Why Halo is called innovative?

Recommended Videos

stompy

New member
Jan 21, 2008
2,951
0
0
Halo: Combat Evolved made the FPS genre popular on consoles, as well as making recharging health and vehicle sections a more prominent part of the FPS genre. Halo 2, from what I've heard, did wonders to make online services popular on the consoles. Halo 3 introduced Forge and Theatre modes, making machinima on consoles so much easier.
 

Zemnexx

New member
May 24, 2008
38
0
0
Mr.Pandah said:
Zemnexx said:
LewsTherin said:
The whole shield+health thing was a good idea, it's a shame they got rid of it.
They didn't get rid of it, its just now you can't actually see your health meter.
Yes they did. Halo 1 had health packs for your health bar and the Shield recharged independently. Now you can say there is still health and shields but in reality, the screen just turns red when your other "shield", meaning your health, is dwindling.
True, while it is called your health in H3, it really is just a second shield because it also recharges.
 

Woe Is You

New member
Jul 5, 2008
1,444
0
0
Neither of them were particularly good ports. Both were pretty butchered versions of the original but at least the music sounded decent in the SNES version and it had most of the levels.
 

sneakypenguin

Elite Member
Legacy
Jul 31, 2008
2,804
0
41
Country
usa
LewsTherin said:
The whole shield+health thing was a good idea, it's a shame they got rid of it.
EDIT:(Got ninja'd on the health meter thing)They got rid of it in a way, but you still had health meter just not visible. The way I understand it is,(in halo 2-3 shield has X number of HP after it goes away the health portion starts depleting, after a few seconds the shield recharges but the health portion stays depleted only trickling up after a while. So while your shield bar might be full 100/100 your health might be 10/100 +5 every few seconds, something like that anyways.

Reason halo was innovative, mainstreamed FPS's on consoles, provided the best control scheme available (plus it was customizable every which way). Integrated vehicles in a manner not previously done so.

The two weapon limit made you think a bit tactically, no more I'll save this rocket launcher+sniper+shotgun+whatever, there was always a trade off. Shotgun+AR better not have long range encounters, sniper and pistol better hope there are no flood, Do I pick up the RL and lose the shotty? These kinds of choices it brought to the genre.

All weapons where useful, there was no pointless weapon, all had situations and strategies that each were best for. Granted the pistol in multiplayer was like having the right hand of God but at least everyone started with it(in slayer pro gametype)

It made Co-op gameplay fun, i'm sure many of us have enjoyed playing with friends/family on the same console. Plus Co-op goofing around was a blast.

It signaled the next generation of gaming on consoles, how many years where spent coming up with a halo killer? The graphics where great, it made great use of color, the environments where generally creative and diverse, USNC ship to beautiful Halo, to creepy jungle and instalation, alien ships, night on a desert mtn, snowy canyons. There was hardly two levels alike.

It set the standard recharging health mechanic(yet this one was actually realistic in the setting)

The multiplayer was incredibly accessible, balanced, yet deep. Newcomers could hop in and at least hold their own, while vets can always find a new tactic or strategy, there where many many gametypes from footraces, CTF, Slayers, King of the hill, oddball, and all of these where easily modifiable. (other games have had said gametypes but not all in one and not with the level of polish that Halo had)

It had a fluid melee system, I thought it was the coolest thing when I stunned an elite with a shotgun blast then proceeded to beat him upside the head with it. Or meleeing your vehicle and having it move roll or slide around.

Levels allowed you to go anywhere, barely any invisible walls around. Wanna jump onto that 30 ft high rock, throw a grenade and use the shockwave to throw you higher. Wanna perch on that rock 200 feet up a cliff wall? Go trek though the level and get a banshee. Want to get on top of the halo installations? warthog jump over grenades (Co-op) If you could see it you could reach it(mostly).

The level of freedom this game offered was unparalleled you where not shoehorned into a specific way to do an encounter, strategies where strictly up to the player.

Plus for me the story and the setting was amazing. When I first walked off that dropship and my eyes adjusted to the light, I was in awe there where waterfalls, trees a massive cliff that lead to an ocean, then I looked up and saw the halo itself with oceans and continents it loomed over you so majestically one couldn't help but just stand and look around.



Anyways that's why it was innovative to me.
 
Jan 10, 2009
13
0
0
I believe it was "innovative", because it was the first game Microsoft was attached to(aside from flights sims, and by proxy Freelancer) that didn't suck.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Halo wasn't really innovative in a major way. Goldeneye proved to the world that FPS games could be fun and popular on a console. There wasn't anything new about the story ideas (space marine save the universe from evil aliens is a fairly standard video game plot). The story wasn't told in a new or compelling way.

Really, what Halo did that is notable is establish the Xbox's foothold in the marketplace. For quite awhile it was the one and only "must play" xbox games. As the console's first shooter, Halo did manage one other notable feat: it basically standardized the control scheme that Xbox FPS games use even to this date. It also represented the first console FPS game that didn't make me wish I had a mouse and keyboard.
 

Stewie Plisken

New member
Jan 3, 2009
355
0
0
I always thought it was a console thing for the genre. I don't know, never had an XBOX- when it came to the PC, the damn thing bore me to tears. Of course, there was also Goldeneye before it, so go figure.

I have been told, by friends, that the co-op and online plays where great fun. Plus the market was open to more people by the time the XBOX came out (as opposed to N64's time, when gaming was just becoming a pop-culture phenomenon and the original Playstation was at the top of the food chain), so many, many (new) gamers hadn't experienced Goldeneye before...

Eh, not sure. Game did well and single-handedly carried the system for a while. Good for them. Not sure what any of that has to do with the credit for "innovation", though.
 

The Heik

King of the Nael
Oct 12, 2008
1,568
0
0
hippieshopper said:
l Ancient l said:
halo 1 started all this space marine stuff
Not Warhammer 40k?
Yeah WH40K started all this crud about space marines in the 70's or even earlier, so it's not really a new concept, just a largely unused one
 

Damolition

New member
Jan 6, 2009
37
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
Halo wasn't really innovative in a major way.
Righto, If you say so.

Eclectic Dreck said:
Halo did manage one other notable feat: it basically standardized the control scheme that Xbox FPS games use even to this date. It also represented the first console FPS game that didn't make me wish I had a mouse and keyboard.
Wait a minute...
 

Bluntknife

New member
Sep 8, 2008
372
0
0
l Ancient l said:
halo 1 started all this space marine stuff
There are a bunch of other games that had space marines before Halo did it, Unreal for one.

But this isn't realy a question if Halo is innovative for the entire genre so much as it was innovative for a console.
 

XxFear ItselfxX

New member
Dec 28, 2008
54
0
0
I'm a Halo fanboy and I think it's terrible. The singleplayer game makes average look perfect and the multiplayer is uninspiring. It has little replay value and gathering skulls doesn't cut it. I have most of them and the game isn't any better with them. The IWHBYD skull is great though...
Play CoD4 or Left 4 Dead. The original Halo is the best game out of the trilogy. Skip the rest.
 

The Heik

King of the Nael
Oct 12, 2008
1,568
0
0
XxFear ItselfxX said:
I'm a Halo fanboy and I think it's terrible. The singleplayer game makes average look perfect and the multiplayer is uninspiring. It has little replay value and gathering skulls doesn't cut it. I have most of them and the game isn't any better with them. The IWHBYD skull is great though...
Play CoD4 or Left 4 Dead. The original Halo is the best game out of the trilogy. Skip the rest.
why do you call yourself a fanboy if all you do is rag on the game? The game was great when it first came out, and was a relatively new way to do things on the console, and eventually became the basic template for most FPSs out there.

And if Halo 3 broke records when it came out, it must have been doing something right
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
johnx61 said:
Everytime someone brings up Goldeneye I have to laugh. It wasn't that great. The controls were horrific, mostly due in part that to the fact that you had to use the god-awful N64 controller. The graphics were nothing to write home about and the gameplay was nothing we hadn't seen before and was done better by Doom and Quake. About the only real selling point for Goldeneye, other then the fact that it wasn't a PC shooter was that it was a Bond title.

I'm not a huge Halo person, but it was better then Goldeneye in every conceivable way.
Graphics were actually quite good for the age in which the game was developed and were a substantial improvement over those in quake. The control admittedly was a bit lacking but as you pointed out this was mostly due to the controller. Goldeneye at least resulted in functional controls, and like halo the control scheme was copied for most shooters that fallowed on the platform.

Halo is indeed a better game, but direct comparisons of game quality simply don't work when it's made across platforms from entirely different eras. Before Goldeneye there weren't any major or truly successful console shooters. Sure, doom and wolfenstein had been ported to consoles - those games were hardly good enough to draw any sort of crowd. By the time they were ported, everyone who wanted to play doom had either long purchased it for the PC, or at least grown tired of the game after playing the shareware version repeatedly.

Still, goldeneye was the 3rd best selling game for the N64 and it's top selling shooter. It's 8 million units sold far outshine halo's 5 million copies. Halo was the game that made the Xbox a contender - goldeney was the game that proved consoles could be viable platforms for shooters.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Damolition said:
Eclectic Dreck said:
Halo wasn't really innovative in a major way.
Righto, If you say so.

Eclectic Dreck said:
Halo did manage one other notable feat: it basically standardized the control scheme that Xbox FPS games use even to this date. It also represented the first console FPS game that didn't make me wish I had a mouse and keyboard.
Wait a minute...
Creating an efficient control scheme is hardly innovative :p
 

mark_n_b

New member
Mar 24, 2008
729
0
0
raxiv said:
Cortheya said:
raxiv said:
Cortheya said:
theyre talking about the original halo which was very different from other FPSes at the time
How?
The size of it and all the records it broke
you measure the innovation behind the game in sales? How wrong is this?
OK, this is as far as I got before I could move on. The original Halo was innovative not only for its "scale" and the management of technology to construct a game of a notably large scale (in duration, enemies, levels) is a type of innovation. The varied enemy AI that learned to respond to player tactics was a huge console shooter step forward, the weapon management system offered itself to game-play that other shooters did not offer, the quality of the graphics and audio was unprecedented, the campaign game-play and driving / immersive story was unprecedented in the genre, and Halo can be credited with being an important driver for Xbox's online environment and (as such) on line console business in general.

Yes it was an FPS that offered little more than "here gun kill" play (a type of play that offers many nuances and styles) but if you are not giving it the credit due, you are uninformed to say the least.

II and III offered less innovation (as sequels would) and there was a progressive lowering of concern for the single player experience, but the game-play recording tools that grew from the franchise excelled and are still driving this type of game-service forward in other titles... gahh... I could go on. Can you srsly not find any of this information out there on the internet?

Dude. Like it or hate it, Halo is a major game in the history of the industry.