The Great Green Hype of Halo 2

[quote name='crazytalkx'][quote name='XboxMaster']What's wrong with trieing to make a good FPS experience for the consoles? I bet you this guy is a PC fanboy. I mean, when you think about, he's pretty much insulting the whole console gaming community by saying Halo, one of the, if not the most prized console FPS doesn't stack up compared to PC games. I'm sorry for seeming like such an apparent Xbox fanboy, but I will applaud Halo till the day I die. I love that damn game, and I can't help it.[/quote]

DAMN SHAQ-FUING STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted:[/quote]

i agree, im just saying that they shouldn't even be compared. two different animals. although we will never know for sure, i think that if microsoft did not buy bungie, and halo was released as a Mac/PC game as it was origninally intended, it would have ended up being a very different game. Concessions have to be made to the console crowd (and not just to the people, but the hardware, release schedule, controller and so on).
 
[quote name='Weedy649'][quote name='crazytalkx']Halo 2 shouldn't be judged based on JUST its campaign mode. LAN matches and Xbox live will keep the replay value up considering I was still having Halo 1 LAN matches up to the release of part 2. Most people who bash Halo haven't tried it online or in 8-16 player LAN.[/quote]

The XBL bit has been the best part as ive heard from most users BUT to be fair think about how many copies Halo 2 sold...now think about the number of Xbox Live Units sold...No where near the amount. That means most users are not on Xbox Live and when you think of the cost between all the xboxes and controllers needed for a lan pt...you might as well buy a high end pc lol. j/k but still not everyone has the resources to play lan and XBL so campaign mode is a big part of living up to they hype.[/quote]

Since every Halo 2 came with a free 2 month Live trial, there won't be a need for some people to buy Live for a while. Not to mention that no one person is buying all the Xboxes and controllers for the LAN party. One person has to cover the cost for a PC to play any game on the computer. Make any other arguments you want, but the cost is nowhere near the same.
 
hence the lol j/k on the buying a pc part man :roll: the resources to play lan is finding people with the time to come and get together and bring their stuff and games. People get on Cubes gba connection for this and the same goes for lan. Its fun but not that easy with people that work and dont have time to meet to play.
 
I also agree with the article. What' so "revolutionary" that Halo has brought to the table? Nothing as far as I'm concerned. I bought it new for $37.88 with a raincheck I had at Target and I have already traded it in for credit at Gamestop before a bunch of people start and then the credit goes down. I mean after playing the first 3 levels I felt bored. And I can't put my finger on it exactly...but the first Halo still seems a little more fun to me. Now my opinion is based on the single player campaign. I REFUSE to pay $50 a month for DSL plus a monthly subscription fee to Microsoft. When DSL is down to $20 a month then maybe I'll take the plunge, but not now. Hell's no!
 
[quote name='Weedy649']

oh please me next!

I'm JER7583! I read the article but i decided to write about the company instead of the valid points in the article! My full out attack on gamepro will prove this article wrong! I never wrote for a living but Im allowed to discredit them because my PC sucks! That and I didnt have a credit card to subscribe in 5th GRADE!
...on a serious note, try to give some real feedback instead of the nonsense. My question is to you, you already beat the game 3 times in less than a week?[/quote]

I really, really hate gamepro. Almost as much as Nintendo Power, but NP at least acts as a strategy guide of sorts so its useful to somebody. Gamepro doesn't even deserve to decorate an outhouse. Halo 2 isn't perfect, but, IMO, let me repeat, IMO, It's a very very fun game. Few things are like the craziness of 1 flag ctf on Zanzibar with a few xboxes and your friends all shouting at each other. I played through heroic once, easy once, and I'm incredibly stuck at the Cairo Station level on Legendary right now.

And there may be nothing exactly "revolutionary" about the game, but when was the last time anything really "revolutionary" came about in any FPS? I think halo's fun and I also think this guy only wrote this article to get attention for himself and his rag of a magazine..
 
[quote name='Weedy649']

The XBL bit has been the best part as ive heard from most users BUT to be fair think about how many copies Halo 2 sold...now think about the number of Xbox Live Units sold...No where near the amount. That means most users are not on Xbox Live and when you think of the cost between all the xboxes and controllers needed for a lan pt...you might as well buy a high end pc lol. j/k but still not everyone has the resources to play lan and XBL so campaign mode is a big part of living up to they hype.
[/quote]

I Bolded the part where you shouldn't be talking because you obviously haven't played or don't own the game.

Actually, those of us with friends have them come over and bring their equipment, because after all, you do need other people to play.. The other thing is those of us at universities or colleges can just plug our xboxes into the wall and play system link with anyone on campus plugged into the campus network.. instant LAN party. Since they don't let us have XBL, this is the next best thing, and it's more common then you would think.

All this arguing makes me feel like im on gamefaqs.. lets not bring CAG down to that level..
 
[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']I'd have to say that I agree completely. I tried Halo on the PC when it came out. It held my attention - literally - for maybe two hours. Nothing drew me into the game when I'd tried the Xbox version, and absolutely nothing compelled me to continue on on my PC.

For comparison, I played Deus Ex not too long afterwards. It took maybe five minutes for me to become addicted. The storyline and the gameplay were more than enough to satisfy me.

Believe it or not, online play and pretty graphics aren't everything for some of us. Some gamers still like a strong story and a good single player mode. If I want to run around and blow up everything in site, I've got Serious Sam. Halo, for me, didn't offer me anything that I couldn't find elsewhere.

[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='CheapyD']Also, Halo 2 online is more addictive than crack.[/quote]

Many of the personal opinions I've heard that are down on Halo 2 come from people that cannot/will not play the game on XBL.

Sucks to be them.[/quote]

Broadband is expensive, and Xbox Live just adds to the cost. Some people can't afford it.

More importantly, online play won't last forever. Xbox Live won't be around in ten years, and will probably vanish much sooner than that. Want proof? Look at the Dreamcast, or Satellaview, or the Xband.

When online play is gone, will you still be enjoying the game? Classic games can hold up over time, even as the graphics and mechanics age. Will Halo 2 without its online multiplay?[/quote]

Can you imagine in 5 to 10 years from now and we can get used copies of halo2 for less then 10 bucks an used xbox for like $15 how much fun it will be to lan them all together ? And someday the xbox will only cost less then $20 used. Look how much a used N64 costs. Imagine you could link the N64 and play some 16 player golden eye. You don't think people would be playing that ?
 
I kind of agree with some points of the article myself. I played counter strike for 4 years straight and although I am enjoying halo I don't see myself playing it for more than a few years
 
This is a really good example of the rift that exists between those who primarily game on consoles vs. those who prefer PCs. All of my Xbox-owning (but not PC-playing) friends were the ones hitting Wal-Mart and EB Games at midnight for Halo 2. But my PC gaming friends (who don't game as much on their consoles as they do on their PCs) were the ones who were taking a "I'll try it before I buy it" attitude. The fact of the matter is that PC gamers have played much, much better games than Halo OR Halo 2, whether you're talking about single-player OR online multi-player. Console gamers have been so starved that when something like Halo or Halo 2 comes along, they devour it. Additionally, it's a shame that this mana from Heaven in console game form has to be a first-person shooter, since console controllers--Xbox included--are ill-suited for controlling viewpoint and movement in this type of game. PC owners have known for a decade now that the only suitable controls for FPSs are a mouse and keyboard.
 
[quote name='buddy the puppy']What' so "revolutionary" that Halo has brought to the table? [/quote]

The only people who claim Halo was revolutionary are those who ask WHY it's revolutionary. Everyone who loves Halo understands it doesn't redefine anything - its just a pretty good game in a genre flooded with good games.

For some reason, Halo haters cannot stand that people enjoy Halo. Why? I personally don't love the GTA series, but I can see why people do, and applaud them for their commitment to their favorite game. Halo is the only game of its type out there that is shitted on consistantly by elitist PC snobs who feel you have to spend $3,500 to play a "real" FPS.

By the way, neither Half-Life 2 nor Doom 3 brought anything "revolutionary" to the table yet PC snobs need to love those games or else they'll feel their $550 graphics card was a waste.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='CheapyD']Also, Halo 2 online is more addictive than crack.[/quote]

Many of the personal opinions I've heard that are down on Halo 2 come from people that cannot/will not play the game on XBL.

Sucks to be them.[/quote]

Not true. I love Halo and Halo 2 single player but have zero interest in multiplayer. Maybe a little Co-op campaign but that's about it. Online capture the flag and deathmatch are soooo tired.

Never really understood the obsession...
 
Jer, i said i dont own the game, i said i was going to get it in January, i said i didnt hate it...your the one lowering it to gamefaqs level by writing what you wrote in the first place...also i dont see why you have to call PC users snobs, i play my console way more then my pc but you dont NEED a $550 graphics card to play Half-Life or any other game for that matter. There are plenty of low end graphics cards that can let you play games fine. Thats like saying all console owners have a 52 inch HDTV set up with 5.1 surround...sure people have that but there are plenty of users with RF cables using it on a 20 inch
 
First and foremost, I'm a gamer. That means PC and console equally.

I started playing games with my first game system, the Atari 2600, and progressed to Colecovision. As the videogame industry crumbled under it's own weight in the early-to-mid-80s, I saw the writing on the wall and gravitated toward computer gaming with my first computer, the TI-994A.

Then, when Nintendo practically single-handed revived console gaming in the US, and I eagerly jumped back on board, adopting the NES and Sega Master System. During this time, I also upgraded my computer gaming experience with the addition of a Commodore 128, and later, a Commodore Amiga.

As consoles went next-generation, I followed, adding Genesis, SNES, and later, 3DO and Jaguar to my collection. With the utter failure of those last two systems, the console industry again seemed primed for failure and I again concentrated on computer gaming, adopting for the first time an IBM-compatible system.

Sony picked up the ball, much as Nintendo had done a decade before, and again the console was king. Playstation was added to my collection, and later, Dreamcast, N64, PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox all were added. As PCs became more and more sophisticated, I've upgraded and built several machines to keep current.

So, as a gamer since the "ancient" 2600 days, I've learned that certain types of games play better on certain platforms. First-person shooters, for example, are better suited to the platform on which they were given life, the PC. While this is not etched in stone, for the most part, it holds true. A perfect example of this is Goldeneye for the N64. It had an unusual control scheme that was perfectly suited to the N64's unique controller, and the gameplay, both in single-player and multi-player, was superb. It became a perfect "killer app" for the N64.

However, examples like this are the exception and not the rule, and FPSs are still much, MUCH better on PCs than on consoles. In my earlier post, I said that gamers who primarily play on consoles rather than PCs (or both) are starved for good examples of games in the genres that are not traditionally suited for their consoles. Halo and Halo 2 are very good FPSs for a console, and therefore are devoured by the Xbox crowd. But they aren't the "Second Coming" that the hype has made them out to be.

I own both of those games, and will enjoy them, but I play all types of games on both consoles and PCs, and I can step back and objectively judge these games on their own merits. Halo had great multi-player, but was nothing that PC players hadn't seen a dozen times over. Halo single-player was alright, but again, was nothing to write home about. Halo 2 follows the "more is better" philosophy, and the addition of Xbox Live support will give this title life long after interest in single-player has diminished. But again, Halo 2 is NOT revolutionary, unless you're a gamer who has played nothing but console games over the years. Halo and Halo 2 are great "killer apps" for the Xbox, but in the end, that's all that they are.

Okay, enough typing! Back to Half-Life 2!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top