Why is halo good?

I think the Halo games are 'good' games and i think where they shine is playing with friends. The gameplay is very arcadey but it does make it addictive. Same as Gears of War imo, to draw a comparison.

Tbh ive definitely found the multiplayer in the halo games fun, but i won't really comment on it in any in-depth way as ive not played it as thoroughly as others.

The original Halo i think really was a step up for console games imo, and i think it was one of the first to really incorporate vehicles in multiplayer i think? (Correct me if im wrong)

As for the story, ive been a fan of the story but ive always thought of it as a bit of a let down tbh, ive read the novels and the Fall of Reach and First Strike especially are far far better storywise, i just hope thats reflected in Halo: Reach somewhat. They created the foundation for a great universe in Halo but i don't think they ever really capitialised on it which is a real shame imo.

Halo 1: Great, the multiplayer was fun although the single player got a bit retarded when they introduced the flood, most dull enemy ever. I don't know what they were thinking tbh.

Halo 2: The online multiplayer was fantastic fun with friends but the single player didnt really go anywhere and had some pretty dull levels.

Halo 3: Still a fun game but showing its age tbh, i think the franchise started to wear a bit thin at this point.

Halo ODST: More of the same as Halo 3 tbh, its just like a little add on pack.
 
Goldfingers said:
it's a generic, arcadey, fps with a substandard story.
Click to expand...

fixed for ya!

Halo 2 had decent multiplayer, but that is all.

I remember all the hype and my mates going "it's awesome - buy an xbox just to play it" etc. and when I finally played it, I thought "Perfect Dark is much better than this trash."

I do love the assault rifle in the 2nd one though :D
 
Halo 3 is more of a technical marvel than a marvel of a game, very well put together, you can track every kill online, record videos of any game you've played and take screenshots. There's a lot of hidden detail there too.

For me at least: Halo > 3 > 2
 
There's a video up on Halo way point now called Halo Legends Origins 1. It's about the Forerunners, and why they built the Halo rings.
 
weringo said:
If a game has good gameplay it doesn't matter if you haven't played the prequels. Look at Uncharted 2 for proof of that.
Click to expand...

Well it's a continuous story, I think it's quite important to know what happened in the first two! You could buy it just for multiplayer I suppose though.
 
halo online doesnt compare to Q3 or UT in any way!! both are far superior online games
 
I'm starting to realise that halo when compared to other console offerings is actually really good.

It's just that I was used to that kind of multiplayer (and better!) on pc for years. The
single player can in no way be compared to something like half life 2, that isn't even a debatable topic, but I can see why people love the multiplayer - which is in fact very good, if you haven't got access to ut2k4, q3/4, cs:s etc.

No-one has managed to come up with any solid reasons, or even comparisons to staple shooters as to why halo is worth bothering with. So I'll conclude that simply it isn't my thing.
 
Halo is really, really good by console standards. I went through Halo 3 in coop and thought it was really quite boring and generic, but I honestly haven't come across a better console shooter. For a longtime PC gamer, the Halo games really aren't anything great, but they are the cream of the crop when it comes to consoles.

I guess that's my explanation.
 
I think it was pretty much proven that by PC standards Halo doesnt hold up when Halo was released on PC. It was kinda....Meh lol.

Its a good game on Xbox/360, But it really does pale when you try and compare it to the FPS games that were around on PC at the time. Which is essentially what Morba and Goldfingers are noting.
 
thevet said:
enemies are intelligent from the 2 hrs that i played of it long ago
Click to expand...

There's a great quote from an AI programming book I feel like is worth copy/pasting here:

"The designers of the AI for Halo, for instance, discovered their playtesters could be fooled into thinking the AI were more intelligent simply by increasing the number of hit points required to kill them.

For one test session they allowed the agents to die really easily (low hit points); the result was that 36 percent of the testers thought the AI was too easy and 8 percent thought the AI were very intelligent.

For the next test the agents were made harder to kill (higher hit points). After just this small change 0 percent of the testers thought the AI was too easy and 43 percent thought the AI was very intelligent!"

I personally didn't find much intelligence in Halo AI. I've played all three in co-op mode just because, well, they have co-op unlike many other fps games. I'd give them an average score of maybe 7.5/10 for the campaigns; on multiplayer I gave up because of the controls. I do think UT series has done literally everything better and earlier than Halo series but I understand why Halo is highly regarded as the king of console fps games. I'd say there are three big reasons: there weren't many console fps games around when original Halo was released, the marketing campaign from Microsoft and the fact that Halo games are pretty solid games, just not great. Marketing can bring an average game into the spotlight so that the game literally becomes an award winning franchise. Movie studios learned this years and years ago and nowadays Oscars are as much about movies as they are about marketing. The best movie of the year can't even get a nomination without a studio behind it.
 
A ranking system that goes up and down so K/D ratio is more important than just the amount of kills.
You can prefer a connection. Quickest, best connection or closest skill lvl.
All the weapons are available at the start, you don't have to play it for a while to get the best stuff.
The replay system. If you got your but kicked or had some WTF moments, go and watch the game from the other peoples POV, see what they do/how they play.
Loads of stats at Bungie.net. (if that's your thing)
It's best played with people you know. (We had some great laughs racing quads around some tracks that a friend had made)

But like what's been said before, you just might not 'get it'.
 
Halo 1 was a superb game IMHO and i still harbour some fond lan party memories with mates, rushed out to get Halo 2 and i seriously got bored of it. Didn't even get past half way because it was such an average game.

I can remember how annoyed i was with 2 online.. killing people in 1 was great as you could visibily see they sort of spin round and collapse which meant i could stop shooting and move on to the next target. 2 on the other hand frustated me to no end as i kept shooting because i didn't know whether or not the enemy has died yet.

Didn't bother with any other Halo stuff after 2.

Robboftw said:
As the above fellows said.

The first one somewhat revolutionized FPS gaming on the PS2/Xbox gen of consoles. It was a great game with nice graphics, great controls and a good storyline!

Halo 2 was a more average story and people played it online, which started off online gaming a bit more for the Xbox.

Halo 3 wasn't really anything special, I actually got bored of it and found it quite disappointing to be honest.

And now its Halo: ODwhatever etc. Its going downhill, although its not terrible by any means for a shooting game.

But when you compare it to the likes of Killzone 2, there is no contest :p
Click to expand...
 
wannabedamned said:
I think it was pretty much proven that by PC standards Halo doesnt hold up when Halo was released on PC. It was kinda....Meh lol.

Its a good game on Xbox/360, But it really does pale when you try and compare it to the FPS games that were around on PC at the time. Which is essentially what Morba and Goldfingers are noting.
Click to expand...


indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom