I really liked Doom 3 on release. It was a clever change in pace to the formula but it was very much, a game of its time, like the early MGS games or 2D Sonic.

I haven't played Resi 4 in almost a decade and I don't think I have the PS2 disc anymore but I would bet it has aged quite well, simply because most post Resi4 3rd person shoot em ups continue to copy that formula.

Somebody brought it up and this was next on my list:

Half Life 2

What they originally said

96...let that sink in for a second. 96 is the mean metacritic score, taking in 81 games critics. This game received 5 stars and 10/10s from numerous magazines (remember those?) and gaming sites, from Europe to Japan by way of the US. It was a quite remarkable achievement. Graphically, few games matched the way it looked and the physics engine employed. In fact, after HL2, every game wanted to show off their own "advanced physics engine"...the reality is, no one matched it for years. Universally acclaimed.

Does it hold up today?

Graphically, the game falls short of what we've seen in the years that have followed, what with the Crysis series, all the exceptional work done by Naught Dog and so on but it doesn't look ugly, like some other games. In fact, it's still passable and runs damn smooth, without any frame rate or texture pop in issues. Playing this in 2015 was a far smoother experience than playing Skyrim or Battlefield upon release.

In terms of controls, I have literally zero complaints. The mouse and keyboard handles like any modern shooter and the reality is, a lot of what we see now from FPS developers, in terms of controls, level design and story production was first pioneered either by HL2 or its predecessor. The controls being in line with modern games, it's easy to jump straight in and not have to readjust physically to a bygone age. Give the game a visual upgrade and it could be re-released as a very modern shooter.

Story wise, it's still pretty good. Not a great, in depth script like you may have seen in other games at the time but the likable characters (oh Alyx), still brilliant facial animation and the ever satisfying gravity gun make this a terrific package. It was a great game over a decade ago and is still a great game today. The pinnacle of FPS in my opinion.

Should I still play it?

Yes. Just go on steam and do it all over again.

Just calling it fun doesn't make it the best in the series then, as MGS4 is just as fun if not more so, looks better, has better controls and overall, an interesting story. So surely MGS4 is better?

I literally just played UC 4 and although there aren't huge steps taken forward in terms of gameplay or design, graphically it is an absolute knock out. I can't really fault it. The environments are pristine and character design and animation is second to none. I have played Crysis and it's sequels, 2 of them on the PC and even though they look great, UC4 looks more natural. Less metallic, if that makes sense. And The Witcher 3 is obviously stylised, great to look at but UC4 is better.

Now I know a lot of PC nerds will say "but but my pc doth do extra gfx 7000 pre monster super turbo grafixxxxxz" but it's not just about the power under the hood but how well it can be used. Take a look at something like God of War 2 on the PS2, it was still comparable to early PS3 titles. UC4 is comparable or better to stronger hardware because the platform it was built on was handled better.

I would only disagree with the Last of Us, simply because I think Red Dead Redemption, Modern Warfare 2 or Fight Night 4.

@arcangelgold: Absolute waste of time and I hate it. I don't want to spend 2 hours searching for tiny little plants and herbs just so I can go back to a crafting bench or whatever the game designer has put up to craft a single potion. I would much rather prefer buying or finding potions which get stronger as your magic points or other upgrade systems improve. That would not take you out of the overall game experience.

@chad_devore: I agree with a lot of the stuff in your list but weapon reloading is part of the action and adds in an extra sense of damage.

The guys here have alreday mentioned my pet peeves that could easily be removed, i.e. unnecessary boss fights, re-spawning enemies in games like COD.

A major old game problem that needs to be removed is invisible walls. With modern day technology and the size of developers employing hundreds of staff, surely someone can come up with a better way than just invisible walls.

Do you think the gameplay still holds up? I played through MGS3 on the ps2, without the updated/HD versions etc and the ocntrols are almost unplayable at times and the camera is an absolute bitch. It's game that was great at the time and also my perosnal fave but MGS4 has far over taken it and even MGSV has better gameplay and environments.

@suicidesn0wman: I enjoyed the first couple hours but then it just becomes rinse and repeat with some very boring looking environments. I stopped playing it.

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

What they originally said

MGS3 stands with a whopping 91 on metacritic and was a huge critical and commercial success at the time. Many hailed it as the best MGS game of all time and possibly the best example of a stealth game there has ever been. Critics complimented it on graphics, art design, story (a bit convoluted but thankfully less meta than MGS2) and of course, gameplay. It seemed the introduction of an outdoor environment and physical camouflage and taken MGS3 to a new level. Technically and artistically.

Does it hold up today?

Like many games of the era, the controls are an absolute horror. The camera is the worst part, with the right analogue stick not doing much. You can basically move it a bit to the right, left, up or down. This often leaves enemies and other environmental factors off screen, to such an extent that you have no idea where you are going. Add to this the cumbersome movement of Snake and the pressure sensitive controls, which never seem to work the way you like. 3 separate functions are linked to the o button alone, each of which are dictated by how you press that button. This easily leads to you wanting to choke an enemy but end up throwing him.

The environment, much lauded at the time also fails to impress. It sounds alive and going up against a crocodile or snake is simple but interesting. However, it's essentially a face lift. The entire jungle is just one long corridor. The metal is replaced by green. It's a clever little trick which had me going when i was 14 or 15 but now it just comes across as cheap.

Having said all that, story wise, this is the best game in the series, especially after the disastrous efforts of MGSV. Plus, there is still a lot of fun to be had, as long as you can stay patient with the controls. Shooting beehives, hiding in mud, crawling through rat infested tunnels and blasting guys with shotguns is a thrill, even 12 years later. It's nowhere near as well made as MGS4 and it certainly doesn't have the smooth controls and menu/options of MGSV but it makes up for it with an engaging adventure.

Should I still play it?

Yes, if only for the story and if you are patient enough to not destroy your controller. Also, be ready for some murky, blurry graphics where sometimes you can't even make out the enemies and a camera straight from hell. It's no longer a great game and it may spoil your nostalgic view.