Originally posted by WO Polaski
Just fourshot and it's "forshot" and we lost in the prelims but if David had gone we woulda gotten farther I think
Well that sucks. You probably would have won if David had been on your team though, yeah. David is... supernatural. Remember when he whooped J's ass? Even pro-players can't beat him. 🙄 That MLG guy had no chance.
Resistance 2 is the dominant first person shooter.
Nah.
Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Do you honestly think Resistance 2 can stack up to shooters like Goldeneye, Bioshock, Timesplitters or Call of Duty 4?It's just another generic fight the evil aliens from outer space FPS.
The game is good. Its even better than CoD4 if you ask me. Better weapons that are fun to use with interesting secondary functions. The story sucks ball and feels cliche, but thats about it. The multiplayer/cooperative modes are unrivaled this year and the campaign is long and intense. Not to mention the game is quite challenging even at normal difficulty unlike most games nowadays.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Resistance 2 is nearly more intense than Gears (forgive me Cliff).
That level with the Leviathan was amazing.You're all Resistance haters! I see nothing wrong with this game. CoD's better than Resistance? GTFO!
Haters? I doubt even 10% of the people here have played it. The only thing wrong with the game is the lack of story, but to be honest I didn't buy it for the story or anything. I just wanted to feel the adrenaline rush those damned Chimera give when overwhelm you and I wanted to blast them through walls with the Auger weapon.
Medal of Honour was exceptionally good, but as soon as EA got the licence the games released after Underground, and accepting Frontlines, sucked. Though Rising Sun was raising fun! Now Killzone is out I think I prefer it to COD4 or WAW, but GoldenEye still kings all. What do shooter fans think? Halo Beater? I say "Halo Who? Never heard of it."
Hm. Seems like some differentiation would be needed to ably answer this question. First we'd need to separate "best ever" from "best for its time." Sometimes they're the same. Usually they aren't. Second, I feel like one-player and multi-player should be separated, since they have wildly different intents and appeal to different gaming characteristics.
My votes:
For its time - Goldeneye. And it's still fun, but isn't the "best" when held up to today's standards. Doom or Wolfenstein also have legit claims to this, from a historical perspective.
Multiplayer - eh, I don't play enough to say definitively
Single player - Half-Life 2. Still the standard. Bioshock didn't surpass it, imo, and I have yet to see another serious contender to its throne.
Originally posted by Digi
Hm. Seems like some differentiation would be needed to ably answer this question. First we'd need to separate "best ever" from "best for its time." Sometimes they're the same. Usually they aren't. Second, I feel like one-player and multi-player should be separated, since they have wildly different intents and appeal to different gaming characteristics.
Your bedroom must be incredibly neat if you have the desire to organize everything 😛
Weren't you a mod 😕 ?
And Doom remains a classic, and one of the best fps EVA!