Edited for spelling and additional content.
You can't go anywhere on the Internet without someone extolling the virtues of something as if it solved world hunger or condemning it like the bubonic plague. Video games are no different, and the Halo trilogy seems to be among the most polarizing games out there (See also: FFVII). Naysayers of the franchise claim that it is a melting pot of mediocrity that brings nothing new to the table, while it's worshippers believe that the Master Chief is the second coming of Christ. (Insert John 1:17 reference here) So how can something that produces so much hatred be so popular (and not be an EA Sports game)?
Let's take a brief look at the parent company, Bungie. Bungie was well known at the time for creating the Marathon Trilogy, which was the Macintosh gamer's single insult they could throw at PC gamers. In response, Microsoft made Bungie it's *****, I mean, had Bungie create a game for the launch of their new system, the XBox. The end result was Halo, a game with Marathon references, a supersoldier in green armor, and enemies that sound like they've been inhaling a little too much helium.
It could be said that the sales of Halo 1 ensured the survival of the XBox. Whatever the case, this is where the naysayers begin bitching and moaning, claiming that Halo brought absolutely NOTHING to the table. I'm inclined to refute that statement. Halo 1 made the following into mainstream game mechanics.
-Vehicle sections that didn't suck ass (Warthog, Banshee, Scorpion tank)
-Regenerating health
-Grenades that stuck to enemies
-Online play (XBox Live)
The weapons, I will admit, are the standards of the genre- assault rifle, rocket launcher, regular grenades, a melee one-hit kill (energy sword, Halo 2 & 3), a pistol, sniper rifle, and some alien weapons. Nothing that, say, Half-Life hadn't already done. The needler is possibly the only original weapon in the original.
Besides that, Halo 1 was by and large a standard FPS, the only other unmentioned strong point being it's music and the solid story, which also seems to polarize people.
Halo 2 was assured popularity no matter what thanks to the Microsoft marketing machine. The game upgraded the graphics and brought in a few new weapons AKA usable energy sword and additional alien weapons. One significant feature that had been kind of done before (but not to a massive extent) was dual-wielding. You could take two one-handed weapons and fire them at the same time, at the expense of being unable to fire grenades. It allowed for a bit more strategy for the deathmatches and campaign. Yet Halo 2 seems to be the most hated of all the Halo installments (I personally have a distaste for parts of this game).
Naysayers claim that the story never really ends, and that the 'ending' is a cheap cliffhanger, and to this I say, "Absolutely." Let this be a lesson to game developers- don't do a cliffhanger unless the sequel is less than a year away. The plot twist of playing as the Arbiter also seemed to put people off, but I personally thought it helped differentiate the Halo series from the rest of the pack. How many FPS games besides the Alien VS Predator series make you play as both sides in the same game?
The online multiplayer, which was a key selling point of the original, came under some heavy fire for not being as good as Halo 1. Even Bungie admitted that they would've liked more time to add polish. It's a valid point, one that is exacerbated by the newfound presence of prepubescent boys who felt the need to compensate for something, a problem that wasn't nearly as bad in Halo 1. There was a popup problem during the cutscenes, and the character models sans the Chief were less-than-great in the face. And the elimination of the assault rifle, one of the iconic weapon of the series, was a low blow.
Halo 3 was getting the full Microsoft backing, Mountain Dew endorsments and the whole basket. It even had a Super Bowl commercial, for God's sakes. So the question is, is it any good, or is it a steaming pile of prepubescent screaming shit?
Halo 3 is at best as good as Halo 1, and at worst better than Halo 2. It's the same Halo game you've all come to know and love/not-care/hate, with the standard sequel enhancements (graphics and weapons- welcome back, assault rifle). Of particular note is the lighting bloom, something that definitely helps the game look much more realistic. The character models were vastly improved (especially the Chief), and the music was as great as ever.
Being a trilogy, the third game had to answer all the questions, and because of the shitty ending of 2, this would be no easy feat. Nonetheless, the game does a great job of tying up all the loose ends and making you kinda care for the characters, especially Johnson (but the Arbiter, sadly, seems relegated to the status of being the Chief's silent sidekick/*****).
The addition of the Forge and saved films is something new or fairly new that Halo 3 brought to the table, and it's a welcome addition to those with a big enough hard drive. Who doesn't want to see someone killed by a traffic cone, or a chump killed by his own sniper rifle?
What I'm trying to say is this. It's one of the best FPS games out there right now. The Halo Trilogy isn't going to lead us all to the promised land, but can we all just stop saying it's a piece of shit without at least trying it first?
Verdict:
-Halo 1, available in retail for budget price for PC or XBox. Buy on sight and try it, it IS considered a modern-day classic.
-Halo 2, available for PC or XBox. Skip the Vista-only PC version and buy the XBox version if you liked the first one.
-Halo 3, available for Xbox 360 and probably PC in future. Buy it used if you can, or rent it.
You can't go anywhere on the Internet without someone extolling the virtues of something as if it solved world hunger or condemning it like the bubonic plague. Video games are no different, and the Halo trilogy seems to be among the most polarizing games out there (See also: FFVII). Naysayers of the franchise claim that it is a melting pot of mediocrity that brings nothing new to the table, while it's worshippers believe that the Master Chief is the second coming of Christ. (Insert John 1:17 reference here) So how can something that produces so much hatred be so popular (and not be an EA Sports game)?
Let's take a brief look at the parent company, Bungie. Bungie was well known at the time for creating the Marathon Trilogy, which was the Macintosh gamer's single insult they could throw at PC gamers. In response, Microsoft made Bungie it's *****, I mean, had Bungie create a game for the launch of their new system, the XBox. The end result was Halo, a game with Marathon references, a supersoldier in green armor, and enemies that sound like they've been inhaling a little too much helium.
It could be said that the sales of Halo 1 ensured the survival of the XBox. Whatever the case, this is where the naysayers begin bitching and moaning, claiming that Halo brought absolutely NOTHING to the table. I'm inclined to refute that statement. Halo 1 made the following into mainstream game mechanics.
-Vehicle sections that didn't suck ass (Warthog, Banshee, Scorpion tank)
-Regenerating health
-Grenades that stuck to enemies
-Online play (XBox Live)
The weapons, I will admit, are the standards of the genre- assault rifle, rocket launcher, regular grenades, a melee one-hit kill (energy sword, Halo 2 & 3), a pistol, sniper rifle, and some alien weapons. Nothing that, say, Half-Life hadn't already done. The needler is possibly the only original weapon in the original.
Besides that, Halo 1 was by and large a standard FPS, the only other unmentioned strong point being it's music and the solid story, which also seems to polarize people.
Halo 2 was assured popularity no matter what thanks to the Microsoft marketing machine. The game upgraded the graphics and brought in a few new weapons AKA usable energy sword and additional alien weapons. One significant feature that had been kind of done before (but not to a massive extent) was dual-wielding. You could take two one-handed weapons and fire them at the same time, at the expense of being unable to fire grenades. It allowed for a bit more strategy for the deathmatches and campaign. Yet Halo 2 seems to be the most hated of all the Halo installments (I personally have a distaste for parts of this game).
Naysayers claim that the story never really ends, and that the 'ending' is a cheap cliffhanger, and to this I say, "Absolutely." Let this be a lesson to game developers- don't do a cliffhanger unless the sequel is less than a year away. The plot twist of playing as the Arbiter also seemed to put people off, but I personally thought it helped differentiate the Halo series from the rest of the pack. How many FPS games besides the Alien VS Predator series make you play as both sides in the same game?
The online multiplayer, which was a key selling point of the original, came under some heavy fire for not being as good as Halo 1. Even Bungie admitted that they would've liked more time to add polish. It's a valid point, one that is exacerbated by the newfound presence of prepubescent boys who felt the need to compensate for something, a problem that wasn't nearly as bad in Halo 1. There was a popup problem during the cutscenes, and the character models sans the Chief were less-than-great in the face. And the elimination of the assault rifle, one of the iconic weapon of the series, was a low blow.
Halo 3 was getting the full Microsoft backing, Mountain Dew endorsments and the whole basket. It even had a Super Bowl commercial, for God's sakes. So the question is, is it any good, or is it a steaming pile of prepubescent screaming shit?
Halo 3 is at best as good as Halo 1, and at worst better than Halo 2. It's the same Halo game you've all come to know and love/not-care/hate, with the standard sequel enhancements (graphics and weapons- welcome back, assault rifle). Of particular note is the lighting bloom, something that definitely helps the game look much more realistic. The character models were vastly improved (especially the Chief), and the music was as great as ever.
Being a trilogy, the third game had to answer all the questions, and because of the shitty ending of 2, this would be no easy feat. Nonetheless, the game does a great job of tying up all the loose ends and making you kinda care for the characters, especially Johnson (but the Arbiter, sadly, seems relegated to the status of being the Chief's silent sidekick/*****).
The addition of the Forge and saved films is something new or fairly new that Halo 3 brought to the table, and it's a welcome addition to those with a big enough hard drive. Who doesn't want to see someone killed by a traffic cone, or a chump killed by his own sniper rifle?
What I'm trying to say is this. It's one of the best FPS games out there right now. The Halo Trilogy isn't going to lead us all to the promised land, but can we all just stop saying it's a piece of shit without at least trying it first?
Verdict:
-Halo 1, available in retail for budget price for PC or XBox. Buy on sight and try it, it IS considered a modern-day classic.
-Halo 2, available for PC or XBox. Skip the Vista-only PC version and buy the XBox version if you liked the first one.
-Halo 3, available for Xbox 360 and probably PC in future. Buy it used if you can, or rent it.
