Bungie drops Halo 3: ODST concept art

by Griffin McElroy { Dec 28th 2008 at 3:30PM }

Many companies have adjourned their regularly scheduled workdays until after the new year so they can face down 2009 with well-rested resolve. Thankfully, Bungie is not one of these companies -- they recently stuffed the proverbial stockings of numerous Halo fans with a gaggle of new concept art for their upcoming sans-Spartan shooter, Halo 3: ODST. Check out all 22 images in the gallery below -- you can get your first look at the silenced SMG, as well as some of the armor your fellow shock troops will be sporting, and as a special bonus, a truly breathtaking watercolor depiction of post-mortem teabagging.

Gallery: Halo 3: ODST - Concept Art 12/26/08

Tags: bungie, concept-art, halo-3-odst

Related From Joystiq

Rumor: First screens, details for Halo Reach leaked
25 days ago
Halo Legends Blu-ray dated Feb. 9, 2010; perfect fanboy storm approaches
25 days ago
First Halo Waypoint programming revealed
27 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Lionbacker @ Dec 28th 2008 3:44PM

I wonder why they changed the name of the game...
I liked recon better.

Kelly @ Dec 28th 2008 6:59PM

Unrelated:

Remember the "revolution?" That awesome name from Nintendo?

Al2x @ Dec 28th 2008 7:36PM

Nintendo would've been very cocky if they kept that name, I'd call it more of an innovation than a "revolution".

Brian @ Dec 29th 2008 6:26AM

They changed it due to the game telling the story of a ODST. Recon had nthoing to do with the game so why call it that?

Brian @ Dec 29th 2008 6:28AM

Sorry that is meant to be nothing
*sigh* i wish joystiq would let us edit our comments.

343 Guilty Fart @ Dec 29th 2008 2:07PM

You can talk about 'immersion' all you want, but I don't play games to feel a sense of immersion, I play them to have fun. I hadn't picked up a console game for nearly a decade when I played Halo:CE at a friend's house a few years ago and I had so much fun! That's why I still play Halo and its sequels, because I have fun with them. And if you think that the recharging shields mechanic makes it easy I don't think you've played the game on a high enough difficulty, 'cause you'll definitely be experiencing those "oh shit" moments.

ice~ @ Dec 28th 2008 3:50PM

Lol a couple of days late much? It's okay, holiday weekend :P

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 3:57PM

Take a few more tones out and we'll be right back to Gears of War. I'm not personally interested in this at all, but then I thought Halo should have stopped at one, the only good one in my humble opinion.

As a series that inspired many lackluster shooters, it's finally come to copes that it has morphed into one.

Easo @ Dec 28th 2008 4:53PM

Game snob says I hate things other people like.

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 5:45PM

No, I don't think many of the changes made from game to game were positive ones, but at least I can give the original some credit for being diverse and actually changing the FPS game into something more enjoyable - no longer hinging on classics like DOOM and Quake.

I'm just not one to base my praising of a game on the fact that other people liked it. If it makes me a snob, so be it.

The way I see it, the sequels' only contribution was the copy and past of an emotionless main character with a suit designed by John Deere and the creation of a single location for the D. Baggersons of the world to come together.

The Dark Wayne @ Dec 28th 2008 5:52PM

why does everyone seem to ignore that Halo 2 helped mainstream one of the biggest changes in games in recent years? Have you guys forgotten how almost every damn game there is now uses the rechargeable health system instead of a health pack based one?

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 6:07PM

I believe Halo 1 already exposed that inclusion with recharging shields that were actually noticeable in effectiveness. The sequels only took it a bit further and made the character figuratively invincible. I don't feel that this extent is a positive contribution because it took a specific element of game-play out - a heightened sense of awareness aided will to survive. Several game series, even Call of Duty and Gears of War, followed with similar systems of what has now become a stale gameplay mechanic.

Halo 1's marriage of the old system and this improved science-fiction element seems well-rounded and reasonable - a hybrid of sorts.

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 6:16PM

That being said, I do agree that the sequels did push that feature - so I can agree with The Dark Wayne on some level. My statement was a exaggerated.

Megadanxzero @ Dec 28th 2008 6:41PM

How is recharging health a stale game mechanic? By that logic non-recharging health is an even MORE stale game mechanic. It's getting used in lots of games because it's better, and I wish more games would use it...

knighty (GT: ZeraKnight) @ Dec 28th 2008 6:58PM

"The sequels only took it a bit further and made the character figuratively invincible."

Try playing the game on a difficulty above Easy and say that again. Not sure who you mean by "figuratively invincible".

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 7:02PM

@Mega:

Because evolution in game design requires looking for different ways to manage a similar system. How is using the same design for several games NOT stale? I just believe that it takes the immersion from a game when I can sit behind a rock and be 'all better' in moments.

Truthfully speaking, Left 4 Dead is a great example of how the 'will to survive' is an important aspect in video-gaming, there is more thought-out design in that game's health system than many games out today yet it uses medical packs and pill packs to create a realistic and intuitive part of gameplay instead of something just to watch re-fill.

It's all subjective, I think many of today's gamers are going to disagree with me because they feel that this healing is going to take time away from gameplay. I can only hope to point to games like Half-Life where their system is non obtrusive and fits decently into the design of the game, but still features a health system wizened more to the older style.

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 7:26PM

@knighty (GT: ZeraKnight):

I'm not saying the game can't be difficult.

The difference between taking damage in the original and in the sequels is that in one you're hitting a regenerating pair of armor that fits nicely into a sci-fi setting and in the other you're shooting your infinitely regenerating health that is mocked as a shield of some part but it's really never explained how much of it is the suit and how much endurance the Chief really has.

It's a different standpoint completely because in one there's a personal health and the health of your armor - two separate instances that make sense in the series design.

In the sequels it's a combination of the two - it's like taking some of the personality there was in Halo's main character and finding a cold technological grave for it.

Whether a pistol or a machine gun, past the Chief's armor he turns into a creamy wimp of a person that can't even withstand a bullet or two in the finger.

Levi @ Dec 28th 2008 7:35PM

"Halo should have stopped at 1, the only good one in my opinion."

Halo sucked ass. The level design is so insanely repetetive, and not good to begin with. Halo 2 wasn't any better. Halo 3 is the only one that looks to be fun, but they lost me after a few boring years of 1 and 2. Seriously, I just don't get it.

Resistance sucks too. Way overrated. I hope Killzone doesn't suck. Gears 2 surprised me quite a bit though. Looks like a ton of fun.

Go ahead and flame.

Levi @ Dec 28th 2008 7:44PM

Oh, I just read the rest of these replies, and I HAVE to comment.

I think the recharging health system is pretty stupid myself. The only good thing it does for games is eradicate the need for backtracking for health items that were skipped over. With this system, though, you lose certain gameplay elements. The fact that you can just hide behind an object for a few seconds and fully replenish your health just takes away a bit of the "oh shit" that previous games had when your health was getting low.

There are plenty of drawbacks to the old style as well, though. Personally, I prefer it when a game allows you to carry health items with you to use when you need them. This way, you still have to be good enough to make it through the entire game with X amount of medkits, rather than just be good enough to make it through every individual fight.

I've had the recharging health argument with a friend more than once. I can't really say it's that much worse or better, I just don't like it.

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 7:50PM

I agree with Levi, it's a matter of taste really.

Megadanxzero @ Dec 28th 2008 7:58PM

So it's bad that if you get shot without a shield you die? There's really not much of a difference between the way the health works in first Halo and the other 2. The only real difference is that your health will only recover completely when you get to the end of each small area where you'll find a health pack in the first one... Giving you less health, but making it recover faster encourages you to think a bit more strategically and use cover more often.

In multiplayer it gives a little bit of an advantage to those who are doing well, since it means that worse players can't just pick you off when your health is almost gone from a duel with someone else. It prevents people from just hanging around shield or health respawns and it results in a better game... I really don't see why people complain about recharging health so much.

Megadanxzero @ Dec 28th 2008 8:06PM

'The fact that you can just hide behind an object for a few seconds and fully replenish your health just takes away a bit of the "oh shit" that previous games had when your health was getting low'

How!? If anything it forces you to experience it far more often. If you're constantly being reduced to almost no health with a few shots (As happens in Halo or Gears) you get that tension of having no health almost every time you get hit. It's also very rare that you can just quickly pop behind a rock for a quick cup of tea while your health recovers when you're in the middle of a firefight. I swear it seems like everyone who ever argues against recharging health can't have actually played any of the games that use it...

Haggard @ Dec 28th 2008 9:14PM

Yeah, I just completed Resistance. It's taken me literally months because it's so awful and the checkpoints are frustratingly few and far between.

I had to get myself drunk to want to finish it, and the finale was ripped straight out of Half-Life 2 (but without the balance, charm or immersion).

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 9:36PM

It ruins the immersion man, you can't say standing behind a rock and coming out just fine after one of those oh shit moments is the same as scouting around with very little health (Read: it's like maybe you are ACTUALLY injured). It forces you to stop thinking and acting strategically because you know your best option is always to run around like an idiot or hide and wait - especially in multiplayer.

If anything getting that "oh crap I'm almost at no health" feeling is made STALE by the fact that it's such a common occurrence. These moments are cut to the split seconds you have before your death or cowardice.

I don't like hiding behind rocks for health - I like being resourceful and careful. That health management system feels like it strangles the need to be such. It's too forgiving for stupidity. I like my games challenging and fun - and I don't mean challenging in that I DIE a lot. I mean challenging in that I have to think. Thinking is the last thing I feel the Halo series has ever enticed in me.

It also happens very often, if not you're running around trying to squeeze an inch of shield / health out while frantically firing your weapon. As if you don't do it in the multiplayer as well.

Besides, you talk about the multiplayer - where a single sword or abuse of rockets kills you anyways - hell, the charging is even the same way. It's not like those same newbies to the game can't make the same kill with one of the terribly unbalanced new weapons they add that makes the shield/health even more useless an unintelligible. It stops people from hanging around those health spawns and instead hang around the cheap weapon spawns where it's an even more daunting and annoying task to kill them when they've got full health - then can walk around the corner and heal back if they miss with their one hit chillers.

Besides, you think it's alright that for some super-human, he can only take a single or two shots from a standard pistol (with no armor/whatever the hell it is)?

I think it blanks out some sci-fi elements and makes me feel like I rely on a stupid now cliche' game mechanic that fits nowhere into the personality of the game or character.

I've made some valid points, but I think that we should in turn look back to what has been said before.

It has it's plusses and minuses like other systems. I just don't like it as well.

ill trooper @ Dec 29th 2008 3:43AM

Devs have learned that things like infinite lives, checkpoints and health-recharging keeps gamers coming back rather than giving up in frustration.

I've come to accept the 'health recharges' trend that nearly everything has now (surprisingly even non-scifi "real human situation" games like Rainbow 6:Vegas and Call of Duty have it, where "recharging health" has no explaination), but I still contend, as I have for many years, that it's just a way games have become easier on the gamer - less hardcore (which is totally fine, I'm not against it, I'm just stating the situation), and I wonder if those defending it are younger, newer gamers who have always had it part of their gaming experience/vernacular.

Again, I'm not against it; it's the only way to stay sane playing today's games, but you must admit that holing up and letting your health recharge can certainly be easier than something like getting to the next "first aid pack" after getting shot up in GoldenEye from the old days.

I prefer the 'health pack' model because it forces the gamer to accept the consequence of getting injured. When you get mangled in a battle, a shift in the focus of the game occurs for a little while. Surviving to acquire the health pack becomes a top priority and a 'stop everything and solve this' crisis must be handled, and forces the gamer to take more care. (You might get sent back to the last checkpoint, and that was, like, jeez, five minutes ago!) You know that you ain't just gonna go hide for a while behind a box and heal up.

In a way, it's like the difference between playing an online game like SOCOM/Call of Duty/Gears/Halo with the settings on "single life per round" versus one that allows multiple respawns in the same round. People just play differently when they know they aren't respawning and they have to wait and observe for the next 4 minutes - you play more carefully when there's risk involved.

A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Dec 29th 2008 9:54AM

"Game snob says I hate things other people like."

Or he might hate it because it's responsible for developers removing health bars from every fucking game since.

A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Dec 29th 2008 10:14AM

There are many arguments against the shield system. I happen to loathe itfor a number of reasons; its sheer pussiness in Halo 3, now for example: gone in one beat in Halo 3; a retarded balance over-sight which sees 80% of fights end in a beat down.

I accept that FPS games don't make a lot of sense, but what the fuck allows that shield to recharge, time after time after time!? It's not a measure that improves the game, it's one that makes it mind-numbingly simple, to the point where you barely have to worry about staying alive in single-player games. And why the fuck are soldiers in slightly less fictitious wars now out-fitted with (what I would charitabley describe as) anachronistic shields of wonder!?

The new Prince of Persia game even uses it; there's barely anything akin to consequence in that game, just a grind forwards. Face it, all this shield-recharge bollocks has affected is easier games.

aristokrat @ Dec 29th 2008 3:19PM

It's odd that people claim hiding behind a rock while your shield recharges is not realistic while claiming that managing medkits somehow is. What exactly is your medkit doing? Oh, let me just wrap my mangled arm in some bandages and I'll be all better? Wow, my body is riddled with shrapnel but a little healing salve and I'm ready to go? If you've already accepted that you're a space marine in the 2500's, what's so ridiculous about shields? Nobody complained that the Starship Enterprise's shields going down under continuous fire (and needing time to come back online afterward) was a ridiculous story mechanic.

Stop hiding behind the immersion high-horse. It's not realism you are complaining about, it's strategy. You prefer the strategy of unrealistic medkits, not the immersion of them.

aristokrat @ Dec 29th 2008 3:29PM

And in regards to modern games and recharging health, if you were not injured severely enough to keep you from going on again (the bullet just grazed me, I'll be fine), you probably need a second to recuperate. Ever played a contact sport where you got hit so hard that you couldn't do anything for a couple of seconds? Where you had to just sit there and get your breath/wits/bearings back? After that little pause, you were ready to go again, none the worse for wear. Never have I had a real injury where some self-applied field medicine was all I needed to continue (beyond maybe a broken finger). Maybe the red haze on the screen is caused by the pain of your body armor getting hit with bullets, which still hurts like hell because of the sheer momentum of the slug that just hit you. I can think of plenty of explanations for the I-need-a-second-before-I-can-go-on mechanic, but none for the man-if-I-get-another-little-scratch-without-bandaging-it-up-I'm-done-for mechanic. The painkiller explanation is weak too, because even people on PCP can only take so much damage, and they're not actually healing with it, they can just continue on for a while after taking a fatal injury because they're body is jacked up on PCP. If you're character died at the end of the game from the injuries his drug-riddled body persevered through, then you could talk to me about immersion.

Metkis @ Dec 29th 2008 6:20PM

First, I'm not worshiping either system, they both have their flaws. If I find infinitely regenerating shields that act as your health to ruin immersion of that particular game how are you going to prove me wrong?

I believe the system could work well if properly explained or even more properly integrated - becoming something that really matters - not just a hallmark of a designer's games.

It's opinion. When I said that it creates a realistic part of game-play, I meant that I can more closely to what I imagine would be necessary for survival in that setting - not in the real world. That statement was pertaining to Left 4 Dead's system. I believe that Med-Packs aren't necessarily more realistic but that in a system fueled survival, living becomes a more serious goal. Wounds feel like wounds that need healed - this is the portion I can more closely relate to. The process might be unrealistic, but if done correctly (like in Left 4 Dead) I feel that it becomes a mechanic of the game, not just a bar you have to look at once in a while. The illusion of a direct connection to the setting helps me get into the game.

I like a good sci-fi story as much as the next person - personally one of my favorite genres. I felt that when Halo took the life element out of the game, it made me feel as though I was no longer living - even more mechanical and cold. I was a shield. I personally enjoyed the old system better - I may have been a Space Marine in the 2500s but there felt like there was something behind the armor.

I'm sorry, but I can't stress how much this is a subjective matter - no one is going to convince me differently here and I've made my opinion well-established. My post was again my opinion regarding the turn of the new game's art style and my feeling of degradation of the series. Frankly - the health argument was beyond my interest in exploring.

Moptimus Slime @ Dec 28th 2008 4:02PM

This game will revolutionize how we as gamers visualize the colors brown and gray.

playwhutyalike @ Dec 28th 2008 4:17PM

That's effin funny right there.

Wiinterfang @ Dec 28th 2008 4:45PM

Would be funny if Halo wasn't one of the most colorful shooters out there.

Moptimus Slime @ Dec 28th 2008 5:00PM

except that Bungie has given up on being different and might as well re-rename the game HALOS of War

Snowblind @ Dec 28th 2008 5:07PM

The other Halo games also had some pretty drab looking concept art, but mainly for the city environments. How much of the other Halo games take place in very colourful ones?

We know so little about the game, it's impossible for you to be making judgements like this.

amart @ Dec 28th 2008 5:14PM

Please explain to everyone how you came to this conclusion; that Bungie has given up on being original; from five or so colored concept images. Virtually nothing is known about the game, and really, your comments are just lame troll bait. Honeslty, the last thing people want to read when they click on a Halo3 ODST post are the ramblings of uneducated, and uninformed little kids typing "Halos of War". Grow up please.

Moptimus Slime @ Dec 28th 2008 5:22PM

Its called a "trailer" and in said trailer, you will find "possible in-game environments" that looked like your run-of-the-mill demolished city with a force of invading aliens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm_VGHAgsRs
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/41060.html

its possible that with the name change came a whole new direction for the game. But until I am shown otherwise, my opinion remains that this game has gotten so caught up with the franchise that it somewhat-ironically has become a generic Space Mar-excuse, Orbital Drop Shock Trooper FPS.

Metkis @ Dec 28th 2008 5:31PM

I agree with Moptimus Slime, they wouldn't release a trailer and concept art featuring this style if it didn't represent their game correctly.

playwhutyalike @ Dec 28th 2008 5:36PM

Hey, Wiinterfang, he said "this game". He didn't say all Halo games. It's called a joke. Just because it happens to be about Halo OTDS or whatever the fuck it's called, doesn't mean I'm hating on Halo. It just means I think his comment is funny.

I checked the first trailer. Is that browns and grays I see? HOLY SHIT!

The Dark Wayne @ Dec 28th 2008 5:48PM

OXM and GI had screens of the game and really, there was barely any brown at all. It really was pretty much the same color palette as Halo 3, just slightly desaturated

Hala Madrid!! (Somebody get me a tie! And it sure as hell better be red!) @ Dec 28th 2008 6:12PM

Who the fuck cares about the colors? Just play the goddamn game.

Malignant @ Dec 28th 2008 6:13PM

Everyone knows it's Gears of Halo, not Halos of War.

Wiinterfang @ Dec 28th 2008 6:23PM

I didn't say you where hating I just said it would be funny if Halo wasn't so colorful.

Funkoid @ Dec 28th 2008 5:09PM

Aw...I was really hoping for that teabag art. I knew it was a joke, but still...

Kevin @ Dec 29th 2008 12:48AM

what truly amazes me is that for all the nagging or bitching, that is going on about this series. one thing is certain that you all will buy or rent this game when it is released . so to my point if you are not getting paid to give your opinion by any gaming magazine , please keep your opinions to yourself. you bunch of braggart.

ill trooper @ Dec 29th 2008 3:54AM

Keep opinions to ourselves? What good is the entire 'comment on the story' idea that so much of the world is based upon? Keep opinions to ourselves unless we're "getting paid to give your opinion," you say? Instead of realizing the irony of your own comment after you wrote it and not posting, you tell us YOUR opinion, which is 'keep your opinion to yourself if you want to say anything bad about this game.'

I just gotta point out that most people don't seem to mind hearing opinions if they agree with their own.

Hence, I deem your comment b.s.

My opinion is: Let the opinions continue!