InBlack wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 09:10:
Oh and I just wanted to say one thing. A lot of naysayers going on about how Halo was a 'crappy' console port that ran like ass and looked like shit on the PC.
I dont really care about graphics fidelity in a game like this because:
Gameplay is king, It ran fine for me, it had great and very innovative gameplay for a FPS, a lot of fun and memorable sequences, interesting & strange enemies, great maps (until you get to the copy paste part), vehicle combat, the super cool Master Chief and something that MOST FPS seem to never get right. Pacing and Story.
I never played the other sequels because of typical Microsoft bullshit and whatnot, but Halo 1 was a fine PC game and hardly a bad console port.
Though it puts us in a distinct minority, I am in full agreement. The graphics were fine - nowhere near bad enough to be distracting, but in my opinion the overall experience as you said was a lot better than most people give it credit for. The pacing was nigh perfect.
EDIT: I also wanted to point out that there is NOTHING wrong with regenerating shields. It makes perfect sci-fi sense and to complain about it somehow being "dumbed down for consoles" is just silly. (Blame the Starship Enterprise if you looking for what *really* started it all.
) Halo's health and shield system was elegant and served the gameplay perfectly.
This comment was edited on Nov 7, 2012, 09:38.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi