Gearbox Rumored to be Working on Halo 4

[Erratic]

On a related note, can someone tell my why the hell Halo got so popular? It was a mediocre game at best, and Timesplitters was far and away the better console FPS all around.

Popularized/introduced 2 weapon carry limit and regenerating health, both innovations have changed the fundamentals of games since and have been cribbed extensively since Halo was released. Vehicle integration was perfect, vehicle physics was beyond anything else at the time and vehicle controls are still the best of any action game, period. Visual design is original and still kicks the shit out of most everything; simple broad strokes with no problem using bright colour wherever it sees fit (everywhere). Huge environments with self-preserving enemy AI that make every encounter unique from the last. Music is basically instant nostalgia.

All this, and it was still 2001.

To say you don't like the game is perfectly fine, to deny it's a landmark in games is a whole other situation that will be met with swift resistance from myself.

And I don't even know where to go with that Timesplitters comparison, that shit's throwing me off :megaman: I like Goldeneye as much as anyone, but...shit.

[Scinbed]

On a related note, can someone tell my why the hell Halo got so popular? It was a mediocre game at best, and Timesplitters was far and away the better console FPS all around.

Popularized/introduced 2 weapon carry limit and regenerating health, both innovations have changed the fundamentals of games since and have been cribbed extensively since Halo was released. Vehicle integration was perfect, vehicle physics was beyond anything else at the time and vehicle controls are still the best of any action game, period. Visual design is original and still kicks the shit out of most everything; simple broad strokes with no problem using bright colour wherever it sees fit (everywhere). Huge environments with self-preserving enemy AI that make every encounter unique from the last. Music is basically instant nostalgia.

All this, and it was still 2001.

To say you don't like the game is perfectly fine, to deny it's a landmark in games is a whole other situation that will be met with swift resistance from myself.

And I don't even know where to go with that Timesplitters comparison, that shit's throwing me off :megaman: I like Goldeneye as much as anyone, but...shit.

I agree with most of that, a lot of people liked it. I've only played the first game on PC. However I don't see how the visual side of things is (or was) original at all, always seemed really bland and generic, the environments were really basic too. Halo3 does look better architecture wise, but still most of it looks like fields and hills with random blocks of concrete dropped in along with some blue lights.

imo

[JohnC]

LOL WUT

The vehicle controls are awful. Warthog's slide around like they're driving on muddy ice even when you're on pavement, and good luck trying to turn around in a tank.

And the level design was sub par.

More to the topic, I'd like to see what Gearbox does with the name. There were already some rumors that the next game would be a squad based game (I.E. Brothers in Arms) without any Spartans.

[Thrik]

Halo did popularise a lot of elements, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it did any of them perfectly or innovated the use of them. It was a very competent game and one of the better console shooters (consequently influencing most later console shooters), but it was in reality just stuff taken from various games mixed into one big hotpot.

To put it another way, Halo was a pretty good whole but the individual parts weren't so good. Earlier PC games did its various components better, including vehicles. This is why I suspect many PC games abhor Halo, because they recognise that most of the elements are mediocre implementations of what they've seen in other games before (albeit not all in the same game) and cannot comprehend its immense popularity.

To this day I still think the levels were very repetitive and bland, and it certainly wasn't a particularly outstanding or unique art style at the time (although FPS games have since become very dark and brown). The gameplay wasn't overwhelmingly original or varied either, although the regenerating health and equipment limits — neither of which Halo premiered — were implemented well and are deservedly quite popular now.

From a completely objective perspective, Halo wasn't an outstanding game. I believe its popularity came from it doing a bunch of things at once that console gamers hadn't seen to any real degree of quality before, showing that all the crazy stuff seen on the PC could be done on a last-gen console too. I also believe its popularity was a good thing because it encouraged many other console developers to step up their game and finally stop producing FPS games that're shit in 99% of cases (the likes of games like GoldenEye were very rare occasions).

[Ginger Lord]

What Thrik said.

[Buddy]

I just love the way Gearbox says that HL1 is their title

[Erratic]

To put it another way, Halo was a pretty good whole but the individual parts weren't so good. Earlier PC games did its various components better, including vehicles. This is why I suspect many PC games abhor Halo, because they recognise that most of the elements are mediocre implementations of what they've seen in other games before (albeit not all in the same game) and cannot comprehend its immense popularity.

What game specifically did vehicles to the same level as Halo? I think you have to make a clear distinction between games with 'vehicle missions' and Halo's implementation, with is absolute integration of vehicles into the gameplay, none of these specialized levels crafted specifically for some on rails scripted shoot out.

To this day I still think the levels were very repetitive and bland, and it certainly wasn't a particularly outstanding or unique art style at the time (although FPS games have since become very dark and brown). The gameplay wasn't overwhelmingly original or varied either, although the regenerating health and equipment limits — neither of which Halo premiered — were implemented well and are deservedly quite popular now.

Who pioneered them? I'm sure weapon limits and health regen have been done in other games, in some form, OpFlash certainly had a 2 weapon loadout, but that's a military sim, and a totally different context and approach. They aren't wholly original ideas on their own, but when put into an arcade FPS, it really does have a huge impact on how you play the game, which I think is understated by a lot of people.

From a completely objective perspective, Halo wasn't an outstanding game. I believe its popularity came from it doing a bunch of things at once that console gamers hadn't seen to any real degree of quality before, showing that all the crazy stuff seen on the PC could be done on a last-gen console too. I also believe its popularity was a good thing because it encouraged many other console developers to step up their game and finally stop producing FPS games that're shit in 99% of cases (the likes of games like GoldenEye were very rare occasions).

I dunno, I think it's dismissive to right off its success because 'a lot of console gamers liked it'. Which is a bit of hand-waving in itself, assuming there's this gorge between PC Gamers and console gamers with no cross over between the 'groups' - I've been both for as long as I can remember, and Halo took me by surprise while I was still playing Quake 3 and UT.

[Thrik]

I just want to clarify that I was praising Halo for taking elements of other games and using them in different contexts. You're asking me to give you examples of games in a way that'd run contrary to the essence of my point. I'm not saying there was another game that did all the things Halo did in a single game.

Halo put many things together in a very competent way. However, examine those individual components (using vehicles, enemy encounters, weaponry, etc) and they're not so great. They worked well together, but a lot of PC gamers had already experienced all those components in an FPS before, whereas console gamers probably hadn't at the time. Other PC games had previously featured better vehicles, better shooting, better enemy AI, and just as interesting environments.

Most pre-2001 console FPS games were absolutely shit. Halo took the good parts of many different PC games (or even console games for that matter) and put them all into one console FPS. It's a milestone for sure, but very derivative. I wouldn't call it true innovation, and I wouldn't say it did a number of things it did as well as they'd been done individually in PC games. That right there is pretty much my overall point.

This is why I think PC gamers generally aren't too impressed by Halo, and there's absolutely a gorge there IMO — always has been. Clearly there's a reason for it, and I think my theorising is along the right lines. PC gamers by and large aren't too impressed because they've experienced much the same gameplay before, albeit across a range of titles. I've observed PC gamers saying they don't 'get' Halo for about seven years now.

Another thing I feel is important to clarify is that I don't think Halo was a bad game, nor do I think many PC critics of the game genuinely think so. I think it's merely a decent game, having not really shown me anything I'd never seen before. It didn't blow me away because I'd done a lot of what it featured before, including the totally free-range vehicles (albeit in an online context, in Tribes). This presumably goes for a lot of PC gamers, whereas a lot of console gamers hadn't experienced great vehicle physics in an FPS, etc.

[Erratic]

I just want to clarify that I was praising Halo

Not enough.

I can see your points I'm just not sure they're all accurate. On the surface level it makes sense, but in my experience playing the game, especially on Legendary, you fully realize just how brilliant it can be. It's one of the few games where difficulty levels aren't just added hitpoints and fewer med kits, the AI provides a whole different set of behaviors and the pacing is perfect.

Not to sound too much like a dick, but by saying 'examine those individual components (using vehicles, enemy encounters, weaponry, etc) and they're not so great' kinda rings of a cursory assessment of the game. I don't expect anyone to play through the game 3+ times to hold a true or opinion or some bullshit like that, but there is a lot more to the game passed the Normal mode.

And maybe you have played it more than I'm assuming but I just find it hard to call the way all those elements work together derivative or mediocre. Like I said, on the surface Halo doesn't appaer to offer much new, but it's how all those small things work together that make it something more.

[Taylor]

It’s hard for me to commend Halo for originality when its main character, which has become somehow iconic, is the Doomguy.

[Minos]

Halo has been around for 7 years and I never had any desires to even give it a chance. Halo is one of the biggest marketing stunts in video games industry ever, period.

[Buddy]

I cant really tell what Halo is tbh.

[Bluestrike]

Isn't gearbox working on Colonial Marines? (aliens) Gues sthey are big enough to do 2 then

Oh and I always asumed Halo's succes was because it was the first decent shooter on x-box or something :-P

[Sentura]

i tried the first halo when it first came on to pc. about 3 hours later i got frustrated because of huge amounts of combat fatigue, annoying and bad level design, and just in general a boring story. larry niven or iain banks must have cringed when they witnessed the degeneration of their books into what halo became.

[Mazy]

Strange that none of the GBX folks have said anything in this thread

(Or mebbe thats just the HH crunch D: )