| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008     | |
Beat Writer  Posts: 148 Joined: 3 Jan 2009    | I always thought it was a console thing for the genre. I don't know, never had an XBOX- when it came to the PC, the damn thing bore me to tears. Of course, there was also Goldeneye before it, so go figure. I have been told, by friends, that the co-op and online plays where great fun. Plus the market was open to more people by the time the XBOX came out (as opposed to N64's time, when gaming was just becoming a pop-culture phenomenon and the original Playstation was at the top of the food chain), so many, many (new) gamers hadn't experienced Goldeneye before... Eh, not sure. Game did well and single-handedly carried the system for a while. Good for them. Not sure what any of that has to do with the credit for "innovation", though. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 88 Joined: 12 Oct 2008     |
Yeah WH40K started all this crud about space marines in the 70's or even earlier, so it's not really a new concept, just a largely unused one |
Paperboy  Posts: 44 Joined: 6 Jan 2009     |
Righto, If you say so.
Wait a minute... |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 357 Joined: 8 Sep 2008     |
There are a bunch of other games that had space marines before Halo did it, Unreal for one. But this isn't realy a question if Halo is innovative for the entire genre so much as it was innovative for a console. |
Paperboy  Posts: 44 Joined: 28 Dec 2008   | I'm a Halo fanboy and I think it's terrible. The singleplayer game makes average look perfect and the multiplayer is uninspiring. It has little replay value and gathering skulls doesn't cut it. I have most of them and the game isn't any better with them. The IWHBYD skull is great though... |
Copy Clerk Posts: 88 Joined: 12 Oct 2008 |
why do you call yourself a fanboy if all you do is rag on the game? The game was great when it first came out, and was a relatively new way to do things on the console, and eventually became the basic template for most FPSs out there. And if Halo 3 broke records when it came out, it must have been doing something right |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 863 Joined: 15 Dec 2008   |
Everytime someone brings up Goldeneye I have to laugh. It wasn't that great. The controls were horrific, mostly due in part that to the fact that you had to use the god-awful N64 controller. The graphics were nothing to write home about and the gameplay was nothing we hadn't seen before and was done better by Doom and Quake. About the only real selling point for Goldeneye, other then the fact that it wasn't a PC shooter was that it was a Bond title. I'm not a huge Halo person, but it was better then Goldeneye in every conceivable way. |
BANNED  Posts: 1891 Joined: 26 Mar 2008    |
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! User was banned for: Poll: Round 4 - North: (1) Turbine vs (2) Valve. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
Graphics were actually quite good for the age in which the game was developed and were a substantial improvement over those in quake. The control admittedly was a bit lacking but as you pointed out this was mostly due to the controller. Goldeneye at least resulted in functional controls, and like halo the control scheme was copied for most shooters that fallowed on the platform. Halo is indeed a better game, but direct comparisons of game quality simply don't work when it's made across platforms from entirely different eras. Before Goldeneye there weren't any major or truly successful console shooters. Sure, doom and wolfenstein had been ported to consoles - those games were hardly good enough to draw any sort of crowd. By the time they were ported, everyone who wanted to play doom had either long purchased it for the PC, or at least grown tired of the game after playing the shareware version repeatedly. Still, goldeneye was the 3rd best selling game for the N64 and it's top selling shooter. It's 8 million units sold far outshine halo's 5 million copies. Halo was the game that made the Xbox a contender - goldeney was the game that proved consoles could be viable platforms for shooters. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
Creating an efficient control scheme is hardly innovative :P |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 857 Joined: 24 Mar 2008    |
OK, this is as far as I got before I could move on. The original Halo was innovative not only for its "scale" and the management of technology to construct a game of a notably large scale (in duration, enemies, levels) is a type of innovation. The varied enemy AI that learned to respond to player tactics was a huge console shooter step forward, the weapon management system offered itself to game-play that other shooters did not offer, the quality of the graphics and audio was unprecedented, the campaign game-play and driving / immersive story was unprecedented in the genre, and Halo can be credited with being an important driver for Xbox's online environment and (as such) on line console business in general. Yes it was an FPS that offered little more than "here gun kill" play (a type of play that offers many nuances and styles) but if you are not giving it the credit due, you are uninformed to say the least. II and III offered less innovation (as sequels would) and there was a progressive lowering of concern for the single player experience, but the game-play recording tools that grew from the franchise excelled and are still driving this type of game-service forward in other titles... gahh... I could go on. Can you srsly not find any of this information out there on the internet? Dude. Like it or hate it, Halo is a major game in the history of the industry. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 405 Joined: 28 Apr 2008  |
If anyone gets the credit on that it should be Robert A. Heinlein. Starship Troopers ( the book) I think has the some of the earliest references to marines in space and powered combat armor. Credit where credits due, as they say. edit - |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1125 Joined: 22 Dec 2008   | Halo 1 was the first game I know of where a person could drive a vehicle and another could use a turret. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1125 Joined: 22 Dec 2008 |
Halo brought space marines to the general public and not just nerds like me. |
Beat Writer Posts: 163 Joined: 24 Oct 2008    |
You lose too , project Eden allowed you to see your own feet (obscure game , I know). |
Press Junketeer Posts: 405 Joined: 28 Apr 2008 |
Hmmm, how shall I put this, were talking about a video game. An FPS on a dedicated gaming system. Not exactly the general public and definitely a little bit nerdy. |
On the Record  Posts: 5011 Joined: 28 Feb 2008  | Um... |
Beat Writer Posts: 163 Joined: 24 Oct 2008 |
No, somehow it means you all have poor tastes ; and, being game designers, will probably end up as one of the pricks who says things like "deus ex doesn't have enough action". |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 556 Joined: 20 Apr 2008   |
No it wasn't, not at all. Calling Halo innovative is like saying that Thomas Alva Edison invented the lightbulb. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1125 Joined: 22 Dec 2008 |
Who did? He did make lightbulbs with colleagues, but who invented it? |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
Again, graphic quality does not quality as innovation. The trend from the first FPS ever made up to now has been a general advance in graphic technology. It's so far from innovation it's expected. Yes, there is clever programming, lots of hard work by a team of people and all of that jazz to make each game look better than the last, but there is no innovation there. At best, you have a natural evolution - technology progresses because hardware allows for it. This is why simply improving physics or AI or controls isn't innovative: in general a game (especially a shooter) looks as good as the development team could make it given the time, money and hardware available. Only when these features affect gameplay in new and interesting ways can you consider it an innovation. Physics have always been in most games to a degree, but it wasn't until recently with games like Half-Life 2, Portal, Psi-Ops and many others that the physics engine became a core component of gameplay. Graphical improvements mean very little in the grand scheme of things unless they allow for a new style of game. In the early days of shooters, producing true outdoor set pieces was impossible. Then games like Delta Force (and even earlier, Seal Team) were developed allowing for outdoor games. This graphical improvement lead directly to the creation of the first true tactical shooters. Halo is an important game, but it's greatness doesn't lie in innovation. It's strength was utter competence in all areas. It launched the Xbox and carried the console forward almost single handedly through that first shaky year. Never before had a single game been so instrumental to the future success of a system. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
Joseph Swan invented the first true precursor to the lightbulb in 1850, using a carbon paper filiment. Edison is credited with inventing the first practical lightbulb. |
On the Record Posts: 5011 Joined: 28 Feb 2008 |
Did I say anything about graphics? No. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
You are commenting about the landscape and color schemes. Unless I missed my guess that's a reference to graphics. Besides that, you were simply the last person in the chain who said something about the graphic quality of the game, and my post was making a general point about the trend of "old games clearly sucked because they looked like trash" that seems to persist in the minds of younger gamers. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1125 Joined: 22 Dec 2008 |
That's actually a nice piece of information there. Thanks! |
On the Record Posts: 5011 Joined: 28 Feb 2008 |
OK, No. If I didn't make it clear enough, I was saying that Bungie had the genius idea of setting part of the game in something other than a bitter, war-torn WW2 or spacemarine battlefield. Even by today's standards, it was unusual because they escaped the brown, darker brown, and grey that signify, "realism." Not a real big whoop, but that's definitely part of what makes Halo stand out, and makes its sequels more, "Meh," in my opinion. Going into the intangiable, Halo made you refreshed. Sure, you were fighting for the survival of the human race, but everything wasn't either covered with a swastika or was a man-eating demon entity trying to kill you. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1640 Joined: 10 Sep 2008   |
Would you care to name this game before halo that let you share vehicles with player controlled allies? I can't name a single game before halo that did vehicles well, especially in multiplayer. Hell I can still barely think of any. Honestly, you must be blind to not see why Halo:CE was so popular. The advertising it got didn't hurt either. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
I am not saying the game wasn't good. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it. In fact, I believe I said the exact opposite of that. I was pointing to the simple fact that the graphical presentation of the world was far from innovative. Sure the game took place on a doomsday ring built by a hyper advanced extinct alien civiliztion - it was still a shooter that took place in corridors and the occasional outdoor environment. The art designers did an excellent job of building a world that blended alien technology with a natural environment, and the level designers did a commendable job of creating a world that truly fit the game. The game ranks fairly high on my list of favorite games but this has nothing to do with innovation or graphical presentation. If the game had a strong point for me it was the inclusion of co-op play. For me, the ability to play a game with a friend can make up for quite a bit of bad design but there was none of that in Halo. Just well executed FPS action with an adequate story and excellent audio/video presentation. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1737 Joined: 27 Dec 2008    | Halo (1) was pretty innovative and they made the "Future super soldier" story line interesting. Halo (1) also had some cool ideas for multilayer and vehicles and it had a really strong internet following. I mean, before Halo what other FPS online games held the same amount of interest? They exist, but they fall short of Halos devoted fanbase. Bunch of bloody sheep (In the words of the Brits) :P I think that the series lost its story line after the first one, and that's a real shame. Its like they wanted to base it off of multilayer combat AND THAT'S FINE but don't neglect the rest of the game for it, ESPECIALLY if you have an intriguing story line to a worn out concept. The 3rd one LOOKED great, even in-game imagery was exquisitely done but it really did not change anything up, I wish they would just bring back the original Magnum pistol and life meter and make the story a stronger part of the game instead of again relying on the multilayer to drag it along. |
Muckraker  Posts: 236 Joined: 18 Dec 2007   |
I only played Halo on PC, so I got that "steer with the mouse" bullshit and i found grappling with that huge Xbox controller too annoying to play it on that. Innovation doesn't equal popular, either, which is what this thread is about. I HOPE there's no argument as to whether or not it was popular. That would be silly. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
Battlezone is one example. Tribes was another (albiet entirely multiplayer). Skynet was yet a third (even older) example.
Vehicles and the dreaded vehicle section have become almost a joke in modern shooters. The only shooter since Halo that didn't have them that come to mind are Serious Sam 1 and 2 and Painkiller.
Doom, quake 1 and 2 and Half-Life all had this feature.
Half-Life was heralded for it's AI - especially that of the Marines. Halo's AI, especially that of the Elites is admittedly superior it seems.
Goldeneye sold 8 million copies - a feat few other PC games have managed in general. Half-Life of course managed to sell 9.3 million copies but I can't find if that number includes console ports as well.
Halo was so popular because it was a top of the line shooter available to people who didn't want to spend the cash getting a top of the line system to run the thing. Halo was utterly competent, and in some places outright stellar in it's execution but there really wasn't any innovation. Sometimes innovation isn't needed. Afterall, innovation lead to the spork - which aims for the stars and ends up the joke of cutlery. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2044 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 |
To be fair, Halo was not an "online" game, at least as far as most Xbox games are concerned, having arrived long before the launch of XBL. And MANY games have developed similar or larger followings. Look at Counterstrike. Look at Team Fortress - even in the days of Quake that game was drawing legions of fans. |
Muckraker Posts: 236 Joined: 18 Dec 2007 | Halo can be called innovative because it brought a game that was a PC game in spirit to a console. THat's pretty much it. It would be pretty average on PC (not bad, average) but because it was ON console and therefore very accessible to a lot of people, it really caught on like wildfire. Bringing the sensibilities of PC FPS to console is where the innovation stops for Halo. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2142 Joined: 23 Dec 2007   |
I have to disagree with the hollow victory arguement. Halo 2 (in my opinion) is perhaps one of the main reasons online gaming in consoles came about. Admittedly it wasn't the first game nline but it brought a large variety of different gamers to the console genre. While bringing perhaps millions of people to online gaming. You might be able to make an arguement saying halo2 is the reason recent consoles have a heavy focus on online gaming. Actually the clan and friends list, even the ingame messagin system was -for me at least- a revoloution. Also halo was the first game I played with recharging shields. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
Halo wasn't really innovative in a major way. Goldeneye proved to the world that FPS games could be fun and popular on a console. There wasn't anything new about the story ideas (space marine save the universe from evil aliens is a fairly standard video game plot). The story wasn't told in a new or compelling way.
Really, what Halo did that is notable is establish the Xbox's foothold in the marketplace. For quite awhile it was the one and only "must play" xbox games. As the console's first shooter, Halo did manage one other notable feat: it basically standardized the control scheme that Xbox FPS games use even to this date. It also represented the first console FPS game that didn't make me wish I had a mouse and keyboard.