Halo 3 vs the PC

Good for you. I disagree.

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][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.

jangojay

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.

But given that some of the best pc games of 2007 managed to basically score the same on the consoles means that the pc's dont have some amazing standards. If CoD4 and bioshock are so great on pc, logic follows that the console versions should be some of the greatest things god has ever crafted in the console realm. the reality is: they arent. they are superb games but the console versions are only rated slightly higher, so slightly in fact, its not even worth discussing. If coD4 and Bioshock are some of the best games on pc, they should be jesus on consoles. they arent.

Now, you can sit here and try to convince yourself that various pc exclusives such as crysis, stalker, the witcher etc, are lightyears ahead of console games such as halo 3, and that halo 3 would be low 8's at best on pc. the only difference is, i have proof backing my statements. you have hypothesis. good night.

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.

jangojay

[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="JPOBS"][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.

But given that some of the best pc games of 2007 managed to basically score the same on the consoles means that the pc's dont have some amazing standards. If CoD4 and bioshock are so great on pc, logic follows that the console versions should be some of the greatest things god has ever crafted in the console realm. the reality is: they arent. they are superb games but the console versions are only rated slightly higher, so slightly in fact, its not even worth discussing. If coD4 and Bioshock are some of the best games on pc, they should be jesus on consoles. they arent.

Now, you can sit here and try to convince yourself that various pc exclusives such as crysis, stalker, the witcher etc, are lightyears ahead of console games such as halo 3, and that halo 3 would be low 8's at best on pc. the only difference is, i have proof backing my statements. you have hypothesis. good night.

Halo 1 on pc halo 2 on pc compared to halo on xbox.. good night.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

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.

tader-salad

Ever play any of those?

[QUOTE="tader-salad"][QUOTE="jangojay"]

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.

jangojay

Ever play any of those?

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

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.

DragonfireXZ95

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

I think it was the mp considering his post.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

[QUOTE="tader-salad"][QUOTE="jangojay"]

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.

tader-salad

Ever play any of those?

I was referring to cod 2 and system shock 2. Also sorry but I own both bioshock and Cod 4.

Halo 1 on pc halo 2 on pc compared to halo on xbox.. good night.

jangojay

Halo 2 was a direct port not handled by bungie of a 3 year old game.

Half Life 2 PC compared to Half Life 2 Xbox? Consoles must have unbelievable standards.

[QUOTE="beast667"]

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

Halo 3 is an incredible console game though.

Armalite1016

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.

No

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

Halo 1 on pc halo 2 on pc compared to halo on xbox.. good night.

II-FBIsniper-II

Halo 2 was a direct port not handled by bungie of a 3 year old game.

Half Life 2 PC compared to Half Life 2 Xbox? Consoles must have unbelievable standards.

The *scores* argument is left for your friend over there. I'm just using is his logic against him. Console games lack depth as I said in my above post and halo is the king of that, consoles are only now doing what pc has been doing for years, so if you walk backward instead of forward your sales won't be very good.

Over casualizing games never runs well on PC. Reviewers may give it a high score, but the lack of sales it receives is what the pc gamers think of the game. cough cough UT3.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

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.

the1stfandb

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

I think it was the mp considering his post.

If he wouldn't have said "especially considering multiplayer" than I would have assumed that. Maybe he's just not good with grammar?

[QUOTE="the1stfandb"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

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.

DragonfireXZ95

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

I think it was the mp considering his post.

If he wouldn't have said "especially considering multiplayer" than I would have assumed that. Maybe he's just not good with grammar?

[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.

It does though. I don't see how anyone who plays PC games could every deny this. FPS's on the PC now adays are way beyond what you see in games like Halo 3. They add another two layers of control and gameplay, which just isn't seen on consoles.

While you may regard it as elitism, we regard it as reality. I don't know what to say, other then, I've played every notable Console FPS this generation, along with every notable PC FPS game this generation -- and I can see it as clear as day.

Wow who cares about the score, if all you can do is look at a score to judge a game, good luck with your life. Look at the actual GAME. PC gaming is much more ahead of Consoles in terms of depth. Need proof? Look at Sins of a Solar Empire. You would NEVER find a RTS of that depth of a console. Console RTS games are where PC RTSs were in the 90s, no joke. Halo Wars being a good example. Just look at the trailer, that looks like what would be a $10 mini type game over on steam.

Halo 3 reminds me so much of Halo 1, a good game in its time, but things have advanced by now. Obviously not on the console side of things. STALKER is a perfect of example of evolutionary gameplay in shooters. You think Bioshock is an FPSRPG? Nope, that would be STALKER. Anyone (cough Gametrailers cough) who thinks STALKER is too complicated should play consoles, because consoles are suited towards a casual audience, (at least companies diesign and market them for casual audiences) and that is simply a fact, not opinion.

Still don't agree? Let's just put it this way: You would never ever ever see an indie developer make some crazy in depth game for consoles. That's why PC games develop faster, because there are way more games made by small developers who do things differently, because they aren't out to make money, unlike Epic who has betrayed their loyal PC fans and made a casual game like UT3, cutting out almost all of the classic maps.

Also, Crysis wasn't designed with multiplayer in mind. They specifically designed it as a single player game, and for that, you have to admit MP is pretty good. Single player Crysis eclipses Halo 3 multiplayer and single player in every way.

Also, if you aski me, I have had more fun playing the original Halo's MP on the PC than Halo 3. Halo 1 just had personality, and atmophere, even in multiplayer. Halo 3? Not so much.

Wow who cares about the score, if all you can do is look at a score to judge a game, good luck with your life. Look at the actual GAME. PC gaming is much more ahead of Consoles in terms of depth. Need proof? Look at Sins of a Solar Empire. You would NEVER find a RTS of that depth of a console. Console RTS games are where PC RTSs were in the 90s, no joke. Halo Wars being a good example. Just look at the trailer, that looks like what would be a $10 mini type game over on steam.

Halo 3 reminds me so much of Halo 1, a good game in its time, but things have advanced by now. Obviously not on the console side of things. STALKER is a perfect of example of evolutionary gameplay in shooters. You think Bioshock is an FPSRPG? Nope, that would be STALKER. Anyone (cough Gametrailers cough) who thinks STALKER is too complicated should play consoles, because consoles are suited towards a casual audience, (at least companies diesign and market them for casual audiences) and that is simply a fact, not opinion.

Still don't agree? Let's just put it this way: You would never ever ever see an indie developer make some crazy in depth game for consoles. That's why PC games develop faster, because there are way more games made by small developers who do things differently, because they aren't out to make money, unlike Epic who has betrayed their loyal PC fans and made a casual game like UT3, cutting out almost all of the classic maps.

Armalite1016

Exactly. Props on putting together that piece, I was going to... but I felt, "if they don't know, then they prolly won't ever know until they experiance it themselves".

Wow who cares about the score, if all you can do is look at a score to judge a game, good luck with your life. Look at the actual GAME. PC gaming is much more ahead of Consoles in terms of depth. Need proof? Look at Sins of a Solar Empire. You would NEVER find a RTS of that depth of a console. Console RTS games are where PC RTSs were in the 90s, no joke. Halo Wars being a good example. Just look at the trailer, that looks like what would be a $10 mini type game over on steam.

Halo 3 reminds me so much of Halo 1, a good game in its time, but things have advanced by now. Obviously not on the console side of things. STALKER is a perfect of example of evolutionary gameplay in shooters. You think Bioshock is an FPSRPG? Nope, that would be STALKER. Anyone (cough Gametrailers cough) who thinks STALKER is too complicated should play consoles, because consoles are suited towards a casual audience, (at least companies diesign and market them for casual audiences) and that is simply a fact, not opinion.

Still don't agree? Let's just put it this way: You would never ever ever see an indie developer make some crazy in depth game for consoles. That's why PC games develop faster, because there are way more games made by small developers who do things differently, because they aren't out to make money, unlike Epic who has betrayed their loyal PC fans and made a casual game like UT3, cutting out almost all of the classic maps.

Armalite1016

Wow who cares about the score, if all you can do is look at a score to judge a game, good luck with your life. Look at the actual GAME. PC gaming is much more ahead of Consoles in terms of depth. Need proof? Look at Sins of a Solar Empire. You would NEVER find a RTS of that depth of a console. Console RTS games are where PC RTSs were in the 90s, no joke. Halo Wars being a good example. Just look at the trailer, that looks like what would be a $10 mini type game over on steam.

Halo 3 reminds me so much of Halo 1, a good game in its time, but things have advanced by now. Obviously not on the console side of things. STALKER is a perfect of example of evolutionary gameplay in shooters. You think Bioshock is an FPSRPG? Nope, that would be STALKER. Anyone (cough Gametrailers cough) who thinks STALKER is too complicated should play consoles, because consoles are suited towards a casual audience, (at least companies diesign and market them for casual audiences) and that is simply a fact, not opinion.

Still don't agree? Let's just put it this way: You would never ever ever see an indie developer make some crazy in depth game for consoles. That's why PC games develop faster, because there are way more games made by small developers who do things differently, because they aren't out to make money, unlike Epic who has betrayed their loyal PC fans and made a casual game like UT3, cutting out almost all of the classic maps.

Armalite1016

Agreed with the above guys, great post. :)

It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.Armalite1016

It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.Armalite1016

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

One thing I don't get is halo3 is a big step-up for console games it is probably the most feature loaded game on a console. Consoles wil contue to adept pc's attributes which is a good thing but they have always been way behind so I really don't where the disscunsion is at.

Wow who cares about the score, if all you can do is look at a score to judge a game, good luck with your life. Look at the actual GAME. PC gaming is much more ahead of Consoles in terms of depth. Need proof? Look at Sins of a Solar Empire. You would NEVER find a RTS of that depth of a console. Console RTS games are where PC RTSs were in the 90s, no joke. Halo Wars being a good example. Just look at the trailer, that looks like what would be a $10 mini type game over on steam.

Halo 3 reminds me so much of Halo 1, a good game in its time, but things have advanced by now. Obviously not on the console side of things. STALKER is a perfect of example of evolutionary gameplay in shooters. You think Bioshock is an FPSRPG? Nope, that would be STALKER. Anyone (cough Gametrailers cough) who thinks STALKER is too complicated should play consoles, because consoles are suited towards a casual audience, (at least companies diesign and market them for casual audiences) and that is simply a fact, not opinion.

Still don't agree? Let's just put it this way: You would never ever ever see an indie developer make some crazy in depth game for consoles. That's why PC games develop faster, because there are way more games made by small developers who do things differently, because they aren't out to make money, unlike Epic who has betrayed their loyal PC fans and made a casual game like UT3, cutting out almost all of the classic maps.

Armalite1016

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.II-FBIsniper-II

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Rainbow six 3... before it got to consoles lol. Minus dual wield and melee.

Crysis. except for nades and 2 weps. But 3 is more realistic considering one of them is a side arm and two primary.

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.II-FBIsniper-II

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Btw, cryis hehe minus holds only 2 weapons. But you can duel wield pistols, and I don't find any of your statements above anything amazing. Just trying to find something to justify Halo lol.

And for anyone who still doubts it, go look at previews for Halo Wars, then go look at Sins of a Solar Empire. They are both RTS games, Sins currently being the newest one so far in 2008, at least that I know of. In fact, even look at American Conquest, an RTS that came out several years ago. So much more depth than Halo Wars could ever hope to acheive.

Anyway, I am wandering from my original point. I'm not trying to put consoles down for no reason. I am saying all this because PC gaming is losing lots of developers like Epic because companies seem to think that PC gamers just want ports of consoles games, and when these ports don't sell, they think there isn't a market for the PC. It just brings my piss to a boil that this is happening. Epic is a prime example. Oh, UT3 didn't sell? Guess what, it's because you took out so much stuff you could almost consider it an expansion of 2004. Hardly any game modes, only 40 maps, where UT2004 shipped with about 100. Where is Bombing Run? Where is Assault? Where is INVASION? And besides Deck 17, WHERE ARE THE CLASSIC MAPS??????? Wow take a hint Epic, you wouldn't try selling Sins of a Solar Empire on consoles, don't try selling console games on the PC.

In light of all this, though, it is somewhat a good thing for us "hermits". Now that the big companies are moving on to the money wells, actual indie devs will pop up and give us what we want. PC games, and in time, once the market returns to PC, big companies will come back in, push the small devs out again, mess everything up, decide PC gaming is dying, and the indie devs can come back in.

I used to be a fan of Epic, but right now I'm a fan of StarDock, Crytek, and Creative Assembly. Also, remember, once the 9 series and G100 video cards from Nvidia come out, a lot of developers will focus on PC games again, as they will want tech savvy games. In 1-2 years, multiplats won't be nearly as easy, as PC exclusives with amazing graphics will force the bigger companies to make their ports have good graphics, and turn, either develop for the PC from ground up, or just not port at all. Even better.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.jangojay

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Rainbow six 3... before it got to consoles lol. Minus dual wield and melee.

FEAR has all of those

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.II-FBIsniper-II

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Crysis you can duel wield.

Crysis you can only hold 2 primary weapons as well as a secondary. This is in almost every game now. STALKER you can have multiple guns, but can only hold 1 primary at a time.

Melee at will? lots of games. Crysis is one.

Equipment? Almost any tactical shooter ever made. The only difference is that Halo 3's equipment has a sci-fi element to it.

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.Lonelynight

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Rainbow six 3... before it got to consoles lol. Minus dual wield and melee.

FEAR has all of those

owned.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.Armalite1016

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Crysis you can duel wield.

Crysis you can only hold 2 primary weapons as well as a secondary. This is in almost every game now. STALKER you can have multiple guns, but can only hold 1 primary at a time.

Melee at will? lots of games. Crysis is one.

Equipment? Almost any tactical shooter ever made. The only difference is that Halo 3's equipment has a sci-fi element to it.

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

Taking from your example of Crysis... The Nanosuit also does many many things Halo cannot do.

^ just let him compare halo wars to the total war series. That's will end all the discussion.jangojay

I think just comparing Starcraft would be enough, a 10 years old game

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.lettuceman44

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Btw, cryis hehe minus holds only 2 weapons. But you can duel wield pistols, and I don't find any of your statements above anything amazing. Just trying to find something to justify Halo lol.

I said that is what makes Halo different from most shooters on the market.

I'm just trying to find something to justify Halo? Its fun. If this topic was about that it would of been over a long time ago. i don't need to justify Halo, it seems like you guys are trying to justify spending $1000+ on a pc.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.Armalite1016

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Rainbow six 3... before it got to consoles lol. Minus dual wield and melee.

FEAR has all of those

owned.

Fear was out in 05 halo was out in 01...:?

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

Armalite1016

Fear was out in 05 halo was out in 01...:?

the1stfandb

F.E.A.R. was also one of the first first person shooters to incorporate time manipulation(Not to be confused with the 3rd person Max Payne). It advanced beyond Halo without a doubt.

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"]

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]It's fairly sueless arguing against non-PC players, because consoles are the most they have ever known, and it would be impossible for them to comprehend that a game could have more depth than "Halo 3", although Halo 3 has no depth. The one thing I will give to Halo 3 is story, since the Halo universe has consistently been surrounded by an absolutely fantastic story-line, and every time they give away more story, through games or books, it just leaves me wanting to find out more.the1stfandb

-Hold only 2 weapons

-Throw 4 types of grenades

-Melee at will

-Dual Wield

-Use an equivilant to H3's Equipment at any time

This is where Halo is different from many shooters.

Rainbow six 3... before it got to consoles lol. Minus dual wield and melee.

FEAR has all of those

owned.

Fear was out in 05 halo was out in 01...:?

Yeah but Halo 1 didn't have half of those features he listed. And besides, he said list anyPC games, not list any that came before Halo. He was trying to say that no or few PC games have any of those features.

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

II-FBIsniper-II

This is the problem. While many first person shooters advanced beyond what Halo:CE did, Halo 2 and 3 were basically the same thing, the only huge difference was in Halo 2 when they added dual wield. And thus, the Halo gameplay grew stale and archaic because it had almost no advance in gameplay.

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

II-FBIsniper-II

Yes I know what sequels are and so far could barely call Halo 2 and 3 sequels. I would Call Halo 3 a sequel of Halo 1, but not Halo 2. Sequels are supposed to add a lot of stuff. What did Halo 2 add? Duel Wielding and Hijacking Vehicles. Oh boy... Multiplayer is arguable, but barely, seeing as Halo 1 has superior multiplayer any way, and Halo 2 just let players go online. If Xbox Live was invented when Hao 1 was released it would have been on there.

Halo 3 didn't do really anything except equipment to upgrade from Halo 2. Forge and Saved Films? Give me a break. Far Cry instincs had a better map editor than Forge, and Saved films? people talk about it like it is so revolutionary... Sorry, it's not.

You want sequels? Look at the Total War Series, every aspect of the gameplay they improve on with each installation. Look at STALKER clear sky. Now THAT is a sequel in every way, they are overhauling every single gameplay aspect.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"][QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

DragonfireXZ95

This is the problem. While many first person shooters advanced beyond what Halo:CE did, Halo 2 and 3 were basically the same thing, the only huge difference was in Halo 2 when they added dual wield. And thus, the Halo gameplay grew stale and archaic because it had almost no advance in gameplay.

The other difference was no more health bar which has become pretty common now hasn't it?

Then you could customize the gameplay to your liking with custom games.

If the Halo gameplay grew stale, please tell me why its the most played console game after 7 years of the "same" gameplay?

I guess I'm just a little suprised so many people disagree. I thought it was just common sense really, and pretty much everyone agreed that PC games are more developed than console games. It's simple logic, really.

Console games are more expensive to create. They get more money, arguably, but they are still more expensive to make, and harder, really. This means that only big name companies make console games, and they only make games that really have a pretty good chance of making money. aka they pretty much play it safe, and don't try to evolve gameplay aspects to much. And I don't blame them.

This is where PC developers come into play. Obviously, PC games are easier to make and distribute, as any group of guys with good programming knowledge and such can pretty much make a game. This opens up room for countless independent developing "companies" people who make game pretty much for hobby. The fact that most of these people are trying to become rich, and aren't concerned with making the most money, means that they take risks, and try to innovate. They do stuff differently. This ends up meaning that PC games are always evolving, and big companies know this, and have to keep up with the ever changing climate of PC gaming.

In consoles there is really no reason to evolve, except that PC is before them, and even then, they don't really have a need. There aren't any indie developers making new progress on consoles.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"][QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

Armalite1016

Yes I know what sequels are and so far could barely call Halo 2 and 3 sequels. I would Call Halo 3 a sequel of Halo 1, but not Halo 2. Sequels are supposed to add a lot of stuff. What did Halo 2 add? Duel Wielding and Hijacking Vehicles. Oh boy... Multiplayer is arguable, but barely, seeing as Halo 1 has superior multiplayer any way, and Halo 2 just let players go online. If Xbox Live was invented when Hao 1 was released it would have been on there.

Halo 3 didn't do really anything except equipment to upgrade from Halo 2. Forge and Saved Films? Give me a break. Far Cry instincs had a better map editor than Forge, and Saved films? people talk about it like it is so revolutionary... Sorry, it's not.

You want sequels? Look at the Total War Series, every aspect of the gameplay they improve on with each installation. Look at STALKER clear sky. Now THAT is a sequel in every way, they are overhauling every single gameplay aspect.

[QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

II-FBIsniper-II

Go play Warcraft 2 then play Warcraft 3, THATS a sequel.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"][QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

II-FBIsniper-II

This is the problem. While many first person shooters advanced beyond what Halo:CE did, Halo 2 and 3 were basically the same thing, the only huge difference was in Halo 2 when they added dual wield. And thus, the Halo gameplay grew stale and archaic because it had almost no advance in gameplay.

The other difference was no more health bar which has become pretty common now hasn't it?

Then you could customize the gameplay to your liking with custom games.

If the Halo gameplay grew stale, please tell me why its the most played console game after 7 years of the "same" gameplay?

Online wasn't really an innovation though. Imo, Halo's multiplayer was better than Halo 2's. Better maps and atmosphere, and better weapons. The only difference was that they added online, which came with xbox live.

The recharging health concept started in Halo, with the shields.Even if they aren't tehcnically health, it is still the same concept.

You could customize gametypes in Halo also.

Simple: there is really nothing else pushing forward console games. People play it the most because even after 7 years with no change, it is still the best the consoles have to offer. I'm telling you, it's called independent developers. As long as PC has those, which it always will, PC will always be ahead in how advanced the games are.

[QUOTE="II-FBIsniper-II"][QUOTE="Armalite1016"]

Halo 3 is not different from many shooters, in fact, it's not different from the previous Halo's. Halo 1 was the most innovative Halo game there was. Now that Bungie isn't owned by Microsoft, maybe it will start developing games again instead of expansion packs.

Armalite1016

Yes I know what sequels are and so far could barely call Halo 2 and 3 sequels. I would Call Halo 3 a sequel of Halo 1, but not Halo 2. Sequels are supposed to add a lot of stuff. What did Halo 2 add? Duel Wielding and Hijacking Vehicles. Oh boy... Multiplayer is arguable, but barely, seeing as Halo 1 has superior multiplayer any way, and Halo 2 just let players go online. If Xbox Live was invented when Hao 1 was released it would have been on there.

Halo 3 didn't do really anything except equipment to upgrade from Halo 2. Forge and Saved Films? Give me a break. Far Cry instincs had a better map editor than Forge, and Saved films? people talk about it like it is so revolutionary... Sorry, it's not.

You want sequels? Look at the Total War Series, every aspect of the gameplay they improve on with each installation. Look at STALKER clear sky. Now THAT is a sequel in every way, they are overhauling every single gameplay aspect.

You sure don't know what you're talking about do you.

Halo 1 almost had its multiplayer cut from the game.

Halo 3 didn't do really anything except equipment to upgrade from Halo 2. Forge and Saved Films? Give me a break. Far Cry instincs had a better map editor than Forge, and Saved films? people talk about it like it is so revolutionary... Sorry, it's not.

Forge and saved films weren't huge things? Are you kidding me? People have remade Halo 2 and Halo 1 maps using forge.

Saved films are very important to the community. If its wasn't for them, there wouldn't be things like a person getting killed by a traffic cone.

Now people can share their films from console to console without having an external capture device. If they get a huge multikill, they can show their friends, put it on their file share and put on Bungie.net for anyone to see. They can take pictures that you don't normally see during gameplay.

Here is a picture I took that wasn't even visable when playing.