Comments Disabled | 40 comments

  •  They don't deseve comparison. (none / 0)

    I've played video games regularly only since May 2005, and been a halo player since the beginning. So, I can't really compare my experience with that of people who have had the LAN parties since 2001, and the first Xbox Live Halo 2 game (what a wonder that must have been, meaning no technological belittlement to the old school). Thinking back to the original Xbox and Halo 1 I daresay that they are much the same game. Both had massive innovations (I don't know this from experience; I use the words of my gaming predecesores), both were within the early life of the Xbox 1 and 360. I think that perhaps Zoso probably summed it up best with his comment. My argument goes as such:

    When you compare World War 1 to World War 2 using just the numbers and the combative experience, 2 comes out far the victor. With a higher causualtie rate, faster weapons, more reliable vehicles, more powerful bombs, more land covered in combat. But there would not have been a 2. We forget 1 in the hoopla that is surrounded by 2, but in many ways we live in a world shaped by one. The rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, a scar the world still bears, and bore till the late 80s. The rise and fall of the Weimar republic and the growth of fascim in Germany and Austria. The League of Nations grew as well: soon becoming the United Nations.

    Halo is the first world war. The first shot between Microsoft and Sony. Now we have Gears and Resistance. Did World War 2 destroy more? Build more? Of course it did. But it was a foregone conclusion. This cheap and poorly articulated argument does not give justice to the history of the deaths of millions, and the imprisonment on Boris' grandfather in a prison camp (and likely many more fathers and grandfathers suffered as well). Nor should they really be compared to what we do in our spare time. we must remember that while Gears may have made a splash now, it was just the second salvo of something started 6 years ago.
    We simply see the newest 'innovation' that comes from a long line going all the way back to Goldeneye and even back to MegaMan. We can't compare last generations golden child to this, the former will always come short. Halo 3 will lessen Gears in our eyes, and Gears 2 will lessen Halo 3. Comparison demeans both by making Gears stand before a jury of it's forebears which will always seem just a little less graphically amazing. And making Halo 1 (a 5 year old game) and Halo 2 (a 2 year old game) stand a test they will always fail.

    "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

    by Sparton 501 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:26:07 PM EST

    •  I agree (none / 0)

      Well put together.

       Hey on a funnier note of this debate, I was playing Gears this morning with my iPod rocking the backround. I have a playlist set to play all of my Death, Black, Satanic, and Heavy Metal.  It works well with the game.  But somehow the Halo theme snuck in there, so it comes on right when Delta gets back into the APC ending act 2.  It starts with the Monk-like chant and Marcus says "Baird turn that shit off!"  And it keeps playing.
       I nearly died laughing.

      Let's get it own!

      by Macaface on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:08:05 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wars seem a stretch Sparton. (none / 0)

      First, wow, you have a good memory to recall my comments about my grandfather, and your world history is good.  Anyways, I think your comparison of Gears and Halo to just one war after another and each being more significant then the next is too simple.  I'm not saying your wrong, cause your point is fair, but consider an evolution thing rather than a war thing.

      Halo is a 1st-person shooter (FPS).  Gears is a 3rd-person shooter (TPS).  This is evolution due to a more powerful game system and a recognition of game designers on what gamers want.  Further, it is an evolution in gameplay mechanics and the consoles ability to serve up that complexity.

      Gears is touching on a more interactive game environment and visceral control of the character in it.  I mean, circle straffing, jumping, and zig zags are the fundementals of FPS; not realistic or complimentary of a well designed map.  Now, with TPS you can see your character use cover, know you are in cover, and move in the environment in a realistic manner.  Fast twitch reflexes can be defeated by a smart player who uses the environment around his character.  

      I end with this thought, if FPS was the shit, why isn't Bungie continuing with Halo4 after Halo3? It is my opinion, they are moving on to something else that is not a FPS.  What could it be?  I don't know for sure, but I believe that Bungie sees an evolution in shooters (cause that is what they do damn well, so why stop) and maybe they have a few new ideas on what can be done with TPS.  If ya'll remember Bungie was going to do a RTS for Halo, but they chose and FPS to immerse the player into a world.  If they quit the Master Chief and his FPS world, then maybe they are GEARING-up for the next step.  Right now, EPIC has Gears, and Mark Rein says they could continue to make sequels as long as there is an interest.  I think TPS will be the new genre until a big leap in gaming consoles allows virtual immersion into games.  Something that gives you peripheral vision, quick looks, and makes you sweat a bit while you are switching weapons.

      Of course, I could be talking out of my ass, and be proven wrong in time.  By the way, what is Guerrila doing with Killzone anyways?  Oh, and when someone thinks the PS3 comes out with something better than the 360, I'll be ready to talk about that too. PS Who?

      Ready to finish all the Fights!

      by Damn Boris on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:43:56 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you take me to seriously, Mr. Boris. (none / 0)

        but to go back to my analogie, you'll notice that I do beleive that the 2 wars were an evolution. Had there not been a 1 (Halo) the Xbox would not have likely lived on, as Sweet put it. But had there not been a war from 1914-1918 there would not have been a rise of fascism, totalitariasm, and communism, causing the events leading to 2 (360; 1939-1945).
        So I wasn't saying that theres a great battle between Sony and Microsoft that's waged every few years; there's an evolution that keeps the struggle alive. Our consoles keep getting more powerful, as a Messerschmit (didn't spell that right) was more powerful than a Fokker (knew how to spell that). Both were manned by the same people and both were an evolution. One didn't spring up without the other. Perhaps it was my analogy that was at fault; I didn;t mean for my argument to come across like I want J Allard and Phil Harrison to get into a ring and duke it out, I meant that there was an evolution. I guess I just let Zoso have his flower, I'd take the war in Europe to illustrate my point.
        You make good points, Mr. Boris, I think you took my argument a bit literally for it's own good. Which I suppose is a risk one takes whenever you use prior events to illuminate your beleifs. Especially when those prior events involve genocide and fascism.
        In closing, I agree with you Boris. It is an evolution of consoles, Neandertals v. Homo Sapien. I usually find Patton a little more interesting than Darwin, unfortunately.

        "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

        by Sparton 501 on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:19:17 PM EST

        [ Parent ]

        •  if (none / 0)

          you dont give me my flower back... ;)

          Not all who wander are lost

          by Zoso Fan on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:46:35 PM EST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Peace Sparton (none / 0)

          I was enjoying your comments and running with my own line of reasoning.  By the way, are you studying for a history exam?  That's cool cause I dig on history?

          Please, don't call me Mr. Boris.  It makes me feel older and geeker than I really am.  Maybe I am, but I need an illusion of sophistication.

          Cheers

          Ready to finish all the Fights!

          by Damn Boris on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 03:05:38 PM EST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dan Foster had a similar request. (none / 0)

            Please don't think I was trashing your line of reason, I agree with you. Run away, my dear Boris (that right there is pretty gay too, eh Zoso?).

            I'm homeschooled, so I don't really have any exams that I'm preparing for, just lots of time to read (and write). History is by far my best subject though. Perhaps because it never really gets harder.

            I've always called people 'Mr', not really sure why. Wasn't related to my father, or any teachers or anything. Nothing ever lost on courtesy, right? Dan Foster I called Mr., at one point. He made a similar request. Thus, if it makes you feel better I'll leave your illusion intact as long as you feel it necessary, Boris.

            "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

            by Sparton 501 on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:01:37 PM EST

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes Damn Boris (none / 0)

              Sparton called me Mr too.Its cool I do the same thing with Sir. Its a sign of respect and for some one young like Sparton to be respectful in this day and age its nice so many kids these days are so disrespectful. No harm to it. Plus my dad was a marine so what else would his kid say other then Yes Sir.

              by Dan Foster on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:34:38 PM EST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Wow (none / 0)

              I'll repeat something someone asked before...are you sure you're so young?  I've never thought about history in that context before, but you're right.  It truly doesn't ever get harder.

              by papi blez on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:44:10 PM EST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah. . . (none / 0)

                nobody needs to tell me twice that Sparton's the coolest.

                "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

                by Sparton 501 on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 06:37:01 PM EST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmm... (none / 0)

                  Fascism took off independently of Communism.  Hitler was the catalyst for the nazi party just as Stalin was the face of communism.  The only reason the two got involved is because Hitler didn't take Russia seriously enough, leading to the whole two border, yackity shmackity, you know the story.

                  To say the two occured only because of the previous world war isn't a true statement. Archduke Ferdinand was the catalyst for that war, which ended with a defeated but not depleted Germany.

                  Germany didn't learn their lesson after the first world war, they grew an ego, gained a leader and went off on a quest for world domination, again, but this time they had friends in Italy and Japan.

                  Halo 1 was the poster boy of the original XBOX, not the sole reason for it's success. Games such as Morrowind also defined it as a grownups console.  The hardware it possessed and Microsoft selling it for cheap and taking the initial financial hit is what launched it into the limelight.  

                  Look at the PS3, Sony's been on top of the game for a decade.  It wasn't a single game that defined there reign but rather marketing and some developers jumping on board.  Now they have a console that the average joe can't afford and a format that is incredibly difficult to port too.

                  Too say that one game defined a console is just not the truth.  It sold a lot of games, it gained some initial interest in the game.  Bungie did a great job with it's online community, which helped with the success of the console.  It was not however the singular reason for the XBOX suddenly jumping onto the scene.

                  (This is of course just my opinion.)

                  Leader, Masters Few www.MastersFew.com

                  by Master Pre on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:39:33 PM EST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How about this... (none / 0)

                    Through a series of conflicts man can reach a utopian state of society.

                    Through a series of iterations Microsoft and Sony are trying to reach a utopian state of console gaming.

                    Leader, Masters Few www.MastersFew.com

                    by Master Pre on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:46:29 PM EST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I disagree with your history, Mr. Pre (none / 0)

                    Lenin (who was the catalyst for the communists, not Stalin) was a foot soldier captured by the Germans and sent back to Russia in order to stir up trouble for the Czar (something he did quite well, too). To say that Germany merely 'grew an ego' is a bit of a slap, isn't it? They developed the worst inflation in the history of economics, became what amounted to the whipping boy of France (seriously, how could one grow an ego there, of all places?), watched the Rhineland be stripped of it's resources, the republic that was set up for them by the League of Nations was suppresed by the soldiers of 1, who became the embittered leaders of two. You must remember, Mr. Pre, that the history books are written by the victor, and to say that Germany was in the wrong is due mostly to their having been emptied of useable men in the workforce and military.

                    So you are correct in saying that they took off separately, but they were caused by the same conflict. Lenin would have been a syphilitic soldier returning from a foolish war had the Germans not given him some cash and a get out of jail card to go stir trouble. Hitler came back a blind veteran pariahed of society because he was a temporarily blind artist in a nation that needed construction workers and bakers. he gathered an army of other disgruntled ex grunts and created the Nazi (National Socialist) party.

                    So, one could say (as you have done) that Germany just grew an ego, Russia grew some stones, and Italy and Japan had nothing to do, but this is a gross oversimplification! I don't pretend that my two paragraphs are going to well illustrate the causes of two World Wars, but that seems rather foolish. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I am rather offended that you would reduce these monolithic struggles to what reduces to "Germany is full of idiots and anti-Semites who didn't learn their lesson after the first can of whoop ass we brought down on `em". I'm not accusing you of racism, or being anti-Germany/Russia, I just think that you're perhaps basing your argument on a high school history textbook (a very unreliable source, I must say).

                    As far as the gaming part of your argument, I agree that Halo wasn't the only reason for it's success, and applaud your mention of games such as Morrowind. At the same time, I doubt it would have sold very many people with a line up of Fuzion Frenzy at the beginning.

                    I didn't mean for my article to come across as if I meant a console would be defined by one game, but I think that the one game series that has Sony execs scared is Halo, and now Gears. I don't think the Xbox was a poor console, I love games like Halo, Crimson Skies, and Battlefront. But if it didn't have a select few in the beginning, it would have likely gone the way of Gizmondo. If Winston Churchill had been killed in the trenches, would we all be speaking German with Erwin Rommel's son as president? I hope not, but had there not been a Halo in the beginning, would we all be applauding Gears new arrival on the PS3? I rather think so.

                    So, I apologize if my return is not to your liking, Master Pre. I must say that I'm rather known as the `kid you don't debate with' and when I think I have a good argument to be made, I usually don't go home till I think my point has been well made. Please don't think I'm trashing your thoughts, anybody. It's a fault of my own to beat a dead horse. And I daresay that your opinion is quite valid to me.    

                     

                    "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

                    by Sparton 501 on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:55:06 AM EST

                    [ Parent ]

Comments Disabled | 40 comments