Support NeoGAF

[Ollie Pooch]

Yay, the credible guy number 1 speaks. Halo 2 is the same, but MP2, duuuuuude, now that's a whole new deal.

yeah, but prime 2 isn't being released with the same amount of "best game ever" hype.

i like halo 2 - i bought it the day it came out like heaps of other people - but i tend to agree, i actually find the single player seems more disjointed than that of the first one, it's pushed along by a story but each section feels just like they went 'ok we need a flying level - let's put that into the story somehow.. and now we need a tank level...'. i think it's inevitable that once the incredible hype dies down, that people are going to start pointing out a game's flaws.. and it's a shame cos in my opinion halo2 does have so much that is executed so well , but NO game can ever live up to the amount of hype it had (has?)

 

[Che]

jasonsider - if you're a "game design enthusiast" rather than a nintendo enthusiast, you should stop equating "action" with "mindless." puzzles have no place in halo, but that doesn't mean it's thoughtless or one-note. it's a pure action game, but some of its design is remarkably subtle and clever. each type of enemy calls for a distinct strategy, and suggests the use of certain weapons. but your arsenal is limited, and enemies come in heterogenous packs. the way the game forces you to stretch your tools and spontaneously strategize demands appreciation. the reactive ai and the range of choice the game often allows you ensure that there are nearly as many halo strategies as halo players.

if you can only see brilliance in certain genres, or only in traditional, heavily-designed games rather than modern, freeform games, you're working with a massive blind spot.

So you're saying that every game that is difficult and makes you find new ways to beat it is not brainless? Your description fits every single action game. It's like telling me that, because I was playing Transformers trying every possible way to beat the damn game, the game was ingenious. And don't you think that Halo's AI is a little hyped? I mean, is it that different than any other FPS?

 

[Azih]

Eh, I think people are bashing Matt just for the sake of it in this thread, nothing he said was unreasonable.

 

[Hitler Stole My Potato]

And don't you think that Halo's AI is a little hyped? I mean, is it that different than any other FPS?

After years of playing an untold number of FPSers I can say unequivocally that Halo's AI is far superior to everything else in the genre. Hell, it may be the best AI in any videogame. You could play the same sequence over and over and never have the same thing happen twice and because of it, the combat feels incredibly fresh and dynamic. The AI is one of the things that has made Halo so popular.

 

[Spike]

He's spot on in his assessment. But why should we stop there? Every game is just more of the same. Except for Katamari Damancy, WarioWare, and maybe Cubivore.

 

[Shompola]

"And don't you think that Halo's AI is a little hyped? I mean, is it that different than any other FPS?"

Very different. Thanks for commenting though.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

And don't you think that Halo's AI is a little hyped? I mean, is it that different than any other FPS?

It's generally much better than any AI I've seen in any other FPS, regardless of platform. The way in which Halo works in a moment to moment battle is closer to playing against humans and that makes it a much more compelling experience when you're having to really critically think your way out of a predicament. It's more than that, though...to say that Halo 2 is just like any other action game out there is as ignorant a statement as any that could be said, IMO...but I suppose that's your opinion. Granted, you'd have to play it on, at least, Heroic to see the AI really do its thing.

 

[Insertia]

If GTA:SA and Halo2 were on Gamecube Matt would have been saying the exact oppisite. Unfortunately he's stuck with the largely ignored Metroid Prime 2. ;p

So you're saying that every game that is difficult and makes you find new ways to beat it is not brainless? Your description fits every single action game. It's like telling me that, because I was playing Transformers trying every possible way to beat the damn game, the game was ingenious. And don't you think that Halo's AI is a little hyped? I mean, is it that different than any other FPS?

Have you even played Halo 2? Even I think the game is grossly overrated, but there's no doubt that it features a unique form of challenge/strategy that no FPS before it has ever had, especially when played on Legendary.

 

[JasoNsider]

jasonsider - if you're a "game design enthusiast" rather than a nintendo enthusiast, you should stop equating "action" with "mindless." puzzles have no place in halo, but that doesn't mean it's thoughtless or one-note. it's a pure action game, but some of its design is remarkably subtle and clever. each type of enemy calls for a distinct strategy, and suggests the use of certain weapons. but your arsenal is limited, and enemies come in heterogenous packs. the way the game forces you to stretch your tools and spontaneously strategize demands appreciation. the reactive ai and the range of choice the game often allows you ensure that there are nearly as many halo strategies as halo players.

if you can only see brilliance in certain genres, or only in traditional, heavily-designed games rather than modern, freeform games, you're working with a massive blind spot.

I don't equate "action" with "mindless." If you want an example of how to do an action game properly, just look at the original Half-life. That game had tons of action, yet had some amazing level design. You speak of strategizing on the fly, yet in this same game you are pretty much forced to mindlessly stave off attackers for 10 minutes on an elevator (one of many examples) as they come in waves. This is lazy design, no matter how you spin it.

Part of the problem in the campaign, I feel, is that the game feels like it wants to be an epic interactive adventure, but is standing on some really hit-and-miss design. Some of the parts are really well executed and fun, while others are flat-out uninspired and boring. I'm not asking that bungie turn Halo into a Zelda or Metroid Prime type of game. I'm asking that they actually design the levels to be engaging. Wasn't it Bungie themselves who said that Halo is 30 seconds of fun that repeats for the entire game? Remember in the Sands of Time, where you were taking down enemies in the confrontation with your father? For the first 30 seconds you're kind of having fun just managing the enemies. Then you realize that they basically took a semi-interesting battle and stretched it to take you a full five minutes. Something that is fun for 30 seconds needs to be fun for five minutes as well. The Halo campaigns, for me, fall in the same boat of repition and lazy design. If Valve can do it with Half-Life and Bungie themselves could do it with their old E3 Halo 2 demo, they certainly have the ability to pull it off.

And let's get something straight - there is no demanding appreciation. If people can complain about every single game ever released and at the same time hype things beyond reason, we can't rightfully demand any form of enjoyment from the players. I can't make you enjoy Pikmin 2. Conversely, there will be no way of making me appreciate Halo 2's campaign.

 

[human5892]

No, the Charlie Chaplin analogy was quite stupid.

I don't see why, and you not offering even a shread of reasoning to qualify your statement certainly doesn't help.

 

[Che]

Granted, you'd have to play it on, at least, Heroic to see the AI really do its thing.

Hehe I knew that every Halo fan was gonna jump at me to defend Halo's AI. I have to admit though that I haven't played Halo or Halo2 a lot on Heroic, and I haven't even touched Legendary.

 

[Code_Link]

Yay, the credible guy number 1 speaks. Halo 2 is the same, but MP2, duuuuuude, now that's a whole new deal.

Umm, when did he ever say that?

In fact, he knocked down a couple of points off the score, because it was more of the same. The IGN Cube is seriously the best channel there.

If the rest of the channels were like it, we wouldn't see scores like 9.9 for GTA and 9.8 for Halo 2. (And don't even get me started with the DOA:XBV, Blinx and Fable reviews...)

 

[Azih]

Yeah overall I've always preferred the cube editorial approach to the other ign sites, even when cube goes into overdrive bitch mode.

 

[drohne]

you've misunderstood the "30 seconds of fun" comment. the idea is that if you have thirty seconds worth of deeply enjoyable mechanics, you can then put the player through dozens of situations and level design permutations, and those mechanics will keep it enjoyable. whereas if you don't have those 30 seconds, even the most sophisticated design won't engage.

halo takes a tightly balanced set of core mechanics -- recharging shields, two weapons out of a varied set, enemies with particular though not rigid weaknesses -- and challenges you to apply them to an impressive variety of situations. the variety is strategic, not superficial. the sophistication of the mechanics is such that subtle variations -- often as simple as terrain changes -- can call for hugely different strategies. it's actually subtle enough to miss altogether. halo isn't conspicuously brilliant the way half-life is. appreciation for the original game's campaign took a while to catch on.

this is an oversimplification, but: in traditional action games, there is an ideal strategy, an ideal path through a heavily designed series of obstacles, and players experiment to find that path. if i were an academic, i'd call those games "normative." in halo, the ideal path has been obliterated: the challenges you face don't imply a solution. players experiment to find and express a personal style or styles.

one of the best things about halo is that it doesn't evaluate your performance at the end of a level. it doesn't encourage you to finish levels quickly, or to use your weapons efficiently, or to keep your comrades alive. because halo isn't about normative goals. halo isn't even about not dying, really: it "punishes" death by returning you to a very recent checkpoint. halo is, by design, about experimentation. about testing the limits of richly reactive battlefields. if you think puzzles or hidden doors would improve halo, then you don't understand halo.

and this probably sounds reactionary nowadays, but there is such a thing as objective quality, though our means of recognizing it are imperfect. as such there are games that demand appreciation.

edit: i'll also say that to look for certain design styles or priorities in every game isn't enthusiasm at all; it's fetishism.

 

[Ramirez]

I agree with him almost totally...

-Halo 2's single player is just more of the same really,but I think dual wielding is more than a "small update".But it's fun,like he said...

-Halo 2's multiplayer isn't really anything new,but its fuckin fun as hell and flawless as far as lag goes,it's just executed perfectly.

-GTA,I've never understood how this series manages to get 10's,but whatever floats your boat I guess.I have the game,its a good game I guess,but like he said it's riddled with problems and most people seem to overlook it because why?Beats me

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Well, I certainly am shocked by those who are shocked that they shockingly agree with Matt on these important issues!

 

[Razoric]

As a person who looks for great execution with in-game mechanics, GTA just really falls short in almost every category. I would rather take a game with a smaller scope and more refined gameplay mechanics than a melting pot of half-polished design elements.

:lol

Yo Nboy, why dont you play GTA before talking shit about it. Though I'm sure if you did play it you'd be shaking in a corner asking for papa Mario.

 

[PhatSaqs]

If the rest of the channels were like it, we wouldn't see scores like 9.9 for GTA and 9.8 for Halo 2. (And don't even get me started with the DOA:XBV, Blinx and Fable reviews...)

Oh! You mean like Eternal Darkness, Wave Race, Rogue Squadron, F-Zero right?!

 

[Ulairi]

He is right about GTA. If it was rated T or E, it wouldn't have the same reviews.

 

[human5892]

He is right about GTA. If it was rated T or E, it wouldn't have the same reviews.

Right, because that's part of the fun of the game.

As drohne indicated earlier, you can't just arbitrarily select an aspect of a game and proclaim "if this wasn't there the game would suck!" Well, sure. But it is there, and so the game doesn't suck.

 

[Azih]

well yes, but Matt's making a distinction between the game mechanics and the game atmosphere and that's a valid thing to do if he's making the point that the game mechanics have unresolved issues.

 

[Razoric]

He is right about GTA. If it was rated T or E, it wouldn't have the same reviews.

If Mario 64 starred Poopie the Monkey it probably wouldn't have got the same reviews either... idiot.

 

[JasoNsider]

you've misunderstood the "30 seconds of fun" comment. the idea is that if you have thirty seconds worth of deeply enjoyable mechanics, you can then put the player through dozens of situations and level design permutations, and those mechanics will keep it enjoyable. whereas if you don't have those 30 seconds, even the most sophisticated design won't engage.

halo takes a tightly balanced set of core mechanics -- recharging shields, two weapons out of a varied set, enemies with very particular weaknesses -- and challenges you to apply them to an impressive variety of situations. the variety is strategic, not superficial. the sophistication of the mechanics is such that subtle variations -- often as simple as terrain changes -- can call for hugely different strategies. it's actually subtle enough to miss altogether. halo isn't conspicuously brilliant the way half-life is. appreciation for the original game's campaign took a while to catch on.

this is an oversimplification, but: in traditional action games, there is an ideal strategy, an ideal path through a heavily designed series of obstacles, and players experiment to find that path. if i were an academic, i'd call those games "normative." in halo, the ideal path has been obliterated: the challenges you face don't imply a solution. players experiment to find and express a personal style or styles.

one of the best things about halo is that it doesn't evaluate your performance at the end of a level. it doesn't encourage you to finish levels quickly, or to use your weapons efficiently, or to keep your comrades alive. because halo isn't about normative goals. halo isn't even about not dying, really: it "punishes" death by returning you to a very recent checkpoint. halo is, by design, about experimentation. about testing the limits of richly reactive battlefields. if you think puzzles or hidden doors would improve halo, then you don't understand halo.

and this probably sounds reactionary nowadays, but there is such a thing as objective quality, though our means of recognizing it are imperfect. as such there are games that demand appreciation.

edit: i'll also say that to look for certain design styles or priorities in every game isn't enthusiasm at all; it's fetishism.

First of all, I know exactly where you're coming from. I don't think you're giving me enough credit off the bat, though. Trust me, I understand what Halo is about.

Other games that have tried a similar type of setup were titles like Viewtiful Joe, Devil May Cry, and even Resident Evil 4 (Mikami and co. seem to like this.) Essentially you hit the nail on the head when you said that it's about experimentation. Each opponent is uniquely defined, and one could say the game itself is about what happens when these elements are thrown in together in any number of scenarios. A great deal of the enjoyment comes from the fact that every time you enter a situation with these elements the results will vary. Since each opponent is designed to be independent and interact in an ever-changing environment, the results will almost never be the same thing twice.

The very first house you enter in Resident Evil four demonstrates a situation that is similar to our Halo setup. You might choose to run and hide on the roof, and let zombies crawl out the window after you. You might choose to board the door and then let the zombies funnel down the stairs from the roof and through the window. In Halo, you might use that trashed WartHog as a new barrier between you and your enemy. In any case, you are basically just thrown into a scenario where all the variables interact with each other in interesting ways to make the experience feel dynamic.

This part of Halo I understand fully. However, my problem is that they need to provide scenarios that will be more engaging. Sure, every time a guy drops onto our elevator I'll have to deal with him in a slightly different way, but it's not engaging enough to go on for ten minutes. So I think you and I can agree that the subtleties of the design mechanics will not be lost on either of us.

By the by, you really have to lose this "demanding appreciation" bit. It just doesn't fly. Is there such a thing as "underdeveloped tastes"? Perhaps. On that same token, I seem to find myself in your shoes when talking to others about ICO. I can't really make people see the brilliance. They either get it or they don't. As for Halo 2 - it is a great game. It's just the reality of the greatness vs. the perceived greatness on boards like these seem to differ greatly. I'm sure I can't be the only one who thinks the game design in the Halo games to be a bit loose in campaign at times.

 

[JasoNsider]

:lol

Yo Nboy, why dont you play GTA before talking shit about it. Though I'm sure if you did play it you'd be shaking in a corner asking for papa Mario.

GAF is so funny sometimes.

 

[SantaC]

GAF is so funny sometimes.

As soon as someone takes a shot at Halo they bring up Metroid Prime as a counter argument :lol

 

[Razoric]

GAF is so funny sometimes.

Yeah it is... kinda like random Nintendo fans spewing BS about a game they might have played for 5 minutes.

 

[SantaC]

:lol

Yo Nboy, why dont you play GTA before talking shit about it. Though I'm sure if you did play it you'd be shaking in a corner asking for papa Mario.

hey it's nothing with wrong playing Nintendo games. Especially if they are fun. You must be one of those teens that think it's only cool to play games with blood and gore.

 

[Shogmaster]

you've misunderstood the "30 seconds of fun" comment. the idea is that if you have thirty seconds worth of deeply enjoyable mechanics, you can then put the player through dozens of situations and level design permutations, and those mechanics will keep it enjoyable. whereas if you don't have those 30 seconds, even the most sophisticated design won't engage.

halo takes a tightly balanced set of core mechanics -- recharging shields, two weapons out of a varied set, enemies with particular though not rigid weaknesses -- and challenges you to apply them to an impressive variety of situations. the variety is strategic, not superficial. the sophistication of the mechanics is such that subtle variations -- often as simple as terrain changes -- can call for hugely different strategies. it's actually subtle enough to miss altogether. halo isn't conspicuously brilliant the way half-life is. appreciation for the original game's campaign took a while to catch on.

this is an oversimplification, but: in traditional action games, there is an ideal strategy, an ideal path through a heavily designed series of obstacles, and players experiment to find that path. if i were an academic, i'd call those games "normative." in halo, the ideal path has been obliterated: the challenges you face don't imply a solution. players experiment to find and express a personal style or styles.

one of the best things about halo is that it doesn't evaluate your performance at the end of a level. it doesn't encourage you to finish levels quickly, or to use your weapons efficiently, or to keep your comrades alive. because halo isn't about normative goals. halo isn't even about not dying, really: it "punishes" death by returning you to a very recent checkpoint. halo is, by design, about experimentation. about testing the limits of richly reactive battlefields. if you think puzzles or hidden doors would improve halo, then you don't understand halo.

and this probably sounds reactionary nowadays, but there is such a thing as objective quality, though our means of recognizing it are imperfect. as such there are games that demand appreciation.

edit: i'll also say that to look for certain design styles or priorities in every game isn't enthusiasm at all; it's fetishism.

Spot on. Glad to see someone else sum up so perfectly what I love about the campeign mode better than I ever could.

 

[JasoNsider]

You know what they say about assumptions.

Hey, I knew this kind of thing was coming the moment I tried to talk about both Halo 2 and GTA on here. Oh well, I'm glad people like drohne at least attempt to disagree in a constructive way.

 

[human5892]

well yes, but Matt's making a distinction between the game mechanics and the game atmosphere and that's a valid thing to do if he's making the point that the game mechanics have unresolved issues.

Yeah, but his original statement -- that GTA wouldn't have rated as high without a Mature rating -- is insinuating that the atmosphere of the game can overcome some of the issues the mechanics have. And it can, and that's why the game succeeds. Matt pointing out that the game's mechanical flaws would be more noticable without a mature atmosphere is akin to saying, "The original Mortal Kombat wouldn't have had nearly a fuss made over it if it was an E-rated game." Duh.

 

[Ranger X]

Matt sees GTA like the exact antithesis of how i see it.
I find that every single gameplay or feature taken alone can be considered poor but it's when they're all together that it becomes great. The controls are freaking simple and the gameplay is very straighfoward but at the same time, it's an extremely detailed game shockfull of gameplay.

 

[Razoric]

hey it's nothing with wrong playing Nintendo games. Especially if they are fun. You must be one of those teens that think it's only cool to play games with blood and gore.

Nope I just know a good game when I play one and someone talking shit GTA's controls is the same is someone talking shit about Metroid Primes controls.

 

[SantaC]

Nope I just know a good game when I play one and someone talking shit GTA's controls is the same is someone talking shit about Metroid Primes controls.

well the controls in GTA:SA got a 4/10 in newest SP magazine.

 

[Razoric]

You know what they say about assumptions.

Hey, I knew this kind of thing was coming the moment I tried to talk about both Halo 2 and GTA on here. Oh well, I'm glad people like drohne at least attempt to disagree in a constructive way.

Ok let's do it your then, how much of GTA:SA did you play? What mission did you get to/currently on?

 

[Doom_Bringer]

who gives a shit about what matt thinks?

fuck that idiot.

 

[Razoric]

well the controls in GTA:SA got a 4/10 in newest SP mag.

Ohhh the newest SP mag... what about all the other places that gave it near perfect marks? ouch!

 

[JasoNsider]

Nope I just know a good game when I play one and someone talking shit GTA's controls is the same is someone talking shit about Metroid Primes controls.

And? Nothing wrong with critiquing Metroid Prime's controls. In fact, such a thing is welcomed. If nobody pointed out areas to improve upon we would be playing the same shlock over and over.

 

[crumbs]

Nope I just know a good game when I play one and someone talking shit GTA's controls is the same is someone talking shit about Metroid Primes controls.

I'm glad someone mentioned this. It seems that the same people who complain about GTA's controls are the same that are always going out of their way to defend MP's control scheme. I don't have a problem with either, but whiners need to be consistent.

 

[mumu]

I'm amazed by the overglorification of Halo by some people here! It's like the 2nd coming of Jesus!

 

[Ramirez]

I think you guys hurt Razoric's feelings :lol

 

[Razoric]

I think you guys hurt Razoric's feelings :lol

Nope just calling out the Ntards and their leader Matt.

Sorry GTA isn't on GC, maybe next generation. :lol

 

[Azih]

Yeah, but his original statement -- that GTA wouldn't have rated as high without a Mature rating -- is insinuating that the atmosphere of the game can overcome some of the issues the mechanics have. And it can

Yeah but not for him, and since there are his mini-reviews of the game it's a perfectly valid thing for him to say that the game has less then tight gameplay and then reflect a bit on why he disagrees so much with people who give GTA:SA 9.5+ scores. And since he's pretty much on the mark on the reason why he disagrees there's nothing in his comments that merit the bashing it's getting by some of the posters here. Which is my point.

Edit: Posters like Razoric of course.

 

[drohne]

well, i'm not arguing that every moment of halo 2 is brilliantly designed. it does enough different things that each player is going to find some aspect of it alienating. but it's disingenous to discuss halo 2 as if it's one overlong elevator sequence...there are other levels that are just successions of really varied and intense setpiece moments.

certainly there are other games that create complex situations through the juxtaposition of simple elements, but i can't think of many (any?) that are as completely oriented towards experimentation and choice as halo. i'd say that viewtiful joe and devil may cry are relatively "traditional" rather than "freeform" action games.

halo's pure reliance on action is one of its boldest and most succesful design gambles. puzzles and hidden doors would cheapen it, i think.

 

[Virgin Wii]

OMG! He likes MP2 more than GTA:SA and Halo 2! Only a Nintendo fanboy could have such an opinion!

Yay, the credible guy number 1 speaks. Halo 2 is the same, but MP2, duuuuuude, now that's a whole new deal.

Read Matt's post again. He isn't bagging Halo 2 for not being original, he's bagging other people for saying it's "the best thing since the discovery of electricity" when it's not overly original. Remember that Matt said he liked Prime 1 more than 2, so it's not like he's being a hypocrite...

Either way, it's just his opinion, one that he was asked to share. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if people jumped on you and called you an MS fanboy every time you said you liked Halo 2 more than Prime 2.

And I'm agreeing with drohne here. It's a lot easier to do when he's simply making his point, without bashing other games he doesn't like at the same time.

 

[SolidSnakex]

OMG! He likes MP2 more than GTA:SA and Halo 2! Only a Nintendo fanboy could have such an opinion!

I don't think anyone has a problem with that. It's just the other comments he made (like the GTA rating issue). That's what makes it seem so fanboyish.

 

[human5892]

Yeah but not for him, and since there are his mini-reviews of the game it's a perfectly valid thing for him to say that the game has less then tight gameplay and then reflect a bit on why he disagrees so much with people who give GTA:SA 9.5+ scores. And since he's pretty much on the mark on the reason why he disagrees there's nothing in his comments that merit the bashing it's getting by some of the posters here. Which is my point.

It's not just his personal opinion, though. That's the whole issue here. He said:

I also believe that if you change the "M" on the box to an "E" then many of the ratings go from 10s to 8s

Now it has gone from being a personal thought to an assertion that other reviewers wouldn't have liked the game as much with a lower rating, which is like saying most people wouldn't find the Earth as pretty if the sky was shit brown.

 

[duderon]

This shows the nintendo fanboy in Matt hasn't been completely destroyed. Maybe next-gen

 

[SantaC]

Nope just calling out the Ntards and their leader Matt.

Sorry GTA isn't on GC, maybe next generation. :lol

There have been countless threads that the controls in Prime suck. Yeah they aren't perfect, and I can accept all the compliants, but you should suck it up as well that the GTA:SA controls can still be improved a lot. You hate on the prime controls, but you can't take it when someone hates on the GTA controls. Double standard.

 

[Ramirez]

Sorry GTA isn't on GC, maybe next generation.

I have all 3 systems,sorry.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

who gives a shit about what matt thinks?

fuck that idiot.

IBL