I won't be convinced that's actually gouri until he writes a post that is at least four paragraphs long.
And UT2k4 was ten times the game that Halo 2 was.
@gourimoko
Just remember, you asked for this...
Seriously though, here's my problem with the comparison. Before Halo 2; I hated console FPS's. I thought the platform and the control system did not lend itself to FPS gameplay, and I thought console ports were
abysmal. Doom (3 just came out when I got into Halo 2), Wolfenstein, etc where all just really bad ports of far superior PC games.
Halo 1 and far more so Halo 2, changed that. Halo 2's game engine was designed from the ground up to present itself well on consoles, both visually and with respect to the gameplay experience for the end user.
Graphically, I think the comparison would be a wash depending upon if you prefer higher resolution (more polys) vs normal/bump mapping to simulate detail. Personal, I prefer mapping to simply bumping up polygon count; so for me, Halo 2 is the better looking game. I know others will disagree, personally I don't think it's a point of contention worth having.
However, visually, I think Halo 2 is far and away better. The character models are far more detailed, varied, and appealing (and meaningful). Yet most importantly, Halo changed the spatial relationship between the player and the environment to be more "realistic." This was an ongoing conversation in development circles (like gamedev.net) concerning how the environment should be rendered, spatially, and presented on the screen.
If you notice, in Halo, the character models are taller, leaner, and have a bit more connection with the ground. The environments are more confined usually, compared to Unreal, but this makes for more close-quarters combat. Also, the developers decided that the Halo series would run at a slower pace than other FPS games; and this was a decision I had a very hard time adjusting to.
When I first played Halo 2, I couldn't really get with the pace of the game. It felt like I was trying to run in a vat of molasses compared to having quite recently playing Unreal (this was a huge game for me as a Linux dev). Now, many of us PC gamers just gave up on the game, including my brother. But since I owned a video game store that focused on console (xbox) LAN gaming, I was more or less forced to learn my number one money maker; Halo 2.
I spent months adjusting what I thought an FPS should play like, and that's why I realize to this day why a lot of folks never liked Halo (especially Halo 2, which was the most unique (and best) of the series). After finally learning to play the game at a high-level, which took a very long time, I really began to appreciate what it offered.
Single-player? To me, it's meaningless, but since for many it's an important facet of the game to some, my opinion is that there's not much of a comparison between Halo 2 and UT2k4. Halo's story mode is worth playing; Unreal's isn't.
Multi-player? Well.. I am biased. I played this game very seriously, playing in many mid-western tournaments and sponsoring a team from my game store. We were really good. But before that, I played Unreal -- extensively. Halo 2, in my eyes, is the better game in this department.
Going down the list of things that make Halo 2 greater than it's peers:
For one, the game is
less balanced. As a pro-Street Fighter 3 / MvC2 player, I enjoy games that don't strive for balance, but rather consistency. A game shouldn't be overly balanced or to me I'll find that it's too boring (read: Call of Duty). Unreal was too balanced, Halo 2 was was the exact opposite.
Dying. In Unreal, death's were common, no matter the level of play. Not CoD'ish, but still, it is easy enough to die. Rockets everywhere, lighting guns laying waste all around... it is easy to die in UT2k4. Halo 2 seems that way at first as well, but even at moderate level play this isn't true. When you die, it's because the guy who killed you beat you; straight up. He outplayed you, he outmaneuvered you, he out thought you.
Lucky kills, and unlucky deaths in Halo 2 are
rare indeed. On my team, I would rarely have more than 1 or 2 deaths in a match to 50. While having at least 15 kills on a 4 man team. The best player on our team would probably rack up 3-4, but would have 20 kills. We played somewhat different styles, but neither of us camped (ever), we just had different paces. Halo 2's engine allowed for such thoughtful play.
When we went into the MLG scene for Halo 2 was when we saw the influence of PC gaming on the console gaming crowd. I get it, folks don't like radar. But the radar makes the game more interesting.
The argument: "it's lame because they can see me coming," is nonsense, because in reality someone would hear or sense you coming in one way or the other. You want to sprint full speed at someone
undetected? It's bullshit. And besides, you can always just crouch and you won't be visible on radar (inconvenience?). But again, it comes down to pace. UT2k4 is 10x faster than Halo 2 (which is the fastest of the Halo's by far). So lot's of folks simply cannot adjust to the pace.
The argument: "Everyone should have BR's and Mag's out of the box.. Loadouts!" again, tries to make Halo something it isn't (or at least, wasn't, in the context of the times). In Halo 2, the weapons are less powerful (from Halo 1, and PC standards), and you have to earn them by getting to them, and surviving while you use them. The default weapon (SMG) is weak, and deliberately so. Again, if you like most PC FPS up to this point, you won't like this mechanic. Weapons are scarce. On maps like The Lockout we would jump to "BR3," switch to the BR, shoot the explosive barrels on ST3, deliberately fall off the ledge while holding down "B." You've got the snipe and BR while only going for 1. That skill is lost when everyone has everything they want as soon as they spawn.
The argument: "No shields!" Again, is equivalent to saying "I want balance, I can't aim, I have no skill." Shields means that you need to really unload on someone to kill them. Is it a crutch for noobs?
No. Anyone who says this doesn't play Halo 2 at a high-level. Give a noob the sticks and he'll get murdered, get no kills, and wonder what the fuck is going on. Instead. shields makes killing deliberate, and sets the bar a bit higher to actually increment the score higher. It is easier to die in Halo 2 than it is to kill your opponent. That is what makes the game more interesting.
Now in MLG, none of these things holds - and that is why I got out of the scene. I like default Halo 2 settings, no modifications, no MLG rules (although I can play that way just fine, no problem; I think it's a bit less fun). But I wanted to point out how people tried to change Halo into Unreal, by speeding up the pace (no shields, radar) and balancing the game ( BRs/Mags loadout).
Two different games; truly. But Halo 2 to me was superior because it had better visuals, better gameplay (yes, less balanced), the multiplayer was great, better added value - Xbox Live is a fantastic service, matchmaking, ranking, all great, and it included a good single-player game as a bonus.
From my experience; guys who prefer UT2K4 most likely were never good at Halo 2 because they couldn't make the adjustment that I, quite honestly, went out of my way to make. Guys who prefer Halo 2, generally never played UT2k4 because they didn't want to play a PC game. Few people actually played both at a moderate (UT) to high (H2) level as I did, so I understand why people are set in their respective camps -- I was before I learned to play Halo 2.
Even now, guys who were great at Halo 1 hate Halo 2 and prefer Halo 3.
But yeah, Halo 2 > UT2K4. I'm even considering buying an Xbox One just to play with my old teammates again; that's how much fun we had with that game.
