I take Halo for what it is, and I really enjoy it. Not the best game or even FPS ever, but solid and simple. I think that's the make or break part of it, actually - its simplicity. It's not as in-depth as other games (like Deus Ex, for example), but it did do something that really stood out to me; it finally found a decent means of FPS control on a console system's gamepad. Long-time PC gamers found it clunky because they're used to keyboard-mouse interface, but Halo (to the best of my knowledge) defined the standards on how a console-based FPS should control. And as far as the first Halo goes, the story was incredible.
But I do see much validity in the point of rating Halo based on the standards of previous experience. People made it out to be more than it was, and those who experienced superior games would obviously be taken aback by fans overrating it. Much like the first Resident Evil, for me; it put survival horror on the map of the mainstream gaming audience, but I didn't much care for the first one because it couldn't compare to the superior Alone In The Dark, which preceded it by several years. In fact, the first time I played Resident Evil, I couldn't stop thinking about how much it was a watered-down and less scary Alone In The Dark.
But I do see much validity in the point of rating Halo based on the standards of previous experience. People made it out to be more than it was, and those who experienced superior games would obviously be taken aback by fans overrating it. Much like the first Resident Evil, for me; it put survival horror on the map of the mainstream gaming audience, but I didn't much care for the first one because it couldn't compare to the superior Alone In The Dark, which preceded it by several years. In fact, the first time I played Resident Evil, I couldn't stop thinking about how much it was a watered-down and less scary Alone In The Dark.
