Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
There's a good chance you'll feel emotionally betrayed by the story, and it certainly doesn't help that the campaign, at the default difficulty, is going to take an average player less than 10 hours from start to finish. Many excited Halo fans will quickly blow through it in a day, or even a single sitting. Yes, the actual gameplay of Halo's single-player campaign is a blast.
Can't be bothered buying the game. Let's hope Valve's HL2 is a longer experience. Unfortunately, I've heard rumours that HL2 isn't that long either. Spend 5 years on a game, you better make damn sure it plays for a decent length of time or you won't get my money.
Big surprise, considering that Halo 1 also sucked?
suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. suddenly somebody will say like 'plate' or 'shrimp' or 'plate of shrimp', out of the blue, no explanation.
Clearly, single player doesn't matter or something. But really, is Halo's multiplayer that big of a deal to make up for the piss poor single player game? <--- WFT RHETORICAL QUESTION ^_^
suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. suddenly somebody will say like 'plate' or 'shrimp' or 'plate of shrimp', out of the blue, no explanation.
I really can't justify games that short getting good ratings. The gameplay, graphics, story, whatever can all be top notch, but if it's over quicker than people's interest in William Hung, it can't be a 'superb' game.
After the disappointment with MoO III and Doom III, I do not have that high of hopes for Halo.
Although the covenent aspect sounds intriguing, nonethless. Always had a soft spot for non-humans. Or at least non-humans who have pointed ears. Or non-humans that grow to a metre 'n quarter at the most. Or grow that high and have a blunt nose. Or have a really hairy beard.
Oops, almost describes all the player selectable races in D&D, huh?
Saving and loading is also handled extremely well, in that it's done automatically. Intermittent checkpoints punctuate the action, and you'll start back at these should you die or quit playing for a while--you never need to manually save your progress.
I really hate having to save the game myself, it's such a chore. Thank God the game can take over that task, especially when it saves when my character is on the verge of death, that's always fun.
"It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow." - Robert Goddard
At least we have the $50 PC port to look forward to that'll come out two years after the Halo 2 engine becomes dated.
And then we can look forward to the two-year old engine not running well on brand-new PCs.
The good news is, the sequel to the Xbox's defining action game is an absolutely superb, fully featured game, boasting an excellent presentation, a highly replayable campaign, and the greatest, most complete online multiplayer component in a console shooter yet. A surprisingly disappointing story and a fairly short single-player portion are noticeable shortcomings...
The amount of double-talk in those back-to-back sentences is mesmerizing.
"You're going to have a tough time doing that without your head, palooka."
- the Vault Dweller
Those who say Halo sucks are pussies who have an inherent need to brag about how they 0wn a game and beat it mercilessly - pretentious lot who lack the guts to take on the horde in a legendary challenge.
Halo was a definitly different experience on higher difficulty and if not for the poor map desing I would rate it very high - even as it is know the gameplay is addictive.
Its flaws aside, Halo integrated game dynamics so seemlessly into an otherwise failsafe assumed principle, that on that basis alone the game is worth its effort, even if it won't stand up to later titles that already benefit from the way it has ploughed.
The integration of grenade hauling and quick weapon switching - along with the 2 weapon limitation - doesn't seem all that great, but for Christ sake, almost no-one implemented it so far!
Those changes turned the FPS from a match of hauling firepower and merciless ambushes into a game where tactics and actual prlonged engagements make sense.
Sure it was easy to beat on easy even on normal - but the game states that it is so. Take it on hard and the gameplay will be a lot more rewarding, and legendary is a whole new experience.
BTW the port is truely sucky, but we should bang up on gearbox for that one, never the less I was delighted to have my old tailed fellow in my hand to take on the Covs.
So yes, Halo does have its fare share of flaws, but IMHO its new gamplay is still revolutionary and even if it won't be a game to play for decades, just like DOOM it has brought about changes that will benefit all titles from now on.
"Wer nicht von dreitausend Jahren
Sich weißźRechenschaft zu geben,
Bleim im Dunkeln unerfahren
Mag von Tag zu Tage leben." - Johann Wolfgang Goethe
Flaser wrote:Those who say Halo sucks are pussies who have an inherent need to brag abo.... y o y is thar coq in mah eye
No actually those who say it sucks do so because it does in fact suck. The only reason people crap there pants about it is because it was essentially the first experiance console gamers had with multiplayer first person shooters, same reason everyone shat their pants about goldeneye on the nintendo 64.
Flaser, SDF at Large wrote:Halo integrated game dynamics so seemlessly into an otherwise failsafe assumed principle
I know what the words mean, but I don't think you do.
Anyway, I found Halo (on Legendary, or 4-way with friends) to be the most enjoyable console game I've played in years, with the exception of GTA: VC. It was challenging enough to hold my interest for quite a while.
Halo is not revolutionary. Halo is not especially challenging. Halo when viewed in ignorance of it's flaws is invisible. The reasons are many, the reasons are plentiful. Like this often controversial issue, they are tired. Oh so tired. Open your eyes, and perhaps you might realise the truth - that you have been lied to, and worse - that you believe those lies. Halo is not a good game. Halo is not even a mediocre game. Please wake up.
Too bad Bungie was bought by Microsoft, I still dream of the days when they developped their games on Mac. Pathways, Marathon, Durandal, Infinity, then Myth. Every single game they produced was the best of it's time.
Halo was supposed to be released on PC/Mac simultaneously, and was considered as Marathon's spiritual successor. MS quickly changed this.
Halo coop was fun for a few levels until the game turns to absolute shit. Was I the only one to hate the jeep's "slippery" controls? It sucked and was more frustrating than anything else.
I don't care about Halo 2 and never have. No longer own an Xbox.
About the early Half Life 2 reviews, has anybody read them? It's amazing how devoid of actual information they are. The PCGamer one goes on for 7 pages on how much it rocks and will change the world. You think they'll elaborate but they fucking don't! That's not a goddamn review. To think I forgot why I stopped reading magazines years ago.
It's because the magazines get 'exclusive' reviews, ie are invited to Valve or Bungie HQ, get 2 days to play the game, and are told they can write a review as long as they don't mention certain things about the game.
In other words, it's disgraceful journalism, but hey.
