Coming from a person who says incoherency rather than incoherently....Oh yeah....fantomspower said:
The haters of Halo
- Thread starter Kaminobob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Halo is a decent single-player game, with an amazingly balanced, well made multi-player mode. The multi-player is what makes the game so great. There is no better FPS multi-player game out there on any platform (including PC). It all comes down to personal taste and just because I may not like a specific game and/or genre it doesn't me it is bad.
P.S. Hype isn't created, it is earned.
P.S. Hype isn't created, it is earned.
Yeah, I guess I should get an editor. The odds of me getting every word right was slim. Funny, no?shadow skill said:
Well what should I say: I just totally agreed with Yathzee and was happy to.
I bought Halo3 when I was freaking bored out of my skull and was expecting a decent shooter. But it really isn't.
Yes, I didn't play the first 2 halo's (which I am glad for) so the story kinda ran half past me.
But i'm a gamer who likes to be sucked into the world I'm playing, this happens with frantic fighting, a good story, good voiceacting.
But well I'm sorry to say that I only had that like 2 times in the whole game. I was struggling forward hoping to find a good thing.
The vehicles are the only fun part.
Multiplay... well what can I say, multiplay for me is ment to be challenging, fast and enjoying with other people.
Halo doesn't have any of those. It's not challenging, well maybe it is and I explain why: It's so freakin SLOW!
I played it for a whole day, keeping an open mind that maybe somewhere I might like it but after like ,100 runs with assaultrifle in hand to other person who does the same and whoever slams the B button the fastest wins, I was tired of it.
Yes, I don't like Halo though I like the sticking with grenades that was joy. But besides that, well the usual curse words and stuff.
Good FPS? I don't know. I don't play them alot because there are to many alike of them. But COD4 is pretty good. I liked Black on the PS2
and Timesplitters.
That's about it.
I bought Halo3 when I was freaking bored out of my skull and was expecting a decent shooter. But it really isn't.
Yes, I didn't play the first 2 halo's (which I am glad for) so the story kinda ran half past me.
But i'm a gamer who likes to be sucked into the world I'm playing, this happens with frantic fighting, a good story, good voiceacting.
But well I'm sorry to say that I only had that like 2 times in the whole game. I was struggling forward hoping to find a good thing.
The vehicles are the only fun part.
Multiplay... well what can I say, multiplay for me is ment to be challenging, fast and enjoying with other people.
Halo doesn't have any of those. It's not challenging, well maybe it is and I explain why: It's so freakin SLOW!
I played it for a whole day, keeping an open mind that maybe somewhere I might like it but after like ,100 runs with assaultrifle in hand to other person who does the same and whoever slams the B button the fastest wins, I was tired of it.
Yes, I don't like Halo though I like the sticking with grenades that was joy. But besides that, well the usual curse words and stuff.
Good FPS? I don't know. I don't play them alot because there are to many alike of them. But COD4 is pretty good. I liked Black on the PS2
and Timesplitters.
That's about it.
Daikatana lost its hype after its release, and Halo has not. Also, the majority of Halo's hype has been after the release of the first game.
I'm not defending The Matrix, but even though the man controlled by machines theme has been explored a lot (if perhaps in not such a gnostic fashion), I was under the impression that the special effects were revolutionary for their time.
I'm not defending The Matrix, but even though the man controlled by machines theme has been explored a lot (if perhaps in not such a gnostic fashion), I was under the impression that the special effects were revolutionary for their time.
I've played the Halo series right through from the beginning, not on my own consoles but rather a very generous friend's but I digress. At the time I thoroughly enjoyed playing Halo 1, it had been the first FPS I'd played in a while (since Perfect Dark 64 I'd say) and it was somewhat of change. The idea of having only two weapons, those sticky grenades and the vehicle sections were quite enjoyable too (especially in Co-op). However I think what made it interesting for me was the story, not the characters (Master Chief, lets be honest was very 1 dimensional) and discovering what the Halos were, why the Covenant wanted it, etc.
Halo 2 was the same affair as Halo 1, it presented the same gameplay, with the same story...just shinier...oh and a sword. But it was essentially the same game, but then again "why fix what isn't broken". So we have the same solid gameplay (that many loved) yet with the story taking a different route of showing the Covenant and Earthling perspectives of the Halos. While many of the 'fanboys' loved the Master Chief sections and pretty much boycotted the Arbiter as a try hard Master Chief. Yet I found his story far more interesting...(they're all thinking "Kill Him) but wait hear me out...he HAD character development...maybe you missed that " !!CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!! "
He had an admirable storyline, a man (alien) who has to first redeem himself for sins, and discovers that what he was fighting for was a lie, and so becomes his races saviour...maybe not original but far more interesting than the Master Chiefs 1 liners, and shoot, then shoot some more, make an ironic comment then repeat.
Anyway I digress once more and end my Halo 2 commentary with this...what kind of retarded designers give you such an anti climactic ending.. I'm surprised that people didn't go out after seeing this ending and killing everyone. I mean seriously if the Empire Strikes back ended with "Luke, I am your fa..." *Roll Credits* How pissed would you have been! (I am aware that Halo doesn't compare to Star Wars in terms of storytelling)
Scores:
Halo 1: + 1
Halo 2: - 2
Anyway Halo 3 well I wasn't expecting much except for the same game with the same story, except killing less aliens. And so upon playing this game I was well not surprised that it went well the same way and I found myself rather bored and only endured in the hopes the story would at least drive the game. Instead it went along predictably with no twists, no alterations, innovations or inspiring gameplay introduced,...unless you want to call that Hammer the big change.
Looking at this game juxtaposed with what games were coming you'd think Bungie may have tried something different. Instead its like some Microsoft marketing boys were on their backs prodding them whenever they showed any creativity or difference. I would have thought that with the approaching titles like Portal, HL2: Episode 2, BioShock, hell even Crysis that they might have tried to make a game memorable for its gameplay and how it redefined the FPS genre in many ways, instead it will be remember the hype, and the bloated and undeserving cash cow that it was.
So what does all this rambling mean, well everything that most of you have confirmed already. That the Halo series was mediocre and while in the beginning it started off okay it could have become better if it was improved upon. Instead of recycling the same out dated gameplay.
To me it had a few moments and aspects I loved but in the end it wasn't the be all, end all of the FPS that many make it out to be.
And that's my two cents
Halo 2 was the same affair as Halo 1, it presented the same gameplay, with the same story...just shinier...oh and a sword. But it was essentially the same game, but then again "why fix what isn't broken". So we have the same solid gameplay (that many loved) yet with the story taking a different route of showing the Covenant and Earthling perspectives of the Halos. While many of the 'fanboys' loved the Master Chief sections and pretty much boycotted the Arbiter as a try hard Master Chief. Yet I found his story far more interesting...(they're all thinking "Kill Him) but wait hear me out...he HAD character development...maybe you missed that " !!CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!! "
He had an admirable storyline, a man (alien) who has to first redeem himself for sins, and discovers that what he was fighting for was a lie, and so becomes his races saviour...maybe not original but far more interesting than the Master Chiefs 1 liners, and shoot, then shoot some more, make an ironic comment then repeat.
Anyway I digress once more and end my Halo 2 commentary with this...what kind of retarded designers give you such an anti climactic ending.. I'm surprised that people didn't go out after seeing this ending and killing everyone. I mean seriously if the Empire Strikes back ended with "Luke, I am your fa..." *Roll Credits* How pissed would you have been! (I am aware that Halo doesn't compare to Star Wars in terms of storytelling)
Scores:
Halo 1: + 1
Halo 2: - 2
Anyway Halo 3 well I wasn't expecting much except for the same game with the same story, except killing less aliens. And so upon playing this game I was well not surprised that it went well the same way and I found myself rather bored and only endured in the hopes the story would at least drive the game. Instead it went along predictably with no twists, no alterations, innovations or inspiring gameplay introduced,...unless you want to call that Hammer the big change.
Looking at this game juxtaposed with what games were coming you'd think Bungie may have tried something different. Instead its like some Microsoft marketing boys were on their backs prodding them whenever they showed any creativity or difference. I would have thought that with the approaching titles like Portal, HL2: Episode 2, BioShock, hell even Crysis that they might have tried to make a game memorable for its gameplay and how it redefined the FPS genre in many ways, instead it will be remember the hype, and the bloated and undeserving cash cow that it was.
So what does all this rambling mean, well everything that most of you have confirmed already. That the Halo series was mediocre and while in the beginning it started off okay it could have become better if it was improved upon. Instead of recycling the same out dated gameplay.
To me it had a few moments and aspects I loved but in the end it wasn't the be all, end all of the FPS that many make it out to be.
And that's my two cents
Halo has and always will be "my first shooter" degree material.
When I first booted the game up it felt like doom with a speach pack.
Enemies sometimes display intelligence but mostly run around randomly.
All weapons had close to 100% accuracy that gave the impression of railgun physics.
The multiplayer IS quake 2/3, with an even worse community, something any serious pc gamer has played nearly 10 years ago to death and got sick/addicted to.
Landscape and zones were sparce military affairs with usual alien ship infiltration ending.
Vehicles lack menace and presence, instead mostly used as comedy pieces to run people over.
The game wants to be doom, battlefield, counter strike, quake 3 and call of duty; but does'nt even come close to any of their major set pieces it tries to emulate.
So I imagine for the new gamer it seems that it really has all these features, whilst experianced gamers have seen it all before, and so much better.
When I first booted the game up it felt like doom with a speach pack.
Enemies sometimes display intelligence but mostly run around randomly.
All weapons had close to 100% accuracy that gave the impression of railgun physics.
The multiplayer IS quake 2/3, with an even worse community, something any serious pc gamer has played nearly 10 years ago to death and got sick/addicted to.
Landscape and zones were sparce military affairs with usual alien ship infiltration ending.
Vehicles lack menace and presence, instead mostly used as comedy pieces to run people over.
The game wants to be doom, battlefield, counter strike, quake 3 and call of duty; but does'nt even come close to any of their major set pieces it tries to emulate.
So I imagine for the new gamer it seems that it really has all these features, whilst experianced gamers have seen it all before, and so much better.
Erm , no one has raised another FPS gem while theyre in here bitching at halo ... TIMESPLITTERS.
That was amazing , am i the only one that thinks this???
That was amazing , am i the only one that thinks this???
What do I consider good? Call of Duty 4 and Team Fortress 2.
Halo 3 was "meh". I played 1 and loved it, 2 was awesome, but 3 was just like two with brute weapons added graphics. Now, I'm not laying its bad, it was just mediocre.
Call of Duty 4 was fun because
1.) Gun fights were short and you could die in a few hits.
2.) Multiplayer ranks actually gave you a reason to get them.
3.) Trying to kill 150 people with a Semi-Automatic rifle was tougher than hell.
And Team Fortress 2?
If you got bored of one class, you could play another, and another, and another. Who doesn't like the silly back stabbing antics of a spy?
Halo 3 was "meh". I played 1 and loved it, 2 was awesome, but 3 was just like two with brute weapons added graphics. Now, I'm not laying its bad, it was just mediocre.
Call of Duty 4 was fun because
1.) Gun fights were short and you could die in a few hits.
2.) Multiplayer ranks actually gave you a reason to get them.
3.) Trying to kill 150 people with a Semi-Automatic rifle was tougher than hell.
And Team Fortress 2?
If you got bored of one class, you could play another, and another, and another. Who doesn't like the silly back stabbing antics of a spy?
Halo 3:
Multiplayer: Awesome
Single-Player: Meh...
Total Score: Decent
Single player in Halo is some of the most repetitive, unimaginative level design and enemies I've ever come across. Without the flood that game would be 100x better because those parts are ridiculously boring. Any inside level is horribly repetitive, although the outside environments are usually pretty decent.
Multi-player is good. That is all.
Multiplayer: Awesome
Single-Player: Meh...
Total Score: Decent
Single player in Halo is some of the most repetitive, unimaginative level design and enemies I've ever come across. Without the flood that game would be 100x better because those parts are ridiculously boring. Any inside level is horribly repetitive, although the outside environments are usually pretty decent.
Multi-player is good. That is all.
hobartuk posted:
"gonna say something a bit controversial as my first post on the website since its predominately pc and xbox gamers here
but, halo is nothing compared to metroid prime
halo is a bland, unsatisfying and repetitive game and i found no enjoyment from shooting the toy guns at the at the highly unsatisfying enemies, little critters running around, no dissing to pokemon, but it just makes me think i'm killing pokemon
metroid however is incredibly huge, the graphics are beautiful even for now, a truly immersive experience which i haven't seen matched since. The gameplay is spot on, truly engaging whereas halo; i mean when i fire a gun it makes no real bang, no real camera shudder to immerse you
its incredibly simple though, which perhaps lies at it's core of it's popularity, and there are many other things which are appealing, i must admit i did enjoy looking up and seeing the halo in all it's splendour in the first game... actually that's it
there are things that could be enhanced, a stronger story, where there could be texts around a better and huge freeform world where the gamer could listen, watch or even read (leave the last one out in the console version), just to give greater depth to the overall story and establish sub stories perhaps, also slightly different landscapes would have been better, in a certain world all the locations would seem the same, there wouldn't be a subtle difference to give a sense of progression, just is a bit repetitive
well thats my view on halo, i probably will buy the pc versions in a box set for 15 pounds maybe next summer as a past time, i'll keep to half life 2 till then, and after then"
I played metroid Prime about the same time I played Halo and I couldn't agree more. MP is a much more inteligent and immersive game, Halo NEVER really blew me away, as a matter of fact I only played it once ofter that first time in 2002 (like a year later) and never even botherd with Halo 2 or 3. But then again I am not an FPS fan so that really goes to show how much I enjoyd not only the first Metroid Prime but the entire trilogy as well.
"gonna say something a bit controversial as my first post on the website since its predominately pc and xbox gamers here
but, halo is nothing compared to metroid prime
halo is a bland, unsatisfying and repetitive game and i found no enjoyment from shooting the toy guns at the at the highly unsatisfying enemies, little critters running around, no dissing to pokemon, but it just makes me think i'm killing pokemon
metroid however is incredibly huge, the graphics are beautiful even for now, a truly immersive experience which i haven't seen matched since. The gameplay is spot on, truly engaging whereas halo; i mean when i fire a gun it makes no real bang, no real camera shudder to immerse you
its incredibly simple though, which perhaps lies at it's core of it's popularity, and there are many other things which are appealing, i must admit i did enjoy looking up and seeing the halo in all it's splendour in the first game... actually that's it
there are things that could be enhanced, a stronger story, where there could be texts around a better and huge freeform world where the gamer could listen, watch or even read (leave the last one out in the console version), just to give greater depth to the overall story and establish sub stories perhaps, also slightly different landscapes would have been better, in a certain world all the locations would seem the same, there wouldn't be a subtle difference to give a sense of progression, just is a bit repetitive
well thats my view on halo, i probably will buy the pc versions in a box set for 15 pounds maybe next summer as a past time, i'll keep to half life 2 till then, and after then"
I played metroid Prime about the same time I played Halo and I couldn't agree more. MP is a much more inteligent and immersive game, Halo NEVER really blew me away, as a matter of fact I only played it once ofter that first time in 2002 (like a year later) and never even botherd with Halo 2 or 3. But then again I am not an FPS fan so that really goes to show how much I enjoyd not only the first Metroid Prime but the entire trilogy as well.
Halo's GREAT! Well, unless you actually know what you're talking about and have been playing PC FPSes for the past 15 years. Halo is about a good 5-10 years behind seriously. Not a bad game but its appeal is largely based on ignorance of what else is out there.
Cheeze_Pavilion,
If you're going to quote me, at least do it honestly. I stated twice in my analog that the friend found sushi to be better than McD's fish sandwich. If you feel the need to argue against my position, use my position, not one you invent and then attribute to me. Your argument on preference doesn't relate to my argument on taste at all.
Do you have any proof that Halo was designed to be played away from the monitor? How was this done? By making the game colorful? Green hero, purple guns, bright blue enemies against bland environments? That's it's advantage-- shiny on bland?" Can this game not be played <12" from a monitor? Where's the breakthrough?
If you're going to quote me, at least do it honestly. I stated twice in my analog that the friend found sushi to be better than McD's fish sandwich. If you feel the need to argue against my position, use my position, not one you invent and then attribute to me. Your argument on preference doesn't relate to my argument on taste at all.
Do you have any proof that Halo was designed to be played away from the monitor? How was this done? By making the game colorful? Green hero, purple guns, bright blue enemies against bland environments? That's it's advantage-- shiny on bland?" Can this game not be played <12" from a monitor? Where's the breakthrough?
Ask Wired [http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/15-09/ff_halo?currentPage=all].righthanded said:
-- Steve
Where did it say thatAnton P. Nym said:
" _Halo_ was specifically designed with the difference between playing an FPS less than 12" from a screen in a chair, and playing an FPS on a couch two or three feet from the screen."
It doesn't. There's no mention of distance from the screen either. Do you have an answer to my question or not? Where's the evidence?
In fact, the article says that Halo was originally a Mac game that MS bought for the Xbox. If anything, that suggests that the game was initially designed to be played on a monitor, not a TV. Imagine that! I ask for evidence of a claim and I get evidence refuting said claim.
Was halo 3 tested with the ideal set up for a home console? That's what the article says. That's a pretty big difference than saying a game was "specifically designed" to be played X inches from the screen in a chair. Wouldn't it make sense to develop a FPS game with the intent that it be played in a chair? How about a PC game played in a chair? What are these PC FPS gamers sitting on while they play? Unicycles?
The article pretty much says that Halo wasn't supposed to be an Xbox game, Halo 2 was a rush-job, and that Halo 3 holds your hand because, well, looking around and figuring things out for yourself isn't something that console tards can do.