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!"
...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
-- [blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
Re:I dont know why..
by
mbrewthx
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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!!!!!!!
-- __________
Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
More Reviews and averages ...
by
Hank+Chinaski
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Hope the level design is better this time
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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
by
jerkychew
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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
by
name773
·
· Score: 5, Funny
any economist would tell you they did the right thing. so, essentially, they did the wrong thing.
Not Credible Sources
by
fux0rbob
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Unfortunately, these sources can't be considered credible. Which may sound like a troll, but it's not. These people are funded by advertisers. Advertisers like Microsoft and Nintendo and Sony. These sources will almost *always* report favorible, if not glowing reviews of the major advertisers' games.
-- w00t w00t watch wh0 y0u sh00t!
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
Billobob
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Hi, my name is proof.
Where am I?
-- If you have to ask, you'll never know.
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
Templaris
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Gamespot's reviews are generally not to far distant from the large number of reader reviews they get. Also it depends mainly on the author. Some authors seem to like a type of game more than another. In the past couple years I dont think I seen Gamespot give a PC game higher than a 9.4. I have never seen them give a game a much higher score than it deserved. Have you played Halo 2 yet? Play it, then cast your judgement.
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
Shadow+Wrought
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Hi, my name is proof. Where am I?
I don't know, but they keep asking for you in Missouri.
-- If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
dfj225
·
· Score: 3, Informative
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.
-- SIGFAULT
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
cgenman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's not necessarily true. You'd be surprised how hard it is to buy a glowing review these days in a non-"official" magazine (I.E. the Official XBox magazine). As we're down to basically 5 companies, E.A. Activision Sony Atari Microsoft, they would basically have to report glowing reviews of everything. Sometimes they glow more than they should, as the person who likes a genre is going to get games of that genre to review. Would you put the FPS guy on Winning 11 8 and expect them to give a comprehensive, well-thought out review? No, you give it to the guy who has played every other Winning 11 game, as well as every soccer game in existence and some that aren't, who will have perspective on where Winning 11 fits into the universe of soccer games and will probably love it.
One of the other reasons why most of the games people would look up are reviewed favorably is because comparatively reviewers have to wade through a tremendous amount of real crap. No matter what you may feel about the redundancy and lack of innovation of GTA: San Andreas, it is in no where near the same category of junk as Big Motha' Truckers. Likewise, Fifa may not be as hot as some of the top soccer games coming out of japan, but compared to Atari's Backyard Soccer series it's Pulitzer material. On the other hand, give them a truly mediocre game that you spent years working on, and they will crush it ruthlessly. The press can be quite cold sometimes... I've read more than one review of a project I've worked on where the reviewer complained of the lack of a feature that was actually there.
No matter what your personal opinions on the subject, Halo 2 is unarguably one of the most polished and destined to be one of the most enjoyed games of the year. Microsoft didn't buy that with their ads, Bungee bought that with their sweat. And good for them: Bungee has always released quality games and deserves success.
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
AvantLegion
·
· Score: 3, Informative
>> Hi, my name is proof. Where am I?
In my liquor. 80 of you.
Re:Not Credible Sources
by
gl4ss
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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)
-- world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
Tojo-Mojo
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
To me, it was like you were just going through the same repeating rooms over and over fighting endless hoards of monsters. Especially the library. I didn't play all the way through, I gave up once I got to the part where you go through the core stage again - only this time BACKWARDS! I think I had more fun playing Unreal 2 or Red Faction or other games that got considerably less critical acclaim.
I guess I just don't get the big selling point behind Halo- do people just like it for the action? I mean the story was interesting, but the levels definately were not.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There are two basic reasons why Halo is so popular.
1) All those people that own X-boxes, but have never seriously gamed on a computer got thier first real exposure to an FPS game.
2) Even before X-box live, LAN action exposed these same people to FPS multiplayer gaming.
This is simply Quake for another generation of people that missed the first round 5 years previously. (The Quake brand *still* has huge draw, even after two mis-matched (although excellently executed) sequels, and many people are hoping that the next one fixes the Doom 3 multiplayer problem (i.e. that it sucks)).
Halo is simply another Quake, but for a different set of people.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
PhoenixFlare
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
. A good console FPS is one where the control scheme sort of makes up for the fact that only an idiot would want to play an FPS with a console gamepad as opposed to a keyboard/mouse combo.
See my other post on this subject.
Metroid Prime is another great example of this. It took all the fun out of FPS gaming by slowing the game down, crippled the AI and added in auto-aim, and replaced big levels with levels that require endless backtracking across jumping puzzles to keys and switches. In short, it was just a typical platform jumping game from a first-person perspective.
Metroid Prime is NOT meant to be played as an FPS or "typical platform jumping game". If you did, you're missing the whole point of the game and, dare I say, the entire Metroid series (if you've even played any of the others, which I doubt).
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
harvardian
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't think Halo's Quake-like draw is only for newbies.
I was an old school Quake player (clan Deimos rules!), and I was in college when Halo came out. Halo had that same spark that Quake did: you could play it with your friends over a network and have a crapload of fun doing it. Except this time around, people could do it on their couches with a console.
Seriously, IMHO that opened up a whole new dimension to things, since non-nerds are much more likely to get into a long-ass CTF match together on a couch rather than holed up with their own box. None of my non-nerd friends (including an ec major, a gov major, and a jock) have a machine even close to being able to handle HLII right now.
I'm not even planning on spending the $1000 I'd need to to play HLII/QuakeDoom on my machine since my need for a fun networked game is satisfied by Halo. So for some of us, Halo is the next Quake even more so than Quake itself.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
vhold
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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
by
drewmca
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Um, that's about as poorly justified a statement as you could possibly make. Do you have some sort of information on Halo demographics that the rest of us don't? That's pure conjecture on your part.
I've been playing FPS games since the first time I got a copy of the three-floppy shareware of Doom back in 93. Sorry, my "street-cred" doesn't reach back the year before to Wolfenstein. I've played them all, from the early doom clones to the later quake clones and so on and so forth. For most of the 90s I was exclusively a pc gamer, since none of the consoles at the time interested me. But this latest generation did, and Halo is by far my favorite game on the consoles.
It's appeal lay in the fact that it does what it does extremely well. It is a very polished game, and plays exceedingly well on xbox. It can appeal to PC gamers and console gamers alike because it's very well done. To claim that only non-pc players would like it, or to imply that it's somehow FPS gaming on training wheels, is simply granting yourself far too much credit as a gamer. As if somehow you know the "real deal" while the rest of the sheep just follow trends. Bullshit. People recognize a good game when they see it, and therein lay its popularity.
And before you spend too much time on your PC gamer high horse, remember that PC games caught on in popularity well after console games (atari, intellivision, and later, nintendo). Any attempt to see PC gaming as a precursor to the more "childish" console gaming just shows a lack of understanding about the history of videogames.
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
by
Jace+of+Fuse!
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Um, that's about as poorly justified a statement as you could possibly make. Do you have some sort of information on Halo demographics that the rest of us don't? That's pure conjecture on your part.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence to support the statement. But mostly it's in the fact that most XBOXers are not die-hard gamers, though most die-hard gemers do have an XBox.
So while it's true that many hard core players like Halo, it's easily witnessed that most Halo fans are either new to gaming in general, or new to multiplayer deathmatch.
I've read statements repeatedly stating just this, I've witnessed it in person working around people who are avid Halo fans (but have never even SEEN Quake), and I've talked to a lot of people who bought an XBox simply because they believed the simple Microsoft hype claiming it was the "most powerful game machine on the planet".
So, in some respect, your thoughts on the quality of Halo may be justified feelings about the game, that does not remove the fact that most Halo fans are new gamers.
I'd go search for articles about the XBox Demographic (and indeed the same thing was written about the PS1 years back), but they're easy to find. Just hit Google up. It makes for interesting reading.
-- "I make people like me... WITH VIOLENCE!" - ATHF
Couldnt disagree more.
by
hine_uk
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
When did they do it the first time? I mean, did any of these people even play the first Halo? Cooperative play on the XBox was pretty cool, but other than that, it as a bland and boring game with bland and boring graphics, sounds, weapons, gameplay, etc.
When did they do it the first time? I mean, did any of these people even play the first Halo? Cooperative play on the XBox was pretty cool, but other than that, it as a bland and boring game with bland and boring graphics, sounds, weapons, gameplay, etc.
I normally consider posts like these trolls, but I have to agree in this case. Some of Halo was pretty nice, but it was balanced by all the backtracking, by all the bland interior levels, and by a complete lack of consistency. Overall I don't see what's all that different about it than a lot of other mediocre sci-fi shooters.
Standards for FPS's on consoles are different, and lower. I think Xbox owners were also just happy as hell to have an FPS that looked as good as Halo did (for a console FPS), and that was good for a launch game. It's definitely way, way overrated though, and if the first game had come out at this point in the system's lifespan I doubt it'd make the same sort of splash. Of course, now it's got almost this mythical quality to it, so of course you get reviewers giving it 9s and 10s because hell, it's practically the same game, so people are going to have to love it just as much, right?
Well, I own an Xbox, and Halo 2 is not at the top of my wish list. FPS's belong on PC's anyway, with proper controls and higher detail levels (required for recognizing and then sniping distant enemies). Nuts to Bungie.
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...
I agree. I am the kind of person who doesn't pass judgement on a game until I've played it. I haven't played Halo 2 yet, but Halo one was crap poop. FPS games of that style were impressive when Goldeneye came out for the N64. Releasing the same crap with a different theme and shinier graphics isn't going to make it any fresher. The enhanced multiplayer of multiple X-Boxen adds a little bit to the experience, but most still do the four player split screen.
Games like Counter-Strike and Natural Selection DO exist. There's a reason that CS is still the #1 multiplayer fps, no matter what your stereotypes of the game may be it kicks the living snot out of every other multiplayer fps. Keep in mind I am judging the game on its own merits, and not taking into account the attitudes and mannerisms of its players, which may vary.
Oh, yeah, so Halo 1 couldn't hold a candle to CS or NS or even UT2k4 or Tribes 2. Based on that, I don't have high expecations of Halo 2, but I wont pass judgement until I play it. Maybe because my expecations are low, it will beat those expecations and make a good impression.
Oh, the reason people played Halo 1? My guess is they are mostly young kids who didn't already have the Goldeneye experience. Or they were people who didn't have fast Internet connections and didn't have the internet multiplayer fps experience to compare it to. So when a goldeneye with a new theme, better graphics and expanded multiplayer showed up they were wowed away because they had not yet experienced something which you and me have had for over 6 years.
-- The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Re:Again?
by
Solder+Fumes
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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."
...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.
I think what it was...
by
Phluxed
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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.
Not as good as the oldies....
by
darth_silliarse
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Compared to the awesome Unreal Tournament and Quake 3's I think Halo and it's console-friendly ilk are average to say the least.... I remember when Alien Trilogy on the Sega Saturn was just as hyped and when you finally got round to playing it you just thought "Ho Hum better load up Doom 2 on my PC". Hype DOES NOT mean good.... I thought most gamers would have learnt that by now
-- I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
my short review.
by
cipher+uk
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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:All our hopes are on Halo 2
by
Tobias+Luetke
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Thats a very bold thing to say with a worldclass game as Chronicles of Riddick readily available !
Emphasis on AGAIN
by
fsterman
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
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!
-- Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN
by
gl4ss
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
halo1: uncreative and uninnovative. and halo 2 is that - DONE AGAIN, but if possible, even shorter.
seriously: WHAT CREATIVE THERE WAS IN HALO 1? weapons? no. vehicles? seen before. enemies? boring. coop gameplay? hell, doom had that(but halo's pc port didn't). graphics? just average. outdoor sequences? non-revolutionary. indoor sequences? flat walls reminding me of '97.
(oni was boring too after the start)
btw.. what of the old bungie is left besides the name? their next non-fps? dream on guy, like microsoft would have them do anything else than the big hit series.
or to put it on a different note.. have you played any games besides bungies games? because it doesn't really sound so.
-- world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN
by
curtlewis
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
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
by
oGMo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
WHAT CREATIVE THERE WAS IN HALO 1?
Someone made an XBOX game that didn't completely suck?
Seriously though, you're right on. Halo 1 might have been impressive if it hadn't been delayed for how many years because Bungie sold out. Might. As I said the other day, Doom 1 was revolutionary; everything in the FPS realm has been incremental improvements and regurgitation since.
XBOX fans are just excited because there's hype don't have much else to be excited about. (Funny, sad story: once back when all these consoles were new and sparkly, I talked to a kid in a game shop who had picked Saturn, N64, Dreamcast, and now XBOX. Ouch.)
--
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN
by
Mitchell+Mebane
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Screw Halo 2, I want Oni 2. That game was awesome.
--
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Re:Emphasis on AGAIN
by
dcam
·
· Score: 3, Informative
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.
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?
What do you guys think?
by
pmc255
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Do you think that people buy the Xbox just for Halo? Or do they buy Halo because it's on the Xbox?;)
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
by
adam31
·
· Score: 4, Funny
1. Same tired gameplay
2. Repetition
3. The console FPS ALWAYS sucks
4....
5. Profit?
excuse me...
by
sinner0423
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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....
by
SkankinMonkey
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
My friends that have played it all share the same opinion pretty much. Halo 2 is a rehash of the first one with improvements in the multiplayer area. So if you want to have a party, bring halo and you'll have some fun. Unless your friends are addicted to the fast paced nature of FPS' like UT.
Don't forget, Halo is locked at 30fps and plays rather sluggishly compared to PC FPS'.
Re:Never having played either myself....
by
curtlewis
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
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.
Halo PC is not the way people were meant to play Halo. It was released 3 years later with neglible changes. It was born on the console, and thats where the gameplay really belongs. If you start to compare it to PC games, you're just gonna complicate it and get a skewed vision of the whole thing.
HL and UT were shitty games on PS2, and Halo was a shitty game on PC. It's not often that a game makes a good trip cross platforms, and it definitely wasn't the case with Halo.
-- http://ipod.fresh27.net/
Over at GE we have...
by
ProudClod
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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.
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.
-- 5468652047616D65
Re:Boring?
by
MoronGames
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Halo was not "born on the console". It was born on the Macintosh. Microsoft got hold of it and changed that, however.
-- hey!
Re:Boring?
by
SilentChris
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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
by
mojotooth
·
· Score: 4, Funny
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.
-- --
Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft
by
Grey+Ninja
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My thought regarding the parent and the general Slashdot situation was the same.
I'm sure someone will reply to you saying that it doesn't matter who makes it, if it's a good quality thing... blah blah blah.
My personal opinion regarding Halo is almost exactly the same as yours and the parent's. Halo to me seemed like more of the same, with boring uninspired gameplay that somehow became hugely popular based solely on hype. (And yes, I've played it on both PC and Xbox).
But honestly, regarding Slashdot's love of Xbox? I haven't the first idea. The hive mind around here dislikes Windows because of it's lack of innovation, the monopolistic business practices behind it, and the shoddy quality. The same holds true of Xbox. Microsoft's sole business strategy is to lose money like a sieve by buying up every big name in the gaming industry that they can get their hands on, until there's no more competition. Microsoft has created a machine that doesn't seem well fit to play games from an architectural point of view, and touts hugely overinflated specs that they used to convince people that Xbox was more powerful. (which is a highly inconclusive statement). And the gaming library on Xbox consists pretty much entirely of ports, be it from PC or other consoles. (but mostly from PC).
I personally haven't the slightest desire for an Xbox (speaking as a gamer), as its only claim to fame is Halo, which I honestly don't care a lick about. I don't have desire for an Xbox (speaking as a geek) because I highly disagree with the business practices behind the Xbox, and the future of the gaming industry if left unchecked.
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.
-- "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Well then!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
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.
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
by
Anita+Coney
·
· Score: 3, Funny
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.
-- If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Most negative site ever...
by
dfj225
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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?
-- SIGFAULT
I'm guessing that was a joke.
by
cbreaker
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
-- - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Re:I'm guessing that was a joke.
by
mollymoo
·
· Score: 3, Funny
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?
-- Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Re:Looks like Slashdotters Loves Microsoft
by
yerfatma
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
you can be assured that they will use any means possible to destroy competition
And? Hate to break this to you Junior, but every corporation will do that. If I were a stockholder, I would accept nothing less. Now I'll give you that MS engaged in any number of illegal or questionable business practices that I would not approve of as a shareholder. But know what: none of that will stop me from enjoying the hell out of Halo 2.
What a complete and total yawn. Please keep this thread alive with all the reasons Halo 2 isn't news while the rest of us are having fun. If Sony and Microsoft trying to "destroy" each other means I have to make the hard choice of playing GTA: San Andreas vs. Halo 2 every day this month, thank you corporate behemoths.
You make it sound as though every purchase of Halo will inevtiably lead to a world without videogame evolution. Yet you offer no evidence except that MS takes a loss on each console, just like Sony and Nintendo. Show me someone who won two console wars in a row and I'll start to get concerned.
Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Alright, first off I've been a PC game player from way back in the day. I played Doom before any PC fan boy did, on networked NeXT computers where it was first released/developed. I've played tons on the PC and I couldn't stand console gaming, and then came Halo and everything changed. But most PC guys don't get a few things, and when they slam Halo, their PC bias shows.
Ok here are some (4) dirty little secrets/myths that explain why there is a disconnect.
1) The PC version of Halo is worse than the Xbox version. Why you say? The PC version has multiplayer while the Xbox version doesn't. Well for starters, Halo plays slower and looks worse on all but the absolutely highest end PCs. I'm talking you better have at least a 3GHZ P4 and ATI 9800+ level card, or the damn game just looks worse. I can't explain why. It might have something to do with the "fuzzing" on the TV set. But water looks better, smoother. It's more pixilated on the PC somehow. Also, it just runs choppier on the PC with all but the best hardware.
2) This one will upset a bunch of PC gamers, but playing on a console is better. Now I'm not talking better in that you can move around 3 ms faster with analogue controllers. You probably cannot. But it's more enjoyable. There is an entire added level of emersion that Halo balances in just right with the rumble/feedback on the controllers (that just "gets in the way" for hard-core PC enthusiasts that just want the highest kill counts). These are the same guys that turn off every bell/whistle graphic addon/detail to eek out frame rate. Well that may be good for kill counts, but it sucks for telling a story. The PC lacks that visceral element that is brought to bear better with analogue controllers for our analogue wet wear. This is the single thing that PC gamers don't get, because sitting in front of the PC, psychologically (and controller wise) loses an extreme level of immersion. Your home theatre system is designed to suck you into the movie, and it does a way better job than the PC at getting you "in the game."
3) Next myth is that the levels were all repetitive, hallway lamers. Some were. No doubt. But there were super out door, open-ended terrains where you could take any of a million paths. Where you could sniper banshee pilots before they take off to get a plane you shouldn't have been able to get. Take a tank. Take in a team. Sneak in. Kill everyone. The outdoor battles were epic.
Repetitive levels dont suck totally. Not every damn battle has to be some outside completely open ended thing. That's not to say Bungie should be forgiven for endless repetition, but there is an immersive "sh*t I'm lost" factor when you're going through a maze. I find that realistic. Heck, you get into some alien base, you know nothing about it, it looks all the same, youre panicy, that's not necessarily a bad thing. You shouldn't always know where you're going. That's part of the panic/fun of going through it the first time. For the same reasons backtracking through the same level at a different time of day is kind of a cool idea. The open air battle scene in Halo, when you come back at night was very cool. Again, that's not to say I want to go through (now) boring Doom/Quake mazes ad nausium, but there is something to varying the environments and keeping you off balance, that adds to the balance of the game.
4) That people that like Halo are all console lamers that have no clue about PC games. True for some, not for others. The console is a different kind of experience. And in a way it's akin to switching operating systems. What stops you from switching and saying one platform sucks while another doesn't is often a function of muscle memory and habit. Let's face it, we don't like to change (particularly when we're good in one environment), and so getting proficient using the analog controller and starting as square 1 for PC gamers is a downer. I know I hated playing FPS on a console after having gotten good on the keyboard/mouse. But
Re:Halo Myths: What PC Users Don't Get about Halo
by
HeghmoH
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Now I'm not saying Halo's story was on par for the Godfather or anything like that, but for an FPS, there really was no cohesive equal.
You, sir, have obviously never played Marathon. Now there was a story that got you involved, that sucked you in, chewed you up, and spit you out. Halo's story is but the barest shadow of Marathon's. (Almost literally, since they were both done by the same people.) Marathon is full of hope, struggle, mystery, betrayal, revenge, and ambiguity, and all of this was achieved without a single cutscene or line of recorded dialog more complex than, "Thank god it's you!"
Ahh, Bungie, how the mighty have fallen. Not to say that Halo isn't good, I enjoy it quite a bit, but I wonder if Bungie will ever manage to match their achievement in Marathon.
-- Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Having Actually played Halo: Combat Evolved
by
ChozCunningham
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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...
by
eufreka
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Excuse me. Let's compare a $150 console with a $2000-plus Leet gamerz rig, huh...oh, and for an additional $50, I get a year of unlimited broadband multiplayer fun...
Hmmmm. Throw in $50 for Halo 2, and boom, for $250, all the lamers (me included, that's for sure) will be playing our fingers off--in my case up on a 60-inch rear projection monitor.
Oh, feel like driving for a while, or a little sports, swap the disc and keep on going...
Man oh man, this is the same discussion as TiVo versus a homebrew PVR...
All I can say is: To all of you out there that like doing your own dental work...I've got a teeth-cleaning appointment at my dentist's tomorrow.
The better for you to see my pearly whites come midnight...
Re:Boring?
by
AngryUndead
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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.
Here is what all the hype was about.
by
El+Camino+SS
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
Slashdot Mirror
...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
[blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
here: http://www.gametab.com/xbox/halo.2/1472/
IAAL
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.
Unfortunately, these sources can't be considered credible. Which may sound like a troll, but it's not. These people are funded by advertisers. Advertisers like Microsoft and Nintendo and Sony. These sources will almost *always* report favorible, if not glowing reviews of the major advertisers' games.
w00t w00t watch wh0 y0u sh00t!
To me, it was like you were just going through the same repeating rooms over and over fighting endless hoards of monsters. Especially the library. I didn't play all the way through, I gave up once I got to the part where you go through the core stage again - only this time BACKWARDS! I think I had more fun playing Unreal 2 or Red Faction or other games that got considerably less critical acclaim.
I guess I just don't get the big selling point behind Halo- do people just like it for the action? I mean the story was interesting, but the levels definately were not.
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??
Hell, even Penny Arcade liked it.
"I make people like me... WITH VIOLENCE!" - ATHF
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.
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.
Halo level design was awful.
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.
Compared to the awesome Unreal Tournament and Quake 3's I think Halo and it's console-friendly ilk are average to say the least.... I remember when Alien Trilogy on the Sega Saturn was just as hyped and when you finally got round to playing it you just thought "Ho Hum better load up Doom 2 on my PC". Hype DOES NOT mean good.... I thought most gamers would have learnt that by now
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
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 :).
Thats a very bold thing to say with a worldclass game as Chronicles of Riddick readily available !
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!
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
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?
Do you think that people buy the Xbox just for Halo? Or do they buy Halo because it's on the Xbox? ;)
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.
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.
My friends that have played it all share the same opinion pretty much. Halo 2 is a rehash of the first one with improvements in the multiplayer area. So if you want to have a party, bring halo and you'll have some fun. Unless your friends are addicted to the fast paced nature of FPS' like UT. Don't forget, Halo is locked at 30fps and plays rather sluggishly compared to PC FPS'.
There is wisdom behind your provocative vision.
The fact is, HALO/HALO2 is great for people who are console-addicts but is just "another game" for us pc gamers. FPS games on consoles are behind their time compared to on the pc platform.
Imagine if BattleField 1942 came out first on the console with the same multiplayer experience, then Halo next to it would appear as "just another game". Currently, is there a game on xbox that is same genre as halo? Exactly, none.
On PC, you have BF1942, UT2004, MODS for UT2004, HL, MODS for hl, q3, MODS for q3... This is why halo sucks for us. We have so many choices of fps action because of modifications. They make the game last and give us a wide choice of different gameplays.
On Console, you got HALO, it remains HALO and always will be HALO. If on console you had Half Life (and think there is if not mistakeN0, it would remain Half Life, Not Day of Defeat.
HL and UT were shitty games on PS2, and Halo was a shitty game on PC. It's not often that a game makes a good trip cross platforms, and it definitely wasn't the case with Halo.
http://ipod.fresh27.net/
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
Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
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.
5468652047616D65
Halo was not "born on the console". It was born on the Macintosh. Microsoft got hold of it and changed that, however.
hey!
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.
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.
-- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
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.
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
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.
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.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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?
SIGFAULT
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.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
And? Hate to break this to you Junior, but every corporation will do that. If I were a stockholder, I would accept nothing less. Now I'll give you that MS engaged in any number of illegal or questionable business practices that I would not approve of as a shareholder. But know what: none of that will stop me from enjoying the hell out of Halo 2.
What a complete and total yawn. Please keep this thread alive with all the reasons Halo 2 isn't news while the rest of us are having fun. If Sony and Microsoft trying to "destroy" each other means I have to make the hard choice of playing GTA: San Andreas vs. Halo 2 every day this month, thank you corporate behemoths.
You make it sound as though every purchase of Halo will inevtiably lead to a world without videogame evolution. Yet you offer no evidence except that MS takes a loss on each console, just like Sony and Nintendo. Show me someone who won two console wars in a row and I'll start to get concerned.
Alright, first off I've been a PC game player from way back in the day. I played Doom before any PC fan boy did, on networked NeXT computers where it was first released/developed. I've played tons on the PC and I couldn't stand console gaming, and then came Halo and everything changed. But most PC guys don't get a few things, and when they slam Halo, their PC bias shows.
Ok here are some (4) dirty little secrets/myths that explain why there is a disconnect.
1) The PC version of Halo is worse than the Xbox version. Why you say? The PC version has multiplayer while the Xbox version doesn't. Well for starters, Halo plays slower and looks worse on all but the absolutely highest end PCs. I'm talking you better have at least a 3GHZ P4 and ATI 9800+ level card, or the damn game just looks worse. I can't explain why. It might have something to do with the "fuzzing" on the TV set. But water looks better, smoother. It's more pixilated on the PC somehow. Also, it just runs choppier on the PC with all but the best hardware.
2) This one will upset a bunch of PC gamers, but playing on a console is better. Now I'm not talking better in that you can move around 3 ms faster with analogue controllers. You probably cannot. But it's more enjoyable. There is an entire added level of emersion that Halo balances in just right with the rumble/feedback on the controllers (that just "gets in the way" for hard-core PC enthusiasts that just want the highest kill counts). These are the same guys that turn off every bell/whistle graphic addon/detail to eek out frame rate. Well that may be good for kill counts, but it sucks for telling a story. The PC lacks that visceral element that is brought to bear better with analogue controllers for our analogue wet wear. This is the single thing that PC gamers don't get, because sitting in front of the PC, psychologically (and controller wise) loses an extreme level of immersion. Your home theatre system is designed to suck you into the movie, and it does a way better job than the PC at getting you "in the game."
3) Next myth is that the levels were all repetitive, hallway lamers. Some were. No doubt. But there were super out door, open-ended terrains where you could take any of a million paths. Where you could sniper banshee pilots before they take off to get a plane you shouldn't have been able to get. Take a tank. Take in a team. Sneak in. Kill everyone. The outdoor battles were epic.
Repetitive levels dont suck totally. Not every damn battle has to be some outside completely open ended thing. That's not to say Bungie should be forgiven for endless repetition, but there is an immersive "sh*t I'm lost" factor when you're going through a maze. I find that realistic. Heck, you get into some alien base, you know nothing about it, it looks all the same, youre panicy, that's not necessarily a bad thing. You shouldn't always know where you're going. That's part of the panic/fun of going through it the first time. For the same reasons backtracking through the same level at a different time of day is kind of a cool idea. The open air battle scene in Halo, when you come back at night was very cool. Again, that's not to say I want to go through (now) boring Doom/Quake mazes ad nausium, but there is something to varying the environments and keeping you off balance, that adds to the balance of the game.
4) That people that like Halo are all console lamers that have no clue about PC games. True for some, not for others. The console is a different kind of experience. And in a way it's akin to switching operating systems. What stops you from switching and saying one platform sucks while another doesn't is often a function of muscle memory and habit. Let's face it, we don't like to change (particularly when we're good in one environment), and so getting proficient using the analog controller and starting as square 1 for PC gamers is a downer. I know I hated playing FPS on a console after having gotten good on the keyboard/mouse. But
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...
Looks good for your age..
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...
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 wear the ring.
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.