Halo ...... the history

Dual wielding was good.

Ending was non existant. I honestly thought I was going to another level then it just ended.

I don't think the story is much to write home about either.

 

Ok, ok. I understand Halo is a cultural phenomenon in North America, much like Madden here. But let's get off Halo's nuts. This isn't on the same level as Star Wars or any of these other franchises. Why compare oranges and a potato?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I don't understand the fascination with this games so called greatness. It's a good, solid, fun multiplayer franchise. The single player experience is extremely pedestrian, as is the run-of-the-mill story. It's a game that resonates with casual gamers because of how simple the interface and accessibility; fine, I can understand that.

But when people say this is the best FPS ever is just baffling to me. What is so innovative about it? This isn't Doom, this isn't Quake, nor is it Unreal or Golden-Eye or Half-Life. I'm welcoming any arguments here, because I am honestly curious.

 

But how?

 

You just named some of the most ground-breaking franchises of all time. You've expressed your opinion fine, I just want to know why.

 

Never really liked Halo. Though I only played the multi-player version, it just never appealed to me.

 

I see the arguement, although I definitely think that Gears Of Wears has it's own issues (Great engine/graphics, great single player, mediocre multiplayer). I would argue that Rainbow Six: Las Vegas is a much better overall experience (great single-player, very fun multiplayer).

No single player experience has touched Half Life 2 or even the original IMO, in terms of story, scope, and overall fun.

 

No, Rainbow 6 is one game that had it several years before Halo and there were probably others.

 

And I would never rate Halo as one of the best FPS, maybe if there was a category for best mindless shoot-'em-up...