Poll: Why do people like Halo so much?

[Xdeser2]

Halo was both critically acclaimed and popular among consumers. However, I see nothing special about the series. Even Halo:Reach, which was in my eyes easily the strongest of the series, seemed a bit weak for the 10/10 reviews it was getting. I would like to hear from both people who do like Halo and those who don't in this thread.

Im not going to pretend it doesn't have flaws, but for me, Its the single-player that sells it. The enemies are intelligent and fun to fight, and when you bump the difficulty up they also get smarter, not JUST more bulletsponge-ey. The story is great, and the universe is well fleshed out with interesting characters. The Covenant are also a foe thats more than just "We hate humans, therefore kill them all", their civilization seems believable and justified. Its soundtrack is just fucking amazing too.

The multiplayer is also well made. It gets so much shit from PC gamers (Seeing as it helped make FPS extremely popular on console, and you know, they can't share their toys -_-), they lump it in with the CoDs and the Battlefields, yet at its core it is a PC game. Its flexible and has a huge variety in how it plays.

I'm torn, however, between whether Halo CE or 2 is my favorite in the series. Halo CE felt more wide open in alot of areas, and there were some genuinely great moments, like when you stumbled across flood swarming a battalion of Covenant and you just have to fight your way through it. Halo 2, however while being a bit more restrictive, had alot more character development in it. It fleshed out the covenant more, as well, and let you see into their society, if for a moment.

 

[Doom972]

I think that the people who like it are just gamers who didn't experience the PC shooters of the late 90s and early 2000s and don't know any better.

Fun fact: I've played Half-Life, all of the Doom games, classic Wolfenstein, Serious Sam, Duke Nukem, Quake, Deus Ex, Thief, System Shock 2, Halo, etc.

And out of that list, you know how many of those games I've actually completed? Halo. ... and Star Wars: Dark Forces II, but that's because you get to be a Jedi.

It's almost like there are actually people out there who *gasp, shock, horror* might not actually care about whether your character zooms around at eighty miles an hour, flipping between an entire armory strapped to the void on their back or not!

So you're the an exception to the rule. Feeling special? Most people who played classic shooters like Half-Life expect more from their shooters, I guess you're not.

Expecting much more like... What? I realise Half-Life came out long before Halo did, and was more of a classic, but just saying "expect more" is a really vague way to put it. I can see how you could say that Halo "had less" in comparison to things like System Shock 2 or Deus Ex, but those two are known as pretty much the best PC games ever, so saying that Halo isn't as good as them isn't much of an insult to it. I can't really think of anything Halo was lacking that Half Life had, though.

But seriously, expect more what?

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.

Its mechanics work just fine, the weapon variety is just fine (ie.every gun is fun to use and no they don't make others useless, it's just a matter of your tactical approach). "More room for exploration" strikes me as a bit entitled, ie. the game is clearly designed to be a particular way and you want it to be something else entirely. "More Original Plot".......not as easy as you'd think (how many original plots have you come across oh enlightened one), it's all about execution and Hale CE has an immersive plot driven by strong gameplay, gorgeous art design (graphics have aged though) and a minimalist edge.

It brought the smoothness of PC controls to console fps's, i'd say that makes it, if not great, at least important. I think we can all agree that Halo CE is the best of the series and it all went downhill from there (Halo Reach was boring and Halo 4 was utterly laughable). Different games attempt to do different things, Half Life was designed to be a different beast, ditto system shock 2, you can't judge every game by the same standards or else what's the point of even trying?

You say that I'm asking for too much, but I'm talking about things that other games have accomplished, and they have done it with less budget, so I don't see how that makes me entitled. Also, exploration had always been a major part of FPS - Even Wolfenstein 3D had non-linear maps with secret areas. It's one of the basic things about the genre. Halo has very little exploration in it (It does have it, to its defense). About everything being "fine", as you describe it, I'll call it ok or average. Which is what I said about the game - it's average and doesn't have anything to distinguish it from other FPS.

 

[Robot Number V]

*snicker* People saying halo has a really good story. They think they're people. *pats them on the head*

Ugh...Look, I want to first say that, as far as I'm concerned, Halo's story is NOT good. I kinda think there COULD'VE been something there, but they're constantly botching up the presentation of their story so badly that it all just blurs into incomprehensible garbage. To their credit, they put more effort into story then your latest Call of Duty, although I realize that isn't saying much.

See what I did there? I actually tried to contribute something to the discussion, while keeping an open mind about conflicting opinions. YOU just decided to mindlessly insult a bunch of people while contributing exactly jack shit. Posts like this are why we can't have nice things.

 

[BlackJimmy]

Keep in mind that while it may not seem like much, it was one of the games that started the traditional FPS Features like being limited to two weapons and regenerating health/shields.

For me, I mostly play because it has an interesting story and I like the lore and the asthetics.
Halo 4 put me off a little with it's completely changing the sounds to all the guns and vehicles though.

 

[Spartan448]

Personally, I thought CE was the best in the series, but okay...

Anyway, I like it because it's an FPS that was just based around your classic late 90s humans vs evil space aliens thriller. Yeah, it's gotten a bit more complicated these days, but it's a shooter that can take "kill those fuckers" and give you more than just the same damn gun retextured 50 times to do it. Whereas in COD like games, every gun is pretty much the same, every gun in Halo works a bit differently. There aren't any two guns on a side with the same type of fire rate, and the Human and Covenant weapons differ greatly in effect. Also, one of the games strong suits were in my opinion, whenever they gave you a Tank. Halo has always been good with "here's a tank, have fun" concepts.

Yeah, it isn't the best shooter out there, but it defined the concept of the console FPS, and while it can be a bit scripted and linear at times, there are also times when the old games shine through.

Also, Halo has a really awesome community. See: Roosterteeth.

 

[Mezworld24]

*snicker* People saying halo has a really good story. They think they're people. *pats them on the head*

Ugh...Look, I want to first say that, as far as I'm concerned, Halo's story is NOT good. I kinda think there COULD'VE been something there, but they're constantly botching up the presentation of their story so badly that it all just blurs into incomprehensible garbage. To their credit, they put more effort into story then your latest Call of Duty, although I realize that isn't saying much.

That's what annoys me most about Halo games. Most of the expanded fiction has some pretty amazing stories and lore, but whenever it comes to the main focus of halo, the recent games, the story ends up as a consulted mess.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because liking something is an emotion and emotions do not rely on logic. You either like something or you don't.

I do.

I objectively don't think its great but I find it enjoyable.

 

[mortalsatsuma]

Loved Halo 1 to bits, Halo 2 was okay but unfinished and had the worst texture pop in I have ever seen. Halo 3 felt a bit outdated by the time it came out for some reason, Halo wasn't 'Leading the pack' anymore at that point imo. Halo ODST, really looked forward too it, it sucked arse. Halo Reach, Shit campaign but fantastic multiplayer. Halo 4. Oh god why. Halo 4 imo was the worst game ever made. boring, so repetitive and you kill the final boss via QTEs ffs.

so, imo, started off extremely well, gradually got worse and worse and just became a generic mess by Halo 4.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I like Halo because it is a good challenge on legendary difficulty and doesn't have many negative things about the gameplay. I could add more but those 2 reasons are essentially all the reasons i need to justify my opinion clearly

 

[SecondPrize]

I'd like best a Halo that never existed, with the gameplay of 1 and the multiplayer maps of 2.

 

[spartandude]

Im not going to lie, i thought Halo would have been really unpopular here on the Escapist, glad to see theres a fair few people who also enjoy it. I dont really know what it is but the gun play in Halo really does just click for me and i have alot fun with it even if im a little skeptical about the direction the series is headed.

and while there doesnt tend to be grand innovations in this series to say its the same as it was and never changed is really bullshit, go play Halo CE and then play Halo 4 and talk about how its exactly the same

 

[NickBrahz]

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?

 

[BigMack70]

Loved Halo 1-3, liked Reach & H4.

I can understand people not liking Halo, but anyone who doesn't appreciate what Halo did for the console FPS is either naive or stuck in 1995. While it wasn't the first big console FPS success (Goldeneye gets that honor), it took things to a whole new level with controls/gameplay/presentation/etc.

I played all the old school PC shooters of the 90s (Doom/Quake/Unreal/Half Life), and I liked Halo better than all those games, and I think that was mostly because of how much more dynamic the game is when you have a regenerating health system. I know a lot of people these days lament regnerating health as being a "noob friendly" mechanic, but it's really not that way in Halo (at least not CE). Halo was one of the first good shooters that wasn't primarily about memorizing where things were on the level (enemies/health/secrets/etc) in order to succeed.

Also, Halo 2's matchmaking was revolutionary. Ranked skill based matchmaking is the best way to have a competitive multiplayer experience, superior even to ranked PC servers accessed via server browser. Multiplayer in Halo 1-3 is what got me hooked on the series. I know that mouse & keyboard aficionados sometimes poo-poo the idea that there can be a competitive FPS with a controller, but I find high level competitive Halo (pre-Reach) to be the most fun competitive FPS experience anywhere.

Thought the story was good as far as pulpy sci-fi goes in H1-H3. Reach was a crap story, H4 just came across as a retcon to me.

The glory days of Halo were H2/early H3, though. Reach and H4 have pretty bad multiplayer in comparison.

 

[ChocoROID]

I voted no, simply because I find the idea of a far future setting well over-baked.


I much prefer a near future setting because it feels more realistic to me, something I could conceive happening in my lifetime.
It's the far flung future puts me off, I've seen at all before and as for the story, it doesn't keep me attached, simply not enough going on compared to certain other titles.



******Fully prepared for an onslaught from a group of fan-boys that think I'm attacking their favourite 'copy-paste with new weapon and hat' game series that has genuinely failed to impress me since game one. (Played them all, every popular IP gets a chance.)******

 

[Raikazu]

I was one of those people where back in my naivety of 2008 I was all for the Gears of War, boo to Halo! Looking back at it, I now think that while Halo isn't the most innovative of gaming experiences, it has a likeable if not beige character in the form of Master Chief, and an interesting relationship with Cortana to deepen that.

I was never a fan until last year where I decided I'd buy Halo 4 to see if I could indulge in the series. In preparation I co-op'd Halo 3 with a friend and really enjoy it, kinda became hooked from there. I haven't playing the 'spin-offs' (ODST, Wars, Reach) but between 1, 2, 3 and 4 I've just found them nice games.

 

[BigMack70]

I was one of those people where back in my naivety of 2008 I was all for the Gears of War, boo to Halo! Looking back at it, I now think that while Halo isn't the most innovative of gaming experiences, it has a likeable if not beige character in the form of Master Chief, and an interesting relationship with Cortana to deepen that.

I was never a fan until last year where I decided I'd buy Halo 4 to see if I could indulge in the series. In preparation I co-op'd Halo 3 with a friend and really enjoy it, kinda became hooked from there. I haven't playing the 'spin-offs' (ODST, Wars, Reach) but between 1, 2, 3 and 4 I've just found them nice games.

It's only "not innovative" if you weren't around the console gaming scene in 2001 or 2004. Halo 1 and 2 were extremely innovative.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Halo was both critically acclaimed and popular among consumers. However, I see nothing special about the series. Even Halo:Reach, which was in my eyes easily the strongest of the series, seemed a bit weak for the 10/10 reviews it was getting. I would like to hear from both people who do like Halo and those who don't in this thread.

My Answer: One of the strongest Co-Op series with the best multiplayer support. (Up until 4, that is.) Not to mention plenty of customization for players, game types, and maps. A nice and varied selection of weapons and vehicles with entertaining stories and characters, and very enjoyable enemies. (With pretty decent A.I. there's something about their reactions that just hits a sweet spot. It's barely ever just straight shoot back.)

Personally; I will say it's one of the best FPS series I have ever experienced, and one of the few that I can sit down on a couch with a friend and play whatever we want. It offers more then CoD or Battlefield or 90% of other FPS' offer.

 

[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.