Halo 1 and 2 still had quite a bit of flying sections along with the necessity of trying to deal with cloaked Elites that could sneak up behind you and snipers hiding out everywhere.

I'm sorry, but you sound (to me) exactly like a PC elitist, despite your statement to the contrary earlier. Have you actually played any shooters on the 360? The ones that I've played (the Cybertron series, Bioshock, Space Marine, Halo, Red Faction - yes, three of those are third person shooters, but still shooters) all require you to be on the ball and be able to adapt quickly. Four of those listed make use of vertical movement (Cybertron has jet mode, Space Marine has jump pack enabled marines, Halo has jetpacks, Red Faction has jetpacks).

I didn't (and still don't) play shooters on the PC because I simply do not care for the mouse + keyboard control scheme. Hate it in fact.

I have played damn near every shooter ever released, especially all of them since 1998 or so. I never said they suck either, I said they would have been better if designed for a mouse. BioShock is one of my favorite games of all time but it would have been better with faster enemies, multi-level combat environments and a smaller reticule.

There is a wide gap between "would have been better if" and "sucks" that internet defense squads tend to overlook.

I don't remember if I posted and I'm to lazy to look.

Zelda series
CoD MW2+ (I liked WaW though)
Most Valve games
Goldeneye 64
Halo series
Oblivion and Skyrim (I like Skyrim btw, Oblivion is trash however)
Mario Spinoffs like Mario Party or Mario Kart
MMOs
Final Fantasy series
Fallout 3 (Not a bad game but... meh)
Gears of War series

tired, can't think of anymore, probably nothing surprising...

Man, there were times where two hours of PC gaming in one session were perverse and it's probably still bad for your health. It is perfectly fine, if you get bored after two hours. The atmosphere and level-design were really good, with exceptions. It has a good shooter engine and enemies spawn in a less annoying way than in Doom. The monsters and bosses kick ass, the arsenal also.

It is pale, indeed. It was originally developed for PC and Mac in 1999 and at that point in time its large world, the physics engine and the level of cooperation possible as well as the graphical details looked almost revolutionary. Then MS bought Bungie and made it an XBOX-exclusive title until until it was ported to the PC 19 months after the original release, in October 2003. It was even after the Battlefield 1942 release. It was just a good, conventional shooter at that point in time.

It mostly depends on what platform a title is originally developed. HL2 and Doom 3 are both PC titles first and were then ported. When it is the other way around, the relative lack of computing power shows up in the game-play. Less enemies appear usually at one point in time. Many functions are not developed due to time-constraints. Sometimes they forget to allow for saving the keyboard-commands or use consolish menu-styles without a mouse cursor.

In Crysis they made that rational two-weapons decision and it worked. Though, many people modded it or just used a cheat.

And yet, you say that you haven't played 2/3rds of one of the biggest FPS franchises ever. So forgive me if I have to call bullshit on your first sentence.

Now, maybe I've just been lucky to play shooters that are the opposite of what you state and they are the minority, I don't know. I don't play stuff like Crysis or CoD or Battlefield or FarCry, but the ones that I have experienced all use three dimensional play, multi-level environments, reticles that change depending upon what weapon you are using, and fast/aggressive enemies.

As for your comment about Bioshock, are you forgetting BS2's MP with the multi-level maps, the Spider Slicers, the teleporters and the like?

Money-wise it is pointless designing it for a mouse as the potential buyers on consoles is way higher and likelihood of piracy is higher on PC. This is a few of the reasons why consoles get priority over PC by most games company.

Portal beat out Skyrim, Witcher 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, etc. in many 2011 awards. While Portal 2 was fun, I don't consider it a game that offers a really compelling, complicated story that also creates an incredibly complex and believable world. Yes, some people like mindless stuff and just want to jump in, but that doesn't mean I'm going to vote a game like Hotline Miami for GOTY. It has charm, but I just don't feel like it's a game that stacks up in comparison to others or does enough to really make itself outstanding.

So are we talking about Portal 1 or Portal 2? Because Portal 1 was incredibly unique and jaw-dropping when it came out, due to its insanely clever mechanics and fantastic writing.

No shit. I didn't say they should have been business wise, just said they would have been better if they were designed around a mouse. This is a simple concept people like to throw BS back at me for saying, but all I meant was what I said.

Mine is Zelda: Ocarina of Time, It's a good game but it keeps getting settled with best game of all time. I also think the story is very bland and the theme just doesn't work with a silent protagonist that can only be identified on the shallowest level, the gameplay is good but nothing that really went the extra mile. It's a good game but there's better and so I think the label of best game of all time is too much.

...and no, Majora's Mask doesn't deserve best game of all time either.