" The "I hate x game so here's my thread on why it shouldn't be here" game. That game should definitely not be a successful series, yet here we are. "
My sentiments exactly.
@HarlequinRiot said:
" I disagree with all the Halo sentiments. The first was pretty evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) in terms of how it made the console shooter viable. The multiplayer was simple, but strategic, and most importantly fun. The changes Bungie had to make to adapt to the consoles made the game play pretty differently to what was going on on the PC side of things. And none of it was for the worse. And I agree with Dynasty Warriors. I really don't get it. EDIT: I'm in no way surprised the Halo series was good enough to shift people away from the arena shooter that was popular on PCs at the time. It was simply more accessible to a larger group of people. Much more marketable. "
I agree with everything you've just said. Halo is not THAT overrated, in fact it's quite underrated by the "hardcore" gaming audience that infest video gaming message boards. It may not deserve scores of 10s, but it doesn't deserve anything below an 8 or a 4 out of 5. Angry Halo hater in 1... 2... 3... "
Also. Have to agree with you on this. Halo isn't that bad, in fact it's pretty awesome.
I'm in the majority: Call of Duty. Even if you're playing it casually, you'll get frustrated by poor design choices. Despite many great suggestions, the games haven't really improved. The spawn system, the matchmaking, the perks, etc etc.
@SumDeus: Maybe you don't know what revolutionary means. Halo changed the way shooters were done on a console. Almost every console shooter released today borrows heavily from the original Halo formula. You proved my point by bringing up Goldeneye. Both Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were fantastic games for their time but are almost unplayable now due to the advancements in the genre. Advancements that can be directly traced back to Halo. Again I don't care if you liked the game or not and it's perfectly understandable to say Halo wasn't a great game but to try and argue it didn't revolutionize the FPS genre on consoles is just asinine. Maybe you're too young to remember what console games were like before Halo.
" @SumDeus: Maybe you don't know what revolutionary means. Halo changed the way shooters were done on a console. Almost every console shooter released today borrows heavily from the original Halo formula. You proved my point by bringing up Goldeneye. Both Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were fantastic games for their time but are almost unplayable now due to the advancements in the genre. Advancements that can be directly traced back to Halo. Again I don't care if you liked the game or not and it's perfectly understandable to say Halo wasn't a great game but to try and argue it didn't revolutionize the FPS genre on consoles is just asinine. Maybe you're too young to remember what console games were like before Halo. "
Don't bother arguing about Halo. Because discussing about Halo on the internet, is like discussing about history.
Call of Duty 5, 6 and 7. Not trying to be cool, it's just that 4 was the last game that actually did something new. Yes, the last three were solid games, but they feel like too much of an iteration to really justify their existence. I think that if 7 was released as 5, it'd be much more significant. But the annual stuff is really starting to wear me down.
@InfinityBit: CoD 4 set the tone for what the following games would feel like. All successors refined and (most people would say) improved on what CoD4 established. I don't understand; Assassin's Creed set the tone for the series, and AC2 and ACB improved upon the formula without reinventing the wheel, and everyone loves them for it. But when MW2 and BO have done the same for the CoD4 gameplay, everyone hates on it, like each game should be as revolutionary as the first. Wait, I forgot that it's now popular to hate on whatever's popular (how meta). I guess I understand after all.
Dragon Ball Z Budokai: Tenkaichi deserved no sequels, or new iterations (i.e. Raging Blast) on the new systems. Budokai 3 was really the pinnacle. After that it was like the series jumped off the edge of the Grand Canyon.
@example1013: That's not what I meant at all. I completely agree that 4 was good; if anything, it deserves the popularity it got. But three iterations three years in a row is a little too much for my taste. Yes, WaW gave us Nazi Zombies, MW2 improved on the formula, and Black Ops balanced the improvements MW2 made. Black Ops is one of the best executions of the COD4 formula to date. I simply think that it would have been better if there were fewer games and the developers actually had some time to sit down and think about the games they were making.
@InfinityBit: This is outside the debate. The thread is about which games shouldn't have been successful as a series. Obviously even you think CoD 4 deserved to be a series, regardless of how it was actually implemented, so how the series actually took shape is neither here nor there.
But to talk about your point, AC2 released last year, and Brotherhood this year. That's only 1 game less, and it's 2 releases 2 years in a row. The only reason CoD has a 4-in-a-row streak is because of WaW. It may be too much, but it's not as egregious as everyone makes it out to be. Now, that said, MW3 may be pushing it. That game is really going to need to be good.
@example1013: I agree with you on the MW3 part. But the AC2 + Brotherhood games were justifiable. AC2 was leaps and bounds better than AC1, and Brotherhood brought both the multiplayer aspect and further additions and improvements on the formula. The same cannot be said for CoD.
And I don't think CoD deserved to be a series after 4, it was just so different from Infinity Ward's previous 2 entries into the series that, other than the name, there really wasn't much of a similarity between them, and the distinction took on a life of its own.
@InfinityBit: I dunno. I mean, The thing is, Modern Warfare 2 had no hype until it got the CoD brand recognition. It's a powerful brand, and Activision/IW learned then that they need to keep it as CoD, at least in name, if not in spirit. Modern Warfare is really its own franchise, and the name is only tacked on so people know what it is.
Log in to comment