Hey Dragon, You Can Have Her: Halo - Combat Evolved

Recommended Videos

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
[sub](Editor's Note: The "Hey Dragon, You Can Have Her" series of reviews are designed to be looks into the flaws of games that were over-hyped, under-developed, blindly followed or questionably praised over the course of their life. For a more "positive" look at games, please search for "A Princess Worth Saving.")[/sub]

Halo: Combat... Evolved?

If there were ever a Grand Canyon sized dividing line in the gaming community as a whole, you could bet that it'd be filled with "covenant" soldiers fighting seven foot tall power-armor clad space-marines. For better or worse, Halo: Combat Evolved (as in the first game of the series) ranks up there with Final Fantasy VII, Street Fighter II and Super Mario Bros. in the, "Most Influential Games of All Time" category. Now keep in mind, that particular category isn't filled with the "best" games of all time, but, like Britney Spears, sometimes games fall on our doorsteps that, despite seemingly obvious shortcomings, alter the course of the gaming world forever. Halo is one of those games. I won't bore you with facts and history of the franchise... if you want that, there's one of those rather comprehensive wiki articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo:_Combat_Evolved] that you can browse through if you've honestly never heard of the game... in which case why are you here?

Halo surprised everyone in one way or another. Taking the near-decade old genre of the "First-Person Shooter" and bringing it to the masses on Microsoft's first Xbox was a turning point in modern video gaming for sure, but a lot of us were left wondering, "what's all the fuss about?" Okay, so you have a shooter with nice semi-set-piece battles, a semblance of a storyline, a better-than-decent soundtrack and the ability to throw bright blue grenades that stick to little bad guys that look and sound like mutated Munchkins who somehow speak English regardless of what language their alien peers are blabbering. For all intents and purposes however, what the seasoned first-person shooter crowd was handed was a decidedly average shooter that delivered less than games (even console-based) released years prior.

To the newcomer and non-PC gamer crowd however, Halo was a revolution. There seems to be a "rule" (in the scientific sense) of sorts when it comes to Halo; it goes like this:

If you've never played a First-Person Shooter before,
If you did not own a current-generation game-worthy PC,
If the original Microsoft Xbox was your first gaming console,

Then you absolutely loved Halo.

This is totally understandable. For the aforementioned people, this would be like driving a Honda Civic for the first time when you grew up riding bikes and horses. For the people used to driving sup'ed-up Corvettes and Ford GT's however, this was just another car on the lot. So, let's compare and contrast. In any First-Person Shooter, you have a few mechanics that compose gameplay. Here's where Halo stacks up against the rest of the bunchin those aspects.

(Keep in mind, this will be a comparison of the first Halo game against other games previously released a the time)

Movement:
This is the first and foremost core mechanic of any First-Person shooter. If there is one thing you are doing from the moment you step foot into the first level until the last moment of the last boss-fight, it's moving. Halo comparatively to its brethren, feels as though you are really wearing 400 pound space-marine power-armor, so if realism was what they were going after, they nailed it. Maybe it's the expansive environments, maybe it's the fact that there are so many other entities around you that are moving passed you all the time, but for whatever reason, Halo feels like the fat kid trying desperately to run that 20 minute mile. You would think in that super-powered armor of yours, they'd have implemented some sort of technology to counteract the fact that you had to move while wearing it. Why do you think that all the Japanese power-armors have jets built in? In all seriousness, this is probably one of the fundamental reasons that people DON'T like Halo when compared to the quick movement speed of games like Quake and Unreal Tournament. It quite literally feels like playing Super Mario Bros. without the "run" button. Jumping however, also felt like you were a mid-eighties plumber as you suspiciously launched and floated through the air with each button press.

Worse Than: Quake (series), Unreal (series)
Better Than: Half-Life, Goldeneye 007

Shooting:
If there's one OTHER thing you're doing besides moving from bell to bell in this genre, it's shooting; it is a First-Person Shooter after all. Being on a console, (i.e. playing by twiddling your thumbs), Halo does suffer from a unavoidable case of auto-aim-itus, but regardless, the shooting mechanic somehow became incredibly unbalanced. From the damage points on the enemies, to the strength and accuracy of the various weapons, the mechanics of shooting in Halo felt like a giant leap backward when compared to the more skill-oriented shooters of the time, even when stacked against other console shooters. One of the fundamental aspects of shooters is weapon balancing, which either goes the path of "new weapon is better than the last weapon" or "new weapon is different but equally powered than the last weapon," and somehow, Halo does neither as the game comes down to "how good you are and how much ammo you can find for the pistol." The plasma-based weapons are rubbish and should only be used when other weapons aren't available, and some weapons ("Needler" anyone?) are downright useless. This was also the first game to make grenades an annoying focus to the point of spending half your game watching your grenade count meter in the corner.

Worse Than: 90% of Other First-Person Shooters
Better Than: ... Daikatana?

Weapons:
Piggy-backing on the last concept, again, the weapons in Halo are totally unbalanced making most of them fall to the point of "useless." More important however, was the developer's decision to go for a more "realistic" (read: simple) feel by limiting the player to two weapons at once. While not only dumbing down the gameplay, this severely breaks the "super-powered space-marine" aesthetic. Any person wearing that much armor should not be limited to holding only a pistol and a "plasma pistol" at a given time. This is not World War II, this is the future. This is the one shooter that very well could have justified holding ten weapons at once from a story aspect, and instead the developers chose to focus heavily on the "marine" and less on the "space" aspect. However, the one reason that holding ten weapons in Halo would have been impossible is that the game literally only had eight weapons. Eight weapons; in the future? How with all the advances of technology and weapon design enough to create a giant space-ring capable of "killing all sentient life in the galaxy" did we end up with eight functional weapons and the ability to only hold two of them at a time? Not only that, why would an advanced race of aliens with the destruction power to threaten humanity's existence create weapons that become useless after running out of batteries? Also, why do those batteries only last for approximately ten seconds of concentrated fire, and overheat after five? Are "covenant" soldiers really so expendable that they can send them into battle with a weapon that can only last them a few moments before being rendered completely ineffective? This is probably the single aspect of Halo that is broken in both design and implementation. This is also the central reason that veteran First-Person Shooter players were left wondering what the big deal was.

Worse Than: Other Futuristic Shooters, World War II Shooters (Hey Bungie, YOU'RE IN SPACE... IN THE FUTURE!)
Better Than: [ERROR: Cannot divide by zero]

Level Design:
If any aspect of Halo were a mixed bag, it would be the level design. Ranging from brilliant to downright asinine and boring, as a player, you can nearly tell what the developer's spent there time on versus what was phoned-in to pad the overall gameplay time. The near fourth-wall breaking experience of subconsciously critiquing a game's level design as your playing it is incredibly jarring. If at any point you're playing a game and think to yourself, "wow, they really didn't spend much time on this level did they?" when you're supposed to be listening to the overly expository dialogue of a charming little blue floating orb robot janitor thing while fending off wave after wave of zombie like aliens and picking up the perfectly placed discarded weaponry allowing you to do so along the way... you have a broken experience. These moments of not-awesome are highlighted by the moments of awesome that swim around them. If there was one thing that Halo tried really, really hard at capturing, it was the "set-piece" aspect of story-based First-Person Shooters. The main problem with this is that games like Half-Life and Unreal had already immersed players with their (albeit smaller) set-piece single-player gameplay, so short of the expansive "war-oriented" battles in the more open environments, Halo didn't bring that much "newness" to the table. Still, faults aside, this (and the music) is probably the best aspect of what Halo should be credited for.

Worse Than: Half-Life, Goldeneye 007, System Shock 2, Deus Ex
Better Than: Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein 3D

Multiplayer:
Any first person shooter experience, aside from more story driven games like System Shock and Deus Ex, better have its multiplayer up to snuff else it's going to start collecting shelf dust really fast. Oddly enough, this is the most confusing aspect of what Halo was praised for, and what "put the game on the map" in the gaming world in general. The game's split-screen 2 vs. 2 max, two-player cooperative campaign, and local "system link" (read: multiple consoles, games and TV's) gameplay were really the only aspects of Halo's multiplayer. The Vs. multiplayer mechanic only had five modes to choose from, and when compared to games like Unreal Tournament and Quake III: Arena, had literally a infants handful of multiplayer maps. No bots, no user-generated content, no online play, no game-changing modifiers (i.e. single shot kill, low gravity, etc.), no customizable game modes (no music!)... about the only thing that Halo multiplayer had going for it was the inclusion of the games few vehicles. It's confusing to figure out why Halo was so praised by the gaming world for its multiplayer aspect (even before Halo 2) when compared to other games, and even previous console games (read: Goldeneye 007), it had a paltry amount of gameplay and innovation.

Worse Than: Goldeneye 007 (in so many ways), Most other PC First-Person Shooters
Better Than: First-Person Shooters that did not include Multiplayer

Mechanically, when you break down the Halo experience, it falls short in nearly every way (except the single-player music). What Halo did do, was bring the First-Person Shooter genre to the masses (that never owned a Nintendo 64), for better or worse. Since then, developers have deduced that "less is more," when it comes to gameplay and instead have focused on set-piece aesthetics, multiplayer and getting the most amount of money for the least amount of thought and innovation. With games that redesigned the idea of what a First-Person Shooter can be like Deus Ex and System Shock (sorry BioShock fans, it's been done), and games that exemplified what the genre had actually evolved to, Halo: Combat Evolved cherry-picks the elements of a world established and puts it into a McDonalds-like package that can be marketed to the would-be gamer crowd of people who are prone to buying into hype and propaganda. One thing is for certain... the world has never been the same since, and never will be again. Whether it's an "evolution" is definitely open to debate.
 

Treefingers

New member
Aug 1, 2008
1,071
0
0
I disagree with you on pretty much all counts.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, i'm no Halo fanboy. I enjoyed it, yeah. Not the GREATEST GAEM EVAR... but i had some fun times. But you're making it out to be worse than it is (imo).

EDIT AGAIN: See next post for an explanation.
 

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
Treefingers said:
I disagree with you on pretty much all counts.
I suspected as much from the general public, would be nice for you to share how.

I was hoping that we'd be able to look at the game for what it was rather than through rose-colored glasses, but maybe I hope too much.
 

GodsAndFishes

New member
Mar 22, 2009
1,167
0
0
I have to disagree on most of those points, for me Halo CE was the good middle point between arcade style shooters and the more realistic shooters that are currently plaguing the market. Also I had played Halflife and the Unreal games before playing Halo CE and still prefer it to those two games.
I admit that the weapon variety is a bit pathetic and some (the pistol) are hidiously unbalanced, but this problem was (partially) addressed in the sequels (even though Halo CE is the best in my opinion).
 

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
flamingjimmy said:
I disagree on all counts and I don't fit into any of your 3 categories. This is just fanboy madness.
"Fanboy Madness"? How so...? If people disagree with anything I've said... it'd be neat if they said why instead of saying "I disagree" and leaving it at that.
 

flamingjimmy

New member
Jan 11, 2010
363
0
0
More detail wanted eh? Your first point about movement: It's good imo to have a game where you don't run around at the speed of light, both kinds are fun. There's room in this world for timesplitters style speedy madness and halo style slow precision. Neither is better, they're just different, you are merely stating a personal preference, not a flaw in the game.

Secondly, shooting: Here is where you have what in my opinion is your only real flaw that you found, and that's weapon balance, yeah the alien weapons were useless, agreed. But again I disagree with your point about grenades, they bring new strategies and new levels of fun. This is just another preference of yours.

Weapons: You don't like the two weapon only system? Fine, again that is just an opinion not a flaw. It forces you to think about what you're going to pick up which in my opinion is cool, you can't just carry everything. Yet again, there is room in this world for both type of game, neither is better, they are just different.

And as for multiplayer: Alls I can say is I played a lot of halo 1 multiplayer and enjoyed it very much. It's not as complicated as other games, but it just works so well. This is clearly not a flaw, just another preference.
 

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
Swagymanabz said:
no just no... so many things wrong... so many opinions being presented as facts... just NO!
-btw halo was the first REAL fps on consoles and stuff like the 2 weapons had to make you think
also if you could carru 10 weapons then u would be moving even slower since that is a complaint of yours which i have never had
Sigh... alright.

First off, what opinions are presented as facts?

Secondly, the only thing the two weapon mechanic made me think of is "dear god, when do I get more pistol ammo" and "do I really have to deal with this other weapon until I get more pistol ammo?"

Seriously... people... if you think I'm wrong... tell me WHY you think I'm wrong... otherwise you just look like blind little sheep. If you liked the game, fine... no where did I say "OMGZ HAlo is a hurruble game." I said it was decidedly average, which taken into account everything that made up the game, can absolutely be true.
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
I liked the first one. I thought it was a good example of what a PC shooter should be like. Lets look at the points individually:

-You can only carry two weapons
I loved this because I hate auto picking up weapons and I hate having things in my inventory that I don't use

-Weapons were not balanced
Were we playing the same game? I think they were very well ballanced. A good mix of short and long range and allowing the plasma weapons to fire continuously would have made them a bit unfair.

-Story was naff
I liked it, but thats just opinion and I have read the books.

-Multiplayer
Could have done with more customisation than just different coloured armour, but the gameplay was fun and custom edition made it last for years. (after reading your article I have an urge to go and play it again)

-Movement
Yes now I think about it you did move a bit slow, but I didn't really notice it at the time so it wasn't a problem. At least people wern't running around like road runners on speed being chased by a cheetah with a firework up its arse in multipalyer.
 

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
flamingjimmy said:
Couple what Furbrt said with the fact that this, even by title, is a obviously opinion/editorial-style review and not a simple listing of the games features. If you wanted me to begin everything with "In my opinion" I'm sorry, but that makes for a shoddy read.

Moving on to your points:

No, the two weapon system didn't make me think. It made me frustrated at how unbalanced and broken the weapons were.

Take a poll of online multiplayer shooters on "grenade spamming" and get back to me.

"Slow" is never a word that should ever describe a "fun" first person shooter gameplay experience. (in my opinion).

The slowness, the two-weapon system, etc. are fine in say a WWII shooter... but we're in the future, we've got technology... why are we fighting like we're strapped to the hilt with weaponry and medical supplies when we have a regenerating shield (a broken concept I didn't even bother touching on in the review for length purposes), and can only hold two guns? It makes zero sense.
 

Muffinthraka

New member
Aug 6, 2009
261
0
0
You're comparing Halo (a console shooter) with Pc shooters and there are going to be glaring differences. You commented on the way movement is slow and jumping is as if there is low gravity. This is because the thumsticks are less accurate than the pc mouse, this does not change the quality of the game. You mention super mario and how you can run in it but Super Mario is a 2d dimensional platform whilst halo is 3d, thus the right hadnd (which normal taps buttons) has to be used to change movement in this 3rd dimension, as well as press buttons, thus the game needs to be slowed to compensate. Halo was an exellent game with an immersive story.
By the way, I consider myself a pc gamer and it is only in the last year I have bought my first console.
 

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
Muffinthraka said:
You're comparing Halo (a console shooter) with Pc shooters and there are going to be glaring differences. You commented on the way movement is slow and jumping is as if there is low gravity. This is because the thumsticks are less accurate than the pc mouse, this does not change the quality of the game. You mention super mario and how you can run in it but Super Mario is a 2d dimensional platform whilst halo is 3d, thus the right hadnd (which normal taps buttons) has to be used to change movement in this 3rd dimension, as well as press buttons, thus the game needs to be slowed to compensate. Halo was an exellent game with an immersive story.
By the way, I consider myself a pc gamer and it is only in the last year I have bought my first console.
I also compared it with Goldeneye 007... but okay. I wasn't complaining to the lack of a "run" button, I was talking about how it felt like you should always be moving faster than you were. I feel that my text-wallish reviews tend to make people not really read the entire review it seems.
 

Helmet

Could use a beer about now...
May 14, 2008
578
0
0
SavingPrincess said:
However, the one reason that holding ten weapons in Halo would have been impossible is that the game literally only had eight weapons. Eight weapons; in the future?
Pistol, Sniper Rifle, Assault Rifle, Battle Rifle, Shotgun, Rocket Launcher, Plasma Pistol, Plasma Rifle, Needler, Covenant Sniper. I count more than 8, and I think I'm missing one or two.
 

SavingPrincess

Bringin' Text-y Back
Feb 17, 2010
972
0
0
Helmet said:
SavingPrincess said:
However, the one reason that holding ten weapons in Halo would have been impossible is that the game literally only had eight weapons. Eight weapons; in the future?
Pistol, Sniper Rifle, Assault Rifle, Battle Rifle, Shotgun, Rocket launcher, plasma pistol, plasma rifle, Needler, Covenant Sniper. I count more than 8, and I think I'm missing one or two.
You're missing the fact that I'm talking about the first game in the series...

READ the review before commenting please people... dear god.
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
SavingPrincess said:
flamingjimmy said:
Couple what Furbrt said with the fact that this, even by title, is a obviously opinion/editorial-style review and not a simple listing of the games features. If you wanted me to begin everything with "In my opinion" I'm sorry, but that makes for a shoddy read.

Moving on to your points:

No, the two weapon system didn't make me think. It made me frustrated at how unbalanced and broken the weapons were.

Take a poll of online multiplayer shooters on "grenade spamming" and get back to me.

"Slow" is never a word that should ever describe a "fun" first person shooter gameplay experience. (in my opinion).

The slowness, the two-weapon system, etc. are fine in say a WWII shooter... but we're in the future, we've got technology... why are we fighting like we're strapped to the hilt with weaponry and medical supplies when we have a regenerating shield (a broken concept I didn't even bother touching on in the review for length purposes), and can only hold two guns? It makes zero sense.
Grenade spamming? you could only carry four of each type and it was quite difficult to place them accurately enough to take out a moving person or vehicle.

I had no problems with weapons being unbalanced, each one had its advantages and disadvantages.

The slow moving made it more fun for me. You actually had to take cover to avoid being killed rather than just running around like someone who is late for work while driving an F1 car. I hate rushers in online shooters so it was a welcome change.

Only having two weapons meant you had to choose what one was more effective for the situation.

The recharging shield worked well for me. It was a good blend of the health bar and recharging health. Yes your shield recharged but you health didn't, there fore if you were injured but your shield was at full then you still needed to find a medpack.
 

AvsJoe

Elite Member
May 28, 2009
9,055
0
41
I can't hate Halo. Trust me, I tried. Couldn't do it. I had waaay too many good times with friends playing that one. Sure I had better times with GoldenEye and Counterstrike (which is why those two games rate 1 and 2 on my favourite FPS games respectively), but I had great times with this one nonetheless. But this was a great review, I'll give you that. I can't say that I'm an FPS veteran so it's good to hear why Halo is a mediocre title from one of the upper-echelon FPS gamers.
 

Helmet

Could use a beer about now...
May 14, 2008
578
0
0
SavingPrincess said:
Helmet said:
SavingPrincess said:
However, the one reason that holding ten weapons in Halo would have been impossible is that the game literally only had eight weapons. Eight weapons; in the future?
Pistol, Sniper Rifle, Assault Rifle, Battle Rifle, Shotgun, Rocket launcher, plasma pistol, plasma rifle, Needler, Covenant Sniper. I count more than 8, and I think I'm missing one or two.

You're missing the fact that I'm talking about the first game in the series...

READ the review before commenting please people... dear god.
I did read it. I was not aware that they had changed the weapons in them. Which weapons did they add on after the first one?