Let's Be Like Halo! Wait... what?

Recommended Videos
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
So I've been watching back episodes of Zero Puntuation for funsies and I recently watched the Turok episode. At the end Yahtzee uses the phrase 'let's be like Halo' as a reason for why First Person Shooters are now rubbish, and lots of people agree with him. So I watched my way through his points and made this list in response. tl;dr is at the bottom

1. Use Console Controls Responsibly:
'Console shooters will always be crippled by the lack of mouse control, but a good console FPS will compensate by having smoother aiming or auto-targeting.' Just like Halo does. It has both in fact, smooth aiming and a light auto-targeting thingy that actually makes it flow quite nicely.

2. Bring Back Health Meters:
Halo 1 has a shield meter and a health meter. It also features health packs that you walk over to trigger, just like the 'old school' FPSs everyone whines about. Halo 2 onwards also had the shield meter, which actually functions about the same as a health meter, and since you died very shortly after your shield went down it might as well have just been a health meter. Further, it had an in-story reason for the shield (your health) regenerating.

3. Give Grenades Halfway Decent Splash Damage:
Like Halo did then. All throughout the Halo series the grenades have had pretty damn decent splash damage.

4. Stop Ripping Off Aliens:
Aliens features squads of grizzled marines of various ethnicities and grizzledness, all wizecracking their way through the various scenarios they find themselves in, like a lot of mainstream first person shooters these days. However, Halo featured a lone, silent protagonist (like Gordon Freeman) with very little personality assigned to him aside from what can be gleaned by the way the enemies react to him and his squadmates treat him. The closest Halo comes to Aliens is the crypod sequence but one shout out does not a ripoff make.

5. Stop Zooming Into The Backs Of People's Heads To Show We're Taking Control Of Them
Halo has never done this. Left 4 Dead, a game by popular designers and developers Valve has done this, but never Halo.

6. Stop Blowing All Your Money On Big Name Voice Actors Who Then Totally Phone It In
This one's harder to call, because it depends entirely on what you think 'phoning it in' sounds like. The main characters of Halo have never been voiced by people particularly famous, even within the voice acting community, with the possible exception of Keith David. There have been characters played by Ron Perlman, Michelle Rodriguez (who continues her fine tradition of dying in everything she has ever appeared in) and of course half of the cast of Firefly. However I never felt that these were phoned in, and heck the Firefly crew went on to make an entire game, for which they acted about as well as any other voice actor I've seen in games. This one comes down more to personal readings of the acting but the few big names they have never seen to half arse it.

7. The final point comes in the conclusion where he offhandedly mentions having more colours than gunmetal grey and dirt brown. Yes indeed, the bright blue, red and silver elites, the orange and purple grunts, vivid green landscapes, stark white fields, the need I go on exceptions to the brown and bloomy shooters of recent years really make me think that Halo has a limited palette.

So why am I making this list now? And what's the discussion value? I guess I'm just tired of still seeing Halo held up as an example of when shooters went wrong for most of the reasons listed above. I'm not saying everyone is blindly parroting Yahtzee but what everyone seems to forget is that Halo, especially the original but the sequels to some degree never actually fell victim to the problems most people blame it for. As far as I have ever been able to see its main problem was that it got popular, and bad First Person Shooters followed in its wake. But they weren't ripping of Halo, or if they were then they weren't ripping off anything that hadn't been done before in other games.

Further discussion value and tl:dr I posit that Halo did not ruin the development of FPSs. If you want to argue against any of my above points feel free. Or suggest the games that really did start the trend for the above points. Or say why Halo did destroy the industry for different reasons than the above. Let's try and keep it civil, there's a worthwhile discussion to be had if we can remain calm.
 

MasterMongoose0

New member
Nov 3, 2009
195
0
0
I love when people say games copied Halo. They didn't.

They copy Call of Duty today, but I don't feel there were ever any TRUE Halo clones. Halo was Halo, you either liked it or didn't. Nothing looked like it was straight stealing from it. Developers took some ideas (just like every hack and slash action game cribs from DMC and God of War to some extent), and games moved on. The only "Halo" trends I see are regenerative health and the idea of holding two weapons at a time. Both of these aren't even copied wholesale in most games (Gears lets you hold four weapons)

Totally in agreement with you, Mr. Topic Creator
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
Well, I'd say that 2 is arguably a bad thing, 3 is definitely a bad thing, 4 and 5 are nitpicking, 6 - not that many FPS games do, either.

Obviously, blaming Halo for "ruining" the FPS genre is insane, but that's simply because there's a lot of titles that don't follow in its wake - CoD, BF, CS, TF2.
 

LaBarnes

New member
Oct 23, 2009
46
0
0
I totally agree. Even though I think Halo's quality has significantly deteriorated over time, it isn't responsible for the trends we're seeing with FPSes now, and Yahtzee's claim that it is is sort of embarrassingly ignorant.
If I had to take a stab at the current FPS trends, I'd have to guess Call of Duty 2. Don't take that as fanboy hate, either. I love Call of Duty 2 and firmly believe it to be the last decent WWII shooter. It was also gray, brown, and filled with health regeneration.
 

Argonian alchemist

Master-level alchemist
May 5, 2011
663
0
0
Ah I wouldn't worry about Halo getting compared to other games.

By the time "Call of Duty #784: The super ultra ops of the veteran snipers within vietnam" comes out, there won't be a Halo... or any other FPS... Just CoD, since "herp it be mainstream derp so I playz it cause evrybudy else do lolz!"

They could just bring out the exact same Call of Duty out every couple of freakin' weeks with a different box art and title and it would sell like hot cakes.

FPS's are as good as dead. Because somehow, somewhere along the line... gamers became idiots...
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
I agree, it is quite strange. TBH, I think Modern Warfare has had a more negative effect on modern day shooters than many like to admit. Not to say that there weren't quite a few Halo knock-offs last gen (there were), but it just does not seem to be as big a problem anymore (now we have to deal with hordes of terrible COD knock-offs. Uhg...).
 

RADlTZ

New member
Nov 19, 2009
152
0
0
For me the thing that always set halo apart was the manuverability the players were given, to be honest I'd like to see more fps's on console that follow that type of gameplay because the Call of Duty and unreal engine games feel far to grounded.

Thats not to say that they're not great games, the groundedness suits them, esspecially in Gears of War, but switching back to Halo's jumpy freedom afterwards is always refreshing for a while.

To bad Reach took away the speed and plowed up the gravity, its almost as though Halo is hanging out in the CoD corner these days.
 

IBlackKiteI

New member
Mar 12, 2010
1,613
0
0
MelasZepheos said:
1. Use Console Controls Responsibly:
'Console shooters will always be crippled by the lack of mouse control, but a good console FPS will compensate by having smoother aiming or auto-targeting.' Just like Halo does. It has both in fact, smooth aiming and a light auto-targeting thingy that actually makes it flow quite nicely.
Very debatable.
Whether a mouse or controller is best for a shooter is pretty much up to the player, as is Halo's gunplay being smooth.
Though then again Halo was one of the first games to have any form of auto-aim, which pretty much every FPS has in some way nowadays. Though personally I think Halo 3/Reach's auto-aim is completely overkill, its way too much of an assist and just takes the fun out of the game.

MelasZepheos said:
2. Bring Back Health Meters:
Halo 1 has a shield meter and a health meter. It also features health packs that you walk over to trigger, just like the 'old school' FPSs everyone whines about. Halo 2 onwards also had the shield meter, which actually functions about the same as a health meter, and since you died very shortly after your shield went down it might as well have just been a health meter. Further, it had an in-story reason for the shield (your health) regenerating.
Halo was the pretty much the first game to popularise regenerating health, and loads of shooters have copied it ever since.

Whether its a good thing or not, I'm not sure if one person can definitively tell.

MelasZepheos said:
3. Give Grenades Halfway Decent Splash Damage:
Like Halo did then. All throughout the Halo series the grenades have had pretty damn decent splash damage.
The blast radius of a hand grenade in Halo is ridiculously low in all installments.
I can't think of any game with grenades that have less splash damage than Halo's.

Also, real world fragmentation grenades have been known to injure or kill people over ridiculously long distances from where they explode. But then again, having grenades in games act like the real world equivalents would be difficult, and unbalanced.

MelasZepheos said:
4. Stop Ripping Off Aliens:
Aliens features squads of grizzled marines of various ethnicities and grizzledness, all wizecracking their way through the various scenarios they find themselves in, like a lot of mainstream first person shooters these days. However, Halo featured a lone, silent protagonist (like Gordon Freeman) with very little personality assigned to him aside from what can be gleaned by the way the enemies react to him and his squadmates treat him. The closest Halo comes to Aliens is the crypod sequence but one shout out does not a ripoff make.
This point seems pretty irrelevant.

Plots, characters and settings vary so much between games you can't really say a whole bunch are like Aliens. However, Halo has copied some aspects of Aliens (Elite's are based off Xenomorphs, some of the weapons designs, ship designs, the Flood infection forms are supposedly based off Facehuggers) but not to a ridiculous degree.

MelasZepheos said:
5. Stop Zooming Into The Backs Of People's Heads To Show We're Taking Control Of Them
Halo has never done this. Left 4 Dead, a game by popular designers and developers Valve has done this, but never Halo.
Again irrevalent.
Who cares?

MelasZepheos said:
6. Stop Blowing All Your Money On Big Name Voice Actors Who Then Totally Phone It In
This one's harder to call, because it depends entirely on what you think 'phoning it in' sounds like. The main characters of Halo have never been voiced by people particularly famous, even within the voice acting community, with the possible exception of Keith David. There have been characters played by Ron Perlman, Michelle Rodriguez (who continues her fine tradition of dying in everything she has ever appeared in) and of course half of the cast of Firefly. However I never felt that these were phoned in, and heck the Firefly crew went on to make an entire game, for which they acted about as well as any other voice actor I've seen in games. This one comes down more to personal readings of the acting but the few big names they have never seen to half arse it.
Again this is somewhat irrevalent, though only to Halo.

The only real characters in Halo (aside from Captain Keyes and Tartarus) are in it for the majority of the trilogy, and as you said before aren't really voiced by anyone all that notable. (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing)

MelasZepheos said:
7. The final point comes in the conclusion where he offhandedly mentions having more colours than gunmetal grey and dirt brown. Yes indeed, the bright blue, red and silver elites, the orange and purple grunts, vivid green landscapes, stark white fields, the need I go on exceptions to the brown and bloomy shooters of recent years really make me think that Halo has a limited palette.
Halo does have a pretty expansive range of colours used to pretty good effect. They made Covenant spaceship interiors, ancient ringworlds, aliens and their weapons seem very unique and interesting.
At least the first one did.
To me the others became more and more of some sort of incoherent blur. Like as if Halo kept attempting to get with the whole 'gritty realism' thing, but every now and then something explodes in a flashing blue or purple light, or some enemy takes a few hits and begins glowing.
Personally I think the use of colours in Halo CE was its greatest graphical device, but in the other games (Reach especially) it just looked messy and dumb.

So in the later games I reckon the use of more colours than the average shooter actually sort of backfired.

MelasZepheos said:
So why am I making this list now? And what's the discussion value? I guess I'm just tired of still seeing Halo held up as an example of when shooters went wrong for most of the reasons listed above. I'm not saying everyone is blindly parroting Yahtzee but what everyone seems to forget is that Halo, especially the original but the sequels to some degree never actually fell victim to the problems most people blame it for.
Its pretty much generally accepted that the Halo series has poor characters and a crappy story, just like a lot of shooters.
You know somethings up when even the most hardcore Halo fanboys admit theres flaws in it.

(And no, I don't mean the books.
Halo is a game. Books of the game don't change this fact. They're an addition, not some sort of rewrite.)

MelasZepheos said:
As far as I have ever been able to see its main problem was that it got popular, and bad First Person Shooters followed in its wake. But they weren't ripping of Halo, or if they were then they weren't ripping off anything that hadn't been done before in other games.

Further discussion value and tl:dr I posit that Halo did not ruin the development of FPSs. If you want to argue against any of my above points feel free. Or suggest the games that really did start the trend for the above points. Or say why Halo did destroy the industry for different reasons than the above. Let's try and keep it civil, there's a worthwhile discussion to be had if we can remain calm.
Halo was indeed good for the industry.
Its two gun thing, regenerating health, auto-aim and use of vehicles alongside infantry in multiplayer matches has been popularised by it. Whilst the likes of CoD, Bad Company, etc, would exist without it, they wouldn't be the same if Halo weren't there first.
Along with this the Xbox probably wouldn't have lasted so long if it weren't for Halo, and its impact in popularising the games industry has been huge. Like it or not.

Personally I find Halo CE to be one of the best FPS's ever made, whilst I think the others are complete trash in every possible way except for their multiplayer's, however even that is almost completely dependant on that 'luck based gaming' everyone keeps talking about and is still riddled with flaws and unbalances.

Though expansion on my reasons would be an entirely different arguement, which I probably shouldn't get into or else I won't stop.
 

Trolldor

New member
Jan 20, 2011
1,849
0
0
Jay Parrish said:
Ah I wouldn't worry about Halo getting compared to other games.

By the time "Call of Duty #784: The super ultra ops of the veteran snipers within vietnam" comes out, there won't be a Halo... or any other FPS... Just CoD, since "herp it be mainstream derp so I playz it cause evrybudy else do lolz!"

They could just bring out the exact same Call of Duty out every couple of freakin' weeks with a different box art and title and it would sell like hot cakes.

FPS's are as good as dead. Because somehow, somewhere along the line... gamers became idiots...
Gamers were always idiots. Devs just stopped over-estimating them.
 

Argonian alchemist

Master-level alchemist
May 5, 2011
663
0
0
Trolldor said:
Jay Parrish said:
Ah I wouldn't worry about Halo getting compared to other games.

By the time "Call of Duty #784: The super ultra ops of the veteran snipers within vietnam" comes out, there won't be a Halo... or any other FPS... Just CoD, since "herp it be mainstream derp so I playz it cause evrybudy else do lolz!"

They could just bring out the exact same Call of Duty out every couple of freakin' weeks with a different box art and title and it would sell like hot cakes.

FPS's are as good as dead. Because somehow, somewhere along the line... gamers became idiots...
Gamers were always idiots. Devs just stopped over-estimating them.
Touche'...
 

Iron Lightning

Lightweight Extreme
Oct 19, 2009
1,237
0
0
Well, to be fair the whole Flood section of Halo could be considered an Aliens ripoff because of the little guys that jump for your face.

It's more of a zombie level, if anything, though.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
IBlackKiteI said:
Halo was the pretty much the first game to popularise regenerating health, and loads of shooters have copied it ever since.

Whether its a good thing or not, I'm not sure if one person can definitively tell.
Nope, the first CoD was the game with the 'cherry red screen' recharging health mechanic. Released in 2003, a year before Halo 2 which had the same mechanic combined with a recharging shield.
Its pretty much generally accepted that the Halo series has poor characters and a crappy story, just like a lot of shooters.
Were they really that bad compared to games like MW2 and Black Ops? Quite simpel, yes, and definitely not top-of-the-bill writing, same goes for the characters, but at least they worked and the story wasn't hampered by that many plotholes.
 

IBlackKiteI

New member
Mar 12, 2010
1,613
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
IBlackKiteI said:
Halo was the pretty much the first game to popularise regenerating health, and loads of shooters have copied it ever since.

Whether its a good thing or not, I'm not sure if one person can definitively tell.
Nope, the first CoD was the game with the 'cherry red screen' recharging health mechanic. Released in 2003, a year before Halo 2 which had the same mechanic combined with a recharging shield.
Its pretty much generally accepted that the Halo series has poor characters and a crappy story, just like a lot of shooters.
Were they really that bad compared to games like MW2 and Black Ops? Quite simpel, yes, and definitely top-of-the-bill writing, same goes for the characters, but at least they worked and the story wasn't hampered by that many plotholes.
The first CoD didn't have regenerating health but rather ridiculous amounts of medkits. CoD 2 did though, which undoubtedly took it from Halo.

As for the story I think the main thing with it in comparison to CoD is that CoD is basically modern day, with its terrorists and cool guns and whatnot, whereas Halo is an entirely fictional universe. Of course this isn't a bad thing in itself, but this means that the game is heavily built upon its own story.
Like, in FPS's set in the modern day you don't really need a big plot, or some overly complex reason to kill all the bad guys. But in Halo everything is fictional and it feels that all of it should then contribute to its story.
 

Bobbity

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,659
0
0
LaBarnes said:
I totally agree. Even though I think Halo's quality has significantly deteriorated over time, it isn't responsible for the trends we're seeing with FPSes now, and Yahtzee's claim that it is is sort of embarrassingly ignorant.
If I had to take a stab at the current FPS trends, I'd have to guess Call of Duty 2. Don't take that as fanboy hate, either. I love Call of Duty 2 and firmly believe it to be the last decent WWII shooter. It was also gray, brown, and filled with health regeneration.
I agree. CoD 2 started the trend - don't flame me! It's my favourite CoD game! I don't hate it at all - having picked the odd idea off of Halo. After that, the changes grew more and more noticeable, until MW1 really kicked off the trend of crappy brown shooters.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
IBlackKiteI said:
MelasZepheos said:
1. Use Console Controls Responsibly:
'Console shooters will always be crippled by the lack of mouse control, but a good console FPS will compensate by having smoother aiming or auto-targeting.' Just like Halo does. It has both in fact, smooth aiming and a light auto-targeting thingy that actually makes it flow quite nicely.
Very debatable.
Whether a mouse or controller is best for a shooter is pretty much up to the player, as is Halo's gunplay being smooth.
Though then again Halo was one of the first games to have any form of auto-aim, which pretty much every FPS has in some way nowadays. Though personally I think Halo 3/Reach's auto-aim is completely overkill, its way too much of an assist and just takes the fun out of the game.
Auto-aim, what is that?

It sounds strange to me that people think Halo has auto-aim. The reason I find the term weird is that when I played Halo 3 and these days that I'm playing Reach, I'm doing all the aiming myself.

The term "Auto-aim" to me sounds like that if I bring the cross-hair or reticule over the enemy, it will automatically stick to my target for easy shooting/hitting.

If the game "Auto-aimed" for me, I would do a whole lot better than I normally do. But it doesn't, I see a target, I manually move my aim to the target and if the target is moving I have to make the aim move with it.

It would be helpful if I knew what people meant by the term, because as I understand the word "Auto", it doesn't fit because I have never felt the Halo games doing anything for me in the aiming department. The closest it comes to automatically doing something is the homing nature of needler needles, the sticky grenade launcher, and the rocket launcher lock-on for vehicles. Though even those just have to do with homing after the fact of keeping a steady manual aim and firing.

Edit: OT: Yeah, I never got why people thought Halo started the bland shooter trend, especially in the color department. I don't see how Halo could have started the bland gray and brown shooter trend, when Halo has always been more colorful than most shooters that came after and even some before it.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
IBlackKiteI said:
The first CoD didn't have regenerating health but rather ridiculous amounts of medkits. CoD 2 did though, which undoubtedly took it from Halo.

As for the story I think the main thing with it in comparison to CoD is that CoD is basically modern day, with its terrorists and cool guns and whatnot, whereas Halo is an entirely fictional universe. Of course this isn't a bad thing in itself, but this means that the game is heavily built upon its own story.
Like, in FPS's set in the modern day you don't really need a big plot, or some overly complex reason to kill all the bad guys. But in Halo everything is fictional and it feels that all of it should then contribute to its story.
Sorry 'bout the story thing, I was ment to write definitely not top-of-the-bill writing, but at least it works and is quite well-thought through. It's rather basic with it's "save humanity from evil aliens and an unrelated doomsday weapon" story, but it's presented in a way that makes you feel like a part of the story. At least that's how I felt.

Anyway, as for regenerating health, at least Halo 2 kept the shield. It was CoD who popularised the invisible health regen system. The one with the heavy breathing and heart thumping, the kind most people find silly and actually hate.
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
IBlackKiteI said:
gigantic snip
The reason for the 'irrelevant' topics was because I was literally copying word for word Yahtzee's points from the Turok review. He makes the seven points, then attributes all the blame to 'let's be like Halo.' My counter point was that in fact none of his points related to Halo in any way, either because they were qualitative judgements or they were just something Halo didn't do. My further point would be that most of the other things people blame Halo for don't in fact originate there, but that would have made my post about twice as long.
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
IBlackKiteI said:
MelasZepheos said:
snip
Auto-aim, what is that?

It sounds strange to me that people think Halo has auto-aim. The reason I find the term weird is that when I played Halo 3 and these days that I'm playing Reach, I'm doing all the aiming myself.

The term "Auto-aim" to me sounds like that if I bring the cross-hair or reticule over the enemy, it will automatically stick to my target for easy shooting/hitting.

If the game "Auto-aimed" for me, I would do a whole lot better than I normally do. But it doesn't, I see a target, I manually move my aim to the target and if the target is moving I have to make the aim move with it.

It would be helpful if I knew what people meant by the term, because as I understand the word "Auto", it doesn't fit because I have never felt the Halo games doing anything for me in the aiming department. The closest it comes to automatically doing something is the homing nature of needler needles, the sticky grenade launcher, and the rocket launcher lock-on for vehicles. Though even those just have to do with homing after the fact of keeping a steady manual aim and firing.

Edit: OT: Yeah, I never got why people thought Halo started the bland shooter trend, especially in the color department. I don't see how Halo could have started the bland gray and brown shooter trend, when Halo has always been more colorful than most shooters that came after and even some before it.
Auto-aim is a blanket term for any program which does part of the aiming for the player. You've pretty much described it, even if you've never noticed it. Most good console FPSs include some facility which will help the targeting reticule to 'lock on' or 'stick' to a target. Sometimes it will be a brief second where the reticule follows the target, other times it might automatically slow down your movement when an enemy comes into target.

A lot of PC shooters (not all, but still) don't have anything like this feature. Aimin is done entirely with the mouse, and since there is (allegedly, theoretically, this shouldn't become a discussion about PCs vs consoles) more sensitivity with a mouse, you don't need to have something to slow your aim down. Without getting into the argument of which is better, with a mouse you supposedly have more ability to precision aim, whereas consoles lend themselves to 'spray and pray' tactics, because the thumbsticks don't have enough fine control.

It's a debate which rages between PC gamers and console gamers, so probably we shouldn't keep discussing it further here, but basically if a console game contains no auto-aiming facility it would be near impossible to reliably lock on to a target, although a skilled player could of course overcome this boundary. Halo is a good console FPS, so it does contain a lot of auto-aiming facilities to make the game that little bit easier.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
MelasZepheos said:
Sonic Doctor said:
Auto-aim is a blanket term for any program which does part of the aiming for the player. You've pretty much described it, even if you've never noticed it. Most good console FPSs include some facility which will help the targeting reticule to 'lock on' or 'stick' to a target. Sometimes it will be a brief second where the reticule follows the target, other times it might automatically slow down your movement when an enemy comes into target.

A lot of PC shooters (not all, but still) don't have anything like this feature. Aimin is done entirely with the mouse, and since there is (allegedly, theoretically, this shouldn't become a discussion about PCs vs consoles) more sensitivity with a mouse, you don't need to have something to slow your aim down. Without getting into the argument of which is better, with a mouse you supposedly have more ability to precision aim, whereas consoles lend themselves to 'spray and pray' tactics, because the thumbsticks don't have enough fine control.

It's a debate which rages between PC gamers and console gamers, so probably we shouldn't keep discussing it further here, but basically if a console game contains no auto-aiming facility it would be near impossible to reliably lock on to a target, although a skilled player could of course overcome this boundary. Halo is a good console FPS, so it does contain a lot of auto-aiming facilities to make the game that little bit easier.
Well if that is the case of the term, then I really don't consider Halo to have any auto-aim. With the regular projectile weapons, I have never had the reticule stick to a target and follow it, I'm the one doing the moving of the reticule to stay with the target. If the target moves too fast for my thumb moving the targeting-directional-view thumb-stick, then I won't hit it because it will run out of the reticule.

I don't see how people can complain about the three I mentioned, needler, sticky launcher, and rocket launcher.

The needler has always had homing capabilities with the needles coming out, but I have never had the needler reticule stick to the person I am firing at. Yes it turns red when I am in range for homing shots, but the reticule has never followed the person I targeted.

Even with the sticky launcher, it does have a slight lock, but once players press the charge up button, they have to follow the target manually before the reticule turns red and locks(for only a brief moment), then homing after fire. But it is the only weapon in the game that purely locks to anything.

The rocket launcher is like the sticky launcher in that players have to keep aim manually while the lock on mechanism syncs up for rockets to home, but even with that, the rocket launcher only locks on and homes in on just vehicles, it won't do it with people.

So that is why I was puzzled by what the other poster said about auto-aim in "Halo 3/Reach being completely overkill", when only three weapons only show slight if any auto-aim and really it isn't auto aim, it is just homing after the fact of shooting. Besides two of them are alien weapons and I would expect something like that from race that is somewhat more advanced.

The DMR, Assault Rifle, Shotgun, Sniper Rifle, Pistol, and other weapons human or alien that aren't the three I mentioned, have never had any auto-aim when I used them.

But now I read again what you say at the bottom of your response "Halo is a good console FPS, so it does contain a lot of auto-aiming...", it makes no sense to say Halo has a lot of auto-aiming when only the three weapons, the needler, sticky launcher, and rocket launcher, have barely what could be seen as auto-aim. The other weapons in the game have absolutely no auto-aim.

So, taking in how many weapons there are in the game, Halo has hardly any auto-aim. Nothing but my own fingers and some luck has helped me get a few headshots with the sniper rifle or DMR.