Better Than Halo: The Making of Halo 2

As Microsoft prepares to switch off Xbox 1, Bungie reveals the painful birth of the game that defined Xbox Live.

On April 14th, the Xbox Live service for the original Xbox shuts down for the final time. It takes with it the multiplayer support for Halo 2 - the game which showed the world how console multiplayer should be done, and proceeded to dominate the Xbox Live stats for years. Eurogamer took the opportunity to speak to the team behind the game, and discover the tortured development process behind a modern classic.

It's hard to remember that there was a time when Halo wasn't a colossus of the games industry. These days, updates to Bungie's epic science fiction franchise punctuate the release schedule for the Xbox 360 like exclamation points - it's a pillar of the platform, the game series that brought credibility to both the Xbox itself and to the Xbox Live service. Its hero, the Master Chief, is an iconic figure in pop culture, and the series is one of the most popular online games in history - with Halo 3 still being played by huge numbers of people every night, despite the meteoric success of games like Modern Warfare.

It was not always thus. Today, Halo: Combat Evolved is remembered as being the tentpole that supported the whole Xbox launch, the cornerstone around which Microsoft built its entire console business - but Jaime Griesemer, who was a design lead on Halo 2, says that at the time, things weren't so certain.

"We were under pressure to prove ourselves and the game," he recalls. "We had some early previews with really bad framerate, a lot of disappointment that we had changed platforms, and an enormous amount of scepticism that you could make a good FPS on a console. Expectations were so low that the Microsoft marketing people were talking about putting their money behind other launch titles."

'Better Than Halo: The Making of Halo 2' Screenshot 1

They didn't, of course, and the rest is history. Halo launched in November 2001, and was a critical and commercial success of almost unprecedented scale - achieving one of the highest Metacritic scores in history, with almost universal acclaim from reviewers (Eurogamer is mocked to this day for awarding it 8/10, the "low" score probably reflecting the site's roots in PC FPS gaming more than anything else). Half of all Xbox consoles sold for months after launch were sold alongside a copy of Halo. By April 2002, a million copies had been sold.

As the sales figures mounted, Bungie knew that Halo wasn't just a game any more. They had a franchise on their hands.

"We didn't plan Halo as a trilogy," explains Joseph Staten, who was writer and cinematic director of Halo 2. "But during Halo 1 development, we certainly had strong ideas for extending the story and gameplay experience that we knew we couldn't fit into one game. Success brings creative freedom but also heavy expectations; when we started brainstorming for Halo 2, we knew we had publisher support to execute on these deferred, more ambitious ideas."

As work on a sequel began, the team started thinking about where it wanted to go next with its newly created franchise - and, perhaps more importantly, where it hadn't been able to go with Halo: Combat Evolved. "Your initial goals with a sequel are always the same," says Griesemer, "to finish all the stuff you had to cut from the first game. And we had to cut a lot from Halo 1, so we had a lot of ideas we were ready to move on."

"It's very difficult to describe the feeling of shipping a game," says Chris Butcher, engineering lead on Halo 2. "There's tremendous pride at first, but that quickly wears off and all you see are the flaws. Then you're motivated to do better next time - that drive to improve ourselves is a core part of the Bungie culture, it's something I love about working here."

With that internal drive (Bungie's developers are "always, always our own most severe critics", Griesemer says) combined with the external pressure from Halo's newfound fanbase, each part of the team set to work on ambitious plans to improve its own aspect of the game. Enormous lists of features were drawn up. Much of Halo's engine had been hacked together in a massively rushed development period - "we were taking advantage of the fact that the Xbox hardware was more powerful than the baseline PC at that moment, so we could do things in a short-cut, hacky way and just get it working," explains Griesemer. That work would all be thrown out, and a fresh start made on a new, top-of-the-line game engine.

"We had learned so much about the console and how we could take advantage of it," says Butcher. "We had so many new directions we knew we could go in. We tried to take it all on simultaneously, and we delivered an almost complete rewrite of the engine."

Not only was the engine rewritten - it was now going to do things that Combat Evolved hadn't dreamed of. One of those, and perhaps the single most important reason for Halo 2's enduring fame, was online multiplayer.

"The one area in which the success of Halo 1 was totally surprising to us, and completely changed how we thought about Halo 2, was LAN parties," says Butcher. "We never really thought that people would do a lot of playing Xbox multiplayer on LAN, even though people in our office played it all the time... Well, it only worked five weeks before we shipped the game, but in those five weeks we played a lot of Halo multiplayer!"

'Better Than Halo: The Making of Halo 2' Screenshot 2

"We had a lab full of Xboxes on a LAN, so we played 16-player CTF every single afternoon," Griesemer remembers. "It was fun, so this was what we designed for - but when we shipped, the vast majority of our fans never got to experience that. They were playing four-player split-screen on the smallest maps. There was a total disconnect."

"We looked at the small set of fans who were able to do this," continues Butcher, "and just how much they were enjoying themselves, and asked ourselves if we could bring that to everybody. That would be something really special, really unique."

Halo 2 online multiplayer was born in that moment, and with it, arguably, the entire success of the Xbox Live service. It feels, to an outside observer, like a momentous moment. To Bungie, however, it just felt like a logical progression.

"Bungie has always been about multiplayer," says Griesemer. "If you look back, Myth was about multiplayer, Marathon was about multiplayer... The first real Bungie game was Minotaur, and that was multiplayer-only, which was crazy at the time!"

"We're competitive people," interjects Chris Carney, multiplayer designer on Halo 2. "It always feels like a logical extension to say, hey, that's pretty cool, but what if we did that head to head?"

Butcher agrees. "It's just a good way of testing out your design ideas, right? You might think that some system is good, but until you try to use that system to kill your co-workers, you're not really going to be pushing its limits."

"We try to start with multiplayer for everything," Butcher continues - an uncanny echo of the design philosophy espoused by Blizzard's design boss, Rob Pardo, in an interview with Eurogamer last year. "Even on Oni, although we didn't end up shipping with multiplayer, we did build a multiplayer mode and beat each other up in the office, which helped to tune the combat."

While plans were hatched for ground-breaking multiplayer, every other part of the company was creating equally ambitious plans. An epic narrative arc was emerging, with a huge set of missions and environments to support it. New gameplay features were being created, some in response to perceived weaknesses in Combat Evolved, others entirely new - and of course, this new engine, designed to push the Xbox to its limits, was being built from scratch in the background.

With the gaming world watching, it was time for Halo 2 to make its grand entrance. A cinematic trailer had given gamers a glimpse of the sequel in September 2002 - but it was at E3 2003 that we would get our first proper glimpse of what was next for the Master Chief.

There are a handful of E3 demos which live on in the memories of gamers and journalists - videos or demos so thrilling that they fuelled excitement for their games, and even for console platforms, for years afterwards. Metal Gear Solid 2, shown off at E3 ahead of the launch of the PS2, is a good example. Halo 2 at E3 2003 was of the same ilk.

'Better Than Halo: The Making of Halo 2' Screenshot 3

A short demo, played on stage, showed the Master Chief back on Earth, flying into the Covenant-occupied, futuristic city of New Mombasa. Amidst the skyscraper peaks of the city, warfare on a scale only dreamt of in the original Halo raged across the streets. The Chief had learned new tricks - he could dual-wield weapons, and board enemy vehicles by kicking their drivers out of their seats. The action was fast, cinematic and exciting. Everyone who saw the trailer walked out with their blood pounding faster, and with Halo 2's release date seeming an impossibly long way away.

Everyone, perhaps, except the Bungie team themselves - who probably walked out of the demo theatre with more mixed feelings.

The public loved the new ideas like dual-wielding and vehicle hijacking, both of which had been key objectives in the new design. The demo itself looked polished and accomplished - more like a game in the final stages of development than one 18 months from launch. However, the demo, unfortunately, was smoke and mirrors. Behind the scenes, Halo 2's development process was rapidly becoming a waking nightmare.

"The graphics engine that we showed at E3 2003, driving around the Earth city... That entire graphics engine had to be thrown away, because you could never ship a game on the Xbox with it," Butcher sighs. "Through putting ourselves through hell, we were able to do a five-minute demo of it, but after we came back from E3 we had to admit that this graphics engine was never going to work - it was never going to support the kind of environments that are really important for a Halo game. So we literally scrapped the entire graphics engine and started from scratch."

"Even that whole environment, the Earth city, was way too big for the engine at the time," adds Carney. "We ended up cutting out huge parts of geometry from that level, so you never actually saw that."

This was just the most prominent symptom of a wider problem. Bungie's ambition was catching up with it. New Mombasa wasn't the only level that had to be unceremoniously trimmed in this way. The decision to entirely rewrite the tech behind the game had meant that for over a year, there was no working version of Halo - leaving the design and art teams working on assets without being able to test them.

"We were building stuff that just couldn't be played, in any engine," says Butcher. "We built, and detailed, and went a huge way down the path with a whole bunch of environments and levels for the game that just totally didn't make it. If you look at the level with the Flood, inside the quarantine area - that is the remaining 20 per cent of a gargantuan, sprawling level that was meticulously built and hand-constructed, but that could never, ever have shipped in any engine."

"We made a scope mistake on the single-player side, too," says Griesemer. "If you look at our original plan for Halo 2's single-player campaign and the story we were going to tell, this basically adds up to Halo 2 and Halo 3 combined. We didn't trim that back nearly enough and ended up having to force it, and that's why you got the ending you did."

"The cliffhanger wasn't part of the plan," confirms Staten. "And yes, over-ambition was absolutely the cause."

Multiplayer, too, had gone awry. "We took some steps towards a bigger style of objective game," recalls Carney. "We tried that for a while - a month or two, maybe... Actually, it was a lot longer than that. We even built environments to support that, and then realised that it just wasn't the correct road to go down at that time.

"It was too ambitious. We had a lot of ideas about other games we'd played, and things that we really wanted to try - but when we got in there, we realised that it was going to require a lot more effort to make it as good as our single-player and our standard Slayer and CTF experiences. We had to cut our losses and just ship with what we were all happy with."

'Better Than Halo: The Making of Halo 2' Screenshot 4

So, the painful process of scaling back Bungie's soaring ambitions began - and painful is certainly the word. Rapidly approaching a year before launch, the team had no engine, environments that couldn't possibly work in any engine, features that were only half-implemented, a sprawling story that would eventually require two full-sized games to tell and a complex multiplayer mode that would simply have to be scrapped.

The following year would be the toughest time many of the Bungie staff had experienced in their careers. "I had a log that I kept," says Butcher, "of the times I went into work and the times I left work. Day after day after day, seven days a week, getting in reasonably early and then not leaving before 11 at night. Seven days a week, for months and months..."

"It was the most brutal development effort we've gone through," says Carney. "We're so much more organised and focused now - mainly because some of us think back to that experience, the lack of daylight, the poor hygiene... These are things we just don't want to happen again!"

"One of the things I always say when people talk about crunch now, is that the crunch we do now is the good kind of crunch," adds Butcher. "It's the crunch where you're putting in the hours because you really want to, because you know it's going to make the game better. The crunch on Halo 2 was, 'Oh my god, we're f***ed. We're all going to die.' Months and months of that emotional, negative tone was really hard to deal with - but at the same time, we did a lot of awesome work."

Again, to an outside observer, this seems incredible. How could a long-established studio, with the backing of the world's biggest software company, making a sequel to one of the most critically acclaimed games in history, have presided over such a disaster?

"It happened on Halo 1 as well," admits Butcher. "Of the 25 planned missions for Halo, we shipped 10. Part of the problem is that as team size grows, all the really informal, seat-of-your-pants stuff you've been doing just doesn't work. On Halo 2, we had not levelled up as an organisation enough to be able to even comprehend that that could be a problem, let alone try and solve the problem. We were like kids going through a messy adolescence, but with tens of millions of dollars' worth of budget and the whole world looking at us."

Butcher maintains, however, that the over-reach which turned Halo 2's development into a nightmare was the product of Bungie's own optimism and ambition, not of hubris brought on by the success of Halo.

"I don't think people were sitting around with money-hats on going, 'whee, we can do anything we want!' - it was really just a case of saying, OK, we've done Halo, now I think we should make another of these games because there are a lot of awesome places we still want to go with this universe," he says. "So, how much awesome can we pack into this game? We thought the answer was a lot of awesome, and it turned out to be roughly a quarter the amount of awesome we'd thought..."

Even as the team fought to bring the project under control, though, there were still shining moments that stood out for them - and hinted at the success that Halo 2 would eventually become. Butcher recalls finally getting the network code up and running for an internal Alpha test of the multiplayer in January 2004: "At that point, I knew that we were going to make it, and that it was going to be an awesome multiplayer experience."

For Griesemer, the Eureka moment was getting the vehicle boarding mechanic working. "The first time that we got that working, it was clear that vehicle combat had gotten a whole lot more interesting. We had it mocked up for the E3 demo... It felt so good. I was one of the guys giving the demo, and there were several moments where you could hear the whole audience gasp or cheer. You could tell that certain mechanics were going to go over really well... Boarding, dual-wielding, the boost on the Ghost, the way the Brute roared and charged at you..."

'Better Than Halo: The Making of Halo 2' Screenshot 5

As the end of 2004 approached, Bungie's frantic work pace increased. They knew that this would be the last big Christmas for the Xbox, with the 360 due to launch before the end of 2005. Halo 2 had to hit its date. The pressure was intense.

"We absolutely could have used another couple of months to polish, but then we would have missed the last Christmas... It really wasn't an option," says Griesemer. Surprisingly, though, the team doesn't envy the ability of developers like Valve to state "when it's done" as their release date. "The problem with 'when it's done' is that it would never have been done," admits Griesemer cheerfully. "We could create and scrap 20 versions of the game and never ship any of them."

"Moving to that kind of schedule would only have caused us to lose our focus on getting the game completed," concurs Butcher.

The need to cut features and content didn't go away as the game's final year in development progressed. "Reconciling [our ambition] with reality was a brutal process," says Butcher, "because it happened so late. We were still cutting features only four to five months before the game went gold.

"There's a famous drawing that someone did on a whiteboard in the team's space that shows a plane on fire trying to land on a runway, and people are jettisoning cargo crates out the back of the plane in order to try and get it on the runway. Every crate has the name of a feature we had to cut... In the end, we ran out of room on the whiteboard for all the crates."

Finally, however, Bungie managed to get its plane onto the runway. Halo 2 shipped on November 9th, 2004. Anticipation was at fever pitch; 1.5 million copies had been pre-ordered, an industry record, and 2.4 million were bought in the first 24 hours on sale, giving Halo 2 the highest grossing opening weekend for any entertainment product, ever.

Griesemer, who had been involved in the focus testing for the game, knew that Bungie had a hit on its hands. The team's obsessive approach to intensively testing its gameplay was really born on Halo 2, which gave Griesemer a unique insight - he had stats, on paper, which said that people loved the game.

Not everyone in the company was convinced. "I remember having a lot of conversations with people who thought we'd screwed up, that we'd destroyed the franchise, driven it over a cliff," he recalls with a laugh.

Halo 2 scored almost as highly as its predecessor with reviewers - no mean feat for a sequel to a ground-breaking game. Some gamers, however, were less convinced, for two key reasons.

One was the cliffhanger ending, a symptom of Bungie's desperate need to cut features and levels from the game in order to hit its ship date. The other was a secret which Bungie had jealously guarded since the outset - a second playable character, the Arbiter, a Covenant Elite who allowed you to see the war from the side of the Master Chief's implacable foes. A noble warrior betrayed by his own leaders, the Arbiter lends surprising depth to Halo 2's otherwise gung-ho narrative. Some fans, however, hated him.

'Better Than Halo: The Making of Halo 2' Screenshot 6

"Some of that backlash was on account of the heavy-handed marketing that set expectations for defending Earth against the Covenant," says Brian Jarrard, Bungie's community lead. "I think, even more so than playing as the Arbiter, the thing that people were disappointed with and angry about is that they were promised this experience, through the marketing, of being really backs against the wall, Earth's under siege, we're going to do all we can to save our home planet... In reality, the game only had two missions that actually did that."

"The original plan had you returning to Earth at the end - which you did, at the end of Halo 2, for about three seconds before it abruptly ended," says Griesemer. "I think if we'd been able to finish that last couple of missions and get you properly back on Earth, a lot of the reaction would have been placated."

Butcher disagrees. "I don't think so. I think it really was that a bunch of people thought they were going to play a war movie - they were going to play Medal of Honor, with aliens, and that was not the game we were building."

For his own part, Butcher really liked the Arbiter levels. "I'm a player who cares a lot about the story and what's going on, and why the world is the way that it is," he explains. "Players that don't, that are really just there to experience the action, some of them skipped the cut-scenes that took you from the Master Chief leaving Earth. If you skip that, the last thing you see is that you're in a Pelican leaving Earth, and then you're some dude carrying an energy sword with Grunts around you trying to kill you."

"I think the Arbiter is a much more interesting character," adds Griesemer. "He's got a detailed arc - he really changes over the course of the games - whereas the Chief is literally the exact same guy at the beginning and the end. He's in cryosleep, ready to get thawed out and kick some more ass later."

"Halo is a war story, and we felt strongly that telling one side of the conflict was only half of the story," explains Staten. "That was the reason for the Arbiter - to offer another, compelling point of view on a war where telling friend from foe wasn't always clear-cut. We knew we had a trilogy on our hands, so we were looking past the shock of playing as the enemy to the eventual, allied push against the Flood led by the Chief and the Arbiter in Halo 3."

In the final analysis, Griesemer is happy that the team decided to introduce the Arbiter, despite the backlash. "I'd much rather experiment and do something surprising, and not have everybody appreciate it, than just turn the crank and do another alien war movie with a space marine..."

The single-player lives on in players' memories, of course - but in the years since 2004 it's the multiplayer which has kept Halo 2 alive. Even in the face of the Xbox becoming obsolete and countless other online games being launched, Halo 2 has retained a core band of fans who remain devoted to the game. Perhaps even more so than the sales figures or the critical acclaim, it's this which best illustrates Halo 2's success.

Yet if this is a story about a game whose tortured development ended up creating a brilliant, if flawed, modern classic, then there's a key question that remains unanswered. This industry is no stranger to nightmarish development processes, but it's far more common for the games they produce to be Daikatana than it is for them to be Halo 2. So what is it that made Bungie's messy, frantic development process turn out a gem, while others struggle to produce clods of dirt?

'Better Than Halo: The Making of Halo 2' Screenshot 7

"I think it's because the places where Halo 2 did succeed, like Live, like the single-player combat, are such bright spots," says Griesemer. "Looking back on it as a player, that's all you see. For us looking back, all we really see is..."

He pauses, and Carney finishes his sentence for him in a grim tone. "The wreckage," he says.

"Yeah," says Griesemer. "The places where it didn't succeed."

There's a momentary silence. "Oh, I don't know," says Butcher, eventually. "I went back and played a bit of Halo 2 about six months ago, and the part where you're playing as the Arbiter, and you come out and see the quarantine zone, with the Corrupted Library... Just coming out and looking at that sky! There are moments in Halo 2 that really give me chills. The low points are much lower than we would have liked, but the single-player had some amazing moments."

"If the creative process is easy," concludes Griesemer, "it probably means you're not doing anything interesting. Any really cutting-edge, triple-A, forefront-of-the-industry type creative process is going to be a little bit painful. It's just whether you're really working on something great, or whether it doesn't come out that well... You never really know until the end."

Five years down the line, as Halo 2 takes its final bow with the closure of Xbox Live services - "a really poignant moment for me, actually", admits Butcher - the Bungie team knows the verdict. Halo 2 was their difficult second album; the victim of over-ambition, the product of a tortured gestation period, flawed and incomplete. If there were ever a testament to Bungie's talents, it's that for all that, it remains a masterpiece.

Comments (118) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • INSOMANiAC #1 2 years ago

    Theres only one problem, Halo 2 WASN'T better than Halo. And neither were 3 or ODST. The single player has been on a downward spiral for a long time.
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 00:31
  • Xerx3s #2 2 years ago

    Yes they where and I'd like my rose tinted glasses back now.
  • INSOMANiAC #3 2 years ago

    I can assure you, the single player of both halo 2 and 3 were piss poor, and ODST ? absolute travesty of a game.
  • Metalfish #4 2 years ago

    Halo two (perhaps like Modern warfare 2) had a horrible case of sequel-itis and this article does a good job of showing some of the reasons for that. More, more and more stuff again without enough thought about making the game it /should/ be rather than the game it /could/ be.

    It is quite telling that in they were so in love with their "noble alien" *cough* predator *cough* elite character that they wrote themselves into a corner that meant they quickly removed the most entertaining (to fight) and iconic opponent. For what? So we can sympathise with them? So we can fight big boring monkey-men who emerged from some plot-hole somewhere? It'd be like Doom2 not having cacodemons in it!

    I didn't want to like them, I wanted to shoot them.

    Of course it was a multiplayer title for the most part, and we shouldn't forget just how much it did for Live. Even if it was pretty much whoring the sniper and BR at long range and duals for everything else. Good times where had regardless, but it was one game that I can definitely state was not better than halo. Or at least not better enough for the megaton of hype that smothered the gaming scene for the months leading up to it.
  • M4RV #5 2 years ago

    @INSOMANiAC:

    I agree totally; I still remember way back in 2004, when I first played Halo 2, how I trashed the SP so to speak, even though I loved the inclusion of the Arbiter as a playable character and far more varied gameplay and environments, not to mention the improved level design... However, the ending was lame to say the least and Masterchief, even though awesome to play with, was ( and still is ) not very compelling as a character.

    BUT NOW... How I miss the Bungie from those days. At least the MP aspect is still nothing short than amazing and acessible... Screw perks and such. Gimme two guns, the ability to melee and that's just fine by me. :)
  • Ka-blamo #6 2 years ago

    Halo2 was aids....a bag of turd.

    The multiplayer was supposedly ok...but not everyone buys halo expecting the single player to dog cancer, and the multiplayer make up for it....thats what they need to realise, there are people that only play single player...and while that fact sinks in with the developers

    they should realise they've fucking diarrea'd on those people, from a great a height.

    Cunts.
  • Retroid #7 2 years ago

    Rarely have I seen such a graphical jump between sequels running on the same hardware.

    By far the most important thing that Halo (and 2) did for me was co-operative local play. Really. I've probably played through 1 & 2 alongside Mrs Retroid at least four or five times each and they're great fun played that way.
  • Hunam #8 2 years ago

    A very interesting article, a great read Shinji :)

    Considering how fucked the development was the fact that the game was even halfway good is a testament to Bungie. I really didn't think much of it myself because I thought the story was being too space opera and taking all the mystery out, but thinking back some of the levels looked great and were great fun, like running through the temples on the second Halo.

    But it really was all about Live, and to be honest, Halo 2 online whilst not perfect is the design for console games online. Matchmaking, playlists, ranks all added and extra level and shipping Live with a headset is the best move Microsoft ever made as it just let you talk to your friends and shoot dudes at the same time.

    I think on a gameplay level Halo 2 was a success but it didn't eclipse the first in memorable moments for me and the story has never really been anything more than set dressing, I really think Bungie need to hire some more scribes to be honest, but Halo 3 was a hell of an improvement in gameplay and multiplayer and ODST was probably the best single player since the original.
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 01:21
  • WJF #9 2 years ago

    Halo 1 - prefab levels, repetitive rooms, badly constructed signposting so you could spend half an hour looking for the small opening between a rock (true story).

    Halo 2 - none of the above.

    Why do so many people think that halo's levels were better? Did all the repeating crap get merged into one big lump in your memory? The outside sections did tend to be more fun, but the majority of the game was set indoors.
  • CaptainQuint #10 2 years ago

    Contrary to popular belief (MLG): Halo 3 is superior to Halo and Halo 2.
  • neilka #11 2 years ago

    I give this article 8/10
  • GaryHoward #12 2 years ago

    It's a great trilogy overall, and Halo 2 multiplayer will be sorely missed. Since we have three days left, I might go on there, have a couple of games, say my final goodbyes and then continue to play Halo 3 multiplayer like I have for the past two years.
  • Ka-blamo #13 2 years ago

    Yeah people that neg my post...yeah it's alright for you...you play multiplayer and can't believe anyone would slag it off....but try and get in the shoes of the people that don't play multiplayer, we're treated like shit.

    halo 2 was fucking shit single player...trust me....it was fucking horrible, ughh...horrible.

    halo 3 was no better...picked up a bit in later levels...but was generally dog poo.

    you guys don't know whats it like for people that play single player only, it's a rough....we're treated like shit by bungie....single player is torture, they have totally forgotten about people that play games offline.

    terrible terrible boring shit
  • frostcircus #14 2 years ago

    How ever did you find the strength to carry on, Ka-blamo?
  • CaptainQuint #15 2 years ago

    Wanking. Wanking gave him strength.
  • Spuzzell #16 2 years ago

    I liked the single player on Halo 2. Maybe not quite as much as Halo, but very close. Halo had several very dull points (Library. Oh God.) and I totally agree with WJF, a lot of the level design in Halo was pretty poor.

    Halo 2 only really bored me once, when the Arbiter does his flying escort thing. That bored the crap out of me, I almost stopped playing.

    If I had to pick either Halo or Halo 2 as the only game I could ever play for the rest of my life, I'd have to think really hard. And then pick Halo 2.

    EDIT: Great article. That's what I came here to say. I got distracted by the hatred of others.

    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 02:12
  • Ka-blamo #17 2 years ago

    @ chimeywhatever

    thats because you're a bungie bot sent from the future and don'trealise what good FPSs are....just the shit thats on the nearest shelf in CEX

    Douche nozzle*

    *I don't mean that, you're probably a nice chap...but I've got to keep this bad guy image up
  • Ka-blamo #18 2 years ago

    @ N@

    yeah halo 1 is great, fucking loved it

    Youve nailed it, halo 2'sw shitnes comes from comparison to halo 1....halo 2 single player campaign insults me as a human being...glad someone agrees
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 02:26
  • MiniAmin #19 2 years ago

    Absolutely loved this article, but perhaps a spoiler warning would've been helpful to some?

    Anyway, perfect Sunday morning read and I'd love to see more stuff like this on EG.
  • CaptainQuint #20 2 years ago

    Bungie were wrong to introduce the Arbiter as a playable character, end of story.

    The fiction they created is engaging; but it's still just pulp, albeit good(ish) sci-fi gaming pulp.

    Their fanbase [at the time] wasn't ready for 'Alien empathy', and Bungie would've done well to give their core fanbase what they justifiably expected from the sequel: Master Chief kicks more Covenant arse, on Earth.

    Instead, Bungie opted ever so slightly for the Matrix 2 approach - in that the sequel threw out most of what made the first one so friggin' cool, and in doing so, much of the pure simplicity of CE was lost, in a vaccum... almost completey disappearing up the lead writer's arse.

    Edited by 3 at 11/04/10 @ 03:22
  • DuX1112 #21 2 years ago

    8 (eight!) pages? =O

    *drunk*
  • Nithron #22 2 years ago

    Halo 3 is actually an excellent game.

    The singleplayer experience, on first play through on Normal or whatever, will seem like same shit, different day. However, if you try really giving the Campaign mode's score-based achievements a try, you'll realise that actually, there's a seriously precise and skill-based game lurking underneath the dodgy space opera trappings.

    Playing it co-op with a mate, trying to get enough points to hit the achievements, on Legendary, with a bunch of skulls equipped - that was one of the best co-op gaming experiences i've ever had.

    Ditto for the survival mode in ODST.
  • Sunyavadin #23 2 years ago

    "If you look at the level with the Flood, inside the quarantine area - that is the remaining 20 per cent of a gargantuan, sprawling level that was meticulously built and hand-constructed, but that could never, ever have shipped in any engine."

    Forerunner tank.

    AWESOMENESS WOULD ENSUE.
  • AOFanboi #24 2 years ago

    Wonder what would have happened had Bungie stayed with the Nintendo platforms; perhaps Halo had been as defining a game series on the Gamecube and Wii? What would have been the XBox' defining titles then? Extreme Beach Volleyball?
  • TOOTR #25 2 years ago

    What Nithron says.

    As a good mate commented during an intense Firefight the other night. Many FPS 'Hard' modes just increase the health bar of your enemies and/or increase their damage points.

    Most (if not all) of the Halo games, certainly the most recent ones, really ramp up the AI of the enemies - flanking, grenade throwing, evading - if you are not playing on heroic or legendary you are really missing out on top-notch intense thinking-required gameplay. With co-op ability on top of this making it a sublime experience.
  • TheApologist #26 2 years ago

    8/10 for original Halo marks disappointment about the shift to console?

    Or 8/10 was what it deserved - it may have been innovative, but it wasn't a great game. Some great mechanics in two weapon carrying, recharging shield and vehicles, but weak beginning, weak ending, repetitive levels in between, too few levels that took advantage of flying vehicles, and that awful Flood level or two.

    8/10 marks a reminder for Eurogamer to be clear minded in the face of the hype machine?
  • afghan_jones #27 2 years ago

    trolls are silly.

    All the Halo games are top tier FPSs.
  • Pirotic #28 2 years ago

    I can think of so many other games more deserving of a retrospective than Halo. As the original Eurogamer review pointed out, Halo wasn't all that incredible, it simply took a forumla which had worked for years on the PC and managed to get it to work on a machine where the usual attitude was "lol joypad FPS controls? no thanks". It was impressive, but unfortunately Bungie seemed to think they'd created something so incredible that they've been too scared to move away from the same old formula ever since which is a shame, Uncharted and Gears are both examples of fantastic shooters, the Halo series continues to be an overhyped homage to the original game. Enough people love it for it to be justified, but I'd much rather read about Okami than how they rehashed the same old thing for 5 years with esculating expensive PR goodybags insuring hype all-round.
  • coolbritannia #29 2 years ago

    Halo is THE premier microsoft FPS, simple as. For me, console FPS goes Goldeneye-Perfect Dark-Halo. MW just doesn't cut it.
  • anomagnus #30 2 years ago

    I loved halo 2, though the SP ending did hurt a bit. As a halo fan, i've never gotten into the multi player aspect, i only played it for the story. I know some people will say 'what story?', but taken in the context of the extended haloverse, i thought it worked.

    while there is a tendency on forums to put on the rose tinted glasses while remembering a game, theres also a strong urge to look back on a game with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and bash the shit out of a game.

    There have been very few games i've ever regretted playing (two worlds....), and halo2 is nowhere near that. even today, i still play halo 1 on my pc, halo2 on the 360 and then on halo 3, for back to back marathons. its interesting to note how the game has evolved.
  • AphoticCosmos #31 2 years ago

    I recently did the whole Halo trilogy before ODST came out last year . . . it deserves to be remembered as three defining points in gaming history, and yes it has gotten better over the years. I still enjoy Halo 3 the most out of all of them, and that Halo 2 was so good in the face of development adversity is a testament to Bungie's skill as a developer.

    Might have to go play some ODST online now . . .
  • CaptainQuint #32 2 years ago

    @Pirotic

    Gears of War and Uncharted 2 are indeed exceptional shooters, particulary the latter -best game I've played in ages. The Orange Box too, is fantastic from start to finish, including the sublime Portal. Heck, even the original Far Cry (on pc) blew me away, back in the day.

    But I still think the Halo trilogy is better than all of the above.
  • matrim83 #33 2 years ago

    "One of the things I always say when people talk about crunch now, is that the crunch we do now is the good kind of crunch," adds Butcher. "It's the crunch where you're putting in the hours because you really want to, because you know it's going to make the game better. The crunch on Halo 2 was, 'oh my god, we're fucked. We're all going to die.' Months and months of that emotional, negative tone was really hard to deal with - but at the same time, we did a lot of awesome work."

    Wow. I knew things got tight in the year preceding H2 but I had no idea they were up against the wall like that.

    Fantastic read BTW EG. Esp from the POV of a gigantic Halo fan. I love how completely honest this whole thing was.
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 10:36
  • Mr-Brett #34 2 years ago

    A very interesting read, quite lengthy at 7 pages but that's fair enough. Nice article Rob.
  • frankfurter209 #35 2 years ago

    To the fellow disputing Halo 1's SP superiority:

    The level design isn't really what I think about, I think about the amazing sense of discovery and exploration. One of gaming's most amazing moments for me is in Two Betrayals, leaving a flood-infested cavern when a somber melancholy piece plays as you, the lonely and exhausted Chief, emerge to a bloody brutal fight between the flood and Covenant as snow falls through the air . It really is an incredible evocative moment unequaled in the series.
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 11:15
  • Spuzzell #36 2 years ago

    Dear Comments thread: there's no such game as Halo 1. It's just Halo. It's called Halo, it says so right there on the box. Halo. No 1 anywhere to be seen.

    Halo. Sans 1. The 1 does not exist. Stop with the 1. It's annoying.
  • DFawkes #37 2 years ago

    Actually it's Halo: Combat Evolved. Pedant fail! Sorry, couldn't help myself.
  • CaptainQuint #38 2 years ago

    Halo's campaign was indeed incredible, at the time and for sometime after. But naturally, it was eventually bettered and not just by other games - Halo 3 bettered it. Take off those rose tinted glasses, let go of the nostalgia... Halo 3 is the tighter, more refined campaign experience.

    I played through about half of Halo's campaign again, quite recently. Unsurprisingly enough, it wasn't as amazingly magical as I remember it being. That's because there have been loads of better games since it came out, almost ten whole years ago.

    I do though agree with the belief of some that Halo 2's campaign was inferior.
  • frankfurter209 #39 2 years ago

    Fully aware of the nostalgia trap everyone falls into, I still stand by CE's campaign. I've beaten in probably a dozen times, I would gladly beat it again, it never wears thin. I try to replay 3's campaign, and I quickly lose interest. I can see why some would think its better, but I don't.
  • coolbritannia #40 2 years ago

    Frankfurter, interesting that you name that as your highlight, everyone has a different one. Mine would be (in no particular order) touching down on halo in CE for the first time and watching the covenant dropship drop off it's troop cargo, the bridge assaults from assault on the control room, or fighting the Scarab's in Halo 3. I particularly enjoy crashing hogs onto the top deck. I enjoyed ODST as well, that was very under rated, the stealth elements were very well done.
  • Vin #41 2 years ago

    Excellent Sunday read.
  • frankfurter209 #42 2 years ago

    ODST's stealth segments were exceptional. The jazz music and smokey atmosphere, picking through the wreckage of the day's combat. Those alone provided more texture and emotion than MW2's entire campaign. The CE campaign though still tops them all. It really is the intangible "feel" of it, none of the subsequent campaigns captured my imagination quite the same as exploring Halo for the first time. Reach sounds utterly incredible, simply because Bungie is looking back to CE for its campaign. That and Alan Wake top my list this year.
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 12:01
  • coolbritannia #43 2 years ago

    Agreed, the sense of mystery and exploration will never be bettered in a Halo game, CE nailed it. As much as I am looking forward to Reach, I think I'd rather see what happens to MC now he's heading towards that planet.
  • CaptainQuint #44 2 years ago

    Whilst I appreciate what Bungie was aiming for with the night time segments of ODST, the 'noir' tone; I personally found those parts to be dull as dishwater and even boring. There wasn't enough going on, there needed to be more covenant patrols and less bland sandbox environments. The flashback levels on the other hand, were a complete blast.

    As a big Halo fan, I was disappointed with ODST's campaign, but I'd still give it a solid 7 out of 10.
  • frankfurter209 #45 2 years ago

    Oh man I completely forgot about that. Whenever (if ever?) they pick up that story thread, I do hope it is something fundamentally different. The thought of a Halo survival horror title, with a heavy emphasis on atmosphere and creeping dread a la CE, could potentially be amazing.
  • RedSparrows #46 2 years ago

    People really need to separate the 'feel' and the judgement of quality of campaigns: Halo CE had an incredible 'feel', but Halo 3's campaign is qualitatively better in terms of design, pacing and action. That doesn't mean you must prefer it, or 2s, to CE, of course, but you can't really argue that actually Halo CE isn't dated in comparison, even with the relatively subtle tweaks between the titles.

    The combat system is still incredible, imo. Crysis et al obviously offer you more freedom overall, but it's the nature of the mechanics that mean Halo always makes the most out of having a particular, defined structure, rather than all (e.g. Stalker/Crysis) or nothing (CoD..... ;p)
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 12:28
  • JonFE #47 2 years ago

    I'd love another play-through of Halo: CE on my x360 - if only for the VGA cable not supporting it :(

    Does the component cable support 1080p?
  • GrandpaUlrira #48 2 years ago

    A very good read. It's interesting to find out what really went on once the hype has dissipated and the developers can be completely truthful. A similar article on Brutal Legend (on GamaSutra?) was also very interesting, for the same reason, and I think marked the first time they admitted the game was an RTS.
  • RedPanda #49 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012
  • Syrette #50 2 years ago

    Halo 3 is better than the other 2 as a game, absolutely.

    However - you know when you're playing through something special, something unique - and the only time I genuinely felt those feelings was in the first 3-4 levels of Halo CE. I don't know how I'd feel about them now but at the time they were incredible. The sense of scope was just... you know when you looked over a ledge and saw a landscape that just went on and on into the horizon, eventually leading to what you now saw was the rest of the Halo ring itself? Amazing.

    And that's just graphics. Gameplay-wise it was gunplay like I had never felt it before and just felt so next gen. Brilliant game but I've always felt Halo has suffered in a way from having such a superb MP side to it - it's almost always a case of the MP being better than the SP.
  • AphoticCosmos #51 2 years ago

    Regarding ODST, I actually think that it beats the other instalments of the franchise into submission, albeit narrowly, because of it's musical score. I'm a big, big fan of Halo's incredible soundtracks, which to date nobody has managed to beat, and ODST simply nails it for me with that melancholy, lonely, desolate, New Orleans-y jazz-inspired score. Not just some of the best game music I've ever heard, but some of the best music of any description that I've ever had the joy of listening to. Whilst the score doesn't matter in other games, it really, really does matter to a Halo game; It's an integral part of the identity of the franchise.

    ODST's gameplay is an interesting diversion from the normal Halo gameplay, but it's the world that ODST creates both through the score and superb use of detail that sells it to me. Virgil and his use of the city to guide you, the logs (radio play) detailing what happened to Sadie as she tried to flee the city, the individual corpses strewn on the streets, with the plasma burns/bullet holes tracing what happened in their final moments . . . absolutely incredible.
  • RodHull #52 2 years ago

    Halo 2 when you walk into the Hall of the Arbiters and the elites and brutes are having a fight. Loved it then, love it now. Preferred the campaign for Halo:CE though, mainly due to the one-kill snipering jackal fuck fucks in Halo 2 still anger me to this day. Trial by headshot is never entertaining. At least Halo 3 gave you a chance to gauge where they might be hiding rather than walking round a corner and being zapped in the bonce.
  • kaya08 #53 2 years ago

    I think the original Halo retains the best moments from the series (the second level when you first land on Halo remains my favorite level of the series). But anyone who thinks it was the best game is deluding themselves and have obviously blocked out the absolutely horrible Library level.

    Halo 2 was more consistent if less spectacular but really I think ODST has by far the best overall campaign. Just a pity there where no elites, then it would have been perfect.
  • Yossarian #54 2 years ago

    This is one of the best Bungie/Halo-related articles EG has ever run. Good work.
  • Old_Books #55 2 years ago

    I think RedSparrows said it best; it's the feel of the original Halo that makes it the best game in the series for me. Might seem odd but 3 and ODST feel overly militaristic and less 'sci-fi' to me which makes them less appealing, personally. Hated Halo 2 when I first played it as well but it grew on me quickly. I think it's reputation does have a lot to do with the MP but the SP in all Halo games is underrated IMO.

    One thing I would disagree with in the article is that the Master Chief is a pop culture icon which to me is the hype talking. He's one of the biggest gaming icons, deservedly so, but I think, gaming-wise, only Mario and Lara Croft could really be considered pop culture icons.
  • subtlesnake #56 2 years ago

    "Halo 1 - prefab levels, repetitive rooms, badly constructed signposting so you could spend half an hour looking for the small opening between a rock (true story).

    Halo 2 - none of the above.

    Why do so many people think that halo's levels were better? Did all the repeating crap get merged into one big lump in your memory? The outside sections did tend to be more fun, but the majority of the game was set indoors."

    I think the outdoor sections made the game what it was though: The beach landing in 'The Silent Cartographer', the epic 'Assault on the Control Room', the night time sniper raid at the start of 'Truth and Reconciliation', the incredibly creepy deserted swamp in 343 Guilty Spark, and of course who can forget the amazing intro level, 'Halo'. These parts and more are what made the game feel epic, and even if they made up only 40% of the game, they still gave it its character; its sense of scale. Remove them, and you've got an experience that's far inferior.

    Well I feel that's what Halo 2 did mostly. Sure, they cleaned up the indoor sections, and got rid of some the most-egregious cut and past design (e.g the library) but you're left with an experience that's mostly a sanitised version of the original, w here the epic outdoor encounters have been cut down into more manageable chunks. Where is Halo 2's Assault on the Control room level, or its 'Halo'?

    With Halo 3 though, I feel Bungie finally got both parts right: they got rid of practically all the cut and paste level design, and executed on the outdoor setpieces. That's why we needed another sequel, even if only the 'fans' truly appreciated it.
  • kupocake #57 2 years ago

    I can't be the only person who started taking notice of Eurogamer's reviews when Halo got that 8/10, and I don't get why you've started to apologise about it of late. Oh, it wasn't just a good game, it was certainly an important one too. But nothing excuses the fact that one half of the game is just the other half backwards.

    I still feel Halo 2 was the better game, and they're right about the Arbiter being a far more interesting character (Keith David Om Nom Nom). The problem was simply that when they started scaling back the scope of the game, the one thing they left clogging it all up was the kind of 'alternative viewpoint' spinoff plot that everyone else usually has the sense to put in an expansion. It's admirable that Bungie wanted every bright idea in their sequel game, but if they'd had the kind of long-term franchise ambition we're seeing now, we could have got two brilliant titles instead of one slightly mushed and rushed one.
  • metalangel #58 2 years ago

    Excellent article. I find it bizarre that people hate the Arbiter but apparently have no problems with the Flood (dull, dull, DULL) or the hordes of Drones in Halo 2.
  • Widge #59 2 years ago

    Arbiter was a masterful piece of storytelling, turning the Covenant from a mindless "KILL HUMANS" foe into something with a bit of depth and believability. Sadly gamers rank amongst the most narrow minded people in the world when it comes to what is "allowable" in games, and so mass moanage commenced.
  • morriss #60 2 years ago

    Great article. Excellent, in fact. In fact, it's one of the best I've ever read.

    Top stuff.
  • Shinji #61 2 years ago

    I can't be the only person who started taking notice of Eurogamer's reviews when Halo got that 8/10, and I don't get why you've started to apologise about it of late.

    I should be clear - I'm not apologising for it, and even if I wanted to (which I don't), I wouldn't be in a position to do so, since I didn't write the original review.

    I was simply observing that I think EG had a more tempered view of Halo than other publications, because EG was largely made up of people from PC gaming backgrounds, not console gamers. As a console game, Halo was groundbreaking, but there's no denying that it owed a great deal to existing PC games - which, I guess, many console gamers had never had a chance to experience at that point. Hence why EG simply didn't rate it as highly as others did, because we were looking at the game in quite a different context.
  • morriss #62 2 years ago

    Good argument, tbf.

    For me, a console-only owner all my life until the last couple of years (I only played Monkey Island and Champ Man on PC), Halo completely blew me away. I was, however, oblivious to PC games at that time. Still in the context of console games, I agree with Shinji: Halo was/is 10. In the context of an FPS amongst other FPS', it's an 8/10.

    Still, the game, quite literally, changed my life in many ways.

    Sad, but true. :)
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/10 @ 16:09
  • morriss #63 2 years ago

    Why are some of the opening words bolded in some paragraphs, btw?
  • Grayvern #64 2 years ago

    As has been said before the single player side of Halo has never been close to matching the quality of Halo 1's. Halo 1 was more repetative than 2 but it played so much better. Foe me at least no level in halo 2 or 3 played as well as the fight to the Truth and Reconciliation's grav lift.

    Halo CE also has a far better feel in single player than Halo 2 or 3. It always felt slower and more measured to me. Although apart from online this is what makes Halo CE's multiplayer the worst.

  • coolbritannia #65 2 years ago

    Halo is a very obvious 10/10, despite what EG's review may say. i think, all bullshit aside, if they reviewed it now (by 2001 standards) it would be a no brainer full marks review. And I disagree with the masses here really, as I absolutely loved The Library. The scissors/paper/stone dynamic of fighting the covenant with plasma weapons goes out the window and you're suddenly in a sci fi survival horror. I loved it.
  • morriss #66 2 years ago

  • morriss #67 2 years ago

    Also, the Library was what you made it. Me and a freind in Local Co-Op had hours of fun in there.
  • photoboy #68 2 years ago

    I think Griesemer is spot on about the flaws in Halo 2's SP and Butcher isn't facing reality. When I finished the game I thought there had been some sort of glitch that had skipped the last level! I couldn't believe they would end a game so abruptly and unsatisfactorily. Even without the revelations in this interview it was clear at the time the game was basically shipped unfinished.

    It's a real shame they didn't have time to finish the last levels as DLC or something, as prior to that ending I had been really enjoying the game. After it though, I was actually somewhat put off the franchise.
  • Yossarian #69 2 years ago

    I enjoyed it on Legendary, because I was too busy staying alive to worry about how repetitive and awful it was.

    But really I can't subscribe to the "Halo 1 did it best" school of thought at all. There is a particular feel to that first game, true, and in context it was probably more of a revelation playing that game for the first time than its sequels, but I really do think the games are steadily getting better, ODST included.
  • Koborover #70 2 years ago

    I thought playing the Rookie in New Mombasa at night in Halo 3: ODST was a wonderful change of pace, great art design and soundtrack. Too bad the overall storyline wasn't very interesting and anti-climactic, and those other ODSTs were pretty boring.

    Hopefully, Reach will combine the superb visual and audio design of ODST with an epic story and memorable characters from earlier Halo games. It's looking good so far.
  • RedSparrows #71 2 years ago

    'The library level is absolutely the worst level in Halo but it is still better than any level in Halo 2 & 3.'

    Absolute tripe, and you know it.
  • sanctusmortis #72 2 years ago

    Man, it's like the SDF crawled in here on their stumps to vomit bile. Seriously, for the time, the first 2 Halo games were exceptional!

    I loved The Library. Best Co-Op Legendary level ever. It's fine level design for a horde AI; there's lots of places for them to swarm from that hide the spawns, you never feel bottlenecked if you use the space right... It's like most L4D maps. Good wide spaces with some corridors to thin the tide down. No issues at all.

    As for Halo 2... well, the texture pop aside (an issue Mass Effect had way worse, a whole generation later) the graphics were great. Gameplay was jarring at first, but once you got used to the battle rifle and dual wields, it regained the rhythm of the original. You could tell, though, that large parts had to be hacked out; the Scarab fight, for instance, ended rather jarringly, as did the whole Renegade story. And then there's the Gravemind, built up terrifically and all but dumped in the third installment. But level design was far better, weapons were balanced out by the new Covenant guns, and the story ramped up too. I've always seen Halo CE as a 10, and Halo 2's a close 9.
  • RodHull #73 2 years ago

    Assault on the control room in combat evolved. Getting behind an indestructable scorpion tank for the first time and whizzing about in a banshee. Bloody lovely!
  • w00t #74 2 years ago

    Great read. More behind the scenes stuff please :)
  • Stoatboy #75 2 years ago

    @Widge: My problem with the Earbiter* being playable is that I hate swapping sides in a game - which is what this feels like initially. It may flesh out the Covenant as more developed and believable, but I still bought the game largely to shoot the ugly buggers. I am, however, an incredible shallow man generally, and couldn't give a flying fuck about story in games so that may colour my view somewhat (Serious Sam is a tad plot-heavy for my liking).

    There is a disconnect in games though with swapping sides that doesn't exist in other media. In a film I don't have a problem seeing bad guys' backstory, because I just get to passively watch it. But in a game it seems to be asking you to actively work against what you've already achieved, which is counter-intuitive. Why would I want to further the enemies' cause? Every game that's done this has annoyed the hell out of me. (The worst was Total Annihilation:Kingdoms an RTS where one mission tasked you with building a fortress, and the next one had you playing as the enemy attacking it. In order to win you had to render the previous mission futile essentially. Thankfully it didn't do it properly, so the fortress you had to attack wasn't the same as the one you'd built, otherwise it would have been much harder for people who had done a good job on the first mission).


    Really nice article though. Nice and honest. Particularly liked the story about the whiteboard picture of the plane trying to land.



    *Yes, Earbiter. That's his real name.
  • Freek #76 2 years ago

    The main problem with the Arbiter was that he diden't really offer that much of a different perspective. He start off going on a side quest for some religouse nut that has nothing to do with the main story and then he ends up figting along side the Chief. You never fight for the Convenant against the humans.
  • retr0gamer #77 2 years ago

    Good article but for me Halo 2 was a step backwards for the series. The flood were more prevailent, the graphics were improved at the cost of framerate, there was still far too many levels made of repeated copying and pasting of assets and this time no rushed excuse and it had the plant from the little shop of horrors a film I hate. Multiplayer was revolutionary for console gaming but being a PC gamer at the time it seemed laughable and simplisctic and Halo 3 still does, I still don't know how people can love it so much when there are better and deeper multiplayer experiences even on consoles.
  • jonbwfc #78 2 years ago

    Its hero, the Master Chief, is an iconic figure in pop culture

    Somewhat over-stating the case there I think Rob. MC may well be a well known figure in gaming circles, but Lady GaGa he is not. I suspect if you asked the people who home page is facebook rather than Eurogamer, they wouldn't know who the hell he is...
  • Xinch #79 2 years ago

    "scepticism that you could make a good FPS on a console" what the fks he on about?
  • RedSparrows #80 2 years ago

    'Multiplayer was revolutionary for console gaming but being a PC gamer at the time it seemed laughable and simplisctic and Halo 3 still does, I still don't know how people can love it so much when there are better and deeper multiplayer experiences even on consoles. '

    ERROR
  • lefizz #81 2 years ago

    I do find the EG excuse about the 8/10 a bit well hmmm horse shit.

    I mean the fact that a major publication gives an obviously genre redefining or creating game a medium mark isnt unheard off.
    Edge giving GTA 3 an 8/10 is another truely gobsmacking error, like being given Elite after reviewing Chucky Egg of the BBC and giving that an 8 as well.

    No what get a little on my nerves is that the excuse they were from a PC background. I was from every background, at that time i had played pretty much every console going and was also in a (very rare at the time) 6 month pc build spiral to get the best out of games. Even so i thought there was something so sublime about Halo :CE that it was literaily all i played for months after. Halo was special, on so many levels, superb AI, great oudoor enviroments, varied level design, great story arc, superb vehicle controls. Along with Fallout 3 i think it is the game i have played the most in my 37 year on the planet. Ok it had issues with reused textures, poor navigating of the player through so of the maps etc however it always felt special, Halo 2 never quite did that for me in the same way, and 3 was just dissapointing.
  • coolbritannia #82 2 years ago

    'Multiplayer was revolutionary for console gaming but being a PC gamer at the time it seemed laughable and simplisctic and Halo 3 still does, I still don't know how people can love it so much when there are better and deeper multiplayer experiences even on consoles. '

    Name them.
    Edited by 2 at 11/04/10 @ 22:57
  • Shinji #83 2 years ago

    I do find the EG excuse about the 8/10 a bit well hmmm horse shit.

    It's not an "excuse". That implies that there's anything to excuse. The fact that you may have loved a certain game to bits doesn't automatically entitle it to 10/10 from everyone else in the world!
  • retr0gamer #84 2 years ago

    I can only think of two: Keyboard and Mouse.

    There's also the battlefield series, Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, Team Fortress, Half-Life deathmatch, Shadow Warrior, Delta Force, Operation Flashpoint, etc.
  • Zeliard #85 2 years ago

    "Eurogamer is mocked to this day for awarding it 8/10, the "low" score probably reflecting the site's roots in PC FPS gaming more than anything else."

    If that's somehow considered low, then Eurogamer deserves far greater mocking for scoring Planescape: Torment, the greatest RPG ever made, an 8/10.
  • retr0gamer #86 2 years ago

    Megaman 2,9 and 10 got 6/10's iirc. A crime if you ask me.
  • 3william56 #87 2 years ago

    OK, can we please banhammer the phrase "tent pole" unless you're about to give Jobs a blow.

    Jeez - a space marine FPS with a wildly over-eager fake mockup at E3 that lied to players and got cut to hell before the final release? Bl**dy Sony - I'll never trust them and their crappy demos again.

    Oh. Hold on a minute...
  • Xerx3s #88 2 years ago

    "I can assure you, the single player of both halo 2 and 3 were piss poor, and ODST ? absolute travesty of a game. "

    You mistake your opinion and sentimental value with fact. The rest clearly has a different opinion.
  • Xerx3s #89 2 years ago

    Don't get me wrong, having recently replayed Halo CE on legendary, I love that game to bits but to say that the sequels don't outdo it in every way is just sentimental memory deluding yourself.
  • Inquisitor #90 2 years ago

    Good article. Absolutely agree that the arbiter is the more interesting of the two playable characters, I just wish they'd gone further with that. It was a bit of a mistake introducing him fighting against renegade Covenant, a bit confusing telling allies from enemies. Would also have been much more daring and interesting having him fight against humans, though I understand why they didn't.

    I respect what they did in Halo 2. The first Halo was much more mysterious, the player was left very much in the dark and left to piece an over arching story together themselves. Halo 2 tried to explain and show things more often and was more movie like in its approach I suppose. I'm in the (small) camp that prefers Halo 2. Undoubtedly it's riddled with the gaps left by cut content but still works incredibly well and feels much more varied than the first. There are a lot of odd design decisions that feel distinctly un-halo however. The countless moving platforms and odd boss fights to name but a few. Makes for a brilliant game to do a retrospective on though, so many intriguing levels and encounters in there, hopefully this article is a set up for that.
    Edited by 4 at 12/04/10 @ 10:28
  • VicViper #91 2 years ago

    I find it annoying when people say that the AI gets better in the higher difficulties, surely if you have great AI you would want to showcase it in normal just as much as in a higher difficulty?

    While it might be the case that perhaps the AI is scripted to be easier on normal, a player should not be forced to a higher difficultly just to see all a game has to offer bar an increase in the difficulty (more enemy hit points and better armament etc) or non game changing reward. Thats was normal is, the normal mode for the game and it should be balanced as such.
  • retr0gamer #92 2 years ago

    There's no difference in the AI in different difficulty levels they just take more damage and they might, although I'm sceptical, throw more grenades.
  • muscleblade #93 2 years ago

    "I can only think of two: Keyboard and Mouse."

    I think its more fun to play with a controller. I loved Perfect Dark on the N64 and i prefer Halo,Halo 2 and Halo 3 to any PC FPS games you mentioned. Many PC gamers feel crippled with a controller and i get that. Its what you used too thats all. Its easier to play games that only uses one button too, but is it more fun? No.
  • muscleblade #94 2 years ago

    @retr0gamer

    They behave very differently at higher difficultys. You are nothing but a troll i guess.
  • retr0gamer #95 2 years ago

    I actually think the 8/10 mark for Halo was fair for the game at the time. Gameplay-wise it was a good PC FPS translated on to the console, it wasn't even as revolutionary as people make it out to be (vehicles and open outdoor enviroments were in a lot of PC FPS games then, recharging shields was an innovation from Tribes, on button grenades could be mapped in any PC FPS and the 'innovative' console control scheme was taken wholesale from the PS1 verison of Quake 2 and Alien Resurrection). You also have to remember that the flood weren't all that fun, the library was a load of arse it also lost a lot of steam after the library and the reusing of levels and assets was fairly poor form. 10/10 or 9/10 are for games that are for all intents and purposes excellent games and top of their genres but there were far too many flaws in Halo to give it more than a 8/10 for me.
  • Yossarian #96 2 years ago

    There's no difference in the AI in different difficulty levels they just take more damage and they might, although I'm sceptical, throw more grenades.

    Enemy reaction times are slowed on lower difficulty levels, enemies throw fewer grenades (and, e.g., don't throw them at all on the first level of Halo 3, to ease bad players in), dodge less, and are less aggressive. Snipers are less accurate. Also, the numbers and more frequently the "rank" of enemies change with the difficulty levels.

    "Normal" is designed for people who never play videogames, or play two games a year: Halo, and the new Madden. Griesemer used to balance "Easy" by playing with his nose.

    Heroic, as it says in the description, is how the game is meant to be played.
  • Britesparc Verified Creative, ITV #97 2 years ago

    Great, great article.

    Maybe I just don't cane games the way some do around here, but I didn't have any real probs with any of the Halo games. 1 is a masterpiece; 2 suffered a little here and there (truncated ending, some tech issues); 3 is the best all-round games package (single, MP, Forge, community) that I've played this gen; ODST is short and sweet but with a great plot & character.

    REALLY looking forward to Reach.
  • lefizz #98 2 years ago

    Nitpicking around the technical details of a game to justify a game score isnt really appropriate ihmo.
    Feel really is all with games for example MW 1 just felt fresh, had great depth and played brilliantly, even the plot was interesting.
    MW2 was such a let down because although technically it may have been better, the fact the actual game turned into a crap hollywood movie lost all that made the first one great. Online it may be better, i wouldnt know that just isnt my bag.

    Halo :CE felt amazing even if techically it was far from perfect.
  • Sunyavadin #99 2 years ago

    Wonder what would have happened had Bungie stayed with the Nintendo platforms

    Well, had they stayed as Mac deveopers, Apple might have some serious games for one of their platforms by now.
  • muscleblade #100 2 years ago

    @AOFanboi
    "Wonder what would have happened had Bungie stayed with the Nintendo platforms;"

    What do you mean by stayed. Bungie has never made a game for a Nintendo platform have they?

  • geeza2020 #101 2 years ago

    people blather on and on about halo's multiplayer, but the battlefield games have shit all over halo from a fucking great height since the beginning of the series (im sure bf1942 was released about the same time as Halo: CE). And considering the single player really was space opera trash i just cant understand some of the praise this game gets.
    HOWEVER, i can also see that from a console point of view, it really did push the boundaries in terms of gamepley. Tight responsive and accurate controls on a console fps really was an acheivement at the time, and for this I give Halo kudos. Its just NOT genre re/defining IMO.
  • furp #102 2 years ago

    Halo 2 is a great game.I spent many an all nighter playing halo2
  • The-Bodybuilder #103 2 years ago

    "If you look at our original plan for Halo 2's single-player campaign and the story we were going to tell, this basically adds up to Halo 2 and Halo 3 combined."

    I'm sure someone has already pointed this out (haven't read all posts), but bungie, we could tell.
    It was PAINFULLY obvious that Halo 3 was essentially just Halo 2.5. It seemed clear 3 was the complete game 2 was meant to be, and bungie were keen to finish the design as how they planned it, regardless of how dated everything looked now.

    It's one of the reasons why I believe Reach will be so good, as reach seems like the true spiritual "sequel" to Halo: CE.
  • Climhazzard #104 2 years ago

    I was one of the people totally fooled by the first E3 gameplay vid which looked fantastic. I bought Halo 2 for the campaign originally as id loved Halo. I was immediately disappointed by the shoddy engine with its many many bugs and glitches aswell as shocking story and confined environments. Safe to say i was gutted more than i had been at buying any other sequel in my life of gaming.

    Then i got into the multiplayer. Had never played online on pc and Halo had been the 1st fps i had played. Straight away i was hooked and played it from day one right up to Halo 3 being released. Still the best online mp experience ive ever had and probably always will be.

    That saved the game for me otherwise id have been scarred so badly, i would have been put off halo for life.
    Halo is still the original and best in the series to me though.
  • Lin #105 2 years ago

    the story of halo: take a promising PC game, buy it up, and move a whole generation of gamers from their PCs onto a connedsole, where they can be easily manipulated, overcharged and castrated, all in the name of an inferior experience.
  • onyxbox #106 2 years ago

    I found that Halo 2 was not a great single player experience at all and a big dissapointement. The multiplayer gave it legs tho' and I played that for a couple of years!

    I found Halo 3 a little more enjoyable in the SP and I didn't play any multiplayer on Halo 3... I burned out on too much Halo 2 rumble pit I think.

    ODST was interesting but felt cheesy and below par on production/voice acting and engine.

    Halo 2 and 3 should have been one game made of the best bits of both and Halo 3 should have been Reach, which is looking like the game we've all been waiting for.
  • Grayvern #107 2 years ago

    ODST was good but the voice acting direction and scripting basically added up to Nathan Fillion abuse.
    Edited by 1 at 12/04/10 @ 23:25
  • GiarcYekrub #108 2 years ago

    I don't get why people say Halo one was the best single player, I played all three back to back and the first one is soooo repetitive, walk into an hexagonal room, shoot some bad guys ... walk to the other side, shoot some bad guys, repeat, 2 and 3 were much more fun to play
  • geeza2020 #109 2 years ago

    Reading the comments on this last page and they seem to be quite balanced statements saying what peoples positive and negative opinions on halo are or have been over the years. The fact that we've all been negged for not sucking master chiefs dick is a good way of assessing the halo community and really brings into the light the reasons why certain people dont play halo multiplayer: the immature and rather rabid weirdo's who play the game online constantly, (seriously, if you're still playing Halo 2 online, you've wasted your life) ruining it for casual players and bringing the gift of teabagging to the world. Good work halo community. nice one.
    Edited by 1 at 13/04/10 @ 09:54
  • retr0gamer #110 2 years ago

    Geeza2020: The voice of reason

    I've had arguments with Halo fans that say that the controller is better than a keyboard and mouse. People can say it's personal opinion but in this matter it's night and day, keyboard and mouse is better. You don't need aim assist unlike controllers that require it to be playable. The most annoying thing is that almost everyone that argues this or argues that it's the pinnacle of FPS gaming admit to having never played PC games before. It's not really a balanced opinion then is it? I wouldn't mind but when Halo 3 came out on the consoles CoD4 came along and blew it out of the water imo.
    Edited by 1 at 13/04/10 @ 10:57
  • retr0gamer #111 2 years ago

  • geeza2020 #112 2 years ago

    bulkpack - congratulations on confirming my above post. So im not allowed an opinion unless it agrees with yours? Oh and no idea what makes a game good? You have 25 posts on this site my man, i think it may be you that has no idea. Cheers! :D
  • Gecks #113 2 years ago

    @retr0gamer
    keyboard and mouse is essentially better, but as long as the playing field is level then it doesn't really matter. if controllers have any advantages it's that the gap between raw controller skill is less because people can't get as 'good' at using a controller as you can with a mouse (witness the superhuman twitch snipers in CS and quake 3), so it's less frustrating for the average player.

    i played online PC FPSs for 10 years, and was in the barrysworld (RIP) and jolt leagues for UT, battlefield 1942, natural selection, CS and HLDM, with varying degrees of success. i'd like to think i have a reasonable grasp of what makes an online FPS good, and halo 3 has a very solid, consistent and balanced combat engine that lends itself to many gametypes. i can play halo 3 online for hours today and not get bored, because there's so much variation. it's surely up there with the best of them.
    Edited by 1 at 13/04/10 @ 15:11
  • retr0gamer #114 2 years ago

    Well I'm not saying the game is crap but I always get jumped on for being a hater when all I'm really doing is pointing out flaws that fanbois seem to ignore. I wish they were more like you Gecks. I find the multiplayer a fun distraction but I just can't stick with it since I find there's better multiplayer games to play and I'm not a big FPS player, Street Fighter 4 is my online baby. I still find it a good quick blast and four players over live on one box is a feature that every game should have.
  • subtlesnake #115 2 years ago

    "Reading the comments on this last page and they seem to be quite balanced statements saying what peoples positive and negative opinions on halo are or have been over the years. The fact that we've all been negged for not sucking master chiefs dick is a good way of assessing the halo community and really brings into the light the reasons why certain people dont play halo multiplayer: the immature and rather rabid weirdo's who play the game online constantly, (seriously, if you're still playing Halo 2 online, you've wasted your life) ruining it for casual players and bringing the gift of teabagging to the world. Good work halo community. nice one."

    I think people in general are defensive about games they like, so if this was a different retrospective and different game, I would expect the same. In any case, judging an entire community based on the opinions of few Eurogamer readers seems a little extreme to me.
  • E2K #116 2 years ago

    I lolled so hard at Bungie

    "our levels were so detailed that they could never fit into any engine!"
    Come on now! Nobody believes that.
    So because their levels in Halo2 were so detailed, they made halo3, halo3:odst and halo3:reach graphically mediocre?
    They pretend they are guerilla games, but the reality is: they are 5 years into the 360 development cycle and are still unable to use AA or even reach 1280*720 resolution. Both of which have been done by other 360 devs for years, and, to be honest: even with better graphics than the new halo and all halo of the last 3 years.. combined.

    So I will never believe that this company ever produced levels that could not fit into any engine, even if they give out these BS interviews.
  • symmetry #117 2 years ago

    I loved playing the Arbiter. His sword and cloak are very cool and that level that's falling into the gravity well of a planet is just genius.
  • agent.smith #118 2 years ago

    This was an excellent article. Thank you Eurogamer and thank you Bungie for giving us an insight.

    I really have a lot of respect for Bungie. I don't own a console but those guys were a highlight of the industrie long before the days of the XBox. I wish they would go back to their more innovative days though (Maratho, Oni ...)
    Edited by 1 at 19/04/10 @ 00:55