anyone who thinks the halo series is overrated

[red930]

People still play halo 2 so how bad can it be...

 

As bad as the people that still play it.

 

 

Gears of War sucked too, it's too much to ask for a decent FPS game anymore.

[Fogel]

What are you looking for in a FPS game? There are so many out now they'll probably get phased out soon like fighting games.

[JackOrlowski]

I tried halo once and I hated the controls. That being said my brother place the hell out of it in multiplayer. that really the one area it really shines is its ability to connect you to a server almost in a heartbeat. But if your looking for a match that last longer than 5 minutes, is more free roaming, and doesnt involve light blasters and giant borgs, I would stick with my contemporary combat sims & FPSs (like ArmA & BF2)

[schoolslave]

As bad as the people that still play it.

 

 

Gears of War sucked too, it's too much to ask for a decent FPS game anymore.

 

Except that Gears of War isn't a FPS....

[red930]

Except that Gears of War isn't a FPS....

 

Technically not I suppose, but what would you call it? Third-person shooter?

 

TPS?

 

Jokes could abound from that, TPS reports never get old.

[politbureau]

Gears of War sucked too, it's too much to ask for a decent FPS game anymore.

What would you consider the last, good FPS then? HL2?

[red930]

What would you consider the last, good FPS then? HL2?

 

It would be up there, yes. Doom 3 was also excellent for those with strong hearts.

 

They both combined new cutting-edge graphics along with a decent storyline. Neither would be beaten in 10 hours of leisurely play either.

 

I liked Halo 1 up until the Flood (I'm just not a fan of them) but had length and a good story. It's certainly worth purchasing in my opinion. Halo 2 was okay when playing the Master Chief (especially on Earth), but was otherwise annoying. The only real improvement for me was that they made Legendary actually difficult (ridiculously so) which made the levels replayable.

 

Gears of War looked okay. Honestly I still don't think it was that great in terms a graphics. It annoyed me to no end to use the duck and cover buttons, it would have been vastly improved by using a variable duck and cover scheme using a joystick. It also would have been vastly improved if the game was much, MUCH longer. I beat it in 8 hours playing very leisurely, as I do most games.

 

My favorite FPS is still Max Payne. Much like HL2, it brought good graphics (nothing particularly new, but better than HL) great story, and decent length. Might have to break it out tonight actually...

 

I'll be honest and say I don't play many new games. I find them disappointing. I don't care for BF2, COD series is okay. FEAR was something a little different. Maybe I'm just getting tired of gaming, or maybe sometihng is just missing from them.

 

I look forward to playing Bioshock someday, but will wait until it's cheaper and I do more research on it.

[Fogel]

So the answer to my question finally manifests:

- Length

- Storyline

- Graphics

- Controls

 

You know, typically that is reversed for FPS gamers? Except length would come before storyline. (if you reversed the above list)

 

You sound like a Roleplaying Game Addict trapped in a FPS world. Mean no disrespect but seriously you do. You probably don't even like RPGs, tho I do. Though I will admit, not so much lately (last few years actually) which I attribute to just not having the time I used to. Hearing someone say they are looking for a tight storyline in a FPS game is like hearing someone say they like watching pornos for the storyline. They're both built with the same foundation ...the easiest excuse possible to setup intense action.

 

I am going to have to agree to disagree with you on the graphics for Gears of War. They added to detail to everything ...from the trash littered floor to the beaten smoke ridden rooftops. And that stage outside of the factory at night... :drool:. And yes, GoW would be considered a 3rd Person Shooter. Definitely agree with you on the length of the game. Supposedly the PC version has 5 more chapters ...not sure if they're long to cover what it should have been though. But wuteva, I doubt I'll buy it. (money & time)

 

 

Though even though we disagree on some key things, one thing I know where you are coming from is I seem to have hit the "New games just aren't as fun as they used to be" mindset too. I bought a couple games back when I had money that I still haven't played yet.

 

Ghost Recon 2 ...bleh, Ninja Gaiden (og Xbox) ...eh, better graphics than I was expecting for an xbox1 game but other than that... not so much. Guess Devil May Cry fed my need for those stylized hack-n-slashers. Metroid Prime: Echoes ...didn't pull me in like the first one did. The original Metroid Prime had to be one of the best single player only gaming experience I have had. Latest Madden games... getting tired. Oblivion ...graphics weren't worth the hype and game play bored me as I knew I wouldn't get anywhere without TONS of free time. Fable kind of seems interesting ...so far the game play just isn't striking me so I haven't played it in months but I like how my decisions create my character. May pick it up again.

 

Here is where I sound old, but I remember when game magazines had the Fun Factor rating. Where the xxxx did that go? Hell, I'll go back to some 2-D games I guess for that old school fun. Now the only thing I see is: Length, Graphics and Controls ...important stuff yes, but where is the excitement - the YOU GOTTA BUY THIS NOW!??!!! And I noticed ALL the mags got rid of this, did the game manufacturers press too hard? If so maybe that is why I feel this way about today's games. It certainly isn't because of not having as much free time because I have always had really busy periods in my life and I always loved games so much I FOUND the time ...even if it was 3-5am on random days. Now it's I'll get to it when I get to it.

[taowulf]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/v...ctuation-Halo-3

 

Some NSFW words.

[tomb9712]

Well I like the Halo series. Me and my friends play multi player all the time. Most of my friends can't afford to upgrade there computers too often and a 1 time invest of $400 per person for the 360 got us all up and running.

[red930]

So the answer to my question finally manifests:

- Length

- Storyline

- Graphics

- Controls

 

You know, typically that is reversed for FPS gamers? Except length would come before storyline. (if you reversed the above list)

 

You sound like a Roleplaying Game Addict trapped in a FPS world.

 

I'm not certain I would put that criteria in any particular order, as long as elements of all four balance out then you have a good game. Case in point on older games like Max Payne (and even games older yet), it still competes with newer games despite its dated graphics due to excellent storyline (which includes length in my opinion) and great controls.

 

As an aside, when did games start defaulting to non-inverted? Annoys the hell out of me.

 

When I think of the typical FPS player, they like multiplayer environments with fast gameplay to keep their short attention span in line. CS:Source, Halo 2, BF2, etc, etc. One needs little to no story for this to work, and graphics come second to increase load times and make sure these guys get their 'fix'. Controls aren't normally that big of a deal, just because they're pretty standardized now. Gears of War was annoying because it added something that was a neat idea but not properly implemented in my opinion. Of course I got used to it and became easy to use, but I think it coud have worked better. It's possible customization of controls was allowed for the game, I didn't toy with it so I couldn't really comment. Generally speaking though XBOX controller options seem pretty limited. There are some reasons for this, as some games would be easy if certain combos became easy to use.

 

Anyways, you're correct on the RPG part. Since I don't play multiplayer FPS (or TPS, same difference IMO) I need something to keep me playing. Perhaps I'm spoiled on games such as Oblivion, I don't really know.

[politbureau]

Doom 3 was also excellent for those with strong hearts.

Agreed, a truly bar-setting title.

 

I liked Halo 1 up until the Flood (I'm just not a fan of them) but had length and a good story. It's certainly worth purchasing in my opinion. Halo 2 was okay when playing the Master Chief (especially on Earth), but was otherwise annoying.

I personally hated playing as the arbiter. The premise was weak and it really just butchered the storyline. I mean this is a FPS told in the FP of the Master Chief, so what - did I just transfer my conciousness? Ugh. And Outskirts is by far the best level in the game. Truly a challenge of strategy on Legendary.

 

The only real improvement for me was that they made Legendary actually difficult (ridiculously so) which made the levels replayable.

Halo 3 on Legendary is pathetic. The marine and particularly the arbiter AI is frankly just too good. I find whole areas cleared ahead of me as they charge forward and I battle through some difficult sections. I finished H3 on legendaray in 6 hours tops, which is just pathetic. The only time the game gets challenging is when you activate skulls - and it even gets mildly interesting when you play for points in the meta-game.

 

Gears of War looked okay. Honestly I still don't think it was that great in terms a graphics. It annoyed me to no end to use the duck and cover buttons, it would have been vastly improved by using a variable duck and cover scheme using a joystick. It also would have been vastly improved if the game was much, MUCH longer. I beat it in 8 hours playing very leisurely, as I do most games.

Agree with length - it was pretty short - but 100% disagree on the graphics and controls. The enter/leave cover controls were, in all honestly, a welcome break from just walking in to a firefight and mowing down the enemy as I strafe back and forth. In my mind it added a sense of realism and strategy to have to stay in cover and time your attacks to your enemies bursts. This is especially true of running - I would try and outflank the enemy rather than just shoot them point blank straight on. The fact that the AI did the same, and on the higher difficulty levels actually charged your position more often made the game infinitely more challenging and interesting.

 

The graphics, I personally think, were pretty damn good. Better by far than Halo3, but its all subjective. The slow draw rate was a bit frustrating at times, but the dynamic focus, HDR and effects were brilliant - second only to multi-thousand dollar PCs capable of running with all the eye candy enabled.

 

My favorite FPS is still Max Payne. Much like HL2, it brought good graphics (nothing particularly new, but better than HL) great story, and decent length. Might have to break it out tonight actually...

I preferred MP2, but yeah, this was a decent game, I have to agree. I think FEAR did the gameplay side better, though MP definitely had the better story.

 

I'll be honest and say I don't play many new games. I find them disappointing. I don't care for BF2, COD series is okay.

COD4 will blow your mind - if you like milsim FPS games. The online MP is unreal, and the interface, class and PERKS system are phenomenal and innovative.

 

I look forward to playing Bioshock someday, but will wait until it's cheaper and I do more research on it.

Bioshock was great, but the often blatant Fallout rip-off factor was sometimes too much for me to bear. It's like 2K sat down in a room with the designers and said, "We want to remake System Shock, and want you make it look and feel like Fallout, but more FPS-y. Go." And then proceeded to rip off all the gameplay elements of SS and the unique atmospheric/story elements of Fallout. But it doesn't fail when it comes to awesome graphics and great gameplay. Definitely worth a look.