Halo PC review

[Jack and Calumon]

When it comes to popularity, its very hard to understand. I understand the popularity of MGS because I played it, I understand the popularity of World of Warcraft because I played it (but it costs too much money for me to go deep into it), So now its Halo's turn in the spotlight, and because I don't have an Xbox 360, I have to play the PC remake of the game.

Understand now that Halo has a lot riding on it. The hype, the machinima, the records it set, the fanbase, leads up to game which should be on of the best games to ever grace my computer, and the 2 greatest FPS games for my computer are Half Life and Farcry (Farcry 1, not Farcry 2) and those are tough games to beat.

Halo PC is a remake of the original Halo but for PC. I find myself playing as Master Chief in the year...somewhere in the future, and my ship is under attack and for about 10 minutes I don't have a gun. But it was still good seeing my team mates die for not looking at the collapsing ceilings and exploding pipes. When I did get a gun, I had to get off the ship, so I went around shooting alien ass, then t-bagging them (don't ask why). I had a little blue girl called Cortana put in me to help me out. Then we escaped the ship and landed on a ring shaped planet called Halo.

Later in the game, people kept banging on about the flood and how bad it is. When I actually met the flood I had one thought in my mind. Those are freaking head crabs from Half Life. I know you've probably heard that before but it didn't feel original as I blasted them in pieces. They do have other aliens though, and they seemed pretty nice and unfamiliar. The story was good, but the FPS elements felt bland. Its just bare bones FPS, but marking the game down for that would be foolish as I'm just comparing this with Call of Duty 4. That'd be like comparing Doom to Farcry 2 and saying how much better Doom is, compared to that franchise murdering thing they called a Farcry game.

The problem with the FPS elements was that the only true mind blowing moments are the Cutscenes and not in the game, like in COD4 when you blow up a helicopter or take down an electricity pylon, but here I go comparing it again. But it could at least have a ship crashing down and exploding next to me, instead of all happening in a cinematic.

Also the last level is easy so...Wait. The whole game was easy. Yes it was, and I even did this on Legendary and it felt easy for an FPS, Which I can mark it down for. Sure legendary opposed a challenge but I beat it. This may have something to do with the fact that I did Farcry 1 on the hardest difficulty, but it could have been much harder. (More comparisons, I know.)

I don't see how it became so popular. Maybe the multiplayer was its reason, but Halo PC's servers must have closed down. That or I have bad internet. I say both. But I did try LAN with a friend and it was fun but we both preferred to have Crysis Wars, but there I go again, comparing it to modern day shooters.

Get it if you want, but you know I think its not the best game ever, but it is at least good enough for me to recommend this game, but you can still do better than Halo PC. Maybe Halo 2 Vista is better? Who knows, besides the people who have it and Bungie.

P.S: I didn't say it was a bad game! So no hate mail!

 

[ultimatechance]

um, after playing both versions, the thing you should keep in mind is that some games are just better on the console. This is why a skilled game like counterstrike on the pc isnt as fun with a controller. Then there are games like Gears of War that arent as fun with a keyboard and mouse. Consoles lacked a very playable FPS until Halo, and lacked a very good online FPS until Halo 2. PC players just have their own taste, and i can understand why you feel this way.

But as for most of what you say on the game itself, i agree. Good review

PS: Thank you for calling Far Cry 2 out for what it was

 

[Danny Ocean]

Not a very in-depth review, it's really just this:

[li]Story Summary[/li]
[li]"Too Easy for Me"[/li]
[li]dull/bland/unoriginal[/li]

Why not compare it to a modern day shooter? It gives the reader some knowledge hooks from which he can draw an image of the game in his mind. Although you should back these up, simply saying, "I don't see why [the mulitplayer] it became so popular" is pretty useless for a review; you need to ask why to everything. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of explaining why, so tell me what makes Crysis wars better for multiplayer?

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Not a very in-depth review, it's really just this:

[li]Story Summary[/li]
[li]"Too Easy for Me"[/li]
[li]dull/bland/unoriginal[/li]

Why not compare it to a modern day shooter? It gives the reader some knowledge hooks from which he can draw an image of the game in his mind. Although you should back these up, simply saying, "I don't see why [the mulitplayer] it became so popular" is pretty useless for a review; you need to ask why to everything. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of explaining why, so tell me what makes Crysis wars better for multiplayer?

Thanks for the feedback. but when I said "I don't see why it became so popular" I was referring to the game as a whole.

I didn't do a story summary because there isn't much of a story to talk about. I will be more in depth next time.

Oh and I didn't compare it to modern shooters because it was made before them.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Thanks for the feedback. but when I said "I don't see why it became so popular" I was referring to the game as a whole.

You don't go into very much depth as to why though. I know a review is a personal opinion but there is hardly any evidence to back up your point.

I didn't do a story summary because there isn't much of a story to talk about. I will be more in depth next time.

Oh no, what I meant was that a good 2/3rds of the review just seemed to be a summary of the beginning of the story. You touch on several points, but fail to go into any depth, instead using a more casual approach of typing as you might speak it.

Oh and I didn't compare it to modern shooters because it was made before them.

But you did, so at least explain why. Imagine you've never played a game before in your life, or you're buying one for your son, how are you supposed to understand :

That'd be like comparing Doom to Farcry 2 and saying how much better Doom is, compared to that franchise murdering thing they called a Farcry game.

For example?

 

[I3uster]

Not a very in-depth review, it's really just this:

[li]Story Summary[/li]
[li]"Too Easy for Me"[/li]
[li]dull/bland/unoriginal[/li]

Why not compare it to a modern day shooter? It gives the reader some knowledge hooks from which he can draw an image of the game in his mind. Although you should back these up, simply saying, "I don't see why [the mulitplayer] it became so popular" is pretty useless for a review; you need to ask why to everything. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of explaining why, so tell me what makes Crysis wars better for multiplayer?

Thanks for the feedback. but when I said "I don't see why it became so popular" I was referring to the game as a whole.

I didn't do a story summary because there isn't much of a story to talk about. I will be more in depth next time.

Oh and I didn't compare it to modern shooters because it was made before them.

The story is actually quite nice, you just have to like sciencefiction-scenarios.
It was so popular because it ahd many features that made console gaming better(these features were there before but they got compilated for a great console gaming expierience)
For example:
You have only 2 Weapons so you dont have to switch through the 9 weapons you usually carry in a shooter.
There is no meeleweapon, instead you can meele with every weapon you have.
Grenades arent a weapon in the two weapon slots and can be thrown by just clicking a button.

On the PC these features are unnecessary and feel stupid, on console they are necessary.

I will review the whole series in a few days...

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Thanks for the feedback. but when I said "I don't see why it became so popular" I was referring to the game as a whole.

You don't go into very much depth as to why though. I know a review is a personal opinion but there is hardly any evidence to back up your point.

I didn't do a story summary because there isn't much of a story to talk about. I will be more in depth next time.

Oh no, what I meant was that a good 2/3rds of the review just seemed to be a summary of the beginning of the story. You touch on several points, but fail to go into any depth, instead using a more casual approach of typing as you might speak it.

Oh and I didn't compare it to modern shooters because it was made before them.

But you did, so at least explain why. Imagine you've never played a game before in your life, or you're buying one for your son, how are you supposed to understand :

That'd be like comparing Doom to Farcry 2 and saying how much better Doom is, compared to that franchise murdering thing they called a Farcry game.

For example?

All right, All right. Calm down. I was only saying thanks.

 

[chuckman1]

That wasn't a bad review.