Gaming Halo 2

[natetron46]

Yeah, I really doubt that you can stretch that much room with just one sword slash. They have a pretty impressive range and stuff, but come on, nothing like that. That seems like a lie to me, I dont know you would be your life on that...

[Zeta]

Well then. I have just recently finished the game and would like to finish up my thoughts viewed in my other post.

The game did redeem itself a little as you progressed. But not enough for me to be a die hard fan of it. The cutscenes seemed to be much smoother near the end, and were much more cool than early ones. The gameplay itself remained the same, but I enjoyed getting a few different guns as I got farther into the game. The story line was a little of the [i]blah[/i], meaning it was all right, but not extremely good.I especially thought it was cool that [spoiler] Halo was actually activated. I also enjoyed finally being able to find out what happened to the Foreunner, was one of the mysteries that plagued meh.[/spoiler]

I [i]have[/i] to go back and play the game again. I had lots of trouble hearing what that [spoiler] big thing that took MC down through the water, as well as the one who took the Arbiter[/spoiler] was saying at its parts. I would very much like to know. It could be the deciding factor that causes me to raise my rating.

So overall if I had to rate it from 1-10, I would give it an 7.5.

[Charles]

[quote name='Siren']Also, the fact remains that Halo's story is a B-movie, Halo's AI is tired and monotonous, Halo's action can be found in virtually every single FPS known to man, and Halo's only saving grace is tight controls that are only tight because of the Xbox controller being very well-suited to FPS. Does this mean it's a bad game? No. It means it's average.[/quote]I find myself in agreement with your assessment of Halo--to an extent. In that it's not the end-all, be-all of games.

The mythos of Halo has never been intriguing to me. In all fairness, the storytelling and narrative were improved substantially in Halo 2; the introduction scenes are particularly nice and really set the mood. Their direction showed promise. However, given the time allotted to development, I feel that Bungie could have produced much better cut scenes (and scripting for that matter) on the whole.

My problem is that the cinematics themselves are not consistent in quality throughout. As the game winds down there's a collapse of sorts in the storytelling. The end result is far less than satisfying. The ending, for example, is the worst seen in a video game since the otherwise fantastic PSX Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. The narrative seemed almost non-existent in Bungie's last outing, so I came into Halo 2 welcoming their attempt to flesh out the plot. I walked away almost wishing they hadn't because I now firmly believe that the ability to tell a fantastic story isn't one of Bungie's strongest suits. Hopefully the next game will be less convoluted, focus more on Master Chief acting like a badass, less on humanizing the Covenant, and just deliver a finale that ties everything up. If they can deliver in those areas, everything will be fine.

When we talk about the product for the sum total of its parts--I'm still far from being the president of the Halo fan club. Compared to the best titles that have been and will be released during this generation of consoles--the classics that will be talked about and emulated for years by other developers--Halo 2 is indeed above average. Just not by much. It finds greatness to some extent--but it really only falls somewhere in the middle of the pack compared to some of the truly influential software that's been released in the span of the last five years. Referring solely to console first person shooters released this generation, it's easily head and shoulders above anything else released. With the copious development time Halo 2 received, it in fact should be better than what it is. Just because it isn't doesn't make it average though. It's still great--just not what I would refer to as an instant classic or "the best game ever" as people anticipated it would be for some unfathomable reason.

Anyhow, let's again review a key statement you made here Alex that I also quoted above.
[quote]Halo's action can be found in virtually every single FPS known to man.[/quote]Absolutely. It [b][i]can[/b][/i] be. Is should be. There's no reason why other console first-person shooters shouldn't nail the fundamentals the way the Halo series does. But they don't. That's why it's necessary to prop Halo up on a pedestal. Bungie has managed to deliver on the basics, which are not only the most important part of the game, but also the most difficult to perfect. That's why I feel that you're undercutting the talent of the developers big-time by attributing the tight, responsive, and precise control scheme to the Xbox controller. Although the Xbox control pad is suited particularly well to first person shooters, it's obviously not responsible for the programming skill that went into utilizing it properly.

Just look at a game like Goldeneye: Rogue Agent; it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Despite its attempt to copycat Halo's style of gameplay, it doesn't play even [i]nearly[/i] as well. The Xbox version uses the same control pad obviously and it was published by a juggernaut, yet the controls fail to be as responsive. Try as they did to duplicate the style, they couldn't do the same with the performance. I could probably list a half dozen or more first-person shooters that control awfully despite the Xbox control pad too. Goldeneye: Rogue Agent just stands out in particular since it puts itself into a position where it must be compared to Halo. It's that comparison that shows the distinct difference of skill between the developers. So, try not to ignore the craftsmanship involved behind making the Halo games play as well as they do.

I also don't believe the AI is all[i] that[/i] bad considering the genre and what the competition's been able to produce. Of course, Halo's antagonists aren't the pinnacle of AI in video games, but both the friendly AI and the computer AI are solid. Not only that, but the AI is again superior to anything else found in this generation of console first-person shooters. That's quite an accomplishment considering how unbelievably terrible AI can be in these games. The illusion of fighting real enemies is there.

But, overall, the single player campaign is under whelming. I'm not a fan of the repetitive level design, narrative or the short length. If Halo 2 didn't have its multiplayer component attached to it, the game would be strictly rental material. However, and this is a big "however," the online mode definitely gives it legs to stand on. It along with the terrific fundamental gameplay aspects manage to carry it to whatever greatness I'm willing to attribute to it. It really makes use of the Xbox Live features to their fullest and is a showcase for the service. When compared to PC games of the same genre it's nothing special. Something like Unreal Tournament 2004 trumps it easily. But, as far as consoles go, you won't find better, widely appealing online multiplayer in a first person shooter or anything that manages to come remotely close.

[natetron46]

Ill agree with Charles last point. The multiplayer is what gives Halo the power the survive. The single player campaign is a pretty worn out one, but it is done very well. The story is a decent movie plot but it is good for what it is. Halo 2 did a very good job on presenting the story, tenfold better than the first game. The multiplayer is the best done since goldeneye though, hands down (console wise) and that is what gives the game replayability and depth and the buying power.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Charles']The mythos of Halo has never been intriguing to me. In all fairness, the storytelling and narrative were improved substantially in Halo 2; the introduction scenes are particularly nice and really set the mood. Their direction showed promise. However, given the time allotted to development, I feel that Bungie could have produced much better cut scenes (and scripting for that matter) on the whole.[/quote]
I find that it falls into some of the same pitfalls that The Matrix did: relying too heavily on obvious names and religious imagery, and not developing [i]original[/i] characters, instead trying to piggyback, as it were, on a pre-existing idea and mythos. The Flood, for example, The Arc, the Prophets, Spartans...the title of the franchise, HALO.

Not to plug myself, but I find it similar to my Moby Dick/Matrix comparison. I had to dig pretty deep in the films to see connections like that, and there were some fairly subtle ways of linking the two works together that the films do not slap us in the face with, and it's more rewarding on the part of the viewer/gamer, I think, to not have characterizations so painfully obvious (The Flood and Neo...prime examples there).

I understand that sometimes, you can't be subtle in writing--hell, Faulkner's response to the criticisms of the obviousness of Joe Christmas' initials, JC, and how Joe is really a Christ figure, was something along the lines of "Hey, you have to be blunt sometimes."

But even then, I don't think that's an excuse for what is just sloppy writing and planning, like we see in Halo 2.

[QUOTE]My problem is that the cinematics themselves are not consistent in quality throughout. As the game winds down there's a collapse of sorts in the storytelling. The end result is far less than satisfying. The ending, for example, is the worst seen in a video game since the otherwise fantastic PSX Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. The narrative seemed almost non-existent in Bungie's last outing, so I came into Halo 2 welcoming their attempt to flesh out the plot. I walked away almost wishing they hadn't because I now firmly believe that the ability to tell a fantastic story isn't one of Bungie's strongest suits. Hopefully the next game will be less convoluted, focus more on Master Chief acting like a badass, less on humanizing the Covenant, and just deliver a finale that ties everything up. If they can deliver in those areas, everything will be fine.[/QUOTE]
I think where the plot turned sour for me (well, apart from the [i]boring[/i] Marines defending Earth rehash) was the cinematic with the Arbiter, MC, and the huge underwater beast. We are told exactly what the new threat is through pure exposition.

We've both taken writing classes (actually, both with Denise Gess), and I'm sure we've both heard "Show don't tell" pretty consistently. That underwater cutscene felt forced and showed an extreme lack of originality, I think, because instead of exploring the plot, we're fed the plot. We're not shown; we're told.

I think that criticism has extra weight regarding Halo 2, because when they write a screenplay for the game, I like to think the screenwriting rules apply, the golden rule being "Show don't Tell."

I somewhat echo your criticisms of the "split" gameplay. The game felt schizophrenic at times, because for the majority of it, it felt like we were constantly switching back and forth between Arbiter and MC after each level, and I never really connected with either character because of that. Often, the only way I could tell who I was playing as was either through watching the cinematics, or by watching to see if Covenant soldiers were attacking me.

With that said, however, I appreciated the Covenant narrative thread. They're no longer seeming like just some antagonistic, anonymous, alien race. It's not humanizing them, necessarily, but it is at least going into their culture and structure, to show that there is an organization there that is much more developed than just mindless drones on a planet's surface.

I feel that the Marines defending Earth plot paled in comparison to the Internal Jihad/Civil War of the Covenant scenes, if only because the Marines plot has been done so many times before and it's gotten to the point where gamers can say, "Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. Alien invasion, ships hovering overhead, blast them out of the sky, defend Earth." Rarely do we get to see an alien government split from within.

[QUOTE]When we talk about the product for the sum total of its parts--I'm still far from being the president of the Halo fan club. Compared to the best titles that have been and will be released during this generation of consoles--the classics that will be talked about and emulated for years by other developers--Halo 2 is indeed above average. Just not by much. It finds greatness to some extent--but it really only falls somewhere in the middle of the pack compared to some of the truly influential software that's been released in the span of the last five years. Referring solely to console first person shooters released this generation, it's easily head and shoulders above anything else released. With the copious development time Halo 2 received, it in fact should be better than what it is. Just because it isn't doesn't make it average though. It's still great--just not what I would refer to as an instant classic or "the best game ever" as people anticipated it would be for some unfathomable reason.[/QUOTE]
I'd think it's safe to say, though, that Halo 2 is really just more of the same, albeit with a sharper presentation and a few new gameplay tweaks (the vehicle highjacking, for example). It's done well, yes, but what it is isn't "new" in the sense of developing new styles and approaches to gameplay, and offering new gameplay types, like what TimeSplitters: Future Perfect is shaping up to be. Basically, Halo 2 is just the solid combat FPS that serves up the basics and nothing more...it's a ham and cheese omelet, but a tasty ham and cheese omelet.

[QUOTE]Anyhow, let's again review a key statement you made here Alex that I also quoted above.

Absolutely. It can be. Is should be. There's no reason why other console first-person shooters shouldn't nail the fundamentals the way the Halo series does. But they don't. That's why it's necessary to prop Halo up on a pedestal. Bungie has managed to deliver on the basics, which are not only the most important part of the game, but also the most difficult to perfect. That's why I feel that you're undercutting the talent of the developers big-time by attributing the tight, responsive, and precise control scheme to the Xbox controller. Although the Xbox control pad is suited particularly well to first person shooters, it's obviously not responsible for the programming skill that went into utilizing it properly.

Just look at a game like Goldeneye: Rogue Agent; it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Despite its attempt to copycat Halo's style of gameplay, it doesn't play even nearly as well. The Xbox version uses the same control pad obviously and it was published by a juggernaut, yet the controls fail to be as responsive. Try as they did to duplicate the style, they couldn't do the same with the performance. I could probably list a half dozen or more first-person shooters that control awfully despite the Xbox control pad too. Goldeneye: Rogue Agent just stands out in particular since it puts itself into a position where it must be compared to Halo. It's that comparison that shows the distinct difference of skill between the developers. So, try not to ignore the craftsmanship involved behind making the Halo games play as well as they do.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you quite understood what I meant when I said "action." I was referring to the situational gameplay--the run n gun, as it were, the lack of real variation in what different types of gameplay we were given. Craftmanship didn't factor in to what I was talking about. Halo/2's action (the situations and gameplay types) can be found everywhere.

From a technical execution standpoint, well, yes; Halo 2 stands alone, more or less. There's very little frame-dropping. Character models are mostly very nice, apart from the occasional "bleh" texturing or animation hiccup.

But regarding the controls, if you were to port Halo 2 to PS2, for example, or Cube, it's not going to work, no matter how perfect the game turns out to be, because the PS2 and Cube controllers are not FPS controllers, especially Cube.

Neither controller feels sturdy (enough for FPS, that is). The PS2 buttons offer little clicky resistance I've found, and their initial responsiveness wears down fairly quickly. The C-stick on Cube is just not an aiming joystick--the reason that TimeSplitters 2 worked so well is largely due to the Custom Control scheme, and the L and R buttons aren't tailored for the shooting-intensive FPS.

Even though Rogue Agent's controls aren't [i]as[/i] tight as Halo 2's doesn't mean the game is unplayable, though. On Cube, Rogue Agent is far from unplayable; it just takes a bit longer to become comfortable with the game, due entirely to the nubby C-stick. It controls much, much better on Xbox, just because of the controller.

And I think accusing Rogue Agent of trying to copycat [i]Halo[/i]'s gameplay is a bit inaccurate, because the Dev Team at EA has been quoted in interviews saying that the reason they named it GoldenEye was to take the EA Bond FPS series, a series that has gotten progressively more and more unplayable with each new incarnation, back to a familiar style of gameplay made popular in GoldenEye 64, a gameplay that was successful because of a solid development by Rare and a controller that [i]was[/i] an FPS controller.

If there's one [i]intentional[/i] (and not based on consumer/reviewer response) similarity to Halo 2, it's the Dual Wielding system, I agree with that. But on that point, I think Rogue Agent trumps Halo 2, because the weapons able to be Dual-Wielded in RA are far more varied and the combinations are far more useful (an RCP-120 and a Remote Mine Gun are very effective, likewise a Shotgun/Venom Pistol and Venom Pistol/Remote Mine Gun) than a Plasma weapon (Pistol, Rifle) and a conventional weapon (SMG, Magnum).

The Dual Wielding system in Halo 2 is fairly limited in what the player can actually do with those weapons able to be Dual-Wielded, and I am aware of the Plasma Pistol's charge shot.

[QUOTE]I also don't believe the AI is all that bad considering the genre and what the competition's been able to produce. Of course, Halo's antagonists aren't the pinnacle of AI in video games, but both the friendly AI and the computer AI are solid. Not only that, but the AI is again superior to anything else found in this generation of console first-person shooters. That's quite an accomplishment considering how unbelievably terrible AI can be in these games. The illusion of fighting real enemies is there.[/QUOTE]
Based on how many times I've seen Marines run into an open space, only to be gunned down by Plasma blasts, Grunts and Elites mowed down by Heretic forces in a tight hallway because it seemingly didn't occur to them to not rush into a bottle-neck, strafing behind cover that's easily countered by the player strafing along the same direction and moving in, flanking maneuvers that amount to dead enemy soldiers when the player simply anticipates a maneuver that is so clearly announced, enemy snipers that don't adjust their position when the player clearly has a bead on their skulls, and painfully obvious "evasion" tactics when the nasties have vehicles...I just can't see solid AI there. Maybe I'm just outsmarting the AI, but I really don't think I'm [i]that[/i] smart, lol.

And oddly enough, I found Rogue Agent's AI to be more of a challenge than Halo 2's. I can't quite explain why, but I was thinking on my toes in RA, as opposed to my thought processes that consisted of "Okay, they're moving in that direction, so I'm going to be here" as I played through Halo 2.

[quote]But, overall, the single player campaign is under whelming. I'm not a fan of the repetitive level design, narrative or the short length. If Halo 2 didn't have its multiplayer component attached to it, the game would be strictly rental material. However, and this is a big "however," the online mode definitely gives it legs to stand on. It along with the terrific fundamental gameplay aspects manage to carry it to whatever greatness I'm willing to attribute to it. It really makes use of the Xbox Live features to their fullest and is a showcase for the service. When compared to PC games of the same genre it's nothing special. Something like Unreal Tournament 2004 trumps it easily. But, as far as consoles go, you won't find better, widely appealing online multiplayer in a first person shooter or anything that manages to come remotely close.[/QUOTE]
And the multiplayer (even offline 1 on 1) is really the only reason Halo 2 gets taken out of my desk drawer. The multiplayer is the game's singular strong point, that which gives it any replay value whatsoever. It's an example of the gamers making the game, not the game making itself.

[natetron46]

I completely agree with your last point. I played the campaign all the way through just so I could say that I have. It was tedious in the middle, it really was.At least it wasnt as long and tedious and the first one *cough library cough* I beat it just for bragging rights. Now the only reason I play it is for multiplayer fun.

The dual wielding was invented by golden eye. I do think you can get some good combos in Halo 2, but its still no match for an accurate person with a ranged weapon like a battle rifle.

[Charles]

[QUOTE=Siren]I find that it falls into some of the same pitfalls that The Matrix did: relying too heavily on obvious names and religious imagery, and not developing [i]original[/i] characters, instead trying to piggyback, as it were, on a pre-existing idea and mythos. The Flood, for example, The Arc, the Prophets, Spartans...the title of the franchise, HALO.

Not to plug myself, but I find it similar to my Moby Dick/Matrix comparison. I had to dig pretty deep in the films to see connections like that, and there were some fairly subtle ways of linking the two works together that the films do not slap us in the face with, and it's more rewarding on the part of the viewer/gamer, I think, to not have characterizations so painfully obvious (The Flood and Neo...prime examples there).

I understand that sometimes, you can't be subtle in writing--hell, Faulkner's response to the criticisms of the obviousness of Joe Christmas' initials, JC, and how Joe is really a Christ figure, was something along the lines of "Hey, you have to be blunt sometimes."

But even then, I don't think that's an excuse for what is just sloppy writing and planning, like we see in Halo 2.

I think where the plot turned sour for me (well, apart from the [i]boring[/i] Marines defending Earth rehash) was the cinematic with the Arbiter, MC, and the huge underwater beast. We are told exactly what the new threat is through pure exposition.

We've both taken writing classes (actually, both with Denise Gess), and I'm sure we've both heard "Show don't tell" pretty consistently. That underwater cut scene felt forced and showed an extreme lack of originality, I think, because instead of exploring the plot, we're fed the plot. We're not shown; we're told.

I think that criticism has extra weight regarding Halo 2, because when they write a screenplay for the game, I like to think the screenwriting rules apply, the golden rule being "Show don't Tell."[/quote]Yes, the "monument to their sins" parasite scene immediately springs to mind whenever I criticize the plot. It ruins the development of the Arbiter. Although Master Chief is a flat character whose encounter with this mysterious being has absolutely no bearing on his development, since there is in fact, there is no development to be had, the Arbiter at that point in the story is somewhat of an enigma. There's an opportunity to explore personal reflection and some kind of inward searching before he arrives at the truth. Instead, an oracle and a prophet just happen to be in the clutches of the beast also. They deliver their prophecies, the parasite then follows with its commentary, removing any semblance of mystique from the two views. It's as if Bungie suddenly grew lazy, and instead of developing the plot on a slow curve, took the easy way out and took several strides forward in only one scene.

Which directly ties into my other complaint regarding the scene. The meeting between Master Chief and The Arbiter could have been done much better, with plenty more build-up. It should have been more significant, with more verbal, and possibly physical exchange between the two over the course of [i]several[/i] encounters. I don't feel however, that we should have been bashed over the head with what was essentially plot summary.

But, as I said above, the introduction scenes showed promise--at least in terms of direction. I especially liked the quick transitions between witnessing the glory of those who found victory in war, and the Arbiter, who found shame. These cinematics were poignant as far as Halo goes and really set up the Arbiter nicely as a character to be developed. It's too bad Bungie stumbled through the rest of the game.

The stale plot, or boring plot, as you described it is admittedly so on some level but I don't think it's much of an issue in the context of a video game. Should I be walking into a movie theater, I definitely wouldn't want to see yet another story revolving around marines battling alien attackers to save mankind. When it comes to video games, and the genre we're talking about here, it's possible to get away with such an angle because up until Half-Life 2, Earth wasn't represented particularly well under these sorts of invasions. Halo 2 has always been billed as an attack on our world; I was excited to see how Bungie would handle this completely different kind of level design. There were a lot of great possibilities (think of the opening cinematics from Onimusha 3).

That turned out to be just wishful thinking unfortunately since they pulled a case of false advertising and only one measly level was set on Earth. [i]That[/i] is how we ended up with more of the same. You know, alien environments that looked all too familiar to those of us who had played the first game. Earth, I'd say, would have been a nice change. It would have impacted Bungie in the sense that it would have forced them to change the style of Halo significantly. Just think--how many barren fields would we have had to navigate through with the Earth setting? There would have been streets teeming with chaos. It would have been an ambitious route to take and it's also probably why they backed out of the idea (despite still falsely advertising to the contrary).

[quote]I somewhat echo your criticisms of the "split" gameplay. The game felt schizophrenic at times, because for the majority of it, it felt like we were constantly switching back and forth between Arbiter and MC after each level, and I never really connected with either character because of that. Often, the only way I could tell who I was playing as was either through watching the cinematics, or by watching to see if Covenant soldiers were attacking me.[/quote]Exactly. There wasn't enough diversity between the two characters other than Master Chief's ability to use a flash light and Arbiter's cloaking skill. Some variation between jumping, speed, and strength would have been nice at the very least. At its best, the gameplay for both characters would have been completely different, with the Arbiter's levels built up as sneaking missions since he's obviously not a walking tank like Master Chief. There are traces of that idea with the cloaking ability, but it's never developed. The level designs or physical abilities of The Arbiter don't reflect the stealth style either.

[quote]With that said, however, I appreciated the Covenant narrative thread. They're no longer seeming like just some antagonistic, anonymous, alien race. It's not humanizing them, necessarily, but it is at least going into their culture and structure, to show that there is an organization there that is much more developed than just mindless drones on a planet's surface.

I feel that the Marines defending Earth plot paled in comparison to the Internal Jihad/Civil War of the Covenant scenes, if only because the Marines plot has been done so many times before and it's gotten to the point where gamers can say, "Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. Alien invasion, ships hovering overhead, blast them out of the sky, defend Earth." Rarely do we get to see an alien government split from within.[/quote]Be careful here. It [i]is [/i]humanizing them; make no mistake about it. I argue that it's stripping their culture and giving them our own. They do not have their own language, they speak [i]English.[/i] Language is obviously a big part of culture--in fact, it's one of the defining aspects of culture. Also, we see a corrupt political structure amongst the Covenant that could easily be lifted from the context of an alien race and be placed directly on Earth. That is, if you replaced the Covenant character models with human models in those scenes--it would work. They would just seem like a religious cult instead of an entirely separate culture.

I would have rather Bungie kept the Covenant mysterious to a point. It makes a situation more frightening when one doesn't know their enemy from the inside out. Furthermore, based on the constant undercutting/betrayal of allies from within the Covenant and the constant chaos, I'm still not convinced that they're a developed organization. I'm also not convinced that we [i]needed [/i]to see about ninety percent of it.

[quote]I'd think it's safe to say, though, that Halo 2 is really just more of the same, albeit with a sharper presentation and a few new gameplay tweaks (the vehicle highjacking, for example). It's done well, yes, but what it is isn't "new" in the sense of developing new styles and approaches to gameplay, and offering new gameplay types, like what TimeSplitters: Future Perfect is shaping up to be. Basically, Halo 2 is just the solid combat FPS that serves up the basics and nothing more...it's a ham and cheese omelet, but a tasty ham and cheese omelet.[/quote]Yes, I agree. The same can be said of most sequels--like Metroid Prime Echoes for example. In the case of Halo, however, the development cycle was especially long, and we were promised a completely new setting so I was hoping it wouldn't be the standard sequel. Bungie took the easy way out unfortunately. The only new gameplay type it offered was online play--which was just enough to sustain the title's quality for now. It won't be so easy next time though.

[quote]But regarding the controls, if you were to port Halo 2 to PS2, for example, or Cube, it's not going to work, no matter how perfect the game turns out to be, because the PS2 and Cube controllers are not FPS controllers, especially Cube.

Neither controller feels sturdy (enough for FPS, that is). The PS2 buttons offer little clicky resistance I've found, and their initial responsiveness wears down fairly quickly. The C-stick on Cube is just not an aiming joystick--the reason that TimeSplitters 2 worked so well is largely due to the Custom Control scheme, and the L and R buttons aren't tailored for the shooting-intensive FPS.[/quote]Oh, I don't know about that. If anything, I feel that Halo would control [i]better[/i] on other platforms such as the GameCube. It'd be quite easy to map the controls onto the pad. The left trigger could still throw grenades, the right could still fire, the analogs would maintain their respective purposes, the A button could jump, the B button could be used to take weapons, Z could be used to dual wield, and the Y/X buttons would replace the black/white buttons. How would that be any worse? It'd be easier to access functions such as the flashlight; everything would be more natural and accessible. It'd probably feel more comfortable in my hands as well.

[quote]Even though Rogue Agent's controls aren't [i]as[/i] tight as Halo 2's doesn't mean the game is unplayable, though. On Cube, Rogue Agent is far from unplayable; it just takes a bit longer to become comfortable with the game, due entirely to the nubby C-stick. It controls much, much better on Xbox, just because of the controller.[/quote]Of course it's not unplayable. It just doesn't play well. I don't remember saying otherwise.

[quote]And I think accusing Rogue Agent of trying to copycat [i]Halo[/i]'s gameplay is a bit inaccurate, because the Dev Team at EA has been quoted in interviews saying that the reason they named it GoldenEye was to take the EA Bond FPS series, a series that has gotten progressively more and more unplayable with each new incarnation, back to a familiar style of gameplay made popular in GoldenEye 64, a gameplay that was successful because of a solid development by Rare and a controller that [i]was[/i] an FPS controller.

If there's one [i]intentional[/i] (and not based on consumer/reviewer response) similarity to Halo 2, it's the Dual Wielding system, I agree with that. But on that point, I think Rogue Agent trumps Halo 2, because the weapons able to be Dual-Wielded in RA are far more varied and the combinations are far more useful (an RCP-120 and a Remote Mine Gun are very effective, likewise a Shotgun/Venom Pistol and Venom Pistol/Remote Mine Gun) than a Plasma weapon (Pistol, Rifle) and a conventional weapon (SMG, Magnum).

The Dual Wielding system in Halo 2 is fairly limited in what the player can actually do with those weapons able to be Dual-Wielded, and I am aware of the Plasma Pistol's charge shot.[/quote]Come on. lol

We both know that that's rubbish. You're calling my well-founded, and widely-shared comparison inaccurate while bringing references to [b]obviously[/b] B.S. quotes to defunct my points? We both know you're too intelligent to believe that Rogue Agent ushers in the familiar gameplay of Goldeneye 64. They're nothing alike.

It plays nothing like Goldeneye 64 and its story is completely unrelated. The name is the only aspect that's familiar and it was only employed for marketing purposes.

Forget dual-wielding for the time being. It's been around for a long time and it totally irrelevant to my Halo comparison. Also, although it's done well in Rogue Agent, it's probably the only aspect of the gameplay that's exceptional. Everything else is mediocre. So, whereas Rogue Agent has excellent dual-wielding and poor gameplay, Halo has great dual-wielding and manages to focus on a number of other aspects of the gameplay such as vehicles and improved jumping mechanics.

The copycat gameplay is more obvious than all that though; Rogue Agent uses a Halo weapon set-up (i.e., two weapons and a grenade). It's a run-and-gun shooter that drives players to find cover, continually move and shoot on the go, and rely on a combination of weapons to achieve their goals.

Again, the Nintendo 64 controller can't completely account for the original Goldeneye's control. The sensitivity levels were handled well; the controls were both fluid and responsive. At least for the time anyway. Now, I find those same controls slippery since the bar has been raised.



[quote]Based on how many times I've seen Marines run into an open space, only to be gunned down by Plasma blasts, Grunts and Elites mowed down by Heretic forces in a tight hallway because it seemingly didn't occur to them to not rush into a bottle-neck, strafing behind cover that's easily countered by the player strafing along the same direction and moving in, flanking maneuvers that amount to dead enemy soldiers when the player simply anticipates a maneuver that is so clearly announced, enemy snipers that don't adjust their position when the player clearly has a bead on their skulls, and painfully obvious "evasion" tactics when the nasties have vehicles...I just can't see solid AI there. Maybe I'm just outsmarting the AI, but I really don't think I'm [i]that[/i] smart, lol.[/quote]On the "Legendary" difficulty setting the AI isn't so bad. Obviously there are going to be hiccups and I never said the AI is the best ever, but compared to [i]most[/i] console shooters it's more than adequate and not really something that should face heavy-handed criticism compared to more obvious flaws such as story and a "blah" single player campaign.

[quote]And the multiplayer (even offline 1 on 1) is really the only reason Halo 2 gets taken out of my desk drawer. The multiplayer is the game's singular strong point, that which gives it any replay value whatsoever. It's an example of the gamers making the game, not the game making itself.[/QUOTE]I agree up to the last sentence. This isn't a PC game where gamers can create mods and their own levels. Bungie created some solid level designs, a nice interface that takes full advantage of Xbox Live's 3.0 features, and solid gameplay that's perfectly suited for online match-ups. The highjacking and plasma sword particularly add some interesting elements to the games. Plus, the tweaking Bungie did to allow higher, floatier jumps without the risk of taking damage from landing also helped. I find the online play fast, responsive, and fun. So, I'd say that the Xbox Live mode benefited the most from Bungie's tendency to nail the basics.

[50 cent]

Nateron46 I do believe you can do the sword dash from the middle of coagulation to one of the bases, why do I say this well lets see I do it atleast once a week and I just did it today showing somebody a glich there so you can't get across the map in like 4 seconds without being in or on a vehicle( driving I mean or riding in one). I do agree with you all that the reason why Halo does still stand is mainly the multiplayer but if it wasn't for there control layout it wouldn't work as well. Thats also the other reason why it surivives and why there will never be another Halo. 50 out

[Charles]

[quote name='50 cent']I do agree with you all that the reason why Halo does still stand is mainly the multiplayer but if it wasn't for there control layout it wouldn't work as well. Thats also the other reason why it surivives and why there will never be another Halo. 50 out[/quote]Well, we've already acknowledged Halo's controls. In fact, both Alex and I have dedicated great portions of our posts to discussing just that very issue. ;)

Your closing statement is very generous, however, as subjective as it may be. If you're a betting man I suggest you don't wager anything on it. Halo is a quality piece of software, but it's not the "bee's knees" so to speak. It manages to stand out right now because the best developers for the genre have chosen the PC as the definitive platform for first-person shooters. Obviously, that market has a pre-installed online user base and the best technology currently available. Online networks for console gamers are only just becoming solidified. Online gaming, already in stride, will flourish next generation and we'll see more first-person shooters as a result of that.

Almost everything on available to console gamers at this time is poor or broken in some way. Halo stands out because it's competent. We all seem to agree that it's only saved by its multiplayer component, which is hardly indicative of Bungie over-achieving with the product. So, I wouldn't say that Halo 2 is insurmountable or anything.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Charles]Yes, the "monument to their sins" parasite scene immediately springs to mind whenever I criticize the plot. It ruins the development of the Arbiter. Although Master Chief is a flat character whose encounter with this mysterious being has absolutely no bearing on his development, since there is in fact, there is no development to be had, the Arbiter at that point in the story is somewhat of an enigma. There's an opportunity to explore personal reflection and some kind of inward searching before he arrives at the truth. Instead, an oracle and a prophet just happen to be in the clutches of the beast also. They deliver their prophecies, the parasite then follows with its commentary, removing any semblance of mystique from the two views. It's as if Bungie suddenly grew lazy, and instead of developing the plot on a slow curve, took the easy way out and took several strides forward in only one scene.

Which directly ties into my other complaint regarding the scene. The meeting between Master Chief and The Arbiter could have been done much better, with plenty more build-up. It should have been more significant, with more verbal, and possibly physical exchange between the two over the course of several encounters. I don't feel however, that we should have been bashed over the head with what was essentially plot summary.

Exactly. There wasn't enough diversity between the two characters other than Master Chief's ability to use a flash light and Arbiter's cloaking skill. Some variation between jumping, speed, and strength would have been nice at the very least. At its best, the gameplay for both characters would have been completely different, with the Arbiter's levels built up as sneaking missions since he's obviously not a walking tank like Master Chief. There are traces of that idea with the cloaking ability, but it's never developed. The level designs or physical abilities of The Arbiter don't reflect the stealth style either.[/QUOTE]They were two characters that needed to confront each other throughout the game, not "find" each other when it was convenient for the plot. They could have been hunting each other throughout the entire game--which could have been an incredible experience, both plot- and gameplay-wise.

When the characters collide, there would be an initial struggle and conflict, as the Arbiter is ordered to assassinate MC. This would also constitute the need for a tangible difference in the attributes and approach, because if the Arbiter is playing the Predator, essentially (and the Cloaking has traces of that idea), then I certainly think he should play like the Predator, perhaps also a different visual scheme--perhaps something akin to the "HUD" variations in the Alien vs Predator series.

And I think this assassination plot would work very well with a dual campaign. In something akin to the Resident Evil series, specifically, RE2, where players can choose whether they want to play as Master Chief or the Arbiter, both sides of the story could be very effectively told, and the Covenant cutscenes can be further developed in the Arbiter?s campaign, and similarly, the scenes on Earth and Marines would be used in MC?s campaign.

In order to better establish the Assault on Earth plotline, MC?s campaign would be based entirely on Earth, and I?m borrowing a page from one of the Doom novels from 1996 here, but if MC?s mission was something as straightforward and yet plot-sensible as reach the main relay station of the Covenant invasion and destroy it, as to disrupt the flow of Covenant forces, MC?s campaign would be absolutely breathtaking, because it would feature what gamers wanted (invasion on Earth), a plot and objective that stands on its own, is logical and?not boring/stale, heh, and still allows the open-endedness necessary for the sequel (or trequel, I suppose).

In Arbiter?s campaign, I feel the Heretic split is an important plot to develop, because without the Heretic to reveal the ?truth,? the irony behind the Covenant?s name and their view is entirely lost (that irony being they aren?t the ?Abrahams? of the story, even though they believe themselves to be).

We would be shown the inner turmoil/internal Jihad, and the Arbiter?s mission would still be to quell the Heretic?s campaign, but eventually head down to Earth to assassinate MC, as MC is a threat to the Covenant.

This dual campaign is useful for a variety of reasons, some gameplay-related, some plot-related.

One, we would get to see both plot-lines in a fully-realized singleplayer mode, instead of the schizophrenic switching we get in the campaign mode, effectively doubling the campaign time by having two interconnecting plots yet separate gameplay experiences, with two characters that would actually require a different play style.

Two, we would also be able to more or less omit entirely the lazy "monument to their sins" scene, and through the Arbiter's campaign, as he confronts MC, MC tries to show him the dangers of Halo, because throughout the course of the game, MC is certainly encountering evidence that proves the Covenant is acting irrationally, and that the Heretics are the ones with the realistic grasp on the situation.

In fact, in MC's campaign, he could very well stumble across a Heretic leader, who doesn't attack him because the Heretic knows that MC can be a powerful ally in the fight to bring down the Covenant. The Heretic doesn't have to fully explain why the Covenant is so dangerous, however, because MC is already well-aware. This becomes an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario, and doesn't eliminate tension at all, because the Heretic and MC are still enemies, just merely uniting against a common foe.

This avoides the need to have pointless exposition for plot development (goodbye, parasite), and would then further propel the conflict between the Arbiter and MC, because MC then isn't trying to kill the Arbiter, instead trying to convert him (again, bringing in traces of the Doom novels). This also sets more of a suspicion/weariness for the Arbiter/MC interaction, because the Arbiter won't be open to the idea at first, thus warranting a few confrontations.

In the Endgame of Halo 2, the result will probably be largely the same (Arbiter and MC are going to bring down the Covenant), but at least the Endgame was elicited through a more rational storytelling, instead of the convenient plot device of the parasite tripe.

[QUOTE]But, as I said above, the introduction scenes showed promise--at least in terms of direction. I especially liked the quick transitions between witnessing the glory of those who found victory in war, and the Arbiter, who found shame. These cinematics were poignant as far as Halo goes and really set up the Arbiter nicely as a character to be developed. It's too bad Bungie stumbled through the rest of the game.[/QUOTE]It was a nice parallel, but they didn't capitalize on it, like you said. Sloppy writing.

[QUOTE]The stale plot, or boring plot, as you described it is admittedly so on some level but I don't think it's much of an issue in the context of a video game. Should I be walking into a movie theater, I definitely wouldn't want to see yet another story revolving around marines battling alien attackers to save mankind. When it comes to video games, and the genre we're talking about here, it's possible to get away with such an angle because up until Half-Life 2, Earth wasn't represented particularly well under these sorts of invasions. Halo 2 has always been billed as an attack on our world; I was excited to see how Bungie would handle this completely different kind of level design. There were a lot of great possibilities (think of the opening cinematics from Onimusha 3).

That turned out to be just wishful thinking unfortunately since they pulled a case of false advertising and only one measly level was set on Earth. That is how we ended up with more of the same. You know, alien environments that looked all too familiar to those of us who had played the first game. Earth, I'd say, would have been a nice change. It would have impacted Bungie in the sense that it would have forced them to change the style of Halo significantly. Just think--how many barren fields would we have had to navigate through with the Earth setting? There would have been streets teeming with chaos. It would have been an ambitious route to take and it's also probably why they backed out of the idea (despite still falsely advertising to the contrary).[/QUOTE]It?s like a quick orgasm and then an extended snooze, pardon the sexually-oriented simile?first comparison that came to mind. That?s why Half-Life 2 obliterates the game: because in Half-Life 2, you?re not in combat the entire time, so it feels like an alien occupation.

The particular little touches I mentioned to you earlier today, after class, really, really build the atmosphere. My jaw dropped within 5 minutes of exiting that train station, as I glanced up and saw the broadcast screen on the pillar, and then to the right, a Combine guard blocking a slightly ajar door. Inside that door is a police line-up of sorts. Then later, in the hotel, you get to see a raid happening, complete with breach, bang, and clear, and the screams of innocent civilians as they?re mercilessly beaten. Simply breathtaking stuff. ^_^

[quote]Be careful here. It is humanizing them; make no mistake about it. I argue that it's stripping their culture and giving them our own. They do not have their own language, they speak English. Language is obviously a big part of culture--in fact, it's one of the defining aspects of culture. Also, we see a corrupt political structure amongst the Covenant that could easily be lifted from the context of an alien race and be placed directly on Earth. That is, if you replaced the Covenant character models with human models in those scenes--it would work. They would just seem like a religious cult instead of an entirely separate culture.

I would have rather Bungie kept the Covenant mysterious to a point. It makes a situation more frightening when one doesn't know their enemy from the inside out. Furthermore, based on the constant undercutting/betrayal of allies from within the Covenant and the constant chaos, I'm still not convinced that they're a developed organization. I'm also not convinced that we needed to see about ninety percent of it.[/quote]They spoke English in the first game. We just rarely got to hear it because we only heard it over Plasma and conventional gunfire.

Charles, I?m not sure if you?re aware of this, but the Covenant is a religious cult (again, those painfully obvious names and such?Abraham and the Covenant with God? The Covenant believe themselves to be the chosen ones?), so I think your assessment of their seeming like a religious cult if they were made human actually validate the Covenant scenes, because that is the intent all along, and the similarity to a religious cult that you say becomes clear seemingly only when you use human models instead of Covenant models is actually there all along. My headache is pretty bad right now, so I?ll translate that before you go cross-eyed, lol.

The similarity to a religious cult is there all along in the Covenant, whether they?re human character models or Covenant character models. The name, Covenant, is a direct reference to the story of Abraham. Abraham forms a Covenant with God, basically a deal that sets-up Abraham as?the first prophet or something like that. Either way, Abraham?s Covenant with God means he is the chosen one. In Halo, the Covenant believe themselves to be the chosen ones. If that wasn?t enough, even just the obviousness of the name of the aliens (the ?Covenant?) should point to that religious cultish nature.

And while we certainly can?t speak from any real experience regarding aliens and political structure, it?s not unheard of that an alien race (or really, any race at all, human or otherwise) founded on heavy-handed religious indoctrination will eventually collapse, or undergo severe revolution, or even just be confronted with a small number of Heretics who break away from the ?church.?

And really, I think that?s just common sense?just regular theocratic theory, and isn?t really exclusive to humans.

The Covenant is a brutal militaristic theocracy founded on heavy-handed religious misinterpretation. That's pretty much guarantees their internal collapse, especially when those (like the Heretic) start asking questions.

Considering the juxtaposition of the inner chaos of the Covenant with the organization and structure of the humans, I don't think that's really humanizing the Covenant. If anything, it's portraying them more and more as misguided and bloodthirsty, who will slaughter their own without any hesitation--who will slaughter those within their ranks who speak the truth.

Yes, that has happened in the past, with various human nations, but like I said before, when you've got any government/society so heavily, heavily based on twisted religious doctrine, that society will collapse, its members will turn on each other, and there will be massive internal bloodshed. It's just basic sociopolitical theologic theory.

Plus, I don't think that showing the inner turmoil within the Covenant is humanizing them...not at all. I mean, what rational human society tortures their failed generals? If anything, showing the disgrace of the Elite, his torture, his branding, and his exile, essentially, is in fact putting more of a distance between the Covenant and the humans.

[quote]Yes, I agree. The same can be said of most sequels--like Metroid Prime Echoes for example. In the case of Halo, however, the development cycle was especially long, and we were promised a completely new setting so I was hoping it wouldn't be the standard sequel. Bungie took the easy way out unfortunately. The only new gameplay type it offered was online play--which was just enough to sustain the title's quality for now. It won't be so easy next time though.[/quote]I?d actually use Doom I and II as a discussion point here.

While there are enough new gameplay features and abilities in Metroid: Echoes to justify separating it from the ?more of the same? label, I think Halo I&II falls into the Doom I&II category, the sequel that is just an expansion pack to the first game. In the case of Halo II, I think that expansion pack is a multiplayer-focused expansion pack, because through the course of this discussion, I think it?s becoming clearer and clearer that the only real change in Halo 2 was the enhanced multiplayer; apart from that, it?s Halo 1.

[quote]Oh, I don't know about that. If anything, I feel that Halo would control better on other platforms such as the GameCube. It'd be quite easy to map the controls onto the pad. The left trigger could still throw grenades, the right could still fire, the analogs would maintain their respective purposes, the A button could jump, the B button could be used to take weapons, Z could be used to dual wield, and the Y/X buttons would replace the black/white buttons. How would that be any worse? It'd be easier to access functions such as the flashlight; everything would be more natural and accessible. It'd probably feel more comfortable in my hands as well.[/quote]I notice you?re missing a few crucial abilities in that control scheme: Crouching, Manual Reload, and Action.

It would do better to map Crouch to X, and have it a Crouch Toggle.

Y is Jump.

A is used for Action, as well as holding A and hitting either L or R to pick-up weapons in the respective hand. Sounds funky on paper, but Rogue Agent nails it. This effectively combines two face buttons into one (B+Z=A), and is a much more intuitive system than using B as a weapon swap and Z as a Dual-Wield.

B is Manual Reload.

Taking up a precious face button with something so easily mapped onto one of the D-pad directions is silly, so the Black/White functions can easily be mapped to the D-pad. Frankly, swapping grenade types and turning on the flashlight aren?t more important than something like Crouching or Jumping, especially in Halo 2. And, since we?ve eliminated the need to map a function to Z, it?s certainly possible now to map the grenade type command to the Z button.

There are enough buttons themselves on the GC controller to map the controls effectively, but the response of both the buttons and the joysticks may prove detrimental, because L and R are not exactly conducive to firing quickly, as in many FPS on GC, the shoulder buttons need to be pressed down entirely to fire, which doesn?t utilize the pressure sensitive feature of the shoulder buttons.

Plus, in a firefight-intensive FPS, would you really want to be continually slamming down on those shoulder buttons? Maybe it?s just me, but the springs in them feel and sound much more delicate and fragile than the Xbox controller.

FPS is all about aiming precision, and I don?t think FPS Precision is what the C-stick is capable of?at least, not to the extent that the Xbox joysticks are.

[quote]Of course it's not unplayable. It just doesn't play well. I don't remember saying otherwise.[/quote]But surely you?re able to play it competently, and do reasonably well in it?

[quote]Come on. lol

We both know that that's rubbish. You're calling my well-founded, and widely-shared comparison inaccurate while bringing references to obviously B.S. quotes to defunct my points? We both know you're too intelligent to believe that Rogue Agent ushers in the familiar gameplay of Goldeneye 64. They're nothing alike.

It plays nothing like Goldeneye 64 and its story is completely unrelated. The name is the only aspect that's familiar and it was only employed for marketing purposes.

Forget dual-wielding for the time being. It's been around for a long time and it totally irrelevant to my Halo comparison. Also, although it's done well in Rogue Agent, it's probably the only aspect of the gameplay that's exceptional. Everything else is mediocre. So, whereas Rogue Agent has excellent dual-wielding and poor gameplay, Halo has great dual-wielding and manages to focus on a number of other aspects of the gameplay such as vehicles and improved jumping mechanics.

The copycat gameplay is more obvious than all that though; Rogue Agent uses a Halo weapon set-up (i.e., two weapons and a grenade). It's a run-and-gun shooter that drives players to find cover, continually move and shoot on the go, and rely on a combination of weapons to achieve their goals.[/quote]You?re saying that the development team of GoldenEye: Rogue Agent has been trying to hide their intent through about a year of development?

Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent (their true intent being to copycat everything that Halo has ?innovated?) by stripping down their Bond FPS franchise, ripping out all of the ?extra? gameplay facets of Nightfire and AUF, and distilling it into what is simply a run-n-gun shooter set in the Bond universe?

Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent by creating a Bond FPS that bears absolutely no resemblance to their previous efforts (Nightfire and AUF) and then name it GoldenEye above all else?

Rogue Agent features multiplayer stages ripped directly out of various Bond films?how many previous EA Bond FPS featured Hugo Drax?s jungle launch site as a multiplayer arena, and how many Rare Bond FPS featured a level that was identical in visual design to Drax?s launch site?

Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent by including classic GE64 levels like the Cradle as a multiplayer stage? Keep in mind that the Cradle Multi in GE64 was intact within the memory of the game, but only accessible through the Gameshark.

And let's not forget that the gadgets in GE64 have been "remade" in the form of the GoldenEye of the main character in Rogue Agent.

[quote]It plays nothing like Goldeneye 64 and its story is completely unrelated.[/quote]?It plays? and ?the design approach used? are entirely different things. Rogue Agent doesn?t play as well as GE, because EA has consistently proven themselves to be unable to match the fluidity of GE. The approach, however, is identical. The type of gameplay used, especially when compared to EA?s previous Bond FPS, is certainly more a throwback to GE than Nightfire ever was.

The stories of most Bond games are entirely unrelated to each other (this has been a trend in the films themselves, as well, apart from a few recurring appearances by Ernst Stavro Blofeld), so I don't see how criticism of the story of Rogue Agent being unrelated to GE64 lends validity to the (shaky) doubts about the intent of the developers of Rogue Agent.

[quote] The copycat gameplay is more obvious than all that though; Rogue Agent uses a Halo weapon set-up (i.e., two weapons and a grenade). It's a run-and-gun shooter that drives players to find cover, continually move and shoot on the go, and rely on a combination of weapons to achieve their goals[/quote]The Halo weapon set-up still relates to the Dual-Wielding system. Your comments regarding what Rogue Agent is, and how it?s so blatantly copying Halo, instead of its namesake (GE64), specifically, your description of Rogue Agent, is a description of GE64:

[quote]It's a run-and-gun shooter that drives players to find cover, continually move and shoot on the go, and rely on a combination of weapons to achieve their goals.[/quote]Just because GoldenEye: Rogue Agent uses run-and-gun gameplay means it?s automatically copying Halo? That seems to be what you?re saying here.

If you want to accuse GE:RA of copying Halo, that?s your prerogative, Charles. If you want to point out run-and-gun gameplay and say, ?Look, that?s so Halo,? that?s your prerogative. If you want to doubt Dev comments and call them ?[obvious] BS,? that?s your prerogative. If you want to accuse GE:RA of just copying Halo and not, as Devs have stated, and as the game design and EA Bond FPS franchise progression shows, of actually serving as a throwback to GE64, that?s your prerogative.

But I think the franchise history, the Dev comments, the gameplay itself (and your own comments about the gameplay itself), the multiplayer stages, and the design approach all suggest other than what you?re saying.

If your criticisms of Rogue Agent and EA trying to copy Halo stem from its release date, then I?m going to say that EA was screwed no matter what.

Had they released RA a month before Halo 2, they would have taken flack (?Oh, look at that, they?re trying to get their game out before Halo 2 comes out, because they know Halo 2 will totally pwwnzzor their POS game.?).

Had they released on the same day, ?Oh, look at that, EA are such dumb little shits for trying to compete with Halo 2, the game that will totally pwwnzzor their POS game.?

Had they released it a month or two later, ?Oh, look at that, they released their game months after Halo 2, the game that would have totally pwwnzzored their POS game. EA are a bunch of cowards.?

EA was in a no-win scenario no matter what. They were going to be accused of copying Halo no matter what, despite what Rogue Agent turned out to be, what it was throughout its development, what the concept behind it was, and what the developers were saying throughout the development of the game.

[quote]Again, the Nintendo 64 controller can't completely account for the original Goldeneye's control. The sensitivity levels were handled well; the controls were both fluid and responsive. At least for the time anyway. Now, I find those same controls slippery since the bar has been raised.[/quote]Yes, Rare were wunderkids back then, but GE64 wasn?t the only FPS that handled well. I recall Doom 64 was very easy to control (except, of course, not being able to look up and down was a turn-off), and Turok 1&2 were made easier, control-wise, thanks to the N64 controller.

[quote]On the "Legendary" difficulty setting the AI isn't so bad. Obviously there are going to be hiccups and I never said the AI is the best ever, but compared to most console shooters it's more than adequate and not really something that should face heavy-handed criticism compared to more obvious flaws such as story and a "blah" single player campaign.[/quote]The AI is why I yearn to play against human opponents; humans learn and adapt. The AI only runs along its programming.

[quote]I agree up to the last sentence. This isn't a PC game where gamers can create mods and their own levels. Bungie created some solid level designs, a nice interface that takes full advantage of Xbox Live's 3.0 features, and solid gameplay that's perfectly suited for online match-ups. The highjacking and plasma sword particularly add some interesting elements to the games. Plus, the tweaking Bungie did to allow higher, floatier jumps without the risk of taking damage from landing also helped. I find the online play fast, responsive, and fun. So, I'd say that the Xbox Live mode benefited the most from Bungie's tendency to nail the basics.[/QUOTE]Again, I think you?re misunderstanding what I?m saying. I?m not talking about gamer mods or anything. I?m talking about how the game by itself is ?okay,? but what gives it replay value and substance are gamers themselves, through gamer-to-gamer interaction and multiplayer (i.e., the game doesn?t make the game; the gamers make the game).

I think I covered everything. Oh, by the way, we need two more students for Lisa Zeidner?s Advanced Fiction Workshop. If you?re interested, drop her a line, lol.

[Orb]

I just got the game and I think it's really hard. Does it get easier or something as you play? because i know real dumb people who are good at the game and i know i could probably be good? so does it get easier?

[Charles]

[quote name='Siren']They were two characters that needed to confront each other throughout the game, not "find" each other when it was convenient for the plot. They could have been hunting each other throughout the entire game--which could have been an incredible experience, both plot- and gameplay-wise.[/quote]Yes, exactly. This tension we've agreed upon. Because we see eye-to-eye on the state of the storyline and how it [i]should [/i]have (and could have) played out, I find it extremely entertaining to play off one another's ideas. Especially in class; I kind of get the odd suspicion that others are looking at us in a really bewildered way as we delve into these deep discussions they're totally oblivious to. Lol

But yes, I feel that the reunion of the Arbiter and Master Chief was very anti-climactic in its execution. To have this omniscient, god-like creature, not seamlessly woven into the story, but to suddenly appear out of left-field and thrust the two adversaries together was such an obvious short-cut. I was watching the scene thinking ?This is it?? When it more specifically analyzed each respective character, the Master Chief as a hybrid of man and machine, the Arbiter as flesh and faith, I cringed. If Bungie?s narrative couldn?t lead us to such obvious conclusions, if they needed a large muppet to do it for us--then there are problems. The fact that two other opposing characters just happened to be there, to be fully explained as well, just screamed plot summarization.

[quote] When the characters collide, there would be an initial struggle and conflict, as the Arbiter is ordered to assassinate MC. This would also constitute the need for a tangible difference in the attributes and approach, because if the Arbiter is playing the Predator, essentially (and the Cloaking has traces of that idea), then I certainly think he should play like the Predator, perhaps also a different visual scheme--perhaps something akin to the "HUD" variations in the Alien vs Predator series.

And I think this assassination plot would work very well with a dual campaign. In something akin to the Resident Evil series, specifically, RE2, where players can choose whether they want to play as Master Chief or the Arbiter, both sides of the story could be very effectively told, and the Covenant cutscenes can be further developed in the Arbiter?s campaign, and similarly, the scenes on Earth and Marines would be used in MC?s campaign.[/quote]I remember discussing this with you as well.

We both agreed that, by offering branching paths for each characters, and completely different approaches, the short campaign length would be atoned in a way. It?s a valid line of reasoning. The Arbiter was given a unique ability--that is, the cloaking technique. But, why stop there? Why not develop unique levels for the Arbiter that completely contribute to his specific abilities? Why not give him less physical dexterity, much greater speed, less powerful weaponry, and the ability to disable adversaries through hand-to-hand stealth combat. I could imagine his portions of the game being dark, confined, claustrophobic, much like what we experienced in The Chronicles of Riddick. Just think about that style complimenting Master Chief?s ?balls-to-walls? action segments. They could even share levels when confrontations were imminent. One moment you would be Master Chief, blasting away teeming hordes of Covenant, the next stalking through ducts as the Arbiter, watching it all unfold, awaiting your opportunity for attack before disappearing again.

This proposal, of delving out the story from two perspectives, in each character?s own unique scenario, reminds me somewhat of the first two Resident Evil titles, in which you had to complete the game twice to fully experience the storyline. Such an approach would have done wonders for Halo 2. Instead we have two interchangeable characters blasting through situations so similar, it?s almost impossible to distinguish one from the other.

[quote]In order to better establish the Assault on Earth plotline, MC?s campaign would be based entirely on Earth, and I?m borrowing a page from one of the Doom novels from 1996 here, but if MC?s mission was something as straightforward and yet plot-sensible as reach the main relay station of the Covenant invasion and destroy it, as to disrupt the flow of Covenant forces, MC?s campaign would be absolutely breathtaking, because it would feature what gamers wanted (invasion on Earth), a plot and objective that stands on its own, is logical and?not boring/stale, heh, and still allows the open-endedness necessary for the sequel (or trequel, I suppose).[/quote]Yes, and you know as well as I do, that?s what people expected. It?s the premise that was used to sell Halo. It appears in the logo on the commercials. The demo they showed at E3, I think, quite a while ago, showed a level that took place on Earth that never made it into the game (at least not that same exact form) but was instead adapted into the one level we do get set on Earth. Albeit, toned down significantly.

The original Halo was laden with lush outdoor environments, shrouded in foliage, sometimes giving way to futuristic enclaves. An Earth setting would have completely changed the game and how it would be played. There would be bystanders to consider, buildings taking damage, wrecked automobiles littering the street (that you could use for temporary cover), and a completely different visual style to consider. I can imagine Covenant drop ships crashing into the ground, firing upon buildings that shatter into fragments of glass and steel right before your eyes. You?d see the police force fighting the invaders unsuccessfully. It would have been simply incredible. Especially if you keep sewer or interior building designs in mind. It?s such a shame that Halo 2 doesn?t live up to its ambitious moniker.



[quote]In Arbiter?s campaign, I feel the Heretic split is an important plot to develop, because without the Heretic to reveal the ?truth,? the irony behind the Covenant?s name and their view is entirely lost (that irony being they aren?t the ?Abrahams? of the story, even though they believe themselves to be).

We would be shown the inner turmoil/internal Jihad, and the Arbiter?s mission would still be to quell the Heretic?s campaign, but eventually head down to Earth to assassinate MC, as MC is a threat to the Covenant.

This dual campaign is useful for a variety of reasons, some gameplay-related, some plot-related.

One, we would get to see both plot-lines in a fully-realized singleplayer mode, instead of the schizophrenic switching we get in the campaign mode, effectively doubling the campaign time by having two interconnecting plots yet separate gameplay experiences, with two characters that would actually require a different play style.[/quote]As I said above, that would be great. I?d love to see what Bungie could do with stealth gameplay. If a relatively lesser-known developer like Starbreeze could accomplish such amazing things with their game, imagine what Bungie could do with Halo 2 and the copious development time given to the product. As it stands, the Arbiter strikes me as an afterthought, added when Bungie scrapped the Earthen storyline to artificially lengthen the game with déjà vu-like Flood swarms. Which has always been my least favorite part of Halo. Fighting off droves of boring, annoying Flood creatures. Sure, battles with the Flood can become intense, but I feel that their design is terrible and that the levels featuring them use them far too much, effectively thinning the excitement of fighting off such a kamikaze enemy type..

[quote]Two, we would also be able to more or less omit entirely the lazy "monument to their sins" scene, and through the Arbiter's campaign, as he confronts MC, MC tries to show him the dangers of Halo, because throughout the course of the game, MC is certainly encountering evidence that proves the Covenant is acting irrationally, and that the Heretics are the ones with the realistic grasp on the situation.

In fact, in MC's campaign, he could very well stumble across a Heretic leader, who doesn't attack him because the Heretic knows that MC can be a powerful ally in the fight to bring down the Covenant. The Heretic doesn't have to fully explain why the Covenant is so dangerous, however, because MC is already well-aware. This becomes an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenario, and doesn't eliminate tension at all, because the Heretic and MC are still enemies, just merely uniting against a common foe.[/quote]Which would be much more interesting, subtle and realistic than suddenly thrusting sworn enemies together as allies just like that. (snaps fingers)

Individuals separated by religious differences are never so quickly won over to the same side.

[quote]This avoides the need to have pointless exposition for plot development (goodbye, parasite), and would then further propel the conflict between the Arbiter and MC, because MC then isn't trying to kill the Arbiter, instead trying to convert him (again, bringing in traces of the Doom novels).[/quote]See, I don?t feel it should be as obvious as that. It just isn?t true to the Master Chief?s character. I can?t picture him trying to convert someone--it wouldn?t be in his interest. I?d say that a friendship could develop due solely to respect on the battlefield and a truce could be developed, but a character totally devoid of faith attempting to convert a character fully driven by it? It just wouldn?t be very feasible. In fact, it would probably lead to the deterioration of their bond if it did somehow happen. These issues are touchy in real life. You?ve even seen how countless discussions on these boards can?t change someone?s mind in regards to their faith. It can become hostile.

Plus, I just feel that it wouldn?t be interesting to watch. It would grow tiresome and preachy. Halo should not go for an even [i]more[/i] theological theme.

[quote]This also sets more of a suspicion/weariness for the Arbiter/MC interaction, because the Arbiter won't be open to the idea at first, thus warranting a few confrontations.

In the Endgame of Halo 2, the result will probably be largely the same (Arbiter and MC are going to bring down the Covenant), but at least the Endgame was elicited through a more rational storytelling, instead of the convenient plot device of the parasite tripe.[/quote]Nah, I don?t think so. Nope. Here?s how I see it. There?s a mutiny within the Covenant, the truly underhanded leaders are usurped--and the Covenant fights alongside Master Chief and company to thwart off The Flood. Both sides either amicably part ways afterwards (opening up the possibility for new enemies and a new direction) or they could simply continue destroying one another.

[quote]It was a nice parallel, but they didn't capitalize on it, like you said. Sloppy writing.

It?s like a quick orgasm and then an extended snooze, pardon the sexually-oriented simile?first comparison that came to mind. That?s why Half-Life 2 obliterates the game: because in Half-Life 2, you?re not in combat the entire time, so it feels like an alien occupation.[/quote]Yes indeed. Although part of the point of Halo is that you?re occupied in combat the entire time. It?s supposed to evoke the feeling that you?re entrenched in the middle of an ongoing war. Half-Life 2, if it?s anything like the first, takes an entirely different route, one of isolation, that I personally feel was executed better even back then.

[quote]They spoke English in the first game. We just rarely got to hear it because we only heard it over Plasma and conventional gunfire.[/quote]Of course the small, comical grunt characters did but the Elites didn?t. I was personally fond of their grunts and would have preferred if they had chosen to abandon English altogether for the Covenant this time around. I?m for building characters authentically. Even in something like Metal Gear Solid 3, I was disappointed that the Russians didn?t have accents for the most part. Why should Halo 2 go one step further and portray the Covenant as more than adequate speakers of the English language? Why does the Earth have to be the center of the Universe in which alien species, who abhor us, have adopted [i]our[/i] language. Again, it?s just not believable. The bosh of it just doesn?t fit.

[quote]Charles, I?m not sure if you?re aware of this, but the Covenant is a religious cult (again, those painfully obvious names and such?Abraham and the Covenant with God? The Covenant believe themselves to be the chosen ones?), so I think your assessment of their seeming like a religious cult if they were made human actually validate the Covenant scenes, because that is the intent all along, and the similarity to a religious cult that you say becomes clear seemingly only when you use human models instead of Covenant models is actually there all along. My headache is pretty bad right now, so I?ll translate that before you go cross-eyed, lol.[/quote]See, that?s the problem. You?re stumbling over this summarization because the characterization of the Covenant is just so poorly constructed. It?s not fleshed out how it should be. A militaristic cultist alien invasion? Why should advanced alien creatures even possess human inventions such as religion and extremist organizations like cults? I?m not saying they can?t--but there?s little there to validate their existence as a cult. Shouldn?t a cult be a somewhat extremist minority group within a larger group in the first place? If the group depicted in Halo represents the entire race of Covenant, there?s little to suggest that they?re a cult--but rather an entire militaristic species with cultist tendencies. If they had just been developed as a militaristic theocracy, that would have been fine. But give them a unique culture and identity instead of wrapping them up in some nonsensical humanistic theology.

[quote][b]Considering the juxtaposition of the inner chaos of the Covenant with the organization and structure of the humans, I don't think that's really humanizing the Covenant.[/b] If anything, it's portraying them more and more as misguided and bloodthirsty, who will slaughter their own without any hesitation--who will slaughter those within their ranks who speak the truth.

Yes, that has happened in the past, with various human nations, but like I said before, when you've got any government/society so heavily, heavily based on twisted religious doctrine, that society will collapse, its members will turn on each other, and there will be massive internal bloodshed. It's just basic sociopolitical theologic theory[/quote]Let?s be more specific. Take a Western Civilization course. Study Ancient Greece. Study the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. These aren?t alien characteristics. You acknowledge that yourself here. They?re thoroughly human. And I find you?ve been going on stating and re-stating the obvious. Yet, I don?t see how outlining the unstable foundation of the Covenant argues that they?re not being humanized. I?m not concentrating my criticisms on the inner chaos of the Covenant. Only the lack of a developed, original culture.

[quote][b]Plus, I don't think that showing the inner turmoil within the Covenant is humanizing them...not at all.[/b] I mean, what rational human society tortures their failed generals? If anything, showing the disgrace of the Elite, his torture, his branding, and his exile, essentially, is in fact putting more of a distance between the Covenant and the humans.[/quote]See, I?m not arguing that it?s the inner turmoil that?s humanizing them but rather stripping them of a unique language and building these direct parallels between humans and them in terms of societal structure, is. As much as I loved the opening, it?s a prime example of this. The player witnesses how eerily similar the activities simultaneously playing out between the Covenant and humans are similar--almost like two sides of a coin.

I?ve taken the liberty of bolding where you?re being redundant by the way because I think it shows that you?re starting to stumble over yourself in an effort to produce valid points.

[quote]I?d actually use Doom I and II as a discussion point here.[/quote]Please Don?t.

[quote]While there are enough new gameplay features and abilities in Metroid: Echoes to justify separating it from the ?more of the same? label, I think Halo I&II falls into the Doom I&II category, the sequel that is just an expansion pack to the first game. In the case of Halo II, I think that expansion pack is a multiplayer-focused expansion pack, because through the course of this discussion, I think it?s becoming clearer and clearer that the only real change in Halo 2 was the enhanced multiplayer; apart from that, it?s Halo 1.[/quote]No. Metroid: Echoes isn?t any more of an original sequel than Halo 2 is. That isn?t to say that it doesn?t offer any considerable advancements. It?s just that Halo 2 offers similar steps (not leaps) forward as well. However, what?s offered in Halo 2 isn?t as gimmicky, and is executed much more subtly--yet manages to tighten the structure of the gameplay considerably. Of course, Halo 2 offers a considerable leap in graphics, weapons balancing, and even sound (the score is wonderful). I shouldn?t go without mentioning the refined jumping mechanics that allow Master Chief to not only jump higher and obtain more hang time, but also excuse him from taking damage. Although that tweak is a lot more subtle than say, a lackluster light/dark world system, it does change the way the game is played significantly.

The multiplayer mode alone dispels any kind of Doom syndrome too. Pigeonholing Halo 2 as a simple Doom-style expansion pack is really understating the great things that Bungie has managed to accomplish. And make no mistake about it, the positives advances are both noticeable and phenomenal. I can?t say the same for Doom II over Doom I.

[quote]I notice you?re missing a few crucial abilities in that control scheme: Crouching, Manual Reload, and Action.

It would do better to map Crouch to X, and have it a Crouch Toggle.

Y is Jump.

A is used for Action, as well as holding A and hitting either L or R to pick-up weapons in the respective hand. Sounds funky on paper, but Rogue Agent nails it. This effectively combines two face buttons into one (B+Z=A), and is a much more intuitive system than using B as a weapon swap and Z as a Dual-Wield.

B is Manual Reload.

Taking up a precious face button with something so easily mapped onto one of the D-pad directions is silly, so the Black/White functions can easily be mapped to the D-pad. Frankly, swapping grenade types and turning on the flashlight aren?t more important than something like Crouching or Jumping, especially in Halo 2. And, since we?ve eliminated the need to map a function to Z, it?s certainly possible now to map the grenade type command to the Z button.

There are enough buttons themselves on the GC controller to map the controls effectively, but the response of both the buttons and the joysticks may prove detrimental, because L and R are not exactly conducive to firing quickly, as in many FPS on GC, the shoulder buttons need to be pressed down entirely to fire, which doesn?t utilize the pressure sensitive feature of the shoulder buttons.

Plus, in a firefight-intensive FPS, would you really want to be continually slamming down on those shoulder buttons? Maybe it?s just me, but the springs in them feel and sound much more delicate and fragile than the Xbox controller.

FPS is all about aiming precision, and I don?t think FPS Precision is what the C-stick is capable of?at least, not to the extent that the Xbox joysticks are.[/quote]I was providing you with a brief overview; it should have given you the general idea. Insofar as your complaints directed towards the shoulder buttons go--I couldn?t disagree more. Their superior shape [i]more[/i] then compensates for any lack of pressuand is a much more intuitive system than using B as a weapon swap and Z as a Dual-Wield.


The multiplayer mode alone dispels any kind of Doom syndrome too. Pigeonholing Halo 2 as a simple Doom-style expansion pack is really understating the great things that Bungie has managed to accomplish. And make no mistake about it, the positives advances are both noticeable and phenomenal. I can?t say the same for Doom II over Doom I.

[quote]I notice you?re missing a few crucial abilities in that control scheme: Crouching, Manual Reload, and Action.

It would do better to map Crouch to X, and have it a Crouch Toggle.

Y is Jump.

A is used for Action, as well as holding A and hitting either L or R to pick-up weapons in the respective hand. Sounds funky on paper, but Rogue Agent nails it. This effectively combines two face buttons into one (B+Z=A), and is a much more intuitive system than using B as a weapon swap and Z as a Dual-Wield.

B is Manual Reload.

Taking up a precious face button with something so easily mapped onto one of the D-pad directions is silly, so the Black/White functions can easily be mapped to the D-pad. Frankly, swapping grenade types and turning on the flashlight aren?t more important than something like Crouching or Jumping, especially in Halo 2. And, since we?ve eliminated the need to map a function to Z, it?s certainly possible now to map the grenade type command to the Z button.

There are enough buttons themselves on the GC controller to map the controls effectively, but the response of both the buttons and the joysticks may prove detrimental, because L and R are not exactly conducive to firing quickly, as in many FPS on GC, the shoulder buttons need to be pressed down entirely to fire, which doesn?t utilize the pressure sensitive feature of the shoulder buttons.

Plus, in a firefight-intensive FPS, would you really want to be continually slamming down on those shoulder buttons? Maybe it?s just me, but the springs in them feel and sound much more delicate and fragile than the Xbox controller.

FPS is all about aiming precision, and I don?t think FPS Precision is what the C-stick is capable of?at least, not to the extent that the Xbox joysticks are.[/quote]I was providing you with a brief overview; it should have given you the general idea. Insofar as your complaints directed towards the shoulder buttons go--I couldn?t disagree more. Their superior shape [i]more[/i] then compensates for any lack of pressuand is a much more intuitive system than using B as a weapon swap and Z as a Dual-Wield.

Taking up a precious face button with something so easily mapped onto one of the D-pad directions is silly, so the Black/White functions can easily be mapped to the D-pad. Frankly, swapping grenade types and turning on the flashlight aren?t more important than something like Crouching or Jumping, especially in Halo 2. And, since we?ve eliminated the need to map a function to Z, it?s certainly possible now to map the grenade type command to the Z button.

There are enough buttons themselves on the GC controller to map the controls effectively, but the response of both the buttons and the joysticks may prove detrimental, because L and R are not exactly conducive to firing quickly, as in many FPS on GC, the shoulder buttons need to be pressed down entirely to fire, which doesn?t utilize the pressure sensitive feature of the shoulder buttons.

Plus, in a firefight-intensive FPS, would you really want to be continually slamming down on those shoulder buttons? Maybe it?s just me, but the springs in them feel and sound much more delicate and fragile than the Xbox controller.

FPS is all about aiming precision, and I don?t think FPS Precision is what the C-stick is capable of?at least, not to the extent that the Xbox joysticks are.[/quote]I was providing you with a brief overview; it should have given you the general idea. Insofar as your complaints directed towards the shoulder buttons go--I couldn?t disagree more. Their superior shape [i]more[/i] then compensates for any lack of pressure sensitivity. And--let?s be honest. Most of the shooting in Halo doesn?t require careful squeezing of the triggers. Most of the time you?re simply required to hold the firing button down for extended periods of time due to the sheer number of enemies on-screen at once. So, why would you be continuously slamming down the shoulder buttons in the first place?

This isn?t Metal Gear Solid, where you have to slowly release the button in order to cancel your firing capabilities. Which, worked just fine in Twin Snakes by the way, further parrying your argument by proving that they can be used effectively for pressure sensitive features. The C-stick is just fine as well; it?d probably provide more precision for sniping if anything.

Face it. The controller is more comfortable than an Xbox control pad and the button layout would provide easier access to your character?s functions.

Also, allow me to take the opportunity to mention that I have a converter that allows me to use my Playstation 2 controller on both the Xbox and GameCube. Halo 2 handles fine on the PS2 controller with no discernable concessions to responsiveness.

[quote]But surely you?re able to play it competently, and do reasonably well in it?[/quote]It works. The controls are poor but manageable. If that?s an accomplishment that warrants praise, then by all means, all hail Rogue Agent.

[quote]You?re saying that the development team of GoldenEye: Rogue Agent has been trying to hide their intent through about a year of development?[/quote]Oh no. I fully expect them to flat-out admit that they?ve only falsly named the title GoldenEye for the purpose of marketing a poor product effectively on the namesake of another that fans remember fondly. Having made that knowledge accessible to the gaming public, even casual fans alike, by imprinting it on the cover of the game?s packaging, they could then watch each copy fly off the shelves.

[quote]Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent (their true intent being to copycat everything that Halo has ?innovated?) by stripping down their Bond FPS franchise, ripping out all of the ?extra? gameplay facets of Nightfire and AUF, and distilling it into what is simply a run-n-gun shooter set in the Bond universe?[/quote]GoldenEye was never [i]their[/i] Bond franchise to begin with. Let?s get that straight right now. No it wasn?t. We both know that. Oh wait, you couldn?t possibly be referring to the ?robust? fine-tuned features found in EA?s own ?accomplished? engines. But alas, you?ve outright said it. Your credibility in this portion of the discussion has just sunken to a new low.

[center][img]http://img94.exs.cx/img94/4059/batmanbombbig7os.gif[/img][/center]

When you reply to this, quote this paragraph and respond only with a deep, sincere apology.

Their Bond offerings have sucked. They?ve been flat-out terrible. So what did they do? They didn?t strip it. No, they went back to the drawing board. Not a blank one mind you--they went back to Halo?s drawing board. They abandoned past approaches in favor of copycatting a formula that?s a proven success. Instead of exhibiting even an inch of innovation, instead of developing their own original gameplay, or even replicating the original GoldenEye?s for continuity?s sake, they went with what?s worked this generation--and ruined it. They?re not trying to hide that fact (sure as hell not in the game itself), unless you count a few thinly veiled developer comments.

[quote]Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent by creating a Bond FPS that bears absolutely no resemblance to their previous efforts (Nightfire and AUF) and then name it GoldenEye above all else?[/quote]Ah, yes, they?ve created a Bond FPS (quite an innovative accomplishment in and of itself I must admit) that bears little to no resemblance to their previous efforts or Rare?s for that matter (only Bungie?s) and then named it GoldenEye above all else. That?s exactly what happened. Finally, we agree within this area of the discussion.

[quote]Rogue Agent features multiplayer stages ripped directly out of various Bond films?how many previous EA Bond FPS featured Hugo Drax?s jungle launch site as a multiplayer arena, and how many Rare Bond FPS featured a level that was identical in visual design to Drax?s launch site?[/quote]Oh. My. God. How many Star Wars titles have featured Hoth? Big deal. Throw the innovation smiths at EA a cookie. They used a set from a Bond film for a reference point in creating a multiplayer arena. Suddenly, I too see the integrity of their motives.

[quote]Are they trying to hide their ?true? intent by including classic GE64 levels like the Cradle as a multiplayer stage? Keep in mind that the Cradle Multi in GE64 was intact within the memory of the game, but only accessible through the Gameshark.[/quote]You can list off as many similar multiplayer levels until your heart?s content. It doesn?t mean that the developers made a conscious effort to replicate the style and feel of Goldeneye. No, it?s a symbol of their laziness in failing to create original multiplayer stage designs. Instead they pulled maps from a game released in the mid-nineties. I?ve not played the multiplayer portion myself--but are they mapped out exactly the same way? I doubt it because they may own the Bond license, but it doesn?t mean they have the right to copy Rare?s designs verbatim. In which case, I have no idea why you?re mentioning this point in the first place.

[quote]And let's not forget that the gadgets in GE64 have been "remade" in the form of the GoldenEye of the main character in Rogue Agent.[/quote]A boring gimmick to validate the stolen title. Yes. .

Play Psi-Ops instead.

[quote]?It plays? and ?the design approach used? are entirely different things.[/quote]It plays mediocre and the design approach used is extremely limited. You?re playing a villain who earns evil points by fulfilling goals you?d be given in any first-person shooter, while moving through repetitive environments. Yay. Thanks for making that distinction.



[quote]Rogue Agent doesn?t play as well as GE, because EA has consistently proven themselves to be unable to match the fluidity of GE.[/quote]No kidding. That sounds like Bush speak (I.e., Teach a child to read and he?ll pass a literacy test).

[quote]The approach, however, is identical.[/quote]No it isn?t.

[quote]The type of gameplay used, especially when compared to EA?s previous Bond FPS, is certainly more a throwback to GE than Nightfire ever was.

The stories of most Bond games are entirely unrelated to each other (this has been a trend in the films themselves, as well, apart from a few recurring appearances by Ernst Stavro Blofeld), so I don't see how criticism of the story of Rogue Agent being unrelated to GE64 lends validity to the (shaky) doubts about the intent of the developers of Rogue Agent.[/quote]It?s not a throwback. It?s a two-weapon system. The original GoldenEye was similar to DOOM in that Bond could carry an entire arsenal of weaponry and gadgets. It wasn?t about visceral gun fighting in which you constantly had to duck for cover and trade weapons with enemies. It was about being James Bond and using those weapons and gadgets in a stylish way to accomplish various mission objectives. Furthermore, there was no stupid gimmick in which you could grab enemies, use them as hostages, and call it an ?evil? deed.

Your point concerning plot continuity would hold water [i]if[/i] the Bond games had shared the same title. Typically, they?re all based on separate movies or adventures. This title, is called Goldeneye, which implies a direct continuation of both gameplay and story. The developers and marketers knew what people were expecting. As I said to you in class, how interested would you, or the casual gamer have been in this game, had it just been called ?Rogue Agent.? Perhaps somewhat, but not nearly as much.

[quote]The Halo weapon set-up still relates to the Dual-Wielding system. Your comments regarding what Rogue Agent is, and how it?s so blatantly copying Halo, instead of its namesake (GE64), specifically, your description of Rogue Agent, is a description of GE64:

Just because GoldenEye: Rogue Agent uses run-and-gun gameplay means it?s automatically copying Halo? That seems to be what you?re saying here.[/quote]No. It?s because it uses the same [b]exact[/b] run-and-gun gameplay that influences me to claim it?s copying Halo.

[quote]If you want to accuse GE:RA of copying Halo, that?s your prerogative, Charles. If you want to point out run-and-gun gameplay and say, ?Look, that?s so Halo,? that?s your prerogative. If you want to doubt Dev comments and call them ?[obvious] BS,? that?s your prerogative. If you want to accuse GE:RA of just copying Halo and not, as Devs have stated, and as the game design and EA Bond FPS franchise progression shows, of actually serving as a throwback to GE64, that?s your prerogative.

But I think the franchise history, the Dev comments, the gameplay itself (and your own comments about the gameplay itself), the multiplayer stages, and the design approach all suggest other than what you?re saying.[/quote]I love this part of your post; I honestly do. This has to be one of the most hilarious speeches you?ve ever given. I can almost picture you pointing at me with an over-exaggerated face as you deliver it, like some sort of cartoon cop.

I?m going to give you a throwback to match it. Those of you who were around during the ?Down With Newbie Lounge? petition will remember this.

GE:RA copied Halo. That?s not my prerogative, it was the prerogative of the developers who did the copying and that?s a FACT.

I want to point out the [b]two guns and a grenade[/b] run-and-gun gameplay that features basically the same [b]exact[/b] control scheme as Halo and say, ?Look, that?s so Halo.? Because it is. It?s a FACT.

If you?ve even played the original GoldenEye, and the poor piece of **** excuse EA calls GoldenEye, then you too should be able to cite the Dev comments and call them ?[obvious] BS.? That?s a FACT.

[quote]If your criticisms of Rogue Agent and EA trying to copy Halo stem from its release date, then I?m going to say that EA was screwed no matter what.[/quote]No, I had never even considered the release date. Have I ever mentioned it? My criticisms have been clear and to the point. I?ll say it again for good measure just to make sure it gets through. They stem from the fact that it copies the same EXACT style of inventory and gameplay as Halo while managing to completely ruin it in the process. It?s like a poor knock-off of a brand name. If that?s the best they can do, then yes, EA is screwed no matter what.

[quote]Had they released RA a month before Halo 2, they would have taken flack (?Oh, look at that, they?re trying to get their game out before Halo 2 comes out, because they know Halo 2 will totally pwwnzzor their POS game.?)[/quote]Um no. That would have just been common sense and good business. There would have been no flack They probably didn?t have the development time to enjoy that luxury though. This game was obviously rushed together to deceive people in time for the holidays.

[quote]Had they released on the same day, ?Oh, look at that, EA are such dumb little shits for trying to compete with Halo 2, the game that will totally pwwnzzor their POS game.?[/quote]Damn straight. At least they weren?t that pretentious.

[quote]Had they released it a month or two later, ?Oh, look at that, they released their game months after Halo 2, the game that would have totally pwwnzzored their POS game. EA are a bunch of cowards.?[/quote]How about they just don?t release their POS game period? But, should it be absolutely necessary, why not just give it a different name instead of pretending it?s faithful to GoldenEye? By removing it from that inevitable comparison (that they blatantly set themselves up for) they would have done it wonders.

[quote]EA was in a no-win scenario no matter what. They were going to be accused of copying Halo no matter what, despite what Rogue Agent turned out to be, what it was throughout its development, what the concept behind it was, and what the developers were saying throughout the development of the game.[/quote]It was not a no-win scenario. They could have circumvented the problem by investing more time into the development process, not copying Halo and instead delivering on the expectations the title of the game automatically demanded; they could have delivered an experience faithful to GoldenEye or a new worthwhile experience altogether. Face it. They set themselves up. EA screwed EA.

[quote]Yes, Rare were wunderkids back then, but GE64 wasn?t the only FPS that handled well. I recall Doom 64 was very easy to control (except, of course, not being able to look up and down was a turn-off), and Turok 1&2 were made easier, control-wise, thanks to the N64 controller.

The AI is why I yearn to play against human opponents; humans learn and adapt. The AI only runs along its programming.[/quote]Boy, not being able to look up and down was only such a minor problem. You know, the tired concept of hunting down stupid multi-colored card keys and fighting the same enemies we had already seen in countless iterations of the game, only with a nicer coat of paint, with a nicer coat of paint, had already worn thin on me. It?s funny you should mention Doom 64 because I rented it along with Goldeneye when I was first introduced to them both. They were both key reasons for my interest in the Nintendo 64.

Even still, it was obvious especially because of that dual rental, that Doom as it was wasn?t able to cut it anymore. .Even with a 64 suffix added to it.

The original Turok was all right, if you could see through the London esque levels of fog that is, and Turok 2 was wonderful if you didn?t mind navigating four hour long levels with only two or three save points interspersed throughout.

[quote]Again, I think you?re misunderstanding what I?m saying. I?m not talking about gamer mods or anything. I?m talking about how the game by itself is ?okay,? but what gives it replay value and substance are gamers themselves, through gamer-to-gamer interaction and multiplayer (i.e., the game doesn?t make the game; the gamers make the game).[/quote]I?m not misunderstanding. You?re using false logic and wording your points poorly. I don?t know about you, but I?ve not met anyone through Halo 2 that I?ve frequently kept in touch with on a personal basis. And, no one has built up an interesting enough conversation in the pre-game lobby for me to validate your point. Of course, I won?t totally write off what you mean. Finding a good match is important to a game?s success in terms of fun factor. Keep in mind though that it isn?t only the gamers themselves making the game enjoyable. It doesn?t matter how many people play a game online or how good they are. If it?s terrible, it?s going to remain terrible. The reason people are able to have fun with Halo 2 is because the multi-player mode is constructed as well as it is. If you can?t accept that, then well, that?s your prerogative.