Poll: Halo or Half-Life?

[Headsprouter]

Timesplitters.

Those two aren't the only good FPS games in existence, you know. And Half-Life has a similar level of deadness.

I've only played the first part of Half-Life 2 and the campaign of Halo 3. I'd pick Half-life of the two of them, but...yeah. Pretty sure Timesplitters will always be more my thing. It was Halo's competitor back in the day, y'know! Or at least that's what Free Radical seemed to think...

Silly.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Honestly, I've always found vanilla Half-Life and Half-Life 2 to be dreadfully boring. Forgettable 1999-style shooter gameplay (I understand it's an older FPS, but that doesn't magically make it less boring), very average storyline, the only remarkable thing about the series being the way the story is told directly through the gameplay and the level design instead of cutscenes. Other than that, I'll play it with tons of mods or not at all.

Halo though, at least with the first couple of games, had a somewhat more interesting story and infinitely more fun gameplay. I must have played through Combat Evolved and Anniversary twenty-plus times, and at least five or six each for 2 and 3. By comparison, I played through Half-Life 2 with no mods once. I didn't finish Half-Life 1.

Halo is a generic "sci-fi" shooter thats completely devoid of original content. Its basically "Starship Troopers" or any other space marine movie you've EVER seen.

Half-Life was the first game to bring story to the FPS genre.

Without Half-Life, there would probably be no Halo.

So Half-Life wins by default.

You're kidding, right? Watch this:

"Half-Life was every generic alien/zombie movie in a laboratory setting you've ever seen. Half-Life 2 was '1984 The Video Game'.

Halo was the game that made FPSs truly viable on consoles - every console FPS since has been based on Halo's control scheme.

Without Halo popularizing the genre for a more mainstream audience, there probably wouldn't be a Half-Life 2.

So Halo wins by default."

Do you see how none of what I just said makes Halo better than Half-Life? The points you're making barely even address the question (except the first one, but as I pointed out, it's equally true of Half-Life).

 

[Arqus_Zed]

No TimeSplitters?

Well, fuck you too then.

I dunno, single player, I'd say Half-life. Co-op and multiplayer, I'd say Halo.
Then again, Half-Life doesn't have a co-op or multiplayer... So make of that what you want.

P.S.: No, I am not counting any mods, official or unofficial, that gave Half-Life co-op or multiplayer options.

 

[TristanBelmont]

Halo is a generic "sci-fi" shooter thats completely devoid of original content. Its basically "Starship Troopers" or any other space marine movie you've EVER seen.

Half-Life was the first game to bring story to the FPS genre.

Without Half-Life, there would probably be no Halo.

So Half-Life wins by default.

As many things as I would love to say to this, I'm just going to point out that you're wrong. Doom had a story, and it was a game where you shoot from the first-person perspective. Granted, it wasn't at the level of Half-Life, Halo, or Team Fortress, but "Demons from Hell are invading and it is your job to kill everything that moves, breathes, or has the audacity to look you in the eye" is a story.

 

[Verkula]

They are both kinda "meh" to me, but not in a bad way. I had fun with them, but that's about it. So yeah, I guess I "prefer" both.

 

[Zakarath]

Halo: CE I enjoyed more than Half-Life 1. Half-life 2 I'd say was about a tie with Halos 2&3.
Half-life 2 did a better job with themes, aesthetics, and story, but I did enjoy Halo's shooty gameplay more; Halo had a better variation of weapons, and they just felt better overall too. The Thud-Thud-Thud of HL2's pulse rifle was pretty nice, but the SMG that was the bread and butter gun of the midgame was just really, really bland. (The same can be said of Halo's assault riffle, but you didn't have to rely on it nearly as much.)

P.S.: Playing as the Arbiter was the best part of Halo 2; I really liked his arc. Compared to that, Mr. Silent Protagonist Freeman is just ...underwhelming.

 

[default]

I love both for entirely different reasons.


I love Halo because of its universe, its fantastic sprawling levels, its awesome and sleek designs, epic sci-fi architecture, sound design, lonely atmosphere (in the first game anyway) and explosive gameplay.

I love Half Life for its gritty cyber punk sensibilities, interesting aesthetics (blending the old human architecture with the iridescent, crawling Combine structures), sublime atmosphere, wonderful characters you actually care about (Eli anyone?), seamlessly linking level structure (really helps you feel like you're on a journey), glitchy electronic soundtrack and its unique character and creature designs.


They're both my favourites but for very different reasons, so it seems pointless to compare them. They both also try to do very different things.

 

[MrDumpkins]

I love them both. Both Halo and Half Life 2's multiplayer modes were such a blast. I'd chose halo for multiplayer, and half life for story. Halo 3 is still my favorite multiplayer title to date.

 

[Nazulu]

Like both, prefer Half-Life series. I preferred it because of it's level design, how it separated the different challenges and game play. Half-Life 2 is one of my greatest games because of it's design and pacing.

So I have to pick Metroid

 

[Vigormortis]

I'm an avid fan of science fiction. A fan of most kinds of science fiction, in fact. From soft to hard, from dark to light, and from pop to speculative. As a result, I'm a fan of both the Half-Life and Halo series.

However, I'm a bigger fan of darker, hard-and-soft-sci-fi styles of story telling. I prefer Star Trek to Star Wars, for example. As a result, there is just so much more for me in the Half-Life series.

A better story filled with a host of hard-and-soft-sci-fi concepts and contemplations. A more interesting and diverse cast of characters and locales. Believable concepts, events, and aesthetics intermixed with a vast array of otherworldly creations. A higher degree of depth to the narrative. Foes that feel more dangerous and threatening. Story elements that delve into technological, scientific, and socio-political ponderings.

All around, the Half-Life series has always offered me a more immersive and more compelling narrative experience than the Halo series has.

Now, in terms of gameplay they're hard to compare. They offer different experiences, all things considered. Experiences, I might add, that I enjoy equally. However, I think I find the level designs, sound design, and general aesthetics of the Half-Life series a bit more inline with my tastes.

In the end, I love both series. I've had countless hours of entertainment with both. Even to this day I still occasionally dive into both series to immerse myself in their lore. It's just that the Half-Life series gives me more of what I want.

 

[Dosvidonya]

I'm an avid fan of science fiction. A fan of most kinds of science fiction, in fact. From soft to hard, from dark to light, and from pop to speculative. As a result, I'm a fan of both the Half-Life and Halo series.

However, I'm a bigger fan of darker, hard-and-soft-sci-fi styles of story telling. I prefer Star Trek to Star Wars, for example. As a result, there is just so much more for me in the Half-Life series.

A better story filled with a host of hard-and-soft-sci-fi concepts and contemplations. A more interesting and diverse cast of characters and locales. Believable concepts, events, and aesthetics intermixed with a vast array of otherworldly creations. A higher degree of depth to the narrative. Foes that feel more dangerous and threatening. Story elements that delve into technological, scientific, and socio-political ponderings.

All around, the Half-Life series has always offered me a more immersive and more compelling narrative experience than the Halo series has.

Now, in terms of gameplay they're hard to compare. They offer different experiences, all things considered. Experiences, I might add, that I enjoy equally. However, I think I find the level designs, sound design, and general aesthetics of the Half-Life series a bit more inline with my tastes.

In the end, I love both series. I've had countless hours of entertainment with both. Even to this day I still occasionally dive into both series to immerse myself in their lore. It's just that the Half-Life series gives me more of what I want.

Half-Life definitely has that Silver-age SciFi feel to it, I accidentally said Golden-Age in another post but that period really didn't deal with Cyber anything, and it's a huge reason why I absolutely love the series. Halo as a series has always been more of a Space Opera with really expansive lore which I also really love; although Halo 4 is a bit more Silver-Age, I mean it's harder to get much more SciFi than a plot revolving around the difference between man and machine. I just think Halo's lore and world is better, which is not to knock off Half-Life's it's just that besides the immediate events happening in the game and I don't think I learned to much about Half-Life's world in the games.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Halo, easily.

The universe has a level of depth that Half-Life could never dream of. It takes some serious work to actually learn the universe, but it's incredibly rewarding.

I think Half-Life has a bit of an edge in the gameplay department though. The Source Engine was and still is one of the best game engines ever created and Half-Life uses it excellently. I still love Halo's gameplay, but it isn't quite as good.

There's also the issue of the multiplayer and the community that sprang up as a result. Not only does the Halo series have excellent multiplayer, but the community it probably one of the best in gaming. Not the dudebro side of the community that is the stereotype, I'm talking about the people who are into the lore.

 

[Vivi22]

I prefer Half-Life. I've never liked the floaty physics in Halo, I hate playing FPS games with a controller, I found the first half of the original Halo to be too easy and the latter half suffered from some of the worst level design in history, and for all of the talk about how revolutionary the multiplayer in Halo was, the multiplayer in Perfect Dark on the N64 actually had substantially more options, and I'd say Half-Life and the various mods that spun out of it had more of an effect on multiplayer in FPS titles than Halo actually did. I've played bits and pieces of the later Halo games, but nothing's really changed my opinion on them. I think part of the reason they get so much credit is because the original did dual analog controls in an FPS pretty well, and did it before just about anything else. But I'm not sure I can give it too much credit for an innovation that was readily obvious and which many other people did as well around the same time.

So yeah, just couldn't get into Halo. All the power to anyone who does like it, but I think the series really is pretty awful for the most part.

 

[TehCookie]

Having only played a few levels from both I prefer Half-life because it's on PC. I only played Halo for an hour when it first came out and my thoughts were "It looks like a generic PC shooter with horrible controls. Why did they put this on a console?"

There are PC ports of the first 2 Halos. I know because I've never owned an Xbox and that's the only version of the game I've played.

For that matter you can also buy the Orange Box for Xbox360.

But I still agree, while Halo may have good combat mechanics, that's about all it has.

Someone already beat you to that, in fact they are right beneath my post.

 

[00slash00]

I've never really played Halo and I loved the Half-Life games, but I've grown so sick of hearing about them and drowning in the same Half-Life 3 joke over and over again, that I'm just gonna go ahead and vote for Halo. Maybe Halo is over rated and maybe it's brilliant. I wouldn't know. But either way, I don't have to constantly hear about it so at least I'm not sick of it

 

[Vivi22]

Halo was the game that made FPSs truly viable on consoles - every console FPS since has been based on Halo's control scheme.

Actually, other games did dual analog controls in an FPS first. Red Faction for instance. And if you really want to look for one of the originators of analog stick aiming in a console FPS, you need to go back to Turok Dinosaur Hunter. Then Turok 2 improved on it dramatically. And the funniest part is, while controlling aiming with an analog stick used by the left hand feels weird now, at the time it was new and you just went with it, and anyone who actually played Turok 2 extensively will probably tell you that it's aiming was faster and more accurate than any FPS game on a console since. Of course, a lot of that had to do with the N64 analog stick. No console has had an analog stick like that since (in part because they weren't very durable, but they were damn accurate).

Without Halo popularizing the genre for a more mainstream audience, there probably wouldn't be a Half-Life 2.

You're aware that the FPS genre was always big on PC, that Half-Life sold 9.3 million units as of 2008 (the most recent year I could find), that Halo only sold 2/3rds that amount, and Half-Life and it's mod community did more to popularize the FPS genre at the time than Halo ever did?

And Halo didn't popularize the genre on consoles. It was the first popular FPS of that generation, but there's a little game called Goldeneye you may have heard about that was a massive hit years earlier (even outselling Halo by about 1.5 million units).

Do you see how none of what I just said makes Halo better than Half-Life? The points you're making barely even address the question (except the first one, but as I pointed out, it's equally true of Half-Life).

I get you were trying to make a point, and I hope I didn't come off as too rude. Seeing incorrect information just tends to make my skin crawl if I don't correct it. I'm sorry.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Plus, no matter what anyone says, at least there is a Halo 3.

Don't even joke man. That's just not cool, alright?

OT:
Personally, I prefer Half-life. First fps I ever played with a mouse was Half-life: Blues Shift and that's where my love affair with PC gaming began. Halo was great, I wish I'd been as involved in gaming when it was released as I am now, so I could have fully appreciated it, but I never had an xbox and didn't know about the PC release until a few years ago. Both had a pretty huge impact on the scene when they arrived and I respect that greatly, but I find Half-life suits me better.
Hell, Half-life probably helped influence me into studying physics.

I should probably get some help designing a HEV suit though.

 

[JazzJack2]

The best FPS to me is still either STALKER or DOOM, neither Half-life or Halo even compare to them.

But if it's just between those two then Half-life is considerably better. The gunplay is for the most part superior in HL, the physics in Hl feel grounded and responsive where as someone mentioned above Halo feels very floaty which is really off-putting and awkward, but the main reason I feel Half life is superior is that it simply has a better setting and atmosphere, Halo's world always felt really generic and uninteresting to me.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Halo.

Half-life is boring. You play it once and you forget about it later.

Halo has replay value, not just in multiplayer, that and far more intelligent enemy AI.

Let me put it bluntly: HALF-LIFE IS BORING HALO IS BETTER

Opinions. I found Halo to be boring in comparison to Half-life. I could describe the events of the Half-life series in much better detail than I could the Halo series, because the only event in Halo 2 that properly grabbed my attention and imprinted itself was that one bit with the Breaking Benjamin song and the fuel-rod gun.

Also, while I'm a space guy, I found Half-life just sucked me into it's world a whole lot better than Halo ever could.