Is Halo PC still worth playing through?

[Kareem]

I wasn't into gaming when Halo for the Xbox and then the PC version came out, so I never really got to play them. So recently I was playing some of the older classics, like Half-life 1 and the Opposing Force expansion, and Starcraft, and Diablo II. I was just wondering if it's still possible for Halo to impress with the recent great FPS games like HL2, Riddick, Far Cry, Call of Duty, UT2004, etc.? Do any of you still play it even after Halo 2 came out?

[Bill Dungsroman]

No.

[Matthew Gallant]

Yes.

[Shmtur]

It was never a spectacular game (on PC) to begin with. With more time in between now and when the game came out, it's seems far less impressive now.

That said, it's not a bad game, still.

[Equis]

No.

Long repetitive corridors.
Boring Visuals.
The gunfights get boring after a while.
The story wasn't that fantastic.

Go play Half-Life 2 instead.

[Rob_Merritt]

No.

Long repetitive corridors.
Boring Visuals.
The gunfights get boring after a while.
The story wasn't that fantastic.

Go play Half-Life 2 instead.

I thought you were describing HL2 there for a moment. :P

Seriously though.. Halo on PC isn't very good. Its an ok game. If you happen to own it, (say got if free with a hardware upgrade) I say go ahead and play it. There are some fun parts but don't go out looking for it. Doom 3, painkiller, and yes even half life 2 are better than Halo.

[Matthew Gallant]

Oh come on, Half-Life 2 replaces Halo's two long boring corridors with a much longer boring boat ride with frequent pit stops. And then throws in a somewhat shorter but still boring buggy ride with the same exact stops, except one time there's a magnet.

And Halo's story is just fine. Some well-acted characters. And an appropriately climactic ending, for goddamn once.

[Kalle]

Halo > Half-life 2 on everything but the graphics.

[Funkman]

Halo > Half-life 2 on everything but the graphics.

Whoa. Really? I must have been playing a different Halo then. Maybe mine was broken.

[worm]

Hey!
Yes
No
3 > 2
☺ + ☻ = ●

I haven't played it on the ECHZ BACHZ. I really don't care about boring corridors, or anything. It just was not fun at all. Once I had to follow that blue light bulb well things came after me I was sick of it. If you don't think HL2 is better then you probably think Far Cry is better. The fact is, there are plenty of things that are better. I can realize settling for a FPS when you're on a console, especially one that is easy and fun to play on the console, though doing the same on a PC is just absurd.

Oh come on, Half-Life 2 replaces Halo's two long boring corridors with a much longer boring boat ride with frequent pit stops. And then throws in a somewhat shorter but still boring buggy ride with the same exact stops, except one time there's a magnet.

And Halo's story is just fine. Some well-acted characters. And an appropriately climactic ending, for goddamn once.
That seems like a reason to watch a game play video of Halo with the combat taken out. No one, not even child rapists should have to play Halo on the PC.

[Rob_Merritt]

Good call on Far Cry. Its the best out there at the moment.

[Funkman]

Then why do half of the people here say that the game seriously bogs down in its second half?

I am really tempted to get Far Cry (25.99 Canadian at Walmart) but all I hear is how good it is at the beginning and how oh so wrong it is near the end.

[worm]

Then why do half of the people here say that the game seriously bogs down in its second half?

I am really tempted to get Far Cry (25.99 Canadian at Walmart) but all I hear is how good it is at the beginning and how oh so wrong it is near the end.
Hell, I still didn't get through it. That's probably because I've had it on my brothers computer and need to wait until he gets off to play it. The main thing is you'll think you're done about 4 or 5 times during the game, so after awhile you just want to find the final boss so you can blow his brains out. Everything else about the game vechicles, guns, the save system was perfect for me.

[Rob_Merritt]

Then why do half of the people here say that the game seriously bogs down in its second half?

I am really tempted to get Far Cry (25.99 Canadian at Walmart) but all I hear is how good it is at the beginning and how oh so wrong it is near the end.

The story stops developing after 2/3rds of the game and becomes a standard grind. The difficulty kicks up a bit and since the game only uses save points, people tend to get pissed off at the game. Save anywhere would of really saved the game's popular image. That said, I blew through the game in one week and never found it that difficult. There was always more than one way through an area and with some thought, you could descrease the difficulty of some combat situations.

[Uncle Larry]

Far Cry is totally awesome. it's gorgeous, immersive, challenging, and it gives you about as much freedom as you're likely to find in a story-driven/ mission-based FPS. I'd say it's right alongside Goldeneye and Half-Life.

If it had iron sights and coop, it'd be just about perfect. WOULDN'T IT, PARTLETT?!?!

[Supertanker]

Halo might be worth playing for the cultural knowledge, though I prefer the Xbox version.

Far Cry's a great ice-skating and cloud-floating sim, too. I don't know how people stand to play it with the feel of the movement and weapons.

[Kaigen]

Ugh, Far Cry. I hate you as a person if you like that game.

(Kidding.)
(Kinda.)

I enjoyed Halo a lot for the first half, then it just got too damn repetitive. If they had made every level like The Silent Cartographer level, with a good mix of indoors and outdoors, vehicles and on foot, then it would've been awesome. Instead someone decided, "Woo! We can make the game arbitrarily longer if we just repeat the same corridors over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over..."

And he never stopped saying it. I think Bungie has him locked in a closet somewhere.

[Funkman]

See what I mean? It is split almost half and half. And the complaints against it are pretty legit (unlike the HL2 complaints). But the people who like it say its awesome and exciting. So, its a tough call even at 25.99.

[Chris Nahr]

No complaints against the greatness that is Halo are even remotely legit, completely unlike the complaints against Half-Life 2, all of which are certifiably true.

[SolomonGrundy]

It's worth playing, just to get a save at the beginning of the Library, and can come back and just blast things on that level any time you have a bad day at work.

I also have to say that , though it's mindless compared to some newer MP games, it is good fun driving the Puma...er Warthogs.

[Mattc0m]

Halo is a lot better console shooter than a PC shooter. That aside, I enjoyed Halo a lot more than I did Half-Life 2. However, I never played it on the PC and I heard the transition between a console to PC shooter was bad.

But, if you haven't played Halo, it's worth doing it. The story isn't very deep, but it's good. The action is great, and even though it does get repetitive I still had fun with it because I enjoyed the gameplay. It's much more fun on co-op, I've played through co-op with just about all my relatives and friends. However, this is concerning the Xbox version.

For the PC version, I really don't know. Multiplayer, I heard, was pretty fun.

[svenr]

Play Halo on the X-Box with a friend or don't play it at all. Renting it for a weekend should be enough to finish it. Coop really is awesome fun: I love how generous the game is with ammo and especially grenades, even on Legendary difficulty. It's about 15 hours of you and your buddy blowing shit up.

[Alan Au]

The PC version of Halo lets you use a mouse and keyboard, but the Xbox version ends up being more playable because it supports coop. Overall, I think Halo does a marginally better job of explaining why you should follow the linear path from point A to point B. Of course, maybe that's because I was partly drunk while playing HL2 and insisted on conducting "crowbar science" during all of the explanatory cutscenes.

I love how generous the game is with ammo and especially grenades, even on Legendary difficulty.
That because on Legendary, most of the enemies carry (and use) plasma grenades. Interestingly, they are more difficult to obtain in the easier modes.

- Alan

[Kevin Grey]

I don't care for the PC port of Halo at all. The Xbox version is much superior IMO. I replayed it last fall after Halo 2 came out and probably enjoyed it more than I did the first time so I say its definitely worth a playthrough.

[awdougherty]

Never personally played the PC port, but I can say that the XBox version if co-op is hysterical fun. Definitely second that opinion.

Just a quick work about Half-Life 2. I have to say that I'm fairly unimpressed. Great atmosphere, but some of the levels just go on forever. The gravity gun is neat at first, but I get really tired having to use it to build make shift bridges across areas. And whoever thought it would be good to do a little squad action needs to be confronted. I actually thought about killing my own squadmates to stop them from blocking me in the narrow hallways, but I figured I might need the ammo. Same goes for the bugs you control. Not only do they get in my way, they make it so I don't even have to really play for long stretches of time. Eh...

[Matthew Gallant]

The PC port of Halo worked just fine for me. That's the only way I played it though, except for small periods of time fooling with it on Xbox.

[Hump]

you're all out of your 'effing minds. The game was wonderful and it's still a very satisfying experience (the final Warthog scene is still one of the most memorable moments in my gaming life). If you can find a server with players who've made it past puberty the MP is quite a bit of fun as well.

[Creole Ned]

I've played Halo on the Xbox a bit but bought and played through the entirety of the PC version. Ackowledging the flaws in the game (thoroughly discussed already), I enjoyed Halo for these reasons and recommend it for the same:

1. The "you only get two weapons" dynamic. While it may have been a way to streamline controls on the original console version, limiting the player to only two weapons at any time (but allowing the player to choose which ones) really brought the game alive to me in terms of tactics.

2. Best implementation of grenades in any shooter I've played. Always great fun to use, especially combined with the decent physics that sent Covenant flying.

3. Well-made cutscenes that don't drag on, voiced by actors who don't regularly embarrass themselves.

4. Until UT2004, the best-handling vehicles in a shooter (again, based solely on what I've played). The warthog is still a ton o' fun to bomb around in. The vehicles also featured in another strength of the game: being able to work through the set pieces using a variety of approaches.

5. Decent and engaging enemy AI. From the easily-panicked grunts to the use of cover, supression and flanking, the AI is well ahead of many other shooters. It's not perfect, of course, but what is? (answer: pizza, but that's neither here nor there)

6. Music. In most FPSs, one of the first things I do is turn off the "Whoa, I'm a 15 year old headbanger, duuuude!!!" music (sorry, Dave Long ;)). Halo features music that plays at key moments in the action, is mainly orchestrated and was enjoyable enough for me to buy the soundtrack on CD.

7. No "figure out the trick to defeating the final boss" ending. One of the few FPSs that had a satisfying finish.

I don't deny any of the game's weaknesses - notably some very repetitive level design and floaty mouse control (that can be fixed via the command line), but overall I think it's one of the best shooters for any platfiorm that we've seen in the last five years.

[tromik]

I liked it. Plus it was only of the last great game endings.

[worm]

Yeah, just get Farcry instead. That way you don't end up with a boring thread about Halo VS. HL2. Or just make your own decisions.

[TomChick]

Since everyone's pitching in, count me among the Far Cry haters. Great tech, amateur-ish game. However, I am looking forward to Crytek's sophomore effort under the guiding hand of EA. Providing it's not called Far Cry Street Extreme 2.

-Tom

[Dave Long]

I'll never understand what it is about the PC version that people hate so much. I played through most of the game on the PC and the entirety of it on Xbox and both were just as thrilling. It's a great game and it's easy to see what it was the Xbox's biggest draw for so long.

If you don't have an Xbox or want mouse/keyboard control, the PC version is just as good.

--Dave

[Shadari]

Great tech, amateur-ish game.
I'm not a big Far Cry fan either, but to call the game amateurish is crazy.

[TomChick]

I'm not a big Far Cry fan either, but to call the game amateurish is crazy.

Dude, the design was really amateurish. I'm not sure if it was Crytek's first title, but it felt like some new designer's first game. Or like something by a company who knows tech but doesn't know gameplay.

There was very little sense of personality; the plot, setting, enemies, and weapons were as derivative as you could get; the game progression was totally bonked with a difficulty level that spiked all over the place; the multiplayer was sadly underdeveloped; the way stealth and AI were implemented was inconsistent; the pacing was erratic; the save game system was really poorly implemented; and the final third -- as others have mentioned -- was absolutely unreasonable. All of which says to me 'amateurish'.

Now how is that "crazy"?

-Tom

[Hump]

When did Crytek sign with EA?

[Shadari]

Those are many of the reasons that I didn't exactly love the game either. But those are problems that many games suffer from and I wouldn't call them amateurish either. And while the game had its problems as you mentioned, it had a number of perks too, like wide open envrionments conducive to solving problems in many different ways, kick-ass vehicles that were a blast to control and so on. The basic control... the running and gunning were quite satisfying too. That's a huge factor IMHO. If they got that part right, they aren't amateurs. :wink:

EDIT: Let's just say the game had some problems. I just can't see it being termed as amateurish though.

[Kaigen]

Can I call it shitty? Is that a good word?

[tronnc]

My opinion.

Halo PC is very good single player. Multiplayer is weak. For me with FPS singleplayer games the biggest issue is are the firefights fun and dynamic. That alone will determine if I like or dislike a game. Halo does firefights very well. They are dynamic and action packed and very well paced. There are some bad parts, such as the first level, but overall if you like fast paced dynamic firefights Halo is great.

For the record I have never played Halo on the Xbox so I can't compare.

Because of how I value firefights, I consider Farcry the best FPS of 2004. Things like story, difficulty consistency, generic weapons, etc, don't mean much to me. Its great if they are well done but without the great firefights none of that will matter (see Doom3). I though HL2 was an excellent game and consistently better than Farcry but the highs of the human firefights in Farcry are just that much higher than the highs of any part of HL2, so I simply enjoyed Farcry more.

For me the best game experience is far more valuable than the best consistent experience. One of the reasons I still think Vietcong is the best singleplayer FPS to come out in several years and I consider it much better than Call of Duty which it gets compared to alot.

[Shadari]

Can I call it shitty? Is that a good word?
My sources say no.

[Kaigen]

Because of how I value firefights, I consider Farcry the best FPS of 2004. Things like story, difficulty consistency, generic weapons, etc, don't mean much to me. Its great if they are well done but without the great firefights none of that will matter (see Doom3).

Woah, woah, hold up a minute. Doom 3 did not have a good story or innovative weapons and was much too easy all the way through. I don't think the firefights were the problem.

[TomChick]

Let's just say the game had some problems. I just can't see it being termed as amateurish though.

Fair enough, but I think you're getting too hung up on the word 'amateurish' as derogatory. I was simply trying to be descriptive. My point was that Crytek made a bunch of mistakes a more experienced developer that isn't called id would have avoided.

But yeah, props to Far Cry for some things, most of which are technical.

-Tom

[tronnc]

Because of how I value firefights, I consider Farcry the best FPS of 2004. Things like story, difficulty consistency, generic weapons, etc, don't mean much to me. Its great if they are well done but without the great firefights none of that will matter (see Doom3).

Woah, woah, hold up a minute. Doom 3 did not have a good story or innovative weapons and was much too easy all the way through. I don't think the firefights were the problem.

Ok Doom 3 did have plenty of problems in other areas, it easily my most disappointing title of 2004. But if it had good firefights none of those other problems would have mattered. To me at least.

[krayzkrok]

Just completed playing Halo myself a few weeks ago, as my PC was never good enough to run it at a playable framerate and res before my current beast. Even now (Athlon 3500+, 6800 GT) I can hear the PC grunting away as you play (or are those the geckos that live under the power supply?).

Anyway, I greatly enjoyed it. The "oh my god look at the low resolution textures" response dulls by the time you've reached the second level, and I found it great fun. Yes there are repetitive sections, but mostly they're still fun because the combat is enjoyable and works well. The only section that drags more than the others, the infamous "Library", is really not as bad as I'd imagined, and the atmosphere works to cover up the holes. The final couple of levels are worth the wait, IMO. I imagine it had more impact on the X-Box though.

I'd say the recent FPS' have the following strengths:

Doom 3 - atmosphere
Far Cry - freedom
Half-Life 2 - technology / story
Halo - story
Riddick - gameplay

I think they're all good games, but my pick so far goes to Riddick - it just seems to combine more elements into a successful game. Feel free to completely disagree, I don't mind.

[Kaigen]

You know, I'd like to contribute something positive to this thread but I just can't seem to do it.

I've never gotten Doom 3's supposed "atmosphere." I regard Doom 3 and Far Cry both as the gaming equivalent of dry mouth.

Riddick and Half-Life 2 are both awesome and I can not knock either of them for anything. So I guess that's my one positive thing.

Also, since we're talking about recent FPSs, I'll put in a nod for Star Wars: Republic Commando. Combines a lot of the better elements of both Halo and Metroid Prime into one extremely well-paced, entertaining shooter with a lot of personality. And it does more to endear your squad to you than Brothers in Arms did, that's for damn sure.

[walTer]

toss my cookies in

Excluding the Library, Halo is a pretty fun FPS- I'm fairly simple when it comes to shooters--- I just ran thru the Brother in Arms demo and frankly there was too much "stuff" to do- Give me Call of Duty any day.

I loved the driving physics and vehicles in Halo... hey if it is a bargain and you like an fps, go for it.

Far Cry-- WTF is up with that last level- no health, no guns.... no way to get past those stupid guys after jumping off the cliff. I gave up.

[Chris Nahr]

About the Halo PC port... I never played the Xbox version but I thought the PC port was just fine. Yeah, it's a console port so obviously it won't compete with HL2 or Doom 3 when it comes to texture details or polygon count but otherwise I didn't see any problems. The keyboard + mouse controls worked very well.

[svenr]

About the Halo PC port... I never played the Xbox version but I thought the PC port was just fine. Yeah, it's a console port so obviously it won't compete with HL2 or Doom 3 when it comes to texture details or polygon count but otherwise I didn't see any problems. The keyboard + mouse controls worked very well.

Well, the obvious main gripe with the PC version is that it doesn't support cooperative play. It's easily the most fun coop shooter I've played, and PC-only people are really missing out.

krayzkrok: check out one (http://www.computerbb.org/about1272.html) of the many Halo tweaking guides available if you want better performance. Specifically, the "-use 11" command-line parameter, which forces the game to use PS 1.1, offers a significant performance boost.

[bago]

The AI was the best part about halo. You don't see the true beauty of the game until you go legendary.

Once you see the covenant pull a sacrificial lamb move on you, you appreciate it so much more.

[Rob_Merritt]

Far Cry-- WTF is up with that last level- no health, no guns.... no way to get past those stupid guys after jumping off the cliff. I gave up.

Before the end, there is a room that is filled with nearly unlimited ammo and guns. It shuts tights once you leave HOWEVER there is a chair in there which you can prop the door open so you can refill at your leasure.

[Jason Becker]

Those are many of the reasons that I didn't exactly love the game either. But those are problems that many games suffer from and I wouldn't call them amateurish either. And while the game had its problems as you mentioned, it had a number of perks too, like wide open envrionments conducive to solving problems in many different ways, kick-ass vehicles that were a blast to control and so on. The basic control... the running and gunning were quite satisfying too. That's a huge factor IMHO. If they got that part right, they aren't amateurs. :wink:

EDIT: Let's just say the game had some problems. I just can't see it being termed as amateurish though.

Other games suffer from these problems and their amaturish too in today's gaming world. Farcry simply doesn't hold up as an overall gaming experience(hint: I'm talking about stuff besides just the spiffy engine) to titles like HL2, and Halo 2. Those are games that are very well done besides just their engines.

Where is this "solving" problems in diffrent ways come from? People say this about the game and it doesn't exist. Saying something like that would mean actually offering multiple ways to do something. Actual differnt things. Attacking the base in the jungle from the front, left, right or back doesn't constitute multiple ways of solving a problem. Your doing the same stuff(killing and blowing shit up), just from a diffrent direction.

[Kevin Grey]

Where is this "solving" problems in diffrent ways come from? People say this about the game and it doesn't exist. Saying something like that would mean actually offering multiple ways to do something. Actual differnt things. Attacking the base in the jungle from the front, left, right or back doesn't constitute multiple ways of solving a problem. Your doing the same stuff(killing and blowing shit up), just from a diffrent direction.

I think you're pushing it here. First- not all bases need to be assaulted. Large portions of levels can be entirely avoided based on your route or means of transportation. It may not change the end goal (ie get to the end of the level) but it certainly makes for a variety of experiences in getting there.

And even if its base assault, the approach absolutely changes your tactics, difficulty of the fight, etc even if it will ultimately come down to "killing and blowing shit up" (what were you expecting- diplomacy?). Just in the demo level, assaulting the beach is loads easier if you come at the encampment from behind and take up position on the mounted machine gun overlooking the entire camp.

[Jose Liz]

When did Crytek sign with EA?

http://www.crytek.com/news/story.php?id=8&p=0&n=pr&t=1

Chertsey, Surrey, UK, July 23, 2004 – Electronic Arts (NASDAQ: ERTS), the world’s leading interactive entertainment software company, today announced a worldwide strategic partnership to develop and publish a new game franchise with developer Crytek GmbH.

[Moore]

Where is this "solving" problems in diffrent ways come from? People say this about the game and it doesn't exist. Saying something like that would mean actually offering multiple ways to do something. Actual differnt things. Attacking the base in the jungle from the front, left, right or back doesn't constitute multiple ways of solving a problem. Your doing the same stuff(killing and blowing shit up), just from a diffrent direction.

I think you're pushing it here. First- not all bases need to be assaulted. Large portions of levels can be entirely avoided based on your route or means of transportation. It may not change the end goal (ie get to the end of the level) but it certainly makes for a variety of experiences in getting there.

And even if its base assault, the approach absolutely changes your tactics, difficulty of the fight, etc even if it will ultimately come down to "killing and blowing shit up" (what were you expecting- diplomacy?). Just in the demo level, assaulting the beach is loads easier if you come at the encampment from behind and take up position on the mounted machine gun overlooking the entire camp.

I appreciated this in FC as well, something like COD you wouldnt even be able to walk through the brush, it's just march on down the fake corridor even if it's a ridiculous notion tactically. I dont need 100% non-linear, but I need some kind of fucknig breathing room. Lay off the doors if I can't open them for example, kills suspension of disbelief really nicely when your about to be shot to death but your little soldier wouldnt consider opening a door to hide for a sec.

[Mattc0m]

*Another One Bites the Dust*

[KaiSeun1]

It would have been worth playing HaloPC the day it came out (just to get that 'feeling' that xbox players did), but after some time has passed, and after you look back at that game and ask "Was that game any good?", I can tell you it isn't worth your time. The reasons are the same as the above have already discussed.

[scharmers]

- Riddick: best shooter of 2004, period. Great engine, great gameplay, superbly implemented stealth...and you can fucking see in the dark without limited batteries and shoot out lights!. ROXOR!

- Far Cry: Great until the end. Great engine, great semi-non-linear gameplay that rewards careful tactics, generous stealth (i.e. hide in bushes = nearlly invisible), lots of neat environments. Completely ruined by the totally gauntlet linear, totally unfair final couple of levels of the game.

- Half-Life 2: not the game I was expecting. Solid, but not even close to the years of hype. Pretty good engine, OK gameplay, linear like a bastard, few tactical options.

- Doom 3: Hello disappointment. Great engine, tired and predictable gameplay after the first 10E5 monster closets. Linear like a very, very long straight thing. Nice environments, though.

- Halo PC: Horrible ported engine that still taxes modern machines (shader + NV GF = bad), linear as well but still rewards tactical thinking (i.e. gives you room to actually move and plan around the enviroment), still the best vehicles, completely unexcusable reuse of architecture elements (ctrl+c ctrl+v the worst I've seen), nice A.I., and yes, the library is lot more fun than most people are willing to admit.

- Painkiller: Serious Sam, except you feel even more like a bad-ass when you play (i.e. far more better balanced). Right there under Riddick, for me.

--scharmers

[sluggo]

I think Halo PC's still worth a play if you haven't already, especially if you've upgraded your tech since its release. The AI, the recharging armor mechanic, the mouse/keyboard controls, the vehicles -- there haven't been many PC games since with better overall combat. I still load up certain levels in that game every once in a while for fun -- "Halo," "Assault on the Control Room", etc.

Far Cry, IMO, was a brilliant game that made a few dumb mistakes. The open-ended levels were great, the tech was awesome ... but then you had poor difficulty balancing and checkpoints mucking things up. With a few simple tweaks, I think it could have been GOTY material, but they just couldn't take it the last 10 yards.

[Jason Becker]

I think you're pushing it here. First- not all bases need to be assaulted. Large portions of levels can be entirely avoided based on your route or means of transportation. It may not change the end goal (ie get to the end of the level) but it certainly makes for a variety of experiences in getting there.

And even if its base assault, the approach absolutely changes your tactics, difficulty of the fight, etc even if it will ultimately come down to "killing and blowing shit up" (what were you expecting- diplomacy?). Just in the demo level, assaulting the beach is loads easier if you come at the encampment from behind and take up position on the mounted machine gun overlooking the entire camp.


Err I think your the one pushing the concept of multiple ways to do things when it comes to Farcry.

You can use the same basic tactics and get through the whole game fine. I wasn't expecting diplomacy I meant there arn't all these diffrent ways to do things. The game is you shootng and blowing stuff up like any standard FPS. There's nothing like say sneaking into the base, stealing a laser designator and then using it to call in a air strike. Something like that would be offering an option.

[scharmers]

The game is you shootng and blowing stuff up like any standard FPS.

The "All Games are Pong" argument.

Like it or not, there are several different sub-genres in the overall Shooter genre. You got your "hordes o' enemies" shooter. You got your "tactical" shooter. You got your "sneakers". You got your "rail shooters". You got your "stats/RPG" shooter. Etc. Far Cry gives you several different approaches (literally, in the "which physical path will you approach the enemy") to shooting shit up, and, along with some other stuff, puts you in the tactical camp, with a dash of sneaker and a dash of Ho'E.

Recognize the genre. I specifically enjoyed Far Cry because it wasn't, say, a rail shooter (aka Doom 3), and I appreciate the differences between shooters regardless of the fact they all boil down to shoot+run+kill+blow stuff up.

--scharmers

[Kevin Grey]

You can use the same basic tactics and get through the whole game fine. I wasn't expecting diplomacy I meant there arn't all these diffrent ways to do things. The game is you shootng and blowing stuff up like any standard FPS. There's nothing like say sneaking into the base, stealing a laser designator and then using it to call in a air strike. Something like that would be offering an option.

?????

Short of Mercenaries (not even a FPS game itself) what game does give you these options? Within its genre FarCry gives a remarkable amount of choice.

[Jason Becker]

You can use the same basic tactics and get through the whole game fine. I wasn't expecting diplomacy I meant there arn't all these diffrent ways to do things. The game is you shootng and blowing stuff up like any standard FPS. There's nothing like say sneaking into the base, stealing a laser designator and then using it to call in a air strike. Something like that would be offering an option.

?????

Short of Mercenaries (not even a FPS game itself) what game does give you these options? Within its genre FarCry gives a remarkable amount of choice.

Not to me it doesn't. Morrowind is a game that you can call open-ended for example. one of the few out thatre that truely can fit that description. It has real freedom(maybe to the point of being aimless to some people including myself to a degree), but its there.

As to the the whole Pong comment. No not all games are just that but neither are there all these diffrent types people want to think exist. Most games like FPS's have much more in comman than diffences or variations. I guess its how little or much it takes for a person to consider something "diffrent". I personally think people stretch that concept a to far.

[scharmers]

As to the the whole Pong comment. No not all games are just that but neither are there all these diffrent types people want to think exist. Most games like FPS's have much more in comman than diffences or variations

I disagree. For example, you're not going to play Far Cry in the same way that you play Doom 3, or Painkiller, or Thief. Shooters encompass a whole genre -- while they essentially boil down to the same thing, you are challenged to do different things in each subgenre to accomplish that goal, often drastically different things. The differences are there, and they are not subtle.

--scharmers

[Peter Olafson]

If you've already run through the big FPSes of the last couple of years, sure, give it a go. It's still a polished, enjoyable game--tho the single-player side is a bit short for my taste and time has not been particularly kind to the game.

Peter

[Rob_Merritt]

Remember Alyx equals Jar Jar Binks.

[Funkman]

How does Alyx equal Jar Jar?
Jar Jar just serves as an annoying comedic clown with really no purpose while Alyx has at least some stake in the story, some mission to complete. Was she really that annoying.. I mean, Jar Jar-level obnoxious?

[sluggo]

Well, there's at least one major difference -- Valve could make an expansion centering on Alyx and they wouldn't have to worry about being eviscerated for it. :)

[Jason Becker]

As to the the whole Pong comment. No not all games are just that but neither are there all these diffrent types people want to think exist. Most games like FPS's have much more in comman than diffences or variations

I disagree. For example, you're not going to play Far Cry in the same way that you play Doom 3, or Painkiller, or Thief. Shooters encompass a whole genre -- while they essentially boil down to the same thing, you are challenged to do different things in each subgenre to accomplish that goal, often drastically different things. The differences are there, and they are not subtle.

--scharmers

Uhh, I personally wouldn't put the Thief games into the same sentence as those other 3 games.

[Kareem]

As to the the whole Pong comment. No not all games are just that but neither are there all these diffrent types people want to think exist. Most games like FPS's have much more in comman than diffences or variations

I disagree. For example, you're not going to play Far Cry in the same way that you play Doom 3, or Painkiller, or Thief. Shooters encompass a whole genre -- while they essentially boil down to the same thing, you are challenged to do different things in each subgenre to accomplish that goal, often drastically different things. The differences are there, and they are not subtle.

--scharmers

Uhh, I personally wouldn't put the Thief games into the same sentence as those other 3 games.

Sure, Thief shouldn't be there, but the premise is sound. There's the old school type where you simply go around shooting baddies like Doom 3 and Painkiller. There are others that include stealth elements, like Riddick and to a small extent Far Cry, there are others that demand a more methodical approach, eliminating enemies systematically, like Brothers in Arms and Far Cry (at least in the outdoor levels), and you simply can't play them all the same way because certain styles are inefficient. You can't hope to walk into a mercenary camp in Far Cry for instance, trying to run and gun. Because there's gonna be sniper or a merc with a rocket launcher manning a nearby tower, and the mercs can call for reinforcements as soon as they see you charging.

[SolomonGrundy]

I think saying every FP game is a Shooter is limiting. What about Morrowind?Underworld? I dont think of those as a FPS.
Thief is not a shooter, if anything it is an anti-shooter. Shooting things is a last resort, not a primary purpose, and are mission ending on higher levels.
One of the things that i think was being explored in thief was , can you make a FP game without blowing shit up?
As for choice in FPS's...well, I think the enviroments that are dished out now suck compared to the old days. Yep pretty and nice scripted events, but the exploration factor these days is nil. Nevermind that to defeat A you HAVE to do B and C. Instead of Defeat A, here are the tools you figure it out. We already do this kind of gaming in GTA, and in multiplayer siturations, but this seems to be lost on the FPS SP people. I can't think of a single branching hallway/path in HL2 or Painkiller. I can think of 3 ways into Baffords keep in level I of Thief. 7 ways of killing the Mafia boss in GTA III...and there is prolly more.
When was the last time you got lost in a FP game? Level 2 in Thief? mission 5 in Doom II? somewhere in the third episode in Quake?

[Jason Becker]

As to the the whole Pong comment. No not all games are just that but neither are there all these diffrent types people want to think exist. Most games like FPS's have much more in comman than diffences or variations

I disagree. For example, you're not going to play Far Cry in the same way that you play Doom 3, or Painkiller, or Thief. Shooters encompass a whole genre -- while they essentially boil down to the same thing, you are challenged to do different things in each subgenre to accomplish that goal, often drastically different things. The differences are there, and they are not subtle.

--scharmers

Uhh, I personally wouldn't put the Thief games into the same sentence as those other 3 games.

Sure, Thief shouldn't be there, but the premise is sound. There's the old school type where you simply go around shooting baddies like Doom 3 and Painkiller. There are others that include stealth elements, like Riddick and to a small extent Far Cry, there are others that demand a more methodical approach, eliminating enemies systematically, like Brothers in Arms and Far Cry (at least in the outdoor levels), and you simply can't play them all the same way because certain styles are inefficient. You can't hope to walk into a mercenary camp in Far Cry for instance, trying to run and gun. Because there's gonna be sniper or a merc with a rocket launcher manning a nearby tower, and the mercs can call for reinforcements as soon as they see you charging.


Running hog wild guns blazing? No its probably going to get you killed. But using the same tactics in Farcry wether from its entering the camp from the left, right or rear isn't going to make a diffrence IMO. Thats my point about the game. What are "options" that people describe are superficial at best.

[scharmers]

Running hog wild guns blazing? No its probably going to get you killed. But using the same tactics in Farcry wether from its entering the camp from the left, right or rear isn't going to make a diffrence IMO. Thats my point about the game. What are "options" that people describe are superficial at best.

Amazingly enough, you can be tricky in Far Cry, scout the terrain, and avoid the encounters. There isn't a "golden path" in Far Cry in many of the levels (thinking, in particular, of the enormous monster breakout level where you have to make your way from the besieged base to...another besieged base. With lots of monsters in between that you pretty much are forced to get around. I've never been able to play this level the same way twice.) While choosing to hit up the first tower so you can just hangglide across or take the watery back route doesn't effect the long-term ending of the game or the way that the NPC's react to you, it does effect some pretty important player variables like life and ammo and weapon availability...which is a lot more than the usual "no-choices" you get in rail shooters.

We're dealing with shooters here, I remind you once again, a genre not particularly known for deep involved choices that massively impact later gameplay. Far Cry provides a lot more than the "well, I guess I am chanelled into grabbing that armor, then having a monster teleport behind me" no-choice. Take the mentioned enemy base. Do I snipe it from long range, attempting to take out the tower sentries? Shit, only a couple of sniper shells, so I'll have to charge in some time. Which points provide me the most cover when I do? Etc. Etc. Tactical decisions, which, once again, most shooters lack. (Other than "I'll wait for Demon X to spawn behind me and then I'll circle strafe left....or right? Decisions, decisions!")

--scharmers