Slashdot Mirror
Real-Life Halo Armor Creators Quizzed
Thanks to Bungie.net for their interview with the creators of a painstakingly-crafted real-life reproduction of Master Chief's Mjolnir armor, as originally seen in Bungie's noted FPS Halo. The interview comes with exclusive pictures, and the official Nightmare Armor site also has pictures from their previous armor reproduction project, the Deepeyes armor from Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. The armor creators discuss the "good amount of time and devotion [it takes] to complete an entire armor costume", but the guys at Bungie conclude the article with a bang: "After seeing the kind of passion and dedication that the guys at Nightmare Armor had put into the Halo armor project, we were too embarrassed to tell them that in Halo 2, Master Chief's costume will be made of dyed mink fur."
Anyone else notice that he didn't really answer the questions, just kept it at "well, we're inspired, quality artists who love Halo2, so we just did it".
... eh ... I forget what I was trying to say. It just seems like the dude waffles on about art instead of really getting into 'WHY' make a non-functioning suit of body armor based on designs from a video game.
... fat fanboix with too many credit cards and no real job.
...
I mean, okay, thats a good enough reason, but
Now, if it was -really- functioning body armor, that'd be interesting, but I'm gonna just put these guys in the same camp as those freaky Japanese girl-mask guys
Sheesh. Some people have too much time on their hands. Including me. Why am I even thinking about this crap? Think I'll go out back and shoot meself
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It wasn't what it did, but how it did it. Every piece in the game just fit. The entire game is great fun from start to finish, and has more replay than any other FPS I have played. Sure nothing in the game was revolutionary - but why is it that people seem to think that a game needs to be revolutionary to be good?
Mario Brothers 3 is better than 2 is better than 1, and yet it was merely an evolution of the game. Should we say that Mario 1 was the better game because it was original? Give credit where credit is due - the guys at Bungie have put together the best FPS game ever, and the mere fact that other people have done FPS games before them doesn't detract from that.
The great things Halo did:
- Recharging shields (it changes the way you play the game)
- Limited to two weapons (makes playing on a console much easier, as well as forcing you to think)
- Button solely for grenade (why has nobody ever done this before?)
- Great AI, both enemy and human assist
- Seamless integration of foot combat, vehicles, gun turrets etc...
- Best control scheme on a console, ever (it plays nearly as well on a console, as it does on a PC - better perhaps - and every FPS since has copied its control scheme)
- Melee attack (so satisfying)
- Co-op (double the fun)
Anyway, Halo does mark a huge milestone in console gaming, even if it is not as big a one in PC gaming. Prior to Halo I think there were a lot of people that didn't think you could have a proper FPS game on a console - but Halo changed all that (Goldeneye was fun and all, but nobody can claim it was as playable as a PC FPS).
Best control scheme on a console, ever
Now, I've never played Halo, but I wasn't aware that Halo has a radically different control scheme.
In fact, according to this FAQ, it appears to have the exact same layout that was originally pioneered by Rare in GoldenEye: Left stick for movement (forwards/backwards and strafing), right stick for direction (turning and up/down), and index finger(s) for firing.
This is the same control scheme used in just about any console FPS released these days, from Bond games, to Timesplitters, to Brute Force.
In fact, the only game to break from this 6 year standard that I can recall is Metroid:Prime. Many people were confused the way Metroid no longer used the right thumbpad compared to the standard typically used today, but others have found it to be a welcome change of pace.
"I found it difficult to call Halo "Combat Evolved""
Hehe, me too. Luckily, they dropped that part of the name for the Japanese market, so here it was just "Halo".
"Since I disagree with some of it (I found the controls awkward) and wasn't exposed to other portions (multiplayer), it's pretty clear why I wouldn't think it a 90-100% game."
Pardon my English, but "aw, hell yeah". If I hadn't played any multiplayer on it I probably would've hated it. It had some nice parts, but once the Flood appears it's just a horrible grindfest.
"Yeah, I feel that looking + rotating via stick is too slow to be useful"
This one's just a matter of personal taste, but I actually prefer the Halo approach to the impossible speed of other FPSs. Really good, fast players on other FPSs may have avatars that look like people, but their movements are insane. That may be your deal (after all, I prefer crazy snowboard games like SSX to realistic ones like Amped, so I know the feeling). If so, Halo is too slow, but keep in mind it's a stylistic difference, perhaps caused by the console, but not a flaw per se. For some players (don't know if it's a few or a lot) it may be seen as an advantage.
"Sounds like what I really missed was the MP"
Probably. Multiplayer on one TV screen is pretty boring (you can see your enemy position, see folks in hiding, etc.), but on multiple TV screens it's wonderful. I used to go with my friends to an internet cafe near my house that had 8 TVs and 8 XBoxes wired together, and we'd play teams against eachother. Admittedly, in that kind of situation, pretty much any game is fun, but Halo's polish in control and functionality (and good, steady frame rate) really shone out.
"does it support Live?"
No, and that's one of the big sticklers. It came out long before Live was even announced, and they decided not to release a Live version, but to go straight to Live support on Halo 2. In case you're wondering why people make such a big deal about Halo 2, that's your answer. Some folks have made tunneling software that allows you to play Halo (1) over the internet, but from what I understand it's pretty laggy, as the product was never intended for that kind of use.
I don't play that many console FPS games. I like them, but neither I nor my friends put too much money into them. In fact, there are only three traditional console FPS games from this latest generation that I've played much of: Halo (XBox), Turok Evolution (GameCube) and Timesplitters 2 (GameCube). Now. I think Halo is good. But I still thought it was least fun of those three--both in single and multiplayer. Part of my opinion is based on my hatred of the XBox controller, I think, but I'll ignore that.
It was a surprise to me that Turok was more fun. I mean, sure, it's a step up from the last couple installments, but that;s not saying much. But at least the game gave you a little bit of variety. I don't have too much else to say about that. Halo is so repetative that I'd rather play Turok. It's that simple. Yet on GameRankings, Halo has a 95% while Turok has a 69%. That huge difference in opinion between me and the masses, however, bothers me little.
TimeSplitters 2. Different story. How that game, that beauiful masterpiece of multiplayer FPS, can recieve a lower average rating than Halo is beyon the realm of my understanding. I can't think of a single area in which Halo comes out over TS2. I wrote some angry (possibly too angry) stuff about that in my journal, and I don't really feel like thinking through all of it again. But I have to ask any people that claim Halo is some ultimate multiplayer experience, what does it have that Timesplitters 2 lacks? I've heard Ts2 has some control issues on XBox. Is that it? I can't think of anything else. Have you just not played TS2? Then what gives you the authority to claim that Halo is so much better than all the rest?
No, really, I want answers. My head can't take it anymore.