The core gameplay is actually pretty good, even with the notion that all of its design decisions in Combat Evolved were built in mind with the limitations of a gamepad, it was all smart stuff that focuses on the fundamental nature of what adds depth to gameplay, and what is good gameplay. I like using Sid Meier quote, that games are a series of interesting decisions. And in the case of Halo, they perserved that while focus testing a shooter to work on dual sticks.
It naturally couldn't work at the speed of a Quake, and we were long past something like Doom being a break out on consoles, as PC shooters were all about you moving even faster and actually being able to aim vertically (btw, Doom 1, still fucking amazing). The melee hot key, the grenade hotkey, and its weapon create a solid trinity to build the whole game around. The two weapon system works great in Combat Evolved, the mp, and less so in other games, because the guns are actually different in terms of function from each other.
Plasma weapons were great at eating shields, especially those of jackals. Rocket Launchers were big heavy explosives, shotguns only work up close, snipers were best suited for distance, needler is funny, and the game never had enough ammo that you could just roll through a level without ever switching a gun. Compare that to every game that went "well Halo has a 2 weapon system, so should we"....well, except what the **** does it really matter if you pick an m16 over a M4? There is a difference sure, but that's needless complexity, not depth. It's not that interesting of a decision you are making.
The covies shot projectiles, almost exclusively, so in the case of CE you can actually play that game and get good at dodging and not getting hit. Later day FPS games have kind of ruined that dynamic by making all the enemies hit scan enemies. Yeah it's more "plausible" if you will, because it's more "real" or whatever, but it doesn't necessarily translate into a better game. Throw in grenades that had interesting properties from how you could trick bounce them on levels, or how they can chain explode other grenades in CE, vehicles, and Combat Evolved has a ton going for it to this day.
Bungie's better Halo games (1 and 3) tend to have more open spaces giving the player proper breathing room. With levels like The Covenant, Tsavo Highway, Silent Cartographer, and most of Assault on the Control Room being absolute gems as far as FPS levels. With the first game's 2nd level Halo being a strong vertical slice of everything Halo does well (and some of the things it does poorly) as a game.
I won't disagree with anyone that thinks the likes of Unreal, Tribes, n Quake are better games, because Halo uses a lot of similar principles, but slower and not as deep, but that's underselling how well designed and enjoyable that game is to this day. In a 4 v 4 environment Halo 2 had just enough of a pace and skill ceiling to separate proper high level play from low level play, with a reasonable amount of tactical coordination from teammates. Ditto Halo 3, and the custom games in those games were fucking brilliant. Entire modes were made up by the community, which is shit I assure you will not happen in Battlefield 1, Titanfall 2, Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, any mp created by Naughty Dog or a laundry list of good multiplayer shooters this gen.
Halo may have been one half of the reason the FPS genre regressed in some noticeable ways, but it had nothing to do with Halo being a bad game. On the contrary, it's quite fucking good. I think the single player has always left a lot to be desired (the flood for starters tend to ruin a lot of levels), but Halo 2 legitimately deserves its place among one of true great multiplayer shooters ever.
As for Halo 5, a lot of those principles are still there in the mp, and I think the thrusters only add to it. Sprint n clamber I'm not 100% on, because it's translated into really boring maps, but that I'm still willing to argue is a 343 thing, and the campaign sucks. No disagreement on that one.
Log in to comment