This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Halo 2 Reviews
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.
Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.
I dont know why.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I dont know why.. (Score:5, Funny)
On Soviet Halo the Game reviews you!!!!!!!
More Reviews and averages ... (Score:5, Informative)
Hope the level design is better this time (Score:5, Informative)
1. Take a room and make 20 identical copies
2. Join all the rooms together with corridors
3. ???
4. Profit
Absolutely horrible. The alien spaceship was some of the worst level design I have seen in the last 5 years. I hope things are better this time.
Penny Arcade said the same thing (Score:5, Funny)
Halo level design was awful.
Re:Penny Arcade said the same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
1: Take image
2: Make 2 more identical copies of image and place together in strip
3: ???
4: Profit.
Re:Well then! (Score:4, Funny)
1) Read messageboards to figure out what people are saying about games
2) Put the majority opinion into a comic strip
3) ITS TEH FUNNAY CUZ ITZ SOO TRUE.
Re:Hope the level design is better this time (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hope the level design is better this time (Score:5, Informative)
From what I understand, Bungie was in mid-development when MS came to them with truckloads of cash. They wanted to buy the company, and release Halo at the same time as the Xbox.
So, level design was scrapped, and the production time on the game was pushed up considerably, to get it ready for the Xbox launch date.
Since the game was so short in its original format, they just added a few layers of repetition to the single player maps, and shoved it out the door.
From a game design perspective, it wasn't the best thing to do... But from a monetary perspective, any economist would tell you they did the right thing.
Re:Hope the level design is better this time (Score:5, Funny)
so, essentially, they did the wrong thing.
Not Credible Sources (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know, but they keep asking for you in Missouri.
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:4, Informative)
In my liquor. 80 of you.
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:3, Insightful)
My roommate was talk
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the other reasons why most of the games people would look up are reviewed favorably is because comparatively reviewers have to wade through a tremendous amount of real crap. No matter what you may feel about the redundancy and lack of innovation of GTA: San Andreas, it is in no where near the same category of junk as Big Motha' Truckers. Likewise, Fifa may not be as hot as some of the top soccer games coming out of japan, but compared to Atari's Backyard Soccer series it's Pulitzer material. On the other hand, give them a truly mediocre game that you spent years working on, and they will crush it ruthlessly. The press can be quite cold sometimes... I've read more than one review of a project I've worked on where the reviewer complained of the lack of a feature that was actually there.
No matter what your personal opinions on the subject, Halo 2 is unarguably one of the most polished and destined to be one of the most enjoyed games of the year. Microsoft didn't buy that with their ads, Bungee bought that with their sweat. And good for them: Bungee has always released quality games and deserves success.
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:3, Insightful)
like... even if there's real things worth critique, like the game being fucking short, it doesn't really affect the 90+ score.
(well.. at least they've probably really played the game - it used to be that you couldn't be sure about even that when you read the pre-release-reviews..)
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:5, Interesting)
**So, with nearly four times the amount of discourse from the first game and almost 20,000 lines of dialog, Bungie's story is deeply woven into every aspect of Halo 2, from the heart-stopping first hour to the climactic (and perhaps curious) ending. During the course of the game's 15 levels and just like the first game, you'll hear dozens of funny quips and memorable lines delivered by human soldiers that reverberate throughout its 10-15 hours of gameplay (yeah, that's what I said, 10-15 hours)**
enuff said, they got 10 hours of gameplay, and make it sound like it's big(10 hours isn't. and the game feels like it's 'cut' at the end a bit.. like a two episode movies first part or something).
bungie says the game is twice as long as halo 1 - this simply isn't true and should be critiqued.
ign's review is 8 fucking pages with 2 paragraphs worth of content( and basically.. apart from the halo2 name.. the whole review has been seen a thousand times before, it's boring, the praises are rehashes basically and as such quite empty, like the whole review).
but what's more to note is that game mags are now AGAIN at valueing games at 97-99 out of 100 scores(they did it at least here locally in the early 90's, as they failed to take evolution into account in giving the points.. like, they gave games bigger scores because they were better than the games 3 years ago).
(besides all this, halo2 offers _nothing_ in the creativity department into gameplay)
Re:Not Credible Sources (Score:3, Funny)
I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I just don't get the big selling point behind Halo- do people just like it for the action? I mean the story was interesting, but the levels definately were not.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two basic reasons why Halo is so popular.
1) All those people that own X-boxes, but have never seriously gamed on a computer got thier first real exposure to an FPS game.
2) Even before X-box live, LAN action exposed these same people to FPS multiplayer gaming.
This is simply Quake for another generation of people that missed the first round 5 years previously. (The Quake brand *still* has huge draw, even after two mis-matched (although excellently executed) sequels, and many people are hoping that the next one fixes the Doom 3 multiplayer problem (i.e. that it sucks)).
Halo is simply another Quake, but for a different set of people.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:4, Insightful)
I was an old school Quake player (clan Deimos rules!), and I was in college when Halo came out. Halo had that same spark that Quake did: you could play it with your friends over a network and have a crapload of fun doing it. Except this time around, people could do it on their couches with a console.
Seriously, IMHO that opened up a whole new dimension to things, since non-nerds are much more likely to get into a long-ass CTF match together on a couch rather than holed up with their own box. None of my non-nerd friends (including an ec major, a gov major, and a jock) have a machine even close to being able to handle HLII right now.
I'm not even planning on spending the $1000 I'd need to to play HLII/QuakeDoom on my machine since my need for a fun networked game is satisfied by Halo. So for some of us, Halo is the next Quake even more so than Quake itself.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:5, Interesting)
A decent portion of my marketable skills were once all attributable to the desire to play networked Doom. I spent 6 months convincing a couple key faculty at my high school in early 94 that we should build a computer lab, and after a year of acquiring and repairing free 286s and networking them, we finally maanaged to scrounge four grungy 386s just barely powerful enough to play doom with no sound and network them, it was the most incredible thing ever.
Based on our successes we eventually ended up getting a real budget to build a 486 lab and we went so far as to operate a Doom and Descent arcade for money during lunch and after school to buy more computers. That's some seriously pre-columbine stuff right there.
A couple sensitive faculty caught wind of the full picture of what was going on, but because our school was so underfunded our faculty supporters were able to convince them it was harmless enough to be worth it. In fact, their suspcisions were instigated by the fact we had a computer lab at all, it seemed impossible to them after 20 or so years of only being able afford new books every 7 years or so.
Even though I don't particularly employ the specific technical skills I acquired then anymore, the first experience of working with others in an adult mentality and actually creating something matured me from a nihilistic wannabe punk to something resembling a half way useful person. Earning the right to be treated like an adult in an environment where traditionally I'd been treated like a criminal was priceless. Thanks Doom, it took my selfish desire to play you networked to grow up..
When Halo came out, I was basically, eh, that's pretty good, nice use of physics there, a bit slow paced and repetitive level design though. The fact that so many people saw it as the best game ever was pretty alien to me without the perspective of how totally floored I was by the original Doom. I still have these emotions burned into my brain by just how blown away I was by the leaked alpha and beta. It was that extreme sentiment that actually changed my life.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been playing FPS games since the first time I got a copy of the three-floppy shareware of Doom back in 93. Sorry, my "street-cred" doesn't reach back the year before to Wolfenstein. I've played them all, from the early doom clones to the later quake clones and so on and so forth. For most of the 90s I was exclusively a pc gamer, since none of the consoles at the time interested me. But this latest generation did, and Halo is by far my favorite game on the consoles.
It's appeal lay in the fact that it does what it does extremely well. It is a very polished game, and plays exceedingly well on xbox. It can appeal to PC gamers and console gamers alike because it's very well done. To claim that only non-pc players would like it, or to imply that it's somehow FPS gaming on training wheels, is simply granting yourself far too much credit as a gamer. As if somehow you know the "real deal" while the rest of the sheep just follow trends. Bullshit. People recognize a good game when they see it, and therein lay its popularity.
And before you spend too much time on your PC gamer high horse, remember that PC games caught on in popularity well after console games (atari, intellivision, and later, nintendo). Any attempt to see PC gaming as a precursor to the more "childish" console gaming just shows a lack of understanding about the history of videogames.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there is plenty of evidence to support the statement. But mostly it's in the fact that most XBOXers are not die-hard gamers, though most die-hard gemers do have an XBox.
So while it's true that many hard core players like Halo, it's easily witnessed that most Halo fans are either new to gaming in gen
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:3, Interesting)
Halo is nothing special except it delivers this great genre to more people than Quake did, simply because consoles are more affordable and easier to setup than a PC gaming system.
Of course, a PC capable of playing Quake these days
Totally agree - Halo is Quake "for the rest of us" (Score:3, Interesting)
It's so much easier for people to put together a few TV's and consoles than it is a whole LAN setup and multiple computers. I've played with a few LAN groups now and then. and you have to admit there is a LOT more fiddling that goes on when several computers get together than when you are hooking up consoles.
I did enjoy the few times I've
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people that played Halo played THE console FPS before, and I mean Goldeneye for the N64. If you were of age to play that game when it was out, you played it. Now at that time its PC competition (Quake 2, Unreal) completely blew it away, but Goldeneye was still ridiculously popular. So I would say the people whose first exposure to an FPS game was Halo would be extremely limited. Since multiplayer FPS gaming on the console went back to Golde
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo (Score:5, Insightful)
See my other post on this subject.
Metroid Prime is another great example of this. It took all the fun out of FPS gaming by slowing the game down, crippled the AI and added in auto-aim, and replaced big levels with levels that require endless backtracking across jumping puzzles to keys and switches. In short, it was just a typical platform jumping game from a first-person perspective.
Metroid Prime is NOT meant to be played as an FPS or "typical platform jumping game". If you did, you're missing the whole point of the game and, dare I say, the entire Metroid series (if you've even played any of the others, which I doubt).
Not soo good... (Score:5, Funny)
1) Everyone speaks french? What is up with that?
2) It doesn't work with xbox live gameplay...
3) My xbox now says I'm banned from xbox live?!
I give it 5/10 for good efforts, but why french??
Re:Not soo good... (Score:3, Insightful)
PA (Score:4, Interesting)
Creepy (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently the Pious Flea [ilovebees.com] gets around!
Couldnt disagree more. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Couldnt disagree more. (Score:3)
1.) You don't speak French (maybe you do -- can't tell).
2.) Have never played on Live (because it's impossible to do so with the current PAL pirate out there).
I mean, I can understand if the story does suck (not sure at this point -- I'll play the game and get back to you).
Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
I normally consider posts like these trolls, but I have to agree in this case. Some of Halo was pretty nice, but it was balanced by all the backtracking, by all the bland interior levels, and by a complete lack of consistency. Overall I don't see what's all that different about it than a lot of other mediocre sci-fi shooters.
Standards for FPS's on consoles are different, and lower. I think Xbox owners were also just happy as hell to have an FPS that looked as good as Halo did (for a console FPS), and that was good for a launch game. It's definitely way, way overrated though, and if the first game had come out at this point in the system's lifespan I doubt it'd make the same sort of splash. Of course, now it's got almost this mythical quality to it, so of course you get reviewers giving it 9s and 10s because hell, it's practically the same game, so people are going to have to love it just as much, right?
Well, I own an Xbox, and Halo 2 is not at the top of my wish list. FPS's belong on PC's anyway, with proper controls and higher detail levels (required for recognizing and then sniping distant enemies). Nuts to Bungie.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Interesting)
I admit I actually liked the original Halo-- it had a different feel and the enemies had some character to them, but the review I just read makes Halo 2 sound like they didn't even bother to work on the biggest issues of the original at all and in fact came out a lot worse in a few areas while only improving mildly here or there.
I guess the reviewers really ARE taking payoffs these days...
Re:Again? (Score:3, Informative)
They're one of the few publications I've seen that don't say "augment your score with a written argument in the review". You'd think that was a given, but they know people rely on thos
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Games like Counter-Strike and Natural Selection DO exist. There's a reason that CS is still the #1 multiplayer fps, no matter what your stereotypes of the game may be it kicks the living snot out of every other multiplayer fps. Keep in mind I am judging the game on its own merits, and not taking into account the attitudes and mannerisms of its players, which may vary.
Oh, yeah, so Halo 1 couldn't hold a candle to CS or NS or even UT2k4 or Tribes 2. Based on that, I don't have high expecations of Halo 2, but I wont pass judgement until I play it. Maybe because my expecations are low, it will beat those expecations and make a good impression.
Oh, the reason people played Halo 1? My guess is they are mostly young kids who didn't already have the Goldeneye experience. Or they were people who didn't have fast Internet connections and didn't have the internet multiplayer fps experience to compare it to. So when a goldeneye with a new theme, better graphics and expanded multiplayer showed up they were wowed away because they had not yet experienced something which you and me have had for over 6 years.
Re:Again? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Again? (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have any idea what you're even talking about? Halo went through so many changes that if it had been released on the Mac as originally planned it would have been yet another mediocre RTS game on a platform with a very small videogame market.
I'm not a Microsoft advocate, but because of Microsoft's purchase of Bungie, they were given an infusion of funds and resources to make what would have been an undersold and mediocre game into the best FPS on the Xbox, perhaps even the best FPS console game to date (yes I've played Goldeneye and Perfect Dark-- Niether game can is as good as Halo multiplayer, new technology notwithstanding).
For anyone interested, here's a look [fileplanet.com] at the evolution of Halo. Get an idea of what it would have looked like had Microsoft not been involved. Trust me... nobody would have bought a Mac just because the RTS Halo-as-it-would-have-been was on it.
More mirrors [google.com]
Re:Again? (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's all in the past anyway. The question before us today is whether or not Halo2 is something that those of us who have an XBox will want to buy. I'll do it, if only because I enjoyed Halo, despite its flaws.
Ehh (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, my Xbox-owning friends who had never(?!) played a multiplayer FPS game before think it's the greatest thing ever. And, if you've never played Unreal Tournament, I suppose it is. But for people who've been playing FPSs on the PC for years, Halo is only average. I imagine Halo 2 is more of the same, and the reviews seem reflect that.
I think what it was... (Score:4, Informative)
Not as good as the oldies.... (Score:4, Insightful)
my short review. (Score:4, Informative)
Emphasis on AGAIN (Score:5, Interesting)
Marathon, an FPS, to Myth, a team player RTS, to Oni a FPS/martial arts game, to Halo, possible the most creative FPS to date. If they had gotten with a big development team earlier I would love to see the games they would have produced!
So hats off to Bungie, I want to see the next non FPS!
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN (Score:4, Insightful)
and halo 2 is that - DONE AGAIN, but if possible, even shorter.
seriously: WHAT CREATIVE THERE WAS IN HALO 1?
weapons? no.
vehicles? seen before.
enemies? boring.
coop gameplay? hell, doom had that(but halo's pc port didn't).
graphics? just average.
outdoor sequences? non-revolutionary.
indoor sequences? flat walls reminding me of '97.
(oni was boring too after the start)
btw.. what of the old bungie is left besides the name? their next non-fps? dream on guy, like microsoft would have them do anything else than the big hit series.
or to put it on a different note.. have you played any games besides bungies games? because it doesn't really sound so.
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN (Score:5, Interesting)
Halo 1 Creativity:
weapons - manly rockets, not those pussy quake type ones
alien weapons that can't be reloaded, and overheat
vehicles - first game I know of that you could DRIVE vehicles in an FPS game.
enemies - while only a few types existed, the AI was very good, unlike the 'huge hit games' like CoD.
Bungie didn't do the PC port, although they supervised it. And shame on them for shipping it with utter garbage for net code. Can you say milking the customer base?
outdoor sequences - first FPS with halfway decent outdoor levels and graphics in those levels. Sure, the graphics look dated now, but they were pretty hot back then.
Indoor sequences - walls tend to be flat, that's what walls are. The dark, moody ship levels were interesting early on, but the rubber stamp action of a rushed ship job became rather boring. Given enough time, I think they would have done it well.
Bungie invented dual wielding and weapons with more than one firing mode back in the mid 90s with Marathon. They also veered from the overly fast, unrealistic movement of the DooMs and Quakes and went for a slower, more realistic run speed. This forces you to think more and makes it a bit less of a twitch game. You can still twitch to take out a target that suddenly appeared, but escaping from danger isn't so easy.
No, I'm not a Bungie fan boi. But they have been historically innovative in game design, often a step ahead of the competition. But they fail to listen to fans just as much as the next game company and they ship a game too soon just like every other game company. People still buy the stuff anyways to feed their crack habit, so why put some quality into it? It's a disgusting trend in the industry, but there's no avoiding it now unless we stop thanking them for slop with the all mighty dollar.
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone made an XBOX game that didn't completely suck?
Seriously though, you're right on. Halo 1 might have been impressive if it hadn't been delayed for how many years because Bungie sold out. Might. As I said the other day [slashdot.org], Doom 1 was revolutionary; everything in the FPS realm has been incremental improvements and regurgitation since.
XBOX fans are just excited because there's hype don't have much else to be excited about. (Funny, sad story: once back when all these consoles were new and sparkly, I talked to a kid in a game shop who had picked Saturn, N64, Dreamcast, and now XBOX. Ouch.)
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN (Score:4, Informative)
But Doom 1 was just an incremental improvement on Wolfenstein.
That isn't totally true, but all games are incremental improvements. The question is just how large the improvement was.
I personally believe that there have been a few standout games in the FPS that are worth noting as milestones.
Wolfenstein
Doom 1
Quake
Half Life
I don't think we have had anything worthy to be called a milestone since Half Life. Maybe one of the UT series. I have some hopes that S.T.A.L.K.E.R might really introduce something new.
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bah, old news. (Score:3)
Slashdot editors, bring some new stories please.
--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia [uchile.cl]
What do you guys think? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What do you guys think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard to say. I do know that just about everyone who's tried to convince me to buy an XBox has done so by touting Halo as the best thing since sliced bread.
I don't own an XBox yet.
At any rate, i'd like the XBox a whole lot more if the "must-buy" list was bigger than just Halo and a small number of other games.
Friendly reminder (Score:5, Funny)
1. Same tired gameplay
2. Repetition
3. The console FPS ALWAYS sucks
Thank you.
sad but true (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, HALO/HALO2 is great for people who are console-addicts but is just "another game" for us pc gamers. FPS games on consoles are behind their time compared to on the pc platform.
Imagine if BattleField 1942 came out first on the console with the same multiplayer experience, then Halo next to it would appear as "just another game". Currently, is there a game on xbox that is same genre as halo? Exactly, none.
On PC, you have BF1942, UT2004, MODS for UT
Re:Friendly reminder (Score:4, Funny)
2. Repetition
3. The console FPS ALWAYS sucks
4. ...
5. Profit?
I agree (Score:3, Interesting)
I recently got the play Halo for the first time ever (I live in PS2 land mainly thanks to Grand Theft Auto games and Gran Tourismo) recently, I was interested to see what the fuss is about but became disappointed because of the aforementioned reasons.
Maybe it's my newcoming to FPS on the Xbox console but I've always had a hard time accurately and quickly aiming with my thumb on any console.
excuse me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Done what, exactly? Anybody who was reading the developer blog regarding the original Halo was completely disappointed by the time it hit the shelves. Bungie hyped it up to be something it wasn't, and by the time it got released, 95% of the "innovative, ground breaking" features were found in other pc/console games. The only thing that made it unique was that it was on the Xbox.
How long did we have to wait for a PC port for this one? 2 years?
I've played Halo 2, and controlling the game is like watching a monkey fuck a football. Sure, it's amusing, and interesting for the first minute, then it becomes frustrating and pointless. Although the graphics are awesome, and the gameplay is superb.
It's a good game, but really.. it should be on the PC where 99% of first person shooters belong. The controls really do detract from the experience. Bungie will get my money if I see a holiday release for a PC port.
Never having played either myself.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Never having played either myself.... (Score:5, Informative)
The movement speed is intentionally coded to be slower than Quake. It's far more realistic a movement speed. Let's face it, you can't run 60 mph. But if you just play Quake and HL and UT, it takes some getting adjusted to. That and you have to think ahead about what you're doing instead of just reacting to everything.
Over at GE we have... (Score:5, Informative)
As much as I hate to appear the karma whore, I think people need to see a more balanced review of the game. Remember, we're putting our bollocks on the line with Microsoft's PR by giving the game below 9/10 - we just felt we had to tell the truth.
See the review here. If you like it, pass it on [gamerseurope.com]
Re:Over at GE we have... (Score:3, Insightful)
Recycled mediocrity (Score:5, Funny)
Halo 2 is just a slight extension of the same thing. I can't understand why H2 is getting great reviews in the same way that I just can't fathom how Dubya got 58 million votes.
Therefore I blame the religious right wing for Halo 2's reviews.
And? The real console FPS is coming out later (Score:3, Interesting)
Everything Halo does has been done before, especially in Quake. Maybe the kids playing Halo now missed Quake (didn't have PCs, too young, whatever). The graphics seem pretty lack luster (if that is even a legitmate game play issue) and the single player is awful. The game can be ok in multiplayer, but I'd have more fun in a 4 way Dr. Mario or Wario Ware.
I'm no fan of FPSes, but I was thoroughly engrossed by Metroid Prime. It perfectly translated the desperation and fear of being alone from the 2D classics into a 3D world. I have never played an FPS all the way through but I beat Prime several times. Maybe its the difference in PC gamers and console gamers (I count myself in the latter).
Personally, I think most of the fanbase for Halo and GTA are casual American gamers who haven't grown up worshipping Japanese games. That could mean there's a legitimate movement to "American style" games in the U.S., but to me it seems like casual gamers are just that, casual.
Re:And? The real console FPS is coming out later (Score:4, Funny)
Halo is good for an adrenaline rush... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hellsau, the master of puppets hits the hard spot (0:38) (or perhaps ministry, just one fix, at 0:22) maxed volume on a 5.1 surround sound system, drounding out blast after blast from the shotgun.
That's how halo is to be played. You get bored otherwise. It's a straight FPS shootem' up, like Serious Sam, but with vehicles, no smart remarks, and a sci-fi twist. You supply the smart remarks. The fun comes in when you add in violent, gory music to pure skill.
Most negative site ever... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Halo 2 will be big.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I see a few really long rants about blandness/lack of originality, so I am going to bet Halo 2 will break sales records.
Slashdot is not good at figuring out what is going to be popular. What's cool thouh is that it is so reliably wrong, you can set your watch by it.
My favorite examples:
Linux
iPod/iPod Mini
Windows
and now, Halo 2
Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok here are some (4) dirty little secrets/myths that explain why there is a disconnect.
1) The PC version of Halo is worse than the Xbox version. Why you say? The PC version has multiplayer while the Xbox version doesn't. Well for starters, Halo plays slower and looks worse on all but the absolutely highest end PCs. I'm talking you better have at least a 3GHZ P4 and ATI 9800+ level card, or the damn game just looks worse. I can't explain why. It might have something to do with the "fuzzing" on the TV set. But water looks better, smoother. It's more pixilated on the PC somehow. Also, it just runs choppier on the PC with all but the best hardware.
2) This one will upset a bunch of PC gamers, but playing on a console is better. Now I'm not talking better in that you can move around 3 ms faster with analogue controllers. You probably cannot. But it's more enjoyable. There is an entire added level of emersion that Halo balances in just right with the rumble/feedback on the controllers (that just "gets in the way" for hard-core PC enthusiasts that just want the highest kill counts). These are the same guys that turn off every bell/whistle graphic addon/detail to eek out frame rate. Well that may be good for kill counts, but it sucks for telling a story. The PC lacks that visceral element that is brought to bear better with analogue controllers for our analogue wet wear. This is the single thing that PC gamers don't get, because sitting in front of the PC, psychologically (and controller wise) loses an extreme level of immersion. Your home theatre system is designed to suck you into the movie, and it does a way better job than the PC at getting you "in the game."
3) Next myth is that the levels were all repetitive, hallway lamers. Some were. No doubt. But there were super out door, open-ended terrains where you could take any of a million paths. Where you could sniper banshee pilots before they take off to get a plane you shouldn't have been able to get. Take a tank. Take in a team. Sneak in. Kill everyone. The outdoor battles were epic.
Repetitive levels dont suck totally. Not every damn battle has to be some outside completely open ended thing. That's not to say Bungie should be forgiven for endless repetition, but there is an immersive "sh*t I'm lost" factor when you're going through a maze. I find that realistic. Heck, you get into some alien base, you know nothing about it, it looks all the same, youre panicy, that's not necessarily a bad thing. You shouldn't always know where you're going. That's part of the panic/fun of going through it the first time. For the same reasons backtracking through the same level at a different time of day is kind of a cool idea. The open air battle scene in Halo, when you come back at night was very cool. Again, that's not to say I want to go through (now) boring Doom/Quake mazes ad nausium, but there is something to varying the environments and keeping you off balance, that adds to the balance of the game.
4) That people that like Halo are all console lamers that have no clue about PC games. True for some, not for others. The console is a different kind of experience. And in a way it's akin to switching operating systems. What stops you from switching and saying one platform sucks while another doesn't is often a function of muscle memory and habit. Let's face it, we don't like to change (particularly when we're good in one environment), and so getting proficient using the analog controller and starting as square 1 for PC gamers is a downer. I know I hated playing FPS on a console after having gotten good on the keyboard/mouse. But
Re:Hardware: What PC Users Don't Get... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmm. Throw in $50 for Halo 2, and boom, for $250, all the lamers (me included, that's for sure) will be playing our fingers off--in my case up on a 60-inch rear projection monitor.
Oh, feel like driving for a while, or a little sports, swap the disc and keep on going...
Man oh man, this is the same discussion as TiVo versus a homebrew PVR...
All I can say is: To all of you out there that like doing your own dental work...I've got a teeth-cleaning appointment at my dentist's tomorrow.
The better for you to see my pearly whites come midnight...
Re:Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo (Score:4, Insightful)
You, sir, have obviously never played Marathon. Now there was a story that got you involved, that sucked you in, chewed you up, and spit you out. Halo's story is but the barest shadow of Marathon's. (Almost literally, since they were both done by the same people.) Marathon is full of hope, struggle, mystery, betrayal, revenge, and ambiguity, and all of this was achieved without a single cutscene or line of recorded dialog more complex than, "Thank god it's you!"
Ahh, Bungie, how the mighty have fallen. Not to say that Halo isn't good, I enjoy it quite a bit, but I wonder if Bungie will ever manage to match their achievement in Marathon.
of course there near perfect. (Score:3, Interesting)
because ther want to review Halo 3.
COme on, can we trust a review site that has to agree to all kinds of stipulations before posting what they think?
Not me.
I'll wait 2 weeks, gert the report from the early adopters and get it for 15 bucks less then every one else. Assuming the reviews I get are favorable.
Now, I'm not saying Halo 2 isn't the perfect game, hell I jope it is I like good games, just pointing out the these reviews aren't the most unbiased in the world.
I am also of the opinion that if what ever you are reviewing, whether its games, cars, or Krypton Lasers, you should not regularly give a 8 or higher to everything. If you do, you need to change your rating system.
Having Actually played Halo: Combat Evolved (Score:5, Interesting)
Halo was not only in a good spot for exposure, being the only polished FPS on the Xbox, but filled expectations well. I was originally unimpressed by the screenshots and even a few minutes of deathmatching at a friend's house. But I kept reading of the the awards it received, long after the inital reviews. Almost always, the write-ups would mention the exhilartion of playing on the highest difficulty, single player. So I borrowed the game from the same friend.
And my eyes were opened. Not only was what appeared to be yet another FPS suddenly exciting, but during the tense, chalenging moments, I was attuned to the subtlties of sound effects and level layouts. The AI was superb, feinting and flanking as well as some of the best online FPS clans (marksmanship not as good). When you are paying attention to every detail to survie and progress, you learn the levels very well, and the feeling is almost more "Survival Horror" than some Doom-style adventure.
The game has been compared, derivatively, to GoldenEye/PD, UT series, and Quake series. I've played all of those, some on multiple formats. These are pillar games, but Halo stands alongside them. Unfortunately, untile you devote a few hours on Legendary, it's really difficult to understand why.
Now it appears that Halo 2 isn't up to snuff, but every series I mentioned has it's better and worse titles. Im not surprised here, but I am still looking forward getting the game alone at 12:01am's single player fun and the following Halo2 party, where i imagine both seasoned and noobs will have fun drinking eating and shooting the crap outa stuff! And it should smell better and have lest tantrums than LAN parties Ive attended...
Well this should destroy some Karma... (Score:3, Interesting)
I simply don't think it deserves the huge scores it got, and I can't understand why it got them. I mean, the part when you fight through stage after stage after stage after stage of those plague things really is some of the most repetitive worst level design since the original wolfenstein.
Put that together with the sections after that which have you going through corridors and occasionally coming across a long bridge - again, so boringingly repetitive.
And the save system is horrendous, absolutely awful - I got stuck in one place having to save with very little health, and the next section just happened to be super-difficult, took me an absolute age to finish.
For what it's worth, I think the enemy design, although quite nice in places was not wide ranging enough - there are what, three different types of bad guy?? Look at the great stuff coming out in terms of enemies in Half Life 2 (Strider anyone?) and the nice assorted mix in Doom 3. Halo's really pale next to these. And what's with the cutesy-ness of those little alien things? Making cute sounds, I'm not watching a cartoon! I want to feel like these are serious assailants I'm facing, not some bastard offspring of Barney.
Now of course, there were some very good points to the game as we all know, the vehicles were great fun, and graphically I was very impressed. The storyline - well meh, I wasn't blown away, but I love the idea of the Halo in the first-place.
So I'm puzzled by all the crazed fanboi-ism over Halo, it was an OK game as far as I'm concerned, but people giving it crazy 10/10 scores? Did we play the same game?
But this is about Halo2... which I haven't played, but am not too buzzed up on it due to the disappointing original. Hopefully Bungie hasn't used the cut & paste method of world building this time round. - Nex
Re:One thing that's always bugged me ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All our hopes are on Halo 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing that was a joke. (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, the game was okay and everything, but I'm still not sure what all the hype is about. It doesn't seem any different from any other FPS, and I've played the whole game. Just your normal Progress Quest stuff, with some decent graphics. Unfortunately, putting the game on the Xbox first really limits you to the capabilities of that machine - new games out now are significantly more advanced then what the Xbox can do for you.
I know a lot of Halo geeks are probably angry at my post but maybe instead of just bitching at me, someone could tell me perhaps what I've missed that makes the game into the incredible fantastic "mind blowing" game that it's claimed to be.
Re:I'm guessing that was a joke. (Score:3, Interesting)
About the only thing I disliked was the somewhat repetitive umm... levels where you had to get away from the zombie like thingies, whatever they were.
The final level where you have to get out of the exploding ship, with the pumping soundtrack psyching you on, just made it for me. I have to checkout Halo 2 just because of the memory that Halo left me with.
Re:I'm guessing that was a joke. (Score:3, Funny)
Me too. Those red and blue guys standing about making jokes cracked me up. Are they still in Halo 2?
Here is what all the hype was about. (Score:5, Interesting)
The hype was that a whole new generation of people who never played a competetive FPS online got the chance. Anyone that screams Halo is the best game ever just hasn't been around the block, and used to be a non-gamer or a very casual gamer.
Face it, the guys that scream "HALO!" at the top of their lungs are just not PC players. If they were, their buffet plate would be very full.
"Halo, seriously dude, the best ever."
"Ever played Starcraft?"
"No."
"Ever played Tribes?"
"No."
"Quake?"
"No."
"Pong?"
"No."
"Goldeneye?"
"Had a friend that had it, it rocked. Played it once."
"How about Uneal Tournament?"
"Never heard of it."
It's nothing bad.
These people are the same ones that buy The Day After Tommorrow and Van Helsing on DVD the day it comes out.
Re:Boring? (Score:4, Interesting)
Halo is only thought of as 'superb' in the console arena. On PC, it was 'Just Another FPS', with nothing to distinguish it from more popular titles such as the BattelField's, FarCry, etc... the action was repetitive, the weapons bland, and the terrain was homogenous through out the entire game.
Halo 2 I believe will be more of the same, with the only real difference between the first and this sequel being the story line, and prettier graphics. It will be loved by people who own consoles, and have yet to properly experience what an FPS should really be like. I predict that gamers who are FPS purists, will have the same gripes with this games as they did with the first one.
IMO, the hype surrounding the first game was completely unwarranted... and thus I suspect the same will ring true when I bother getting around to play this.
Re:Boring? (Score:4, Insightful)
HL and UT were shitty games on PS2, and Halo was a shitty game on PC. It's not often that a game makes a good trip cross platforms, and it definitely wasn't the case with Halo.
Re:Boring? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Boring? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Boring? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Boring? (Score:5, Informative)
Balderdash.
Halo is a PC game. It was designed to be a PC game and the original version always will be an unfinished PC game. Bungy made it, and they made it great.
Unforunately, not long before the game was ready, Microsoft bought Bungie studios and shelved Halo. They then ported whatever they could from the carcass to the then new XBox just in time for a Christmas release. Thus Halo/XBox was born.
A few months later, Microsoft were kind enough to grace us PC gamers with a port of Halo/XBox to the PC. But make no mistakes - this was not the original version by any means. Because it's a port of an XBox game, game play is severely retarded due to the pathetic 64MB memory of the XBox, textures are repetitive and performenace is dog slow. This is Halo/XBox/PC.
I doubt Halo/PC will ever see the light of day.
Re:Born on the console? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Boring? (Score:5, Interesting)
As I mentioned in another post, this was the first game to really break the barrier of who would attend a "LAN-party". It used to be a couple of techies with towers strapped to their backs, who knew the ins and outs of drivers and networking and would play Quake in their college dorm. Now, it's kids who bring a few Xboxes over to their friends house, hook up a couple of TVs and bam, instant social fun.
That was the main draw of Halo, anyway. Halo 2 seems to capitalize on it: creating "parties" of up to 16 players who could be anywhere (including on the same couch), that stick together on Live. It's essentially bringing the LAN-party social experience online. That's pretty impressive (not from so much a technical standpoint, but a design standpoint).
As for bots: while I admit it would've been nice, I've never been too pleased with bots in the past. Either they were too good (UT at the higher settings) or totally ignorant (Perfect Dark bots tended to get stuck on ladders and inclines). Give me massive multiplayer mayhem anyway.
Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure someone will reply to you saying that it doesn't matter who makes it, if it's a good quality thing... blah blah blah.
My personal opinion regarding Halo is almost exactly the same as yours and the parent's. Halo to me seemed like more of the same, with boring uninspired gameplay that somehow became hugely popular based solely on hype. (And yes, I've played it on both PC and Xbox).
But honestly, regarding Slashdot's love of Xbox? I haven't the first idea. The hive mind around here dislikes Windows because of it's lack of innovation, the monopolistic business practices behind it, and the shoddy quality. The same holds true of Xbox. Microsoft's sole business strategy is to lose money like a sieve by buying up every big name in the gaming industry that they can get their hands on, until there's no more competition. Microsoft has created a machine that doesn't seem well fit to play games from an architectural point of view, and touts hugely overinflated specs that they used to convince people that Xbox was more powerful. (which is a highly inconclusive statement). And the gaming library on Xbox consists pretty much entirely of ports, be it from PC or other consoles. (but mostly from PC).
I personally haven't the slightest desire for an Xbox (speaking as a gamer), as its only claim to fame is Halo, which I honestly don't care a lick about. I don't have desire for an Xbox (speaking as a geek) because I highly disagree with the business practices behind the Xbox, and the future of the gaming industry if left unchecked.
Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft makes a point of hiring the smartest people it can get its hands on, and often just releases them in small groups to create whatever they want or can. They actually dedicate money and people to research and exploring new ideas.
Either way, the whole MS-Bungie thing does piss me off. I could've been playing Halo 2 a few years ago.
Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
And? Hate to break this to you Junior, but every corporation will do that. If I were a stockholder, I would accept nothing less. Now I'll give you that MS engaged in any number of illegal or questionable business practices that I would not approve of as a shareholder. But know what: none of that will stop me from enjoying the hell out of Halo 2.
What a complete and total yawn. Please keep this thread alive with all the reasons
Re:You want an honest review? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, that attitude will certainly help your reputation of having an unbiased viewpoint, and give you a leg up in your pursuit of "journalistic integrity" as your site puts it.
Perhaps you might consider venting your frustration as an independent game reviewer at "the industry" rather than at Microsoft? Scapegoating Microsoft on Slashdot might be popular, and might win you moderation points, but it is the industry at large which you should be protesting.