April 20, 2010

Legendary Halo: A PC Worthy Title?

What makes Halo so “Special”?  The other day I asked myself this very question.  It was brought upon by a friend who was just raving at what an amazing game it is. Halo is undoubtedly one of the most successful game titles ever to hit the console mainstream in terms of popularity and sales.   Although Halo and Halo II are both readily available for PC, they were not released at the same time frame or enthusiasm as they were on Xbox.  

With so many genre evolving titles, including Half Life, Quake, Counter Strike, Team Fortress, and Medal of Honor, how would Halo compare/compete?  Each one of these titles bring something to revolutionize the way PC gamers view the FPS genre.   PC gamers have always, and will always be attracted to free user created content, quality graphics, solid game play and creative control schemes, for single player and multi-player games.  Dedicated servers and quality company support for multiplayer games is a MUST.   

No one is disputing that Halo is one of the most successful games ever created for consoles.  But would it dared to lay on the same level as the PC greats?

Halo, while very successful on consoles, didn’t push the FPS envelope.  It did refine a few things but did very little to push FPS titles to new heights.  This is not to say that Halo is a bad game, because it isn’t, but it isn’t innovative in this sense.  What halo did, however, was to create a quality single player campaign combined with addictive multiplayer that had yet to be seen on consoles.  This is what halo did that made it great as a game.  It took something that hadn’t been done before or hadn’t been done well and made it great.  For the first time console gamers got a quality shooter with great multiplayer. 

While Halo is a great game in its own right it could never of succeeded long term as a PC FPS title.  The combination of no mod support, lack of dedicated servers, and not bringing anything new to the FPS genre would of it an OK title but nothing that would have been talked about for years to come. 

When you ask the question “Could halo have been a legendary PC title?” The answer is most likely no.

9 comments

  1. Hexdroid - June 25, 2010 3:29 pm

    Haha, this is super late, coming from reddit, but was just going through your latest articles and thought I’d just throw in my two cents.

    I only recently played Halo, and that’s after playing many other FPS games that have come out since it. I agree with your post, but I think you’re missing something crucial: even 9 years later, playing that game just felt epic. I played it on co-op with a friend on Legendary difficulty, and every moment felt epic in a way even new games haven’t been able to replicate.

    The story played a big part, but I’d have to say the level design was it’s biggest strength. Fighting monsters, praying for a checkpoint, conserving ammunition, having to actually work together (because while the game was hard, it was certainly doable if you teamed well), I just haven’t felt that in any other FPS.

    Reply
    • thsoundman - June 29, 2010 8:19 am

      I would disagree i felt this in half life. I was constantly running out of ammo, it felt epic and I enjoyed it completely. I do agree that the original Halo did feel epic for what it was and the story was good. I don’t disagree with that but I don’t think it really stood out as anything special as a “FPS title”.

      Reply
  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Legendary Halo: A PC Worthy Title? | The Gamers Blog, Legendary Halo: A PC Worthy Title? -- Topsy.com

  3. PimpmasterF - April 21, 2010 7:22 pm

    Halo was absolutely a great game but its true I think that all in all it was just another shooter, I think it made its mark by what thsoundman said in that it brought one of the first truly quality shooters to the console and set the bar for console shooters, however it like anything else had its time and didnt do much in the way of leaving a “lengendary” footprint. Having said that I am indeed looking foward to Halo: Reach

    Reply
  4. T8 - April 21, 2010 12:08 pm

    well its cool for the younger , less experienced gamers. But when you get further into the gaming scene, its not about how easy it is to get kills, but how much strategy it takes to be the best.

    Reply
  5. AiR - April 21, 2010 10:27 am

    halo is the equivalent or greater to ultimate suckness

    Reply
  6. T8 - April 21, 2010 9:41 am

    im still saying a game with shields that recharge, should be dismissed from possible awards.

    Reply
  7. thsoundman - April 21, 2010 8:14 am

    These were my sentiments exactly. I’ve never thought of halo as a “game changing” game. It’s always just been “anothers shooter” to me. I’ve never felt like it really changed anything. It was neat to see consoles finally get a real shoot but other then that it’s never blown my mind. I guess most of my friends who have raved and boasted about this game never really had anything to brag about until it came out. Perhaps thats why they are so into it. Halo was to console gamers what counter-strike was to PC gamers.

    Reply
  8. T8 - April 21, 2010 12:32 am

    I totally agree in the fact that halo was just another mediocre attempt a a first person shooter. What halo offered that no one else would at the time, was a game entirely built around the multiplayer theme. The game had a great single player, but the creators thought of the game as a multiplayer game, whether campaign or versus. that alone built an army of followers consoles have never seen.

    If it was on the PC market, it would have been just another Sector 8. A game like MW2, something easy to be good at with little skill, and done a million times.

    BTW, shields are soooo overrated.

    Reply

Reply to thsoundmanCancel reply

Archives - Powered by WordPress - A theme by cssigniter.com