Poll: How do you view the Halo series?

[Avatar Roku]

Minus the first one, which is fairly innocuous anyway, those are all either incredibly broad similarities (i.e, the weapons comment), or storytelling tropes that are far older than doom (i.e, having you be humanity's last hope). Also, for the aliens comment, I was just pointing out that Halo 2 went to great pains to show that they aren't "hideous alien monsters", although I suppose we can ignore that since it was the sequel. Either way, it says nothing of how the game plays, for example, only that the story from as far back as you can zoom is similar.

Also, the "Earth is invaded" comment confused me, as Doom took place on Mars, and Halo took place on Halo (also on a ship in the first level, but still not Earth). I mean, the first few levels of Halo 2 and the entire first half of Halo 3 took place on Earth, but still.

Nothing really much Halo does differently than Doom, besides limit what you can carry and reward you with more health if you go and hide for a while.

ummm...correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those pretty big differences? If nothing else, you're going to have to change your play style dramatically between the two.

Look, feel free to ignore this as a "fanboi rant", I'm not trying to tell you how to feel, and if Halo's not for you, it's not for you, simple as. It's just that your post seemed like a gross over simplification to me.

Both are run and gun FPS games.
I think in Halo 3 earth was taken over. In the ending of Doom 2 it specifially says Earth was saved. Doom 1 was about Mars, Doom 2 was about Earth. I am more reffering to Doom 2 in this matter.
It is on the broad scale, but Halo is much more like Doom 1 and 2 than Doom 3 was.

So, they're the same because they're both run-and-gun FPSs and they both have the main character save the Earth? I'm sorry, those are both incredibly broad, I don't see how that makes them identical. I mean, yes, there's similarity, but it rarely gets beyond the superficial.

 

[Avatar Roku]

With confusion.
Everyone goes on and on about how it revolutionized FPS games. But it didn't. There was nothing unique about them at all.

*cough* [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny]

To expand on that a bit, it was unique in that it was a very polished, well done console FPS. Although Goldeneye and others were as well, this brought them as close as, at the time, they had ever been to being like PC FPSs. Now, as I argued above, it would have happened with or without Halo, but still, it was the one we ended up getting, and I'm satisfied.

It wasn't unique. Please prove how it was.
It wasn't well done or polished. It was generic. Generic and easy. That isn't revolutionary.

Not unique or polished? Show me another console FPS from the times that was as well done. Along with Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and a few others (all a few years before), it proved the viability of FPSs on consoles.

As far as PC FPSs at the time, you're right, Halo was generic, but that's not the point: Halo was a console FPS, it wasn't even ported to the PC for two years. The effect it had was almost solely on the consoles, but that doesn't lessen it's impact (or that of my other examples).

You're not proving it was. Just screaming SHOW ME ONE THAT WAS doesn't prove the one you're saying is.

But I am. Ok, I cite other examples, so it isn't totally unique, but the fact that it was a console FPS which worked well, in those days, was unique. Beyond that, it was the closest that console FPSs had, at that time, gotten to PC FPSs, which makes it unique even from the other examples. Do you want me to cite statistics? To my knowledge, there are none for this sort of thing. I'm just saying how I see it (incidentally, don't think I'm taking the "it's my opinion" cop-out, feel free to continue challenging me).

As I said above, if it had been a PC FPS first and foremost, it would not have been unique, but that's the heart of it: it wasn't a PC FPS, and the mere fact that a PC FPS could be called "average" by PC standards was quite unusual at the time.

So what you're saying is because it didn't suck, it was unique, original and perfect?

Hell no! It had many flaws, and even if it didn't, I just realized I was arguing more for it's influence than anything else. All I'm saying is, to my young, console-gaming-only (at the time) mind, it was unique, original, and perfect. Chalk it up to nostalgia, then, I guess, but the mere fact that it was truly competent (like my other examples, see above) was all my then-seven-year-old self needed.

Does it still hold up to scrutiny? Not so well, but its influence is undeniable, and I loved it when I was younger, so I can still have a good time with it.

I think I am taking the "it's my opinion" cop-out now, but I can't really see where else this could go.

So what you're saying this comes down to "I played it when I was seven and thought it was good, so it its"? Wow. Just, wow.

You know what? I played Mario RPG when I was like seven. So that game is now unique, got that everyone? Utterly unique, you're not allowed to disagree with me. It's officially unique because I played it before I played any other jrpg.

For god's sake, I'm not saying that at all! I'm saying I played it at 7, so I think it's good, and here's my reason why. I never once implied that you weren't allowed to disagree or that your opinion was invalid, I was just telling you how I saw it.

Then why are you still responding to me if I'm allowed to disagree? For someone who doesn't apparently care if people disagree you certainly like to argue about it.

...because this is a forum, and that's sort of the whole point?

With confusion.
Everyone goes on and on about how it revolutionized FPS games. But it didn't. There was nothing unique about them at all.

*cough* [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny]

To expand on that a bit, it was unique in that it was a very polished, well done console FPS. Although Goldeneye and others were as well, this brought them as close as, at the time, they had ever been to being like PC FPSs. Now, as I argued above, it would have happened with or without Halo, but still, it was the one we ended up getting, and I'm satisfied.

It wasn't unique. Please prove how it was.
It wasn't well done or polished. It was generic. Generic and easy. That isn't revolutionary.

Not unique or polished? Show me another console FPS from the times that was as well done. Along with Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and a few others (all a few years before), it proved the viability of FPSs on consoles.

As far as PC FPSs at the time, you're right, Halo was generic, but that's not the point: Halo was a console FPS, it wasn't even ported to the PC for two years. The effect it had was almost solely on the consoles, but that doesn't lessen it's impact (or that of my other examples).

You're not proving it was. Just screaming SHOW ME ONE THAT WAS doesn't prove the one you're saying is.

But I am. Ok, I cite other examples, so it isn't totally unique, but the fact that it was a console FPS which worked well, in those days, was unique. Beyond that, it was the closest that console FPSs had, at that time, gotten to PC FPSs, which makes it unique even from the other examples. Do you want me to cite statistics? To my knowledge, there are none for this sort of thing. I'm just saying how I see it (incidentally, don't think I'm taking the "it's my opinion" cop-out, feel free to continue challenging me).

As I said above, if it had been a PC FPS first and foremost, it would not have been unique, but that's the heart of it: it wasn't a PC FPS, and the mere fact that a PC FPS could be called "average" by PC standards was quite unusual at the time.

So what you're saying is because it didn't suck, it was unique, original and perfect?

Hell no! It had many flaws, and even if it didn't, I just realized I was arguing more for it's influence than anything else. All I'm saying is, to my young, console-gaming-only (at the time) mind, it was unique, original, and perfect. Chalk it up to nostalgia, then, I guess, but the mere fact that it was truly competent (like my other examples, see above) was all my then-seven-year-old self needed.

Does it still hold up to scrutiny? Not so well, but its influence is undeniable, and I loved it when I was younger, so I can still have a good time with it.

I think I am taking the "it's my opinion" cop-out now, but I can't really see where else this could go.

So what you're saying this comes down to "I played it when I was seven and thought it was good, so it its"? Wow. Just, wow.

You know what? I played Mario RPG when I was like seven. So that game is now unique, got that everyone? Utterly unique, you're not allowed to disagree with me. It's officially unique because I played it before I played any other jrpg.

To be fair, I don't think that's what he's saying. I think his point was that the nostalgia of being a seven year old playing it may have contributed greatly to his joy of it but that also looking back, he in his own personal opinion, finds the game to be competant and fun to play. I remember in an earlier post he ended it by saying something along the lines of:
'if you don't like it, that's fine I just personally do'
I'm not sure if he was addressing you or someone else in that regard but still he isn't like preaching his point across saying 'YOU CAN'T DISAGREE WITH ME' honestly reading his post strikes me more as just a guy expressing how it comes to be that he personally enjoys Halo and thinks it's a good game.
Sorry if that seemed a little harsh by the way, I don't think it will but you never can tell with internet text. So in any case this was an informal rant and not in any sense am I trying to insult or annoy you.

I know what he's saying. The long winded posts are just so funny when he could limit it down to just a few words and get the same point across in a simpler way. I'll stop being an annoying dick now.

Yeah, the "long winded posts" are just sort of the way I do things. And yes, please do.

 

[awsome117]

Personaly I liked ODST for it's variety and slower pacing. The story was actually told in a decent manner as well (except for the disapointing ending)

The Story in Halo Wars was also pretty good, and even though the gameplay wasn't "deep" by any stretch of imagination I felt that it that that "Halo" feel and that is was mostly focused on fast action

I liked ODST as well. However, Halo Wars was just terrible all around. Bad story, bad gameplay etc. The only good thing was the graphics. Why ES thought they should spent 2/3 of their budget on graphics is beyond me.

Anyway, I enjoyed the Halo series, one of my favorite (despite halo wars).

 

[ADeskofRichMahogany]

Innovative introduction, but overused as it stands.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

It was fun when it first came out, but its gotten to the point where they're just releasing the same game over and over again with hardly any changes. Even worse is that they're hardly focusing on single-player anymore. (Yes, believe it or not there are still a lot of people who care more about single player then anything else.)

 

[Murdering Monk]

I think the First was the best, second was great third was good, ODST was...meh, and halo wars is alllrright. Lets hope Reach is great.

 

[Murdering Monk]

+Innovative (for consoles) forge and theater
.

Actually, i think the forge thing was farcry...that was the first time i've seen it, and that was out before halo 3. Farcrys forge was a lot more immersive seeing as how you could literally create your own level from scratch. BUT i think halos might be better because its simpler.

 

[Daniel Cygnus]

They're good fun in moderation. I can't get over how awesome some of the weapon designs (both alien and human) are.

 

[e2density]

Eh...too many small children thinking they are amazing at first person shooters.
Of course this is coming from a Counter Strike player.

 

[Spiner909]

I've played much better games. I only played ODST in depth, and I only liked the multiplayer.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

yeah ill have to go with the steadily decreasing view..although the 1st and 2nd were a tie for me, idk what it was about it but the 2nd one got me into it a bit more, and 3 was definitely a downgrade from what i saw, especially in the multiplayer and how it handled

halo wars was mehh, it was more of a who can get to the checkpoints the fastest and build a few defenses

ODST, played the campaign once, barely made it through because i found it worse than all the other halos, liked the survival thing tho (they really need to fix that silenced rifle thing..one full mag and i didn't even kill 2-3 grunts??? come onnnn)

 

[NBSRDan]

I want to say "great", but now that 'ODST is out, "great" is the minority.

Best game ever >> second best shooter ever >> good shooter for multiplayer >> console RTS automatically sucks >> decent shooter >> If you think this will be the last one, you fail at pattern recognition.

 

[[Gavo]]

I liked the first one. For PC. That's it.

 

[mattttherman3]

I like the story but the multiplayer pisses me off to no end.

 

[Eternal_24]

Good but could be improved upon. When playing online, the Banshee is next to impossible to take out if the enemy team is whoring the Spartan Laser and the Warthogs. It'd also be nice if you didn't have to empty the magazine for a single kill.

 

[Cypher10110]

Played halo 1 to death on xbox and pc, multiplayer was a blast. Halo 2 I didn't get around to completing, played a bit on xboxlive tho, didn't think it was anything special, stopped with the series after that, except some co-op goodness on ODST.

Overall good, but nothing special. Apparantly the lore is pretty good, I'd be more interested in reading the story than playing the rest of the games.

 

[The Only]

The best thing out out of the halo universe is the fall of reach book. now a game is being made and im a tiny bit worried

 

[linkblade91]

With despair and apathy.

Thank you. What he said.