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

[Zanderman227]

It's just better.

No, really, that's it.

Halo is where magic happens. Magic doesn't happen on Cod, or even BC2. While BC2 is a phenomenal game, and I still play Cod4 (MW2 is absolute shit), Magic simply does not happen on either of those titles. And if you play Halo, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the near-death-lets-finish-off-this-exterm-with-a-ninja magic. That kind of magic.

But you're probably referring to single player, or campaign I guess would be the better word since it has co-op, but I personally dislike playing Halo 3's campaign with anymore than 2 people unless it's just for skulls or achievements which I already have. And you know what? I love MW2's campaign despite it's shitty multiplayer. I absolutely love it and there is no multiplayer in that game bad enough to stop me from rating it's single player with a solid ten out of ten. But oh wait- it's only 7 hours. All my money went to the multiplayer, and that was shit. But I digress, the thing about Halo's campaign is that I find myself hiding behind crates waiting for my health to magically regenerate (I actually find Halo to be more realistic since at least then you have an excuse - future technology stolen from aliens) a lot less. I just play, and when my shields drop, I back out and charge in again. Call of Duty has stealth down tight, but look at Reach, they're adding in what looks to be some tasty stealth action too. It's Halo, it's fun, it doesn't have to be super innovative when it's just this damn good. Get over it.

 

[ReaperzXIII]

There was a story in Halo? I thought it was just go here, kill these guys.

Wait shooters have stories? Even the highly-praised Fallout 3's story seemed bland to me and like a go here, kill this and get me that.

Want a story? Play an RPG, want to shoot something? Play a shooter

OP: What Halo has is fun, one of the few games where dying isnt all that stressful and you can have fun when playing badly, sure it doesnt require a shit tonne of skill but who cares?

Halo is fun and therefore it is a good game, people need to stop trying to act like they are superior by hating on something and complaining about lack of story, its supposed to be a fun way to pass the time it doesnt need a story any more than Ed Edd n Eddy does.

Halo's story is in its books which IMO is well written and interesting.

Just because a game is basically mindless shooting of things doesnt make it bad, if you don't have fun playing it then it is bad.

 

[sharpmanexe]

no one cares?

 

[sharpmanexe]

i love both

 

[skennedy929]

i love both

Me too.

I love Half Life and HL2, I loved playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live, and I love playing Call of Duty.

Why is it so hip to hate on one of these three FPSes for arbitrary reasons?

 

[emm1t]

The original Halo DID set a standard, and this is coming from a guy who HATES that series, Halo 1 was earth shatteringly influential and if you dont see that gtfo, the only problem is that halo 2, 3, ODST, and most likely Reach have offered absolutely nothing new, what Forensic said is fair.

 

[kaveradeo]

Note that im not a hater on Halo. I actually love it! But heres my problem. When Halo came out it set a new standard for FPS, and almot every shooter has taken after it since. You could say its the core of all FPS since its release. But what does Halo possibly have that no other shooter has now? 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. I just feel like when I play it, its beginning to turn into a blurry screen and all I see are the basics of all guns, armor, and vehicles in todays FPS. So all I ask of you is to tell me what Halo possibly offers that we haven't already seen? I just want to enjoy the series again before I turn into a hater of a game I truly loved.

its arena style is good for casual or hardcore.

 

[Miles Tormani]

i love both

Me too.

I love Half Life and HL2, I loved playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live, and I love playing Call of Duty.

Why is it so hip to hate on one of these three FPSes for arbitrary reasons?

I actually have more than arbitrary reasons for hating Call of Duty. My reason for not liking Half-Life as much as many other people is that I personally find it kinda... well, boring. Even back when it came out. My brother loves the Half-Life games, though. But that's off topic and I'm tired of repeating myself about Half-Life and Call of Duty, when I've already done so in multiple other threads, in real life, and on Xbox Live. Especially since so many other people have already said the same reasons I have.

I also have plenty of reasons to like Halo, mainly how everything to the experience flows together into one nice tasty brew (as I said before, that disconnect between campaign and multiplayer is far less than other modern first person shooters). I don't see why there should be a discussion about it. If you like the game, great. If you don't, you've lost nothing, except for maybe that $60 you may or may not have spent on the game.

EDIT: Screw it. I want to post this and it's technically on topic.

 

[Thespian42]

Really, I can't speak for Halo 2, or three, as both were disappointing in comparison to CE.

Nor can I speak for ODST, as I haven't played it.

Halo CE, while not the best in its class, provided an exploration element circa Half Life that added life an intrigue to a campaign with a few good ideas. The moments of stumbling upon what exactly 'Halo' is when you walk out of your ship to see a large ring in the sky, as well as discovering the Flood (when you're low on ammo, may I add) were the highlights of the explorative nature of CE's campaign. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only aspect of Halo which hasn't been copied.

 

[skennedy929]

I actually have more than arbitrary reasons for hating Call of Duty. My reason for not liking Half-Life as much as many other people is that I personally find it kinda... well, boring. Even back when it came out. My brother loves the Half-Life games, though.

Hey, everyone is allowed not to like things, but I'd doubt that you would go foaming-at-the-mouth into a Half Life thread to hate on it.

I love Half Life because Valve knows pacing and level design. I love Halo because it's over the top fun, you are a huge robot that jumps ten feet in the air. I love Call of Duty because going 20-0 in an online match is incredibly exhilarating.

 

[F-I-D-O]

Oh. Hello.

Spoiler

You want genre defining? How about one that pushes the envelope of what video games are at the core.

Shameless Halo copy...
Still there?
Oh, how about MAG? Resistance? They all shamelessly copy halo...

Note that im not a hater on Halo. I actually love it! But heres my problem. When Halo came out it set a new standard for FPS, and almot every shooter has taken after it since. You could say its the core of all FPS since its release. But what does Halo possibly have that no other shooter has now? 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. I just feel like when I play it, its beginning to turn into a blurry screen and all I see are the basics of all guns, armor, and vehicles in todays FPS. So all I ask of you is to tell me what Halo possibly offers that we haven't already seen? I just want to enjoy the series again before I turn into a hater of a game I truly loved.

reduncy turns things into a blur. Not much has been added, but it's still a solid game at heart. I love halo, and I look at it as a consistent beast, that's fun, has one of the best devs around (I love bungie for community), has a great extended universe, has solid vehicle and weapon balance, and Halo Reach will go out with a bang.
Please though, never EVER say every game in a genre came from Halo. Halo did improve FPses as a whole, improving challenge, online, while keeping a solid fun factor. But hardy every FPS is a clone. Not every RPG is a clone of D&D or Dragon Quest, not every strategy game is a clone of command and conquer.
Oh, and don't make me plug Republic Commando. When that beast comes out, people die.

 

[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.)

Halo is still the one and only fun above realism shooter

Did you really just say that? REALLY?? REALLY!??!?!?!?!!!!?!!????!?!?

Anything with "Wolfenstein" in the title from Wolfenstein 3D until now
Doom
Doom 2
Doom 3
Rise of the Triad
Duke Nukem 3D
Heretic
Almost everything else based on the Doom engine (except Hexen)
Quake
Quake 2
Quake 3
Everything with "Unreal" in the title
Marathon
Marathon 2: Durandal
Goldeneye
Deus Ex
Deus Ex: Invisible War
Command and Conquer: Renegade
Timesplitters
Almost everything with "Half-Life" in the title
Prey
Saints Row
Saints Row 2
Black
Resistance: Fall of Man (Not so much in Resistance 2)
Red Faction: Guerrilla
Transformers: War for Cybertron
Gears of War
Gears of War 2
Dark Void

I could go on, but I think (hope) you get the point by now...

EDIT: Just to be clear, the emphasis of these games is fun over realism. The end result isn't necessarily what they wanted...

ok lets eliminate all those there that arnt FPS games shall we then we compare them to Halo. I can only say that goldeneye was funner and thats just because it was easier to play with friends and well paintball mode now ive never played quake so i wont comment on that and doom 1 and 2 were good but anyone who played doom 3 and liked it (unmodded people) should seriously have their head checked. It was abishes but thats it.

 

[skennedy929]

BioShock was one hell of a game but not at all what they hyped it up to be.

 

[F-I-D-O]

Halo is still the one and only fun above realism shooter

Did you really just say that? REALLY?? REALLY!??!?!?!?!!!!?!!????!?!?

Command and Conquer: Renegade

Republic Commando

I could go on, but I think (hope) you get the point by now...

EDIT: Just to be clear, the emphasis of these games is fun over realism. The end result isn't necessarily what they wanted...

You remembered Renegade...I can't believe it...
*overcome with emotion
Seriously though, Renegade did push what your actions did-destroying a hand directly influnced the amount of enemies you faced, or an helicopters to landing pads.
I loved that game, wish I could get online to work...


Yes I did plug Rep. Com. This was light though...
I agreed with most of your list, but I snipped for space

 

[Mr Pantomime]

New standard? That parade of mediocrity?

Oh dear, oh dear.

Remember, Once you lick the lollipop of mediocrity, you'll be sucking it forever

 

[Enigmers]

Not really because Halo: Combat Evolved gave us Limited weapons(you could only carry two at a time), regenerating health(in the form of your shield) and a button for to punch people instead of switching to your crowbar or whatever to do so. It was the first modern shooter.

But half life is still better.

Who decides what a "modern" shooter is?

I believe Counter-Strike had a weapon limit, and it came out before Halo did.

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.)

I don't think video games based on movies really have stories worth mentioning. Seriously, I can't think of a single movie-game that didn't suck (Goldeneye notwithstanding, but we'd watch the movie for the story anyway). Max Payne, I think, has a great story - it's a 3rd person shooter, but it could easily work in first person without hampering the storyline (the bullettime mechanics wouldn't work very well, but I think in the context of this argument the story is at least worth mentioning.)

The Half-Life series (and anything by VALVe, really) has less of a story, and more of an atmosphere. In that sense, it's realistic because there isn't any narration - you're just Gordon Freeman, you see the world through Freeman's eyes; there isn't an omnipotent voice explaining anything to you, and you don't have Gordon's (mute) voice explaining what he felt in past tense.

The Left 4 Dead games hint at the situation at hand, but don't reveal anything else, in much the same way Half-Life doesn't reveal anything more than it needs to.

Halo is still the one and only fun above realism shooter

Did you really just say that? REALLY?? REALLY!??!?!?!?!!!!?!!????!?!?

Anything with "Wolfenstein" in the title from Wolfenstein 3D until now
*giant list snippity*
Dark Void

I could go on, but I think (hope) you get the point by now...

EDIT: Just to be clear, the emphasis of these games is fun over realism. The end result isn't necessarily what they wanted...

ok lets eliminate all those there that arnt FPS games shall we then we compare them to Halo. I can only say that goldeneye was funner and thats just because it was easier to play with friends and well paintball mode now ive never played quake so i wont comment on that and doom 1 and 2 were good but anyone who played doom 3 and liked it (unmodded people) should seriously have their head checked. It was abishes but thats it.

Compared to Halo, plenty of these could have been more enjoyable, it's all based on taste. Also, the quote was "fun above realism shooter," and these are all shooters. Halo was enjoyable, sure, but I don't think it stands out as a shining example of the FPS genre. It's fairly polished (from my experiences) and fun, but not worth the hype (or hate) it gets.

 

[skennedy929]

PC games were always classically ahead of the pack.

When I was playing Goldeneye PC gamers had Quake 2 for christsakes. I could have sworn we were talking about Halo as the first modern console FPS.

 

[Kiju]

halo might have set a new standard for CONSOLE shooters, assuming that absolutely no-one had heard of timesplitters or goldeneye.....

Or Turok, for that matter.

 

[kikon9]

I prefer Halo simply because it is a run and gun shooter. Tactical shooters are just frustrating for me. Plus, honestly the multi-player is really fun. I frankly don't care if it isn't innovative. Most "innovative" games are in fact just gimmicky. Of course, if you don't like Halo, good for you. You obviously just don't share the same interests as me and I respect you for having your own opinion.

 

[skennedy929]

halo might have set a new standard for CONSOLE shooters, assuming that absolutely no-one had heard of timesplitters or goldeneye.....

Or Turok, for that matter.

Timesplitters was awesome, yes. Never played as much as Goldeneye, or Turok, but it was way ahead of its time.

Goldeneye and Turok, on the N64 controller, can't be considered in the same realm as TS and Halo. I love 007, quite a bit, but strafing and aiming up and down with the C buttons, no jumping or falling, and sputtering frame rate get embarrassed by the polish of games like Halo.

007 is still one of my favorite games of all time, but let's be honest here and not look through rose-tinted glasses.