Haint
Member
PSO was the first truly great online game for consoles.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bungie: Do they deserve more credit?
- Thread starter HigherLevel
- Start date
PSO was the first truly great online game for consoles.
what's the "Fun FPS"-genre?
I played Goldeneye (1997)/Perfect Dark long before Halo (2002). And then there was Counter-Strike (1999) and Quake 3 Arena, and countless multiplayer shooters before them.
Sir Abacus
Member
Word Select. Enough said.
um, sure. matchmaking is supposed to weed out people's ages and bad behavior?
What about TimeSplitters?
Sir Abacus
Member
You know if you take off the rose coloured glasses you find out that this game is actually a heap of shit that hasn't aged well at all.
Far from it, but I'm still surprised when people don't like good games
EDIT: Or, I should say, when people say things like this. Really?
Sir Abacus said:
EDIT: nevermind, he was talking about Perfect Dark. Have no opinion about that game. Carry on.
odin toelust
Member
Good response, thanks for not saying lol noes valve is teh awesome and WOW.
Also good, opinionated, response. Halo 2 was def the high point for me just cuz it was fun. The bugs just made it better; button combos, super jumping, sword cancelling, etc, etc were fun to mess around with. After that they deviated from the halo feel with BR spread (leading to full out bloom), armor abilities and such. Ruined MP for me
PS Keep it classy guys, the discussion depends on you
Shalashaska161
Member
They're extremely talented, and the polish and huge amount of features in each Halo game is proof of this. God knows how many hours Ive put into the series. Problem is they haven't made a non fps in like 15 years. Bungie, Valve etc. have shown theyre talents across multiple genres, and are continuing to do so today. So well have to see how there Activision game turns out.
it was a great game at the time and I never claimed anything different
smh at the bolded part
The controls and framerate are what made it age the most. But it was far ahead of its time when it comes to its content and execution. I don't think there is an FPS out there that offers more varied content and replayability.
Bungie gets plenty of credit for what they were. What they do well, and there's a lot of it, is mostly iterative; what they do innovatively (two weapons, regenerating health, matchmaking) is honestly pretty bad, and literally everything they've made but Myth and Oni has been exclusive to a runner-up platform.
I'd say the archaic gameplay also aged considerably.
They stream lined grenade/melee/weapon concepts while integrating vehicles into the sandbox perfectly. I'd also argue that Halo did more for console FPS than Goldeneye.
I think they get plenty of credit from those who actually play the games. To those that have passing knowledge of the games and the online aspects they certainly don't get the credit they deserve. Nearly every online shooter on console released in the last 5 years owes a little gratitude to Bungie. They did forge world, theater mode, file sharing, and detailed online stats well before I remember any of that stuff becoming normal with other games (even across genres).
That's true but there are a lot of things the game did that I would like to see in a modern FPS game.
Right, but you're ignoring the innovation Bungie did on the PC in the 90s.
lolwut
I H8 Memes
Member
Nearly every post that has given credit to what Bungie brought to gaming has included the caveat "for consoles". And both Goldeneye and Bungie brought improvements to console fps, they just did it at different times.
behem0th x
Banned
I have purchased each Halo game, and I even liked Halo 2 the best as far as MP, but I absolutely agree with this post.
They are a bit overhyped IMO but I'd love to be proven wrong by their next game, which I'll definitely look forward to.
HigherLevel
Member
Try reading my post again.
PinkCrayon
Member
They get plenty of credit. More than they deserve considering Halo 4 has to play catch-up with more modern shooters. Halo was great, and helped shape the consoles we play today, but after the first game, there wasn't much innovation to be seen.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
No, they made one great game and then re-made it for a decade. They are great at balancing MP and general polish. But they lack creative story telling, character development, etc. They basically make shooters aiming at teen age players.
Muffdraul
Member
This is what people mean about Bungie not getting enough credit- a lot of people dismiss them as a bunch of idiots who didn't do jack until 2000 when "M$" came along and threw money at them and said "lol make us a game for our x box". Completely oblivious of the innovative stuff they did back in the 90s. Like the freelook thing I mentioned previously. Freelook. That's huge.
You can't deny that those "features" got popular because Halo made them popular (perhaps I should've said trendsetter?), and you certainly can't argue that the Mac, the Xbox, or the 360 were dominant sellers.
bigboss370
Member
no, they're not that special. i didn't buy the first or second halo on xbox so i don't know how innovative or revolutionary they were back then, but Halo 3 and Reach and ODSt weren't that special or impressive to me. i had more fun with Timesplitters back on PS2.
I think if you look at their games they definitely iterate on what made the first game successful. To not acknowledge that they added stuff like theater, fileshare, coop, and MP (with Halo 2) is a crime. There are console shooters coming out today that still cannot meet those standards.
That about sums it up.
ElRenoRaven
Member
You know I don't give a damn if they get credit from everyone. I've been a Bungie fan for many many years and have always loved every game they've made. For me they are my number 1 developer. I don't care if anyone else loves em or not because at the end of the day I know that they'll be there making games I love. I'll never let what anyone else thinks about them change how I feel about the company and the great people who make the company what it is either.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Will Bungie do anything now that they're free from Microsoft?
What the fuck does "unearned name brand recognition" mean? Why are you so concerned with sales numbers and success? We're talking about giving credit where credit is due regardless of their success. I can acknowledge the fact that Killzone 2 and 3 are among the best looking games regardless of whether I like the actual game.
First of all, shooters long before Halo weren't exactly weighed down by realism, just look at quake, doom, unreal tournament, tribes and so on. Every single one of them are more fast paced and less realistic then Halo.
Also, "fun FPS"-genre? :lol
And your opinion doesn't make those things bad. The 360 is far from a runner-up; that is an absolutely ridiculous claim. It is the highest specced console currently on the market and far outsold any console for quite a long while.
Halo's gameplay stems directly from the likes of Quake and Unreal.
Jay Shadow
Member
They get a completely appropriate amount of credit.
skullwolfgp
Neo Member
Timesplitters Release Date: October 23, 2000
Halo CE Release Date: November 15, 2001
EDIT: Also I played Tribes since launch so Halo didn't exactly feel fresh and innovative to me when I played it back in the early 2000's. It was fun though.
TheContact
Member
No, if anything Bungie deserves less credit. Halo was good, yes. But the following games were just clones. No innovation, and when they tried to do something else with ODST it didn't work. Halo is such an overrated game. It was well made, don't get me wrong, but it's just so bland and boring. I had fun with Halo 1 on the XBox, but the sequels couldn't live up to the franchise.
.jpg)
ToyMachine228
Member
I think they get enough credit. They certainly have their faults. They nailed the console FPS control scheme for the first time with Halo: CE, and did some great things with AI when the game came out as well. And they made weapons that were really satisfying to fire. Matchmaking with Halo 2 was another major triumph. That said, as a developer, they leave plenty to be desired on the graphical front. Story can be questionable as well. While the Halo universe is incredibly deep and interesting, it was never really explored by Bungie in depth until ODST and Reach. in depth by Bungie. Most of the universe's depth came from novels. Although I will say ODST and Reach's story were improvements.
I played the games only because of the campaigns (and only in co-op, it's sort of a thing for me)
I think there are plenty of more interesting multiplayer FPS out there
Muffdraul
Member
I couldn't care less about MP unless I was dead. Halo has always been and will always be a single player game to me.
Marathon was my big MP thing back when it meant playing on the LAN at work and shooting the shit out of people I was actually friends with and could hear them shouting profanity at me from down the hall. We did a lot of Quake too. I gave up on MP shortly after Quake III came out, when I first dipped my toe into internet matchmaking. I don't get the appeal of playing against anonymous people on the net, 75% of which behave like complete assholes. I don't need that in my life.
ElRenoRaven
Member
No you aren't. I without a doubt do too. In fact it's mainly what I play anymore.
You're more interested in being defensive about X360's solid second place in a single region than about realizing it means large portions of the market never got to play a Bungie game, I guess.
(Spec is also about the most retarded possible way to defend it, the 360's genius in hardware design is doing just as much with less.)
Similar threads
- Poll