If Halo had been a PC game...

[Redfefnir]

Back in 2002-2003, I heard all about Halo. I was without an Xbox at the time, as my family moved to the Gamecube. I was at a game store and saw a single box of 'Halo', it looked like it was for the Computer, and it was for like, 40 bucks. I instantly snatched it up. Sadly I had to go out an buy a new video card, as my computer couldn't take it. But after that, It was great.

I love Halo 1 PC, I really do. Halo PC lead into Halo: CE, or Custom Edition. Custom Edition did something that no other game can really follow. It gave you every tool to make a Halo map. Single player, Multiplayer, whatever you wanted. the HEK, 'Halo Editing Kit'.

Halo 1 PC is my favorite Halo, it included maps to which the likes of any other Halo game haven't even touched. CTF was the ONLY Gamemode people played on servers. And that was fantastic. CTF was what made Halo for me. It was bread and butter. CTF on Halo is a fantastic game mode to play. Sadly, most people who have played Halo 2, Halo 3, ODST, and Reach, will never get that experiance.

CTF Died with Halo 2, as CTF was not it's own individual game mode. It was thrown in with other objective games. The community turned to Team Slayer.

If I installed Halo PC on my computer right now. And got right into it. I would probably have a load of fun. And not even for the nostalgia feeling. Maps feel so crisp and new in Halo PC. It leaves you bewildered to be playing Halo on the maps in Halo PC. They are open, expansive, exploration ready, with at least 3 routes between the three bases. some for vehicles, some for just people.

But, enough tooting for Halo PC. I normally don't jump onto Halo such as I normally do, but Halo PC is a breed all it's own. Separate from Halo 2, and the other games.

 

[Chaos Marine]

It would have been classed, rightly so, as a mediocre shooter not really worth more than a single play through with reasonably solid multiplayer and promptly forgotten.

 

[Mcface]

You either love it or hate it; Some gamers feel general indifference to it. But what if it had been developed for the PC? Lets rewind to the late 90's, and say Microsoft had passed up this moderately successful FPS developer.

As a result, the development of Halo proceeds down the path of the PC shooter. You know that inexplicable difference in how a console and PC game feels? Well, Halo is now all about that.
Also, the player can hold a complete arseonal of weapons (with the power of the weapons balanced to fit such gameplay)
Each level is more neatly packaged as an idividual event; the areas are more expansive but less linear.
Proceeding through the game is more complex than the actual Halo; there are more objectives in each level, and puzzles come into play.
Characters and dialogue is fleshed out, and there are many moments in the game in which no action is involved whatsoever. (Moreso than just suspense building before a battle against the flood)
Vehicles are still used, but vehicular combat is less so.
The most striking difference in this hypothetical PC game and the true Halo series is that as an independent developer, Bungie doesn't have Microsoft breathing down its neck. They take longer to make their games, but eventually they produce exactly the games that they set out to make from the start.
~~~
So what was that rant about, really? Its my vision of what Halo would be like if it had been for the PC. Am I trying to say, "It would have been a better game on the PC,"? No. Halo is a streamlined, all-action shooter. That's part of why the reception towards it is generally polarized. I'm just musing here on what I think the Halo series would have been like if it hadn't been for the Xbox; what I'm looking for here in this thread is not so much looking at my hypothetical game, but seeing what other 'Scapists think.

What would you imagine Halo to be if it had been developed with a more typical approach to a PC FPS and the according market? Would you play it?
If you wouldn't play a PC oriented Halo series, what would have to change to make you want to?

[small]Everyone has the right to their opinion, but I'd appreciate you refraining from making low-content posts. Also, I would like to point out the possibility that people may just not want to ever play a Halo game because the very things that define what Halo is is not appealing. If you feel this way, I ask that you either explain why, or refrain from posting altogether because I just posted your opinion, and therefore your post would be redundant. Conversely, if you're going to say, "I would play a halo game no matter what," still explain what you think a Halo PC game would be like, and possibly what you wouldn't like about it. Just please, remain on topic. It would be better for you to take anything not specifically about the idea of Halo as a PC game into one of the hundreds of other Halo related threads out there, even if this thread is dying. Thank you![/small]

Halo is a good game, i'm just tired of it is all.
And it was a PC game, halo combat evolved, which was pretty popular.

 

[Gplars]

i played halo for pc and i found my self intrigued but the game was so short i had to buy halflife along with it to survive the week end

 

[Snotnarok]

Halo as I gather was going to be a Mac exclusive actually.

 

[PAGEToap44]

If it had been a PC game, I would never have played it and my life would be very different right now...

I might have been popular and sporty...

 

[irishstormtrooper]

I don't think it would necessarily be any different on the PC. Game developers don't make decisions on what their game will be like based on what console they make it for. Bungie obviously had an idea of what they wanted their game to be like, and the fact that they were bought by Microsoft wouldn't have changed much. Now, your point might be valid if the question was if Valve developed Halo for the PC, but I doubt it would have been very different.

 

[ZombieVictor]

I never played Halo because it was originally a console FPS, and I never could get the hang of shooting with a controller.

 

[TheScarecrow]

-snip-

I was going to say that there would have been no difference really. But with Microsoft ordering them to make a trilogy, which in my opinion was a blessing in disguise as I think Halo 3 is a very strong game, and all the other nonsense Microsoft sent their way I can see your point. While I can't see it having much bearing on the original it may have done on Halo 2 as they were stuck for time towards the end and could have held it back, also if it meant that Halo 2 was more like its E3 demo, or that demo been a level, that couldn't have hurt.

 

[Medic Heavy]

I honestly don't think anything would have been to much improved if it was made originally for the PC, the consoles needed it, and besides I don't wanna think of a world of all the other 12 year olds from the PS3 and 360 shooters rushing over to the PC.


Also, I don't know if it's just me or if it's been stated (Might have missed it while reading over the other comments) but your idea sounds very, very similar to the game play of Half life 2, that could just be me. I am currently playing through it right now if that makes a difference.


Anyways, Funny enough Halo was the start of my venture into the great universe that is PC gaming. I played it on the console and knew how great it was so I tryed it on the Pc. The controls were very much improved on the PC, the online was also very much improved from its brother the X box (This all being my opinion fanboys of the escapist). That being said I will still never let down a go to play any of the halos with a friend on the console.

 

[Grey_Focks]

honestly I like halo just the way it is. Each new entry into the series has introduced new things and upgraded the visuals accordingly (ODST aside) and it has always kept that halo feel. It's a fast-paced shooter where the challenge lies in deciding what two weapons you are going to carry while the enemy AI becomes progressively smarter.

If it had been developed originally for the PC, and the changes you think would've been made, it would have lost all of it's appeal. It would be deemed a half-life wannabe and it would have had a much smaller fan-base. I imagine it would still be a good game, but I don't think adding most of the things you suggested would've been really "good" for halo.

Halo is simple, but what it does, it does very well. It's story is simple, but well told. It's gunplay is simple, but well executed. It's vehicles are simple, but are useful in whatever instance they appear in.

I think Halo being on the consoles was just meant to be. It arguably saved the xbox, guaranteed the existence of the 360, and it's sequel helped establish multiplayer as we know it today. If it were on the PC, it may or may not have been a critical hit, but it would have been soon forgotten.

(sorry if some things I say don't make sense. I'm VERY tired from 11 hours of work and very little sleep.)

 

[Zackary Yakumo]

Halo was originally going to be a p-only game. but then microsoft decided to create XBOx. the turnout of Halo on the pc versus halo on the Xvnox was horrible. i think the ratio was eoutof every three halo games sold, one was bought for the pc, the other two for the xbox.

 

[aemroth]

I love Halo 1 PC, I really do. Halo PC lead into Halo: CE, or Custom Edition. Custom Edition did something that no other game can really follow. It gave you every tool to make a Halo map. Single player, Multiplayer, whatever you wanted. the HEK, 'Halo Editing Kit'.

Halo 1 PC is my favorite Halo, it included maps to which the likes of any other Halo game haven't even touched. CTF was the ONLY Gamemode people played on servers. And that was fantastic. CTF was what made Halo for me. It was bread and butter. CTF on Halo is a fantastic game mode to play. Sadly, most people who have played Halo 2, Halo 3, ODST, and Reach, will never get that experiance.

Hmmm, you are aware that construction sets and level editors existed before Halo, i hope? For fps's in particular you had the Doom Editing Utility (literally thousands of Doom wads still float about the web), Valve's Worldcraft, UnrealEd, possibly others i can't remember now.

And you do know that CTF existed way before that as well, as far as 94's Rise of the Triad (dubbed Capture the Triad)? Plus, it was popularized as a mod for Quake, in Team Fortress and later (but still before Halo), the first UT...

I don't think it would necessarily be any different on the PC. Game developers don't make decisions on what their game will be like based on what console they make it for. Bungie obviously had an idea of what they wanted their game to be like, and the fact that they were bought by Microsoft wouldn't have changed much. Now, your point might be valid if the question was if Valve developed Halo for the PC, but I doubt it would have been very different.

You really think so? Of course they make different game design choices depending on the platform they primarily develop for. That's why quick ports in which nothing at all is changed usually suck, and why fps's sold poorly on consoles prior to Halo.

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

Id have it the way it is currently on the PC... Unless you mean PC exclusive? then the online multiplayer would be much better and i dont think anything else would change...

 

[Treblaine]

You either love it or hate it; Some gamers feel general indifference to it. But what if it had been developed for the PC? Lets rewind to the late 90's, and say Microsoft had passed up this moderately successful FPS developer.

As a result, the development of Halo proceeds down the path of the PC shooter. You know that inexplicable difference in how a console and PC game feels? Well, Halo is now all about that.
Also, the player can hold a complete arseonal of weapons (with the power of the weapons balanced to fit such gameplay)
Each level is more neatly packaged as an idividual event; the areas are more expansive but less linear.
Proceeding through the game is more complex than the actual Halo; there are more objectives in each level, and puzzles come into play.
Characters and dialogue is fleshed out, and there are many moments in the game in which no action is involved whatsoever. (Moreso than just suspense building before a battle against the flood)
Vehicles are still used, but vehicular combat is less so.
The most striking difference in this hypothetical PC game and the true Halo series is that as an independent developer, Bungie doesn't have Microsoft breathing down its neck. They take longer to make their games, but eventually they produce exactly the games that they set out to make from the start.
~~~

but it WAS a PC game!

See ^^^^^ there where it says PC CD-ROM?

And your assertion that Halo would not have had things like 2-weapon-limit if it had been developed and released on PC first or only... well that's a nice theory but I don't believe it and why should anybody else when you have provided not proof or even rational for that. if Bungie wanted it 2-weapon limit then whether released on PC or Xbox first they would do that.

The problem with all the halo games was not the floaty physics, not the two weapon limit, not the rebounding HP, those are all quite fine. I played it on PC and I have played many FPS games on PC that have emulated those game elements.

Halo was "meh" because of:

-Lazy peer-to-peer hosted online multiplayer that is UNDENIABLY inferior
-repetitive music
-repetitive enemies
-repetitive levels
-passive AI (compare/contrast to FEAR's AI)
-terrible vehicle controls (inexcusable considering how a Gamepad would have advantage here)
-meandering plot that you can't follow and can't care about without reading the expanded fiction
-Poor immersion with a protagonist that characterises just enough for disconnect, yet not enough to feel any empathy.
-uninspired weapons

It's all just so "meh" and can't match other FPS on PC or even on Console. I found Timesplitters, Black, and Metroid Prime way more engaging, interesting and satisfying to play, not to mention PC titles like Far Cry, Call of Duty, Bioshock, Team Fortress 2, No One lives Forever and so on.

Halo was a Great Xbox Exclusive... however as just a game it was only decent.

 

[Erana]

You either love it or hate it; Some gamers feel general indifference to it. But what if it had been developed for the PC? Lets rewind to the late 90's, and say Microsoft had passed up this moderately successful FPS developer.

As a result, the development of Halo proceeds down the path of the PC shooter. You know that inexplicable difference in how a console and PC game feels? Well, Halo is now all about that.
Also, the player can hold a complete arseonal of weapons (with the power of the weapons balanced to fit such gameplay)
Each level is more neatly packaged as an idividual event; the areas are more expansive but less linear.
Proceeding through the game is more complex than the actual Halo; there are more objectives in each level, and puzzles come into play.
Characters and dialogue is fleshed out, and there are many moments in the game in which no action is involved whatsoever. (Moreso than just suspense building before a battle against the flood)
Vehicles are still used, but vehicular combat is less so.
The most striking difference in this hypothetical PC game and the true Halo series is that as an independent developer, Bungie doesn't have Microsoft breathing down its neck. They take longer to make their games, but eventually they produce exactly the games that they set out to make from the start.
~~~

but it WAS a PC game!

See ^^^^^ there where it says PC CD-ROM?

And your assertion that Halo would not have had things like 2-weapon-limit if it had been developed and released on PC first or only... well that's a nice theory but I don't believe it and why should anybody else when you have provided not proof or even rational for that. if Bungie wanted it 2-weapon limit then whether released on PC or Xbox first they would do that.

The problem with all the halo games was not the floaty physics, not the two weapon limit, not the rebounding HP, those are all quite fine. I played it on PC and I have played many FPS games on PC that have emulated those game elements.

Halo was "meh" because of:

-Lazy peer-to-peer hosted online multiplayer that is UNDENIABLY inferior
-repetitive music
-repetitive enemies
-repetitive levels
-passive AI (compare/contrast to FEAR's AI)
-terrible vehicle controls (inexcusable considering how a Gamepad would have advantage here)
-meandering plot that you can't follow and can't care about without reading the expanded fiction
-Poor immersion with a protagonist that characterises just enough for disconnect, yet not enough to feel any empathy.
-uninspired weapons

It's all just so "meh" and can't match other FPS on PC or even on Console. I found Timesplitters, Black, and Metroid Prime way more engaging, interesting and satisfying to play, not to mention PC titles like Far Cry, Call of Duty, Bioshock, Team Fortress 2, No One lives Forever and so on.

Halo was a Great Xbox Exclusive... however as just a game it was only decent.

I asserted nothing. I said it was my vision of what an alternate Halo would be like. I said it was my hypothetical game. And that this thread isn't really about that; its about what others imagine for themselves. I was merely making an example.
Here's the point of the thread, as written in the OP: "I'm just musing here on what I think the Halo series would have been like if it hadn't been for the Xbox; what I'm looking for here in this thread is not so much looking at my hypothetical game, but seeing what other 'Scapists think.

What would you imagine Halo to be if it had been developed with a more typical approach to a PC FPS and the according market? Would you play it?
If you wouldn't play a PC oriented Halo series, what would have to change to make you want to?"
Also, it has been well established that Halo had a console port; please read the thread before posting. My sister has it. I played it years ago.

Also...
"Halo was "meh" because of:

-Lazy Opinionpeer-to-peer hosted online multiplayer that is UNDENIABLY ???inferior.To what?
-repetitive musicOpinion without quantifiable support
-repetitive enemiesOpinion without quantifiable support
-repetitive levelsOpinion without quantifiable support
-passive AI (compare/contrast to FEAR's AI)The first Halo came out years before, on the Xbox. Define, "Passive" in this context. Also, F.E.A.R.'s AI was considered exceptional and won awards. When attempting to measure anything, it is general practice to compare the thing in question to what is considered average or standard.
-terrible vehicle controls (inexcusable considering how a Gamepad would have advantage here)Opinion without quantifiable support
-meandering plot that you can't follow and can't care about without reading the expanded fictionDefine, "Meandering" in this context. Again, opinion without quantifiable support; Where does the storytelling sit when compared to other, similar, products that were released at the same time? Is the expanded fiction a negative here?
-Poor immersion with a protagonist that characterises just enough for disconnect, yet not enough to feel any empathy.Opinion without quantifiable proof
-uninspired weapons"Opinion without quantifiable proof

As I have said before, people are fully entitled to disagree with me, but I will not listen to someone who insists that their opinion is fact.
If one has an aspect of an opinion that hasn't been addressed yet in a thread, they should go ahead and mention it, but under no circumstances insist that an opinion is fact.* Even when one has good reason to think what they do, they shouldn't insist that it is true; conversely, one has to be able to admit that they are wrong. (Which is one of the hardest things to do)

*[small]There's the exception to this when it comes to humor, of course.[/small]

 

[Treblaine]

Also...
"Halo was "meh" because of:

-Lazy Opinionpeer-to-peer hosted online multiplayer that is UNDENIABLY ???inferior.To what?
-repetitive musicOpinion without quantifiable support
-repetitive enemiesOpinion without quantifiable support
-repetitive levelsOpinion without quantifiable support
-passive AI (compare/contrast to FEAR's AI)The first Halo came out years before, on the Xbox. Define, "Passive" in this context. Also, F.E.A.R.'s AI was considered exceptional and won awards. When attempting to measure anything, it is general practice to compare the thing in question to what is considered average or standard.
-terrible vehicle controls (inexcusable considering how a Gamepad would have advantage here)Opinion without quantifiable support
-meandering plot that you can't follow and can't care about without reading the expanded fictionDefine, "Meandering" in this context. Again, opinion without quantifiable support; Where does the storytelling sit when compared to other, similar, products that were released at the same time? Is the expanded fiction a negative here?
-Poor immersion with a protagonist that characterises just enough for disconnect, yet not enough to feel any empathy.Opinion without quantifiable proof
-uninspired weapons"Opinion without quantifiable proof

As I have said before, people are fully entitled to disagree with me, but I will not listen to someone who insists that their opinion is fact.
If one has an aspect of an opinion that hasn't been addressed yet in a thread, they should go ahead and mention it, but under no circumstances insist that an opinion is fact.* Even when one has good reason to think what they do, they shouldn't insist that it is true; conversely, one has to be able to admit that they are wrong. (Which is one of the hardest things to do)

*[small]There's the exception to this when it comes to humor, of course.[/small]

-Multiplayer should be hosted on dedicated servers. if you don't now what that means then i can't be bothered explaining them to you
-no, the music WAS repetitive, the same orchestral riffs over and over again and overused as well throughout the series. I can't support this without making a 15 video montage of game segments. just because I don't have the ability to back up my assertion doesn't mean I am wrong
-Yeah, the flood weren't repetitive at ALL. Come on, half way through Halo if felt like a chore to kill the enemies, they got boring long ago. just a case of "shoot it till it dies".
-yes, they WERE repetitive levels, or at least they weren't much to distinguish them.
-The AI was good for console standards, but you can run away or right past them. Half Life (came out 3 years before) had enemies like the marines and Black ops guys who would attack, run away, chase you down. They were fast, aggressive and you couldn't just sit around in cover waiting for things to cool off.
-Vehicle controls were dumb as they tried to emulate your on-foot controls. I.e. press up on the thumbstick to accelerate and you turn in whichever direction you are looking, that is retarded. Why not controls like in GTA, forward on left thumbstick = accelerate, while left/right on same joystick turns left/right. it would have meant you can look around while driving and be far easier to manoeuvre.
-took a long time to tell a relatively simple sci-fi war story and was terrible in explaining why in the hell this ring was full of flora and fauna, who I was, why was I here, who are these covenant I am fighting, why should I care? The worst part if all the characters seem to know what is going on but I the player don't. It's a weapon, what? Who wants to activate what? I still don't know who these covenant are?
-I can't be bothered explaining the importance of immersion vs characterisation. Either leave the protagonist a blank slate with basic persona like Half Life's Gordon Freeman or FEAR's Point Man... or go all out and flesh him out like Solid Snake or Commander Shepard. This half assed Master Chief is great for marketing, bad for gameplay.
-Yeh, shotgun, submachine gun, pulse blaster, rocket launcher.. yawn. The most interesting weapon was the pistol only because it was overpowered and stood out by default. They didn't sound cool, or play all that interesting. Games like Half Life and Opposing force had bio-alien weapons that did things other than just pull trigger to shoot like the barnacle, the homing hornet gun with small capacity but regen ammo, Charge up gauss gun, satchel charges, tripmines.

Though I suppose on reflection Halo weapons weren't that boring, the plasma weapons no-reload but over-heat was kinda interesting, and sticky plasma grenades were good when you were ever able to use them. But they didn't change how most of the gameplay was just point-shoot and the weapons were so unsatisfying to use. Why is it such a chore to get any kills with the plasma pistol? I get it, plasma to chew away shield, then high velocity to finish them off. It jsut never was that engrossing for such long game.

I was also really surprised to learn that Master Chief in 7 foot tall. You get absolutely no impression of your size or physicality in the game, I can see what they were going for at times... but it just didn't deliver.

Finally, you act as if because my opinion is not a fact it is somehow worthless. You asked for your opinions so DON'T GIVE ME SHIT when I give you the opinion you asked for!

 

[Woe Is You]

You either love it or hate it; Some gamers feel general indifference to it. But what if it had been developed for the PC? Lets rewind to the late 90's, and say Microsoft had passed up this moderately successful FPS developer.

Had they not been bought by Microsoft, Halo would probably be an RTS or a third person shooter on the Mac -- and probably would have even more parallels with Marathon.

As for comments about repetitive level design being about opinion... well, remember how a lot of the scenes had you doing the same thing at least 3 times? The library? Going back the same way you came in The Gun Pointed at the Head of the Universe? There's plenty of quantifiable proof that the original Halo's level design was about using cut and paste above all else.

Hmm...I'd likely hate it. It'd have likely stuck to the tradition of "find the keycard/lever/switch" and all that bullshit.

You're making the assumption that Halo broke that tradition when games like No One Lives Forever and Rainbow Six existed before then. Those aren't the only ones, of course, but they're the first that spring to mind.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

Hooray for elitism!