Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
XBox (Games)

Halo 2 Reviews 619

Posted by michael
from the warm-fuzzy dept.
SilentChris writes "As of 3 PM EST, major websites were finally 'permitted' to release their reviews of Halo 2. The verdict: near perfect scores. Check out reviews by Gamespot, IGN, and GameSpy. Bungie has done it again!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Halo 2 Reviews

Comments Filter:
  • by bluewee (677282) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:02PM (#10749923)
    ...these reviews are so late, my copy of the game has been blowing me away for a week or so since I got it. Also my parents have been praising my newly learned language, French... :D
  • by Hank Chinaski (257573) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:03PM (#10749928) Homepage
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:03PM (#10749934)
    Halo 1 had horrible level design. For some stages level design went like this:

    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.
  • by fux0rbob (787723) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:03PM (#10749936) Journal
    Unfortunately, these sources can't be considered credible. Which may sound like a troll, but it's not. These people are funded by advertisers. Advertisers like Microsoft and Nintendo and Sony. These sources will almost *always* report favorible, if not glowing reviews of the major advertisers' games.

    • by Billobob (532161) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [bobollib]> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:06PM (#10749967) Homepage Journal
      Hi, my name is proof. Where am I?
    • Gamespot's reviews are generally not to far distant from the large number of reader reviews they get. Also it depends mainly on the author. Some authors seem to like a type of game more than another. In the past couple years I dont think I seen Gamespot give a PC game higher than a 9.4. I have never seen them give a game a much higher score than it deserved. Have you played Halo 2 yet? Play it, then cast your judgement.
    • by dfj225 (587560) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:46PM (#10750735) Homepage Journal
      Well, I can't speak for most of the online ratings, but 1up.com does have the review that will be printed in EGM. The game got all 10s. Now the reason I mention EGM is that in the past game publishers who advertised in the mag became upset over a few games that got low ratings. EGM's response was to say that they stick by their ratings and if they lose a few ads, so be it. I find EGM and most web sites to be pretty accurate as far as my tastes are concerned.
      • See, I tend to think that the idea of having an all 10's review would automatically discredit the review. They're pretty much saying that the game is perfect... but we all know it isn't. There will be some complaint eventually, and there are always more things to add to a game. It can't be perfect, it's an FPS that uses joysticks instead of a keyboard and mouse, and it definitely doesn't have the graphical bang of Doom 3. Not that I'm saying it's terrible,... but seriously, perfect?

        My roommate was talk
    • I agree. Slashdot is also funded by Microsoft ads which is why there are no anti-microsoft articles on the site.
    • by cgenman (325138) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:06PM (#10750848) Homepage
      That's not necessarily true. You'd be surprised how hard it is to buy a glowing review these days in a non-"official" magazine (I.E. the Official XBox magazine). As we're down to basically 5 companies, E.A. Activision Sony Atari Microsoft, they would basically have to report glowing reviews of everything. Sometimes they glow more than they should, as the person who likes a genre is going to get games of that genre to review. Would you put the FPS guy on Winning 11 8 and expect them to give a comprehensive, well-thought out review? No, you give it to the guy who has played every other Winning 11 game, as well as every soccer game in existence and some that aren't, who will have perspective on where Winning 11 fits into the universe of soccer games and will probably love it.

      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.

  • by Tojo-Mojo (707846) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:04PM (#10749941)
    To me, it was like you were just going through the same repeating rooms over and over fighting endless hoards of monsters. Especially the library. I didn't play all the way through, I gave up once I got to the part where you go through the core stage again - only this time BACKWARDS! I think I had more fun playing Unreal 2 or Red Faction or other games that got considerably less critical acclaim.

    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:10PM (#10750007)

      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.
      • by harvardian (140312) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:15PM (#10750517)
        I don't think Halo's Quake-like draw is only for newbies.

        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.
      • by vhold (175219) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:38PM (#10750696)
        I couldn't agree more with the basic concept of this sentiment. Doom 1 is a nearly unplayable game by today's standards, but at the time it was the most unbelievable thing ever to me.

        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.
      • by drewmca (611245) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:06PM (#10750853)
        Um, that's about as poorly justified a statement as you could possibly make. Do you have some sort of information on Halo demographics that the rest of us don't? That's pure conjecture on your part.

        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.
        • Um, that's about as poorly justified a statement as you could possibly make. Do you have some sort of information on Halo demographics that the rest of us don't? That's pure conjecture on your part.

          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
      • Exactly. Halo is in 2004 what the original Quake was for PC gamers back in 1996: internet/LAN based multiplayer first person shooter. The PC gaming crowd has been professing the importance and fun of first person shooters, especially multiplayer ones, for a long long time now.

        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
      • I agree with this post. I know of a few groups of people that play Halo and they love it partly because to get eight people playing they use four TV's and four XBoxes.

        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
      • First off, you're not correct. At least not in what I've seen.

        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
  • by grazzy (56382) <grazzy&quake,swe,net> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:04PM (#10749944) Homepage Journal
    I've been playing this game for almost two weeks now, and yeah well, I gotta tell you, it has a couple of flaws.

    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??
  • PA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mentalflossboy (811716) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:05PM (#10749957)
    Hell, even Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] liked it.
  • by hine_uk (783556) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:05PM (#10749958)
    From ...ahem play testing at a uh friends house...all the way through I got to be honest when I say I wish I didnt have this arriving in the post in a weeks time. The magic of the first one jsut isnt there. Its about half the length and you can tell that it is just getting strugn out into a fresh "chapter" each year. It dosent play as smoothly, the multiplayer aspect of it is lacking compared to the first, the story is not as tight and fun as the first and its about half the length. To be honest it feels more like an expansion pack rather than a full and slaved over game. Its just a pity that the magazines jump on the bandwagon. It deserves to do well just not as well as it will do. Instad of your own money ask for it as a gift for christmas or thanksgiving. You wont feel so let down.
    • Um, out of curiousity, how can you give an accurate review if:

      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). :) But multiplayer a massive draw on this thing. I would wait to see how that turns out.
  • Again? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cK-Gunslinger (443452) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:06PM (#10749968) Journal
    When did they do it the first time? I mean, did any of these people even play the first Halo? Cooperative play on the XBox was pretty cool, but other than that, it as a bland and boring game with bland and boring graphics, sounds, weapons, gameplay, etc.
    • Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75@nospAM.yahoo.com> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:17PM (#10750063)
      When did they do it the first time? I mean, did any of these people even play the first Halo? Cooperative play on the XBox was pretty cool, but other than that, it as a bland and boring game with bland and boring graphics, sounds, weapons, gameplay, etc.

      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)

      by Firehawke (50498) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:23PM (#10750110) Journal
      What really gets me is how the Gamespot review spends over half the review glossing over the flaws and then they still give it a near-perfect score.

      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)

        by SilentChris (452960)
        I freelanced for GameSpot a few times, and they're a very tricky pub to work for. Their guidelines are kind of skewed: they tell you to put all your weight into the "reviewer's tilt" type of score. That never happens though, because you have millions of gamers rely on that one number near the top of the page (the average).

        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)

      by Apreche (239272) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:28PM (#10750149) Homepage Journal
      I agree. I am the kind of person who doesn't pass judgement on a game until I've played it. I haven't played Halo 2 yet, but Halo one was crap poop. FPS games of that style were impressive when Goldeneye came out for the N64. Releasing the same crap with a different theme and shinier graphics isn't going to make it any fresher. The enhanced multiplayer of multiple X-Boxen adds a little bit to the experience, but most still do the four player split screen.

      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)

      by Solder Fumes (797270)
      The original Halo would have been revolutionary, the graphics and gameplay would have been advanced well beyond what anyone else had, if it had been released back when it was supposed to. On the Macintosh. Way, way, WAY before Microsoft bought Bungie, came up with the X-box idea, made the X-box, and then forced Bungie to port Halo to the X-box. Microsoft merely saw something that would cause people to buy Macintoshes, and Mac OS, so it merely bought what might hurt it. It's not "if you can't beat 'em, join
      • Re:Again? (Score:4, Informative)

        by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:02PM (#10750421) Homepage Journal
        ...and then forced Bungie to port Halo to the X-box.

        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)

        by DavidBrown (177261)
        I don't buy that argument. Halo is a very good game. It's primary problem is one of level design, and that problem doesn't run through the whole game, only parts (the exteriors are excellent). Level design wasn't driven by Microsoft and the portion of Halo to the XBox.

        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)

    by realmolo (574068) * on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:07PM (#10749978)
    I have an Xbox, and Halo just isn't very great. It's well-done, but it has no personality, and very little new to add to the FPS genre.

    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.

  • by Phluxed (737458) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:11PM (#10750011)
    was that it was something anyone could pick up and play, and culture whores needed something to grasp to. All my friends who arent really gamers, love Halo, but everyone who is a gamer, realizes how lifeless it is, and that holds true with the second.
  • by darth_silliarse (681945) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:12PM (#10750019) Homepage
    Compared to the awesome Unreal Tournament and Quake 3's I think Halo and it's console-friendly ilk are average to say the least.... I remember when Alien Trilogy on the Sega Saturn was just as hyped and when you finally got round to playing it you just thought "Ho Hum better load up Doom 2 on my PC". Hype DOES NOT mean good.... I thought most gamers would have learnt that by now
  • my short review. (Score:4, Informative)

    by cipher uk (783998) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:13PM (#10750030)
    its more of the same. so .... 1) you liked halo: combat evolved and played it through to the end. you'll like halo 2. 2) you liked halo: combat evolved but got bored halfway through due to repitition. you may aswell just play halo: combat evolved to the end. 3) you didn't like halo: combat evoled. halo 2 will be the same. 4) you haven't played halo: combat evolved. buy halo: combat evolved first as you'll be able to get it in a bargin bin. (thats if your thinking of getting halo 2) there really isn't much new at all. can use both hands at once... a few more vehicules.... new storyline... a few new weapons. all in all what you'd expect in a sequel. still has the repitition to it. i found the first two levels stunning then it started to get boring again. AI is great again though :).
  • Emphasis on AGAIN (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fsterman (519061) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:17PM (#10750061) Homepage
    What most people don't understand is that Bungie has always been one of the most innovative game houses. Halo and Halo 2 have received quite a lot of attention since MS was able to do some real push with the game. But all of Bungies games are just as impressive, and more so when you realize what a variety of new thinking they put out.
    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!
    • by gl4ss (559668) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:41PM (#10750258) Homepage Journal
      halo1: uncreative and uninnovative.
      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)

        by curtlewis (662976) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:08PM (#10750475)
        I think you've been jaded with time.

        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.

      • by oGMo (379) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:17PM (#10750539)
        WHAT CREATIVE THERE WAS IN HALO 1?

        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)

          by dcam (615646) <david.uberconcept@com> on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:19AM (#10751695) Homepage
          Doom 1 was revolutionary; everything in the FPS realm has been incremental improvements and regurgitation since.

          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.
    • by Mitchell Mebane (594797) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:25PM (#10750598) Homepage Journal
      Screw Halo 2, I want Oni 2. That game was awesome.
  • WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thegoogler (792786) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:21PM (#10750085)
    Can someone PLEASE explain why all the comments pointing out that this game doesnt nessecarily deserve all the hype it got.. Even the ones that aren't flaiming it, just pointing this out are moderated to 0 or less? What, did the ilovebees.com virus erase your minds?
  • by Zangief (461457) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:21PM (#10750091) Homepage Journal
    Amazon has had "reviews" for Halo 2 since February 2003.

    Slashdot editors, bring some new stories please.
    --
    Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia [uchile.cl]
  • by pmc255 (828453) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:23PM (#10750106)
    Do you think that people buy the Xbox just for Halo? Or do they buy Halo because it's on the Xbox? ;)
    • Do you think that people buy the Xbox just for Halo?

      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.
  • by Dan the Intern (649261) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:24PM (#10750115)
    Remember to stress these points when making flamebait posts about Halo 2:

    1. Same tired gameplay
    2. Repetition
    3. The console FPS ALWAYS sucks

    Thank you.
    • sad but true (Score:3, Insightful)

      There is wisdom behind your provocative vision.

      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
    • by adam31 (817930) <adam31.gmail@com> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:03PM (#10750831)
      1. Same tired gameplay
      2. Repetition
      3. The console FPS ALWAYS sucks

      4. ...
      5. Profit?

    • I agree (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LighthouseJ (453757)
      This is not a flame so please don't punish me if you disagree. I agree with the parent very much and here's why...

      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)

    by sinner0423 (687266) <sinner0423@gmail . c om> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:30PM (#10750168)
    Bungie has done it again!

    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.
  • by SkankinMonkey (528381) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:33PM (#10750189)
    My friends that have played it all share the same opinion pretty much. Halo 2 is a rehash of the first one with improvements in the multiplayer area. So if you want to have a party, bring halo and you'll have some fun. Unless your friends are addicted to the fast paced nature of FPS' like UT. Don't forget, Halo is locked at 30fps and plays rather sluggishly compared to PC FPS'.
    • by curtlewis (662976) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:17PM (#10750542)
      30fps is video speed. The 'sluggish' speed of movement in Halo isn't because of the frames per second.

      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.
  • by ProudClod (752352) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:48PM (#10750311)
    A more honest review, at least I think so. 9.8 is just bullshit - it's nowhere near as revolutionary as Halo 1.

    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]

    • While I appreciate another opinion, I'm a little curious how you could give a final grade without playing on Live (as you say in your review). Apparently, that's a big deal of where the innovation comes in this time around. While you played multiplayer, it seems like you missed a huge chunk of the game. Maybe it should've been called a "preview" instead of a "review"?
  • by mojotooth (53330) <mojotooth@@@gmail...com> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:16PM (#10750531) Journal
    Let's be honest. Halo 1 was only popular because it was the first exposure most non-computer geeks had to first-person shooters. Anybody who played Doom, Quake, Descent, Quake, Tribes, UT, or any other classic fps were left shouting "WHY are they expecting me to play an FPS with these two stupid sticks?"

    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.
  • by dancingmad (128588) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:32PM (#10750657)
    I'll admit I haven't played Halo 2 yet and I don't have an XBox. Most of my PS2 games are Japanese RPGs (Phantom Brave, Disgaea) and most of my Cube games are the AAA titles (Zelda, Metroid, etc.). I have played Halo 1 and I don't see what the big deal is.

    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.
  • by TyrranzzX (617713) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:42PM (#10750722) Journal
    You've got your shotgun, 108 pcs of ammo, level on hard. The area is dark, too dark, and something slithers out of the corner. You turn, finding nothing to within your reticle, but when you turn back, the wall begins crawling, crawling and falling in a browinish grey tide...

    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.
  • by dfj225 (587560) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:58PM (#10750795) Homepage Journal
    I don't care that I'm burning karma here...but it was on my mind so I figured I would post it anyway...

    /. has to be one of the most negative sites I have ever read. No matter what the topic is, it seems like only the most negative comments get modded up (unless, of course, the topic is linux). I wonder, and I'm serious here, the people who don't enjoy halo and think that halo 2 is a dissapointment, what would you have changed?
  • by Dr Reducto (665121) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @11:01PM (#10751209) Journal
    This may sound like trolling, but whenever /.ers think something sucks, and write long posts about how people won't like it, it will be a big hit.

    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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2004 @11:19PM (#10751338)
    Alright, first off I've been a PC game player from way back in the day. I played Doom before any PC fan boy did, on networked NeXT computers where it was first released/developed. I've played tons on the PC and I couldn't stand console gaming, and then came Halo and everything changed. But most PC guys don't get a few things, and when they slam Halo, their PC bias shows.

    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
    • by eufreka (793009) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:36AM (#10751812)
      Excuse me. Let's compare a $150 console with a $2000-plus Leet gamerz rig, huh...oh, and for an additional $50, I get a year of unlimited broadband multiplayer fun...

      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...
  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @11:48PM (#10751500) Homepage Journal
    "The verdict: near perfect scores. "
    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.

  • A few have asked why Halo was as acclaimed as it was.

    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...

  • by Nexum (516661) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:34AM (#10752889)
    I don't know about anyone else, but I have to say that I was very much underwhelmed by the first Halo.

    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

The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct. -- Ralph Hartley

Working...