I guess Halo hate is really popular these days. Personally, I don't understand the point. The Halo games are (mostly) okay. Not really my cup of tea but no worse than any other derivative FPS series. The fanbase seems to be a little out-of-hand, though.
Maybe now Nintendo will acknowledge Metroid has a fanbase?
If you RTFA, the editor doesn't actually hate the games, he just criticises them on certain points. I could add a third page myself, about the blandness of the solo campaigns, but I'm no writer
I was speaking more of the overwhelming amount of criticism for the series as a whole and not the tone of the specific author. He seemed a lot more level headed than most.
Again, I'll say that while I don't think criticism of Halo is uncalled for or even wrong, singling out that series when the entire genre seems to suffer from the same pitfalls seems like bandwagoning to me.
Maybe now Nintendo will acknowledge Metroid has a fanbase?
Pulsar_t wrote:If you RTFA, the editor doesn't actually hate the games, he just criticises them on certain points. I could add a third page myself, about the blandness of the solo campaigns, but I'm no writer
Also, not to be a dick or anything, but what exactly makes the campaign so bland? I'm pretty fond of blowing shit up in games, and killing massive amounts of enemies.
If you have ever played any shooter ever, it is what they mostly consist of. So what exactly do you need to see in a shooter to appeal to you?
Ok i read it, and am thankful its not the usual Halo hate reasons but instead well written and does raise some points.
So in short, i believe that he began the series with the third installment but then went back to play the earlier games afterwards. This destroys the story unfortunatly and leads to the common issues of "Wait what? Why am i killing the aliens?" That many players end up asking me. As he states the story itself is phenomenal and the way it is told through long sections of gameplay, then a long section of cinematic may not be to everyones taste. But it is a style which stays consistant throughout the series and whatever your views on it, it tells the story.
He also states that the story may be in too much depth and says
"Spoon-feed me as you would a sickly child. In every new game tell me everything again, no matter how obvious or basic."
Whilst i can see how many games do, do this, but for a fan of the series it would be repetetive and is time which you would rather find out about the mystery of the Halo 'universe' and its finer details. This is because ultimately the story is very simple and the mystery comes form all the abnormal details rather than key plot twists. For example in the first game you are on a adilic grass plain and then right next to you is a wierd metal structure crossing a ravine, and later learn that these sorts of structures were built buy a long extinct race. Simple but fun and very sci-fi.
As for his views on the more recent games Halo 3:ODST and Halo: Reach i can sum them both up in 3 lines.
Halo 3:ODST - For what it was (an expansion pack) it was amazing. However for what people though it was (thanks to terrible marketing) it was merely an average game.
Halo: Reach - There is no Halo ring or anything related to it. It is an average FPS with Halo weapons and the aliens could easily be replaced with humans as far as the story goes.
Finally on a slightly different note. Doesnt it suck when the small game series you love turns into a multi-million dollar gaming jugganaut?
Wonder where that new guy is from the other day who bashed the crap out of it to no end...
Anyway Halo is a pretty good game. You cant argue that it was poorly made or anything because from a design standpoint, it runs very well. Looking at it being overrated or anything along those lines are purely opinion statements and nothing more. Its not like your playing Superman 64 or anything like that (sorry if you actually like that game).