Hmm.
I think it's rather unfair to Shooters to compare them to RPG's and stuff.
RPG's a made by their story, stories just help the shooter along, keeps us interested.
Kinda like comparing NASCAR and Indy cars.
Similar concept, far different execution.

Sentynel wrote:The generally unexciting guns.

Unexciting guns my foot. There's a shotgun that shoots exploding buckshot for god's sake. And a crossbow that shoots electric tripwires.
Also, the Bioshock story is far better than the "Gordon Freeman! It's Gordon Freeman!" story of HL2.

Anyone waiting for the Force unleashed? Finally I may wield a Wiimote like a lightsaber (not counting SW: The Complete Saga)

David Cat wrote:

Sentynel wrote:The generally unexciting guns.

Unexciting guns my foot. There's a shotgun that shoots exploding buckshot for god's sake. And a crossbow that shoots electric tripwires.
Also, the Bioshock story is far better than the "Gordon Freeman! It's Gordon Freeman!" story of HL2.

HL2 doesn't force the finer points of its story on you. You have to look around. Pay attention to the Overwatch announcements, the graffiti, offhand comments. That sort of thing. There's a massive rich world there, you just have to pay attention to find it.

Demo if f***ing awesome.
First day it's out, I'm gonna try n buy FU.

Dammit why haven't they released a PC demo for Force Unleashed..

Sentynel wrote:

David Cat wrote:

Sentynel wrote:The generally unexciting guns.

Unexciting guns my foot. There's a shotgun that shoots exploding buckshot for god's sake. And a crossbow that shoots electric tripwires.
Also, the Bioshock story is far better than the "Gordon Freeman! It's Gordon Freeman!" story of HL2.

HL2 doesn't force the finer points of its story on you. You have to look around. Pay attention to the Overwatch announcements, the graffiti, offhand comments. That sort of thing. There's a massive rich world there, you just have to pay attention to find it.

Well, I don't like games that force you to pay attention in order to understand the story.

^ That's the only thing I'll disagree on Video Games with you DC.

Most people don't listen to the story, which usually classifies them as idiots, because then they're just going into the game, shooting anything anywhere without realizing what the purpose is. Forcing them to understand the story usually gets good feedback. Kinda similar to you behaving differently if you know you're being watched.

If you don't know the story, then you doing the campaign is purposeless. Unless you having target practice.

Nero wrote:^ That's the only thing I'll disagree on Video Games with you DC.

Most people don't listen to the story, which usually classifies them as idiots, because then they're just going into the game, shooting anything anywhere without realizing what the purpose is. Forcing them to understand the story usually gets good feedback. Kinda similar to you behaving differently if you know you're being watched.

If you don't know the story, then you doing the campaign is purposeless. Unless you having target practice.

But my problem is with games that force you to pay attention to understand the story. HL2 does this. Bioshock doesn't.

What's the point in playing a game if you're not going to pay attention? If you just want to idly blast stuff, play something that does idly blasting stuff better, like UT2004 or something. Or if you want something a bit more rewarding than a pure adrenaline shooter, play something with a good story and pay attention to it.

The point I am trying to make is that with Bioshock you don't need to pay attention to understand the story, and that is what makes it good.

And the point I am trying to make is that something which does ask you to pay attention is infinitely more rewarding than something which is spoonfed to you.

meh, maybe you're right.
All I can say is I didn't have a clue what was happening most of the time in HL2...

Because you didn't listen to the story? :P

Pretty much. I got very angry every time some fool said "GORDON FREEMAN"

To answer SW:TFU question, LucasArts is not making a computer version.
Too taxing on computers, they said.
Understandable, no one wants another Crysis.
Just console.

...damn. I completely missed that bit of news. Too taxing on computers, though!? There are versions for the PS2 and the Wii as well as the 360 and PS3 so without even going into the are-PCs-more-powerful-than-a-PS3 argument they're clearly releasing versions on far slower platforms.

I'm quite willing to argue about pc vs ps3

Why do you not like platforms like Xbox and Wii, Sent?

The Cell processor in a PS3 achieves about 14 gigaFLOPS. (FLOPS = Floating Point Operations Per Second.) A single ATi Radeon HD4870 GPU achieves about 1.2 teraFLOPS. Yes, that is one hundred times faster. The most common GPU in gaming PCs according to the Steam hardware survey is the nVIDIA 8800, which achieves about 570 gigaFLOPS (a mere fifty times faster!). Again according to the Steam hardware survey, the average CPU is an Intel dual core clocked at ~2.5GHz, which achieves approximately 20 gigaFLOPS.
CPUs are more flexible than the Cell processor and GPUs less flexible, but the average PC beats the Cell's performance with its CPU alone, never mind the graphics card.
The Cell architecture is also extremely difficult to program for.


Edit to Nero: I have a PC. I do not have any consoles. I'm not against them on principle or anything, I just don't have any, and I'm not paying for one when my PC does almost everything I could want a console to do. Sure, the odd game I'm interested in doesn't get released on PC for whatever irrational reason, but none of them yet have been good enough, even all summed together, to be worth paying loads for a console. (Rock Band might have made it if the game itself wasn't so ridiculously expensive..)