Okay, I've taken my time and read through the entire collection of fanboy arguments and semi-objective statements. And I can't add anything else to this discussion than this:

I might not be entirely correct here, but as far as I recall, Halo:CE was one of the first FPS's for Xbox (Or at least I think it is, im not entirely sure). And the Xbox might have been the first console of many young gamers. So this game might have been the first good FPS they've played, and then natually it's the best! I am no diffrent, my first was Goldeneye, and I still find it as the best, despite all it's flaws and semi-tacky controls.

What I'm saying is that many Halo fanboys aren't fanboys because they're ignorant, it's because they dont know better. And I believe that all fanboys and haters deserves a slap! I personally believe that your arguments are non-worthy until you embrace the obvious facts instead of ignoring/excusing them.

And an reoccuring argument I've seen is that the game brought PC game quality to the 'box, and I PERSONALLY believe that this one cannot be left alone with this added statement from my hateful mouth:

"Halo brings PC game quality to consoles..." ... but I still find the PC version better. And I've played BOTH!

l Ancient l:
halo 1 started all this space marine stuff

halo carried on with the space marine stuff. The Doom marine was the first (i think) and many games between halo and dooom had marines

fullmetalangel:
It's not.

edit:

Well, actually, Halo was one of the first console FPSs that became really popular. That's gotta count for something.

edit2: Geez! Stop quoting me, PLEASE! *cries*

UMMMMMM......no

Doom was

Dys:

If I recall doom correctly, It was a single marine fighting a horde of enemies. I cannot think of there being AI fighting other AI in that game at all. Same deal for quake. Although half-life is bang on the money, with the marines shooting you as well as the xen.

Doom and quake both had this feature. If you could lead enemies into each others fire they will start attacking each other. It was actaully a very inplemented system - certian enemies are immune to certain enemy attacks and infighiting was a way of making to game easuer and making the player play more tactically

TheNecroswanson:
Halo: CE, innovative? Possibly. Though the only thing I can really think of that it brought new to the table would have bee.....Looking at your own feet in an FPS.

That was halo 2.:P It was really handy btw, and in multiplayer where you tried to get out of maps etc, it showed that this game could have had more platform sections without any problem., because it was so easy to jump around there.

I thought Turok for N64 proved FPS can be good on console

Halo was more than just "here is a gun, there's some bad guys, and if you know witch end makes the loud noises then I think you're all set" game. It had a story, wonderful visuals, creative multiplayer and a whole lot more. If you're looking for a game without much imagination then Counterstrike should do you well. But if you want a just plain fun shooter with lots of baddies to kill with only a few minutes of story (the opening movie for example) then get Left 4 Dead - "HERE ARE SOME ZOMBIES about sums it up" - Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw.

ColdStorage:

buy teh haloz:
Halo Combat Evolved is considered innovative because it successfully translated the keyboard and mouse onto a controller with 6 face buttons, two analog sticks, one D-pad, and two triggers buttons. It had incredible graphics for the time, and was really one of the first titles almost anyone who bought an Xbox ever played. It had a deep multiplayer component, and was really the game that put Microsoft on the Gaming Map.

Halo 2 however built on that and made it so much better adding new weapons and elements like the Battle rifle, and the covenant sword, as well as dual wielding all while stripping a lot of the things that made Halo: CE a great game. Nerfing the pistol, getting rid of the Assault Rifle, cock-slap ending.... etc.

Halo 3 is the complete package. Best of Halo 1 2 and new elements included, and it isn't seen as innovative because in the 6-7 years between the games, other games came out and modified the concept to a point where it was in some cases BETTER then Halo. Best game in the series? Possibly. Best game ever made? No far from it. It's a diamond with rough edges which can be approximated to every great game or even movie or music track.

You just described Turok on the N64
So Turok is innovative?.

Halo 2 and 3 is pants, at least Turok had the decency to be average after the first game.

I'll admit I never played the Turok series, but yes, a lot of the games before Halo did things Halo never did till the sequels. Quake, Turok, Tribes, Half Life, etc. Halo was the game that really got me into hardcore gaming which is why I hold it in such high regard. Before I would play games casually, and Halo invigorated my interest in a genre I would come to love. It was really my first FPS and my 3rd experience with the genre, counting the times I saw my brother play Half Life.

The fifth generation of gaming consoles was the generation that really revolutionized on the concept of a First Person game, and came out with some of the greatest examples of the genre. Duke Nukem, the Quakes, Half Life, Turok, Tribes, Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, the list goes on and on. The sixth and seventh generation is only known for taking FPS's to a much more mainstream audience.

Markness:
Rajin Cajun - Didn't Soldier of Fortune 2 come out after halo 2?

No it didn't SOF2 was 2002. Halo 2 was 2004. Nice try but fail Halo fanboy.

Rajin Cajun:
God this thread reminds me why I hate you tweeny Halo Fanboys. Innovative my arse.
Duel Wielding? Done and better with Soldier of Fortune 2.
Limited Weapons? Done and better with Rainbow Six.

To be precise dual wielding was done first in Marathon. But that you say that limited weapons was done better in rainbow six makes me want to laugh. Ive finished many games in rainbow six without trying many of them, and I think they aren't that balanced or different. You may say that its more logical etc than halo because in halo you can carry a rocket and a sniper or a pistol and another pistol. But I still think it was better done in halo. But thats just my opinion. Also I just remembered that Perfect dark zero took weapon limitation one step further and was pretty well pulled off, but unfortunately the rest of the game was shit.

Also funny that people dismiss people who ask you normal questions as fanboys.

l Ancient l:
halo 1 started all this space marine stuff

Ever played starcraft?

Halo:CE was the first shooter that proved shooters could be ported to a console. It proved that gamers did not need the point and click accuracy of a mouse. Although Halo 3 is a great game, I would hardly call it innovative. Everything has been done before, not just by Halo: CE and Halo 2, but by other games as well.
Cortana:The Library

Gormers1:

Rajin Cajun:
God this thread reminds me why I hate you tweeny Halo Fanboys. Innovative my arse.
Duel Wielding? Done and better with Soldier of Fortune 2.
Limited Weapons? Done and better with Rainbow Six.

To be precise dual wielding was done first in Marathon. But that you say that limited weapons was done better in rainbow six makes me want to laugh. Ive finished many games in rainbow six without trying many of them, and I think they aren't that balanced or different. You may say that its more logical etc than halo because in halo you can carry a rocket and a sniper or a pistol and another pistol. But I still think it was better done in halo. But thats just my opinion. Also I just remembered that Perfect dark zero took weapon limitation one step further and was pretty well pulled off, but unfortunately the rest of the game was shit.

Also funny that people dismiss people who ask you normal questions as fanboys.

I have a feeling you never played the first Rainbow Six because you definitely needed different weapons for each mission.

Well to be honest I havent played the first ones. My sentence was a bit off and exaggerated, I meant several completions of the same games (not that many though). Ive only finished vegas and played some earlier ones. But my opinion still stands with vegas. Im guessing youll say that vegas was a sidestep for the console tards? But anyway, sorry, you got me.

RIOT MAST3R:
Halo had a better storyline than any shooter before it.

Sorry for back tracking a bit but this post stood out to me, so much so that I created an account with which to say this in rebuttal: WHAT!?!?!Best storyline? For an FPS? Are you kidding? It wasn't bad, but the best? Nawwwwwwwww....

Now, Halo was not without innovation, many of the things mentioned time and time again in this thread made the game the fun fest that is was. God knows I spent hours A'schoolin my computer illiterate friends in LAN or split screen. Console FPS gave those less knowledgeable (geeky) people a chance to play without having to worry about system specs, installation, and other things you might have to deal with on a PC. My friends had to learn the controls, but so did I. Mouse and keyboard have been ingrained into my mind for the past 17 years. The control layout for Halo was and still is solid (though not as accurate as a mouse). Game play was fun and the scenery was varied and beautiful. But this is only Halo 1.

Halo 2 brought multiplayer, and while this does have merit and seems to work on a general level, there are deterring factors. Xbox Live has little to no moderation. Major issues are dealt with, but the majority of the minor stuff cannot be dealt with on such a large centralized system. I am a gamer, and as such when playing team games I like to be able to cooperate with my team. This is almost impossible to do when a 12 year old wants to tell you and your team about how "good" he is. Or some faceless frat boy spewing hate, racial slurs, and sexist ideals. THIS IS NOT LIMITED TO HALO, but because of the accessibility of the game it has become the breeding grounds for this sort of stuff. I'm not saying that all gamers on Live are like this but most of you know exactly what I'm talking about. If these kids were to do this kind of thing on say a Valve server (depending on who owns the specific server) a Mod would be there shortly to kick and probably ban the offender.

In closing, I like Halo, not the most innovative, but quite fun, and probably one of the most copied games these days. However, just as a playful jab, what if we took this question and applied it to another game. I'll use Half-Life, mainly because it is a pretty well known game, but also because I am a Valve fanboy. How was Half-Life innovative? If we discussed this in length and then compared its innovation with that of Halo, the difference would be very apparent. So yes, Halo is good clean fun, but like all good things it has some flaws.

AgentNein:
1: Rechargeable shields. An easy thing to make light of, but this completely changed the pacing of the typical FPS. Before this (in my oh so humble opinion) FPS games almost felt like something closer to survival horror, where you'd horde health packs and try to take as little damage as possible. Halo in contrast let people play free and loose, experiment with different gameplay methods, try some real long-shot crazy ideas that they could possibly survive from (as long as they could run away in time). It made it all around more exciting.

2: Competent vehicle action in my FPS. If someone would like to correct me on what FPS games had vehicle action before Halo, feel free. I can't think of any off the top of my head, certainly none that worked nearly as well as Halo's warthogs, ghosts, banshees, and tanks.

3: Weapons that weren't simply better or worse. Halo gave us a few really balanced weapons, all with strengths and weaknesses depending on the situation. Hell, the pistol was arguably the best weapon in the game if you knew how to use it effectively. Again, if this is something another FPS did to this degree of polish, give me a heads up.

And this has nothing to do with innovation, but halo was just a damned fun game. People seem to enjoy talking shit about the franchise, I'm guessing these are the people in the 'hating what's popular in gaming' camp and the people in the 'we must remind everyone constantly that PC gaming is so much better' camp. As someone who's played PC FPS's for a long, long time, I can say without a doubt that Halo is still a fantastic game. Not just 'fantastic for stupid consoles'.

Look back to the game Redline. It was released well before HL and it had an awesome vehicle component. You could get black armoured vans, muscle cars, dune buggies and many, many others. They were armed up the wazoo. You could use the mouse to pan your vision around the car while you blasted other vehicles and pedestrians. You could also exit your vehicle and take them out on foot with a buzzsaw that could have it's parts re-arranged into a machine gun, rocket launcher, shotgun, the works. This was back when using the mouse was still new and health came in floating spinning + signs and the mouse controls were basic (The default was using the page up/page down keys to look up or down).

The vehicle controles in Halo were awful. You couldn't look left or right while travelling in a straight line which you have no idea how much that pisses me off and I'd wager it irked a lot of other PC gamers too.

Although this is a bit off-topic, it just occurred to me in many other threads (not this one) that the Halo series was hated BECAUSE all of its good scores. Since when did alot of praise become a bad thing. You can't declare a game shit just cause alot of other people like it.

While i am a fanboy, if someone disagrees with me then i won't try to impose my fanboyism upon them, but as for people who say stupid things without any justification like "Halo is shit, end of story" then i will have to challenge them.

raxiv:

Cortheya:
theyre talking about the original halo which was very different from other FPSes at the time

How?

Regenerating shields, 2 weapon limit, grenades and melee mapped to their own buttons, and the most responsive controls of any console FPS. All standards in modern shooters, all completely new when Halo 1 came out. Halo 1 invented the mechanics we see in practically every game on the market now. The orignal Halo was one of the most innovative games of all time. /thread

EDIT: I forgot to add its perfect implementation of vehicles. Halo: CE had the best vehicle controls in any FPS (and the Halo series still does) and it implemented the vehicles perfectly. They enhanced everything.

EDIT2: HAHAHA I just remembered another thing! The well balanced weapons. They each had their own look and feel and were each well balanced. Every weapon in the Halo series (each halo game, although they're tweaked and rebalanced in each game. I think it was perfected in Halo 3) can be devastating in the right hands and each has its own use which required players to think every time they saw another weapon on the ground (the weapons also had varying ammunition, depending on how many times the enemy fired them. ie, a gun that you take from an enemy that got of a crapload of shots will have maybe an eighth of its clip). Now, while this wasn't as prevalent on lower difficulty settings, it was extremely apparent on Heroic and Legendary. You needed to really think about all the possibilities and the consequences, the different scenarios you might encounter, etc... Another thing it had was great AI. Remember when this game came out. AI wasn't very advanced back then, but the AI in Halo: CE was fantastic. Each different unit reacted differently to many of the same things. For example: You shoot out most of an Elite's shields and he jumps behind some cover. You run around the cover, beat him and knock out his shields completely. He tries to kill you with the butt of his plasma rifle, but you jump out of the way and score a headshot with the pistol you were carrying as your secondary weapon. Now that the grunts don't have a leader, they start running and screaming in complete disarray. A few of them hide behind a wall and muster up enough courage to try and face you. They jump out of cover and start firing blindly in your direction. A few jackals run in front of them to provide for some protection. This gives the grunts a higher morale and they get more courageous. Their shots get more accurate and they start huddling behind the jackal's energy shields and pop out to take a few shots whenever they can. This happened to me quite a few times and it provided quite a challenge. Halo was extremely innovative. People are just comparing it to all the games that ripped it off (although they think Halo ripped the modern games off...even though it came out over 5 years earlier).

Enough with the fanboy crap, enough with the pointless comments. Please, someone, end this thread. It's over. Halo was innovative and it's quite obvious if you compare it to the other FPS's of the time. It invented all the things that have become commonplace, while some games are still trying to catch up with many of the mechanics it implemented. There are still games with horrible vehicle sections, unbalanced weapons, and poor controls. Seriously. /thread

Cucumber:
Okay, I've taken my time and read through the entire collection of fanboy arguments and semi-objective statements. And I can't add anything else to this discussion than this:

I might not be entirely correct here, but as far as I recall, Halo:CE was one of the first FPS's for Xbox (Or at least I think it is, im not entirely sure). And the Xbox might have been the first console of many young gamers. So this game might have been the first good FPS they've played, and then natually it's the best! I am no diffrent, my first was Goldeneye, and I still find it as the best, despite all it's flaws and semi-tacky controls.

What I'm saying is that many Halo fanboys aren't fanboys because they're ignorant, it's because they dont know better. And I believe that all fanboys and haters deserves a slap! I personally believe that your arguments are non-worthy until you embrace the obvious facts instead of ignoring/excusing them.

And an reoccuring argument I've seen is that the game brought PC game quality to the 'box, and I PERSONALLY believe that this one cannot be left alone with this added statement from my hateful mouth:

"Halo brings PC game quality to consoles..." ... but I still find the PC version better. And I've played BOTH!

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be the fanboy in this situation? You're openly insulting anyone who defends the game, denouncing their arguments as semi-objective and non-worthy while providing none of your own.

Your sole contibution so far has been "I still find the PC version better"

Well thanks. That ends the debate right there.

MercurySteam:
Although this is a bit off-topic, it just occurred to me in many other threads (not this one) that the Halo series was hated BECAUSE all of its good scores. Since when did alot of praise become a bad thing. You can't declare a game shit just cause alot of other people like it.

Heh. How long have you been on the internet?

Because it is more sandbox than the last few actual sandbox games. The last few of Rockstar North's attempts are getting more contrived and more contrived, they're almost like choose your own adventure books, [which are a bad idea in the first place] I think the idea of a sandbox game is to find out how exactly 'I' would would go about doing things my way.

Also because I just smoked three guys online with a well-placed pineapple and a little help from a GRAVITY EMITTING HAMMER!

Mr Scott:
Because it is more sandbox than the last few actual sandbox games. The last few of Rockstar North's attempts are getting more contrived and more contrived, they're almost like choose your own adventure books, [which are a bad idea in the first place] I think the idea of a sandbox game is to find out how exactly 'I' would would go about doing things my way.

Also because I just smoked three guys online with a well-placed pineapple and a little help from a GRAVITY EMITTING HAMMER!

You're not actually trying to say that GTA IV wasn't set in an open world, right? Because if you are, there are just no words to describe that level of stupid... *facepalm*

zen5887:

l Ancient l:
halo 1 started all this space marine stuff

You lose! Doom started all this space marine stuff.

Halo's innovations came from being able to see your feet and pretty graphics. Appart from that its a pretty stock shooter with a simple-but-it-works online.

You lose! The Lensman series started space marines in 1934!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman

Eipok Kruden:

Mr Scott:
Because it is more sandbox than the last few actual sandbox games. The last few of Rockstar North's attempts are getting more contrived and more contrived, they're almost like choose your own adventure books, [which are a bad idea in the first place] I think the idea of a sandbox game is to find out how exactly 'I' would would go about doing things my way.

Also because I just smoked three guys online with a well-placed pineapple and a little help from a GRAVITY EMITTING HAMMER!

You're not actually trying to say that GTA IV wasn't set in an open world, right? Because if you are, there are just no words to describe that level of stupid... *facepalm*

An open world of predictable set-pieces perhaps.

Okay, I read through some of this and I saw alot of Halo Fanboys making all sorts of claims, and then lots of people calling them on it and everything just devolved from there.

Personally, yes I regard the original Halo and even the entire Halo series as rather groundbreaking. Now before the "GTFO FANBOY" comments get flung at me, let me qualify that statement.

Halo:CE was groundbreaking not necessarily that it did all these new and fancy things that expanded what we think of FPSs, it just did all the old things so phenomenally well that it turned peoples heads. At the base of it, the engine (I believe it was the havok engine, though i could be wrong so dont quote me) worked seamlessly. The controls were smooth as silk and everything worked the way it should. All the buttons were intuitive and worked together well. Halo was also one of the first shooters to implement a control scheme that accounted for 2 control sticks, one for movement and the other for swivel (i.e. where you look and aim). Stop and think for a second, what FPS came out before or around the time of CE that smoothly incorporated two joysticks? I have trouble thinking of one, though there may very well have been one.

Many other factors worked together, like the immensely entertaining multiplayer, while not necessarily special in its own right, helped to build a mold into which future games have been built. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

it was the first decent FPS game on a modern console. as a PC gamer who has been playing FPSs longer than most people, HALO was not really innovative at all. it was, however a good FPS... for a console. but the most innovative part of the game is the advertising which helped put gaming into the mainstream, even the subtitle "combat evolved" was part of the advertising of it being "innovative".

Gormers1:
Well to be honest I havent played the first ones. My sentence was a bit off and exaggerated, I meant several completions of the same games (not that many though). Ive only finished vegas and played some earlier ones. But my opinion still stands with vegas. Im guessing youll say that vegas was a sidestep for the console tards? But anyway, sorry, you got me.

Yes it actually was since the First Rainbow Six and its subsequent expansions and sequels were Tactical Shooters until they were released on the console with Rainbow Six: Lockdown.

I would say it was graphically innovative and the openness of it, but nothing much else.
No the dual control scheme was actually used in other games (such as red faction)
Co-op was in Perfect Dark
The first FPS on a console that showed that FPSes could work well on consoles was Golden Eye.
I'm not too sure on the vehicles, so it might actually gain a point there.

ok heres what it comes down to, Halo 1 is not innovative, what it comes down to is that halo set a standard control scheyme ( i know thats spelled wrong) for an xbox fps, in addition the gameplay was enjoyable and the multiplayer was hillarious, and intense

not innovative, just fun and set a console standard.

I really do need to copy and paste this to a word doc so that i can just paste it every time this topic comes up, ive typed that exact statement more times than i can count

You idiot, he was talking about throughout the history of games. Although he is still wrong, it was DOOM which I don't think the designers actually used much out of Alien when they designed a game in which you fight your way through hell and back to close off some kind of interdimetional super-highway that threatens to le loose about 90,000,000,000 legions of demons upon the unsuspecting human race.

You are a self absorbed dick if you think that playing on a console rather than a computer actually makes you a stupider gamer. If more developers would release smarter shooters on consoles ( as they seem to have done with Fallout 3) you would see that there are many of us that would enjoy such a challenge. Like for example myself.

KingPiccolOwned:
You are a self absorbed dick if you think that playing on a console rather than a computer actually makes you a stupider gamer. If more developers would release smarter shooters on consoles ( as they seem to have done with Fallout 3) you would see that there are many of us that would enjoy such a challenge. Like for example myself.

Err as your new, you may want to start your psts off slightly differently. I've only seen the two you've done here but that means half your posts start off with an insult. Try building an arguement and showing your disapproval of a view later, to tie in with what you are saying. At the moment your posts seem very abusive...

Eipok Kruden:
2 weapons? Oni (or Counter-Strike)
weapon balance? Unreal Tournament (went so far that dual pistol was one of the most deadly guns in the game even though most people swear to the Shock, Sniper or Missiles)
one button grande? Team Fortress Classic
one button melee? Duke Nukem 3d (not the only one, but the earliest iirc)

It invented nothing except for the regen shields. What it did do was put it all together into the smoothest experience yet. Most shooters focused on one or a few elements. Halo pulled everything together and polished it up to a mirror shine. It raised the standards as a whole for what every other shooter had to live up to. Half-life did this with puzzle elements in FPS. Quake Arena did it for multiplayer. Doom did it for the entire FPS genre as a whole and Halo did it again.

Like Quake I didn't like the game (only played it on pc though), but I sure as hell respect it for what it meant to the genre.

You mean the debate that all PC shooters are naturally better than console shooters? Because I don't think that it is. In fact with all the the newer and at least slightly smarter games coming to consoles such as Fallout 3, Bioshock, and such things that no one would have ever considered to make it to a console successfully like Command&Conquer. I would argue that the console is starting to come ever closer to what it was designed to do in the first place which is become the ultimate gaming platform. Also before you even think to call me out as just some raving fanboy think about this: if you truly think that having a 104 key keyboard for which you have to skim through the whole damned manual nearly to figure out what does what, as apposed to a 16 button/trigger/anolog stick apparatus whose every action you know pretty well before you've even begun playing your new game is a much better control scheme than the latter then you really have to ask yourself what the the definition of "intuitive" is.