Something about is just alot better. Cant put my finger on it.
What is it about Halo CE that makes its sp so much better than Halo 2 or 3's?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Well, compared to Halo 2, it had a much better paced campagin which threw different and compelling situtions and had the better level-design and story.
I think Halo: CE and Halo 3 are very much equal to each other campagin wise, as Halo 3's campagin was also well paced and had great places for you to fight in, and a much better story then Halo 2.
I think Halo 2 took a lot of the sandbox out of Halo: CE, and became a much more linear experience, while Halo 3 brought the big false open-world feel back to the Halo series.
At least, that's just for me.
Never played 3 myself, but comparing Halo CE to Halo 2, yeah, Halo CE is definitely a better game.
One clear difference is that the story in Halo CE was far superior than the Halo 2 one. But in terms of gameplay, yeah, there's just something I can't quite put my finger on as well. I think it has to do with the guns not feeling particularly effective in Halo 2.
It was original. Halo 2 and 3 were the same thing with 1 or 2 new features.
I'm surprised people are saying Halo1 had better level design, I thought it was pretty horrid and propably the weakest point in the game. Haven't played the 2nd one but it can't possibly be worse than those copy pasted levels that go on and on in halo1.ManicAce
Nah, the only bad level in Halo: CE IMO was The Library.
...There was no sanbox in Halo CE.... anything remotely sandbox from the original design was taken out. Its outdoor levels are large linear corridoors though - however Halo 2 closed in the walls substantially...Well, compared to Halo 2, it had a much better paced campagin which threw different and compelling situtions and had the better level-design and story.
I think Halo: CE and Halo 3 are very much equal to each other campagin wise, as Halo 3's campagin was also well paced and had great places for you to fight in, and a much better story then Halo 2.
I think Halo 2 took a lot of the sandbox out of Halo: CE, and became a much more linear experience, while Halo 3 brought the big false open-world feel back to the Halo series.
At least, that's just for me.
millwrought
I have'nt played CE but people say it is similar to Halo 3 so that is fail in my book. I can't believe people hate on Halo 2's campaign. Is it bad to play as the best character in the series? Is it bad to have objectives genuinely worth accomplishing? Is it bad to cover roughly 5 times the land you did in Halo 3? Is it wrong to not have a level as terribly designed as Cortana?TheGrat1
Cario Station was repetive and the objectives often repeated, Outskirts was bland and boring (Urban Combat in Halo 2 sounded awesome, but the level itself was weak), the ONLY Scarab battle was super-linear compared to the Halo 3 Scarab Battles, the boss battles in Halo 2 were garbage (So was the 1 boss batttle in Halo 3, even you even consider that a boss battle), and Gravemind and High Charity in Halo 2 were just as bad as Cortana in Halo 3. And Halo 2 had a horrible ending.
Though then again, it's just a matter of choice. It was fun playing as the Arbiter, but the Halo games have always been about Humanity fighting against the overwhelming and all-powerful Covenant, and playing as them just felt 'wrong' and felt you with a sense of disconnect from your purpose.
[QUOTE="millwrought"]...There was no sanbox in Halo CE.... anything remotely sandbox from the original design was taken out. Its outdoor levels are large linear corridoors though - however Halo 2 closed in the walls substantially...Well, compared to Halo 2, it had a much better paced campagin which threw different and compelling situtions and had the better level-design and story.
I think Halo: CE and Halo 3 are very much equal to each other campagin wise, as Halo 3's campagin was also well paced and had great places for you to fight in, and a much better story then Halo 2.
I think Halo 2 took a lot of the sandbox out of Halo: CE, and became a much more linear experience, while Halo 3 brought the big false open-world feel back to the Halo series.
At least, that's just for me.
skrat_01
That's why I said 'big false open-world feel' later on in my message.
It's not really an open-world, but the levels are well-designed and big enough with a bunch of different things to do and the myraid of ways to tackle objections combined with the great AI (Of it's time) to challenge and respond to your actions, that it has that pseudo open-world feel to it even if it isn't a open-world.
That why (For me at least) each time I played a campagin level, it felt different. While Halo 2 had a much more closed-off and linear feel to it that kinda' depressed me at the time.
If you cut out the bad missions of Halo 3, I think it would be a lot better (I only remember them when people mention them, suppressed memories I guess), but because Halo had only one bad level, it was the best, but Halo 3 still has the feel of being the "biggest" Halo, mostly due to the huge vehicle missions among other things that really put it on a much grander scale.Z0MBIES
I even place The Ark, Tsavo Highway, Floodgate, and The Covenant as some of the best levels in the Halo Franchise, alongside The Silent Cartographer Two Betrayals, and 343 Gulity Spark of Halo:CE and Uprising in Halo 2.
[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]I have'nt played CE but people say it is similar to Halo 3 so that is fail in my book. I can't believe people hate on Halo 2's campaign. Is it bad to play as the best character in the series? Is it bad to have objectives genuinely worth accomplishing? Is it bad to cover roughly 5 times the land you did in Halo 3? Is it wrong to not have a level as terribly designed as Cortana?millwrought
Cario Station was repetive and the objectives often repeated, Outskirts was bland and boring (Urban Combat in Halo 2 sounded awesome, but the level itself was weak), the ONLY Scarab battle was super-linear compared to the Halo 3 Scarab Battles, the boss battles in Halo 2 were garbage (So was the 1 boss batttle in Halo 3, even you even consider that a boss battle), and Gravemind and High Charity in Halo 2 were just as bad as Cortana in Halo 3. And Halo 2 had a horrible ending.
Though then again, it's just a matter of choice. It was fun playing as the Arbiter, but the Halo games have always been about Humanity fighting against the overwhelming and all-powerful Covenant, and playing as them just felt 'wrong' and felt you with a sense of disconnect from your purpose.
True, Cairo station was the only level I did'nt like. At least outskirts was continually moving forward, and the many small hiding places and vantage points you could take advantage of. No to mention the vehicle sections in New Mombassa were better than anything in Halo 3. Scarab battle was linear, but you were'nt really fighting the scarab, you were fighting the smaller vehicles and gound forces inside it. It was Bungie's debut of the machine, it had better be improved upon in Halo 3. Heretic leader was not garbage, at all. Tartarus was good to although Prophet of Regret felt really phoned in. Thats another reason I liked playing was Arbiter more, he had better boss fights. Gravemind and High Charity were nowehere near as bad as Cortana, mainly because the Flood was a worthy advesary in Halo 2. They were so pathetic in H3 to the point most of them could be taken down with a single punch... Halo 2 may have had a cliffhanger, but the game had to end sometime. And be thankful it was a cliffhanger done right. At least it ended with a boss fight instead of just driving. My purpose in that game was to shoot whatever attacked me. And it was more fun playing as Arbiter thanks a lot to the invisibility.Halo 2 had the best story and Halo CE had the best online. ( See if anyone gets that)wooooode
Oh, it's opposite day already? :P
Lan Parties for Halo: CE were awesome though.
I have'nt played CE but people say it is similar to Halo 3 so that is fail in my book. I can't believe people hate on Halo 2's campaign. Is it bad to play as the best character in the series? Is it bad to have objectives genuinely worth accomplishing? Is it bad to cover roughly 5 times the land you did in Halo 3? Is it wrong to not have a level as terribly designed as Cortana?TheGrat1The pacing was piss poor and the level designes were much worse than the ones in Halo 3. The Arbiter may have provided a new twist to the franchise but it also ruined the franchise IMO. the worst thing that happened in Halo was changing the enemies from Elites to Brutes(a move started because of Halo 2)
The ARbiters missions were all poorly designed, and his objectives were far too similar to bland. His missions lacked the superior combat scenarios the MasterChief's sequences provided. The ENDING WAS HORRIBLE!!!! The Brutes were just dumb(atleast they got alot better in Halo 3, but yes in Halo 3 the brutes were still lame) The Boss battle with Tartarus was pointless. His boss fight is as simple as you can get, atleast the part before was a little fun, and the prophet battle was so corny. The Scarab was such a linear and piss poor design that took out the entire thrill of taking a scarab down(something that was actually fun in Halo 3).
The only fun with the arbiter was that you could do some semi-stealth kills with his active camo. However his "tarnished" character was never really that well done into the overall plot, and the way they take Chief away from the suburban battles to more uninteresting version of the original halo didn't help either. Although Delta Halo and the mission after was probably the best mission. Cairo Station was as repetitive as any mission could get. Outskirts was solid.
The best combat scenario in Halo 2 was the Covenant Civil War, although the rest of that level was poor.
Uprising could have been much better, and i don't even want to mention how much quarantine zone was just ....ugh
Gravemind and High Charity were some of the worst levels Bungie has made right up there with Library and Cortona. Halo 2 seemed rushed, the story was far more incohesive. If anything Halo 3 does everything better than Halo 2. The only that is that Halo 3 still underdelivers and falls apart at the end to make a thrilling climax and conclusion. Halo CE hands both Halo 2 and Halo 3 there asses in terms of pacing, combat scenarios, and plot development.
True, Cairo station was the only level I did'nt like. At least outskirts was continually moving forward, and the many small hiding places and vantage points you could take advantage of. No to mention the vehicle sections in New Mombassa were better than anything in Halo 3. Scarab battle was linear, but you were'nt really fighting the scarab, you were fighting the smaller vehicles and gound forces inside it. It was Bungie's debut of the machine, it had better be improved upon in Halo 3. Heretic leader was not garbage, at all. Tartarus was good to although Prophet of Regret felt really phoned in. Thats another reason I liked playing was Arbiter more, he had better boss fights. Gravemind and High Charity were nowehere near as bad as Cortana, mainly because the Flood was a worthy advesary in Halo 2. They were so pathetic in H3 to the point most of them could be taken down with a single punch... Halo 2 may have had a cliffhanger, but the game had to end sometime. And be thankful it was a cliffhanger done right. At least it ended with a boss fight instead of just driving. My purpose in that game was to shoot whatever attacked me. And it was more fun playing as Arbiter thanks a lot to the invisibility.TheGrat1
There's always a sense progression for levels in Halo game, and I'm not sure how anyone could like those tiny vehicle sections in New Mombasa compared to massive battles in Halo 3 or Halo: CE's Two Betrayals, but it's all a matter of taste.
And that was the problem of the Scarab battles, you were just fighting the same dudes you normally dude, the Scarab was just another platform for you to fight on, not fight against. Another section of the level where you just shot more Elites and Grunts. In Halo 3 that giant and fearsome enemies actually became open for you to fight anyway you chose. You wanted to play them like you wanted to do in Halo 2? Go ahead and board them and take them out like you did in Halo 2.
Halo 2 FORCED on you the way you were to fight the Scarab, Halo 3 opened it up to you.
The Heretic Leader didn't really add anything accept to tell us right we already knew, that the Halo Ring's = bad news and that the Covenant = evil empire. And we already knew of it, and the battle itself was just fighting copies of him with jetpacks. OK, whatever. I found it boring but that's just me.
The Prophet, I agree, was bad as in the end he was just some vehicle you had to jack. Tartarus was just like any other Brute, and was very similar to the Gravity-Hammer Brutes in Halo 3, just was slightly stronger and you just had to run in circles around him until you could shoot him. He was also a very archetypical and boring villian, and I really didn't feel satisfied in killing him in the end, because he was just a deillusional dude like the rest of Brutes were, nothing too special about him.
The reason the Flood were stronger in Halo 2 was because only so many of them could be in a battle at once so they had to boost their strength, in Halo 3 that was expanded that you could fight many more, so they toned down their strength. It's like fighting the Zerg in Starcraft or Tyranids in Warhammer 40k, they're supposed to be weak but many, they would confuse you with their numbers and overwhelm you.
The ending wasn't bad in the actions, but in the actions un-done. In Halo 2, very little changed in the end compared to the beginning of the game expect Earth got screwed and the Flood have High Charity. While Halo 3 seemed stupid for just having the driving thing at the end, it was supposed to be a reflection on the Halo seres so far and tieing itself back into Halo: CE to show how far Halo has come since Halo: 3 and that things are tieing together, kinda like the end of MGS4 where you got[spoiler] to go back to Shadow Moses [/spoiler] , a lot more happened in Halo 3. The Covenant had a full invasion of Earth going on, The Ark was founded, The Flood Arrived on Earth, and other stuff I rather not get into for spoiler purposes.
[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]
Gravemind and High Charity were some of the worst levels Bungie has made right up there with Library and Cortona. Halo 2 seemed rushed, the story was far more incohesive. If anything Halo 3 does everything better than Halo 2. The only that is that Halo 3 still underdelivers and falls apart at the end to make a thrilling climax and conclusion. Halo CE hands both Halo 2 and Halo 3 there asses in terms of pacing, combat scenarios, and plot development.jg4xchamp
Agreed, in Halo: CE we see Halo EXPLODE! It was awesome.
in Halo 3 we don't even really get to see the epic finale like Halo: CE.
Though the after-credits ending was probably the best out of the whole series to date, as Master Chief's words almost turned him into the Eternal Hero of Humanity, akin to Link from Legend of Zelda.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]
Gravemind and High Charity were some of the worst levels Bungie has made right up there with Library and Cortona. Halo 2 seemed rushed, the story was far more incohesive. If anything Halo 3 does everything better than Halo 2. The only that is that Halo 3 still underdelivers and falls apart at the end to make a thrilling climax and conclusion. Halo CE hands both Halo 2 and Halo 3 there asses in terms of pacing, combat scenarios, and plot development.millwrought
Agreed, in Halo: CE we see Halo EXPLODE! It was awesome.
in Halo 3 we don't even really get to see the epic finale like Halo: CE.
Though the after-credits ending was probably the best out of the whole series to date, as Master Chief's words almost turned him into the Eternal Hero of Humanity, akin to Link from Legend of Zelda.
it was just poorly done, the franchise was never meant to go more than 2 games.....Bungie was all set to finish with just Halo 2. A scenario that was botched when they waited for the final year of there deadline to do the heavy duty work(Halo 2 CE owners know this from the damn bonus disc) A lot of story mistakes were made in 2, that effected 3(although yeah 3 did fix some things with 2) First Switching from the Elites to Brutes, plain and simple Elites are more fun to fight. Second the Arbiter Character, What they should have done was build him up as a character, show how his name was tarnished and then give him some epic showdown with MasterChief. Like Boss and Grey Fox in the MGS franchise, the enemy doesn't necessarily have to be evil completely. He can just be one of strong faith.The Prophets provided the covenant higher archy but ugh......the way they were designed to be almost incapable of fighting was just a big WTF? how did they get incharge if the Elites and Prophets were once in a war? I mean everything about Halo 2 rushed, the plot was filled with more interesting ideas than Halo 1, but it just wasn't as tightly written. Halo 3....oh my god...first THey destroy the arbiter character they built up in Halo 2(completely wasting that entire story arch for the most part). He was an after thought in the 3rd game.
The lack of Cortona took away what was the best character of the entire franchise. She was witty, smart, and likeable. The player was the Chief, and she was your guide/and woman in your ear helping you progress...taking her out took away from any connection you could have with the universe. You were just a walking shell, and lord knows the Chief doesn't exactly say some glorious thought provoking lines like a Max Payne.
Then there was how it was you versus covenant, or you versus flood. never both at once. Its a WAR and Bungie Hyped scale. Where is the scale? It should have been some epic throwdown with Chief versus Flood versus Covenant like The Maw in Halo 1. Like the covenant Civil War in Halo 2. IMO the franchise fell apart with its final 2 games. They are great games overall(mostly because the multiplayer got really good with 2 and 3). and the campaigns were good for the most part, it just never lived off to the glorious potential that Halo 1 showed, or the rich lore that the Halo Universe has. Especially all the stuff you find out while doing the Marathon Man achievement.
[QUOTE="millwrought"]
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]
it was just poorly done, the franchise was never meant to go more than 2 games.....Bungie was all set to finish with just Halo 2. A scenario that was botched when they waited for the final year of there deadline to do the heavy duty work(Halo 2 CE owners know this from the damn bonus disc) A lot of story mistakes were made in 2, that effected 3(although yeah 3 did fix some things with 2) First Switching from the Elites to Brutes, plain and simple Elites are more fun to fight. Second the Arbiter Character, What they should have done was build him up as a character, show how his name was tarnished and then give him some epic showdown with MasterChief. Like Boss and Grey Fox in the MGS franchise, the enemy doesn't necessarily have to be evil completely. He can just be one of strong faith.
The Prophets provided the covenant higher archy but ugh......the way they were designed to be almost incapable of fighting was just a big WTF? how did they get incharge if the Elites and Prophets were once in a war? I mean everything about Halo 2 rushed, the plot was filled with more interesting ideas than Halo 1, but it just wasn't as tightly written. Halo 3....oh my god...first THey destroy the arbiter character they built up in Halo 2(completely wasting that entire story arch for the most part). He was an after thought in the 3rd game.
The lack of Cortona took away what was the best character of the entire franchise. She was witty, smart, and likeable. The player was the Chief, and she was your guide/and woman in your ear helping you progress...taking her out took away from any connection you could have with the universe. You were just a walking shell, and lord knows the Chief doesn't exactly say some glorious thought provoking lines like a Max Payne.
Then there was how it was you versus covenant, or you versus flood. never both at once. Its a WAR and Bungie Hyped scale. Where is the scale? It should have been some epic throwdown with Chief versus Flood versus Covenant like The Maw in Halo 1. Like the covenant Civil War in Halo 2. IMO the franchise fell apart with its final 2 games. They are great games overall(mostly because the multiplayer got really good with 2 and 3). and the campaigns were good for the most part, it just never lived off to the glorious potential that Halo 1 showed, or the rich lore that the Halo Universe has. Especially all the stuff you find out while doing the Marathon Man achievement.jg4xchamp
I always thought Halo was always supposed to be a trilogy? Interesting, a 2 part series is a odd number. But yes, the Elites were much more interesting foes then the Brutes.
I believe it was because the Prophets had learned to use Forerunner technology, and overpowered the Elites with advanced technology. Also was the character of the Arbiter ruinned? I'm just curious for I thought they did well with advancing the Arbiter in a side-character role without forcing him on the player.
That was the point, over the games you grew to be attached to Cortana, she was your best friend, and the books/games even hinted a little that Master Chief loved Cortana in the way of a little sister or even of a lover. They stole her from you, and you were going to burn the universe down to find her. Master Chief WAS a shell without Cortana, he was empty and lonely without her, as we felt when she was taken away. I believe that was the entire point.
The vehicle sections in Halo 3 are probably the best in the series, but the Forerunner vs. Flood vs. Covenant battle in Two Betrayals is probably the most epic battle to-date in the Halo series.
I don't think they could EVER make a game based off the stuff in Marathon Man, it would be to...giantic...It's almost imposible to comprehend. They have a new writer writing up some Halo books based around the Forerunner and Flood war I hear.
Arbiter just was there, they didn't do anything with his character. he was just there. After all the the development in Halo 2, he just seemed like he was there. And they never officialy said it was suppose to be 2, but early on in the Halo 2 lifecycle it was suppose to be the last Halo...until Bungie had some procrastination issues. The vehicle sections were awesome, except for the end. I don't know what it was, but it lacked the thrill that was in HALO CE.
The thing with Cortana was it was handled poorly, the only time it really felt like Chief was in it for Cortana was when he disobeys Lord Hood, and goes to High Charity. Other than that they just misstepped with that idea imo. Cortana was a character that needed to have been around for much longer than the final run through of the game, but yeah i see what you mean as well.
If they make a game based on alot of the intel in marathon man, than Holy crap....will it be so amazing :P ....if they could pull it off.....which isn't going to happen because the budget would be huge, and the amount of devs needed would be HUGE.
*edit- why do the gamespot forums make my posts into walls of text :cry:*
The pacing was piss poor and the level designes were much worse than the ones in Halo 3. The Arbiter may have provided a new twist to the franchise but it also ruined the franchise IMO. the worst thing that happened in Halo was changing the enemies from Elites to Brutes(a move started because of Halo 2)[QUOTE="TheGrat1"]I have'nt played CE but people say it is similar to Halo 3 so that is fail in my book. I can't believe people hate on Halo 2's campaign. Is it bad to play as the best character in the series? Is it bad to have objectives genuinely worth accomplishing? Is it bad to cover roughly 5 times the land you did in Halo 3? Is it wrong to not have a level as terribly designed as Cortana?jg4xchamp
The ARbiters missions were all poorly designed, and his objectives were far too similar to bland. His missions lacked the superior combat scenarios the MasterChief's sequences provided. The ENDING WAS HORRIBLE!!!! The Brutes were just dumb(atleast they got alot better in Halo 3, but yes in Halo 3 the brutes were still lame) The Boss battle with Tartarus was pointless. His boss fight is as simple as you can get, atleast the part before was a little fun, and the prophet battle was so corny. The Scarab was such a linear and piss poor design that took out the entire thrill of taking a scarab down(something that was actually fun in Halo 3).
The only fun with the arbiter was that you could do some semi-stealth kills with his active camo. However his "tarnished" character was never really that well done into the overall plot, and the way they take Chief away from the suburban battles to more uninteresting version of the original halo didn't help either. Although Delta Halo and the mission after was probably the best mission. Cairo Station was as repetitive as any mission could get. Outskirts was solid.
The best combat scenario in Halo 2 was the Covenant Civil War, although the rest of that level was poor.
Uprising could have been much better, and i don't even want to mention how much quarantine zone was just ....ugh
Gravemind and High Charity were some of the worst levels Bungie has made right up there with Library and Cortona. Halo 2 seemed rushed, the story was far more incohesive. If anything Halo 3 does everything better than Halo 2. The only that is that Halo 3 still underdelivers and falls apart at the end to make a thrilling climax and conclusion. Halo CE hands both Halo 2 and Halo 3 there asses in terms of pacing, combat scenarios, and plot development.I agree 100%. Both Halo 2 and 3 felt so rushed and anti-climactic. If only MS wasn't breathing down Bungie's neck to release games every three years, they could have had masterpieces. Halo:CE was also a little rushed in terms development time, but then again Halo CE truly was an anomaly. If you gave Bungie six years to make a game, I bet it would be one of the best ever made (Top 20 maybe).
The Halo 2 engine was just too advanced for the xbox. A lot of the graphics had to be scaled down (geometry and texture wise) after a certain distance so everything could run smoothly on screen, and the levels weren't even that open...I hated that weird texture pop-in in Halo 2's graphics.
redfordo
Arbiter just was there, they didn't do anything with his character. he was just there. After all the the development in Halo 2, he just seemed like he was there. And they never officialy said it was suppose to be 2, but early on in the Halo 2 lifecycle it was suppose to be the last Halo...until Bungie had some procrastination issues. The vehicle sections were awesome, except for the end. I don't know what it was, but it lacked the thrill that was in HALO CE. The thing with Cortana was it was handled poorly, the only time it really felt like Chief was in it for Cortana was when he disobeys Lord Hood, and goes to High Charity. Other than that they just misstepped with that idea imo. Cortana was a character that needed to have been around for much longer than the final run through of the game, but yeah i see what you mean as well. If they make a game based on alot of the intel in marathon man, than Holy crap....will it be so amazing :P ....if they could pull it off.....which isn't going to happen because the budget would be huge, and the amount of devs needed would be HUGE.jg4xchamp
Well, in the end of Halo 2 he just realized he was a decieved by the people he trusted for years and he wanted revenge, and we wanted to stop the rings from being lit. He wasn't already too complex of a character anyway, or at least the game presented him as. You get a better feel for him as a character if you read The Cole Protocol.
I would say because of the timer in Halo:CE, it was a more visible way of seeing that if you didn't get out of here within this time, you were screwed. Kinda' like the timer in Pikmin or Dead Rising. In Halo 3 you just kinda had to guess, which didn't always work so well.
I always believed that the story in Halo was told in a very non-obvious way, to really understand it you would have to dig deep into it for yourself and kinda discover it for yourself without it all being told to you, kinda' of a lazy way for developers to tell a story, but it's a interesting method all the same which I enjoy. Though I know many who don't.
Bungie really tried to remind you that you didn't have Cortana and that she needed to be found and treasured, character dialogue would mention her, where she was. You also get to see how Master Chief feels sorta' in the end cutscene in Floodgate, where he is in distress seeing Cortana in the state she is, and when Guilty Spark starts messing with her he get's angry. Even Johnsons words at the end of game, Cortana is very important to Chief, but he won't show it, or doesn't know how to. He doesn't know how to express himself since he was kidnapped from his family as a child and raised to be the perfect soldier.
While Master Chief is the Eternal Champion of Mankind, he can never be one of them, a human. He was raised to be a soldier, and is bascially a cyborg. He could never really live among normal humans because he is raised a soldier, and train to be unfeeling and disattached to achieve perfect status, he is bascially a machine of war. But Cortana love him for who he is, and Cortana is the only person left alive that Master Chief cares about since all of the Spartans are dead (Or so he thinks) and his only home (Reach) is glassed, she is all he has.
A Forerunner-Flood War game would HAVE to be a Space Combat Sim.
Its because Bungie did whatever the hell they wanted.
With halo 2/3, they tried to make their games based on what the fans said they wanted. big mistake. Although it can be helpful, listening to fans is usually a bad thing.
There's always a sense progression for levels in Halo game, and I'm not sure how anyone could like those tiny vehicle sections in New Mombasa compared to massive battles in Halo 3 or Halo: CE's Two Betrayals, but it's all a matter of taste.And that was the problem of the Scarab battles, you were just fighting the same dudes you normally dude, the Scarab was just another platform for you to fight on, not fight against. Another section of the level where you just shot more Elites and Grunts. In Halo 3 that giant and fearsome enemies actually became open for you to fight anyway you chose. You wanted to play them like you wanted to do in Halo 2? Go ahead and board them and take them out like you did in Halo 2.Halo 2 FORCED on you the way you were to fight the Scarab, Halo 3 opened it up to you.The Heretic Leader didn't really add anything accept to tell us right we already knew, that the Halo Ring's = bad news and that the Covenant = evil empire. And we already knew of it, and the battle itself was just fighting copies of him with jetpacks. OK, whatever. I found it boring but that's just me.The Prophet, I agree, was bad as in the end he was just some vehicle you had to jack. Tartarus was just like any other Brute, and was very similar to the Gravity-Hammer Brutes in Halo 3, just was slightly stronger and you just had to run in circles around him until you could shoot him. He was also a very archetypical and boring villian, and I really didn't feel satisfied in killing him in the end, because he was just a deillusional dude like the rest of Brutes were, nothing too special about him.The reason the Flood were stronger in Halo 2 was because only so many of them could be in a battle at once so they had to boost their strength, in Halo 3 that was expanded that you could fight many more, so they toned down their strength. It's like fighting the Zerg in Starcraft or Tyranids in Warhammer 40k, they're supposed to be weak but many, they would confuse you with their numbers and overwhelm you.The ending wasn't bad in the actions, but in the actions un-done. In Halo 2, very little changed in the end compared to the beginning of the game expect Earth got screwed and the Flood have High Charity. While Halo 3 seemed stupid for just having the driving thing at the end, it was supposed to be a reflection on the Halo seres so far and tieing itself back into Halo: CE to show how far Halo has come since Halo: 3 and that things are tieing together, kinda like the end of MGS4 where you got, a lot more happened in Halo 3. The Covenant had a full invasion of Earth going on, The Ark was founded, The Flood Arrived on Earth, and other stuff I rather not get into for spoiler purposes.
millwrought
Driving on the beach, driving throught that tunnel in a vehicle of your choice, driving over that super long bridge, and the vehicle sections in the interior of the city were all very fun. And by going so far I felt like I was really accomplishing something.
There was no sense of progression in Crow's nest. I was running around in circles and every task I accomplished was undone by the story seconds later. A lot of Halo 3's level design suffered from an ungodly amount of backtracking and repetetive building syndrome.
Once again, Halo 3's scarab battles were better because they should be better. It was its first appearance and it would be impossible to fight the Halo 2 scarab in the same manner, that thing was invincible from the outside. The Halo 2 scarab was'nt designed to go to a small area and engage in combat, it was designed to smash through enemy lines. You were chasing it 90% of the time anyway, not fighting it. Which, once again, would have been impossible from the outside. And to be honest, when I realised all I had to was drive in a circle underneath it then shoot it in the back, I was very dissapointed.
I'm not talking about his character adding anything, the Heretic Leader was a good boss fight by FPS standards, same with Tartarus.
The only flood that are a threat in Halo 3 are flood with guns, or flood that have evolved to to shoot the yellow spines at you. If I was surrounded by 50 standard flood creatures in Halo 3 I would'nt feel threatened in the slightest. I know they are slow, and I know a single punch and in some cases a single shot can defeat them. Berserking brutes and brutes in general were also weakened. A berserking brute in Halo 2 is a force to be reckoned with if there is'nt much ground between you. In Halo 3 I can relax because I know it is a guaranteed kill. 1 punch and its over. They looked so silly in that new armor as well.The only thing the brutes added to Halo 3 that I liked were gravity hammers, and they did'nt come nearly often enough.
Of course H3 is going to be the one where everything is resolved. Halos 2 and 3 iare essentially one big game cut in half. Earth being ravaged and the flood taking high charity had a mojor impact on the events in H3. And maybe its just me, but I would rather have a final foe to defeat than a nostalgic throwback to the first game. Honestely, I got enough driving in the rest of the campaign of this fps.
CE had way more Hunters than 3.clembo1990Yeah man. And they were actually challenging and somewhat menacing. Very cool.
It was well paced, and it had a simple interface. The music was fantastic as was the presentation, and the whole experience was just memorable. Halo 2 and Halo 3 didn't come close to Combat Evolved.
Bentham
Being a HUGE Halo fan, i didnt enjoy Halo 2 or 3's single players at all (the books are amazing, but Bungie cant incorportate the story into the game to save their lives!). But Halo:CE is legandary in terms of its campaign
i found Halo CE to be the most boring, Halo 2 and 3 were much better imho
I think you're partially right....it wasn't the fans they had to listen to, it was Microsoft! ..... they made bungie make the games appeal to a much wider audience, unfortunately this meant dumbing down the game significantly, I mean just look at the difference, Halo CE is dark, the rest are totally different although I must say I really like Halo 2 also..... Halo 3 is a complete joke in my opinion, totally generic, no real feeling of epicness... However, since Bungie is once again independent I see good things for Halo ODST, especially since IGN reported that the ODST game is dark and similar to Halo CE.Its because Bungie did whatever the hell they wanted.
With halo 2/3, they tried to make their games based on what the fans said they wanted. big mistake. Although it can be helpful, listening to fans is usually a bad thing.
shutdown_202
Well actually, the design of the levels is fundementally linear in every way possible.That's why I said 'big false open-world feel' later on in my message.
It's not really an open-world, but the levels are well-designed and big enough with a bunch of different things to do and the myraid of ways to tackle objections combined with the great AI (Of it's time) to challenge and respond to your actions, that it has that pseudo open-world feel to it even if it isn't a open-world.
That why (For me at least) each time I played a campagin level, it felt different. While Halo 2 had a much more closed-off and linear feel to it that kinda' depressed me at the time.
millwrought
There is no choice, everything you do in progression was set out by Bungie before hand - and the scope of 'approaching an objective' is extremely limited... as such tight linear shooters are. The most choice you have at times is - fight in vehicle, not fight in vehicle, but level design structure encourages - almost pushes you to do so.
There might be a nice illusion of the freedom, but, reality is, the depth of such is similar to the vast majority of linear structure shooters of the period.
But thats how the game has been designed, it is no Operation Flashpoint or Hidden and Dangerous.
nothing except nostalgia I found the single player of halo 2 and 3 to be superior.
Well actually, the design of the levels is fundementally linear in every way possible.[QUOTE="millwrought"]
That's why I said 'big false open-world feel' later on in my message.
It's not really an open-world, but the levels are well-designed and big enough with a bunch of different things to do and the myraid of ways to tackle objections combined with the great AI (Of it's time) to challenge and respond to your actions, that it has that pseudo open-world feel to it even if it isn't a open-world.
That why (For me at least) each time I played a campagin level, it felt different. While Halo 2 had a much more closed-off and linear feel to it that kinda' depressed me at the time.
skrat_01
There is no choice, everything you do in progression was set out by Bungie before hand - and the scope of 'approaching an objective' is extremely limited... as such tight linear shooters are. The most choice you have at times is - fight in vehicle, not fight in vehicle, but level design structure encourages - almost pushes you to do so.
There might be a nice illusion of the freedom, but, reality is, the depth of such is similar to the vast majority of linear structure shooters of the period.
But thats how the game has been designed, it is no Operation Flashpoint or Hidden and Dangerous.
It seems you don't get it, I've said many times it's a linear game.
The Majority of levels in Halo 3 are large, open, filled with many different kinds of enemies and different weapons, and you can do what you want WITHIN that linear scope. While some games tell you that you NEED to use the rocket launcher, you can say "Screw that." and whatever you want. It doesn't force on you what way you have to play.
For example, in a Scarab Battle you can choose to pilot a Hornet and kill the sucka's, or instead grab a Warthog, or grab a Scorpion, or take it on on foot, or board it, or crash the Hornet into it and board it that way, or shoot out its legs so that you can board it. Then after you board it what weapons do you use from the many you have available to you, how to you take out the guards on the Scarab? There's many ways to handle one situation in a big linear level. But I'm still not claiming it's a open world.
It's linear in the fact that the path, and the order of scripted events take place, but in the end within that large space you can decide how you want to fullful the objectives. Of course the game pushes you a little bit by giving you the Spartan Laser of Rocket Launcher, it's still needs to sorta' point you the direction, and the best way to tackle it.
And that's what I'm getting at, there IS a illusion of freedom, which defines and sets Halo apart from other games. Where their levels are tight, focused, cut off, and there's really only one way to tackle any situation. That's what Halo 2 was and really destroyed that game for me.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment