- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: Vick Sr
I think it's the 90 degree field of vision. Other FPSs, like halo 2, have 60 degrees which is more suted to close quarters and narrow halwais but 90 degrees makes it so much easyer to bach, aim, find targets, keep them in sight, and it just puts the chery on top of halos epic original feel. If halo had 60 degrees of fision, I think it wouldn't have caut on neerly as much as it did and it would have much less fans.Indeed. That doesn't mean 60 degrees is horrible mind you, but I suppose you raise a good point.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
Bungie did so many things right with Halo.They did many things wrong, too, but you're right.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
It's amazing, yet simplistic. Multiplayer was done spot on.Simplistic, yes. Amazing? Eh, it's not that great. Pretty good, though. By the way, multiplayer was not done spot on. I could mention reasons why but I feel they are too apparent to mention.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
The movement is not too fast, not too slow, and it's smooth. I hate getting motion sickness when I play a FPS due to an up and down bobbing motion when I move. I can't tell you how much I hate that. I agree, the movement pace in Halo seems to hit the medium between fast (Quake) and slow (UT). The motion bob? Eh, it's more for show--much like the scope blur. Unnecessary, and for competitive players, hinderances even.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
When you're getting shot you have a chance to get away or even kill the person shooting you before you die. (sounds dumb, but this is huge) It gives players the great cat and mouse feeling.Except mice don't get to shoot back before the cat tears it to shreds.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
The targeting in Halo is amazing. It's very easy to tell where you're hitting someone when firing away, and easier still to adjust your aim mid-combat. The game rewarded you for getting more skilled at aiming.Okay, good point. Other games have that too, you know.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
The amount of damage you take is balanced correctly. Head shots do the most damage, body shots do the second most damage, and hitting anything else does even less damage.Agreed.
Posted by: Deputy MoonmanMelee attacks were done right. Tagging someone in the back for the instant kill is OMG gratifying. The animation for melee'ing people was done flawlessly in the first halo. It gave you a good idea of how close you needed to be to a person to hit them. In halo2 it's definitely not done as well, but still adequate.I disagree. I mean, don't get me wrong, people eventually learn how far out the distance can reach, but the fact that the gun doesn't even seem to touch you is a bit... disorienting.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
The weapon variety and feel was very nice. In Halo1, there was a benefit to using each weapon, with the exception of the needler and plasma pistol. Not only that, but it was fun to try and get good using each weapon. The plasma rifle inhibited your movement so a person could paralyze you until close enough to finish you with a melee attack. The battle rifle lit up your whole screen with red making it hard to aim. The shotgun was the ultimate close range weapon. The pistol was...well it was the pistol and it rocked for all around usage.Indeed. Here, Halo's weapons purposes are clearly defined. Plasma weapons are for shields, and rifles and shotguns were better for unprotected flesh. Unlike in a game like Doom, where you have like thirty weapons (exaggeration) where you have a pistol, a rifle, and a chain gun. Guess which one I would pick? Obviously the chain gun, rendering most other weapons obsolete. Halo works well with its relatively small arsenal that makes most guns useful in different situations.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
The amount things that could be customized was a first. Controller setup, game-type setup, and save-able profiles is phenomenal. The ability to set the controller to inverted or non-inverted, combined with the ability to set your own aiming sensitivity, and having the controller rumble pack on or off was huge.See, I think you're beginning to exaggerate thing way out of proportion. "Phenomenal"? Okay, it was solid, varied, but not something mind-blowingly ground breaking that it revolutionized first-person shooters. I mean, it might have set a bar or a standard, but that doesn't mean it's that great. Huge? No, dude. Customization is nothing new--Halo just pulled it off exceptionally well.
Posted by: Deputy Moonman
The level design and the graphics are top notch."Top notch"? Okay, if you meant the graphics were "top notch," as in the context of 2001, that's understandable. But the level design? It had a few things going for it, like the fact it didn't offer linear missions, and some of the designs were pretty unique and interesting. Besides that, almost half of the designs were reused. I could have sworn I passed that exact same gate in the Library--oh no, Guilty Spark, come back! Don't leave me alone to deal with all this boring Flood in this ugly, repetitive level. I can't recall how many times I once got lost before I played the Campaign a few times and became familiar with it.
If you meant level design as a reference to the multiplayer maps, I must agree that some maps (Blood Gulch, Chill Out) are pretty well done. But that doesn't make up for Sidewinder (I love getting spawn-camped!) and Chiron TL34 (Which way is to the enemy flag again?).
[Edited on 04.06.2007 12:37 PM PDT]