An opinion is an opinion, no matter what is stated here, there WILL be people who are fans of the series and haters of the series, so i can't see why some people just can't get along, its a opinion everyone has one over every topic. Even though not everyone agrees
Poll: what was wrong with halo?
- Thread starter Hamish Durie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's a good game series, but, since I don't have Xbox Live, I've only played the story modes and they're way too short.
There's nothing wrong with Halo. Then again, there's also nothing outstanding with it, so that's the problem for people who are sick of hearing others praising it left and right.
I have the same deal with HL2 and Dragon Age: Origins, so I can understand those people.
I have the same deal with HL2 and Dragon Age: Origins, so I can understand those people.
And this is the part where you explain how Halo has evolved where its direct competitors haven't. ;Dplexxiss said:
In my experience Halo has never been bad, but it's also never done anything no FPS before it has done. So it's solid, definitely, but not the be all end all FPS some of the fans proclaim it to be.
Well Each game has changed several aspects halo 2 adding the arbiter story new weapons new enemies and new vehicles. Halo 3 fell into a run but still added new weapons and tools to use like the theatre and forge COD then tried to catch up by adding theatre and Wager matches (love wager matches) But the theatre mode is still lacking. Reach adds new weapons, removes old ones that were pointless changes up the story re-introduces the health so its not JUST regenerating shields like COD is now and added the equipment so now you can sprint or fly or do whatever. It also added Forge 2.0 and Forge world allowing for massive customisation on a console that gets supported by the developers who will add the most popular to matchmaking and isn't overly complicated for most people to make something that at least they will enjoy. So how has COD evolved from a gameplay point? (Will stress again i love cod probably play it more that halo but for other reasons)Pedro The Hutt said:
IMO, Halo went like this:
Halo: CE
Fan-fucking-tastic game. None of the others rival it in my opinion. It had an excellent story, if somewhat inspired by Aliens in places. The weapons, while not particularly varied compared to later games, all felt meaty and nicely powered. The controls were simple and easy to learn, while the solidity (that a real word? I dunno) of the gameplay meant that everything you did had an impact to it. The higher difficulty levels changed the gameplay as well, from less run and gun, to more tactical shooter. Pop up, scare the shit out of the enemy, run like hell and hide somewhere, rinse and repeat. The flood had suitable weight and threat to them as well. They weren't twitchy, crumbly, burst apart soon as look at you pieces of shit, they actually took some putting down and were incredibly dangerous, particularly in large numbers. The end of the game left me feeling like a god afterward and wanting more.
Halo 2
22 seconds in on this video says it best.
What utter, utter pants. Did not like this game very much at all. Horribly glitchy engine. Bad pathfinding to the point of almost totally busted in places (Sergeant Apo...Johnson going mental in the armoury at beginning springs to mind) and a renderer that asked way too much of the Xbox, causing Unreal Engine like graphics pop-in, are the two main things that immediately stand out. Horrible plastic-y look to everything. The story, while a bit deeper due to following not just the Chief, but the Arbiter as well, was just way too damned short. The removal of an overall health system and replacing it with a shitty, underlying regenerating health system was bad, bad, bad and oh yeah, guess what? BAD. Controls felt a bit wierd, particularly in the Warthog. They'd taken my favourite vehicle and totally ruined the way it handled, making it highly strung and bouncy, rather than low, swooping and cool to drive. No Assault rifle was pants, though they sort of made up for it with the Battle rifle, but not by much. Dual wielding was not as cool as it sounded, besides the fact that everyone seemed to forget that other games had already done it. The Flood, oh god the Flood! Bungie! WHAT DID YOU DO?! They no longer have the threat they had in 2 and no longer look or sound like they did in the first. They pose little to no danger at all in this one. I only came away from this game with a feeling of: "Was that it?"
Halo 3
Better than 2. Still nowhere near as good as the first game and still decidedly in the "meh" category. The story was pretty bland and still way too short, there were no Arbiter only missions like in 2 and they'd removed his cloak in co-op, dual wielding had been messed with, Assault rifle was back but nerfed to all hell, horrible plasticine look to everything, nothing had the same impact as the first game, Cortana had been changed from a strong, leading female role, to a vulnerable whiny, role. That said, 3 has its good points. Destroying Scarabs was a welcome surprise and a nice addition to the game, plus the pickups added some players to gameplay, though admittedly not much. Overall, the game was actually pretty good looking and a lot of the effects did some cool things to the game. Enemy character design looked fairly good too, apart from the Flood, which looked pretty much the same as 2. i.e. Crap, although the new species add some variety to the mix. Came away somewhat satisfied, but wanting more out of the game.
Halo 3: ODST
I said that none of the others rival the first game, but dammit this one comes close. Such an injection of something a bit different goes a long way in any franchise and this is no different. I loved this game, from the way it looked, the way it played, the way it sounded, the way the story was told, even if it was short, but in this case that is no bad thing...I'm not sure I can find fault with it really. It was so fresh and different to the rest of Halo and told me exactly what I wanted to know: What happened on Earth after the Chief left.
Halo: Reach
This too is a fairly ok game. It looks nice, it plays well, it sounds great. The armour abilites are pretty cool and certainly make the gameplay interesting. It's slightly longer (maybe) than 2 and 3 and it brings back the overall health system, although it does have limited regeneration still attached to it. Space section was cool and again, something a bit different. Lack of dual wielding was disappointing, but nice to see they de-nerfed the pistol for this outing. It's nice back story to what happened at Reach, though I feel that they could have made more of the Chief than just an easter egg appearance. Certainly though, this is not the big bang that the series should have ended on, it just didn't have that feel.
I'm leaving out Halo: Wars, because although I feel it's a brilliant game and solves a number of issues that console RTS's suffer with, I don't know how canon it is.
Halo: CE
Fan-fucking-tastic game. None of the others rival it in my opinion. It had an excellent story, if somewhat inspired by Aliens in places. The weapons, while not particularly varied compared to later games, all felt meaty and nicely powered. The controls were simple and easy to learn, while the solidity (that a real word? I dunno) of the gameplay meant that everything you did had an impact to it. The higher difficulty levels changed the gameplay as well, from less run and gun, to more tactical shooter. Pop up, scare the shit out of the enemy, run like hell and hide somewhere, rinse and repeat. The flood had suitable weight and threat to them as well. They weren't twitchy, crumbly, burst apart soon as look at you pieces of shit, they actually took some putting down and were incredibly dangerous, particularly in large numbers. The end of the game left me feeling like a god afterward and wanting more.
Halo 2
22 seconds in on this video says it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMK6lzmSk2o
What utter, utter pants. Did not like this game very much at all. Horribly glitchy engine. Bad pathfinding to the point of almost totally busted in places (Sergeant Apo...Johnson going mental in the armoury at beginning springs to mind) and a renderer that asked way too much of the Xbox, causing Unreal Engine like graphics pop-in, are the two main things that immediately stand out. Horrible plastic-y look to everything. The story, while a bit deeper due to following not just the Chief, but the Arbiter as well, was just way too damned short. The removal of an overall health system and replacing it with a shitty, underlying regenerating health system was bad, bad, bad and oh yeah, guess what? BAD. Controls felt a bit wierd, particularly in the Warthog. They'd taken my favourite vehicle and totally ruined the way it handled, making it highly strung and bouncy, rather than low, swooping and cool to drive. No Assault rifle was pants, though they sort of made up for it with the Battle rifle, but not by much. Dual wielding was not as cool as it sounded, besides the fact that everyone seemed to forget that other games had already done it. The Flood, oh god the Flood! Bungie! WHAT DID YOU DO?! They no longer have the threat they had in 2 and no longer look or sound like they did in the first. They pose little to no danger at all in this one. I only came away from this game with a feeling of: "Was that it?"
Halo 3
Better than 2. Still nowhere near as good as the first game and still decidedly in the "meh" category. The story was pretty bland and still way too short, there were no Arbiter only missions like in 2 and they'd removed his cloak in co-op, dual wielding had been messed with, Assault rifle was back but nerfed to all hell, horrible plasticine look to everything, nothing had the same impact as the first game, Cortana had been changed from a strong, leading female role, to a vulnerable whiny, role. That said, 3 has its good points. Destroying Scarabs was a welcome surprise and a nice addition to the game, plus the pickups added some players to gameplay, though admittedly not much. Overall, the game was actually pretty good looking and a lot of the effects did some cool things to the game. Enemy character design looked fairly good too, apart from the Flood, which looked pretty much the same as 2. i.e. Crap, although the new species add some variety to the mix. Came away somewhat satisfied, but wanting more out of the game.
Halo 3: ODST
I said that none of the others rival the first game, but dammit this one comes close. Such an injection of something a bit different goes a long way in any franchise and this is no different. I loved this game, from the way it looked, the way it played, the way it sounded, the way the story was told, even if it was short, but in this case that is no bad thing...I'm not sure I can find fault with it really. It was so fresh and different to the rest of Halo and told me exactly what I wanted to know: What happened on Earth after the Chief left.
Halo: Reach
This too is a fairly ok game. It looks nice, it plays well, it sounds great. The armour abilites are pretty cool and certainly make the gameplay interesting. It's slightly longer (maybe) than 2 and 3 and it brings back the overall health system, although it does have limited regeneration still attached to it. Space section was cool and again, something a bit different. Lack of dual wielding was disappointing, but nice to see they de-nerfed the pistol for this outing. It's nice back story to what happened at Reach, though I feel that they could have made more of the Chief than just an easter egg appearance. Certainly though, this is not the big bang that the series should have ended on, it just didn't have that feel.
I'm leaving out Halo: Wars, because although I feel it's a brilliant game and solves a number of issues that console RTS's suffer with, I don't know how canon it is.
Offset by all the charging to use your weapon as a blunt instrument. Melée can be fun but too much of it kills immersion for me. In Halo it seems to be the most viable strategy.Fieldy409 said:
I like recharging health if it makes me feel godlike (Prototype, Saints Row) or vulnerable (Call Of Duty, Crysis). Halo is in that middle area that I don't like. Enemies are either no challenge or insta-kills. It vaciates between being insanely easy and insanely hard... the cheap kind of hard.
My Opinion... I love Halo, all games, BUT. I think what happened is the game gottoo big too fast. Bungie didn't know what to do with themselves, so each sequel was trying to out do the one before, instead of just making a great series. CE focused on the story and gameplay with less work put into multiplayer (I miss LAN parties)The success of Halo 2 Multiplayer opened up a can of flood worms that I think is what brought the games down. The main focus of great gameplay, compelling storylines, and all around fun was shifted to multiplayer and less energy put on the actual game. Don't get me wrong, I love playing on XBL, but sometimes you just want to sit on the couch and be wowed, and playing alone in your livingroom, doesn't wow me like Halo CE did. The moods in CE were awesome, I remember actually being startled by parts of the game because you couldn't see what was in the dark, and it was all new to us.
Sorry to ramble, but I also think that last statement is why a lot of people dislike the sequels, CE was so new, and so different for a FPS that the rest of the family could not compare to the awe that CE gave us. It's like movie sequels, if the first movie was very different, and blew us away, it's hard for the ones after to do the same (Star Wars, Godfather, Aliens and Dark Knight are exceptions). It's hard to live up to that kind of WOW factor that a first makes.
That's my 2 cents.
uto
Sorry to ramble, but I also think that last statement is why a lot of people dislike the sequels, CE was so new, and so different for a FPS that the rest of the family could not compare to the awe that CE gave us. It's like movie sequels, if the first movie was very different, and blew us away, it's hard for the ones after to do the same (Star Wars, Godfather, Aliens and Dark Knight are exceptions). It's hard to live up to that kind of WOW factor that a first makes.
That's my 2 cents.
uto
I enjoyed Halo: Combat Evolved (for PC). It brought groovy graphics to the first-person shooter genre (I played GoldenEye 64, then Perfect Dark, then Halo, so it was an update to me), smart AI, and took the concept of 'marines versus aliens' and made a shining example of it. Then there was the flood. Suddenly it went from fighting aliens to fighting the undead, and the game took on a horror-story that was quite thrilling in a creepy sort of way. I remember sneaking through the halls of the Library, making sure to melee each fallen body a dozen times after shooting it to the ground, just to be safe.
Anywho, it was a good story, with terrific music, classic weapons (futuristic human weapons, alien looking alien weapons), great multiplayer (PC, mind you, during that cheerful and care-free Quake multiplayer era when everyone was nice to one another and there on the server just to have fun). And it had co-op (at least for the xbox version). It was a great package. I feel it only started its downfall when it became a franchise, and turned into every kiddies' fantasy game. so for the most part, I enj--! Is that a new Duke Nukem Forever trailer down there in latest content! Whoop whoop whoop!
Anywho, it was a good story, with terrific music, classic weapons (futuristic human weapons, alien looking alien weapons), great multiplayer (PC, mind you, during that cheerful and care-free Quake multiplayer era when everyone was nice to one another and there on the server just to have fun). And it had co-op (at least for the xbox version). It was a great package. I feel it only started its downfall when it became a franchise, and turned into every kiddies' fantasy game. so for the most part, I enj--! Is that a new Duke Nukem Forever trailer down there in latest content! Whoop whoop whoop!
It's vastly overrated if anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad game.
Then again, look around you. Most people on this site love to hate popular things.
Then again, look around you. Most people on this site love to hate popular things.
Its a solid game but its too... modern American. Not only in the design of the tanks and the weapons (which is a good idea, not my thing, but making everything seem like sci-fi modern day tech it brings a level of accessibility I found somewhat appealing even from an objective standpoint) but in the attitudes of the characters.
You know that bit in MW1 where a chopper goes down with a tough but approachable female pilot inside and you run out with a time limit, risking your life to save her from the evil NotIraqistanies. That?s the American ideal of war, fight off completely evil people who deserve to die, save the girl and if you want some tragedy have her die in your arms after about a three minutes worth of dialogue where you profess your love for one another.
This dream like trance surrounding warfare is one that is held throughout the rest of the world, the only reason I call it American is because America makes all the films these days and bombs all the countries we don?t like. In the 19th centaury it would have been called the British ideal until WW1 came along and irrevocably damaged the optimistic spirit of the nation (according to a historian.)
Now that?s what makes it popular, it creates a world where there are lasers and spaceships and genocidal aliens to destroy all with a chirpy demeanor and a M4 that fires out needles and I as someone who hates it can really understand WHY people love it.
My problem is that it?s the furthest from a war game I could possibly hope for. I enjoy Warhammer because it?s harsh. People are meat for the grinder, true love does not conquer all, humanity has no last ditch attempt at salvation and the only good guys are the Forth Reich, struggling to keep humanity alive through whatever means necessary. Despite all that, there is some hope, there is still virtue and there is still something to admire in the darkness of the universe.
In Halo, all I find is the unchallenging black and white of evil aliens and a plot that tries very hard to be serious despite letting its characters act like their at an amusement park and not on a mission to save the human race. Compare Captain Cutter in Halo Wars, who?s characterized by his bravado and ability to get with the scientist who pretends not to be into him, to Captain Gabriel Angelous who shown to be willing to put his own homeworld to the torch and shoot his best friend when they turned traitor. Both of them are good if your looking for what they have to offer (charming and friendly or hard bitten andserious) but I find it hard to conceive that many people who like Angelous will like Cutter.
Its not a matter of Warhammer vs Halo, but those, in my mind at least, are the two separate camps.
You know that bit in MW1 where a chopper goes down with a tough but approachable female pilot inside and you run out with a time limit, risking your life to save her from the evil NotIraqistanies. That?s the American ideal of war, fight off completely evil people who deserve to die, save the girl and if you want some tragedy have her die in your arms after about a three minutes worth of dialogue where you profess your love for one another.
This dream like trance surrounding warfare is one that is held throughout the rest of the world, the only reason I call it American is because America makes all the films these days and bombs all the countries we don?t like. In the 19th centaury it would have been called the British ideal until WW1 came along and irrevocably damaged the optimistic spirit of the nation (according to a historian.)
Now that?s what makes it popular, it creates a world where there are lasers and spaceships and genocidal aliens to destroy all with a chirpy demeanor and a M4 that fires out needles and I as someone who hates it can really understand WHY people love it.
My problem is that it?s the furthest from a war game I could possibly hope for. I enjoy Warhammer because it?s harsh. People are meat for the grinder, true love does not conquer all, humanity has no last ditch attempt at salvation and the only good guys are the Forth Reich, struggling to keep humanity alive through whatever means necessary. Despite all that, there is some hope, there is still virtue and there is still something to admire in the darkness of the universe.
In Halo, all I find is the unchallenging black and white of evil aliens and a plot that tries very hard to be serious despite letting its characters act like their at an amusement park and not on a mission to save the human race. Compare Captain Cutter in Halo Wars, who?s characterized by his bravado and ability to get with the scientist who pretends not to be into him, to Captain Gabriel Angelous who shown to be willing to put his own homeworld to the torch and shoot his best friend when they turned traitor. Both of them are good if your looking for what they have to offer (charming and friendly or hard bitten andserious) but I find it hard to conceive that many people who like Angelous will like Cutter.
Its not a matter of Warhammer vs Halo, but those, in my mind at least, are the two separate camps.