LBP overhyped much?

Durzel said:
No you didn't, so don't try and backpeddle now :)

You said "The main reason PC gamers like to insult Halo is because it was taken from them, if it had been released on PC it would have been hailed as a great game". That's not an ambiguous statement, if you'd meant "at the same time" you would've said that to begin with.

As for the "high profile shooters" comment - it's from the Gamespot review, I didn't say it. Of what I've seen of Halo from watching friends playing it pretty much every FPS I've come across on PC has been better than it. Halo is a very simplistic FPS with console-based controls with no redeemable qualities whatsoever. Other than the fact it is an Xbox exclusive it is - imo anyway - unremarkable in every way.

Exactly.
Click to expand...

Originally Halo was meant to be a PC game (well Mac originally I believe) However that changed when Microsoft bought Bungie and made it a launch title for Xbox with later release date on PC. That is what I meant by taken from them, because many pc mags were hailing it as a big pc title. Don't say crap like 'no you didn't', i think I know the meanings of my words better than you do, don't try and put words into my mouth.

Now both of you are spouting phrases like 'generic' and 'run-of-the-mill FPS' yet neither of you have named any games that it supposedly copies?
 
Shamikebab said:
Originally Halo was meant to be a PC game (well Mac originally I believe) However that changed when Microsoft bought Bungie and made it a launch title for Xbox with later release date on PC. That is what I meant by taken from them, because many pc mags were hailing it as a big pc title. Don't say crap like 'no you didn't', i think I know the meanings of my words better than you do, don't try and put words into my mouth.

Now both of you are spouting phrases like 'generic' and 'run-of-the-mill FPS' yet neither of you have named any games that it supposedly copies?
Click to expand...

Halo1 was not run of the mill, It was a very good, fantastically advanced FPS. Halo 2 and 3 on the other hand didnt offer anything amazing over Halo 1, except delayed bump mapping :p

I definitely disagree with the statements the original Halo is generic though.

Also I think Halo was the first time since Goldeneye I felt so comfortable playing a FPS on console, they nailed the controls
 
Quake 3 Arena, released 1999
Unreal Tournament, released 1999
Tribes, released 1998
Tribes 2, released 2001
Red Faction, released 2001
...and so on

How exactly is Halo 1 "fantastically advanced" when compared to the above, some of which predate it by over 2 years?
 
Durzel said:
Quake 3 Arena, released 1999
Unreal Tournament, released 1999
Tribes, released 1998
Tribes 2, released 2001
Red Faction, released 2001
...and so on

How exactly is Halo 1 "fantastically advanced" when compared to the above, some of which predate it by over 2 years?
Click to expand...

UT and Q3A are both multiplayer only shooters without stories, so clearly nothing like Halo. Tribes has some similarities but not enough to really call it by the numbers, and Red Faction was just rubbish.
 
Doom, Quake & Unreal are all sci-fi shooters, and I would say a lot more legendary/groundbreaking than Halo imo. They brought a lot more to the table.

Dont get me wrong I did love the first one I just think theyre seriously over-hyped/rated.
 
Last edited:
So just because they're science fiction that means they're generic? Science ficition is only limited by the imagination of the creator


Deus Ex
Halo
Portal

They are all sci fi games, doesn't mean they are remotely alike. Thats just like saying Rainbow Six, CoD 4 and Battlefield 2 are all alike because they're set in modern times
 
Again, history lesson required.

Q3A and UT both had single player "stories" - admittedly they were basically just tournament style "become champion by beating bots" but there was a single player experience in both. I'll grant you neither compares to the story in Halo.

Not having a story doesn't mean you can't draw comparisons between them though, especially when they're intentionally designed to be multiplayer experiences from the ground up. As I said, Q3A and UT alone - as genre-defining games - knock Halo into a cocked hat. And Tribes/Tribes 2 took the FPS idea and made it massively scaled.

The thing is, I look at all of the games I just mentioned and I can see iteratively how each of them changed how people think about FPS games, whereas Halo basically just rehashed their ideas and added nothing of merit to them. The only reason it's even on the gaming map is because it was a console-exclusive and as such thousands of Xbox owners automatically give it a ridiculous amount of latitude. If it had come out on PC only it would've been another Daikatana.
 
Yeah, true... I was stretching the single player definition a bit :D

Still, as multiplayer games they still trumped Halo despite coming out 2+ years earlier.
 
Your insane if you think Halo didn't break new ground. Before it console FPS were a joke, now there are tonnes and even the big PC franchises like Unreal and Call of Duty are being successful on it. If "The only reason it's even on the gaming map is because it was a console-exclusive and as such thousands of Xbox owners automatically give it a ridiculous amount of latitude" Then how come we haven't seen that with other titles? I dont see games like Resistance or Killzone getting the same record breaking sales or critical acclaim?

Its obvious your desperate if you're trying to claim that Q3A and UT had a proper single player story.


And if i look at game rankings and ignore titles that appear multiple times then Halo is the tenth highest rated game of all time, Doom, Quake and Unreal are nowhere near. Now are you saying that all these reviewers, the millions that bought it and the hundreds of thousands that play it daily are wrong...and you are right?
 
Shamikebab said:
UT and Q3A are both multiplayer only shooters without stories, so clearly nothing like Halo. Tribes has some similarities but not enough to really call it by the numbers, and Red Faction was just rubbish.
Click to expand...

Who the hell buys halo for that mind numbing grind fest of an sp though?
 
Shamikebab said:
Your insane if you think Halo didn't break new ground. Before it console FPS were a joke, now there are tonnes and even the big PC franchises like Unreal and Call of Duty are being successful on it. If "The only reason it's even on the gaming map is because it was a console-exclusive and as such thousands of Xbox owners automatically give it a ridiculous amount of latitude" Then how come we haven't seen that with other titles? I dont see games like Resistance or Killzone getting the same record breaking sales or critical acclaim?

Its obvious your desperate if you're trying to claim that Q3A and UT had a proper single player story.


And if i look at game rankings and ignore titles that appear multiple times then Halo is the tenth highest rated game of all time, Doom, Quake and Unreal are nowhere near. Now are you saying that all these reviewers, the millions that bought it and the hundreds of thousands that play it daily are wrong...and you are right?
Click to expand...
Hype sells.

Plus, now you're twisting the argument into a "console FPS" discussion. I was talking about FPS games in general. If you're talking console-based FPS games then yeah, Halo is probably one of the better ones. But that's like saying Grand Theft Auto is the best game avaiable that includes carjacking - it's a contrived argument. If you're going down that road why stop at just console games? Why not hold Halo up as "the best FPS of its generation that appeared on the Xbox in the year 2001 and cost less than £50" if you're just looking to engineer an argument where you can legitimately call Halo "ground breaking" or "revolutionary"?

I don't really rate console FPS games full stop, playing FPS games on a gamepad doesn't come close to keyboard & mouse. If you stuck some competitive Halo players on a Q3A server with competitive PC gamers they would get torn a new one. Likewise when you see games like TF2, etc with segregated servers you know it's not because of some technical limitation - it's because the console boys would get pounded into dust :D

Just because something is highly rated by fanboys doesn't mean an awful lot to me. And game reviews & ratings on consoles don't take into account the PC platform at all (nor should it). The point I'm trying to make is just because Halo gets 90%+ or whatever in an Xbox review doesn't mean it's a great FPS, it just means it's about the best relative to what else is available.

Those of us without rose-tinted specs on recognise that the likes of Doom, Quake & UT brought more to the FPS genre (read: not console-specific) than Halo did. Halo just took the best parts and packaged them up in a neat little ball that console gamers with short attention spans and even lower skill caps could deal with.
 
Last edited:
You sound like such a pc fanboy, I was wondering when you'd start bringing in the gamepad vs keyboard and mouse argument. Entirely irrelevant as we were talking about the games.

Of course those games have brought more to the genre, most of the older games have. But I never said that Halo had bought more, I said it was a better game. CoD 4 hasn't bought anything to the genre, doesn't mean it isn't a great game.

Can you name all these 'superior' FPS games on PC? Because looking at Gamerankings I can't see any ranked above Halo.
 
There's plenty of innovation in CoD4 including several sub-missions which act almost like completely different game modes - bombing targets, sniper assignments, commanding teams, etc. Not a great example to give really.

You don't seem to know what you're saying it seems - one minute you're stating as fact that Halo didn't come out on the PC (which it did), then you later try and gloss over that by claiming what you actually meant was that it didn't come out "at the same time", then you're saying "Your [sic] insane if you think Halo didn't break new ground" and the very next post saying "I never said that Halo has bought [sic] more [to the genre]". Make up your mind - was it revolutionary/ground breaking or wasn't it? Pro-tip: Look up the term "ground breaking".

And again you're using ranking systems (apparently?) as a means to prove your argument. I've never disputed that Halo is popular, but being popular or even getting a high score in reviews by virtue of hype and nothing else comparable being available does not a ground-breaking FPS make. What the hell has "ranking" got to do with what a game brought to the genre?
 
Last edited:
LabR@t said:
bland textures, bland level , bland, bland , bland
Click to expand...

Bland textures? It was using bumpmapping and specular effects and had the highest resolution textures of any console game at its release. Bland compared to what? The PS2, which couldn't even do vector shaders? Or the Gamecube, which was bottlenecked on several technical aspects in its Flipper GPU?

For a Halo troll you sure picked some really stupid reasons. Specifically going for textures, that's a really funny one! Most people go for the easy 'repetitive' or 'copy and paste levels' card, but I guess you just wanted to be a little different from the norm and chose the one aspect that it absolutely excelled at and creamed everything else on the three consoles at the time. Bit of an oversight there. :p

Epic backfire. Come back and try again when you've thought about it a little bit more. (I've already helped you with two of its biggest flaws)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom