Uh, no.  Half-Life, while a very good game in it's own right, is far from the king.  Counter Strike is also so old and so filled with abuses and some very unrealistic hit boxes and damage that it was never king of multiplayer FPS either.

I'm sure Halo Reach will be very good no matter what.  Definitely not the worst in the series, though even the worst in a series as good as Halo would be better than most other FPS games.  Crysis 2 on the other hand looks absolutely aweful.  Even the first Crysis was a very boring and lifeless experience so Reach would get FPSOTY way before Crysis 2.

Now stop being a cynic. At first I thought it was all out of fun and games and just for the lulz, but it really is rather annoying that you always have to try and cast doubt and focus on the negative.

I'd much have Half-Life as the King of FPSs over Halo, besides, System Shock 2 is better than both of them. As for Counter-Strike having unlrealistic hit-boxes? Have you played any of the Modern Warfare titles? Counter-Strike one of the kings of competitive multi-player it doesn't spoon feed the player like most games these do. It's not my favorite multi-player game, Tribes 2 and Team Fortress 2 game are superior, both both are also far more balanced and competitive than any Halo title. You also complain that Crysis 2 gameplay is awful and the first Crysis for being dull, for what reason? I wasn't impressed by the footage either, but I have the right reasons to.

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyQTCeobZlg

It explains why Crysis is dull to you, because you treated it as either as a run n' gunner or a COD scripted FPS, instead of using the infinite amount of tactical options to counter situations and mission objectives. The gameplay is far more advance and deeper than any Halo title. Crysis 2 is now multi-platform, the gameplay is now dumbed down to fit the consoles limitations. I'm not one of these so called "PC elitists", I believe games should full advantage of their platforms uses. Consoles aren't fit for an technologically advance game like Crysis. Crysis 2's "sandbox" enviroment looks smaller and contained than the original, it looks to be another scripted and linear shooter with the illusion of sandbox. So basically, you dislike Crysis and flak on Crysis 2 with the wrong reasons.

Halo Reach's gameplay didn't show any real advancements over the other Halo titles, so far. I'm skeptical, yet interested and not to dismiss it yet. I've never claimed that it would be bad, but it's a possibility. As with any game coming this year, with the exception of StarCraft 2. I'm not a cynic as my username would suggest. I'm a realist, I never succumb to hype and unrealistic expectations. As any hyped game could fail, Modern Warfare 2 was a great example. Huge hype, marketing, and critical praise, despite it being an unbalance and broken game, with a extremely short single-player with an nonsensical story. It's real saving grace was Spec-ops, it still didn't make up for it's explotive flaws. I ended up being extremely disappointed at it, thinking Infinity Ward could do no wrong when they did.

I'm slowly being convinced that Crysis 2 might surprise me and be the FPSOTY, and Reach being the most disappointing FPSOTY, thanks to your fanatical output. Considering that I've stated that Halo Reach's gameplay was certainly more interesting than any FPS coming this fall, it doesn't matter since Bulletstorm and R.A.G.E. displayed a far more impressive showing than any FPS at E3. Thanks to your Halo fanaticism, I think you've jinxed the future, Halo Reach will probably be a disappointing game. I won't be disappointed (Not entirely that is), because I won't set my expectations unrealistically high.

It's just fine, lets just hope it sells well.

Ehh.... not entirely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXTy8VTDNjs

He praised it more than I would've, but his written review does mention the atrocious and repetitive interior levels.

Again, no.  I didn't play Crysis the wrong way.  I play all my FPS using strategy and tactics.  It's why I am better than most when it comes to CoD and Halo and the like because I DON'T just go run and gun.

Anyways, I was only replying because you seem to state your opinions as the overall facts for everyone when in reality you seem to be part of a very small minority.

Then how come the game was "boring" and "lifeless" to you? I doubt you've actually made the game an interesting experience for yourself, hence it's a game that is as dull and exciting as you can make it. I'm not trying to oppose my opinion to others, just giving them a heads up warning of what the outcome might be. Will it be good? There's a good possibility that it will be, will it be bad? Doubt it, will it be average? There's a slim possibility. Considering the fact that I'm not a minority, the Halo series always receive a mix reaction from the gaming crowd. Hence why the series made it #1 into gamesradar's list of the top 7 most "love it or hate it" games. I don't love or hate Halo, most people who jump to either bandwagon are blind. I for one, immensely enjoyed the original Halo. I liked it's sequels and ODST, none of them stood a chance to CE's single-player.

It's Halo, so it will naturally sell very well, even if the game is received poorly by fans or critics.

Look's like more of the same, I do think the game looks a lot nicer though when it come's to the atmosphere and the tension on screen, but outside of the assassin kill there wasn't anything new. The flight section looked good as well, but the guy's on Giant Bomb said it didn't play very well and was kind of a wasted sequence and whatever they say is law (don't judge me).

It's also a lot shinier and the music was pretty good.

the space comeback looked pretty decent