UPSB v4
Off-topic / Halo vs Call of Duty
-
Date: Tue, May 10 2011 23:38:55
Hello, I am WretchedRapture, and I'm using the off-topic forum to whore my video. I've had a youtube channel for a while because I'm a video game nerd and I have expensive recording things. It's too bad no one watches my videos, but that is ok because I have a lot of fun making them. I can't wait until I'm decent enough to make a PS'ing video but that's going to be a lonnnngg time from now. Until then, I'll stick to making videos involving things that I am good at. My opinion on 'cod vs halo' is included in the video commentary. Obviously, feel free to discuss on the forum, but if you could leave a comment on youtube it would be greatly appreciated. Preferably comments that other people would be seriously frustrated with, thus starting a huge arguement and getting my video lots of attention. hahahaa. Also, for those of you who are into video games, what are your opinions on MW3? Are you excited, curious, or are you just sick of cod by now? As always, thanks in advance. :D
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 00:05:13
Aren't commentaries supposed to be about the video we're seeing? That was confusing because only once did you even reference what was happening on screen, other than that you were just rambling about nothing ...
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 00:12:22
I don't feel qualified to post on this manner.
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 00:40:20
strat1227 wrote: Aren't commentaries supposed to be about the video we're seeing? That was confusing because only once did you even reference what was happening on screen, other than that you were just rambling about nothing ...
Well, that's understandable, but if you were to ever watch some of the famous commentators for Call of Duty and other video games, guys like Seananners and Hutch who work for a company called Machinima, they get payed to make commentaries and more often than not they are talking about issues in the gaming community, or just talking about completly different topics. I've watched commentaries where people describe and elaborate what's going on in the gameplay, and they tend to be fairly redundant. Perhaps if it was a tutorial, or an attempt to help others get better at the game, I would have provided more insight on what I was actually doing and why. Thanks for the feedback, though. -
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 00:52:39
They usually talk about something specific though and not just talk anywho, you missed out on the best era of fps gaming. halo 2 was the best of all time, and cod4 when it first came out was the greatest thing ever. fps gaming sucks now
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 00:58:38
I suppose? Fans of Halo 2 tend to have problems with Halo 3, just as many fans of Halo 3 have problems with Halo: Reach. Cod 4 is one of the best COD games around, there is no denying that. In the end it's just a matter of adapting. As far fps gaming sucks now, well sales numbers beg to differ on that one. I think there is too many fps out now that are striving to be like cod, but that is the only problem that I see with fps in general. To each their own.
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 01:03:07
Haha quantity =/= quality young one.
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 01:09:44
True, but high quantity of sales usually reflects a high quality product. Still, I must concur with you because COD has only gotten worse as sales went up. lol.
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 01:10:59
Haha just because gaming in general has gotten shit-tons more popular since Halo 2 doesn't mean the games are better Anyway I'm not biased because I've played Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Reach, Cod4, Codwaw, MW2 and Black Ops all pretty much equally
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 01:18:40
Yes, it probably just means that consumers have gotten increasingly stupid :] If you're wondering, I was not being sarcastic.lol. Assuming that games have just gotten worse, I wonder why the industry has grown so rapidly over the past decade? Serious question.
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 01:21:16
when it's not niche people have to appeal to the large audience halo 2 isn't as appealing to the general public because it has a steep learning curve. if i've played more than you and i'm better than you, i'll kill you. almost every time. once the general public got in on it they had to level the curve some, make it so that anyone who's decent at videogames can pick up a controller and get some kills. it's like the rubber-band effect in non-realistic racing games, it's not fun to get raped over and over so they made it so bad people can still do well that's why fps games suck now
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 02:08:29
strat1227 wrote: when it's not niche people have to appeal to the large audience halo 2 isn't as appealing to the general public because it has a steep learning curve. if i've played more than you and i'm better than you, i'll kill you. almost every time. once the general public got in on it they had to level the curve some, make it so that anyone who's decent at videogames can pick up a controller and get some kills. it's like the rubber-band effect in non-realistic racing games, it's not fun to get raped over and over so they made it so bad people can still do well that's why fps games suck now
What changed after Halo 2 that "made it so bad people can still do well"? Console games have always been easier to pick up than PC games. That's why PC games dominate the competitive scene. They're fair. If you're good, you win; if you're bad, you lose. -
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 02:17:16
The weapon damage sliders changed a ton, it's pretty well-documented Pick-up-and-play weapons like needlers and swords got way improved To put it colloquially, more "noob" weapons got introduced/got more powerful Obviously console games in general are easier than PC games in general, but i'm talking from game-to-game within consoles, so how does the playability of PC games even matter?
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 02:28:59
strat1227 wrote: The weapon damage sliders changed a ton, it's pretty well-documented Pick-up-and-play weapons like needlers and swords got way improved To put it colloquially, more "noob" weapons got introduced/got more powerful Obviously console games in general are easier than PC games in general, but i'm talking from game-to-game within consoles, so how does the playability of PC games even matter?
Halo has a matchmaking system that matches you with players of similar rank and skill. Any effects from changes to weapons are thus minimal. Call of Duty, on the other hand, gets easier to pick up with every new edition. (Examples being the removal of idle sway in Black Ops and the drastic lowering of health in Modern Warfare 2.) Call of Duty games also don't have any type of skill- or rank-based matchmaking, or any playlist for better players like Halo's MLG. I used to take console gaming very seriously, then I realized there aren't any games that I like played by many people that involve minimal luck and rely primarily on skill. Those games are all on PC. -
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 02:32:52
It has a matchmaking system that's based on the flawed original games though ... I'm confused: "Console games are all nooby" -> /defends the legitimacy of a console-only game lol whatever, at least we both agree COD games got easier. Halo games did too though
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 03:25:02
CoD is better. Nuf said
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 03:31:05
i will always choose halo over cod <3
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 03:40:35
CoD is a present-era Fps. While Halo is a futuristic fps. I find the two games to be too different to compare. Id play either of them. Its just a matter of whether you want to get blown up by noobtoobs or get killed by power weapon whores.
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 04:39:51
strat1227 wrote: when it's not niche people have to appeal to the large audience halo 2 isn't as appealing to the general public because it has a steep learning curve. if i've played more than you and i'm better than you, i'll kill you. almost every time. once the general public got in on it they had to level the curve some, make it so that anyone who's decent at videogames can pick up a controller and get some kills. it's like the rubber-band effect in non-realistic racing games, it's not fun to get raped over and over so they made it so bad people can still do well that's why fps games suck now
I don't think that applies to just Halo 2, i think that is a rule of thumb in any series, ESPECIALLY Halo, but not just Halo 2. If i play Halo 3 and Reach, and I go play halo 2, it is not going to be much a learning curve for me. Seeing as how Reach is one of the most popular halo games to date (as far as hype goes and publicity goes), it would just act as a gateway for the rest of the series. Someone who has played Reach for a while might decide go go back and play Halo, Halo 2, or Halo 3 and to that person the learning curve would be very slight. Also, "If i'm better than you, I'm going to kill you" very much applies to Halo 3 as well. In a cod firefight, maybe not, because people die so fast and it's simply a matter of reactions being able to aim, but halo firefights always come down to a battle of skill simply because it takes a lot to kill someone. Same case for Reach, although I personally think Reach has a higher level of randomocity due to the armor abilities and the addition of reticle bloom which many people, including most MLG players, think takes away from the 'skill' aspect of the game. For that reason, a lot of MLG players still prefer Halo 3 over Reach. -
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 04:45:42
Two completely different games. Both are good. Both have weaknesses. Bwa.
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 04:45:44
Also, @King hit the nail on the head. Exactly what I think, as i mentioned in the video. There is always going to be the whores. :] Gotta learn to love them. haha
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 04:52:04
Battlefield FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 08:02:56
I started with Halo, and loved it. I played Halo CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3, for quite some time. The jump from one to the next, I didn't find to bad, I actually thought that the games got better after the next release. The first Call of Duty game I ever played the multiplayer on, was World at War. I thought it was fun, definitely different, and I enjoyed it very much. I still played some Halo, but I started playing CoD more often. Eventually MW2 came out, and I didn't get it until about five months after it came out. I played online, but I wasn't that good. It wasn't until I was shown the noob-tube where I started racking up more kills, and upped my KD by so much. It got boring eventually, so I experimented with other guns. I then equipped myself with a UMP, and later on a SPAS as well, and I actually gained some skill running around as opposed to camping. I got so used to playing on a high sensitivity for CoD, that when I randomly jumped back to Halo 3, even the highest sensitivity there wasn't good enough for me. Halo Reach was a disappointment for me, when I got the beta, I cancelled my pre-order right away. I got so used to the fast-paced games from MW2, that Halo was now really, really slow compared to it. I don't like what Bungie did to Halo and how they changed everything in Reach. So if I were to choose between the two, Call of Duty definitely gets my vote. tl;dr CoD>Halo
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 08:11:14
Mike wrote: I started with Halo, and loved it. I played Halo CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3, for quite some time. The jump from one to the next, I didn't find to bad, I actually thought that the games got better after the next release. The first Call of Duty game I ever played the multiplayer on, was World at War. I thought it was fun, definitely different, and I enjoyed it very much. I still played some Halo, but I started playing CoD more often. Eventually MW2 came out, and I didn't get it until about five months after it came out. I played online, but I wasn't that good. It wasn't until I was shown the noob-tube where I started racking up more kills, and upped my KD by so much. It got boring eventually, so I experimented with other guns. I then equipped myself with a UMP, and later on a SPAS as well, and I actually gained some skill running around as opposed to camping. I got so used to playing on a high sensitivity for CoD, that when I randomly jumped back to Halo 3, even the highest sensitivity there wasn't good enough for me. Halo Reach was a disappointment for me, when I got the beta, I cancelled my pre-order right away. I got so used to the fast-paced games from MW2, that Halo was now really, really slow compared to it. I don't like what Bungie did to Halo and how they changed everything in Reach. So if I were to choose between the two, Call of Duty definitely gets my vote. tl;dr CoD>Halo
Indeed. It was painful to get back into the swing of halo sensitivity >.<' Once I got the feel back though, nothing can beat it. Nostaligia, I suppose. -
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 08:14:41
Gears of War? Did I win?
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 08:21:46
@AoD1 that hurts my feelings... haha jk For me, Gears has an enjoyable campaign, but i stay farr farrr away from the multiplayer. And when i say far, I mean far. BUT. For the sake of non-existent competition, you totally win.
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 18:17:33
what do people think of crysis 2?
-
Date: Wed, May 11 2011 18:48:23
@Ohayo, I haven't played Cryisis 2 since it's release, but I played both of the betas. The first time around I was a little put off by it because the hit detection and damage was way off, but when they released the updated beta it was actually pretty fun. Some kind of strange cod/halo hybrid. I haven't had the chance to play the finished version, but I'm guessing it only got better :]