Gamespot best and worst of 2004..
- Thread starter thorns
- Start date
Mike Works said:
- new types of enemies
- vehicle jacking
I sure hope you aren't trivializing the huge amount of work that went into Halo 2 overall. You have to remember that the foundation for the multiplayer gameplay lies in the single player one.
It really depends on expectations. If you're expecting a completely new game, well, then I guess it might seem as an extension. But in the end, Halo 2 IS a sequel to Halo, 3 years after the first one. This IS a FPS with a very dynamic combat already established that was tweaked and updated for Halo 2. The only thing they could've added that would've made a significant difference was physics based combat, but I doubt Xbox could handle it with the scope of the game.
Mike Works
Member
New types of enemies? What, like 2? Stuff like vehicle jacking and dual wielding aren't really amazing features in my books. They're minor gameplay improvements, and they do change the dynamic of the game, but it's pretty sad that they're the frontrunners when it comes to listing why Halo 2 is superior (aside from multiplayer, which once again, they did a fantastic job on).IJoel said:
My buddy and I played Halo 1 co op for.. well, from the day the game came out to up until 3 months ago I think. Halo 2 co op... just not as fun. There are a few levels which are great fun to play through- mainly the Earth ones and one of the end levels which also features the scarab, but I just expected to be blown away, and all I got was a merely acceptable sequel.
Mike Works said:
Bungie mentioned they had more characters that, well, didn't fit with the story. Simple as that. They weren't going to add characters just for the sake of it.
Vehicle jackign and dual wielding aren't amazing features, but they change the mechanics of the combat significantly.
I think the problem, again, lies in expectations. There can be only one original Halo, the rest are to some extent, an extension of the previous one.
As for whether the game was as fun or not, well, there's 2 things to consider:
1. It could've been indeed not as fun as the first one. Simple.
2. The first one already showed you co-op combat with an adaptive enemy and thus, the element of surprise/enthusiasm got old since you already have gone through it.
I find a couple of levels in the original Halo (The Silent Cartographer, The Maw) to be fantastic and unparalleled because of the things they brought to the table. But then, I also find some levels in Halo 2 to be fantastic as well (Bridge level, latter level i don't remember the name
). I also recognize that a lot of the problems from the first one have been fixed (not nearly as many repetitive environments/levels mainly.)Again, it's a sequel, not a new game, that was on development for 3 years. There's only so much that can be done in that amount of time.
CrimsonSkies
Member
"New types of enemies? What, like 2? Stuff like vehicle jacking and dual wielding aren't really amazing features in my books. They're minor gameplay improvements, and they do change the dynamic of the game, but it's pretty sad that they're the frontrunners when it comes to listing why Halo 2 is superior (aside from multiplayer, which once again, they did a fantastic job on)."
So exactly what about Burnout 3 other than the crashes was improved from Burnout 2? You seem to like it more. Just curious.
So exactly what about Burnout 3 other than the crashes was improved from Burnout 2? You seem to like it more. Just curious.
shpankey
not an idiot
Mike Works said:
If you get down to it, this could also be said for Metroid Prime 2, GTA: SA, MGS 3, Jak 3, R&C:UYA and pretty much every other sequel. IMO, Halo 2 did a lot more to move the series forward than every one of the other games I just listed. You are nit picking plain and simple. The Xbox Live implementation and multiplayer alone are worthy of a new game... it's like people give the multiplayer a nod and then pretend it's not really part of the "real" game. I don't understand this logic. It's there and its part of the "real" game and it goes hand in hand with all the other improvements. You can't say "well, besides for the multiplayer" everything else isn't much improved. That's not right. That's the same as saying "in Metroid Prime 2, besides for the single player, the game is shit".
I mean, you get a whole new single player. You get a whole new multiplayer. You get all the improvements you two listed, small or otherwise. I mean, that's a whole new game. That's not a 1.5, and saying so is baloney. A 1.5 would be Halo 1 remade with Xbox Live support and a couple new weapons and maps.
Halo 2 is a completely new game. ENTIRELY new single player. ENTIRELY new multiplayer. + Lots of little improvements. New graphics engine. New soundtrack. I mean, what an insult to Bungie saying it's 1.5 and then ignoring every other sequel this holiday, none of which has even half of the stuff and improvements that Bungie did to Halo 2.
Mike Works
Member
Then fuck the story. I'd rather have 10 new unique enemies instead of 2 if it means having to add species to one side of the covenant or the other.IJoel said:
Well first, online.CrimsonSkies said:
Second, the way they set up the single player experience was fucking perfect. I never, ever go for 100% on any videogame ever, but I did for Burnout 3. They set it up so you could do crashes, races, or takedowns whenever you want. So after racing for an hour, I got bored of it, and did some crashes. But then they make you perfect your skills and go at some really challenging races. They make you practice and improve to continue. The bottleneck of difficulty was perfectly (gradually) narrowed.
I could say stuff akin to the ghost jacking like THEY LET YOU MOVE YOUR CAR IN SLOW MOTION NOW!!! but it's the open yet controlled design of the whole single player experience which really pushed it into the echelon of greatness.
To abstractly contrast, Halo's level design was a bit of a let down for me.
Oh man, I really disagree with that opinion. I honestly can't see how Halo 2 moved the series forward more than GTA:SA. Then number of additions they made to that game is fucking incredible. (I haven't played any of the others you listed though). Also, I don't think Metroid Prime 2 (which had an even tighter schedule than Halo 2 by the way, same goes with all those other games save for MGS3), Jak 3, nor R&C 3 had the same amount of hype that Halo 2 did.shpankey said:
What the fuck are you talking about, are you blind? I've stated multiple times in this thread alone that I love the online multiplayer and it's the single player I have beef with. Do you notice how Halo 2 is 4th on my GOTY list and Burnout 3 is only one spot above it? You need to re-read my posts before you accuse me of pretending that it's not part of the "real game".
To reiterate what I said to another poster, I think GTA:SA has more improvements than Halo 2. As for this IT'S A WHOLE NEW GAME bullshit, yes it has all new levels. That does make it a new game. That does not magically mean it's been riddled with dozens of improvements, tons of guns, enemies, etc. Hell, look at something like Timesplitters 2. Compare the weapon and enemy ration when it comes to new additions.
I have no qualms with Halo 2's graphics, they're excellent. Same with the music. Both have flaws, but they're great. I just felt let down when I completed the single player game after the years of waiting and immeasurable amount of hype, that they beefed up the graphics, added 2 new enemies and 4 or 5 new guns, and that's it. I still enjoy the game, and I still play it (single and multi), but screaming at my for saying the single player felt like an expansion isn't saying much. Apart from graphics, adding new levels, a couple new enemies, and a few new weapons is pretty much what expansion packs do
Mike Works said:Then fuck the story. I'd rather have 10 new unique enemies instead of 2 if it means having to add species to one side of the covenant or the other.
Well first, online.
Second, the way they set up the single player experience was fucking perfect. I never, ever go for 100% on any videogame ever, but I did for Burnout 3. They set it up so you could do crashes, races, or takedowns whenever you want. So after racing for an hour, I got bored of it, and did some crashes. But then they make you perfect your skills and go at some really challenging races. They make you practice and improve to continue. The bottleneck of difficulty was perfectly (gradually) narrowed.
I could say stuff akin to the ghost jacking like THEY LET YOU MOVE YOUR CAR IN SLOW MOTION NOW!!! but it's the open yet controlled design of the whole single player experience which really pushed it into the echelon of greatness.
To abstractly contrast, Halo's level design was a bit of a let down for me.
Oh man, I really disagree with that opinion. I honestly can't see how Halo 2 moved the series forward more than GTA:SA. Then number of additions they made to that game is fucking incredible. (I haven't played any of the others you listed though). Also, I don't think Metroid Prime 2 (which had an even tighter schedule than Halo 2 by the way, same goes with all those other games save for MGS3), Jak 3, nor R&C 3 had the same amount of hype that Halo 2 did.
What the fuck are you talking about, are you blind? I've stated multiple times in this thread alone that I love the online multiplayer and it's the single player I have beef with. Do you notice how Halo 2 is 4th on my GOTY list and Burnout 3 is only one spot above it? You need to re-read my posts before you accuse me of pretending that it's not part of the "real game".
To reiterate what I said to another poster, I think GTA:SA has more improvements than Halo 2. As for this IT'S A WHOLE NEW GAME bullshit, yes it has all new levels. That does make it a new game. That does not magically mean it's been riddled with dozens of improvements, tons of guns, enemies, etc. Hell, look at something like Timesplitters 2. Compare the weapon and enemy ration when it comes to new additions.
I have no qualms with Halo 2's graphics, they're excellent. Same with the music. Both have flaws, but they're great. I just felt let down when I completed the single player game after the years of waiting and immeasurable amount of hype, that they beefed up the graphics, added 2 new enemies and 4 or 5 new guns, and that's it. I still enjoy the game, and I still play it (single and multi), but screaming at my for saying the single player felt like an expansion isn't saying much. Apart from graphics, adding new levels, a couple new enemies, and a few new weapons is pretty much what expansion packs do
You know, I don't think you really 'get' Halo. There are issues with the game, but not enough enemy types or weapons are not among them. The first game had ten weapons, including grenades, and yet the balance was nearly perfect, with no 'silver bullet' weapon in the lot. The enemies and weapons are designed together - certain weapons are ideal to combat certain enemy types, etc.
Bungie could have thrown in tons of cheap other enemies and weapons, but that would have broken the game and the level of detail they supplied. It was mentioned in one of the updates that the Elite alone has 881 unique combat animations (not to mention very complex AI driving it) - 4x the first game. That takes work. It also means that Elites respond to many more situations than they could in the first Halo, the combat is more fresh with each battle.
If all you want is tons of new enemies and guns, don't play Halo. That's not what it's about. It's about balance and battlefield tactics, and you can't just dump lots of stuff into that equation without breaking it. I credit Bungie for only including in the game what they could balance, test and polish in the gameplay.
Again - you just don't seem to get it. The entire game was built from the ground up, nothing from Halo is reused. The level design makes wonderful and extensive use of vertical space in a way the first never did. There are tons of little interactive details that many people don't notice (Flood infection forms reanimating defeated hosts, moveable objects, weapon panels opening in Cairo Station, drop ships that have AI and are not scripted, etc.)
You seem to be requesting a Halo 1.5 but with more enemies and guns. This baffles me.
Mike Works
Member
Yeah, I should change my avatar to something green first.GhaleonEB said:
So suddenly my desire for wanting more weapons means I want a "silver bullet" weapon and there is no possible way that any other weapon could be added to the game because it'd throw off the entire weapon balance issue.
And of course any additional enemies would be cheap and terribly ruin the game! For shame I ever considered the possibility of adding more weapons or enemies that weren't designed by retards! If only a competant developer like Bungie was working on the Halo games, then they'd be able to expand them without hurting balance and difficulty levels!
I've never had issue with Halo's core gameplay. Once again, re-read my stated complaints with the game.
I wanted great level design first and foremost, and new experiences second. I really enjoy the segmented Earth level, but the levels as a whole just don't compare to experiencing the variety of the beach level then snow level then marsh etc of the original Halo. For some reason, I just really prefer Bungie's level design when it's outdoors. Perhaps it's because of the repetative interior structure that the aliens seem to enjoy in the Halo universe.
I seem to be requesting a bigger experience than Halo 2's single player offered (and online co-op, that really pissed me off). And get rid of the fucking flood and all flood related levels.
I wanted it to live up to the hype that Bungie supplied.
Remember what they were promising with Halo2??
- AI so great that marines would stack chairs and tables to blockade doors.
- Enemy Covanent doing dark room searches, and seeking out your flash light.
- 3 new forms of the Warthog including a snowmobile ... and lets not forget the 4 wheeler.
- The whole damn E3 demo....
Am I missing anything? .... Halo 2 was fun over the first, in the sense that Mario-Sunshine was fun over the first......
online was great, but still just online Halo.5...
- AI so great that marines would stack chairs and tables to blockade doors.
- Enemy Covanent doing dark room searches, and seeking out your flash light.
- 3 new forms of the Warthog including a snowmobile ... and lets not forget the 4 wheeler.
- The whole damn E3 demo....
Am I missing anything? .... Halo 2 was fun over the first, in the sense that Mario-Sunshine was fun over the first......
online was great, but still just online Halo.5...
shpankey
not an idiot
Yeah sorry 'bout that Mike. I actually wasn't talking to you there on that part, I was going off on a tangent while talking to you and speaking in general. At the end when I re-read it before posting it I was going to add a little note in there saying it wasn't directed at you but I was in a hurry and I thought you would know it wasn't because the post I quoted you from had you specifically saying you loved the multiplayer, so I thought you would know I was speaking in general then and not to you. I should have said it though, if I wasn't in a rush to get to the mall (my wife was hurrying me at that time) I woulda went ahead and doen it. Apologies. My bad for not being clear.Mike Works said:
Kabuki Waq
Member
I agree with mike on this one. I found the firefights in halo2 to be less open and creative as the first. The level design just didnt seem all that special to me.
Mike Works said:
I think burnout 3 was vastly overrated by the review crews, maybe it was the shiny new graphics, or the redneck in all of us that likes crashing cars and destruction.
Crash mode is gimmicky, random trial and error gameplay with a spectacular ending, its the epitomy of style over substance. Its every rednecks wetdream.
That actual gameplay is like every other racer, only FASTER, in fact too fast if werent for the riding the rails assinine gameplay which forgives hitting most walls. The collision detection on other walls is spotty, either you crash in spectacular fashion or you magically lurch forward. The ai is STILL rubberband variety, which does not reward superb driving skill, but makes it like a basketball game where the only thing that matters is how you drive the last lap.
Honestly I cant stand how the series has progressed, it went from weaving in and out of dense traffic,(I had such a thrill out of narrowly avoiding traffic) to driving long stretches of straightaways and racking up burnout after burnout on the trafficless shoulders, not to mention the diminishing traffic each successive burnout game has produced. This was so disappointing to me.
Burnout 3 was much better than burnout 2 in every way, but both failed to beat burnout 1 in terms of gameplay. Here's hoping the burnout series gets back to its roots, gets the facelift that burnout 3 has with the amazing traffic and the first one did.
For me burnout 3 was like prince of persia in terms of critics over praising it. Gamespot choosing this as game of the year is head scratching and underwhelming.