Pages: 1 2

 

Poll

COD or Halo?

Any Cod game (1-5 plus expansions)81%81% - 39
Any Halo game (Including Halo Wars)18%18% - 9
Total: 48
2010-04-28 09:31:46
pace51
Boom?
+194|5390|Markham, Ontario
Don't vote just based on the games, vote on the franchises themselves. And even if you hate each of them, vote for the one you hate the least.

For me, Halo is better to build up single player gaming experience, and legendary is insane.

To me, cod is fun, but once they left ww2 and single-player focused gameplay behind, I kinda liked it, but it felt odd, like I wasn't playing a Cod game. Though, although I prefer low health shooters, COD went from fun and kind of squad based to run and gun. In cod 1 and 2, the best ones, each faction had their own weapons, and every player had to work together. Like, in cod 5, you just take a .357 and a PTRS, or use Overkill and take a PTRS and an fg42, and you go solo. COD1 and 2 always had players going in squads together in the MP. It was an authentic experience, actually. COD MW2 doesn't give you that feeling, you just sign on, kill some people,level up, and do whatever. But it wasn't always that fun. Also, I'm a big fan of realistic games. However, I enjoyed halo so much because it was so well done, you could almost believe it was possible. Well, as long as you didn't think too long about it :p ... wtf Scarabs? Like, wow.

Last edited by pace51 (2010-04-28 09:42:00)

2010-04-28 09:50:15
phishsux
­
+131|5349
cod
2010-04-28 09:51:38
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688
cod1 was the best team-based multiplayer pc game ever, period. cs is up there too of course, but in a different style.

halo... not even worth considering for PC. and nothing does FPS as well as the PC mouse/keyboard/internet set-up. so there's my logic.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-04-28 09:53:38
pace51
Boom?
+194|5390|Markham, Ontario

Uzique wrote:

cod1 was the best team-based multiplayer pc game ever, period. cs is up there too of course, but in a different style.

halo... not even worth considering for PC. and nothing does FPS as well as the PC mouse/keyboard/internet set-up. so there's my logic.
I agree, other than the halo shouldn't be considered for PC part. Combat Evolved was pretty good... even on computer. But, Halo now has way more console experience.
2010-04-28 09:55:32
SonderKommando
Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....
+564|6877|The darkside of Denver
If the bungie development studio got hit by an asteroid killing the entire staff i wouldn't shed a single tear.
2010-04-28 09:57:09
mkxiii
online bf2s mek evasion
+509|6453|Uk
Halo is such a mediocre set of games in my opinion, so overly hyped when its just a group of things that other games had done before and better, and Microsoft know that they can churn out game after game knowning that Halo fanboys across the world will buy them and praise them as though they have desended from heaven.

Call Of Duty is a great set of games in my opinion, the Single Player campaigns have always been engrossing and you feel connected to the characters as opposed to the lack of empathy you feel for the lifeless asshole that is master chief. I have only played 4 onwards online but i spent a lot of time on 4 and loved playing it with friends as it was so balanced.  5 i didnt think was as impressive, as it seemed like it was trying to copy 4, but improve it slighty, and just failed. 6 however is a terrible terrible online experience. The maps are awful, and feel like they are just ripped out of the single player for convenience, the kill streak rewards make joining games half way through unbearable, the guns arent as balanced as 4, with thermal sights and the like being ridiculous, and the perks have gone beyond the point of insane, i mean jumping off buildings and not hurting yourself? Realism gets thrown right out the window
2010-04-28 09:58:06
Spidery_Yoda
Member
+399|6487
The original Call of Duty game was amazingly fresh. For that alone i'll vote for CoD, since Halo has never impressed me.
2010-04-28 10:01:46
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6717|so randum
CoD 1@2>Halo CE>Halo 2>CoD4>Halo3>CoD5+CoD MW2
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-04-28 10:03:43
pace51
Boom?
+194|5390|Markham, Ontario

mkxiii wrote:

Halo is such a mediocre set of games in my opinion, so overly hyped when its just a group of things that other games had done before and better, and Microsoft know that they can churn out game after game knowning that Halo fanboys across the world will buy them and praise them as though they have desended from heaven.

Call Of Duty is a great set of games in my opinion, the Single Player campaigns have always been engrossing and you feel connected to the characters as opposed to the lack of empathy you feel for the lifeless asshole that is master chief. I have only played 4 onwards online but i spent a lot of time on 4 and loved playing it with friends as it was so balanced.  5 i didnt think was as impressive, as it seemed like it was trying to copy 4, but improve it slighty, and just failed. 6 however is a terrible terrible online experience. The maps are awful, and feel like they are just ripped out of the single player for convenience, the kill streak rewards make joining games half way through unbearable, the guns arent as balanced as 4, with thermal sights and the like being ridiculous, and the perks have gone beyond the point of insane, i mean jumping off buildings and not hurting yourself? Realism gets thrown right out the window
Cod 4 balanced? MW2 slightly less balanced? WTF?
The last, and best, balanced cod was definitely cods 1 and 2. And, even though some countries, like Russia, had better weapons, you got to choose one weapon from you teams country and one from the enemy teams coountry. Plus, I liked how the pistol functioned. It was useful if you ran out of ammo, and actually very useful, since it can be drawn so quickly and packs a pretty good punch. Pistols, even the bf2 ones, will never measure up to to the primary weapons, so I loved the cod1 mentality of "Keep it seperate but handy". Now that was realistic. Aalthough, back to balancing, the best balanced game ever was probably bf2. Really.
2010-04-28 10:06:49
pace51
Boom?
+194|5390|Markham, Ontario

FatherTed wrote:

CoD 1@2>Halo CE>Halo 2>CoD4>Halo3>CoD5+CoD MW2
Cod5 was fine, people were just over hyping, especially since cod3 was crappy and cod4 had just came out. People really thought that Cod would have an amazing ww2 experience again. It was fun, but they unfortunately went away from the cod 1 and 2 mentality's and "Cod4'ed" it.

However, cod 5 really did feel like a cod game. Even cod 4's single player felt very coddish. MW2 killed the SP and had a bizzare and retarded MP.

Cod used to be fun, not a public appeal driven franchise

Last edited by pace51 (2010-04-28 10:07:18)

2010-04-28 10:07:10
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6503|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

pace51 wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

Halo is such a mediocre set of games in my opinion, so overly hyped when its just a group of things that other games had done before and better, and Microsoft know that they can churn out game after game knowning that Halo fanboys across the world will buy them and praise them as though they have desended from heaven.

Call Of Duty is a great set of games in my opinion, the Single Player campaigns have always been engrossing and you feel connected to the characters as opposed to the lack of empathy you feel for the lifeless asshole that is master chief. I have only played 4 onwards online but i spent a lot of time on 4 and loved playing it with friends as it was so balanced.  5 i didnt think was as impressive, as it seemed like it was trying to copy 4, but improve it slighty, and just failed. 6 however is a terrible terrible online experience. The maps are awful, and feel like they are just ripped out of the single player for convenience, the kill streak rewards make joining games half way through unbearable, the guns arent as balanced as 4, with thermal sights and the like being ridiculous, and the perks have gone beyond the point of insane, i mean jumping off buildings and not hurting yourself? Realism gets thrown right out the window
Cod 4 balanced? MW2 slightly less balanced? WTF?
The last, and best, balanced cod was definitely cods 1 and 2. And, even though some countries, like Russia, had better weapons, you got to choose one weapon from you teams country and one from the enemy teams coountry. Plus, I liked how the pistol functioned. It was useful if you ran out of ammo, and actually very useful, since it can be drawn so quickly and packs a pretty good punch. Pistols, even the bf2 ones, will never measure up to to the primary weapons, so I loved the cod1 mentality of "Keep it seperate but handy". Now that was realistic. Aalthough, back to balancing, the best balanced game ever was probably bf2. Really.
Best balanced game ever has to go to TF2 tbh...

If we don't count games where there is only 1 class/choice... (e.g. ricochet for HL1)
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2010-04-28 10:09:10
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6717|so randum
also Halo 2 is quite fantastically balanced
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-04-28 10:13:07
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688

FatherTed wrote:

CoD 1@2>Halo CE>Halo 2>CoD4>Halo3>CoD5+CoD MW2
pretty agreeable.

@floppy: tf2 at launch was the best-balanced, i'd agree with that too. nowadays... what the fuck is that i dont even
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-04-28 10:23:59
pace51
Boom?
+194|5390|Markham, Ontario

FatherTed wrote:

CoD 1@2>Halo CE>Halo 2>CoD4>Halo3>CoD5+CoD MW2
I love (and totally agree) the fact that cod3 isn't even in that list. Aactually, I'd put Halo 1 and 2 in the same space. Halo wars should probably go on the sam space as cod 5, and ODST should be behind cod5. It started fun, until people realized it was an expansion pack with very few new features, cheap tactics, pretty much no new maps, and that it was priced as much as an individual halo game would've been, and not priced like the expansion pack it was.

Aalso, in Cod1,2, and5, and even cod 4, you actually became fond of the characters. And, you became fond of the men in your squad. In halo, the purpose of the marines are target practice for a bored masterchief, and in cod4 and 6, the non-main character bots are just cannon fodder.

COD1 and 2 captain price was also a lot better than MW2 Captain Price. Cod4 captain price was fine, though.
2010-04-28 10:24:02
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6924|67.222.138.85
cs 1.6 > cod1

for team gameplay K

Spoiler (highlight to read):
actually I never played cod1 and certainly not in a team, but I would think that I would still prefer cs as the bomb/money system adds a HUGE dynamic to the game
2010-04-28 10:29:34
mkxiii
online bf2s mek evasion
+509|6453|Uk

pace51 wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

Halo is such a mediocre set of games in my opinion, so overly hyped when its just a group of things that other games had done before and better, and Microsoft know that they can churn out game after game knowning that Halo fanboys across the world will buy them and praise them as though they have desended from heaven.

Call Of Duty is a great set of games in my opinion, the Single Player campaigns have always been engrossing and you feel connected to the characters as opposed to the lack of empathy you feel for the lifeless asshole that is master chief. I have only played 4 onwards online but i spent a lot of time on 4 and loved playing it with friends as it was so balanced.  5 i didnt think was as impressive, as it seemed like it was trying to copy 4, but improve it slighty, and just failed. 6 however is a terrible terrible online experience. The maps are awful, and feel like they are just ripped out of the single player for convenience, the kill streak rewards make joining games half way through unbearable, the guns arent as balanced as 4, with thermal sights and the like being ridiculous, and the perks have gone beyond the point of insane, i mean jumping off buildings and not hurting yourself? Realism gets thrown right out the window
Cod 4 balanced? MW2 slightly less balanced? WTF?
The last, and best, balanced cod was definitely cods 1 and 2. And, even though some countries, like Russia, had better weapons, you got to choose one weapon from you teams country and one from the enemy teams coountry. Plus, I liked how the pistol functioned. It was useful if you ran out of ammo, and actually very useful, since it can be drawn so quickly and packs a pretty good punch. Pistols, even the bf2 ones, will never measure up to to the primary weapons, so I loved the cod1 mentality of "Keep it seperate but handy". Now that was realistic. Aalthough, back to balancing, the best balanced game ever was probably bf2. Really.
In Call Of Duty 4, you can get a 20 kills streak, on any map, with any weapon, easily, because any weapon could beat any other weapon on any map, it was beautiful, CoD6, not so much. And you were talking about Call Of Duty and Halo, so i pointed out which of the 2 is more balanced, im not gonna go and say "BF2"
2010-04-28 10:34:36
Miggle
FUCK UBISOFT
+1,411|6959|FUCK UBISOFT

you're retarded if you think VCoD isn't miles better than any halo game.
https://i.imgur.com/86fodNE.png
2010-04-28 10:37:39
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

cs 1.6 > cod1

for team gameplay K

Spoiler (highlight to read):
actually I never played cod1 and certainly not in a team, but I would think that I would still prefer cs as the bomb/money system adds a HUGE dynamic to the game
err the main competitive game-mode for vCod was search & destroy ... bomb... plant/defuse.

the money part in CS is an eternal headache. in vCod having separate, defined and static classes (i.e. non customisable) made an amazing TF2-like system of self-regulating balance. riflemen, sprayers, snipers... specific weapons for each side, too, rather than one homogenous glob of poorly-balanced and shitty weapons. each class had a different system of subtleties, skill and nuances. it was fucking great. fundamentally far more balanced and even than cs1.6. vCod was the bomb and to be honest, you should know better than to make assertions when you don't even know what you're talking about.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-04-28 10:38:15)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-04-28 10:41:39
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6924|67.222.138.85

Uzique wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

cs 1.6 > cod1

for team gameplay K

Spoiler (highlight to read):
actually I never played cod1 and certainly not in a team, but I would think that I would still prefer cs as the bomb/money system adds a HUGE dynamic to the game
err the main competitive game-mode for vCod was search & destroy ... bomb... plant/defuse.

the money part in CS is an eternal headache. in vCod having separate, defined and static classes (i.e. non customisable) made an amazing TF2-like system of self-regulating balance. riflemen, sprayers, snipers... specific weapons for each side, too, rather than one homogenous glob of poorly-balanced and shitty weapons. each class had a different system of subtleties, skill and nuances. it was fucking great. fundamentally far more balanced and even than cs1.6. vCod was the bomb and to be honest, you should know better than to make assertions when you don't even know what you're talking about.
The money is tied to the bomb big time CS though, that's why I put them together. Even getting the bomb down does a lot for your money, and winning/losing several rounds in a row can seriously influence future rounds.

You call it a headache, I call it additional complexity. It is refreshing to have game-changing aspects to an FPS that don't revolve completely around gun characteristics and aim.

p.s. not "shit guns", guns that actually have a skill curve. Something utterly lost in the FPS market.
2010-04-28 10:45:40
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688
honestly flaming im not going to argue with you over a game you have never fucking played.

the choice is cod or halo. i mentioned cs1.6 only as an ancillary point because i know whinebags will contest an 'absolute' claim to vCoD's fps supremacy. the skill curve to the weapons in vCoD is immense- just as nuanced and deep as counter strike's - which is probably why both vCoD and CoD2 still have huge communities (relative to their age and other gaming-scenes) focussed on areas such as rifle-only gameplay. the game had bucket loads of depth and a simplicity that was beautiful. you didn't need money-rewards to play, because the classes were restricted in a match to maintain team balance (and necessitate specialities also). it was fuckin' A.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-04-28 10:53:02
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

Neither.

(real world facts, plz )
2010-04-28 10:56:08
pace51
Boom?
+194|5390|Markham, Ontario

mkxiii wrote:

pace51 wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

Halo is such a mediocre set of games in my opinion, so overly hyped when its just a group of things that other games had done before and better, and Microsoft know that they can churn out game after game knowning that Halo fanboys across the world will buy them and praise them as though they have desended from heaven.

Call Of Duty is a great set of games in my opinion, the Single Player campaigns have always been engrossing and you feel connected to the characters as opposed to the lack of empathy you feel for the lifeless asshole that is master chief. I have only played 4 onwards online but i spent a lot of time on 4 and loved playing it with friends as it was so balanced.  5 i didnt think was as impressive, as it seemed like it was trying to copy 4, but improve it slighty, and just failed. 6 however is a terrible terrible online experience. The maps are awful, and feel like they are just ripped out of the single player for convenience, the kill streak rewards make joining games half way through unbearable, the guns arent as balanced as 4, with thermal sights and the like being ridiculous, and the perks have gone beyond the point of insane, i mean jumping off buildings and not hurting yourself? Realism gets thrown right out the window
Cod 4 balanced? MW2 slightly less balanced? WTF?
The last, and best, balanced cod was definitely cods 1 and 2. And, even though some countries, like Russia, had better weapons, you got to choose one weapon from you teams country and one from the enemy teams coountry. Plus, I liked how the pistol functioned. It was useful if you ran out of ammo, and actually very useful, since it can be drawn so quickly and packs a pretty good punch. Pistols, even the bf2 ones, will never measure up to to the primary weapons, so I loved the cod1 mentality of "Keep it seperate but handy". Now that was realistic. Aalthough, back to balancing, the best balanced game ever was probably bf2. Really.
In Call Of Duty 4, you can get a 20 kills streak, on any map, with any weapon, easily, because any weapon could beat any other weapon on any map, it was beautiful, CoD6, not so much. And you were talking about Call Of Duty and Halo, so i pointed out which of the 2 is more balanced, im not gonna go and say "BF2"
I know, I was just pointing out bf2 as a side note. Actually, on the cod4 point, your right. It is balanced. Nvm.
2010-04-28 10:57:46
Miggle
FUCK UBISOFT
+1,411|6959|FUCK UBISOFT

pace51 wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

pace51 wrote:


Cod 4 balanced? MW2 slightly less balanced? WTF?
The last, and best, balanced cod was definitely cods 1 and 2. And, even though some countries, like Russia, had better weapons, you got to choose one weapon from you teams country and one from the enemy teams coountry. Plus, I liked how the pistol functioned. It was useful if you ran out of ammo, and actually very useful, since it can be drawn so quickly and packs a pretty good punch. Pistols, even the bf2 ones, will never measure up to to the primary weapons, so I loved the cod1 mentality of "Keep it seperate but handy". Now that was realistic. Aalthough, back to balancing, the best balanced game ever was probably bf2. Really.
In Call Of Duty 4, you can get a 20 kills streak, on any map, with any weapon, easily, because any weapon could beat any other weapon on any map, it was beautiful, CoD6, not so much. And you were talking about Call Of Duty and Halo, so i pointed out which of the 2 is more balanced, im not gonna go and say "BF2"
I know, I was just pointing out bf2 as a side note. Actually, on the cod4 point, your right. It is balanced. Nvm.
every gun being the same may be balanced, but it's a fucking snoozefest.
https://i.imgur.com/86fodNE.png
2010-04-28 11:06:43
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6717|so randum

mkxiii wrote:

pace51 wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

Halo is such a mediocre set of games in my opinion, so overly hyped when its just a group of things that other games had done before and better, and Microsoft know that they can churn out game after game knowning that Halo fanboys across the world will buy them and praise them as though they have desended from heaven.

Call Of Duty is a great set of games in my opinion, the Single Player campaigns have always been engrossing and you feel connected to the characters as opposed to the lack of empathy you feel for the lifeless asshole that is master chief. I have only played 4 onwards online but i spent a lot of time on 4 and loved playing it with friends as it was so balanced.  5 i didnt think was as impressive, as it seemed like it was trying to copy 4, but improve it slighty, and just failed. 6 however is a terrible terrible online experience. The maps are awful, and feel like they are just ripped out of the single player for convenience, the kill streak rewards make joining games half way through unbearable, the guns arent as balanced as 4, with thermal sights and the like being ridiculous, and the perks have gone beyond the point of insane, i mean jumping off buildings and not hurting yourself? Realism gets thrown right out the window
Cod 4 balanced? MW2 slightly less balanced? WTF?
The last, and best, balanced cod was definitely cods 1 and 2. And, even though some countries, like Russia, had better weapons, you got to choose one weapon from you teams country and one from the enemy teams coountry. Plus, I liked how the pistol functioned. It was useful if you ran out of ammo, and actually very useful, since it can be drawn so quickly and packs a pretty good punch. Pistols, even the bf2 ones, will never measure up to to the primary weapons, so I loved the cod1 mentality of "Keep it seperate but handy". Now that was realistic. Aalthough, back to balancing, the best balanced game ever was probably bf2. Really.
In Call Of Duty 4, you can get a 20 kills streak, on any map, with any weapon, easily, because any weapon could beat any other weapon on any map, it was beautiful, CoD6, not so much. And you were talking about Call Of Duty and Halo, so i pointed out which of the 2 is more balanced, im not gonna go and say "BF2"
getting a 35+ k/s with a M16 or acog'd barret takes something else though, and suiciding friends for ammo
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2010-04-28 11:15:45
pace51
Boom?
+194|5390|Markham, Ontario

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

cs 1.6 > cod1

for team gameplay K

Spoiler (highlight to read):
actually I never played cod1 and certainly not in a team, but I would think that I would still prefer cs as the bomb/money system adds a HUGE dynamic to the game
err the main competitive game-mode for vCod was search & destroy ... bomb... plant/defuse.

the money part in CS is an eternal headache. in vCod having separate, defined and static classes (i.e. non customisable) made an amazing TF2-like system of self-regulating balance. riflemen, sprayers, snipers... specific weapons for each side, too, rather than one homogenous glob of poorly-balanced and shitty weapons. each class had a different system of subtleties, skill and nuances. it was fucking great. fundamentally far more balanced and even than cs1.6. vCod was the bomb and to be honest, you should know better than to make assertions when you don't even know what you're talking about.
The money is tied to the bomb big time CS though, that's why I put them together. Even getting the bomb down does a lot for your money, and winning/losing several rounds in a row can seriously influence future rounds.

You call it a headache, I call it additional complexity. It is refreshing to have game-changing aspects to an FPS that don't revolve completely around gun characteristics and aim.

p.s. not "shit guns", guns that actually have a skill curve. Something utterly lost in the FPS market.
Actually, FM, cod was a better fps, with better gameplay and teambased game play, in multiplayer. CS is a classic, but just because it was MP fps focussed, doesn't mean it was necessarily the best mp game in the time period, sorry if I come across as accusing you of thinking this. However, I think you might be assuming that all the cod games had similar gameplay. Firstly, the difference between the first two cods and the ones that came out after cod 4, including cod 4, is immense. Cod 3 is the game that generated cods transition. In cod 1 and 2, you played in actual battles, in maps veery similar to the real life ones. Instead of map borders, mines stopped you from running away, making the maps not eyesores. Also, when I talked about each team getting weapons according to the country their team was on, I meant it. For example, on Britain vs Germany maps, British players could choose to use a sten, bren, scoped springfield, or enfield, while germans got a choice between the Kar98K, the MP40, the MP44, and the scoped Kar98K. Also, all the maps were very large and extremely tactical. I mean bf2 tactical. Thy had no vehicles, until the expansion pack, but the maps were huge. Now, on the maps, each map had structures like bridges, ravines, or trenches that had to be secured. Securing had nothing to do with the objective, it was just that, capturing structures gave you a point to rally around and defend. Even the smaller maps, like Carentan, which were towns, were tactical. You didn't run and gun, unless you wanted a couple soldiers in a group mowing you down. Also, snipers wouldn't go commando on the maps, they'd cover their teammates. The only people who went commando were people using SMG's. The reason the cod1 team gameplay destroyed cs 1.6's was because sticking together and covering your men came naturally. You'd capture a structure in cod1 because it helped the team, not so you'd get XP. Oh yeah, there was no XP. You played cod1 because you wanted to have fun and wanted to be able to trust your teammates. In cs, you'd only help your team because you wanted more money. Therefore, the cod1 teamplay was so much more genuine. Even in the alternate gamemodes, you often had to trust your teams or other people. Even in the deathmatch free for all mode. In that mode, people sometimes would bond together. The reason was, even if you had an smg and a sniper, or something, was because you wanted backup. It was rare, though. Aand the maps were amazing.

And, the designers really put effort into the maps. and, the single player was just amazing.

And cs1.6 didn't have captain price, did it?

Last edited by pace51 (2010-04-28 11:18:06)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard