Well actually it was built (originally) for a Mac and very well transitioned to the Xbox.

Half-Life 2 is great, but like others I think Deux-Ex is really the pinnacle of FPS design. The sequel... well is super dumbed down, I'm not gonna say why. Call me an elitist if you like, but PCs have a natural advantage in FPS thanks to controls, thus a console FPS actually needs a better story, graphics, gameplay variety ect. to stay competitive. I will be the first to say though that the gap has changed dramatically. In 2000 I wouldn't put any console FPS (even Goldeneye) even in my top 20, now its about 50-50 with the top games still being mostly PC. I wish I could put a Wii one on there, but nobody seems to want to crank out a real top quality FPS- WaW was fun but not earth shattering.

Is Halo: CE one of the best FPS? Sure. It's fourth on my personal list. I prefer Halo 2 though. That game is third on my list.

Yea Halo:CE is my favorite fps ever.

off topic: Could a pc gamer please explain to me why having a keyboard and mouse to control with makes an fps better? Console FPS controls have been refined to the point where I find it extremely easy and intuitive to play on a controller. Besides if it's harder for you to aim with a analog stick its harder for your opponent too so your not at any disadvantage. All it takes is a look at gameplay from some of the top console gamers and you will see jut as many awe inspiring head shots as from a competitive pc gamer.
In the end I think all it comes down to is a refusal for pc gamers to change and try a new style of play because maybe they don't like change? Still how does having a control set that you personally enjoy but one which makes no difference for a large majority of gamers out there make the pc version of a game better?

I don't know if a mouse and keyboard will make the game 'better', but going from playing a lot of PC FPS to a console FPS takes some time to adjust to. While adjusting, it kind of feels like you're going from precision to controlling the sticks with your elbows, but you eventually get used to it. Still, you're probably not going to get the same level of precision that you could get with a mouse. You're argument about competitive console gaming is bad since it's not like there's competitive PC gaming or anything.

Usually there's other factors that can make a PC version more interesting for PC gamers like being able to display the game better than the consoles can (assuming the rig can handle it), sometimes there's extra/free content for the PC version (Call of Duty 4 map packs were free for example and mods for games like Half-Life 2).

I'm not somebody who hates console FPS game just because I have to control with dual analog, but I'd prefer to stick with the mouse and keyboard if I can.

Thanks for the intelligent response. Isn't there a massive league for counter strike? I would definitely consider that competitive pc gaming. Anyways I know the other reasons pc gamers like to play on pc, I just could never wrap my head around saying a game is bad because you don't like the controller. Besides console games have started taking tiny steps towards modding what with Halo 3's forge, Far Cry 2's map editor and Unreal Tournament 3's entire mod package on the PS3. I'm pretty sure by next generation were going to have console fps that offer the exact same resources as their pc counter parts if not sometihng very similar by the end of this generation.

This is totally true and exactly why I still enjoy many console FPSs. But if you have ever played a game that allows cross platform play (Q3 DC comes to mind) you will know what we mean.

As far as console FPS go Halo: CE is near perfection, at least for the 6th generation of consoles. FPS on the PC have superior controls, so according to Metacritic Half Life 2 is the best FPS ever. Personally I like the Metroid Prime series, but I suppose that's more of an adventure game.

K&M is quantifiably 'better' due to the mechanics of the input vs a gamepad for pinpoint accuracy.  This has nothing to do with FPS and applies to any input action where it is desirable to rapidly pinpoint something on a screen.

Remove the games element, which adds emotion, and consider it like this: if there was a program putting up random, tiny white dots on a black screen, in tests a K&M would allow you to more rapidly select them and select more of them in the same amount of time than a gamepad.  It's just an input mechanism which is faster and more accurate for that.

Of course, in games where the movement, aiming, etc. can be tuned you can get great control with a gamepad, and if you play on console only you're naturaly going to favour it as it's what you trained yourself with.

However a K&M will always be a more accurate input device for 'point and click' which is what you're actually doing at the heart of an FPS, pointing at an area of the screen and clicking to shoot.

However, gamepads do have advantages for controlling speed of movement, etc. and in less frenetic moments are arguably more immersive due to this - which is why I prefer titles like Fallout and Oblivion on consoles vs PC (although graphics look better on PC).  However, for pure shooters, while consoles are great, and have made playing FPS titles both SP and MP much more affordable (which I think is a good thing) the K&M combination does allow for better accuracy of aiming.

So would a direct brain interface be better because all I would have to do was think 'Reasonable headshot'? And then I would get one. How is speed and accuracy making a game 'better'? If all people had to do was 'think' then obviously the gameplay mechanics would have to be adjusted. Like for example its the reason why you pretty much have to aim for a 3 by 6 pixel head representation on the screen and why body shots are so ineffective in games but even more extreme than that.