Halo CE is incredibly bad and I have a hard time believing it
- Thread starter Passing Assassin
- Start date
For a 19 year old game, gunplay is still fantastic. The Pistol might be my favorite weapon in the entire game because no game nails it like Halo does.
Soundtrack is also a timeless masterpiece. Although i disagree with some of the re-designs, i am so glad CE: Anniversary exists so a lot of people can experience this masterpiece of a FPS game with shiny graphics.
There are reasons that classics are classics. The gunplay and music in Halo are those reasons and these two aspects will never age. Calling the game "Incredibly bad" is nothing more than just a bad take. Sorry OP.
Soundtrack is also a timeless masterpiece. Although i disagree with some of the re-designs, i am so glad CE: Anniversary exists so a lot of people can experience this masterpiece of a FPS game with shiny graphics.
There are reasons that classics are classics. The gunplay and music in Halo are those reasons and these two aspects will never age. Calling the game "Incredibly bad" is nothing more than just a bad take. Sorry OP.
I guess I can see it if the only thing it added was “not being as awful as other console shooters.”
I’m going to have to disagree here. Goldeneye has some cool things going for it, but the AI in Halo alone makes it a much more engaging experience to play. Not to mention the actually-useful friendly NPCs, vehicles, and art style
OP
OP
as long as it has a level design that's made of more than three corridors for the entire game i'm up
Looking back the first time I played it I wasn't too impressed (seeing how I started with Halo 3), but once I gave it a replay and tried to understand the game held to its own merits, I had a blast. It's an acquired taste and definitely has its dated parts, but if you can look pst them and enjoy the incredibly fun, intelligent A.I. and 2001 sandbox style FPS, it still holds up wonderfully. I just finished another replay of it last week and had a blast, I wish you were able to appreciate it like I do because it really is a fantastic game and a milestone in the FPS genre.
Some people care more about what you do in the levels than what the levels look like. They're extremely lacking in aesthetic variety, but they make up for it where it actually matters: the way the encounters play out.
The Library breaks this dynamic by not only being far more visually repetitive than the rest of the game already is, but by focusing entirely on the flood, who are far less interesting to fight than the covenant. As a result it's widely considered to be the low point of the series, but one bad level doesn't nullify the rest of the game's achievements.
Now Goldeneye. There's a game that unlike Halo actually has aged horribly. I found it downright upnplayable playing it for the first time like 10 years ago. Just awful.
It’s holds up well in co-op. The ai and weapon combos, along with the openness of the arenas and the game basically letting you get away with anything you want makes for a very fun time. It’s very sand boxy and my friend and I had a lot of fun experimenting with it.
Well of course a port of an older PC game isn't as good as a console exclusive on more powerful hardware lol.
i"m just saying that PS2 Half Life with its updated models, m&kb support, and hitting 60fps isn't 'dogshit'.
You really didn't. I wasn't there and I had the time of my life playing it for the first time last year. Enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than Halo 5 and frankly I can think of very few shooters this gen that I've enjoyed as much as I enjoyed Halo 1.
We had another thread about Halo CE disappointment like, yesterday, so I'm just gonna say the same thing I said there:
I see a theme in a lot of posts detracting the game talking about level design and repeated areas which kind of misses the point of the game I think, as it's less about the environments and levels as much as it is about the encounters. Halo CE is the one I love going back to because its weapons were the punchiest, its explosions were the splosioniest, its vehicles were ridiculous physics murder machines, and it didn't have that terrible lowered crosshair thing Bungie did from 2 onward (thank goodness MCC on PC lets you put it back to its proper place).
The flood generally aren't great to fight, but I still found them the most fun in CE where they felt less spongy and the popcorn forms were less tedious to fight as they'd pop in proximity to one another and the carrier forms went down quick and were cause for a lot of explosions and enemies flying every which way.
----
But to add to that, if you got the impression that the "good part" of Halo campaigns starts coming from Halo 2 then... hoo boy you're in for a rude awakening.
I see a theme in a lot of posts detracting the game talking about level design and repeated areas which kind of misses the point of the game I think, as it's less about the environments and levels as much as it is about the encounters. Halo CE is the one I love going back to because its weapons were the punchiest, its explosions were the splosioniest, its vehicles were ridiculous physics murder machines, and it didn't have that terrible lowered crosshair thing Bungie did from 2 onward (thank goodness MCC on PC lets you put it back to its proper place).
The flood generally aren't great to fight, but I still found them the most fun in CE where they felt less spongy and the popcorn forms were less tedious to fight as they'd pop in proximity to one another and the carrier forms went down quick and were cause for a lot of explosions and enemies flying every which way.
----
But to add to that, if you got the impression that the "good part" of Halo campaigns starts coming from Halo 2 then... hoo boy you're in for a rude awakening.
Except for the warthog run in The Maw (I do like that level quite a bit).
I bought MCC when it launched and played Halo CE for the first time then. I was super unimpressed.
The plot was kind of really dumb too.
The plot was kind of really dumb too.
.
Halo 1 is awesome (for its time). Repetitive in places sure, but that doesn't take away from the incredibly fun combat, great enemy suite, great weapons, great vehicle sections and huge open-area battles.
Also OP, what are you doing trying to shoot the flood hatchlings with your shotgun? it should be obvious that you don't need excessive damage to kill tons of little things that die with one assault rifle bullet? (Hint: try the assault rifle)
Gameplay and AI and enemy design is really the centerpiece of Combat Evolved.
If you judge an FPS by the standards of "This level looks too much like all the other levels" or "Why aren't there more enemy types?", then you will probably not have a good time with Halo.
If you judge an FPS by the standards of "This level looks too much like all the other levels" or "Why aren't there more enemy types?", then you will probably not have a good time with Halo.
OP
OP
because it's a really fun weapon and they dropped a lot of ammo for it in level 7
AI? all the enemies just walked straight in front of me or attempted randomly dashes to the left sometimes
do not read this post
Before Halo, the N64 shooters (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark and Turok) pretty much stood alone in protecting the genre from PC-ized FPSs, which tended to follow a similar template
- Toxic masculinity (Doom, Duke Nukem)
- Atrocious enemy AI (Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Wolfenstein)
- No allied AI (Half-Life, Duke Nukem, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein)
- Appalling art-styles (Half Life, Duke Nukem, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein)
- Horrible music (Doom, Half Life, Duke Nukem, Quake, Wolfenstein)
- No dynamic combat (Doom, Half Life, Duke Nukem, Quake, Wolfenstein)
- No co-op (Doom, Half Life, Duke Nukem, Quake, Wolfenstein)
It comes as no shock that the genre's popularity sky-rocketed once Halo came to the rescue; sure it has its flaws, but let's not forget the dark era.
both games came out in 2001 and the difference between the two when played on a controller is night and day. i have no problem saying that the PS2 version of half-life plays like dog shit
The plot in CE was a very simplistic shoot em up narrative, but it worked in 2001 because it was about introducing the world for the first time through combat.
Halo 2 had a very ambitious plot, but fans whined about the Arbiter, so we got Halo 3 which played it entirely safe. The entire Halo 3 story is more or less comprised of cut levels and story content from the original Halo 2 campaign.
So I’m with you in that I’m not a fan of the campaign. At least, the campaign was never a factor in why I enjoyed Halo 1. I hated the campaign back then and even more so now. The PVP on the other hand I’ll still fight for. Same goes for just the general feel of the game as I think the original feels great.
OP, Legendary?
I feel like the AI kept it mostly still interesting though on my last playthrough, it was a huge sigh of relief to get it over with and refreshing to load up Halo 2.
Also, just thinking about it reminded me about how bad the CE remake is, anyone thinking of revisiting, just stick with the older graphics.
I feel like the AI kept it mostly still interesting though on my last playthrough, it was a huge sigh of relief to get it over with and refreshing to load up Halo 2.
Also, just thinking about it reminded me about how bad the CE remake is, anyone thinking of revisiting, just stick with the older graphics.
Halo 1 certainly has some weak points, level design is one of them. However at the time, the AI and open spaces were wonderous! Also, anyone thinking that it was Halo 1's campaign that made it popular were not playing it at the time. The system link multiplayer on college campuses that had tons of dials and settings to customize are what made the series explode.
GoldenEye Source is more fun than any of the games currently available in the PC version of MCC, in my opinion
I’m going to frame this post and put it on my wall, right next to the one saying The Order 1886 is the greatest game ever and the one saying Battlefield 1 is a war crime.
Elites will take cover, dive away from grenades.....pop out and shoot you until their shields are depleted, then hide behind cover to recharge their shields and assault you again.
None of this is really apparent on Normal difficulty levels though, because there the game allows you to pretty much always charge in headfirst and mow down everyone with an Assault Rifle.....never thinking about strategies or weapon selection. Most of CE's brilliant design decisions don't shine through until you are playing on Legendary and are forced into much tougher and thoughtful engagements.
Goldeneye is very much a game trapped in time. It is practically unplayable today for folks who did not grow up playing FPS games on the N64, at least based on anecdotal experience. That said, the 4 player mode is still a ton of fun (strictly for a nostalgia factor).
OP
OP
Halo doesn't play like PC shooters of the 90's, which is not a criticism of PC shooters or of console shooters. There's no need to be so flatly dismissive. Halo's twin stick controls would go on to be standard, and eventually so would limited weapon inventories, swapping guns with nearly any enemy on the ground, dedicated melee and grenade buttons, plus regenerating health.
The package itself was obviously very compelling to a lot of people. It also had good graphics (for 2001), great music, and a pretty good story too.
Just gonna post the same thing from the other recent Halo is bad thread:
Halo CE is a pretty mediocre game and the Library is one of the worst FPS levels in history. I remember playing it back then and wondering wtf everyone was smoking after coming from the golden era of PC shooters. The reality is it was supremely overrated just because they added enough auto aim to make shooters work for people on console and introduce a whole new audience to their first shooter, so they think of it as the pinnacle.
Halo CE is a pretty mediocre game and the Library is one of the worst FPS levels in history. I remember playing it back then and wondering wtf everyone was smoking after coming from the golden era of PC shooters. The reality is it was supremely overrated just because they added enough auto aim to make shooters work for people on console and introduce a whole new audience to their first shooter, so they think of it as the pinnacle.
Hunter on the Amiga allowed you to take control of random vehicles in the environment. that was in 3D too. Halo wasn't groundbreaking in that regard. Also, Doom in 1993 had infighting enemies, so again, that's nothing crazy either.
I first played the Campaign in Anniversary and didn't think much of it. Multiplayer was amazing and still holds up. The art style also makes the graphics in 1 hold up better than 2.
Tbh that would probably make the latter levels less tedious.
Heroic is the proper way to play Halo.
That's true, they give you a ton of shotgun ammo during the library. The best combo is Shotgun for the Flood Carrier Form, and Assault Rifle for the Infection form (hatchlings).
The Library is notoriously repetitive. If you can make it through, hopefully you like the rest of the game better.
There is the problem. Halo on normal is to easy and you can basically sleep walk through it without any challenge. Heroic is what you want, the A.I. is much more challenging and it can overcome the mediocre level design.
Nobody forgets about the interiors on AotCR. People who hold the level in high esteem usually just really like those sections.
Firstly, not everyone regards the repetition as a real issue. Much in the same way that you can repeat a circuit repeatedly in a racing game and enjoy the experience, the same can hold for FPS gameplay.
Reused geometric modules can have some benefit for level design as well, since once the player gets familiar with them, they can leverage experience for movement and line-of-sight fluidity. You don't need to know a specific technique for every jump spot or whatever, you can more quickly get to a point where you don't need to look in the direction you're moving, etc.
But a big point I'd make about the "repetitive" rooms in AotCR is that they're not even close to being the same. They share a similar outer wall outline, but topologically they're wildly different from one another, and the encounters in them vary tremendously.
The first time I played Halo 1, in 2003, I had the same impression that a lot of people do about the interiors. Very repetitive. But as I got more familiar with the game, the familiarity both brought out the variety and gave me a better feel for the structure of the encounters. Nowadays I enjoy the AotCR interiors just as much as the exteriors, if not moreso. The room fights are incredibly fluid and tight, pure fantastic Covenant dance gunplay.
"Protecting the genre", lmao. This take is so laughable I don't even know where to begin. Please tell me you are joking.
The level design was definitely something that was criticized at the time, but the game performs decently for me using a K+M setup. I wouldn't go as far as to give it a 3/10, though. Hell, I remember telling my friends I gave FFVII Remake a 6/10 and people were jumping at me for that.
Sorry what exactly is being disputed here? That one of the best-selling and joint-best-rated (with Perfect Dark) FPSs of all time, which is well-known for revolutionizing the genre, didn't revolutionize the genre?
I am a major Halo fan but I can definitely see how someone playing CE for the first time may be a bad experience especially if you are used to how games are now. I just replayed Final Fantasy IX and younger me would be making fun of my old ass for getting lost so much. I am so used to having my hand held now it’s crazy how it used to be