Intelligent Halo Review

Recommended Videos

steamednotfried

New member
Oct 27, 2008
197
0
0
Halo is a game that focuses on a particular set of skills required in the combat that may ensue between two individuals or small armies fighting with weapons which, on the whole, stem from those which would be commonly associated with a modern close quarters battle field. Halo exaggerates the strengths and weaknesses of guns, vehicles and strategies to force the player to make interesting decisions which reflect those which may be made at one point or another in a real life combat scenario. It also uses its sci-fi theme to throw in some variables which have no place in the modern battlefield, but which pose some interesting questions as to the skills which may maximize their effectiveness. While many of these weapons and such would not be expected to be seen alongside the weapons with which we are familiar in this day and age, most of them seem largely inspired in their properties, by old fashioned weapons such as catapults and bow-and-arrows.

A large emphasis is placed on weapon selection and implementation. Just before each battle, the player is presented with a number of different weapons and vehicles from which the player can carry 2 weapons and man a vehicle, if they desire. As with many FPS games, each weapon has a particular set of capabilities along with some inherent weaknesses: e.g. the shotgun shoots a cluster of projectiles with each shot which spread out as they travel, making it very powerful at close range but weak and inaccurate at medium and long range. Bungie does an excellent job of providing interesting pros and cons to consider every time the player switches a weapon by exaggerating the properties of weapons we know to just the right amounts, but also by inventing new ones to create a game which stands somewhat separate from the real-life phenomena which it otherwise imitates. The sniper rifle, for example, is given a weakness which is far from existent in the real thing: a line appears in the air, clearly showing the path of each shot fired, so that the enemy is alerted to the exact position of the sniper (in real life, the ambiguity of the sniper?s placement is its main strength). Another example is the so called ?needler?, which fires relatively slow moving, purple-luminescent projectiles, which home-in on, stick to, and, soon after, explode in the target. It is up to the player to work out exactly how such a weapon is best used. Furthermore, weapons can be picked up in the middle of the battle, often from downed opponents. This often challenges the player to asses the dangers of switching weapons against the advantage that might be gained by doing so.

In each moment to moment scenario, there are many split-second choices to be made as to how exactly to use each weapon in combination with movement: the player must find a balance between direct attack and offensive or defensive movement. The shield plays a large part in shaping this process. The shield can take a certain amount of damage before it is depleted and the main ?health? can be attacked, but the shield will always recharge after the player has not been hit for a few seconds. Each player must try to deplete the opponents shield while maintaining his own. He must let he?s own recharge when it is very low, but in this time, the opponent will also do so, unless you gets in a quick shot to re-set the shield recharge timer. For the most part, it is hopeless to attempt to kill your opponent from long range, since he can always pop behind cover and let his shield recharge to full, and so, aggressive movement is necessary. Once again, Bungie creates the core system, while it is up to the player, and indeed Bungie, to work out how to work with it, what strategies are effective. Much like chess, the strategies which develop out of the simple rules could never have been imagined by the creator.

The vehicles have a believable set of pros and cons which are slightly exaggerated to avoid over-powering, retaining the possible usefulness of each weapon and vehicle. In the first Halo, most vehicles could not be destroyed, perhaps due to the technical difficulty of implementing this feature, but the functionality was still largely included. Shots fired anywhere on the vehicle would slightly damage the driver, resulting in the inherent weakness of many vehicles in that they provide a larger target, making the driver more vulnerable. The vehicles also have more difficulty navigating tight spaces and sometimes finds itself in a position where part of it can be shot by the opponent, which hurts the player inside, while the means of attack (the fixed gun) is not in line with the opponent. And so one will often have to leave get of the vehicle, perhaps taking cover behind it and luring the other player out before quickly jumping back into the high powered gunner turret (if the vehicle is the warthog). Naturally there is far more to the pros and cons of each vehicle, but suffice to say, they have all been very well balanced in order to create scenarios where the players have to make interesting choices.

The player also has frequent access to grenades, which are crafted excellently, emphasizing much of the functionality of real grenades, whilst allowing for other strategies which have less in keeping with the modern battlefield. The main grenade types throughout the Halo series have been the frag and plasma grenades. Both can be used to flush out enemies behind cover or around corners, as expected, but the plasma grenade will stick to any enemy, before exploding, making it more like some sort of medieval weapon, like a ball with spikes or something, or perhaps comparable to an arrow lit on fire. The frag grenade has the advantage of exploding quicker then the plasma.

Many more strategies, as well as very satisfying accidents, are made possible by the physics system. Weapons, grenades, crates and vehicles will all react convincingly to nearby explosions resulting in all sorts of emergent gameplay possibilities, such as; throwing a grenade to a gun which an opponent wants to pick up, propelling it out of their reach, or throwing a grenade to a vehicle which an enemy is hiding behind such that it tips over and squashes him.

The enemy AI, on the whole does an excellent job of forcing the player to think about the range of approaches and to skillfully pull them off. The Elites have recharging shields just like the Mastercheif, demanding aggressive play, since picking them off from long range will not be effective with most guns as their shields will keep recharging. The jackals carry shields, which force the player to aim very accurately, or use energy weapons to destroy the shields. The grunts basically make up the numbers, and encourage aggressive play in order to make them dispatch and cower.

It feels as though each level, particularly in the original game, has been designed to focus on a particular set of skills, by only making certain weapons or vehicles available, and crafting the level design and enemy-types to provide interesting challenges for each. An example of this is the library, which pits the player against masses of un-intelligent ?flood? creatures. The player becomes very competent in dealing with lesser opponents in competitive multiplayer modes, and also develops fast, reaction-aiming, particularly with the shotgun, which is usually the weapon of choice against the flood.


The result of this system of long-term and split second choices is an extremely elegant and emergent gameplay experience. The factors which must be taken into account when making these decisions are such that the player will rarely be confronted by the same situation and the same choice to make twice. The elements are arranged in 3D space with continuous time, and are absolutely analogue in their positioning and such. Further more, the choices themselves are very much analogue ones (apart from the pre-battle weapon selection).

The controls are designed impeccably to pose a minimal boundary between the player and the game system. Of note is the grenade hotkey which allows the player to throw a grenade at any time, but is also designed such that the arc, and thus length of throw, is decided simply by the angle at which the player is looking. This makes for a highly intuitive input, compared to having the arc determined by how long the button is held. Grenade aiming is absolutely a skill to be mastered, and it feels well deserved when you stick a plasma grenade to your opponent from half-way across the field. Also of note is the execution of the right analogue stick for aiming. They have got spot on how fast the camera should turn depending on how far in any direction the stick is pushed, and also the speed at which the turn speed accelerates the longer the stick is pushed. Halo is the only console FPS that I have truly felt comfortable turning the camera and aiming in.

Like all good sci-fi, the interest of the visuals lies largely in the functions they indicate, and, in a game, actually have. Halo has a rather minimalist visual style, and the focus is placed heavily on the active gameplay elements. Nonetheless, there is a prevalent atmosphere captured in the scenery and background sound throughout most of the levels. I think this atmosphere exists quite separately from the gameplay, lends itself wonderfully, in my opinion, to evoke an overriding feeling of playing the game. This has been dimmed slightly in the later games which are more glossy, but it is still there.

Halo is a very well crafted system, which allows for a high degree of mastery, which is, for me, desirable, considering how compelling I find the subject matter of the core mechanics. This subject matter is very similar to most other first person shooters, but I think that Halo executes them so elegantly such as to allow for a considerably higher depth of possibilities then in others.
 

wilsonscrazybed

thinking about your ugly face
Dec 16, 2007
1,654
0
41
I venture to say that calling your piece "intelligent" puts people in an overly critical state of mind while reading. I'll comment more after I read the rest of the piece more thoroughly.
 

DolphinWacker64

New member
Jul 4, 2008
104
0
0
excellent review
almost as good as this one on Halo 3:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.67472
 

mjhhiv

New member
Jun 22, 2008
758
0
0
Whilst I disagree with quite a few of the opinions (atmosphere?) stated, they are presented in such a manner that I can't dismiss this as "just another Halo review". Well done.
 

NewClassic_v1legacy

Bringer of Words
Jul 30, 2008
2,484
0
0
wilsonscrazybed said:
I venture to say that calling your piece "intelligent" puts people in an overly critical state of mind while reading.
I'm going to echo wilson here by saying this is a very likely scenario for the piece.

While I appreciate an elevated diction, it doesn't work for a review. If trying to elevate it so much, you've made the sentence structure very convoluted. While it's legible, why make your reader potentially have to re-read just to understand your review.

While your language is higher, and your analysis more circular, it's approaching a review from a different viewpoint. That does not necessarily a more intelligent one.

That aside, the "voice" is completely ruined in this piece, something I comment on a lot. It reads somewhat well, but it hardly flows as much as it could or should. I see elements of your style poking through, but it seems stifled by the word-choice, and structure. It could be better, and I see the potential, so I'm really sitting on this.

Otherwise, it appears to want to be expansive, but it's also very light in content. You cover a lot of information very briefly. Don't be afraid to go into more detail.

Otherwise, it's a good review that was presented in an odd-format.
 

Jurnigan

New member
Dec 23, 2008
36
0
0
This is actually the best Halo review that I have read. Most others simply support Halo or tear it down regardless of how the game actually played.
 

Maet

The Altoid Duke
Jul 31, 2008
1,247
0
0
You used the word "which" 32 times, often incorrectly. I'm also with NewClassic on the weak voice and terrible flow. Aside from that, you reviewed a seven year old game from a different angle, so it's still relatively informative considering that fact.

I feel you give Halo far too much credit, especially when you compare it to chess. The possibility gameplay mechanics have is virtually unpredictable in three dimensions, so to give any developer credit for anything that was likely accidental is false praise (grenade + warthog = crushed pedestrians). Not to mention it's the whole "you can, but why would you want to?" argument.

I beat Halo:CE last year, and I thought it was average at best. For me, the only truly enjoyable and possibly innovative aspects of the game were the shield and the sticky grenades. Everything else was bland and borderline insipid.
 

steamednotfried

New member
Oct 27, 2008
197
0
0
thanks for the feedback, its one of the first times my writing hasn't been immediately hailed with abuse. I particularly liked NewClassic's comments:

NewClassic said:
wilsonscrazybed said:
I venture to say that calling your piece "intelligent" puts people in an overly critical state of mind while reading.
I'm going to echo wilson here by saying this is a very likely scenario for the piece.

While I appreciate an elevated diction, it doesn't work for a review. If trying to elevate it so much, you've made the sentence structure very convoluted. While it's legible, why make your reader potentially have to re-read just to understand your review.

While your language is higher, and your analysis more circular, it's approaching a review from a different viewpoint. That does not necessarily a more intelligent one.

That aside, the "voice" is completely ruined in this piece, something I comment on a lot. It reads somewhat well, but it hardly flows as much as it could or should. I see elements of your style poking through, but it seems stifled by the word-choice, and structure. It could be better, and I see the potential, so I'm really sitting on this.

Otherwise, it appears to want to be expansive, but it's also very light in content. You cover a lot of information very briefly. Don't be afraid to go into more detail.

Otherwise, it's a good review that was presented in an odd-format.
Your criticisms largely reflected my feeling about the review, but you could have given me more credit for the good aspects. It is, without doubt, the best Halo review yet written after all.
 

LewsTherin

New member
Jun 22, 2008
2,443
0
0
The original Halo was quite a bit like Harry Potter.

It took something done previously, did it better, and now each respective industry is flooded with half-assed shovelware looking to cash in.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
steamednotfried said:
Your criticisms largely reflected my feeling about the review, but you could have given me more credit for the good aspects. It is, without doubt, the best Halo review yet written after all.
You mean the best Halo review written on these forums?

Its well written from a technical stand-point, but the authorial voice is lacking - something a good review MUST have.

Its not bad, if its the best its because there are not many original Halo reviews...
 

steamednotfried

New member
Oct 27, 2008
197
0
0
D_987 said:
steamednotfried said:
Your criticisms largely reflected my feeling about the review, but you could have given me more credit for the good aspects. It is, without doubt, the best Halo review yet written after all.
You mean the best Halo review written on these forums?

It most certainly is not...
I will be delighted to eat my words if you can show me a better one.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
steamednotfried said:
D_987 said:
steamednotfried said:
Your criticisms largely reflected my feeling about the review, but you could have given me more credit for the good aspects. It is, without doubt, the best Halo review yet written after all.
You mean the best Halo review written on these forums?

It most certainly is not...
I will be delighted to eat my words if you can show me a better one.
I edited the comment, it probably is the best Halo review, but that doesn't mean it needs some serious work - the authorial voice in particular. You use complex words that just are not needed; the only thing intelligent about the review is the language - I didn't read any incredibly impressive points made that haven't already been discussed.

Maybe I'm being biased because I dislike people who try to plainly brag about their work, so think of that what you will.
 

jboking

New member
Oct 10, 2008
2,694
0
0
It didn't read very smooth. I disagree with alot of the things it states, but whatever. It's your oppinion. Still work on the flow.
 

Eipok Kruden

New member
Aug 29, 2008
1,209
0
0
steamednotfried said:
The sniper rifle, for example, is given a weakness which is far from existent in the real thing: a line appears in the air, clearly showing the path of each shot fired, so that the enemy is alerted to the exact position of the sniper (in real life, the ambiguity of the sniper?s placement is its main strength).
That's because the sniper rifles use tracer rounds. Tracer rounds are more powerful than regular sniper rounds, but they're only for certain situations. You're right about how the rifle wouldn't actually use those tracer rounds in a combat scenario like this. I loved the review, best one that I've read so far. I just wanted to explain that even though it is unlikely, the check against the sniper rifle is still grounded in reality, to an extent.
 

steamednotfried

New member
Oct 27, 2008
197
0
0
Eipok Kruden said:
steamednotfried said:
The sniper rifle, for example, is given a weakness which is far from existent in the real thing: a line appears in the air, clearly showing the path of each shot fired, so that the enemy is alerted to the exact position of the sniper (in real life, the ambiguity of the sniper?s placement is its main strength).
That's because the sniper rifles use tracer rounds. Tracer rounds are more powerful than regular sniper rounds, but they're only for certain situations. You're right about how the rifle wouldn't actually use those tracer rounds in a combat scenario like this. I loved the review, best one that I've read so far. I just wanted to explain that even though it is unlikely, the check against the sniper rifle is still grounded in reality, to an extent.
I don't understand, your saying that there is such a thing as tracer rounds? Why would anyone ever use these?
 

Eipok Kruden

New member
Aug 29, 2008
1,209
0
0
steamednotfried said:
Eipok Kruden said:
steamednotfried said:
The sniper rifle, for example, is given a weakness which is far from existent in the real thing: a line appears in the air, clearly showing the path of each shot fired, so that the enemy is alerted to the exact position of the sniper (in real life, the ambiguity of the sniper?s placement is its main strength).
That's because the sniper rifles use tracer rounds. Tracer rounds are more powerful than regular sniper rounds, but they're only for certain situations. You're right about how the rifle wouldn't actually use those tracer rounds in a combat scenario like this. I loved the review, best one that I've read so far. I just wanted to explain that even though it is unlikely, the check against the sniper rifle is still grounded in reality, to an extent.
I don't understand, your saying that there is such a thing as tracer rounds? Why would anyone ever use these?
Because since there's a little explosive charge at their base that leaves a trail, the sniper can use the trail as a reference to adjust their aim. Many people have them evenly spread throughout a clip so when they fire one off, they can adjust their aim and continue firing standard ammunition. It is extremely odd that every bullet in every clip for the sniper rifle is a tracer round, but it's a nice check and it's at least somewhat grounded in reality.

EDIT: Oh right, the The Master Chief is humanity's savior, he's the ultimate leader. It's quite common for people to load their clips entirely with tracers if they're leading the squad or platoon. That way, they can visually mark targets. Tracer rounds will be used in this fashion until the Land Warrior system goes online. Currently, Land Warrior is still being tested, it isn't in the hands of every soldier.
 

steamednotfried

New member
Oct 27, 2008
197
0
0
ok so it is grounded in reality. Then again, the only time when a soldier or general or something would have to choose between a set of weapons, assesing their respective pros and cons, onw of them being the tracer rounds of the sniper rifle, would be if they just happened to have a load of training sniper rifles and none intended for battle. Its possible, but it doesn't really reflect a scenario that seems familiar to us. So why do they do it? Obviously they need the SR not to be too powerful, otherwise people will refuse to explore the other guns, since they will be made obselete by the SR. But if the real properties of a normal sniper rifle are such that its presense in the game would detract from the whole, then maybe they simply shouldn't put it in. They wouldn't put in a nuke and try to balance its advantages with disadvantages.