Halo 3 Scoops Edge Award for Interactive Innovation

[jasonnc80]

mariozeldametroid said:

Too bad that Rubang hasn't played Halo 3 so everyone doesn't think he's credible, but I think he's kind of right.
I HAVE played Halo 3, and I must say, I was not impressed by it's online.
The first problem is that you enter the singleplayer campaign like it's a multiplayer game. Of course, this is nice and all for online-coop, but before you can actually start the campaign, you've been loading for minutes, most of the time.
Then there is the Lobby system. Well, I'll be honest: I think it's shit. You have to wait for minutes before you can play, and you can't have any clue at all of who your opponents/allies are. Any game with a decent server-pick list(like almost every multiplayer Steam-game) has a better game-establishment system. Halo 3's Lobbies are essentially like random player select screens, like in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Mariokart Wii, every other online Nintendo game. The only difference is that you can't speak to the other people in your lobby before the match starts, and I must say, that option is pretty funny. All those twelve year-olds swearing at you...

And don't get me started about the Forge and the Theater. The Forge is, yo my knowledge, the first time that a decent map-editor is in a console online game, making it essentially the only thing in Halo 3's online that's remotely innovative. Fair enough, but that doesn't make the game more innovative than, for example, Wii Fit, which is something that has never been done before.
The Theater is in theory a great function, but I couldn't get it working. From what I've seen: it's a neat capture tool, and unique on consoles. I quess I was wrong: Halo 3's theater is kind of innovative as well, so that makes two minor functions on a giant pie of decent ''been there, done that''.
To conclude: Halo 3's online is nothing THAT special, it's decent, but far from innovative. If this was all about innovations on online-gameplay, I would rather hand the award to Mariokart Wii, because it's actually the first Wii-game to have Xbox-like online capabilities. Unique.
But as it's about innovation in general, I think Wii Fit should have the award, becaus it's unique, you can't even compare it to any other game, and it managed to draw in many people who don't regularly play games.

Don't get me wrong, Halo 3 is a great game, but it's not special or something. If this wasn't hyped like the Second Coming, it would've been an above-average fps, of say, 8/10 quality.

This is the last thing I've said about the whole award, as I'm dissappointed in the immatureness of the industry's press, and I don't want to give them any more attention.

Goodbye.

No offense but you claim you've played Halo 3 but from what it sounds like not very much.  Maybe you are having NAT problems or Xbox problems but I've never found any of the issues of "loading times" you speak about.  Just for fun I fired up Halo 3 to see how long it took to get it started.

Single player

The Arrival: 22 seconds
Sierra 117:  1 min 10 seconds
Crows Nest: 51 seconds
Tsalvo's Highway: 42 seconds
The Storm: 50 seconds
Floodgate: 45 seconds
The Ark: 1 min 2 seconds
The Covenant: 58 seconds
Cortana: 51 seconds
Halo: 49 seconds

Average load time: 50 seconds

These were all time from the single player lobby selecting levels and letting them load.  These levels can take anywhere from 15mins to 1hour to play.  A one time loading screen of less than a minute is pretty darn good if you ask me.

Multiplayer

I only played a round this morning (had stuff to do) but search time was 22 seconds.  I've had the occasional game for whatever reason take a while but I'd say on average 30 seconds or so sounds about right.  Tonight I might play some more matches to get a better average time but we'll see.  Maybe not being in the US has some bearing on your matchmaking problems but it's a pretty quick system IMO.  Also if you're router NAT is set to moderate or strict it'll take longer to find games.