| Zappykins said: [...] When Halo came out there had only ever been one successful shooter. So ya, it was a tremendous risk. To get it right they even bought the company, another huge risk. [...] |
Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Quake II, Quake III Arena, Half-Life, System Shock, System Shock 2, Heretic, Goldeneye, Turok, Perfect Dark, Duke Nukem 3D, Jedi Knight, Rainbow Six, Unreal, Team Fortress, Outcast, Medal of Honor, Medal of Honor: Underground, Unreal Tournament, Soldier of Fortune, TimeSplitters, Counter-Strike, No One Lives Forever, Serious Sam, Tribes 2, Red Faction.
Which one of those are you referring to as the only one successful? The way I see it, FPS was already a very well established genre when Halo came out in 2001. Microsoft even didn't take any risks at all by changing Halo to a standard shooter. When Halo was announced for PC, it was about to become a totally different game, with a heavy focus on Multiplayer and changeable terrain thanks to a Voxel Engine. Microsoft scrapped all that and just brought a shooter.
Don't get me wrong, Halo is a good game, but it doesn't have to do anything with risks. At all. Bungie was also cheap back then. They only released Marathon and Marathon II which nobody knew back then.
Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.
