Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Worst gaming fail of all time? Daikitana....

I always thought all Halo games sucked, and do all other FPS games on consoles. Only shooter I can stand on a console is third person.

I don't know if I can trust the opinion of someone who is both churned and burned. Call me dairist

I never said innovation was a requirement to be good (I pointed out Killzone was). Often times the games at actually innovate suck, or get little attention, and its a game like Halo that gets the credit for pulling it off successfully. Few exceptions. Wolfenstein was fun, the first true FPS, and good

corpsesarefun wrote:Our liquidated dairy friend has it right, innovation is good but isn't needed to make a good game.

Absolutely, but it's needed to make a good game great, especially ones like CoD and Halo that have had multiple titles under the same brand and name. Innovation is what drives the industry forward. The Wii was innovative, hence why it pushed forward the casual market and motion control technology. Halo CE was innovative (Yes, it was, it did not just mash some mechanics together), hence why it drove the FPS on console market forward. The Elder Scrolls made RPG's the place to make truly great games. Currently, the industry has stagnated. FPS's are the money makers now, or games that have their own money selling brand. Would Halo and Mass Effect do so well financially if they were released alongside CoD? I'm betting they wouldn't.

Mass Effect isn't an FPS. Comparing it's success to a game from another genre is just plain silly. RPGs and FPS cater to different markets and tastes. The vast success of an FPS doesn't really hamper an RPG, because you've got half the camp that prefers one genre over the other, and thus will only want one of the two titles anyway, and then you've got the other half that will A) Buy both games at once, or B) Buy one game, then the other when they have the cash.

What's generally accepted as 'innovation' changes by genre. Definition is the same, but for FPS franchises, adding a couple tweaks to a long standing cover system is considered innovation. In an RPG saga, it might be a change to the way a levelling system works, while an RTS series could have adverse weather conditions affect gameplay. So on and so forth. Each genre has it's own pulls, and claiming that the release of a game in one genre could seriously hurt sales in a completely different genre is silly, unless we're talking market saturation of a particular genre.

In any case, 'innovation' seems to carry a much weaker meaning in the gaming world these days. Some games are still branding their series' new addition of things that have been in the industry for years now as 'innovation'. It's almost getting as sorely overused as "Hero"

iproxtaco wrote:Halo CE was innovative (Yes, it was, it did not just mash some mechanics together),

How? What was innovative about Halo?

My personal perspective is that Halo influenced the industry because of its console release. Before Halo, FPS games for consoles were pretty niche outside of the odd Goldeneye; after Halo's massive success, a huge number of developers began putting effort into console FPS releases. It helped that Halo got a very large amount of hype before its release (For good reason).

LordofHats wrote:I don't know if I can trust the opinion of someone who is both churned and burned. Call me dairist

I don't mind. Butter stains can be difficult to get out of hats.

"Niche"? I couldn't fething find half the games I wanted because of the horrendous amount of WWII FPS games.

Molten Butter wrote:How? What was innovative about Halo?

Many things. Wolfenstein, Doom, and Goldeneye all built the genre. Halo perfected it.

Innovations it made itself:

Control scheme. Halo created the modern FPS control scheme which is now standard in all games since.
Console Multiplayer
Regenerating health
Weapon Melee
Innovative AI programming

Innovations it popularized/perfected:

Vehicles in multiplayer
Carrying two weapons
Rebirth of the console lan party

Also the game that invented tea bagging. I suppose everything has a downside.

Chowderhead wrote:"Niche"? I couldn't fething find half the games I wanted because of the horrendous amount of WWII FPS games.

Which ones? I remember Medal of Honor, but barely anything else.

Chowderhead wrote:"Niche"? I couldn't fething find half the games I wanted because of the horrendous amount of WWII FPS games.

Which ones? I remember Medal of Honor, but barely anything else.

LordofHats wrote:

Molten Butter wrote:How? What was innovative about Halo?

Many things. Wolfenstein, Doom, and Goldeneye all built the genre. Halo perfected it. I love Halo CE, but most PC players would disagree with that assumption. Many regard mouse and keyboard above any console controls.

Innovations it made itself:

Control scheme. Halo created the modern FPS control scheme which is now standard in all games since. I will give you that Halo's control scheme became the default console control scheme. The separate grenade button was the main difference there, since the rest isn't really innovation, but tweaking..
Console Multiplayer Not created by Halo. You already mentioned Goldeneye.
Regenerating health Also not created by Halo. It's been in games since 1992.
Weapon Melee Perfect Dark had it first.
Innovative AI programming Its AI was great, but it wasn't beyond everything. Best thing I can think of was that the enemy AI could take unmanned vehicles.

Innovations it popularized/perfected:That's the entire point I was bringing up. You admit Halo didn't invent these things, but instead made them popular and improved them.

Vehicles in multiplayer
Carrying two weapons
Rebirth of the console lan party

Also the game that invented tea bagging. I suppose everything has a downside.

Responses in bold.

I'm amazed that no one has mentioned it, so I will. AvP2010.
Let me say that again. ****ing goddamn AvP2010.

It was absolutely pants in every possible way (apart from graphics, obviously.). After nearly a year of hype and anticipation, sega gave us that steaming pile of gak. AvPg is one of the most faithful franchise games ever, AvP2 has such good multiplayer that I STILL play it on project saviour, but then, came AvP2010, which both sucks and blows.

/rant.

Molten Butter wrote:Many things. Wolfenstein, Doom, and Goldeneye all built the genre. Halo perfected it. I love Halo CE, but most PC players would disagree with that assumption. Many regard mouse and keyboard above any console controls.

PC player opinion means nothing in the development of the consoles (but I should have specified).

Console Multiplayer Not created by Halo. You already mentioned Goldeneye.

Halo is the origin of the console's online multiplayer. Without Halo it wouldn't have happened. Specifically Halo 2 more than Halo: CE. Plenty had tried but Halo 2 created the system that worked so well all other systems became abandoned (Primarily because they just didn't work). A lot of the features of Halo 2's matchmaker have even found their way onto the PC.

Regenerating health Also not created by Halo. It's been in games since 1992.

I suppose I don't really know. Honestly I'd still give credit to Halo. If someone else did it a decade earlier and it didn't take, something wasn't working right

Weapon Melee Perfect Dark had it first.

As button that could be pressed at any time? I don't think it did. Perfect Dark was a copy paste of Goldeneye into a much better story line

Innovative AI programming Its AI was great, but it wasn't beyond everything. Best thing I can think of was that the enemy AI could take unmanned vehicles.

A lot of people take it for granted today. Halo:CE was the first game that saw AI that behaved with a semblance of intelligence.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Quoted. For. Justice.

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

I prefer keyboard and mouse for RTS games, but not FPS games.

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Wow, that's a sweeping comment dude..

I myself didn't really get into PC gaming until 1995ish. Before that it was console all the way. I've been a console nut since 1990 when my parents bought me a Japanese realease Mega-Drive for Christmas. Because of this I am just more comfortable with a controller than with mouse and keyboard.
Granted, the keyboard and mouse combo works a lot better for things like RTS games, but for me personally the controller is a more comfortable option. Hell, I use one for most FPS PC games and for third person games too, like 'DeathSpank' etc. As long as they allow controller mapping obviously!

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Which doesn't matter when consoles don't use a mouse and keyboard. It's completely irrelevant to the consoles and any discussion about Halo's contributions to FPS gaming on console systems.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Kazerkinelite wrote:It's not an opinion, it's a fact that keyboard and mouse beats a controller 100% of the time.

Wow, that's a sweeping comment dude..

I myself didn't really get into PC gaming until 1995ish. Before that it was console all the way. I've been a console nut since 1990 when my parents bought me a Japanese realease Mega-Drive for Christmas. Because of this I am just more comfortable with a controller than with mouse and keyboard.
Granted, the keyboard and mouse combo works a lot better for things like RTS games, but for me personally the controller is a more comfortable option. Hell, I use one for most FPS PC games and for third person games too, like 'DeathSpank' etc. As long as they allow controller mapping obviously!

You're just more used to a controller, the fact is it's just a given that the K&M is superior to a controller. K&M offers greater accuracy and control. Not to mention consul games have auto aim to compensate and the speed of consul shooters is slowed down compared to PC shooters. That's not to say the people who use controllers are doomed vs a K&M players though.

I'm not trying to start a PC vs consul thing, just proving my point.

Yup, fair play there. I can see the point, I just prefer the controller, it's more comfortable for me. But it's horses for courses dude!
I may well come round at some point, having started playing Doom 3 ( now I have a PC that can run it!) and playing Morrowind (I know, I'm about 5 years behind...) But for me, ATM, it's controller all the way

LordofHats wrote:

Console Multiplayer Not created by Halo. You already mentioned Goldeneye.

Halo is the origin of the console's online multiplayer. Without Halo it wouldn't have happened. Specifically Halo 2 more than Halo: CE. Plenty had tried but Halo 2 created the system that worked so well all other systems became abandoned (Primarily because they just didn't work). A lot of the features of Halo 2's matchmaker have even found their way onto the PC.

So, rather than Console Multiplayer, you actually mean console online multiplayer.

Goliath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Console Multiplayer Not created by Halo. You already mentioned Goldeneye.

Halo is the origin of the console's online multiplayer. Without Halo it wouldn't have happened. Specifically Halo 2 more than Halo: CE. Plenty had tried but Halo 2 created the system that worked so well all other systems became abandoned (Primarily because they just didn't work). A lot of the features of Halo 2's matchmaker have even found their way onto the PC.

So, rather than Console Multiplayer, you actually mean console online multiplayer.

I suppose. I don't really consider split screen all that important when it was just on one console. Big whoop

I'm not going to bother listing all the over hyped games that have disappointed me over the years as that would be a stupidly long list.

I can however think of a few that really really pissed me off.

Firstly anything made by Bethesda after Morrowind. It seems to me that after the modest success of that game Bethesda descided to turn excellent RPG games into hollow souless action games with RPG elements and crap plots. Oblivion was just about rescued by the modding community but not what it should have been. Then I was stupid enough to try Fallout 3 and that was just as bad with an even more boring landscape (for post apocalypic landscapes done right look at the Stalker series).

Mafia 2, basically a prettier Mafia 1 with a worse plot and a token open world system. Shame really as if they'd improved the story and implemented a proper open world they'd have produced a masterpiece.

Colin McRae Dirt 2, ok for codemasters to keep the Colin's name on the game in the UK was a nice tribute to one of the true motorsport legends but the game itself just didn't feel like a rally game which given the name it bloody well should do. I guess I really should have spotted the warning signs when they had Ken Block promoting it.

Gears of War. I'm sorry if I offend anyone here but how is this a good game. It's just a bunch of steroid abusing knuckle dragging morons hiding behind greyish brown walls waiting for their health to magically regenreate or shooting ugly greyish brown alien things. The fact that it's a popular series worries me.

I could go on for hours....

On topic: Epic Mickey. The hype for that game was much larger than the final sales. Part of the hype came from Warren Spector's previous success, part of it came from the idea, but the bad controls and camera simply made the game not fun to play for most who got it. I rented it and still regard that as a waste of my money.

Lord of Hats wrote:PC player opinion means nothing in the development of the consoles (but I should have specified).
Regardless, Halo's "perfection" of the FPS genre did nothing to affect PC FPS games, except those that were designed for consoles anyway.

Halo is the origin of the console's online multiplayer. Without Halo it wouldn't have happened. Specifically Halo 2 more than Halo: CE. Plenty had tried but Halo 2 created the system that worked so well all other systems became abandoned (Primarily because they just didn't work). A lot of the features of Halo 2's matchmaker have even found their way onto the PC.
That's Halo 2. We're talking about Halo CE.

I suppose I don't really know. Honestly I'd still give credit to Halo. If someone else did it a decade earlier and it didn't take, something wasn't working right
Like I said, Halo was great because it combined many good aspects from other games into one and often improved them. Nobody remembers the shooters with regenerating health before Halo because those shooters weren't very popular or good on average.

As button that could be pressed at any time? I don't think it did. Perfect Dark was a copy paste of Goldeneye into a much better story line
That's an issue of controls, much like Halo's separate grenade button. Perfect Dark still did pistol-whipping long before Halo did it.

A lot of people take it for granted today. Halo:CE was the first game that saw AI that behaved with a semblance of intelligence.
People also said that about Half Life, which was released in '99. Again, how is Halo's AI innovative?

If it looks like I'm trying to disrespect Halo, I'm not. I just think its success proves that innovation is not always needed for a great game.

Too Human really, really dropped the ball. Seven years in deveopment , abd planned for three different consols? Dear lord the gaameplay is horrid, the storie is acctualy quite intresting but the sheer amount of fail made sure this game never reached its potensiale

mine is Call of Duty Black ops. the game look awesome, was awesome but after 2 - 3 weeks after buying it, it had lost all its charm. the campaign I called not bring myself to play again unlike MW2. The multiplayer... was the only highlight of Black Ops.

Halo 3 I loved the single-player and Multiplayer, but then my friend gave me his copy of Halo 2 for PC cause he did not have Vista, (I had 7 haha...) and after beating that then. Playing Halo 3 campaign... I was sad... because it sucked. Thou I take halo 3 multiplayer over Halo reach ANY day. My friend only plays Reach with me now cause I beat him all the time at Halo 3... and I don't even own an Xbox, I beat him on his own terf.

Brink and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit. The later I was so excited by but after spending a number of hours with it I was left so disappointed.While it was a stunning game I really didn't like what Criterion did with it.

Nick Ellingworth wrote:
Gears of War. I'm sorry if I offend anyone here but how is this a good game. It's just a bunch of steroid abusing knuckle dragging morons hiding behind greyish brown walls waiting for their health to magically regenreate or shooting ugly greyish brown alien things. The fact that it's a popular series worries me.

Great story line, the best cover system in the business, fun enemies. Most of your arguments seem to be based on the looks, not so much the gameplay. And they pretty much invented the whole brown thing (or at least made it popular) so at the time, it wasn't copied everywhere yet.

Can't help that you don't like it, but it's a great game mate.

I'm confused as to why people keep saying games that they didn't like "failed".

Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, <insert generic mainstream game that sells millions of copies>...they didn't fail.

They might be hyped and not deliver on something, but that doesn't mean they "failed".
A good example of a hyped game that failed is Too Human.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm confused as to why people keep saying games that they didn't like "failed".

Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, <insert generic mainstream game that sells millions of copies>...they didn't fail.

They might be hyped and not deliver on something, but that doesn't mean they "failed".
A good example of a hyped game that failed is Too Human.

"Failure in my eyes"=Failed

Basically we're like language arts teachers instead of math teachers

In other words, your wrong.

Personal dislike of a game does not equal failed. I don't know why people keep insisting the opposite of that in this thread. It may not be your cup of tea, but games that sell millions of copies are far from failures.

Personally I can't stand a lot of the new point and shoot games like CoD. However even if I do not like these games, they are not failures. The problem is, I am not part of the target audience.

Now maybe if you are Yahtzee, I might let your personal opinion sway me some.

Lord Scythican wrote:Now maybe if you are Yahtzee, I might let your personal opinion sway me some.

Oh Yahtzee. Your reviews may well be funniest ever made. Maybe a little overblown, but oh so very funny