ok how is this consolitis? In order for anything to include itis it must involve inflammation...seems more like a case of consolosis.
| JaggedSac said: My FPS list would consist of Quake, Tribes, UT2004, and Halo. Half-Life would be nowhere around. It's MP sucked fat cock and balls, which is what I play FPS games for. Lets get into specifics and discuss. You first. |
Me first?
I'd put Doom at the top of the list. Like I said in the OP, FPS's were literally called "Doom clones" more than anything else for much of the 90's. Romero did some great level design, it invented deathmatch and LAN play. That's my #1, and really should be #1 on most of these lists.
Half Life 1/2 are clearly single player games. They both added their own deathmatch, but they were originally packaged with TFC and CS:S for multiplayer, if you recall. Half Life 2 is the best single player FPS, IMO.
Duke3D would be up there. That game was ridiculously fun. It's biggest flaws were definitely the lack of a true 3D engine, and the lack of internet play. Dukematches were ridiculously fun. You could set up pipe bomb traps, and blow them from a distance. Even while watching your target on a security monitor. HoloDukes could be used to set up a decoy. And if you play long enough, you can even stand still and pretend to be a holoduke to trick your friends. Laser trip bombs, freeze ray, shrink ray, bounching shots in a mirror, the game had TONS of awesome multiplayer stuff that still hasn't been mimicked for whatever reason...
Of course Quake added internet play and true 3D, as well as a huge modding community, so that's a hugely important one.
Jedi Knight was another terrific, but largely forgotten FPS. It also was the first game to give us light saber deathmatches... but I remember it mostly for building up my Force powers. Deflecting shots from enemy storm troopers with my saber, then grabbing their weapon out of their hands from a distance and watching them run around helplessly. It was classic.
Wolfenstein would of course get a spot.
Counter-Strike. I was lucky to be in college when that came out. It was ridiculously fun having an entire hall playing, yelling to each other for extra teamwork. Still played by a huge community.
Portal would deserve a spot on the list. If you played it, you'll understand and I don't have to say a word to justify it.
That's a good start for me :D
| Chrizum said: GoldenEye deserves a spot on every FPS list. Sure, it controlled like ass compared to PC shooters, but its mission based design, body hit locations, stealth gameplay and splitscreen multiplayer, it was one of the most innovative shooters on any platform at the time. Halo? Not so much. It just controlled really well compared to other console shooters. And it was a lot of fun. |
Besides this, doing FPS action to Bond theme music ALONE is enough for consideration of top FPS ever.
| max power said: First off, let me say that I have nothing against consoles. I've had a console every generation from the NES to the current one. Some genres I prefer on PC, some I prefer on console... that said...
I keep seeing "Top 10 FPS of all time" lists (which I should just ignore) written by people who never played an FPS on a PC, or before 2000. Nothing against Goldeneye or Halo, but they simply don't belong on these lists. FPS's were called "Doom clones" for the better part of the 90's, and for good reason. I mean, when Halo was finally released for PC, it got mediocre-crappy reviews... and deserved all of them. The game simply wasn't that good. I think the only people who were impressed with the game, were those who had never played an FPS before.
Of course, who cares about top 10 lists, that doesn't really effect anyone, right? Right... but that takes us to the crux of the problem: MW2 Now I don't really game on XBL or PSN. I kinda figured the games played the same on those services as they do on PC... dedicated servers, 32/64+ players, etc. But apparently they didn't (for the most part). Console gaming hadn't even caught up to Quake in terms of online play. And now developers are impairing PC games to "catch them up" to console gaming's crappiness.
I just think it sucks and this is my rant on it. |
I'll admit I wasn't playing PC FPS back in the mid-late 90's all that much but the one thing that I distinctly remember about Goldeneye is a bunch of pc aficionado's, including many major PC mags admitting that it was a great game even compared with what was on the PC. You many not personally agree but it's not console only players that claim it's one of the greats.
Halo on the PC was not helped by the fact that it's release was delayed repeatedly, coming nearly two years after the console version and it had rather steep hardware requirements to boot.
edit: I've seen people struggle with the warthog on Halo and to be honest I just don't understand. The controls for that thing, with the admittedly sharp learning curve, were great on both console and PC, one of the most satisfying game vehicles I have ever used.
max power said:
Pretty much every "new" thing that Halo did was done before. Two weapons at a time? Counter-strike
The PC version's technical flaws were that it required a modern PC to play a game that came out on a console 3 years earlier. Aside from its high technical requirements for 3 year old graphics, there was nothing really flawed about it. Most of Halo's innovation had been done before, and I HATED the vehicle segments, due to the horrid controls. Point the camera and have the vehicle steer itself? WHY ON EARTH DID THEY DO THAT?!?!?! Anyway... the biggest flaw with Halo was the level design. The game would've been decent at half it's length, but clearly they did some copy/paste with the levels. I'm sorry, but the game was absurd in its repetitiveness. This is not even up for debate. I was playing through it and was very close to quitting after fighting the same enemies in the same room followed by the same bridge 3 or 4 times in a row, with no signs of stopping. Some of the levels were good, I really enjoyed the ending (despite the horrible vehicle control), and the score was fantastic, but it all added up to a mediocre experience. I think the best way to sum it up is, "If this were released on PC, it would've been met with mediocre reviews and largely forgotton." Fortunately, they did exactly that a few years later, and that's exactly what happened. Anyway, that's my Halo rant. The answer to "How does it effect me," is MW2 and other PC shooters getting the short end of the stick because of consoles. |
But none of them did all that and more before Halo came out.
i agree with you 150%. i have been gaming on a pc for a very long time and i know that halos popularity stemmed from a very console centric audience, anyone who has played pc games like quake, unreal, tribes, rise of the triads, duke, deus ex, bid for power (quake mod) etc know that console shooters are still trying to play catch up and not the other way around.
i always say this cause its true for me and many older pc gamers . the day i played the first halo i laughed and im still laughing (especially the multiplayer LOL)
JaggedSac said:
User ratings are even more worthless than metacritic rankings. |
+1
Does anyone take the user ratings seriously on metacritic?
OT
I'm not a PC gamer at all but I agree with you completely. There are two genres that the PC owns, FPS and Strategy games. Although consoles have made great strides on the FPS genre, the PC is where the genre was born and not giving it due credit is just a shame.
i used to play the crap outta this game was very ahead of its time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIKfxrESqXA
another goody from the 90s , still to this no online multiplayer game compares maybe UT2004 but this game here is a DBZ quake mod amazing game i love .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW_wgC8jwBk
| yo_john117 said: But none of them did all that and more before Halo came out. |
Even putting those things together, the sum of its parts was mediocre.
The single player campaign in Half Life was superior to Halo in almost every way imagineable.
TFC doesn't really compare well to Halo deathmatch (I don't mean better or worse, they're just very different), but Quake 1/2/3, Unreal Tournament, and countless other PC FPS's trump Halo's multiplayer.
The game wasn't TERRIBLE, it just wasn't very good.
max power said:
Me first? I'd put Doom at the top of the list. Like I said in the OP, FPS's were literally called "Doom clones" more than anything else for much of the 90's. Romero did some great level design, it invented deathmatch and LAN play. That's my #1, and really should be #1 on most of these lists. Half Life 1/2 are clearly single player games. They both added their own deathmatch, but they were originally packaged with TFC and CS:S for multiplayer, if you recall. Half Life 2 is the best single player FPS, IMO. Duke3D would be up there. That game was ridiculously fun. It's biggest flaws were definitely the lack of a true 3D engine, and the lack of internet play. Dukematches were ridiculously fun. You could set up pipe bomb traps, and blow them from a distance. Even while watching your target on a security monitor. HoloDukes could be used to set up a decoy. And if you play long enough, you can even stand still and pretend to be a holoduke to trick your friends. Laser trip bombs, freeze ray, shrink ray, bounching shots in a mirror, the game had TONS of awesome multiplayer stuff that still hasn't been mimicked for whatever reason... Of course Quake added internet play and true 3D, as well as a huge modding community, so that's a hugely important one. Jedi Knight was another terrific, but largely forgotten FPS. It also was the first game to give us light saber deathmatches... but I remember it mostly for building up my Force powers. Deflecting shots from enemy storm troopers with my saber, then grabbing their weapon out of their hands from a distance and watching them run around helplessly. It was classic. Wolfenstein would of course get a spot. Counter-Strike. I was lucky to be in college when that came out. It was ridiculously fun having an entire hall playing, yelling to each other for extra teamwork. Still played by a huge community. Portal would deserve a spot on the list. If you played it, you'll understand and I don't have to say a word to justify it.
That's a good start for me :D |
that counterstrike comment reminds me of something:
LAN play >>>>> local multiplayer >> online play
i guess most of the players today have never been to a real LAN party, since everything can be done online now (which is nice of course because it's not possible to always be at a LAN ;) ) but i can't really stand playing all the (generic) online shooters nowadays - with mostly random guys.
playing duke3d, counterstrike, quake 3 arena or unreal tournament on a lan party with 20 (more or less) friends was (and is... ) pure magic!
the yelling at each other and cheering for victory is sooo much more fun than any voice chat with mostly random guys will ever be.
for me, multiplayer gaming is actually more about the social factor (hence i only own a wii this gen...).
i play Anno 1404 Venice with a friend quite regularly. We sometimes play online with vocie chat, but whenever possible we play it while sitting in the same room. to me (or us) that makes a HUGE difference in the "fun factor".
i remember the days when we played The Settlers II in split screen mode with two mice attached.
...i've never had that much fun online, even while playing with the same friend(s).
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
