:(

But why is it not the same with current FPS games as there all the same but reskined

And yes 6 weps when in arena vs bots or MP

Yeah, I deleted that... I decided it sounded too harsh.

Basically, I really don't like the game's philosophy of "I will punish the player for wishing to play my game." I'm fine with difficulty, as long as it's accompanied by fun. And I just don't feel like Timesplitters had enough fun to justify its frustrations. Plus, I already despise console FPS controls, and Timesplitters (and Goldeneye, actually) seems to go out of its way to make them even worse.

Oh, and to be fair... I really don't play many current-gen FPSs either. There are very few I like.

Heh. My avatar tipped you off? :3

Well, that might be the issue. Because it's true that I don't get along well with control stick aiming already.

Yeah, I agree with MobiusArcher. Console FPS are (were?) a separate genre, which I guess you just don't like (and that's fine).

I guess you could say there are 3 sub-genres: Computer FPS, console FPS and finally whatever you call whatever we have now. Crappy FPS? (to continue the alliteration ;P)

Compost FPSs maybe?

Crysis and the STALKER series were fantastic though. And I personally really enjoyed Far Cry 2, although I can definitely recognize its many flaws.

There was a shooter on the PC before that, very obscure, you probably don't know it. It was called Half-Life...


Did they ever mod out the annoying enemy checkpoints? Killed the game for me.

1) A good game is a good game, not a good PC game, or a god console game. If anything, more often than not, the best games tend to be on the consoles, as the control imput is made for gaming, as opposed to the totally co-opted keyboard. PC-style games often have fiddly bits and chrome that could be streamlined, making the end product more elegant and user friendly. Complexity =/= Quality.

2) Timesplitters 2 is an incredible achievement. If nothing else, the depth of the single player+bots modes alone make it a timeless classic.

3) The level editor was very intuitive, something I *cannot* say for just about ANY PC FPS.

With most of these, I think you're getting confused with console games being ported to the PC.
Others were already done way before Halo.

The campaign is pretty awful, it's the multiplayer that ends up being a lot of fun. Many of the multiplayer maps are well-designed, and there are plenty of different weapons and modifiers and options. The singleplayer skirmish mode with bots was also quite fun, as the AI could be pretty challenging and let you experience the glee of MP solo. Being a foreveralone.jpg child, I spent a lot of time there.

I wouldn't go that far. It was really fun when the game first came out, but It was never amazing or anything. It hasn't aged very well at all, so Its level of funness (its a word, trust me) has dropped quite a bit. I don't think its gotten to the awful stage though. I have my nostalgia goggles to look through and all that, so I still think its awesome. If I try too look at it without them I think I would come up with something like "Its alright, I guess".

1) I'm sorry, but console controls were NOT made for FPSs AT ALL. They make it feel like you're trying to control a tank. There's no sense of "elegance" or "user friendliness." Aiming in a game should feel effortless...like turning and looking around in real life, and this simply isn't possible with a gamepad. The sheer number of "cheats" that games have to use to make analog stick aiming anything other than a chore (friction etc) is ridiculous, and the games STILL have to be slow as molasses so that the player can keep up. Yes, the button layout is a mite bit more comfortable than using the keyboard, and the 360 degree movement is nice. But these are minor advantages when compared with the horrendous aiming--at least to me. And the best games tend to be on consoles? That's a stupid blanket statement to make, because it entirely depends on the genre (and the era to a certain degree). If you're talking FPS, RTS, CRPG, Adventure, Simulation, or anything that requires any sort of pixel precision or more than 7 or 8 buttons max, then PC wins. If you like platformers or fighting games, consoles are best. It doesn't matter which system has "controls made for gaming," because both layouts work perfectly well for different genres.

Oh, and also "Simplicity =/= Quality" either.

2) Timesplitters 2 had a lot of stuff for the player to do. Whether or not that qualifies as "depth" is debatable. It's further away from the "shallow" end than many current FPSs, I'll give it that.

3) Yeah, it's just a pity you can't do anything with the damn thing. It's so restrictive that it makes even the most basic levels a chore to try to create, unless you're just doing a sequence of hallways and rooms, or using their pre-made layouts. Maybe it's easier to learn, but it's ultimately just a toy...not anything that you can really dig in to. So I suppose if you just want to tool around with a level editor for a couple of days, then yes...it's fine. And the game should get points for including a level editor of ANY sort--something that most console FPSs lack.
Basically, yeah. It's not OMGTERRIBLE, and it still has some entertainment value, but I found that the moments of fun were outweighed by the sheer frustration and boneheaded design choices of most of it (whos idea was that stupid forced stealth level anyway? It's like a collection of everything bad about stealth without any of the good). I did like how some of the levels let you do the old Goldeneye thing of "you can be kindasorta stealthy," though.

From the multiplayer/bot skirmish perspective, though, I can see how the game would be loads and loads of fun. The splitscreen alone is just about as good as Goldeneye's was back in the day (although it sadly lacks all the hilarious glitches :3).
The "monkey mode" (or whatever it's called) was a stroke of genius.