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.

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.