I started thinking about the differences between the two types of FPS when reading the Halo 2 posts and though it might be worthwhile talking about it here.
So the question is do you guys think there is a difference?
The obvious comparison would be Doom vs Goldeneye or more recently Half Life vs Halo
I must admit I am a bit of an FPS fan although I haven't tried any of the new ones yet like Far Cry, HL2, Doom3. But I do have some very fond memories of Doom 2 (never really liked Quake). I think the first one I tried was Wolfenstein but it may have been Doom. Anway....some of the greats would have to be System Shock and Half Life although I think the alien levels are a bit of a cop out. Recently I've started working my way through the bargin bin FPS picking Unreal, Unreal tournament, Red Faction, etc. All cheap and run well on my laptop which I plug into my TV. Unreal was ok, Unreal Tournament was a lot more fun mainly because of the Assult levels and I wish there were more of them. I've played Halo on the PC and thought it was ok but not Super.
So Consoles: Recently I have just starting playing Metroid Prime 2. I loved the first game and although the 2nd is much the same it's till cool. But a better comparison would be Time Splitters 2 for when talking about PCs.
I guess my point is that there appears to be a world of difference between the two platforms and a lot of it has to do with the style of the game. For example Halo is proably great on the XBox but not so great on the PC, FPS on the GBA.....crap, Doom on the SNES.......crap. But FPS on the Nintendo DS could be good with multiplayer via Wireless.
There is no doubt in my mind that Metroid Prime is an Awesome game on the GameCube but I do think it would suck on the PC.
My point is that comparing the two platforms is not really useful. There is no point comparing Halo 2 to Half Life 2. I think.