[Akalabeth Angel]

In the end, saying those methods are used because of the audience is a kind of phalacie  (sp?), because we all know the majority of the console audience are mostly looking for instant gratification (hence the huge amount of FPS's and other "simplistic" games) and shiny graphics. If you feed them a game without any kind of story they wont even blink, so

   "fallacy"

   Hmmn, I don't think it's fair to paint console players in such a large brush. Something that's fairly big on consoles is still RPGs I would guess (ie Final Fantasy X+17/2 or whatever it is now). The biggest draw for me personally to consoles is the ability to play with your friends . . .  but since I don't have too many friends, I don't have a console plus my TV sucks and I waste too much money on miniature games to afford another line of games.

   I certainly prefer computer games . . . but if it's about hanging with friends, you have to go for the console. LAN parties, while fun I think are too much of a pain in the ass for most people. And if it's multiplayer, what's the fun in beating down some 12 year old 3000 miles away when you can beat down your friend instead and laugh as they swear for five seconds until they respawn.

[NGTM-1R]

As for the combat . . . . well, someone said its sorta lame that the physical attack in Halo is one of the top dogs. Well, anyone played FEAR? Playing multiplayer I often unloaded a shotgun at point blank into another player and didn't kill them, then in return they did some pansy kick and killed me outright. So is this "problem" unique to Halo? Don't think so. (incidentally, in ref to another post FEAR:EP was a LOT creepier than the original).

As I pointed out to them privately:

However in another and very important point, the Master Chief is a genetically engineered partial cyborg supersoldier in powered armor that it would kill a normal human to attempt to use.

So you don't see the Marines pistol-whipping anybody, and that makes perfect sense! But as for the MC doing it and killing them, any complaint about that is extremely goddamn silly. A MJOLNIR suit weighs nearly a ton and can flip a tank with its bare hands. Don't tell me you can't snap a neck or smash a skull with that kind of raw strength. The wonder isn't that the MC can kill people in melee so easily, but why he can't do it more easily. Getting hit by the Master Chief like he means it damn well ought to send you flying.

[Roanoke]

So lets get this straight, as objectively as possible:
Graphics and eyecandy asside (those dont make a game). The story and the way it is presented are poor and simple, the design elements are lacking in choesiveness (cool looking or not, again that's subjective) against a well executed combat gameplay (it is)... thats a masterpiece??
And on a side note its not difficult to be better than all those games you mentioned... they suffer from the same mainstream syndrome as Halo.

I'm curious what you would consider a well executed combat game, especially one that was executed better than Halo. I've yet to find something better than the beach battle at the start of the Silent Cartographer (sp ?).

I'm curious did you read the and thought the whole sentence I wrote? I said that a well executed combat game play was the ONLY thing Halo had well done.
And for better executed combat? Half-Life comes to mind, both 1 and 2 (for their respective times), FEAR as well.

So WHY was Half-Life so critically acclaimed?  Because it was the first FPS to dispense with cutscene storytelling, and because it used story to complete its level design.  Think about it - the clues you actually gain throughout the game are pretty basic - it's a linear progression of detail.  But, it sucks you in because you are fed a plot tidbit every so often that ties what you're doing into an overall story.

Halo CE was an evolution of that formula.  It brought you the same type of gameplay - story built around combat rather than the other way around with added technology. 
That said, while simple in execution Halo was a well-designed game for its time.  It lacked plot complexity, but it followed in the footsteps of predecessors like Half-Life, which was an evolution on the original Doom/Duke Nukem/Quake shooter style.

Right and wrong. Half-Life (and consequently HL2) did have those qualities indeed, and they deserve their spots in being highly praised games, no matter what genre.

However, Halo has got nothing to do with Half-Life: the story isnt tied to the gameplay, on the contrary. Most of the story you get is on non-interactive cutscenes (its lame and amateur nowadays IMO), not to mention Half-Life's story is much better crafted (whether you like the story itself or not).
Yes they both retain their combat centrism, but then again, a bazillion games do

whoops sorry misread your post, my fault. 

[Raven2001]

No prob mate

[Marcus Vesper]

In the end, saying those methods are used because of the audience is a kind of phalacie  (sp?), because we all know the majority of the console audience are mostly looking for instant gratification (hence the huge amount of FPS's and other "simplistic" games) and shiny graphics. If you feed them a game without any kind of story they wont even blink, so

   "fallacy"

   Hmmn, I don't think it's fair to paint console players in such a large brush. Something that's fairly big on consoles is still RPGs I would guess (ie Final Fantasy X+17/2 or whatever it is now). The biggest draw for me personally to consoles is the ability to play with your friends . . .  but since I don't have too many friends, I don't have a console plus my TV sucks and I waste too much money on miniature games to afford another line of games.

   I certainly prefer computer games . . . but if it's about hanging with friends, you have to go for the console. LAN parties, while fun I think are too much of a pain in the ass for most people. And if it's multiplayer, what's the fun in beating down some 12 year old 3000 miles away when you can beat down your friend instead and laugh as they swear for five seconds until they respawn.

I'm not going to completely agree with the broad characterization of console gamers and whether they would even notice if you took the story out, I'll just tell you a story about my relatives who are all console gamers (2 sets of cousins, so you can't just say it was their household).

They never ever ever bother to actually watch cutscenes, read the manual, or in any way pay the slightest iota of attention to the story and the setting.  While watching them play Resistance: Fall of Man (or whatever that PS3 launch title was called, I can't be bothered to check) the point came up that none of them knew what was going on, why they were shooting things, or even what they were supposed to do in the level.  I'd thought at first the cousin who owned it was skipping all that because he'd already seen it, but it turns out he'd actually NEVER seen them.

They play every game they own that way.  It makes my brain hurt to watch them, as every fiber in my being is screaming out "You're doing it wrong, you fools!!!"  So I can see why the console crowd and their plot non-dependence might seem feasible.

Also, just to clear something up: JRPGs aren't really RPGs.  Listen to the beginning of this Zero Punctuation review for my opinion of the entire genre.  Yahtzee manages to quickly enumerate all the things I loathe from that entire mutant sub-genre with delusions of being a real Role Playing Game.  Also there's a Penny Arcade strip that illustrates even JRPG players skip cutscenes and dialog to get right back to the killing.

[Flipside]

I think the only thing that tended to annoy me about Halo, as a game, was that about halfway through, if any of your own troops survived, they generated a nasty habit of mowing you down with Ghosts.

[Snail]

In which case my friends will tend to just headshot them.

[Triple Ace]

Awaiting Halo 3 Pc. And no I will not get a 360 to play it. I don't have that kind of money to buy a console for just one game.

[Marcus Vesper]

Awaiting Halo 3 Pc. And no I will not get a 360 to play it. I don't have that kind of money to buy a console for just one game.

I hope you like waiting, Microsoft waited 3 years before porting #2.

[Raven2001]

Ya know, Vista wasn't ready sooner... Perhaps H3 will come out for the next OS

[Roanoke]

The second is atmosphere. The Halo story is beautiful in its minimalism. On the surface it appears to appeal only to testosterone-infused prepubescent males, but it goes deeeep. There are layers and layers of clues that are intentionally aimed (by Bungie) at a more mature audience, namely the older fans they grabbed with Marathon and who have remained interested for more than a decade. The story's enhanced by a masterful soundtrack (slightly overblown towards the Halo 3 end, I think).

So the story goes deep because of what exactly? Of the forerunner logs? Thats not story, thats flavour to enhance the universe. Universe which isnt that great actually. Ill try to break down the elements as best as I can:

The actual story (that is, the game plot) atleast in the first two games is poor atleast: no faction shows real conviction for their beliefs, the way most of the story is presented to you is done in the most old fashion and worst manner possible for a game: cutscenes. Every now and then, when you are enjoying your "flow", it all breaks to another ridiculous cutscene.

Remember when I said the design was not elegant, that was it.

Refer to Bioshock for an instance of a good way of presenting story and universe in games: You see what happens trough the "ghosts", audio logs, the few characters that talk to you, also clues in the environment (Who is Atlas?). Also you almost dont have non interactive sequences in there. And even one those was well executed (the "would you kindly" thing when you kill Andrew Ryan). So except for those 2 or 3 non interactive cutscenes, the rest of the story is presented to you in an interactive way, the result being that your play flow actually doesnt get broken. THAT is elegant design. Cutscenes every level to show you the story is not.
That also happens in Deus Ex, in System Shock, and others that I cant recall.
The same happens, to an extenct, in Freespace, because most of the story and plot developments are presented to you in mission, while you are playing.
Non cutscene storytelling is a big deal in games, because YOU are there living the story, you are not just an assed expectator.

I've been thinking about this specific point and I think it's not so much cutscenes per-say but the fact they have become an easy "filler" and their lazy use that grates. So many games include them but to no real benefit when they could add so much.
Freespace's movies were awesome IMHO. The Bosch monologues were exceptional, giving both an insight into Bosch's psychie and showing him to be a normal, flawd human in extraordinary circumstances. Or the intro giving a teaser glimpse to the Colossus (firing point clangers aside).
Or Thief2, with it's signiture warm look, Garret's musings and the Mechanist scripture. The fact T3 reduced them to loading screen fodder did it no favours.
Even Farcry brought a new twist by retaining the first-person perspective and Carver's dry humour.

TBH I usually skip cutscenes. Especially GTA, even when  Itry to follow the story I always end-up skipping past.

[spartan_0214]

I've been thinking about this specific point and I think it's not so much cutscenes per-say but the fact they have become an easy "filler" and their lazy use that grates. So many games include them but to no real benefit when they could add so much.
Freespace's movies were awesome IMHO. The Bosch monologues were exceptional, giving both an insight into Bosch's psychie and showing him to be a normal, flawd human in extraordinary circumstances. Or the intro giving a teaser glimpse to the Colossus (firing point clangers aside).
Or Thief2, with it's signiture warm look, Garret's musings and the Mechanist scripture. The fact T3 reduced them to loading screen fodder did it no favours.
Even Farcry brought a new twist by retaining the first-person perspective and Carver's dry humour.

TBH I usually skip cutscenes. Especially GTA, even when  Itry to follow the story I always end-up skipping past.

         You do know that cutscenes are actually harder than in-game dialog? Often times the cutscenes are rendered in much higher detail than the game and require far more intricate animation, as the cutscenes also tend to be more life-like, the characters move more fluidly, aliens' various strides must be continually touched up, and most annoyingly, cropping between various body parts must be avoided at all costs. Cutscenes are in no way a lazy alternative.
         Also, in Half-Life 2 and its consecutive Episodes I was often frustrated that I could not proceed when characters were interacting. The exception is when you're in Eli's Lab at Black Mesa East where he has a few gadgets for you to play with here and there. Otherwise, I was often shoved aside by moving characters, couldn't get a good look at whatever screen the main characters were looking at, and couldn't interact with the environment to the degree they could. I prefer a good spiel with even better graphics, a gripping story, and watching characters develop their personalities.
         In Halo's case, there was very little plot exposition during the cutscenes. Often times I skipped them, surveyed the surroundings for hostile threats and likely ambush positions, and slaughtered many, many Covenant soldiers. It was my experience that each of the end of level cutscenes quickly picked up the Master Chief, and in the start of level cutscenes the cutscenes displayed the next battlefield and casually dumped the Master Chief on the front lines. The only cutscene I know that actually showed the slightest hint of plot was the end of Halo: Combat Evolved, "No, I think we're just getting started."

[General Battuta]

Wait, really? The plot conveyed in the Halo 1 cutscenes was pretty crucial, particularly the details of Halo's function and purpose.

[spartan_0214]

Wait, really? The plot conveyed in the Halo 1 cutscenes was pretty crucial, particularly the details of Halo's function and purpose.

Hmm. Edit: There were two cutscenes that revealed plot.

[General Battuta]

Well, three, if you count the one at the end of Assault on the Control Room and the one at the beginning of Two Betrayals, plus the final cutscene on the Maw, which you already mentioned. And it's probably safe to add in the cutscene on 343 Guilty Spark that introduces the Flood, and the cutscene in the middle of The Maw that sets up the engine room scenario, and -- for the sake of completion -- the cutscene in the middle of the level 'Keyes', just for its emotional impact.

Objections to any of those? (Er, I guess I'm being kinda nitpicky, so I'll add the caveat that I'm not much emotionally invested in how many cutscenes are actually relevant, and you can feel free to disagree; I am definitely interested in hearing objections, and not merely so I can take fanboyish potshots at them.)

Aside from those, a lot of the game's plot seems to be advanced during gameplay, mostly with Cortana's dialogues.

[spartan_0214]

Well, three, if you count the one at the end of Assault on the Control Room and the one at the beginning of Two Betrayals, plus the final cutscene on the Maw, which you already mentioned. And it's probably safe to add in the cutscene on 343 Guilty Spark that introduces the Flood, and the cutscene in the middle of The Maw that sets up the engine room scenario, and -- for the sake of completion -- the cutscene in the middle of the level 'Keyes', just for its emotional impact.

Objections to any of those? (Er, I guess I'm being kinda nitpicky, so I'll add the caveat that I'm not much emotionally invested in how many cutscenes are actually relevant, and you can feel free to disagree; I am definitely interested in hearing objections, and not merely so I can take fanboyish potshots at them.)

Aside from those, a lot of the game's plot seems to be advanced during gameplay, mostly with Cortana's dialogues.

Nah, most of those are:

1. Assault on Control Room: Erm, why didn't we just keep Keyes next to the Master Chief? Erm, we'll explain it to you as you proceed down into the Forerunner containment building.

2. Two Betrayals: Good job on almost blowing up the Galaxy, let's go disable the generators even though I have the Index, kthxbai.

3. 343 Guilty Spark: Mmm, yeah, we have a parasite that almost destroyed the galaxy being kept cozy here in a lab (Does no one remember the Spanish Flu). Kill the parasite.

4. Keyes: Yeah, go figure. The Captain is on a flood-infested vessel, and ode to his lack of combat skills (T and R anyone?) probably got captured by Flood. Hey, whaddya know, he's Flood now, let's take his implants that are somehow necessary to active the PoA ( ...) and go back.

All of the above are explained in much further detail via Cortana, as you mentioned, when the player was controlling the Chief.

[General Battuta]

All very good points.

[Dark Hunter]

My big problem with Halo 1's story is: why the **** did the Captain have to go on that mission personally? He's hardly a soldier (his expertise is in spaceship command), and as the commander of the entire operation, shouldn't he be back at the "Alpha Base" (mentioned in Halo: The Flood as the human encampment on Halo), where it is safe (well, more safe anyway)?

Why did he endanger himself on that mission? This I do not understand at all.

[Admiral_Stones]

A plothole needed to be filled.
Maybe they had Uwe Boll as script writer.

[General Battuta]

My big problem with Halo 1's story is: why the **** did the Captain have to go on that mission personally? He's hardly a soldier (his expertise is in spaceship command), and as the commander of the entire operation, shouldn't he be back at the "Alpha Base" (mentioned in Halo: The Flood as the human encampment on Halo), where it is safe (well, more safe anyway)?

Why did he endanger himself on that mission? This I do not understand at all.

[

A plothole needed to be filled.
Maybe they had Uwe Boll as script writer.

You haven't actually played the game, have you, Stones?

Anyway, the reason Keyes was along was because there was supposedly a weapons cache (maybe a Forerunner weapons cache?) in the swamp, and I'd guess he wanted to handle decisions about the use of the weapons himself. Remember, at this point in the plot, the humans still believed Halo was an incredibly powerful weapon.

It would've been easier to remain at the base and just make decisions from there, but this is a science fiction story, and commanders usually do important things in person. As a writer, it would've been very clumsy to explain the existence of Alpha Base in the narrative when it wasn't an element that was ever revisited or used.

I think it was a good writing decision.