ZA Critique: Halo 3
The single-player of Halo 3 is fairly easy to grasp. It’s an effective game design for providing a relatively light combat experience. You play the ultimate cyborg badass and you run around curb stomping aliens in a static sci-fi narrative. The game design supports this by giving you regenerating shields, having cutscenes of people fawning over how awesome you are, and generally providing a solid FPS except for the blue A.I. interrupting you randomly. There isn’t much that anyone can’t grasp on their own, which is an accomplishment in of itself. The multiplayer, on the other hand, is still played today in the thousands and merits a closer look. Now that some time has gone by and the game has been dethroned by the extremely different Call of Duty 4 in terms of popularity, there’s now a chance to contrast the two and learn more about how they work. While the latter game that allows players to compete purely on skill, Halo 3 offers a larger amount of variety by having the weapons break the game into separate modes of play. Each mode has a distinct advantage over the other, so that the game allows both skilled players and unskilled ones to compete in the same space.
The chief virtue of the game in terms of appeal is the variety of play styles it supports. I have a decent middle-range game but prefer getting into close quarters with the spiker. Others prefer sniper rifles while there are always the power sword types who like close quarters. Iroquois Pliskin did a write-up of the multiplayer where he discusses this virtue in-depth. He explains, “The driving idea behind Halo’s combat is to create engagements at three distinct registers: long, medium, and short-range. Succeeding at each of these three distances requires the mastery of a different set of weapons and tactics; lobbing your grenades well is one of the essential skills in the game, and using them effectively is a different proposition at each of these three distances.” Indeed, the huge range of skills involved with the game and the wide range of players involved are what constitutes the typical Halo 3 multiplayer experience. A player using a sniper rifle typically jumps around and will immediately lose if you get into close quarters while its equipped. A player using a sword is easy prey for a sniper if they catch them in the open. The consequence of this constantly dueling range of skills is that in Halo 3 you can genuinely “dominate” someone. You can negate the combat range they are using by using the counter and get an advantage that is usually an instant kill. Although some levels do specialize or limit the ranges possible, Halo 3 maps usually feature a wide variety of terrain so that you can successfully engage with any of three approaches.
This idea of randomized dominance can be seen in the weapons as well. Guns that stay strong over multiple ranges tend to have a handicap like the Spartan Laser’s recharge time while guns that only work at one range tend to fire quickly and reload fast. Other guns can work at two different ranges, such as the Spiker’s extra damage in close quarters while still being a decent medium range weapon. Specialization is then the quickest way to rise in skill with Halo 3 so the player typically finds the weapon that supports their preferred combat and then they try to engage players in it. You grab a battle rifle and then try to engage people at medium to long range, for example. In terms of dealing with a gun being fired at you, realizing what’s being shot at you is only half the battle. Picking up on what kind of weapons the player you’re facing is always going for and then disarming that advantage by using the opposite kind is the quickest way to get ahead. This also illustrates why working as a team is so important, one person works at one range while another is going at a different distance. Contrast that to Call of Duty 4 where the players are all typically spread even and using the same set of weapons. Everyone has a basic assault rifle, everyone is shooting from the shoulder, and everyone is blindly lobbing grenades and ducking behind cover. A great deal of this can be attributed to the levels and class system in Call of Duty 4. As soon as you’re on the level where long range is best, everyone switches to those weapons. The game levels the variety of Halo 3 by allowing all players to pick their starting weapons and thus everyone is purely competing in terms of skill. There’s no random chance that the person is just using the superior gun for that range since they’ll have picked it. Halo 3, due to its ‘Find the gun’ setup for most types of play, cuts the skill barrier down and allows less competent players to still play. Contrast it to other games where you race to the guns: whoever gets the best weapon quickly dominates. Because Halo 3 balances out each weapon to always have a weakness, it doesn’t succumb to someone just finding the best gun on the map either.
For many players, it’s easy to think of this game design as flawed instead of brilliant. The idea that you cannot win purely on your skill is offensive to many players simply because what else is a game for except a contest of skill? With Halo 3 the emphasis on inclusion means that you can always pop into a match and make a kill. Even if you’re having a weak day or playing by yourself, you can engage with the game. Unlike Call of Duty 4, which is a bit tricky if you’ve had a few beers or are trying to relax, you can turn on Halo 3 and just unwind. The design also allows for very intense competitive play should you choose to engage on a different level. Mastering all the tricks with grenades, knowing when to retreat, and knowing each map perfectly allows players to gain a decisive edge. Team play is also a world in and of itself, since this essay is based mostly on rounds of playing Social Slayer solo. These options are still just ways around what is essentially engaging in an elaborate round of rock, paper, scissors. If you both choose the same range, it boils down to skill. If you choose rock and they choose scissor, then that dominance factor comes into play again. What makes this so impressive is that Halo 3 is an FPS you can engage with in a variety of ways. You can play it over a couple of beers, you can play it in a tournament, or you can play it to cool off from work. A little bit of chaos in the game is what makes that variety possible.
Comments
Nice!
I never really played a lot of the multiplayer on Halo 3, being a single-player kind of guy at heart (and being an appalling shot with an analogue stick) so I never really got to experience the nuances of the system.
How does Halo 3 compare to PC titles like Counter-Strike or Quake 3/4 I wonder?
Comment by nilcypher from Cheshire, UK — January 27, 2009 @ 8:04 am
I never got into Counterstrike but I think Halo 3 is arguably an extension of the philosophy of Quake 3. Once you create a game design where no specific gun is bad (the weakest weapon in Quake 3 is the shotgun, which has its moments), it’s logical to then create a game where no specific gun is good either.
It solves a lot of the problems that ‘Race for the Gun’ FPS games can devolve into, which is often just running into the person with the rocket launcher and getting splattered. In Halo 3, you typically always start with an assault rifle that’s a perfectly good gun at medium range.
Comment by L.B. Jeffries — January 27, 2009 @ 8:44 am
I totally agree with you that Halo 3 multiplayer is much more relaxed, fun, “unwind” type of play, but which also allows for some series competitiveness (but you have to seek it out), whereas COD4 (and 5) you are forced to play with 100% concentration or you will get murdered in seconds flat. It basically boils down to the fact that I can’t play COD multiplayer (well) with anyone else in the room; Halo 3 is the complete opposite.
Comment by Gentry — January 27, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Ugh, I remember when COD 4 first came out everything was fine. We’d fire up a round with two accounts logged in and could still have a bit of fun. And then sure enough, all the ones who steadily played it got better and the ones like me who were into other games were left behind.
You really cannot play with someone better than you in COD 4, it’s not fun at all. Now I’m the one dragging out Halo 3 when people are over because at least then I know we’ll have some fun equally.
Comment by L.B. Jeffries — January 27, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Interesting article, though it seems to overlook the fact that you can change classes within a match of CoD 4/5 to adjust to the style of play of the other team, and the level design of the CoD maps allows for varying styles of play (though I admit some levels are pretty wide open and cater to long range enthusiasts). I love the CoD online but can completely relate to the fact that you can’t play it to have fun and relax - you can only have fun if you are good at it. First few weeks I had CoD4,I hated playing online because I was getting destroyed before I could even figure out who was shooting me. To me, the major difference between Halo and CoD is the speed of action during the online battles. If I haven’t played CoD in a few weeks, I find it takes a few matches before I become adjusted to the speed at which everything seems to move
Comment by Jeremy Higgins — January 27, 2009 @ 11:40 am
I do mention that but I should’ve done a better job explaining it in the third paragraph. I didn’t want to get too bogged into comparing the two.
Honestly, I haven’t played COD 4 enough to really appreciate the finer points of the multiplayer. I just found that everyone would level the playing field by switching to optimal weaponry for the situation they were in.
That and the C4 assholes…
Comment by L.B. Jeffries — January 27, 2009 @ 11:49 am
totally agree about the C4 assholes. I’ll lump the claymores and bouncing betty’s (the worst offenders) in that category. Halo3 definitely benefits from the lack of such annoyingly passive weapons (I could be wrong about this though, having not played Halo3 online very much). Enjoyed the article - big fan of online games like Halo and CoD
Comment by Jeremy Higgins — January 27, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Team Fortress 2 can feel like a very similar game to Halo 3 multi-player at times. There is a focus on being able to have fun immediately as each class (Much like each weapon in Halo 3) has distinct strengths and weaknesses. Not only does this subtly encourage team play it also means new players are less likely to be repeatedly killed.
Team Fortress 2 also makes use of mechanics based on luck and random chance, most explicitly the critical hit system, which can serve to give less skilled players a chance to defeat their opponents. Combine this with systems of feedback that reward success without prohibitively punishing failure and you have a game that even now a good year after its release is still entertaining and approachable for new players.
Comment by Justin Keverne — January 27, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
Good article, but if your really good at Halo 3, then you can just grab the sniper, and no scope some fools if they get too close!
Comment by Kye-L — January 27, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
I mostly play Halo Competitively. Jump into the MLG playlist and it is all about skill/strategy/teamwork. You will know who is playing the best. Also you left out that the BR can be a short range weapon. If your good with frags you set one under someone and get an easy headshot. I do it all the time. Sometimes I jump into squad battle (I have only ever lost when I go into it with people I don’t know) and we completely own because people don’t know how to work as a team on that playlist. If my friend gets the spartan laser and I am driving the wart hog or banshee, it’s all over.
Comment by Lee hite from GA — January 28, 2009 @ 10:06 am
I really think the author doesnt understand the word skill. Sorrry to be so harsh about it but Skill Does not mean be able to shoot someone at mid range with a spiker. I honestly stopped taking this artical seriosuly when i realized You actually refrenced the spiker as a decent weapon. I beleive my 12 year old sister and anyone unfortuante enough to spawn with the spiker in Fiesta are the only people who hoestly use it seriosuly, and then its for only a second becasue they are dead. I cant beleive some people who review games. its honestly like they have never played a game before. COD4 & 5 takes a moderate amount of skill to be good at. It takes no team work, the match maing system is horendous, its a fun game to just bull shit around in.
“Everyone has a basic assault rifle, everyone is shooting from the shoulder, and everyone is blindly lobbing grenades and ducking behind cover.” This is you definition of skill?
Halo takes skill. knowledge of maps, you have your role if your on a team, and you have to be good with the br.
Honestly next time your write a review make sure you have played the game for more then the required 3 hours your boss tagged on you.
Comment by DKTH3PUMA from MN — January 28, 2009 @ 10:32 am
About as much skill as it takes to proofread misspelled words. Or actually read the essay instead of going into a blind rage over an insult that doesn’t exist.
I like the Spiker because when you close to short range, it does more damage when you green thumb them.
And skill, as it works in the article, is how much the game is based purely on the advantage you can get over another person. In COD 4 & 5, there is very little edge to be gained. Defining what is “hard” is far too arbitrary.
And from the past 2 years I’ve spent playing the game with friends, Halo 3 is very definitely about getting an edge on people by coordinating teams and weapons against the other side. Or making sure you throw rock when they pull scissors.
Comment by L.B. Jeffries — January 28, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Started reading this article and thought you were a Halo-bashing idiot. After finishing, I must say this article was very well thought through and written. There’s a lot of good stuff here.
I would like to ask what the statement “...the game has been dethroned by the extremely different Call of Duty 4 in terms of popularity…” is based on.
Comment by Fro from TX — January 28, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Purely speculation. I see more people playing COD 4 on average than I do Halo 3 on Xbox Live. No clue what the PC stats or PS3 for COD 4 are but I’m going to assume that the cross-platform status is also a boost to which game is being played more.
Comment by L.B. Jeffries — January 28, 2009 @ 10:49 am
I’m really surprised that you didn’t talk about one of the biggest changes in Halo 3. Equipment can turn the tide of a battle and allow lesser skilled weapon users to win fights or capture objectives they wouldn’t be able to otherwise. A well timed regenerator or bubble shield can turn the tide of a match. To me Halo 3 is all about situational awareness. You should carry the best weapon you can for the situation you are currently in and have as much of an idea about what the opponent is doing as possible.
Comment by ZaneZavin from NJ — January 28, 2009 @ 11:06 am
You forgot map lockdown. Halo is a game where if you just lockdown the spawns with medium/long range weapons, the fact that your opponents could be really good at short range won’t matter since they can’t get there. Sure, theoretically, the weapons are all balanced to each other, but as person who’s played over 5000 games, I can tell you that a team stocked with Battle Rifles doesn’t need to fight on close terms.
In actuality the reverse of skill is true. Because you can start with whatever weapon you want, and kills come in few bullets rather than many, its pretty hard to get truly bested in CoD4 (and there’s only 2 true long range maps: Countdown and Bog. On other maps, like Bloc, its not hard to get into close range to gank the snipers). Only if your opposition is vastly superior to you will you be beaten. In Halo, its all about who can gain control of the power weapons and then lock down the opposing team because they’re starting with inferior weapons. And since it requires so many bullets to kill a person, you only have to be slightly more skilled than a person to cause a landslide outcome.
Comment by AT-AT — January 28, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
“I would like to ask what the statement “...the game has been dethroned by the extremely different Call of Duty 4 in terms of popularity…” is based on.”
Probably on Major Nelson’s Top Ten list. H3 was the top game of 2008, but I think COD4 has been on top more often than not (so far) in 2009.
Comment by Narcogen from Almaty, Kazakhstan — January 28, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
There are some valid points in the article. The primary problem, though, is what someone mentioned before: 2 frags, battle rifle, melee, and you don’t really need another weapon. MLG reduces it down to three: BR spawns, BRs on map, usually one mauler (lesser shotgun, for short range) and one sniper. Sure, you have your sniper fiends and your mauler whores, but it comes down to this: unless one of the “speciality” users takes you by surprise, you can always win with the BR. Always. It’s the all purpose weapon, and unlike any other weapon in the game, can be used to the exclusion of all others.
Now, I suppose that this could be taken in view of general matchmaking in which there are many other weapons, and it is true that at close range a sword will beat a BR. However, a good player won’t let a sword-wielder into close range. A battle rifle transcends the multiple ranges; it’s the explosive charge next to the rock, paper and scissors. In the highest level hands it beats everything.
On a COD note: I haven’t played it a whole lot, so I could be speaking nonsense, but the most distinctive thing about it to me is the sharp lack of health. If someone starts firing first in a battle they will probably win because there simply isn’t enough time before death to mount a decent counteroffensive. Also, there are many different rifles that act the way that the BR does in Halo 3. You can often use your longish range rifle to kill people at close range (the abundance of such guns may be a source for the difference between the games).
Comment by Zaam from Virginia — January 28, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
This seemed to me like a great first post in maybe a series of more in depth pieces breaking down *why* the points you raised really work and what it means on a gameplay level. If you ever do something like that, I’ll be the first to sign up!
Comment by Ben Abraham from Sydney, Aus — January 29, 2009 @ 5:04 am
Great article. I’ve been a fan of Halo since the original for Xbox. Understanding the rock/paper/scissors aspect is key to success in Halo 3, and is the only mechanism by which to dominate the use of so called ‘skill’.
Somebody mentioned the BR as a good close range weapon, which is a laughable notion. The BR takes at least four shots to kill, without the aide of a grenade. If an opponent is in your face with a shotgun (single shot kill), a sword (single slice kill), or a hammer (single SMASH!! kill), you won’t have enough time to squeeze off those four shots, and a grenade will take you down as well. I think this person misunderstood the fact that the BR is a good medium range weapon, and that medium range tactics are a good way to kill somebody with a shotgun, sword, or hammer (close range weapons), or anybody that is rushing you from a medium distance. The only way to kill close up with a BR is if the opponent uses a close range weapon and charges you from the front. The pistol, by the way, kills in five shots, and is an hilarious counter to the ‘BR-closeup-ninja’ tactic. I agree that it is possible with practice to kill at close range with a BR, but only against certain opponent-skill/weapon combinations. I also agree that the spiker is a retarded weapon, but I must point out that when dual-wielded will always beat a grenade-less assault rifle at the longer medium ranges. Paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, atomic explosion beats everything!!
Also, as far as ‘skill’ is concerned, the only skills in Halo 3 are the ability to time jumps and point your gun. The rest of the ‘skills’ in Halo 3 are a repertoire of tricks that are useful in specific circumstances, which in my opinion, constitutes an extension of the rock/paper/scissors aspect of the game, rather than any indication of latent ninja abilities. Anything that thousands of kids can pull off with under 100 hours of practice is not worthy of the term ‘skill’.
That being said, if you get angry about this article, I would consider that the people that beat you at Halo 3 on Xbox Live consistently employ the rock/paper/scissors aspects of the game, be they weapon choices or ninja moves, to defeat you and then teabag your face while you whine about lags and hacks.
Comment by Isaac — February 1, 2009 @ 2:23 am
Good post, although I think the myriad team options and excellent visual cues in Halo 3 are an even bigger reason it remains popular than the basic rock/paper/scissors gameplay you outlined.
Specialization is key. Call of Duty 4 is much like Halo 1 or 2 in that the game is largely dominated by a single Best Gun which is reasonably effective at all ranges, and which every team member can easily acquire. The “skill” required may or may not be higher, it’s just easier to see, because there’s less noise in the form of getting randomly hit with a rocket or a shotgun or a vehicle.
Note that Gears of War 2 has solved the Best Gun problem by actively encouraging close-range combat. It creates other odd issues, but it is definitely something to consider when thinking about rock/paper/scissors.
Comment by Robyrt from Virginia — February 2, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Halo 3 seems to be more equitable. Every check has a balance. Call of Duty 4, on the other hand, is just the opposite—it oozes bias.
Whereas Halo tends to be play-centric (it’s an experience), Call of Duty is more goal-oriented (it’s all about results).
Comment by Second Century from Missouri — February 2, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
though I’m not a such big fan of video games I prefer COD to any other game! It is more exciting!
Comment by from LA — February 23, 2009 @ 8:20 pm