Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why Halo Reach is a better developed game than CoD MW3
  • Subject: Why Halo Reach is a better developed game than CoD MW3
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Why Halo Reach is a better developed game than CoD MW3
  • gamertag: Foniax
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Arbitor 259
all halo games are better then cod, before they even make a trailer
/thread

  • 04.17.2012 10:12 PM PDT


Posted by: CrazyT
Its nice that you can compare games.

Now compare Halo to Pong.

Posted by: CrazyT
Its nice that you can compare games.

Now compare Halo to Pong.

  • 04.17.2012 10:38 PM PDT

"To me, a nice triple kill with the sniper is infinitely more impressive than any Living Dead Killionaire"

Does flaming people on forums count as an esport?

I'm a commendation/achievement/statistics freak.

-David (Drake)


Posted by: analbumcover
Strong thumbs attract mates. Camp of Duty inspires less thumb exercise so halo players get all the loving


<3

  • 04.17.2012 10:56 PM PDT

Think of me, as the brother to caboose, i may sound like him, but i was able to pass kindergarten before quitting school

well halo is a little farther ahead, but think pong goes a little like this
http://www.stickpage.com/pongnotjustagameplay.shtml

[Edited on 04.18.2012 9:17 AM PDT]

  • 04.18.2012 9:16 AM PDT

I don't play anymore.

Halo > Other FPS.

Old news.

  • 04.18.2012 11:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag: MR E0S
  • user homepage:

Halo: Reach is the beginning of a new age for gaming.
It proves that developers can get away with punishing their players instead of fixing their game....and yet the fanboys will still sing praises to them.

-blam!- all of you fanboys!

You forgot something

CoD at least has the common sense to seperate playlists by gametype.
CoD at least has the common sense to deal with quitters APPROPRIATELY!

Only randomness involved in what kind of match your going to be playing is the map.
COD = YOU ARE GAURANTEED THE GAMETYPE!
COD = YOU ARE GAURANTEED EVEN TEAMS

HALO = No -blam!- clue
HALO = That guy gets quit banned, I get stuck in remainder of this match with uneven teams unable to quit for fear of being banned myself.

That's why CoD is winning!

It has a better matchmaking service.


Now if you people and Bungie/343 could just pull your heads out of your asses and realize this.

EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH HALO IS BECAUSE OF MATCHMAKING!
And this will happen every -blam!- time you try to force the entire community to play at a competitive level. Most of us don't care that much to play at that sort of level. That's why people rage quit when you start spawn killing them.

You know what's wrong with Halo? -blam!-s who think it's appriopriate to hand out quit bans because someone didn't want to pad your stats. And because of your so called solution to quitters. You -blam!- over everyone else in the process.

Hey, I just got -blam!- over this match cause my team quit on me.
Well too bad, get -blam!- again by the threat of a quit ban.

Contrary to what you might think

ANY GAME > Halo
Old School Doom Matchmaking > Halo Matchmaking. (And I was playing on 14.4k/28.8k Modems)
Wolfenstein Server Browser w/Filters > Halo's Matchmaking
XBConnect > Matchmaking

It's sad to think that a 3rd party program designed to emulate LAN over the internet to give us multiplayer capability for Halo 1, was actually a better service for giving each user almost complete control over their time spent online.

XBConnect = I make a room give it a description, other people see a list of rooms and make a choice. When people suddenly join my hosted room, I know they CHOSE to enter my room. GAME ON!

Halo Matchmaking = Who the -blam!- and What the -blam!- am I about to be forced to play? I wonder how many are going to quit once they realize what they are about to be forced to play?


All of this overrides anything to do with Visual fidelity.
Because the most beautiful looking game in the world, Runs like -blam!-.

[Edited on 04.21.2012 5:39 AM PDT]

  • 04.21.2012 5:10 AM PDT

"Before you insult someone, try walking a mile in their shoes. This way, when you insult them, you are a mile away and have their shoes."


Posted by: AK FROST
Fanboys. Ha it's funny because not once was Reach beaating Cod Mw3 in the charts.


It's funny, cause Reach is on one platform, compared to MW3's three platforms.

  • 04.21.2012 7:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

*wonders how New Clan Recruitment For Shadow Pack thread gets 55 replies*

*reads "Hi I'm Ashley. . ." *

[Question Answered]

*proceeds to read on, shakes head, and gently laughs*


Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989
In CoD MW3 your health regenerates to normal, (this one is not so bad, but its unrealistic for a realistic made game)- in Reach you get wounded, you lose health, you regain only a little as you recover from the initial shock of being wounded, but you are still hurt, and you only heal if you get a med pac or use a bubble shield
*cough* Elites' health regenerates *cough*

  • 04.21.2012 8:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I wanna be the very best..

Cool Story Bro.
Tell it again.

  • 04.21.2012 9:36 AM PDT

i prefer Reach to any CoD game purely because the experience i get out of any Halo game has been amazing. With CoD my experiences have been very hit and miss with the quality and general feel to the game. I have not played CoD MW3 but from what i have seen when my brother plays it, it seems to have a very similar gameplay to Black Ops which to me was a pretty poor game on the whole for realism. But then again they all feel like a arcade fps not a realistic fps. I did enjoy CoD 2 that was very fun i found, but the problem with CoD and it has to be said Battlefield is now they are starting to come out every year. which says to me the developers arnt getting the time to produce the quailty all round like we see in the Halo series. my conclusion is that my experience with the Halo series has been very positive and its been the defining game for me. I strongly believe the best halo was the 1st Halo: Combat Evolved. The many many hours of fun i had out of that was great and the anniversary version is great too. nice to have to nostalgia from time to time i believe.

anyways if any1 wants to play matchmaking with me add me up

Gamertag: james1491

  • 04.21.2012 11:59 AM PDT

lolno bias thread is bias.

  • 04.22.2012 5:54 AM PDT

Think of me, as the brother to caboose, i may sound like him, but i was able to pass kindergarten before quitting school


Posted by: mysteryguy66
Cool Story Bro.
Tell it again.
idk its kinda long

  • 04.23.2012 5:42 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Reach has ended my 5 year addiction to Halo. Thanks Bungie!
GOML Noob
6/1/07


Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989

Posted by: Bungie fan no7
Nice wall of opinions. Now where is the facts located?


well, first off, i did say these were my own opinions on why Halo Reach is better than CoD mw3 (and Halo in general being better than CoD games), and the list of examples are actual facts. You want proof of them, ask anybody who has ever played CoD MW3.


Okay, all of your "opinions" are crap.

Most of them are DELIBERATE balancing mechanics or elements. They are not overlooked details."

  • 04.23.2012 5:49 AM PDT

OP is right about Reach > CoD, but for all the wrong reasons.

  • 04.23.2012 5:49 AM PDT

Think of me, as the brother to caboose, i may sound like him, but i was able to pass kindergarten before quitting school


Posted by: So Slick

Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989

Posted by: Bungie fan no7
Nice wall of opinions. Now where is the facts located?


well, first off, i did say these were my own opinions on why Halo Reach is better than CoD mw3 (and Halo in general being better than CoD games), and the list of examples are actual facts. You want proof of them, ask anybody who has ever played CoD MW3.


Okay, all of your "opinions" are crap.

Most of them are DELIBERATE balancing mechanics or elements. They are not overlooked details."
not to start a debate that is probably pointless, but how are they crap, are you saying that if my list were taken out, all those things that were listed were removed from the game that you would actually have the same appreciation for halo reach.

  • 04.23.2012 6:01 AM PDT

This sig will Self-Destruct in 3.... 2.... 1.... Thank you for your time. Cookie?

As a longtime Halo fan and a firm believer that Halo is better than CoD, I have to say... that is one of the dumbest pro-Halo arguments I've ever heard.

Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989
In CoD MW3 you cannot see your legs - in Reach you can


Miniscule detail; does not really matter.

Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989
In CoD MW3 there are no team separation spawn zones, Meaning you cant take a breath without another enemy attacking - in Reach there are maps with separation of team spawn zones, and only a couple super small maps

In CoD MW3 your health regenerates to normal, (this one is not so bad, but its unrealistic for a realistic made game)- in Reach you get wounded, you lose health, you regain only a little as you recover from the initial shock of being wounded, but you are still hurt, and you only heal if you get a med pac or use a bubble shield

In CoD MW3 if you die 1-3 seconds after you fire off an explosive (RPG), your explosive disappears altogether - in Reach if you shoot/throw and explosive and immediately die afterwards, the explosives do not disappear, they may miss, or veer off target, but they do not dissapear

In CoD MW3 you cannot climb up on anything, nothing, invisible walls are everywhere (this one is not as bad as well, but again very unrealistic for a realistic made game)- in Reach, and other halos, you can climb on almost anything, the only time you are blocked is if you are attempting to leave the map boundaries


OK, you're comparing game mechanics from two FPSs with radically different styles of gameplay. CoD borrows from the 'realistic' FPS game mechanics, meaning that guns are fairly different from each other despite being in the same type of gun and everyone can't take more than five or so bullets in the chest. In those games:

1) Explosives are supposed to be less responsive and accurate than in Halo; aside from grenade launchers, it's encouraged to use snipers and bullets instead of the explosive weapons.

2) You do not 'jump'; you fumble over barriers and crap, and of course you can't go everyone on the map because of the restricted jumping mechanic.

3) lolhealth. In Halo, the only thing that matters are shields. Your health, aside from the very little things, is usually completely and utterly pointless.

Halo and CoD are TWO DIFFERENT FPSs. Whether you like one another isn't a matter of quality, but rather more of a personal preference regarding what type of gameplay you like. Personally, I like Halo, both because I prefer its gameplay and because I've been playing it since Combat Evolved. You could give some reasons why you prefer one over the other theoretically, but you can't define one as simply 'better' since they don't really share much aside from the fact that 99% of the game consists of shooting a guy that doesn't look like you.

Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989
PS: Also on a side note, Halo Reach is the only game that i have not experienced, boosters, or hackers.


Dude, you have got to play with me sometimes. I've come across a lot of experienced, near MLG players that have screwed me over in gametypes expected like MLG and Arena or more unexpected places like BTB, Super Slayer, and SWAT, boosters that did nothing more than hid in Firefight to get their ranks up to Inheritor and can't really fight for crap, and a couple of hackers that glide across the floor and can't be headshotted for the life of me.

  • 04.23.2012 6:06 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Reach has ended my 5 year addiction to Halo. Thanks Bungie!
GOML Noob
6/1/07


Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989

Posted by: So Slick

Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989

Posted by: Bungie fan no7
Nice wall of opinions. Now where is the facts located?


well, first off, i did say these were my own opinions on why Halo Reach is better than CoD mw3 (and Halo in general being better than CoD games), and the list of examples are actual facts. You want proof of them, ask anybody who has ever played CoD MW3.


Okay, all of your "opinions" are crap.

Most of them are DELIBERATE balancing mechanics or elements. They are not overlooked details."
not to start a debate that is probably pointless, but how are they crap, are you saying that if my list were taken out, all those things that were listed were removed from the game that you would actually have the same appreciation for halo reach.


LMFAO what are you talking about?

You said Halo was better developed because of the attention to detail, but your examples for CoD are not a lack of attention to detail, they are deliberate.

Recharging health (which was in Halo 2 and 3 BTW) is not a lack of detail on MW3's part, it is a deliberate gameplay mechanic. Same with most of your list.

  • 04.23.2012 6:08 AM PDT

Think of me, as the brother to caboose, i may sound like him, but i was able to pass kindergarten before quitting school

to make things clear, i am not saying that halo reach is a better or more fun game to play than mw3 for those reasons, im talking about it being better developed, meaning, graphics, special effects, and details.

im not talking about whether or not the game is better (to play), just why it was developed better. developed meaning what they have put in the game, not how they made the game play. (EXCEPT the separation of the opposing spawn zones). Sure the CoD game has a more realistic modern day gameplay to it, but thats not what im focused on, i am focused on what the details of the game are.

For a better comparison, CoD MW3 has a better development to it than Black ops, because in black ops the special effects and details were sub-par compared to MW3. im not saying i like playing mw3 better than BO, im just saying that the detail work and special effects that were developed in the game are better.

To me (my opinion) is that a games quality is based on how it is developed not just on what the game play is like.

  • 04.23.2012 6:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag: MR E0S
  • user homepage:

Halo: Reach is the beginning of a new age for gaming.
It proves that developers can get away with punishing their players instead of fixing their game....and yet the fanboys will still sing praises to them.

-blam!- all of you fanboys!


Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989
to make things clear, i am not saying that halo reach is a better or more fun game to play than mw3 for those reasons, im talking about it being better developed, meaning, graphics, special effects, and details.

im not talking about whether or not the game is better (to play), just why it was developed better. developed meaning what they have put in the game, not how they made the game play. (EXCEPT the separation of the opposing spawn zones). Sure the CoD game has a more realistic modern day gameplay to it, but thats not what im focused on, i am focused on what the details of the game are.

For a better comparison, CoD MW3 has a better development to it than Black ops, because in black ops the special effects and details were sub-par compared to MW3. im not saying i like playing mw3 better than BO, im just saying that the detail work and special effects that were developed in the game are better.

To me (my opinion) is that a games quality is based on how it is developed not just on what the game play is like.



I think I speak for everyone when I say.


Shutup.

A games quality coincides with how it plays.

Dumbass.

Ugly game that runs great = GREAT GAME
Beautiful game that runs like -blam!- = -blam!- GAME!
Ugly game that runs like -blam!- but has a great story = -blam!- GAME!
Beautiful game, good controls, bad story = GREAT GAME!

Story and graphics are overrated.


You know why Halo was so succesful?
Because of how it CONTROLS! They have MS to thank for part of that success for creating that controller with the offset thumbsticks.

Don't beleive me? Compare what it was like to play an FPS on consoles before Halo came along.

IT was clunky as -blam!-. Most of em were still using that legacy control scheme where you have 1 thumbstick that moves forward and back and turns.... Because the N64 only had 1 thumbstick. And I don't think or remember the PS1 ever having any kind of FPS on it worth playing. Back in that day is was all about FF7 and Twisted Metal.

--------------------------------------------------------

Let me give you an example of what I mean when I say CONTROLS! is what makes a great game.

Look at Halo Wars. You know why Halo wars sucked? Because the controls sucked.

No matter what you did, the selection indicator (that little dot in the middle of the screen) always stayed right in the center of the screen. You used 1 thumbstick to scan the battlefield and select units.

Now imagine if they had given you these options instead.

1 thumbstick controls panning the battlefield
the other thumbstick controls the selection cursor.

That one little difference, would have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE!

And it's funny that to this day most RTS's that are developed for consoles keep making this same mistake. Which is why RTS's still havn't gotten a foothold in the console market.


So...screw your special effects.

[Edited on 04.23.2012 12:14 PM PDT]

  • 04.23.2012 11:49 AM PDT

Halo Reach had the better storyline. CoD MW3 had the whole 'get-to-the-main-enemy-and-kill-him' storyline. Where as Halo Reach ended with the main hero, Noble 6, dying defending a planet.

  • 04.23.2012 12:24 PM PDT

"Teabagging is for homos"

-Frankie


Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989

Posted by: Bungie fan no7
Nice wall of opinions. Now where is the facts located?


well, first off, i did say these were my own opinions on why Halo Reach is better than CoD mw3 (and Halo in general being better than CoD games), and the list of examples are actual facts. You want proof of them, ask anybody who has ever played CoD MW3.


If you care so much about which game is better, you need to stop playing videogames.

  • 04.23.2012 1:28 PM PDT

actually the reason why halo is better is because of its creative gametypes and maps. You can have different playstyles, be competitive or casual, but everyone enjoys a really cool creative custom game. I mean halo has halo ball(ski ball), grifball, hockey, numerous living dead variations, numerous oddball variations (indiana jones, parkour maps), i mean what you can do in reach is unlimited.

COD sucks because its a campfest, people camp in reach but theyre are still pretty obvious as to where they are hiding. COD also sucks because (and this one is my opinion) a lot of the weapons are the same or very similar, theres no difference in the weapons other than sniper and shotgun etc. Overall halo is just better

  • 04.23.2012 1:35 PM PDT

Watch your shebs, vod.

Reach isn't Halo to me for this reason.
The campaign is not canon with the book Fall of Reach.

I know a lot of people's gripes with Reach are the multiplayer but I can readily accept bloom and AA's, they don't bother me a lot.
At its core, it's still halo gameplay, but as far as its place in the fiction, there isn't one.

Despite these things, there is a slew of things that make ANY Halo game better than CoD.

What about the fact that Halo Reach ISN'T a carbon copy of Halo 3?
In fact when MW3 crashes on the PC your screen reads "MW2 has crashed." That is fact. idk if its patched now.
Seriously, the amount of work that went into the CoD franchise can't compare to what Bungie/343i has done.

  • 04.23.2012 2:00 PM PDT

Think of me, as the brother to caboose, i may sound like him, but i was able to pass kindergarten before quitting school


Posted by: MR E0S

Posted by: SOUL_EDGE989
to make things clear, i am not saying that halo reach is a better or more fun game to play than mw3 for those reasons, im talking about it being better developed, meaning, graphics, special effects, and details.

im not talking about whether or not the game is better (to play), just why it was developed better. developed meaning what they have put in the game, not how they made the game play. (EXCEPT the separation of the opposing spawn zones). Sure the CoD game has a more realistic modern day gameplay to it, but thats not what im focused on, i am focused on what the details of the game are.

For a better comparison, CoD MW3 has a better development to it than Black ops, because in black ops the special effects and details were sub-par compared to MW3. im not saying i like playing mw3 better than BO, im just saying that the detail work and special effects that were developed in the game are better.

To me (my opinion) is that a games quality is based on how it is developed not just on what the game play is like.



I think I speak for everyone when I say.


Shutup.

A games quality coincides with how it plays.

Dumbass.

Ugly game that runs great = GREAT GAME
Beautiful game that runs like -blam!- = -blam!- GAME!
Ugly game that runs like -blam!- but has a great story = -blam!- GAME!
Beautiful game, good controls, bad story = GREAT GAME!

Story and graphics are overrated.


You know why Halo was so succesful?
Because of how it CONTROLS! They have MS to thank for part of that success for creating that controller with the offset thumbsticks.

Don't beleive me? Compare what it was like to play an FPS on consoles before Halo came along.

IT was clunky as -blam!-. Most of em were still using that legacy control scheme where you have 1 thumbstick that moves forward and back and turns.... Because the N64 only had 1 thumbstick. And I don't think or remember the PS1 ever having any kind of FPS on it worth playing. Back in that day is was all about FF7 and Twisted Metal.

--------------------------------------------------------

Let me give you an example of what I mean when I say CONTROLS! is what makes a great game.

Look at Halo Wars. You know why Halo wars sucked? Because the controls sucked.

No matter what you did, the selection indicator (that little dot in the middle of the screen) always stayed right in the center of the screen. You used 1 thumbstick to scan the battlefield and select units.

Now imagine if they had given you these options instead.

1 thumbstick controls panning the battlefield
the other thumbstick controls the selection cursor.

That one little difference, would have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE!

And it's funny that to this day most RTS's that are developed for consoles keep making this same mistake. Which is why RTS's still havn't gotten a foothold in the console market.


So...screw your special effects.
well if you screw them then thats fine. Its rather sad that you all take special effects for granted, i wonder, if 343 did just say "-blam!- it" and went with the general approach of making a game with zero special effects and just made a game for the game play, wonder what it would look like. Well first off im sure the enviroment would look very much like total miner Z, and then lets see the other teams would look like 2d pixels. oh lets not forget the fact that there would be no other armors, because hey that would require changing the visual effects and all that garbage. Also any action that requires reloading, ah well since we dont need any special effects then lets just have the gun drop out of picture and pretend its been reloaded. oh not forgetting the sound effects, definently need to have all the guns sound the same otherwise it would require special effects. oh damn i forgot about movement, well the crouching will needed to be taken out, because when you crouch that makes your character have to look different and require more special effects for everything. oh yeah no shadows from anything, oh and lets make sure that no shields can be shown when your being hit by fire, otherwise the visual effects would be needed. Ah hell i forgot that when on a snowy map its bound to snow. well i guess its a good thing special effects are unneeded so no snow, no footprints in the snow. Am i forgetting anything else, oh wait, no footsteps either cant have any sound effects, footsteps and having an echo effect that actually make a realistic position of where a person is should be taken out as well, no special effects remember. Okay if i forgotten anything we can now focus on how the game play should be like, we can have 1 assault rifle, 1 pistol, 1 alien assault rifle, 1 alien pistol, and 1 grenade. If we have anything else then special effects and changing the details of the weapons would be needed, and we cant have that. Lastly the game types should stay only to slayer or team slayer, because if we have a CTF or assault game, then more special effects would be needed for the flag to have a color and wind blowing it, and then all the detail would be needed for the bombs as well. so we now have a game that has a great game play to it, because special effects are just -blam!- that needs to go in the garbage when developing a game. I believe by your standards we have just made the best game ever, don't you agree.

  • 04.24.2012 9:14 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3