Halo is just well made. The masterchief is hotsauce, the story is vaguely interesting and the designs are pretty good when they're not being cut and pasted.
As for regenerating health I think you're missing the impact simple features can have; in a game where your hp regens it becomes about taking cover and firefights rather than people breaking off and slowing the game down as they go hunt for HP packs. Regenning HP is a <b>very good</b> mechanic and it's showing as more and more games coming out of development these days seem to be adopting it over the old "i have to go find some health potions now". It moves the focus of the game more to action rather than noticing a bar is low and having to go waste time trying to find ways of replenishing it. In versus situations it also moves the game more to strategy over who knows where the health pickups are and in some ways allieviates the annoyance of someone who's good dying to some random bullet because their HP was down after a couple of fights and they can't get a healthpack. Three examples of games that already use it are Shadow of the Colossus, Rainbow Six: Vegas and Gears of War, which I might add are all also very good games that have received praising reviews (I've played them too and they're fun :3 ).
a 'nade button' might not be new but lets not pretend it's something that was in common use either and even rarer was the fact it featured in a game that also had a 'melee button' at the same time.
Ever a bane of FPS games was having to flick through weapons to hit someone infront of you or toss a nade, halo just shoved both on independant buttons leaving you to only worry about carrying two weapons (which is also a good idea... makes weapon loadouts more tactical and less of a mess like it is in the likes of quake where you carry half an armoury on your back). Heck Rainbow 6 Vegas and GoW also strangely seem to have the two weapon system as well... I'm seeing a pattern here :p
Point is, that halo is a nicely refined game. It's not without it's flaws but there are things to be learned from it if you're interested in what works and works well.
If you don't like the story, design, characters or whatever then that's just down to taste really but if the simple beauty of the various mechanic and interface ideas (borrowed or new) integrated into it pass your notice then I don't honestly know what to say except don't go looking for a job in games design :/
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, to say that in its day Halo had unimpressive graphics sounds rather ignorant. It was in the top tier for it's time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That time was four years before it was released, during that old Mac trailer.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited December 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1585037:date=Dec 6 2006, 04:08 PM:name=Aegeri)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aegeri @ Dec 6 2006, 04:08 PM) [snapback]1585037[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 1) This doesn't change the point that you are incorrect, it had been done previously. If it has been done previously it's no longer an innovation, it can be a refinement however. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Going from having no control over the way the grenade is thrown to near complete control and calling it merely a refinement sounds ludicrous to me.
Though, as a friend would say: Girls, you're both pretty.
Also may I add: Some of the other games who had the 'best graphics' of 2001 were Max Payne, and MGS2. I'd put Halo on tier with both.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you don't like the story, design, characters or whatever then that's just down to taste really but if the simple beauty of the various mechanic and interface ideas (borrowed or new) integrated into it pass your notice then I don't honestly know what to say except don't go looking for a job in games design :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although I'm not sure who you're responding to, it should be noted that all of the mechanics halo used had been done in other games previously with the possible exception of using regenerating health (But I am unsure on that). Halos 'impact' on the way FPS games have been designed has been minimal, the impact that Doom, Quake and Unreal had* was huge, obvious and pretty much immediate. Where Halo has set trends is in console FPS games, which have mimicked the well thought out controls of Halo (definitely for the best). The issue of flipping through more than 2 weapons is easily resolved in a PC game where you have a large number of buttons to bind, but is problematic in a console FPS game. Halo solved that wonderfully and added the same tactical element other games did BEFORE HAND (see below) in doing so. This was a brilliant decision in terms of making an FPS control scheme work on a console, but is not some great FPS game innovation that people portray it as.
I noticed you threw in Rainbow Six: Vegas, but we should be noting that Rainbow Six (released in 1998, a full 3 years before Halo) already used a restricted arsenal of weapons and encouraged players to take cover in firefights, plus had co-op play and human vs. human multiplayer (which is what made it such a popular game among many). Again, these are not features Halo pioneered or innovated, saying it did is incorrect and ignores every other FPS game that preceded it.
As for Gears of War, it is distinctly true that Gears of War borrows from Halo, such as the regenerating health but the restricted weapons and taking cover mechanic go back much further than Halo. Additionally, Gears of War is probably the best looking action game right now on either PC or console platforms (That will change though, but still the point stands), whereas Halo looked nice, but not spectacular upon release having spent too long in development constantly switching platforms.
*Edit: I do apologise, I should also have also mentioned Half-life in there as well, which probably had one of the most dramatic effects of any game since Quake on the way FPS games are made.
<!--QuoteBegin-'Quanaut'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE('Quanaut')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Going from having no control over the way the grenade is thrown to near complete control and calling it merely a refinement sounds ludicrous to me. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except there are other examples where you did have control, in other mods in quake and in Starseige Tribes.
And yes, it's not innovative if someone has done it before. QED.
Every post I have given that Halo had brilliantly thought out controls <i>for a console game</i>, which proved firmly even to people who didn't like Goldeneyes controls that you can make a successful FPS game on a console. This is what Halo primarily achieved.
sorry aegeri but if you take a look at what you quoted I don't think I've said anywhere that Halo made these mechanics up by itself. Infact I even went so far as to add "(borrowed or new)" with new mainly meaning the health regen. Also, just so you know but rainbow six never had regenning health before, vegas is the first incarnation to have this feature.
Whether a mechanic is old or not does not take away from the fact it's still a good feature. Don't you agree? :3
you could easily just claim that Halo is like WoW; it takes things that have gone before and does them again but refines them a bit. They're not realliy different, just a bit more polished.
As for weapon switching I think it's a good thing regardless of platform; I hate it when games let you walk about with every single weapon in the game. no strategy to it :p
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
exactly, gem... i don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping the <i>nature</i> of Halo games. people have to understand, PLEASE understand, <b>they're not meant to lead the gamer world with shiny new concepts and previously unknown realms of gaming. wake the hell up! you're flaming something that's not there!</b>
they have consistently proven themselves to be an <b>composition of successful and logical gaming trends</b> very skillfully combined into a single game and matched with a somewhat original and very accessible plot. this translates to stellar sales among the major gaming demographic.
because of its successes, it's become the new indie (let's face it, it's not even indie anymore, it's more akin to GW bush hating, which is going on for closer to a decade now) to bash Halo and its admitted faults, and apparent not-first-ness. seems like these pseudointellectual types are predisposed to hating a game that "simple people" like.
well here's some news for you: it plays smoothly, gives players the ease of use and functionality they want, and caters to the needs and desires of the modern gaming market, every time. i guarantee you that Halo 3 will come with some personal "innovations" that other games have done first, but these games WERE NOT attached to the same fluid, clear, and intuitive system that the Bungie team has developed. probably why most of them didn't end up selling an assload of copies in the same way.
what happened to all these other super halo killer console shooters? killzone specifically comes to mind. the controls were clunky, the perspective was confined and grainy, and killing things (in a game called killzone!) was neither fulfilling nor challenging. aim, hold trigger. move on.
tl;dr? i'll ask you a question instead. what happens to games that are ALL innovation and zero substance?
Personally, I found the co-op mode to be the most 'innovative' (in the sense that it was the first time you could really work as a team with your friend, doing things together at the same time...sure other games have 'co-op' modes...even the crappy 'Critical Depth' for PSone; it's like Toe Jam and Earl in 3d ...with guns (...and the presents are guns (and the baddies have guns (and the baddies are also aliens))).
Bah grenades (although it's one of the few games, aside from DoD (original), where grenades have been very useful), regenerating health (I did like the shield and then health below it), drivable vehicles (fairly rare, but not unheard of), cool weapon (woot, fireworks cannon (ie Needler!)), fun levels (when they're outside, anyway) - Silent Cartographer is still one of those really fun levels, and realistic-enough graphics (not photo realistic, but not the blockiness you'd get in many other games around the same time period...although Max Payne did faces decently...even if they were constipated faces).
Halo 2, with its weakened grenades; over-abundant, yet non-respawning swords; super high, super slow jumping; talking plants; alien/human 'truce'; bosses (I thought we were past the nintendo phase); useless, over-used "noob combo"; removal of Hang 'Em High but still readding Wizard; crap ending; ....must I go on?
Sure it's all still moderately fun to play, but it's no Halo. Hopefully the end of the triology harkens back to the beginning of the trilogy with its gameplay.
See that's exactly what I mean. It all about the combination and getting it right. You guys named a few games that can pretty much describe the Halo franchise. But think about it, you can't play all those games at once. This is why Halo is good, not because of its innovations or graphics (which was true once) but MAINLY THE COMBINATION of things. Did that make sense to you guys?
I would argue about the elements in Halo (inovated or not, doesn't matter) being put together skillfully. I found the game to be quite boring and hte story elements uninteresting (and often cliched). Thats my problem with it.
<!--quoteo(post=1585366:date=Dec 7 2006, 02:34 PM:name=Geminosity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Geminosity @ Dec 7 2006, 02:34 PM) [snapback]1585366[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> sorry aegeri but if you take a look at what you quoted I don't think I've said anywhere that Halo made these mechanics up by itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not you specifically, but certain others have.
I also entirely disagree with you that it did anything special beyond making an average FPS that was playable on a console.
That's pretty much it, though it does understate the significance of how well thought out the controls halo used were.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, just so you know but rainbow six never had regenning health before, vegas is the first incarnation to have this feature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not the point, the point is it does everything else you were misattributing to Halo and 3 years before Halo ever came out.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whether a mechanic is old or not does not take away from the fact it's still a good feature. Don't you agree? :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't make it new either by pretending other games don't exist. My entire point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you could easily just claim that Halo is like WoW; it takes things that have gone before and does them again but refines them a bit. They're not realliy different, just a bit more polished.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree.
Five words: Copy and pasted indoor Levels.
Again, Unreal did a lot better for an example with both outdoor AND indoor level design. For the time it came out Unreal had spectacular graphics, it had a large and diverse arsenal of weapons all with strengths and weaknesses. It had terrifically designed indoor levels, it had brilliantly designed outdoor levels, solid AI and was a nice long game, but this did end up being an achilles heel as it was just too long really and dragged itself out needlessly. It also had some very wonky multiplayer netcode out of the box that really did it a lot of damage.
Halo managed to make a brilliant console FPS scheme, with good multiplayer modes and beyond that, nothing more.
How anyone can say Halo is 'polished' and not manage to fall over laughing at the mere thought of the horrific copy and pasted indoor levels like the library, the covenant starship level and the maze like tunnels in the ice level (that admittingly, connected some really nice snowy outdoor levels...then back to the copy and paste) is truly beyond me. Then making you run back through the same set of previous levels again to needlessly extend the games playtime is.... polish? I do not call copy and pasting entire levels together 'polish' and neither do I call needlessly overextending the game using a cheap mechanic 'polish'.
Does Halo have brilliantly thought out and well polished controls? Absolutely.
But let's not overextend ourselves here. Halo is an average FPS that met success by proving very firmly you can make a control scheme for an FPS work on a console (and very conclusively). If you look at console FPS games that have come out since Halo they have all (at least what I've played) universally copied the control scheme of Halo. Why? Because that was the single biggest contribution to console FPS games the game made, its well thought out and highly playable control scheme. It arguably bought FPS games to the wider console market and to a lot of people who probably never really played FPS games much before. The multiplayer options that Halo had, particularly the co-op, were the best decision Bungie could have made to make the game a mainstream mass market title.
You are seriously overstating the game in every other manner however. It's got a non-existant story as told IN game, just like how Gears of War manages to forget it has a story somewhere, probably that games biggest flaw as well. It has terrible level design for the indoor areas, I mean going back to shockingly bad PC FPS games like Dr. Radiaki, Halos indoor levels make Dr. Radiakis level design look like genius in comparison. The arsenal was neither unique, interesting or novel in any respect, though it was generally well thought out. Having played through the game, had I not been playing co-op, I would have got bored of doing pretty much what I had done in every FPS game before and often better.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for weapon switching I think it's a good thing regardless of platform; I hate it when games let you walk about with every single weapon in the game. no strategy to it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree again entirely with this. Unreal Tournament (and 2003/2004) are heavily dictated by using the right weapon in exactly the right situation, because they all have strengths and weaknesses. Every weapon fits into a niche (though some much better than others) and using the right weapon, in the right situation to counter the weapon that your opponent is using is utterly key.
I actually liked Halo's two guns only restriction. If anything just because I was tired of having to lug around fifteen different weapons when I only really ever used 2 (your big gun, and your normal gun). The problem I had with Halo's weapons was that like in so many other FPSs the pistol was a far better gun than the assault rifle (at least it was IMO). Honestly, if there was more pistol ammo available I wouldn't have even needed a second weapon.
<!--quoteo(post=1585591:date=Dec 7 2006, 10:31 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Dec 7 2006, 10:31 PM) [snapback]1585591[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I actually liked Halo's two guns only restriction. If anything just because I was tired of having to lug around fifteen different weapons when I only really ever used 2 (your big gun, and your normal gun). The problem I had with Halo's weapons was that like in so many other FPSs the pistol was a far better gun than the assault rifle (at least it was IMO). Honestly, if there was more pistol ammo available I wouldn't have even needed a second weapon. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...No, no, that's not just your opinion. Everyone's always like "ZOMG, the pistol in Halo was awesome!" ...because it was. In multiplayer it was the end-all, be-all. You either had a sniper rifle, a rocket launcher or a pistol...or a "You will Respawn in ## Seconds" screen. More rounds than the sniper rifle? Check. Scope? Check. Ability to kill people in 3 hits? Check. Worse than the battle rifle/plasma pistol in Halo 2. I just ended up avoiding it because it was so over powered; coversely the assault rifle is about 30x more fun to shoot than the SMG or BR in Halo 2...they really captured the Starship troopers "pour as much lead into it as you can" aspect of it. So much fun to play co-op with assault rifles on legendary, tag-teaming elites without using plasma weapons.
I think the reason Halo had such success was the co-op. Now, co-op wasn't innovative by any means, but it was the first time you had (for the time) high-quality PC graphics, fairly decent AI (pretty good cover, grenade use, flanking and they used ghosts if you got out of one in front of them), vehicles and shared roles (one teammate in the back, one in the driver seat or some other combination - I miss the first-person passenger view...). The single player experience (although there is a decent story spread out paper-thin in there) is lackluster by yourself.
The 'interactivity' was also fun; try shooting some of the people on the bridge on the first level, right after you get your pistol; or try blowing away some marines (eventually they'll start fighting back, and it's pretty fun if you can go against a bunch of them - try to get 4+ to survive on SC). The player-freedom was very nice. They didn't intentionally clip off parts of the level or force you to do one specific thing. You could climb up the giant spire in the Control Room, you could bypass getting locked out of SC, you could do flips with the jeep to get to the bottom of Halo, you could just go ape and start killing all the marines instead of rescueing them, you could continuously bash the second player in the back of the head after you spawn on Halo, really annoying them, you could play with the hunters, trapping them between behind warthogs in some kind of alien zoo (playing with the hunters is probably one of the most fun aspects of co-op)...
I guess it's not so much what Halo did do, as what it didn't do...and it didn't limit the player. Something I was disappointed to see in Halo 2 (although there are occasional places you could get around it, like the first level on earth)...
Aegeri, I'm not pretending other games don't exist and again I'm not saying anything really was new. Also, all the things I'm miscontributing to Halo? I said health regen. All I said was that I liked the two weapon system and you might have misunderstood why I listed vegas and GoW there but I guess that's my own fault for not being clear; I was using them both as examples of top title games that use this mechanic. It does not mean I think they 'stole' it from Halo but a demonstration of the fact that two very very popular titles use this mechanic... while I don't think the mechanic alone is the point of their success I doubt it hurt any :3
Um... as for UT2k3/4 I'm afraid I used to run around the DM servers dominating with 2 weapons max. Once you get a handle for them and develop your own style you'll quickly find you only really need about 2 weapons and the rest can be considered fluff. Also, outside of running out of ammo for everything else I'm at a loss to why the rifle would be considered strategic or balanced with the rest. The shield gun I only really used as a parachute when jumping from great heights (like bailing from a Raptor before an avril hit it). Say what you want but I've never played an FPS with a multi-weapon selection system where I've thought "waii! it's so much fun that I get to lug about every single frigging weapon I could possibly find in the game". It's not very realistic, it adds more complexity to the controls unnecessarily (more buttons = more complexity) and it takes out what little decision there is in FPS games (do I take the shotgun for this bit where the enemies get close but risk losing the sniper rifle til' I find a new one?).
As I said before, Most things come down to taste but for a control system it's a very refined piece of kit (on PC or console... I've played it on both :p )
<!--quoteo(post=1585587:date=Dec 8 2006, 05:03 AM:name=Aegeri)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aegeri @ Dec 8 2006, 05:03 AM) [snapback]1585587[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Five words: Copy and pasted indoor Levels.
Again, Unreal did a lot better for an example with both outdoor AND indoor level design. For the time it came out Unreal had spectacular graphics, it had a large and diverse arsenal of weapons all with strengths and weaknesses. It had terrifically designed indoor levels, it had brilliantly designed outdoor levels, solid AI and was a nice long game, but this did end up being an achilles heel as it was just too long really and dragged itself out needlessly. It also had some very wonky multiplayer netcode out of the box that really did it a lot of damage.
Halo managed to make a brilliant console FPS scheme, with good multiplayer modes and beyond that, nothing more.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with some of the indoor levels. They were only tolerable because of the AWESOME ENEMY AI.
Jup, they really nailed it. It's so much fun playing The Silent Cartographer, especially the beach landing, because it's really neat how the enemies spice it up after each battle. One tactic that worked the first time would definitely not work the second time. The AI shines through everywhere, and it's extremely interesting just to watch the marines duke it out with the aliens.
To be honest the copy and paste didn't bother me... until I got to the library. Oh dear sweet jesus I was ready to kill someone by the end of that; it was bad enough that I thought the flood were boring to fight without that monstrosity of an endlessly same level being added to the mix -.-
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited December 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1585381:date=Dec 7 2006, 09:27 AM:name=Zig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zig @ Dec 7 2006, 09:27 AM) [snapback]1585381[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> exactly, gem... i don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping the <i>nature</i> of Halo games. people have to understand, PLEASE understand, <b>they're not meant to lead the gamer world with shiny new concepts and previously unknown realms of gaming. wake the hell up! you're flaming something that's not there!</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We're "flaming" something that's there. Halo fanboys are seen toting this and use this to trash every other FPS in existance by proclaiming "b3stest evar" just because of their limited experience. <b>Just</b> like the mediocre-at-best Oblivion. As Aegeri said, Halo was a good refined shooter, but attributing it's genius to bungie or the game itself is just to ignore the longstanding legacy FPS games have.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
makes sense, epidemic. i think the problem is that both sides of the argument tend to lean toward the extremes. ex:
"Halo is best evr shooter cuz it has nades and warthogs!!" and "Halo did nothing and achieved nothing, and deserves nothing."
the comfortable middleground is found by accepting that Halo did not revolutionize the FPS genre, but it did boast many remarkable features that were well-integrated: something many FPS games overlook. intuitive, efficient gameplay. the inconsistent level design (ranging from breathtaking and immersive to nauseating and identical) is its most glaring fault, and the outrageous cliffhanger plot of the 2nd game is close behind. the system itself is excellent, and the third installation needs to take that and... friggin.... do the right thing. god damn it.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1585855:date=Dec 8 2006, 12:04 PM:name=Epidemic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Epidemic @ Dec 8 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]1585855[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> We're "flaming" something that's there. Halo fanboys are seen toting this and use this to trash every other FPS in existance by proclaiming "b3stest evar" just because of their limited experience. <b>Just</b> like the mediocre-at-best Oblivion. As Aegeri said, Halo was a good refined shooter, but attributing it's genius to bungie or the game itself is just to ignore the longstanding legacy FPS games have. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do not attribute ones opinion to a limited play experience. I've played dozens upon dozens of RPGs in every flavor I can think of- D&D, Self-Made system, open-ended, MMO, linear story progression, japanese linear story progression, tactical, action, blahdeeblahdeeblah. I've played almost all of the 'greats'(damn you Fallout for never being on my mind when I've got extra cash), and I still think Oblivion is one of the greatest games- let alone rpgs- ever made. I've played dozens of shooters, and Halo reeked of polish and well-thought-out battle strategizing(in #1. In #2...not so much. But they DID lose the copy and paste levels...).
Comments
As for regenerating health I think you're missing the impact simple features can have; in a game where your hp regens it becomes about taking cover and firefights rather than people breaking off and slowing the game down as they go hunt for HP packs.
Regenning HP is a <b>very good</b> mechanic and it's showing as more and more games coming out of development these days seem to be adopting it over the old "i have to go find some health potions now". It moves the focus of the game more to action rather than noticing a bar is low and having to go waste time trying to find ways of replenishing it. In versus situations it also moves the game more to strategy over who knows where the health pickups are and in some ways allieviates the annoyance of someone who's good dying to some random bullet because their HP was down after a couple of fights and they can't get a healthpack.
Three examples of games that already use it are Shadow of the Colossus, Rainbow Six: Vegas and Gears of War, which I might add are all also very good games that have received praising reviews (I've played them too and they're fun :3 ).
a 'nade button' might not be new but lets not pretend it's something that was in common use either and even rarer was the fact it featured in a game that also had a 'melee button' at the same time.
Ever a bane of FPS games was having to flick through weapons to hit someone infront of you or toss a nade, halo just shoved both on independant buttons leaving you to only worry about carrying two weapons (which is also a good idea... makes weapon loadouts more tactical and less of a mess like it is in the likes of quake where you carry half an armoury on your back). Heck Rainbow 6 Vegas and GoW also strangely seem to have the two weapon system as well... I'm seeing a pattern here :p
Point is, that halo is a nicely refined game. It's not without it's flaws but there are things to be learned from it if you're interested in what works and works well.
If you don't like the story, design, characters or whatever then that's just down to taste really but if the simple beauty of the various mechanic and interface ideas (borrowed or new) integrated into it pass your notice then I don't honestly know what to say except don't go looking for a job in games design :/
That time was four years before it was released, during that old Mac trailer.
1) This doesn't change the point that you are incorrect, it had been done previously. If it has been done previously it's no longer an innovation, it can be a refinement however.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Going from having no control over the way the grenade is thrown to near complete control and calling it merely a refinement sounds ludicrous to me.
Though, as a friend would say: Girls, you're both pretty.
Also may I add: Some of the other games who had the 'best graphics' of 2001 were Max Payne, and MGS2. I'd put Halo on tier with both.
Although I'm not sure who you're responding to, it should be noted that all of the mechanics halo used had been done in other games previously with the possible exception of using regenerating health (But I am unsure on that). Halos 'impact' on the way FPS games have been designed has been minimal, the impact that Doom, Quake and Unreal had* was huge, obvious and pretty much immediate. Where Halo has set trends is in console FPS games, which have mimicked the well thought out controls of Halo (definitely for the best). The issue of flipping through more than 2 weapons is easily resolved in a PC game where you have a large number of buttons to bind, but is problematic in a console FPS game. Halo solved that wonderfully and added the same tactical element other games did BEFORE HAND (see below) in doing so. This was a brilliant decision in terms of making an FPS control scheme work on a console, but is not some great FPS game innovation that people portray it as.
I noticed you threw in Rainbow Six: Vegas, but we should be noting that Rainbow Six (released in 1998, a full 3 years before Halo) already used a restricted arsenal of weapons and encouraged players to take cover in firefights, plus had co-op play and human vs. human multiplayer (which is what made it such a popular game among many). Again, these are not features Halo pioneered or innovated, saying it did is incorrect and ignores every other FPS game that preceded it.
As for Gears of War, it is distinctly true that Gears of War borrows from Halo, such as the regenerating health but the restricted weapons and taking cover mechanic go back much further than Halo. Additionally, Gears of War is probably the best looking action game right now on either PC or console platforms (That will change though, but still the point stands), whereas Halo looked nice, but not spectacular upon release having spent too long in development constantly switching platforms.
*Edit: I do apologise, I should also have also mentioned Half-life in there as well, which probably had one of the most dramatic effects of any game since Quake on the way FPS games are made.
<!--QuoteBegin-'Quanaut'+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE('Quanaut')</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Going from having no control over the way the grenade is thrown to near complete control and calling it merely a refinement sounds ludicrous to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except there are other examples where you did have control, in other mods in quake and in Starseige Tribes.
And yes, it's not innovative if someone has done it before. QED.
Every post I have given that Halo had brilliantly thought out controls <i>for a console game</i>, which proved firmly even to people who didn't like Goldeneyes controls that you can make a successful FPS game on a console. This is what Halo primarily achieved.
Whether a mechanic is old or not does not take away from the fact it's still a good feature. Don't you agree? :3
you could easily just claim that Halo is like WoW; it takes things that have gone before and does them again but refines them a bit. They're not realliy different, just a bit more polished.
As for weapon switching I think it's a good thing regardless of platform; I hate it when games let you walk about with every single weapon in the game. no strategy to it :p
they have consistently proven themselves to be an <b>composition of successful and logical gaming trends</b> very skillfully combined into a single game and matched with a somewhat original and very accessible plot. this translates to stellar sales among the major gaming demographic.
because of its successes, it's become the new indie (let's face it, it's not even indie anymore, it's more akin to GW bush hating, which is going on for closer to a decade now) to bash Halo and its admitted faults, and apparent not-first-ness. seems like these pseudointellectual types are predisposed to hating a game that "simple people" like.
well here's some news for you: it plays smoothly, gives players the ease of use and functionality they want, and caters to the needs and desires of the modern gaming market, every time. i guarantee you that Halo 3 will come with some personal "innovations" that other games have done first, but these games WERE NOT attached to the same fluid, clear, and intuitive system that the Bungie team has developed. probably why most of them didn't end up selling an assload of copies in the same way.
what happened to all these other super halo killer console shooters? killzone specifically comes to mind. the controls were clunky, the perspective was confined and grainy, and killing things (in a game called killzone!) was neither fulfilling nor challenging. aim, hold trigger. move on.
tl;dr? i'll ask you a question instead. what happens to games that are ALL innovation and zero substance?
Bah grenades (although it's one of the few games, aside from DoD (original), where grenades have been very useful), regenerating health (I did like the shield and then health below it), drivable vehicles (fairly rare, but not unheard of), cool weapon (woot, fireworks cannon (ie Needler!)), fun levels (when they're outside, anyway) - Silent Cartographer is still one of those really fun levels, and realistic-enough graphics (not photo realistic, but not the blockiness you'd get in many other games around the same time period...although Max Payne did faces decently...even if they were constipated faces).
Halo 2, with its weakened grenades; over-abundant, yet non-respawning swords; super high, super slow jumping; talking plants; alien/human 'truce'; bosses (I thought we were past the nintendo phase); useless, over-used "noob combo"; removal of Hang 'Em High but still readding Wizard; crap ending; ....must I go on?
Sure it's all still moderately fun to play, but it's no Halo. Hopefully the end of the triology harkens back to the beginning of the trilogy with its gameplay.
sorry aegeri but if you take a look at what you quoted I don't think I've said anywhere that Halo made these mechanics up by itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not you specifically, but certain others have.
I also entirely disagree with you that it did anything special beyond making an average FPS that was playable on a console.
That's pretty much it, though it does understate the significance of how well thought out the controls halo used were.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, just so you know but rainbow six never had regenning health before, vegas is the first incarnation to have this feature.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not the point, the point is it does everything else you were misattributing to Halo and 3 years before Halo ever came out.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Whether a mechanic is old or not does not take away from the fact it's still a good feature. Don't you agree? :3<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't make it new either by pretending other games don't exist. My entire point.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you could easily just claim that Halo is like WoW; it takes things that have gone before and does them again but refines them a bit. They're not realliy different, just a bit more polished.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree.
Five words: Copy and pasted indoor Levels.
Again, Unreal did a lot better for an example with both outdoor AND indoor level design. For the time it came out Unreal had spectacular graphics, it had a large and diverse arsenal of weapons all with strengths and weaknesses. It had terrifically designed indoor levels, it had brilliantly designed outdoor levels, solid AI and was a nice long game, but this did end up being an achilles heel as it was just too long really and dragged itself out needlessly. It also had some very wonky multiplayer netcode out of the box that really did it a lot of damage.
Halo managed to make a brilliant console FPS scheme, with good multiplayer modes and beyond that, nothing more.
How anyone can say Halo is 'polished' and not manage to fall over laughing at the mere thought of the horrific copy and pasted indoor levels like the library, the covenant starship level and the maze like tunnels in the ice level (that admittingly, connected some really nice snowy outdoor levels...then back to the copy and paste) is truly beyond me. Then making you run back through the same set of previous levels again to needlessly extend the games playtime is.... polish? I do not call copy and pasting entire levels together 'polish' and neither do I call needlessly overextending the game using a cheap mechanic 'polish'.
Does Halo have brilliantly thought out and well polished controls? Absolutely.
But let's not overextend ourselves here. Halo is an average FPS that met success by proving very firmly you can make a control scheme for an FPS work on a console (and very conclusively). If you look at console FPS games that have come out since Halo they have all (at least what I've played) universally copied the control scheme of Halo. Why? Because that was the single biggest contribution to console FPS games the game made, its well thought out and highly playable control scheme. It arguably bought FPS games to the wider console market and to a lot of people who probably never really played FPS games much before. The multiplayer options that Halo had, particularly the co-op, were the best decision Bungie could have made to make the game a mainstream mass market title.
You are seriously overstating the game in every other manner however. It's got a non-existant story as told IN game, just like how Gears of War manages to forget it has a story somewhere, probably that games biggest flaw as well. It has terrible level design for the indoor areas, I mean going back to shockingly bad PC FPS games like Dr. Radiaki, Halos indoor levels make Dr. Radiakis level design look like genius in comparison. The arsenal was neither unique, interesting or novel in any respect, though it was generally well thought out. Having played through the game, had I not been playing co-op, I would have got bored of doing pretty much what I had done in every FPS game before and often better.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for weapon switching I think it's a good thing regardless of platform; I hate it when games let you walk about with every single weapon in the game. no strategy to it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree again entirely with this. Unreal Tournament (and 2003/2004) are heavily dictated by using the right weapon in exactly the right situation, because they all have strengths and weaknesses. Every weapon fits into a niche (though some much better than others) and using the right weapon, in the right situation to counter the weapon that your opponent is using is utterly key.
I actually liked Halo's two guns only restriction. If anything just because I was tired of having to lug around fifteen different weapons when I only really ever used 2 (your big gun, and your normal gun). The problem I had with Halo's weapons was that like in so many other FPSs the pistol was a far better gun than the assault rifle (at least it was IMO). Honestly, if there was more pistol ammo available I wouldn't have even needed a second weapon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...No, no, that's not just your opinion. Everyone's always like "ZOMG, the pistol in Halo was awesome!" ...because it was. In multiplayer it was the end-all, be-all. You either had a sniper rifle, a rocket launcher or a pistol...or a "You will Respawn in ## Seconds" screen. More rounds than the sniper rifle? Check. Scope? Check. Ability to kill people in 3 hits? Check. Worse than the battle rifle/plasma pistol in Halo 2. I just ended up avoiding it because it was so over powered; coversely the assault rifle is about 30x more fun to shoot than the SMG or BR in Halo 2...they really captured the Starship troopers "pour as much lead into it as you can" aspect of it. So much fun to play co-op with assault rifles on legendary, tag-teaming elites without using plasma weapons.
I think the reason Halo had such success was the co-op. Now, co-op wasn't innovative by any means, but it was the first time you had (for the time) high-quality PC graphics, fairly decent AI (pretty good cover, grenade use, flanking and they used ghosts if you got out of one in front of them), vehicles and shared roles (one teammate in the back, one in the driver seat or some other combination - I miss the first-person passenger view...). The single player experience (although there is a decent story spread out paper-thin in there) is lackluster by yourself.
The 'interactivity' was also fun; try shooting some of the people on the bridge on the first level, right after you get your pistol; or try blowing away some marines (eventually they'll start fighting back, and it's pretty fun if you can go against a bunch of them - try to get 4+ to survive on SC). The player-freedom was very nice. They didn't intentionally clip off parts of the level or force you to do one specific thing. You could climb up the giant spire in the Control Room, you could bypass getting locked out of SC, you could do flips with the jeep to get to the bottom of Halo, you could just go ape and start killing all the marines instead of rescueing them, you could continuously bash the second player in the back of the head after you spawn on Halo, really annoying them, you could play with the hunters, trapping them between behind warthogs in some kind of alien zoo (playing with the hunters is probably one of the most fun aspects of co-op)...
I guess it's not so much what Halo did do, as what it didn't do...and it didn't limit the player. Something I was disappointed to see in Halo 2 (although there are occasional places you could get around it, like the first level on earth)...
Also, all the things I'm miscontributing to Halo? I said health regen. All I said was that I liked the two weapon system and you might have misunderstood why I listed vegas and GoW there but I guess that's my own fault for not being clear; I was using them both as examples of top title games that use this mechanic.
It does not mean I think they 'stole' it from Halo but a demonstration of the fact that two very very popular titles use this mechanic... while I don't think the mechanic alone is the point of their success I doubt it hurt any :3
Um... as for UT2k3/4 I'm afraid I used to run around the DM servers dominating with 2 weapons max. Once you get a handle for them and develop your own style you'll quickly find you only really need about 2 weapons and the rest can be considered fluff.
Also, outside of running out of ammo for everything else I'm at a loss to why the rifle would be considered strategic or balanced with the rest.
The shield gun I only really used as a parachute when jumping from great heights (like bailing from a Raptor before an avril hit it).
Say what you want but I've never played an FPS with a multi-weapon selection system where I've thought "waii! it's so much fun that I get to lug about every single frigging weapon I could possibly find in the game".
It's not very realistic, it adds more complexity to the controls unnecessarily (more buttons = more complexity) and it takes out what little decision there is in FPS games (do I take the shotgun for this bit where the enemies get close but risk losing the sniper rifle til' I find a new one?).
As I said before, Most things come down to taste but for a control system it's a very refined piece of kit (on PC or console... I've played it on both :p )
more copy/paste level design yay!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey man don't joke about that. It's a lot more work than copy and paste. They have to turn it around too. This time you start at the OTHER end!
Five words: Copy and pasted indoor Levels.
Again, Unreal did a lot better for an example with both outdoor AND indoor level design. For the time it came out Unreal had spectacular graphics, it had a large and diverse arsenal of weapons all with strengths and weaknesses. It had terrifically designed indoor levels, it had brilliantly designed outdoor levels, solid AI and was a nice long game, but this did end up being an achilles heel as it was just too long really and dragged itself out needlessly. It also had some very wonky multiplayer netcode out of the box that really did it a lot of damage.
Halo managed to make a brilliant console FPS scheme, with good multiplayer modes and beyond that, nothing more.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with some of the indoor levels. They were only tolerable because of the AWESOME ENEMY AI.
Jup, they really nailed it. It's so much fun playing The Silent Cartographer, especially the beach landing, because it's really neat how the enemies spice it up after each battle. One tactic that worked the first time would definitely not work the second time. The AI shines through everywhere, and it's extremely interesting just to watch the marines duke it out with the aliens.
exactly, gem... i don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping the <i>nature</i> of Halo games. people have to understand, PLEASE understand, <b>they're not meant to lead the gamer world with shiny new concepts and previously unknown realms of gaming. wake the hell up! you're flaming something that's not there!</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're "flaming" something that's there. Halo fanboys are seen toting this and use this to trash every other FPS in existance by proclaiming "b3stest evar" just because of their limited experience. <b>Just</b> like the mediocre-at-best Oblivion.
As Aegeri said, Halo was a good refined shooter, but attributing it's genius to bungie or the game itself is just to ignore the longstanding legacy FPS games have.
"Halo is best evr shooter cuz it has nades and warthogs!!"
and
"Halo did nothing and achieved nothing, and deserves nothing."
the comfortable middleground is found by accepting that Halo did not revolutionize the FPS genre, but it did boast many remarkable features that were well-integrated: something many FPS games overlook. intuitive, efficient gameplay. the inconsistent level design (ranging from breathtaking and immersive to nauseating and identical) is its most glaring fault, and the outrageous cliffhanger plot of the 2nd game is close behind. the system itself is excellent, and the third installation needs to take that and... friggin.... do the right thing. god damn it.
We're "flaming" something that's there. Halo fanboys are seen toting this and use this to trash every other FPS in existance by proclaiming "b3stest evar" just because of their limited experience. <b>Just</b> like the mediocre-at-best Oblivion.
As Aegeri said, Halo was a good refined shooter, but attributing it's genius to bungie or the game itself is just to ignore the longstanding legacy FPS games have.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do not attribute ones opinion to a limited play experience. I've played dozens upon dozens of RPGs in every flavor I can think of- D&D, Self-Made system, open-ended, MMO, linear story progression, japanese linear story progression, tactical, action, blahdeeblahdeeblah. I've played almost all of the 'greats'(damn you Fallout for never being on my mind when I've got extra cash), and I still think Oblivion is one of the greatest games- let alone rpgs- ever made. I've played dozens of shooters, and Halo reeked of polish and well-thought-out battle strategizing(in #1. In #2...not so much. But they DID lose the copy and paste levels...).