Hey Dragon, You Can Have Her: Halo - Combat Evolved

[dududf]

This is biased garbage.

It's a review stating their opinions.

No shit it's biased, just like he'd be bias if he said Halo CE was god, or if it was average, or above average. when you write something like this you generally are going into it with a bias whether you intend to or not.

I mean that it's clear he is biased by an opinion he formed before playing the game. The whole review reeks with the prejudice of Halo being the prime example of a over-simplified console game. Look at his review of the weapons, for example. He says that choosing two weapons at a time is "dumbed down." Nobody in their right mind would go into a game, having never heard of it, make the decision about which weapons to take with them, and immediately think it is "dumbed down" compared to other games. It's clear that he just went into the game looking for something that's "dumbed down."

Some parts of this don't even make any sense at all, whether based on the game's merit or preconceived bias, and he doesn't bother to elaborate. "This was also the first game to make grenades an annoying focus to the point of spending half your game watching your grenade count meter in the corner." How is this the first game to make grenades "an annoying focus"? As for the movement, how does slow running and high jumping make the movement worse than Unreal and Quake, but better than Half-Life? Does this ranking of video game movement make sense to you? How is Half-Life worse than all of these, and how is Unreal any different from Half-Life or Quake? Why is Halo seemingly arbitrarily placed in the middle of these games, and how did jumping higher do anything to harm the gameplay experience?

I'm not saying that Halo is the best game of all time, but this review is unfair, and the reviewer is intentionally searching for every flaw he can think of.

Ahh OK I see what you mean, that's completely different from what I thought you meant.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Your Britney Spears album collection aside, things are popular for a reason, but that does not mean the "reason" is that they are good. Last I checked, "FPS" stood for "First-Person Shooter" and since I don't recall the game being bundled with a "light gun" of any kind, I'd have to say that TimeSplitters was indeed an "FPS"... despite your disagreement, that falls more under the realm of "fact" than "opinion"... a rarity for me, but I take them where I can.

Not from my memory of the game. My point still stands.

Also, where did Britney Spears come into this? Last time I checked she was run-down, bald and having psychotic fits that the news wouldn't shut up about. And yeah. If it's popular then by definition, a lot of people like it. "Good" i subjective, and therefore no-one's individual opinion is god. But a good reviewer takes into account the opinions of the populus, not just themselves, and that's something I didn't see here, made even more evident in 5 pages of flame war. Way to go.

Do you, as a human being who plays video games, in any way, or through any source, honestly believe, that games like Half-Life 2 and Portal, honestly and sincerely, in the depths of your heart and soul, "borrowed" ideas from Halo... really? I mean... really? Are you really crediting the concept of "dual analog" control to the folks over at Bungie? Because as far as I can tell, that's where the similarities of the "console" versions of said games and Halo end.

If you were actually reading what I was saying, I was referring to the gameplay mechanics. "First Good FPS since Goldeneye" if I remember rightly. I thought I could be subtle, but hey.

What part of my review in the OP was mindless fan-bashing... please... quote me.

I'd be a smartass and quote the whole thing, but I'll be nice. Be a good rolemodel and all that.

Spoiler

To the newcomer and non-PC gamer crowd however, Halo was a revolution. There seems to be a "rule" (in the scientific sense) of sorts when it comes to Halo; it goes like this:

If you've never played a First-Person Shooter before,
If you did not own a current-generation game-worthy PC,
If the original Microsoft Xbox was your first gaming console,

Then you absolutely loved Halo.

This is totally understandable. For the aforementioned people, this would be like driving a Honda Civic for the first time when you grew up riding bikes and horses. For the people used to driving sup'ed-up Corvettes and Ford GT's however, this was just another car on the lot. So, let's compare and contrast.

the mechanics of shooting in Halo felt like a giant leap backward when compared to the more skill-oriented shooters of the time, even when stacked against other console shooters. One of the fundamental aspects of shooters is weapon balancing, which either goes the path of "new weapon is better than the last weapon" or "new weapon is different but equally powered than the last weapon," and somehow, Halo does neither as the game comes down to "how good you are and how much ammo you can find for the pistol."

Let me elaborate for this one. In the same paragraph not only do you whine about how it requires little to no skill (what, was your difficulty range Easy to Normal?), but then go on to whine about how it doesn't involve an invisible statistic ("One of the most fundamental...ammo you can find with the pistol") as opposed to skill. Part of the skill involved in this game is using what little you have to progress.

It's like when Fox rags on Obama, both saying that he does nothing and ruins everything at the same time. You gotta pick.

Eight weapons; in the future?

If you had actually seen the opening cutscene of the game, it establishes that they were a pretty dodgy ship that was hastily thrown together with a small military and whatnot before they escaped from Reach. Considering our own militaries, which focus on manufacturing one brand of a particular gun, it's quite realistic. There are plenty more Covenant weapons as well, in comparison to your suggested 8, but you can't use them. Considering you get a heap more in the later games once you actually reach civilisation, the plot actually explains to you why there are so few.

The rest of the review is pretty much just ragging on its quasi-realism as well. Really man, do all games have to suddenly be Quake? Because the FPS industry would be hella bland if they were.

But hey, I'm just giving advice. Take it or leave it, whatever floats your boat. But most people who post reviews on this forum want to improve, and I see plenty of room for you to. Not listening to your critics is a waste.

 

[Knight Templar]

I won't get into why I don't like this review but I will point out one thing.

To the newcomer and non-PC gamer crowd however, Halo was a revolution. There seems to be a "rule" (in the scientific sense) of sorts when it comes to Halo; it goes like this:

If you've never played a First-Person Shooter before,
If you did not own a current-generation game-worthy PC,
If the original Microsoft Xbox was your first gaming console,

Then you absolutely loved Halo.

Thank you for telling me why I like something, so glad you wrote this to set me stright.

Seriously that is pretty damn arrogant. You're giving people their opinons, don't be surprised those people (or indeed anybody) don't treat your review with respect. In fact I've seen you insult people in the comments so I'm not sure you didn't piss people off intentionaly. Which makes you hard to take seriously.

 

[Vrex360]

*sigh*
I can respect the opinions of those who do not like Halo, as I've made it abundantly clear that I am a huge fan, but honestly this whole thing reeks of obvious attention seeking.
Point is, Halo: Combat Evolved is well and truly in the past, we not need to ask if it was overrated or not by this point, people liked it back then and people still like it to this day because they had fun playing it. You are not 'wrong' to dislike Halo by any means, you have a right to like and dislike any game of your choosing but realise this doesn't make you 'correct' to bash Halo and it's fanbase of which over these last few pages you have been blatantly doing.
I really get sick of people always underlying all the obvious faults and flaws (usually ones that are of no fault of the game personally but rather games in general) then asks:
"How can you all be stupid enough to like this? Your opinion obviously differs from mine and therefore you must be wrong."

See what I mean? I find no fault in your dislike of Halo, because subjectivley there is no 'right' and 'wrong' when it comes to these things but for the love of god don't go out of your way to insult and bash and question a game nearly a decade after it stopped being any kind of major blockbuster hit.

I apologise if I seem a little harsh, it seems likely that I may have given off that impression and I certainly try my hardest to surpress that, but honestly if you are going to say really arrogant and insulting things about people's preferred games and try to explain why they were 'wrong' to have liked it then I do have limited sympathies.

EDIT: However, it is possible that this is a misunderstanding and I have mistaken your original intensions with this review, in which case my peace offering still stands.

 

[zakski]

I mean that it's clear he is biased by an opinion he formed before playing the game. The whole review reeks with the prejudice of Halo being the prime example of a over-simplified console game. Look at his review of the weapons, for example. He says that choosing two weapons at a time is "dumbed down." Nobody in their right mind would go into a game, having never heard of it, make the decision about which weapons to take with them, and immediately think it is "dumbed down" compared to other games. It's clear that he just went into the game looking for something that's "dumbed down."

Some parts of this don't even make any sense at all, whether based on the game's merit or preconceived bias, and he doesn't bother to elaborate. "This was also the first game to make grenades an annoying focus to the point of spending half your game watching your grenade count meter in the corner." How is this the first game to make grenades "an annoying focus"? As for the movement, how does slow running and high jumping make the movement worse than Unreal and Quake, but better than Half-Life? Does this ranking of video game movement make sense to you? How is Half-Life worse than all of these, and how is Unreal any different from Half-Life or Quake? Why is Halo seemingly arbitrarily placed in the middle of these games, and how did jumping higher do anything to harm the gameplay experience?

I'm not saying that Halo is the best game of all time, but this review is unfair, and the reviewer is intentionally searching for every flaw he can think of.

this, exactly this, I would rather have fair reviews than the reviewer intentionally searching for every flaw he can think of on some games and shamelessly plugging others. the esteemed Austrailian is excluded because he hates every game and is funny.

 

[SavingPrincess]

-snip-

When have I insulted anyone? At the most I could have been said to insult a game... but that is not people. My suppositions, my judgments, etc. were based on experiences I've had. I don't need to defend myself... I didn't insult anyone personally... I don't care if people like or dislike the review, it's more for my own personal amusement than anything; something to do at my mind-numbingly boring day job. So I'm sorry for disliking a game for very concrete and laid out reasons which most people agreed were there, but also the reasons they liked the game, or have "forgiven" the game for having. This does not automatically negate them from existing.

I'm also quite tired of people telling me what I can or can't do... it's more annoying than someone writing a negative editorial review about what I like.

Here's an idea... if the masses think I'm just attention seeking because I write a negative review, go post comments on the 22 positive reviews and editorials I've written up. Because believe me, most often when I say that something is good, like a Mirror's Edge [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/326.176636] or an Earthbound [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/326.176800], there's a big enough crowd to come by and either stomp on me for saying positive things, or people just don't read it at all.

Just because I happen to not like a game that a lot of other people do, and decide to point out EXACTLY why rather than just saying it "OMGSUX" for completely arbitrary and nonsensical reasons, does not mean I'm "insulting an entire demographic of the populace."

I write editorials for these reasons:

• I feel a game is important for good reasons
  I feel a game is overrated for good reasons
  I feel I can bring a unique perspective to a gaming concept

I don't do "reviews" of games that 9,326 other people have reviewed... I write the things I want... if people don't like it, they're more than welcome to gloss over my username when it comes up. That's fine. I'm not writing for you. At the same time, don't come in to an internet forum of which you are a member just like me, and tell me what I can and cannot write about.

I did not say people were "stupid for liking Halo" or anything nonsensical like that. I merely said the game was average. Why? Not because it was superubermegapopular... because when I sat down and played the game for the first time when it came out, I thought to myself "Hmm... this game is average," and seeing the hype that has overrun the brand more than Star Wars from the previous generation, I thought it pertinent, now that we've all had nearly ten years to let the game settle in the dust, to compare it to other games at the time... that's it.

I will never agree that the game was anything more than I felt it was when I first played it. I will concede however that the game is obnoxiously popular and has a rabid loyal fanbase... much like Final Fantasy VII and Counter-Strike before it... and that's fine. If I had 'elaborated' on a lot of the points I had made, the whole piece would have been completely unreadable and only given people more material to spam my inbox with.

I will never post a negative review about another game ever, I will only write positive reviews, and everyone will not read them.[footnote]This is a lie, I will likely post more negative reviews at some point[/footnote]

 

[SavingPrincess]

I won't get into why I don't like this review but I will point out one thing.

If you've never played a First-Person Shooter before,
If you did not own a current-generation game-worthy PC,
If the original Microsoft Xbox was your first gaming console,

Then you absolutely loved Halo.

Thank you for telling me why I like something, so glad you wrote this to set me stright.

Seriously that is pretty damn arrogant. You're giving people their opinons, don't be surprised those people (or indeed anybody) don't treat your review with respect. In fact I've seen you insult people in the comments so I'm not sure you didn't piss people off intentionaly. Which makes you hard to take seriously.

Single most misread piece in the writeup... which by perceptions definition is my fault for writing it poorly.

There is a huge difference between saying:

"If you like this game you fall under this category."
and...
"If you fall under this category, you liked the game."

Ask a math major...

Seriously though, this is based on nothing but my personal experience with friends, coworkers, family... etc. and based on that experience, it's accurate. It was written for contextual purposes for people who might not have played the original to help understand the fervor surrounding a title that by standards of the day, was an average shooter, and how it gained so much popularity.

I'll refund the money you paid me to write this whole thing as soon as possible.

 

[Vrex360]

Super enormous snip

Okay, that sounds fair enough. Like I said before, you are entitled to your own opinions even if I don't happen to agree with them. I apologise if this seemed a little harsh, you probably misread a few of my intentions as I, undoubtedly must have misinterpreted yours. It's just that at the time the post above me had quoted you saying (remember, my interpretation, may not be accurate to your original intent) that if you liked Halo you had to fall under three catergories. I have been on the Escapist for a long time and we've had plenty of troll threads with a similar theme, hence I assumed your intent was to act stuck up and arrogant.
I have read your response and I now know that was not your direct intensions but you have to understand why I would misread it.
In any case, I apologise if I seemed rude, that's all I can really say to this.

 

[SavingPrincess]

Okay, that sounds fair enough. Like I said before, you are entitled to your own opinions even if I don't happen to agree with them. I apologise if this seemed a little harsh, you probably misread a few of my intentions as I, undoubtedly must have misinterpreted yours. It's just that at the time the post above me had quoted you saying (remember, my interpretation, may not be accurate to your original intent) that if you liked Halo you had to fall under three catergories. I have been on the Escapist for a long time and we've had plenty of troll threads with a similar theme, hence I assumed your intent was to act stuck up and arrogant.
I have read your response and I now know that was not your direct intensions but you have to understand why I would misread it.
In any case, I apologise if I seemed rude, that's all I can really say to this.

It's fine... as a couple people have pointed out to me, "Halo seems to bring out the worst in people."

I think that might be one of the issues that I have outside of the game itself. Star Wars/Star Trek fans are at least nice about things most of the time. I think a lot of the people are skimming the actual review, then beginning to comment, and going back and reading the sections of the review they need to as the comment evolves. I've read plenty of negative reviews on plenty games, and I really tried hard to make very little mention of the fanbase and really focus on core gameplay mechanics. The passage above that you speak of did not say "If you like Halo you fall under three categories," it said "if you fall under these categories, you liked Halo" which is completely different.

It's ironic that people choose to read things in the most offensive way possible... I don't enjoy being offended, so I wouldn't tend to actively interpret things in a way that offends me.

I'm weird though... I think we've already established that.

 

[SavingPrincess]

And a final word to those that think opinions don't belong in editorials:

The editor's note [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.184057-Editors-Note-Bump-In-the-Night] for the most recent issue of the site's magazine, clearly states:

"Stephen King (is) one of the most terribly gifted writers in the horror genre (one could also say in any genre),"

The writer does absolutely nothing to back up his statement or even cite any sort of reason for his opinion... he states his opinion and moves on. This is in the article on the front at the top of the sites official "magazine."

... and you know what, I don't agree with him, I have reasons, and that's okay. He's not insulting me, he's not attacking me, we have differing opinions. He could have said "Halo is obviously one of the best games of all time," and while I may have chuckled in disagreement, it's fine, because he wasn't saying that I was dumb or misinformed for not liking it... like many here have.

If you don't like something, don't read it. It's ooookay.

 

[MrJohnson]

Eh. Had some fun with it with my friends, until around a year later or whatever it was that Battlefront was released. Then we all played that. Until the second one came out. They were just that much fun to us. Oh yeah, Battlefront and Timesplitters, with some of the James Bond games thrown in their. Those were fun times.

 

[CJ1145]

*snip*

Whoa, dude, I just found this but I have to say something about it. You're really going at this in a weird way. You seem to almost be comparing it to newer games. (I know in your lists you put older games, but the paragraphs themselves do not reflect that) You also missed on a lot of key things. For example, the Needler SEEMS useless. But did you ever try Legendary difficulty? That prickly pink thing became your best friend for fighting Elites. And the Plasma Rifle kicked ass too, hell, even the Plasma Pistol could mess up Grunts/take out Elite and Jack shields.

As for your speed issue, that's why every level with large environments comes with a vehicle. In the first game, excluding the Banshee, the vehicles were all indestructible. There's not any excuse for not having a vehicle to get around.

As for multiplayer... yeah. It sucked. What's your point? It HAD multiplayer, back when the notion of a multiplayer console game was pretty ludicrous. Nobody's flaunting that part of the game, not sure why you're so determined to hate on it.

Overall you seem very opinionated here, and that's a shame. Love most of your articles, but this one is a little too bandwagonistic for me.

 

[DannibalG36]

For the record, I have been a PC FPS gamer since 1999 (I was introduced to the genre with Delta Force 2, my pet game). Like many of my fellow PC gaming cohorts, I fell in love with Half-Life, stumbled around the corridors of the Von Braun in System Shock 2, and engaged in long-distance combat in Operation: Flashpoint.

And yet, out of all these games, Halo stood out as a work of singular genius. It was arguably the first truly cinematic FPS and was set on a world that had an eerie sense of place - the ringworld felt ancient, beautiful, and immense. The weapons were extraordinarily crafted - each weapon (excepting the plasma pistol) had a use - the Assault Rifle mowed Grunts down with stupendous speed, the Plasma Rifle was an Elite-destroying machine, the Pistol was my weapon of choice for taking out Hunters, and the Needler made the player feel like an unstoppable badass. The vehicle controls were odd, but responsive and fluid. While the level design was afflicted by shameless repetition, the shooting mechanics and brilliant AI (yes, it was simple, but never underestimate the ability of an Elite to duck out of your field of fire and finish you off with a few plasma bursts) ensured that I was never, ever bored.

Time would fail me to praise Halo's innovations, such as recharging health (which has been copied by so many games, it has become a veritable standard), but Halo was a game that stood head and shoulders with the PC shooters of its day. Years later, Halo (not Half-Life or Deus Ex) is the game I still fire up when I need to be reminded how great FPSs can really be.

 

[Uncompetative]

There's nothing tactical about choosing between your two weapons when you really only need one.

Here, in a nutshell, is where you make a fool of yourself. Anyone and I mean anyone who plays Halo:CE on the higher difficulty levels knows that you need both your weapons at all times because you use one (say, a needler or overcharged plasma pistol) to deplete an Elite's shield then switch and take them down with a headshot from your trusty pistol.

Yes, the movement is slow, but you don't have to sprint between intervening cover as you have recharging Mjolner armor. This is deliberate as it forces you to protect any Marines you come across as they can suppress the enemy whilst your shields recover.

I can understand your dislike of the high jumps, the justification is that this is meant to be a cybernetically-enhanced super soldier. Personally I like it having a touch of the Mario. I also like its non-linearity - the way you can go the other way around the island on level that is called "The Silent Cartographer" in order to unlock that door and then avoid the Spirit dropship by jumping off the cliff and onto the branches of a tree below, then there are numerous shortcuts and dodges to use inside the main installation itself involving suicidal jumps onto ledges that are lower down the Shaft and onto an Overshield, or the use of Active Camouflage to sneak back up. More games need to be like this, with the freedom to explore and experiment. This gives the campaign years of pleasurable replay.

Finally, you keep on with this Worse Than/Better Than thing, which I fail to comprehend the logic behind. Let me list all the games you say Halo:CE is worse than:

Quake (series),
Unreal (series),
Half-Life,
Deus Ex,
System Shock 2.

I'm spotting a suspicious trend here... They are all PC games. They don't count! Ah, but wait... what is this?

GoldenEye 007

Finally, we have a fair comparison and I happily agree with you that Halo:CE is a worse shoot 'em up than GoldenEye 007 on the N64 games console (but then, in my opinion GoldenEye 007 is a worse shoot 'em up than Robotron 64). So, what am I to conclude from this? That Halo is a total failure because it isn't better than an N64 game, or that Rare made an all time classic that greatly benefited from the Bond licence and a nifty lean-from-cover and headshot enemies mechanic with its floating aiming reticle (a feature that at once made the game tactical and rewarded skill to those who could master manual aiming - making it similar in many ways to PC mouse-look)?

I think you don't like gamepads with your shooters.

Fine. Stick to playing with your expensive PC and stop dumping on us mere mortals with gaming consoles (at least our MP isn't hacked).

 

[AlanShore]

I can understand your dislike of the high jumps, the justification is that this is meant to be a cybernetically-enhanced super soldier. Personally I like it having a touch of the Mario. I also like its non-linearity - the way you can go the other way around the island on level that is called "The Silent Cartographer" in order to unlock that door and then avoid the Spirit dropship by jumping off the cliff and onto the branches of a tree below, then there are numerous shortcuts and dodges to use inside the main installation itself involving suicidal jumps onto ledges that are lower down the Shaft and onto an Overshield, or the use of Active Camouflage to sneak back up. More games need to be like this, with the freedom to explore and experiment. This gives the campaign years of pleasurable replay.

An enhanced super soldier who can make 15 foot vertical jumps but who can't run very fast or throw grenades any further than a normal person? Makes sense. I remember playing it on the xbox and I thought the jumping thing was just weird, I mean, even if the armour gives him the ability to jump higher, surely he would still fall back down faster than he does due to gravity?

Finally, you keep on with this Worse Than/Better Than thing, which I fail to comprehend the logic behind. Let me list all the games you say Halo:CE is worse than:

Quake (series),
Unreal (series),
Half-Life,
Deus Ex,
System Shock 2.

I'm spotting a suspicious trend here... They are all PC games. They don't count! Ah, but wait... what is this?

I don't understand this, why can't you compare PC and console FPS games?

Fine. Stick to playing with your expensive PC and stop dumping on us mere mortals with gaming consoles (at least our MP isn't hacked).

Typical. Can't win your arguments by conventional means? No worries! Just imply that the other side is elitist and considers themselves part of the "master race".

Oh and as for "at least our MP isn't hacked", while you might not have the same sort of hacks that PC games suffer from, you still have games with tonnes of game-breaking glitches (http://www.se7ensins.com/forums/forum/185-modern-warfare-2-glitches/) and at least we have the ability to kick/ban people who exploit them thanks to the wonders of dedicated servers.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Halo is an awful game and I've had a lot of fun playing co-op, it's just not the holy grail of FPS games that people and reviewers make it out to be and doesn't deserve the hype surrounding it (Then again, very few really hyped up games do).

 

[Uncompetative]

An enhanced super soldier who can make 15 foot vertical jumps but who can't run very fast or throw grenades any further than a normal person? Makes sense. I remember playing it on the xbox and I thought the jumping thing was just weird, I mean, even if the armour gives him the ability to jump higher, surely he would still fall back down faster than he does due to gravity?

Yes, the jumping is weird. So is being on an alien ring world in space.

Had you considered that the game had low gravity? After all, the Warthog bounces around a lot (and I like that) for such a massive vehicle. You can criticise Halo 2 if you like because the beginning of that was set on Earth, but then Bungie probably wanted to keep it 'consistent'.

I don't understand this, why can't you compare PC and console FPS games?

Because mouse-look supports far more rapid and precise aiming than that afforded by a console's clumsy gamepad thumb-stick.

Spoiler: Spoiler: Feel free to skip this part

Sure, there are a handful of console FPS games that benefit from the floating reticle Rare implemented for GoldenEye 007, namely:

Perfect Dark,
The World is Not Enough,
TimeSplitters (series).

These all deserve their popularity and if you were to say that Halo was worse than any of them I wouldn't make a fuss. However, you only mentioned GoldenEye 007 which I already openly admitted was better than Halo. The crux of the issue is that even the best console FPS games struggle to surpass one that has the benefit of Mouse and Keyboard. If you really want the ultimate look at this:

6:10 onwards is of particular interest. I'm hopeful that Project Natal will make this kind of gameplay dynamic possible on the 360.

Pick any one of these console FPS games though, and I still think Halo comes out on top:

Frontlines: Fuel of War,
Deus Ex: Invisible War,
Medal of Honour (series),
Call of Duty (series),
Battlefield (series),
Far Cry (series),
Bioshock,
Prey,
Fear.

Spoiler: Spoiler: Ok. I've thought of one console FPS that may well be better than Halo.

Mirror's Edge.

See. I'm not a total fanboy...

Typical. Can't win your arguments by conventional means? No worries! Just imply that the other side is elitist and considers themselves part of the "master race".

Ok, prove to me that I can build a decent gaming PC for the same as the cost of my 120 GB Xbox Elite (180.00 pounds). By the way I also have a Mac with a Cinema HD display and BOSE speakers, so I'm not exactly motivated by envy. Where did you get the impression that I implied a disdain for PC gamers? People pay insane amounts of money on custom motorcycles and cars, why not PCs if it is their hobby?

...while you might not have the same sort of hacks that PC games suffer from, you still have games with tonnes of game-breaking glitches...

Halo multiplayer was always with people in the same room, either with System Link or Split Screen on a shared TV. That made people accountable for silly behaviour. There were problems with super jumps in Halo 2, but I never rated that game very highly anyway. The last one is very hard to glitch competitively on Xbox Live and as a result few people try. It helps that Halo 3 has the Forge as I think it pulls all of these types of players into a sandbox in which they can muck around with their friends. Most out-of-map glitches involve using the Monitor which isn't available in normal multiplayer. Hiding in the crannies of Guardian, or jumping into the midst of a palm tree in Last Resort in order to crouch and 'invisibly snipe' are actually legitimate game tactics. You can also choose not to play with certain players again and the matchmaking algorithm will find other people for you to fight. I've not experienced any problems in over 2000 matches.

As to Modern Warfare 2, presumably, you mean something like this:


This use of 'elevators' is a serious game fault and just shows that Infinity Ward were in a rush to release the title. Wallhacks and aimbots do not feature in Xbox games although I will admit that modded rapid-fire gamepads are a problem, but Halo 3 Optimatch just promotes them so that they play other ultra-competitive retards. I play it as a team game, like Bungie intended and have fun assisting a win rather than obsessing about Kill/Death ratios and ranking up. That is why I have the gamertag Uncompetative.

 

[AlanShore]

Yes, the jumping is weird. So is being on an alien ring world in space.

Had you considered that the game had low gravity? After all, the Warthog bounces around a lot (and I like that) for such a massive vehicle. You can criticise Halo 2 if you like because the beginning of that was set on Earth, but then Bungie probably wanted to keep it 'consistent'.

I had considered the low gravity explanation but (I may be wrong I haven't played Halo for ages) if the gravity was low you'd be able to throw grenades really far, the dirt from the frag explosions wouldn't come down as quickly as it does, any items blown away by explosions would travel further than they do, etc. It's almost as if master chief is the only one affected by the low gravity.

Ok, prove to me that I can build a decent gaming PC for the same as the cost of my 120 GB Xbox Elite (180.00 pounds). By the way I also have a Mac with a Cinema HD display and BOSE speakers, so I'm not exactly motivated by envy. Where did you get the impression that I implied a disdain for PC gamers? People pay insane amounts of money on custom motorcycles and cars, why not PCs if it is their hobby?

Whoa, whoa, when did money come into this? As for your implication, well, the tone of your post and the little snipe at the end about multi-player doesn't exactly scream out love for the platform. Anyway, it's good to see that I'm not the only person who plays online to have fun and not to whore off kill/death statistics!

 

[Uncompetative]

Whoa, whoa, when did money come into this? As for your implication, well, the tone of your post and the little snipe at the end about multi-player doesn't exactly scream out love for the platform.

Let me just quote the OP.

...what the seasoned FPS crowd was handed was a decidedly average shooter that delivered less than games...released years prior.

Here, SavingPrincess sets up his critique of Halo:CE with a quick reality check with a view to concluding that this game was questionably praised. Widespread popularity does not imply actual quality and all the many 360 gamers who adore only think it is great because they haven't played anything better. He then goes on to list a number of games he considers Halo:CE to be worse than, all of which are on the PC - sure, there is GoldenEye 007 too, but there are technical reasons that explain why that is best console FPS ever.

Putting Rare's game to one side for just a moment, it does make SavingPrincess' case rather weak as far as I am concerned. Mouse and Keyboard supports far more rapid and precise aiming, the ability to turn 180 degrees in a fraction of a second and a great many more buttons (which may or may not be such a good thing - I find the keyboard interface to be less ergonomic even though it is more "articulate"). I prefer joystick or D-pad to WASD, but I will be the first to admit the superiority of mouse-look to the combined look/turn gamepad thumb-stick.

GoldenEye 007 comes close to the rapidity and precision of mouse-look due to its Aim quasimode (i.e. like a Shift key it has a side-effect on other parts of an input peripheral only whilst it is held down, as opposed to being a purely 'modal' on/off toggle like CapsLock). Although, it has the side-effect of rooting you to one spot it does compensate by making the D-pad lean instead of strafe, crouch instead of retreat and zoom if the Sniper Rifle is equipped. Whilst in this quasimode the gunsight floats freely around the screen as you displace the analogue stick, rather than turning your entire body slowly to face a new central target. This makes it comparable to mouse-look. Very few console games have adopted this excellent solution and weirdly SavingPrincess only listed one.

So, given that I have openly admitted that GoldenEye 007 is better than Halo:CE we could forget about it. The problem I have is in SavingPrincess comparing Halo:CE to a long list of "superior" PC games. Yes, they are all better than Halo:CE because they benefit from the rapid and precise aiming afforded to them by PC hardware. Mouse-look also makes them better than GoldenEye 007, in which you cannot about-face quickly, or move whilst aiming - personally, I quite like this constraint as it makes the Aim quasimode a tactical choice: run to cover, engage Aim quasimode, lean out and take the head-shot before other enemies can mow you down.

All that SavingPrincess' negative review really says is that he doesn't like playing FPS games with a gamepad.

I can understand that. If I had money to burn on a dedicated gaming PC (in addition to my 'dull' Mac), I would get one too and catch up on all the great FPS games I have missed out on. However, it is elitist to ignore the fact that most 360 gamers who adore Halo:CE do not "know any better" (as SavingPrincess suggests), because they can only afford a couple of hundred Pounds for a console for what is purely frivolous entertainment purposes and cannot justify the cost of a PC capable of playing BioShock, Orange Box & Crysis.

So, with respect, money does come into it. PC FPS games are undeniably better due to mouse-look, but PCs are out of reach to many gamers.

 

[SavingPrincess]

snip

Not sure if it matters, but I thought Halo: Combat Evolved was actually better on Xbox (I think we're forgetting that was the console we're looking at and not at the 360) than on PC. On PC, the faults (broken pistol, etc.) were only highlighted in an even bigger way. Having the limitations of the gamepad actually made it a better game, not worse. I was comparing the game to games that had come out "previously" to it, I left out games like Perfect Dark and TimeSplitters based on the fact that it is the same as saying Goldeneye 007 Parts II & III.

Plus, why does control interface/platform have to separate the judgement of a game? Why can't a PC game be compared to a console game? I liked (and had more fun with) Goldeneye 007 than many PC-based FPS games. I think that NOT comparing games on different platforms illegitimizes the console as a viable FPS experience in total. It's like saying "Consoles are inferior so it's unfair to judge console FPS games against PC," and THAT my friend, is where the elitism comes from.

I thought by comparing the title in question to other PC experiences at the time, actually brought a sense of non-elitism to the table as I didn't just "write off" Halo: Combat Evolved as one of "those console shooters" and legitimately stacked it up to the best of what the genre had to offer.

When I did so, I found it lacking. That's all.