By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Consolitis... Ugh

dahuman on 12 April 2010
Squilliam said:
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
dahuman said:
I first played Halo on the Xbox(did quiet a bit of coop split screen with a friend too.) It was an average game, and the series still is average to this day. I did however, understand that it was a special game for a console. There were always better FPS than Halo, there are better FPS than Halo 3, and there will already be FPS better than Reach, but not everybody has hundreds of dollars to spend on a decent PC, and I understand that.

My computer back then also handled Halo just fine when it came out for PC, but then again, I lived in the US.


What FPS games were/are objectively better than Halo? Subjectively any opinion is worth as much as any other.

There are a lot, the problem is a lot of people have childhood goggles, kinda like me with NES, when you are younger, you really don't give much rat's ass about the actual quality of a product. One thing Halo is defintely good at is that it's accessible, other than that, there really isn't anything truly special about it vs FPS on PC, but I understand that it was an important product that ended up proving that FPS can be done on consoles with dual analog aim assist. Hitting each other on the back of the head during coop was pretty awesome though.

But how is it lacking in pure objective terms? Just because you didn't like it as much as another game doesn't make one game better or worse than another.

You don't necessarily need to like a game to think it's a better game than the other, I compare features and controls with FPS and not so much on story or character dev since they mostly suck to start with. Halo had very basic features and was on dual analog when it first came out, it was very average. Not really much to say about that, it's not like we are working with a blank state here.



Around the Network
max power on 12 April 2010
huaxiong90 said:
@max power: Which consoles do you own this generation, on an unrelated note?

 

I own a Wii.  My roommate owns a PS3 and 360, but just about every game I'd want for those systems I can play on PC (although I would like to get around to MGS4 one of these days). 



tuscaniman on 12 April 2010
MARCUSDJACKSON said:
I mean, when Halo was finally released , it got mediocre-crappy reviews... and deserved all of them. agreed max power. but Goldeneye is simply the best ever. none like halo. it just works. nice rant. i trully ahte halo, but when was the tast time u played a console shooteer.

im pc and console shooter fan. honorable menions (killzone2 and doom)

When is the last time you played Goldeneye? I just played a bit a couple weeks back and it good based on pure nostalgia but actually playing it again makes me realize how bad the controls are. The N64 controller might be the worst controller ever designed. Not only on top of that the game was good for its day but lets get real here. Its nowhere near the best FPS of all time. COD is 100x more engrossing than Goldeneye could dream of being. Halo is also a much better game than Goldeneye.

I will agree though Q3Arena might be my best FPS of all time. So many game modes, so much competition, too much time spent playing that game.



Squilliam on 12 April 2010
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
dahuman said:
I first played Halo on the Xbox(did quiet a bit of coop split screen with a friend too.) It was an average game, and the series still is average to this day. I did however, understand that it was a special game for a console. There were always better FPS than Halo, there are better FPS than Halo 3, and there will already be FPS better than Reach, but not everybody has hundreds of dollars to spend on a decent PC, and I understand that.

My computer back then also handled Halo just fine when it came out for PC, but then again, I lived in the US.


What FPS games were/are objectively better than Halo? Subjectively any opinion is worth as much as any other.

There are a lot, the problem is a lot of people have childhood goggles, kinda like me with NES, when you are younger, you really don't give much rat's ass about the actual quality of a product. One thing Halo is defintely good at is that it's accessible, other than that, there really isn't anything truly special about it vs FPS on PC, but I understand that it was an important product that ended up proving that FPS can be done on consoles with dual analog aim assist. Hitting each other on the back of the head during coop was pretty awesome though.

But how is it lacking in pure objective terms? Just because you didn't like it as much as another game doesn't make one game better or worse than another.

You don't necessarily need to like a game to think it's a better game than the other, I compare features and controls with FPS and not so much on story or character dev since they mostly suck to start with. Halo had very basic features and was on dual analog when it first came out, it was very average. Not really much to say about that, it's not like we are working with a blank state here.

How is more features better? One game might have fewer but better features? How do you prove a game like Quake 3 Arena is better than Halo CE?



Tease.

dahuman on 13 April 2010
Squilliam said:
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
dahuman said:
I first played Halo on the Xbox(did quiet a bit of coop split screen with a friend too.) It was an average game, and the series still is average to this day. I did however, understand that it was a special game for a console. There were always better FPS than Halo, there are better FPS than Halo 3, and there will already be FPS better than Reach, but not everybody has hundreds of dollars to spend on a decent PC, and I understand that.

My computer back then also handled Halo just fine when it came out for PC, but then again, I lived in the US.


What FPS games were/are objectively better than Halo? Subjectively any opinion is worth as much as any other.

There are a lot, the problem is a lot of people have childhood goggles, kinda like me with NES, when you are younger, you really don't give much rat's ass about the actual quality of a product. One thing Halo is defintely good at is that it's accessible, other than that, there really isn't anything truly special about it vs FPS on PC, but I understand that it was an important product that ended up proving that FPS can be done on consoles with dual analog aim assist. Hitting each other on the back of the head during coop was pretty awesome though.

But how is it lacking in pure objective terms? Just because you didn't like it as much as another game doesn't make one game better or worse than another.

You don't necessarily need to like a game to think it's a better game than the other, I compare features and controls with FPS and not so much on story or character dev since they mostly suck to start with. Halo had very basic features and was on dual analog when it first came out, it was very average. Not really much to say about that, it's not like we are working with a blank state here.

How is more features better? One game might have fewer but better features? How do you prove a game like Quake 3 Arena is better than Halo CE?

I'd say they are about the same with Q3A having a little edge on the mod community. I also liked Halo better than Q3A as an overall product even though Q3A was far more addicting for me.



Around the Network
Hephaestos on 13 April 2010

Unnh unhhh

I almost agree... but goldeneye does deserve it's spot in a top 10.

Other than that, yeah, PC FPS tear consoles appart, and yes MW2 is a sad sad day for PC gamers....(all we need is Valve to keep a PC focus... otherwise it's pretty much done for)



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

freebs2 on 13 April 2010

Goldeneye was a great game, it's the father of console's FPS, it also had some innovative features at the time it deserves to be on that list. For Halo I'm not the right person to talk about it, but still I don't see whay FPSs on console can't live with PC fps...even if I don't agrue that PC is the best platform for them.



rajendra82 on 13 April 2010
huaxiong90 said:

Played many shooters on PC and consoles. My top 10 is like this:

10. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
9. Killzone
8. Halo: Combat Evolved
7. Unreal Tournament 2004
6. Quake 3
5. Medal of Honor (PS1)
4. Goldeneye
3. Counter Strike
2. Half-Life series
1. Doom (1&2)/Wolfenstein (Zdaemon and Skulltag shit all over many other online FPS games)

That is my opinion.

That seems unfair.  Doom 1, 2, and Wolfenstein together when they were separate games, the whole Half Life series gets to add up their score too, but the other games only get counted for single releases and don't get to add up the sequels or the previous games in the series.



huaxiong90 on 13 April 2010
rajendra82 said:
huaxiong90 said:

Played many shooters on PC and consoles. My top 10 is like this:

10. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
9. Killzone
8. Halo: Combat Evolved
7. Unreal Tournament 2004
6. Quake 3
5. Medal of Honor (PS1)
4. Goldeneye
3. Counter Strike
2. Half-Life series
1. Doom (1&2)/Wolfenstein (Zdaemon and Skulltag shit all over many other online FPS games)

That is my opinion.

That seems unfair.  Doom 1, 2, and Wolfenstein together when they were separate games, the whole Half Life series gets to add up their score too, but the other games only get counted for single releases and don't get to add up the sequels or the previous games in the series.

I don't add them up to put them above other games. They all had one thing that I valued equally, so I'm going to put together. Both HL games had amazing SP campaigns, while Wolfenstein and Doom are the foundations of FPS games.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Acevil on 13 April 2010

PC gamers complain way too much, I am so glad I never fully became a PC gamer. The only game I think is missing from screwattack list is a Battlefield game, and instead of Bioshock, put in System Shock 2.