So......your jealous of Halo? how old are you?

[QUOTE="TClms5400"]

your jealous

you feel the game is not good enough to justify its colt following. The fact that it has such a big fan base and that you feel other games in the same genre are better and deserve more hype. That is a textbook case of jealousy. To feel anything is over-rated means your jealous. How can anything be over-rated? In the sense of a base score then maybe, but a game with a huge fanbase cannot be over-rated. This is not possible. To feel something is overhyped meets the exact definition of jealousy

Dont you realize how pathetic it is to be jealous of a bunch of pixels? If i was to say halo is my favorite game (which its not) wouldnt it be ignorant of you to tell me i must have not played many other shooters?

NavigatorsGhost

1. Halo is not cult. Cult games do not have over 100 million preorders. Its more casual than any FPS ever made, outside of maybe Goldeneye and Doom. Hell, Half Life 2 and CS are more cult than frigging Halo. Cult FPS games - Deus Ex, Operation: Flashpoint - ignored by casuals, loved by hardcore PC gamers and reviewers.

2. Halo is casual-friendly and its multiplayer is easily accessible to everyone. It does nothing perfect, nothing astounding, it just does a lot of things well. Its not overly hard, the controls are simple, and the targeting is forgiving. By having ranked matches that attempt to match the player with other players of equal skill, you allow casuals to get into the game. If they started it up and got put in matches with a bunch of hardcore players, they would give up after getting owned and move on to something else.

3. A big reason why Halo has such a large fanbase is becuase when the original one released, and to some extent the 2nd one, the game had absolutely no competition. The xbox had pretty much no other games, especially casual friendly ones, at the time. And there were really no console FPS games at that time either, at least not any with worthwhile multiplayer. So the game was able to build up a sizable fanbase, because the game was accessible to everyone and it had very little competition.

If you want proof of this, all you have to do is look at this gen with the PS3 and Resistance. For over half a year, the amount of players online for that game was insane, and that was even before they introduced worldwide servers. Why was that? Well, obviously the game was good. But after talking to numerous players about it either in-game or at Myresistance.net, it was also obvious that they stuck with the game because the PS3 had very little else to offer, especially in terms of shooters. And finally when the game got competition in the form of Vegas (even though it sucks) and Warhawk (even though its not even an FPS) a large portion of Resistance's community jumped ship.

Whenever something gets tossed around here, or any forum, as being the "greatest something" thats an opinion. Games are just like books, movies, tv shows, whatever, in the fact that people enjoy different things. You may prefer something that someone else can't stand and likewise, they might enjoy something you hate. However, their are certain constants which attempt to quantify greatness. Things like graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, story, characters, replayability, innovation, etc. are all qualities which gamers look for when determing what makes a game "good".

The whole problem arises when people try and base how great something is upon its sales. "Crappy" movies do well at the box-office all the time. They may have garbage acting, almost no plot, forgettable characters and no character-development (things that critics use to judge movies), and yet for some reason, they still do well. How does anyone explain that? The same thing happens in games as well, look at 50 Cent's Bulletproof, which got a a solid 4.8 here (:lol:), the game sold over a million copies.

The funny thing is that "good" and even "great" games still have a chance of going overlooked by the general public, even in this day of the internet, magazines and advertising.

This, good sir, is by far and away my nomination for post of the day!

[QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="TClms5400"]

your jealous

you feel the game is not good enough to justify its colt following. The fact that it has such a big fan base and that you feel other games in the same genre are better and deserve more hype. That is a textbook case of jealousy. To feel anything is over-rated means your jealous. How can anything be over-rated? In the sense of a base score then maybe, but a game with a huge fanbase cannot be over-rated. This is not possible. To feel something is overhyped meets the exact definition of jealousy

Dont you realize how pathetic it is to be jealous of a bunch of pixels? If i was to say halo is my favorite game (which its not) wouldnt it be ignorant of you to tell me i must have not played many other shooters?

SpruceCaboose

1. Halo is not cult. Cult games do not have over 100 million preorders. Its more casual than any FPS ever made, outside of maybe Goldeneye and Doom. Hell, Half Life 2 and CS are more cult than frigging Halo. Cult FPS games - Deus Ex, Operation: Flashpoint - ignored by casuals, loved by hardcore PC gamers and reviewers.

2. Halo is casual-friendly and its multiplayer is easily accessible to everyone. It does nothing perfect, nothing astounding, it just does a lot of things well. Its not overly hard, the controls are simple, and the targeting is forgiving. By having ranked matches that attempt to match the player with other players of equal skill, you allow casuals to get into the game. If they started it up and got put in matches with a bunch of hardcore players, they would give up after getting owned and move on to something else.

3. A big reason why Halo has such a large fanbase is becuase when the original one released, and to some extent the 2nd one, the game had absolutely no competition. The xbox had pretty much no other games, especially casual friendly ones, at the time. And there were really no console FPS games at that time either, at least not any with worthwhile multiplayer. So the game was able to build up a sizable fanbase, because the game was accessible to everyone and it had very little competition.

If you want proof of this, all you have to do is look at this gen with the PS3 and Resistance. For over half a year, the amount of players online for that game was insane, and that was even before they introduced worldwide servers. Why was that? Well, obviously the game was good. But after talking to numerous players about it either in-game or at Myresistance.net, it was also obvious that they stuck with the game because the PS3 had very little else to offer, especially in terms of shooters. And finally when the game got competition in the form of Vegas (even though it sucks) and Warhawk (even though its not even an FPS) a large portion of Resistance's community jumped ship.

Whenever something gets tossed around here, or any forum, as being the "greatest something" thats an opinion. Games are just like books, movies, tv shows, whatever, in the fact that people enjoy different things. You may prefer something that someone else can't stand and likewise, they might enjoy something you hate. However, their are certain constants which attempt to quantify greatness. Things like graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, story, characters, replayability, innovation, etc. are all qualities which gamers look for when determing what makes a game "good".

The whole problem arises when people try and base how great something is upon its sales. "Crappy" movies do well at the box-office all the time. They may have garbage acting, almost no plot, forgettable characters and no character-development (things that critics use to judge movies), and yet for some reason, they still do well. How does anyone explain that? The same thing happens in games as well, look at 50 Cent's Bulletproof, which got a a solid 4.8 here (:lol:), the game sold over a million copies.

The funny thing is that "good" and even "great" games still have a chance of going overlooked by the general public, even in this day of the internet, magazines and advertising.

This, good sir, is by far and away my nomination for post of the day!

Didn't think anyone would actually read it, or the topic would get locked before I could post it.

Madden has a cult following..

I guess that is better than Halo then.

BeyondPerfect

It obviously is to some people, to others Halo is better. Why would that bother anyone?

I'm not jealous. I just think it's over-rated.Especially after buyiong Halo 1 and playing through Halo 2. It's single player campaigne is seriously aveage and I can't see why it gets such high ratings. Sure it's MP is fun, but it's like they only rated the game onlyfor it's MP. Besides MP, everything else about the games is average and there are much better shooters out that are better than Halo the recieved lower scores.....

[QUOTE="TClms5400"]

your jealous

you feel the game is not good enough to justify its colt following. The fact that it has such a big fan base and that you feel other games in the same genre are better and deserve more hype. That is a textbook case of jealousy. To feel anything is over-rated means your jealous. How can anything be over-rated? In the sense of a base score then maybe, but a game with a huge fanbase cannot be over-rated. This is not possible. To feel something is overhyped meets the exact definition of jealousy

Dont you realize how pathetic it is to be jealous of a bunch of pixels? If i was to say halo is my favorite game (which its not) wouldnt it be ignorant of you to tell me i must have not played many other shooters?

NavigatorsGhost

1. Halo is not cult. Cult games do not have over 100 million preorders. Its more casual than any FPS ever made, outside of maybe Goldeneye and Doom. Hell, Half Life 2 and CS are more cult than frigging Halo. Cult FPS games - Deus Ex, Operation: Flashpoint - ignored by casuals, loved by hardcore PC gamers and reviewers.

2. Halo is casual-friendly and its multiplayer is easily accessible to everyone. It does nothing perfect, nothing astounding, it just does a lot of things well. Its not overly hard, the controls are simple, and the targeting is forgiving. By having ranked matches that attempt to match the player with other players of equal skill, you allow casuals to get into the game. If they started it up and got put in matches with a bunch of hardcore players, they would give up after getting owned and move on to something else.

3. A big reason why Halo has such a large fanbase is becuase when the original one released, and to some extent the 2nd one, the game had absolutely no competition. The xbox had pretty much no other games, especially casual friendly ones, at the time. And there were really no console FPS games at that time either, at least not any with worthwhile multiplayer. So the game was able to build up a sizable fanbase, because the game was accessible to everyone and it had very little competition.

If you want proof of this, all you have to do is look at this gen with the PS3 and Resistance. For over half a year, the amount of players online for that game was insane, and that was even before they introduced worldwide servers. Why was that? Well, obviously the game was good. But after talking to numerous players about it either in-game or at Myresistance.net, it was also obvious that they stuck with the game because the PS3 had very little else to offer, especially in terms of shooters. And finally when the game got competition in the form of Vegas (even though it sucks) and Warhawk (even though its not even an FPS) a large portion of Resistance's community jumped ship.

Whenever something gets tossed around here, or any forum, as being the "greatest something" thats an opinion. Games are just like books, movies, tv shows, whatever, in the fact that people enjoy different things. You may prefer something that someone else can't stand and likewise, they might enjoy something you hate. However, their are certain constants which attempt to quantify greatness. Things like graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, story, characters, replayability, innovation, etc. are all qualities which gamers look for when determing what makes a game "good".

The whole problem arises when people try and base how great something is upon its sales. "Crappy" movies do well at the box-office all the time. They may have garbage acting, almost no plot, forgettable characters and no character-development (things that critics use to judge movies), and yet for some reason, they still do well. How does anyone explain that? The same thing happens in games as well, look at 50 Cent's Bulletproof, which got a a solid 4.8 here (:lol:), the game sold over a million copies.

The funny thing is that "good" and even "great" games still have a chance of going overlooked by the general public, even in this day of the internet, magazines and advertising.

Wow excellent post

I think the same thing needs to be asked of the people to qualify constructive criticisms as jealousy or hate.Vandalvideo

Tell me about it, I had some rabid lemmings have a go at me for saying "Shotty Snipers doesnt belong in Ranked Team Slayer" ... I mean cmon ...

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I think the same thing needs to be asked of the people to qualify constructive criticisms as jealousy or hate.Meu2k7

Tell me about it, I had some rabid lemmings have a go at me for saying "Shotty Snipers doesnt belong in Ranked Team Slayer" ... I mean cmon ...

i like shotty snipers :P

your jealous

you feel the game is not good enough to justify its colt following. The fact that it has such a big fan base and that you feel other games in the same genre are better and deserve more hype. That is a textbook case of jealousy. To feel anything is over-rated means your jealous. How can anything be over-rated? In the sense of a base score then maybe, but a game with a huge fanbase cannot be over-rated. This is not possible. To feel something is overhyped meets the exact definition of jealousy

Dont you realize how pathetic it is to be jealous of a bunch of pixels? If i was to say halo is my favorite game (which its not) wouldnt it be ignorant of you to tell me i must have not played many other shooters?

TClms5400

Jealous? I should think Halo should be jealous of Counter Strike, since I was thinking about that game when playing Halo. (I.E. I didn't want to play Halo)

you feel the game is not good enough to justify its colt following. TClms5400

Holy cow, even horses play Halo. Ok maybe it wasn't that good of a joke.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I think the same thing needs to be asked of the people to qualify constructive criticisms as jealousy or hate.TClms5400

Tell me about it, I had some rabid lemmings have a go at me for saying "Shotty Snipers doesnt belong in Ranked Team Slayer" ... I mean cmon ...

i like shotty snipers :P

No you don't you friggin' liar. Shotty snipers is a waste of time. It's pure console sludgery. I would say this (advice to you): if you want to play Shotty snipers, you should be able to join a dedicated lobby to join shotty sniper unranked matches.

Oops, did I use the term "dedicated" in reference to Halo? Such a term is truly unworthy for a game so P2P that it is able to gum up a 10 MBPS fiber op connection with lag (that or it was a serious framerate chop).

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]

Jealousy means to be envious. Feeling something is overrated is not envy. Learn to use the word in the right context you psychology major wanna-be.

Halo 2 and 3 were easily two of the worst games I have ever played. They did not deserve such unanimous praise when compared to other, and far better, games.

What I did there was called criticism. Go look that word up. Then use a thesaurus and see if jealousy comes up as being synonymous. I think you'll discover it does not.

Thompsonwhore

You obviously don't play many games then. Or perhaps you didn't ever give the Halo games a real chance.

Your criticism should have involved an analysis of the shortcomings of the game, all you actually did was say the game sucked. :|

I played the original Halo for years, I tried to get into Halo 2 for a couple of months, but I hated it. I tried Halo 3 for a half hour, I hated it just as much. I've been on both sides of the fence.

The reason I overall said the game sucked? Because every aspect of it does. Bad story, bad visuals, bad gameplay. There's nothing I don't find problem with after playing far better games like Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament and Quake.

The story is just bad, no further details required.

Gameplay- It's slow, involves little skill and no accuracy. It's not a methodical shooter like Counter-Strike nor is it the fast-paced Quake or Unreal Tournament. It's at some horrible, mutant unwated midpoint of the two, and it just does not work.

Graphics- Like I'm looking at a constant rainbow. All the fantastical colors combined with bloom was just disgusting. Like they were purposely trying to cause seizures. The character models are just plain ugly, don't even try to argue that.

But, you see, you could have saved my time and yours had you just left it alone that I felt it was an overall bad game, because that's how this post ends as well.

"The story is just bad". Good criticism, saying "no further details required" is almost a good substitute for a real argument, but not quite.

Little skill? No accuracy? Yeah, you're right, it requires no skill: which is why everyone is the same level, and every game ends in a draw. :roll: Try getting to a high level and telling me it requires no skill.

A lot of colour =/= bad graphics. Of course, had this conversation been about Gears, you probably would have complained about the lack of colours, so I doubt there is any way to please you.

So you can't play it after playing other FPS'? My favourite game of all time is on the Dreamcast, and I've played plenty of RPGs since then.Does every game that doesn't match it (imo) become "one of the worst games I've ever played"? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. I guess this only applies to Halo.

You could have saved my time and yours by not trying to pass off your original statement as criticism, although your actual criticism wasn't much better.

[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]

Jealousy means to be envious. Feeling something is overrated is not envy. Learn to use the word in the right context you psychology major wanna-be.

Halo 2 and 3 were easily two of the worst games I have ever played. They did not deserve such unanimous praise when compared to other, and far better, games.

What I did there was called criticism. Go look that word up. Then use a thesaurus and see if jealousy comes up as being synonymous. I think you'll discover it does not.

Vyse_The_Daring

You obviously don't play many games then. Or perhaps you didn't ever give the Halo games a real chance.

Your criticism should have involved an analysis of the shortcomings of the game, all you actually did was say the game sucked. :|

I played the original Halo for years, I tried to get into Halo 2 for a couple of months, but I hated it. I tried Halo 3 for a half hour, I hated it just as much. I've been on both sides of the fence.

The reason I overall said the game sucked? Because every aspect of it does. Bad story, bad visuals, bad gameplay. There's nothing I don't find problem with after playing far better games like Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament and Quake.

The story is just bad, no further details required.

Gameplay- It's slow, involves little skill and no accuracy. It's not a methodical shooter like Counter-Strike nor is it the fast-paced Quake or Unreal Tournament. It's at some horrible, mutant unwated midpoint of the two, and it just does not work.

Graphics- Like I'm looking at a constant rainbow. All the fantastical colors combined with bloom was just disgusting. Like they were purposely trying to cause seizures. The character models are just plain ugly, don't even try to argue that.

But, you see, you could have saved my time and yours had you just left it alone that I felt it was an overall bad game, because that's how this post ends as well.

"The story is just bad". Good criticism, saying "no further details required" is almost a good substitute for a real argument, but not quite.

Little skill? No accuracy? Yeah, you're right, it requires no skill: which is why everyone is the same level, and every game ends in a draw. :roll: Try getting to a high level and telling me it requires no skill.

A lot of colour =/= bad graphics. Of course, had this conversation been about Gears, you probably would have complained about the lack of colours, so there I won't even argue with this, it's pointless.

So you can't play it after playing other FPS'? My favourite game of all time is on the Dreamcast, and I've played plenty of RPGs since then. Is every game that doesn't match it (imo) become "one of the worst games I've ever played"? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. I guess this only applies to Halo.

You could have saved my time and yours by not trying to pass off your original statement as criticism, although your actual criticism wasn't much better.

What would you like me to say about the story? It's a cliche melodrama. Do you want me to actually pick it apart and make literary criticisms? Shall I find a copy of the script, read through it all and write an essay for you to review? How about you tell me why it's so great.

The reason why everyone is on the same level is because, like I said before, there's little skill between the players. The game is so overly geared towards an even playing field that everyone can kill anyone. My friend who was a terrible player was level 50 in Halo 2 without boosting. If you think getting into the high tiers of Halo is hard, why don't you try getting into the high level tiers of Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament or Quake.

No, actually, I liked Gears visuals far more than I did Halo 3. Halo 3 was just one huge neon color wheel.

I really don't care what your favorite game was or your personal feelings towards other games in comparison to it. After playing good FPS games for so long, playing Halo 3 was painful.

What would you like me to say about the story? It's a cliche melodrama. Do you want me to actually pick it apart and make literary criticisms? Shall I find a copy of the script, read through it all and write an essay for you to review? How about you tell me why it's so great.

The reason why everyone is on the same level is because, like I said before, there's little skill between the players. The game is so overly geared towards an even playing field that everyone can kill anyone. My friend who was a terrible player was level 50 in Halo 2 without boosting. If you think getting into the high tiers of Halo is hard, why don't you try getting into the high level tiers of Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament or Quake.

No, actually, I liked Gears visuals far more than I did Halo 3. Halo 3 was just one huge neon color wheel.

I really don't care what your favorite game was or your personal feelings towards other games in comparison to it. After playing good FPS games for so long, playing Halo 3 was painful.

Thompsonwhore

Your "friend" was a "terrible player" but was a level 50? Yeah, I totally believe you. My friend is a terrible Quake player, but he won the 1V1 championship at QuakeCon 2006. Oh look, I just provided as much evidence as you. :roll:

I never said being in a top tier of those other games was easier than Halo, you brought them up. I merely said that the idea that Halo requires "no skill" is absolutely ridiculous. That just shows that you are speaking with a complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

So if you don't like bright colours, I guess Ratchet & Clank is going to have crappy graphics right? What about LittleBigPlanet?

I'm not offended that you don't care about what games I like, my point was that saying Halo 2/3 are some of the worst games you've ever played just because you like other games more is an insane exaggeration, something you should try to avoid while convincing some you're"criticizing" the game.