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

Forums - Gaming - Is Halo reponsable for many good games today ? Yes or No ?

S.T.A.G.E. on 23 April 2009
ssj12 said:
Rpruett said:
Like I said, Goldeneye / Perfect Dark 'Revolutionized' FPS for Console. Halo just expanded on technology that was already there and added things that the n64 couldn't. Vehicles,Multi-player Split-Screen, Double Weapons, Addicting Game play , Bots all were prevalent prior to Halo on consoles.

Halo was a great game though. Though I don't think it has had an effect on many games.

 

1. tank drivable

2. you could hold two weapons, hell you could have every weapon but like 3 dual weilded due to the fact the watch laser, tank cannon, and i forgot the other wouldnt have worked well with two of them.

3. this is a joke right?

 

 

You may believe Halo is overrated, but this is console gaming we're talking about, not PC. If not for Halo games like Killzone or Resistance wouldn't have existed.



Around the Network
pearljammer on 23 April 2009
Jereel Hunter said:
leatherhat said:
Jereel Hunter said:
leatherhat said:
Halo is responsible only for the massive amounts of generic shooting games on consoles. It is probably the worst game to ever happen to the the genre because due to its popularity it got copied for thousands of worthless console fps games. To anyone who thinks different I recommend getting a PC and finding out what true fps games are like. Done with that rant

How can you blame something revolutionary for the generic things it inspires? When Halo came out, it was amazing. Do you blame your favorite cereals for generic store brands? Do you shake your fist at the Model T because it ultimately brought us Kias?

Maybe my post wasn't clear, but there is not a damn thing revoloutinary about halo. If it had been released on PC it would have been very, very ignored. The only reason it saw any success in the first place is because it was the only decent game on xbox. In hact halo's biggest "gift" to the genre was recharging health, which of course it didn't come up with. Recharching health being the single most casual feature in any ever.

Maybe my post wasn't clear - you're wrong. You name any console FPS.. 1... that was half the experience Halo was in 2001.

And see if anyone agrees with you.

Timesplitters came out in 2000. It had splitscreen, bots, co-op and even a map-maker. It was a great game to boot!

 



S.T.A.G.E. on 23 April 2009
pearljammer said:
Jereel Hunter said:
leatherhat said:
Jereel Hunter said:
leatherhat said:
Halo is responsible only for the massive amounts of generic shooting games on consoles. It is probably the worst game to ever happen to the the genre because due to its popularity it got copied for thousands of worthless console fps games. To anyone who thinks different I recommend getting a PC and finding out what true fps games are like. Done with that rant

How can you blame something revolutionary for the generic things it inspires? When Halo came out, it was amazing. Do you blame your favorite cereals for generic store brands? Do you shake your fist at the Model T because it ultimately brought us Kias?

Maybe my post wasn't clear, but there is not a damn thing revoloutinary about halo. If it had been released on PC it would have been very, very ignored. The only reason it saw any success in the first place is because it was the only decent game on xbox. In hact halo's biggest "gift" to the genre was recharging health, which of course it didn't come up with. Recharching health being the single most casual feature in any ever.

Maybe my post wasn't clear - you're wrong. You name any console FPS.. 1... that was half the experience Halo was in 2001.

And see if anyone agrees with you.

Timesplitters came out in 2000. It had splitscreen, bots, co-op and even a map-maker. It was a great game to boot!

 

 

Timesplitters was considered a let down from the Free Radicals employees after the masterpiece in making Goldeneye. Timesplitters 2 was the only good game, everything else (including haze) was crap.



pearljammer on 23 April 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
pearljammer said:
Jereel Hunter said:
leatherhat said:
Jereel Hunter said:
leatherhat said:
Halo is responsible only for the massive amounts of generic shooting games on consoles. It is probably the worst game to ever happen to the the genre because due to its popularity it got copied for thousands of worthless console fps games. To anyone who thinks different I recommend getting a PC and finding out what true fps games are like. Done with that rant

How can you blame something revolutionary for the generic things it inspires? When Halo came out, it was amazing. Do you blame your favorite cereals for generic store brands? Do you shake your fist at the Model T because it ultimately brought us Kias?

Maybe my post wasn't clear, but there is not a damn thing revoloutinary about halo. If it had been released on PC it would have been very, very ignored. The only reason it saw any success in the first place is because it was the only decent game on xbox. In hact halo's biggest "gift" to the genre was recharging health, which of course it didn't come up with. Recharching health being the single most casual feature in any ever.

Maybe my post wasn't clear - you're wrong. You name any console FPS.. 1... that was half the experience Halo was in 2001.

And see if anyone agrees with you.

Timesplitters came out in 2000. It had splitscreen, bots, co-op and even a map-maker. It was a great game to boot!

Timesplitters was considered a let down from the Free Radicals employees after the masterpiece in making Goldeneye. Timesplitters 2 was the only good game, everything else (including haze) was crap.

"You name any console FPS.. 1... that was half the experience Halo was in 2001"

Would you not say Timesplitters was at the very least half as good as Halo?

Besides, whether or not it lived up to the expectations of what Goldeneye was, it was still a great game. I do agree with you though, Timesplitters 2 was the best since the 64 days.



Jereel Hunter on 23 April 2009
ssj12 said:
Orca_Azure said:
There are a lot of obvious rips and companies trying to ride on the coattails, but very few reach the level of fame and notoriety that Halo has received. Few are as good as the original though

 

thats laughable in itself. The only reason it gained fame was because Microsoft was throwing money at the advertising team. Back last generation they didnt give a damn about profitability so they just spent into the red with zero care.

There are many games that have way more fame then Halo in the FPS genre. WolfenStein, Doom, Half-Life, Quake, Counter-Strike, Left4Dead, Portal, Warsaw, America's Army, Battlefield all have a way bigger following then Halo has.

No, your statement is laughable.  I only know a few people who ran out and bought Halo early. It was when people played it with friends, and loved it, that they went out and got an Xbox and Halo. Once Halo got rolling, it sold itself.

 

Also, virtually none of those you listed(if any) are bigger franchises than Halo.



Around the Network
Jereel Hunter on 23 April 2009
pearljammer said:
Jereel Hunter said:
leatherhat said:
Jereel Hunter said:
leatherhat said:
Halo is responsible only for the massive amounts of generic shooting games on consoles. It is probably the worst game to ever happen to the the genre because due to its popularity it got copied for thousands of worthless console fps games. To anyone who thinks different I recommend getting a PC and finding out what true fps games are like. Done with that rant

How can you blame something revolutionary for the generic things it inspires? When Halo came out, it was amazing. Do you blame your favorite cereals for generic store brands? Do you shake your fist at the Model T because it ultimately brought us Kias?

Maybe my post wasn't clear, but there is not a damn thing revoloutinary about halo. If it had been released on PC it would have been very, very ignored. The only reason it saw any success in the first place is because it was the only decent game on xbox. In hact halo's biggest "gift" to the genre was recharging health, which of course it didn't come up with. Recharching health being the single most casual feature in any ever.

Maybe my post wasn't clear - you're wrong. You name any console FPS.. 1... that was half the experience Halo was in 2001.

And see if anyone agrees with you.

Timesplitters came out in 2000. It had splitscreen, bots, co-op and even a map-maker. It was a great game to boot!

 

But nowhere near Halo. It released on a system with a vast userbase, and wasn't a fraction as popular for a reason.

 



KLucifer on 23 April 2009

imo it was unreal and quake that made FPS as good as they are now....

counter-strike changed the way FPS could be played...such as bomb plants and hostage...leveling up and class( thru unofficial mods...ie. wc3...superhero)



Reasonable on 23 April 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
ssj12 said:
Rpruett said:
Like I said, Goldeneye / Perfect Dark 'Revolutionized' FPS for Console. Halo just expanded on technology that was already there and added things that the n64 couldn't. Vehicles,Multi-player Split-Screen, Double Weapons, Addicting Game play , Bots all were prevalent prior to Halo on consoles.

Halo was a great game though. Though I don't think it has had an effect on many games.

 

1. tank drivable

2. you could hold two weapons, hell you could have every weapon but like 3 dual weilded due to the fact the watch laser, tank cannon, and i forgot the other wouldnt have worked well with two of them.

3. this is a joke right?

 

 

You may believe Halo is overrated, but this is console gaming we're talking about, not PC. If not for Halo games like Killzone or Resistance wouldn't have existed.

 

That's the point I (and other posters) have been making.  Halo opened the floodgates for FPS as a genre on console, but of itself it was simply a fairly generic FPS that, like most new titles with plenty to copy, was 90% straight copy of existing FPS conventions with 10% new stuff - shields and two weapon limit and coop.

Every FPS on a console essentially owes its existance to the growth of FPS on PC - Halo allowed the platform to be viable, it didn't inform the games themselves (Resistance for example - the first one - is clearly a throwback to the no weapon, long campaign through lots of locations of earlier PC FPS (with a decent smattering of CoD) than anything to do with Halo.).


And if we're talking about FPS game content we're talking PC as well - how could you not?  Halo didn't appear out of nowhere magically - it was simply another FPS (but on a console) at a time when a certain demographic (particularly in US) were desperate for such a title to exist on a low cost console vs high end PC.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

dddddddddd123 on 23 April 2009

id say no



Now playing: Gta4(ps3)I live in hope that one day cross game voice chat will come to the ps3
Jereel Hunter on 23 April 2009
Reasonable said:

Okay I'll be blunt. Compared to FPS on PC Halo didn't do anything better apart from offer coop.  That's the point I'm making.  It made the biggest splash of an FPS on a console, but compared to titles like Goldeneye it didn't even prove you could have a good FPS on a console - it just landed at the right time on the right console.

Splitscreen/Coop was the single biggest factor in it being such an amazing game. Ask anyone who played Halo:CE over the multitudes of computer FPSs why they did it. Because they played splitscreen with friends/roommates/family constantly. That's roughly equivalent to saying "their food wasn't any improvement over mine, except for the taste."

Coop aside every feature had been delivered just as well on a PC title, both SP and online - i.e. Halo didn't have more polish, compared to PC titles it had less until arguably Halo 3 (in terms of Halo itself and ignoring other FPS titles).  Halo CE had some terrible levels, The Library, covered up a lack of content with backtracking, weak MP and limited gameplay (or streamlined if you think simplified is better than depth) in terms of repeat/rinse corridor shooting interspaced with some okay vehicle sections.  Halo 2 brought MP closer to PC but lagged online PC experience and had arguably a worse SP campaign than 1.  3 provided the best console MP online but again nothing that hadn't been provided as well or better for years on PC.

But very very few titles delivered every feature in 1 game... and maybe of those features were a heck of a lot less useful on a PC. "Sweet, I have all these game types, too bad none of my friends can join me." Even an amazing PC game requires everyone to have a PC, and a copy of the game. So back in 2001, 4 of your friends needed gaming rigs and a fast internet connection... and a copy of the game.

Also, the library had some backtracking, but noone can genuinely say it covered for a "lack of content." Halo:CE's SP was very long by today's standards, and would have been plenty long without any of that. In one area of a fairly long game backtracking was required... oh no!

Also worth noting, when Halo 2 introduced online play, it was less laggy online than PC games, as the variety in network adapters on PCs didn't need to be accounted for.

Bluntly, if you were a keen FPS player at the time it wasn't a better experience than Counter Strike, etc.  Just a decent effort on a console.  You are confusing populist (and mainly US / UK populist at that) with excellence.  I've played and enjoyed all the Halo titles, and all have lagged PC FPS.  The low cost and easy access of console has gained a great deal of ground vs PC, but don't confuse that with improvement.

I was a PC gamer for most of my life. In fact, I wasn't moved to get an Xbox, or any console until Halo. Your statement amounts to "if you were a keen player, your tastes would have been like mine - and you would have prefered sitting at a desk alone to a social FPS experience." And while I enjoyed a few PC FPSs during that period, it was Halo's easy play with multiple friends that made it a better experience for me. And while I've gotten together to play LAN PC games with friends on a few occasions, it was just as easy to have a couple guys bring over Xboxes and have an epic(for the time) 8-10 person Halo party.

As for the complete experience it was certainly not the first FPS to deliver that - and no split screen isn't a must.  It's nice, but far from a must as many FPS since have proved.

In 2001, it BECAME a must for any console FPS. And the lack of it is what drew in so many people from the PC. We're now in a time period where PCs/broadband are so common that the necessity of it is declining, but make no mistake, it wasn't 'nice' in 2001. It was THE REASON it was so amazing. To be blunt, if you don't realize that, then you have no idea what made Halo a success and why it's the reason we have many of the games we do today.

I get you love it, I get you think I'm not recognising its impact.  The point is I don't believe it had the impact on FPS genre you imagine (Half Life series overall, including Counter Strike) has been hugely more impactful on FPS genre than Halo.  It made FPS on console popular and it ensured success of Xbox (and be extension 360).

It is popular - but not the best nor the most influencial on the actual gameplay of a FPS either offline or online.

The discussion was whether it was responsible for many of the FPS games we see today. And whether it was the best or most influential ever is irrelevant. Is it responsible for much of what we see today? Heck yes. No question. Also, I think many would agree that the total package, for the time, was perhaps the best. Comparing how I felt, playing Halo for the first time, or playing with friends back then... I'm not sure anything I've played since compares. (Well, multiplayer-wise.)