tired of the industry

[BabyHeadCrab]

What exactly makes Halo so great? Sure artistically speaking the game is fantastic and is mindly fun to gun down wave after wave of aliens. What I fail to understand is why is this game is hailed as one of the best shooters ever. Compare it to PC shooters gameplay wise and it's very "B" as far as first person shooters go. I think the Halo obsession boils down to this: The mainstream noobstick players had never witnessed a modern FPS with high design values and casual gameplay. I simply wonder how long Micrsoft can milk this franchise.. if Halo 2 is any indicator innovation is takeing the back seat to "here is more of what you wanted, and bigger explosions" this kind of thinking seems to plague the game industry... welll they liked this so lets simply do more of it. I think one of the beutiful things that really made PC and console gaming alike so entertaining was the amazing diversity of genres, it seems as time goes on all games are attempting to do is recreate those old experiences with new packaging and more shaders and polygons.

Fantastic developers such as Id have entered epedemics of simply reshipping the same game with higher polycounts. I'm just investigating why it is that the only thing i've really been impressed with recently in the gaming industry is Katamari Damacy and World of Warcraft.. other than that I seem to find the only hope in the modding industry who seems to be the only light on the horizon. Thoughts? Arguements?

 

[Kschreck]

I loved Halo because of the story and the three books where awesome. It's just a good all around series in my opinion and multi player is amazing.

 

[destrukt]

because it's fun, which games are meant to be.

why are pogo sticks popular (or were) even though there are more 'advanced' hobbies/sports/past times; because it's fun. why was pong or tetris so popular, not they were ridiculously fun and addicting, or even earlier games, but weren't 'the first ones' like those 2 examples.

there are also other things, but that's the main reason i play games, because they're fun.

 

[Absinthe]

Yes, games are fun. But in no way should a rehash get so much critical acclaim.

 

[destrukt]

people [the other side?] think the same thing about halflife2, they don't see it the same way you do, and you don't see halo2 the same they do.

so, it's pointless ^_^

 

[Absinthe]

people [the other side?] think the same thing about halflife2, they don't see it the same way you do, and you don't see halo2 the same they do.

so, it's pointless ^_^

Because they don't think properly.

Ignoring inherent subjective experiences, you can list the amount of additions/changes made between HL1/HL2 and H1/H2. HL2 is clearly the more innovative of the two, taking more risks and more changes that have large implications in the future of games. Halo 2 adds vehicle-jacking and dual-wielding. How amazing.

It doesn't matter what they think. If they prefer Halo over Half-Life, then that's their opinion but you cannot say with a straight face that Halo 2 contributed anything to the FPS genre or gaming itself. In my eyes, it's a solid B shooter that benefits from style rather than substance.

 

[Teta_Bonita]

Halo 1 was a good game for its time because it wasn't a rehash, infact it was the excact oposite. It was one of the first games to implement vehicles well, one of the few shooters that play well on the xbox, afaik the first game to have recharging shields, the first singleplayer shooter to limit you to two weapons, and one of the best multiplayer games of 2001.

Halo 2, on the other hand, is only successful because it's the sequel to Halo 1.

 

[Warbie]

It doesn't matter what they think. If they prefer Halo over Half-Life, then that's their opinion but you cannot say with a straight face that Halo 2 contributed anything to the FPS genre or gaming itself. In my eyes, it's a solid B shooter that benefits from style rather than substance.

You could argue that HL2 offers no challenge, has dull combat and a lackluster arsenal. You could also argue that it does absolutely nothing new, but does many things better.

I've had a great deal of fun playing Halo 2 in co-op, long after HL2 became dull. It may not be a patch on the original Halo on the Xbox (which I do consider to be one of the best fps ever made - and i've played them all, nearly ) but that's not really the point. People play what they like, innovation only matters if it's fun.

 

[Absinthe]

What, the seamless integration of physics into gameplay wasn't raising the bar? Nor was its impressive implementation of interactive cutscenes?

I'm not speaking in terms of enjoyment here. I'm saying Half-Life 2 tried different things and took risks while Halo 2 delivered more of the same. Most other titles would be lambasted for doing so, but Halo 2 got accolades for treading a familiar path. How that deserves praise is something I will never understand.

Bottom line: I don't think that the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" method of developing games should be getting 10/10 scores, 9/10 scores, or (God forbid) nominations for GOTY for the sheer principle that it's all been played before and adds nothing. Halo 1 was special because it was unique in quite a fews and delivered a solid well-rounded enjoyable package. Halo 2 did nothing except coast on this.

 

[Axyon]

I hate both Halo games. I got bored of both of them after about a week, and have rarely been back to touch them again. Calling them the greatest FPSs of all time is, in my opinion, absurd.

 

[VictimOfScience]

I remeber working at the xbox launch event in NYC way back when and playing Halo bored me to tears! The game was slow and awkward and boring. It certainly wasn't the hit of the show--DOA3 was much more popular. How the heck did a game like that ever become popular??? I have disliked it ever since and have thought less of people because they think its amazing or ground-breaking or in any way an incredible game because, in my opinion, no sane and intelligent person could call that tiresome example of gaming mediocrity "great."

That said, the industry itself is doing pretty darn well. The competition between consoles means that games will be even better for each, which is always a good thing. Smaller developers are getting more creative because they aren't so worried or hassled by the constraints of large publishers. Sure, there is a lot of crap going on, but for the most part, I would say that life is getting much much sweeter for gamers. The next year should be a truly great one for all of us, no matter what gaming medium you prefer.

 

[PickledGecko]

I’ve played and enjoyed both HL1/2 and Halo1/2. The best way I can describe them would be to compare them to the movie industry. HL1/2 is a more sophisticated and interesting story, off the top of my head, like The French Connection. Whereas Halo1/2 is more of a Schwarzenegger/Stallone/Bronson film.

To you, that may validate your point, you may find those sorts of films trite, but to many people they are fun to watch. Don’t get me wrong, I would quite happily pay to own something like The French Connection on DVD but I would never buy a Schwarzenegger/Stallone/Bronson film. They are fun to watch but, like Halo1/2, has absolutely zero replay value to me.

The appeal of such movies and games like Halo1/2 are the spectacle more than anything, some of the set pieces in that game were amazing. It was very effective at pulling you into a sci-fi action film but ultimately, once the ride is over there is nothing to bring you back for another go.

I do agree with you, I believe PC games are far more deserving of awards than any console game is, but that’s the way the industry is, consoles are where the money is. Like any industry, the awards go to the best sellers, not necessarily the best games. It would not benefit the industry as a whole if a PC only title takes an award, because ultimately, the vast majority of gamers wouldn’t know the game, that particular award would mean nothing to them and interest in the organisation that gives it would fall.

Also, bear in mind that the industry is far more interested in appeasing the casual gamer. What use is congratulating a game that people have played 4 times? The industry wants games to be disposable, buy it, try it, throw it away and buy another.

 

[Warbie]

What, the seamless integration of physics into gameplay wasn't raising the bar?

You mean being able to pick stuff up and blast it at people. HL2 started with promise - throw this can into the bin, stack these boxes to get out the window, use the barrels to fool those creatures that stick to the ceiling etc - but in the end the gravity gun was just a weapon, and the physics never felt integral to the experience. It wasn't as tacked on as say, Far Cry, but it wasn't far off.

A step in the right direction.

Nor was its impressive implementation of interactive cutscenes?

It was certainly impressive, but nothing new. It was just done better.

I'm not speaking in terms of enjoyment here. I'm saying Half-Life 2 tried different things and took risks while Halo 2 delivered more of the same. Most other titles would be lambasted for doing so, but Halo 2 got accolades for treading a familiar path. How that deserves praise is something I will never understand.

Bottom line: I don't think that the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" method of developing games should be getting 10/10 scores, 9/10 scores, or (God forbid) nominations for GOTY for the sheer principle that it's all been played before and adds nothing. Halo 1 was special because it was unique in quite a fews and delivered a solid well-rounded enjoyable package. Halo 2 did nothing except coast on this.

Agreed, Halo 2 certainly wasn't worth the hype, and not a patch on the original.

Calling them the greatest FPSs of all time is, in my opinion, absurd.

How so? Halo (Xbox) is a super challenging and very satisfying game. One that actually requires practise and skill (which is very rare for a single player fps). Multiplayer is good fun and co-op is superb (i'm a massive fan of co-op) At a time when pc fps were lasting me a week, at most, on the hardest difficulty settings, Halo came along and took me over a year to master.

We're all rating these games against differing criteria. The challenge that's so important for me in a fps may not be what many others want, and as such they fail to see how I enjoy Halo so much. How can you understand how sublime the game mechanics are on Legendary when you've never practised enough to experience them? Of course it goes the other way, there's probably much that enthralled you guys in HL2 that I didn't even notice.

 

[<RJMC>]

I think the reason is simple

maybe the cuz the game is simple and a big percent of casual gamers which is a lot, like simple games
for example I hav friends that consider metal gear solid as a complicated game,aslo all they want is to go right to the action and stuff and halo is basicaly that is just shooting everything or something like that
also the military theme of the game that you are a super warrior and stuff sure liked a lot of litle kids

the first time I saw halo1 I find it very cool but after the time it hav lost is speciality
and halo2 was cool just in the few first levels

but really calling them the greatest fps of all time is absurd,compare it to all the fps released and is not a superb one,the only very good thing can be the multiplayer but best fps ever? no I dont think so

 

[CptStern]

anyone who's played the Marathon series knows Halo has more in common with that than any other game ..Marathon was the blueprint for Halo ..oh btw we wouldnt be having this discussion if Halo stuck to it's original target audience: mac users

it's good for it's time

 

[Absinthe]

You mean being able to pick stuff up and blast it at people. HL2 started with promise - throw this can into the bin, stack these boxes to get out the window, use the barrels to fool those creatures that stick to the ceiling etc - but in the end the gravity gun was just a weapon, and the physics never felt integral to the experience. It wasn't as tacked on as say, Far Cry, but it wasn't far off.

Sure, it doesn't sound like it's all that if you downplay it as "just a weapon". You were essentially allowed to utilize your environment to your advantage, be it hurling projectiles, creating makeshift shields, blocking passages, and so on. It is essentially what defines a large portion of Half-Life's gameplay.

I never claimed it was perfection. It certainly had a degree of simplicity to it all. But in comparison to the use of physics in previous titles, it was a huge step.

It was certainly impressive, but nothing new. It was just done better.

You need to make a distinction between "just better" and innovation. This is like saying 3-dimensional game worlds are "just better" than 2D ones or that the digital recreation of gravity, friction, and momentum are "just better" than the static physics of, say, Deus Ex or Half-Life.
Having NPCs track you and being allowed to freely roam during a scripted cutscene, being able to toss objects back and forth with Dog, massive improvements in facial animation for the conveying of emotions... Sure, they're "just better" from a technical standpoint. They are, however, more than the sum of their parts and create an unprecedented experience.

If you preferred Halo 2 over Half-Life 2, then that's your preference. But don't diminish the accomplishments Valve made. :|

 

[Warbie]

If you preferred Halo 2 over Half-Life 2, then that's your preference. But don't diminish the accomplishments Valve made. :|

oh no, I definately prefer HL2.

By saying the cutscenes were just better doesn't mean they weren't excellent (the first few chapters are highlights because of them) I'm not trying to take anything away from valve here. Anyone can come up with good ideas, 'doing it better' is the hard part - which is what they did.

I'm still disappointed with the use in physics in HL2, though, especially after the promising start. It's as though Valve ran out of steam or ideas.

 

[Cole]

I'm still disappointed with the use in physics in HL2, though, especially after the promising start. It's as though Valve ran out of steam or ideas.

Im not at all disappointed with the physics in HL2. Physics arn't new, but HL2 did take them to a new level. Infact, it actually made physics a real mechanic for developers to think about.
HL2 isn't the best game in the world, as there are many diffrent types of genres and games. HL2 is a game, that took ideas and really used them in new ways.
Physics before HL2 were not major gameplay changers. Valve took a chance and took physics and rather than using them to make the game seem more realistic they took a drastic change in gameplay. This even affected the AI. The AI navigated in a somewhat dynamic world. They can't always depend on an object being in this place.

HL2 didn't invent something new, but took an idea, reinvented how it was used current day, and took a chance and made something that some would say, "innovative"

In Splinter Cell 3 I see objects, and right away it reminds me of HL2. I know that in HL2 I could move that around. Once I relized this, I suddendly seen what really made HL2 diffrent from UT2004 or something else. Physics do add atmosphere.

Halo was a great game, it is on par with Goldeneye or Perfect Dark you could say. It was fun, used vehicles great, easy to control, etc.. It mastered alot of things that consoles hadn't previously done.
Though Halo 2 was an improvement. I do seriously think that if Bungie had made Halo for the pc(not ported..) and just for the pc, they would have created an expansion that would have included alot of the new gameplay enhancments that Halo 2 had. Not all the extra story, some of it though.

 

[xcellerate]

the story isn't really that bad. But if it was developed on the PC it could have been so much more.

 

[ríomhaire]

Because for console fanboys it's the first good FPS they've played.
Edit: Well, in recent times(ie a year) for mainstreamers because they can't remember anything from previous years which is why Bush got elected.

 

[Sui]

I'm still disappointed with the use in physics in HL2, though, especially after the promising start. It's as though Valve ran out of steam or ideas.

On Saturday I played HL2 through again, in one whole day. This playthrough made me remember just how much the physics were utilised; you can't turn a corner without having an activity or a secret that can only be exploited by using physics. Half-Life 2, in my opinion, made full use of the Source engine; far more than any other game with Havok physics. Saying that HL2 didn't continue the brilliant physics all the way though to the end is being ignorant; quote literally the only level on my playthrough in which I didn't have a great chance to solve puzzles or activate traps with the physics was Nova Prospekt; but that made up for it by simply being an incredibly well structured level. I mean for God's sake, the last level revolved around a super gravity gun. Half-Life 2 was completely submerged in the Source engine; how could they have possibly done it better?

As for Halo/ Halo2 - I think Halo is a great game, truly satisfying to play. However I think Halo2 is only "good", and the singleplayer (which was my favourite part of the first) is simply awful from a narrative point of view.

 

[dream431ca]

Halo 2 was not praised because it's a good game. It was praised because it sold more than anything else that had to deal with entertainment in 24 hours...oh the hype completely overshadowed the reality.

 

[Jintor]

Among other things:

Halo and Halo 2 gave rise to RedvsBlue, which, personally, tips the scales just a little in their favour.

Halo is, however, really annoying. I only play multiplayer with it, and am constantly annoyed at the inability to chuck stuff at people.

But yeah, RedvsBlue rox.

 

[EVIL]

the thing that drew me to halo was the story, and it was the first time I saw/heard of a ring world, and they pulled it off great. its filled with alien stuff that is seeded with myth, and mistery, who are the forerunners?, who build the ringworld, and what is it exactly.

just hearing the developers speaking of an ancient alien artifact with the diamiter of earth trapped in orbit between a gas giant and its moon.. its just a brilliant setting, and the story was great.

the thing was that it was originally meant for pc, but microsoft got their griddy hands on bungy and decided halo to be an xbox exclusive, witch took over 1 year I think to port it to xbox. and then 2 years after it was released it got ported with the cutdown on graphical detail and who knows what they cut down in to the progress to make it work on xbox to the pc, the platform it was meant to be. its like you put an english piece of text, babelfish it to japanese, and re-balfished it back to english, and you get it all mangeled up.

I think halo would have been a great game if it would have come out on the pc 3 years earlier at the time it was meant to be and with the stuff it would have meant have.

but still, halo has a great art direction, the story is awshens, and its just one of those games that caught my attention trough its art and deep story rather then trough its gameplay. And I liked that about halo..

gameplay isnt all that! you can't make a game only on gameplay.

 

[Cole]

gameplay isnt all that! you can't make a game only on gameplay.

But gameplay plays an extremely massive part. You can have photo-realistic graphics, with every little thing draw dropping...then add in horrible gameplay and...well now it's just a tech demo not a game.

You can have horrible graphics, with good gameplay as long as the graphics have there own unique feel.
Take WoW, the graphics are low poly..but have there own unique feel and amazing touch and combine that with great gameplay and there you go.

Now take another game. Give it photo realistic graphics, and combine that with piss poor gameplay.

Gameplay IS ALL THAT. Graphics are nice, and can add atmosphere. When I say graphics I mean shadowing, bump mapping, normal mapping, parallax mapping, polygon counts. The unique feel is what really adds atmosphere though.
Now Great Gameplay + Piss poor graphics + no unique easy on the eyes feel wont get to far.
Now, Great Gameplay + piss poor graphics + unique graphics, easy on the eyes will get extremely far.
Now, Piss gameplay, top of the line graphics wont get you anywhere but a neat little tech demo.

Take Starcraft, it's from 1998, 2d sprites, The most balanced game you will ever play, the 3 mose diverse races you may ever see in a RTS game, easy on the eyes, powerfull editor, amazing gameplay.
Guess how many people play Starcraft on average at any givin time? 30,000 - 100,000+.
Starcraft dosn't have any real online mod support so that never helped it's life. Starcraft proves that gameplay, plus easy on the eyes, can make one hell of a game. Such of a game that even 7-8 years after it's launch it is still one of the most played games of all time, if not the most played RTS of all time(Wc3 is up there though, averages more, lower peak though). I've come onto Battle.net and see 150,000 people on Starcraft, and about 320,000 people on Battle.net total. Battle.net is made up of these games:
Diablo,
Diablo 2 plus Expansion,
Wc2bnet edition
Sc plus Expansion
Wc3 plus expansion.
Diablo and Wc2bnet really don't have players anymore(maybe 1,000 average combined?).
Wc3, Sc, and D2 without there expansions only average about 5k each.(Maybe more on Wc3).
So really, 3 games on Battle.net. None that have amazing graphics. Each with amazing gameplay, all combined players are over 300,000. Gameplay does shine, not graphics. Very few games can ever and I mean ever peak at 150,000. Very few services some consisting of over 100 games can ever get anywhere near 100,000.

I beg to differ, gameplay is the most important part of the game by an extreme margain. As long as those games have there own unique easy on the eyes feel with great direction then yes I will play those games. I could care less about how many polygons are in a scene, or all the cool effects are being used. As long as the feel I get from the game, and the gameplay is ace I will play it.

 

[ailevation]

It's like comparing classical(Half Life 2) music to mainstream rap(Halo 2).

In Half Life 2 there's much more appreciation in the game, it's like you have to be willing to understand it to like it, to get in-depth with it... to understand the meaning in having these types of advanced physics and character animations and whatnot.

While Halo, is just mass appealed... you get some basic concepts, but change the way the basic concepts work/look. Slap on some graphics, but detail the story, slap it on shit that'll get out there for everyone to have to see. BAM!

Or it could just be lack of advertisement and mass advertisement.