Eclectic Dreck:

Battlezone is one example. Tribes was another (albiet entirely multiplayer). Skynet was yet a third (even older) example.

Battlezone and skynet do not apply to what I meant. Battlezone is, if memory serves, a game about tanks. Not a First person shooter and so irrelivent.
Skynet allowed for a flying suit, and that was it, it also had no multiplayer.
Tribes is a good example, and apparently an example that has been around a lot longer than I had thought. Although there were no console FPS games for a very long time that could boast similar vehicular detail

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.

Halo made them popular. I still cannot think of pre-halo console FPSs that had them (thank god). And it was very rare of FPS games in general to have them.

Doom, quake 1 and 2 and Half-Life all had this feature.

If I recall doom correctly, It was a single marine fighting a horde of enemies. I cannot think of there being AI fighting other AI in that game at all. Same deal for quake. Although half-life is bang on the money, with the marines shooting you as well as the xen.

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.

Goldeneye was still not really an appeal to the PC FPS market though. It was still mostly console gamers that bought this game. The gameplay was fundamental in the design of all future games, but it still didn't have the pull and initial hype that halo did. From the moment the original halo concept was released, it had a steady, PC fan dominant, fanbase. I think it was announced as early as '99

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.

I disagree. It did a lot of things that had never been done on a console title before. It was the first console FPS to match PC titles complexity and gameplay. In fact, other than half life, I would say it was the most advanced game in it's genre on the market at the time.

Dys:

Battlezone and skynet do not apply to what I meant. Battlezone is, if memory serves, a game about tanks. Not a First person shooter and so irrelivent.
Skynet allowed for a flying suit, and that was it, it also had no multiplayer.
Tribes is a good example, and apparently an example that has been around a lot longer than I had thought. Although there were no console FPS games for a very long time that could boast similar vehicular detail

I think there is some confusion with the 1980 battlezone which was indeed a tank only game. The game I am referring to is battlezone and battlezone II: combat commander. Both were actually first person games where you could exit your vehicle and fight on foot (though you were incredibly vulnerable naturally), that had a strong focus on strategy (FPRTS?)

Skynet had multiple vehicle sections. You flew an aerial Hunter-Killer, drove a HMMWV and a tank at various points in the game. You are correct that there was no multiplayer involving the vehicles however, as, at least to my recollection, the game had no multiplayer at all.

Dys:

If I recall doom correctly, It was a single marine fighting a horde of enemies. I cannot think of there being AI fighting other AI in that game at all. Same deal for quake. Although half-life is bang on the money, with the marines shooting you as well as the xen.

In doom zombies would fight among themselves if one zombie accidentally shot another while shooting at the player. Different enemy types would also fight among one another and a common strategy was to simply zip through a room to start a ruckus, find a corner to hide in and clean up the survivors.

Dys:

Goldeneye was still not really an appeal to the PC FPS market though. It was still mostly console gamers that bought this game. The gameplay was fundamental in the design of all future games, but it still didn't have the pull and initial hype that halo did. From the moment the original halo concept was released, it had a steady, PC fan dominant, fanbase. I think it was announced as early as '99

When the Halo concept was originally released the was far different from what was delivered (naturally). The most notable difference? It was being developed for the Mac.

Dys:

I disagree. It did a lot of things that had never been done on a console title before. It was the first console FPS to match PC titles complexity and gameplay. In fact, other than half life, I would say it was the most advanced game in it's genre on the market at the time.

Really it didn't do much that goldeneye didn't. All halo did is up the ante. By several million points. I will cede to your point about complexity and gameplay as Halo was the first console shooter I played that didn't make me wish I was playing it on a computer.

Mullahgrrl:

4thegreatergood:
Halo 1 was the first game where a person could drive a vehicle and another could use a turret. Not kidding.

No it wasn't, not at all.

Calling Halo innovative is like saying that Thomas Alva Edison invented the lightbulb.

Maybe you should comment on the points made earlier instead of just saying that without giving any reason?

fullmetalangel:
It's not.

edit:

Well, actually, Halo was one of the first console FPSs that became really popular. That's gotta count for something.

It's hardly an innovation, though. And what about Goldeneye, Doom, Wolfenstein?

Sewblon:
Because Game journalists are sellouts and corporate lapdogs and Most Xbox gamers are stupid.

Do you have any evidence for most "xbox gamers are stupid" or are you making a youtube comment?

bad rider:

Sewblon:
Because Game journalists are sellouts and corporate lapdogs and Most Xbox gamers are stupid.

Do you have any evidence for most "xbox gamers are stupid" or are you making a youtube comment?

Indeed, I don't find it informative.. but it is offensive, saying things like that without any elaboration.

*sigh* Here is why halo is considered "innovative".

Halo 'combat evolved' introduced...

1. Two weapon slots (THAT IT!)

Allot of FPS allowed you to carry every single gun in the game, having only two weapon slots forced you to consider what weapons you wanted to keep and what was to be left behind. It forced strategy in the campaign and especially in multiplayer.

2. A dedicated button for grenades. Now this might not seem much, but games before halo had grenades as just another weapon. Giving a player a 'grenade' button made grenades a core part of game play. It made people think about using grenades with their weapons.

3. Dedicated 'melee' (bash) button. Games before had melee weapons, but making every weapon a melee weapon not only steam lined game play (not having to switch weapons) but also gave the player an instant answer to an opponent when they are up close. That and bashing things with your gun just felt good.

On another note, been able to bash things without using ammo is just so useful. I don't know how many times I've ran out of ammo in an FPS and had a bad guy in front of me, I could do nothing but scream and desperately reload as I was blasted back to the previous check point.

4. Seamlessly mixing vehicles with on foot action.

Just plain awesome. yes, its been done before, but HAVING an animation for getting in and out, just made it that much more impressive.

Halo 2

1. Dual Wielding.

This has been done before yes. But the way they did it. Having a dedicated buttons for reloading, firing and swamping them, independently from each other. It gave players a choice in what weapon they had and in what hand. And guess what? each weapon had its pros and cons. and dual wielding had its pros and cons as well.

2. The online party system.

Made xbox live what it is today, and took multilayer to the next level, this time you could go from game to game with friends while playing equally matched players.

Halo 3

1. Erhm.. not much really that has not been done before. Forge, the in game map editor is kinda fun, though its been done before. (far cry on the xbox ?)

2. Replay theatre? It has been done before, though it was done very well. Been able to share your experiences with other players has never been so easy

Other games (not all though)

Still don't have dedicated melee button.
Still don't have good dual wielding mechanics.
Still don't have seamless vehicle and on foot action.

How can anyone say Halo isn't innovative with all the evidence and examples contained within these 4 pages. Sure most of the stuff has been done before but how many of those games put all those features and methods into 1 game.

Also to all the pc gamers playing halo, yes I loved the halos on xbox but halo 1 and especially halo 2 sucked on pc. I don't know why but in my opinion they sucked.

Well the main reason should be because they lack coop. But also I think the low fps the game generally had when it ran on the console is more apparent here. You may shoot me for this, but I also liked the controls on the xbox version more (only played halo 1 on the pc though).

What I want to know is who first described Halo as particularly innovative (apart from those people who gave them an award for it), or more importantly, who decided we had to have a fight over it. While Halo didn't come up with many completely new ideas, they did take lots of good ideas and implement them together in a way that hadn't been done before.

I love the Halo series. While I don't think they're massively innovative games I think they did things differently enough for it to be enjoyable. I certainly get annoyed by people who claim all three games are the same. Two and three are pretty similar, sure, but saying Combat Evolved and Halo 2 were the same is ridiculous. They are about as different as they can be while still being in the same series. Different health, dual wielding, new enemies, different control scheme, new weapons, new vehicles and a new playable character.

Oh yes, and people think that just because they can slap the label 'Space Marine game' on the original Halo that it didn't have a good story.

I don't think even the Halo fanboys can say Halo is innotive with a straight face.

...Actually, I'm underestermating fanboys.

SomeBritishDude:
I don't think even the Halo fanboys can say Halo is innotive with a straight face.

...Actually, I'm underestermating fanboys.

Yup, Im a fanboy because I for once elaborates my opinions instead of just saying that everyone who doesnt share the same opinion as me are stupid...

Fanboy:
It was the first console FPS I played with a Co-op campaign, but I'm not sure if it was the first ever (I think perfect dark had this.) I can't think of a console FPS before it that used vehicles, but again I'm probably wrong (again, I think perfect dark might have had this). The dual joysticks for movement maybe, I'm not sure.

I don't think it was as innovative as just really well rounded.

Perfect Dark had a co-op Campain. It had a Counter-Op Campaign; Player 1 plays as normal, Player 2 takes one of the enemies and tries to stop them.

Goldeneye used dual-joysticks for movement; one of the options for control was to use two controllers, thus giving you two sticks. I think that is far more innovative than using two joysticks when the controller itself has two built into it.

Goldeneye also used vehicles, so that's not new either.

raxiv:
If there was this question, report it for deletion. Thanks!

I go over the internet, and people keep talking about Halo being innovative [like in the other Innovative FPS thread]. I think it is worth a seperate thread to talk about it.

Was I the only one who saw the standard "Here's is your weapon, go kill bad guys" scheme? I really don't have a clue why it is innovative!

Halo was innovative at the time, albeit slightly, only carrying 2 weapons, the regenerative health sheild (which kicked ass at the time), it actually had grass!. Staples of the Console FPS now.

Sorry i remember a guy in HMV trying to sell me the game and XBOX, and that was his major marketing sell point was "if you look down its grass!"

hebdomad:

On another note, been able to bash things without using ammo is just so useful. I don't know how many times I've ran out of ammo in an FPS and had a bad guy in front of me, I could do nothing but scream and desperately reload as I was blasted back to the previous check point.
.

I've not run out of ammo in an FPS, maybe once when I was a nervous wreck, using up all your ammo in an FPS is like not having milk in the fridge, it just doesn't happen.

Dys:

Goldeneye was still not really an appeal to the PC FPS market though. It was still mostly console gamers that bought this game. The gameplay was fundamental in the design of all future games, but it still didn't have the pull and initial hype that halo did. From the moment the original halo concept was released, it had a steady, PC fan dominant, fanbase. I think it was announced as early as '99

"PC fan dominant fanbase" for the hype in Halo?, Bungie are Mac boys and girls, they never made a PC game in their lives.

Regenerating health, decent vehicle sections, something of a physics engine, useable grenades, and decent AI for the time. Yeah I'd say it was innovative, and anyone who says it wasn't didn't play it in time, because a wave of copycats copied many of its features before anyone who didn't own an Xbox saw it.

Edit: Oh and melee attacks mapped to a button (as were grenades)

Wargamer:

Fanboy:
It was the first console FPS I played with a Co-op campaign, but I'm not sure if it was the first ever (I think perfect dark had this.) I can't think of a console FPS before it that used vehicles, but again I'm probably wrong (again, I think perfect dark might have had this). The dual joysticks for movement maybe, I'm not sure.

I don't think it was as innovative as just really well rounded.

Perfect Dark had a co-op Campain. It had a Counter-Op Campaign; Player 1 plays as normal, Player 2 takes one of the enemies and tries to stop them.

Goldeneye used dual-joysticks for movement; one of the options for control was to use two controllers, thus giving you two sticks. I think that is far more innovative than using two joysticks when the controller itself has two built into it.

Goldeneye also used vehicles, so that's not new either.

a tank driving section is not a tangiblke argument to innovation of vehicles.

goldeneye catered to the console players and perfect dark did the same while building on that. whilist Halo was targeting the PC players to move over to the box.

Halo, while people seperate them out, i generally treat the "Halo" series as a whole, it was innovative with the shield regen that people bitch about and properly utilising vehicles into combat.

jebussaves88:
Regenerating health, decent vehicle sections, something of a physics engine, useable grenades, and decent AI for the time. Yeah I'd say it was innovative, and anyone who says it wasn't didn't play it in time, because a wave of copycats copied many of its features before anyone who didn't own an Xbox saw it.

Edit: Oh and melee attacks mapped to a button (as were grenades)

I forgot!, thanks for reminding me, Halo was the first game was a physics engine, which you could do cool stuff like throw a grenade past weapons on the floor to get them nearer to you.

and please stop with the melee and grenade button mapping, we did that shit with hot keys on Half Life.

ColdStorage:

Dys:

Goldeneye was still not really an appeal to the PC FPS market though. It was still mostly console gamers that bought this game. The gameplay was fundamental in the design of all future games, but it still didn't have the pull and initial hype that halo did. From the moment the original halo concept was released, it had a steady, PC fan dominant, fanbase. I think it was announced as early as '99

"PC fan dominant fanbase" for the hype in Halo?, Bungie are Mac boys and girls, they never made a PC game in their lives.

First up, while I know what you meant, the makers of the game that kept microsoft in the console wars can hardly be called mac boys and girls. Even if they were it's too ironic for me to not bring up
I said PC but meant computer gamer, not stricly windows. A lot of Mac people were keen on another game by the Marathon people, so hopefully nobody is going to bother arguaing with me about whether people play games on Macs.. You are right and they did develop for Mac OS. As dirty as this makes me feel, and as dirty as everyone is going to think I am for saying this, Mac gamers are still gamers. Hell they are even more hardcore than Windows/Console gamers in terms of what their rig costs them.

As has probably been said (Can't be bothered to read through most of this dribble). Halo 1 was considered innovative for it's success and popularity on the console. It's quite clearly not an innovative game in itself. It is quite a lot of peoples 'first FPS', typically those who don't game on PC, or simply don't care to. This is why it is epicly rated, because (and this is being quite honest)... the strictly-console players at the time had not seen anything like it done so well.

hypothetical fact:

Samurai Goomba:
WAS innovative. WAS. And that's debatable.

It WAS considered innovative because it was one of the first mainstream console FPS games that didn't absolutely suck. The recharging shield and SF setting probably didn't hurt, either.

To call Halo innovative now?... That would be nuts. It's like calling "Dynasty Warriors Xtreme Whatever 12" (not an actual name, but you get my point) innovative.

As for me, I prefer Black, Urban Chaos and Project Snowblind.

Nobody ever listens when the forge is brought up; show me another console FPS with a system similar to the forge and a theatre mode for making machinima and I will agree that Halo 3 isn't innovative. Until then the naysayers are just riding the anti-halo bandwagon.

Halo is just one of the first games to bring lackluster editing tools to consoles...Far cry 2's map editor was miles better than halo 3's forge.

ColdStorage:

hebdomad:

On another note, been able to bash things without using ammo is just so useful. I don't know how many times I've ran out of ammo in an FPS and had a bad guy in front of me, I could do nothing but scream and desperately reload as I was blasted back to the previous check point.
.

I've not run out of ammo in an FPS, maybe once when I was a nervous wreck, using up all your ammo in an FPS is like not having milk in the fridge, it just doesn't happen.

That reminds me, I need to buy some milk.
The only FPSs I can recall running out of ammo in were System Shock 2 and Deus Ex, so go figure.

Okay, I'll offer my two cents of sniping. Someone suggested AI vs AI fighting, sorry, Doom had monster infighting, if that's what you're talking about, going all the way back to the beginning of the genre. Half Life and Deus Ex both had friendly AI units and I may be mistaken here but I think HL had two mutually hostile factions.

As for the fast melee thing, I'm not sure if there's an earlier example but Duke Nukem 3d from way back when had a quick kick key. I'm not 100% that Dark Messiah isn't taking potshots at that venerable title.

As for the dedicated grenade key? I'm genuinely unsure. You may actually have one there, but, I'm not sure.

Regenerating Health leaves itself open to a duzzy, you remember Everquest? MMOs have had regenerating health for years. (I'm not 100% sure EQ is one of them (but still.)) Hell, Starcraft had regenerating units. It was conditional, but still.

With vehicles I remember the build engine games having vehicles, but I wouldn't use that as a claim that it was something that Halo stole.

As for dual wielding, the original Marathon allowed for dual .44 magnums. Which got upgraded in Marathon 2 to include double barrel shotguns and in the third installment high velocity drum weapons. You couldn't mix and match, but, the potential was there. As for mix and match dual wielding, I recall Heavy Metal FAKK2 allowed you to mix and match weapons. I'm not sure if you could independently reload one and not the other, but still.

Finally, limited weapon space. Well, damn, now you've got me. Deus Ex and System Shock 2 both used limited weapon space in the games, it's not nearly as restricted as Halo, but still, it's there. Now, granted these are both FPS/RPG hybrids, but the fact remains that Halo wasn't the first game to force you into making hard decisions about what to keep and what to pitch.

Okay, here's a point, none of these games except FAKK2 are what you could really call obscure. Marathon can't be because it's the predecessor to Halo.

asiepshtain:

hippieshopper:

l Ancient l:
halo 1 started all this space marine stuff

Not Warhammer 40k?

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 -
checked up on it. While fighting man in space was written of before Starship Troopers. The powered armor does in fact appear for the first time in this book and is credited to Heinlein.

when did he write it?

Halo was innovative because it contains an overpowered sniper rifle with which you have no penalties to accuracy while jumping or running. Also, it introduced the game to two new demographics, 12 year olds and frat boys.

Rechargeable health, the way the plot was implemented well, the grenade button was new, the mass-variety in the multiplayer (not new per se, but it did it well), open levels, a melee button, etc.

Halo 2 can be considered innovative as well. Especially in how it did dual-wielding well. It's been before, yes, but not as well as Halo 2 did it. It also defined online gameplay. Again, it's implementation of plot was also very good.

Halo had a better storyline than any shooter before it.

Pyronox:

l Ancient l:
halo 1 started all this space marine stuff

No, that was Warhammer 40k that started that look. (And that starship troopers book before that).

No. Alien started the whole space marine thing.

2. A dedicated button for grenades. Now this might not seem much, but games before halo had grenades as just another weapon. Giving a player a 'grenade' button made grenades a core part of game play. It made people think about using grenades with their weapons.

Team Fortress Classic wants its credit back.

Halo: Combat Evolved made the FPS genre popular on consoles,

lol, you didn't get the golden eye perfect dark thing did you.....

anyways, halo was barely a innovative FPS by anymeans, it was however insanely popular, because something is popular doesn't always == innovation.

Gran Turismo on the PS1 was mad popular too, that is not innovative by any means but sold like crazy.

halo combat evolved was probably innovative, i cant say the same for halo 2 and 3

They made the rechargable heatlh system.