Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
XBox (Games)

Halo 2 Reviews 619

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This discussion has been archived.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 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 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.
  • 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.
  • by pilot1 ( 610480 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:10PM (#10750004)
    Umm.. no, I find that the IGN and Gamespot reviews are accurate 99.9% of the time. If I liked the game, IGN/Gamespot are sure to have given it a good rating. If I didn't, they're sure to have rated it badly and to explain why.
  • 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 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
  • by Tobias Luetke ( 707936 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:14PM (#10750040)
    For the same reason as the Lasik surgeons wear glasses.
  • by Tobias Luetke ( 707936 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:16PM (#10750059)
    Thats a very bold thing to say with a worldclass game as Chronicles of Riddick readily available !

  • Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@y a h o o . 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.
  • 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 Templaris ( 754690 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:23PM (#10750108)
    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.
  • MS is killing (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Canth7 ( 520476 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:24PM (#10750112)
    so many of the industry's best hopes. Halo was the most talked about game for a long time and then MS decided they HAD to have it for their console. I played it on the PC eventually and it was guilty of being so very average. I really doubt that it would have been so bland if Bungie had been left on their own. Another example: MS grabbed the Mechwarrior/Battletech license from FASA and now we have no more quality games coming the Battletech storyline. Look at MechAssault for the Xbox - it was just plain boring. I don't know if it's MS or the console itself that is the problem but these companies, FASA/Activision and Bungie, just made better products for the PC.
  • Re:Yawn...... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LordNimon ( 85072 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:26PM (#10750129)
    what the hell are you doing playing a FPS on a console?

    My console is connected to my 80 inch projection TV. I laugh at your puny 21" monitor. Who cares if your resolution is 1600x1200 and you have a mouse? I guarantee that you FPS games are way more fun on my system than yours!

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

    by Man in Spandex ( 775950 ) <`prsn.kev' `at' `gmail.com'> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:39PM (#10750239)
    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 UT2004, HL, MODS for hl, q3, MODS for q3... This is why halo sucks for us. We have so many choices of fps action because of modifications. They make the game last and give us a wide choice of different gameplays.

    On Console, you got HALO, it remains HALO and always will be HALO. If on console you had Half Life (and think there is if not mistakeN0, it would remain Half Life, Not Day of Defeat.
  • 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.

    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:Boring? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fresh27 ( 736896 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:44PM (#10750284) Homepage
    Halo PC is not the way people were meant to play Halo. It was released 3 years later with neglible changes. It was born on the console, and thats where the gameplay really belongs. If you start to compare it to PC games, you're just gonna complicate it and get a skewed vision of the whole thing.

    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.

  • by Col. Bloodnok ( 825749 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:50PM (#10750335)
    Same here. I played halo 2 on the PC and thought: this is a console game ported to the PC, and it feels like you're using an emulator - not just the speed, the controls too. Maybe it was my hardware (a lot better than an Xbox, thanks). I found that the framerate was crap (I didn't run it at 640x480 though, I ran it at my LCDs native resolution). The textures were, well Xboxy, the gameplay nothing special (I didn't think the vehicles were as much fun as everyone else seemed to). The controls were what did it for me, though. I've played a lot of FPS games on the PC (ever since wolf3d). I pretty much expect to able to configure my controls to suit my keyboard and habits. Halo seemed to basically provide the facility to remap Xbox controller buttons to keyboard keys and no more. I found that to be the real showstopper.

    I've tried playing FPSs or games with FPS elements on various consoles before (Hitman, that old James Bond game, Metal Gear Solid), I can't get to grips with 'mouse look' using buttons or a thumb joystick. It's just not going to happen.

    I had much the same reaction when I played GTA3 on the PC (without having played it on the PS2). I thought that the controls were too 'basic', but having played it on the PS2, it is a completely different game, and enormous fun. It's also great fun to watch someone else play - which is a first for me.
  • by PhoenixFlare ( 319467 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @08:51PM (#10750345) Journal
    . A good console FPS is one where the control scheme sort of makes up for the fact that only an idiot would want to play an FPS with a console gamepad as opposed to a keyboard/mouse combo.

    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).
  • by PhoenixFlare ( 319467 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:11PM (#10750489) Journal
    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 Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:12PM (#10750498)
    You can't compare Halo to quake. Have you actually played Halo? The game is a _LOT_ slower to play than quake (which was frantic). Not that this is a bad thing. The game is extremely well balanced and can lead to very tactical situations due to the speed at which it plays. I have played both quake and Halo extensively, and prefer Halo.
  • 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 oGMo ( 379 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:17PM (#10750539)

    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:Of course! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wilebill1381 ( 820480 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:21PM (#10750566)
    But even if they did pay the reviewers off, there are small comments in the reviews that do leak through. For instance: "A surprisingly disappointing story and a fairly short single-player portion are noticeable shortcomings ..." -- GameSpot Review of Halo 2 Just wait a bit until we get feedback from those who have spent their hard-earned money on it and I'll bet that the above quotation will get a lot of illumination!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:21PM (#10750571)
    > alien weapons that can't be reloaded, and overheat

    This was in Marathon too.

    I think that Bungie was trying to be faithful to the style and level-design of Marathon. The problem is that mid-90s maze-style levels just feel dated and unfun nowdays.

    The other problem is that Marathon was massively over-rated by Mac Types because it was Mac Only. Sure the backstory and terminals were amazing. But the gameplay itself was nothing all that interesting or unique.
  • by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:22PM (#10750578) Homepage
    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 Mitchell Mebane ( 594797 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:25PM (#10750598) Homepage Journal
    Screw Halo 2, I want Oni 2. That game was awesome.
  • by Grey Ninja ( 739021 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:29PM (#10750626) Homepage Journal
    My thought regarding the parent and the general Slashdot situation was the same.

    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.
  • 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 gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:43PM (#10750724) Homepage Journal
    somehow these games that get rated badly never happen to be the ahead-of-time-big-name-exclusives.

    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..)
  • by fimbulvetr ( 598306 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:46PM (#10750736)
    I'm far from a Microsoft lover. I own 2 xboxes, one runs linux, the other is still a virgin to my screwdriver. I usually refer to ms as m$, I run linux on my desktops _and_ I'm a gentoo fan (zealot?).
    Hopefully the sentences above lend credence to me saying, plain as day: You are severely misled, Microsoft _does_ innovate, at least where the xbox is concerned. Despite the original huge pos controller, they created a smaller s controller which is by far the easiest console controller I've ever dealt with. M$ 'innovated' by sticking with x86, some consider this a bad mistake, but it made the consoles considerably cheaper and easier to program on than their alternatives. M$ 'innovated' with an online subscription plan that simply blows its rivals out of the water. M$ innovated with detaching controller cables, something that has saved my boxes lives several times, considering I have a 4 year old daughter running around.

    m$ has some incredibly smart people on it's staff, and it seems rather cruel for you to excuse their existence and ingenuity just because you dislike 'the man'.

    I should be the last one saying this, because I almost feel hypocritical, but you should really take your blinders off and consider the xbox at it's real value.

    Hopefully capitalism will reveal its head and many of these features and more will drive sony to create the best console yet.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:47PM (#10750738)
    Rubbish. Read the Driv3r reviews on each of those sites. It's the print mags I'd be worried about.
  • by rasafras ( 637995 ) <tamas.pha@jhu@edu> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @09:57PM (#10750792) Homepage
    Attack Microsoft for their business practices, their lack of support or security. I'll agree with you. But not innovation.

    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.
  • by sangreal66 ( 740295 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:06PM (#10750847)
    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 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.
  • by kylef ( 196302 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:07PM (#10750857)
    Yes, we're pissed, and yes, SCREW MICROSOFT.

    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.

  • by Microlith ( 54737 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:15PM (#10750916)
    Because people are giving extremely high scores to a game whose features are barely better than the first, which in and of itself is nothing special? The only people I know of that think its so insanely fun are people who have -never- played a PC FPS or the like. I'm playing through the Halo campaign with a friend right now, and while the story is interesting, I'm not seeing anything I haven't noticed in other FPS games. Nothing special in the multiplayer either. Capture the Flag, free for all, been there done that. Sniper rifle, rocket launcher, pistol, various energy weapons... all that and more in Unreal Tournament from what, 4 years ago? Never mind vehicles, which popped up back in the Tribes days.

    As someone else said, this is the Quake of the console crowd. PC gamers won't find Halo or Halo 2 spectacular by any stretch of the imagination cause they've done this BEFORE, years ago.

    The way this plays, makes me wish MS had never bought out Bungie. Halo was supposed to be the end-all FPS/RTS combo, like Battlezone/Battlezone II but better. Then MS bought them and all the RTS features had to go...

    The minimum expected for a PC FPS game is along the level of DooM 3 or Half-Life 2. And I guarantee you that if either of those appear on the XBOX, they'll be there in a severly diminished graphical capacity.
  • by yerfatma ( 666741 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:38PM (#10751048) Homepage
    you can be assured that they will use any means possible to destroy competition

    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 Halo 2 isn't news while the rest of us are having fun. If Sony and Microsoft trying to "destroy" each other means I have to make the hard choice of playing GTA: San Andreas vs. Halo 2 every day this month, thank you corporate behemoths.

    You make it sound as though every purchase of Halo will inevtiably lead to a world without videogame evolution. Yet you offer no evidence except that MS takes a loss on each console, just like Sony and Nintendo. Show me someone who won two console wars in a row and I'll start to get concerned.

  • by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:45PM (#10751093)
    Let's be honest. Halo 1 was only popular because it was the first exposure most non-computer geeks
    No, but alot of its fanbase were those people, but Halo is a solid, great FPS even by PC standards (although the PC port was a little lacking

    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?"
    I'd rather play a game with two sticks, that had story, then play a game whose story could be summed up into 2 sentances (less in some cases) Sure, the sticks were annoying at first, but all ya had to do is turn the sensitivity up to 10 and it worked almost as good as a mouse/keyboard (if not better)

    I can't understand why H2 is getting great reviews
    Good game = Good review. Simple equation. Sure, you can use some cop-out like "The reviews were payed off!!1", but I know some people with leaked versions that love it.

    in the same way that I just can't fathom how Dubya got 58 million votes.
    He got 58 million votes because 58 million people wanted him as president. Unfortunantly, other people's opinions don't always conform to our own, just accept it.
  • by VividU ( 175339 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:52PM (#10751147)
    Wow..a classic specimen of Slashdot elitism.

    culture whores needed something to grasp to
    Culture Whores? WTF is that? Sounds like you coined it just to make yourself feel special.

    but everyone who is a gamer, realizes how lifeless it is
    The editors at Gamespot,IGN and GameSpy will be surprised to learn they're not "gamers".

    and that holds true with the second
    Somehow I doubt you've played it, yet, like a true elitist, you feel your free to pass judgement.

    Allow me to come to some of my own conclusions: If Bungie had not been bought by MS and if Halo was released for the GC or PS2, you and the rest of your fellow haters would be...well, you get the point.
  • Re:Not soo good... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 ) <Cyno01@hotmail.com> on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:54PM (#10751158) Homepage
    He played a pirated copy, wasn't impressed with it and was buying a copy anyway? Why would they complain?
  • Re:Again? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Medgur ( 172679 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @10:57PM (#10751177) Homepage
    Let's see... Why would I, a born-from-Wolf3D doom loving quake player, still play Halo on a consistent basis? This isn't a hypothetical question, becuase I do. It's also clearly not a matter of gaming experience, because frankly, if you can name the FPS, I've probably played it. Even those awful Wolf3D knock-offs (though Blake Stone was kind of cool).

    No, Halo is awesome because it's a console game. It's not a pretentious PC shooter that requires me to spend upwards of an hour to gather my clan together for some multiplayer fun just so I can assure myself some half-decent gameplay. It also doesn't mean I have to get everyone to lug their computers to one central location for some social gaming. It's a great game that only requires me to turn the damned XBox on, and it doesn't require me to take gaming beyond the casual level!

    Halo is the multiplay FPS for regular people. It may not be as sophisticated as hardcore gamers would like, but it's polished, easy to play, and fun. That's all that matters.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2004 @11:07PM (#10751258)
    obviously his claim wasn't that only non-pc players like it or any of other stupid assumptions you made. You're really a closed minded idiot i have to say and nobody gives a damn how much gaming experience you had.
  • 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 SpookyFish ( 195418 ) on Sunday November 07, 2004 @11:38PM (#10751445)
    Hmm.. Sure, reviews can be biased, but the accuracy of your comment in this particular case is questionable.

    Listing Nintendo and Sony is hardly a relevant example to this particulary story -- Sony and (especially) Nintendo would kill to have Halo(2) on their respective platforms.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, 2004 @11:49PM (#10751504)
    Woops, and I forgot Myth #5.

    5) Most PC gamers never played Halo all the way through. Anyone that says the story sucks or wasn't that great is probably a good candidate for this. Now I'm not saying Halo's story was on par for the Godfather or anything like that, but for an FPS, there really was no cohesive equal. The Flood twist in the middle was suspensful, surprising, creepy stuff. This myth kind of falls back to myths 1, 2 and 3.

    Because Halo was worse on the PC, and because the PC is not as immersive, and because the first level of Halo is one of those boring hallway levels and really a training level, a lot of PC gamers never played through it. And even if they played through it on the Xbox, they drop out at some point in one of the hallway levels before they got to those golden open air levels.

    Which is not to say that everyone that plays Halo must like it. It's not a freak'n cult, although the fan base devotion seems that way at times. Just that there is a decent probability that people didn't give it a fair chance when they say the "story sucked."

    Heck, when I watched the first 2-3 episodes of Farscape, I thought it sucked. After I watched the 7th I realized it was the best television program to ever air, period. (Well except that freak'n lame miniseries the put out that tried to cram 22 episodes into 2.5hours). Sometimes you have to let yourself get into the game a bit before you really appreciate it fully.
  • by fimbulvetr ( 598306 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:34AM (#10751796)
    You're right on with about the reviewing, and how much it sucks, but I have a bone to pick:

    (besides all this, halo2 offers _nothing_ in the creativity department into gameplay)

    You mean dual wielding is common on FPS? I know I could dualwield daggers on my MUDs, but this is the first FPS outside of the crappy gun on UT where I can dual wield(or even a few d&d based games, but those are not FPS).
    How about bringing about a HUGE revolution on online gaming? I don't have facts, but I will presume that activity for Halo2 on Xbox live will far outnumber all xbox games put together, and blow the shit out of sonys bandaided online garbage.
    Maybe the jacking the vehicles is something that's common in your fps, but I've never seen it.
    Having not played the game, I can only base my response on what I read in the reviews, but I will bet my left nut that this game has at least one new thing in it.

    You've obviously shown your complete and total ignorance if you think software that took 10s of thousands of man hours to create contains absolutely nothing new in it. This isn't specifically in defense of halo2; it's to point out that you should pay closer attention to the worthless trash your mouth is spewing.
  • 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 Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:38AM (#10751819)
    Too bad GWB still does...

  • Re:Loooove (Score:1, Insightful)

    by fimbulvetr ( 598306 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:47AM (#10751861)
    I started with muds in the early 90s, played eq for a while, still a q3 nut.

    You say no other console has online play.

    *THATS MY POINT!!!* It flew right over your head!

    Sure, sony has a bandaided POS online service, but I'd MUCH rather pay ~$5/month to have a reliable service with reliable downloads and actual functionality. Yeah, it's free! WHOOP-DE-FUCKING-DO. Look what you get for free.

    I paid $70 for a 12 month subscription to live. Now outside of that breaking down to $5.83 a month, I got an awesome game that my entire family loves (Crimson Skies), as well as a headset. Personally, I don't use the headset. It's just a bunch of kids. I'd rather listen to the game.

    Hack protection? Not interested. I don't care if my xbox gets hacked. 4-8? Are you nuts? I play crimson skies without lag on a normal cable modem with 12+ people every day. I'm consistently in the top 3, with no lag whatsoever. Just 16, yeah. Have you seen what it takes to run a decent 64 player ut server? 2+ghz amds, 1gb ram, oc3? Nope, Ill stick with *only* 16 players.

    Bitch about the hardware if you want, I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, it runs linux and all my games. It's a damn fine media player with XBMC, and it's friggen cheap.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:11AM (#10751995)
    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.

    So first you generalize all PC gamers as frag and fps whores, then you try to argue that Halo offers more 'emersion' because of the rumble controller? Please.

    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."

    And now since you can't come up with anything tangible your argument boils down to 'well tv's are better then monitors'. Sure, if you're playing halo in a cubicle that's designed for programming, perhaps the game's immersiveness will suffer. But who says that you have to play PC games on a crappy 15 inch workstation monitor? CounterStrike-Source is very immersive when I'm playing on my 50inch rear-projection HDTV home theatre system, thanks to shuttle and wireless mouse/keyboards. Environmental immersiveness is not a function of the platform, it's a function of the environment.

    Halo's a well-polished FPS game that ties together some elements of other FPS games nicely in one package with good graphics and solid gameplay. The controls are about as good as they can get for a FPS on a controller, but they're definately worse then keyboard/mouse. The game, when compared to the genre of FPS was overrated. When compared to other console FPS's it shines. Bungie succesfully brought PC FPS gaming to the console, and that's about it. (Although many would argue Goldeneye deserves the real credit there)
  • by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:48AM (#10752142) Homepage
    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 general, or new to multiplayer deathmatch.

    I've read statements repeatedly stating just this, I've witnessed it in person working around people who are avid Halo fans (but have never even SEEN Quake), and I've talked to a lot of people who bought an XBox simply because they believed the simple Microsoft hype claiming it was the "most powerful game machine on the planet".

    So, in some respect, your thoughts on the quality of Halo may be justified feelings about the game, that does not remove the fact that most Halo fans are new gamers.

    I'd go search for articles about the XBox Demographic (and indeed the same thing was written about the PS1 years back), but they're easy to find. Just hit Google up. It makes for interesting reading.
  • by UncleJam ( 786330 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:53AM (#10752159)
    Why are some of the comments here so negative? People saying, oh I can't play this with these two little sticks... Why is the mouse and keyboard the only way to go? So what if you can't get a headshot in .2 seconds 90% of the time with the Xbox controller? A game isn't all about being l33t, but about having fun. My friend and I play Co-op Halo all the time, because we can scheme together, plan and all that stuff while sitting next to each other. It really quite fun flanking pockets of resistance (as we call it ;)) and coming out hardly scratched. It's also fun when one of us runs into the battle, and the other one doesn't notice and pitches a grenade in and sticks it on the other's head. Also it's a game where you can become pretty good at it quickly. He is as good as me, even though I play PC fps from time to time. On the PC I usually break even on kill-death ratio, some days I get way higher than that for some unknown reason. If he played PC FPS online, I would guarentee he would get totally smoked. Plus he doesn't even have a computer so it wouldn't be worth it to set it up just so we can play some l33t fest online.
  • by EightMillion ( 657319 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:56AM (#10752170)
    Don't forget John Kerry.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @01:57AM (#10752176)
    I think you suck, too, but I'm not going to bomb you for it, since you have done nothing to me, nor have any weapons to worry about.
  • by patonw ( 747304 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @05:22AM (#10752864)
    I absolutely have to agree to this. The kneejerk reaction of the majority of slashdot posters is to trounce on anything that is popular with the masses, from microsoft and/or outside the realm of their own peculiar tastes like the codec of the day. I'm not sure why this is, but i suspect it has to do with the moderation system. Posters are trying to appear so much smarter and sophisticated than the "unwashed masses" and other posters are looking to appear so much smarter and more sophisticated than those posters. Posting this in the first place seems hypocritical but I have to come to Halos defense.

    There are a lot of things going for the original Halo that Slashdotters tend to miss in looking for ways to be clever. People remark that the level design is repetitive and bland. I have to agree in the case of the Library. The original intent was to have the player see long arching hallways instead of having to wait at blast doors to move from one room to the next. The Assault on the Control Room and Two Betrayals used the same map to show the devastation to the environment of Halo caused by the Flood. Additionally, many of the rooms were just unnecessarily similar but this was offset by the differenct tactical scenarios provided in each situation.

    All in all, the level design was thoroughly enjoyable even though many of the maps were similar. I can't call myself a "hardcore" gamer but I've certainly played my fair share of popular PC fps games and just thinking how repetitive and uninspired some of the levels were, but not every single moment of a good game has to be completely new. Halo isn't any worse than those games in that respect. The repetitive level fodder serves as a backdrop for the more epic battles.

    As I mentioned earlier, Halo has a lot going for it but one of the thing that makes Halo stand out from the crowd is how polished and restrained it is. The weapons are powerful but you can't carry the firepower of an entire infantry division. On the easier levels, it is simple to just blast your way through the entire game, but on Legendary the game takes on a completely different nature requiring you to think tactically. I think a lot of the complaints against Halo come from people who never played it on Legendary because it was too hard or having to backtrack because they ran out of ammo from just spraying rounds in every which direction.

    Maybe Halo just isn't your cup of tea. Maybe you just automatically hate anything because it's popular. Maybe you've only played Halo on Easy on a PC. Whatever it is, you people are missing out on a truly great game.
  • by lmnfrs ( 829146 ) <lmnfrs&gmail,com> on Monday November 08, 2004 @06:37AM (#10753063) Journal
    Halo 2 is fun as was Halo. Because it's very similar. Not a challenging game in any way, not very creative despite what some people claim were innovations. But fun.
    All arguments about the game come down to preference. There are plenty of valid arguments about why Halo(2) is fun/exciting and easy/crappy but they all depend on what YOU like in a game.

    So shutup.

    If you want some fun with less than the maximum amount of action possible in an FPS to make for a small learning curve, this is your game.
  • by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:14AM (#10753324) Homepage Journal
    Now I'm not saying Halo's story was on par for the Godfather or anything like that, but for an FPS, there really was no cohesive equal.

    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.
  • by Nodatadj ( 28279 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:31AM (#10753388) Journal
    The irony being that its penny arcades formula too
    1: Take image
    2: Make 2 more identical copies of image and place together in strip
    3: ???
    4: Profit.
  • by mausmalone ( 594185 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @09:36AM (#10753678) Homepage Journal
    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 talking to some guy at Game Informer recently and he brought up that they were completely off the mark with a few games, as were the rest of the gaming mags. He explained it like this: they never put what they actually think about the game personally. They put what they think you'll think about the game. Maybe a lot of these Halo 2 scores are actually reviewers saying "wow, I'm sure everybody will love this, no need to add my opinion."

I go on working for the same reason a hen goes on laying eggs. -- H.L. Mencken