I chose to assume you were referring to the original Halo, and so I went with good. But the third one gets talked about way, way too much for such an average game, in my humble opinion.
Poll: Where's the Halo love?
- Thread starter pompom8volt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Halo 1: Loved the story, gameplay, and funness.
Halo 2: Multiplayer was fun, can't beat Quake though. and that final bossfight was weaksauce.
Halo 3: Worst rehash ending ever. The items sucked and controls were a bit of an annoying departure from the other games.
Halo 2: Multiplayer was fun, can't beat Quake though. and that final bossfight was weaksauce.
Halo 3: Worst rehash ending ever. The items sucked and controls were a bit of an annoying departure from the other games.
i like halo but its been getting worse. the first halo had the best campaign of the halos in my opinion, #2 had the best multiplayer, #3 was alright for both, it didnt have anything spectacular. im not counting halo wars just cause its not a true halo game.
On the contrary, i found it rather cliché and trite. It presented no interesting ideas, no enthralling turn of events, and the character were just Aliens and Marines copy-pasted from other games and movies. now there's wrong with using Aliens and Marines, District 9 did this and pulled it off quite well, but unlike district 9, Halo gave no interesting play on the concept. Aliens are bad (mostly) and Humans are good basically sums up the entire concept.happysock said:
On the contray of your contray quite a lot of the characters in Halo have a backstory, it's just a lot of people just play the game moan about it dismiss it as mediocore, sure the gameplay could be better, but i still stand by the story being one of the deepest i've experienced, the whole concept of the halo world is pretty much based around the spartan projects and the battles that take place in turning the tide of battles either for the marines or the covenant.bob-2000 said:
Its an ok game, the only reason it gets so much hype is because thats really all the Xbox has to go on.
As i've just commented someone else you are doing exactly what they did playing the game through not listening to the characters moaning about it being mediocore and then moving on, almost all of the named characters in the game have an entire life that bungie has created for them, and although it isn't portrayed well in the game itself bungie have never normally been good at showing heir story through games, the 3? novels that have been produced are good reads and help to explain the story deeperJarrid said:
You could make a book about pretty much anything, the mere fact that the game has a book about it is no proof. Besides, every character that i've ever seen has had a backstory, it's just a matter of how well characterized they are. Halo characters are relatively shallow and bland when compared to characters from other games (i.e BioShock, Half-Life 2, Mass Effect, ect.) and their backstory doesn't really play into the story at all in Halo.happysock said:
USE.THE.SEARCH.BAR.pompom8volt said:
Good golly, we literally just got out of the "Halo sucks/Halo's cool, shutup!" phase!
There are plenty of other threads that are CLONES of this one!
Look at this, you already have fanboys on both sides throwing out baseless claims and accusations!
Use the fucking search bar next time. It really is there for a reason, y'know.
Me too, it really is one of the worst levels in gaming. I've played it twice and gotten completely lost twice... plus the respawning enemies are out of balance with the amount of ammo... it's just nasty!BolognaBaloney said:
I've never been very fond of it.
*Disclaimer: I am a linux gamer, and, therefor, despise everything that Microsoft stands for, from Palladium to the Windows interface. The popularity of Microsoft's programs shall never cease to leave me dumbfounded. As such, I was predisposed to dislike Halo before it even came out. I have played it, but it has never impressed me.
I've always played games on the PC when I had the chance, so I'm used to good shooters. Halo was 'meh'. My problem with it involved the fact that it was one of the games that became popular because it dumbed things down. Like Oblivion. *shudder* It wasn't a horrible game, but it wasn't a good game, either. It was roughly mediocre. But because they simplified everything (two weapons, recharging health system), it became popular among the console gamers - because shooters really didn't cater to the console gaming crowd prior to that (consoles, due to a small number of buttons and the fact that a mouse and keyboard will always be highly superior to a gamepad for anything with a shooter-style control system, need things simplified).
I feel like Halo has absolutely -nothing- on the Quake series, Oblivion is beaten by everything from Gothic 3 to Neverwinter Nights (hey, I'm not the one who called Oblivion an RPG - which it most certainly is not - so we may as well compare it to real RPGs), Fallout 3 can't compare to STALKER (although, Fallout 3 mostly screwed up with their level up system; it was an otherwise above average game), and no stealth game in the history of games can touch the Thief and Hitman series. And yet, Halo 3 got much more attention than Quake 4; Oblivion is still, somehow, considered the top RPG in recent history; Fallout 3 seems to be out-selling any other post-nuclear game; Splinter Cell got much more attention than the Thief and Hitman games. Why? Beats the hell outta me, but it means that I hold a stronger grudge against those games than I normally would.
If they weren't popular, I wouldn't really care - I would judge them on their own merits and demerits (by which most of the mentioned games are roughly mediocre), but because they are the games that other game companies are using as an example of what their games should be like in order to be successful, they get a whole different standard. Halo, as the shining example of what an FPS should be, must be far above average in every category that an FPS is judged in. Because of the fact that it's really -not- (I'd rank it around mediocre in most categories, a few above average, a few below), it gets a lot of hate from the people who would prefer that FPS gaming travel in a different direction (me, I really liked Quake 4 - the way that the game started off slow and built up, eventually even got kinda creepy ... I love buildup ... granted, I have no opinion on multiplayer, but that's what I like my singleplayer to be like.).
So yeah, I think it's a mediocre FPS, but I would never pay money for it because it needs to be less popular than it is, for the sake of FPS gaming in general. Same with Oblivion (actually, I think that Oblivion was a flat-out -horrible- RPG, one that required in the realm of 300+ community mods to make it playable, and so I have far more hatred for Oblivion than for any other game I can think of). Etcetera.
I'm perfectly fine with Half-Life's popularity (and the sequel's), because it really does do nearly everything far above average. But Halo? Really?
*Disclaimer: I am a linux gamer, and, therefor, despise everything that Microsoft stands for, from Palladium to the Windows interface. The popularity of Microsoft's programs shall never cease to leave me dumbfounded. As such, I was predisposed to dislike Halo before it even came out. I have played it, but it has never impressed me.
I've always played games on the PC when I had the chance, so I'm used to good shooters. Halo was 'meh'. My problem with it involved the fact that it was one of the games that became popular because it dumbed things down. Like Oblivion. *shudder* It wasn't a horrible game, but it wasn't a good game, either. It was roughly mediocre. But because they simplified everything (two weapons, recharging health system), it became popular among the console gamers - because shooters really didn't cater to the console gaming crowd prior to that (consoles, due to a small number of buttons and the fact that a mouse and keyboard will always be highly superior to a gamepad for anything with a shooter-style control system, need things simplified).
I feel like Halo has absolutely -nothing- on the Quake series, Oblivion is beaten by everything from Gothic 3 to Neverwinter Nights (hey, I'm not the one who called Oblivion an RPG - which it most certainly is not - so we may as well compare it to real RPGs), Fallout 3 can't compare to STALKER (although, Fallout 3 mostly screwed up with their level up system; it was an otherwise above average game), and no stealth game in the history of games can touch the Thief and Hitman series. And yet, Halo 3 got much more attention than Quake 4; Oblivion is still, somehow, considered the top RPG in recent history; Fallout 3 seems to be out-selling any other post-nuclear game; Splinter Cell got much more attention than the Thief and Hitman games. Why? Beats the hell outta me, but it means that I hold a stronger grudge against those games than I normally would.
If they weren't popular, I wouldn't really care - I would judge them on their own merits and demerits (by which most of the mentioned games are roughly mediocre), but because they are the games that other game companies are using as an example of what their games should be like in order to be successful, they get a whole different standard. Halo, as the shining example of what an FPS should be, must be far above average in every category that an FPS is judged in. Because of the fact that it's really -not- (I'd rank it around mediocre in most categories, a few above average, a few below), it gets a lot of hate from the people who would prefer that FPS gaming travel in a different direction (me, I really liked Quake 4 - the way that the game started off slow and built up, eventually even got kinda creepy ... I love buildup ... granted, I have no opinion on multiplayer, but that's what I like my singleplayer to be like.).
So yeah, I think it's a mediocre FPS, but I would never pay money for it because it needs to be less popular than it is, for the sake of FPS gaming in general. Same with Oblivion (actually, I think that Oblivion was a flat-out -horrible- RPG, one that required in the realm of 300+ community mods to make it playable, and so I have far more hatred for Oblivion than for any other game I can think of). Etcetera.
I'm perfectly fine with Half-Life's popularity (and the sequel's), because it really does do nearly everything far above average. But Halo? Really?
It's a decent game. Nothing terribly wrong with it. The weapons in the first game were generic which was the biggest flaw in my opinion. The biggest problem in the second one was the story turned to shit and the game play didn't change but the weapon variety improved. Finally, nothing changed between 2 and 3. I would give the original Halo and 8 or 9. The overall series I would give a 6 or 7. When Halo 2 came out the series started to be overrated. Regardless of that it was pretty decent.