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.

Melissia wrote:Halo reach.

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

Really, because I heard it was MUCH worse on PC due to technical issues with most machines.

Oh well, I say black ops, but Reach is just as good.

I play Black Ops for zombies, thats about it. Played Campaign, it was good, and can't say much more than that. As always, Multiplayer has been the same cookie cutter it has always been, with little in the ways of addition, and more in the way of making my character look cool with very little work towards it being the major addition...

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

Thank you Melissia.

Happygrunt, don't start that garbage. Performance issues on PC vs console is all subjective. My laptop is crap at newer games while my PS3 is fantastic at them. You can't decide if one console game is better than another console version just because one of the console versions runs a little bit worse than the PC version.

It's like comparing apples to oranges and saying that apples suck because apple pie is better than apples.

Or in this case it would be like saying that Black Ops is better than Reach because the 360 version of Black Ops is better than the Wii version. Is this true, yes. Does it mean that Black Ops on the 360 is better than Reach, no.

You have to compare similar versions to each other, PC vs PC and console vs console. Reach is a great title and Black Ops is a great title, the OP won't lose out with either one because they both offer the same amount of awesome as the other.

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

Step 1:


I beg to differ.

Step 3, T-Bag... Anyway, if you havent noticed, every weapon can't just be spawned with, and there is a limit to how many there are on any given map in Reach. Either buy is good IMO. But I had more fun/am having more fun with Reach...

I liked Reach better than Halo 3, but it just got too repetitive. Rushing to pick up your favorite power weapon and/or vehicle, every single game, isn't fun.

I like spawning with individualized classes

(Also, don't tell me to play Reach longer, b/c I will like it better, I am a Major rank)

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:I liked Reach better than Halo 3, but it just got too repetitive. Rushing to pick up your favorite power weapon and/or vehicle, every single game, isn't fun.

I like spawning with individualized classes

(Also, don't tell me to play Reach longer, b/c I will like it better, I am a Major rank)

You got over the Hump! Hooray! That's one of the more demoralizing parts of the Multiplayer.

But now with the added feature that allows you to custom search, me and my friends are having fun being chased down by kill-balls and running through obstacles in an Indiana Jones style Custom Game. It is a load of fun, and I'm sure, given time, the Geniuses of forgeworld will come up with a ton of crazy new game modes.

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

Melissia wrote:Halo reach.

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

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

I again bring up that of the three versions of BO, the 360 version received the fewest complaints. PS3 experienced a network crash, and the PC version was laggy as all bojangles for two weeks. If anything the PC version was the worst if you go by user scores as biased as those are.

In the end once all the patching is done, there's no reason to say don't play the game on the 360. It'll run like any other console shooter. The PC version is a port anyway, so it already is a console shooter.

I went with Black Ops because I like the intense multiplayer and every gun can be lethal in the right hands. That and after having played a ton of MW2 I personally consider it a drastic improvement. That may be whats making it seem so golden to me over Reach that made a lot of changes I personally didn't like. I sold Reach and still play Black Ops. Online multiplayer didn't exist for Reach becuase for some reason I got dropped from over half of my games. I was never able to get that sorted out. I don't personally know anybody else who had that issue though but it ruined the hopes I had for Reach.

I am A Lt. Colonel on reach, and Prestiege 3 on black ops.

I have played all prior games, and before I say anything else I will say this: I love PC and hate console.

I shall now say this: I bought an xbox 360 for Space Marine (who was later confirmed to be on pc, FUUUU,-)

And lastly this: I played both black ops and Reach on console, and I am more satisfied with reach. Black ops's single player had excellent story, but worse gameplay than cod 2 (cod 2 was awesome, but BO should have been better)

In the BO single player, there is ONE stealth part, NO sniper missions, ONE part in the game where your given a weapon to have a bit of fun with (spas with dragon fire rounds) and generally everything else is running around doing storyline stuff. Zombies was nice, it was like greeting an old friend. Oh btw, BO stole theatre from reach. It pretended to steal customization from reach, but its customization sucks ass.

Reach is very different to call of duty, its almost an odd question really. Do you prefer quick kills but easy to die with a very steep learning/skill curve and little to no technique involved but a lot of reflexes and tactics? Black ops.

Prefer a game where peeping around a corner to check for enemies wont get you insta killed, dont mine shooting a bit to kill someone, dont mind not having classes, and having a steady skill curve and developing working techniques that are your own and help you become a better player? Reach

Reaches single player suffers from the same thing BO's does: to much story (so to speak) not enough gameplay, as in you dont get to sweep across an open warzone in a falcon mowing down enemies and destroying targets, but you do still get the occasional sniper/stealth mission and "use the scorpion to kill everything" mission, which is good.

Which brings me to my final point: vehicles. If you like halos vehicle system, geddit, if you dont, dont.

Where are the more mature players at? I hate to say it, but its the truth: Its Black Ops.

Huh. I personally am a HUGE Halo fan, but this entire forum is all personal opinion. It's really up to you and how you want to play with your friends.

I hate Halo.

However, I am a big lover of Halo Reach.

I like Reach because of the sheer number of game types you can play (Team Deathmatch? Sure it has that. Super Smashball? A cross between TDM, Golf and Football/Soccer FUCKEYAH) and customise yourself. But I got Black Ops because more of my friends have it.

So, if you have a lot of IRL friends who play Black Ops, get that. If you prefer playing with Strangers, get Halo.

I have halo: reach for christmas!!!
played a bit of campaign and co-op with my brother- seems pretty cool.
naughty bear had my family giggling.

Enjoy it!

yessir, right away sir.
thankyou sir.

At ease soldier!

roger that.
off to play a campaign

I think we should just leave this argument behind now. anyway. I am a huge fanboy of COD and loved both modern warfares, however Black ops kept me interested for a week. I am not too interested in halo normally but i actually loved REACH. Here are my reasons for each:

Black ops
GOOD:

Great campaign
Gorey (for those who like that)
Great customization
Alright multiplayer

BAD:

Rubish spawning online
Way too buggy
gorey (for those who don't like that)
Slightly worse graphics than modern warfare 2 (If that is a problem for you)

To be honest. I think it is because this is basicly the same game as modern warfare 2 with just a few bonuses. This is the same game i have been playing on for the last year or so.

REACH:
GOOD:

Fun multiplayer
Not gorey (If you don't like gore)
AMAZING forge world
Map sharing
Theatre
More customisation than before.

BAD:

There are a few cheaty glitches for infection
Not gorey (If you like gore)
Needs more maps

Reach kept me interested for longer than Black ops but i think that is because i dont play reach too much.

I personally think that you should get the one that you have been playing the predescessors the least. For example : If you have been playing modern warfare 1 and 1 for the last few years you should get reach and vice versa. If you haven't played the predescessors then it is your choice but i personally reccomend halo.

I played Halo one time but it kind'a sucked.. but I wouldn't go for BlackOps either.. BO has cickass singleplayer bu the multiplayer absolutly sucks.. MW2 Rules IMO get a Modern Warfare 2 much more fun with friends than HR or BO

I got black ops for xmas. One thing I didn't like about it and also MW2 is the campaign is just too short. Both games took me about 6 hours to blow through, on normal difficulty but still. The campaign on MW2 even though the story was silly in some parts, it was still fun and "theatrical", in BO it's some dumb story about numbers like Hurley in Lost.

Online, I don't know if I like the whole earning cash idea for upgrades. I preferred MW2's idea of just earning it as you played. Overall, if it came down to BO or MW2, I'd pick MW2 hands down.

Personally, I played both and preferred Reach. I think that was down to the way Reach plays; I always get the feeling that I have more tactical options when playing it. Also, it's good silly over-the-top sci-fi fun. I love games that I can describe like that.
Overall, if I'm honest, I like both. They're both a lot of fun, I just prefer the way Reach plays.

yay! My cousin got BO, but because the online didn't work, he got another. He gave his old one to me, my brother got the online working, and hey presto!- Both of them!
for me, the pros of each:
COD:
Longer campaign
customisable weapons + character traits
fun weapons (explosive crossbows, tomahawks, ect.)
lots of maps
killstreak wargear

Halo:
fun weapons (all of them)
melee weapons
vehicles
combo move-type things (climbing on tanks and planting grenades, climbing on monster's backs)


I like both, but me and my brother are obsessed with COD dual weapons and tomahawks ATM.

EVERY weapon in halo is melee, whipping someone in the face with a pistol is so fun!

And yes, dual weapons are fun too!

LOL! Me and my brother were just running around on splitscreen killing everyone with explosive crossbow bolts and tomahawks. Our K/D's were 2.4 and 3.2
Halo reach:
Campaign 7/10- good story but too short.
Multiplayer 8/10- fun to play but it gets annoying when you keep having to hunt around to find your favorite weapon.
Single- haven't played on it yet.

COD black ops:
Campaign 6/10 (my brother's review)- good story but gets boring after a while.
Multiplayer 8/10- fun to play but 90% of it revolves around who can sneak up behind you and shoot you in the back- something I hate. Luckily I normally backreap them instead.
Single- see halo reach.
Basically- COD is for the hardcore fans/those sneaky ones who like to backstab.
Halo is for casual gamers, who like to play and have a laugh while doing it.
For me, I prefer COD, just because I play a certain FPS computer game *cough-combatarms-cough* and I know a lot of the weapons from there.

Fave weapons in each game:
COD: I am a huge fan of the spaz-12, tomahawk, ballistic knife and crossbow.
Halo: the two melee weapons (the ones that can't do anything at range), the shotgun and the plasma pistol type thing.

Knew Halo reach is better than COD. No matter what my brother and my friends say. the campaign is better.

halonachos wrote:

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

Thank you Melissia.

Happygrunt, don't start that garbage. Performance issues on PC vs console is all subjective. My laptop is crap at newer games while my PS3 is fantastic at them. You can't decide if one console game is better than another console version just because one of the console versions runs a little bit worse than the PC version.

It's like comparing apples to oranges and saying that apples suck because apple pie is better than apples.

Or in this case it would be like saying that Black Ops is better than Reach because the 360 version of Black Ops is better than the Wii version. Is this true, yes. Does it mean that Black Ops on the 360 is better than Reach, no.

You have to compare similar versions to each other, PC vs PC and console vs console. Reach is a great title and Black Ops is a great title, the OP won't lose out with either one because they both offer the same amount of awesome as the other.

I wasn't meaning to start ANYTHING. I was just repeating what I had heard. And I have no idea what your big long post was about. I just mentioned that the PC version had some technical issues, but as he is getting the game for 360, that shouldn't be a problem.