Halo: A Bit Andy Warhol?

[MK-1601]

They should have dropped the interior sections altogether.

And Mario sunshine should have dropped the void levels.

Worst comparison ever.

[DirkCrisis]

I was finding it a struggle to get through the library level. I didn't realise that relentless slaughter could be so dull.

But there are many good bits. I still think DooM II is the most fun I've had with an FPS.

[Ktw]

Worst comparison ever.

Why so? The void levels forced you as a player to use Mario's own skills as opposed to Fludd. The interior sections of Halo require you as a player to use a different combat tactic from that used on outdoor sections. Grenades are more dangerous (and useful), sniping isn't very good, you could easily get cornered etc.

[kerraig UK]

They should have dropped the interior sections altogether.

And Mario sunshine should have dropped the void levels.

Worst comparison ever.

And why is that?

[Alex W.]

Revolutionary? Possibly not. Perfect? No.

The best game of its generation? Yes. Yes it is.

[Jim Miles]

I quite liked the atmosphere and general effect those repeated sections created, of an alien base with confusing and overly repetitious architecture unlike the complexes we're used to (on earth). I go to the science park occasionally near where I live and they have so many weird and wonderful different buildings. So much repetition really seemed alien.

[JoeK]

I didnt even mention the word edge once. I was actually thinking about the xbox mags/online reviews to be honest. Theres just too much wrong with it for it to be a 10/10 to be honest.

I think its the purest videogame ever made, and easily the best. I would say its at least twice as good as its nearest rivals for me. No competition.

The levels like 'assault on the control room' where people criticise the repetitive level design are missing the point. The game isn't about exploration, its about combat. those bridges and rooms are a distillation of the combat ethic. Each bridge lets you take the lessons you learned on the previous bridge and apply them to your combat technique, but then each time it'll throw in a tiny twist.

I've explored this game so in depthly (sic) that I feel I truly understand what they were aiming for with that level (and two betrayals). It wasn't to artificially extend the game length, it was to give the purest combat possible. You already know the room layout cos youve been there before, so you know how to use the scenery.

I can get through every level of the game on legendary without losing a life and assault on the control room was the perfect training ground for that.

I think I agree with every word there.

It's the game I forked over whopping great wodges of cash for a US machine for, and never, ever regretted it for a moment.

With perhaps the exception of the Shenmue series, no other game has kept me so completely and utterly captivated.

And more than that; made me play it again and again and again - with no less enjoyment.

And whilst I think think those who don't like it as much as me are quite obviously entitled to their opinions, I would just like to say this:

"You're wrong. Your loss. Keep quiet"

Because, you're not telling me anything I don't know already...Yes, I'm well aware of the repetition of the level layout. Yes, I do know that the framerate suffers on Lengendary a wee bit. But do I give a rat's arse about it? Do I fuck.

It's brill.

And I lied earlier. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on everything but Halo...

I will have truck with no opposition...

And unless something quite spectacularly bad happens (like all of Bungie being kidnapped, shot, or perhaps cut up into som sort of cold-meat selection) then the sequel is going to be bloody wonderful as well.

So there.

[ModoX]

I'm glad I don't seem to be the only one who likes the indoor levels. I don't play them for the decor, I love them because they completely change the way you have to play the game. Bungie needed to whack a few more hours onto the end in time for the Xbox launch and I think they did a great job.

You do all those outdoor levels, using vehicles, Marines etc, providing a wonderful, refreshing experience, then you get stuck indoors for some more old-school, man vs the world shooting. I find the indoor levels, particularly The Library, far more tense, being in a stand off with a squad of Covenant gits, popping out of cover for a second at a time, trying to figure out the best way to take them out. Insane fun. Now, after the breathtaking outdoor battles I'm not surprised some people were less impressed with the indoor sections, but not being as good as the outdoor levels doesn't make them bad by any means.

Anyway, Halo 2 should completely eradicate this whole debate. For starters you'll have an actual war going on around you, Halo was 'just' a battle, this is a full scale war for the survival of the race. Secondly, the environments should be far more varied, urban settings on Earth, no doubt a Covenant ship will make an appearance, any other place on Earth they want you to go, and it's not just going to stay on the one planet. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if we get a first class trip to the Covenant homeworld.

[Ed-E]

If you have to whack the AI to full difficulty to enjoy the game properly then it hasn't been properly implemented, in my opinion.

I don't want to play a game where the focus is the AI. I want to play a game with a balance - great AI but great environments as well. Gaming, to me, is not running through a tunnel doing the same thing again and again. It's experiencing a wide range of different things.

I don't doubt that Halo is a good game. But, in my opinion, it is wa~y off a 10/10.

[Alex W.]

The thing is, the AI in Halo is what makes it fun. You can do things and they feel right- throwing a grenade at grunts to force them to scatter into the path of a co-op buddy, for example. You don't have to turn it up to make the game better, just to make it more challenging and subsequently more enjoyable if you need it.

[DJ Sack]

Well said Ed, Did playing Doom on a higher difficulty make it any better? What about goldeneye? Goldeneye was great no matter what difficulty, sure the harder difficultys made you play it differently, more stealthy, but in the levels the game was exactly the same.

The indoor levels are jus annoying, they are so devoid of interest, same grey textures over and over and over again, going into multiple rooms that are circles. The inside of the space ship where you first start just goes to show that they can do interesting indoor levels, and later on when your back inside it, but in the middle the indoor sections are just dull. What did the aliens use them for? No reason, it doesnt identify, they need to have a reason to be there, and frankly most of the rooms dont.

[kerraig UK]

If you have to whack the AI to full difficulty to enjoy the game properly then it hasn't been properly implemented, in my opinion.

I don't want to play a game where the focus is the AI. I want to play a game with a balance - great AI but great environments as well. Gaming, to me, is not running through a tunnel doing the same thing again and again. It's experiencing a wide range of different things.

I don't doubt that Halo is a good game. But, in my opinion, it is wa~y off a 10/10.

Not true. The other difficulties are needed to prepare you for legendary, which is such a departure from any other FPS experience theres no way you could jump right in.

Its the only game where one single enemy can still be a worthy adversary, to the point that every engagement is a test of wits as well as reflexes.

[kerraig UK]

Well said Ed, Did playing Doom on a higher difficulty make it any better? What about goldeneye? Goldeneye was great no matter what difficulty, sure the harder difficultys made you play it differently, more stealthy, but in the levels the game was exactly the same.

The indoor levels are jus annoying, they are so devoid of interest, same grey textures over and over and over again, going into multiple rooms that are circles. The inside of the space ship where you first start just goes to show that they can do interesting indoor levels, and later on when your back inside it, but in the middle the indoor sections are just dull. What did the aliens use them for? No reason, it doesnt identify, they need to have a reason to be there, and frankly most of the rooms dont.

Doom didnt have A.I.

goldeneye was 1000 times better on the hardest setting. Remember on easy the missions were a quarter of what they were on hard. You had less to do as well as less to shoot at.

[Alex W.]

It's not like Doom's increased difficulty, where all that happens is your foes have more hit points and do more damage.

The bastards are SMARTER.

[JoeK]

It's not like Doom's increased difficulty, where all that happens is your foes have more hit points and do more damage.

The bastards are SMARTER.

At the end of the day, 'Normal' on the game is absolutely perfect for the first run through (and then later...to impress your friends...). And if anybody says that they weren't impressed with the AI on this setting, then they're just not playing it in the spirit it should be played in.

I just find it great, that every single time I play, I notice little touches that I'd never noticed before...

The first time I saw one of my guys hop onto an alien flyer was superb...and that never happened on my first fun through.

And getting all 6 troops on the tank with me, and survive was just dandy.

Thing is, Hero and Lengendary merely emphasise the multitude of different strategies you can (and must employ throughout the game - you can do any part of it with any of the weapons, which I think is pretty decent of them.

In fact, I've been playing the 'Halo' level again just this minute...it's glorious stuff...for the first time on that level my guys in a jeep shot down some banshees...and yelled in triumph accordingly.

Lovely.

[Alex W.]

Best weapons in an FPS this generation, too. And the best vehicles. The level design may be flawed at points, but there's no doubting that the mechanics of the game (the AI, physics, weapon balancing, health etc.) are nigh on perfectly balanced.

[DJ Sack]

Well said Ed, Did playing Doom on a higher difficulty make it any better? What about goldeneye? Goldeneye was great no matter what difficulty, sure the harder difficultys made you play it differently, more stealthy, but in the levels the game was exactly the same.

The indoor levels are jus annoying, they are so devoid of interest, same grey textures over and over and over again, going into multiple rooms that are circles. The inside of the space ship where you first start just goes to show that they can do interesting indoor levels, and later on when your back inside it, but in the middle the indoor sections are just dull. What did the aliens use them for? No reason, it doesnt identify, they need to have a reason to be there, and frankly most of the rooms dont.

Doom didnt have A.I.

goldeneye was 1000 times better on the hardest setting. Remember on easy the missions were a quarter of what they were on hard. You had less to do as well as less to shoot at.

Yeah but on halo, you dont get extra missions the harder the difficulty do you? You just do less damage while the enemy is smarter. Ive never seen the point of playing games on multiple difficultys unless you want to give yourself a challenge or they open something up. And i bet many many people have played halo on normal.

But i'll say it again, difficulty does not change the design of the indoor levels, they are still pap.

[___]

You just do less damage while the enemy is smarter.

And the prize for gross misrepresentation of Legendary mode goes to...

[The Shadow]

If you have to whack the AI to full difficulty to enjoy the game properly then it hasn't been properly implemented, in my opinion.

I don't want to play a game where the focus is the AI.  I want to play a game with a balance - great AI but great environments as well.  Gaming, to me, is not running through a tunnel doing the same thing again and again.  It's experiencing a wide range of different things.

I don't doubt that Halo is a good game.  But, in my opinion, it is wa~y off a 10/10.

It's not about proper implementation, it's about making the game more accessible. If all they included was Legendary mode, you'd find an awful lot of Halos in 2nd hand bins, as those people who prefer a more casual approach to gaming would never have proceeded beyond the canteen on the Pillar of Autumn. It's still a lot of fun on Normal, just not as amazing as it is on Legendary.

It's the best FPS ever, and like JoeK said, it's not worth arguing about this one, we don't think we're right, we KNOW we are.

[DJ Sack]

You just do less damage while the enemy is smarter.

And the prize for gross misrepresentation of Legendary mode goes to...

What does it do then? does it give me more missions? Does it give me more vehicals? does it change the terrain? No, it makes the enemy smarter and changes the damage inflicted. Nothing else.

[yakumo]

ahem...lm still looking for an x-box if anyone wants to get rid of theirs and Halo too:)

[___]

You just do less damage while the enemy is smarter.

And the prize for gross misrepresentation of Legendary mode goes to...

What does it do then? does it give me more missions? Does it give me more vehicals? does it change the terrain? No, it makes the enemy smarter and changes the damage inflicted. Nothing else.

Yes, that's all it does, just makes the enemy smarter. I'm so sick of games making the enemy observably smarter, it's so overused and such a cliche. Every game does it these days, it's the new cel-shading, etc...

...do you see?

Oh, and headshots are still a one hit kill. Legendary rewards accuracy and encourages, no, requires the most satisfying kind of tactical thinking in order to succeed; it reminds you that this game is all about combat, by making the combat so much better.

[JoeK]

You just do less damage while the enemy is smarter.

And the prize for gross misrepresentation of Legendary mode goes to...

What does it do then? does it give me more missions? Does it give me more vehicals? does it change the terrain? No, it makes the enemy smarter and changes the damage inflicted. Nothing else.

Which in turn changes the gameplay quite severely, in many cases. Sure, it's being played on the same levels, and same enemies, but quite different stategy needed to complete each and evewry level, without doubt.

Which, to my mind, makes it rather great.

[mr. fancypants]

If you have to whack the AI to full difficulty to enjoy the game properly then it hasn't been properly implemented, in my opinion.

I don't want to play a game where the focus is the AI.  I want to play a game with a balance - great AI but great environments as well.  Gaming, to me, is not running through a tunnel doing the same thing again and again.  It's experiencing a wide range of different things.

I don't doubt that Halo is a good game.  But, in my opinion, it is wa~y off a 10/10.

It's not about proper implementation, it's about making the game more accessible. If all they included was Legendary mode, you'd find an awful lot of Halos in 2nd hand bins, as those people who prefer a more casual approach to gaming would never have proceeded beyond the canteen on the Pillar of Autumn. It's still a lot of fun on Normal, just not as amazing as it is on Legendary.

It's the best FPS ever, and like JoeK said, it's not worth arguing about this one, we don't think we're right, we KNOW we are.

Give the man a medal. Finally someone speaks sense.

[Ed-E]

It's the best FPS ever, and like JoeK said, it's not worth arguing about this one, we don't think we're right, we KNOW we are.

Now, I know this was said with tongue firmly implanted in cheek, but this is what REALLY gets my goat about Halo fanboys.

If you read my post again, I have not stated - at any time - that Halo isn't very good. I defended myself - knowing this would happen - before I posted, which you can tell by the plethora of "in my opinion's" sprinkled in it, to a point where it doesn't flow properly. But, you know, had to be done.

The simple fact of the matter is, I had more fun playing Return to Castle Wolfenstein single-player than I did Halo. And nothing any of you can say can change that or invalidate my opinions. I'm not going to try and tell you why - fuck it, I already have - because it's completely lost on you.

Maybe it'd be nice if you guys could realise people play games for other reasons, hmm?

[JoeK]

The simple fact of the matter is, I had more fun playing Return to Castle Wolfenstein single-player than I did Halo. And nothing any of you can say can change that or invalidate my opinions. I'm not going to try and tell you why - fuck it, I already have - because it's completely lost on you.

Maybe it'd be nice if you guys could realise people play games for other reasons, hmm?

Of course you're right...

Quite honestly, I find it rare these days that I'll find myself sticking up for a game so vehemently...well, not that vehemently in the grand scheme of things, but you know what I mean.

I actually find it vaguely depressing that Halo is now 2 years old, and I haven't enjoyed a game as much since...and I must have bought at least 50-odd over this period, on different formats.

Hey, whatever game floats our boats, I think there are certain times when a fanboyish love should come into the equation...I'll happily do the same for films, books and any other media you care to mention. And, whilst I'll take critique from others, and varying viewpoints, deepdown inside, I'll still subbornly believe I'm right...

Although...Return to Castle Wolfenstein??!!??

Load of badger's nadgers, surely ?

[DJ Sack]

You just do less damage while the enemy is smarter.

And the prize for gross misrepresentation of Legendary mode goes to...

What does it do then? does it give me more missions? Does it give me more vehicals? does it change the terrain? No, it makes the enemy smarter and changes the damage inflicted. Nothing else.

Which in turn changes the gameplay quite severely, in many cases. Sure, it's being played on the same levels, and same enemies, but quite different stategy needed to complete each and evewry level, without doubt.

Which, to my mind, makes it rather great.

Hmm to me i never played it any different, i still snuck up on people and twatte them on the back of the head and always went for headshots etc. To me it just seemed harder, didnt make me think any differently, now if new enemy types had been added or different weapons i could agree.

I loved the outdoor sections, they are great, perfect almost, but indoor is a bit crappy. Some indoor sections are nice, but the terrible middle where you go from circle grey room to circle grey room to circle grey room. Because its all identical, you get know idea of a map inside your head of the level. All im saying is that these rooms are lazy and what bring the game down for many many people, no matter if the AI is better, they are still crap parts in a great game.

[Alex W.]

You're clearly insane, Ed. Of course, you're perfectly entitled to that insanity.

Halo on easiest difficulty: Walk along a bit, spot some enemies, come up with a clever strategy for their removal, watch it all go to pieces, but wipe them out anyway.

Halo on normal: Get a bit of a battering if your strategy goes wrong, probably die.

Next highest difficulty: Enemies everywhere, cracking off shots swiftly whilst attempting to force them into a vulnerable position and counter-attack.

Legendary: RRRAAAAAGGGHHHHH! *thuckatuckathucka* FAAALLLL BACK!!!! *BOOOOM!*

[MK-1601]

Why the SMS void levels / Halo indoor areas couldn't be more different

Presumably it's fairly obvious that every component part of Halo has been influenced towards making the external environments:

1.) Work (outdoor terrain, especially with vehicles, had only just started to be explored in FPS games at the time of the game's development), and

2.) be as robust as possible in terms of technology and gameplay.

Everything in Halo that isn't related to this goal is either compromised or omitted altogether. And if its continued multiplayer popularity is anything to go by this strategy was successful.

The interior sections are a handy practical example of the trade-off. Architecturally they are brutally pared down*. The engine, which can chuck around rolling hills with ease, has to be treated with kid gloves (meaning generally short draw distances, minimal props, and nothing more interactive than a door) when applied to building interiors.

Hence my opinion that the bulk of the interior sections could be dropped. Would anyone have though bad of Bungie if they'd binned the Library and the cheesy Pillar of Autumn and added a few more (perhaps different coloured, even, if you're fussy) landscapes?

Now on the other hand we have the SMS void levels. Levels that are purely about the core skills of the series, which the technology is completely tailored towards doing (what with the development of all Mario games starting out with the control of Mario in relation to objects in the world). Whereas the 'standard' levels introduce camera problems, increased environmental complexity that doesn't always add very much (e.g. a lot of Pinna Park), and objectives that sometimes feel a bit underwhelming or ill-suited.

In both cases the 'lesser' part of the game is the sections where it doesn't play to its technological or design strengths, instead trying to satisfy a notional genre convention. ('FPS must have corridor bits';'3D platform games must have dense, recognisable environments').

So in terms of how the game's technology is tailored towards the design, they're total opposites.

That's my perception anyway, your tolerance of walking towards doors, picking off enemies and then backpedalling again may vary.

I realise that Halo is Kerraig's 'thing' (to put it mildly?), and totally respect that. It's not the best game ever made (or even close, IMO), but it's interesting to hear why someone who thinks it is, does.

Other stuff

I would disagree that Halo's weapons are the best of any FPS. (Mainly because they're all lifted from other games, but bestowed with variously patchier sound, models, feedback and/or effectiveness.) Alex hit the nail on the head with the balance comment though. Getting into the 'zone' in a game can counter shortcomings in individual areas, as the eternal popularity of Counter-Strike seems to prove.

I'm not sure if I would say I enjoyed RTCW's single player mode more than Halo's, but I can say for a fact that it (and at least a good half dozen other FPSs of recent times) were a shitload bigger and more varied than Halo. At the end of the day, I have no compulsion to replay Halo's single player campaign ever again, except perhaps in co-op. Many reviews have conceded that it's only a 'good' single player FPS, elevated by a great multiplayer mode. It's not like it's a heretical opinion outside of The Halo L33T anymore.

Seeing as we're doing personal opinion for once (which is a refreshing change), I suspect that no game, no matter how good, covering Halo's 'content', could be the best game ever. I'm just not that enthused about the concept.

As for those who won't even contemplate the idea of criticism, well, that's why there are a lot of shit games on the shelves - because a lot of people are happy to think that games currently existing are the best possible.

And STILL people are cranking out the difficulty level cliché, like we haven't heard it.

*if anyone can claim architectural complexity has no bearing on gameplay, they have never played any FPS post Wolf3D. It's not about the decor. Go and play Q1DM4.

[Eoin]

Warning: spoilers thrown about liberally.

At least on the other difficulties I could hope to pass through the library before I grew too old to remember my own name...

The thing is, I'd say the difficulty of the Library is vastly exaggerated. On Legendary, I'd rank it as either the easiest level of the whole lot, or maybe a close second to 343 Guilty Spark.

If you have to whack the AI to full difficulty to enjoy the game properly then it hasn't been properly implemented, in my opinion.

As Kerraig said, you can't have Legendary without also having the other difficulties to prepare you for it. Throw someone whose only FPS experience is TimeSplitters or Red Faction onto Legendary and they'll die in short order. And they won't stop dying, because they won't have had the luxury of experimenting with the weapons, the vehicles, the enemies, and the environment that the other levels afford.

Gaming, to me, is not running through a tunnel doing the same thing again and again.

But Halo is nothing like that. Keep doing the same thing over and over, and it might succeed occasionally, but generally it will fail. Tiny differences mean you need to change the way you play. There have been sections I've played through several times consecutively (which is one nice side-effect of the checkpointing system), and gotten completely different results each time. In fact, if the same section played though the same way twice, ever, I'd be surprised.

It's experiencing a wide range of different things.

I think that's exactly what Halo provides. The amount of different things you can experience is staggering - it's just that a lot of them are wrapped in the same skin.

The inside of the space ship where you first start just goes to show that they can do interesting indoor levels, and later on when your back inside it, but in the middle the indoor sections are just dull.

The thing is, the Pillar of Autumn is a 10-minute run right through. Maybe twice that if you take your time. Describing Assault on the Control Room as "bigger" wouldn't be doing it justice - it's an order of magnitude or two above Pillar of Autumn in scale. AotCR has single "rooms" that are about the same size as the first level. Expecting diversity in the environments is looking for it in the wrong place - it comes from the enemies, the AI, the weapons, the Marines, and your own tactics and skill.

What did the aliens use them for? No reason, it doesnt identify, they need to have a reason to be there, and frankly most of the rooms dont.

This is probably a matter of pure opinion, but I'm generally perfectly happy to accept that rooms are there, for whatever reason or no reason at all, because the real reason, over and above any and all plot considerations, is to provide me with a place in which to play the game.

What does it do then? does it give me more missions? Does it give me more vehicals? does it change the terrain? No, it makes the enemy smarter and changes the damage inflicted. Nothing else.

You're missing the point. If Legendary suddenly introduced new weapons or vehicles, it'd be screwing the player - remember, Easy, Normal and Heroic are training for Legendary. Changing the basic elements of the game wouldn't be fair....plus you'd get people complaining about how they couldn't use Cool Weapon X on Easy.

Legendary doesn't alter the game at its lowest fundamental levels. It works on a different, higher level - each different enemy formation really is different - not just bullets fired at different places. Less efficient, less effective combat styles are culled from the player's repertoire, Darwinian-style. New, better, smarter ways of fighting are formed to take their place. Combat Evolved isn't just a fancy tagline you know .....

Hmm to me i never played it any different, i still snuck up on people and twatte them on the back of the head and always went for headshots etc. To me it just seemed harder, didnt make me think any differently,

You must be the only person who's ever played Halo on Legendary and thought that it wasn't significantly different from other levels. I'm not even sure how you're playing them the same way - after playing through Legendary other levels offer too much temptation to run and gun, annihilating everything in sight with the skills Legendary forces you to develop.

And STILL people are cranking out the difficulty level cliché, like we haven't heard it.

And STILL people are complaining about the difficulty level cliché, as if it wasn't true .

Er.....LOTS of these: .