Console FPSeses

Lunchmeat · Post by **Lunchmeat** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:02 am

... Mainly PS2, talk about 'em here if you can find your way off your high horse of PC superiority (you know who I'm talking to.)

Anyway, as far as I can tell the only immediate contenders for the PS2's shooter market are Timesplitters: Future Perfect and Area 51.

I have a copy of Timesplitters that I haven't had the chance to open yet, but I'm looking forward to it. I just hope it is interesting enough to hold my attention. I'm hoping it's as fun to play with friends as the Halo series. That's a pretty lofty goal and I'm a bit worried that I'll be let down by the product's actual quality. Time will tell.

On to Area 51: it's a very pretty game. I'm a sucker for that kind of science-fiction conspiracy crap, too, so I'll probably end up checking it out. Anyone played it? I don't even know if it's out.

I mentioned Halo earlier and want to add to that. Halo and Halo 2 are good games. They've been accused of being generic, unoriginal, and boring. This is true if you're playing alone, but who in their right mind plays Halo alone? The game is meant to be played with friends, and in that area it shines like a star.

That is all.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:51 am

Isn't Area 51 a rail shooter? I don't think it's a conventional FPS.

Oh and HALO IS BALLS

Lunchmeat · Post by **Lunchmeat** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:10 am

Not that Area 51.

I would link but I'm lazy.

P.S.: YOUR ARE BASLLS

Koki · Post by **Koki** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:26 am

So do you have mouse&keyboard for them or your hands look like badly drawn Tentacle Monsters?

Lunchmeat · Post by **Lunchmeat** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:33 am

You're not supposed to play console FPS's with mouse and keyboard, the have their own groove and style with the controller. It's not even hard to do, as some people might have you believe.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:44 am

Two things, Timesplitters 3 is better then Halo in my opinion. Ofcourse I hate Halo, so that could be why. It's atleast got a map maker, that should hold you and your friends attention as I used to make some fairly fun maps with Timesplitters 2.

Area 51 is the sequalish type deal to the rail shooter, but it's a full fledged FPS starring David Duchevny as the main character or some shit. I've been meaning to try it out.

Koki · Post by **Koki** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:37 pm

No one made me believe this, I just played MGS2. It had FPP mode. It sucked.

But if you can do it...

Oh, and I liked HALO!

:analpenetration:

Raymondo · Post by **Raymondo** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:44 pm

Halo just felt like it lacked....everything!

I personally think most FPS on the console, just don't work. The controls just suck, nothing will beat the mouse.

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:58 pm

Timesplitters 3 is suppose to be cool, it has co-op mode like Halo does and probably just as many multiplayer type things.

FPS can work on consoles it just takes some time getting used to if you've never done it before. The controls for last generations sucked because the two analog sticks weren't common place, so you had to stop moving to aim. Now with the two sticks its good even though it might not match PC controls.

edit: if your into sci fi conspiracy shooters then you might want to looks at snowblind too.

Lunchmeat · Post by **Lunchmeat** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:46 pm

Yeah I've seen Snowblind commercials. It looked blindingly retarded, but what do I know.

Seriously, what's the deal with those weapons?

satanisgreat · Post by **satanisgreat** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:42 am

Halo 2 multiplayer = the shit. I try to get in a couple hours a day playing. The single player isn't that great however. It's not bad, but it was disappointing after it was hyped up so much.

I haven't played Timesplitters 3 yet, but I have 2 and didn't really care for it. Plus I don't like EA Games, so I'm waiting to buy it used for cheap money.

I'm playing Chronicles of Riddick right now, and that game is very good. It's kind of a shooter/stealth/action hybrid. I've never seen Pitch Black or the newer movie, but the game is well done.

One game I'd avoid is Breakdown, which is similar to Riddick, but sucks. It's a fighting/shooter, but the controls are wonky and the gameplay and environments are boring. I couldn't bring myself to play through the entire game and gave up, which is very rare for me.

I don't know why most people say a mouse/keyboard is more accurate than a controller for FPSs. It seems much easier to use a controller for me. The triggers on the Xbox controller feel better than a mouse button, and when you turn around with a thumbstick you can do it by just holding the stick one way rather than turning, lifting, turning with a mouse.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:48 am

FPS games only work halfway decently on console because they make up for the shitty aim of the gamepad by giving you autoaim.

jiujitsu · Post by **jiujitsu** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:00 am

Console FPS's suck. They just plain suck.

Unless of course they are released for PC, as well.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:20 am

Most of the console games suck too *shrugs*.
It's weird that I always enjoy the same game on PC more than on, say, Playstation for example.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:09 pm

The controllers are to blame, perhaps?

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:05 pm

Pers-hapsu, I'm not sure. The sucky-sucky TV resolution also makes my eyes bleed.

MadBill · Post by **MadBill** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:28 pm

The epitome of unobservable console games for me was Nintendo Smash Brothers. Absolutely puny clumpings of pixels blinking around a TV screen was not amusing in the slightest.
The one console FPS I played was Firewarrior for PS2. Once I learned the controls it was not unplayable. 4x split screen play on a sub-13 inch TV is awesome though.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:29 pm

Kashluk wrote:Pers-hapsu, I'm not sure. The sucky-sucky TV resolution also makes my eyes bleed.

Good thing they don't make high depth tv's.

POOPERSCOOPER · Post by **POOPERSCOOPER** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:59 pm

I would rather have a normal tv compared to one that cost a couple grand.

Wolfman Walt · Post by **Wolfman Walt** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:06 pm

Same here, but the point is that if you're presented with the choice and then complain about your decision it becomes more a personal problem then a real complaint that I could care about.