No Haters: If you love Halo so much tell me this. . .

[obliviondoll]

Particularly true for the Quake series and many of their mods, because grenade launchers meant you didn't need to turn around to take a shot at someone. Aim about 30 degrees up, fire at a wall just before you round the corner, and there's a decent chance your enemy will run into it while chasing you.

Thanks, you've just proved my point, hardcore PC gaming until Halo was pretty much a one hit kill.

Ummmmmm.... Grenades were NEVER a one-hit kill.

You fire a grenade in that situation to hurt the opponent, but it NEVER instant-killed someone at 100 health. Even without armour. It was a distraction, something to slow them down, and if you had good timing and a little luck, it'd take a chunk of health with it, evening the playing field while you get yourself facing your opponent. The only way to instant-kill someone in Quake was to use the lightning gun underwater.And that was only guaranteed to kill yourself.

You never PLAYED Quake, did you?

Also...

I think Halo 2 and 3 failed miserably at the whole "innovation" thing

Pardon me good sir, but I believe you may be mistaken, Halo 2 introduced dual-wielding and vehicle jacking (not to mention playing as the Arbiter, which was dopenificent). While I'm pretty sure vehicle jacking was done in GTA (along with playing the as an enemy in some other games) dual-wielding seemed like Halo 2 did before other FPS's (not sure on this, it seems like the most successful integration of it). It also did a good job at vehicle jacking.

Halo 3 improved upon Halo 2 even further with forge, while it's not as polished as it's going to be in Reach it was at least a wonderful step for user created content. Let's also not forget about theater.

Halo 2 introduced dual wielding which existed before the original Halo in Rise of the Triad, Blood, Blood 2, Several Doom mods and Doom Engine games, etc, etc, etc. Yep, good innovation.

Halo 2 invented Vehicle Jacking which was an option in several FPS and TPS games before it. Also very innovative. I'll admit it integrated the vehicle jacking better than any non-GTA game before it though.

I'll give you Forge, but ONLY in the context of console-based level builders. PC games have had them coming out since forever. Abuse being the best example. They released the programming language it was coded in for free with the game, complete with full in-depth tutorial and manuals.

 

[LitleWaffle]

Regenerating health: Faceball 2000 and Wolverine: Adamantium Rage
Two Weapons+Melee Button: Ever play Counter strike? You poor soul.

Not only are the first games you mentioned NOT FPSes, I've never heard of them and they most likely suck. Just because they invented a tiny element that Halo eventually used means nothing.

Secondly, we're talking about CONSOLE FPSes there chief, you know, the ones that were made for kids who couldn't afford PCs to game on?

Halo CE was unrivaled at the time of its release on consoles, end of fucking story.

1.Well ain't you hating on my nostalgia? They were really good games "at the time of its release"

2.You are a Halo fanboy

3.Faceball 2000 was an FPS

4.You can't really hate on a game you don't know of, so this is pretty much invalid.

5.The fact that Halo 2 added regenerating health does mean something, as the whole innovation advertisement of that game was then deemed bologna.

6.Console FPSes were not made for kids who can't afford a computer.

7.Halo isn't even for kids! ESRB bugs me, but they do make a point by saying that Halo is rated M. In fact, I can't think of many that are kid oriented(excuse me if others do).

 

[Ampersand]

New standard? That parade of mediocrity?

Oh dear, oh dear.

Halo: combat evolved.
not halo 3.
Don't confuse the two.

You misunderstood me; the entire franchise is shallow.

So? Whats wrong with basics? I much prefer Halo because you can literally open it up out of the box and jump right in.

And that's fine. I prefer depth and story telling, but whatever. To each their own.

That doesn't really make sence as a criticism for a game although a story is nice in a game, it's not what people play games for. The game play is what ultimatly holds it up, and halo's gameplay is well above average.

Because you know why everyone plays games?

Odd, because I do happen to look for story telling in my games.

Well, guess you're wrong. How about that.

And i would be reasonable for complaining about the lack of gameplay in pride and prejudice, would I?
Obviously not because that isn't what the medium is designed for.
Read a book if you want a story, play a game if you want to play a game.
Simple.

 

[Arctodus_Simus]

Neither a hater, nor a fan-boy

Personally I think it was just a pretty decent game, fun and with good gameplay and a story I wanted to find out more about afterwards, and a pretty awesome multiplayer where you could just throw a few xboxs together and gather round with some mates and a few beer. Other shooters may have been inspired by it, which can only be a good thing.

Even if they weren't, doesn't matter. As long as its an enjoyable game, I'm quite happy

 

[Ampersand]

New standard? That parade of mediocrity?

Oh dear, oh dear.

Halo: combat evolved.
not halo 3.
Don't confuse the two.

You misunderstood me; the entire franchise is shallow.

So? Whats wrong with basics? I much prefer Halo because you can literally open it up out of the box and jump right in.

And that's fine. I prefer depth and story telling, but whatever. To each their own.

That doesn't really make sence as a criticism for a game although a story is nice in a game, it's not what people play games for. The game play is what ultimatly holds it up, and halo's gameplay is well above average.

Because you know why everyone plays games?

Odd, because I do happen to look for story telling in my games.

Well, guess you're wrong. How about that.

And i would be reasonable for complaining about the lack of gameplay in pride and prejudice, would I?
Obviously not because that isn't what the medium is designed for.
Read a book if you want a story, play a game if you want to play a game.
Simple.

....

What?

Games can't have good stories?

I don't even...

Games can have great storys. They can be the icing on an already delicious cake as long as they are implemented with the understanding that the gameplay is the important bit ( the cake bit).

If the emphasis was put on story rather then gameplay what you get is an anime that forces you to stop watching every few minutes. (and you can get that much more cheaply by trying to watch naruto on megavideo.)

 

[obliviondoll]

And i would be reasonable for complaining about the lack of gameplay in pride and prejudice, would I?
Obviously not because that isn't what the medium is designed for.
Read a book if you want a story, play a game if you want to play a game.
Simple.

Bioware would like a word with you.

The Elder Scrolls series would like a word with you (although Oblivion is less insulted than the rest).

Heavy Rain would like a word with you.

Fallout would like a word with you. Fallout 3 would not.

Unreal would like a word with you (the story isn't going to win awards, but it had some of the best integration of storyline into gameplay when it came out, and made id Software shift from "Quake 3 is going to be the greatest single-player experience you've ever seen" to "Quake 3 Arena" in under a week).

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed would like a word with you (award-winning story? Check. Recognised by fans and non-fans as better than the storylines of the prequel movies? Check).

EDIT: Just to clarify and make this relevant to a couple of posts that came while I was typing, several of the games I listed have the storyline integrated into the way they play, so the story is relevant to the medium of gaming, as well as being good in some cases.

 

[skennedy929]

1.Well ain't you hating on my nostalgia? They were really good games "at the time of its release"

2.You are a Halo fanboy

3.Faceball 2000 was an FPS

4.You can't really hate on a game you don't know of, so this is pretty much invalid.

5.The fact that Halo 2 added regenerating health does mean something, as the whole innovation advertisement of that game was then deemed bologna.

6.Console FPSes were not made for kids who can't afford a computer.

1. I'll take your word on it. I loved Goldeneye 64, but I'm not going to don my rose glasses and say it is better than Halo.

2. I'm most certainly not a fanboy of anything. I play PC games, Nintendo games, Xbox games, and Sony games and love many games from all platforms. I know I'm new here but don't assume I came to this thread just to blather on about how Halo is the second coming.

3. This was corrected for me several pages back, I apologize.

4. Hating on is a strong word. When we are talking about games that came out in 2001 bringing up an old SNES Wolfenstein-style game is pointless. Is any game that uses a first person perspective worse than faceball just cuz it came out first? No.

5. They made the whole package, and did it better than anyone else at the time. If you can disprove this please do so. The only game that comes close for the time period is Timesplitters.

6. Kind of don't understand why you would say that. Console systems were always hundreds and hundreds less than a computer. For those of us without parents that had money, our gaming experiences were molded by console games only. This is a fact. I would have loved to play Counterstrike, but I couldn't afford a computer so I had an N64 and Goldeneye.

Is Counterstrike better overall than Goldeneye? Yes. Is that relevant in a discussion about console games? No.

 

[Ampersand]

And i would be reasonable for complaining about the lack of gameplay in pride and prejudice, would I?
Obviously not because that isn't what the medium is designed for.
Read a book if you want a story, play a game if you want to play a game.
Simple.

Bioware would like a word with you.

The Elder Scrolls series would like a word with you (although Oblivion is less insulted than the rest).

Heavy Rain would like a word with you.

Fallout would like a word with you. Fallout 3 would not.

Unreal would like a word with you (the story isn't going to win awards, but it had some of the best integration of storyline into gameplay when it came out, and made id Software shift from "Quake 3 is going to be the greatest single-player experience you've ever seen" to "Quake 3 Arena" in under a week).

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed would like a word with you (award-winning story? Check. Recognised by fans and non-fans as better than the storylines of the prequel movies? Check).

EDIT: Just to clarify and make this relevant to a couple of posts that came while I was typing, several of the games I listed have the storyline integrated into the way they play, so the story is relevant to the medium of gaming, as well as being good in some cases.

People keep telling me that bioware games have great stories but sadly i've never been able to get far enough into any of them to find out because the gameplay is so boring. same problem with heavy ran and fall out. Might as well mention bioshock aswell.

All of these games have a fan-base so they must apeal to some people, but in my opinion they arn't good games.

 

[ecoho]

New standard? That parade of mediocrity?

Oh dear, oh dear.

Halo: combat evolved.
not halo 3.
Don't confuse the two.

You misunderstood me; the entire franchise is shallow.

So? Whats wrong with basics? I much prefer Halo because you can literally open it up out of the box and jump right in.

And that's fine. I prefer depth and story telling, but whatever. To each their own.

ok first to you its a FPS not based on a movie the story isnt going to be great (half life 1 didnt have the greatest story mind you it was probly better told.)

Because only movies can tell good stories?

You don't read much, do you.

yes i do i read the WOT series by Robert Jorden most things from Tom Clancy and Bradon Sanderson just to name three of my favoit athurs. Now please name one BOOK that was made into a game that didnt suck please? I went stright to the idea of a movie for a FPS because the flagship game (IE the one that pretty much started it all) was Goldeneye.

 

[ecoho]

New standard? That parade of mediocrity?

Oh dear, oh dear.

Halo: combat evolved.
not halo 3.
Don't confuse the two.

You misunderstood me; the entire franchise is shallow.

So? Whats wrong with basics? I much prefer Halo because you can literally open it up out of the box and jump right in.

And that's fine. I prefer depth and story telling, but whatever. To each their own.

ok first to you its a FPS not based on a movie the story isnt going to be great (half life 1 didnt have the greatest story mind you it was probly better told.)

Because only movies can tell good stories?

You don't read much, do you.

yes i do i read the WOT series by Robert Jorden most things from Tom Clancy and Bradon Sanderson just to name three of my favoit athurs. Now please name one BOOK that was made into a game that didnt suck please? I went stright to the idea of a movie for a FPS because the flagship game (IE the one that pretty much started it all) was Goldeneye.

Lolwhat? Books being made into games? I don't even...

You musn't read too many book, because you clearly can't read what I posted.

No clearly your a troll and the worst kind of troll one who posts just to be an ass. Please good sir leave if you cant keep on topic

 

[obliviondoll]

People keep telling me that bioware games have great stories but sadly i've never been able to get far enough into any of them to find out because the gameplay is so boring. same problem with heavy ran and fall out. Might as well mention bioshock aswell.

Won't fault you on the Bioware thing, there are plenty of people who don't enjoy their games (and a few who won't play them but enjoy watching for the story - I have a couple of friends who always ask me to play Dragon Age when they're over, but hate trying to play it themselves)

With Fallout, however, I'm assuming you misread. I said "Fallout would like a word with you. Fallout 3 would not." Did you ever play the original Fallout? Or Fallout 2? You don't sound like you did. They had a very different feel to anything else listed here.

And as for Bioshock, I was tempted, but I haven't actually got around to playing it all the way through myself yet. And besides, it WAS (as Yahtzee so helpfully mentioned) just a System Shock ripoff with HD graphics. He didn't mention that it ripped off the art style of Fallout more than that of System Shock though.

 

[Autofaux]

Halo is far from realistic, and it's no longer the Golden Child, *however*..

I know this is mostly from my opinion but creativity wise, there isn't much that has been added. Or at least not original to Halo.

This bit I agree with. There was a big leap in graphical newness with Halo 2, and the double gun thingy, but Halo(s) of late are definitely starting to smell.

 

[obliviondoll]

No clearly your a troll and the worst kind of troll one who posts just to be an ass. Please good sir leave if you cant keep on topic

SHE will probably take offense to that.

But in a more valid response, book games which don't suck are rare because the narrative structure of a book causes problems for gaming. Same reason movie games are usually awful. But that happens more often, because people see movies as a more popular medium among gamers.

Here's one for you though: Dante's Inferno.

It's not a great game, but it's a good game based on a book. In fact, it's based on an epic POEM. Which you can buy in book form, because it's actually legitimately long enough to fill a whole book. And it's the first part of a trilogy. Here's hoping the sequels don't come out before I finish reading them (In case you're wondering, I read Inferno before the game was announced, just haven't found decent copies of the other two anywhere since)

And besides, HER (not his) point wasn't that you need a good story from a game, it was that you'd implied that shooters CAN'T have good stories, just because they so rarely do.

 

[ecoho]

New standard? That parade of mediocrity?

Oh dear, oh dear.

Halo: combat evolved.
not halo 3.
Don't confuse the two.

You misunderstood me; the entire franchise is shallow.

So? Whats wrong with basics? I much prefer Halo because you can literally open it up out of the box and jump right in.

And that's fine. I prefer depth and story telling, but whatever. To each their own.

ok first to you its a FPS not based on a movie the story isnt going to be great (half life 1 didnt have the greatest story mind you it was probly better told.)

Because only movies can tell good stories?

You don't read much, do you.

yes i do i read the WOT series by Robert Jorden most things from Tom Clancy and Bradon Sanderson just to name three of my favoit athurs. Now please name one BOOK that was made into a game that didnt suck please? I went stright to the idea of a movie for a FPS because the flagship game (IE the one that pretty much started it all) was Goldeneye.

Lolwhat? Books being made into games? I don't even...

You musn't read too many book, because you clearly can't read what I posted.

No clearly your a troll and the worst kind of troll one who posts just to be an ass. Please good sir leave if you cant keep on topic

Oh my god! Someone with a different opinion! They must be a troll. I mean, no way can anyone think any differently from me.

no your a troll because you think insaulting people is "fun"

No clearly your a troll and the worst kind of troll one who posts just to be an ass. Please good sir leave if you cant keep on topic

SHE will probably take offense to that.

But in a more valid response, book games which don't suck are rare because the narrative structure of a book causes problems for gaming. Same reason movie games are usually awful. But that happens more often, because people see movies as a more popular medium among gamers.

Here's one for you though: Dante's Inferno.

It's not a great game, but it's a good game based on a book. In fact, it's based on an epic POEM. Which you can buy in book form, because it's actually legitimately long enough to fill a whole book. And it's the first part of a trilogy. Here's hoping the sequels don't come out before I finish reading them (In case you're wondering, I read Inferno before the game was announced, just haven't found decent copies of the other two anywhere since)

And besides, HER (not his) point wasn't that you need a good story from a game, it was that you'd implied that shooters CAN'T have good stories, just because they so rarely do.

im sorry for the gender mixup you never know with just avatars or names for that matter anymore. I also never said they couldnt have good stories i just said they useualy dont have very good stories but i can see were i may have confused you

 

[jboking]

Particularly true for the Quake series and many of their mods, because grenade launchers meant you didn't need to turn around to take a shot at someone. Aim about 30 degrees up, fire at a wall just before you round the corner, and there's a decent chance your enemy will run into it while chasing you.

Thanks, you've just proved my point, hardcore PC gaming until Halo was pretty much a one hit kill.

He's talking about grenade launchers right? Hum...grenades being a one hit kill.

Spoiler: where have I seen that before

And that's fine. I prefer depth and story telling, but whatever. To each their own.

Give me the name of an FPS with "depth and storytelling." Just one. Half Life. That's about it. The rest are failures at storytelling. The only FPS to ever make me feel any sort of emotion outside of Half Life is MW2 when Shepherd lit me on fire. And then, the only emotion was "This guy's a dick, I'm gonna have fun killing him." I feel so immersed. I just got burned alive and my only thought is "Asshole."

Right. So because there are very few FPS's that tell a story well, we should excuse them from having to do so? No.

Poor logic. Bad argument.

..did you have a reason for quoting me? It would seem you didn't. Oh, but for the sake of argument, Bioshock.