Alex_P:

Echo42:
how would you rate that :D???

Unworthy of my notice.

-- Alex

:(

nice review and actually intelligent as claimed by op :)
oh i remember the first time i played halo and no one told me that elites also have shields :(
i ran out of ammo of all the guns i could find and had to finally melee kill one of them before realizing they also had shields :(

Very nice review, i like the review more than the game ;) Good Job m8

While this review does point out the brilliance of the game, it really reminds me of the unnecessary changes to the next two games.

Thought it waffled on a bit, to be honest.

Only a year late, at least.

Since many people have made this point before me, let's get it over with. Ditch the word 'intelligent' from the titles of your reviews, not only does it make you sound arrogant and self centred but it is also suggesting that everyone else who writes and reads reviews is suddenly deprived of any intelligence (in short, it makes you sound like an emo college boy with a messiah complex).

I should also point out that you should shorten the length of your writing slightly otherwise it will be a bit daunting for some readers (which in turn will cause them to be critical of your work), also, using advanced language and sophisticated lexis doesn't nessercarily make your work intelligent and isnt always apporpriate (you're not writing a thesis on the game, just a review), think about who is going to be reading it and ajust your language and grammar use accordingly since at present it just alienates the reader.

Also, considering how analytical you have tried to be throughout the game you have focused only on the gameplay (which is not a unique feature of Halo, it is more reperesentitive of shooters in general so you are more or less pointing out the obvious) and you have painted a rose tinted image by only stating the positive attributes of the game, I would reccomend giving a more balanced opinion in future by outlining both the good and bad aspects (it adds to the validity of your opinion).

This was an alright review. I felt it never really gave the reader a feel for the game, seeing as it puts forward Halo as a clever game by way of an intelligent review. In reality Halo is very uncomplicated - certainly not comparable to chess!

Please do drop the 'intelligent' from the titles. It doesn't make you appear any better and the blustering of post 28 did not help. Keep reviewing games here :)

isnt Intelligent Halo an Oxymoron anyway? :P

Quite nice comparisons (chess? I wouldn't have thought that!), and an overall balanced review on all that is Halo, and even though there is no point made directly on the multiplayer, they are inherently well implied. Congratulations on a good work.

I like Halo.

I just want to point out that No one really had a problem with halo, we all liked it if only because it set a standard for the xbox shooter control scyme. the problem was with halos 2 and 3 which are truely overhyped, good games but overhyped none the less

At the risk of echoing the sentiments of others, excessively verbose does not equal intelligent. On the other hand, clear, concise, to-the-point statements that also analyze the subject in a new and interesting way... THAT would make a review an intelligent one. You didn't seem to do either.

35/50

Tonimata:
Quite nice comparisons (chess? I wouldn't have thought that!), and an overall balanced review on all that is Halo, and even though there is no point made directly on the multiplayer, they are inherently well implied. Congratulations on a good work.

Thank you. Please read my review of metal gear solid which is written with a similar approach to this but recieved 100% negative feedback.

I too am going to echo many of the above posts when I say, "Remove the 'Intelligent' from your review titles!" It makes everything you say after that seem like you're being a prick and insulting the intelligence of your readers. I'm not saying you can't open the thesaurus and crank out a few doozy words, but you need to know when to stop with unnecessarily convoluted sentence structure and words that make it obvious you're using said thesaurus.

Aside from that, this game is ancient at this point and everyone here has probably already made up their mind on whether it's good or not, so you're either preaching to the choir, or to deaf ears. Personally, I think Halo is fun, but it's hardly revolutionary. It merely took aspects of FPSs that came before and implemented them in a smooth interface. Other aspects of the game are severely lacking. The fact that a pistol is perhaps the best weapon you can get is one of many issues I have with the game. I'll take Timesplitters 3 any day.

I don't think the realism of the weapons is an issue in any game, but good review nonetheless.

That is possibly because only fanboys read it. I've never been a fanboy for MGS or any of the aspects of MGS and I tend to stay more rational with my thoughts about a game that I like instead of going all up in arms about someone uttering the slightest hint of a diss.

Tonimata:
That is possibly because only fanboys read it. I've never been a fanboy for MGS or any of the aspects of MGS and I tend to stay more rational with my thoughts about a game that I like instead of going all up in arms about someone uttering the slightest hint of a diss.

Or you know, maybe it just wasn't a very good review...

The review is decent...just everyone else has said, it doesn't flow well. It sound's like you're trying to get the word count up. The review also doesn't focus much on story, covering gameplay to death and leaving everything else out.

steamednotfried:

Tonimata:
Quite nice comparisons (chess? I wouldn't have thought that!), and an overall balanced review on all that is Halo, and even though there is no point made directly on the multiplayer, they are inherently well implied. Congratulations on a good work.

Thank you. Please read my review of metal gear solid which is written with a similar approach to this but recieved 100% negative feedback.

I read it, the reason it got negative feedback is because it is much, much worse.

So you may have noticed I haven't really posted on these forums before but I stumbled across your review in my weekly visit to the site for some ZP action. I really debated whether or not to offer some feedback on your review and decided, after reading some comments and your replies, that you would be open to some constructive criticism. I need to emphasize that I am not trying to 'troll' or start an argument. This advice is so you might try and improve your writing. I enjoyed reading your review and I hope by providing this feedback you will be able to write more and better reviews in the future. Putting aside some clearly misplaced words/typos here is what I have to offer on your piece.

Firstly, as stated above, many of your sentences are too complex, obstuse and unclear. A good writer would be able to recognize a particularly finicky sentence and correct it to provide clarity. An example of such a sentence would be the following:

"This subject matter is very similar to most other first person shooters, but I think that Halo executes them so elegantly such as to allow for a considerably higher depth of possibilities then in others."

A sentence needs to be clear, concise and have proper flow. Perhaps a better sentence would be something like: "Despite its similarities with other first person shooters, I feel Halo's subject matter is executed more elegantly and allows for a game that has more depth than others." While it may not seem as 'intelligent' a sentence it ultimately conveys the same meaning and keeps the sentence concise.

Additionally you tend to add words or phrases to a sentence where they are not needed. An example of this would be the following sentence:

"Naturally there is far more to the pros and cons of each vehicle, but suffice to say, they have all been very well balanced in order to create scenarios where the players have to make interesting choices."

Just leave out the 'suffice to say' part and remove the commas and you'll have a much more direct, authoratative statement. There are several instances where you could do this.

Secondly, do not over-use commas. Commas indicate a pause in a sentence and thus interrupt the flow of a sentence. Not every sentence needs to have one and you've even placed them incorrectly or in sentences where they aren't needed at all. If you'd like an example for the purposes of clarity here's what I mean.

"Like all good sci-fi, the interest of the visuals lies largely in the functions they indicate, and, in a game, actually have."

In this sentence you have four commas. Although there is no strict grammar rule that specifies a limit per sentence, it is reccomended that you really shouldn't go above three for a single sentence. If you are having problems writing a sentence without using lots of commas try reworking it until it flows properly. The above sentence could look something like the following: "The interest of the visuals in all good Sci-Fi lies in the functions they indicate, and in a game, actually have." This sentence has more flow and is clearer.

Thirdly, it was noted in previous posts, your the excessive use of the word 'which'. I used to do this a fair bit as well so I think I can offer a little advice on it. Just leave it out! Watch in this sentence:

"The player also has frequent access to grenades, which are crafted excellently, emphasizing much of the functionality of real grenades, whilst allowing for other strategies which have less in keeping with the modern battlefield."

Leaving out the 'which' results in the following sentence:

"The player also has frequent access to grenades, excellently crafted, emphasizing much of the functionality of real grenades, whilst allowing for other strategies which have less in keeping with the modern battlefield."

Alternatively, and for better flow, you could rearrange the sentence to something like this:

"The player also has frequent access to excellently crafted grenades, emphasizing much of the functionality of real grenades, whilst allowing for other strategies which have less in keeping with the modern battlefield."

Sentences are just a matter of how you work them. Many of your sentences need reworking, not because of the what the content is trying to convey, but because of the method of conveyance itself. In addition to criticisms noted above there are also several review- related issues I would like to point out. You chose to approach your review from the perspective of the positives to be found in the game. I applaud this effort. It is much easier to dismantle something than it is to build it. Too often I find reviews focused on the negative aspects of the game rather than emphasizing what is done well. However, this does not mean one should approach reviewing from a purely positive perspective. Pointing out negative aspects is a critical part of any review on any topic. You seem to have left out some flaws to be found in Halo, unless you are contending that it is flawless, which I doubt.

Lastly, as I recall, gameplay is just one aspect of any game. In future reviews it may be beneficial for you to incorporate some other parts of the game such as the single player campaign, story and the primary characters involved in it. It might also be prudent for me to point out that I am not one of the 'Halo Haterz', who would simply lambast your review regardless of its merit. Halo happens to be one of my favourite game series, I mean my freinds and I grew up playing it. Again my goal here is not to provoke you, but to help with your writing style so that your future reviews are even better. You can choose whether or not to use any of my advice- it is up to you.

Oh and sorry this is so long!!!

devilishlyclever:
So you may have noticed I haven't really posted on these forums before but I stumbled across your review in my weekly visit to the site for some ZP action. I really debated whether or not to offer some feedback on your review and decided, after reading some comments and your replies, that you would be open to some constructive criticism. I need to emphasize that I am not trying to 'troll' or start an argument. This advice is so you might try and improve your writing. I enjoyed reading your review and I hope by providing this feedback you will be able to write more and better reviews in the future. Putting aside some clearly misplaced words/typos here is what I have to offer on your piece.

...

Lastly, as I recall, gameplay is just one aspect of any game. In future reviews it may be beneficial for you to incorporate some other parts of the game such as the single player campaign, story and the primary characters involved in it. It might also be prudent for me to point out that I am not one of the 'Halo Haterz', who would simply lambast your review regardless of its merit. Halo happens to be one of my favourite game series, I mean my freinds and I grew up playing it. Again my goal here is not to provoke you, but to help with your writing style so that your future reviews are even better. You can choose whether or not to use any of my advice- it is up to you.

Oh and sorry this is so long!!!

Thanks for this, some of the only constructive criticism i have received. Of course, you are correct in all of your points, but i guess i was just far more concerned with the actual content then the conveyence qualities. Looking through again, though, it is clear that some sentences are pretty convulted, making their meaning unclear.

But I find it frustrating how so many people are unwilling to comment on the content because of a few badly written sentences. To be honest, i could sort these problems out if i spent a bit of time checking through. I didn't put this review up for feedback on my english skills, i would be much more interested in feedback on my analysis of the game.

You mentioned the story and other elements of Halo. I don't think that these are important in this game. Perhaps they would be worthy of discussion in the Super Mario games, where they make a significant contribution to the overall impression, but i don't think Halo would have lost too much were it re-dressed in a simple wire frame and stripped of it's story. I could have talked more about the progression of levels in terms of their gameplay scenarios though.

Constructive Criticism.

Unlike many others in this forum I liked your review, and apart from your spelling of Master Chief, there were only two trouble-spots:

steamednotfried:
Halo is a game that focuses on a particular set of skills required in the combat that may ensue between two individuals or small armies fighting with weapons which, on the whole, stem from those which would be commonly associated with a modern close quarters battle field.

I think this could be condensed to:

Halo focuses on the set of skills required by close-quarters combat.

steamednotfried:
The elements are arranged in 3D space with continuous time, and are absolutely analogue in their positioning and such. Further more, the choices themselves are very much analogue ones (apart from the pre-battle weapon selection).

I have to admit this had me scratching my head until I realized that you were referring to the emergent gameplay opportunities afforded to the player by Halo's subtle 'non-linearity'. It probably would have helped matters if you had talked about the 'multiple-approaches' that are available in levels, such as The Silent Cartographer, or Assault on the Control Room. Perhaps, noting that this gave rise to the game's fabled replayability - something that Bungie failed to recapture in its more 'linear' sequels. So, you it may have helped to employ an illustrative example, such as:

The innovation that justifies the suffix: 'Combat Evolved' is less dependent on improvements in the ballistics modeling of its weaponry, AI behavior and "Tonka toy" vehicular physics than you would assume. It depends more upon forcing multiple imaginative strategies out of the player on first encountering the next adaptively dynamic battlefield, then making the pragmatic choice as to which plan they feel competent enough to risk the life of their squad and themselves. There is a moment in the epic 'Assault on the Control Room' level when you leave the corridors and walk out for the first time onto the open. Snow is falling, you look up and see the bridge you had all that trouble crossing, the bridge from which you witnessed the Pelican get shot down and over there in the distance by those trees is the Warthog it was carrying, along with some much needed extra munitions. To your left the Grunt operator of a Shade turret hasn't yet noticed you and you are immediately tempted to fire a single Pistol round into the back of his head and take over his position. Yet, as this is Halo, many more options remain and some only become available once an intermediary action has been undertaken. The Warthog could be flipped off its side, after all you are a Spartan, yet any transit towards it across this icy wasteland triggers a response. There is a belligerent second Shade turret that is out of range of all but a Sniper Rifle, or a Rocket Launcher, but you have neither at least not anymore. You make a mental note to yourself to reattempt the level and keep a Rocket in reserve. A couple of Ghosts lack drivers and you could be one of them, unless an Elite assumes this role first. You notice that there is a minor skirmish going on beneath those trees and those Marines would benefit from your assistance. Oh, and there is the small matter of the catastrophic bombardment from the Wraith... Decisions, decisions...

Otherwise the review morphs into an overly abstract ludological analysis.

I read the review the other day, and then showed a friend that has the game. While it is true that he agreed with most points, I think that I have to intercede by saying that MGS is more about the story than the gameplay in its fourth installment, and thus I udnerstand the ridiculous amount of gameplay errors in it, because gameplay is getting every day so much more refined that even the slightest mistake in a game makes us all go up in arms. It's like if Mr. Barack Obama was crossing the tight rope, and of course we were all expecting him to get to the other side, (because he's awesome), and he committed a single error that would cause him to slip. We would forsake him for that, and so do we forsake every game for the slightest mistake it has.

Uncompetative:
Constructive Criticism.

Unlike many others in this forum I liked your review, and apart from your spelling of Master Chief, there were only two trouble-spots:

...

Otherwise the review morphs into an overly abstract ludological analysis.

Yay, what a refreshing comment to read. You clearly enjoy Halo in a way which is similar to the way in which i enjoy Halo. I'ts true that my delivery is a bit awkward, and could do with being a bit more humane and less abstract, perhaps relying on a little more intelligence on the part of the reader who may not need everything explained from first principle. Not sure about that though. Besides, the review was very much a part of my own thought process; someones got to be working out these first principles in this smelly industry. Please do read and comment on my other threads, most of them are good. Finaly, I wonder what you think of Halo 2 and 3 in comparison with the original?

Tonimata:
I read the review the other day, and then showed a friend that has the game. While it is true that he agreed with most points, I think that I have to intercede by saying that MGS is more about the story than the gameplay in its fourth installment, and thus I udnerstand the ridiculous amount of gameplay errors in it, because gameplay is getting every day so much more refined that even the slightest mistake in a game makes us all go up in arms. It's like if Mr. Barack Obama was crossing the tight rope, and of course we were all expecting him to get to the other side, (because he's awesome), and he committed a single error that would cause him to slip. We would forsake him for that, and so do we forsake every game for the slightest mistake it has.

Ok, firstly, don't act as if i'm being overly critical of MGS's gameplay. It's not as if it is a decent game with a few flaws, it is an un-playable mess. Secondly, if it is more about story, that doesn't mean the gameplay should be crap. If the gameplay is crap then it shouldn't be there at all. By all means, intersperce a movie with some simple gameplay to compliment the themes or effects of the movie, but if this gameplay turns out to be horrible then we have to question the talent of the developer. But in reality, MGS is probably more game then story, and it sucks!

I'm thinking that the only reason this could be called intelligent is the fact that you learned to use a thesaurus. It's not that much different than a lot of reviews I've read except for the number of syllables. I will admit though that you state a few good points but not enough to make a huge difference.

Since when does an 'intelligent' review omit intelligence in place of pretentious dissection? Hate to be offensive, but placing that one little word in the title of the piece just offends, nay- condescends, others who would review such a game. Flaming is deserved.

That is all.

steamednotfried:

Uncompetative:
Constructive Criticism.

Unlike many others in this forum I liked your review, and apart from your spelling of Master Chief, there were only two trouble-spots:

...

Otherwise the review morphs into an overly abstract ludological analysis.

Yay, what a refreshing comment to read. You clearly enjoy Halo in a way which is similar to the way in which i enjoy Halo. I'ts true that my delivery is a bit awkward, and could do with being a bit more humane and less abstract, perhaps relying on a little more intelligence on the part of the reader who may not need everything explained from first principle. Not sure about that though. Besides, the review was very much a part of my own thought process; someones got to be working out these first principles in this smelly industry. Please do read and comment on my other threads, most of them are good. Finaly, I wonder what you think of Halo 2 and 3 in comparison with the original?

Ok. It is easiest to focus on the Campaigns:

1. In Combat Evolved there aren't enough Flood to warrant the name - other than that it is just about perfect.

2. Halo 2 obviously seeks an epic cinematic spectacle and contrives a dramatic pacing by placing significant encounters along an essentially linear path, whilst both disguising the fact that this content exists and ensuring that when it is first seen it is marveled at in relative safety in order to be properly appreciated (this is akin to narrative foreshadowing). In a game where you can look in any direction it is a testament to the skill of the level designers that they are, for example on Delta Halo, able to funnel your "free" navigation through a gap in the rocks and up and over the brow of a hill which affords you a perfect vantage over an installation and a Wraith, etc. If you play this 'consciously' it is apparent that it is statistically likely that you will not see the next hazard before it was intended (due to the hill) and when you emerge from the gap in the rocks your 'racing-line' determines your point of view of the next situation.
I personally disliked this greater linearity as I want a game to be a dynamic system with constant interactive feedback and dramatic stimulus. Halo: Combat Evolved had this in spades, because it focused on opening up tactical options with the limited 'cast of characters' it had, mainly by inter-relating their behavioral dynamics (e.g. the Grunts are bold until you kill their lead Elite). In contrast, Halo 2 added some more characters that I didn't much like (i.e. Brutes are stupid and therefore no fun to fight) and in trying to put more enemies on the screen at once tampered with the graphics engine so it now looked worse than its precursor (i.e. texture "pop-in" was evident as you got closer to a surface). You see I don't want my interactive entertainment to be trying to impress me twice every hour (like an overblown movie in need of an edit), but twice every minute - even if it impresses me less. Maybe that is why I still play Goldeneye 007 and Robotron 64.

3. Halo 3 ended satisfactorily and I felt that it was an improvement on Halo 2 - although, considering that I was disappointed by Halo 2 it didn't have to do much to seem better. That said, still not as good as the original. The only level where I felt I was on familiar ground was the beginning of The Ark (I think), where you have to disable a Covenant anti-aircraft gun - that was back to being non-linear navigation and multiple ways to tactically approach it. Being driven by AI didn't work, I managed to be underneath the broken down Bridge on the way to Voi when the big Covenant ship screamed overhead... I looked up... saw the underside of the bridge and didn't know what I'd missed... Other than that I suppose I found I missed fighting Elites, they had mucked-up the appearance of the Hunters and the game was too short.

However, mild disappointment with the Campaign was soon forgotten when I got into its Multiplayer. I'm not very good at it, but after over 2000 matches I'm still keen on it and will be getting the Mystic Map Pack DLC in February.

As a matter of curiosity I subsequently tried out Halo 2's Multiplayer (I didn't have Broadband back then) and didn't like it as much.

I've tried COD4's Multiplayer, but the controls are dire, the maps depressing and the waypoints confusing. Battlefield: Bad Company has some nice maps, but the grenade launcher just ruins any concept of "level navigation" as you can blast your way into a room instantly - if only they had made it a "progressive incremental demolition" then the person inside the room would get some fair warning. Far Cry 2's MP looks promising, but the server seems to be badly behaved (or I'm getting kicked off it), I don't know which. I'm currently deep into its open Campaign despite its many bad design flaws - mainly, because the ever-changing scenery, lighting and weather keep drawing me back as I like game worlds that are colourful and escapist.

is this a review for a particular game? Or is it the series in general?
I couldn't make it out

Alex_P:

Also, while we're being critical: I felt this article lacked an introduction. Don't get me wrong: I don't need a paragraph to tell me what Halo is -- it's fucking Halo! -- nor do I need a bunch of jokes to ease me into reading an article. I think a stronger thesis statement up front would've really helped keep the work together, though.

-- Alex

Well I guess I can point at your post and say "pretty much that".

Also the writing is, off somehow. It's the text equivalent of listening to somebody who talks in a strange way. Yes I can understand, yes he's saying it right, but that doesn't make it feel any less odd.

Like hearing the G-man speak, that's what this review reminded of. Not that it got in the way, I was enjoying the review by the end of the second paragraph.

Knight Templar:

Alex_P:

Also, while we're being critical: I felt this article lacked an introduction. Don't get me wrong: I don't need a paragraph to tell me what Halo is -- it's fucking Halo! -- nor do I need a bunch of jokes to ease me into reading an article. I think a stronger thesis statement up front would've really helped keep the work together, though.

-- Alex

Well I guess I can point at your post and say "pretty much that".

Also the writing is, off somehow. It's the text equivalent of listening to somebody who talks in a strange way. Yes I can understand, yes he's saying it right, but that doesn't make it feel any less odd.

Like hearing the G-man speak, that's what this review reminded of. Not that it got in the way, I was enjoying the review by the end of the second paragraph.

I was sort of going for this quirky, mellow-dramatic style, I thought it would be kind of humorous. I'm glad someone finally identified it properly instead of thinking it was supposed to sound 'intelligent' or something. The 'intelligent' in my title refers to the content as opposed to the style.