spitcodfry
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,770
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm going to first admit that I didn't play through the first game. Didn't even get it for my X-Box in fact (bought it awhile after it had been out). I did buy the PC version, of which I had a blast playing multi (especially with the added maps Gearbox did such a good job with). Even then I didn't really comb through the single player that much.
With Halo 2 I bought into the hype WAY too much. For some reason I was operating under the delusion that it was the gamer's answer to sliced bread. I actually thought that the quality of single player immersiveness may stand in line against the likes of Half-Life 2. My oh my how I strayed from the path.
I'm not going to lambast this game or anything. It does what it sets out to do quite well: offer up more of what made the original fun, and putting in a number of new features to add to that same style of fun. But to paraphrase one of the 'non-hype' reviews I've read (only one in fact): it feels more like an expansion than a full-fledged sequel. I wasn't expecting Half-Life 2/Doom III in the tech department on X-Box. I realize the system's limitations. Wouldn't have been feasible to go wild with the graphics, especially with the strong emphasis on online smooth play.
But, ultimately, at the end of the day, it's what's fun that makes or breaks a game for me. Does it hold my attention from start to finish? Partly, I don't feel qualified to speak out against the single player storytelling effectiveness because I never played far enough into the first one to know the gist. But that doesn't change how much fun I'm getting as I'm at the helm of a controller. In a nutshell: rinse+repeat. Watching a clip from the documentary on the CE DVD, one of the developers put it succinctly: "We tried to create thirty seconds of fun and repeat that throughout." Boy does that sure come across.
I guess I was looking for something that wasn't there, or wasn't planned to be there in the first place: diversity in gameplay. Yes, there are a multitude of different situations that involve different tactics for the given situation. And yes, there are multiple vehicle-emphasized sections that split up the default fps combat. But there really aren't that many 'dynamic' situations. It feels too 'arcadey' to me. Which is what the first one was. I'm getting the exact same conflict I had with Doom III now with Halo 2. What did the game set out to do, and from that standpoint, did it do it well? Both get aces across the board in that vein. But as far as ingenuity, no. I know this comes as no surprise to probably many on this board. Guess I just wanted to rant this to no one in particular *shakes fist at sky*
With Halo 2 I bought into the hype WAY too much. For some reason I was operating under the delusion that it was the gamer's answer to sliced bread. I actually thought that the quality of single player immersiveness may stand in line against the likes of Half-Life 2. My oh my how I strayed from the path.
I'm not going to lambast this game or anything. It does what it sets out to do quite well: offer up more of what made the original fun, and putting in a number of new features to add to that same style of fun. But to paraphrase one of the 'non-hype' reviews I've read (only one in fact): it feels more like an expansion than a full-fledged sequel. I wasn't expecting Half-Life 2/Doom III in the tech department on X-Box. I realize the system's limitations. Wouldn't have been feasible to go wild with the graphics, especially with the strong emphasis on online smooth play.
But, ultimately, at the end of the day, it's what's fun that makes or breaks a game for me. Does it hold my attention from start to finish? Partly, I don't feel qualified to speak out against the single player storytelling effectiveness because I never played far enough into the first one to know the gist. But that doesn't change how much fun I'm getting as I'm at the helm of a controller. In a nutshell: rinse+repeat. Watching a clip from the documentary on the CE DVD, one of the developers put it succinctly: "We tried to create thirty seconds of fun and repeat that throughout." Boy does that sure come across.
I guess I was looking for something that wasn't there, or wasn't planned to be there in the first place: diversity in gameplay. Yes, there are a multitude of different situations that involve different tactics for the given situation. And yes, there are multiple vehicle-emphasized sections that split up the default fps combat. But there really aren't that many 'dynamic' situations. It feels too 'arcadey' to me. Which is what the first one was. I'm getting the exact same conflict I had with Doom III now with Halo 2. What did the game set out to do, and from that standpoint, did it do it well? Both get aces across the board in that vein. But as far as ingenuity, no. I know this comes as no surprise to probably many on this board. Guess I just wanted to rant this to no one in particular *shakes fist at sky*
