Or perhaps some people look for different things from their fps? Wouldn't that be crazy!?
Halo is only repetitive if you play on an easy setting and are not very good at it
That is rubbish.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Or perhaps some people look for different things from their fps? Wouldn't that be crazy!?
Halo is only repetitive if you play on an easy setting and are not very good at it
Sure, it always boils down to what you are looking for but the combat in Halo is all it has going for it. I've completed it in legendary, I've had fun, and I've had fun playing coop with my cousin, but surely the lackluster level design and highly repetitive gameplay knocks it down several notches.
The gameplay is the combat, and after the first few levels or so it gets tiresome and boring. There are no layers whatsoever, and I cannot understand where the praise comes from, because it really isn't that good.
Nailed it.
My god gamers are complete ****ing morons.
Doesn't seem to be that much improvement graphically.
Or perhaps some people look for different things from their fps? Wouldn't that be crazy!?
Halo is only repetitive if you play on an easy setting and are not very good at it
Or perhaps it's just a good game that appeals to many people - it just happens to centre on something most pc fans don't look for in a fps. Either way the arguing is tiresome - 'my opinion is right'!, 'no, mine is'!
I enjoyed NOLF too - still, a poor man's Golden Eye
Warbie said:it just happens to centre on something most pc fans don't look for in a fps.
Not quite.
It depends how much time you want to invest into it. There's a big difference between surviving Legendary and being able to complete the game, and being able to charge through levels and pretty much own everything (I could argue the challenge begins after finishing the game on Legendary).
What makes Halo special for me is there's scope to improve your game a great deal. A little like Golden Eye, there's a big learning curve - something HL2, or FEAR or *name other recent fps* simply doesn't have. Beating GE on 007 is pretty hard, but most fans will tell you it's unlocking all the cheats and beating other timed runs that makes it great.
A month or so back I loaded up Halo for the first time in a year - completely out of practise, I was shite. In contrast, I ran through Far Cry a few weeks back. It took minutes to get back in the swing of things, even on the hardest setting it didn't matter that I was out of practise, it doesn't need any. This is the difference (and don't start me on HL2. It does so many things well, but in combat and challenge it fails)
Anything that makes a game more fun and satisfying is good design. Having to finish a level in a certain time to unlock a cheat in Golden Eye is no different than playing on a harder difficulty setting for some more challenge in any game - it added many hours of gameplay for 1000's of fans.
I agree that HL2 wasn't trying to be 'Halo combat' - it just isn't very good in this area fullstop. It's all gameplay btw - take away the combat in HL2 and you're just running around looking at things. Ok, there's the occasional simple puzzle and you get to chuck stuff around with the grav gun as well.
Halo definitely has far more depth in gameplay than HL2. Halo has better AI than HL2 for chrissakes :|.
I'd beg to differ. Halo 2 is effectively the inverse of Halo - great multiplayer and mediocre singleplayer. Halo had the cool story, the interesting levels (yes, I liked the library, so sue me ), the fun combat... And Halo 2 comes along, pushes a story through cutscenes and events that don't connect, and turning Legendary into a hundred-hour checkpoint-whoring combat grind.Halo 2, despite what anti-fanboys may say, was one of the best games of 2004. In my opinion, it is one of those titles that really seal the deal on a genre, more or less perfecting conventional mechanics.
Halo definitely has far more depth in gameplay than HL2. Halo has better AI than HL2 for chrissakes :|.
I agree with Warbie. The first two levels and Black Mesa East? Probably the best levels in all of HL2. Oh, but then the shooting begins...
Depth in combat, perhaps. Half-life 2's depth isn't limited to unloading automatic weapons into generic aliens over and over again.
I'd beg to differ. Halo 2 is effectively the inverse of Halo - great multiplayer and mediocre singleplayer. Halo had the cool story, the interesting levels (yes, I liked the library, so sue me ), the fun combat... And Halo 2 comes along, pushes a story through cutscenes and events that don't connect, and turning Legendary into a hundred-hour checkpoint-whoring combat grind.
The AI of HL2 is actually pretty damn clever, it just never actually shines in the game.
While I agree with you, I must point out:***Warning, insanely long post to follow***
Looking through this thread I'm trying to figure out why any first person shooter fan would possibly think Halo1 is a horrible game and judging from the replies my only logical conclusion is that Halo1 haters are just graphics whores and PC elitists.
The first halo had everything you could want in a fps: inventive and satisfying weapons, wide open vistas, intelligent (and fun to fight) enemies, vehicles, etc. For its time it had some of the best graphics on the market, and was really the first game to successfully implement drive-able vehicles in an FPS. The game was challenging and fun to play against a single enemy or in the midst of an huge battle between dozens of enemies and allies.
Your constantly moving through different areas, from the cramped corridors of a spaceship to the awesome island level on the halo, from the underground corridors under the island to desert like canyons and snowy mountains. All the while your coming across new vehicles to drive, weapons to blow shit up with, and enemies to be blown up. Also the game only gets better playing through coop with a friend.
Theres really only a few realistic complaints about the game. For one, despite being the best controlling FPS on a console it still doesn't feel half as good as a good ol' mouse does, but myself and many others were willing to accept it for what is it and still enjoy the hell out of it. The other part is the level design in the inside areas and the Library level. Very boring and bland design in these areas which is really only a problem in the Library level since it just goes on for far too long. The other areas are excusable I think because the gameplay is still awesome in these parts and given the technology they had to work with the inside areas aren't that big a deal since they are short sections anyway.
As for the multiplayer, I never cared for it. It just didn't interest me like counterstrike or tfc did. Which is probably the reason that I absolutely hate Halo 2. I think they did something to the game that killed the fun and challenge of the combat and made the singleplayer linear and subdued compared to the epic, openended feeling of Halo1. It also seemed like they didn't try anything new outside of some gimicky dual wielding and car jacking (which is actually an awesome addition), so it felt kinda samey to me without nailing the greatness of the first one. It left such a bad taste in my mouth that I haven't touched Halo 1 since (I used to play through the campaign every couple of months all the way up to the release of Halo2).
I disliked Halo2 so much that it has lowered my expectations for Bungie and Halo3, and yet here I am looking at the screens of it and its worse than I thought it could have been. It looks like ass, and it sounds like they aren't going to try anything new or innovative to take the gameplay to the next level. They've got new hardware to work on and the chance to create something truly epic in the multi and singleplayer department, yet it seems like they are only trying to add a new gloss of paint to their old capture the flag and other vanilla gametypes.
So I'm obviously not a Halo fanboy, I can be objective and see the first game for what it is, a great addition into the lineup of incredible FPS games, while also seeing its flaws and the crap that is Halo2. So I ask myself why would anyone who loves FPS games or games in general hate what I consider to be still one of the top 5 FPS games currently. It seems like you guys either haven't given it a chance because its "console trash" or you went into it with your elitist PC prejudices and couldn't let yourself enjoy it.
You guys say the only thing it has going for it is combat and then spout off HL2 like it has better gameplay because its environments are more pleasantly designed. Even if that was the case I hate to break this one to you guys but gameplay in a first person SHOOTER is all about the combat. Which is why HL2 hasn't be as universally revered as HL1 once was. Some people just don't fall over in amazement because they saw a pretty scripted spectacle in a video game, we play games to have fun and fun in a FPS comes mainly from the combat. HL2's boring weapons and simple AI just makes the combat a boring mess that is only interesting as it gets more chaotic from Valve throwing 20 different things at you at once just so you don't fall asleep.
Same thing can be said about many other FPS games which is why the combat in Halo1 I believe is still the best you can find in the FPS genre with really only FEAR coming close to stealing its crown. Only problem with fear is the battles are over quickly and are not epic in scope as in Halo due to limited level design, rudimentary weapons, and enemies on screen, etc.
So ask yourself whats your real reason for hating Halo and then come back to me with some realistic complaints about the game. Its fine to be a PC elitist as long as you admit that's the reason you don't like something just don't run around saying the game is crap like its a fact due to your nonobjective opinion. Don't say level design because it may be bland in some places but it doesn't detract from the gameplay. Don't say its generic either because you couldn't give me a single example of a game that is similar.
***Warning, insanely long post to follow***
Looking through this thread I'm trying to figure out why any first person shooter fan would possibly think Halo1 is a horrible game and judging from the replies my only logical conclusion is that Halo1 haters are just graphics whores and PC elitists.
Valve didn't design it in such a way for the soldiers to act out their full potential (an intentional game design decision, I'd wager).