Is this really a valid question? Halo of course. Decent enough graphics, better than Cod at least. This includes better animations, character models, environment effects like water, smoke and explosions. Better in-game balance. Every weapon has it's use, it's place, the game is driven by who has the power weapons, each of which has major draw-backs and are scarce. Much better community support, includes actually responding to community needs by giving new gametypes and community built forge maps. Bungie.net? Yeah, that's much better than anything CoD could hope to have. More options in custom games and character models, has a different style to the custom classes in CoD so difficult to compare. Much greater community interaction with clans, file-shares and recommended maps.
Halo Reach was the only Halo game I managed to enjoy, but that was because of the zombie and SWAT modes. Besides those two modes I really don't enjoy it. Black Ops has several modes that I enjoy so that's why I enjoyed it.
Will indeed say that Halo Reach's customization is a far cry from ODST's and the previous Halo's.
Oh, and gibbing, I love the gibbing in single player.
Tazz Azrael wrote:I picked Black Ops just because i can dink around with weapon customization (and get the 3 triangle dots so i can have Predator reticules )
halonachos wrote:Halo Reach was the only Halo game I managed to enjoy, but that was because of the zombie and SWAT modes. Besides those two modes I really don't enjoy it. Black Ops has several modes that I enjoy so that's why I enjoyed it.
Will indeed say that Halo Reach's customization is a far cry from ODST's and the previous Halo's.
Oh, and gibbing, I love the gibbing in single player.
Why do so many people like SWAT? I think messing around with my armor pieces in the lobby is more entertaining. SWAT removes everything that makes halo fun (Vehicles, weapon variety, grenades, equipment) and leaves you with a very bland shooter if you ask me. Big team is best
After the horrible aftertaste left from Halo 2's ending I'd have to say Black Ops.
Plus, Reach is the second most overrated game in history behind FF7.
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:After the horrible aftertaste left from Halo 2's ending I'd have to say Black Ops.
Plus, Reach is the second most overrated game in history behind FF7.
The ending of Halo 2 makes you prefer Blops over Reach?
Odd... i thought most people had gotten over that by now.
Reach isn't that overrated IMO
If by "they share the same gameplay style" you mean "they are both first person shooters", then I would agree with you. Otherwise they play quite differently because they use different mechanics for health and damage, as well as the difference in speed of play.
The Dreadnote wrote:If by "they share the same gameplay style" you mean "they are both first person shooters", then I would agree with you. Otherwise they play quite differently because they use different mechanics for health and damage, as well as the difference in speed of play.
Yeah pretty much.
I consider the other stuff gameplay mechnics.
This is like picking between Ebola and diabetes (no offence to either).
I'd rather pick the one I can manage (just) than a short agonizing death. so BO for me.
yes, activision are the root of all evil. yes BO is probably the most imbalanced of all the CoDs (so far). but its still playable.
Halo ceased to be a good IP once future combat was made. Halo 3 (where my hate started) is incredibly bland (surprising since it throws around more colours than a rainbow), unoriginal, all the weapons feel like tinker toys and the multiplayer is a blight on humanity.
BO is ruined by the publisher and the community. Halo is ruined by the developers, the publishers and the community
airsoftmanic wrote:This is like picking between Ebola and diabetes (no offence to either).
I'd rather pick the one I can manage (just) than a short agonizing death. so BO for me.
yes, activision are the root of all evil. yes BO is probably the most imbalanced of all the CoDs (so far). but its still playable.
Halo ceased to be a good IP once future combat was made. Halo 3 (where my hate started) is incredibly bland (surprising since it throws around more colours than a rainbow), unoriginal, all the weapons feel like tinker toys and the multiplayer is a blight on humanity.
BO is ruined by the publisher and the community. Halo is ruined by the developers, the publishers and the community
What's so bad about halo multiplayer? And the weapons didn't really change much in between games, just got new ones.
airsoftmanic wrote:This is like picking between Ebola and diabetes (no offence to either).
I'd rather pick the one I can manage (just) than a short agonizing death. so BO for me.
yes, activision are the root of all evil. yes BO is probably the most imbalanced of all the CoDs (so far). but its still playable.
Halo ceased to be a good IP once future combat was made. Halo 3 (where my hate started) is incredibly bland (surprising since it throws around more colours than a rainbow), unoriginal, all the weapons feel like tinker toys and the multiplayer is a blight on humanity.
BO is ruined by the publisher and the community. Halo is ruined by the developers, the publishers and the community
What's so bad about halo multiplayer? And the weapons didn't really change much in between games, just got new ones.
The Maulers were horrendously unbalanced... But yeah, other than that there wasn't a marvelous difference between H2 and H3.
Halo multiplayer is in my own opinion, one of worst in existence due to the following:
- maps. there are some gems to be found, but considering the amount of gak surrounding them its a moot point.
- unbalanced to hell. yes maulers are OP, so are laser swords, so is the carbine, so is the sniper rifle...... considering this game is supposed to make it quite hard to kill people in general, having a large array weapons in the game that negate this.
-community. this by far is the single reason I sold my 360. i have never in my life met a worse bunch of degraded sub-humans. by god its worse than CoD, and that's saying something. i understand every game has that certain, bad smelling section to it's community but Halo's bad smelling section encompasses at least 70% of the whole community. that in itself demands that the game be declared excommunicate from the gaming community at large (and already has).
and my complaint wasn't that the guns were unoriginal, I meant that none of the guns felt like they had any weight behind them. for example, the "mattel" 16 if anyone knows what that means.
Both games offer enjoyable single player experiences, but while Black Ops has good online play, Reach's online offerings are garbage. Going with Call of Duty on this one (though honestly, they're both good games).
I dislike games where its
'run to the best gun'
A. Did you get it:
Yes-> win game
No-> lose game/ ragequit
I dont like how 1 ton suits of armor BOUNCE when the hit the ground after rag dolling around
I dont like either games CC. Both are dumb
I dont like COD's fanbase because of excessive talking. I dont like halo's because of no talking
There are problems with both games, but I feel halo has WAY more issues
airsoftmanic wrote:Halo multiplayer is in my own opinion, one of worst in existence due to the following:
- maps. there are some gems to be found, but considering the amount of gak surrounding them its a moot point.
- unbalanced to hell. yes maulers are OP, so are laser swords, so is the carbine, so is the sniper rifle...... considering this game is supposed to make it quite hard to kill people in general, having a large array weapons in the game that negate this.
-community. this by far is the single reason I sold my 360. i have never in my life met a worse bunch of degraded sub-humans. by god its worse than CoD, and that's saying something. i understand every game has that certain, bad smelling section to it's community but Halo's bad smelling section encompasses at least 70% of the whole community. that in itself demands that the game be declared excommunicate from the gaming community at large (and already has).
and my complaint wasn't that the guns were unoriginal, I meant that none of the guns felt like they had any weight behind them. for example, the "mattel" 16 if anyone knows what that means.
Oh god, I thought, hey this guy might have a sound point, but when you complained about the community and the power weapons being over-powered I juts lost all respect. A few other things as well. Maulers, and the carbine are not in Halo Reach, so you're basing an opinion off a different game. Secondly, the point of the power weapons is that they're overpowered, they drive the game-play, speed things up, throw in a curve ball every now and then. Their power is negated in that there's either one on each team, or there's only one, in the middle of the map. They're low on ammo, with a long re-spawn timer and all have significant disadvantages. The sniper is hopeless at close range, the sword is hopeless at any other range but close, and it's damn easy to take out any player with them. Lastly, since when has the mauler and the carbine been overpowered? I've racked up several thousand games on Halo 3, and every time a person either walks over the them, or chooses the BR. Even when I did use them, I used them for fun, I still preferred the shotgun or the br, or even the assault rifle.
I'd like you to kindly describe what parts of the community are worse than CoD's worse than the campers, game obsessed, futile quick-scopers and clan idiots.
considering the title of the thread is "Halo vs CoD" i ignored the fact that he is trying to compare reach and BO, and just stuck with the thread title. hence the weapon comparisons.
I think I will take back the overpowered weapons quip, since I suppose every game has OP weapons (the FAMAS immediately pops to mind), but I still say all the weapons feel like Mattel toys.
"campers, game obsessed, futile quick-scopers and clan idiots." all of which are in halo. there's just alot more of them in halo. you also get excessive bunny hoppers in Halo, since the game mechanics actually encourage bouncing up and down like a mentally deficient person.
the one shining thing i can say about Halo (at least for Halo 3, not sure if its in the sequels) is the training, or rookie mode. its the single worthwhile thing i would take out of the game to implement somewhere else.
another thing you have reminded me of is the incessant need and hunger for halo-boys to vigorously defend Halo, even with their dying breaths.
Not that you are defending it to that extent but its another factor that brings up the bile for me.
both games are good, but the people who play CoD that I know are always Dou**es. I have found people on halo to be alot less arrogant and fewer of them have their heads up their A** than CoD fans, based on the people that I have met online.
Automatically Appended Next Post: also, i just prefer halo gameplay
Automatically Appended Next Post: btw, its strategic sitting, not camping
airsoftmanic wrote:I think I will take back the overpowered weapons quip, since I suppose every game has OP weapons (the FAMAS immediately pops to mind), but I still say all the weapons feel like Mattel toys.
Oh boy does every game have overpowered weapons. The Rocket Launcher and the DMR/BR are Halo's overpowered weapons. The former is a power weapon, without the significant draw-backs of others, and the DMR/BR is just too damn common, powerful, and accurate.
"campers, game obsessed, futile quick-scopers and clan idiots." all of which are in halo. there's just alot more of them in halo. you also get excessive bunny hoppers in Halo, since the game mechanics actually encourage bouncing up and down like a mentally deficient person.
Nope, the CoD population is a lot bigger, there's a lot more in CoD, because camping and ranking up are easier. There are no quick-scopers in Halo, and there are a lot less serious clans let me assure you of that. Jumping is a different game-mechanic, one that I don't think is as prevalent as you suggest.
the one shining thing i can say about Halo (at least for Halo 3, not sure if its in the sequels) is the training, or rookie mode. its the single worthwhile thing i would take out of the game to implement somewhere else.
I can't remember if Reach had Boot Camp, CoD certainly didn't, although advanced playlists are unlocked through rank, so it has a similar system.
another thing you have reminded me of is the incessant need and hunger for halo-boys to vigorously defend Halo, even with their dying breaths. Not that you are defending it to that extent but its another factor that brings up the bile for me.
I take it you've never spoken to the CoD fanboys. Seriously, they're very much in denial of every little thing that's wrong with it, even I recognize that Halo has a weak stroryline, with wooden characters that were hyped up by the Developer, and a lack of variety in maps for game-modes like Firefight.
I said weak, not lack. I now I think weak is the wrong word. Maybe, convoluted, a bit wrapped up in it's own epicness. I enjoyed it to be sure, the trilogy had a great storyline, marred be the reasons above. ODST was better, with a meh, ending, Reach was also meh, and irritated me because it shat on the work of several authors.
they are both horrible FPS. i would put them on par with Counter Strike, Unreal and Quake. its just mindless running and shooting with minimal tactics. Battlefield blows both of these franchises out of the water.
airsoftmanic wrote:considering the title of the thread is "Halo vs CoD" i ignored the fact that he is trying to compare reach and BO, and just stuck with the thread title. hence the weapon comparisons.
I think I will take back the overpowered weapons quip, since I suppose every game has OP weapons (the FAMAS immediately pops to mind), but I still say all the weapons feel like Mattel toys.
"campers, game obsessed, futile quick-scopers and clan idiots." all of which are in halo. there's just alot more of them in halo. you also get excessive bunny hoppers in Halo, since the game mechanics actually encourage bouncing up and down like a mentally deficient person.
the one shining thing i can say about Halo (at least for Halo 3, not sure if its in the sequels) is the training, or rookie mode. its the single worthwhile thing i would take out of the game to implement somewhere else.
another thing you have reminded me of is the incessant need and hunger for halo-boys to vigorously defend Halo, even with their dying breaths.
Not that you are defending it to that extent but its another factor that brings up the bile for me.
Well, it seems you know nothing about the current Halo community if your basing everything off halo 3. Campers? Never see them, and even then, nothing a plasma grenade can't deal with. Bunny hopping? Seriously? Not one Halo game has that, your thinking about quake and UT here. Bunny hopping in halo makes you an easy target for snipers, and slows your movement speed.
Also, please stop using Yahtzee's comments, the whole mattel joke died an hour after that episode was out.
And is with any online game, pleasure increases by a huge amount if you play with a party of friends instead of randoms, and with halo, this pits you against other premade parties most of the time, ensuring either great games, or great tomfoolery.
Anyone claiming CoD is more "realistic" also needs to clarify their statements. There's almost nothing about the gameplay of CoD that even approaches realism. The only thing realistic about it is the setting.
halonachos wrote: Will indeed say that Halo Reach's customization is a far cry from ODST's and the previous Halo's.
Woooot? What gives you that idea?
Yeah... That statements gonna need some explaining... On its face it seems utterly... I don't want to say wrong... well yeah. Wrong.
Well the fact that there are all of the different armor pieces, helmets, shoulder pads, etc I think that its a bit better. Unless you're playing as the elite where you have 3 choices.
There is one saving grace for Halo Reach, and that's what it did for Red vs Blue. But then again Treyarch does fine with its own trailers and videos, seeing a Spetznaz and OP 40 soldier singing 'Winds of Change' while using flamethrowing machine guns as guitars is pretty amazing.
halonachos wrote:Well the fact that there are all of the different armor pieces, helmets, shoulder pads, etc I think that its a bit better. Unless you're playing as the elite where you have 3 choices.
See clarification helps
Gonna have to disagree thought. Elites didn't get all the armor options because they're nowhere near as popular in multiplayer. Besides, they have about the same number of permutations as before (there are like, 6 or seven Elite armors in Reach ), you just can't mix and match the pieces. The Spartan customization went way up. There's more customization in Reach than almost any other FPS for consoles
Yeah, my Green Bay Packer Spartan is the most feared of all the spartans. Especially with his bicycle helmet of specialness! By bike helmet I mean the MP helmet which looks like a Bell bicycle helmet.
halonachos wrote:Well the fact that there are all of the different armor pieces, helmets, shoulder pads, etc I think that its a bit better. Unless you're playing as the elite where you have 3 choices.
See clarification helps
Gonna have to disagree thought. Elites didn't get all the armor options because they're nowhere near as popular in multiplayer. Besides, they have about the same number of permutations as before (there are like, 6 or seven Elite armors in Reach ), you just can't mix and match the pieces. The Spartan customization went way up. There's more customization in Reach than almost any other FPS for consoles
Thats bs. elites should have had epic customization too. It was so lame to play assault or w/e and have the whole enemy team of elites have the same armor.
I've seen plenty of little kids in both. It's hardly a criticism that can only be leveled against only one.
Yeah but Halo doesn't say the F-word in quantities like CoD does. That and shooting aliens is more acceptable than shooting realistic people, its a good sci-fi game, prefer Killzone because its darker but then again I like games with less flashy graphics.
Thats bs. elites should have had epic customization too. It was so lame to play assault or w/e and have the whole enemy team of elites have the same armor.
I made no comment on if they should have had armor customization on par with the spartans. But to claim that there is less customization in Reach than in Halo 3 is patently wrong. The Elites just didn't get anything new to play with. A lot of people probably don't even bother changing their elite armor from default. As far back as Halo 2 the elite skins have been so substantially fewer than spartan skins in use I'm shocked that they bother including elites as an option tbh.
I don't see where people get that Black Ops is the worst CoD ever. I was playing the whole 'Modern Warfare' style game before Modern Warfare introduced gaming to fratboys everywhere so Black Ops' Vietnam and other style setting is refreshing to me. Medal of Honor was also my preferred WW2 shooter back in the day and I will always charging up the beaches of Normandy and watching that one fellow stepping on a landmine, launching into the air, and getting blown up on another landmine.
Got to say that I like Black Ops' setting because I didn't really play any Vietnam Era shooters and sure they went with a Tom Clancy plot, but I like Tom Clancy no matter how far fetched it may get.
I also don't see the difference in graphics, maybe on standard definition TVs there's a difference but in HD there really isn't.
halonachos wrote:I don't see where people get that Black Ops is the worst CoD ever. I was playing the whole 'Modern Warfare' style game before Modern Warfare introduced gaming to fratboys everywhere so Black Ops' Vietnam and other style setting is refreshing to me. Medal of Honor was also my preferred WW2 shooter back in the day and I will always charging up the beaches of Normandy and watching that one fellow stepping on a landmine, launching into the air, and getting blown up on another landmine.
Got to say that I like Black Ops' setting because I didn't really play any Vietnam Era shooters and sure they went with a Tom Clancy plot, but I like Tom Clancy no matter how far fetched it may get.
I also don't see the difference in graphics, maybe on standard definition TVs there's a difference but in HD there really isn't.
I think it's mostly to do with the fact that everyone hates CoD for stagnating the entire genre of FPS', and that Black Ops is basically the same as Modern Warfare 2 and will be the same as Modern Warfare 3.
Though, now that Microsoft has Halo, it's probably going to be the same exact thing with Halo's 4, 5, and 6....
You mean Halo's 1-3 weren't the same? ODST was something different, but I actually didn't like the set up. Reach was alright, but not too different from the first Halos.
Halo 4 upset me, Halo 3 had a good ending. Masterchief didn't die and he didn't save the world and it left a good feeling. His job was done and he was in cryo in case something else happened, but his job was done. They didn't jump the shark with the ending and it just felt right.
Don't start arguing on originality in the context of Halo and CoD. In 10 years Halo has 5 games. In 9 years, CoD has about 13. In Halo, there were many changes between them, the same principles were kept and they remained similar. In CoD, literally nothing was changed until they made Black Ops.
As I said, I generally dislike Halo but Reach was a great game and would've left good memories. The hype there may be for Halo 4 will probably ruin the game.
However, the thread is about CoD vs Halo. As far as Black Ops goes I think its one of the better CoD games because it covers the Vietnam Era which hasn't been done in a CoD game before. Black Ops has the first playable female character in the series and I'm sure its one of the only CoD games where you have to kill a female at some point. The overarching conspiracy story fits the era when the government was held suspect by many conspiracy theorists. I also enjoy the easter eggs included in the game, the manaquin easter egg in Nuketown is one of them and the wanted posters in convoy for a kid wanted for 'pwning noobs' is another. It shows that Treyarch had fun while making the game.
Halo Reach was the last game made by Bungie and the graphics are fantastic, a bit darker than the other Halos which fits, but great graphics. The story isn't new, the books covered it well before but the story is good for the setting. Bungie has fun making its games as shown in the inclusion of the voices of the guys from Red vs Blue in Halo 3. Halo Reach also includes a female voice although they put little work into the character model to actually show that its a woman(as stated by Zipper Entertainment when they were asked why they didn't include female characters in MAG: Women have different body structures and different gaits and with high definition graphics players would be able to notice if they used the same structures and would complain.) apparantly Zipper was wrong and all you have to do is say that a woman is wearing armor. Not: Zipper included a female playable character in SOCOM 4.
@iproxtaco
The CoD games were mostly based off of WW2, if you want to compare Halo's creativity to CoD's then they're actually the same despite the number of games produced. Halo's sci-fi setting isn't anything new, artificial planets, soldiers dropping into hostile territory and succumbing to an enemy advance, etc have all been done and all Halo did was apply aliens and supersoldiers a la Captain America.
And as I've said before: Halo Reach may be singly responsible for destroying the Halo canon by invalidating almost the entire ending of The Fall of Reach, effectively retconning the book and those that depended on it (First Strike and Ghosts of Onyx).
Halo reach had a boring multiplayer that failed to captivate me like halo 3. While its campaign was really good, it destroyed the story arc completely like John did to the first Halo.
CoD blackops also became disappointing after a weekend of nonstop nuketown 24/7. That was so great, normal blackops became boring as well. Nazi zombies however, makes up for it and I vote for Black ops.
If it was Halo in general versus CoD in general, Halo would totally win. But I'm sorry, Nazi zombies is just too damn awesome.
The CoD games were mostly based off of WW2, if you want to compare Halo's creativity to CoD's then they're actually the same despite the number of games produced. Halo's sci-fi setting isn't anything new, artificial planets, soldiers dropping into hostile territory and succumbing to an enemy advance, etc have all been done and all Halo did was apply aliens and supersoldiers a la Captain America.
I'm not go too in depth with the originality of Halo when not comparing it, as Halo 1 was the defining FPS, maybe even defining Game of the modern console generation. The story was great, the features were great, it brought the generic Super solider and humans vs aliens story to the masses, but added in a twist, a curve ball. Now CoD. Most of the games are set in WW2. Then they moved to the modern setting, which was a bold move and obviously paid off big time, and I enjoyed CoD 4 a lot. However, nothing, gameplay wise changed between them, and I mean literally nothing. MW2 didn't change at all, Black Ops is the only truly innovative of all 13 games they've released, and that's based solely off the CoD points, which is entirely different from the system in most other shooters. Everything else, the theater, the emblems, had been seen before. Now, you may not want to admit it but, where were they seen in the mass market before? Halo. Since Halo 3 actually. That said, Halo did take a few ideas from CoD, namely the classes, but they did it in their own little way, by hinging them on the armour abilities, but the source is obvious. Both games could learn a lot from the other, for example, I would like a more in-depth Halo campaign where you can pick your armour and spend points on weapons loadouts and attachments ala Black Ops. I would like customizeable characters and Forge World system for CoD.
The CoD games were mostly based off of WW2, if you want to compare Halo's creativity to CoD's then they're actually the same despite the number of games produced. Halo's sci-fi setting isn't anything new, artificial planets, soldiers dropping into hostile territory and succumbing to an enemy advance, etc have all been done and all Halo did was apply aliens and supersoldiers a la Captain America.
I'm not go too in depth with the originality of Halo when not comparing it, as Halo 1 was the defining FPS, maybe even defining Game of the modern console generation. The story was great, the features were great, it brought the generic Super solider and humans vs aliens story to the masses, but added in a twist, a curve ball. Now CoD. Most of the games are set in WW2. Then they moved to the modern setting, which was a bold move and obviously paid off big time, and I enjoyed CoD 4 a lot. However, nothing, gameplay wise changed between them, and I mean literally nothing. MW2 didn't change at all, Black Ops is the only truly innovative of all 13 games they've released, and that's based solely off the CoD points, which is entirely different from the system in most other shooters. Everything else, the theater, the emblems, had been seen before. Now, you may not want to admit it but, where were they seen in the mass market before? Halo. Since Halo 3 actually. That said, Halo did take a few ideas from CoD, namely the classes, but they did it in their own little way, by hinging them on the armour abilities, but the source is obvious. Both games could learn a lot from the other, for example, I would like a more in-depth Halo campaign where you can pick your armour and spend points on weapons loadouts and attachments ala Black Ops. I would like customizeable characters and Forge World system for CoD.
So basically you agreed with me?
Those features have been seen in games like Starsiege: Tribes and a game known as Timesplitters had a map customization mode. Then there's Quake, to tell you the truth I would have to say that Halo hasn't really offered me anything I actually liked. I prefer Battlefield BC 2's multiplayer because of the fact that health doesn't regenerate, kind of like in TF2.
Halo Reach seemed a bit different and for some reason I find the armor better looking than the others, it looks soft kind of like taffy, but it's still appealing. As far as Aliens vs Humans I believe it was called Alien vs Predator and then Alien: Colonial Marines. Its a space marine game, a well done space marine game but its similar to how MW is a war game but a somewhat well done war game.
Its also a fact that according to G4 007 Goldeneye beat Halo 1 and 2 in multiplayer because of the fact that both of them were considered defining games but Goldeneye had more character selection in multiplayer.
One of the reasons that I have always liked halo is because i have been able to play it longer. My mom would not let me buy CoD until i was 16, i got halo at 12. Her reasoning was that she didnt like shooting "people" and thought that halo was less realistic. to quote her "i dont care about swearin' or bewbs, i just hate all the blood and gore!"
Soladrin wrote:Colonial Marines isn't even out yet...
I could've sworn that there was an Aliens game called Colonial Marines before, probably thinking about the box art from Aliens vs Predator when I was younger. The game had a flap in the front you could open and now that I think about it there were also aliens and predators included. Probably an older Aleins vs Predator game then. Either way Colonial Marines and the Mobile Infantry were probably some of the first recognizable 'space marines'.
Listened to it. If anything it only reinforced my opinion that CoD is worse than Halo. At least the clips of Reach and Halo 3 had skill involved in them.
Spartan 117 wrote:All the dumb fan boys here... Just wait 'till Gears of War 3 comes out. It's better than both.
Aren't the genres a bit different (between "both" and GoW) for that comparison to be made?
Not really no. You can kinda compare them by how many hours you put into each. That reflects your personal preference of either game. We can never compare gameplay but we can compare that. This is the reason why I gave up on IGN because they expect every new shooter to be what Cod 4 was. They are absolutely biased.
Spartan 117 wrote:All the dumb fan boys here... Just wait 'till Gears of War 3 comes out. It's better than both.
Aren't the genres a bit different (between "both" and GoW) for that comparison to be made?
Not really no. You can kinda compare them by how many hours you put into each. That reflects your personal preference of either game. We can never compare gameplay but we can compare that. This is the reason why I gave up on IGN because they expect every new shooter to be what Cod 4 was. They are absolutely biased.
Yes because a sci-fi third person shooter has so much in common with a modern fps..
Anyway, why does preferring one game over the other always make you a fanboy? Seriously mister Spartan117, your coming off as the biggest one here with your gow3 comment...
Spartan 117 wrote:All the dumb fan boys on here...... Just wait till Gears of War 3 comes out. Its better then both.
Name+This post=Irony
Thats the absolute best part of it! Im a fan boy but I will not out right say "my game is better thenyours" like some others do
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote:
Spartan 117 wrote:
Destrado wrote:
Spartan 117 wrote:All the dumb fan boys here... Just wait 'till Gears of War 3 comes out. It's better than both.
Aren't the genres a bit different (between "both" and GoW) for that comparison to be made?
Not really no. You can kinda compare them by how many hours you put into each. That reflects your personal preference of either game. We can never compare gameplay but we can compare that. This is the reason why I gave up on IGN because they expect every new shooter to be what Cod 4 was. They are absolutely biased.
Yes because a sci-fi third person shooter has so much in common with a modern fps..
Anyway, why does preferring one game over the other always make you a fanboy? Seriously mister Spartan117, your coming off as the biggest one here with your gow3 comment...
How is my comment being fan boyish. First look at my username...... Also GOW 3's preorders numbers are larger then both the 2 games then the OP had stated to compare had. Thats not opionated but is actual fact lol. I work in the gaming industry as well in the retailing of video games as well so I pretty much play just about everything. But my opinion is my opinion is my opinion, you dont have to tie your panties in bunch.
Spartan 117 wrote:All the dumb fan boys on here...... Just wait till Gears of War 3 comes out. Its better then both.
Name+This post=Irony
Thats the absolute best part of it! Im a fan boy but I will not out right say "my game is better thenyours" like some others do
Did you read your first post?
"Just wait until Gears of War 3 comes out. It's better than both."
I didn't even need to write that since it's just up there...
GoW 3's pre-order figures are larger than those two games? The first is a single game, the other two are franchises. CoD and Halo have surpassed Gears of War many times in pre-orders. If it's just Reach and Black Ops you're comparing, then sure. Pre-orders can change, it;s entirely likely that MW3 will surpass it, same with Halo 4. It's also not a telling of quality, Black Ops showed that in my opinion.
You make that comment about Gears of War 3, then you're trolling or just odd to think that you would get any other reaction.
Ya Im comparing it to it Black Ops and Reach's figures. And from what I've seen thus far even from the multiplayer beta in GOW 3 and from being at E3 the multiplayer in GOW 3 will be / is already more balanced then both of the systems that COD and Halo Reach use. Im not trolling Im just trying to explain my opinion and back it up with facts because I work in the video gamie industry. Its my job. I get a lot of the perks such as play testing and such but I haven't done any of that for Halo 4 or MW3 yet. MW3 I know for a fact I'll get an invite before a possible beta release, so that will be cool. But just by looking at my username you should know what my favorite game is. I honestly do believe all those Xbox players out there will all be getting GOW 3 when it comes out and I surely believe with what I saw at E3 combined with the beta, that GOW 3 will have what it takes to keep players around playing it for a longer time compared to the likes of systems of Halo and COD. We can statistically see this 6 months after all the games release and look at xbox. com and see what gamers are playing because they post the most popular titles being played currently on Live. But then again this is my opinion.
But then again its all opinion based and its really what YOU prefer to play. Sorry to upset the fanboys by bringing in statistics.
Also Im sure MW3 will surpass it but right now there is a current deal at Gamestop for Battlefield 3 that could even surpass the MW3 if it does. if you reserve it you are getting the best edition of the game for the same price as the regular. Plus your getting the DLC already on the disc as well.
I never like gears of war, not a fan of third person shooters that much.....call of duty went down hill for infinity ward after MW1 and treyarch after world at war, and bungie isn't making halo anymore so I'm not sure what I think on that, overall I'm not looking forward to any of those games too much, I just need my Space Marine and some Elder scrolls 5 and I'm a happy happy happy camper!
Spartan 117 wrote:Ya Im comparing it to it Black Ops and Reach's figures. And from what I've seen thus far even from the multiplayer beta in GOW 3 and from being at E3 the multiplayer in GOW 3 will be / is already more balanced then both of the systems that COD and Halo Reach use. Im not trolling Im just trying to explain my opinion and back it up with facts because I work in the video gamie industry. Its my job. I get a lot of the perks such as play testing and such but I haven't done any of that for Halo 4 or MW3 yet. MW3 I know for a fact I'll get an invite before a possible beta release, so that will be cool. But just by looking at my username you should know what my favorite game is. I honestly do believe all those Xbox players out there will all be getting GOW 3 when it comes out and I surely believe with what I saw at E3 combined with the beta, that GOW 3 will have what it takes to keep players around playing it for a longer time compared to the likes of systems of Halo and COD. We can statistically see this 6 months after all the games release and look at xbox. com and see what gamers are playing because they post the most popular titles being played currently on Live. But then again this is my opinion.
But then again its all opinion based and its really what YOU prefer to play. Sorry to upset the fanboys by bringing in statistics.
Also Im sure MW3 will surpass it but right now there is a current deal at Gamestop for Battlefield 3 that could even surpass the MW3 if it does. if you reserve it you are getting the best edition of the game for the same price as the regular. Plus your getting the DLC already on the disc as well.
You didn't upset any fanboys. You came along and made a troll post, people didn't rise to the bait.
