Was it Halo's fault?

I have noticed a decline in video game quality over the years. There aren't a lot of games were you can actually use intelligence and strategy. Its more of a button mashing madness extravaganza filled with ACTION ACTION ACTION.

I have heard a theory of why video games have declined in such a way. The theory is that Halo killed intelligent gaming. I know that at some point video games devolved into being nothing but run and gun, non-stop action. And the theory is that Halo was the catalyst.

From what I here, Halo introduced a whole new generation to gaming; people who weren't previously gamers. This new generation wanted nothing but fast based uber action, and video games have changed to accommodate them. I am talking about the guys like my friend, who upon seeing me play a turn based final fantasy game said "Oh, its one of "those" games". Ya knucklehead, it's one of "those" games. Where you take time and plan a strategy rather than mash buttons like a monkey.

For those who doubt this Halo generation killed gaming as we know it, I would like to point out that it has happened somewhere else in a much more notable way. I am talking about MMOs. World of Warcraft introduced a massive new wave of players into the MMO experience. About half the people playing MMOs started with WoW. Modern MMOs have changed drastically to accommodate these new players. They have a much greater focus on PvP, uber loot, massive raids, and pwnage.

So we do have proof that one major game can completely change the format of the video gaming industry. I just wonder if Halo really was that game. If it was, then this is the time for us to send a few brave soldiers back in time to go all Sarah Conner on the original Halo. On November 15, 2001 Halo became self-aware.

If Final Fantasy is considered "intelligent", then I'll take me some dumb Halo any day of the week.

All Halo did was introduce FPSs to the console crowd. Thanks to Halo, the genre exploded on consoles and became as popular as it was on PC for almost 10 years prior. FPSs are the most popular genre on PC 18 years and counting and they certainly didn't kill role-playing, strategy and adventure games. Intelligent games were always in the minority.

I have noticed a decline in video game quality over the years. There aren't a lot of games were you can actually use intelligence and strategy. Its more of a button mashing madness extravaganza filled with ACTION ACTION ACTION.

cthulhuspawn82

Are you kidding me? There are a lot of games out there that have intelligence, strategy, and action to them. You make it seem that just because a game doesn't really make you think, that it's just mindless action.

well, I didnt really mean to say that a lot of intelligence went into playing final fantasy. I just wanted to say it was more about what you did rather than how fast you did it.

You see, knowing how to do somthing and being able to do it are two very different things. That old guy on the sidelines, writing up plays, probaly knows the game of football better than any player on the field. But he cant get on the field with them because he doesnt have the body to make the plays that he thinks up.

Turn based games like Final Fantasy are about knowing what to do, and modern games are about having the physical skills to pull it off. Its the difference between being the football coach and being the football player. I personally would like to be the coach, but games like that are dying off. Being smart enough to know what plays to run doesnt mean anything anymore. You just have to have the physical skills to bust throught the defensive line and charge the end zone like a mad gorilla. I would prefer a more cerebral challenge.

And I realize there are a few intelligent games out there, Its the reason I can still game. I just notice a disturbing trend. So many games they I have played recently were pure reflex and no thought. And they mechanics of these games are set up for non-stop action. Things like infinite enemies and telepathic foes who always know where you are, are gimmicks to keep the action going. And that is what its all about today, action.cthulhuspawn82

But, it's not a new concept at all. Games like that have been around since the beginning of gaming. It really comes down to what the game's audience is. With game prices these days, I would rather pay $60 for a game where I can blow stuff up over and over again rather than a puzzle game that will get me ticked off after a few rounds.

And I realize there are a few intelligent games out there, Its the reason I can still game. I just notice a disturbing trend. So many games they I have played recently were pure reflex and no thought. And they mechanics of these games are set up for non-stop action. Things like infinite enemies and telepathic foes who always know where you are, are gimmicks to keep the action going. And that is what its all about today, action.cthulhuspawn82

Action games can still be intelligent. Check out Crysis, F.E.A.R. and Half-Life 2. No, they're not incredibly complex, but I certainly wouldn't call them mindless shooters.

Modern MMOs have changed drastically to accommodate these new players. They have a much greater focus on PvP, uber loot, massive raids, and pwnage.cthulhuspawn82

Wow, blaming halo for dumbing down the industry? Halo may have been a simple run and gun thing on the easier levels, but if you don't think about what you're doing, you won't get past normal. Halo was one of the first games too where you could only hold 2 guns (which puts some long term strategy in the game, because holding a sniper and a rocket launcher isn't smart) and the AI used tactics like flanking to take you down, forcing you to think about where you move. 

The only reason for halo dumbing down the genre could have been because of being too good. The game probably attracted a bigger crowd than just the shooter crowd. Maybe you should look more towards games like call of duty 4 where they're giving in to this crowd. The AI in those games is probably even worse than the Halo CE AI, and you can get through the game with only a good aim. At least in halo games you have to think about what you're doing.  

Good post.

While I do agree that most games have become easier or point and shoot like you said, I dont agree that Halo is at fault here. Some might not agree with me on this, but Halo while an awesome game did bring the casual crowd and made gaming more of a mainstream medium. Sort of the effect Madden has, only difference is that the Madden crowd plays their console only for a new Madden every year, while the Halo crowd has a gazillion other FPSs to choose from. Now that the casual crowd is playing these games, developers have to make sure they tone down the difficulty levels a bit. But that's about it. 

Most of the good shooters are very challenging and require more than point and shoot. Left4Dead is a great example. Uncharted had incredible enemy AI that required you to think over your strategy before and during every fight. There is still challenge and strategy to be found in good games, you just have to look for them. :) 

[QUOTE="cthulhuspawn82"]And I realize there are a few intelligent games out there, Its the reason I can still game. I just notice a disturbing trend. So many games they I have played recently were pure reflex and no thought. And they mechanics of these games are set up for non-stop action. Things like infinite enemies and telepathic foes who always know where you are, are gimmicks to keep the action going. And that is what its all about today, action.UpInFlames

Action games can still be intelligent. Check out Crysis, F.E.A.R. and Half-Life 2. No, they're not incredibly complex, but I certainly wouldn't call them mindless shooters.

Exactly.

It's not fair that you're expecting an action game to be something other than action. When you go watch a Michael bay movie, you expect to see some **** get blown up. If you want exploration, freedom and puzzles in your shooters, look no further than games UIF mentioned. 

You're looking at action games and saying they are all about action. The new Tomb Raider is not all action, it knows its a adventure platformer. Fallout 3 wasnt all action. Fable 2 wasnt either. LittleBigPlanet as well. You're playing all the wrong games if you think it's all about action in todays games.  

I'll admit I went a little far by using the term "button mashing" but it still comes down to reflex vs knowledge. In the modern gaming world, a fast one beats a smart one every time. I have played a lot of online games where I outsmarted players by predicting there actions and used strategy to get the drop on them. And most of the time, when I shot them in the back, they go into crazy, bunny hop, autofire mode, and kill me. I outsmarted them, but they were quicker and thats what counts. I remember in battlefield 2, almost half my deaths came from guys I shot in the back, who then turned around and starded there super strafe bunny hopping dance. I may have outmaneuvered them to get the advantage, but they hit those buttons faster and more accurately then I could.cthulhuspawn82

Again, you're playing the wrong game. In this game a broken online game. I can totally see your frustration, but there are online shooters out there who arent broken like Battlefield 2 or COD4.

If you want a more strategic or realistic online experience than I'll suggest Socom. It only takes 3-4 bullets to kill someone. If you dont have a PS3, then UpInFlames can probably name a few realistic shooters on the PC as well. 

I'll admit I went a little far by using the term "button mashing" but it still comes down to reflex vs knowledge. In the modern gaming world, a fast one beats a smart one every time. I have played a lot of online games where I outsmarted players by predicting there actions and used strategy to get the drop on them. And most of the time, when I shot them in the back, they go into crazy, bunny hop, autofire mode, and kill me. I outsmarted them, but they were quicker and thats what counts. I remember in battlefield 2, almost half my deaths came from guys I shot in the back, who then turned around and starded there super strafe bunny hopping dance. I may have outmaneuvered them to get the advantage, but they hit those buttons faster and more accurately then I could.cthulhuspawn82

But, if you think about it, isn't that a stragety itself also? You shoot them in the back, and they turn around, start moving around. bunny hopping, etc, then kill you. You ever think that being faster is intelligent also? Just because you think that you outsmarted them doesn't mean you actually have.

From some of the replies, I dont know if I am getting my point across. Its not that intelligence has left games, but that physical skills are a bigger part. I dont like losing a game because my physical skills were not up to snuff. I'm a geek, not a jock. I dont want to be judged on how fast or strong I am. Modern games may take some intelligence, but they take a lot of physical skill as well, and when I lose because I was not fast enough it just upsets me. There was a reason I was always in the library playing chess during recess. I dont like playing a game that places body over mind.cthulhuspawn82

But all games require reflexes.

Are you saying that the bunny hopping is intelligent strategy? Its pure physical skill. Thats like saying a track runner won his race by employing the intelligent tactic of running real fast.cthulhuspawn82

Think about it. If someone starts hopping, moving in odd ways, most likely it makes them harder to hit. Harder to hit = harder to kill.

[QUOTE="cthulhuspawn82"]From some of the replies, I dont know if I am getting my point across. Its not that intelligence has left games, but that physical skills are a bigger part. I dont like losing a game because my physical skills were not up to snuff. I'm a geek, not a jock. I dont want to be judged on how fast or strong I am. Modern games may take some intelligence, but they take a lot of physical skill as well, and when I lose because I was not fast enough it just upsets me. There was a reason I was always in the library playing chess during recess. I dont like playing a game that places body over mind.Legendaryscmt

But all games require reflexes.

This.  

From some of the replies, I dont know if I am getting my point across. Its not that intelligence has left games, but that physical skills are a bigger part. I dont like losing a game because my physical skills were not up to snuff. I'm a geek, not a jock. I dont want to be judged on how fast or strong I am. Modern games may take some intelligence, but they take a lot of physical skill as well, and when I lose because I was not fast enough it just upsets me. There was a reason I was always in the library playing chess during recess. I dont like playing a game that places body over mind.cthulhuspawn82

Well, reflexes are mental, but its not the same as strategical intelligence. Its like how you know all those online IQ tests or bull because they are based on how fast you answer. Determining intelligence doest come from your ability to "think quick". I bet you could hand the controller to any of the greatest thinkers and military strategists in the world, and they would all get their butts handed to them by junior high kids. That should show you were the focus of gaming is.cthulhuspawn82

Now, are you talking kids with experience in gaming, or ones that have never held a controller before? If you give the controller to a person who has played it before, they'll obviously have the advantage over the other person because of simple experience. We can all agree the first time we played a certain game, we sucked at it. Given time, you get better at that certain game. Let's go back to your back killing example, did it ever occur to you that the other person maybe had more experience in the game? Hell, you could even tie that back to the football example. You know how to think in the game, but the other person knows how to play.

Its like how you know all those online IQ tests or bull because they are based on how fast you answer. Determining intelligence doest come from your ability to "think quick".cthulhuspawn82

Even if that were true, it would be the consumers' fault anyway.  They are the ones buyinng it after all.

From some of the replies, I dont know if I am getting my point across. Its not that intelligence has left games, but that physical skills are a bigger part. I dont like losing a game because my physical skills were not up to snuff. I'm a geek, not a jock. I dont want to be judged on how fast or strong I am. Modern games may take some intelligence, but they take a lot of physical skill as well, and when I lose because I was not fast enough it just upsets me. There was a reason I was always in the library playing chess during recess. I dont like playing a game that places body over mind.cthulhuspawn82

I don't agree that Halo made action-based games so common, but simply that a lot of people like action in games and have almost as long as gaming has existed.  If you're a good thinker but your reflexes aren't fast enough for games like Halo or COD4 (and it stops you enjoying them), it might be a good idea to steer clear of those games in the future. Personally, I would recommend you play some TBSs like the Civilization series or Heroes of Might and Magic. I don't find that turn-based RPGs like Final Fantasy require that much strategic thinking, but to each his own.

Strength isn't really a factor in games - you just move analog sticks and press buttons, it's not like running a marathon or lifting weights. Physical exercise does improve brain health though.

Determining intelligence doest come from your ability to "think quick". I bet you could hand the controller to any of the greatest thinkers and military strategists in the world, and they would all get their butts handed to them by junior high kids. That should show you were the focus of gaming is.cthulhuspawn82

It depends on what sort of intelligence you're talking about. Being able to think fast can mean the difference between life and death; on the battlefield (in games and far more critically real life) you'll need to both think and act fast when deciding what to do if the enemy is flanking you, etc.

As for military strategists vs. junior high kids, as another user already said, it depends on whether either have experience in games. If both were playing a game for the first time, it would probably be even to begin with. The military strategist would bring a lot of strategy to the game, while the kid would be younger, fitter and possibly faster to adapt to a new experience.

Gears of War 2?

 Rainbow Six Vegas 2?

Far Cry 2?

"Halo killed intelligent gaming" oh jeez :roll:

Having a bunch of angsty teens with absurd hair (and at least one skinny, under dressed girl claiming to be a boy), standing in a line waiting to attack while arguing over who's on potion duty is intelligent?

Just because a game isn't turn based or an RPG doesn't mean that it's just mindless button mashing (that would fighting games :P). And even if you feel that way laying it all at the feet of one game is just plain stupid.

Why does everyone call Halo a button masher? (or any FPS for that matter).  You press A to jump, B to melee, you pull Right Trigger to shoot, ect. Where's the button mashing?

And just because Halo is popular and it's a FPS doesn't mean it doesn't take intelligence to play. Just another mindless Halo bashing thread it seems.

I have noticed a decline in video game quality over the years. There aren't a lot of games were you can actually use intelligence and strategy. Its more of a button mashing madness extravaganza filled with ACTION ACTION ACTION.

I have heard a theory of why video games have declined in such a way. The theory is that Halo killed intelligent gaming. I know that at some point video games devolved into being nothing but run and gun, non-stop action. And the theory is that Halo was the catalyst.

From what I here, Halo introduced a whole new generation to gaming; people who weren't previously gamers. This new generation wanted nothing but fast based uber action, and video games have changed to accommodate them. I am talking about the guys like my friend, who upon seeing me play a turn based final fantasy game said "Oh, its one of "those" games". Ya knucklehead, it's one of "those" games. Where you take time and plan a strategy rather than mash buttons like a monkey.

For those who doubt this Halo generation killed gaming as we know it, I would like to point out that it has happened somewhere else in a much more notable way. I am talking about MMOs. World of Warcraft introduced a massive new wave of players into the MMO experience. About half the people playing MMOs started with WoW. Modern MMOs have changed drastically to accommodate these new players. They have a much greater focus on PvP, uber loot, massive raids, and pwnage.

So we do have proof that one major game can completely change the format of the video gaming industry. I just wonder if Halo really was that game. If it was, then this is the time for us to send a few brave soldiers back in time to go all Sarah Conner on the original Halo. On November 15, 2001 Halo became self-aware.

cthulhuspawn82

That is irrelevant as it is your opinion. I personally think games are getting better and better, just my opinion.

I love run and gun games with lots of action, what do you want an FPS to be? You can still get those more "intellegent" FPSs (Arma, RSV2, etc) but the reason run and gun games are so popular (e.g Halo 3, CoD4) is simply because they're FUN.

If Final Fantasy is considered "intelligent", then I'll take me some dumb Halo any day of the week.

All Halo did was introduce FPSs to the console crowd. Thanks to Halo, the genre exploded on consoles and became as popular as it was on PC for almost 10 years prior. FPSs are the most popular genre on PC 18 years and counting and they certainly didn't kill role-playing, strategy and adventure games. Intelligent games were always in the minority.

Are you saying that the bunny hopping is intelligent strategy? Its pure physical skill. Thats like saying a track runner won his race by employing the intelligent tactic of running real fast.cthulhuspawn82

Wow. Maybe they should just fall on their swords. Heaven forbid they actually try to survive...

Okay, I see what your point is, I played Battlefield 2 on PC, I never played as a Commander, but when I played a game with a Commander who knew what they were doing, it made winning almost a given. But don't go calling FPS's mindless shooters. You can go into a game with all the strategy you want, it all comes down to tactics. I play RainbowSix on gamebattles, and trust me, if all you go in their with is reflexes and a gun, your already dead. FPS's requires tactics beyond the obvious, you can have a strategy but if your up against a competent team that strategy usually doesn't last 30 seconds, its all tactics, how long does it take for the opposing team to get to point "a" or teammate "b" just died, where will the enemy try and flank from, what corridors will they try and lock down. its far more than twitch reflexes, is it fast past? yes, mindless? hardly. Now I don't think I would ever be a good commander in Battlefield 2, but I am far from a button mashing mindless idiot, oh and the R6:V2 clan i was in was #1 at the end of the first season and their are hundreds of people on that game who are a better shot than i, just not as smart.

Only thing I didn't like about Halo was the introduction of regenerating health, I remember playing RainbowSix 3. and feeling good after wounding someone in a clan match, but I've gotten used to it and noticed the benefits, players have more courage and camp less now, and I personally take advantage of health regeneration, knowing that its not a gamble to sprint to a better vantage point or better cover, or simply close the gap between me and my opponent

Okay, I got two problems with this thread-

Problem 1- Video games are better than ever. For real. No joke. There are tons of awesoe games coming out, and plenty of them have made me think.

Problem 2- Halo is an awesome game that rewards good planning more than quick reflexes. The game is intentionally slowed down over other FPS games to work better on a controller. Halo might be streamlined over the PC shooters that were available at the time, but it most certainly wasn't dumbed down.

I'm getting a different message from the thread author then almost everyone else. It sounds to me he is looking for a game that requires deep thought and planning and is hoping to find it in the latest flash-in-the-pan shooter. Your standard action game only requires you to see a few seconds ahead by anticipating what your target is about to do. To truly master a turn based strategy game like Chess or Civilization IV you need to be able to see dozens of moves ahead. That sort of depth and complexity in gameplay and the low interest in it is probably why there are so few.

To the thread author,

Halo was one of the weakest shooters I've had the misfortune of playing but it isn't the bad guy. If you want to argue that a single shooter is responsible for dumbing down video games then Doom is a better target. This is the one that kick started the whole genre and spawned hundreds of brain dead kill everything that moves shooters. Its a good indication that a genre doesn't have much to offer if the main innovation is "better" graphics and the popular "strategy" is jumping up and down like a deranged jackrabbit.

If you really want to play a shooter then I suggest playing against the computer with Unreal Tournament. The bots in this game are smart enough that they don't resort to jumping up and down to kill you. Two other games that will have you planning and thinking far more than Halo ever would are Bioshock and Deus Ex. They don't have an online side but the depth of the single player side more then make up for it.

I have noticed a decline in video game quality over the years. There aren't a lot of games were you can actually use intelligence and strategy. Its more of a button mashing madness extravaganza filled with ACTION ACTION ACTION.

I have heard a theory of why video games have declined in such a way. The theory is that Halo killed intelligent gaming. I know that at some point video games devolved into being nothing but run and gun, non-stop action. And the theory is that Halo was the catalyst.

From what I here, Halo introduced a whole new generation to gaming; people who weren't previously gamers. This new generation wanted nothing but fast based uber action, and video games have changed to accommodate them. I am talking about the guys like my friend, who upon seeing me play a turn based final fantasy game said "Oh, its one of "those" games". Ya knucklehead, it's one of "those" games. Where you take time and plan a strategy rather than mash buttons like a monkey.

For those who doubt this Halo generation killed gaming as we know it, I would like to point out that it has happened somewhere else in a much more notable way. I am talking about MMOs. World of Warcraft introduced a massive new wave of players into the MMO experience. About half the people playing MMOs started with WoW. Modern MMOs have changed drastically to accommodate these new players. They have a much greater focus on PvP, uber loot, massive raids, and pwnage.

So we do have proof that one major game can completely change the format of the video gaming industry. I just wonder if Halo really was that game. If it was, then this is the time for us to send a few brave soldiers back in time to go all Sarah Conner on the original Halo. On November 15, 2001 Halo became self-aware.

I don't know. I'm a JRPG veteran and played every Final Fantasy and JRPG out there, and I have to say, most of them especially FF doesn't require any intelligence to play. The only intelligence you really need is the ability to read. These games also require no skill. 

FPS has strategy. And you need tons of skill just to compete online. Just play a game of Day of Defeat Source, Counter-Strike Source, or any game where team play is involved. Also, those professional Halo players don't get to where they are just from mashing buttons. And Half-Life 2 is very intelligent gaming. It's definitely not just action, action, action, but a masterpiece in game design.

Yes, of course there is a segment of gamers who are halo fanboys and will bash anything that isn't a halo clone. I can't tell you how many people were disappointed with mass effect because it wasn't as "fast-paced" as halo and there was "too much talking" and "way too much menu crap". But there's plenty of great games out there that go beyond mindless action, even in the shooter genre; ever played Bioshock or Deus Ex?

All Halo did was introduce FPSs to the console crowd. Thanks to Halo, the genre exploded on consoles and became as popular as it was on PC for almost 10 years prior. FPSs are the most popular genre on PC 18 years and counting and they certainly didn't kill role-playing, strategy and adventure games. Intelligent games were always in the minority.

UpInFlames

Agreed. 

The author has a good point but, as has been pointed out, not researched enough.

You should try a Tom Clancy game where you have to plan your moves before going into action.

But even on COD4 you can plan a stragey of laying down claymores and defending a certain area, especially on king of the hill type modes. Ive tried running in mindlessly on those and it doesnt work at all. But when you are shooting at everything in deathmatches you still have to work out where the best cover is, stick to the shadows and if its better to use a flash grenade before moving round a corner. More things to consider than you might think.

Halo's one of the only games with "legit" difficulty, where a higher difficulty means smarter, more tactical enemies rather than gears style IFYOUGETCROSSMAPPEDWITHTHESHOTGUNYOUDIEON ESHOTDESPITETHEFACTYOURENEMIESHAVENOSTARATEGYATALL