I don't quite get the criticism Halo 2's ending has received here. While I didn't like Halo 2, I did finish it, thinking the game's ending was no more premature than the first -- meaning, it ended as it should have. The ending, as any great ending in the chapter of a series should, laid the groundwork for the next installment. When I read the various jeers regarding the way Halo 2 concluded, I can't help but scratch my head in confusion. What did you all want? Not really centered on MC, the game was more about the rift between the convenant, along with the emergence of a new character that figures significantly in the battle waged against the Flood. The game flowed as I expected, and the criticism many here have leveled against the game's ending isn't merited.
What was so wrong with Halo 2's ending?
- Thread starter XS+
- Start date
Late Stage Marxist
Member
ESB is my favourite SW movie, but Halo 2's ending just didn't do it for me so there goes that theory. 
DIrtyWeasel
Member
I was just expecting more from the game since this time Bungie had the time as they needed to develop to satisfaction, unlike Halo1's rush for Xbox launch. I figured the campaign would be much more impressive and longer due to longer development time and I heard from someplace that campaign is the #1 priority for the game.
I thought Master Chief would head back to earth and i'd get to play that level from E3 2003. I should have played on Heroic, I beat Normal in about 8 hours. So for me, the game seemed to end in the middle of action and never got difficult. I would go back and play on heroic, but I have no incentive to do so.
I thought Master Chief would head back to earth and i'd get to play that level from E3 2003. I should have played on Heroic, I beat Normal in about 8 hours. So for me, the game seemed to end in the middle of action and never got difficult. I would go back and play on heroic, but I have no incentive to do so.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
I thought the same thing as you until tonight. I went back and started to play on Heroic and I found the game to be a lot more strategic this time around. The enemy AI in the sniper level on earth is badass.DIrtyWeasel said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
whats wrong with the ending is that there is no ending... there is no real (lengthy) cut scene .. no explosion.. no nothing.
it just kinda... stops.
it just kinda... stops.
Mr_Furious
Member
My probs:
1. Game had very anti-climactic ending. The end boss (if that's what it was) was beyond lame and there was no "big finish" unlike Halo1
2. Did I mention the last boss fight was lame.
3. The game felt rushed. I can envision the meetings that took place strategizing how the hell Bungie was going to get the game out in 2004. "To Be Continued..." was literally the only way this was possible, it seems. MS had to push Bungie to get Halo2 out in 2004 or else it would probably cause some serious trouble for their 2005 business strategies.
4. For a game in development for 3 years, the game as a whole was quite unfinished. It's a logical progression, gameplay-wise, of Halo1 but there should've been a hell of a lot more content in the single player game then there was. Seeing the "Making Of" on the extra disc didn't do much to help justify why it took Bungie as long as it did to ship an incomplete game.
5. The overall level design was modular in design to allow for a lot of reuse of assets which obviously means lesser content production overall. So again, WTF?
All of this coupled with the fact the demo shown time and time again, never happens in the game and there isn't a single solitary moment in the game that is that engaging or cinematic in scope. Bungie also mentioned in an old interview that in Halo 2, you'd be able to control a huge weapon the size of a space station and also that they would moving on to something new after Halo 2 ships, both of which turned out to be untrue.
1. Game had very anti-climactic ending. The end boss (if that's what it was) was beyond lame and there was no "big finish" unlike Halo1
2. Did I mention the last boss fight was lame.
3. The game felt rushed. I can envision the meetings that took place strategizing how the hell Bungie was going to get the game out in 2004. "To Be Continued..." was literally the only way this was possible, it seems. MS had to push Bungie to get Halo2 out in 2004 or else it would probably cause some serious trouble for their 2005 business strategies.
4. For a game in development for 3 years, the game as a whole was quite unfinished. It's a logical progression, gameplay-wise, of Halo1 but there should've been a hell of a lot more content in the single player game then there was. Seeing the "Making Of" on the extra disc didn't do much to help justify why it took Bungie as long as it did to ship an incomplete game.
5. The overall level design was modular in design to allow for a lot of reuse of assets which obviously means lesser content production overall. So again, WTF?
All of this coupled with the fact the demo shown time and time again, never happens in the game and there isn't a single solitary moment in the game that is that engaging or cinematic in scope. Bungie also mentioned in an old interview that in Halo 2, you'd be able to control a huge weapon the size of a space station and also that they would moving on to something new after Halo 2 ships, both of which turned out to be untrue.
I think a lot of it has to do with the abruptness of the ending. I have no problem with cliffhangers, hell, Soul Reaver 2's ending is one of my favorites. The problem I have with Halo 2's ending is that it comes out of no where. When I finished up the last level and watched the cutscene, it seemed like there was going to be another level, possibly two more. Instead, the credits started to roll.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
Yeah I was waiting for some giant uber boss battles a la Metroid Prime, but it never happened.Gribbix said:
XS+ said:
I'm conflicted about it, but here's my thoughts, posted earlier on HBO:
The story arcs in both Halo and Halo 2 are very similar. In Halo, you begin on a ship near the Halo ring. The story pulls you onto the ring in various places, but at the end of the game you are...on a ship near the Halo ring. The underlying conflict has not been resoved (the Human-Covenant war) and lots of questions the game brought up went unresolved.
In Halo 2, you begin on a ship (Okay, station) near Earth, with the Covenant invading (we think). After being pulled all over place, the game ends...with with MC on a ship near Earth. And the Covenant are invading (for real, this time). This time, lots of questions are answered (What happened to the Forerunner? Where did they meet the Flood? What were they doing? What is Halo really for? What is the motivation of the Covenant? Who is their leader and what do they want?) but lots were unresolved (Gravemind jumps to...mind) that the game brough up.
I mention this because so many people feel the ending was so out of character from the first game. I disagree, for the above reasons. Had more been resolved or the story concluded more firmly, then I would agree.
I think people are really upset that the game did not have this rousing climax at the end of the game, similar to blowing the Pillar of Autumn's engine core and racing out with a countdown. Instead, we get a mission where you are flying through a barrage of enemy fire in a Banshee while fighting along side a assault carrier, before a major boss battle. While different in structure, I didn't find them to be too dissimilar.
I guess my point is: It's Bungie. The ending may have seemed abrupt (and it was) but it was not at all inconsistant with Halo 1's ending - which should not be all that surprising.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
trippingmartian said:
??? did you play the first halo? what made you ever expect some "giant uber boss" ?
Spider_Jerusalem
Member
XS+ said:
Sure the criticism isn't merited: it's a great game, no questioning about it. But, even having loved it for all the time, I can't deny I was quite disappointed by the games'ending. I mean, I even didn't see it coming!
I was so excited, thinking "Great! Finally
back to heart
Edit: Spoiler tag added.
gollumsluvslave
Member
The ending issues are more of a result of the "Earth" marketing than anything else IMO
If people weren't expecting the earth invasion, but expecting that the focus was a romp through the Covenant High city to capture a Prophet (which was what Bungie touched on in the X03 trailer comments) then I don't think they would have been as miffed.
However, very little play on Earth (2 levels), then MC arrives back at Earth (after having played as Arbiter in the last level - a big point IMO), the expectation is that the game wouldn't end there.
The fact that you would EXPECT to end the game playing as MC, and the last cutscene is MC boasting about "ending this fight" is a sure-fire way of not meeting expectations.
I find it ironic that Bungie spent so much time and effort trying to not give anything away about the Campaign, to protect the fans from being spoiled backfired with respect to the ending :lol :lol
If they had managed player expectations better (i.e. releasing some more SP info), then I think people would have enjoyed the ending far better.
FYI i didn't care too much about spoilers, knew about Arbiter and the lack of Earth campaigns, and really enjoyed the ending. If anything I am more looking forward to the continuation of Arbiter's plot in Halo 3, than I was for MC in Halo 2 :lol :lol
Sometimes surprises can be TOO jarring.
Another point, is look at the ending from the Arbiters POV, stopping the Delta Halo from firing is a kind of big deal, and IMO comparable to the destruction of orig Halo. It's the big switch of POV's back to MC that causes the problem.
I think personally what Bungie should have done was end the game with a cinematic of Arbiter etc... then do the credits, then have the MC + Cortana cinematcis after. Players would probably still be miffed, but possibly lessened... maybe not tho :lol :lol
If people weren't expecting the earth invasion, but expecting that the focus was a romp through the Covenant High city to capture a Prophet (which was what Bungie touched on in the X03 trailer comments) then I don't think they would have been as miffed.
However, very little play on Earth (2 levels), then MC arrives back at Earth (after having played as Arbiter in the last level - a big point IMO), the expectation is that the game wouldn't end there.
The fact that you would EXPECT to end the game playing as MC, and the last cutscene is MC boasting about "ending this fight" is a sure-fire way of not meeting expectations.
I find it ironic that Bungie spent so much time and effort trying to not give anything away about the Campaign, to protect the fans from being spoiled backfired with respect to the ending :lol :lol
If they had managed player expectations better (i.e. releasing some more SP info), then I think people would have enjoyed the ending far better.
FYI i didn't care too much about spoilers, knew about Arbiter and the lack of Earth campaigns, and really enjoyed the ending. If anything I am more looking forward to the continuation of Arbiter's plot in Halo 3, than I was for MC in Halo 2 :lol :lol
Sometimes surprises can be TOO jarring.
Another point, is look at the ending from the Arbiters POV, stopping the Delta Halo from firing is a kind of big deal, and IMO comparable to the destruction of orig Halo. It's the big switch of POV's back to MC that causes the problem.
I think personally what Bungie should have done was end the game with a cinematic of Arbiter etc... then do the credits, then have the MC + Cortana cinematcis after. Players would probably still be miffed, but possibly lessened... maybe not tho :lol :lol
gollumsluvslave
Member
lockii :-
RotJ had Nien Numb.
Therefore RotJ >>>>>>>>>> ESB > ANH
FIXED
:lol :lol
RotJ had Nien Numb.
Therefore RotJ >>>>>>>>>> ESB > ANH
FIXED
:lol :lol
I'm not so sure about that. I mean, yeah, sure people are pissed off about the marketing trick, but I don't think it's specifically for the ending.gollumsluvslave said:
The problem is the direction in the final scenes. It's too good for its own good and gets you all kinds of pumped and psyched up to go kick some ass in the final showdown and just when you're about ready to yell out "yee-haw!" and hammer those triggers, all you get are credits. It's like the definition of anticlimactic.
I think a better way to end it, yet still making it a cliff-hanger, would've been letting you fight the first wave of invading Covenant. Just one level or so, and then during the final cutscene they could've just tilted the camera to show the sky filled with hundreds of Covenant ships. Would've given the same war on Earth prelude, and wouldn't have left anyone disappointed, I think.
gollumsluvslave
Member
I think it is because MC is back on Earth, so the expectation is there...kind like "Sweet here we go!! Time to kick some... oh."
Mr_Furious
Member
Although the story arcs are similar in pattern, the execution is sloppier in Halo 2. I can appreciate the parallel story telling going on in Halo 2 but not at the expense of losing any sense of an ending. Halo 1 had a grand ending that was exciting to play and much more memorable than it's sequel. Halo 2's ending was unexpected because the previous levels felt too similar in comparison to it's final stage(s). As you were playing through Halo 1's final stage(s), you knew the end was near and it felt satisfying when it finally does come to a close. The same cannot be said for Halo 2 by any means.GhaleonEB said:
Barrage of enemy fire? Major boss battle? I can't disagree with you more here. I think backtracking through the same valley I just went through in a weaker vehicle (Banchee) than the one I had before (tank), providing protection for the big ass walker transport I should've been controlling instead, to a lame uninspired poor excuse of a "boss" fight is not comparable to the last Warthog stage of Halo 1 at all. Halo 1's final stage was built up and exciting to play through while Halo 2's final stage felt like it wasn't originally intended to be that but ended up so due to the strict deadline imposed by MS. If you look at the primary objectives of both games, Halo 1's was accomplished (destroy Halo) but left just enough questions to be answered by the eventual sequel. Halo 2's objectives are confusing and always changed (due to constantly playing both sides) with no real "purpose" and showing no real results from your achieved goals. Everything's left for Halo 3 to answer and I just hope Bungie doesn't take as long to get it out as they did Halo 2. :-\
IAWTP.
Additionally, as much as I liked the Arbiter....I wanted to play the MC at the end. To me, the Master Chief IS the halo franchise, and not being able to play him at the climactic moment was a big let down.
The marketing campaign was a mistake. I realize all the fanboys will pile in here and insist that 'bungie made it totally known that the game would feature many locations if you just read the interviews and stuff!!111'. However, they also were utterly silent on the Sp campaign, and the marketing focused entirely on the 'save the earth' stuff. Hence, public gets hyped up to do just that. So, when I played through a level and change of earth and then bang- I'm on another halo for the majority of the game...yeah, I was dissapointed. But hey, it was fun, so I figured, fuck it; rock on arbiter. Game plays out, then you get the final cutscene, MC is back in orbit around earth, major asskickin' is going on, and you want to take part.
Roll Credits, que frustration.
But really, even that could have worked, if the climax had been written better. The ending is fundamentally a badly set-up cliffhanger. I realize that preventing the Delta Halo from firing is a big deal, but story wise, it just falls flat compared to MC appearing in earth orbit with battle raging.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
demo shown time and time again?
you mean time and time again as in you constantly opening up your windows media player to watch the E3 vid?
arhra
Member
The problem is people not being willing to accept that fundamentally, the story of Halo 2 is centred around the Arbiter, not the Master Chief. Sure, the Chief is there, but the story is almost completely about the Covenant perspective. Personally, i didn't think the 'finishing this fight' cutscene was significantly different to/worse than the 'just getting started' cutscene at the end of Halo 1.
Oh, and the final boss fight was kinda lame. Covering the scarab in a banshee was great, but the boss fight just doesn't compare to the first game's frantic warthog run to escape the ship.
Oh, and the final boss fight was kinda lame. Covering the scarab in a banshee was great, but the boss fight just doesn't compare to the first game's frantic warthog run to escape the ship.
Would one more level (or two. Or three) really have been enough to wrap it all up? It's going to take a whole game to conclude the story arc, and I'd much rather it be on Xenon where they can really go nuts with a Covenant invasion; the sky filled with ships, hundreds of Covenant and marines on the ground, buildings crumbling in real time, pedestrians running for their lives, etc... That's how I want the Halo saga to end.
gollumsluvslave
Member
arhra:-
BINGO! A WINNER IS YOU!
Didn't bother me tho!
Arbiter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MC
BINGO! A WINNER IS YOU!
Didn't bother me tho!
Arbiter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MC
FeedMeAStrayCat
Member
gollumsluvslave said:
He brings up a good point. :lol
Seriously though, for me, I don't have a real favorite, but I can usually agree on this:
RotJ == ESB > ANH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prequels (still pretty decent though)
Why am I upset about the ending? Because of Bungie using false advertising!
WTF happened to this?
It was cut for Halo 3!
And also because the final boss fight was lame. I don't need Halo 2 boss battle gameplay exactly like the final boss battle in Wind Waker. In general I'd say it was a mistake for Halo 2 to include bosses cause they were the worst part of the campaign.
The campaign on Heroic was in general awesome though.
WTF happened to this?
It was cut for Halo 3!
And also because the final boss fight was lame. I don't need Halo 2 boss battle gameplay exactly like the final boss battle in Wind Waker. In general I'd say it was a mistake for Halo 2 to include bosses cause they were the worst part of the campaign.
The campaign on Heroic was in general awesome though.
Deku Tree said:Why am I upset about the ending? Because of Bungie using false advertising!
WTF happened to this?
It was cut for Halo 3!
They tweaked their story. That's not a crime.
I should also point out that as early as the EGM cover story Halo 2 was announced in Bungie was talking about the fact that the game will begin on earth and then shift to a number of locations, including a Covenant home world, a gas mine orbiting a gas giant and another Halo. (they mentioned a moon level as well but that was cut).
What does bug me a little is the advertising tag lines - Earth Will Never Be the Same. I mean, huh? From what I saw, New Mombasa was pretty much screwed over, but not Earth. At least, not until that ending cinematic.
There was no climax for Halo2. Fighting your way through an exploding ring in the middle of a war between two factions who both want you dead is exciting. Fighting Hammertime the Indestructible Mohawk Monkey is...........not. That's all to it. The Arbiter had more personality than the Chief, but they played exactly the same. To be pissy that the Chief wasn't the main focus is stupid. Would the complaints still be coming in if we'd been forced to play as other Spartans, or even Cortana? The game is called Halo, not The Chronicles of John 117.
GhaleonEB said:
I agree that it's not automatically a crime. I was not expecting the whole story to be on Earth.
GhaleonEB said:
But combine that screenshot with this "Earth Will Never Be the Same" marketing slogan and it looks to me like false advertising. Granted marketing people probably decided on the slogan and not Bungie.
But if you were following the Halo 2 media closely it was very natural to believe there would be a huge battle on earth; I'd go so far as to say that Bungie + the marketing lead everyone to believe that and it didn't happen.
no, I don't expect that they could have wrapped up the entire story of the games with just an extra 3-4 levels. I just think the cliffhanger could have been done a lot better, that's all. HL2's cliffhanger ending felt a lot better to me, because it wasn't so abrupt (the game spent a lot more time leading up to that final encounter). Halo 2's literally felt to me like they just ran out of time on the game... so all I would expect from a few more levels would have been a stronger cliffhanger, that's all.Redbeard said:
mrmyth said:
No. "The Ark", whatever that is I guess, is on Earth. There is plenty reason for invasion if you ask the Covenant.
I didn't follow ilovebees but I asked a friend who did if the end result was still basically about a stranded AIRlan said:
and that would be fitting as Cortana is stranded on Halo, with Gravemind, at the very end of the game past the end credits.
Mr. Lemming
Member
The game should have ended with a fade out right after the "launch" of the delta halo. "Oh teh noes did the universe exploded!?" and all that. The little cortana/gravemind cutscene could have been a bonus for beating the game on legendary, since they would be the two most likely game entities to survive the destructions of all sentient life-forms.
Rlan said:
The artifact from the ILB saga likely has something to do with the initial covenant arrival at earth, pre-Halo 2. The guys who made ILB said the goal was to take the ILB-saga and let it lead up to Halo 2, so that when ILBers listened to the end, with the pulse from the artifact and the signal it sends out, they could put 1 and 1 together and realize that the Covenant(the smal group) would be alerted to the artifact with that pulse. Hence the discovery of people on earth, and ultimately the need to attempt to invade the planet at the conclusion of Halo 2.
For posters who consider Master Chief emblematic of Halo, I encourage rapid acceptance that Halo is far greater than Master Chief. It'd be like saying Garland/Chaos is Final Fantasy. The Halo-games, for as long as they come out will focus on that universe and the people within it, likely across different time periods, et cetera. Halo 2's ending completely fractures the conventional notion of narrative in video games a narrative which has come tremendously far even since the days of NES Ninja Gaiden. Now, with Halo 2, instead of reaching a finality to the story arc, an arc that will likely be completed in Halo 3/Halo 2.5/online content download, whatever.
Halo 2 extends this notion of the story of a galaxy or a future by incorporating the character of the Arbiter, the poster who said Halo 2 was the story of the Arbiter is completely correct. Someone in XBN (maybe Simon Cox) said something about Halo 2 feeling like you were being "pushed along by some invisible hand" and just "a faceless soldier in a larger war." This is pretty much spot on, and likely what Bungie wanted. Master Chief is one character in the saga of Halo, Arbiter is another. Will we see more? Probably. Will we play as earlier versions of the Spartans? Maybe someday.
The timeline and the character that we play as, in Bungie's eyes, may ultimately be inconsequential. Sure, they realize that he is a total badass and appeals completely to the typical gamer -- but they also realize that John 117 is a completely flat character with no depth whatsoever other than the "There it is, let me kill it" aesthetic that essentially parallels the genre. With a character like the Arbiter, it is a character that has fallen from grace, is used as a pawn and ultimately seeks (and finds) redemption for the sins he has "committed." At least, in his own mind.
Will Halo 3 ultimately see Master Chief fighting side by side with the Arbiter, and the arbiters legions of Elites and Hunters against Truth's Brutes and snipers? It would seem to be the direction the game is going, and the options with co-op could be staggering.