Halo 3 vs the PC

I'm not trolling, I am simply saying, looks at Crysis and then look at Halo 3. They both scored the same 9.5, yet are drastically different. Halo 3 is an average shooter at best, Crysis is evolutionary. Crysis has wide open levels, the nano-suit, which actually open up a lot more options than you would think, beautiful graphics, and really solid gameplay.

Halo 3 has solid gameplay, I'll give it that, but what else? It really does nothing to seperate itself from the rest of the pack. Now, on the consoles, Halo 3 is the cream of the crop. But on PC, the standards are just higher. Cevat Yerli, the head of Crytek, said himself, he played a Halo game and it seemed as if he was playing a PC game from 5 years ago.

My point? Publishers release console ports over to the PC and it doesn't sell, and compan ies like EA decide they need to make PC games even MORE casual aka Battlefield Heroes and Red Alert 3. When will devs get that all we PC gamers really want is an in depth PC GAME!!! Look at Sins of a Solar Empire. I bought it at Best Buy and 3 other people bought it while I was there. I have never had that happen before, and it just goes to show: if the devs would put in the time to make PC games like they were meant to be, more people would buy them.

And I still stand by my point that Halo 3, if it were on the PC would score no higher than an 8, because it doesn't really do anything new at all that other games haven't done before and better. No, Forge doesn't count. Why would I choose a pseudo-map editor over a real one?

I want to say that I agree with you, before you get flamed to death for saying the horrible truth.

It's because PC FPSs have a much higher standard then Console's. rimnet00

That was the point my post was trying to make, but thanks for backing it up.

Well thank you. I have a feeling I have already been flamed and reported, because I accidentally posted this in the Wii board :( thinking I was in system wars....Armalite1016

Just delete your post in the Wii thread.

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]Well thank you. I have a feeling I have already been flamed and reported, because I accidentally posted this in the Wii board :( thinking I was in system wars....DragonfireXZ95

Just delete your post in the Wii thread.

I tried, but someone had already posted after me, and apparently you can't delete once someone posts.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]Well thank you. I have a feeling I have already been flamed and reported, because I accidentally posted this in the Wii board :( thinking I was in system wars....Armalite1016

Just delete your post in the Wii thread.

I tried, but someone had already posted after me, and apparently you can't delete once someone posts.

Well you could change the title of the thread, and then change your post to, "I think the wii is great, what is your favorite game?" or something along those lines.

I wouldnt say Halo 3 is average, but most PC games are much better.

Halo 3 is an incredible console game though.

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

I'm not trolling, I am simply saying, looks at Crysis and then look at Halo 3. They both scored the same 9.5, yet are drastically different. Halo 3 is an average shooter at best, Crysis is evolutionary. Crysis has wide open levels, the nano-suit, which actually open up a lot more options than you would think, beautiful graphics, and really solid gameplay.

Halo 3 has solid gameplay, I'll give it that, but what else? It really does nothing to seperate itself from the rest of the pack. Now, on the consoles, Halo 3 is the cream of the crop. But on PC, the standards are just higher. Cevat Yerli, the head of Crytek, said himself, he played a Halo game and it seemed as if he was playing a PC game from 5 years ago.

My point? Publishers release console ports over to the PC and it doesn't sell, and compan ies like EA decide they need to make PC games even MORE casual aka Battlefield Heroes and Red Alert 3. When will devs get that all we PC gamers really want is an in depth PC GAME!!! Look at Sins of a Solar Empire. I bought it at Best Buy and 3 other people bought it while I was there. I have never had that happen before, and it just goes to show: if the devs would put in the time to make PC games like they were meant to be, more people would buy them.

And I still stand by my point that Halo 3, if it were on the PC would score no higher than an 8, because it doesn't really do anything new at all that other games haven't done before and better. No, Forge doesn't count. Why would I choose a pseudo-map editor over a real one?

tader-salad

Halo 1 is in my top 5 favorite games. It actually tried to shake things up. Halo 2 and 3 took the theory of "if it aint' broke, don't fix it" and took it over the edge, not letting the series develop at all. Halo 2 while still the weakest of the 3, didn't from this as much, but in the fall of 2007, with so many good shooters that are doing things differently that came out, Halo 3 definitely didn't stand out at all, unless you count massive hype "standing out", which it is, but not in the sense that I am talking about.

I will agree with you that Halo does have that appeal, and I'll reveal it to you right now: the story. All the Halo games have conistently had a great story, and the music adds a lot to it as well. Also, the original Halo just had that atmosphere of mystery and awe. Parts 2 and 3, not so much.

I wouldnt say Halo 3 is average, but most PC games are much better.

Halo 3 is an incredible console game though.

beast667

For a console shooter, Halo 3 isn't the best, Halo is. Halo 3 is still good though, but I'm still saying for all those people who always say Halo 3 is the best game ever, they obviously haven't played many PC exclusive games like Far Cry, Half Life, or you name it.

Cevat Yerli, the head of Crytek, said himself, he played a Halo game and it seemed as if he was playing a PC game from 5 years ago.

Armalite1016

and i dislike this new trend where pc advocates believe the pc has such uber standards. High horse metality is just lame.

Its the truth but most of us have known it for ages. . . :P

This should get interesting real quick.

*Grabs popcorn*

Crysis is a decent game but the replay value is next to none. The multi-player is terrible. Only 550 players online right now worldwide while over 200,000 playing Halo 3.

Halo 1 is in my top 5 favorite games. It actually tried to shake things up. Halo 2 and 3 took the theory of "if it aint' broke, don't fix it" and took it over the edge, not letting the series develop at all. Halo 2 while still the weakest of the 3, didn't from this as much, but in the fall of 2007, with so many good shooters that are doing things differently that came out, Halo 3 definitely didn't stand out at all, unless you count massive hype "standing out", which it is, but not in the sense that I am talking about.

I will agree with you that Halo does have that appeal, and I'll reveal it to you right now: the story. All the Halo games have conistently had a great story, and the music adds a lot to it as well. Also, the original Halo just had that atmosphere of mystery and awe. Parts 2 and 3, not so much.

Armalite1016

Crysis is a decent game but the replayability is next to none. Only 550 players online right now worldwide while over 200,000 playing Halo 3.

Deihmos

I hope you just stated that as your opinion and not a fact, because in theory Crysis has tons of replayablility, and a lot of people thinks so too

ive turned into a only PC gamer.....but i disagree. i feel that halo 3 is much better than crysis, especially considering multiplayer.

but i still think halo PC is 100x better than either of them.

ive turned into a only PC gamer.....but i disagree. i feel that halo 3 is much better than crysis, especially considering multiplayer.

but i still think halo PC is 100x better than either of them.

lespaul1919

How is Halo 3 better than Crysis? What are your reasons for your opinion?

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Cevat Yerli, the head of Crytek, said himself, he played a Halo game and it seemed as if he was playing a PC game from 5 years ago.

JPOBS

and i dislike this new trend where pc advocates believe the pc has such uber standards. High horse metality is just lame.

The PC market does have very uber standards........You really think halo would have stood out on the PC? Infact it may have been one of the worse shooters on the market.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

Crysis is a decent game but the replayability is next to none. Only 550 players online right now worldwide while over 200,000 playing Halo 3.

Lonelynight

I hope you just stated that as your opinion and not a fact, because in theory Crysis has tons of replayablility, and a lot of people thinks so too

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

Crysis is a decent game but the replayability is next to none. Only 550 players online right now worldwide while over 200,000 playing Halo 3.

Lonelynight

I hope you just stated that as your opinion and not a fact, because in theory Crysis has tons of replayablility, and a lot of people thinks so too

I guess everyone is playing the single player campaign over and over because the multi-player community has been the same since launch while games like COD4 has over 20,000 playing all the time. The community is actually getting smaller and smaller.

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Cevat Yerli, the head of Crytek, said himself, he played a Halo game and it seemed as if he was playing a PC game from 5 years ago.

jangojay

and i dislike this new trend where pc advocates believe the pc has such uber standards. High horse metality is just lame.

The PC market does have very uber standards........You really think halo would have stood out on the PC? Infact it may have been one of the worse shooters on the market.

and if pc standards are so great, why did bioshock get the same score on both platforms?

Your arguement would hold a lot more water if bioshock scored lower on PC. Fact is, if Bioshock is considered a 9 on pc, why isnt the console version a 9.5+ because consoles arent regarded so highly as PCs? Same thing with CoD4.

Face it, your logic has more holes than swiss cheese.

Halo 3 got a 9.5 because it has the most value over any console game.

And I love how hermits say that everyone says Halo is the best game ever....Yeah, because you see a lot of halo praising threads in system wars.

I haven't seen more than 1 Pro halo thread here.

If there is a thread about halo, its bashing it.

[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Cevat Yerli, the head of Crytek, said himself, he played a Halo game and it seemed as if he was playing a PC game from 5 years ago.

JPOBS

and i dislike this new trend where pc advocates believe the pc has such uber standards. High horse metality is just lame.

The PC market does have very uber standards........You really think halo would have stood out on the PC? Infact it may have been one of the worse shooters on the market.

and if pc standards are so great, why did bioshock get the same score on both platforms?

Your arguement would hold a lot more water if bioshock scored lower on PC. Fact is, if Bioshock is considered a 9 on pc, why isnt the console version a 9.5+ because consoles arent regarded so highly as PCs? Same thing with CoD4.

Face it, your logic has more holes than swiss cheese.

No, it's just that GameSpot was lazy and didn't feel like doing a separate review.

Oh and whats with the whole 'PC has higher standards' thing. Half Life, Bioshock, CoD4, UT3, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon.... Just about every shooter I can think of is also on consoles besides Crysis. So what games are we talking about when we talk about high standards ?ZanyIce

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is PC only. HL2 came out 3 years ago on PC, and it just made it's way to consoles. Same with F.E.A.R., we had that a long time ago too.

Our PC games have been doing for years, what consoles are just doing now.

[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Cevat Yerli, the head of Crytek, said himself, he played a Halo game and it seemed as if he was playing a PC game from 5 years ago.

JPOBS

and i dislike this new trend where pc advocates believe the pc has such uber standards. High horse metality is just lame.

The PC market does have very uber standards........You really think halo would have stood out on the PC? Infact it may have been one of the worse shooters on the market.

and if pc standards are so great, why did bioshock get the same score on both platforms?

Your arguement would hold a lot more water if bioshock scored lower on PC. Fact is, if Bioshock is considered a 9 on pc, why isnt the console version a 9.5+ because consoles arent regarded so highly as PCs? Same thing with CoD4.

Face it, your logic has more holes than swiss cheese.

It got the same on both platforms because it played the same as a regular FPS on pc the only difference was controls between the 360 and pc. What is the reviewer gonna say? DUH I'LL GIVE ET LESS CUZ IT BE ON PC? Halo on the other hand played SLOWER to compensate for the fact you used a controller, this would not go well over in the PC camp.

Lets compare to halo wars now. Do you think a game like that will have a ghost of a chance in the RTS market on PC? Lets put it this way.. PC gaming has been there done that and looking for newer,more original things.

Oh and whats with the whole 'PC has higher standards' thing. Half Life, Bioshock, CoD4, UT3, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon.... Just about every shooter I can think of is also on consoles besides Crysis. So what games are we talking about when we talk about high standards ?ZanyIce

On multi-plat games, subtles differences on the PC such as interface, control, and over all intuitiveness, make the game more compelling.

And on big exclusives, the PC has elements that could not be reproduced on a console successfully, a la Crysis' physics engine.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]

Crysis is a decent game but the replayability is next to none. Only 550 players online right now worldwide while over 200,000 playing Halo 3.

Deihmos

I hope you just stated that as your opinion and not a fact, because in theory Crysis has tons of replayablility, and a lot of people thinks so too

I guess everyone is playing the single player campaign over and over because the multi-player community has been the same since launch while games like COD4 has over 20,000 playing all the time. The community is actually getting smaller and smaller.

One reason is that there's plenty of user-created content to download. Also, because of the near-endless possibilities in Crysis SP, and the map editor being far, far superior to Forge in capabilities, you get a lot more value than Halo 3. Plus, unlike Halo 3, there's actually innovation involved. That is, in the FPS genre overall, not just consoles.

No, it's just that GameSpot was lazy and didn't feel like doing a separate review.

Noldorin2646

gamerankings: 94

meta critic: 94

Call of duty 4 PC:

game rankings: 92.9

meta critic:91

Bioshock 360:

GR: 95.2

MC: 96

Bioshock PC:

GR:95

MC: 95

your right, PC am teh uberz standards :|

It got the same on both platforms because it played the same as a regular FPS on pc the only difference was controls between the 360 and pc. What is the reviewer gonna say? DUH I'LL GIVE ET LESS CUZ IT BE ON PC? Halo on the other hand played SLOWER to compensate for the fact you used a controller, this would not go well over in the PC camp.

Lets compare to halo wars now. Do you think a game like that will have a ghost of a chance in the RTS market on PC? Lets put it this way.. PC gaming has been there done that and looking for newer,more original things.

jangojay

[QUOTE="Noldorin2646"]

No, it's just that GameSpot was lazy and didn't feel like doing a separate review.

JPOBS

gamerankings: 94

meta critic: 94

Call of duty 4 PC:

game rankings: 92.9

meta critic:91

Bioshock 360:

GR: 95.2

MC: 96

Bioshock PC:

GR:95

MC: 95

your right, PC am teh uberz standards :|

Well, you just proved that the standards are higher for PC, uber or not.

[QUOTE="Noldorin2646"]

No, it's just that GameSpot was lazy and didn't feel like doing a separate review.

JPOBS

gamerankings: 94

meta critic: 94

Call of duty 4 PC:

game rankings: 92.9

meta critic:91

Bioshock 360:

GR: 95.2

MC: 96

Bioshock PC:

GR:95

MC: 95

your right, PC am teh uberz standards :|

Take a look at some of the actual reviews that made up the averages. A lot of the reviews overlap anyway.

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="Noldorin2646"]

No, it's just that GameSpot was lazy and didn't feel like doing a separate review.

DragonfireXZ95

gamerankings: 94

meta critic: 94

Call of duty 4 PC:

game rankings: 92.9

meta critic:91

Bioshock 360:

GR: 95.2

MC: 96

Bioshock PC:

GR:95

MC: 95

your right, PC am teh uberz standards :|

Well, you just proved that the standards are higher for PC, uber or not.

the point im making is, if bioshock and Call of duty 4 are only BARELY slightly rated higher on the console, then that owuld mean that the pc standards are moot.

What am i getting at? This: if Call of duty 4 and Bioshock are seen as some of the best shooters on PC, why arent they seen as the greatest thing ever on consoles? the fact is, they arent. If Call of duty 4 and Bioshock are some of the best game to be found on PC, yet they are the exact same in their console iterations, this leads me to believe that the dogma "pc games have being doing for years what consoles are just doing now" is a bunch of BS.

to put it bluntly, if some of the best shooters on pc arent rated like the second coming of jesus on consoles, then the whole ""buh buh, standards mommy :cry:" logic flies out the window.

Well, you just proved that the standards are higher for PC, uber or not.DragonfireXZ95

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="Noldorin2646"]

No, it's just that GameSpot was lazy and didn't feel like doing a separate review.

JPOBS

gamerankings: 94

meta critic: 94

Call of duty 4 PC:

game rankings: 92.9

meta critic:91

Bioshock 360:

GR: 95.2

MC: 96

Bioshock PC:

GR:95

MC: 95

your right, PC am teh uberz standards :|

Well, you just proved that the standards are higher for PC, uber or not.

the point im making is, if bioshock and Call of duty 4 are only BARELY slightly rated higher on the console, then that owuld mean that the pc standards are moot.

What am i getting at? This: if Call of duty 4 and Bioshock are seen as some of the best shooters on PC, why arent they seen as the greatest thing ever on consoles? the fact is, they arent. If Call of duty 4 and Bioshock are some of the best game to be found on PC, yet they are the exact same in their console iterations, this leads me to believe that the dogma "pc games have being doing for years what consoles are just doing now" is a bunch of BS.

to put it bluntly, if some of the best shooters on pc arent rated like the second coming of jesus on consoles, then the whole ""buh buh, standards mommy :cry:" logic flies out the window.

BioShock, CoD4 were designed with the PC in mind, of course their PC versions are more polished than ports.

BioShock, CoD4 were designed with the PC in mind, of course their PC versions are more polished than ports.

Noldorin2646

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

It got the same on both platforms because it played the same as a regular FPS on pc the only difference was controls between the 360 and pc. What is the reviewer gonna say? DUH I'LL GIVE ET LESS CUZ IT BE ON PC? Halo on the other hand played SLOWER to compensate for the fact you used a controller, this would not go well over in the PC camp.

Lets compare to halo wars now. Do you think a game like that will have a ghost of a chance in the RTS market on PC? Lets put it this way.. PC gaming has been there done that and looking for newer,more original things.

JPOBS

What your the point? Consoles cater to casuals and games follow suit. Console games lack depth and are generally VERY shallow, Halo is the king of this. Halo :CE is the only one I can give credit to has it changed the way console shooters were played, but that game had no impact on the PC market. I will put console and pc standards the same the day i see games like the total wars series, starcraft, Sins of a solar empire, stalker, crysis, farcry (DONE THE RIGHT WAY) I'm still skeptical of the console versions since I haven't seen anything on them, system shock 2,witcher and flight,sub,racing and other sims.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="Noldorin2646"]

No, it's just that GameSpot was lazy and didn't feel like doing a separate review.

JPOBS

gamerankings: 94

meta critic: 94

Call of duty 4 PC:

game rankings: 92.9

meta critic:91

Bioshock 360:

GR: 95.2

MC: 96

Bioshock PC:

GR:95

MC: 95

your right, PC am teh uberz standards :|

Well, you just proved that the standards are higher for PC, uber or not.

the point im making is, if bioshock and Call of duty 4 are only BARELY slightly rated higher on the console, then that owuld mean that the pc standards are moot.

What am i getting at? This: if Call of duty 4 and Bioshock are seen as some of the best shooters on PC, why arent they seen as the greatest thing ever on consoles? the fact is, they arent. If Call of duty 4 and Bioshock are some of the best game to be found on PC, yet they are the exact same in their console iterations, this leads me to believe that the dogma "pc games have being doing for years what consoles are just doing now" is a bunch of BS.

to put it bluntly, if some of the best shooters on pc arent rated like the second coming of jesus on consoles, then the whole ""buh buh, standards mommy :cry:" logic flies out the window.

WAIT WAIT WAIT? Are you trying to say consolites don't reguard COD 4 and Bioshock as some of the best things on consoles? LOL. Me personally think Cod 4 is remake of Cod 2 or better feels like a mod with better graphics, Bioshock was both a down and upgrade from system shock.. more of a downgrade though.