| Barozi said: One level was flawed, so I docked 1 point off. Every game is a bit repetitive here and there, but the gameplay easily makes up for that. As long as it's fun, it's not repetitive. Level design was good, in many parts even awesome. "too much repetition IN THE LATER LEVELS" try to use the full quote next time. The Library is mainly responsible for that. "when evaluated against the standards of the current PC shooter catalog, Halo seems to fall short in just a few key areas: repetitive levels, steep performance requirements and a lingering console balance." And here you misinterpreted what the author said.
MoH AA, No One Lives Forever 2, Jedi Knight 2, Battlefield 1942, UT 2003, Return to Castle Wolfenstein & Serious Sam 2nd Encounter came out in the meantime between the Xbox and the PC version of Halo btw. I'm sure those title helped raising the bar for PC shooters, thus making Halo on the PC look/feel worse than it was in 2001. |
One level? C'mon... the entire second half of the game could have been replicated with a half hour level and just playing it over and over again a dozen times. 
Go play Half Life 2. One minute you're fighting through the sewers, then you're riding an airboat. Then you're killing zombies with the gravity gun, then you're cruising along the coast. No two areas are the same, no two rooms identical.
Then go play Halo. You fight through a room full of enemies, cross a bridge. Then fight through an identical room populated with the same enemies, followed by an identical bridge with the same enemies. And it doesn't just repeat the one time. I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for this.
Anyway, we're arguing in circles at this point. I doubt there's anything you can say is going to make me realize "Oh, well, _____ makes it perfectly acceptable to carbon-copy room after room after room in a single player campaign."
