So what exactly made past Halo games out to be known as highly influential to FPS? Why do people often regard the earlier Halos as Trailblazers?
Well? What made Halo CE so popular?
Cool story.
Cool guns.
Fun vehicles.
Cool enemies.
Overall satisfying combat.
Awesome environments.
But surely halo wasn’t the first game with cool guns, or vehicles, or aliens, or larger scale environments. It wasn’t even the first to utilize a form of regenerative health system. So why was it deemed a trailblazer? There doesn’t seem to be too many completely original ideas, but the game is still regarded so highly as an important part of FPS history. Why? Because it did all those things Magnificently.
Titanfall, to me, is somewhat of a current day trailblazer. Now hold on. Don’t freak out. Titanfall was not the first game to implement high mobility, versatility, and parkour elements into FPS gameplay. It didn’t introduce Mechs either. But it did those things so well that many fans of FPS began to take a liking to that style of play. Too bad they didn’t like parkour as much when Mirror’s edge was doing it long before Titanfall, but I digress. Titanfall definitely caused other games, such as Call of Duty, to see the value in having more depth and variety in movement to FPS gameplay. And as a result, Halo couldn’t afford to ignore the value in gameplay that is a little more versatile than the simplicity of what it had been rocking for its first 3 games. Simple may have been more than effective and fun at the time, but Halo couldn’t, and can’t afford to stay simple forever. Took out Armor abilities, something else took its place. If you scrap Spartan abilities after Halo 5, I can guarantee that something will rise up to take its place as well, regardless of what Devs are at the helm of Halo.
Which brings me back to my main point. Will a trailblazer always be someone who does something first and invents a new feature? Or can a game be considered pivotal to its genre simply because it does everything well? And keeping this all into consideration, is it justified to write off Halo 5 as not being a trailblazer because of its lack of many 100% original ideas? Although the early Halos has had their original ideas, perhaps we see those games as being more original then they really are. But we love 'em to death anyway because they do everything they do so well. So to those who are doubtful because they see a lack of completely new features to FPS in H5, do not take that as a reason to write it off as not being ambitious or poorly designed for following (at least partially) in the footsteps of other games who have benefited greatly from certain features that Halo hasn’t tried before. Take comfort in knowing that Halo 5 could turn out to be an amazing game not only by measurement of originality, but by doing everything it does better than the other FPS games that are also trying to find their footing in a changing world for FPS.
I think this far into a franchise (nearly 15 years!), especially one that has blazed so many trails before, and especially in the FPS genre, you either wind up pigeon holed into your little niche (i.e. stuck on that trail you blazed, like H2 & H3 heyday), attempt to compete and evolve (i.e. attempt to widen that trail, like Reach, H4, H5), or do something completely new and revolutionary (blaze a brand new one, like ???). I think the latter there usually works best when famed developers scrap an old formula and do something different for a new IP or games from other genres. I can’t really think of an FPS that has completely changed the formula of the game while retaining much of what was once there. I’ve seen them make additions to the old formula in an attempt to make the series stay relevant (think Bioshock Infinite adding sprint and energy shields, but still being Bioshock).
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, and it certainly never will keep everyone pleased (i.e. Bioshock Infinite being so controversial). I think for games what were such trail blazers initially (like Halo and Bioshock), they’re never going to be able to capture lightning in a bottle twice, and every time they try to develop a game in that series that isn’t 97% identical to the last one, it’s going to be controversial. People form expectations as to what defines a series for them, and if developers veer from it too much, even a decade later, old fans of what initially made the series great get annoyed, even if it is popular among new fans. Especially Halo, since it’s known for competitive multiplayer; people get really picky about their favorite multiplayer games.
Halo adding sprint for many was like Bob Dylan selling out and going electric: it’s not that his electric music was bad, it just wasn’t the same music that made them fans in the first place, and many felt a little betrayed.
> 2533274883669557;2:
> I think this far into a franchise (nearly 15 years!), especially one that has blazed so many trails before, and especially in the FPS genre, you either wind up pigeon holed into your little niche (i.e. stuck on that trail you blazed, like H2 & H3 heyday), attempt to compete and evolve (i.e. attempt to widen that trail, like Reach, H4, H5), or do something completely new and revolutionary (blaze a brand new one, like ???). I think the latter there usually works best when famed developers scrap an old formula and do something different for a new IP or games from other genres. I can’t really think of an FPS that has completely changed the formula of the game while retaining much of what was once there. I’ve seen them make additions to the old formula in an attempt to make the series stay relevant (think Bioshock Infinite adding sprint and energy shields, but still being Bioshock).
>
> Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, and it certainly never will keep everyone pleased (i.e. Bioshock Infinite being so controversial). I think for games what were such trail blazers initially (like Halo and Bioshock), they’re never going to be able to capture lightning in a bottle twice, and every time they try to develop a game in that series that isn’t 97% identical to the last one, it’s going to be controversial. People form expectations as to what defines a series for them, and if developers veer from it too much, even a decade later, old fans of what initially made the series great get annoyed, even if it is popular among new fans. Especially Halo, since it’s known for competitive multiplayer; people get really picky about their favorite multiplayer games.
>
> Halo adding sprint for many was like Bob Dylan selling out and going electric: it’s not that his electric music was bad, it just wasn’t the same music that made them fans in the first place, and many felt a little betrayed.
Yeah its always a difficult thing when you have a franchise that’s been around for as long as Halo has been.
> Well? What made Halo CE so popular?
That it was a working console shooter and a significant departure from the “DEMONS,BLOOD, SKULLS AND HEAVY METAL YEAAA!!!” corridor-based shooters of the time, not just mechanically but also in terms of storytelling and atmosphere.
Which you are going to absolutely fail to see if you spend all your time focusing on “Halo and Quake both have map pickups therefore Halo isn’t original.”
> Or can a game be considered pivotal to its genre simply because it does everything well?
People would argue that it doesn’t do everything (as) well (as other shooters), that mechanics like sprint feel awkward and forced in a shooter with such high kill times.
Anyways I’d argue that a “trailblazer” does need to bring something new and original to the table, because otherwise what trail is it even making? Yes, a clone of another game could be better than that game and a giant success, but since it’s not bringing anything new to the table it’s not changing the industry as a whole.