Printable View
ok the ps2 is has killzone
the gamecube has metroid prime 2
and x-box has halo2 (no http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/lovesmile.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/lovesmile.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/lovesmile.gifhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/lovesmile.gif)
which one is better?
erm, none of them are. But if I would have to say, HALO 2. I perfer UT2k4. Maybe because all of those are console FPS, and console fps arnt really that good because its just a controller. Unlike console FPS, computer FPS its a mouse and keyboard, which is faster at aiming. I bet if I played HALO or 2 online with a keyboard and mouse they would be saying OMG HAX! :p
Also like to add PC fps's rock because theres always extra maps out there, game types, etc.
Neither, Half-Life 2 out-sells/does them all :tongue:
You can't really compare them. Halo has way more hype than Killzone and a predecessor that it built on, and Metroid Prime 2 is nothing at all like those two.
It's a worthless comparison to make, since most FPS games are sold on a completely different premise. Comparing Halo 2 to Metroid Prime 2 makes no sense. Nor would comparing Medal of Honour to Rainbow Six 3, or Half-Life 2 to XIII. Aside from a similar interface the games aren't really alike, each sold with a different idea in mind. Therefore they can't really be compared.
The PS2 has far better shooters than Killzone, anyway.
If you call Metroid Prime 2: Echoes a FPS again, heads will start being removed from bodies. Besides that, they're all on different console anyway. The games were not even designed with the same goals in mind.
What would you call it? It's from a first-person perspective and you shoot stuff. Granted, there's a lot more depth to it than mindless running and gunning, but when you go back to the core of it, you're shooting from a first-person perspective.
Halo 2 has a down right terrible single player campaign. The gameplay is solid but then again it would have to be to make the multiplayer so good. Where it fails is in level design, story, graphics and A.I. on lower difficulty levels(It doesn't have to be super smart but smart enough to keep from running into a wall for 5 straight seconds). And the length is horriblely short also.
Not to mention the didn't include vechiles and weapons they were going to add(most of which were done and working in the demo), the level from the demo was gone but that looked like it takes place after where the game ends. The multiple melee attacks are missing and a whole lot of other stuff they had done for the most part.
What they put out was a game that would have taken EA a year to do and it took them 3 and it isn't even that good. The lack of polish on the game really shows also during cutscenes when the graphics glitch a lot. The game seems to be trying to remap textures all the time as well as have trouble loading up backgrounds before the scenes start. Just terrible.
Super solid multiplayer though but then again the multiplayer doesn't ever have a chance to really suffer from all the stuff they messed up in single player.
I voted for Metroid Prime 2 and Killzone just because Halo 2 sucks.
Note: I am more of a single player person than a multiplayer person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosCalibur
U, sir are a genius.
chaos: As are you :love:Quote:
Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane
Medal of Honor > all.
gordon freeman mothasuckaaas