Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

TerrorFirmer

Lads I have a pretty serious problem with the game already. On the level Truth and Reconciliation, there's a section after you go up the grav lift where enemies attack you in waves. I remember from the original it's just a section where you have to kill all waves until the level progresses. However, playing now, there are innumerable invisible elites with energy swords as well as the grunts. As you may imagine, this is proving impossible to pass. I have died about 30 times, and I've finished most of the Halo games on Legendary without too much bother, but this...this is a whole new level of hard. And I'm not even playing on Legendary.

I looked up game walkthroughs for the original and they warn of one invisible elite - yes, singular! But here there are at least 6 or 7, were these added in for no apparent reason or what? Because literally I cannot pass this bit, no sooner then I've killed one then another skewers me through the back at the same time. Sometimes, even two at once. Surely this can't be right....there are about 6 marines with you and they all die within about 2 seconds of the elites appearing. This also did not happen in the original, I am positive of. This is driving me insane because I literally already cannot progress in the game.

I've played the original only a million times and this most definitely does not happen so I'm totally stumped here as to what I'm supposed to do.

TerrorFirmer

Right, just saw 4 come out of one door. Someone please tell me you're not seriously supposed to have to contend with 10 invisible elites with swords on the 3rd freakin level? Not to mention there's a rake of normal guys shooting at you at the same time. Because if that's the way it's meant to be, then Halo Anniversary is literally the most difficult game I've ever played in my whole life. I have now died 40 times.

Helix

i only remember one being there from when i played through the other day :S

TerrorFirmer

Helix wrote: »

i only remember one being there from when i played through the other day :S

I switched to classic mode and it was a breeze, first time lucky, killed 4 elites and passed the section. Which leads me to believe that SP is somewhat bugged, because in HD mode I had to kill about 10+. In HD mode: 10+ elites. In classic mode: 4-ish elites that were easily overcome.

Verdict: I love the game but it seems bizarrely skewed.

Ian7

just played this section last night on heroic and even with two of us we found it pretty hard but a very enjoyable challenge. wait till you kill them and have to face a pair of hunters! best of luck .

I started the campaign for the first time last night and set it to heroic, i found it surprisingly easy and assumed the rest of it was going to be the same untill we got to the night mission before the grav-lift to Truth and Reconciliation. I have to say though, awesome game and I really hope Halo 4 lives up to the series name!

ED E

Ordered my copy last night, cant wait. Clips on IGN look delish. #meganostalgia

Healium

This really is a must for any Halo fan. Bought it yesterday, went straight to my friends house and booted up Legendary split-screen. Ridiculously fun. After 5 hours, we're just at the beginning of The Silent Cartographer

Helix

I'm a halo fan and it wasn't a must for me

Ostrom

Helix wrote: »

I'm a halo fan and it wasn't a must for me

Care to expand? (Money is tight and just wondering if its worth a go - very fond memories of original CE co-op)

Helix

My review is a page or 2 back. I thought it was pointless

Edit

Here it is http://www.clickonline.com/games/review--halo-combat-evolved-anniversary/4260/

Riesen_Meal

Im a huge Halo fan, but for me its a case of no Bungie, no buy.... Even though I want the maps for Reach....

Ian7

Fieldog wrote: »

Im a huge Halo fan, but for me its a case of no Bungie, no buy.... Even though I want the maps for Reach....

This ins't a new halo game, it's still bungies just with better graphics. Everything else is the same. I just don't know why the bungie logo isn't on the box though.

The terminals however do add a little extra for anybody interested in the halo universe

Healium

Helix wrote: »

I'm a halo fan and it wasn't a must for me

Well then you must not be a very big one. This is a wicked gift for any Halo fan. I don't agree with your arguments at all, to be honest - seems to be nitpicking. This is the only game this year that will make me take Skyrim out of the disc tray. I'm torn between the two

Potential-Monke

Healium wrote: »

Well then you must not be a very big one.

As in they're not a fanboy?

Helix

Healium wrote: »

Well then you must not be a very big one. This is a wicked gift for any Halo fan. I don't agree with your arguments at all, to be honest - seems to be nitpicking

i take games on their merit, not on the series they come from. no doubt ce was fantastic a decade ago, and certainly had plenty to offer far beyond that, but its a ten year old game with a ten year old engine and ten year old controls. it doesnt stand up these days

im a massive goldeneye fan too, but that doesnt stand up now either

like it or not, there are very few ten year old fps titles that can stand up to even mediocre modern day offerings. such is the nature of technological advancement. for me ce: anniversary just feels old and creaky. i think before this id never given a halo game lower than 85% (or equivalent)

seriously looking forward to the next proper halo though

Healium

Potential-Monke wrote: »

As in they're not a fanboy?

Well since a lot of fans think the series went downhill after CE, I don't see why anyone wouldn't enjoy the original game in HD...?

Helix wrote: »

i take games on their merit, not on the series they come from. no doubt ce was fantastic a decade ago, and certainly had plenty to offer far beyond that, but its a ten year old game with a ten year old engine and ten year old controls. it doesnt stand up these days

im a massive goldeneye fan too, but that doesnt stand up now either

like it or not, there are very few ten year old fps titles that can stand up to even mediocre modern day offerings. such is the nature of technological advancement. for me ce: anniversary just feels old and creaky. i think before this id never given a halo game lower than 85% (or equivalent)

seriously looking forward to the next proper halo though

Yeah, except, it's a HD remake, not a new game. 343 have claimed from the beginning that they wouldn't be changing the game at all. I don't consider your arguments valid, when the HD engine is running on top of the old one at the same time.

Your main points; level design, controls, AI, vehicle handling

Level design, controls, vehicles: Were never going to be changed because of the nature of the remake. As far as I can see, they've made the controls more similar to Reach.

AI: I've only played on Legendary, and I'm happy with it. The Covenant are very persistent and will all chase you down instead of letting you run away, recharge, and come back. I've also been flanked by Elites.

At the end of the day, it's a new engine running on top of a 10 year old one, and there's obviously going to be lots of limitations and sacrifices for Classic mode i.e. you can't change levels, vehicle handling. I'm perfectly fine with this, because 343 haven't put out their first game yet and I'd rather take a HD carbon copy of Bungie's game then get a possibly rubbish one from 343.

You got what they advertised, and more. This was purely a gift to the fans, for nostalgia. It was never meant to re-invent Halo, or outsell any of the November blockbuster games. It was always going to be what you criticized it for, so I don't think it's fair to give it 2/5 just for those reasons.

I'd be critical of the occasional lag in HD mode and some crappy art assets, but other than that, I'm having ridiculous fun with it doing Legendary co-op. Terminals are an amazing addition, love the lore. Won't play much MP.

At the end of the day, it was made by Saber (who I have no confidence in), with some help from 343 (who have not proven themselves yet), so I never set my hopes very high. Now I'm pleasantly surprised

(No, I won't be getting into an argument over this. That's all I have to say about it. Next thing you'll have Retrogamer in here telling us how Halo sucks...)

Helix

Healium wrote: »

You got what they advertised, and more. This was purely a gift to the fans, for nostalgia. It was never meant to re-invent Halo, or outsell any of the November blockbuster games. It was always going to be what you criticized it for, so I don't think it's fair to give it 2/5 just for those reasons.

none of what you mentioned makes it a better game than the game that was released though. it doesnt matter what it was "meant to be", its score is based on the current gaming marketplace. jesus if we marked games based on what the developers had in mind when they built it there'd be top scores everywhere

i never said it was meant to reinvent halo, nor did i expect it to. that doesnt make it stand up against modern games though. the game was released into the modern marketplace, which immediately makes it a peer of the newer games, like it or not, so it has to be rated against them, making 2/5 a perfectly fair score

if you stripped away the halo branding and released this as "generic shooter 2011" then the score i gave it would be the rule, not the exception (which i still find really weird; the number of maximums the game got). it doesnt matter how much of a fan of a game you are, or how old it is, or how it fared when it was originally released when it comes to giving it a fair review and a score.

Ian7

Helix wrote: »

its score is based on the current gaming marketplace.

I don't know if its as straight forward as that though, its an anniversary edition so it should be judged mostly on extra's like graphical improvements, remastered soundtrack, multiplayer maps and also its ability to retain a high level of playability even after ten years. Its not really supposed to be judged against modern games. If a classic charlie chaplin film was remastered and released on blu-ray would you give it a low score just because it is a silent movie and filmed in black and white compared to the CGI HD full colour jugernaut hollywood films of today? The comparisons just don't work. They need to be judged outside of the mass market. I'm no expert in reviewing things so i can't say exactly how this would work.

Also, just because games have advanced graphically and technically in the last ten years doesn't necessarily mean they are better. I'm playing through this game for the first time and i find it more enjoyable than some of the muck that has been released in recent years.

CramCycle

Ian7 wrote: »

I don't know if its as straight forward as that though, its an anniversary edition so it should be judged mostly on extra's like graphical improvements, remastered soundtrack, multiplayer maps and also its ability to retain a high level of playability even after ten years.

I think that is what it is judged on, in Helixs opinion it failed on the playability front (controls etc.) AFAIK (I only skimmed through it, sorry)

If a classic charlie chaplin film was remastered and released on blu-ray would you give it a low score just because it is a silent movie and filmed in black and white compared to the CGI HD full colour jugernaut hollywood films of today?

It would probably fair better as a good movie tends to remain as such, some games retain their seat at the top tier but more often than not FPSs don't (some do before the barage of hate comes in).

The comparisons just don't work. They need to be judged outside of the mass market. I'm no expert in reviewing things so i can't say exactly how this would work.

They have to be judged against something relevant, in this case, the modern market.

Also, just because games have advanced graphically and technically in the last ten years doesn't necessarily mean they are better. I'm playing through this game for the first time and i find it more enjoyable than some of the muck that has been released in recent years.

Me too, I actually still enjoy HALO quite a bit, despite all the negative comments. I think the big issue here is a review is one persons opinion. I don't completely agree with Helixs opinion but I can see valid points in it, I do not agree with the high scores given by others out of nostalgia, as they seem to gloss over the flaws as if they do not exist.

By todays standards (IMO) it is an arcade shooter, I still enjoy it, some will, some won't.

Retr0gamer

Some films are held up as classics. Some have aged terribly. As a critic it's right to point out if the film is still relevant in this day and age, to not do it is to fail as a critic. The same goes for games. Some games like Zelda: Link to the Past and Super Mario World are as fresh today as the day they came out. Others like Goldeneye have aged so bad they are barely playable in this day and age. unfortunately due to how relevent FPS games are they tend to age the worst. Helix is just doing his job as a critic and doing it well. I'd much rather insightful criticism than the opinion of a rabbid fanboy that doesn't have the guts to criticise his favourite games.

Now while I think Halo is still perfectly playable there's lots of areas, mostly the really poor re-use of assets and the crappy flood sections, that really date the game so I can see where Helix is coming from.

wes

Only had a quick go with this, and played it with 3D, but I have been enjoying personally. I don't feel that the game has aged too badly, and think it has fared pretty good personally.

Helix

It's not that it has necessarily aged badly, more that current games are light years ahead. It's still perfectly playable, but in the cold light of modern day it's a distinctly average fps title

hooradiation

Helix wrote: »

It's not that it has necessarily aged badly, more that current games are light years ahead. It's still perfectly playable, but in the cold light of modern day it's a distinctly average fps title

A classic case of the Sienfeld is unfunny trope.

Helix

That point would be relevant if I was reviewing the game ten years ago. It's 2011 now, so the game gets held up by those standards, like it or not

K.O.Kiki

The one thing most people forget about the Flood is YOU DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE THERE.
They came out of NOWHERE, and that made them so much scarier during those first few encounters.

Potential-Monke

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

The one thing most people forget about the Flood is YOU DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE THERE.
They came out of NOWHERE, and that made them so much scarier during those first few encounters.

This shows my complete lack of Halo Universe information. I thought, all this time, that there was an actual flood in the first Halo...

Retr0gamer

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

The one thing most people forget about the Flood is YOU DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE THERE.
They came out of NOWHERE, and that made them so much scarier during those first few encounters.

They were still a load of arse to fight. If only they had made them a lot better. Nearly killed the first game for me after a good opening and totally killed the sequel.

wes

Helix wrote: »

It's not that it has necessarily aged badly, more that current games are light years ahead. It's still perfectly playable, but in the cold light of modern day it's a distinctly average fps title

Sure you do have a point, but I still had a good time with it, which is probably helped by nostalgia a bit.

hooradiation

Helix wrote: »

That point would be relevant if I was reviewing the game ten years ago. It's 2011 now, so the game gets held up by those standards, like it or not

Really, that's what you're taking away from this?

That's a special interpretation, I'll give you that.

Retr0gamer

Halo was a launch title for a big console and was the best shooter on consoles in a long time so at the time a lot of its flaws were forgiven. They're not so forgivable now. They were flaws back then and they're flaws now.