If you asked anybody else, it's the only game out this month.

[Trogdor]

Halo = Awesome
Halo 2 = Awesome to the max both visually and feature/experience wise
Halo 3 = Meh, while I’m finally glad to finish the story, unfortunately the game looks about as good as Halo 2 (Same engine) and is far behind anything else on the 360, which is a pain because for me, graphics mean everything and I find it very hard to get into new games that don’t look good (In my books, graphics DO make a game, though not all the time)

I don’t know what it is, but I just don’t feel like its epic anymore, grenades are weak, enemies are dumb, and oh my god, the ally AI is horrendous. Don’t ever let one of your guys drive a chopper, they will drive straight into your vehicle (Or you) and kill you without a second thought.

However the game has some cool new features, I know the first time I pulled a turret off its stand and walked around gunning people was awesome!

Anyways, I won’t say too much more until people have had a chance to play it, but IMO it’s nothing great and doesn’t compare to the original two.

[Gnarf]

Originally Posted by JrKASperov Honestly, you totally missed the point about this (and my main) argument, which is that both games don't have anything to offer but walking and shooting. In that regard, having a few gameplay differences doesn't matter much.

If the gameplay differences aren't all that interesting, don't ask about how the games differ gameplaywise

If you need something more than walking and shooting, then fair enough, to each his own. My point was that there are a lot of differences within the genre/sub-genre "walking and shooting". Far as I can tell, the Halo games are fairly typical and average shooters for their time, and I'm not into the genre enough to know if Halo was the first game to introduce this or that element or was really innovative in that one area, but as with most newer shooters, it's rather different from Doom 2.

[Kakero]

I really can't believe how much publicity Halo 3 is getting from the media. The news is reporting it left and right, heck even CNN gives a special segment just to discuss about the release of this game and they dubbed it as "The best game ever".

How much money does Microsoft is paying the media people I don't know, but I don't remember seeing any games receive that huge publicity from the media before.

[Kyrvias]

Just for run of the mill adrenaline pumping non-stop action, I got this game waiting outside of the store in Bellevue. Lucky I did, because I got it signed by Bill Gates

And, quite frankly, anyone that chooses to only play PC, or console, is a fool. Playing hte best of both worlds is the way to go...

[Ilander]

Hmmm, interesting points. I agree, Halo probably is at the top of console fps's at the moment, at least until they release TF2, which, while it won't even be close in terms of sales, will offer the better gameplay.

Of course, I'm biased...I like automatics to kill things, rather than annoy them, and I like to have "sneaky" or "tricky" ways of killing things in my FPS's. That's why my favorite one in the old days was Perfect Dark (n64).

Halo's getting better about that, but is far from the ideal game for me. Looked loads better than 1 or 2, but still with flaws, like the HIDEOUSLY slow movement rate. Thank god it's on the 360, and not on a pc, because as soon as you spawned, you'd get headshotted.

[Trogdor]

[QUOTE=Ilander;1190392]Hmmm, interesting points. I agree, Halo probably is at the top of console fps's at the moment, [QUOTE]

I'd say Bioshock would take that crown and possibly GOW (If you classify that as a FPS)
Halo 3 came out too late to take the title im afraid, and it doesnt compare (Though im not the biggest fan of Bioshock either)

[Thoran]

I agree with the best of both worlds idea... all three consoles have some decent games now and it doesn't make sense to cling to one of them only (or to the PC).

We've probably discussed it before, but IMO shooters are a bit different though because of how ill suited the controller is for FPS gaming. I've tried to play console shooters, but even once you're used to the control it's still slow, cumbersome, and unnatural to use (if you're used to the lightning fast kb/mouse style), which entirely kills my ability to enjoy the game (because no matter how good the game is I know it COULD be a heck of a lot better).

[Ziroc]

Another 'shoot everything that moves' game. clone of 1 and 2.. Naa.. plus, I don't own a 360.

[Gnarf]

Originally Posted by Thoran We've probably discussed it before, but IMO shooters are a bit different though because of how ill suited the controller is for FPS gaming. I've tried to play console shooters, but even once you're used to the control it's still slow, cumbersome, and unnatural to use (if you're used to the lightning fast kb/mouse style), which entirely kills my ability to enjoy the game (because no matter how good the game is I know it COULD be a heck of a lot better).

I think you're sort of right about shooters. With multiplatform ones and ones ported to consoles from PC, I get the feeling that they're "meant" to be played on PCs, that they've been designed, tested and balanced for PCs and then the console players are left trying to pretend this one stick is actually a mouse. I don't have a problem with shooters designed for consoles though. I much enjoyed the TimeSplitters games (that have a very present autoaim, which sort of means that skills other than real fast and precise aiming becomes more important, which is fine), and I do think Gears worked out mighty fine (yes, technically 3rd person I suppose, but rather FPSey), which I suspect is partially due to all those things you can do with the A-button (crouched running, taking cover and dodging about and such is possibly more effective than circlestrafing and jumping a lot ).

[Iron Greasel]

I don't really play first-person shooters. The only one so far I have actually liked is Deus Ex. All the missions are still basically "kill/go to X", but a few ventilation ducts and key puzzles really make it feel like non-linear exploring. Plus there's character developement in form of skill points and augmentations. And the plot is neat.

Anyway, I think FPS's should offer something more than walking and shooting to be interesting. Talking and sneaking for starters. Shooting bug-men with a big gun is neat for the first fifteen minutes but gets a bit old after that.