Why do a lot of gamers hate the Halo series?

(1) Vistas: so you mean Halo was able to do things on a larger graphical scale than before. Given the XBOX's technology, a fair point. But when I talk about design, I'm not talking about the game engine. The outdoor levels are ok, it's more the interior designs that I think are abhorrent. The Master Chief, the enemies, the marines, the vehicles are also uninteresting military techno-cliche. It is a subjective point but then again perhaps I assign a higher value on art than other people do. But I think it would be easy to find more attractive game universes. I would also distinguish between technical ability and the ability to create something genuinely novel and interesting on an artistic level. Again it's not that Halo is poorly executed, it's just average to somewhat above-average.

(2) The criticism that hiding to recharge health breaks the flow of gameplay is not unique to me, and seems to be a common point against Halo for those who are critical of it. And I've already answered your question on both counts: (1) because it breaks the flow of the gameplay (2) it's not a necessarily better choice. There's nothing wrong with having a health bar. As I said, Halo is a compromise and doesn't know what it is. It is tactical yet action-packed, as well as having both shields and a health bar - Halo sits on the fence, and like a major political party you don't know where it stands.

(3) I don't find the control smooth, not then and not now, and I mean the console version.

(4) Some people, such as myself, don't want to have to read pulp sf just to play a video game. It might enhance your personal enjoyment to know the backstory but a game that's the first in a series should be able to introduce the universe and the characters effectively. If it can't stand on its own two feet then it has failed. For instance, the story in the Solaris remake is incoherent if you haven't seen the original film (or read the book at least). Does that mean it has a good storyline because the original movie and book do? I would define "cryptic" as "hardly existent" in this case.

(5) Wasn't avowed in earnestness. Just an attack on statistical thinking in general, including "this many people like Halo :. it's good". I don't think that's an opinion masquerading as fact, that argument can easily refuted as logically invalid. My goal is much less ambitious than the Halo fanboys; they want to prove that Halo cannot be called a bad game by any (at least any reasonable) standard, and I want to prove that it can. These are subjective opinions and if you admit as much as then we have nothing further to argue about.

I would hardly consider Halo "trying to be different". Games that genuinely try to be different usually meet with some critical acclaim (though not as much as Halo's usually) and dismal sales, for instance Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Grim Fandango, etc. First-person shooters continually fail to meet that standard because the fundamental premise is hardly ever challenged: namely an epic battle between two or more forces, wait for it, in space. It defined games like Doom, Marathon, Unreal and we're still blundering about ugly, dark pseudo-industrial environments in 2009.

owl_of_minerva

(1) I already agreed on that the design often is repetetive, which is the problem with the indoor levels. I personally find the Forerunner art-styIe very distinct and the art in general is IMO fantastic. Maybe you can easily come up with universes you find more appealing, I can't.

(2) If it is a common criticism and yet completely invalid, what does that tell us? What's the problem with compromises and what's wrong with being a bit of both? I'd claim its ability to be many things at once depending on the player is one of its greatest strenghts.

(3) Well then, I can only answer that you are in disagreement with quite a few people.

(4) Already addressed this point in my first post (it's bad design, I know. Never claimed the game was without its faults.) There's a lot of story in there though - and we both know Tarkovsky's Solaris is the only real movie adaption. :P

(5) Fair enough. But I never claimed Halo has to be an objectively good game, only that your arguments were based on opinions (which they were.) Of course you can easily prove Halo can be a subjectively bad game but what's the point in doing so? I've given you two valid arguments (repetition, dependance on background knowledge) which are completely objective, if you want to show that Halo can be called a bad game by reasonable standards you should use those instead.

Halo does not try to be different in the same way as the games you listed. Did you play Marathon? It's a very "different" series because of its storytelling and complexity in a genre that's known for being completely superficial - and does not only feature a battle between many forces but actually has the player frequently change sides and shape past AND future in doing so, essentially embodying fate itself (as pointed out by the ending.) The electric sheep levels are pretty much unique AFAIK. It's not "standard" at all. Halo (the first one) does continue the heritage of complex storytelling, it just adds a more simple layer that everyone can understand on top of it. The actual plot in Halo CE is completely illogical if one analyses it without knowing more about the characters and races. It's supposed to be mystical I guess but it is bad design for a blockbuster game. But Halo doesn't follow the normal two-forces formula that strictly either, there are two parallel stories which are told throughout the games (the one about humans and the covenant and the one about forerunners and the flood.) The stories are connected through the flood.

Why defend such a standard game?

owl_of_minerva

Well, there's two reasons really: one, the arguments you used are the standard ones used by a lot of Halo haters and they're subjective. Wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the apparent belief of some of them that their opinions somehow are better than those of the people who actually like Halo. You're not one of those, that's also the reason I chose to respond to you.

Two, I personally don't think it's a standard game at all.

[QUOTE="owl_of_minerva"]

(1) Vistas: so you mean Halo was able to do things on a larger graphical scale than before. Given the XBOX's technology, a fair point. But when I talk about design, I'm not talking about the game engine. The outdoor levels are ok, it's more the interior designs that I think are abhorrent. The Master Chief, the enemies, the marines, the vehicles are also uninteresting military techno-cliche. It is a subjective point but then again perhaps I assign a higher value on art than other people do. But I think it would be easy to find more attractive game universes. I would also distinguish between technical ability and the ability to create something genuinely novel and interesting on an artistic level. Again it's not that Halo is poorly executed, it's just average to somewhat above-average.

(2) The criticism that hiding to recharge health breaks the flow of gameplay is not unique to me, and seems to be a common point against Halo for those who are critical of it. And I've already answered your question on both counts: (1) because it breaks the flow of the gameplay (2) it's not a necessarily better choice. There's nothing wrong with having a health bar. As I said, Halo is a compromise and doesn't know what it is. It is tactical yet action-packed, as well as having both shields and a health bar - Halo sits on the fence, and like a major political party you don't know where it stands.

(3) I don't find the control smooth, not then and not now, and I mean the console version.

(4) Some people, such as myself, don't want to have to read pulp sf just to play a video game. It might enhance your personal enjoyment to know the backstory but a game that's the first in a series should be able to introduce the universe and the characters effectively. If it can't stand on its own two feet then it has failed. For instance, the story in the Solaris remake is incoherent if you haven't seen the original film (or read the book at least). Does that mean it has a good storyline because the original movie and book do? I would define "cryptic" as "hardly existent" in this case.

(5) Wasn't avowed in earnestness. Just an attack on statistical thinking in general, including "this many people like Halo :. it's good". I don't think that's an opinion masquerading as fact, that argument can easily refuted as logically invalid. My goal is much less ambitious than the Halo fanboys; they want to prove that Halo cannot be called a bad game by any (at least any reasonable) standard, and I want to prove that it can. These are subjective opinions and if you admit as much as then we have nothing further to argue about.

I would hardly consider Halo "trying to be different". Games that genuinely try to be different usually meet with some critical acclaim (though not as much as Halo's usually) and dismal sales, for instance Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Grim Fandango, etc. First-person shooters continually fail to meet that standard because the fundamental premise is hardly ever challenged: namely an epic battle between two or more forces, wait for it, in space. It defined games like Doom, Marathon, Unreal and we're still blundering about ugly, dark pseudo-industrial environments in 2009.

inoperativeRS

(1) I already agreed on that the design often is repetetive, which is the problem with the indoor levels. I personally find the Forerunner art-styIe very distinct and the art in general is IMO fantastic. Maybe you can easily come up with universes you find more appealing, I can't.

(2) If it is a common criticism and yet completely invalid, what does that tell us? What's the problem with compromises and what's wrong with being a bit of both? I'd claim its ability to be many things at once depending on the player is one of its greatest strenghts.

(3) Well then, I can only answer that you are in disagreement with quite a few people.

(4) Already addressed this point in my first post (it's bad design, I know. Never claimed the game was without its faults.) There's a lot of story in there though - and we both know Tarkovsky's Solaris is the only real movie adaption. :P

(5) Fair enough. But I never claimed Halo has to be an objectively good game, only that your arguments were based on opinions (which they were.) Of course you can easily prove Halo can be a subjectively bad game but what's the point in doing so? I've given you two valid arguments (repetition, dependance on background knowledge) which are completely objective, if you want to show that Halo can be called a bad game by reasonable standards you should use those instead.

Halo does not try to be different in the same way as the games you listed. Did you play Marathon? It's a very "different" series because of its storytelling and complexity in a genre that's known for being completely superficial - and does not only feature a battle between many forces but actually has the player frequently change sides and shape past AND future in doing so, essentially embodying fate itself (as pointed out by the ending.) The electric sheep levels are pretty much unique AFAIK. It's not "standard" at all. Halo (the first one) does continue the heritage of complex storytelling, it just adds a more simple layer that everyone can understand on top of it. The actual plot in Halo CE is completely illogical if one analyses it without knowing more about the characters and races. It's supposed to be mystical I guess but it is bad design for a blockbuster game. But Halo doesn't follow the normal two-forces formula that strictly either, there are two parallel stories which are told throughout the games (the one about humans and the covenant and the one about forerunners and the flood.) The stories are connected through the flood.

Why defend such a standard game?

owl_of_minerva

Well, there's two reasons really: one, the arguments you used are the standard ones used by a lot of Halo haters and they're subjective. Wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the apparent belief of some of them that their opinions somehow are better than those of the people who actually like Halo. You're not one of those, that's also the reason I chose to respond to you.

Two, I personally don't think it's a standard game at all.

(1) So we agree, sort of.

(2) In short, jack of all trades, master of none. It doesn't deliver a deep tactical experience and it doesn't offer as fast-paced a shooter experience as the more traditional FPS.

(3) Already surmised that, given the popularity of the series. Although the praise for the controls is usually made in reference to a console standard alone, which wasn't high back then.

(4) Agreed.

(5) My point in offering a subjective critique is (1) to answer the poster's original question and (2) to attack the conventional wisdom that sales are some kind of touchstone for merit, which would somehow render Halo beyond criticism. You may not have argued that, but others have and that's what I was responding to in the first place.

Clearly you probably like the game because of involvement in the Halo universe. But if you don't care about the universe (which I don't) perhaps you can imagine why it could be found boring: there's no meaningful context for the story or the action, which you need if you're going to have any kind of immersive experience. I suspect that for most gamers the action would be enough, but it's not if you play games discerningly, ie. you demind more than a 2d backdrop for targets in a shooting gallery. Given so many years playing games, a poorly delivered story is enough to render a game unworthy of one's time, especially when it's a premise as overused as the space shooter. I haven't played Marathon, but it already sounds infinitely better than the Halo series could ever be. If Peter Jackson directs, it could be an alright movie though.

[QUOTE="inoperativeRS"][QUOTE="owl_of_minerva"]

(1) I already agreed on that the design often is repetetive, which is the problem with the indoor levels. I personally find the Forerunner art-styIe very distinct and the art in general is IMO fantastic. Maybe you can easily come up with universes you find more appealing, I can't.

(2) If it is a common criticism and yet completely invalid, what does that tell us? What's the problem with compromises and what's wrong with being a bit of both? I'd claim its ability to be many things at once depending on the player is one of its greatest strenghts.

(3) Well then, I can only answer that you are in disagreement with quite a few people.

(4) Already addressed this point in my first post (it's bad design, I know. Never claimed the game was without its faults.) There's a lot of story in there though - and we both know Tarkovsky's Solaris is the only real movie adaption. :P

(5) Fair enough. But I never claimed Halo has to be an objectively good game, only that your arguments were based on opinions (which they were.) Of course you can easily prove Halo can be a subjectively bad game but what's the point in doing so? I've given you two valid arguments (repetition, dependance on background knowledge) which are completely objective, if you want to show that Halo can be called a bad game by reasonable standards you should use those instead.

Halo does not try to be different in the same way as the games you listed. Did you play Marathon? It's a very "different" series because of its storytelling and complexity in a genre that's known for being completely superficial - and does not only feature a battle between many forces but actually has the player frequently change sides and shape past AND future in doing so, essentially embodying fate itself (as pointed out by the ending.) The electric sheep levels are pretty much unique AFAIK. It's not "standard" at all. Halo (the first one) does continue the heritage of complex storytelling, it just adds a more simple layer that everyone can understand on top of it. The actual plot in Halo CE is completely illogical if one analyses it without knowing more about the characters and races. It's supposed to be mystical I guess but it is bad design for a blockbuster game. But Halo doesn't follow the normal two-forces formula that strictly either, there are two parallel stories which are told throughout the games (the one about humans and the covenant and the one about forerunners and the flood.) The stories are connected through the flood.

[QUOTE="owl_of_minerva"]

Why defend such a standard game?

owl_of_minerva

Well, there's two reasons really: one, the arguments you used are the standard ones used by a lot of Halo haters and they're subjective. Wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the apparent belief of some of them that their opinions somehow are better than those of the people who actually like Halo. You're not one of those, that's also the reason I chose to respond to you.

Two, I personally don't think it's a standard game at all.

(1) So we agree, sort of.

(2) In short, jack of all trades, master of none. It doesn't deliver a deep tactical experience and it doesn't offer as fast-paced a shooter experience as the more traditional FPS.

(3) Already surmised that, given the popularity of the series. Although the praise for the controls is usually made in reference to a console standard alone, which wasn't high back then.

(4) Agreed.

(5) My point in offering a subjective critique is (1) to answer the poster's original question and (2) to attack the conventional wisdom that sales are some kind of touchstone for merit, which would somehow render Halo beyond criticism. You may not have argued that, but others have and that's what I was responding to in the first place.

Clearly you probably like the game because of involvement in the Halo universe. But if you don't care about the universe (which I don't) perhaps you can imagine why it could be found boring: there's no meaningful context for the story or the action, which you need if you're going to have any kind of immersive experience. I suspect that for most gamers the action would be enough, but it's not if you play games discerningly, ie. you demind more than a 2d backdrop for targets in a shooting gallery. Given so many years playing games, a poorly delivered story is enough to render a game unworthy of one's time, especially when it's a premise as overused as the space shooter. I haven't played Marathon, but it already sounds infinitely better than the Halo series could ever be. If Peter Jackson directs, it could be an alright movie though.

Acclaim film director Guillermo Del Toro is actually a fan of the Halo universe and nobody has to be involved with the Halo universe to be a Halo fan. I'm a fan of the StarCraft franchise but I'm not involved with the StarCraft universe.

It's boring, unreal and all halo games have the same history, I mean you just keep shooting stupid aliens (unreal) in all the halo games(repetitive) boring (don't have anything new to show us) HALO SUXX 8) Tohmasphanton

You're twelve aren't you?

It's just a love it or hate it series. A lot of people don't realize while the Halo series didn't really bring anything new to the genre, it still didn't fail at it, by any means.Legendaryscmt

Love or hate is a bit too strong - plenty folks just like it without losing their nuts over it (like most the progamer community). I like it - to me it's no Gears, but still, solid none the less (though the cartoony voices of the little worthless ****'s is kinda annoying). The art style is really unique - I think that's one of the reason so many people get attached. It's got that cult aspect because the world is so well put together - same reason folks love Star Wars. The universe is badass - say what you will about the core story, game structure, etc..

I really don't understand why critics (Gamespot included) lost their mind so totaly over it - especially the last one which, IMO, wasn't the best. I mean, it was good, but chuck as much money at it as they did and it better be good. Personally I thought Zero Punctuation's take was pretty spot on - ZP's Video Review.

I still don't understand why Halo receives so much hate and backlash. A lot of gamers on the internet are calling it "an average shooter" or "overhyped piece of media garbage!"

Then they bring up Goldeneye 007 as the defining light for console shooters. Really, Goldeneye 007? Sure the game was good for the consoles back in it's time but compared to Quake II which was released the same year the game was primitive. It wasn't even the first exclusive console FPS , Turok was released before Goldeneye 007 and that game wasn't great either. You might think that "goldeneye is teh best fps evah!' but take off the nostalgic goggles and you can see that the game has a boat load of flaws. The controls were so limited and jerky they feel awful compared to smooth PC shooter controls, you can barely even aim because the gunplay mechanics only rely on auto-aim which takes away the skill factor that's needed in the multiplayer. Sure you can go into aim mode but you can't move during the process which is a hassle. The A.I. is mentally retarded beyond all relief, one NPC walk passed me while I was in front of him, one NPC ran towards the grenade I threw, and they were too good of a shot because they shoot from a 25 mile distance with the **** of a weapon. Perfect Dark was nothing more than the same game with the same flaws but it was in a futuristic setting and offered gadgets.

Halo was the first console FPS done right and the first console shoot that holds up against most top tier PC first-person shooter {Now before someone calls me out on that; Half-Life series > Halo Trilogy}, it wasn't the first FPS to use dual analog controls {That crapp Alien Resurrection game was the first to use it} but if had the first good controls in a console FPS. You can move and aim in a proper speed , shoot with just right amount of auto-aim to shoot with a nice precision. The A.I. was impeccable; they fought like you were actually fighting real enemies.

Christ it bugs me that this trilogy gets so much backlash, why do so many gamers hate Halo despite its critical acclaim?

and i understand why ppl bash it cuz its very overrated, halo 3 is no better than resistance 2 or Perfect Dark Zero.bakingman04

yeah, and Jak and Daxter is no better than ty the Tasmanian Tiger.

[QUOTE="Legendaryscmt"]It's just a love it or hate it series. A lot of people don't realize while the Halo series didn't really bring anything new to the genre, it still didn't fail at it, by any means.Evilgodmonkey

Love or hate is a bit too strong - plenty folks just like it without losing their nuts over it (like most the progamer community). I like it - to me it's no Gears, but still, solid none the less (though the cartoony voices of the little worthless ****'s is kinda annoying). The art style is really unique - I think that's one of the reason so many people get attached. It's got that cult aspect because the world is so well put together - same reason folks love Star Wars. The universe is badass - say what you will about the core story, game structure, etc..

I really don't understand why critics (Gamespot included) lost their mind so totaly over it - especially the last one which, IMO, wasn't the best. I mean, it was good, but chuck as much money at it as they did and it better be good. Personally I thought Zero Punctuation's take was pretty spot on - ZP's Video Review.

Jeff Gerstmann reviewed Halo 3....

As a PC gamer I might as well throw in my minor denomination coin ...

I didnt complete the game. The story failed to draw me in despite vaguelly wanting to know what the Halo actually was. The gameplay really didnt seem like anything new at all except for the outside battles/vehicles. That was new but for me not exciting or well implemented enough for me to keep playing.

In short I got bored.

This happens VERY rarely for me. It wasnt a bad game ... just on the PC it didnt seem like anything special either. The experience could be completely different on consoles though and on that I cant comment.

Genia

[QUOTE="bakingman04"] and i understand why ppl bash it cuz its very overrated, halo 3 is no better than resistance 2 or Perfect Dark Zero.Nifty_Shark

yeah, and Jak and Daxter is no better than ty the Tasmanian Tiger.

si[QUOTE="aliblabla2007"]

Simply put, being so widely known, there's bound to be a huge amount of people that buy the game, whether they like it or not. Due to the inevitable large number of people who won't like it, there is going to be a lot of criticism.

Look at it this way (examples, the true figures are obviously different):

100 people buy Halo, let's say 5 don't like it.

10 people buy Crysis, let's say 1 doesn't like it.

Due to the fact that 5 > 1 in the market, the criticism is bound to be "louder", since there are more people who dislike Halo than there are who dislike Crysis, even though the proportion of people who dislike Halo is lower than the proportion of people who dislike Crysis.

And btw, I like Crysis better than Halo, so don't bash me for putting a higher proportion of haters for Crysis.

g805ge

That's what I think, but... so?

[QUOTE="Evilgodmonkey"]

[QUOTE="Legendaryscmt"]It's just a love it or hate it series. A lot of people don't realize while the Halo series didn't really bring anything new to the genre, it still didn't fail at it, by any means.g805ge

Love or hate is a bit too strong - plenty folks just like it without losing their nuts over it (like most the progamer community). I like it - to me it's no Gears, but still, solid none the less (though the cartoony voices of the little worthless ****'s is kinda annoying). The art style is really unique - I think that's one of the reason so many people get attached. It's got that cult aspect because the world is so well put together - same reason folks love Star Wars. The universe is badass - say what you will about the core story, game structure, etc..

I really don't understand why critics (Gamespot included) lost their mind so totaly over it - especially the last one which, IMO, wasn't the best. I mean, it was good, but chuck as much money at it as they did and it better be good. Personally I thought Zero Punctuation's take was pretty spot on - ZP's Video Review.

Jeff Gerstmann reviewed Halo 3....

[QUOTE="g805ge"][QUOTE="Evilgodmonkey"]

Love or hate is a bit too strong - plenty folks just like it without losing their nuts over it (like most the progamer community). I like it - to me it's no Gears, but still, solid none the less (though the cartoony voices of the little worthless ****'s is kinda annoying). The art style is really unique - I think that's one of the reason so many people get attached. It's got that cult aspect because the world is so well put together - same reason folks love Star Wars. The universe is badass - say what you will about the core story, game structure, etc..

I really don't understand why critics (Gamespot included) lost their mind so totaly over it - especially the last one which, IMO, wasn't the best. I mean, it was good, but chuck as much money at it as they did and it better be good. Personally I thought Zero Punctuation's take was pretty spot on - ZP's Video Review.

Evilgodmonkey

Jeff Gerstmann reviewed Halo 3....

And Greg kasavin reviewed halo 2. I'm pretty sure these people didn't lose their mind over the games. 9.4 and 9.5 aren't astronomical scores. It just means the games are excellent, which they are. If people lost their mind over anything, it was gears. That game was nothing special at all except for the graphics department. The gameplay was disappointing, just like the story, and the multiplayer was average at best. It was the layer of high res graphics that controlled the hype pretty much, and also the reviews.

And Greg kasavin reviewed halo 2. I'm pretty sure these people didn't lose their mind over the games. 9.4 and 9.5 aren't astronomical scores. It just means the games are excellent, which they are. If people lost their mind over anything, it was gears. That game was nothing special at all except for the graphics department. The gameplay was disappointing, just like the story, and the multiplayer was average at best. It was the layer of high res graphics that controlled the hype pretty much, and also the reviews.Evilgodmonkey

Halo 3 got a 9.6 which, if I'm not mistaken, is the exact same score as the first Gears (which was reviewed more favorably than 2) - so if reviewers lost their mind over Gears, as you're saying, but didn't over Halo 3, then your argument must be that Halo 3 deserved that 9.6 - right? A 9.6 says it's FANTASTIC. You're .4 away from PERFECT. Don't get me wrong - it was good, but not THAT good. It didn't really bring anything new to the table. The ending was kinda disappointing. It did have fantastic production value, but that shouldn't be enough to call it a masterpiece. And to put things in perspective, they gave Fallout (game of the year) a 9. So, yeah, the pro-gamer community got a little starry-eyed. I mean, it's not that big a deal - critics get wrapped up in hype the same as everyone else. Also, I'm not quite sure why you're quoting the reviewers' names.

halo one was a masterpiece if any halo deserves a perfect score its halo 1. halo 2 was also good but the story was too short and halo three is "ok" at best i give it an 8/10 cuz the online is good but thats the only good thing about halo 3 cuz like u said nothing new was added.and halo 3s story was suspect and not interesting enough.bakingman04

[QUOTE="Nifty_Shark"]

[QUOTE="bakingman04"] and i understand why ppl bash it cuz its very overrated, halo 3 is no better than resistance 2 or Perfect Dark Zero.bakingman04

yeah, and Jak and Daxter is no better than ty the Tasmanian Tiger.

I know but how can anyone even put PDZ as a comparison. It was a bad joke that was supposed to lead the Xbox 360 launch but instead was laughed out of town by everyone except for Che of 1up and Creg of Gamespot at the time. I was impressed too at first but halfway through the game there was no denying that it was a poor FPS that is unplayable today (I tried a few months back)

[QUOTE="bakingman04"]halo one was a masterpiece if any halo deserves a perfect score its halo 1. halo 2 was also good but the story was too short and halo three is "ok" at best i give it an 8/10 cuz the online is good but thats the only good thing about halo 3 cuz like u said nothing new was added.and halo 3s story was suspect and not interesting enough.Evilgodmonkey

[QUOTE="bakingman04"][QUOTE="Nifty_Shark"]

yeah, and Jak and Daxter is no better than ty the Tasmanian Tiger.

Nifty_Shark

I know but how can anyone even put PDZ as a comparison. It was a bad joke that was supposed to lead the Xbox 360 launch but instead was laughed out of town by everyone except for Che of 1up and Creg of Gamespot at the time. I was impressed too at first but halfway through the game there was no denying that it was a poor FPS that is unplayable today (I tried a few months back)

yea i agree with u perfect dark was great at first but then after that it wasnt too great....but hey thats how many if not all rare 360 exclusive games that were formally n64 exclusives, good not great. prolly a 8/10 at best for banjo kazooie and a 7.2 for PDZ on second thought i agree with u halo 3 was better than that but halo3 wasnt better than resistance 2 in my opinion

"Critical Acclaim" is from the media. You know the media that is paid for and owned buy the big advertizers such as Microsoft. Halo, seen one you've seen em all. 007 is much more ground breaking and oringinal. As for FPS in general they are just done to death. The only first person gaming that needs to be worked on is in the racing genre.dlease76

Yeah yeah we get it. Halo is "nothing special".... Halo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goldeneye 007

I should've not made this thread at all.g805ge