|
Home > Archive > Xbox Halo > November 2004 > Re: Gamer Review: Halo 2 good, but no Halo.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Gamer Review: Halo 2 good, but no Halo.
|
|
|
| "It's not Halo. The game play is more like Brute Force and Unreal
Championship."
I partly agree, in both cases, but I think the same could be said
about Halo. It was a groundbreaking total package. It wasn't
groundbreaking in every respect. Many aspects of gameplay are
shared/borrowed/imitative. To me, what makes Halo unique in terms of
gameplay is that you are forced to choose among a smaller number of
weapons. Halo 2 continues and even extends that, by adding
double-wielding, thus forcing you to think about your weapon inventory
all the time. (Dual needlers, or a Covenant Carbine and your left hand
free for grenades? Decisions, decisions.)
It differs from Brute Force in that it's first-person instead of
third-person, it includes vehicles, it limits weapons and grenades
more, and it includes melee attacks. It differs from both games you
named in that you can play as only one character (whether using the
Covenant skin - all abilities are the same in multiplayer and almost
the same in the campaign). It differs from Unreal Championship in that
you can't jump 40 feet in the air, can't re-jump when already in the
air, don't have a WWF announcer screaming in your ear.
"Halo 2 does not have the same line of site as Halo. Halo was awesome
because you had great peripheral vision. It was easy to look around
and that brought you in the game. Halo 2 sucks with the line of site.
I feel like I'm zoomed in."
I haven't checked to see whether this is true, but most people are
complaining that things are harder to see, which would not imply more
zoom. Are you playing the two games on the same TV set? It's amazing
how big a difference your set makes in your perceptions of such
things.
|
| |
|
|