Let's talk about the first Halo game, because this is where it all really starts, and we really need to look at this from the separate perspectives of PC and Console gaming.
From a PC point of view, there was nothing really wrong with it. It was a perfectly competent FPS, with a few problems regarding bugs and copy-pasted levels later in the game, but not bad. The vehicle sections were fun. It was average. There was nothing exceptional about it, nothing to make it really stand out. It wasn't as innovative or story-driven as Half Life, or as brutally fun as Quake, but it was OK. Nothing more.
However, the console has a very different story. There hadn't really been many good FPSs on consoles for some time, and Halo launched at the front of a new generation of people gaming on the XBox for the first time. While it sounds snobby and elitist, the standards for an FPS on a PC were simply higher than for that on a Console, because there was more competition. And so what was really just mediocrity personified was praised as genius.
Seeing how much money and critical acclaim Halo made its creators, other companies took note and began systematically copying every aspect of Halo's insipid design, creating a scourge of power-suited space marines with regenerating health fighting aliens in repetitive environments that for a long time dominated the AAA release charts before being replaced with the current run of CoD clones. That earned it a lot of ire.
In addition, Halo 2 brought multiplayer gaming to the console in a big way for the first time through the XBox Live system, and the 8-year old teabagger quickly became an easily identified and hated icon of the franchise. Add to that the fact that the sequels seemed more like money-grabbing than actual innovation, and you can see why, at least for people who were used to better games, the franchise has attracted more than its fair share of criticism.
From a PC point of view, there was nothing really wrong with it. It was a perfectly competent FPS, with a few problems regarding bugs and copy-pasted levels later in the game, but not bad. The vehicle sections were fun. It was average. There was nothing exceptional about it, nothing to make it really stand out. It wasn't as innovative or story-driven as Half Life, or as brutally fun as Quake, but it was OK. Nothing more.
However, the console has a very different story. There hadn't really been many good FPSs on consoles for some time, and Halo launched at the front of a new generation of people gaming on the XBox for the first time. While it sounds snobby and elitist, the standards for an FPS on a PC were simply higher than for that on a Console, because there was more competition. And so what was really just mediocrity personified was praised as genius.
Seeing how much money and critical acclaim Halo made its creators, other companies took note and began systematically copying every aspect of Halo's insipid design, creating a scourge of power-suited space marines with regenerating health fighting aliens in repetitive environments that for a long time dominated the AAA release charts before being replaced with the current run of CoD clones. That earned it a lot of ire.
In addition, Halo 2 brought multiplayer gaming to the console in a big way for the first time through the XBox Live system, and the 8-year old teabagger quickly became an easily identified and hated icon of the franchise. Add to that the fact that the sequels seemed more like money-grabbing than actual innovation, and you can see why, at least for people who were used to better games, the franchise has attracted more than its fair share of criticism.