Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo is better than COD
  • Subject: Halo is better than COD
Subject: Halo is better than COD

Hello. Reach is the first Halo game I have played and my style is mostly recreational.

These are the top 5 reasons Halo trumps COD

1: Halo has more realistic weaponry

2: Halo has killcams

3: Halo maps look more realistic

4: Halo has a more practical story that everyone can relate to

5: Halo doesn't have friendly fire

  • 12.31.2011 12:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

5#:it does.

And whats up with the halo vs cod ?
Everyone knows the true game is the game with an awsome plot...
I think you know what game has a better plot.

  • 12.31.2011 12:55 PM PDT

Hello. Reach is the first Halo game I have played and my style is mostly recreational.

It's COD by a long shot. Lot more suspense and tension in it than some story about an armored dude chasing after a lingerie-clad HOLOGRAM. God were those devs back in the day geeky they want a datachip girlfriend.

  • 12.31.2011 1:04 PM PDT

Old school Bungie, born and raised,
In the Septagon is where I spend most of my days.
Relaxin', maxin', posting all cool,
Talking about Halo, life and some school.
Got in one little argument, and the mods got scared,
they said "You're gonna get banned and your member title'll be bare!"


Posted by: Pingbizzle
a lingerie-clad HOLOGRAM.


I'd hit it...

  • 12.31.2011 1:11 PM PDT

I have the feeling you meant to say vice versa judging by your other comments and the fact Halo doesn't have kill cams and has got friendly fire.

  • 12.31.2011 1:16 PM PDT

Hello. Reach is the first Halo game I have played and my style is mostly recreational.

Guys this is a bait troll thread. It's left out as bait for the "Halo canon" guys on this forum to feed and rage on. I want to see how they'll react.


  • 12.31.2011 1:19 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

I understand nothing because my life is a conspiracy.

I'm just saying, Call of Duty isn't very realistic, especially Black Ops.

  • 12.31.2011 1:25 PM PDT

Old school Bungie, born and raised,
In the Septagon is where I spend most of my days.
Relaxin', maxin', posting all cool,
Talking about Halo, life and some school.
Got in one little argument, and the mods got scared,
they said "You're gonna get banned and your member title'll be bare!"

But does the intrinsic value of each game, their own "essence," so to speak, the one Plato would have looked for, compare? If you look at the "quantum video game" level, where everything is binary, can one be better than the other? Does a certain pattern or arrangement of pits and bumps on the aluminum substrate of a disc really contain such qualities as "better" or "superior?"

If you look past the interpretation of the game, the subjective reality that the player only experiences through his own eyes, does not the whole argument fold and bend under its own syntax?

Can we really pick a better game?










Yes, and it is Halo.

  • 12.31.2011 1:30 PM PDT

Hello. Reach is the first Halo game I have played and my style is mostly recreational.

I've logged far less COD play than Halo but I have to say playing multiplayer on CoD just feels more intense. It's primarily due to how much more realistic the environments and guns are. I mean, face it, Forge world-ed multiplayer maps just look silly. Especially some of the new ones.

With CoD and killstreaks you actually feel like your survival is a valuable asset to your team and you can do things that can change the whole field of play. The only allure in Halo of a Perfection medal just isn't enough to keep it fast-paced and keep you on the edge of your seat.

A lot of folks probably won't agree with this, but the XP and rank system does make a game more intense. In Halo all you get are credits for everything you do. And you use these credits to buy armor that does absolutely nothing. No new weapons, no abilities, nothing.

It's good if you're fresh in the game, to be on an even playing field with the year-old Reach players. But when you are a year-old player and you still find yourself with no advantage over new players it gets to be demotivating.

The thing Reach is missing is the motivation to play hard. You win a game and go 20-3, you get 1500 or so credits. You lose a game and go 3-20, you get 1000 or so credits.

Say what you will, but I stand beside my point firmly: the biggest thing Reach loses out to CoD on is game intensity. Players AFK because they know they'll get time credits no matter how heinously horrible they do. People aren't engaged in each match because the motivation to do well is lacking.

There's no advantage to play for.

Not to say that people can't play for the fun of it, but it just makes it so much more interesting to have actual rewards for staying alive longer and logging more kills than anyone else.

Case in point: I'm literally disappointed when I die on a four-kill streak or a six-kill streak in Crysis 2 or CoD because I know that I just lost a chance to help the team out with my killstreak reward.

In Halo I go 9 kills and then die, I'm like: "Who cares, getting that Killing Frenzy would only be 20 more credits." I'm not disappointed at all because there is no loss. I literally do not care about the little medals because at the end of the day none of them are as valuable as simply making the game last ridiculously long.

And if I level up in Crysis 2 or CoD I genuinely feel accomplished because it signifies a new weapon, new perk, or just a new facet of gameplay. In Halo it's like, "Yeah! Now I can spend my useless credits on some useless armor that was previously unavailable!"

The only thing keeping people interested in getting kills in Reach is probably the daily challenges. For once it's a solid, visible, useful reward for doing well.

The underlying issue is simply that because the motivation to play well is lacking people screw around on purpose. I've seen a teammate and his guest take turns betraying each other for the single purpose of drawing the game longer than it needs to be so they can get more time credits.

Which is pretty horrid, to be honest. Because it's justified by the system of Halo. In CoD if someone is screwing around they're just being a dick because they view it as a worthy use of their time. In Halo people can be dicks because they want more credits.

All in all the thesis of all that was: "Halo loses out to CoD on game intensity and motivation of the players to play hard and do well. CoD has accomplished this with killstreak rewards and levelling that actual matters."

[Edited on 12.31.2011 1:56 PM PST]

  • 12.31.2011 1:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: prometheus25
But does the intrinsic value of each game, their own "essence," so to speak, the one Plato would have looked for, compare? If you look at the "quantum video game" level, where everything is binary, can one be better than the other? Does a certain pattern or arrangement of pits and bumps on the aluminum substrate of a disc really contain such qualities as "better" or "superior?"

If you look past the interpretation of the game, the subjective reality that the player only experiences through his own eyes, does not the whole argument fold and bend under its own syntax?

Can we really pick a better game?










Yes, and it is Halo.


Deep

  • 12.31.2011 1:48 PM PDT