Microsoft Wasn't Fond of the "Halo" Brand

[Snotnarok]

Snip

snip

I'll say it again since people don't seem to like reading long posts.
Change is fine, I like when things get changed up a bit, but think about what you wrote for just a second. Games were too similar with health bars you said, what are shooters now a days? They ALL have the identical regen health, leading to hiding behind a rock. While that's a all and good thing to have something different but now that's all their is and what I'm asking for is not for this system to vanish, but to let OTHER means of Health management come through. Because as it stands that's all their is with new games.

It's not like health bars had ONE way of healing you, perhaps you haven't played a game with a health bar in a while, I don't know. But there's more variety I assure you.
Health packs, wall health (half life), stimpacks (fallout), Kill your enemies to drop a health kit (red faction 2 mp), portable health packs (black), Medic (Team Fortress2), Heath packs (Left 4 Dead). Regen health is just regen health there's nothing complex about it, there's no teamwork involved to fix it.

Snip

Snip

I wonder if anyone reads my posts all the way through before calling me a moron, again, it's not a bad system. But not EVERY shooter now needs it, I'm not asking for it to vanish, I'm asking for...variety. Gasp a new concept in a shooter, must be because it's not happening lately.

Trust me, I have more shooters than most people have games, I've been through every health bar there's been in a shooter and I've beaten the Halos on their hardest, MW2 I play with friends, Team Fortress 2, Timesplitters 2, Future Perfect, Doom 1-3+exps, Mass Effects, XIII, Dark Forces, Section 8, Serious Sam etc etc. Thing is they all had a variety of ways to heal yourself, now it's the same thing. Hide, heal, shoot, repeat. While this is fine, and very fun is it such a crazy thought to you, that they just have some games with a different means of healing?

You're highly defending this system and really without reason because I'm not here with a steak and a not brandishing a shotgun, I'm simply saying is it too crazy to have another system next to it? So we can go from one game with regen to another where ..I dunno we eat Dinosaur eggs for HP? Is that really something to argue against? Variety?

 

[Marter]

I'm sure they liked the name after it sold like hot cakes.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I wonder if anyone reads my posts all the way through before calling me a moron, again, it's not a bad system. But not EVERY shooter now needs it, I'm not asking for it to vanish, I'm asking for...variety. Gasp a new concept in a shooter, must be because it's not happening lately.

Trust me, I have more shooters than most people have games, I've been through every health bar there's been in a shooter and I've beaten the Halos on their hardest, MW2 I play with friends, Team Fortress 2, Timesplitters 2, Future Perfect, Doom 1-3+exps, Mass Effects, XIII, Dark Forces, Section 8, Serious Sam etc etc. Thing is they all had a variety of ways to heal yourself, now it's the same thing. Hide, heal, shoot, repeat. While this is fine, and very fun is it such a crazy thought to you, that they just have some games with a different means of healing?

You're highly defending this system and really without reason because I'm not here with a steak and a not brandishing a shotgun, I'm simply saying is it too crazy to have another system next to it? So we can go from one game with regen to another where ..I dunno we eat Dinosaur eggs for HP? Is that really something to argue against? Variety?

I think it's you who doesn't read people's posts. You seem to misinterpret me at every turn.

I'm not calling you an idiot, and my stance on regenerating health is only defensive because you are on the offensive. What I'm really trying to say is that the systems are no different in terms of gameplay variety.

With non-regenerating health you restore your health by either A) finding something to restore it or B) using something that restores it.

With regenerating health you restore your health by not taking damage either by A) ending combat quickly or B) hiding from combat.

Non-regenerating health has greater potential for superficial variety, but it all boils down to finding or using. Really, what's the difference between eating a dinosaur egg or injecting cure-all stims when both just restore health?

What's really bothersome to me though is how much you overemphasize the health system as a gameplay mechanic. Like the only thing in the universe that could conceivably make any two games different is having a different arbitrary method to recover from fatal injuries. Don't pretend that you're not thinking along these lines as your precise complaint that you have reiterated a few times now is that having similar health systems makes all shooters feel the same.

Well I for one would count Halo 3 and Gears of War as two of the most dissimilar shooters in recent memory. As you may recall, both have regenerating health. Approximately the same amount of health and regeneration time even. Also recall that this recent memory extends at least as far back as 2006, so you get to count Half-Life 2: Episode 2 in that.

My basic point is to stop putting so much emphasis on health mechanics and appreciate the less obvious differences. Variety is always welcome of course, but there's many more sources of it than whatever twisted logic of virtual medicine a game uses.

One last thing, just because I extol the virtues of regenerating health doesn't mean that I won't love playing through Half-Life 2 or Metroid Prime again. Plus if you've paid attention lately you might notice that the progenitors of the whole regenerating health craze have been making a partial return to non-regenerating health.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

I'll admit, given the cover art, Halo isn't really a good name for a first person shooter. Now once you've played the game it makes sense but just looking at the cover i'd have thought it was some kind of sci-fi adventure game. The combat evolved tag helped establish it as a shooter...of course i suppose you could just look at the back of the box too, but alot of folks base there opinon purely off of first impressions so if i was looking cover to cover for a FPS i may have passed by Halo if not for the combat evolved tag giveing it that hint of military about it.

Now this only applies if were thinking back to when Halo first came out. After it's success it was an established brand and everyone knew what it was and why it was called halo.

I guess my point is that i understand where mirosoft was coming from. It's a buisness and it wants to make sure its products sell so best to advertise them in a way that will appeal to the FPS market.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

just looking at the cover i'd have thought it was some kind of sci-fi adventure game. The combat evolved tag helped establish it as a shooter...of course i suppose you could just look at the back of the box too, but alot of folks base there opinon purely off of first impressions so if i was looking cover to cover for a FPS i may have passed by Halo if not for the combat evolved tag giveing it that hint of military about it.

All the warfare and military equipment on the cover doesn't give "that hint of military about it"?

I understand just the name Halo not giving much impression of military combat. That makes perfect sense, angelic halos are about as separate from violence in the general public conscience as kittens. But the only way that the cover could indicate an FPS any more is by having a HUD.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

just looking at the cover i'd have thought it was some kind of sci-fi adventure game. The combat evolved tag helped establish it as a shooter...of course i suppose you could just look at the back of the box too, but alot of folks base there opinon purely off of first impressions so if i was looking cover to cover for a FPS i may have passed by Halo if not for the combat evolved tag giveing it that hint of military about it.

All the warfare and military equipment on the cover doesn't give "that hint of military about it"?

I understand just the name Halo not giving much impression of military combat. That makes perfect sense, angelic halos are about as separate from violence in the general public conscience as kittens. But the only way that the cover could indicate an FPS any more is by having a HUD.

Actually the first time i saw it i thought it was the sequal to Giants: Citizen Kabuto (look it up). Master chief looks similar to the Meccaryns and this "military equipment" you speak of doesn't exist in real life so it looked just like a space man holding a gun with a strange shaped car in the backround.

Remeber, i'm talking about a time before the first game was popular so most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a warthog and any other generic space car. plus the enviroment wasn't what you'd normally see in a military type shooter back then. So no the fact that he had a gun didn't make me think FPS

 

[Wolfy4226]

I think Microsoft should examine what the **** "Windows" means before they start harping on "Halo" not being descriptive. >_>

 

[Liquid Paradox]

Ha, I always thought that subtitle made no sense... I figured it was just because of the twin joystick thingy (which was terrible back then, ugg it was terrible.)

 

[Snotnarok]

I wonder if anyone reads my posts all the way through before calling me a moron, again, it's not a bad system. But not EVERY shooter now needs it, I'm not asking for it to vanish, I'm asking for...variety. Gasp a new concept in a shooter, must be because it's not happening lately.

Trust me, I have more shooters than most people have games, I've been through every health bar there's been in a shooter and I've beaten the Halos on their hardest, MW2 I play with friends, Team Fortress 2, Timesplitters 2, Future Perfect, Doom 1-3+exps, Mass Effects, XIII, Dark Forces, Section 8, Serious Sam etc etc. Thing is they all had a variety of ways to heal yourself, now it's the same thing. Hide, heal, shoot, repeat. While this is fine, and very fun is it such a crazy thought to you, that they just have some games with a different means of healing?

You're highly defending this system and really without reason because I'm not here with a steak and a not brandishing a shotgun, I'm simply saying is it too crazy to have another system next to it? So we can go from one game with regen to another where ..I dunno we eat Dinosaur eggs for HP? Is that really something to argue against? Variety?

I think it's you who doesn't read people's posts. You seem to misinterpret me at every turn.

I'm not calling you an idiot, and my stance on regenerating health is only defensive because you are on the offensive. What I'm really trying to say is that the systems are no different in terms of gameplay variety.

With non-regenerating health you restore your health by either A) finding something to restore it or B) using something that restores it.

With regenerating health you restore your health by not taking damage either by A) ending combat quickly or B) hiding from combat.

Non-regenerating health has greater potential for superficial variety, but it all boils down to finding or using. Really, what's the difference between eating a dinosaur egg or injecting cure-all stims when both just restore health?

What's really bothersome to me though is how much you overemphasize the health system as a gameplay mechanic. Like the only thing in the universe that could conceivably make any two games different is having a different arbitrary method to recover from fatal injuries. Don't pretend that you're not thinking along these lines as your precise complaint that you have reiterated a few times now is that having similar health systems makes all shooters feel the same.

Well I for one would count Halo 3 and Gears of War as two of the most dissimilar shooters in recent memory. As you may recall, both have regenerating health. Approximately the same amount of health and regeneration time even. Also recall that this recent memory extends at least as far back as 2006, so you get to count Half-Life 2: Episode 2 in that.

My basic point is to stop putting so much emphasis on health mechanics and appreciate the less obvious differences. Variety is always welcome of course, but there's many more sources of it than whatever twisted logic of virtual medicine a game uses.

One last thing, just because I extol the virtues of regenerating health doesn't mean that I won't love playing through Half-Life 2 or Metroid Prime again. Plus if you've paid attention lately you might notice that the progenitors of the whole regenerating health craze have been making a partial return to non-regenerating health.

I'm confused, you make it seem like the health system isn't a big deal in shooters.

Regen: You get shot and hide behind a rock till your HP recovers. That's how they work, you have to avoid taking damage to recover. This is the only way to recover in these games

In Team Fortress you have to rely on a medic to help you or find a medkit, this brings in teamwork because a friend has to come to your aid or vice versa. Making the game more about helping one another which I feel is a great option. Or Bad Company 2, while there's regen health it's really slow and you're better off finding a medic with a kit.

What you're not understanding is, I'm NOT NOT NOT saying to get rid of the regen system! I'm saying that I'd like to see more variety in ways to recover HP, why are options or variety bad? You're defending regen as an only option it seems. :\

 

[Keepitclean]

I'm with Bungie on this one. Halo without the subtitle is way better. I didn't even notice the combat evolved bit until I had owned it for a few weeks.

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

What else would they have called it? Massive ring thing in space which can destroy galaxies?

The halo's were the plot of the game so only natural to name the game HALO.

 

[TxMxRonin]

Wait, wasn't this posted before?

 

[bushwhacker2k]

It's a little silly for a company (even one as big and experienced as Microsoft) to be lecturing a gaming company about game-making but I digress. I like the name Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo would could be a little vague but we'd manage and Combat Evolved by itself would be INCREDIBLY vague.

 

[T_ConX]

I wish they stuck with the original working title...

Spoiler

Monkey Nuts

 

[solidstatemind]

I particularly like all the people blasting Microsoft... Yeah, guys: they have no idea what they're doing. They just stumbled on their multi-billion dollar business by luck.

And it makes me giggle that the guys at Bungie get their panties in a wad about this. Can I ask how wide-spread and popular their previous titles were? And, ahem, exactly why they were so obscure considering that they were made with the same insanely high quality that Bungie puts into all of their games?

Might it have been poor marketing? Just maybe?

Seriously. 'Halo' was a great name once brand-name recognition was established! It stood on its own and people didn't need to be told that Halo=FPS focused on a super-soldier named Master Chief, after Halo:CE.

But initially? Honestly, do you really think that your average teenage gamer is going to wander past a box that just says 'Halo' on it and know what the fuck the game is about? Or will they say "Hmmm... Halos have to do with Angels, so it's probably something religious... yeah, no thank you."

Is it possible that 'Halo' might've been huge anyway? Sure! After all, Microsoft was promoting it as a console-defining title. But leaving that out, did the 'Combat Evolved' subtitle really hurt anything? No it didn't.

And I think Bungie, as much as I love almost every single game they've published, needs to sit down and compare the track record of the games they made previous to Halo with the wild popularity of the Halo series. It pretty clearly demonstrates that Bungie certainly benefited from their association with Microsoft, regardless of how 'silly' they might think MS's marketing team's demands might have been.

Ultimately, I think you have to say "gosh, we're getting a shitload of marketing dollars from this company, they are giving us a shitton of creative freedom to do things like ARGs and the like, and allowing us to maintain our high level of community interaction...

Yeah... I think I can deal with adding two words to the title of my game, if they feel that it's in the best interests of success. It's not as if they are asking us to make it 'Halo: Steaming Turd' or something."