which was the better fps sequel? halo 2 or doom eternal

[WSADKO]

5 hours ago, Edward850 said:

If you haven't played Halo 2, just say so. Don't make stuff up.

 

i played it and it has more tactics than specops

specially where you sniperfight jackals and go around in a tank with buddies, so epic

not to mention that you can sneak thru a few locations in halo 2 and use tactical powerups like partial invisibility and overshield that can make you take deadly shots

 

in doometernal you just zip around until everything dies

Edited January 16, 2023 by WSADKO

[Edward850]

If you think the concept of power weapons, sniping and power ups makes a tactical shooter, then Unreal Tournament is now a tactical shooter. UT2004 even had vehicles.

Hell why stop there? What you have just said also describes Serious Sam 2.

 

Halo (or at least the Bungie games) is much closer in DNA to arena shooters, which makes sense as Halo shares a lot of what it is from Bungie's other FPS Marathon. The aim of the game is map control, especially in multiplayer where keeping tabs on the most important weapons and powerups is vital to maintaining control of the fight, and the movement and combat between any and all of these things. This holds true in campaign as your enemies' weapons essentially become a moving cache, you have to keep tabs on where they are just the same otherwise you lose control over a fight pretty quickly given they are your weapon supply. You don't have the same hyper accelerated movement like in Quake, but the weird detail in that is Quake wasn't really meant to move that first originally, it all just become movement tech from advanced players as the game aged, but Halo still has movement tech in the form of verticality, precise jumps are usually the aim of the game. And honestly it isn't that much slower from something like Unreal, anyway. The lower FOV of the original releases can be somewhat deceptive.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Edward850

[LexiMax]

I'd actually say that Halo 2 was a better game than Half-Life 2.  They came out at around the same time, and I played them both on release, and I much preferred Halo 2.

 

I said I didn't like Halo 2's environments, but that was just their overall look and feel, they were serviceable as far as game levels went.  It's true that HL2's environments were of higher quality, but I still didn't vibe with the game aesthetically.  I suppose Half-Life 2 also had the better story since for its faults it told a complete story without the mid-game meandering that Halo 2 went through.

 

However, Halo 2 was by far the more fun game to actually play.  Halo's weapons felt better, the enemies actually felt like challenges, its vehicles felt amazing to pilot, there was very little physics-based filler content, and due to using cutscenes the story could be easily skipped past on subsequent playthroughs.  I basically stopped playing Half-Life 2 halfway through "Follow Freeman" out of boredom, but I finished Halo 2 and kept playing multiplayer for months afterwards.

Edited January 16, 2023 by AlexMax

[Rudolph]

Someday, I will have to give Halo 2 a shot.

[OliveTree]

On 1/14/2023 at 2:40 AM, nathanB404 said:

idk man. when doom guy said "No" i was stoked 

 

On 1/11/2023 at 3:10 PM, OliveTree said:

if you ignore the DLC

I was talking about the base game's ending.

[ReaperAA]

10 hours ago, AlexMax said:

However, Halo 2 was by far the more fun game to actually play.  Halo's weapons felt better, the enemies actually felt like challenges, its vehicles felt amazing to pilot, there was very little physics-based filler content, and due to using cutscenes the story could be easily skipped past on subsequent playthroughs.  I basically stopped playing Half-Life 2 halfway through "Follow Freeman" out of boredom, but I finished Halo 2 and kept playing multiplayer for months afterwards.

 

Now that you mentioned it, I want to touch on this as well. It's one of the things that is praised a lot about the HL series and how almost everyone says that they are superior to traditional cutscenes, because you can interact with the environment. But I never liked them, precisely for the reason you mentioned. I vastly prefer traditional cutscenes, provided they are skippable, over HL style cutscenes. The HL cutscenes are a pain on subsequent playthroughs.

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

19 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

Now that you mentioned it, I want to touch on this as well. It's one of the things that is praised a lot about the HL series and how almost everyone says that they are superior to traditional cutscenes, because you can interact with the environment. But I never liked them, precisely for the reason you mentioned. I vastly prefer traditional cutscenes, provided they are skippable, over HL style cutscenes. The HL cutscenes are a pain on subsequent playthroughs.

I never understood this either. It's not like you can even interact with things in a super meaningful way. All of the sudden the same people who hate cutscenes are in love with the fact that a game has (unskippable) cutscenes where you can dick around and pick up cans and throw them while a character is talking to you. It's not like it's some incredible level of immersion being offered.

[nathanB404]

6 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

 

Now that you mentioned it, I want to touch on this as well. It's one of the things that is praised a lot about the HL series and how almost everyone says that they are superior to traditional cutscenes, because you can interact with the environment. But I never liked them, precisely for the reason you mentioned. I vastly prefer traditional cutscenes, provided they are skippable, over HL style cutscenes. The HL cutscenes are a pain on subsequent playthroughs.

honestly i want to get back into the online mp again but as usual xbox has been charging me for online for god no how long. thinking of switch to pc at the end of the days. epic fail!

[BGreener]

Halo 2 vs. Half Life 2 vs. Doom 3 - man, ‘04 was nuts in this regard with these three shooters. Then there were games like San Andreas, Snake Eater, and a game that’s nearly ruined everything: WoW.

 

Re: more HL2 talk, it seemed like the “in-game scenes” joined forces with the people wanting Gordon in more of a heroic role. Sort of sad in retrospect to see that win out over the small amount of choice that players had in HL1.

[hybridial]

On the subject of immersive first person cut scenes, Breakdown, that weird experimental game Namco made exclusively for the Xbox to this day did a better job of that than any other game so far. It still had some that were kinda just stand there and listen a yapping NPC but even those, the NPC's movements and actions whilst they were talking were more natural.

 

But, ultimately they realised to make that kind of thing work, it had to not just exist for exposition dumps. So a lot of them were proper cut scenes in the sense things happen to you you cannot stop or control, and they tried to do a lot of visceral exciting things; but the cinematics were backed up by a fairly interesting game. Difficult and weird gunplay but it's focus was melee and that stuff was solid. 

 

The plot was really just Terminator 2 only weird punch happy aliens instead of machines, but well... it had a plot. I'm still not convinced Half Life 2 had one. But it is the game I would point to as a comparison to say Half Life 2's story presentation wasn't impressive, not even at the time because Breakdown literally came out before it. It was also a 2004 game but made it's Japanese debut early in the year. It was still out everywhere else by June. For gameplay it had janky parts and it definitely wasn't a game for everybody, but I think to this day it's cinematic element was impressive and much more so than other games released at the time. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by hybridial

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, BGrieber said:

Halo 2 vs. Half Life 2 vs. Doom 3 - man, ‘04 was nuts in this regard with these three shooters. Then there were games like San Andreas, Snake Eater, and a game that’s nearly ruined everything: WoW.

Do not forget about FarCry!

[LexiMax]

11 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

The HL cutscenes are a pain on subsequent playthroughs. 

 

I liked the interactive cutscenes in the first game, but only because they were relatively few and far between.  The two longest ones were the introduction and lambda core, and the rest of them were just small vignettes that didn't overstay their welcome.

 

Once you start making the interactive cutscenes cutscene-length, like HL2 did, they get really annoying really fast.

[act]

I'm gonna be completely real, I have not played either of the two games. But I will still give my opinion on the matter, thanks to almost nonstop consumption of material relating to the games.

FROM WHAT I CAN GATHER, Halo 2 and Doom Eternal (Or even Doom 2016 for that matter) aren't even comparable in terms of being a sequel. Doom 2016 and Eternal did not revise the original Doom gameplay for modern audiences. Rather, it took the most striking details of the game - such as non-reloading weaponry, and le "RIP AND TEAR" type of things - and slapped them on a development of the gameplay that Serious Sam pioneered in an attempt to further modernise the original Doom. Halo 2, on the other hand, is not guilty of the same charge. Halo 2 preserved many of the core tenants of Halo the First, down to the subtleties of map design and the like, and simply refined them.

[ChaseC7527]

you've got me between a cock and a hard penis here but if i had a ssg to my head id vote doom, it just rustled my jimmies so to speak. halo 3 and reach are (im tied) the best though, we all know that.

[Suess]

Halo 2 is a great sequel, it took everything good about halo 1 and made it better, but doom eternal took the doom 2016 formula and made it faster, made all the weapons better, and improved the gameplay by limiting ammo.

I think doom eternal is superior as a sequel because it completely changed the game and was a breath of fresh air for the franchise.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Suess
minor spelling mistake

[BGreener]

1 hour ago, Suess said:

Halo 2 is a great sequel, it took everything good about halo 1 and made it better, but doom eternal took the doom 2016 formula and made it faster, made all the weapons better, and improved the gameplay by limiting ammo.

In pursuit of its improvements, IdSoft had to ditch traditional PvP, modding support, and no new SnapMap meant no new coop :( I don’t think Bungie had to make similar concessions going into Halo 2, but I do feel Halo CE’s aesthetics have aged better than its sequel. Eternal has been making more sense to me as a sort of “super expansion” to 2016.