Was Halo 2 massively over rated?

It's from 2004...it's graphics and sound have dated somewhat, the gameplay is dated too as FPS ahve advanced (although in small steps since 2004). But the big reason for the score difference is that Gamespot reviews games relative to the other games on that platform. On the Xbox, yeah Halo 2 gets a 9.4 because its one of the best things going over there, but on the PC it has Half Life 2, FEAR, Counter Strike, Far Cry, Battlefield etc to contend with, and Halo 2 compared to those games just doesnt look as good.

Not to mention, Halo 2 has the worst ending in any medium of all time. Just wanted to vent that.

Basically 2 years too late for a series that was always pretty medicore compared to contemporary PC FPSes anyway

People fell in love with Halo because it had a pretty good story, and for many was their first FPS since Doom.

But the big reason for the score difference is that Gamespot reviews games relative to the other games on that platform. On the Xbox, yeah Halo 2 gets a 9.4 because its one of the best things going over there, but on the PC it has Half Life 2, FEAR, Counter Strike, Far Cry, Battlefield etc to contend with, and Halo 2 compared to those games just doesnt look as good.

 

nuttybar

That's not true at all. The Xbox review calls it one of the best action games ever, or regarding H1: There are several reasons why the original Halo ranks up there with a very small number of other first-person shooters as one of the definitive games in the genre.

Note it doesn't say best action games ever ON A CONSOLE or definitive games in the genre ON A CONSOLE.

It's getting to be the most tiresome and oft repearted fallacies whenever a discussion about Halo comes around. It's a great game because it's great; it is not great simply due to relative standards. I say that as someone who's been a PC gamer for decades and recognize Halo as one of the defining games regardless of platform.  

Yeah the ending was annoying, but realistically it's no worse than the end of Empire Strikes Back. Had I been old enough to see that in the theaters I would have been furious. But luckily, Return of the Jedi was right there sitting next to it ready to be watched. I predict that in time no one will remember how annoying the ending of Halo 2 was and may actually applaud the dark tone of the second act.

On the PC it's a 3 year old game coming very late to the party.   If you are someone who puts up with the headaches of PC gaming....there are probably better things out there.

On the console, it remains the best multiplayer experience there is, by far.    The massive number of people playing Halo 2 on XBL ever since it has come out don't lie. 

If you read the review the problem was that Halo 2 on PC is an FPS among a jungle of other great FPS titles. A 2004 game released now with only increased resoultion is not something that can be rated that highly. Games have come a long way in 3 years, and for this game to be released while the Halo 3 beta is out and looking lovely doesn't help matters. 

I think that people were just caught up in the hype and overscored it when it was first released.  That's why the PC version has been scoring much, much lower.  If I'm wrong and the low score was due to the fact that it was dated, then how did the VC re-release of OOT score an 8.9?  And how did Conker: L&R score an 8.3?

That's not true at all. The Xbox review calls it one of the best action games ever, or regarding H1: There are several reasons why the original Halo ranks up there with a very small number of other first-person shooters as one of the definitive games in the genre.

Note it doesn't say best action games ever ON A CONSOLE or definitive games in the genre ON A CONSOLE.

It's getting to be the most tiresome and oft repearted fallacies whenever a discussion about Halo comes around. It's a great game because it's great; it is not great simply due to relative standards. I say that as someone who's been a PC gamer for decades and recognize Halo as one of the defining games regardless of platform.

Uncle_Tbag

Firstly, I didnt say Halo wasnt great, I think that the series is brilliant and altough the single player of Halo 2 was a complete bust, the multiplayer was good enough to get it into the 9s.

Secondly, they dont have to say ON A CONSOLE, because it goes without saying. Read this from Gamespot's own review description page:

We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres
Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards.Gamespot's Review and Rating's System

It was old, overrated, and the port sucked. If they had made a good port, it could have easily gotten an 8.

EDIT: POST 7777! :shock:

Halo series, GTA and Half Life series all massively overrated - that is for sure.

Halo 2 doesn't bring anything new to the table, and is easily overshadowed by other modern FPSs already on the PC.

Old games are great if they are worthy, but Halo 1 and 2 are ............ craptacular.

8) 

Halo 2 should have scored around an 8.8 or so on the Xbox the first time around. That's only because of the fact that it was the first major XboxLive game. But its Halo, so everyone had to give it over a 9.

3 years later on PC, the multi-player is no big deal, and the campaign is bested many times over by other shooters including Halo 1 (which is why Halo 1 got better scores on PC than Halo 2).

Its just old news now. I just hope Halo 3's campaign is a hell of a lot better, because there's plenty of great online games all over the place now and multi-player isn't going to save it alone.

If you are talking about review scores, then what's the point? Some guy had an opinion and wrote a review -- no one can argue about some other guys opinion -- it's just an opinion.

If you are talking about if Halo 2 was over rated by the general gaming community -- why yes it was. Ridiculously. It was also a fun game to play (online) for a few months.

   Yes, massively overrated.  I would give it an 8.6.  The only reason it received the score it did when originally released was due to the build up of hype and from being the sequel to an amazing first game whose expectations for it's successor were phenomenally sky-high.

While not a dissapointment, compared to the original it was.

This is what i think about the halo series.....

Through its publicity via mtv and other pop culture tv channels, mags and other forms of media and with the introduciton to xbox live a few years back with halo and madden being the primary games there.. Halo was able to get that jump start with american gamers...

In the end all halo did was take what unreal did best and what doom did best and what most sierra/valve games did best a top t with its own touch and setting.... Its like Game Informer said in one of there roasts...." Yes Halo two is a revolutionary fps game to come out yet!    if uve had ur head up ur own @#$ for the past 10 years...." 

The game is good dont get me wrong, excellent control, great multplayer and so forth.. but it hasent done ANYTHING that makes it diserve the hype that its recieved over these past years.... its just another fast paced fps end of story.

   Yes, massively overrated.  I would give it an 8.6.  The only reason it received the score it did when originally released was due to the build up of hype and from being the sequel to an amazing first game whose expectations for it's successor were phenomenally sky-high.

While not a dissapointment, compared to the original it was.

Rekunta

Totally agree man. On all points.

The original game was so much better, it just didn't have online play. Halo 1 had better balanced difficulties, a much more interesting way the story was told, and much better levels with some really great epic random battles that happened different every time. Halo 2, not so much. I don't know what Bungie did for 3 years...maybe too busy playing Halo 2 multi-player against each other, I don't know.

I'll be the lone defender of Halo 2:

1) Halo 2's campaign is longer than the original.
2) Halo 2's level design is far less repetative than the original's.
3) Halo 2's campaign is more difficult than the original's. (for those looking for a challenge on Legendary)
4) The introduction of the arbiter actually adds a multi-dimensional character to the Halo universe. (someone who might be able to undergo a character arc)
5) Halo 2's story is darker and dares to answer questions rather than simply posing more. (ala Lost or X-Files or even Halo 1)

I won't defend Halo 2's multiplayer because I prefer the original in that department.

Even though the score is likely to be lower after time has passed, and even if the PC has higher standards, shouldn't the PC version of Halo 2 still been in the mid to high 8's?BuryMe

No...IMO Halo 2 got exactly the score it deserved when compared to PC shooters currently on the platform.

It may have been a 9.4 as an Xbox game in 2004, but as a full price game against the genre's library on the PC platform, a 7.0 sounds about exactly right.

Keep in mind that even as a 9.4 Xbox game, it still was nominated for the "Biggest Disappointment" in Gamespot's GOTY awards even in that year.....so even in 2004 when examined against other games in the genre across other platforms it can easily be said that it didnt at all measure up to the hype bestowed on it by its fanbase.

How could a game that was good enough to score 9.4 on the Xbox only get 7 on the pc?BuryMe

The review pretty much answers that question and spells it out plain and simple, especially the summary in the last paragraph:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halo2/review.html?sid=6171591

"While the game has maintained a great deal of popularity on the Xbox, Halo 2 feels like something of a relic when you put it out as a 2007 PC game. The single-player campaign is interesting, and the cliff-hanger doesn't feel so horrific when you consider that Halo 3 is going to be hitting consoles to finish the story in just a few months. The multiplayer side is fun, too, but all of it feels overshadowed. The PC has more than its fair share of amazing shooters that blow Halo 2 away in every possible way, making this one best suited for Halo fans that want an easy way to play custom maps."

That's not true at all. The Xbox review calls it one of the best action games ever, or regarding H1: There are several reasons why the original Halo ranks up there with a very small number of other first-person shooters as one of the definitive games in the genre.

Note it doesn't say best action games ever ON A CONSOLE or definitive games in the genre ON A CONSOLE.

It's getting to be the most tiresome and oft repearted fallacies whenever a discussion about Halo comes around. It's a great game because it's great; it is not great simply due to relative standards. I say that as someone who's been a PC gamer for decades and recognize Halo as one of the defining games regardless of platform.

Uncle_Tbag

First, that quote you used is referring to the "original Halo"....we're talking about Halo 2...trying to reach back to the glory days of the series in 2001 doesnt have any bearing when we are referring to Halo 2 and how according to Gamespot it ranks up against the FPS genre on PC.

Yet again...straight from the gamespot review:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halo2/review.html?sid=6171591

"The PC has more than its fair share of amazing shooters that blow Halo 2 away in every possible way, making this one best suited for Halo fans that want an easy way to play custom maps."

So no, its not a fallacy, as least not by the standard's Gamespot grades games, especially when it's explicitly stated in the review the reason for the score difference.

This is what i think about the halo series.....

Through its publicity via mtv and other pop culture tv channels, mags and other forms of media and with the introduciton to xbox live a few years back with halo and madden being the primary games there.. Halo was able to get that jump start with american gamers...

In the end all halo did was take what unreal did best and what doom did best and what most sierra/valve games did best a top t with its own touch and setting.... Its like Game Informer said in one of there roasts...." Yes Halo two is a revolutionary fps game to come out yet!    if uve had ur head up ur own @#$ for the past 10 years...." 

The game is good dont get me wrong, excellent control, great multplayer and so forth.. but it hasent done ANYTHING that makes it diserve the hype that its recieved over these past years.... its just another fast paced fps end of story.

ThreeVo

Let's also not fail to mention it didn't do any of it as well as Unreal Tournament, Doom, Half-Life, or any of the other FPS games it ripped off. AND it added a lame story, short story mode, Boring story mode, and a stupid, lame, lackluster character in 'Master Chief'.

I HATE master chief, he has less personality than one of those muscular american stereotype men wearing red/blue in many of those old japanese beat/shoot-em-ups. You know the ones with the head band, blond mullet, and muscle t?

Halo 2 was a gem when it was originally released.  The online matchmaking made it the best online consol game in history IMO. And although many were dissapointed with the SP, it was still a major improvement over Halo:CE in level design and depth although less revolutionary. I actually think Halo 2 is underratted in the SP department.

As for the Vista rerelease, it got the score it deserved I suppose, it's a 3 year old port.  It's a consol FPS through and through and plays better on a consol in the same way Battlefield plays better on PCs. 

[QUOTE="ThreeVo"]

This is what i think about the halo series.....

Through its publicity via mtv and other pop culture tv channels, mags and other forms of media and with the introduciton to xbox live a few years back with halo and madden being the primary games there.. Halo was able to get that jump start with american gamers...

In the end all halo did was take what unreal did best and what doom did best and what most sierra/valve games did best a top t with its own touch and setting.... Its like Game Informer said in one of there roasts...." Yes Halo two is a revolutionary fps game to come out yet! if uve had ur head up ur own @#$ for the past 10 years...."

The game is good dont get me wrong, excellent control, great multplayer and so forth.. but it hasent done ANYTHING that makes it diserve the hype that its recieved over these past years.... its just another fast paced fps end of story.

jks22112

Let's also not fail to mention it didn't do any of it as well as Unreal Tournament, Doom, Half-Life, or any of the other FPS games it ripped off. AND it added a lame story, short story mode, Boring story mode, and a stupid, lame, lackluster character in 'Master Chief'.

I HATE master chief, he has less personality than one of those muscular american stereotype men wearing red/blue in many of those old japanese beat/shoot-em-ups. You know the ones with the head band, blond mullet, and muscle t?

What alot of people don't realize is Halo 2 is designed to be a console shooter.  The weapons, and the timing are all based for gamepad type play, and the console mentality.  Also this game is now 2.5 years old and originally ran on 6 year old hardware.   It seems bungie didn't really up anything for the pc release, and I think the graphics score should of been alot worse.

If you look at it the other way around alot of PC based shooters have flopped on consoles for the same reason.  They aren't bad just not right for the hardware. 

[QUOTE="nuttybar"]

But the big reason for the score difference is that Gamespot reviews games relative to the other games on that platform. On the Xbox, yeah Halo 2 gets a 9.4 because its one of the best things going over there, but on the PC it has Half Life 2, FEAR, Counter Strike, Far Cry, Battlefield etc to contend with, and Halo 2 compared to those games just doesnt look as good.

 

Uncle_Tbag

That's not true at all. The Xbox review calls it one of the best action games ever, or regarding H1: There are several reasons why the original Halo ranks up there with a very small number of other first-person shooters as one of the definitive games in the genre.

Note it doesn't say best action games ever ON A CONSOLE or definitive games in the genre ON A CONSOLE.

It's getting to be the most tiresome and oft repearted fallacies whenever a discussion about Halo comes around. It's a great game because it's great; it is not great simply due to relative standards. I say that as someone who's been a PC gamer for decades and recognize Halo as one of the defining games regardless of platform.  

The Xbox review is Xbox review's opinion. And you're just taking on someone's opinion. Yea, that's a lil mean. :) Anyway, popular opinion is that by comparison with other FPS on the PC with respect to time on the side, it sucks. And by popular opinion, its mean the majority thinks that way, its thier opinion. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. By my standards, Halo 2 sucks as a console game and even worse on a PC in this day and age. It's only possible peak would be before 2002. After that, everythings just better than stupid Microsoft first party garbage flagship garbage. Its like comparing mud to a diamond.

Plus, it's Xbox review. Microsoft's money literally comes out of their @ss and mouth.

[QUOTE="ThreeVo"]

This is what i think about the halo series.....

Through its publicity via mtv and other pop culture tv channels, mags and other forms of media and with the introduciton to xbox live a few years back with halo and madden being the primary games there.. Halo was able to get that jump start with american gamers...

In the end all halo did was take what unreal did best and what doom did best and what most sierra/valve games did best a top t with its own touch and setting.... Its like Game Informer said in one of there roasts...." Yes Halo two is a revolutionary fps game to come out yet! if uve had ur head up ur own @#$ for the past 10 years...."

The game is good dont get me wrong, excellent control, great multplayer and so forth.. but it hasent done ANYTHING that makes it diserve the hype that its recieved over these past years.... its just another fast paced fps end of story.

jks22112

Let's also not fail to mention it didn't do any of it as well as Unreal Tournament, Doom, Half-Life, or any of the other FPS games it ripped off. AND it added a lame story, short story mode, Boring story mode, and a stupid, lame, lackluster character in 'Master Chief'.

I HATE master chief, he has less personality than one of those muscular american stereotype men wearing red/blue in many of those old japanese beat/shoot-em-ups. You know the ones with the head band, blond mullet, and muscle t?

Actually, Halo 2 won 'Best Multiplayer' of 2004. You know, the same year Unreal Tournament 2004 was released. ;)

So, Halo 2 also had a lame, short, and boring story mode. Well, I'll give you the short part, but even Gamespot agrees that the Halo 2 campaign delivered, "thrilling, memorable, and unique moments in its online, co-op, and single-player modes."

Rob: Is there any reason why you're constantly attacking Halo 1 & 2? The scores don't lie. Oh yeah, and neither do the legions of fans. Just FYI. ;)

Yeah the ending was annoying, but realistically it's no worse than the end of Empire Strikes Back. Had I been old enough to see that in the theaters I would have been furious. But luckily, Return of the Jedi was right there sitting next to it ready to be watched. I predict that in time no one will remember how annoying the ending of Halo 2 was and may actually applaud the dark tone of the second act.

dchan01

It's funny that you quote Empire Strikes Back as being similiar to the horrible Halo 2 ending, because most Star Wars fans will tell you that Empire Strikes Back is the best in the series (refer to Clerks for more info)

Ok excuse my dorkiness, there are so many of these "overrated games! zomg" threads.  Halo 2 is a good game, I'll agree, the ending did suck, however this has been and still is one of the biggest titles on the Xbox, and for a good reason.  It rocks, especially the mutli player. 

Oh yeah, and as for the whole issue of Halo 2 being re-released for the computer, yeah it should be pretty much the same score.  The problem is it takes Microsoft so long to port this game to the computer that by the time it comes its really out dated, however I'm sure the computer version is better than the score it got.   

[QUOTE="jks22112"][QUOTE="ThreeVo"]

This is what i think about the halo series.....

Through its publicity via mtv and other pop culture tv channels, mags and other forms of media and with the introduciton to xbox live a few years back with halo and madden being the primary games there.. Halo was able to get that jump start with american gamers...

In the end all halo did was take what unreal did best and what doom did best and what most sierra/valve games did best a top t with its own touch and setting.... Its like Game Informer said in one of there roasts...." Yes Halo two is a revolutionary fps game to come out yet! if uve had ur head up ur own @#$ for the past 10 years...."

The game is good dont get me wrong, excellent control, great multplayer and so forth.. but it hasent done ANYTHING that makes it diserve the hype that its recieved over these past years.... its just another fast paced fps end of story.

EazyB

Let's also not fail to mention it didn't do any of it as well as Unreal Tournament, Doom, Half-Life, or any of the other FPS games it ripped off. AND it added a lame story, short story mode, Boring story mode, and a stupid, lame, lackluster character in 'Master Chief'.

I HATE master chief, he has less personality than one of those muscular american stereotype men wearing red/blue in many of those old japanese beat/shoot-em-ups. You know the ones with the head band, blond mullet, and muscle t?

Whoa whoa whoa, I never said anything about their characters. I said they did the shooting, and for Doom and Half-Life the story was better too. I'll be honest, I HATE with a passion any main character who doesn't talk. But they made an incredibly cheesy character, lifeless character, that made me hate playing the game. Most people I'm sure will agree that the Marine from Doom was a lame character, but I said, what I said because people love Master Chief, but honestly, he doesn't hold a candle to some of the great characters in games. Not even top 50, probably not even top 100, if I thought hard enough..

Whoa whoa whoa, I never said anything about their characters. I said they did the shooting, and for Doom and Half-Life the story was better too. I'll be honest, I HATE with a passion any main character who doesn't talk. But they made an incredibly cheesy character, lifeless character, that made me hate playing the game. Most people I'm sure will agree that the Marine from Doom was a lame character, but I said, what I said because people love Master Chief, but honestly, he doesn't hold a candle to some of the great characters in games. Not even top 50, probably not even top 100, if I thought hard enough..

jks22112

And the reason why so many people love master chief, is because he's the person you control in a game they find very enjoyable.  I think it has very little to do with his background or the depth of(or more accurately lake of) character.  I fail to see why you'd hate the game because he felt lifeless assuming you like Doom 3 and HL who's characters were even more lifeless.  I also can't see how the MC is cheesy, he's much like Gordon in that he's a lone fighter in an environmental suit.

Has anyone considered that a game like halo 2 just doesn't work on PC? It's got far larger hitboxes, so with mouse support you will practically always hit your target anyways. Also the controls will probably be less good for PC games, because all of the mechanics were created for consoles purposes. On top of all that the sound and graphics are obviously far better in practically any PC fps. To summarise it, the graphics were outdated, the gameplay wasn't everything that the original was, the sound wasn't up to par, and obviously there had been games with beter stories and all already.

Having said that, I don't think halo 2 was overrated. If you're trying to attack a game for being overrated, attack GTA or gears of war, but I think halo 2 was one of those games that actually deserves most of the praise. The single player first of all is needlessly attacked a lot. I enjoyed the SP, I played it again several times, and it's overall a cool experience. It's mostly attacked for the ending, but hey, that's only what, 0,5% of the game? I was let down by the boss fights however.

Also, I just want to note to people saying it brought nothing new to the genre - it did bring something new. It's called matchmaking along with the party system. Those two things should really be implemented in any console fps at least. I think halo 2 was definately a great game when it was released that deserved the ratings, but of course 3 years later on pc you shouldn't expect much of it.

Well, I know I would have scored the PC version higher. But the thing is, Halo really divides the opinions on people, I've heard that even gamespot editors argue about whether it's worth the hype or not.

I personally don't think Halo 2 was in any way overrated, but many will probably disagree. At the same time, do remember that the game is from 2004, and that is was mostly praised for it's multiplayer. Now, as MS decided to totally screw up the multiplayer by trying to promote windows live with the game the multiplayer isn't nearly as good as it was on the xbox. What's left is a singleplayer campaign that divides the opinions among FPS gamers and is 3 years old. Clearly Jeff belongs to the "not so good" camp. If Brad would've reviewed it I'm sure we would have seen a better score.

Let's also not fail to mention it didn't do any of it as well as Unreal Tournament, Doom, Half-Life, or any of the other FPS games it ripped off. AND it added a lame story, short story mode, Boring story mode, and a stupid, lame, lackluster character in 'Master Chief'.

I HATE master chief, he has less personality than one of those muscular american stereotype men wearing red/blue in many of those old japanese beat/shoot-em-ups. You know the ones with the head band, blond mullet, and muscle t?

jks22112

I don't exactly like Master Chief either, but the story is really the best in a fps series since Marathon IMO.

Halo series, GTA and Half Life series all massively overrated - that is for sure.

Halo 2 doesn't bring anything new to the table, and is easily overshadowed by other modern FPSs already on the PC.

Old games are great if they are worthy, but Halo 1 and 2 are ............ craptacular.

8) 

mkurts

Tell me, why the heck are you starting about GTA and HL2 when this topic is clearly about Halo 2?

 Also, to make up for any confusion:

GTA started the whole freeroaming crime genre, so don't you put GTA in a list with Halo 2, especially when you say that it doesn't bring anything new to the genre, GTA made the genre damnit.

Also: Half-life 2 did everything what other FPS did, but it did it better as or atleast just as good, it also had the gravity gun and a great physics engine for its time.

 Also: about Halo 2.

 Its a great shooter, but it isn't the game fans claim to be, it doesn't bring anything new to the genre, but it does it just good, nothing special, it only became popular because the first Halo was a good game, but its second version was lacking in many ways.

Halo 2 was a gem when it was originally released.  The online matchmaking made it the best online consol game in history IMO. And although many were dissapointed with the SP, it was still a major improvement over Halo:CE in level design and depth although less revolutionary. I actually think Halo 2 is underratted in the SP department.

As for the Vista rerelease, it got the score it deserved I suppose, it's a 3 year old port.  It's a consol FPS through and through and plays better on a consol in the same way Battlefield plays better on PCs. 

EazyB

Possible SPOILERS ahead.

    Halo:CE's level design was far superior to the second game.  Nothing in Halo2 even approached the amazing feel and scope of "The Silent Cartographer" level, or allowed for such massive battles as in various parts in "The Two Betrayals" that threw you in the middle of a full on melee between the Covenant and the Flood in vast, wide open areas.  The level design in the second game started off promising when in the city, but it quickly fell into walking down endless boring linear corridors that didn't afford the player the freedom to approach the fight how they wished.  Sure, there were tons of corriders in CE, but usually they would open up most of the time when combat happened.  The only thing in Halo CE that was pretty bad and repetitious was the Library.

I would say that Halo 2's level design was a major step back from the original's.  The single player was not even in the same league as CE's.