i don’t know i just think this game was one of those “you had to be there” kind of things, i mean i’ve played halo ce for a few years and finally got this for pc in 2010, i played through the champain and found it ok, i found the multiplayer to be a major step down from that of ce and custom edition with underpowered weapons, and i found the graphics poor.
but this game was made in 2004 so obviously standards where different then, surely this had technology and physics we had never seen before. except it didn’t because half life 2 was released a few days later with physics puzzles better graphics and arguably better pacing with its multiplayer component being released on the 30th, and if you really want to push it the engine that it was based on was made available back in June of that year with half life source.
but don’t let this information bother you, please tell me why halo 2 was THE game to get of 2004 :3
I don’t think the gameplay has aged a bit, but other things about the game has, like graphics even though I couldn’t care less about them.
It was simple and didn’t have all this unnecessary junk in the game like recent halo games. Kill times were fast and action was faster. A lot of small maps with basic layouts. 1-50 ranking system was best ever.
What is a Champain? On topic, Ive been playing Halo 2 recently on XBC, and i forgot how it felt to play back to basics Halo again, has aged very well imo.
This game has aged well, especially from a multiplayer standpoint. I don’t think the graphics are terrible by any means, but they don’t hold up well to current games.
A good example is that every single time I go back to Halo 2(XBC and rarely Vista), the game feels great. The controls just feel right. I can’t really say the same for most other 2004 titles.
Well if you get past the traumatic abuse Halo 2’s server experienced around Halo 3’s announcement, Halo 2 aged fine. Graphics hold no relevance, but Halo 2 had some nice pre-rendered backgrounds lol…