By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do any of the Halo titles deserve critical acclaim?

TheNoobHolocaust on 19 May 2010
ZenfoldorVGI said:
CollectiveCynic said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Funtime said:
What you have to realize about the halo series is that the amount of fun you have playing is often related more to having friends over and playing split screen on XBL than it is about the campaign, and that kind of fun is hard to review or measure.

The first game is the best of the bunch and it has a very limited and terrible MP. In fact, the first game is really worthy of praise based only off its great gameplay innovation that are now part of every FPS across all platforms. The shield system and the gun inventory system from CE bacame staples of the genre after that game, and they still are. It was a great game with a great story and great graphics. It was also innovative and spawned a hugely successful hardcore following, while being critically and financially successful, all based off very nearly an exclusively Single Player game.

Yes, CE is a AAA title and a classic for all shooter fans.

Actually, Halo Combat Evolved wasn't innovative. It took many elements and concepts from previous first-person shooter, then refined them into a well designed and polished package.

Examples:

  • Off Hand Grenade Throwing: Terminator Future Shock
  • Vehicles: Battlezone
  • Regenerating Shield/Health: Trespasser
  • Two weapon carry limit: Rainbow Six
  • Ability to melee attack while holding your weapon: Duke Nukem 3D

Halo: Combat Evolved is a fantastic game, there's no denying that. However, it's not innovative. That isn't particurly a bad thing since some of the greatest games of all time aren't innovative, but such a claim would be a stretch for Halo. I also had no problem with Halo: CE's multi-player apart from it's hysterically overpowered pistol. I can create a huge ass laundry list that accounts the many reasons why I despise Halo 2's multi-player. However, I don't want to because I don't want to be flamed and I don't want to hurt other people's feelings. :P

I know someone would come up with that argument, but it's totally bogus.

CE implimented those prior inventions in a way that was so well done, it popularized it. Just like the Wii didn't invent motion controls, and the DS didn't invent touch screens for gaming, ect, yet those platforms are innovative, because they took that idea and knew that they were winners and they risked their necks on it.

Every word in the greatest book was written in the cheapest dictionary before the book was written. It is the arrangement and boldness of those words that causes the book to become a masterpiece.

Just because someone doesn't come up with a basic idea, implimenting a perfected version of it in a worldchanging way can be considered innovative.

Because of Halo:CE, games that came after it, including Resistance 2 and Killzone 2, changed and became better. That game can thus be considered innovative and influential, imo. By your logic, almost nothing, ever, is innovative. The Wii isn't innovative, the DS isn't innovative, ect.

If other games would change because of gimmicks uncharted 2 popularized, then yes, it too would be considered innovative. However, Uncharted 2 didn't popularize any gimmicks, it just took popular gimmicks that were already there(many popularized by Halo:CE).

Nintendo doesn't have to invent motion controls to be considered innovative by implimenting them.

Your right about it taking elements from other epic games, and IMO, making the perfect combination of shooting and platforming, But I don't think they took anything from Halo:CE, they took the cover system and Third Person Shooting from Gears and made it their own, the platforming and climbing from Assassin's Creed, The action, adventure, and treasure hunting from Tomb Raider, combined with the amazing graphics, but I don't think they took anything from Halo:CE. I'm not saying that Halo:CE didn't influence other games, but it didn't influence Uncharted, IMO Tomb Raider and Treasure hunting movies like Indiana Jones did.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
lilc64 on 19 May 2010

Halo:combat evolved was the only one that deserved the praise. Halo 2 sucked imo and halo 3 was over rated.



TheNoobHolocaust on 19 May 2010

The thing about Halo is the sequels didn't maintain the epicness of the original. Halo:CE is the undisputed king of FPS games.




Get your Portable ID!

CollectiveCynic on 19 May 2010
ZenfoldorVGI said:
CollectiveCynic said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Funtime said:
What you have to realize about the halo series is that the amount of fun you have playing is often related more to having friends over and playing split screen on XBL than it is about the campaign, and that kind of fun is hard to review or measure.

The first game is the best of the bunch and it has a very limited and terrible MP. In fact, the first game is really worthy of praise based only off its great gameplay innovation that are now part of every FPS across all platforms. The shield system and the gun inventory system from CE bacame staples of the genre after that game, and they still are. It was a great game with a great story and great graphics. It was also innovative and spawned a hugely successful hardcore following, while being critically and financially successful, all based off very nearly an exclusively Single Player game.

Yes, CE is a AAA title and a classic for all shooter fans.

Actually, Halo Combat Evolved wasn't innovative. It took many elements and concepts from previous first-person shooter, then refined them into a well designed and polished package.

Examples:

  • Off Hand Grenade Throwing: Terminator Future Shock
  • Vehicles: Battlezone
  • Regenerating Shield/Health: Trespasser
  • Two weapon carry limit: Rainbow Six
  • Ability to melee attack while holding your weapon: Duke Nukem 3D

Halo: Combat Evolved is a fantastic game, there's no denying that. However, it's not innovative. That isn't particurly a bad thing since some of the greatest games of all time aren't innovative, but such a claim would be a stretch for Halo. I also had no problem with Halo: CE's multi-player apart from it's hysterically overpowered pistol. I can create a huge ass laundry list that accounts the many reasons why I despise Halo 2's multi-player. However, I don't want to because I don't want to be flamed and I don't want to hurt other people's feelings. :P

I know someone would come up with that argument, but it's totally bogus.

CE implimented those prior inventions in a way that was so well done, it popularized it. Just like the Wii didn't invent motion controls, and the DS didn't invent touch screens for gaming, ect, yet those platforms are innovative, because they took that idea and knew that they were winners and they risked their necks on it.

Every word in the greatest book was written in the cheapest dictionary before the book was written. It is the arrangement and boldness of those words that causes the book to become a masterpiece.

Just because someone doesn't come up with a basic idea, implimenting a perfected version of it in a worldchanging way can be considered innovative.

Because of Halo:CE, games that came after it, including Resistance 2 and Killzone 2, changed and became better. That game can thus be considered innovative and influential, imo. By your logic, almost nothing, ever, is innovative. The Wii isn't innovative, the DS isn't innovative, ect.

If other games would change because of gimmicks uncharted 2 popularized, then yes, it too would be considered innovative. However, Uncharted 2 didn't popularize any gimmicks, it just took popular gimmicks that were already there(many popularized by Halo:CE).

Nintendo doesn't have to invent motion controls to be considered innovative by implimenting them.

Ah, touche. 



Scoobes on 20 May 2010
CollectiveCynic said:
Scoobes said:
CollectiveCynic said:

That doesn't make it innovative in any sense because it hardly brought anything new to the table, but that doesn't prevent it from being a classic game. The Half-Life series isn't particurly innovative either but they're outstanding games.

Now excuse me, I'll running off before the Valve fanboys grab their torches and pitch forks.

Where's my pitch-fork gone?

Anyway, the original Half-Life was innovative. Quite simply for its time, nothing like it had been done. Bringing together a narrative; sequences that weren't all out action and instead, nicely scripted. People actually spoke to you for prolonged periods. No FPS game before had an introduction sequence that didn't feature shoving you straight into the action. Half-Life built tension by having you enter what was supposed to be another day at work.

Then there was the AI, it came out at a time when most FPS game AI either just shot straight at you or would end up running into walls trying to get you. In HL they actually ran for cover, flanked you and flushed you out with grenades.

To a lesser extent the shooting mechanics hadn't been done before either, at least not with as much polish as in HL. It added an extra layer of realism to FPS. Just compare the shooting mechanics to Sin or Quake II.

First-person perspective storytelling through scripted sequences has already been done before in; System Shock, Unreal, and Trespasser. Half-Life was the first to execute it well, but the story itself was bare bones. Unlike System Shock, where the storyline was actually well written and though provoking. Unreal also offered a scripted introduction shown in a interactive first-person view as well. The A.I. was brilliant, but Unreal also provided impressive A.I. for it's time as well, Half-Life just did it better. The realistic gunplay was already presented in GoldenEye 007 and Trespasser, Half-Life just refined it.

Does this make Half-Life any less of a masterpiece, of course not. Half-Life is even a superior game than any of the game's I've just mentioned, but it wasn't particurly innovative. It's just like Halo, it's a classic FPS that didn't do anything new, but it refined everything that was done before and combined it into a well polished package. Both games also contained one atrocious level. :P

I forget about Syetm Shock when talking about FPS games as it had so many RPG elements (well, no. 2 did, never played 1). I also forgot that Goldeneye was released before Half-Life, I only ever played it after. As for Unreal, my memories of the game are virtually non-existant as I hated the shooting mechanics and I remember not being that impressed by the AI, unlike with Half-Life which really stood out. As for the scripted events, it obviously wasn't that memorable. When I first played Half-life I remember thinking "OK, how's this going to screw up then?" constantly... until of course they did screw up :P.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
BrayanA on 20 May 2010

I don't know why, but for me Halo 2 SP > Halo 1 SP.
Why all of you hate Halo 2?



freebs2 on 20 May 2010

It probably deserves some critical acclaim, it's undeniable that some of its intrudutions have gradually changed FPSs. On the other hand I've played some time Halo1 and 2 and I have never had fun with those, also, in my opinion the FPS are getting worse in last years and Halo is probably a part of this problem. Each developer should try to make their own FPS with their own qualities, not just try to make the same game over and over adding each time a bit more graphic detail and a bit better AI.



Hephaestos on 20 May 2010

Praize for making hugely FPS popular on consoles

Praize for making online multiplayer popular on consoles

Praize for being a widely popular franchize


as a game itself... well there's been much better... just not on consoles. It deserves it's success to being the one to induce the changes... and that is what counts.



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

Silver-Tiger on 20 May 2010

Well, I'd say there're good game, maybe even great games, but nowhere near the hype they get.



updated: 14.01.2012

playing right now: Xenoblade Chronicles

Hype-o-meter, from least to most hyped:  the Last Story, Twisted Metal, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Playstation ViTA

bet with Mordred11 that Rage will look better on Xbox 360.

SecondWar on 20 May 2010

Having played all 5 games I can say that I eaily found Halo 3 the most fun, mainly as it is the only one I played online with my friends (I didnt have live during Halo 2's era). In reflection, I think Halo 2 had the most well developed plot of the 3 games, although ODSTs was better that Halo 3's.

ODST was more interesting as the battle style was a bit different to the trilogy as you dont play as a Spartan. Firefight was good and Im really hoping it returns in Halo Reach with the ability to do matchmaking.


Wars was fun though I eventually got frustrated with the multiplayer. It allowed me to play Halo in a way that I had thought would make the battle seem more real and massive, but if they ever make a sequel I think theres a lot that can be improved on. Im hoping some of The new vehicles from this game, such as the Cobra and the Locust make an appearance in Reach, as I think they could help define the atmosphere of the game.