I have all of the above ... I used to have age of mythology but I deleted it cuz it sucked hardcore!
If you have to choose 1 .... Id say Fifa 2003 no doubt! its fun and it feels like your actually in the game
The graphics are great, the gameplay is awesome ... just a definate 10!!
UT2003 is cool but watch ... in few months its going to be absolete ... something else is gonna come out.
Don't get age of mythology, thats for sure. All RTS's are horrible on consoles, not so much the graphical structure but the control. I love StarCraft on the PC but on the N64...wow...talk about impossible!!
I'm not into console gaming much...but in my short time of console experience I've liked hockey over anything. I think FIFA is soccer (don't burn if it isn't ) and I was never too into soccer. Maybe it'd be more fun if you didn't have to do all that running?
MOH FL is terrible on the PS2. Allied Assault was decent at best... horrible reload animations and just a terrible 3D engine all-over (lots of missed frames, maybe its my video card but that's a G4 64MB MX440, and my computer laughs at the game with only 50% PC usage). The playability lacked, too. It was sort of monotomous and although it's a (sort of) stunning leap in AI, it was almost too hard; in one level, you're inserted into a rainy French town to escort a tank crew to a German Tiger tank. The town had clearly been bombarded relentlessly by artillery, making it the perfect hiding ground for German snipers...45 of them! I play all games on the most difficult settings, btw. No point in beating a game if it's not doing its best to stop you.
By that conclusion and a horrible experience with Halo's First Person Shooter Console-basis, I'd agree that MOH FL is no good because of playability and impossibility to aim while jumping/reloading/switching to grenade to fend off 10 or 15 enemies at times.