HALO 2

[awdougherty]

Got to play some system link multiplayer for a while this evening and I have to say, it was a blast. The group was hesitant at first. There are a lot of new menus to getting a simple slaer game going, probably a lot of adjustments for future XBox Live multiplayer potential.

Some people were actually extremely disappointed at first, hoping that HALO 2 was just going to be exactly the same but with new maps. I think once we got the game and player settings tweaked, it suddenly felt like the old brand new experience we were hoping for.

Some quick thoughts. Some of the new sniper weapons are pretty cool. One seems to fire a short burst. Dual wielding is also awesome. Dual submachine guns can be tricky with the recoil, but the extra damage is worth it. Finally, nothing more satisfying than tracking an opponent, following behind with that person completely unaware, and cleaving them with a sword. Great stuff. I hope it's a smooth experience over XBox Live. My congratualtions and thanks to Bungie. Looking forward to the single player experience.

[Jason Cross]

There are no burst sniper weapons really. The replacement for the old assault rifle is the new combat rifle, which fires bursts of three rounds and has a 2X zoom mode. Maybe that's what you were thinking of.

The human sniper rifle fires single shots, has two zoom levels, and delivers kills with a single headshot (possibly not if you have full shields). The covenant version is very much the same, only shoots beams and like most covey weapons, doesn't need to reload. It just overheats after about three quick shots.

Hardcore Halo fans are going to be disappointed by some of the things at first, but Bungie has actually improved very aspect. The pistol is no longer way overpowered in multiplayer, but it is still useful. And the needler is no longer useless. In fact, dual-wielding needlers is freakin' devastating at medium range.

As for smoothness - it's always been pretty good for me over Live, but I have't tried a 16 person game yet. One of the incredibly cool things about the way Halo 2 works online is that you pick the playlist you want to get in, then it gathers all the players (anonymously, so you can't just drop because you're not beating up on newbies or whatever). Then the game automatically picks the best person to host based on who has the best connection and is most centrally located to all the other players. So you don't have the situation where guys with crappy connections are creating big games they can't possibly host.

[awdougherty]

The XBox Live lobby features seem like one of the best improvements, and you're right about the burst sniper. I think I had the combat rifle. The covenant sniper rifle is pretty cool because you can get off shots faster as long as you be careful not to overheat it. I'll also second dual wielding needlers. In my game, it was a great way to rack up assists. I could render opponents butter soft fairly easily and another would polish them off. And since they home in on a target, you can have some distance to said target for additional safety.

All I can say is spend some time with it. Like I said, many in our group were initially disappointed. But once we settled in and tweaked some settings, we were off. HALO was truly a great multiplayer experience, but I can't see our office going back.

Another nice touch is the sheer number of things it tracks for your game statistics. Average length of time before you die, stuff like that. Some of the maps even have fixed turrets to spray the field with.

[Mattc0m]

I've heard a lot of complaints about Halo 2 multiplayer's setup on online forums. Mainly, I'd just dismiss it as a few angry "jackals". However, I'd like your thoughts on it. Is sacrificing the control of picking your own gameplay experience worth the ease-of-use Bungie is offering?

[Jason Cross]

I've heard a lot of complaints about Halo 2 multiplayer's setup on online forums. Mainly, I'd just dismiss it as a few angry "jackals". However, I'd like your thoughts on it. Is sacrificing the control of picking your own gameplay experience worth the ease-of-use Bungie is offering?

Yes, yes it is. I can't stand it when the entire community gravitates toward playing the same exact game type and rules all the time (see de_dust), it's nice to get thrown into a "small team game" or whatever without it being too explicit.

And hey, if you want to set up the exact game type you want, you can do that. You just have to invite people from your friends list - the random people out there on Live won't ever see your game. Which is good, because maybe you're setting up a 16-person game and can barely host 4 reliably.

[Union Carbide]

Woot, got my copy tonight, just played single player on Easy for an hour or so to refamiliarize myself with the controls.

I've noticed some graphical oddities in the cutscenes (HQ textures popping on after the camera focuses on a model, models popping into scene after the camera points at where their position is) but the gameplay is great.

The only problem I've had so far is that there's less hand-holding in the missions. In H1, waypoints were put up to tell you where to go next. So far that hasn't happened in H2 yet, but I'm admittedly not very far in (I just landed on Earth).

[ChrisGrenard]

Just put about 4 hours into it (got it at midnight... god I need sleep now)

Anyway, game is excellent so far, and pretty hard on heroic difficulty. Bad guys are much stronger then they were back in Halo 1. Overall so far, A+ for fun stuff. BTW, you can hijack the covenent tank by jumping on it, grabbing on, beating on the cockpit till it breaks then dropping a grenade onto the pilot. It is unbelievably cool to watch.

Anyway, great game.

[Union Carbide]

OK, I've played 3 games on Live now, lost one and won two.

The matchmaking for Halo 2 was a bit wonky tonight. Specifically, it was taking a looooong time to get games going. I suspect this had more to do with the fact that I was playing at 4am when not all that many people have the game yet than anything else.

The medals awarded at the end of each match are cool. I managed to get Double Kill, Bonecracker, Assassin, Stick It, and a flag related medal, I think for a flag carry.

I can't wait to get a bunch of QT3 people together for a nice Clan match :D

[awdougherty]

One thing we didn't get to try last night were different types of play, mostly just straight deathmatch. Anyone try something out beyond that or CTF?

[Ephraim]

When I was on with Jason C, fuzzy, and Wholly we got thrown into a few different types of matches, including a very cool variation of King of the Hill, where the Hill kept changing.

We also played a game with a ball, basically fancy keep-away.

Bungie convinced me with the Myth online experience that they know how to make fun multiplayer matches without always tweaking CTF and Deathmatch, and they've proven it again with Halo 2.

[Luke M]

Bungie has proven time and again that they are the master of game types, but I don't know what they were thinking when they removed the Race gametype that is so much fun in Halo 1. There is nothing quite like chasing down a fully occupied warthog while trying to win the race and simultaneously gun down all the opponents.

[Al]

No race? Wha? Is the rally gametype still there at least?

[Wholly Schmidt]

When I was on with Jason C, fuzzy, and Wholly we got thrown into a few different types of matches, including a very cool variation of King of the Hill, where the Hill kept changing.

We also played a game with a ball, basically fancy keep-away.

Bungie convinced me with the Myth online experience that they know how to make fun multiplayer matches without always tweaking CTF and Deathmatch, and they've proven it again with Halo 2.
What's funny is those types are there in Halo as well, but I'll bet there are people who never tried them even once. "CTF in Bloodgulch? Where do I sign up?!"

[Rob O'Boston]

Both my brother and I got this today so we'll probably be on during the early evening (7-10 Eastern). We're both in the clan so it should be easy to find us (robbo qt3 and razzcom). I've played a bunch of training ground missions and they've been fast paced and fun. All of them have been on small maps so far, hopefully there are bigger ones available.

[barstein]

I had high hopes that Halo 1 would have included something similar to Tribes 2 Siege. Is there anything remotely similar in H2?

[DaveC]

Sorry, I just saw someone post about this on another board and it made me truly LOL- You can fire two guns AND use a flashlight, it's evolutionary gameplay.

Hahahhaha!

[Luke M]

What's funny is those types are there in Halo as well, but I'll bet there are people who never tried them even once. "CTF in Bloodgulch? Where do I sign up?!"

Yeah, I hate it when online catasses get stuck playing the same damn map/gametype over and over and over again. They're so good at it that it's not fun to get online and play them. That's why I gravitate to more obscure gametypes, like Race in Halo 1. I don't have the time or interest to keep up with the super catass FPSers.

Bungie is good at encouraging the community to be jack of all trades with their online games. Myth 2's ranking system was designed to encourage players to play all gametypes and maps equally. Glad to see a more advanced form of this system back for Halo 2.

Sorry, I just saw someone post about this on another board and it made me truly LOL- You can fire two guns AND use a flashlight, it's evolutionary gameplay.

Hahahhaha!

Doom 3 can suck it!

[Wholly Schmidt]

Yeah, I hate it when online catasses get stuck playing the same damn map/gametype over and over and over again. They're so good at it that it's not fun to get online and play them...
...Bungie is good at encouraging the community to be jack of all trades with their online games....
As I was mentioning in the other thread, that does seem to be the advantage of the lack of control you have in match setup when you join ranked games. It doesn't just encourage you to be a jack of all trades, it nearly requires it. It does still universally spark some level of outrage the first time you realize you can't setup your own ranked matches really, and I'm not saying that frustration has gone away, but I am leaning towards liking the current system even with that fault.

The other consideration I just had for it involves potential new maps. I don't see how they could really be justified in charging for new content when you're given so little control over it, so do you think new stuff will be free? If I download new maps, first of all, it cuts me off from people who don't have them in matchmaking (though that's nothing new). The fact that those maps I just paid for are still gonna only ever come up just as often as the original maps, and randomly at that, would be a big sticking point though. I wonder what the plan is.

[Luke M]

Hopefully the plan is to add more single player levels onto the campaign. Play to the end and you'll see what I mean.

[Alan Au]

Bungie has proven time and again that they are the master of game types, but I don't know what they were thinking when they removed the Race gametype that is so much fun in Halo 1. There is nothing quite like chasing down a fully occupied warthog while trying to win the race and simultaneously gun down all the opponents.
Race was an experience of varying quality. We got the most enjoyment out of it by creating a Rocket-Race variant, such that if you didn't have a warthog you could, er, commandeer one.

- Alan

[hermyhermit]

Yeah, I hate it when online catasses get stuck playing the same damn map/gametype over and over and over again. They're so good at it that it's not fun to get online and play them.

I don't like this much either, I have noticed this in a couple games actually where servers just keep the same map running 24x7 I never really got that.

My first real experience with it was of course de_dust as mentioned above in Counterstrike. It is sort of like playing with robots that are set on some pattern of instructions. They know exactly where to go and what to do every time and rarely variate from the pattern it is sort of weird actually. I've seen it in many games but de_dust was certainly bizarre sometimes just to spectate on if it was a de_dust only server. Humans who acted like bots....

[Mattc0m]

Yeah, I hate it when online catasses get stuck playing the same damn map/gametype over and over and over again. They're so good at it that it's not fun to get online and play them...
...Bungie is good at encouraging the community to be jack of all trades with their online games....
As I was mentioning in the other thread, that does seem to be the advantage of the lack of control you have in match setup when you join ranked games. It doesn't just encourage you to be a jack of all trades, it nearly requires it. It does still universally spark some level of outrage the first time you realize you can't setup your own ranked matches really, and I'm not saying that frustration has gone away, but I am leaning towards liking the current system even with that fault.

The other consideration I just had for it involves potential new maps. I don't see how they could really be justified in charging for new content when you're given so little control over it, so do you think new stuff will be free? If I download new maps, first of all, it cuts me off from people who don't have them in matchmaking (though that's nothing new). The fact that those maps I just paid for are still gonna only ever come up just as often as the original maps, and randomly at that, would be a big sticking point though. I wonder what the plan is.

I totally agree with point 1. I love how Bungie is making players stop playing the same thing over and over. Sure, some people are going to get angry for not being able to play X map on X gametype every match, but I'm sure people will soon love how its setup, and maybe learn some new things.

Also, for point 2, it'd make sense for a "playlist" that JUST did paid maps. Like lets say you made 1 purchase of $10 for all DLC maps from Halo 2 - and then got access to a special playlist. I don't know, its just a though.

Also, if you downloaded some DLC, would you be able to use System Link for it, or would you need to hook each Xbox up to Live and Download it/Buy it for each Xbox?

[Luke M]

Bungie has proven time and again that they are the master of game types, but I don't know what they were thinking when they removed the Race gametype that is so much fun in Halo 1. There is nothing quite like chasing down a fully occupied warthog while trying to win the race and simultaneously gun down all the opponents.
Race was an experience of varying quality. We got the most enjoyment out of it by creating a Rocket-Race variant, such that if you didn't have a warthog you could, er, commandeer one.

- Alan

Yeah, it can be annoying to be without a ride. But oh the fun you can have when you've got a full crew chasing a full crew all on warthogs.

[Jason Cross]

Also, for point 2, it'd make sense for a "playlist" that JUST did paid maps. Like lets say you made 1 purchase of $10 for all DLC maps from Halo 2 - and then got access to a special playlist. I don't know, its just a though.

Also, if you downloaded some DLC, would you be able to use System Link for it, or would you need to hook each Xbox up to Live and Download it/Buy it for each Xbox?

The "playlists" are dynamic...bungie is taking suggestions and can/will update it dynamically. They make a change on the sever, and within 10 minutes everyone on Live has a new playlist. No downloading. They're definitely going to exercise this in the future.

As for paid maps - it's my understanding that on a LAN or on Live, everyone has to have the map you're going to play, so all the LAN people would have to have downloaded a paid map. Given the phenominal success of the game, I really hope they're going to give away a few maps. Maybe work it like Mechassault, where they give some stuff away at first, and charge for really big content downloads later on. Lord knows it's not like they need to squeeze $4.95 out of all these players when they raked in $100 million (retail) on the first day. The game probably profited $40 million already - over the cost of production and the retailer markup.

[bago]

I played it for about seven hours straight. It's certainly pretty, but some of the cinematics you'd think they would include instructions to preload the textures for a new jump cut.

[SolomonGrundy]

I don't have an X-Box, so explain this to me-You have to PAY for downladed content?
I'm just thinking about how many maps Epic has given out between UT and UT2k3/4.
Not a fan of that trend. Of course I'm not a fan of pay to play multiplayer either.

[Jakub]

What the hell is wrong with the audio mixing in the game.

Music blares out. Sound effects are at normal levels, and Cortana and other voice acting is like a whisper.

[hermyhermit]

What the hell is wrong with the audio mixing in the game.

Music blares out. Sound effects are at normal levels, and Cortana and other voice acting is like a whisper.

The first one had some weird audio mixing too. I remember specifically complaining that the shotgun sounded rather anemic, and it did.

Since you are describing three major areas it would have been nice to have adjustable sliders for sound, music, and voice respectively but apparently Bungie Knows Best(tm).

[Kevin Grey]

Yeah the overall sound here is kind of flat and muted. I was just replaying portions of the original last week and Halo 1 packed a lot more punch in the sound department.

[Silverlight]

Hopefully the plan is to add more single player levels onto the campaign. Play to the end and you'll see what I mean.

As far as I'm concerned that may as well read
Bungie didn't get the single-player game done in time, and they wanted to release before Half-Life 2 for strategic reasons, so they decided to just cut off the single-player experience and make people get the rest in January by paying for X-Box Live.
As someone who would be willing to buy an X-Box for single-player purposes (even just for Halo 2) but doesn't want to buy into Live, this would be an immense disappointment.

[Squirrel Killer]

As far as I'm concerned that may as well read
Bungie didn't get the single-player game done in time, and they wanted to release before Half-Life 2 for strategic reasons, so they decided to just cut off the single-player experience and make people get the rest in January by paying for X-Box Live.
As someone who would be willing to buy an X-Box for single-player purposes (even just for Halo 2) but doesn't want to buy into Live, this would be an immense disappointment.

I'd buy that read if Halo 2's release date was announced sometime after Half-Life 2's release date after the whole 9/30 fiasco. But, considering that they've repeatedly said that they were going to release when it was done, I think the plot was planned.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I don't have an X-Box, so explain this to me-You have to PAY for downladed content?
I'm just thinking about how many maps Epic has given out between UT and UT2k3/4.
Not a fan of that trend. Of course I'm not a fan of pay to play multiplayer either.

It depends on the game. Some have free stuff, some you have to pay for, some have a little of both.

[awdougherty]

For the sound, it might just be that it's mixed for 5.1 channels and you're playing it through a stereo output. Muted dialogue can often result. If you're playing through a surround sound system, then the mix is just weird.

Played the single player campaign for a while last night. A lot of fun, more of the same a little but in a good way.

But a pet peeve of mine to all the developers out there. Your in game cinematics really need some work. I don't know what the limitations are, but they always come off really clunky. Bad camera angles, bad editing, poor pacing, usually weak voice acting. If it's a case where doing something like that in a game engine is really hard to do exactly what you want, okay, then I can forgive it. If it's because the game companies want to do the movies themselves because they think they can, I just want to say that it seems most of them can't.

There are people out there with the training to really make those movie sections work. Please get them involved somehow. I work in the TV vommercial industry and I see stuff like this all the time. The directors have no formal training, think of a few cool angles, and get the job. The commercials come out weak, editors have to cut around poor coverage, and the whole thing stinks. Even worse is when the director gets the job because of nepotism or because they thought of the idea but still have no formal training.

The few cinematics I saw in HALO 2 weren't the worst I've ever seen, but they really weren't anything more than servicable. The cross cutting stuff in the beginning was pretty clunky even though on paper it was a good idea.

[Mark Asher]

So how good is Halo 2 if you have no intention of playing multiplayer? I don't have Xbox Live and I have no plans to get it, and I don't even know if I'd play online if it was available in a PC version. I've never been big on playing shooters online.

[awdougherty]

It depends on if you liked the first one. I thought the first was great as a single player experience despite the repetitive levels (which did get a little irritating). I find the seond to be very similar, but just better. More interesting levels, better weapons, all good stuff. But I say that not having beaten the game. Someone who has lived the full experience might have a better perspective.

[Kevin Grey]

Single player is improved over the first game but nothing ground breaking. It can still be pretty repititious though there is a bit more variety in level design this time out. There are some new enemies, weapons, and vehicles but I still find the game lacking in variety.

The best part of the single player is the scale of environments. Several of the levels start out with a structure so far away that its represented by a 2D image but, through some clever level design and seamless loading, you'll eventually make your way to and into that structure.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through it and I'm starting to burn out on it. I think the single player portion is overrated in the reviews but it sounds like the stellar multiplayer makes up for it to most people.

[Jason McMaster]

the multiplayer is pretty fantastic

[Reed]

But a pet peeve of mine to all the developers out there. Your in game cinematics really need some work. I don't know what the limitations are, but they always come off really clunky. Bad camera angles, bad editing, poor pacing, usually weak voice acting.
So true, although GTA: SA is a notable exception. Excellent voice acting, good pacing, etc.

The Halo 2 cutscenes I've seen so far are pretty poor. Especially given the level of hype and that this is supposed to be a huge top notch production. Millions in advertising but subpar cutscenes right off the bat?

Also, had a hard time hearing what they were saying in certain scenes. And in general the sound doesn't have much of an impact and is very underwhelming. I was going to attribute it to my surround sound system being messed up, but apparently I'm not alone. Wtf?

[Reed]

Single player is like Halo 1.5.

Sucks that they didn't fix the level design, which was probably the biggest complaint about Halo. Already in the first area I had to spend some time wondering where I should be going next and if I had been there or not.

Love the loading/saving. Almost seemless. Even when you die, you're right back into the action very quickly.

Also, not having health (only a shield) is a nice decision I think.

[Jakub]

No, the sound is definitely screwed up.

I can't believe they don't have a volume slider at ALL, never mind separate ones for music, effects and speech.

[Guido Jones]

It's a good game, I'm just dissappointed about how short it was and the cliffhanger ending.

[Jason Cross]

For the sound, it might just be that it's mixed for 5.1 channels and you're playing it through a stereo output. Muted dialogue can often result. If you're playing through a surround sound system, then the mix is just weird.

Something that usually screws up audio on Halo and other Xbox games:

1. Make sure in your Xbox dashboard you have the proper sound output selected.

2. If you have a stereo or surround system, don't use any kind of "TruSurround" or any other sort of "we make it sound like surround sound" post-processing. Some TVs have this on by default, look in your audio menu and go to straight Stereo.

3. Don't pick 5.1 if you don't have a real 5.1 setup. If you have Dolby Surround on a stereo or something, turn it off and play in Stereo.

Nine times out of ten when the mix sounds bad on an Xbox game, it's because you're doing some post-processing (maybe unintentionally!) that's hosing it up.

But a pet peeve of mine to all the developers out there. Your in game cinematics really need some work. I don't know what the limitations are, but they always come off really clunky. Bad camera angles, bad editing, poor pacing, usually weak voice acting. If it's a case where doing something like that in a game engine is really hard to do exactly what you want, okay, then I can forgive it. If it's because the game companies want to do the movies themselves because they think they can, I just want to say that it seems most of them can't.

This is very true. The bulk of Halo 2's cinematics are a LOT better than what you get in most games. By a long shot. But still kinda rough. NOLF2 still has probably the best camerawork/editing/angles for cut scenes in a game, still. But then again, the lead designer (Craig Hubbard) went to film school, so maybe that has something to do with it.

[Jason Cross]

It's a good game, I'm just dissappointed about how short it was and the cliffhanger ending.

FWIW, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was shorter, and had no multiplayer at all. And nobody seemed to care.

Of course, it also came to a very satisfying conclusion, so maybe it's the abrupt end in Halo 2 that makes it more of an issue with people.

[Kevin Grey]

Yeah, Prince of Persia had one of the best endings in recent years. It was the type of ending that just made me want to jump right back in at the beginning.

[EDIT]- I think the issue with gamelength and Halo 2 is that its actually shorter than the first game. Given the three years it took to develop I think that was sort of unexpected.

In practice- I've spent 9 or 10 hours with the game and it doesn't feel short. Maybe its just the more varied locations than the previous game but I'm satisfied with the length, especially since I'm already hitting the wall on it.

[Jakub]

Spoiler:

Oh, the Flood are back. Great. Let's re-introduce the most boring part of Halo, the least interesting characters. Wonderful.

I'm gonna go scrap my disc now.

[awdougherty]

I thought Prince of Persia had just about the right game length for me, so if HALO 2 is a little longer, that's not too bad at all. I also really dug the ending of PoP, really a great story well told. I hope the sequel lives up to the original.

As for the cutscene stuff, it's a really big annoyance for me. I have an MFA in film production and I current work in the post-production department of an advertising agency, so maybe I'm more sensitive to stuff, I don't know. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that I could have done HALO 2's cutscenes better and more cinematically. Not because I have mad skillz!!!, but because I feel there are certain fundamentals missing from game movies, and it isn't brain surgery applying those fundamentals. Most game cutscenes make my thesis film look like Citizen Kane (although I've been told my thesis is "actually pretty good for a student film").

Telling a story through visual means is both an art and a craft. The craft can be taught to some degree and most video game cutscenes would really benefit from a dose of this. The art part can't be taught and that's why you hope things like having an MFA or a decent quality film or portfolio would help seperate those with a gift from those who simply understand the craft. I personally believe I have a little bit of the art as well, and hopefully that would take the cutscenes up a notch.

But the real truth is there are probably scores of people significantly more talented than me that could be brought in to punch cutscenes up. A giant title like HALO 2 has no excuse.

[_Fury_]

Continued spoilers ahoy!

The flood are great. I never saw what the problem was with them in the first place. Anyhow, I haven't seen them yet where it was just 'me vs. the flood' - it's been a 3-way fight from the beginning, which makes for just as interesting of combat (or moreso) than just vs. covenant or whatever.

[Kevin Grey]

I agree with you there Jakub. I've hated those parts of the game with a passion. Just not fun to me.

[Jakub]

Continued spoilers ahoy!

The flood are great. I never saw what the problem was with them in the first place.
The Flood have absolutely no fucking soul. No character. There's nothing interesting about them. They're refugees from Atari 2600 days, where every enemy has one shtick.

Plus, as enemies, they're such an absurdly unimaginative, generic and boring group, they might as well be from a 1950s campy horror movie called "The Generic Aliens That Make Jerry Bruckheimer Cringe At How Bland They Are."

[Rob O'Boston]

the multiplayer is pretty fantastic

I agree. I have four memorable points from my first night of play, and all four center around me being ruthlessly cut down. After you get nailed, you linger over your body for a minute and you can hear the enemy talking if they're near you.

Memorable point number 1: As I closed in on a flagbearer, the flagbearer suddenly lashed out and busted me with the flagpole. The 12 year old running with the flag starts screaming "I got him with the flag!" Over and over again, even after the game was over.

Memorable point number 2: approaching the enemy flag, which was outside on the ground and protected by 5 guys looking the other way, I decide to take a chance and picked it up. 2 seconds later I'm dead. Some kid stands over my body saying, "What kind of a MORON do you have to be to pick up a flag surrounded by 5 guys?"

Memorable point number 3: chasing down the enemy flagbearer, I chase him up a set of stairs, but just as I get close I am gunned down from behind. The camera lifts up and I watch the flagbearer getting away. Suddenly my brother (razzcom) is at the top of the stairs with the alien sword. *VWAP* Flagbearer is history.

Memorable point number 4: at one point we had 10 clan members playing, so we played 5 on 5, territories. I find a flag and while the flag converts to my side I push the white button to tell my team, "I'm capturing the..." THWAP-THWAP-THWAP, I'm submachinegunned down and Mike Cathcart is standing on my head saying, "You aren't capturing sh*t."

[_Fury_]

Preface post by saying I really really like the game a lot and plan on playing it every free moment I'm not playing WoW.

Also consider yourself warned for spoilers, but only gameplay/technical ones - no story spoilers here.

I've got some odd nitpicks that I've not seen elsewhere, and I figured I'd put them out here to perhaps garner some discussion. Or not.

It appears to me that they switched physics engines. This would seem to be backed up by the Havok label on the back of the DVD case. In any case, I preferred the old physics - they felt like they had more 'weight'. I've already run into the same sort of things now in Halo2 that I saw in other havok games like max payne 2 where things that fell down sat and wiggled because the engine couldn't decide where they needed to come to rest. One time I had my tank when going over a small bump and scraping a wall at the same time decide that it needed to do a triple flip (!) in the air. And honestly - does anyone care about knocking barrels over? It's tired, I liked the old ragdolls.

The weapon sound changes. Why? The old plasma rifle sound was better than the new one in my opinion. The new sound of the human weapons has grown on me a bit, but there was nothing wrong with the old ones.

No health bar? Why God, why? This makes Legendary almost unplayable, since your shields go down in around 3 plasma rifle shots, and the next one kills you. Against a dual-wielding elite it's nearly impossible to win straight up. In the original, elites on legendary were either needler affairs, or perhaps charged plasma pistol then switch to human pistol for a headshot. I'm sure my tactics need to adjust some, but you used to be able to survive for more than 1.5 secs of fire.

What's with the sound that plays when a ghost explodes? There's like a guitar note at the end or something that's just odd.

More weapon types does not = better. Some of the new weapons are just straight up useless. If someone comes up with a use for the covenant carbine besides something to tide you over until you get something that doesn't suck, I'd love to know what it is. Every weapon in the original game was situationally very useful (even the needler, which was one of your most important weapons on Legendary imo).

It used to be that plasma weapons were very good against shields and human weapons were very good against flesh. This doesn't appear to be the case anymore, although maybe I just haven't noticed.

[DaveC]

No, the sound is definitely screwed up.

I can't believe they don't have a volume slider at ALL, never mind separate ones for music, effects and speech.

There's good reason for this. I was always at odds with the higher ups about this at Bioware. I believe that if the sound team is given the proper time to do a final mix pass then there is no need for volume sliders. The problem is that there is never enough time for this and so we have to fall back on seperate sliders which in my opinion is a bad thing. How many games let you adjust the intensity of different colors and light sources? The audio should be presented in such a way that there is no need for sliders. The audio in Hal0 2 is fine for me, so maybe it's a set-up thing for some people?

[Jakub]

Dave, you can't guarantee that sound will work the way you intend on every audio platform. That's why sliders are great.

Incidentally, I wouldn't mind some gamma control as well. The game is dark as hell.

[Bitterman]

Did anyone else notice the marine voice acting? Orlando Jones voices one and another is by DAVID CROSS. Kickass.

And it seems they let the guys make up their own lines too.

re: the needler

I am not sure if I like the new needler. It seems to lack the huge punch of the old one and doesn't have the same tracking. The needler was the weapon of choice to remove elites in legendary.

re: the sound

I have the same issue with the mix, the music is very loud and the dialogue is quiet. I am 100% positive that it is not processing issue, and my 5.1 setup is correct. I'll try some processing modes tonight.

re: the weapons in general

It does seem to me that the weapons are a bit more general purpose than they were, and ammo is shorter, encouraging you to switch weapons more often. I LOVE the fact that marines can drive and do a decent job, it's a blast to finally get to use the chaingun in single player.

re: the speed

Seems to me the game is a lot more hectic than the first one. I'm a very deliberate player, and it seems like the action is a bit more urgent.

re: in general

I'm loving the game, will take me a bit to get used to the changes, but I think most of them are good. Except the sound, that is a bit annoying.

[DaveC]

Dave, you can't guarantee that sound will work the way you intend on every audio platform. That's why sliders are great.

Incidentally, I wouldn't mind some gamma control as well. The game is dark as hell.

Works for movies and music and if done properly it will work for games as well. Problem is that so little QA is done on sound at most companies. You need to test on a wide variety of TVs, 5.1 systems and even boomboxes. That's how they mix music and it's worked well for decades.

[DaveC]

re: the needler

I am not sure if I like the new needler. It seems to lack the huge punch of the old one and doesn't have the same tracking. The needler was the weapon of choice to remove elites in legendary.



Dual needlers are the bomb. That's how I made it through a certain level which I won't name on account of the spoiling.

[Supertanker]

It used to be that plasma weapons were very good against shields and human weapons were very good against flesh. This doesn't appear to be the case anymore, although maybe I just haven't noticed.

This effect does seem reduced, but still there. On the lower difficulty levels an SMG/Plasma Rifle combo drops Elites like a bad habit.

[Jason Cross]

If someone comes up with a use for the covenant carbine besides something to tide you over until you get something that doesn't suck, I'd love to know what it is. Every weapon in the original game was situationally very useful (even the needler, which was one of your most important weapons on Legendary imo).

It used to be that plasma weapons were very good against shields and human weapons were very good against flesh. This doesn't appear to be the case anymore, although maybe I just haven't noticed.

Dude, I loved the covenant carbine in single player. The downside was you had to pull the trigger for each shot, but you could fire it off very fast, it was really accurate at range, and did great damage if you were quick on the trigger.

It seemed like the plasma weapons were still a lot better against shields than the human ones. The whole "tear down shields with covenant and finish off with human weapons" stuff was still the most effecient way to take someone down. Or at least that's the impression I got from playing.

[Jakub]

Yup, agreed with Jason. Plasma + SMG is my favorite combo.

[_Fury_]

What difficulty? On Heroic it doesn't seem to hurt an elite's shields at all. In fact, my impression is that it'd take like 10 shots to take down your every day run of the mill elite.

[barstein]

So no tribes2 siege-type play then? :cry:

[Jason Cross]

So no tribes2 siege-type play then? :cry:

I played so little Tribes 2 (because it was so broken for so long) that I'm not sure what you mean.

You quite often get thrown into one-flag CTF or Assault maps where it goes like this:

For two minutes, one team is on defense and one is on offense. The offense team has to either grab the enemy flag and bring it home (CTF) or take the bomb from their base to the enemy's base and "arm" it - holding it in the same bomb area for like 10 seconds. If they're successful or time runs out, the offense and defense switch sides.

Is that like what you were talking about?

[Jason Cross]

Sorry I disappeared from the game tonight guys. My connection died for a few minutes.

We had a really good time playing clan stuff earlier this evening...we were matched up against similar ranked clans and teams and had some really great games. As in "as much fun as you can have on the 'net, with your pants on" kind of great games.

But when I played a few more small team games later tonight (after 10pm PST) it got ugly. The game couldn't find teams with people of similar rank to us, so we were a group of 3-5s playing against 4-7 or 8. And let me tell ya, the difference between 5 and 8 is probably a couple dozen games. So the other guys obviously knew the maps a lot better than we did and we got schooled.

And of course, it was only more annoying that they rubbed it in with the best possible 17-year-old suburban tough guy banter. GRR. The anonymity of the 'net makes any hint of sportsmanship go right out the window. :(

I guess once it gets past around midnight eastern time, more and more players start to drop out of the game, and it the matchup pickings are slim. So many of the people up this late were hardcore fanatics who have played the maps many more times than us. This will probably get better as more people get the game, get Live, finish the campaign...

Of course, it's not just knowing the maps. It's skill, which takes time and a willingness to experiement, and strategy, which we were admittedly weak on. Part of that is not knowing the maps, the other part is poor communication (how many enemies there are and where, which side they're coming in the base on, etc.). There's a lot of "out of sight out of mind" in the game, when what you really want is to effectively share your view and more importantly, your RADAR with your teammates. You may not see or have even engaged a guy, but if you see two red dots on your radar, it helps to say "I've got two coming in from the left" or whatever it is. If your teammates are simply pointed in the right direction when they come in view, they can get a fire advantage on 'em.

Now I really gotta take some NyQuil and hit the sack (stupid cold).

[bago]

I'm not playing multi until I beat the campaign. The MC just got grabbed by cthulu!

[Kyle Wilson]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the aspect of the game I found most annoying: the tunnel-vision FOV. I suppose they had to narrow it down to make 30 frames per second. The horizontal field of view looks like it's around 70 degrees, which just feels oppressive in a first-person FPS.

Also: the Flood is dull and flying enemies suck with an X-box controller.

Complaints out of the way, the game is pretty damn cool. The scale of the huge streamed levels is awesome. The weapons are better balanced and more fun than in Halo 1. Dual-wielding works surprisingly well, and will probably be much-copied. There are pleasantly diverting tank combat/air combat "mini-games" to offer some variety in the action. Halo 2 looks a little rushed and a *lot* limited by the hardware, but still does more with the X-box than any other title I've played.

[Luke M]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the aspect of the game I found most annoying: the tunnel-vision FOV. I suppose they had to narrow it down to make 30 frames per second. The horizontal field of view looks like it's around 70 degrees, which just feels oppressive in a first-person FPS.

I knew there was something fishy about the viewing area in this game. When I first popped it in my machine early Tuesday morning, I couldn't shake the feeling that my view was limited. I attributed this feeling to playing too many 3rd person games leading up to the launch of Halo 2. Eventually, I got used to it. At least now I know what's up.

[Luke M]

Also, has anyone noticed that the very nice detailed textures from Halo 1 Xbox seem to be entirely missing in Halo 2?

[Jakub]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the aspect of the game I found most annoying: the tunnel-vision FOV. I suppose they had to narrow it down to make 30 frames per second. The horizontal field of view looks like it's around 70 degrees, which just feels oppressive in a first-person FPS.
I knew there was something fishy about the viewing area in this game. When I first popped it in my machine early Tuesday morning, I couldn't shake the feeling that my view was limited. I attributed this feeling to playing too many 3rd person games leading up to the launch of Halo 2. Eventually, I got used to it. At least now I know what's up.
Wow, good catch.

That explains why I'm getting blind-sided so often.

[Supertanker]

But when I played a few more small team games later tonight (after 10pm PST) it got ugly. The game couldn't find teams with people of similar rank to us, so we were a group of 3-5s playing against 4-7 or 8. And let me tell ya, the difference between 5 and 8 is probably a couple dozen games. So the other guys obviously knew the maps a lot better than we did and we got schooled.

This is the problem I'm having. I haven't played too many rounds yet, but they all have been incredibly one-sided affairs. For example, my team lost a round of Team Slayer something like 28-8. I only can start playing after 9pm PST or later, so I guess I'm just doomed to a career as a target dummy?

The field of view issue is another problem I have, which is exacerbated by the set turn rate of a controller. It's making me batty, but a big part of the solution is changing away from the CQB style I use with a mouse/keyboard. I hate playing that way, though.

The other issue I haven't seen discussed is lag. I suspect this is because the Xbox makes a terrible server. I ended up in a round of Slayer where we started with rocket launchers. The lag was incredible - rockets never showing in flight, delayed explosions after impact, many lag-delayed deaths once I was back behind cover and reloading, vanishing players. It was like being on dial-up again. Related to that, I'm learning that the "Counterstrike Dance" (strafing back & forth short distances to spoil hit detection) is dominant in other matches. In another slayer round, I snuck up behind a guy and fired on him at close range with an SMG (about 15 feet). He immediately started the CS Dance while I emptied the magazine, with my reticle barely leaving his form. He lived, and once he had time to find me, killed me with about half a magazine. It helps to aim ahead of people when I play on high-ping servers in other games (there are a couple of east coast and European servers I like in DoD), so I'm going to try that tonight.

Overall, I'm very disappointed with the online play.

[Bitterman]

We had almost zero lag last night during the matches. There were a couple warpers, but all in all, the lag was almost nonexistent.

[quatoria]

I've been having a blast with the online play, but a few high ping players can definately spoil your match. In a round last night, two players had severe warping issues - it was exacerbated by the fact that one of them had a sword. By the time he appeared on your screen, you were dead, because on his box, he'd have already finished the lunge animation before your system even knew he was nearby.

[Jakub]

I've been having a blast with the online play, but a few high ping players can definately spoil your match. In a round last night, two players had severe warping issues - it was exacerbated by the fact that one of them had a sword. By the time he appeared on your screen, you were dead, because on his box, he'd have already finished the lunge animation before your system even knew he was nearby.
Oh Jesus, Halo 2 lets the CLIENT system decide if there was a hit?

Yeah, that's not gonna work. I can totally see people hacking apart their Xboxes to cheat for that.

[MikeP]

The horizontal field of view looks like it's around 70 degrees, which just feels oppressive in a first-person FPS.

This is out of left field, but I've sometimes wondered how FOV might be manipulated in games. Human vision is limited to, say, the 140 degrees in front of you. Yet our fovea provides high definition information for about the centre 6 degrees of our vision. Our periphery has quite limited acuity, both in the retina and cortex.

So when you're playing a game that shows you the 90 degrees in front of you, you're really being given both more and less information than you would normally have. From around 6-45 degrees (45 as in half of 90) you are getting higher acuity than in reality, but from 45 degrees out, you are missing a ton of information.

My idea is that you could display the game with human vision in mind. You could make the centre of the screen displayed in full resolution, and then have the periphery displayed at a lower resolution. Combined with this, you could display a wider FOV. If you see something moving on the side of the screen, you would have to rotate your view to "foveate" it, instead of just looking at that side of the screen. It might be somewhat hard to do, but I think you could sell it to high performance crowds by saying that they really weren't looking at the edges of the screen anyway, and only rendering the centre in detail lets you hit a higher framerate. And you could sell it to the "realism" gamers by saying that it's more realistic.

[Mattc0m]

I've actually had a blast with the online system. Playing solo is kind of fun, but not that great for team games. When I play solo, I think the Rumble Pit is the best playlist to load up.

However, team games are very awesome if you have a party setup. Even though we lost about half of our games, and even got "schooled" a few times, we had a blast playing together. Something about the system is just so addictive, and we played for about 5 hours in a row. Sad to say, this is the first game I've been addicted to for about a year now.

I still haven't even touched the Campaign mode, yet.

[Silverlight]

My idea is that you could display the game with human vision in mind. You could make the centre of the screen displayed in full resolution, and then have the periphery displayed at a lower resolution. Combined with this, you could display a wider FOV. If you see something moving on the side of the screen, you would have to rotate your view to "foveate" it, instead of just looking at that side of the screen. It might be somewhat hard to do, but I think you could sell it to high performance crowds by saying that they really weren't looking at the edges of the screen anyway, and only rendering the centre in detail lets you hit a higher framerate. And you could sell it to the "realism" gamers by saying that it's more realistic.

You are making some fundamental mistakes. One, the movement of your view corresponds to head movement in your avatar, not eye movement. Two, the human visual system keeps a hell of a lot more information than just what the eyeball sees at the current moment; you're selling short the brain's ability to retain details of areas it's only getting low-res updates from, as well as the brain's ability to pick up on peripheral movement, vital to our normal wide range of vision. Three, it wouldn't actually produce any performance gains, and in fact would be a net performance loss.

[Alan Au]

You are making some fundamental mistakes. One, the movement of your view corresponds to head movement in your avatar, not eye movement. Two, the human visual system keeps a hell of a lot more information than just what the eyeball sees at the current moment; you're selling short the brain's ability to retain details of areas it's only getting low-res updates from, as well as the brain's ability to pick up on peripheral movement, vital to our normal wide range of vision. Three, it wouldn't actually produce any performance gains, and in fact would be a net performance loss.
Actually, I like his idea. As I understand it, he isn't suggesting that the regular view be distorted, rather that the FOV be drastically widened with compression/distortion taking place at the edges so that the player has a regular view looking directly ahead.

- Alan

[Bitterman]

Regarding the sound mix issues in halo 2:

I did some experimenting with the various surround settings, and made the discovery that if I go to 6.1 (Dolby digital EX) the dialogue is considerably more clear and the music is not quite as overpowering.

I also tried some of the DSP modes, and found that the "cinema" setting helped out. However, considering that DSP modes are in no way standard across audio equipment, your results may vary. I am not sure if the 6.1 solution will work with people who have just 5.1 speakers, but a decoder capable of doing EX.

Speaking of sound, are there any games which use DTS? Seems like DTS would provide slightly better performance, since it is far less compressed. Of course, it might require more CPU power to put out that much info on the digital audio port.

[Silverlight]

Actually, I like his idea. As I understand it, he isn't suggesting that the regular view be distorted, rather that the FOV be drastically widened with compression/distortion taking place at the edges so that the player has a regular view looking directly ahead.

I got the feeling that that was exactly what he was suggesting - give you a 10-degree-radius clear patch in the center, and the rest of it is distorted and blurred. Otherwise this passage wouldn't make any sense:
If you see something moving on the side of the screen, you would have to rotate your view to "foveate" it, instead of just looking at that side of the screen.

[MikeP]

You are making some fundamental mistakes. One, the movement of your view corresponds to head movement in your avatar, not eye movement.

That's right, but how often do you look straight ahead while shifting your eyes around? Usually, you orient your head towards objects you're interested in. This system would make you, the player, shift your avatar's head to look at something, instead of just looking at the side of the screen.

Two, the human visual system keeps a hell of a lot more information than just what the eyeball sees at the current moment; you're selling short the brain's ability to retain details of areas it's only getting low-res updates from, as well as the brain's ability to pick up on peripheral movement, vital to our normal wide range of vision.

The visual cortex is doing some integration over the course of hundreds of milliseconds, but the retina and visual cortex do not store information. You have fewer photoreceptors sensing your periphery, and if you look at brain size, there are far more neurons devoted to a single photoreceptor in your fovea than in your periphery.

You are correct, however, that we have good motion sensitivity in our periphery, but that motion sensitivity does not mean high acuity.

Three, it wouldn't actually produce any performance gains, and in fact would be a net performance loss.

This may or may not be true, and you'd have to ask a programmer. You should be able to design your renderer (or what-have-you) to display a small portion of the screen at high resolution, and then simply render the sides of the screen at a lower resolution.

I just think it'd be neat to mimic human vision in a game, and be able to perceive more of your surroundings.

(As an edit, I'm not suggesting a 10 degree field in the middle. Maybe more like 30. You'd have to balance being able to see stuff acutely, seeing stuff widely, and not screwing over gameplay for realism.)

[Nick Walter]

Errr, this whole "mimic human field of vision" thing is neat to discuss, but it sounds like no fun (apologies to Tom Chick for the dropping the f bomb). The monitor imposes enough of a visibility penalty without deliberately making it worse.

Until we have cheap 3d goggles with good motion sensors built in to provide the full 360 sphere of vision with just a head turn, I don't want to see any technology like this and would avoid buying a game that tried it.

[Jazar]

I think that could work great with eye tracking devices. Dunno how much of a performance boost it would give you though.

[Rorschach]

[I just think it'd be neat to mimic human vision in a game, and be able to perceive more of your surroundings.

(As an edit, I'm not suggesting a 10 degree field in the middle. Maybe more like 30. You'd have to balance being able to see stuff acutely, seeing stuff widely, and not screwing over gameplay for realism.)

I think the limiting factor would be a control scheme that could mimic the responsiveness and control of your eyeballs if you're forcing the view to your eyes.

[Silverlight]

That's right, but how often do you look straight ahead while shifting your eyes around? Usually, you orient your head towards objects you're interested in. This system would make you, the player, shift your avatar's head to look at something, instead of just looking at the side of the screen.

Most of the time, it's a complex combination of head, eye, and body movements controlling out vision that cannot be easily imitated solely with the mouse.

This may or may not be true, and you'd have to ask a programmer. You should be able to design your renderer (or what-have-you) to display a small portion of the screen at high resolution, and then simply render the sides of the screen at a lower resolution.

Since most of the rendering is done in hardware, and since the hardware needs to be generally-applicable, we have three choices:

1. Do it via some sort of software trick. Take a performance penalty and have really complicated development.

2. Do it via specific screen warping and blurring effects. There's a performance penalty but it's much easier to build.

3. Custom hardware. No performance penalty, but very very expensive.

I could also throw in that the naive approach to reducing resolution on the sides of the screen would produce an extremely ugly image, even if it were anti-aliased. Anything more complicated is essentially a variant of number two above.

And, uh, not that it's particularly relevant, but I am a programmer.

[Xemu]

I had fun tooling around in a few random MP games last night and joined the clan ... Yay!

Only had a few minutes to play before getting dragged away by the kids but definitely looking forward to more play. Lag was a bit frustrating at times but aside from that it's vastly polished... nice.

Looking forward to finding some other QT3ers to play with!

[Jason Cross]

re: field of view and such...

Here's a question: does your radar sort of "clip" off the side of the screen a bit? Like, the edge of your radar is either cut off, or right smack on the edge of your TV?

Lots of users are having this problem. It's because TVs tend to "overscan" by about 5-10% (usually closer to 10) and Halo 2 just doesn't compensate all that well for it. In most console games you just whack with the field of view and move all the interface elements in a bit.

I did some digging around on google until I found the service mode options and instructions for my TV, and changed the horizontal and vertical size and position until I reduced the overscan a lot. Now there's a good inch of clearance on the side and bottom of my radar and my field of view seems wider. There are lots of angry threads about this on Bungie.net's forums.

Also - if you have a widescreen TV or a 4:3 TV that has a widescreen mode, you can set your Xbox to widescreen in the dashboard and Halo 2 will play in widescreen mode. Apparently the HUD elements stretch, but the actual viewport is correct and not skewed.

For multiplayer play, I noticed that turning my controller sensativity up from the default 3 to 5 has helped a lot. I can turn around on those guys behind me a lot faster. It takes a little getting used to - you have to adjust your aim with gentle movements of the stick instead of mashing it from side to side - but it has helped a lot overall. I might even go up to 6.

[KiloOhm]

Bungie has proven time and again that they are the master of game types, but I don't know what they were thinking when they removed the Race gametype that is so much fun in Halo 1. There is nothing quite like chasing down a fully occupied warthog while trying to win the race and simultaneously gun down all the opponents.

You joking? I must of had 40 - 50 lan parties with Halo and we tried that mode exacty once. We all (about 10 of us) thought it was terrible and never played it again. CTF and juggernaight is where it's at! Oddball with the skull was great also (especially braining someone with it) :) )

[Dave Long]

Crazy King is definitely my favorite game type. It requires a lot of skill to stay alive and it really helps you become very good with the controls.

--Dave

[Alan Au]

I got the feeling that that was exactly what he was suggesting - give you a 10-degree-radius clear patch in the center, and the rest of it is distorted and blurred. Otherwise this passage wouldn't make any sense:
I was thinking you would just retain the standard 70 degree clear window (which as pointed out, is limiting the player already) and add compressed peripheral FOV at the very edges, kind of like when you look through a piece of glass with beveled edges. This would be more akin to what you can see when looking around without turning your head. (e.g. Even with your eyes looking all the way to one side, you can't see the very edge of your FOV with perfect acuity.) You'd have to be able to turn it off though, since I guess it would bother some people no matter how well it was implemented.

- Alan

[Luke M]

Also - if you have a widescreen TV or a 4:3 TV that has a widescreen mode, you can set your Xbox to widescreen in the dashboard and Halo 2 will play in widescreen mode. Apparently the HUD elements stretch, but the actual viewport is correct and not skewed.

Are you saying this widens the FOV to be more like other FPS games and Halo 1? This disadvantages online players without widescreen capable TVs. Speaking of the odd and irritatingly limited FOV in Halo 2, can anyone think of any other FPSs that had FOVs this small?

dandylife wrote:
Bungie has proven time and again that they are the master of game types, but I don't know what they were thinking when they removed the Race gametype that is so much fun in Halo 1. There is nothing quite like chasing down a fully occupied warthog while trying to win the race and simultaneously gun down all the opponents.


You joking? I must of had 40 - 50 lan parties with Halo and we tried that mode exacty once. We all (about 10 of us) thought it was terrible and never played it again. CTF and juggernaight is where it's at! Oddball with the skull was great also (especially braining someone with it) )

Everybody plays CTF. All the time. And it gets old. And I don't play CTF all the time. So I get my ass kicked whenever I try.

Race is great because anyone can have fun with it, not just the elite players. It forces team cooperation on the Warthog more than any other game type. I can't think of how many CTF games I've played on the PC where some dumbass drives the warthog off before anyone can get on the turret. How stupid. Never happens in Race. Everyone wants to be on a vehicle whenever possible.