Poll: Do you like Halo?

[warm slurm]

I've only played the third one, but I like it. Not a ton, but I do, especially when you can find a good few people to play some custom games with (I don't really have much desire to play the regular multiplayer).

 

[Netrigan]

First game I remember limiting weapons was Wolfenstein 3D. A knife, a pistol, and a machine gun.

First game I remember that utilized weapon switching was Blood 2, although you had 9 weapon slots.

 

[Sandernista]

Halo 3 is fun, especially with friends. So yes, I do.

 

[Creator002]

Yes, I like Halo.

Reach is kind of disappointing though.

Exactly this. My friend and I actually sold Reach to re-buy Halo 3.

EDIT: Ignore any crappy formatting or word errors. First post with an iPhone.

 

[northeast rower]

I liked the first one. No idea how it became such a phenomenon though.

It was, as far as I'm aware, the first really successful console shooter. Had great graphics and sound(at the time), enjoyable multiplayer, and it fit what had been a PC-specific genre onto a simple controller. I think that it was the first to do the "carry two weapons" thing. Now think of how many games do that and you can see how far the roots have spread.

Nope. Turok, Goldeneye, Doom 64, and a bunch of other FPS games came out on console way before Halo.

I mean more on modern-ish consoles. There's a reason that the Nintendo 64 isn't around anymore. Also, I think that it has more staying power than any of those games. It's been years since we've had a successful Turok or 007 games, and Doom 3 came out years ago.

 

[Netrigan]

I liked the first one. No idea how it became such a phenomenon though.

It was, as far as I'm aware, the first really successful console shooter. Had great graphics and sound(at the time), enjoyable multiplayer, and it fit what had been a PC-specific genre onto a simple controller. I think that it was the first to do the "carry two weapons" thing. Now think of how many games do that and you can see how far the roots have spread.

Nope. Turok, Goldeneye, Doom 64, and a bunch of other FPS games came out on console way before Halo.

I mean more on modern-ish consoles. There's a reason that the Nintendo 64 isn't around anymore. Also, I think that it has more staying power than any of those games. It's been years since we've had a successful Turok or 007 games, and Doom 3 came out years ago.

this is one of my favorite Haloisms. When someone proves your assertion wrong, change the assertion. It's like how every car dealership is #1... after they add a few qualifiers.

 

[Chibz]

No, sir, I do not like Halo.

Nor do I appreciate what it is doing to the fps genre.

 

[northeast rower]

all that

Well maybe I was just trying to justify my argument. I'd like to figure out exactly why Halo is such a big subject as much as the next guy, I'm just throwing out ideas.

I didn't want to take the trollbait there, but cute attempt at being smarmy. I'm no fanboy, I just enjoy the franchise. If you're going to lable my response a "Haloism" you should probably have better reason for doing so. Every franchise adds qualifiers. McDonald's? Yeah, it does that. Call of Duty? Yeah, it does that. Metal Gear Solid? Yeah, it does that. You can't relegate it strictly to Halo.

 

[Netrigan]

all that

Well maybe I was just trying to justify my argument. I'd like to figure out exactly why Halo is such a big subject as much as the next guy, I'm just throwing out ideas.

I didn't want to take the trollbait there, but cute attempt at being smarmy. I'm no fanboy, I just enjoy the franchise. If you're going to lable my response a "Haloism" you should probably have better reason for doing so. Every franchise adds qualifiers. McDonald's? Yeah, it does that. Call of Duty? Yeah, it does that. Metal Gear Solid? Yeah, it does that. You can't relegate it strictly to Halo.

I've participated in a few "Is Halo Innovative?" threads and quite often you see someone add the qualifier "on a console" after you completely destroy their point. Such as Halo pioneered on-line multiplayer... like nine years after pioneered on-line mutliplayer with Doom & Quake.

Oh, wait, on a console, I guess finishing in the Top 500 deserves some sort of a medal, like it ran a marathon with only one leg.

Personally, I think that kind of attitude is really patronizing, like consoles are so ass backwards and retarded that we should cheer when they finally get around to joining the 20th Century... in the 21st Century. No, Bungie did what Microsoft did with the Xbox, transferred what was already incredibly popular on the PC to the console market, discovering a fairly untapped fanbase, and reaped the financial whirlwind. That's still a pretty significant accomplishment, although it does leave a lot of PC fans wondering what the big deal is.

But this goes back to my point that I think there's more than a bit of insecurity in the Halo fandom. It's not enough that it's incredibly popular and critically acclaimed, it has to be hailed as revolutionary... and we PC fanboys ain't having it. Considering it came out in 2001 after PC devs strip-mined the FPS genre for the better part of a decade, it's actually pretty amazing that they brought anything new to the table; but apart from its brilliant console control scheme, it's a FPS shooter. Everything I've come to expect from a FPS was in Halo, along with some recharging shields that annoyed the FPS purist in me, and they managed to be the first AAA FPS to get vehicles in play (although Tribes II beat them to that punch).

Or Yahtzee's Reach review, where Halo fan after Halo fan chastised him for not even mentioning Forge... a map editor, you know, the sort of thing that PC devs have been including with their games since Duke Nukem 3D. Yeah, it's kind of cool they got around to including that on a console release, but game reviewers barely mentioned it when PC games had them; but we're supposed to throw a parade because a console developer finally did it. Smart move on Bungie's part, because fan communities love map editors... but let's not make this out to be something that it isn't, like an innovative idea that simply *must* be mentioned in every review.

The problem with Halo is that virtually no one gives it the credit it deserves. People like me love to diminish its actual accomplishments because we're annoyed with it. While its most ardent fans are often fairly ignorant of the history of FPS games and end up giving it far more credit than it could possibly deserve... thus pissing off guys like me even more.

 

[goldenheart323]

I've participated in a few "Is Halo Innovative?" threads and quite often you see someone add the qualifier "on a console" after you completely destroy their point. Such as Halo pioneered on-line multiplayer... like nine years after pioneered on-line mutliplayer with Doom & Quake.

Oh, wait, on a console, I guess finishing in the Top 500 deserves some sort of a medal, like it ran a marathon with only one leg.
...big snip...

You know, on the surface, it appears you're being trollish because of the attitude, but then you make some really good points & provide supporting evidence for everything you say. This is probably the most insightful & informative post in the thread.

I mean more on modern-ish consoles. There's a reason that the Nintendo 64 isn't around anymore. Also, I think that it has more staying power than any of those games. It's been years since we've had a successful Turok or 007 games, and Doom 3 came out years ago.

BTW northeast rower, Goldeneye did have dual wielding. You started out ok, but when I saw this post, I totally face-palmed.
1. Fanboy or not, you need to say what you mean the 1st time.
2. Why do you place an arbitrary line in the history of video games as to which consoles matter in "firsts" and which consoles are too old to matter?
3. The reason the N64 isn't around anymore is because it's 14 friggin' years old.
4. The N64 being replaced by more modern Nintendo consoles is totally irrelevant to the discussion, (unless you think it's demise has something to do with Halo; or it not having Halo).
5. Staying power is part of what's being discussed. Sharing your thoughts as to why Halo is more popular than the games you mentioned would add much more to the discussion than just saying "Halo's still more popular than other games".

 

[northeast rower]

I mean more on modern-ish consoles. There's a reason that the Nintendo 64 isn't around anymore. Also, I think that it has more staying power than any of those games. It's been years since we've had a successful Turok or 007 games, and Doom 3 came out years ago.

BTW northeast rower, Goldeneye did have dual wielding. You started out ok, but when I saw this post, I totally face-palmed.
1. Fanboy or not, you need to say what you mean the 1st time.
2. Why do you place an arbitrary line in the history of video games as to which consoles matter in "firsts" and which consoles are too old to matter?
3. The reason the N64 isn't around anymore is because it's 14 friggin' years old.
4. The N64 being replaced by more modern Nintendo consoles is totally irrelevant to the discussion, (unless you think it's demise has something to do with Halo; or it not having Halo).
5. Staying power is part of what's being discussed. Sharing your thoughts as to why Halo is more popular than the games you mentioned would add much more to the discussion than just saying "Halo's still more popular than other games".

Yeah, I really never played Goldeneye. If you're going to try and dissect my argument, you might also notice that I never mentioned dual-wielding.
1. Yeah, I got screwed up in defending Halo. I'm not a fanboy, but I still like the games.
2. I really don't understand what you mean here.
3. What I'm saying is that the N64 isn't around anymore because it lacked games with staying power. I'm just using an example to back up my argument.
4. You know what? Fuck it. I'm not going to get caught up in a back-and-forth trollfest.

 

[goldenheart323]

I can't say I blame you for not wanting to continue. I've had my share of troll attacks on the internet. You showed some potential for not being a fanboy, so I thought I'd at least give you the chance to redeem yourself rather than just face-palm, judge you, & move on. I still see some potential, but it's gotten smaller after reading your answer to #3.

I mean more on modern-ish consoles. There's a reason that the Nintendo 64 isn't around anymore. Also, I think that it has more staying power than any of those games. It's been years since we've had a successful Turok or 007 games, and Doom 3 came out years ago.

BTW northeast rower, Goldeneye did have dual wielding. You started out ok, but when I saw this post, I totally face-palmed.
1. Fanboy or not, you need to say what you mean the 1st time.
2. Why do you place an arbitrary line in the history of video games as to which consoles matter in "firsts" and which consoles are too old to matter?
3. The reason the N64 isn't around anymore is because it's 14 friggin' years old.
4. The N64 being replaced by more modern Nintendo consoles is totally irrelevant to the discussion, (unless you think it's demise has something to do with Halo; or it not having Halo).
5. Staying power is part of what's being discussed. Sharing your thoughts as to why Halo is more popular than the games you mentioned would add much more to the discussion than just saying "Halo's still more popular than other games".

Yeah, I really never played Goldeneye. If you're going to try and dissect my argument, you might also notice that I never mentioned dual-wielding.
1. Yeah, I got screwed up in defending Halo. I'm not a fanboy, but I still like the games.
2. I really don't understand what you mean here.
3. What I'm saying is that the N64 isn't around anymore because it lacked games with staying power. I'm just using an example to back up my argument.
4. You know what? Fuck it. I'm not going to get caught up in a back-and-forth trollfest.

This is why I thought you mentioned dual wielding:

I liked the first one. No idea how it became such a phenomenon though.

It was, as far as I'm aware, the first really successful console shooter. Had great graphics and sound(at the time), enjoyable multiplayer, and it fit what had been a PC-specific genre onto a simple controller. I think that it was the first to do the "carry two weapons" thing. Now think of how many games do that and you can see how far the roots have spread.

I thought you were talking about carrying two weapons in your hands, not carrying only 2 weapons in your inventory.

2. You went from "Halo is the 1st successful console shooter to do XYZ," to "Oh, I meant the 1st on a modern-ish console." So you're saying the N64 doesn't matter because it's not "modern-ish" even though one of its games did all of XYZ first. Why dismiss the N64 because of its age? I can't see any reason for this. That's why I asked about your arbitrary line in history.
3. I can't believe you're seriously claiming if a 14yr old console had better games, it would still be around. Never mind that Mario's still around, as is Castlevania.

EDIT: I seriously want to understand why you think that way on #3. I don't mean to totally dismiss it. I just don't understand it at all.

 

[northeast rower]

stuff

Alright, you got me. I give in. I really lost track of my argument here, I guess.