If this game was a turning point for the genre, shouldn't, you know, anyone have heard of it or played it? Let's see what the reviewers thought:
"It has the most idiotic aiming scheme in any WWII game." - Official PlayStation Magazine
"Everything in this title borders on barely functional, from the blurry graphics (no, that isn't Vaseline on your TV screen) to the imprecise targeting." - Game Informer
"...Combat Elite could have been fantastic. But that's just wishful thinking. " - IGN
The Precursor Legacy is a great game, but to say that its world has no peer is to deny that Mario, and every other great platformer, exists.
Really? That might have been true if this game was released in 1970, but I'm pretty sure that in 2004 movie effects looked significantly better than what could be rendered in real-time on a PS2. Just sayin'.
Above: Did Peter Jackson direct this?
Also, a quick side note: I know I've probably done this too, but can writers please stop saying that games "boast" things, and especially that they "boast an array" of things? It's probably one of the most frequently occurring clichés in game writing, just behind "While this game isn't perfect, its flaws are made up for by..." and "If you're a fan of the genre..."
I would be a fool to take a shot at any Tribes game - they were outstanding. Better than Halo, even.
I haven't played one in four years.
If the game is big, and it is full of action, then there must be as much action in it as it is big (the bigger the game is, the more action it would take to fill it up). So we know that the amount of action in the game is dependent on the bigness of the game, but we don't have an objective measurement of the game's bigness, so we don't really know anything. Let's just call it "a hell of a ride" and move on.