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

halo reach or call of duty black ops?

Halo: Reach

Halo: Reach.
MW2 had some pretty fethed up gak in it that made everything suck in some circumstances and sometimes I feel like I only play it because I'm not good enough for Counterstrike. Although it is fun sometimes. I'm pretty sure (unless it's made by different people) that it's going to have a lot of the same problems.
Halo was pretty awesome and I've heard it will go to PC eventually so YEEEAH.
Greetz,
Mr. Self Destruct

Win at what exactly? If we're talking about sales, or which will be most played, I imagine it will largely depend on release timing or whatever. Both games have large groups of dedicated fans, and both games take a different approach to their multiplayer.

My prediction is that they'll largely co-exist, and be a source of "MY GAME IS BETTER THAN YOUR GAME" arguments for years to come.

The Dreadnote wrote:Win at what exactly? If we're talking about sales, or which will be most played, I imagine it will largely depend on release timing or whatever. Both games have large groups of dedicated fans, and both games take a different approach to their multiplayer.

My prediction is that they'll largely co-exist, and be a source of "MY GAME IS BETTER THAN YOUR GAME" arguments for years to come.

This.

If we'r talking game of the year awards. Depends who's ass is being kissed, since both halo and cod have been subject to massive amounts of that.

My vote go's to Halo though, but that's Biased since I've always been a fan of that series (books and everything) and always thought CoD was a bucket of gak.

Halo most likely, seeing as that one has got the most going for itself in the long run.

I dont really care but both are sources of endless annoyment from excited fanboys in my experience.

I'm a bigger fan of the COD series but I think that with the mucn needed changes they are making to Halo it stands a better chance of coming out on top. I'm still wary from ODST and Halo 3 so I will borrow before I buy. I have a feeling I'm going to be owning both of them in the long run though.

Depends i think. The Cod series looks to like it is waning. And also depends. Do to legal reason infinity ward isnt making cod this time. so it might not be the same. But then again the same goes for halo.

garret wrote:And also depends. Do to legal reason infinity ward isnt making cod this time. so it might not be the same.

Don't blame legal reasons when you can blame Bobby Kotick.

garret wrote:But then again the same goes for halo.

What? Reach is being developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft. It's not changing hands until afterwards, when it will be developed by 343 Industries.

Halo:Nachos

halonachos wrote:Halo:Nachos

Jalapeno Edition

Reach.. All the kiddes will get it.

I'll be one of them.

Not gonna get black ops.. I had my fill of MW2

garret wrote:Depends I think. The COD series looks to like it's winning and also depends. Due to legal reason infinity ward isn't making COD this time, so it might not be the same, but then again the same goes for Halo.

I'm so bored of COD games, i'm not buying one unless it's a World War One, or World War Two game. They all seem the game... booring.

Halo: Reach all the way.

halo reach has health bars, so it wins by default.

Halo: Reach is just like all the other Halos except they added some new assassinations that will get boring after the first few times.

Black Ops is set during the Cold War so that'll be interesting. There had been a few Vietnam based games, but they were poorly done so I hope that Black ops will be better.

I will also add that Treyarch is really stepping up their game so I am incredibly hopeful.

I see Black Ops pulling ahead after the little kids stop playing Halo: Reach because its "too hard" due to the health bars.

Black Ops is just like all the other CoDs except they added some new guns that will get boring after the first few times.

Halo: Reach is set during the fall of Reach so that'll be interesting. There had been a few Reach based books, and they were pretty good so I hope that Reach will be better.

I will also add that Bungie is really stepping up their game so I am incredibly hopeful.

I see Reach pulling ahead after the little kids stop playing Black Ops because it's "too hard" due to more realistic damage models.

Black Ops is based off of books too. They're called 'history' books, and in my own opinion reality is better than fiction.

Bungie lost its exclusive contract with microsoft and now works for activision(losing the Halo name), Treyarch gained the CoD franchise.

I will also put in the fact that Treyarch added a new game mode to the CoD franchise, a game mode that has yet to get boring and has a slew of devoted fans.

I never saw any threads concerning "Halo:Reach Assassination Rumours", only Nazi Zombie rumours. So yeah, I'll put Black ops ahead.

Cool story bro.

Halo: Reach has undergone a great amount of change. While keeping the same actual gameplay structure as Halo, it now has customization options akin to Call of Duty (Customizable weapon loadouts, perks, etc. that exist on a level-based system). Even if it is plagiarism, I think it will only help to boost reception and sales, as both systems work very well together.

On the other hand, Treyarch Call of Duty games have been universally received as being much worse than their Infinity Ward counterparts, and Black Ops doesn't do much to change the Call of Duty formula. In fact, it seems like a one-off, forgettable entry in the series to me.

halonachos wrote:Black Ops is based off of books too. They're called 'history' books, and in my own opinion reality is better than fiction.

Bungie lost its exclusive contract with microsoft and now works for activision(losing the Halo name), Treyarch gained the CoD franchise.

I will also put in the fact that Treyarch added a new game mode to the CoD franchise, a game mode that has yet to get boring and has a slew of devoted fans.

I never saw any threads concerning "Halo:Reach Assassination Rumours", only Nazi Zombie rumours. So yeah, I'll put Black ops ahead.

Bungie lost its exclusive contract with microsoft and now works for activision(losing the Halo name), Treyarch gained the CoD franchise.
This is relevant to a game that IS being made by Bungie... how?

Also, reality, has never been better then fiction, otherwise fiction would not exist. Fiction is often made to either make reality look better, or make it look like hell on Earth.

And bungie added a new game mode too, it's called, Forge, make your own. Oh, and now we get fully customizable Firefight too, Huzzah!
Theater is just a nice addition too.

New weapons and abilities, entirely new battle type(space fighter, and thus new vehicles), Prequel to a good story (and with awesome books already about the same war scene) are bound to deliver us some good times.

Oh, and they stepped back to the good ol' healthbar and medkits system, WOHOO!!

I'm thinking Halo is going to nab it.

Ask me which I prefer though, and I'll answer neither.

Really, I'm just stoked for the new MoH, set in Afghanistan.

I was hoping for one where you fight in the Korean War, THEN hop into modern conflicts, but I'm still eager to try this one.

halonachos wrote:Black Ops is based off of books too. They're called 'history' books, and in my own opinion reality is better than fiction.

Bungie lost its exclusive contract with microsoft and now works for activision(losing the Halo name), Treyarch gained the CoD franchise.

I will also put in the fact that Treyarch added a new game mode to the CoD franchise, a game mode that has yet to get boring and has a slew of devoted fans.

I never saw any threads concerning "Halo:Reach Assassination Rumours", only Nazi Zombie rumours. So yeah, I'll put Black ops ahead.

Treyarch has always been the CoD "B-team",though. The only reason they are in full control of the CoD franchise is because the much better Infinity Ward is embroiled in legal problems with Activision. And pretty much,all Treyarch did was reskin Infinity Ward's work into other titles. With no Infinity Ward,CoD will quickly stagnate,IMO,especially since Activision insists on spamming out a new CoD game every year whether they have any good ideas for one or not.

I think Reach will be the better title simply because Bungie is a much better developer than Treyarch,.

The thing about Reach though is all of the over-hyping that's already happening. So anything less than a game that is 110% pure gold is going to be a dissapointment to everybody whereas treyarch has been getting dogged for a long while and is the red-headed stepchild of the CoD team. So if they surpass a 80% rating I would count that as an acheivement and a success.

I do see it as retooling the CoD franchise though, instead of skipping directly to "modern warfare" they went to the Cold War. So that means a potential prequel to modern warfare, think about that one.

So far they added an unbeatable game mode that can last forever(you can beat firefight), campaign co-op(lacking in MW and MW2), used what was good about MW(perks/customization), added some vehicle play(that can be interesting at times or annoying as hell).

Unfortunately, WaW was a WW2 game and most people were tired of WW2 games at that time so I think that alo affected the ratings it received.

The sniper level, the beginning of the campaign, the sea-plane level, the storming of the reichstag, all of these were fantastic levels. Although it seemed that there was a lot of movie references, they still pulled off a fantastic game with a lot of good times in it.

Black Ops looks good and sounds challenging. They removed the nukes, should have better servers, apparantly have levels where your kit is reduced to a knife, and best of all is set in the era between Modern Warfare and World at War.

So if Black Ops isn't long campaign wise, chances are it may be a stepping stone to linking WaW to MW somehow. Similar to the relationship between Command and Conquer's Tiberian Sun and Red Alert series and From Paris With Love.

The thing about Reach though is all of the over-hyping that's already happening. So anything less than a game that is 110% pure gold is going to be a dissapointment to everybody whereas treyarch has been getting dogged for a long while and is the red-headed stepchild of the CoD team. So if they surpass a 80% rating I would count that as an acheivement and a success.

I do see it as retooling the CoD franchise though, instead of skipping directly to "modern warfare" they went to the Cold War. So that means a potential prequel to modern warfare, think about that one.

So far they added an unbeatable game mode that can last forever(you can beat firefight), campaign co-op(lacking in MW and MW2), used what was good about MW(perks/customization), added some vehicle play(that can be interesting at times or annoying as hell).

Unfortunately, WaW was a WW2 game and most people were tired of WW2 games at that time so I think that alo affected the ratings it received.

The sniper level, the beginning of the campaign, the sea-plane level, the storming of the reichstag, all of these were fantastic levels. Although it seemed that there was a lot of movie references, they still pulled off a fantastic game with a lot of good times in it.

Black Ops looks good and sounds challenging. They removed the nukes, should have better servers, apparantly have levels where your kit is reduced to a knife, and best of all is set in the era between Modern Warfare and World at War.

So if Black Ops isn't long campaign wise, chances are it may be a stepping stone to linking WaW to MW somehow. Similar to the relationship between Command and Conquer's Tiberian Sun and Red Alert series and From Paris With Love.

You can beat firefight if you set it to be beatable. At least one of the default modes (classic) goes on forever. It also has a ridiculous amount of customisation options, and the ability to share custom gametypes over XBL.

Have to say that I've hated the CoD games since they went modern warfare. I hate the "we will spam you with enemies until you reach a certain point on the map", and I don't care about the setting either, which probably doesn't help.

I also hate the multiplayer, with apparently no level or skill matching such as there is in the Halo games, so you come in for your first ever MP game with the crappy guns and armour and get nailed by a bunch of people on their 800th trip through the ranking/perk system with all the decent stuff.

At least in CoD 3 there wasn't so much of a problem with that - I loved multiplayer on that.

Already have Reach on pre-order. Going to run around in my magical flaming armour. Woo!

halonachos wrote:The thing about Reach though is all of the over-hyping that's already happening. So anything less than a game that is 110% pure gold is going to be a dissapointment to everybody whereas treyarch has been getting dogged for a long while and is the red-headed stepchild of the CoD team. So if they surpass a 80% rating I would count that as an acheivement and a success.

I do see it as retooling the CoD franchise though, instead of skipping directly to "modern warfare" they went to the Cold War. So that means a potential prequel to modern warfare, think about that one.

So far they added an unbeatable game mode that can last forever(you can beat firefight), campaign co-op(lacking in MW and MW2), used what was good about MW(perks/customization), added some vehicle play(that can be interesting at times or annoying as hell).

Unfortunately, WaW was a WW2 game and most people were tired of WW2 games at that time so I think that alo affected the ratings it received.

The sniper level, the beginning of the campaign, the sea-plane level, the storming of the reichstag, all of these were fantastic levels. Although it seemed that there was a lot of movie references, they still pulled off a fantastic game with a lot of good times in it.

Black Ops looks good and sounds challenging. They removed the nukes, should have better servers, apparantly have levels where your kit is reduced to a knife, and best of all is set in the era between Modern Warfare and World at War.

So if Black Ops isn't long campaign wise, chances are it may be a stepping stone to linking WaW to MW somehow. Similar to the relationship between Command and Conquer's Tiberian Sun and Red Alert series and From Paris With Love.

Reach is getting heavily hyped,but so does every Halo game. Usually,Bungie delivers,with ODST being the only real exception to that. Which,ODST wasn't bad,but it was basically just a $20-30 expansion they sold as a $60 game.

I don't expect anything from CoD's campaign. After MW2,it should become apparent to everybody that Activision is pretty much just focusing on the multiplayer aspect of the game,which stinks,as CoD was always known for great campaigns before that. Unfortunately,now that Activision is in it's typical franchise mode,which is spam out a game in the line every year whether it really adds anything or not,the campaign mode will probably be another short mess.

Campaign co-op is nice,but the new campaign will probably be extremely short and it's nothing new. Other shooter franchises have been doing it for years. The reintrocution of vehicles could severely hurt game balance in multiplayer. Other than that,it's just new perks/guns.

ODST started at 45 bucks here, and it also had Halo 3 multiplayer disc + DLC maps and Halo Reach BETA invite.

IMO it was a better buy then Halo 3 itself.

ODST's Campaign was awesome too.

Soladrin wrote:ODST started at 45 bucks here, and it also had Halo 3 multiplayer disc + DLC maps and Halo Reach BETA invite.

IMO it was a better buy then Halo 3 itself.

ODST's Campaign was awesome too.

ODST was a good buy if you were new to Halo 3. However,for a lot of people,the Halo 3 multiplayer disc and DLC maps were worthless because they already had them. The ODST campaign was good,but pretty short. $60 is a little steep for a 5-6 hour campaign and Firefight,IMO.