valvefan48 on 25 October 2009
| Twizzler said: I'll only comment on the ones I played. And my scores are based on my opinion regarding Halo as a console shooter. If I compared it to PC shooters the score would be lower. Halo:CE 9/10 It did a good job bringing a PC shooter to a console (Halo was supposed to be for Mac and PC only) Having one stick to control movement and one stick to control your view brought it as close to having a keyboard and mouse as possible. And it was a blast to play co-op and splitscreen with friends. I would have given it a 10/10, but let's face it...it had pretty crappy level design in single-player Halo 2 7/10 In my opinion it didn't really bring much new to the table. The story sucked, the weapons were unbalanced...it felt like some new maps for Halo 1. I know this is a little harsh, but when I compare it to other games I've enjoyed and their vastly improved sequels (i.e. Half-Life to Half-Life 2 or Uncharted to Uncharted 2) it feels like they didn't spend anytime improving the mechanics of the game. |
Actually Halo was meant to be a third-person shooter {After it was originally mean to be an RTS} for the Mac and PC. Also, yeah the indoor levels are horrible and repetitive but the outdoor levels are massive and extremely well designed.
I also disagree with you on Halo 2's story, I thought it was great and had much more indepth look at the Covenant's side of the story. It's only fault is that the ending was rushed. But yeah your right, the weapon were freaking unbalanced in Halo 2.
However, Half-Life 2 wasn't vastly improved over Half-Life 1. It's an excellent title but it lacked two things the original had which were the excellent enemy A.I. {Half-Life 2 had poor A.I.} and rock solid gunplay {Half-Life 2 had drab gunplay}.
