The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So Rare are coming to the Xbox and bringing some of the worlds most popular franchises with them.
I know that one you're all looking forward to is Perfect Dark.
Goldeneye was VERY special. It beat "superior" PC's at their own genre and redefined the genre. Perfect Dark was it's superb sequel.
It was sort of held back by the N64's limitations though.
The sort of limitations that the Xbox doesn't have.
But while it was the definative FPS on the N64 (with Turok being the only serious competitor), when Perfect Dark 0 comes out on the Xbox, it'll be in direct competition with Halo 2.
Which one will be better?
There's no hope of knowing until thay are both released, but assuming that both Rare and Bungie's coding is flawless, it's not down to better, but down to which style you prefer.
In what way are they different?
Well assuming they are like their predecessors, Halo is outdoors while Perfect Dark is indoors.
That's right.
Now this isn't simply down to the particular levels in each game, this is down to the way the game is played, from the controls to the game engine mechanics.
Halo (originally develloped for the Mac), was based around a PC style shooter (it adapted some of Goldeneye's ideas like reloading weapons, headhots and a splitscreen multiplayer, but it's control style is completely different).
Perfect Dark, meanwhile, was based on Goldeneye's way of controlling things.
You only have to play each game to find where their strengths lie.
Halo's best levels were by far the outside ones, especially where Marine allies were involved. The spectacular battles over huge levels was one of the things that made this game so impressive.
The indoor levels weren't so great, often being repetitive and dull.
Don't get me wrong, they weren't awful, just a disappointment after the fantastic outdoor levels.
The two best multiplayer maps?
Sidewinder and Blood Gulch.
Again, large outdoor levels.
One of the game's best features? Vehicles - outdoors only.
One of the best weapons? Sniper rifle - worked best outdoors.
I think we've yet to see the best from Halo.
When Xbox live drops into town and 16 player deathmatches become an option, the battles will be superb - all on outdoor levels like Blood Gulch and Sidewinder (and I expect that more battlegrounds will be available to download).
Perfect Dark/Goldeneye had a few outdoor levels.
But these weren't free-roaming ones.
Normally they were inside some sort of complex of sorts like the Dam and the area 51 base or the Skedar ruins.
Perfect Dark being a "one man" (or woman in this case!) secret agent game, rather than a "squad leader" war game like Halo.
The game is based on tactics and stealth rather than all out battle manauvers.
You normally have to stop to aim, but aiming is a lot more accurate.
Another difference is that you fight more with your wits than pure brawn.
This inside Vs outside, secret agent Vs battle, has other strengths and weaknesses.
I think that the Secret Agent style allows for a more in depth single player experience, with more fun to be had with the AI and a more involving story/mission.
But the war style most likely suits the multiplayer more, with it's shooting based action and "moving while shooting" manauvers.
My advice?
Even if you're into single player games, Halo 2 will also offer some advantages over PD in the single player, and PD's multiplayer will cover ground that Halo 2 doesn't.
So get both! :-)
I know that one you're all looking forward to is Perfect Dark.
Goldeneye was VERY special. It beat "superior" PC's at their own genre and redefined the genre. Perfect Dark was it's superb sequel.
It was sort of held back by the N64's limitations though.
The sort of limitations that the Xbox doesn't have.
But while it was the definative FPS on the N64 (with Turok being the only serious competitor), when Perfect Dark 0 comes out on the Xbox, it'll be in direct competition with Halo 2.
Which one will be better?
There's no hope of knowing until thay are both released, but assuming that both Rare and Bungie's coding is flawless, it's not down to better, but down to which style you prefer.
In what way are they different?
Well assuming they are like their predecessors, Halo is outdoors while Perfect Dark is indoors.
That's right.
Now this isn't simply down to the particular levels in each game, this is down to the way the game is played, from the controls to the game engine mechanics.
Halo (originally develloped for the Mac), was based around a PC style shooter (it adapted some of Goldeneye's ideas like reloading weapons, headhots and a splitscreen multiplayer, but it's control style is completely different).
Perfect Dark, meanwhile, was based on Goldeneye's way of controlling things.
You only have to play each game to find where their strengths lie.
Halo's best levels were by far the outside ones, especially where Marine allies were involved. The spectacular battles over huge levels was one of the things that made this game so impressive.
The indoor levels weren't so great, often being repetitive and dull.
Don't get me wrong, they weren't awful, just a disappointment after the fantastic outdoor levels.
The two best multiplayer maps?
Sidewinder and Blood Gulch.
Again, large outdoor levels.
One of the game's best features? Vehicles - outdoors only.
One of the best weapons? Sniper rifle - worked best outdoors.
I think we've yet to see the best from Halo.
When Xbox live drops into town and 16 player deathmatches become an option, the battles will be superb - all on outdoor levels like Blood Gulch and Sidewinder (and I expect that more battlegrounds will be available to download).
Perfect Dark/Goldeneye had a few outdoor levels.
But these weren't free-roaming ones.
Normally they were inside some sort of complex of sorts like the Dam and the area 51 base or the Skedar ruins.
Perfect Dark being a "one man" (or woman in this case!) secret agent game, rather than a "squad leader" war game like Halo.
The game is based on tactics and stealth rather than all out battle manauvers.
You normally have to stop to aim, but aiming is a lot more accurate.
Another difference is that you fight more with your wits than pure brawn.
This inside Vs outside, secret agent Vs battle, has other strengths and weaknesses.
I think that the Secret Agent style allows for a more in depth single player experience, with more fun to be had with the AI and a more involving story/mission.
But the war style most likely suits the multiplayer more, with it's shooting based action and "moving while shooting" manauvers.
My advice?
Even if you're into single player games, Halo 2 will also offer some advantages over PD in the single player, and PD's multiplayer will cover ground that Halo 2 doesn't.
So get both! :-)
Page:
Maverick42 wrote:
> That's not strictly true. I heard it was about thirty, and instead of
> joining Free Radical, they formed it, didn't they? I'm not 100% sure,
> but that's what I've been told.
Close enough, only 30 is a little bit high...
> It also depends on how highly you rate those people. It was the main
> producers and developers that left (maybe a few programmers?) and a
> few more not so significant people. I know everyone played their part,
> but it was the guys in the driving seat that left.
Actually, only 2 major members left, with a few less important people going too.
Anyway, considering that the original Timesplitters was rushed out for the PS2, and made for the most awkward piece of hardware on the planet, it wasn't so bad.
There was PLENTY of room for improvement, and that seems to be where TS2 picks up.
May or may not be a Halo beater (more likely to beat Halo in some areas and be inferior in others).
> That's not strictly true. I heard it was about thirty, and instead of
> joining Free Radical, they formed it, didn't they? I'm not 100% sure,
> but that's what I've been told.
Close enough, only 30 is a little bit high...
> It also depends on how highly you rate those people. It was the main
> producers and developers that left (maybe a few programmers?) and a
> few more not so significant people. I know everyone played their part,
> but it was the guys in the driving seat that left.
Actually, only 2 major members left, with a few less important people going too.
Anyway, considering that the original Timesplitters was rushed out for the PS2, and made for the most awkward piece of hardware on the planet, it wasn't so bad.
There was PLENTY of room for improvement, and that seems to be where TS2 picks up.
May or may not be a Halo beater (more likely to beat Halo in some areas and be inferior in others).
gamezfreak wrote:
> Only SOME of the Goldeneye team left Rare to join FRD, So not all the
> developers are there.
That's not strictly true. I heard it was about thirty, and instead of joining Free Radical, they formed it, didn't they? I'm not 100% sure, but that's what I've been told.
It also depends on how highly you rate those people. It was the main producers and developers that left (maybe a few programmers?) and a few more not so significant people. I know everyone played their part, but it was the guys in the driving seat that left.
> Only SOME of the Goldeneye team left Rare to join FRD, So not all the
> developers are there.
That's not strictly true. I heard it was about thirty, and instead of joining Free Radical, they formed it, didn't they? I'm not 100% sure, but that's what I've been told.
It also depends on how highly you rate those people. It was the main producers and developers that left (maybe a few programmers?) and a few more not so significant people. I know everyone played their part, but it was the guys in the driving seat that left.
Maverick42 wrote:
> No offence, but it's obvious you know very little about Timesplitters
> 2 :).
I Probably don't. Just I found the TS1 storyline very shoddy.
> Let's face it, Halo didn't exactly have the greatest plot in the world :).
Your entitled to an opinion, But i found the Halo storyline very compelling, intresting and flowed nicely in game with the varied levels.
> Don't forget, these are the people that brought us Goldeneye and
> Perfect Dark (the so called 'Kings' of FPS's in some people's eyes),
> so it's bound to be great - just read a review or play a demo!
Only SOME of the Goldeneye team left Rare to join FRD, So not all the developers are there.
> This is why I think it will probably be the FPS of the year, though
> Unreal Tournament 2003 on PC is going to be the most threatening
> competitor.
Unreal Championship on Xbox and Unreal Tournament on PC are extremely strong competitors, Especially with the online experiance to take into account.
The next issue of OXM is out on Friday, There might be a review there....
> No offence, but it's obvious you know very little about Timesplitters
> 2 :).
I Probably don't. Just I found the TS1 storyline very shoddy.
> Let's face it, Halo didn't exactly have the greatest plot in the world :).
Your entitled to an opinion, But i found the Halo storyline very compelling, intresting and flowed nicely in game with the varied levels.
> Don't forget, these are the people that brought us Goldeneye and
> Perfect Dark (the so called 'Kings' of FPS's in some people's eyes),
> so it's bound to be great - just read a review or play a demo!
Only SOME of the Goldeneye team left Rare to join FRD, So not all the developers are there.
> This is why I think it will probably be the FPS of the year, though
> Unreal Tournament 2003 on PC is going to be the most threatening
> competitor.
Unreal Championship on Xbox and Unreal Tournament on PC are extremely strong competitors, Especially with the online experiance to take into account.
The next issue of OXM is out on Friday, There might be a review there....
I think that it did.
Instead of being one of those droll "go through the levels shooting monsters" like traditional ones, it changed the way FPS's can be done.
It started trends like headshots, stealth, mission based play (although previous games did have missions, they were simply running to points in the level rather than Goldeneye's objectives, which you could actually fail), introduced a 4 player splitscreen to FPS (which opened FPS multiplayer to people who weren't hardcore techno-freaks when it came to online gaming) and almost ALL of it's ideas (from sniping, headshots to the splitscreen multiplayer) have been re-used by almost every FPS to come out after it.
Instead of being one of those droll "go through the levels shooting monsters" like traditional ones, it changed the way FPS's can be done.
It started trends like headshots, stealth, mission based play (although previous games did have missions, they were simply running to points in the level rather than Goldeneye's objectives, which you could actually fail), introduced a 4 player splitscreen to FPS (which opened FPS multiplayer to people who weren't hardcore techno-freaks when it came to online gaming) and almost ALL of it's ideas (from sniping, headshots to the splitscreen multiplayer) have been re-used by almost every FPS to come out after it.
Strafex wrote:
> Goldeneye was VERY special. It beat "superior" PC's at their
> own genre and redefined the genre.
it was a superior title, and probably the first really decent console FPS, but it really didnt redefine the genre, just a great game.
> Goldeneye was VERY special. It beat "superior" PC's at their
> own genre and redefined the genre.
it was a superior title, and probably the first really decent console FPS, but it really didnt redefine the genre, just a great game.
i downloaded the Halo 2 trailer last night. i don't really think about Halo 2 really. reason being, as i see it: the less you think about something the sooner it comes out. but now i want it bad, you know. they sy it comes out 2004! that takes the biscuit big-time! nearly two years? this better be bloody 2x better than Halo!!
Timesplitters 2 looks ok, but I don't see it as a Halo beater. And I'm not saying that as some biased X-Box owner, afterall, we're getting the game too. I've read reviews and seen footage of the game and I'm not too sure about it yet. Chances are I'll get to play it this Saturday so I'll be able to give a better view on it.
No offence, but it's obvious you know very little about Timesplitters 2 :).
There is a story mode, which has been much improved, with a great level design and objectives carrying you along a not extremely involving but well put together plot. A storyline isn't so important in a first person shooter, and as long as the fun is there, then that's what counts. Let's face it, Halo didn't exactly have the greatest plot in the world :).
Don't forget, these are the people that brought us Goldeneye and Perfect Dark (the so called 'Kings' of FPS's in some people's eyes), so it's bound to be great - just read a review or play a demo!
This is why I think it will probably be the FPS of the year, though Unreal Tournament 2003 on PC is going to be the most threatening competitor.
There is a story mode, which has been much improved, with a great level design and objectives carrying you along a not extremely involving but well put together plot. A storyline isn't so important in a first person shooter, and as long as the fun is there, then that's what counts. Let's face it, Halo didn't exactly have the greatest plot in the world :).
Don't forget, these are the people that brought us Goldeneye and Perfect Dark (the so called 'Kings' of FPS's in some people's eyes), so it's bound to be great - just read a review or play a demo!
This is why I think it will probably be the FPS of the year, though Unreal Tournament 2003 on PC is going to be the most threatening competitor.
Maverick42 wrote:
> That was me. And I believe it will.
How can it? Halo is story orientated, TS2 is more of just a blast em up multiplayer.
> It'll probably the FPS of the year.
*Cough* Unreal Champiuonship, Unreal Tournement 2003 *Cough*
> That was me. And I believe it will.
How can it? Halo is story orientated, TS2 is more of just a blast em up multiplayer.
> It'll probably the FPS of the year.
*Cough* Unreal Champiuonship, Unreal Tournement 2003 *Cough*
Page: