Quote: "I though Halo 1 was actually better than average"
I'm sorry but Halo completely defined console shooters. FPSs on consoles before Halo were always almost a completely different genre. Goldeneye and Medal of Honour (PS1) are both good games, but they don't feel
anything like PC FPSs of the same time (Quake, Unreal etc.). They just never had the intense fluid fire fights that shooter games are built on.
But it didn't just succeed in putting a PC shooter on a console, it made so many huge changes to the FPS formula as well, for example the rebounding health bar is now in pretty much every shooter on every system, and also you normally can also carry two guns (COD stole both these ideas exactly).
Also, in FPSs it used to be that every new gun pretty much completely superceeds the one before it. ie, you would always pick up guns in the order 1-9 and each one would be obviously better than the one before. In Halo you can stick with your original guns the whole way through and it works just as well.
It really annoys me when people 'meh' Halo. A lot of the time it is people who haven't played it, or haven't
owned it. There is a big difference between playing it and playing
through it.
It won't mean much to people outside the UK, but here there is a well respected magazine called Edge that is very strict with it's review scores (Gears got 7/10 I think). It has only ever given 10/10 five times - Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Gran Turismo, Halo and HL2. Prior to HL2 the definition of a 10/10 was "revolutionary", for HL2 they changed it to something like "flawless".
You can read the Edge review here:
http://halo.bungie.org/pressscans/display.html?scan=edge.promomag
It does a better job that me at explaining why it is not "just another shooter".
-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-