The Zero Punctuation videoblog at The Escapist proves that it's much easier to be funny when criticizing something than praising it, and their review of Halo 3 is indeed funny. I just can't figure out if it's funny for the sake of it, or whether the reviewer honestly dislikes the game as much as the review says and being funny is just a byproduct of that.
However, all I can think of watching the recycled criticisms (the game is short, the story is incomprehensible) is that I don't see the basis for them. At all. Estimates of game length are all over the board, from 8 to 20 hours. And yet all of these are called "short". Compared to what? Oblivion? Are all games supposed to deliver the same number of hours of play for a single price point? Is it fair to hold Halo 3 to that standard while saying "I don't give a flying shit about multiplayer"?
Would this stuff be deemed funny if someone lampooned the plot of The Return of the King from the perspective of someone who had neither read nor seen The Fellowship of the Ring or the Two Towers and therefore didn't know anything about these wacky short people called Grunts Hobbits and this all-powerful Halo Ring everybody is on about?
Game too short? Man up and quit playing on Normal, or be grateful you're able to finish the game in short order and so get on to the next one.
Difficulty is schizophrenic? Why, because it doesn't ramp up in a smooth curve? Where is it written every game should do that? If the plot dictates certain kinds of encounters to support it, sometimes large, sometimes small, sometimes difficult, sometimes not, what's wrong with that?
Tone is schizophrenic? Because the game sometimes tries to scare you (Flood) and sometimes tries to be funny (Grunts)? My God, a game can't try and do two things. Game reviewers don't have that kind of attention span.
I honestly can't figure out some of the logic here. To finish the game so fast as to call it "criminally short", you've got to be playing on Normal or perhaps below. Then the complaint comes that the friendly AI can't even gun, and that doesn't make sense at all. Play The Storm on Heroic and there are parts where you can stay out of the battle entirely and in a few moments the Marines will have made short work of two Wraiths; this review makes it sound like they can't hit the broad side of a barn, which isn't true. They can. The problem is, they do it whether they're gunning or driving.
Why is shortness the major complaint? Why are people unhappy not to have more of something they claim not to like? Again, the real objection here seems to be: Halo 3 is terribly popular. The reviewer takes exception to this (he also didn't like Bioshock, either) and laments the fact that no matter how funny the review is, that can't be changed.
- You can't post comments
Comments
Anton P Nym
Re: Halo 3 Needs No Punctuation. Period.
Having Yahtzee do a serious review of Halo 3, when he's adamantly against online multiplayer, is kinda like assigning someone with a shellfish allergy to review the clam chowder festival.
-- Steve treated the whole thing as a comedy routine, and the delivery is certainly funny. (But yeah, as a review it'd have been a hatchet job.)
rapture
Re: Halo 3 Needs No Punctuation. Period.
In reply to: Re: Halo 3 Needs No Punctuation. Period.I've seen reviewers knock the campaign, but give MP gold stars. And I've seen the reverse. But, when you average all the reviews together, people love it.
The point of the review is to be funny. I don't think the style of the video could have been achieved if he praised the game as much as he knocked it in this video. However, part of his review will certainly be talking-points for SONY fanboys.
Anonymous (not verified)
Re: Halo 3 Needs No Punctuation. Period.
*SPOILERS*
[spoiler]When I got in the Scorpion on the level "The Ark", it was very easy, for about 10 minutes. I had absolutely no problem with this as I saw it as simply a quick "You've had a bit of trouble, now have some fun instead". I didn't see it as part of a learning process, but instead as a reward for getting to that part of the level. Perhaps it WAS part of the learning process, and a Scorpion was meant to be used in the Scarab fight shortly after, but seeing as you're forced out of it I doubt that.[/spoiler]
[b]ADMIN EDIT:[/b] The "S" button above the textarea inserts a spoiler bbcode tag, you can use that.
Anonymous (not verified)
Re: Halo 3 Needs No Punctuation. Period.
In reply to: Re: Halo 3 Needs No Punctuation. Period.Actually, if you don't charge straight at the Scarab, the tanks come through the lower door, just below where you start that section.
Anonymous (not verified)
Re: Halo 3 Needs No Punctuation. Period.
I have to say I think you're being a little sensitive here, Narc.
The story [i]IS[/i] incomprehensible, not only to the casual gamer, as it assumes you know not only who everyone is, but also what their motivations are and why they're important to the story. I love the game but the storytelling is its biggest negative. Don't even get me started on the script.
Also, Yahtzee DID like BioShock, as he said (paraphrasing) "It's probably the best game to come out this year," he just focussed his review on the negative as that's what he thought people wanted to hear.
But I definitely agree with you on the complaints about the length of the game. Man up. people!
narcogen
Incomprehensible? Inconceivable!
In reply to: Re: Halo 3 Needs No Punctuation. Period.[quote=Anonymous]I have to say I think you're being a little sensitive here, Narc.
The story [i]IS[/i] incomprehensible, not only to the casual gamer, as it assumes you know not only who everyone is, but also what their motivations are and why they're important to the story. I love the game but the storytelling is its biggest negative. Don't even get me started on the script.[/quote]
Each of the games, like any sci-fi action flick, has a few clunker lines, from "this cave is not a natural formation" to the latest installment, to wit, almost everything uttered by both Lord Hood and Miranda Keyes.
However, aside from that, I do have to take issue with the idea of it being incomprehensible. If you mean that Halo 3, as a standalone work, is incomprehensible, all I have to say is: duh. They're not going to start each level with a flashback or do "last week on Halo" to set things up.
If what you mean is that the story that passes through the trilogy of the games, taken as a whole, is incomprehensible, I just have to respectfully disagree. Bungie made the games (much like Marathon and Myth) so that if you want to ignore the story and forge ahead with killin' things, you can do that and enjoy the game. If you choose not to do that, but to pay attention to what goes on, you'll find a fairly interesting story unfolds. One that is not wholly original, but certainly quite derivative of a number of other works, not least of which is the aforementioned Marathon.
[quote=Anonymous]Also, Yahtzee DID like BioShock, as he said (paraphrasing) "It's probably the best game to come out this year," he just focussed his review on the negative as that's what he thought people wanted to hear.[/quote]
If you ask me, Yahtzee saying it was still one of the best games to come out this year, and then completely dumping on it (and mentioning in his Halo 3 review that it was so bad it made Bioshock look good) is, at best, a backwards compliment and, at worst, a criticism of the entire industry that this is the best it can do.
See his Psychonauts review for a game he really liked. In fact, in a later review he says the unpopularity of the Psychonauts review led him to believe that he's more popular when he hates the game than when he likes it. He chooses not to examine that conclusion at all.
I'd say it's because since he liked the game, the entirety of his vitriol was directed at the gaming audience, for failing to recognize a game he felt was brilliant. His audience didn't like that. Funny, huh?
I've read over and over how good Psychonauts is, and Tim Schafer's pedigree is nearly unquestionable. When I have half a chance I do mean to pick it up-- but last time I looked, even though its sales were nothing short of dismal, places were still charging the full $60. That, plus this one word: "platformer" stopped me from investing. I haven't played platformers since Jumpan on the C64 and Killing Game Show on the Amiga; it's not really my thing, no matter how engrossing the story. Just like people who don't play shooters aren't going to pick it up no matter how marvelous I say its story is.
[quote=Anonymous]But I definitely agree with you on the complaints about the length of the game. Man up. people![/quote]
In a way I feel bad for starting on Heroic-- even at that difficulty it does seem like things are a bit too easy in places. However, there's plenty more exploration to keep me busy for hours.
Rampant for over se7en years.
VVV
Re: Incomprehensible? Inconceivable!
In reply to: Incomprehensible? Inconceivable!You're absolutely right in suggesting that Yahtzee concentrates on negetives much more then positives. His dismissal of the multiplayer is done which such disregard that it would be impossible to pull him up on that. Even if he did review the multiplayer I'm sure he could treat it with equal distain, I know I could.
In the end the campaign though enjoyable is average at best. It has all been done before. The AI was chest beated as being of a huge improvement. All I saw in two trips through was the same old same old. No mind blowing tactics and advanced AI. Still the same method of approaching a group of bad guys, killing them and moving on to the next. They never followed you in retreat. They hide and throw up bubble shields where ever possible. Sticking to their starting points like moss to a rock.
The story line is rushed and hard to follow. Thankfully I know the Halo background but I did play co-op along side someone who only played Halo 1 and not 2 (gave up on that crap after 1 mission). All through the game he asked constantly WTF is going on. Why is this group of people my enemy one minute and my foe the next. He also laughed hysterically at the Prophet of Truth. How can he be respected as the ultimate bad guy in the Halo universe.
One also had to smirk at the extra effort to make Halo 3 seem like Halo 1. The final mission was laughable with the final drive over a rather poor looking environment obviously included because of their inability to think of anything else but to do what worked in Halo 1. To put it bluntly this level was shockingly bad even for this uninspired team.
What we got was a rather messy and poorly constructed story hastily gathered together in a poor attempt at pleasing the masses. To much effort in including everything they thought (and we may well have) loved from the first two installments without any originality or significant advancement in any area of combat. Only redeeming features were being able to take down drop ships and a few extra vehicles of which fell short in terms of use. See Mongoose.
In closing narc, as much as Yahtzee is over critical at times in order to be able to ham up his review he is still accurate in his appraisal. Like he said it's not bad it's just average.
narcogen
We just disagree.
In reply to: Re: Incomprehensible? Inconceivable!Well, we just disagree. I thoroughly enjoyed the game and consider it well above average. I can't comment on enemy AI so much as I've not played that wide a selection of PC shooters, but I'm not aware of one that is so far considered so much better than the rest that Halo 3 can be deemed to fall short-- especially given the rather large size of encounters.
Regarding the storyline-- one can like it or not like it I suppose, but given the number of years it's been worked on and the extensive detail generated that backs what we see in the game-- not just what is shown in the novels, but that which supports the mission designers that gamers never see firsthand-- I don't see how one can call it poorly constructed or hastily collected.
It is merely complicated.
Why is Truth unbelievable as the ultimate bad guy? Because he can barely walk?
He was willing to sacrifice the life of every other sentient being in the entire galaxy for the sake of what he thought would give him immortality and godlike powers.
That's not bad enough for you?
You say it includes everything good from the first game (and even the second, in terms of features. Not everybody gave up after the first mission, despite acknowledging that game's shortcomings). That sounds like a good thing to me-- not only in terms of the settings and mission designs, but other nods.
You say "no significant advancement in any areas of combat."
Is that required? How much more advanced does shooting things and watching them blow up get?
From Halo 1 to Halo 3 at each step we saw:
More pilotable vehicles
Destructible vehicles
Boardable vehicles
Usable turrets
Removable turrets
Deployable equipment: bubble shield, portable cover, portable gravlift, power drainer, power regenerator, invisibility and invincibility) some of which evolved from powerups that used to activate when you picked them up.
The way equipment works is far, far preferable and short of the kind of complexity you'd see if Halo had a real inventory management system, which clearly it was never intended to.
So in the Halo 3 package, we got the conclusion to the story, the bullet items above, plus online coop, custom games, saved films, and updated stats.
It could be I'm just an ignorant Xbox owner who doesn't know about the amazing AI and combat systems in today's PC games... if you've got an example of a game that includes the features above as well as "mind-blowing AI" that does what you mention... what would it be called?
Rampant for over se7en years.
VVV
Re: We just disagree.
In reply to: We just disagree.Yes we will agree to disagree. For you see like Yahtzee I have probably got a much broarder experience in gaming then you. It seems quite evident. You mention pilotable vehicles, equipment (*smirks*) and such as improvements in game play. This guy is quite obviously a PC gamer and as such has played a lot of games whose mechanics and originality far outweigh Halo 3. Half Life, System Shock and Deus Ex are probably more his cup of tea. Still Halo 3 is a console game and therefore it has very little in terms of standards to reach in order to be given the far to easy to obtain 10/10.
Bio Shock has a far more advanced campaign in many areas. Hell there are so many games out there that go far beyond what Halo 3 has "achieved" we could be here all day. Don't get me wrong the game is ok. It's just not great. It's not bad like Halo 2. It's just average. Unforunately I'm preaching to someone who has a love affair with all things Bunige. No matter what is dished up to you I have a feeling you would forever be protective and defensive. Good luck with that.
narcogen
Re: We just disagree.
In reply to: Re: We just disagree.[quote=VVV]Yes we will agree to disagree. For you see like Yahtzee I have probably got a much broarder experience in gaming then you. It seems quite evident. You mention pilotable vehicles, equipment (*smirks*) and such as improvements in game play.[/quote]
Improvements in gameplay compared to Halo 1. Not compared to the industry as a whole. There are a lot of game developers putting lots of features into lots of games. Does every developer thereafter have to include all of those features, whether or not it is appropriate and consistent for a particular title?
[quote=VVV]This guy is quite obviously a PC gamer and as such has played a lot of games whose mechanics and originality far outweigh Halo 3. Half Life, System Shock and Deus Ex are probably more his cup of tea. Still Halo 3 is a console game and therefore it has very little in terms of standards to reach in order to be given the far to easy to obtain 10/10.[/quote]
I won't comment on the numerical ratings since I don't believe in them.
Since you mention three PC titles, though, I've played them all. They are all good games, but the Halo series loses nothing in comparison to them, at least if you're talking about the original Deus Ex (I haven't played Invisible War.)
Half-Life 2's vehicle components, for instance, I found much less ambitious and much less satisfying than those in the Halo games. Yes, it is annoying when Warthog drivers get "pants on head retarded" as they sometimes do. So you die. Big deal. In a second you're up and running again and there's just as good a likelihood that the next run will turn out terrifically and be a lot of fun.
System Shock is also a fabulous game, but to me loses nothing against the Marathon series. All three series share quite a bit of thematic content.
[quote=VVV]Bio Shock has a far more advanced campaign in many areas. Hell there are so many games out there that go far beyond what Halo 3 has "achieved" we could be here all day.[/quote]
I don't know, you've mentioned three old games, each of which I've played. They're all quite good. I just don't see what the particular reasons are for saying "these games are good" and Halo is mediocre.
[quote=VVV]Don't get me wrong the game is ok. It's just not great. It's not bad like Halo 2. It's just average. Unforunately I'm preaching to someone who has a love affair with all things Bunige. No matter what is dished up to you I have a feeling you would forever be protective and defensive. Good luck with that.[/quote]
Being critical of Bungie games doesn't offend me, and frankly, I don't spend much time defending them. In fact, if you'd read much of the site I've been fairly critical of the series on a lot of points. In fact, Halo 3 (at least so far) is the only one that has really inspired almost unbridled enthusiasm. I'm actively looking for flaws, and I'm sure I will find them, and I'll be detailing them level by level, like I did with Halo 2.
I find it satisfying, however, that I think it will be more work than with Halo 2, because at first glance the game is so enjoyable on so many levels-- not to mention the new community features.
I really think the game is that good; and far from me defending it because of a longtime interest in Bungie, which I do believe is a company that, with the possible exception of Oni, has never produced a "mediocre" or "average" game, as it is a case of some people merely like to put down things that are popular, and PC gamers in specific like to put down popular console titles.
Good luck with that. :)
Rampant for over se7en years.