Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

krudler

Halo is pretty much responsible for the success of XBOX Live (well Halo 2 anyway) and the rise in console multiplayer games online so you can't take that away from it.

Shiminay

I enjoy playing Halo - I even went and splashed on the big "super duper comes with a McFarlane statue thingy" version of Reach when it launched So I'm not trying to hate on it.

I am however baffled by this insistence that as a game, it was some how innovative and ground-breaking and all that other stuff. It wasn't. At all. There was nothing new in it, it was just shown to a new audience who had never seen or experienced anything like it before. That's commendable, but it's not really innovative. I don't dispute how ground breaking it might have been for XBox and consoles in general - it can be argued that Golden Eye on the N64 was probably the benchmark for a console FPS experience at the time and this surpassed it in many ways.

I guess it was very much a case of "right place at the right time" for Bungee and Halo. That and Microsoft's ability to throw so much money at the XBox when trying to break into the market that made it the success story it is. I don't doubt that the console market would be a very different place right now if not for MS buying Bungee and making Halo (a game which PC gamers at the time were already really hyped about and therefore they were able to buy a bigger potential customer and fan base) an XBox exclusive.

Over time, consoles have become for gaming platform of choice for all the right reasons to be fair. They're considerably cheaper for the consumer, you don't have the "arms race" you did with PC gaming or the compatibility issues and they're somewhat easier to develop for because of all that. I acknowledge that Halo played a big part in that. Why? Because FPS gaming is a hell of a lot of fun and is a very compulsive experience for anyone who is new to gaming. You're seeing the game through your characters eyes and you're immediately becoming that character in a way that's probably more engaging than a 3rd person game. So all this was an exceptional and somewhat innovative *BUSINESS* decision for the gaming industry to run with but again, to say that Halo was an innovative *game* is, in my opinion, incorrect. It did little to advance the art of creating computer games except to bring it to a much wider audience who didn't really have anything comparable to it at the time.

I respect that, I admire that and I enjoy a lot of what's followed from that and as a Halo 3 special edition XBox 360 owner, it would be massively hypocritical of me to say otherwise
I initially bought my 360 because of GTA IV and didn't have the money for an Elite at the time, but didn't want a bland white one like everyone else, so got this instead

TerrorFirmer

Shiminay wrote: »

I hear that every now and again yet no one has been able to explain to me why Halo is as popular as it is other than it brought what was considered the baseline in acceptable FPS standards to a console. There was absolutely nothing new in it for someone like me who'd played thousands of hours of FPS' singe and multi-player.

I can draw a comparison to music in this instance. I used to think Oasis were an amazing band as I was the right age for them to be the first band I really got into. However, someone pointed me to the Beatles and I quickly realised that whilst Oasis were a good band, they weren't doing anything new. It didn't make me stop being an Oasis fan either, but when put in a bigger context than the one I had previously been able to because I lacked wider experience and knowledge to make a proper comparison.

In fairness that's a terrible comparison as it suggests that people who like Halo do so because they're unaware of the quality of a wider market. Which isn't really true at all. People like Halo because it's, to those that like it, an excellent game that gets so much right in its gameplay and core mechanics regardless of how inherently unoriginal it is. The gameplay it offers in MP is phenominal, in my own opinion, and I rank it up there with the likes of Unreal Tournament, Battlefield 42/2/Vietnam as an all time classic.

Also, I've clocked up as many hours playing FPS games as any gamer, since the time of Wolf3d and Doom right through, so I don't accept your idea that it offers nothing new to such players. It does. If you don't like it, grand, there isn't a game in existance that caters to all tastes simultaneously. But you seem to haved a major problem with games you don't like and subsequently belittling those that do. You were pretty offensive in your last rant on Black Ops, using pretty much the exact same argument albiet more aggressive of how it's only people who don't know any better that allegedly play it. It's getting tired, move on...you don't like the game, no problem, but it's rather irksome to suggest that one of the best selling xbox titles ever and the cornerstone of the LIVE service owes its allegence to people who 'don't know any better'.

Sad Professor

This might be worth getting (when it comes down in price) just for the last level in HD. Otherwise I don't really care about Halo anymore. I played the Reach demo recently and it seemed like a last gen game.

TerrorFirmer

Sad Professor wrote: »

This might be worth getting (when it comes down in price) just for the last level in HD. Otherwise I don't really care about Halo anymore. I played the Reach demo recently and it seemed like a last gen game.

The single player is good as a Halo fan, but as a game in itself it's neither special nor groundbreaking, and about as by-the-numbers as an SP campaign could possibly get within the genre. Looks good though, and multiplayer is where Reach truly shines, as with all of the Halo games.

And I'm praying they bring back Blood Gulch/Coagulation. Please....please.

Retr0gamer

I've heard they are just including the Reach multiplayer.

Dave_The_Sheep

The video says that Halo "changed the way we play video games forever". Eh... did it?

Very good game that it was, it wasn't massively original. Nice backstory and environment, good combat, pretty decent level design, decent plot and excellent multiplayer. Anything particularly ground-breaking that changed video games forever? No. Doesn't detract from it as a game, mind - if this comes on sale in a year or two I'll give it a lash. Won't be splashing out on it otherwise though.

CORaven

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I've heard they are just including the Reach multiplayer.

A guy posted this the the halo form:
http://halo.bungie.org/misc/foconnor_haloanniversary_qa.html

It appears that the reach multiplayer will be in it, but with the 7 maps instead. They should be cross game playable through DLC.

Shiminay

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

In fairness that's a terrible comparison as it suggests that people who like Halo do so because they're unaware of the quality of a wider market. Which isn't really true at all. People like Halo because it's, to those that like it, an excellent game that gets so much right in its gameplay and core mechanics regardless of how inherently unoriginal it is. The gameplay it offers in MP is phenominal, in my own opinion, and I rank it up there with the likes of Unreal Tournament, Battlefield 42/2/Vietnam as an all time classic.

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. Halo was possibly the first seriously competitive multiplayer FPS a lot of "new" gamers would have played - people who'd never played a competitive team or FFA based FPS because they didn't have a device to play it on. This was a new market - properly competitive multi-player FPS on a console. There was very little to really compare it to so by definition, they were unaware of the wider market that PC players had been enjoying for years. The PlayStation was the first big console for "grown ups" where as prior to that, they were considered kids toys. MS saw that market emerging and being totally owned by Sony and made it work for them and buying Bungie and releasing Halo played a big part in that. So people became Halo fans and that's cool, I have no problem with that. They really enjoyed the experience of the first, so naturally they bought the sequel and the third and ODST and Reach (maybe even Wars - I did - now that was an innovation - an RTS that pretty much worked using a console controller ). If you're a fan of a series, you're quite likely to buy it's sequel. I, for example, am a big fan of the Assassins Creed games and yes, I'm somewhat disappointed that they crank out another one every year, but you know what, I've enjoyed each and every one of them and I have noted that they make enough small changes in them to make me think "yea, this is a better and more enjoyable experience than the previous one." Should the next game not give me that same experience, then I will call it a day with these games.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Also, I've clocked up as many hours playing FPS games as any gamer, since the time of Wolf3d and Doom right through, so I don't accept your idea that it offers nothing new to such players. It does. If you don't like it, grand, there isn't a game in existance that caters to all tastes simultaneously.

And what is this new innovation it offers these players? I'm not suggesting that a game has to cater to every taste, but I can honestly think of nothing "new" that it offered to the world of gaming except that it was a proper competitive multiplayer experience on a console. That's not new though, that's just a new market. Again, I will state, I like Halo, I just don't know why people think it's one of the greatest games ever. You say that you rank it as one of the all time greats of multiplayer experiences and I won't try to take that away from you - it's your opinion and it's neither right nor wrong. Halo 3 for me was a game I played huge amounts of in multiplayer cause you could play system link and split screen and so my friends and I had regular 16 man LANs in a house over the course of a day. Great craic was had and it was considerably easier to organise because we didn't all have to have a PC.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

But you seem to haved a major problem with games you don't like and subsequently belittling those that do. You were pretty offensive in your last rant on Black Ops, using pretty much the exact same argument albiet more aggressive of how it's only people who don't know any better that allegedly play it. It's getting tired, move on...you don't like the game, no problem, but it's rather irksome to suggest that one of the best selling xbox titles ever and the cornerstone of the LIVE service owes its allegence to people who 'don't know any better'.

As for the other thread, if you chose to be offended by my opinion, that's your responsibility - I can't be accountable or responsible for your emotions. My point was that I hate to see one of my favourite art forms turned into a crass, commercial, money generating and consumer exploiting machine. I would argue the same about "pop music" (and often do). You can't tell me that multi-million selling pop acts who are little more than dancers and lip-synchers have as much musical merit as a band that writes it's own music and plays all it's own instruments. The people who buy these pop acts don't care about music, they just want to hear what they like and not think about it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but there are some of us who like to think about our art Similarly, you can't tell me that a "by the numbers" FPS based off a "formula" that has been proven to work with an earlier title or two, that's cranked out every year (yes, I know it's a 2 year life cycle because there are 2 studios involved) has the same artistic merit and value as something like STALKER which I believe was a genuine work of art in terms of the level of quality and depth in the game.

Finally, what new IP has come out this year really? It's been yet another year of sequels. Does no one else see why this is the case? It's too easy to play it safe. Where's the innovation? Where's the art? Where's the love? I lament that and I feel strongly enough about it to fight against that. I don't want to be treated like little more than a consumer, I am a gamer.

ED E

Shiminay wrote: »

I enjoy playing Halo - I even went and splashed on the big "super duper comes with a McFarlane statue thingy" version of Reach when it launched So I'm not trying to hate on it.

I am however baffled by this insistence that as a game, it was some how innovative and ground-breaking and all that other stuff. It wasn't. At all. There was nothing new in it, it was just shown to a new audience who had never seen or experienced anything like it before. That's commendable, but it's not really innovative. I don't dispute how ground breaking it might have been for XBox and consoles in general - it can be argued that Golden Eye on the N64 was probably the benchmark for a console FPS experience at the time and this surpassed it in many ways.[/size]

I agree, it wasn't revolutionary, but it was very well polished, and thats what made it such a success I think. It was clean and interesting and thats what gave it such a following. HL2 is kinda similar, very little of it was new, but production values were #1 and that worked. Still does, look at Portal/P2, they spent their time getting it right and the end result really is worth the wait. Meanwhile activision+treyarch churn out a new game every 6 months and ruin a franchise that was so high up there(4 ofc). Bungie appeared to rush Halo 2, and it shows, was shoite. 3 They did a better job of, nearly as good as 1, then they go back to churning out stuff for ODST/Reach and quality drops again(still ok though). I wish devs would be more like Relic(whoever it is) and take time getting it right(Bioshock). Unfortunately the retarded 12yo boys have, through their parents, the most spending power and thus ruin things for us with a little more taste, would be lovely if consoles had never progressed passed the N64....

TerrorFirmer

The problem here is that you're making assumptions as to what merits people judge games upon and correlating innovation directly with quality. Lethal Bullet made a particularly good point there in relation to production values.

We've already established that Halo wasn't and isn't particularly innovative on paper, but the truth is that the production, gameplay and mechanics of the game are excellent, and far, far better then most of the games people profess to have pioneered the mechanics present in Halo. As someone said before, it's not so much a case of who did it first, it's who did it best. Halo is a solid game, it's not particularly original but what it does, it does at a level of excellence few games reach, particularly in multiplayer rather than single player, though I do enjoy the single player games with the exception of the entirely mediocre ODST (and to reflect that, critical and fan response to ODST was entirely mixed, it's only saving grace being the excellent MP disc and firefight modes). People love Halo for what it is and the sheer playability factor, not for its amazing innovations or new directions, even if initial reviews did applaud what it offered console FPS fans.

Meanwhile activision+treyarch churn out a new game every 6 months and ruin a franchise that was so high up there(4 ofc).

Ruin in whose opinion, yours? That's an opinion at odds with general consensus, critical and fan alike. Call of Duty sales are higher then they've ever been, player numbers the same; as a franchise, it's pretty much one of the biggest in the world. By whose opinion can we judge it 'ruined'? Black Ops, certainly a prime example of a game with scant innovation and indeed little deviation from the principles of FPS genre since the 90's - but it's still an excellent game, full of set pieces, roller coaster scripting and high octane action. Fair enough, such linear FPS isn't for everyone, but it cannot be argued that for what it does, there is really nothing that can come close to Call of Duty and indeed Black Ops in particular for sheer brainless roller coaster action. There's more depth in a baby's boot, granted, but regardless, it caters to certain and to be fair, universally popular tastes. It's the best selling game of all time, and regardless of unoriginal it is, one has to admit it's doing something drastically right to garner such massive figures. You can't attribute that success to 'kids that don't know any better' because frankly, it's not even remotely true or accurate. The Call of Duty forum here on boards, for example, is massively popular, and everyone I know who's played the game considers it an excellent title worthy of space on a shelf beside the likes of Bioshock, Fallout 3, et al. Does it meant that I personally consider Black Ops a better title than Bioshock or Fallout 3 or indeed even on par, absolutely, not a chance; but nonetheless I judge it on different merits, and as far as brainless action goes, I've never played better and as such I believe it demands respect for that.

I play Halo alot, don't even play Black Ops at all, though I do find the arguments against it entirely void, given that they're often nit picking on the failures of the game to met up to their own expectations despite the game in question never professing or aspiring towards those same expectations. Some of the best games around, just as those at the top are often totally innovative, original, or indeed both, are entirely devoid of originality and innovation, because as with a host of other mediums, the phrase 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it' is applicable..... in certain circumstances. Look at a game like Left4Dead and Left4Dead2 for example - both massively popular and critical and commercial successes despite the fact that Left4Dead2 is little more than an expansion pack for the original game. More of the same isn't always a bad thing, dependent on how good the original experience was. In such cases, it's more about tweaking, improving and addition, rather then innovation.

A games failure to innovate isn't automatically a bad thing, particularly in a genre such as FPS games. Nor is it a barrier to success in either commercial or critical terms. Millions of fans aren't wrong in their assertions that titles like Halo or Black Ops are brilliant, likewise, neither are those that express dislike for them. But what is wrong, is trying to assert that said games are poor simply because they don't appeal to the expectations you hold of games in general, and subsequently saying that those that play them belong to an inferior class of infantile gaming demographic is, really, insulting.

ED E

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Ruin in whose opinion, yours?

Yeah, but I dont think I'm alone. Even my brother who is a total COD fanboi admits 5&7 are pretty bad games saved by zombie mode.

The sales have to be taken with a pinch of salt. When a new COD comes out half its fanbase instabuy it(this is just a guess, but work with me), but over the next week most of the remainder do too as all their buddies are now on it and they dont want to play alone. It doesnt really matter how the game is produced(IIRC there were some massive bugs on release in some of the games, and lots of map breaks).

IMO 4 was right on the money(in HC mode for me, but each to their own), WAW went in the wrong direction(1 2 3 were good, 4 comes to modern times, great, why go backwards?) then MW2 overdid everything, making the game one big clusterf#ck. BLOPS is overall just not interesting.

I think for what I would call "proper gamers", not to be confused with hardcore nuts that spend 16hrs a day in front of a screen and yell noob every 5 seconds, but more people who date back to the days of 1.6 tend to share my affinity for COD4. On PC there are still plenty of servers, and players to fill them.

I dont have a problem with games being made to suit the masses of 12yo who want to go around spraying in a mad attempt to get a nuke, but it irritates me when it starts taking over the whole industry. Games are now all built for console and ported to PC, it should really be the other way around.

In any case, there are still plenty of good games for coming out for PC (I have an xbox but I use it less and less) with better production values, I'll stick to them for the foreseable future. Dragging classics through the mud though, that makes me ;__;

Shiminay

I think it's fair to say Bullet and I share a lot of views but I honestly disagree with this:

Games are now all built for console and ported to PC, it should really be the other way around.

I think these are 2 drastically different platforms and should be treated as 2 separate entities. Look at a company like Blizzard - their 3 main franchises are Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo and are PC only. They're not fussed about trying to be a part of the console market - but it's pretty clear why and how they can afford to.

Dice/EA are definitely tipping their hat more to the PC gamer for BF3 as they see there's a definite gap in the PC market for this level of team FPS game with dedicated server support for clans etc and an engine that has had to be hobbled to work on consoles (only 32 players and lower gfx settings), but EA is too big an organisation to not release this on the consoles.

This "split" in the type of game on each platform is sort of happening, but with the cost involved with producing a game, it's hard to justify not releasing it for any significant section of market and therefore if you want commercial success (i.e. to make a profit) then you need to sell as many as possible

All that said, get proper integrated mouse and keyboard support on a console and it's really hard to see why you'd even bother with PC gaming anymore Whatever about being able to span across 3 or 6 screens and have 10000fps with 64bit textures and whatever else, the interface is the biggest barrier imo.

ED E

If they could be split completely, that'd be great, but thats not how it is or will be for a while at least.

RTS/MMORPGs etc are all PC for the moment, SC2 on console would be a farce, but FPS/Action games are for the most part shared(in terms of big titles).

If they're going to share them, build for PC, then downscale. Developing for consoles means working to 3 year old specs, then porting to PC with **** graphics engines, not so great textures and in some cases minimalist game engine coding to meet console response times(Havok were in with a lovely demo of some of their stuff, but half of it isnt used for gaming as frames would take too long to render, some of the cloth stuff was delish). An i7 + 57XX/58XX which is not a "high end" rig now can do so much more than an xbox, but consoles are the real money makers unfortunately.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You just don't remember the game properly.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There might have been some flanking oppurtunities [...]

It's not that there "might have been": there were. In Halo: Combat Evolved, it is not the case that "a lot of the game takes place in tight enclosed corridors" and not the case that it "had a lot of long boring corridors". For someone who remembered the game "properly", you should know that or stop copying common criticisms of the game from writers who know no better and have probably played the game as much as you have (i.e. fuck all). Your personal definition of 'linear' is irrelevant to the standard and actual definition. The majority of Halo: Combat Evolved's level design is not linear; it is certainly not the case that all or most of it is linear. Read: Halo: Combat Evolved's level design was based upon an open circular design and the majority of the game did not have a lot of "long boring corridors" or "tight enclosed corridors" as a result.

'Linear' level design was the exception, not the rule.

Shiminay wrote: »

It did little to advance the art of creating computer games except to bring it to a much wider audience who didn't really have anything comparable to it at the time.

Well, respectfully, that statement is based upon ignorance of the First-person shooter genre and the game industry: Halo: Combat Evolved had revolutionary combat and AI design. Halo: Combat Evolved advanced the FPS genre and informed developers how to create interesting and fun combat with AI-characters. There was no FPS on the PC or Console before Halo: Combat Evolved that could match its combat in singleplayer and there are few FPS on the PC or Console after that have matched it (Half-Life 2, Halo 2, FEAR and STALKER the notable but few exceptions), which is more of an indictment of the state of the genre than it is an accolade of the game.

Retr0gamer

I don't think there's any point arguing with someone so deluded :rolleyes:

Shiminay

LOL, OK, I don't know how, but we appear to have played 2 completely different games called Halo: Combat Evolved

Retr0gamer

It's a strawman argument. It's not linear, it's now 'circular level design' because every other shooter that is linear is just a walk down a long corridor and no flanking oppurtunities. Anyway my point was that there were lots of places that Halo could be improved because of poor level design but it seems I'm wrong and it's the perfect game.

Mr Freeze

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Actually, it's not. I wish it were. Best Halo map ever.

Well its like a crazy big super version of the level, they shoulda left it alone, just update the textures. Without a doubt the best map ever.

chopperbyrne

I recently played all the way through Halo:CE for the first time and it most definitely has lots of extremely linear sections with identical corridors that lead to an open area that you spend a minute or two in before going back to a stretch of identical corridors.

The end sequence of the game is one long corridor!

Also, the Flood sucked.

Kiith

Since when is linear a bad word?

chopperbyrne

I didn't say it is generally, but Halo had far too many identical, linear sections.

Obviously all of these type of games have to have an A to B goal, but the implementation in Halo leaves a lot to be desired, especially when the open sections were so good.

o1s1n

chopperbyrne wrote: »

I didn't say it is generally, but Halo had far too many identical, linear sections.

Obviously all of these type of games have to have an A to B goal, but the implementation in Halo leaves a lot to be desired,especially when the open sections were so good.

I remember picking up a demo of The Silent Cartographer before the game came out. I really got the impression that the full game was going to be loads of big out door expanses with some smaller indoor sections. I was really excited.

Little did I know that was as good as it would get.

Retr0gamer

Kiith wrote: »

Since when is linear a bad word?

It's not a bad thing at all. However my problem is that a lot of Halo is made up of identiket small enclosed sections and it's in these sections that the game isn't as good as it should be. Halo works much better when it's taking place in large open spaces so my point is that it would be good for the games if the remake team changed these repetitive areas and replaced them with more open areas withmore varied scenery. The original point wasn't about the game being linear it was about the over use of identikit pieces of corridot throughout the game.

NunianVonFuch

What about the library level with the Flood? One of the worst levels and enemies I've ever played in a videogame. Why they insisted on bringing them back to ruin the sequels is a mystery to me. They should have just written them out. Their absence in Reach makes it easily the best Halo game.

Can they replace The Flood with more covenant or a rogue group of marines instead? :pac:

Retr0gamer

Well in Halo 3 they only appeared in 2 levels. One of them was very brief. The other was one of the worst levels ever made. Thought Halo 3 was a much better game than Halo 2 because of the lack of Flood, the amount of flood in Halo 2 ruined that game for me.

Kiith

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The other was one of the worst levels ever made.

I shudder to think about that level. Talk about awful design.

Jazzy

Halo 1 is class but I definitely wouldnt be bothered buying it again, especially if it doesnt have the same multiplayer.
as for the whole linear arguement.. its correct to an extent but at the time I didnt care too much as I never actually played the 'single player' as a single player game. it was always with my brother or a mate or something which was completely awesome at the time. the library level was sh1t though, just straight up sh1t.
I dont think Halo innovated much, it just brought ideas that had been around a while to the masses. I never really noticed the AI of the enemies tbh, seemed to me to be the same as FPS games I had been playing on the PC for ages. the recharging shields and stuff wasnt really that big a deal either, tbh - I thought the most 'innovative' thing the game did was make the vehicles easy to control and a lot more fun then they had been in previous FPS games that tried it. yeah now that I think about it that was definately the most fun thing about the game - the vehicles.
oh the story was garbage too but at the time of playing I didnt really care. Thats why I was shocked when they tried bigging up the story loads in Halo 2, I was like "why is the worst part of the game the bit they seem to be trying to sell the most?" and of course that led to Halo 3 with its fookin loltastic cheeseyness of that hologram one that tells you were to go trying to sound all epic and philosophical when she enters your head during the game. relax the cacks there bungie, you havent created a masterpiece of storytelling, no matter how much you are getting your hole licked. oh and has anyone seen the books? a mate of mine got them, they are such trash.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't think there's any point arguing with someone so deluded :rolleyes:

Retr0gamer wrote:

Bungie can create as many powerpoint presentations as they like, they didn't fool me with their illusion. I'd played too many PC games and seen it all before.

Retr0gamer wrote:

Also it was the best example of a FPS since Half Life and Deus Ex. The PC FPS games before it were terrible and repetitive crap.

You are only deluding yourself, Retr0gamer: one example from many. If there was no point, then you wouldn't even reply (as I do when posts reach a certain threshold: example). However, that was just a cheap, petty insult and deflection and a substitute for answering my post.

There is no strawman argument. You said these: "lets face it the original Halo had a lot of long boring corridors" / "had a lot of long boring corridors" / "These sections I'm referring to are still quite linear and enclosed". Are you going to stop posting childish insults and concede that these are all obviously wrong or continue persisting with these ignorant claims?

Retr0gamer wrote:

Well in Halo 3 they only appeared in 2 levels. One of them was very brief.

The Flood didn't only appear in two levels in Halo 3; they appeared in four levels and were the predominate enemy in three.

Retr0gamer

I think it's kind of cute that you have those posts saved in your bookmarks.