The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Halo 2'.
Metropolis Level - turn round, ignore the tank and get into the Warthog. Drive at top speed:
Female Soldier: "Follow the--- UNGHHHH"
Run over her. Funny stuff.
Female Soldier: "Follow the--- UNGHHHH"
Run over her. Funny stuff.
Page:
i just re-bought halo 2 for £18 sealed and brand new... damn i love ebay
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> I seriously have no idea what you are talking about with the
> accessibility crap.
What I mean is, with half Life 2, Doom 3 you still rely on the "I can carry all weapons" thing; and an archaic control of using them - jab 1 for the knife, 3 for the gun or whatever; or even use the mouse wheel to scroll to your gun. Maybe you can blame it on the format for being too mechanical, but with Halo 2 you don't have to remember what number the Shotgun is designated to. It's far more natural to control, freeing you up for better enjoyment. Or lack of, in your case.
>
> The level design is crap, the story is dull and it is so average to
> play.
Obviously, everyone has differnt tastes; one man's treasures and all that -but I'd like to hear some examples, comparisons - level design is far superior to CoD, Doom, and yes, H-L2. While more dissected location-wise then the latter two, the level design feels asymmetric and never monotonous (bar Gravemind and high Charity, but then, Half Life 2 had more than its fair share - a lot more).
Average to play? Aha. There were two great thing about Half Life 2 - graphics, and the physics. Shoot at the enemy, throw stuff at the enemy, admire lovely details on enemy. When in a firefight, tell me, how fun is it to actually play through? More fun than Halo 2? Where, at least, the enemies move?
And then you have the gun variations and styles of fight - you can go on a melee only rampage, using only the B button to hop from one grunt to the other. The traditional Plasmas then SMG - or good ol' shotgun. How much of that is restricted in HL2 due to lack of ammo, that brief but oh so vital moment when you switch to another gun not in your quickswitch?
And story - oh dear oh dear. If you really think any of the three you mentioned comes close, you're in for a laugh. CoD was a nice branching one, your typical WW2 FPS game; Doom - um right. Half Life 2 - tell me, what did you feel you had accomplished upon completion? Succeeded in the rebel movement? Was there *really* a purpose worth playing the game for, storywise?
Halo 2 - I won't spoil it for you since you've apparently only played 30 mins of the campaign - great asessment by the way, I like your use of examples of where the story was dull. I can tell you that the first 3 levels had more story backbone to the entire H-L2 one though.
> It doesn't even come slightly close to Half-life 2, Call of Duty or
> Far Cry.
It wouldn't be surprising if you judged these, and Halo 2, based on the quality of graphics alone.
> I seriously have no idea what you are talking about with the
> accessibility crap.
What I mean is, with half Life 2, Doom 3 you still rely on the "I can carry all weapons" thing; and an archaic control of using them - jab 1 for the knife, 3 for the gun or whatever; or even use the mouse wheel to scroll to your gun. Maybe you can blame it on the format for being too mechanical, but with Halo 2 you don't have to remember what number the Shotgun is designated to. It's far more natural to control, freeing you up for better enjoyment. Or lack of, in your case.
>
> The level design is crap, the story is dull and it is so average to
> play.
Obviously, everyone has differnt tastes; one man's treasures and all that -but I'd like to hear some examples, comparisons - level design is far superior to CoD, Doom, and yes, H-L2. While more dissected location-wise then the latter two, the level design feels asymmetric and never monotonous (bar Gravemind and high Charity, but then, Half Life 2 had more than its fair share - a lot more).
Average to play? Aha. There were two great thing about Half Life 2 - graphics, and the physics. Shoot at the enemy, throw stuff at the enemy, admire lovely details on enemy. When in a firefight, tell me, how fun is it to actually play through? More fun than Halo 2? Where, at least, the enemies move?
And then you have the gun variations and styles of fight - you can go on a melee only rampage, using only the B button to hop from one grunt to the other. The traditional Plasmas then SMG - or good ol' shotgun. How much of that is restricted in HL2 due to lack of ammo, that brief but oh so vital moment when you switch to another gun not in your quickswitch?
And story - oh dear oh dear. If you really think any of the three you mentioned comes close, you're in for a laugh. CoD was a nice branching one, your typical WW2 FPS game; Doom - um right. Half Life 2 - tell me, what did you feel you had accomplished upon completion? Succeeded in the rebel movement? Was there *really* a purpose worth playing the game for, storywise?
Halo 2 - I won't spoil it for you since you've apparently only played 30 mins of the campaign - great asessment by the way, I like your use of examples of where the story was dull. I can tell you that the first 3 levels had more story backbone to the entire H-L2 one though.
> It doesn't even come slightly close to Half-life 2, Call of Duty or
> Far Cry.
It wouldn't be surprising if you judged these, and Halo 2, based on the quality of graphics alone.
Never monotonous?
hahahahaahahaaha
I'm sorry but past the 2 earth levels. halo 2 features some of the downright most monotonous levels I've ever come across in a first person shooter, some of them started well but about 10 minutes in you're just praying they'll end soon.
Infact it was so monotonous that I've never finished the single player, I can't the find the will to be that bored once again.
hahahahaahahaaha
I'm sorry but past the 2 earth levels. halo 2 features some of the downright most monotonous levels I've ever come across in a first person shooter, some of them started well but about 10 minutes in you're just praying they'll end soon.
Infact it was so monotonous that I've never finished the single player, I can't the find the will to be that bored once again.
But when what you're comparing to is Doom 3, Half Life 2 - which features plenty of it, and are arguably the pinnacle of FPSs - there isn't much to argue about, is there?
And where did you get up to before you gave up?
And where did you get up to before you gave up?
I find it ironic people are finally picking up the points I disliked about the first Halo on the sequel....
ahaha.
Anyway, Halo 2 offline was disappointing, but at times it was terrific, and in co-op on a higher (stupidly hard) difficulty level, it's tense and extremely fun. I must agree with Icarus about some points - especially about the guns in HL2. At points, HL2 was amazing, light years ahead. Then it got bogged down in 'press 3 three times' to get the right gun. Which was just crap. Other little bits of it were archaic - the combat, minus the grav gun, for one. In this context, the far faster more intuitive combat of Halo is better. BUT of course I'm not saying H2 beats HL2, because HL2 does do some stunning stuff (even though I just cannot be bothered with actually playing it, at all), and yes, Halo 2 is very dull in places, and not much has really changed from the first. I laugh how you've barely played it, offline or on either. But still, I must agree with points on BOTH sides.
ahaha.
Anyway, Halo 2 offline was disappointing, but at times it was terrific, and in co-op on a higher (stupidly hard) difficulty level, it's tense and extremely fun. I must agree with Icarus about some points - especially about the guns in HL2. At points, HL2 was amazing, light years ahead. Then it got bogged down in 'press 3 three times' to get the right gun. Which was just crap. Other little bits of it were archaic - the combat, minus the grav gun, for one. In this context, the far faster more intuitive combat of Halo is better. BUT of course I'm not saying H2 beats HL2, because HL2 does do some stunning stuff (even though I just cannot be bothered with actually playing it, at all), and yes, Halo 2 is very dull in places, and not much has really changed from the first. I laugh how you've barely played it, offline or on either. But still, I must agree with points on BOTH sides.
The original Halo was excellent fun at the time, now it feels and plays dull purely on the basis that I have played better FPS since then. At the time it was the first (first) person console shooter I had played since Golden Eye that had so many qualities across the board, qualities that now feel like a standard schema that every FPS should have.
How Icarus can say the level design in Halo 2 is better than Far Cry, Half Life 2 and even Call of Duty is completely beyond me. No matter how hard I sit there trying to find anything remotely out of the bog standard corridors with pretty much zilch interaction with any of the environments.
Not only is Halo 2 inferior to Half-Life 2 and Far Cry amongst others but they aren't even slightly comparable on any level. Visually the PC games nail it, the level design on both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 is years ahead, the physics, the character movement, the weapons, in fact everything about them is just a mile ahead of Halo 2.
Halo 2 is bog standard across the board, no outstanding qualities, Half-Life 2 is years ahead of anything else as far as First Person Shooters go in terms of technical qualities and interaction and Far Cry roles along as one of the best games I have ever played, all aspects considered.
You must have a PC that runs like a 60yr old curb crawler after being f**ked good and proper up the dirt track ;)
How Icarus can say the level design in Halo 2 is better than Far Cry, Half Life 2 and even Call of Duty is completely beyond me. No matter how hard I sit there trying to find anything remotely out of the bog standard corridors with pretty much zilch interaction with any of the environments.
Not only is Halo 2 inferior to Half-Life 2 and Far Cry amongst others but they aren't even slightly comparable on any level. Visually the PC games nail it, the level design on both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 is years ahead, the physics, the character movement, the weapons, in fact everything about them is just a mile ahead of Halo 2.
Halo 2 is bog standard across the board, no outstanding qualities, Half-Life 2 is years ahead of anything else as far as First Person Shooters go in terms of technical qualities and interaction and Far Cry roles along as one of the best games I have ever played, all aspects considered.
You must have a PC that runs like a 60yr old curb crawler after being f**ked good and proper up the dirt track ;)
Halo feels outdated now because we have Halo 2, obviously. But you say that since we've had the other FPSs, Halo 2 has been relegated to a mere dull fest - but when I played throught it, it was fun. Sure, there were dull points at times - but on a straight up comparison with HL2, I remember far more of the levels, environments of Halo 2 than HL2.
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
>
> How Icarus can say the level design in Halo 2 is better than Far Cry,
> Half Life 2 and even Call of Duty is completely beyond me. No matter
> how hard I sit there trying to find anything remotely out of the bog
> standard corridors with pretty much zilch interaction with any of the
> environments.
>
Actually, they were both made of standard corridors. You can have an entire game world, with beautiful vistas, skyscraper buildings etc. but you can easily see where you're suppposed to go for both games. It would be bad if we couldn't.
HL2 had more interaction with the environment - but to me, it wasn't *that* fun. Not as fun as the different ways you could take out the enemies in Halo - y'know, the stuff that moves.
> Not only is Halo 2 inferior to Half-Life 2 and Far Cry amongst others
> but they aren't even slightly comparable on any level.
They aren't comparable, which I agree to a large extent - certain segments of Half Life 2 you don't shoot at all, requiring some jiggling of the game world or escaping with no choice of a firefight. More of a FP/platformer, a bit like Metroid. But if they can't be compared, how is it inferior?
Visually the
> PC games nail it,
Couldn't resist with the graphics bashing, eh? HL2 is the better on graphics, but the quality of Halo 2 is such that it really makes no difference to the gameplay, or your enjoyment of the game at all.
the level design on both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 is
> years ahead, the physics, the character movement, the weapons, in
> fact everything about them is just a mile ahead of Halo 2.
On top of what Cycloony said about the weapons, whatever one(s) you choose for a firefight, it's meaty and satisfying to use. From the least used pistol to a Carbine, there is no weapon that you can really hate and ignore. Chances with HL2 is that you'll either use the grav gun with objects for taking out the first enemy, then switch to your most powerful projectile. The only time you'll consider using a pistol is for lone head crabs, barnacles and mundane stuff - it'll be your last resort all the time in a firefight.
> Halo 2 is bog standard across the board, no outstanding qualities
It was fun, and I actually remembered some of it. Games that stick in my head long after playing it is an outstanding quality in my book. What did I get out of Half Life 2 after playing it, from a gamer's point of view? Well, nice graphics. Gordon saves humanity. But whilst traipsing through the game, did you feel as if you had a purpose?
> You must have a PC that runs like a 60yr old curb crawler after being
> f**ked good and proper up the dirt track ;)
Not as fast as yours, but runs perfectly, and I did manage to experience the wonderful graphics of the game. Look at the water!
On a side note, I just boarded a Banshee on Metropolis, while on the highway... result!
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
>
> How Icarus can say the level design in Halo 2 is better than Far Cry,
> Half Life 2 and even Call of Duty is completely beyond me. No matter
> how hard I sit there trying to find anything remotely out of the bog
> standard corridors with pretty much zilch interaction with any of the
> environments.
>
Actually, they were both made of standard corridors. You can have an entire game world, with beautiful vistas, skyscraper buildings etc. but you can easily see where you're suppposed to go for both games. It would be bad if we couldn't.
HL2 had more interaction with the environment - but to me, it wasn't *that* fun. Not as fun as the different ways you could take out the enemies in Halo - y'know, the stuff that moves.
> Not only is Halo 2 inferior to Half-Life 2 and Far Cry amongst others
> but they aren't even slightly comparable on any level.
They aren't comparable, which I agree to a large extent - certain segments of Half Life 2 you don't shoot at all, requiring some jiggling of the game world or escaping with no choice of a firefight. More of a FP/platformer, a bit like Metroid. But if they can't be compared, how is it inferior?
Visually the
> PC games nail it,
Couldn't resist with the graphics bashing, eh? HL2 is the better on graphics, but the quality of Halo 2 is such that it really makes no difference to the gameplay, or your enjoyment of the game at all.
the level design on both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 is
> years ahead, the physics, the character movement, the weapons, in
> fact everything about them is just a mile ahead of Halo 2.
On top of what Cycloony said about the weapons, whatever one(s) you choose for a firefight, it's meaty and satisfying to use. From the least used pistol to a Carbine, there is no weapon that you can really hate and ignore. Chances with HL2 is that you'll either use the grav gun with objects for taking out the first enemy, then switch to your most powerful projectile. The only time you'll consider using a pistol is for lone head crabs, barnacles and mundane stuff - it'll be your last resort all the time in a firefight.
> Halo 2 is bog standard across the board, no outstanding qualities
It was fun, and I actually remembered some of it. Games that stick in my head long after playing it is an outstanding quality in my book. What did I get out of Half Life 2 after playing it, from a gamer's point of view? Well, nice graphics. Gordon saves humanity. But whilst traipsing through the game, did you feel as if you had a purpose?
> You must have a PC that runs like a 60yr old curb crawler after being
> f**ked good and proper up the dirt track ;)
Not as fast as yours, but runs perfectly, and I did manage to experience the wonderful graphics of the game. Look at the water!
On a side note, I just boarded a Banshee on Metropolis, while on the highway... result!
Icarus = Socialist (Nice Type)
Alastair = Fascist (Not Nice Type)
Alastair = Fascist (Not Nice Type)
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
>
> Halo 2 is bog standard across the board, no outstanding qualities
No that's MoH, which you thought was great.
>
> Halo 2 is bog standard across the board, no outstanding qualities
No that's MoH, which you thought was great.
I like the large areas, vehicles and the way the combat flows in Halo 2.
Nothing I've played equals that style of combat.
Nothing I've played equals that style of combat.
Page: