I think you're missing the point. You don't have to have all those in your list for a game to be *better*. If perfect Dark is better, how come it hasn't won as many game of the year awards as Half Life from magazines and awards shows?
We've had this argument before...
Far fewer people got to play PD than HL1 or 2. By the time PD was released, the N64 was all but commercially dead, and may people had dropped the N64 for the "next" machine. Plus PD needed an expensive expansion pak, which most people didn't have.
Yes, HL received far more awards from magazines, but there are far more PC magazines than N64 magazines. How many N64 magazines rated HL the best game ever? None. Because they'd only vote for N64 games, in the same way that PC magazines would only vote for PC games. And most other people who only saw one or the other game would have seen Half-Life, due to the proliferation of PCs - what, a quarter of all British homes have a PC, as do most workplaces. How many homes and workplaces had an N64 (with expansion pak) in the year 2000?
Mention Half-Life to people who play computer games, and chances are they've played it. Not so with PD. Not necessarily because PD is inferior, but because it's on a commercially obsolete system (that didn't do too well against it's rival the Playstation and so wasn't too common anyway) that many serious gamers had ditched for the next big console/PC by the time of PD's release anyway.
Perfect Dark Zero didn't win anything official.
So what? Alfred Hitchcock never won an oscar. Van Gough sold only one painting in his entire life. Mozart died a pauper. Success is no guarantee of quality - look at the Spice Girls.
If you want to talk quality, look at the replayability of PD vs HL 1 or 2. Or the features. HL 1 and 2 are very, very good the first time round. But I just think that they really suffer due to the lack of replayability.
He said it's dire in comparison, which is completely true. You just don't get the same level of maneuvrability or speed with a joypad as you would with keyboard/mouse.
Far fewer people got to play PD than HL1 or 2. By the time PD was released, the N64 was all but commercially dead, and may people had dropped the N64 for the "next" machine. Plus PD needed an expensive expansion pak, which most people didn't have.
And yet I still stand that Half Life 1 and 2 were in every way better than Perfect Dark/Zero.
Yes, HL received far more awards from magazines, but there are far more PC magazines than N64 magazines. How many N64 magazines rated HL the best game ever? None. Because they'd only vote for N64 games, in the same way that PC magazines would only vote for PC games. And most other people who only saw one or the other game would have seen Half-Life, due to the proliferation of PCs - what, a quarter of all British homes have a PC, as do most workplaces. How many homes and workplaces had an N64 (with expansion pak) in the year 2000?
Again, look at the list, how many of those awards were limited to the PC platform. I think if you look again, most of them were generic awards, and Perfect Dark won next to nothing.
Mention Half-Life to people who play computer games, and chances are they've played it. Not so with PD. Not necessarily because PD is inferior, but because it's on a commercially obsolete system (that didn't do too well against it's rival the Playstation and so wasn't too common anyway) that many serious gamers had ditched for the next big console/PC by the time of PD's release anyway.
If PD is not inferior, how come more people will say Half Life is better? Erm... because it *is*?
So what? Alfred Hitchcock never won an oscar. Van Gough sold only one painting in his entire life. Mozart died a pauper. Success is no guarantee of quality - look at the Spice Girls.
And yet I find that my favourite films are not Hitchcock ones, my favourite paintings are not by Van Gough and I don't care that much for Mozart. not really seeing where you are going with that one.
If you want to talk quality, look at the replayability of PD vs HL 1 or 2. Or the features. HL 1 and 2 are very, very good the first time round. But I just think that they really suffer due to the lack of replayability.
And again, why does replayability have to be the be-all and end-all of a better game? It doesn't. A better game can be something that was soo mind-blowing, it will stick in your mind, even if you never play it again.
So again, how do people get so many headshots and storm through levels with such skill if the control method is so dire?
Because they practiced for an eternity on those particular games. Plonk them in front of a game they've never played before and I bet you a billion pounds they would struggle with it way more than a PC gamer who is placed in front of a new FPS game for the first time. That's the beauty of standardization of the control method on PC FPS games. I can pick up a new game within a couple of minutes, as opposed to a console game, where the movement and action controls are always laid out differently from one game to the next.
To add my opinion to the FPS genre I would say that the vast, vast majority play much better with the keyboard/mouse combo, but there are some exceptions.
Although not classed as an FPS, Oblivion has all the hallmarks of an FPS. I've played it on PC, PS3 and 360 and I think the control system on the consoles is much better than on PC. I know it's not a great comparison as it doesn't involve accurate and fast shooting, but I find it incredibly cumbersome to play on PC whereas the on console it is perfect played with a joypad.
Also Resistance: Fall of Man does a lot of things right played with a joypad, one of the prime cases is that the turning speed is increased by the CPU so that you face an enemy quickly, but slows down as an enemy is targetted, and the weapon selection helps enormously. Holding down the weapon select button stops the game and lets you select a weapon manually, whereas tapping the weapon select button simply cycles the weapons without stopping the game. It works very well, I've yet to try it in multiplayer though, I imagine that holding leaves you open to attack.
Personally, although I owned an N64 twice I never got around to playing Goldeneye or PD on it. Hopefully they'll eventually be released on the Wii Virtual Console so I can sample their excellence. Edge still mention that they should have given Goldeneye a 10/10 (it got 9) so it must be doing something right as their 10/10's are pretty rare (as far as I know only Mario 64, Ocarina, Gran Turismo, Halo and Half-Life 2 have received one) and all of the exisiting 10/10's are fully deserved IMO.
I've got PD and HL2 and I prefer PD
control-wise I think the N64 pad was great better than the Pc keyboard/mouse recently i've been on the HL2 Goldeneye Mod and I'm pretty sure it's the controls that mean I die on average every 3 seconds
I`ve never seen an Edge magazine for ten years or so, but bought the first 20-30, and it was excellent in about 94-96, loved the fact they went into tech details and told you the framerate coder`s had a game at during development etc etc
He said it's dire in comparison, which is completely true. You just don't get the same level of maneuvrability or speed with a joypad as you would with keyboard/mouse.
Necros.
No, he said "It's like all console FPS games: utterly awful control system that makes the game feel like a joke compared to PC FPS games.", catigorically calling the control system "utterly awful", which is untrue, as is his statement that console FPSs are a joke compared to PC FPSs. Ignorant and biased comments like that have to be shown up and corrected, as there's enough rubbish posted on the 'net.
And yet I still stand that Half Life 1 and 2 were in every way better than Perfect Dark/Zero.
What, better weapons, better replayability, more configurability, better level design, better game flow, better multiplayer, more gameplay modes (co-op, counter-op, enemy rockets etc)?
Again, look at the list, how many of those awards were limited to the PC platform. I think if you look again, most of them were generic awards, and Perfect Dark won next to nothing.
Yes, but how many people had even seen Perfect Dark? It was published on an all but commercially dead console, and that console was primarily seen as a kids machine (largely thanks to Nintendo's public image, and the N64's mascots of a fat plumber, a green dragon (or is Yoshi a dinosaur?) and an elf (or whatever Link is).
If PD is not inferior, how come more people will say Half Life is better? Erm... because it *is*?
How about they've not played PD? Lot's of people would say that the Spice Girls were better than the Beatles. Does that make it in any way true?
And yet I find that my favourite films are not Hitchcock ones, my favourite paintings are not by Van Gough and I don't care that much for Mozart. not really seeing where you are going with that one.
I'm talking quality, not popularity. All three are acknowledged masters in their field. Fair enough, I prefer chips to fancy cooking, but that implies a lack of taste on my part.
And again, why does replayability have to be the be-all and end-all of a better game? It doesn't. A better game can be something that was soo mind-blowing, it will stick in your mind, even if you never play it again.
I don't agree, although if you do feel that way then I can see your support for Half-Life 2. The first time through it's amazing, and HL1 was even better. No other first person shooter has had that taking-part-in-a-film feel, and it's appalling that no other games have learned from Half-Life's immersion. I mean, they gave Gordon Freeman no personality, no voice, no identity, and so the player transposed themselves into Freeman's place, and you never saw Freeman in the game, no cut-scenes or anything, so you were never taken out of the illusion. It was extremely well done, and no other FPS has achieved anything like that immersion, aside from HL2.
Far Cry had a go, but giving the character a voice and non-playable scenes spoilt it. Did you ever see American McGee's Alice? That game was so full of atmosphere, but ruined by the cutscenes, as they reminded you that it was just a game, if only they'd have had only real time first person events instead of third person cutscenes, the way Half-Life did, then it would have been so much better.
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher's Bay (an excellent game) had very good atmosphere, but again the atmosphere was often rudely snatched away by the third person cut scenes.
Because they practiced for an eternity on those particular games. Plonk them in front of a game they've never played before and I bet you a billion pounds they would struggle with it way more than a PC gamer who is placed in front of a new FPS game for the first time.
Then I'd be a billionaire (if you had the cash to begin with), as console FPSs (taking each console as an individual case, due to each having a different controller) tend to have the same control mechanisms and options.
Actually, that's no longer true, and getting less true by the minute. For some reason, since the 360 came out, or some time before, console FPSs seem to be shipping with less and less controller options. Most of my favourite N64 and XBox FPSs have every controller option you could wish for, but later games seem to be less configurable, which I can only attribute to either dumbing down for gamers or so that on-line players can't complain when they lose that the winner has a better control set up. Either way, I hate the way nowadays you can't even turn off the auto-aim in games. Auto-aim is fine for beginners, but when you're proficient with a joypad you don't need it. Yet more and more console FPSs fail to allow you to turn it off.
Incidentally, if I can add another plus point for Perfect Dark here, it too has an auto-aim function, but not only can you turn it off,but it also varies in power so that on the easiest skill level it's quite strong but on the hardest level it makes little difference, plus it auto-aims for the torso, whereas you're always better off getting a head shot (kills quicker than a torso shot), so you have an incentive to learn how to play without auto-aim. Just another example of how much thought Rare put into the game.
[/quote]
That's the beauty of standardization of the control method on PC FPS games. I can pick up a new game within a couple of minutes, as opposed to a console game, where the movement and action controls are always laid out differently from one game to the next.[/quote]
As I said, you can redefine them on many games, though less and less as time goes on, aparently. Decent unlockables also seem to be falling by the wayside too, and most FPSs don't support bots (computer players) in multiplayer mode anymore.
To add my opinion to the FPS genre I would say that the vast, vast majority play much better with the keyboard/mouse combo, but there are some exceptions.
Joypad vs keyboard/mouse is an old argument, and I firmly prefer the former for convenience and fun, although the mouse is more precise, keyboards aren't for first person shooters, a second analogue stick for movement is far better than the WASD keys.
Personally, although I owned an N64 twice I never got around to playing Goldeneye or PD on it.
Eek! That's like having a mouth but never eating chips!
Hopefully they'll eventually be released on the Wii Virtual Console so I can sample their excellence.
Very doubtful, sadly. Microsoft own Rare, and it's very unlikely that Microsoft would give permission for Nintendo to use their games, especially such popular ones. Those two games alone would increase sales of the Wii (I'd but one just for them, especially if you could play on-line :) :o :) ), so it's probably not going to happen. Plus MGM (who own the Goldeneye film copyright) would probably have to give permission (for which they's want loads of $$$) for Goldeneye the game to be re-released. And Activision now have the sole rights to Bond games, and might object to GE being re-released (you know what lawyers are like).
A very great pity.
Still, you can buy a second hand N64, GE and PD (you need an expansion pak, the 4MB memory add-on for PD) very cheaply now, and until N64 emulators become good enough to run the games perfectly, that's probably your only option to enjoy the two best FPSs (calm down Starglider, facts are facts) ever.
Edge still mention that they should have given Goldeneye a 10/10 (it got 9) so it must be doing something right as their 10/10's are pretty rare (as far as I know only Mario 64, Ocarina, Gran Turismo, Halo and Half-Life 2 have received one) and all of the exisiting 10/10's are fully deserved IMO.
Goldeneye does look rough compared to modern games (especially the characters faces), and the frame-rate can dip, but it's still an incredible game. It lacks speech, bots and higher resolution mode (all present in Perfect Dark) but the gameplay, the level design, the replayability...
Not for nothing is it ten years old but still many peoples' favourite game. And the amount of hours lost to it's muliplayer modes is phenomenal.
All right, who has been reading Edge magazine anyway?
I'd forgotten how pretensious Edge's writing was until I bought that issue (not read it for years, my mate used to buy it). Also, have you seen their top ten lists? They list Perfect Dark as an adventure! Even if you can class a FPS as an adventure (as in an experience, rather than the traditional meaning of "adventure") then surely Half-Life or Deus Ex would have been better suggestions, as they are both more immersive, story-wise.
They also call Pilot Wings a platform game! And Mrs Pacman is a puzzle game?!?
I'd forgotten how pretensious Edge's writing was until I bought that issue (not read it for years, my mate used to buy it). Also, have you seen their top ten lists? They list Perfect Dark as an adventure! Even if you can class a FPS as an adventure (as in an experience, rather than the traditional meaning of "adventure") then surely Half-Life or Deus Ex would have been better suggestions, as they are both more immersive, story-wise.
They also call Pilot Wings a platform game! And Mrs Pacman is a puzzle game?!?
And they are huge fans of the Commodore 64, that says it all.
I bought the first three of thier Retro specials and not once was the speccy mentioned.
No, he said "It's like all console FPS games: utterly awful control system that makes the game feel like a joke compared to PC FPS games.", catigorically calling the control system "utterly awful", which is untrue, as is his statement that console FPSs are a joke compared to PC FPSs. Ignorant and biased comments like that have to be shown up and corrected, as there's enough rubbish posted on the 'net.
Please don't misquote me. I said (and this is cut and pasted from my earlier post):
"FPS controlling on a console is dire in comparison to a mouse/keyboard combo."
I'm not going to go through the whole post, as it's quite clear that we think our respective favourite games are better than each other, but...
Fair enough, neither of us are going to convince the other, we've tried in at least two threads, let's just compromise and say that I'm right ;-)
Please don't misquote me. I said (and this is cut and pasted from my earlier post):
"FPS controlling on a console is dire in comparison to a mouse/keyboard combo."
NOT what you wrote.
I wasn't quoting you at all, I was quoting [FOAD]Iron, it was a copy and paste of his quote, and therefore exact letter for letter - I never misquote people to prove my argument, as that in itself would, apart from being morally wrong, weaken my own argument. Anyway, I disagree with his and your sentiment on the subject, but we're all entitled to our opinions. Except for C64 fans, who are too thick too live :lol:
this is what 90% of the conversations we'd have at lunch time at college. there was me and a bloke from the art dept' with an n64. and two blokes from the IT dept so we'd vaunt out machine of choice all the time. when we'd all get together at someones house it'd be a nightmare trying to get multiplayers going. the pc boys would be useless at the joypad, and the nintendo boys couldn't handle a mouse.
id really love to say things have changed but they haven't, at all.
Let's just see how the Wii stands up doing a FPS (lets ignore Red Steel).
Here's hoping that Metroid Prime 3 is going to live up to expectations. MP1 on GameCube was the best game of the year and the second one wasn't too shoddy either.
I've just noticed, Duke Nukem 3D isn't in the list. That's ridiculous. DN3D was a superb game, way ahead of it's time, and still fantastic to play today.
Defender isn't in the list either...
Starglider, I decided to play through HL2 again (maybe my fourth or fifth time in total), and I'm currently in Nova Prospekt with Alex. It is an excellent game, and I had forgotten just how horrible the Ant Lions are - and whoever desinged the way they move and the way they have so many similarities in looks and behaviour to insects is extremely talented. They level design is very good too, especially the real world look of the whole thing and the deserted look of the sea shores and the abandoned boats. It helps enforce the feel of a dessicated world.
I have to stand by what I've said, though. I am enjoying parts of the game imensely, but the main problem is that I am constantly aware of what happens next, and when. Ironically, this is due to those events being so well designed and memorable, but regardless of the cause, it really does hammer replayability. A real pity, as some parts of the game, such as Ravenholm and Nova Prospekt are amongst the best bits of gaming I've ever known. When HL2 was in development, we were told by Valve that there'd be no scripted events, everything would be down to the A.I., and if that had been true of the finished game, then there'd be a lot more replayability. Instead I can remember where an enemy will appear ("teleport" in) when a reach a certain spot, so I can send a grenade or bazooka charge in there even before I've seen the enemy. Or I know when to stack up the exploding barrels, or when to store the buzzsaws (brilliant fun though, using them to kill zombies!) or the turret guns.
And there is a lot of tedium in HL2, such as the far-too-long boat section, and the boring don't-walk-on-the-sand Ant-Lion bit (which thankfully isn't too long). And exploration is rarely rewarded in the game, there are no hidden areas or sights. And the weapons are too weak and uninteresting, and the mostly-too-easy-even-on-hard-difficulty is uneven, with the game at times becoming far harder, which is the sort of thing that puts off casual gamers. And the idea of no friendly fire against your fellow humans is a really bad idea, as it means you can just fire indiscriminately or toss a grenade at them if they're surrounded by enemies. Look, no skill!
On the plus side, the atmosphere is amazing, the textures and graphics really capture the feel of the world the game is set in, there are some extremely imaginative parts to the game (have you seen the aliens in Perfect Dark? Grey "Area 51" style aliens and lizard-men, no imagination or innovation there, believe me), when the game is fun it's really fun, and the gravity gun is a fantastic weapon. And the Anti-Lions with the pherenome control is brilliant
It is a superb game, and I'm not getting rid of it. But when I've completed it again, I probably won't touch it again for ages. If there was one game I could wipe from my memory and play again it would be Half-Life 1. If there were two, they would be both Half-Lifes. They really are an unequalled experience in the first person world. However, I do think that as games, there are better first person shooters around.
And I have to admit, though, I do prefer HL1 to 2, it just feels more fun and complete. And the most fun I've had in either HL game was in 1, fighting against the soldiers. Although HL2 wisely avoided Xen, which was atmospheric but very tedious to play in HL1.
duke nukem is a great game, the only problem i had with it was the mid section on the alien ships/planet. it was then you realised it was a key hunting excercise and pretty bland. i would have loved to have it all like the first few levels.
the great thing about perfect dark was playing a level again on the next difficulty level gave you a whole new set of objectives to complete. it was similar to goldeneye in that respect.
Comments
Halo is the only exception, but it's still worse than on a PC. I have Halo on both my Xbox and PC, and I would only ever play it on the PC now.
We've had this argument before...
Far fewer people got to play PD than HL1 or 2. By the time PD was released, the N64 was all but commercially dead, and may people had dropped the N64 for the "next" machine. Plus PD needed an expensive expansion pak, which most people didn't have.
Yes, HL received far more awards from magazines, but there are far more PC magazines than N64 magazines. How many N64 magazines rated HL the best game ever? None. Because they'd only vote for N64 games, in the same way that PC magazines would only vote for PC games. And most other people who only saw one or the other game would have seen Half-Life, due to the proliferation of PCs - what, a quarter of all British homes have a PC, as do most workplaces. How many homes and workplaces had an N64 (with expansion pak) in the year 2000?
Mention Half-Life to people who play computer games, and chances are they've played it. Not so with PD. Not necessarily because PD is inferior, but because it's on a commercially obsolete system (that didn't do too well against it's rival the Playstation and so wasn't too common anyway) that many serious gamers had ditched for the next big console/PC by the time of PD's release anyway.
So what? Alfred Hitchcock never won an oscar. Van Gough sold only one painting in his entire life. Mozart died a pauper. Success is no guarantee of quality - look at the Spice Girls.
If you want to talk quality, look at the replayability of PD vs HL 1 or 2. Or the features. HL 1 and 2 are very, very good the first time round. But I just think that they really suffer due to the lack of replayability.
So again, how do people get so many headshots and storm through levels with such skill if the control method is so dire?
Necros.
And yet I still stand that Half Life 1 and 2 were in every way better than Perfect Dark/Zero.
Again, look at the list, how many of those awards were limited to the PC platform. I think if you look again, most of them were generic awards, and Perfect Dark won next to nothing.
If PD is not inferior, how come more people will say Half Life is better? Erm... because it *is*?
And yet I find that my favourite films are not Hitchcock ones, my favourite paintings are not by Van Gough and I don't care that much for Mozart. not really seeing where you are going with that one.
And again, why does replayability have to be the be-all and end-all of a better game? It doesn't. A better game can be something that was soo mind-blowing, it will stick in your mind, even if you never play it again.
Because they practiced for an eternity on those particular games. Plonk them in front of a game they've never played before and I bet you a billion pounds they would struggle with it way more than a PC gamer who is placed in front of a new FPS game for the first time. That's the beauty of standardization of the control method on PC FPS games. I can pick up a new game within a couple of minutes, as opposed to a console game, where the movement and action controls are always laid out differently from one game to the next.
Although not classed as an FPS, Oblivion has all the hallmarks of an FPS. I've played it on PC, PS3 and 360 and I think the control system on the consoles is much better than on PC. I know it's not a great comparison as it doesn't involve accurate and fast shooting, but I find it incredibly cumbersome to play on PC whereas the on console it is perfect played with a joypad.
Also Resistance: Fall of Man does a lot of things right played with a joypad, one of the prime cases is that the turning speed is increased by the CPU so that you face an enemy quickly, but slows down as an enemy is targetted, and the weapon selection helps enormously. Holding down the weapon select button stops the game and lets you select a weapon manually, whereas tapping the weapon select button simply cycles the weapons without stopping the game. It works very well, I've yet to try it in multiplayer though, I imagine that holding leaves you open to attack.
Personally, although I owned an N64 twice I never got around to playing Goldeneye or PD on it. Hopefully they'll eventually be released on the Wii Virtual Console so I can sample their excellence. Edge still mention that they should have given Goldeneye a 10/10 (it got 9) so it must be doing something right as their 10/10's are pretty rare (as far as I know only Mario 64, Ocarina, Gran Turismo, Halo and Half-Life 2 have received one) and all of the exisiting 10/10's are fully deserved IMO.
control-wise I think the N64 pad was great better than the Pc keyboard/mouse recently i've been on the HL2 Goldeneye Mod and I'm pretty sure it's the controls that mean I die on average every 3 seconds
It is rather good though
Hands up.
Right those purchasers of Edge Magazine go sit in the corner and contemplate what you've done.
Everyone knows ZXShed is the only magazine you should be reading.
what went wrong, how come it`s so hated?
No, he said "It's like all console FPS games: utterly awful control system that makes the game feel like a joke compared to PC FPS games.", catigorically calling the control system "utterly awful", which is untrue, as is his statement that console FPSs are a joke compared to PC FPSs. Ignorant and biased comments like that have to be shown up and corrected, as there's enough rubbish posted on the 'net.
What, better weapons, better replayability, more configurability, better level design, better game flow, better multiplayer, more gameplay modes (co-op, counter-op, enemy rockets etc)?
Yes, but how many people had even seen Perfect Dark? It was published on an all but commercially dead console, and that console was primarily seen as a kids machine (largely thanks to Nintendo's public image, and the N64's mascots of a fat plumber, a green dragon (or is Yoshi a dinosaur?) and an elf (or whatever Link is).
How about they've not played PD? Lot's of people would say that the Spice Girls were better than the Beatles. Does that make it in any way true?
I'm talking quality, not popularity. All three are acknowledged masters in their field. Fair enough, I prefer chips to fancy cooking, but that implies a lack of taste on my part.
I don't agree, although if you do feel that way then I can see your support for Half-Life 2. The first time through it's amazing, and HL1 was even better. No other first person shooter has had that taking-part-in-a-film feel, and it's appalling that no other games have learned from Half-Life's immersion. I mean, they gave Gordon Freeman no personality, no voice, no identity, and so the player transposed themselves into Freeman's place, and you never saw Freeman in the game, no cut-scenes or anything, so you were never taken out of the illusion. It was extremely well done, and no other FPS has achieved anything like that immersion, aside from HL2.
Far Cry had a go, but giving the character a voice and non-playable scenes spoilt it. Did you ever see American McGee's Alice? That game was so full of atmosphere, but ruined by the cutscenes, as they reminded you that it was just a game, if only they'd have had only real time first person events instead of third person cutscenes, the way Half-Life did, then it would have been so much better.
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher's Bay (an excellent game) had very good atmosphere, but again the atmosphere was often rudely snatched away by the third person cut scenes.
Then I'd be a billionaire (if you had the cash to begin with), as console FPSs (taking each console as an individual case, due to each having a different controller) tend to have the same control mechanisms and options.
Actually, that's no longer true, and getting less true by the minute. For some reason, since the 360 came out, or some time before, console FPSs seem to be shipping with less and less controller options. Most of my favourite N64 and XBox FPSs have every controller option you could wish for, but later games seem to be less configurable, which I can only attribute to either dumbing down for gamers or so that on-line players can't complain when they lose that the winner has a better control set up. Either way, I hate the way nowadays you can't even turn off the auto-aim in games. Auto-aim is fine for beginners, but when you're proficient with a joypad you don't need it. Yet more and more console FPSs fail to allow you to turn it off.
Incidentally, if I can add another plus point for Perfect Dark here, it too has an auto-aim function, but not only can you turn it off,but it also varies in power so that on the easiest skill level it's quite strong but on the hardest level it makes little difference, plus it auto-aims for the torso, whereas you're always better off getting a head shot (kills quicker than a torso shot), so you have an incentive to learn how to play without auto-aim. Just another example of how much thought Rare put into the game.
[/quote]
That's the beauty of standardization of the control method on PC FPS games. I can pick up a new game within a couple of minutes, as opposed to a console game, where the movement and action controls are always laid out differently from one game to the next.[/quote]
As I said, you can redefine them on many games, though less and less as time goes on, aparently. Decent unlockables also seem to be falling by the wayside too, and most FPSs don't support bots (computer players) in multiplayer mode anymore.
Joypad vs keyboard/mouse is an old argument, and I firmly prefer the former for convenience and fun, although the mouse is more precise, keyboards aren't for first person shooters, a second analogue stick for movement is far better than the WASD keys.
Eek! That's like having a mouth but never eating chips!
Very doubtful, sadly. Microsoft own Rare, and it's very unlikely that Microsoft would give permission for Nintendo to use their games, especially such popular ones. Those two games alone would increase sales of the Wii (I'd but one just for them, especially if you could play on-line :) :o :) ), so it's probably not going to happen. Plus MGM (who own the Goldeneye film copyright) would probably have to give permission (for which they's want loads of $$$) for Goldeneye the game to be re-released. And Activision now have the sole rights to Bond games, and might object to GE being re-released (you know what lawyers are like).
A very great pity.
Still, you can buy a second hand N64, GE and PD (you need an expansion pak, the 4MB memory add-on for PD) very cheaply now, and until N64 emulators become good enough to run the games perfectly, that's probably your only option to enjoy the two best FPSs (calm down Starglider, facts are facts) ever.
Goldeneye does look rough compared to modern games (especially the characters faces), and the frame-rate can dip, but it's still an incredible game. It lacks speech, bots and higher resolution mode (all present in Perfect Dark) but the gameplay, the level design, the replayability...
Not for nothing is it ten years old but still many peoples' favourite game. And the amount of hours lost to it's muliplayer modes is phenomenal.
I'd forgotten how pretensious Edge's writing was until I bought that issue (not read it for years, my mate used to buy it). Also, have you seen their top ten lists? They list Perfect Dark as an adventure! Even if you can class a FPS as an adventure (as in an experience, rather than the traditional meaning of "adventure") then surely Half-Life or Deus Ex would have been better suggestions, as they are both more immersive, story-wise.
They also call Pilot Wings a platform game! And Mrs Pacman is a puzzle game?!?
And they are huge fans of the Commodore 64, that says it all.
I bought the first three of thier Retro specials and not once was the speccy mentioned.
Please don't misquote me. I said (and this is cut and pasted from my earlier post):
"FPS controlling on a console is dire in comparison to a mouse/keyboard combo."
NOT what you wrote.
Fair enough, neither of us are going to convince the other, we've tried in at least two threads, let's just compromise and say that I'm right ;-)
I wasn't quoting you at all, I was quoting [FOAD]Iron, it was a copy and paste of his quote, and therefore exact letter for letter - I never misquote people to prove my argument, as that in itself would, apart from being morally wrong, weaken my own argument. Anyway, I disagree with his and your sentiment on the subject, but we're all entitled to our opinions. Except for C64 fans, who are too thick too live :lol:
id really love to say things have changed but they haven't, at all.
I can see why you'd get this from the magazine (although Steve Jarret was a big C64 fanboy) but recently "they" aren't really.
Here's hoping that Metroid Prime 3 is going to live up to expectations. MP1 on GameCube was the best game of the year and the second one wasn't too shoddy either.
Defender isn't in the list either...
Starglider, I decided to play through HL2 again (maybe my fourth or fifth time in total), and I'm currently in Nova Prospekt with Alex. It is an excellent game, and I had forgotten just how horrible the Ant Lions are - and whoever desinged the way they move and the way they have so many similarities in looks and behaviour to insects is extremely talented. They level design is very good too, especially the real world look of the whole thing and the deserted look of the sea shores and the abandoned boats. It helps enforce the feel of a dessicated world.
I have to stand by what I've said, though. I am enjoying parts of the game imensely, but the main problem is that I am constantly aware of what happens next, and when. Ironically, this is due to those events being so well designed and memorable, but regardless of the cause, it really does hammer replayability. A real pity, as some parts of the game, such as Ravenholm and Nova Prospekt are amongst the best bits of gaming I've ever known. When HL2 was in development, we were told by Valve that there'd be no scripted events, everything would be down to the A.I., and if that had been true of the finished game, then there'd be a lot more replayability. Instead I can remember where an enemy will appear ("teleport" in) when a reach a certain spot, so I can send a grenade or bazooka charge in there even before I've seen the enemy. Or I know when to stack up the exploding barrels, or when to store the buzzsaws (brilliant fun though, using them to kill zombies!) or the turret guns.
And there is a lot of tedium in HL2, such as the far-too-long boat section, and the boring don't-walk-on-the-sand Ant-Lion bit (which thankfully isn't too long). And exploration is rarely rewarded in the game, there are no hidden areas or sights. And the weapons are too weak and uninteresting, and the mostly-too-easy-even-on-hard-difficulty is uneven, with the game at times becoming far harder, which is the sort of thing that puts off casual gamers. And the idea of no friendly fire against your fellow humans is a really bad idea, as it means you can just fire indiscriminately or toss a grenade at them if they're surrounded by enemies. Look, no skill!
On the plus side, the atmosphere is amazing, the textures and graphics really capture the feel of the world the game is set in, there are some extremely imaginative parts to the game (have you seen the aliens in Perfect Dark? Grey "Area 51" style aliens and lizard-men, no imagination or innovation there, believe me), when the game is fun it's really fun, and the gravity gun is a fantastic weapon. And the Anti-Lions with the pherenome control is brilliant
It is a superb game, and I'm not getting rid of it. But when I've completed it again, I probably won't touch it again for ages. If there was one game I could wipe from my memory and play again it would be Half-Life 1. If there were two, they would be both Half-Lifes. They really are an unequalled experience in the first person world. However, I do think that as games, there are better first person shooters around.
And I have to admit, though, I do prefer HL1 to 2, it just feels more fun and complete. And the most fun I've had in either HL game was in 1, fighting against the soldiers. Although HL2 wisely avoided Xen, which was atmospheric but very tedious to play in HL1.
the great thing about perfect dark was playing a level again on the next difficulty level gave you a whole new set of objectives to complete. it was similar to goldeneye in that respect.
i'd put dn3d in there, and carmageddon and elastomania. turrican 2. street fighter ii and street fighter alpha... well theres loads you could put in.