Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Okay- I am getting the new 250gb Xbox for christmas. I am getting assassin's creed- brotherhood, Naughty bear, fifa 2009 (2011 is about 10 times more expensive) and either halo reach or CoD black ops. Which should I get? I just want a first-person shooter game that I can play with friends.

Goto the forums listing. Look 1 listing before the off topic forum. Thats where this goes.

OT never played either one sorry

I dislike black ops despite the number of critics who lined up to give activision a "happy ending" by slapping high review scores on the game, it's not as good as MW2 was.

The problem is I wasn't too impressed with halo either (and being a fan boy no less!).

The answer is buy whatever game the majority of your friends are playing if you want to play with them online.

wow. 4-1 to halo. Quite a few schoolmates say CoD is the way to go.

Halo Reach is definitely better IMO and also are you sure about Naughty Bear? When I played it I found it pretty dull.

I find it funny.

Reach is certainly a fairly solid game which will keep you entertained. The multiplayer is well leveled and you will rarely find yourself either completely outclassed or completely dominating.

Have to say I've not really played any CoD games since 3 (not really interested in "modern day" settings of the more recent games). From what little I've played, the miltiplayer is a case of getting onto a map, getting absolutely raped by people who are on their 8th play through of the ranking system, and getting insulted constantly.

That summary has convinced me. Unless my friends wdon't play halo, but play COD, i'll get halo. thanks.

There are no Vehicles in Gak Ops, there is no way to customize/make your own maps in Gak Ops. Halo Reach is better in almost every way, including weapon balance and graphics.

How the heck can people like Black ops more than halo? It doesn't even have any vehicles, and the maps are much smaller.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and the only word people playing Black Ops on xbox live know is "cigarette". Annoying as Gak.

I totally hate Modern Warfail 2 also.

GalacticDefender wrote:There are no Vehicles in Gak Ops, there is no way to customize/make your own maps in Gak Ops. Halo Reach is better in almost every way, including weapon balance and graphics.

How the heck can people like Black ops more than halo? It doesn't even have any vehicles, and the maps are much smaller.

Some people like not having vehicles. Vehicles in FPS games can come out unbalanced or just not fun. I enjoy halo's vehicles, don't get me wrong, but I also like a game that just doesn't use them.

PS: 3arc is supposed to be releasing a tool kit for BO at some point. Whether or not they actually do, who knows

I voted Reach, but I meant Black Ops. Read before you vote children.

And I like Both, but Black Ops has JFK and Castro fighting zombies together. Hands down winner right there. And unless its a Battlefield or Halo Game, I dont like Vehicles. VS from LP on the other hand...

well, I said to my friend that I'd like a modern, popular game, that my friends use, but no hardcores go on. He said to go modern warfare 2, since all my friends have it, and all the hardcores go on black ops. That sound good?

Well, yeah but... GRAVITY AXE!

Can't get enough of it. Not to mention Reach has a jetpack IIRC. Then again, I'm a complete Halo freak.

Alternatively, get one first and the other later.

Halo reach.

Playing CoD on a console isn't something I'd recommend.

Melissia wrote:Halo reach.

Playing CoD on a console isn't something I'd recommend.

I'm sure that if Reach was on the PC you would tell the OP the same thing. Seriously PC users get over yourselves.

Anywho, back to the question.

Both games have their merits. Reach is the only Halo game that I actually found to be fun(especially SWAT mode) and to tell the truth that really is saying something seeing as though I fething hate Halo and all the Halo fanboys.

Reach is a gritty, dark, and overall well presented.

Gameplay is still the same as Halo, but the added suit mods make it interesting. Armor lock can cause a ghost speeding at you to explode as you become a solid rock. The jet pack allows you to fly, and there's nothing more satisfying than seeing a person run past you and then shooting them in the back with the laser(camo suit).

Vehicles can be overpowered, but they also have weak spots that will will either cause the vehicle to take more damage or to explode out right(looking at you ghost power cell).

The number of multiplayer modes is also a plus with modes from slayer to infection and everything in between. Customization is the best in the series and individual pieces are unlocked after beating certain points of the campaign or reaching certain levels in multiplayer and then purchasing them with credits.


Black Ops has been getting a lot of crap from the MW2 fans and I can't see why.

It balances multiplayer for the most part. There's nobody running around with double rangers or 1887's, there's no game ending kill streaks, no quickscoping, and no exploitable glitches. The highest killstreak you can get is 11 and even that is tough with the new focus of the multiplayer.

The customization mode is a lot better than MW2. All perks are available from the start and all attachments are unlocked for each weapon from the start. You still have to level up for your weapons, but you have to buy them in order to actually use them. After buying a weapon, all attachments are unlocked for purchase.

All grenades are available for purchase with 'special weapons' being unlocked at different levels(the ballistic knife and tomahawk).

Each perk has challenges that must be accomplished to make the pro version available and for the most part the pro versions are amazing. The ability to hack turrets or to sabotage enemy care packages is fun.

The game itself is also gritty and dark with a lot of contrast, and I mean actual contrast with the color differences really showing. The biggest complaint I get is about the graphics and how much they 'suck' compared to MW2 graphics. This is because Treyarch streamlined the graphics so there would be less bullet lag.

Multiplayer is the basic multiplayer from MW2 with a new type of game added in, Barebones. This is gaming with no perks and no killstreaks, nobody plays it.

The maps are smaller and sniper rifles are basically useless, they focused more on assault rifles and SMG's than any other type of weapon.

Then there's the zombie mode which is a lot tougher than the ones ound in WaW. The level of interaction with the multiplayer maps and the zombie maps is a lot higher than MW2 and Reach. Whether its opening hatches so you can get to a demolition point faster or watching a rocket launch and fixing your aim while the level shakes to seeing the ceiling fall in when you turn the power on, the levels are fun and full of character.

Either way you'll pick a winner, it depends really on if you're going to be playing online and if you want to shoot aliens or people.

halonachos wrote:I'm sure that if Reach was on the PC you would tell the OP the same thing. Seriously PC users get over yourselves.

CoD:BO has been incredibly unreliable on consoles-- particularly the PS3. It's been most reliable on the PC, although it's also a bit more reliable on the 360 than it is on the PS3, it's less so than the PC. This isn't some PC bias malarkey or whatever other inaccurate crap you want to label it, this is based off of the complaints that console users have given about the game.

Emperor's blood... I loathe people who assume that everyone who DARES say anything about consoles is assumed to be a PC biased gamer. Overreactive stereotypers...

I'd say that whole piece you just wrote Haloachos comparing the two was spot on and fine and fair comparrison even though as you said, you fething hate Halo.

halonachos wrote:
Either way you'll pick a winner, it depends really on if you're going to be playing online and if you want to shoot aliens or people.

To me, this was the key note however. As to those wanting to play the game, thats probably the simpliest way of looking at it. As for the most part, both will be fun shooters in their own right, both story modes are pretty good, and in general online is fun all round. So yeah Sci-fi or Modern is really a key consideration I would think.


My choice btw, would be to go to the former.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:I'm sure that if Reach was on the PC you would tell the OP the same thing. Seriously PC users get over yourselves.

CoD:BO has been incredibly unreliable on consoles-- particularly the PS3. It's been most reliable on the PC, although it's also a bit more reliable on the 360 than it is on the PS3, it's less so than the PC. This isn't some PC bias malarkey or whatever other inaccurate crap you want to label it, this is based off of the complaints that console users have given about the game.

Emperor's blood... I loathe people who assume that everyone who DARES say anything about consoles is assumed to be a PC biased gamer. Overreactive stereotypers...

Seriously? OP asks, which is better Reach or Black Ops? You respond, Black Ops is horrible on the console but better on the PC. You can't say anything about Reach because its not on the PC. Your only way to compare the two was the difference between the console version and the PC version of Black Ops.

Now if the OP asked, "Should I get Black Ops on the PC or console" then I wouldn't criticize your remark. By posting in a thread and for some reason just comparing the PC and console versions I'll say that you were being a PC fanboy/girl.

Yes, that's right, I gave my choice and then the reason behind it (that CoD:BO is having problems on consoles and is unreliable, whereas obviously Halo Reach isn't). YOU are the one who is trying to associate a PC bias behind my post, a bias that isn't there. So stop already.

I'll rent Black Ops for the campaign, but that's about it. You can't make your own bases/maps in black ops, can you? Halo FTW!

Melissia wrote:Yes, that's right, I gave my choice and then the reason behind it. YOU are the one who is trying to associate a PC bias behind my post, a bias that isn't there. So stop already.

You sure didn't word it like you didn't have a bias.

"I wouldn't recommend playing Black Ops on a console" sounds kind of biased.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

GalacticDefender wrote:I'll rent Black Ops for the campaign, but that's about it. You can't make your own bases/maps in black ops, can you? Halo FTW!

Nothing wrong with that, Forge mode can be funny especially with the Rube Goldberg methods of killing yourself. Also, the campaign is well worth the 5 or so bucks you'll pay to rent it. Just don't forget to get out of the chair in the main menu so you can unlock the achievements and DOA mode.

Yes, to someone who wants to make that assumption, it does. But to people who read it without their own internal biases, it's only a recommendation that you get Halo Reach, which I obviously think is a better 360 title than CoD:BO, while BO is better on the PC. That doesn't mean that I think PC is better or worse than consoles, that doesn't mean I think consoles are better or worse than PCs. It just means that this particular game is better one way than the other, which is hardly surprising given that sometimes ports aren't as good on one system as they are on the other. A certain star wars game on the wii comes to mind.


So meh . My recommendation stands. Halo Reach instead of CoD:BO. Halo Reach is designed fo rthe 360 and only the 360, it plays smoothely and it has very few bugs and issues. CoD:BO is not so smoothe.

Melissia wrote:Yes, to someone who really, desperately wants to make that assumption, it does. No, it's only a recommendation that you get Halo Reach, which I obviously think is a better 360 title than CoD:BO.

No, its kind of out there for anyone to see. Its also a poor reason to prefer one over the other.

You gave no reason why you wouldn't recommend playing CoD on a console until after you were prodded. Then you said that people had complained about it. Then you said that there were performance issues on the console versions compared to the PC.

This is all very subjective seeing as though performance issues can depend on the make/model of your PC or console.

Again the only reason you said that Reach was better than Black Ops was because of a comparison of performance issues on the console vs the PC. This argument isn't even valid seeing as though you can't compare performance issues of Reach on the PC vs console. (In which case the PC version would run better because you can upgrade the PC to perform well over specifications).

So no, I wasn't being desperate, I was just pointing out that your position wasn't a good reason for the OP to base his decision on.

halonachos wrote:Again the only reason you said that Reach was better than Black Ops was because of a comparison of performance issues on the console vs the PC.

Yes. Because the dude asked which was better on the 360, duh.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Again the only reason you said that Reach was better than Black Ops was because of a comparison of performance issues on the console vs the PC.

Yes. Because the dude asked which was better on the 360, duh.

So why did you bring up the PC?

I didn't specifically bring up the PC, you're the one that tried to drag the old PC vs Consoles debate in. I said:

Melissia wrote:Halo reach.

Playing CoD on a console isn't something I'd recommend.

IE, out of these two games, Halo Reach is the better one to get on the 360, because of the problems that CoD:BO has on consoles.

I would recommend Black ops myself and I would like to say as a console fps player that I have encountered no problems, glitches or in fact any problems with the ps3 version of black ops.

Melissia wrote:I didn't specifically bring up the PC, you're the one that tried to drag the old PC vs Consoles debate in. I said:

Melissia wrote:Halo reach.

Playing CoD on a console isn't something I'd recommend.

IE, out of these two games, Halo Reach is the better one to get on the 360, because of the problems that CoD:BO has on consoles.

If you aren't playing Black Ops on a console you're either playing it on the DS or the PC, seeing as though the DS version is horrible I could gather that you weren't referring to that one.

Your statement is discounting every console version of CoD. Your statement is saying that Reach is only better on 360 because the console versions of CoD are worse than the PC version. You're saying: Play CoD on the consoles and Reach on 360.

Fine, if you so desperately want to read so much into it that isn't there, whatever, I don't care anymore. You're right, you're perfectly, exactly right, you're always right, and you will always be right, and always have been right you wonderful man.

Melissia wrote:Fine, if you so desperately want to read so much into it that isn't there, whatever, I don't care anymore. You're right, you're perfectly, exactly right, you're always right, and you will always be right, and always have been right you wonderful man.

If i remember the ending to the matrix correctly this is where halonachos assimilates you then him and his clones explode/