Crazy take. Op was right that halo basically made fps more accessible for console players- that along with great storytelling is its real legacy. At the time, if you wanted the most out of fps games, you’d buy a PC and pick up a copy of Half-Life from a store, find an update off a shady ftp, then after install you’d have access to tons of mods giving you access to an array of truly unique experiences. Fps weren’t really made for console at the time and lacked a lot of usability (I.e. aim assist was not well developed, games were way faster and also more difficult for console controls). Counter-strike paved the way with TAC shooters and streamlining fps, but again you needed Half-Life and the retail port didn’t come until 2003. Halo brought a console first experience with casual play in mind, most notable: low gravity for easier positioning and easier to shoot players, spawning with a decent weapon so you weren’t outclassed off spawn, limited you to carrying only two weapons for easier weapon management, slow movement, and regen so you didn’t have to chase health packs. This wouldn’t be complete without me actually saying what Halo was good for- Notable innovations were obviously its physics and graphics engine, extensive user input assistance (aim assist and movement assist), use of vehicles (other games were clunky and there was little to do other than drive from one point to the next), story telling, sophisticated AI, and system link. To call halo some sort of Renaissance game that vitalized a dead genre is so very weird- you do realize this was the time of Counter-strike, team fortress, unreal tournament, quake, tribes, alien vs predator… Esports was growing with CPL and ESWC, both with majority fps-only titles. I can only assume you were not alive to experience it.
Well im 45, so there’s that. Feel free to disagree, but i look at widespread casual usage of fps as a genre for everyoneas a measure of “driving a market”, not esports which are cool, but niche (especially then). esports, CS, UT, and the like were PC only, and PC gaming itself was at the time smaller.
While those games existed and indeed so did esports, that and what i am saying (widespread, universal appeal for as you call them “casuals”) are two very different things. Two disparate things.
So finally im sensing from you that you’re not the kind of person in interested in talking to. Its a feeling i get that you just want to put others down. I might be wrong. Prove me wrong. Do you feel like walking that comment where you call my opinion wrong because of ignorance back, and maybe we can talk like peers? Perhaps we could talk about the impacts halo did have, or the impacts other games you mentioned has that were greater than halos. Maybe that would be information and fun for the both of us.
Or, do you want to keep waving your opinion in front of me and being dismissive? One of those choices continues this conversation. I am at this point ambivalent.
Crazy take. Op was right that halo basically made fps more accessible for console players- that along with great storytelling is its real legacy. At the time, if you wanted the most out of fps games, you’d buy a PC and pick up a copy of Half-Life from a store, find an update off a shady ftp, then after install you’d have access to tons of mods giving you access to an array of truly unique experiences. Fps weren’t really made for console at the time and lacked a lot of usability (I.e. aim assist was not well developed, games were way faster and also more difficult for console controls). Counter-strike paved the way with TAC shooters and streamlining fps, but again you needed Half-Life and the retail port didn’t come until 2003. Halo brought a console first experience with casual play in mind, most notable: low gravity for easier positioning and easier to shoot players, spawning with a decent weapon so you weren’t outclassed off spawn, limited you to carrying only two weapons for easier weapon management, slow movement, and regen so you didn’t have to chase health packs. This wouldn’t be complete without me actually saying what Halo was good for- Notable innovations were obviously its physics and graphics engine, extensive user input assistance (aim assist and movement assist), use of vehicles (other games were clunky and there was little to do other than drive from one point to the next), story telling, sophisticated AI, and system link. To call halo some sort of Renaissance game that vitalized a dead genre is so very weird- you do realize this was the time of Counter-strike, team fortress, unreal tournament, quake, tribes, alien vs predator… Esports was growing with CPL and ESWC, both with majority fps-only titles. I can only assume you were not alive to experience it.
Well im 45, so there’s that. Feel free to disagree, but i look at widespread casual usage of fps as a genre for everyoneas a measure of “driving a market”, not esports which are cool, but niche (especially then). esports, CS, UT, and the like were PC only, and PC gaming itself was at the time smaller.
While those games existed and indeed so did esports, that and what i am saying (widespread, universal appeal for as you call them “casuals”) are two very different things. Two disparate things.
So finally im sensing from you that you’re not the kind of person in interested in talking to. Its a feeling i get that you just want to put others down. I might be wrong. Prove me wrong. Do you feel like walking that comment where you call my opinion wrong because of ignorance back, and maybe we can talk like peers? Perhaps we could talk about the impacts halo did have, or the impacts other games you mentioned has that were greater than halos. Maybe that would be information and fun for the both of us.
Or, do you want to keep waving your opinion in front of me and being dismissive? One of those choices continues this conversation. I am at this point ambivalent.
Balls in your court.