Poll: Halo or Half-Life?

[Dosvidonya]

Halo was the game that made FPSs truly viable on consoles - every console FPS since has been based on Halo's control scheme.

Actually, other games did dual analog controls in an FPS first. Red Faction for instance. And if you really want to look for one of the originators of analog stick aiming in a console FPS, you need to go back to Turok Dinosaur Hunter. Then Turok 2 improved on it dramatically. And the funniest part is, while controlling aiming with an analog stick used by the left hand feels weird now, at the time it was new and you just went with it, and anyone who actually played Turok 2 extensively will probably tell you that it's aiming was faster and more accurate than any FPS game on a console since. Of course, a lot of that had to do with the N64 analog stick. No console has had an analog stick like that since (in part because they weren't very durable, but they were damn accurate).

Without Halo popularizing the genre for a more mainstream audience, there probably wouldn't be a Half-Life 2.

You're aware that the FPS genre was always big on PC, that Half-Life sold 9.3 million units as of 2008 (the most recent year I could find), that Halo only sold 2/3rds that amount, and Half-Life and it's mod community did more to popularize the FPS genre at the time than Halo ever did?

And Halo didn't popularize the genre on consoles. It was the first popular FPS of that generation, but there's a little game called Goldeneye you may have heard about that was a massive hit years earlier (even outselling Halo by about 1.5 million units).

Control scheme doesn't refer to only the dual analog controls and he wasn't referring to dual analog aiming. Halo's TOTAL control scheme, button layout and everything, became the standard for FPS's moving forward on the console.

As for popularizing; Yes FPS's were popular on PC but how many people gamed on PC compared to console even back then? That question was rhetorical; Halo 3 turned game releases into an event. Times Square literally dedicated itself to Halo 3's release, no other game can claim that. Plus Halo was so big company's began dedicating themselves to creating games that were literally being dubbed "Halo Killers" and "Halo Clones"? spoiler warning: none succeeded.

 

[Vigormortis]

Half-Life definitely has that Silver-age SciFi feel to it, I accidentally said Golden-Age in another post but that period really didn't deal with Cyber anything, and it's a huge reason why I absolutely love the series. Halo as a series has always been more of a Space Opera with really expansive lore which I also really love; although Halo 4 is a bit more Silver-Age, I mean it's harder to get much more SciFi than a plot revolving around the difference between man and machine. I just think Halo's lore and world is better, which is not to knock off Half-Life's it's just that besides the immediate events happening in the game and I don't think I learned to much about Half-Life's world in the games.

The Half-Life series easily has as much lore and backstory as the Halo series. Easily. The difference is in how the stories are told.

In Halo, much of the lore is presented via characters describing specific events unbeknownst to the player. Or, in many cases, timeline logs or side projects (like the novels).

In Half-Life, much of the backstory and lore is presented in such a way that the player needs to piece it together. Sometimes it's hidden directly in the level design[footnote]For example, the receding oceans seen in the Highway 17 levels hinting at the Combines efforts to "drain" the Earth of it's natural resources, including it's water supply.[/footnote], in references or names[footnote]Some of the more obvious are in the chapter titles.[/footnote], or clues interwoven into character dialog[footnote]Dialog that may or may not be predicated on the player's presence.[/footnote]

This is another of the reasons I prefer the Half-Life series to the Halo series. There's an incredible amount of lore and backstory within all of the Half-Life games, and I enjoy searching for the clues and piecing it all together. It makes the realization of a specific story element more intriguing and satisfying to me.

 

[DanielBrown]

Don't think they compare much, but out of the two I definetly prefer Half-Life. It has the advantage of nostalgia googles for me and was the first game of it's kind that I played. I was around 12-13 years old and had recently discovered Counter-Strike. Bought the Half-Life Generation pack and had a blast. Later on when Half-Life 2 was released the graphics really blew me away. Had never seen something so realistic before and it was helluva fun to play.

I tried Halo 3 just a few years ago after my sisters ex-boyfriends brother(!) told me to try it. Found the game to be absolute shit. I attempted the first Halo a few years before that, though I don't have any memories of it. Could never be arsed to get very far.

 

[Dosvidonya]

In Half-Life, much of the backstory and lore is presented in such a way that the player needs to piece it together. Sometimes it's hidden directly in the level design[footnote]For example, the receding oceans seen in the Highway 17 levels hinting at the Combines efforts to "drain" the Earth of it's natural resources, including it's water supply.[/footnote], in references or names[footnote]Some of the more obvious are in the chapter titles.[/footnote], or clues interwoven into character dialog[footnote]Dialog that may or may not be predicated on the player's presence.[/footnote]

This is another of the reasons I prefer the Half-Life series to the Halo series. There's an incredible amount of lore and backstory within all of the Half-Life games, and I enjoy searching for the clues and piecing it all together. It makes the realization of a specific story element more intriguing and satisfying to me.

See I'm a huge fan of, what many people have taken to calling, "implicit storytelling". It's one of my favorite things about Dark Souls, which is in my top 5 games, and I just didn't get that from Half-Life 2 even after replaying it multiple times. The ocean thing I knew because I'm pretty sure a character states that, though I could be mistaken, and putting it in chapter titles is also not the same thing as what Dark Souls did. Half-Life has a well built world but it's like a skeleton; the outline is there but there really isn't that much substance to it's history or back lore, which makes sense because Valve themselves state that they don't plan ahead the stories to the Half-Life games until they start working on them, and what is learned is learned mostly through dialogue not observation. I love Half-Life's story, I love its world, and I especially love its characters which are some of the most well-realized ones in the industry but I'm hard pressed to say that it really does a good job in getting its lore across. In fact if I had to choose two Valve titles that do approach that method of storytelling extremely well I would choose Portal and Left 4 Dead. Those two were surprisingly good at that sort of storytelling method.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Gonna have to go Halo. I went into Half Life with high expectations because of this site and Portal so I was expecting some god-tier game with secrets hidden around the world for me to discover.
What I got was some pretty stale combat and a lot of seesaw puzzles.
The boat section was good at least.

On the other hand I discovered Halo and my cousins party when I was young and he and his friends were basically my role models all sitting there with system linked Xboxes having a great time killing each other. Also Halo had a bunch of stuff I would buy a game for on its own like its multitude of glitches to find (Out of maps, superbouncing, etc), Easter eggs and a competitive scene.

Just in case it sounds like i'm judging Halo on multiplayer only I'm not. I didn't like Half Lifes story even if stories were my thing, but if the story was held up by great gameplay I wouldn't have cared in the slightest. Ravenholm was mildly interesting but it never once got challenging or thrilling. Or even very fun for that matter. Halo's story isn't exactly revolutionary but its gameplay was always thrilling on the harder difficulties or against human opponents. At least until Halo 4 and a little bit of Halo Reach. That could just be me growing out of the games though as I don't enjoy the older ones as much anymore either.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Halo, not from a gameplay standpoint mind you. I tend to dislike FPS,but the whole story and stuff.

Sure its pretty basic, and been done before, but then, so has Half Lives story, and if I have to choose between a super solider and a nerd, I'm a pick the super solider, least it makes sense when he survives.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

I played Half-Life upon release, my fear was that it would somehow catch on and future FPS games would attempt to copy it and be very similar.

I played Halo upon release, my hope was that it would somehow catch on and future FPS games would attempt to copy it and be very similar.

I got lucky.

Nothing Valve has made really ever held my interest, I am honestly puzzled that people are so obsessed with their games. There overall philosophy and approach to game design just doesn't work for me I guess. Too boring, lacking in action and competitiveness and outdated control schemes abound.

Steam has some deals sometimes, but somehow GOG has more of the stuff I would care to play, I only really play PC games for older stuff and mostly game on consoles now.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Halo is a generic "sci-fi" shooter thats completely devoid of original content. Its basically "Starship Troopers" or any other space marine movie you've EVER seen.

Half-Life was the first game to bring story to the FPS genre.

Without Half-Life, there would probably be no Halo.

So Half-Life wins by default.

Couldn't have said this better myself. Half Life all the way for me as well.

FPS on consoles is just...ugh no comment.

 

[not_you]

I don't like halo... Mainly because what it did to the shooter industry in general... It basically founded the need for that regenerating health fad which I always have (and remain) in dislike of...

At least it didn't pioneer cover-based shooting too...

Half-life... I can't really comment on, as I haven't played any of them... Everyone says they're good, but I'm not going to add another game to the pile of shame that I will be required to play... eventually....

So, yeah... I voted other... Mainly because I used it as the "Neither" answer...

What would I vote for instead? fuck knows... Doom 3, that'll do... it came out around the same time...
I think...

 

[Squilookle]

Sorry- can't hear you. Too busy thinking back to fond memories of doing...

...this.

 

[loc978]

Had to go with Half-Life, though I'm not really a fan of either series... or story-driven shooters in general. Give me a good fast-paced, multi-level arena shooter any day.

But if there are two things I despise in any shooter, it's regenerating health and controls designed for thumbsticks (cursor acceleration, low speed turning even at maximum sensitivity, et cetera). Halo has those in spades, even on the PC port.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Both the Freeman arc and Master Chief arcs have their strengths. However much I owe Half-Life for the path it led me down (Counter-Strike, TFC, etc) it was ultimately Halo that made me enjoy the singleplayer playthrough AND the maps were astounding in the first game. Granted it wasn't FarCry level open-map, but it was close... and you could explore a lot more than you could in the Half-Life land of "I'm holding your hand but making you think I'm not".
Don't get me wrong, Half-Life is a great game, but I preferred the first Halo because it just seemed more alive than any other game at the time.

 

[Vigormortis]

See I'm a huge fan of, what many people have taken to calling, "implicit storytelling". It's one of my favorite things about Dark Souls, which is in my top 5 games, and I just didn't get that from Half-Life 2 even after replaying it multiple times. The ocean thing I knew because I'm pretty sure a character states that, though I could be mistaken, and putting it in chapter titles is also not the same thing as what Dark Souls did.

The chapter titles references was just one example; one of the more obvious. And yes, you are mistaken. No character mentions anything about the oceans.

I'm actually surprised you walked away with such little appreciation for the deep lore within the Half-Life games, given how much you say you appreciated a similar style of story telling in Dark Souls.

Half-Life has a well built world but it's like a skeleton; the outline is there but there really isn't that much substance to it's history or back lore,

But this is simply not true.

Again, there's a wealth of lore and history throughout the games. If someone didn't catch any of it while playing then they simply weren't paying attention. (not intended as an insult or to be rude)

which makes sense because Valve themselves state that they don't plan ahead the stories to the Half-Life games until they start working on them,

This isn't true either. Since the inception of the second game they've had a Half-Life "Rubicon". A series of rules and guide-lines on key events in the story timeline, up to and beyond Episode 2, when these events must take place, and what guidelines must be followed when creating the intervening segments between these events.

and what is learned is learned mostly through dialogue not observation.

Not sure how you can say this after we've both established that much of the back story, lore, and in many cases the current story events, are told through level design and other forms; most of which don't involve dialog.

I love Half-Life's story, I love its world, and I especially love its characters which are some of the most well-realized ones in the industry but I'm hard pressed to say that it really does a good job in getting its lore across.

You're welcome to think this, but I must adamantly disagree.

In fact if I had to choose two Valve titles that do approach that method of storytelling extremely well I would choose Portal and Left 4 Dead. Those two were surprisingly good at that sort of storytelling method.

Both of which took their queues from Half-Life.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Look, I understand that you prefer Halo over Half-Life. Which is fine! I love Halo too. We could probably converse on the series lore for some time, gushing over certain things within. And, I'm sure you could regale me with a litany of reasons why I'm crazy for liking ODST and Wars more than 2, 3, and 4. But let's not pretend that Half-Life is somehow devoid of an equivalent amount of lore. (And let's not forget that the Portal series is within the same story-verse)

I think, in the end, we can both agree that both series have far more robust and intricate narratives than some people give them credit for.

 

[Dosvidonya]

Look, I understand that you prefer Halo over Half-Life. Which is fine! I love Halo too. We could probably converse on the series lore for some time, gushing over certain things within. And, I'm sure you could regale me with a litany of reasons why I'm crazy for liking ODST and Wars more than 2, 3, and 4. But let's not pretend that Half-Life is somehow devoid of an equivalent amount of lore. (And let's not forget that the Portal series is within the same story-verse)

I think, in the end, we can both agree that both series have far more robust and intricate narratives than some people give them credit for.

I'm not saying Half-Life is devoid of lore, clearly I missed things which means I'll have to replay it again, just don't feel it's as expansive as Halo's. It's all opinion though, although I found out where I heard about the depletion of the oceans? it's one of the game descriptions on the older boxes, score one for marketing.

And there's nothing crazy about liking ODST, I liked the direction it was taking with the series. Wars wasn't to bad either, it was an RTS that worked on consoles? kinda.

 

[Korten12]

Halo, it just has much more lore than Half Life, which does have a decent amount, but not the scale of Halo which stretches lore over hundreds of thousands of years. (Millions if you want to be technical.) On gameplay... I like Half Life but it just bores me a lot of the time compared to halo which I always found enjoyable.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

This is the wrong place to ask for such things, mate.

This will likely just end in flames or the thread will be locked indefinetely.

Suffice to say, Half Life; Halo might've been revolutionary, but I personally think that it exists because of all the new trends HL1 set in the genre, which set the groundwork for many new shooters of that generation and the current one.

Also it is still one of the finest examples of how to create a deep and interesting narrative and make it complimentary to gameplay, rather than the two being at odds with each other constantly.

 

[COMaestro]

Halo is a generic "sci-fi" shooter thats completely devoid of original content. Its basically "Starship Troopers" or any other space marine movie you've EVER seen.

Half-Life was the first game to bring story to the FPS genre.

Without Half-Life, there would probably be no Halo.

So Half-Life wins by default.

I call BS. Star Wars Dark Forces predates Half-Life by 3 years and had a very decent story. I will admit, I never played Half-Life, so perhaps it added better characterization, but I deny the claim that it was the first FPS with story. I did try HL2 and got bored about halfway through. Never finished Halo either though. So I guess my vote will go to Dark Forces

 

[Dosvidonya]

This is the wrong place to ask for such things, mate.

This will likely just end in flames or the thread will be locked indefinetely.

Suffice to say, Half Life; Halo might've been revolutionary, but I personally think that it exists because of all the new trends HL1 set in the genre, which set the groundwork for many new shooters of that generation and the current one.

Also it is still one of the finest examples of how to create a deep and interesting narrative and make it complimentary to gameplay, rather than the two being at odds with each other constantly.

So far it has been going really well, most everyone has been cordial except for a few. I've been doing my best to monitor for potential instigators.

Halo is a generic "sci-fi" shooter thats completely devoid of original content. Its basically "Starship Troopers" or any other space marine movie you've EVER seen.

Half-Life was the first game to bring story to the FPS genre.

Without Half-Life, there would probably be no Halo.

So Half-Life wins by default.

I call BS. Star Wars Dark Forces predates Half-Life by 3 years and had a very decent story. I will admit, I never played Half-Life, so perhaps it added better characterization, but I deny the claim that it was the first FPS with story. I did try HL2 and got bored about halfway through. Never finished Halo either though. So I guess my vote will go to Dark Forces

Ha! I mentioned that in an earlier reply to this guy. A bunch of others mentioned Marathon, which is another good one.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

But seriously why not both, both of them are good games on their own merits and I've played both and had fun with them, we shouldn't need to pit one against the other since both are different in many ways.

Damn it. Taco girl is right, I need to re-vote. I chose Half-Life because of the themes and horror elements and Halo was never my thing. But I did play a lot of split screen back in the day and Halo's gun play was way better. The weapons in half life 2 have the feel of airsoft guns

 

[The Pink Pansy]

Both.

I have put a ton of time into and gotten a ton of enjoyment out of the Halo series, both the single player and multiplayer.

I played most of Half-Life retrospectively a couple years ago. Half life (Lives?) 1 and 2 were fine but didn't impress me that much; HL2 Episodes 1&2 however are the best shooters I have ever played.