[General Battuta]

The transition from Halo to Halo 2 was relatively smooth. Master Chief escaped, Halo was destroyed. The opening cinematic picked up pretty much where the game ended. Apparently, that was too much to expect from Halo 3, which began a good while after the conclusion of Halo 2 and stoically refused to help the player fill in the gaps. Better we just do what the game tells us, and don't ask questions later.

Everything sort of spirals downward from that inauspicious beginning. Ignoring the innumerable smaller issues, the biggest problem with Halo 3's storyline was that it took itself way, way too seriously. It aimed for complex, and hit confusing. It aimed for poignant, and scored laughable. I went in at the start expecting to be blown away by new revelations and having the mysteries and complexities of Halo revealed to me. By the half-way point, I had resolved that I would be happy just to have a few loose ends tied complete with a nice ending. By the finale I had totally lost any interest I had in the storyline, I just wanted to get it over with so I could give the multiplayer a half-assed go.

If you're like me and actually felt immersed and interested in the Haloverse story by the end of Halo 2, don't bother looking any further. You'll find nothing but overwhelming disappointment. Such a promising new sci-fi universe, such a ****ing waste.

To be honest, this was my reaction at first, but the Terminals hidden in Halo 3 provided a story that actually was complex and poignant. I agree, though, it was a disappointing conclusion in many respects.

Halo 3 suffered from some awful writing. A couple lines -- particularly from Miranda Keyes -- made me cringe.

Ransom Arceihn, if you're interested in the Halo story, check out the Halo story page on halo.bungie.org. There was once a time when story analysis was the primary focus of the Halo fanbase; this was before multiplayer became so bloody important.

Perhaps this is where some of the division over Halo comes from? If people tend to react against the multiplayer-focused prats, then yes, I can understand strong feelings. I miss the days when the Halo community was more thoughtful and more story-oriented.

[Raven2001]

Like I mentioned, I dont dislike Halo at all, but some things you said struck a bit on me, especially because you are talking about my area of trade:

Halo, as a game, is highly elegant. The designers integrated three aspects of combat - melee, grenades, and gunfire -- in a way that no prior game had accomplished quite as well. As a result, every single encounter in Halo is a fluid, holistic dance. The shield bar serves as a kind of timer, keeping the beat -- once it's depleted, you need to take a brief rest and then launch into another stanza.

Do you see what I'm saying? The combat is continuous rather than discrete, as opposed to a title like, say, Gears of War, which consists of punctuated bursts of violence while moving between cover, or System Shock, which is more atmospheric than balletic. In Halo, when your gun runs dry, you throw grenades, or you melee, or you go for cover, or you move to allow a friend to cover you. As a player, you move through a continuous network of actions -- a kind of enormous flowchart.

About the flow thing, no problem there, its subjective. You get flow playing Halo, yet Fallout fans find that flow in their TB combat.

Elegant in design? Simplistic you mean, not that it is a bad thing. Chess is simple in design, yet it is a good game. Then a again, chess is not a video game, and video games have much more potential.
Still simplistic is actually a good thing for the mass market, it is not a good thing for the advance in gaming industry.

But Halo is not elegant in the slightest, and the main reason for that will be explained when I cover the storyline.

The first is design. Particularly in Halo 1 and 3, the art style is gorgeous and elegant, and each enemy comes with a distinct set of behaviors that gives them a real personality. The AI is superlative -- the Elites in Halo 1 are, along with the Replica soldiers from FEAR, the game enemies that I most respect as opponents. The game physics do exactly as much as they need to in order to enhance the combat, and nothing more; they don't distract or overpower it. Halo 1's physics engine was particularly notable for its phenomenal handling of vehicles and collisions.

I dont think the design is anything to shout about to be honest. On the contrary. Look at the covenant. They are supposed to be a coalition of aliens, yet due to the design of their different species, they give me no reason to believe that they belong toghether, there's absolutely nothing that bonds them visually (except the weapons for obvious reasons). And that's bad design, not in my opinion, but in every designer's in the world.

The physics engine? you ever crashed with a warthog at full speed? Or when you fall from a cliff with the same vehicle, the way it behaves? Not to talk about the way everyone flies around each time a grenade detonates. I find Halo's physics extremely... unphysical

The second is atmosphere. The Halo story is beautiful in its minimalism. On the surface it appears to appeal only to testosterone-infused prepubescent males, but it goes deeeep. There are layers and layers of clues that are intentionally aimed (by Bungie) at a more mature audience, namely the older fans they grabbed with Marathon and who have remained interested for more than a decade. The story's enhanced by a masterful soundtrack (slightly overblown towards the Halo 3 end, I think).

So the story goes deep because of what exactly? Of the forerunner logs? Thats not story, thats flavour to enhance the universe. Universe which isnt that great actually. Ill try to break down the elements as best as I can:

The actual story (that is, the game plot) atleast in the first two games is poor atleast: no faction shows real conviction for their beliefs, the way most of the story is presented to you is done in the most old fashion and worst manner possible for a game: cutscenes. Every now and then, when you are enjoying your "flow", it all breaks to another ridiculous cutscene.

Remember when I said the design was not elegant, that was it.

Refer to Bioshock for an instance of a good way of presenting story and universe in games: You see what happens trough the "ghosts", audio logs, the few characters that talk to you, also clues in the environment (Who is Atlas?). Also you almost dont have non interactive sequences in there. And even one those was well executed (the "would you kindly" thing when you kill Andrew Ryan). So except for those 2 or 3 non interactive cutscenes, the rest of the story is presented to you in an interactive way, the result being that your play flow actually doesnt get broken. THAT is elegant design. Cutscenes every level to show you the story is not.
That also happens in Deus Ex, in System Shock, and others that I cant recall.
The same happens, to an extenct, in Freespace, because most of the story and plot developments are presented to you in mission, while you are playing.
Non cutscene storytelling is a big deal in games, because YOU are there living the story, you are not just an assed expectator.

The story itself is rather poor and mainstreamed as well... refer to Schismatrix (a book) for example, to get a taste of a well written story.

If the story is good or not is a matter of preference, however. As far as im concerned it was all good on the first one (although, again poorly presented), but after that it was rather meh.

But if there is some deep story here, I'm not sure I agree that it excuses the trash on the surface. Unless I'm very mistaken there's no good reason to bury something clever under one-dimensional characters, flimsy dialogue and deus ex machinas. Oh, but are we talking about the first Halo here? Because it must be said I actually enjoyed Halo 2's story and I haven't played Halo 3 at all. So my criticisms of Halo's story are mostly limited to the first game.

What he said

What Halo does, and the reason it's a masterpiece, is build a better flowchart than other games, even superlative games like Far Cry, Call of Duty 4, or Battlefield. It's more seamless. It sucks you into the flow state more successfully, and it has fewer flaws that might knock you free of it.

So lets get this straight, as objectively as possible:
Graphics and eyecandy asside (those dont make a game). The story and the way it is presented are poor and simple, the design elements are lacking in choesiveness (cool looking or not, again that's subjective) against a well executed combat gameplay (it is)... thats a masterpiece??
And on a side note its not difficult to be better than all those games you mentioned... they suffer from the same mainstream syndrome as Halo.

[Marcus Vesper]

Calling Far Cry superlative is actually pretty funny, it's an engine with a game attached.  Sure the seemingly open ended level designs and the mercs with their group tactics make it rather fun for a while, but then the cliched sci-fi monsters start showing up and the interest is lost.  The plot is pretty ridiculous as well.  (I own it because it was on sale)

CoD 4 is primarily a multi-player title where the single-player campaign's main innovation is not being set in bloody WW2, Battlefield is nothing BUT a multi-player title.  And quite frankly multi-player can take a flying leap for all I care, that's not why I play games and is at best an amusing diversion.  Games where the single-player campaign feels like an afterthought are games I don't buy.

[Roanoke]

Yep, I'd agree, Halo was not innovative. It is something like Freespace in that respect.

      Am I the only one who played games before 2003? Halo was innovative FOR ITS TIME. Now it no longer is. Kinda the point of innovative is that its innovative, games pick up the innovative element(s), and it becomes cliche. Halo had way advanced graphics for the age and also introduced the two-weapon limit. I dare you to find a game before Halo that has a limit like that. Now, I'm not saying that it's God's gift to gamers (that was Half-Life 2) but Halo was innovative for its time, and unfortunately none of its sequels have been innovative. As far as I'm concerned both of Halo's sequels piggybacked on their predecessor's success and didn't come anywhere close to revolutionizing the genre, but that's a story for another time.

EDIT: General Battuta, I thank you for posting so elaborately and concisely, but please post AFTER I do... (jk)

I agree. 

Calling Far Cry superlative is actually pretty funny, it's an engine with a game attached.  Sure the seemingly open ended level designs and the mercs with their group tactics make it rather fun for a while, but then the cliched sci-fi monsters start showing up and the interest is lost.  The plot is pretty ridiculous as well.  (I own it because it was on sale)

Far Cry Instincts: Evolution was much better in those respects. Cliched, volcano-top mansion with drugged zombies Vs Georgous Mountain Top Shrine Complex with Guerilla/Tribal Warriors.

So lets get this straight, as objectively as possible:
Graphics and eyecandy asside (those dont make a game). The story and the way it is presented are poor and simple, the design elements are lacking in choesiveness (cool looking or not, again that's subjective) against a well executed combat gameplay (it is)... thats a masterpiece??
And on a side note its not difficult to be better than all those games you mentioned... they suffer from the same mainstream syndrome as Halo.

I'm curious what you would consider a well executed combat game, especially one that was executed better than Halo. I've yet to find something better than the beach battle at the start of the Silent Cartographer (sp ?).

Really? How was AvP 1 better? I'm genuinely curious, not skeptical.

Hard to explain, it just felt purer. They didn't attempt to attach some meaningless storyline and generic marine banter. Probably nostalgia as it was one of the first games I got when  I went from PS1/N64 to PC.
Plus, AvP1 got the Pulse rifle s/fx right. So many games get it wrong and it's such a cool sound.

[karajorma]

I hate Marmite. I think it doesn't taste very nice. Yet there is on the shelves of every supermarket taking up space which could be spent on other products I do like. Quite often I see a new line come out but get withdrawn again afterwards. Yet ****ing Marmite is still there.

Now it's obvious no one could actually like that stuff enough to want to buy it! Maybe they'd eat it if someone gave a piece of bread with it on but I can't believe that anyone would want to spend money on black goop if they'd ever tried crab paste or jam sandwiches.  Yet if you sit the people down who actually like it they'll tell you that it actually tastes good! That it actually goes with whatever they're eating it with!  People must be buying it cause they like the adverts. I think they're funny too but I wouldn't buy Marmite just cause of an advert.




People need to accept that Halo is like Marmite in that some people just love it while others can't see what the fuss is about.

[MP-Ryan]

Y'know, it drives me crazy when people bash games like Halo (or Half-Life) on points like story, depth, and design.

Let me first just say that my favorite games, ever, are Deus Ex and System Shock 2, and I can never decide between them.

Halo followed in the much-emulated-never-equaled footsteps of the original Half-Life - a game type which caters to combat and the story and design decisions are made to complement it.  Half-Life was rated as one of the best games ever when it was released - and it was little more than a formulaic follow-up of every FPS that came before it.  So WHY was Half-Life so critically acclaimed?  Because it was the first FPS to dispense with cutscene storytelling, and because it used story to complete its level design.  Think about it - the clues you actually gain throughout the game are pretty basic - it's a linear progression of detail.  But, it sucks you in because you are fed a plot tidbit every so often that ties what you're doing into an overall story.

Halo CE was an evolution of that formula.  It brought you the same type of gameplay - story built around combat rather than the other way around with added technology.  As for design critiques, I disagree entirely.  Halo was extremely well crafted - the Covenant species are widely diverse in tactics and demeanor as enemies, held together loosely by the same technology.  And that is precisely how they are presented to you in the story.  Where Halo fell short is in sections where the combat became repetitive, and the story pieces fell short (The Library, anyone?).  Moreover, Halo did not feed you enough story within combat sequences to keep the player immersed.  The lack of the damned quicksave was also irritating because some sections became unnecessarily frustrating.

That said, while simple in execution Halo was a well-designed game for its time.  It lacked plot complexity, but it followed in the footsteps of predecessors like Half-Life, which was an evolution on the original Doom/Duke Nukem/Quake shooter style.

Half-Life 2 took the criticisms of its predecessor and of Halo and switched the formula - they started with the story and built the combat around it.  In that sense, the intelligent shooter has started to take lessons from the RPG-esque stylings of System Shock and Deus Ex.  That said, the game still retains the primary mandate of combat.

Comparing games like Deus Ex and System Shock to Halo and Half-Life is an exercise in futility because they are games designed to do different things.  DX/SS cater to a story-driven audience who like combat for a challenge and to mix things up.  Halo/HL cater to the combat-oriented audience who crave a little story to prevent things from becoming boring.  HL2 and its episodes are arguably the first mainstream attempt to fuse the two styles to present equal parts of story and combat without making it tedious or overly manufacturered.  Even Deus Ex, which sits at the top of the pile, has some serious flaws in overall design as far as its combat elements go (e.g. it is far too easy to fall into a combat-oriented model), where System Shock makes everything so difficult (including combat) that you want to crush the disc in your bare hands.  Halo, by contrast, has the interminable corridors, rooms, and endless enemies that make any half-ways intelligent gamer have a moment of serious weakness and contemplate taking up Myst.

No matter what, it's all about what the individual prefers.  But like I said, don't compare entirely different game styles because they have totally different purposes to begin with.

[Akalabeth Angel]

    You know one thing I don't get with most "enemies" in FPS like Fear or Half Life or Halo . . . I mean, the AI is pretty good in those games. But why do they talk? If you watch like a squad of marines in popular media (ie TV), you see them use hand gestures for commands. Yet the Covenant Elites and the Replicants and the bad Marines all open their gobs and tell the player exactly what they're about to do. I realize it's for gameplay purposes, but I mean . .  . it's kinda dumb. I mean if they shout "grenade" or curse when they get mowed down, cool . . . but having just foot steps when they attack would be a LOT more intense imo.

    One thing that struck me about Halo 2 . . is that even though the AI was good, it was also extremely limited. I mean, there's one place early on where the Convenant is boarding the station. And basically there's a bunch of marines, and some of them get killed . . . and eventually, when some double blaster elites come in there the player is in some pretty serious trouble. But it doesnt matter . . because a lot of times, the AI seems limited by some imaginary boundary. You get shot, your run behind a box, and the alien doesnt follow. Because there's some "imaginary line" blocking their movement . . .sometimes they'll pursue you, but most of the time. They just sit in this little box instead of pursuing.  So in some of those games, the AI is good . . . but for various reasons, it's also completely stupid.

      And I'd agree that Halo 3 took itself way too seriously . . .one of the last levels I played was against some zombie hordes and this AI girl kept coming up on your HUD and saying some random garbage every 10 seconds and I just thought "STFU already, I'm killing zombies".  And honestly, I didn't play H1 or finish H2 but playing H3 I didn't know what the hell was going on. Some AI girl got captured, she was super annoying, and that's about it.
     
       As for the combat . . . . well, someone said its sorta lame that the physical attack in Halo is one of the top dogs. Well, anyone played FEAR? Playing multiplayer I often unloaded a shotgun at point blank into another player and didn't kill them, then in return they did some pansy kick and killed me outright. So is this "problem" unique to Halo? Don't think so. (incidentally, in ref to another post FEAR:EP was a LOT creepier than the original).

       The problem with the gaming industry as I understand it today is not necessarily that mega-company are ****ting out crappy games. It's that people are so obsessed with Graphics. I mean, the games today are pretty much the same games everyone played 5 years ago but with better graphics. Some of my korean friends (yeah, funny I know) were drooling over screens from Starcraft 2 and I thought "Yeah, okay, it looks like SC1 with better graphics and a few new units . . . whatever". Or my friend was showing me LotR: BfME2 and I watched as Legolas destroyed a stone fortress with his bow and arrow and I thought "oh, so games are still just melee and ranged attacks with better graphics. Wow, really innovative.  "
         And I mean, sometimes that's not really a problem . . Doom3 was basically a remake of Doom1 with better graphics, but I still loved it. But even so . . is that all games are these days? If Freespace 3 came out would it basically be the FS:SCP? Same game, some tweaks, and better graphics? (not to take anything away from SCP, they're probably doing more than a professional company would do . . .helps when you don't have a deadline).

[Hades]

     
       As for the combat . . . . well, someone said its sorta lame that the physical attack in Halo is one of the top dogs. Well, anyone played FEAR? Playing multiplayer I often unloaded a shotgun at point blank into another player and didn't kill them, then in return they did some pansy kick and killed me outright. So is this "problem" unique to Halo? Don't think so. (incidentally, in ref to another post FEAR:EP was a LOT creepier than the original).

Actually it kills in one hit in the back, and it takes about 3-4 hits to kill anywhere else. And then you usually get killed before you get close...

[Davros]

   Doom3 was basically a remake of Doom1 with better graphics,

No painkiller was a remake of doom with better graphics
doom3 was a remake of avp with better graphics, but less suspense

[Roanoke]

     
       As for the combat . . . . well, someone said its sorta lame that the physical attack in Halo is one of the top dogs. Well, anyone played FEAR? Playing multiplayer I often unloaded a shotgun at point blank into another player and didn't kill them, then in return they did some pansy kick and killed me outright. So is this "problem" unique to Halo? Don't think so. (incidentally, in ref to another post FEAR:EP was a LOT creepier than the original).

Actually it kills in one hit in the back, and it takes about 3-4 hits to kill anywhere else. And then you usually get killed before you get close...

Yeah it's only good if you catch someone unawares or after a badguy has taken a magazine or two. It's great for a laugh in Multi, ofcourse.

[Akalabeth Angel]

   Doom3 was basically a remake of Doom1 with better graphics,

No painkiller was a remake of doom with better graphics
doom3 was a remake of avp with better graphics, but less suspense

       Well, never played AVP but I know the Hell-levels of Doom 3 were pretty fricken awesome the first time around.
        I wasn't so much referring to gameplay with Doom 3, but rather storyline. The combat in D3 is certainly different than D1+2.

        As an aside, people were also complaining about the cutscenes of Halo2. When I know when I played Doom 3, the little in-game cutscenes to introduce each creature were pretty damn cool imo (though why no Cacodemo intro? boooo). It was a cut-scene, but it went well with the gameplay, and often ended with sort of merging with the FP view. Whereas the plot information on the other hand, gathered from PDAs and stuff was kinda . . . less exciting.

[TrashMan]

I hate Marmite. I think it doesn't taste very nice. Yet there is on the shelves of every supermarket taking up space which could be spent on other products I do like. Quite often I see a new line come out but get withdrawn again afterwards. Yet ****ing Marmite is still there.

Now it's obvious no one could actually like that stuff enough to want to buy it! Maybe they'd eat it if someone gave a piece of bread with it on but I can't believe that anyone would want to spend money on black goop if they'd ever tried crab paste or jam sandwiches.  Yet if you sit the people down who actually like it they'll tell you that it actually tastes good! That it actually goes with whatever they're eating it with!  People must be buying it cause they like the adverts. I think they're funny too but I wouldn't buy Marmite just cause of an advert.




People need to accept that Halo is like Marmite in that some people just love it while others can't see what the fuss is about.

Good comparison, alltough not 100% accurate.

When judging food, we rely on our sense of taste - and it varries very much from person to person. My tounge can be much more sensitive to salty than yours. Constantly eating a specific variety of food makes your tounge accustomed to it more, and reacts less harshly to it.

When playing games, we all see the very same thing. Granted, people have different preferences to what they want, but we all see and get the same (mostly. Some games are not that linear and some are more buggy on specific rigs).

[Snail]

I like FPS games, but hate RTS games. I can't play them. My opinions are bad, wrong, horrible, inaccurate and I must mold my opinions to your needs.

[Davros]

       Well, never played AVP

try the marine demo
avp_d2ma.exe   - Playable demo (Marine) 22mb
http://www.3dgamers.com/games/alienspredator/downloads/

[Akalabeth Angel]

       Well, never played AVP

try the marine demo
avp_d2ma.exe   - Playable demo (Marine) 22mb
http://www.3dgamers.com/games/alienspredator/downloads/

        Cool thanks I'll check it out. I think I did actually play the demo . . . or tried to, but my compute r wasn't up to spec at the time. May be another game I pick up off ebay/amazon. Just bought HW1+2 off Ebay, though it's yet to arrive

[Raven2001]

So lets get this straight, as objectively as possible:
Graphics and eyecandy asside (those dont make a game). The story and the way it is presented are poor and simple, the design elements are lacking in choesiveness (cool looking or not, again that's subjective) against a well executed combat gameplay (it is)... thats a masterpiece??
And on a side note its not difficult to be better than all those games you mentioned... they suffer from the same mainstream syndrome as Halo.

I'm curious what you would consider a well executed combat game, especially one that was executed better than Halo. I've yet to find something better than the beach battle at the start of the Silent Cartographer (sp ?).

I'm curious did you read the and thought the whole sentence I wrote? I said that a well executed combat game play was the ONLY thing Halo had well done.
And for better executed combat? Half-Life comes to mind, both 1 and 2 (for their respective times), FEAR as well.

So WHY was Half-Life so critically acclaimed?  Because it was the first FPS to dispense with cutscene storytelling, and because it used story to complete its level design.  Think about it - the clues you actually gain throughout the game are pretty basic - it's a linear progression of detail.  But, it sucks you in because you are fed a plot tidbit every so often that ties what you're doing into an overall story.

Halo CE was an evolution of that formula.  It brought you the same type of gameplay - story built around combat rather than the other way around with added technology. 
That said, while simple in execution Halo was a well-designed game for its time.  It lacked plot complexity, but it followed in the footsteps of predecessors like Half-Life, which was an evolution on the original Doom/Duke Nukem/Quake shooter style.

Right and wrong. Half-Life (and consequently HL2) did have those qualities indeed, and they deserve their spots in being highly praised games, no matter what genre.

However, Halo has got nothing to do with Half-Life: the story isnt tied to the gameplay, on the contrary. Most of the story you get is on non-interactive cutscenes (its lame and amateur nowadays IMO), not to mention Half-Life's story is much better crafted (whether you like the story itself or not).
Yes they both retain their combat centrism, but then again, a bazillion games do

[General Battuta]

Hmm, I was a big Half-Life 1 fan, but I thought the underwhelming soldier AI in Half-Life 2 and the highly inaccurate weapons made the combat a bit frustrating.

As for story, one thing I really prefer about Halo is the way the fundamental mysteries of the series are hinted at from the very first game onwards. Half-Life's writers clearly didn't have a full picture of where the story was going when they began the first one.

That said, I think the execution of the story in the Half-Life episodes has been a big step forward, and Portal was (mostly) a masterpiece of game writing.

[Ghostavo]

Halo had way advanced graphics for the age and also introduced the two-weapon limit. I dare you to find a game before Halo that has a limit like that.

For the nth time, Battlezone 2. And I believe it's not the first to do that either.

Battlezone 2 featured many (if not all) of those things... almost 3 years before Halo.

PS. I'd like to know where this argument about the weapons limit started. It's not the first or the second (or even the third...) time I've encountered this argument about Halo's "innovation". Seriously!

[MP-Ryan]

Right and wrong. Half-Life (and consequently HL2) did have those qualities indeed, and they deserve their spots in being highly praised games, no matter what genre.

However, Halo has got nothing to do with Half-Life: the story isnt tied to the gameplay, on the contrary. Most of the story you get is on non-interactive cutscenes (its lame and amateur nowadays IMO), not to mention Half-Life's story is much better crafted (whether you like the story itself or not).
Yes they both retain their combat centrism, but then again, a bazillion games do

I don't know which version of Halo CE you played, but I recall a significant amount of plot revelation during the gameplay.  Cortana's in-game narration was the main source of course.  Yes, Halo still made use of cutscenes but before you critique them too heavily you have to keep the following in mind:

Microsoft turned Halo into a console game.

Console games love their cutscenes.  That's where the damn checkpoint system came from too.  Halo cannot readily be compared to other combat-oriented PC games because they are constructed for the PC and don't have to deal with the same sort of audience.  For some reason, it has long been tradition in console games to use cutscenes to present story pieces... and it's a stupid convention.

Ironically, if you look at other PC combat games released around the same time as Halo, you actually find that few if any of them adopted the Half-Life model of combat storytelling and instead intersperse the game with cutscene sequences.  Unreal 2 comes to mind particularly.

[Raven2001]

I don't know which version of Halo CE you played, but I recall a significant amount of plot revelation during the gameplay.  Cortana's in-game narration was the main source of course.  Yes, Halo still made use of cutscenes but before you critique them too heavily you have to keep the following in mind:

Microsoft turned Halo into a console game.

Console games love their cutscenes.  That's where the damn checkpoint system came from too.  Halo cannot readily be compared to other combat-oriented PC games because they are constructed for the PC and don't have to deal with the same sort of audience.  For some reason, it has long been tradition in console games to use cutscenes to present story pieces... and it's a stupid convention.

I played Halo 1 and 2 for the XBox.

I really don't care if its because its a console game or not. Its still, to put in your own words, a "stupid convention" (a wording I do admire, it couldnt be more true), about which, apparently, Microsoft and Bungie didn't have the balls to change. That same stupid convention was (and still is to a point) present on the PC, yet developers had hte nerve to start changing it... I didnt hear anyone complaining by then... on the contrary.
Besides, Bioshock was also made originally for console, and yet I havent heard no one complain about how the story was presented... in fact so far I've only read about someone complaining about Bioshock having 2 cutscenes, instead of having those story elements told in a real-time interactive way.

Just using dialogue is an old way of telling a story in a game as well. If I want a "narrator" to tell me whats going on I'll read a book. In the same way, if I want to sit back and watch the action unfold, I'll go see a movie.

In the end, saying those methods are used because of the audience is a kind of phalacie  (sp?), because we all know the majority of the console audience are mostly looking for instant gratification (hence the huge amount of FPS's and other "simplistic" games) and shiny graphics. If you feed them a game without any kind of story they wont even blink, so

Ironically, if you look at other PC combat games released around the same time as Halo, you actually find that few if any of them adopted the Half-Life model of combat storytelling and instead intersperse the game with cutscene sequences.  Unreal 2 comes to mind particularly.

Thats all true. And that's exactly why Halo doesn't deserve to be so highly acclaimed. Just because other games already did something doesn't magically give Halo (or any other game) the right to be innovative and poor.