Halo 2 Reviews

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!"

Comments

I dont know why..

[bluewee]

...these reviews are so late, my copy of the game has been blowing me away for a week or so since I got it. Also my parents have been praising my newly learned language, French... :D

Re:I dont know why..

[bluewee]

hmm the only thing that I dont like about this game is that there is this black van out side. wait I hear some other cars driving up... hmm now there seems to be a whole caravan of black SUVs driving up... I will give you an update after I go answer the door...

Re:I dont know why..

[mbrewthx]

Gosh I hated that version, Master Chief kept surrendering so he could go home and watch Jerry Lewis movies.

On Soviet Halo the Game reviews you!!!!!!!

More Reviews and averages ...

[Hank Chinaski]

here: http://www.gametab.com/xbox/halo.2/1472/

All our hopes are on Halo 2

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

Since we haven't played a good single player FPS game since Halo 1!

Re:All our hopes are on Halo 2

[Tobias Luetke]

Thats a very bold thing to say with a worldclass game as Chronicles of Riddick readily available !

Re:All our hopes are on Halo 2

[lmnfrs]

Hey, no offense but..
Halo was designed for the COMPUTER not for the XBOX. Perhaps you weren't around on the Internet way back in 1998 when it was slated to be released, but I was, and I had been around. I remember the (then groundbreaking) features like mouth movement (who else remembers the wazzzaaaaaaa! video they released?) and realistic plant and wildlife.
Unfortunately, now in 2004, Halo 2 still doesn't have the environment Halo had in the late 90's. That's my problem with the franchise, neither game comes anywhere near the level of hype surrounding it. As for being a competitive rather than casual game, consoles don't compare to PC's. Sorry. Remember that supposed Halo "tournament" they had? If you didn't already know, they played large FFA matches (!!?) not 1on1's.

Several years after I had decided that Halo looked like a cool game, the release hype started up, and I had all but forgotten about the game. I didn't pay much attention to the hype around the Xbox release, and when I finally saw the game I said "What the hell? This doesn't look as good as what I remember seeing". It wasn't and isn't. Halo 2 has some new game modes and new features, but nothing I can think of that hasn't been around a while.
For a console, it's a very good game, it opens up the ability to LAN with just 1 machine per 4 people. In the arena of FPS games, though, it's nothing. Sorry.

Re:All our hopes are on Halo 2

[mr_jrt]

I would imagine he was referring to the fact that looking up/down is somewhat ungainly on a console. With a mouse, its a flick of the wrist to look up and start shooting, and tiny adjustments to keep pointing at a target whilst you strafe. With WASD setups you have a number of left hand options free to jump, switch weapons etc.

On a joypad...usually the movement and look controls are somewhat muddled with dual sticks (if availible), and thus one thumb is moving you, one is rotating you, and then you're restricted to any trigger buttons availible for things like jumping, shooting, and weapon switching, etc.

Hope the level design is better this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Halo 1 had horrible level design. For some stages level design went like this:

1. Take a room and make 20 identical copies
2. Join all the rooms together with corridors
3. ???
4. Profit

Absolutely horrible. The alien spaceship was some of the worst level design I have seen in the last 5 years. I hope things are better this time.

Re:Hope the level design is better this time

[benna]

I think they went too far the other way this time. The levels are so huge and complex that on several occations I was completly lost for 20 minutes or more.

Re:Hope the level design is better this time

[jerkychew]

Yeah, that's the biggest complaint of the game, but it's well documented as to why that happened.

From what I understand, Bungie was in mid-development when MS came to them with truckloads of cash. They wanted to buy the company, and release Halo at the same time as the Xbox.

So, level design was scrapped, and the production time on the game was pushed up considerably, to get it ready for the Xbox launch date.

Since the game was so short in its original format, they just added a few layers of repetition to the single player maps, and shoved it out the door.

From a game design perspective, it wasn't the best thing to do... But from a monetary perspective, any economist would tell you they did the right thing.

Re:Hope the level design is better this time

[name773]

any economist would tell you they did the right thing.
so, essentially, they did the wrong thing.

Not Credible Sources

[fux0rbob]

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.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[Billobob]

Hi, my name is proof. Where am I?

Re:Not Credible Sources

[Templaris]

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

[Shadow Wrought]

Hi, my name is proof. Where am I?

I don't know, but they keep asking for you in Missouri.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[gl4ss]

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..)

Re:Not Credible Sources

[dfj225]

Well, I can't speak for most of the online ratings, but 1up.com does have the review that will be printed in EGM. The game got all 10s. Now the reason I mention EGM is that in the past game publishers who advertised in the mag became upset over a few games that got low ratings. EGM's response was to say that they stick by their ratings and if they lose a few ads, so be it. I find EGM and most web sites to be pretty accurate as far as my tastes are concerned.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[sangreal66]

I agree. Slashdot is also funded by Microsoft ads which is why there are no anti-microsoft articles on the site.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[cgenman]

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.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[AvantLegion]

>> Hi, my name is proof. Where am I?

In my liquor. 80 of you.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[YaRness]

so, how's the pay at ign?

Re:Not Credible Sources

[SpookyFish]

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.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[gl4ss]

well for one, they rave about how big and vast halo 2 is. it isn't. they even mention the length of the game and still don't bitch. then, of course you could call a "it's obvious the story needs a sequel" ending 'curious' like ign puts it.

**So, with nearly four times the amount of discourse from the first game and almost 20,000 lines of dialog, Bungie's story is deeply woven into every aspect of Halo 2, from the heart-stopping first hour to the climactic (and perhaps curious) ending. During the course of the game's 15 levels and just like the first game, you'll hear dozens of funny quips and memorable lines delivered by human soldiers that reverberate throughout its 10-15 hours of gameplay (yeah, that's what I said, 10-15 hours)**

enuff said, they got 10 hours of gameplay, and make it sound like it's big(10 hours isn't. and the game feels like it's 'cut' at the end a bit.. like a two episode movies first part or something).

bungie says the game is twice as long as halo 1 - this simply isn't true and should be critiqued.

ign's review is 8 fucking pages with 2 paragraphs worth of content( and basically.. apart from the halo2 name.. the whole review has been seen a thousand times before, it's boring, the praises are rehashes basically and as such quite empty, like the whole review).

but what's more to note is that game mags are now AGAIN at valueing games at 97-99 out of 100 scores(they did it at least here locally in the early 90's, as they failed to take evolution into account in giving the points.. like, they gave games bigger scores because they were better than the games 3 years ago).

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

Re:Not Credible Sources

[DaveDiode]

Hi, my name is proof. Where am I?

Wait! I know!! ... You're in pudding?

That's right... I'm a gay robot.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[fimbulvetr]

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.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[beerits]

You mean dual wielding is common on FPS?

It is in Bungie FPS. Marathon had dual pistols back in 1994. I was surprised that Halo 1 did not a have it.

Re:Not Credible Sources

[mausmalone]

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've never understood the obsession with Halo

[Tojo-Mojo]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[PhoenixFlare]

. 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

[harvardian]

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

[vhold]

I couldn't agree more with the basic concept of this sentiment. Doom 1 is a nearly unplayable game by today's standards, but at the time it was the most unbelievable thing ever to me.

A decent portion of my marketable skills were once all attributable to the desire to play networked Doom. I spent 6 months convincing a couple key faculty at my high school in early 94 that we should build a computer lab, and after a year of acquiring and repairing free 286s and networking them, we finally maanaged to scrounge four grungy 386s just barely powerful enough to play doom with no sound and network them, it was the most incredible thing ever.

Based on our successes we eventually ended up getting a real budget to build a 486 lab and we went so far as to operate a Doom and Descent arcade for money during lunch and after school to buy more computers. That's some seriously pre-columbine stuff right there.

A couple sensitive faculty caught wind of the full picture of what was going on, but because our school was so underfunded our faculty supporters were able to convince them it was harmless enough to be worth it. In fact, their suspcisions were instigated by the fact we had a computer lab at all, it seemed impossible to them after 20 or so years of only being able afford new books every 7 years or so.

Even though I don't particularly employ the specific technical skills I acquired then anymore, the first experience of working with others in an adult mentality and actually creating something matured me from a nihilistic wannabe punk to something resembling a half way useful person. Earning the right to be treated like an adult in an environment where traditionally I'd been treated like a criminal was priceless. Thanks Doom, it took my selfish desire to play you networked to grow up.. .. ?

When Halo came out, I was basically, eh, that's pretty good, nice use of physics there, a bit slow paced and repetitive level design though. The fact that so many people saw it as the best game ever was pretty alien to me without the perspective of how totally floored I was by the original Doom. I still have these emotions burned into my brain by just how blown away I was by the leaked alpha and beta. It was that extreme sentiment that actually changed my life.

Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo

[drewmca]

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

[Jagasian]

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

Halo is nothing special except it delivers this great genre to more people than Quake did, simply because consoles are more affordable and easier to setup than a PC gaming system.

Of course, a PC capable of playing Quake these days can be had for a couple hundred bucks.

Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo

[stratjakt]

I've played Wolf3D, Doom, Quake, Half Life, Unreal, NOLF, Far Cry, Doom 3... You name it..

Halo for the XBox has so far been the ONLY FPS game I've played that didnt freeze, lockup, or crash to desktop. I didn't have to spend any time on rage3d or nvforums or any other e-outhouses to figure out why the shadows looked stupid or the sound stuttered.

Maybe that has something to do with it.

More importantly, Halo was (and is) fun. Especially multiplayer. People's criticisms are all valid, yeah yeah, levels look the same but I was too busy taking out Covenant to notice.

It's just a fun and well put-together game.

Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo

[Jace of Fuse!]

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.

Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo

[The-Bus]

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

Most people that played Halo played THE console FPS before, and I mean Goldeneye for the N64. If you were of age to play that game when it was out, you played it. Now at that time its PC competition (Quake 2, Unreal) completely blew it away, but Goldeneye was still ridiculously popular. So I would say the people whose first exposure to an FPS game was Halo would be extremely limited. Since multiplayer FPS gaming on the console went back to Goldeneye as well, I would say the same for the second statement. (Perfect Dark was an awesome game, but was extremely unpopular, I found).

The people I know who play Halo are a big mix of extreme "street" cred gamers (owned Neo-Geo, played iD games before Wolf3D) and casual gamers (had consoles, no real computers). It's pretty evenly spread out.

That said, I would 100 to 1 prefer to play a game on the couch with my friends with beer/soda/drinks in hand than sitting on a computer.

Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo

[EvilNight]

I'm sure those reasons are a part of it, but they aren't the biggest factors in its success. The reason Halo was so successful is simply that it is a damn good game. Far better than Quake, IMO.

1) Far better than average story. Seriously... none of iD's titles has ever had anything approaching a story. Doom 3 was their best effort in this direction. The last FPS I can remember that had a truly involving story was Half-Life, and we all know how well history has judged that game. Halo 2 actually tops Half-Life in my book, and until I played Halo 2, Half-Life was my golden standard (well, Half-Life and Marathon). Story is important to a lot of gamers. Halo has a badass story, cool characters, and good execution in their storytelling. Halo 2 has a far superior story to the original. I'm hoping Half-Life 2 has a better story than Halo 2, but it will by no means be easy to top. I think Valve has the chops to do it, though. Either way we all win.

2) Good gameplay. While gameplay may not win you any awards, bad gameplay will kill you dead. Halo's greatest failing was the repetitive nature of the levels, but it wasn't enough of a failing to kill the game. Controls were good, weapons were fun and fairly well balanced, multiplayer was exceptional. Single player was challenging and entertaining. Halo 2 is more of the same, without the repetition, and with better balance. The level design in Halo 2 tops any other FPS I have played, and I don't give that out lightly. They have a level of interactivity and epic scope that I've never seen before. I was so busy oogling the surroundings on several occasions that it got me killed. I get the impression it was designed that way... it happened too often to be coincidence.

3) Kickass soundtrack. Halo has one of the best I've ever heard in a FPS. Again, a kickass soundtrack won't make your game succeed (see Fable, for example), but it'll definitely cost you if the music sucks. Halo 2 is mainly a retread of Halo's music, with enough differences to keep it from sound too familiar. They added a touch of metal to it.

4) ATMOSPHERE. I cannot stress this one enough. The most important aspect of any video game is its ability to immerse the player. Doom 3 had phenomenal atmosphere, but no story. Doom 3 was all premise. Halo has plenty of both, as did the original Half-Life. Half-Life is still my all time winner in this category... it is pure atmosphere from start to finish. The original Unreal had decent atmosphere (especially in the first few levels and at the end), but crappy story.

Halo was also one of the first to do vehicle combat well, and I think that played a large part in its novelty. The vehicle combat in Halo 2 is phenomenal.

You've got to score well in all categories to have a kickass game. Halo scores well by most gamer's estimations, and that's why it did well. The PC port was late and crappy, and the levels were repetitive (especially compared to a normal PC FPS), and these are its only real failings. Halo 2 does not have these failings... in fact the level design is now undoubtedly one of its chief strengths, so it will likely do far better than the original Halo. It'll be a win for folks who just couldn't get in to the original.

By the way, on Legendary difficulty, Halo 2 is HARD as HELL. I could thump the original on Legendary without deaths... in Halo 2 I can't even get off the first damn level yet playing solo (although playing co-op a friend and I managed to beat it on Legendary after about 30 hours invested... this time, if one dies, you both respawn at the checkpoint, so no more cheating). My hat is off to any player who can finish this solo on Legendary. If you can do it, you're tournament material.

Not soo good...

[grazzy]

I've been playing this game for almost two weeks now, and yeah well, I gotta tell you, it has a couple of flaws.

1) Everyone speaks french? What is up with that?
2) It doesn't work with xbox live gameplay...
3) My xbox now says I'm banned from xbox live?!

I give it 5/10 for good efforts, but why french??

Re:Not soo good...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in Electronics Boutique on Saturday, picking up Donkey Konga, and while I was chatting to one of the clerks, a guy walked in, maybe early thirties. He wanted to put down a pre-order for Halo 2.

The other clerks took his name, phone number, etc. He then went on to run his jaw about how he hadn't been too blown away by what he'd played so far, but was going to order it anyway. Everyones jaws dropped, as this guy just stood in front of three people who make their living by selling games, and at least one more that dabbles in the idea of writing them, as this guy talked about how much software he ripped off, and how it was unfair that he had to fiddle with his modchip to use XBox live.

Now I know a lot of people dabble in console piracy, but do you have to come out and declare it to the whole world in the middle of a computer games store? Sheesh, almost makes me begin to understand how Gord must feel some days.

Re:Not soo good...

[Cyno01]

He played a pirated copy, wasn't impressed with it and was buying a copy anyway? Why would they complain?

PA

[mentalflossboy]

Hell, even Penny Arcade liked it.

Re:PA

[nzAnon]

You slashdot'd penny-arcade! You bastard

Couldnt disagree more.

[hine_uk]

From ...ahem play testing at a uh friends house...all the way through I got to be honest when I say I wish I didnt have this arriving in the post in a weeks time. The magic of the first one jsut isnt there. Its about half the length and you can tell that it is just getting strugn out into a fresh "chapter" each year. It dosent play as smoothly, the multiplayer aspect of it is lacking compared to the first, the story is not as tight and fun as the first and its about half the length. To be honest it feels more like an expansion pack rather than a full and slaved over game. Its just a pity that the magazines jump on the bandwagon. It deserves to do well just not as well as it will do. Instad of your own money ask for it as a gift for christmas or thanksgiving. You wont feel so let down.

Re:Couldnt disagree more.

[SilentChris]

Um, out of curiousity, how can you give an accurate review if:

1.) You don't speak French (maybe you do -- can't tell).
2.) Have never played on Live (because it's impossible to do so with the current PAL pirate out there).

I mean, I can understand if the story does suck (not sure at this point -- I'll play the game and get back to you). :) But multiplayer a massive draw on this thing. I would wait to see how that turns out.

Again?

[cK-Gunslinger]

When did they do it the first time? I mean, did any of these people even play the first Halo? Cooperative play on the XBox was pretty cool, but other than that, it as a bland and boring game with bland and boring graphics, sounds, weapons, gameplay, etc.

Re:Again?

[badasscat]

When did they do it the first time? I mean, did any of these people even play the first Halo? Cooperative play on the XBox was pretty cool, but other than that, it as a bland and boring game with bland and boring graphics, sounds, weapons, gameplay, etc.

I normally consider posts like these trolls, but I have to agree in this case. Some of Halo was pretty nice, but it was balanced by all the backtracking, by all the bland interior levels, and by a complete lack of consistency. Overall I don't see what's all that different about it than a lot of other mediocre sci-fi shooters.

Standards for FPS's on consoles are different, and lower. I think Xbox owners were also just happy as hell to have an FPS that looked as good as Halo did (for a console FPS), and that was good for a launch game. It's definitely way, way overrated though, and if the first game had come out at this point in the system's lifespan I doubt it'd make the same sort of splash. Of course, now it's got almost this mythical quality to it, so of course you get reviewers giving it 9s and 10s because hell, it's practically the same game, so people are going to have to love it just as much, right?

Well, I own an Xbox, and Halo 2 is not at the top of my wish list. FPS's belong on PC's anyway, with proper controls and higher detail levels (required for recognizing and then sniping distant enemies). Nuts to Bungie.

Re:Again?

[Firehawke]

What really gets me is how the Gamespot review spends over half the review glossing over the flaws and then they still give it a near-perfect score.

I admit I actually liked the original Halo-- it had a different feel and the enemies had some character to them, but the review I just read makes Halo 2 sound like they didn't even bother to work on the biggest issues of the original at all and in fact came out a lot worse in a few areas while only improving mildly here or there.

I guess the reviewers really ARE taking payoffs these days...

Re:Again?

[Apreche]

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

Games like Counter-Strike and Natural Selection DO exist. There's a reason that CS is still the #1 multiplayer fps, no matter what your stereotypes of the game may be it kicks the living snot out of every other multiplayer fps. Keep in mind I am judging the game on its own merits, and not taking into account the attitudes and mannerisms of its players, which may vary.

Oh, yeah, so Halo 1 couldn't hold a candle to CS or NS or even UT2k4 or Tribes 2. Based on that, I don't have high expecations of Halo 2, but I wont pass judgement until I play it. Maybe because my expecations are low, it will beat those expecations and make a good impression.

Oh, the reason people played Halo 1? My guess is they are mostly young kids who didn't already have the Goldeneye experience. Or they were people who didn't have fast Internet connections and didn't have the internet multiplayer fps experience to compare it to. So when a goldeneye with a new theme, better graphics and expanded multiplayer showed up they were wowed away because they had not yet experienced something which you and me have had for over 6 years.

Re:Again?

[Solder Fumes]

The original Halo would have been revolutionary, the graphics and gameplay would have been advanced well beyond what anyone else had, if it had been released back when it was supposed to. On the Macintosh. Way, way, WAY before Microsoft bought Bungie, came up with the X-box idea, made the X-box, and then forced Bungie to port Halo to the X-box. Microsoft merely saw something that would cause people to buy Macintoshes, and Mac OS, so it merely bought what might hurt it. It's not "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" it's "if you might have a tiny bit less of a monopoly because of 'em, absorb them."

Re:Again?

[nmb3000]

...and then forced Bungie to port Halo to the X-box.

Do you have any idea what you're even talking about? Halo went through so many changes that if it had been released on the Mac as originally planned it would have been yet another mediocre RTS game on a platform with a very small videogame market.

I'm not a Microsoft advocate, but because of Microsoft's purchase of Bungie, they were given an infusion of funds and resources to make what would have been an undersold and mediocre game into the best FPS on the Xbox, perhaps even the best FPS console game to date (yes I've played Goldeneye and Perfect Dark-- Niether game can is as good as Halo multiplayer, new technology notwithstanding).

For anyone interested, here's a look at the evolution of Halo. Get an idea of what it would have looked like had Microsoft not been involved. Trust me... nobody would have bought a Mac just because the RTS Halo-as-it-would-have-been was on it.

More mirrors

Re:Again?

[Medgur]

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.

Re:Again?

[SilentChris]

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

They're one of the few publications I've seen that don't say "augment your score with a written argument in the review". You'd think that was a given, but they know people rely on those scores to make purchasing decisions. You're right, though: it leads to some awkward reviews ("Story sucks, graphics are ok... 9.4").

Re:Again?

[DavidBrown]

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

But that's all in the past anyway. The question before us today is whether or not Halo2 is something that those of us who have an XBox will want to buy. I'll do it, if only because I enjoyed Halo, despite its flaws.

Ehh

[realmolo]

I have an Xbox, and Halo just isn't very great. It's well-done, but it has no personality, and very little new to add to the FPS genre.

That said, my Xbox-owning friends who had never(?!) played a multiplayer FPS game before think it's the greatest thing ever. And, if you've never played Unreal Tournament, I suppose it is. But for people who've been playing FPSs on the PC for years, Halo is only average. I imagine Halo 2 is more of the same, and the reviews seem reflect that.

Penny Arcade said the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2001-11 -28&res=l

Halo level design was awful.

Re:Penny Arcade said the same thing

[Nodatadj]

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.

I think what it was...

[Phluxed]

was that it was something anyone could pick up and play, and culture whores needed something to grasp to. All my friends who arent really gamers, love Halo, but everyone who is a gamer, realizes how lifeless it is, and that holds true with the second.

Re:I think what it was...

[VividU]

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.

Not as good as the oldies....

[darth_silliarse]

Compared to the awesome Unreal Tournament and Quake 3's I think Halo and it's console-friendly ilk are average to say the least.... I remember when Alien Trilogy on the Sega Saturn was just as hyped and when you finally got round to playing it you just thought "Ho Hum better load up Doom 2 on my PC". Hype DOES NOT mean good.... I thought most gamers would have learnt that by now

my short review.

[cipher uk]

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

Re:One thing that's always bugged me ...

[Tobias Luetke]

For the same reason as the Lasik surgeons wear glasses.

Emphasis on AGAIN

[fsterman]

What most people don't understand is that Bungie has always been one of the most innovative game houses. Halo and Halo 2 have received quite a lot of attention since MS was able to do some real push with the game. But all of Bungies games are just as impressive, and more so when you realize what a variety of new thinking they put out.
Marathon, an FPS, to Myth, a team player RTS, to Oni a FPS/martial arts game, to Halo, possible the most creative FPS to date. If they had gotten with a big development team earlier I would love to see the games they would have produced!
So hats off to Bungie, I want to see the next non FPS!

Re:Emphasis on AGAIN

[gl4ss]

halo1: uncreative and uninnovative.
and halo 2 is that - DONE AGAIN, but if possible, even shorter.

seriously: WHAT CREATIVE THERE WAS IN HALO 1?
weapons? no.
vehicles? seen before.
enemies? boring.
coop gameplay? hell, doom had that(but halo's pc port didn't).
graphics? just average.
outdoor sequences? non-revolutionary.
indoor sequences? flat walls reminding me of '97.

(oni was boring too after the start)

btw.. what of the old bungie is left besides the name? their next non-fps? dream on guy, like microsoft would have them do anything else than the big hit series.

or to put it on a different note.. have you played any games besides bungies games? because it doesn't really sound so.

Re:Emphasis on AGAIN

[curtlewis]

I think you've been jaded with time.

Halo 1 Creativity:

weapons - manly rockets, not those pussy quake type ones
alien weapons that can't be reloaded, and overheat

vehicles - first game I know of that you could DRIVE vehicles in an FPS game.

enemies - while only a few types existed, the AI was very good, unlike the 'huge hit games' like CoD.

Bungie didn't do the PC port, although they supervised it. And shame on them for shipping it with utter garbage for net code. Can you say milking the customer base?

outdoor sequences - first FPS with halfway decent outdoor levels and graphics in those levels. Sure, the graphics look dated now, but they were pretty hot back then.

Indoor sequences - walls tend to be flat, that's what walls are. The dark, moody ship levels were interesting early on, but the rubber stamp action of a rushed ship job became rather boring. Given enough time, I think they would have done it well.

Bungie invented dual wielding and weapons with more than one firing mode back in the mid 90s with Marathon. They also veered from the overly fast, unrealistic movement of the DooMs and Quakes and went for a slower, more realistic run speed. This forces you to think more and makes it a bit less of a twitch game. You can still twitch to take out a target that suddenly appeared, but escaping from danger isn't so easy.

No, I'm not a Bungie fan boi. But they have been historically innovative in game design, often a step ahead of the competition. But they fail to listen to fans just as much as the next game company and they ship a game too soon just like every other game company. People still buy the stuff anyways to feed their crack habit, so why put some quality into it? It's a disgusting trend in the industry, but there's no avoiding it now unless we stop thanking them for slop with the all mighty dollar.

Re:Emphasis on AGAIN

[oGMo]

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.)

Re:Emphasis on AGAIN

[Mitchell Mebane]

Screw Halo 2, I want Oni 2. That game was awesome.

Re:Emphasis on AGAIN

[Justus]

vehicles - first game I know of that you could DRIVE vehicles in an FPS game.

Ah, yes, because, you know, silly games like Tribes 1 (and 2!) didn't have real vehicles, not like Halo.

</sarcasm>

Re:Emphasis on AGAIN

[dcam]

Doom 1 was revolutionary; everything in the FPS realm has been incremental improvements and regurgitation since.

But Doom 1 was just an incremental improvement on Wolfenstein.

That isn't totally true, but all games are incremental improvements. The question is just how large the improvement was.

I personally believe that there have been a few standout games in the FPS that are worth noting as milestones.

Wolfenstein
Doom 1
Quake
Half Life

I don't think we have had anything worthy to be called a milestone since Half Life. Maybe one of the UT series. I have some hopes that S.T.A.L.K.E.R might really introduce something new.

Re:Emphasis on AGAIN

[Keeper]

Technically, Halo came out a month before RTCW.

WTF?

[thegoogler]

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?

Bah, old news.

[Zangief]

Amazon has had "reviews" for Halo 2 since February 2003.

Slashdot editors, bring some new stories please.
--
Wiki de Ciencia Ficcion y Fantasia

What do you guys think?

[pmc255]

Do you think that people buy the Xbox just for Halo? Or do they buy Halo because it's on the Xbox? ;)

Re:What do you guys think?

[PhoenixFlare]

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.

Friendly reminder

[Dan the Intern]

Remember to stress these points when making flamebait posts about Halo 2:

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

Thank you.

Re:Friendly reminder

[adam31]

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

4. ...
5. Profit?

Re:Yawn......

[LordNimon]

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!

Release date isn't till Nov 9th

[JaseOne]

That's why...

excuse me...

[sinner0423]

Bungie has done it again!

Done what, exactly? Anybody who was reading the developer blog regarding the original Halo was completely disappointed by the time it hit the shelves. Bungie hyped it up to be something it wasn't, and by the time it got released, 95% of the "innovative, ground breaking" features were found in other pc/console games. The only thing that made it unique was that it was on the Xbox.

How long did we have to wait for a PC port for this one? 2 years?

I've played Halo 2, and controlling the game is like watching a monkey fuck a football. Sure, it's amusing, and interesting for the first minute, then it becomes frustrating and pointless. Although the graphics are awesome, and the gameplay is superb.

It's a good game, but really.. it should be on the PC where 99% of first person shooters belong. The controls really do detract from the experience. Bungie will get my money if I see a holiday release for a PC port.

Never having played either myself....

[SkankinMonkey]

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'.

Re:Never having played either myself....

[curtlewis]

30fps is video speed. The 'sluggish' speed of movement in Halo isn't because of the frames per second.

The movement speed is intentionally coded to be slower than Quake. It's far more realistic a movement speed. Let's face it, you can't run 60 mph. But if you just play Quake and HL and UT, it takes some getting adjusted to. That and you have to think ahead about what you're doing instead of just reacting to everything.

sad but true

[Man in Spandex]

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.

Re:Boring?

[secretsquirel]

There hasn't been anything new in FPS since online gameing.

Re:Boring?

[fresh27]

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.

Over at GE we have...

[ProudClod]

A more honest review, at least I think so. 9.8 is just bullshit - it's nowhere near as revolutionary as Halo 1.

As much as I hate to appear the karma whore, I think people need to see a more balanced review of the game. Remember, we're putting our bollocks on the line with Microsoft's PR by giving the game below 9/10 - we just felt we had to tell the truth.

See the review here. If you like it, pass it on

Re:Over at GE we have...

[SilentChris]

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"?

Re:Boring?

[aweraw]

Thats what I think...

Halo is only thought of as 'superb' in the console arena. On PC, it was 'Just Another FPS', with nothing to distinguish it from more popular titles such as the BattelField's, FarCry, etc... the action was repetitive, the weapons bland, and the terrain was homogenous through out the entire game.

Halo 2 I believe will be more of the same, with the only real difference between the first and this sequel being the story line, and prettier graphics. It will be loved by people who own consoles, and have yet to properly experience what an FPS should really be like. I predict that gamers who are FPS purists, will have the same gripes with this games as they did with the first one.

IMO, the hype surrounding the first game was completely unwarranted... and thus I suspect the same will ring true when I bother getting around to play this.

Re:What is all the fuss about

[Col. Bloodnok]

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.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the multiplayer to be completely unfriendly to system link lan play. If doing the regular 4 xbox, 16 player game, each players screen is about 75% clutter, and 25% viewable area. Text fully unrelated to your player scrolls by non stop, the giant radar circle STAYS ON THE SCREEN even when you tell it you do not want radar (completely stupid), the guns fill the screen up with (should have positioned the camera a little further ahead, just a tad).

The view itself seems blurred, its very hard to see objects which are in the distance, which I assume is Bungie conserving cpu to keep the game looking nice. Unfortunately all it accomplishes is a very crappy experience in multiplayer as it can be hard to see enemies at range unless zooming in all the time. It's also much harder to distinguish players from the environments overall as the player colors are less contrasting.

As for the single player, it felt like the game was rushed.
(possible spoiler)
Pushing the premise that the Covenant are attacking earth as the story in all the previews, and then only having ONE level where you are actually even trying to defend the earth, ya, good thinking there. The story itself is full of unanswered holes and events with no backing at all in the actual game. Sure it is nice to continue the story in the next game, but when the next game is needed in order to even comprehend what in the hell is going on at some points, gameover man, gameover. Maybe MS wanted bungie to just get the game out of the doors before building the hype machine for the next generation, or whoever participated in any form of public Halo 2 playtest put absolutely no effort in making recommendations to Bungie on things that needed to be fixed before release, either way the product feels incomplete and poorly executed. Sorry fanboys.

Maybe i'll just stick to Halo 1.

You guys need to get a clue.

[Yolegoman]

Every single fucking comment in this article is about how you guys think that Halo wasn't revolutionary, Console gaming sux, and the gameplay just repeats itself over and over.

You belittle those who find Halo fun, saying they "haven't experienced true FPS gaming".

Well, I have news for you. Halo is JUST PLAIN DAMN FUN. Since when does anything else matter?

Re:You guys need to get a clue.

[Microlith]

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.

Choose One.

[Askjeffro]

1) Halo 2 2) GTA:SA 3) Metroid Echos What game would you buy if you could only buy one?

Re:Boring?

[MoronGames]

Halo was not "born on the console". It was born on the Macintosh. Microsoft got hold of it and changed that, however.

Re:Boring?

[SilentChris]

9/10 of the original Halo experience was playing in a LAN-party with friends.

As I mentioned in another post, this was the first game to really break the barrier of who would attend a "LAN-party". It used to be a couple of techies with towers strapped to their backs, who knew the ins and outs of drivers and networking and would play Quake in their college dorm. Now, it's kids who bring a few Xboxes over to their friends house, hook up a couple of TVs and bam, instant social fun.

That was the main draw of Halo, anyway. Halo 2 seems to capitalize on it: creating "parties" of up to 16 players who could be anywhere (including on the same couch), that stick together on Live. It's essentially bringing the LAN-party social experience online. That's pretty impressive (not from so much a technical standpoint, but a design standpoint).

As for bots: while I admit it would've been nice, I've never been too pleased with bots in the past. Either they were too good (UT at the higher settings) or totally ignorant (Perfect Dark bots tended to get stuck on ladders and inclines). Give me massive multiplayer mayhem anyway. :)

Recycled mediocrity

[mojotooth]

Let's be honest. Halo 1 was only popular because it was the first exposure most non-computer geeks had to first-person shooters. Anybody who played Doom, Quake, Descent, Quake, Tribes, UT, or any other classic fps were left shouting "WHY are they expecting me to play an FPS with these two stupid sticks?"

Halo 2 is just a slight extension of the same thing. I can't understand why H2 is getting great reviews in the same way that I just can't fathom how Dubya got 58 million votes.

Therefore I blame the religious right wing for Halo 2's reviews.

Re:Of course!

[wilebill1381]

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!

You want an honest review?

[IGTeRR0r]

You want to see a freaking honest review of Halo 2? HERE Yes, we're pissed, and yes, SCREW MICROSOFT.

Re:You want an honest review?

[kylef]

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.

Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft

[Grey Ninja]

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:Boring?

[Trogre]

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.

Balderdash.

Halo is a PC game. It was designed to be a PC game and the original version always will be an unfinished PC game. Bungy made it, and they made it great.

Unforunately, not long before the game was ready, Microsoft bought Bungie studios and shelved Halo. They then ported whatever they could from the carcass to the then new XBox just in time for a Christmas release. Thus Halo/XBox was born.

A few months later, Microsoft were kind enough to grace us PC gamers with a port of Halo/XBox to the PC. But make no mistakes - this was not the original version by any means. Because it's a port of an XBox game, game play is severely retarded due to the pathetic 64MB memory of the XBox, textures are repetitive and performenace is dog slow. This is Halo/XBox/PC.

I doubt Halo/PC will ever see the light of day.

And? The real console FPS is coming out later

[dancingmad]

I'll admit I haven't played Halo 2 yet and I don't have an XBox. Most of my PS2 games are Japanese RPGs (Phantom Brave, Disgaea) and most of my Cube games are the AAA titles (Zelda, Metroid, etc.). I have played Halo 1 and I don't see what the big deal is.

Everything Halo does has been done before, especially in Quake. Maybe the kids playing Halo now missed Quake (didn't have PCs, too young, whatever). The graphics seem pretty lack luster (if that is even a legitmate game play issue) and the single player is awful. The game can be ok in multiplayer, but I'd have more fun in a 4 way Dr. Mario or Wario Ware.

I'm no fan of FPSes, but I was thoroughly engrossed by Metroid Prime. It perfectly translated the desperation and fear of being alone from the 2D classics into a 3D world. I have never played an FPS all the way through but I beat Prime several times. Maybe its the difference in PC gamers and console gamers (I count myself in the latter).

Personally, I think most of the fanbase for Halo and GTA are casual American gamers who haven't grown up worshipping Japanese games. That could mean there's a legitimate movement to "American style" games in the U.S., but to me it seems like casual gamers are just that, casual.

Re:Born on the console?

[Stormwatch]

Not exactelly. Marathon 2: Durandal was indeed ported to Windows95 - later open-sourced and ported to other systems; but the original Marathon remains Mac-only (the third game, Marathon Infinity, has basically the same code as Durandal, so maybe you can count that as open as well)

Re:Well then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats, you've exposed the Penny Arcade Secret Formula:
1) Read messageboards to figure out what people are saying about games
2) Put the majority opinion into a comic strip
3) ITS TEH FUNNAY CUZ ITZ SOO TRUE.

Halo is good for an adrenaline rush...

[TyrranzzX]

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.

Re:Boring?

[Have Blue]

By the time you saw the "real" Halo at Macworld, it had already undergone massive changes from its original concept (it used to be an RTS, for one thing), and after MS bought Bungie it was virtually rebuilt from scratch for the Xbox.

Re:And? The real console FPS is coming out later

[Anita Coney]

You know, I feel the same way about Jazz. I don't like it much or listen it much, other than Kenny G, but I have a strong desire to criticize it despite my complete ignorance.

Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft

[rasafras]

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.

Most negative site ever...

[dfj225]

I don't care that I'm burning karma here...but it was on my mind so I figured I would post it anyway...

/. has to be one of the most negative sites I have ever read. No matter what the topic is, it seems like only the most negative comments get modded up (unless, of course, the topic is linux). I wonder, and I'm serious here, the people who don't enjoy halo and think that halo 2 is a dissapointment, what would you have changed?

I'm guessing that was a joke.

[cbreaker]

While Halo was mildly entertaining for a little while, I've found many FPS games to be really good and lots of fun since Halo.

I mean, the game was okay and everything, but I'm still not sure what all the hype is about. It doesn't seem any different from any other FPS, and I've played the whole game. Just your normal Progress Quest stuff, with some decent graphics. Unfortunately, putting the game on the Xbox first really limits you to the capabilities of that machine - new games out now are significantly more advanced then what the Xbox can do for you.

I know a lot of Halo geeks are probably angry at my post but maybe instead of just bitching at me, someone could tell me perhaps what I've missed that makes the game into the incredible fantastic "mind blowing" game that it's claimed to be.

Re:I'm guessing that was a joke.

[harikiri]

It was the story in Halo that I loved.

About the only thing I disliked was the somewhat repetitive umm... levels where you had to get away from the zombie like thingies, whatever they were.

The final level where you have to get out of the exploding ship, with the pumping soundtrack psyching you on, just made it for me. I have to checkout Halo 2 just because of the memory that Halo left me with.

Re:I'm guessing that was a joke.

[mollymoo]

It was the story in Halo that I loved.

Me too. Those red and blue guys standing about making jokes cracked me up. Are they still in Halo 2?

Re:Boring?

[strict3]

Halo was not "born on the console". It was born on the Macintosh. Microsoft got hold of it and changed that, however.

Sorry, but Halo was being developed on PCs for the Mac and PC. This has now come full circle with the early Xbox Next development kits consisting of high end custom Apple G5s.

Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft

[yerfatma]

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.

Creepy

[Troy]

When I went to Penny Arcade I got an SQL dump in small white text.

Apparently the Pious Flea gets around!

Totally agree - Halo is Quake "for the rest of us"

[SuperKendall]

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

It's so much easier for people to put together a few TV's and consoles than it is a whole LAN setup and multiple computers. I've played with a few LAN groups now and then. and you have to admit there is a LOT more fiddling that goes on when several computers get together than when you are hooking up consoles.

I did enjoy the few times I've tried multiplayer Halo, but I have to admit I still prefer UT2004 for my online FPS needs.

I do kind of yearn to play Halo 2 though, just to see the story unfold - I fell into listening to the whole set of audio on iLoveBees and am really curious where the story goes. But, I can wait until it comes to some other platforms next year.

I think Halo 2 will be big....

[Dr Reducto]

This may sound like trolling, but whenever /.ers think something sucks, and write long posts about how people won't like it, it will be a big hit.

I see a few really long rants about blandness/lack of originality, so I am going to bet Halo 2 will break sales records.

Slashdot is not good at figuring out what is going to be popular. What's cool thouh is that it is so reliably wrong, you can set your watch by it.

My favorite examples:
Linux
iPod/iPod Mini
Windows
and now, Halo 2

Re:I think Halo 2 will be big....

[EightMillion]

Don't forget John Kerry.

Re:I think Halo 2 will be big....

[patonw]

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.

Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo

[HeghmoH]

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.

of course there near perfect.

[geekoid]

"The verdict: near perfect scores. "
because ther want to review Halo 3.

COme on, can we trust a review site that has to agree to all kinds of stipulations before posting what they think?
Not me.
I'll wait 2 weeks, gert the report from the early adopters and get it for 15 bucks less then every one else. Assuming the reviews I get are favorable.

Now, I'm not saying Halo 2 isn't the perfect game, hell I jope it is I like good games, just pointing out the these reviews aren't the most unbiased in the world.
I am also of the opinion that if what ever you are reviewing, whether its games, cars, or Krypton Lasers, you should not regularly give a 8 or higher to everything. If you do, you need to change your rating system.

Having Actually played Halo: Combat Evolved

[ChozCunningham]

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

Halo was not only in a good spot for exposure, being the only polished FPS on the Xbox, but filled expectations well. I was originally unimpressed by the screenshots and even a few minutes of deathmatching at a friend's house. But I kept reading of the the awards it received, long after the inital reviews. Almost always, the write-ups would mention the exhilartion of playing on the highest difficulty, single player. So I borrowed the game from the same friend.

And my eyes were opened. Not only was what appeared to be yet another FPS suddenly exciting, but during the tense, chalenging moments, I was attuned to the subtlties of sound effects and level layouts. The AI was superb, feinting and flanking as well as some of the best online FPS clans (marksmanship not as good). When you are paying attention to every detail to survie and progress, you learn the levels very well, and the feeling is almost more "Survival Horror" than some Doom-style adventure.

The game has been compared, derivatively, to GoldenEye/PD, UT series, and Quake series. I've played all of those, some on multiple formats. These are pillar games, but Halo stands alongside them. Unfortunately, untile you devote a few hours on Legendary, it's really difficult to understand why.

Now it appears that Halo 2 isn't up to snuff, but every series I mentioned has it's better and worse titles. Im not surprised here, but I am still looking forward getting the game alone at 12:01am's single player fun and the following Halo2 party, where i imagine both seasoned and noobs will have fun drinking eating and shooting the crap outa stuff! And it should smell better and have lest tantrums than LAN parties Ive attended...

Re:Hardware: What PC Users Don't Get...

[eufreka]

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...

Re:Boring?

[AngryUndead]

The first I heard of it, Halo was going to be a ground-breaking squad-tactics game that would take you inside and outside of bases and across large terrain. When I first played it... I was dissapointed. I realized that all the rumblings in the "community" were not blown out of proportion at all. The game got nerfed, period. Bungie should have been left with their creative vision to produce it on the PC. I think everyone can admit that a controller is not made for FPS games. Every FPS game that is released cannot be viewed simply in terms of the console it was released for; rather it must be viewed in the light of every game released before it. I hope you do not movies according to their venue. While that is not quite the same... the gameplay of Halo on the PC was horrible. The gameplay of Halo on the Xbox is only good when you have other people that are fun to play with. I'd rather play Counter-Strike and I think that about sums it up.

I agree

[LighthouseJ]

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

I recently got the play Halo for the first time ever (I live in PS2 land mainly thanks to Grand Theft Auto games and Gran Tourismo) recently, I was interested to see what the fuss is about but became disappointed because of the aforementioned reasons.

Maybe it's my newcoming to FPS on the Xbox console but I've always had a hard time accurately and quickly aiming with my thumb on any console. Take Goldeneye for Nintendo 64, you got to use the analog joystick which made aiming tolerable but still slow. The cursor would dance from side to side if you're in a hurry and would take forever for the cursor to walk over to the target if you decided to take it slow.

I am a frequent player of Day of Defeat though. Coming off of 6 months of intense Day of Defeat and getting pretty proficient at the game, I can aim faster than the aim cursor focuses for an accurate shot. If you don't know, most if not all rifles expand the crosshairs while you walk indicating your shot has a huge chance of not making the target. Once you stop moving, the crosshairs focus down and stop to indicate the most accurate aim you can manage with the gun. Back in the game, if I run around a corner and spot an enemy, I am used to where the center of my screen is and put it on the target, I wait for the crosshairs to converge and then fire, all done in under a second. Sure, I could crouch and inch around the corner but that's no good if I'm expected by the enemy. If the target is a sniper or minigunner, this works especially well because the sniper has tunnelvision and the minigunner might not be able to react quick enough. If the target uses any other weapon, crouching or not will suffice because I only need one shot. A couple other guns, if aimed extremely well for a headshot, only need one shot too but the chances for a luck-of-the-draw headshot without any moment to aim is highly unlikely.

Why can one only use the mouse?

[UncleJam]

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.

Re:One thing that's always bugged me ...

[KDR_11k]

The HUD is only displayed once you put on the HEV suit. The HEV suit includes a helmet (pictures of Gordon rarely include it but it's in the first game's data files and the suit wouldn't really offer protection without any form of headgear). I'd assume it's in the helmet.
Outside of a loading screen and the multiplayer model Gordon is never shown in the first game, the player wasn't supposed to know what he looks or talks like, Gordon was supposed to be exactly like the player and the player didn't know Gordon has glasses.

Well this should destroy some Karma...

[Nexum]

I don't know about anyone else, but I have to say that I was very much underwhelmed by the first Halo.

I simply don't think it deserves the huge scores it got, and I can't understand why it got them. I mean, the part when you fight through stage after stage after stage after stage of those plague things really is some of the most repetitive worst level design since the original wolfenstein.

Put that together with the sections after that which have you going through corridors and occasionally coming across a long bridge - again, so boringingly repetitive.

And the save system is horrendous, absolutely awful - I got stuck in one place having to save with very little health, and the next section just happened to be super-difficult, took me an absolute age to finish.

For what it's worth, I think the enemy design, although quite nice in places was not wide ranging enough - there are what, three different types of bad guy?? Look at the great stuff coming out in terms of enemies in Half Life 2 (Strider anyone?) and the nice assorted mix in Doom 3. Halo's really pale next to these. And what's with the cutesy-ness of those little alien things? Making cute sounds, I'm not watching a cartoon! I want to feel like these are serious assailants I'm facing, not some bastard offspring of Barney.

Now of course, there were some very good points to the game as we all know, the vehicles were great fun, and graphically I was very impressed. The storyline - well meh, I wasn't blown away, but I love the idea of the Halo in the first-place.

So I'm puzzled by all the crazed fanboi-ism over Halo, it was an OK game as far as I'm concerned, but people giving it crazy 10/10 scores? Did we play the same game?

But this is about Halo2... which I haven't played, but am not too buzzed up on it due to the disappointing original. Hopefully Bungie hasn't used the cut & paste method of world building this time round. - Nex

Complete review of Halo 2 and this topic

[lmnfrs]

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.

Re:Boring?

[davidbailey]

Halo was intended to be a Mac game first and foremost

It was NEVER slated to be a Mac-only game. Steve Jobs begged the Bungie guys to intro it at the Mac World conference to boost the idea that the Mac was a gamer's platform.

Also Bungies' efforts to make a RTS game was short-lived. They quickly realized that it was going to be a FPS along the lines of the Marathon series.

Their original platforms for Halo, the FPS, were Mac, PC, and Playstation2.

When Microsoft bought Bungie, Bungie scrapped a lot of their engine work and rebuilt it to meet the XBox technical requirements. What was (much) later brought to the PC was a port of the XBox game and what was brought to the Mac was a port of the XBox game ported to the PC. In a word, it was pretty bad. However, if you ignored the pathetic nature of the port itself, the game rocked.

We can excuse Bungie because they didn't make either the PC or Mac ports, they made the XBox game... and it was as good as any FPS can be on a console.

I can only hope they work themselves on the PC/Mac port of Halo 2 so it will meet their high standards.

Here is what all the hype was about.

[El Camino SS]

I mean, the game was okay and everything, but I'm still not sure what all the hype is about.

The hype was that a whole new generation of people who never played a competetive FPS online got the chance. Anyone that screams Halo is the best game ever just hasn't been around the block, and used to be a non-gamer or a very casual gamer.

Face it, the guys that scream "HALO!" at the top of their lungs are just not PC players. If they were, their buffet plate would be very full.

"Halo, seriously dude, the best ever."
"Ever played Starcraft?"
"No."
"Ever played Tribes?"
"No."
"Quake?"
"No."
"Pong?"
"No."
"Goldeneye?"
"Had a friend that had it, it rocked. Played it once."
"How about Uneal Tournament?"
"Never heard of it."

It's nothing bad.
These people are the same ones that buy The Day After Tommorrow and Van Helsing on DVD the day it comes out.

Re:Here is what all the hype was about.

[elchuppa]

not so. I was a hardcore pc fps gamer before Halo came out and I was very impressed with it. I did not think that the single-player game was the best fps ever, but it certainly was up there. In fact I think that it's the people who have played a lot of fps's who are most able to recognize what makes Halo great. Halo gets the feel right. The story is window dressing, but what makes an fps IMO (especially when taken into the multiplayer realm), is feel. Halo nails this. Playing Halo multiplayer has been as fun for me as any PC game I've played.

Re:Boring?

[strict3]

No, this is not correct.

Halo was originally being developed for Macs and PCs with the Mac version scheduled to be released first.

Development for both was being done on Windows PCs. Sorry if you believe otherwise, but you're incorrect. The coding was being done on PCs.
The art/media, however, was being created on Macs.

If you don't believe me, you can read it directly from Bungie.

You'll be pleased to know that Halo's development originally commenced on the PC because the 3D stuff on the Mac wasn't up to par at the time.

Then MS threw tons of cash at Bungie and they sold out and Halo became a Xbox game (and laster a PC game). I feel it was a smart move on Bungie's part, even though I did send an email to bungie at the time chastising them for selling out.

Two words...

[dstyle5]

Blood Gulch!

I've played maybe 5 minutes of Halo's single player missions, but I've played many, many hours of the multiplayer mode with friends. The most popular map with our group was Blood Gulch, playing CTF. Yes, I play PC shooters and prefer them to console shooters (damn console auto aim: someone shooting you will a pistol from 100 ft away gets annoying fast), but Halo's multiplayer is alot of fun.

Playing Halo with a group of friends is what sold millions of copys of Halo, and since Halo 2 is online in addition to the 4-16 multiplayer lan possibilities, it will probably sell more copies than Halo.