I never understood the hype behind the following series: (Warning: Wall o' Text Ahead.
Halo - It's a competent game, but I've played 1 and 2 and I found them completely boring, and the large maps are easy to get lost in. The multiplayer can be fun, but I personally think ANY multiplayer has more to do with the people you play with more than the game. Unless you play online, and then it's the community as a whole.
Gears of War - Big burly men in powered armor with a chainsaw-rifle fighting humanoid aliens... Again, a competent game, but as Yahtzee said in his review for 3 (or was it 2?) The only level I really remember in the series is the inside of the worm, mainly since that's one location that isn't visited too often. Online multiplayer is extremely lag-infested (1 and 2), and split screen multiplayer is boring (2v2 at the most is SERIOUSLY boring in any shooter imo)
Any military shooter that came out after CoD4 - Most shooters that came out before CoD4 had some form of bizarre or unique appeal to it(Most didn't try to be real or modern. Most 'real' shooters were based on WW2, and most 'modern' shooters took place in an alternate reality.). And really military shooters didn't get really popular until after CoD4 (I didn't hear my friends talking about any shooter apart from Halo, to be fair), and every game since than has been the same formula that CoD4 had but with added cheese and one-ups-manship. I understand that some people like the over-the-top stories. But what gets me is that people will pay $60 for what is essentially an expansion pack for the multiplayer.
For those of you saying Skyrim, it's essentially a Role Player's wet dream. After the tutorial you're free to be your character. Though I wish the game didn't make you into the world-savior from the get go. I think it would be much more interesting if you start as a nobody but as you progress the story your actions turn you into the world-savior, and not just "Hey, you're the PC you're the Dragonborn."
Halo - It's a competent game, but I've played 1 and 2 and I found them completely boring, and the large maps are easy to get lost in. The multiplayer can be fun, but I personally think ANY multiplayer has more to do with the people you play with more than the game. Unless you play online, and then it's the community as a whole.
Gears of War - Big burly men in powered armor with a chainsaw-rifle fighting humanoid aliens... Again, a competent game, but as Yahtzee said in his review for 3 (or was it 2?) The only level I really remember in the series is the inside of the worm, mainly since that's one location that isn't visited too often. Online multiplayer is extremely lag-infested (1 and 2), and split screen multiplayer is boring (2v2 at the most is SERIOUSLY boring in any shooter imo)
Any military shooter that came out after CoD4 - Most shooters that came out before CoD4 had some form of bizarre or unique appeal to it(Most didn't try to be real or modern. Most 'real' shooters were based on WW2, and most 'modern' shooters took place in an alternate reality.). And really military shooters didn't get really popular until after CoD4 (I didn't hear my friends talking about any shooter apart from Halo, to be fair), and every game since than has been the same formula that CoD4 had but with added cheese and one-ups-manship. I understand that some people like the over-the-top stories. But what gets me is that people will pay $60 for what is essentially an expansion pack for the multiplayer.
For those of you saying Skyrim, it's essentially a Role Player's wet dream. After the tutorial you're free to be your character. Though I wish the game didn't make you into the world-savior from the get go. I think it would be much more interesting if you start as a nobody but as you progress the story your actions turn you into the world-savior, and not just "Hey, you're the PC you're the Dragonborn."