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."
Wrong. Coop was fun for many with Halo on an Xbox, and irrelevant to the millions more (at that time) playing online on PC. Coop helped Halo on Xbox, it did nothing for the FPS genre at the time. It didn't make it taste better - it simply offered something for those looking for a low cost FPS/multiplayer experience. Personally, while it was fun it was much less of a fun factor than a true lan party. a small quarter of a screen is nothing next to full screen with cooperatice online play with many players in the same local. Remember split screen coop is a convenient reduction of a deeper experince - i.e. not better just because it's easier. More accessible, sure. But not better.
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.
Again, wrong. Many FPS PC titles delivered everything Halo did (and more) at the same time and with better polish. As before Halo only looked so good because it was on a console, not because it was the most amazing FPS at the time (it wasn't and arguably never has been). Halo was essentialy more derivative than innovative. As for the access I don't know what you're talking about. I and many, many others were online with PC at that time and Halo's efforts seemed fairly small potatoes by comparison. Again, you're seeing more accessible as better - it's not. Just because a PC might have cost more doesn't change the fact you could have a better FPS experience on it than Halo offered.
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.)
The discussion is indeed whether Halo was responsible for what we see with FPS today - and the answer remains no. Halo represents the most successful FPS on a consle, essentially copuying PC standards with each iteration. PC FPS titles were always essentially ahead. Unreal Tournament, Quake Arena, UT2004, Counter Strike, etc. all offered much more than each Halo MP and always earlier. Half Life SP campaigns (and others) always lead Halo's. Those titles are more influential on FPS games.
Halo made FPS possible on console, in terms of being a big sales hit, but it is not the most influential FPS title (I would argue the impact of Valve for FPS dwarfs Bungie/Halo, particularly given how much they've inovated with Portal, Left 4 Dead, Half Life 2, etc. vs Bungie polishing and polishing while getting MP closer and closer to what you could have had years earlier on PC but really taking few risks or offering anything drastically new to the genre) and as many others have pointed out most of the big FPS titles, CoD, Half Life, etc. would all have come into being without it and with the same features they have.
Sure, many console FPS copy Halo slavishly (2 guns, check, etc) but personally most every long term FPS player I know sees all console FPS, Halo included, as still taking the lead from PC based standards. Look at Biohock, impossible without System Shock 1 & 2. Look at the vast amount of WW2 and Earth based combat FPS that outweigh most other settings - they're not in existance because of Halo but following the huge success of such games on PC.
Mind you, I'm in Europe where many countries still favour PC over console for FPS and online, so that may explain some of my own experiences.
Sorry, but you keep repeating the same reasons why Halo influenced FPS being popular on consoles, but failing to see it has had minimal overall impact on FPS mechanics.
So one last time Halo is not responsible for many good FPS today, it's just not in terms of games content unless the title really is a Halo clone (and we all know how to spot those) - it simply means they come out on console too and the console is now seen as a viable platform for the genre vs the last place you'd want to play an FPS title.
To make it clear, CoD4 released on 360/PS3 beacuse of Halo, but the game content is down to Infinity Ward as one of the master of war based FPS campaigns and MP action, and clearly the title owed little in terms of actual content to Halo's own gameplay.
|
