The Halo effect makes Rare think a Perfect Dark sequel would sell well
GameGuru recently shared a new rumor brewing around Microsoft. Since Halo 3 is already out, the question that people ask is “what’s next?” Apparently, Rare intends to “take the reins from the Chief” through a new FPS that it’s currently working on. And what shooter is that?
A sequel to Perfect Dark, that’s what.
This new shooter is an installment to the original N64 classic—not the launch title that the Xbox 360 released when it came out the other year. According to the GG article, the sequel is a step up the genre, and comes with new features like a morality system (sounds familiar), a deliberate lack of cutscenes, and full environment interactivity.
Full interactivity? That’s what they all say, but we’ve yet to see a game that does it as good as real life.
While the sales of Perfect Dark Zero were satisfactory, you have to take into account the Halo effect, which is a phenomenon among launch titles. You see, PDZ isn’t a bad FPS, but it’s not outstanding either. Then why did it sell well? Because there’s not much in the way of competition among launch titles, that’s why.
PDZ may have competed with Call of Duty 2, but you didn’t exactly have a lot to choose from beyond those two.
Mind you, this doesn’t imply that the Halo games are like PDZ in quality. Each Halo installment is actually good, but because the original was a launch title, there’s not much in the way of competition either. Thanks to the original’s momentum, the sequels cashed in big.
Would the same thing happen to the Perfect Dark sequel? Perhaps not. They already lost their chance with PDZ because it wasn’t Halo good. If Rare comes up with something derivative of PDZ, then don’t expect much sales love from FPS fans.
Tags: call_of_duty_2, fps_fans, gameguru, halo_3, halo_effect, pdz, perfect_dark_zero, shooter, xbox_360
18 opinions for The Halo effect makes Rare think a Perfect Dark sequel would sell well
Alex
Oct 17, 2007 at 8:48 am
Perfect Dark?
*stifles laughter*
Mike
Oct 17, 2007 at 8:50 pm
You may laugh, but the original Perfect Dark was actually an excellent game. Leagues better than Combat Evolved, I think. If PDZ were as good, it may have turned into another behemoth because of the Halo effect.
As a result, I think the sales made by PDZ is fool’s gold. Now, we speculate that Rare is furiously working on a sequel thinking it would sell as well.
Alex
Oct 17, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Honestly? Post-GE, Rare is 0-for-2. PD64 was a joke:
1) Alien weapons. The only two alien weapons fit for multiplayer use were the Mauler and Callisto NTG. Farsight should have never made it out of single-player. Same goes for the Reaper, though it would have sucked no matter what they did.
2) “Conventional” weaponry like the SuperDragon, Devastator, K7 Avenger, and the Crossbow. In the rare chance their primary functions didn’t break game balance, their alternate functions surely did.
With a single button, one of the most powerful assault rifles in the game turns into one of the most powerful mid-range projective explosives in the game.
Getting kills with the Devastator was an embarrassment, because you weren’t using a grenade launcher; you were using a rocket launcher. Nearly a frozen rope for the “grenade” trajectory.
With the K7 Avenger, forget about using mines. The alt-mode will outline all of them with big, bright yellow boxes.
Crossbow? Lethal darts? *shudders*
3) Framerate. Barely even supported 1v1, and even then, that didn’t stay smooth all that much.
I could go on, but I’m tired. One of these days you should do a Retro Revisiting of classic FPS. It’ll be interesting.
Mike
Oct 18, 2007 at 12:22 pm
You may disagree with little ol’ me, but tell that to the critics who also think the game was fantastic.
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/198275.asp
Mike
Oct 18, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Either way (whether you or the critics are right), it proves my point:
PDZ sold well because of the Halo effect. This also proves my theory about the Halo series is correct. They are good games, but not really as outstanding as the rabid fans proclaim they are.
The incredible sales of each Halo game is a snowball effect caused by Combat Evolved being a launch game for the Xbox. If you launched the first Halo game during the later parts of the previous generation, it won’t sell as much as it does today.
Alex
Oct 18, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Hehe, don’t you mean *thought* the game was fantastic? The dates of those rankings are 2000. ;-)
And even back then, PD had no balance whatsoever. My buddies and I spent so much more time in GE, even years after PD, because GE was so much tighter.
PDZ? No doubt that it sold well because there was nothing else to play. Same as Halo. Well, Halo 3 is a pretty solid game in its own right, but it’s certainly not one of those “ZOMG-transcending-mortal-man” titles. Forge and Theatre functions…definitely transcending-mortal-man. Halo 3 itself, not so much.
But it’s really no coincidence that Halo 2 only got bumped out from the Most Player XBL Game when Gears of War was released.
It’s the law of the standard shooter sales, where:
Gamers’ desire to kill stuff times months without excellent shooter, times adequately functional multiplayer fragfest=sales
Or,
G(f)kill*MxS*AFmu=$$$
Alex
Oct 18, 2007 at 1:53 pm
*most played
Stupid keyboard.
Mike
Oct 22, 2007 at 12:31 am
The dates of those rankings are supposed to be old. The game came out last 2000.
Have you ever written about video games and had them published?
Alex
Oct 22, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Well, Mike, what does it matter if I have or haven’t? Being published or not (though I have written a few things here and there, more on the personal rant level) really has no bearing on what I said, cause back in 2000, people were joygasming over Perfect Dark, yeah.
That was back in 2000. Back when we technically didn’t even have dual analog for console FPS…or even an established market for console FPS, haha. Though GE64 helped kick the doors open for that, and when all is said and done, it’ll always be the granddaddy of console FPS.
But the thing about PD64 is, it wasn’t all that great of a game. Sure, it got stellar rankings when it was released back then.
Now look at the industry standards of the time. They weren’t terribly demanding. That much is clear by how highly rated PD64 was, but when you go back to play it now, you find that it’s rather mediocre. The weapons aren’t balanced in the least. The level design is generally suspect. The AI is neither complex nor challenging. And the frame-rate is a sloppy, choppy mess. Even the frame-rate for a stripped-down 1v1 match is inconsistent.
PD64 was well-received when it came out, sure. But it most certainly hasn’t aged well, and to be perfectly honest, its flaws were always there; it’s just that the majority of the industry didn’t notice them at the time, because they were still too “OMFGBBQ” enamored with the game.
GE64…that’s aged well. You can still see and feel how it changed everything gamers knew. The coolest thing about GE64, though, is how it can *still* stand-up to current-gen FPS (Halo 3 included). It falters technically due to ancient hardware, but its core gameplay experience is still insanely hardcore.
So…I kind of see PD as a joke on the franchise level.
Mike
Oct 23, 2007 at 9:44 am
Naturally, industry standards change. Doom was a hit during its time. So was Wolfenstein. When you compare these games to today’s standards, there’s really no contest.
Some of you might say something contrary and proclaim that Doom, Wolfenstein, Ultima Online, Command and Conquer, or whatever old game rocked your world during its heyday is still much better than the sophisticated ones we play today.
But you know what? We’ve already progressed so far, so it’s unfair to compare them.
Same goes for Perfect Dark. It was a great game during its time. The standards weren’t that defined back then, but you can’t take that away from the game. If you persist in comparing old games to new standards, then there would be no legendary games to speak of.
And you know what? It does matter if one dismisses and/or contests reviews made by professional game journalists, especially if said individual has a different area of expertise.
Game journalists write about games for a living, and it’s not as easy as it looks even if many people think they can do better.
I trust Greg Kasavin when he wrote for GameSpot because whenever he had a new review out, it was spot on. If Desslock says this new RPG is still unbalanced, then there’s a very good chance it is.
That’s not to say that I won’t ever take your word for anything. I know you have your own proficiencies. However, I’m more agreeable with the professionals regarding Perfect Dark. When I did play the game, I wasn’t disappointed. It’s nothing like the games we have today, but it has its own merits.
Alex
Oct 23, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Mike, I’m disappointed! You think it’s not fair to compare Doom to current-gen FPS? Or that we shouldn’t outright state that the original Doom is still superior to 90% of current-gen FPS? Shame, Mike. Shame I say! Because earlier this year a bunch of my buds and I rocked out some Doom on LAN and I gotta tell ya, bud…that game has aged very, very well.
Graphically, of course not. Frame-rate got a bit sluggish at times.
But the gameplay? Dude, man, Doom’s still got it. Within a few seconds we were annihilating each other…and no one weapon ever reigned supreme. Even the original Doom weaponset was balanced. Say what you want about the BFG-9000, rocket launcher, or chaingun. If you can move with the shotgun, you can challenge anything and everything.
Being effective with a weapon in Doom meant learning the weapon and knowing how to move with it. Knowing the arcs, the angles, etc.
And that, my good pal, is exactly how you racked up kills with the grenade launcher in GE64: knowing the trajectories, and how your rounds would bounce at certain angles.
For me and my friends, it got to the point where they’d never want to play the grenade launcher weaponset with me, because I could ricochet pretty much everywhere. In Facility, using an open door to send a grenade into their faces. In Complex, double-bouncing into the upper floor ramp bunker. In Basement/Stack/Library I was pretty much unstoppable.
But I was unstoppable because I had taken the time to learn the weapon, which to me demonstrates a balanced weapon. If anyone can pick up a grenade launcher and immediately be able to grab six kills with it, with little to no effort, that’s not a balanced weapon at all.
So it’s not even that I’m comparing PD64 to today’s standards. I’m comparing it to GE64 and Doom. And interestingly enough, the “Farsights” of those two games (Golden Gun and BFG, respectively) were never guaranteed kills.
PD64, on the other hand, even with your fondness for the game, you know of those “guaranteed kill” weapons. *wink wink*
Alex
Oct 23, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Oh, and regarding “professional” reviewers…generally even they’re outright misinformed. Even they function more on the gut, visceral “OMFGBBQ after a few hours I’m in love with this game” reaction than on a level-headed critical analysis that spans multiple years.
And in fact, I think the best way to judge a game’s merits *is* to re-visit it every couple of years, because that’s when you really see which games were always great versus which ones were mildly average in that one particular moment.
Mike
Oct 24, 2007 at 1:46 pm
You may point out good arguments, but these are not absolute. Doom may have aged well in gameplay, but not all games are like Doom.
Then again, mouselook would have made the game more fun to play, but that’s just me. Today, an FPS without mouselook is unthinkable. Does that make Doom a lesser game? Heavens no. But comparing it to other later classics is unfair.
Your reaction towards “professional reviewers” was expected. Like I said, it’s not as easy as it looks even if many people think they can do better.
Alex
Oct 24, 2007 at 3:45 pm
That’s absolutely right. Not all games are like Doom. In fact, with the possible exceptions of Duke Nukem 3D and Quake, no PC FPS outside of Doom in the mid-90s achieved any kind of recognition…and deservedly so. Because apart from the holy trinity, so to speak, there was pretty much nothing worth playing.
But when you consider what we’re talking about (FPS from 10+ years ago that actually were worth playing), bringing in Doom and GE64 is pretty fair and certainly highlights significant flaws in other FPS from the era (like PD64).
What I’m confused about, however, is how it’d be *unfair* to compare Doom and/or GE64 against modern FPS.
On a technical level, sure. Comparing sprite-based rendering and rudimentary polygon characters with the insane levels of detail and HDR lighting in Halo 3…there’s just no contest which game looks and visually moves better.
But neither of us are graphics whores, so our comparison boils down to how the games play. How tight the games feel. How balanced the weapons are. How our shots line up. How our characters handle. How we physically move through the levels.
I don’t know if you’ve tried Doom with the 3D Mouselook mod, but it genuinely feels weird…a bad weird. You can tell how Doom was built, and what it was built for. Sure its control scheme seems simple and basic (and yes, even unthinkabl) to a generation raised on mouselook. Both Doom and GE64 were simpler games, yeah.
But here’s the catch: while they had simpler features, they did those features better than other games (PD64) that introduced a whole bunch of different gameplay mechanics/options yet didn’t truly excel in any of them.
Are there exceptions to that principle? Oh absolutely. Halo 3 and Gears of War.
Halo 3 (undeniably the simpler game) has core gameplay that feels solid (the trinity of gun, grenade, melee) but the level design (Last Resort and Construct should step in front of a speeding metro bus), the pacing, weapon placement, etc, doom the game to hell.
Gears of War, on the other hand, the more complex game by a longshot, does many, many things right (the cover system, teamwork emphasis, covering fire, weapon specialization/spawns/balance, level design, and so on) and stumbles in a few areas (primarily lack of variation in its gametypes, and its plagues of animation glitches).
And when all is said and done, even though it may not seem like it right now, in 5 years, Gears of War will be remembered as the better game.
Same thing was happening with GE64/PD64. When PD64 was released, everyone was convinced that it was the next GE64. Everyone praised the combat, the weaponry, the multiplayer options, etc. But over time, what have we seen? We’ve seen many people looking back and seeing PD64’s weapon/control/gameplay issues, particularly when they re-visit the game.
My reaction toward “professional reviewers” was realistic. 90% of them are morons who would have never passed Frosh Comp 101. Some don’t even have a firm grasp on “your” vs “you’re.” On top of that, looking at a game critically isn’t difficult at all. I’ll gladly and easily point out the weaker areas in my favorite games of all-time. Seeing these “professional reviewers” being unable to use any type of critical analysis is disheartening to me as both an English major and a human being. Reviewing games (or movies, or books, etc) professionally is not hard; it’s just that the majority of the world doesn’t know the first thing about effective writing.
I’m not saying I know everything, but I certainly know more than 20 reviewers who all gave stuff like PD64 and Twilight Princess perfect marks across the board.
Mike
Oct 25, 2007 at 5:20 am
“What I’m confused about, however, is how it’d be *unfair* to compare Doom and/or GE64 against modern FPS.”
Didn’t I point this out earlier? Comparing old and new games isn’t very productive because standards change! Mouselook is a very good example of this. You reason that the mouselook mod in Doom made the gameplay weird, but regardless, it was a mod and not part of the original game unlike the games of today.
Let’s say that for one moment you disregard the time element and make a critical analysis of Doom today. You may find balance in its weapons, but there are new standards that it does not have, and you will criticize the game for this.
If you compare two well-balanced shooters without considering date of release, guess who’s going to win? Doom versus Gears of War? Hands down, Gears IS better than Doom and we’re not just talking about the graphics. Gears trumps Doom in visuals, and more importantly, in gameplay as well.
Doesn’t that sound silly?
That is the point. You don’t compare old versus new because the newer, balanced game will always beat the older, balanced classic (naturally, the second-rates of either eras won’t stand a chance). If we never ever consider release date and standards during the period, then we won’t have classic games to hark back.
No Duke Nukem to look back to because it’s laughable compared to the current-day classics. No Gears of War to reminisce in 2020.
This brings us back to the argument that PD was good during its time. That’s the operative phrase.
During its time.
Comparing PD to current standards is useless because naturally, it’s older. The trinity of games you’ve mentioned are exceptions to this rule, but only at a certain extent. That’s why they’re called exceptions. But still, comparing this trinity to the outstanding and balanced games of today would still put the more recent games ahead, all things considered.
During its time, PD was good, while PDZ was not. If Rare can make a Perfect Dark sequel that at the very least is good for its time, then perhaps it would do better sales-wise. However, the franchise has missed its chance to snowball like Halo because its launch title for the 360 was painfully middling.
As for the reviewers, not all are grammatically challenged. With a little effort, I’m sure you can find a handful you can trust in terms of competence.
“And in fact, I think the best way to judge a game’s merits *is* to re-visit it every couple of years”
You have to give some reviewers credit, especially the really good ones. They normally compare the games they review with the current standards. Some of them may seem short-sighted at times, but how can one really tell what’s in store for games several years down the road?
Let me ask you: If reviewing games is so easy, then why are there so many incapable morons, like you’ve just pointed out?
Alex
Oct 25, 2007 at 1:20 pm
“You don’t compare old versus new because the newer, balanced game will always beat the older, balanced classic.”
Mike, surely you can’t be serious. If this is the big point you’re making…like you actually believe it…then there are problems here beyond PD64. Make no mistake, the newer, balanced games do not and will not always beat the older, balanced classic. Anyone who suggests otherwise is making broad and uninformed generalizations. Halo never replaced GoldenEye. Gears of War never replaced Doom. Yes, Halo and Gears look better. Yes, they’re more modern. Yes, they’re more powerful. Yes, they’re newer. But did they beat those classics? Not a snowball’s chance in hell, mate. Why?
Not because of nostalgia.
It’s because those classic games were genuinely constructed better. For an immediate example, play through the original Doom, then play through Gears of War. See which game feels tighter. I promise you that when you sit down and compare those two games, especially in-combat, Gears will feel like ballet while Doom feels like a kick to the chest.
Same thing goes for GoldenEye/Halo. Even when Halo is the newer, “balanced” game, it’s plagued with so many other issues that it’s almost unplayable. The movement and jump physics are garbage. And in fact, most of the weapons lack any kind of significant punch, while others are still broken.
The shotgun, even in mid-close range, will still likely take two shots to kill your target. I can’t count the number of times I and others have had to melee-lunge to get the kill after the first shot only dropped out the target’s shields.
And on the other side of the power spectrum is the sniper rifle, which drops your shields in one shot, and then the sniper can easily hit you with another round a split-second later because of the weapon’s non-existent recoil.
Guess which player is put at a disadvantage in Shotty Snipers. If sniping isn’t your forte, you need to get up close, but that’s pretty much impossible for most of the maps, due to the wide open areas with little alcoves peppering the walls. And if you’re lucky enough to get up close-range, your shotgun won’t even kill in one hit in most cases.
You never, ever, ever had those balance issues in GoldenEye. Even when you played PowerWeapons. Most people flocked to the RCP-90, but the experienced players went for the auto-shotgun. One headshot on the default health setting with the auto-shotty was a kill, but the shot radius was small, so you had to know how to use the weapon. And if you were really good with the auto-shotty, you could actually snipe with it.
This is not a case of the newer, balanced game beating the older, balanced classic. If anything, it’s the complete opposite.
And Perfect Dark 64 was never balanced anyway, so “newer, balanced game” doesn’t really apply to it.
Speaking of PD64, even during its time it was substandard. It had no weapon balance. No suitable AI. No respectable framerate. No singleplayer campaign that was worth a damn. But no multiplayer that was worth a damn, either.
You could point to the weaponset customization, and sure, that was nice, but when 75% of the weapons are downright broken, what’s the point of customizing a weaponset when the only balanced weapons were the conventional ones?
Again, like I’ve said before, I’m not even comparing PD64 to current standards. I’m comparing it to standards of its era…and those standards were set by Doom and GoldenEye…two games that took gaming by storm back then, and two games that undeniably have stood the test of time…especially when they’re still tighter and more balanced than even the AAA current-gen FPS titles.
Regarding the reviewers, I’ll give some of them credit when they’ve earned it. And frankly, if these people are supposed to be professionals, I’d expect them to be able to see where games are going several years down the road, because you can tell what’s in store for games several years down the road by examining what types of games have made what types of impacts over the years.
Halo did what it needed to do by giving people a reason to buy an Xbox. Halo 2 did what it needed to do by opening up Xbox Live.
But Halo 3? Its legacy will be its Theatre function, if anything. Bungie figured out a way to save entire matches with full playback and full camera control, yet only have that take up a few megs at a time. Even campaign missions that lasted the better part of an hour only hit in the 10 megs range. This is revolutionary. This is next-gen. This is what will change the industry. Not Halo 3. Not its online Matchmaking. Not its gameplay.
And already you can see the huge impact of Gears of War. Before Gears, online co-op was basic. It wasn’t even a mega-consideration for most developers. And when it was a consideration, not much was ever done with it. Gears changed all of that.
Post-Gears, what do we have? Crackdown, Kane & Lynch, Army of Two, and Halo 3 (with 4-player online co-op) immediately come to mind. Now whether or not K&L or Army of Two turn out to be good, the fact that each of those developers has paid so much attention to designing, crafting, and fine-tuning their respective online cooperative experiences, speaks volumes to the impact of Gears of War’s online co-op.
In years to come, we’ll also see Gears having an effect on gameplay itself. We’ll see more of the emphasis on tight squad teamwork and covering fire, and less of the Halo-esque “renegade” Lone-Wolf experience. There’s no doubt in my mind that player movement will be changing, as well. It’ll move away from the flighty super-jump we’ve seen in Halo, to the grounded, weighted Gears style.
To answer your final question, it’s because this world doesn’t run on merit. Skill has a little something to do with things, but generally it’s *who* you know, not *what* you know. Incapable morons reviewing games professionally…perfect example.
Mike
Oct 26, 2007 at 1:10 am
Nostalgia? Surely, you can’t be serious. Nostalgia is going to make old games better? If that’s the case, then it’s not an objective analysis.
The term nostalgia alone connotes a time element. I thought we’re supposed to disregard that.
“Make no mistake, the newer, balanced games do not and will not always beat the older, balanced classic.
If a newer, “balanced” game can’t beat the classic (in an objective sense and no nostalgia involved), then the game isn’t really that good, then. Sure, the newer game may sell well *cough* Halo * cough*, but sales and quality isn’t necessarily correlated all the time, isn’t it?
While a part of me understands your final statement regarding “who” you know, I can’t completely agree. The path I took in the games journalism industry has been tough, and yes, I see people in higher places that aren’t as skilled as I expected them to be.
However, through hard work, I was able to move up because of that skill (at least, I think I am skilled), even if I never had a contact on the inside.
Alex
Oct 26, 2007 at 8:20 am
“Nostalgia? Surely, you can’t be serious. Nostalgia is going to make old games better? If that’s the case, then it’s not an objective analysis.
The term nostalgia alone connotes a time element. I thought we’re supposed to disregard that.”
…um…read my previous comment a wee bit more carefully:
But did they beat those classics? Not a snowball’s chance in hell, mate. Why?
***Not*** because of nostalgia.
It’s because those classic games were genuinely constructed better.
Nostalgia never had anything to do with it.
But maybe my paragraphing confused your eyes. Or maybe I hadn’t emphasized the word “not” enough.
“If a newer, “balanced” game can’t beat the classic (in an objective sense and no nostalgia involved), then the game isn’t really that good, then.”
OR, maybe that older game genuinely is really *that good* such is the case with Doom and GE64.
Come on, Mike. At least give me a challenge, you saucy vixen, you.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: