I'm not really a Halo fan.I'm just not big into FPSes to begin with (I have been justifying myself a lot these days) -- moreover, the Halo series always seemed to me to be, well, nothing special. Would I have played Halo 3 had it been given me? Probably. After all, it's my job to be "up" on these things, right? Arguably, it's rather unprofessional of me to overlook it, even.
In trying to parse out what my resistance to the whole Halo 3 fetish is all about, I'm sure it's just a little bit of snobbery. Generally, I know I won't like something if the mainstream culture is insane over it. There's no faster way to turn me off to, say, a book, if everyone on the subway is reading it. Little bit narrow-minded, little bit arrogant, I know. Part of me resents that I spend a good portion of my career trying to create a bridge between the very niche practices of gaming and our culture at large, and yet there's a large portion of the population -- the majority, probably -- who, when asked to name a "good" game, only knows Halo, which in being fairly formulaic thematically is a rather poor demonstration of what games are capable of (beyond graphics and gameplay) and what they can mean.
Another part of it is that my colleagues in the games press seem, unreasonably, to have lost their head over the game. As GameCritics' Mike Doolittle points out, amid all the hype the reviews of Halo 3 have scored unusually high. 1UP gave it a 10/10. Ten out of ten -- that should be perfect, right? Yet, in that same review, Hsu says, ""...in Halo 3, the big 'oh wow!' gameplay moments just aren't there." Beyond gameplay, the review also notes, " While the plot's conclusion more than satisfies, the action is...well, it depends on how you come at it," and later adds, "...campaign mode either delivers what's expected or delivers that very well, but anyone would be hard pressed to call it mind-blowing." Not mind-blowing? You know, like, it could have been better? Why the flawless rating, then?
To be fair, I think that scoring games is enormously archaic, a convention designed to pander to a not-so-thinking audience (read: us as impatient children). Now that games are as complex as they are, scoring is much more arbitrary and ultimately, I feel, useless. I score every time I review; I have to, that's the way it's done. But what do I do with a game that has a sucky mechanic and awkward controls and beautiful graphics, music and story? What about flawless, fun gameplay against a story pacing that falls apart in the middle? I suppose that comes down to subjectivity -- I ranked Rule of Rose pretty high, for example, because of an airtight thematic presentation, a rarely-seen thread of stylistic innovation, a cool story and most of all, the way it challenged us to rethink somewhat our feelings on right and wrong, comfortable versus uncomfortable. Would I recommend it to someone whose idea of the perfect game is Halo 3 or Gears? Hell fuckin' no. The gameplay was crap, and it got shredded among the mainstream games press for that.
Even if you're an enormous Halo fan, I think it's hard to argue with the perception that what with the advanced press, inflated reviews and hype, the game's enormously overrated. Perhaps if Halo 3 is going to serve as an ambassador to the uninitiated, I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth; maybe knowing that a broader section of society is playing a "hardcore game" should be good news to me. But I'm less concerned with how the game affects people outside of our sphere than the way it affects those inside it -- other reviewers, and other gamers. Aaron Linde, the reviews editor at Destructoid, gave Halo an 8.5 -- a healthy score for a game that many people have allowed meets, but doesn't exceed expectations -- and got barbecued by those who were displeased that Halo wasn't ranked as well as other recently-reviewed games that were less popular.
More than that, I feel that if the games media can be so easily manipulated, we're not doing our jobs; it's as simple as that. Last night I was writing up some analyst comments for Gamasutra and included some quotes from PRWeek, which covered the multi-pronged, three-team PR initiative for the game:
Hufford said the goal of the PR campaign was to convince the general media that the launch of Halo 3 is a “cultural milestone” and as significant a part of the entertainment industry as a Harry Potter book release.
“Our great challenge was to convince the broad press that it was something to be celebrated at a cultural level,” Hufford said. “A lot of the journalists that we speak with and their editors think of video games as something that only kids are doing and participating in. So our challenge was to go out and speak to various editorial boards to convince them that this was something of greater significance. And we spent a lot of time starting last January right up until last month, really going deep with many outlets to set the stage for bigger signature stories.”
Hufford admits that he really dug in to some of my colleagues to frame large coverage. And granted, I know that the games media must always give its audience what it wants, in excess, even when we know it's overhyped. There's a huge portion of the audience who, if they can't read ten daily updates on Halo or Bioshock or Silent Hill V will go elsewhere for coverage, and since our profession is highly oversaturated, especially on the internet, that's a problem. I understand that.
But what, exactly, about Halo 3 has "greater significance," makes it a "cultural milestone," besides the sheer size of its audience? This isn't a facetious or rhetorical question; I really want to know. Am I being closed-minded and ignorant here? Seriously, enlighten me.
23 comments:
I think cultural is a bad way to put it ... but it is a business tour de force. It's one of those minor milestones that people will point back to when they want to compare video games with say the movie industry.
I felt the same way about Harry Potter. Sure it's cute with pretty good world-building, but I didn't find it nearly as compelling as many of the other British fantasy books I read when I was little. My children's lit professor argued that Rowling had created a real literary work with one of the only truly ambiguous characters in children's literature. (Never mind she taught The Golden Compass in the same course.) The one milestone I could really come up with is that, thanks to great press and marketing, it's one of the most widely read books in our MTV generation. Harry Potter did a service for literacy, though I honestly wouldn't chalk it up to the actual material itself over its marketing team.
I can only say so much when it comes to Halo, not having played the games themselves, but it probably actually is similar to the HP phenomenon in that it brings together people that don't normally gravitate towards the medium. Video game awareness, holla! I also bring up the HP comparison to note that it's entirely possible that the game content's relevance to its recognition may not matter nearly as much as how Microsoft sells it to us. (And how they do it, I have no clue. Not being a big FPS fan myself, I've been pretty oblivious to all things Halo.)
Maybe it's the communal experience they offer. Your frat buds are playing Halo! Sweet, they never play games, but they'll play this one with you! Is there something in the fact that it's one of the biggest American game franchises out there? I don't know. All I figure is that whatever allure Halo has, it's getting more people to play games, and that can't be too bad.
Really beats me. I tried to play through part 1 & 2 but got bored along the way... I even didn't get all the fuss around those two. They are just some FPS to me (along with frustrating vehicle controls). Since I personally haven't got a 360, I won't be playing part 3 soon. I really enjoy a good FPS at the time, Halo just doesn't do that for me.
The review/critic situation reminds me of the Twilight Princess period. I believe someone at gamespot gave it a score less then 9. He sure heard from that one... from people who had not played that game yet.
I have a friend who works for the local GameStop, so I was wondering whether I could get away with being first in line for the midnight launch and buying Soul Nomad or Eternal Sonata.
…and paying in pennies.
Not that I have anything against Halo. I just like being an ass.
You’re thoughts on Halo 3 mimic my own. I have actually never understood the Halo craze and have spend a lot of time trying to figure out what exactly makes the game such a success.
The first thing that comes to mind is that Halo was one of the first FPS games for a console that allowed cooperative play and online play. I remember many console players getting into online gaming because of Halo. In university people would often have friends over to co-op or challenge their friends in a 2-4 player frag fest. A lot of these people enjoyed playing against ‘real’ people so much that they were nearly forced into online play. Although Console FPS’ that preceded Halo, such as Goldeneye, were also highly successful they didn’t allow for online play.
I think the reason that the Halo series baffles me to this day is that I grew up with FPS’ and have been playing games just like Halo for years. My brother and I hooked our computers together as (older) kids to play 1v1 in Bungies original epic, Marathon (yes we were sad Mac people). So perhaps I have trouble seeing Halo as groundbreaking because the PC/Mac had offered this experience far before Microsoft even got into the console war. (And also because Marathon and Halo share a number of similarities).
Another facet of the Halo craze is the smoothness in its online play. Its framerate is stable and its fairly easy to find games. This ease of play means that nearly anyone can play the game online. Since anyone can play its inevitable that you will go online and compete against complete idiots. While idiots are usually seen as horrible to have around they are integral to online play because they allow newbs to frag. I played counterstrike in college and taught a fair number of friends how to play, some of whom barely knew how to use a mouse. I noticed that many of these peoples had the most positive reaction from finally getting a kill and that kill was usually against another newb. What I’m trying to say is that Halo doesn’t just cater to the die hard fan but to every type of player BECAUSE it is so simple. If bungie had made the game too complex I think it would have overwhelmed too many newcomers to the point that they would have simply turned the game off after five minutes of failed online play.
As much as I have tried, though, I can’t reason why anyone would think the plotline is original. Its pretty a pretty standard fare of nonsense and I’d challenge anyone to prove that anything in the story is more interesting than see spot run. Hell, Dooms plotline was as good. Apparently some people liked the whole story enough to cry when gamesutra sent out the H3 spoiler – cudos to them.
I think these people should be ashamed of the reviews they are putting out. As far as I’m concerned half the positively in the review comes from the blowjob in a bag. The only thing that should be celebrated on a cultural level is that games are reaching more people. Its not that Halo 3 disappoints when compared to its predecessors, its that it really doesn’t do anything new at all. I feel like a team of dedicated modders could easily come up with what Bungie have – I’ve yet to see more than a few new weapons, enemies, or vehicles in Halo 3.
I suppose it really all boils down to the people. With no other feasible reason I have to concede that the sheer numbers are whats making this game groundbreaking – that’s right, not gameplay, visuals, sound or anything else. How can you give something a 10-/10 when it has not made significant improvements? If something is average I thought it gets a 7. If something is a little bit above that an 8. Maybe I could accept a 9 since Halo 3 has no major problems. But to get a 10? Come on, it needs to do something more than not fuck up. It needs to innovate. And the sad fact is that it doesn’t.
I don't think it is culturally important, only commercially. It is the equavilant of a Bruckheimer film. Game developers are figuring out that they can make a solid game that appeals to a lowest common denominator, market the hell out of it, and it'll be huge. It isn't any huge innovation, it is just a solid, dependable game in a young medium where some of the best and most innovative games have had some serious flaw(s).
I see it as one of the big steps towards expanding the market into the mainstream. I hope that will mean, as the market grows, there will be more room for niche and truly innovative games.
Unpopular Opinion Guy, signing in.
I think you can't argue that the first Halo wasn't revolutionary. It introduced the now ubiquitous recharging-health system, and it combined great enemy A.I. with multiple factions and wide-open battlefields to generate truly epic battles, the like of which I haven't encountered in any FPS since.
But what about Halo 3? Its single-player campaign isn't anything to write rave reviews about. It doesn't turn the entire genre on its head. So why does it get 10s, almost across the board?
The answer lies in game balance and accessibility. Bungie is actually a lot like Blizzard: the first entry in a series revolutionizes a genre (Warcraft, Diablo, WoW), and the subsequent entries just refine the experience. Few multiplayer games have been as relentlessly tested as the Halo series (through professional playtesting and just regular play); the result is one of the most refined examples of Deathmatch gaming ever conceived.
Online multiplayer games bore me to sleep. But even I had fun playing Halo 2 in Slayer mode for a few matches (not enough to get a Gold account, though). Halo 3 deserves the high scores it's getting (well, most of them - don't know about the tens) just for being such an unbelievably versatile, accessible and well-balanced multiplayer game. If the multiplayer game in itself is worthy of such high praise, you shouldn't take away points because its single-player game isn't nearly as good.
Three reasons why Halo is the big success it is -
One - Controls. It was the first FPS game to finally get console controls right. Nearly ever FPS on a console before it struggles with this.
Second - AI. The enemy AI in the original Halo was vastly superior to the enemy AI of nearly every game before it, and it's only gotten better. It only gets smarter the higher the difficulty, too, thus making for a more immersive game, as the enemies you fight actually react differently to what you do, making each approach you take to fighting them feel differently.
Third, and definitely the most important - Multiplayer that as well developed, if not more so, then the single player. Featuring plenty of gameplay options, some of the easiest to use matchmaking, the smoothest and most lag free online play out of any major online console title, all help the game build a huge community that just keeps coming back to play it, thus the reason it took Gears of War to actually knock Halo 2 out of the top spot on the most played Xbox Live game list.
How it got successful was really quite simple. I don't really get what there is not to get, frankly.
It's the first kiss thing.
To severely paraphrase something Shafter once said, you don't remember really playing a game with your current outlook, you remember being twelve and playing the game. Halo is huge for a lot of reasons, but most of them have to do with that console FPS First Kiss. Frat boys and kids that never played a PC shooter and that grew up on Goldeneye were waiting for something that took up the torch, something that they could play together on a Thursday night with their friends either blowing each others brains out or side by side, and halo was it.
The analogy I always use is Final Fantasy VII, which I know is so near and dear to your heart Leigh. By some standards FFVII could be considered mediocre; the translation was awful due to the fact that Sony did it, the three central characters are bland operatic clinches that can barely speak the English language, the battle system was a simply a derivative mutation of the one that came before it and lot of times the story just didn't make sense in that distinctly Twin Peaksy kind of way.
But that doesn't matter. And we both know it.
Both of the games represent something to a certain group of people. They came by at the right place, the right time and had the right soundtrack. They fill a niche. Thats the reason that people line up for Halo and I know thats the reason you'll line up at midnight for that PS3 remake, Leigh. It's chasing that dream, that warm tingle that crawls up your neck. It's nostalgia.
Your first kiss; Sloppy, bland, nervous and uninteresting. But it was still your first, and that's what matters.
Having millions of dollars in marketing also helps.
I've been trying to wrap my mind around why this series is so popular too. I also carry the mindset that if something is so insanely popular to the masses, in the vein of Halo popularity, that I tend to avoid it.
The first entry of the series was no doubt deserving of the reviews it got. It was a good FPS, especially for a console, had an excellent multiplayer component and a decent story. Couple in the fact that it was essentially a console saver for Microsoft and you can justify its scores/success/popularity.
What blows my mind, however, is how Halo 2 made it through the channels with such "rave" reviews. The reviews themselves may have picked on the story, or lack thereof, but the scores that where handed out where ridiculous.
Now here we are a few years later and the third and final (please?)installment has hit the shelves with good or better reviews than the last. Yea the game is solid, its built well and plays well on and off line but what does it do that's revolutionary? Not a whole lot more than the first installment.
I can't help but read these reviews and know without much doubt how tainted these things are. I've played Halo 1 and 2, I never owned them but I played enough of them to form my opinion. I highly doubt that I will spend money on 3, if someone has it I may try it out but it just doesn't appeal to me and I don't want to feed the hype machine.
In simple terms I think the popularity has risen out of the fact that's its a huge multiplayer success and to keep people coming back to your world you need to recreate it every few years. Cultural milestone? I don't think so. The comparison really can't be drawn between this game and something like Harry Potter (not a fan) because that was clearly something new, different and closed that series by wrapping up all the loose ends. Does Halo 3 do that? The story might attempt to but in the end it just more shooting of stuff and that really doesn't amount to any sort of milestone.
"But what, exactly, about Halo 3 has "greater significance," makes it a "cultural milestone," besides the sheer size of its audience?"
Don't keep looking too hard for anything big. In this case, size matters.
Games are commercial art, mainly concerned more with reaching and pleasing audiences (they're tuned for "fun" for the most players, not for "art").
So a game that manages to reach and please the most people---and be acknowledged outside of the normal gaming circles---is a major cultural event. End of story.
Tetris is a major cultural touchstone, not because it represents anything significant. It's because it's a perfect game that pretty much everyone knows and loves.
(To mirror what some others have said, I'd go with the first console first-person shooter game to get multiplayer right, which kept it in the public consciousness much longer than the Bioshocks of the world.)
I've never played Halo. I too have no special desire to ever play Halo. It's firstly an FPS thing. Classic FPS games are about the game mechanics. Unless they engage me intellectually, I get bored really quickly.
I think it might be a bit harsh comparing it to Harry Potter though. Harry is light reading and all, but it's first and foremost painfully bad. There must be something refined at least in Halo right? I mean not just the marketing.
In terms of marketing though, Harry Potter is the perfect comparison. It's a huge money making machine, a blockbuster in each of it's film and literary iterations. In 50 years though, will we look back on it and think of it as a landmark in the development or cultural significance of the medium?
Definitely not with Harry Potter and I don't think so with Halo either. Halo might make a lot of money, but it's still only a very small part of gaming. GTA has had far more cultural impact both with gamers and our general societies.
Halo is a mass market game for mass market people. Obviously a lot of fringe players love it too, it's a peoples game. A money making game.
Not to say that it isn't refined. It's obviously a very good mass market game.
The thing I have is, like you it seems, I am turned off by the ordinary. I love the obscure, I revel in the unique and the challenging of boundaries. For example I like prime numbers because all the other numbers learnt everything they know from them, but primes forever remain aloof, special, fascinating.
It's interesting to compare Halo to Bioshock. Inspite of the push by 2k for it, the press enthusiasm seemed really organic and genuine. It seemed like a chemical reaction that bubbled a froth out of a beaker of liquid, rather than just a generous serving of froth spooned onto the top. It's the first time I've seen it to that degree.
The absurd over enthusiasm of the gaming press doesn't really bother me though. At least not any more then my cynical mind has dealt with the movie and music industries.
Mainstream press is why I read sites like this blog. I want to read something that doesn't sound like a press release with an 'aren't we funny!' spin.
Continuing the beaker of science'y goo analogy...
Games like Halo are like a formula, perhaps very difficult to replicate, but still a well known perhaps famous chemical mixture. Advancements in the creation and extraction of it has been refined over the years (they now spoon the froth on top).
Games like Bioshock are like a great scientific discovery. They were crafted through human ingenuity, intuition and on the backs of giants (to borrow a phrase from Newton). The mixture that emerged was wonderful, fascinating and most significantly entirely new. Those that started it weren't always sure if they could accomplish it. I'm certain we'll look back on it and be very grateful that they did.
What say you? Was that a bit over the top?
See how much I like you? I'm giving away my long winded platitudes instead of vomiting them onto my own blog.
Halo is Engineering. Bioshock is Science!
Think about it this way:
Before Halo, were there games that definitively sold a console? Was there a game or series of games that could be mentioned and be synonymous with a console? It could be my scope is more narrow than I had previously thought, but I can't think of one.
Halo is the Xbox. The two are one and the same. People buy the Xbox for the sole purpose of playing Halo. This sort of game-console synergy has never before been made so blatantly clear.
Sorry to double post, but this just occurred to me.
Halo draws in a much broader crowd than what has come be known as the 'gamer.' No longer are console games the sole jurisdiction of those dedicated to the analog. You've got frat boys playing, people that one might argue is the polar opposite of a gamer.
How much of this distaste over Halo is just a reaction to people enjoying it that don't typically enjoy games? Is the game less fun because the guy who wears a 'COLLEGE' shirt and his hat askew at some bizarre angle plays it with his 'bros'? The game appeals to a broader audience, and I'd imagine this makes some gamers a little uneasy.
One could draw the parallel between this stigma and that of FFVII. Both shy away from the stereotypes. Playing FFVII doesn't necessarily make you a wrist-cutting emo, just as playing Halo won't necessarily increase one's desire to play beer pong.
Halo is an FPS. It's got a passable story that the series doesn't do a great job of telling. The multiplayer is accessible and fun to play with a group of friends. It's culturally significant in that it reaches a much broader spectrum than the gamer elite.
Ouch -- I'm getting told, aren't I, by the (accurate) comparisons to my recently-cited FFVII scenario that more than one of you have raised. I defend one but lambast the other? I could grin cleverly and say this was all a carefully crafted exercise to demonstrate my point that we are in an era for subjectivity in game reviews. Yeah, let's go with that.
Nectarine -- Your regular, thoughtful contributions are always appreciated. I like you, too!
It's that you can get Master Chief-flavored Mountain Dew, and Wal-Mart has flat, stand-up Master Chiefs greeting customers at stores.
Expellate -
I would say super mario brothers for the Nintendo was huge system seller. To me if someone mentioned Mario they were mentioning nintendo. By the days standards it was as popular as Halo3.
Not sure what atari had - pong maybe?
Genesis, for me at least, would probably be sonic - not my favorite but a big sucess.
Gameboy - Mario again.
Also, to answer your second post I am insulted by the attention for Halo 3 because it is, compared to ALOT of other shooters, sub par. I would rather play the original half life again than halo 2. Hell, I'd rather play marathon again, for that matter.
But like all of you have said, I tend to jam to a different beat, so to speak. My taste in Music and Movies might be a little different too. So there's that. Which is nice.
I always like it when a favorite blog of mine goes and reminds me so clearly why it is a favorite. I'm with you on the bewilderment over Halo's respect.
I've been thinking, that the Halo = xbox scenario is probably the main reason why I've had no interest in the xbox until Mass Effect and Bioshock. It's probably a big part of why the xbox isn't popular in Japan too.
Halo=iPod
Basically its well done things done better by others before and about 12 months behind on innovations. Both have screamingly loyal fans that will lineup 12 hours deep to get the next iteration.
Most reviews just say what the public want to hear. They have circulation/hits to look after, after all.
I'm a reviewer who's covering Halo 3. I don't have any great ins with the PR firm handling the game (would rather not name them here to avoid Google). I usually have to bug people to get games - I hate working with publicists.
But. I got Halo 3, and I also got swag. $800+ worth of swag. I got the limited edition of the game, the two Todd McFarlane controllers - um, AUTOGRAPHED by Todd McFarlane - the wireless Halo headset, the legendary edition of the game (so that's another copy of the game, plus a Helmet), and the Halo-branded XBox console. That's right. A whole console.
Post a Comment