Second Opinion: The Great Green Hype of Halo 2
- November 12, 2004 15:37 PM PST
- Email this!
Paris Hilton-sized media gawking for a game that's not much better than most PC shooters.
Prior to the November 9 launch of Halo 2, many media outlets were calling it "the most highly anticipated shooter of all time." I'd venture to say it's the most over-hyped shooter of all time--a fun shooter that breaks as many boundaries as Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer do for films.A Poor Man's PC Shooter
The main reason why the series gets so much praise is that as a first-person shooter it works extremely well for a console game--a testament more to the Xbox's excellent controller than the game itself. The PlayStation 2 seems to have an irritating dead zone that either has you swinging your gun wildly in the air or not budge at all (a shame considering Killzone had a lot of potential). The GameCube controller doesn't fare much better either.
How can I make such blasphemous allegations? Look at the first Halo, which also received a shower of praise and accolades that marketing departments dream of--but when it was released on PC, what happened? Paradigms didn't shift, the earth didn't change its axis of rotation--and wow, people didn't care half as much as when the console version launched. One-handed applause erupted across the PC industry.
While it did have niggling bugs and was prone to bad frame rates on mid-range rigs, its introduction to real competition on PC revealed the true issues of the game--a single player mode that was masochistically monotonous, and multiplayer that offered only a standard array of modes.
Halo only succeeded so well because real competition wasn't out there on consoles, and couldn't, since two thirds of the consoles didn't have controllers that best suited first-person shooters. However, when entering the PC market, it no longer had that competitive luxury, and was scrutinized for being the unremarkable game it is.
Has Issues ...But the Greatest Game Evar
Halo 2 was an improvement but a lot of the shortcomings were still brought over. The single player experience improved but was still repetitive, team A.I. was shady at times, and the story was something out of a B-rated sci-fi movie script. Although multiplayer is addictively fun, the absence of a co-op multiplayer is painful and feels like interest in the game will fizzle over time. High points are the weapons, which have been tweaked and balanced extremely well (the Needler's no longer a nerf gun)--the energy blade that's oh-so-satisfying to use on unsuspecting players.
The greatest mystery for Halo 2 is why people list a litany of issues, yet then give it an ultra-high score. You read paragraph after paragraph of things that could be better and still get a score showing it's a masterpiece rivaling Picasso. An interesting exercise when you're bored: read a review, think of a review score based on the body of the text, then compare to the actual score.
For many, I've tread on holy ground--much like criticizing a Tarantino flick (and admit it aficionados, Jackie Brown was boring). But the fact is Halo 2 doesn't do anything better than what's already been around--if you have a PC, for great story pick up System Shock 2; for great levels and A.I. pick up Half-Life; for "emergent" gameplay Deus Ex; for great multiplayer Team Fortress, UT 2004, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Battlefield 1942 (Desert Combat). Heck, for consoles pick up Golden Eye on N64 for great single-player. My point is there's simply better out there.
And before you zealously send hate mail my way, let me say that I do like the game and have lots of fun playing it. However, it's just not worthy of the hype.
What would I give Halo 2? I'd give it a high score--but not perfect. A 4.5 just for the sheer fun of the game, but possibly downgraded to a 4.0 over time as the game might not age very well--not to mention possibly overshadowed by Half-Life 2.
