Is Halo becoming generic?
- Thread starter Judgement101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When i saw the title I was like, I call troll. Now I'm like, no it's just someone who doesn't know about the search function.Judgement101 said:
You seem to be forgetting that all FPS' are Doom Clones, which in turn was a Wolfenstein 3D clone. As you can see this kind of thinking gets nowhere. All games are influnced by others. We should stop comparing games to one another and judge them on their own standing.imaloony said:
Because the portal was located there. They explained in Halo 2 (and the books, but I know you don't care) that the Covenant were serching for worlds with Forerunner Artifacts. When Regret first showed up, He didn't know that it was the Human homeworld.Hardcore_gamer said:
Never explained. I could guess, but I hated those visions.Hardcore_gamer said:
Did you miss the whole middle part when the the Covenant split? When they realised the Prophet was lying to them their was no reason to continue the war. the Human were not Heritics, the rings were not going to deliver salvation and currently they (might or might not) have a full blown war with the Brutes.Hardcore_gamer said:
Like before...it's the Halo killer games that made it generic. But most FPS are generic anyway. But I'll always love Halo
Personally Halo is a great game, and I still play the first one, but I was beginning to be really tired of the lack of personality. Yes, I know about the Spartan's background and whatnot, but there was no character development (for Master Chief). He never really changed as a character. That is the thing I have the biggest problem with, and which is why I'm excited for Reach, and why I'll pay attention to it much more than Halo 3. The main characters show more personality in the trailers than Master Chief has done in three games. ODST was a nice change, but the main character was still the silent type. I just like the person I play to actually be more than a shell that kills.
I always thought it was pretty generic. I'm not going to comment on the multiplayer though (having never played the Multiplayer) but the singleplayer of Halo 1 and 2 were both generic as fuck. It didn't revolutionize a damn thing in the singleplayer, all it did was bring FPS games to the consoles and dumb them down in the process. Not to mention how the campaigns themselves were just mediocre in terms of storytelling, gameplay, level and character design, and everything else. I played both Halo 1 and 2 and I got bored before getting to the half-way mark on both games.
Half-Life that came 3-4 years before it on the PC was a much better FPS in my opinion. And yes I played it when it came out (though I was only 8!!)
Those people who only play Halo for the multiplayer though, I'm not arguing with you guys. For all I know the multiplayer is a masterpiece, I just don't care about multiplayer.
Half-Life that came 3-4 years before it on the PC was a much better FPS in my opinion. And yes I played it when it came out (though I was only 8!!)
Those people who only play Halo for the multiplayer though, I'm not arguing with you guys. For all I know the multiplayer is a masterpiece, I just don't care about multiplayer.
Halo revolutionized console FPS's, and impacted the genre as a whole.
Halo 2 revolutionized multiplayer, and gave rise to casual gamers.
Halo 3 was bland, and did nothing to revolutionize anything. It was a good game, mind you, atleast I think. But it had nothing to really stand out. It took a step back in the series.
Halo was not the first good FPS. But it was the first GOOD and POPULAR one. PC Gaming was more of a hardcore gamer thing. Halo gave the controls to the casual players, and said "have fun".
Did it bring anything new to the table? Not really. It was tweaks, that made the game more fun and accessable. Thats where it was a success.
Is Halo bland? Depends who you are. Personally, I think it went stagnant with inovations. Its fun, yes. But thats too little to ask for in a series like Halo.
Halo 2 revolutionized multiplayer, and gave rise to casual gamers.
Halo 3 was bland, and did nothing to revolutionize anything. It was a good game, mind you, atleast I think. But it had nothing to really stand out. It took a step back in the series.
Halo was not the first good FPS. But it was the first GOOD and POPULAR one. PC Gaming was more of a hardcore gamer thing. Halo gave the controls to the casual players, and said "have fun".
Did it bring anything new to the table? Not really. It was tweaks, that made the game more fun and accessable. Thats where it was a success.
Is Halo bland? Depends who you are. Personally, I think it went stagnant with inovations. Its fun, yes. But thats too little to ask for in a series like Halo.
Halo is generic.
There are no features or gimmicks which make it stand out besides terrible ragdolls and the same weapons every single release.
Halo was good in its time. It cleaned out the controls, had regenerative health and added more features which improve the FPS experience.
But now, these features are standard and Halo hasn't changed one bit.
And before anyone continues with "Evey gaem copsies haLOL!!!1", consider that all of Halo's features are so standard that it is expected.
As a terrible comparison: Are all cars with air-conditioning accused of coping Packard (Thanks, Wikipedia!), just because Packard did it first?
There are no features or gimmicks which make it stand out besides terrible ragdolls and the same weapons every single release.
Halo was good in its time. It cleaned out the controls, had regenerative health and added more features which improve the FPS experience.
But now, these features are standard and Halo hasn't changed one bit.
And before anyone continues with "Evey gaem copsies haLOL!!!1", consider that all of Halo's features are so standard that it is expected.
As a terrible comparison: Are all cars with air-conditioning accused of coping Packard (Thanks, Wikipedia!), just because Packard did it first?