Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Which game is more connection-based, Halo 3 or COD
  • Subject: Which game is more connection-based, Halo 3 or COD
Subject: Which game is more connection-based, Halo 3 or COD

I was there for the glory days of Combat Evolved. I was there when Halo 2 was hyped up and met the hype. I was there for the first days and last days of Halo 2 on Xbox Live. I was there for the Halo 3 days, the great Lag Age of 2008-2010. I was there to laugh and not buy ODST, I was there to vomit when Reach implemented reticle bloom. I am a Halo veteran, and a Halo legend.

I've long had Halo 3 at the top of the list in terms of games that are nothing more than connection battles. Bullet refunding and theatre mode have proved this time and time again.

Now that I think about it though, perhaps COD is no better, just more difficult to notice. COD has all of the nonsense Halo 3 has, like shot through walls and shots not counting, but no accurate theatre mode to display the utter unfairness.

I think Halo 3 is more prone to obvious lag though since a spartan ultimately takes more shots to kill than a soldier.

So on my Host-banned connection it would take 18 shots or so minimum to get a kill on a spartan where it should take 12 without lag, or on my host in COD it could take anywhere from 3-6 shots when it should take 3.

Halo 3 pretty much takes the discrete COD lag to a new level, stretches it out over a 10 second battle and yells "HEY I don't care if you are better than this kid he lives in California and gets host so you die".

Conclusion: COD is more playable with a connection dissadvantage because lag is more random and inconsistent, where Halo 3 it is constant, ie: You have been assigned as a Host xbox or you have been Host banned, etc.

  • 03.25.2011 10:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It's actually hard to pick. In Halo obviously a good connection makes all the difference, but if you are at least 5 greenbars then it's not that different from playing on host, and a 5bar and a 6bar going head to head in a gunfight, it's still pretty fair.

However in COD, the difference between a 3 green bar connection and a 4bar is ridiculous, and that pretty much dictates the outcomes of most gunfights. This is because of 'flinch', a feature that the gooses who made the game probably thought made the game more balanced when they playtested it on LAN, but it just ruins the game online where latency is a factor.

Example: you come face to face with an enemy. You have 3bar, they have 4. You shoot first.

Remember that Captain Hook could pick up a controller and do well at it. It is the noob's game for this generation. So if you can snap down the sights and fire the moment you see them, chances are they can too.

So now it becomes a split-second coin toss on who got the first shot in. Even if you got the first shot, the other player has better latency so his bullet actually registers first.

Now you get hit, and you 'flinch'. What this does is completely throw off your aim, and even if my sights still seem to be on the enemy, my bullets rarely hit. So even if I shot first, his bullet registers before mine, I flinch, and none of my bullets hit him. Then, on the killcam, my character looks like he is shooting at the roof.

Then there are times when you pump bullets into your enemy, they kill you without taking a hit and on the killcam it doesn't even show you shooting.

The fast nature of killing/dying in Call of Duty makes it incredibly connection based. Yet in Halo, being yellow bar or red bar means your enemies eat a ridiculous amount of bullets, you take damage from grenades that are nowhere near you, you get shot through walls, and you won't win a close-range fight that results in a beatdown.

All in all I would have to say Halo, because in Call of Duty it doesn't matter if you die, you don't drop rank for a loss. The only thing you might care about it affecting is your K/D.

If you care about rank and enjoy playing Halo competitively, then connection is a real issue. I don't care about rank but I like competitive play, even though I'm bad.

So Halo for me, and -blam!- that was a lot of typing!

  • 03.25.2011 4:51 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member
  • gamertag: WjB79
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Frasier Crane
I'm not making excuses. I never claimed to be good. I have never played any colonel better than me though.


Top 1% Overall Player for H3 on Halocharts
50 Team Slayer Gen and BTB 5 Star

I don't know. In Halo it definitely is more annoying for sure.

  • 03.25.2011 4:59 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member


Posted by: DV Legend
3 shots when it should take 3
Wat?

  • 03.25.2011 5:12 PM PDT

Halo 3, no contest.

Host makes or breaks a game.

I can go like 80-15 on a yellow bar COD host.

  • 03.25.2011 5:56 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member


Posted by: III Kirby III
Halo 3, no contest.

Host makes or breaks a game.

I can go like 80-15 on a yellow bar COD host.

Knifing only.

  • 03.25.2011 5:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: III Kirby III
Halo 3, no contest.

Host makes or breaks a game.

I can go like 80-15 on a yellow bar COD host.



Camper.

  • 03.25.2011 6:07 PM PDT


Posted by: ghoulies113
Camper.


Naw, lol.

My tool of destruction is a SPAS 12.

I run around constantly with Marathon pro and jump-shot people. Ask anyone on these forums who plays with me. I don't camp at all.

  • 03.25.2011 6:28 PM PDT

youtube

disregard video games

Posted by: III Kirby III
Halo 3, no contest.

Host makes or breaks a game.

I can go like 80-15 on a yellow bar COD host.



still wont beat my 100-1 game on jungle

  • 03.25.2011 8:16 PM PDT