Black ops or Halo reach

[Tech102Element]

Which game do you think is better?

[Samen]

They're both very good. However, while Reach was the best Halo game to date; Black Ops was not the best Call of Duty to date (though it's easily the second or third best).

[Playfordeath001]

At 1/16/11 11:01 PM, Tech102Element wrote: Which game do you think is better?

I never got into Halo, I've played every game in the series and I hate them all. But I love Black Ops and thats why I play PS3. But- they're both fine in my opinion. Both of them has its ups and downs.

[Raab]

Black Ops is not all that great, imo...
but its still way better than Reach...

Unless you are 13 years old.... then get halo.

[Tech102Element]

Well ya there both pretty good halo has more vehicles in it that you can ride,Black ops has more killing and action.

[Playfordeath001]

At 1/16/11 11:10 PM, Tech102Element wrote: Well ya there both pretty good halo has more vehicles in it that you can ride,Black ops has more killing and action.

You can't really compare these two games.. it just depends on what you like and what you don't like.

[Tech102Element]

well there both great games

[The-Great-One]

At 1/16/11 11:04 PM, Playfordeath001 wrote: I never got into Halo, I've played every game in the series and I hate them all. But I love Black Ops and thats why I play PS3. But- they're both fine in my opinion. Both of them has its ups and downs.

FINALLY! Someone here who knows how to give their opinion as well as their critical opinion!

As far as Call of Duty goes, it's just another army game and it's not one I can really get into. The multiplayer is fun, but I tend to like Halo more. However Call of Duty: Black Ops is a great FPS.

[Eddmario]

Mandatory post

[RiuTenshin]

Well, it depends on what you want. Halo is a tactical shooter, as in it's much slower, and requires a fair amount of skill and possibly strategy. It's easy to get into but hard to master. Call of Duty is an arcade shooter that is fast paced and furious. The skill ceiling, I think, is rather low because I feel that even with no tactical thinking or strategy someone can do extremely well. Take that with a grain of salt, as it is my opinion.

Halo is slower, more tactical. Look to 25 minute matches in CTF.

Call of Duty is much faster and more suited for one who wants a quick match from time to time.

[snico1995]

Halo Reach all the way, requires a lot more skill and is, in my opinion, more fun.

[BrandonXDD]

Call of Duty if you just like to play games. But halo has forge which is pretty cool. But still isn't a very groundbreaking feature.

[Playfordeath001]

At 1/16/11 11:45 PM, The-Great-One wrote:

At 1/16/11 11:04 PM, Playfordeath001 wrote: I never got into Halo, I've played every game in the series and I hate them all. But I love Black Ops and thats why I play PS3. But- they're both fine in my opinion. Both of them has its ups and downs.

FINALLY! Someone here who knows how to give their opinion as well as their critical opinion!

As far as Call of Duty goes, it's just another army game and it's not one I can really get into. The multiplayer is fun, but I tend to like Halo more. However Call of Duty: Black Ops is a great FPS.

Totally. But I hate it when a bunch of people are in a argument about two very popular games. But again, if you like alien/warfare choose Halo. If you like Vietnam/Cod then choose Black Ops.

Simple enough?

[MintPaw]

When I discuss this with my friends this is my example.

Halo game rely on to much skill. I mean I run at someones back with firing a smg spot on, and they turn around and shotgun me. In COD you fire at anyone from behind, they are going the hell down.

Like COD relies not things like taking cover and getting in a good position. When I play Halo I see people running around and firing at whoever they see first.

[CapnTater]

Black Ops gets boring very quickly, and most of the map designs are pretty bad. Reach, on the other hand, has a larger variety of game types that don't feel like, "Shoot some people, cap some flags on the side". Reach is also a lot better in regards of theater mode, Reach also has Forge. But I suppose Black Ops has its good campaign and zombies mode that's inferior compared to the maps World at War had.

[naronic]

I found halo reaches campaign much more compelling and challenging than black ops, which (like the previous games) simply recycled the gameplay from mw2 and threw in even more linear levels and bull-grade "cinematics" fed through auto pilot sequences.

but then agian when half life 3 comes out and we all bow down to its epicness it's not like any of these games will matter

[Halberd]

I always liked Halo more, they didn't have to bother with realism or anything (not that COD had realism, but who cares, they have to at least attempt to make it somewhat realistic whereas Halo they can change the rules a bit cause it's the future)

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

Halo Reach was shite compared to 2 and 3.

Black ops had fixes to MW2 but took some important concepts out, and broke the game... Again.

[comicretard]

Call of Duty is lame. I'd rather play Reach... but I prefer TF2.

[theartofkc]

black ops ^_^ just a better game imo not to say halo was bad i just enjoy cod and i hate not being able to fucking iron sight in halo >.<

[Corpus-Delicti]

At 1/18/11 02:03 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Black Ops without a doubt. Avoid Failo like the plague.

Fanboy much?

[Arimeister]

Reach. There will probably be three new COD games out next week or so, no point getting Black Ops.

[Tech102Element]

Black Ops gets boring very quickly, and most of the map designs are pretty bad. Reach, on the other hand, has a larger variety of game types that don't feel like, "Shoot some people, cap some flags on the side". Reach is also a lot better in regards of theater mode, Reach also has Forge. But I suppose Black Ops has its good campaign and zombies mode that's inferior compared to the maps World at War had.

True halo does have allot of game types

[Tech102Element]

crap sorry im not good at post ^i didn't meant to copy it :(

[Simple]

At 1/19/11 01:09 AM, Liquify wrote:

At 1/18/11 04:32 PM, Corpus-Delicti wrote:

At 1/18/11 02:03 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Black Ops without a doubt. Avoid Failo like the plague.

Fanboy much?

HAHAHA

Truth

Truth

Give me Reach anyday over Black Ops. I may get annoyed by idiots team killing me for weapons but that doesn't compare to the fucking idiots that you come across in Black Ops. Just because stopping power is removed doesn't improve the game because now every single gun is too powerful.

[Domo]

I like games that are more a mythical fantasy type game where its not possible for the game to be true like Dead Rising, Halo, Pokemon. Games like that I have more fun playing. I'm not much of a real nut for war games like Call of Duty and Battlefield. But in Halo Reach I did not enjoy the campaign as much in Halo 3. Black ops Campaign was amazing with graphics and real solid game play. So I prefer black ops over halo.

[Soviet]

None

[Viri]

At 1/19/11 02:39 AM, Simple wrote:

Just because stopping power is removed doesn't improve the game because now every single gun is too powerful.

Haha.

[Shnam]

Black Ops is meh but Halo: Reach has quite a few broken mechanics such as Armor lock and grenades. And Bungie is being as obnoxious as Infinity Ward was with MW2 by not addressing problems with their damn game and releasing map packs instead. I would still take Reach over Black Ops though because at least I have fun with Reach.

[RandomHero96]

I really don't think either where that good. The best Halo game was Halo 2. The best Call Of Duty game was Call Of Duty 4. I wasn't really impressed with either.