How come any argument against Halo always come back to it being "boring," a completely subjective opinion?

If Halo is really dull, lifeless, and boring, why is it one of the most popular FPS franchises ever? I know all of the standard arguments, "it's for noobs," "it's not Unreal tournament" yadda yadda yadda. But yet nobody seems to be able to say what they dislike about the game except for general subjective opinions about it being "ordinary."

If Halo is so ordinary, why has it sold so many damned copies? Why has virtually every single FPS game since stolen its recharable shields, and separate buttons for shoot, melee, and grenade?

To me it seems like a bunch of PC gamers who refuse to believe that a console FPS can actually be good. They just say it doesn't compare to something like Counter-Strike. They seem to dislike the fact that Halo has removed some of the reflex action that allows some people to dominate at PC shooters. It makes it so that you have to more strategic rather than skilled. They say that that is why it is not as exciting. Well, in my opinion, that is exactly what makes it more exciting, because games are not necessarily pre-determined by whoever spends the most time practing sniping without a scope.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"]Because graphics aren't everything, the gameplay looks completely lackluster, and the original was absolutely terrible. I understand that it has a larger development team than the original, but the original was so bad, I'm not putting any faith in Sony on this one. They put their name on the first game. What makes this one so much better, aside from the graphics? We all ready saw that they aren't above lying to people, and showing CGI off as a gameplay. The character models might look like those of the original E3 trailer, but the level of action and gameplay is drastically inferior. Killzone 2 looks to have gameplay rehashed from Resistance.AskForDetails

I read your entire post, and I chose to ignore it.

Besides the graphics, what gives you faith that Killzone 2 will be any good?

[QUOTE="dcowboys3315"][QUOTE="channtheman1"]

[QUOTE="SuprLuigi"]I say we get Jake Plummer.channtheman1

Brad Johnson is the much better choice. HE WON A SUPER BOWL.

but we got brad johnson

He should have been playing. I mean he WON a super bowl!

The Cowboys should have seriously considered pulling Romo for those last few drives. Romo single-handedly cost the Cowboys a chance at the Super Bowl.

As a NY Giants fan, I generally hate the fans that diss Eli when he doesn't play well, but Eli rarely ever costs the Giants a game. Romo cost the Cowboys that game.

[QUOTE="KingOfKonging"]

Wooo! Buh Bye Dallas! LOLLLLLL!I'm loaded.

I'm sorry, but I might be the rare NE fan who respects the NAME of Manning, and by that I mean the iron-clad future HOF'er Peyton.

Romo, you have a LONG way to go, you will never get there.

So, the Colts lost. I'm glad, that works out the best for me. Still though, it makes me sad to see one of the ALL TIME greatest QB lose.

But still, the Giants WON.

I had hoped this would be a Manning Brady SB....., this is the only way it would ever come..

Not because Eli is even 1/100 th the talent of his bro (because he isn't, the Colts lost in a fluke, let's face it,) but because the name alone would make it compelling.

And also, I friggin hate the Cowboys.

I don't like them. Their team, their quarterback. Anything,

Hate them.

Sorry Dallas. Buh bye.

Dallas sucks.

dcowboys3315

haha ur an idiot. all romo did was prove of his INEXPERIENCE in the playoffs. to say that he has a LONG way to go is just stupid and to say he'll never get there is even worse.

I do not think Romo has what it takes to win a Super Bowl. It's not a matter of inexperience; it's a matter of character. He gets hit a couple times, he loses his timing, he botches a couple passes, and suddenly, he's pointing fingers at his teammates. It not "his" fault he's under-throwing his passes; it "their" fault. Romo needs to learn to take a hit, shrug it off, and come back and nail his throws. Unfortunately for Romo, I'm not really sure that that is something one can learn.

It order to win a Super Bowl, one has to beat 3-4 great teams in a row. Sure, Romo can kick ass when everything's going his way, but not everything is going to go your way in the post-season, not 3-4 games in a row. In my opinion, Romo is too erratic to win a Super Bowl.

[QUOTE="swamprat_basic"][QUOTE="Innovazero2000"]

[QUOTE="westcoastwillam"]giants beat the cowboys and they can beat the packers if they really want to they can be the nfc champions but i don't think they can beat the PAT"SInnovazero2000

If the packers play like they did against seattle, the giants are not winning...the packers are playing at level much higher then earlier in the season.

Then again, the cowboys were supposed to win this one. But the Pack in Lambeau in the playoffs with a high powered GB team is extremely hard and scary to face.

As a Giants fan, I have to say that I was more scared of the Cowboys than I currently am of the Packers. I always believe the underrated Giants are going to pull out a win, but the amount of injuries had me worried. I'm still worried.

The Giants have the weapons on offense and defense to be great, but they can also be quite mediocre. Against the Cowboys there was a definite game plan for victory, to exploit an inexperienced Tony Romo. Even with that it was a nail-biter until the very end of the game. I don't think the Packers can be so "easily" exploited.

It's strange. I look at next weeks game, and I actually have no idea who is going to win. If the Cowboys had beat the Giants, I'm pretty sure that the they would have beaten the Packers. The Giants are more of an anomally. They seem to play to everybody's level, good or bad.

The Packers are very different team then they were earlier in the year.(So are the giants, this I know)They rank in top 5 in nearly every offensive catigory except for rushing, but Grant has rushed for the second most yards/score TD'sin the NFL since week 8 when he started.

They are as balanced as anyone in the NFL. The defense hits people in the mouth (much like the giants, although GB def. has an advantage in the secondary), they're offense spreads the hell outta teams. The Pack is playing at such a high level right now, and the way they absolutly dismattled Seattle and their "Fast" D was proof.

I dunno, I'm not gonna say anything yet. The Giants did a hell of a job today, and I was impressive.

But going in Lambeau against a red hot packers team in january is as scary for a team as it gets. It'll be a good game, I can't wait.

But don't you feel worried about Eli Manning (As good as he's played) to go into such a high stake game in really cold weather and not mess up? I just can't see him excelling, I dunno tho...

Edit: "Sunday's game is expected to be frigid, with a forecast of highs in the single digits and wind chills below zero with kickoff not until the late afternoon"

Oh my... :o

I'm not really sure that beating Seattle is proof of anything. In my opinion, the NFC West is the worst division in the NFL.

And, no. I have full confidence in Eli Manning. People always say that he chokes under pressure, but in my opinion, Eli seems to play better under pressure. He chokes when there isn't any pressure, and he's over-confident. Eli never really seems to get rattled. That's not to say that he doesn't make mistakes, but that's from inexperience, not his emotional state. Eli seems to be getting better every day.

[QUOTE="westcoastwillam"]giants beat the cowboys and they can beat the packers if they really want to they can be the nfc champions but i don't think they can beat the PAT"SInnovazero2000

If the packers play like they did against seattle, the giants are not winning...the packers are playing at level much higher then earlier in the season.

Then again, the cowboys were supposed to win this one. But the Pack in Lambeau in the playoffs with a high powered GB team is extremely hard and scary to face.

As a Giants fan, I have to say that I was more scared of the Cowboys than I currently am of the Packers. I always believe the underrated Giants are going to pull out a win, but the amount of injuries had me worried. I'm still worried.

The Giants have the weapons on offense and defense to be great, but they can also be quite mediocre. Against the Cowboys there was a definite game plan for victory, to exploit an inexperienced Tony Romo. Even with that it was a nail-biter until the very end of the game. I don't think the Packers can be so "easily" exploited.

It's strange. I look at next weeks game, and I actually have no idea who is going to win. If the Cowboys had beat the Giants, I'm pretty sure that the they would have beaten the Packers. The Giants are more of an anomally. They seem to play to everybody's level, good or bad.

Romo blew it, and it's nobody's fault but his. Sure, the O-Line got tired, but the G-Men weren't getting to him every play. Even when the G-Men weren't close to hitting him at the end, he was still under-throwing the ball. He got hit hard a couple times, and then he started playing like a bonehead.

The funny thing is that I didn't buy into all of the "Romo gets flustered" hype before the game, but he played exactly like people said he would. Hit Romo hard a couple times, and he starts making bad passes.

Well, no, IMO it's like saying it takes more skill to play a FPS on a console then say shooting a gun in real life which PC FPS is more alike to. Consoles just have worse controls IMO.richsena

Really? It's as easy to achieve pin-point accuracy with a real gun as it is in PC FPS games? I didn't know that.

he doesnt have to b 100%. just him out there will be a great decoy to open stuff up for other receivers.dcowboys3315

So they're going to double cover him just because he's TO? That's ridiculous. If TO isn't 100% on Sunday, the Giants will cover him like they would any other receiver.

In order for a decoy to work, it has to appear threatening. If TO doesn't look like he's going to be a threat, he's not going to be much of decoy.