Why Halo is called innovative?

[Uncompetative]

1st game to have dancing with Hunters.

 

[Eikoandmog]

In my honest opinion, calling Halo: Combat Evolved uninnovative garbage is similar to calling the Lord of the Rings books cliche. It started many of the trends that you find bland and irritating and have become over used to the point that you seem to forget what it brought to the table in the first place.

 

[Nation.Skull]

As for the reason I think it is innovative, it was the first game you can PISTOL WIP

That's not true.
I forget the game, but it might have been the original Perfect Dark,
the second mode for the pistol was pistol whip.
That was quite a while before 2001, or Halo: CE.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Halo Combat Evolved is considered innovative because it successfully translated the keyboard and mouse onto a controller with 6 face buttons, two analog sticks, one D-pad, and two triggers buttons. It had incredible graphics for the time, and was really one of the first titles almost anyone who bought an Xbox ever played. It had a deep multiplayer component, and was really the game that put Microsoft on the Gaming Map.

Halo 2 however built on that and made it so much better adding new weapons and elements like the Battle rifle, and the covenant sword, as well as dual wielding all while stripping a lot of the things that made Halo: CE a great game. Nerfing the pistol, getting rid of the Assault Rifle, cock-slap ending.... etc.

Halo 3 is the complete package. Best of Halo 1 2 and new elements included, and it isn't seen as innovative because in the 6-7 years between the games, other games came out and modified the concept to a point where it was in some cases BETTER then Halo. Best game in the series? Possibly. Best game ever made? No far from it. It's a diamond with rough edges which can be approximated to every great game or even movie or music track.

You just described Turok on the N64
So Turok is innovative?.

Halo 2 and 3 is pants, at least Turok had the decency to be average after the first game.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

 

[goodman528]

I wasn't aware that Halo is innovative? Who said that? They have never played Doom, or GoldenEye.

Halo is not innovative, whoever says otherwise is simply to young to have played any games older than Halo, (< 10 yr olds); and don't have the mental capacity to appreciate anything other than pretty graphics in games.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

halo 1 started all this space marine stuff

Not Warhammer 40k?

Try again Warhammer 40K was a spin off from its original board game called "space crusade" or something like that.
Which came out a good many years before 40K.

Halo: Combat Evolved was the first FPS i can think of with regenerating shields (Which i knows been said already.)
And then Halo 3 has the Forge. Which i have to admit is great for making machinma on consoles. Along with the hours of fun to be had attempting insane maps.

 

[Nation.Skull]

I wasn't aware that Halo is innovative? Who said that? They have never played Doom, or GoldenEye.

Halo is not innovative, whoever says otherwise is simply to young to have played any games older than Halo, (< 10 yr olds); and don't have the mental capacity to appreciate anything other than pretty graphics in games.

While I agree that most players are dolts who don't know what they're talking about because they haven't played enough video games,
I'd still say it would be... very slightly innovative. The fact that it had a very well done gameplay and storyline, which can be rare in FPS.
It also became the soul-base of the x-box at the time, which no other game did for such a smash-hit system.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

As a side note, I'm one of the ones who trumpeted the death of the health bar, I much prefer the completely regenerating health. Again, for me it comes down to the way it changes the pacing of the game (in both multiplayer and singleplayer). But to each his own.

It all depends on the game for me. Regenerating health means that pacing is focused on ammo consumption and enemy type/concentration. This can of course lead to more exciting individual battles because designers are free to make any number of concurrent battles tooth and claw encounters. If your focus is purely on the action of the moment then regnerating health is the way to go. Hunting for medkits would hurt a game like Call of Duty 4, but it's essential to games like half life.

Deadspace is an example of a game that does the pacing thing all wrong. It's desperately trying to be a scary game but I would pick up so much health that I only ended up dying because I legitimately ran out of health entirely once. The rest of the time it was because a particular encounter did damage so quickly (or prevented my use of medkits) that I died before I could hit the heal button. Combine the excess of health with the immense firepower at your disposal and you have a game that is anything but scary much of the time.

In short, when the action of the moment is the key, regenerating health is the way to go. When you're trying to build dread and suspense, nothing works as well has limited health. Just look at doom 3 - when you have chaingun ammo and above 80 health, there is no corridor too dark to explore. But when you're down to your shotgun and assault rifle and only have 50 or less health, you suddenly become a lot less confident in your ability to survive.

 

[AgentNein]

I wasn't aware that Halo is innovative? Who said that? They have never played Doom, or GoldenEye.

Halo is not innovative, whoever says otherwise is simply to young to have played any games older than Halo, (< 10 yr olds); and don't have the mental capacity to appreciate anything other than pretty graphics in games.

You really should read some of the posts to the contrary and contest their points before you generalize all the people who think that Halo was innovative as ten year olds who can't appreciate anything other than pretty graphics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely open to seperate opinions, but when I (and others) back up our own opinions, the least you could do is refute them before disregarding.

As a side note, I'm one of the ones who trumpeted the death of the health bar, I much prefer the completely regenerating health. Again, for me it comes down to the way it changes the pacing of the game (in both multiplayer and singleplayer). But to each his own.

It all depends on the game for me. Regenerating health means that pacing is focused on ammo consumption and enemy type/concentration. This can of course lead to more exciting individual battles because designers are free to make any number of concurrent battles tooth and claw encounters. If your focus is purely on the action of the moment then regnerating health is the way to go. Hunting for medkits would hurt a game like Call of Duty 4, but it's essential to games like half life.

Deadspace is an example of a game that does the pacing thing all wrong. It's desperately trying to be a scary game but I would pick up so much health that I only ended up dying because I legitimately ran out of health entirely once. The rest of the time it was because a particular encounter did damage so quickly (or prevented my use of medkits) that I died before I could hit the heal button. Combine the excess of health with the immense firepower at your disposal and you have a game that is anything but scary much of the time.

In short, when the action of the moment is the key, regenerating health is the way to go. When you're trying to build dread and suspense, nothing works as well has limited health. Just look at doom 3 - when you have chaingun ammo and above 80 health, there is no corridor too dark to explore. But when you're down to your shotgun and assault rifle and only have 50 or less health, you suddenly become a lot less confident in your ability to survive.

You really hit the nail on the head.

 

[TOFUM4ST3R]

People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

Uh, many games (especially fantasy ones) have had "magical fire hands."

 

[ProfessorLayton]

People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

Uh, many games (especially fantasy ones) have had "magical fire hands."

Alright then, magical bee hands.

 

[TOFUM4ST3R]

People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

Uh, many games (especially fantasy ones) have had "magical fire hands."

Alright then, magical bee hands.

Its not a game related one, and its a bit of a stretch, but Shino Aburame (Naruto) has bugs living in his body that he uses to fight with.

...

Nothing is innovative! We are all going to DIE!!!

 

[AgentNein]

People who call it "innovative" are dumb fanboys. Even BioShock was more innovative because I've never played a game where you had a magical fire hand before. Halo is a boring, dull, and all around mediocre game and it's in no way innovative.

Uh, many games (especially fantasy ones) have had "magical fire hands."

Alright then, magical bee hands.

Its not a game related one, and its a bit of a stretch, but Shino Aburame (Naruto) has bugs living in his body that he uses to fight with.

...

Nothing is innovative! We are all going to DIE!!!

How very postmodern of you.

 

[Gormers1]

I don't think even the Halo fanboys can say Halo is innotive with a straight face.

...Actually, I'm underestermating fanboys.

Yup, Im a fanboy because I for once elaborates my opinions instead of just saying that everyone who doesnt share the same opinion as me are stupid...

Well, at least you admit it.

Better to be a fanboy than an ignorant hater;P

Halo is not innovative, whoever says otherwise is simply to young to have played any games older than Halo, (< 10 yr olds); and don't have the mental capacity to appreciate anything other than pretty graphics in games.

I dont think we have been properly introduced.

If you want you could respond to my post (that I sat up all night writing, showing how devoted I am to my love): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.83153?page=2#1152372

Its okay to have different opinions, but as written earlier

You really should read some of the posts to the contrary and contest their points before you generalize all the people who think that Halo was innovative as ten year olds who can't appreciate anything other than pretty graphics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely open to seperate opinions, but when I (and others) back up our own opinions, the least you could do is refute them before disregarding.

It makes you come of as a little fanboyish.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I don't think even the Halo fanboys can say Halo is innotive with a straight face.

...Actually, I'm underestermating fanboys.

Yup, Im a fanboy because I for once elaborates my opinions instead of just saying that everyone who doesnt share the same opinion as me are stupid...

Well, at least you admit it.

Better to be a fanboy than an ignorant hater;P

Hey, don't get me wrong, I liked Halo alot. It just wasn't innotive, it didn't do anything new. Theres a difference.

 

[PirateKing]

I'm a Halo fan. I like all of the games but 2 is my favorite.
I found myself wondering why Halo is fun several times. I still don't really know why. I guess it's kind of the question, what makes a good game?
I would say it's because it was presented so well. The marines were a nice addition. They talk and fight just like real guys.
Halo is just different. Or I should say, the original Halo was different. Since then the shooter genre has kind of bled togethor.
I don't really know to tell the truth.

 

[Gormers1]

Hey, don't get me wrong, I liked Halo alot. It just wasn't innotive, it didn't do anything new. Theres a difference.

Now you're doing it again. Say at least stuff like that regenerating shields had been done before, that the AI really wasn't that revolutionary, that other shooters limited the player to only carry two guns before halo (or that you didnt find it innovative)... Anything!
Well you dont HAVE to elaborate, as long as youre not hurting my feelings Im okay ;(, its your opinion after all. But I thought the point of this thread is to discuss why halo is or is not innovative, not just stating that "no, halo isnt innovative".

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Hey, don't get me wrong, I liked Halo alot. It just wasn't innotive, it didn't do anything new. Theres a difference.

Now you're doing it again. Say at least stuff like that regenerating shields had been done before, that the AI really wasn't that revolutionary, that other shooters limited the player to only carry two guns before halo (or that you didnt find it innovative)... Anything!
Well you dont HAVE to elaborate, as long as youre not hurting my feelings Im okay ;(. But I thought the point of this thread is to discuss why halo is or is not innovative, not just stating that "no, halo isnt innovative".

Regenerating Shields have been done before, the AI wasn't that revolutionary, and I didn't find two guns that innovative. Better?

 

[Gormers1]

Sure. Would have been awesome if you said which games had regenerating shields, but its okay.