Is Halo reponsable for many good games today ? Yes or No ?

[Reasonable]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

ssj12 said:

Rpruett said:
Like I said, Goldeneye / Perfect Dark 'Revolutionized' FPS for Console. Halo just expanded on technology that was already there and added things that the n64 couldn't. Vehicles,Multi-player Split-Screen, Double Weapons, Addicting Game play , Bots all were prevalent prior to Halo on consoles.

Halo was a great game though. Though I don't think it has had an effect on many games.

 

1. tank drivable

2. you could hold two weapons, hell you could have every weapon but like 3 dual weilded due to the fact the watch laser, tank cannon, and i forgot the other wouldnt have worked well with two of them.

3. this is a joke right?

 

 

You may believe Halo is overrated, but this is console gaming we're talking about, not PC. If not for Halo games like Killzone or Resistance wouldn't have existed.

 

That's the point I (and other posters) have been making.  Halo opened the floodgates for FPS as a genre on console, but of itself it was simply a fairly generic FPS that, like most new titles with plenty to copy, was 90% straight copy of existing FPS conventions with 10% new stuff - shields and two weapon limit and coop.

Every FPS on a console essentially owes its existance to the growth of FPS on PC - Halo allowed the platform to be viable, it didn't inform the games themselves (Resistance for example - the first one - is clearly a throwback to the no weapon, long campaign through lots of locations of earlier PC FPS (with a decent smattering of CoD) than anything to do with Halo.).

And if we're talking about FPS game content we're talking PC as well - how could you not?  Halo didn't appear out of nowhere magically - it was simply another FPS (but on a console) at a time when a certain demographic (particularly in US) were desperate for such a title to exist on a low cost console vs high end PC.