I never understand why so many gamers assert that Halo is the worst FPS ever made, even compared to the first PC shooters. It's not, at all. There's a glut of shooters and it boggles my mind how someone could play them and rank Halo all the way at the bottom. I finished Halo on the PC, and off the top of my head I could name at least 10 shooters where I couldn't be bothered to do that (or more often, finish the demo). Let's see...

Witchhaven
Descent to Undermountain
Blood 2
That Build Engine game set in Vietnam
Every Wild West FPS ever made except maybe Outlaws
That Terminator game whose demo took place in an office building
Gunman Chronicles
Daikatana
Mortyr
Redneck Rampage
Fire Warrior

I mean, I thought these games were total crap, maybe just slightly fun if you were trapped in an elevator or waiting in the dentist's office. But people happily claim that Halo is worse than all of those. I can't even see how games that generally received passable scores, like Kingpin or Second Sight, can be considered to be better. There are so many FPSes that barely even try to do anything other than get a something out on the shelf (cf. practically any FPS with the Star Wars license on it, post-Jedi Knight) that my mind just boggles.

What difficulty level did you play Halo at?

Hardest. I play all my games on the hardest difficulty level available. I frickin' hate it when games only let you get the true hardest level after beating it once (I am looking at you ID guys).




Live Chat with other BluesNews forum members (beta; GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesChat.user.js

Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js
This comment was edited on Dec 5, 15:00.

I have no clue where SMA is coming up with great AI and core gameplay, the AI and gameplay sucked, like a Dyson.

I guess it's coming down to two alternatives:

1) As a PC Shooter fan you are unwilling to acknowledge that a wildly popular Console Shooter did a couple things well.

or

2) We played different games that were somehow both named Halo.

I have no clue where SMA is coming up with great AI and core gameplay, the AI and gameplay sucked, like a Dyson.

From the scenario and general gameplay that I described? All you seem to be able to do is say it sucks, not explain why, not give an instance of crappy gameplay, just say it sucks. Damn, that's REAL convincing. All you're doing is just repeating your assertions.

The scenario he described was fun…but it has been done before in many other games (which is hard not to do, that is not my problem).

What 2001 and Earlier shooters had gameplay like that? The Half-Life 1 Marine fights, sure. But guess what? Halo took that style of combat and improved on it; Halo had better combat than what was seen in the Half-Life 1 Marine battles. If you look at the other shooters that were out at that time, developers were still only getting past the old Quake style of combat. I loaded up Soldier of Fortune (released in 2000) a week or two ago out of boredom and guess what? The combat is extremely simplistic, it's just Quake against human enemies. Same deal with Return to Castle Wolfenstein, it was fun but the combat really wasn't any more developed than what we saw in Quake.

What difficulty level did you play Halo at? This is the only thing I can think of, beyond simply wanting to appear superior to anything console related, that would cause us to have wildly diverging experiences with game. At the Normal difficulty setting the enemies die quickly, and your shield only takes light damage. As such the kind of gameplay where you have stay behind cover and break cover only once you have a plan, ends up getting ignored because the game isn't challenging enough to necessitate it. Bump up the difficulty to Heroic or Legendary and you damn well better be playing smarter or you won't last long.

Yeah, so Enahs, sorry 'bro, but your comments rather seem like you want the good 'ole days to come back, and I don't blame that, but times change, dude. The classics were good back in the day, and are still good, but not the best anymore.

No, I do not. I am exciting and looking forward to new FPS.

HALO was one the most dull, boring, repetitive games I have ever played. Seriously, replaying the crossword puzzle in the Sunday News paper is less repetitive then HALO, and more challenging.


I have no clue where SMA is coming up with great AI and core gameplay, the AI and gameplay sucked, like a Dyson. The scenario he described was fun…but it has been done before in many other games (which is hard not to do, that is not my problem). And point in fact, those parts in the other games that were similar were not as impressive because the rest of the game was on par with that.

Saying HALO sucks because it's crap on the PC is just plain ignorant in considering the main platform for which it was released.

No it is not. It is one of the worst FPS PC games ever. It was released on the PC, and a lot of people claim it to be the best game ever. If it was released on the PC then why am I supposed to judge the console version? That is just silly.

And using the PC as the guiding standard by which a great game is judged is...stupid.

I am not. Some of the most enjoyable games and my fondest gaming memories involve console games.

I made the comment once that PC gaming has become too elitist for its own good.

I agree. But one person makes one comment that this high regarded FPS console game is so horrible, does not have anything to do with elitist attitudes. In fact, by just implying that you are being more elitist because you are saying I can not have a opinion in favor of one and out of favor of another without going against your ideals of the community at large.


To reiterate, HALO sucked balls (and as I said earlier, sure the MP is fun). If you enjoyed it, you need to go see a doctor right away and ask them to check you for being a tard. I hear you can catch tardness from public toilet seats now.


Live Chat with other BluesNews forum members (beta; GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesChat.user.js

Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js
This comment was edited on Dec 5, 09:45.

Serious Sam (also released in 2001) wasn't memorable or challenging?

To be honest I forgot all about Serious Sam, probably because I didn't end up playing that one until Summer 2002.

I totally agree that Halo fell apart during it's second half, although the last level was pretty exciting I thought. That said, the game was still a blast through the first 5 missions or so.

PC gamers always seem quick to nail Halo for it's bland level design and limited selection of enemies, while ignoring how great the core gameplay was. Halo simply did an outstanding job of making shooting a gun really, really entertaining. The design of the shield system and the integration of grenades and melee attacks into the combat was really well thought out. In other shooters, grenades and melee attacks were something that you had to put your gun away for. As a result they'd rarely be used. By simply putting those tools in easily accessible key strokes they suddenly became very useful and integral to the overall combat experience. This was nicely integrated with the shield system, because the shield system necessitated ducking in and out of cover. When you would break cover you would want to be able to quickly take out an elite, because if you had to return to cover to recharge your shields then the elite would be fully recharged when you returned. You'd get this cool dynamic where you'd try to keep the bad guys from flanking you, and then when you'd attack you would do so as quickly and as ferociously as possible. Since you'd only be able to spend a limited amount of time outside of cover, having easily accessible melee and grenade attacks became a godsend. This created this great gameplay dynamic where you would actively seek out cover and only break cover once you had formulated a plan to use your time outside cover as productively (i.e. kill more stuff) as possible. I thought this a great, entertaining combat system that was a significant step beyond what was seen in the other shooters that came out that year.

Serious Sam (also released in 2001) wasn't memorable or challenging?

Sure, but it was just one notable mention on the PC platform. Like I say, good for it's time, fun even now, and may not even be surpassed in some aspects, but still just one game on the PC.

It's still a better example than simply saying "worse than games released ten years ago." SINCE IT WAS RELEASED POST 2000!

This comment was edited on Dec 5, 00:24.

Yes, they where all better then HALO. I am sorry, But HALO (1 & 2) some of the worst FPS games, ever. Sure their MP might be fun, but they are not great. Q1 and Duke3D MP was much more fun to me. Granted they did not have the larger environments like HALO, but big deal....they are 10 years old. HALO SP ranks as some of the worst games of all time.

Okay, but you still haven't described how they were better. And really, going by your personal description, it sounded like it was merely because you played those first. Had you come along later and played Halo instead of those, your opinion would probably be different.

I came up along those same line of games, too, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that games that by merely coming out first or sooner and while excellent for their time, are indeed better.

And this quote, particularly, is an example of why I argue people get too caught up in the past:

Granted they did not have the larger environments like HALO, but big deal....they are 10 years old. HALO SP ranks as some of the worst games of all time.

So? Multiplay and singleplayer modes have always been fundamentally different from one another. And if you tell me you played Quake 1/2 for the single player mode, you are probably lying. You play System Shock and and Deus Ex for their SP modes, you play Q1/2 SP just to shoot shit. If you enjoyed them, then cool, but don't kid yourself into elevating to being that great.

But it really does state something when a game is considers one of the best console games ever and the best MP ever on a console and it is 100% total and utter shite on a PC

Not really. If anything, it just illustrates the differences between PC and console gaming. Consider if Goldeneye, a console game released in 1997 for the N64, is widely considered one of the best MP games of all time, had been ported to the PC. The translation might not have gone as well.

Saying HALO sucks because it's crap on the PC is just plain ignorant in considering the main platform for which it was released. And using the PC as the guiding standard by which a great game is judged is...stupid. I made the comment once that PC gaming has become too elitist for its own good. The lack of innovation, lack of numerous quality titles, and the stagnation has really made me wonder if the years of Quake 1/2 and Duke 3d and etc really were better just for nothing else there was the vibrant mod scene and new stuff being released all the times.

Yeah, so Enahs, sorry 'bro, but your comments rather seem like you want the good 'ole days to come back, and I don't blame that, but times change, dude. The classics were good back in the day, and are still good, but not the best anymore.
This comment was edited on Dec 5, 00:13.

The thing I like best about the Halo games is that they support coop. I've played more coop in Halo 1 & 2 than singleplayer. Sure they aren't the best shooters, but being able to play through the game with someone else makes it more enjoyable.

The PC shooters that year didn't have combat any where near as exciting, memorable or challenging; so to call Halo one of the worst shooters ever made is fucking retarded.

Serious Sam (also released in 2001) wasn't memorable or challenging? I had loads more fun playing that than I did Halo. By the time you got to the Flood, the gameplay stopped being exciting and started being a chore. No thanks to the AI. Without those Elites, Halo would have been just as bland as Max Payne. What else was there to fight, the things shooting mortars at you? The floating robot sphere? The cowardly little peons? I would rather eat rusty nails than play though Halo again.

I am sorry, But HALO (1 & 2) some of the worst FPS games, ever.

Bullshit. Were Halo 1 & 2 perfect? Hardly. But to call them some of the worst shooters ever is total absurdity.

Was FEAR the worst shooter ever because it had same-y looking levels? No, it was an excellent albeit flawed shooter that's main weaknesses were a lack of variety in level design and a disappointing story.

Likewise the Halo games have been flawed but still great shooters. What they did well, they did very, very well; namely, AI and combat. For 2001, Halo had almost certainly the best combat against the most challenging AI in any shooter. Look at what it's competition was that year: Ghost Recon, Max Payne Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Aliens vs Predator 2. Of those the only game with memorable combat was Max Payne and that was mostly due to the bullet time, take that away and it would have been one very bland shooter. Halo in contrast had shooting with a very intense and tactile feel to it, and the Elites provided one heck of a challenge your first time through the game.

One of my favorite gaming moments comes from the second level at the first bit where you have to defend a group of Marines awaiting evac. The rest of the Marines ended up getting killed and it was just me on top of the forerunner structure, running from ramp to ramp trying to keep the bad guys pinned down long enough so I could toss a grenade and move back to the other ramp before bad guys got up it. I ended up just barely surviving, having to melee rush the last elite when I ran out of ammo for the assault rifle.

The PC shooters that year didn't have combat any where near as exciting, memorable or challenging; so to call Halo one of the worst shooters ever made is fucking retarded.

All that said Halo had problems, mainly with the interior level design. But it's core gameplay remained excellent regardless and to ignore that core gameplay and harp on about the repetitive level design is just stupid.

This was one of the big reasons why I wanted to get a PS3 instead of a 360. I could play with my friends in america (Im in germany) and could buy english versions without cut content. Now that both of these features are actually NOT THERE, I will go buy a 360.
Fuck you Sony.

Huh? A decade ago we were playing Quake 1/2, and Duke Nukem 3D (a game built off a sprite-based engine). Those were better? Someone needs take the rose-colored goggles off.

Yes, they where all better then HALO. I am sorry, But HALO (1 & 2) some of the worst FPS games, ever. Sure their MP might be fun, but they are not great. Q1 and Duke3D MP was much more fun to me. Granted they did not have the larger environments like HALO, but big deal....they are 10 years old. HALO SP ranks as some of the worst games of all time.

I got nothing against consoles, or consoles players. But it really does state something when a game is considers one of the best console games ever and the best MP ever on a console and it is 100% total and utter shite on a PC.

Live Chat with other BluesNews forum members (beta; GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesChat.user.js

Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js

Welcome, to the wonderful world of a patchable system.

Although I should think that an update to a service like Live should be able to go without "bricking" the one and only hardware device it has been made to run on

Hoping I can afford a Wii, but it certainly dont look like it. maybe I can borrow my nephews, who seems to be getting one


This comment was edited on Dec 4, 16:23.

No, Masa, you're right. Halo is about the same level of fun as Quake 1. But we've kind of moved on from there.

I own the game, and it was entertaining to use the vehicles and stuff, but overall I found the game to be quite lacking. Long stretches of the same kinds of corridors, no innovative types of weapons, just a couple of different enemies...

Coop is fun. But aside from that, Halo is really lackluster.

Man micro$oft must have their faces buried so far up Bungie's arse, I can see them forcing the game out to compete with the Wii and PS3 way to early.

Just by being in the console market the Wii and PS3's are competitors any how.

And Bungie's owned by MS, so I don't really see the point of your comment.

Not that the last two didn't suck as well. Sure for console shooters they are among the best. But compared to any decent PC shooter, they were craptastic, trumped by games 10 years their senior, hell trumped by the FIRST FPS games.

Huh? A decade ago we were playing Quake 1/2, and Duke Nukem 3D (a game built off a sprite-based engine). Those were better? Someone needs take the rose-colored goggles off.

This comment was edited on Dec 4, 15:41.

Agree on Zelda. I'm at close to 30 hours of gameplay according to my save file, and I figure I have about 5 - 10 hours left. There are some frustrating parts, but they're more of "Oh duh, I should have tried that" type of things. Luckily there are walkthroughs already showing up online.

When I was in Seoul during the PS3 launch week, I found the 20GB version readily available at Techno Mart. They were charging 750,000 WON (~$800 USD). Of course they were the Japanese version.

I saw mainly bootleg movies when I went to Yongsan but I didn't see bootleg games. I did see DOA: Dead or Alive The Movie bootleg everywhere thought. I'm kicking myself for not picking it up. PS2/360 ads were everywhere.

Man micro$oft must have their faces buried so far up Bungie's arse, I can see them forcing the game out to compete with the Wii and PS3 way to early. It'll suck balls, garenteed.

Not that the last two didn't suck as well. Sure for console shooters they are among the best. But compared to any decent PC shooter, they were craptastic, trumped by games 10 years their senior, hell trumped by the FIRST FPS games.

Umm, the games out. I've already played like 10 hours of it. Wouldn't a "review" be more appropriate?

My $0.02...

GREAT FRICKIN GAME! I'm not the biggest fan of the "wolf" parts but they're still good.


"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurmama

my 360 takes maybe...5-10 seconds longer to startup since the update. nothing major, but an annoyance.