A small rant about Halo

[Absinthe]

Heh, this sums up so well why some people not only dislike Halo, but seem to disagree with it's very existence.

You're looking for something deeper where there is nothing. Halo is combat. That's the extent of the gameplay.

If you're looking for something else, then go play it. As so many of you have already pointed out, there are plenty of other titles out there far more worthy of your attention.

It's not that. We know that the extent is its combat.

The question is whether that alone is deserving of all the high praise and GOTY talk it receives.

Are we talking single or multiplayer? Single player wise Halo has pretty much everything beat when it comes to strategy, tactics, fun/challenging AI. It is still the combat daddy.

You know we're just going to lynch you one day. :|

 

[Warbie]

You won't be able to get me, not with my superior Halo skills! You guys will all be running in straight lines and looking for the quicksave button while I wtfpwn!

 

[Sparta]

Pfffft come on Warbie lets be honest.

All we have to do is sneak up behind you and your ****ed. Turning around to face us will take you 2-3 seconds tops, and by that time you'll be a fine paste of the concrete.

 

[Asknoone]

Come again?

You're looking for something deeper where there is nothing. Halo is combat. That's the extent of the gameplay.

All Halo is, is combat. You don't do anything else other than shoot the enemies Bungie place in your path. Combat is not gameplay itself but simply a factor of the gameplay, and that is the only factor that Halo has. This simple fact makes Halo an average experience; the combat is excellent, but that's it, and it's stale after the first couple levels. This does not deem it worthy of the ridiculous praise.

I think Samon means that the core combat is good and well-balanced, but the rest of the gameplay doesn't measure up to that. Things like teamwork emphasis, strategies, enemy AI, level design... though I'm probably butchering what Samon meant (not to mention that I mostly disagree).

That's not what I'm saying, no. You haven't really listed more gameplay, you've included things that Halo actually does well - strategy and enemy AI etc, but these themselves are simply combat factors.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Pfffft come on Warbie lets be honest.

All we have to do is sneak up behind you and your ****ed. Turning around to face us will take you 2-3 seconds tops, and by that time you'll be a fine paste of the concrete.

And lets us not forget, hitting a halo player in the back with anything is more effective than shooting them in the chest with a large calibre rifle!

 

[Warbie]

lol, fair enough guys. Damn master chief and his inability to turn quickly and weak spot for massive damage

Combat is not gameplay itself but simply a factor of the gameplay, and that is the only factor that Halo has.

I think we just disagree on our definitions of gameplay. For me it's everything the game asks you to do - in Mario it's jumping around and finding stuff, in Halo it's the combat.

 

[jimbo118]

i've read all the halo threads here this last week, watched halo launches on the news, read about it in the newspaper, read and watched the reviews and still i havent picked up a copy, maybe its because i have never played halo and feel like i would be totally lost in the story :|

some things f.e dont seem right, ign's review for instance, the graphics got 9 yet they look pretty mediocre for next gen, i'd say they should get a 7 at best, part of me thinks that if it didnt have Halo on the disc it would have got this score :|

 

[Asknoone]

I think we just disagree on our definitions of gameplay. For me it's everything the game asks you to do - in Mario it's jumping around and finding stuff, in Halo it's the combat.

Gameplay isn't something you should be able to put your finger on in that way, I don't think. It's not so much of an experience if you can do that; when I'm mapping, I work with the idea of 'gameplay scenarios'. There's pressure to do something innovative on developers, and whilst I think we all like to see innovative stuff, I don't think we see the actual innovative gameplay correctly. There's more to innovation than a single idea you can put your finger on. So yes, I'd say our definition of gameplay is different.

 

[<RJMC>]

lets be honest

the websites are biased towards halo, dont denied cuz is true, in gamesites they allways mention that the sequels dont get a higher score that the first just for being sequels,but this game got so high scores even if they say that it have everything of the previous games but if you see the reviews of other sequels they say that if have everything of the previous they find it as a bad thing

so is true,is pure bias

anf the atomics bombs of publicity helped it too

 

[CptStern]

A quick footnote to all Halo fanboys, do NOT take offense to this post.

Ok, I want to talk about the Halo series, and its huge popularity across the globe. I've played all three, and enjoyed all three, but there's still something I don't understand: Why the **** is this game the hyped up god of video games its made out to be? Is it fun? Sure. Is it innovative? Meh, if you can rehash Aliens vs Predators and give it a new name, sure. Is it a legendary landmark in the gaming universe? Abso****inglutely not.

I simply do not understand why these games receive so much praise from the gaming community, and I'm really trying hard to understand it. Resistance: Fall of Man, in my opinion, was infinitely more enjoyable than any of the Halo games. I'm not trying to look like a PS3 > 360 homo, but I just happen to have played through Resistance recently, and thought it was a lot more fun, and alot more challenging than Halo ever was.

So please, someone explain to me WHY WHY WHY this game gets the praise it does. It sure as hell can't be the graphics, it can't be the story, and if you say the gameplay, I will gladly point out 10 shooters that have surpassed the entire halo series in every single way that didn't get anywhere NEAR the attention that Halo got.

I want real, serious answers, not stupid fanboys that masturbate to naked master chief pictures nightly, thank you.

-end rant

simple explanation: good PR, microsoft throws tons of money into advertising ..a friend of mine who's a casual console gamer at best watched the "meet the .." movies from Team Fortress 2 last night and remarked "how come you dont see these ads on tv like you would Halo 3?" ..my answer was "monies" ..but beyond that Halo had a built in audience before becoming an xbox game (it was originally shown on a mac) ..the momentum grew from there ..and to be fair Halo was perhaps the best shooter of it's generation at the time

that said, I'd like to point out that you did come across as a bit of a ps3 > xbox360 homo

 

[KagePrototype]

Gameplay isn't something you should be able to put your finger on in that way, I don't think. It's not so much of an experience if you can do that; when I'm mapping, I work with the idea of 'gameplay scenarios'. There's pressure to do something innovative on developers, and whilst I think we all like to see innovative stuff, I don't think we see the actual innovative gameplay correctly. There's more to innovation than a single idea you can put your finger on. So yes, I'd say our definition of gameplay is different.

What is your definition? How is gameplay anything but "what the game asks you to do"? When you say "gameplay scenarios", do you mean the context in which it arises?

(I'm confuzled)

 

[Sparta]

simple explanation: good PR, microsoft throws tons of money into advertising ..a friend of mine who's a casual console gamer at best watched the "meet the .." movies from Team Fortress 2 last night and remarked "how come you dont see these ads on tv like you would Halo 3?" ..my answer was "monies" ..

Yeah i was thinking about that when i showed mates i work with the trailers for TF2. If only some games had the kind of PR that the Halo games have, imagine how much money they'd make and how successful they'd have been.

Heck even the PR that Blizzard has would do wonders for many, many games.

 

[Javert]

It's not about gameplay or graphics. Halo 1 proved to be mediocre.

It was all marketing, and hardcore gamers looking for a poster child to validate their XBox purchase. In effect, it was more about self-appeasement than quality of product.

 

[Warbie]

Halo 1 proved to be mediocre.

You say that like it's a fact. Many people simply found Halo to be awesome based on its merits, and not due to some form of self-appeasement. I was a long term and keen pc gamer and it totally blew me away - and sold me the Xbox single handedly. I'm now playing no.3 and can't think of a single pc shooter that's had combat as good as this in single player.

For those who missed it in the other thread, Edge 10/10

 

[leib10]

It's all about the multiplayer, which is simple and popular (and ingrained in our culture) enough to the point that everybody wants to fit in and join the "sensation".

The single player is completely mediocre and lackluster, as are the graphics, the gameplay, and especially the story. But that doesn't matter to Joe Sixpack Gamer, who couldn't tell a good video game from a popsicle. For him, mediocrity is okay because he hasn't known anything else. Even if he could appreciate the goodness that is Half-Life, Bioshock, and a few others, he would not stop playing Halo because of the popularity of the multiplayer, which often is the sole social outlet for a lot of these people.

Media coverage and advertising also play a big role (who hasn't seen a picture of Master Chief in the news or on somebody's T-shirt lately?). Here in the dorm, it seems that everybody except me and my roommate (who is a Half-Life fan) is completely taken in with Halo 3. It provides a social outlet for those people who are getting sick of Guitar Hero parties and now want to throw Halo 3 parties.

 

[Warbie]

:upstare:

*slits wrists*

 

[Lt. Drebin]

Wow...revolutionary conclusions in this thread...some people like Halo, some people don't.

Here....I'll just keep it going, but much simpler..

YES.
NO.
YES.
NO.
YES.
NO.
YES.
No.
YES.

 

[Warbie]

YES.
NO.
YES.
NO.
YES.
NO.
YES.
No.
YES.

It's never that, though. Nobody has a problem with someone trying a game and not liking it, it's the constant 'stupid console kiddies don't know any better, Halo is obviously average, any person who's played good (read pc) games would know this' elitisit and arrogant attitude that grates. This whole pcs are the thinking mans platform mentality really doesn't have a foot to stand on these days.

 

[PvtRyan]

Does Halo have good combat? Yes.
Can a game that consists entirely of combat considered a good game? Yes.
Can a game that consists entirely of the same, admittedly good, combat be considered a good game? No.

I like Halo's story, I really do. So that means a lot when I rather read the plot of Halo on Wikipedia than finish the game that's boring me to tears.

Is Halo fun in co-op and MP? Sure, but that's not much of an achievement, which games aren't fun with three mates? The MP of Halo was a blast, but qualitatively it wasn't very good. Poor weapon balancing, gimmicky and rather useless vehicles, boring maps. Why was it fun then? Because everything with friends can be fun. The MP is really nothing special.

If Microsoft would poll what players would rather want: a sequel to Goldeneye/Perfect Dark (a proper one) or a Halo 4, I would certainly know what I would pick.

 

[Viperidae]

As Ennui said, it seems to be a reiteration in time of GE.

When it came out, it was the reason amongst my peers to buy an N64. Sure, the other games were good, but the first thing on everyone's mind was dual wielding rocket launchers. Everyone talked about it for at least a year and a half after it came out. I as a child was devastated that I didn't get an N64 for Christmas.

The difference this time, as some have said, is PR. With GE many non gamers would say 'Oh, is it a game after the movie?' Whereas with Halo3, it's ****ing everywhere, the front page of my city's newspaper, for example. Non gamers everywhere are being saturated with media and hype about this game. It piques their curiousity, and people feel pressured to find out what it is.

Had GE and Halo been reversed (ignoring graphics for a minute), I think the praise would be merited.

 

[VictimOfScience]

The first Halo brought the FPS genre to the console audience in a huge way. It made the XBOX brand what it is today. At the time of its release, I was a PC FPS gamer and as such when I saw it I was thoroughly underwhelmed. I never got on the bandwagon. LOADS of other kids did, however. Kids who never had the PC FPS experience and it just snowballed from there.

Personally, I don't think that the Halo series is that strong in any way, shape, or form. That said, at least 1.7 million people think it is the cat's pajamas. My cat has pajamas and they beat the crap out of Halo, but that is coming from a dedicated cat-fancier, so take it with a shred of nip. Thx!

 

[Warbie]

At the time of its release, I was a PC FPS gamer and as such when I saw it I was thoroughly underwhelmed. I never got on the bandwagon

Perhaps more to do with Halo not being your thang than having seen better the pc?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm only going to talk about Halo 1 here because it's the only one I've played to a fair degree, the only one I've liked.

I've always defined a computer game as the experience of a player interacting with a system - what we call 'the game mechanics' are what differentiates the format from the film or the novel, and are what defines any game. A lot of game design is ensuring that this system of mechanics works to stimulate and test the player without frustrating him - and, in great games, the system must surprise and amaze him too.

Sometimes I encounter a piece of system design which strikes me as really intelligent; how in Timesplitters 2 the player takes less and less damage for each hit as their health bar goes down - the more damage they take, the tougher they get - meaning low health doesn't instantly spell doom in any encounter, and last ditch efforts are feasible; or how in Team Fortress 2 the complete lack of grenades makes gameplay faster, more dynamic and more (literally) direct, while also serving to differentiate the classes and encourage teamwork.

Halo is full of such clever design, from the way alien grenades glow conspicuously and leave fiery trails, making them hard to miss, through the way the sniper rifle leaves a trail, meaning snipers have to relocate and snipees have a chance, to the inspired shield dynamic which maintains the constant danger of death but always gives the player a chance to claw back victory from the jaws of defeat, and makes sure combat ebbs and flows between strength and weakness. The limited weapon limit provokes informed decision-making about what to take, what to leave. One-click grenades are sublime. Not all of this is original but all of it is effective in creating a system that's extremely fun to interface with. With high production values and an attractive, unified aesthetic, almost every facet of Halo betrays the attention that has been paid to it.

That's enhanced by the sheer quality of the combat. It makes very little difference whether Halo is played on a PC or a console because Bungie take care to decentre the concept of pinpoint aiming from the dynamics of the first-person shooter; headshots are not that important, and almost all the guns spray or similar. The basic rifle is inaccurate as hell, the needler homes in, and even the sniper rifle is piss-easy to hit people with.

The enemies too are built to make tactics more important than accuracy. Jackals are fortified from the front but weak against melee and flanking attacks. Elites have shields just like you, so only a sustained and decisive attack will finish them. Hunters need to be taken from behind.

It helps that your enemies are damn smart - and coherent too. Grunts really are cowardly, hilarious fleeing from your power-armoured might, but are also remarkably cunning with grenades and get braver with numbers. Elites are dangerous, fearless, and fuelled by rage - something the canny player can use against them. The AI, remarkably smart, flanks, retreats, takes cover and does everything it can to win. The AI, in fact, leads the game - and without it, the combat wouldn't work.

So instead of flick-shot accuracy, skill in Halo is all about constant situational awareness and low-level tactics. It's very intensely about cover, about position, about moment-to-moment where-grenade-which-weapon-who-first snap decisions. Warbie is right to describe it as balletic. Where most games post-Half-Life rely on scripted set-pieces with drama built in (and can never match Valve), Halo creates a situation - a system - and throws the player into it against a vicious enemy.

That's why combat in Halo is such a joy, because the game's design is unified toward making sure that the interactions between system/player, input/feedback - upon which all games ultimately stand or fall - as exciting as possible, at the untroubled expense of realism.

(It's also why the levels can get gratingly repetetive - the combat's more important. The game does totally get worse when it declines into corridor-shoots. It's at its best outdoors, on levels like The Silent Cartographer)

It helps that all the smarts that go into the mechanical design also make sure the single-player campaign and plot is genuinely engaging, with a real sense of narrative drive and energy. It's a show performed with considerable verve. Bungie, knowing that their work is unashamedly artificial, unabashedly a game, make the machines the best characters. Cortana's great fun to spend a whole game with, sarcastic without becoming unpleasant, while the infuriating 343 Guilty Spark playfully jeers at the painful escort missions of most games, where one is forced to babysit a partner one comes to hate not because of good characterisation but because of a bad system.

Like its ringworld namesake, the game runs runs full circle, beginning and ending aboard the Pillar of Autumn. appropriately enough both Halo's first steps and its final challenge are towering examples of how these things should be done. The introduction manages what even Half-Life didn't accomplish, seamlessly melding tutorial/training with a dramatically strong opening and sense of danger (although the first level's not actually brilliant), while the final encounter eschews lame boss battles and sets the player joyously speeding away in another one of Halo's big strengths - the vehicles, which beat the hell out of almost all other shooter efforts, and, with a solid physics model, epitomise 'easy to learn, hard to master'.

This has been fairly gushing, which may give a false impression, as Halo's not flawless...but I daresay enough people can provide negatives. The OP asked why people like Halo so much. This is why - 'cos it's actually a really cleverly designed game.

And the multiplayer's awesome.

 

[Ennui]

I think you're giving it far too much credit, Sulkdodds.

 

[Warbie]

Blimey Sulk, that was a legendary post. Seriously, I pretty much agree with everything you mention and certainly couldn't have worded it as well.

 

[PvtRyan]

What you're saying all comes down to 'good combat' Sulks, which most of us agree on. The problem of Halo is that it consists almost entirely of the same kind of combat stretched over many hours.

I think you're giving it far too much credit, Sulkdodds.

No, this is giving it too much credit:
http://www.loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/228

 

[Ennui]

an hero on that one

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

The Halo franchise pleases me in the following ways

- Bringing gaming to the mainstream / me puts on flame retardant suit for that one
- Amazing, accessible multi-player, unrivaled in the industry

The Halo games don't aim to revolutionize gameplay, yeah that sucks - but I could honestly care less, system link play is amazingly fun with a group of mates.

 

[giant384]

yup like i said earlier halo is just the same repeatative crap from the beginning. also i dont consider the ai at all great. every battle is the same script over and over again.

 

[Warbie]

The problem of Halo is that it consists almost entirely of the same kind of combat stretched over many hours.

So you can have too much of a good thing?

Not many fps aren't centered on combat. You could argue that HL2, Bioshock etc are more focussed the overal experience, the developer's ability to put you in the shoes of the protagonist, yet in all these games you spend most of your time shooting and they all 'consists almost entirely of the same kind of combat'. Of course, other elements help carry these games and make them great fun.

The difference with Halo's combat is that it can be incredibly varied with a huge amount of depth if you choose to look for it. For me it doesn't get boring. The part of Sulk's post that rang most true for me was 'Where most games post-Half-Life rely on scripted set-pieces with drama built in (and can never match Valve), Halo creates a situation - a system - and throws the player into it against a vicious enemy.' At it's best Halo is a sandbox fps, possibly the only successful one. You're plonked into a locaton - which are nearly always cunningly disguised arenas - given various tools, adversaries, and then left to your own devices. I often get the impression that Bungie built each section of the game around what they thought would be a fun place to fight. It also confuses me when I read that Halo 3 is too short when I spent 4 hours or so last night completing level 2 over and over - each time so many different and cool things happened, it was awesome.

 

[Fishlore]

Put me in the "I don't get it crowd." After having Halo 1 talked up by all the video game newbs I knew at the time I figured I'd try it and give it the benefit of the doubt. I played Halo 1 on the PC and I thought it was hands down the worst FPS experience I've ever had. Never played it, or it's successors, on a console. I would never play an FPS on a console to begin with aside from the N64 days, but I digress.

 

[PvtRyan]

So you can have too much of a good thing?

No, what I'm saying is that you could play one encounter and experience 90% of what the game has to offer.

 

[Operational]

No, this is giving it too much credit:
http://www.loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/228

That's crazy

 

[Warbie]

No, what I'm saying is that you could play one encounter and experience 90% of what the game has to offer.

Then we completely disagree on everything The entire reason I love playing Halo, and what sets it apart from 99% of other fps, is that this isn't the case.

Why play football? You could kick a ball around for 10 minutes and experience 90% of what the sport has to offer.

//edit

No, this is giving it too much credit:
http://www.loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/228

That was awesome

 

[Tyguy]

The story behind Halo is really cool and I like the game for the following reasons:

Multiplayer
Sticky Grenades make the game 100 times more interesting
Vehicles are awesome
Weapons actually feel like you are causing damage, not like BF2
Maps are very detailed and fun
Matchmaking is quite well done despite minor problems
The fact that you can create your own game type and play it with your friends
This is probably the most competitive game out there
The ability to improve your rank and the possibility of losing it

Single Player
Like I said, story
Weapons
Cut-scenes are usually pretty good
Graphics aren't bad
alot of other stuff I cant think of


There are alot of other things that I like about the game that I just cant think of right now...I find alot of people don't like Halo for the sole reason that they suck at it, going from a keyboard to a controller is hard

 

[Tyguy]

No, what I'm saying is that you could play one encounter and experience 90% of what the game has to offer.

Couldn't be more wrong

 

[CptStern]

I thought weapons in the halo series were mostly poor ..seemed like you were firing a peashooter most of the time

 

[VictimOfScience]

Perhaps more to do with Halo not being your thang than having seen better the pc?

Could be. I was mostly playing MoH: AA at the time I think and Halo just seemed too slow and the environments seemed lacking a lot of flair therefore not contributing to an engrossing experience for me at the time. Oh well.

May have to pick up 3 when it achieves "Classic" price status though.

 

[Tyguy]

I thought weapons in the halo series were mostly poor ..seemed like you were firing a peashooter most of the time

Maybe the smg from a distance, but the battle rifle just feels like you are causing alot of damage. (more in halo 2) Its almost somewhat believable too, you have a shield and as soon as its down, almost anything will kill you in 1-3 shots. Of course there is the plasma pistol thats more of a shield killer than a real weapons, but u get the idea

I just always think of battlefield 2 and how you can be 20 feet from someone and it takes about 10 shots with a rifle to kill them....pathetic

 

[Absinthe]

So you can have too much of a good thing?

It's not so much a case of having too much of a good thing as much as it is a one-trick pony losing its sheen.

Halo handles combat extremely well, but after the first few levels, you essentially know how everything will play from then on out. I'd argue that things actually take a turn for the worse in the original Halo with the introduction of the Flood.

The combat never becomes boring, per se. But it never throws any curveballs at you either. There is no element of surprise aside from the occasional invisible elite gutting you from behind with his sword. The level design is thoroughly repetitive. The sandbox gameplay may be fun, but then you realize all you're doing is jumping from one to another, and the aberrations are too few and far between. The experience seems it comes at the expense of (or simply without) other elements I believe are integral for a truly great game as opposed to a merely entertaining one: varied design, strong narrative, and innovation. The "overall experience" you talk about in reference to Bioshock and HL2 are exactly what I think is required if you're going to put something up on a roster of GOTY candidates.

I think this is what irritates me about Halo. Not necessarily the game itself, but the attitude towards it as if it's the holy grail of gaming when it seriously just isn't. It's doubly grating when the two sequels following it fail to improve on the original formula in any significant way and still - years after the first release - rack up insanely high scores for the same exact shit. Oh, but this time with enhanced multiplayer.

The effort and money that's gone into perfecting Halo's combat experience is almost a technical science. While that's fine and good as entertainment, I think that any game getting 9/10 or 10/10 scores needs to be doing something special or new. It should have a broad, all-encompassing vision. And Halo lacks that.