Support NeoGAF

[Recreat3]

Wow people are really kicking up a stink over the thread title. Jeez, get over it.

Cool new anyway, all games well deserved.

 

[Synth]

No. Their reasoning for adding it is literally right there. Because it was allegedly THE game that showed shooters could be successful on consoles.

Their reasoning is factually incorrect, another earlier game was more successful. You can't be the most successful at something when something from earlier was more successful.

Halo 2 could be included for being the first successful online shooter on consoles. But Halo 1 was at no point in history the most successful console shooter of all time.

Sorry, missed this edit previously.

Sure, Halo 1 was never the "most successful" console shooter of all time... but it was the game that showed that shooterS (plural) could be as successful on consoles. Halo's template was adoptable by games that weren't Halo, and that's exactly what happened... and precisely what didn't happen with GoldenEye. Honestly, I'd argue that Timesplitters pretty much showed the future of a GoldenEye without the James Bond license attached. The gameplay system itself was simply not going to carry the genre in years to come.

I feel people are having difficulty disseminating the franchise from the game. Halo 2 fostered the online community, spawned MLG, and caused the term Halo killer. Halo 1 is just the origin point. There's very few notable shooters that take direct inspiration from Halo CE rather than the series as a whole. Halo CE is important as being the original flagpole of Xbox but that doesn't really qualify as one of the absolute most important. It's kind of like suggesting Call of duty 1-3 were critical to the state of gaming in the late 2000s to early 2010s

Attempting to separate Halo CE from Halo 2 in regards to influence is kinda pointless unless we're specifically talking about the online functionality. There's almost nothing on a gameplay level (aside from dual-wielding) that Halo 2 brought over the original. All the most prominent aspects of gameplay that have carried over into FPS games of today come from the original Halo, and were already starting to be incorporated into games like Rainbow Six 3 prior to Halo 2's release. It was the online matchmaking that everyone started to take from Halo 2 afterwards (and that applies beyond just FPS also), but in regards to FPS influence, it's all basically Halo CE.

COD changed a lot with COD4, and that's the pretty clear point where its influence began to extend beyond games that could just be described as COD clones. Halo 2 didn't do that, and its launch was such a ridiculous deal because Halo CE had already made the world very aware of it beforehand.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Sorry, missed this edit previously.

Sure, Halo 1 was never the "most successful" console shooter of all time... but it was the game that showed that shooterS (plural) could be as successful on consoles. Halo's template was adoptable by games that weren't Halo, and that's exactly what happened... and precisely what didn't happen with GoldenEye. Honestly, I'd argue that Timesplitters pretty much showed the future of a GoldenEye without the James Bond license attached. The gameplay system itself was simply not going to carry the genre in years to come.



Attempting to separate Halo CE from Halo 2 in regards to influence is kinda pointless unless we're specifically talking about the online functionality. There's almost nothing on a gameplay level (aside from dual-wielding) that Halo 2 brought over the original. All the most prominent aspect of gameplay that have carried over into FPS games of today come from the original Halo, and were already starting to be incorporated into games like Rainbow Six 3 prior to Halo 2's release. It was the online matchmaking that everyone started to take from Halo 2 afterwards (and that applies beyond just FPS also), but in regards to FPS influence, it's all basically Halo CE.

COD changed a lot with COD4, and that's the pretty clear point where its influence began to extend beyond games that could just be described as COD clones. Halo 2 didn't do that, and its launch was such a ridiculous deal because Halo CE had already made the world very aware of it beforehand.

Just so you know, that first poster is wrong. I tried to say it earlier,

From the article,

"Inductees were chosen based on their longevity and impact on the video game industry and pop culture. Nominations of arcade, computer, console, hand-held and mobile games came in from more than 100 countries, The Strong said."

The reason you explain well here, though true, was just one reason, not the entire criteria, or even the criteria, it was just a comment from the guy.

 

[DecoReturns]

When Halo came out I was still trying to learn the English language since Spanish is my first language.

I always read the title as Halo: Combat involve and thought the title was dumb for stating the obvious. I still say involve instead evolved out of habit tho

 

[D.Lo]

Just so you know, that first poster is wrong. I tried to say it earlier,

From the article,

"Inductees were chosen based on their longevity and impact on the video game industry and pop culture. Nominations of arcade, computer, console, hand-held and mobile games came in from more than 100 countries, The Strong said."

My argument is not against it being inducted. It's against their provably false statement they presented as to why it was chosen.

From the article:

”Until ‘Halo's' launch, the most successful shooters required a personal computer and the precision offered by a high-quality mouse," said Strong Associate Curator Shannon Symonds. ”‘Halo' proved a console could be just as effective, if not better, than a PC."

That's part of the argument, supplied by them, as to why it was chosen. And it's factually incorrect.

 

[whalleywhat]

You ever watch any sports Hall of Fame events/ceremonies?

Just Jordan's induction, i.e. the greatest speech of the modern era.

 

[Synth]

My argument is not against it being inducted. It's against their provably false statement they presented as to why it was chosen.

From the article:

That's part of the argument, supplied by them, as to why it was chosen. And it's factually incorrect.

Again though, is you consider "shooters" as a genre, and not shooter as in GoldenEye, then this holds true. GoldenEye didn't make consoles shooters successful, it made GoldenEye successful. It didn't even hold true for GoldenEye's direct follow-ups.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

My argument is not against it being inducted. It's against their provably false statement they presented as to why it was chosen.

From the article:



That's part of the argument, supplied by them, as to why it was chosen. And it's factually incorrect.

It may have been part of the reason, or it may have just been a quote from the guy after the games had been chosen. It doesn't state anywhere that it was the one and only reason nor even one of the reasons at all which is what it seemed like you where saying. Like I said, it's just the guys quote about the game. Which, regardless, has been argued to be true by I and others in this thread and not proven wrong.

 

[D.Lo]

Again though, is you consider "shooters" as a genre, and not shooter as in GoldenEye, then this holds true. GoldenEye didn't make consoles shooters successful, it made GoldenEye successful. It didn't even hold true for GoldenEye's direct follow-ups.

Again, you don't get to just make up other criteria for 'successful' based on unprovable legacy or influence.

Sales is the only factual success. You cannot prove 'Halo made console shooters successful' because a far more successful console shooter came before it. It wasn't even the only successful console shooter either, there were several other multi-million selling shooters on N64.

For an analogy, Carl Lewis, great as he is, can't be the man who proved the 100m could be done in under 10 seconds, when others did it before him with a better time.

Put it this way: why would Microsoft have bought a mac developer specifically to make a shooter to put on their planned console, if there weren't already several multi-million selling shooters on console, one of which was an 8 million selling megahit and the highest selling shooter of all time including PCs at that time?

It may have been part of the reason, or it may have just been a quote from the guy after the games had been chosen. It doesn't state anywhere that it was the one and only reason nor even one of the reasons at all which is what it seemed like you where saying. Like I said, it's just the guys quote about the game. Which, regardless, has been argued to be true by I and others in this thread and not proven wrong.

Yes I wasn't clear before I was arguing the sentence, not award. But it is factually wrong

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Man, what an insulting title to discuss four video game classics and define three of those as "3 more".

 

[Jumeira]

GoldenEye has dual analog aiming...

Means nothing when it was not used or anything like Halo's implementation. Which pioneered it and every FPS uses it exactly like Halo.


Well deserved, landmark game.

 

[Mexen]

I smiled at MS Windows Solitaire.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

Again, you don't get to just make up other criteria for 'successful' based on unprovable legacy or influence.

Sales is the only factual success. You cannot prove 'Halo made console shooters successful' because a far more successful console shooter came before it. It wasn't even the only successful console shooter either, there were several other multi-million selling shooters on N64.

For an analogy, Carl Lewis, great as he is, can't be the man who proved the 100m could be done in under 10 seconds, when others did it before him with a better time.

Put it this way: why would Microsoft have bought a mac developer specifically to make a shooter to put on their planned console, if there weren't already several multi-million selling shooters on console, one of which was an 8 million selling megahit and the highest selling shooter of all time including PCs at that time?

You know very well that success in this instance means more than one iteration and it's sales. Staying power is one of the largest keys to success and is what means most to games and allows them to go on to influence others. This directly correlates to mindshare as well, which Halo definitely has more of. This is what allows games to continue to be successful and turn into a franchise.

Pokémon Go for instance was a huge success... for a one off.

It didn't have staying power and it didn't prove that games of that type are successful on that platform. It was something new and unique and people where curious and like goldeneye, people bought it up. People have moved on for the most part now.

Halo though, stuck in a big way. Like I said, it went on to create huge communities that inspired stuff like LAN parties and even influenced the creation of the MLG. It coined the term "Halo Killer" and so much more. We even have Cortana in our flipping computers now.

All this, from a console shooter. It did this on a platform that already had shooters. Shooters that where trying to compete with PC. None really did until Halo.

 

[Synth]

Again, you don't get to just make up other criteria for 'successful' based on unprovable legacy or influence.

Sales is the only factual success. You cannot prove 'Halo made console shooters successful' because a far more successful console shooter came before it.

For an analogy, Carl Lewis, great as he is, can't be the man who proved the 100m could be done in under 10 seconds, when others did it before him with a better time.

Put it this way: why would Microsoft have bought a mac developer specifically to make a shooter to put on their planned console, if there weren't already several multi-million selling shooters on console, one of which was an 8 million selling megahit and the highest selling shooter of all time including PCs at that time?

But sales isn't the only factual success... it's a admittedly a very common metric, but it's not at all true that more sales = more successful. For example Halo 4 outsold nearly every Halo prior to it, but claiming it to be more successful than Halo 2 would be extremely debateable. Similarly, it's hardly clear-cut that the PS3 was factually more successful than the Xbox 360, despite it being generally agreed that it finished the generation selling more units. After all, it apparently lost them the combined profits of both prior PlayStation consoles along the way.

The Carl Lewis analogy doesn't work, because "100m in under 10 seconds" is a strictly quantifiable metric, whereas "success" isn't. Quake was having Quakecons and the PGL and such which nothing on console was until Halo came along. I've seen estimations of like 2 million sales for the original Doom... a game that was apparently at one point installed on more computers than Windows 95. Are we going to act like Doom was less of a success than Driveclub?

Microsoft back then was looking to buy all sorts. They bought Ensemble specifically to create a console RTS... and it's not like console RTS has had a history of success either. It's just as likely that Bungie was bought on the strength of what they showed Halo could be, as opposed to what GoldenEye already was.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Well deserved.
Very remarkable in 2001.



I remember playing it on an Athlon XP computer with a Geforce 2 MX as a kid one summer, at framerates that would be completely unbearable to me today. But it was stunning and captivating to me at the time. It went on to be the game I've probably replayed the most, being a 99% one and done gamer.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Hail to the Chief.