Jereel Hunter said:
Halo forced console FPSs to start including more aspects that were in PC FPSs. Doing something first isn't the only way to add a lot to a genre. Doing something with greater polish, or forcing it to become more mainstream is more of an influence on a genre. For instance, technically speaking the Beatles or Nirvana didn't *technically* do anything new for music... However they were very influential to others. It doesn't matter if Halo was a direct copy of another game, if that other game left view without notice, and then Halo came on the scene and made a splash - Halo was the influence. Now, this is not the case here. The finished product that was Halo was not an experience you could get elsewhere. You could have most of the options, but not sit on a couch and play on a big TV with 4 buddies. Or you could play a game with splitscreen that was an infinitely inferior experience. Sometimes things you add to a genre are a high level of play that forces everyone to be BETTER. When Halo came out, how many times did every other game take a backseat while you and your friends played for hours? New games came out and still were's as good and thus didn't get as much notice. You can list all these things that were "done before." But the complete experience (and it MUST include split screen, as that was the true genesis of Halo's popularity.) was not available elsewhere. If you only want to sit alone infront of a monitor, then sure, PC gaming had what you wanted pre-2001. But if you wanted that experience with your friends playing with you, Halo was a leap - it improved vastly on what 007 was for consoles, and gave flexibility that the PC didn't. |
Okay I'll be blunt. Compared to FPS on PC Halo didn't do anything better apart from offer coop. That's the point I'm making. It made the biggest splash of an FPS on a console, but compared to titles like Goldeneye it didn't even prove you could have a good FPS on a console - it just landed at the right time on the right console.
Coop aside every feature had been delivered just as well on a PC title, both SP and online - i.e. Halo didn't have more polish, compared to PC titles it had less until arguably Halo 3 (in terms of Halo itself and ignoring other FPS titles). Halo CE had some terrible levels, The Library, covered up a lack of content with backtracking, weak MP and limited gameplay (or streamlined if you think simplified is better than depth) in terms of repeat/rinse corridor shooting interspaced with some okay vehicle sections. Halo 2 brought MP closer to PC but lagged online PC experience and had arguably a worse SP campaign than 1. 3 provided the best console MP online but again nothing that hadn't been provided as well or better for years on PC.
Bluntly, if you were a keen FPS player at the time it wasn't a better experience than Counter Strike, etc. Just a decent effort on a console. You are confusing populist (and mainly US / UK populist at that) with excellence. I've played and enjoyed all the Halo titles, and all have lagged PC FPS. The low cost and easy access of console has gained a great deal of ground vs PC, but don't confuse that with improvement.
As for the complete experience it was certainly not the first FPS to deliver that - and no split screen isn't a must. It's nice, but far from a must as many FPS since have proved.
I get you love it, I get you think I'm not recognising its impact. The point is I don't believe it had the impact on FPS genre you imagine (Half Life series overall, including Counter Strike) has been hugely more impactful on FPS genre than Halo. It made FPS on console popular and it ensured success of Xbox (and be extension 360).
It is popular - but not the best nor the most influencial on the actual gameplay of a FPS either offline or online.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
