Top 10 Most Revolutionary First-person Shooters

Halo, CoD don't belong on that list. Including Deus Ex and HL2 in top10 also quite a big stretch

AdrianWerner

Bad list. Thats it really.skrat_01

Your arguments are also bad. Apparently, you're not aware of the influence of these games.

Uhm.... ok. If that's what you really think, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Honestly, I didn't read through all of the posts here, so if I repeated, you'll have to read it again. Here's a few of my top FPSs that revolutionized the genre

• Rainbow Six - it practically fathered the tactical shooter subgenre. It was a thinking man's shooter in a genre that was rife with me-too fragfests.
• Half Life (the first one) - set itself apart with its storytelling style.
• Battlefield 1942 - has a win/lose mechanic that endures to this day
• Call of Duty - created sensory overload that many games have tried to copy

Uhm.... ok. If that's what you really think, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Honestly, I didn't read through all of the posts here, so if I repeated, you'll have to read it again. Here's a few of my top FPSs that revolutionized the genre

• Rainbow Six - it practically fathered the tactical shooter subgenre. It was a thinking man's shooter in a genre that was rife with me-too fragfests.
• Half Life (the first one) - set itself apart with its storytelling style.
• Battlefield 1942 - has a win/lose mechanic that endures to this day
• Call of Duty - created sensory overload that many games have tried to copy

VoodooHak

At least many agree that Halo is among them.

you have some serious insecure issues, that propaganda you make to halo is beyond religious, there are people who do a lot less for a lot more money

Port doesn't count. :?

And its multiplayer was nothing compared to the other.

Propaganda_

how are you friggin missing this.

were not talking about one platform or another but the FPS genre as a whole. bottom line if it wasnt the first to affect the whole it doesnt matter.

the FPS had multiplayer before golden eye

the FPS genre had online before Halo 2

just because they brought it to the consoles is completely irellevant

i'm sorry but thats borderline blasphemy. making shooters popular (again. goldeneye did it first and sold i think in the 7 mil range) on consoles is no way to get number 1. remove halo 3 and put halo 1 in its spot and the rest of the list isn't so terrible.

edit: quake not being on that list really is garbage. if you want to make this list your personal top 10, thats fine, but to call it the top 10 revolutionary is just silly.

i'm sorry but thats borderline blasphemy. making shooters popular (again. goldeneye did it first and sold i think in the 7 mil range) on consoles is no way to get number 1. remove halo 3 and put halo 1 in its spot and the rest of the list isn't so terrible.

Hihatrider87

Well, I know that it's not appalling, since this is more of a fact. :)

One thing - Halo 3 isn't revolutionary in any way. A great game, but not revolutionary. Halo 1 is the revolutionary onemgkennedy5

You purchased Halo 3 but failed to encounter Forge and Theatre? :shock:

[QUOTE="mgkennedy5"]One thing - Halo 3 isn't revolutionary in any way. A great game, but not revolutionary. Halo 1 is the revolutionary onePropaganda_

You purchased Halo 3 but failed to encounter Forge and Theatre? :shock:

How are CoD and halo 3 revolutionary?

toast_burner

One thing - Halo 3 isn't revolutionary in any way. A great game, but not revolutionary. Halo 1 is the revolutionary onemgkennedy5

You purchased Halo 3 but failed to encounter Forge and Theatre? :shock:

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

[QUOTE="mgkennedy5"]One thing - Halo 3 isn't revolutionary in any way. A great game, but not revolutionary. Halo 1 is the revolutionary onemgkennedy5

You purchased Halo 3 but failed to encounter Forge and Theatre? :shock:

[QUOTE="mgkennedy5"][QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

You purchased Halo 3 but failed to encounter Forge and Theatre? :shock:

moose_knuckler

And damn good, it was. 8)

[QUOTE="mgkennedy5"][QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

You purchased Halo 3 but failed to encounter Forge and Theatre? :shock:

moose_knuckler

If you want to make a thread like this you have to be clear about what you mean. "Revolutionary to the genre" is not the same thing as "revolutionary to the consoles". You can't just twist things around to make it more convenient for you like you are currently doing.

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"][QUOTE="mgkennedy5"] Halo 3 wasn't the first game to have a map editor and being able to record a matchBirdy09

Battlefield? You have got to be mocking me.

Look, I'm from Sweden, but to call DICE's first-person shooter series "revolutionary" is really, really ludicrous. :lol:

[QUOTE="Birdy09"]

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"]For a console it was. Propaganda_

Battlefield? You have got to be mocking me.

Look, I'm from Sweden, but to call DICE's first-person shooter series "revolutionary" is really, really ludicrous. :lol:

Far Cry, CRYSIS

Far Cry, CRYSIS

Zensword

Crysis, my friend, was only graphics.

[QUOTE="mgkennedy5"][QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

You purchased Halo 3 but failed to encounter Forge and Theatre? :shock:

moose_knuckler

which is irellevant to the topic

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

Far Cry, CRYSIS

Propaganda_

Crysis, my friend, was only graphics.

fail

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

Far Cry, CRYSIS

washd123

Crysis, my friend, was only graphics.

fail

It's OK. I expect these comments from you. I'm aware that you're one gigantic PC enthusiast, but let's be realistic here. If it were not for its gorgeous and revolutionary graphics, Crysis would have received a 7.

It's OK. I expect these comments from you. I'm aware that you're one gigantic PC enthusiast, but let's be realistic here. If it were not for its gorgeous and revolutionary graphics, Crysis would have received a 7.

Propaganda_

again no.

theres nothing revolutionary about its graphics either.

but the gamesplay is where its at. the gameplay makes the entire game. theres a reason why it got such high review scores and little of it had to do with the graphics.

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

It's OK. I expect these comments from you. I'm aware that you're one gigantic PC enthusiast, but let's be realistic here. If it were not for its gorgeous and revolutionary graphics, Crysis would have received a 7.

washd123

again no.

theres nothing revolutionary about its graphics either.

but the gamesplay is where its at. the gameplay makes the entire game. theres a reason why it got such high review scores and little of it had to do with the graphics.

No, little boy.

I agree that the gameplay was quite amusing and the characters relatively OK. The plot, nonetheless, was really uninteresting and it was actually tedious playing Crysis. It is not worthy of a 9.5...

And the graphics - yes, they are. Released in 2007, and yet to be dethroned... ;)

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Uhm.... ok. If that's what you really think, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Honestly, I didn't read through all of the posts here, so if I repeated, you'll have to read it again. Here's a few of my top FPSs that revolutionized the genre

• Rainbow Six - it practically fathered the tactical shooter subgenre. It was a thinking man's shooter in a genre that was rife with me-too fragfests.
• Half Life (the first one) - set itself apart with its storytelling style.
• Battlefield 1942 - has a win/lose mechanic that endures to this day
• Call of Duty - created sensory overload that many games have tried to copy

Propaganda_

At least many agree that Halo is among them.

Let's be crystal clear. The first Halo, I don't think is INNOVATIVE at all. It's definitely highly polished and excellent. But it is REVOLUTIONARY in that it became the standard by which many subsequent console shooters were measured. Who doesn't know the term "Halo-killer"? It applies well into this generation. I think it's important to recognize the difference between innovative and revolutionary.

Halo 3 continues the Halo phenomena in bringing a highly polished shooter experience while bringing community features to the table.

And it's still popular and is still a measuring stick for console shooter success. Innovative, no. Revolutionary, yes.

Quake? OK? I don't think it's worthy of a spot, actually. It's repetitive and relatively ugly.

Propaganda_

This comment just rendered all your opinions meaningless.

This shows just how little knowledge you have regarding the FPS genre.

Your comments regarding battlefield are also laughable. If you don't understand what Battlefield 1942 did for multiplayer FPS's then stop passing yourself off as someone who's knowledgeable on the FPS genre.

(Halo1 @1 + CoD4 and Halo3 being on the list at all also shows a lack of knowledge.)

good list, can't really argue with that.

Looks like I am late to the party but heres my 2 cents.

Everything on that list is good in one form or another to be honest. I know a lot of hate has probably been given to Halo for being #1 but I would stand by that mainly because there isn't a FPS post Halo that wasn't influenced by Halo in some way or another. It was basically the definition of the "perfect" FPS as much as the PC fans would love to disagree. Even their games have been positively influenced from Halo in some way.

Looks like I am late to the party but heres my 2 cents.

Everything on that list is good in one form or another to be honest. I know a lot of hate has probably been given to Halo for being #1 but I would stand by that mainly because there isn't a FPS post Halo that wasn't influenced by Halo in some way or another. It was basically the definition of the "perfect" FPS as much as the PC fans would love to disagree. Even their games have been positively influenced from Halo in some way.

Wasdie

How the hell was Half-Life 2 influenced by Halo? =/

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Looks like I am late to the party but heres my 2 cents.

Everything on that list is good in one form or another to be honest. I know a lot of hate has probably been given to Halo for being #1 but I would stand by that mainly because there isn't a FPS post Halo that wasn't influenced by Halo in some way or another. It was basically the definition of the "perfect" FPS as much as the PC fans would love to disagree. Even their games have been positively influenced from Halo in some way.

Eggimannd

How the hell was Half-Life 2 influenced by Halo? =/

It wasn't. Half-Life 2 was essentially a six year old game with a graphical update.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Looks like I am late to the party but heres my 2 cents.

Everything on that list is good in one form or another to be honest. I know a lot of hate has probably been given to Halo for being #1 but I would stand by that mainly because there isn't a FPS post Halo that wasn't influenced by Halo in some way or another. It was basically the definition of the "perfect" FPS as much as the PC fans would love to disagree. Even their games have been positively influenced from Halo in some way.

FrozenLiquid

How the hell was Half-Life 2 influenced by Halo? =/

It wasn't. Half-Life 2 was essentially a six year old game with a graphical update.

It also had physics, better atmosphere, better story telling, the gravity gun and a kick ass sidekick called Alyx Vance.

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

Far Cry, CRYSIS

Propaganda_

Crysis, my friend, was only graphics.

I'm really tired of hearing people say Crysis is only about teh grafix.

Its gameplay is very fun, mainly due to the nanosuit which is awesome. If it weren't for the nanosuit then it's just anotherFPS. But IMO, far Cry and Crysis were revolutionary FPS's since they have open world which is unlike any other linear FPS's.

It also had physics, better atmosphere, better story telling, the gravity gun and a kick ass sidekick called Alyx Vance.

Eggimannd

And yet, it still was essentially a six year old game with a graphical update.

Physics? All that was really used for in the game was puzzles. Oh, and sometimes you could pick up loose objects (only certain objects were governed by the Havok engine) and throw it around with the gravity gun. It looked pretty damn cool, but hardly game changing. Look at Far Cry to see where realistic physics was put into proper use. Look to Halo 2 to see where "propriety" physics (Halo never submitted to realistic physics) changed Halo's battlefield. Perhaps because of a design choice (or fault?), Valve decided to make physics are pretty showcase, but nothing integral.

That's about the only decent point you brought up. Better atmosphere and story telling? What do you expect out of an engine six years in the making? Why didn't Valve make better gameplay choices? You're still running, jumping, and gunning in almost the same manner as you did back in '98. But with 2004 technology, it looks better because you have a realistic looking physics engine. There's no sense of a real next-generation leap other than the presentation. It's archaic design that has its roots in Doom/Wolfenstein without any real deviation. Episode Two was almost like an epiphany for Valve, and I hope they continue to catch up in terms of gunplay; after all, it is a first person shooter.

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

Far Cry, CRYSIS

Zensword

Crysis, my friend, was only graphics.

I'm really tired of hearing people say Crysis is only about teh grafix.

Its gameplay is very fun, mainly due to the nanosuit which is awesome. If it weren't for the nanosuit then it's just anotherFPS. But IMO, far Cry and Crysis were revolutionary FPS's since they have open world which is unlike any other linear FPS's.

People who say Crysis is only graphics... HAS NOT played the game. The story was fantastic, and the gameplay was sick. Fakeboys are so annoying.SquatsAreAwesom

No, the story was pretty asstastic mate. You can find similar stories to Crysis at the VHS B-movie section in your video store. There are plenty of stories about unearthing aliens in a militarized zone, and it's all about aliens ****ing up the status quo. The best one ever made was Predator... maybe the only one was Predator :|

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

It also had physics, better atmosphere, better story telling, the gravity gun and a kick ass sidekick called Alyx Vance.

FrozenLiquid

And yet, it still was essentially a six year old game with a graphical update.

Physics? All that was really used for in the game was puzzles. Oh, and sometimes you could pick up loose objects (only certain objects were governed by the Havok engine) and throw it around with the gravity gun. It looked pretty damn cool, but hardly game changing. Look at Far Cry to see where realistic physics was put into proper use. Look to Halo 2 to see where "propriety" physics (Halo never submitted to realistic physics) changed Halo's battlefield. Perhaps because of a design choice (or fault?), Valve decided to make physics are pretty showcase, but nothing integral.

That's about the only decent point you brought up. Better atmosphere and story telling? What do you expect out of an engine six years in the making? Why didn't Valve make better gameplay choices? You're still running, jumping, and gunning in almost the same manner as you did back in '98. But with 2004 technology, it looks better because you have a realistic looking physics engine. There's no sense of a real next-generation leap other than the presentation. It's archaic design that has its roots in Doom/Wolfenstein without any real deviation. Episode Two was almost like an epiphany for Valve, and I hope they continue to catch up in terms of gunplay; after all, it is a first person shooter.

I liked the puzzles in Half-Life 2 since they actually brought something else to the game than just the shooting. So yes the physics did play a role. Maybe you didn't use the gravity gun a lot but I sure did and I found it very innovative.

I've also played quite a bit of FPS and personally I think Half-Life 2 does the best job at bringing you into the game thanks to its amazing atmosphere. the story telling was well done and the transition through the game was smooth.

I don't know what you were expecting from Half-Life 2 but it was definitely a next-generation leap. I'd also like to know what you think was actually a "next-gen" FPS.

[QUOTE="aaronmullan"]The mention of CoD at all makes the list crap.musicalmac

I can agree with that. All half life did for game was ruin them with unskippable scripted event. And halo being number 1. LOL. Doom should be number 1. Hands down. Or Wolfenstien which ever came first. They MADE FPS' not made it a casual noob fest. Nothing against Halo but if I wanted to be yelled at my 12 year olds I'd teach middle school. And Halo 2 did way more for the FPS genre than Halo 3 ever dreamed of. Halo 3 just rode off what made 2 a success.

I liked the puzzles in Half-Life 2 since they actually brought something else to the game than just the shooting. So yes the physics did play a role. Maybe you didn't use the gravity gun a lot but I sure did and I found it very innovative.

I've also played quite a bit of FPS and personally I think Half-Life 2 does the best job at bringing you into the game thanks to its amazing atmosphere. the story telling was well done and the transition through the game was smooth.

I don't know what you were expecting from Half-Life 2 but it was definitely a next-generation leap. I'd also like to know what you think was actually a "next-gen" FPS.

Eggimannd

Did you like the puzzles in Half-Life 2? Great. Well Half-Life 1 also had puzzles to break up all the shooting bits...

.

.

.

You can pick your jaw up off the floor now.

The gravity gun is not that innovative. The physics engine might've been innovative, but it sure as hell wasn't used for many innovative purposes. It looked nice, and you could pick up your "ammo" off the floor. You still had to 'shoot' it. Why couldn't it bend physical properties? Why couldn't you pull the floor right from underneath an enemy's feet? THAT'S INNOVATION. THAT'S PROGRESSION. To date, only Crysis has come close to that.

The only thing I was really expecting from Half-Life 2 was the amazing A.I that they were trying to show off, because the original Half-Life had ****ing awesome A.I for its time. What did you know though, Valve effed up the A.I in Half-Life 2, but that's no biggie.

So how was Half-Life 2 a next-generation leap from the original Half-Life? You tell me. Sure, it's the bigger and badder sequel, but what did it bring to the table for FPSs apart from great looking physics and awesome facial animations?

The leap made from last generation was arguably Halo which brought in the two-weapon system from tactical first person shooters on the PC and turned the whole idea into a take-it-or-leave it strategy for run-n-gun FPSs. Then there were 'sandpits', where instead of a massive sandbox, you had rooms which were engineered to be sort of non-linear in approach, and where the enemy A.I could come at you from all sides. F.E.A.R perfected that generation of run'n'gun gaming. The next leap is Crysis. It's not perfect, but it sure as hell feels way more mature than Half-Life 2, Halo, or any other FPS currently out.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

I liked the puzzles in Half-Life 2 since they actually brought something else to the game than just the shooting. So yes the physics did play a role. Maybe you didn't use the gravity gun a lot but I sure did and I found it very innovative.

I've also played quite a bit of FPS and personally I think Half-Life 2 does the best job at bringing you into the game thanks to its amazing atmosphere. the story telling was well done and the transition through the game was smooth.

I don't know what you were expecting from Half-Life 2 but it was definitely a next-generation leap. I'd also like to know what you think was actually a "next-gen" FPS.

FrozenLiquid

Did you like the puzzles in Half-Life 2? Great. Well Half-Life 1 also had puzzles to break up all the shooting bits...

.

.

.

You can pick your jaw up off the floor now.

The gravity gun is not that innovative. The physics engine might've been innovative, but it sure as hell wasn't used for many innovative purposes. It looked nice, and you could pick up your "ammo" off the floor. You still had to 'shoot' it. Why couldn't it bend physical properties? Why couldn't you pull the floor right from underneath an enemy's feet? THAT'S INNOVATION. THAT'S PROGRESSION. To date, only Crysis has come close to that.

The only thing I was really expecting from Half-Life 2 was the amazing A.I that they were trying to show off, because the original Half-Life had ****ing awesome A.I for its time. What did you know though, Valve effed up the A.I in Half-Life 2, but that's no biggie.

So how was Half-Life 2 a next-generation leap from the original Half-Life? You tell me. Sure, it's the bigger and badder sequel, but what did it bring to the table for FPSs apart from great looking physics and awesome facial animations?

The leap made from last generation was arguably Halo which brought in the two-weapon system from tactical first person shooters on the PC and turned the whole idea into a take-it-or-leave it strategy for run-n-gun FPSs. Then there were 'sandpits', where instead of a massive sandbox, you had rooms which were engineered to be sort of non-linear in approach, and where the enemy A.I could come at you from all sides. F.E.A.R perfected that generation of run'n'gun gaming. The next leap is Crysis. It's not perfect, but it sure as hell feels way more mature than Half-Life 2, Halo, or any other FPS currently out.

I didn't say it was revolutionary. I said it was a next-gen leap from what came before it. You're trying to nitpick every little thing about Half-Life 2 instead of actually looking at it as a package.