HaloFollow

Wierd things have been happening over at the bungies website. Now there is some big count down going on.

Hopefully all the fuse isnt over more maps but maybe halo 4 or something kewl.

It may just be me, but it seems like Halo III was never liked as much as the first two, and I dont know anybody that even really plays it anymore. It seems that everyone has moved on to other 1st person shooters instead.

It actually makes a lot of sense NorthAI. Though this doesn't always apply, it does often enough to be worth mentioning. In all media, and even in other fields of activities, there exist a range of quality that one is able to enjoy based on that person's level. Too low and I think something is trash, but too high and it goes over my head. I can't appreciate Schubert's music because it goes above my head, thus I'm more likely to listen to a more mediocre song. Or course a normal distribution of players is largest at the middle, so it is a game that is good enough to excite that middle demographic, but not so good that it goes above it, that becomes highly popular.

This is not to say that popular games are necessarily not of quality or similarly that quality games cannot be popular, but that the higher elements of quality in a game go unnoticed to the general public so it falls to the middle appeal of a game to determine its popularity.

Edited, Jul 17th 2008 3:10am by Allegory

Really what is so bad about the game. Remember community =/= game. Ive played a lot of shooters and yes there are better ones but I have never understood why some people bash Halo.

Halo has a lo of good things going for it.

1. An active developer watching things the community points out.
2. An actual decent story.
3. Weapons are generally balanced.
4. Cheating is extremely frowned upon.

It has its bad to.

1. The community tends to be a bunch of pricks or little kids.
2. There are exploits in some maps.
3. Not everything is as balanced as it should be.

Compared to most other console shooters halo does rise above the rest. Notice I said console. Gears of War was fun for awhile and the cover system was nice, but most matched ended up with everyone running around with sticky grenades tagging people, or getting caught in a chainsaw animation from 4 feet away.

Call of Duty 4 was nice also. After having unlocked all the guns though and reaching 55 very quickly it lost a bit of its flare playing the same maps over and over and over. Most games ended up being a battle between 3 types of people; knifers, grenade attachment people, snipers with claymores. Also the helicopter was extremely not balanced at all.

All of the unreal console games have sucked for the most part. With them trying incorporate melee weapons into a shooter like that is just wrong.

Doom on the console was crappy. Boards where to small and things where way to dark.

Quake on the consoles was just to slow, compared to the PC versions.

Resistance Fall of Man only required you to keep one gun really. Controls werent that awesome either.

Turok multi-player was the worst. It was actually better to just lob grenades and run with a knife then shoot people with a gun, even if it was a rocket launcher. Movement speed was increased with a knife, so players with guns couldnt move as fast or turn as quickly.

Halo isnt perfect mind you, but for a console shooter it does a lot of things right that most usually dont do at all or phail miserably.

The best shooters of all time are:

Goldeneye
Perfect Dark
Quake

I have to agree. After playing H3 I was disappointed on several points, but I'm sure they've been mentioned before.

Halo 1 is still me favorite out of all of them.

I actually think I know what this is about. I have heard of a new "Halo" game coming out, but it's not an FPS. I think it's actually an RTS. Halo Wars is it called?

EDIT: Yep, thats the game. http://www.halowars.com/

Edited, Aug 1st 2008 4:50pm by dacypher