Did Halo change the genre for the worse or for the better?

  • 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -

Halo's influence on the genre is undeniable in the gaming industry. As it help popularize the two weapon limit system, one button melee attacks, and off hand grenade throwing. Halo's most innovative aspect was it's regenerating shield/health system, which is being used in countless games these days. Halo also help make the genre multi-platform, making it accessible to consoles as way. There have been on going debate around teh internetz, whether it had a negative or a positive influence on the gaming industry. 
 
Here's an article that kind of inspired me to make this topic:  http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8066-Experienced-Points-Before-There-Was-Halo. Shamus Young believes Halo changed the genre for the better, many in the comments section strongly disagree with him. Then again, the escapistmagazine's user base is filled with a bunch of elitists, jerks, and Yahtzee fanatics. Then again, it's user base is certainly better than IGN's and Gametrailers.  
 
What do you think? Did Halo change the genre for the best? Or for the worse?

#2 Posted by Sumbog (481 posts) -

Better, this thread should never had exsisted, but I just finished it.

#3 Posted by Vinchenzo (6192 posts) -

I don't care a whole lot about Halo, but it obviously changed it for the better. Otherwise we'd still be dealing with trash like Goldeneye. There is no argument here, just "better". Stupid thread.

#4 Posted by zombie2011 (4968 posts) -

Obviously for the better. 

#5 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@Vinchenzo said:
" I don't care a whole lot about Halo, but it obviously changed it for the better. Otherwise we'd still be dealing with trash like Goldeneye. There is no argument here, just "better". Stupid thread. "
Okay, why exactly would you consider this thread stupid? There will probably be a lot of opposing opinions against Halo. Some will say that Halo is the cause of the decline of PC first-person shooters, which many would consider the definitive platform for shooters. Yet, some would argue against that. I'm just hoping that this thread won't go down in a shitstorm. For Christ's sake people....
#6 Posted by Irvandus (2818 posts) -

For the better by far.

#7 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

It introduced regaining health/sheild. IMO it made FPS games too easy.

#8 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5137 posts) -
@Sumbog said:
"Better, this thread should never had exsisted, but I just finished it. "
#9 Posted by zombie2011 (4968 posts) -
@ahaisthisourchance said:
" It introduced regaining health/sheild. IMO it made FPS games too easy. "
I think it's better than the old system. When it was "oh crap i just walked through a checkpoint with 2 health, guess i have to start this mission over agian."
#10 Posted by EdIsCool (1122 posts) -

my thought when I played it for the first time was "they got everything right, its not an evolution in any aspect, but they've made no mistakes everything works". 
It came up with neat ideas such as the ones you've listed but at the time I didnt feel it was a big change,just very competently produced.

#11 Edited by mano521 (1215 posts) -

though i dont care too much for halo.  now that you listed all the things it started, it definitely changed gaming for the better.   
mostly the regenerating health and the off hand grenades.

#12 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -

I've played Halo and Halo 2. Though it does have a great story and the music is fantastic, it's mainly the look and feel that really gets to me. It really makes me wonder how this game managed to get a pretty high review score. Just like GTA, this is something that needs to be graphically re-worked. Well GTA 4 did manage to do that. I haven't seen Halo 3 or ODST yet, so I can't say much, but most of what I'm saying is based off the first 2 Halo's. One other thing I believe this game is getting the major hype is because of the marketing and advertising. If you would have seen crazy marketing for, I don't know, Kane and Lynch 2, then you would have seen that the game would sell more copies than what it should.

#13 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

Whoever started "hide behind boxes and play whackamole like a bitch" changed the genre for the worst. I don't think Halo did that or anything equally offensive. Regenerating health is corny but makes contextual sense, they can't help it if games where it makes no sense use it too. So its fine.

#14 Edited by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -
@zombie2011 said:

" @ahaisthisourchance said:

" It introduced regaining health/sheild. IMO it made FPS games too easy. "
I think it's better than the old system. When it was "oh crap i just walked through a checkpoint with 2 health, guess i have to start this mission over agian." "
Son, back in my day we didn't have checkpoints. I beat the endboss of HL1 with 1 health. That proves that Gordon Freeman is a badass
#15 Posted by LiquidPrince (15842 posts) -

I don't even like Halo and even I agree it changed the genre for the better.

#16 Posted by SpiralStairs (1020 posts) -
@LiquidPrince said:
" I don't even like Halo and even I agree it changed the genre for the better. "
Same, I love Bad Company 2, Killzone 2, and both Modern Warfare games and they obviously owe a lot to Halo. 
 
Xbox Live and Halo pretty much revolutionized console gaming.
#17 Posted by simplicite (23 posts) -

I'd say it changed the fps genre for better, of course the Halo games haven't changed all that much since Halo landed on the original xbox. It's completely possible to believe that MoH, CoD, and other popular shooters wouldn't be like they are without Halo. Then again if it wasn't Halo to define some of the "standards" of modern shooters then it most likely would have been some other game. Point is, change will happen and for shooter it happened to be Halo that caused some noticeable changes.

#18 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point.

#19 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@ahaisthisourchance said:
" @zombie2011 said:

" @ahaisthisourchance said:

" It introduced regaining health/sheild. IMO it made FPS games too easy. "
I think it's better than the old system. When it was "oh crap i just walked through a checkpoint with 2 health, guess i have to start this mission over agian." "
Son, back in my day we didn't have checkpoints. I beat the endboss of HL1 with 1 health. That proves that Gordon Freeman is a badass "
This guy could easily kick both the Masterchief's and Gordan Freeman's ass. 

#20 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "
That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC?
#21 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:
" @ahaisthisourchance said:
" @zombie2011 said:

" @ahaisthisourchance said:

" It introduced regaining health/sheild. IMO it made FPS games too easy. "
I think it's better than the old system. When it was "oh crap i just walked through a checkpoint with 2 health, guess i have to start this mission over agian." "
Son, back in my day we didn't have checkpoints. I beat the endboss of HL1 with 1 health. That proves that Gordon Freeman is a badass "
This guy could easily kick both the Masterchief's and Gordan Freeman's ass. 

"
You got me there
#22 Edited by EdIsCool (1122 posts) -
@ryanwho said:

" Whoever started "hide behind boxes and play whackamole like a bitch" changed the genre for the worst. I don't think Halo did that or anything equally offensive. Regenerating health is corny but makes contextual sense, they can't help it if games where it makes no sense use it too. So its fine. "

I believe Call Of Duty is your culprit, when playing  Call Of Duty 2 I had to tell myself that I'm not playing whack a mole in order to enjoy it, it was very immersion breaking.
#23 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@EdIsCool said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Whoever started "hide behind boxes and play whackamole like a bitch" changed the genre for the worst. I don't think Halo did that or anything equally offensive. Regenerating health is corny but makes contextual sense, they can't help it if games where it makes no sense use it too. So its fine. "
I believe Call Of Duty is your culprit, when playing 2 I had to tell myself that I'm not playing whack a mole in order to enjoy it, it was very immersion breaking. "
People forgotten that Halo: Combat Evolved had a health bar too, it wasn't until Halo 2 they replaced it with a regenerating health system. Then Bungie brought back healthbars with Halo 3: ODST and Halo 3. I actually prefer the combination of regenerating shields/stamina and health bars, over just standard health bars or regenerating health. They counterbalance the pros and cons of each system.
#24 Posted by FlamingHobo (4479 posts) -

Change is always good.

#25 Posted by Hashbrowns (650 posts) -

Between making a melee attack meaningful and off-hand grenade throwing, Halo standardized the general gameplay of modern shooters.  While Half-life was a watershed moment in FPS design, the fact that I still have to switch to grenades and am unable to thwack enemies with anything other than a specialized melee weapon (crowbar) in a game that came out in 2007 is a little ridiculous.  Heck, if a combine soldier can melee me with the butt of his weapon, why can't I do the same to him? 
 
Regenerating health is perhaps my favorite change that Halo popularized.  Challenge should come from the ability of the A.I. to potentially out-manuver and out-shoot the player, not a battle of attrition while hunting down health-packs.  The claim that regenerating health is unrealistic sounds pretty silly when the alternative is walking over magic life-force boxes.  There's going to be contrivance either way, but at least regenerating health promotes forward progress and minimizes frustration.  We remember fun, right? 
 
I'm still a little miffed that Reach is reintroducing health-packs.  That was probably a decision by the same guy who designed The Library and who thinks that the Flood are a fun enemy to fight.
#26 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@FlamingHobo said:
" Change is always good. "
Not always. For example: 
 

#27 Posted by EdIsCool (1122 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:
" @ryanwho said:
" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "
That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC? "
I honestly believe Halo PC stands up even now, and PC gamer rated it 90% when it came out on PC. No its a bona fide classic. I also love Halo 1s shields and health system with health packs. 
#28 Edited by EdIsCool (1122 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:

" @ryanwho said:

" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "

That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC? "
I honestly believe Halo PC stands up even now(though not graphically ,bungie are usually behind the curve in graphics even on consoles), and PC gamer rated it 90% when it came out on PC. No its a bona fide classic. I also love Halo 1s shields and health system with health packs. 
#29 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@EdIsCool said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
" @ryanwho said:
" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "
That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC? "
I honestly believe Halo PC stands up even now, and PC gamer rated it 90% when it came out on PC. No its a bona fide classic. I also love Halo 1s shields and health system with health packs.  "
I was just asking if that is what he believed, considering that was a popular opinion towards Halo. It is in my controversial opinion that Halo: Combat Evolved truly stands up against the high standards of PC first-person shooters. 
 
I'll let Greg Kasavin a.k.a. the best game reviewer ever to explain why. 
 
  
#30 Edited by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:

" @ryanwho said:

" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "
That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC? "
Right. They were wrong about it for Goldeneye, cus the best shooter out for the PC at that point was Quake 2. Half Life, years off. Unreal, not yet. Team Fortress 1? Well yes, it was out and innovative but nobody at GB played it so that can't be why they said what they said. Which is fine, they're older gents and mix things up. But it was kind of true by the time Halo came out. Because by then, Unreal, Half Life, Counterstrike, etc made their impact. All that shit happened after Goldeneye, and before Halo. But that doesn't make Halo bad. And people still enjoy it now. Especially people who didn't play those PC shooters, because it was even more of a quantum leap. This is something Jeff and Ryan can't seem to comprehend for Goldeneye, which is frustrating.
#31 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -

IT TOOK MY HEALTH PACKS!

#32 Posted by FlamingHobo (4479 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist: Good point but I still think that change, for the most part, is a good thing.
#33 Posted by EdIsCool (1122 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
" @ryanwho said:
" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "
That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC? "
Right. They were wrong about it for Goldeneye, cus the best shooter out for the PC at that point was Quake 2. Half Life, years off. Unreal, not yet. Team Fortress 1? Well yes, it was out and innovative but nobody at GB played it so that can't be why they said what they said. Which is fine, they're older gents and mix things up. But it was kind of true by the time Halo came out. Because by then, Unreal, Half Life, Counterstrike, etc made their impact. All that shit happened after Goldeneye, and before Halo. But that doesn't make Halo bad. And people still enjoy it now. This is something Jeff and Ryan can't seem to comprehend for Goldeneye, which is frustrating. "
I take your point but the PC version was rated 90% by PC Gamer putting it within a few percentage points of the games you have listed.
#34 Posted by jos1ah (325 posts) -

How can a great and polished game change the genre for the worse??  Each developer/publisher relationship is responsible for any lackluster game they put out.

#35 Posted by pbhawks45 (736 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:
" @Vinchenzo said:
" I don't care a whole lot about Halo, but it obviously changed it for the better. Otherwise we'd still be dealing with trash like Goldeneye. There is no argument here, just "better". Stupid thread. "
Okay, why exactly would you consider this thread stupid? There will probably be a lot of opposing opinions against Halo. Some will say that Halo is the cause of the decline of PC first-person shooters, which many would consider the definitive platform for shooters. Yet, some would argue against that. I'm just hoping that this thread won't go down in a shitstorm. For Christ's sake people.... "
It's stupid because it's obvious that it made the genre better. PC's were going to die out even without Halo. It's simply too much money to spend on graphics cards every 2 years. The only way you can argue that Halo made things worse is the imitators the game spawned. But should Bungie be blamed for other peoples ineptitude? No. So it's a stupid argument to make. And that makes this thread stupid.
#36 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@EdIsCool said:
" @ryanwho said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
" @ryanwho said:
" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "
That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC? "
Right. They were wrong about it for Goldeneye, cus the best shooter out for the PC at that point was Quake 2. Half Life, years off. Unreal, not yet. Team Fortress 1? Well yes, it was out and innovative but nobody at GB played it so that can't be why they said what they said. Which is fine, they're older gents and mix things up. But it was kind of true by the time Halo came out. Because by then, Unreal, Half Life, Counterstrike, etc made their impact. All that shit happened after Goldeneye, and before Halo. But that doesn't make Halo bad. And people still enjoy it now. This is something Jeff and Ryan can't seem to comprehend for Goldeneye, which is frustrating. "
I take your point but the PC version was rated 90% by PC Gamer putting it within a few percentage points of the games you have listed. "
That's not what people are talking about when they talk about Halo. And it doesn't really change anything. Numbers from some magazine I've never read don't mean anything. You seem to be getting at the idea that because Halo PC got a high mark in a PC mag that means its exactly as good or better than the PC classics. That its as good as a PC shooter as the best PC shooters. Well no. If you think this random score proves that, you're simply reaching a conclusion that you were setting out to find based on some contrived logic.
#37 Posted by DuhQbnSiLo (2139 posts) -

For the better than MW2 turned it back for the worst.

#38 Posted by EdIsCool (1122 posts) -
@jos1ah said:
" How can a great and polished game change the genre for the worse??  Each developer/publisher relationship is responsible for any lackluster game they put out. "
Publisher: "Halo sold a fuck ton, make your game like Halo". 
Dev: " But we want audio logs, and a deus ex style ethos of not having to kill people!" 
Publisher: "Shut up! Shut up Shut up! make us the next haloz or pack up and leave!"  
 
Halo's success meant it would be copied . MOH is copying MW2 for sales. Successful games breed unhappy relationships between the competitions publisher and dev
#39 Posted by EdIsCool (1122 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" @EdIsCool said:
" @ryanwho said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
" @ryanwho said:
" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "
That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC? "
Right. They were wrong about it for Goldeneye, cus the best shooter out for the PC at that point was Quake 2. Half Life, years off. Unreal, not yet. Team Fortress 1? Well yes, it was out and innovative but nobody at GB played it so that can't be why they said what they said. Which is fine, they're older gents and mix things up. But it was kind of true by the time Halo came out. Because by then, Unreal, Half Life, Counterstrike, etc made their impact. All that shit happened after Goldeneye, and before Halo. But that doesn't make Halo bad. And people still enjoy it now. This is something Jeff and Ryan can't seem to comprehend for Goldeneye, which is frustrating. "
I take your point but the PC version was rated 90% by PC Gamer putting it within a few percentage points of the games you have listed. "
That's not what people are talking about when they talk about Halo. And it doesn't really change anything. Numbers from some magazine I've never read don't mean anything. You seem to be getting at the idea that because Halo PC got a high mark in a PC mag that means its exactly as good or better than the PC classics. That its as good as a PC shooter as the best PC shooters. Well no. If you think this random score proves that, you're simply reaching a conclusion that you were setting out to find based on some contrived logic. "
I'm saying it got it in THE pc mag, PC Gamer is the standard, its not a random mark. Its the only mark that counts.
#40 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@pbhawks45 said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
" @Vinchenzo said:
" I don't care a whole lot about Halo, but it obviously changed it for the better. Otherwise we'd still be dealing with trash like Goldeneye. There is no argument here, just "better". Stupid thread. "
Okay, why exactly would you consider this thread stupid? There will probably be a lot of opposing opinions against Halo. Some will say that Halo is the cause of the decline of PC first-person shooters, which many would consider the definitive platform for shooters. Yet, some would argue against that. I'm just hoping that this thread won't go down in a shitstorm. For Christ's sake people.... "
It's stupid because it's obvious that it made the genre better. PC's were going to die out even without Halo. It's simply too much money to spend on graphics cards every 2 years. The only way you can argue that Halo made things worse is the imitators the game spawned. But should Bungie be blamed for other peoples ineptitude? No. So it's a stupid argument to make. And that makes this thread stupid. "  
Upgrading your PC gaming rig doesn't take up too much money actually, and PC gaming was still going strong for years. Even with a console focused gaming era, PC gaming is doing very well. We actually received less PC exclusive with the advent of Halo's popularity. 
#41 Posted by Gamer_152 (14051 posts) -

I love Halo and I believe it changed the genre for the better, in fact I don't really see the argument that it changed the genre for the worse.

Moderator
#42 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@EdIsCool said:
" @jos1ah said:
" How can a great and polished game change the genre for the worse??  Each developer/publisher relationship is responsible for any lackluster game they put out. "
Publisher: "Halo sold a fuck ton, make your game like Halo". Dev: " But we want audio logs, and a deus ex style ethos of not having to kill people!" Publisher: "Shut up! Shut up Shut up! make us the next haloz or pack up and leave!"   Halo's success meant it would be copied . MOH is copying MW2 for sales. Successful games breed unhappy relationships between the competitions publisher and dev "
We received a lot of half-assed Doom and Quake clones back in the day. This is nothing new, this has become an on-going trend in all forms of mediums. There has been a few good console first-person shooters that took elements of Halo, but mixed them around a bit and made an identity of them own. They're a margin compared to a vast majority of half-ass Halo clones. 
 
@EdIsCool said:
" @ryanwho said:
" @EdIsCool said:
" @ryanwho said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:
" @ryanwho said:
" I also believe all the trolling Ryan and Jeff do on Goldeneye is easily applicable to the original Halo at this point. "
That Halo is great by console FPS standards, but nolstalgia is clouding our heads as there were better first-person shooters on the PC? "
Right. They were wrong about it for Goldeneye, cus the best shooter out for the PC at that point was Quake 2. Half Life, years off. Unreal, not yet. Team Fortress 1? Well yes, it was out and innovative but nobody at GB played it so that can't be why they said what they said. Which is fine, they're older gents and mix things up. But it was kind of true by the time Halo came out. Because by then, Unreal, Half Life, Counterstrike, etc made their impact. All that shit happened after Goldeneye, and before Halo. But that doesn't make Halo bad. And people still enjoy it now. This is something Jeff and Ryan can't seem to comprehend for Goldeneye, which is frustrating. "
I take your point but the PC version was rated 90% by PC Gamer putting it within a few percentage points of the games you have listed. "
That's not what people are talking about when they talk about Halo. And it doesn't really change anything. Numbers from some magazine I've never read don't mean anything. You seem to be getting at the idea that because Halo PC got a high mark in a PC mag that means its exactly as good or better than the PC classics. That its as good as a PC shooter as the best PC shooters. Well no. If you think this random score proves that, you're simply reaching a conclusion that you were setting out to find based on some contrived logic. "
I'm saying it got it in THE pc mag, PC Gamer is the standard, its not a random mark. Its the only mark that counts. "
PC Gamer US gave Halo: CE a 85% rating, and PC Gamer UK scored it a 91%.
#43 Edited by pbhawks45 (736 posts) -
@DoctorOptimist said:

" @pbhawks45 said:

" @DoctorOptimist said:
" @Vinchenzo said:
" I don't care a whole lot about Halo, but it obviously changed it for the better. Otherwise we'd still be dealing with trash like Goldeneye. There is no argument here, just "better". Stupid thread. "
Okay, why exactly would you consider this thread stupid? There will probably be a lot of opposing opinions against Halo. Some will say that Halo is the cause of the decline of PC first-person shooters, which many would consider the definitive platform for shooters. Yet, some would argue against that. I'm just hoping that this thread won't go down in a shitstorm. For Christ's sake people.... "
It's stupid because it's obvious that it made the genre better. PC's were going to die out even without Halo. It's simply too much money to spend on graphics cards every 2 years. The only way you can argue that Halo made things worse is the imitators the game spawned. But should Bungie be blamed for other peoples ineptitude? No. So it's a stupid argument to make. And that makes this thread stupid. "  
Upgrading your PC gaming rig doesn't take up too much money actually, and PC gaming was still going strong for years. Even with a console focused gaming era, PC gaming is doing very well. We actually received less PC exclusive with the advent of Halo's popularity.  "
To clarify, I'm not saying you are stupid! I just think the question being raised was stupid. And I know PC gaming is still alive, but it's not what it used to be.
#44 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@pbhawks45 said:
" @DoctorOptimist said:

" @pbhawks45 said:

" @DoctorOptimist said:
" @Vinchenzo said:
" I don't care a whole lot about Halo, but it obviously changed it for the better. Otherwise we'd still be dealing with trash like Goldeneye. There is no argument here, just "better". Stupid thread. "
Okay, why exactly would you consider this thread stupid? There will probably be a lot of opposing opinions against Halo. Some will say that Halo is the cause of the decline of PC first-person shooters, which many would consider the definitive platform for shooters. Yet, some would argue against that. I'm just hoping that this thread won't go down in a shitstorm. For Christ's sake people.... "
It's stupid because it's obvious that it made the genre better. PC's were going to die out even without Halo. It's simply too much money to spend on graphics cards every 2 years. The only way you can argue that Halo made things worse is the imitators the game spawned. But should Bungie be blamed for other peoples ineptitude? No. So it's a stupid argument to make. And that makes this thread stupid. "  
Upgrading your PC gaming rig doesn't take up too much money actually, and PC gaming was still going strong for years. Even with a console focused gaming era, PC gaming is doing very well. We actually received less PC exclusive with the advent of Halo's popularity.  "
To clarify, I'm not saying you are stupid! I just think the question being raised was stupid. And I know PC gaming is still alive, but it's not what it used to be. "
I know, but I'm guessing that the genre was changed for the worse when Yahtzee complains about the regenerating health system. Then again, I just remembered something. Yahtzee is a Valve fanboy.... FUCK HIM! This is a stupid thread!
#45 Posted by Tebbit (4449 posts) -

For consoles, Halo was revolutionary. 
 
For PC FPS games, Half-Life 2 is still the gold standard. 
 
Also, regenerating health is a great modifier to the combat experience. 
 
My reasoning: Halo on PC sucked the dick. 
Half-Life 2 on consoles did too. 
 
Therefore, segregation is the only way. 
 
Wait... 
 
I mean, consoles and PC's are different. And Halo made something so PC-centric work on a console, and work well. When someone does that to the RTS, that too will be good for the genre, but It will also split the genre into console based and PC based, just like Halo did.

#46 Posted by CaptainCody (1505 posts) -

Dumb fucking thread, Halo revolutionized FPS in 2000 not 2007 when halo 3 came out, gtfo.
#47 Posted by threeve (199 posts) -
@zombie2011 said:

" @ahaisthisourchance said:

" It introduced regaining health/sheild. IMO it made FPS games too easy. "
I think it's better than the old system. When it was "oh crap i just walked through a checkpoint with 2 health, guess i have to start this mission over agian." "
 
 Half-life 2 still used this system 3 years after Halo and continued through the episodes.  Since HL gives you plenty of opportunities to replenish before fights it works well.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that system - it encourages a different style of play.  Less use of cover and more killing the enemy before they kill you.  Both are fun to me if they're done right.
 
The important distinction to me is that both of these games have a reason for behaving this wat (storywise).  Even though it's just a suit, it's better than humans just like you and me taking bullets then hiding behind a box and getting better.
#48 Posted by RichardLOlson (1852 posts) -

I think it changed it for the good.  For being what it was, Halo really set the bar high for other FPS games.

#49 Posted by DoctorOptimist (502 posts) -
@CaptainCody said:
" Dumb fucking thread, Halo revolutionized FPS in 2000 not 2007 when halo 3 came out, gtfo. "
When the f*** did I even say that Halo 3 revolutionized the genre?
#50 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -

GoldenEye was a decent effort at making a console FPS at the time, but nobody makes FPS like that anymore.  That style of FPS was a development cul-de-sac, and rendered obsolete as soon as they figured out that two sticks > one stick for emulating a mouse & keyboard.  Modern FPS (including the GoldenEye remake I believe) is closer to pre-GoldenEye PC FPS like Duke 3D or Quake than it is to GoldenEye.
 
I was never a big Halo fan, but I don't think it had a negative impact or anything like that.  It introduced some interesting new ideas and I'm all for games doing that.  I don't blame Halo for being Halo or Gears for being Gears, I just blame the million other developers that then feel the need to copy those games entirely without bringing anything new to the table at all.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.