Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How do you even compare the two? Goldeneye has much more to the gameplay than Halo.-AC
Ok I love both games...Goldeneye comes first in priority because of fond memories, but you cannot deny the variety of Halo 2's multiplayer. it actually makes goldeneye shameful. Unfair I know since Halo came after goldeneye, but Halo has lots of possibilities. Goldeneye had it too, but IMO people are just being dragged on by nostalgia. Lets face facts: Halo 3 won't be breaking any new grounds. It will just make better what has already been a fun game to play.
Anyway if I want to be anal about it I would compare Halo to Bioshock...and oh boy Halo is roasted, but then again so will be Goldeneye.
Case in point...I just want to finish the fight...and then waste hours upon hours of my life playing against brats in multiplayer. Halo's multiplayer is fun.
They don't just "change a command or two and nothing else" for sequels. Those kind of games are the ones that get poor scores mainly because of the fact that they are not that much different that they're predeccors, and contrary to what some believe graphics has enough to do with innovation. Halo 3 will be innovative in several ways, but also because of its top-notch graphics. Despite how fun a game turns out to be now, if the graphics sucked shit it would be a lot less liked than if it had graphics that pushed the 360 and PS3 to their limits.
Originally posted by Superboy Prime
Ok I love both games...Goldeneye comes first in priority because of fond memories, but you cannot deny the variety of Halo 2's multiplayer. it actually makes goldeneye shameful. Unfair I know since Halo came after goldeneye, but Halo has lots of possibilities. Goldeneye had it too, but IMO people are just being dragged on by nostalgia. Lets face facts: Halo 3 won't be breaking any new grounds. It will just make better what has already been a fun game to play.Anyway if I want to be anal about it I would compare Halo to Bioshock...and oh boy Halo is roasted, but then again so will be Goldeneye.
Case in point...I just want to finish the fight...and then waste hours upon hours of my life playing against brats in multiplayer. Halo's multiplayer is fun.
It's not nostalgia for me, because it's still an incredible game to play. If you couldn't still play it and have the same feeling it'd be nostalgia.
Originally posted by shin_gear
They don't just "change a command or two and nothing else" for sequels. Those kind of games are the ones that get poor scores mainly because of the fact that they are not that much different that they're predeccors, and contrary to what some believe graphics has enough to do with innovation. Halo 3 will be innovative in several ways, but also because of its top-notch graphics. Despite how fun a game turns out to be now, if the graphics sucked shit it would be a lot less liked than if it had graphics that pushed the 360 and PS3 to their limits.
Halo 3 won't be innovative at all, certainly not because of graphics. Bioshock has already gone places that Halo will never reach, graphically, gameplay wise, you name it, but I'm willing to hear why you think it's gonna be innovative. If your reasoning is "New guns, bubble shield." forget it, that's not innovation. Neither is a bike.
And yeah, they do. Devil May Cry and God of War have made a living off change-a-command sequels. Unless you count the "story", which isn't so much a story as it is an easy way to get money out of kids pockets.
Resident Evil is a story.
-AC
As I said, there's Coldplay for people who can't hack Tool.
Halo for those who can't hack more advanced games.
If you have preference of one over the other, fine, but Halo is actually nothing more than a basic FPS with its own weapons and "good" graphics. People need to realise that liking it doesn't make it possess things it doesn't own.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Halo 3 won't be innovative at all, certainly not because of graphics. Bioshock has already gone places that Halo will never reach, graphically, gameplay wise, you name it,
-AC
Well, as for graphics, Gears of War topped Halo 3 already. Haven't gotten around to Bioshock yet. I only hear good things.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's the point, though.If you're gonna say "Why fix what ain't broke?", then fair enough, but at least admit that Halo isn't really much more than a basic FPS that people love purely based on the multiplayer (Which is nothing to do with the gameplay or game itself) or just liking it.
People actually go on like it's some mega innovative, unquestionably great game. It's not, there are much better FPS games now, as there were before. Goldeneye still stands above Halo in MANY, MANY ways, some would say all except graphics and lack of online multiplayer.
It's like people who love Halo so much that they diss Gears of War simply because you have to use strategy and think.
If the technology exists to make games like Bioshock, like Gears of War, like Resident Evil 5 etc, then why bother making anything generic at all? The reason is; people who aren't good at games need games to be good at. Enter Halo.
Just like there is Coldplay for people who aren't, to be honest, smart enough or into music enough for bands like Tool, there's Halo, for people who can't hack Half-Life or Bioshock, or want something less complex.
-AC
Alright first of all let me just say that I LOVE Gears of War, Goldeneye and Bioshock (even though I don't have the full game... I'll be buying it soon) Anyway your entire point about how people need games to be good at so they buy halo... is completely irrelevant. That simply means that you enjoy more strategic games such as Gears. Thats just preference not a question of how good someone is at a game.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Halo 3 won't be innovative at all, certainly not because of graphics. Bioshock has already gone places that Halo will never reach, graphically, gameplay wise, you name it, but I'm willing to hear why you think it's gonna be innovative. If your reasoning is "New guns, bubble shield." forget it, that's not innovation. Neither is a bike.
-AC
Then let me ask you... what is your definiton of innovative? Apparently you don't understand that if Halo 3 made drastic changes than the fans would go insane. Introducing the bubble shield and the grav lift is great because that will completely change everyones strategy. The new vehicles will do the same thing... along with new weapons. Halo was a great game because it added something that most other First Person Shooters don't have... a great story, characters and music. As for gameplay they didn't add anything new but they didn't have to because they took the old formula and perfected it. Thats why people love Halo.... Think about Gears of War and tell me what makes that so different then other 3rd person shooters?
Originally posted by Reverend Axel
Well, as for graphics, Gears of War topped Halo 3 already. Haven't gotten around to Bioshock yet. I only hear good things.
You are sadly mistaken... take a look at the leaked gameplay footage on www.ign.com and then tell me that Gears looks better.
Originally posted by Spartan005
Alright first of all let me just say that I LOVE Gears of War, Goldeneye and Bioshock (even though I don't have the full game... I'll be buying it soon) Anyway your entire point about how people need games to be good at so they buy halo... is completely irrelevant. That simply means that you enjoy more strategic games such as Gears. Thats just preference not a question of how good someone is at a game.
I've continually said that if you enjoy Halo for other reasons, totally fine, I can accept that, but liking a game does not mean you can bestow accolades upon it that raise it above games that earn those accolades OUTSIDE of preference.
Eg; Halo being one of the most innovative FPS, just because it's well liked. Bioshock, outside of preference, is much more innovative, as was/is Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Red Faction etc.
Originally posted by Spartan005
Then let me ask you... what is your definiton of innovative? Apparently you don't understand that if Halo 3 made drastic changes than the fans would go insane. Introducing the bubble shield and the grav lift is great because that will completely change everyones strategy. The new vehicles will do the same thing... along with new weapons. Halo was a great game because it added something that most other First Person Shooters don't have... a great story, characters and music. As for gameplay they didn't add anything new but they didn't have to because they took the old formula and perfected it. Thats why people love Halo.... Think about Gears of War and tell me what makes that so different then other 3rd person shooters?
New weapons and vehicles are not innovation, every FPS has different weapons more or less. Things that drastically alter the gameplay, things we've either never seen before or never seen done in a certain way that affect the gameplay, THAT is innovation. Halo doesn't, nor has it ever had, any of this.
The fans would go insane, why? Precisely. Because they're so comfortable with what they've become good at, they are too afraid to adapt.
Having great music and great characters does not only come down to preference, but an objectively innovative game it does not make. It hasn't got a new story either. Alien forces attack, human resistence battling to fight it off, great. Story doesn't make GAMEPLAY innovative either.
You prove my point by admitting they don't add anything new, so it's not what people claim. First off, people keep telling me Halo "perfected" it, but how? Give me examples that aren't fake. "I like it a lot, I think the fact that you can *Insert overrated ability* is great.". That's not perfecting anything. Halo is a generic FPS with standard, expected graphics in today's world, and the only thing going for it is online multiplayer. Even THAT is simply because Halo was the first to get it, not because Halo has explicitly better multiplayer than any other online game could.
You love Halo, we get it, but it is what it is.
As for the graphics being better than Gears, laughable. Secondly, what other games like Gears are there? Games with the in-battle dynamic of Gears? None.
-AC
Innovation is in fact a matter of opinion.
You may think that new immense maps, improved graphics with HDMI, new vehicles, weapons, a continuation of a story and more online features have nothing to do with innovation. Just out of curiosity, why is Bioshock innovative and not Halo 3? I've been wanting to play that game.
On a side note, I've played the Wii several times at a gamestop and found its "innovative" features to be gay. Nothing about it interested me and I find it laughable that anyone thinks it introduces anything new to gaming. Motion sensing controllers existed on the PS1. Online play and a browser have been around for years, yet I've been hearing people say it's innovative for those reasons.
Point being is, so what if a game lacks innovation when it's praised by game reviewers, millions of fans worldwide, and is ranked as one of the best games in history? One day it'll be just about impossible to make an innovative game. Does that mean by that time all games would suck ass? No, and of course I'm not stating that anyone said that, but my point stands. An innovative game can suck shit as well.
Was teh motion sensor controller so great and well done that people actuallyused it? If it performed as well as the Wii's then Sony would have kept it, as opposed to to keeping there shitty control scheme with the two analog sticks in the center. it's been statistically proven that having one analog stick to the far left and one at the bottom is more accurate and easier to use 😐
Even PSM ahs said that the PS3 would be 3 tiems better if the current controller was thrown away and a 360/Wii hybird was created. And SPARTAN005.. Gears graphics > Halo 3's exponentially.
Originally posted by shin_gear
Innovation is in fact a matter of opinion.
It's not, actually.
Originally posted by shin_gear
You may think that new immense maps, improved graphics with HDMI, new vehicles, weapons, a continuation of a story and more online features have nothing to do with innovation. Just out of curiosity, why is Bioshock innovative and not Halo 3? I've been wanting to play that game.
So by that rationale, every single new game with any amount of different stuff to any other game, is innovative? Simply because a game has different guns and maps, it's innovative? No, that's not what it means.
If you have to ask why Bioshock is innovative and not Halo 3, in terms of gameplay, you clearly haven't played both.
Bioshock doesn't just rely on guns, the odd car or bike, or a shield that do nothing for the ACTUAL gameplay. It has active power ups that alter your dna and give you powers that aren't only used for combat, but hacking, healing, intelligence etc. You drink too much wine (Health), you get drunk and can't function properly for a while. These things have either never been in any game, or they're not in any game being used in this way.
Halo 3? New gun, new shield, bike, maps. So what? That's not bringing anything new to the gaming world, it's just another installment, just another FPS.
Originally posted by shin_gear
On a side note, I've played the Wii several times at a gamestop and found its "innovative" features to be gay. Nothing about it interested me and I find it laughable that anyone thinks it introduces anything new to gaming. Motion sensing controllers existed on the PS1. Online play and a browser have been around for years, yet I've been hearing people say it's innovative for those reasons.
It is innovative, there has never been anything like the Wiimote before. Whether you like it or not, it's an innovative invention. I suggest you look up the definition of the word. You finding it's innovative features to suck does not mean it's not innovative.
Originally posted by shin_gear
Point being is, so what if a game lacks innovation when it's praised by game reviewers, millions of fans worldwide, and is ranked as one of the best games in history? One day it'll be just about impossible to make an innovative game. Does that mean by that time all games would suck ass? No, and of course I'm not stating that anyone said that, but my point stands. An innovative game can suck shit as well.
It will never be impossible to make an innovative game, and the fact that Halo is ranked as one of the best games in history is a travesty, seeing as it is usually rated that way based on things that aren't even relevent. Multiplayer, graphics and fanboyism.
It doesn't do anything for the gaming world, gameplay wise, that earns it that title. Bioshock is a title that isn't just an accepted great game, it has things in it that will raise the bar, and have. Graphically it's ultimately superior, gameplay wise it's much more innovative and brings way more to the table. Like it or not, Halo is not an innovative game.
Don't retort with "So what if people enjoy it?", because my point was never that people can't enjoy Halo. I just find it a bit tiresome that because you happen to be good at it or enjoy it, you're giving it accolades it doesn't deserve. It's a basic game with extraordinary hype, nothing more.
As I said, it won't ever be impossible to make a innovative game. Just when you thought things reached a peak, Bioshock comes along. What IS in danger of happening, though, is people becoming too passive and accepting shit like God of War 8 and Devil May Cry 7. If people don't start demanding more, there won't be more.
If Sony and Microsoft can make their cash off putting out sequel after sequel, why try anything new? Nintendo always do, and don't care less if people like it because it's for the greater good of the gaming world. If the Wii can be improved upon, everyone knows that the technology is out there now, and it adds a new dimension to gaming. It's innovative, Halo isn't.
-AC
Originally posted by MadMel
star wars battlefront 2
thought you can change it to first person if you want 😬
ah yes.. good times, good times...
as for the accolades... I think people just tend to praise whatever they like... kinda hard to change habits.. I mean hey if things were changing we wouldn't be getting heavenly sword (aka Barbie dress up + god of war)
I personally have not played a thoroughly innovative game since Mario 64..
The reason I named Bioshock was because it does actually fit the definition.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
innovative
1. ahead of the times;
2. being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before.
Halo was not ahead of the times, it's graphics were arguably as good as the PS2 which had come already, it didn't do anything that wasn't done before ganeplay wise.
Bioshock has, Gears did.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYes, I clearly haven't played both considering I said that I've been wanting to play Bioshock. haermm
It's not, actually.So by that rationale, every single new game with any amount of different stuff to any other game, is innovative? Simply because a game has different guns and maps, it's innovative? No, that's not what it means.
If you have to ask why Bioshock is innovative and not Halo 3, in terms of gameplay, you clearly haven't played both.
Bioshock doesn't just rely on guns, the odd car or bike, or a shield that do nothing for the ACTUAL gameplay. It has active power ups that alter your dna and give you powers that aren't only used for combat, but hacking, healing, intelligence etc. You drink too much wine (Health), you get drunk and can't function properly for a while. These things have either never been in any game, or they're not in any game being used in this way.
Halo 3? New gun, new shield, bike, maps. So what? That's not bringing anything new to the gaming world, it's just another installment, just another FPS.
It is innovative, there has never been anything like the Wiimote before. Whether you like it or not, it's an innovative invention. I suggest you look up the definition of the word. You finding it's innovative features to suck does not mean it's not innovative.
It will never be impossible to make an innovative game, and the fact that Halo is ranked as one of the best games in history is a travesty, seeing as it is usually rated that way based on things that aren't even relevent. Multiplayer, graphics and fanboyism.
It doesn't do anything for the gaming world, gameplay wise, that earns it that title. Bioshock is a title that isn't just an accepted great game, it has things in it that will raise the bar, and have. Graphically it's ultimately superior, gameplay wise it's much more innovative and brings way more to the table. Like it or not, Halo is not an innovative game.
Don't retort with "So what if people enjoy it?", because my point was never that people can't enjoy Halo. I just find it a bit tiresome that because you happen to be good at it or enjoy it, you're giving it accolades it doesn't deserve. It's a basic game with extraordinary hype, nothing more.
As I said, it won't ever be impossible to make a innovative game. Just when you thought things reached a peak, Bioshock comes along. What IS in danger of happening, though, is people becoming too passive and accepting shit like God of War 8 and Devil May Cry 7. If people don't start demanding more, there won't be more.
If Sony and Microsoft can make their cash off putting out sequel after sequel, why try anything new? Nintendo always do, and don't care less if people like it because it's for the greater good of the gaming world. If the Wii can be improved upon, everyone knows that the technology is out there now, and it adds a new dimension to gaming. It's innovative, Halo isn't.
-AC
I know what innovation means, thanks. The Bass Fishing motion sensing rod is one motion sensing controller I know of for the PS1. It's pretty much exactly the same as the wiimote being used as a fishing rod in LoZ: TP. The wiimote is just wireless in that sense. Wireless technology is nothing new, as you should know.
Alright, you made your point. Halo isn't innovative, boohoo. No one gives much of a damn, at least not in this thread.