Wow. Halo was a (I would argue the first) good console shooter, as were its sequels... but it *was* generic. I guess it kinda defines generic, so maybe that's why so many people consider it to not be?
Anyone who had played PC shooters for years, up to the point of Halo's release, would agree, I think. Halo reminded me a LOT of Marathon when it was released. Go figure. Tribes was released years before Halo. Tribes was a way better online game, in a LOT of people's opinions.
That being said, its pretty tough to really get creative with a shooter, and when you do (e.g. Fracture, Haze), you often get hammered for it (because not every idea is actually cool or fun). Halo is solid. That's its strong point. What it does, which is nothing really very interesting, it does very well.
Halo can't be "killed". It cemented its place as "first decent console shooter" on the day of its release. Its also not worthy of being held up as some sorta icon, except that its sales have always been solid, thanks to its being the first decent shooter series ever really accessible to console owners. If you were to compare Halo, or any of its successors, to PC shooters of the time, it would be utterly lost in the crowd.
CoD4 already unseated it, in my book, as the best online shooter this gen. Halo was never a great single player game, really. KZ1 was better than Halo, in that regard. So were a truckload of other shooters. KZ2 will probably replace CoD4, as the favored online shooter on the PS3.
I don't see how it "kills" Halo 3, though.
