Rigs wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:36:
I'm not one to usually take issue with people's personal opinions of a game, but statements like this are just bullshit. =-Rigs-=

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:46:

Anyway, another good reason to hate Halo is because it popularized two really annoying mechanics that you now see in almost every shooter: regenerating health/shields and two-weapon limits.

Disagree. There is a different design philosophy involved when considering medpack health restoration versus regenerating health, but that does not make one inherently better than the other. A lot of people dislike the regening health because it flies in the face of the "run-and-gun" dynamic so many of us got used to in early FPS's, but it is simply a matter of preference. I think the idea of instant health pack effects is utterly ridiculous - how does it make any more sense than magical re-filling health bars? People will often say that games with regenning health require less skill, and that's fine - maybe they do. I just know I don't care - I can enjoy a well-made game that utilizes either reality-deying mechanic.

I also think weapon limits force tough choices, which makes for a better game (though 2 does seem a bit too restrictive). In arcade shooters no one minds that dude is carrying enough weaponry to arm a country, but in more "reality-based" shooters some logic needs to be applied. I really liked the way Mass Effect showed how your four weapons were stored on your back for example.

yuastnav wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:57:
Meh, Halo was okay. Nothing special but I wouldn't call it forgettable because I am a sucker for Power Armour and the world/enemies actually looked nice, too.
The shooting was good, the regenerating shield makes as little sense as regenerating health (but for different reasons since there is no scientific basis how such a shield works) but I would've liked non-regenerating health anyway.

I agree with Beamer, though. The multiplayer was the part of the game that I had the most fun with. It was a really fun experience although the Banshee dogfights were kind of anticlimatic because, since they had the same turn rate, you would circle around each other and nothing would happen. Though it could be intense since the slightest mistake could give your opponent an advantage and kill you.
I also remember that you could shoot the people out of the Banshees with the sniper rifle but I do not know whether that was actually true or part of my imagination.

ItBurn wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:56:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:46:
Oh crap, last time when I said Halo was the first game to really do vehicles, you're right, Tribes did it.

But Halo was next. I can't think of another FPS game to have vehicles between them. No major games at least.

And you're also right, SW had sticky grenades, HL had good AI, and DN had melee (so did Doom. So did Wolfenstein.) But melee was a bigger part of Halo, sticky bombs were better implemented, the AI was smarter than HL and more on display, and not being first doesn't make a game "rock bottom bad."

Like I said elsewhere, I played a ton of Halo PC multiplayer. The netcode wasn't great, but the vehicles were. Tribes had them, but wasn't about them. Halo was. No game, to that point, had anything quite like loading a Warthog up with 2 other people are blowing the crap out of tons of people. No game let me take a jet and constantly dive-bomb people, going an entire session without dying.
Halo multiplayer, on the PC, was a blast. The following Halos were on the console as well. They had nicely integrated stats, like what UT did, which was very meaningful for me.

People crap on it just because of the console. Ignore that. They're fine games. Maybe not the best ever, but certainly not rock-bottom-bad.

Shadow Warrior had vehicles too. :p
The thing is Halo didn't bring fps games forward. It had an old mentality, in a bad way. It might be fine for some people, but I was playing much more advanced shooters at the time and didn't want to go back.

Jerykk wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:32:
What? There were tons of shooters that threw more than two enemies at you. Doom, for example.

Anyway, another good reason to hate Halo is because it popularized two really annoying mechanics that you now see in almost every shooter: regenerating health/shields and two-weapon limits.

Jerykk wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:32:
As for vehicles, Codename Eagle had vehicle-centric gameplay before Halo. It was DICE's first game and the predecessor to BF1942. Then there's Tribes, of course. Also, Tribes 2 came out before Halo and was much more vehicle-centric than Tribes 1.

Anyway, another good reason to hate Halo is because it popularized two really annoying mechanics that you now see in almost every shooter: regenerating health/shields and two-weapon limits.

The original Halo was an excellent FPS, console or otherwise. I viewed it as an extension of Doom, at least in terms of combat, since it was the only FPS at the time that threw more than a couple enemies at you.

PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:44:

The thing is Halo didn't bring fps games forward.

...except it DID move them forward, on the CONSOLE. Yeah, Goldeneye was fun splitscreen with four people. But Halo brought the PC multiplayer FPS experience to the console, and it's why CoD is the megafranchise it is today.

The thing is Halo didn't bring fps games forward.

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:46:
Oh crap, last time when I said Halo was the first game to really do vehicles, you're right, Tribes did it.

But Halo was next. I can't think of another FPS game to have vehicles between them. No major games at least.

And you're also right, SW had sticky grenades, HL had good AI, and DN had melee (so did Doom. So did Wolfenstein.) But melee was a bigger part of Halo, sticky bombs were better implemented, the AI was smarter than HL and more on display, and not being first doesn't make a game "rock bottom bad."

Like I said elsewhere, I played a ton of Halo PC multiplayer. The netcode wasn't great, but the vehicles were. Tribes had them, but wasn't about them. Halo was. No game, to that point, had anything quite like loading a Warthog up with 2 other people are blowing the crap out of tons of people. No game let me take a jet and constantly dive-bomb people, going an entire session without dying.
Halo multiplayer, on the PC, was a blast. The following Halos were on the console as well. They had nicely integrated stats, like what UT did, which was very meaningful for me.

People crap on it just because of the console. Ignore that. They're fine games. Maybe not the best ever, but certainly not rock-bottom-bad.

ItBurn wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:27:

strong placebo wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:17:
Having played all of them, the very first one was flawed but fun in single player:

1. sticky grenades added notable gameplay -- and even better then enemy AI used them back at you.
2. for the time, good and varied enemy AI.
3. vehicles were a nice twist even if the steering was flawed
4. replenishing shield was novel and added gameplay
5. Melee was a nice addition that could save your ass.

So anyone who says the first one was rock bottom bad? Cannot agree with you.

That said, the PLOTS of Halo are horrifically non-nonsensical and terrible. They stopped making sense in Halo 2, and it only got worse later on.

1. Shadow Warrior
2. Half-life
3. Tribes
4. Shit there were probably atari games with regenerating stuff.
5. Duke Nukem 3D

Jivaro wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 22:07:
I read the "preview" of Halo 4 in Game Informer and my jaw hit the ground.

"An ancient race called the Prometheans...."

"The Prometheans are part of the Forerunner civilization, the ancient race that dominated the galaxy in the Halo fiction 10,000 years ago."

"Their ruined buildings and facilities, including the Halo rings themselves, have been at the center of the story since the beginning. Even so, mysteries remain about who they are and what happened to them."

"The Prometheans are undoubtedly Forerunner citizens. They are in thrall and work for the Forerunner civilization."

"One of the central mysteries of Halo 4 is what happened in the vast stretch of time between the apparent end of the Forerunner civilization and the events of the Halo games."

The article goes on and on...and I am sitting here thinking to myself: "Damn, that sounds just like Mass Effect! They are just straight up copying it!"

And then you know what I said to my wife?

"I wonder if it will have a better ending?"

strong placebo wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:17:
Having played all of them, the very first one was flawed but fun in single player:

1. sticky grenades added notable gameplay -- and even better then enemy AI used them back at you.
2. for the time, good and varied enemy AI.
3. vehicles were a nice twist even if the steering was flawed
4. replenishing shield was novel and added gameplay
5. Melee was a nice addition that could save your ass.

So anyone who says the first one was rock bottom bad? Cannot agree with you.

That said, the PLOTS of Halo are horrifically non-nonsensical and terrible. They stopped making sense in Halo 2, and it only got worse later on.