Daimon's Lair

Dom: "What are those glowing things?"

Marcus: "What do I look like, a fucking botanist?"

I started Gears 2 the other night--it looks like it could be even better than the first game, but I hope there won't be as much vehicle combat as there was in the first few chapters because I'm not sure what I like about the new turret mechanics (unlike the first Gears where you could fire a turret indefinitely, here the turret can overheat so you have to stop firing and hold RB to quench the turret). Yes, I know it's more "realistic" but the whole point of turrets in shooters is being able to fire indefinitely except in Halo 3 where you can rip the turret off its mount and run around with a limited supply of ammo.

Otherwise, I like it so far. It already has more of a storyline in the first few chapters of Act 1 than in all of the original Gears. Graphics and sound look nice and I appreciate (for the sake of my kids) being able to turn off both gore AND language. (Though I have to say that chainsaw executions are only satisfying with the gore turned on).

The designers have made the game have four difficulty levels, with there being an easy/casual, normal, hardcore, and insane. So far even the normal seems easier than "casual" (which was the lowest in the first Gears) so I might bump it up and see what Hardcore is like. Then again, there were only occasional segments (i.e. Berserkers) that were very challenging in the first Gears on casual (thanks to the incredibly generous regenerative health system) so I might have to play again.

I also like the new Hammerhead assault rifle with its (limited) zoom function and more of a semi-auto function. Not quite Halo 2 and 3's Battle Rifle, but it's still nice to have as a complement to the Lancer. Especially since the two assault rifles in the original Gears were almost too similiar with the noticable exception being the Lancer's chainsaw bayonet.

We'll see if there are any other additions as I play onwards.

My wrists are hurting a bit, so we'll see how this goes. . . .

Immersion

Pros: There was a reason Halo basically made the Xbox the console it was (and to a large degree what the 360 is today). It's a f***ing good game!

Let's see what can I say?

There are shooters, and then there are shooters. Halo is one of my all-time favorite games and I think it will continue to be rated as one of the best shooters for years and years to come. The story isn't detailed (it's not an RPG, after all), but the combination of cut scenes and the assistance/narration from Cortana (your AI partner throughout the game) gives the player a sense of simultaneously being part of a much larger conflict and the one person who can really make a difference.

Cortana is a great character.


I *heart* Cortana.

The Master Chief is one badass mo-fo. Captain Keyes is also a compelling, if rather minor, character. The combination of good characters and storytellling that's compelling but doesn't get in the way of the action is something many games ought to imitate.

Another good aspect is that the chapters (with the possible exception of the second) are of relatively equal length, so no one level design or plotline ever gets too drawn out. Put that in combination with one of the best orchestral score ever designed for a game--where each track melds perfectly with the action, in some ways even better than a movie (because there's less dialogue) and you are totally immersed unless you're playing on Legendary and just getting your ass kicked (if you're me) and fighting from checkpoint to checkpoint.

Cons: I HATE the Flood. Yes, I know you're supposed to hate them. But I HATE them!

Replay Value: I was never on Xbox Live with the original Xbox, so I've never played the online multiplayer, but the few times I played multiplayer with friends in college I really enjoyed it. Co-0p is also quite enjoyable, regardless of whether you're playing with someone better (my neighbor Nate in college), equal (my friend Justin), or slightly worse (my wife--no offense ;) ).

And unlike many many games (especially for me), the single player campaign has a very high replay value, whether you're cranking up the difficulty level or just replaying your favorite level for fun (which I've done several times with the second and third chapters :) ).

Balancing: One of the best examples of difficulty level progression is Halo: CE. "Easy" is just that--easy. I started off on that but found it waay too easy. "Normal" is challenging for a relatively decent player and it remains the only difficulty level I've beaten the full game on. "Heroic" is challenging at its easiest points and downright hard at others--my personal favorite is when you first board Truth and Reconciliation with a bunch of Marines and you get ambushed by wave after wave of Covenant (including seven cloaked Elites with beam swords). On solo I barely emerged victorious after several hours. Playing co-op with my wife, we beat it after a couple tries with Marines to spare.

I've tried "Legendary" solo and can't even get past the first room on the Pillar of Autumn. Guess that means I suck :P. I'll probably try co-op with my wife one of these days. We just have to find time away from the kiddies.

As far as game mechanics, I swear the Xbox controller was designed for Halo. Buttons become intuitive after just an hour or so with the game (at least for me). The fact that you can only carry two weapons sucks, but it's realistic--and it forces you to make interesting decisions later on (such as do I pick up the rocket launcher or keep the sniper rifle). It also allows the designers to give the players subtle hints--as in, if you don't have the sniper rifle and you see one, pick it up. Trust me.

Level design is great and only becomes repetitive in the infamous Library (I think I remember the name) level where all the corridors basically repeat themselves. One gripe I had about this level was that when you get the Index the only possible way (for me) to beat that room was simply to book it for the index, ignoring all the Flood around me and eking out enough health to get there and trigger the cutscene.

Which is where I actually have something positive to say about the Flood. Throughout the game there are definitely "run and gun" moments and Halo is never a tactical shooter. At its most cautious moment it still has faster gameplay than, say, GRAW. But still I took my time and often remembered where weapons were stashed and had to backtrack through part of a level to replenish ammo. I liked, especially in the second level, to pick off enemies with the sniper rifle (especially Elites), then run in with the assault rifle/melee to finish off the grunts and Jackals. Co-op speeds things up, but you can still easily bite off more than you can chew.

The Flood changes all that. There are points where you can kill every enemy in a room, but there are many other points where it sure seems like the supply is basically infinite and you just have to keep running and running and. . . it's exhausting. It totally changes gameplay. Plus, the music and the horror movie-esque way the Flood is introduced really makes it creepy.

And then there's my favorite part: the Scorpion tank. All of the vehicles are cool, but the levels where you can use the tank is some of the most rewarding gaming experiences you can have. *sighs*. I *heart* the Scorpion.

Final Impression: Play it! Even if you don't like first-person shooters, play it! It might convert you. . . . Halo is the reason I got the Xbox. I've played both sequels and I'm looking forward to Halo Wars and Halo 3: ODST. Plus I've read all of the Halo books except the newest (which I'm about to start). I have all of the soundtracks. I have the Halo 3 Zune and the Halo 3 Xbox 360.

Notice a pattern?

Halo is a must-have. It is a game you will love and you will not want to trade in.

For those interested, my wife has a pdg review at Asserting Reality.

Immersion:

Pros: I was initially skeptical about the economic system in Fable II, but the ability to take a job (and the jobs themselves) was strangely addictive early on in the game. By halfway through I had become a 5-star woodcutter, blacksmith, and bartender. An easy way to gold if you're willing to sit through very mundame mini-games. Having a job helped immerse me in the world of Albion, and also gave me something to do when I felt like playing the game but not necessarily do questing (something that would be interesting to see added to an Elder Scrolls V, if that ever comes around). Plus, it forces you to interact with the world because the only real way to make big bucks is to invest in real-estate and become a veritable mogul (like my wife :P).

As far as graphics go, the engine seemed relatively stable with little noticeable texture pop-in (not that I'm as sensitive to that as, say, the folks over at IGN). Sound was good, but not terribly involving even in 5.1 digital. The music was decent, but not as period appropriate as had initially been hinted at during the trailers with the heavily classical score in the intro to the game (and while in Castle Fairfax). But then, maybe that's for the better for most players. Definitely NOT a game that wowed me with its sound design.

Cons: A lot of these I mentioned in my last post, so I won't repeat myself. My main issue was the map system.

Replay Value: Practically non-existent. Despite the fact that your hero can evolve in very different ways, there are few truly story-changing choices (and, actually, almost no story at all--especially for an RPG) to make me want to go back and find out what would have happened otherwise. The ability to continue playing in Albion after the "end" is just another knock on replay value.

Balancing: A big negative in Fable II is the utter lack of a difficulty level. If it was challenging, that would be different, but it's not. Enemies scale to some degree, but enemies (and combat) end up being terribly repetitive by the end of the game.

The AI is incredibly stupid. My favorite combo was casting Raise Dead (which draws all the enemies towards my summoned creature, even if they'd already begun attacking me!) and then charging Shock to level 5 (which kills pretty much anything in one shot). Enemies have basically no tactics except running up and starting to hack at you (or your summon). Sometimes I tried different combos not because they were better but simply because I became bored.

Fights largely become a matter of being surrounded by massive numbers time and time again. The rare one-on-one fights are with trolls--and, to be honest, Lionhead found a way to make trolls simultaneously easier and yet much more tedious to fight than in Fable I.

The two main brightspots are the Crucible and the attempt to rescue Garth at Brightwood Tower (both of which are aspects where the combat is actually exciting).

One thing which would have helped was a difficulty level slider a la Oblivion--and Fable II is a stat-heavy enough game that something like that would work quite well.

Final Impression: I definitely have no desire to replay it any time soon (and probably never again). Would I have rather never played it at all? That's a hard question. The weak story and the totally lame, anti-climactic (and quite non-sensical) ending was a huge let down after what was a mostly enjoyable game (until the final few quests--basically everything after meeting Reaver).

I think I'd still have played it, but to get me to play a Fable III, Lionhead has to come up with a more engaging storyline and more variety in combat. And PLEASE! get rid of the stupid social system and abolish marriage. It's sooooo pointless!

One final request: if the Hero has to have allies/sidekicks, either a) make them interesting or b) make them helpful. For example, Garth is supposedly the greatest Will user of all time, but with the exception of one scene in the Tattered Spire, he's basically useless. Same goes for Hammer, and especially for the jag Reaver (god, can I kill him in the next game? Please?!!!)

I'm thinking about changing how I review games (not that I've been able to review many so far). Rather than write the review in article form, I'm thinking more about establishing certain criteria and evaluating a game based on each of those. This might help me keep from simply writing rambling reviews that are pretty much stream of consciousness (much as I like my enemies to suffer, I don't wish that on the few people who enter my lair).

I think the most important criteria is Immersion. In other words, how successfully does the game designer get you to forget the fact that you are in the real world?

Needless to say, this captures a variety of sub-criteria--graphics, sound, game mechanics, overall gameplay. The most important of these (for me at least) is game mechanics--in other words, if the controls and/or menu functions are clunky, you'll be constantly reminded of the fact that you're playing a game, not using your character as an avatar of your divine retribution (wait, what? :P).

A prime example of this is the map system in Fable II (fresh on my mind since I just finished the game a few days ago). Instead of having the wonderfully designed system in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Fable II's map is pitifully small (even on my 46" LCD). Even more clunky, you can't zoom in or set a target. And--also quite frustrating--fast travel isn't integrated into the map like in Olbivion.

At the same time, Fable II's well-done breadcrumb trail rarely had me looking at maps--except in my quest for all 50 gargoyles (which in reality was a complete wast of time, but more on that if/when I decide to write a review).

From there it's a toss up between graphics and sound design, with sound design breaking up into two further subcategories.

• graphics: for me, nice graphics are very important, with texture pop-in probably being my biggest pet peeve followed by poor character animations (both of them a major problem with Oblivion).
• sound design (effects): an integral part of sound design are effects and the overall ambient noise, something which games like Call of Duty 4 and Gears of War excelled at.
  
• sound design (score): a great theatrical score is one way to really suck me in. Tops on that list are all three Halo games--especially the recurring theme which I call the "almost there" theme, such as during 'Assault on the Control Room' in Halo: CE.

A final mention concerns cut scenes and load screens. I like cut scenes but they can be overdone. The worst offender in that regard was the demo of the Bourne Conspiracy, where the action was interrupted every 5 seconds (it seemed) by a short theatrical cut scene showing some acrobatic move. Why not integrate acrobatics into the controls a la Mirror's Edge?

Another offender--though I have enjoyed the game (so far) is MGS 4. I was a huge fan of the Metal Gear Solid on PS1, so when I bought the PS3, I bought the MGS bundle, but while the cut scenes are great and really give you a cinematic experience, they're a bit too long for my tastes. Then again, perhaps it's along the lines of what Peter Jackson seemed to be wanting to do when he was going to make the infamous Halo movie/game (which I think is dead, but I doubt anyone really knows expect PJ).

An example of excellence, however, is COD4, where even the load screens are disguised as cut scenes. You remain totally immersed throughout that heart-pounding experience of a game--damn that game was awesome!

We'll see if this format actually helps my rambling, since (heh heh) I feel like I've really been rambling during this.

Anyways, some more criteria:

Replay Value: This includes multiplayer and the desire to play the main campaign again. Do you get cool perks for replaying through?--i.e. the original MGS with the stealth suit, James Bond tux, etc. Are there alternate endings to explore?

Balancing: This is closely related to replay value and involves both multiplayer and how difficult levels (if present) progress. Is normal too easy? Too hard? Is Insane actually, well, insane?

Or, in the case of Fable II--is there a difficulty level at all? Which is another of my peeves with the game--except for a few cool parts (like rescuing Garth at Brightwood Tower), the combat was awfully repetitive and way too easy.

For RPGs, I think the best system was the slider in Oblivion--especially since combat was relatively straightforward and pretty much statistical computation.

For shooters, what does the difficulty change? Does it simply require more bullets to kill enemy A, or does the AI entirely change? Do ammo drops change locations, amounts? Does the difficulty level actually change your approach?

Final Impression: Knowing what I know after playing the game, would I play it again? Am I salivating over the sequel? Or do I think I just wasting the past x number of hours of my life?

Any thoughts on the criteria I've described? Any additions to suggest? Please contribute!

A guy is sitting on the couch, a controller in his hand, eyes glued to the tv. His wife/girlfriend comes into the room and just sighs, rolls her eyes, and walks back out. 'Men and their stupid video games' she's thinking.

A true stereotype? Probably--hence the prevalence of 'man-caves' throughout America.

Not for me :) Ha-ha suckers!!!

You know what my wife nags me about? That, instead of playing Gears of War 2 I should play Bioshock--CAUSE SHE'S PLAYING IT.

Oh, man, life is good. *stretches arms over head and smiles*

It'll be interesting to see how the plot works in with an RTS, but certainly looks pdc.

My wrists are somewhat better, but still not great. I just purchased Dragon 10 so I can keep up with my book, but I haven't had time to open the box up yet and set it up.

Also, I've been strangely in the mood to replay Mass Effect. I just started last night and finished up Eden Prime in about 1.5 hours.

I've changed a few things this time. My character is a woman (more out of curiousity about dialogue than anything) and my class is a Vanguard (a hybrid biotic/warrior). I was sorely tempted to just do soldier again, but I want to see how the combat changes. Plus, I saw what a badass Liara was one I had leveled her up--half the time I just had to potshot the enemies in the room because she had them all in suspended animation even from 50 plus feet away.

I've also cranked up the combat to hard--and boy, what a difference being used to the system makes. Yeah, I died once or twice because health barely regenerates with my character's class at that difficulty level. But there's one part in the Eden Prime mission that took me about 5-6 times to finish, and I got through that on the first try--barely taking any damage.

We'll see if that stays the same, but so far I can see the upgrades already being more useful at this difficult level (one of my previous gripes is that there never seemed to be an urgency to upgrade equipment). I'm constantly tinkering with my party, and I think I'll try using the trio of Shepard (obviously), Ashley, and Kaidan, which gives me pretty much the same balance of soldier, biotic, and biotic/tech as I had last time. But maybe I'll stick Liara in there and see if I can get a lesbian love scene out of it (the Asari are technically a-sexual), just for kicks.

My wrists have been acting up a lot lately. Surgery hasn't helped much so far with my left wrist and my right wrist is pretty bad.

I'm considering trying acupuncture (nothing else is really helping at the moment), but unless things get better, I won't be posting much at all for the foreseeable future.

Especially since typing even this much hurts, let alone playing video games to actually have something to say.

I recently discovered this Halo-themed spoof of Mystery Science 3000.

Here are two of my favorites:

I was playing more Gears of War last night--finally got to use the Hammer of Dawn, which is a laser-designator activated sattelite weapon that becomes available from time to time during the game.

The most interesting part is where you have to use it to kill a Berserker, but first you have to lure it outside so the satellite can hit it. I died a lot because I would try to get the satellite to lock on while the Berserker was charging at me. That part has a time limit because the satellite is only available to Marcus for another 7 minutes. I found it interesting because at least for me, the time limit was incredibly generous (I killed the Berserker with about 3:30 left). Normally time limits in shooters are my bane (witness some of my COD4 posts), but this one was easy. If I'm ever crazy enough to try Gears on a harder difficulty level, I'll be curious to know whether part of the balancing is decreasing the time on the clock.

My wife swears I hate the game, but I like it. It's just really tense. She was watching me for a bit last night and we both commented on how Epic really nails the horror movie vibe. So it's a game I'm finding I only want to play in limited increments.

So when I had had enough, I played Halo 3 multiplayer for the first time in a while. They had grifball back, but I always ended up on crappy teams, so I stopped. Lag still remains an issue. Maybe it is my connection, I dunno. I'm considering upgrading from 1.5Mb/sec to at least 3.

Let me preface this by saying that while I'm a huge fan of the original Metal Gear Solid, I only made it about half-way through the second one (I was stymied by the boss 'Vamp') and haven't yet played MGS3 (though I've seen much of it).

MGS4 is a great game so far. The graphics are amazing, even though my PS3 is (1) hooked up to only a 27" SDTV and (2) using only composite video [the 360 has component cable priority currently]. Even more so than COD4, the game begins and plays much of the way through in a very cinematic fashion-- though in some ways there may be a few too many cut scenes.

A couple gripes so far:
Automatic weapons aren't necessarily. I don't know if it's just because the weapons stop firing when Snake gets hit or the controls are sticky, but it's quite difficult to spray down some enemies with suppressing fire.

Why do I need to press two buttons to aim down the sight? Granted, the Metal Gear games have never been first-person shooters (and only the last two have even allowed you to shoot from first-person), but when you have a rather long combat sequence against 20-30 enemies while escaping a building, it's annoying to hold one button, press another to aim down the sight, and then press yet another to fire--every time!

Compared to MGS and MGS2 (don't know yet about MGS3, obviously), hand-to-hand combat blows. Maybe it's because there are too many nuances introduced that weren't there in the first games, but whereas I was pretty good at throwing (and especially choking/breaking necks) in MGS, I suck at CQC (close-quarters combat) in MGS4. Suck may not actually be strong enough. I pretty much get my ass handed to me every time I try to throw someone (partly because I hate CQC being mapped to the R1 button.

Which opens up another gripe--when the L2 and R2 buttons are the most trigger like (though not nearly as comfortable as the X360 controller), why are weapon commands mapped to L1/R1 instead? Wtf?

Which opens yet another grip, more about consoles in general. I'm not sure if PC games are still so flexible, but pretty much every PC game I've played allows you to completely remap the controls if you desire. And, given the hard-drives on the next-gen consoles--especially the PS3, where game software is regularly installed into the OS--why can't developers offer the flexibility to remap buttons. While I admit most control schemes are pretty well laid out, there are some (MGS4 in particular) that I really wish I could customize.

This doesn't mean I don't like the game. It's pretty good. I just think there are some definite improvements that could be made.

Still updating. Ah well. Even a superior piece of technology can be crippled by a bad OS. We'll see how things go as I actually start to use it vs. my experience with the 360.

Now all I need to complete my techno man cave is my 47" LCD HDTV. At least I can compromise on 720p. . . . :P

My limited video game time now has an even more divided market share than before. Earlier I mentioned I was getting a bunch of new games for free from my bro-in-law. Tops of those on my list are:
1. Gears of War
2. Bioshock
3. MGS3

So far I've started Gears, which I'm enjoying. The single-player campaign is very cover intensive, but not as obsessive as GRAW. GRAW is almost too methodical for my tastes, though I will eventually finish it. Gears is pretty even paced. It's definitely not run and gun like the Halo games (though even those are far from as run and gun as Goldeneye). You are constantly maneuvering behind cover, but since the default cover is usually squatting behind a low object, you can easily see what's going on and decide whether now is the time to aim or whether now is the time to let your ever fragile health (even on 'casual') regenerate.

Let me just reiterate this here: I LOVE regenerating health systems, even though the only games so far which have made it "plausible" are Halo:CE-Halo 3, with the Master Chief's shields constantly regenerating. When it comes to video gaming, I don't necessarily care about what's plausible, I care about good game mechanics, and regenerating health is definitely one of those.

On the other hand, Gears multiplayer is so far "meh". I could take it or leave it, but I might invest a little more time before I write it off completely.

But the real competition comes in the form of the PS3, which I just invested a considerable amount of money in. With much appreciated assistance from my wife's family and my wife herself and that wonderful quarterly check I get called Kichler Kash. So, it's a b-day present and me spoiling myself all at the same time. I got the 80GB bundled with MGS4--a game I'm thrilled to play. I'll also use it as my default PS2 game platform--hopefully they're as compatible as it is said (since MGS4 is the only PS3 game I'll have money to buy in the near future).

But. . . I haven't been able to start using it yet because it's just spent the last 1.25 hrs updating its OS. It's ready now, so it's good night Blogger. Hello PS3!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Halo 3 is a great game with great multiplayer, but it's really pissing me off right now because 4-5 nights in a row I get absolutely awful lag. A couple times I was winning and probably would have won if the lag monster hadn't attacked.

I don't think it's my connection because I haven't had problems until recently. And they haven't been sporadic. It's like every time I go on--boom! And I haven't had the same issues with COD4, either.

Bungie, I love you, but right now I hate you!

Great news! My brother-in-law decided he doesn't want to play video games anymore, so I've got a slew of new games coming in the mail (for PS2 and 360)

Most notable are Gears of War (sorry honey, but we'll have to return my b-day present), BioShock, God of War, and many more.

I'm also looking forward to the release of Too Human in a couple weeks (assuming it gets good reviews). I'm cautiously optimistic about the game because I've loved all the ViDocs and stories I've read about the game, but the demo was kind of flat-footed. The combat system was different, but not in a bad way, but I was disappointed that they had locked out all the other classes. Plus, the storyline part of it was pretty confusing (was this the beginning, somewhere in the middle, or separate levels?)

If it was the beginning, the game is probably going to be more confusing than a JRPG, and that's saying a lot bec. those Japanese cook up some pretty weird plots. If it was the middle, it still wasn't that good because it didn't seem linear. So, I'm hoping what I saw was pieces of the storyline. We'll see what the critics say.

Soon the demo for Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is coming out. This looks REALLY COOL. I'm not sure what the release date is, but it's one of the many games on my list.

Well, I'm finally done with COD4. What a GREAT game. I like the ending--very true to real life. SPOILER: Everybody but 'Soap' dies. But the way it's done is cool, where you're barely alive and Cpt. Price is dying but he throws you his pistol across the road and you use it to take out Zakhaev and his lieutenants.

What's interesting is that until you take him out at the very end, I thought they were setting the game up for a sequel (which I believe would be a first for the COD franchise).

Plus, the bonus mission at the end was fun. A great little relaxer after such a tense game. I'm going back through on hardened now (the next difficulty level). So far it's noticeably harder, but not to the point where I would call it 'work'.

I've gotten stuck at some of the same points as the first time through, but I think I got through faster this time even on the harder difficulty level, partly because I'm paying much more attention to what to pick as a secondary weapon, usually either the Dragunov sniper rifle or an AK-47. Much better than the nearly useless pistol.

A guy I work with likes the AK a lot--I'm starting to respect it as well. It has more stopping power than the M14A1 which contributes to the all-important fact: ammo is scarce at times unless you pick the right weapons. Not, however, as scarce as Half-Life (where at any one time 50% of the guns in your inventory have no or very low ammo).

What's funny is that I suck with the sniper rifle in Halo, but I'm pdg with them in COD4.

Those are my thoughts so far. I'll post later on with further thoughts on the difficulty level balancing--especially when it comes to the timed missions *shudders*

Well, I'm almost there. One more mission to go in COD4. I have a few more thoughts so far. First off, I think Cpt. Price is one badass dude! Though I'm a huge fan of the Halo universe, Price may be winning over my heart as one of the coolest action heroes on the 360. I don't know whether it's the accent, the lamb-chops, or just his matter of factness, but he's cool. Granted, John-117 has a lot of these qualities, but maybe its the fact that Price isn't your character that makes him cool. Plus, I've found it interesting that while later on in the game you're Price's go-to guy, you're not the one in command.

I continue to enjoy the campaign much more than multiplayer. Multiplayer is enjoyable, but it's also continually frustrating because of the weapons disparity. I'm matched up against players way beyond my rank, usually, which means I've got squat for good weapons. Which, paired with the fact I'm mediocre at best when it comes to multiplayer shooters, makes me really suck it up. Like I said in my last post, I wish you had the option as in Halo 3 of being matched by rank (related to experience) so at least weapons were on similar levels or at least being matched by a trueskill type system.

Once I finish the campaign, I'll be curious to try the 'arcade' mode. Sounds fun. Plus, since it's such a short game I'm going to give veteran a try. There are parts I'm not looking forward to on a higher difficulty level by depending on how much it ramps up I might be able to finish.

Hardest parts so far:
1. Getting back down the hill to the new LZ in Azerbaijan with the 3-minute clock. For those who haven't played, you have to make your way across a large field and down a hill to be picked up by a helicopter. Oh yeah, and there's probably about 50 'tangos' (maybe more) trying to kill you and your squad. The only way to get through this is to call in the ten airstrikes you're allowed. Even then, I ran out with 30 secs on the clock and just had to sprint past about seven guys to the helo.

2. The TV station early on where bad guys swarm you like crazy for easily 5-10 minutes.

3. The flashback mission with then Lt. Price, first the field where you have to hide in the grass just inches away from a patrol. Later on, while you're waiting for extraction, there's another great swarm mission. Luckily Cpt. MacDonald (Price's CO) can take care of himself even with a bum leg. It took some experimentation to find a sniper position far enough away from him that was still defensible if someone got close, which they did with me. There were too many guys to kill from a distance. Oh yeah, and while they're still swarming you have to run back and carry MacDonald to the helo because it's got zero fuel left when it picks you up.

So if I get that far, I'll have to comment on the next difficulty level. But I'm the type of player that stops playing as soon as a game becomes work. Like the part in Crow's Nest on Legendary in Halo 3 that took me 2.5 hours! to complete. But, then again, maybe I just suck.

Holy Crap!

My wife plays video games a fair amount too, but she's not as much of an A/V freak as I am, but even she (watching while on her laptop) commented how good the graphics are. I've only played a handful of 360 games so far, but I can easily say this is the best looking one I've played.

And the way it starts. . . . It's like playing a movie. It's incredibly cinematic and yet tutorial at the same time. My judgment on the friendly AI is still out. In IGN's review of it they said something like: 'you can't control your allies, but the AI is so good you won't want to.'

Pros:
1. I like the fact that, unlike GRAW I don't have to do practically everything.

2. I appreciate you can control the AI implicitly. Once an area is cleared (generally) they don't move forward until you do, and even if they do, they certainly don't rush in like the idiots
most NPCs are in the average shooter.

3. The fact that, at least so far, you're just 'one of the guys' heightens the realism. I'm not the Master Chief, even if my health regenerates to some degree (thank you Infinity Ward!) Aside: even if it's not realistic, I LOVE the health system. It's so much better than GRAW, where you basically get 2-3 mistakes on normal each level, and that's it. I just think it's a better gameplay mechanic because you can still quite easily die, but if you survive a given part you can keep going with no added penalty. In GRAW, you might survive a part with your stamina already in the red. Thus, you have only two options: 1. play the rest of the level absolutely mistake free 2. reset the ENTIRE LEVEL and hope you can get back to where you were still in the green.

4. I've only played about 2 hours of multiplayer so far, so I've only just started creating a custom profile, but the perks and weapons system looks interesting. I just need the patience to unlock what I really want :P

Cons:
1. Said AI--sometimes I just want to tell them 'stay here for a sec' while I go ahead and scout. Yeah, I know, despite appearances of multiple paths, the levels are (so far) pretty linear. But I would like to have the ability to give commands (but at the same time I want to have the great AI that is perfectly capable of doing it all by itslef (practically)).

2. I'm not sure what I think of multiplayer, where it seems anyone regardless of skill gets matched in the lobby. I like it in Halo 3 where you have the social (no skill rating) and skill level based matchmaking. Last night I was matched up against numerous officers and got pwned. Though I did make a couple 3rd place finishes, something I never did in Halo 3 so early on. So maybe because the balancing is quite different it'll be fine.

A lot of these thoughts will undoubtedly change once I keep playing.

Halo 3 is an awesome game, but there are things that could be added/changed that would improve the experience.

1. Difficulty Level: at least for me, a somewhat more than casual gamer, Normal is way too easy except during large vehicle battles (especially those involving a Scarab). On the other hand, Heroic--while easier than in previous games--has moments that are absolutely frustrating. Maybe I just suck, but while most Brutes by themselves are quite easy (pop off a few rounds then melee), the Brute chieftains are way to f'ing hard.

2. Multiplayer lobby: can we veto either map or game, not just both. If, for example, Swords on the Pit comes up, a lot of times I want to play swords, just not on the pit. I wish I could veto the map only and keep the game. Vice versa, I might want to play on Epitaph, just not f-ing ninjaball or crazy king. This seems like it would be a simply software patch fix and not a really complex programming issue, but wtf do I know?

3. A related issue which would be cool but would be more complicated is allowing players to select preferred games/maps for each playlist. When I'm in the rumblepit playlist, I like swords, hammerzeit, and mosh pit the best. Why should I have to be beholden to Bungie's default game percentages if there are other gamers out there who share my preferences? If this is done, it should be done by playlist (obviously), since I doubt when I'm on Lone Wolves, I'd have the same preference (where I like straight up slayer). Alternately, on Team Slayer, I really enjoy Team Duals (an option I didn't know existed until it came up on probably my 20th match on that list.
This is a way for players to play more games they like (me: swords, hammers especially) than they don't like (juggernaut, crazy king [even though I'm good at it]) without getting into the really complex options of a custom game.

4. A random gripe: Why put Cold Storage, a free map, only on playlists which include Legendary Map pack (still paid content)? I really enjoyed playing it the first day or so it came out and Bungie had the separate list, but now--because I'm cheap--I won't play it until if and when the Legendary pack becomes free.