Agreed, but the game would've been much better if the price was originally $40.

I think that they halo series has been very well made and plays well. It may not be the most original but for what it is, it's been a great series. There's generally a good amount of content, with the exception of ODST, and graphics are decent, but nothing special. But the appeal of its multiplayer and the quality of the experience can't be ignored.

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

The reason why so many people call Halo's innovative is because it took the best aspects from all the other awesome games and put it into one epic package.

That doesn't make it innovative in any sense because it hardly brought anything new to the table, but that doesn't prevent it from being a classic game. The Half-Life series isn't particurly innovative either but they're outstanding games.

Now excuse me, I'll running off before the Valve fanboys grab their torches and pitch forks.

wow at Halo Wars rating

it is a shame ... so overrated ...

By that train of thought, even Uncharted would be innovative... which it's not. Good game, but not what I would call innovative.

OT: I played the Halo games fairly late, so all the hype had worn off and everything it brought to the genre had already been done from my point of view. Having said that, I fully appreciate what Halo CE acheived in bringing together so many ideas and popularising the FPS genre on consoles beyond what even Goldeneye on N64 could acheive. I would personally score all of them (the FPS games) lower but Halo CE is probably most deserving of critical praise for reasons stated above. However, I'd still rate it lower simply because of some of the repetitive level design was... well repetitive. Having said that, Halo 3 in co-op is awesome . My take:

Halo CE: 86%

Halo 2: 70%

Halo 3: 80%

Haven't played Halo ODST.

As for Halo Wars, it was good for a console RTS, but really should have been brought to PC as a full fledged RTS. It's a shame Ensemble went out with what was probably their worst game, all down to having to simplify for a console interface.

Halo Wars: 80%

duh

I disagree here. The first Half-Life was very innovatif, it is the first FPS which used scripted events as we know them today and was also the first FPS with an original and brilliant story.