Halo 3

ShiverinEskimo

I love it when two sets of fan-boys of 2 different competing games get together on these forums.

Especially when people start every single point they make with "bollocks" or "rubbish".

I played cod4 a month ago on PC and loved it. I enjoyed the battles and the way it forced you to keep moving or enemies will keeps coming. And lets face it the sniper mission was just mesmerising.

I am currently playing Halo3 and loving it. I enjoy the battles and the way the number of enemies in an area are fixed and so I can choose to make full use of my preference for the "boxer" set up on the controller with a shotgun and get into the brutes faces. Or use the sniper rifles/battle rifles to pick stuff off from the distance or a mixture of both.

I've not had the pleasure of playing either online as of yet but as everyone seems to insist on having one game dominate the other's SP experience I thought I'd tell ye all to relax and that no one is forcing you like either, both or none.

He's a free tip though - The commonly considered greatest FPS of all time was Half-Life. It was linear as feck. Who cares. You want non-linear go play Oblivion.

TheDoc

i have to say i laugh when people are moaning about linear gameplay

an fps is linear

rpgs are not

any fps that tries not to be linear is usually piss (minus deus ex)

chamlis

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote: »

i have to say i laugh when people are moaning about linear gameplay

an fps is linear

rpgs are not

any fps that tries not to be linear is usually piss (minus deus ex)

Don't forget System Shock 2

Shiminay

In terms of XBox 360, Halo3 would be the one I'd have for one very simple reason - 4 player split-screen with practically infinite customisation options.

Not too long ago, a gang of us got together in a friend's house and we had 3 360s on the go with 8 players and we have never had so much fun. Tried to play COD4 and realised it wouldn't allow networked + split-screen so it promptly got binned (that said, I play this quite a bit on my PC which is where it excels). We must've spent 5 or 6 hours playing Halo3 that night, playing with gravity, starting weapons, all Power Axes etc, it was a ball.

As I said earlier, the single player was very short, as was COD4's, but if you're looking for a great FPS on the 360 to play with your friends, it has to be Halo3.

koneko

I enjoyed COD4's singleplayer, but I think it has been somewhat overrated.

I'd agree with Kharn, Halo 3 tipped it slightly for me simply because of the co-op, I played through it twice within 2 weeks of release (Heroic then Legendary) with other people and it was *so* much fun. Saving the vids afterwards to watch again was great too.

0ubliette

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Let me guess, you like Halo a lot right? And refuse to obey the laws of logic when in a argument casting suspicion about it?

yeah you got me, because i have a differing opinion im obviously a rabid blind fanboy.
Halo 3 is a great game but im not blind that i cant see its faults. The cortana level sucked, and the graphics couldve done with a bit more spit and polish, but to say that cod4 is a better sp experience is just wrong and thats all im pointing out. Cod4 gives you two fantastic options of walking and shooting to complete your ultimate goal and the maps are painfully linear. Obviously all fps's are linear to a degree but cod4 is linearity incarnate. Its game design from 2001. Its gameplay & level design hasnt changed a bit since cod1. Same linear maps with WOO HOO AN ON RAILS VEHICLE SECTION thrown in to mix it up and OH EM GEE A NON PLAYABLE CUTSCENE OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION WOWZERS!!!!
It may not be rpg levels of freeformness but at least in Halo3 you HAVE an option of how to fight, which is alot more than can be said for bore of duty 4.
The only other fps ive palyed that gives you a level of freedom equal or greate than halos is crysis.

Cuddlesworth

0ubliette wrote: »

yeah you got me, because i have a differing opinion im obviously a rabid blind fanboy.

You made the argument that COD4 was a linear game and that Halo3 was not. I don't think you could have made the fanboy part any better unless you had posted a picture of yourself foaming at the mouth trying to make love to a tv screen with Halo on it.

0ubliette wrote: »

Halo 3 is a great game but im not blind that i cant see its faults. The cortana level sucked, and the graphics couldve done with a bit more spit and polish, but to say that cod4 is a better sp experience is just wrong and thats all im pointing out.

Is just wrong in your opinion. Opinions are like assholes everybody has one.

0ubliette wrote: »

Cod4 gives you two fantastic options of walking and shooting to complete your ultimate goal and the maps are painfully linear. Obviously all fps's are linear to a degree but cod4 is linearity incarnate. Its game design from 2001. Its gameplay & level design hasnt changed a bit since cod1. Same linear maps with WOO HOO AN ON RAILS VEHICLE SECTION thrown in to mix it up and OH EM GEE A NON PLAYABLE CUTSCENE OF A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION WOWZERS!!!!

The cut scenes and plot were well above anything in the last Halo game. The characters actually had character and personality. Game play in Cod is designed around fast thinking and constant motion. Its trying to imitate a modern day war, you don't just choose to sit back in modern combat, kill 10 guys and walk away. They will keep coming and coming, so you are forced to move. It worked in the first few games and it worked in this one. Halo's design is worse. You get attacked by a set number of people. You kill them and you move on. Thats all it boils down to. And it works. It's worked for plenty of games.

But Halo3 is boring. The characters are lifeless, the plot is weak and when I play I just feel like I'm going through the motions. The was no heart stopping sniper mission, boat rolling squad based terrorist ass kicking or tv station blowing up. They made COD4 fun for me.

0ubliette wrote: »

It may not be rpg levels of freeformness but at least in Halo3 you HAVE an option of how to fight, which is alot more than can be said for bore of duty 4.
The only other fps ive palyed that gives you a level of freedom equal or greate than halos is crysis.

Farcry would be a better example. And you have no choice in Halo3, you have the impression of choice. In reality, you have to achieve a specific goal and the only way to achieve it is to shoot something. That's all that Halo3 boils down to. And for a proper single player experience you need to make the player want to achieve this goal, make him care about what he is doing. Halo3 for me did not do this. I went through the motions.

armour87

Bravo...

Hug?

ShiverinEskimo

Cuddlesworth wrote:

Its trying to imitate a modern day war, you don't just choose to sit back in modern combat, kill 10 guys and walk away. They will keep coming and coming, so you are forced to move. It worked in the first few games and it worked in this one. Halo's design is worse. You get attacked by a set number of people. You kill them and you move on. Thats all it boils down to. And it works. It's worked for plenty of games.

I would have thought that modern day warefare has a set number of enemies in real life.
I mean the arguments here are purely preferential but saying COD is more real because there isn't a set number of enemies doesn't make sense.

Halo is different and its futuristic so it probably has a little more to do in regards to being inventive and what not. Most of the guns in COD4 for example have been used in real life and also in previously released titles leaving them less work to do on weapons (and their sound effects) and character models and more to do on level design and AI/Scripting. And yet having wave after wave after wave of enemies spawn out of nowhere can be as appealing to a halo fan as having a less realitic approach is to a cod4 fan.

My ideal battle is against a fixed number of enemies but with a difficult but no unfair AI system backing them up. COD4's AI was awful - and having the AI run to or have a spawn point behind the door/pipe/crate is not good AI. Commonly the enemy would run straight at you.
I think the Elites in Halo 1 and 2 had decent AI. The sidestepped, dove and shimmied out of the way of your fire/granades.

Halo3's AI is not so great. The brutes are just that - mindless tanks that just stand and take power - only the addition of their jetpacks makes them less of a target and the at least attempt to jump in behind you. Disappointing.

I think both games have a lot to offer. COD4's level diversity from boat to desert to farmland to Chernobyl etc. keeps things fresh and breezy.

But Halo's range of weapons, vehicles, enemies are IMO more interesting and varied.

Like I said though I love both - but we have yet to see the perfect fps. Until then I wont let whether the masses love or loathe a game dictate my opinion of it. Nothing worse than a music fan hating a song because everyone else loves it. Judge it for what it is, not what a million people think it is.

Ross_Mahon

The PS3 is better than the 360 :pac:

Halo 3 was not what i expected...:(

Shiminay

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

but we have yet to see the perfect fps.

That's just not true - we've seen and passed by the perfect FPS, it was called Quake

Anyway, I'd like to get this discussion a bit more back on track and speak a little bit more about Halo 3's Mulitplayer. Have many people played it online and what's the scene like? Are there many clans in Ireland or does it tend to be FFA and maybe the odd random TDM or whatever?

Ross_Mahon

There are loads of clans, if i can remember

The celtic snipers and the IRISH clan

I dont like the idea of clans, i would never be a part of one.

ShiverinEskimo

I stand corrected Kharn. Quake rules. Long live Quake.

I've not ventured online yet in Halo3 - I'm using the SP campaign both to complete the story line (big fan of the story) and to readjust back to the xbox controller having gotten used to PC mouse+kb again to save my pride being bruised by some 13yo calling me a n00b over and over.

armour87

Kharn wrote: »

That's just not true - we've seen and passed by the perfect FPS, it was called Quake

Anyway, I'd like to get this discussion a bit more back on track and speak a little bit more about Halo 3's Mulitplayer. Have many people played it online and what's the scene like? Are there many clans in Ireland or does it tend to be FFA and maybe the odd random TDM or whatever?

Correction, it was Half Life 2

On your Halo question, I used to play online quite a bit, my rank was Commander. I seen quite a lot of irish online, but rarely see any serious clans even from UK & US.

Shiminay

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

I dont like the idea of clans, i would never be a part of one.

Do you mind my asking why? Seems a strange attitude in truth. Some of the best fun you'll have at a LAN (for example) is meeting your clan mates who may be from other parts of the country or even world.

When you go for a game of Halo online (and I address this to all players), what sort of game do you prefer to join?

Retr0gamer

I used to play Halo 3 a bit online when it came out. Was okay felt like a poor mans quake, with vehicles. Levels felt very modular and had little character, very boxy and poor. Was good fun playing something on your TV online when you couldn't be bothered booting up the PC for a much better experience.

Then CoD4 came along. Haven't touched Halo 3 mp since. Although haven't played CoD4 in a while but thats only because my brothers mate has a lend of it

kaimera

armour87 wrote: »

Correction, it was Half Life 2

On your Halo question, I used to play online quite a bit, my rank was Commander. I seen quite a lot of irish online, but rarely see any serious clans even from UK & US.

Correction, it was HL1 tbqh.

Cuddlesworth

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I would have thought that modern day warefare has a set number of enemies in real life.
I mean the arguments here are purely preferential but saying COD is more real because there isn't a set number of enemies doesn't make sense.

Most of COD4 missions involve small strike teams into hostile territory's. Watch the Movie Black Hawk Down for an example of what happens when that goes wrong. Actually watch that movie for a example of what COD4 was going for. Constant waves of attacks by mindless enemy's using numbers.

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Halo is different and its futuristic so it probably has a little more to do in regards to being inventive and what not. Most of the guns in COD4 for example have been used in real life and also in previously released titles leaving them less work to do on weapons (and their sound effects) and character models and more to do on level design and AI/Scripting. And yet having wave after wave after wave of enemies spawn out of nowhere can be as appealing to a halo fan as having a less realitic approach is to a cod4 fan.

My ideal battle is against a fixed number of enemies but with a difficult but no unfair AI system backing them up. COD4's AI was awful - and having the AI run to or have a spawn point behind the door/pipe/crate is not good AI. Commonly the enemy would run straight at you.
I think the Elites in Halo 1 and 2 had decent AI. The sidestepped, dove and shimmied out of the way of your fire/granades.

Halo3's AI is not so great. The brutes are just that - mindless tanks that just stand and take power - only the addition of their jetpacks makes them less of a target and the at least attempt to jump in behind you. Disappointing.

I think both games have a lot to offer. COD4's level diversity from boat to desert to farmland to Chernobyl etc. keeps things fresh and breezy.

But Halo's range of weapons, vehicles, enemies are IMO more interesting and varied.

Like I said though I love both - but we have yet to see the perfect fps. Until then I wont let whether the masses love or loathe a game dictate my opinion of it. Nothing worse than a music fan hating a song because everyone else loves it. Judge it for what it is, not what a million people think it is.

All good points. I would contest a few but it would simply be me reiterating my personnel opinion rather then making any valid arguments.

armour87

Kharn wrote: »

When you go for a game of Halo online (and I address this to all players), what sort of game do you prefer to join?

It depends, If I've got some 'real' friends online we usually go crazy on a game of Big Team Battle (8v8) or some Team Objective (4v4, Bomb, Flag etc).

On my own I'd usually play Lone Wolves (Ranked 6 player FFA) to get my rank up faster but since it naturally becomes more difficult I find myself going into Rumble Pit (Ditto Wolves minus the ranked) or Social Big Team Battle.

With online friends we usually play big games of Infection, or mess about in Team Slayer (4v4)

Btw, I'm super awesome.

Cuddlesworth

Kharn wrote: »

That's just not true - we've seen and passed by the perfect FPS, it was called Quake

Anyway, I'd like to get this discussion a bit more back on track and speak a little bit more about Halo 3's Mulitplayer. Have many people played it online and what's the scene like? Are there many clans in Ireland or does it tend to be FFA and maybe the odd random TDM or whatever?

Halo3's mulitplayer

The ranking and lobby/matchmaking systems are great, fairly quick and intuitive.

The players unfortunately are for the most part the most immature bunch of prats I have ever heard in my entire life. After the first time in a ranked match I realized the civility of Css chat.

The gameplay is quick paced, a good peripheral vision to keep and eye on the radar will help greatly. Vehicles for the most part are kept in check by the fragility of the rider and the target they make you.

The weapon balance is odd. With a good aim the sniper rifle is too powerfull, even unscoped. Compared to nearly every other gun, all of which have horrible range. The lower scale weapons are insane, dual maulers will 1 hit kill at close range.

The dynamics of shield and health regen mean that clever use of cover should always grant the team that uses it correctly the win.

The map Design is very simple, generally revolving around 2 bases with a open area in between and 1 or two very small side passages. Or upper and lower levels with 3 main walkways on the bottom and a open area on the top.

Its good, but nothing new there. Nothing really that interesting.

ShiverinEskimo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Most of COD4 missions involve small strike teams into hostile territory's. Watch the Movie Black Hawk Down for an example of what happens when that goes wrong. Actually watch that movie for a example of what COD4 was going for. Constant waves of attacks by mindless enemy's using numbers.

Completely agree with the Black Hawk Down - if they ever made a game about that book/movie it would be the desert sections of COD4. That's exactly what it felt like. Except for the expert grenade throwing that is.

thelordofcheese

Kharn wrote: »

Do you mind my asking why? Seems a strange attitude in truth. Some of the best fun you'll have at a LAN (for example) is meeting your clan mates who may be from other parts of the country or even world.

Not really, i've been in a few clans in my time and i've always found them to be cliqueish (is that even a word?), and full of drama and people swinging about their e-peen. Quite frankly it was a waste of time and effort and i'd never join one again.

Now, you could say that i've just not found the right clan and that may be right, but for me i've tried it, and it didn't really work.

It's one of the reasons i've stopped playing multiplayer games online. That and the punk kids... damned punk kids.

armour87

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Not really, i've been in a few clans in my time and i've always found them to be cliqueish (is that even a word?), and full of drama and people swinging about their e-peen. Quite frankly it was a waste of time and effort and i'd never join one again.

Now, you could say that i've just not found the right clan and that may be right, but for me i've tried it, and it didn't really work.

It's one of the reasons i've stopped playing multiplayer games online. That and the punk kids... damned punk kids.

Not even a Boards.ie clan with added idiot filter?

ShiverinEskimo

If idiot filters were invented yet the net would be a much nicer place.

thelordofcheese

armour87 wrote: »

Not even a Boards.ie clan with added idiot filter?

Nope.
I'm done with online multiplayer gaming. Co-op or single player from now on.

plus it's been so long since i played something online anyway i'd probably end up sodomising myself with my own rifle before exploding.
In our own base.
Next to the puppies.
And the orphans.

Shiminay

No, the universe would just invent a better idiot

I'd have no time for the abusive children thing - one of the reasons I never got more involved with CS back in the day.

Anyway, I guess that's the way with these things. Clans etc - I don't see them as being any more cliquey than being a part of any team in any sport/organisation/whatever.

NunianVonFuch

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Completely agree with the Black Hawk Down - if they ever made a game about that book/movie it would be the desert sections of COD4. That's exactly what it felt like. Except for the expert grenade throwing that is.

They did. It was called Delta Force:Black Hawk Down. Multiplayer wasn't bad. http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/561605.asp?q=black%20hawk%20down

Call of Duty clearly beats it though by a country mile.

thelordofcheese

NunianVonFuch wrote: »

They did. It was called Delta Force:Black Hawk Down. Multiplayer wasn't bad. http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/561605.asp?q=black%20hawk%20down

Call of Duty clearly beats it though by a country mile.

i was wondering who was going to bring this up.

Damn i hated that game.