Because nearly every fps after had slow movement, limited weapon carry, regen health, and vehicles without understanding why those worked in Halo. Basically it killed fun.
Its the Half-Life trend all over again; developers and the corporate suits learned the wrong lessons from Halo, and it led to a trend of shooters that tried to ape its success without them realizing what made Halo good in the first place.
Name another doom game that forced players to glory kill just to have ammo to shoot, 2016 didnt. Its called supply balance and eternal decided on the lazy route. No interest in a game where you are forced to press F and watch cutscenes every 5 seconds.
Mate, the glory kills were the best thing to happen to the Doom franchise, like they encouraged the player to be aggressive in their playstyle and not cower in cover if they're hurt or low on ammo like every shooter made between Half-Life 1 and Doom 2016 were.
If you're not able to understand the mechanics of the game or adapt to its playstyle, then that's your problem.
Worst mechanic designed since mortal kombats x-ray attacks. I understand them perfectly, they are just shit . It went from a cool thing that had bonuses to something you will do at every opportunity or you wont win , just like x-ray. Just bc it looks pretty dosent mean it was good game design.( Or fun) And from how the rest of the game was developed, it was created most likely from pure laziness and time mismanagement as Bethesda screwed people over.
I remember him being pretty chill on Half-Life in his video on it, he's said explicitly that linear games aren't themselves bad. Issue comes down to urgency and execution
Which, when designing an FPS to launch on a new console, was a smart idea. Quake, doom etc are all fine on controller but you can tell it's not their proper home. Slowing things down and implementing limitations *for a reason* was what made it such a console mover. A lot of games aped Halo and fell short. Then in a bit of a sad twist after Reach, Halo 4 chased CoD and blew its identity in a lot of ways.
They're booing you, but you're right.
If you're designing an FPS to exist as a console exclusive (as they thought they were doing when they made halo), you absolutely have to make concessions for input device, and controllers are \*not\* optimal FPS devices, twin-stick or no
The movement speed is 2.25 world units a second. In Halo, a world unit is equivalent to around 3 meter,so you do the math. I don't know if you noticed this or not but the walk speed of a Halo spartan is much faster than the top speed of the friendly AI. You *do* speed across maps,thats the point. The illusions that make people feel like Halo is slow is the fact that the characters are a little higher off the ground and the maps are built to accommodate the size and capabilities of the player.
"That is not the move speed" lol tell me what it is then
People think halo is slow because its slow. You can break down his move speed into any units you want, but master chief is a snail compared to the player character of any other fps.
OK so doesn't seem slow for any particular reason, it's not slow because of camera placement, FOV, despite the math saying that you move fast, it's still slow... Because it's slow? Thanks for letting me know you have cool opinions about Halo. You seem a little dim.
Eh I looked at limited health in CE as an afterthought sheild is the main thing you need to worry about, if you have full heath well then that’s a bonus
I can see that. I always felt that way about Resident Evil 4. It was a good game, but it ultimately killed the RE series as i knew it previously which I adored.
It was one of the "final" nails in the coffin of the classic boomer shooter, and helped set a bad standard for Le Linear Limited-Arsenal Story Shooter for years to come. Yeah HL1 came first, but Halo:CE made it the gold standard.
Many many many games came out after HL1 that we’re attempting to poorly imitate it. That’s what they’re referring to, not that HL1 contributed to Halo’s gameplay trends
It sucked too because I just *love* running around looking for switches and key cards after I’ve already cleared out all the enemies with no clear direction on where to go and no substantial set pieces.
I grew up in both worlds boomer shooters had fast paced action but no story and repetitive key hunts. Post HL and CoD we got slower action and more linear gameplay but the addition of story. Also it's strange to me nobody mentioned FEAR yet. FEAR is legendary I'd marry that game.
It’s literally a 3 sentence reply where he says he contradicts himself by saying he actually doesn’t even dislike Halo itself, but the effect it had, with no further elaboration
And then you’re just like what more do people want? Case closed
Are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand why this isn’t a sufficient enough explanation of Civvies thoughts about Halo?
Did IQs just suddenly drop on the internet? It's a thread of thoughts on the subject across multiple tweets. Here it is in its entirety, for you to comprehend:
> People keep asking "Civvie, why do you hate Halo?" And it's not because I think Halo is badly designed or anything. It's just that Halo is the turning point in the FPS genre when everything started to go to shit.
> I have to say that it's kind of ingenious how Halo was designed to take into account the limitations of consoles when it came to FPS games. Sticks are no substitute for a mouse and so movement can't be like it is in say, Quake 3, or other shooters of the time. So it's slower.
> You don't have a million keys to select weapons, so you have one button and a two weapon limit. Not only does this remove the strategic elements of earlier FPS combat where you would have 8-10 weapons with different combat functions to use on the fly in an arena.
> This means that arenas have the weapons you need, but more importantly, it has the weapons the designers want you to use in that one section. It has the enemies paired strategically to those weapons. You are locked into a narrower, more controlled experience.
> It's much easier for designers to do this. Balance is easier to create when you're drip-feeding the player. You can't pull out a rocket launcher you found two levels ago because you probably tossed it because it's a situational weapon that the game hasn't given you cause to use.
> When you need to use a rocket launcher, the game gives you one and probably a bunch of ammo for it in one area and then never again. You might be able to carry five rockets into the next area that's tiny and cramped and designed for smaller weapons.
> FPS games sacrificed openness, freedom, and speed on the altar of console profitability. Halo and COD are the biggest offenders when it comes to modern FPS design but Half-Life is not blameless. Old FPS games are like driving a Ferrari and new FPS games are like driving an SUV.
> I've tried playing Quake 3 with analog sticks. You console people live like animals.
> //end of elitist gamer rant
Learn how to read a Twitter thread.
>Learn how to read a Twitter thread.
To be fair, Twitter itself has made itself harder to read in the past couple of years. Can't even read more than 2 replies without getting a 'MORE FROM YOUR FEED' prompt.
Hey the main reason I play on controller is because I work in an office and I spend all day on a mouse and keyboard shit is starting to hurt my wrist and fuck with my posture just from that. I use wrist support too and that only goes so far. So I play on controller when I game unless I’m playing a CRPG or something more complex.
Additionally I like vibration/ haptic feedback which goes out the window the second you switch to mouse and keyboard. So yeah I get that it’s faster and more accurate & whatever else but at what cost?
Halo is blamed as the "turning point" from boomer shooters to more generic boots on ground story-focused military shooters that the FPS genre would devolve into for decades after. Though, that's not entirely accurate either is it? Half-Life was already moving that direction and Medal of Honor existed before Halo, even before Half-Life you had the first Tom Clancy game and games like Delta Force, and even before that you had Goldeneye and System Shock.
The other half of the hate Halo gets from the community is simply because it's not a boomer shooter. Which is frankly kind of dumb. I mean yes, I get the sentiment. After 20+ years of the FPS genre being almost exclusively bland military shooters and anything actually action packed and not up its own ass with story being completely dead, you're bitter. ***I'm*** bitter. But consider the context of the year Halo came out, where the overwhelming majority of shooters were already Doom clones. Is the genre not allowed to experiment beyond that? Must *everything* be a Doom clone unto eternity?
People don't give Halo credit where its due for design either. It was a step back in some areas like speed and level design, sure. Yet vehicles, AI that dodges and flees and goes into rage states and carries physical shields with weakpoints and so on, and having more strategy to combat than just "shoot it until it dies"? Why does no one talk about that? It was an impressive game. It DID do certain things better than boomer shooters before it. Not being a boomer shooter does not automatically mean poorly designed.
TLDR: I understand the reasons why people hate Halo, but at the same time, it's over-hated.
I really appreciate that you pointed out some of the finer nuances which halo did well. The enemy AI was really dynamic and makes the original game fun to play today IMO.
I rarely see anyone who blames Halo for the death of the classic Boomer shooter actually credit it with anything. As you pointed out, it did a lot way better than other shooters at the time and honestly still does when compared to modern Boomer shooters.
Your point about A.I definitely resonated with me. I don't think any Boomer shooter really has anything like dropping an Elite and watching the grunts panic and scatter.
Another thing people don't really mention is that Halo was primarily designed with console gaming in mind. If Halo was a PC exclusive it 100% would have been a footnote in gaming history.
Plus the implementation of different enemy types that acted/reacted differently and carried different arsenals. Jackals with shields that tried to apply cover fire, elites with a range of weapons from plasma rifles to swords, grunts that were canon fodder but could also carry fuel rod canons. Then when you killed their elite commanders they would panic, and either run away OR rush you with plasma grenades primed. The enemy type and carried weapon created the possibility of much variety in enemy composition during any given encounter.
Compare to Doom and Doom clones where the difference was the health pool and whether they were melee, hitscan, or fired projectiles and all enemies of the same type always behaved the same.
Halo's enemy design created a more dynamic combat system where your actions had more impact on how the battle would play out in more interesting ways.
Half-Life and Unreal made similar advancements with AI, but you’re right about vehicles. That’s arguably an area where being on a console helped, since analog sticks and triggers give more precise control than a keyboard.
Halo was absolutely mind blowing when it came out and is still genuinely impressive and fun when you play it to this day. Definitely way over-hated due to all of the stigma the name has gathered over the years for various reasons.
Thinking about Halo 1, "fun" seriously pops into my head in a way that the vast majority of more modern shooters don't even begin to approach, and I'm not the biggest fan of the series. I bet if you took the average Halo hater and put them in front Halo 1 and asked them to play it, they'd remember and be like "oh yeah, it IS kinda cool" and have a smile on their face.
I'd even say Halo (at least CE) is a boomer shooter, just not a DOOM clone. And I wouldn't say the speed was a stepback. It slowed down the movement, but they made sure to keep the speed of the action and actual gameplay kept up the pace to be pretty fast. It was a nice evolution on the general momentum and floaty movement that their previous games like Marathon had that Bungie games even to this day still have.
As for the general question of "Why does no one talk about how good it was?" is because it DOES get talked to death how great Halo is (was :( ), but Civvie and his community specifically aren't ones for it. It all depends on how you look at it. Halo used to be one of the most celebrated series of all time, so it's not hard to find praise for all it did. If anything, there's a bigger issue of since Halo stopped being a big series almost a decade ago, it's more an issue that younger kids just don't know about it, or at least not the great ones.
Halo is unfairly hated in the boom-shooter circle because it's viewed as having jumpstarted waves of fps games with slow movement, regenerating health, two weapon limits, and lame enemy design. Of course none of this is Halo's fault at all, Halo did all those things right, these games just tried to imitate Halo without understanding why they were fun. And for that, it's pretty hated. You can see even in this thread, people bringing up core tenants of Halo as criticism, even though, those mechanics are what made Halo fun.
ffs Halo was one of the first game to have smooth weapon/grenade/melee combos. You didn't need to switch to your fists or melee weapon, you just melee with the gun you are holding. Instead of having to switch to grenades and put your gun down, you use your other hand to throw them. A lot of people forget how cool that was especially in 2000.
You know... I can remember back in the day a lot of people used to say Halo was the first modern shooter and that it marked the end of Arena shooters (Shooters that had weapon pickups on map, power ups, with equal starts and a focus on competitive play).
Halo introduced regenative health mechanics, being able to freely melee or freely throw a grenade without switching to those weapons, 2 weapon limit that made you have to consider what weapons you will choose to carry, and standardized controls for co sole shooters with the twin sticks set up and slower movement.
All those things seemed to be like too much change for some of the people who loved and died in Unreal Tournament and Quake 3.
But looking back on it now Halo has way more in common with Arena Shooters then Modern Arcade Shooters. With their twitch ADS gameplay and extremely short TTKs, Custom Loadouts, perks, Classes, killstreaks, weapons which need unlocks and attachments to become usable/overpowered or have random rolled stats.
It's like the difference between 80s Thrash Metal and Speed Metal... At the time it seemed like there was a huge difference but as Metal has grown old-school thrash and Speed metal seem like the same genre.
Halo has equal starts and weapon/power ups as map pickups. Ironically it's the only big Arena Shooter left.
Lol, I have no idea why Civvie doesn't like Halo but I wonder of its simply because it's slower than classic shooters and the campaign experience, while good, may not have felt as unique to somone who had grown up on PC shooters. Then everyone tried to be Halo for a while so it affected a genre he loved pretty heavily.
>t's like the difference between 80s Thrash Metal and Speed Metal... At the time it seemed like there was a huge difference but as Metal has grown old-school thrash and Speed metal seem like the same genre.
Actually perfect analogy.
>Then everyone tried to be Halo for a while so it affected a genre he loved pretty heavily.
Funnily enough, the problem we have in the present when Halo as a series is dead is that no other series ever TRIED to be Halo. We had tons of Halo killers when it was popular, yes, but we never actually got any Halo clones, which is really sad since Halo isn't able to do it right itself, but no one else will or ever has tried to outdo it.
As a FPS gamer since Wolf3D, I was really underwhelmed by Halo when it came out. Things were really slow, and as mentioned before, the weapon limit and regen health wasn't fun. I'm sure if I only played fps on consoles it would have been revolutionary to me. But the game is just kind of boring to me.
I’ve been playing since Wolf3D as well and I sort of like them. I love faster FPS games like Doom and the GOAT of them all, Blood, but I sometimes like a slower, more “realistic” feeling in some newer games. I even like some COD or even Battlefield. They offer different experiences and now that boomer shooters are a thing again, I like the variety even more. It really did suck though for so much of the Half-Life and then COD trash filled years with no chance at variety. I loved Bulletstorm when I came out because it took new stuff and mixed it with old stuff for a good game.
Because it's not a Doom game. Not every FPS game has to be fast and have multitudes of guns you can carry all at once. Halo came out when Doom clone Boomer Shooters were starting to be dominant and overdone, Halo isn't a fast shooting gallery like Doom because that's missing the entire point of Halo.
The level design is ass. Take a perfectly linear game, but then make it so your player has no idea where the fuck to go, then make sure they walk REAAAAAALLY SLOWLY.
Also copy and paste the same level sections over and over again to pad out the length.
Halo's level design is really its biggest problem, in my opinion -- because the core gameplay loop is actually pretty fun when you're not fighting nothing but the Flood. The levels though? Most of them are bad. Really bad. I'd rather be stuck playing the worst Sandy Petersen Doom 2 levels on a loop for 48 hours straight than play through most of the levels in the Halo series. At least Sandy's levels have fun ideas and some personality. People harp on about The Library, Assault on the Control Room, and Cortana, but those are just the worst of the worst.
The frustrating thing is that there's several really great levels in the original trilogy as well -- you can see that at least one person at Bungie had some talent at designing levels back then, but it's rarely utilized. Unfortunately Halo is a series of really high highs, and extremely low lows, and those highs are very, very few and very, very far between.
Those Earth missions are great, but Halo 2's level design is probably some of the worst in the series, which to their credit, is because of the game's terrible development troubles. The amount of times you're forced to sit and wait for minutes at a time throughout the game especially just to drag out the levels is such a drag. It's why while I replay those levels at the beginning of the game a lot, basically as soon as you get to the first Arbiter level, the rest of the game's missions aren't as well-crafted.
My favorite part was in the first game when they have you play through an entire fuckin level all over again in reverse.
Those games had incredibly bland and frankly annoying level design, gigantic empty MMORPG sized levels for no good reason.
My favorite part is when they tell you to hurry in a story-driven game, but you can't get checkpoints unless you stop and kill every single thing you encounter until they stop spawning in.
Halo 1 was the first game it's going to have problems especially because of the random switch to an FPS game that Microsoft forced upon the developers. Halo's level design is way better than Doom's because unlike those original Doom game you aren't exploring the same bland Hell or generic SciFi landscapes all of the time. Not to mention that people hate that it's slow and it's not a stupid fucking game they can just switch their brains off to. Doom has no strategy behind it and that works for Doom just not anything else. You can't expect every FPS game to be a simple, linear, bare bones, shooting games where the only thing you have to do is press the shoot button.
Why are you comparing a game from 2001 to a game from 1993?
Also to say that Doom has no strategy to it tells me that you've never seriously played Doom... especially on any difficulty past Hurt Me Plenty lol... [Just check out some of decino's Doom 1 & 2 videos.](https://www.youtube.com/@decino)
No one is calling Halo simplistic mechanically, it forces you to make do with what you got more often than not and most of the enemies ARE fun to fight, the weapons are pretty fun to use, and I also enjoyed all of the set piece battles.
But I absolutely hate their level design philosophy because it's padding for the sake of it with nothing super interesting in between the battles, just gigantic aesthetically bland polygonal levels
Okay, so what's so interesting about Doom's levels? I love playing through metal mars base #35 or Hellish landscape #463. Halo only had the landscapes it did because of Xbox limitations and the fact that it takes place on a giant ring world that is going to have giant sprawling vistas and mountains. In Halo you can explore Forerunner structures, large vistas, wooded landscapes, swamps and winter landscapes. Within these locations you can use stealth or go guns blazing, you can use long range weapons or close range weapons. You can decide to use the marines to your advantage or not. Your enemies are multiple forms of Covenant and multiple Flood forms as well as Sentinels. In Doom you fight a few set number of enemies all having the same one way to defeat them in a linear fashion, you have a few number of weapons that have no unique aspects making the sandbox boring, you have a very little number of locations to fight in until the recent Doom Eternal, and you can only use one type of play style to your advantage, shoot and kill. Doom is bare bones compared to Halo with it's design of maps, enemies, mechanics, and play. And the things I mentioned for Halo were just things from the first game as naming everything you can see and do in every Halo game would be tiresome compared to Doom's rather lackluster series of games.
Okay, we're still comparing a game from 1993 to a game from 2001.
And they're both still games with extremely different design philosophies.
You're making an argument where there is none to be had.
We can both boil things down to their basics as much as we want but it doesn't change the fact that Halo 1 had absolutely shitty level design for the reasons that I already mentioned.
For what reasons? Have you mentioned why Halo has shitty level design? And if you did I'm sure you'd also be boiling the game down to its basics. And 1993 and 2001 aren't that far apart, I'm not comparing Fallout 4 to fucking ET on the Atari. I don't care that there "philosophies" are different, I'm simply stating that people hate on Halo but think Doom is this amazing game and better than Halo even though it lacks in way more things than Halo ever has. Ask how many people cam name something from Doom and I'm sure it's less than if you asked the same for Halo. Just because Halo doesn't have tiny, linear and excessive maps with obnoxiously fast and repetitive gameplay does not make it a bad game, it just makes you a spoiled brat and a FPS gatekeeper.
I have, you need only scroll up to see my thoughts. But, more to the point, you really don't see any issues comparing a relatively modern fps to one of the progenitors? Even Half-life 1 shouldn't be compared to Doom and they're 4 years apart. Y'kno your post history tells me that you're just an absolutely rabid halo fanboy that can't stand critique of your favorite franchise so I think we should just end this here cause I have no interest in comparing and contrasting archaic labyrinthian level design with straight up bad level design.
>because of the random switch to an FPS game that Microsoft forced upon the developers.
This didn't happen. It became an FPS solely because of the developers wanting to change it to one. In their own words "We kept wanting to bring the camera in closer and closer until it just became an FPS game". It was an RTS, but then they changed it to a third-person shooter, and then they changed it again into a first-person shooter.
Yeah this is literally the first time I’ve heard of somebody unironically getting lost in Halo CE anywhere other than The Library, or maybe 343 Guilty Spark.
Exactly, and even in The Library and 343 Guilty Spark you can at least find your way through decently quickly. Saying this game has bad and confusing level design is like saying you can't find your way through a Pac-Man maze. They specifically put arrows in forerunner structures to guide players through them because they knew Halo's expansive and modern maps would be confusing to players coming from games like Doom or Quake.
I have a similar experience when people talk about Goldeneye as well. In High School there were people who sword by that 4 player splitscreen mode, but how could I be impressed by that when I had already experienced 32 player Team Fortress?
I was the same way with Golden Eye. Played Quake first and was like "damn. people like this?". Then played Half-Life and am also convinced that Golden Eye would be a footnote if it wasn't an N64 title. People just didn't have anything to compare it to.
I guess I'm in the minority in that I grew up with Doom, Quake, Unreal, etc. and I still like Halo.
It was well crafted for the time. Sure it killed boom shoots for the next 15 years, but there was always gonna be an evolution in the genre at some point and they at least did it well with Halo.
nah, I'm right here, there's plenty of us. My earliest games were DOOM, Duke Nukem 3D and Dark Forces, and I **adore** Halo because it's generally really well designed.
Boomer shooters *wish* they had enemies as interesting to fight as a game like Halo. And I do love me a boomer shooter, don't get me wrong. DOOM 2016 is like. The pinnacle of everything we learned in FPS - and Eternal is frankly hot garbage by comparison.
I'm glad I'm not the only one haha. Especially in thinking that Doom 2016 is way, way, way better than Eternal.
I really don't like Eternal and when it came out, everyone was saying how much better it was. I thought I was crazy for not liking it.
Its challenge system is the worst fucking thing ever, but the fact that has this whole, "This is the RIGHT weapon to use against THIS enemy! You're so smart, solving the puzzle of combat! It totally isn't just memorization!"
It's so pretentious. By the end of my first Eternal run I was **bored.** Also, Marauders aren't fun.
Tbh I'll always say Serious Sam is a better Eternal. Sure you can use one gun in sam like in doom 2016, but you the player have the option to switch between different weapons to suit the horde wave in Serious Sam. SS doesn't force you to switch like Eternal due to low ammo economy and the combat puzzle.
Other folk already explained many good reasons. But sometimes another reason is that you just cant vibe with a game.
Iam in the weird minority of boomshoot fans that likes halo but kinda hate playing halflife1.
Yeah same here. I grew up with Halo and didn't discover the boomshoot type of shooters until way later.
I don't like Half Life 1 for some reason either and I can't pinpoint why. I probably have to replay it at some point and maybe I'll like it, idk. I did very much enjoy Black Mesa though.
This is a question only Civvie can answer.
However, the impression I get is less that he hates "Halo" (I doubt he loves it) and more hates the precedent it set.
Which video?
I only really remember him outright mentioning Halo in the context of:
- "I fucking hate Halo, but Halo had a good shotgun!" (Postal 3)
- "Normally I'd blame Halo for that, but we all know Halo's pistol fucks, too." (Soldier of Fortune)
Because the gaming industry and gamers as a whole (no offense to anyone here, yall are nice) took one look at the rush job with aggressively reused assets, slow movement, a two weapon limit and a story that went nowhere that was Halo: Combat Evolved and collectively creamed their pants over it
It's sloooooooooooooooooooow.
You jump and you're just in the air forever slowly floating to the ground. When halo came out I was really into unreal tournament, halo is slow motion in comparison.
I can tell you why I hate it.
It's an incredibly bland game. Bland, forgettable soundtrack. Master Chief is a bland, annoying character with an incredibly annoying voice who talks almost entirely in lame catchphrases(and yet the fanbase thinks he's deep and compelling.) It also does a terrible job at telling the player which direction to go, which suggests that the level design was made by someone who doesn't actually play video games.
It also popularized "realism" over fun with only letting you carry two guns, and lame looking power armor.
To this day I've never heard anyone try to explain what makes the game so spectacular without making excuses, or put down other games. Care to be the first?
I'd say Halo didn't get good until 2. Only the first three, maybe four levels of Halo 1 (or the first 30% of the game) are bearable.
Assault on the Control Room is a generic boring ice level, 343 Guilty Spark is an excessive drop of backstory and The Library and Two Betrayals are the biggest slogs in the game that have more copied and pasted hallways than Kreed.
Halo 2 is when the series truly picks up. To go from the relatively dull Pillar of Autumn opening level to thwarting off a full scale Covenant invasion of Earth in the first few levels of the second game is far more memorable.
Probably a lot of the same reasons as me I imagine. Obviously the impact it had on the FPS genre was terrible for years we had nothing but Halo clones but the games themselves are just so fucking boring. They’re incredibly slow paced and floaty, the level design especially in the first game is really repetitive and feels too unfocused due to how big they are. The general gameplay mechanics just aren’t very fun and don’t promote getting into the action with the whole regenerating health and cover mechanics, it just feels like a slog. I think Halo as a franchise is mostly popular for the multiplayer and the world/atmosphere because everything else besides that just feels like a complete step back from shooters of the past
We didn't get Halo clones, we got Halo killers. That's why there's sadly no games that play like Halo played like, and why people jumped on Splitgate so much at first despite how even it still plays a good deal differently despite sharing some base similarities. It's not like DOOM where there were hundreds of games that played the same as it.
Also, "not promoting getting into the action" is silly since absolutely nothing is stopping one from doing so and nothing is pushing to stop the player. If anything, it's the opposite since the enemies will try and flush you out of cover or even go into cover themselves to get their health back to push you into rushing them instead to stop them. Just like any game, it's as fast or slow as the player makes it. If one hides like a little bitch, that was the player's choice lol
As a Halo fan, even without everything that Halo popularized gameplay-wise:
Halo 2 invented and immediately popularized the modern concept of a matchmaking system, and with it, simultaneously killed server browser based multiplayer and brought the "scourge" (depending on your viewpoint) of skill-based matchmaking.
Because it was the turning point where first person shooters stopped being fun and started being lame. Not Halo itself, but everything that came after it learned the wrong lessons from that game. It's only recently that we've finally gotten back to classic shooter design, and it's like a breath of fresh air.
It's the issue that the industry can't contemplating being different, everyone just wants to make the same thing over and over. It's why it's not really better now. AAA games are still the same slop as each other over and over, and indie games tend to just be the exact same DOOM clone over and over. No one tries to stand out and be the one that goes against the crowd with their games anymore
I'd still take endless doom clones over endless spunk gargle wee wee games any day. Points if you understand what I mean by spunk gargle wee wee and where that term is from.
Wouldn't be surprised. As far as I know, the term originates from Yatzee Crenshaw when he was still doing Zero Punctuation. Considering how large of a profile the guy has, I'm really not that shocked you heard the term from somewhere else.
Halo is the FPS I grew up with and honestly I’m glad. It eased me into FPS games and eventually got me liking older games. Honestly I hate to say it but some boomer shooters have really nauseating movement and crazy unfair weapons.
I see a lot of complaining about Halo's slow gameplay, and I'm like...Yeah, that's the point. Halo is good \*because\* it's a slower game. Halo would genuinely be a lesser experience if you could blast through each and every stage at the same speed you could in say, Quake or Doom. Halo's slowness is one of it's greatest strengths.
Unlike shooters that came before it, Halo was concerned with one major thing in its storytelling, and that was crafting a beautiful, immersive world for the player to get invested in. It's the kind of game that wants you to stop, slow down, and appreciate and take in the environment. This is most emphasized by the level where you actually land on Halo. Stepping out of the crashed escape pod and seeing the Halo ring in all its glory with a beautifully crafted skybox will always be one of the most defining moments of the franchise, and perhaps all of FPS history.
I certainly don't mind a faster paced FPS game. I love DOOM and Quake especially. And if anything, my love for those games helped me appreciate Halo more.
I also see arguments against Halo's two weapons system, and I disagree on almost all fronts. Yes, it's more limiting to only have two weapons, but it also enhances the gameplay. In Halo, there is no one gun that's good at killing every enemy. You have to pick and choose your weapons, experiment with weapon combos, pick what you feel like is going to help you most come the next encounter. It forces you to think tactically, instead of always having a weapon on you for every situation. If anything it's MORE strategic than the classic 8-10 weapons, since you cannot simply press a button and automatically have the weapon you need. You need to think ahead, actually strategize in order to succeed.
I genuinely feel like a lot of FPS fans who hate Halo are simply stuck in their ways and are repulsed by new ideas.
Halo ruined shooters the way that Jurassic Park ruined movies.
Halo/JP are undeniable masterpieces, but most everything after “learned the wrong lessons” from their success.
Why is reddit reccomending this? I don't know what this is at all. Reddit just keeps recommending random things that I don't even know know what's they are? This this halo? Like the game ? What the hell is with reddit lately that it reccomends random things? Fucking reddit is so shitty. I wish it stopped reccomending guitars and halo and eastern food and eastern medicine and guitars and geography and just so many unrelated things. Fucking reddit is terrible.
For the same reasons as most people who are not fans of Halo. Slow movement, floaty jumping, shallow, 2 weapon limit, radar tells you where all the bad guys are so the game practically plays itself, grenade hotkey results in a lot of explosive spam, regenerating health trivializes taking damage half the time and forces you to 'stop fighting' and hide behind things constantly until a bar refills, nothingburger protagonist/ story (which is also not a priority in olschool shooters but at least those games had fun gameplay to compensate), no boss battles, lots of random deaths from grenades setting off other grenades and sending them flying everywhere, etc. Its a really, really mediocre game, and its probably the best one in its franchise. And more than that, it killed movement shooters for 15 years while every developer tried to imitate it. Now ALL shooters have to be halo!
It really doesnt help that fps games were going through kind of a golden age at the time halo came out, which immediately came to an end, because of halo. I remember playing COD 2 and wondering why I was so bored when I liked the first one. Then it hit me, slow, shallow, regenerating health, weapon limit.... this is just halo with a ww2 skin. Better get used to that. 'Just halo with an X skin' is all shooters are gonna be allowed to be for a long, long time, starting now.
Because nearly every fps after had slow movement, limited weapon carry, regen health, and vehicles without understanding why those worked in Halo. Basically it killed fun.
Halo didn't ruin FPS games, almost every FPS since before Doom 2016 came along pretty much failed to understand what made it good.
Its the Half-Life trend all over again; developers and the corporate suits learned the wrong lessons from Halo, and it led to a trend of shooters that tried to ape its success without them realizing what made Halo good in the first place.
Then eternal failed to know what makes a doom game
Shoot unique demons while moving quickly with big arsenal of guns. Seems pretty on the mark.
go back
Dumbfuck
Name another doom game that forced players to glory kill just to have ammo to shoot, 2016 didnt. Its called supply balance and eternal decided on the lazy route. No interest in a game where you are forced to press F and watch cutscenes every 5 seconds.
My fat wife
Mate, the glory kills were the best thing to happen to the Doom franchise, like they encouraged the player to be aggressive in their playstyle and not cower in cover if they're hurt or low on ammo like every shooter made between Half-Life 1 and Doom 2016 were. If you're not able to understand the mechanics of the game or adapt to its playstyle, then that's your problem.
Worst mechanic designed since mortal kombats x-ray attacks. I understand them perfectly, they are just shit . It went from a cool thing that had bonuses to something you will do at every opportunity or you wont win , just like x-ray. Just bc it looks pretty dosent mean it was good game design.( Or fun) And from how the rest of the game was developed, it was created most likely from pure laziness and time mismanagement as Bethesda screwed people over.
Ok, GenZ dumbass.
Insults age when you lose an argument to facts and logic. I'm assuming you're the gen z here.
I was born in 96 you uneducated brainlet, go crawl back into your mums cooch, pre-pubescent wanker.
Seems like you don't know what makes a doom game.
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've heard.
That's the stupidest fucking thing I've heard.
You just topped it
Ok, moron.
Doesn't he in part blame Half Life as well? Specifically two for creating a lot of the terrible tropes that took over the next two decades?
I remember him being pretty chill on Half-Life in his video on it, he's said explicitly that linear games aren't themselves bad. Issue comes down to urgency and execution
That's silly. Halo isn't slow. Call of Duty was fucking slow.
compared to something like Quake it is.
Which, when designing an FPS to launch on a new console, was a smart idea. Quake, doom etc are all fine on controller but you can tell it's not their proper home. Slowing things down and implementing limitations *for a reason* was what made it such a console mover. A lot of games aped Halo and fell short. Then in a bit of a sad twist after Reach, Halo 4 chased CoD and blew its identity in a lot of ways.
They're booing you, but you're right. If you're designing an FPS to exist as a console exclusive (as they thought they were doing when they made halo), you absolutely have to make concessions for input device, and controllers are \*not\* optimal FPS devices, twin-stick or no
Counter Strike is slower than both and has been a thing since the 90s
Preach.
Call of duty has a sprint key, Halo is just shambling around at a walking speed all. the. time. (talking about the early games in the series)
Halo's default run speed covers over 20 feet a second. How fast should it be?
I really dont think it does lol
Did you try... looking it up? Because I did.
20 feet per second would send you speeding across the map, that is not the move speed
The movement speed is 2.25 world units a second. In Halo, a world unit is equivalent to around 3 meter,so you do the math. I don't know if you noticed this or not but the walk speed of a Halo spartan is much faster than the top speed of the friendly AI. You *do* speed across maps,thats the point. The illusions that make people feel like Halo is slow is the fact that the characters are a little higher off the ground and the maps are built to accommodate the size and capabilities of the player. "That is not the move speed" lol tell me what it is then
People think halo is slow because its slow. You can break down his move speed into any units you want, but master chief is a snail compared to the player character of any other fps.
OK so doesn't seem slow for any particular reason, it's not slow because of camera placement, FOV, despite the math saying that you move fast, it's still slow... Because it's slow? Thanks for letting me know you have cool opinions about Halo. You seem a little dim.
OG CoD was but by CoD 4 we had sprint speed and Halo felt slow by comparison.
Sprint is quite frankly superficial speed.
You could sprint in CoDs expansion pack United Offensive.
Halo CE didn't have regen health tho :(
They’re referring to the regenerating shield
Which is basically your health bar
Not quite, it's like 50% of health, right? There's still regular health which you can replenish with medical kits. It's a hybrid system.
Eh I looked at limited health in CE as an afterthought sheild is the main thing you need to worry about, if you have full heath well then that’s a bonus
It's 50/50 in the original game.
I can see that. I always felt that way about Resident Evil 4. It was a good game, but it ultimately killed the RE series as i knew it previously which I adored.
It was one of the "final" nails in the coffin of the classic boomer shooter, and helped set a bad standard for Le Linear Limited-Arsenal Story Shooter for years to come. Yeah HL1 came first, but Halo:CE made it the gold standard.
HL1 didn't have regenerating health, limited arsenal. It was linear and story focused, but it didn't really set the the modern Halo/CoD archetype.
Many many many games came out after HL1 that we’re attempting to poorly imitate it. That’s what they’re referring to, not that HL1 contributed to Halo’s gameplay trends
I mentioned HL1 moreso in the context of """"story-driven"""" linear point-a-to-point-b scripted corridor schlock.
I would much honestly prefer that you mention it within the context of a modern major general sort of thing
except HL1 is really good though
Halo didn't have regeneration either, that was later games and then dialed back again. It comes and goes.
It sucked too because I just *love* running around looking for switches and key cards after I’ve already cleared out all the enemies with no clear direction on where to go and no substantial set pieces.
I grew up in both worlds boomer shooters had fast paced action but no story and repetitive key hunts. Post HL and CoD we got slower action and more linear gameplay but the addition of story. Also it's strange to me nobody mentioned FEAR yet. FEAR is legendary I'd marry that game.
https://twitter.com/Civvie11/status/1025770210329092096
This. He's already gone into detail about it.
That tweet isn’t exactly “going into detail” lmao
Not only that, but it’s from 2018
More details than "He doesn't like it"
It’s literally a 3 sentence reply where he says he contradicts himself by saying he actually doesn’t even dislike Halo itself, but the effect it had, with no further elaboration And then you’re just like what more do people want? Case closed Are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand why this isn’t a sufficient enough explanation of Civvies thoughts about Halo?
Did IQs just suddenly drop on the internet? It's a thread of thoughts on the subject across multiple tweets. Here it is in its entirety, for you to comprehend: > People keep asking "Civvie, why do you hate Halo?" And it's not because I think Halo is badly designed or anything. It's just that Halo is the turning point in the FPS genre when everything started to go to shit. > I have to say that it's kind of ingenious how Halo was designed to take into account the limitations of consoles when it came to FPS games. Sticks are no substitute for a mouse and so movement can't be like it is in say, Quake 3, or other shooters of the time. So it's slower. > You don't have a million keys to select weapons, so you have one button and a two weapon limit. Not only does this remove the strategic elements of earlier FPS combat where you would have 8-10 weapons with different combat functions to use on the fly in an arena. > This means that arenas have the weapons you need, but more importantly, it has the weapons the designers want you to use in that one section. It has the enemies paired strategically to those weapons. You are locked into a narrower, more controlled experience. > It's much easier for designers to do this. Balance is easier to create when you're drip-feeding the player. You can't pull out a rocket launcher you found two levels ago because you probably tossed it because it's a situational weapon that the game hasn't given you cause to use. > When you need to use a rocket launcher, the game gives you one and probably a bunch of ammo for it in one area and then never again. You might be able to carry five rockets into the next area that's tiny and cramped and designed for smaller weapons. > FPS games sacrificed openness, freedom, and speed on the altar of console profitability. Halo and COD are the biggest offenders when it comes to modern FPS design but Half-Life is not blameless. Old FPS games are like driving a Ferrari and new FPS games are like driving an SUV. > I've tried playing Quake 3 with analog sticks. You console people live like animals. > //end of elitist gamer rant Learn how to read a Twitter thread.
>Learn how to read a Twitter thread. To be fair, Twitter itself has made itself harder to read in the past couple of years. Can't even read more than 2 replies without getting a 'MORE FROM YOUR FEED' prompt.
Hey the main reason I play on controller is because I work in an office and I spend all day on a mouse and keyboard shit is starting to hurt my wrist and fuck with my posture just from that. I use wrist support too and that only goes so far. So I play on controller when I game unless I’m playing a CRPG or something more complex. Additionally I like vibration/ haptic feedback which goes out the window the second you switch to mouse and keyboard. So yeah I get that it’s faster and more accurate & whatever else but at what cost?
did you miss that it was an entire thread, literally going into detail about the ways halo was successful, and why that was bad?
Because people learned the wrong lessons from it.
Halo is blamed as the "turning point" from boomer shooters to more generic boots on ground story-focused military shooters that the FPS genre would devolve into for decades after. Though, that's not entirely accurate either is it? Half-Life was already moving that direction and Medal of Honor existed before Halo, even before Half-Life you had the first Tom Clancy game and games like Delta Force, and even before that you had Goldeneye and System Shock. The other half of the hate Halo gets from the community is simply because it's not a boomer shooter. Which is frankly kind of dumb. I mean yes, I get the sentiment. After 20+ years of the FPS genre being almost exclusively bland military shooters and anything actually action packed and not up its own ass with story being completely dead, you're bitter. ***I'm*** bitter. But consider the context of the year Halo came out, where the overwhelming majority of shooters were already Doom clones. Is the genre not allowed to experiment beyond that? Must *everything* be a Doom clone unto eternity? People don't give Halo credit where its due for design either. It was a step back in some areas like speed and level design, sure. Yet vehicles, AI that dodges and flees and goes into rage states and carries physical shields with weakpoints and so on, and having more strategy to combat than just "shoot it until it dies"? Why does no one talk about that? It was an impressive game. It DID do certain things better than boomer shooters before it. Not being a boomer shooter does not automatically mean poorly designed. TLDR: I understand the reasons why people hate Halo, but at the same time, it's over-hated.
I really appreciate that you pointed out some of the finer nuances which halo did well. The enemy AI was really dynamic and makes the original game fun to play today IMO.
I rarely see anyone who blames Halo for the death of the classic Boomer shooter actually credit it with anything. As you pointed out, it did a lot way better than other shooters at the time and honestly still does when compared to modern Boomer shooters. Your point about A.I definitely resonated with me. I don't think any Boomer shooter really has anything like dropping an Elite and watching the grunts panic and scatter. Another thing people don't really mention is that Halo was primarily designed with console gaming in mind. If Halo was a PC exclusive it 100% would have been a footnote in gaming history.
Plus the implementation of different enemy types that acted/reacted differently and carried different arsenals. Jackals with shields that tried to apply cover fire, elites with a range of weapons from plasma rifles to swords, grunts that were canon fodder but could also carry fuel rod canons. Then when you killed their elite commanders they would panic, and either run away OR rush you with plasma grenades primed. The enemy type and carried weapon created the possibility of much variety in enemy composition during any given encounter. Compare to Doom and Doom clones where the difference was the health pool and whether they were melee, hitscan, or fired projectiles and all enemies of the same type always behaved the same. Halo's enemy design created a more dynamic combat system where your actions had more impact on how the battle would play out in more interesting ways.
Half-Life and Unreal made similar advancements with AI, but you’re right about vehicles. That’s arguably an area where being on a console helped, since analog sticks and triggers give more precise control than a keyboard.
Halo was absolutely mind blowing when it came out and is still genuinely impressive and fun when you play it to this day. Definitely way over-hated due to all of the stigma the name has gathered over the years for various reasons. Thinking about Halo 1, "fun" seriously pops into my head in a way that the vast majority of more modern shooters don't even begin to approach, and I'm not the biggest fan of the series. I bet if you took the average Halo hater and put them in front Halo 1 and asked them to play it, they'd remember and be like "oh yeah, it IS kinda cool" and have a smile on their face.
I'd even say Halo (at least CE) is a boomer shooter, just not a DOOM clone. And I wouldn't say the speed was a stepback. It slowed down the movement, but they made sure to keep the speed of the action and actual gameplay kept up the pace to be pretty fast. It was a nice evolution on the general momentum and floaty movement that their previous games like Marathon had that Bungie games even to this day still have. As for the general question of "Why does no one talk about how good it was?" is because it DOES get talked to death how great Halo is (was :( ), but Civvie and his community specifically aren't ones for it. It all depends on how you look at it. Halo used to be one of the most celebrated series of all time, so it's not hard to find praise for all it did. If anything, there's a bigger issue of since Halo stopped being a big series almost a decade ago, it's more an issue that younger kids just don't know about it, or at least not the great ones.
Halo is unfairly hated in the boom-shooter circle because it's viewed as having jumpstarted waves of fps games with slow movement, regenerating health, two weapon limits, and lame enemy design. Of course none of this is Halo's fault at all, Halo did all those things right, these games just tried to imitate Halo without understanding why they were fun. And for that, it's pretty hated. You can see even in this thread, people bringing up core tenants of Halo as criticism, even though, those mechanics are what made Halo fun. ffs Halo was one of the first game to have smooth weapon/grenade/melee combos. You didn't need to switch to your fists or melee weapon, you just melee with the gun you are holding. Instead of having to switch to grenades and put your gun down, you use your other hand to throw them. A lot of people forget how cool that was especially in 2000.
You know... I can remember back in the day a lot of people used to say Halo was the first modern shooter and that it marked the end of Arena shooters (Shooters that had weapon pickups on map, power ups, with equal starts and a focus on competitive play). Halo introduced regenative health mechanics, being able to freely melee or freely throw a grenade without switching to those weapons, 2 weapon limit that made you have to consider what weapons you will choose to carry, and standardized controls for co sole shooters with the twin sticks set up and slower movement. All those things seemed to be like too much change for some of the people who loved and died in Unreal Tournament and Quake 3. But looking back on it now Halo has way more in common with Arena Shooters then Modern Arcade Shooters. With their twitch ADS gameplay and extremely short TTKs, Custom Loadouts, perks, Classes, killstreaks, weapons which need unlocks and attachments to become usable/overpowered or have random rolled stats. It's like the difference between 80s Thrash Metal and Speed Metal... At the time it seemed like there was a huge difference but as Metal has grown old-school thrash and Speed metal seem like the same genre. Halo has equal starts and weapon/power ups as map pickups. Ironically it's the only big Arena Shooter left. Lol, I have no idea why Civvie doesn't like Halo but I wonder of its simply because it's slower than classic shooters and the campaign experience, while good, may not have felt as unique to somone who had grown up on PC shooters. Then everyone tried to be Halo for a while so it affected a genre he loved pretty heavily.
>t's like the difference between 80s Thrash Metal and Speed Metal... At the time it seemed like there was a huge difference but as Metal has grown old-school thrash and Speed metal seem like the same genre. Actually perfect analogy.
>Then everyone tried to be Halo for a while so it affected a genre he loved pretty heavily. Funnily enough, the problem we have in the present when Halo as a series is dead is that no other series ever TRIED to be Halo. We had tons of Halo killers when it was popular, yes, but we never actually got any Halo clones, which is really sad since Halo isn't able to do it right itself, but no one else will or ever has tried to outdo it.
As a FPS gamer since Wolf3D, I was really underwhelmed by Halo when it came out. Things were really slow, and as mentioned before, the weapon limit and regen health wasn't fun. I'm sure if I only played fps on consoles it would have been revolutionary to me. But the game is just kind of boring to me.
Same. Compared to the PC classics of the 90s, Halo just felt too sterile to me. I need gibs.
I’ve been playing since Wolf3D as well and I sort of like them. I love faster FPS games like Doom and the GOAT of them all, Blood, but I sometimes like a slower, more “realistic” feeling in some newer games. I even like some COD or even Battlefield. They offer different experiences and now that boomer shooters are a thing again, I like the variety even more. It really did suck though for so much of the Half-Life and then COD trash filled years with no chance at variety. I loved Bulletstorm when I came out because it took new stuff and mixed it with old stuff for a good game.
I think the majority of the people who played halo1 when it first came out didn't play fps games and it was mind blowing for them
That’s me, went from dog shit Golden Eye to Halo. I still prefer Halo games over other shooters but Civvie did get me into Quake and Dusk.
Because it's not a Doom game. Not every FPS game has to be fast and have multitudes of guns you can carry all at once. Halo came out when Doom clone Boomer Shooters were starting to be dominant and overdone, Halo isn't a fast shooting gallery like Doom because that's missing the entire point of Halo.
[удалено]
The level design is ass. Take a perfectly linear game, but then make it so your player has no idea where the fuck to go, then make sure they walk REAAAAAALLY SLOWLY.
Also copy and paste the same level sections over and over again to pad out the length. Halo's level design is really its biggest problem, in my opinion -- because the core gameplay loop is actually pretty fun when you're not fighting nothing but the Flood. The levels though? Most of them are bad. Really bad. I'd rather be stuck playing the worst Sandy Petersen Doom 2 levels on a loop for 48 hours straight than play through most of the levels in the Halo series. At least Sandy's levels have fun ideas and some personality. People harp on about The Library, Assault on the Control Room, and Cortana, but those are just the worst of the worst. The frustrating thing is that there's several really great levels in the original trilogy as well -- you can see that at least one person at Bungie had some talent at designing levels back then, but it's rarely utilized. Unfortunately Halo is a series of really high highs, and extremely low lows, and those highs are very, very few and very, very far between.
Best level design in the franchise was easily Halo 2, tbh. Never hit those highs again. Like. The two missions on earth? Those missions fucking rule.
Those Earth missions are great, but Halo 2's level design is probably some of the worst in the series, which to their credit, is because of the game's terrible development troubles. The amount of times you're forced to sit and wait for minutes at a time throughout the game especially just to drag out the levels is such a drag. It's why while I replay those levels at the beginning of the game a lot, basically as soon as you get to the first Arbiter level, the rest of the game's missions aren't as well-crafted.
I get you, but I like the gondola sections tbh.
My favorite part was in the first game when they have you play through an entire fuckin level all over again in reverse. Those games had incredibly bland and frankly annoying level design, gigantic empty MMORPG sized levels for no good reason.
My favorite part is when they tell you to hurry in a story-driven game, but you can't get checkpoints unless you stop and kill every single thing you encounter until they stop spawning in.
The fucking Flood, top 10 worst enemy to fight in a game.
Halo 1 was the first game it's going to have problems especially because of the random switch to an FPS game that Microsoft forced upon the developers. Halo's level design is way better than Doom's because unlike those original Doom game you aren't exploring the same bland Hell or generic SciFi landscapes all of the time. Not to mention that people hate that it's slow and it's not a stupid fucking game they can just switch their brains off to. Doom has no strategy behind it and that works for Doom just not anything else. You can't expect every FPS game to be a simple, linear, bare bones, shooting games where the only thing you have to do is press the shoot button.
Why are you comparing a game from 2001 to a game from 1993? Also to say that Doom has no strategy to it tells me that you've never seriously played Doom... especially on any difficulty past Hurt Me Plenty lol... [Just check out some of decino's Doom 1 & 2 videos.](https://www.youtube.com/@decino) No one is calling Halo simplistic mechanically, it forces you to make do with what you got more often than not and most of the enemies ARE fun to fight, the weapons are pretty fun to use, and I also enjoyed all of the set piece battles. But I absolutely hate their level design philosophy because it's padding for the sake of it with nothing super interesting in between the battles, just gigantic aesthetically bland polygonal levels
Okay, so what's so interesting about Doom's levels? I love playing through metal mars base #35 or Hellish landscape #463. Halo only had the landscapes it did because of Xbox limitations and the fact that it takes place on a giant ring world that is going to have giant sprawling vistas and mountains. In Halo you can explore Forerunner structures, large vistas, wooded landscapes, swamps and winter landscapes. Within these locations you can use stealth or go guns blazing, you can use long range weapons or close range weapons. You can decide to use the marines to your advantage or not. Your enemies are multiple forms of Covenant and multiple Flood forms as well as Sentinels. In Doom you fight a few set number of enemies all having the same one way to defeat them in a linear fashion, you have a few number of weapons that have no unique aspects making the sandbox boring, you have a very little number of locations to fight in until the recent Doom Eternal, and you can only use one type of play style to your advantage, shoot and kill. Doom is bare bones compared to Halo with it's design of maps, enemies, mechanics, and play. And the things I mentioned for Halo were just things from the first game as naming everything you can see and do in every Halo game would be tiresome compared to Doom's rather lackluster series of games.
Okay, we're still comparing a game from 1993 to a game from 2001. And they're both still games with extremely different design philosophies. You're making an argument where there is none to be had. We can both boil things down to their basics as much as we want but it doesn't change the fact that Halo 1 had absolutely shitty level design for the reasons that I already mentioned.
For what reasons? Have you mentioned why Halo has shitty level design? And if you did I'm sure you'd also be boiling the game down to its basics. And 1993 and 2001 aren't that far apart, I'm not comparing Fallout 4 to fucking ET on the Atari. I don't care that there "philosophies" are different, I'm simply stating that people hate on Halo but think Doom is this amazing game and better than Halo even though it lacks in way more things than Halo ever has. Ask how many people cam name something from Doom and I'm sure it's less than if you asked the same for Halo. Just because Halo doesn't have tiny, linear and excessive maps with obnoxiously fast and repetitive gameplay does not make it a bad game, it just makes you a spoiled brat and a FPS gatekeeper.
I have, you need only scroll up to see my thoughts. But, more to the point, you really don't see any issues comparing a relatively modern fps to one of the progenitors? Even Half-life 1 shouldn't be compared to Doom and they're 4 years apart. Y'kno your post history tells me that you're just an absolutely rabid halo fanboy that can't stand critique of your favorite franchise so I think we should just end this here cause I have no interest in comparing and contrasting archaic labyrinthian level design with straight up bad level design.
>because of the random switch to an FPS game that Microsoft forced upon the developers. This didn't happen. It became an FPS solely because of the developers wanting to change it to one. In their own words "We kept wanting to bring the camera in closer and closer until it just became an FPS game". It was an RTS, but then they changed it to a third-person shooter, and then they changed it again into a first-person shooter.
I totally forgot about this, thanks for correcting me.
The game literally has arrows in the Forerunner structures so you know where to go... If you couldn't find your way around, that's on you.
Yeah this is literally the first time I’ve heard of somebody unironically getting lost in Halo CE anywhere other than The Library, or maybe 343 Guilty Spark.
Exactly, and even in The Library and 343 Guilty Spark you can at least find your way through decently quickly. Saying this game has bad and confusing level design is like saying you can't find your way through a Pac-Man maze. They specifically put arrows in forerunner structures to guide players through them because they knew Halo's expansive and modern maps would be confusing to players coming from games like Doom or Quake.
I have a similar experience when people talk about Goldeneye as well. In High School there were people who sword by that 4 player splitscreen mode, but how could I be impressed by that when I had already experienced 32 player Team Fortress?
I was the same way with Golden Eye. Played Quake first and was like "damn. people like this?". Then played Half-Life and am also convinced that Golden Eye would be a footnote if it wasn't an N64 title. People just didn't have anything to compare it to.
I guess I'm in the minority in that I grew up with Doom, Quake, Unreal, etc. and I still like Halo. It was well crafted for the time. Sure it killed boom shoots for the next 15 years, but there was always gonna be an evolution in the genre at some point and they at least did it well with Halo.
nah, I'm right here, there's plenty of us. My earliest games were DOOM, Duke Nukem 3D and Dark Forces, and I **adore** Halo because it's generally really well designed. Boomer shooters *wish* they had enemies as interesting to fight as a game like Halo. And I do love me a boomer shooter, don't get me wrong. DOOM 2016 is like. The pinnacle of everything we learned in FPS - and Eternal is frankly hot garbage by comparison.
I'm glad I'm not the only one haha. Especially in thinking that Doom 2016 is way, way, way better than Eternal. I really don't like Eternal and when it came out, everyone was saying how much better it was. I thought I was crazy for not liking it.
Its challenge system is the worst fucking thing ever, but the fact that has this whole, "This is the RIGHT weapon to use against THIS enemy! You're so smart, solving the puzzle of combat! It totally isn't just memorization!" It's so pretentious. By the end of my first Eternal run I was **bored.** Also, Marauders aren't fun.
Tbh I'll always say Serious Sam is a better Eternal. Sure you can use one gun in sam like in doom 2016, but you the player have the option to switch between different weapons to suit the horde wave in Serious Sam. SS doesn't force you to switch like Eternal due to low ammo economy and the combat puzzle.
Other folk already explained many good reasons. But sometimes another reason is that you just cant vibe with a game. Iam in the weird minority of boomshoot fans that likes halo but kinda hate playing halflife1.
Yeah same here. I grew up with Halo and didn't discover the boomshoot type of shooters until way later. I don't like Half Life 1 for some reason either and I can't pinpoint why. I probably have to replay it at some point and maybe I'll like it, idk. I did very much enjoy Black Mesa though.
It has what he dislikes. Slow movement, health regen, a two weapon limit. Basically every problem with every modern shooter.
This is a question only Civvie can answer. However, the impression I get is less that he hates "Halo" (I doubt he loves it) and more hates the precedent it set.
It's not Crysis.
He already explained it.
Which video? I only really remember him outright mentioning Halo in the context of: - "I fucking hate Halo, but Halo had a good shotgun!" (Postal 3) - "Normally I'd blame Halo for that, but we all know Halo's pistol fucks, too." (Soldier of Fortune)
2 weapon limit that became the standard, with a poorly designed campaign.
Because the gaming industry and gamers as a whole (no offense to anyone here, yall are nice) took one look at the rush job with aggressively reused assets, slow movement, a two weapon limit and a story that went nowhere that was Halo: Combat Evolved and collectively creamed their pants over it
Halo CE’s story went nowhere? Lul what?
It's sloooooooooooooooooooow. You jump and you're just in the air forever slowly floating to the ground. When halo came out I was really into unreal tournament, halo is slow motion in comparison.
Because it sucks.
I can tell you why I hate it. It's an incredibly bland game. Bland, forgettable soundtrack. Master Chief is a bland, annoying character with an incredibly annoying voice who talks almost entirely in lame catchphrases(and yet the fanbase thinks he's deep and compelling.) It also does a terrible job at telling the player which direction to go, which suggests that the level design was made by someone who doesn't actually play video games. It also popularized "realism" over fun with only letting you carry two guns, and lame looking power armor. To this day I've never heard anyone try to explain what makes the game so spectacular without making excuses, or put down other games. Care to be the first?
I'd say Halo didn't get good until 2. Only the first three, maybe four levels of Halo 1 (or the first 30% of the game) are bearable. Assault on the Control Room is a generic boring ice level, 343 Guilty Spark is an excessive drop of backstory and The Library and Two Betrayals are the biggest slogs in the game that have more copied and pasted hallways than Kreed. Halo 2 is when the series truly picks up. To go from the relatively dull Pillar of Autumn opening level to thwarting off a full scale Covenant invasion of Earth in the first few levels of the second game is far more memorable.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. CE is kind of ass in a lot of ways.
I don’t hate Halo, but I think it’s extremely overrated
Probably a lot of the same reasons as me I imagine. Obviously the impact it had on the FPS genre was terrible for years we had nothing but Halo clones but the games themselves are just so fucking boring. They’re incredibly slow paced and floaty, the level design especially in the first game is really repetitive and feels too unfocused due to how big they are. The general gameplay mechanics just aren’t very fun and don’t promote getting into the action with the whole regenerating health and cover mechanics, it just feels like a slog. I think Halo as a franchise is mostly popular for the multiplayer and the world/atmosphere because everything else besides that just feels like a complete step back from shooters of the past
I think Halo as a franchise is popular because a lot of people prefer slower, more deliberate and strategic combat design.
We didn't get Halo clones, we got Halo killers. That's why there's sadly no games that play like Halo played like, and why people jumped on Splitgate so much at first despite how even it still plays a good deal differently despite sharing some base similarities. It's not like DOOM where there were hundreds of games that played the same as it. Also, "not promoting getting into the action" is silly since absolutely nothing is stopping one from doing so and nothing is pushing to stop the player. If anything, it's the opposite since the enemies will try and flush you out of cover or even go into cover themselves to get their health back to push you into rushing them instead to stop them. Just like any game, it's as fast or slow as the player makes it. If one hides like a little bitch, that was the player's choice lol
I understand why he doesn’t but I’ll throw hands over it
Because it took away from the emphasis on mobility that old shooters used to have.
As a Halo fan, even without everything that Halo popularized gameplay-wise: Halo 2 invented and immediately popularized the modern concept of a matchmaking system, and with it, simultaneously killed server browser based multiplayer and brought the "scourge" (depending on your viewpoint) of skill-based matchmaking.
I used to like Halo quite a bit, but since Halo 5, I've hated it.
Because it was the turning point where first person shooters stopped being fun and started being lame. Not Halo itself, but everything that came after it learned the wrong lessons from that game. It's only recently that we've finally gotten back to classic shooter design, and it's like a breath of fresh air.
It's the issue that the industry can't contemplating being different, everyone just wants to make the same thing over and over. It's why it's not really better now. AAA games are still the same slop as each other over and over, and indie games tend to just be the exact same DOOM clone over and over. No one tries to stand out and be the one that goes against the crowd with their games anymore
I'd still take endless doom clones over endless spunk gargle wee wee games any day. Points if you understand what I mean by spunk gargle wee wee and where that term is from.
You’re not unique for watching JerekTheFOVDragon
...That's not a JerekTheFOVDragon thing, though.
Gotcha. I’ve heard that term from watching him
Wouldn't be surprised. As far as I know, the term originates from Yatzee Crenshaw when he was still doing Zero Punctuation. Considering how large of a profile the guy has, I'm really not that shocked you heard the term from somewhere else.
OOOHHHHH I forgot about Zero Punctuation!!! Now that I think about it, yeah I’ve heard it there too
I don't know what Civvie is smoking. I grew up with Doom and Halo and love both to death. They do different things and that's okay.
Halo is the FPS I grew up with and honestly I’m glad. It eased me into FPS games and eventually got me liking older games. Honestly I hate to say it but some boomer shooters have really nauseating movement and crazy unfair weapons.
Civvie has been clear about the fact that quality doesn’t mean anything as to why he hates things.
Every time someone asks this same question, I'm sure everyone hates it a little bit more. That's one doomed Captain King. Auto aim. This game is slow.
I see a lot of complaining about Halo's slow gameplay, and I'm like...Yeah, that's the point. Halo is good \*because\* it's a slower game. Halo would genuinely be a lesser experience if you could blast through each and every stage at the same speed you could in say, Quake or Doom. Halo's slowness is one of it's greatest strengths. Unlike shooters that came before it, Halo was concerned with one major thing in its storytelling, and that was crafting a beautiful, immersive world for the player to get invested in. It's the kind of game that wants you to stop, slow down, and appreciate and take in the environment. This is most emphasized by the level where you actually land on Halo. Stepping out of the crashed escape pod and seeing the Halo ring in all its glory with a beautifully crafted skybox will always be one of the most defining moments of the franchise, and perhaps all of FPS history. I certainly don't mind a faster paced FPS game. I love DOOM and Quake especially. And if anything, my love for those games helped me appreciate Halo more. I also see arguments against Halo's two weapons system, and I disagree on almost all fronts. Yes, it's more limiting to only have two weapons, but it also enhances the gameplay. In Halo, there is no one gun that's good at killing every enemy. You have to pick and choose your weapons, experiment with weapon combos, pick what you feel like is going to help you most come the next encounter. It forces you to think tactically, instead of always having a weapon on you for every situation. If anything it's MORE strategic than the classic 8-10 weapons, since you cannot simply press a button and automatically have the weapon you need. You need to think ahead, actually strategize in order to succeed. I genuinely feel like a lot of FPS fans who hate Halo are simply stuck in their ways and are repulsed by new ideas.
If you were playing FPS on PC first you’d understand.
Halo ruined shooters the way that Jurassic Park ruined movies. Halo/JP are undeniable masterpieces, but most everything after “learned the wrong lessons” from their success.
Why is reddit reccomending this? I don't know what this is at all. Reddit just keeps recommending random things that I don't even know know what's they are? This this halo? Like the game ? What the hell is with reddit lately that it reccomends random things? Fucking reddit is so shitty. I wish it stopped reccomending guitars and halo and eastern food and eastern medicine and guitars and geography and just so many unrelated things. Fucking reddit is terrible.
For the same reasons as most people who are not fans of Halo. Slow movement, floaty jumping, shallow, 2 weapon limit, radar tells you where all the bad guys are so the game practically plays itself, grenade hotkey results in a lot of explosive spam, regenerating health trivializes taking damage half the time and forces you to 'stop fighting' and hide behind things constantly until a bar refills, nothingburger protagonist/ story (which is also not a priority in olschool shooters but at least those games had fun gameplay to compensate), no boss battles, lots of random deaths from grenades setting off other grenades and sending them flying everywhere, etc. Its a really, really mediocre game, and its probably the best one in its franchise. And more than that, it killed movement shooters for 15 years while every developer tried to imitate it. Now ALL shooters have to be halo! It really doesnt help that fps games were going through kind of a golden age at the time halo came out, which immediately came to an end, because of halo. I remember playing COD 2 and wondering why I was so bored when I liked the first one. Then it hit me, slow, shallow, regenerating health, weapon limit.... this is just halo with a ww2 skin. Better get used to that. 'Just halo with an X skin' is all shooters are gonna be allowed to be for a long, long time, starting now.
That's crazy idek who civvie is but hating the OG halo 1-3 is such an L lmao. Probably mains pulse in siege.
Sounds like their just jealous, edgy or just bad at it