Why is Halo so critically acclaimed and popular?

[ceforga]

I don't understand the hype behind this series nor the praise. I don't understand why critics find so special about it. Halo is a painfully average shooter, has mediocre gameplay, undeserved marketing hype from the media, its generic, and is absolutely nothing special.

Halo is completely generic and unispired, all you do in the game is shoot this and that and the repetitive level design gets on your nerves. The story is filled with every sci-fi cliche and it's so badly written, Master Chief is a bland character with no personality and is iconic for some reason I don't understand. The multiplayer in these games are decent but it's inferior to Battlefield , Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty 4, and Tribes. Hell, the game barely did anything new or innovative. Halo is crap compared to most PC shooters.

Halo doesn't deserve the 10's and 9's its gotten from "professional" reviewers as the game seems more like a 5 or a 6, if they were going to give Halo a positive score it oughta be a 7 or a 8 but not a 9 and 10. Haze is just as unispired and generic as Halo but it recieved low scores and isn't as popular. Halo isn't bad but its not great either.

I think the reason its popular is because a lot of people and Halo fans haven't played any FPS before Halo as its their first FPS.

They're even better console shooters than Halo on the N64 like Turok, Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark. Halo belongs in the line of other average shooters like Resistance 1/2. Killzone 2, Far Cry, and Crysis. Halo isn't a bad game but its not in the same league as Call of Duty, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Doom, No One Lives Forever, BioShock, and most of all Half-Life. Halo is probably the most overrated game in existence and it's more overrated than GTAIV and Final Fantasy VII combined.

Whats so special about Halo?

[Erloas]

Well, I think you've noted the biggest reason. There are a lot more shooters that are a lot better on the PC. When Halo started it was one of the best shooters on the consoles, which really didn't mean much because there wasn't a huge amount of competition at the time.

PC gamers have always looked at it and saw it for what it was. For the many gamers that didn't play PC games that saw it for the first time it seemed a lot better.

There were a few shooters on the consoles first, but not all that many. Goldeneye was of course one of them, and it had a good reputation, it just didn't have the marketting behind it to make it really big and it didn't have any sequels (that I know of) to keep it going. It was also a game I found medoicre at the time compared to PC games, but the console gamers thought it was the best thing in a long time.

Although I really haven't ever played Halo, I'm going to have to disagree with your last statement and say that GTA is the most overrated series around. Though I'm sure Halo isn't far behind.

[Oslecamo]

Whats so special about Halo?

Propaganda. Lots and lots of propaganda. It's owned by microsoft after all, and that's how they do that. They have the contacts and the resources to get the reviewers to give it big grades, and lots of publicity in between.

Nintento, on the other hand, altough making really great games, always was somewhat lacking in the propaganda department.

[chiasaur11]

Actually, despite the fact some people will try to rip me apart for this:

It's because it's one of the best FPSs (Leaving out Valve ports) on consoles.

It had some solid ideas, cleverly distinguished AIs, and good enough multiplayer to be successful.

Hype is a big help, sure, but that doesn't save crap games. Or do we all forget Daikatana so quickly?

[AstralFire]

Gameplay-wise, Halo did the standard package very well, essentially. I primarily play on consoles because for the most part, I don't like the mouse/keyboard combo. I've gotten used to it and use it for several games, but I'm most comfortable with a controller. And having been a big fan of Goldeneye and Perfect Dark for the 64, I think Halo's a lot more enjoyable, both objectively and for its time. Halo 2 was kind of meh, but 3 has a pretty nice overall package in terms of your variety of weapons, too. Also, the AI in all three games is some of the best I've ever seen on a console.

And Master Chief isn't anything special in terms of a new story, but Halo's story is executed very well. They don't try to do anything fancy with it, they just put a lot of polish and detail on the basic framework, and sometimes that works really well. I can think of more than a few video games that I think would have been greatly improved plotwise if they'd tried 'basic with no strange twists, just high polish.'

I do like (with regards to Halo's expanded universe) that Master Chief is a supersoldier child abductee who doesn't actually care. He's not angsty, he's not angry, his mind has been molded to do the mission because he simply has 'the greater good' that much in mind.

[Dublock]

I think the first Halo game, in relation to the xbox deserves some credit, helps spark the FPS market on the consoles, now I know that Golden eye was a great shooter on the N64 but as was mentioned above, not that big. Halo had a lot of hype about it before it came out, it got the people excited about it even before it came out which always helps the overall "rating" of the game.

Now about the 2 and 3rd Halos stink, badly. Don't touch the first person campaign...save the few hours it takes. The multi player aspect...its alright. Not to mention the story is absolutely horrible. Even the books (yes there are books) are a WHOLE lot better story wise, and the story is great...but you can never know that if you just play the game. You don't even get to know what happens between the 1st and 2nd game really unless you read the books...thats not good game design...

Graphics, good for Halo 1

Gameplay, basic...but basic is good for some people (getting people into playing games)

Story, ....what story?

Music isn't bad at least.

[Isak]

Erloas hit the nail on the head.

Halo was the first truly good modern console FPS. Before that, you had games like the Medal of Honor series, which couldn't compete with Call of Duty 1 or 2.

At the time it came out, Halo had great gameplay, one of the best soundtracks around, better graphics than ever really seen before, a fairly good story, and top of the line Multiplayer.

For a Console Shooter.

If you had never touched a PC FPS before Halo came out; It was amazing. It was nearly the perfect game. Nothing like it had come out, and nothing could compete with it at the time.

For those of us who had played PC FPS games though, you realized how, well... Average the game really was. Yes, it had decently good graphics, and decent gameplay... but most PC games at the time had better. The story and music were still top-notch though.

Halo 2 saw a small graphics improvement, and a few new goodies... but that's about it. Same gameplay for the most part, same music, same story.

Halo 3 had another graphics boost, finished the story, and a few other things... but again; nothing genre-shattering like the first game was on the Xbox.

[Darcand]

A few things made Halo the legend it is today.

A: Timing. When it launched the Xbox was blowing away every other console system on the market in terms of performance. And Halo was blowing away every other Xbox game. In much the same way that legnedary sports players are still regarded as heroes long after their records have been shattered, being the best of the best once upon a time carries alot of weight.

B: Splatter! When you shot things in Halo they splattered blood everywhere! Granted, it was alien blood and looked like paint, but there were so few console games that let you do that at the time it was remarkable.

C: Storyline. Prior to Halo a shooter's plot line only really had to consist of find a monster, shoot a monster, find a monster shoot a monster. Even ther ones with stories were typically weak, or only vaguely outlined. Halo's story was immersive.

D: Lastly, and most importantly, Halo had loveable villians. Grunts that might stand and fight, might run away, might shoot, or throw grenades at random and talked in terrified hellium voices the whole time....Hunters? Everone loves a mini-boss fight! And the fact that they were only ever encountered in pairs added character! Likewise the elite. They talk trash, shout orders, dodge bullets, regen shields, and think like a human? No shooter game before or after has ever had better AI then Halo.

As far as Halo 2 and 3 go? Well, no one expected Halo 2 to be the way it was and by the time 3 came out we all had to know how it ended...

[ceforga]

{Scrubbed}

[Mando Knight]

It's because Metroid Prime was released on the Gamecube and is primarily a First-Person Adventure series.

MP3 and MP: Trilogy for the Wii have a near-flawless (IMO) control scheme. I can fight a lot faster and shoot more accurately in Metroid Prime 3 than I can in any other first-person console game I have played to date.

(Also, insulting a fellow poster is probably the second fastest way to get banned here...)

[Dragor]

{Scrubbed}

Yes, insulting everyone is a great way to illustrate your point. [/sarcasm] :smallannoyed:

[Zeful]

{Scrubbed}
{scrubbed}

[AstralFire]

{Scrubbed}


Halo is probably the most overrated game in existence and it's more overrated than GTAIV and Final Fantasy VII combined.

Whats so special about Halo?

...So uh, what're you saying, chief?

[ceforga]

...So uh, what're you saying, chief?
*facepalm*

[Jibar]

I've... I've made a lot about how much I dislike Halo in its averagity before, so I'm actually going to say something nice now.
The multiplayer is really good.
I mean it, there's better services out there and some more creative game types but it's really good.
Forge mode by itself is a blast when you've got some friends in the room just goofing about, and proper death matches are a blast with whoever.
The single player can suck it of course, but it's one of the few games I would play only with people.

[EleventhHour]

I've... I've made a lot about how much I dislike Halo in its averagity before, so I'm actually going to say something nice now.
The multiplayer is really good.
I mean it, there's better services out there and some more creative game types but it's really good.
Forge mode by itself is a blast when you've got some friends in the room just goofing about, and proper death matches are a blast with whoever.
The single player can suck it of course, but it's one of the few games I would play only with people.

I have to admit, there's nothing funnier than throwing a battle tank at a bunch of fleeing people. :smallbiggrin:

[Rutskarn]

C: Storyline. Prior to Halo a shooter's plot line only really had to consist of find a monster, shoot a monster, find a monster shoot a monster. Even ther ones with stories were typically weak, or only vaguely outlined. Halo's story was immersive.

While technically Unreal was the first real shooter-with-a-decent-story, I think you'll find that it was Half-Life, not Halo, that triggered the story-based FPS revolution.

[Rustic Dude]

I've played it and the only thing I can say is:

meh.

But I'm a PC gamer, and, I think Erloas "has it right"

[chiasaur11]

While technically Unreal was the first real shooter-with-a-decent-story, I think you'll find that it was Half-Life, not Halo, that triggered the story-based FPS revolution.

Unreal?

Ever heard of Marathon, Ruts?

Classic plot work, especially for a FPS. Better than Half-Life one's plot, I'd say, even if not as good as #2.

[Rutskarn]

Unreal?

Ever heard of Marathon, Ruts?

Classic plot work, especially for a FPS. Better than Half-Life one's plot, I'd say, even if not as good as #2.

Did Marathon trigger the game-story revolution? No. It was Mac-centric and largely forgotten.

Doesn't mean it wasn't good, just means it isn't germane to the topic of who started the revolution.

[Oslecamo]

Halo was the first truly good modern console FPS. Before that, you had games like the Medal of Honor series, which couldn't compete with Call of Duty 1 or 2.

You've never played Goldeneye have you?

Granted it's graphics are pretty old by now, but when it came out it was pretty amazing.

Excellent SP mission with lots of replay potential as harder dificulties added new objectives, combined with great great multiplayer wich I still play today, made for truly epic console shooter. Stuff like bouncing grenades around walls, or even shooting grenades in mid air if you were good enough, diferent damages to diferent body parts, it was all there very well combined.

Shame it was in the nonhyped N64, so very few people every picked it up.

[ZeroNumerous]

Doesn't mean it wasn't good, just means it isn't germane to the topic of who started the revolution.

But it wasn't in response to who started the revolution, it was in response to your statement that Unreal was the first FPS with a story. Marathon came before Unreal and even had a better story.

[Rutskarn]

But it wasn't in response to who started the revolution, it was in response to your statement that Unreal was the first FPS with a story. Marathon came before Unreal and even had a better story.

Aha, good point--didn't think about that statement. Anyway, point still stands. Half-Life indisputably changed the way FPSes were made.

[Oslecamo]

But it wasn't in response to who started the revolution, it was in response to your statement that Unreal was the first FPS with a story. Marathon came before Unreal and even had a better story.

Unreal had a story?

All I saw was "prisioner drops on alien planet, proceeds to shoot his way trough dozens of aliens and monsters untill he finds escape ship, not a single one of them is willing to talck to you".

Wich is pretty close to Doom's story, if you replace planet with hell and aliens with demons.

Granted you found all those memos in Unreal, but it still was frustating to always arrive too late and only find the dead bodies of anyone else who would chat with me.

[chiasaur11]

Unreal had a story?

All I saw was "prisioner drops on alien planet, proceeds to shoot his way trough dozens of aliens and monsters untill he finds escape ship, not a single one of them is willing to talck to you".

Wich is pretty close to Doom's story, if you replace planet with hell and aliens with demons.

Granted you found all those memos in Unreal, but it still was frustating to always arrive too late and only find the dead bodies of anyone else who would chat with me.

Ooo!

System Shock had memos! Quite well done memos. The backstory went all the way through the disaster on Citadel Station through the present day.

Man, System Shock was ahead of it's time. Probably that one should get "First" honors if anyone does.

On the other hand, there's Pathways into Darkness...

[KnightDisciple]

Why is Halo so popular?
Sgt. Avery Johnson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMgbFwa8YBs&feature=related).

He knows what the ladies like.

[ZeroNumerous]

System Shock had memos! Quite well done memos. The backstory went all the way through the disaster on Citadel Station through the present day.

Well if we want to go that far back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D)..

[Selrahc]

Half Life didn't really have a story. Not the kind that games have nowadays with an actual cast of characters and villains.

I mean they kind of retconned in backstories for the faceless guards and the faceless scientists and the unnamed administrator and the spooky government guy... but that wasn't what was in the original game.

[chiasaur11]

Well if we want to go that far back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D)..

We were talking something other than scrolling text, though.

System Shock and Pathways were both working on incorperating the plot into standard gameplay.

[LurkerInPlayground]

The original Halo was actually quite good, if only because it was just a lot of unintentional mistakes coming together just right. The multiplayer is a blast (partially because of the pistol). The controls worked very well once you got used to them. And it was a model for how console shooters are put together for the X-Box and the 360.

Halo 2 is broken. It's a joke.

Halo 3 is what Halo 2 should've been. And I find it to be a passable console shooter, but the departure from Halo 1's game play mechanics is what depresses me about the franchise the most.

I wanted Halo 1.5 and got a compromised version. Bungie doesn't know why Halo had such great multiplayer and everything beyond that was just them trying unsuccessfully to recreate the formula. Instead, they made some entirely different FPS.

[Rutskarn]

Half Life didn't really have a story. Not the kind that games have nowadays with an actual cast of characters and villains.

I mean they kind of retconned in backstories for the faceless guards and the faceless scientists and the unnamed administrator and the spooky government guy... but that wasn't what was in the original game.

Sure it did. There weren't characters, but there was most definitely a story--the marine insurrection, their eventual falling back, the incursion of the black ops, the nuke being set, the need to reactivate Lambda Complex, the reversing of the invasion at Xen...there's a very expansive, interesting story, told in an unconventional fashion.

[The_JJ]

Uhgh. Halo fan over here who hates Johnson.

No, I just hate what they did to him during the sequel games. At first it was like hey cool, black voice actor guy. He pretty funny. He's is the only minority on the ship, and therefore memorable. Oh look, he died. And again two levels later. I'll just take that sniper rifle.

Oh look, he died in a cutscene! Cool. Now he's even cannonically dead.

Easter egg! How nice.

And then they... yeah. Took him and made him all badassidude, don't take no **** blahblah invince-o-man. Then I popped in the first game, went to the second level, and stuck a plasma grenade to his head. And laughed.

I think y'all are ignoring the big thing for me. Co-op campaign and split screen multiplayer. Taunting your best friend over the mike is nowhere near as fun as turning and yelling in their ear. Plus you could sprawl all over the couch, put it up on the big screen, all that jazz.

The Half-Life/PC advocates may say 'it's only good for a console game. PC games were far ahead blahblah,' but the console game experience is fundamentally different than that of a PC game. You're comparing apples to oranges. FPS apple to FPS oranges, but still, it's not a valid metaphor. Halo offered and offers many things PC FPS games simply can not match.



... there's a very expansive, interesting story, told in an unconventional fashion.
Yeah, putting it in the sequels is unconventional. :smallbiggrin: Nah, I've only really played Portal, so I shouldn't talk. It was just there though, I had to take the shot.

[ZeroNumerous]

Halo offered and offers many things PC FPS games simply can not match.

Like what?

[Selrahc]

Sure it did. There weren't characters, but there was most definitely a story--the marine insurrection, their eventual falling back, the incursion of the black ops, the nuke being set, the need to reactivate Lambda Complex, the reversing of the invasion at Xen...there's a very expansive, interesting story, told in an unconventional fashion.

I'm just not sure how it can be said to have inspired the revolution of stories in FPS's if it isn't that similar to games afterwards. It looks more like an intermediary step...

I do wonder what the first FPS was with the kind of voice acted character laden plot that we see today though. Basic internet research reveals nothing. :smallamused:



Like what?

Split screen multiplayer and co-op campaign mode.
Also: Wasn't Halo 1 the first major game with that energy shield mechanic that is now ubiquitous? That is a pretty revolutionary thing.

[ZeroNumerous]

I do wonder what the first FPS was with the kind of voice acted character laden plot that we see today though. Basic internet research reveals nothing. :smallamused:

Off the top of my head, I wanna say Medal of Honor. At least, it was the first one I recall.


Split screen multiplayer and co-op campaign mode.

I'll give you split screen, but co-op campaign has been around since AvP.

[Selrahc]

I'll give you split screen, but co-op campaign has been around since AvP.

But its less of a communal experience unless you've got a lan set up.

[Jagos]

I wanted Halo 1.5 and got a compromised version. Bungie doesn't know why Halo had such great multiplayer and everything beyond that was just them trying unsuccessfully to recreate the formula. Instead, they made some entirely different FPS.

Dude, the pistol was the ultimate weapon in 1...

I agree on 2.

3 I haven't played but by then there was Gears of War, which FINALLY allowed us the pleasure of a chainsaw gun.

After that, the world could not be anymore awesome. Halo and Half Life had an illicit affair and GoW was its hellspawn.

[Rutskarn]

I'm just not sure how it can be said to have inspired the revolution of stories in FPS's if it isn't that similar to games afterwards. It looks more like an intermediary step...


Before Half-Life, 90% of shooters were grindfests that had only the skeletons of stories.

Then came Half-Life. And on the wake of its devastating success, most game developers acknowledged the need for some kind of story.

Besides, Half-Life doesn't have characters, but it has a ton of story-driving dialogue. Just with nameless NPCs.

[Jahkaivah]

Split screen multiplayer and co-op campaign mode.


Name things specific to Halo and not specific to the console-fps format.



Also: Wasn't Halo 1 the first major game with that energy shield mechanic that is now ubiquitous? That is a pretty revolutionary thing.

And considered by alot of people to be a bad thing in FPS games. Endangering those glorious moments when you ran around desperatly looking for health knowing the next hit will kill you.

[jmbrown]

What's all this about Half-Life not having a plot I'm reading? The first 20 minutes of the game was an on-rails "this is what's happening" cinematic. The difference is that you actually played the game instead of watching.

As far as Halo goes, it made first person shooters on the console a viable market. Before hand console FPS games were either really really really terrible ports (with the exception of Doom 64 which I'm inclined to believe is the real Doom 3) or so god awful they were entirely unplayable. Golden Eye was a step in the right direction but still suffered from poor frame rate and the clunky N64 controller. Halo brought everything PC gamers were used to, like more than 8 players and vehicles, to the console.

There's a bigger market for console games hence a bigger number of fans. It's as simple as that. Had Halo come out for the Mac like was originally planned or a PC exclusive it probably wouldn't have gotten the same acclaim.


I do wonder what the first FPS was with the kind of voice acted character laden plot that we see today though. Basic internet research reveals nothing.

In my experience Wing Commander was the first "shooter" (1990) to provide a deep character rich plot and there were even alternate paths depending on how you played the missions. NPCs could even die and you'd watch their funeral in a little cinema. I had to force myself not to reload an old save when someone I liked died because it cheapened the overall effect. WC is kind of cheating because it's a space shooter but you play through the first person so I'm adding it :D

For a traditional "doom-like" corridor shooter, System Shock was the first one I played that tried to build a unique world. This was carried over to System Shock 2 which lead to the creation of BioShock. Realms of the Haunting was an underrated and surreal first person-adventure which I believe is a precursor to the RPG shooter Deus Ex that focuses around the same kind of gameplay.

[Trazoi]

While technically Unreal was the first real shooter-with-a-decent-story, I think you'll find that it was Half-Life, not Halo, that triggered the story-based FPS revolution.
While I won't deny Half-life made a big impact, I think FPSes were already splitting into story-based single player versus multiplayer deathmatch types at the time. There were lots of story based FPSes before Half-life. Lucasarts had decent plots in Dark Forces, Jedi Knight and Outlaws. While Blood was pretty story-light, Monolith was heading towards stronger story with Shogo: Mobile Division. And there was the FPS/RPG games like the venerable Ultima Underworld and System Shock, and Deus Ex was in development at the time. Most of the FPS world on PCs was still fixated on ids storyless games which was heading towards Quake III, but there was a strong story based single player push from other developers.

Prior to Half-life, there's a case for the reception for Goldeneye 007 on the consoles to be a spark for stronger story integration. I know Looking Glass used some ideas from that game for Thief, especially for the variable mission objectives on higher difficulty.

[chiasaur11]

Name things specific to Halo and not specific to the console-fps format.

Two weapons, regenerating shields, enemy specific AI designed to give personality to each type...

Also, fairly wide open areas. Even if regenerating health isn't always a good thing, it really works in Halo.

Also, the Silent Cartographer inspired Adam Foster's Minerva, and anyone who says one word against Minerva gets my eternal ire.

(Except part two. It was okay, but liking it isn't mandatory.)

[Jahkaivah]

Two weapons, regenerating shields, enemy specific AI designed to give personality to each type...

Also, fairly wide open areas. Even if regenerating health isn't always a good thing, it really works in Halo.

Also, the Silent Cartographer inspired Adam Foster's Minerva, and anyone who says one word against Minerva gets my eternal ire.

(Except part two. It was okay, but liking it isn't mandatory.)

-Stated my views on regenerating shields/health.

-Two weapons, assuming you meant limiting your inventory to two guns, which was largely done to cover up the fact that scrolling through an inventory is difficult with console controller, aside from that it has been done in PC FPS game before, Counter-strike is one that springs to mind.

-Not sure what you mean by "enemy specific AI designed to give personailty to each time", but if you mean that enemies do what they do based on the kind of enemy they are... alot of FPS games do that.

-Open areas was done in alot of FPS games, Deus Ex... Giants: Citizen Kabuto (which, funnily enough, comes off as an excellent attempt to parody the Halo series, even though it precedes it)... even some parts of Half Life.

-I thought the first part of Minerva reminded me of something, that's not really relavent to the point though :smalltongue:

[Selrahc]

What's all this about Half-Life not having a plot I'm reading? The first 20 minutes of the game was an on-rails "this is what's happening" cinematic. The difference is that you actually played the game instead of watching.

It had a plot, which is why I qualified my initial statement in the next sentence. Just not a plot that much like modern day games(Or hell, games from 8 years ago).



Name things specific to Halo and not specific to the console-fps format.


Someone said Halo was just old FPS stuff from PC's brought to consoles for the first time.

Someone else said that the console specific stuff was good.

The synthesis of that is that Halo is one of the first games to fuse the appeals of console gaming with the appeals of pc gaming. And being the first is important when it comes to building a reputation.



And considered by alot of people to be a bad thing in FPS games. Endangering those glorious moments when you ran around desperatly looking for health knowing the next hit will kill you.

Its a matter of opinion, but I happen to like that mechanic myself. Looking for a health pack is more often frustrating than exhilarating.

[chiasaur11]

Its a matter of opinion, but I happen to like that mechanic myself. Looking for a health pack is more often frustrating than exhilarating.

Agreed.

In Half Life 2 and the episodes, Valve timed it just about perfectly, but most games, either you're never hurting when you find one, or you need to do the same area twenty times due to saving at just the wrong moment.

[ZeroNumerous]

In Half Life 2 and the episodes, Valve timed it just about perfectly, but most games, either you're never hurting when you find one, or you need to do the same area twenty times due to saving at just the wrong moment.

Bah. L4D got medkits right.

[chiasaur11]

Bah. L4D got medkits right.

Also true.

Valve gets games better than almost anyone else, and the fact they can make something work is not proof that anyone else can.

[The_JJ]

Name things specific to Halo and not specific to the console-fps format.

I'll do that when I'm comparing Halo to console games. The Origional Post's thesis was that Halo was subpar compared to FPS's of the day, most of which were on the PC.
OP then went ahead a posited that Halo was only acclaimed because it was on a console, and thus reached a new audience that had never seen such quality.
My reply, what do you mean 'only.'

To respond to you, well, Halo did it well. First doesn't matter as much as first to do it well.

Halo's just got very few glaring flaws.

[Artanis]

-Two weapons, assuming you meant limiting your inventory to two guns, which was largely done to cover up the fact that scrolling through an inventory is difficult with console controller, aside from that it has been done in PC FPS game before, Counter-strike is one that springs to mind.

Do you know for a fact that it was done to cover up said controller difficulties?

And you're completely missing the point about the two weapons. Counter-strike is nothing like Halo. In CS, there's only one decision that makes a difference in your fundamantal capabilities: sniper rifle or normal rifle/smg? Everything else is just flavors of the same basic capability. In Halo, every single weapon has its own capabilities, and you have to choose which of those you are going to do away with and which you will keep.

Say you get an AK in CS. Well, you can't snipe (as in scope-using sniping)...and that's about all you lose. Say you get a DE in CS. You lose the ability to shoot people with a pistol and gain the ability to shoot people with a pistol...meaning no fundamental change. Now look at Halo. Say you choose a Plasma Pistol and a Shotgun. You can take down shields in one shot and handle close-range combat well, but you can't snipe, you can't kill vehicles, you can't handle crowds very well, and you don't have a whole lot of spare ammo.




Its a matter of opinion, but I happen to like that mechanic myself. Looking for a health pack is more often frustrating than exhilarating.

Hear hear!

Halo's health system can easily have all the danger of the "get worn down until you're looking for a medkit before a stiff breeze kills you" system. Halo's system, however, means that you can actually keep fighting, instead of hiding in a corner unable to continue because you can't find a damn medkit.

[NEO|Phyte]

Split screen multiplayer and co-op campaign mode.

Late to the party here, but if Wikipedia is to be believed, Serious Sam came out before Halo, and has both of these. On the PC version, no less.
(Note: It's been a while since I last saw my copy of Serious Sam: The First Encounter, but as The Second Encounter uses the same engine, I'm sorta assuming the first one had the stuff too. If I'm wrong, correct me.)

[Selrahc]

Late to the party here, but if Wikipedia is to be believed, Serious Sam came out before Halo, and has both of these. On the PC version, no less.

That sounds pretty unbelievable. How do you even do split screen gaming on a PC?

[ufo]

Halo does what it does very well, but it does nothing interesting. Unfortunately, many games with interesting concepts forget to polish the basics. This is why Halo is popular.

[The_JJ]

That sounds pretty unbelievable. How do you even do split screen gaming on a PC?

Poorly? Again, it's not about the co-op or the split screen, it's about the couch and the big screen.


Late to the party here, but if Wikipedia is to be believed, Serious Sam came out before Halo, and has both of these. On the PC version, no less.
(Note: It's been a while since I last saw my copy of Serious Sam: The First Encounter, but as The Second Encounter uses the same engine, I'm sorta assuming the first one had the stuff too. If I'm wrong, correct me.)

First =/= first to do it well. It in this case is everything, well in this case is 'not bad with a few sparks of brillience.'

[Erloas]

Rainbow Six had a 4 weapon set, primary, secondary, and 2 utility items. Which is common now in just about every game that doesn't let you pick up and keep every weapon type.
It also had an AI that was pretty smart and a acted as you would expect them to for the most part. It wasn't great, but it was a lot better then most things did for its time. Rogue Spear also had co-op missions and that was released in '99.

Of course the design of RS wasn't what a lot of people were looking for in FPSs, but I prefered it to what a lot of others did.

[NEO|Phyte]

That sounds pretty unbelievable. How do you even do split screen gaming on a PC?
I'd guess either with 3 controllers or 4 sets of Keyboard and mouse. Or, if you just want to test if it works, have everyone use the same control scheme, like so:http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8721/seriousb.jpg
Note: deaths were due to friendly fire


Poorly? Again, it's not about the co-op or the split screen, it's about the couch and the big screen.

First =/= first to do it well. It in this case is everything, well in this case is 'not bad with a few sparks of brillience.'
Without having tested it with 3 buddies, can't really compare how good it works, but for all I know, the only difference between SS PC splitscreen and SS console splitscreen is where you're sitting, and depending on your home setup, possibly not even THAT.

[Poison_Fish]

Had Halo come out for the Mac like was originally planned or a PC exclusive it probably wouldn't have gotten the same acclaim.

You mean had it not become a direct shooter in the first place?

Halo was planned as a much more tactical, almost real time strategy game. I had seen it and a few other projects(Oni, which got ruined as a result, and Myth 3, which was sub-par after the buy) by Bungie pre-Microsoft buying them to make games for xbawks only.

[Faulty]

I think one of the things that makes Half-Life's (and Opposing Force's, IMO) story so amazing is, as Rut said, the unconventional way it was told. There was a really complex and multilayered plot to the whole thing, made even richer by the way it was revealed, through dialogue, atmospheric clues, changes in environment, occurences... and Valve never uses cutscenes to wrest power from the player's hands. The entire thing was deliberate and complex, with varying and interesting game play to boot. Valve in general is absolutely brilliant when it comes to telling a story with little dialogue. All their games except CS show it in spades.

[ZeroNumerous]

Poorly? Again, it's not about the co-op or the split screen, it's about the couch and the big screen.

Easily possible to hook up a computer to a TV instead of a moniter.


All their games except CS show it in spades.

People forget that CS started as a Half-Life mod. It wasn't made by Valve originally.

[AstralFire]

Easily possible to hook up a computer to a TV instead of a moniter.

I wouldn't say 'easily', but I suppose the sort of people who can afford to PC game new stuff consistently without experiencing slowdown, can also afford to get better PC to TV hookups than I've had. I, on the other hand, usually run stuff that was top of the line 2-3 years ago at best.

[Reverent-One]

and Valve never uses cutscenes to wrest power from the player's hands.

I don't know if I would say this in entirely true, G-man sequences and other moments, like the end of Half-life: Episode 2, are effectively cut scenes. Granted, the player's lack of action is actually justified in these moments, but it does lead to the same frustration you get when a cut scene takes over in other games (see the end of Opposing forces and HL: Ep 2 for examples). Other than that that minor tidbit, I do agree with the rest of your post, Valve does awesome games.

[Faulty]

People forget that CS started as a Half-Life mod. It wasn't made by Valve originally.

I'm aware. Given that it is now a Valve game, I still felt it necessary to specify.


I don't know if I would say this in entirely true, G-man sequences and other moments, like the end of Half-life: Episode 2, are effectively cut scenes. Granted, the player's lack of action is actually justified in these moments, but it does lead to the same frustration you get when a cut scene takes over in other games (see the end of Opposing forces and HL: Ep 2 for examples). Other than that that minor tidbit, I do agree with the rest of your post, Valve does awesome games.

I'll give you the end of Episode 2. The G-Man scenes I think are justifiable, seeing as he's an extradimensional being who can freeze you for years on end and stop time.

[AstralFire]

I hate to cite TV Tropes here, I really really do, but as I read once there:

Something being justified does not mean that it's not a trope. It just means that it's justified.

[LurkerInPlayground]

After that, the world could not be anymore awesome. Halo and Half Life had an illicit affair and GoW was its hellspawn.
Gears of War is suck. And it has always sucked. You can't compare it to either because it's worse.

It really says something for the depth of gameplay when co-op is an utterly unmemorable and bland grind and your "professional" multiplayer basically consists of people rushing at each other to point-blank kill.

[chiasaur11]

Gears of War is suck. And it has always sucked. You can't compare it to either because it's worse.

It really says something for the depth of gameplay when co-op is an utterly unmemorable and bland grind and your "professional" multiplayer basically consists of people rushing at each other to point-blank kill.

And exploiting billions of truly amazing glitches.

And then there's the plotting...

[Oslecamo]

Halo's health system can easily have all the danger of the "get worn down until you're looking for a medkit before a stiff breeze kills you" system. Halo's system, however, means that you can actually keep fighting, instead of hiding in a corner unable to continue because you can't find a damn medkit.

Pfft, regenerating health and medkits are both for sissies(regenerating live moreso).

In Goldeneye we didn't have any magic wand that instantly removed our ailments, no sir. If your enemy put a bullet in your body, it stayed there untill you died and respawned.

At best we could pick up body armors. And even then, your oponent could cripple the body armor before you picked it up, meaning it would only offer a fraction of the defense. or booby-trap it.

FPS should reward players for being able to take down the enemy while being at an inch of death, not reward them for hiding like cowards and geting free magic healing.

Wich would explain Halo's popularity. Most people are too lazy to bother to leearn to properly take cover and taking down your enemy with one well placed bullet. Halo rewards you for charging madly while swinging your cool glowing knive, even if your oponent is emptying his machine gun on you.

[MickJay]

-Stated my views on regenerating shields/health.

-Two weapons, assuming you meant limiting your inventory to two guns, which was largely done to cover up the fact that scrolling through an inventory is difficult with console controller, aside from that it has been done in PC FPS game before, Counter-strike is one that springs to mind.

-Not sure what you mean by "enemy specific AI designed to give personailty to each time", but if you mean that enemies do what they do based on the kind of enemy they are... alot of FPS games do that.

-Open areas was done in alot of FPS games, Deus Ex... Giants: Citizen Kabuto (which, funnily enough, comes off as an excellent attempt to parody the Halo series, even though it precedes it)... even some parts of Half Life.

There's the old (2003) Fire Warrior WH40k shooter, basically made as an introduction for the Tau race, which has exactly the same features. It could be that it was transferred from consoles to PC, though.

Serious Sam was one of the few shooters I enjoyed, co-op mode was really fun, the gameplay was quite good. Quite a few of the older PC games allowed co-op or versus modes where two players shared the keyboard (or used keyboard and/or mouse and/or joystick). And that was even before first FPSs were made.

[ZeroNumerous]

I wouldn't say 'easily', but I suppose the sort of people who can afford to PC game new stuff consistently without experiencing slowdown, can also afford to get better PC to TV hookups than I've had.

I hooked up my crappy laptop to my T.V. rather easily with cables and a converter box I bought from Wal-Mart. Really, it's not terribly hard to hook it up. Is it going to be good looking? Probably not without better tech, but it's easily doable.

[Faulty]

people rushing at each other to point-blank kill.

http://rumblo.com/cc/comics/cc-tf22.gif

Wait, what?


Pfft, regenerating health and medkits are both for sissies(regenerating live moreso).

I like how in the No One Lives Forever games, you couldn't heal your health damage in a mission. You could only get new body armor. What made it more interesting was that there were bullets that bypassed your armor and damaged your health straight out, some of which could only be countered by equipping a specific item.

[Oslecamo]

Wait, what?

I wasn't aware that bats were a chooseable weapon for GoW.

[Destro_Yersul]

Wich would explain Halo's popularity. Most people are too lazy to bother to leearn to properly take cover and taking down your enemy with one well placed bullet. Halo rewards you for charging madly while swinging your cool glowing knive, even if your oponent is emptying his machine gun on you.

Interestingly enough, the simplest way to stop someone with the energy sword is to back up and shoot them while they run at you. Won't always work, but it's the most reliable way. On the other hand, the best way to use the energy sword is by hiding and sneaking around so you can jump out at people and kill them before they get a chance to fill you with bullets.

[AstralFire]

Wich would explain Halo's popularity. Most people are too lazy to bother to leearn to properly take cover and taking down your enemy with one well placed bullet. Halo rewards you for charging madly while swinging your cool glowing knive, even if your oponent is emptying his machine gun on you.

Sniping as the only method of attack is rather boring, in my opinion, especially because it's not even 'more realistic' - sniping's disproportionately harder than other gun use, even compared to their simplistic implementation in most FPSes. I enjoy the variety of combat styles Halo supports, especially Halo 3. A sniper still rocks in that game, and you should still use cover when available, but you are not screwed for being out in the open.

Also, trust me, if you go brainless bonzai against anyone who has any skill, you're a dead man.


I hooked up my crappy laptop to my T.V. rather easily with cables and a converter box I bought from Wal-Mart. Really, it's not terribly hard to hook it up. Is it going to be good looking? Probably not without better tech, but it's easily doable.

I require 'decent looking' - it's amazing how much a muddy picture can subtly turn me off of a game. Frex, I played Fire Emblem for the GC with my low quality PC-to-TV converter. I played through the game slowly, and enjoyed it, but just couldn't play it for long binges the way I usually do. When I started plugging it into the S-Video slot on my TV, I noticed my eyes got tired a lot slower.

[Faulty]

I wasn't aware that bats were a chooseable weapon for GoW.

I was making a joke about how people in TF2 do that to.

I also admit that I used to get massive target fixation in UT3 and would chase people around with a fully charged Impact Hammer trying to splatter my screen with blood.

[Trazoi]

I like how in the No One Lives Forever games, you couldn't heal your health damage in a mission. You could only get new body armor. What made it more interesting was that there were bullets that bypassed your armor and damaged your health straight out, some of which could only be countered by equipping a specific item.
That's because you were meant to be playing as a superspy. Playing that game as run-and-gun instead of all sneaky felt wrong. Worse was that if you alerted everyone, you missed out on eavesdropping on all the hilarous conversations the minions were having with each other - which was the best part of the game.

[Faulty]

That's because you were meant to be playing as a superspy. Playing that game as run-and-gun instead of all sneaky felt wrong. Worse was that if you alerted everyone, you missed out on eavesdropping on all the hilarous conversations the minions were having with each other - which was the best part of the game.

Well I guess so. It just made blowing your cover really bad.

I often would try to avoid drawing alerts in the first one because I wouldn't want to trigger the damn alarms which you couldn't turn off. :smallannoyed:

[Artanis]

Pfft, regenerating health and medkits are both for sissies(regenerating live moreso).

In Goldeneye we didn't have any magic wand that instantly removed our ailments, no sir. If your enemy put a bullet in your body, it stayed there untill you died and respawned.

At best we could pick up body armors. And even then, your oponent could cripple the body armor before you picked it up, meaning it would only offer a fraction of the defense. or booby-trap it.

FPS should reward players for being able to take down the enemy while being at an inch of death, not reward them for hiding like cowards and geting free magic healing.

Wich would explain Halo's popularity. Most people are too lazy to bother to leearn to properly take cover and taking down your enemy with one well placed bullet. Halo rewards you for charging madly while swinging your cool glowing knive, even if your oponent is emptying his machine gun on you.

If you charge into a swarm of Covenant, you're going to be wishing you'd taken cover and started headshotting REAL quick. And then you'll be dead. All without the frustration of having spent the last forty-five minutes looking for a health pack.

[Oslecamo]

Sniping as the only method of attack is rather boring, in my opinion, especially because it's not even 'more realistic' - sniping's disproportionately harder than other gun use, even compared to their simplistic implementation in most FPSes. I enjoy the variety of combat styles Halo supports, especially Halo 3. A sniper still rocks in that game, and you should still use cover when available, but you are not screwed for being out in the open.

Who said anything about sniping only? What hapened to jumping out of the corner and unleashing a shotgun shot in the other player's brain? What about a good old explosive trough the window? What about the rocket against the wall? Or simply moving behind the other player's back and unleashing a machine gun burst and watching it fall dead as it tries to run away?

Gun fight is about geting your oponent in your line of fire while remaining outside of theirs. And you don't need a freaking sniper to do that. Any ranged weapon will do.

With Halo's system, shooting skill is hardly rewarded, because it's almost impossible to take down someone with a single shot/burst, and then if you lose sight of them, any damage you inflicted quickly disapears, and you just wonder why the hell your armor has space for magic infinite generators, but you still can only carry two weapons at a time.




Also, trust me, if you go brainless bonzai against anyone who has any skill, you're a dead man.


On the other hand, if you who go brainless shooting against anyone who has any skills and a knive, you're also a dead man.

[Destro_Yersul]

And everyone loses to the skilled guy with the battle rifle. Those things are deadly in the hands of a player who knows what he's doing.

[NeoVid]

Interesting... I remember back in the day, when this same discussion came up about Goldeneye.

And recycling the answer I gave back then still works...

Why is it so popular? Name all the console FPSs that are better.

Though I do want to say that my time playing multiplayer in Halo 1 and 2 is why I will eternally despise snipers and sniping myself. Shotgun + rocket launcher was my favorite set of weapons.

Or sometimes, the Banshee.

[Freako]

On the other hand, if you who go brainless shooting against anyone who has any skills and a knive, you're also a dead man.

What do you mean, "on the other hand"? You basically just restated what AstralFire said.

[The_JJ]

Who said anything about sniping only? What hapened to jumping out of the corner and unleashing a shotgun shot in the other player's brain? What about a good old explosive trough the window? What about the rocket against the wall? Or simply moving behind the other player's back and unleashing a machine gun burst and watching it fall dead as it tries to run away?

Gun fight is about geting your oponent in your line of fire while remaining outside of theirs. And you don't need a freaking sniper to do that. Any ranged weapon will do.

With Halo's system, shooting skill is hardly rewarded, because it's almost impossible to take down someone with a single shot/burst, and then if you lose sight of them, any damage you inflicted quickly disapears, and you just wonder why the hell your armor has space for magic infinite generators, but you still can only carry two weapons at a time.

1. All avalible and valid options in Halo and how it should be played.
2. Doesn't change in Halo. You still need to take cover, especially when you sheilds go down.
3. Your doing it wrong. :smalltongue: Snipers, pistol/BR are your single shot / quick burst killers. Plasma weapons rip sheilds to shreds, shotgun devastates up close, good grenade throws will kill anybody. Also, preventing them from running/knowing how/when to run is part of the game.
And uh, it's a single generator charging a single. I mean... wait, what the hell is the complaint here? It doesn't make sense? Dude, aliens and guns. We left common sense behind long long ago.


On the other hand, if you who go brainless shooting against anyone who has any skills and a knive, you're also a dead man.

Again... what is the point here? Articulation plz.

[Selrahc]

With Halo's system, shooting skill is hardly rewarded, because it's almost impossible to take down someone with a single shot/burst, and then if you lose sight of them, any damage you inflicted quickly disapears, and you just wonder why the hell your armor has space for magic infinite generators, but you still can only carry two weapons at a time.

Shooting skill is rewarded, and people do not let other people casually wander off to refresh their shields. Many guns are capable of killing in quick bursts, particularly in team play.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Halo's health system can easily have all the danger of the "get worn down until you're looking for a medkit before a stiff breeze kills you" system. Halo's system, however, means that you can actually keep fighting, instead of hiding in a corner unable to continue because you can't find a damn medkit.
You savages. Allow me to enlighten you. Halo 1 had health packs. (And it is a far superior to Halo 2.) Halo 3 works in spite of having regenerating health but that doesn't make it any less frustrating than a health-based system. I wouldn't attribute any quality of design to the regenerating health because it actually impedes it.

Health rewards ambushes. It rewards caution when driving vehicles. (In Halo 1, spilling a vehicle was an absolute disaster. In Halo 2 and 3, driving defensively still matters but people are too spoiled by regenerating health to try and monopolize the vehicles.) It rewards creative use of terrain and magnifies its importance. Moreover, health pickups act as a resource to fight over and plan your movements around. Health is a currency you spend to buy kills or ground on the enemy objective. Skill is then measured by how well you spend that currency.

As a corollary, fall damage in health-based systems also magnifies the benefits and risks of using high ground. Again this makes terrain important.

Basically, having health makes it easier on game design without having to resort to tweaking the weapons or making them overly weird. For example, Halo 2/3 has a heat-seeking magic sword. It has to outright kill you, because it can't merely wound players to cripple them. In a health-based system, this sort of spastic contortion simply isn't necessary.

Bad players die before reaching your base, instead of cluelessly wandering in at full health in twos-and-threes. By the time they do, they're not useful for very much. The trick is to get there at high health, steal resources or make the most of what you happen to have.

Halo 1 had all of this. Halo 3 doesn't. That's a large part of what makes Halo 3 a mixed success in my eyes. It has the noble intention of creating a rock-paper-scissors weapon balance and sweeping epic battles then hobbles itself by using such a pointlessly bland system.

A lot of the depth of shooters comes from attrition. Regenerating health basically plays soft ball with the whole concept.

[Reverent-One]

Basically, having health makes it easier on game design without having to resort to tweaking the weapons or making them overly weird. For example, Halo 2/3 has a heat-seeking magic sword. It has to outright kill you, because it can't merely wound players to cripple them. In a health-based system, this sort of spastic contortion simply isn't necessary.

Or it kills you outright because they wanted it be a one-hit kill weapon to begin with, independent of whatever health system they were using.

[The_JJ]

I liked Halo one because it did both. All the benifits of durability (could take a few shots without a problem) and yet attrition still mattered.

[Freako]

Basically, having health makes it easier on game design without having to resort to tweaking the weapons or making them overly weird. For example, Halo 2/3 has a heat-seeking magic sword. It has to outright kill you, because it can't merely wound players to cripple them. In a health-based system, this sort of spastic contortion simply isn't necessary.

Yes, but in a health-based system, you have the similar problem of a magical first-aid kit that instantly heals all wounds the moment you touch it. Sure, it allows for more realistic weapons. But Halo's a sci-fi shooter; weapons that defy the laws of physics are practically a given. :smalltongue:

(Just a note, I agree with the overall point of your post. Although calling someone a savage because they find a certain game mechanic annoying seems a little harsh.)

[The Extinguisher]

Because it's fun.

It was new and unique when it came out. It's not completely frustrating, and you can actually have a good time playing it with your buddies and not hate each other near the end.

The game's were, and are, fun to play.
Is that wrong now?

[warty goblin]

OK, confession time. I actually like Halo. Haven't played enough of 2 or 3 to say really, but Combat Evolved is honestly a well designed game, at least in single player (as usual I don't give the hindquarters of a rat about mulitplayer).

See, the thing is Halo has variety. Yes you shoot pretty much everything you come across- it is after all a shooter- but there is a good variety of what you shoot, and what you shoot it with matters a great deal, even in singleplayer. Enemy placement plays into this to a large degree, since they are often locally homogeneous to a combat area, but even between two or three combat areas can be very heteogeneous. This forces thought about weapon choices, particularly when you factor in the honestly varied terrain. By honestly varied terrain I don't mean just different textures, but real topographical differences.

These factors- weapon variety, enemy variety, and terrain variety- have a large number of interesting permutations. This means that there isn't such a clearcut heirarchy of weapons (although this is far from perfect since the assault rifle always sucks and the pistol is always good).

For a linear FPS it also keeps a fairly relaxed hand on the reins of charging straight ahead. Sure I was schlepping from A to B through gallons of alien gore, but I was never given any demeaning objectives like 'kill this one specific dude' or a mandatory stealth section- surprising in a game with a fairly good stealth mechanic, or anything else idiotic. Instead it was closer to a 'here's some enemies, do with them as you will' model, which is my prefered brand of FPS.

I honestly liked the health system, which both encouraged a bit of risk taking since you had a bit of insurance, and tactical conservatism since real, lasting damage could be done. I know for a fact that I played the game differently at 1 health bar then at full health, but was never frustrated by the former state. Honestly this system is less annoying than a system where all my health regenerates since it means that more than the last bullet matters.

Did it do some things wrong? Yes, as mentioned the assault rifle sucks immensely, and the pistol is perhaps too good. Backtracking in the end levels is a bit annoying, and the Library is a weak level, since it manages to have monotenous terrain and enemies. The levels directly anticedant to the Library however, with large, multi-side battles are awesome.

[Artanis]

You savages. Allow me to enlighten you. Halo 1 had health packs. (And it is a far superior to Halo 2.) Halo 3 works in spite of having regenerating health but that doesn't make it any less frustrating than a health-based system. I wouldn't attribute any quality of design to the regenerating health because it actually impedes it.

Health rewards ambushes. It rewards caution when driving vehicles. (In Halo 1, spilling a vehicle was an absolute disaster. In Halo 2 and 3, driving defensively still matters but people are too spoiled by regenerating health to try and monopolize the vehicles.)

Wait, the later Halo games had regenerating health? :smalleek:

I only played the first game to any great extent, and responded as such due to the thread title only mentioning the first. But if the later ones had stuff like regenerating health, I can see why some people would get pissy about the health system.



I liked Halo one because it did both. All the benifits of durability (could take a few shots without a problem) and yet attrition still mattered.

I agree wholeheartedly :smallsmile:

[AstralFire]

The later Halo games had a regenerating shield system, and a hidden health meter that automatically regenerated over time as well. I, too, liked the split health/shield system (but sans med packs!) and would have been happy to see it remain with the fun additions of the bubble shield, grav hammer, energy sword, and such.

[The_JJ]

Wait, the later Halo games had regenerating health? :smalleek:


Yeah, they 'simplified it' so that all you had was the sheild bar.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, they 'simplified it' so that all you had was the sheild bar.

A rare example of a console game consolizing itself.

[EleventhHour]

Yeah, they 'simplified it' so that all you had was the sheild bar.

And by 'simplified' you mean the mechanic that has people ducking behind walls thinking, "Did I get shot three times after my shields went down, or four? Can I survive another shot or am I dead? What's that glo-" *Boosh*

[Nerlax]

People really need to check giantbomb.com before making any claims about video game firsts.

[SilverSheriff]

Why is Halo so critically acclaimed and popular?
Answering this Question is almost as hard as answering why Peter Molyneux's solution to everything is giving it the players an animal companion.:smallamused:

[The_JJ]

And by 'simplified' you mean the mechanic that has people ducking behind walls thinking, "Did I get shot three times after my shields went down, or four? Can I survive another shot or am I dead? What's that glo-" *Boosh*

Hmm, so they still kept track of your sheildless health? Intresting.

[EleventhHour]

Hmm, so they still kept track of your sheildless health? Intresting.

It instantly regenerated with your shields, but until they came back up you had a limit to the health bar.

[The_JJ]

Ah. See, it's the instantly regenerated with the sheilds that I didn't like.

[Somebloke]

I loved it. I loved the fast action, the graphics, and the unpretencious shoot-shoot- run - shoot style of combat, the tank battles, the space opera...while I could say that technically it falls behind many games, it has an old-school heart wrapped up in new dynamics.

Oh, and I viewpoint is entirely considered and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I played 3 as a co-op with my girlfriend, who thinks french underwear is the best outfit to wear while shooting grunts.

[Erloas]

I wouldn't say 'easily', but I suppose the sort of people who can afford to PC game new stuff consistently without experiencing slowdown, can also afford to get better PC to TV hookups than I've had. I, on the other hand, usually run stuff that was top of the line 2-3 years ago at best.

Actually, so long as you have an HDTV made in the last few years it takes almost nothing to hook up a PC to them. I've seen very few that don't come with either DVI or VGA connections on them. And DVI to HDMI connectors are very common, in fact every video card I've bought comes with 1-2 of them. And I don't think they make HDTVs without HDMI.

Of course if you want to play PC games on an old standard definition TV then I can't really help. I know it can be done but its not worth doing since those TVs are only 640x480 resolutions and almost no PCs games support resolutions that low, since PCs have been at least double that for a decade or more.



As for Halo, and health regeneration and health packs in general, I don't like them in FPSs at all. That was one of my favorite things about the Rainbow Six games, but also what a lot of people didn't like about them. At least until Vegas when they consolized the games to the point of the health system not even being recognizable as anything to do with the other games in the series. It works in action games, but not in FPSs. Of course in a lot of cases the line between action and FPS is fuzzy at best.
Most FPSs any more I would really classify as action games with a first person point of view, but I'm sure I'm in the minority in that viewpoint.

[AstralFire]

Actually, so long as you have an HDTV made in the last few years it takes almost nothing to hook up a PC to them. I've seen very few that don't come with either DVI or VGA connections on them. And DVI to HDMI connectors are very common, in fact every video card I've bought comes with 1-2 of them. And I don't think they make HDTVs without HDMI.

Of course if you want to play PC games on an old standard definition TV then I can't really help. I know it can be done but its not worth doing since those TVs are only 640x480 resolutions and almost no PCs games support resolutions that low, since PCs have been at least double that for a decade or more.

We were discussing an older game and split-screen, so that wouldn't have been an option then.


As for Halo, and health regeneration and health packs in general, I don't like them in FPSs at all. That was one of my favorite things about the Rainbow Six games, but also what a lot of people didn't like about them. At least until Vegas when they consolized the games to the point of the health system not even being recognizable as anything to do with the other games in the series. It works in action games, but not in FPSs. Of course in a lot of cases the line between action and FPS is fuzzy at best.
Most FPSs any more I would really classify as action games with a first person point of view, but I'm sure I'm in the minority in that viewpoint.

No, I agree. This is around the time I started -enjoying- FPSes, too.

[JerryMcJerrison]

I got into Halo because it's not twitchy. Not only do players move more slowly than in other games (at least, did, I'll admit Halo is pretty much the only FPS I've played since an Unreal demo back before Halo 1), you can actually take a lot of punishment before you die, excluding power weapons and point blank shotgun fights. That gives you time to react, see what's going on, and even if you die, you should have probably learned something.

Also, I think trolls like to keep it alive so they can keep posting about how crappy it is years after its release. :smallannoyed:

[Comet]

--Of course in a lot of cases the line between action and FPS is fuzzy at best.--
I feel kinda bad about not contributing to the actual discussion at hand, but I just have to ask:
Is there such a line? I mean, what separates first person shooters from the action genre? Is there a lack of "action" present in classic FPS games?


Most FPSs any more I would really classify as action games with a first person point of view, but I'm sure I'm in the minority in that viewpoint.
Maybe I'm getting my gaming industry terms mixed, but I pretty sure you are not in the minority. I'd classify any FPS, ever, as an action game with a first person view.
Just confused here.

As for Halo, I have only played 1 and 2 and liked both a lot.
Is it overhyped? Very much so.
Is it a perfectly enjoyable mix of melodramatic space opera, very basic yet functional gameplay and a very epic soundtrack? Yeah.

[chiasaur11]

I feel kinda bad about not contributing to the actual discussion at hand, but I just have to ask:
Is there such a line? I mean, what separates first person shooters from the action genre? Is there a lack of "action" present in classic FPS games?


Maybe I'm getting my gaming industry terms mixed, but I pretty sure you are not in the minority. I'd classify any FPS, ever, as an action game with a first person view.
Just confused here.

Same.

I mean, Doom wasn't exactly a puzzler, you know?

[AstralFire]

I think what they mean about the line getting blurry is the fact that melee combat and completely non-damaging abilities and gameplay elements have become increasingly more essential to most FPSes, much as the platformer subgenre is much harder to distinguish from the action main genre now, and RPGs themselves are often picking up either action or strategy elements.

There's a lot of genre blurriness these days, and I think it's a good thing. Puzzle Quest wasn't bad.

[Faulty]

FPS is any game with a gun where you shoot things IMO. I'd even venture to call Portal an FPS.

[Erloas]

Is there such a line? I mean, what separates first person shooters from the action genre? Is there a lack of "action" present in classic FPS games?

Well some of it probably comes more from my definition of FPSs then probably what is common. I see action games more as running into the middle of everything and fighting your way out. Where the gameplay is based on action and always doing something, survival is more about fighting people off then being conservative.

I see FPSs as idealy being more tactical where life is a much more finite resource and you have to work your way into places. Ammo also tended to be a resource that you had to pay attention to. Of course a lot of these concepts are migrating to survival horror rather then mainstream FPSs.

I'm sure I'm not saying it in a way that really says what I'm trying to.

Most FPSs now seem to be focusing on allowing the player to constantly be attacking and fighting with lots of enemies around and being able to take a lot of punishment, and so long as you make it through a given encounter you will be fine right afterwords. Fewer more equal enemies to overcome rather then rooms full of mooks needing to be wiped out.

Of course there are some games that still do and never did those things.


There were a lot of action games before that didn't use first person views, but those are rare now. I think its more of a case of action games migrating to be more and more like FPSs and them and the more traditional FPSs are now being groups together.

[Artanis]

FPS is any game with a gun where you shoot things IMO. I'd even venture to call Portal an FPS.

I concur. I figure that "action" (or puzzle or whatever) refers to what happens in a game, while FPS refers to how you go about doing it. For instance, Halo is an Action FPS, Portal is a Puzzle FPS, and Max Payne is an Action 3rd-Person Shooter.

The fact that FPS games are usually Action games is, to my mind, correlation, but not causation.

[chiasaur11]

Well some of it probably comes more from my definition of FPSs then probably what is common. I see action games more as running into the middle of everything and fighting your way out. Where the gameplay is based on action and always doing something, survival is more about fighting people off then being conservative.

I see FPSs as idealy being more tactical where life is a much more finite resource and you have to work your way into places. Ammo also tended to be a resource that you had to pay attention to. Of course a lot of these concepts are migrating to survival horror rather then mainstream FPSs.

I'm sure I'm not saying it in a way that really says what I'm trying to.

Most FPSs now seem to be focusing on allowing the player to constantly be attacking and fighting with lots of enemies around and being able to take a lot of punishment, and so long as you make it through a given encounter you will be fine right afterwords. Fewer more equal enemies to overcome rather then rooms full of mooks needing to be wiped out.

Of course there are some games that still do and never did those things.


There were a lot of action games before that didn't use first person views, but those are rare now. I think its more of a case of action games migrating to be more and more like FPSs and them and the more traditional FPSs are now being groups together.

The first FPS was Wolfenstein 3D.

It was about killing robo Hitler with far too many bullets. It was big, dumb, and violent, unlike it's stealther prequels.

FPSs have been big, dumb, and violent from day one. The exceptions are just that.

Not that those aren't frequently quite good.

[Faulty]

If it has a shotgun, I am content. :smalltongue:

Seriously. Alt-firing a shotgun in a HL game from point blank range is orgasmically destructive.

[Oslecamo]

The first FPS was Wolfenstein 3D.

It was about killing robo Hitler with far too many bullets. It was big, dumb, and violent, unlike it's stealther prequels.

FPSs have been big, dumb, and violent from day one. The exceptions are just that.

Not that those aren't frequently quite good.

I beg to disagree. If you played in high difficulty in wolfenstein, you had to play smart, or the "big dumb" enemies would drain your ammo and then your life. No magic free recharges. Gotta make every shot from you count, and avoid as many blows from the enemy as humanly possible.

[Thrawn183]

So, my experience playing Halo with friends (I wasn't allowed to own a console growing up) was the first time I ever really enjoyed a FPS on a console. In fact, afterwards I eventually went to college and went back to Goldeneye and had a great time, but only thanks to Halo.

I don't ask for a whole heck of a lot from my games. I loved Half-life, TFC and counterstrike. I also loved quake II. Halo, however, was the first game that I ever got to play (and enjoy) with friends. Basically anybody can sit down and play it. There's no cycling to your knife before re-equipping your awp to decrease recoil ala counterstrike.

There's also the tech gap. Not everyone can afford a top of the line computer, or at least justify to their parents why they should get really sweet audio and video cards for something they really only need to surf the web and type up essays. Anybody with a decent TV can plug in a console and have a rip-roaring good time. I've done LAN's and if you do them a lot it's not too tough to set them up. If it's your first time.... I feel so very, very sorry for you. On the other hand, the second time I ever played Halo was a 16 person multiplayer match with 4 consoles and 4 tv's in the same house. I know that setting that up was far easier than trying to get 16 computers on a LAN in one house. It also solved the problem of people screen watching quite nicely I might add as each team played in a separate room.

Anyway, the point is that the game was well-rounded in all respects. It had good graphics, good story, good gameplay, no bugs that I noticed, good AI and all you needed to do to play with friends was have enough controllers.

Halo 2... my appreciation of the game dropped after I tried to beat it on Legendary. I did Halo 1 on legendary single player... but after spending a month going up against the flood in Halo 2, I realized that I needed to actually study for finals at some point. Halo 3 was back to the rip-roaring fun of the Halo 1 days of old.