Halo wasn't even all that great to be honest. It was popular because it was an accessible, easy to play FPS on a console during a time when those types of games were mostly played on PC.
That's certainly one of the takes of all time.
Mine personally is that all past Reach were garbage, I'll never forgive what 4 did to the lore, humanity being around and a spacefaring race back when the forerunners were was fucking stupid
What if I told you that 343 didn't make that decision. Ever wonder why Guilty Spark called Master Chief reclaimer? Though I agree with your point, 4 was the last halo game I bought.
All of the lore snippets we got before 4 kind of hinted that Humanity was chosen as the next tech bearer because they were on the verge of a sentience level that the rings would exterminate, but not fully there yet, the fact that the forerunners would choose to pass the mantle on to a race they were actively at war with INSTEAD OF SAVING THEIR OWN RACE, is BEYOND stupid
I have a similar bad take as OP about Goldeneye 64 tbh
goldeneye 64 was pretty innovative even compared to its pc competition at the time. It suffered from performance issues, but the xbla remake or just good emulator settings fix that and really make it shine
No way dude. it revitalized the fps genre which was circling the drain at the time, and some ideas Halo had are still felt in fps games today.
I disagree. Half Life was top dog back then with Counter Strike, and Unreal Tournament and Quake arena for the multiplayer arena fps genre.
I found Halo's level design pretty boring and repetitive. The story wasn't appealing to me either. I didn't like the American-like militarism aspect. Especially in that post-9/11 period.
Fps games circling the drain in 2001 is a crazy take.
Oh? Maybe a bit hyperbolic perhaps. How bout this instead? Halo created a new renaissance for a genre that before Halo was niche, and afterwards became a powerhouse genre that drives the industry.
Crazy take. Op was right that halo basically made fps more accessible for console players- that along with great storytelling is its real legacy. At the time, if you wanted the most out of fps games, you'd buy a PC and pick up a copy of Half-Life from a store, find an update off a shady ftp, then after install you'd have access to tons of mods giving you access to an array of truly unique experiences. Fps weren't really made for console at the time and lacked a lot of usability (I.e. aim assist was not well developed, games were way faster and also more difficult for console controls). Counter-strike paved the way with TAC shooters and streamlining fps, but again you needed Half-Life and the retail port didn't come until 2003. Halo brought a console first experience with casual play in mind, most notable: low gravity for easier positioning and easier to shoot players, spawning with a decent weapon so you weren't outclassed off spawn, limited you to carrying only two weapons for easier weapon management, slow movement, and regen so you didn't have to chase health packs. This wouldn't be complete without me actually saying what Halo was good for- Notable innovations were obviously its physics and graphics engine, extensive user input assistance (aim assist and movement assist), use of vehicles (other games were clunky and there was little to do other than drive from one point to the next), story telling, sophisticated AI, and system link. To call halo some sort of Renaissance game that vitalized a dead genre is so very weird- you do realize this was the time of Counter-strike, team fortress, unreal tournament, quake, tribes, alien vs predator... Esports was growing with CPL and ESWC, both with majority fps-only titles. I can only assume you were not alive to experience it.
Well im 45, so there's that. Feel free to disagree, but i look at widespread casual usage of fps as a genre for everyoneas a measure of "driving a market", not esports which are cool, but niche (especially then). esports, CS, UT, and the like were PC only, and PC gaming itself was at the time smaller.
While those games existed and indeed so did esports, that and what i am saying (widespread, universal appeal for as you call them "casuals") are two very different things. Two disparate things.
So finally im sensing from you that you're not the kind of person in interested in talking to. Its a feeling i get that you just want to put others down. I might be wrong. Prove me wrong. Do you feel like walking that comment where you call my opinion wrong because of ignorance back, and maybe we can talk like peers? Perhaps we could talk about the impacts halo did have, or the impacts other games you mentioned has that were greater than halos. Maybe that would be information and fun for the both of us.
Or, do you want to keep waving your opinion in front of me and being dismissive? One of those choices continues this conversation. I am at this point ambivalent.
Balls in your court.
You are free to discuss all the stuff you thought that made the title as great as you thought it was. I clearly elaborated on why I thought it wasn't a genre defining fps but your comments were all about you claiming halo is great but not really saying why or how. Did you even try to explain what parts of the game were so revolutionary? Notice you wrote 4 paragraphs but didn't mention a single aspect of the game that stood out against what was in the market at the time. You also claimed I disparaged "casuals" when I clearly talked about features that made the game easier to pick up on console (you know, the market they were targeting) compared to what was the norm. You called the genre dead and I elaborated why it wasn't and what it was up against, and to be clear, you claimed the entirety of fps as a genre was dead. Not adding the millions of pc users seems weird when it is alive in that market (and many new games being produced are proof the market had growth). What do you consider widespread usage? How do you know Halo set the benchmark and not Counter-strike or team fortress or... maybe gaming in general was just growing and it was along for the ride? Or maybe it was marketing that put it on the map? You may as well have claimed no fps existed until halo. Do you think moba as a genre is dead? Moba dwarfs other genres in viewers but it is largely pc. For console fps, i would argue goldeneye set the standard in the late 90s with its good controls, split screen multiplayer, and memorable campaign. If we're talking gameplay trends clearly more tac-like shooters based on cod and counter-strike flourished. Also I recognize esports as relatively niche but you'd also need to realize it's the 2000s and recognition of esports at all is a big achievement in terms of gaming becoming mainstream. Gaming was stigmatized for a long time and the idea of competing in it for money was a breakthrough.
All that said, if you want to continue I don't care. It would've been nice to hear what parts of the game changed the genre but if you prefer zero substance comments I'm done here
Halo under Bungie was pretty damn good.
They were unique for that OG Xbox era of consoles, and although there were a lot of great games on the PS2, the one thing they sorely lacked was a really good FPS. Timesplitters was close, but Halo was where FPS first felt designed for a controller. The level design was on point as well, things like The Silent Cartographer still hold up now. It wasn't just a series of corridors.
Other devs cracked it by the next gen, notably Infinity Ward, but back in that generation Halo stood alone.
Totally agree! I remember being shuttled to the demo XBox by a GameStop employee who was fawning over the first Halo and I was not impressed having just finished Half Life 2
Half Life 2 came out three years after the first Halo though.
I agree. But didn't Halo come out before HL2? HL1 still kicked ass though.
Halo wasn't even all that great to be honest. It was popular because it was an accessible, easy to play FPS on a console during a time when those types of games were mostly played on PC.
That's certainly one of the takes of all time.
Mine personally is that all past Reach were garbage, I'll never forgive what 4 did to the lore, humanity being around and a spacefaring race back when the forerunners were was fucking stupid
What if I told you that 343 didn't make that decision. Ever wonder why Guilty Spark called Master Chief reclaimer? Though I agree with your point, 4 was the last halo game I bought.
All of the lore snippets we got before 4 kind of hinted that Humanity was chosen as the next tech bearer because they were on the verge of a sentience level that the rings would exterminate, but not fully there yet, the fact that the forerunners would choose to pass the mantle on to a race they were actively at war with INSTEAD OF SAVING THEIR OWN RACE, is BEYOND stupid
I have a similar bad take as OP about Goldeneye 64 tbh
goldeneye 64 was pretty innovative even compared to its pc competition at the time. It suffered from performance issues, but the xbla remake or just good emulator settings fix that and really make it shine
No way dude. it revitalized the fps genre which was circling the drain at the time, and some ideas Halo had are still felt in fps games today.
I disagree. Half Life was top dog back then with Counter Strike, and Unreal Tournament and Quake arena for the multiplayer arena fps genre.
I found Halo's level design pretty boring and repetitive. The story wasn't appealing to me either. I didn't like the American-like militarism aspect. Especially in that post-9/11 period.
Fps games circling the drain in 2001 is a crazy take.
Oh? Maybe a bit hyperbolic perhaps. How bout this instead? Halo created a new renaissance for a genre that before Halo was niche, and afterwards became a powerhouse genre that drives the industry.
Crazy take. Op was right that halo basically made fps more accessible for console players- that along with great storytelling is its real legacy. At the time, if you wanted the most out of fps games, you'd buy a PC and pick up a copy of Half-Life from a store, find an update off a shady ftp, then after install you'd have access to tons of mods giving you access to an array of truly unique experiences. Fps weren't really made for console at the time and lacked a lot of usability (I.e. aim assist was not well developed, games were way faster and also more difficult for console controls). Counter-strike paved the way with TAC shooters and streamlining fps, but again you needed Half-Life and the retail port didn't come until 2003. Halo brought a console first experience with casual play in mind, most notable: low gravity for easier positioning and easier to shoot players, spawning with a decent weapon so you weren't outclassed off spawn, limited you to carrying only two weapons for easier weapon management, slow movement, and regen so you didn't have to chase health packs. This wouldn't be complete without me actually saying what Halo was good for- Notable innovations were obviously its physics and graphics engine, extensive user input assistance (aim assist and movement assist), use of vehicles (other games were clunky and there was little to do other than drive from one point to the next), story telling, sophisticated AI, and system link. To call halo some sort of Renaissance game that vitalized a dead genre is so very weird- you do realize this was the time of Counter-strike, team fortress, unreal tournament, quake, tribes, alien vs predator... Esports was growing with CPL and ESWC, both with majority fps-only titles. I can only assume you were not alive to experience it.
Well im 45, so there's that. Feel free to disagree, but i look at widespread casual usage of fps as a genre for everyoneas a measure of "driving a market", not esports which are cool, but niche (especially then). esports, CS, UT, and the like were PC only, and PC gaming itself was at the time smaller.
While those games existed and indeed so did esports, that and what i am saying (widespread, universal appeal for as you call them "casuals") are two very different things. Two disparate things.
So finally im sensing from you that you're not the kind of person in interested in talking to. Its a feeling i get that you just want to put others down. I might be wrong. Prove me wrong. Do you feel like walking that comment where you call my opinion wrong because of ignorance back, and maybe we can talk like peers? Perhaps we could talk about the impacts halo did have, or the impacts other games you mentioned has that were greater than halos. Maybe that would be information and fun for the both of us.
Or, do you want to keep waving your opinion in front of me and being dismissive? One of those choices continues this conversation. I am at this point ambivalent.
Balls in your court.
You are free to discuss all the stuff you thought that made the title as great as you thought it was. I clearly elaborated on why I thought it wasn't a genre defining fps but your comments were all about you claiming halo is great but not really saying why or how. Did you even try to explain what parts of the game were so revolutionary? Notice you wrote 4 paragraphs but didn't mention a single aspect of the game that stood out against what was in the market at the time. You also claimed I disparaged "casuals" when I clearly talked about features that made the game easier to pick up on console (you know, the market they were targeting) compared to what was the norm. You called the genre dead and I elaborated why it wasn't and what it was up against, and to be clear, you claimed the entirety of fps as a genre was dead. Not adding the millions of pc users seems weird when it is alive in that market (and many new games being produced are proof the market had growth). What do you consider widespread usage? How do you know Halo set the benchmark and not Counter-strike or team fortress or... maybe gaming in general was just growing and it was along for the ride? Or maybe it was marketing that put it on the map? You may as well have claimed no fps existed until halo. Do you think moba as a genre is dead? Moba dwarfs other genres in viewers but it is largely pc. For console fps, i would argue goldeneye set the standard in the late 90s with its good controls, split screen multiplayer, and memorable campaign. If we're talking gameplay trends clearly more tac-like shooters based on cod and counter-strike flourished. Also I recognize esports as relatively niche but you'd also need to realize it's the 2000s and recognition of esports at all is a big achievement in terms of gaming becoming mainstream. Gaming was stigmatized for a long time and the idea of competing in it for money was a breakthrough.
All that said, if you want to continue I don't care. It would've been nice to hear what parts of the game changed the genre but if you prefer zero substance comments I'm done here
Halo under Bungie was pretty damn good.
They were unique for that OG Xbox era of consoles, and although there were a lot of great games on the PS2, the one thing they sorely lacked was a really good FPS. Timesplitters was close, but Halo was where FPS first felt designed for a controller. The level design was on point as well, things like The Silent Cartographer still hold up now. It wasn't just a series of corridors.
Other devs cracked it by the next gen, notably Infinity Ward, but back in that generation Halo stood alone.
Totally agree! I remember being shuttled to the demo XBox by a GameStop employee who was fawning over the first Halo and I was not impressed having just finished Half Life 2
Half Life 2 came out three years after the first Halo though.
I agree. But didn't Halo come out before HL2? HL1 still kicked ass though.