So,I was arguing with a classmate on What is the better game in terms of story, online multiplayer, and fun.
So, Is the Call of Duty series or Halo series better?
I say Halo is, 'cuz... Well, It's feathing awesome and CoD is so repetitive and OVERplayed.


(I only play CoD cuz of the Multiplayer.)

I like Call of Duty because it reminds me of Halo.

Halo: Reach is a way better game than CoD Black Ops.

Let's break it down:

Story: Halo actually has one.

Online Multiplayer: Both are rather bad, with 13 year old kids swearing you out and both have incredibly cheap ways of "winning". However, Halo wins out, with the ability to customize your look while you level up, while not affecting gameplay, and they also have Daily Challenges which keep you motivated to play.

Fun: Fun is subjective, and so shouldn't be brought up at all.

CoD Black Ops is a way better game than Halo: Reach.

Let's break it down:

Story: Black Ops actually has one.

Online Multiplayer: Both are rather bad, with 13 year old kids swearing you out and both have incredibly cheap ways of "winning". However, Halo wins out, with the ability to customize your look while you level up, while not affecting gameplay, and they also have Daily Challenges which keep you motivated to play.

Fun: Fun is subjective, and so shouldn't be brought up at all.


Seriously, they both have stories you know.

Voted for both.

I really liked the Black Ops campain and thought the story was pretty good.

Black ops ending was rather Bleh to me.

This can't end well..

For what it's worth: Halo, cause modern shooters are boring as hell.

They're both very different games. I tend to play Halo more casually, using forge, custom games and just occasional matchmaking with friends. With Black Ops, I can get quite... angry at the game sometimes I might curse when if I die, I take it more seriously then Halo, no idea why.

Currently I feel both of them suck as much as the other.

If by goin how much i played both series, then COD is far better since after playing MW1 I actually wanted MW2 where as Halo 3 left me with a "big deal" opinion and never wanted to play it again.

So COD wins it for me purely bacuase I played MW2 way more than Halo 3.

I enjoying playing both series. I would rather play Halo if I had to choose though.

Personally it is Halo for me. It has nothing to do with gameplay but the scenarios. I have seen way too many heated discussions regarding the portrayal of the good guys and bad guys in the CoD series. People get really pissed off when discussing the Taliban, etc.

In Halo, nobody gives a crap either way. It is way less personal shooting a convenant in the head or a masked robot looking guy.

Now mind you I try not to take games serious, but I know plenty of people that have. Remember all that about CoD: MW 2 that allowed players to control Taliban-like forces, though they didn’t bear the actual name?

A quote from an article regarding the issue:

"Attention, videogamers. You can't be the Taliban anymore.
The videogame manufacturer Electronic Arts, bowing to strong criticism from U.S. military officials and veterans organizations, made changes Friday to “Medal of Honor,” the newest installment in its series of American-based war games.
Set in modern-day Afghanistan, “Medal of Honor” had been designed to allow players to take on the role of the Taliban in its multiplayer mode, and to kill American soldiers -- a capability that came under withering fire from military officials and U.S. veterans.
The Army & Air Force Exchange Service went so far as to request that American military bases not stock it.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/01/medal-honor-makes-changes-allowing-players-control-taliban/#ixzz1BU4yQYp8"

Now imagine if it said this:

Attention, videogamers. You can't be the Covenant anymore.
The videogame manufacturer Microsoft Game Studios, bowing to strong criticism from UNSC military officials and veterans organizations, made changes Friday to “Halo 3,” the newest installment in its series of Science-Fiction based war games.
Set in a futristic setting which centers on the interstellar war between 26th century humanity, “Halo 3” had been designed to allow players to take on the role of the Covenant in its multiplayer mode, and to kill UNSC soldiers -- a capability that came under withering fire from military officials and UNSC veterans.
The Army & Space Force Exchange Service went so far as to request that UNSC military bases not stock it.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/01/halo-3-makes-changes-allowing-players-control-covenant/#ixzz1BU4yQYp8

Yeah thats what I thought.

So here we have it, liking a game is actually subjective. Who would've guessed it.

Also, a more plausible controversy would be if christians got mad at Halo because they're fighting the "covenant" which could be interpreted as them fighting the covenant between God and the sons of Abraham or some other stuff like that.

Also, people still care about shooting aliens, hell some people don't like Harry Potter because it involves witchcraft.

Out there somewhere is always a person who doesn't like the game for some obscure reason.

I can't stand Halo. My favorite in the Series was number 1 and 2, and all the others are so similar.

I prefer the COD series by far. And I don't care about little 13 year olds because I either turn off the mics, or just pwn them and have a load of fun.

Neither: Metal Gear Solid series.

Halo, they are both good, but it comes down to what you like. BO is rather cookie cutter to the CoD series, and provides you with a few new toys, while on the flip side, Halo, while similar to the others in the series, provided me with a slightly different experience than BO, one which was slightly better.

Overall, you play what YOU like, nobody tells you what you like, unless your under some seriously strict communist rule in which you are told your opinion.

Yay! Halo won the poll. Way better than COD. (Pretty good weapon balance, it's sci-fi, there are no magic riot shields that can stop a barret 50. cal round from 2 feet away, and COD has no vehicles. How anyone could like COD better than Halo literally confuses me. Even BF Bad company 2 is way better than COD.

The COD campaign missions are alright though, and I usually rent the games. (I did buy World at war, however, that COD game is an exception. The weapon balance was actually decent, and multiplayer was quite fun.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:CoD Black Ops is a way better game than Halo: Reach.

Let's break it down:

Story: Black Ops actually has one.

Online Multiplayer: Both are rather bad, with 13 year old kids swearing you out and both have incredibly cheap ways of "winning". However, Halo wins out, with the ability to customize your look while you level up, while not affecting gameplay, and they also have Daily Challenges which keep you motivated to play.

Fun: Fun is subjective, and so shouldn't be brought up at all.


Seriously, they both have stories you know.

You still said Halo wins out. And what is your excuse for the Magic riot shields, hmm?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnscott10 wrote:Currently I feel both of them suck as much as the other.

If by goin how much i played both series, then COD is far better since after playing MW1 I actually wanted MW2 where as Halo 3 left me with a "big deal" opinion and never wanted to play it again.

So COD wins it for me purely bacuase I played MW2 way more than Halo 3.

What about map customization? Call of duty doesn't have that at all.

Damn, forgot to edit that part out.

Anywho, how can you explain alien space ships?

You can't explain the Halo realm and well the riot shield kind of doesn't exist in Black Ops.


And if you want map customization, play LBP.

Muahahaha!

I like games where I spawn with weapons I like, not have to mad dash to get a power weapon (or failing that, just die over and over to the power weapon user)

Also, I have never liked the Halo story-lines. They just don't seem like stories to me (make b/c I skip most of the movies...)

CoD storylines (while cheesy in some parts) are for the most part, pretty good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, vehicles in FPS suck. Seriously. They RUIN the Battlefield games, and ruin Halo.

Halo is better. Space Battles + Big battles + Killing everyone + Sniper Rifle. Simple Weapons not crazy ununderstandable stuff.

Asherian Command wrote:Halo is better. Space Battles + Big battles + Killing everyone + Sniper Rifle. Simple Weapons not crazy ununderstandable stuff.

So modern weapons most people can identify easily are more understandable then a gun that shoots pink crystal needles... lolwut?

Probably Halo, but only if you have a 360. Otherwise, obviously, CoD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:Story: Halo actually has one.

Black Ops has a story.

One that is entertaining in a way that was not likely meant by its writers, but a story nonetheless.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:
Also, I have never liked the Halo story-lines. They just don't seem like stories to me (make b/c I skip most of the movies...)

Skipping the movies makes the stories bad...you are not getting the complete story.

In all fairness, the original Halo pretty much starts you out without knowing what the hell is going on. With CoD you have a pretty good idea of the stories and have a grounded connection with what is going on, (Modern Warfare). In halo you have no idea what the UNSC or a covenant is.

Its the same reason why a lot of schools are tailoring their lessons to incorporate background knowledge into the curriculum. If Phillip is participating in a multicultural lesson regarding Canada and his parents had moved to the US from Canada, more than likely he is going to have more background knowledge than Sue from Alabama. Phillip is going to participate more in the discussion because of his background knowledge.

More than likely that is what makes CoD more appealing to you. You have more background knowledge regarding modern warfare than science ficton space warfare against a enemy you know little about.

Just to chime in on that specific subject matter... I seriously don't think either of them probably have grade A stories from a literary perspective.

I'm shocked that Halo has so much love. I would have guessed that it would have been even, or slightly in Cod's favor.

CoD is one of a dozen popular "modern" (or semi-modern in the case of WWII games) FPS franchises. There really isn't much out there that's competing with Halo.

Melissia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:Story: Halo actually has one.

Black Ops has a story.

One that is entertaining in a way that was not likely meant by its writers, but a story nonetheless.

CoD is the devil! The Devil I say!

Meh, It's just not my cup of tea. There really isn't anything bad with it, but........ meh. All I have to say about that game, really. Meh.

You need to learn to watch Black Ops' story ironically. It's funny to look at it as the ravings of a hallucinating cold war conspiracy theorist who the CIA is playing a prank on.

The halo games are fun, but thats about it, the halo universe is something I really like though (because of the novels).

I just read cryptum in one day, very good read

Halo. Sci-fi is better than modern.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Halo is better. Space Battles + Big battles + Killing everyone + Sniper Rifle. Simple Weapons not crazy ununderstandable stuff.

So modern weapons most people can identify easily are more understandable then a gun that shoots pink crystal needles... lolwut?

Expecting everyone every to know a load of real life weapons lolwut? Most people are civilians and therefore not likely to know the difference. At least in halo the guns look different. (Note that I do know a bit about weapons. Just saying that cyour average Joe won't)

Firing homing exploding crystal pink needles is more fun then regular bullets.

I could care less. I'm not a bandwagon gamer, nor do I enjoy shooting things, so neither game is for me

But If I had to absolutely choose, it'd be halo. Fantasy situations make it so much easy to pull that digital trigger. Rather than Cod, where you're killing guys that hypothetically were living, breathing people.

Have to say I stopped enjoying CoD when they got rid of the Nazis and brought in the modern setting.

Don't particularly like playing out American foreign policies against the middle east. The whole setting just doesn't appeal to me.

Edit: Plus, the constant enemy spawning in CoD until you reach a certain point rather than, you know, any kind of actual effort at proper level design really does not appeal.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I could care less. I'm not a bandwagon gamer, nor do I enjoy shooting things, so neither game is for me

But If I had to absolutely choose, it'd be halo. Fantasy situations make it so much easy to pull that digital trigger. Rather than Cod, where you're killing guys that hypothetically were living, breathing people.

Really? I mean... REALLY?!

that's the first time I've heard of anyone feeling sympathy for shooting some random NPC spawn.

And I feel a lot more sorry for shooting a grunt then for any of the pillocks in CoD.

Halo, just prefer the Sci-fi elements of the game over the modern setting.

I did like CoD 2 and 3 (think it was 2 and 3, they where WW2 ones) but I loved all the Halo's.

Fave is Halo 3, then Reach and then O.D.S.T, heck I still put Combat evolved on now and then.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Halo, just prefer the Sci-fi elements of the game over the modern setting.

I did like CoD 2 and 3 (think it was 2 and 3, they where WW2 ones) but I loved all the Halo's.

Fave is Halo 3, then Reach and then O.D.S.T, heck I still put Combat evolved on now and then.

Halo in order of liking them?

Halo, halo ODST, Halo 2, Halo reach, Halo 3.

SilverMK2 wrote:Have to say I stopped enjoying CoD when they got rid of the Nazis and brought in the modern setting.

Don't particularly like playing out American foreign policies against the middle east. The whole setting just doesn't appeal to me.

Edit: Plus, the constant enemy spawning in CoD until you reach a certain point rather than, you know, any kind of actual effort at proper level design really does not appeal.

That is pretty much what I was getting at on the previous page and why people might like Halo over CoD. Modern Warfare just doesn't seem like a good idea, too much butthurt for people. Nazis and covenant are further away from our perspective so it is easier for some people. Trying to take down Jimmy Johnson in a Nascar game is somehow weirder than taking out some random bloke in Burnout: Takedown, especially when Burnout is unrealistic.

Realism adds more depth but it has a downside for some people sometimes.

Also ODST shouldn't even be on that list Soladrin. But at least you left Halo Wars off of there...

Oh, halo wars should be in front of halo 3 lol
and ODST rocked, it felt more like halo 1 then any of the other games.

Why did halo 3 suck balls?

NO ELITES TO FIGHT!

Heh I really liked O.D.S.T, came from a different angle than any of the others, and I really got into the story.

Although I should note, when I put those three in order they are really close, not miles apart.

Halo CE and Halo 2 are a little further behind for me, as although both are great games, I feel the later versions have been better overall.

Halo 3, just for the climax of the story, Reach for an amazing story, interwoven with the amazing engine and extras to the custom creation. (I so hope this rumoured Halo CE upgrade to Reach's engine is true.)

Lord Scythican wrote:Realism adds more depth

... no it doesn't....

Maybe I was missing something about ODST. When I first got out of the drop pod I got irritated because I kept going down these long alleyways that went nowhere. They really felt like the direction I needed to go but were not. I felt like I was in a maze.

Then the view mode that outlines enemies seemed like a good way to spot them, but I didn't like it because it looked awful, but if you wanted to see them that was your trade off.

So I find the correct alleyway and I see the enemies a very long ways off. I run down to them shoot them up, find the leader kill him, watch the rest scatter and then repeat. I did this with about 5 groups and said WTF and cut it off.

Melissia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Realism adds more depth

... no it doesn't....

It does with 3D TVs! That's even their marketing strategy!

Melissia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Realism adds more depth

... no it doesn't....

I agree with Melissia, realism adds nothing more than realism.

On topic though I hate both of the game series other than Call of Duty: Blackops and I only enjoy that for the zombies and how fragile you are in the online.

Heh, cute.

But no, I meant that realism doesn't add any depth at all, it actually lends itself towards laziness in the part of the developers and therefor lends itself to more shallow stories...

Melissia wrote:Heh, cute.

But no, I meant that realism doesn't add any depth at all, it actually lends itself towards laziness in the part of the developers and therefor lends itself to more shallow stories...

Of course realism doesn't add depth, realism is simply making the setting as close to the real world as possible (much like hard scifi) which has no bearing whatsoever on how enjoyable or immersive the story or game play can be.

Well I was just trying to defend my post. I am glad you think my attempt was cute!

Well if you take it the way you are saying it, then no realism doesn't add depth. It could be argued that a Realistic lake would appear to have more depth than a video game lake. Surely the buildings in New York look taller than they do in Spiderman 3.

Also something could appear to be in more complete detail or thoroughness if it was more realistic.The depth of the detail and realism done in Grand Turismo 5 is alot more acceptable to some people than a really detailed alien gun, because we have more real world comparisons to the Grand Turismo vehicles than we do to alien guns.

Of course I am using depth in a different way that I did previously right?

corpsesarefun wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Realism adds more depth

... no it doesn't....

I agree with Melissia, realism adds nothing more than realism.

On topic though I hate both of the game series other than Call of Duty: Blackops and I only enjoy that for the zombies and how fragile you are in the online.

There are zombies in Black Ops?! I might actually try to play that game now!

Lord Scythican wrote:Maybe I was missing something about ODST. When I first got out of the drop pod I got irritated because I kept going down these long alleyways that went nowhere. They really felt like the direction I needed to go but were not. I felt like I was in a maze.

Then the view mode that outlines enemies seemed like a good way to spot them, but I didn't like it because it looked awful, but if you wanted to see them that was your trade off.

So I find the correct alleyway and I see the enemies a very long ways off. I run down to them shoot them up, find the leader kill him, watch the rest scatter and then repeat. I did this with about 5 groups and said WTF and cut it off.

So in other words.. you didnt even get to the actual missions? Good job there, you actually have a map you know. You have to find "clues" of what happened to your squad mates to jump in their respective level, playing as that guy.

The big city is pretty much a big mission hub made of awesome and mongoose stunts.

Lord Scythican wrote:Well I was just trying to defend my post. I am glad you think my attempt was cute!

Well if you take it the way you are saying it, then no realism doesn't add depth. It could be argued that a Realistic lake would appear to have more depth than a video game lake. Surely the buildings in New York look taller than they do in Spiderman 3.

Also something could appear to be in more complete detail or thoroughness if it was more realistic.The depth of the detail and realism done in Grand Turismo 5 is alot more acceptable to some people than a really detailed alien gun, because we have more real world comparisons to the Grand Turismo vehicles than we do to alien guns.

Of course I am using depth in a different way that I did previously right?

corpsesarefun wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Realism adds more depth

... no it doesn't....

I agree with Melissia, realism adds nothing more than realism.

On topic though I hate both of the game series other than Call of Duty: Blackops and I only enjoy that for the zombies and how fragile you are in the online.

There are zombies in Black Ops?! I might actually try to play that game now!

Yeah the zombie mode from modern warefare 2 is pretty hugely expanded into two online multiplayer (or single player) maps with unlimited rounds of more and more zombies.

"five" takes place in the pentagon and you play as Fidel castro, JFK, Nixon and Robert Mcnamara.

Kino der Toten is against nazi zombies and takes place in a ruined theatre somewhere in germany.

See I just needed a coach like you. I guess I am just used to Halo being more linear. What's bad is, I usually hate linear games. I guess I just wasn't prepared for the changes.

Wait...are Fidel castro, JFK, Nixon and Robert Mcnamar zombies?!

No, they're killing zombies as a team.

VikingScott wrote:Halo. Sci-fi is better than modern.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Halo is better. Space Battles + Big battles + Killing everyone + Sniper Rifle. Simple Weapons not crazy ununderstandable stuff.

So modern weapons most people can identify easily are more understandable then a gun that shoots pink crystal needles... lolwut?

Expecting everyone every to know a load of real life weapons lolwut? Most people are civilians and therefore not likely to know the difference. At least in halo the guns look different. (Note that I do know a bit about weapons. Just saying that cyour average Joe won't)

I mean the names of the weapons
I bet you more people can identify a Ak-47 or other such gun more readily than a Covenant Carbine, or a Needler.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

VikingScott wrote:Halo. Sci-fi is better than modern.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Halo is better. Space Battles + Big battles + Killing everyone + Sniper Rifle. Simple Weapons not crazy ununderstandable stuff.

So modern weapons most people can identify easily are more understandable then a gun that shoots pink crystal needles... lolwut?

Expecting everyone every to know a load of real life weapons lolwut? Most people are civilians and therefore not likely to know the difference. At least in halo the guns look different. (Note that I do know a bit about weapons. Just saying that cyour average Joe won't)

I mean the names of the weapons
I bet you more people can identify a Ak-47 or other such gun more readily than a Covenant Carbine, or a Needler.

yeah, and what about the other weapons in the game? COD has nothing to do with the AK47 being well known, it's in pretty much every modern war-ish game, movie, or other media.

And everyone knows about pink death right?

The BFG is pretty well known...

Soladrin wrote:

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

VikingScott wrote:Halo. Sci-fi is better than modern.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Halo is better. Space Battles + Big battles + Killing everyone + Sniper Rifle. Simple Weapons not crazy ununderstandable stuff.

So modern weapons most people can identify easily are more understandable then a gun that shoots pink crystal needles... lolwut?

Expecting everyone every to know a load of real life weapons lolwut? Most people are civilians and therefore not likely to know the difference. At least in halo the guns look different. (Note that I do know a bit about weapons. Just saying that cyour average Joe won't)

I mean the names of the weapons
I bet you more people can identify a Ak-47 or other such gun more readily than a Covenant Carbine, or a Needler.

yeah, and what about the other weapons in the game? COD has nothing to do with the AK47 being well known, it's in pretty much every modern war-ish game, movie, or other media.

And everyone knows about pink death right?

I know. It was an example. Same with the iconic m16, m14, m1911, etc.
I can't name every gun in halo for the life of me (except their ''creatively'' named shotgun and pistol and smg, and like, 2 covenant weapons)

They actually all have proper names (thanks to the little booky that comes with the game) but for gaming purposes it's never used, theres only one type of shotgun around, then you ask for a shotgun, not a specific shotgun

Have to say it is a lot easier to tell what kind of gun someone has when they are all different colours and designs and glow different colours

Always have trouble in "realistic" games a) telling what team someone is on (especially on games like Operation Flashpoint), and b) what weapon they have.

Yeah, that's what I like about TF2... it's easy to tell what class the enemy is, what weapon they have out, and what team they're on.

Unless they are a spy!

*shakes fist*

Melissia wrote:Yeah, that's what I like about TF2... it's easy to tell what class the enemy is, what weapon they have out, and what team they're on.

Yep, cause you trust everyone who's your color.

OH WAIT SHI-

Actually the big thing for spies is that you can't move through them and can still set them on fire. They don't move as fast as medics or scouts, either.

Besides, the spy class is specifically designed for that route. The class isn't something that can be easily accomplished in other games, especially modern games where the attitude is that every class must have a main weapon and a pistol...

I was just joking, I love the game Best at playing scout so far though.

I like both for different reasons. with Black Ops firefights are quick and movement faster. Unfortunately, It's also full of killstreaks which are frustrating (especially to newer players) and chock full of campers whereas Halo espouses a more mobile fighting style which appeals to me personally.
As far as the campaign goes, I would have to say Halo is a bit better story wise as long as we are only comparing to black ops (since the story line in MW2 is simply terrible and can't hold a candle to any Halo).

As a side note, CoD seems to have server/connection issues far more commonly than Halo.

^

Except if the host happens to leave a Halo: Reach game, in which case, the "leaderboard screen/starting game sequence" takes awhile to let you play again. That's one of my few issues with it...

I prefer Halo even though I have a PS3. COD is fun and all but it gets real old real quick and the stories to me are just kinda dull. Graphics sound and gameplay are great. But personally I'd take Killzone 2 (and hopefully 3) over any COD game anyday.

Reach has tons of campers too...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Wraith

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Reach has tons of campers too...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Wraith

Especially in Infection. God that game mode made a terrible come back into Reach....

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Reach has tons of campers too...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Wraith

Every online game has campers.

Besides, complaints about campers are pathetic, just because someone doesn't keep movING ALL THE TIME OMG MOVE MOVE MOVE YOU WERE STILL FOR MORE THAN TWO SECONDS YOU CAMPING NOOB! doesn't mean that they are cheating or abusing the game.

Melissia wrote:Besides, complaints about campers are pathetic, just because someone doesn't keep movING ALL THE TIME OMG MOVE MOVE MOVE YOU WERE STILL FOR MORE THAN TWO SECONDS YOU CAMPING NOOB! doesn't mean that they are cheating or abusing the game.

Especially on objective based games (Like One Flag CTF, for instance).

What are they supposed to do? Send a postcard to the Flag asking if it's ok?

I will say one thing, the zombie maps have really improved over the two games and the Nazi Zombie story is almost followed as much as the main campaign story.


As far as realism goes, some games don't need it. Saints Row 2 is a bit better than Grand Theft Auto 4 in my opinion because it just seems to be more fun to play.

Infection is a bit easy for me so I usually play SWAT if I do play Reach at my friend's house.

As far as story goes, Black Ops tries to reach the level of a Tom Clancy novel(vindicted russian tries to get revenge and there's a load of conspiracy stuff) while Halo is a lot like a James Cameron movie.

Both are fun games, but I like Black Ops more than Halo because I can customize my weapons, face camo, perks, and overall appearance.

I like Halo Reach more than black ops even though I haven't actually seriously played it (not owning an xbox), simply because Halo Reach isn't a total sausage fest and I can have a female avatar.

Melissia wrote:I like Halo Reach more than black ops even though I haven't actually seriously played it (not owning an xbox), simply because Halo Reach isn't a total sausage fest and I can have a female avatar.

Which in turn leads to people (Read: 13 year olds) treating you better online, letting you have "their" weapons, and such.

Don't ask me how I know that.

Melissia wrote:I like Halo Reach more than black ops even though I haven't actually seriously played it (not owning an xbox), simply because Halo Reach isn't a total sausage fest and I can have a female avatar.

So you don't like sausage?


Also: Black Ops is set during the Cold War Era when women were not included in any form of combat roles, hell they were barely even pilots at that time. Just remember, Vietnam was between 1955 and 1975.

Saying you don't like black ops because of the fact that you can't have a female character is like saying you don't like Company of Heroes because WW2 didn't have 3D television.

However, I find the lack of black skinned avatars upsetting seeing as though it was one of the first wars with integrated combat units.

Know what, they really need to work on that, right now.

Yes, actually, that is a problem that I have with Company of Heroes (and WWII games in general), and part of the reason I prefer Dawn of War 2 as far as Essence Engine games go-- the presence of female characters is stronger in 40k games than in WWII games. Funny how that goes, given that 40k itself is a massive sausage fest. A pity the Imperial Guard campaign's hero is General Pornstache instead of the inquisitor, but at least they added another female hero for me to play aside from the farseer.

When I have choices between games in the same relative subgenre (fps war shooters, for example), a game letting me play a female avatar is better than a game that does not let me play one.

Melissia wrote:Yes, actually, that is a problem that I have with Company of Heroes, and part of the reason I prefer Dawn of War 2 as far as Essence Engine games go. A pity the Imperial Guard campaign's hero is General Pornstache instead of the inquisitor, but at least they added another female hero for me to play aside from the farseer.

Dawn of War 2 had an imperial guard campaign? I must be missing something here. Also the IG commander in the DoW campaign didn't have a mustache, in fact only the priest had any facial hair in that game.

Okay, in Dawn of War 3 they need more facial hair.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, actually, that is a problem that I have with Company of Heroes, and part of the reason I prefer Dawn of War 2 as far as Essence Engine games go. A pity the Imperial Guard campaign's hero is General Pornstache instead of the inquisitor, but at least they added another female hero for me to play aside from the farseer.

Dawn of War 2 had an imperial guard campaign? I must be missing something here. Also the IG commander in the DoW campaign didn't have a mustache, in fact only the priest had any facial hair in that game.

Yes.

Yes it does.


And yes... Lord General Castor does have a very... distinct mustache.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:I like Halo Reach more than black ops even though I haven't actually seriously played it (not owning an xbox), simply because Halo Reach isn't a total sausage fest and I can have a female avatar.

Also: Black Ops is set during the Cold War Era when women were not included in any form of combat roles, hell they were barely even pilots at that time. Just remember, Vietnam was between 1955 and 1975.

Saying you don't like black ops because of the fact that you can't have a female character is like saying you don't like Company of Heroes because WW2 didn't have 3D television.

However, I find the lack of black skinned avatars upsetting seeing as though it was one of the first wars with integrated combat units.

Know what, they really need to work on that, right now.

Women are still not technically allowed in combat roles.

The lack of black avatars shouldn't be surprising considering that in RL whites and hispanics make up the vast majority of the infantry and whites make up as much as 90-95% of special forces units.

Actually, I didn't even notice any blacks/hispanics in the Tet Offensive level(the first Vietnam level IIRC).

There sure were a lot of asians though for some reason.


@Melissia,

That's another reason for me to not play DoW2. They got the IG wrong.

halonachos wrote:Actually, I didn't even notice any blacks/hispanics in the Tet Offensive level(the first Vietnam level IIRC).

There sure were a lot of asians though for some reason.


@Melissia,

That's another reason for me to not play DoW2. They got the IG wrong.

lol, Retribution hasn't even gotten released and you're saying they have done it wrong?

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Actually, I didn't even notice any blacks/hispanics in the Tet Offensive level(the first Vietnam level IIRC).

There sure were a lot of asians though for some reason.


@Melissia,

That's another reason for me to not play DoW2. They got the IG wrong.

lol, Retribution hasn't even gotten released and you're saying they have done it wrong?

I didn't see any hoardes of guardsmen, I didn't see any Leman Russ's plowing down the enemy, no artillery groups, so yes they got the IG wrong.

I saw hordes of Guardsmen in Chaos Rising's campaign. Regardless, however, you don't know yet because you haven't actually played it. You'll get a chance if you have a DoW product on Steam come feb 8th.

Melissia wrote:I saw hordes of Guardsmen in Chaos Rising's campaign. Regardless, however, you don't know yet because you haven't actually played it. You'll get a chance if you have a DoW product on Steam come feb 8th.

Speaking of, Ineed to play DoWII in order to find out if they actually fixed my computer.....

Melissia wrote:I saw hordes of Guardsmen in Chaos Rising's campaign. Regardless, however, you don't know yet because you haven't actually played it. You'll get a chance if you have a DoW product on Steam come feb 8th.

They got them wrong in DoW 1 so I doubt they're going to get it right in DoW 2.

DoW 1= Guardsmen can't get grenades, all sentinels have lascannons, squads came in groups of 13, and an incredible lack of sniper rifle carrying units.

From what I saw in the videos, they got them wrong.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:I saw hordes of Guardsmen in Chaos Rising's campaign. Regardless, however, you don't know yet because you haven't actually played it. You'll get a chance if you have a DoW product on Steam come feb 8th.

They got them wrong in DoW 1 so I doubt they're going to get it right in DoW 2.

DoW 1= Guardsmen can't get grenades, all sentinels have lascannons, squads came in groups of 13, and an incredible lack of sniper rifle carrying units.

From what I saw in the videos, they got them wrong.

Are you sure you weren't just playing them wrong? I raped people with the Guard, once took on three people basically by myself with them (agains't two Tau and a Space Marine player)

You realize that DoW2 is dramatically different from DoW1?

DoW1 was basically a starcraft clone with a focus on capture point gameplay, while DoW2 focuses on tactical squad combat instead?

Not saying I can't play them, I do fancy building forward bases and putting 3 basilisks in the base so that I can put rounds into the enemy base. Techpriest rush is also another fun strategy.

I just found the lack of frag grenades and choices in vehicles incredibly upsetting. Armageddon pattern sentinels are fun until orks come along and you would rather have a Cadian, Mars, or Catachan pattern sentinel.

This was back in the previous codex when I started playing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You realize that DoW2 is dramatically different from DoW1?

DoW1 was basically a starcraft clone with a focus on capture point gameplay, while DoW2 focuses on tactical squad combat instead?

That's another thing IG, for the most part, are not 'tactical squads'. The IG are a blob of lasguns and tanks, they are the 'hammer of the emperor' afterall.

And they will be. They'll start out with decent sized squads, then you add various upgrades that further increaset he size until they become larger than the other factions' squads.

Alternatively you can just focus on vehicles instead, because you can get vehicles in tier one as Guard in retribution.

halonachos wrote:Not saying I can't play them, I do fancy building forward bases and putting 3 basilisks in the base so that I can put rounds into the enemy base. Techpriest rush is also another fun strategy.

I just found the lack of frag grenades and choices in vehicles incredibly upsetting. Armageddon pattern sentinels are fun until orks come along and you would rather have a Cadian, Mars, or Catachan pattern sentinel.

This was back in the previous codex when I started playing.

Every single army had that. Hell, Chaos Space Marines didn't even have their DreadNaughts......

I bet they won't have grenades though.

I saw sentinels and chimeras, but I wonder if Ogryns will have issues getting into the chimeras. If they don't I will continue to dislike DoW 2 and their lack of base building.

You'll probably hear Ogryns complaining if they're ordered into a transport.

halonachos wrote:I bet they won't have grenades though.

I saw sentinels and chimeras, but I wonder if Ogryns will have issues getting into the chimeras. If they don't I will continue to dislike DoW 2 and their lack of base building.

What?

Not enough, Ogryns need to have violent wretching after leaving the transport.

Also there had better be a level that is entirely made out of fething rivers.

How can you ***** about base building, which doesn't fit in to 40k, then in the same sentence complain about one minor nitpicky fluff point? So you care about the game staying true to the lore, but you also want the game to break from the lore?

This is kinda pathetic.

Actually, base building is reasonable for the IG. In fact in apocalypse the IG can drop in barricades from space. They prefabricate the building and drop it in.

So yeah, umm, base building actually fits the IG.

halonachos wrote:Actually, base building is reasonable for the IG. In fact in apocalypse the IG can drop in barricades from space. They prefabricate the building and drop it in.

So yeah, umm, base building actually fits the IG.

No it doesn't. While dropping in barricades is reasonable and appropriate for 40k, or even automated turrets for that matter, dropping in a prebuilt factory less than a mile away from the enemy base isn't, and is completely stupid and has no fluff basis whatsoever.

halonachos wrote:Actually, base building is reasonable for the IG. In fact in apocalypse the IG can drop in barricades from space. They prefabricate the building and drop it in.

So yeah, umm, base building actually fits the IG.

Apocalypse rules are relevant to DoW2 how?

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:Actually, base building is reasonable for the IG. In fact in apocalypse the IG can drop in barricades from space. They prefabricate the building and drop it in.

So yeah, umm, base building actually fits the IG.

No it doesn't. While dropping in barricades is reasonable and appropriate for 40k, or even automated turrets for that matter, dropping in a prebuilt factory less than a mile away from the enemy base isn't, and is completely stupid and has no fluff basis whatsoever.

During WW2, Soviet russia would build a factory on a railroad. When the frontline moved forward the factory was dismantled, moved forward, and rebuilt.

So building factories near the front lines has a historical basis.


As with the other races any infantry producing building can be rationalized as rallying points for troops arriving to the battlefield.

Also, look at the factories when they are 'building' a tank. A dropship actually brings the parts in a box to the factory itself. Think of them more as a fortified workshop that assembles recently arrived vehicle modules.

All of the buildings are prefabricated and can be dropped in. The buildings can also be put in to make a battle more like a siege similar to the story of the Steel Legion fighting in a massive manufactorum that was still running while the Orks were inside. The Steel Legion were using chimeras that were fresh off the assembly line.

Factories running on the front line are fluff worthy, prefabricated buildings being dropped in are fluff worthy, and dropping in modular parts is also fluff worthy.

Someone emailed me on my PS3 calling me a spawn camper in Black Ops. people are such babies. If I kill you, and you come back and I kill you again, and you come back and I kill you again, and you come back and I kill you again, of couse I'm gonna sit there and wait so you can crank up my kill count.

I popped Killzone 2 back in today, gonna replay it to get ready for part 3 next month.. damn I forgot how much harder this was, COD is like ezmode frags.

Halonachos, your saying they got them wrong, whilst you keep hammering on only 1 type of IG army, the IG is made up of all kinds of regiments, and the things you are mentioning, is an army made up of multiple regiments. So in essence, you got it wrong.

I feel like I need to defend myself for my earlier post. Many seem to think I am a whiny noob complaining about campers when this is not the case. As I said I prefer a more mobile game when I play and think it's more fun when others do too. Does that mean I don't stop and check for targets when I come upon a good overwatch location? Of couse not. I simply don't stay forever. And "camping" obviously makes sense in objective games

Melissia wrote:

When I have choices between games in the same relative subgenre (fps war shooters, for example), a game letting me play a female avatar is better than a game that does not let me play one.

Enjoy not playing some great games without female mains

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

Melissia wrote:

When I have choices between games in the same relative subgenre (fps war shooters, for example), a game letting me play a female avatar is better than a game that does not let me play one.

Enjoy not playing some great games without female mains

Stop, and read the post in its entirety.

I've enjoyed the entirety of the Quake series, the Duke Nukem series (even back when he wore a pink shirt and watched Oprah), the Half Life series, I've enjoyed WWII games from the MoH series and other series, as well as more modern games such as Black Ops and BC2, and a couple hundred other games which all have male leads.

But when I have a choice? I buy the ones with female leads where the female isn't just there for the sake of thirteen year old virgins, or ones where you choose between male or female. Because, I hope, I will better empathize with the characters. Certainly I empathized better with Faith from Mirror's Edge than Alex Mason of Black Ops, but that could also be because of me not taking Black Ops seriously. Certainly I empathized better with Zoey more than I did, say, Preston Marlowe from the Bad Company series. I don't see why some people seem to think this is unreasonable.

I think bbl had a logical conclusion. Personally, I don't care who you play one way or another.

Tomb raider, no objections to Lara Croft.
CoD, no objections to being a male.


I like games with a fast-paced, balanced system, not ones where I can choose to be a guy.

The Bringer wrote:I think bbl had a logical conclusion. Personally, I don't care who you play one way or another.

Tomb raider, no objections to Lara Croft.
CoD, no objections to being a male.

I really don't see why that would be a defining characteristic of whether or not you like games.

Try actually reading.

I tried, the only thing I saw was the "In the same sub-genre"


EDIT:
I read your edited post,

I guess that would make sense. Personally, I don't care much for the plot of the game. I never yell "For Gondor!!!!" while hacking away at orcs. I can see why people might value choosing their gender, but I've never seen somebody actually care that much.

Then try reading the ENTIRE post and not just part of it.

I uderstand what you mean.
However, If Generic Shooter 2 had a female lead, vs Generic Shooter 3: The Generic Wars (with a male lead)
You said you would get the one with a female lead, And according to you, Generic Shooter 2 would be better, because of the female lead,
even if Generic Shooter 3 was a better game

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:I uderstand what you mean.
However, If Generic Shooter 2 had a female lead, vs Generic Shooter 3: The Generic Wars (with a male lead)
You said you would get the one with a female lead, And according to you, Generic Shooter 2 would be better, because of the female lead,
even if Generic Shooter 3 was a better game

Yes. I would. This reminds me of the Deus Ex situation. I don't intend to get the new Deus Ex for this very reason-- they removed the ability to customize your character's gender and appearance, a feature which set the second Deus Ex well above most other games. Therefor, I am far less interested in it. If it goes on sale for cheap and I have the extra cash, I'll get it over Steam. Otherwise, there's other games I want first so my limited money supply is going elsewhere.

I can't afford to pay fifty bucks for every game that comes out, so I buy games that have features I want. This is one that is on the top of the list, right below "it has guns and you shoot people".

I rarely buy games when they come out, as I am not made of money as well.
For the most part, I don't mind female leads, however, I sometimes mind mains of other races. I prefer it to be unknown race, or mine, because I like to pretend I'm the main character

Although an old game, P.N. 03 for game cube was pretty fun (fem lead, if you never played it)

battle Brother Lucifer wrote: because I like to pretend I'm the main character

That pretty much sums up the reason why I prefer female leads, or at least to have female avatars in multiplayer.

Melissia wrote:

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:I uderstand what you mean.
However, If Generic Shooter 2 had a female lead, vs Generic Shooter 3: The Generic Wars (with a male lead)
You said you would get the one with a female lead, And according to you, Generic Shooter 2 would be better, because of the female lead,
even if Generic Shooter 3 was a better game

Yes. I would. This reminds me of the Deus Ex situation. I don't intend to get the new Deus Ex for this very reason-- they removed the ability to customize your character's gender and appearance, a feature which set the second Deus Ex well above most other games. Therefor, I am far less interested in it. If it goes on sale for cheap and I have the extra cash, I'll get it over Steam. Otherwise, there's other games I want first so my limited money supply is going elsewhere.

I can't afford to pay fifty bucks for every game that comes out, so I buy games that have features I want. This is one that is on the top of the list, right below "it has guns and you shoot people".

Well whatever floats your boat. I think the choice of gender in a game could be important to some people but I don't think it should be the major selling point. I like female leads more myself and usually play them when I can, but it doesn't bother me if they are male instead. I would miss out on a lot of good games if I thought that way.

Also I think Deus Ex: Human Revolution is going to be good enough to let the male lead character slip on you once. Seriously that game is going to be great.

Sure, I'm sure it will, but so will other games, which will have features I want more.

Fair enough. Just remember when you are bored with the ones you have played to death, be sure to pick up Deus Ex. I am running a Shadowrun campaign right now to hold me over until its release.

Or, more likely, when it goes on sale on Steam this summer, but only if it's a very cheap price, otherwise it'll wait until the extremely cheap post-xmas sales Steam has.

Melissia, if you always choose female characters in games (when you can choose between the two) that means you must have never gotten 'married' in Morrowind!
Except judging by what you have said from the 'people w/ tails at the mall' thread, you probably won't care (you marry a Khajiit)

I actually used a mod to make the khajiit have humanoid features (IE, a human head and limbs), and played as a khajiit nightblade.

Erm... HALO or COD? I wish people would stop either talking about Morrowind or DOW on this forum. Cod is good but very frustrating and often one feels 'robbed' of a kill rather than clearly outdone, about 80:20 in Reach it is about 25:75 IMO. Alot of reach is skill based. My favourite thing is the ridculous 'Armour Lock Duels' on Elite slayer, Please tell me you know what i mean!

Melissia wrote:I actually used a mod to make the khajiit have humanoid features (IE, a human head and limbs), and played as a khajiit nightblade.

Why?

Because I despised the visual change that Khajiit went through from Daggerfall to Morrowind.

Perkustin wrote:Erm... HALO or COD? I wish people would stop either talking about Morrowind or DOW on this forum. Cod is good but very frustrating and often one feels 'robbed' of a kill rather than clearly outdone, about 80:20 in Reach it is about 25:75 IMO. Alot of reach is skill based. My favourite thing is the ridculous 'Armour Lock Duels' on Elite slayer, Please tell me you know what i mean!

I don't cause killing someone with armor lock is piss easy, almost as easy as killing someone when you have armor lock too. :3

I feel more robbed in Reach than Black Ops when I get assists

Soladrin wrote:Halonachos, your saying they got them wrong, whilst you keep hammering on only 1 type of IG army, the IG is made up of all kinds of regiments, and the things you are mentioning, is an army made up of multiple regiments. So in essence, you got it wrong.

Actually, the IG regiments tend not to vary that much within an individual army. That is, of course, unless you look at combined 'leftover' regiments such as the mixed catachan and elysian regiments that created a regiment of airborne jungle specialists.

Like I said, the basic troops lacked the ability to get grenades in the game. There were absolutely no vox's available for upgrade as well. I also had a hard time understanding the trench part of the buildings, I could get them dropping in prefabricated buildings but not an underground trench system.


The presence of camping isn't necessarily the developer's fault though. Same thing with people spawn camping, its a dick move overall, but its not like, nevermind its a dick move.

halonachos wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Halonachos, your saying they got them wrong, whilst you keep hammering on only 1 type of IG army, the IG is made up of all kinds of regiments, and the things you are mentioning, is an army made up of multiple regiments. So in essence, you got it wrong.

Actually, the IG regiments tend not to vary that much within an individual army. That is, of course, unless you look at combined 'leftover' regiments such as the mixed catachan and elysian regiments that created a regiment of airborne jungle specialists.

Like I said, the basic troops lacked the ability to get grenades in the game. There were absolutely no vox's available for upgrade as well. I also had a hard time understanding the trench part of the buildings, I could get them dropping in prefabricated buildings but not an underground trench system.


The presence of camping isn't necessarily the developer's fault though. Same thing with people spawn camping, its a dick move overall, but its not like, nevermind its a dick move.

In other words, you won't be satisfied untill they make every army in the game with exactly the same upgrades as in the codex?

Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Melissia wrote:Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Spawn Camping is why I love Gears of War's style, honestly. You have one life, don't waste it. No Spawn Camping, if they camp, you get the weapons. If they camp with the weapons, you are just terrible at the game.

I think campers in general, are just incapable of playing the game. That's why they camp.

Wolfun wrote:I think campers in general, are just incapable of playing the game. That's why they camp.

No, Camping in and of itself is a legitimate strategy. Spawn camping is a bitch move. Just my opinion.

Funny, I think campers are just as capable of playing the game as blind rushers, their counterpart.

Slarg232 wrote:

Wolfun wrote:I think campers in general, are just incapable of playing the game. That's why they camp.

No, Camping in and of itself is a legitimate strategy. Spawn camping is a bitch move. Just my opinion.

If you mean like sniping, I'd agree and disagree. A proper sniper would take a shot/few shots, then move on so he doesn't get killed, and people can't pinpoint his location.
Just crouching in a space and spamming a weapon isn't really a strategy.

I usually end up spending most of my time in CoD, hunting down campers. Some of them just camp in... Really slowed positions.

I remember one time, on the level with the beach on MW2, one guy kept crouching with an MP5/submachine gun in front of a door. Every time.
So, I just went around the back of the building and killed him. I ended up winning that game because I killed him 20 times. He never moved. =|

Wolfun wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Wolfun wrote:I think campers in general, are just incapable of playing the game. That's why they camp.

No, Camping in and of itself is a legitimate strategy. Spawn camping is a bitch move. Just my opinion.

If you mean like sniping, I'd agree and disagree. A proper sniper would take a shot/few shots, then move on so he doesn't get killed, and people can't pinpoint his location.
Just crouching in a space and spamming a weapon isn't really a strategy.

I usually end up spending most of my time in CoD, hunting down campers. Some of them just camp in... Really slowed positions.

I remember one time, on the level with the beach on MW2, one guy kept crouching with an MP5/submachine gun in front of a door. Every time.
So, I just went around the back of the building and killed him. I ended up winning that game because I killed him 20 times. He never moved. =|

What I meant was stuff like having four guys in a building, two watching the doors and two shooting out windows (or, for you technical people, setting up "lanes"), while the enemy team tries to crack open their defensive position. That's legitimate.

Putting Claymores/grenades/whatever into the spawn so that players die as soon as they can play again, thats just terrible.

Wolfun wrote:Just crouching in a space and spamming a weapon isn't really a strategy.

No, you also have to aim, and not fire when there's noone there so you conserve ammo.

Melissia wrote:

Wolfun wrote:Just crouching in a space and spamming a weapon isn't really a strategy.

No, you also have to aim, and not fire when there's noone there so you conserve ammo.

Who the hell has any sort of aiming ability in CoD?

I jest, I jest...

mostly.

Camping is legitimate in any objective game, although a defensive rush in a game of Search and Destroy can really mess up what the other team is expecting.

If you have a sniper rifle and sit in a position that's okay.

If you go to where the enemy spawns and just sit there, you're kind of a dick.

The developer makes spawn points, the dick takes advantage of them.

And the developer, knowing that players are dicks, should make better spawn points.

Melissia wrote:And the developer, knowing that players are dicks, should make better spawn points.

Maybe that's why the spawn is so random in Black Ops...

But saying that is like saying the developer, knowing that players are dicks, should kick people who team kill so many times in a game of hardcore.

Look how that turned out in Black Ops, get a chopper gunner in hardcore and you'll most likely end up getting kicked. Especially if the opposing team has Ghost equipped.

That's because CoD's hardcore mode is a stupidly designed game mode.

Hardcore is a great game mode, reminds me of Rainbow Six on the PC where one shot meant a kill or incapacitation in most cases.

I just don't like the fact that your teammates have nothing to distinguish them from an enemy with ghost pro.

A green diamond around your own guys would've been fantastic.

But that's not hardcore enough.

Melissia wrote:But that's not hardcore enough.

I know right?

I want a suit that emits a painful electrical shock whenever you get hit as well, but no the developers are too lazy to make one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Halonachos, your saying they got them wrong, whilst you keep hammering on only 1 type of IG army, the IG is made up of all kinds of regiments, and the things you are mentioning, is an army made up of multiple regiments. So in essence, you got it wrong.

Actually, the IG regiments tend not to vary that much within an individual army. That is, of course, unless you look at combined 'leftover' regiments such as the mixed catachan and elysian regiments that created a regiment of airborne jungle specialists.

Like I said, the basic troops lacked the ability to get grenades in the game. There were absolutely no vox's available for upgrade as well. I also had a hard time understanding the trench part of the buildings, I could get them dropping in prefabricated buildings but not an underground trench system.


The presence of camping isn't necessarily the developer's fault though. Same thing with people spawn camping, its a dick move overall, but its not like, nevermind its a dick move.

In other words, you won't be satisfied untill they make every army in the game with exactly the same upgrades as in the codex?

Im quite surprised how neck on neck this is

ChronoCupcake wrote:Im quite surprised how neck on neck this is

That's because I'm stuffing the ballots.

Voted for both, but honestly after competitive gaming with halo for 4 years and cod for 3 now, and CS 1.6 for 4 prior to halo, I'm just sick of competitive shooters. Still love RTS and great RPG games though. Games stop being "fun" when you're playing for money, much like anything else I suppose. Having a full time job and part time job feels no different than the last 8 or so odd years did. As far as which is better neither of them live up to previous games in the series they just seem like dumbed down versions. Halo and mw1 being the kings of each respectively with halo 2 competitive scene slightly better due to XBL but not a better game. This is the first 6 months I've sat out of competitive gaming in the last 8 years and I'm thoroughly enjoying the break. Only attending MLG's for party filled payed weekends to ref Starcraft 2 as it's a pretty fun game to watch.

Go try Homefront then. It's a new IP to be released on March 8th, so it won't have a competitive scene for a while. You'll be part of a group of people experiencing a new IP and exploring the possibilities therein, which should be refreshing compared to just purchasing the next CoD or Halo.

LegendJRG wrote:Voted for both, but honestly after competitive gaming with halo for 4 years and cod for 3 now, and CS 1.6 for 4 prior to halo, I'm just sick of competitive shooters. Still love RTS and great RPG games though. Games stop being "fun" when you're playing for money, much like anything else I suppose. Having a full time job and part time job feels no different than the last 8 or so odd years did. As far as which is better neither of them live up to previous games in the series they just seem like dumbed down versions. Halo and mw1 being the kings of each respectively with halo 2 competitive scene slightly better due to XBL but not a better game. This is the first 6 months I've sat out of competitive gaming in the last 8 years and I'm thoroughly enjoying the break. Only attending MLG's for party filled payed weekends to ref Starcraft 2 as it's a pretty fun game to watch.

Ya, I agree. But I still say that Halo is better. I LOVE RPGs so much,but ya gotta go and shoot some aliens mindlessly now and then .

Personally, i much prefer Halo. I like them both story wise, but when it comes to playing with friends, I have to go with Halo. I always found that when I played MW2 online all I did was die and I never got better, where in Halo I did pretty good, so maybe that has to do with it, its less infuriating for me.

Ya, same with me lol

I prefer Halo in terms of gameplay mechanics, and multiplayer mechanics, because I like being able to take a few hits before dying. Historically, I've always preferred stuff like Quake and Unreal Tournament as well.

In hardcore "realistic" shooters, it seems you die far too quickly, which there is nothing wrong with, but generally confrontations boil down to who got the drop on who, not necessarily who has better aim. Not to say having the situational awareness to get the drop on someone isn't skill, but it isn't always skill, sometimes its just who came around a corner first. It isn't fun getting one-shotted from across the map, and I'm sure people hate me when I play BFBC2 and do just that on hardcore servers.

In terms of setting/story, I definitely prefer the Halo series, but that probably has a lot to do with me being a sci-fi nerd. And... I actually dozed off while playing through the MW2 campaign.

So yea, Halo by far for me... but maybe more like "I prefer non-realistic shooters"

Choice between Giantdouche or Turdsandwich?

I choose Bad Company 2

illuknisaa wrote:Choice between Giantdouche or Turdsandwich?

I choose Bad Company 2

More like Bad Game 2 amiright?
Enjoy having every level higher than you having better gear and owning you easy.
And medic lmg spam
And 2-3 hit snipers
And vehicles
And worse-than-CoD knife mechanics
And the fething UAV of doom
And the spawn delay
And spawn camping being so easy to do

Slarg232 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Spawn Camping is why I love Gears of War's style, honestly. You have one life, don't waste it. No Spawn Camping, if they camp, you get the weapons. If they camp with the weapons, you are just terrible at the game.

I really liked this style from Gears of War, but in some ways I hated it too. I usually got killed pretty quickly and I had to spend 10 minutes watching everyone else run around. I barely played the game because of this.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Spawn Camping is why I love Gears of War's style, honestly. You have one life, don't waste it. No Spawn Camping, if they camp, you get the weapons. If they camp with the weapons, you are just terrible at the game.

I really liked this style from Gears of War, but in some ways I hated it too. I usually got killed pretty quickly and I had to spend 10 minutes watching everyone else run around. I barely played the game because of this.

Then you should practice and get better

Soladrin wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Actually, spawn camping IS a developer's fault. Camping really isn't.

Spawn Camping is why I love Gears of War's style, honestly. You have one life, don't waste it. No Spawn Camping, if they camp, you get the weapons. If they camp with the weapons, you are just terrible at the game.

I really liked this style from Gears of War, but in some ways I hated it too. I usually got killed pretty quickly and I had to spend 10 minutes watching everyone else run around. I barely played the game because of this.

Then you should practice and get better

I would like too, but I don't have enough time to play the game to get better. I might have an hour every other day or so to play games. That is sort of while I like RPGs because I can take my time on them. MMOGs take a lot of time as well, which is why I don't play them. Halo is different for me. I played the first three when I had more time. So Reach single player was easy enough for me and so was an occasional multiplayer game.

Stories aside, as there are things I like and dislike about both, and they're more subjective to people's taste and, frankly, biases.

The differences between gameplay, I think, boil down to one thing, at least on multiplayer in the standard game settings.

in Halo, you have shields, in CoD, you do not. This means that, in CoD, you generally die faster and often without warning. That is, unless you are able to see them first. Basically I feel that CoD is much more of a stealth/scout/flank game where Halo is more of a Movement/Reaction game. That is not to say that one does not share aspects of the other. A guy with a sniper rifle in either game against a guy slowly running across open terrain with no idea of the former's presence is going to own just as hard in either game. However, while maybe 1/4 times I will be surprised in CoD and still win, I would say that 5/8 times I'm jumped in Reach, I survive.

So here are the things I personally like about each game:

CoD:
-Customizeable weapons and classes that makes you feel, for lack of a better term, special.
- It has a very organic feel. When you die, your 1000 pound metal exo-suited frame doesn't go flying twenty feet through the air before bouncing, BOUNCING on a grassy field. When you die, your body goes limp, you collapse, and you proceed to bleed out at a prodigious rate

Halo:
-customizable armor, and colors. Again.. specialness. I also like how little it affects the game, and that you can watch your body explode in a screaming ball of confetti and joyful children
- Armor abilities: Jetpacking is really really cool.. armor lock is great, and the hologram is hilarious, if insanely difficult to use.
- lolz: Whether it's catching a thrown plasma grenade with a frag grenade that you've thrown, which then goes on to stick the guy who initially threw thw plasma grenade, or sniping someone, getting an inexplicable triple kill, which you then realize was caused by the bullet passing through your targets head, ricocheting off of walls and then passing through the heads of two other people you hadn't even seen previous to firing. For these reasons, halo is infinitely entertaining.

I am biased. I like Halo more. That doesn't mean that I dislike CoD.

CoD FTW!!!!!!!!!!!

Bah none of them are that good.

Storywise. Both crap get Bioshock for a real story.

Multiplayer: Not very impressive compared to say BC2.

I think both of these games are overated for what they are.

COD Black Ops bieng that it fixed the things the infinity screwed with up MW2 and made you pay for it.

And Halo Reach being the exact same game with little innovation or change.

But I know I will get many disagreements on this. It just annoys me that people like a game for its image not for what it really is.

wheres the option for "both pieces of overrated *********"

Please don't try and bypass the swearfilter, it's there for a reason. ta.

Halo is better than cod i prefer Bad Company 2 to cod as well

CoD is closing the gap. However, neither of these are my favorite shooters. The new CoD heavily favours spray and pray mentality or knife+ speed =win mentality. Both are rather lack luster and easy for anyone to do. Halo in all of it iterations feels to much like a console shooter, auto-aim, gimped controls, host advantage, etc. But thats what you get for being a console oriented game.

Halos multiplayer gameplay allowed actual team work. A single sniper in cod can ruin the entire teams day. You can actually hold a part of the map in halo, your tough, but not too tough. In cod a noob will just 360 noscope you from around a corner before any plan comes into action. In halo if you run into a room with 4 people, you've come to the end of the line. In cod theres nothing better, throw a nade and spray and get a 4 killstreak EASILY!

Jaon wrote:Halos multiplayer gameplay allowed actual team work. A single sniper in cod can ruin the entire teams day. You can actually hold a part of the map in halo, your tough, but not too tough. In cod a noob will just 360 noscope you from around a corner before any plan comes into action. In halo if you run into a room with 4 people, you've come to the end of the line. In cod theres nothing better, throw a nade and spray and get a 4 killstreak EASILY!

Exactly!

Yak9UT wrote:Multiplayer: Not very impressive compared to say BC2.

What, you'd rather exchange a fragfest for a campfest/spawncampfest?

As flawed as CoD is, usually at least you have to keep moving and don't die the instant you spawn unless there's a killstreak going on. Happens all the time in BFBC, with its flawed Squad system and spawning on squadmates lending itself to spawn camping far more than any CoD game.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/332472.page
slightly different question, but the majority of it's there. Halo or COD?

COD has better graphics and the ability to customise your weapons loadout and perks.
Halo has less "win at all costs" serious players, vehicles and the ability to change your armour and colours.
Halo is more for the "play for fun" gamers, while COD is more for the serious hardcore gamers.

Campaign:
Halo: 8/10.
decent storyline, variety of enemies (from grunts to hunters) and the use of vehicles, very fun all-round.
COD: 8/10.
moderate storyline, more "cinematic" and some special features not encountered online, fun but your character's ability to sprint through walls of buullets and survive direct hits with grenades and such lowers it a tad.

Zombies/living dead:
Halo: 6/10.
With "living dead", it's quite fun, but bungie should have made a little more effort towards getting the feeling of "zombies"- it's literally spartans with energy swords and evade and more speed fighting spartans with shotguns.
COD: 9/10.
lots of detail with the zombies and storyline, and your men "reviving" each other and such, it's really good, although I got bored with it after a month or so.

Online:
Halo: 8/10.
With fun players and vehicles, halo has more of the nicer players and less campers. There are a few occasional glitches, but the overall gameplay is decent.
COD: 8/10.
You can really only appreciate it once you're above level 30, as below that you get limited options as to wargear and such, and lots of campers and win-at-all-costs players.

this is being based on the two most recent games these two have made- halo: reach and COD: black ops. It really all goes back to the start of my post- If you're serious gamer, COD is more your cup of tea. Players who game for fun, halo is the way to go.

Strimen wrote: Halo in all of it iterations feels to much like a console shooter, auto-aim, gimped controls, host advantage, etc. But thats what you get for being a console oriented game.

This just makes me think you aren't very good at Halo. Reach has very little aim assist compared to say, Halo 2's aim assist.

I have to say, I like the controls for Halo quite a bit. Obviously they are not the same as mouse-kb, but on a console, they work very well. Host advantage in Reach isn't nearly as apparent as it was in say... GoW/GoW2.

Its hard to compare MW2/BFBC2 and Halo... I'd say that BFBC2 and MW2 are MUCH more similar than either of them are to Halo multiplayer. Halo and Gears are likely more similar than BFBC2/MW2, since even in Gears you kind of have a "shield" effect because you can take several hits before going down.

Like Lord PoPo said, BFBC2/MW2 are more about stealth/flanking/getting the drop, moreso than strafing/reaction/aiming game like Halo/GoW/Quake.

This is kind of like how dissimilar SC2 and DoW2 are. They are both RTSs, but they play VERY differently.

Melissia wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:Multiplayer: Not very impressive compared to say BC2.

What, you'd rather exchange a fragfest for a campfest/spawncampfest?

As flawed as CoD is, usually at least you have to keep moving and don't die the instant you spawn unless there's a killstreak going on. Happens all the time in BFBC, with its flawed Squad system and spawning on squadmates lending itself to spawn camping far more than any CoD game.

I agree thier can be a few sniper kill joys in BC2.

But that isnt going to ruin the intire game.

Besides alot of campers are useaully on the offence team in rush and in turn lose the match

The spawn camping has more to do with vehicles than snipers.

Melissia wrote:The spawn camping has more to do with vehicles than snipers.

You arent counting spawn camping on defensive team in Rush are you?

I don't have much problem with vehicle campers at spawn but I do go to servers that kick people who just camp at uncap in a vehicle or not.

Halo has always been the mediocre standard for FPS games. Watching paint dry is more original and fun than Halo.

I am not a fan of CoD either, but I would take that then Halo anyday.

BuFFo wrote:Halo has always been the mediocre standard for FPS games. Watching paint dry is more original and fun than Halo.

I am not a fan of CoD either, but I would take that then Halo anyday.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Also, I disagree. Personally I think that Halo has more depth than any military shooter I've played (which is pretty much all of them).

Yak9UT wrote:

Melissia wrote:The spawn camping has more to do with vehicles than snipers.

You arent counting spawn camping on defensive team in Rush are you?

I don't have much problem with vehicle campers at spawn but I do go to servers that kick people who just camp at uncap in a vehicle or not.

I'm talking about all game modes. Circling around a spawn killing people with a transport chopper is very common.

On the subject of spawning and then getting killed by vehicles, yesterday me and my brother were playing invasion. A banshee was shooting a teammate, and tried to run him over. He jumps over it, me and my brother spawn on top of each other and we both get killed instead- we respawned right in front of it. -.-

And that is why I haven't put that game into my disk tray since my xbox red-ringed about a month before black ops. (Black Ops took its place, naturally )

Air vehicles are always a no-no in games, imho.

shrike wrote:On the subject of spawning and then getting killed by vehicles, yesterday me and my brother were playing invasion. A banshee was shooting a teammate, and tried to run him over. He jumps over it, me and my brother spawn on top of each other and we both get killed instead- we respawned right in front of it. -.-

Invasion is always crazy, and tbh that is just something that would make me laugh
That's what you get for spawning on your bro co-op style, I've definitely fallen to my death spawning on my teammate when they have been in a flying vehicle before.

When it happened I didn't understand...then I saw it in theatre mode and LOLed. In the same game my brother was halfway through the air man-cannoning and I respawned...d'oh...

shrike wrote:When it happened I didn't understand...then I saw it in theatre mode and LOLed. In the same game my brother was halfway through the air man-cannoning and I respawned...d'oh...

lolololololol
Nothing like that has happened to me yet



Oh! how Thy wish to laugh at my FAILS!

Yeah, I tried to save it onto my memory stick to put up on youtube, but my laptop won't accept it or something...dang...I really wanted to enter it into roosterteeth's "fails of the weak"...aw, man...

They're both just FPS...

By that reasoning, FFXIII and TES Morrowind are both simply RPGs too. Doesn't mean they're the same.

Phototoxin wrote:They're both just FPS...

Like saying DoW2 and SC2 are the same.

Shrike wrote:You can really only appreciate it once you're above level 30, as below that you get limited options as to wargear and such

With Black Ops i'm going to have to disagree. All Perks and equipment are open to any levels, you get the Ak74u, AUG, all the snipers, Stakeout, M16, MPK5 all before level 30.

Like saying DoW2 and SC2 are the same.

By that reasoning, FFXIII and TES Morrowind are both simply RPGs too. Doesn't mean they're the same.

FFXIII is a Jrpg so has a completely different system to TES. TES is a first person RPG with a different system.

In halo you run around and shoot things ad infinatum. Ditto for CoD. Both were overhyped and brought nothing new to their genres. Atleast TES was revolutionary for RPGs at the time.

Phototoxin wrote:FFXIII is a Jrpg so has a completely different system to TES.

They're both just RPGs.

Melissia wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:FFXIII is a Jrpg so has a completely different system to TES.

They're both just RPGs.

I hate to admit it, but Melissa has a point. Frequently you will see me spouting off about Demon's Souls and Final Fantasy XIII not being RPGs. I say this because this isn't what I want in a RPG, but no matter how much I say it, that is what they are. Heck I don't even consider FF XIII a JRPG, but it still is.

The thing is, saying CoD and Halo are "just FPS" is a major oversimplification. They function completely different. One is made for entertainment and the other is made for propaganda. I wonder how many panties will bung up with that statement...

I certainly thought that CoD:Black Ops was propoganda being proffered by a cold war conspiracy theorist. And it was hilarious.

Lord Scythican wrote:The thing is, saying CoD and Halo are "just FPS" is a major oversimplification. They function completely different. One is made for entertainment and the other is made for propaganda. I wonder how many panties will bung up with that statement...

+1 internets for you. QFT.

Thank you all for writing down your opinions in this thread. I just love reading this thread every day.

Phototoxin wrote:

In halo you run around and shoot things ad infinatum. Ditto for CoD. Both were overhyped and brought nothing new to their genres. Atleast TES was revolutionary for RPGs at the time.

I think we get that you don't like FPSs. I'd say that Halo AND CoD have brought some major fundamental change to shooters since the days of Doom and Quake. Also, Gears of War definitely brought about change in the genre for third person shooters (was there even good third person shooters before GoW?).

Ok, I'm curious, how is BO Propaganda? I haven't played it, so generally curious.


Also; Bioshock 2's multiplayer is dominate.

Dunno, I thought it more parody of cold war propaganda than actual propaganda.

I have to say that it was a parody, an OTT parody. If you watch the ending right after you beat the game there's NAVY ships everywhere and jets are flying overhead and epic music is playing. When you're choking Dragovich in the end Mason says "Tried to make me kill my own president." and I can swear that Dragovich says "Right" in a manner like "I know right?"

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

In halo you run around and shoot things ad infinatum. Ditto for CoD. Both were overhyped and brought nothing new to their genres. Atleast TES was revolutionary for RPGs at the time.

I think we get that you don't like FPSs. I'd say that Halo AND CoD have brought some major fundamental change to shooters since the days of Doom and Quake. Also, Gears of War definitely brought about change in the genre for third person shooters (was there even good third person shooters before GoW?).

GRAW2 is the best 13$ you will ever spend.
(Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2)
13$ used at gamestop
A very good 3rd person shooter.

stompydakka wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

In halo you run around and shoot things ad infinatum. Ditto for CoD. Both were overhyped and brought nothing new to their genres. Atleast TES was revolutionary for RPGs at the time.

I think we get that you don't like FPSs. I'd say that Halo AND CoD have brought some major fundamental change to shooters since the days of Doom and Quake. Also, Gears of War definitely brought about change in the genre for third person shooters (was there even good third person shooters before GoW?).

GRAW2 is the best 13$ you will ever spend.
(Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2)
13$ used at gamestop
A very good 3rd person shooter.

You are invalid!