Poll: Why do people like Halo so much?

[klaynexas3]

More environment types, more weapons (different weapons for different purposes, not ones that make others useless), better working mechanics, more room for exploration, more original plot. Again not saying that it's the worst, I'm saying that it's mediocre and doesn't have anything special about it to distinguish it from others.

I'm sorry, but what was so good about the Half-Life plot? I'm not talking about Half-Life as a whole, I'm only talking about the first game, the very first one, with none of the other games. You are a physicist that puts some random crystal into some random beam because it will somehow allow you to examine it. This somehow causes portals to open up to some random world in space, which causes aliens to attack you because...reason? And then the military shows up and starts to kill the aliens, but, massive plot twist, they start killing the scientists too. So all you're doing is running through the facility, mowing down people and aliens alike, for some reason you launch a rocket, and somehow the other scientists find a way to create stable enough portals to send you into this other world, where you fight aliens there, and then some guy in a suit congratulates you for a job well done and kidnaps you.

I can say this much, at least the plot line in the first Halo game is a little more coherent, if not much more original.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Halo was some great shit, but it's still pretty damn good. It was one of the first games to introduce a refilling shield like bar(and it was best in the first game having both a recharging shield and a health bar), being able to only carry two weapons at a time actually does make you think about how you need to face the next mission, it did have plenty of varying environment types to go through, and while some vehicles handled like ass a fair amount of others actually worked pretty well.

I'm not going to say Halo is better than Half-Life, but it's certainly a cut above the mark, especially at the time. It set that standard that made it become run-of-the-mill. It's good in a way that's different from earlier shooters in which the only reason you play the game is to kill shit.

 

[Doom972]

More environment types, more weapons (different weapons for different purposes, not ones that make others useless), better working mechanics, more room for exploration, more original plot. Again not saying that it's the worst, I'm saying that it's mediocre and doesn't have anything special about it to distinguish it from others.

I'm sorry, but what was so good about the Half-Life plot? I'm not talking about Half-Life as a whole, I'm only talking about the first game, the very first one, with none of the other games. You are a physicist that puts some random crystal into some random beam because it will somehow allow you to examine it. This somehow causes portals to open up to some random world in space, which causes aliens to attack you because...reason? And then the military shows up and starts to kill the aliens, but, massive plot twist, they start killing the scientists too. So all you're doing is running through the facility, mowing down people and aliens alike, for some reason you launch a rocket, and somehow the other scientists find a way to create stable enough portals to send you into this other world, where you fight aliens there, and then some guy in a suit congratulates you for a job well done and kidnaps you.

I can say this much, at least the plot line in the first Halo game is a little more coherent, if not much more original.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Halo was some great shit, but it's still pretty damn good. It was one of the first games to introduce a refilling shield like bar(and it was best in the first game having both a recharging shield and a health bar), being able to only carry two weapons at a time actually does make you think about how you need to face the next mission, it did have plenty of varying environment types to go through, and while some vehicles handled like ass a fair amount of others actually worked pretty well.

I'm not going to say Halo is better than Half-Life, but it's certainly a cut above the mark, especially at the time. It set that standard that made it become run-of-the-mill. It's good in a way that's different from earlier shooters in which the only reason you play the game is to kill shit.

Half-life is superb in many respects (ambiance, exploration, mechanics, weapons, etc), but not its plot (which is average). I agree on that one.

Many games before Halo had a separate value for health and shields (almost all of them). I don't recall anything regenerating, but that's because FPS used to be challenging, so nothing would recharge and you would need to explore and find health and shield pickups. If you see that and the two weapon restriction as innovation/improvement, I don't think we have much to talk about in that regard.

Again, I understand that it was good for its time, for console gamers who didn't experience the great shooters of the PC, but once you take those into consideration it doesn't have that much to offer.

 

[klaynexas3]

Half-life is superb in many respects (ambiance, exploration, mechanics, weapons, etc), but not its plot (which is average). I agree on that one.

Many games before Halo had a separate value for health and shields (almost all of them). I don't recall anything regenerating, but that's because FPS used to be challenging, so nothing would recharge and you would need to explore and find health and shield pickups. If you see that and the two weapon restriction as innovation/improvement, I don't think we have much to talk about in that regard.

Again, I understand that it was good for its time, for console gamers who didn't experience the great shooters of the PC, but once you take those into consideration it doesn't have that much to offer.

I suppose my reasoning of thinking having both a regenerating shield and a regular health is a great idea is because it's forgiving in that aspect. With the regenerating shield, it allows you to survive one or maybe two blows from enemy weapons, so if you messed up, you still have a chance to beat the level. Games where nothing recharges, if you're low on health and there's no health around to pick up, you're boned, and might even have to restart the whole level, which just seems punishing instead of challenging in that aspect.

And with the two weapon restriction, I would say that's more of something some other people would prefer, as that can be seen as a bit of a challenge in of itself. I wouldn't say it's an improvement, just a step in another direction that some people might enjoy a little more.

That's my take on those two elements of the game.

 

[BigMack70]

I don't get all the nostalgia for the pre-regenerating health days. The regenerating health system of Halo 1 was perfect. It's not forgiving enough to be noob friendly on higher difficulties, but it allows SO much more more freedom in how you actually play the game. It allows you to try all sorts of crazy stuff without, as mentioned, risking a full level restart. Most of the hate on this system that gets thrown at Halo is retroactive because it's been applied in nonsensical and noob-friendly ways in other games.

And Half Life was awesome in 1998 but it has not aged well. It was noteworthy in large part because of how atmospheric it was and because of its relatively seamless checkpoint system. I don't even mind the silly story - my only real gripe with Half Life is that it's full of really poor platforming sections/puzzles.

 

[Doom972]

Half-life is superb in many respects (ambiance, exploration, mechanics, weapons, etc), but not its plot (which is average). I agree on that one.

Many games before Halo had a separate value for health and shields (almost all of them). I don't recall anything regenerating, but that's because FPS used to be challenging, so nothing would recharge and you would need to explore and find health and shield pickups. If you see that and the two weapon restriction as innovation/improvement, I don't think we have much to talk about in that regard.

Again, I understand that it was good for its time, for console gamers who didn't experience the great shooters of the PC, but once you take those into consideration it doesn't have that much to offer.

I suppose my reasoning of thinking having both a regenerating shield and a regular health is a great idea is because it's forgiving in that aspect. With the regenerating shield, it allows you to survive one or maybe two blows from enemy weapons, so if you messed up, you still have a chance to beat the level. Games where nothing recharges, if you're low on health and there's no health around to pick up, you're boned, and might even have to restart the whole level, which just seems punishing instead of challenging in that aspect.

And with the two weapon restriction, I would say that's more of something some other people would prefer, as that can be seen as a bit of a challenge in of itself. I wouldn't say it's an improvement, just a step in another direction that some people might enjoy a little more.

That's my take on those two elements of the game.

Again, I don't see how it is better, innovative, or distinguishes the game from others.

One thing about the weapon restriction that I forgot in my previous post: Halo isn't the first (or even one of first few) to use it. Many tactical shooters like Soldier of Fortune 2, Delta Force, SWAT 3 and 4 and others, have you select weapons before a mission. In those cases you usually have a general idea and can strategically select weapons from a set arsenal. In most of these games you can also drop one of your weapons during a mission and pick up a weapon you found instead. In Halo you just find something on the battlefield and have to guess if it'll be more useful than your one of you current weapons and you also have to hope that you'll actually find enough ammo for it, without much indication of whether you will.
So this particular element is not originally from Halo and isn't implemented in it as good as in other shooters.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

The original halo trilogy will always be one of the greatest gaming experiences.

the trilogy was in every sense a joyous frenetic ballet, set to one of they greatest soundtracks out with some of the most sumptuous, artful and restrained play spaces of any generation.

Halo is a game that put the joy of play above all else rather than muddying an experience with muddy peripheral content and stat screens. It was a very different game that spoke on a syn-aesthetic and and Ludic level first and on a narratological level 2nd.

Though this has invoked the ire of many pc fans who crave invasive convoluted plots and busy spreadsheets full of incremental data, Halo is still a clearly unique experience and a joyous one i think which will always be treasured by many if not by all for its appeal to the senses over the mind.

 

[ultrachicken]

Halo is a shooter that doesn't force you to stare at your iron sights for half the game, provides beautiful and colorful environments to do battle in, a host of weird weapons to use (explosive homing pink needles, anyone?), visually and mechanically varied enemies, and a good multiplayer suite. Yeah, I like it.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Are we still doing this? In 2013?

How do people not get this?

Because: opinions. End of story.

I like some things, I don't like other things. Your mileage may vary. How is it seriously this hard to figure out? If we all liked the same shit, it'd be a pretty boring planet now wouldn't it?

If you're proposing that an opinion isn't worth elaborating on or explaining, then why are you trying to explain your own?

The OP isn't gasping in shock that people like things that are different than they do, they're surprised that nobody can EXPLAIN why they feel so strongly about something they claim to love.

And yes, in 2013 we are still talking about Halo. We are also still talking about The Count of Monte Cristo, Dante's Inferno, Paradise Lost, The Godfather, Citizen Cane, The 7th Seal, Star Wars, Torment, Bioshock, Knights of the Old Republic, Earthbound and Chrono Trigger. I don't think Halo is a classic in the making, but we're also still talking about The Room and Phantom Menace so I guess crap and mediocrity are noteworthy as well.

I want to know HOW other people think, not just WHAT they think. Lots of people have interesting things to say about familiar subjects.

I didn't want to fire off a reactionary post in response to this. So I let it sit for a couple of days. To ponder if I'd spoken out of turn. Given that bit of time, I can't help but pop back in.

I'm happy to talk about Halo all you like. At length. With passion and verve. But if you need a power point presentation of why I like it though? Then your understanding of how liking something works is broken. You like something, because you do. It doesn't need explaining or justifying or bullet points to make it "valid". Sometimes, you just like stuff because it's fun, because it speaks to you and to your personal enjoyment, or because it just feels right.

That the original post inferred any of the kind of thoughtful debate about the classics you mentioned above is a reach (hur-hur). It stinks of trolling. It wreaked of the kind of weaksauce "It's popular so if I hate on it I'll be cool" hipster crap that Halo fans have frankly endured long past the reasonable expectancy. In other words, it's been cool to hate Halo longer than it was cool to love Halo and if you really want to learn why people dig it, then it's probably just not for you. It never will be. It doesn't speak to you. And you know what, here's the big friggin secret; That's fine.

You want to know "why" I think how I think. That is impossible. The most fun I've ever had with a game is Zombies Ate My Neighbors for the SNES. But there's no way I can justify that in a presentation, nor should you expect me to. Go spend 30 hours with it and tell me what you think. Oh wait, you won't be playing it when you're a first year college student, enjoying the co-op and the game's Lucasarts sense of humor with your best friend or have to dig up a Game Genie to beat the giant ant section. Because that's why I love that game. The experience left it's mark on me. And a ROM emulator might give you the game code and let you play it, but your experience isn't going to reflect mine. By the days standards, that game is broken, needlessly difficult, and probably a grind. But I still loved it and have fond memories of it and I likely always will.

Games are not films. A film is an unchanging thing. That's part of the reason anyone who has seen a film can judge it by it's merits as a film. What works, what didn't, why this shot or that camera angle may or may not be appropriate. A discussion of Citizen Kane, academically, will always be the same. But A game is a unique experience to each person. That is what makes a game special, but it also means that there is never going to be a one to one comparison when you discus them as art or as an experience.

Why do I love Halo? Because I played it in 2001 when it was brand new, not years after the fact expecting some revelation. I played it when I needed some joy in my life and it delivered it. I played it with the only friend I had left after a nasty divorce wrecked my life and the fun spoke to me. I liked it's characters, it's sci-fi setting, and the themes it was dealing with in it's story. I liked the world around the game enough to pick up the books and they were an enjoyable enough read. Better than most ancillary game material that had come before. I liked it because PC shooters, through no fault of their own, never spoke to me. I didn't enjoy the interface and I still don't. Say whatever you want about the mechanics of mouse over controller, I don't LIKE it and I never will. I don't care if it's super precise, I find it inherently boring to play FPS games that way. Halo, played on a controller, had a trigger to pull for the gun my disembodied hand was toting around and I preferred that. And because I never cared for carrying every weapon in the game like almost every shooter of the day and preferred Halo's 2-guns only approach, and because Halo offered vehicle sections that worked very well. And a thousand other reasons that apply to me and my time with the game(s)

When I was in college one of my art professors told me something that has stuck with me ever since. He said that people often ask him how long it took him to create a specific painting. He would always tell them his current age. (50 something at the time, not that his age is relevant) Puzzled, the person who asked the question would always ask him what he meant. His reply was, "this is the culmination of all I've learned. It took me (50 ish) years to be able to paint this painting." That's kind of how I feel about games. I'll discuss the mechanics if you want, but that isn't why I like the game. I like it because it excites me or because the narrative is woven into the world in an interesting way, or because it sparks some intellectual curiosity in me. Any number of reasons that may or may not speak to someone else.

To bottom line this whole thing: (TLR:FU) Your mileage may vary.

Addendum: I've read this post back to myself twice, and it may read snarkier than I intended. So rather than edit the body of the post, I'm going to add this last little piece in here. The thing that initially rubbed me the wrong way was not the Halo stuff so much as it was the idea that an opinion or feeling needs to be justified in some way. Halo is an easy mark for trolls and as a fan of Halo (before 4) it's a tired conversation. But as a discussion in general I think it's impossible to try and relate a personal experience as anything more than opinion. I've never understood why gaming is such a tribalistic thing to begin with. Just seems like time would be better spent enjoying the games and sharing what we love instead of some wet blanket showing up to try and douse everyone else's good time by asking them to justify it. I realize not all of that is aimed directly at you, so if this post reads as harsh, please know that wasn't really what I meant. I write the same way I talk and that's just how my friends and I talk. Thanks.

 

[xshadowscreamx]

i like the halo games becouse of the satisfying controls, multiplayer and it supports coop story.

 

[Tiger King]

I remember being round a friends house many years ago when the first halo came out. My friend had a copy and I sat and watched him play for a bit, I didn't get too exited by the game itself but I found the back story in the manual interesting.

All these years later and I think I feel the same way about halo, not a particularly interesting game (in reference to game play) but all the cinematics and back story are good.
Not the novels though, they were awful.

I just watched the cutscenes on YouTube in the end ha ha

 

[TehCookie]

My best guess was console gamers never played an FPS before, because anyone who played PC shooters would of found the controls ass. When I was playing it when it first came out my thoughts would be "that power armor is stupid" and "this would control so much better with a mouse and keyboard." I haven't touched the series since.

 

[Ishal]

Well I personally love it because of the spralling universe. I own all of the books (except for The Flood) and have enjoyed all of them and I really can't wait to see where the series goes.

This.

OT: Its a sci fi universe to rival that of Mass Effect imo, and it didn't have a train wreck in the third game

On the contrary, combat evolved was amazing and in Halo 3 one of the coolest characters is introduced... and hes technically not even in the game.

Captcha: Face the music... <------ THIS Halo has one of the best soundtracks in gaming. An iconic theme to go alongside that of Mario and MGS.

Halo is one of the defining games of the medium. It deserves its praise.

 

[LAGG]

Accessibility. Lots of people can be good enough at it.
Most people like games they're good at and dislike games they're bad at.

Marketing. People can only like what they know about.
Halo was heavily pushed by Microsoft as of the XBox launch.

Compare the popularity of Warsaw per see, neither as Accessible or as Marketed, and very few people know about it, and even less people like it:

 

[Smooth Operator]

I'm not really a fan, I understand this was a revolution to console FPS with it's auto aim and cut down gameplay but as I had years of PC FPS behind me at that point the game just felt like half is missing.
And I'm sure the story is really cool in some book they based it on, but what they had in the game was rather lame.

 

[hawkeye52]

I can't comment on the game personally hence why I won't be voting but I despise the trend it shooters that it created with the whole regenerating health thing. Granted it worked in halo because of thats how the technology in shields worked but in every other game especially modern shooters like CoD it just doesn't make any sense. On top of that I just think it's a bad game mechanic and feel that health is a resource that should be "managed".

Though that could be my old school battlefield tendencies coming through from battlefield 2142/2.

 

[junkmail22]

Why do people question what others like so much, as if there opinion is wrong and they are stupid or uneducated for liking a particular game, series, genre, etc.

People like the game, because they like the game, its as simple as that, you either like or don't, no big question as to why as if they are on trial and meant to prove themselves.

Why do people like to make these threads so much?

Hi, OP here.

I'm not saying that you are stupid or uneducated for liking Halo, it's just that I've never had it explained to me why people like it. But if you give me any game that i've played and liked, I can take it apart and tell you what worked and what didn't. You don't need to prove why you like a game, but I'm curious as to why others do. And to tell you why I mad this thread, I just want to see why people really like this series. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[MCHG]

I've never understood it. I've played almost every Halo game (Minus Wars and ODST) and they're all mediocre at best. I don't see how such a bland and repetitive shooter can earn such praise. The gunplay is inferior to almost every FPS I can think of, the story is confusing and uninteresting and even for just mindless dumb fun, Halo isn't as good as Bulletstorm or Gears of War.

Also, I'm one of the people who doesn't care for online multiplayer at all so all I'm left with is a boring 8-hour campaign with cliche characters and mediocre (two-weapon limit, regenerating health) gameplay. Not worth $60 to me.

I guess it's better than getting shoved down the endless corridors of CoD, Battlefield, etc. but that's not saying much.

 

[sumanoskae]

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. Are we still doing this? In 2013?

How do people not get this?

Because: opinions. End of story.

I like some things, I don't like other things. Your mileage may vary. How is it seriously this hard to figure out? If we all liked the same shit, it'd be a pretty boring planet now wouldn't it?

If you're proposing that an opinion isn't worth elaborating on or explaining, then why are you trying to explain your own?

The OP isn't gasping in shock that people like things that are different than they do, they're surprised that nobody can EXPLAIN why they feel so strongly about something they claim to love.

And yes, in 2013 we are still talking about Halo. We are also still talking about The Count of Monte Cristo, Dante's Inferno, Paradise Lost, The Godfather, Citizen Cane, The 7th Seal, Star Wars, Torment, Bioshock, Knights of the Old Republic, Earthbound and Chrono Trigger. I don't think Halo is a classic in the making, but we're also still talking about The Room and Phantom Menace so I guess crap and mediocrity are noteworthy as well.

I want to know HOW other people think, not just WHAT they think. Lots of people have interesting things to say about familiar subjects.

I didn't want to fire off a reactionary post in response to this. So I let it sit for a couple of days. To ponder if I'd spoken out of turn. Given that bit of time, I can't help but pop back in.

I'm happy to talk about Halo all you like. At length. With passion and verve. But if you need a power point presentation of why I like it though? Then your understanding of how liking something works is broken. You like something, because you do. It doesn't need explaining or justifying or bullet points to make it "valid". Sometimes, you just like stuff because it's fun, because it speaks to you and to your personal enjoyment, or because it just feels right.

That the original post inferred any of the kind of thoughtful debate about the classics you mentioned above is a reach (hur-hur). It stinks of trolling. It wreaked of the kind of weaksauce "It's popular so if I hate on it I'll be cool" hipster crap that Halo fans have frankly endured long past the reasonable expectancy. In other words, it's been cool to hate Halo longer than it was cool to love Halo and if you really want to learn why people dig it, then it's probably just not for you. It never will be. It doesn't speak to you. And you know what, here's the big friggin secret; That's fine.

You want to know "why" I think how I think. That is impossible. The most fun I've ever had with a game is Zombies Ate My Neighbors for the SNES. But there's no way I can justify that in a presentation, nor should you expect me to. Go spend 30 hours with it and tell me what you think. Oh wait, you won't be playing it when you're a first year college student, enjoying the co-op and the game's Lucasarts sense of humor with your best friend or have to dig up a Game Genie to beat the giant ant section. Because that's why I love that game. The experience left it's mark on me. And a ROM emulator might give you the game code and let you play it, but your experience isn't going to reflect mine. By the days standards, that game is broken, needlessly difficult, and probably a grind. But I still loved it and have fond memories of it and I likely always will.

Games are not films. A film is an unchanging thing. That's part of the reason anyone who has seen a film can judge it by it's merits as a film. What works, what didn't, why this shot or that camera angle may or may not be appropriate. A discussion of Citizen Kane, academically, will always be the same. But A game is a unique experience to each person. That is what makes a game special, but it also means that there is never going to be a one to one comparison when you discus them as art or as an experience.

Why do I love Halo? Because I played it in 2001 when it was brand new, not years after the fact expecting some revelation. I played it when I needed some joy in my life and it delivered it. I played it with the only friend I had left after a nasty divorce wrecked my life and the fun spoke to me. I liked it's characters, it's sci-fi setting, and the themes it was dealing with in it's story. I liked the world around the game enough to pick up the books and they were an enjoyable enough read. Better than most ancillary game material that had come before. I liked it because PC shooters, through no fault of their own, never spoke to me. I didn't enjoy the interface and I still don't. Say whatever you want about the mechanics of mouse over controller, I don't LIKE it and I never will. I don't care if it's super precise, I find it inherently boring to play FPS games that way. Halo, played on a controller, had a trigger to pull for the gun my disembodied hand was toting around and I preferred that. And because I never cared for carrying every weapon in the game like almost every shooter of the day and preferred Halo's 2-guns only approach, and because Halo offered vehicle sections that worked very well. And a thousand other reasons that apply to me and my time with the game(s)

When I was in college one of my art professors told me something that has stuck with me ever since. He said that people often ask him how long it took him to create a specific painting. He would always tell them his current age. (50 something at the time, not that his age is relevant) Puzzled, the person who asked the question would always ask him what he meant. His reply was, "this is the culmination of all I've learned. It took me (50 ish) years to be able to paint this painting." That's kind of how I feel about games. I'll discuss the mechanics if you want, but that isn't why I like the game. I like it because it excites me or because the narrative is woven into the world in an interesting way, or because it sparks some intellectual curiosity in me. Any number of reasons that may or may not speak to someone else.

To bottom line this whole thing: (TLR:FU) Your mileage may vary.

Addendum: I've read this post back to myself twice, and it may read snarkier than I intended. So rather than edit the body of the post, I'm going to add this last little piece in here. The thing that initially rubbed me the wrong way was not the Halo stuff so much as it was the idea that an opinion or feeling needs to be justified in some way. Halo is an easy mark for trolls and as a fan of Halo (before 4) it's a tired conversation. But as a discussion in general I think it's impossible to try and relate a personal experience as anything more than opinion. I've never understood why gaming is such a tribalistic thing to begin with. Just seems like time would be better spent enjoying the games and sharing what we love instead of some wet blanket showing up to try and douse everyone else's good time by asking them to justify it. I realize not all of that is aimed directly at you, so if this post reads as harsh, please know that wasn't really what I meant. I write the same way I talk and that's just how my friends and I talk. Thanks.

A: I never asked for validation, or suggested a lack of validation. And you don't like something because "You do". You yourself explained your reasons liking Halo. Nobody is forcing you to explain your opinion, but just saying "I like X" doesn't make for an engaging conversation. You said you're fine with talking about what you like, and I think you're overestimating how difficult it is for me to understand your opinion of the games you like; you explained it yourself, it isn't that complicated.

B: I don't have some moral objection to anyone's opinion of Halo, I don't find it difficult to understand why people like it at all, and I know exactly why my opinion differs from theirs. To assume that I don't know these things or that the OP is trolling because he asked a question is a reach.

C: You literally just explained your opinion of Zombies Ate My Neighbors, I don't need to experience the game the exact same way you did to understand your point of view. Acquiring insight into somebody else's thoughts or behavior is not impossible, it's not even that difficult if they're willing to discuss them.

D: Even ignoring the fact that many films are divisive and impressionistic by design, it makes no sense to suggest a lack of variation in the discussion of film. For the same reason that your professor could only produce the work he did as culmination of his whole life, no two people can ever experience a film the same way. Even discounting concrete things like your mood or exposure to other films or works of art, even a static image can mean something entirely different to different people. The way you see the world, even factual events, will always be colored by your experience. Societal norms also change; what one culture considers normal may be considered vile and unthinkable by another. If the actions of a fictional character are framed in a particular light, your experience of a film will change drastically depending on if you agree or disagree with the framing of that character; other people may think of them as heroic and you might think of them as vile.

E: You have once again explained your opinion, what makes you think I don't understand your reasons for enjoying the game?

F: Simply because you have a unique experience doesn't mean you can't explain or understand it, and you don't have to agree with something to understand it.

I don't ask people about the games they like because they need to be justified, I ask because I'm interested in what they have to say.