Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hulk
Forgive me, but that sounds like blatant fanboy talk. From what I've played, the SP is more of the same. With two guns at once. The thing that gets me is, in most reviews, the authors point out things in the game that could have been better, yet give it a 10 seeming just for the hell of it. Now, I don't know about you lot, but if something is awarded a 10 it better be either so damn close to perfect that it is unthinkable to better, or so groundbreaking that nothing like it has been seen before. Halo 2 is neither, hell, it's a rehash of the first (as sequels generally are) and the MP plays a damn sight like UT2k4.
Honestly, after all these years, how can you be happy with the amazing lack of length in the SP scenario, especially with the ending purely designed to make you buy the sequal? If you've ever played _any_ of Bungie's older games, Halo 2 is the worst single-player experience they've ever done.
|
I enjoy the single player because it's fun. I can't remember the last time I played a single player console FPS that was purely enjoyable. Halo 2 is a masterpiece of game making despite how long it is. Metal Gear Solid can be finished in four hours yet many still claim it's the best game ever made. Game length means nothing, it's the experience that matters.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hulk
Which isn't saying it's a bad thing, not by a long shot, it's just not as flawless and perfect and so damn amazing that it rates a 10.
|
Like I said before, a 10 doesn't mean the game is perfect and it doesn't mean it's the best game of all time. It means it does its job better than the other games in the genre. If anyone thinks they can point out a better console FPS than Halo 2, be my guest.
-Lasereth