Halo-OMG what a game!

[gaggle64]

Halo is one of the great masterpieces of our age and will go down in future history as the game that will define gaming itself in the early 21st century. And I'm sticking to my guns on that one.

 

Halo 2? Fantastic multi player, but the campaign wasn't so hot. I'm sticking by that one too.

[Saminthehat]

The Halo 3 Beta leaked video looked awesome. I wonder what that orb in place of the sword does...

[Guest Jordan]

The Halo 3 Beta leaked video looked awesome. I wonder what that orb in place of the sword does...

 

Set the entire map on fire.

YES.

 

It kinda looked like the main weapon from Tron 2.0. The ball attachment for like a million different gun types. Obviously its not that though. Maybe its just a new super weapon?

[Saminthehat]

I like the sound of that

I thought it looked like the ball out of the active camo.

[flameboy]

Well completed Halo 2 today and hated the ending remember a lot of people saying they hated it. Prefer the 1st game for Single Player on the 1st game as well plus found it lasted longer, although the lengthening broadening of the story was all good in my part, the arbiter was ok at first I liked the missions but then felt they got in the way of the story a bit...

 

My list of completed games this year (below Sig is coming along nicely)

[Saminthehat]

I've been playing some of the later Arbiter levels on normal and I just realised how much fun they are. The difficulty setting is perfect. Those levels are great for training.

[Kurtle Squad]

everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, and everything that exists, past, present and future in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions.

 

As for other games that are similar and shit all over Excite Truck; Motorstorm, Excitebike 64, Burnout (all of them) Crazy Taxi. Excite Truck is not really a good game. There isn't much to it.

Sounds like you may aswell kill yourself then.

 

 

Burnout and Crazy Taxi are nothing like Excite Truck; that's like saying they're the same as F-Zero.

 

There's nothing to Excite Truck...That's complete crap. I say that even thoguh it does lack a certain depth and I am bored of it at the moment, but it's lasted many more hours than a lot of other games.

[c0Zm1c]

Halo is one of the great masterpieces of our age and will go down in future history as the game that will define gaming itself in the early 21st century. And I'm sticking to my guns on that one.

The thing is, if Microsoft hadn't have bought up Bungie, I reckon Halo would have ended up an obscure title that hardly anyone remembers. The heightened marketing Microsoft has provided for the franchise, than it otherwise would have had, has done more for its status than the game alone would ever have achieved. It is a good game though, and has been influential (particularly to other console developers), but I don't quite consider it a 'masterpiece' myself.

[gaggle64]

Of course, what if Bungie had carried their original conception through to the end and made Halo the RTS it was originally designed to be? Now there's a scary thought.

[Aimless]

The thing is, if Microsoft hadn't have bought up Bungie, I reckon Halo would have ended up an obscure title that hardly anyone remembers. The heightened marketing Microsoft has provided for the franchise, than it otherwise would have had, has done more for its status than the game alone would ever have achieved. It is a good game though, and has been influential (particularly to other console developers), but I don't quite consider it a 'masterpiece' myself.

From what I remember there was basically no hype around Halo before it reached the review stage. In fact I heard about it from early adopters of the Xbox, not Microsoft.

 

Yes, Halo 2 did get a huge PR push behind it, but the original sold itself by good reviews and word-of-mouth. And I think most people will agree that it was the best console FPS since Perfect Dark. Yes you can look back on it now and focus on what it didn't have — just like GoldenEye and the aforementioned PD — but Halo is now a good 5 years old, and at the time it was revolutionary. The fact that it is still played and enjoyed to this day is testament to just how solid and cohesive an experience if offers, and it is one that that has left most developers still playing catch up.

 

Tactile twin-analogue controls, melee attacks, sensible checkpoints, full-campaign co-op, decent AI, vehicles that weren't constrained to disjointed on-rails segments, a recharging health bar, a two-weapon limit that meant earlier weapons didn't become redundant, and grenades that were but a button press away. Other console FPS games may have tried their hands at these things before, but Halo took all these features and tied them up in one genre-defining package.

 

It is the Mario 64 of console first-person-shooters, and if that doesn't qualify as a masterpiece I don't know what does.

[Mr. Bananagrabber]

From what I remember there was basically no hype around Halo before it reached the review stage. In fact I heard about it from early adopters of the Xbox, not Microsoft.

 

Yes, Halo 2 did get a huge PR push behind it, but the original sold itself by good reviews and word-of-mouth. And I think most people will agree that it was the best console FPS since Perfect Dark. Yes you can look back on it now and focus on what it didn't have — just like GoldenEye and the aforementioned PD — but Halo is now a good 5 years old, and at the time it was revolutionary. The fact that it is still played and enjoyed to this day is testament to just how solid and cohesive an experience if offers, and it is one that that has left most developers still playing catch up.

 

Tactile twin-analogue controls, melee attacks, sensible checkpoints, full-campaign co-op, decent AI, vehicles that weren't constrained to disjointed on-rails segments, a recharging health bar, a two-weapon limit that meant earlier weapons didn't become redundant, and grenades that were but a button press away. Other console FPS games may have tried their hands at these things before, but Halo took all these features and tied them up in one genre-defining package.

 

It is the Mario 64 of console first-person-shooters, and if that doesn't qualify as a masterpiece I don't know what does.

 

It was alright like.

[Aimless]

It was alright like.

It was pretty good, yeah.

[c0Zm1c]

Of course, what if Bungie had carried their original conception through to the end and made Halo the RTS it was originally designed to be? Now there's a scary thought.

It went from a RTS to something closely resembling the Halo you know and love before Microsoft got their hands on it (look for Halo footage from E3 2000). Much of the 17 or so months between Bungie's buyout and the game's release was spent adding the single-player campaign.

 

Aimless, I did say Halo has been 'influential'. But, even if it is a 'genre-defining package', I just "don't quite consider it a 'masterpiece' myself". And by that I mean how enjoyable that package was, rather than what features it might comprise of.

[Aimless]

Aimless, I did say Halo has been 'influential'. But, even if it is a 'genre-defining package', I just "don't quite consider it a 'masterpiece' myself". And by that I mean how enjoyable that package was, rather than what features it might comprise of.

Fair enough, but 'masterpiece' is more a technical term denoting exceptional craftsmanship or artistry — the Sistine Chapel's ceiling would still be a masterpiece if I disliked it. But I'm not trying to beat you over the head with a dictionary; I was more using your comment as a springboard for my opinion on the game rather than trying to counter yours.

[Fierce_LiNk]

a two-weapon limit that meant earlier weapons didn't become redundant

 

What do you mean by that, I don't quite follow.

 

Hmm, to me, Halo just didn't seem to strike a chord with me at all. It felt like they did try to do a lot, but in the end the game suffered. It seemed very repetitive, a bit too much so for my liking.

[Blackfox]

Ok, some things need clearing up.

 

Halo CE Campaign - awesome.

Halo 2 campaign - not so hot.

Halo 2 Multiplayer w/ XBOX Live - very awesome.

ZeldaFreak's opinions - null and void.

 

If you disagree then be thankful you live in a democracy!

[Guest Jordan]

What do you mean by that, I don't quite follow.

 

Hmm, to me, Halo just didn't seem to strike a chord with me at all. It felt like they did try to do a lot, but in the end the game suffered. It seemed very repetitive, a bit too much so for my liking.

 

Well for example the weapons are few, but incredibly balanced and they all have totally different reasons to using them.

[c0Zm1c]

'masterpiece' is more a technical term denoting exceptional craftsmanship or artistry

I know. In my opinion, Halo lacks the 'craftsmanship' of, for comparison's sake, Half-Life (the 1998 game, one I do consider a masterpiece).

 

It may not have the features (you listed) found in Halo, and in fact wasn't really that innovative at all, but its overall quality makes it a far more noteworthy game. Valve's craftsmanship is to thank for that, and is the reason I enjoyed the game immensely.

 

I don't think a comparison with the Sistine Chapel's ceiling quite works. On a technical level, a video game is open to more varied interpretations from its audience - which has, through interaction, a more personal connection with it making a degree of craftmanship impossible to set in stone.

[Saminthehat]

Hmmm some very good points.

I don't think a game needs to be a masterpiece to be fun though.

Half Life nailed it though.

[Guest Jordan]

Half-Life 2 is a much better game than both the Halo's. Sure, at its core its just a generic FPS but it had so much more that Halo didn't.

 

A propper storyline, amazing characters, jaw droppingly good graphics, amazing physics not to mention it was so much fun.

[Saminthehat]

I have to say I disagree with you partially. I think the Halo CE storyline is one of the best Sci-Fi plots in gaming alongside Half Life 1. Just like Halo 2 HL2's plot was too complicated.

[Aimless]

I know. In my opinion, Halo lacks the 'craftsmanship' of, for comparison's sake, Half-Life (the 1998 game, one I do consider a masterpiece).

 

It may not have the features (you listed) found in Halo, and in fact wasn't really that innovative at all, but its overall quality makes it a far more noteworthy game. Valve's craftsmanship is to thank for that, and is the reason I enjoyed the game immensely.

I think Half-Life (and its sequel) are fantastic first-person games, but they are very different to Bungie's title. Halo has its fair share of narrow spaces, but it also brought in a mix of illusory and actual freedom.

 

By 'illusory freedom' I mean that there is a string of open areas and you're given vehicles to traverse them, so although you're still being pushed along a linear path it feels more open as you're given further choice upon how you proceed. Underneath that there is a lot of actual freedom, as the combat itself is a lot more freeform than most shooters. First-person shooters tended — as it's less so these days — to be about damage sponges, enemies that you just had to shoot and shoot and shoot until they fell over. Now, ostensibly Halo is exactly the same, and you can certainly play it that way, but there are a lot of nuances to the AI and the different enemies that you would miss:

• Hunters: The bipedal tanks of the Covenant, hunters will soak up a lot of your ammo. However, if you can aim between small gaps in their armour you can actually take them down with a single pistol shot, making out maneuvering them your best option.
   
  
• Elites: They have a similar recharging shield to the player character. Getting close when their shield is up will usually see you come off worse versus their melee attack. However, take their defence offline, preferably with Covenant energy weapons, and suddenly they're a lot more susceptible to headshots or pistol whipping.
   
  
• Grunts: Easily dispatched on their own, Grunts cluster together in groups. These are often headed by Elites. Take down their leader, or otherwise put the fear of the Demon into them, and they'll run away in a cowardly fashion, not only easing the fire on you but also making them vulnerable targets. Stick one with a grenade and chances are they'll run straight to their buddies, too.
   
  
• Jackals: The shield bearers. From a distance scoped weapons are your only real option for chipping away at their vulnerable appendages. In mid-range combat these enemies can be real annoyances, so you either have to get close enough to hit them or use explosives to usurp their shields.
   
  
• The Flood: In parasite form this enemy is little more than a health sapping annoyance, and is easily 'popped' by feathering the trigger on the assault rifle. When 'puffed' they are like mobile explosive barrels, enemies that are easily taken out with any weapon just so long as you don't let them get too close. However, when The Flood have taken over a host they become bounding bullet sponges that are best taken out with a shotgun at close range; be sure to shoot their heads so they don't get up again.
  

It's important to remember that the game's full title was Halo: Combat Evolved, and that is exactly what it was. Different enemies required different tactics, and the player's approach should be situational because of that, adapting to what they were facing, thinking about which guns they were carrying, and factoring in opportunities to flank or otherwise catch Covenant unawares. The reason so many people sing the praises of playing on Legendary is that it forces you to take this approach to the game and not stick with the starting weapon all the time, to play the game as it was designed to be. And the reason people still play the game to this day is because the combat is still more satisfying and enjoyable than even the most recent of contenders.

 

By comparison, the original Half-Life wasn't really about the combat. What was there was very respectable, but the game was about immersing the player into the world of Black Mesa and escaping from it; puzzles, set pieces and atmosphere were the order of the day. (In the sequel I'd say combat and player ingenuity was brought more to the fore, mainly due to the fantastic gravity gun.)

 

Two very good games, but, despite the shared perspective and ostensible similarities, wholly different experiences.

 

I don't think a comparison with the Sistine Chapel's ceiling quite works. On a technical level, a video game is open to more varied interpretations from its audience - which has, through interaction, a more personal connection with it making a degree of craftmanship impossible to set in stone.

Perhaps, but what is it about Halo on a technical level that you dislike?

 

There are certainly things I dislike about it — namely the Flood being much less fun to fight than the vanilla Covenant — but I can say the same for Half-Life — Xen, I'm looking at you.

 

Anyway, I'm going to have a lie down. Phew.

[Guest Jordan]

Alot of good shit

 

Please, let me marry you...

[Aimless]

Please, let me marry you...

I'm afraid I'm already married. To gaming.

 

It's an abusive relationship, and it takes all my money, time, and friends. But, like any abused partner, I just keep crawling back.

 

In other words, we'd never work. I'm sorry.

[gaggle64]

I would certainly rate Halo as a masterpiece, quite simply because it does the two things that a masterpiece should do: It shows everyone else not only what to do next, it also shows them how it bloody well should be done. Very, very few works in any medium can claim to achieve this, but I believe Halo can. When Halo came into the world it didn't just make it's presence felt, it blasted whomping great holes in the FPS genre and then belted it over the head.

 

As for Half Life I'm actually quite disappointed given how little it appears to have influenced other games. In fact I'm fucking livid as I think the foundations that were laid first by Half Life, and then by it's sequel could and should form the basis for story telling in games across almost all genres. It's a work of perfect genius, finally devising a methodology of guiding the player down a linear path that doesn't feel at all linear, while incorporating complex story elements that are still now largely alien to video games ("Character" and "plot" and "not shooting everything the face", amongst others). Finally, a true "interactive movie".

 

I think Half Life's problem could very well be that it is still years ahead of it's time. I suspect, hope and prey that in future years gamers and game makers will look back on Half Life as a precious beacon, a holy oracle that foretold of the wonders to come but was was ultimately forced to wait until the slow passage of time finally proved it in the right.