Quote:On the Covenant side, I haven't noticed any drastic differences.
Elites really take advantage of cover this time around, and seem to be a bit more careful when their shields are down. They press their backs to the wall when their shields are down sometimes, with their weapon facing the corner.

Elites and Grunts(I think) can scale small objects like crates or fallen vehicles in order to get higher ground on you or surprise attack you if you're taking cover near them.

Jackals dart out of the way if you're very close to them and pressuring them. You'll have to make sure you don't give them too much time to recover if you're close, or else they'll dash behind you and light you up with their Plasma Pistols.

Grunts, unfortunately, are still stupid cannon fodder. No real change, except they seem to take more damage than before... But then again, all the Covenant enemies do. So nevermind.

And your helpful NPCs, Marines, they're actually worth keeping alive this time around. In all honesty, sometimes you won't have to work to keep them alive because they work much better with you in HALO 2.
Marines also take cover much more often, pressing their backs to wall and dipping in and out very quickly to take quick shots at the enemy.

They now have the ability to drive. Honestly, they aren't the smartest bunch when driving, the 'hog usually ends up smoking by the time we're done with a quick skirmish. They aren't really conscious of how much damage your vehicle has taken. But still, sometimes they can get the job done just fine.

You can switch any weapon with your Marines. This proves very helpful in a mission involving the Prophet of Regret, you'll know what I'm talking about when you get there. I described this scenario at GAF, but I'll run it down again: I had these two Marines following me throughout this entire level. They can die, but because of the weapons I gave them, and the way we looked out for eachother(instead of me just protecting them and fighting the Covenant at the same time). The male Marine was given a Covenant Carbine, while the female Marine was given a Covenant Particle Beam Rifle. Male Marine went head-on with me to take on Elites, while the female Marine took out Jackal Snipers and sometimes wore down the shields of the Elites ahead. They were great support, and no matter what weapon I gave them in this scenario, they used them properly... Well, I haven't tried giving them the Energy Sword or Rocket Launcher yet, but I'm working on it.

The AI on both sides of the spectrum work together much better than before too. Running in when others take cover, and they communicate with eachother as well.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many levels are there in single player campaign?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not certain, but I think there are around 6 or 7 entire "levels", but these levels are broken up into campaign levels... Get me? No? Well... For example, the "Earth City" level is broken up into two seperate campaign levels. And the transition between levels isn't exactly made clear sometimes, you won't even know you've gotten to a new one. Heh.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How are the new vehicles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not many new ones...
Warthog - There are two Warthog variants present in the final game; the LRV "Chaingun" Warthog, and the LAAV "Guass" Warthog. The former is the 'hog we all know and love, and the latter is the new powerful variant we saw in the E32k3 Demo. I haven't had much time with the LAAV, but it seems to work best against vehicles. It's hard to hit opponents on foot because the shot isn't entirely accurate, and there's no splash damage unless you nail a vehicle... Concerning the Warthog in general: The thing feels very different. It just doesn't seem to have as much weight as the original Warthog. At first I didn't like it, but I've gotten used to it. I don't know how the rest of you will feel about it

Ghost - Not too much of a difference here. Unlike the 'hog, the new Ghost feels heavier. It rides lower, moves slower when not boosting, and when it does boost, you can't really adjust your path all that much. As you might have noticed in the videos from E32k3 and E32k4, the Ghost's weapons fire at a much faster rate than before. It can wear down people on foot quite easily, but the shots don't seem to freeze, and I think this goes for all plasma weapons, unfortunately...

Spectre - The only real new vehicle in HALO 2. Think of it as the Covenant's answer to the Warthog. It moves a bit slower than the Warthog at first, but when it boosts it moves at just about the same speed or a bit faster. It seats 4: Driver, 2 Passengers, and a Gunner. The Spectre's weapon is a very accurate rapid-fire plasma weapon that does pretty decent damage.

Banshee - It has received the most drastic change. The thing is just an aerial target now, IMO. It's so delicate, and the barrel rolls 'n' flips don't really serve much of a purpose besides avoiding the Rocket Launcher's Target Tracking feature. It's very fast when it boosts though... But that's it. You can no longer fly backwards up into the air, if you try to, the 'shee's engines will kind of turn off and you'll plummet to the ground. That causes damage too, by the way.

Scorpion - Better. Moves slower than before, like less than half it's original speed, but you can take more punishment in it than before, and it's weapons have been improved-- it's main and secondary weapons both fire much faster and accurately than in the first game. Even with these improvements, because of it's slow speed, it can be easily boarded if somebody gets close enough.

Wraith - The Covenant Mortar Tank that was unplayable in the first game. It fires it's mortar shots very fast, and the splash damage of these shots are incredible. While it moves about just the same speed as the Scorpion normally, it can boost for like 1-2 seconds. IMO, the superior of the two Heavy Vehicles.

There are also turrets that are considered vehicles in Multiplayer. There is a Human and Covenant variant. The Human one, most of you have already seen, but the Covenant basically fires projectiles just like the Ghost in an extremely fast constant stream. They both do the job just fine.

Quote:Gamespot's review is pretty much on target, I think they gave it the most reasonable score(though it is a lil' high by their standards). And it's good to see that they point out the lil' flaws in the story; everybody else sang praises of it without saying why.

Only thing I disagree about their review is the repetitious levels. While repetition does rear it's ugly head in bits and parts of later levels, it isn't nearly as bad as it was in the first game.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Halo 1's single player totally sucked. Of this, no one can deny. Now, multiplayer was fun though. Fun mainly because any FPS where they don't totally screw up controls stats or weapons WILL be fun simply because you are playing against other humans and they create the fun with you, but it was still fun.

Quote:Now, Halo 2 by all accounts seems to be very fun. I'm actually surprised Famitsu rated it without labelling it some horrible American game

Quote:Anyway, I'm rather interested in how great this game will actually end up.

Quote:It's just endless minldess shooting through various ship compartments, AGAIN.

Quote:All your attention tends to get concentrated on the action itself, partly because the action is just so good but also because there's often little of interest in the game's environments. The level design is quite striking at times--you'll find yourself stopping just to gaze at the architecture--but it's occasionally monotonous enough to be confusing. You'll sometimes wander aimlessly for a few minutes, unable to tell which way is forward and which way is backward, until you happen upon the next signs of enemy resistance. Basically, the campaign is still a linear series of shootouts, some of which are open-ended enough to afford you the ability to choose from multiple weapons or vehicles, and some of which are more rigid. If the Flood levels of Halo didn't bother you, then you probably won't mind the similar sequences in Halo 2. If you don't fondly recall those bits of the first game, though, you might find yourself frustrated that Halo 2 follows a similar formula.

Even the content of Halo 2's campaign isn't significantly different from that of the first game. Prepare to take on many of the same foes in many of the same types of situations and locales. Of course, the game does take you into some new territory and pits you against some new threats (such as some hard-to-hit flying enemies and an enormous spiderlike Covenant battle tank), and sure enough, these sequences turn out to be some of the best bits of the campaign. Early on, for instance, you'll be defending Earth itself from a Covenant assault, rampaging through the war-torn streets on foot, at the wheel (or the mounted turret) of a Warthog 4x4, or in the belly of a devastating Scorpion battle tank. All this is thrilling. Yet while it's hard to imagine a better setup for Halo 2's action than putting the fate of Earth's defense in your hands, the game turns out to have other intentions, and rather suddenly changes gears after just a few hours.

Halo 2 gives up some of its focus from a storytelling standpoint, which becomes especially apparent once you finish the campaign. A great deal of attention is paid this time around not to the humans struggling for survival, but to the Covenant and what turns out to be a major political upheaval within their ranks. You spent the first game indiscriminately killing these fiends--yet now you're expected to be sympathetic to them and their hatred for humankind. To the game's credit, all this adds some newfound complexity to the story (even the collector's edition version of the game's manual is written from the Covenant perspective), and the plot itself is executed quite well. Still, chances are you'll wish that the game spent less time telling you about the Covenant and more time telling you about the Master Chief, his trusty AI companion Cortana, and, well, the fate of Earth.

As previously suggested, easily the worst part about the story is the way it ends, insofar as it doesn't. You'll run into this game's cliff-hanger ending like a compact car into a brick wall, and you'll certainly be left aching for more. Cliff-hanger endings are not necessarily a bad thing--some of the most successful film franchises in history (Star Wars and Back to the Future, to name just two) have relied on cliff-hangers to sustain their audiences' feverish excitement over time. The difference is, those cliff-hanger endings arrived in the context of storylines that at least offered some resolution or catharsis, whereas there's little satisfaction to be found in the ending here, and there's no telling when the next Halo game will come around to potentially wrap things up. There's a good chance you'll feel emotionally betrayed by the story, and it certainly doesn't help that the campaign, at the default difficulty, is going to take an average player less than 10 hours from start to finish. Many excited Halo fans will quickly blow through it in a day, or even a single sitting. Yes, the actual gameplay of Halo's single-player campaign is a blast. But the campaign also winds up being the most disappointing part of the game--probably the only disappointing part. Fortunately, Halo 2 more than makes up for these shortfalls in other ways.

Quote:Right, of course, Gamespot reviews are bad, sorry for even implying that they do a good job of writing reviews...

Quote:And when you say that it's like the first game, is that the good first half or the crappy second half?

Quote:Right, of course, Gamespot reviews are bad, sorry for even implying that they do a good job of writing reviews...

Quote:It's basically identical to the first level in Halo 1. My guess is that they made this level so that people with fond memories of the original game would get a kick out of it. Not taking into account those that didn't like it, and do not want to play the same shit over and over again like they already did in the first game.

Quote:And I love when Kasavin reviews a massively hyped game, you just know he's going to rip it to shreds.

Quote:Hmm.. I happen to think that GameSpot have some of the most well written reviews on the web. It's certainly much easier to read through their reviews than the dribble that comes from IGN.

And I love when Kasavin reviews a massively hyped game, you just know he's going to rip it to shreds.

Quote:My point is you can generally explain the scores by reading the reviews. They quite adaquately explain how, from the reviewers' perspective, the game earned that score. Do I always agree? Of course not! But almost always Gamespot has writing good enough that I can understand how much I'd like the game no matter what score it got! Many other sites do not do that! Why is this such an amazingly hard concept for you to understand?

OB1 Wrote:Hitler also explained his reasoning in a grammatically-correct manner, but that doesn't make the stuff he said any less mad!

Quote:I have to say that the more I play the single player campaign the more disappointed I become. Even in co-op I'm just not finding that my enjoyment is sustained for long periods of time. As fun as using twin-needlers while your friend runs up ahead with the energy sword is, it just doesn't last long. Even battling it out in the vehicles feels remarkably similar.

As far as the single player is concerned, I would go as far as to call it a rehash. It feels just like an extension pack with a few little features added. It makes me smile thinking about all the zealots on TeamXBox who used to bag Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (and most likely San Andreas) for not being a complete sequal, relative to how much of a sequal Halo 2 would be.

I'm genuinly surprised that Kasavin didn't tear this game to shreds.

Having said all this, I still have not played the game multiplayer (other than co-op) and have already commenced plans with a friend at work for a fairly large LAN game.

Quote:Speaking as someone who loves the Halo universe, having read both The Fall of Reach and First Strike novels and beating the original on normal, heroic, and legendary, I can easily say the story in Halo 2 is, regretfully, garbage. It's easily the worst story in the series and it is also one of the most dissapointing overhyped experiences I've had in my gaming history.

With that being said, I have not played the multiplayer. However, if a game is advertised as the next part in the series, denoting some type of continuation in the story, this game failed miserably. This feels more like Halo 2, the continuation of better multiplayer. Though many of you know the game for that and agree that it is very good, that's not why I bought this game. For me, it is an utter dissapointment.

Quote:That's ludicrous thinking! A Modest Proposal was very well-written but if Jonathan Swift hadn't meant for it to be a joke would anyone consider it to be anything other than insanity? Good composition skills don't make up for insane points! Hitler also explained his reasoning in a grammatically-correct manner, but that doesn't make the stuff he said any less mad!

Quote:That sucks. Kasavin loves mindless shooters and gave the first Halo a shining review so I'm not surprised by that, but I am surprised by these comments about the story.

Anyways, I never expected much from the SP. I just want to play it online!

Quote:But everyone knew 'A Modest Proposal' was humor (and brilliantly done too), so what's your point? That was meant to be humor and was. Hitler meant to persuade people to his views with his speaking and did. And game reviewers try to explain if you should play a game, and Gamespot is one of the most successful at doing that in words. Their opinions are in the pieces as well, but the primary point isn't expressing their opinion. It's giving the reader the information they need to make the decision about how much THEY would like the game. And most definitely not all review places succeed at that.

Quote:If you didn't notice, Kasavin attacked the story for being awful and the single player mode in general for being not too good (and then says that the multi makes up for it), so where is your problem there with him? That he was right about that?

Quote:He still gave the game a shining review.

Quote:Woah, "A Modest Proposal" was supposed to be humorous?? Yes, by "if Jonathan Swift hadn't meant for it to be a joke" what I meant was that it was a serious essay.

Quote:As in what does mentioning it prove? I don't see any point really...

Quote:Sure, if you ignore the fact that he criticized what seems like exactly the same things PH is talking about... I guess you just looked at the score, but reviews are more than just a number.

And a 9.4 is a great score but not perfect... the score reflects the fact that he found the single player game lacking, but not the "rest of it".

Of course in my opinion the single player game is 90% of the game for a FPS, so I doubt i'd like this game much, but if you like multiplayer FPSes then sure it might deserve that score..

Quote:I read the review, as I already stated. What I was saying was that since he loves mindless shooters so much, the high score he gave the game is no surprise, much like the same score he gave the first Halo. On the other hand with just about every genre his opinions seem to be upside down and from bizarro world. I mean seriously now, Arx Fatalis better than Morrowind?? Majora's Mask gets a 7? Man...

Quote:As I've said a million times, you overly harp on the scores instead of focusing what is vastly more important: the REVIEW ITSSELF!

Quote:Sure I think Gamespot is stupid for giving low scores for Gauntlet Legends/Dark Legacy or Rush 2049. And I think they are very wrong there. Lots of worse games scored far higher. But even so the reviews are decent enough that I can tell that they are the kind of game I'd like, score or no... it's not just about "good english", but an effective arguement that succeeds at the true purpose of the work. You mentioned "A Modest Preposal" somehow as a counter but I'd say that it supports my arguement as it too succeeds at doing exactly what it was meant to... though it is hard to compare given how that was meant as humor and not as a serious piece of criticism.

Anyway, I thought the Gamespot review of MM was good. A bit low? Perhaps, but I can understand how they got such a score... by their standards and review system I certainly might have given it a similar score too.