Halo's origins...?

K

Kappo

CAG Veteran
Hiya,

After reading the other topic ("Halo 2 is most overrated game ever etc"), I figured I should start my own regarding questions I had...

See one day I walked into an EB Games, and ended up in a discussion with the employee there. We got to talking about 'revolutionary' games, and he mentioned Halo. Now, even though I like Halo, I'm not really into it... I mean, it's kinda fun, but I don't see it as anything really special.

So I ask, "What's so revolutionary about Halo"? ...I forget what his answer was exactly... but he did mention vehicles. "But there were vehicles in Tribes long long ago". If you're not familiar with it, Tribes is a PC game made years ago... a long time ago... where you had a jetpack and no homing weapons, and had to shoot while jumping/flying, other guys that were jumping/flying. Well they had a vehicle system in that game, and it was awesome. Sans grenades, Tribes was very similar to Halo... or... Halo was similar to Tribes.

At any rate, the guy proceeded to tell me that Halo was actually in the works BEFORE Tribes was. That Tribes was actually a ripoff (or an early version, I forget) of Halo. Yeah. Can anyone add any details to this for me? ...and why did it take YEARS for Halo to come out afterwards... why not for PC or another console?

And personally, I think Goldeneye for N64 did a LOT for the console FPS world... if there is much of one. Halo just seemed to broaden the audience even more. Heck, over here at Virginia Tech, you see everybody playing it... but yeah... Goldeneye did the broadening, and Perfect Dark had the options/weapons/jive. Game must've had the most weapons/variety... everything had a second use... c'mon, how can you beat a LAPTOP GUN? :p Was amazing... sorry, off topic.

On a side note, are there really any other popular console FPS? (Please don't flame me, I'm just curious)

Thanks in advance!

~Kap
 
The Halo games are extensions of the world created in a series of FPSes on the Mac callled Marathon.. if you think Tribes is old Marathon is ancient
 
They show alot of Halo "in the works" years before it was released on the bonus dics from Halo 2.
 
Some consider Halo a "sequal" to Marathon.
The first Marathon was released in 1994 by a small company named Bungie:
mara3.gif
 
Here is the quick version:

Halo was originally an "in spirit" sequel to the 3 Marthon games which were for the Macintosh: Marathon (1994), Marathon 2 (1995), and Marathon Infinity (1996). Marathon 2 was the only version ported to Windows (unfortunately, the source code is lost to time). Marathon was always well known for 2 things: its MP component, a scale only matched by the much later Unreal Tournament; and its story based plot, which moved the game forward. Its puzzles were also of note, being more complex then Doom's.

Halo was orig developed as a "Mac first" game, with a Windows port, and its scope and scale was far grander, more like a MMPOFPS with lots of suport for user mods.

The length of development time for the game may be attributed to Bungie abandoning their work on the Mac platform in their migration to XBox -- a large amount of their work had to be rebuilt from the ground up for the new console as it was just not compatible. Also, the games support and MP component had to be scaled back to work with the limitations presented by a console -- limitations just not inherent in PC/Macs.

The final game known as Halo does not approach the grand scale that was orig planned, mostly because of the limitations of the XBox, but still bears Bungie's unmistakable fingerprints.

For a really great article discussing the Marathon-Halo connection, go here:
http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2002/12/01/halo_original_game_or_sequel.html
 
[quote name='donssword']
The final game known as Halo does not approach the grand scale that was orig planned, mostly because of the limitations of the XBox, but still bears Bungie's unmistakable fingerprints.
[/quote]
They also didn't have very much time to work on the Xbox version did they?
 
Marathon was a great game. Anyway, that had a huge history of Halo in XBN magazine. If you want I can scan it and post it somewhere.
 
OP, you were correct. The only revolutionary thing Halo did was map grenades to a seperate trigger, which was really quite brilliant and maybe the regenerating energy shield (I can't think of any games right now that implemented it like Halo does.) Other than that, there's not a single thing it does that hasn't been done somewhere else before. That's not to say it's bad, but "Combat Evolved" was quite an apt subtitle for it.
 
you somewhat answered one of your questions already.

What did Goldeneye do for fps? nothing really, but like you noted it broaden the genre for fps on consoles. Halo basically did the same thing for the more modern fps. As there were other consoles shooters before goldeneye's time. And there were lots when halo came out. But each had enough substance to stand out. Whether you like either games or not...both have the sales strength to prove that it did something that many people find enjoyable.

I personally dont ike goldeneye as I was playing pc shooters before, and opted to wait for halo on pc before playing it. I feel the movement is more limited on consoles...however for what they are, i think both games deserve the recognition.
 
G4TechTV has an episode of Icons dealing with Halo and I believe it mentioned that Halo was originally going to be a strategy game (where you control tons of enemies at once, like WarCraft I guess) But the developers were having so much fun running through the levels as a foot soldier that they changed it up to be a FPS.
 
[quote name='wubb']G4TechTV has an episode of Icons dealing with Halo and I believe it mentioned that Halo was originally going to be a strategy game (where you control tons of enemies at once, like WarCraft I guess) But the developers were having so much fun running through the levels as a foot soldier that they changed it up to be a FPS.[/quote]

Yeah, you're right wubb.
 
[quote name='wubb']G4TechTV has an episode of Icons dealing with Halo and I believe it mentioned that Halo was originally going to be a strategy game (where you control tons of enemies at once, like WarCraft I guess) But the developers were having so much fun running through the levels as a foot soldier that they changed it up to be a FPS.[/quote]

Yes. That is correct. I never heard of it being a MMPOFPS but it was going to be a Real Time Strategy game.
 
Tribes was 1998.

And it is still, to this day, a FAR better game than Halo.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that Tribes is the best multiplayer first-person shooter ever made.
 
You know I think hte real question is does a game have to innovate to be great? I don't necessarily think so. Sure Halo isn't anything new in the FPS world, it just hones in the best of the ideas and makes them work.

Blizzard has never innovated, it just takes the best ideas and makes really great games.
 
I hate to say it because I love Bungie, but all that article said to me was that they simply hadn't thought of any new ideas for their next game and rehashed a lot of it from Marathon. It was probably easier to convert existing ideas than make new ones, right?

And a "sequel" would require some storyline integration. A continuation or something. Still don't see much evidence there ..

As for Tribes, I loved that game. Can't say which came first, but Tribes was really big in it's time. Too bad internet connections were mostly dial-up around then, and lag was really bad. Otherwise lots of fun. Lag was the only thing I had wrong with that game.
 
[quote name='the_gloaming']And a "sequel" would require some storyline integration. A continuation or something. Still don't see much evidence there ..[/quote]

Halo was meant to be a "spiritual sequel" to Marathon. As you said before, it's the same principles and ideas reintegrated. One of the co-founders of Bungie (his name escapes me ATM) who recently left to form his own company said in an interview that the main protagonist in Marathon and Master Chief are one in the same in his eyes.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan'][quote name='donssword']
The final game known as Halo does not approach the grand scale that was orig planned, mostly because of the limitations of the XBox, but still bears Bungie's unmistakable fingerprints.
[/quote]
They also didn't have very much time to work on the Xbox version did they?[/quote]

Correct. I think they had approximately a year to make it after a) They realized they would be on XBox instead of Mac or PC, b) They were not satisfied with the progress they had made so far and almost started over from scratch. Damn impressive game considering it was pretty much rushed to be out in time for the XBox launch.
 
[quote name='lord_ebonstone']Tribes was 1998.

And it is still, to this day, a FAR better game than Halo.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that Tribes is the best multiplayer first-person shooter ever made.[/quote]

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. I think we all know that Counterstrike is the greatest multiplayer first-person shooter ever made.
 
I'm not sure I can agree with the employee about Halo being revolutionary. I think the most revolutionary thing about it was the control scheme on the controller, making the game very playable on the console.

That being said, I think Halo is one of the great launch titles in history (a distinction commonly given to Mario 64). The reason for this is, Halo really got MS's foot in the door. You have to remember, if your name isn't Nintendo, it use to be very difficult to launch a successful console. Sony really did by launching against a poorly planned Saturn launch, and a multiple delayed N64 launch. They were the only legitimate game in town.

For MS, it was different. The Dreamcast was still gasping for life, the Cube was launching, and the PS2 was dominating. Easily could MS just come in for a cup of coffee (like the 3DO and Jaguar systems) and went off into the sunset. But, Halo burst on the scene, and challenged GTA III and MGS2 for game of the year. That game (and the fact that it delivered on its promise) really legitimized the system. If Halo worked, maybe KOTOR and FABLE and other games will rule (some did, some didn't). Halo also bought the system time. Would MS have tried rushing other games out to get a hit if Halo didn't dominate? We don't know. But, Halo really gave MS what it needed: A hit, time to produce other great games, and a gaming face (Master Chief)
 
[quote name='zewone']The Marathon connection article was a intresting read. Thanks.[/quote]

Yup, yup :)

The thing that cracks me up are the folks who try and say that this is all just coincidence. Its Bungie for crimminy sake -- they are smart, and witty, and cooler than your best friend... of course it is all intentional... and simultaneously vague.
 
Now the thing I really love, is the thought that Halo 3 will be developed for the XBox 2, which is just a G5 Dualie maxed out with a couple of extra widgets... so Bungie comes back full circle to the Mac.

And watch as the evil Microsoft Empire makes every excuse it can so that the port of Halo 3 to the Mac will still take forever.

Nothing like being ported to a system you were already developed on in the first place :whistle2:S
 
[quote name='wubb']G4TechTV has an episode of Icons dealing with Halo and I believe it mentioned that Halo was originally going to be a strategy game (where you control tons of enemies at once, like WarCraft I guess) But the developers were having so much fun running through the levels as a foot soldier that they changed it up to be a FPS.[/quote]

Hmmm... I wonder if Bungie really said that? -- I think that is suspect. Bungie had just finished the RTS game "Myth II: Soulblighter," and knowing Bungie I cannot imagine that they wanted to do the same damn game in space.

Sounds to me like creative license was taken by the reporter = he made sh!t up.
 
[quote name='the_gloaming']I hate to say it because I love Bungie, but all that article said to me was that they simply hadn't thought of any new ideas for their next game and rehashed a lot of it from Marathon. It was probably easier to convert existing ideas than make new ones, right?

And a "sequel" would require some storyline integration. A continuation or something. Still don't see much evidence there ..

As for Tribes, I loved that game. Can't say which came first, but Tribes was really big in it's time. Too bad internet connections were mostly dial-up around then, and lag was really bad. Otherwise lots of fun. Lag was the only thing I had wrong with that game.[/quote]

One more comment here...

If u had played the original Marathon games, as great as they were, they used a similar tech to Doom.

Bungie had a very close relationship with Apple. Imagine if u will, Apple showing one of their premier game developers the capability of their next gen CPU with real 3-D hardware behind it (something Apple had traditionally lacked). What would u do if u were that developer?

At the time Halo was orig announced and demo'd, what was shown and discussed was truly mind blowing and orig. The core is still there in what Halo became. Its like being told your blind date looks like a super model and finding out she is not quite all that, but she is still a damn fine lookin date. Who's to complain?

There is no mistaking it is a great game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top