A small rant about Halo

[Jimmeh]

Well, my opinion on Halo 3 just changed by quite a bit. I played a little Team Slayer system link with a bunch of mates today and it was actually great fun. Much more fun then I've ever had playing Halo 2 multiplayer. Some of the new weapons and power-ups do actually add quite a lot to the game, the Spartan Laser and the axe thing are great fun, especially when you set up a game so they're the starting weapons. Didn't rate the single player though, seemed as mundane as ever. It's definitely a game which becomes 100 times more enjoyable under the right circumstances (ie. - playing with mates you actually know). I couldn't imagine myself having anywhere near as much fun jumping into a random server online.

 

[Viperidae]

Maybe the smg from a distance, but the battle rifle just feels like you are causing alot of damage. (more in halo 2) Its almost somewhat believable too

Did you enjoy the GOW weapons? To me they were much more tactile than the Halo 1/2 ones.

 

[Asknoone]

We've established that Halo has great combat - it's been said all along, and that's certainly the reason why it's great, but that alone does, in no way, justify the amount of praise it receives. The gameplay itself is mediocre to the last degree; it's not an experience, it's one arena after another, and once you've played the first level or so you've played all Halo has to offer. Bungie have done nothing more than place enemies in the players path; no matter how well done the combat is the game itself can't make up for the fact that this alone is mundane.

I actually like Halo, and I recently played through on Legendary and had a blast - despite how repetitive it was - but it doesn't deserve the praise. As a game it's good, but it's not that good.

EDIT: I have in fact noticed a flaw in one what I'm saying, or at least in how I'm explaining it, but nevermind, it all still stands.

 

[KagePrototype]

Bungie have done nothing more than place enemies in the players path;

That's a very unfair generalisation. Makes it sound like you're describing Doom.

EDIT: I have in fact noticed a flaw in one what I'm saying, or at least in how I'm explaining it, but nevermind, it all still stands.

Will you start making sense please?

 

[Nemesis6]

Meh, if you can rehash Aliens vs Predators and give it a new name, sure. Is it a legendary landmark in the gaming universe? Abso****inglutely not.

How dare you use the name of a holy monument of gaming in vain?! I still have that game installed!... Found it on the internet, but that game still rocks. Still play it.

By the way, the third one is coming out and it's being developed by Gearbox Software.

Now, on to Halo: To be honest, I agree with you. Lots of games that beat the Halo series gameplay and graphics-wise.

 

[Naph]

It's the only good game that tops the lot on the Xbox selection...

ZING

 

[Noobulon]

Put me in the "I don't get it crowd." After having Halo 1 talked up by all the video game newbs I knew at the time I figured I'd try it and give it the benefit of the doubt. I played Halo 1 on the PC and I thought it was hands down the worst FPS experience I've ever had. Never played it, or it's successors, on a console. I would never play an FPS on a console to begin with aside from the N64 days, but I digress.

This is a pet peeve of mine: when people dimiss Halo after only playing the PC version. If you played Halo with a KB/M, then you played a gimped version, imo.

Halo may not deserve the praise it gets; but if you're not prepared to learn how to play it as intended, with a controller, I don't think you're in a good position to judge.


Everything about the game - how fast the characters move, how the weapons work, how the enemies behave - was designed around the Xbox controller and its thumbsticks.
Halo's entire combat system branches out from that controller; it's the starting point for a whole style of gameplay.
If the controller is taken away and replaced with something else, imo you are not seeing the game as it was designed to be seen.

I think an input device does a lot to communicate the point of a game and how to play it. Give me a copy of CS:S with a stylus, I'm going to be like: wtf? Similarly, if you give someone Halo with a mouse, the wrong things are being communicated about the point of the game.

Of course, it seems that dedicated PC gamers often overlook the importance of the input device as part of the game experience. (other than the usual KB/M > Everythinglol). Gabe Newell himself was complaining about how stagnent PC thinking has become in this area.
But yeah, I guess this is another topic altogether...

 

[Warbie]

It's doubly grating when the two sequels following it fail to improve on the original formula in any significant way and still - years after the first release - rack up insanely high scores for the same exact shit. Oh, but this time with enhanced multiplayer.

Let's be fair - there is no alternative if you want a deep and challenging combat experience. While I enjoyed Bioshock, HL2, Deus Ex etc a great deal, I have always been disappointed with the gunplay. These are my what if games. What if they had good combat - they would have been amazing.

Criticise Halo for not being the complete experience if you like, but try not to be blinkered in regarding the games often lifted up as examples of how it should be done. If their combat wasn't lacking we wouldn't have people people begrudgingly admitting that 'ok, Halo does combat very well' and having this debate in the first place.

 

[Jintor]

...yet IMHO the gunplay is on par with HL2's (Deus Ex is tactically superior, action-style worse; I haven't played Bioshock yet). It's definately not worse but regarding single-player I really don't see how it's insanely superior.

Except AI, I guess.

> >

(Damnable stupid Combine AI!)

 

[Absinthe]

(Damnable stupid Combine AI!)

They just didn't have enough room!

 

[xcellerate]

This is a pet peeve of mine: when people dimiss Halo after only playing the PC version. If you played Halo with a KB/M, then you played a gimped version, imo.

Oh please.

I've played both xbox and PC versions of halo and halo 2 and they're both equally boring. The only difference is when I played the PC version I didn't get frustrated by the shortcomings of joystick movement.

 

[Warbie]

...yet IMHO the gunplay is on par with HL2's (Deus Ex is tactically superior, action-style worse; I haven't played Bioshock yet). It's definately not worse but regarding single-player I really don't see how it's insanely superior.

There's virtually no depth at all to Hl2's combat. It took about 3 evenings to run through on the hardest setting and there was never any doubt what to do - it's as point and click as fps get. I played Halo for over a yearand still had plenty of room to improve. Most of all, i'm well into fps combat and Hl2 bored me. Don't start me on Deus Ex - good game, but awful combat.

 

[Asknoone]

That's a very unfair generalisation. Makes it sound like you're describing Doom.

That's all the gameplay consists of - knocking down one enemy after another. It's not unfair at all. What I mean, was, that I was clearly being confusing in saying that gameplay wasn't what the game was asking you to do - it is, and I didn't mean to say otherwise. Halo's gameplay is simply combat, and whilst that combat is good, it's really not enough to justify the praise Halo recieves, when there's a collection of games out there with far better gameplay - with more depth, variety and innovation - than Halo has.

 

[Warbie]

//edit

I can't be arsed any more. Going to enjoy Halo 3

 

[KagePrototype]

That's all the gameplay consists of - knocking down one enemy after another. It's not unfair at all.

I probably should have said you made it sound too simple rather than generalising it.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Me and two friends just had an awesome time playing multiplayer on HALO 1. We did race, of course, annd no one really finished. I kept racing and they kept killing eachother. I won on all the shooting maps. (They are teh noobsauce.)

 

[Kyorisu]

Similarly, if you give someone Halo with a mouse, the wrong things are being communicated about the point of the game.

Of course, it seems that dedicated PC gamers often overlook the importance of the input device as part of the game experience. (other than the usual KB/M > Everythinglol). Gabe Newell himself was complaining about how stagnent PC thinking has become in this area.
But yeah, I guess this is another topic altogether...

I fail to see the difference, the game wasn't in anyway really different no matter what control scheme I used. The environment in which I used the controller on the other hand vastly effected my play style. The couch versus my comfy leather back ricer office chair. The couch won out because it was a more relaxed open environment to play the game. If we where talking about a racing on the other hand the console controls would win out and make the game a lot easier to play and a much more fun experience. Just the same I can have my PS2/Xbox controllers plugged into my PC just for that use.

The only thing stopping PC games from using a controller is the fact that PC's don't usually come with controllers or need them (read: joypads). My HTPC machine in the loungeroom has a wireless controller linked up to it for playing Test Drive Unlimited for FFS and the latest Colin Mcrae game (yeah it's a tragedy I know).

I played Halo for over a yearand still had plenty of room to improve. Most of all, i'm well into fps combat and Hl2 bored me. Don't start me on Deus Ex - good game, but awful combat.

The enemies in Halo have more HP and a greater tendancy to run around like morons. Halo IS point and smash buttons and Halo's hardest difficulty just happens to boost the enemies or nerf the player to a greater extent than HL2 does. Your argument sucks and would be better focused if you described the environments in which you encountered the enemy which allowed for a greater variation in their actions. So please GTFO with the "but Halo is harder and the enemies hop around like bunny rabbits" argument. You think HL2 combat is boring? Great because I though Halo's run through one enemy after the other and hiding like a bitch to wait for my shield to recharge game play boring too.

 

[Warbie]

Halo IS point and smash buttons and Halo's hardest difficulty just happens to boost the enemies or nerf the player to a greater extent than HL2 does.

Which forces you to pay far more attention to your surroundings and choice of weapons, make better use of cover, be more accurate with weapons and nades, use every mm of your shield and make split second decisions on a regular basis. None of this applies to HL2, which very rarely get more involved than, at the risk of repeating myself, point and click. Halo's combat is more involved in every possible way.

We'll have to disagree, and you can GTFO

 

[Fishlore]

This is a pet peeve of mine: when people dimiss Halo after only playing the PC version. If you played Halo with a KB/M, then you played a gimped version, imo.

Halo may not deserve the praise it gets; but if you're not prepared to learn how to play it as intended, with a controller, I don't think you're in a good position to judge.


Everything about the game - how fast the characters move, how the weapons work, how the enemies behave - was designed around the Xbox controller and its thumbsticks.
Halo's entire combat system branches out from that controller; it's the starting point for a whole style of gameplay.
If the controller is taken away and replaced with something else, imo you are not seeing the game as it was designed to be seen.

I think an input device does a lot to communicate the point of a game and how to play it. Give me a copy of CS:S with a stylus, I'm going to be like: wtf? Similarly, if you give someone Halo with a mouse, the wrong things are being communicated about the point of the game.

Of course, it seems that dedicated PC gamers often overlook the importance of the input device as part of the game experience. (other than the usual KB/M > Everythinglol). Gabe Newell himself was complaining about how stagnent PC thinking has become in this area.
But yeah, I guess this is another topic altogether...

Okay, fine I played a gimped version. A gimped version is the version with the better input method?!? LOL, okay. That's why I fully qualified my post with the fact that I only played the PC version. I missed the part in the instructions where it said it only counts if you use a controller.

I agree the input device is incredibly important, and probably the most important aspect of FPS games in my opinion. This is why I'll never buy an Xbox or PS3 and why in my post I said I don't play console FPS games anymore. The input sucks balls. This is why I only play FPS on a PC.

If Halo truly transcended gaming like you apparently believe, should it matter how I played it? I guess in your opinion the answer is yes. In my eyes a good game is a good game and it wouldn't matter the platform. Seeing as how I found Halo to be a terrible FPS on a PC, I had/have zero desire to play it on a console.

I'm sorry I didn't play the game the way you think it should be played. Honestly though I couldn't care less.

 

[xcellerate]

Which forces you to pay far more attention to your surroundings and choice of weapons, make better use of cover, be more accurate with weapons and nades, use every mm of your shield and make split second decisions on a regular basis. None of this applies to HL2, which very rarely get more involved than, at the risk of repeating myself, point and click. Halo's combat is more involved in every possible way.

Yea, but in a BAD way!

What you're saying is that if halo kept the EXACT same AI and just made the guys have like 500% more life, it would be on par with a video game with SUBSTANTIALLY smarter AI but enemies with less health.

Just because the guys take longer to kill and therefore you have to make better use of your cover doesn't make the game good. What would make the game good is if the AI was so much more intelligent they didn't NEED extra life because THEY could use their cover better and therefore FORCE you to play smarter.

You could make a game force you to make better use of your cover a number of ways. Halo designers chose to make enemies stronger and you weaker....but that's not one of the better options. They could also make the enemies run twice as fast...now you have to be more accurate with your weapons too! Or they could make you twice as tall, now suddenly you have to rediscover what stuff you can use for cover, or they could make you move half the speed...now you have to play more defensively, etc. But while all of those changes force you to think differently, and be more accurate and yadda yadda yadda...they don't make the gameplay any more significant/better/intelligent/whatever.

 

[Stigmata]

No.

The higher difficulties, and in particular Legendary, put you approximately on the same health/damage level as one or two Elites/Brutes. Besides making the abilities of the Master Chief and his enemies closer to how they are portrayed in the books, Legendary forces you to make these tactical decisions simply because the enemies survive longer, allowing them to actually make their own tactical decisions before being killed. On Easy and Normal, the enemies simply don't have enough time to show you how smart they can be because you kill them so quickly (at least in Halo 1 when the AI didn't change noticeably between difficulty levels).

The enemies don't get 500% more health than you because they don't need it. Your argument fails because on Legendary, your enemies are near-equals to you physically and have very good AI, and thus the only way for you to beat them is to outsmart them.

 

[Warbie]

I agree the input device is incredibly important, and probably the most important aspect of FPS games in my opinion. This is why I'll never buy an Xbox or PS3 and why in my post I said I don't play console FPS games anymore. The input sucks balls. This is why I only play FPS on a PC.

I found Halo more satisfying on the Xbox simply because it was harder. It's all about balance in a game like this and I found using a mouse made the experience too easy. This isn't to say you're fighting a poorer control method - i'm comfortable with a pad and mouse - just that aiming with a pad is a slower and more measured process. Time is of the essence and each action you take is that much more critical and tense. With the relatively easy twitch aiming a mouse allows there was often time to spare. I also much prefer analogue movement in single player games and find triggers and rumble can make for a more visceral and realisitic (in as much as you can get when fighting primary coloured aliens) experience.

At the end of the day it all comes down to preference and ppls relative skills with each control method, and what i've written above in no way applies to everyone, but there is a reason why many people prefer using a pad over a mouse in Halo.

What you're saying is that if halo kept the EXACT same AI and just made the guys have like 500% more life, it would be on par with a video game with SUBSTANTIALLY smarter AI but enemies with less health.

No, i'm not at all.

To work well, a game has to be fun and balanced. I've played many mods that did just what you're suggesting - increase enemy hp, damage output yada yada and they completely failed. Halo works because it got the balance just right on Legendary - super challenging but never unfair. When you die it's because you weren't good enough, which something very rare in a video game. I'm not going to pretend I understand why it works - they are soooo many variables at work here - and I have on occasion suspected that Bungie simply got lucky, but it isn't as simple as just making the game harder.

 

[Raxxman]

No.

The higher difficulties, and in particular Legendary, put you approximately on the same health/damage level as one or two Elites/Brutes. Besides making the abilities of the Master Chief and his enemies closer to how they are portrayed in the books, Legendary forces you to make these tactical decisions simply because the enemies survive longer, allowing them to actually make their own tactical decisions before being killed. On Easy and Normal, the enemies simply don't have enough time to show you how smart they can be because you kill them so quickly (at least in Halo 1 when the AI didn't change noticeably between difficulty levels).

The enemies don't get 500% more health than you because they don't need it. Your argument fails because on Legendary, your enemies are near-equals to you physically and have very good AI, and thus the only way for you to beat them is to outsmart them.

Uh.... what?

Are you seriously saying that the MC has similar hp to a brute/elite on legendary?

His logic may be flawed but yours doesn't seem to be founded in reality...

 

[Asknoone]

Which forces you to pay far more attention to your surroundings and choice of weapons, make better use of cover, be more accurate with weapons and nades, use every mm of your shield and make split second decisions on a regular basis. None of this applies to HL2, which very rarely get more involved than, at the risk of repeating myself, point and click. Halo's combat is more involved in every possible way.

Right, but unlike Halo, there's so much more depth and innovation to the gameplay as a whole. There's so many more layers than just shooting the bad guys like Halo. Whilst it certainly doesn't have the engaging combat of Halo (and, by that, I mean Legendary mode - mormal/heroic take a dump on the fun), that's not really how the game is supposed to be crafted. To keep this ontopic, I don't believe Halo needs that kind of gameplay, but without it, it doesn't deserve the praise is what the thread is all about.

But surprise, I like Halo!

EDIT: Hey wait this is a con! I've seen this scenery before!!

 

[IchI]

Simply put, people have different opinions on games and not everyone sees them the same was you. For instance I look at Half-Life 2 and see all the things you mentioned to begin with. Thats just simply my choice and opinion. The majority of other people think Halo is an amazing game. Who cares what it does or doesn't do on paper. Its fun, the end. You pay for entertainment, you get it.

 

[xcellerate]

No, i'm not at all.

okay then...let's play the game:

Halo IS point and smash buttons and Halo's hardest difficulty just happens to boost the enemies or nerf the player to a greater extent than HL2 does.

then you said...

Which forces you to pay far more attention to your surroundings and choice of weapons, make better use of cover, be more accurate with weapons and nades, use every mm of your shield and make split second decisions on a regular basis. None of this applies to HL2, which very rarely get more involved than, at the risk of repeating myself, point and click. Halo's combat is more involved in every possible way.

So let's combine them into one thought:

Halo's hardest difficulty just happens to boost the enemies or nerf the player which forces you to pay far more attention to your surroundings and choice of weapons, make better use of cover, be more accurate with weapons and nades, use every mm of your shield and make split second decisions on a regular basis.


So you're saying if they boost the enemies or nerf the player then that forces you to pay more attention to your surroundings, and blah blah blah...

Now if bungie took halo and did NOTHING EXCEPT make the AI smarter it would also force you to pay more attention to your surroundings, and blah blah blah...

Therefore, whether you nerf the player or boost the enemies or create smarter AI it will force you to pay more attention to your surroundings, and blah blah blah...

So in conclusion

What you're saying is that if halo kept the EXACT same AI and just made the guys have like 500% more life, it would be on par with a video game with SUBSTANTIALLY smarter AI but enemies with less health.

Since if you nerf the player, boost the enemies, or create smarter AI, it all has the same outcome in terms of "paying more attention to your surroundings, etc" it wouldn't matter which of three bungie did to halo. Except smarter AI leads to more entertaining gameplay as opposed to nerfing the player of boosting the enemies.

And that is what I was trying to say initially.

 

[Warbie]

So you're saying if they boost the enemies or nerf the player then that forces you to pay more attention to your surroundings, and blah blah blah...

Yes, that can be a result. It can also fail. The key part, which I tried to explain, is whether the result is fun, challenging and satisfying rather than annoying and unfair. My 'which forces you to pay far more attention to your surroundings ...' post was simply explaining what Bungie had achieved in the way they chose to make Halo more difficult. Other games have tried very similar techniques and the results have been awful. I think all of this is covered in my previous post - did you read passed 'No, i'm not at all'?

 

[Kouler]

Reason everyone loves Halo? Its easy to play and get into, its a ton of fun with things like meelee, the combat flows very well. The story is somewhat cliche'd but presented well. The style of the game is unique and the visuals are gorgeous.

Is the game groundbreaking? No, but its the flow of all those minor things that makes it an overall appealing experience, that everyone can easily get into.

 

[Uriel]

I've noticed the physics in the game suck. I saw in arm rolling around even though it was in an L shape.

wtf?

Smack some fancy motion blur and field of depth effects to HL2 and you got a better looking game.

Of course it's already a better game in the first place.

 

[Robert-]

I also don't see the reason for uber-hyping it.

 

[giant384]

the ai isnt groundbreaking at all to me. the ai seems the same to me since the first game. the same scripted sequences over and over again.also i usually hate the console controllers because im so use to mouse,but after playing campaign for awhile i improved on controlling it. still though you just cant get that top notch accurate aim as you can with a mouse. has anyone noticed the really really obvious auto-aim??? im not just talking about sp it is in mp also.

 

[Stigmata]

Everyone who's ever played Halo is aware that there's auto-aim.

And no, the fights are not scripted.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Meh, I dont see what the fuss about is about sites making "biased" reviews about the game. They state the things they liked about it and the things they didnt like about it. If you disagree with them, then woop-de-doo. Its not like they are forcing you to agree with them.

(Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Half Life 2 scored better than all of the Halo games, right? Just for those of you that think the media is supposed to give an absolutely correct opinion catered to you.)

 

[giant384]

Everyone who's ever played Halo is aware that there's auto-aim.

And no, the fights are not scripted.

do you even know what scripted means??? it means the character will be in the same location every time you go into that area and have the same attack sequence depending how close you are.

 

[Acepilotf14]

They aren't always in the same spot. They might move to a different location in said area.. some sequences are, like when a commander is talking to them, and you break up their little party. And I've seen different things happen. Like in the first level, where you first see the gravity hammer, the first time I played through, he stuck back till I had killed all his bodyguards, and then charged me. The second time, he just charged in. (And I got pwnt)

 

[Warbie]

How the fight unfolds also depends on your actions. There tends to be a great deal more variety to encounters in Halo than other fps.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Hmmm...

The AI seemed rather predictable to me. After around 3 firefights you knew what they would do given your actions, making the rest of the game rather dull.

 

[Warbie]

It does depend on the level - the larger the environment the more varied it'll be. You'll also find that there's various ways to tackle each situation, even in the more close spaced areas, and each of these can turn out quite different. If you only try the same tactic each time the chances are things won't vary a great deal, but that misses the whole point of Halo.

At times single player Halo can be more similar to online fps than a single player game.

 

[Homless Snark]

It's like music....you have really technically skilled music that is wonderful, and you have simple catchy shit.

Half Life 2 = Dream Theater
Halo 3 = Fergie

HL2 has more technicality, more innovation...but Halo 3 has the fact that every fratard can play it. This is why it is popular. If Joe Popped Collar can sit around with his bro's and shoot the shit while shooting shit it's good. He can't do that with HL2.

That being said, I have it. I play it with my buddies when they come around. It's fun, but when playing the single player I get bored at times becuase of how predictable it is, and how shitty the level design is. How scripted the vehicle sequences feel. But it's fun for 'moments' like when you're riding with a buddy in a mongoose and you get shot by an enemy and you guys flip 80 times in the air. It has those "let's talk about what just ****ing happened to us" moments. That make you laugh.

 

[Stigmata]

do you even know what scripted means??? it means the character will be in the same location every time you go into that area and have the same attack sequence depending how close you are.

Well I guess if you attack them in the exact same way every single time...