Bioshock Vs Halo 3 - Wich one is better?


Bioshock Vs Halo 3 - Wich one is better? (in single player mode)  

302 members have voted

  1. 1. Bioshock Vs Halo 3 - Wich one is better? (in single Player mode)

    • Bioshock
      156
    • Halo 3 (single player mode)
      146


Recommended Posts

I see the poll was edited! Well in that case that cements it. Bioshock by well over a mile.

Yeah, but that was a PC game. You can do a lot more on PC games than console games. That's why I'm praising Halo 3 for this feature, because it's a console game.

Err didn't Far Cry (on the console) have this feature? With even more depth I might add. But I didn't see that getting much praise.

only played the Bioshock demo since I cant run my PC copy until I get an update. Halo 3 has been alot of fun so far but. I think I'll wait to pass my judgement. ATM I'd have to say H3 based on the fact thats basically all I've played beyond the bioshock demo, but my online gaming is spent in CSS so I may not even play H3 multiplayer and at the same time the lack of MP in Bioshock probably wont upset me.

One thing I guess I don't get is why there wasnt a multiplayer mode for Bioshock. I really would love for them to release one like they did with HL2 at a later date. To me the entire concept would work very well. THe whole electricity thing would bring back that rather funky lightning gun kill element from Quake 1 where you could discharge your gun killing yourself and everyone in the water. Man that was fun.

Sure, they wanted to concentrate on single player but now it's out I see no reason why not to include some multiplayer support, even if it's only a few levels with a max of 8 or 16 players. I think it'd really increase the lifespan and thanks to the plasmids and traps and how they interact with the environment Irrational has a real chance to create a very unique online experience.

Halo 3 was much more fun to me. I haven't even finished Bioshock because it got so boring and repetitive.

Halo 3, to me, was far more compelling in both gameplay and cinematics. BioShock had the pretty graphics, but the "multiple ways to kill" thing didn't really pan out, considering there was always one good way to kill a certain enemy anyway, and there's no point in straying from that and getting yourself killed. Also, the story behind BioShock is completely overrated, and the way it tells it is crap.

Edited by Elliott

bioshock was a cool concept, but something just didn't fit for me, i think i wasted my money on it...

halo 3 story, i never really got into the story party of it, i just liked halo 2 for MP, and so far the sameway for halo 3.

Halo 3 gets my vote

If you want challenge, Bioshock won't give you anything. No Death Penalty (save for the last boss) practically kills the game's difficulty.

Bioshock has a bit more complex story, but Halo isn't exactly that bad either. It has a pretty deep plot for a simple alien-invading-humans story, although it is by no means, a best-seller story.

In the end though, I guess Halo 3 gets my vote because of its online co-op feature and the ever-so-difficult legendary difficulty. You really are missing out a lot on Halo 3 if you don't play at least on Heroic. And you can always try playing by yourself on legendary.

Yep.. but in Bioshock you can create weapons... not to mention the Plasmids and the Genetic upgrades... awsome!

unfortunately neither of wich added anything to the gameplay. and the plasmids besidesbeing useless mostly just sucked. I prefer the way of the guy making Fabl 2, it's better to have a few really good things, than a thousands mediocre crap.

Well I'm not a huge Halo fan, but I ordered H3, mostly because of the multiplayer.

But Bioshock really didn't impress me, neither with graphics gamepla or the so called story, though I only played the demo, but nothing in the demo intrigued me to want to play the full game.

And Halo 3 got multiplayer.

Bioshock's graphics was very good. Especially the water effects. I'm still playing Bioshock, and well I'm not a halo fan at all. So Bioshock gets my vote.

I played through Bioshock 3 times beat it on hard and have all the achievements (something I don't have on any other game). Bioshock wasn't THAT great and it doesn't have that much replay value. I am sure I will play through the Halo campaign many more times in co-op and that doesn't even factor in the multi player.

BioShock - for storytelling, sound and immersion. It's an incredible experience, if you can let yourself get lost in Rapture.

In my opinion, Halo is a mediocre series that isn't even remotely competent enough to compete in this area. Bungie can't "storytell" their way out of a paper bag. For me, if the story isn't worth it, the campaign has already been lost.

But, that doesn't keep Halo 3 from being fun. Like others have said, it offers greater longevity, if that's your thing.

Of course, there's always room for both. ;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!