your jealous
you feel the game is not good enough to justify its colt following. The fact that it has such a big fan base and that you feel other games in the same genre are better and deserve more hype. That is a textbook case of jealousy. To feel anything is over-rated means your jealous. How can anything be over-rated? In the sense of a base score then maybe, but a game with a huge fanbase cannot be over-rated. This is not possible. To feel something is overhyped meets the exact definition of jealousy
Dont you realize how pathetic it is to be jealous of a bunch of pixels? If i was to say halo is my favorite game (which its not) wouldnt it be ignorant of you to tell me i must have not played many other shooters?
TClms5400
1. Halo is not cult. Cult games do not have over 100 million preorders. Its more casual than any FPS ever made, outside of maybe Goldeneye and Doom. Hell, Half Life 2 and CS are more cult than frigging Halo. Cult FPS games - Deus Ex, Operation: Flashpoint - ignored by casuals, loved by hardcore PC gamers and reviewers.
2. Halo is casual-friendly and its multiplayer is easily accessible to everyone. It does nothing perfect, nothing astounding, it just does a lot of things well. Its not overly hard, the controls are simple, and the targeting is forgiving. By having ranked matches that attempt to match the player with other players of equal skill, you allow casuals to get into the game. If they started it up and got put in matches with a bunch of hardcore players, they would give up after getting owned and move on to something else.
3. A big reason why Halo has such a large fanbase is becuase when the original one released, and to some extent the 2nd one, the game had absolutely no competition. The xbox had pretty much no other games, especially casual friendly ones, at the time. And there were really no console FPS games at that time either, at least not any with worthwhile multiplayer. So the game was able to build up a sizable fanbase, because the game was accessible to everyone and it had very little competition.
If you want proof of this, all you have to do is look at this gen with the PS3 and Resistance. For over half a year, the amount of players online for that game was insane, and that was even before they introduced worldwide servers. Why was that? Well, obviously the game was good. But after talking to numerous players about it either in-game or at Myresistance.net, it was also obvious that they stuck with the game because the PS3 had very little else to offer, especially in terms of shooters. And finally when the game got competition in the form of Vegas (even though it sucks) and Warhawk (even though its not even an FPS) a large portion of Resistance's community jumped ship.
Whenever something gets tossed around here, or any forum, as being the "greatest something" thats an opinion. Games are just like books, movies, tv shows, whatever, in the fact that people enjoy different things. You may prefer something that someone else can't stand and likewise, they might enjoy something you hate. However, their are certain constants which attempt to quantify greatness. Things like graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, story, characters, replayability, innovation, etc. are all qualities which gamers look for when determing what makes a game "good".
The whole problem arises when people try and base how great something is upon its sales. "Crappy" movies do well at the box-office all the time. They may have garbage acting, almost no plot, forgettable characters and no character-development (things that critics use to judge movies), and yet for some reason, they still do well. How does anyone explain that? The same thing happens in games as well, look at 50 Cent's Bulletproof, which got a a solid 4.8 here (:lol:), the game sold over a million copies.
The funny thing is that "good" and even "great" games still have a chance of going overlooked by the general public, even in this day of the internet, magazines and advertising.
Log in to comment