That was the question I found myself asking for the past few months ever since I started seeing news about it. Is it a game? Is it a stat tracker? Is it just an easy way for Microsoft to try to sell me crap? And, most importantly, does it deserve to be on my “Nav”? Well, since it was a free download, I put it in my queue and gave it a whirl last week, and this is what I found.
Ever sit down and think what your ideal engagement range for first person/third person shooter games is? I was musing over this thought myself recently after playing several of these games with some friends and thinking about why I’m excited for Modern Warfare 2 tomorrow. I noticed that most of my friends play differently, and for a shooter, there seems to be an ideal range that people prefer to engage enemies at. This “epiphany” may actually lead me to understand the primary reason why I am not a huge fan of hugely popular online shooters like Halo and Gears of War – my ideal range doesn’t seem to be handled the way I like.
One of my friends asked me last night if I was going to trade in Halo 3: ODST now that I had the 1000 in it. He was saying it gets something like $35, which is pretty good considering we ended up getting it for around that (or even less) when it first came out. In the past, I used to trade in practically any game I got all the Achievements I wanted in and moved onto the next game in my queue.
Over just this past year alone, I’ve started winding down on my gaming tendencies (yes, it’s hard to believe but I’m less hardcore today than I was years ago), and actually started missing games I had gotten rid of. So I started rebuying games that I knew I would want to replay again at some point, just for fun. Looking at my 360 collection today, I’ve realized that more than half of the games I currently own I’ve sold and reacquired.
Nowadays, I’ve decided that no matter how good of a deal it is to trade in/sell a game that I enjoyed, I won’t get rid of it since the amount of work it takes to reaquire the game just doesn’t make up for the nice little “deal” I got when I sold it. What majorly sucks is that several of the games I end up wanting to reacquire turn into Platinum Hits titles, and I hate that design. Therefore, I’m forced to scour used game bins or find people online to buy from that can get me non-platinum hits versions that are not all scratched like crazy. I feel like I’m in some sort of game rebuying netherworld where I’m paying for my mistakes. I owned these games in mint condition and now I’m spending time trying to track these same games down that will no way be in as good condition as when I owned them. Why couldn’t I just have been happy with my original copies and not sell them in the first place?
Currently, I’ve been spending the last few weeks trying to rebuy the following games:
Mass Effect – I actually want to replay through this before playing the sequel coming out early next year, but the tough part is of course finding a non-platinum hits version in great condition.
Assassin’s Creed – Like Mass Effect, I do want to play this game again before the sequel releases next month but have to find a non-platinum hits version in great condition.
Fable 2 – Platinum hits was announced to be released in January, so I still have time to reacquire this game and I know I will want to play through it again before Fable 3 releases.
The Orange Box – I actually have cravings from time to time to play Team Fortress 2, and while I own it on the PC, people on the PC are too hardcore (clans and whatnot) so I just want to play it casually with my 360 controller. Plus, I figure I will want to play Portal again from time to time.
Once I successfully repick up these titles, I’ll only have a few left to go. Good thing I didn’t sell Halo Wars since I do have cravings to play that game too. In any case, that’s my simple warning to you – if you feel like at some point you may want to replay a game (just because it was amazing, you’ll miss it, or a future sequel gets you to want to replay its predecessor, etc.), consider holding onto it. I want to spare you this ordeal that I’m going through today…
Firefight may seem daunting at first - especially the achievements that require you to get 200,000 points on every map. The first time I played Firefight with some friends, we ended up with only 60,000 points and 200K seemed impossible. Yet two weeks later, I realize that getting 200K on each map can be relatively straightforward, provided you go in with a gameplan and follow some basic strategies. I decided to put together a short guide, first with general strategies and then map specific tips. I’ve also included a strategy for getting the Vidmaster: Endure achievement. These tips are by no means exhaustive, but should give you a head start on conquering Firefight! Since this is a relatively long post for our blog, you can find everything after the jump.
I love achievements. Even though my wife says the greatest achievement I have ever unlocked is “most hours spent in front of glowing screens” (that was for Vidmaster: Endure in Halo 3: ODST), I still really enjoy trying to “achieve” these meaningless rewards. It makes me wonder though, have achievements changed how I play games, or was it me who changed?
An example: in Left 4 Dead, once I finished the Expert campaigns, the game began to be less fun. It was okay to run through a campaign, but with no sound effect at the end of the tunnel, I found it less exciting. Same with ODST and the Firefight maps: will I ever go back and play them after I’ve unlocked the achievements? Firefight is a mode I could potentially have seen myself playing endlessly, but I know that thanks to the achievements, I’m not really gonna want to go back after I finish the 200Ks. If those achievements didn’t exist though, I might just keep playing to keep trying to beat my top score. But since achievements arbitrarily define these “top scores” in a lot of games, it takes away my inner desire to beat myself because I know what mark I have to get to to prove to the world my skill.
When I was a younger gamer, I just use to play games over and over because I loved them. I must have beaten Super Mario Bros. 3 like 6 or 7 times, and gotten to the last stage a bunch of other times as well. I used to race against the computer in Mario Kart 64 just for fun (though some of the shenaningans the computer pulled in 150cc drove me nuts), and I even played through the original Halo multiple times just for fun. Nowadays I can’t see myself doing that anymore. It’s partly because I don’t have the time, but it’s also because once I get all the achievements I want, I don’t have the motivation to play anymore. The only exception is multiplayer games I love: Halo 3 and Modern Warfare took up hours and hours of my life and I never really wanted to stop.
I guess in a way achievements made it easier to fit my gaming habits into my changing life habits. Now that I have goals in games to strive for, I can budget out the amount of time I’ll need to play, and that way I can balance my time better. It’s not as “pure” as when I was a kid, but let’s face it: I’m not a kid anymore, and I have responsibilities that are much more important than beating games 50 times. Instead, I can just focus on the achievement for beating a game twice and then go to bed! 
Recently, some kid sent me a voice message on Xbox Live. I had never heard of the person before, and because it was a voice message instead of a typed message, I suspected it would be a heckler. And sure enough, when I listened to the message, it was!
I couldn’t quite make it out, but the message went something like:
“You have no life. You have like 46 games with like a thousand freaking gamerscore. Get a life man! I don’t even have that much and people are telling me to get a life. This is sad!”
What compels someone to do that? You see someone with a gamerscore you consider “too high”, and instead of going about your merry way, you get consumed with enough rage that you have to let the person know you don’t approve of what he’s doing? It’s not like an anonymous message either – I checked the profile of the person that sent me the message and he’s some kid that pretty much primarily plays Halo 3.
Is it insecurity? Maybe since other people have already told him to “get a life” he needs to pass it on to someone he thinks he can step on to feel better about himself. From looking at his gamertag, he puts his location as “Where i destroyed u”. So he must be competitive or something if he’s “talking trash” in his profile. But since I enjoy completing my games and he either doesn’t or can’t, he needs to actually reach out and express to me that he’s not a fan of me playing games.
Does he feel that much better after sending a message to a stranger and then going back to play Halo 3, forgetting all about that incident? Maybe he found my gamertag from checking a recently played with list for one of his friends, in the single online Halo 3 multiplayer match I played recently. This really isn’t helping the stereotype of the typical Halo 3 player: obnoxiously ignorant (yet sometimes ridiculously skilled) adolescents. If I continued to stick around and play Halo 3 multiplayer, I’d probably be getting more of these types of messages.
Thankfully, these type of kids aren’t as prevalent in Call of Duty 4. If I do see him in Modern Warfare 2 though, let’s just say I will have to teach him some manners.
I’ve spent most of my time on the 360 the last couple of weeks playing Halo 3: ODST, but what I’m starting to notice is that unlike on the Halo 3: ODST release day when practically everyone online on my friends list was playing it, like no one is playing it now.
The game sold very well, but does it have legs? It’s looking like perhaps not. Almost none of my friends are playing Halo 3 multiplayer either – even with ODST containing all the multiplayer maps. It just goes to show you, maybe people are just playing through the campaign and that’s it. If you were interested in Halo 3 multiplayer, you were already playing it – seems like ODST is not going to be the catalyst.
I tried getting back into Halo 3 after playing through ODST, but it just feels different after playing ODST. Several thoughts popped through my head as I played Halo 3 online: “Battle rifle? Where’s my magnum?” “Why am I jumping so high?” “Why do my grenades have a terrible throwing arc?” “Why can I only hold 2 of each grenade type?” And finally, “Why does this guy keep tea-bagging me?” Those were all the questions I asked myself as I played Halo 3 online, and decided, it’s not worth getting back into. I’d rather get back into Call of Duty 4 to prepare for Modern Warfare 2.
I think Halo 3: ODST would really have legs if there was matchmaking for it or even simple rooms that people hosted and others could join. It’s ridiculous how we have to go through friends lists and custom gaming groups just to find players that not only want to play Firefight, but are looking to play the same Firefight maps we do. Now there’s a bunch of people on these “Firefight” friends lists I have that may want to play Firefight, but are instead playing other games because they don’t want to sit at the Halo 3 ODST menu and wait for invites all day. It’s truly annoying that I have to deal with messaging them in other games to see if they want to switch to play Firefight.
Stat tracking for Firefight matches is awesome on bungie.net, but Bungie, why did you put all this effort into stats and totally botch the multiplayer implementation of Firefight? One player drops and the match is over? I played on a level for over 3 hours and was about to get the Endure Achievement before one player dropped and it all was for nothing. And why not allow for friends to join a Firefight match that’s already started because there’s already a limited number of lives? And of course, the biggest question to boggle my mind is that even without matchmaking, why not at least provide us a way to play online by creating rooms so the public can join?! Was it that difficult to add Firefight as a selectable matchmaking mode in Halo 3’s multiplayer, but only joinable for owners of ODST? These types of questions really irked me and make me wonder how a company like Bungie can do such an awesome job with the multiplayer of Halo 3 but do such a terrible one with ODST. And maybe because of it, that’s why the game just doesn’t have legs.
I had to laugh at espion4ge’s post last week detailing Halo 3: ODST’s kung-fu grip on his friends list. Last week’s release, combined with the out of this world reviews for the upcoming Uncharted 2 on PS3 got me thinking about what games are system sellers on the big gaming systems (especially because I’ve felt tempted to buy a PS3 lately, though I have resisted that urge for fear of death). Some of these games justify the very purchase of the system itself, which are “must have” games for their respective systems. Anyway, I only own a 360, Wii, and DS, but I did my best to compile these system sellers anyway.
Xbox 360
System Seller: Halo Series
Halo is basically the reason why Microsoft is still in the games’ market today. Halo and Halo 2 singlehandedly saved the original Xbox from turning into the next Jaguar or 3DO, and ODST just showed once again that Halo is as popular as ever. Love it or hate it, Halo sells boxes.
Must Have Exclusives: Gears of War Series, Fable Series
A lot of people who don’t like Halo love Gears of War, the original cover based 3rd person shooter. It’s bloody and full of machismo which makes it pretty popular. Fable 2 (and the recently announced Fable 3) are also incredibly popular for the wide range of choices they give the player: the quintessential western RPG.
Upcoming: Mass Effect 2, Halo: Reach, Fable 3
Playstation 3
System Seller: God of War III
People probably will disagree, and it’s bit a ridiculous since this game isn’t even OUT yet, but I think God of War III is PS3’s system seller. None of PS3’s exclusives can really compete with Halo’s grip on the gaming community, but God of War comes close. I know people who bought a PS3 just in anticipation of this game, and they’ve been waiting ever since. The time is near…
Must Haves: Uncharted Series, Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone Series
PS3 makes up for its lack of a killer app with a bevy of very strong exclusives. Resistance, MLB: The Show, and Gran Turismo could all be added to this list. The Uncharted series is incredibly well reviewed and hailed as the next Tomb Raider, but for some reason, it doesn’t seem as popular (to me at least) as it deserves. And I still don’t get why Little Big Planet didn’t hit it big, but Sony’s trying to remedy that with the sequel.
Upcoming: Heavy Rain, Little Big Planet 2, God of War III, Final Fantasy Versus XIII
Note: I am more interested in Heavy Rain than any other game on the horizon, including Modern Warfare 2. Hopefully that game turns out better than the last game I was intrigued by did. I’m looking at you, Scribblenauts.
Anyway, it’s weird to start with 2nd and 3rd place, but 360 and PS3 are the “hardcore” systems. I’m sure I may have missed some exclusives. If I’m being honest, I actually think PS3 has more to offer in terms of exclusives. But Halo still trumps them all for me, plus I find Xbox Live so superior that I have no problem paying for it. I’m always checking out what my friends are playing, and it does a great job of building more of a gaming “community.” But to each his own…
Next week: Wii, DS, and PSP. Until then, what’d I miss? And please, if you own a PS3…tell me what’s awesome. I’ve only played MGS4.
cmfl3x has spent more time than me on the Firefight mode so he posted his impressions on it yesterday. This leaves me with sharing my impressions on the campaign mode for all of you today. Having gone through the game solo on Legendary, as well as grabbed all possible solo play Achievements for it, I can pretty much say I have experienced what Halo 3 ODST’s campaign fully has to offer.
Either I’m slowly getting on board with the Halo train, or the campaigns are just getting more enjoyable and better designed. Again I will reiterate that I have never been a big Halo fan, as I found the first two games’ storylines and campaigns boring. I even found Halo 3’s storyline and campaign to be somewhat bland, but decent enough to play through it. Unlike my minor enjoyment with Halo 3’s campaign, I actually enjoyed Halo 3: ODST’s campaign a lot.
The storyline for Halo 3: ODST is nothing to write home about, as it’s pretty non-sensical (the forced romance definitely had me groaning). What I do like about the storyline is that it gives the game more of a premise to play lots of varied scenarios through the role of the non-speaking “Rookie”, an Orbital Drop Shock Trooper tasked with traveling around the deserted city of New Mombasa looking for clues on the rest of his crew. When you find a clue, it calls forth a flashback to the squad member associated with the clue and you get to engage in a “past mission” that the squad member participated in. Each squad member has a different type of expertise, resulting in varied and enjoyable missions.
The Rookie travels through New Mombasa at night, so he tends to play a bit more stealth-oriented (with the help of a “night vision”-ish mode), knocking out enemies that are sleeping or sneaking by powerful foes that are not necessary to engage. Other squad members may specialize in sniping, driving a Scorpion tank, etc., so you really get to experience a wide variety in Halo style gameplay through the playing of each squad member. To be honest, maybe it’s because I played through both Halo 3 and Halo 3 ODST on Legendary mode, but I couldn’t quite tell the difference between Master Chief and the ODST “Rookie”. Both had regenerating shields, but the “Rookie” also has a life-bar under his shield. On Legendary in either game you practically die by charging straight in anyway, whether you’re a Spartan or an ODST and thus I had a hard time noting the difference.
I enjoyed Halo 3: ODST’s campaign more than any other Halo game’s campaign. That may make me sound crazy, but the way that Halo 3: ODST’s campaign flowed from start to finish was pretty tight and varied enough that I never got bored. Its difficulty is also just right – I would say that ODST’s Legendary campaign is about as difficult as Halo 3’s campaign on Heroic. It may be personal preference, but I liked ODST’s smaller level design and more personal encounters. In Halo 3’s campaign you were simply running too long to get from one place to another and every few yards you would be thrown a dozen or so enemies to plow through in large open areas. Some complain that ODST’s campaign is short at 5-6 hours, but I enjoyed it more than Halo 3’s expansive and monotonous campaign.
For those that are just getting Halo 3 ODST for the Firefight mode and Halo 3 maps, don’t overlook the campaign. It’s certainly worth playing through, and stands tall as one of the three main pillars in the package. While you can play it co-op with 3 other buddies, I reommend playing through it solo since that really should be how the game is experienced. I can’t think of anything I’d want to change about it, except perhaps extending its length. Unfortunately, a short campaign seems to be the trend of most FPS games these days.
Bungie has long been famous for being able to create and recreate “30 seconds of fun” and has made that mantra the basis of all of the Halo games thus far. Firefight Mode, unique to the new release ODST, takes that mantra and applies it to a cooperative survival mode. It presents so many gameplay options that we decided to give it its own post. How does it stack up to previous survival modes found in Gears of War (Horde), Call of Duty (Nazi Zombies), and Left 4 Dead (Survival)?
Firefight definitely isn’t a perfect experience, but I prefer it to all 3 of the above. The basic premise: 1-4 players hold out against waves of Covenant troops until they are all dead. The major difference between Firefight and other survival modes is that everyone has a shared pool of lives and ammunition. You can’t “buy” weapons, ammo drops are relatively few and far between, and if you have a weak link, it will bring the whole team down by using up all of your lives.
Yet this is precisely why I love Firefight: you have to work together or die. That’s true for Left 4 Dead as well, but in Survival mode, things got so insane so quickly that it was tough to really have a plan. But Firefight rewards methodical teams (though aggressive teams can be successful as well). You also earn extra points by chaining kills and for kill streaks, so it pays to stay alive as long as possible and to be efficient. Sharing ammo also works very well too, it encourages a lot of team play and communication since you need to let the carbine expert know where they can pick up ammo etc.
I also like how Firefight handles progressive difficulties. Most people are familiar with the “skulls” from Halo 3 that introduce extra levels of difficulty. Firefight is broken up into three divisions: Sets, Rounds, and Waves. Each Round consists of 5 Waves and 3 Rounds make up a Set. Even though the game never ends, as far as I’m concerned every team’s goal should be to finish the 4th Set.
There is a logical progression to the addition of difficulty skulls in the game. Each Set has the same number of rounds, and each round is associated with a certain skull. Round 1 always has “Tough Luck” activated, Round 2 adds “Catch!”, and Round 3 adds the gameplay changing “Black Eye”. Round skulls reset at the beginning of each set, but after the first set, new skulls are permanently added: “Tilt” in Set 2, “Famine” in Set 3, and “Mythic” in Set 4. So by the time you reach the 3rd round of the 4th set, you will be playing with all 6 of the main Firefight skulls on: Double health enemies with bullet deflecting shields will be throwing extra grenades and dodging yours while you need to punch them to regain health as they drop weapons with limited ammo! (This is why I consider Firefight “complete” after the 4th set, plus you’ll get an achievement on heroic difficulty or above).
I find the 3rd round of any set the most fun, because “Black Eye” forces you to melee enemies to regain health. That really changes the way you have to play the game, and forces you to get your hands dirty instead of sitting back in relative safety, which I find to be a huge adrenaline rush. There are 8 different maps to play on, each with their own unique chokepoints and advantages/disadvantages for your team, and they all are pretty fun in their own right (some involve fighting Wraiths/Banshees to up the difficulty).
The biggest drawback to Firefight is that it can get pretty draining, it can take upwards of 2 hours (or more) to complete 4 sets, or you can do it in an hour if you’re efficient. I haven’t even gotten around to all 8 of the maps yet, and I’ve already put 6-7 hours into Firefight. It’s draining in a bad way - by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th set, you are exhausted and that makes you careless. I guess that makes it even more like a true survival game…but I might just be getting too old for that kind of stuff. Also, if you don’t have good teammates, the game can be a real drag, so make sure you play with people who you work well together with. Lucky for me I have a solid team!
I’ve already played this more than I played Horde and Survival combined, and in an hour or two I will knock Nazi Zombies off the list as well. We’ll talk about the single player campaign tomorrow, but as far as I’m concerned, if you like Halo gameplay in general, Firefight mode by itself will warrant purchase consideration. When your whole team is out of lives and is depending on you to take down 5 brutes by yourself to complete a set, you’ll feel like a real Orbital Drop Shock Trooper.
