Jump to content

The perfect 10


dan_tm
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Hmm... how are things like two-weapon limits, permanently non-obsolete weapons, and regenerative shielding aspects relevant specifically to console FPSs?"

Two-weapon limits and 'permanently-non-obsolete' (non-hierarchical) weapons* aren't console specific innovations, but then neither were they introduced by Halo, or what I would consider 'revolutionary'.

Regenerative shielding is pretty console specific (and even Halo-specific, seeing as it's dependent on the game's fiction and would draw cries of 'ripoff' if it was adopted by another game) because it's primarily intended as a balancer for character movement and aiming being relatively slow. (Which is why Halo PC tries to recreate the original's movement and look speed to try to retain the balance.)

I (and I'd imagine, most people with reasonably long memories) consider Quake to have been a bigger step forward.

Halo's advances (apart from the vehicle model, which was virtually technically impossible for any FPS prior to that point but no less impressive for it) are rule tweaks.

Quake introduced a fair chunk of the blueprint for modern PC games. (The key areas being Internet play & 'modern' client-server net play, intentional and unrestricted mod-ability, 3D acceleration, full 3D environment, level design and engine licensing.) Its release was a real night/day transition, at the time.

This is why I said Halo is revolutionary as a console FPS (because it's a huge leap from GE007/PD). Halo hasn't changed what I think is possible in games.

*any game where the weapons have more characteristics than damage and rate of fire can have non-hierarchical weapons, e.g. Quake 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recharging shields have appeared in more than a few PC FPS-es, though, haven't they? And I don't think they're much of a correction for the lack of point-and-click aiming, either, although I wasn't aware that the PC version tried to emulate the feel of the analogue stick.

You've got a point about Quake III's weapons, though. Aside from the shitty machinegun you start off with, they're all pretty useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I said Halo is revolutionary as a console FPS (because it's a huge leap from GE007/PD). Halo hasn't changed what I think is possible in games.

Halo is a huge leap foward from any FPS you could care to mention. or perhaps you'd like to tell me which PC FPS has made more of a progression?

i don't know why you're so intent on segregating platforms anyway. what difference does it make whether Halo was revolutionary on PC or Xbox? it's the software that's innovating not the hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Halo is a huge leap foward from any FPS you could care to mention. or perhaps you'd like to tell me which PC FPS has made more of a progression?

2. i don't know why you're so intent on segregating platforms anyway. what difference does it make whether Halo was revolutionary on PC or Xbox? it's the software that's innovating not the hardware.

1. Quake.

2. It's not so much segregating platforms as segregating game styles that happen to have evolved from the strengths/limitations of their host platforms.

For the sake of clarity I'll just say Halo wasn't revolutionary at all, then. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Quake.

2. It's not so much segregating platforms as segregating game styles that happen to have evolved from the strengths/limitations of their host platforms.

For the sake of clarity I'll just say Halo wasn't revolutionary at all, then. :unsure:

clarity my arse, you're a PC fanboy who can't accept their genre was hijacked & pissed upon from a great height by a mere console.

seeing as you're clinging to your dear Quake, i'll give you that. now tell me which FPS has made more of a progression from Quake than Halo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seeing as you're clinging to your dear Quake, i'll give you that. now tell me which FPS has made more of a progression from Quake than Halo?

It's a bit of a difficult question to answer, as there were five years of progressively more advanced FPSs between the release of Quake and the release of Halo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Quake.

Oh dear.

Quake was definitely revolutionary when it first arrived, but to suggest it was more revolutionary than Halo is a joke. It added full 3D environments, proper online gaming and scripting. What else?

It was still pure twitch gaming that relied on adding hit points to make enemies more dangerous.

Halo on the other hand was more of the thinking man's FPS. The two weapon limit, the shield and health combination, the AI of the enemies and the balance between all aspects of the game was revolutionary as a package. Sure, Half-Life, Deus Ex and even Marathon had all ventured in that direction, but none of them managed to address the whole combat situation as properly as Halo did.

That said, it's sad that a ton of PC fanboys can't look past some of the "shortcomings" of the control system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit of a difficult question to answer, as there were five years of progressively more advanced FPSs between the release of Quake and the release of Halo.

Only two of which ever bothered to try to improve the basic premise of the genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy Halo. Even on PC (though I can't play it anymore...now that the old P3 450's been moved to my room I've no excuse to use my parents' P4 2.4GHz ninja). And I definitely think that it revolutionised the console FPS. But the PC FPS? I think that Halo definitely proved to be refreshing in a period of samey first person shooters, and even though certain innovative elements had been seen many times before in different games, Halo pulled them together to make something more interesting. And I like the game very much. However, after you read what I am about to say (though you probably skipped this and are already reading it) you will hate me forever. Forget UT, UT2003, UT2004, Deus Ex, Future Shock, Doom, Hexen, Tribes, Half-Life, Halo; one of my most favouritest first person shooters is Quake 3.

What? Huh? No, stop shaking your rattle in anger and pay attention. Quake III offered an experience that was made extremely playable by the fact that there were few limitations to your performance. It offers a brilliant amount of control - witness the way in which a deft flick of the mouse can turn you a perfect 180 degrees - characteristic weapons that are not too complex and create player strategies such as the infamous rocket jump, a pace that is continuous thanks to the absence of ladders and lifts in favour of bounce pads and accelerator pads, and above all, great fun. And you don't need a ninja PC to run it. Okay, so there is no story, but - this might come as something of a shock - I judge games on how fun they are. Sorry. On that note, let the bitching commence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear.

Quake was definitely revolutionary when it first arrived, but to suggest it was more revolutionary than Halo is a joke. It added full 3D environments, proper online gaming and scripting. What else?

I'm trying to think of a witty retort but I can't actually make that sound any stupider than it already does. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of a witty retort but I can't actually make that sound any stupider than it already does. Sorry.

which means you can't answer, just like you couldn't when i asked which FPS since Quake has made as big a leap as Halo.

you can break Halo down into it's elements if you wish, some of it's 'innovations' are more revolutionary than others, for sure but as a whole, it's an unparralleled experience which is why it remains the benchmark FPS approaching some three years after it's release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which means you can't answer, just like you couldn't when i asked which FPS since Quake has made as big a leap as Halo.

you can break Halo down into it's elements if you wish, some of it's 'innovations' are more revolutionary than others, for sure but as a whole, it's an unparralleled experience which is why it remains the benchmark FPS approaching some three years after it's release.

No, it means that the statement was patently absurd.

If even the slightest hint of criticism of Halo is going to be met with automatic, rabidly defensive bluster then I doubt anything of worth is going to come from this thread.

Get some perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that then case in every game though?

All game AI is is smoke and mirrors, "if this do that" type statements.

While game AI is rule based it's a little more than if/else statements. To implement it in that way is impractical for everything but the simplest games IMO.

It is possible for enemies to "learn" by adding your behaviour to it's behaviour rules and responding in ways that take your behaviour, as a player into account too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy Halo. Even on PC (though I can't play it anymore...now that the old P3 450's been moved to my room I've no excuse to use my parents' P4 2.4GHz ninja). And I definitely think that it revolutionised the console FPS. But the PC FPS? I think that Halo definitely proved to be refreshing in a period of samey first person shooters, and even though certain innovative elements had been seen many times before in different games, Halo pulled them together to make something more interesting. And I like the game very much. However, after you read what I am about to say (though you probably skipped this and are already reading it) you will hate me forever. Forget UT, UT2003, UT2004, Deus Ex, Future Shock, Doom, Hexen, Tribes, Half-Life, Halo; one of my most favouritest first person shooters is Quake 3.

What? Huh? No, stop shaking your rattle in anger and pay attention. Quake III offered an experience that was made extremely playable by the fact that there were few limitations to your performance. It offers a brilliant amount of control - witness the way in which a deft flick of the mouse can turn you a perfect 180 degrees - characteristic weapons that are not too complex and create player strategies such as the infamous rocket jump, a pace that is continuous thanks to the absence of ladders and lifts in favour of bounce pads and accelerator pads, and above all, great fun. And you don't need a ninja PC to run it. Okay, so there is no story, but - this might come as something of a shock - I judge games on how fun they are. Sorry. On that note, let the bitching commence.

After reading your comment, I just realised that Quake III could have been another 'revolutionary' FPS (though to be honest, I really don't give a shit, and these Halo fanboys really need to stop jizzing over it's 'revolutionary' style).

Revolutionary in such a way that most of the weapons are so well refined, the gameplay is refined to such a degree that it could be comparable to refinements made in Halo. However, it's all clearly subjective, so I'll stop right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to think of a witty retort but I can't actually make that sound any stupider than it already does. Sorry.

You're just making more of a fool of yourself by the minute instead?

For the sake of the argument: Quake did 3D before any other FPS (I won't count Descent as it's not a proper FPS IMHO). However, unlike Mario and Zelda, the move to polygons didn't really change much compared to many of the earlier efforts, and the way Quake did 3D hasn't affected FPS games since - they would have gotten there without Quake. Hence, not really revolutionary after all.

Quake did proper online gaming first of all FPS titles. However, the multiplayer experience had been around since DOOM - and not just LAN multiplayer either, so it was more a case of finding a way of doing it better than a revolution.

And finally scripting in Quake really, really helped the mod scene. But it wasn't the first game to involve scripting and modding. DOOM and Marathon both did that way before it.

Apart from that I really can't think of much that Quake did that was a revolution in the FPS genre. I'd ask you to enlighten me but you haven't bothered to back up your statements so far in this thread so I don't see why you should start now.

Mind, I still think Quake was revolutionary as a package. I just don't think it was more revolutionary than Halo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just making more of a fool of yourself by the minute instead?

For the sake of the argument: Quake did 3D before any other FPS (I won't count Descent as it's not a proper FPS IMHO). However, unlike Mario and Zelda, the move to polygons didn't really change much compared to many of the earlier efforts, and the way Quake did 3D hasn't affected FPS games since - they would have gotten there without Quake. Hence, not really revolutionary after all.

Quake did proper online gaming first of all FPS titles. However, the multiplayer experience had been around since DOOM - and not just LAN multiplayer either, so it was more a case of finding a way of doing it better than a revolution.

And finally scripting in Quake really, really helped the mod scene. But it wasn't the first game to involve scripting and modding. DOOM and Marathon both did that way before it.

Apart from that I really can't think of much that Quake did that was a revolution in the FPS genre. I'd ask you to enlighten me but you haven't bothered to back up your statements so far in this thread so I don't see why you should start now.

Mind, I still think Quake was revolutionary as a package. I just don't think it was more revolutionary than Halo.

Consider this:

Quake invented 3D-ness in FPSs. That's pretty revolutionary. Someone else could have done it, but id did it first.

First Online FPS. Again, they did it first. That's also very revolutionary.

Consider that Halo didn't actually invent any new concepts, just refined old ideas, wouldn't you say Quake was even more revolutionary? You've got some perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it means that the statement was patently absurd.

If even the slightest hint of criticism of Halo is going to be met with automatic, rabidly defensive bluster then I doubt anything of worth is going to come from this thread.

Get some perspective.

you can criticise Halo all you want, i'd just like you answer any of the questions put to you, straight. at the end of the day when the going got tough you withdrew your initial statement. this isn't really about Halo, it's about the weakest of weak argument you're presenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you argue that Quake's 3D polygonal worlds are more revolutionary than Doom's? Or that they're revolutionary in the genre and somehow that's amazing?

Seems to me that any suggestion that Halo is in any way innovative is being met by automatic, rabidly defensive bluster. Halo was full of innovations. Evolution or revolution? Who gives a flying fuck, they revitalised a genre which was turning into a thousand and one Half Life clones and sickly cheese-noir/Doom/slow-mo titles. At the end of the day, it was a fantastic game regardless of the platform it appeared on, as is reflected in its enjoyment by the PC community a considerable amount of time after it had been plagurised by dozens of PC titles. It's no more or less valid as a game for appearing on a console first, any more than you could say Deus Ex was worse on the PS2 for appearing on the PC years before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just making more of a fool of yourself by the minute instead?

1. For the sake of the argument: Quake did 3D before any other FPS (I won't count Descent as it's not a proper FPS IMHO). However, unlike Mario and Zelda, the move to polygons didn't really change much compared to many of the earlier efforts, and the way Quake did 3D hasn't affected FPS games since - they would have gotten there without Quake. Hence, not really revolutionary after all.

2. Quake did proper online gaming first of all FPS titles. However, the multiplayer experience had been around since DOOM - and not just LAN multiplayer either, so it was more a case of finding a way of doing it better than a revolution.

3. And finally scripting in Quake really, really helped the mod scene. But it wasn't the first game to involve scripting and modding. DOOM and Marathon both did that way before it.

Apart from that I really can't think of much that Quake did that was a revolution in the FPS genre. I'd ask you to enlighten me but you haven't bothered to back up your statements so far in this thread so I don't see why you should start now.

Mind, I still think Quake was revolutionary as a package. I just don't think it was more revolutionary than Halo.

By your own admission you can reel off advances that Quake made until the cows come home, and I'm the one making a fool of myself? (But less posturing, more discussion...)

1. Undoubtedly they would have. But as soon? I very much doubt it. (Consider that the rest of the games industry before and for several months after - apart from those who licensed the Quake engine - kept using 2.5D engines.) It's easy to trivialise the development of graphical techniques after the event. The move to polygons fundamentally changed the way FPSs played. Try replaying the first episode of Quake and pointing out actions/areas/'puzzles' that wouldn't be possible in Doom.

2. No mainstream commercial game had TCP/IP (Internet) play before Quake. (It was retrofitted to Doom - by Dwango, I think? - later.) The implications of this seem small (no hard-coded player limit, joining and leaving at will, the ability to implement server browsers) but as a whole this was quite innovative at the time. (But yes, would have happened sooner or later.)

3. Doom and Marathon are only modifiable via hacks/reverse engineering. With Doom you were pretty much limited to adding new maps, replacing sprites and some limited 'Action Replay' style executable hacking. With Quake you could develop mods and total conversions using the same tools as the developers. Threewave CTF, Quake Rally, Rocket Arena and (my personal favourite) Slide are examples of how deeply the game could be edited.

There were loads of other little things too (no sound setup! :unsure: console commands! ambient sound! particle effects! An open beta! Quad damage!) that were new then, too.

Depending on the criteria you're using, I guess you could say that Halo has had a big impact, but I'm trying to get across the concept of 'revolutionariness', which is perhaps the last non-horribly-devalued adjective that can be applied to a game. I think that perhaps only Elite and Mario 64 also qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you first of all stated that Halo is only revolutionary as far as console FPS's go, when challenged you decided that, actually, Halo isn't revolutionary at all, for the sake of clarity.

The second statement was a joke. I used a smiley and everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that any suggestion that Halo is in any way innovative is being met by automatic, rabidly defensive bluster. Halo was full of innovations. Evolution or revolution? Who gives a flying fuck, they revitalised a genre which was turning into a thousand and one Half Life clones and sickly cheese-noir/Doom/slow-mo titles. At the end of the day, it was a fantastic game regardless of the platform it appeared on, as is reflected in its enjoyment by the PC community a considerable amount of time after it had been plagurised by dozens of PC titles. It's no more or less valid as a game for appearing on a console first, any more than you could say Deus Ex was worse on the PS2 for appearing on the PC years before.

No one is arguing about validity. Just objectivity.

(I don't think I've ever seen a 'Half-Life clone', either.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revolutionariness is relative and opinion-driven anyway. Is Halo revolutionary becuase of the sheer skill of the design throughout, and the way it was quickly copied, or not because the gameplay experience is essentially the same? Is Quake similarly non-revolutionary because the gameplay itself had the same overriding goals as all its predecessors, in spite of a few up/down-friendly puzzles, and didn't undermine genre definitions or level design in the same way that, say, Vib Ribbon did? Was Gran Turismo non-revolutionary because countless PC games had done the tuning and realism aspect before?

Something's only ever revolutionary from a certain point of view, that's what I'm getting at. It's really just the superlative of "influential", anyway. Quake and Halo were both massively, massively influential. Do they both deserve the epithet in question? It's a tough one, but I don't think it's something you can give a "yes" or "no" answer to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I don't think I've ever seen a 'Half-Life clone', either.)

Just about every game with some obscenely scripting-heavy event which popped up in the years following Half-Life could be considered a Half-Life clone in some respects. Puppeteering certainly became the in-thing around about that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.