Topic: Goldeneye or Black Ops?

you're thinking of the conduit, bud. there's no way to heal yourself in goldeneye.

Well, yes. I was talking in a more general sense regarding the genre, I suppose.

i don't care about realism, i care about the strategy involved getting through a level without regenerative health. it's a lot more interesting to me and really gives you an incentive to stay out of fire, even if it is frustrating at those times when you know you don't have enough health left to finish a level. too bad goldeneye didn't work it into an online mode.

The way I see it:
Goldeneye: Better story, good character visuals/models.
CoD BO: Better multiplayer, better scenery visuals (imo), decent character models.

CoD BO wins in the long run for me because the multiplayer is more robust. But, Goldeneye has an awesome story that I loved.

I agree with irken, though after a while it's hard not to get sick of both. I don't think I'll ever buy another Call of Duty again. It's become a sports game with yearly roster changes. No thank you Madden, and no thank you CoD.

agreed

Goldeneye is great fun with just enough stealth spy-action, varied environments, and a bit more of an arcade / cinematic feeling than a simulation. I've had a blast with it (and with the regen health off, of course).

CoD, on the other hand, makes me want to hit myself in the head with a brick out of sheer boredom. I have friends who love it and who have tried to get me to play each new iteration, but it's just so horribly dull that I can't take more than a few minutes. It might be relevant that I also find war films mind-numbing. Then again, I'm not exactly a fan of Bond films either, but I can at least enjoy imagining being a spy, whereas imagining being a soldier in CoD's universe couldn't possibly be less entertaining.

You realise that one or two bullets would be enough to floor James Bond, right?

Non-regenerating health isn't exactly realistic either.

Genuinely realistic FPSers don't tend to be much fun.

If I wanted to play a realistic FPS, I'd join the army. Or a paintball team.

Goldeneye's single player is better but Black ops is much better with multiplayer.

I agree. I'm just amazed how quickly you can join a online game in black ops compared to goldeneye's connection error-ful multiplayer.

Or if you think about it the other way - regenerating health allows the developers to make the individual encounters tougher, because you can recover between firefights.

Think about how boring WoW would be if health wasn't regenerating. It's the same deal in FPSers. Call of Duty would be a far less interesting game if the health damage was permanent, and firefights needed to be dumbed down (bullets do less damage, fewer enemies, weaker AI) as a result.

Just beat BO's campaign (finally), and I still stand by my previous statement of Goldeneye having the better campaign. BO's multiplayer is better imo, so I'll be spending some time killing noobs online xD

I kinda have to agree with this. It would be to hard to go on any type of killing streak without regen health. With that said I think there are plenty of chances for skill to come into play with regen health. Its not easy to find cover for upwards of 5 seconds. All the time. Any if your opponent is in need of regen then run after him and finish the job.

I'm sorry, but as someone who has recently played both Perfect Dark and Goldeneye (and not so long ago, Doom and Duke Nukem 3D), I can tell you with 100% confidence that the modern, regen-health FPS is more strategically difficult than older games.

The relatively linear nature of the single player games these days is because of the increased emphasis on multiplayer - more design there means less for single player. Your problem with these games is not the regen health, it's the fact that these games are now multiplayer-orientated, and single player is, at best, a training mode.

RE: lack of focus on single-player

Once again, I'm clearly just not the target audience. The online multiplayer FPS routine -- run constantly, shoot first, respawn when killed, repeat ad nauseum -- couldn't be less fun for me. Outside of Goldeneye, the only FPS games I've enjoyed in recent years would be Portal (fantastic throughout), Metroid Prime (might not count), and the first few hours of Half Life 2 (which has exploration and atmosphere at the beginning, but once it degrades into endless combat it gets terribly boring, so I've never finished it and am never tempted to go back). FPS games are about pacing and exploration, not constantly running and shooting (for me, etc).

First

Person

Shooter

no. go play 007 classic

the bad thing about regenerating health is that it lets the developers keep throwing fights at you nonstop, which was one of my complaints with goldeneye. all they have to do when designing a level is "firefight here", hallway, "firefight there" and they're done. without regenerating health they have to pace fights further apart and the levels may actually have to have something interesting in between them.

You never finished Half Life 2? I'm afraid that you'll never earn your FPS merit badge like that.

In all seriousness Half Life 2 is actually one of the best paced FPS titles around, easily surpassing pretty much anything else you can name.

I'm going to recommend we all drop the regenerating health argument. It all boils down to personal taste, so it usually doesn't go anywhere productive.