Posted by: sarge945
« on: 25. February 2025, 04:07:52 »Brace yourself, controversy incoming...
While the Halo series are decently competent at what they do, I generally find that a lot of what people praise about Halo isn't actually particularly true. Or they play it up as being stronger than it really is.
For example, the point in which the flood are introduced in the first game. People like to talk it up and make it out like it's a big mystery and some big cinematic and spooky labyrinth you have to slowly descend, and then escape, and that the particular mission is really good because it's creepy and atmospheric. I personally have seen multiple youtube videos praising this mission from "essay" type channels (all youtube essayists are cringe, don't watch them)
The reality is that it's generally the same brightly-lit prefabs we've seen used countless times already. Seeing some dead enemies is mildly interesting but it doesn't really set much of a mood or a tone. The actual cinematic revealing the flood is largely doing all the heavy lifting in their introduction, and the reason why it feels so difficult to navigate is not because it's a complex spooky labyrinth but because many of the rooms are literally the same corridor copy-pasted several times in a row, resulting in very confusing navigation that makes it impossible to know where you are because there's no unique landmarks. While it's possible they could have done this deliberately, I doubt it because all of the maps in Halo 1 suffer from this, with the absolute worst being The Silent Cartographer, which is nothing but the same long, straight hallway repeated about 30 times over, and then the mission ends.
The gameplay is I guess what I would call solid, but the emphasis on recharging shields (which has only increased over the series, since only the first game has non-regenerating health and a much smaller shield capacity than later games) essentially negates any resource management and turns each fight into a completely separate and independent shooting gallery. You will either die (which happens very quickly), or you will survive, and if you do survive, you'll immediately recharge back up to full shields. With some exceptions, ammo barely matters either - especially if you're willing to use a variety of weapons - because you can mostly find what you need from floor guns. This is also why the game barely ever provides exploration rewards. I think there's once or twice in the original game where you can find an over shield or a rocket launcher in an out-of-the-way area, but these are the exception, not the norm. It's very similar mechanically to Call of Duty, except replace the tomato-sauce-on-face with regenerating shields.
As a result of the repetitive copy-paste map design combined with the individual-encounter shooting-gallery gameplay and lack of resource management, the experience tends to be quite bland and unchanging - what you get at the start of the game will largely be the same as what you get at the end of the game (which is also very similar to the average CoD campaign), and as long as you don't die, nothing you do previously matters, which makes the whole thing feel like a slog. The games even give you some of their best weapons in the first few missions, so there's no weapon progression either.
Halo's gameplay is at it's absolute best in the more open, freeform environments. But these are, unfortunately, few and far between. Even when they are utilised, often it's "jump in a Warthog and drive towards the preset location through a cave-themed linear path.". I wish the series had more of this and less garbage corridor shooting.
Halo 3 also introduced armour power (or whatever they are called), which added a little bit of depth to a series that had none up until that point - since you have to choose which power to take at the expense of the others. This innovation has made it into pretty much all the games afterwards and they are better for it (say what you will about Armor Lock), and I wish the series would explore more mechanics rather than riding on it's laurels so much.
A lot of Halo's gameplay is competent and smooth, and was for many people their first real foray into first person shooters, which is probably why so many people remember it fondly, but when you actually take it for what it is, it's not really offering much, and what it does offer is extremely repetitive and uninteresting for more than 5-10 minutes of screwing around.
I honestly don't understand why people were rushing out to buy the Xbox - or how it managed to become such an amazing success - given how mediocre Halo is. I also find it ironic how Halo fans are complaining that Halo is becoming more like Call of Duty - they have always been very similar and are, essentially, built on the same gameplay premise.
While the Halo series are decently competent at what they do, I generally find that a lot of what people praise about Halo isn't actually particularly true. Or they play it up as being stronger than it really is.
For example, the point in which the flood are introduced in the first game. People like to talk it up and make it out like it's a big mystery and some big cinematic and spooky labyrinth you have to slowly descend, and then escape, and that the particular mission is really good because it's creepy and atmospheric. I personally have seen multiple youtube videos praising this mission from "essay" type channels (all youtube essayists are cringe, don't watch them)
The reality is that it's generally the same brightly-lit prefabs we've seen used countless times already. Seeing some dead enemies is mildly interesting but it doesn't really set much of a mood or a tone. The actual cinematic revealing the flood is largely doing all the heavy lifting in their introduction, and the reason why it feels so difficult to navigate is not because it's a complex spooky labyrinth but because many of the rooms are literally the same corridor copy-pasted several times in a row, resulting in very confusing navigation that makes it impossible to know where you are because there's no unique landmarks. While it's possible they could have done this deliberately, I doubt it because all of the maps in Halo 1 suffer from this, with the absolute worst being The Silent Cartographer, which is nothing but the same long, straight hallway repeated about 30 times over, and then the mission ends.
The gameplay is I guess what I would call solid, but the emphasis on recharging shields (which has only increased over the series, since only the first game has non-regenerating health and a much smaller shield capacity than later games) essentially negates any resource management and turns each fight into a completely separate and independent shooting gallery. You will either die (which happens very quickly), or you will survive, and if you do survive, you'll immediately recharge back up to full shields. With some exceptions, ammo barely matters either - especially if you're willing to use a variety of weapons - because you can mostly find what you need from floor guns. This is also why the game barely ever provides exploration rewards. I think there's once or twice in the original game where you can find an over shield or a rocket launcher in an out-of-the-way area, but these are the exception, not the norm. It's very similar mechanically to Call of Duty, except replace the tomato-sauce-on-face with regenerating shields.
As a result of the repetitive copy-paste map design combined with the individual-encounter shooting-gallery gameplay and lack of resource management, the experience tends to be quite bland and unchanging - what you get at the start of the game will largely be the same as what you get at the end of the game (which is also very similar to the average CoD campaign), and as long as you don't die, nothing you do previously matters, which makes the whole thing feel like a slog. The games even give you some of their best weapons in the first few missions, so there's no weapon progression either.
Halo's gameplay is at it's absolute best in the more open, freeform environments. But these are, unfortunately, few and far between. Even when they are utilised, often it's "jump in a Warthog and drive towards the preset location through a cave-themed linear path.". I wish the series had more of this and less garbage corridor shooting.
Halo 3 also introduced armour power (or whatever they are called), which added a little bit of depth to a series that had none up until that point - since you have to choose which power to take at the expense of the others. This innovation has made it into pretty much all the games afterwards and they are better for it (say what you will about Armor Lock), and I wish the series would explore more mechanics rather than riding on it's laurels so much.
A lot of Halo's gameplay is competent and smooth, and was for many people their first real foray into first person shooters, which is probably why so many people remember it fondly, but when you actually take it for what it is, it's not really offering much, and what it does offer is extremely repetitive and uninteresting for more than 5-10 minutes of screwing around.
I honestly don't understand why people were rushing out to buy the Xbox - or how it managed to become such an amazing success - given how mediocre Halo is. I also find it ironic how Halo fans are complaining that Halo is becoming more like Call of Duty - they have always been very similar and are, essentially, built on the same gameplay premise.
. I absolutely adored the PS1, and played the heck out of it back on release, but only for specific types of games. For example for the SNES style 2D and 2.5D JRPGs, 2D platformers, Survival horrors and racing games sure. Rest no.
. Very comprehensive show and some good humour. Long videos too.
Loading...