At time of release, Halo: Combat Evolved was hyped up more than sex, and it deserved every bit of it. It was a surprise hit - that is, it didn't have a large following prior to release - but as word of it spread, it quickly became the most hyped game of the generation.
However, the Hype Machine has long since moved on. Most of those who heard of the game but were doubtful have tried it somehow, and now all I ever hear about Halo is how "overrated" it is. I hear the term so often that I doubt it can actually be considered highly rated any more.
The most common complaint I hear is the PC elitist argument, 'yes, it's the best CONSOLE shooter, but that's like being the world's largest mitochondrion.' What the haters mean if and when they say this is that console shooters are inherently ruined by the thumbstick control scheme, because it is not as accurate or fluid as a mouse-and-keyboard setup.
I say: Ridiculous. It's true that mouse control is more accurate and more dynamic than an analog stick, but it's not like a stick is impossible to aim with. In practice, the precision is determined far more by personal acclimation than hardware functionality. The ultimate god of console shooter skill will fumble embarrassingly if given PC controls, and vice versa.
Besides, good developers (like Bungie) add aim-assist to circumvent the flaws of thumbstick control; and aim-assist doesn't mean "pull the trigger and your opponent automatically dies." The system Halo uses is called "sticky-aim", meaning the reticle will snap onto an enemy and follow them if you aim close enough. You might say this diminishes the effect of player skill, but it's inaccurate if your opponent is moving, will usually fail to lock if you try to move or aim manually, and doesn't lend itself to head-shots. The only skill beneficiaries here are non-players and the low end of casual players battling eachother, which renders any point about skill moot.
Also, there is an official PC port of Halo.
Another game lost to the tides of time.
I bet no one even tried it because it used console controls.
The second most common complaint I hear is that the story is generic and stupid. Well, it is.
But remember that Halo is not Halo 2. Complaining that Halo's plot doesn't make sense is like complaining that The Transporter or Wanted aren't realistic enough. It's not supposed to be taken seriously. Master Chief is not meant to be anything more than the nameless, faceless badass in the suit, and you're not meant to feel any emotional attachment to him. The Covenant are not meant to be anything deeper than big mean aliens to kill or be killed by. It's basically just a premise to get the levels rolling, and should be judged as such, not as an interactive philosophy thesis.
Also, not everyone cares about story. I'm pretty sure most gamers couldn't care less if a game's story is embarrassingly stupid as long as it's fun to play. A bad story does not single-handedly ruin a game. Bioshock is a good example of this.
One of the most notoriously bad games ever released.
If you actually play this game, you'll have the time of your life, but it tops everyone's worst list by not having a deep storyline.
The one real complaint I DON'T hear constantly is that of repetitive level design. Of course, this only applies to the campaign, not the versus multiplayer.
Aside from this flaw, the level design is pretty much perfect, as are the controls, the health system, the weapons, the physics, the graphics, the music, the everything.
I personally would be much happier if everyone just admitted that Halo is a great game and moved on. It would finally pry a nail out of the metaphorical coffin that is the video game industry.
Since this is an open thread, I'll end on a question(s):
How do you think Halo: Combat Evolved is generally perceived (now, not at the time of release), and how much praise do you think it actually deserves?
However, the Hype Machine has long since moved on. Most of those who heard of the game but were doubtful have tried it somehow, and now all I ever hear about Halo is how "overrated" it is. I hear the term so often that I doubt it can actually be considered highly rated any more.
The most common complaint I hear is the PC elitist argument, 'yes, it's the best CONSOLE shooter, but that's like being the world's largest mitochondrion.' What the haters mean if and when they say this is that console shooters are inherently ruined by the thumbstick control scheme, because it is not as accurate or fluid as a mouse-and-keyboard setup.
I say: Ridiculous. It's true that mouse control is more accurate and more dynamic than an analog stick, but it's not like a stick is impossible to aim with. In practice, the precision is determined far more by personal acclimation than hardware functionality. The ultimate god of console shooter skill will fumble embarrassingly if given PC controls, and vice versa.
Besides, good developers (like Bungie) add aim-assist to circumvent the flaws of thumbstick control; and aim-assist doesn't mean "pull the trigger and your opponent automatically dies." The system Halo uses is called "sticky-aim", meaning the reticle will snap onto an enemy and follow them if you aim close enough. You might say this diminishes the effect of player skill, but it's inaccurate if your opponent is moving, will usually fail to lock if you try to move or aim manually, and doesn't lend itself to head-shots. The only skill beneficiaries here are non-players and the low end of casual players battling eachother, which renders any point about skill moot.
Also, there is an official PC port of Halo.
Another game lost to the tides of time.
I bet no one even tried it because it used console controls.
The second most common complaint I hear is that the story is generic and stupid. Well, it is.
But remember that Halo is not Halo 2. Complaining that Halo's plot doesn't make sense is like complaining that The Transporter or Wanted aren't realistic enough. It's not supposed to be taken seriously. Master Chief is not meant to be anything more than the nameless, faceless badass in the suit, and you're not meant to feel any emotional attachment to him. The Covenant are not meant to be anything deeper than big mean aliens to kill or be killed by. It's basically just a premise to get the levels rolling, and should be judged as such, not as an interactive philosophy thesis.
Also, not everyone cares about story. I'm pretty sure most gamers couldn't care less if a game's story is embarrassingly stupid as long as it's fun to play. A bad story does not single-handedly ruin a game. Bioshock is a good example of this.
One of the most notoriously bad games ever released.
If you actually play this game, you'll have the time of your life, but it tops everyone's worst list by not having a deep storyline.
The one real complaint I DON'T hear constantly is that of repetitive level design. Of course, this only applies to the campaign, not the versus multiplayer.
Aside from this flaw, the level design is pretty much perfect, as are the controls, the health system, the weapons, the physics, the graphics, the music, the everything.
I personally would be much happier if everyone just admitted that Halo is a great game and moved on. It would finally pry a nail out of the metaphorical coffin that is the video game industry.
Since this is an open thread, I'll end on a question(s):
How do you think Halo: Combat Evolved is generally perceived (now, not at the time of release), and how much praise do you think it actually deserves?
