Network now...FEATURE
Review: Halo 3: ODST
You can’t quite shake the feeling, however, that it’s not quite the main event. We’ve already suggested one alternate name, and here’s another: Halo Fighter: Championship Edition. The complete Halo 3 multiplayer jamboree comes on a separate ‘Mythic’ DVD, which includes all previous DLC as well as three new maps, which makes it the definitive version of one of this generation’s very best multiplayer shooters.
The campaign can be played co-operatively with up to four players, and Bungie’s usual metagame offerings are all present and correct – with new skulls and several specific Achievements adding even more longevity. On that note, there are smart Achievements dotted in among the usual level-completion types, a particular tempter asking you to complete a mission without firing a shot or throwing a grenade. And then there’s Firefight, which is so good it instantly cements its place in future Halo instalments, and illustrates the flexibility of Bungie’s splendid AI work again and again and again.
So, is it all jam? There are one or two flies. If you’re not playing in co-op, there are multiple vehicle sections in which you’re forced to work with others, and we don’t remember Halo’s driving AI being quite this temperamental. Your CPU teammates will plague you in these moments – if you’re driving they choose targets badly and kill them slowly, and if you’re shooting they’ll drive you Rambo-style into a ruck you can’t possibly survive. An ODST may do a decent impression of the Chief, but it seems he’s no Stallone. And, for all our good words about the campaign, we’d be lying if we said the finale wasn’t an anticlimax.
In the larger context of ODST’s achievement, however, you can easily tolerate these problems. This is Halo. The near-perfect weapon balance, fantastic enemy AI, attention to level geography and gigantic tear-ups with hordes of nasty aliens are all here, a timely reminder of just how brilliant that basic formula still is. ODST doesn’t quite take Halo into unfamiliar territory, but it does show how robust and adaptable the core of the game is – and, more importantly, stands on its own two feet as a spin-off that’s better than the vast majority of original games. For that, it earns the right to whatever name it wants. [9]
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
I'll probably get hung for this, but Halo 3 for me was a real let down.
I have however played through ODST on Legendary a friend, and have to say, its much better than 3 IMO. Much tougher and more tactical.
I'm with Nick. 8/10 from my experience, good game, not sure it should be a full retail release and the hub seems a little but cheap.
i liked Halo 1, i thought Halo 3 was rubbish. I won't be buying this.
Good lord, it's been almost a week and the this page is still aflame with comments?
Good lord!
8/10 for me (I actually played the entire game)
I found the hub world to be a bit gimmicky and felt slightly like an artificial way to extend the game. The way the campaign on the "live" campaign is set up makes you break your solo campaign in the event you want to "replay" previously played levels old-school style if there are map-specific achievements you want to get. You better finish the solo campaign before you do that. I broke my campaign and essentially had to start all the way over because I wanted to get a vid-master achievement.
Firefight is fun nothing spectacular if you ask me.
Game is very short. I completed it 4-player legendary co-op in 5 hours (1 1/2 of those 5 were the final level that only took that long because we were getting an achievement that made it extremely diffucult to finish. My guess the game would have only taken 4 hours to complete. 4 very fun hours, but 4 nonetheless.
I'd give it an 8 because the gameplay is rock-solid and what game there is in there is fun. The music is amazing, you get all the Halo 3 maps including all the DLC and 3 new maps and the achievements are done very well, too. I think a 9 is a bit too high.
I'm going with a 7. I was really disappointed there's no matchmaking for firefight; it's invite only. Since that is such a key, if not the biggest chunk of this game I found that unacceptable. Especially considering there's matchmaking on every other function of Halo 3.
I haven't finished the campaign yet but I'm finding it hard to stay interested but that's not because of the story. The story, at least so far, is actually a big improvement over H2 & 3. But it's absolutely not worth $60 or even $50 for that matter.
Ive played through the game twice , once on my own and co-op .The game takes alot longer on your own playing with veteran halo players on co-op shortens it loads as iv'e found out .
This game is loads of fun and yet another example of the class bungie puts out , i read the edge review after playing it and think the review was spot on .
Does anyone remember the Official Playstation 2 magazine giving Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness 8/10, and were reviled for it? Years later, possibly under new management, they did a re-evaluation on the back page and awarded it a 6.
I haven't played ODST so I can't comment on the quality of the game or the integrity of EDGE's review score. But if they find they may have been a bit over-zealous with the score, I hope they have the honesty to re-evaluate it. It would be kudos to them if they put their hands up and said they might have been a bit enthusiastic with the marks. I rather think that would make them more human and appealing somehow ; )
On the other hand, if they feel it fully deserves the 9 they gave it, then at least we'll know exactly why in the full review. I'm definitely looking forward to reading it.
odst 9 lol wtf
Edge+Bungie+MS+Fanboys=
Anyone who gave the game a 9...are clearly not right in the head or bought off.
I'm guessing Bungee advertise a lot in Edge - so they had to give it a 9
is a retarded comment
That said, I'll be looking out for suspicious Microsoft world exclusives in coming issues. :)
Demon's Souls a PS3 exclusive is given a 9 in the very same issue as Halo 3: ODST.
So about this blatant XBOX bias? /sarcasm
Demon Souls got a 9? Cool, man. I've had my eye on that. I might get it...
The early dark corridors are little off-putting, but are soon eclipsed by some elegant open level design reminding me of the original CE. Lots of generic Halo fun to be had with the vehicle fights.
A real feeling of joining a larger and ongoing battle which was missing H2 and 3. It is early days yet, but this release has an excellent mature-gamer feel to it.
By some accounts, not the Earth-mover some people were expecting, but still, I really wanna play this!
I played the game for nearly an hour yesterday and it has to be contender for "How NOT to create an opening level". Visually it looks like Duke Nukem 3D and I'm stuck in the hub world with no idea where I'm meant to go to open the first level. Shockingly bad game design for 2009.
I'm sure it wont matter once I'm in the flow of the game but as an opening level it fails bigtime!!
I think you may have missed the blinking "phone booth" right at the start and in front of where you start in the hub world. Your the first person I heard about having problems, which points to the fact your problem probably is not bad game design.
For me the tutorials had too much hand holding, and it's pretty mindblowing that you seem to be implying there isn't enough.
Yep, just me being dumb and throwing a tantrum! I found it straight away next time I put it on. So apologies Bungie, great game and the gfx are nice if a little dated after playing Dirt 2 all week!
I've decided to try it on Legendary, well at least for now, the AI is great fun with some new routines I think including one enemy telling the other while I'm in cover "you've got grenades, so use them!" next thing I know I'm stuck with a grenade, brilliant.
Been playing this for most of the afternoon.Yep, great exp.to the Halo universe of games.Nice little exp. pack to Halo 3. but for me? a 9/10 game? Errr.No.Not by a long shot.Sorry, but for a 9/10 i expect to be loving every min.or totally blown away by what they`ve done.
Here? i`m thinking...Hmmn.Graphics engine, starting to look a bit dated, but nice to see it`s been buffed up since Halo 3.-Not played a FPS SO dark, since N64 Doom. LOL.-The ever brilliant A.I been tweaked even more. Great firefights etc.But it`s just NOT enough to warrant such a high score, esp.when the online side is so familiar as well.
Takes a little more than some celb.Voice work and achivements for opening a map screen etc to impress me.
would have stood up to the spotlight a lot better as a better priced DLC exp. rather than an over hyped Stand alone Retail product.
I'm still undecided about my opinion on the game (it'll probably take a weekend of play to evaluate how much I enjoy it), but I think the addition of the Firefight co-op mode played a major part in the high review scores. It's definitely a very fun mode, I ended up playing about 3 hours of it with a friend when I first popped it in, then played one single player mission after.
And as for the value proposition, packaging a second disc with Halo 3 multiplayer, containing all the DLC went a long way for reviewers. I believe those maps are $20 worth of DLC. I'll probably give Halo 3 MP another shot (though I'm sure Bungie's ridiculous, lack of a CTF only play list will again deter me from playing).
I agree that this is definitely an expansion, and initially that's what Bungie touted it as, but this is one of the biggest gaming franchises. So MS is trying to maximize profits on the game and make sure that people who don't have access the XBL can get it. Halo sells, and MS is exploiting that. I only hope that this doesn't turn into an annual Madden type thing after Reach is released (which will be a totally new game).
I find no significant problems with this review, in my experience of Edge the 10 is reserved for ground-breaking/revolutionary/innovation, so a game that is incredibly good fun (in their opinion) can still deserve a 9 even if it is not particularly earth shattering. However, I can see why some would feel that a 9 should still require some innovation and so this game should have received a 8. I would imagine that Edge would justify the score by saying that the combination of AI, weapons balance, level design is sufficiently superior to other games (e.g. Killzone) so as to deserve the higher score. But it is only their opinion, and you could argue that as (supposedly) experts, that if you don't agree then maybe that is because you cannot appreciate the games on a sufficiently deep level to appreciate the differences, but at the end of the day I'd say it's just opinion (even experts can be wrong) and not worry about it.
Having said that, the admission that the review was rushed due to Microsoft's constraints is interesting because it is an implicit acknowledgement that the review may not be as accurate as they would like. So it could be argued that they should not publish a review when they clearly feel they have had such constraints put upon them - why not wait until they get a retail copy and take their time - but of course this is where commercial pressures (particularly in the current economic climate) to get a review out at a similar time to other publications becomes an issue. If this is true then I hope this is not the start of a shift in values at Edge and a gradual tipping of the commercial/quality scales with sacrificing integrity for commerciality.
No one complained when Battlefield 1943 got a 9/10. That was not groundbreaking. It was a remake. It recieved a nine because it was such good fun to play and the price was right.
Appreciating Halo... at a sufficiently deep level. Okay.
Smarmy comments..... on a videogame forum. Surprise.
Sarcastic retorts instead of actual points... from a Halo lover. Original.
Accusing someone of being sarcastic when your original comment was highly sarcastic. Hypocritical.
Furthermore, at what point did I actually say I was a Halo lover?
1. You don't know what a hypocrite is or what sarcasm is. My first post wasn't.
2. It could be inferred that you liked Halo, since you said there was something to be appreciated at a "sufficiently deep level." Just like it could be inferred from my first post that I'm saying "Halo is as shallow as games get." Not reading into things is just what gets you into internet fights like this.
3. Make a point.
1. I know exactly what those words mean. Your inability to comprehend when you are behaving in such a way just goes to show that you don't understand those words - or at least you do understand them and are deliberately refusing to hold your hands up and admit that your initial post could have been phrased in a much less smug and superior manner.
2 (a). I know exactly what you implied with your initial post, that is not the reason this has occurred, the reason is that you chose not to make your statement in a polite (non-smary/sarcastic/etc manner), that is what starts internet "fights" as you so maturely label them, I would prefer debates/discussions/disagreements.
(b) In the context of Edge giving a high score for a game that is not hugely innovating (a quality that is usually a pre-requisite for a 9/10), I said that "Edge would justify the score.....". And that if you disagreed with that then maybe THEY could then say that they are "experts" and that the fact you disagree could be because "you cannot appreciate the games on a sufficiently deep level". At no point have I explicitly said, nor inferred, that this is what I believe - I have only stated that this is how Edge may justify their review and score. [Incidentally, the fact that you think Halo is shallow and Edge doesn't is exactly my point, THEY might retort to you by saying the only reason you think that is because you are unable to appreciate it on a deep enough level, so you think it's shallow. Again, notice that I am NOT saying this is what I think, I am saying this is one way Edge MIGHT retort to those Halo naysayers.] So I repeat, at what point did I say I was a Halo lover?
The fact that you either didn't read my post fully, or have not been able to understand the difference between someone stating their own opinion, and someone hypothesising what someone else's opinion might be, just goes to show how little your initial comment should be regarded.
3. If you can't understand the point I'm making (how Edge might justify the score considering the lack of innovation), even after walking you through it another time, then I'm sorry but I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it you yet again.
1. It may have been smarmy, but not sarcastic.
2 (b) i. This means you do think there is something to appreciate at a deep level in Halo, just because you think it'd be a valid argument on their part.
ii. You haven't outright said it, but i leads to ii. The second half of that sentence was really more about keeping up with the rhythm of the conversation, and didn't anything else to criticize you for. I was Reach-ing.
3. You've wasted plenty enough time already.
1. sarcasm |ˈsärˌkazəm|
- noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt
irony 1 |ˈīrənē; ˈiərnē|
- noun ( pl. -nies)
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect
i.e. The statement "Appreciating Halo... at a sufficiently deep level. Okay." is sarcastic due to the ironic use of the word "okay" to signify the opposite of agreement.
2 (b) i. Just because I have the capacity to empathise with someone, and their perspective, in order to be able to understand why they might think what they are saying is justified, does NOT mean I necessarily agree with them and think that it is valid - I can merely appreciate why THEY might think it is valid. Having the ability to empathise does not automatically mean agreement. For example, I can see why you might think that me bringing up the statement of deepness may mean that I think that, but I do not agree that you are correct to think that.
ii. As above i does not lead to ii. "I was Reach-ing." Exactly, you were reaching because you assumed that seeing as I could understand why Edge could think they are justified in giving the score they did (even though not necessarily agreeing), that must mean I am a Halo nut. Unfortunately you reached too far and came to incorrect conclusions.
3. That's something we agree on, but that must mean so have you...
I suppose having the review in the issue as early as possible would help bolster sales. Edge should have waited in my opinion. I'd rather read a fuller review of a retail release before shelling out for it. Intstead, I'll rely on my friends feedback on the game before buying it as this review isn't telling me enough.
After all this debate it seems the problem is simple (outside rapant fanboyisim). Most people come to Edge, including me, for a precise critical eye on everything from small indie offerings to the biggest blockbusters. Unfortunately this review seems to sidestep issues that other games have been rightfully marked down on, and I'm not talking about length. Lack of innovation and underdevelopment of ideas are things that ODST is clearly guilty of. Let alone other nagging issues, like the lack of matchmaking in firefight, or the only new enemy being a inconseqeuncial floating blob. Its not that the reviewers opinion is wrong, it just seems that he is only touching the surface, and thats something that can usually be found in reviews from everywhere BUT Edge...
Once again AndyLC you're right on target.
Yeah - what's with this schizophrenic juggling act between 'oh videogames are not mature enough... blablabla... oh look at the movies' and then we get FPS number 100023 and they give it a 9 anyway and none of the whining about 'maturity' or 'sophistication' gets in on the act.
Edge should really drop this self-guilt about the medium it's covering - if you haven't noticed, most of the movies coming out of Hollywood are pretty immature too - all of them are based on comic book heroes.
"In the larger context of ODST’s achievement, however, you can easily tolerate these problems. This is Halo. The near-perfect weapon balance, fantastic enemy AI, attention to level geography and gigantic tear-ups with hordes of nasty aliens are all here, a timely reminder of just how brilliant that basic formula still is."
Sounds like a 9 to me :D
To use your logic. Any Halo game with a roughly the same graphics, animation, controls, multiplayer, level of innovation as Halo 3 ought to automatically get a 9? We could see yearly updates like FIFA or expansion after expansion released at the price of a full game using 2-3-4-5 year old game engines. I can't wait sounds awesome (sarcasm/irony).
Incidentally this seems to be the review policy of most magazines nowadays, especially Edge. I remember how they tore Halo 2 single player apart in the review and in the last paragraph described the multiplayer eventually settling on 9 for the score. I was opened mouthed thinking WTF.
I figure the main criticism of the 9 is not so much "OMG HALO!!? SUCKS..." but the standards of the review.
Let's go over some points made...
- It's not very different from Halo3
- It plays a lot like Halo 3
- It's shorter than Halo 3
- The AI is dumb
and then this last line
>>ODST doesn’t quite take Halo into unfamiliar territory, but it does show how robust and adaptable the core of the game is – and, more importantly, stands on its own two feet as a spin-off that’s better than the vast majority of original games.
It basically amounts to "This game is SO MUCH LIKE Halo 3 that I will give it a 9 because I LIKE HALO 3"
And then Edge has a bunch of articles that go "Are games not MATURE ENUFF?" and "We need to MATURE and EVOLVE and STUFF!!" and then a game that's the spinoff of the 3rd in a sequel where you are a floating targeting reticule armymans fighting alienmans gets a 9 for being "well it's just like Heylow 3 so I likes it"
Do you even read Edge?
I have never seen an article in Edge demanding games become more mature. Often i find Edge to be fair to both sides of an argument. This is the first article Edge has publish that, in my experience, i would find dubious.
Your last paragraph just makes you sound like an idiot.
P.S I think Edge know how to spell 'enough' and also know how to turn off the caps lock.
Halo 1. Fantastic. Loved it. Halo 2. hmm, nice but felt like more of the same with a slight revision to the graphics (or rather, cut-scenes)... Also a little ridiculous in taking itself so seriously but I enjoyed it nonetheless. Halo 3. Didn't do much for me. By this point I had tired of the silly hi/low-pitched voices, naff Nile Rogers music (sounds like a ropey monk chant preset on an old FM7?) and strange /awkward looking enemy design - It felt like swatting flies, rather than gunning down heavily armed ailen soldiers. I played through it again just last week to see if I had maybe missed the point and I might re-discover what I enjoyed so much in playing Halo 1. Didn't happen to be honest. I also remembered how much I hate the flood!! More irritating obstacles swat rather than enemies you want to shoot.
So in that respect, based on the review and footage, ODST doesn't look like a huge leap to me. More like Halo 3.2. Scoring a 9 in Edge is incredibly high for something that looks like more of the same without any huge leap (they must love a fragfest in the offices). Something doesn't sit with me though... does it deserve a 9? My gut says 'no' based on past experiences with the franchise. Time will tell.
In response to some of the other posts in here regarding a Bias towards MS I did find the scoring of MGS4 way off and really didn't understand why it recieved an 8. Maybe I'm in the minority here (proabably) but I found the online elements of MG Online (competitions, game modes, clothing & equipment) totally mind-blowing, tense, in-depth and completely immersive - way more enjoyable than my experiences with Halo series online. But hey ho, I'm not a fan boy for either camp, I love both consoles but Edge always seems to find itself in a position where it's readers accuse them of leaning towards Microsoft titles.
Sorry, I didn't mean for this post to be so long!
As I haven't played the game, it's hard to comment accurately. But I must admit that my first response, after reading the text of the review, was absolute shock at the fact that the final score was a 9. The review read like a 7.
Obviously in an opinion-piece Edge has every right to give out a 9. But it just looks suspicious, and will absolutely feed conspiracy theories about bias. The final proof, however, will be in the pudding when everyone else gets to try the game.
Just so you know... I think you're misappropriating this term called 'conspiracy theory'.
First, not everything that is labelled as a 'conspiracy theory' is automatically untrue. It's an Orwellian term that basically amounts to 'Doubleplus ungood'.
Secondly, you do know that people go to prison everyday precisely because they were involved in a 'conspiracy', right? 'Conspiracy to commit a felony', 'Conspiracy to commit a rape', 'conspiracy to commit a fraud' - does any of these terms ring a bell? So what is it? Are conspiracies something to 'giggle' about, do they not exist, and if so, how come they can put you into prison for it?
And the reason why I get my panties all in a bunch about a seemingly innocuous 'term' is because I can decipher your basic worldview judging by your misuse of that term - for your sake, I should seriously reconsider your personal stance on subjects and not have this overly kindergarten-like mentality to just label something a 'conspiracy theory' and then disregard it... a two-year old can associate something with a 'bad word' which basically tells him 'nothing to see here folks, move on' - it's called psychological inhibition.
What a dreadful hissy-fit, squarepusher. It may come as a shock to you that you cannot decipher worldviews from the use of a common phrase in an internet forum, and you cannot pontificate about the implications of a phrase as if you are the ultimate arbiter of its meaning. Quite what you are trying to prove with comparisons with rape is beyond me. Time to grow up and stop sounding off - maybe a better approach would be to offer some sort of better alternative to the phrase...
...Which in this case is perfectly apt, in my opinion. The idea that Edge and other games journalists are biased in certain regards is 'a theory' about 'a conspiracy' that has yet to be backed up with any cold hard facts. We may actually agree that there is an element of bias, in fact institutionally it is probably impossible for there not to be. But don't assume it is case proven just because you've read a review that you think was overscored.
Edge score PS3 exclusives lower than any other major magazine online or otherwise. Fact.
If only conspiracy theories were needed but the evidence is that either Edge is biased and doesn't have a policy to cover it up or Edge isn't biased and has a policy to appear so in reviews.
In any case Edge went one step a bit too far for my liking when Killzone 2 got a 7 and then I sort of knew that the game was up. Had the review tallied with my own experience of the game to any extent I'd probably still be buying the magazine.
Uncharted 2 getting anything more than a 7 isn't evidence of no bias by the way. I expect higher than a 7 but even a 10 would be interpreted by most people as "slightly" better than Halo ODST and no better than Halo3". These are the traps Edge have set for themselves by distorting their own scoring system on 360 exclusives.
No offence, but I think that's a load of nonsense Leon. You can't extrapolate some conclusion from the reviews of very few games. Obviously they gave LBP a 10, which is above average. Also, looking through a few older reviews, Edge has given generous praise to a good number of PS3 titles. They called Uncharted "one of the finest action adventures to date" for example, and said of MGS4 "it is faithful to its fans, its premise and its heart, delivering an experience that is, in so many ways, without equal.". Hardly seems like bias to me.
You just don't get it do you?
The scores and Praise given to big 360 games don't tally with scores given to big PS3 games.
I would not argue that Edge have underscored ALL PS3 games yet they do give exclusive PS3 games less than any other major magazine, that's just a fact. Edge do however overscore 360 exclusives and a quick look at the scores (and metacritic) will demonstrate that.
Save for Halo Wars and Mass Effect, 360 exclusives have recieved above average scores which in contrast to under average PS3 review scores makes for huge gaping disparities.
On a scale of 0-10 Killzone 2 is not 3 worse than Halo 3.
Answer this, what are PS3 exclusives marked down on?
Originality? Gears 2, Halo3/ODST
Length? ODST
Co-op? Bioshock, Oblivion
Graphics? Halo3, Left 4 Dead
If Edge have abandoned their commitment to fair and balanced reviews then why not abandon the pretence of the the opposite. Why even review PS3 games if they have no commitment to do so honestly?
>>> The scores and Praise given to big 360 games don't tally with scores given to big PS3 games.
I invite you to prove your point. A quick look at Metacritic. Viva Pinata - 7 (below average). Banjo Kazooie N&B - 7 (Below average). Gears of War - 8 (below average). Crackdown - 8 (below average). Ninja Gaiden II - 8 (about average). Gears Of War 2 - 9 (about average).
If you take the Halo franchise out of the equation I don't think you have the merest hint of an argument. I just think it is generally true that Edge marks are harsher than those of other magazines. But they f###ing love Halo - good luck to them. They're in good company among many gamers.
>>> On a scale of 0-10 Killzone 2 is not 3 worse than Halo 3.
Your opinion. And it's worth noting that Killzone 2 appeared 18 months after Halo 3 - times have changed.
Left 4 Dead's graphics are awesome btw.
Source engine games can't be described as having awesome graphics unless of course you just mean art direction, lighting etc.
True L4D is an atmospheric game but it doesn't do anything that couldn't be done in source engine games years ago.
Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 couldnt have been done years ago.
A misconception in my opinion. The Source engine has been continually updated over the years, and I think Left 4 Dead's graphics compare well with last year's average. In a game about dark corners and sparse landscapes it's easy to dismiss. And of course if we ARE talking about lighting and presentation, then obviously Valve is miles ahead of the pack there.
" They called Uncharted "one of the finest action adventures to date" "
......and slapped an 8 on it.