Viewing Thread:
"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.

Well lets just hope that Halo 2 meets expectations that everyone wants.

*anticipates a Halo 2 bashing thread in 2 years time*

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> P.S. Halo was originally developed for the Mac.

It was originally developed for the PC... Just announced for the mac aswell soon as bungie were Mac game makers. But it was made to sell on the PC.

Pah, philistine.

Ninty for ever!

rarg!

I'm anything but a Nintendo fanboy, I lost my faith in Nintendo about the same time that I bought an Xbox.

I don't like the game because it's so uninvolving for me. The levels (inside) are poor, yes, but the simple fact I couldn't give a toss about the Flood or the stupid whining aliens is another key factor.

OK, it was a bit of a generalisation. I admit that. But the point about Halo's biggest detractors all being big Nintendo fans is true.

Another thing is you just don't like the game. But to dislike a game solely on the strength of its levels is a poor excuse.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> There is a recurring theme when it comes to criticisms of Halo. And
> that is that only Nintendo fanboys pick on the level design. Even if
> everyone else thinks something is fantastic, the Nintendo fans always
> find something to moan about.

I did enjoy Halo when I had it and it was great in co-op. I am in no way a Nintendo Fanboy but when I look back, the level designs were crappy and very samey. Sometimes it was difficult to tell if you were going forwards or backwards through a level, if it weren't for the little arrows on the floor it would have been very frustrating. But nontheless it was a very enjoyable game, it had a few flaws but nothing too major.

It was originally a Mac 3-D strategy game, no?

Anyway, Biggles, why the 'Nintendo fanboy' comments? I like the Xbox, and think Halo is over-rated boredom, except in co-op. I can't get into it, no matter what difficulty level, what little innovations it has (shield and gun carrying is about it) and the enemies are just crap, except for the Elites. Not a bad game, but, apart from a few of the outside battles, not one I really like very much.

There is a recurring theme when it comes to criticisms of Halo. And that is that only Nintendo fanboys pick on the level design. Even if everyone else thinks something is fantastic, the Nintendo fans always find something to moan about.

I love Goldeneye, greatest game ever in my opinion. I was damn invincible in multiplayer I played it that much. Between uni finishing and getting a job, it was all I played pretty much. But Halo has the better multiplayer. In 4 player, it is just as good as Goldeneye. System link and it is better.

Occasionally I miss not being able to carry around an entire arsenal, but I think it makes for a better game when you can't. The outdoor levels were amongst some of the best I've ever played, only the indoor ones were not amazing. But I still think them good enough. That alone is not enough to say that Halo isn't worth the hype.

Damarus, try playing it on your own. Co-op is fun, but not a patch on actually playing it yourself.

P.S. Halo was originally developed for the Mac.

Aoe wrote:
>
> Meh. I guess they got lucky with rushing that and it turned out the
> best thing ever.

Nah, I'd go for PD.

Which is like the step-up Halo 2 will be on Halo.