These titles both have
- Good Plots
- Gameplay
- Variety in Weapons
- Length
- Great Developers
- Multiplatform
Which titles would you prefer ?
NOTE: Added a Poll (((I added Quake and DOOM together since they're both under Id )))
This topic is locked from further discussion.
These titles both have
Which titles would you prefer ?
NOTE: Added a Poll (((I added Quake and DOOM together since they're both under Id )))
Needs pollz
Anyway I'd choose Bioshock because I like it's style more and the art and propaganda type of stuff it does.
But I love the half life games too. Just not as much
Bioshock is better than halflife, But..
You're comparing games that were released in two different gens.I know halflife 2 was only released for the x360 and not for the xbox, but it's not realy a game of this gen. More like something in between.
You could have easily maxed hl2 out on a single core cpu, and a geforce 4. The consoles of this gen are much stronger than that. But the old xbox had a geforce 3 (which is nearly the same as a geforce 4), the only thing that was not enough was the cpu (700 mhz), Well maybe just barely to run on the lowest settings.
One of the biggest selling points of halflife 2 was it's havoc engine, that could provide us with decent physics. Fear and far cry, which were crossover-gen games, had also a nice physics engine. Halflife was still the best at this physics but also the most taxing on the cpu. Far cry is the only game that was still released for the old xbox (but not the ps2, because the ps2 couldn't handle that) because far cry didn't use as much physics, and the graphics engine was very scalable.
Fear was the most taxing of the three, especially because of the graphics, and was therefore also passed on to the x360. But it ran fine on single core cpu's, and could actually run (allthough on the lowest settings but it still looked good) on a geforce 3.
Bioshock however is a whole different animal. A single core could officially run it , but it was a bad idea, A dual core was highly recommended (something halflife didn't even use) and the minimum gpu requirements were more than what halflife 2 needed to be maxed out ( a geforce 4 for hl 2, and you needed a geforce 6600 at least to play bioshock, and that was way to optimistic)
So off course bioshock to me is way better, but halflife 2 was groundbreaking because of the psychics engine and this gen it's just normal. Imagine you had the physics of previous gen? there were no physics lol. Allthough there was one game that actually used it a little and that was hitman (released in 2000) They used only physics on characters not on objects, the so called ragdoll physics , something that today is also considered normal.That's something a lot people don't realize, how groundbreaking hitman was.
But i'm deviating to much here (this is fun stuff to talk about though). The thing is you can't ask me to say what game's best,
It's like comparing the first game that used 3d accelaration in a perfect way (quake), to AAA+ games where this was already standard, and there were able to add a lot more stuff in the story, artwork, gameplay or even newer technologies to make the game more realistic. Like halflife, unreal, deus ex , medal of honor or even the first call of duty, and ... delta force.
Half-life, the gameplay is more creative IMO.
Both are great.
Basinboy
Bioshocks gameplay isn't creative? I'm sorry but Half lifes gameplay is onnly creative slightly because of the gravity gun, that's about it. Everything else was standard FPS stuff. Bioshock was creative in the combinations of weapons and plasmids you could use to dish out damage. Maybe not more creative but certainly no less.
[QUOTE="Basinboy"]The gameplay and its "creativity" are not the elements that make Half Life 2 a classic. What are you trying to say here?Half-life, the gameplay is more creative IMO.
Both are great.
NAPK1NS
This too, I've never heard anyone say Half life 2 is great for its shooting or creativity.
Half Life for me, for whatever reason I can never get all the way through a Bioshock game, maybe because the ending was spoiled for me :(
Bioshock for me. Half-life has terrible, and I do mean terrible gun play. Plus Rapture is one of the best settings in a game period.
[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]Not sure if trolling, or serious..Bioshock isn't a mediocre piece of sh!t like Half-Life is, so Bioshock.
Ackad
Always serious. Half-Life is trash.
[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]Not sure if trolling, or serious.. I actually agree with him. HL2 didn't age well. And looking back it was pretty boring. Plus that horrible gun play....Bioshock isn't a mediocre piece of sh!t like Half-Life is, so Bioshock.
Ackad
Half Life is my favorite franchise in gaming.
Bioshock I only played through once, and never cared to play again.
Half Life by far, Bioshock left a bad taste in my mouth that I am hoping BioShock Infinite can get rid of.
Half Life has an interesting universe, but Bioshock has more refined gameplay. Both are good, but neither is amazing. I do like the methods they employ in storytelling. I much prefer the in game approach to cutscenes, even though I enjoy good cutscenes.
I think Portal is better than both.
Half-Life, not even close. Bioshock has awful gameplay, pacing and no variety.
The half-life games are perfectly paced, you are never doing the same thing for too long.
If looking at atmosphere and story they would be closer but those elements are hugely undermined in Bioshock due to the unsatisfying combat and general tedium of the gameplay.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment