Ways that Halo Was Great

[Veliko]

I never understand the hate for Halo 4. The story was setting up what is to come in the rest of the trilogy or saga.

I'm a Halo fanboy but found Halo 4 quite a letdown.

One of the biggest bugbears was how dull the Promotheans were as an enemy, there was very little distinction between them. And those dog things... just annoying.

And I don't know why they made the Covenant look so dull and dark, it made them lose their distinctness.

 

[smackababy]

we're talking about h1 compared to h2, not quake 3 and unreal tournament compared to other games in the FPS genre on different platforms.

its the same thing with how sf4 was dumbed down in many regards to sf3, and the speed of the game is one of the factors of that. to say otherwise is just being in denial. it doesn't mean the game is bad or anything. you sound like you're getting offended.

I'd say there were a lot of other things that dumbed down SF4 compared to SF3 than game speed. Input shortcuts, for example. I thought the FADC mechanic was a bit too easy as well, but I loved the parry system. That didn't make SF4 a bad game.

 

[purbeast0]

I'd say there were a lot of other things that dumbed down SF4 compared to SF3 than game speed. Input shortcuts, for example. I thought the FADC mechanic was a bit too easy as well, but I loved the parry system. That didn't make SF4 a bad game.

i agree, but speed was part of it. just like it was part of h2 compared to h1.

 

[sushiwarrior]

- slower walk speed
- removed fall damage
- removed health (it auto-regenerated, just like the shields do)
- removed the pistol from h1
- started out with a 100% useless weapon unless duel weilding
- grenades much less powerful and couldn't go as far
- plasma pistol had MUCH more tracking, which lead to the famous "noob combo"
- much more "sticky" aim in h2 than h1

Halo 2 had way more in depth tricks like BxR and BxB which gave it a MUCH higher skillcap than Halo 1. Tricks like that, which weren't crazy hard but took some strategy and skill to pull off, made it a much better competitive experience.

Plus Halo 2 had way better maps, Halo 1 only had a few good ones. 2 had many great competitive maps.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm a Halo fanboy but found Halo 4 quite a letdown.

One of the biggest bugbears was how dull the Promotheans were as an enemy, there was very little distinction between them. And those dog things... just annoying.

And I don't know why they made the Covenant look so dull and dark, it made them lose their distinctness.

I agree...the Promethean enemies had no personality like the covenant in previous titles. I do love the lore and the mythology of the Halo Universe though. Probably the most profound change and one which is still a huge let down to me is the music. Once Bungie left, the feeling and impact of the music took a nose dive into the dirt.

 

[smackababy]

Probably the most profound change and one which is still a huge let down to me is the music. Once Bungie left, the feeling and impact of the music took a nose dive into the dirt.

I think this is really just due to the fact that the first trilogy had such an excellent score, the rest kind of felt like subpar. I'm sure, had I not experience the first 3, the others wouldn't have been terrible.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think this is really just due to the fact that the first trilogy had such an excellent score, the rest kind of felt like subpar. I'm sure, had I not experience the first 3, the others wouldn't have been terrible.

I really like Martin O'Donnel though which has something to do with my bias I'm sure.

 

[Dumac]

I haven't liked a Halo game since Halo 1, which I liked a lot.

Halo 2 had an awful story that turned into an even more convoluted mess by Halo 3. Not to mention the terrible one-liners and cliffhangers in Halo 2. Halo 3's campaign was incredibly dull.

I gave up on multiplayer after Halo 2 as well. Was not a fan of dual wielding, the changes to weapon mechanics to a more spammy model. I missed the simple lethality of weapons in Halo 1. I didn't even both with MP in Halo 3.

Halo 4's story felt completely different than the rest of the series, and not better by any means. The forced romance and relationship between cortana and chief, the overt sexualizaiton of cortana, the deus ex machina ending...it all just reeked of juvenility. The multiaplyer was not enjoyable either, having gotten even squishier since Halo 2, adding classes/abilities/random weapon spawning/slew of CoD 'features'.

 

[desura]

One thing that I don't think gets commented enough on in the Halo universe...

is that if the Covenant had never shown up, then Master Chief and the rest of the Spartans would be like fascist stormtroopers putting down insurrections. Like, they're stolen from their parents at age 6, are then trained and physically augmented to perfectly obey commands.

A little creepy, you know? And actually, not too far out of reach of reality. It could happen.

 

[MichaelBarg]

I'm a Halo fanboy but found Halo 4 quite a letdown.

Yeah, IIRC the last line of Halo 3 was Master Chief "Wake me, when you need me." And the last line of Halo 4 should have been "You woke me up for this?"

Halo 4 is actually a great way to view what made most of the series great, IMO. The music, the plot, the levels and the pacing all contributed to making Halo CE a great game because it felt like you were doing Something Important. Reach similarly felt epic. For an FPS video game the world was very well filled out with plenty of story to chew on. The music was simply fantastic. Combine that with nice big worlds, varied game play (sniper level, driving level, flying level, etc.) and interesting background chatter from your allies and enemies and it really brought the world to life. 4 just didn’t draw me in with any of those things the same way. Multiplayer had some of the same aspects, but what was really important and where 4 fell down, was that in most of the Halo games it was tons of fun.


I hope 5 works out. It is really tough to consistently make games as good as the top entries in the series, but they have a huge budget I’m sure and lots of lore/world to work with.

 

[smackababy]

One thing that I don't think gets commented enough on in the Halo universe...

is that if the Covenant had never shown up, then Master Chief and the rest of the Spartans would be like fascist stormtroopers putting down insurrections. Like, they're stolen from their parents at age 6, are then trained and physically augmented to perfectly obey commands.

A little creepy, you know? And actually, not too far out of reach of reality. It could happen.

I think the guys who came up with the IP were really into Scifi and it shows. Sadly, it ended up getting all Hollywood and not dark, but the original was still wonderful.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nope...Halo remains great to this day. AI that wasn't absolute retards, good controls on a console, a story in an FPS that made some sense. It really was the total package for an FPS.

Plenty of games had sensible stories and the AI at the very least was no more noteworthy than Half-Life's, and probably other games as well. The superiority of its AI over a number of shooters at the time does not make up for its deficits in many other areas.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Plenty of games had sensible stories and the AI at the very least was no more noteworthy than Half-Life's, and probably other games as well. The superiority of its AI over a number of shooters at the time does not make up for its deficits in many other areas.

So the AI in Half-Life would hop in your vehicles and actually competently shoot the enemies for you, move out of the way so you don't run them over, the enemies would jump out of the way of grenades, hide behind cover to recharge their shields, actively flank your position, and seek you out when your shields were low and you ran to cover? Never happened.

It's great when people like you post. "Oh it's so flawed! I can see all the technical issues!" yet you don't mention any of them.

 

[Sulaco]

Plenty of games had sensible stories and the AI at the very least was no more noteworthy than Half-Life's, and probably other games as well. The superiority of its AI over a number of shooters at the time does not make up for its deficits in many other areas.

That's a ridiculous point though, even if it were true, because Half-Life was and is still one of the greatest FPS of all-time, period.

Saying "Oh, its AI really wasn't any better than the greatest game in the genre up to that point" is really saying nothing at all, and more of a compliment to the esteemed company Halo could keep.

Outside of the console controls, what exactly were these "deficits in many other areas"? I'd love to hear.

 

[Tweak155]

The free look in Goldeneye required either another button (which ceased your movement), the C buttons (which was cumbersome at best), or the use of a second controller (which took away player).

Goldeneye was a decent game, but in '97, there were much better FPS out on the PC. Quake had been out for over a year and Doom 2 for quite a while before that. Granted, those aren't the best in the series, but they are still better FPS than Goldeneye.


What made Halo so great, IMO, was they did everything right. The controls, the engine, the "arena" style, the universe, the story. Everything just fit right.

No, it didn't. You could look around with the thumbstick without doing any of that. Just had to change your control scheme.

 

[Tweak155]

solitare and goodnight (1.2 and 1.4)




I used to use domino for 2 (2.3)

This, although I don't remember the name of the one that did free look with C buttons for moving. I want to say Solitaire.

 

[RagingBITCH]

I haven't liked a Halo game since Halo 1, which I liked a lot.

Halo 2 had an awful story that turned into an even more convoluted mess by Halo 3. Not to mention the terrible one-liners and cliffhangers in Halo 2. Halo 3's campaign was incredibly dull.

I gave up on multiplayer after Halo 2 as well. Was not a fan of dual wielding, the changes to weapon mechanics to a more spammy model. I missed the simple lethality of weapons in Halo 1. I didn't even both with MP in Halo 3.

Halo 4's story felt completely different than the rest of the series, and not better by any means. The forced romance and relationship between cortana and chief, the overt sexualizaiton of cortana, the deus ex machina ending...it all just reeked of juvenility. The multiaplyer was not enjoyable either, having gotten even squishier since Halo 2, adding classes/abilities/random weapon spawning/slew of CoD 'features'.

I personally spent most of my time playing Halo 2. I played the hell out of Halo 1 on XBC against some really good competition, but it just lacked something that Halo 2 picked up on. True, different style and geared more towards action (H1 was a bit slower) but I thought H2 was funner in general, and mastered the multiplayer aspect to a tee. Single player - regardless of which Halo it was, it's a one and done kind of thing.

 

[smackababy]

I personally spent most of my time playing Halo 2. I played the hell out of Halo 1 on XBC against some really good competition, but it just lacked something that Halo 2 picked up on. True, different style and geared more towards action (H1 was a bit slower) but I thought H2 was funner in general, and mastered the multiplayer aspect to a tee. Single player - regardless of which Halo it was, it's a one and done kind of thing.

I think a big problem with H1 was the skill gaps were so apparent among players. If I was playing against someone less skilled than me, I'd decimate them. 3 shots and their done, without hitting me more than once. In H2, they "balanced" out more. The BR took more shots and the difference between a body and a headshot wasn't as significant.

 

[desura]

So I played Halo Reach after Halo 3. Massive improvement.

Halo 3 feels like Halo 2 with some shiny textures bolted on. Halo Reach is really impressive, feels truly next gen.

Also, Halo Reach does a better job so far with the notion I've noticed of the Spartans being kinda creepy and weird.

 

[RagingBITCH]

I think a big problem with H1 was the skill gaps were so apparent among players. If I was playing against someone less skilled than me, I'd decimate them. 3 shots and their done, without hitting me more than once. In H2, they "balanced" out more. The BR took more shots and the difference between a body and a headshot wasn't as significant.

Probably on purpose. I don't think they ever expected the pistol to be a 3 shotter in multi, but it turned into the deadliest weapon available. You could 3 shot a guy on Hang Em from the other side of the map. And yes, skill gap was readily apparent, esp on XBC. We did play a pretty epic 2 hour CTF game on HEH though. That was one of the most intense two hours we've ever played.

Ahh the good old days.

 

[Arkaign]

I came from PC to play Halo, bought the hype, got an Xbox, whole 9 yards. Played it about two weeks and gave it away. It just wasn't for me, felt really watered down and sluggish.

Around the same time RTCW came out, and playing with diverse classes, complex teamwork, one-life modes, and vastly vastly superior performance was enough for me to never look back.

I made the same mistake with Goldeneye on N64, it was a pretty terrible experience coming from PC, came out around Quake2 release, and there was no way I could force myself to play it after trying it for a weekend.

I love my consoles, but FPS on them is just terrible in my experience (coming from situations with better performance and controls/depth/mods).

I can totally understand people that love them, it's just completely not for me in any stretch. Gave it several good tries on the supposed best games, and it's just agonizing in every possible way.

 

[Drako]

Halo 3: ODST co-op sticks out in my mind as one of the best games ever. Only because my wife and I played the shit out of that game. She especially loved the sound track on that game, being an audio engineer and geek

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So the AI in Half-Life would hop in your vehicles and actually competently shoot the enemies for you, move out of the way so you don't run them over, the enemies would jump out of the way of grenades, hide behind cover to recharge their shields, actively flank your position, and seek you out when your shields were low and you ran to cover? Never happened.

It's great when people like you post. "Oh it's so flawed! I can see all the technical issues!" yet you don't mention any of them.

Running from grenades, using cover, and flanking were all utilized by the soldiers in Half-Life, and Halo was hardly the first game with friendly AI.

That's a ridiculous point though, even if it were true, because Half-Life was and is still one of the greatest FPS of all-time, period.

Saying "Oh, its AI really wasn't any better than the greatest game in the genre up to that point" is really saying nothing at all, and more of a compliment to the esteemed company Halo could keep.

Outside of the console controls, what exactly were these "deficits in many other areas"? I'd love to hear.

Good combat AI doesn't mean that much when the level design is highly repetitious and built around poorly scripted events. "Another dropship incoming!", copy-pasted rooms everywhere, not much variance in the way you fight enemies (the elites have by far the best combat AI and you'll be still fighting them more or less in the same way from beginning to end). The ideas had been stretched completely thin by the time of The Library, and the cracks start to show well before that.

 

[Sulaco]

Good combat AI doesn't mean that much when the level design is highly repetitious and built around poorly scripted events. "Another dropship incoming!", copy-pasted rooms everywhere, not much variance in the way you fight enemies (the elites have by far the best combat AI and you'll be still fighting them more or less in the same way from beginning to end). The ideas had been stretched completely thin by the time of The Library, and the cracks start to show well before that.

Highly repetitious is flat out silly. It had some of the more open and varied environments of any FPS up to that point.
As much as I love Half Life, and I do rank it higher than Halo by quite a bit as a game and FPS personally, if you want to talk monotonous levels, many of Half Life's areas, especially the later game "industrial park/conveyor belt" levels were beyond monotonous. And that was simply not uncommon in FPS of the time.

As for "poorly scripted events", more nonsense. All FPS games of the time featured scripted events, and still do. For a game about an intergalactic war on an alien world, having drop ships ferry soldiers to the battlefield doesn't seem much of a complaint. And even if it were, it's an exaggerated one, since most of the encounters are from enemy Covenant already on the ground or in place.

You can not like the game all you want, but most every complaint you've listed thus far is either highly exaggerated or is just as prevalent, if not more so, in other contemporary FPS of the time.

 

[WildW]

For the time...

Halo was the first major FPS that--

1. Wasn't dark and grimy
2. had you fighting side by side other soldiers
3. had good coop.
4. Coop vehicular combat made for interesting cooperation

What else?

Grenades that stick to you for a while before exploding, so you have time to think "Oh crap, I'm dead" before you're actually dead.

Six of us playing Blood Gulch on a LAN, pretending to be characters from Red Vs Blue.