selnor on 10 December 2008
| Groucho said: 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. 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 to PC shooters of the time, it would be utterly lost in the crowd. |
I diagree. People hold Half Life 2 up with a big candle. Although the majority of the single player was generic and boring at times. Along with the gimic of physics weapon (which only became good near the end) to me I would rather play through the Halo trilogy again. I know millions of people would agree.
