First Person Shooters: The Thread

[Spark Of Spirit]

COD4 is the only one where they picked the best one from each series, IMO.

I'm still completely baffled as to why anyone prefers GoldenEye over Perfect Dark. PD literally does everything better. Also, lack of Duke Nukem 3D and Halo 1 (over 3) is sort of glaring.

Honestly, someone like Foggle could probably make a better list since he's so familiar with the genre. But I bet even he would agree that some choices are just weird.

[gunswordfist]

Got up to level 22 in Doom II...this could take awhile. Also the barrels level was decent fun. I actually wish it had even more of them.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Got up to level 22 in Doom II...this could take awhile. Also the barrels level was decent fun. I actually wish it had even more of them.

The first time I played that level it was so nerve-wracking. I think I even had to outrun an explosion at one point...

[Foggle]

Their list isn't that bad, really. Some of the choices are questionable, but I can respect the fact that they at least tried with this one. Here's mine, though, since Spark requested it:

10. Unreal Tournament 2004
9. Borderlands 2
8. Doom 2
7. Duke Nukem 3D
6. Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
5. Tribes 2
4. Painkiller
3. Halo
2. Half-Life 2
1. F.E.A.R. (yay for biased picks)

[Spark Of Spirit]

I thought GT hated FEAR?

Oh well, interesting list!

[Foggle]

I thought GT hated FEAR?

Do they? I remember them giving F.E.A.R. 2 one of the highest scores it got.

Oh well, interesting list!

Thanks. Truthfully though, there should be two lists; one for single-player/co-op, and one for competitive multiplayer.

[gunswordfist]

Got up to level 22 in Doom II...this could take awhile. Also the barrels level was decent fun. I actually wish it had even more of them.

The first time I played that level it was so nerve-wracking. I think I even had to outrun an explosion at one point...

I thought you HAD to be caught in an explosion at first. But then I used my brain and stopped getting blown up on purpose on the first two. I just had the enemies blow themselves up as I ran away.

Their list isn't that bad, really. Some of the choices are questionable, but I can respect the fact that they at least tried with this one. Here's mine, though, since Spark requested it:

10. Unreal Tournament 2004
9. Borderlands 2
8. Doom 2
7. Duke Nukem 3D
6. Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
5. Tribes 2
4. Painkiller
3. Halo
2. Half-Life 2
1. F.E.A.R. (yay for biased picks)

I really want to pick up Duke Nukem 3D. It's at the top of my list of next XBLA games to pick up. I just need to decide on a good 800 point multiplayer game to go with it.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I thought GT hated FEAR?

They gave both F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. 2 relatively high scores, and even nominated F.E.A.R. 2 for best FPS of 2009, so they definitely have nothing against that series. They gave F.E.A.R. 3 very average reception, but their review seemed pretty fair for that game.

Honestly, GT isn't that bad of a site. They are definitely biased, but out of all of the big game review websites, they are far from being as bad as the likes of IGN, Game Spot, Destructoid, etc., and from what I've seen while they are guilty of overrating a lot of the big franchises, they do give a lot of other game's fair shakes as well, and they were one of the only sites that didn't give RE6 a bad review just because everyone else was doing it (that's what most reviews that I saw for the game felt like they were doing, IMO, regardless of the actual quality of the game). That said, if GT is overly biased against any paritcular games, its definitely Sonic games. They wouldn't even accept Sonic Colors as a good game, and apparently they are convinced that Sonic is supposed to be about nothing but speed, and anything that deviates from that in the slightest is terrible and unworthy of the status of the classic games. They did give Sonic Generations a positive review, but since then they seem to refuse to even acknowledge that it exists since they still trash on Sonic a lot and claim that he hasn't had a single good game (not counting the All-Star racing games, both of which they gave good reviews) since Sonic Adventure (as in, they hate every game from Sonic Adventure onward).

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

10. Unreal Tournament 2004
9. Borderlands 2
8. Doom 2
7. Duke Nukem 3D
6. Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
5. Tribes 2
4. Painkiller
3. Halo
2. Half-Life 2
1. F.E.A.R. (yay for biased picks)

Awesome list!

I'm surprised that you'd put Halo so high, though.

[Foggle]

I'm surprised that you'd put Halo so high, though.

It's the full package. You've got an awesome single-player campaign with full co-op, and an excellent competitive multiplayer mode to go along with it. The enemy AI is really good in the former, and both have cool vehicles and great open level design. The shooting doesn't feel as good to me as the other games on the list (except for maybe HL2), but the experience as a whole is good enough to make it deserving of such a high placement.

They gave both F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. 2 relatively high scores, and even nominated F.E.A.R. 2 for best FPS of 2009, so they definitely have nothing against that series. They gave F.E.A.R. 3 very average reception, but their review seemed pretty fair for that game.

Sadly, F.E.A.R. 3 isn't quite up to par with the previous games (though it might be better than Perseus Mandate). The first two levels are absolutely AMAZING, but it kind of falters after that. The regenerating health and two-weapon switch are also lame. It's certainly not without its good points, but the boring zombie levels, incredibly short length, and bastardization of canon really drag it down. Still worth playing for <$25, though.

[Spark Of Spirit]

NES: You've been vocal about how you wish Conker's Other Bad Day had been made. Is there any other specific Rare game that never had a sequel (other than Conker) that you would have loved to see a sequel for and why?

CS: Perfect Dark 1... And no, I?m not being facetious. I was working on the sequel don?t forget and I know what it could have been.. Maybe one day someone will sneak the story doc online (I know I?m not the only one still holding a copy), and you guys can judge for yourselves if it was worth making. I think it would have been really good, not to blow my own trumpet, and set the game up for at least one follow up after that. In fact, the ending required a follow up, as it was planned as a 2 game storyline with a cliffhanger at the end of the first. Here's a teaser.. The Epilogue to part 1 had this title : 'The Death Of Jo Dark'?

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

It's the full package. You've got an awesome single-player campaign with full co-op, and an excellent competitive multiplayer mode to go along with it. The enemy AI is really good in the former, and both have cool vehicles and great open level design.

And it also has awesome music (IMO).

I have heard people say that the game hasn't aged well because it feels monotonous, which kind of brings up the point that the game kind of sort of needs to be played at a certain difficulty to be truly appreciated. Some people find normal challenging enough which is fine (though then they tend to complain about stuff like no warning for grenades and whatnot, but the game is mostly fair as far as I'm concerned). However, for people who find normal to be mostly pretty straightforward and easy, they shouldn't continue playing on normal and should instead move to the next highest difficulty. Halo is at its best when you are playing a difficulty that's just above your normal level of skill which creates a challenge and forces you to actually utilize the open level design and various weapons to your strategic advantage.

I also once heard someone complain that Halo felt like it was trial and error gameplay, which made me want to say something that I would usually never say, but in this case....their playing it wrong. By playing it wrong, I mean that the only way the game would be trial and error gameplay is if they never tried to adjust their strategy and just tried to keep doing the same thing at parts that they were dying at with minor variations every now and then. To be clear, if a player is trying to bum-rush a group of enemies and finds that they die 3 or 4 times in a row doing that, then its a clear sign that they should be trying something completely different than what they are doing. It'd be dumb to try the same tactic yet again and just figure that you have to kill the enemies faster before they have a chance to kill you. The game is incredibly open and many times can allow you to attempt almost any strategy that you can think of. In such instances, I would use a vehicle to mow down a bunch of enemies that I couldn't take down on foot if it was made available to me, or conversely I might opt out of using a vehicle during a certain segment of gameplay and using my knowledge of the level design I could grab a sniper-rifle and get myself to a really good vantage point and take out most of my opposition from a safe distance before proceeding through that secetion of the level, with noticeably less opposition in my way once I take most of them out the smart way.

To me, that's where Halo's strengths lie, but I think a lot of people who grew up with the game have forgotten that, and the people who try playing it now after being used to most modern FPS games just don't get how you're supposed to approach this game. Half-Life, F.E.A.R., and a lot of other great modern shooters have that sort of mentality as well, but people get what they are supposed to do in those games. I think that people kind of associate Halo with the more movie-esque games from today and therefore judge it by the same mentality, even though that's clearly not the type of game that it is.

[Foggle]

And it also has awesome music (IMO).

The story is quite interesting as well.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

The story is quite interesting as well.

Well, the story in the first game I enjoy for what it is. Its nothing that special and doesn't really break any new ground that other games hadn't done before it, but unlike the sequels this was designed to be a stand-alone story rather than part of a large series extended by novels and comics, so it works that way. The aliens feel more alien because they can't speak English (which always baffled me when they started talking in the 2nd game), and the game never gets obnoxiously up its own ass trying to treat itself like the most epic thing ever, which is something that annoyed me about Halo 3's story a lot. Its just a large vessel marines and a spartan soldier finding their way onto an ancient ring world that they know nothing about and getting entangled in a huge ordeal that puts the fate of the galaxy at state. The whole war between humans and the Covenant just provides a simple back-drop for the set-up and explains the enemies that you are fighting, and the reveal of the Flood in the first game is terrific for the time because it comes completely out of left-field, though The Library quickly makes you hate fighting the Flood even though they aren't that bad in the rest of the game.

My problem with the sequels is how up their own ass they get with the narrative, yet when you stop to think about nothing much is really explained in those games. You just get a ton of a characters thrown into the mix and lots of events unfolding around you yet no time is spent on character development or even exposition (which you think would be a good thing but every story needs at least a little exposition and Halo games just expect you to know everything). That brings me to the point I hate about the fan-base in when they try to defend the stories of the sequels by saying that a lot of stuff that isn't explained in those games are explained in the novels and comics, which I have no interest in reading, myself. So, in that regard, its stupid to expect that everyone has read the extended pieces of the story, and whether the story is great in the broader context of things or not, it doesn't change the fact that the games viewed alone have very lackluster stories based solely on what they give you. That's why I've never cared about the stories in Halo games past the first one, which itself I stated was nothing great but certainly interesting enough for what it was.

[Rynnec]

which always baffled me when they started talking in the 2nd game

You can never have enough Keith David. Plus with the Covenant Civil War being such a large focus, it'd make sense to have them speak english, at least for the Arbiter level's.

My problem with the sequels is how up their own ass they get with the narrative, yet when you stop to think about nothing much is really explained in those games. You just get a ton of a characters thrown into the mix and lots of events unfolding around you yet no time is spent on character development or even exposition (which you think would be a good thing but every story needs at least a little exposition and Halo games just expect you to know everything).

A lot of people that didn't read the "First Strike" Novel must've been really confused why Sergant Johnson was suddenly A-OK despite being allegedly killed off in the first game. I don't think they even explained why he was still alive in the manual, which was really unfair to the casual players who didn't read/weren't aware of the novels.

FWIW, I did think the Covenant civil war was fairly interesting, moreso than the Master Chief/UNSC plotline.