Halo?

chumpit · 30 May 2009 at 21:14

Ok, I've just finished a convosation with a group of friends who are all big console fan's, all they seem to go on about is the new halo game.
Is it just me or did overs think the halo series is seriously over rated?
Ok the first game for its time was pretty decent, buti think halo 2 was pretty dull the story line which was important in the first one just seemed to be the same generic crap dumped in a new area.
Theless said about the third game the better, when i explained this to my friends they say that the multiplayer makes up for it?
In my honest opion i see the halo multiplayer format as a bit of a rip of of the unreal tournament style of multiplaying, except ut has a lot more viechles, and a larger acces of custom maps.

Am i missing something but havent their been better games released than halo? such as bioshock, lost planet or hell crysis. Yet they dont seem to have this fanboy following?

but of course i get the same response every time it lacks the halo esque, whatever the hell that is?

/rant

H0ax! · 30 May 2009 at 21:22

you're not alone, i never saw what the fuss was about

Tobes · 30 May 2009 at 21:46

It's the multiplayer not the single player.

It was the first major multiplayer console game. Sure there were others but the lobby system in Halo 2 just made having a game with mates fun. There wasn't any messing about, you could just turn it on and go.

But ultimately it's you vs everyone else. As the figures show that the multiplayer in Halo 2 and 3 have been the best seen on a console. Only game to top it has been COD4 I think.

KNiVES · 30 May 2009 at 22:20

For every person who likes Halo in any way, you have two extremely vocal naysayers behind them. The reputation of the series is a magnet for such people.

It's a good game, and its multiplayer on consoles is unrivalled. People don't like this, and will often go out of their way to express the fact they aren't interested in it, somewhat paradoxially.

Strife212 · 30 May 2009 at 22:27

The multiplayer system in CoD 4 works a hell of a lot better than the Halo 3 one.

Halo one was amazing as it was new but the others just seemed more of the same to me.

chumpit · 30 May 2009 at 22:35

Strife212 said:
The multiplayer system in CoD 4 works a hell of a lot better than the Halo 3 one.

Halo one was amazing as it was new but the others just seemed more of the same to me.

Thats what im getting at, i like the first game. the secound and third just felt like they copy and paste the standered fps onto a new area.
Ive played the online mode on halo 1 and just didnt get into it i found ut2004 a better online multiplayer game.

Kreeeee · 30 May 2009 at 23:29

Halo 2 was special, but halo 3 is pants and very behind the times in its game mechanics.

Shamikebab · 31 May 2009 at 01:15

Loved all 3, both single player and multi. Really invented FPS for consoles (there may have been ones before it but none have bought it up to the same standard and made the console a viable platform for previously PC exclusive FPS series.

Frame352 · 31 May 2009 at 01:16

Shamikebab said:
Loved all 3, both single player and multi. Really invented FPS for consoles (there may have been ones before it but none have bought it up to the same standard and made the console a viable platform for previously PC exclusive FPS series.

cough*Goldeneye*cough

chumpit · 31 May 2009 at 01:34

Green_Giant said:
cough*Goldeneye*cough

^^^agree, that game was epic, espically split screen on a 32 crt tv.
Oh the good all days of oldskool gaming.

arc@css · 31 May 2009 at 01:47

Only played the first on both the xbox and the PC and I enjoyed them quite a lot. Would like to play the second too. I didn't really enjoy the mp on the first, not my thing really.

Shamikebab · 31 May 2009 at 01:48

Green_Giant said:
cough*Goldeneye*cough

I don't think that did as much for Console FPS really. You hardly saw a lot of FPS games follow in Goldeneye's path, and I wouldn't say Goldeneye was that great compared to PC FPS of the same era. Where as with Halo a lot of FPS followed quite quickly, and a lot even adapted to take in some of it's successful game features. It's only since then that Console has been a rival platform to PC for the big FPS titles.

liquidex · 31 May 2009 at 02:11

Thought Halo 1 was immense while Halo 2 and 3 were a bit of a let down. Used to get some 8 player system link with Halo 1.

However playing 4 player split screen on Goldeneye was something very special.

Frame352 · 31 May 2009 at 02:29

Shamikebab said:
You hardly saw a lot of FPS games follow in Goldeneye's path

Not immediately, but that was more down to the limitations of the control pads of the time, in my opinion of course. Nintendo's N64 pad had a thumbstick, camera control buttons and a trigger button - all of which made FPSs viable on their console. It took a little time for the other console manufacturers to catch up in this regard.

Shamikebab said:
I wouldn't say Goldeneye was that great compared to PC FPS of the same era.

Neither would I

But then, I don't believe any of the current console exclusive shooters are "that great" compared to PC FPSs of today.

Shamikebab said:
with Halo a lot of FPS followed quite quickly

Absolutely, because developers saw how successful Halo was. There was money to be made! However, MS spent a lot of cash buying Bungie to ensure (initially at least) X-box exclusivity for Halo, which was of course originally going to be a PC title. I just don't think they'd have taken that risk if Goldeneye, Perfect Dark (and others of course) hadn't first shown that FPS games could be both playable, and profitable, on consoles.