Since games have so many damn sequels, it's ridiculous to list tons of titles. It's be better if they did a "Best 100 Shooter Franchise/Series List."
It's tough. I agree on some level. While it is pretty easy to debate the merits of each
Call of Duty game within the confines of its own franchise, it is much tougher to compare all of them amongst every shooter. That said, sometimes within a franchise you have things where the publisher farms the franchise out to some pretty crappy devs and the whole franchise suffers.
Halo 1 might've been important to console gamers (b/c a FPS finally worked great w/ a gamepad), but it honestly was just another sci-fi shooter - one laced w/ lots of back-tracking and a bunch of copy & pasted areas (Monitor areas, anyone?). Sorry, guys - but those problems are major (like they were in Dragon Age 2); Halo 1 don't belong so high up on the list, IMHO.
I agree with you here. For PC gamers already experienced with FPS games,
Halo was very mediocre by comparison. Granted, for console-only gamers it was a pretty big deal, especially for the multiplayer. But if you look at console-only, I think
Goldeneye deserves to be over
Halo because it did the things
Halo did years earlier and really was the first major success in a console FPS game.
Speaking of
Halo, I'm a bit surprised by the ordering. I did end up playing most of the games and the only one I really liked was
Reach yet it is ranked last amongst
Halo games on the list. Meanwhile,
ODST is ranked pretty high and I thought that game was awful.
In the end, it's all a matter of opinion I guess.