If you are saying that, why not add in TF2. It was by far not the first to utilize the multi-class FPS system and it was definitely not the first to be implemented so well. I would say that SoF2 for multiplayer was far better than TF2. Halo falls into this category as well. Due to its sci-fi storyline and MEMORABLE HERO, it became immensely popular.
Difference is, TF2 can be hours of mindless fun... when done with friends. I own TF2, but I can't pub it at all. I'm fucking bored in it without my friends playing it, and they're sadly all playing MW2 or L4D2 now. They're *SUPPOSED* to be playing UT3, but without any players there, that game's effectively dead, too...
As for Halo, I'll agree that it had a good story and a memorable hero. More importantly, it was the first FPS to be really done successfully on a console. I suppose I should clarify my stance on Halo: I like the game, but the fanboys... ugh. That's the sort of pratfall L4D has as well, to an extent. "ZOMG CO-OP!!!" Co-Op has been around since Doom. It's not new. Granted, before L4D, co-op had died off in favor of deathmatch/versus modes, but still... it's not this revolutionary concept.
Since I mentioned it, MW also has the same deal. My friends conned me into paying about $40 for COD4, and they played it for only a handful of months because L4D was growing on them, and eventually won them over. In COD4, I now basically play on a knives-only server as a result, and I'm not paying $50 for MW2. (I wouldn't mind playing it... but hell if I'm buying it at that price.)
But quite simply, Outbreak was the predecessor to L4D and L4D went and improved on much of what made Outbreak so crappy. However, they did remove some of the stuff that gave Outbreak its flair, like the character abilities. One thing I did find lols about Outbreak was once someone got infected and their timer started, you NEVER went and got the cure because it was always in an out of the way location. Your teammate would turn into a zombie right in the middle of the party, so when you got infected, everyone just killed you right there and let you respawn as a zombie elsewhere.
Am I saying that L4D was an amazing game? It was a fun game, but as far as a shooter goes, there are definitely better titles. Counterstrike is boring stuff as well.
To me, this would have made L4D more interesting, honestly - a blend of its usual and versus modes. Granted, L4D did a lot of really nice things, but L4D2 made it seem like they just cash cowed it in a way. If I see L4D3 within the next year, I'm really going to begin disliking Valve. I want HL2 Ep3 already... but on the up side, at least we'll get Portal 2, and Portal is fucking godly.
Counterstrike... my main problem with it (as those on IRC will remember) is that when I play a FPS, I really want to kill people, not just sit around and wait. I think a system like TF2 is rather balanced - you're punished for dying, but you're also not out of the action for upwards of 3-5 minutes at a time. Now, I know a lot of people like it, and if they do, more power to them, but to me, I wind up being bored with my thumb up my ass when I get killed, so I don't even bother playing it. The sole reason it's installed is because GMod 10 can use its assets, and it's always fun to screw around in GMod.
Now, WoW is something different. MMOs did exist before WoW (Runescape, for example), but it was WoW that brought a new realm to the MMO world. WoW was not the first to incorporate a full 3D environment, nor the quest system or different abilities or character traits/abilities. Nor was it the first to take all of those and put it on a scale as massive and immerse as it was (FFXI).
What differed from WoW and FF-XI would be the story. Sure in FF-XI you had recognizable character classes, but none of the Final Fantasy games (FF X-2 does not exist) have any real connection to any other Final Fantasy game. SquareEnix only tags the name on the new RPG developed to replace the last. None of these games happen on the same world even.
Anyway, WoW continued the storyline that players have been working on since "Warcraft: Orcs and Humans" all the way through "Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne". The characters and situations have not changed, rather YOU are now a part of the story, able to fight these bosses that you had once had to build massive armies to take down. Anyway, that was the initial draw to the game. The game quickly escalated in popularity and the addition of things such as the Arena, PvP Battlegrounds, Raid Instances, World Bosses all added to the appeal that there was more to this world than killing random zebras for their hooves...even if for some reason they didn't have any when you looted them.
Nowadays, WoW attracts people because of its popularity and the new expansions. FFXI is dying off because of the upcoming FFXIV (which looks AMAZING). The new additions are making the hardcore Blizzard crowd feel betrayed and...yeah... WoW WAS good back when it first came out. Now? It's just meh. I would still say it is the best MMORPG out there currently because of all the feedback that Blizzard gets due to its over 11 million strong audience, they have learned to make an MMO that people want to play. They quickly learn what bugs are in the game and move to fix stuff. Blizzard's consistent attention to keep their current audience is the reason why it is as good as it is. But ultimately, Blizzard goes for the sales. They don't really care about physical sales of the game, its the subscriptions that get them money. This is why they don't care about losing their initial audience...as long as it sells, if the people are asking for it, give it to them. As long as it will keep them paying to play.
/end rant
...I can go way more into detail about WoW and Halo, but I'll stop there. Hell, I don't think I even need to touch on Halo.
WoW is a fairly solid, if somewhat average MMO to me. What really draws it in is its backstory and history among its fanbase plus the strength of the Blizzard name - every Blizzard title is virtually a guaranteed seller, and to be honest... I'm beginning to almost want them to make a stinker to see if they could get away with it. I'm sure there are people who will buy damn near anything if they know Blizzard made it.
To me what's really sad is that innovative titles are more often than not completely overlooked. Last summer there was a FPS released called Section 8;
myself and another guy reviewed it for a site I work for. I had such a blast playing this game. It was such a revolutionary change from the typical FPS model that I was really, truly hoping it would take off. It never did, partially due to having a publisher known for putting out fairly cheap games, and partially because it was a fairly complex FPS to play. Truth be told, I see this as one of the possible two future paths of the FPS genre, the other being the FPS/RPG hybrid (a la Borderlands,
another game I reviewed with a few other guys.) Either of them are very interesting, but frankly, I'm sick of the dearth of realism shooters. I love my sci-fi style. I'm not saying it can't evolve along this way without being Sci-fi, but it's like all the innovation is gone nowadays. Anyone can make a realism shooter; it takes real innovation to try to change things up.
I've ranted long enough, myself. I now present the tl;dr version for those of you who didn't read the above:
Oftentimes, people let their feelings about a game get in the way of subjectively critiquing said game. It's very easy to make a well-done, balanced game, but we're no longer rewarding on real innovation anymore, and that's worrying me, because eventually we will get sick of "Generic WW2 shooter #78" and "Modern Combat shooter #43." We're gonna need something new, and without that, we all lose in the long run.