PDA

View Full Version : Can we talk about Xbox and PS2 on here?



Kyle
09-08-2006, 09:19 PM
If we can't.... then.... your not human.

Halo rocks more than the sequel....
I'm not sure if Legendary is easier or Ghosts and Banshees make it harder by blowing up... and no swords or those green cannons... the cannons blow up... ow...

JJRamone2
09-08-2006, 09:36 PM
Halo didn't deserve all the hype it got. It just wasn't that good of a game.

MasterDS
09-08-2006, 09:37 PM
Agreed. Halo sucks. Get PD0 instead.

JJRamone2
09-08-2006, 09:41 PM
Agreed. Halo sucks. Get PD0 instead.
I didn't like that one as much and the first, my favorite FPS is Half Life 2.

DarthGohan1
09-08-2006, 10:08 PM
Yeah, you can talk about Spny and M$ here...that's fine.

Anyways, IMO Halo was good...but Halo 2 wasn't anything great compared to Halo.

âish
09-08-2006, 10:28 PM
Halo is overrated, i totally perfer Unreal Tournament to halo, its got more mods, completely customizable, you can build your own vehicles if you know how, its just way awesome.

but halo is still fun, just overrated.

Kyle
09-09-2006, 01:25 PM
Halo is good! Its just I don't buy alot of games for Xbox because I don't know what to get. But its still good. I was playing Halo 2 alot and Halo is way better.

Bulerias
09-09-2006, 01:42 PM
Yeah, you can.

Halo 2 is better than Halo in my opinion. I played both in LAN multiplayer and a bit of singleplayer, and the second is better. However, both games lack art style...

SL92
09-09-2006, 02:35 PM
Personally, I think Halo 2 is better. Halo 3 will own though.

Kyle
09-09-2006, 02:37 PM
I always thought graphics was only thing nerds cared about... :\ I don't care for the art, I just care for the core game style. Halo is way better Bul, I mean, both have wierd things about them. Both blow up vehicles but in different ways. But in a way Halo has it tougher by letting me show you this:

Warthogs - in Halo 1 never show any signs of damage or can never blow up but the hardness of steering makes up for all of its psotives. It doesn't even show no signs of damage! Halo 2 has it tougher though as there are signs, they do blow up, but it steers way better. I always perfer driver though. This is mainly between... how you look at it. These are cars called 'Warthog' because of the horns in the front.

NOTE: In my case, Halo 2 has it harder, because you can auto-kill anything, expically Hunters! I don't think it could do that in 2...

Banshees - the flying vehicles of the Covenant - can blow up, even if you are in them. They show no signs of damage and auto-kill like the Warthog, if you can swipe the enemy with your wing, but its anonumous that Halo has it harder.

Ghosts - main transport by land of the Covenant - are more lethal in Halo 2. They can ram people over as they could not in Halo 1, but the circle engine to the left part is a deathwish to the driver if it is hit! Snipers get this advantage. However in Halo 1 they are deadly because you can die in them but the circle tank doesn't blow up - I can't confirm this because I haven't got it targeted in mutiplayer, as they take no damage AT ALL when no driver is in. Halo has it harder when you can only rely on your sole plasma cannons and you can very well blow up inside, while Halo 2 has it tougher by the tank explosion only. You can ram your enemys and get the boost for fast escapes when you can't in Halo 1 and the cannons too.

Scorpions - the big tanks that are unstoppable. Yes in both. As you can tell its hard for them to take damage in Halo 2 as they have very great defence but explode. Halo 2 still has it harder. I can guess that the timer is longer by a second in Halo but they can explode in 2... theres not much difference there... but a broken Scorpion possibility beats a 1 second rocket rate later can't beat the explosion possibility in Halo 2.

Now the possibilities of vehicles are tied, but hands down Halo 2 has it easier by the vast array of weapons Halo doesn't have. Energy Swords, Fuel Rod Cannons, Covenant Carbine, and DUEL WEILDING.

Its pretty obvious that Halo is harder... if you read this.

Bulerias
09-09-2006, 02:49 PM
I always thought graphics was only thing nerds cared about... :\ I don't care for the art, I just care for the core game style. Halo is way better Bul, I mean, both have wierd things about them. Both blow up vehicles but in different ways. But in a way Halo has it tougher by letting me show you this:

Warthogs - in Halo 1 never show any signs of damage or can never blow up but the hardness of steering makes up for all of its psotives. It doesn't even show no signs of damage! Halo 2 has it tougher though as there are signs, they do blow up, but it steers way better. I always perfer driver though. This is mainly between... how you look at it. These are cars called 'Warthog' because of the horns in the front.

NOTE: In my case, Halo 2 has it harder, because you can auto-kill anything, expically Hunters! I don't think it could do that in 2...

Banshees - the flying vehicles of the Covenant - can blow up, even if you are in them. They show no signs of damage and auto-kill like the Warthog, if you can swipe the enemy with your wing, but its anonumous that Halo has it harder.

Ghosts - main transport by land of the Covenant - are more lethal in Halo 2. They can ram people over as they could not in Halo 1, but the circle engine to the left part is a deathwish to the driver if it is hit! Snipers get this advantage. However in Halo 1 they are deadly because you can die in them but the circle tank doesn't blow up - I can't confirm this because I haven't got it targeted in mutiplayer, as they take no damage AT ALL when no driver is in. Halo has it harder when you can only rely on your sole plasma cannons and you can very well blow up inside, while Halo 2 has it tougher by the tank explosion only. You can ram your enemys and get the boost for fast escapes when you can't in Halo 1 and the cannons too.

Scorpions - the big tanks that are unstoppable. Yes in both. As you can tell its hard for them to take damage in Halo 2 as they have very great defence but explode. Halo 2 still has it harder. I can guess that the timer is longer by a second in Halo but they can explode in 2... theres not much difference there... but a broken Scorpion possibility beats a 1 second rocket rate later can't beat the explosion possibility in Halo 2.

Now the possibilities of vehicles are tied, but hands down Halo 2 has it easier by the vast array of weapons Halo doesn't have. Energy Swords, Fuel Rod Cannons, Covenant Carbine, and DUEL WEILDING.

Its pretty obvious that Halo is harder... if you read this.
Graphics were things NERDS cared about? Sigh... Horrible misconception, dude. People that care about graphics are supposed to be gamers... Gamers should care about every aspect of a game, and not be like...

"OMG GRAPHICZ SUCK GAMEPLAY PWNZZ!!!!"

Not talking about photorealism, either. I'm talking about art style, too. Take FFIII, for instance. It'd be bad without its graphics and art style... FE, Zelda, Mario, Metroid, and others would also suffer if they had bad graphics.

But regardless... Halo 1 might be harder, but I found Halo 2 to be more enjoyable.

Kyle
09-09-2006, 02:53 PM
If I said 'I thought' then it proved I was wrong therefore saying I was proven wrong, by you, which you aren't a nerd. '.'

And to me the Harder is more enjoyable. Fable was a cakewalk for example, too easy.

Kyle
09-09-2006, 02:57 PM
Oh yeah, and think about it like this, would you play a AWESOME looking game, but it was crap? I don't think so, thats how I look at anything. Skin deep.

Bulerias
09-09-2006, 02:59 PM
Oh yeah, and think about it like this, would you play a AWESOME looking game, but it was crap? I don't think so, thats how I look at anything. Skin deep.
Would you play a game with AWESOME gameplay, but it looked like crap, rendering it basically unplayable?

I wouldn't. :|

Kyle
09-09-2006, 03:00 PM
Well if it was unplayable, then how would it be a game, and how would you know it would have awesome gameplay?

Bulerias
09-09-2006, 03:04 PM
Well if it was unplayable, then how would it be a game, and how would you know it would have awesome gameplay?
Exactly. The game could have awesome gameplay, but bad graphics, so you wouldn't know it had good gameplay.

Gameplay and graphics are equally important in my book.

Kyle
09-09-2006, 03:15 PM
I guess so but in my book, I perfer Gameplay.

And as for your thing about


People that care about graphics are supposed to be gamers...

Well not really. Its like saying what makes a door a door. Some people say a door has to have hinges, well some say you can tie a rug over it to make a flap or you could say a door must fwoosh open from both sides like a future door. There is nothing that can exactly say what makes a gamer.

Bulerias
09-09-2006, 03:50 PM
I guess so but in my book, I perfer Gameplay.

And as for your thing about


People that care about graphics are supposed to be gamers...

Well not really. Its like saying what makes a door a door. Some people say a door has to have hinges, well some say you can tie a rug over it to make a flap or you could say a door must fwoosh open from both sides like a future door. There is nothing that can exactly say what makes a gamer.
You see here, we as gamers are taking stereotypical stances on gaming, saying gameplay is more important... But is that really true? The argument "Would you play a game if it had bad gameplay but awesome graphics" is so overused it's incredible. I can find you three threads on NSider about it right now, actually.

The fact of the matter is that all aspects of a game, and that includes others than gameplay and graphics, are important and play a crucial role. Or, look at it this way; a game will be remembered if it has good everything, but it won't be if it only has good gameplay.

Kyle
09-09-2006, 04:12 PM
I guess so but in my book, I perfer Gameplay.

And as for your thing about


People that care about graphics are supposed to be gamers...

Well not really. Its like saying what makes a door a door. Some people say a door has to have hinges, well some say you can tie a rug over it to make a flap or you could say a door must fwoosh open from both sides like a future door. There is nothing that can exactly say what makes a gamer.
You see here, we as gamers are taking stereotypical stances on gaming, saying gameplay is more important... But is that really true? The argument "Would you play a game if it had bad gameplay but awesome graphics" is so overused it's incredible. I can find you three threads on NSider about it right now, actually.

The fact of the matter is that all aspects of a game, and that includes others than gameplay and graphics, are important and play a crucial role. Or, look at it this way; a game will be remembered if it has good everything, but it won't be if it only has good gameplay.
I guess...