Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Games Tournament (2009)' started by Lee, Jul 4, 2009.
AKA Milenko v everyone else
Halo. It's the obvious and overwhelming choice here, and despite whatever great argument Milenko may come up with, he's not going to convince me or odds are many other people to vote against Halo.
Aside from Goldeneye, Halo is without a doubt the greatest FPS ever created. From the moment it was released, just about everything it introduced to gaming has been adapted as industry-standard stuff for every FPS since. A slew of games have ripped it off, but none have the great story, great gameplay, and AMAZING online multiplayer like Halo does.
I STILL play the original Halo online on a regular basis. I will NEVER get tired of having pistol-fights with people on Blood Gulch, EVER.
Halo. And it's not even close.
Halo was a game that breathed life into the Xbox. Everyone said "Buy the Xbox, if only to get Halo." If you said "You have an Xbox" and you were a male, everyone assumed you had Halo. Why? The game was the shit.
The storyline pitted you against an invading alien force that only you could stop. The graphics were great, especially for the Xbox. Halo's graphics outdo the Wii, for christ's sake. The gameplay was perfect as well. The pistol was overpowered, but it was fun to take down Hunters with 3 shots from the pistol and take down friends from across the map with nothing but a 2x zoom and a full clip. Halo knocked the FPS out of the park.
Diablo 2? What made it any different from Diablo? A few new classes, and a new enemy. Oh, a bigger dungeon. Same shitty graphics, same shitty gameplay, blah blah blah. Diablo helped boost Blizzard to bigger and better things, but that's not enough credit to get it over Halo, which was the soul behind the Xbox.
A vote for Halo is a vote for saving the Earth from maurading hordes of aliens and a vote for the Xbox. A vote for Diablo 2 is a vote for killing a demon you were supposed to kill in Diablo. Oh, and 2 new classes! Don't forget the fact that Diablo 2 has devolved into nothing more than a hacker fest. Woohoo, sounds fun.
No doubt about this one. I remember getting the game when I first bought my original X-Box, got home and played it. I beat it every time on every difficulty, the game is just incredible. I agree with xfear that it is the greatest FPS game aside from GoldenEye. The pistol was amazing, and I really liked the assault rifle. Diablo II just didn't do anything for me. Sure it was a good game, but Halo blows it out of the water.
Good luck Milenko, you definitely have your work cut out for you.
Thanks for the shout out Lee. And X I may not convince anyone else to vote for my game but I'll damn sure try and have a great time doing it.
I'm not going to go into to much detail on Halo because everyone has at least played it at a friends house so let me dive right into to why Diablo II is better.
Diablo II came out in 200o and is one of the best games of that year acording to Gamespy.com. And unlike most other games it has free access to Battle.net where you can play online for [/i]free[/i]. You don't have to pay for it you just install the game, click on Multi-player and set everything up. If you don't want to play on Battle.net you can go online via a LAN and do it that way
As for the characters you can either be an Amazon, Necromaster, Barbarian, Sorceress or Paladin (left to right). Each has 3 distinct sets of spells and abilities you can use so you can customize you character the way you want it.
As for The story there are 4 different Acts in the game as well as different demons and such to kill. If you don't want to go it alone you can buy AI mercenaries to help in each level and they can level up and use items the the same way. you defeat 2 out of the 3 Prime Evils in Mephisto & Diablo with Diablo being the final boss in the game.
What about the 3rd Prime Evil you're asking yourself. Well that my friends is where the Expansion Diablo II: Lord of destruction comes in. Not only does it add another Act after you beat Diablo with Baal (Prime Evil #3) as the Main boss and a bunch of new Mini bosses you need to beat, You get 2 more Characters to choose from, the Assasin and The Druid.
this may not be a Will sized post but let me leave you with the reason why I like Diablo II better than Halo.
First off I like RPGs better than FPSs any day of the week. Add to that the fact that Diablo II is so addictive with the way you can customize your character with different spells, abilites, weapons and armor and I will sit in front of my computer for weeks only getting up to go to the bathroom and to eat. I get bored with FPSs no matter what they are pretty quickly.
The bottom line is Vote Diablo II.
Ummm...that's a pretty ridiculious thing to cite to "prove" that Diablo 2 is better. Diablo 2 is a strictly PC game, so OF COURSE the online play is going to be free. I don't think I've EVER heard of a PC game with online play that wasn't free. Halo is also free on the PC, I play online all the time.
C'mon man, you've gotta have something better than that and just saying RPG > FPS. Not very convincing.
As much as I love D2, Halo is just leaps and bounds better. Everybody pretty much stated why it was better. It was so much fun online if you knew what you were doing you could really have a fun time against people who just started playing. The storyline was great, as were the graphics. The game is just great, and better then D2. All this also comes from a person who loves RPG's more then FPS's.
Well. That's what this tourney is for. I'm looking forward to what you have to say.
and here are mutliple reviews Halo won:
By that logic every computer game that has multiplayer is better than any game that's only on the Xbox. And that doesn't make much sense.
I only stated RPG > FPS at the end as my personal opinion, I added a lot more than that. such as the customazation power you have over your character, the different choices of characters you have and how the Expansion makes the games 100x better than the original.
Some things I forgot in my origianl post is the reception it got after it's release. Lets start with the fact that it sold over 1,000,000 copies in 2 weeks making it one of the fastest sellin computer games ever. MetaCritic gave it a 86 out of 100, IGN gave it 8.3 out of 10 and Gamespot gave it an 8.5 out of 10.
Lets take a look at the awards it won. It was the Runner up for Gamespot Readr Choice award. It also won the "Computer Game of the Year", "Computer Role Playing Game of the Year", and "Game of the Year" awards from the Acadam of interactive Arts and Sciences at the 2001 Interactive Achievment Awards
You can really win reviews but i digress. Halo deserves every bit of Acclaim people have given it. Halo put Xbox on the map and is one of my favorite games. However in the end It is a FPS and i get bored with those a lot faster than some people. Like I sated above a person could spend weeks playing Diablo II and customizing there character. One of if not the biggest Criteria I'm using to vote is which game is more fun and in this case that Game is Diablo II
Free is always better than when you have to pay for it.
Halo was one of the the greatest fps ever on computer and xbox. Online play is also free on the pc.
I don't see how this tells me which game is better. Halo is an FPS. It's not trying to be an rpg.
Not sure what your point is. Halo has a story too, and what you've described to me isn't exactly Heart of Darkness material.
So you get to pay more money to finish the story. That's...cool?
So you're biased. Halo has amazing replay value. On the last day of school there were dozens of kids in the building playing Halo to celebrate the last few periods. That's one example that doesn't even cover the masses of people that still play Halo, Halo 2, and Halo 3 on a constant basis.
That isn't an argument for what is the better game. How much customization does Ocarina of Time offer? Not much besides weapon choices, which Halo has in spades.
Halo is one of the best reviewed games ever...and the rest of the series follows suit in critical acclaim.
I'm sure I could look up more Halo awards.
And most people find Halo to be one of the most replayable and fun games of all time.
So your argument is opinion and bias. Halo wins.
Someone tell me what's so good about Halo? It's just an average shoooter, and it gets hyped ridiculously - games like Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2 etc are FAR FAR better, and any FPS that's primary platform is a console is automatically a fail in my books.
I think Milenko's argument was from Wikipedia.
Anyway, Halo wins it here. My first memory of that game was getting destroyed by my friends who were lucky enough to have Xbox, but I just loved it from the start. The campaign mode was incredible and my favourite level in the entire Halo Trilogy, The Truth and Reconciliation, is still played at least once whenever I plug in my Xbox. The multiplayer mode may not have everything the other two games had but it's still addicting and awesome to play. Playing online on the PC is great as well. Diablo II, while being a good game that is fun for a while, just doesn't have what Halo has. Halo is like the entire next level of video gaming, and it gets my vote here.
I'm not a Halo fan but I have still voted for it. Diablo II is actually a pretty good game but I had to vote for Halo, it is the clear choice. The campaign was good and the multiplayer was even better. Like xFear, I still play the original Haol sometimes, just for the giggles really. It is still a a game that I can enjoy and still a game that gives me pleasure.
I say I am not a Halo fan because I am unhappy with the way the game has hyped towards Halo 3. It annoyed the Hell out of me and when the game was actually released, I was just a little but disappointed with it. The original Halo should not suffer for this though. It has become the game that has defined the xbox franchise and without it and Halo 2, I dunno if it would have been as successful.
The winning point for me however, is the storyline, covering 3 games and still leaving questions around left me feeling quite happy when I eventually finished it completely. I think that the original Halo game's story was excellent and I never really get tired playing it over and over again.
Only if you promise to tell me what makes Diablo 2 better than Halo. Your entire post was nothing but "Wah, i don't like Halo so I'm going to make some shit up about it only being average."
OK, so I lied. I AM going to tell you what makes it great, because apparently you didn't read Xfear's post.
You know those FPS that you listed? They took their shit from Halo. The gameplay and the multiplayer were all made to meet the standard set by Halo. It's graphics set a par every game had to meet after that. The physics engine set a bar every game had to meet. The multiplayer, everything. Team Fortress 2 is only half as good as it is because Halo came along first and said "If any game wants to be considered as even half-decent, they have to beat me."
So, your entire argument is that you like playing it a lot? People like playing Halo a lot as well.
Well then. Starcraft is immediately better than Final Fantasy XIII because if you want to take part in extra content (that I'm sure they'll develop) you'll have to pay for content patches in the Playstation Marketplace thingy?
Or, to compare two like things, World of Warcraft is instantly worse than Diablo II because you have to pay monthly to play WoW? But the customization available to your character on WoW is leaps and bounds above Diablo II's. The replay value of WoW is a lot larger than Diablo II. I mean, if it wasn't, then people wouldn't be spending millions upon millions MONTHLY to play the game.
Er, no. Unreal Tournament follows a formula it set itself before Halo was around, same as Counterstrike - these are two of the greatest FPS multiplayers ever - Halo is a step below. 32 players online > 4 people round an XBOX.
And I don't care about graphics - no one would be backing OoT or FFVII if graphics were a major consideration. My gripe is that the Halo gameplay is substandard compared to these other games.
Seriously, I voted for Diablo II because I've played it and found it more fun than Halo, and thought it was a better game in its genre than Halo was in its one. That's why I asked if someone could show me why Halo is a highly regarded FPS - and no one really did, they just said they themselves enjoyed it. And all you said was that it set the standard for two games that came out before it....
OK, so i was off with the release dates of Counterstrike and Unreal Tournament. I was at the end of a 8 hour, 60 post streak. I was tired. I got confused, and was off. I'll admit it. Apologies. Doesn't change the fact that Halo set the standard for every FPS that came out after that. You heard "That game is OK, but it's no Halo." Not "Halo is good, but it's not Unreal Tournament 15000." I also never heard anyone say "Wow, Halo sucks compared to Unreal Tournament or Counterstrike." No one. Reviews, fellow friends, no where. It was "Halo is a genre defining game. Get it now. DO IT."
Everything else you said was "I just like Diablo II more." Which isn't an argument at all.
First off you're completely right about Counter Strike and Unreal Tournament, not sure why Razor said that, I played the original UT back on Dreamcast back in the day and had hours of fun. But You DO know that Halo is also for the PC right? And that literally THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of people still play online right? And that you can have up to 32 players online? I do it all the time, and it's fun as hell.
I agree that graphics shouldn't be a big deciding factor in deciding the better game, but they aren't completely irrelevent. Great graphics will definately help out FFX in the tournament, the cutscenes still blow my mind.
My question is why though? Diablo II wasn't really that big of an improvement over the original, if we were talking the first game then I'd totally understand voting for Diablo.
Well that's what he said, not me. You can't deny the impact that Halo has had on the gaming world, it's one of the most popular franchises ever and quite frankly probably the most popular FPS franchise ever. The original is an intelligent, creative, and fun game that has influenced a whole slew of games in it's wake like Gears of War among others.
The thing though that really puts Halo above Diablo 2 for me is the story. Diablo 2 basically has none, and Halo has a plot that rivals classic Sci-Fi films and is one of best stories in gaming history IMO.
I dunno, fair enough then, another thing though - story shouldn't be a massive deal. Games should be judged overwhelmingly on their gameplay - it's what makes the medium different from films or books. Sure, a decent story is nice, and often adds to a game, but a game can be a classic without a good story. Ask Mario, ask Sonic etc...
OK, don't you think I've read reviews, played Halo, and still faield to see what's so groundbreaking about it? It's a solid FPS in my eyes, I don't really see what's great about it, although my experience has mainly come from multiplayer matches. And also, pretty much every PC FPS, by far the most important and best form of FPS, is judged by Counetrstrike. You seen how many tournament etc. there are for that game?
Oh, and xfear, I haven't played Diablo, but you said you'd have voted for the original. Unless the II is actually worse, why not vote for it then?
I voted for Diablo II, and while I can't force anyone to do the same - I highly suggest pushing the piece of crap that is Halo, out of this Tournament before it gets any undue weight behind it.
Why Halo Isn't Revolutionary:
Anyone who thinks this game is revolutionary needs to help me to understand why, first and foremost. Its not. Its a regular FPS, and its not even one of its kind. Goldeneye revolutionized the gaming world with FPS games - on a console with less ability than the 360.
The only reason why most people go ape-shit over Halo, is because it was one of the first FPS games to be playable online in an online community that is huge. If Goldeneye were made in Halo's place, I guarantee no one would give two shits about this second rate, piece of crap FPS.
On this note, I've also played games like Red Faction and had more enjoyment than I ever did out of Halo. I've never understood the concept or the enjoyment of why people get so wrapped up in Halo. Goldeneye had actual people and realistic environments. Red Faction was kinda borderline on realistic environment and people, but wasn't flat-out futuristic like Halo is trying (badly) to be.
Other games I can think of that take place well above and beyond Halo are as follows; (in no specific order) Call of Duty, Perfect Dark, Metroid, Doom & Half Life.
UNfortunately it looks like Halo may take this - but it won't be because its worth anything. I think Diablo is losing, mainly because it wasn't as mainstream on any actual gaming system as far as it was a mainstream cpu game.
I'd once again urge people to vote Diablo - if for no other reason than to get Halo out early, because I'd really rather not see this piece of crap advance anywhere.
Simple, the game that launched the XBox intot he front and center of the gaming world. vs. what I can tell, a very over rated RPG that I remember being over advertised in whatever comic book was coming out around the same time. I'm not much for RPG's as a whole, and find the first person shooter genre far more entertaining, so putting one of my personal favorites up against an RPG that I never got into, well it's a no brainer. If I'm still playing the game 8 years later, and still enjoying it, it's a no contest. Halo.
Piece of crap? That's laughable. Halo has near universal critical acclaim.
That really doesn't matter. Halo is influential, which is different than revolutionary.
It is influential. That means other FPS have tried to reach it's level and failed, and that it has broken into the mainstream life more than almost any other game.
Thousands of people still play Halo, Halo 2, and Halo 3. That shows it's staying power(in literature, that's one of the ways you tell the difference between great and really good).
You enjoyed another FPS more than Halo?
You can't judge a game on whether or not it uses a current or futuristic environment. It doesn't make sense.
Too bad that they aren't in the match...and you're citing some all time greats. How does that affect this match.
You mean it wasn't as successful? Halo is incredibly successful on both the xbox and the cpu.
Halo deserves to go far. It doesn't deserver to win, but it deserves to get out of the starting gate when it's facing an opponent like this.
I like these arguments. However, I still justify my vote on the ground that Diablo II is pretty good and Halo is ridiculously overhyped and made out to be something it is not i.e. revolutionary.