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 has swearing.

I've seen plenty of little kids in both. It's hardly a criticism that can only be leveled against only one.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

LordofHats wrote:Halo has swearing.

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 mean the fact they dont have customization is bs

I rather enjoy CoD more, though this is mostly because of Red Vs Blue and Fails of the Weak.

Black Ops - worst CoD ever to get out...
Halo Reach - good game, only for XBOX witch suck balls...

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.

Yep, and now something else happened, thus, halo 4!

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.

I've never played Reach, but Black Ops was a disappointment for sure...but from what I've heard Reach is pretty good.

I personally prefer MW2, Battlefield: BC2, or Killzone 3 when it comes to FPS gaming

From my experiances; if you loved Halo CE and hated Halo 2/3, you most likely will like Reach.

If you hate Halo CE and love Halo 2/3, you will most likely hate Reach.

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.

BLOPs has a female playable character @.@

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.

Can we all just agree that both games are cool and worth playing...?

Brother Coa wrote:Can we all just agree that both games are cool and worth playing...?

Agreement? On the internet? Oh God no, you need to pick a side and start trollin' ma boy!

I'd say Halo, from the times I've played it. Blops was one of the most overhyped games in history, and was basically WaW with a new skin.

TrollPie wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:Can we all just agree that both games are cool and worth playing...?

Agreement? On the internet? Oh God no, you need to pick a side and start trollin' ma boy!

I'd say Halo, from the times I've played it. Blops was one of the most overhyped games in history, and was basically WaW with a new skin.

Oh.... in that case...GO SPACE MARINE!!!

halonachos wrote:
@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.

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.

^This^

iproxtaco wrote:

halonachos wrote:
@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.

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.

Colonial Marines isn't even out yet...

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'.

EVERYONE OUT THERE! Listen to this song and let yourself decide, (Lamest song ever IMO)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGY0l1k6WCA

Pun intended! lol

MaximusPrime wrote:EVERYONE OUT THERE! Listen to this song and let yourself decide, (Lamest song ever IMO)




Pun intended! lol

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.

All the dumb fan boys on here...... Just wait till Gears of War 3 comes out. Its better then both.