Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is Halo critically acclaimed and popular?

Tags:
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 11, 2009 11:10:33 PM

I don't understand the hype behind this series nor the praise. I don't understand why critics find so special about it. Halo is a painfully average shooter, has mediocre gameplay, undeserved marketing hype from the media, generic and is absolutely nothing special.

Halo is completely generic and unispired, all you do in the game is shoot this and that and the repetitive level design gets on your nerves. The multiplayer in these games are decent but it's inferior to Battlefield, Unreal Tournament, Call of Duty 4, and Tribes. Hell, the game barely did anything new or innovative. Halo is crap compared to most PC shooters.

Halo doesn't deserve the 10's and 9's its gotten from "professional" reviewers as the game seems more like a 5 or a 6, if they were going to give Halo a positive score it oughta be a 7 or a 8 but not a 9 and 10.

I think the reason its popular is because a lot of people and Halo fans haven't played any FPS before Halo. Considering most of its fanbase consists of frat boys and moronic college students.

They're even better console shooters than Halo on the N64 like Turok, Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark. Halo belongs in the line of other average shooters like Resistance 1/2. Killzone 2, BioShock, Far Cry, and Crysis. Halo isn't a bad game but its not in the same league as Call of Duty, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Doom, No One Lives Forever, and most of all Half-Life. Halo is probably the most overrated game in existence and it's more overrated than GTAIV and Final Fantasy VII combined.

Whats so special about Halo?

More about : halo critically acclaimed popular

May 12, 2009 4:49:26 AM

You named a lot of good games. But naming a lot of good games does not make Halo a bad game.

Halo has a solid singleplayer story and arguably one of the best multiplayer modes ever to come out of a console game, a pretty stupendous accomplishment considering it came out before XBOX Live. Goldeneye and Halo both took major strides as far as console FPS games go.

You can compare Halo to a billion and one FPS shooters, but nearly all the games you've mentioned are for PCs. Some of them aren't even true FPS games (Deus Ex, System Shock 2), so you can't really fault Halo for only being a mindless shooting game, when really that's what it aspired to be. So I think the underlying strength of your argument is grounded in the fact that console shooters are generally worse than PC shooters, a statement that I agree with.
May 12, 2009 3:54:33 PM

Paladuck said:
You named a lot of good games. But naming a lot of good games does not make Halo a bad game.

Halo has a solid singleplayer story and arguably one of the best multiplayer modes ever to come out of a console game, a pretty stupendous accomplishment considering it came out before XBOX Live. Goldeneye and Halo both took major strides as far as console FPS games go.

You can compare Halo to a billion and one FPS shooters, but nearly all the games you've mentioned are for PCs. Some of them aren't even true FPS games (Deus Ex, System Shock 2), so you can't really fault Halo for only being a mindless shooting game, when really that's what it aspired to be. So I think the underlying strength of your argument is grounded in the fact that console shooters are generally worse than PC shooters, a statement that I agree with.

I didn't say that console shooters are worse than PC, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are as good as PC shooters but Halo isn't nor is it close.
May 12, 2009 5:30:22 PM

There's a little thing called taste. Just because you don't think Halo is a top notch game (and I actually agree with you on that) that doesn't mean others are obliged to feel the same way.

Case in point the games you list as being average compared to games you list as being above average. Personally I could take half of each of those lists and flip them. None of the Call of Duty games have ever done anything for me but I consider Far Cry and even to a lesser extent Crysis to be the best shooters I've ever played.

But to answer your question about "what's so special about Halo?", well simply put whether you like the game or not it did revolutionize multiplayer gaming on the consoles. It made online gaming a must have on the XBox and forced Sony to put an effort into something comparable on the Playstation systems. Hell, you could even argue that it helped bring down the cost and accessibility of home networking since for a lot of people the XBox was the first secondary device they connected to the internet.

You could compare what the Halo series did for online console gaming to what Starcraft did for online PC gaming.
May 18, 2009 4:39:34 AM

I really never got into Halo either or Tribes.
May 18, 2009 4:50:27 AM

Halo sucks. I consider in a 10 and under game.
May 18, 2009 1:10:02 PM

daship said:
Halo sucks. I consider in a 10 and under game.

Halo doesn't suck its just average.
June 14, 2009 8:54:57 AM

Halo is better than Turok, Goldeneye, System Shock 2, Dues Ex and Perfect Dark. Admittedly, this is only because it came out after these games and thus could build upon the foundation that they had already set. It is in the same league as Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Doom, and Half-Life (I have no idea what No One Lives Forever is like, unfortunately). Personally, I find it to be superior to most of those, on the same level as Call of Duty, and slightly below Half-Life.

I'll admit that Halo isn't nearly as "groundbreaking" as it is portrayed to be. Nevertheless, it still manages to incorporate many different game mechanics together effectively and polish them up, and is packaged with an engaging storyline and very addictive multi-player. In this aspect, it is by all means a distinctively great game.
June 14, 2009 3:52:35 PM

Jr C said:
Halo is better than Turok, Goldeneye, System Shock 2, Dues Ex and Perfect Dark. Admittedly, this is only because it came out after these games and thus could build upon the foundation that they had already set. It is in the same league as Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, Doom, and Half-Life (I have no idea what No One Lives Forever is like, unfortunately). Personally, I find it to be superior to most of those, on the same level as Call of Duty, and slightly below Half-Life.

I'll admit that Halo isn't nearly as "groundbreaking" as it is portrayed to be. Nevertheless, it still manages to incorporate many different game mechanics together effectively and polish them up, and is packaged with an engaging storyline and very addictive multi-player. In this aspect, it is by all means a distinctively great game.



The fact that you actually said halo was better than system shock 2 kinda made me laugh; SS2 and Halo can only be compared on the merit that they both have shooting elements - but neither play even close to the same as one another, the setting is completely different, and they aim for a totally different atmosphere.

I liked the first halo game a lot, for the single player; but after the first game, it lost its touch quite wholly.
June 17, 2009 12:00:19 AM

Halo 1 was the most original and awesome game of its time.

After that MS started milking the franchise and it became garbage.

June 23, 2009 5:54:49 PM

dingumf said:
Halo 1 was the most original and awesome game of its time.

After that MS started milking the franchise and it became garbage.


Funny thing is, I consider myself a moderate/serious gamer and I played Halo only a handful of times, and each time, at best, I was moderately into it. I've played other games as well, AvP, AvPII, Golden Eye, Unreal, Quake II, III, Shogo, SOCOM, Blood 1,2, Red Faction, so I wasn't new to the FPS scene. I wouldn't say it was anything terrible, but in and of itself, I wouldn't consider it groundbreaking.(I'm talking purely 100% just the game, not the outlying effects it may have caused). Outside of itself though, it created a way for computer illiterate people to play their shooter online with others. Since not evey Joe Blow doesn't want to mess around with Windows, drivers, patches, etc it without a doubt boosted its growth on the console. It was so simple, turn the xbox on, pop in the disc, wait a minute and before you know it your fighting side by side with your best buddy, no questions asked.

Also as far as the franchise goes, It wouldn't have taken a fortune teller to tell each addition would have been the same stuff recycled over with more polish/guns. It's hard to expand something that really has nothing to begin with.
June 25, 2009 1:16:47 PM

The thing that Halo had going for it in the beginning was the story, it was quite exceptional - after that, its more than apparrent that whomever wrote the story for game 1 was fired/laid-off/moved on, and took whatever assets he had with him; because from thereon out i've heard its poor.
June 25, 2009 5:37:57 PM

bildo123 said:
Funny thing is, I consider myself a moderate/serious gamer and I played Halo only a handful of times, and each time, at best, I was moderately into it. I've played other games as well, AvP, AvPII, Golden Eye, Unreal, Quake II, III, Shogo, SOCOM, Blood 1,2, Red Faction, so I wasn't new to the FPS scene. I wouldn't say it was anything terrible, but in and of itself, I wouldn't consider it groundbreaking.(I'm talking purely 100% just the game, not the outlying effects it may have caused). Outside of itself though, it created a way for computer illiterate people to play their shooter online with others. Since not evey Joe Blow doesn't want to mess around with Windows, drivers, patches, etc it without a doubt boosted its growth on the console. It was so simple, turn the xbox on, pop in the disc, wait a minute and before you know it your fighting side by side with your best buddy, no questions asked.

Also as far as the franchise goes, It wouldn't have taken a fortune teller to tell each addition would have been the same stuff recycled over with more polish/guns. It's hard to expand something that really has nothing to begin with.
Actually Halo had innovations that influenced the genre and many other games.

Halo introduced:

Regenerating Health/shield

Two weapon carry limit

Balanced weaponry with each having their own uses in a specific confrotation

Grenade throw button

Weapon melee attack button

Halo was also was the first to do dual-analog controls and vehicles in FPS right.

I'm flabbergasted that you mentioned Red Faction, that game was awful and inferior to Halo in every way.
June 25, 2009 5:53:43 PM

goofd84 said:
Actually Halo had innovations that influenced the genre and many other games.

Halo introduced:

Regenerating Health/shield - I could name at least 3 games that had this before halo.

Two weapon carry limit - Counter-Strike, sure others had limits before that

Balanced weaponry with each having their own uses in a specific confrotation Half-Life, Quake, etc

Grenade throw button Are you kidding me? No, many games had that before.

Weapon melee attack button Duke Nukem, first

Halo was also was the first to do dual-analog controls and vehicles in FPS right. Wrong

I'm flabbergasted that you mentioned Red Faction, that game was awful and inferior to Halo in every way.

How are any of those introductions even innovative? Regenerating sheild? Seriously? That is halos "contribution"? The fact that your arguement is so terrible pretty much proves the point that halo is average.

Halo, is/was/always will be a mediocre game. It was the only decent shooter on the xbox at the time, the only reason why its popular. Halo now is an afterthought because of this. In fact it was put on console in the first place because compared to the games on PC at the time it would not have made it. It was originally intended to be a PC game.

Halo is just the game that a bunch of 14 year olds who only had an xbox and its only shooter played and had declared it awesome comparing it to nothing.
June 25, 2009 6:17:56 PM

[***
*** it's fanbase!
June 25, 2009 6:18:59 PM

[*** it's fanbase!
June 25, 2009 6:21:14 PM

kanaric said:
How are any of those introductions even innovative? Regenerating sheild? Seriously? That is halos "contribution"? The fact that your arguement is so terrible pretty much proves the point that halo is average.

Halo, is/was/always will be a mediocre game. It was the only decent shooter on the xbox at the time, the only reason why its popular. Halo now is an afterthought because of this. In fact it was put on console in the first place because compared to the games on PC at the time it would not have made it. It was originally intended to be a PC game.

Halo is just the game that a bunch of 14 year olds who only had an xbox and its only shooter played and had declared it awesome comparing it to nothing.

Don't bother replying to that Halo fanboy who cannot accept the truth that Halo is a mediocre game. Regenerating health have done before in Tribes. Halo was just an average game and I figured it out that M$ DID bribe reviewers to give it high scores so it can sell the XBox,

Now all the fanboys are going to say; "But it's your opinion!" NO! Quality is not subjective it is objective and the objective truth is that Halo IS BY FACT an average game.

90% of gamers who played a PC FPS before Halo are not Halo fans because they have high standards.
June 25, 2009 7:42:11 PM

Yeah I think halo is just an average game.
June 25, 2009 8:06:37 PM

lm8dark said:
Yeah I think halo is just an average game.
Don't think it's an average game. It's an average game as a fact of life!
June 25, 2009 8:26:49 PM

Quote:
Now all the fanboys are going to say; "But it's your opinion!" NO! Quality is not subjective it is objective and the objective truth is that Halo IS BY FACT an average game.

Gotta love the irony of somebody in the same sentence calling others "fanboys" for having and opinion and making such an overtly wrong declaration of what is truth/fact.

Quality can be both subjective and objective. But if you want to talk about "objective facts" please explain which facts you are referring to? To say

"90% of gamers who played a PC FPS before Halo are not Halo fans", besides being made up, is not an objective fact but simply subjective information about what a certain group subjectively thinks about the subjective nature of Halo's quality. It would be similar to saying that "90% of Mac users think PCs are poor quality" therefore it's an objective fact that PCs are inferior in quality to Macs.

An objective fact which you could use in regards to the "quality" of a game would be sales figures. Now of course that only address a portion of a games overall quality, but it is an objective fact.

Personally I don't like Halo and I agree with, although doubt the 90% part, what you said about most pre-Halo FPS fans did not receiving the game all that well. But that's actually part of what makes Halo a fairly revolutionary game; It was able to sell incredibly well and grow a massive fan base OUTSIDE of the hardcore FPS group. It's very similar to what WoW did with MMOs and Wii with consoles.
June 25, 2009 8:41:06 PM

ceforga said:
Don't think it's an average game. It's an average game as a fact of life!


You might want to look up what the word "fact" actually means. It's not an arbitrary catch-phrase which you just throw around to strengthen an otherwise empty argument (or even a solid argument which is not actually fact based). Also it's just one of those words that when misused makes you look really dumb.
June 25, 2009 9:29:03 PM

Wasn't Halo the first xbox game to allow 16 multiplayers? From what I remember that is why it was the shiznits. My favorite thing that came from Halo was Red vs Blue. Timeless.
June 26, 2009 7:38:03 PM

SpinachEater said:
Wasn't Halo the first xbox game to allow 16 multiplayers? From what I remember that is why it was the shiznits. My favorite thing that came from Halo was Red vs Blue. Timeless.

Agreed, multiplayer is what made Halo such an important game in the history of consoles and gaming. You'd be pretty hard pressed to name another game that made online multiplayer gaming such a staple on the consoles.

Like I said a while back in this thread, Halo did for consoles what Starcraft did for PC gaming. It opened up online gaming to the average-joe user and helped make it a staple for future titles. Halo probably even did more so for consoles than did Starcraft for PCs because by the time Starcraft came out there were already several successful titles doing similar things for the PC gaming market. For the consoles what really was there for online multiplayer of the scale of Halo before Halo?
June 26, 2009 7:41:14 PM

purplerat said:
Agreed, multiplayer is what made Halo such an important game in the history of consoles and gaming. You'd be pretty hard pressed to name another game that made online multiplayer gaming such a staple on the consoles.

Like I said a while back in this thread, Halo did for consoles what Starcraft did for PC gaming. It opened up online gaming to the average-joe user and helped make it a staple for future titles. Halo probably even did more so for consoles than did Starcraft for PCs because by the time Starcraft came out there were already several successful titles doing similar things for the PC gaming market. For the consoles what really was there for online multiplayer of the scale of Halo before Halo?
There's a difference between StarCraft and Halo aside from genres. StarCraft's single-player and story was actuallyd good. :) 
June 26, 2009 9:03:32 PM

I was never talking about gameplay or story lines. I'm talking about impact on the market. Starcraft was a game that brought a lot of PC gamers into the online-multiplayer age and Halo did similar, although probably to a larger overall effect, to the console market.

I'm talking impact, not content. Personally I wouldn't put Halo anywhere near Starcraft in terms of content, but there is a definite correlation between the impact each had on their respective markets. At least in the case of Starcraft/PC online gaming you can make a legit argument for other titles which had a larger/earlier impact but can you seriously do that for Halo and console online gaming? I'd like to hear you name a title which you think had a bigger/earlier impact and make a serious argument. Not that I'm saying it can't be done, but you will be hard pressed to do so which proves my point that Halo is a legitimately revolutionary title.
June 27, 2009 3:16:07 AM

I liked Halo 1 and Halo 3. Halo 1 lacked weapons, Halo 3 lacked an innovative-ish story (aliens vs humans is never really innovative). Halo 2 was terrible except for the addition of more weapons. The ingame cutscenes never looked much good because every time the camera moved you could tell the shaders hadn't loaded fully and it was just so crude. Plus the story was crap, total crap.
June 27, 2009 2:07:31 PM

purplerat said:
Like I said a while back in this thread, Halo did for consoles what Starcraft did for PC gaming. It opened up online gaming to the average-joe user and helped make it a staple for future titles. Halo probably even did more so for consoles than did Starcraft for PCs because by the time Starcraft came out there were already several successful titles doing similar things for the PC gaming market. For the consoles what really was there for online multiplayer of the scale of Halo before Halo?



I think that is spot on. Without Halo, I don't think xbox would be as big as it is now and xbox live may have fizzled out. As you said, it set up a standard for multiplayer gaming on the consoles.

I have to admit though...Halo sucked me into the world of PC multiplayer games. I was always huge on Golden Eye for the 64 but then stumbled upon Halo and I haven't really played on the consoles since.....except for God of War and Mario Kart....but everything from then on was PC multiplayer.
!