The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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'.
Got this with my Xbox a couple of weeks back only to ignore. For me it just didn't live up to all the hype and after discussing this with Notorious Biggles I though I would go back and give it another go. Well after playing it a second time round I must say its truly...amazing. After getting past where I got to last time (343 Guilty Spark) it was time to take on The Libary. After many people saying it was the worst level in the game I really cant see how. It was the level that introduced the hardcore shooter it is known for.
All those Flood just running at you its immense. At the moment im on the last bit with that massive 3km drive to the ship in a Warthog.
Great is all I can say now I see why its rated so highly.
All those Flood just running at you its immense. At the moment im on the last bit with that massive 3km drive to the ship in a Warthog.
Great is all I can say now I see why its rated so highly.
Page:
And you still play Goldeneye today, no?
Rickoss wrote:
> Cwazy Wabbit wrote:
> This game is about 3/2 years old, people are forgetting that...
>
> And Goldeneye has just been released, yes?
Winnar
> Cwazy Wabbit wrote:
> This game is about 3/2 years old, people are forgetting that...
>
> And Goldeneye has just been released, yes?
Winnar
Cwazy Wabbit wrote:
> This game is about 3/2 years old, people are forgetting that...
And Goldeneye has just been released, yes?
> This game is about 3/2 years old, people are forgetting that...
And Goldeneye has just been released, yes?
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Yeah of course I forgot, Halo would have been so much better had it
> been set in Bowsers Castle right? Maybe not.
Come on Biggle, don't be so retarded. Halo's levels are reptitive, unispiring and just plain boring for the most part. Goldeneye's level were interesting and actually caused you to think. Even if you do think Halo is great you have to admit that the level design is crap. You're not normally such a fanboy.
> Well it seems to have been. Pre Halo I could carry around an entire
> armoury, now I get what a person can handle. Minor point, but it made
> for a better game.
Innovative? Yes. Annoying? Also.
> Play the multiplayer in a decent match first, then you'll either say
> it is great or amazing. 16 player Halo is the greatest multiplayer
> experience I've ever come across. All of my game playing mates have
> Xboxes, so a system link game isn't that difficult. Sure they should
> have had bots, but they didn't. Big deal.
In 4-player, Halo's good for messing around, but if you want serious deathmatching, you can't beat Goldeneye. I must have played Goldeneye multiplayer more than any other game. You can't say it's the best multiplayer ever if in order to get enjoyment out of it you have to link up the four XBoxes. It's the same reason I don't rate Final Fantasy: Crystal Chonicles highly, as good as it may be in multiplayer a very small minority get to play it.
> Yeah of course I forgot, Halo would have been so much better had it
> been set in Bowsers Castle right? Maybe not.
Come on Biggle, don't be so retarded. Halo's levels are reptitive, unispiring and just plain boring for the most part. Goldeneye's level were interesting and actually caused you to think. Even if you do think Halo is great you have to admit that the level design is crap. You're not normally such a fanboy.
> Well it seems to have been. Pre Halo I could carry around an entire
> armoury, now I get what a person can handle. Minor point, but it made
> for a better game.
Innovative? Yes. Annoying? Also.
> Play the multiplayer in a decent match first, then you'll either say
> it is great or amazing. 16 player Halo is the greatest multiplayer
> experience I've ever come across. All of my game playing mates have
> Xboxes, so a system link game isn't that difficult. Sure they should
> have had bots, but they didn't. Big deal.
In 4-player, Halo's good for messing around, but if you want serious deathmatching, you can't beat Goldeneye. I must have played Goldeneye multiplayer more than any other game. You can't say it's the best multiplayer ever if in order to get enjoyment out of it you have to link up the four XBoxes. It's the same reason I don't rate Final Fantasy: Crystal Chonicles highly, as good as it may be in multiplayer a very small minority get to play it.
Ahahahahahaha.
It's good to have WS back.
In the meantime, This whole Halo arguement is getting way out of hand, It's a game for christs sakes, you either love it or you hate it. There's no right or wrong answer, people have shaped their own opinions according to what they thought of it.
Some thought it was fantastic, others didn't. Big deal, people have different tastes, it's just like watching a Tarantino movie, some people don't see what all the fuss is about, others do.
I'm one of the "Halo bummars!!!!", I love it, in my opinion it was, and still is a pretty decent game. You know why? Because it's exciting, I found the whole experience immense, the inclusion of the flood was a bit of a "cop out" on Bungies front, but the levels seemed pretty scary because they could jump out at any moment and preserving ammo/health was vital.
Especially on modes like Legendary, you have to seriously play a strategy. You can't just go in there, guns blazing and everything, you'll be ripped to pieces. You have to make a quick strategic decision on how you are going to tackle the problem ahead, and this usually takes more then one try, but allows you to plan your route, and "grenade points" to give you the chance you to acheive your goal.
And then there is still the possibility of multi-player mode, which is absolutely fantastic when you've got quite a few people playing.
Tell me this, are you still playing Halo after 3 years of it being out?
It's good to have WS back.
In the meantime, This whole Halo arguement is getting way out of hand, It's a game for christs sakes, you either love it or you hate it. There's no right or wrong answer, people have shaped their own opinions according to what they thought of it.
Some thought it was fantastic, others didn't. Big deal, people have different tastes, it's just like watching a Tarantino movie, some people don't see what all the fuss is about, others do.
I'm one of the "Halo bummars!!!!", I love it, in my opinion it was, and still is a pretty decent game. You know why? Because it's exciting, I found the whole experience immense, the inclusion of the flood was a bit of a "cop out" on Bungies front, but the levels seemed pretty scary because they could jump out at any moment and preserving ammo/health was vital.
Especially on modes like Legendary, you have to seriously play a strategy. You can't just go in there, guns blazing and everything, you'll be ripped to pieces. You have to make a quick strategic decision on how you are going to tackle the problem ahead, and this usually takes more then one try, but allows you to plan your route, and "grenade points" to give you the chance you to acheive your goal.
And then there is still the possibility of multi-player mode, which is absolutely fantastic when you've got quite a few people playing.
Tell me this, are you still playing Halo after 3 years of it being out?
This game is about 3/2 years old, people are forgetting that...
Damarus wrote:
> It's on Legeondary.
I cant do legendary.
:(
> It's on Legeondary.
I cant do legendary.
:(
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> And "oh it's so easy, we were on legendary" is crap as
> well. Halo on legendary is a very hard game. Not impossible, but
> still very hard.
It is in co-op because you only lose when both players die. It's quite easy because when one dies the other can do a runner, get to a safe place and then the other respawns.
The game is only hard due to the number of extra guys shooting at you, not because of the so called amazing AI.
I like the game alot, but I honestly found the short co-op on Timesplitters too as well as Serious Sam far more fun.
> And "oh it's so easy, we were on legendary" is crap as
> well. Halo on legendary is a very hard game. Not impossible, but
> still very hard.
It is in co-op because you only lose when both players die. It's quite easy because when one dies the other can do a runner, get to a safe place and then the other respawns.
The game is only hard due to the number of extra guys shooting at you, not because of the so called amazing AI.
I like the game alot, but I honestly found the short co-op on Timesplitters too as well as Serious Sam far more fun.
Tiltawhirl wrote:
>
> That's what the developers would have you believe to try and make up
> for sloppy level design. Anyway, since when has this so called
> 'realism' made for a fun game? it's boring and monotonous.
Yeah of course I forgot, Halo would have been so much better had it been set in Bowsers Castle right? Maybe not.
>
> Halo brought in the only two guns rule. How many games have ripped
> that off since?
>
> Wow a massive innovation.
Well it seems to have been. Pre Halo I could carry around an entire armoury, now I get what a person can handle. Minor point, but it made for a better game.
> No way in hell. The game just isn't suited to splitscreen multiplayer
> as the levels are far too big even with 4 people. You need to have 4
> Xbox's linked up to get the most out of it. The fact that Bungie
> didn't include bots means that what I'm sure is a very good
> multiplayer is left unused by most people as they just don't have the
> equipment for it.
>
Play the multiplayer in a decent match first, then you'll either say it is great or amazing. 16 player Halo is the greatest multiplayer experience I've ever come across. All of my game playing mates have Xboxes, so a system link game isn't that difficult. Sure they should have had bots, but they didn't. Big deal.
>
> That's what the developers would have you believe to try and make up
> for sloppy level design. Anyway, since when has this so called
> 'realism' made for a fun game? it's boring and monotonous.
Yeah of course I forgot, Halo would have been so much better had it been set in Bowsers Castle right? Maybe not.
>
> Halo brought in the only two guns rule. How many games have ripped
> that off since?
>
> Wow a massive innovation.
Well it seems to have been. Pre Halo I could carry around an entire armoury, now I get what a person can handle. Minor point, but it made for a better game.
> No way in hell. The game just isn't suited to splitscreen multiplayer
> as the levels are far too big even with 4 people. You need to have 4
> Xbox's linked up to get the most out of it. The fact that Bungie
> didn't include bots means that what I'm sure is a very good
> multiplayer is left unused by most people as they just don't have the
> equipment for it.
>
Play the multiplayer in a decent match first, then you'll either say it is great or amazing. 16 player Halo is the greatest multiplayer experience I've ever come across. All of my game playing mates have Xboxes, so a system link game isn't that difficult. Sure they should have had bots, but they didn't. Big deal.
Heh. always funny to see the post-amazing-game-bubble bursting.
"Wow this game is AMAZING!!"
-2+ years later-
"*Yawn*, yeah that game was alright s'pose"
"Wow this game is AMAZING!!"
-2+ years later-
"*Yawn*, yeah that game was alright s'pose"
Page: