Having played one of the Marathon games ages ago, I can say with some confidence that this, alone, does not make it a good game.
Anyway, yeah, I think Halo is considered a great game for the same reason Final Fantasy 7 is considered a great game. It was many, many people’s “first kiss” in the genre. Neither of them are, in fact, great games, but both of them are well put together and provide a compelling experience for new players. (Though players with more experience in the genre often find them mediocre.)
This is it for me. Master Chief is the man. Plus - there’s a reason why he’s the man, and not just some infantryman who manages to single-handedly beat the Germans (or whatever).
It’s an accessible game that’s easy to get into, with a solid story backing it up, and purty graphics. I’m not good enough at twitch-controlled PC-based FPSs, so “dumbing” it down a bit so your average moron like myself can succeed was the best thing they ever could have done.
And as much as people bitch about The Library, don’t you remember the first time you played it? “Jesus, this is friggin’ ridiculous! Bad guys are all over the place, when will this end?” Then you get to the bottom of the Library, flip a switch, and suddenly the place is not only still inhabited by those robots, but now there are friggin’ zombies jumping at you from 50 yards away! Shit! I remember having MC actually cowering in a corner at one point.
It was a game heavily marketed by Microsoft in an effort to promote the console and attack the play station market share. For a console, it’s graphics were pretty good for the time. That combination gave it a big fan base of people who were impressed by the console’s ease of use, and
From an actual game play perspective, it was mediocre at best. The weapons and vehicles were not original or even particularly well designed. The single player game was unimpressive and clearly used limited numbers of meshes and designs in order to cut down on the size of the game. The graphics were good for a console, but were well behind PC graphics at the time. The multiplayer game was likewise unoriginal and unsubstantial.
But, it had a lot of people hooked. Simple fun, and easy for everyone to play. The learning curve was relatively shallow allowing the fanbase to be huge, particularly given the lack of any serious competition in the console market at the time.
My simple opinion is that it’s was NOT a great game, and probably not even a good one, from a purely analytical perspective. It was however a popular game, and beloved game for many. That’s why you can’t figure out what made it so good. It wasn’t actually good. You, and many others have fond memories of it, and enjoyed playing it. But you did so in spite of the product, not because of it.
Does that taint your memories, or should it cause you to reconsider the value of the game? No. If you enjoyed it, it was good to you. Many many others agree with that perspective.
Halo 1 (combat evolved, Xbox) was the first “modern” game I had ever played after a long hiatus away from games in general. My system was either the NES or Genesis. The controls were easy for me to get a hang of (controlling the camera view was why I couldn’t get into any more modern games), the music kicked ass, the story got you involved, the graphics at the time blew everyone else away from what I had seen, and if you died, the whole world didn’t fall apart you could keep trying.
This is actually not true. While it was marketed pretty heavily for a game at the time (all of the Microsoft-published Xbox titles were), it was actually considered the fourth game behind Oddworld: Munch’s Oddysee, Dead or Alive 3 (remember “She kicks high”?) and Project Gotham Racing.
It was only after the review scores came in and the sales numbers showed that Halo was selling almost 1:1 with the system that it became THE big game of the Xbox launch.
If you say so. I don’t recall the other titles getting the fanfare of Halo. They were all launch titles, but the only one I remember getting the full all media ad treatment was Halo. But that may be hindsight memory in effect for me.
Bosstone has it right. Munch’s Oddysee was the pre-launch pick as the big launch title from Microsoft’s ad department. DOA3 got a big push as well because it was the most Japanese game Microsoft had at the time.
Halo’s post-launch popularity lead to the increased ad buys of the commerical.
Halo succeeded by doing lots of little things right. It might not have broken a whole lot of new ground, but it just took the best parts of current FPS games, mixed them up and put a nice level of polish on the finished game. The levels had a good scale for the time, plus the vehicles were a fun to use. I can’t think of any other games at the time that had anywhere near comparable co-op, and even to this day I still judge co-op games by how they compare to Halo.
I never played any of the Unreal games, and I didn’t particularly care for Counterstrike, so I appreciated Halo’s laid back, less competitive style.
What impressed me about the game was the sheer amount of stuff happening during a given engagement. NPC marines advancing against the enemy, tracers flying back and forth, random grenades being lobbed and exploding, a defensive barrier being taken out…it all combined to create a very immersive experience.
And I know this extra well because (please don’t read the spoiler if by some strange chance you’re suffering the delusion that I’m cool)I read the first Halo novel.
I disagree with that at well. I don’t think it’s less competitive. I tend to think that Halo had a lot less depth than more traditionally competitive fps games, but that’s not really the same thing. UT, Quake and CS all had a lot steeper learning curves. Halos was much shallower, which, IMO, was part of it’s widespread appeal.
All and all, I don’t prefer Halo’s MP styles to those of UT, or Quake. But to each their own.
If that’s the game on n64, I’m not too young. But N64 only allowed up to four players and one TV. With Halo, you could have up to to 16 players. You also didn’t need to split the TV into four if you had multiple XBoxes and only four people.
Yeah I am talking about console games. Counter Strike, for the PC, was around a lot earlier and was/is more popular anyway.
However, Halo 1 didn’t have internet capabilities. It did have voice chat though (yelling across the house to laugh at your friends or talk trash)
Exactly, it was able to attract a large group of people who were obviously fans of FPSes but had never actually had the FPS experience.
I know that much, but there’s an insinuation that there’s a game that sets you as the protagonist in a first-person view, but it’s not “The FPS Experience”.
Pffft… I have all 6 novels, plus all the graphic novels and the comics.
And I think that is one reason why the Halo series is as popular as it is today. It’s not just a bunch of video games but an entire fitional universe that doesn’t just rely on one protaganist to tell its story.
