What if there never was a Halo game?

I myself, am playing Halo on Xbox Live, and was wondering recently,"what if there was never a Halo"? Would this have changed the gaming industry or would it just have been another thing that wouldn't have made a difference at all?

What does the Gamespot community think?

PS: This is my first post, sorry.X]

Some other random console FPS would have reached a similar level of popularity and the genre would have been affected as much by a sudden surge of console players. The newbification of the genre was inevitable, unfortunately.

Some other random console FPS would have reached a similar level of popularity and the genre would have been affected as much by a sudden surge of console players. The newbification of the genre was inevitable, unfortunately.

ReddestSkies

I like to think that's not true, that without Halo, there might have been more higher-quality shooters rather than games that try to be Halo, even though it wasn't THAT great. Well, I never actually played the first one, which I hear is much better, so I can't really say anything about that one, but IMO 2 was mediocre and 3 was a bit worse than mediocre, but not completely awful. Still, maybe if a better series got that much acclaim, the imitation shooters would at least be decent.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Some other random console FPS would have reached a similar level of popularity and the genre would have been affected as much by a sudden surge of console players. The newbification of the genre was inevitable, unfortunately.

AlternatingCaps

I like to think that's not true, that without Halo, there might have been more higher-quality shooters rather than games that try to be Halo, even though it wasn't THAT great. Well, I never actually played the first one, which I hear is much better, so I can't really say anything about that one, but IMO 2 was mediocre and 3 was a bit worse than mediocre, but not completely awful. Still, maybe if a better series got that much acclaim, the imitation shooters would at least be decent.

Nah. Vehicle spam, huge amounts of spraying, slow gameplay, horizontal maps, lack of control options, limited movement and overall gameplay shallowness is what fits the console FPS genre best. That's what the audience wants (oh, and they also want pretty graphics and huuuuuuge amounts of hype). That's why Gears of War is so popular. There are reasons why Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, No One Lives Forever, Half-Life, etc. were mostly ignored by console gamers. Nah, if it hadn't been Halo, there would have been something else that would have created a similar effect.

[QUOTE="AlternatingCaps"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Some other random console FPS would have reached a similar level of popularity and the genre would have been affected as much by a sudden surge of console players. The newbification of the genre was inevitable, unfortunately.

ReddestSkies

I like to think that's not true, that without Halo, there might have been more higher-quality shooters rather than games that try to be Halo, even though it wasn't THAT great. Well, I never actually played the first one, which I hear is much better, so I can't really say anything about that one, but IMO 2 was mediocre and 3 was a bit worse than mediocre, but not completely awful. Still, maybe if a better series got that much acclaim, the imitation shooters would at least be decent.

Nah. Vehicle spam, huge amounts of spraying, slow gameplay, horizontal maps, lack of control options, limited movement and overall gameplay shallowness is what fits the console FPS genre best. That's what the audience wants (oh, and they also want pretty graphics and huuuuuuge amounts of hype). That's why Gears of War is so popular. There are reasons why Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, No One Lives Forever, Half-Life, etc. were mostly ignored by console gamers. Nah, if it hadn't been Halo, there would have been something else that would have created a similar effect.

Dude. If you're talking about Halo, you can't throw GOW in there, it has NOTHING to do with FPS games, it's a TPS. Although I see your point regardless.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="AlternatingCaps"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Some other random console FPS would have reached a similar level of popularity and the genre would have been affected as much by a sudden surge of console players. The newbification of the genre was inevitable, unfortunately.

aryoshi

I like to think that's not true, that without Halo, there might have been more higher-quality shooters rather than games that try to be Halo, even though it wasn't THAT great. Well, I never actually played the first one, which I hear is much better, so I can't really say anything about that one, but IMO 2 was mediocre and 3 was a bit worse than mediocre, but not completely awful. Still, maybe if a better series got that much acclaim, the imitation shooters would at least be decent.

Nah. Vehicle spam, huge amounts of spraying, slow gameplay, horizontal maps, lack of control options, limited movement and overall gameplay shallowness is what fits the console FPS genre best. That's what the audience wants (oh, and they also want pretty graphics and huuuuuuge amounts of hype). That's why Gears of War is so popular. There are reasons why Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, No One Lives Forever, Half-Life, etc. were mostly ignored by console gamers. Nah, if it hadn't been Halo, there would have been something else that would have created a similar effect.

Dude. If you're talking about Halo, you can't throw GOW in there, it has NOTHING to do with FPS games, it's a TPS. Although I see your point regardless.

Halo and Gears of War share a lot of gameplay elements. Sure, Halo has vehicle spam, Gears of War has automatic cover, so they're not exactly the same, but they follow the same design patterns. They're both built around providing the easiest, most accessible shooter experience possible for people using a gamepad.

Don't you realize what you have done? You have just invited all the haters to come in here and imagine a world where all FPS games played like Unreal Tournament still, nevermind that they totally ignored the last one. Please, next time realize what kind of people lurk in the depths of these forums just waiting to jump out and hate on stuff that is popular.

To be honest though, I think the video game world would be very different. Here, let's look at Call of Duty 4 in an parallel dimension in which Halo never existed-

It would be PC only. You would be able to carry 2 main weapons at a time along with a pistol, and grenades would be a selectable weapon instead of being tied to a button. Health wouldn't come back over time, and all headshots would be instant kills. The recoil would be greater and the accuracy lower, and the maps would be designed with more players in mind.

The world would be a much happier place.Fredrick2003x

Halo games seem to bring lots of joy to many people so you are a liar good sir.

Nah. Vehicle spam, huge amounts of spraying, slow gameplay, horizontal maps, lack of control options, limited movement and overall gameplay shallowness is what fits the console FPS genre best. That's what the audience wants (oh, and they also want pretty graphics and huuuuuuge amounts of hype). That's why Gears of War is so popular. There are reasons why Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, No One Lives Forever, Half-Life, etc. were mostly ignored by console gamers. Nah, if it hadn't been Halo, there would have been something else that would have created a similar effect.

ReddestSkies

Youre wrong, the reason these games were ignored by console players is because these games were crappy ports of the PC version and to top things off played like crap on the consoles.

Im all for the Halo has about as much depth as a toothpick argument. As well as Halo 2 and 3 are pretty much just a PvP MMOFPS. But Halo:CE was something special, it was unique and it was the type of kick in the pants that the console FPS genre needed. Before Halo:CE the only FPS game that didnt play like crap on a console was Goldeneye..........and possibly Perfect Dark. Halo:CE showed us just how a FPS should feel on the console, this game did to console FPS games, what the keyboard + mouse did for PC FPS games. The effect it had on the gaming industry was never about the mindless violence, it was about gameplay mechanics. It showed us, and more importantly other gaming companies how a FPS game should play with a dual analog controller with a limited number of buttons.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Nah. Vehicle spam, huge amounts of spraying, slow gameplay, horizontal maps, lack of control options, limited movement and overall gameplay shallowness is what fits the console FPS genre best. That's what the audience wants (oh, and they also want pretty graphics and huuuuuuge amounts of hype). That's why Gears of War is so popular. There are reasons why Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, No One Lives Forever, Half-Life, etc. were mostly ignored by console gamers. Nah, if it hadn't been Halo, there would have been something else that would have created a similar effect.

EvilAshTwin

Youre wrong, the reason these games were ignored by console players is because these games were crappy ports of the PC version and to top things off played like crap on the consoles.

do you really think so ?

i think not because in the end you said the same thing with " It showed us, and more importantly other gaming companies how a FPS game should play with a dual analog controller with a limited number of buttons."

no matter how great your port is you cant play those fast games on your slow controllers. you cant win against someone uses keyboard+mouse no matter how lucky you are unless he is someone bad at fps games.

halo just made fps genre slower so console gamers can enjoy it too.

i didnt play halo online much, but single player was just bad and unoriginal... i played halo 2 and i was really amazed that they made the second game worse than the first... i dont want to think about 3rd game...

if there never was a halo, then m$ wouldnt come to place where they are standing now. maybe they wouldnt even think 360...

Health regeneration whouldn´t be so famous....which is 50/50 good and bad

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Nah. Vehicle spam, huge amounts of spraying, slow gameplay, horizontal maps, lack of control options, limited movement and overall gameplay shallowness is what fits the console FPS genre best. That's what the audience wants (oh, and they also want pretty graphics and huuuuuuge amounts of hype). That's why Gears of War is so popular. There are reasons why Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, No One Lives Forever, Half-Life, etc. were mostly ignored by console gamers. Nah, if it hadn't been Halo, there would have been something else that would have created a similar effect.

EvilAshTwin

Youre wrong, the reason these games were ignored by console players is because these games were crappy ports of the PC version and to top things off played like crap on the consoles.

Oh, really?

Here's what Gamespot had to say about Half-Life (PS2), Unreal Tournament (DC), Quake 3 Arena (DC) and No One Lives Forever (PS2).

Nothing but praise for Half-Life, UT and Q3.

"It's impossible to argue against Half-Life's place among the most influential games of all time, and its transition to the PlayStation 2 is a successful one."

"[Unreal Tournament] is an immensely fun game that sets new standards for console ports of PC first-person shooters and will have you coming back many months down the line"

"Quake III Arena for the Dreamcast, along with Unreal Tournament for the PlayStation 2, marks one of the few times that a PC first-person shooter has moved over to a console system without sacrificing much of its playability or options - something that hasn't really happened since Wolfenstein 3D came out on the Atari Jaguar. All things considered, Quake III Arena is a must-have for Dreamcast owners - provided that they also purchase a mouse and keyboard."

Ok, nobody on consoles is hardcore enough to actually buy non-default contollers, so that Quake 3 review might not be a great example. No One Lives Forever scored low, but it's because it's one of Gamespot's cIassic "Too hard! 4.0" reviews. Basically, the port was just fine, but made the reviewer cry because it didn't feature quicksaving.

So all those ports were just fine. Then, you have to consider that a huge portion of Halo's fanbase is made of people who never played that kind of game on a PC in the first place, so them being released a year later than their original versions shouldn't have hurt their popularity. Why were they mostly ignored by console gamers, then? Because they aren't shallow enough. They aren't newb-friendly enough, they're too fast and they're too "hard". Halo saved the Xbox with its slow gameplay and vehicle spam, while UT and Q3 couldn't keep the Dreamcast from dying with their deep, skill-based Deathmatch and CTF (even if, unlike Halo, they did have online play).

Goldeneye had already planted the seed that FPS wouldn't just work on a console, it could work with stellar results and spectacular sales from a starved audience.

It would have happened regardless, but with Halo the bar got raised really high, really fast.

I myself, am playing Halo on Xbox Live, and was wondering recently,"what if there was never a Halo"? Would this have changed the gaming industry or would it just have been another thing that wouldn't have made a difference at all?

What does the Gamespot community think?

PS: This is my first post, sorry.X]

DarKLink26

if that didn't happen, then just maybe, we wouldn't be stuck in this god awful FPS fad

First of all, I think the xbox might have been a total disaster without it. Halo pretty much launched the console, and it launched xbox live. Sure, xbox live was there some time before halo 2, but almost nobody played it. After that, halo 2 was pretty much the only game being played for a year.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if fps would've been different for a long time. The gameplay in halo ce was really different from other fps, focusing more on melee, grenades, vehicles, and making sure you got to cover in the right time, and less about aiming. Last generation fps just slowly turned into halo lookalikes really. Gameplay that's completely dependent on aiming just doesn't work well on consoles, and to be honest I don't think it's all that much fun.

By the way, I just read the halo review from 2001 again, just because I never read it once, and it's amazing to see they talk about the 2 weapon limitation as something really fresh. Before halo you could always carry something like 10 weapons around, and people thought limiting that would make the game less fun. Then halo comes, and people notice carrying two weapons adds strategy to shooters, and can we nowadays even imagine carrying 10 guns around in shooters anymore? I just wanted to add that to the list.

The Xbox might not have survived, but other than that, gaming today wouldn't be much different. gbpman630

[QUOTE="gbpman630"]The Xbox might not have survived, but other than that, gaming today wouldn't be much different. gunswordfist

I don't think it brought a lot of new ground-breaking stuff to the table. It just perfected a lot of the things that had been done before and showed one way that you could make a great FPS.

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]The Xbox might not have survived, but other than that, gaming today wouldn't be much different. gbpman630

I don't think it brought a lot of new ground-breaking stuff to the table. It just perfected a lot of the things that had been done before and showed one way that you could make a great FPS.

If there was no HALO then the XBOX and the 360 would have got nowhere.
HALO is why people buy XBOXs! But I own the XBOX and PS3 and i like PS3!

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"][QUOTE="gbpman630"]The Xbox might not have survived, but other than that, gaming today wouldn't be much different. gbpman630

I don't think it brought a lot of new ground-breaking stuff to the table. It just perfected a lot of the things that had been done before and showed one way that you could make a great FPS.