The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
garbe123 wrote:
> It is, was it you Whitestripes or was it Dringo who said that
> Timesplitters 2 might challenge Halo? Enough said :)
That was me. And I believe it will. I've played and read reviews of both games and it looks like Timesplitters 2 will be coming out on top. The first player mode's excellent, and the multiplayer's unbeatable. It'll probably the FPS of the year.
> It is, was it you Whitestripes or was it Dringo who said that
> Timesplitters 2 might challenge Halo? Enough said :)
That was me. And I believe it will. I've played and read reviews of both games and it looks like Timesplitters 2 will be coming out on top. The first player mode's excellent, and the multiplayer's unbeatable. It'll probably the FPS of the year.
Mantis wrote:
> Whitestripes wrote:
> The GC version runs better.
>
> I would say the best version of TS2 is debatable.
>
> Look at Agent Under Fire- I played the GC version and noticed that it
> loads quicker than the Xbox version, but the GC version didn't include
> bots but the Xbox one did. And the GC pad IMO is inferior when it
> comes to FPS.
Agent Under fire did include bots on the Cube version. And the GC pad with the two analogue prongs in seperate places has apparently the best pad for FPS' or joint with X-box cause it does the same... either way.
> Look at Turok- PS2 version is meant to be crap, only allow 2 players
> in multipler and has different bad guy placements in the levels to
> avoid slowdown and have worst graphics etc.
>
> GC version I played and it ran ok- solid framerate. but again that Pad
> doesn't handle FPSers as well as the xbox pad.
>
> Xbox version has the most effects enabled and lots of sites saying
> textures etc are lusher on the xbox version. The xbox version is said
> to load faster too. Framerate though is said to be alots better than
> PS2s though not as good as GCs.
> Still doesn't make up for the game being crap.
He he loved the last comment.
I have faith in Timesplitters 2, i loved the first and the second borrows HEAVILY from Goldeneye. This team are the only team that can make an original FPS rather than update the current forumlae that Halo and PD do so well.
> Whitestripes wrote:
> The GC version runs better.
>
> I would say the best version of TS2 is debatable.
>
> Look at Agent Under Fire- I played the GC version and noticed that it
> loads quicker than the Xbox version, but the GC version didn't include
> bots but the Xbox one did. And the GC pad IMO is inferior when it
> comes to FPS.
Agent Under fire did include bots on the Cube version. And the GC pad with the two analogue prongs in seperate places has apparently the best pad for FPS' or joint with X-box cause it does the same... either way.
> Look at Turok- PS2 version is meant to be crap, only allow 2 players
> in multipler and has different bad guy placements in the levels to
> avoid slowdown and have worst graphics etc.
>
> GC version I played and it ran ok- solid framerate. but again that Pad
> doesn't handle FPSers as well as the xbox pad.
>
> Xbox version has the most effects enabled and lots of sites saying
> textures etc are lusher on the xbox version. The xbox version is said
> to load faster too. Framerate though is said to be alots better than
> PS2s though not as good as GCs.
> Still doesn't make up for the game being crap.
He he loved the last comment.
I have faith in Timesplitters 2, i loved the first and the second borrows HEAVILY from Goldeneye. This team are the only team that can make an original FPS rather than update the current forumlae that Halo and PD do so well.
It is, was it you Whitestripes or was it Dringo who said that Timesplitters 2 might challenge Halo? Enough said :)
I always thought TS2 was more of a multiplayer experiance rather than a single player.
Whitestripes wrote:
> The GC version runs better.
I would say the best version of TS2 is debatable.
Look at Agent Under Fire- I played the GC version and noticed that it loads quicker than the Xbox version, but the GC version didn't include bots but the Xbox one did. And the GC pad IMO is inferior when it comes to FPS.
Look at Turok- PS2 version is meant to be crap, only allow 2 players in multipler and has different bad guy placements in the levels to avoid slowdown and have worst graphics etc.
GC version I played and it ran ok- solid framerate. but again that Pad doesn't handle FPSers as well as the xbox pad.
Xbox version has the most effects enabled and lots of sites saying textures etc are lusher on the xbox version. The xbox version is said to load faster too. Framerate though is said to be alots better than PS2s though not as good as GCs.
Still doesn't make up for the game being crap.
> The GC version runs better.
I would say the best version of TS2 is debatable.
Look at Agent Under Fire- I played the GC version and noticed that it loads quicker than the Xbox version, but the GC version didn't include bots but the Xbox one did. And the GC pad IMO is inferior when it comes to FPS.
Look at Turok- PS2 version is meant to be crap, only allow 2 players in multipler and has different bad guy placements in the levels to avoid slowdown and have worst graphics etc.
GC version I played and it ran ok- solid framerate. but again that Pad doesn't handle FPSers as well as the xbox pad.
Xbox version has the most effects enabled and lots of sites saying textures etc are lusher on the xbox version. The xbox version is said to load faster too. Framerate though is said to be alots better than PS2s though not as good as GCs.
Still doesn't make up for the game being crap.
Dringo wrote:
> Timespilters-Money's on the latter.... first game to outclass Goldeneye they say.
LOL- Timesplitters is pants! Well the first one anyway...
Outclassing Goldenyee has been said before. In an old PS2 mag I have they interviewed on of the guys who worked on the first Timesplitters and they asked "Goldeneye or TS, which is better?"
He said TS as its more action packed and adrennile filled. What a ile of crap, TS is THE worst FPS i've ever played. yer man saying it beats Goldeneye was lying through his teeth, just a stunt to build hype.
TS2 though I have doubts over because the first was so bad I have a problem calling it a game. Why does know one remember that TS was so shoddy?
The second IS said to be good though. Official PS2 mag gav it 10/10 i think and Xgamer gave it 9/10. Perhaps the second one is as good as its made to be but I doubt it'll touch Halo or PD2, at least in my eyes.
> Timespilters-Money's on the latter.... first game to outclass Goldeneye they say.
LOL- Timesplitters is pants! Well the first one anyway...
Outclassing Goldenyee has been said before. In an old PS2 mag I have they interviewed on of the guys who worked on the first Timesplitters and they asked "Goldeneye or TS, which is better?"
He said TS as its more action packed and adrennile filled. What a ile of crap, TS is THE worst FPS i've ever played. yer man saying it beats Goldeneye was lying through his teeth, just a stunt to build hype.
TS2 though I have doubts over because the first was so bad I have a problem calling it a game. Why does know one remember that TS was so shoddy?
The second IS said to be good though. Official PS2 mag gav it 10/10 i think and Xgamer gave it 9/10. Perhaps the second one is as good as its made to be but I doubt it'll touch Halo or PD2, at least in my eyes.
Guess I'll get that one then.
Jonny -V- wrote:
>
> What's the difference between the three?
The GC version runs better.
Everyone says that except official X-box/PS2 magazine, and probably garbe.
;-)
>
> What's the difference between the three?
The GC version runs better.
Everyone says that except official X-box/PS2 magazine, and probably garbe.
;-)
er-no wrote:
> Seriously.. get the GC version. Strangely the best (me thinks Free
> Radical still love Nintendo) :-D
What's the difference between the three?
> Seriously.. get the GC version. Strangely the best (me thinks Free
> Radical still love Nintendo) :-D
What's the difference between the three?
Strafex wrote:
> Hmmm...
>
> Not sure where Timesplitters 2 fits in.
>
> Still, I'll be playing it in a months time so I'll be able to compare
> it then. From what I've seen, it doesn't have the tactical depth of
> Perfect Dark, or the epic scale of Halo...
Its bloody brilliant!
Seriously.. get the GC version. Strangely the best (me thinks Free Radical still love Nintendo) :-D
> Hmmm...
>
> Not sure where Timesplitters 2 fits in.
>
> Still, I'll be playing it in a months time so I'll be able to compare
> it then. From what I've seen, it doesn't have the tactical depth of
> Perfect Dark, or the epic scale of Halo...
Its bloody brilliant!
Seriously.. get the GC version. Strangely the best (me thinks Free Radical still love Nintendo) :-D
Page: