Oh boy, I have a laundry list of titles for this thread:

The entire Half-Life series: Sorry, but I think the Half Life games aren't anything special. Yes, Half Life was revolutionary as a game when it came out, but it's one of those games I start playing only to get incredibly bored with it 2 hours in. Even when it was new. It had frustrating combat, annoying platforming sequences, and a story that really didn't make much sense. And let's not even get started on Xen. HL2 was, again, a good engine, but still, the story and hype over it is something I will never get.

Pokemon: If I wanted to play an RPG, I'll play Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy. Constant grinding is already tedious with 8 characters. Now you want me to do it for 250? Piss off.

Halo: This got me in a huge fanboy argument on Youtube, but I stand by it. Halo would have been a better game had it been released on PC/Mac since it would have at least offered more variation on environments. However, after seeing their choice of level design, I doubt it would have made that much of a difference. It's a very lackluster game and I never understood the joy for it when it came out. Note that I am only referring to Halo, not the sequels, as I have only played and beaten the original.

Portal: I know I could get stoned for saying this, but it is hugely overrated. Yes, it's a fun game, charming, and quirky. But while it is fun, I don't think it is the most amazing, jizz-in-your-pants style game ever. Glados is awesome, Stephen Merchant and JK Simmons do an excellent job bringing their characters to life, but I don't think it's a game that deserved to sweep award shows.

Zelda 64: Ocarina of Time: To this day the only game I've fallen asleep playing. Nowhere near as good as LttP as someone earlier stated. Even Twilight Princess is better and that's basically the same game with a fresh coat of paint and black blobs attacking.

Any Call of Duty after Modern Warfare: I think it's obvious why.

People love portal for it's quirky sense of humor and puzzle solving... I love Portal and the sequel. Two of my favourite games on PC.

Overrated id have to San Andreas. It just doesn't have the same fun factor as Vice City. Between awful controls (which goes for all 3d GTA games) and terrible characters and missions. I don't know how anyone finished it. Though I finished GTA 4 and I do regret that... so frustrating.

...
Personally I disliked how swamped with bullshit San Andreas got and loved the more realistic and simple focus of IV. I also loved the physics, really made that game stand out.

Saint's Row focused on the silly stuff and I find that series boring.

Everything is subjective I guess.

I understand all the hate PC gamers have towards Halo, but i really can't understand your argument. How could Halo be a better game if it were a PC exclusive? There aren't that many design changes between a PC and console shooters apart from a few technical choices. Heck, Doom 3 was released on the first Xbox (and it was quite a decent port), same goes for Half Life 2, and these were nearly identical to the PC versions (obviously the Xbox couldn't keep up with PC graphics and frame rates, but overall the games were the same).

To be honest, most of this "blame bad design on consoles" is just BS. As an example, there are many people who blame consoles for the 2 weapon limit in FPS games. Weird thing is that no one complained when Crysis had the 2 weapons limit, and that was a PC exclusive title for a long time.

Slower enemies, lack of verticality, 2-4 weapons, checkpoints... off the top my head. Pretty big changes for a lot of people, myself included.

I actually love the original Halo, I think it is a great game, but saying it would not be better if it were designed for the PC is silly.

Unless you can go back in time and change the past, there is no way to know whether or not it would have been a better game. Maybe it was a design choice rather than technical, who fucking knows. I don't think verticality is an issue with console FPSes, and like i have already said, the weapon limit thing is BS, there are PC exclusive games which do have weapon limits. It's a design choice.

There are many dev statements about limiting verticality because of controllers, same thing for weapon limits. Some games limiting weapons for realism reasons like Crysis does not mean it isn't generally due to pad limitations. See George Broussard's comments on it for Duke Nukem Forever.

One thing I all concede is that design limitations can often spark innovation or creativity. The classic example is the mechanical shark not working in Jaws leading to the movie being creepier and more atmospheric by accident. This can happen in games I am sure, depending on the limitation. Checkpoints can be beneficial because of challenge and ease of use, weapon limits can cause interesting choices to be made by the player, etc.

Still, the lack of verticality, aiming down the sights focus and slower enemies tend to bug me in modern FPS games. I wish they were designed around a mouse and there's nothing elitist about that, it's just a preference due to the kinds of shooters I grew up with and enjoy.

And yet, Reach and Halo 4 both have jet packs in MP and single player, as well as the usage of Banshees, Hornets, and other aerial vehicles. Verticality is less a controller issue and more a design choice (in my opinion) since you'll have to spend time programming structures and testing/balancing for vertical use, rather than simply focusing on the stuff that can be in a ground soldier's reach.

Open world sandbox games

Because I don't like them

Exactly. Even the first Halo had some pretty vertical maps in multiplayer.

- Skyrim : This game sacrifices everything for its open world gameplay and gorgerous atmosphere. The gameplay is mediocre, you can find better fighting/stealth/magic/crafting mechanics everywhere else.The game is also too easy.

- Halo series : The best FPS of all time that has invented nothing and that is playable on pad...

- Diablo 2 : Once you reach chapter 2-3 its a terrible borefest that I didn't found fun.

- CoD : Press X to trigger awesome flashy explosions and for the Americans to win.

So what is, then?

Halo is probably better than most but still limited. Not to be aggressive but you're kidding yourself if you say otherwise. Go play Quake 2 and see how often you have to quickly aim up or down and then the other way again to clear a room before being killed. Then tell me how often a post-Xbox shooter has made you do that.

Sorry, but no. Most Halo games are exactly like you describe. Having to check everywhere for Jackal Snipers or trying to find the cloaked Elite. Halo 4, for example, now has teleporting enemies that can easily end up behind along with flying units that like to run and hide (and can resurrect and heal the teleporters), jump jetting infantry, and wall crawling critters.

I think Halo stands out in the diversity of gameplay required to become proficient at it, especially the need to be able to quickly target and prioritize which enemies need to go down first.

I haven't played Halo 3 and up since they didn't come out on PC but for 1 and 2 I would say you are exaggerating. In either case one series does not change what I have said. Look at modern shooters on average and then play something post Quake 2 but pre-Halo on PC. There is a massive reduction in how much speed, vertical aiming and quick turning is needed to succeed on average.