I find it ironic that the OP seems to ignore games that came out some years in advance of Halo 1 that more or less did everything that Halo is supposed to be known for. (Goldeneye) Oh and for the record I do not think that any normal person considers Goldeneye the greatest fps of its time period, rather it is the greatest console shooter. Even if one restricts comparisons to console shooters of the same general period, you still have Timesplitters, Red Faction (destructable environments anyone?), and Perfect Dark which Halo fails to really match or exceed in terms of awesomeness.
The haters of Halo
- Thread starter Kaminobob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You missed the point of what I said entirely.PurpleRain said:
Some people completely disagree about the shield, because since you have much less health almost anything can kill you if you're not careful. Whereas in HL, if you have full health you're usually in the clear for whatever will come your way. Now if you screw it up you may have to limp along at 15 health for a while, but that's a separate issue.
I'll get back to you on the other stuff later, I'm too tired right now. But headcrabs are not unique to HL, and none of the elements you mentioned that HL stole are unique to that IP. Everybody steals from everyone else, and if you reduce it enough we go back to Ovid or something. The difference is whether you willfully ignore that theft because you like it, or attack it from every possible angle because you don't.
You are missing out on the entire point here. I don't know if you've been reading any of the past posts in here but the main crticism here is towards Halo 2 and Halo 3 - SPECIALLY Halo 3 that had the biggest hype of it all which didn't deliver much new elements of gameplay or concepts.Ghandi 2 said:
Halo 1 was a great game, and myself and a lot of people in here don't seem to hae uch against it. What really bothers me is how Halo 3 got the same (if not even better) reviews than Halo 1 and the fact that everything that has been done in Halo 3 has been done before and much better. The corporate here are the sequels to Halo 1, at least from my point of view.
You can't claim that Halo 3 is the most revolutionizing FPS in the history of mankind when it is essentially about running around in coridors shooting aliens in the face.
I think a lot of fanboys and the like are guilty of the logical fallacy known as "not taking into account that personal taste is PERSONAL taste." They have trouble comprehending the idea that a game can be loved by some and unliked by others, and THIS is the problem with this thread.ComradeJim270 said:
You may have found Halo average. I found Halo excellent. Neither of us is wrong, from our OWN perspectives... but expecting the other to agree is COMPLETELY wrong. It's personal taste, not an objective standard.
Herein find a plea that the ritalin-deprived "Yay Halo" and "Boo Halo" crowds please find more responsible and mature ways of dealing with their personal issues.
-- Steve
I have never played a Halo game, and I never plan to, either.
You see, the reason is simple, much like the people who apparently yell "fag" twenty times in Halo's online mode. Halo never "rang" with me, it didn't make me go "Yes, I want that game and screw anyone who doesn't".
My friends list was populated with people who play Halo 3 for about a week, it was a perplexing sight, as I had met all of them in Rainbow Six: Vegas. Thankfully, most of them have given up on it now and have joined me in CoD 4.
This is why I hate Halo, I haven't played it, but I can tell that if I ever did, it would only serve to make me appreciate other games more than it and further my hatred for people who yell "fag" seriously.
How can I make this assumption? Because all of my friends anwsered with a big fat "yes" when I jokingly mentioned my assumption about why they stopped playing Halo 3.
Also, I enjoyed Yahtzee's review of Halo and personally find making fun of Halo 3 and it's online community much more amusing than the prospect of actually playing it, so I'm not buying it out of principle.
You see, the reason is simple, much like the people who apparently yell "fag" twenty times in Halo's online mode. Halo never "rang" with me, it didn't make me go "Yes, I want that game and screw anyone who doesn't".
My friends list was populated with people who play Halo 3 for about a week, it was a perplexing sight, as I had met all of them in Rainbow Six: Vegas. Thankfully, most of them have given up on it now and have joined me in CoD 4.
This is why I hate Halo, I haven't played it, but I can tell that if I ever did, it would only serve to make me appreciate other games more than it and further my hatred for people who yell "fag" seriously.
How can I make this assumption? Because all of my friends anwsered with a big fat "yes" when I jokingly mentioned my assumption about why they stopped playing Halo 3.
Also, I enjoyed Yahtzee's review of Halo and personally find making fun of Halo 3 and it's online community much more amusing than the prospect of actually playing it, so I'm not buying it out of principle.
I haven't read the puppet masters, but I'm glad someone ripped on Half-Life, not because I dislike Half-Life, but because just about all video games contain recycled ideas. It, sadly, is something of a legacy of video game makers. I have read so many sci-fi novels that it probably encroaches on 100,000 pages of the crap. And played just about every role playing game. Those are some sad influences, but ironically, I have seen nearly every idea in video games somewhere before. I'm confident that that is a large part of where their ideas come from. The difference for me is one of pulp fiction versus something vaguely literate and intelligent. Halo is so bland in terms of content, and has such glossy play that it falls into the category of "pulp fiction". With the amount of raw power your character has it's difficult not to finish. You can make up any sort of Uber-being, but that doesn't make it interesting. In fact I think society's infatuation with such things has sort of come to an end, as we see it as something of an impossibility. I don't want to play the dashing hero of a romance novel, which is close to the way I see Master Chief.Anton P. Nym said:
One simple, undeniable fact remains:
Halo 1 must have been, to some extent, good. Why? It's made the Halo series what it is today. When Halo first came out, did it have millions of fans? Was near every player on it "A 13 year old who cried "noob" and fag"? Highly unlikely. Even if the original Halo was hyped, people played it, and people enjoyed it. A fanbase like Halo's has it's origins, and I find it unlikely that those origins were anything other than FPS fans looking for a new game to play. The enjoyed it, they told there friends, their friends told thier friends, and so on and so fourth. Heres the kicker- The friend of a friend of a friend, and no matter how far down that line you go, they must have ALSO enjoyed the game!
I just don't see any way of denying that the fanbase is justified, or that the millions of players who do enjoy the game are fools for such enjoyments.
When you get right down to it, whats the purpose in hating any game? What's the purpose of hate, in general? Love and peace, man. Love and peace.
Halo 1 must have been, to some extent, good. Why? It's made the Halo series what it is today. When Halo first came out, did it have millions of fans? Was near every player on it "A 13 year old who cried "noob" and fag"? Highly unlikely. Even if the original Halo was hyped, people played it, and people enjoyed it. A fanbase like Halo's has it's origins, and I find it unlikely that those origins were anything other than FPS fans looking for a new game to play. The enjoyed it, they told there friends, their friends told thier friends, and so on and so fourth. Heres the kicker- The friend of a friend of a friend, and no matter how far down that line you go, they must have ALSO enjoyed the game!
I just don't see any way of denying that the fanbase is justified, or that the millions of players who do enjoy the game are fools for such enjoyments.
When you get right down to it, whats the purpose in hating any game? What's the purpose of hate, in general? Love and peace, man. Love and peace.
i have one wish and it is a wish that i dont think will be fufilled in my life time.
my wish is this, that everyone stops steryotiping all the people that play halo on live as 13 year old twats, some of us are 14 year old ADD sufferers.
my wish is this, that everyone stops steryotiping all the people that play halo on live as 13 year old twats, some of us are 14 year old ADD sufferers.
Man, this thread is still going?
Halo was successful because it was the only good game for the Xbox, it was the "killer app". As a FPS compared to the games on the PC that came before it was not revolutionary. It's like World of Warcraft, it didn't do much new, it just did stuff from other games in a streamlined and polished way.
The truth about Halo lies somewhere between teh suk and OMGWTFAWESOME.
Halo was successful because it was the only good game for the Xbox, it was the "killer app". As a FPS compared to the games on the PC that came before it was not revolutionary. It's like World of Warcraft, it didn't do much new, it just did stuff from other games in a streamlined and polished way.
The truth about Halo lies somewhere between teh suk and OMGWTFAWESOME.
This fails on so many levels, its like saying Internet Explorer is a good web browser because millions of people use it, in the case of IE the base can be attributed to IE being the default browser on computers running windows, and of course the fact that most computer users are ignorant of the existence of other browsers and the fact that IE actually renders some sites that use perfectly valid code incorrectly because IE is broken. In the case of Halo the game fails to equal the status of other console shooters within its own time period in terms of build quality and innovation yet it is held as a gold standard because much of the fanbase is ignorant of these other games/superior ways of doing things. (The gaming press does not help this either.) Further more these same ignorant fans expect everyone else to believe the fallacy that the game revolutionized the genre on consoles.Ranzel said:
You know what its just like the hordes of Evangelion fans who ave elevated that show to the status of God simply because it was the first Anime they saw. (Rahxephon is so much better.)
The number of people that use a product has no bearing on whether that product is good or not.
Halo is not bad...for a mediocre FPS...if they spent more time polishing the gameplay,controls,story then good god it would rule...
Fair enough, I can admit that the sequels are very very similar. And I don't think H3 or even H1 is the most revolutionary FPS ever. It just bothers me that everyone calls it mediocre without really giving many or any reasons why.CyberAkuma said:
But about the sequel: what makes a "true" sequel? Because not too many of the gameplay elements can be changed, otherwise it's a different game. So what can developers do, what do you think exemplifies a true sequel? And please don't just say Half-Life.
I dislike Halo for the same reason I dislike Counter-Strike. They're not exceptionally bad or good.... they're just average games. But for some reason they get blown out of proportion and become immensely popular despite being only mediocre. That, and the game communties for both of these games consist mainly of retards with an intense ADHD problem who are incredibly rude, or cheaters (or, at the very least, people who use bugs that have been "accepted" by some of the community as skill, like wave dashing in SSBB or bunny hopping in CS) tear the games up with their "1337 h4xx".
I suggest Half-Life 2, with its myriad mods and games also based on the Source engine. (Day of Defeat Source/Team Fortress 2/Garry's Mod/Left 4 Dead) As for mods, I suggest Dystopia, Empires (strangely reminiscent of C&C Renegade), and the soon coming Brainbread Source. The mods for HL 2 are free and better than many games you pay money for, so I can't complain.
I suggest Half-Life 2, with its myriad mods and games also based on the Source engine. (Day of Defeat Source/Team Fortress 2/Garry's Mod/Left 4 Dead) As for mods, I suggest Dystopia, Empires (strangely reminiscent of C&C Renegade), and the soon coming Brainbread Source. The mods for HL 2 are free and better than many games you pay money for, so I can't complain.
"I was sure that they were but I just checked and you're right. I could have sword BF1942 was pre-Halo but my timeline is all screwed up."
BF1942, one of the greatest team games WAS NOT before Halo, you're right... but Starsiege: Tribes was, and as far as multiplayer goes, it pwns the crap out of Halo. (Tribes didn't have a single-player mode) Infact, Halo was originally supposed to be the "Tribes killer". Anyone remember that? I have articles in my gaming mags way back from like 1995 talking about that. Then Halo went vapourware and later turned up as an X-Box game, much to the chagrin of Tribes fans, now out of a decent Tribes-like game (Tribes 2 = mediocre and Tribes Vengence are teh suck)
BF1942, one of the greatest team games WAS NOT before Halo, you're right... but Starsiege: Tribes was, and as far as multiplayer goes, it pwns the crap out of Halo. (Tribes didn't have a single-player mode) Infact, Halo was originally supposed to be the "Tribes killer". Anyone remember that? I have articles in my gaming mags way back from like 1995 talking about that. Then Halo went vapourware and later turned up as an X-Box game, much to the chagrin of Tribes fans, now out of a decent Tribes-like game (Tribes 2 = mediocre and Tribes Vengence are teh suck)
To me, Halo is only significant, and popular, because it brought solid multiplayer FPS-ing back to the consoles. Goldeneye was the first to do it on the N64, then finally we got it back on the Xbox. I really don't think its marketing or graphics that gives the game attention: its the gameplay and the experience of playing it.
Playing the game on your own, or even on Live (which is filled with idiots, mostly), is not a very fulfilling experience, to me. But with a friend or 3 on the couch, its a riot to work through. Halo 3 was a very well rounded gaming experience that didn't offer anything new but is satisfying still.
But while I give some praise to Halo, it must be taken in the context that there are so many better games out there.
Playing the game on your own, or even on Live (which is filled with idiots, mostly), is not a very fulfilling experience, to me. But with a friend or 3 on the couch, its a riot to work through. Halo 3 was a very well rounded gaming experience that didn't offer anything new but is satisfying still.
But while I give some praise to Halo, it must be taken in the context that there are so many better games out there.
A sequel polishes designs a add on adds them blindly.Ghandi 2 said:
Ture sequel for me are Quake 1-2(3 doesn't really count and neither dose 4 really), Final fantasy (despite the cocaine driven designs),DMC 1 to 3 skipping 2 is a true sequel and a few other games can claim what a true sequel is.
Halo 1 is a solid game well worthy of a 8 score, 2 is unfinished and 3 is unpolished.
Unreal Tournament(99) was great 03 lame and 04 a add on that finished 03,UT3 seems to be a mix of UC,UT99 and 04, not bad but not great.
Just to correct a couple of points:
Referring to open areas: Unreal and BF1942 came before Halo.
Day of Defeat did "on the fly" melee before Halo. It was lost in Source.
The only thing I can say that Halo really owned was the Grenade mechanics, but as someone pointed out - it was a nessecary mechanic anyway. But one could argue that anything with a Grenade Launcher attached to a gun is a similar mechanic (Using Half Life as reference). Halo was probably the first to use it as a major tool.
I always thought the Shield was an interesting tool. It was a change from having to run for conveniantly placed Health Packs, but it did decrease the difficulty of the game by being a bit too "good". I would often go a bit "Rambo" and then hide behind a wall.
Alot of people keep using innovation as a key hate for Halo; but in the end, innovation does not make a good game although it does make it interesting for a while. The problem I had with Halo, as per my previous post, was that it was just unsatisfying. There was nothing in the game that made me go "Oooo" or "Ahhh". It was rather bland.
Referring to open areas: Unreal and BF1942 came before Halo.
Day of Defeat did "on the fly" melee before Halo. It was lost in Source.
The only thing I can say that Halo really owned was the Grenade mechanics, but as someone pointed out - it was a nessecary mechanic anyway. But one could argue that anything with a Grenade Launcher attached to a gun is a similar mechanic (Using Half Life as reference). Halo was probably the first to use it as a major tool.
I always thought the Shield was an interesting tool. It was a change from having to run for conveniantly placed Health Packs, but it did decrease the difficulty of the game by being a bit too "good". I would often go a bit "Rambo" and then hide behind a wall.
Alot of people keep using innovation as a key hate for Halo; but in the end, innovation does not make a good game although it does make it interesting for a while. The problem I had with Halo, as per my previous post, was that it was just unsatisfying. There was nothing in the game that made me go "Oooo" or "Ahhh". It was rather bland.
Yeah, you see, you're just an asshole.xdiesp said:
BF1942 was not before Halo 1. Day of Defeat was barely before H1, and was the melee useful? Point taken, though.
I was under the impression that the FF games were all more or less the same (with a few exceptions, especially in recent times), just with different characters and plotlines.