I disagree with a lot of what you've said, and I'll take some time to disassemble it. The problem is that Halo is one of those games. Given how long this discussion has made the rounds, it's pretty likely that "angry fanboy" opinions will crop up regardless of how you vote, or how logical your breakdown. So, keep in mind, you've stirred a hive with this one.
I agree that there's a lot of weapon imbalance in the original Halo, but not to the stunning degree in which you've stated. The pistol is a very solid weapon at a medium range, which is where a lot of FPS multiplayer match-ups end up. When it comes down to the business up-close and long-range, there's a different story to be told. When it came down to vehicles, the "useless" energy weapons became powerhouses, trumping their bullet-bound brother by leaps and bounds. Anyone who's squared off with a Banshee on foot knows that while the shotgun is really good against certain vehicles, it's not good to be that close to the blood-splattered plate on the front of fast-moving vehicles.
Beyond that, you're making a bit of an unfair comparison. Game reviewing is a careful balancing act of "I've played this before" and "Oh, this is new enough to be awesome." You strike me as a PC gamer, someone of enough pedigree to have enjoyed Doom for what it did for gaming back in the day, and how it's changed now that we have true 3D engines. Although this may be a long-running beef I have with gamers in general. Halo may be a less-good game because we have multiplayer powerhouses like Modern Warfare (or MewTwo), but that doesn't make it a bad game. It's imperfect, has flaws, but it's still fun regardless of that.
There's a tricksy line to walk, but it's no more important to credit Halo for what it did well. It was a solid console-FPS, something that was almost universally accepted as impossible. It can't stand up to the straight-up Titans of the industry, but that's like saying Sirloin steak sucks because it's less tasty than Filet Minon. (There's an opinion, but stick with the analogy.) It doesn't make it bad, by any standard, just less excellent.
On it's own merits, as you've admitted for first time players, it's still a good game. It's not the best, it's often not even great, but the fact that there's enough popularity for it says something for it. It's not marketed to a casual market, so it doesn't have a non-gamer army to defend it, it's not pre-packaged with systems so people had to go out and get it originally. It's worth mentioning alone that the game sold. Doesn't mean it's "BEST GAEM EVAR LOL EDU!", but it does mean it handles itself well enough.
If you played it through, and even once caught yourself enjoying it, I'd argue that you're slanting yourself to counter the over-adundance of fan-bile that comes from titles like these. What's wrong with casually enjoying a game a bit?
I wouldn't give this one to the dragon just yet, but I also wouldn't fight for my life to save it either. It's a middle-ground game. It did what it did well, and didn't innovate a whole lot. As much as I'd like to blast it for not being as big as people make it out to be, I can't because it didn't ask for all the jerks slapping each other about it. It just did what it does, did it well enough to be fun, and that's enough for me.
I agree that there's a lot of weapon imbalance in the original Halo, but not to the stunning degree in which you've stated. The pistol is a very solid weapon at a medium range, which is where a lot of FPS multiplayer match-ups end up. When it comes down to the business up-close and long-range, there's a different story to be told. When it came down to vehicles, the "useless" energy weapons became powerhouses, trumping their bullet-bound brother by leaps and bounds. Anyone who's squared off with a Banshee on foot knows that while the shotgun is really good against certain vehicles, it's not good to be that close to the blood-splattered plate on the front of fast-moving vehicles.
Beyond that, you're making a bit of an unfair comparison. Game reviewing is a careful balancing act of "I've played this before" and "Oh, this is new enough to be awesome." You strike me as a PC gamer, someone of enough pedigree to have enjoyed Doom for what it did for gaming back in the day, and how it's changed now that we have true 3D engines. Although this may be a long-running beef I have with gamers in general. Halo may be a less-good game because we have multiplayer powerhouses like Modern Warfare (or MewTwo), but that doesn't make it a bad game. It's imperfect, has flaws, but it's still fun regardless of that.
There's a tricksy line to walk, but it's no more important to credit Halo for what it did well. It was a solid console-FPS, something that was almost universally accepted as impossible. It can't stand up to the straight-up Titans of the industry, but that's like saying Sirloin steak sucks because it's less tasty than Filet Minon. (There's an opinion, but stick with the analogy.) It doesn't make it bad, by any standard, just less excellent.
On it's own merits, as you've admitted for first time players, it's still a good game. It's not the best, it's often not even great, but the fact that there's enough popularity for it says something for it. It's not marketed to a casual market, so it doesn't have a non-gamer army to defend it, it's not pre-packaged with systems so people had to go out and get it originally. It's worth mentioning alone that the game sold. Doesn't mean it's "BEST GAEM EVAR LOL EDU!", but it does mean it handles itself well enough.
If you played it through, and even once caught yourself enjoying it, I'd argue that you're slanting yourself to counter the over-adundance of fan-bile that comes from titles like these. What's wrong with casually enjoying a game a bit?
I wouldn't give this one to the dragon just yet, but I also wouldn't fight for my life to save it either. It's a middle-ground game. It did what it did well, and didn't innovate a whole lot. As much as I'd like to blast it for not being as big as people make it out to be, I can't because it didn't ask for all the jerks slapping each other about it. It just did what it does, did it well enough to be fun, and that's enough for me.
