Gormers1:

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...

Well, at least you admit it.

zen5887:

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

You lose! Doom started all this space marine stuff.

Halo's innovations came from being able to see your feet and pretty graphics. Appart from that its a pretty stock shooter with a simple-but-it-works online.

Tribes II, you could see your feet and that was before Halo. While I don't hate the game, I always thought the Halo series was bland, eye-wateringly monotonous in it's gameplay. What always surprises me though, is that it was so popular. Just about every PC gamer I've ever spoken to or read of, considered it mediocre at best.

Halo Combat Evolved is considered innovative because it successfully translated the keyboard and mouse onto a controller with 6 face buttons, two analog sticks, one D-pad, and two triggers buttons. It had incredible graphics for the time, and was really one of the first titles almost anyone who bought an Xbox ever played. It had a deep multiplayer component, and was really the game that put Microsoft on the Gaming Map.

Halo 2 however built on that and made it so much better adding new weapons and elements like the Battle rifle, and the covenant sword, as well as dual wielding all while stripping a lot of the things that made Halo: CE a great game. Nerfing the pistol, getting rid of the Assault Rifle, cock-slap ending.... etc.

Halo 3 is the complete package. Best of Halo 1 2 and new elements included, and it isn't seen as innovative because in the 6-7 years between the games, other games came out and modified the concept to a point where it was in some cases BETTER then Halo. Best game in the series? Possibly. Best game ever made? No far from it. It's a diamond with rough edges which can be approximated to every great game or even movie or music track.

Well since everyone decided that innovation is A) necessary and B) only achieved through creating entirely new ideas which are effectively gimmicks rather than taking lots of different ideas, improving them and mixing them together. At the end of the day, you can almost always dredge up some old game which used the idea before. Of course, the game designers probably weren't thinking about them at all, but ignore that.

Okay, how was Halo: Combat Evolved innovative good? It took lots of great ideas, and like I said, improved them all and mixed them together in a solid shooter that was a lot of fun to play. Oh, is that innovative? Well too bad, no one really cares because the term 'innovative' is only applied to gimmicky pieces of tat which need something other than quality to distinguish themselves from other games.

A good game with new ideas doesn't need to be branded with 'innovation'. It should go without saying.

SomeBritishDude:

Gormers1:

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...

Well, at least you admit it.

Oh, he's got you there. That's a real zinger.

Bored Tomatoe:
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.

That's as may be, but Far Cry 2 came out after Halo 3, which somewhat defeats the point of arguing over innovation (which, according to the arguments here, all about claiming first). I'd also like to add that while Far Cry 2 is by no means a bad game, a map editor within it does little else than give you somewhere else to shoot people. Halo 3 has more possibilites for stuff like this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CdcTnXwwPuA

Online play was pretty new was it not?

The large majority of the "innovations" that people claim Halo 1 brought, were actually done years before in PC FPS. Most Halo fans don't know this because they had never touched an FPS prior to playing Halo. Dual wielding had been done before, dedicated grenade button had been done before, vehicles had been done before, space marines had been done before, jumping in an FPS had been done before, co-op in FPS had been done before, online play had been done before, LANing had been done before, etc.

The only real innovation I can think of that Halo brought about was the recharging shield and even then, many people still prefer the old health system as opposed to a system where you can sit in a corner for five seconds and never have to worry about your health.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Halo was a bad FPS by any means, it's just not as innovative as many of it's legions of fans would lead you to believe.

TheMushroomClub:
Online play was pretty new was it not?

Perhaps on consoles, but PC's had online play for a while.

orannis62:

muffincakes:

Anyway, the first Halo was innovative because it was pretty much the first console game with online multiplayer that was easy to use and fun to play. It also introduced the "sissy shield" ie. hide in a corner to get all better. I suppose that some find that as an innovative addition as well. Other than that, Halo was your average FPS.

Thing is, the regenerating health actually made sense in the first one, because your health didn't regenerate: your shields did, and health was a separate meter. All other shooters with any kind of regen health took away the separate meters though, including Halos 2 and 3.

Yes but the health bar was scrapped in the second one which killed the series.

1: Rechargeable shields. An easy thing to make light of, but this completely changed the pacing of the typical FPS. Before this (in my oh so humble opinion) FPS games almost felt like something closer to survival horror, where you'd horde health packs and try to take as little damage as possible. Halo in contrast let people play free and loose, experiment with different gameplay methods, try some real long-shot crazy ideas that they could possibly survive from (as long as they could run away in time). It made it all around more exciting.

2: Competent vehicle action in my FPS. If someone would like to correct me on what FPS games had vehicle action before Halo, feel free. I can't think of any off the top of my head, certainly none that worked nearly as well as Halo's warthogs, ghosts, banshees, and tanks.

3: Weapons that weren't simply better or worse. Halo gave us a few really balanced weapons, all with strengths and weaknesses depending on the situation. Hell, the pistol was arguably the best weapon in the game if you knew how to use it effectively. Again, if this is something another FPS did to this degree of polish, give me a heads up.

And this has nothing to do with innovation, but halo was just a damned fun game. People seem to enjoy talking shit about the franchise, I'm guessing these are the people in the 'hating what's popular in gaming' camp and the people in the 'we must remind everyone constantly that PC gaming is so much better' camp. As someone who's played PC FPS's for a long, long time, I can say without a doubt that Halo is still a fantastic game. Not just 'fantastic for stupid consoles'.

Its considered inovative because every young teen and geeky teen is going to want to play a man the runs around in SUPER SHEILDY thing that plays the everyman and go's and kills everything thats in his path.

I think that its mostly because BUNJI found out that things that middle schoolers draw on the back of their folders and binders sell as Xtreme GOLD. They had to jump on it and sell as much as possible.

Its not a bad game, I just dont think it is the best game on the planet like some people do. I dont know why every body likes this game... wait yes I do.

Grimm91:

orannis62:

muffincakes:

Anyway, the first Halo was innovative because it was pretty much the first console game with online multiplayer that was easy to use and fun to play. It also introduced the "sissy shield" ie. hide in a corner to get all better. I suppose that some find that as an innovative addition as well. Other than that, Halo was your average FPS.

Thing is, the regenerating health actually made sense in the first one, because your health didn't regenerate: your shields did, and health was a separate meter. All other shooters with any kind of regen health took away the separate meters though, including Halos 2 and 3.

Yes but the health bar was scrapped in the second one which killed the series.

Agreed, I never said different.

AgentNein:
1: Rechargeable shields. An easy thing to make light of, but this completely changed the pacing of the typical FPS. Before this (in my oh so humble opinion) FPS games almost felt like something closer to survival horror, where you'd horde health packs and try to take as little damage as possible. Halo in contrast let people play free and loose, experiment with different gameplay methods, try some real long-shot crazy ideas that they could possibly survive from (as long as they could run away in time). It made it all around more exciting.

2: Competent vehicle action in my FPS. If someone would like to correct me on what FPS games had vehicle action before Halo, feel free. I can't think of any off the top of my head, certainly none that worked nearly as well as Halo's warthogs, ghosts, banshees, and tanks.

3: Weapons that weren't simply better or worse. Halo gave us a few really balanced weapons, all with strengths and weaknesses depending on the situation. Hell, the pistol was arguably the best weapon in the game if you knew how to use it effectively. Again, if this is something another FPS did to this degree of polish, give me a heads up.

And this has nothing to do with innovation, but halo was just a damned fun game. People seem to enjoy talking shit about the franchise, I'm guessing these are the people in the 'hating what's popular in gaming' camp and the people in the 'we must remind everyone constantly that PC gaming is so much better' camp. As someone who's played PC FPS's for a long, long time, I can say without a doubt that Halo is still a fantastic game. Not just 'fantastic for stupid consoles'.

Agreed, those are things that everyone always overlooks. Doesn't make the sequels any less copy-paste, though.

I agree that Halos use of vehicles was very good and original;but I still am not convinced that the game play was anything new.

I suppose it's called innovative because it was one of the first FPS's with swords.
And with a real storyline that became so popular they're making a movie. And books.
And it's got real sequels, rather than something like the Perfect Dark sequel.

3: Weapons that weren't simply better or worse. Halo gave us a few really balanced weapons, all with strengths and weaknesses depending on the situation. Hell, the pistol was arguably the best weapon in the game if you knew how to use it effectively. Again, if this is something another FPS did to this degree of polish, give me a heads up.

Counter Strike did this, as every Desert Eagle whore (myself included) will testify.

The original Half-Life also did this, to an extend.

Optimus Prime:
The shield in your armour? I dunno.

I think it was regenrating health/shields - I don't remeber seeing that in other games before. It encouraged you to take cover.

But Halo 2 and 3 weren't as good - They lacked the innovation the first had - The only new things I saw were dual wielding (Although Bungie had already done that back in 1994 with Marathon, so it wasn't innovative anymore) and new armour for the protagonist.
They just took the usual "Enemies over there, kill they ass" type of game and put a half-assed story over it that seems worse than the average fanfic.

muffincakes:

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

I suppose Doom and Quake don't exist in your world.

Anyway, the first Halo was innovative because it was pretty much the first console game with online multiplayer that was easy to use and fun to play. It also introduced the "sissy shield" ie. hide in a corner to get all better. I suppose that some find that as an innovative addition as well. Other than that, Halo was your average FPS.

The 1st halo game wasn't online
As for the reason I think it is innovative, it was the first game you can PISTOL WIP

PedroSteckecilo:
Halo Combat evolved introduced the following to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong, really.

Introduced

Integrated Use of Vehicles

i think tribes had a hand in that

If anyone can name a pre-2001 first person shooter that seamlessly merged vehicular combat with gunplay, that made you approach each battle wary knowing that the AI would respond to your every action, that really made you think what two weapons you should take into the next battle with you, knowing that whilst the shotgun would be handy against the two elites, the grunts would pick you off with neeedlers, and a game that allowed the grenade and melee buttons to be the solution to that problem, that made the grenade so satisfying when you sent an enemy Ghost spinning graciously over your head in a flash of blue and purple, and along with all this presented a half decent story, and huge environments to battle in, then I want to play it for interests sake. Not all the points I just made are unique, but Halo was the first game that I ever played (back in March 2002 if you want to know when) that actually made me stop and think. And I can tell you I'd played quite a few games before that, including PC games.

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

Doom

Halo did bring vehicular combat. But it would be quickly superseded by Battlefield 1942. Halo at its time was just above average.

orannis62:

Grimm91:

orannis62:

muffincakes:

Anyway, the first Halo was innovative because it was pretty much the first console game with online multiplayer that was easy to use and fun to play. It also introduced the "sissy shield" ie. hide in a corner to get all better. I suppose that some find that as an innovative addition as well. Other than that, Halo was your average FPS.

Thing is, the regenerating health actually made sense in the first one, because your health didn't regenerate: your shields did, and health was a separate meter. All other shooters with any kind of regen health took away the separate meters though, including Halos 2 and 3.

Yes but the health bar was scrapped in the second one which killed the series.

Agreed, I never said different.

AgentNein:
1: Rechargeable shields. An easy thing to make light of, but this completely changed the pacing of the typical FPS. Before this (in my oh so humble opinion) FPS games almost felt like something closer to survival horror, where you'd horde health packs and try to take as little damage as possible. Halo in contrast let people play free and loose, experiment with different gameplay methods, try some real long-shot crazy ideas that they could possibly survive from (as long as they could run away in time). It made it all around more exciting.

2: Competent vehicle action in my FPS. If someone would like to correct me on what FPS games had vehicle action before Halo, feel free. I can't think of any off the top of my head, certainly none that worked nearly as well as Halo's warthogs, ghosts, banshees, and tanks.

3: Weapons that weren't simply better or worse. Halo gave us a few really balanced weapons, all with strengths and weaknesses depending on the situation. Hell, the pistol was arguably the best weapon in the game if you knew how to use it effectively. Again, if this is something another FPS did to this degree of polish, give me a heads up.

And this has nothing to do with innovation, but halo was just a damned fun game. People seem to enjoy talking shit about the franchise, I'm guessing these are the people in the 'hating what's popular in gaming' camp and the people in the 'we must remind everyone constantly that PC gaming is so much better' camp. As someone who's played PC FPS's for a long, long time, I can say without a doubt that Halo is still a fantastic game. Not just 'fantastic for stupid consoles'.

Agreed, those are things that everyone always overlooks. Doesn't make the sequels any less copy-paste, though.

I was under the impression that we were talking about what innovation the first game brought. But if we want to get into the sequels, I felt like they did exactly what they needed to do from a gameplay perspective. They kept everything that worked with the first game, polished it, and changed the things that didn't work. Namely lots of samey looking locations and a health bar. Really, try to play Halo and Halo 2 back to back. It's a very jarring experience (the character physics are very very different).

As a side note, I'm one of the ones who trumpeted the death of the health bar, I much prefer the completely regenerating health. Again, for me it comes down to the way it changes the pacing of the game (in both multiplayer and singleplayer). But to each his own.

SuperFriendBFG:

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

Doom

Halo did bring vehicular combat. But it would be quickly superseded by Battlefield 1942. Halo at its time was just above average.

How bout Space Marine-y stuff in a videogame that didn't take place on what looked like the planet of bad metal album covers?

Gyah, double post and I can't delete anything. I'm not used to these boards.

edit: alright, sorry for the triple post. How do I delete these two exactly and consolidate this?

1st game to have dancing with Hunters.

In my honest opinion, calling Halo: Combat Evolved uninnovative garbage is similar to calling the Lord of the Rings books cliche. It started many of the trends that you find bland and irritating and have become over used to the point that you seem to forget what it brought to the table in the first place.

Anomynous 167:

As for the reason I think it is innovative, it was the first game you can PISTOL WIP

That's not true.
I forget the game, but it might have been the original Perfect Dark,
the second mode for the pistol was pistol whip.
That was quite a while before 2001, or Halo: CE.

buy teh haloz:
Halo Combat Evolved is considered innovative because it successfully translated the keyboard and mouse onto a controller with 6 face buttons, two analog sticks, one D-pad, and two triggers buttons. It had incredible graphics for the time, and was really one of the first titles almost anyone who bought an Xbox ever played. It had a deep multiplayer component, and was really the game that put Microsoft on the Gaming Map.

Halo 2 however built on that and made it so much better adding new weapons and elements like the Battle rifle, and the covenant sword, as well as dual wielding all while stripping a lot of the things that made Halo: CE a great game. Nerfing the pistol, getting rid of the Assault Rifle, cock-slap ending.... etc.

Halo 3 is the complete package. Best of Halo 1 2 and new elements included, and it isn't seen as innovative because in the 6-7 years between the games, other games came out and modified the concept to a point where it was in some cases BETTER then Halo. Best game in the series? Possibly. Best game ever made? No far from it. It's a diamond with rough edges which can be approximated to every great game or even movie or music track.

You just described Turok on the N64
So Turok is innovative?.

Halo 2 and 3 is pants, at least Turok had the decency to be average after the first game.

People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

I wasn't aware that Halo is innovative? Who said that? They have never played Doom, or GoldenEye.

Halo is not innovative, whoever says otherwise is simply to young to have played any games older than Halo, (< 10 yr olds); and don't have the mental capacity to appreciate anything other than pretty graphics in games.

hippieshopper:

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

Not Warhammer 40k?

Try again Warhammer 40K was a spin off from its original board game called "space crusade" or something like that.
Which came out a good many years before 40K.

Halo: Combat Evolved was the first FPS i can think of with regenerating shields (Which i knows been said already.)
And then Halo 3 has the Forge. Which i have to admit is great for making machinma on consoles. Along with the hours of fun to be had attempting insane maps.

goodman528:
I wasn't aware that Halo is innovative? Who said that? They have never played Doom, or GoldenEye.

Halo is not innovative, whoever says otherwise is simply to young to have played any games older than Halo, (< 10 yr olds); and don't have the mental capacity to appreciate anything other than pretty graphics in games.

While I agree that most players are dolts who don't know what they're talking about because they haven't played enough video games,
I'd still say it would be... very slightly innovative. The fact that it had a very well done gameplay and storyline, which can be rare in FPS.
It also became the soul-base of the x-box at the time, which no other game did for such a smash-hit system.

AgentNein:

As a side note, I'm one of the ones who trumpeted the death of the health bar, I much prefer the completely regenerating health. Again, for me it comes down to the way it changes the pacing of the game (in both multiplayer and singleplayer). But to each his own.

It all depends on the game for me. Regenerating health means that pacing is focused on ammo consumption and enemy type/concentration. This can of course lead to more exciting individual battles because designers are free to make any number of concurrent battles tooth and claw encounters. If your focus is purely on the action of the moment then regnerating health is the way to go. Hunting for medkits would hurt a game like Call of Duty 4, but it's essential to games like half life.

Deadspace is an example of a game that does the pacing thing all wrong. It's desperately trying to be a scary game but I would pick up so much health that I only ended up dying because I legitimately ran out of health entirely once. The rest of the time it was because a particular encounter did damage so quickly (or prevented my use of medkits) that I died before I could hit the heal button. Combine the excess of health with the immense firepower at your disposal and you have a game that is anything but scary much of the time.

In short, when the action of the moment is the key, regenerating health is the way to go. When you're trying to build dread and suspense, nothing works as well has limited health. Just look at doom 3 - when you have chaingun ammo and above 80 health, there is no corridor too dark to explore. But when you're down to your shotgun and assault rifle and only have 50 or less health, you suddenly become a lot less confident in your ability to survive.

goodman528:
I wasn't aware that Halo is innovative? Who said that? They have never played Doom, or GoldenEye.

Halo is not innovative, whoever says otherwise is simply to young to have played any games older than Halo, (< 10 yr olds); and don't have the mental capacity to appreciate anything other than pretty graphics in games.

You really should read some of the posts to the contrary and contest their points before you generalize all the people who think that Halo was innovative as ten year olds who can't appreciate anything other than pretty graphics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely open to seperate opinions, but when I (and others) back up our own opinions, the least you could do is refute them before disregarding.

Eclectic Dreck:

AgentNein:

As a side note, I'm one of the ones who trumpeted the death of the health bar, I much prefer the completely regenerating health. Again, for me it comes down to the way it changes the pacing of the game (in both multiplayer and singleplayer). But to each his own.

It all depends on the game for me. Regenerating health means that pacing is focused on ammo consumption and enemy type/concentration. This can of course lead to more exciting individual battles because designers are free to make any number of concurrent battles tooth and claw encounters. If your focus is purely on the action of the moment then regnerating health is the way to go. Hunting for medkits would hurt a game like Call of Duty 4, but it's essential to games like half life.

Deadspace is an example of a game that does the pacing thing all wrong. It's desperately trying to be a scary game but I would pick up so much health that I only ended up dying because I legitimately ran out of health entirely once. The rest of the time it was because a particular encounter did damage so quickly (or prevented my use of medkits) that I died before I could hit the heal button. Combine the excess of health with the immense firepower at your disposal and you have a game that is anything but scary much of the time.

In short, when the action of the moment is the key, regenerating health is the way to go. When you're trying to build dread and suspense, nothing works as well has limited health. Just look at doom 3 - when you have chaingun ammo and above 80 health, there is no corridor too dark to explore. But when you're down to your shotgun and assault rifle and only have 50 or less health, you suddenly become a lot less confident in your ability to survive.

You really hit the nail on the head.

popdafoo:
People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

Uh, many games (especially fantasy ones) have had "magical fire hands."

TOFUM4ST3R:

popdafoo:
People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

Uh, many games (especially fantasy ones) have had "magical fire hands."

Alright then, magical bee hands.

popdafoo:

TOFUM4ST3R:

popdafoo:
People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

Uh, many games (especially fantasy ones) have had "magical fire hands."

Alright then, magical bee hands.

Its not a game related one, and its a bit of a stretch, but Shino Aburame (Naruto) has bugs living in his body that he uses to fight with.

...

Nothing is innovative! We are all going to DIE!!!