A small rant about Halo

[ShinRa]

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

 

[giant384]

most people like it for the multiplayer. i for one don't understand the hype either. woooo alright its the same freaking battles as the last 2 games. also i just prefer mouse/keyboard over controller anyday.

 

[DreamThrall]

amen, brother

 

[Uriel]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Halo = Good Console FPS, Mediocre FPS for PC

Nothing new or original.

 

[Adabiviak]

People's opinions differ, yours is not in the majority.

 

[bam23]

most people like it for the multiplayer.

truth

I think it had a lot to do with coming out at the right place and the right time.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

When it came out, FPS were unproven on consoles. Halo came along and had a huge, epic story about the destruction of mankind and everyone loved it. Was it perfect? No. Was it truly innovative? No. However, it did do everything that it set out to do extremely well.

 

[FoxDie]

People's opinions differ, yours is not in the majority.

Thanks for restating what we've established

The OP wants to know why the majority feels the way they do.

 

[Absinthe]

People's opinions differ, yours is not in the majority.

I'm going to take a slight liberty here and interpret that as meaning "Most people are stupid".

 

[KagePrototype]

Halo was successful for one reason: because it had awesome multiplayer. The entire game was built around it. It's as simple as that.

When it came out, FPS were unproven on consoles. Halo came along and had a huge, epic story about the destruction of mankind and everyone loved it. Was it perfect? No. Was it truly innovative? No. However, it did do everything that it set out to do extremely well.

Goldeneye and Perfect Dark had already done this, again because of the great multiplayer. (Why don't people remember these games anymore? )

 

[Ennui]

I agree with OP completely, I've never been able to understand what people find so amazing about a game that's clearly relatively mediocre in most aspects.

Goldeneye and Perfect Dark had already done this, again because of the great multiplayer. (Why don't people remember these games anymore? )

Because they're assholes is why, Goldeneye and PD are still my favorite two console shooters, period.

 

[Jimmeh]

I bought the first Halo back when the old Xbox came out and for the most part really enjoyed it. Good fun to be had with the campaign (especially in co-op), and split screen. Halo 2 was a step back for me, at least in terms of single player. Since then I've played a bit of it on live round a mates house and I really can't understand the popularity of it.

Then yesterday I played the Halo 3, and while it was decent, it's really hard to see any real differences between all three games (other than shinier graphics). While the Halo games are decent fun to play, I really can't see why they're so popular.

Now I've heard that Halo 3 is set to become the fastest selling game of all time, and I'm just can't understand why. The gameplay is about as simplistic and shallow as it gets really. There's no real innovation to be found as they've just been pumping out the same game with a few shiny bits added each time. Yet still hundreds of thousands of people seem to collectively knock one out over it's supposed godliness. I'm not saying it isn't a laugh from time to time, it's just not that good.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Why the **** is this game the hyped up god of video games its made out to be? Is it fun? Sure.

There's your answer. Forget all the rest. If you think a game needs to be innovative and have a rich story to be succesful, frankly you're kidding yourself.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Halo does one thing and it does it well - big dumb explodey fun. Is it deep? Not incredibly. Involving? In a purely testoterone-fuelled way, yeah. Is it fun? Hell yes. And that's all that matters to most people.

That doesn't mean everyone's going to enjoy it, though. Nor does it mean it's the "best" (LOL SUBJECTIVE MUCH?) game out there. It simply caters to the most people while maintaining a very high bar of quality. That and marketing, obviously.

Anyway, if there's anything Halo 3 has shown, it's that Bungie knows it's consumer base, and it gives them exactly what they want. You want the assault rifle back? Done. Pistol? Sure, why not. Have two. A better campaign with an actual conclusive ending? We'll see what we can do (I'll leave that one up to other's judgement ).

Sure, the first Halo may have been a fluke in some respects. It was going to be an RTS, after all. Maybe they didn't see it's success coming. But now they know they're onto something, and they're sticking to it. Are they wrong?

 

[Dekstar]

Agreed with Kage and Ennui. PD and GE beat the crap out of any new console FPS (Timesplitters is the only game series I can think of that came close).
I don't understand the battle design for the Halo series either. Battles seem to consist of shoot > both players almost die > hide for 5 seconds > recharge suit > jump back out and continue your battle. This has, in my opinion, very little tactical benefit. In any other game where HP doesn't magically recharge, you always have the awesome showdowns between 2 people on really low health, and you're thinking "who's going to win?!". In Halo, it's the dude with the most nades.

Someone prove me wrong.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

It's a great multiplayer experience. Nothing more.

 

[Raxxman]

Halo (and Goldeneye) are both successes more due to dumb luck than actually being a good game.

1. They looked good.
Goldeneye was one of the best looking games when it came out, the Xbox is the daddy in terms of power of that generation, Halo did look good compared to its peers.

2. They play alright.
Goldeneye had a fairly unique aiming system that suited it well (though Goldeneye was all about level design over anything else) Halo had a nice balance of weapons and a really good coop mode.

3. They were their first.
Goldeneye had no real challange till PD came out, Halo was a launch product. Couple this with the fact they play alright, makes for very popular games.

4. FPS are popular

5. They got console backing.
MS pumped halo to oblivion, Nintendo bundelled goldeneye in with a lot of the N64s, meaning you had the console you were likely to have the game.

6. Fluke!
I think with Halo it shows more, as RARE did produce PD which was good, timesplitters never really hit the highs of Goldeneye (made by a lot of the same people). A lot of halos design choices seem more luck than judgment. Weapon balance was good in Halo, not so good in Halo 2. But both games were really the best the respective companies ever managed to do (as far as FPSs go).

Really the biggest of the points are fluke, coming out first and console backing.

 

[Ennui]

Agreed with Kage and Ennui. PD and GE beat the crap out of any new console FPS (Timesplitters is the only game series I can think of that came close).

That's because Timesplitters is basically GE/PD 2 on the PS2.

 

[Noobulon]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Halo = Good Console FPS, Mediocre FPS for PC

Nothing new or original.

But if that's really the case, why did Edge (a highly discerning UK magazine) give the original Halo a 10/10? :|
This is what I don't understand.

At that time, 10/10 scores were reserved for "revolutionary" games: games which achieved something no other game had managed.

And if Halo really was just retreading ground already conquered on PC, Edge (of all places) should have known; they've been reviewing every major PC and console game for the last 15 years.

 

[Absinthe]

And if Halo really was just retreading ground already conquered on PC, Edge (of all places) should have known; they've been reviewing every major PC and console game for the last 15 years.

Then the revolutionary features really should be sticking out like a sore thumb then.

I'm not familiar with Edge, but I can only chalk up that score to a colossal error in judgment. Seems to be the case with most people when it comes to Halo.

 

[Warbie]

heh, i'm equally as baffled, Shin, and honestly don't understand why people don't love Halo for the reasons I do. The thought of even comparing it to Resistance Fall of Man, which I did enjoy, makes me feel sick. The gulf of complexity and depth of combat between Halo and RFOM is staggering - Halo slaughters it. Put simply, RFOM is Halo's retarded brother - no thinking required.

I actually rate Halo more for its single player game - which has varied greatly over the series. The original was largely awesome (especially for its time) and the second comparatively mediocre. What i've experienced of Halo 3 (which is only the first 3 levels) is up there with the better bits of Halo - painfully punishing on Legendary, but never unfairly so. While most fps are pretty much point and click, at its best Halo is a dance of melee, ranged and grenades. Always rushing in and out of cover, changing weapons on the fly, with encounters which can evolve into quite different experiences each time. You can really get stuck in and be creative, which is something i'm hoping the theatre mode will help other people see.

I barely have a 10th of the time I devoted to the original available to Halo 3, but will damn well be trying to make something worthy of sharing. tbh much of my Halo 3 Legendary experience has been spent dying (hence a hasty retreat to heroic), but the options and possibilities are there to be seen. There is scope to be truly godlike, which, when it comes down to it, is what Halo offers that other single player fps don't.


//edit - what the hell are you rambling about, Raxxman? Fluke my ass!

 

[Raxxman]

You your(goram)self just said Halo 2 wasn't up to scratch. If they can't make lightning strike twice then they ain't Valve and they fluked Halo.

For record I ain't a valve fanboy, but Half-life 1 and 2 are both great games, and HL2 built on and improved everything HL1 tried to achieve. Did halo 2 do that with Halo... oh wait no, no it didn't.

Fluke! right place, right time, average game.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I don't think anyone will ever know why Halo continues to get such insanely high scores. Could be tilted somewhat by hours upon hours of office LAN games and the pure, unadulterated joy that follows. That or the review copies are bundled with cocaine.

I'm not saying it's crap and deserves far lower, but some of the scores... I mean, Halo 2 in particular out-scoring Half-Life 2 on almost every review site certainly mystified me.

 

[Warbie]

You your(goram)self just said Halo 2 wasn't up to scratch. If they can't make lightning strike twice then they ain't Valve and they fluked Halo.

For record I ain't a valve fanboy, but Half-life 1 and 2 are both great games, and HL2 built on and improved everything HL1 tried to achieve. Did halo 2 do that with Halo... oh wait no, no it didn't.

Fluke! right place, right time, average game.

Let's not go there - I don't rate HL2 nearly as highly as HL (infact i'd argue that it improved on HL in every aspect other than the ones that made it great).

Perhaps Halo was a fluke in that it does what it does so well, but I don't stand by this 'right place, right time, average game' piffle (yes, piffle!). When it came out I had never played anything like it on console or pc. As for Golden Eye, doesn't the fact that it was ****ing awesome and then followed by a game that was equally as ****ing awesome suggest that it wasn't a fluke?

 

[Jimmeh]

But if that's really the case, why did Edge (a highly discerning UK magazine) give the original Halo a 10/10? :|
This is what I don't understand.

At that time, 10/10 scores were reserved for "revolutionary" games: games which achieved something no other game had managed.

And if Halo really was just retreading ground already conquered on PC, Edge (of all places) should have known; they've been reviewing every major PC and console game for the last 15 years.

Okay, so at the time, Edge saw the original Halo as 'revolutionary' as you say. But what exactly have Halo 2 and 3 brought to the table which is any different, let alone 'revolutionary'? Can't really think of much at all, but they're still given rave reviews.

 

[Asknoone]

Halo has poor gameplay, yet good combat. It's an average but fun game that isn't nearly as good as people make it out to be. Comparing it to Resistance: Fall of Man is harsh, though, I'm sure. Because that games just looks shite.

 

[Raziaar]

It's funny people say it's a great multi player experience. The one thing I always hated about Halo was it's multi player. I could never be arsed to play it. I only liked the coop.

 

[KagePrototype]

Halo has poor gameplay, yet good combat.

Come again?

 

[Warbie]

Okay, so at the time, Edge saw the original Halo as 'revolutionary' as you say. But what exactly have Halo 2 and 3 brought to the table which is any different, let alone 'revolutionary'? Can't really think of much at all, but they're still given rave reviews.

I agree about Halo 2. The campaign was lacking and all it really provided was Halo multiplayer online (which was great for the fans). However, with Halo 3 the campaign seems to be back on form, 4 player online co-op is AWESOME (if memory serves i've never played a story driven fps in 4 player), theatre mode is simply genius and the forge is such a good idea it's hard to understand why all fps haven't been doing it for years. If anything it's revolutionary purely in terms of content - but the forge and theatre mode are enough on their own.

Come again?

Aye, I still don't get that one.

 

[Mutley]

It has sold $170mil in the first DAY, beating all entertainment records, including films:
http://www.majornelson.com/archive/...-biggest-day-in-us-entertainment-history.aspx

Big kudos to Microsoft for their marketing skills!

 

[Kyorisu]

Because Halo sells well and is a console game it leads to a higher than average level of retarded idiots on almost every server you can come across. The lack of dedicated venues is a problem as well and it's more than possible to be done for any console game.

I rate Halo for it's single player which is somewhat good (Halo 1) rather than it's generic ass blasting rocket launcher fest MP component. Not that theres nothing fun about ass blasting rocket launchers. There are however better alternatives.

 

[Stigmata]

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).

 

[Absinthe]

What Stigs said.

 

[Warbie]

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.

 

[soulslicer]

you see, the halo series has the world's biggest advertising for any game on this entire goddamn planet. thus, it even reaches out to the losers who have not played a decent game, the soldiers in iraq, and the noobcakes who don't know what real fps is and real storylines are.

I just saw a halo 3 ad on my morning public bus, wtf..master cheif

 

[Warbie]

thus, it even reaches out to the losers who have not played a decent game, the soldiers in iraq, and the noobcakes who don't know what real fps is and real storylines are.

What utter drivel. I've made more insightful bum noises than that.

 

[Stigmata]

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.

Which is why I disagree with Samon Though I can see why people wouldn't like Halo's gameplay at all.

 

[soulslicer]

so you don't agree halo3 has the best advertising.?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Halo has poor gameplay, yet good combat.

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.

 

[Kyorisu]

Needs more ass blasting.

 

[Warbie]

so you don't agree halo3 has the best advertising.?

What has that got to do with the rubbish in your post