So it has been a long time since I've really looked at a First Person Shooter (FPS) game. Part of this is because in recent years FPS games have had the problem of giving me serious bouts of motion sickness. What idiot thought that a jerky movement on screen helped with the verisimilitude of a game? People do not sway from left to right so fluidly when they walk... but I digress.
This early 2000's habit of movement really didn't work.
But after playing Oblivion and giving XIII a go, I'm swaying back to the possibility of checking out FPS games if they end up being decent enough to play.
Enter the approaching (and likely, unintentional) war of the FPS - Bioshock versus Halo 3.
Both games are claiming unparalleled story and gaming experiences. Both are claiming to be innovative and new approaches to the genre. My gaming dollar is going to screaming at me when it comes down to picking a game.
Or is it?
Here's the thing. Bioshock has been developed by the same team who made the genre-busting System Shock 2. Remember that game - the creepiness and sheer scale. The AI was disturbing for the time - enemies were [i]smart[/i]! Without SS2, games like Deus Ex may have never seen the light of day.
Halo 3 is being made by the team who made... well... Halo. Which has been a bit, patchy. It may be one of the biggest coups of Xbox, but I played them. They aren't that flash. Halo 2 was plagued by patchy rendering - often character's textures didn't load up until half-way through a scene, enemy AI tended to be pretty limited to "run like buggery at the player and throw everything you've got at him!"
But Halo 3 looks pretty. And the designers are talking about how they are improving on everything that got rushed through for Halo 2.
Well Bioshock comes out this week, about two weeks ahead of Halo 3 - and the news is not looking good for the guys at Bungie. Initial reviews are calling it a miracle. A rare game that earns 100% for not only redefining what an FPS is, but throwing everything you assumed an FPS should be out the window and rebuilding from the beginning to make what is being described as a game that is from two years in the future brought back in time so we can play it today.
High praise.
Bioshock has a living ecology. Players have a vast array of options, and no two games will play the same. The maps are huge and actually designed on real architecture rather than false claims of such. It is not a linear tunnel - you can wander through malls and hospitals in the underwater city of Rapture and take out the enemies as you see fit.
Enemies can be made into allies. The most deadly opponents wont attack you unless [i]you[/i] provoke them. (Although there are suitable rewards for doing so...)
What has Halo 3 claimed? Well, so far, a lot of hype. Unparalleled. Next Gen. Amazing AI. MULTIPLAYER!
But what cool things will I be able to do?
Will I be able to choose the route with which the story unfolds? Will I be able to hack computers to turn the entire level into a death trap for my enemies? Bioshock can.
Halo 3's only saving grace so far is that it has pretty graphics, and multiplayer. However the reports about Bioshock are saying "sometimes multiplayer just isn't necessary when the game is this good."
No doubt you know the decision I've made. Bungie have done a pretty poor job at selling Halo 3 beyond "It's Halo. But better!"
I hated Halo. It had a great story and pretty graphics - when they loaded. But the previous two seemed full of bugs. I have little faith that Halo 3 will be any different.
Bioshock, however, is made by a team who have a history of great products - and has been in development for a while. All the reviews are glowing. The worst review gave it 95% because it didn't have multiplayer and because of the removal of a small sequence from the final game that was deemed a little too risque.
I'm sold. More about it when I get my grubby paws on this game! :D
Love and Huggles
Conan
Currently Reading: Lunars 2e
Currently Playing: REIGN, WFRP
Mood: FPS developers are in my sights!
This early 2000's habit of movement really didn't work.
But after playing Oblivion and giving XIII a go, I'm swaying back to the possibility of checking out FPS games if they end up being decent enough to play.
Enter the approaching (and likely, unintentional) war of the FPS - Bioshock versus Halo 3.
Both games are claiming unparalleled story and gaming experiences. Both are claiming to be innovative and new approaches to the genre. My gaming dollar is going to screaming at me when it comes down to picking a game.
Or is it?
Here's the thing. Bioshock has been developed by the same team who made the genre-busting System Shock 2. Remember that game - the creepiness and sheer scale. The AI was disturbing for the time - enemies were [i]smart[/i]! Without SS2, games like Deus Ex may have never seen the light of day.
Halo 3 is being made by the team who made... well... Halo. Which has been a bit, patchy. It may be one of the biggest coups of Xbox, but I played them. They aren't that flash. Halo 2 was plagued by patchy rendering - often character's textures didn't load up until half-way through a scene, enemy AI tended to be pretty limited to "run like buggery at the player and throw everything you've got at him!"
But Halo 3 looks pretty. And the designers are talking about how they are improving on everything that got rushed through for Halo 2.
Well Bioshock comes out this week, about two weeks ahead of Halo 3 - and the news is not looking good for the guys at Bungie. Initial reviews are calling it a miracle. A rare game that earns 100% for not only redefining what an FPS is, but throwing everything you assumed an FPS should be out the window and rebuilding from the beginning to make what is being described as a game that is from two years in the future brought back in time so we can play it today.
High praise.
Bioshock has a living ecology. Players have a vast array of options, and no two games will play the same. The maps are huge and actually designed on real architecture rather than false claims of such. It is not a linear tunnel - you can wander through malls and hospitals in the underwater city of Rapture and take out the enemies as you see fit.
Enemies can be made into allies. The most deadly opponents wont attack you unless [i]you[/i] provoke them. (Although there are suitable rewards for doing so...)
What has Halo 3 claimed? Well, so far, a lot of hype. Unparalleled. Next Gen. Amazing AI. MULTIPLAYER!
But what cool things will I be able to do?
Will I be able to choose the route with which the story unfolds? Will I be able to hack computers to turn the entire level into a death trap for my enemies? Bioshock can.
Halo 3's only saving grace so far is that it has pretty graphics, and multiplayer. However the reports about Bioshock are saying "sometimes multiplayer just isn't necessary when the game is this good."
No doubt you know the decision I've made. Bungie have done a pretty poor job at selling Halo 3 beyond "It's Halo. But better!"
I hated Halo. It had a great story and pretty graphics - when they loaded. But the previous two seemed full of bugs. I have little faith that Halo 3 will be any different.
Bioshock, however, is made by a team who have a history of great products - and has been in development for a while. All the reviews are glowing. The worst review gave it 95% because it didn't have multiplayer and because of the removal of a small sequence from the final game that was deemed a little too risque.
I'm sold. More about it when I get my grubby paws on this game! :D
Love and Huggles
Conan
Currently Reading: Lunars 2e
Currently Playing: REIGN, WFRP
Mood: FPS developers are in my sights!
4 comments:
I think that getting both games would be the way to go.
I think that bioshock will definitely have the story and originality over Halo 3 (which is to be expected seeing as its the third game in a trilogy).
That doesnt mean that Halo 3 wont be a great single player experience though.
Having played completely through both previous Halo titles on multiple difficulty levels I feel that the biggest weakness they had was that a lot of the material was recycled. Rumour has it that microsoft forced bungie to rush both games to meet deadlines, in the case of Halo 1 the xbox launch and in the case of Halo 2 a deadline that they set 30% through production (always a bad idea when you dont know how long testing and bug fixing is gonna take).
That said there were some excellent levels in both games. From Halo 1 I have fond memories of a stage in the game where you have to climb to the top of a cliff under cover of darkness and have been given a sniper rifle and a squad of marines to aid you in the job. From the point you fired the first shot to the boss fight at the end of that lvl it was pure madness and probably one of the reasons why many game reviewer and long time gamers such as myself considered it at the time to be the best "Console" first person shooter since Golden Eye on the Nintendo 64.
In Halo 2 I thought the best level was the one set on earth (the one that was hyped at E3 many times before the games release). It gave you a sense of what a real intergalatic war might be like and have you doing everything from leading a squad of marines, to driving a warthog (marine equivalent of Jeep) manned by ai marines through a city under seige by the covenanant, to manning a Scorpion Tank and taking back what looked to be a replica of the golden gate bridge, to doing a leap of faith off the top of a bridge to land on top of and destroy a huge covenant walker(looked like a mechanical spider) from the inside by taking out the guards at the control pannel.
Playing this myself and Im sure pretty much every other xbox gamer at the time was thinking "WoW! this is the best game ever and its only the second level!"
Problem was that it was only the second level and nothing got as good after that in the rest of the game which felt like one big copy and paste from the first game to fill up disc space.
After playing and finishing the rest of the single player game it really felt like that second level was the climax and everything following was one big denouement that didnt even have that satisfying of a resolution at the end.
Anyways, enough ranting. The true strength in the Halo series has always been its multiplayer. From system link (or unofficial emulated system link that was used to play the game online back in the day without the use of xboxlive) in the first game, to the awesomeness that was the online multiplayer experience of Halo 2 via xboxlive (the only part of Halo 2 that felt finished and still arguably the best online multiplayer "console" game to date) to co-op split screen story mode, to lan party Halo 1/2 with friends, the multiplayer experience was the best thing about the Halo series.
If you dont already have it, then I would say its the one game worth getting xbox live for.
Does Bioshock mean "game over" or bad news for Bungie? no.
Will it impact Halo 3 sales? Possibly, as hardcore gamers will want both titles and with bioshock coming out first it may push their Halo3 purchase back a week or 2 depending on their budget.
Will it outsell Halo 3?
No, like it or not when most people hear the word "xbox", Halo is the first game that comes to mind. Even for non-gamers who might have only seen it at a friends house. With the amount of hype Micro$oft and the gaming community in general have made surrounding Halo3, it will be one of the highest selling titles on the console. Its sales number might even come close to Gears of war.
So in summary save up a bit of coin and pony up for both games.
Get Bioshock for a new(ish) experience(deus ex and system shock2 underwater) and unsurpassed single player experience, get Halo 3 for a good-great(fingers crossed) single player game and an unsurpassed multiplayer experience.
Bioshock is going to be epic. No doubt Halo 3 will be good - but I doubt it will come close to measuring up. This is a legend in the making.
I know they had me months ago just by saying "We did System Shock 2" - one of the best games ever in my humble opinion.
Go with your instincts !
There's a fascinating article on Halo 3 over at Wired at the moment.
Here's the link.
It's remarkably scathing about Halo 2, and frighting in its account of how the developers are trying to guarantee it'll be fun.
I'm not sure how I feel about the way they're constructing the fun.
1. It's should be an entertaining game.
2. I think I'll feel 'manipulated' if I end up playing it.
Halo 3 looks like linear fun, while Bioshock sounds like creative fun.
The article's worth a read, Conan. Here's a quote from it:
"Modern videogames are often compared to Hollywood movies, but the comparison, many Bungie designers will tell you, is inaccurate. A movie is static. "You sit there and absorb it all in a single two-hour shot, and it's perfectly linear," says Frank O'Connor, one of the writers tasked with scripting the story line in Halo 3.
Creating a game, in contrast, is like a combination of architecture — constructing environments that influence the behavior of people inside them — and designing a new sport"
LOL
Movies are a static form of entertainment? These guys need to do a little more research! :) But that's a discussion for another time.
I played a demo of Bioshock last night - it was incredible! Light years ahead in the way it handles story and play... it will be a real thinking mans game, I suspect. :)
Post a Comment