Topic: Halo 2 PC

[Pugnate]

So I played this on Windows and just finished it. Ummm... wtf is up with the ending? Out of the blue, the game just ends.

Overall, the game was pretty entertaining, and I loved dual wielding firearms, and enjoyed cloaking with the energy sword even more than that.

Thankfully, the flood weren't nearly as annoying as in the first game. But Halo 2 lacked the quality ending from the first (though it did have its share of fine action moments), and just didn't feel complete... yet felt a bit long at the same time.

I mean, had I paid $50 for this, I would have been truly pissed. Yet the game scored 94% average on gamerankings, which just flabbergasts me.

While I really enjoyed the game, close to perfection, it was not.

edit:

Well, just read Kasavin's review, and he faults the SP, yet gives the game a 9.4 mostly for the multi:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/review.html

[MysterD]

About Kasavin -- this is one of his "questionable" reviews. Halo 2 X-Box and Doom 3 PC are two of his most headscratching reviews. He scores the game very high, yet bitches and complains about so many things, you wonder how the hell he came up with the (high) score that he did.

I already bitched about Halo 1 having a cliffhanger ending, after the game really already felt like it ended -- as it does hint a bit that they'll be another one. Really, Pug -- do you expect they'd learn from Halo 1's mistakes and have a complete ending for its sequel, Halo 2? I think not. This is Bungie we're talking about. Bungie's are the masters of "cut & paste" levels, gameplay, and whatnot -- i.e. see Halo 1's second half of the game with "cut and paste" levels (i.e. the Monitor's multiple floors feel like this), monotonous boring action against the Flood (which turns the game that was so varied in the first half into suddenly Serious Sam), and even some backtracking. So, given what I said, you'd expect Halo 2 to be close to be a carbon copy of Halo 1, but trim some of the fat out. That's what I'd expect, at least.

Halo was planned to be a trilogy in the first place, anyways. Hell, a lot of games these days from the start are planned as trilogies.

If we're talking Halo 2 PC, I would look at this guy's review. I don't always agree with him, but he's probably got the review correct in terms of score going along with what has been said.

Pug, even though Halo 2 X-Box had great reviews for the most part, most of the Halo 2 PC reviews were pretty mediocre and/or vicious, actually. Check around the Net, bro.

I have yet to play Halo 2 on the PC b/c it requires Vista and b/c this game just cannot be found cheap, but I'm sure I'll one day get it cheap and play it. I have played some of Halo 2 and 3 on their respective console systems -- my nephew has them both -- and yeah, they didn't do too much for me. Though, on the other hand, I did like what I played with Mass Effect on his X360.

Though, yeah -- the dual-wielding in Halo 2 + 3 does rock.

[gpw11]

I honestly think the Halo games are both completely overrated and not given a fair chance.  Halo 2 was better than the first game in every way, and on it's own it was certainly a solid game well worth someone's time (at least on the xbox) but people either prop it up way too high or don't give it a fair shake because of the hype.

[Ghandi]

I honestly think the Halo games are both completely overrated and not given a fair chance.  Halo 2 was better than the first game in every way, and on it's own it was certainly a solid game well worth someone's time (at least on the xbox) but people either prop it up way too high or don't give it a fair shake because of the hype.

The MP in Halo 2 is nowhere near Halo 1. They really dulled it down to cater to a mass audience. They may have added shiny new graphics and some new weapons, but they took out a lot of the skill.
Halo 1 multiplayer was near perfect when it came out. Though, I do have to admit, xbox live was a nice addition to Halo 2.

The franchise has always been fun to me but all in all it's a little overrated. But it's still better than half the shit out there.

[PyroMenace]

I think the amount of discussion we bring to these games is a testament to how great they really are.

[MysterD]

I think the amount of discussion we bring to these games is a testament to how great they really are.

And/or how great some of these games just ain't.

Regardless, yeah -- like you're saying, games just give us a lot to talk about on here -- no matter how good they are or are not.

EDIT:
This Halo 2 Thread bring some memories back...hehe.

[Quemaqua]

Actually, I think what gpw said is very apt.  These games are both entirely overrated and also not given a chance.  They aren't bad games, and that should be said outright.  In fact, they're quite good games that are competent and fun to play, and do some cool things in an interesting universe.  They just can't live up to the pedestal they were placed upon, and that's why people get riled up.  Really, that's where the discussion can end because I think nearly everyone is in agreement except for the fanboys.

[W7RE]

Yup, my thoughts exactly. They're fun games and do some cool stuff, they're just overhyped and the vocal people tend to worship them or hate them.

[Pugnate]

Ummm... wtf is up with the ending? Out of the blue, the game just ends.

[PyroMenace]

They arent overhyped, in fact the backlash is so unreal they should create a whole monument calling it the worlds most overhyped backlashed game.

In fact the popular opinion for Halo games is that they are overhyped, which is like a contradiction in itself.

[Quemaqua]

The ending was one of the most criticized things about that one, Pug.

And I wouldn't say that, Pyro.  It's started to become more popular amongst internet fuckwads like ourselves, but the games sold eight gajillion copies for a reason, and a whole lot of those folks would call it the best game in the history of the yooniverz.

[PyroMenace]

I think its just alot of us underwhelm the multiplayer gaming audience, which is much more massive than any of us can comprehend. Its the same reason that Counter Strike exploded. Halos success has really nothing to do with its single player campaigns at all, and its all multiplayer frenzy, and those that enjoy multiplayer FPS gaming love it, Im not into it so I cant say much of anything, and neither can alot us because the only multiplayer games we are really into are ones we can just play with each other and WoW. Its really all it is, I just hate when we link the success with its story and campaign, which has its faults but even thats not terrible, it gets blown out of proportion.

[Quemaqua]

I agree it gets blown out of proportion, but that's really both ways, and the campaign and story got a lot more applause than I think you're giving them credit for.  A lot of people really dug the story and were excited to see how things would go in the third game.

I can't really speak for the multiplayer, though, you're right, and that does have a lot to do with what's given the games their legs.  I don't enjoy it in those games much, but I'm a fan of faster, twitchier stuff.  A lot of popular MP games aren't my thing.  I always hated Counter-Strike, too.

[W7RE]

Actually come to think of it, I played Halo and Halo 2 way, way, way, WAY more in multiplayer than I did in single player. Hell I never even finished Halo 2's single player mode, and still feel like I got more than my money's worth out of the game. (Though I just got Halo 3 and feel like I owe it to myself to finish 2 before I can play through 3.)

[PyroMenace]

To be honest, I did feel the closing of the trilogy in Halo 3 was a little underwhelming, just in terms of how things went down, but damn it was really fucking fun.

[Quemaqua]

The franchise doesn't interest me so obviously I never tried it, but I have to say that Halo 3 looked like a way, way better game than the previous 2 in a lot of ways, and had lots of cool stuff.  The big problem it seemed to have was some braindead AI where vehicles were concerned.  Otherwise it seemed pretty robust and cool.  I liked some of the ideas they put in place.

[W7RE]

I'm not sure about the whole series being planned as a trilogy to begin with though. From what I remember, the first game had a pretty clear cut ending. From what I remember, it was pretty much:

-Covenant attack humans
-humans follow Covenant to some ring thing (Halo) and crash
-Covenant want to activate the Halo as a weapon
-The Flood

(click to show/hide)

blow up Halo

-the end

Then near the beginning of Halo 2:
-more fighting with the Covenant

(click to show/hide)

Oh shit there's more than one Halo

-some more shit, I never finished so I don't know


Seemed like everything was neat and tidy in Halo 1, then they threw in random shit in Hlo 2 for more story, and cut it off halfway (from what I hear) because M$ wanted a Halo 3.

[K-man]

Yeah, I mean the storyline was sort of cliche, and I feel like maybe the story could have been told better, but all in all they were good fun games.  The multiplayer (especially in 3) rocks though, and that's really the ticket.

Hell, I'd even go so far to say that Halo 2 is almost solely responsible for Xbox Live's success on the original console.

[Xessive]

The only thing I really celebrated in Halo was its spiritual succession to Marathon.. It was Bungie's big come-back. They did a good job making the multiplayer fun but the singleplayer was pretty cut 'n dry.

[MysterD]

I'm not sure about the whole series being planned as a trilogy to begin with though. From what I remember, the first game had a pretty clear cut ending. From what I remember, it was pretty much:

-Covenant attack humans
-humans follow Covenant to some ring thing (Halo) and crash
-Covenant want to activate the Halo as a weapon
-The Flood

(click to show/hide)

blow up Halo

-the end

After the end of Halo 1...

(click to show/hide)

...Yeah, after that end of Halo 1, after the game feels like it's over b/c Halo was blown up, the very short conversation on the ship b/t Cortanna and Master Chief. It hints that there is more to come.

You're right -- most of it was tied up and all, but they STILL hinted at the last few moments that there might be more to come. And again, in terms of completion, that's still a no-no. A small no-no, but still a no-no.

Halo 1's ending was nowhere as disastrous as say R6: Vegas One's ending or say Assassin's Creed's ending.

The Flood, the backtracking, and the cut-and-paste levels (i.e. The Monitor's levels with look-alike floorts) felt disastrous to me.

Won't speak on H2's ending until I get a Windows Vista or above and actually play it all the way through -- it's only fair. I heard it's a cliffhanger and a half, but yeah -- I'll hold off on my opinion on it.

I think its just alot of us underwhelm the multiplayer gaming audience, which is much more massive than any of us can comprehend. Its the same reason that Counter Strike exploded. Halos success has really nothing to do with its single player campaigns at all, and its all multiplayer frenzy, and those that enjoy multiplayer FPS gaming love it, Im not into it so I cant say much of anything, and neither can alot us because the only multiplayer games we are really into are ones we can just play with each other and WoW. Its really all it is, I just hate when we link the success with its story and campaign, which has its faults but even thats not terrible, it gets blown out of proportion.

I think Halo 1's SP first half was great filled with lots of variety and everything, while the 2nd half was....a disaster in comparison -- it was as if they decided to stretch what should've been a great short game out into say a on-and-off doubly-as-long experience. Halo 1's MP was rock solid on the PC, but it was really nothing we really ain't seen on the PC before, honestly.

What really made Halo on the consoles was...they really had no other FPS like it around. At that time, name me another great FPS on the console that wasn't first on the consoles. Halo's gameplay was purely designed around the console gamepad. Finally, that part was done right for a FPS -- might not feel as good as KB/mouse would for a FPS, but this was as close as you could get it (Without using KB/mouse). Also, there was no multiplayer experience like that on the consoles really before Halo. On the PC, sure -- we already had plenty of MP experience with these type of FPS games, some 10 years before-hand; see Doom series, Duke 3D, and Quake series, Unreal series -- and that's just for starters.

But, really -- RTCW PC should've never got a 9.2 from GameSpot. The MP was fantastic, sure -- but the SP was just solid and good. Honestly, MP and SP components should be scored separately, anyways -- b/c when people look at that 9.2, they're thinking of the whole picture, that both the SP and MP are both great. In Halo 2 console version's case and RTCW PC's case, it looks like just the MP was scored accordingly if you read what the hell is written there. Hardcore gamers here like us all on OWNet, we know better -- we read the reviews b/c the score sometimes is a real head-scratcher and doesn't reflect the score that is given.