Not really understanding the halo hate.

[Slash Dementia]

I really like the Halo games, but not for the story--I think the story is mediocre. I don't care for the characters in it at all, and I wouldn't be sad if any of them got killed off. The campaign is fun in itself, but not so much when it's played alone. It's one of those fun and simple games that are easy to get into and kind of addicting because you can play with friends or other people, plus all of those game variants help so much.

Though, I am getting a bit tired of the series. I've been playing since CE, and it's been feeling like more of the same even if multi-player is still good. The anniversary edition might be the last I buy on release, and I might look for something else to play Xbox Live multi-player on.

 

[brainslurper]

The thing is, the regenerating health thing in halo made sense because you had a sheild, but when things like COD copy it, it makes no sense at all. Bullet wounds aren't just going to heal in a couple seconds if you just leave them there.

I wish people would give the "it made sense in Halo because it's a shield"... follow that logic and every single shooter would have to be a science fiction because health kits and regenerating health don't make sense. Hell, health kits don't make sense in Halo. Consuming a health kit don't magically heal your wounds... so it makes no sense at all and is therefore, following your logic, it's wrong.

Doesn't matter if there's a sci-fi explanation for it or not, it comes down to "is this fun?" If it is, then it matters not one bit if the mechanic has some in-game explanation or not. Many of the greatest games of all time make absolutely no sense... see virtually every game released on a console or PC. Almost all of them take massive liberties with reality to make them fun to play.

And the shield regeneration mechanic is extremely similar to the health regeneration system. You take damage, you hide until it goes away. Any regeneration system alters the way the game is played, allowing players to play more aggressively than a system that has a finite amount of health available to the player. Whether this is a good or bad thing is down to player preference.

Ideally, the game designers follow through with the universe they set the game in. Health kits NOW aren't able to heal you instantly, but halo isn't set now. COD is set now, and since their "realism" is something they brag about, why not just do some health pickups, like how valve did it in L4D2?

 

[Randomperson9999999]

i loved playing it with my friends

 

[Joccaren]

I loved Halo CE. Halo 2 & Reach were meh. Halo 3 was bad. ODST I didn't play.
I will be getting Halo CE HD remake if it is available on PC. Halo 4 5 and 6 I will wait until I have seen the gameplay of before I buy it though.
But hey, not every game is for everyone, and people have a right to dislike it so...

 

[Maximum_Power_Cheese_Supreme]

Halo is the game XBOXers will obsess themselves about to justify having an XBOX (these are the 14 year olds whos parents made them choose between an 360 or a PlayStation). I would like to see what Halo's fan base would be like if Halo had been released cross-platform, on 360, PS3 and PC/Steam.

 

[Maximum_Power_Cheese_Supreme]

I loved Halo CE. Halo 2 & Reach were meh. Halo 3 was bad. ODST I didn't play.
I will be getting Halo CE HD remake if it is available on PC. Halo 4 5 and 6 I will wait until I have seen the gameplay of before I buy it though.
But hey, not every game is for everyone, and people have a right to dislike it so...

I thought Bungie said after Reach, then that would be all for Halo (no 4, 5 or 6, this isn't Starwars.) Of course that doesn't include the remake of CE.

 

[Darkmantle]

Technically the shield just serves as regenerating armor. You do have health and once you start taking health damage you die really fast. Granted Halo 2 and 3 took this away for some reason but Reach and ODST make brought the health bar back and required you to manage it because keeping it low just ensured your death.

My point would be that it's a distinction without much of a difference.

In Halo, your shield takes damage and you have to hide to replenish it.

In Call Of Duty, your health takes damage and you have to hide to replenish it.

Other than the amount of hit-points you have, there's not a whole lot of difference between the two systems. Yes, in Halo some of those hit-points don't regenerate, but when I played Reach, I treated my health as a reserve (something not to be used unless absolutely necessary) and I treated my shields exactly the same way I treated my health in other games. Quickly figuring out about how much damage I can take before being forced to take cover. Defeating any game with a regeneration system is largely a process of figuring out this rhythm... only employing a more cautious approach in areas where death comes quickly.

And this system totally works in a lot of games, but there's I miss those random tense moments in shooters where you had to employ a cautious approach because you ran into a bit of bad luck. Part of the fun of Doom is that how you played the game could change the way you experienced a level. The game didn't reset to a default after every encounter. Every so often, a completely mundane encounter would become super-tense because you were near death. Yes, this sucked when the situation become unwinnable, but added a level of tension that is often absent from modern shooters.

I don't even know where to start. It makes more sense that your shields regenerate in halo, than having your health regen in CoD. This is because one is a sci-fi shooter set in the far future where you are equipped with a personal shield (which btw has been around in sci-fi for ages, hell you could argue star trek had regenerating shields on their ships) and the other is a WW2/modern shooter where you can regain health wolverine style for no apparent reason.

And yes, an in-game explanation (even a bad one) is preferable to no explanation at all because it aids our suspension of disbelief. in essence a person is usually able to put some unrealistic things out of their mind when they play games or watch movies, but if the break from reality is extremely large and/or unjustified, the audience can have a hard time putting it out of their mind. the specific threshold for disbelief is different for everyone but one thing remains true. having regenerating shield on a far future soldier in highly advanced experimental power armor, is less of a break from reality than a regular WW2 grunt that regens health.

although some people just don't give a rats ass either way.

and yes, suspension of disbelief matters for most material because it can significantly affect peoples enjoyment of the material presented to them.

To the OT: I never thought someone would share my opinion that halo 3 was the low point for the series, god that game was bad. The map-makers were just lazy, every level seemed like a series of over elaborate single corridors to one big round room after another(with few exceptions)

 

[Joccaren]

I thought Bungie said after Reach, then that would be all for Halo (no 4, 5 or 6, this isn't Starwars.) Of course that doesn't include the remake of CE.

When the Halo HD remake was announced, so were 4,5 & 6, and a trailer for 4 was released. Not sure if its Bungie making them, haven't actually checked, but they're coming.

 

[Darkmantle]

I thought Bungie said after Reach, then that would be all for Halo (no 4, 5 or 6, this isn't Starwars.) Of course that doesn't include the remake of CE.

When the Halo HD remake was announced, so were 4,5 & 6, and a trailer for 4 was released. Not sure if its Bungie making them, haven't actually checked, but they're coming.

I think microsoft took over the license and made an in-house studio to make the next halos. Guilty spark 343 or something like that? so while bungee is remaking halo CE (which the still have rights to) They wont be making halos 4-6.

I think thats how it plays out anyway

 

[Netrigan]

Ideally, the game designers follow through with the universe they set the game in. Health kits NOW aren't able to heal you instantly, but halo isn't set now. COD is set now, and since their "realism" is something they brag about, why not just do some health pickups, like how valve did it in L4D2?

It's a simple gaming convention. Either health is a pick-up item or regenerates naturally. Neither system is in any way, shape, or form realistic. They exist for the sole purpose of making the game fun. Otherwise we'd still be stuck in the one-hit deaths of early arcade games.

Call Of Duty, being a modern game with no major science fiction elements, is "realistic" in about the same way Casino Royale was "realistic" for a Bond movie... there's more than enough implausibilities running around, but no more than what you'd expect to find in any action game/movie in a contemporary setting... CoD is no more unrealistic than GTA IV or a Bond game. Hiding behind a wall until you feel better being no more unrealistic than picking up a white box with a cross on it and being instantly healed. Since Call Of Duty has never been presented as a military sim, it will by its very nature have an unrealistic health system.

That there's an in-game explanation for Halo's shield system has no bearing whatsoever on the fun level of the game. They had a premise that supported such an explanation, so they slipped it in. Call Of Duty being a contemporary war game can't suit everyone up in experimental armor without becoming a science fiction story ala Crysis. But they can take a widely accepted play mechanic and apply it to their game and trust their audience to accept it as such.

 

[Awexsome]

The hate really is, for the most part, unwarranted. At the height of its popularity though it took on a real douchebag crowd that while expanding gaming's influence, brought in a bit of a bad crowd.

The community is much better now that the big bandwagon game is the CoD series right now but I would've liked to see Microsoft give it a break for a while now that Bungie is done with it and let it rest a bit, making the next trilogy a much bigger deal than just seemingly going the CoD path since they said they'd like releases in more rapid succession.

You want my fanboy conspiracy theory about why it gets so much hate around here... it's because Halo was the game that made consoles the main focus for modern FPS's and made them more popular than they ever were when PC alone had that claim. So now they mad.

As for the game itself the gameplay is all great, the story is solid (phenomenal if you include the expanded universe from the books and stuff), multiplayer's great, forge is great...

I just wish more people around here took the same attitude towards it like I do with Half-life. I respect it for being a great influential game. I just don't enjoy it.

 

[Darkmantle]

Ideally, the game designers follow through with the universe they set the game in. Health kits NOW aren't able to heal you instantly, but halo isn't set now. COD is set now, and since their "realism" is something they brag about, why not just do some health pickups, like how valve did it in L4D2?

It's a simple gaming convention. Either health is a pick-up item or regenerates naturally. Neither system is in any way, shape, or form realistic. They exist for the sole purpose of making the game fun. Otherwise we'd still be stuck in the one-hit deaths of early arcade games.

Call Of Duty, being a modern game with no major science fiction elements, is "realistic" in about the same way Casino Royale was "realistic" for a Bond movie... there's more than enough implausibilities running around, but no more than what you'd expect to find in any action game/movie in a contemporary setting... CoD is no more unrealistic than GTA IV or a Bond game. Hiding behind a wall until you feel better being no more unrealistic than picking up a white box with a cross on it and being instantly healed. Since Call Of Duty has never been presented as a military sim, it will by its very nature have an unrealistic health system.

That there's an in-game explanation for Halo's shield system has no bearing whatsoever on the fun level of the game. They had a premise that supported such an explanation, so they slipped it in. Call Of Duty being a contemporary war game can't suit everyone up in experimental armor without becoming a science fiction story ala Crysis. But they can take a widely accepted play mechanic and apply it to their game and trust their audience to accept it as such.

Willing suspension of disbelief factors soooooooo much into this it is actually INSANE that you are ignoring it

 

[Netrigan]

I don't even know where to start. It makes more sense that your shields regenerate in halo, than having your health regen in CoD. This is because one is a sci-fi shooter set in the far future where you are equipped with a personal shield (which btw has been around in sci-fi for ages, hell you could argue star trek had regenerating shields on their ships) and the other is a WW2/modern shooter where you can regain health wolverine style for no apparent reason.

And yes, an in-game explanation (even a bad one) is preferable to no explanation at all because it aids our suspension of disbelief. in essence a person is usually able to put some unrealistic things out of their mind when they play games or watch movies, but if the break from reality is extremely large and/or unjustified, the audience can have a hard time putting it out of their mind. the specific threshold for disbelief is different for everyone but one thing remains true. having regenerating shield on a far future soldier in highly advanced experimental power armor, is less of a break from reality than a regular WW2 grunt that regens health.

although some people just don't give a rats ass either way.

and yes, suspension of disbelief matters for most material because it can significantly affect peoples enjoyment of the material presented to them.

Seriously, re-read what you just typed there and tell me how it's possible to have *any* game set in a non sci-fi/fantasy setting that isn't a sim. Rockstar should just pack it up and go home, because the complete lack of explanation for why John Marston was able to get better by hiding behind a wall or how Nico was able to magically heal by eating a hot dog has destroyed the willing suspension of disbelief in two of their biggest games.

Every game genre has a number of conventions that are part and parcel of the genre. RPGs will have backpacks that can carry around far more than any human can possible carry... and be completely invisible to the naked eye. There's is rarely an in-game explanation for this. It just is and fans of the genre expect it. Force a realistic carry limit on them and they'll probably go play something else that's, you know, fun instead.

There is no explanation given to why picking up a white box with a red cross on it replenishes your health points. That's just how they rolled in the old days. We gamers accepted this convention because we wanted to have fun. Half-Life isn't a superior game because it came up with a bullshit sci-fi explanation for why said health packs work... although it does call into question why evil aliens hellbent on world domination keep littering the place with health packs and healing stations that only Gordon Freeman can use.

There are quite good arguments against regenerating health in shooters... and said arguments also apply to Halo no matter how logically they explain it. Regenerating hit-points (whether it be shields or health) dramatically alters how players approach gaming situations. For some, this is why Halo is brilliant, as it ensures that every enemy encounter is winnable and a roughly universal experience. Others will hate it for exactly the same reason. Still others will take it on a case-by-case basis, enjoying the mechanic in some games, while disliking in others.

But it's still just another gaming convention. It doesn't need to be explained to be used. If a game wants to make a plot point of it, then more power to them... but there's no hard and fast rule that you must explain the basic building blocks of a game. Fallout 3 is no less of a game because they don't explain how I can put 80 rocket launchers into a 3x2x2 foot locker.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I don't understand the constant need some people feel to make a forum topic discussing their inability to understand hatred for X, Y and Z.

 

[Elijah Ball]

oh my god, stop posting these threads

 

[shadow_Fox81]

i think the first three halo games were brilliant (yes the single player) and sit every bit as high on the list of single player experiences as halflife2.

i think the hate is derived of poeple not commiting to loving halo instead of simply liking it, inturn the defense and critiscism of the game is primarily half assed and poorly reasoned.So you miss an impassioned and well reasoned opinion that actually takes into acount the techniques the team at Bungie took in hand to convey their narrative and suject.

also people love moviebob and yhatze.

but i wouldn't say anything else from the halo universe was brilliant

 

[gabe12301]

I don't understand the constant need some people feel to make a forum topic discussing their inability to understand hatred for X, Y and Z.

I don't understand why people should be able to speak about their opinions and misunderstandings. That's why I joined the communist community called the internet.

I also don't understand why people must make comments with nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Netrigan]

Ideally, the game designers follow through with the universe they set the game in. Health kits NOW aren't able to heal you instantly, but halo isn't set now. COD is set now, and since their "realism" is something they brag about, why not just do some health pickups, like how valve did it in L4D2?

It's a simple gaming convention. Either health is a pick-up item or regenerates naturally. Neither system is in any way, shape, or form realistic. They exist for the sole purpose of making the game fun. Otherwise we'd still be stuck in the one-hit deaths of early arcade games.

Call Of Duty, being a modern game with no major science fiction elements, is "realistic" in about the same way Casino Royale was "realistic" for a Bond movie... there's more than enough implausibilities running around, but no more than what you'd expect to find in any action game/movie in a contemporary setting... CoD is no more unrealistic than GTA IV or a Bond game. Hiding behind a wall until you feel better being no more unrealistic than picking up a white box with a cross on it and being instantly healed. Since Call Of Duty has never been presented as a military sim, it will by its very nature have an unrealistic health system.

That there's an in-game explanation for Halo's shield system has no bearing whatsoever on the fun level of the game. They had a premise that supported such an explanation, so they slipped it in. Call Of Duty being a contemporary war game can't suit everyone up in experimental armor without becoming a science fiction story ala Crysis. But they can take a widely accepted play mechanic and apply it to their game and trust their audience to accept it as such.

Willing suspension of disbelief factors soooooooo much into this it is actually INSANE that you are ignoring it

I wonder what games you could possible be playing if you demand that all games explain basic gaming conventions or else violate your willing suspension of disbelief.

Any non sci-fi/fantasy game set in a contemporary setting will have to float a lot of stuff out there without explanation. How does Niko Bellic eat a hot-dog and heal his gun-shot wounds? Hell, how can he take multiple gun-shots in the first place? How can he carry around multiple weapons without them being visible? How is he able to commit mass murder on the streets of Liberty City and not have a five-star wanted level the entire game?

At some point, you just have to assume that your audience are not a bunch of anal-retentive twats and present game mechanics that are easily understood and are (more importantly) fun to use.

Halo fans seem to have no problem hiding behind walls until their shields get better. I'm assuming that they think this game mechanic is fun. Why is this same mechanic not fun in a game where there's no sci-fi explanation? Why is that violating your willing suspension of disbelief more so than all the other completely unrealistic and unexplained game mechanics that make up any video game.

 

[OrokuSaki]

My only hate for Halo is the legions of fans who try to convince me that it's not a generic FPS with marines vs. terrorists for the good of Apple Pie and democracy. Albeit the marines are in powersuits and the terrorists are tiny aliens without two brain cells to rub together.

I was never very good at it, but I appreciated how hard work allowed even the impossible to be possible. It took me a good 10 minutes to drive that car on top of the enemy stronghold, but I succeeded and they are no match for a cannon.