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 ?

mjc2021 on 23 April 2009
scottie said:
mjc2021 said:
scottie said:
Jinova said:
Ive never been a fan of the series, but isnt Halo credited for starting the health regen thing? Instead of picking up health packs? That alone is pretty cool.

 

Halo started that?? Fuck Halo then. Health regen is the biggest bullshit ever. Sure, health packs may be a little bit unrealistic, but it doesn't make the combat itself any different than it should be. Full health regen after a few seconds is the worst thing to happen to shooters ever, that I can think of. It completely invalidates certain guns and playing styles, and makes it hard for a shooter to be anything other than one of those 'macho-man in power armour wading through thousands of enemies thing'

 

[/rant]

I dunno... collecting hundreds of health packs through out a game nowadays seem obsolete. More focus on action less on health pack collection.

 

I don't see it.

 

I've just come from playing battlefield 1942 and CS with a mate, and both of those games got it right.

 

In Battlefield, if you want healing, you need someone to be a medic, or to find a healing station. There are actually disadvantages to getting shot. 

In counter strike, there is no healing. Once again, being shot is not a good thing

In Halo, it doesn't matter if you get taken down to 1 hp, as long as you kill those around you. No penalty for being shit. (haha, that was a typo, it was meant to say shot. but I think it makes sense as is)

 

 

Well it depends on the game I guess. But as far as single player campaigns go I prefer for the health regen. I completed Quake 4 for the first time recently and that game really could have used it.

 



Around the Network
scottie on 23 April 2009

I spose if that's what most people enjoy. I just wish devs gave us the option to turn it off in multiplayer



Jereel Hunter on 23 April 2009
Reasonable said:
Jereel Hunter said:
lestatdark said:
mjc2021 said:
lestatdark said:
mjc2021 said:
I think people forget that the original Halo came out in 2001. It was far more advanced than every game before it even most FPS games years after. It was a huge hit as well so I'm sure it inspired many games.

I beg to differ, Halo didn't advance much the formula that was already perfected by Half-Life, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and Quake 3, released two years prior to Halo. Halo revolutionised the FPS genre on the consoles indeed, but computer FPS have done the same things or even better than Halo did at the time.

 

I'm not saying there weren't great FPS games already. But Halo took it to another level and became the new benchmark. To say future FPS games weren't inspired by Halo is very naive.

 

Sorry for the double post.

Well you said that it was more advanced that the games before it, and i was just giving a different opinion. In most old gamers eyes, the only really different thing that Halo gave us was the regenerating Health/Shield system, because the strategies used in the game are the same used in all FPS's. Also, i'm not sure if you know it, Halo just improved on Marathon, the very first game made by bungie. If you play that game, you'll see the basis of both games are equal in some aspects.
Also i can give you exemples of FPS games that came before halo that weren't inspired by anything that is Halo. Doom 3, Quake 4, Half life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock...

Well, a FPS where you could hop into vehicles and use gunners was pretty new. Especially combined with 4 player split screen. Halo took the best ideas and merged them all, without sacrificing anything. Combined with the vast number of multiplayer options and a really deep immersive storyline.... It was quite a game. And while PC had great FPS, it didn't have ANYTHING with all of that, so bringing it to a console was even more impressive. It just showed that FPS could not only exist on consoles, but deliver an experience as good as a PC FPS. (And even give added bonuses like split screen, which PCs can't give)

Halo didn't add as much as you imply really.  The title did bring some nice ideas but those started out headed to PC (as Halo was intended as a PC title until MS saw the potential to make it a core title for the Xbox and purchased Bungie and diverted development to the Xbox).  So in fact the new ideas came directly from ongoing PC development, they just got diverted to another platform.

Where it was intended for is irrelevant. The point being that it showed that this could all be done on a console. A mouse and keyboard gives you unlimited flexibility, but to include everything by way of a controller was new.

Split screen could easily be done on a PC (and some games did so) however it clearly suits a console environment better than a PC (not technically of course, more down to sitting on couch with a buddy vs squeezing around a monitor).  In fact, if I wanted to get prissy I could point out a PC can do anything a console game could technically and things a console couldn't (remembering a PC can be extended anyway you want, consoles cant).

Split screen can be, but it is impractical and basically terrible on a PC. That was my point. PC's advantage (mouse/keyboard) is also comes at the price of generally being on a smaller monitor. "Technically" doesn't make it an actually viable option.

Vehicles were arriving in general in FPS at that time and beacame the 'next big thing' for a while as a result.  But Halo did not invent that mechanic.

I am not suggesting that Halo invented it, but that is brought it, in a balanced and usable form to console FPSs.

I'm not knocking Halo, but anyone who is console centric and thinking it totally took FPS to a new level or invented a whole new set of mechanics simply isn't aware of the PC FPS legacy of the genre and the far bigger impact titlels like Half Life and Battlefied 1942 made on the genre both offline and online.

It took console FPS to a new level, that's the point. PC is a whole seperate platform with it's own advantages and even a few disadvantages.

 

 



Jereel Hunter on 23 April 2009
lestatdark said:
Jereel Hunter said:
lestatdark said:
mjc2021 said:
lestatdark said:
mjc2021 said:
I think people forget that the original Halo came out in 2001. It was far more advanced than every game before it even most FPS games years after. It was a huge hit as well so I'm sure it inspired many games.

I beg to differ, Halo didn't advance much the formula that was already perfected by Half-Life, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and Quake 3, released two years prior to Halo. Halo revolutionised the FPS genre on the consoles indeed, but computer FPS have done the same things or even better than Halo did at the time.

 

I'm not saying there weren't great FPS games already. But Halo took it to another level and became the new benchmark. To say future FPS games weren't inspired by Halo is very naive.

 

Sorry for the double post.

Well you said that it was more advanced that the games before it, and i was just giving a different opinion. In most old gamers eyes, the only really different thing that Halo gave us was the regenerating Health/Shield system, because the strategies used in the game are the same used in all FPS's. Also, i'm not sure if you know it, Halo just improved on Marathon, the very first game made by bungie. If you play that game, you'll see the basis of both games are equal in some aspects.
Also i can give you exemples of FPS games that came before halo that weren't inspired by anything that is Halo. Doom 3, Quake 4, Half life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock...

Well, a FPS where you could hop into vehicles and use gunners was pretty new. Especially combined with 4 player split screen. Halo took the best ideas and merged them all, without sacrificing anything. Combined with the vast number of multiplayer options and a really deep immersive storyline.... It was quite a game. And while PC had great FPS, it didn't have ANYTHING with all of that, so bringing it to a console was even more impressive. It just showed that FPS could not only exist on consoles, but deliver an experience as good as a PC FPS. (And even give added bonuses like split screen, which PCs can't give)

Those are valid points, but you can't put split-screen as an advantage for Halo. PC's don't need Split-screen, because there is LAN. Multiplayer LAN for FPS's was around the times of the original DOOM, and most PC's fps's give you the exact number of multiplayer options that Halo CE gave you, especially since the MP modes were clearly derivated from Unreal Tournament and Quake games. Also i beg to differ on the storyline, but that's because i'm mostly and RPG player, so every FPS story (with the exception of Bioshock) feels shallow, cliche and simple. The vehicle inclusion was not a first in FPS as well. Star Wars: Dark Forces had it, Battlefield 1942 as well, Operation Flashpoint too.

 

Split screen was an advantage. PCs don't nee split screen because of Lan? How much easier was it to get 4 guys together and play a night of Halo, than 4 people to bring their computers together for a game of Doom? Split screen was huge, and taken advantage of more on Halo than probably any other FPS ever to be played. PCs don't need split screen because it would be wasted on a small monitor. But if you want easy to use, go over a friend's house and play together, you can't beat Halo back in 2001. Unless you're assuming everyone had 4 networked gaming rigs in their house back then.

And vehicles weren't new, but for balanced vehicles in multiplayer on a console? It was a first.



Jereel Hunter on 23 April 2009
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.



Around the Network
Rpruett 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.

 

Goldeneye / Perfect Dark were wonderful experiences,  years prior to Halo.



Reasonable on 23 April 2009
Jereel Hunter said:
Reasonable said:
Jereel Hunter said:
lestatdark said:
mjc2021 said:
lestatdark said:
mjc2021 said:
I think people forget that the original Halo came out in 2001. It was far more advanced than every game before it even most FPS games years after. It was a huge hit as well so I'm sure it inspired many games.

I beg to differ, Halo didn't advance much the formula that was already perfected by Half-Life, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and Quake 3, released two years prior to Halo. Halo revolutionised the FPS genre on the consoles indeed, but computer FPS have done the same things or even better than Halo did at the time.

 

I'm not saying there weren't great FPS games already. But Halo took it to another level and became the new benchmark. To say future FPS games weren't inspired by Halo is very naive.

 

Sorry for the double post.

Well you said that it was more advanced that the games before it, and i was just giving a different opinion. In most old gamers eyes, the only really different thing that Halo gave us was the regenerating Health/Shield system, because the strategies used in the game are the same used in all FPS's. Also, i'm not sure if you know it, Halo just improved on Marathon, the very first game made by bungie. If you play that game, you'll see the basis of both games are equal in some aspects.
Also i can give you exemples of FPS games that came before halo that weren't inspired by anything that is Halo. Doom 3, Quake 4, Half life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock...

Well, a FPS where you could hop into vehicles and use gunners was pretty new. Especially combined with 4 player split screen. Halo took the best ideas and merged them all, without sacrificing anything. Combined with the vast number of multiplayer options and a really deep immersive storyline.... It was quite a game. And while PC had great FPS, it didn't have ANYTHING with all of that, so bringing it to a console was even more impressive. It just showed that FPS could not only exist on consoles, but deliver an experience as good as a PC FPS. (And even give added bonuses like split screen, which PCs can't give)

Halo didn't add as much as you imply really. The title did bring some nice ideas but those started out headed to PC (as Halo was intended as a PC title until MS saw the potential to make it a core title for the Xbox and purchased Bungie and diverted development to the Xbox). So in fact the new ideas came directly from ongoing PC development, they just got diverted to another platform.

Where it was intended for is irrelevant. The point being that it showed that this could all be done on a console. A mouse and keyboard gives you unlimited flexibility, but to include everything by way of a controller was new.

Split screen could easily be done on a PC (and some games did so) however it clearly suits a console environment better than a PC (not technically of course, more down to sitting on couch with a buddy vs squeezing around a monitor). In fact, if I wanted to get prissy I could point out a PC can do anything a console game could technically and things a console couldn't (remembering a PC can be extended anyway you want, consoles cant).

Split screen can be, but it is impractical and basically terrible on a PC. That was my point. PC's advantage (mouse/keyboard) is also comes at the price of generally being on a smaller monitor. "Technically" doesn't make it an actually viable option.

Vehicles were arriving in general in FPS at that time and beacame the 'next big thing' for a while as a result. But Halo did not invent that mechanic.

I am not suggesting that Halo invented it, but that is brought it, in a balanced and usable form to console FPSs.

I'm not knocking Halo, but anyone who is console centric and thinking it totally took FPS to a new level or invented a whole new set of mechanics simply isn't aware of the PC FPS legacy of the genre and the far bigger impact titlels like Half Life and Battlefied 1942 made on the genre both offline and online.

It took console FPS to a new level, that's the point. PC is a whole seperate platform with it's own advantages and even a few disadvantages.

 

 

 

Again, you're listing that Halo did things on a console. The post refers to FPS genre - not console specific. The only thing Halo added that was console specific was coop. Everything else had been done at least as well somewhere else, and therefore didn't add to the FPS genre.

As I've said in all my posts in this thread Halo did a lot for FPS on console, but not that much for FPS. FPS is a gaming genre, even today most titles follow the FPS mechanics defined way back on PC (and with Goldeneye on console, too I'd argue) more than they following something Halo introduced.

You can't talk about FPS genre then suddnely narrow it down to just on a console to suit an arguement.

 



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

perpride on 23 April 2009

no.....god no.



Reasonable on 23 April 2009
Squilliam said:
Half-Life 2 is nothing without Halo.

 

You just overloaded my sarcasm detector, you swine!

 



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

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

Halo didn't add as much as you imply really. The title did bring some nice ideas but those started out headed to PC (as Halo was intended as a PC title until MS saw the potential to make it a core title for the Xbox and purchased Bungie and diverted development to the Xbox). So in fact the new ideas came directly from ongoing PC development, they just got diverted to another platform.

Where it was intended for is irrelevant. The point being that it showed that this could all be done on a console. A mouse and keyboard gives you unlimited flexibility, but to include everything by way of a controller was new.

Split screen could easily be done on a PC (and some games did so) however it clearly suits a console environment better than a PC (not technically of course, more down to sitting on couch with a buddy vs squeezing around a monitor). In fact, if I wanted to get prissy I could point out a PC can do anything a console game could technically and things a console couldn't (remembering a PC can be extended anyway you want, consoles cant).

Split screen can be, but it is impractical and basically terrible on a PC. That was my point. PC's advantage (mouse/keyboard) is also comes at the price of generally being on a smaller monitor. "Technically" doesn't make it an actually viable option.

Vehicles were arriving in general in FPS at that time and beacame the 'next big thing' for a while as a result. But Halo did not invent that mechanic.

I am not suggesting that Halo invented it, but that is brought it, in a balanced and usable form to console FPSs.

I'm not knocking Halo, but anyone who is console centric and thinking it totally took FPS to a new level or invented a whole new set of mechanics simply isn't aware of the PC FPS legacy of the genre and the far bigger impact titlels like Half Life and Battlefied 1942 made on the genre both offline and online.

It took console FPS to a new level, that's the point. PC is a whole seperate platform with it's own advantages and even a few disadvantages.

Again, you're listing that Halo did things on a console. The post refers to FPS genre - not console specific. The only thing Halo added that was console specific was coop. Everything else had been done at least as well somewhere else, and therefore didn't add to the FPS genre.

As I've said in all my posts in this thread Halo did a lot for FPS on console, but not that much for FPS. FPS is a gaming genre, even today most titles follow the FPS mechanics defined way back on PC (and with Goldeneye on console, too I'd argue) more than they following something Halo introduced.

You can't talk about FPS genre then suddnely narrow it down to just on a console to suit an arguement.

Halo forced console FPSs to start including more aspects that were in PC FPSs. Doing something first isn't the only way to add a lot to a genre. Doing something with greater polish, or forcing it to become more mainstream is more of an influence on a genre. For instance, technically speaking the Beatles or Nirvana didn't *technically* do anything new for music... However they were very influential to others. It doesn't matter if Halo was a direct copy of another game, if that other game left view without notice, and then Halo came on the scene and made a splash - Halo was the influence. Now, this is not the case here. The finished product that was Halo was not an experience you could get elsewhere. You could have most of the options, but not sit on a couch and play on a big TV with 4 buddies. Or you could play a game with splitscreen that was an infinitely inferior experience. Sometimes things you add to a genre are a high level of play that forces everyone to be BETTER. When Halo came out, how many times did every other game take a backseat while you and your friends played for hours? New games came out and still were's as good and thus didn't get as much notice.

You can list all these things that were "done before." But the complete experience (and it MUST include split screen, as that was the true genesis of Halo's popularity.) was not available elsewhere. If you only want to sit alone infront of a monitor, then sure, PC gaming had what you wanted pre-2001. But if you wanted that experience with your friends playing with you, Halo was a leap - it improved vastly on what 007 was for consoles, and gave flexibility that the PC didn't.