Crytek,say taht Consoles shooters are at the level of PC shooter, 5-6 years ago

The funny thing is, is that Far Cry was the worst console shooter I've played in a looooooooong time. They should shut their collective pieholesRickGotti

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="HSYOON_1"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Eurobacca"]

[QUOTE="trizzle_a"]He's basically saying that console shooters need to be more tactical and less run and gun.HSYOON_1

Like Rainbow Six vegas? derrrrr or Shadowrun which is more technical than any PC only exclusive.

yet it's the most fun i have ever had playing a RS game.

Because you clearly havnt played any PC RS shooters....

i haven't?? wow, some hermit really have a inferior complex. when did you start playing PC games? I started with a 286 with Wing Commander and Dune.

Dang, back in the Windows 95 days, I wouldnt say doom was my first though, but seriously ... Vegas is trash ... on both PC and 360 ... and I guess PS3 ... its an arcadey pile of junk, it is in no way a Realistic shooter ..

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="HSYOON_1"]yet it's the most fun i have ever had playing a RS game.HSYOON_1

no my opinion that "it's the most fun i have ever had" is a FACT, because i'm only referring to myself. Your claims are somehow drawing conclusions from the entire RS community that RSV sucks.

I play RSV with college buddies and family members who used to play the ORIGINAL Rainbow six, and I haveyet to beslapped by any of them yet. Actually almost all of them really like the new rainbow six. we all agree that it's no longer the same game, but that doesn't make it bad.

Please do NOT assume i have never played the original RS games. I have been a PC gamer ever since i got my 286 with dune 1 and Wing commander 1. The last console i had before my 360, was a SNES when i was still in High School, and I have to admit, that the 360 is actually a pretty good gaming machine.

Wouldn't that be an opinion as well. I mean, sure there is plenty of evidence to support it, but it is stillsubjective. Your version of "toned down" is another person's "highly accessible".DrinkDuff

See this is why 360 fanboys are the worst...they can never admit that a genre is superior on another platform...no console games have done anything that wasnt done on the PC before...it was just dumbed down for consoles so that "other" people would want to play the games.

Kahuna_1

as i pointed out earlier in the last 12 months on average 360 fps have outscored pc fps on gamerankings.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Once again, we're talking gameplay here. Its already been established that ino rder to appeal to a more widestream (console) audience, lots of developers end up toning down the gameplay, hence consolization/casualization if yo're PC.gingerdivid

Sorry, just no.

As a fan of LGS and System Shock 2, it was obvious they couldn't make SS3 due to legal issues, yet if it was SS3, no one would complain much that its more of the same of SS2.

Half Life 2 was a "fresh coat of paint" from Half Life 1.

Halo 3 is a "fresh coat of paint" of Halo 2.

As a spiritual successor, Bioshock was going to be a fresh coat of paint of System Shock 2.

Making it a console game too had nothing to do with it. No, not even the harsh weapon degrading system which has seemingly been taken out.

You have to admt there were some consoleriffic features in Bioshock, though. Like the shimmering loot, the usable object highlight, the adaptive training, the *quest arrow* that literally dynamically points you exactly where you need to go. This is all stuff you wouldn't have found in Bioshock if it was PC-only, I assure you. And I'm not complaining about those things since you can turn them off, but they are very clear examples of the "consolization" of Bioshock.

Which I clearly pointed out in my post, in the last sentence. I'm saying that even the mere existance of an option for a quest arrow (which is turned on by default, I believe), among the other things, is proof that consolization is at work. When have you ever seen those types of things in PC FPS? It's nothing terrible, I mean, the console market for the game is bigger than the PC market, so it's expected they'd try to appeal to as broad a spectrum. But there's still no denying it.

[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]

See this is why 360 fanboys are the worst...they can never admit that a genre is superior on another platform...no console games have done anything that wasnt done on the PC before...it was just dumbed down for consoles so that "other" people would want to play the games.

marklarmer

as a pointed out earlier in the last 12 months on average 360 fps have outscored pc fps on gamerankings.

Becuase we havnt had many Exclusive FPS in the last 12 months? :I ... you have had what Halo 3? The Darkness ect.

You have to admt there were some consoleriffic features in Bioshock, though. Like the shimmering loot, the usable object highlight, the adaptive training, the *quest arrow* that literally dynamically points you exactly where you need to go. This is all stuff you wouldn't have found in Bioshock if it was PC-only, I assure you. And I'm not complaining about those things since you can turn them off, but they are very clear examples of the "consolization" of Bioshock.

Zeliard9

There are some console-centric things, but not the ones you pointed out. That's just saying console players are dumb. Most console owners are about ten years older than the average hermit, so they're probably more wise than us.

I thought one thing that might have tried to have been used was the heavy use of guns in the game. Would make it appear more action-like, and thus casualized. Thing is, people love playing SS2 with guns (I like the wrench so whatever lol), so that, coupled with the removal of the harsh weapon degrading system, was just what the fans wanted.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="HSYOON_1"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Eurobacca"]

[QUOTE="trizzle_a"]He's basically saying that console shooters need to be more tactical and less run and gun.HSYOON_1

Like Rainbow Six vegas? derrrrr or Shadowrun which is more technical than any PC only exclusive.

yet it's the most fun i have ever had playing a RS game.

Because you clearly havnt played any PC RS shooters....

i haven't?? wow, some hermit really have a inferior complex. when did you start playing PC games? I started with a 286 with Wing Commander and Dune.

And I started gaming before you were probably born......See I can do that too.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Wouldn't that be an opinion as well. I mean, sure there is plenty of evidence to support it, but it is stillsubjective. Your version of "toned down" is another person's "highly accessible".Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="gingerdivid"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Once again, we're talking gameplay here. Its already been established that ino rder to appeal to a more widestream (console) audience, lots of developers end up toning down the gameplay, hence consolization/casualization if yo're PC.Zeliard9

Sorry, just no.

As a fan of LGS and System Shock 2, it was obvious they couldn't make SS3 due to legal issues, yet if it was SS3, no one would complain much that its more of the same of SS2.

Half Life 2 was a "fresh coat of paint" from Half Life 1.

Halo 3 is a "fresh coat of paint" of Halo 2.

As a spiritual successor, Bioshock was going to be a fresh coat of paint of System Shock 2.

Making it a console game too had nothing to do with it. No, not even the harsh weapon degrading system which has seemingly been taken out.

You have to admt there were some consoleriffic features in Bioshock, though. Like the shimmering loot, the usable object highlight, the adaptive training, the *quest arrow* that literally dynamically points you exactly where you need to go. This is all stuff you wouldn't have found in Bioshock if it was PC-only, I assure you. And I'm not complaining about those things since you can turn them off, but they are very clear examples of the "consolization" of Bioshock.

Which I clearly pointed out in my post, in the last sentence. I'm saying that even the mere existance of an option for a quest arrow (which is turned on by default, I believe), among the other things, is proof that consolization is at work. When have you ever seen those types of things in PC FPS? It's nothing terrible, I mean, the console market for the game is bigger than the PC market, so it's expected they'd try to appeal to as broad a spectrum. But there's still no denying it.

[QUOTE="bignice12"]

[QUOTE="RickGotti"]The funny thing is, is that Far Cry was the worst console shooter I've played in a looooooooong time. They should shut their collective pieholesRickGotti

Funny thing is, Far Cry on the consoles wasn't made by Crytek but ubisoft.

So, they bear no responsibility for allowing such a crappy port of THEIR game to be released?

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="trizzle_a"]He's basically saying that console shooters need to be more tactical and less run and gun.Eurobacca

vegas? ghost reccon, etc...

Hermits need to get out of their virtual worlds and get into reality , PC games don't doing nothing great and are not as user freindly and fun as console games

/thread

There really no comparison because the PC will always have a technology advantage over consoles. When a game console is releaesd it's technology is already a year behind. With the PC, it can be upgraded ever 6 months with better processors, graphics cards, sound cards, RAM, etc... So for hermits to say, "The games look better on the PC." Well Duh!! Your graphics cards and processors are 1-3 years ahead of what's in a game console. :roll:

The fact that your superior games are being bought my less people then game console games speaks volumn. Obviously more people enjoy playing theFPS, RPG, Racing, Fighting, 3-D Platform, Sports & Classic Arcade games on game consoles. Halo 3 is a perfect example. Hermits say the game isn't that great, yet is sells 2.3 million in24hrs. Let's see if Crysis has the same fanfare. Having the best technology doesn't always mean you'll have the best games. Crytek should be worrying more about marketing their game then on what Halo 3 is doing. Halo 3 is a HUGE SUCCESS. There are a LOT more people who never even heard of Crysis.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"]Wouldn't that be an opinion as well. I mean, sure there is plenty of evidence to support it, but it is stillsubjective. Your version of "toned down" is another person's "highly accessible".Vandalvideo

It was the opinion of many PC fans that the weapon degradation system be taken out of the next game.

Toned down? No. That implies negative connotations.

Highly accessible?

The PC fans wanted it. So I guess it must be :|

[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]

See this is why 360 fanboys are the worst...they can never admit that a genre is superior on another platform...no console games have done anything that wasnt done on the PC before...it was just dumbed down for consoles so that "other" people would want to play the games.

marklarmer

as i pointed out earlier in the last 12 months on average 360 fps have outscored pc fps on gamerankings.

So what, PC shooters have higher standard to appeal to. Console shooters can take aspects from PC shooters that were never on consoles before and get higher scores for that. That is what it seems like is happening.

How is it objective when you are essentially calling it the trash?DrinkDuff

It was the opinion of many PC fans that the weapon degradation system be taken out of the next game.Toned down? No. That implies negative connotations.Highly accessible?The PC fans wanted it. So I guess it must be :|FrozenLiquid

[QUOTE="marklarmer"][QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]

See this is why 360 fanboys are the worst...they can never admit that a genre is superior on another platform...no console games have done anything that wasnt done on the PC before...it was just dumbed down for consoles so that "other" people would want to play the games.

Kahuna_1

as i pointed out earlier in the last 12 months on average 360 fps have outscored pc fps on gamerankings.

So what, PC shooters have higher standard to appeal to. Console shooters can take aspects from PC shooters that were never on consoles before and get higher scores for that. That is what it seems like is happening.

well reviewers dont seem to care about these 'higher standards' hermits come up with. so why should i or anyone else?

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]It was the opinion of many PC fans that the weapon degradation system be taken out of the next game.Toned down? No. That implies negative connotations.Highly accessible?The PC fans wanted it. So I guess it must be :|Vandalvideo

I hate it when peole start using the semantics excuse.

It's the most cowardly thing ever.

Sorry, it just is.

Nevermind what I said before :evil:

my new XFX 8800 GTX has just arrived today :ogingerdivid

[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"][QUOTE="marklarmer"][QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]

See this is why 360 fanboys are the worst...they can never admit that a genre is superior on another platform...no console games have done anything that wasnt done on the PC before...it was just dumbed down for consoles so that "other" people would want to play the games.

marklarmer

as i pointed out earlier in the last 12 months on average 360 fps have outscored pc fps on gamerankings.

So what, PC shooters have higher standard to appeal to. Console shooters can take aspects from PC shooters that were never on consoles before and get higher scores for that. That is what it seems like is happening.

well reviewers dont seem to care about these 'higher standards' hermits come up with. so why should i or anyone else?

Umm these higher standards are reflected in the reviews ... Halo 2 = 9.6 HL2 = 9.2 ... = HL2 Shooter of the Year.

[QUOTE="HSYOON_1"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="HSYOON_1"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Eurobacca"]

[QUOTE="trizzle_a"]He's basically saying that console shooters need to be more tactical and less run and gun.Meu2k7

Like Rainbow Six vegas? derrrrr or Shadowrun which is more technical than any PC only exclusive.

yet it's the most fun i have ever had playing a RS game.

Because you clearly havnt played any PC RS shooters....

i haven't?? wow, some hermit really have a inferior complex. when did you start playing PC games? I started with a 286 with Wing Commander and Dune.

Dang, back in the Windows 95 days, I wouldnt say doom was my first though, but seriously ... Vegas is trash ... on both PC and 360 ... and I guess PS3 ... its an arcadey pile of junk, it is in no way a Realistic shooter ..

windows? aww that's for newbs. all we had was DOS. when i started we didn't have nifty graphics and icons.(see how condescending and familiar that sounds)

anywayseverything was done through text and command lines. I was one of those people who absolutely hated when games starting coming out in Windows version only, because it degraded the performance so much.

back on topic, RSV is not very realistic, but realistic doesn't always = FUN. Too realistic usually lead to frustration and inacessibility.

They do care about them when they have to review the new wave of PC shooters coming out in the next year...it is just that some fanboys need to realize that console shooters really do not do anything new...

Also...I dont play PC shooters anymore(my comp is junk) but even I can admit that the lastfew fps I have played on consoles are nothing new that hasnt been done before. It is only new for the console world.

[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"][QUOTE="marklarmer"][QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]

See this is why 360 fanboys are the worst...they can never admit that a genre is superior on another platform...no console games have done anything that wasnt done on the PC before...it was just dumbed down for consoles so that "other" people would want to play the games.

marklarmer

as i pointed out earlier in the last 12 months on average 360 fps have outscored pc fps on gamerankings.

So what, PC shooters have higher standard to appeal to. Console shooters can take aspects from PC shooters that were never on consoles before and get higher scores for that. That is what it seems like is happening.

well reviewers dont seem to care about these 'higher standards' hermits come up with. so why should i or anyone else?

Crytek, says taht Consoles shooters are at the level of PC shooter, 5-6 years ago

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200710/N07.1004.1210.04388.htm?Page=3

GI: So you're not excited for Halo 3?

Yerli: No. I don't want to talk bad about it. The trailer looked great. I know there are millions of people who love it. I tried to play Halo 1, I tried to play Halo 2. (laughs) I really didn't get it. It didn't get me, well I bought copies though Again, conversely the Bioshock demo got me. It's not that it's not possible, but console shooters are at the level of PC shooters 5-6 years ago. The gameplay has to be more sophisticated - more thinking then shooting. If the game is a bit more mature in shooters on consoles, a good example is BioShock on 360 may interest me because it's the same as on PC. It's a strong title. Call of Duty 4 may interest me on console, certainly it looks sophisticated. It may interest me on PC, as well. Enough competition talk. (laughs)

hahahah, also What happened lemings? Gears of war was fIRst shown on PC, so that makes it PC first aND NO A xbox360 ESCLUSIVE!! OUCH!!!

paabss

it's exclusive to the 360 CONSOLE. and of course it's going to be better on pc cause the pc is the one who builds consoles.

it's still better than any ps3 shooter.

Excuse my reading comprehension, I think I'm overwhelmed with excitement since my new XFX 8800 GTX has just arrived today :ogingerdivid

Nice, that's the exact one I have, XFX. :D It's a monstrously powerful card, the 8800 GTX. You will not be disappointed, provided nothing else is bottlenecking your system.

Still stuck at work and can't install it yet, eh?

RSV is not very realistic, but realistic doesn't always = FUN. Too realistic usually lead to frustration and inacessibility. HSYOON_1

umm, lets see crysis break 300 mil in a week and top sales charts all over the world INCLUDING JAPAN...pfft, yeah,

in the end its bungie and their "primitive" shooter thats laughing their way to the sun, while hermits crawl in their dark rooms with "teh CRYSIS"

axes03

Some other points worth noting. A) Gears of War isn't a FPS. B) Halo 3 scored high then any other FPS on 360 including BioshockJimmyT2

Not quite. Bioshock scored higher on gamerankings than Halo 3 did and is currently the best game out for the 360 it seems. Going by just gamespot is laughable. Going by gamerankings, however, is not.

HSYOON_1

i have heard this argument time and time again. name a couple of PC shooters that are standouts besides HL2?

can he honestly say 5-6 years ago? do you guy remember what we were playing 5-6 years ago on PC? it was games like CS Wolfenstein, and Quake 3. i think console shooters are maybe a 2-3 years behinds tops.

Aside from half life? System Shock, Thief, Shogo, Tribes, Quake, Unreal. Each of those games have done something innovative to the genre and each of those games incorporates a mechanic that most fanboys claim Halo used first.

I highly recommend you go out and play SS, Shogo or Thief because I know for a fact hardly any one played those games, and they did a lot for the industry.

[QUOTE="HSYOON_1"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="HSYOON_1"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Eurobacca"]

[QUOTE="trizzle_a"]He's basically saying that console shooters need to be more tactical and less run and gun.froidnite

Like Rainbow Six vegas? derrrrr or Shadowrun which is more technical than any PC only exclusive.

yet it's the most fun i have ever had playing a RS game.

Because you clearly havnt played any PC RS shooters....

i haven't?? wow, some hermit really have a inferior complex. when did you start playing PC games? I started with a 286 with Wing Commander and Dune.

And I started gaming before you were probably born......See I can do that too.

what??? your logic is flawed. I only said those things because of your condescending comments towards me. moron. I'm the one that should be saying "see i can do that too"

[QUOTE="HSYOON_1"]gamer620

i have heard this argument time and time again. name a couple of PC shooters that are standouts besides HL2?

can he honestly say 5-6 years ago? do you guy remember what we were playing 5-6 years ago on PC? it was games like CS Wolfenstein, and Quake 3. i think console shooters are maybe a 2-3 years behinds tops.

Aside from half life? System Shock, Thief, Shogo, Tribes, Quake, Unreal. Each of those games have done something innovative to the genre and each of those games incorporates a mechanic that most fanboys claim Halo used first.

I highly recommend you go out and play SS, Shogo or Thief because I know for a fact hardly any one played those games, and they did a lot for the industry.

ahhahahaha. you have nerve to mention Shogo. . HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH that just made my day.

HYSOON ... but why fix what wasnt broken? the previous Rainbow Six were much better, they jsut dumbed it down for day 1 Multiplat , theres no excuse for it , consoles lack teh controls to make thrilling RS shooters... thta are actually fun, too much batteling with the crapness that is Analogs.Meu2k7

i agree and concede to you sir. Actually i did enjoy playing the old RS games better the vegas, but that does NOT make Vegas trash in any shape or form. good day. i'm out

1) I posted that interview a few days ago.

2) Whatever Cevat says it's his business. What do you expect him to say when PC is the company's bread and butter. Recently some games tend toward realism ( Rainbow Six Vegas) and not just run and gun ( Halo 3) .

[QUOTE="marklarmer"][QUOTE="Kahuna_1"][QUOTE="marklarmer"][QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]

See this is why 360 fanboys are the worst...they can never admit that a genre is superior on another platform...no console games have done anything that wasnt done on the PC before...it was just dumbed down for consoles so that "other" people would want to play the games.

Meu2k7

as i pointed out earlier in the last 12 months on average 360 fps have outscored pc fps on gamerankings.

So what, PC shooters have higher standard to appeal to. Console shooters can take aspects from PC shooters that were never on consoles before and get higher scores for that. That is what it seems like is happening.

well reviewers dont seem to care about these 'higher standards' hermits come up with. so why should i or anyone else?

Umm these higher standards are reflected in the reviews ... Halo 2 = 9.6 HL2 = 9.2 ... = HL2 Shooter of the Year.

ut2004 outscored half-life 2.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]HYSOON ... but why fix what wasnt broken? the previous Rainbow Six were much better, they jsut dumbed it down for day 1 Multiplat , theres no excuse for it , consoles lack teh controls to make thrilling RS shooters... thta are actually fun, too much batteling with the crapness that is Analogs.HSYOON_1

i agree and concede to you sir. Actually i did enjoy playing the old RS games better the vegas, but that does NOT make Vegas trash in any shape or form. good day. i'm out

I wouldn't have played the previous vegas games so I wouldn't have bought it . If I don't buy it the company doesn't make $$$$.

The funny thing is, is that Far Cry was the worst console shooter I've played in a looooooooong time. They should shut their collective pieholesRickGotti

Crytek didn't make Far Cry on consoles, Ubisoft was the one who ported it. Far Cry PC is a much, much better game than the console ports.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="JimmyT2"]

[QUOTE="paabss"]iim sorry what? DOOM, QUAKE, UNREAL TORUNAMENT,, HALF LIFE, WOLFSTEIN, DUKE NUKEM, i can keep going all day,, DrinkDuff

Shooters from this millennium would be preferable. Ok UT and Half-life 2 were in the same league as Halo within the past few year but the others certainly were not. I play both consoles and PC and I find his statement arrogant.

No I am pretty sure he meantTHIS MILLENNIUM. THIS MILLENNIUM began 1/1/2001.

Thanks Smokey for educating me- I always thoughtthere werevideo games before then.

PC shooters are not any better than console shooters. When I play STALKER I get bored so quickly and go back to playing Halo 3.

So if console shooters are 5 to 6 years behind PC shooters, PC developers need to go back to 5 or 6 years ago and add voice support to all games and make all thier games compatible with all PC hardware. Also they may want to come out with a controller that actually works well with all PC games so you don't have to use the Mouse and Keyboard with the controller while playing.

Eurobacca

[QUOTE="Eurobacca"]

PC shooters are not any better than console shooters. When I play STALKER I get bored so quickly and go back to playing Halo 3.

So if console shooters are 5 to 6 years behind PC shooters, PC developers need to go back to 5 or 6 years ago and add voice support to all games and make all thier games compatible with all PC hardware. Also they may want to come out with a controller that actually works well with all PC games so you don't have to use the Mouse and Keyboard with the controller while playing.

l-_-l

also all pc games can have voice support, and most recent shooters come with it as a standard feature, yes even before halo came out..

also stalker is more of an first person rpg then a rts its a completely diferent gameplay scheme

[QUOTE="HSYOON_1"][QUOTE="naval"]

[QUOTE="SpaceDragonMan"]5-6 years ago?ok, then name me one FPS in 2001 that is equal to Halo 3.....naval

ss2, in 1999. i know you will most probaably disagree so why bother asking

system shock 2 was actually a awesome game.

along withThief 1 & 2, Dues Ex 1 & 2, and NOLF 1 & 2 are forever ingrained into my brain. Those are some great shooters for their time, but to compare them to current console shooters and claim that they are infact equals is just plain wrong.

yeah they are much superior. only place wher console shoters come out on top is the graphics. but, i also don't rate many pc shooters above ss2

ut2004 outscored half-life 2.

marklarmer

True, although I assume that GOTY is decided by the whole tem at GS. Not one reviewer, thus the difference in scores. Heck, UT 2004 didn't even get MP shooter of the year.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="JimmyT2"]

[QUOTE="paabss"]iim sorry what? DOOM, QUAKE, UNREAL TORUNAMENT,, HALF LIFE, WOLFSTEIN, DUKE NUKEM, i can keep going all day,, thew13

Shooters from this millennium would be preferable. Ok UT and Half-life 2 were in the same league as Halo within the past few year but the others certainly were not. I play both consoles and PC and I find his statement arrogant.

No I am pretty sure he meantTHIS MILLENNIUM. THIS MILLENNIUM began 1/1/2001.

Thanks Smokey for educating me- I always thoughtthere werevideo games before then.

[QUOTE="gingerdivid"]Excuse my reading comprehension, I think I'm overwhelmed with excitement since my new XFX 8800 GTX has just arrived today :oZeliard9

Nice, that's the exact one I have, XFX. :D It's a monstrously powerful card, the 8800 GTX. You will not be disappointed, provided nothing else is bottlenecking your system.

Still stuck at work and can't install it yet, eh?

what??? your logic is flawed. I only said those things because of your condescending comments towards me. moron. I'm the one that should be saying "see i can do that too"

HSYOON_1

No...your logic is flawed...I only said that because I found your comment about you starting gaming since whatever time was condescending towards me.....So I was the one who should have said "see I can do that too" and so I posted it.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="gingerdivid"]Excuse my reading comprehension, I think I'm overwhelmed with excitement since my new XFX 8800 GTX has just arrived today :ogingerdivid

Nice, that's the exact one I have, XFX. :D It's a monstrously powerful card, the 8800 GTX. You will not be disappointed, provided nothing else is bottlenecking your system.

Still stuck at work and can't install it yet, eh?

[QUOTE="Arjdagr8"]doesn't that mean counter strike is behind halo? (even though i prefer cs slightly). Vandalvideo

cs: source can be bought as a proper game on its own. people were comparing halo with cs, garry's mod a few posts before mine. in fact it was you who was mentioned garry's mod. i dont understand why i cant do the same

[QUOTE="naval"][QUOTE="HSYOON_1"][QUOTE="naval"]

[QUOTE="SpaceDragonMan"]5-6 years ago?ok, then name me one FPS in 2001 that is equal to Halo 3.....l-_-l

ss2, in 1999. i know you will most probaably disagree so why bother asking

system shock 2 was actually a awesome game.

along withThief 1 & 2, Dues Ex 1 & 2, and NOLF 1 & 2 are forever ingrained into my brain. Those are some great shooters for their time, but to compare them to current console shooters and claim that they are infact equals is just plain wrong.

yeah they are much superior. only place wher console shoters come out on top is the graphics. but, i also don't rate many pc shooters above ss2

now, i look at my post i can see its easy to take wrongly what i meant . i mean comapred to old 5-6 yrs pc fps , console fps are only better in graphics

I'm saying this for years but most of the Halo fans are dumbs.Redgarl

Then gtfo you troll. Just because someone likes something you don't you call them stupid.