The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The so-called 'Halo Beater' scored 7.5
Halo Beater my a$$
Halo Beater my a$$
Page:
Depends how much you read into hype really.
I'm sure Halo 2 will meet all my expectations and most likely surpass some of them.
Driving Warthogs online and blowing crap up would be enough for me.
I'm sure Halo 2 will meet all my expectations and most likely surpass some of them.
Driving Warthogs online and blowing crap up would be enough for me.
This is their first game working with Sony and it looks GOOD. It doesn't look astounding but it looks good and all the reviews I have read say the same thing.
Hype has spoiled it, as the chances are it will have with Halo 2.
Hype has spoiled it, as the chances are it will have with Halo 2.
Shellshock Nam was their first game me thinks...oh and it stunk.
The AI on Halo is 3 years (?) old, back then it was impressive. It's still a massive challenge today, especially on Legendary. Sure it's certainly not of Half-Life 2 standards, but it's definetly not predictable.
Fingers crossed they'll completly change the design of inside sections for Halo 2. God knows if they use the the same excuse "Using the same interiors and textures over and over again is realistic" then I'll be anything but happy.
The AI on Halo is 3 years (?) old, back then it was impressive. It's still a massive challenge today, especially on Legendary. Sure it's certainly not of Half-Life 2 standards, but it's definetly not predictable.
Fingers crossed they'll completly change the design of inside sections for Halo 2. God knows if they use the the same excuse "Using the same interiors and textures over and over again is realistic" then I'll be anything but happy.
I enjoyed Halo, which is why I played it a crazy amount of times, that doesn't mean it didn't have massive short comings. Inconsistent level design, poor AI and that too had its fair share of scripted sequences that were easy enough to work out.
Oh and IGN as per 90% of the time are completely inconsistent. Watch their video review, they talk for half about its flaws, say it isn't a "Halo killer" but not once do they say is it equal to Halo in anyway. They also come to the conclusion that it is a very solid game that yes you should buy because there is a hell of a lot to enjoy.
Without the hype I predict it would have scored a lot more because still from what I have read and seen it looks a very fun game but not without some serious flaws.
Plus Sony and Gorilla have tried to be too ambitious with PS2 hardware, would be interesting for them to do a sequel for the PS3 without limited resources.
You forget, Halo was NOT Bungie's first game, this is for Gorilla however. Very few get it right first time but the promise is there and I am still looking forward to playing it and making my own opinion without being led down the garden path from inconsistent reviews.
Oh and IGN as per 90% of the time are completely inconsistent. Watch their video review, they talk for half about its flaws, say it isn't a "Halo killer" but not once do they say is it equal to Halo in anyway. They also come to the conclusion that it is a very solid game that yes you should buy because there is a hell of a lot to enjoy.
Without the hype I predict it would have scored a lot more because still from what I have read and seen it looks a very fun game but not without some serious flaws.
Plus Sony and Gorilla have tried to be too ambitious with PS2 hardware, would be interesting for them to do a sequel for the PS3 without limited resources.
You forget, Halo was NOT Bungie's first game, this is for Gorilla however. Very few get it right first time but the promise is there and I am still looking forward to playing it and making my own opinion without being led down the garden path from inconsistent reviews.
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> Really, what part of the game are you up to then?
Every review I've read says the same thing, so my prediction is that it's right.
Anyway, I'm not gonna defend Halo. I only managed to play it through once, after that I found it terribly tedious. I find it insane that I need to be defending it to someone who boasts of playing it through 36 times or some other insane figure.
Oh and the AI in Rainbow Six 3 was dumb as f**k. I actually found it incredibly tedious and dull in single player, it was pretty decent online in co-op, but then Brute Force was fun in co-op and that stunk of cess in single player.
> Really, what part of the game are you up to then?
Every review I've read says the same thing, so my prediction is that it's right.
Anyway, I'm not gonna defend Halo. I only managed to play it through once, after that I found it terribly tedious. I find it insane that I need to be defending it to someone who boasts of playing it through 36 times or some other insane figure.
Oh and the AI in Rainbow Six 3 was dumb as f**k. I actually found it incredibly tedious and dull in single player, it was pretty decent online in co-op, but then Brute Force was fun in co-op and that stunk of cess in single player.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> It's scripted so it does exactly the same thing every time you play
> through.
So did the Rainbow Six 3 campaign and even Terrorist Hunt was predictable as they only had around 3 different rotations on enemy placements. Even then just because they were there didn't mean they would attack.
The AI was crap but the game was fun.
> It's scripted so it does exactly the same thing every time you play
> through.
So did the Rainbow Six 3 campaign and even Terrorist Hunt was predictable as they only had around 3 different rotations on enemy placements. Even then just because they were there didn't mean they would attack.
The AI was crap but the game was fun.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> How did Halo have poor AI?
Strafe from left to right incoherently and then sometimes run straight past me. When going up close to attack 90% of the time they stopped shooting. It was completely inconsistent.
> Killzone has stupid AI that only works when it's scripted otherwise
> it just stands around looking stupid.
Really, what part of the game are you up to then?
> How did Halo have poor AI?
Strafe from left to right incoherently and then sometimes run straight past me. When going up close to attack 90% of the time they stopped shooting. It was completely inconsistent.
> Killzone has stupid AI that only works when it's scripted otherwise
> it just stands around looking stupid.
Really, what part of the game are you up to then?
It's scripted so it does exactly the same thing every time you play through.
Is killzone's AI like, when you do a part of the game and an enemy of sorts is in a place and kills you and you re-do that part and their/it's not their but in a completey different place?
Oh and by the way, i've never heard of killzone, so it must be good :P
Oh and by the way, i've never heard of killzone, so it must be good :P
How did Halo have poor AI?
Killzone has stupid AI that only works when it's scripted otherwise it just stands around looking stupid.
Killzone has stupid AI that only works when it's scripted otherwise it just stands around looking stupid.
Page: