|
Home > Archive > Xbox Halo > November 2004 > Halo: CE (Covenant Edition)
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 |
Halo: CE (Covenant Edition)
|
|
|
| ** NOTE: This message does contain plot spoilers. **
"Buster" wrote/responded in message thread started by Muuurgh with the
subject "Ending..."
quote:
> I actually don't think the plot is sub par, I think there are problems
> in the way it's conveyed in the game. While playing it feels like
> something is missing and I haven't put my finger on what yet (I'm sure
> some will say "an ending??").
>
> Maybe my problem is I didn't picture Halo as a trilogy, considering
> Bungie said that there were no definite plans for a Halo 3 (maybe I
> should be less naive...lol), so I wasn't expecting such a cliffhanger
> ending. I suppose I figured Halo 2 would end much like the first,
> actually resolving something but with a window left open for more to come.
I feel the same way you do Buster. After reviewing lots of posts here, and
re-viewing all the videos from the trailers, e3 demo, etc. and how short the
game seems to be compared to Halo: Combat Evolved, I sum up that feeling as
Bungie just cut the game. Cut what? Could be anything, an ending,
something in the middle, maybe something from the beginning. I've played
through Halo 2 a couple of times now and nothing seems to be scripted and
jaw breaking as the E3 demo of New Mobassa. Sure the demo shows basically
everything you will be able to do in Halo 2 so maybe it was just for show.
But at the least, since it was developed, why not put just a taste of it in
the game instead of the Outskirts level?
Also, I like the story behind the Covenant, it does add to the Halo
Universe, but I still don't care to play the Elite that much. Personally I
would have rather seen TWO separate Halo games come out in tandem, or even
in the same box. The precursor - Halo: Covenant Edition, where you play the
Elite as he sees things during the first Halo game and examine the
Covenant's religion and their reach of the galaxy and how they come across
the second Halo artifact. Then, subsequently as you play him in the Halo 2
after being persecuted as a Heretic and becoming the Arbiter. Maybe even
chase the demon Master Chief in levels before you even played them later as
the Master Chief in Halo 2. Then play the flagship sequel Halo 2 where
you're Master Chief, with perhaps the last couple of levels where you switch
between the Arbiter and MC to tie up any loose ends in story. Now that
would have truly been awe-inspiring and I would have paid extra for that.
As it turns out, I feel like a lot of others that think they were cheated,
just to wait and have to pay for another game to have closure in a
game-story that was deliberately left as a cliffhanger, much UNlike their
first game.
End boss: Chieftan Brute. Yeah.. ok, whatever -- hide until sniper drops
his shield then pick away his health with whatever weapon is lying around..
That is the least climatic ending in a game that I have ever played, and I
have played many. I'm probably disappointed by that the most. I suppose
that is why many of us are saying "What? That's it?" right after finishing
the game the first time. And (and this is a big and) if the New Mobassa
level is the first level of Halo 3 or was designed to be the level after MC
arrives back at Earth on the Forerunner ship, I won't be surprised, but I
will be greatly displeased.
-Burf
| |
|
| "Burf" <blbottoms@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<zM8nd.3058$Qh3.1860@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
quote:
> ** NOTE: This message does contain plot spoilers. **
>
> Also, I like the story behind the Covenant, it does add to the Halo
> Universe, but I still don't care to play the Elite that much. Personally I
> would have rather seen TWO separate Halo games come out in tandem, or even
> in the same box. The precursor - Halo: Covenant Edition, where you play the
> Elite as he sees things during the first Halo game and examine the
> Covenant's religion and their reach of the galaxy and how they come across
> the second Halo artifact. Then, subsequently as you play him in the Halo 2
> after being persecuted as a Heretic and becoming the Arbiter. Maybe even
> chase the demon Master Chief in levels before you even played them later as
> the Master Chief in Halo 2. Then play the flagship sequel Halo 2 where
> you're Master Chief, with perhaps the last couple of levels where you switch
> between the Arbiter and MC to tie up any loose ends in story. Now that
> would have truly been awe-inspiring and I would have paid extra for that.
It sounds very convoluted. I also don't personally care for the idea
of playing the Arbiter chasing the master chief, and then later
playing the same level as the master chief - I am having trouble
articulating why, but it's the same sort of thing as time travel. It
opens too many possible logical problems unless the story is
super-linear.
I think the way they did it is fine. I also think that people would be
complaining if they did it the way you suggest, or any other way. It
is the nature of sequels to draw complaints, I guess. Sometimes
warranted (Matrix II) sometimes not (Empire Strikes Back ... and IMO,
Halo 2).
quote:
> As it turns out, I feel like a lot of others that think they were cheated,
> just to wait and have to pay for another game to have closure in a
> game-story that was deliberately left as a cliffhanger, much UNlike their
> first game.
While I am sure they were optimistic about the first game succeeding,
you never know. It is conventional wisdom that the opening
movie/game/whatever has to be self-contained yet leave the door open
to future installments, which the first game did brilliantly. It is
also conventional wisdom that the second installment in a successful
series ends in a cliffhanger, which is then resolved in the third
installment. They are going by the book, in that way.
quote:
> End boss: Chieftan Brute. Yeah.. ok, whatever -- hide until sniper drops
> his shield then pick away his health with whatever weapon is lying around..
> That is the least climatic ending in a game that I have ever played, and I
> have played many.
I agree about the "boss battle" and I'm really surprised at Bungie for
giving us a finale like that. It reminds me of Mortal Kombat. However,
it's very tough on solo legendary. Even once you get a feel for the
brutes' tendencies and determine what weapons you want to arm, you
need a number of tries for your luck to come together properly. It's
too easy for one of the reinforcing brutes to nail you with a grenade,
and it takes about five times of lighting into the brute leader when
his shields are down for him to die. (And Johnson seems very ho-hum
about the urgency of knocking the shields down, and seems to delight
in doing it while the leader is on the wrong side of a stone barrier
from you.) I've completed the game on solo legendary twice. The first
time, I think I died 30 times or more, trying to figure out how to do
it. The second time, I died about 10 times waiting for things to work
in my favor.
So I guess my point is, it's really rather hard (certainly as hard as
the Warthog ride), but I agree - it seems goofy and not nearly as cool
a finale as I'd have expected. That is my biggest disappointment with
the game. I love almost everything else about it.
| |
| Devala Rees 2004-11-19, 5:48 pm |
| On 11/19/04 10:02 AM, in article
82de20b3.0411190802.a6ee800@posting.google.com, "Keith" <kjordan1@gmail.com>
wrote:
quote:
> "Burf" <blbottoms@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<zM8nd.3058$Qh3.1860@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>
> It sounds very convoluted. I also don't personally care for the idea
> of playing the Arbiter chasing the master chief, and then later
> playing the same level as the master chief - I am having trouble
> articulating why, but it's the same sort of thing as time travel. It
> opens too many possible logical problems unless the story is
> super-linear.
>
> I think the way they did it is fine. I also think that people would be
> complaining if they did it the way you suggest, or any other way. It
> is the nature of sequels to draw complaints, I guess. Sometimes
> warranted (Matrix II) sometimes not (Empire Strikes Back ... and IMO,
> Halo 2).
>
>
> While I am sure they were optimistic about the first game succeeding,
> you never know. It is conventional wisdom that the opening
> movie/game/whatever has to be self-contained yet leave the door open
> to future installments, which the first game did brilliantly. It is
> also conventional wisdom that the second installment in a successful
> series ends in a cliffhanger, which is then resolved in the third
> installment. They are going by the book, in that way.
>
Who ever said Halo is a trilogy? Why does everyone think the third will tie
everything together?
quote:
>
> I agree about the "boss battle" and I'm really surprised at Bungie for
> giving us a finale like that. It reminds me of Mortal Kombat. However,
> it's very tough on solo legendary. Even once you get a feel for the
> brutes' tendencies and determine what weapons you want to arm, you
> need a number of tries for your luck to come together properly. It's
> too easy for one of the reinforcing brutes to nail you with a grenade,
> and it takes about five times of lighting into the brute leader when
> his shields are down for him to die. (And Johnson seems very ho-hum
> about the urgency of knocking the shields down, and seems to delight
> in doing it while the leader is on the wrong side of a stone barrier
> from you.) I've completed the game on solo legendary twice. The first
> time, I think I died 30 times or more, trying to figure out how to do
> it. The second time, I died about 10 times waiting for things to work
> in my favor.
>
> So I guess my point is, it's really rather hard (certainly as hard as
> the Warthog ride), but I agree - it seems goofy and not nearly as cool
> a finale as I'd have expected. That is my biggest disappointment with
> the game. I love almost everything else about it.
The final battle was cool in my opinion. The Warthog ride seemed a little
too easy for me. I beat it the first time through on Legendary. In both
games the ending isn't as tough as I'd like.
| |
| Bloody Templar 2004-11-19, 5:48 pm |
| Keith wrote:
quote:
> I think the way they did it is fine. I also think that people would be
> complaining if they did it the way you suggest, or any other way. It
> is the nature of sequels to draw complaints, I guess. Sometimes
> warranted (Matrix II) sometimes not (Empire Strikes Back ... and IMO,
> Halo 2).
I've noticed that, too. A sequel can be the greatest thing ever, yet it
will draw serious criticism from a lot of folks because it doesn't meet
whatever preconceived notions they have.
And for the record, I dug the Matrix sequels. 
| |
|
|
"Keith" <kjordan1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:82de20b3.0411190802.a6ee800@posting.google.com...
<<snip>>
quote:
> It sounds very convoluted. I also don't personally care for the idea
> of playing the Arbiter chasing the master chief, and then later
> playing the same level as the master chief - I am having trouble
> articulating why, but it's the same sort of thing as time travel. It
> opens too many possible logical problems unless the story is
> super-linear.
>
You'd think the Arbiter would want to do that the most, to get some sort of
revenge on the demon for causing him so much pain..
Both games.. are super-linear already. There is nothing you can do to
change which direction either game takes you. Map cycle does not change no
matter how many times you replay..
I'm not suggesting time travel, only suggesting what Bungie has already done
in one game, only by making it two separate games without having to flip
playing roles every other level.
quote:
> I think the way they did it is fine. I also think that people would be
> complaining if they did it the way you suggest, or any other way. It
> is the nature of sequels to draw complaints, I guess. Sometimes
> warranted (Matrix II) sometimes not (Empire Strikes Back ... and IMO,
> Halo 2).
>
| |
| Bloody Templar 2004-11-20, 12:47 am |
| Burf wrote:
quote:
> You'd think the Arbiter would want to do that the most, to get some sort of
> revenge on the demon for causing him so much pain..
>
By the end of Halo 2, the Arbiter is coming to the realization that the
Heretic was telling the truth. I imagine the realization that
everything he's sworn his life to is a sham may cause him to hold the
Chief faultless.
| |
|
|
"Bloody Templar" <camsoper@yahoo.com.Spammers.Suck> wrote in message
news:uupJxGrzEHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
quote:
> Burf wrote:
>
>
> By the end of Halo 2, the Arbiter is coming to the realization that the
> Heretic was telling the truth. I imagine the realization that everything
> he's sworn his life to is a sham may cause him to hold the Chief
> faultless.
You're right, but before that realization dawns on him..
|
| |
|
|