Why is Halo taken for granted?

On System Wars, people don't seem to like Halo much. I'm not talking about 2 or 3, I mean the original. And if the don't like it, they just act like it's there. Halo: Combat Evolved is downplayed.

I'm not one of those people who thinks Bungie is God is Master Chief is the Messiah. Those people are annoying. And I'm not the guy who bashes Halo because it's Halo. If it's possible, they're even worse.

I really get the feeling that people don't realize how much Halo: Combat Evolved changed console shooters. Almost every console shooter out there today swears by the control scheme set forth in Halo. How many games still favor the Goldeneye control scheme? Really? Not much, if any. Halo had a gigantic impact on first-person shooters, and may well be the reason they're so popular now. Not only did it cause a boom in the FPS market, it changed that market. Most FPS games out now or coming up owes something to Halo. It's not the most innovative game in the world, but it certainly had a big impact.

People take it for granted. I don't see anyone talking about how Halo changed first-person shooters. They either say it's crap or acknowledge it as a good game. Or worship it. That's all; no talk of how it changed the genre.

And even though Halo is universally acclaimed, I get the feeling it's underappreciated here in System Wars. Maybe it's just me. I've been gone for a while, after all. Maybe you guys changed. But before I left, that's how it was. Or seemed.

you give halo waaay too much credit for the controls

Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?XaosII

The impact it had should then be disregarded?

you give halo waaay too much credit for the controls

voxware00

Hmmm...did I miss a game that brought the standard control scheme for console shooters before Halo, then? (No sarcasm.)

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?norfair_dweller

The impact it had should then be disregarded?

The only reason it was so popular was because it was a very good game on the xbox, it was the only killer app xbox players had so they hyped it to no end.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?norfair_dweller

The impact it had should then be disregarded?

What is its impact? You didnt actually quite say it. Theres FPS that are more popular, original, better, and important than Halo.

[QUOTE="norfair_dweller"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?MGS9150

The impact it had should then be disregarded?

The only reason it was so popular was because it was a very good game on the xbox, it was the only killer app xbox players had so they hyped it to no end.

You're saying it had no impact whatsoever on console shooters?

What is its impact? You didnt actually quite say it. Theres FPS that are more popular, original, better, and important than Halo.

XaosII

Controls for console shooters is its impact. And I can't prove this, but the sales of it and its sequel may be to blame for the boom in FPS games.

[QUOTE="voxware00"]

you give halo waaay too much credit for the controls

norfair_dweller

Hmmm...did I miss a game that brought the standard control scheme for console shooters before Halo, then? (No sarcasm.)

Timesplitters .... lost in the heap of PS2 games, unlike Halo ... One of M$ only fer exclusive superb games.

Halo was a great FPS, was it the best?No

Its among the 10 greatest and certainly the 3 most influential games this decade.People can say its over rated all they want, but why is it "over rated" by 90% of the media outlets, not only once but twice? I mean,it all cant be hype.Halo is a great game, whether people want to admit or not , it may just not match their tastes.

Timesplitters .... lost in the heap of PS2 games, unlike Halo ... One of M$ only fer exclusive superb games.

Meu2k7

I found TimeSplitters to be more akin to Goldeneye, but that's just me.

Hermits are the only ones who don't like Halo CE. Cows do, they just won't admit it.

It's a fanboy thing.

Halo is only taken for granted by jealous fanboys who didnt own a XBOX or a 360 to play it or Halo 2? The FACT is that there isnt a FPS on the PS2, GC, Wii or PS3 that offers what Halo, Halo 2 or Halo 3 offer and that is perfect control, fast, fun gameplay and depending on opinion, a very good campaign mode. Did Halo 2 leave us hanging in the end? Yes it did and yes, it sucked, but I have a very strong feeling that Halo 3 will redeem Bungie for their faults with Halo 2!!! Yes, the PC guys can say they had the best versions of HL2, Doom 3 and the Counter Strike and UT series, but Imo the Halo series can be played by the masses with relative ease no matter your skill!! I have friends who DESPISE FPS's....except for Halo. That says something!!

[QUOTE="norfair_dweller"][QUOTE="voxware00"]

you give halo waaay too much credit for the controls

Meu2k7

Hmmm...did I miss a game that brought the standard control scheme for console shooters before Halo, then? (No sarcasm.)

Timesplitters .... lost in the heap of PS2 games, unlike Halo ... One of M$ only fer exclusive superb games.

Timesplitters was fun, but it was no Halo. You cant simply say that it was "lost" in a heap of games. If it was on the same quality level as Halo it would have been reviewed as such and acclaimed as such.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Timesplitters .... lost in the heap of PS2 games, unlike Halo ... One of M$ only fer exclusive superb games.

norfair_dweller

I found TimeSplitters to be more akin to Goldeneye, but that's just me.

It's very similar. Namely because the two are made by the same people. :P

Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?XaosII

But it was fun...

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Timesplitters .... lost in the heap of PS2 games, unlike Halo ... One of M$ only fer exclusive superb games.

norfair_dweller

I found TimeSplitters to be more akin to Goldeneye, but that's just me.

Maybe so but its control scheme was pretty good, no problems that I noticed at least.

Halo is only taken for granted by jealous fanboys who didnt own a XBOX or a 360 to play it or Halo 2? The FACT is that there isnt a FPS on the PS2, GC, Wii or PS3 that offers what Halo, Halo 2 or Halo 3 offer and that is perfect control, fast, fun gameplay and depending on opinion, a very good campaign mode. Did Halo 2 leave us hanging in the end? Yes it did and yes, it sucked, but I have a very strong feeling that Halo 3 will redeem Bungie for their faults with Halo 2!!! Yes, the PC guys can say they had the best versions of HL2, Doom 3 and the Counter Strike and UT series, but Imo the Halo series can be played by the masses with relative ease no matter your skill!! I have friends who DESPISE FPS's....except for Halo. That says something!!

kungfuchaos

I think perfect controls might be stretching it.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?FancyKetchup25

But it was fun...

Indeed. What game is innovative? Seriously, i wonder if he could name some innovative shooters. Halo was fun. By virtue of the fact that all he can do is point out it didn't do anything amazingly new is proof alone that there's little to justify claiming it wasn't awesome.

Nobody loved halo because it was innovative. They loved it because it was incredibly fun.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

What is its impact? You didnt actually quite say it. Theres FPS that are more popular, original, better, and important than Halo.

norfair_dweller

Controls for console shooters is its impact. And I can't prove this, but the sales of it and its sequel may be to blame for the boom in FPS games.

I see neither as a big impact. It made a control scheme popular for one genre of one system..... Alright... and? Your second point doesnt hold any water. Shooters have always been popular, which is why Halo hardly wins the title of the most popular FPS. You might have been right if Halo did become the most popular FPS but it was already big before then.

We dont have to like a game you know!

I really dont like Halo and dont get why it's hyped so much but it doesn't make my opinions right or wrong they are neither just like your opinion and the reviewer of the game.

Its not wriiten in law that a review is FACT and is final know one can hate it and no one can love it more than its score.

Grow up enjoy your games, dont complain when someone doesn't have the same tastes as you.

Maybe so but its control scheme was pretty good, no problems that I noticed at least.Meu2k7

It wasn't bad, but I wouldn't say its controls were exactly or extremely similar to Halo's. Even the TimeSplitters series became more "Halo-ish" in the third installment. Big difference in controls between it and the second.

[QUOTE="FancyKetchup25"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?Ninja-Vox

But it was fun...

Indeed. What game is innovative? Seriously, i wonder if he could name some innovative shooters. Halo was fun. By virtue of the fact that all he can do is point out it didn't do anything amazingly new is proof alone that there's little to justify claiming it wasn't awesome.

Nobody loved halo because it was innovative. They loved it because it was incredibly fun.

Theres plenty of games out there that are fun. Why should Halo get more recognition than the others?

[QUOTE="FancyKetchup25"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?Ninja-Vox

But it was fun...

Indeed. What game is innovative? Seriously, i wonder if he could name some innovative shooters. Halo was fun. By virtue of the fact that all he can do is point out it didn't do anything amazingly new is proof alone that there's little to justify claiming it wasn't awesome.

Nobody loved halo because it was innovative. They loved it because it was incredibly fun.

The same can be said for all great games, a game can be innovative but still suck, in the end games are awesome cause their fun.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="FancyKetchup25"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?XaosII

But it was fun...

Indeed. What game is innovative? Seriously, i wonder if he could name some innovative shooters. Halo was fun. By virtue of the fact that all he can do is point out it didn't do anything amazingly new is proof alone that there's little to justify claiming it wasn't awesome.

Nobody loved halo because it was innovative. They loved it because it was incredibly fun.

Theres plenty of games out there that are fun. Why should Halo get more recognition than the others?

Because it was, really, fun?

[QUOTE="norfair_dweller"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

What is its impact? You didnt actually quite say it. Theres FPS that are more popular, original, better, and important than Halo.

XaosII

Controls for console shooters is its impact. And I can't prove this, but the sales of it and its sequel may be to blame for the boom in FPS games.

I see neither as a big impact. It made a control scheme popular for one genre of one system..... Alright... and? Your second point doesnt hold any water. Shooters have always been popular, which is why Halo hardly wins the title of the most popular FPS. You might have been right if Halo did become the most popular FPS but it was already big before then.

Honestly; shooters weren't popular on consoles at all unti Halo came along. It was like shooters on handhelds right now; people tried to make them, but few succeeded resulting in many developers just staying the hell away from that genre.

Besides Goldeneye, Half-Life and Quake shooters first person shooters really weren't that big in comparison to today's standards where there are dozens released every year..

[QUOTE="norfair_dweller"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

What is its impact? You didnt actually quite say it. Theres FPS that are more popular, original, better, and important than Halo.

XaosII

Controls for console shooters is its impact. And I can't prove this, but the sales of it and its sequel may be to blame for the boom in FPS games.

I see neither as a big impact. It made a control scheme popular for one genre of one system..... Alright... and? Your second point doesnt hold any water. Shooters have always been popular, which is why Halo hardly wins the title of the most popular FPS. You might have been right if Halo did become the most popular FPS but it was already big before then.

Big impact for the FPS genre. Not gaming as a whole. Probably should have specified that.

We dont have to like a game you know!

I really dont like Halo and dont get why it's hyped so much but it doesn't make my opinions right or wrong they are neither just like your opinion and the reviewer of the game.

Its not wriiten in law that a review is FACT and is final know one can hate it and no one can love it more than its score.

Grow up enjoy your games, dont complain when someone doesn't have the same tastes as you.

sadikovic

I'm not talking about game quality, I'm referring to its impact on a genre.

Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?XaosII

Let me ask you a question, do you consider the Romans innovative? Because that's exactly what they did.

Theres plenty of games out there that are fun. Why should Halo get more recognition than the others?

XaosII

Because it's better than "all the others". Seriously, great games all get the same amount of attention. Everyone went crazy over Half Life 2. People line up to get the new GTA.

Halo isn't treated differently. It's anticipated because the two games before it were huge hits in both the eyes of gamers who enjoyed them and critics who reviewed them.

Simple.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?TyrantDragon55

Let me ask you a question, do you consider the Romans innovative? Because that's exactly what they did.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?TyrantDragon55

Let me ask you a question, do you consider the Romans innovative? Because that's exactly what they did.

Not really. Might as well call themselves Greek 2.0.

[QUOTE="sadikovic"]

We dont have to like a game you know!

I really dont like Halo and dont get why it's hyped so much but it doesn't make my opinions right or wrong they are neither just like your opinion and the reviewer of the game.

Its not wriiten in law that a review is FACT and is final know one can hate it and no one can love it more than its score.

Grow up enjoy your games, dont complain when someone doesn't have the same tastes as you.

norfair_dweller

I'm not talking about game quality, I'm referring to its impact on a genre.

Oh then it didn't do much.

The only new thing it added was the regenerating health but I find that less realistic than health packs.

Dont get me wrong it's a solid FPS.

Halo innovations- shield system seen in many FPS across all platforms today

emphasis on melee- its actually valuable

emphasis on grenades- they work

stresses vehicular combat in a third person view

vehicle controls are very different from previous games

Halo isn't anything special.MrDziekuje

[QUOTE="norfair_dweller"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?XaosII

The impact it had should then be disregarded?

What is its impact? You didnt actually quite say it. Theres FPS that are more popular, original, better, and important than Halo.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]Because its neither new or innovative. Doesnt matter if it seemed fresh or good on a console, whats innovative about taking something that already exists ona nother platform and applying it yours?XaosII

Let me ask you a question, do you consider the Romans innovative? Because that's exactly what they did.

Not really. Might as well call themselves Greek 2.0.

But they are influential, the United States government is based off of the Roman idea of a republic which was just an improved version of the greek idea of a democracy. Innovation doesn't necissarily = creativity, often times it's just improving on pre-existing ideas.

hermits response: "but guys, if it doesnt change the way people look at life, it sucks :("

:lol: