posted
Why on Earth would a PC gamer want to play Halo anyway, given that Halo only feels like a decent FPS to people who don't know any better?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sure. But given all the fun that's out there in PC form, surely it's not possible for a PC gamer to be starving for $60 of fun already.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So which FPS's are better than Halo? I don't do much gaming -- really none -- but I have played enough to discover that I like the FPS more than most other types of games (I don't have the patience for RPGs).
I remember reading about a game called Thief several years ago and being intrigued by it.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Half-Life 2 "Orange Box" comes out in a month or two... but it comes with the best game ever made: PORTAL!
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well, $60 will get you Team Fortress 2, F.E.A.R., Call of Duty 2, and Unreal Tournament 2004. It'll also buy you Company of Heroes and Prey.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, $60 will get you Team Fortress 2, F.E.A.R., Call of Duty 2, and Unreal Tournament 2004. It'll also buy you Company of Heroes and Prey.
Are you just going by multi-player? I wasn't all that impressed with the campaign on either F.E.A.R. or Prey. They were fun, but I prefer Halo 3 to either of those.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Well, $60 will get you Team Fortress 2, F.E.A.R., Call of Duty 2, and Unreal Tournament 2004. It'll also buy you Company of Heroes and Prey.
I've tried most of those -- everything other than TF2 and CoH -- and my experience so far has been that Halo 3 is more fun.
Also, the only game on that list that isn't on or coming to consoles in some form (e.g. UT3 rather than UT2k4) is Company of Heroes, so I don't really see how your second post applies to PC gamers to a significantly greater degree than console gamers.
Having played a good chunk of Halo 3 single-player and co-op since I picked it up at launch, I'd recommend BioShock over it for single-player experience and Gears of War over it for co-op. Gears also has excellent versus multiplayer, though without some of the nice interface features that Halo 3 has. I'm really enjoying Halo 3, but BioShock and Gears would be my first two recommendations.
I'm looking forward to playing The Darkness and the Orange Box (including TF2, though I'm buying it for HL2 and Portal) next month, though.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, yeah, it's great and all, but isn't it single player except for Team fortress 2?
So? Is multi-player your only expectation? The Half-Life franchise is probably one of the best single player experiences out there, and its claim to fame in multi-player comes with add-ons (CS, TFC2, etc...).
quote:I don't know that an opinion on good FPS games from someone who liked Prey is valid.
Hey, Prey was entertaining. The only other game that I can think of that messed with the concept of gravity and "which way is up" so much was Serious Sam, and that did it only in one room. Walking on walls and ceilings was great!
OK, so the storyline was a little hokey. It was cool nonetheless!
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still dont know what the hype about halo is. Half-Life has always had better game play in my opinion and the abilty to download mods. Having played through Halo 1 and 2 I wasnt very impressed with either.
What am I missing?
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I played through the original Halo in a day and... the end. Granted, I never tried multi-player, but at the time I was busy developing my own multi-player mod for Half-Life.
I've played very little of Halo 2, but to me it seemed like the first Halo... only prettier.
I'll have to try mulit-player some day.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak for others, but I bought Halo 3 for four-player co-op [in the campaign mode], both splitscreen and online. No other shooter offers that as far as I'm aware.
But I'm not exactly a Halo aficionado.
[Edited to clarify that I'm not talking about separate co-op modes like what Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter has, though I like that as well.]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Halo 2 had this weird visual fuzziness to it that I thought was because it was designed for the Xbox 360. Like all the colors were undersaturated and nothing was very sharp. Halo 3 proves otherwise.
I love the "no step" sign on the Pelican. There are inspection stickers on some of the props that you can read.
I think something about Halo is they've bridged geeky and cool. Since it's cool, geeky afficianados must eschew it. That's my guess. I guess I got interested in it by mackillian at a point in our lives when we decided we were ready to get a game console instead of everyone fighting over the best P.C.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So? Is multi-player your only expectation? The Half-Life franchise is probably one of the best single player experiences out there, and its claim to fame in multi-player comes with add-ons (CS, TFC2, etc...).
I wasn't bad mouthing Half-Life, it's a great game. I'm saying the biggest appeal of Halo 3 is it's multi-player gameplay. I can't understand how someone could compare Halo 3's Multi-player and Half-Life's Single-player aspects.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Halo has one the best and most heroic backstory to a FPS. It has 4 books, and soon a feature film.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What would you suggest instead then?
Well, $60 will get you Team Fortress 2, F.E.A.R., Call of Duty 2, and Unreal Tournament 2004. It'll also buy you Company of Heroes and Prey.
I'm not particularily attached to their stories. The Halo series is one of the few games I actually go out of my way to buy. But I lack the 360.
IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't really say that the various forms of the Halo franchise fit together perfectly, far from it actually.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Halo has one the best and most heroic backstory to a FPS. It has 4 books, and soon a feature film.
Name me one videogame-turned-movie that helped the franchise.
Well, OK, maybe you can come with one, but you get my point. Even the ones that weren't made by Uwe Boll sucked.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're sort of missing my point, Blayne. If the discussion is just about which games are better, then anything that isn't part of the game is irrelevant.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoy playing Halo co-op with my son, but I do agree the co-op mode in Gears of War is far superior.
We will be getting Halo 3 probably around Christmas. Things are just too buy in our household right now, we don't need the distraction. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Silent Hill, Blood Rain, Postal, Final Fantasy and others.
IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know that an opinion on good FPS games from someone who liked Prey is valid.
I was specifically listing good multiplayer experiences. Prey multiplayer is actually pretty enjoyable. (And, yes, $60 will collectively buy you either of the two options I described above.)
It should also be noted that I am also asserting that any FPS game is (Edit: could be; I'll concede that poor ports and/or crappy game design, particularly related to console limitations, can kill a cross-platform game) objectively better on a PC than a console, so the mere fact that the game may also be available on a console becomes completely irrelevant once it's also on a PC. Because once it's on a PC, paying more money to play a crippled version of it on a console is just stupid.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do enjoy the modding aspect of PC games, but I often have trouble using a keyboard layout. There are just too many similar sized buttons with little way of distinction.
And often to play Computer games well, you need a powerful PC, which is often more expensive than a console.
posted
I'll concede the keyboard thing, but counter by saying that I find thumbsticks infuriatingly imprecise -- to the point that unless I'm plugging a wheel into a driving game, I pretty much cannot play such a game on a console, no matter how forgiving it is.
The "powerful PC" issue is ameliorated by a few factors, especially a) upgradeability; b) product cycle; and c) cheaper PC software. The PC's more vulnerable to crashes and requires more maintenance, though -- although the distinction is narrowing -- so I think consoles still win in that arena.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree with TomDavidson. Feels weird.
FPS on PC is a better experience by miles than FPS on a console. Looking with the mouse while moving with the keyboard is THE way to play FPS. There's no way you can match the ease/precision of using a mouse to look (which allows several inches of movement, and you can move quickly or slowly as needed), with a thumbstick which has about 3/4 of an inch of movement and correspondly lower precision and speed control. And dealing with the keyboard controls is actually pretty easy with games that let you customize the key mapping. Just get comfortable with one arrangement where you don't have to move your keyboard hand too much, and then customize the controls on other games to match what you're used to.
On the expensive hardware thing: 5+ year old games still play really well on PCs today. The original Half Life (almost 10 years old!) is still fun. 2-3 year old hardware is cheap and it handles the older games fantastically. Also the basic cheap new systems today are better than the high end systems a few years ago. Also, if you have old games but somewhat newer hardware, the older games can look better than they did originally (higher resolution, enabling effects that might have only have been available on the most expensive hardware at the time of release). I don't think you can say that about older console games...I think they look and play the same even if you upgrade your console.
I guess if you need the latest effects and arbitrarily high frame rates (I mean really, what's the experiential difference between 30 frames/sec and 110?) you can spend a lot on a gaming PC, but you really don't have to.
If you prefer FPS on console, I want to know how much time you've spent on console FPS gaming vs. PC FPS gaming, and if you had severe hardware limitations that ruined the game play.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've played halo 1 & 2, Golden-eye, Perfect Dark, Metroid Prime: Hunters, and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. The controls for Halo I've found that I have adjusted to them well. Often when playing SWAT (Start off with handgun, battle rifle, and shrapnel grenades, no shields, no radar, starting weapons on map) I find myself instantly zooming in and getting head-shots while running around, I have no difficulty with aiming without a mouse. Golden-eye and Perfect dark I will concede could have had better controls, but they were much earlier games. MP: H, because I use the DS stylus, it does mimic the mouse, but often in multi-player things are to small and fast for good accuracy. In MP3 the Wii-mote is an excellent aiming device, although the game does lack multi-player.
I've also played a little bit with a couple of WW II shooters on consoles, but I'm not really a fan of those games, and I felt like the controls were awful.
I've played Quake and Battlefield 2 on PCs. Quake I could not control at all, I found myself often looking at the keyboard during a fight to see what I'm pressing and doing, and the mouse and movement usually left me spinning in the general direction of the target. I controlled better on Battlefield 2, but certain things just didn't work well, like trying to use the sniper rifle. Also any flying vehicle felt as if the controls were overcomplicated, usually crashing me instantly. Meanwhile in Halo 2 I could perform aerial maneuvers easily and I often could jump out of a banshee so that I could steal someone else's banshee mid air, then kill them and blow up my old one (My friends hate me when I use that maneuver).
I imagine that I could get better at the PC controls, but they just don't feel natural to me. As for performance, I really don't have the money to spend of a high-performance machine, and I don't have the tech-knowledge or time to efficiently build a PC on my own. I imagine I could learn, but I really don't have time to do that either. I am looking into the Blackbird 002 from HP though, I need to wait to see what their customizable version will cost with minimum specs, if it's cheap enough I may just get that and eventually get better parts so that I could upgrade it on my own to a high-performance machine.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My first FPS was Duke Nukem 3D. Up until Golden Eye I didn't think a console could do FPS at all. As a single player game Golden Eye was pretty good but what set it apart was it's split screen multiplayer. You vs three other people who are sitting right next to you. Then Halo upped the ante with 16 players over 4 Xboxes. And best believe we my and my friends played a lot of 16 player Halo stretched over three floors each room complete with a big screen TV (thanx USAF). That was our every weekend tradition. Every once in awhile we would have a lan party. I never had as much fun with those though. I just plain took more effort to get everything in working order. Carrying heavy equipment to the party. Setting up the network. Making sure everyone has the same version of the game/have the game at all. God forbid you're playing a mod. Then after all of that play time. Needless to say we played Halo1 /2 more.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you prefer FPS on console, I want to know how much time you've spent on console FPS gaming vs. PC FPS gaming, and if you had severe hardware limitations that ruined the game play.
I don't necessary prefer FPS on console, but I had played every major FPS on the PC up to the point where I purchased my XBox 360 about 18 months ago. I now just buy console games.
My reasons:
* The game experience is optimized to a specific hardware configuration. When I play the game I know I'm experiencing exactly what the developers experienced.
* No video/sound driver issues. Ever.
* Identical hardware for all participants in multiplayer. No advantage to people with better hardware.
* Hardware costs are sunk once. After the initial system purchase, a new game does not mean a reevaluation of my hardware to determine if my system is up to the task. Sure, the games are $10 less, but with the PC every once in a while a game comes out that requires a faster CPU or a new graphics card for the optimal experience. That $10/game is more than offset by an annual graphics card and/or CPU upgrade.
* The XBox Live Achievement system is fun.
* You can rent console games from several sources. Not so for PC games.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'll give you the rental argument; it's been a long time since you could rent PC games. Online delivery's pretty much supplanted the brick and mortar rental model on PC -- and while that has its own advantages and disadvantages, it's not quite the same.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I play console FPS (and other genre) as for me it's purely about fun.
While I used to be a hardcore PC gamer, I sit at a computer too many hours as it is. My machines are geared purely for work and I never quit most of the apps I have running for that work, which I'd have to do to play as well.
For me, gaming is now about relaxation, downtime and fun.
So it kinda necessitates a couch and something that doesn't involve making me feel like I'm still at the computer.
So yeah, I love my Wii. Even at this early stage of development, the control schema is intuitive and fun - more so than a standard controller, but maybe not quite on a par with keyboard and mouse.
That said, I barely play at all anymore. I run my own business these days and work from home. My idea of fun is now to get out of the house and train with the local triathlon squad.
TomD - glad you said 'objective' in a recent post. I think we can all concede that objectively, the potential for control on a keyboard/mouse combo is as good as it gets, but our subjective enjoyment of gaming is something very different.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
quote:...what's the experiential difference between 30 frames/sec and 110?
The difference is not so much that you can do 110 frames per second, but that on the same video card you can do "only" 30 frames per second with full screen anti-aliasing and every graphics perk imaginable turned on.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a Westinghouse 42" 1080p set. Grabbed it off Woot for $799. I'd highly recommend it at that price if you ever see it again. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
America's Army fulfills all the multiplayer FPS on a PC urges I have. Its free, and I happen to like the nospawn environment. When you die you don't respawn, instead you ghost behind your teammates until the round ends. It makes you much more careful with your life when you know you won't be respawning after running through the fragfest.
Plus I like that you always play the good guys (and so do your opponents). Whoever thought that up was a genius.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(And, yes, $60 will collectively buy you either of the two options I described above.)
