Re:Penny Arcade said the same thing
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Actually, according to a post on Penny Arcade, Bungie came back to Tycho and Gabe and wanted to put an advertisement that said "Remember that game that sucked? Here's its sequel.":)
Re:You want an honest review?
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
So, um, basically you're having a pissy fit because (as a small-time gaming site) you couldn't get your hands on a copy? Seems remarkably... childish.
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").
"Microsoft got hold of it and changed that, however."
You say that as if it were for the worse. If Halo had stayed on Mac, how many would've played it? Even if it went to PC, would it reach the critical mass it did on Xbox. There are STILL people bringing Xboxes over their friends' house; still major tournaments being held by the PGL. Bungie made an incredibly accessible shooter and MS brought it to an accessible audience. I see no harm in that.
Secondly, I'm not sure how you could equate Halo 2 to the original Halo, because its not out yet. How can you say it's "boring" or "uninnovative" (not a word, by the way) when you haven't played it? When no one but reviewers have played it?
Third, Halo had its flaws, just like any other game out there. It was, however, ridiculously fun to play in multiplayer. Vehicles were "done before", but they hadn't been done WELL until Halo. The graphics were jaw-dropping in 2001 (they were using pixel shaders before anyone else had heard of them). Boring enemies? How does an enemy AI that adapts to cover, acts realistically (runs when its clearly outmatched) and has thousands of lines of dialog "boring"? What on earth are you comparing it too?
And yes, Bungie has stayed together. Unlike Rare, who had broken up quite a bit while at Nintendo, most of the original Bungie guys have been there for years. Their next game is NOT Halo. It's gone beyond rumor to truth at this point. I firmly believe you have a bug up your ass about Bungie, arguing (poorly) against it, and I'm not sure why.
Re:I think what it was...
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
If by "lifeless" you meant "incredibly fun to play with 16 players", I'd agree with you. I'm a diehard gamer -- been that way for 20 years. I agree that Halo has its place along the Sims and Mysts of the world, but gameplay-wise it was also incredibly fun. The same reason GTA took off despite lackluster graphics and debatably "fun" missions. The same reason the Sims took off despite not having a clear way to "win".
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're clueless.
The reasons the original Halo took off had nothing to do with the single-player campaign (which is what you're griping about). Halo was the first accessible LAN-party game. By "accessible", I mean that you didn't need to carry 20-40 lbs of computer equipment on your back, know how to configure drivers, etc. This was the first game that you could have 16 people who wanted to play, didn't know a lick about technical stuff, hook up and get hours and hours of fun social gaming.
Let me put things in context: I'm a UT freak. I play competitively, put in hours and hours over the weekend, etc. I see where Halo had its place: it was damn fun for the average gamer. Same as GTA. Same as The Sims. Same as Myst. I could gripe about control issues or the "floaty" jumping, but why bother? Halo is pure-squeezed gameplay from the orange of gaming goodness.
Feel free to stay on a dwindling platform (the only games I'm really looking forward in the near future are Half Life 2 and World of Warcraft). The PC had its time in the sun. Now it's going to take a back seat to consoles.
Re:Over at GE we have...
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
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:Couldnt disagree more.
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 2
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.
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.:)
Re:I've never understood the obsession with Halo
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
From a LAN-party standpoint, I think they were able to do something fairly revolutionary. This wasn't Quake for the next generation of gamers -- this was Quake for the next generation period.
Think about it: how many LAN parties have you gone to where people trucked over a few dozen 20-lb cases, set up all their equipment, and the entire gamer base was techies.
Contrast that with Halo, which my little brother (a 16-year old who knows nothing and could care little about computers) would bring over his Xbox, 16 players would jack in, and they just had fun playing (instead of figuring out why one machine needed new drivers and why some others couldn't talk to each other.
Live play is going to be VERY interesting this time around. I look forward to 16-person LAN parties against other 16-person teams on the other side of the country. Should be some major fun.
Um, read the article. And the license. All you did was read the Slashdot headline.
If you read the license, you would've seen this:
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
In other words, "We don't own or have any legal rights over any of this stuff. We're, instead, pointing you to the public domain."
If anything, the license is a complete absolution of any legal rights, and is instead a classification method. MS management probably asked "where does public domain stuff fit into our licensing schemes" (since everything at MS is licensed). The lawyers turned around and said "Nowhere." "Well, write a 'license' anyway, even if it doesn't do anything." If it was ever brought up and court, opponents could actually use the thing against MS and say "look, you absolved any possible legal ownership over these". If nothing else, this "license" is a good thing.
Uh, did you read the license? At all? It's an absolution of any potential ownership they may have over public domain software:
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details"
In other words, "We don't own any of this. This 'license' is a pointer to the public domain, and they set the rules on these".
Uh, they aren't trying to gain control of TCP/IP. The license basically says, while they use it, they have absolutely no ownership of it. Read the license.
RTFL (read the f'ing license). There's no "signup", no "legal binding". I don't think they even expect anyone to request this license.
Methinks this was just a way of classification within Microsoft. Someone in management asked "What kind of license do we give out for the public domain stuff we use?" (because EVERYTHING at MS is license; if you use the bathroom, you're licensed to do so). The lawyers looked, saw that they didn't own any of it, and put together a faux "license" that basically says "We don't own any of it, even though it's in our product."
If you read through the license, it basically exercises no legal rights at all. It's a pointer, in essense, to the public domain. If this was ever brought up in a court, the opponents could basically point to the thing and say "MS, you absolved all potential 'rights' with this 'license'." If nothing else, this "license" is a good thing, because MS is basically backing off with it's hands in the air.
MS is driven on licenses. Everything requires a license. If you sneeze on the MS campus, you need a license for that.
This "license" is most-likely the by-product of this: some guy in management asked "How do we classify public domain protocols that we use". The lawyers took a look and came up with this "pseudo-license". It basically states "we don't own this stuff, but if you use them with our software, here's our conditions". If you look at the conditions, there aren't any.
Basically, MS is saying "we had to classify public protocols somewhere in our organization -- here's how we classify them". They can classify them like this all they want, as far as I'm concerned. If anything, if they ever brought this up in a courtroom, the opponents could say "Look at the license. They're basically 'giving' everyone free reign". This is classification, nothing more.
Good, you've RTFA. Now go all the way and RTFL (read the f*ing license). Apparently the guy in the eWeek story didn't.
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
In other words, "We don't own any of this. We use it. If you use MS software to access these protocols, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license' to do so." Nothing to see here.
For those who want legal proof, it's right in the license itself:
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
In other words, "We use these, but we don't own them. If you want to use our software to access these, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license'". Nothing to see here at all.
I personally find an OS X/Windows XP Pro/Linux combination come in quite handy. Run Linux as the server (storage and security), Windows XP Pro as the desktop (gaming and multimedia) and OS X on a portable (basic apps). All of them can talk to each other just fine, and each excels at what it does.
Really? I've found ASP.NET (most of.NET in general) to be pretty refreshing to work with. The only time I really dislike ASP.NET is when it references old ASP. ASP can rot in a burning hell with its MFC breathren as far as I'm concerned.
Uh, did you look at the numbers? This was the biggest young voter turnout, ever. As a 25-year old, this was actually the first time I voted. None of the previous years (even 2000) gave me pause that they were in any way serious elections (yeah president, blah blah blah; if you're not an activist in college, you really don't care).
This election is going to be the first one in history where voter drives actually worked.
There should be a lot of traffic. This is perhaps the most important election of the current young digerati generation (hate that word, but it fits).
As an aside, I saw something fairly poignant today. I came into the World Trade Center site via the PATH, which I do everyday. There's always visitors (never understood the morbid fascination of looking at the hole; you get a very good view from the PATH train). What was different this morning was where they were standing.
There are photograph placards all along the fence, displaying the WTC at various stages of development, the tribute in light, etc. Typically people walk from placard to placard, take pictures, etc. One placard shows the destruction on 9-11-01 (dust clouds, the famous picture of the firemen at the cementary across the street, etc). For whatever reason, there were a ton of people just staring at that one placard. Noone demonstrating, saying anything, but just staring and thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, according to a post on Penny Arcade, Bungie came back to Tycho and Gabe and wanted to put an advertisement that said "Remember that game that sucked? Here's its sequel." :)
So, um, basically you're having a pissy fit because (as a small-time gaming site) you couldn't get your hands on a copy? Seems remarkably... childish.
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").
"Microsoft got hold of it and changed that, however."
You say that as if it were for the worse. If Halo had stayed on Mac, how many would've played it? Even if it went to PC, would it reach the critical mass it did on Xbox. There are STILL people bringing Xboxes over their friends' house; still major tournaments being held by the PGL. Bungie made an incredibly accessible shooter and MS brought it to an accessible audience. I see no harm in that.
First off, your english needs work.
Secondly, I'm not sure how you could equate Halo 2 to the original Halo, because its not out yet. How can you say it's "boring" or "uninnovative" (not a word, by the way) when you haven't played it? When no one but reviewers have played it?
Third, Halo had its flaws, just like any other game out there. It was, however, ridiculously fun to play in multiplayer. Vehicles were "done before", but they hadn't been done WELL until Halo. The graphics were jaw-dropping in 2001 (they were using pixel shaders before anyone else had heard of them). Boring enemies? How does an enemy AI that adapts to cover, acts realistically (runs when its clearly outmatched) and has thousands of lines of dialog "boring"? What on earth are you comparing it too?
And yes, Bungie has stayed together. Unlike Rare, who had broken up quite a bit while at Nintendo, most of the original Bungie guys have been there for years. Their next game is NOT Halo. It's gone beyond rumor to truth at this point. I firmly believe you have a bug up your ass about Bungie, arguing (poorly) against it, and I'm not sure why.
If by "lifeless" you meant "incredibly fun to play with 16 players", I'd agree with you. I'm a diehard gamer -- been that way for 20 years. I agree that Halo has its place along the Sims and Mysts of the world, but gameplay-wise it was also incredibly fun. The same reason GTA took off despite lackluster graphics and debatably "fun" missions. The same reason the Sims took off despite not having a clear way to "win".
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're clueless.
The reasons the original Halo took off had nothing to do with the single-player campaign (which is what you're griping about). Halo was the first accessible LAN-party game. By "accessible", I mean that you didn't need to carry 20-40 lbs of computer equipment on your back, know how to configure drivers, etc. This was the first game that you could have 16 people who wanted to play, didn't know a lick about technical stuff, hook up and get hours and hours of fun social gaming.
Let me put things in context: I'm a UT freak. I play competitively, put in hours and hours over the weekend, etc. I see where Halo had its place: it was damn fun for the average gamer. Same as GTA. Same as The Sims. Same as Myst. I could gripe about control issues or the "floaty" jumping, but why bother? Halo is pure-squeezed gameplay from the orange of gaming goodness.
Feel free to stay on a dwindling platform (the only games I'm really looking forward in the near future are Half Life 2 and World of Warcraft). The PC had its time in the sun. Now it's going to take a back seat to consoles.
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"?
Um, out of curiousity, how can you give an accurate review if:
:) But multiplayer a massive draw on this thing. I would wait to see how that turns out.
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).
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.
From a LAN-party standpoint, I think they were able to do something fairly revolutionary. This wasn't Quake for the next generation of gamers -- this was Quake for the next generation period.
Think about it: how many LAN parties have you gone to where people trucked over a few dozen 20-lb cases, set up all their equipment, and the entire gamer base was techies.
Contrast that with Halo, which my little brother (a 16-year old who knows nothing and could care little about computers) would bring over his Xbox, 16 players would jack in, and they just had fun playing (instead of figuring out why one machine needed new drivers and why some others couldn't talk to each other.
Live play is going to be VERY interesting this time around. I look forward to 16-person LAN parties against other 16-person teams on the other side of the country. Should be some major fun.
Um, read the article. And the license. All you did was read the Slashdot headline.
If you read the license, you would've seen this:
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
In other words, "We don't own or have any legal rights over any of this stuff. We're, instead, pointing you to the public domain."
If anything, the license is a complete absolution of any legal rights, and is instead a classification method. MS management probably asked "where does public domain stuff fit into our licensing schemes" (since everything at MS is licensed). The lawyers turned around and said "Nowhere." "Well, write a 'license' anyway, even if it doesn't do anything." If it was ever brought up and court, opponents could actually use the thing against MS and say "look, you absolved any possible legal ownership over these". If nothing else, this "license" is a good thing.
Uh, did you read the license? At all? It's an absolution of any potential ownership they may have over public domain software:
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details"
In other words, "We don't own any of this. This 'license' is a pointer to the public domain, and they set the rules on these".
Uh, they aren't trying to gain control of TCP/IP. The license basically says, while they use it, they have absolutely no ownership of it. Read the license.
RTFL (read the f'ing license). There's no "signup", no "legal binding". I don't think they even expect anyone to request this license.
Methinks this was just a way of classification within Microsoft. Someone in management asked "What kind of license do we give out for the public domain stuff we use?" (because EVERYTHING at MS is license; if you use the bathroom, you're licensed to do so). The lawyers looked, saw that they didn't own any of it, and put together a faux "license" that basically says "We don't own any of it, even though it's in our product."
If you read through the license, it basically exercises no legal rights at all. It's a pointer, in essense, to the public domain. If this was ever brought up in a court, the opponents could basically point to the thing and say "MS, you absolved all potential 'rights' with this 'license'." If nothing else, this "license" is a good thing, because MS is basically backing off with it's hands in the air.
You're totally missing the point.
MS is driven on licenses. Everything requires a license. If you sneeze on the MS campus, you need a license for that.
This "license" is most-likely the by-product of this: some guy in management asked "How do we classify public domain protocols that we use". The lawyers took a look and came up with this "pseudo-license". It basically states "we don't own this stuff, but if you use them with our software, here's our conditions". If you look at the conditions, there aren't any.
Basically, MS is saying "we had to classify public protocols somewhere in our organization -- here's how we classify them". They can classify them like this all they want, as far as I'm concerned. If anything, if they ever brought this up in a courtroom, the opponents could say "Look at the license. They're basically 'giving' everyone free reign". This is classification, nothing more.
Good, you've RTFA. Now go all the way and RTFL (read the f*ing license). Apparently the guy in the eWeek story didn't.
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
In other words, "We don't own any of this. We use it. If you use MS software to access these protocols, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license' to do so." Nothing to see here.
For those who want legal proof, it's right in the license itself:
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
In other words, "We use these, but we don't own them. If you want to use our software to access these, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license'". Nothing to see here at all.
"Hasn't everyone moved on to OS X and Linux?"
I personally find an OS X/Windows XP Pro/Linux combination come in quite handy. Run Linux as the server (storage and security), Windows XP Pro as the desktop (gaming and multimedia) and OS X on a portable (basic apps). All of them can talk to each other just fine, and each excels at what it does.
And a flashlight.
Which was dumb, considering OS 9 was still very much alive. The box was practically kicking and screaming from inside the coffin when it was closed.
Really? I've found ASP.NET (most of .NET in general) to be pretty refreshing to work with. The only time I really dislike ASP.NET is when it references old ASP. ASP can rot in a burning hell with its MFC breathren as far as I'm concerned.
Uh, did you look at the numbers? This was the biggest young voter turnout, ever. As a 25-year old, this was actually the first time I voted. None of the previous years (even 2000) gave me pause that they were in any way serious elections (yeah president, blah blah blah; if you're not an activist in college, you really don't care).
This election is going to be the first one in history where voter drives actually worked.
Note to world: not everyone here in the US agrees with this scumbag. I guess if you're pointed a rifle, you're free to act like an idiot.
There should be a lot of traffic. This is perhaps the most important election of the current young digerati generation (hate that word, but it fits).
As an aside, I saw something fairly poignant today. I came into the World Trade Center site via the PATH, which I do everyday. There's always visitors (never understood the morbid fascination of looking at the hole; you get a very good view from the PATH train). What was different this morning was where they were standing.
There are photograph placards all along the fence, displaying the WTC at various stages of development, the tribute in light, etc. Typically people walk from placard to placard, take pictures, etc. One placard shows the destruction on 9-11-01 (dust clouds, the famous picture of the firemen at the cementary across the street, etc). For whatever reason, there were a ton of people just staring at that one placard. Noone demonstrating, saying anything, but just staring and thinking.