concerned with. A game review should focus on the game itself, I would hope. (Side note: IGN UK/IGN AU reviews are always a bit fruity, they need to be to get traffic since no one gives a **** about their reviews compared to the main site. They always over or underrate a game compared to IGN by a significant amount).

9/10 doesn't sound generous to me when there's more reviews significantly higher than that, eg at Worth Playing (9.5/10):

Thanks to a combination of well-designed levels, a solid story line, addicting multiplayer and top-notch voice acting, Halo 3: ODST presents a package that is even more compelling than its namesake. The game is not only better than Halo 3; it is the best Halo title to date. And, planned or not, Bungie has also managed to create a compelling character in Gunnery Sergeant Buck. He is just as much the hero as Master Chief ever was.

Team Xbox (94/100):

A fantastic game that reminds us of why Halo was so great in the first place.

1Up (91/100):

ODST does suffer for the lack of genuinely new elements it adds to the Halo universe, and the campaign mode is a bit brief. Yet between the enormous scope of New Mombasa, the unique atmosphere, and the brilliance of Firefight mode, I can easily see myself pouring more time into ODST than any other Halo to date.

CVG (90/100):

This is a meaty, loud and epic new Halo with a superb new campaign and an awesome co-op multiplayer mode with all the Halo 3 multiplayer shenanigans thrown in for good measure. It may be a little short and it's not a far cry from what Halo fans have seen already. But it's more of the same industry-defining quality you expect from Bungie.

The vast majority of the sub-90% reviews are critical of the price because they don't feel the campaign is long enough at 5-6 hours. I can't help but think their bitterness for that tainted the review of the game, which in terms of gameplay has been (as far as I can tell) universally praised as better than ever.

[Asher]

Ouch - this is from a just above average (86) review at IGN UK:

It's hard to balk at the campaign's length – which weighs in at around five hours on normal with another couple of hours on top if you play as God intended on Heroic – when it's admittedly on a par both with Halo 3's single-player and that of the original Modern Warfare. But with an often flawed campaign and a solitary new multiplayer mode, it's Halo 3: ODST's limited scope that sometimes lets it down – something that may not have been a problem if this were an expansion pack as originally intended, but something that means it struggles to justify its full-price status.

I also feel like I must point out the obvious stupidity of the IGN UK excerpt here, which you have as always failed to miss.

According to them the campaign length isn't the problem as it's comparable to that of Halo 3 and Modern Warfare. Where it gets nonsensical is they didn't have a problem with the price of Halo 3 and Modern Warfare, but ODST comes with more game than both of those? You've got your new campaign, whose length they've no issue with, a new Firefight mode which many reviewers have said is where they actually will spend MOST of their time with the game that has no equivalent in Modern Warfare or Halo 3, and it comes with a full-fledged multiplayer game just like the others, with the exception that it comes with many more maps than Halo 3 or Modern Warfare.

So what the **** is their problem? It has a bigger scope than either Halo 3 or Modern Warfare, but they deem it 'limited'.

[Patroklos]

Just got it yesterday, almost finished the campaign.

I like the game overall. My one real gripe is the maps. They are functional as far as combat goes, but they lack enviromental detail. The buildings all exist for apparently no reason at all. There is no effort to assign any function to them at all. No shops/houses/factories, only completely bland interior corridors with an odd couch or table thrown in for good measure. The fact that everything looks exactly the same regardless of how much of the city you explore is annoying.

The story is great. I like that you get to play a host of characters with intermingling story lines.