That's it. You have no idea about games and should better leave this site immediately, before more people start laughing at you for such ridiculously wrong comments.

But there is one thing in that post where you are correct. A 83 doesn't belong in a Top 10, but there is a reason why the Xbox version is always mentioned when it comes to top 10s. Because it scored a 97 unlike its "gimped" 2 years younger brother.

urgh those lists were horrible

well, not the screwattack one

And what was gimped about it?  The better controls?  The better graphics?  The online multiplayer?

The game was well recieved by a console audience who had never played Doom, Quake, or Half Life.  Which, if you read the OP, was the point I was making. I think that's just as relevant as someone who never seen Star Wars making a "Top 10 Sci-Fi films of all time," list.  Or someone who has never played a Mario game making a "Best platformers of all time," list.

here is what i think

Scores , waste of time and is for tools and sadly most humans are tools
Top Ten Lists , always wrong and not one of them is an actual fact how much true they are
the "Best" games ever , never exists because everyone has a favorite

also Screw attack , IGN and every freaking game site just make these lists to get hits, and only tools (see bolded) would agree with them or believe them.

There are no better controls.

The graphics were a little little bit better, but no one could check them out, because the requirements were too high, thus making it a bad port, just like GTA IV and Saints Row 2. Oh wait PC version of Halo came out 2 years later. While it was a graphical powerhouse in 2001, it was only one of many good looking games in 2003.

The PC version does have online multiplayer. But no 4-player splitscreen multiplayer and no co-op. So console version has more features.

Before Halo I was a PC only player, having played ALL the great FPS. Then I played Halo, bought an Xbox and enjoyed it.

A Halo title always belongs in a top 10 FPS list.

M/KB >> Controller... but let's not get into that now.

The graphics weren't monumentally better, and the system requriements were high, but none of these is the hallmark of some horrible port that people are trying to hang these low scores on.  The game played perfectly fine.  The game earned that 83 on metacritic, not a poor port.

Here's a good article, naming Halo as the #10 most overrated game of all time (not meaning it's bad, just meaning it's overrated):

http://web.archive.org/web/20060505211339/archive.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index17.shtml

"Worst of all were the levels, which offered fleeting glimpses of brilliance, but all too often degenerated into recycling the same areas over and over until you were bored to tears. It was as if someone at Microsoft or Bungie realized Halo was an amazing six-hour game ... but needed to pad it out to 10."

You have anything to say in response to that?

Sure.

There are some few places in the campaign that are a bit repetitive when played in solo mode. (And I agree The Library was horrible)

So it's not a perfect singleplayer game. However if you played the same level in co-op, there was no such thing as boredom.

Singleplayer: 9/10

Co-op: 10/10

Multiplayer: 9.5/10

When other PC FPS games at that time mostly provided only one mode, Halo has all three.

As for the other part you mentioned. Go read the IGN review and you'll see that it was downrated because it took 2 years to port and the technical problems: http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/451/451902p4.html

Yeah... so you're basically saying the single-player was perfect except for horribly repetitive levels, and only docked it 1 point for that?  Get real...

The single player game was horribly flawed in level design. And this directly effects the co-op play, too.

The multi player simply doesn't hold up to the games now, at the time, or half a decade prior.  I'm sorry, but Halo MP can't hold a candle to Quake 1.  I'll agree that sometimes it's more fun to be in the same room as the people you're killing, but that doesn't mean the game is better, and that wasn't impossible on PC games, just not very popular.

Notice from that review the gameplay was denigrated for "too much repetition."  They even say the game comes up short compared to the PC shooter catalag. 

They're basically saying exactly what I'm saying... the levels are repetitive, and in comparison to the PC catalog, the game comes up short.

I do agree about the score though.  Halo has an awesome score.

One level was flawed, so I docked 1 point off. Every game is a bit repetitive here and there, but the gameplay easily makes up for that. As long as it's fun, it's not repetitive.

Level design was good, in many parts even awesome.

"too much repetition IN THE LATER LEVELS" 

try to use the full quote next time. The Library is mainly responsible for that.

"when evaluated against the standards of the current PC shooter catalog, Halo seems to fall short in just a few key areas: repetitive levels, steep performance requirements and a lingering console balance."

And here you misinterpreted what the author said.

MoH AA, No One Lives Forever 2, Jedi Knight 2, Battlefield 1942, UT 2003, Return to Castle Wolfenstein & Serious Sam 2nd Encounter came out in the meantime between the Xbox and the PC version of Halo btw.

I'm sure those title helped raising the bar for PC shooters, thus making Halo on the PC look/feel worse than it was in 2001.

One level?  C'mon... the entire second half of the game could have been replicated with a half hour level and just playing it over and over again a dozen times. 

Go play Half Life 2.  One minute you're fighting through the sewers, then you're riding an airboat.  Then you're killing zombies with the gravity gun, then you're cruising along the coast. No two areas are the same, no two rooms identical.

Then go play Halo.  You fight through a room full of enemies, cross a bridge.  Then fight through an identical room populated with the same enemies, followed by an identical bridge with the same enemies.  And it doesn't just repeat the one time.  I'm sorry, but there's no excuse for this. 

Anyway, we're arguing in circles at this point.  I doubt there's anything you can say is going to make me realize "Oh, well, _____ makes it perfectly acceptable to carbon-copy room after room after room in a single player campaign."