Poll: Is Halo Overrated?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Why do people think Halo is so great? It came out at the right time. A new dark horse console was going to try and give the PS2 a run for its money, as the Dreamcast did before it and failed miserably. But, the Playstation brand had one crucial weakness-Lack of any good shooter. SOCOM was still a year off, and there were no franchises to carry over from the PS1, as it was shooterless, since the N64 attracted all the good FPS games (Perfect Dark, Golden Eye, Quake 2). So, Microsoft had something, a FPS, a good console FPS, which was very unheard of at the time, especially at a launch, as it was one of trhe first launch FPS's ever. Seeing they had a hit, Microsoft hyped and hyped it until it was known by every gamer.
To me, Halo is a great FPS, for a Console. It is not even in the same league as greats like Half-Life 2, CounterStrike, Far Cry, Battlefield 2, and FEAR. These are epic shooters, these are what really set the standard. Who wants to play a crummy 16 man deathmatch when you can play a 64 man conquest with tanks and planes and diverse weapons in Battlefield 2? Who wants to be shooting lasers at aliens when you can manipulate gravity in Half Life 2. The reason that Halo is so popular is that it's accessable! To truly play Halo, you need an Xbox, a controller, and a headset. To truly play FEAR, you need a 2.5 GHZ processor, a 6800ultra, 1GB of RAM, at least a 17in. moniter, a keyboard, a mouse, speakers, a sound card.....etc. etc. Normal people don't have that, that is why they settle for Halo, because even though it's inferior, at least it's accessable.
Compared to PC games, I'd give Halo a 7.0-Average.
Halo 1 is amazing and one of my favorite shooters(wouldn't say it's one of the best games ever though).
EDIT: And it's an amazing game by any standards, PC or console.
That's complete nonsense. Basically, you're saying everyone who thinks Halo is an amazing game is some dumb teenager who's never played any other shooter in his life before. I have played BF 2 and HL 2, and I can say with complete honesty that Halo 1 was far more fun than either of those games. Halo 1 did almost everything right(with the exception being level design). It also introduced a lot of great new, meaningful features that have almost become staples of the FPS genre like the recharging health, the melee system, the ability to throw grenades without switching to a seperate grenade weapon etc. Nowadays, almost every shooter seems to have those features. Halo is the closest thing that comes to a revolutionary shooter in recent times.
Why do people think Halo is so great? It came out at the right time. A new dark horse console was going to try and give the PS2 a run for its money, as the Dreamcast did before it and failed miserably. But, the Playstation brand had one crucial weakness-Lack of any good shooter. SOCOM was still a year off, and there were no franchises to carry over from the PS1, as it was shooterless, since the N64 attracted all the good FPS games (Perfect Dark, Golden Eye, Quake 2). So, Microsoft had something, a FPS, a good console FPS, which was very unheard of at the time, especially at a launch, as it was one of trhe first launch FPS's ever. Seeing they had a hit, Microsoft hyped and hyped it until it was known by every gamer.To me, Halo is a great FPS, for a Console. It is not even in the same league as greats like Half-Life 2, CounterStrike, Far Cry, Battlefield 2, and FEAR. These are epic shooters, these are what really set the standard. Who wants to play a crummy 16 man deathmatch when you can play a 64 man conquest with tanks and planes and diverse weapons in Battlefield 2? Who wants to be shooting lasers at aliens when you can manipulate gravity in Half Life 2. The reason that Halo is so popular is that it's accessable! To truly play Halo, you need an Xbox, a controller, and a headset. To truly play FEAR, you need a 2.5 GHZ processor, a 6800ultra, 1GB of RAM, at least a 17in. moniter, a keyboard, a mouse, speakers, a sound card.....etc. etc. Normal people don't have that, that is why they settle for Halo, because even though it's inferior, at least it's accessable.
Compared to PC games, I'd give Halo a 7.0-Average.
FunkWeasel
I have played BF 2 and HL 2, and I can say with complete honesty that Halo 1 was far more fun than either of those games._Memento_
Did you just say Halo is more fun than Half-Life 2? That amazes me.
Halo had crappy, underpowered weapons, repetitive, uninspired level design, boring, bland multiplayer, etc. .... and a pretty good story and soundtrack.
Half-Life 2 had a great story, fun weapons, immersive graphics and sound, original gameplay with perfect pacing and variety of things to do, very fun multiplayer component in Counter-Strike: Source, and on, and on...
I'm not sure for which criteria of 'greatness' Halo beats Half-Life 2 .
[QUOTE="_Memento_"]I have played BF 2 and HL 2, and I can say with complete honesty that Halo 1 was far more fun than either of those games.PCgamerX
Did you just say Halo is more fun than Half-Life 2? That amazes me.
Halo had crappy, underpowered weapons, repetitive, uninspired level design, boring, bland multiplayer, etc. .... and a pretty good story and soundtrack.
Half-Life 2 had a great story, fun weapons, immersive graphics and sound, original gameplay with perfect pacing and variety of things to do, very fun multiplayer component in Counter-Strike: Source, and on, and on...
I'm not sure for which criteria of 'greatness' Halo beats Half-Life 2 .
It has much more X-Boxocity, which is rated about three percent higher than Half-Life 2, which tilts it into a far better game over all, I think you'd agree
[QUOTE="_Memento_"]I have played BF 2 and HL 2, and I can say with complete honesty that Halo 1 was far more fun than either of those games.PCgamerX
Did you just say Halo is more fun than Half-Life 2? That amazes me.
Halo had crappy, underpowered weapons, repetitive, uninspired level design, boring, bland multiplayer, etc. .... and a pretty good story and soundtrack.
Half-Life 2 had a great story, fun weapons, immersive graphics and sound, original gameplay with perfect pacing and variety of things to do, very fun multiplayer component in Counter-Strike: Source, and on, and on...
I'm not sure for which criteria of 'greatness' Halo beats Half-Life 2 .
I also found CE to be more fun than HL2. Especially the weapons in halo were all so much more fun to use than their counterparts in HL2 (with the exceptions of the the .357 which almost never had any ammo and the gravity gun which is pure awesomeness). I also think the level design is halo is quite good, it might be a bit repetitive at times, but the levels always look epic and they're much larger than the ones in HL2, and they really gently forces the player along a certain route while still giving him the impression he could take many other routes.
The multiplayer maps are really some of the best designed multiplayer maps I've ever played, not because they're well balanced but because they're simply fun to play. And as someone that played 1.6 and after that CSS for about 2 years I can honestly say that I think halo is more fun than CS online.
Oh well I really don't care, I know I love halo and that is in the end the only thing that really matters. Also remember I'm not trying to put down HL2, it's an amazing game, and probably much more "revolutionary" than halo, but when it comes to which game I really liked more, halo takes the crown.
Look, to guys whose last good FPS console experience was Goldeneye, Halo probably seemed revolutionary. But to those of us who had the chance to experience the most cutting edge FPS on the PC (Half-Life, Quake series, UT series), Halo was nothing more than a step up from Goldeneye. A great advance in console FPS to be sure, but nothing that could legitamitely compete against the best of what PC FPS have to offer. masterdeviance
I had played all those games to the death before I played halo (well, all except the UT series, I remember owning UT but I never really got into them before UT2004), but I still loved it. I guess I just don't really care if a game is "innovative" or something like that as long as it's fun to play, has a great story and just feels right.
in my opinion halo is way to over rated i see nothing sepcial about so i run around in uninspired levels and frag a bunch of aliens ... Far cry, FEAR, and Hl1 have more depth then Halo IMO just my 2 cents.:)PhoenixPrime
I agree with you to some extent, however i would like to point out that halo was using large scale outdoor environments in a shooter long before far-cry was. Halo was a great game, but for me it really wasn't mindblowing. i played it through, and i can still replay it to this day and have a good time, but there are many other games that i felt were just genuinely better. halo 2 was mostly hype, and a pretty fun multiplayer component. however, that multiplayer isn't new, it's just popular.
[QUOTE="PhoenixPrime"]in my opinion halo is way to over rated i see nothing sepcial about so i run around in uninspired levels and frag a bunch of aliens ... Far cry, FEAR, and Hl1 have more depth then Halo IMO just my 2 cents.:)am360
I agree with you to some extent, however i would like to point out that halo was using large scale outdoor environments in a shooter long before far-cry was. Halo was a great game, but for me it really wasn't mindblowing. i played it through, and i can still replay it to this day and have a good time, but there are many other games that i felt were just genuinely better. halo 2 was mostly hype, and a pretty fun multiplayer component. however, that multiplayer isn't new, it's just popular.
o and as for the Halo2 multiplayer Tribes1 and 2 will always b > Halo2 in my book any day
Tribes was a great MMO FPS for once you had to use stratige and team work other then run and gun sure the maps were huge up to 64 players if i recall. So riding around in tanks planes and other vehicals was something tribes brought to the table way b4 halo was around just my 2 cents again..
Halo when it came out was great. It was the only game you played with friends and at lan partys. It was pretty basic but the way the game moved and the easy interface controls and motions made it great and easy playing. Single-player was great and awsome in co-op. The game in my opinion is also still one of the best looking on x-box till halo 2 and farcry came out.
As for Halo-2 I was disapointed. I really don't care for dual wields since you can throw grenades nor switch quicky between weapons. But it still was fun to play.
Halo 3 thank god is bringing back my favorite weapon. The assualt rifle. I loved taking out shields then butting them with the gun. Great fun.
Fuseking
/agree
The original Halo was the game that replaced Goldeneye for console multiplayer in my opinion. I remember running lan cables out my apartment window to the apartment upstairs and next door. We practically had block parties in that apartment complex all playing Halo and inviting tons of people over. Mountains of beer cans, tons of people, not enough seats. Stacks of pizza boxes making bad seats. It was a complete blast.
I can't see see that happening with any other game. The lack of online was what created that scenario, and as soon as Halo went online with Halo 2 those get togethers died. Xbox Live "Connecting" people? Yeah, No.
[QUOTE="Fuseking"]Halo when it came out was great. It was the only game you played with friends and at lan partys. It was pretty basic but the way the game moved and the easy interface controls and motions made it great and easy playing. Single-player was great and awsome in co-op. The game in my opinion is also still one of the best looking on x-box till halo 2 and farcry came out.
As for Halo-2 I was disapointed. I really don't care for dual wields since you can throw grenades nor switch quicky between weapons. But it still was fun to play.
Halo 3 thank god is bringing back my favorite weapon. The assualt rifle. I loved taking out shields then butting them with the gun. Great fun.
Bgrngod
/agree
The original Halo was the game that replaced Goldeneye for console multiplayer in my opinion. I remember running lan cables out my apartment window to the apartment upstairs and next door. We practically had block parties in that apartment complex all playing Halo and inviting tons of people over. Mountains of beer cans, tons of people, not enough seats. Stacks of pizza boxes making bad seats. It was a complete blast.
I can't see see that happening with any other game. The lack of online was what created that scenario, and as soon as Halo went online with Halo 2 those get togethers died. Xbox Live "Connecting" people? Yeah, No.
Hey man...nice TV :)
Just got the same one (56") a couple months ago...
Halo 1 - decent console shooter; fun co-op; good multiplayer
Halo 2 - boring console shooter; decent co-op; good multiplayer
I'm not really sure how Halo became the megahit that it did. There were plenty of great first-person shooters before Halo, examples being Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark on the N64, so you can't say that Halo was the first great FPS on consoles. Halo also wasn't the first good FPS for the PS2/GC/XB/DC gen of consoles as Unreal Tournament for the PS2 holds that honor (Quake III: Arena for the Dreamcast was released one day after UT's release).
I'm guessing it has to do with the time at which the game was released and the media exposure it received.
And everyone I know has played those games. It's a whole lot more likely that those games brought gaming to the mainstream when you consider how many consoles for the PS2/PS1/N64 sold in comparison to the xbox. There is no way halo ever could have brought gaming to the mainstream, even though gaming was pretty much in the mainstream before then anyway. onemic
Well, comparing the sales numbers of systems doesn't really mean anything. That doesn't take into account all of the casual gamers who only owned 3-5 games like I talked about.
I just have two questions; how old are you, and what kind of people do you hang out with? From what I've seen, I'd assume you're in your 20's, and hang out with gamers. I could be completely dead wrong, but if this is true there would be no reason for the people you know to not have played OoT or FF VII.
I, on the other hand am in high school, and am therefore forced into contact with every idiotic, superficial clique you can imagine. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 5 people who have played either of those games, and even fewer who have played both. On the other hand, I could go up to any Jock, Emo kid, Punk, stoner, Goth, etc. and I'm certain that most, if not all, have played Halo. Hell, I could probably ask the cheerleaders and find people who have played it.
Maybe "brought into the mainstream" wasn't really what I was trying to say, but it still holds some credibility.
[QUOTE="onemic"]And everyone I know has played those games. It's a whole lot more likely that those games brought gaming to the mainstream when you consider how many consoles for the PS2/PS1/N64 sold in comparison to the xbox. There is no way halo ever could have brought gaming to the mainstream, even though gaming was pretty much in the mainstream before then anyway. Mediocre_man90
Well, comparing the sales numbers of systems doesn't really mean anything. That doesn't take into account all of the casual gamers who only owned 3-5 games like I talked about.
I just have two questions; how old are you, and what kind of people do you hang out with? From what I've seen, I'd assume you're in your 20's, and hang out with gamers. I could be completely dead wrong, but if this is true there would be no reason for the people you know to not have played OoT or FF VII.
I, on the other hand am in high school, and am therefore forced into contact with every idiotic, superficial clique you can imagine. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 5 people who have played either of those games, and even fewer who have played both. On the other hand, I could go up to any Jock, Emo kid, Punk, stoner, Goth, etc. and I'm certain that most, if not all, have played Halo. Hell, I could probably ask the cheerleaders and find people who have played it.
Maybe "brought into the mainstream" wasn't really what I was trying to say, but it still holds some credibility.
I'm actually 17, (just check out my profile) so I was there when FFVII came out when I was pretty much a casual gamer and when that game came out everyone that wasn't a hardcore gamer and even people who weren't really into RPG's wanted that game. Same went with zelda and 007. (probably even more so) I'm not saying that these games brought gaming into the mainstream, like I said before I believe that gaming was brought to the mainstream before then, but if anything these titles were more likely to bring gaming into the mainstream than halo.
And trust me almost none of my friends are hardcore gamers at all. All but one are either casual or just don't play games period.
I think that is overrated and I don't know what people find so much amazing on the game.
Far Cry is a lot better.
Most people who have posted in this thread seem to have forgotten that THIS IS THE PC SECTION!!!
Halo may have been good on a console but it has nothing on some truly awesome PC shooters. Halo was designed to be played with a joystick ie. fun on the ol' Xbox but on a PC with an accurate aiming device like an optical mouse, it's not so great.
I mean honestly, can you actually compare Halo or Halo 2 on the PC against games like F.E.A.R or Half-Life 2?
halo isn't a bad game. I think it is a really good FPS.
people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.monkeytoes61
I've seen some pretty reasonable arguments, considering it's only opinion, actually. They've said that there were very very few FPSes on consoles even remotely playable before then, and Halo was the first, but if you were to port it 'perfectly' to the PC, it would still be considered mediocre at best to most PCgamers who have been playing this genre for years and years, and have had their own ups and downs, some of the ups being some pretty fantastically amazing games.
people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.monkeytoes61
There's like a thousand reasons why it succeeds as a console shooter but is mediocre on the PC. To name a few off the top of my head:
Bad hitboxes. On consoles the hitboxes are larger because a joystick is not an effective targetting control and they didn't change them for the PC that much.
Lack of weapons. On console shooters, you have a few standard weapons, on PC shooters you tend to have more variatey.
Intricate level designs. Halo maps are pretty one dimensional. PC games like DoD, Half Life 2 and Battlefield have more complex designs which make the multiplayer maps more fun.
Interactive environments. The top games on the PC have environments you can interact with. The best halo has to offer is gravity lift thingys.
These are just some reasons why it just doesn't gut it with PC shooters.
[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.donwoogie
There's like a thousand reasons why it succeeds as a console shooter but is mediocre on the PC. To name a few off the top of my head:
Bad hitboxes. On consoles the hitboxes are larger because a joystick is not an effective targetting control and they didn't change them for the PC that much.
Lack of weapons. On console shooters, you have a few standard weapons, on PC shooters you tend to have more variatey.
Intricate level designs. Halo maps are pretty one dimensional. PC games like DoD, Half Life 2 and Battlefield have more complex designs which make the multiplayer maps more fun.
Interactive environments. The top games on the PC have environments you can interact with. The best halo has to offer is gravity lift thingys.
These are just some reasons why it just doesn't gut it with PC shooters.
What about story? Am I the only one that thinks a great story is what makes a game great? And about weapons, halo has all the standard weapons an FPS should have, what's lacking? And to call a PC game more complex because it has better aiming... Well, you get my point.
[QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.artur79
There's like a thousand reasons why it succeeds as a console shooter but is mediocre on the PC. To name a few off the top of my head:
Bad hitboxes. On consoles the hitboxes are larger because a joystick is not an effective targetting control and they didn't change them for the PC that much.
Lack of weapons. On console shooters, you have a few standard weapons, on PC shooters you tend to have more variatey.
Intricate level designs. Halo maps are pretty one dimensional. PC games like DoD, Half Life 2 and Battlefield have more complex designs which make the multiplayer maps more fun.
Interactive environments. The top games on the PC have environments you can interact with. The best halo has to offer is gravity lift thingys.
These are just some reasons why it just doesn't gut it with PC shooters.
What about story? Am I the only one that thinks a great story is what makes a game great? And about weapons, halo has all the standard weapons an FPS should have, what's lacking? And to call a PC game more complex because it has better aiming... Well, you get my point.
I find storyline to be a strong factor in games for me but it can't be the only good thing, there needs to be solid gameplay behind it.
imo the Halo storyline didn't seem to interesting, I mean:
***SPOILERS***
the whole thing thing with the covenant and then the flood didn't really pick up until the last few missions
Halo has fallen victim to its own popularity.
Its so overrated that its actually hard to appreciate what's good about it. The two weapon inventory - recharging shield system - and one button grenade throw are all small but worthwhile contributions to the action fps genre. The sticky plasma grenades are also extremely satisfying to use, after playing for awhile you can actually feel the trajectory of the grenade before you throw it - and landing a perfect toss onto an elite's face never fails to gratify.
The level design is distinctive but very very bland - the fights however are great fun - i found the covenant foes to be quite charming while the flood were fun for sheer chaos, since they drop grenades all over the place and the way Halo does chain-reaction explosions is really great. I mean - even the library is fun as long as you don't do it in one sitting.
I've heard people say Halo-PC was badly optimized, but i can't speak to that, - as it ran flawlessly on my p4 1.4ghz - 1gig ram - Radeon 9800pro system back in '03. I've installed the game twice since then to give legendary difficulty another go, but i always lose interest around 'assault on the control room' - still a very good game.
I thought of Halo when i played through FEAR, since FEAR's another FPS that has horribly bland and repetitive levels. And i think Halo's actually a better game with more variety of play and sheer enthusiasm than FEAR can muster.
[QUOTE="artur79"][QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.donwoogie
There's like a thousand reasons why it succeeds as a console shooter but is mediocre on the PC. To name a few off the top of my head:
Bad hitboxes. On consoles the hitboxes are larger because a joystick is not an effective targetting control and they didn't change them for the PC that much.
Lack of weapons. On console shooters, you have a few standard weapons, on PC shooters you tend to have more variatey.
Intricate level designs. Halo maps are pretty one dimensional. PC games like DoD, Half Life 2 and Battlefield have more complex designs which make the multiplayer maps more fun.
Interactive environments. The top games on the PC have environments you can interact with. The best halo has to offer is gravity lift thingys.
These are just some reasons why it just doesn't gut it with PC shooters.
What about story? Am I the only one that thinks a great story is what makes a game great? And about weapons, halo has all the standard weapons an FPS should have, what's lacking? And to call a PC game more complex because it has better aiming... Well, you get my point.
I find storyline to be a strong factor in games for me but it can't be the only good thing, there needs to be solid gameplay behind it.
imo the Halo storyline didn't seem to interesting, I mean:
***SPOILERS***
the whole thing thing with the covenant and then the flood didn't really pick up until the last few missions
Well, I agree with Lindallison, Halo's gameplay was great back in 2001, plasmas are fun, so are the vehicles. There are a lot of open huge levels. Some people say that Halo has bland, repetitive environments, I agree that Library is boring, what some of you seem to forget is that FEAR and DOOM3 should be under "repetitive level design" on Wikipedia.
And Halo has the best story in an FPS ever IMO, that and coop makes it one of the best games I've played. Dooms story is a joke, Far Cry has a story, but I wouldn't say it was great. Half Life 2, Riddick and NOLF2 are some other great shooters storywise. My point is that story is more important than how many weapons you have or how fast you can turn with your mouse.
[QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.artur79
There's like a thousand reasons why it succeeds as a console shooter but is mediocre on the PC. To name a few off the top of my head:
Bad hitboxes. On consoles the hitboxes are larger because a joystick is not an effective targetting control and they didn't change them for the PC that much.
Lack of weapons. On console shooters, you have a few standard weapons, on PC shooters you tend to have more variatey.
Intricate level designs. Halo maps are pretty one dimensional. PC games like DoD, Half Life 2 and Battlefield have more complex designs which make the multiplayer maps more fun.
Interactive environments. The top games on the PC have environments you can interact with. The best halo has to offer is gravity lift thingys.
These are just some reasons why it just doesn't gut it with PC shooters.
What about story? Am I the only one that thinks a great story is what makes a game great? And about weapons, halo has all the standard weapons an FPS should have, what's lacking? And to call a PC game more complex because it has better aiming... Well, you get my point.
I agree with the points you make about story and weapons (YES! ...I do get your point). Halo : CE had a great variety (can you say Plasma Grenades?) and the story line was terrific. Halo:CE was best known for it's single player campain along with it's ability to utilize system link and split screen. Halo 2, the single player, was not anywhere near as good as the first in storyline, BUT ! ....it's multi-player stands out as one of the best ever, be it on console or PC. (if you eliminate the whinning and very irratating pre-teens on Xbox-live)
As for the other poster, sighting Halo's shortcomings such as lack of intricate level design and being one dimensional, it did have some repeative level design...i.e. The library. Alot of people complained it was to much like a 'Crawl', that it wasn't opened-ended enough, but there weren't many games at that time that were of the FPS. But it did balance it out with big indoor and outdoor levels with very good graphic design and excellent game play, not to mention the enemy AI. One of the best of it's time which can even stand with many games of today.
He also tries to compair Halo to games of today such as Battlefield(which one? there are 3in the series). If your refering to BF2, you need a roach motel and a can of RAID it's so buggy. I have two words for that..EA Games. Also mentioned were DoD and HL2. You have to remember that HALO:CE was released over 6 years ago (2001) and your trying to make a case with games released over the last several years where techonolgy has vastly increased in the developement of games during that time. Your trying to discount Halo's lack of iinteractive invironments (yes...there was not the ability for distruction of the environment such as in FEAR and other receint games), but show a PC game that did at that time.
I do want to enphise that I'm a PC gamer first and formost for many of the obvious reasons that PC gaming has to offer. But I also enjoy play using my Xbox console from time to time and (Halo: CE on the console) was truly one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had and That's in my opinion which does differ from others.....I just wanted to point out what I thought you were listing as flaws to why Halo "sucked or "why it just doesn't {gut} it with PC shooters" is an unfair and invalid compairsion...IMO. I believe that a lot of gamers hate Halo because of the Fanboyism that has been created, a my game is better that any of your games kind of mentality, which I think is totally immature. People should reconize games for what they are more so that getting into petty jealousies and politics.....again, just my opinion...whichis I don't think HALO is overrated.
[QUOTE="artur79"][QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.DieselCat18
There's like a thousand reasons why it succeeds as a console shooter but is mediocre on the PC. To name a few off the top of my head:
Bad hitboxes. On consoles the hitboxes are larger because a joystick is not an effective targetting control and they didn't change them for the PC that much.
Lack of weapons. On console shooters, you have a few standard weapons, on PC shooters you tend to have more variatey.
Intricate level designs. Halo maps are pretty one dimensional. PC games like DoD, Half Life 2 and Battlefield have more complex designs which make the multiplayer maps more fun.
Interactive environments. The top games on the PC have environments you can interact with. The best halo has to offer is gravity lift thingys.
These are just some reasons why it just doesn't gut it with PC shooters.
What about story? Am I the only one that thinks a great story is what makes a game great? And about weapons, halo has all the standard weapons an FPS should have, what's lacking? And to call a PC game more complex because it has better aiming... Well, you get my point.
I agree with the points you make about story and weapons (YES! ...I do get your point). Halo : CE had a great variety (can you say Plasma Grenades?) and the story line was terrific. Halo:CE was best known for it's single player campain along with it's ability to utilize system link and split screen. Halo 2, the single player, was not anywhere near as good as the first in storyline, BUT ! ....it's multi-player stands out as one of the best ever, be it on console or PC. (if you eliminate the whinning and very irratating pre-teens on Xbox-live)
As for the other poster, sighting Halo's shortcomings such as lack of intricate level design and being one dimensional, it did have some repeative level design...i.e. The library. Alot of people complained it was to much like a 'Crawl', that it wasn't opened-ended enough, but there weren't many games at that time that were of the FPS. But it did balance it out with big indoor and outdoor levels with very good graphic design and excellent game play, not to mention the enemy AI. One of the best of it's time which can even stand with many games of today.
He also tries to compair Halo to games of today such as Battlefield(which one? there are 3in the series). If your refering to BF2, you need a roach motel and a can of RAID it's so buggy. I have two words for that..EA Games. Also mentioned were DoD and HL2. You have to remember that HALO:CE was released over 6 years ago (2001) and your trying to make a case with games released over the last several years where techonolgy has vastly increased in the developement of games during that time. Your trying to discount Halo's lack of iinteractive invironments (yes...there was not the ability for distruction of the environment such as in FEAR and other receint games), but show a PC game that did at that time.
I do want to enphise that I'm a PC gamer first and formost for many of the obvious reasons that PC gaming has to offer. But I also enjoy play using my Xbox console from time to time and (Halo: CE on the console) was truly one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had and That's in my opinion which does differ from others.....I just wanted to point out what I thought you were listing as flaws to why Halo "sucked or "why it just doesn't {gut} it with PC shooters" is an unfair and invalid compairsion...IMO. I believe that a lot of gamers hate Halo because of the Fanboyism that has been created, a my game is better that any of your games kind of mentality, which I think is totally immature. People should reconize games for what they are more so that getting into petty jealousies and politics.....again, just my opinion...whichis I don't think HALO is overrated.
First off, I never said it was a bad game, I said that it is overated and is a moderate game. I'd also like to point out I was comparing it to DoD the original, not DOD:source. DoD was released in 2003 around the same time as Halo:CE. I am also referring to Battlefield 1942 which was released the year before Halo, was very stable, had larger and more intricate environments and had better vehicle combat and it is a classic and great game (though somewhat lacking in the Single Player I'll admit). I'd also like to point out AGAIN as I have in nearly every post in this thread that THIS IS A PC FORUM! we are talking about why it is overated on the PC! if you don't own Halo on the PC then please don't bother posting........... you cannot compare a console shooter with a PC shooter
[QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.artur79
There's like a thousand reasons why it succeeds as a console shooter but is mediocre on the PC. To name a few off the top of my head:
Bad hitboxes. On consoles the hitboxes are larger because a joystick is not an effective targetting control and they didn't change them for the PC that much.
Lack of weapons. On console shooters, you have a few standard weapons, on PC shooters you tend to have more variatey.
Intricate level designs. Halo maps are pretty one dimensional. PC games like DoD, Half Life 2 and Battlefield have more complex designs which make the multiplayer maps more fun.
Interactive environments. The top games on the PC have environments you can interact with. The best halo has to offer is gravity lift thingys.
These are just some reasons why it just doesn't gut it with PC shooters.
What about story? Am I the only one that thinks a great story is what makes a game great? And about weapons, halo has all the standard weapons an FPS should have, what's lacking? And to call a PC game more complex because it has better aiming... Well, you get my point.
Halo didn't have a good story anyway.(in terms of halo 2 that is)
[QUOTE=";monkeytoes61";]people say it is overrates or that it sucks, but they never have good reasons.
There's like a thousand reasons why it succeeds as a console shooter but is mediocre on the PC. To name a few off the top of my head:
Bad hitboxes. On consoles the hitboxes are larger because a joystick is not an effective targetting control and they didn't change them for the PC that much.
Lack of weapons. On console shooters, you have a few standard weapons, on PC shooters you tend to have more variatey.
Intricate level designs. Halo maps are pretty one dimensional. PC games like DoD, Half Life 2 and Battlefield have more complex designs which make the multiplayer maps more fun.
Interactive environments. The top games on the PC have environments you can interact with. The best halo has to offer is gravity lift thingys.
These are just some reasons why it just doesn't gut it with PC shooters.
What about story? Am I the only one that thinks a great story is what makes a game great? And about weapons, halo has all the standard weapons an FPS should have, what's lacking? And to call a PC game more complex because it has better aiming... Well, you get my point.
I agree with the points you make about story and weapons (YES! ...I do get your point). Halo : CE had a great variety (can you say Plasma Grenades?) and the story line was terrific. Halo:CE was best known for it's single player campain along with it's ability to utilize system link and split screen. Halo 2, the single player, was not anywhere near as good as the first in storyline, BUT ! ....it's multi-player stands out as one of the best ever, be it on console or PC. (if you eliminate the whinning and very irratating pre-teens on Xbox-live)
As for the other poster, sighting Halo's shortcomings such as lack of intricate level design and being one dimensional, it did have some repeative level design...i.e. The library. Alot of people complained it was to much like a 'Crawl', that it wasn't opened-ended enough, but there weren't many games at that time that were of the FPS. But it did balance it out with big indoor and outdoor levels with very good graphic design and excellent game play, not to mention the enemy AI. One of the best of it's time which can even stand with many games of today.
He also tries to compair Halo to games of today such as Battlefield(which one? there are 3in the series). If your refering to BF2, you need a roach motel and a can of RAID it's so buggy. I have two words for that..EA Games. Also mentioned were DoD and HL2. You have to remember that HALO:CE was released over 6 years ago (2001) and your trying to make a case with games released over the last several years where techonolgy has vastly increased in the developement of games during that time. Your trying to discount Halo's lack of iinteractive invironments (yes...there was not the ability for distruction of the environment such as in FEAR and other receint games), but show a PC game that did at that time.
I do want to enphise that I'm a PC gamer first and formost for many of the obvious reasons that PC gaming has to offer. But I also enjoy play using my Xbox console from time to time and (Halo: CE on the console) was truly one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had and That's in my opinion which does differ from others.....I just wanted to point out what I thought you were listing as flaws to why Halo ";sucked or ";why it just doesn't {gut} it with PC shooters"; is an unfair and invalid compairsion...IMO. I believe that a lot of gamers hate Halo because of the Fanboyism that has been created, a my game is better that any of your games kind of mentality, which I think is totally immature. People should reconize games for what they are more so that getting into petty jealousies and politics.....again, just my opinion...whichis I don't think HALO is overrated.
First off, I never said it was a bad game, I said that it is overated and is a moderate game. I'd also like to point out I was comparing it to DoD the original, not DOD:source. DoD was released in 2003 around the same time as Halo:CE. I am also referring to Battlefield 1942 which was released the year before Halo, was very stable, had larger and more intricate environments and had better vehicle combat and it is a classic and great game (though somewhat lacking in the Single Player I'll admit). I'd also like to point out AGAIN as I have in nearly every post in this thread that THIS IS A PC FORUM! we are talking about why it is overated on the PC! if you don't own Halo on the PC then please don't bother posting........... you cannot compare a console shooter with a PC shooter
First of all I do own Halo for the PC ! Next, what makes you think you can't compare a console FPS to a PC FPS or Third Person shooter or whatever ? Some games play better on consoles, some better on PC's, but what makes them non-conpairable? The use of a keyboard and mouse vs a game pad? I also never insisted that you were saying Halo was a bad game, though your comments suggested that and you have a right to your own opinion.
You also don't need to point out the fact this is a PC forum, I understand that very well ! WE are not talking about why Halo is overrated on the PC....PLEASE go back and re-read the original post of this thread....here I'll help you......
";There was another discussion about this topic, and I would like to know what PC gamers think about Halo and Halo 2. Do the Halo games stand out when compared to classic PC FPS games? Note, I'm not asking whether the games are good; I'm asking whether they were so great that they deserve all the hype they have received over the years. ";
He is referring to the original games themselves based primarly off the console versions, where do you think all the hype and debate came from? He even asks that he would like to know what PC gamers think about not only Halo, but Halo 2, which is not even out on the PC till the beginning of MAY, so how can a PC gamer give an opinion about it other than the console version?
If you feel the need to attack me by telling me not to post here if I don't own that PC game, be my guest, I won't lose any sleep over your comments, But get your facts straight... i.e. Halo:CE was released in 2001, not 2003. You never made referance to BF 1942, just Battlefield. There are several sequals to the 1st game and you never made mention to which one so I took a stab at BF2.
Lastly, I wasn't attacking you in my last posted response to you and I'm not intending to attack you now. I was debating my opinions vs your stated opinions. I think we can agree to disagree, but please don't take it personal. I just did not agree with your opinions and find that your incorrect if you think this thread is based soley on the PC version of(Halo:CE) which is the only one available for the PC at this time, no Halo 2 till next month.
In my opionin the upcoming release of Halo 2 on PC is what the original poster was getting at with a poll asking if Halo was overrated vs classic PC FPS. But I could be wrong.....Hell!.... Halo 2 was probably the most hyped game in gaming history!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment