- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
While the ingame graphics to Halo 2 do look excellent from what was demo'd at E3 2003, I noticed that some of the rougher edges of animation from Halo: Combat Evolved had not been addressed. For instance, when the Master Chief drop kicks the brute off of the ghost, the brute sort of breaks from a fallling back animation seuqnece into a standing sequence--in mid-air, dropping to the ground.
There are many instances of this kind of rough animation sequence transition in Halo, and I was wondering if Bungie would try resolving some of these issues. Which begs another question, one that is being asked possibly out of ignorance: does Halo 2 use the same engine as Halo: Combat Evolved? It sure seems that way and I have read on multiple boards that some viewers think Halo 2 looks little removed from Halo: Combat Evolved. Yes, I understand that the stronger effects (such as the lighting) in Halo 2 are less appreciated until they are taken away, and I have tried to explain to this people online as well, but ultimately, the demo may have felt like Halo 1.5 regardless of this argument.
I'm not a really knowledgeable guy, truth be told, about game development, no matter what I try. I read developer diaries, interviews, and am learning how to model and animate in 3D Studio Max and Maya Composer as part of my research this year abroad in Japan, but even a glance at the Halo 2 Making of Documentary has me convinced that the people at Bungie are among the top of their fields. Thus, I am thinking that if even they cannot even out some of these sorts of rough edges, well...
Also, about the dual submachine guns. Sure it would feel cool using them initially, but from the demo, they seemed weak, and sounded like rock poppers. I personally wonder if they'll end up like the Assault Rifle in Halo: Comabt Evolved--cool, but useless (read: obsolete given the rest of the available arsenal) against difficult opposition.
I guess I am not sure where I am going with this discussion, except to state that I hope Bungie addresses these smaller issues in the midst of making the game bigger, bolder, and broader.
I don't want to come off as a troll or something of the like, but Halo: Combat Evolved really changed the way I looked at the potential of console fps's (as it did for many others). It achieved things with me as a player and as an audience that I had never fathomed games could accomplish. I am simply hoping that Halo 2 is more than a blockbuster hit; that, as a sequel, it becomes something that can bring back the joy of the first Halo as well as carry it further. An example of something that is not desired would be Mario Sunshine on the Nintendo Gamecube.
Other random appending thoughts:
- In the Discovery Channel's "X-Factor: Inside Microsoft's XBox" documentary, it was mentioned that Halo 2 would take on a more three-dimensional style of gameplay--less open areas and slopes, more above and below combat. This sounds great.
- The idea of having multiple looks for multiple warthogs seems a little hokey to me, especially if the hogs behave similarly in all environments. Personally, I love the look of the warthog as it is, while the other models look...less revolutionary, to say the least. To me, the warthog is an icon of Halo's excellence--a perfect example of how a vehicular component to a game should be implemented.
- Brutes. They look freaking awesome, rendered, bump-mapped, textured, and every stage in between. But other than a vicious hijacking capability, what distinguishes them from, well, the rest of the Covenant? In Halo: Combat Evolved, there existed four basic types of Convenant foes--grunts, elites, jackals, and hunters. Each was distinct from the others, served specific gameplay purposes, and the four species combined were more than enough to permutate into hours of gameplay that never felt repetitive. Facing two elites and two grunts was different than facing one elite and four grunts, for example. Now, the demo did not have a chance to show much, but it seemed that the brutes looked like monkey elites, without shields. I am wondering when we'll learn about why Bungie decided to add this race into the Halo universe, to speak nothing of the Prophets.
- The ghosts. I love the way they work in Halo 2. Period. That faster rate of fire is sharp, fear-inspiring, and just plain badass.
- Anti-vehicular turrets on warthogs. Sure, many people complained that the Warthog wasn't armed particularly well given its defensive failings, but will the armor-piercing turrets making obsolete the miniguns? I mean, if those things can lay waste to tanks, then imagine how quickly they'd mow down enemies, especially in multiplayer. Hell, they'd destroy banshees in a heartbeat, I imagine. I wonder how Bungie will balance the two armament types...
- I read that enemies and friendlies will exhibit more characteristic behaviors--that elites would be catlike, jackals bird-like, and that marines would kick over tables as makeshift cover and so on. I really hoep Bungie capitalizes on this idea if it has even a glimmer of hope of being assimilated seamlessly into the gameplay--supported by real-time lighting, we could have skirmishes play out like a scene from Aliens, but more hectic, not to mention more fun.
- According to the E3 2003 demo, there was low gravity on Earth. I'm just wondering how that'll work out in the final game. That is, I can see how the argument that the demo was meant to remain familiar to veteran Halo fans holds, but since the final game will have missions on Earth..well..it'd be nice if Bungie could find a way for Earth gravity to coexist with low-grav space levels without one standing above the other...
I think I'll stop now. These are just the rancom musings of a dork who is having a difficult time readjusting to school life in Japan, after some six weeks of spring break.
[Edited on 4/13/2004 8:16:20 AM]