Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jerrrry | Hacker News Reader

>and still believe Halo 2 was the most innovative online game of all time.

this is pretty much the only unanimous, uncontroversial absolute statement that can be made in the context of online gaming

View on HN

What novelty did Halo 2 introduce? At a high level, it is just another shooter preceded by all sorts of experiments: Quake, Counterstrike, Team Fortress, Unreal Tournament, etc.

Sure, it had tons of polish and was on consoles, but I never thought of it as genre defining.

> was on consoles

> genre defining

you walked right past it

Wouldn’t that innovation belong to the original Halo then? Halo 2 was mostly iterative improvements.

Halo 1 came out before Xbox Live existed.

I'm a hardcore Quake/Unreal apologist, but you gotta hand something to Halo and Halo 2. Gorgeous shader-based graphics for the time, vehicles, absurd arsenals, wide-open maps, and 16 player(!!!) LAN play. It's a game that would have sold like gangbusters on PC, and was only that much more successful for being well-supported on console too.

One might even argue that the success of Halo is what forced arena shooters like Counter Strike and Team Fortress to evolve or die. There was more at stake after it released, and outside the competitive circles there wasn't much demand for the FPS equivalent of Wheaties.

I have had tons of fun with Halo, but I am fixated on this “innovative” classification. It feels more like right place right time. Had Golden Eye been LAN play, would it have been termed as most innovative?

Edit: I should also give a shout out to Tribes for hitting a lot of those same notes

Halo 2's online multiplayer introduced (or popularized?) party-based matchmaking. So instead of having to coordinate all your buddies joining the same pre-existing server, you'd join up as a party and then drop into a matchmaking queue, which would set up a game against opponents, optionally taking a skill-based ranking into account. They even did a bunch of marketing around this, since it was a new concept at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGSuPZVgxLg

Halo 2 was basically synonymous with Xbox Live and everything that came with it when it launched (for better or worse). For example popularizing voice chat (including proximity!), rapid matchmaking, persistent parties between matches and gamemodes and player ranks and levels. They talk it about it a bit in the second half of this video.

https://youtu.be/YGSuPZVgxLg?si=cQZRaXJGaGFaKuL-&t=172

Battlefield 1942 comes to mind as some predecessor close to what you describe

Hell, even Perfect Dark before that. I'm not one to defend Halo as the most-innovative, especially with the disproportionate amount of funding and manpower that went into it.

That being said, I think Halo deserves commendation for bringing a lot to the mainstream without compromise. The same people that casually enjoyed Halo were probably not also playing Goldeneye or Arma in their free time. And marketing be damned, Halo is fun even today. Hopping in a match of CE makes me lament how little team-based shooters have progressed in the past 20 years.

To me it's crazy to think how far ahead of its time in terms of emergent behavior was Battlefield compared to other games, besides battle arenas. Probably it wasn't the first one either, but it's the one that comes to mind.

Picking up a tank or a jeep is one thing, but going for controlling an aircraft carrier or a submarine? Even if the controls were really primitive, it felt amazing!

The destructible environment aspect in some of those games was so cool. Can’t breach into the objective? Take down the building. No other game is or was like that. Even new battlefield games have walked back a lot of that behavior.

Something about halo just feels like such modern game, even halo ce. It’s so weird to think this game was contemporary with golden eye or quake. I think it was the polish with the animations, sound, and the physics. You pull out the pistol and do that satisfying pull back and click on it. You throw a grenade and hear it arm and see it thrown. You see your teammates throw grenades. You throw a grenade under a warthog, it flips it and knocks the occupants out. Even just scoping in and out of the sniper was satisfying with the sound it made.

UT2004 was released half a year before Halo 2 though.

halo 2 came out with xbox live and defined the experience. social lobbies, matchmaking, etc

Clans, ranked based play, integrated voice chat.

That last one was in other xbox live games before it, but Halo 2's Xbox Live brought online gaming to everyone's television room whereas before it was only on the computer.

The online multiplayer (party-based matchmaking, including ranked mode) was huge.

Starcraft as the first eSport Game? WoW as the first mass appeal Western MMORPG? PUBG as the first Battle Royale and catalyst for Fortnite? Minecraft for defining a demographic as much as a genre? Dark Souls, Journey or Nier:Automata for redefining what actually constituted the role of 'online gamer' ?

The path from Quake or Perfect Dark -> Halo 2 was no great paradigm shift compared to the five above imo

> PUBG as the first Battle Royale and catalyst for Fortnite?

As I recall, H1Z1 actually came out before PUBG (though it has since faded into obscurity). A quick search on Wikipedia seems to back that timeline[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUBG:_Battlegrounds#Developmen...

Wasn't H1Z1 a knockoff of DayZ first, which then pivoted to the Battle Royale format after the success of PUBG?

I'd probably give the crown to EverQuest (1.0) myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com