DUDE! We're September brothers! Add me "QdoubleA". I won't be playing live till winterbreak though or I will fail this semester. Legendary is no joke in this one. I could cruise pretty much in 3 but I am consistently getting my a$$ handed to me in Reach.
It isn't hype, the game is sick. I primarily competed on PCs and I played all of the FPS you mentioned... some of them against the best players in the world. You're entitled to your opinion, if you don't like it you don't like it. Halo is definitely one of the best FPS of all time. Halo2 and 3 were garbage compared to the first game. Reach is better than all of them except the first, and it's pretty close.
Have to agree here. If you're using the assault rifle for most of the multi-player matches, you will lose to any remotely decent Halo player. Unfortunately, I haven't been really good at a Halo game since 2, when I had boat loads of time during college to play forever. Trying to get back into it and getting good with the DMR in Reach. So far a lot of fun! I just added you on Live Seclusion. My GT is Rocket786.
Did you have the courage to say that in the Halo 2/3 threads? If you did, I'm more inclined to believe you that Reach is a good game. If you read my posts on various games before, I have no bias and will criticize or talk bad about it despite the general consensus.
I don't think posting in a particular thread is a prerequisite for my opinion. I will tell anyone to their face; Halo2 and Halo3 sucked compared to the first. If they're intelligent they won't argue either. Reach is an entirely different story, it's a fantastic game. Little background info: I competed in 2 world championships on Halo PC. I played Halo2 a little on xbox, and didn't like it. I tried Halo3 when it came out and it was horrible. I've been playing CoD4/MW2 for the past 2 years or so. Now that Reach is out I'm back to Halo and will be competing in it.
I was mostly just using a random gun to throw into my example...regardless, using the battle rifle still takes more skill in a head to head than using the Tar-21 with stopping power.
I agree, without a doubt. I know you're skill set is far and away above most people around here, so you definitely have a different perspective. My point of view was just from the standpoint of picking up the game and playing around.
I get around 14 kills in every game of team slayer...at least 10 of those come from my gun. Its all about the headshot in Halo.
I disagree completely, any game on a console is not as good FPS wise as one on PC, and while Halo is a great game, it does not compete with better FPS's on PC. Some of the best FPS games, IMO are: 1. Bad Company 2 - destructible terrain and buildings change every battlefield - and forces you to play a different style to win as a team....- best team game ever. 2. Halflife - The multitude of User created maps like "Rats" was amazing. 3. Counter Strike - now what engine did they use again? 4. Battlefield 1942 - Planes, Tanks, Ships, subs, etc & great mods too. 5. Descent 3D - literally halted production on Wing Commander 4, such a great game. 6. Quake/Doom series - Wonderful gameplay. It is difficult for me to look and play on a console and compare, they are just not as good, the graphics are lower quality, the controls less finite, and the numbers of players way less.....with the exception of MAG, which I have not played, BTW. So, while I love Halo and play BC2 on Xbox as well as PC.....the PC wins hands down for FPS games...imo. And for the record, I like games that force you to think outside your comfort zone and give you multiple game types of challenges....anyone can dominate on one particular style, that is easy, and mindnumbing, it is the good games that force you into doing something different every time you play it that are truly great to me. DD
The fact that you're saying a FPS isn't as good solely because it's on a console compared to a PC is funny to me. I'm not gonna go any further than that. Also saying FPS on a console has less players? Lol. Reach had almost a million people online last night alone. I'm positive counterstrike didn't have that very often and it was not only the biggest pc FPS ever, it was also FREE.
Why is it funny? I know you play competitively, but I have been making video games for more than 20 years. Consoles are great, but they are lowest common denominator as far as playability etc, they are much easier to develop for because they are far less powerful than a PC...and you can get away with doing far less.....in game design. Maybe you misunderstood, I meant how many are in ONE MATCH at the same time. In Battlefield 1942 you could have 64 people playing at once......most consoles games are much more limited than that. And Counterstrike was a MOD.....and we at Digital Anvil were playing that game as a Beta....long before anyone else was.....for the most part. DD
I find it very cool that you are a game developer. However, with all due respect being a developer does not mean you know what makes a game good or fun (I'm not directing this towards you, it is a general statement). A perfect example is the statement regarding how many people are in a given game at one time. Just because you can put 60 players on a map doesn't make it good. The sweet spot in my opinion is about 18 players tops; beyond that and the game is typically stupid. As for consoles being the least common denominator; of course they are! That doesn't mean that playing on them is inferior to a PC. Graphically a PC has better resolution, but at a certain point (especially with how powerful consoles are now) there are diminishing returns. In short, you and I aren't going to agree on this. If you asked me whether I prefer FPS on PC or console, I would say PC. I prefer the accuracy of mouse and keyboard, other than that it is a wash. All of that is irrelevant to the original point. You stated that basically any FPS is superior on PC to console. Straight up: that is false.
I've been playing FPS since Doom; the attempts to downplay the quality and success of Halo is just amusing to me because it's so ridiculous. If anything, anyone who really cared about FPS games should appreciate what Halo (and Goldeneye) have done for the genre on the console side. They forced everyone to try and raise their game.
DD, Battlefield Bad Company 2 was a fun game for a few weeks...but it became stale, very quickly. I had no problems returning it and popping in MW2 again. The controls are not anywhere nearly as responsive as the COD games. They need to tighten that up before it can be taken seriously as a top line FPS game.
I just picked up halo reach with the 12 month xbox live gold card + free shirt Haven't played live ever before. I'm going to try to beat the single player campaign first. I really liked the halo 1 campaign but 2 and 3 sucked. I'll probably play some multiplayer on live this weekend. My gamertag: tarzanloljk
Never played Halo 1 or 2...but I thought Halo 3 was a very good game...not sure what the reasoning is for people saying it sucked.
The controls felt watery (crosshair movement, player movement), the netcode is horrendous, battle rifle was a random weapon. I could go on. All of these issues have been corrected in Reach.
