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 ?

pearljammer on 23 April 2009
Jereel Hunter 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!

 

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

 

Bold: I'm with you there. But regardless, it refutes your point. Now it's just a matter of comparison and TS is most definately at least half as good as what Halo was. Hell, TS2 (2002) was nearly as good as it, arguably better. The FPS genre, and even console shooters, would have been fine without Halo. Halo simply raised the standard on console FPS's and greatly aided in popularizing them. That's a great feat, don't get me wrong, but for what it actually revolutionized is greatly overstated.

Italicized: Popularity is hardly a measure of quality. There may be a correlation, especially for games as popular as Halo was, but it isn't a good measure at all for games that don't necessarily sell well. Disgaea, for example, is a fantastic game but had very poor sales.



Around the Network
JaggedSac on 23 April 2009
ssj12 said:
JaggedSac said:
Halo controls very well on the console. It provided the best most tuned controls of an fps on a console. Goldeneye/Perfect Dark had good controls, but the Y-axis was very clunky and luckily, it was not used much. Halo most likely did not change much in terms of FPSs in general. Although I wish developers would embrace the idea of matchmaking and parties, that alone is something that Halo can be contributed with. Hell, M$ uses it very deeply in the framework of Live. As far as Halo 2 being laggy, I sure as hell didn't notice.

Also, the shield is what regenerates in Halo 2/3. There is actually a health system below that as well.

Also, vehicles controls are much, much, much better using analog. Probably due to the fact that they are analog.

you have to also look at the fact the system it was made on. Goldeneye would have worked 1000 times better on the PS1 because of the dual analog sticks but it was on the N64.

 


Goldeneye would have been completely different had dual analog been used. The way that GE was designed, both in terms of maps and gameplay, was with a lack of Y-axis usage. Using dual analog this would have been far more apparent and they probably would have made sweeping changes to the design of the game.

Timmah! on 23 April 2009

I think Goldeneye on the 64 has more long lasting impact than Halo.



Jereel Hunter on 23 April 2009
pearljammer said:
Jereel Hunter said:

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

Bold: I'm with you there. But regardless, it refutes your point. Now it's just a matter of comparison and TS is most definately at least half as good as what Halo was. Hell, TS2 (2002) was nearly as good as it, arguably better. The FPS genre, and even console shooters, would have been fine without Halo. Halo simply raised the standard on console FPS's and greatly aided in popularizing them. That's a great feat, don't get me wrong, but for what it actually revolutionized is greatly overstated.

Italicized: Popularity is hardly a measure of quality. There may be a correlation, especially for games as popular as Halo was, but it isn't a good measure at all for games that don't necessarily sell well. Disgaea, for example, is a fantastic game but had very poor sales.

I'm not saying the genre wouldn't have been fine, but the OP asked if it's the reason we have many of the games we do today - I would say it's a definate yes. There were no doubt good console FPS prior, and there would have been after, but Halo was a catalyst for the current generation where FPS games are king. Sales determine who other companies copy, and companies copy what makes money first and foremost. My only point was that Halo's success has certainly been the reason for much of what we see in console FPSs today. You need look no further than attempted Halo copies like Haze to see that.

 



tehsage on 23 April 2009

Am I the only one who played Goldeneye?



Around the Network
kazad91 on 23 April 2009

it has had an impact on many games, but a negative one, because of it, now we have many fps as mediocre as Halo



Akvod on 23 April 2009

DooM is responsible for many good games.



pearljammer on 23 April 2009
Jereel Hunter said:
pearljammer said:
Jereel Hunter said:

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

Bold: I'm with you there. But regardless, it refutes your point. Now it's just a matter of comparison and TS is most definately at least half as good as what Halo was. Hell, TS2 (2002) was nearly as good as it, arguably better. The FPS genre, and even console shooters, would have been fine without Halo. Halo simply raised the standard on console FPS's and greatly aided in popularizing them. That's a great feat, don't get me wrong, but for what it actually revolutionized is greatly overstated.

Italicized: Popularity is hardly a measure of quality. There may be a correlation, especially for games as popular as Halo was, but it isn't a good measure at all for games that don't necessarily sell well. Disgaea, for example, is a fantastic game but had very poor sales.

I'm not saying the genre wouldn't have been fine, but the OP asked if it's the reason we have many of the games we do today - I would say it's a definate yes. There were no doubt good console FPS prior, and there would have been after, but Halo was a catalyst for the current generation where FPS games are king. Sales determine who other companies copy, and companies copy what makes money first and foremost. My only point was that Halo's success has certainly been the reason for much of what we see in console FPSs today. You need look no further than attempted Halo copies like Haze to see that.

I can understand where you're coming from there and to a certain extent, agree with you. I was simply replying to your statement, implying there were no comparatively good console shooters at the time.

Anyhow, more on topic. The OP asked if Halo is the reason we have many of the good games we have today. On that note, I'm not convinced that we would not have had Bioshock, Half-Life 2, Portal, COD4, etc if it weren't for Halo. There certainly are some we probably would have been without, like Killzone, but I'm not sure there are many.

 



sly777 on 23 April 2009
Timmah! said:
I think Goldeneye on the 64 has more long lasting impact than Halo.

 

agree with you Goldeneye has a impact. But more impact than Halo... maybe, yes... hum



txrattlesnake on 23 April 2009

No