Do any of the Halo titles deserve critical acclaim?

[TheNoobHolocaust]

ZenfoldorVGI said:

CollectiveCynic said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:

Funtime said:
What you have to realize about the halo series is that the amount of fun you have playing is often related more to having friends over and playing split screen on XBL than it is about the campaign, and that kind of fun is hard to review or measure.

The first game is the best of the bunch and it has a very limited and terrible MP. In fact, the first game is really worthy of praise based only off its great gameplay innovation that are now part of every FPS across all platforms. The shield system and the gun inventory system from CE bacame staples of the genre after that game, and they still are. It was a great game with a great story and great graphics. It was also innovative and spawned a hugely successful hardcore following, while being critically and financially successful, all based off very nearly an exclusively Single Player game.

Yes, CE is a AAA title and a classic for all shooter fans.

Actually, Halo Combat Evolved wasn't innovative. It took many elements and concepts from previous first-person shooter, then refined them into a well designed and polished package.

Examples:

• Off Hand Grenade Throwing: Terminator Future Shock
• Vehicles: Battlezone
• Regenerating Shield/Health: Trespasser
• Two weapon carry limit: Rainbow Six
• Ability to melee attack while holding your weapon: Duke Nukem 3D

Halo: Combat Evolved is a fantastic game, there's no denying that. However, it's not innovative. That isn't particurly a bad thing since some of the greatest games of all time aren't innovative, but such a claim would be a stretch for Halo. I also had no problem with Halo: CE's multi-player apart from it's hysterically overpowered pistol. I can create a huge ass laundry list that accounts the many reasons why I despise Halo 2's multi-player. However, I don't want to because I don't want to be flamed and I don't want to hurt other people's feelings. :P

I know someone would come up with that argument, but it's totally bogus.

CE implimented those prior inventions in a way that was so well done, it popularized it. Just like the Wii didn't invent motion controls, and the DS didn't invent touch screens for gaming, ect, yet those platforms are innovative, because they took that idea and knew that they were winners and they risked their necks on it.

Every word in the greatest book was written in the cheapest dictionary before the book was written. It is the arrangement and boldness of those words that causes the book to become a masterpiece.

Just because someone doesn't come up with a basic idea, implimenting a perfected version of it in a worldchanging way can be considered innovative.

Because of Halo:CE, games that came after it, including Resistance 2 and Killzone 2, changed and became better. That game can thus be considered innovative and influential, imo. By your logic, almost nothing, ever, is innovative. The Wii isn't innovative, the DS isn't innovative, ect.

If other games would change because of gimmicks uncharted 2 popularized, then yes, it too would be considered innovative. However, Uncharted 2 didn't popularize any gimmicks, it just took popular gimmicks that were already there(many popularized by Halo:CE).

Nintendo doesn't have to invent motion controls to be considered innovative by implimenting them.

Your right about it taking elements from other epic games, and IMO, making the perfect combination of shooting and platforming, But I don't think they took anything from Halo:CE, they took the cover system and Third Person Shooting from Gears and made it their own, the platforming and climbing from Assassin's Creed, The action, adventure, and treasure hunting from Tomb Raider, combined with the amazing graphics, but I don't think they took anything from Halo:CE. I'm not saying that Halo:CE didn't influence other games, but it didn't influence Uncharted, IMO Tomb Raider and Treasure hunting movies like Indiana Jones did.