Taking the Halo 3 Beta Down a Notch

Games Radar is a new-ish video games website from Future Publishing that sets itself apart from other gaming sites with humour and stimulating editorials. Although I find their game reviews too glossy and brief, I do appreciate their attempts to write different kinds of features beyond the usual, news, gossip, previews and developer interviews.

Just last week they published a very informative history of console wars. This week, they've addressed the hot-button issue of games that are so horrible, only the gratuitous inclusion of breasts provide for their redemption. Fluff journalism? One could argue so. One could also make a case for injecting some fun back into the discussion of games since they are after all, just games. Take for instance the popularity of the Screenshot Comparison stories you see everywhere these days. Now I'm certain there's enough reader interest out there to justify writing these things - I just think we're starting to take the medium a bit too seriously. Relax people, our games look fantastic! One version may have prettier smoke blowing in the wind but the game is still the same!

And with that tangential preamble out of the way, I would now like to focus our full attention to Game Radar's latest opus, an article titled: "What's Wrong With Halo 3?". Read it, ponder it, nod your head in agreement or shake your fist with rage.

More on that article and my impressions about the Halo 3 beta after the jump...

So someone at Games Radar is a little underwhelmed by the multiplayer beta. They took the words right out of my mouth. I agree with pretty much everything covered in the article. Given that this is the Xbox 360's flagship title, the one game that has the power to seal Microsoft's victory for this generation's console war, the beta is surprisingly run of the mill.

"It's a beta!", I hear all the cries of from the Halo loyalists (and sensible people alike). Yes, the Halo 3 we are experiencing now is exceedingly rough and bereft of any real content to dig into. In overall polish and stability, things are looking bright. The textures are crisp, the controls feel solid and I'm liking the little innovations they are doing with player matchmaking and match playback. Being able to save and review entire matches is a wonderful feature and it's a wonder something like this isn't attempted more often with online shooters.

I've put in several rounds of play so far this week and I've been trying to take what's there and extrapolate what could be in the final product come September. Beyond the venerable Halo brand and familiar universe, what else is Bungie bringing to the increasingly competitive FPS table? As far as multiplayer is concerned, more of the same, or MOTS. That is always a double-edged sword for gamers and a creative conundrum for successful franchises well into development of sequel-itis. How much of the tried-and-true formula needs changing? Does it even need to be tampered with?

I fear Halo 3 is going to play it too safe this fall. For all the joy the game will bring to die-hard fans and newcomers alike, I am skeptical about how the game will throw down in terms of an amazing "next-gen" experience. Perhaps Bungie will bring the noise with a rousing single-player campaign adventure and I'm fairly confident they've kept a lot of juicy secrets about that tucked away until the right time. I don't know how interesting the multiplayer contests will be, and that is where any game gets its longevity from.

Personally I could only handle the beta in short 15 minute bursts before boredom set in. It all seemed over-familiar, and this is coming from a guy who's never touched Halo 2 and played through 1/3 of the original game. It's the classic run and gun game play in attractive, uninspired maps with the usual assortment of rifles, shotguns and energy weapons. If I could be allowed a mash-up comparison, playing the beta reminded me a lot of playing Quake 2 and Unreal Tournament 2004. Quake 2 because of the seemingly sluggish movement speed of your Spartan warrior and the "floaty" feel of the game's gravity. Unreal Tournament 2004 because of the operable vehicles and recycled arsenal of weapons. That's actually the same rut the Quake and Unreal franchises have fallen into already. Every iteration of these games, it's the same flak cannon, the same rail gun (but maybe they'll call it the lightning gun this time around) and the same rocket launcher. There's an increasingly heavy feeling of deja vu with these games and it's not in a good way.

The most damning thing I can say about the Halo 3 beta at this point is, it does not feel fresh, at all. I'm coming to this series as a relative rookie and it still feels very derivative. Yes, derivative of its own multi-million selling self, but still derivative.

The strange thing is I could hardly call myself a hater. I very much want this game to succeed and take solace in the fact this is merely a beta. Test run, folks. Just the rough cuts. We're only getting a minuscule slice of the final product. On launch day, I just hope we get much more than a bunch of guys in identical Mjolnir suits blasting each other with shotguns and...(yawn)... rocket launchers.

(I just realized the delicious irony in the way I ranted about having more fun with our games and following up with a rather serious and critical analysis of the Halo 3 beta. Yeesh. Good thing I'm only human.)