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.

Well, I want both games, but due to financial situations,I can only get one.
Tell me your opinion!


Ps,you can suggest a different game if you want.

Well, that depends.

Do you like 3PS or FPS better?

Red Dead.

Black Ops is pretty good - but Red Dead is far superior. Better gameplay, better replayability etc.

Plus it's not filled with Campers online.

MAybe, but you can't play Red Dead Redemption on a PC, therefor I won't ever get it.

Red dead if you prefer story and a sandbox, Blackops if you are competitive.

red dead for sure. You can prolly find it used cheap now too since it's been out for a while.

Halo: Reach, I am sorry but it's just got to be, I find it so thrilling, the graphics are pretty good, and you get so much entertainment from rugby tachling an elite before stbbing it in the head with your knife. Truly a great game.

Depends. Do you try to finish the story asap in a game?

If so, Both games may disappoint. Once I finished RDR's story, I got extremely bored with it. I got everything in the game, and lost all interest

Black ops has a short but satisfying story. And 15 prestiges online

Also, Kais, he has Reach

DAMN

Then I would go for Black Ops between those two.
But for an outside one, it may be around 10 months old but AvP is a legendary game, it has scary moments and the trophy kills in it are just epic.

Now if he has that then I am just gonna cry

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Depends. Do you try to finish the story asap in a game?

If so, Both games may disappoint. Once I finished RDR's story, I got extremely bored with it. I got everything in the game, and lost all interest

Black ops has a short but satisfying story. And 15 prestiges online

Also, Kais, he has Reach

The amount of DLC for RDR combined with the hunting achievements etc takes the replayability of it waaaay over 15 levels of prestige (Then again, I'll never prestige, because I don't see the point in it...).

I'll say Red Dead Redemption. Even though I fething love black ops (seriously I married my copy and now we have two little World at War's running around), I'll have to recommend Red Dead.

I base this simply on the fact that its a sandbox game and has more playability in it. Sure black ops has a great campaign story and the multiplayer is fun, but you can't go out to the west and get lost like you can in RDR. Hell, you don't even need the DLC to enjoy the game for days on end before hitting up the multiplayer. So, in my professional opinion get Red Dead Redemption, but only if you're over 18 or your parents will allow it.

Black Ops story=4-5hours then multiplayer.
RDR story= days if you do it right then multiplayer and DLC.

halonachos wrote:I'll say Red Dead Redemption. Even though I fething love black ops (seriously I married my copy and now we have two little World at War's running around), I'll have to recommend Red Dead.

I base this simply on the fact that its a sandbox game and has more playability in it. Sure black ops has a great campaign story and the multiplayer is fun, but you can't go out to the west and get lost like you can in RDR. Hell, you don't even need the DLC to enjoy the game for days on end before hitting up the multiplayer. So, in my professional opinion get Red Dead Redemption, but only if you're over 18 or your parents will allow it.

Black Ops story=4-5hours then multiplayer.
RDR story= days if you do it right then multiplayer and DLC.

True, but I never liked RDR multiplayer at all. I thoroughly enjoyed RDR single player until I did everything. It did last me for a long time. In fact, I kinda want to go play it now, but I traded it for some Space marines in the swap shop (lol)

About the multiplayer, I didn't enjoy the grinding of the same fort over and over until another player mows you down from across the entire Wild West with dead eye.
Maybe if you could change settings in the free roam, I would have liked it better.

I haven't played Black Ops yet, but I've heard some negative things about it's multi-player from people whose opinions I trust on such matters.

RDD, no such complaints. I'd go with that. Plus, RDD has much more playability that doesn't involve asshats on multi-player.

There are asshats on any game though, that's not really the developer's fault.

Most of the complaints I get about Black Ops concern graphics and playstyles.

MW2=Great graphics, but bullets lagged and took longer to hit an enemy.
Black Ops=Great graphics(can be 3d), but more contrasted to allow faster bullet travel and enemy death which makes the game seem to play faster and enemies to die easier.

Also, the multiplayer changed a lot in terms of focus. While MW2 had quickscopes and was generally unbalanced, Black Ops is actually balanced. While MW2 focused on large maps and weapons with long range, black ops focused on short range and a lot of cover.

Chances are the people who complain a lot miss their quickscopes, stopping power, and akimbo rangers and can't adapt to the new speed of multiplayer.

Yes, there are asshats, but I can guarantee that there are asshats on RDR as well.

If you want to compare the two just by multiplayer, I would say that Black Ops wins due to the amount of game modes and weapon choice/customization. Unfortunately, the campaign is also important and that's were RDR beats Black Ops in terms of longevity, just like New Vegas will beat black ops in terms of campaign longevity.

That's another point I made, play MW2 and see what you love about the multiplayer and then compare it to Black Ops.

If there are more things in MW2 that you love compared to Black Ops then chances are you may not like black ops' multiplayer. In which case you don't like the majority of the game so RDR is still a good choice.

Other than RDR go with New Vegas or some other sandbox game to eat up your time until you can afford another game.

You'll finish Black Ops in 5 hours and wonder why you spent so much money on it. RDD on the other hand you could still be playing 2 weeks from now.

Far more bang for your buck.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You'll finish Black Ops in 5 hours and wonder why you spent so much money on it. RDD on the other hand you could still be playing 2 weeks from now.

Far more bang for your buck.

I assure you, I will be playing Black Ops for far, FAR longer than I played RDR.

halonachos wrote:There are asshats on any game though, that's not really the developer's fault.

Most of the complaints I get about Black Ops concern graphics and playstyles.

MW2=Great graphics, but bullets lagged and took longer to hit an enemy.
Black Ops=Great graphics(can be 3d), but more contrasted to allow faster bullet travel and enemy death which makes the game seem to play faster and enemies to die easier.

Also, the multiplayer changed a lot in terms of focus. While MW2 had quickscopes and was generally unbalanced, Black Ops is actually balanced. While MW2 focused on large maps and weapons with long range, black ops focused on short range and a lot of cover.

Chances are the people who complain a lot miss their quickscopes, stopping power, and akimbo rangers and can't adapt to the new speed of multiplayer.

Yes, there are asshats, but I can guarantee that there are asshats on RDR as well.

If you want to compare the two just by multiplayer, I would say that Black Ops wins due to the amount of game modes and weapon choice/customization. Unfortunately, the campaign is also important and that's were RDR beats Black Ops in terms of longevity, just like New Vegas will beat black ops in terms of campaign longevity.

That's another point I made, play MW2 and see what you love about the multiplayer and then compare it to Black Ops.

If there are more things in MW2 that you love compared to Black Ops then chances are you may not like black ops' multiplayer. In which case you don't like the majority of the game so RDR is still a good choice.

Other than RDR go with New Vegas or some other sandbox game to eat up your time until you can afford another game.

Black Ops is the COD I have done the best on for the reasons you have stated above, there's no newbie/hacking/glitch crap that people can pull. The only thing that could ruin Black Ops for me is if the Hosting issues don't get resolved. Everytime I try to get my Clan together someone always winds up getting booted.

I love playing video games, but not enough to cheat on them.

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:You'll finish Black Ops in 5 hours and wonder why you spent so much money on it. RDD on the other hand you could still be playing 2 weeks from now.

Far more bang for your buck.

I assure you, I will be playing Black Ops for far, FAR longer than I played RDR.

A game so focused on Campaign will neglect Multiplayer and vice versa. RDR will save him money because if he has Reach he has a 360, if he has a 360 he has to pay $60 to play online with people which is the price of a new game. So by getting RDR and forgoing multiplayer completely he should have the money to buy two new games at the beginning and end of the year. Assuming he buys the xbox live membership on January 1st.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You'll finish Black Ops in 5 hours and wonder why you spent so much money on it. RDD on the other hand you could still be playing 2 weeks from now.

Far more bang for your buck.

Black Ops is primarily a multiplayer game. Unless he doesn't play online at all, he can get hundreds of hours out of it.

Black Ops is a lot of fun, there are days where you wont have that much fun with it, your shots will miss and you will curse the day you ever put it in your machine, and then there are the epic days were you rack up the kills and every match is just awesome.
The single player is Jerry Bruckhiemer/Michael Bay nonsense that is a throwaway 5 hours, Zombie Nazi mode is a blast.
It's a good package to have but only IF you plan to play online and plan to get your ass handed to your for weeks as you level up.

Red Dead Redemption is a masterpiece of game, a great story, brilliant dialogue and a cast of characters you will remember for a long time. The story drags in the middle when you faff around in Mexico but the more you stick with it the more fun you will have. There is a ton of side stuff to do and tinker around with.
The Multiplayer WAS fun, now not so much. People have learned the tricks and glitches and the addition of Land Grab has turned the map into one giant multiplayer map more often than not. The Free Roam lobby was the best thing about it, you could ride around with a posse or own your own and go hunting. There is still a little bit of fun to be had, but most of the fun has been patched out now.

Black Ops is my current time killer, but I'd say go with Red Dead, which offers a lot more in terms of good story and a good ride. Plus that soundtrack.. simply ace.

BrookM wrote:Black Ops is my current time killer, but I'd say go with Red Dead, which offers a lot more in terms of good story and a good ride. Plus that soundtrack.. simply ace.

Totally agree about the Soundtrack, 2 standout moments soundtrack wise stick out to me in that game, just epic.

I noticed that some of you suggested to get Reach,but I have the Halo:Reach 360 console pack. So,Any other suggestions?

OH! And more info. I want lots of replay-ability and lots of stuff to do until I get another game.