|
|
Commentary / Page of Woah|Woe!
or, How I learned to stop worrying and criticize Halo 2.
|
|
December 8th, 2004 by Daniel Barbour (Finn)
With contributions by Richard Nickel (Shovelface) and Robroy Schmidt (M3)
(Refinements and amendments may be found at our Mentionables 2 page.)
Writing an evaluation of Halo 2 is quite close to an exercise in futility. If you have good things to say, you're stating the obvious. If you have bad things to say, you're the evil anti-fan who disregards reason and looks all gift horses in the mouth... TWICE, and then glares menacingly at them for good measure.
There's also a tendency in the community to downplay negative responses; to disclaim them with a sweep kick statement labelling the critique as mere hyperbole, the result of expectations set to high, as an inability to adapt to change, or that the reviewer is obviously a narrow minded and bitter person.
If you feel any of these (or other) accusations welling up inside of you, stop and consider. Is it not in the best interests of the immediate community to question these things? To provide honest feedback in the hopes of holding the game's creator's to a higher standard? We would like to think this is our responsibility as players and in a more general sense, as consumers.
A great deal has already-been-said-about Halo 2 around the community at large, and we are admittedly late posting our thoughts. While there is some duplication, we hope you can appreciate the need to cover as many points as possible at once in order to sum up and accurately convey the gravity of the situation.
The assessment is in: Halo 2 is... well, different. And I don't mean that in an entirely negative fashion. A lot of the changes are for the better, and we should certainly hope so. Online play, dual-wielding, boarding, the energy sword, stunning new vistas, and a compelling story arch... in many ways, H2 is a phenomenal game. There isn't another like it. In fact, I became so downright caught up in the simple ability to play online that I began to justify many of the complaints lodged against it. But embracing the highs and ignoring the lows in light of them is not much of a constructive response. Instead, let's take another stab at nailing down what makes Halo 2 "a great game, but not a GREAT game."
Weapons (and the Lack of Smack)
You can get all you want thanks to online verbiage, but if you're looking for firepower, you may consider popping in Halo 1.
Disapproval first surfaced with the tiniest detail possible. While testing weapons I noticed that the character does not pump the shotgun upon reloading the gun from empty; no round is put in the chamber (in contrast to the shotgun's H1 counterpart). Now honestly, even bringing this up seems silly, but that fact is, that level of detail was crucial in winning me over in the first place. It is not that they have left out something of the utmost importance. It was simply a sign that in some ways the level of detail had actually diminished, with no apparent technical hurdle or time constraint to use an excuse. (For a while I had expected them to go a step further, allowing you to have a full clip plus one in the chamber with most guns, providing that little extra edge at times.)
No matter what your opinion is, the H1 pistol fulfilled a role. It was built to own middle-long range combat; the problems only truly began when its usefulness began unabashedly elbowing into both the long and short range arenas, crowding out other weapons and unbalancing them substantially. (Hey, at least everyone started with one.) The weapons in H2 have sought to conquer this little problem, but in doing so seem to have swung the pendulum too far. All preliminary play now seems to show a major gap in medium range. The Battle Rifle, the heir apparent to the pistol, has neither the H1 pistol's range nor punch. In essence, what should be the fall-back weapon is not much to fall back to.
Related to this, the new Magnum doesn't have much in the way of bark, and it shouldn't; it is filling a different niche. Ammo for this light sidearm is incredibly scarce however. Even the most diligent attempt to make use of it won't last long. On the other hand, ammo for the aforementioned BR is relatively plentiful. The author submits that a more plausible set-up would see pistol rounds oozing from every pore; hanging like ripe fruit from every nook and precipice. Coinciding with this, the Battle Rifle could be slightly more powerful, enjoy a longer reach, but find its ammunition supply cut drastically.
And considering we have been so often tempted in the past, without the inclusion of a balanced chain-gun/mini-gun, I am also surprised that you are unable to carry and wield the Human or Covenant deployable turrets.
While I may yet become convinced of the importance of this change while playing, the diminished blast radius of the grenades is quite hard to take. Gone are the room clearers of H1, replaced with charges only guaranteed to harm an opponent who has hurled himself upon them. This modification seems particularly odd given the power of dual wielding. Although the grenades have been by no means rendered useless, their decreased efficacy does not make your inability to throw them while dual wielding much of a sacrifice. Vehicles, too, seem relatively unaffected by nearby explosions. Plus, it is now more difficult getting grenades to go where you want them thanks to the new bounce, the Q-bert-esque sounds accompanying the impacts, and the rather weak wristed manner in which they are deployed, ie. they obviously follow a shorter arc than in the first. It's like trying to throw a button down a hallway.
While, at a glance, many tweaks to the rocket launcher make it seem like a much more dedicated anti-vehicle weapon, a brief bout of experimentation shows it to be a disastrous combination of characteristics. The increased melee damage is a boon, but the weapon becomes absurd in light of the faster cycling to the second shot (ie. an increased rate of fire) and the decreased blast radius. What this entails is that the rocket launcher is now far more easy to wield as an antipersonnel weapon, at point blank range while ducking and weaving in tight quarters. Many a melee battle has been ended, not with the butt of a rifle, but with a rocket from my opponent's teammate ending my life and leaving the enemy, shields intact, to walk away from the battle.
Two other comments that have been made pertain to weapon role duplication and a genuine feeling of disconnectedness while wielding most weapons. While it makes sense in the campaign due to playing as both the Master Chief and as the Arbiter, when carried over to Multiplayer having essentially 2 assault rifles, 2 sniper rifles, and 2 submachine guns (the SMG and the energy rifle sans H1's freeze ability) just doesn't make for a lot of solid weapon variation. Removing the (I thought) rather clever ability of the energy weapons to freeze opponents removed a crucial variation and advantage of the energy weapons. Without it, they're just another bullet hose. As has been said in regards to vehicles, it is nice to have the new ones, but the few additional vehicles/weapons don't feel like a lot to show for all the development time invested. And as far as weapons like the fuel rod gun or vehicles like the ATV or the rumoured flying "Kestrel" being unbalanced or not fun: it isn't as though these are parts you ordered from a supply house that's gone out of business and you can't return them. These new ordnances were built, and are modifiable, on site. If it flips, make it so it doesn't. If it is too powerful, make it less so, increase reload times, reduce rate of fire, etc.
As for a feeling of disconnectedness, many of the guns just don't feel like they are the actual instrument firing the bullets seen on screen. Weapons like the shotgun, rocket launcher, battle rifle, and even the grenades feel haphazard and somehow distant or marshmallowy when they are used. It is difficult to describe: most likely it stems from the more random fire from the shotgun, a quieter sound when firing, or the smaller blast radii.
Paired Weapons: I feel that a large part of the problem is trying to pair weapons up and still have them balanced against other combinations or alternatives. It removes a lot of the simplicity of the game, while trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. One thing I liked about H1 was that you could only carry two weapons at once. This was done to the chagrin of all the "Gamers" out there who want to carry ALL their weapons in a bag of holding. However, it was good because even though you could only carry a couple of weapons at once, you literally had 4 types of attack at you fingertips at any given moment, and it was easy to trade for the weapon you wanted.
Now I find myself standing on top of a shotgun, trying in vain to trade it up for my slung needler, while trying to maintain my Sarah Michelle Gellar (SMG)/Pistol combo.
...press Y twice, hold X, press Y, find Pistol, and hold X - to pick up Shotgun. Bam! Too late, shot in the head! The humiliation of being killed like this is comparable to being killed by the Klobb or while sitting in a corner turning your flashlight off and on in H1...
Sure, it's neat to fire two different guns at once, but I would gladly give it up for weapons that actually do a significant amount of damage. It would just feel better, and eliminate the chaotic hail of bullets style combat that seems to dominate H2. I miss the tactical advantages of one gun over the other, and I really miss being able to get the drop on someone at midrange, and actually kill them with less than 10 bursts from a battle rifle. There is no clean effective way of taking someone out at mid range, unless you get lucky with the sniper rifle. This lessens one's effectiveness in open areas and reduces one's options on larger stages to the sniper rifle if you're staying in, or a vehicle if you're venturing out. Those who would rather not utilize those tools are as good as dead.
The Sword: I know it's been said before, but the current set-up of the energy sword has been one of the largest travesties to befall the game since an over-used rocket launcher. The ever-annoying crutch of the less versatile player (ie. the over-used rocket launcher) has been turned into a jet powered wheelchair with laser-guided ballistic missiles and an automatic "nuke all" button. Honestly, if I wanted to kill everyone with barely the depression of a button, I would play Turok, and just grab the Cranial saw...
The range of the sword needs to be reduced, the rate of attack "slashed", the dash attack diminished or done away with entirely (or made unable to initiate while in mid-air), have a limited use as in Camp Pain, and it should glow like a mother-trucker. Perhaps even make it so you can't hold anything else while you have it. I don't know what do to precisely, but even with it's "superweapon" status, it should not trump every other weapon in the game. At the least, I would think the shotgun should have a farther effective range than the sword does (the "shoot him while he's dashing at you" trick isn't so effective with any sort of lag in the game); even put solid slugs in it if you need to.
Covenant Weapons, specifically the old ones reborn in the new game need some serious adjustment, to say nothing of the poor, cloudy aesthetics of most plasma-based weapons (gone is the feeling of burning hot molten fluid, replaced instead by a weak, gaseous emission). The range of the rifle has been increased and can be fired longer without overheating. This is good. In contrast to this, the plasma pistol has been downgraded to "accessory" status. Rate of fire is poor, overheating happens far too fast, and damage inflicted is laughable. Why these changes were made to downgrade an already difficult to use weapon (but one that could still be used by someone practiced enough) is unknown. To rub salt in the wound, the beta images and promises depicting the Needler as a weapon to be reckoned with have proven utterly false. Again, why the Needler has been made so enticing and powerful before the release of both Halo 1 and Halo 2, only to be turned from a weapon into the butt of jokes upon release, is a mystery indeed. Sephlock's post on the subject says it all, answering many of the flawed justifications for its existence and pointing out its shortcomings much more comprehensively than I could hope to here.
Though the weapons are supposed to be more balanced than in the first, they invariably end up feeling rather impotent and bland, and the weapons that most teams scramble over each other to get at are the sword and the rocket launcher, leaving those unequipped or unwilling to use them with no truly effective countermeasure (ie. a powerful, universally distributed mid-range rifle, etc.).
Feel and Consequences
I must admit, that all things considered, these changes are some of the least pleasant, but also the most numinous and difficult to nail down (as noted in the section earlier). The pace has undoubtedly been quickened. Campaign seems to lack many of the pensive, clandestine sections and well designed confrontations so treasured in the first, replaced instead with a more aggressive, hopped up style of "don't stop firing" shoot-em-up. Multiplayer often seems frantic, due in no small part to the inability to get the drop on and dispatch an opponent without taking a huge amount of damage yourself (a mutually destructive fire fight almost inevitably ensues), the rapid fire melees, and their decreased range. By enabling melee attacks to be used in such quick succession a great deal of the intricacy and deliberation of the "stand off dance" has been removed. Flailing is now possible and indeed condoned, in stark contrast to the first game with melee damage that was varied and based on the speed of the player, which rewarded precise timing; if you missed with the first melee, you were lucky to get in a second. By having a smaller range, most melee encounters end up feeling just plain chaotic. By bringing you closer to the action with a dash, you now have a narrower view of what is going on, resulting in general confusion and more blind swinging. The dash is a interesting feature, but it seems to be nothing more than a compensation for the shortened melee range; a factor that incidentally defies physics as it pulls you racing through the air and often ends up yanking you in odd directions and off ledges when you'd really rather not. I'm a little puzzled why the range was not merely left as it was.
Also leaving us scratching our heads, it's an unfortunate fact that basic consequences, large portions of gameplay deliberation, and a number of distinct forms of feedback have been removed. Most of these appear to have stemmed from an apparent desire (or need) to simplify gameplay and decrease the learning curve. The new shield system for instance continues to have an underlying health or armour section, but with the removal of health packs, this portion of the player's stamina is not displayed on the HUD. What this translates to over the course of a game is a frustrating inability to monitor exactly how much damage you can take before going down. In a given circumstance in H1, no shield but blue health was a sign I could tempt fate for a few moments more, either to finish off another foe or risk heading around the next corner. Yellow was doable, but red was a sign to hold up and let them recharge (or to make a brave last stand). H2 sees players either scurrying for cover with every sweep, bleep, or creep from their shield meter or just disregarding it entirely in the midst of combat due to its unreliability. While we are pleased to find that health is health, and once gone is irrecoverable, this merely leads us again to wonder why it is not displayed. Even the shield meter itself, with its rather bulbous, compact shape, is difficult to read on the fly; better to have the longer, more linear read-out of H1 or the early H2 betas.
The removal of fall damage, and the need to precisely time the impact's absorption with a well placed crouch, also hamper the strategic feel of the game. No need to worry about being precariously balanced on a ledge, messing up your footwork during a gun fight, and giving the kill to your antagonist upon dying from the fall; you can't die at all that way. The higher leaping distance has also revived the odd practice of jumping to dodge enemy fire, something I hadn't seen in a long time. All in all, things are twitchier, there are less consequences, and play ends up feeling less deliberate. There seem to be fewer variables to take into account and fewer nuances to master in order to truly excel at the game. What I'm trying to say without using the tired cliche, is that things feel dumbed down, more generic, and less specific, as though someone felt that the level of detail in the first game would scare off newcomers to the second. On the contrary, that detail was instrumental in establishing the lasting presence of H1, and even an increase in these "simple complexities" would have been welcomed and further established the Halo franchise's groundbreaking status. One of the first comments made by a trusted observer likened H2 to Quake, and while H2 has come nowhere close to scraping the bottom of the "quad turbo fragalicous" barrel, the comment holds some truth.
Draw-In
Halo 2 is the most phenomenal display of graphical horsepower I have ever witnessed this side of a workstation. What it appears to lack, however, is prowess. During cinematics and gameplay alike, the player is greeted at almost every room entry, quick turn, or camera change with simple coloured blocks,mossy green or ocean blue figures, that are quickly gone over with another level of texture and detail to bring them up to par, as though "the gnomes" had been slacking in their efforts to create the world ahead of you. Peripheral vision shows a brown box; turning towards it shows a shaded crate; looking away slightly replaces it with the same flat placeholder. While some of the things that have changed in-game are a matter of preference and will merely take some time to get used to, this is unacceptable. While H2 is obviously pushing the console to its very limits, its overstepping of those same bounds is an endless distraction during heated battles and moving sequences, lending a certain "beta" feel to the game. According to a recent Q&A session at Bungie.net, this is just "part of the small price you pay for no load times". Hmm. To the chagrin of many fans, H1 was reined in at 30fps instead of 60; a choice made to ensure consistent, seamless operation. I believe I am not alone in saying that I would rather have been treated to less glimmer, if only to eliminate the aforementioned problem.
Another item: With a casual walkabout the improved graphics, textures, and lighting are beautiful to behold. However during combat, or with the screen split between 2-4 players, the added detail and plethora of shadowed nooks and crannies end up making the game feel, for lack of a better word, grungy. Their is a distinct lack of contrast between the various walls and pillars, often making you feel as though you are fighting deep in the heart of some lost M.C. Escher landscape, and when you are trying to determine basic things like depth perception, that isn't a good thing. H1 textures may have been simpler, but it helped to clarify objectives and scenery during the intensity of a heated battle. You could tell the difference between an enemy, a staircase, and a flickering bush at range with relative ease.
The "Teaser" Cinematic Redux
A somewhat clever revision of the idea first used in the H2 Announcement video, this one segment could not suspend our collective disbeliefs with a crane. It is neat how the Covenant would stay out of range and use personnel planted charges to destroy guns to clear a path to Earth. It is cool that the Master Chief would launch it out a hanger at another ship. It is NOT cool however that John would risk his life to hang onto it (or that the Admiralty would allow him to), fly through space unguided, narrowly avoid both Covenant attack and flaming UNSC debris, enter a hole in the hull almost coincidentally made by Longsword bombers moment before, arm a bomb, jump back out the hole, survive, and somehow have the proper trajectory to land on Miranda's ship... all in order to destroy one ship out of who knows how many that as far as the viewer is concerned has no specific tactical importance. Joe, you do great work (the rest of the game is a testament to that), but this scene gets the thumbs down :(
User Interface
Dave, I'm sorry, but to call the menu experience in Halo 'smooth' would require more redefinition and semantic gymnastics then I care to engage in. The awkwardness of continually signing in and out, reassigning party leaders when all you're trying to do is back out of a system link lobby, having to sign a player out of LIVE to leave a game lobby, not playing in the same corner of the screen you select your character in... So many things in the UI are done right, explained thoroughly, and look wonderful, but just as many feel as though they were slowly implemented by the same people creating the game who knew what to expect and had used the previous iterations leading up to this final version. In essence, it does not seem as intuitive as it could be.
To our disappointment, it honestly doesn't feel as though much care was put into the basic Heads Up Display and game status feedback features as well. While it is beneficial to see how many grenades are available at any given moment, and be able to see the ammo for either dual-wielded weapon at a glance, many of the other aspects are less utilitarian. The HUD suffers from what can simply be described as clutter. The unremovable radar, the lower right corner game progress bars, the rather bulbous, inaccurate shield bar (with no health meter), and the 3 lines of centered, bold text (the same text in Halo 1 is more transparent) informing you of everyone and their dog's kills really plug things up. Trying to play system link with 4 to a screen is almost impossible with this same amount of on-screen info. The ever booming "Voice of God", while simultaneously nostalgic and authoritative, tends to get a little too excited. Close games can become very annoying, very quickly as you are constantly being informed that you have "Lost the Lead, Gained the Lead, Lost th-Gained the Lead". As Shovelface blurted out during a particularly aggravating game, all those voices and text "should be written down, put in a memo, and entitled 'Shit I Don't Care About'". With the veritable essay scrolling across your screen notifying you of the game's progress, we figured Halo 3 should just forgo the 3D models and revolutionize the bleeding edge genre of Text Based Shooter: "Kill Finn... Enter. You cannot kill Finn." And you just have to sit and wonder, why you can't kill Finn... Honestly, an option in your profile to adjust which HUD options and voice announcements you'd like to see/hear, or even a few different HUD variations to choose from (of which some could show your health), would be gratefully received. We appreciate the notifications of the flag being away and of the combat status of one's teammates, but still find the entire experience to be somewhat overwhelming/overbearing.
And if only the tutorial messages weren't displayed in the dead center of your screen. While being shot at, I've got more important things on my mind than being told how to play with the flashlight or flip a banshee...
Reasonable Difficulty
H1 Legendary was hard, and if you happened to sit down and get the '2 Red Eites' enemy set up instead of the 'Red and a Blue' at the beginning of Assault on the Control Room, you were in for the long haul. However difficult though, it was challenging and fun. Very few, if any, encounters in H1 left you feeling as though you were beating your head against a wall. Each failure merely showed you something you could have done better, some new variable you could take into account the next time through. This philosophy was not kept up in H2, and seems to have been replaced with the single goal of making H2 Legendary especially impossible, as though H1 Legendary players had to be put in there place somehow. This was quickly made plain upon encountering sniper rifle wielding Jackals for the first time on Legendary. Don't get us wrong, we like hard. But getting your sinuses cleaned out by a single beam rifle pulse with 100% accuracy, shot from the hip by a Jackal in mid-run or just coming to a stop is not hard: it is silly. Situations including them can no longer be enjoyed or worked out on the fly, but instead must be carefully memorized and sequenced so that with enough memorization, and a little luck, you can take them out before they perforate your shiny new helmet. And as if to add insult to injury, it doesn't much bolster your will to spend 2-4 of those same shots downing a light-armoured Jackal or Grunt. Increasing difficulty does little more than bolster enemies with unprecedented levels of stamina and enable them to crush yours with unparalleled ease, far more so than in H1. These, and other unbalanced facets (Elites taking a beating from the energy sword only to dispatch you with a single melee with their Plasma Rifle), have essentially removed the desire to play the game by default on Legendary, as was so willingly done in the first.
Glitches
What can I say, the game seems unusually glitchy, whether its an enemy's hands sticking through a barricade, a Flood form just standing and checking you out for minutes on end, or an enemy hooked up on a wall or box in full gallop like he's trying to burn Christmas calories. And while we can't say for sure if it is a glitch, forcing your way past a group of enemies will most times find them just letting you go with no attempt to pursue you whatsoever. These and several other quirks contribute once again to the beta version feel of the game.
Bosses
Most notable quote during play so far: "If I wanted to play Metal Gear Solid, I'd have bought a Playstation." He he.
Levels and Encounters
As noted in the "Feel" section earlier, one of the most sweeping yet elusive changes is the overall flow of the campaign mode. A complaint frequently lodged against the first game (that I have never really understood) was that it suffered from too many duplicate textures and rehashed levels. Though I would have to imagine what this problem felt like in the first, I now truly feel it in the sequel. Many of the levels, such as the sections as the Chief on Delta Halo, the Arbiter finding your way to the Index, and again as the Chief on High Charity exemplify this. These levels are long. And what is more interesting is that these adventures are not one level per location, but 2 to 3 levels strung together in a row. This makes these sections seem stretched, anticlimactic, and by game's end leaves you feeling like the entire experience was made up of only 2-4 huge landscapes, rather than the 10+ levels you supposedly just played through. The varied aspects of the terrain over the course of the Arbiter's journey to the Library would be great in a level the size of, say, Assault on the Control Room. But when thinned out over 2+ levels it gets a little repetitive. Given the complaints regarding the game's conclusion, it also fosters the question of why the high points of these few macro-levels were not condensed into slightly smaller areas, and why more focus was not in turn placed on generating entirely new fields of combat. (One additional level that immediately comes to mind is the possibility of the Master Chief boarding Regret's ship on Earth, allowing for a neat espionage or information gathering level, and giving a more concrete reason for the Amber Clad to follow the Covenant ship out.)
Ironically, the removal of the between level loading times and the new flow from one level to the next without moving to a different location really detracts from the game's enjoyment. H1 saw many varied locales with often undetermined events and times in between them. While I very much applaud the tight story telling of H2, the lack of a breather between sections and the removal of definite goals and objectives to be concretely completed during each level ends up drawing out the experience too much and eliminates a distinct feel of accomplishment at a level's conclusion.
Also, in spite of these gargantuan uber-levels, gameplay feels more linear then ever before, almost as though we are crammed into mural painted hallways. Many of the large open areas of the first game let you see where to go, but offered several paths on how to get there. Now, it seems things are tightly controlled and any straying from the path is quickly curbed by an abundance of invisible walls and barriers. Wanton exploration is also nipped in the bud with strange die-instantly textures, etc. Most often you can fall as far as you'd like, but on many campaign levels, and even multiplayer maps such as Headlong, a six foot drop into the water will be your doom. Odd.
narcogen of rampancy.net has also posted an excellent series continuing the critique of Halo 2's levels.
Tyson, you're a good guy and we thought you were beat up a little too much over the original Library, but we're somewhat bewildered about H2's missions as a whole.
Not built or tested with Co-op play in mind
One of the most looked forward to features of Halo 2 was the possibility of system link, full screen cooperative play. We mourn its loss, but hey, no hard feelings; we realize what a tremendous coding tangent it would have turned into. However, given the immense popularity of coop in the the first Halo, we did expect coop to run as well or better in H2. We were sad to find we were mistaken. On three accounts we were very disappointed. First, if one player manages to get ahead of the current battle and wind his way through the level, he almost invariably finds no enemies to confront him; he has a straight shot to the level's end. Second, several load points (where one player is quickly teleported up to meet the other player) were noted in very inconvenient locations, ie. in the middle of combat. Fourth, the aforementioned draw-in is often in full effect with two players running amuck, a perfect example being your Banshee flight escorting the Scarab on the level High Charity. As one player gets out at the Control Room the other player not far behind is instantly rewarded with an exterior stripped of detail; the Scarab all but skinned, leaving only a grey skeletal remnant. These, combined with the difficulty issues mentioned earlier, have essentially killed the joy we once reveled in while working together to quell the alien hordes.
The "Ran Out of Time" Card
Perhaps Eliza Doolittle said it best:
"Words, word, words I'm so sick of words
I get words all day through
First from them, now from you..."
The Way has always been "It will be done when it's done." Knowing that the nigh perfect Halo 1 was completed in a scant 6 months (remade from the ground up for the Xbox console following the purchase by Microsoft), we waited for Halo 2 with sweaty, writhing hands. After all, there was precious little to fix, nay, only minor tweaks were necessary. When they were finished with it, we would have the uber game. And so, after over 2 years and several rumoured release date push-backs, the November 9th, 2004 announcement was a sign that Bungie was giving themselves all the time in the world; far more than they would ever need. Only when the game was played through and the smiles turned to portraits of confusion, was the bonus DVD thrown in and our worst fears confirmed. Echoed over and over again was the cliched eulogy "if only we had had more time."
Things get cut, this is the sad fact. But when not only weapons (the flamethrower), vehicles (the ATV and Kestrel), enemies (Flood 'Juggernaut', Drinnol Beast, Engineers, etc.), levels, AI (Marines flipping tables to make cover, etc.), saved films, system link co-op, game types, and features (lurking in the shadows, destructible environments rather than destructible accessories, the use of the large Covenant turrets seen in Mombasa, enemies hunting you with flashlights, peaking around corners, dashing, melee combos, etc.) are cut, but the entire conclusion to the game is left on the floor (or in the slow cooker for later release) all the while being told otherwise by the media, the snippets of released info, and by Bungie themselves, there is some cause for concern.
Now, we have recently been treated to many endearing adages concerning the perils of the high-stakes world of game development, as our brother Randall has so accurately documented. Many people have also brushed aside the shortcomings of H2 by asking critics to be realistic: all games ship with bugs, deadlines have to be met, why would H2 be any different? Well, quite simply, because we were told that it would be. Not once, not twice, but innumerable times. The very fabric of Halo 2's presentation to the community was one of flawless precision and tireless experimentation, perfect balances and surpassed expectations, all tied in the bow that, never fear, it will be released only in the absolute fullness of time. Never did we suspect, and never would we have been as blindly optimistic, if we had known of the mere 10 months that the game was actually formed in.
"Don't talk of spring,
Don't talk of fall,
Don't talk at all, show me!"
Had it been released in the context of Halo 1, ie. if it could be played with the knowledge that it was put together in only 6 months (as a result of some traumatic buy-out/office transplant), it would be extremely impressive. If I had been shown this game during a private beta screening in early spring 2004 and assured that tweaks and fixes were yet to be made, I would be in awe of it. But as it stands the game is unfulfilling, not leaving you an artistic cliffhanger or with a feeling of curious suspense, but rather of disappointment and irresolution; the game is obviously not finished, and while the ending was "intentional" (as though someone was accusing it of being "accidental"), it remains unfinished, both in its entirety and in detail, by their own admission.
Yes, there is certainly the possibility of a third installment, or even a 2.5, but this is hardly consoling; I have already spent my money, and have little desire to spend another bundle to merely get what was originally promised. It is the principle of the thing. As one forum member commented not too long ago, if either of these rumoured, more completed installments of the game occur on the ever encroaching, non-backwards compatible Xbox 2/Next/whatever, Halo 2 will be remembered not as a groundbreaking title, but as one of the most profitable advertisements and market placeholders in the history of entertainment.
This game was preordered by hundreds of thousands of original Bungie (and Halo) fans, and hundreds of thousands of converts more, in the good faith that it would be at the very least a completed game. I would say that the single greatest frustration of the sequel is this injustice.
So what do we like about it?
Conclusions
Even our own re-readings of this article leave us wondering if we've been a tad too hostile. Perhaps we have; please use salt liberally when needed. But I believe in this case it may be better to come out a little strong and ease back as necessary, rather than initially toe the line and later lament when our voices have not been heard. We would not criticize so harshly if we did not care so very much about it.
So here we are, with a still incomplete list of our grievances and approvals, left wondering what to do. Are we still Bungie fans? Yes indeed. Even though much of our faith in their god-like prowess has been summarily checked, we applaud their total efforts thus far and are curious what they will bring to the table next. Now that the fan base has grown and diversified exponentially, and there are probably more people who like Halo 2 as it is now, will this article do any good? We're not really sure. We do know one thing though: while Halo 2 has expanded the worldwide electronic entertainment base substantially, we have locally witnessed its recession. Many of the casual players we saw drawn to H1 have just as quickly turned their heads from Halo 2 in disappointment. They, and we alike, while entranced by the groundbreaking aspects of H1, were not looking for more broken ground in the second; new features and dynamics are great, but not when they compromise the core aspects of a title, or distract the player from taking in the story itself. Seconds, not a new restaurant. Call us old fashioned, but we just wanted more of the same.
And like the 24 hour restaurant that's good 'cuz its open, LIVE play remains fun 'cuz its there. We'll keep in touch, we'll be around, and we'll be online. But when Halo 3, Halo 2.5, or the next Microsoft console hit the market, don't look for us at the electronics store on release day. Instead, try waiting a month or so and swing by the local pawn shop. Hmm... A used game and 3 CD's for $40... you can't beat that with an energy sword.
(Refinements and addenda to the above can be found here.)
