Halo:CE and Halo 2: Gameplay Discussion

[RancidLunchmeat]

Edit: Thread created from the split occured in this thread

We really should not pick on Resistance too much because they are only following the trend. Of course that does mean they are going to have to compete in other ways if they are following trends, but then again we don't know that. So it is best to wait for more information/play testing of the full game. Looks like they have a good start, especially for their first FPS.

No, I guess this is where we are going to have to disagree.

I DO pick on Resistance for not having destructible lighting and 'following the trend'. Immediately, that makes them NOT a "AAA title", IMO. Unless, of course (as I've stated earlier) they have so many other advanced features as to compensate for this 'oversight'.

You mentioned Halo3 in your list of games, and Halo3 is actually a game that I do anticipate, but also fear greatly for.

Because Halo2 sucked. Halo was actually revolutionary, especially in terms of a console FPS. Halo2 was nothing more than Halo, but with extra things added in (akimbo weapons, playing both sides, etc..) Halo2 sold well but only because Halo was already an established franchise (and it offered LIVE! pay), but every 'innovation' they added into Halo2 resulted in removing features from Halo in order to 'balance game play'.

What actually does Halo3 offer? A great story, a great musical score, and maybe epic environments. Is that ENOUGH to make to better than any 'stand alone' FPS that might come out that includes more? I'm sure it wil still sell.. But does that make it a "AAA" game just because it sells so many million of copies?

To me.. No, it doesn't.

Sales figures don't equate to game rankings.

We haven't seen enough (because we haven't seen anything at all) of Halo 3 to determine if the game will actually improve not only on graphics, but also AI, and also environmental interaction to say that this game is amazing.

But I will say this.. if it doesn't improve on AI, if it doesn't improve on environmental interaction, then all we are getting is a more shiny and bigger Halo. Yes, that will sell copies and make MS and Bungie millions in profits. But that doesn't make it a "AAA game", IMO.

Why? Because those people who haven't played Halo and haven't played Halo 2, won't give a damn. To them, it's just another FPS just like any other.

Right now, from what we've seen from Resistance, it looks like a HalfLife-2 knock-off that might be a bit more shiny... That's it.

I'm not saying the game won't be fun to play, or isn't worth buying or anything like that. I'm just saying that its not going to be a 'system seller' (which any true AAA title actually is).

Hell, I rented Darkwatch for the Xbox and the graphics aren't great, the story isn't great, nothing about the game is great... but everything is pretty good and the game is damn fun to play. I haven't had so much fun playing a game since I don't know when. But would I buy an Xbox to play Darkwatch if I didn't already own one?

No.

 

[Acert93]

Story and execution are as important as any technology you can put in a game. FPS are not just about aim-and-click anymore, but how the sum of the parts come together in providing an enjoyable user experience. That can be done through many avenues and no game need revolutionize every aspect of the genre. It is not possible.

You just don't need to reinvent the wheel to be good. Often small refinements are better than totally new approaches, especially for continuity. Frequently fans of a franchise don't want something drastically different -- just more of the same, but better. I am sure if Halo players picked up Halo 2 and it was a FPS-RTS hybred and had a Starship Troopers plot and nothing to do with the Halo story arc -- they would have been ticked!

If you look at the FPS genre, it is all about baby steps. Great games take new ideas and execute them well, good games either have great ideas that are not perfectly refined but don't hurt the core experience or are games that build on proven formulas and are more gaming fun.

There are a lot of ways to make a great game, and there are a lot of different user tastes. You mention Halo 2. Considering how active the Halo 2 / Live community is and how the game took a lot of the great things in Halo 1 and added new features (and better graphics and physics and production values and improved the level design SIGNIFICANTLY) it is easy to see why it sold well. Maybe you didn't like it, but it did evolve and improve by most people standards. But with change and refinements you will tick people off. Some people missed the pistol zoom, others disliked the new health system. Others loved it. The point is they did change and improve parts of the game and broadened the gameplay experience.

You cannot please everyone all the time. A lot of people hated Halo 2 (and 1!), Far Cry, Half-Life 2, and so forth. I cannot stand most RPGs, that does not make them bad games or nor progressive. But if we hinge our measuring stick of a game by the technology we are going to end at a sad, boring place. Games are an art that involve story and interaction. We are getting to a point with some of the technological advancements in new games that gamers will be looking forward to the experience much more so than the game mechanic changes. Take BiA3. I am sure they can improve more than they have shown, but the interactivity in the world could spawn many high quality sequals -- mini-movies will you. The combination of story and plot driven action make it a new experience, almost interactive movies. Of course I don't want all FPS to be that way, but if a game sucks you in and you have fun, then who cares? This is one reason people love RPGs. The story, and being involved in the story arc, is as important as anything else. FPS are a little more demanding due to their nature. Control and interaction have evolved, as have the technologies to immerse the gamer. But the FPS medium is finally to the point to begin incorperating more RPG elements and conveying emotion and a sense of involvement OTHER than shooting everything in sight.

And as that happens we will begin seeing a emphasis more on content than technology. Technology is good, and there is still a ways to go in perfecting FPS, but the leaps in AI, facial & character animation and lip synching, scripting, and dynamic worlds we have seen in the last couple years has pointed us that way. There are only so many ways you can make a WWII "shooter". But once you take the refined FPS mechanics, add in an interactive layer, and player-NPC interaction within a strong story line, you now have something different, even if it is "only" and FPS with outdated technology.

Dare I say with HL2 we already have tasted this approach. Source is nice technology, improving the quality of existing technologies. But where it shined was the story and how the NPC sold you on it. The gameplay was classic FPS, but you come away with feeling you were involved in something more than "aim-and-shoot".

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

There are a lot of ways to make a great game, and there are a lot of different user tastes. You mention Halo 2. Considering how active the Halo 2 / Live community is and how the game took a lot of the great things in Halo 1 and added new features (and better graphics and physics and production values and improved the level design SIGNIFICANTLY) it is easy to see why it sold well. Maybe you didn't like it, but it did evolve and improve by most people standards. But with change and refinements you will tick people off. Some people missed the pistol zoom, others disliked the new health system. Others loved it. The point is they did change and improve parts of the game and broadened the gameplay experience.

Sorry, but once again I disagree with your premise.

Halo2 didn't sell more and isn't more popular than Halo because of it's changes and 'improvements' or inspite of the fact that it's "improvements" were actually the opposite...

Halo2 is popular because while it removed a great deal of the important aspect of Halo in order to add 'improvements that weren't', it is available through LIVE! while Halo isn't.

Open up Halo to LIVE! and there's no doubt in my mind that it would be the most popular game played, and not Halo2.

As it stands, the improvements that weren't in Halo2 are off-set by the fact that Halo2 is available via LIVE!.

Every poll I've actually seen (and there have been a couple) have people playing the single player addition of HALO more than the single player addition of HALO2. Why? Because HALO was a better game. Despite the improvement in graphics, Halo2 actually degraded the gaming experience due to their "improvements".

People will still play Halo single player. They play through Halo2 once, and then either don't play anymore or go online and play Live!

If Halo were available VIA Live!, I don't think Halo2 would be anything more than a footnote.

 

[Acert93]

Ever stop to think people are playing less Halo 2 SP because the MP is so much better?

Anyhow, Halo 2 added a number of gameplay features that are generally liked (you sound like a spurned lover who didn't like the new changes; everyone I know either is ambiguous or likes them, either way they did add to the gameplay). And there are a number of things, like level design and pacing, that are much better in Halo 2. This is in addition to better graphics and cinematics.

Yet Live is an important feature of Halo 2 and saying, "if it lacked that feature..." is kind of like saying "if the sky were not blue...". I have actually only played Halo 2 a couple times (and am currently playing Halo PC for the first time). But from my friends comments, who are die hard Halo players (before Halo 2 came out they got together at least once a week for 16 player system link... EVERY week), they love Halo 2.

Sequals always have the possibility of turning people off. Some people did not like playing the Covenant (some loved it). Some people do not like dual wielding or how the pistol was changed, etc. But then again it sounds like if they had not touched those things and just added more levels and progressed the story you would have been more happy (which kind of demonstrates my point). And as spurned as you may feel, I had talked with a buddy of mine the other day who told me the only game he plays these days is Halo 2. So it goes both ways.

Not every great game will appeal to all people, especially if there are core changes to gameplay. Some people love HL2, others hate it. Some love Halo 2, you think it is a pile of poo. Yet there is no argueing against the quality (if not brevity) of the SP and the near perfection of the MP.

 

[DemoCoder]

HALO one was good until you hit the Library levels (ugh). Repetitive crap.

HALO2 wasn't as repetitive, but I felt the story sucked. I frankly didn't care for the whole Covenant side of the story nor playing as anyone but Master Chief.

Bungie released an awesome HALO2 trailer originally that showed Earth being nuked from orbit (reinforcements are on the spoke!) as MC jumps into a Covenant cruiser from a space station.

I expected the game to start like that, as MC fights his way through the cruiser, taking it over, and having Cortana fly it to blow up other ships that are bombarding earth, possibly getting Cortana to infect the Covenant computer network.


Something about the HALO2 story pacing just didn't jive with me.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Ever stop to think people are playing less Halo 2 SP because the MP is so much better?

No. Because that doesn't explain why people who own both Halo and Halo2 play the Halo SP but not Halo2 SP.

They only play Halo2 MP because it has Live! Access. Add Live! to Halo and Halo2 usage will tank.

Anyhow, Halo 2 added a number of gameplay features that are generally liked (you sound like a spurned lover who didn't like the new changes; everyone I know either is ambiguous or likes them, either way they did add to the gameplay).

Well, I'm not basing my opinions on people that I know. I'm basing my opinions on reviews, on user comments on forums, etc. If there isn't a person that you know that feels the 'features added' to Halo2 actually detracted from the game, then I can only come to the conclusion that you don't know alot of Halo fans.

Yet Live is an important feature of Halo 2 and saying, "if it lacked that feature..." is kind of like saying "if the sky were not blue...".

Sorry if I was unclear, I was actually proposing the opposite. Not that Live! be removed from Halo2. But that Live! be added to Halo. As it is, the addition of Live! in Halo2 compensates for the mistakes they made when adding all the other 'improvements that aren't.'

Whether you take away Live! from Halo2 or add it to Halo, the end result is that the original version of the game (that doesn't include the rest of the "improvements" beyond Live!) would be the prefered choice, IMO. Most forums, reviews, and polls will bare this out.

Some love Halo 2, you think it is a pile of poo. Yet there is no argueing against the quality (if not brevity) of the SP and the near perfection of the MP.

No, I don't think it's a pile of poo. What I think is that if they hadn't added the improvements that weren't, and only updated the engine and added Live! (keeping the same story and level design), it would have been a superior game.

Halo2 is an example of game that added improvements just for the sake of change. They didn't actually make the game better, the majority of Halo fans don't like them, and the game would have been better off without them.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Bungie released an awesome HALO2 trailer originally that showed Earth being nuked from orbit (reinforcements are on the spoke!) as MC jumps into a Covenant cruiser from a space station.

I expected the game to start like that, as MC fights his way through the cruiser, taking it over, and having Cortana fly it to blow up other ships that are bombarding earth, possibly getting Cortana to infect the Covenant computer network.

Really? I missed the trailer. From your description, it sounds exactly the book(s), and completely removed from the game.

Something about the HALO2 story pacing just didn't jive with me.

I think that's probably because HALO was a frantic game of survival. Just when you finally understand how to properly fight and survive against the Covenant, you are thrown into a conflict with The Flood and then have to adjust and adapt your strategy in order to compensate.

In HALO2, you already feel as if you are essentially on even ground with the Covenant, the Marines (is that what they are?) are ready to assist you in rather large numbers, and there's quite a bit of 'down time' where you don't really feel threatened. On top of that, you have to switch perspectives frequently, and that also completely destroys any feeling of 'I'm being overwhelmed, we're getting creamed, how am I going to make it through this?" because suddenly you're an entirely different person in an entirely different situation.

Maybe it would have worked better if you finished all the MC missions and then went through the Convent missions afterwards, instead of switching back and forth, I don't know.

Like I said, they added a feature that they thought would add to gameplay, and essentially all it did was take away from any immersion or relationship you have with the character because now you're playing somebody else.. and then back again.

 

[NRP]

I have to agree with Rancid here. Halo's SP campaign is still fun to this day, even though I've beaten it like 10 times on Legendary.

Halo 2's SP campaign is rather forgettable. It felt more like a collection of tasks, sort of like "go here, do this" then "go there, do that", all the while you're not really sure why you're doing it. Zero immersion.

Halo 2's multiplayer is not very good either, it's just that there isn't anything available that's better. There is way too much emphasis on close range combat (relative to Halo), and they've pretty much ruined all of the original vehicles (handling, physics, useability, etc). Moreover, the "lock on" rocket launcher renders every vehicle practically useless. In my opinion, Bungie only succeeded in replacing all the fun "Holy shit! Did you see that?" moments with frustration.

The E3 2003 trailer showed that Bungie, at least at one time, was on the right track. But Halo 2 felt nothing like that trailer. Halo 3 is far from a sure thing in my book. I only hope Bungie is listening.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Halo 2's multiplayer is not very good either, it's just that there isn't anything available that's better.

And that's exactly my point. Halo2 isn't popular because it's good. It's only popular because there's nothing else better because it is Live! enabled and Halo isn't, so the fact that you can actually play online "compensates" for all it's other short comings..

Short comings that are largely due to improvements that weren't.

Read some Halo forums, and you'll see that whenever a group of people are playing together (in the same room), they're playing Halo.. not Halo2. Additionally, whenever they play the SP versions, they play Halo.. not Halo2.

Halo is simply superior, and the only advantage that Halo2 has is that it's Live! enabled so people who want to play against others can, even if their friends are busy and can't come over to play in the same room.

And the only reason that Halo is superior is because it doesn't include the improvements that aren't.

 

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

And that's exactly my point. Halo2 isn't popular because it's good. It's only popular because there's nothing else better because it is Live! enabled and Halo isn't, so the fact that you can actually play online "compensates" for all it's other short comings...

Are you kidding me?

Halo 2's multiplayer is easily far and away better than anything else on Xbox and stands tall among the best of what the PC has to offer. Halo: CE's multiplayer is unbalanced and suffers from pistol whores who take advantage of that guns range and power. How anyone can consider Halo's multiplayer better when someone can stand halfway across the map and shoot me in the head with a pistol is beyond my understanding. Halo 2 removes the unbalanced weapons and tries to balance things out by including dual wielding, altering the weapon selection (e.g. replacing the Assault Rifle with the Battle Rifle and creating an SMG) and removing the overpowered pistol.

Read some Halo forums, and you'll see that whenever a group of people are playing together (in the same room), they're playing Halo.. not Halo2. Additionally, whenever they play the SP versions, they play Halo.. not Halo2.

What are you talking about, most people I know stopped playing Halo: CE the day Halo 2 came out. The game is what, five or six years old now and starting to look outdated. Granted, its still fun to play Silent Cartographer and Assault on The Control Room occasionally, but in no way is the Halo campaign mode superior to Halo 2. Every time my cousin comes over we spend hours playing Halo 2 on Legendary; Outskirts, Mobassa, Delta Halo, etc.

There is way too much emphasis on close range combat (relative to Halo), and they've pretty much ruined all of the original vehicles (handling, physics, useability, etc). Moreover, the "lock on" rocket launcher renders every vehicle practically useless. In my opinion, Bungie only succeeded in replacing all the fun "Holy shit! Did you see that?" moments with frustration.

How can close range combat be a bad thing and how is their more emphasis on it? Halo 2 removes the overpowered pistol, instead opting to include an extra sniper rifle and enhance the Battle Rifles range with a scope. Dual Wielding does bring people into close proximity gunfights, but that is what makes the game so fun. The intensity of the combat has been ramped up in Halo 2 and made faster paced by better balancing the weapons. Vehicle handling has not changed at all and is still just as intuitive and easy to use. The rocket launcher does not make vehicles irrelevant, not even close, it balances them out buy not allowing people to rake up kills with near impunity.

In the end, most of the changes are subjective and different people will have different reactions depending on how they felt about Halo's gameplay. For instance, I enjoy the changes made to Halo 2 not only because they improved the balance of the game but also because they kept Halo's gameplay fresh and interesting.

Holt

 

[El Leone]

Are you kidding me?

Halo 2's multiplayer is easily far and away better than anything else on Xbox and stands tall among the best of what the PC has to offer. Halo: CE's multiplayer is unbalanced and suffers from pistol whores who take advantage of that guns range and power. How anyone can consider Halo's multiplayer better when someone can stand halfway across the map and shoot me in the head with a pistol is beyond my understanding. Halo 2 removes the unbalanced weapons and tries to balance things out by including dual wielding, altering the weapon selection (e.g. replacing the Assault Rifle with the Battle Rifle and creating an SMG) and removing the overpowered pistol.

Exactly, Halos MP was fun, but horribly unbalanced, you get a situtation where the pistol is better than every other weapon (why use the AR when you got the Pistol? Why use the plasma rifle when you got the pistol? Why use the shotgun when you got the pistol? etc), rendering everything else basically useless. With Halo 2, Every weapon is useful in a certain situtation. Duel Wielding adds variety to close combat and also helps newcomers not get raped every time they play.

WTF at the vechical comment as well.

I find the Halo campaign is more epic and has a superior Story, but in terms of actual repetitiness (as in, Halo 2 is less repetive than Halo) and core game mechanics, Halo 2 is superior.

 

[NRP]

lots of stuff . . .

Pistol overpowered? Perhaps, but then again, everyone had one, so it wasn't a big issue.

The problem with dual wielding and close range combat is that encounters were nothing more than spray fests. Whoever shoots first wins. Even if you happen to kill the enemy, your shields are gone so the next guy who comes around the corner kills you easily and there's nothing you can do about it. It sets up a "kill, die, kill, die . . ." scenario, which gets boring rather quickly.

Dual wielding also necessitated that most of the individual weapons' power be nerfed so they wouldn't be too powerful when dual wielded. The result was that there are even fewer useful weapons in Halo 2 than Halo.

Vehicle handling hasn't changed at all? Wow. Are you sure you've played these games?

At any rate, I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said many times before, and we are way off topic, so I'll stop now.

 

[dave_m123]

Apart from the wide open less linear environments I can't think of any aspect of the SP in Halo 1 that wasn't improved upon in the sequel. Everything about it was better especially the story and music. I don't mind that it ended on a cliffhanger as I knew we'd get a third game.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Pistol overpowered? Perhaps, but then again, everyone had one, so it wasn't a big issue.

The problem with dual wielding and close range combat is that encounters were nothing more than spray fests. Whoever shoots first wins. Even if you happen to kill the enemy, your shields are gone so the next guy who comes around the corner kills you easily and there's nothing you can do about it. It sets up a "kill, die, kill, die . . ." scenario, which gets boring rather quickly.

Dual wielding also necessitated that most of the individual weapons' power be nerfed so they wouldn't be too powerful when dual wielded. The result was that there are even fewer useful weapons in Halo 2 than Halo.

Exactly. I had actually thought about a nicely well-written response to the other individuals about how Halo2 addition Akimbo weapons as an improvement that wasn't detracted from the game, but right now.. I don't feel like writing it.

What you've said sums it up rather nicely and in far less than the fifteen paragraph diatribe I would have written in order to explain it.

Simply put, in order to add an improvement that wasn't, Bungie was forced to remove or nerf many of the weapons in Halo so that they could be used akimbo in Halo2.

It's really rather simple. Is there anybody who played both games that doesn't wish they had either the pistol zoom or the assualt rifle in Halo2? Why is the assault rifle gone and akimbo SMGs added? Why did Master Chief actually LOSE firepower and weapons prowess in the sequel?

To tie it all back into Resistance... What is the point of moving a light source if that light source isn't destructible? Just like the Halo2 adding improvements that aren't. Akimbo weapons were something that were fashionable and cool 3-4 years before Halo2 came out and during Halo's dominace. So when they developed Halo2, they thought this would be almost a necessary component. Yet, by the time that Halo2 was actually released, gamers had realized that akimbo weapons were pretty much a waste of time. It looked cool, but took twice as long to reload, removed the ability for the player to use their free hand to other important things (like throw grenades) and because you can't independantly target each gun, you lose any 'realistic importance' of being able to use two weapons at the same time.

But, in order for Bungie to implement this improvement that wasn't, they had to nerf or remove the weapons from Halo, because if they allowed those weapons to be used akimbo, then the player would simply be too powerful.

Again... it's a mistake. I realize why they made the mistake, their logic and how. But it was a mistake. It was an improvement that wasn't.

Just like the ability to shoot a bare bulb and make it bounce around and reflect the lightsource in different places, yet not being able to actually shoot out the bulb to remove it as a light source entirely.

 

[Farid]

Thread Split

Since the Off Topic talk about Halo, in the Resistance thread, was actually a good discussion, with lenghty posts on the subject, a dedicated thread for this debate was required. So, here it is.

 

[Serenity Painted Death]

Pistol overpowered? Perhaps, but then again, everyone had one, so it wasn't a big issue.

The problem with dual wielding and close range combat is that encounters were nothing more than spray fests. Whoever shoots first wins. Even if you happen to kill the enemy, your shields are gone so the next guy who comes around the corner kills you easily and there's nothing you can do about it. It sets up a "kill, die, kill, die . . ." scenario, which gets boring rather quickly.

Dual wielding also necessitated that most of the individual weapons' power be nerfed so they wouldn't be too powerful when dual wielded. The result was that there are even fewer useful weapons in Halo 2 than Halo.

Vehicle handling hasn't changed at all? Wow. Are you sure you've played these games?

At any rate, I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said many times before, and we are way off topic, so I'll stop now.

No further replies are necessary.

(except the Pistol is MOST CERTAINLY overpowered, but again, as everyone starts with it, it doesn't matter and actually lends itself to balance... Also, at least as far as initial maps go, HALO destroys its sequel... those maps are atrociously bad - no comment on the newer maps)

((both games are horribly overrated))

 

[patsu]

Finally. I resisted posting in the original thread because it's for Resistance.

I agree with most of Rancid's points about Halo vs Halo 2. I played Halo: CE every night (for 1+ years) while waiting for Halo 2. Most of the time alone, sometimes co-op with my wife.

I played Halo 2 for 1 week (to complete Legendary) and then revisited it once in a while. I only played Halo 2 about 20-30 times since then. Since Halo 2 came out, I never visited Halo: CE, but I still consider the latter a more balanced and fun game.

In Halo 2, it's a tedious fire, take-cover, die and retry loop (on Legendary). The other difficulties are too simple. For Halo: CE, I can rely on my manuveur skills to survive (ever try going toe-to-toe with 4-5 Elites one after another ?).

Finally Halo 2 is buggy. I have fallen through floor and die without touching my controller, also caught in endless death loop because the safe system saved at the wrong place (when I was right in front of an opened door with enemies behind and in front of me). I had to restart the level.

Both suffer from repetitive levels, but at least in Halo: CE it's fun to run into enemies.

EDIT: Oh and someone in another forum complained that weapons in Halo 2 sound similar to each other. I tend to agree too.

 

[TrungGap]

For me Halo SP was awesome, whereas Halo 2 SP was a ho-hum. However, in MP Halo 2 was more balanced in a since it doesn't favor any weapon. Though I prefer Halo MP maps more.

So the question is why is Halo SP better than Halo 2 SP? For me, it's the timing issue...like watching a carefully crafted movie, the pacing is perfect. The story is good enough to draw you in. And more importantly, you get a sense of being a hero.

In Halo 2, I felt I wasn't a hero. I was just another space marine. And switch between human and the Covenant was putting me out of character.

If Halo 3 delivers on the following I'm happy:
1) Focus on MC
2) Larger, a more grandeur feeling about the environment. No more hallway fighting.
3) Better pacing
4) Better Co-Op gameplay, haven't seen any really good co-op gameplay. PDZ was okay, but I think it still could be better...it still felt a little linear.

 

[kyleb]

The problem with dual wielding and close range combat is that encounters were nothing more than spray fests. Whoever shoots first wins. Even if you happen to kill the enemy, your shields are gone so the next guy who comes around the corner kills you easily and there's nothing you can do about it. It sets up a "kill, die, kill, die . . ." scenario, which gets boring rather quickly.

Heh, acutally if you manage to learn you way around the game you stop dying all the time and start getting killing sprees and killtaculars and such and that isn't boring at all.

 

[J_Saint]

http://www.bungie.net/News/TopStory.aspx?link=waaahmbulance