Aaliyah Mickle - Journal Entries

[Aaliyah Mickle]

Card Games: Speed

The card game I played with my classmates was Speed. I played the two person version and the four person version. The original game was published under Pepys Games owned by the Castell Brothers. The Pepys Series actually began as early merchandising of Disney’s Snow White in 1937. Releasing at the same time as the film was showing in theaters, that first card game sold fast. While changing many hands, Pepys continued to produce a series of novelty card games such as Speed. Speed was not originally played with a traditional playing card deck like the one we used in class. Pepys originally published the game having illustrations of popular hobbies such as planes and trains on the cards along with numbered corners.
The game is a shedding card game, where the goal is to be the first player to shed their hand. Though the game is over 80 years old, the rules are pretty much the same. The deck is split evenly among 2-4 players save one card for person which is placed face down in the center of play. This is where the players will shed their hands. After the deck is split evenly, each player will now have a draw pile of face down cards. For the start, the player will draw from their pile for a hand of 4 random cards. They can look at their hand but not prematurely look at the draw pile. In this game, the suits of each card don’t matter. All players then flip their card previously placed in the center to initiate play. To shed a card from your hand, it has to be the next sequential card to any of the flipped cards in play. You can play a card higher in rank or lower in rank by 1 position to the center card. For example, if one of the flipped cards in the center (regardless of which player flipped it, all card piles in the center are in play for everyone) is a Jack, the player can place a 10 or Queen if they have it in their hand. Every player can only have a maximum amount of four cards in their hand at a time replenishing their hand from their draw pile when needed. The constant and fast paced shedding and replenishing will decrease the number of cards in their draw pile and the first player to have no cards in their hand or draw pile will be the winner. The other players can keep playing for 2nd, 3rd, etc. Cards of the same number or face can not be stacked on top of each other, only higher or lower in rank. The Ace can represent “1” and can come before 2 and after a King. The number of cards in each players draw pile will vary based on how many players there are to divide the deck amongst. Groups of 2 or 4 playing is ideal for splitting the deck evenly. In the event that none of the players have a card to play, the center piles can be reshuffled and the top card flipped simultaneously again to continue play.
Speed has always been a card game inspired by other such games as Split, Whot, and War. The control mechanism of Speed is the player’s playing of cards to strategically be the first to shed all their cards. Each player has at most 4 cards in their hand at a time, but they control what they play, which pile they play it on, and when they play it. The player can only control the play of their hand but it is influenced by the chance of their draw pile and the cards placed in the center by the other players. While up to chance in that regard, each player’s control mechanism manipulates play for one another. The same is true for the original Pepys game. The largest difference is the Pepys game uses matching categories or numbers to shed cards, not sequential order.
The use of this sequential order and voiding of the suits/categories does make the game very different form the Pepys version. The original Pepys design more closely resembles the game Uno, which it would be an inspiration for later. More like Uno, the original Speed deck uses the matching of cards to shed as well as the inclusion of wild/specialty play cards to aid in card shedding. One of the strengths of the game is the ability for all player to be in play at the same time. It differs from Uno because it’s not turn based. The fast pacing of the game makes it so that players have to actively make snap decisions and strategy in the moment which can be very stimulating. In the turned based-style of Uno for example, play is slower allowing for better strategy but players are not always actively participating till their turn. One style is not necessarily better than the other, but it does offer a different experience for players to engage in a faster pace game without too much of a time commitment compared to games like Uno, Poker, or even Bullshit. The use of cards without suits in mind is also a strength of this version of play. Most people have played with or owned a deck of traditional playing cards. This version of play makes it accessible to more people which is a strength is has even over the Pepys original. To play the original, you’d have to go and buy a whole new deck that you can only use to play Speed do to it’s matching nature. With any common deck of 52 anyone can play this game and use the deck again for other card games. The construction of the game makes it replay-able and quick, which has appeal as a fun pastime. It’s also possible for a very large audience to play from younger kids to those well into adult hood seeing as you really only have to be able to count and recognize the card order. One of the weaknesses is the inevitable possibility of stalled play when none of the players have a card to play. This interrupts the pace of the game, which can taint the gameplay experience. It’s like being in the middle of an intense boss fight and your combo is interrupted by an autosave. Another weakness is the divisibility of the deck. As I mentioned before, the deck is better split amongst 2 or 4 players. Because a deck of cards isn’t specifically tailored to this game, groups of 3, 5, 6, etc. have to tweak the number of cards in play. The original game doesn’t have this issue as it is designed just for the game of Speed. In my opinion the reusability of the deck is a greater strength than divisibility is a weakness.
What made it fun to me was the pacing. The element of fast paced play adds to the excitement of play to me. The competitive edge is similar to running a sprint. To make another comparison, games like Bullshit and Uno are more like a marathon where you think more of the long game. If you want a quick hit of fun and excitement Speed is the better option in my opinion. It’s easy enough to play with speed but challenging enough to still require some modicum of strategy. I like being able to play with my friends as we all race to the finish. It creates an energy that’s competitive, casual, flustering, tense, and easy all at the same time. I find that games that have a longer play time can sometimes make me lose interest if I don’t feel engaged enough. I believe no matter how long the gameplay, how fast the pace, whatever the rules may be, a game should entertain it’s players and keep them engaged. Speed is a really pure form of that engagement to me because it doesn’t allow you to disengage (not if you want to win anyway). I also find it fun how it feels like you could be the winner at any point in time. That element of chance combined with the fast pace combined makes it feel like victory is just at your fingertips. I think it can be discouraging in some games when you can already predict whose going to win. It’s fun in Speed to feel like you can make a comeback.
Speed is influential as one of the primary examples of a shedding game. It inspired the success that is Uno but still stands on it’s own due it’s fast paced nature and simultaneous play of all players. It’s as old as Snow White but I can personally say I’ve played Speed more times than I’ve watched Snow White. My individual experience is no measure of it’s influence, but there is something to be said for a game being around for almost 100 years. It shows that even with simple rules and a common deck of cards, there are so many possibilities when it comes to card games. Speed is just one of many shedding card games but hasn’t completely faded into oblivion. It taps into those natural tendencies of people to seek victory, excitement, and skill. The adaptability of the game is also influential in games. You can play with almost any number of players which you can’t even do today with some video games. In the evolution of games, Speed encourages social interaction and the energy of play. Speed proves that even with just a deck of cards, you can still have the same gratification as winning a battle royale (though some gamers may disagree.) Game makers could benefit from understanding why board game and card games in general, including Speed have stood the test of tie without any fancy graphics or content. The bare bones of any game have to be entertaining for anyone to care.
I would rate it a solid 4 out of 5. I think there is a limit to how many times you can play it before the entertainment value begins to dull.

[Aaliyah Mickle]

Board Games: Mancala

The board game I played during class is mancala. Based on what we know, the game mancala has been around for thousands of years. Most likely originating from somewhere in Africa (Jordan, Egypt, Ethiopia, etc.) as early as the 6th millennium BC. The modern-day version of mancala popularized in the USA is credited to William Julius Champion Jr., who patented and sold his version of the game named Kala during the 1940s and 50s. Champion went on to form the Kalah Game Company in 1958. Mancala has traditionally been played on a board with rows of pits for gameplay. These boards can be made of stone, wood, sand, and even online nowadays. The control mechanism of mancala is essentially the player's management of resources. Players can control which pit to play by manipulating capture of resources, resource distribution, and collection of resources in order to win. The earliest forms of mancala do differ from the version we play today in the USA. The popularized Kalah rules are simpler and standardized with 2 rows of pits and the resources which I will refer to as seeds. The goal of capturing and distributing seeds is still the same as the original, but the rules and setup of the game vary regionally. Variations in number of pit rows and seeds to change the strategy for players.

We played by the popular Kalah rules in class. The board is split into two rows of 6 pits on each. At the end of the rows, each player has their own pit where they deposit the distributed and captured seeds; I’ll call this the player’s territorial pit. This is a turn-based game, so players alternate picking up all the seeds from any pit on their row. These seeds are then placed one by one in all the pits (including each player's respective territorial pit) in a counterclockwise motion until the sum of the picked-up seeds are placed. The next player does the same, alternating until all the seeds in the rows have been strategically split into the territorial pits. The player with the most seeds in their pit by that point is the winner. In the event that the player’s turn ends with them placing the last seed of a turn in their territorial pit, they get another turn. If the last seed of the turn is placed in an empty pit on the player’s row, they capture any seeds in the adjacent pit of the other player’s row. Whenever the player captures like this, they get another turn as well.

One of the strengths of the game in my opinion is how simple it is, well the version we played anyway. Lots of other board games may have a plethora of rules, pieces, conditions of play, and so on that require more complex strategy. Of course this is not a bad thing, or indicator of a bad game, but there is an appeal to the simplicity of mancala. It makes the condition to win clear but still has a seemingly endless number of ways to win. Another strength is the design is the replicability. It’s how the game has been able to spread in popularity all over the world. Unlike other board games like chess or Monopoly, mancala has no special pieces and the board itself isn’t especially remarkable. You can even set up the game by digging holes in the ground for pits and using rocks for seeds. One of the weaknesses for me was that it was difficult to handle the pieces. I know we played with marbles in class, but I’ve found this to be a problem with other mancala boards I’ve played with in the past. Seeds can often too easily be lost, accidentally be placed in the wrong pit, or even skipped over. The game isn’t necessarily the problem, but the design does offer opportunity for these kinds of mistakes. If pieces aren’t always placed accurately it can mess up strategy and play. Another weakness in my opinion is that the simplicity of the game can make it somewhat predictable, more so at the outset of the game. For example, when we played, the board was set up with 4 seeds per pit. So, a lot of the time at the start of the game, people would continually pull from their row’s fourth pit to place a seed in their territory to secure another turn. It’s not a glaring weakness but it was an element that I found made it rather monotonous after a while.


It was fun for all of us to pick up the game so fast. Once we understood the rules, I was able to play quick games with anyone. Like when I played the card game Speed, the pacing of the game is this nice balance of strategy and urgency that gives you a little bit of a rush as you approach either victory or defeat. It was also fun to see all the different ways a game can go, whether or not it’s in your favor. So, you might get a feel for how a game is flowing, but the flow of the next game could be completely different. Another thing that made it fun was this interaction between players. You’re not playing the board; you’re playing another person. The capturing and placement of seeds is strategic, but it’s also fun to capture from friend’s row and try to out play each other. It’s hard to describe how fun it is to steal from your opponent’s row without sounding malicious. It’s that feeling of, “I got you! My strategy worked”, or “Oh no! My opponent outplayed me”. It’s not a feeling unique to mancala, but it is a state of desire to play to win that is essential to any good game.

Like I had mentioned in the strengths of the game, the simplicity of it makes it so universally appealing and playable. There aren’t really that many boundaries of play. This has allowed it to be played by so many people around the world for thousands of years; regardless of age, gender, social status, or language. It’s also “cheap”. I mean to say that you can play this game at almost any time, and you don’t have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to experience the fun of it. Mancala has been so influential and stood the test of time because at the end of the day it’s fun and it’s for everyone. In the evolution of games, some of the most successful games have that in common. People want to be entertained, people want to win, people want to engage. The turn-based resource management style at the core of mancala hasn’t disappeared from some of the most popular games we love. Games like Battleship, XCOM, and Civilization all tap into this fundamental core as well. Those games aren’t necessarily inspired by Mancala, but the evolution of games is a mosaic that Mancala fits into perfectly.

I would rate this game a 5 out of 5. It’s a classic and rightfully so (also I just like it a lot).

[Aaliyah Mickle]

Arcade Games: Pac-Man (Homebrew for Fairchild Channel F Emulator in Pico-8)

The game I played was Pac-Man, but not the original arcade version. This was a version designed for the Fairchild Channel F, one of the first home gaming consoles, and played through a Pico-8 emulator. The original Pac-Man was released in 1980 by Namco and was one of the most iconic arcade games ever made. However, this version was developed by Blackbird and e5frog after the fact to test the abilities of the Fairchild Channel F’s hardware. The original console was released in 1975 (older than Pac-Man itself), so this game is an anachronistic adaptation that never officially released. The Channel F used a push-pull joystick with a rotation mechanism, a very different control style compared to the arcade’s simple joystick. While we used a keyboard in the emulator, playing it on original hardware would have been much harder due to the unique controller. I will admit I still struggled on the keyboard, but it was playable.

Using the keyboard, the arrow keys controlled movement and additional keys (Z, S/F, E/D) replicated the push, pull, and rotation mechanics of the Channel F’s controller. This made the game harder to control in my opinion. From what I read on the emulator website; it was still hard to control the original hardware. The push-and-pull joystick design of the Channel F likely would have made movement in Pac-Man feel slow and laggy, changing the experience significantly. I prefer the jointstick handling better though. The arrow keys don’t give me the same feeling of controlling the character. It’s like the feedback is barely there when I use the keyboard. I’m not by any means a professional, but I definitely play Pac-Man better on the arcade cabinets.

The game plays as you would expect Pac-Man too. Navigate the maze, eat pellets, and avoid ghosts. Due to the Channel F’s hardware limitations, the graphics are much simpler, and the colors are limited. The ghosts have basic AI, and movement is a little stiff. Despite this, it does still feel like Pac-Man. I would say the graphics were the most obvious difference (I mean Pac-Man wasn’t even his iconic yellow). The sound effects are rough, sometimes glitchy, but that’s more due to the emulator than the game itself. Still, the core mechanics are all there making it a somewhat crude, but again playable, Pac-Man.

One of the biggest strengths of this game is how well it demonstrates the limits of the Fairchild Channel F while still being fun. The fact that the developers managed to recreate Pac-Man at all on this system is impressive. The design is clear enough to be recognizable, and the gameplay loop is still engaging. However, the limited graphics and sound take away some of the charm of the original. The colors are dull, and the characters don’t animate as smoothly. The sound glitches make it feel rough around the edges. While these aren’t necessarily the game’s fault—it’s more about the hardware—it still affects the overall experience. I think I’ve been spoiled by modern games and technology. I feel any UIW student with enough time could make something that runs much smoother in a Game Engines class. But part of the charm of the arcade game is that it’s difficult to play. They didn’t have Unreal or Unity in the 80s and they still programmed these iconic games.

What made this game fun was seeing how it played within the constraints of old hardware. I already knew Pac-Man was fun but playing it, this way made me appreciate how much hardware can impact a game’s experience. The fast-paced gameplay, even in this version, keeps things exciting, and I still felt that same “I got you!” rush when escaping ghosts or completing a level. The interaction with the ghosts makes it engaging because you're always strategizing movement. However, the novelty of playing Pac-Man on such an unusual platform was different. If I had to choose, I would prefer to play this in an arcade as it was designed for. This also helps me understand why it was an international arcade sensation. They didn’t know it then, but it’s just not the same at home.

This game is influential because it highlights the adaptability of classic games; I feature it shares with board games. Pac-Man was a phenomenon when it was released and has been ported to nearly every gaming system ever made. Seeing it recreated for a console that wasn’t even designed to handle it shows just how far gaming technology has come. The Fairchild Channel F was one of the first consoles to use ROM cartridges, setting the stage for all modern gaming consoles. (You can even see the little cartridge icon at the bottom) Even though it was quickly overshadowed by more powerful systems, its influence is undeniable. This version of Pac-Man also represents the dedication of homebrew developers and retro gaming communities who keep these old consoles alive and experiment with what’s possible on outdated hardware. I see our programmers do it all the time and it feels almost like tradition in the game development community. Or at least I felt connected to those original game developers when we made our own Space Invaders in Game Engines. Having no programming experience, it was cool to understand how the game is made and know that “Hey, back in the day we would be sawdering chips to motherboards instead of using C#”.

I would rate this game 3.5 out of 5 stars. It’s impressive technically speaking and historically fascinating, but the limitations of the hardware prevent it from being true to the Pac-Man experience for me. It could also just be that I died so many times that I didn’t get the full experience.

[Aaliyah Mickle]

Home Consoles: Atari 2600, Asteroids

The game I played was Asteroids, specifically the Atari 2600 emulator, which was released in 1981 as a home adaptation of the 1979 arcade game by Atari. Unlike the arcade version which uses vector graphics, the Atari 2600 is 8-bit. It’s not as smooth and crisp as the vector graphics. This requires the Atari 2600 to use simpler sprite-based graphics and a more basic color palette. However, the core gameplay is the same. You control a little triangular ship through space, blasting apart incoming asteroids into smaller pieces and avoiding collisions. One of the biggest differences between the arcade and Atari 2600 versions is how objects move and interact. The arcade version uses vector-based movement, but in this version, objects flicker due to hardware limitations (or the emulation of such hardware limitations). The ship, asteroids, and enemy all flash on and off because the Atari 2600 couldn’t handle too many moving sprites on-screen at once. This can make it a little harder to track everything at high speeds.

The joystick moves the ship, allowing you to rotate left and right. The emulator uses the keyboard arrow keys. Pressing the button fires bullets, or in my case the spacebar.

There's also a thrust function to move forward and a hyperspace button, which teleports the ship randomly as an escape mechanic (but sometimes into danger). The delete button is used for this function on the keyboard. The controls are straightforward and worked pretty well for me. It’s simple enough to learn pretty fast, so I could actually get into the gameplay. “Easy to learn, hard to master.”

One thing I noticed while playing is that the movement feels a little slippery. The ship doesn’t stop instantly when you let go of the arrows, simulating inertia in space. It’s similar I imagine to the non-centering joysticks on old Atari consoles. This makes movement more strategic—if you’re not careful, you might send yourself drifting into an asteroid with no way to stop in time. The hyperspace mechanic is fun but unpredictable; sometimes it saves you, but other times it warps you straight into an asteroid.

One of the biggest strengths of Asteroids on the Atari 2600 is that it still captures the core challenge and fun of the arcade game. Even without the crisp vector graphics of the arcade version, the challenge of dodging asteroids, timing shots, and surviving as long as possible is still engaging. The simplified visuals make it easy to see what’s happening, even if the flickering takes some getting used to. The game also offers multiple game modes, including two-player mode and different difficulty settings, increasing “replayability”. Not quite sure how you spell that.

The flickering was a bit distracting, especially in later levels when more objects appear on screen. Compared to the arcade version, the controls feel a bit sluggish, and the lack of precise aiming can make shooting asteroids harder. The Atari 2600’s single-button joystick also means you have to rely on limited input options, making movement and shooting feel less fluid than in the arcade. There’s also no background music, only simple beeps and explosion sounds. Not a dealbreaker, but we have talked about how sound production can add to the gameplay experience. The sounds it did have were just kind of annoying to me, like I was getting jabbed in the ear.

Despite its limitations, I still had fun playing this version of Asteroids. There’s something satisfying about breaking large asteroids into smaller pieces. I wasn’t as into the weaving through debris while trying to survive. I’m just a lazy gamer. It’s easy to pick up and play, and once you get into a rhythm, the game becomes a fun mix of tension and strategy. The difficulty increases slowly, keeping things engaging without being overwhelming too quickly. I’m not much of a gamer, but I felt like I could still play and enjoy it.

Asteroids is one of the most influential arcade games ever made, and its Atari 2600 version helped bring that experience into people’s homes. The Atari 2600 was nowhere near as powerful as an arcade machine, but this version proved that fast-paced action games could still work on home consoles. It also allowed Atari to solidify their presence in the home gaming industry as home gaming became more mainstream than arcade. Home gaming was still pretty new at the time, and ports like this one made consoles more appealing to people who wanted arcade experiences without the quarters. This would of course result in the decline of the arcade unfortunately.

The game itself set a standard for space shooters, too. The whole idea of breaking objects into smaller, more dangerous pieces has been copied in tons of games since then. The gameplay is simple but addictive; survive as long as possible, rack up points.

I would rate it a 4/5. While it doesn’t perfectly replicate the arcade experience, Asteroids on the Atari 2600 is still an enjoyable and impressive adaptation for its time. The flickering and somewhat clunky controls hold it back a bit, but the core gameplay is still fun. It was probably my favorite emulator we’ve played so far. It also is the only emulator that has actually worked well on my device. (That’s more of a me problem than the emulator).

[Aaliyah Mickle]

Name of Game: Microsoft Decathalon
Game author (If known): Timothy W. Smith
Game Studio: Microsoft Consumer Products
Original Platform & control mechanism: TRS-80, Apple II, and the IBM PC

The original platform for Microsoft Decathlon was the TRS-80, which is a home computer. I played it on my PC, so I imagine the game play isn’t that far off from the original. To run, jump, or aim, you have to use the keyboard keys. The original was compatible with a joystick as well which I do not have so I’m sure that experience would have been different. Then you have to take into account whether or not the joystick is self-centering. Either way, the keyboard gameplay is true to the original: save for maybe a few PC performance differences.
Using the keyboard, the player moves with alternating key presses, requiring rapid tapping of two keys to simulate running (1, 2 and [,]). Other events like jumping and throwing add an extra key press to determine angle and execution. This requires a level of skill, as speed and timing determine how your athlete performs/scores. From what I researched on original hardware, the game was known for its exhausting key controls. Using the keyboard, I was afraid my fingers would cramp up, but it did make me feel like I was actually “performing”. The score was solely based on how I performed and executed the actions on my own keyboard. Additionally, the original joystick-waggling mechanics probably had the same panic-inducing tension, if not more so. I believe I would have preferred the joystick input for games like this, though. I like the Nintendo Olympic games, which I’ve only ever played with controllers so I feel like the controller would be more up my alley. The keyboard doesn’t give the same sense of resistance or momentum in my opinion. It feels like my fingers are running more than the athlete on screen. I’m not by any means a professional, but I imagine players who mastered the joystick back then had a slight edge in precision over keyboard users today.
One of the major strengths of the game for me was the variety of games. I mean of course there are a lot of events, it’s a decathlon, but the practice feature gives it replay value. If there was one event you found particularly fun, you could just do a bunch of practice rounds and play that one event without having to go through the entire decathlon. It also still gives you a score in the practice, so players still get that feedback. Another strength for me was how much the score depended on the players' performance. It sucks when you don’t win, but it also makes it so much more gratifying when you do well in an event. On each attempt, I just wanted to do better than my last. If you want to score better, you have to play better. I think as far as sport simulation goes that’s exactly what you want. Some of the weaknesses to me were in the finesse. The level of difficulty was not even across the board so I believe some of the mechanics on the events could have been tweaked more. The high jump and discus events stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Consistently the AI competitors would perform well, but I could never complete those events. Of course that could be a skill issue on my part. With the discus for example, the margin for error was so small, but the graphics don’t account for that. At least on the hurdles you can see where the character's legs are before you jump. On discus, the player is just a square and a line spinning with the disc. It makes it hard to line up in bounds let alone throw for distance. I was varsity discus in high school so maybe I’m just a bit butthurt that only one of my attempts was in bounds. I think the level of difficulty across the board could have been evened out better is what I’m getting at. Especially if the AI competitors are getting such high scores.
This is probably my favorite emulator I’ve played thus far. Further reiterating the strengths of the game, the replay value for me was what made it fun. Every time I played an event I wanted to go back and play it a hundred more times. It’s that idea of “easy to learn, hard to master”. I wanted to master every event. Gaming is not a hobby of mine, so I know I’m having fun if I just want to keep playing. After all the practice rounds, I was ready to actually do the decathlon. Though it’s a small detail, I liked being able to choose which country I was representing. I also like the fact that there is a multiplayer option. You can race against a friend or even compete as an Olympic team of sorts if you take a turn on the keyboard. It’s the simplicity of it; a common thread in the popular games we’ve discussed so far. When you strip the game down to its barest mechanics, is it fun? In this case, yes. As I mentioned in the strengths as well, there is a level of skill to it that I enjoy and personally believe should be in all games. For example, I have some issues with Mario Kart. The steering assist and Bullet Bill features drive me crazy. In a racing game, steer assist takes away part of the skill required to perform well. The Bullet Bill power up also takes away a certain level of skill too. You always see the person in last place get a lucky Bullet Bill, never first place. I don’t like it when features have to be put in to compensate for a certain level of lack of skill. The fun to me found in Microsoft Decathlon is play better, score better. Of course, that statement has exceptions, but in general I found that ideology to be part of the fun in playing this game.
This game is definitely influential in the evolution of games as it sets the stage for future sports games and personal computer games in general. It wasn’t the only one of course. A lot of modern sports and party games still use the same button-mashing mechanics, so it’s cool to see where that started. The same way the first console games used to be advertised, Microsoft Decathlon shows how games can be fun for everyone. Even though the gameplay is basic it manages to capture the physical challenge of real-life competitions from a personal computer. It also represents a shift in gaming from arcade-style sports games. Even today I could understand how if you wanted to play a game from home, this could be the one for you. Playing it now, it makes me appreciate how developers back then worked around hardware limitations to create something fun and competitive. Even though this game is old, the core design still holds up.

I rate it 4 stars out of 5.

[Professor Watkins]

Graded to here.

[Aaliyah Mickle]

Halo 3 on Xbox Series X

I have played Halo before but at the time I wasn’t even ten years old, and my older brother definitely carried the whole time. This time around I played Halo 3 from the Master Chief Collection on the Xbox Series X. I played 2 missions on QuickStart mode. I set the difficulty to easy thinking that would help me get a feel of the game with my limited first-person-shoot abilities.

Halo 3 was created by Bungie for the Xbox 360 in 2007. At the time, Microsoft was the parent company of Bungie and still owns the Halo IP today. The Xbox 360 has a game controller with two joysticks, triggers, bumpers, and face buttons. The Xbox Series x controller and that of the Xbox 360 are almost the exact same except for a slightly different shape and the improved performance for the newer Xbox Series x controllers.

This made play almost the exact same as I remember it from when I was a kid. I don’t believe it changed the experience from then to now. The game definitely felt smoother than I remembered probably due to less lag. I remember when my siblings and I used to play spliscreen, all of us would eventually lag at some point if not multiple times while playing. I didn’t encounter that this time though I was playing by myself.

Halo 3 is a first-person shooter about a super soldier called “Master Chief”. Master Chief is a soldier in the United Nations Space Command that fights against religious aliens, the Covenant, and a parasitic alien, the Flood. The Covenant sees the humans as an affront to the Forerunners; a race of advanced beings they worship for creating the Halo Array. The Covenant believes the Halo Array is the answer to defeating the Flood, but the Array would wipe out all life in the galaxy along with them. The humans don’t want that to happen, and the Covenant want all the humans gone. In the missions I played, Master Chief falls from the sky following the events of Halo 2 kicking off the game. You fight as Master Chief alongside a small team of UNSC soldiers and a high-ranking Covenant who doesn’t want to use the Halo Array either: the Arbiter.

The game features sprawling battlefields, vehicle combat, and a mix of ranged and melee attacks. The movement has to be fluid, allowing players to navigate quickly, jump high and use various weapons. The game also has equipment, like bubble shields and deployable cover, adding tactical elements into play. All these options make it possible for many different play styles to have fun and succeed in this game. The mechanics are pretty standard for a console FPS. Triggers to shoot (even both if you dual wield), bumpers to reload, right joystick to control the camera, left to control player movement, and so on.

One of the strengths of Halo 3 to me is the strong concept and story of the universe. A lot of time and money went into the world building of Halo 3 and the whole Halo franchise in general. The story is rich in detail and lore which makes it really immersive while you play. Immersion is key to addictive gameplay in my opinion and this game does that. You don’t really care about how low poly the characters look when you get too close, or how unmoving the water in the lake is on a mission. You’re thinking, “Man I need to defeat every alien in my path to complete my mission. Then another. And another”. One of the weaknesses for me personally is the repetitiveness of some elements. Following paths and shooting the next wave of aliens doesn’t have a whole lot of appeal to me. At one point or another I was looking forward to cinematics more than shooting the aliens. The narrative is very strong, but I feel like you have to go through a bunch of redundant shooting just to get to that. Fighting waves of aliens is one note to me and becomes more of a chore at one point or another.

What made Halo 3 fun to me was the simplicity of it. I won’t say it was like riding a bike, but it was easy to figure out the controls and how to play very quickly. I also enjoyed the difficulty levels being optional. It means that more people have a chance to enjoy themselves while they play. I had to play at the “Easy” level, but this meant that I actually got to play. A lot of games have some sort of set difficulty that makes it hard for different players to catch on immediately. Some people like to take lead and charge the enemy, some like to stop and collect weapons, some just want to shoot aliens. No matter the reason they want to do it, all players have options to make the game suit them. What I always loved about Halo was the multiplayer capabilities. I didn’t get to play with my siblings this time around, but I always remember Halo as a “team sport”. You get to work together with other players to accomplish a goal. I played with an AI team which was fun, but not as fun as with real people. I also find the story fun. It is very space opera in a way. Up until I had played Halo, I just thought of it as space Call of Duty. The lore and story behind all the pretty things you see in-game give it its epic nature and scale. The fantasy and awe of it makes it fun to play.

Halo 3 has cemented itself as one of the most influential first-person shooters in gaming. Playable across an array of platforms all over the world, it’s easy to understand it as a worldwide staple in gaming (Not necessarily Halo 3 alone, but the whole Halo franchise). Before Halo 4, Halo 3 was the bestselling game in the Halo franchise and one of the bestselling video games of the 2000s. Millions of units were sold making it impossible to say Halo 3 was not influential. Halo 3, along with other popular first-person shooters, set the standard for what we have come to expect from first-person shooters. The controls feel good, the game runs smoothly, the characters and environments are beautiful, the missions are gratifying, the list can go on and on. Though I didn’t play in multiplayer mode this time, I believe the multiplayer option is what drew a lot of people in. Again Halo 3 sets the standard for what people expect of multiplayer console games. After Halo 3, around a dozen more Halo games came after further expanding the franchise and story of the revered Master Chief. I can’t say it’s revolutionary like Space Invaders or Pac-Man, but it does come closer as the entire Halo franchise has carved its name into the video game history books.

I rate Halo 3 a 3 out of 5. I don’t really like first person shooters because they make me feel nauseous. This game was no different for me, but the story does make up for it a bit.