S
Steezie
Guest
Something has kinda been bugging me about the whole HALO thing.
HALO has become like THE representitive in the gaming world of a great FPS should be. My father knows what HALO is, and it took him a WEEK to master the complicated skill of double clicking. Computers are NOT his forte
But HALO is such a simplistic game. In HALO 2 there is a grand total of 17 weapons, the maps (while creative) are condusive to only really one style of gameplay. Every game of HALO that Ive played or seen played has degenerated into a frag-fest.
Dont get me wrong, Im a gamer at heart and I LOVE seeing stuff destroyed and big explosions but its nice to have an actual organized battleplan and to have the kinds of more realistic battles rather than a Quake-style "If it moves, shoot it untill it doesnt"
This is a trend Ive seen with the REALLY popular FPS games. Before HALO it was CounterStrike and before that, Half-Life.
So why are people clinging to these simplistic games that dont really offer anything except a frag-fest?
A good exception is Battlefield 2. BF2 takes brains to play because strategy is an intimate part of the gameplay. The maps are expansive, the experience is incredibly realistic and the game cannot be played with a "Shoot at everything" mentality. It has so much more to offer than simply blasting away at everything and yet it recieves less attention.
While BF2 did recieve excellent marks from reviewers and has a large following, it hasnt achieved the status of HALO or CounterStrike
HALO has become like THE representitive in the gaming world of a great FPS should be. My father knows what HALO is, and it took him a WEEK to master the complicated skill of double clicking. Computers are NOT his forte
But HALO is such a simplistic game. In HALO 2 there is a grand total of 17 weapons, the maps (while creative) are condusive to only really one style of gameplay. Every game of HALO that Ive played or seen played has degenerated into a frag-fest.
Dont get me wrong, Im a gamer at heart and I LOVE seeing stuff destroyed and big explosions but its nice to have an actual organized battleplan and to have the kinds of more realistic battles rather than a Quake-style "If it moves, shoot it untill it doesnt"
This is a trend Ive seen with the REALLY popular FPS games. Before HALO it was CounterStrike and before that, Half-Life.
So why are people clinging to these simplistic games that dont really offer anything except a frag-fest?
A good exception is Battlefield 2. BF2 takes brains to play because strategy is an intimate part of the gameplay. The maps are expansive, the experience is incredibly realistic and the game cannot be played with a "Shoot at everything" mentality. It has so much more to offer than simply blasting away at everything and yet it recieves less attention.
While BF2 did recieve excellent marks from reviewers and has a large following, it hasnt achieved the status of HALO or CounterStrike