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!"
Not Credible Sources
by
fux0rbob
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
-- w00t w00t watch wh0 y0u sh00t!
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
Templaris
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
cgenman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
Tojo-Mojo
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There are two basic reasons why Halo is so popular.
1) All those people that own X-boxes, but have never seriously gamed on a computer got thier first real exposure to an FPS game.
2) Even before X-box live, LAN action exposed these same people to FPS multiplayer gaming.
This is simply Quake for another generation of people that missed the first round 5 years previously. (The Quake brand *still* has huge draw, even after two mis-matched (although excellently executed) sequels, and many people are hoping that the next one fixes the Doom 3 multiplayer problem (i.e. that it sucks)).
Halo is simply another Quake, but for a different set of people.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
PhoenixFlare
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
. 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).
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
harvardian
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
drewmca
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
Jace+of+Fuse!
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
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.
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.
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.
-- The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Not as good as the oldies....
by
darth_silliarse
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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
-- I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
Re:All our hopes are on Halo 2
by
Tobias+Luetke
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Thats a very bold thing to say with a worldclass game as Chronicles of Riddick readily available !
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?
Never having played either myself....
by
SkankinMonkey
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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'.
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.
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN
by
gl4ss
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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.
-- world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
-- http://ipod.fresh27.net/
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN
by
oGMo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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, 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.)
--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN
by
Mitchell+Mebane
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Screw Halo 2, I want Oni 2. That game was awesome.
--
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft
by
Grey+Ninja
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft
by
yerfatma
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
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
Re:Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo
by
HeghmoH
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
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.
-- Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:Hardware: What PC Users Don't Get...
by
eufreka
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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...
Slashdot Mirror
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.
w00t w00t watch wh0 y0u sh00t!
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.
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.
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
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
Thats a very bold thing to say with a worldclass game as Chronicles of Riddick readily available !
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?
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'.
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.
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.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
http://ipod.fresh27.net/
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, 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.)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Screw Halo 2, I want Oni 2. That game was awesome.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
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.
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.
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
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...