Before There Was Halo

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

SilverUchiha:
I'll be honest. I never could dig Halo and never understood what all the appeal was. Everytime I pick the damn game up, I just can't get into the controls. Dual-analog controls just don't work for me. For me, it has to be on PC if its an FPS. No question.

Not that you have to like Halo of course, but did you try Halo for the PC?

LostAlone:

Halo didn't invent anything and indeed pushed things into the mainstream that are just bad. The regenerating health model is the bane of modern gaming, which encourages you to never be thinking beyond the current guy you are pointing at, and particularly it means there is very little reason not to just run at things. Basically it makes stealth and planning worthless. Scavenging for health kits sucks, and the idea is that you get better at fighting, or find ways to not fight directly, or use stealth to even the odds (See Deus Ex and Theif).

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you haven't played a Halo game, or maybe you just played it in easy or normal mode. Now I'm going at this from a Halo 3 perspective because I came to the party late in the game (about a year and a half ago, when I bought my XBox 360 Elite as a package with Halo 3 and Fable 2{Best money I ever spent.})
The reason I criticize is that if you played in Heroic or Legendary and you tried to run and gun and not think about the next guy, then you died. Legendary actually has the warning that you will die a lot. You have to take cover, you have to figure out which guy is firing the most powerful weapon and take him out. And in some situations you can us stealth; I have snuck up on baddies and planted a grenade and ran like hell.

Then you have to look at the game when you play with different skulls activated. I'm not going to name them directly, just say what they do. You got the one that makes it so that ammo is scarce. On that removes the hud, meaning you can't see the health bar, radar or your firing reticule. One where your shields don't regen unless you melee a baddie. One where they have more health, or one where they aren't hurt as much by projectile weapons as much. There are more but I will leave at that, but one of my favorite ones is the silly one that activates "grunt birthday party", head shot grunts to get colorful confetti to come out and hear children enthusiastically shout "Yeaaah!!!" My friends and I always have that one on when we play firefight in ODST.

If Halo made FPSes better, how come there has never been a better shooter than Deus Ex, which was released prior to Halo?

tlozoot:
I think Halo gets far more flack than it deserves. "It's popular so I must bring it down a peg" mentality.

The problem is that it is too popular for what it is. If we expect games to grow as a medium, then to borrow a phrase from Extra Credits, we cannot afford to confuse competence with brilliance. That the most popular shooter is as generic as they come, only encourages publishers to make more generic shooters.

Haters only exist because fanboys are so vocal. It's the fanboys that they hate, not the game itself. Unfortunately, the only effect of haters is to make the fanboys louder.

Onyx Oblivion:
Well, it certainly was above other shooters of the time in terms of plot.

Halo has a plot?

SupahGamuh:
Like it or not, if it wasn't for Halo we'd still be stuck on FPS tournament games

In what way is Halo multiplayer different from "FPS tournament games"?

DiscoAtThePanic:
The only good thing Halo brought was Red Vs Blue. The FPS genre was evolving anyway and it has swung way too far to the "Brown Realistic Multiplayer First" side of things. if that was because of Halo, it certainly did not change shooters for the better. Its just the case of the biggest thing at the time taking credit for the overall evolution of a genre that had begun before it came out.

If you wanteed to by picky, you could say that Quake was the game that started the "Brown-fest". To quote Yahtzee, "What was your favorite level, the brown castle, the greenish-brown temple or the other brown castle?"

theklng:

-|-:
Halo's shield was ground breaking. You could go a long way on one health bar, whereas with other shooters before then you'd have to just give up.

'

haha, that's the most inane thing i've ever heard. so you're saying that you'd just have to stop playing shooters at some point before halo because you didn't have health enough to continue? ridiculous.

i will have to disagree; halo didn't do anything that hadn't been done before, and certainly nothing that wasn't outside an arm's reach in the days of creating shooters.

No, I'm saying that if I was playing goldeneye (for example) and I had very little health left there are points where I knew I'd pretty much have to give up and restart the level - especially on 007 difficulty.

Maybe Halo did copy the sheilds - I'm not going to debate the point, but as far as I'm concerned it did it properly and well. For it's time it was one of the best console shooters out there. Halo 2 was awful though and I have no further interest in the franchise beyond enjoying the first one quite a lot.

Bungie history: Marathon, some RTS games, Halo? Why no mention of Oni? Yes, no one knows about it, and it has a few massive flaws, but it is still the best thing they made since the Marathon series.

Also, the console-ajusted gameplay is probably the only thing that's not wrong with Halo. Far more jarring are the cliché plot, nonexistent characters and atrocious level design. The basic mechanics are good, the music is good, and the graphics are good.

Of course, even at the things it sucks at it was still miles better than Quake, Unreal and Doom.

Tsaba:
What are you babbling about? Defined what? Halo established the xbox as a gaming platform with a good game, I can recall several times where when I asked someone, why should I get an xbox their only real reason was to get it for Halo. Halo I do admit was a fun game that I had a blast doing LAN parties with, but, I wouldn't say it's the FPS king, and if anything, it lowered the gaming standard with regenerating shields and now health too. If anything Counter Strike is the predecessor of current realistic shooters, PS and Xbox just opened the door for the now popular use of the current controller scheme.

Personally I prefer halo to those crappy "I have a sniper rifle, I win!" kind of "Realistic shooters", so....
image

Halo is what cemented my love of FPS as a genre and you'd be hard-pressed to say I was the only one. As far as the "shields vs health:" debate goes I prefer shields.

P.S. for those of you Call of Duty fantards (Idiotic fanboys) who think Halo sucks, STAY OFF THIS THREAD!!

What annoys me is that everyone imitated and made clones of Halo, while ignoring all of the innovation and style of Perfect Dark, which only came out a year earlier.

Ravek:
Also, the console-ajusted gameplay is probably the only thing that's not wrong with Halo. Far more jarring are the cliché plot, nonexistent characters and atrocious level design. The basic mechanics are good, the music is good, and the graphics are good.

Pretty much have to agree with this. The gameplay was alright, things looked good for the most part and the recharging shield mechanic was interesting (though often made things seem a little too easy), but the story just couldn't compare with Marathon - the series I always think of with a nostalgic sigh whenever Halo comes up in any context. I mean, hell, Cortana had fair voice acting, some personality and is visibly female and still didn't interest me as much as Durandal's crazy rant-segue-into-dear-god-was-that-a-joke-no-he's-really-dropping-me-into-a-volcano-oh-crap terminal messages. (Though, to be fair, the level design in Marathon: Infinity made me want to take a hammer to my computer more than once.)

Halo's not a bad game, but I can't help thinking it could have been better whenever I think about it with the natural comparison in the background.

Now I have to go play Marathon 2 again.

Without any care to the past 4 pages of comments.

"If you charge out into the open like the Doom Marine you're going to get blasted back to the Game Over screen faster than you can say Larry Niven."

I did this, often, and won. I was only one difficulty level under legendary, and my weapons of choices are always the shotgun and the assault rifle.

That said, I don't care much about Halo, I find that the difficulty is relatively low (but then again, the only time I play it is when my friend pulls me into playing co-op), the enemy A.I. is nothing impressive to me, even during that time, but I wasn't a big FPS fan to begin with, though did enjoy Quake, Duke and Unreal Tournament.

I can see where Halo did good, but it nevertheless was nothing overtly special in my eyes, it wasn't by any means bad, it was an excellent game... But then the fans came in, in throves, in freaking hive ships. And they couldn't let it go, kept bashing into everybody about how this was the absolute bestest of the best and continue to this day to plague us all with constant ramblings about how this is the best game ever, similarily to Final Fantasy 7 fanboys.

It's painfully annoying. I've no trouble with a person saying that Halo is a good game, but it's heavily irritating and annoying how much constant praise, to the point where it isn't praising a good game, but insulting every other game that came before it and that exists alongside it.

Which in turn, discourages people in general from being favorable to said game since it only feeds these fanatics who can find nothing better to do but ramble on about how Halo is the perfect shooter of all time.

At least, until they finally find a new game series to obsess over and go "This is the best thing ever, of all time, unsurpassable and makes everything else pure shit and every non-players of this game non-gamers!"

Yeah... I'm gonna go take a rest now.

Necromancer1991:
Personally I prefer halo to those crappy "I have a sniper rifle, I win!" kind of "Realistic shooters", so....

Funny, I think of halo as one of those games.

Halo is what cemented my love of FPS as a genre and you'd be hard-pressed to say I was the only one. As far as the "shields vs health:" debate goes I prefer shields.

first off, from this sentence I can tell you haven't been around for the long haul of gaming, though, halo did bring a lot of gamers into the fold, it doesn't make it "God of games," and all "shields" are, is a second health bar that regenerates outside of combat. /end "age old debate of shields vs health."

P.S. for those of you Call of Duty fantards (Idiotic fanboys) who think Halo sucks, STAY OFF THIS THREAD!!

Odd, I haven't really read people praising COD in this thread, if at all, I think most of these people like halo, even love it, I mean shoot, I do. The only issue is that "we" (the older gamer community) who played quake, doom, duke nukem, Golden eye, Perfect Dark, and WHAT EVER ELSE I MISSED, are upset with the direction of current FPS's, games have just copied what works because it sells, and are tired of people referring to Halo as the game that started gaming, no sir, we have pong to blame for that. We have super mario bro's 3 to blame for the selling of game consoles. If at all, I think, people who are commenting are bringing up points about GAMES BEFORE THERE WAS HALO, HENCE THE THREAD NAME and the general things that they "feel" could of made a good game better. So please quit being a fanboy for master chief let the adults do the talking.

Necromancer1991:
Personally I prefer halo to those crappy "I have a sniper rifle, I win!" kind of "Realistic shooters", so....

Halo is what cemented my love of FPS as a genre and you'd be hard-pressed to say I was the only one. As far as the "shields vs health:" debate goes I prefer shields.

P.S. for those of you Call of Duty fantards (Idiotic fanboys) who think Halo sucks, STAY OFF THIS THREAD!!

Shields were nothing new. Self-renewable shields though were and by many standards, pretty much made a game rather relatively easy to deal with. Enabling a character to play more rambo-style, to which I'll go back to my first post stating that I've often gone out in the open shooting everything kamikaze style and came out with barely a scratch. It's cute at first, but it tends to get a bit... beh. Of course, having only health is also rather irritating at times.

Oh and, as for your "I have a sniper rifle, I win!" argument... Apparently, you've not played Halo multiplayer against skilled opponents much have you? The pistol and the sniper rifles are two horribly grossly powerful gun. Actually the pistol could be argued easily as the broken gun of the first game.

I've also got many bones to pick with it. It's a sci-fi setting, so why all these stock recolored human guns? Aside from the needler, all the guns were very regular-y earth-y non-alien-y. Unreal Tournament has a far more appealing set of alien guns. The multiplayer in there is also far more entertaining, I feel, in part due to these more alien guns.

And also, you know these Call of Duty fanboys that are annoying you? You'd never guess it, but the Halo fanboys started the trend of irritating annoying FPS fanboys... Rather, they helped cement that trend today.

Before pointing the finger at the irritable fanboys of other games, first, put a handle and a leash on the fanboys of your own prefered game. THEN deal with the others, why? Because often time, counter-fanboyism is in response to the primary fanboyism. You don't deal with the consequence, you deal with the cause, because dealing with the consequence will do no good as you incidentally feed the cause that only causes said consequence to grow.

So you know what I say to guys and gals who don't think much before attempting to piss off and obviously easily fail at driving off counter-fanboys of their own game's fanbase?

Kiss my I'm-tired-it's-2AM-I-can't-deal-with-this-shit-and-all-these-things-you-say-that-comes-flying-out-of-your-ass... ass and grow a brain.

.... Yeah, it's 2AM, I'm tired and irritable.

Tsaba:

Necromancer1991:
Personally I prefer halo to those crappy "I have a sniper rifle, I win!" kind of "Realistic shooters", so....

Funny, I think of halo as one of those games.

Halo is what cemented my love of FPS as a genre and you'd be hard-pressed to say I was the only one. As far as the "shields vs health:" debate goes I prefer shields.

first off, from this sentence I can tell you haven't been around for the long haul of gaming, though, halo did bring a lot of gamers into the fold, it doesn't make it "God of games," and all "shields" are, is a second health bar that regenerates outside of combat. /end "age old debate of shields vs health."

P.S. for those of you Call of Duty fantards (Idiotic fanboys) who think Halo sucks, STAY OFF THIS THREAD!!

Odd, I haven't really read people praising COD in this thread, if at all, I think most of these people like halo, even love it, I mean shoot, I do. The only issue is that "we" (the older gamer community) who played quake, doom, duke nukem, Golden eye, Perfect Dark, and WHAT EVER ELSE I MISSED, are upset with the direction of current FPS's, games have just copied what works because it sells, and are tired of people referring to Halo as the game that started gaming, no sir, we have pong to blame for that. We have super mario bro's 3 to blame for the selling of game consoles. If at all, I think, people who are commenting are bringing up points about GAMES BEFORE THERE WAS HALO, HENCE THE THREAD NAME and the general things that they "feel" could of made a good game better. So please quit being a fanboy for master chief let the adults do the talking.

Lemme go search something just for you...

funny animated gif

And I mean it.

It's silly to try to argue that one style kind of game is definitively "better"; some people like one, some like the other.

But personally, I think mouse-based precision aiming makes for a much more fun game than console controller-based timing and tactics. And I think regenerating health is less fun than limited health.

And I think limited weapons is much less fun than having a wide variety that gives you lots more options. I'd much rather be able to switch from sniper to rocket launcher to chain gun to melee weapon to laser in response to various situations than having to choose a couple weapons and stick with just those few options. I think it's much more fun to have a whole arsenal to choose from as you approach each encounter.

I liked this article quite a bit. It was an interesting read that, as a Halo fan, made me consider why I like the series. I had never considered how the console controls influenced the game mechanics like that.

Sidereal:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reticule , btw.

I guess I'm just curious as to the purpose of the addition to this post? Just for amusement at a second meaning to a commonly used term?

Cassita:
For the better? Ha.

It reinvented nothing. What it did do was redress the standard FPS in bloom and space marines.

/looks at the cavalcade of mediocre space marine shooters

Yeah, thanks, Halo. -_-

I take it you never played Doom, Quake, AVP et al?

Space marines have been around in shooters far longer than Halo.
I prefer Bad Company 2/MW2 depending on what I'm feeling like. That doesn't mean Halo is crap. You should look at what it brought 10 years ago, not now.

It did play differently. Previous PC shooters had been about circle straffing till one guy fell down. Rocket launchers with a single clip carrying every rocket you owned, all 86 of them. Instantly flicking between your 10 weapons, and never using weapons 2 or 3 after the second level. You still took an unbelievable amount of damage, you just had to make a 10 minute trek to get the health packs at the start of the level. I can still remember reading (before it was heading to xbox) that you would be able to go from a large outdoor environment to inside a bunker with no loading screens or end of level screen. You would be able to hop it a vehicle with your friends at will. I thought it was all hype and not posible at the time, it seemed so alien.

Yes CS (and action quake which I prefered) broke this mold too, COD4s multiplayer owes a lot to these games.

The biggest shift for me was a FPS on a console that wasn't a port of a game designed for PC. With weapons designed to fit neatly over 1-0 and ideally played with a mouse. Halo felt more streamlined, like it belonged on a console. I defy anyone who played it when it was new not to have had a blast split screen co-op with a scorpion.

I can understand older FPS players not liking the changes from the classic games, but these changes seem to have stuck. FPS's are far more accessable now, the changes have brought new people in. A lot of the hostility is snobbery because someones pet hobby has become popular.

I bit like when someone was "into" *insert band name* when they were underground. Then talks about how bad they are because others have heard of them.

It's funny, I've been playing video games since before a lot of you were born, and I always used to hate FPSes. A while back though I noticed I was actually starting to like some of them. In hindsight, I'm pretty sure it started not long after Halo came out. I even got Halo and quite enjoyed it years later when I got my 360. (At least the first one. 2 was pretty meh, and I still haven't played the third.)

I suppose that must be because I have the twitch reflexes of a sloth on Valium, while I actually have pretty decent timing. Funny how Halo basically turned FPSes into something I could enjoy and I didn't realize it until now. I wasn't going to bother with Halo: Reach before I read this article, but now I'm wondering if maybe I should give it a try.

Your article instantly lost all credibility before I even read the first paragraph.

Halo reinvented FPSes for the worst. It has created an insufferable crowd of bastard offspring children with hideous birth defects, or to be more coherent, the neverending brownification of future FPSes that didn't come from Valve.

Shamus Young:
"Those old PC shooters were all about aiming. Being "good" at the game meant being able to snap your wrist and headshot a guy the moment he came into view. It meant circle-strafing: orbiting a foe while keeping their vulnerable bits in the center of the screen. Mice, being pointing devices, are really handy for this. There was never any reason to take cover in those games because hiding would just delay the inevitable. Gameplay was about diving head first into the sea of bullets and dogfighting your way out."

As a skilled UT and Quake player, I find this very offensive and uninformed. I can understand that most people wouldn't appreciate the complex intricacies of a duel, but the basic concepts behind winning them do not necessarily include aiming.

There are multiple ways to play a game, but to do well, you need much, much more than aim. And even if you have exceptional hitscan/aim, you can still perform very, very poorly due to other factors.

Some of the concepts involved in dueling in nearly ANY FPS include map control, positioning, timing, prediction, weapon choice, range control, ambushing, and using sound to observe the arena.

Something specific to Quake or UT would include the movement - learning to strafejump or time your jump-dodge/wall-dodge is its own challenge, its own skill, not involving aiming at all, and some mods are based completely around Quake's unique movement system (see: DeFrag)

Halo took aiming out of the equation, but it did not put anything else in. If anything, it took strategy and thinking out.

Note that I am not saying that these basic concepts do not apply to Halo. I am saying that they apply to other, old-school FPS games even more than Halo. I am trying to show that these basic tactics have been applied (and will continue to be applied) in old-school FPS games in any gametype from Duel to CTF. (That said, playing flag defense in CTF can be like running a duel map - grab armor, grab weapons, find good position, etc.)

I am also trying to show that while it is possible to play through UT on Novice using only the Impact Hammer or Quake 3 using the LG and running directly at your enemy, the games have AI and design which facilitates a much more tactical, positional style of game - even moreso than Halo.

A player in both of these games will not just 'benefit from' using such tactics, but needs to use them in order to not be wiped against the floor and finish a duel with a score of 20:-2 against any player who is somewhat experienced.

I could explain why FPS games with double-jumps, strafejumping, and jump-dodging (see: Warsow) have a higher "skillcap" than a game without them (see: MW2), and my whole position on Halo "moonjumping" but that would be going a bit too far.

Suffice to say, watching a match would explain it much better than I can.

Skip to 1:45. This is part 2 of a 30 minute vid, and 1:50-11:50 is roughly the duration the match.

Zero4, while having 41% railgun (ie: "sniper rifle") accuracy to kmrey's 18% accuracy, gets outplayed by rey who uses several advantages other than aim to win.

Just to get that right: Halo's supposed to be an IMPORTANT game, because it shifted from a PRECISION-centered generic shooter to a TIMING-centered generic shooter and gave "inspiration" to a lot more boring, generic, franchise-milking shooters with the pinnacle of it so far being todays XBLA (or Ksbla)-generation?

And to achieve that development to the "better" (I'm sorry, I can't even think that with a straight face) we sacrificed what was supposed to be the first really good non-franchise-shooter with a strong narrative and excellent Team-AI of the time.

I'd like to ask some people to step down from this currently popular "Let's find diamonds in poo"-train. I agree that some shitty games were very important and influential. Won't argue with, for instance, Tomb Raider being very important for the medium despite being (in my eyes) a bucket of crap with boobs painted on. And I can live with that.

But Halo's value for the medium? I'd put a biiiig question-mark behind that. Because even in your 2-page article, Shamus, the part were you point out the positive effects merely makes up what? 10% of the article? And even the stuff you pointed out is so...meh that I honestly think even if Halo never came to be, another shooter would've done it not much later.
Yes, pretty sure that this "innovation" could've been brought very soon by any other Studio at the time.
And this comes from someone who, despite being relatively young, lived and consciously followed the scene at the time.

Ultimately I have to disagree with the message of that article. I think the medium would be a whole lot richer as a whole if Halo would've become what it was supposed to be. Weighting a rich, intelligent and well-narrated shooter against a simple standard franchise-shooter where the gameplay-focus is shifted and being asked which of the two I'd sacrifice to get the other....the decision wouldn't be very hard to make.

So, in agreement to a previous poster, the only thing I'd miss if Halo would vanish into oblivion would be Red vs. Blue.
And only that.

Cid SilverWing:
Your article instantly lost all credibility before I even read the first paragraph.

Halo reinvented FPSes for the worst. It has created an insufferable crowd of bastard offspring children with hideous birth defects, or to be more coherent, the neverending brownification of future FPSes that didn't come from Valve.

I'm wondering, how did Halo cause brown by having light colors and bloom? If anything, CoD4 COULD have caused the, as you say, brownification(AKA, modern war shooter)due to it becoming more famous than Halo, and people eager to copy it's success.

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: Before There Was Halo

Love it or hate it, Halo re-invented the shooter genre for the better.

Read Full Article

I'm, impressed that while you pointed out you didn't like halo, you didn't proceed to just bash it like so many other people (professionals or not). Thank you for that, it's rare to see someone on the topic of halo accept that in ways it was good even if it wasn't their personal preference.

Whatever... The first Halo game was good. Though it seems like it's just getting worse and worse for every release. It's pretty much just a grenade spammer right now. They are even implementing two grenade-launchers in Halo: Reach. I guess they figured everyone was just using the grenades, might as well turn the weapons into it as well.

Sorry Shamus, but when you say that Halo was the one who built the FPS Console house, you lost all credibility with me. DooM was the game that built the FPS genre, PERIOD. Wolfenstein 3-D was the progenitor/beta-test for FPS, but DooM made it what it was. Then along came GoldenEye007, which finally brought the FPS game out of the PC Dominated market, and made it a financial success on the consoles. I know of at least three people who bought an N64 solely so that they could play GoldenEye007.

The Call of Duty games, while not as mega-successful as GoldenEye007, also cemented the FPS genre's place on consoles. Halo, on the other hand, is a bland, formulaic Sci-Fi based FPS game starring a faceless, emotionless mannequin as the protagonist, with an above average sound track that would make John Williams proud. In fact, if it hadn't been for Xbox LIVE, Halo probably would have drifted off into the mists of time, never to be heard from again. Halo 2 had some of the glitchiest, most unbalanced online multiplayer every to come out.

The fact that most real Gamers consider the Halo series to be the second piece of the Unholy Gramer Triad should give you an idea of just how overvalued the series is as a property. Even Bungie, the studio that made it and made billions of dollars of off it, said they were done with it and wanted nothing more to do with it.

The Halo series is a teat that's been milked too hard AND to death. The blood is starting to mix in with the milk, and the product won't last much longer until it becomes the level of self-parody that Devil May Cry achieved with number 4, and to a lesser degree, number 3.

CronoT:

The fact that most real Gamers consider the Halo series to be the second piece of the Unholy Gramer Triad should give you an idea of just how overvalued the series is as a property.

The moment you said "real gamers" was when you just showed yourself to be an elitist prick. I mean, "real gamers"? What the hell is that supposed to mean, you are more of a gamer then other people because you play certain games?

danpascooch:

SilverUchiha:
I'll be honest. I never could dig Halo and never understood what all the appeal was. Everytime I pick the damn game up, I just can't get into the controls. Dual-analog controls just don't work for me. For me, it has to be on PC if its an FPS. No question.

Not that you have to like Halo of course, but did you try Halo for the PC?

I did. It was rubbish. Uninspiring landscapes and copy/paste buildings. The hell with that. The warthog dunebuggy thing was about the only thing I liked

DiscoAtThePanic:

Irridium:

DiscoAtThePanic:
The only good thing Halo brought was Red Vs Blue. The FPS genre was evolving anyway and it has swung way too far to the "Brown Realistic Multiplayer First" side of things. if that was because of Halo, it certainly did not change shooters for the better. Its just the case of the biggest thing at the time taking credit for the overall evolution of a genre that had begun before it came out.

All the brown and realism wasn't Halo. Halo actually has some pretty colorful environments. Yes there's some browns but not much by today's standards.

And besides, it'd be kind of silly for a game about fighting aliens set 500 years in the future to be a basis for realism.

but the article said that Halo got us to where we are today with shooters. Well, not everyone likes where we are today with shooters, so maybe Halo did not change thinsg for the better, as Shamus asserts.

I'd say that Medal of Honor started the gritty serious warfare (Thanks to the director of Saving Private Ryan)

Halo went the same route as previous shooters and tossed in a shield (Thats a very simple way to put it). But it is a oneofakind due to the unrealism in the game. Most others choosing to go by the MoH CoD route. And in the end you end up with a ton of different gritty dusty arcade shooters with numbers and the letters (KILL STREAK AWard, FIRST BLOOD, SAVIOR!) popping up to kill the immersiveness every time you get a kill.

Out of FPS i prefer Battlefield due to the fact that you can play in a squad with your friends. In Halo and CoD (Not including MoH since its been dead for ages) you seem to be rewarded for going alone most of the time.

With Shamus talking about Halo and Bioshock, Fallout 3, and Mass Effect in Spoiler Theater, I get the feeling that he just doesn't know where to look to find really good games. Although I completely agree with him about his feelings about The Path, not one time do I ever hear him talk about those other PC darlings like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., King's Bounty, Sins of a Solar Empire, ArmA II, The Void (which if he liked The Path, he'll absolutely adore this), Cryostasis, or Dawn of War II.

Mmmmmmmm I dunno Looking at halo 1 level design was not corridor terribly centric(fable 2 was and 3 is worse),AI was better than most shooters and the sparatic one liners from the AI was great,vehicles were a bit under developed but I liked how they did not blow up rather the rider,ect just died. Other wise the only other thing it has is forcing you to make hard weaopn choices which at the end of the day I liked it but wish you had an option to say screw it let me carry anythign I want.

Halo just expanded on shooters that were a few years before it Duke, Blood, quake 2, Unreal,Unreal tournament and on the consoles Turok each of these games tried to up the anti on AI and pushing the system of the day without losing to much level creativity. These days levels are cut and past and mechanics striped to not lose time,money or support from the witless masses.

Halo would have done better if they launched it on the PC/Mac and the Xbox but for MS the Xbox needed games and they pushed them onto the Xbox, sometimes at the detriment of the game.

I don't think Halo reinvented the genre. It did a lot of things right, but it wasn't that amazing. People bought into the hype and since the game was good, it got elevated to a status it perhaps didn't really deserve.

There were plenty of good shooters before Halo. Here's a partial list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FPSChart.svg

System Shock and Deus Ex stand, for me, as much more influential than Halo. What about Half-Life or Golden Eye? Counter-Strike? Anyone can take a look at the time line I linked to and see which classics they prefer over whatever Halo supposedly contributed.

The term 'Gramer' was coined, ironically enough, by ScrewAttack, to refer to someone who is something of a bandwagon jumper when it comes to video games. They don't get respect because they don't deserve it. It's like a 'fan' rooting for a sports team halfway through the season, because they're winning.

A true fan stays with something, through the good times and the bad times. Nintendo survived the lean years of the N64 and the GameCube by staying true to what the hardcore fans wanted, and the fans responded in kind. It's been said over and over that if video games start to tank, Sony and Microsoft will drop them like a bad habit and never look back.

The only people who still buy LP's, aka, Records, are the ones who appreciate the format and what's been lost through the 'improvement' of the media. So, if someone is only going to play the games that are popular and/or are hyped beyond all reason, and turn their collective noses up at some of the more meaty examples of video games, such as RPG's, Action/Adventure, and deeper, better made FPS games, then I'd rather they just get their s#*& and get out.

Here's an idea/dare for you. Go to a local video games reseller, such as GameStop, and ask a clerk what the usual turnaround times are for games such as Halo, CoD, Madden, and GTA. I'll bet they'd tell you that most are brought back in for reselling in less than three months. Then ask them how high the resell rate is for games like BioShock, RPG's, and high quality Action/Adventure titles like Super Mario Galaxy. The reason those resell games go for so much is because people rarely part with them.

In my opinion, Halo is a decent game, good to kill time with, but definitely not the Second Coming of Christ that people sometimes praise it as. I don't honestly care "Who did it first", I care about "Who did it right".

Do I feel that Halo is overrated? Yes, absolutely. Especially the sequels. Do I hate it? Absolutely not, just beat Combat Evolved on Heroic last night. It's a great game, the sequels are sort of mediocre, but the first game sits within my top 20 shooters, for sure.

My 2 cents, tip your waitress.

Well, IMO, I thought Halo was just an OK game and it was far better than Half Life 2, which was horrible. That's right, I said it!
You know how everyone complains about the library level in Halo? Well in Half Life 2, the whole F***in game is like the library level! There's one path, then enemies, then health & ammo, and repeat X 1,000,000.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here