Ah.. it's just discussion szaromir. So long as we're all aware of that I think it's okay. Obviously people have their own opinions on what is and isn't a great FPS. Some people think Goldeneye is one of the best ever.. and they're entitled to that opinion. Just like I'm entitled to think that Half Life is one of the best ever.

I don't think anyone is really hating on Halo.. I actually love the franchise.. for both MP and single player. One thing I have to give the series a lot of credit for is bringing back co-op gameplay to the genre. I'm certain it played a big part here..

Oh and NOLF2 rules.. I'm not sure I ever finished it. If I have, my memory is seriously failing me. I should reinstall that and give it another go around.Hard not to mention it when it's shipping a month before HL2 Orange. And this game is a 360 game too, ya know :)

Well, easily Half Life 2 is more impressive game than either of the past Halos (grounding in realism helps immerse players into the game) but I can't say that it has the same lasting appeal. Halo/Halo 2 multiplayer brings friends together, for a pizza, a drink, and an owning.

And if I had to indeed choose between Half Life 2: Orange Box and Halo 3, the decision would be clear. Halo 3. Why? Because Halo has better gameplay? No, not really. Because it is new. And HL2 has been the same S#!@ since the dog died. Come on Valve. Half Life 3.

But if Steam wasn't such a malevolent backstabbing piece of code, I'd be playing HL2 right now. Granted that my 8800GTX didn't crash all over creation :@! I don't ever want to play Halo 2 campaign again. Gives me nightmares.

I'll take that 8800GTX off your hands if it's giving you too much trouble. Want to trade for a 6800GT? Runs Half Life 2 very well. :P

I sorta think HL2 has plenty of lasting appeal too. Sure there's no built in multiplayer (lets ignore HL2DM for the time being) but when you consider the other games that extend from its release (Day of Defeat, Counter Strike Source, and soon Team Fortress 2) it's pretty easy to see how it might keep you busy for years.

Granted, CSS and DOD aren't part of the Xbox 360 package.. and that doens't even take the mod community in to account (custom maps, and total coversions like Dystopia). But you're still getting Team Fortress 2, and portal for the price of one game... oh and both Episodes... which are not free add-ons!

Seems like a must buy to me.. if you don't already own Half Life 2.

I was sorta kidding about Gamerankings Jin.. I know that just boils down to popular opinion anyway. What really matters is what we as individuals think.

It does have a lot to do with platform though. Playing Halo with a mouse and keyboard feels horribly wrong.. it makes it that much more obvious that you're walking in mud.. on the moon! And if you're seasoned on PC shooters, I'm just not sure how you could think so highly of Halo. It's sorta.. been there.. done that.

Halo is only as important as it is because of the platform. Platform means a lot to this genre.

I think it's basically crazy to think that Halo is the best anything ever.. and I think of myself as a big fan of the series. Naturally if it's not the best FPS, it's not the best game.. but that all boils down to your opinion and I'm not in the business of changing peoples opinions.

For whatever it's worth.. I love Halo. Won't ever play it on PC though.

I'm gonna make a short post for once in my life, because my view here is fairly simple.

In terms of sheer gameplay and story depth, Halo 1 really wins every time. Not Halo 2, not its multiplayer, but Halo 1 and combat against its AI opponents and the story of the discovery and destruction of a ring world. Shooting enemies in HL1 or HL2 never comes close to the dynamics found in Halo.

That said, I still rate Half Life 1 exactly as good as Halo 1 overall, because of its amazing narrative and ways to build tension and guide you through its environments.

Half Life 2 I agree with just about anyone is immensly overrated, but that likewise made similarly awesome strides in narrative, and more than anything it dared be significantly different from its predecessor. That's where Halo 2 fails miserably and merely echoes the good bits of Halo 1. Sure, the script was amazing in Halo 2, but its merits apart from that are simply inherited from Halo 1.

God dammit this isn't short anyway!

Half Life 1 and Halo 1 I can't possibly pick a favourite from, but for what it's worth, HL2 sort of has the upper hand on Halo 2 by default just by being different.

Ultimately the appeal of Halo is extremely simple, and it really does mirror what the devs themselves have said about 30 seconds of fun. If I was deserted on an island and had to fight enemy AI in an FPS environment FOREVER, I'd want it to be Halo. It really does - to this day - put every other form of solo FPS combat to utter shame.

Yea.. FEAR is amazing. Repetitive as all hell, and severely lacking a narrative (which is a damn shame, because the story is awesome) but the action is spot on. Really engaging game while it lasts.. it's just a shame it's so limited in other aspects. I really hope the sequel expands on everything. FEAR Combat is also pretty decent, and 100% free on PC. No AI there though :P

Halo's AI is still fairly solid.. Legendary can be pretty brutal.

Can't argue against your love of the Half Life franchise as a whole though. Valve is a special developer and those are two pretty special games. What other studio has based its entire career around a single franchise? It's a business model that can't work unless the game is excellent.

Granted.. Source has other uses, and it's not their only source of income (lets not ignore steam) but it's the foundation of everything that Valve has done.

So much for being a PC FPS gamer. :|I think you are the one who came into a HL thread to crap on HL and have done so in quite a few threads (ditto Far Cry) and tend to make antagonistic comments like "you're kidding" and telling Grift he overrates the game. The real problem is you are getting defensive about discussion which quite honestly should have been a boulet and reminder of your last warning. Dialogue is good, snarky spamming bad.

As I showed, Grift does not overrate the game based on industry consensus -- he is par for the course. You like skipping over some of my comments -- like your right to an opinion and dislike to certain styles and mechanics, or that Halo is a great series (both things I affirm) -- and are drawn to mischaracterizing the entire issue with your posts on this. You get defensive, and instead of actually articulating points you are snarky and really went off topic.1. It can be measured. See my post and gamerankings.com references. You accuse Grift of overrating the game; facts show he is rating it as most consumers and critics do. Your only arguement left is everyone overrates it -- and a thorough defence of why everyone is wrong and why you are right... and why Halo's faults don't matter and it is the best ever, regardless of shortcomings that you admit.

2. It doesn't have to be true? So when the facts don't agree with your stance they are wrong? Taste/Preference versus Quality/Consensus. Best versus Favorite. See below. It would do well to distinguish. No one should fault you for saying, "Halo is my favorite FPS of all time and HL2 bored me, with issues X,Y,Z turning me off". That is taste.

3. A group of opinions relates to the general consensus. When talking about Grift overrating something, it is relevant to see if he is overrating it based on consensus OR if he is actually inline with the consensus.

You always are drawn to the "I hated it, so Grift overrates it" type banter which is subjective and should be taken to PM. This is a discussion forum. You can discuss why you think a game is good/bad. Telling people they are wrong with nothing of substance is flaming, lacks discussion, and isn't tolerated.And this is where your real grind is. Your favorite game has nothing to do with a game being over-/under- rated.

I hate WoW. It isn't overrated.
I really hate GTA. It isn't overrated.
I dislike Civilization. It definately isn't overrated.
I am not a big fan of UT. It wasn't overrated.
Not a big fan of 2K Football. Very much underrated.
I couldn't get into Rome: Total War. Absolutely great game.
Call of Duty never clicked with me or pulled me away from BF42. Yet it is one of the milestone FPS to be released in the last 5 years.

And on the same note I recognize that some of my all-time favorite games (Mario Kart, Battlezone, Battlefield 1942) are *significantly* flawed, had accessibility or mechanics issues, and could have been deeper or more fleshed out that alienate them from being in the top tier over "general consensus: top rung games".

Maybe it is difficult for some to look at it this way, but disliking a game doesn't make it overrated. Being objective means looking at what a game offers in terms of value, mechanics, story, implimentation, innnovation, pacing, longevity, austhetics, aureal pleasantry, bugginess, and production values (among various issues) -- and putting aside my own preferences and looking how they appeal to consumers in general and what they bring to the industry and to the genre.

There surely are overrated games, due to publisher placement (big publisher, big advertising, holiday placement, stirred up fanbase) and expectations. Doom 3 is an example of a good "throw back game to an older FPS era in next gen visual/audio treat" yet is completely overrated as a modern FPS. It isn't a modern FPS (it isn't intended to be!) and has weak MP. Most consumers and critics realized within 30 days the game was waaay overrated in terms of what it brought to the genre in terms of anything but graphics/sound. Doesn't make it a bad game (my dad loved the classic Doom gameplay), but it made it overrated because the hype skewed results. Another 2004 game had a slew of similar articles from places like IGN right after release saying, "Ok, we were overhyping this game, 6 hours is way too short".

When reviewing the total package, HL2 has many *objective* metrics that put it at the front of the class in terms of technology, innovation, quality, and production qualities. Having not played HL2 in over a year, I can easily remember a slew of areas where it stood out head and shoulders above the rest--and in some cases still does. Just off the top of my head:

HL2 had its detractors (seeing Greg K. at GameSpot whine about it the entire review and then give it a 9.2 was funny). But it was universally praised on a number of elements. Excellent story (esp. for middle episode) with great story telling actually woven into the gameplay. It is an artistic masterpiece how the designers have Gordon be silent and telling his story cinematically from the first person perspective without Gordon saying a word. And yet it feels naturally with pleasant wit.

HL2 is also a long game, weighing in at 15-20 hours for an initial single play through. It has a variety of themes in terms of where you are in the world as well as play mechanics. You experience everything from playing completely defenseless, to traditional HL gun play, to gravity gun glory -- one of the best weapons ever -- to super grav gun "I am now Neo" joy. One may not find the gun play fun for whatever reasons, but the guns are balanced into the game design well. Each has strengths and weaknesses. And there is some nice innovations like the guided missiles (very well executed) and the revolutionary grav gun. The suit Gordon wears adds to the gameplay and authenticity and explains our super hero very well. While still a game, it doesn't completely suspend belief with a ton+ piece of armor hovering in the air like a hot air balloon. One thing about the game being long is this: some people dislike long games, hence Nintendo and some in the industry fighting toward the 6-10hr mark with shorter play sesssions. But there is room for all opinions and those of us who like LONG games have been getting the shaft. So to each their own--the quality of HL2 doesn't suffer the Doom 3, "Lets make a 20 hour game with filler content". For every person that bitches about Ravenholm or the puzzle/vehicle elements of the game there are dozens who say, "Those were my favorite parts". Which I think comes back to you cannot please everyone all the time, especially in a diverse game. If I like puzzles I won't be as happy with the twitchy aspects, and if I like action I may not like the horror aspects as much. But IMO, and that of many, it is an accomplishment to weave together such diverse gameplay/thematic elements into a single game in such a solid, compelling way. I would even argue that games that have 1 basic gameplay theme are pretty boring. HL2 has some good company with the too much diversity complaint though--Halo 2 was knocked for the Arbitrator stuff (although playing the antagonist in a game propelled by the virtues of the protagonist is an odd choice). If someone dislikes Ravenholm or puzzles they still have 10 hours of solid gameplay... or vice versa.

As if 20 hours of SP play wasn't enough, HL2 also has the most played FPS MP game of all time in the package and the quirky fun HL2DM. CounterStrike:Source may be an graphical update and tweak of the classic, yet it continues to appeal to consumers on a **Massive** level. The gameplay is outstanding, with an infinite learning curve. The longevity of such, especially user contributed levels, is unending. I am not a big CS freak (although I have enjoyed a "couple" rounds here and there myself) but there is no denying the quality of the experience, even if you hate the concept.

Graphics. HL2 is a great example of a couple things. Most importantly is art. Amazing art--and very diverse. 4GB of art... and more art. The variety and quality of assets is absolutely amazing. It doesn't have a ton of pre-canned foiliage or miles of repetitive corridores. Technologically it made awesome decisions. It pushed hard on the top end cards of the time but scaled all the way back to DX7 -- and actually ran on DX7 cards. Amazing design decisions here with uncanning choices. And while not introducing a slew of new rendering techniques, it picked a path that a) exploited the current tricks with very high fidelity levels and b) chose the path that scaled backwards the best. And most of all it worked well with their art, which is all that matters.

Animation also deserves special notice. The lip synchronization to audio files really hasn't been exceeded in 3 years :| I am getting tired of big name / budget titles still struggling to 1 up here and yet HL2 gets slagged off on this point. This is HUGE for a game dependant on story. Further, the lipsync is only a small part of the equation as the facial animation system was completely innovative and revolutionary. Sure, it helps the story. Sure it is expressive. And surely it made every other game in 2004... and 2005... look like crap when it came to character expression. And I would argue it is still the best system artistically in regards to the naturality of the expressions. In Valve's stylized universe it feels very natural, subtle, and expressive. Toss in some excellent dialogue -- not like the crap in Gears of War -- and HL2 plays like a visual novel. And I didn't even both mentioning the excellent "cut scene" character animation. And when noobs can take the core technology and make stuff like this (a Few Good Men machinima which falls short of ingame stuff, but the point still made) it speaks volumes. The expression of the characters and dialogue are really above everything else at this point.

For that reason alone it isn't overrated.

And it has a lot of nice touches and evolutions. Their custom version of Havok (2) is very smooth, and while ragdoll bone collision is disabled (performance killer on older machines) it was very fluid. It has been outdone now, but in 2004 it was the bees knees and still looks good. Nothing beats nailing a trooper to the wall with the crossbow from a quarter mile away or with using the super grav gun and slinging a peon at his mates as you close in on your final mission objective. The AI is also more evolutionary in the SP (although the MP bots are amazing -- best FPS AI I have seen by far in terms of naturalness/genre and competition). The AI is unique in that the game pits you against swarms of enemies who are weaker than yourself. They communicate, the flank, etc... but the reality is 1 bullet of yours is like 10 times stronger than their bullets. Their aim on all but the hardst level sucks too (not an AI issue, as the hardest level shows... actually harder to make AI miss than hit). But the game design calls for a world where weak holocaust like humans are pushed around and surpressed but a healthy, objective driven man like Gordon who has brains, a super protective suit, and gadgets can crush the enemy. But you don't start off super -- you get beat around as well and have to use your brains, only becoming stronger, the "savior" as you gain confidence and resources. The AI design and balance plays directly into the story and build you up from weaponless and lost to savior of humanity and singlehandedly striking the heart of the covenant.

I find it impossible to say this many positive things about the quality/production values of a game with such a tight focus where nagging issues are perephrial and then knee jerk spam, "you're kidding that you think this may be one of the best FPS games ever".

Does HL2 have flaws? Yes. But none are critical and none detract from the packaged experience. It is epic. It is deep. And it is a complete package where the rough spots are at their worst average and where it excells it still to this day (!) remains unmatched.

It may not be the best FPS ever, but it must be considered in the discussion. Hence the responses to your comments. The critics agree, as do sales. It is the best FPS to date imo (one of my favorites, but not my most favorite) but I am more than happy to give wiggle room for other top contenders. Taste invariably play a factor in how you vote, but I can see a good dozen or so titles being worthy of consideration.

Hence we roll your eyes when when we read your typical, "you're kidding" comments. Yes, we know you hate the game.You're kidding, right? Halo is broken in many places and as the genre goes (not platform, genre) it has a lot of competition that lacks those critical flaws (see below). Ok, szaromir trash talking aside, lets get more nuanced... lets distinguish between...

Favorite or Best?

My favorite FPS is Battlefield 1942, but I don't think it is the best. One of my all-time favorites is Battlezone (RTS-Vehicular/Squad based FPS hybrid) and it is critically flawed and is not the best game ever. But I would take a next-gen Battlezone over a next gen Halo or Half-Life. Taste versus quality. Just like I would take an FPS GRAW2 or CoD2 (good, solid FPS) over WoW (best MMO ever) and Halo over any RTS game ever released. I can say, "Civilization is one of the best games ever" but I would prefer to play Mario Kart (even the flawed ones) over it any time.

Best and Favorite are two distinct things.

I guess it is perspective. Having reviewed games in the past I don't look at "my favorite" as "the best". As a gamer I have tastes and preferences -- sometimes quite odd and outside the realm of the mainstream -- and realize I can be TOTAL drawn to a game due to a quirk or mechanic that sucks me in, yet separate that from the issues of quality and how it compares in a genre. There are some fine lines in there as there will be overlap -- hence I can respect, yet disagree, with someone choosing a different game as best FPS ever -- but standing back and appreciating a game shouldn't be too difficult.

As for Halo being the best FPS ever... lets look at this objectively as a genre where we are comparing it against the genre. Halo lacked a map maker and user contributed content. That is a HUGE feature in the genre. It effectively lacked online play which earns double scorn for having no bots (playing 1v1 with my friend while we waited for Halo parties SUCKED). While very progressive evolution and tweaking of genre elements melee, nades, weapon limits, vehicles, etc were not new to the genre. In regards to MP features it is deep but has quite a bit of competition from games like TS2 and is dwarfed on the PC side. The SP design lulls annoyed quite a few (although not all, see HL2 notes above). And as great as the controls are (see below) nothing can offset the fact that the best FPS, especially competitive ones, are far superior on the input issue (the controls in a UT game are much more responsive and accurate, but that is as much an Xbox issue... but then again we are talking BEST FPS, not Best Xbox FPS). And no need to mention graphics / display resolution (PC gamers have been using 1MP and 2MP resolutions for years before Halo released, so 480p is very limiting). And no mods... something that distinguishes games like Quake, UT, HL, BF1942, and so forth is that the game lives on, diversifies, and appeals to the same gamers over and over again and draws new ones in. Mods, TCs, Machinima, and user contributed content like new MP maps and SP campaigns are all VERY important aspects of the FPS genre. It is the 3rd pillar of the genre -- SP, MP, Community. A game lacking a core pillar of a genre is a significant issue to consider and not to take lightly. I am inclined to believe that while not a singularly defining issue, it must be considered in the equation.

Halo was a really great game, but looking at the genre circa 2001 I am seeing how quite a few FPS titles really broke out in regards to story/RPG elements, MP elements, and just general design evolution. Halo rates well but it is critically flawed and has areas that fall really short in the genre overall. Where I think Halo really excelled is different than most. I think first and foremost are controls. The pacing is just right for gamepads. Further, people forget before Halo there was a LOT of variant gamepad implimentations--Halo proved the best approach and did it VERY well. I think Halo also nailed the shield system. Not perfect for all games, but definately worked for their design AND it was better than most contempary designs. And it flowed into MP very well. Vehicles was a nice touch, esp on the consoles, although many top flight games already had them and very well. The melee system was a great addition and balance as was the weapon balance of being limited to 2 guns. Gun play is almost typical (with some really lame/broken guns... needler ugh) but well balanced with ammo limits. These are all great evolutions, tweaks, and refinements of the genre.

And the story rocked. Sure, MC is a totally boring / ripped off marine (hello Doom 1!!!!!! MC is generic and a total rip off artistically) but he has kutzpah and kicks ass and takes names later.

Halo was a great game, but it has some critical flaws that are overshadowed in the genre for me personally to consider it the best FPS ever. I am aware those critical flaws may of no consequence to some (see my love for BF42 and Battlezone) so I 100% understand how it could be someone's favorite FPS all time -- especially when someone plays their FPS primarily on a console.

Man I'm kinda dissapointed all the great games will come out after i've gone to New Zealand :)
It's gonna be a hard year!

But i'll try to buy those great games when i get back :)

I am gonna not only go with FEAR as others noted, but CS:S as well. I have spent a lot of time examining the bots by Turtle Rock Studios and it is amazing. They have created a tendancy system that mimicks real life players and actually uses line of sight as most humans would. It is extremely detailed and watching in spectator mode is amazing. You will see a bot enter a room and start scanning around. You will see them check and clear areas, and make mistakes--they do not auto know where you are. Their aim can be uber amazing to amazing horrible depending on level. You will see better bots use sound as well as tendancy (and excellent mechanical tactics that the best players use) to totally cream an opponent, and yet the newb bots actually do stupid things like real humans. Real stupid... even tardtastic.

Halo has solid AI, I like it. But both of the above are better for different reasons. Technically I see both as being better (better implimentation and theme is a taste issue, to each their own). One issue of note with Halo AI is that it relies heavily on scripting. Watching CS:S AI be able to accomplish complex tasks on the fly (seek, assault, defend, defuse, cover, teamwork/communication) puts it into perspective. Sure, it is CoD style scripting (which is amazing in its own right), but Halo relies heavily on scripting. This works AMAZING in SP -- and is necessary for such campaigns to continue the story. But it is also limited. And hence why Bungie already said their bots won't work in MP. The reason why is because as good as they are, they are confined to the programmer limits and design. They are scripted to be at a place at the right time and to do certain tasks. Which is fine for a SP campaign... but play it forever? If Bungie had bots that had AI that worked in MP and were more dynamic -- and less scripted -- I could see a statement like, "Blows all the rest away". But I would take CS:S AI and FEAR AI over Halo any day from a technical perspective.

I would also toss in BiA2 which myself and critics say has some pretty good AI, especially since it is tactical (and reactionary to your input) and less scripted.

Halo's combat isn't just about its AI.

Halo's combat is about the way it effortlessly makes every enemy a significantly different challenge to overcome (Something Metroid Prime obviously takes even further, but it seems my main "opposition" in this discussion easily dismisses that game entirely) and on top of that manages to be utterly dynamic on its own, even if the enemies had been, yes, FEAR ones. The same soldiers x 200. Half Life 2 does this too, you're essentially stuck shooting at the same guy throughout.

And get this, they don't even take special time out and make a *scenario* of it like they do whenever a berserker appears in Gears of War. Everything you do in Halo is woven into the rest, be it throwing grenades, using melee attacks, getting a Hunter to bend over so you can.. you know.. do.. stuff to him. It's like a beautiful dance, the way a game should be.

I'd liken Halo to Virtua Fighter really. The Virtua Fighter of shooters.

Out of all of the comments in this thread since I've last looked, this one stands out the most. Oh Simon, you so crazy!

I disagree. :P

I need to come back and read through this third page. It'll take a few minutes.

Of course you disagree, you disagreed already when you said the campaign is an "add on bonus" in Halo 3. Couple that with how little love you seem to have for Metroid Prime and it's clear that we don't even remotely value the same things in a game.

The paper rock scissors approach to gameplay is something other FPS haven't even bothered with. If you're uncomfortable with me using the *best* fighter to describe a game you far from think is the best at anything, I'll just use Dead or Alive instead.

Regardless of which proper fighting game analogy you wanna use, Halo still has causes and effects to EVERY weapon and EVERY strategy for its AI opponents. Other games just have the same machinegun-tooting opponent running for cover and flanking you now and then. Even though FEAR does the machinegun tooting thing really well, it doesn't come close to the sheer scope of Halo 1.

Keep in mind I don't care even the tiniest bit about the multiplayer here.

EDIT: Urgh.. sorry if I sound snappy.. I have the worst fucking headache. I get these lately, I dunno why.

Ah, see.. I saw the comment on Virtua Fighter and immediately tied it to multiplayer. I think of fighting game as primarily multiplayer experiences.. but I see what you're saying. I think Halo's combat is pretty great too. There's a fine balance between weapons, nades, and melee. Similar things do sorta exist in other FPS games though.

FEAR is a game that just sorta does one thing really well. Which is why I hope they expand on some of the games other values a bit more in the sequel. I hope there's a stronger narrative and more variety in addition to the awesomeness of combat.Blame the developer of the port (Gearbox? I forget).. but I hear Halo 2 is even worse. I'm not really sure what the justification is for the system requirements of such an old game. Just not a great port I guess.

Very nice.