ok, what is up with Halo?

[SizeableSSonic]

And, before that, Bungie's game Marathon had it. Not to mention in Halo 2, you could duel wield two different weapons, and fire each seperatly.

[greenday5494]

meh, every game has its strengths and weaknesses.

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by SizeableSSonic

And, before that, Bungie's game Marathon had it. Not to mention in Halo 2, you could duel wield two different weapons, and fire each seperatly.

You could glitch Goldeneye to have two different weapons.
Regardless of Marathon having it, it's not a unique feature to Halo 2, which is the point I was making.

[SoBe Green]

But it is a feature not included in most popular multiplayer games and almost single handedly made Halo 2 the superior Xbox Live game. Don't get me wrong Halo 2 had some great multiplayer enhancements that beat its older brother in the ground. But in a game where you can only carry two guns at once to begin with it made all the difference in the world.

[s0undch4s3r]

i never played the halo series....is it good?

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by SoBe Green

But it is a feature not included in most popular multiplayer games and almost single handedly made Halo 2 the superior Xbox Live game. Don't get me wrong Halo 2 had some great multiplayer enhancements that beat its older brother in the ground. But in a game where you can only carry two guns at once to begin with it made all the difference in the world.

I wouldn't say that Dual Wielding made Halo 2 great. I know a lot of people that hated it. It really isn't an original concept. They updated it, so go team. But the things we're looking for are things that impacted not only the game itself, but other games which came out after it. Halo 2 brought a new health system and it brought live. You can't say it's revolutionary but you can say it had a serious impact. Almost every following FPS, and even third person has used the same health system as Halo2. Gears of War is a good example. The rest of what Halo2 brought was online play. Yes, it existed before, but not in the way it did halo2. They changed a lot of details and made it simple as all hell to play. 360 based its live standard on Halo2. So anyone who likes the 360 live functionality (in games, not the main os) should send a thank you note to Bungie.

That said, I don't think it deserves to be on any top 10 list anywhere. But really, I don't think any console game should be. Console game utilize the advancements already made by computer games. Comp games have the edge with better hardware and ease of programmability. That's going to create games like Doom, Quake, HL, Unreal that don't just play well, but change the world their in.

To me, console gaming is just conversation. That's my opinion though. Chronologically speaking it came first. Comps just do it so much better.

[SoBe Green]

Most FPS gamers complained about Halo only allowing two guns carried at once yet having a wide variety of guns available. It really put you at a major down fall and made you rely heavily on grenades. With the ability to have both guns out at once and fire them at the same time or one at a time it changed the way Halo multiplayer was done. Yes the new health system had a lot to do with it but the ability to pull two guns at once not only makes it more appealing to a wide variety of gamers but aslo adds more strategy other than "Grab the pistol and sniper rifle, camp." which was pretty much the basis of Halo's multiplayer.

Should a Counter-Strike 2 ever be introduced and implement this same idea I think we'll see a more popular game.

[greenday5494]

dumbass post, plaease ignore.

[greenday5494]

CS is way more tactical than halo. it will always be that way.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by SoBe Green

Most FPS gamers complained about Halo only allowing two guns carried at once yet having a wide variety of guns available. It really put you at a major down fall and made you rely heavily on grenades. With the ability to have both guns out at once and fire them at the same time or one at a time it changed the way Halo multiplayer was done. Yes the new health system had a lot to do with it but the ability to pull two guns at once not only makes it more appealing to a wide variety of gamers but aslo adds more strategy other than "Grab the pistol and sniper rifle, camp." which was pretty much the basis of Halo's multiplayer.

Should a Counter-Strike 2 ever be introduced and implement this same idea I think we'll see a more popular game.

I'm talking about Halo's impact on OTHER games. Not Halo's impact on its self. The dual gun helped fix problems it created and change its own gameplay. It did nothing to impact concepts and ideas to other games.

[SizeableSSonic]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

I wouldn't say that Dual Wielding made Halo 2 great. I know a lot of people that hated it. It really isn't an original concept. They updated it, so go team. But the things we're looking for are things that impacted not only the game itself, but other games which came out after it. Halo 2 brought a new health system and it brought live. You can't say it's revolutionary but you can say it had a serious impact. Almost every following FPS, and even third person has used the same health system as Halo2. Gears of War is a good example. The rest of what Halo2 brought was online play. Yes, it existed before, but not in the way it did halo2. They changed a lot of details and made it simple as all hell to play. 360 based its live standard on Halo2. So anyone who likes the 360 live functionality (in games, not the main os) should send a thank you note to Bungie.

That said, I don't think it deserves to be on any top 10 list anywhere. But really, I don't think any console game should be. Console game utilize the advancements already made by computer games. Comp games have the edge with better hardware and ease of programmability. That's going to create games like Doom, Quake, HL, Unreal that don't just play well, but change the world their in.

To me, console gaming is just conversation. That's my opinion though. Chronologically speaking it came first. Comps just do it so much better.

So Super Mario Bros didn't revolutionize the industry? Or Zelda, for that matter?

[SoBe Green]

Originally Posted by greenday5494

CS is way more tactical than halo. it will always be that way.

When did I say anything about CS being less tactical or better than Halo?

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by SizeableSSonic

So Super Mario Bros didn't revolutionize the industry? Or Zelda, for that matter?

"The industry" we're talking about is FPS (First Person Shooters)

If you can tell me how Mario Bros influenced DOOM without spewing a bunch of crap out of your ass I'll fly down to where you live and personally give you a full fledged heterosexual hug.

[SizeableSSonic]

When someone says "industry" I think video games as a whole. Unless I read through too fast, I swore I read "industry." Also, someone said that consoles never truly revolutionize gaming as a whole, only PCs. That would be far from the truth.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

That said, I don't think it deserves to be on any top 10 list anywhere. But really, I don't think any console game should be. Console game utilize the advancements already made by computer games. Comp games have the edge with better hardware and ease of programmability. That's going to create games like Doom, Quake, HL, Unreal that don't just play well, but change the world their in.

To me, console gaming is just conversation. That's my opinion though. Chronologically speaking it came first. Comps just do it so much better.

Exactly what I mean. Many console games deserve to be in the top ten (If you can give me a damn good explanation as to why SMB is not one of the best games of all time, then you are some kind of genius.)

Also, I guess Mario 64 sure didn't revolutionize 3D graphics (yes, Quake was released a day before... but Mario 64 proved to the masses it could be done.)

I'm not saying PCs don't own their fair share (Doom rocked the world with it's multiplayer.) But to say console didn't do anything is plain untruthful.

[greenday5494]

well this topic has derailed... yay.
lock, now!

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by SizeableSSonic

When someone says "industry" I think video games as a whole. Unless I read through too fast, I swore I read "industry." Also, someone said that consoles never truly revolutionize gaming as a whole, only PCs. That would be far from the truth.



Exactly what I mean. Many console games deserve to be in the top ten (If you can give me a damn good explanation as to why SMB is not one of the best games of all time, then you are some kind of genius.)

Also, I guess Mario 64 sure didn't revolutionize 3D graphics (yes, Quake was released a day before... but Mario 64 proved to the masses it could be done.)

I'm not saying PCs don't own their fair share (Doom rocked the world with it's multiplayer.) But to say console didn't do anything is plain untruthful.

See, the thing is, Halo MAYBE revolutionized CONSOLE FPSes. Someone said it earlier: Us PC gamers are spoiled, we get shooters that revolutionize the entire genre, that's why games like Halo fall flat on the PC: It's not that special when compared to the true greats.
Consoles can do a lot for most genres, but shooters still belong to PCs.

[greenday5494]

i hate when PC gamers say that. i hate it i hate it. ok, you are not more "1337" than console gamers, ok? you guys are on the same level. one genre doesnt "belong" on a different playform, with the possible exception to RTSs, those are hard to control on Consoles.

[Etzell]

I'm not saying we're more 1337, I'm saying that the majority of the FPS genre development has taken place on the PC, a fact you can't deny.
Consoles command the RPG world, PCs get MMOs, it's how things are.

[Bubbles]

Halloooo