Empire magazine's "100 Greatest Games" list

CCCP^

Goldeneye 64 at 10, lulz Retr0!

Retr0gamer

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I played both recently enough and neither seemed dated combat wise. As for people saying that the combat is very simple in the Halo series I would disagree. Its got far more depth than the Half Life series, in HL you just pump the enemies with as much ammo as you can. At least in Halo you have to deal with shielded enemies, enemies are smart enough to use grenades to flush you out and work with other allies to try to rush you. I never found the enemies in HL2 to be anything special.

Maybe so but it was the meatiness and feel of the weapons and the varied and excellent level design that for me more made it much better.

CiDeRmAn

Yup, I had far more fun in Half Life than in the really rather grand and worthy follow ups, I longed for the more cohesive and, well linear experience of Half Life.
I was particularly disappointed when it wasn't on the Orange Box, seems such a small thing to do, ho hum.
Far Cry was another one that was so much better than the frankly cack console editions.
Deus Ex was revolutionary in terms of a self directed rpg played from the 1st person, but a FPS it most definitely was not.
The complex behaviour of the enemy in Halo together with some wonderful scenery and set pieces, not to mention the great reveal of the Flood, followed by the shotgun that turned the game into a 1st person survival horror, fantastic,
Was I the only one who formed a "connection" with Foehammer, and was gutted in the second to last act?

Azza

Deus Ex is certainly an FPS because a major portion of gameplay was killing people with guns for a first person perspective. But it also several other things. Games can be hybrids. There is plenty of FPS DNA in Deus Ex.
The majority of people with play through the game engaging in shooting the enemies rather than avoiding them. They may opt for stealth in later run throughs though.

To say Deus Ex is dated combat wise is not true. It was dated on release. Other games do it better but the combat in Deus Ex is still servicable. In ever other area it clearly surpasses Halo and for that matter almost every other game.

In Halo one I did not note a single case of complex A.I behaviour. Not to say that I notice it in other games either. But in this regard Halo did not stand out but again nor was it bad in this department, just to me the same as alot of other shooters at the time.

Again with relational to weapons in Halo and Half Life, only the gravity gun really stand out for me in Half Life 2 but I can't remember anything about the weapons in Halo at all.

How anyone can have anything positive to say about the flood is beyond me. Terrible in every way possible.

Retr0gamer

Have to agree with the sentiments af being disappointed with Half-life 2's weapons load out. There was far more weapons in Half-life 1. I expected more not less, although the gravity gun was fun.

The AI in Halo isn't all that great shakes. It doesn't work together the only thing that is clever about it is the way it avoids getting stuck in terrain (or so say Gearbox when they were reverse engineering it for the PC).

Eh and that final scene with Foehammer, well it wasn't exactly Shadow of the Colossus. I didn't really care tbh.

And yes the flood were rubbish in every single way. People were talking about the big reveal. I copped it during the level and it wasn't a surprise. The big reveal for me was that the game went from fun to dull. First Person Survival horror? Not for me, it turned into the worst kind of Doom clone circa 1994 with dumb AI running straight at you and bad level design ranging from corridors to open arena.

CiDeRmAn

NOOOO!
The Flood were a great addition, and I know I am in the minority here.
One of my favourite scenes was emerging into a new area to find a battle already in motion, between Covenant and Flood, as I skirted around, hid, and then when one side had finally beaten the other, I went in and mopped up, sweet!
Other friends of mine disagree, and reckon they ruined the whole feel of the game.
They're welcome to their opinion, but their addition only got better as the series continued, they are essential to the plot and how the games story and hence missons are constructed and delivered to the player.

I like the level design, both open snd indoors, and frequently combining both.
Alamo last stands by the Master Chief against incredible odds, only succeeding after every combination of tactics has been exhausted.
Sniping the Elites from afar, watching as the grunts run in panic.
Noting the gleam of a disembodied plasma sword, and realising that you're being hunted.
Trying to hit that smashing orangy bit with a plasa pistol 'cos you've run out of bullets.
Trying not to run down your own troops in the tank.
Realising you can use alien hardware and turning it upon the Covenant horde.

Bugger, now I have to go off and play them all over again!

CiDeRmAn

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Have to agree with the sentiments af being disappointed with Half-life 2's weapons load out. There was far more weapons in Half-life 1. I expected more not less, although the gravity gun was fun.

The AI in Halo isn't all that great shakes. It doesn't work together the only thing that is clever about it is the way it avoids getting stuck in terrain (or so say Gearbox when they were reverse engineering it for the PC).
First Person Survival horror? Not for me, it turned into the worst kind of Doom clone circa 1994 with dumb AI running straight at you and bad level design ranging from corridors to open arena.

I think the gravity gun is the single most overrated weapon in FPS history, the diametric opposite of the Doom Chaingun, the greatest.
And, dunb AI running straight for you, that would be a bit like Left 4 Dead no, I've played that and the enemy behaviour seems to consist of running at you along the shortest path possible.

Retr0gamer

Left 4 Dead has zombies not badly modelled green things and to be perfectly honest Left 4 Dead has a totally different dynamic and feel than Halo especially with the whole mob dynamic working really well. It's a true FPS survival horror, something Halo coul never be for me due to the recharging shields. They really aren't comparable and I know which one I much prefer in everyway.

As for the flood getting better and being part of the storyline, they really should have gotten rid of them after Halo 1. They were far and away the most hated thing in that game and the Halo was supposed to be a unique forerunner artifact. However they ruin all that in Halo 2 by making the flood appear again far too early in the game and ruining it (what were they thinking?) and proclaiming 'Oh in fact there's dozens of Halos and the covenant knew all about them ages ago but for some reason haven't bothered their hole activating them'. It was silly and stunk of a storywriter fresh out of ideas.

CiDeRmAn

Ok man, you like Gunstar, I like Halo, lets just back away quietly, guns back in the holsters and just agree to disagree, especially since you're wrong.










And Edge agree's with me!

MWA HA HA HA HA!!!!

(aside from the copy and paste job on some of the interiors of the Halo, that was irritating, surprised you didn't mention it Retro)

Retr0gamer

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

(aside from the copy and paste job on some of the interiors of the Halo, that was irritating, surprised you didn't mention it Retro)

Some? There were whole levels based around it and they did it again in Halo 2 in places. (thought I did mention it?)

I don't hate the games other than Halo 2 but the thing that really gets on my goat is Edge not publishing one issue where they don't mention 'Bungies masterpiece'. I just can't see how it can hold up to the likes of true classics like Mario World, OoT and Super Metroid.

BTW? Have you tried Gunstar Heroes again recently like you said you would? Just interested if you changed your tune a bit, no rants I promise

CiDeRmAn

I did, I tried it and quite liked it, not sure it's quite as good as some would say, again and again say, but I can always appreciate the glories of the Megadrive, I myself love Biohazard battle, lovely biomech art, very nice, plus great pace to it, I regret not seeing a follow up on any console since.

Halo, Halo 2 and Halo 3 may well date as badly as Goldeneye in years to come sure, in a way that Zelda OoT could never.
Halo2 is very much part 1 of a Halo sequel that ends with Halo 3, it's as if they has one massive game and decided to slice it into two.
It was the relative brevity of Halo 2 that was the only thing I took issue with, I finished it in one sitting, which is why I played Halo 3 on Heroic, get my moneys worth out of it!

Anyone else play Coldwinter or Warhammer: Fire Warrior on PS2? Frankly brilliant games, especially Coldwinter, great Goldeneye vibe to the whole thing, the language is a tad course at times however.

Retr0gamer

To be honest I don't think Halo 1 or 3 will age that badly like Goldeneye. They still play very well. Halo 2 on the other hand suffers from a few of the flaws that made Goldeneye age so badly such as pushing the hardware far too far. The framerate and tearing in that game are really poor compared to most games just like in goldeneye.

I never liked Biohazard Battle, in fact I'd go so far as to say it's ****. The visuals are interesting but the gameplay is sub par. It's never going to topple Eliminate Down and Thunderforce 4 from the best shmup on the megadrive.

As for Coldwinter and Firewarrior, I've only played a little of both. Thought firewarrior was pretty poor, good opening level but after that it's really dull with poor AI. Coldwinter on the other hand is one of those forgotten about great games that sold far less than it deserved. A very gritty shooter and a decent story.

I'm kind of interested in Urban Chaos (the xbox and PS2 FPS not the old PC game). Looks like really dumb fun with a riot shield that can deflect rockets

NeoKubrick

I'm reminded why I don't post on pure gaming forums much.

Azza wrote: »

[...]

I honestly don't know where to start. First off, I can't think of a single killer app for any of the recent consoles that was just all hype. Publishers can only push a game so far with marketing and to attain the status of a killer app (people going out and buying the console just to play the game), you can't pull off with just marketing; the game has to be good, and if not, people quickly realize it isn't and people are then not so keen to tell all and sundry what a great console X is. Aside from that, Microsoft's key objective was online gaming.

Second, the Halo series is not a linear game. A linear game is one that offers one path, choice and style of play throughout the entire game. 'Linear' is a word hack game journalist bandy about when they can't think of anything intelligent to criticize a game with. Another word misused is 'pacing' in games: if the creator isn't in control of time of an event, a creation can't be said to have good or bad pacing because, as an example in games, the creator cannot be said by default to be dictating to the player what he plays and when. Ironically, the games that a developer could apply pacing too would be a strictly linear game.

So, you didn't play Halo 1 on Legendary difficulty, too? Do you often disagree with people on subjects you know nothing of? You're disagreeing with my experience and argument of a game played on a difficulty you haven't played on, which means all of your arguments are not worth the bandwidth its posted on. Compound that with the fact that you've hardly played the games by your own admission on the lesser difficulties. You can't remember the weapons but are assured enough that you can compare the assortment to Half-Lifes' and claim Half-Life has better shooting mechanics (whatever that means)? Do you often remember the soundtracks of games you hardly played?


I don't understand your arguments for Deus Ex. If the majority of the game is a FPS shooting people, and Halo is better in combat, how can the quality of the minority of the game excel the quality of the majority (Halo's combat) of another game? You say the combat was always dated, but say that it wasn't terrible. The combat wasn't dated at the time of release: players were quite content with that type of combat because that's what most developers were churning out, too. It's not serviceable now: trading shots with an enemy and see who dies first is now dated. Deus Ex, like a lot of other older games, is only playable with the difficulty ranked up to the highest and played stealthy making sure you silently kill each guard. In that regard, it's not the best of its stealth type as you so claim: Thief 3 is better. In its other aspects, there are better games (Fallout 3, Morrowind etc.).

Retr0gamer wrote: »

But the combat in Halo just isn't interesting either for me. It's the same enemies with very little variety in any encounter

You slam the game for having little variety but slam the game simultaneously for the inclusion of the Flood, with different behaviour to the Covenant? The Flood levels are not my favourite, but the Flood in levels combined with the Covenant enemies do add another dimension to the game and some of the best set-pieces are when you're faced with both the Flood and the Covenant (and you obviously haven't faced a Flood with an assault rifle to suggest they just chase after you). The Halo series has a lot more variety than most every other FPS in terms of enemies, their behaviour and their attacks (I've told already about the AI; so, why you're repeating Gearbox's comments is a mystery). So, what evidence or high standard of variety in another game are you basing this "little variety" comment on, because Call of Duty, Operation Flashpoint, Alien vs. Predators, No Lives Forever don't qualify?

Do not mention backtracking, again, after your listing the "artier" Metroid Prime: selective standards.


Despite all this, both your core arguments are based purely on ignorance and myth: that PC FPS games are better than FPS console games. A game isn't good based upon what platform it's developed for, and to judge a game by what platform it is released on rises to the same level of reasoning exhibited by Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo fanboys. To satisfy this myth, you have to engage in self-serving logic and in applying selective standards. The amount of banal games you've, Azza, listed is insane, and most are not applicable considering they are thought of as multiplayer games, not singleplayer.

It's okay to set the highest standard for the pinnacle of a genre, but to lower it once you're judging other games (namely, mostly PC games) negates your argument. If a standard isn't applied to all, it has to be applied to none.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Every person that I know that is a mainly PC player can't understand the love for the game

What relevance does a PC player have to critiquing a computer game? It would be the same relevance a console player has: absolutely none.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Second, the Halo series is not a linear game. A linear game is one that offers one path, choice and style of play throughout the entire game. 'Linear' is a word hack game journalist bandy about when they can't think of anything intelligent to criticize a game with.

So by your definition nearly any game can be regarded as non-linear? By videogames very nature any game were you can approach any situation in your own way is non-linear? That describes just about every game and every FPS. Halo is a linear game, make no mistake about that. You go from point A to point B and watch the credits with no deviation from the path. The only time Halo deviated into pseudo non-linearity was the silent cartographer level which was excellent but nothing else ever came close in the series.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

So, you didn't play Halo 1 on Legendary difficulty, too?

So the game is mediocre unless you play it on the highest difficulty level. Isn't there a massive design fault there? Legendary was a frustrating and unrewarding experience and I had better games to play.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

I don't understand your arguments for Deus Ex. If the majority of the game is a FPS shooting people, and Halo is better in combat, how can the quality of the minority of the game excel the quality of the majority (Halo's combat) of another game? You say the combat was always dated, but say that it wasn't terrible. The combat wasn't dated at the time of release: players were quite content with that type of combat because that's what most developers were churning out, too. It's not serviceable now: trading shots with an enemy and see who dies first is now dated. Deus Ex, like a lot of other older games, is only playable with the difficulty ranked up to the highest and played stealthy making sure you silently kill each guard. In that regard, it's not the best of its stealth type as you so claim: Thief 3 is better. In its other aspects, there are better games (Fallout 3, Morrowind etc.).

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Fallout 3, Metroid Prime etc. may not have the best shooting mechanics but in every other area are far ahead of Halo. Halo only has it's shooting mechanics, there's little else their while the other games offer far more in other areas such as exploration, choice and variety, storytelling. They may not beat Halo's shooting mechanics but due to their success in other areas they are far better games than Halo will ever be. If we look outside the FPS genre I can come up with hundreds of games that are better than anything in the series. It's why it would never get near a top 100 list for me.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

You slam the game for having little variety but slam the game simultaneously for the inclusion of the Flood, with different behaviour to the Covenant?

They can add as many and varied enemies as they want into the game but if the enemies aren't fun to play against like the Flood and totally ruin it then thats just bad game design. As for the flood with weapons, not exactly a massive change in behaiour, run straight at you, take a potshot, continue running at you. Anyway I was also on about a lack of variety in the engagements.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Do not mention backtracking, again, after your listing the "artier" Metroid Prime: selective standards.

It's you with the selective standards lumping Metroid Prime in with Halo. Metroid Primes backtracking is part of the game, it's about exploration and the feeling of satisfaction when you find the next place to go after some exploring. The backtracking in Halo is just lazy level design.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Despite all this, both your core arguments are based purely on ignorance and myth: that PC FPS games are better than FPS console games. A game isn't good based upon what platform it's developed for, and to judge a game by what platform it is released on rises to the same level of reasoning exhibited by Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo fanboys.
...
What relevance does a PC player have to critiquing a computer game? It would be the same relevance a console player has: absolutely none

If a game is good it's good and I'd never judge a game based on the platform it's on. As for the relevance of PC gamers to the argument it's becasue at the time of Halos release PC games were absolutely swimming in quality first person and third person games. When they played Halo it was just another mediocre FPS compared to the games they were playing. To people only used to console games the best FPS experience they had was Goldeneye, Medal of Honour and Timesplitters so Halo seemed the them an absolute revelation. From my experience coming from both console and PC gaming Halo was good but I had played much better not just in FPS but in loads of other genres. Someone who only had a PS1 would have thought differently.

Hercule

Personally I wouldnt put any of the Halo series in my top 20 FPS games of all time and I would put it in 80+ in terms of top 100 of all games.

There are loads of far superior options in terms of both single player/multiplayer or linear/non-linear FPS games (albeit 90% of which are only released or worth playing on PC only)

Compared to other games people seem blinded by nostalgia, I understand for a lot of people it was their first real exposure to a "full" FPS game and not a "corridor shooter" and at its launch it was superior to all other console FPS games in that generation, a market in which I can recall only 4 other games Red Faction, Timesplitters 1, Unreal Tournament, Medal Of Honour Frontline (there may be more at the time but I dont recall them). This lasted 2 years until more console FPS games came out which I think were better

Reviewed individually I always found the single player Halo incredibly generic and dull - if it werent for the multiplayer I prob wouldnt have played the game ever again after I finished the SP campaign. The combat/gameplay at times can be quite visceral but only some particularly stirring moments with the main soundtrack blasting are memorable from when I first played through the game. I do also remember a lot of rather diabolical level design (or lack of level design :pac:)

I dont want to open the PC FPS -vs- Console FPS can of worms - Its likely that that will just result in an argument between militant fanboys. Purely based on console FPS games, personally I would place Timesplitters 2, Perfect Dark and Goldeneye,Call of Duty 2 and 4 above any of the Halo series.

Azza

I don't know where to begin replying to your reply.

I can name another killer app that was just hype. Metal Gear Solid 4 recieved almost universal global praise. I'm an absolutly massive MGS fan. MGS 3 was one of my all time favourite games, it got me back into console gaming after several years off, MGS 4 was the primary reason I got a PS3, but I was very dissapointed with. Not that it was a terrible game it was just average at best.

Generally speaking a game has to be good to be popular, but I think there is also a considerable factor of one upmanship due to the so called console wars, people allow themsleves to be easily impressed to say to the other crowd (i.e Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) we have got this killer game that you don't hahahaha.
I'm not saying its the case for you....but I suspect particularly in America there is alot of young fanboys like this. Its my theory and I'm sticking to it

As for Halo been a linear game I can assure it most certainly is. Saying the sky is green over and over doesn't make it so. Don't kid yourself. Its simply location A to B with some tedious backtracking. You can't point out Meteroid to me as an example back as I never played it or mentioned it in a post. The linear FPS has been done to death for so many years. I personally find most linear shooters playable for only short bursts at a time before I get bored (but that was not always the case), thats not just Halo. I'd mark alot of other FPS games down for the same thing. I personally prefer games with more open ended gameplay. Thats why unless their is exceptional praise being heaped upon a linear FPS even on the PC, I'd normally pass over them.

Pacing also exsists in games and your right its used in linear shooters, in these types of games you will want other things to do in a game beside just shooting people, you want cut scenes to help move the story along, you want puzzles to have some other play mechanic, you want stealth sections etc In sandbox shooters the player controls the pacing himself, which is something I prefer. I mean yes in a linear game you could stop, but stop in the middle of the narrow corridor your in but there would be nothing to do there. I prefer open ended gameplay as I previously said as it allows you to set your own pace and employ different tactics and not just do the same thing over and over.

As for not playing Halo on legendary I'm telling you it would not have made any difference to me at all. Shooting the bad guys x number of times more would not have made the game any worse or better. My opinion is equally valid as yours. I played the game and gave it a fair chance, I would of finished it if I had not lost my save files but I still played 95% of the game. It was not that bad that I was going stop playing, but once I finished it there would zero to bring me back. I don't dare have the arrogance to tell you how to enjoy your games or that your opinon is not valid because you played a game in a certain way or on a certain difficulty level. I often wonder for example in RTS games what satisfaction people could get out of playing comp-stomp skirmish matchs over playing against human players. But hey if what they are looking from in an RTS thats fine. Do you think for second Bungie would say ahhh the game is only mean't to be played on Legendary actually, its pretty poor on the other difficulty levels!!

If the game had decent weapons and music, I would remember them. If I liked the game enough I play it again. How many games you found average or outright disliked do you go back and play again, cause for most people we don't normally do that? You don't go to the cinema to see a bad movie twice now do you? I can easily claim Half Life has better shooter mechanics because I can actually remember then, again I tend to remember better games more than average ones. In Half Life 2 you have the gravity gun which at the time was pretty unqiue and fun, killing enemys with toliets is fun as well as stealing their gernades and firing them back. You had a crossbow for sniping, again was fun to pin to people to walls and it wasn't just another generic sniper rifle, the magnum was very poweful and satisfying, the default pistol and machine gun where abit meh but the alturnate fire on the weapons where decent. I loved the controller RPG which you controlled with the laser pointer. Combined with the excellent pyshics engine at the time the kills where very very satisfying in HL2. But shooting mechanics don't alone make a game. yes in an FPS shooting mechanics are very important and the only thing of any importance in online shooters, but you need more in a single player campaign.

Moving on.
Deus Ex was dated in terms of graphics and shooting mechanics on release. It wasn't an issue in terms of gameplay because the shooting mechanics where not terrible, they where just not the best (neither is Halo in that regard). Its the fact that it wrapped so many different game mechanics into one game and made it all work. Most people will play it primarily as a shooting game and it works fine as that but you have several other viable options that can employed equally well. The sheer ambition of that game is amazing, one of the few games to pull it off without totally messing up (See Boling Point) Yes Thief had better stealth mechanics, other RPG games have a better levelling system. But Deus Ex had the best overall package in my opinion, combined with a cracking story which you controlled by your actions! Halo has nothing but incredible banal shooting. To me the gameplay of Deus Ex overall is far superior to Halo and for that matter 99% of other games. However Halo of course has vastly better mutiplayer. Well I assume it does cause Deus Ex multiplayer is ****.
And I never claimed Deus Ex had the best stealth mechanics, I merely said it had stealth mechanics...so kindly refrain from making stuff up. It doesn't help your arguement at all, but implies your where in a rage when writing up your reply.

Moving on to vareity of enemies. Yes it was a good idea to add in more enemys into Halo, no one wants to kill the same types of enemy over and over. Its not the we are complaing they added something different. But the Flood where awful, I mean they where just bland and a total bore to fight against. Might as well been the aliens from space invaders. Sure the add a 3 way dimision to the combat when they mix it up with the player and the covenant troops but its not like this has not been done before in other games now has it?

A.I in Halo did not seem anything special to me. Again they did not seem terrible, but I find that A.I in nearly every game is crap regardless of genre. I don't rate Halo any worse or higher than your average FPS in this regard. I hear in the later games vehicile A.I is terrible.

But its not simply one factor that makes a game better, Operation Flashpoint had dubious A.I. that could see you from a mile away, regardless of cover. Did not matter, just made the game challenging and they where still fun to fight against, although frustration did creep in from time to time. What it had was a massive battlefield, large scale combat, tension, huge vareity of weapons and vehicles and mission types. Open ended gameplay. Battles could play out differently, not the same guys in the same location every time. AvP had 3 radically different species to play as with there own unqiue gameplay and brilliant atmosphere. Call of Duty 1 had great set peices and I really liked the multiplayer, but I found the sequels to be just clones and the novelty had worn off, regardless of how high the presentation was. NOLF had charm, greaty art style, funny characters and gadgets and the shooting mechanics where grand etc. Not the best FPS ever but fun.

I do personally believe PC FPS games are better than console shooters. I own a PS3 and a Wii as well as my PC and the PC is my primary gaming format, but I have enjoyed plenty of console games too. Not using the controls as an issue with Halo as I played it with a mouse and keyboard so no issues there. Generally speaking console shooters are slower paced (in terms of gameplay speed), have aim assist, have health regeneration, use sticky cover system that switch to 3rd person view, lack a lean feature. Overall a joypad will never be as good as a mouse keyboad combo. I personally dislike these features, I also believe the natural home for MMO's RTS and simulation games is the PC. If they released a mouse and keyboard I might be somewhat more interested in console fps games. Other genres it does not matter. I could play an RPG or sports game equally fine on a PC or console, but consoles have a better selection of sports games. Story does not suffer from being on a console, you can get equally bad and good stories on both formats. The formats have there own pro's and con's and everyone will have a different preferrence. Consoles can lead to a reduction in complexity (see the sequel to Deus Ex) but thats the fault of the developer more than the genre not being designed for a particular a platform. Its not a myth that PC FPS games are better its a matter of opinion. You prefer console shooters thats fine I have no problem with it.

If Halo was released as a PC exclusive back in the day, its average review score would of been around much lower. Which funny enough is how Halo 2 scored when it was released on the PC (metacritic score 72%). If you offered Halo 4 as a PC exclusive or the same release date as the console version to the PC FPS community they would not be interested.
If Halo is the pinnacle of the FPS genre I would not like to see the bottom!
PC gamers had games of higher or the same standard of Halo for years, so its just baffling to see this praise for a game that seems so utterly average in nearly every department, Its puzzling when a game like Halo succeeds in the market place when System Shock 2 flops badly

As for my games list being banal I can say the same thing about Halo, but its all a matter of opinion. I thought the Halo series was praised for both its multiplayer and singe player campaign, so it open to be compared to other shooters regardless weather they are single player or multiplayer focused. I apply the same standard to all my games and thats why Halo comes up short, its lacking in so many area's. I could be here all day listing flaws with my preferred games, there is plenty of them, but they do more right than wrong.

Sorry for being so long winded in my reply.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It's okay to set the highest standard for the pinnacle of a genre

Pinnacle of the genre? I thought we were talking about Halo and not Half-Life.

HouseHippo

God i hated Super Mario 64

CiDeRmAn

HouseHippo wrote: »

God i hated Super Mario 64

Get out and never come back, we'll send on any belongings you may have left, just leave.:eek:

CiDeRmAn

Re: Linear Vs Non-Linear,
A linear game has a story line, hopefully a strong story line.
A linear game is one that takes you from one chapter to another, beginning-middle-end and while you may have freedom to choose how to complete specific objectives, the story won't continue until those objectives are fulfilled and you can continue to the next chapter.
This can be a really interesting process, like in GTAIV where instead of continuing along the stories main plot, you can head off instead and drive taxi's and all the other gubbins the series has become famous for, on the other hand this can be boring, like hanging around in Doom after you have killed all the enemies, sure you can avoid pulling the exit switch but what are you going to do tooling around an empty dungeon?
But a good linear game attempts to hide the push from objective to objective and offers some distractions before it forces you to make a certain choice, or fulfill a condition before jumping to the next stage.
A non-linear game is one without this strong story line because, by it's very nature it is entirely player scripted.
One could say that GTAIV, during the main body of the single player campaign is a linear game, but when exclusively played outside the main mission, or especially in multplayer mode it is non-linear.
The Sims series would be a strong non-linear brand, as are most god games, like Civ, there is an ultimate objective but your path to it is entirely player scripted.

As alluded to already, the MMOG has completely rewritten the linear/non-linear notion, as you are online, can have stories and missions decided on the fly and in games like Test Drive Unlimited you have total control of the races you accept, the people you want to play with, similarly with Burnout Paradise, in fact modern racing titles seem to be the vanguard of non-linear gameplay, as in BP you choose to race how you like when you like, with a gentle goal of upgrading your license as the only true goal. Other scores are entirely community decided, of merit or not, by comparing your times and scores with other players online.

Did I ever mention I once had a very groovy Parappa the Rappa hat, a Sony rep brought them in and we all had to wear them, a replica of the very one Parappa wore complete with floppy dog ears and a nose, nice!

HouseHippo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Get out and never come back, we'll send on any belongings you may have left, just leave.:eek:

Em......no

NeoKubrick

Yes, it has come to this.

Azza wrote: »

[...]
MGS 4 was the primary reason I got a PS3, but I was very dissapointed with. Not that it was a terrible game it was just average at best.

Metal Gear Solid 4 wasn't my favourite, but the first three levels and boss battles did certainly live up to the hype, and then it drifted a bit. My main complaint of the game would be that it was too short, and should have had at least two more settings like the first two levels after the third. It was still a very good game, but didn't match the very high standard MGS3 set (it did remove one major flaw of its predecessor in implementing the Octo-camo). That's another discussion.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Halo is a linear game, make no mistake about that. You go from point A to point B and watch the credits with no deviation from the path.

Azza wrote: »

As for Halo been a linear game I can assure it most certainly is. Saying the sky is green over and over doesn't make it so. Don't kid yourself. Its simply location A to B with some tedious backtracking.

Halo isn't a linear game, because it doesn't the meet the criteria of 'linear'. Claiming that it is, over and over again without the necessary evidence won't make it so. Most of the time, it offers several routes to tackle enemy positions and several ways in which to attack them. Near every game in existence is simply location A to B, but if you can dictate how you reach B, then that's not a linear game is it? (Metroid Prime comment was directed at Retr0, Azza).

Pacing is rare in games, because it assumes, wrongly, that the player is on a consistent progression through the levels, which is how it can establish time and correspond it to the act of the player. This pacing immediately breaks down when the player hits a difficulty spike and cannot progress further, and has to attempt a setting/level/set-piece several times to progress. A developer can't assume how many attempts a player needs after the first.

Azza wrote: »

My opinion is equally valid as yours.[...]

How many games you found average or outright disliked do you go back and play again, cause for most people we don't normally do that? You don't go to the cinema to see a bad movie twice now do you?[...]

I can easily claim Half Life has better shooter mechanics because I can actually remember then, again I tend to remember better games more than average ones.[...]

Your opinion and argument is not valid, just as an argument against Street Fighter IV's singleplayer is not valid in response to an argument for Street Fighter IV's multiplayer. This isn't a question of telling people how to enjoy the game: I'm making an argument that Halo 1 and 2 based upon the Legendary difficulty are two of four of best FPS games at this moment (doesn't refer to the multiplayer. You can't logically counter that argument with evidence or experience from different difficulties of the game, because that's not countering the basis of my argument, and if you do, it's invalid.

People normally criticize games they have played only once, but people are normally ignorant. If you want to criticize a game with an argument with substance that won't be ridiculed, you normally have to play it extensively in all modes; otherwise, the argument normally can be picked apart easily. I don't criticize a game I have no knowledge of, and if I do, self-admitting, my argument should be easily shown as erroneous as easily as yours has and is.

You can't claim Half-Life had better shooting mechanics if you can't remember the weapons from Halo no more can you claim a character from Street Fighter IV is better than a character you've only played with once and can't remember how said character played. To apply 'better' you need two objects: one that is better and one that is worse. Considering that you don't remember the weapons from Halo, you have no second object to compare the Half-Life shooting mechanics to and therefore it can't be better or worse than something that doesn't exist, right? It would be silly to suggest that playing football is better, but not stating what it's better than?

Again, you're applying standards when it suits your self-serving argument. Metal Gear Solid 4 had a metacritic rating of 94, but you claim it was disappointment and then use the metacritic rating of 72 to claim Halo 2 wouldn't have been a great game if released on the PC? Using metacritic as a basis for your argument is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and furthermore, contradicting your own point about Metal Gear Solid 4. Interestingly, did you read any of the reviews that were based upon the 72 average? Anyway, a game that's re-released as a port without any changes and missing modes rarely scores well. That's a given, generally.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

So the game is mediocre unless you play it on the highest difficulty level. Isn't there a massive design fault there? [...]

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Fallout 3, Metroid Prime etc. may not have the best shooting mechanics but in every other area are far ahead of Halo. Halo only has it's shooting mechanics [...]

It's you with the selective standards lumping Metroid Prime in with Halo. Metroid Primes backtracking is part of the game [...]

Pinnacle of the genre? I thought we were talking about Halo and not Half-Life [...]

Any game that doesn't punish you or confronts you with obstacles to overcome is generally mediocre: if you can't die, there's no point in trying to outsmart the enemy; that exists in all FPS - it's a massive design fault if there isn't higher difficulties. Normal, and to an extent, Heroic difficulty is designed for players who aren't adept at FPS. Legendary difficulty offers obstacles and regularly punishes the player for playing the game like a dumb shooter. The regular checkpoints offset this punishing gameplay and gave it that 'one-more-go' feel every excellent game has. I think if you did ask one of the Bungie staff, they would say Halo is meant to be played on Legendary.

It's pretty lucky then, Halo 1 and 2 are first-person-shooters with both their gameplay revolving around combat and their shooting mechanics eh? That's why it was called: 'Combat Evolved', and not 'storytelling evolved'. I've already debunked your "little variety" comment; I don't know why you keep repeating it.

Backtracking is still backtracking. That wiggle was worthy of a worm: selective standards.

The pinnacle of a genre was referring to the very best FPSs.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

If a game is good it's good and I'd never judge a game based on the platform it's on. As for the relevance of PC gamers to the argument it's becasue at the time of Halos release PC games were absolutely swimming in quality first person and third person games. When they played Halo it was just another mediocre FPS compared to the games they were playing.

Azza wrote: »

Generally speaking a game has to be good to be popular, but I think there is also a considerable factor of one upmanship due to the so called console wars, people allow themsleves to be easily impressed to say to the other crowd (i.e Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) we have got this killer game that you don't hahahaha.

Ironic, that you don't refer to the same one-upmanship that exists in the PC community which you and Retr0 are giving voice to: "it's becasue at the time of Halos release PC games were absolutely swimming in quality first person and third person games.". You accurately describe your enchantment with PC FPS games with: "people allow themsleves to be easily impressed to say to the other crowd". It's absolutely irrelevant that fanboys say any game is the greatest in the world, unless you're basing your argument on being the complete opposite of a fanboy's, which is a fallacy because it ignores the actual content of the game. I don't prefer console FPS to PC FPS games (I'll accept that it was a misunderstanding on your part, but don't attribute claims I have not posted and self-own yourself again: "so kindly refrain from making stuff up. It doesn't help your arguement at all, but implies your where in a rage when writing up your reply."). Conversely, I don't prefer PC FPS to console FPS games. Games dictate my preference, not systems. You even go as far as to state that the joypad "will never be as good" as the mouse & keyboard: pure myth, and PC fanboyism too. For online competitive FPS gaming, the mouse & keyboard far exceeds the joypad, because accuracy is important. But for slower-paced games (non-realistic singleplayer storylines generally), the joypad is better. I don't have trouble with either one: it's a case of maximizing, when games utilize them, their strengths.

Azza wrote: »

And I never claimed Deus Ex had the best stealth mechanics, I merely said it had stealth mechanics...so kindly refrain from making stuff up. It doesn't help your arguement at all, but implies your where in a rage when writing up your reply.

Here's where you stated it:

"In ever other area it clearly surpasses Halo and for that matter almost every other game"

I can assure you I never post in "a rage": that's just fanciful thinking on your part. You're under the mistaken impression that this is the first time I've flattened someone's argument against Halo - it's not even the first time on this board. I've read all the illogical arguments before all over a dozen forums and neither yours nor Retr0's is unique. (though, I'll give you points, Azza, for not quote-laming me to death like Retr0 does) Still applies:

Despite all this, both your core arguments are based purely on ignorance and myth: that PC FPS games are better than FPS console games. A game isn't good based upon what platform it's developed for, and to judge a game by what platform it is released on rises to the same level of reasoning exhibited by Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo fanboys. To satisfy this myth, you have to engage in self-serving logic and in applying selective standards.

Azza

Okay so you can't defend Halo against cliams of linearity so you just put you head in the sand and pretend the concept does not exsist and go 'lalalalalalal I can't hear you'. You should get a job as a politican. For the last time halo has linear gameplay. You go from A to B and kill walking bags of skittles.

My opinion and arugument is perfectly valid. Halo has been lauded for its singeplayer campaign not just multiplayer (which incidently was only available via lan not online at release!). Just because I did not play it on your prefered difficulty setting does not make my opinion of the game invalid.

But for ****s and giggles, I installed Halo Combat Evolved on my PC patched it up to version 1.08 and played it on legendary. Okay so I'll admit the main music theme is quite good in the main menu ( I do recall hearing it in adverts too). Playing through the Pillar of Autumn levels and ignoring the graphics which aren't too bad just a bit bland (running at max setting at 1600x1200 with AA and AF forced through the control panel). So game starts up with the levels set on The Pillar of Autumn crusier. Opening cut scene is utterly by the numbers. The level design is rather uninspired, repeating corridors, with some very small detour corridors for funneling the player into flanks. Voice acting of freindly troops is extremely cliched. The Coveant troops are about as meancing as a pokemon cartoon with their terrifying shades of maroon, blue, orange and purple! Ah bless the squeeky voiced grunts as they run away. Rather handy that speak English so they can inform me when I killed their big brother. Still no exploding red barrels unlike Half Life 2 so plus points for avoiding that old cheesenut.
Mission objective get to the escape pods, but there isn't a whole lot tension to this. Its not like they are leave without me. Gameplay consists of shoot the enemy duck back into cover wait till your sheild recharges. In this part of the game the enemy never seem to persue me if my shield is low. As for the fabled A.I I have come across several situations where I can shoot the A.I' enemies shoulder or leg or what ever is sticking out from cover, they take numerous rounds before they react (you get stuff like this in alot of games). But overall seems okay.
Guns so I only seen four so far and they are utterly generic, but I'll admit I've only seem some of them. That is the pistol, rifle, and the coveant engery versions of the previous weapons. Well the standard rifle is a load of ass at range, so I'm using a pistol as a sniper rifle. Coveant energy rifle seems better, but my does it take forever to take these shield bastards down. None of them have a zoom or secondary fire. Anyway I got as far the beacon outpost on Halo before I had to stop. I'll come back later to it. Nothing too challenging so far, just time consuming due to the stupidly high number of shots it takes to kill the enemy. (imagine if the designers of SF IV thought we need to make this game harder in singleplayer, I know lets double or triple the health of the A.I istead of improving the A.I)
The lack of sprint now that I'm off the spaceship is irratating though. Did notice the A.I presuing me around cover which is a plus, but I also spotted them cheating, as the always know when I throw a gernade even if they can't see it which is a minus. (i.e they will never run around a corner into a gernade).
So now I'm refreshed with some of the weapons and my opinion is not much changed so far. All I can is honestly I'm giving this game a fair chance as I did before and I'm not bothered by its dated graphics. Its by no means terrible, but its not exactly impressing me either.

But even not playing it again my orginal arguments stand. Before this quick refresh while I did not remember much about the game I didremember how I felt about it afterwards when I first played it, largely indifferent, everything is so utterly generic. If you see a bad movie years ago, you remember it was bad without remembering much about it. I mean you have better things to remember dont you? Infact you will only remember things are really really bad, so bad its funny, but Halo isn't one of those.
Average gameplay
Average graphics (for the time)
Average level design
Average story
Look up average or bland in the dictionary and there will be a picture of Halo.
As I said before I don't remember bad games much but I remember not liking them and some of the reasons why! With good games I tend to remember them in more detail than the bad or average ones.

Debunked the theroy of lack veriaty, you can't debunk fact! Go here go there kill aliens, thats pretty much it. You keep going back to Halo's combat which isn't all that. Just because its caleld Combat Evolved (more like combat by the numbers) does not mean it gets a a get out of jail free card for having nothing else.

I stand by every game that I listed previously as overall better games than Halo. None are without flaws, some quite significant. Incidently have you played them all on their most difficult setting (or if they where multiplayer played them alot online) and completed them and remember them in detail....cause if you haven't your opinion does not count and you have SELF OWNED yourself!

You totally missed my point about MGS 4. I pointed out that MGS 4 got great reviews yet I thought it was very overated and I believe it was hype and pressure that blinded reviewers to the games significant flaws. Namely it was too short like you mentioned, that only the first 3 mission where of a high standard again like you said, but comparied to previous games the boss battles where very bland and uninspired and the cut scenes where too slow and at the end outright laughable. It was game from a story perspective crippled by the complexity of the story in the previous series with too many loose ends outstanding. But I believe that Halo 2 reviewed on the PC after the hype died down and where it would have to compete with a genre that has plenty of very good games already would not score that well and it did not. Granted it did not have co-op a major plus for the console version. But Halo 1 scored only 83% on PC, where it was reviewed with much less hype and fanboy expectations and reviewers could give a more accurate score with recieiving scores of hate mail. Aside from which the PC has better graphics and unlike the console version it actually supported online play, negating the lack of co-op. Halo is the number 1 ranked game on the original Xbox according to metacritc but ranks outside the top 300 on the PC (granted that due to how old the platform is the PC has a much bigger catalogue of games, but for such a vaunted game you think it would be alot higher). Its not that Halo is a worse or better game on PC....it just does not cut it on that platform. Tell yourself that PC gamers are simply massive fanboys and elitist and that we hate console games in general or whatever makes yourself feel better but compared to the standard set in the FPS genre on the PC platform Halo is an also ran.

Any game that doesn't punish you or confronts you with obstacles to overcome is generally mediocre: if you can't die, there's no point in trying to outsmart the enemy; that exists in all FPS

Totally a matter of opinion. By that logic a games overall quality scales with its difficulty, in which cause Operation Flashpoint, Aliens Vs Predator and Hidden and Dangerous walk all over it. I like a challenge too, but if I want a true challenge that would actual means something I would play a game competively online. Singleplayer games will never approach the challenge of high level competitve online gaming, where you have to outthink a human opponent not some predicatble A.I pattern.

You also seem to have difficulty understanding the term "almost every other game" which does not mean every other game. So your making claims on stuff I did not say. Again I never said Deus Ex was better than Thief with its stealth mechanics, but its better than alot of other games stealth mechanics not all of them.

Games also dictate my preference, not systems thats why I own 2 consoles and a PC. The reason I lack an Xbox 360 is the majority of games that are on it are on PC. FPS games play better on PC and I like RTS games thats why I spend the majority of my time PC gaming. Keyboard and mouse is better for FPS games, tell yourself that I'm just a fanboy if it makes you feel better but you can't match its level of precession and speed with a joypad. Its not fanboyism its a fact and you admit as much in terms of multiplayer gaming but for some reason think that a joypad is suddenly better for slower paced. The reason console FPS are generally slower is to compensate for the controller. Thats why in Shadowrun a game that supported cross platform play they had to nerf the PC controls. A joypad is not better for single player games its just not as big a handicap. Its clearly not a case of maximizing their stengths its clearly a case of minimising thier weakness.

Retr0gamer

I got called a quote lamer while being quote lamed

I wish people would make up their minds and decide if I'm a console fanboy or a PC fanboy, it seems to change to suit peoples arguments. Being called a PC fanboy is a bit weird when I'm sitting in a room with 8 consoles and their games taking up most of the room and have a PC barely capable of running left 4 dead.

As for the backtracking in Metroid Prime, it's not really backtracking since the whole game has been designed around exploration, it's been that way since Metroid on the NES in 1986 and the concept has been used in countless games since. You explore the area, get a new ability that allows you to explore some new areas. It's the whole challenge reward method of game design that works so well. Getting you to go backwards through all the levels you have previously been through is not only backtracking but extremely poor and lazy game design.

Retr0gamer

It's a sci-fi game though, shouldn't the weapons be a bit better than generic? Azza also mentioned he played the game to close to the end before and to be honest there's not many weapons you are missing out on after the fisst two missions, a sniper rifle and a missile launcher, not the most original offerings.

Halo does have vehicle sections but they weren't especially original when the game was released although they were fun to drive. Operation Flashpoints vehicles were a lot more realistic while the vehicles in Halo are simple and arcadey. When the sequels rolled out vehicles were hardly ground breaking.

The PC port of Halo was actually rather excellent. The split screen co-op was missing but the online worked fine and there was an increase in graphical detail. The same with Halo 2 which had no split screen and had that games for windows rubbish. The games got hammered by the PC press because the games just didn't live up to the games available on the PC at the time. Read the eurogamer review where the reviewer slates the game for not being able to match what is available on the PC.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/halo-2-review

Resident Evil 4 on the other hand was a dreadful conversion with all the atmospheric details and lighting from the GC game taken out and retarded control issues.

As for the Halo series having a great plot and interesting characters, you must be playing a different game. Halo 1 was a decent bit of sci-fi generica but come Halo 2 the story just got ridiculous with plot holes being covered but by Audrey II. As for the excuses of the covenant being poor enemies, generic weapons and the library level, they are real issues with the game and to ignore them and still hold the game up as the pinnacle of the genre is ignorance.

As for the graphics Deus Ex at the time used the Unreal engine which was already incredibly dated. It looked horrible when it came out. Operation Flashpoint looks worse than Halo because Operation Flashpoint is a more ambitious game. While Halo was rendering linear level design Opflash takes place on a group of islands measuring something like 16 sq km, massively bigger than Halo and with a lot more AI milling about to keep track of. Halo might have been one of the first games to use pixel shaders and did look like one of the most impressive games when it came out but by the time Halo 2 came out you could see past the flash to the generic game underneath.

Azza

God I can't win....my old opinion does not count and I'm not allowed voice my thoughts on a second play through.

Lightning I'm currently going threw the game for the second time, that was just my opening thoughts on my second run through. I'm only two levels in. But it seems Halo has some special conditions attached that you have to play the game on legendary before you can have a valid opinion becasue...well just because its Halo and nothing possible could be bad or average about Halo. Heaven help me if me thoughts on the second play through remain the same as my thoughts on the first. After all its been around 6 years since I last played the game, so maybe a refresher might suddenly convert me to Halo Das Wonder Game where its "challenging combat" renders it impervious to any criticism. Yes I have only seen the default weapons so far in this run threw and I'll comment on the other weapons when I get to them. As default weapons go Halo's are nothing terrible or special...just average.

Halo 2 wasn't a piss poor port on the PC. It was indeed missing co-op which is a significant down side, the game should be marked down accordingly. It also did not do itself any favours by being a Vista exclusive when their was zero technical reason for it. The only reason it was exclusive to Vista was to help push sale for the MS new operating system. It did however have everything else Halo 2 had plus better graphics and widescreen. The core gameplay was still there. I never said Halo would be slated, merely pointed out as average. Halo 1 PC was also missing the co-op mode which again is a minus, but unlike the Xbox version actually supported online play which is an even bigger plus and it additional multiplayer weapons. The core gameplay remained. Still did not break the top 300 PC games on metacritic but as I said before the PC has an absolutly selection of games due to its age.

As for Resident Evil 4, I thought it was excellent when I played it on the PC with a PS2 pad, I regard it as one of my all time favourite games. I was unaware how bad the port it was until later. The great gameplay and silly but enjoyable story shune through. Thankfully modders where able to upgrade the poor quality video cut scenes and import all the textures from the GC version over to the PC and most of the missing shaders where added in an offical patch. Modders also upgraded the sound effects too. So in my opinion the modded PC version actually looks the best ( I own the Wii version but find it difficult to play at such low resolution), but the PC version out of the box is terrible, worse even than the PS2 version. But regardless of version its simply a fantastic game.

Advanced skittl...I mean aliens could easily learn English sure, but why would they exactly would they speak it over their own language, I mean they want to exterminate humanity but at the same time speak English bit odd don't you think. By the time Halo 2 comes around haven't they adopted it as their offical language? Anyway its not a serious criticism, but it would of been nice if they had a more alien way way of informing me they where scared, than screaming like 5 year olds. Oh thats very menacing.

I agree poor graphics don't make or break a game. Great graphics are nice and all but I would take gameplay over them any day. Bare in mind Operation Flashpoint is rendering alot more terrain the Halo is.

Kevster

Rockin'! I totaly agree with the #1 choice, and I'm glad to see FF VII and Civilisation there too. Id' have Championship Manager 03/04 in the top 5 too though.

NeoKubrick

Azza wrote: »

so you just put you head in the sand and pretend the concept does not exsist and go 'lalalalalalal I can't hear you'.

The irony.

The Halo series is not a linear game. It has non-linear gameplay. Now, the onus is on you prove that the gameplay is linear and that each player plays in the exact same manner. Do you remember how the game plays, or was it too average to remember, Leonard?

You just negated your whole ridiculous argument that memory directly correlates to quality. The mind's memory is not reliable: this is an axiom. It's extremely selective and the mind is self-serving in what memories it does want to locate and what memories it doesn't. Here you've just proved it. You previously said this when you wanted to self-serve your argument that you didn't need to remember a game to criticize it:

Azza wrote:

If the game had decent weapons and music, I would remember them.

Then, in a post later, you post this; thereby contradicting your whole argument:

Azza wrote:

Okay so I'll admit the main music theme is quite good in the main menu ( I do recall hearing it in adverts too)

So, quite demonstratively, you wouldn't automatically remember "decent" music or weapons or anything else that was good about Halo, if you didn't remember that the music in the main menu was good.


You don't understand the concept of difficulty spikes, as proved by claiming that a maxim of game design is a matter of opinion. Super Mario Bros. would be a mediocre game if it didn't literally present obstacles for the player to overcome: jumping over a pipe etc. If Super Mario Bros. was a game full of levels with a flat ground and no enemies, it'd be a mediocre game. That's not a matter of opinion, right, because the answer is obvious? Difficulty settings have always been a cheap and quick solution to applying difficulty spikes and progression in a game, and this is no more prevalent in FPSs. A game has to keep challenging the player and keep hitting them with difficulty spikes; otherwise, the game will become boring.

Competitive gaming is a sport, not an art: they are both entirely different experiences. That's why I thought it was ridiculous to list competitive multiplayer games in this discussion, because they're not relevant.


You have trouble understanding how 'almost' augments 'every other game'. It doesn't transform the meaning to "a lot" of games; it means that there are few exceptions found that are better, which would place Deus Ex other aspects such as stealth as one of the best in the history of games.


Your opinion and argument is not valid. In fact, you ignored my analogy of the Street Fighter IV characters because you knew that you had no response other than "you're correct" to it. So instead of admitting your - I have to admit - colossal mistake, now, you're just repeating that something is valid, but not explaining a sound argument as to why it's valid, because you can't. You offered a counter-argument to an argument based upon a game mode you've never played (it wasn't a matter of preference). This isn't valid; it's wrong and based upon ignorance.

You even know your opinion and argument is invalid, because you actually installed the game, again, to solve the problems of your arguing against an argument based upon a mode you've never played. I think you're being too kind and modest when claiming I should get a job as a politician, because you deftly said words ("My opinion and arugument is perfectly valid") which were then contradicted by your actions ("I installed Halo Combat Evolved on my PC patched it up to version 1.08 and played it on legendary.").

Furthermore, you can't retrograde and create the evidence to fit your conclusion. Evidence creates conclusions: not the other way around. So, your attempt to now justify your conclusion marks your illogical reasoning. A detective doesn't pick a man and says he's guilty, and goes off to find the evidence before the court proceedings start. That's ridiculous and encourages partial claims and evidence. Why, then, are you ridiculously looking for evidence by playing the game on Legendary after you've made up your mind?


To repeat, game that's re-released as a port without any changes and missing modes rarely scores well. That's a given, generally. Add to this, the years between both releases of Halo games on the Xbox and the PC was significant. Interestingly, did you read any of the reviews that were based upon the 72 average? Again, you base your argument on what PC gamers and reviewers say as if that's more important than how the game actually plays. Aside from its being retarded to base an argument of a game on reviews, you even as gone as far to base it on the average score of all reviews gathered by metacritic rather than a specific review. PC gamers and reviews are generally biased towards performance (see paragraph below), not gameplay. It wasn't that the PC gaggle of hacks were finally the all-knowing wizards to cease the hype as you so richly want to believe. BioShock is ranked fifth with a metacritic of 96 and a whole host of other banal FPS games (just one example of many: Return to Castle Wolfenstein - 88) with good scores on PC metacritic, which, if it wasn't already stupid to base an argument on a metacritic, that would certainly destroy any doubt as to the idiocy of reviewers in general and the idiocy of basing opinions off of their idiocy.

It's a myth that PC gaming is a mecca for good singleplayer FPSs, and one that you and Retr0 have bought into with no concrete proof. The standard set of very good FPS games on the PC are STALKER, Far Cry, FEAR, Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and Half-Life 1 & 2, and beyond that (I haven't played Crysis), there's not a lot of good FPS singleplayer games. PC gamers generally want to justify spending hundreds of pounds on graphics cards and building systems and to justify, they have to participate in this deluded reasoning that anything innovative or great in the FPS genre must originate from a PC game, not a console game. That elitism does exist, especially when people are willing to put such pure tripe and hackneyed games above good games based upon what system they are first released on.


And, I said: "The amount of banal games you've, Azza, listed is insane"; that doesn't apply to all the games you've listed. Aliens Vs Predator, Star Trek Elite Force, ArmA series, Battlefield series, Call of Duty, Hidden and Dangerous, Rainbow 6 series, Medal of Honor Allied Assault, Operation Flashpoint, and SWAT 3 & 4 are banal games (coincidentally, nearly all of them are realistic shooters). I have played them all, or at least in the incidences where you've listed a series, I've played one or more of the games in that series, and completed them. You didn't specify which difficulty you enjoyed the games on; so, it is assumed default. I haven't played Crysis yet. Far Cry, FEAR, Left 4 Dead, System Shock 2, and STALKER are great games, and No One Lives Forever series was somewhere in the middle. I didn't include any multiplayer games because they're not relevant. Hey, how did you combo that text into a CAPS LOCK FURY ultra?

Azza wrote:

God I can't win....my old opinion does not count and I'm not allowed voice my thoughts on a second play through.

Heh - absolutely clueless.

Retr0gamer wrote:

I got called a quote lamer while being quote lamed

Quote-lamers unnecessarily cut up a person's post to reply to each point. I cut up my post, which had to reply to two posters and was much longer, six times with quotes, which is the same number of times you cut my post up with only replying to me and being a much shorter post. My quoting was necessary for clarity; yours is just lazy and unnecessary; hence, quote-lamer. Here's an interesting bit from the review you posted (note the bold):

Perhaps the main reason why I'm so critical of Halo 2 is that there are just so many highly accomplished first-person games on the PC these days. Visually almost anything since Far Cry kicks it to the curb (not to mention what we're about to get from the DirectX 10 cleverness of Crysis)

Do you ever wonder what would happen if you actually formed your own opinion on a game without conferring to whomever you read or have read? Who said what doesn't interest me.

Azza

Point 1 is a joke, stay in denial. Moving an inch to the left or to the right does not change the fact that your doing the same thing. Moving beyond rock B rather than tree C for cover does not make the game open ended.

As for music, one decent song does not mean the soundtrack is good overall. There could be one bads tracks and averages tracks that mean the soundtrack is average overall. Yeah the song at the end of Portal was great but 1 song at the end does not make a great soundtrack. I actually remembered the song I said I liked, the problem was I could not actually place it with Halo. I've heard it on youtube alot.

A game is not nesseccarily boring if its not challenging. Just look at WoW players playing with one hand. On the other hand you can can go off the cliff in terms of difficulty with stupidity like Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo or the retarded final part of the second last level of Call of Duty World At War. But if I wanted a serious challenge as I said I 'd play multiplayer games. I play single players games for the story, setting and atmosphere combined with hopefully decent gameplay, and sure a challenge is welcome, but its no where near the achievement of winning online.

My god I never read anyone with such supreme arrogance as to tell another person their opinion in invalid because they are not playing it on their preferred settings.
I never heard people say well Half Life 2/ Stalker (insert whatever game here) is only good on this difficulty mode. This isn't Street Fighter, where the most enjoyable part is clearly the multiplayer, its designed to be played with friends up close and personal, but you still can be allowed be crtiical of the games single player too. With Halo this is simply your preferred difficutly setting.

My opinion on second play through is perfectly legit as well. I played through Half Life 2 several times and my opinion did not alter significantly. Of course the second play through was some time after the first and I did not remember the game in 100% detail. All the flaws that where their where still there and all the good stuff too. Did notice some stuff I would of missed on my first play through. The reason you say I can't have a retrogade opinion is because its highly probably I'll think the same thing and you don't like this so you say its not allowed.

Now answer me this, games you have played years ago and didn't like or thought was so so, like say NOFL or whatever do you remember everything about them? Chances are you remember the general feeling of what you did not like but do you remember eveything in great detail. The weapons and their fire modes, how the A.I performed, the atmosphere, the story?
If you do fair play to you, but I really don't think its the norm for most people.

You disprove your own myth about the PC not being the place to go for single player shooters one line later by listing 7 very good single players shooters, thanks makes my work easiar. You also completly ignore some of the classics that started the genre, like Doom, Duke Nukem and Wolfenstein which where singleplayer masterpieces on their release, regardless of how they aged. Can you list that many console shooters?. Oh and before you list them, Killzone, Resistance, Medal of Honor, Time Splitters and Goldeneye are all very banal and yes I have played them all. But those Meteroid games sound decent . You also suddenly change this to a single player fps debate to eliminate some inconvient competition, not that I can talk as I never played Halo in multiplayer. Halo does both so they can be compared and obviosuly wins hands down if your looking for a single player experience when you compare it to CS or the BF series. I would assume Halo's multiplayer was good at the time though (even though it lacked ONLINE PLAY!). Having seen clips of Halo 2 online, can't say I've seen anything that would entice me over from PC FPS online shooters, (don't play too many of them currently either). PC gamers do also play other type of games you know and have other uses for them. So no need for sterotyping as shallow graphics wh*res please. And with all honsty can you say that RTS games work as well on console as they do on PC!

You dislike the shooters I listed fine. I think they are very good to superb for various reasons and at least the PC has some veriaty by having realistic shooters. I'd also be first to admit if there has been plenty of crap and average fps on the PC too. I'm not saying the games I listed where perfect as no game is, but I really liked them. We will have to agree to disagree or we will be here till the sun burns out.

Your last quote is laughable implying that we are bashing Halo for having poor graphics. Not once did I complain that Halo is an average game because of its graphics. Yes I said Halo has average graphics but I did not say the game seriously suffered because of it, just reinforced the prevaling sense of averageness. Our opinions where formed when we played the game, but I bet they suddenly become perfectly acceptable if we where praising the game. Every game I play I form my own opinion, and I can garuntee you I apply the same standards to all. You admit liking some of the FPS games I liked, but I suppose my opinion is totally invalid as I surely liked those games for the wrong reasons! I know you liked the Kotor games and I liked them too, even though Retro can't stand them, but I'm sure Retr0 will have the nerve to tell me when opinion does not count cause I did not play it on normal which would have fundamently change the gameplay!

LoGiE

Everyone take a deep breath.....now exhale. Now doesn't that feel better?