[jdjtcagle]

Yes but the Halo haters really aren't any better are they? To be honest I find them a worse problem than the halo fans. Unlike the 12 year old Halo fans these wankers are everywhere. It seems like on every board you can visit in the world someone only needs to mention Halo in passing for some idiot to pop up and explain in detail (no doubt for the umpteenth time) why they don't like Halo. In many cases they only do it cause they want to troll but others seem mentally incapable of allowing someone to have a different taste in games. The very act of mentioning Halo seems to be blasphemy to this pricks.

To be honest I suspect a lot of the Halo N00b syndrome would vanish if they didn't have to constantly defend their choice of game to the anti-halo n00b. Both sets of idiots feed off each other.

That sums that up!

I never played Halo 1, my brother begged me to play Halo 2 after he had bought it... convinced I would have no fun because I didn't like how high they jumped among other things - I played regardless to spend some time with him. Contrary to what I assumed, I had a blast and had a-lot of fun with Halo 3 as-well... don't play it much but it was great when I did play.

[Polpolion]

@Icefire: I'm not trying to berate people for their opinions, but admitedly it's rather difficult discussing something so subjective as the quality of a game. My main argument against the game is its awkward level design, closely followed by its linearity (all regarding the physical linearity, story, and action), and finally its at most average plot. A bunch of assorted, finer points here and there complement that, but it all adds up to not a crappy game (from a gamer's standpoint, not a purely objective one), but a mediocre game. Thus, the main reason for my outrage is in fact how overrated it is.

But that is all your opinion. I've been playing FPS games almost as long as you've been alive and yet I like Halo. I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong but I can point to just as many reasons why from a gamer's standpoint it is a good game. I'm not going to cause it's idiotic to try to present a subjective opinion as if it were a fact.

True. You've been playing FPSs since their evolution in the gaming world, and thus probably have a more refined viewpoint on the subject. But I must digress regarding your opinions... Well actually, you aren't really presenting many points on the game, you're more of saying that you can't argue about the quality of games. And on top of that, I don't care if people like Halo, as you do, it's just the ones that treat it as end-all god. The better person for me to argue with here is Haloboy, but his last post makes it look like he's not going to post again.

That probably wasn't addressed to me, given as it's not any of my main ideas, but that is interesting point. In addition to gameplay, Freespace's plot (or general premise) wasn't even all that original. It must be noted, however, how mod-able FS is compared such games as Halo.

Since when did modability have anything to do with how good the game itself is? I suppose you could claim that you only play games that can be modded but that's a pretty desperate argument. I've played and enjoyed lots of games that weren't modable. It might affect the long term value of your purchase I suppose but beyond that I can't see why it should be a large factor in deciding whether a game is fun or not.

And that's before I point out that Halo is actually reasonably modable.

Well given the fact that the Freespace community would probably be dead long ago if it wasn't so easy to mod, and I definitely would move through games much quicker, and given my lack of money and sporadic internet connection it's a very important feature. Sure I play games that aren't moddable, it's just I usually get bored of them within months, if not weeks, as opposed to years with Freespace. Modability (or lack thereof) isn't a reason to hate a game, it's more of just an added bonus to a game.

And while its story isn't the most original, it certainly is good, and yet not common enough to be overly redundant. Then there's the atmosphere inspired (especially in FS2's latter levels), the beam cannons, the bombing runs, the dogfighting...

And you think that people who like Halo didn't find that the game had atmosphere? Again you're assuming that your subjective view of the game should be held by everyone.

If I'm arguing against Halo then obviously I feel that my opinion should be shared. If it was shared I would stop, as there would be no purpose to arguing. Same as if I feel it shouldn't be shared.

The problem is the fans. I mean, we - as in the gaming community as a whole - have seen the emergence of an entire subclass of n00b with the release of the Halo series. Loud and obnoxious fans are bad enough, but these people (and I hate to even use the term "people") are so loud and obnoxious that they are actually giving the entire gaming community a bad name in the eyes of the public. We all know it. Being a gamer is already something of a social stigma these days thanks to bad publicity, so the last thing we as a people need is Halo 'tards making it worse.

Yes but the Halo haters really aren't any better are they? To be honest I find them a worse problem than the halo fans. Unlike the 12 year old Halo fans these wankers are everywhere. It seems like on every board you can visit in the world someone only needs to mention Halo in passing for some idiot to pop up and explain in detail (no doubt for the umpteenth time) why they don't like Halo. In many cases they only do it cause they want to troll but others seem mentally incapable of allowing someone to have a different taste in games. The very act of mentioning Halo seems to be blasphemy to this pricks.

To be honest I suspect a lot of the Halo N00b syndrome would vanish if they didn't have to constantly defend their choice of game to the anti-halo n00b. Both sets of idiots feed off each other.

There are plenty of things that you can debate about relating to Halo that aren't pure, subjective, opinions. I suppose quoted the wrong person when I posted here after the split, because rather than discussion specific aspects of Halo, the thread is bouncing down the branches of something less related to the game.

Admittedly, I did spark this tangent about Halo in the first place, but my view of Halo is probably more moderate than a lot of other people who aren't fans of Halo. I still feel that a worthwhile debate from the viewpoint of both sides could have branched from various points that assorted people made earlier in the thread.

[TrashMan]

I'd like to point out that "having fun" is NOT what a great game makes...strange? Not really.

People can have fun doing everything. Especially in multi. Everything is fun with a group of people. And all console games have coop and multi.
A lot of games are fun (in multi), but for a game to be truly great it has to be more than that.

It also depends on the type of game. I for instance, rarely play adventures or sport managers. I rarely find them fun (with a few exceptions), but hat's because I am not generally into that type of games. How many people play "Bask Fisher 2007" here?

So bashing a game just because you didn't have much fun with it, or lifting it to the stars because you did is premature to say the least. One needs to step back and take a good look at everything.

FACT: Halo is average. Both the smitten fanboys and the compulsive haters will have to get that trough their thick skulls sooner or later.

[Roanoke]

Given that playing games achieves nothing other than being a fun waste of time, what else is there ?

I've never heard of "Bask Fisher 2007" but the fishing game in Zelda 64 was great.

[achtung]

Halo is a solid, user-friendly, shooter that had a huge marketing campaign for it's later releases.

[General Battuta]

I always love it when people assume that just cause you like Halo it means you can't possibly have played any other FPSs. It's like they believe that the very act of playing the game must have automatically erased the memory of any other FPS from memory.

I agree. I played Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Tribes, Half-Life, Battlezone, Operation Flashpoint -- and still thought Halo was a superb game. A lot of my fondness for it lies in the little touches: art and sound design, music, AI behavior. It doesn't do any one thing excessively well, but the synergistic whole is superlative.

Trashman, I have to disagree.  I think it's an opinion that it's merely average, not a fact.

I might add that it is very easy to get female gamers into, something which PC shooters have not been good for in my experience. There are six or seven girls in my college dorm who play Halo every night -- and it was their first FPS when I introduced them to it. Halo is uniquely accessible and intuitive.

In short, I think it's good for all the same reasons Freespace 2 is. Remember, please, this is my opinion; there is no imperative that compels you to convert me to your view.

[karajorma]

I don't think anyone is saying Halo is a bad game - quite the contrary, it's a good game..but best FPS ever? Better than sliced bread?

Half-Life 2 and Cryisis beat it any day of the weak and twice on Sundays.

I had Half-life 2. I installed it shortly before a Windows reinstall. I didn't install it again. It just didn't interest me. Perhaps that was cause I didn't play the original much. Or perhaps it wasn't. Couldn't really care at this point. So what, now you're going to tell me my opinion is wrong and yours is correct?

But the deeper question remains exactly what yardstick do you use to measure the greatness of a game? Critical acclaim, popularity? Cause I'd love to know what non-subjective value you can measure than Halo doesn't come out well from? Eventually it gets down to the fact that you don't think Halo is the best game and therefore it shouldn't be considered as such. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it but if lots of people happen to not agree with it well that's just tough luck on your part. They're just as entitled to say they prefer Halo.

[haloboy100]

I don't think anyone is saying Halo is a bad game - quite the contrary, it's a good game..but best FPS ever? Better than sliced bread?

Half-Life 2 and Cryisis beat it any day of the weak and twice on Sundays.

Looking back upon Halo, i can almost agree. But Half-Life 2 and Crysis came after Halo, so it is unrealistic to compare those games to it, or at least, the original Halo, which started this whole damn n00b fest.

[Dark Hunter]

I'd like to point out that "having fun" is NOT what a great game makes...strange? Not really.

People can have fun doing everything. Especially in multi. Everything is fun with a group of people. And all console games have coop and multi.
A lot of games are fun (in multi), but for a game to be truly great it has to be more than that.

It also depends on the type of game. I for instance, rarely play adventures or sport managers. I rarely find them fun (with a few exceptions), but hat's because I am not generally into that type of games. How many people play "Bask Fisher 2007" here?

So bashing a game just because you didn't have much fun with it, or lifting it to the stars because you did is premature to say the least. One needs to step back and take a good look at everything.

FACT: Halo is average. Both the smitten fanboys and the compulsive haters will have to get that trough their thick skulls sooner or later.

FACT: A statement loses lots of credibility when someone puts a sujective opinion as fact.

Trashman, I must seriously disagree with this post. By what other measure can you judge a game, a device whose sole purpose is to have fun with, but by how much fun you have with it?

FS2 is among my favorite games, and is one I consider great. Why? First and foremost: because it is fun to play. It certainly doesn't hurt that the graphics are good, that the music is awesome, but those are SECONDARY considerations in judging a game. If I have fun with it, in my mind it is a good game.

I think the real problem is that when someone (any gaming review site or magazine) decided to assign a number value to the "fun factor", they didn't realize it was an impossible task.

[asyikarea51]

While I do own an Xbox which I don't use anymore (not the 360 due to money and game-specific reasons), I didn't go for any of the Halo games. Call me a n00b-hater (my own term of sorts ) if you may, i.e. dislike without solid reasons. By the time Halo 3 came around, I simply couldn't understand what the fuss was all about, people, kids and adults alike, suddenly just "blindly" rushing out to get the next big thing, which in any case didn't feel that "big" to me. (Though I am aware that, if you were to swap things around, I would be the one rushing for the next big thing while the people wouldn't be able to comprehend what was the big deal with what I did.)

I did play the first Halo on PC and while I did find the AI fairly interesting (even on the n00b-easy difficulty level that I played, back stabbars!!! ) I didn't like the way control system worked, particularly with ground vehicles. No idea if the PC port of Halo 2 improves on it, never played it. I got bored of it fairly fast too, I uninstalled the game by the time I got to some funny cave level in a Gatling gun-equipped jeep.

I like story, but I guess I got turned off when I found out you could only carry 2 guns at a time. I probably got turned off even more when the Shivans still felt more villainous to me compared to those funny Covenant thingies that just felt like a lame comedy, failing miserably at making me laugh. Then there's always that feeling of a console port - that heavily-simplified feel, a certain "slowness" in movement speed and lack of moddability even though I'm not some crazy modeler/coder who can just grab an SDK can start tinkering. Maybe I'm the type who likes to blow stuff up, but still hope that the game has some story substance in it. Why the Battlefield series didn't appeal to me either... but that's a different case study for a different topic.

Just a banter of sorts, since the word Halo crossed these boards again. Hope no one minds me. And in any case I don't quite bother with gaming review sites either - the most I'll do is treat them as guidelines and suggestions. (Sheesh, that was a lot of thought. )

[Snail]

No idea if the PC port of Halo 2 improves on it, never played it.

It's not called Halo 2 PC.


It's called Halo 2 Vista. 'nuff said.

[asyikarea51]

Nice nitpick. My bad.

Though technically I could've tried it over at a friend's on his 'Box, but whatever.

[Polpolion]

I'd like to point out that "having fun" is NOT what a great game makes...strange? Not really.

People can have fun doing everything. Especially in multi. Everything is fun with a group of people. And all console games have coop and multi.
A lot of games are fun (in multi), but for a game to be truly great it has to be more than that.

It also depends on the type of game. I for instance, rarely play adventures or sport managers. I rarely find them fun (with a few exceptions), but hat's because I am not generally into that type of games. How many people play "Bask Fisher 2007" here?

So bashing a game just because you didn't have much fun with it, or lifting it to the stars because you did is premature to say the least. One needs to step back and take a good look at everything.

FACT: Halo is average. Both the smitten fanboys and the compulsive haters will have to get that trough their thick skulls sooner or later.

FACT: A statement loses lots of credibility when someone puts a sujective opinion as fact.

Trashman, I must seriously disagree with this post. By what other measure can you judge a game, a device whose sole purpose is to have fun with, but by how much fun you have with it?

FS2 is among my favorite games, and is one I consider great. Why? First and foremost: because it is fun to play. It certainly doesn't hurt that the graphics are good, that the music is awesome, but those are SECONDARY considerations in judging a game. If I have fun with it, in my mind it is a good game.

I think the real problem is that when someone (any gaming review site or magazine) decided to assign a number value to the "fun factor", they didn't realize it was an impossible task.

Neither of you are correct. I wouldn't say that System Shock 2 is "fun" when you're running terrified around the cargo bays with a glitch that makes the game a lot darker (but that itself makes the game great), but I can't say slaying a **** load of hybrids with a laser rapier isn't a fun thing that makes the game fun.

In reality, this too is subjective. It depends on what you're looking for in a game. I will say however, that a game by definition is fun.

[CP5670]

I don't understand the big fuss over storylines too. I've been into games for best-part of 20yrs (8 and 16bit console eras I remember best, but also remember sinclairs, CPC464s etc). When the technology was crude the gameplay and the users imagination had to make up the difference. Nowadays we have glitzy graphics, THX and endles cutscenes, usually unskippable 'cos the devs spent 80% of their time on them and that's the game's reason de'tre (sp?), and an industry breeding apathy.

I agree with this to some extent. A story is a lot like graphics to me. It can greatly contribute to the overall immersive feel of a game but won't make up for lackluster gameplay (in the context of FPSs, this means combat, level design, replayability, etc.). Some of my favorite games of all time have no story to speak of.

As far as Halo goes, I am not into console FPSs and haven't played any of the games. I highly doubt that they are the "best FPSs ever" but it's probably a decent enough series. A game doesn't have to be flawless or revolutionary to be fun.

[Snail]

Who's saying that Halo is the best FPS evar?

[Polpolion]

Who's saying that Halo is the best FPS evar?

Haloboy and a butt load of people who you, apparently, don't know who are.

[Colonol Dekker]

Halo 2 vista = freebie with my new rig.
Worst level editor ever. Ridiculously steep learning curve

[Polpolion]

Worst level editor ever. Ridiculously steep learning curve

That's normal. Us Freespacers are really pampered. FRED is the single most useful, most flexible, and all around best level editor I've ever seen packaged with a game.

Except for maybe Re-volt's editor.

[Dark Hunter]

That's normal. Us Freespacers are really pampered. FRED is the single most useful, most flexible, and all around best level editor I've ever seen packaged with a game.

This makes me wonder: we know used FRED themselves to build the main campaign. So anybody with FRED is theoretically capable of duplicating their efforts. Did the devs of these other games use the same level editors as they give out to the public, or are they watered-down and limited versions?

[TrashMan]

I had Half-life 2. I installed it shortly before a Windows reinstall. I didn't install it again. It just didn't interest me. Perhaps that was cause I didn't play the original much. Or perhaps it wasn't. Couldn't really care at this point. So what, now you're going to tell me my opinion is wrong and yours is correct?

As a matter of fact, yes.
F'course, people always have different oppinions..that doesn't mean all oppinions are equally valid (or equally true). That's why I'm trying not to bash or glorify a game - the truth is in most cases somewhere in between. but exceptions prove the rule.

But the deeper question remains exactly what yardstick do you use to measure the greatness of a game? Critical acclaim, popularity? Cause I'd love to know what non-subjective value you can measure than Halo doesn't come out well from? Eventually it gets down to the fact that you don't think Halo is the best game and therefore it shouldn't be considered as such. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it but if lots of people happen to not agree with it well that's just tough luck on your part. They're just as entitled to say they prefer Halo.

Engine quality, modability, requirements, user interface, learning curve, story, gameplay, small details, music, atmosphere, etc..
A lot of factors that are difficult to judge - best used in comparison.

FACT: A statement loses lots of credibility when someone puts a sujective opinion as fact.

Trashman, I must seriously disagree with this post. By what other measure can you judge a game, a device whose sole purpose is to have fun with, but by how much fun you have with it?

Perhaps I should have said "not only fun".
 Being fun is what a good game must have, but truly great masterpieces must have more.
Like in music - you got a good number of really catchy tunes - but it takes a special composer to make something truly great. People like Mozart and Beethowen are few and far in between.

Like I said - game with a multi? If it's only reasonably good you'll have fun with your fiends. Everything is more fun in groups. There's nothing subjective about it - when you're with friend everything is more fun.