Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

neither

Halo reach has more customisation. if you want to make it play like black ops, you can. However black ops has more guns, multiplayer and killstreaks.
But as for my opinion, halo generally has more.

I own and love both Black Ops and Halo: Reach but I'll have to to say Reach

Reach: Black Ops:
Matchmaking Zombies
Forge Target Practice
Campaign Campaign
Story Story
Offline Multiplayer Customizable loadouts
Customizable Armor Killstreaks
Energy Sword Grim Reaper
Vehicles "Blood Splatter" Health
Multi-Level Health Sympathy for the Devil
Theater
"Best ending I've ever seen"
Forge World
12 9

Opinion

Neither.. I'll go with battlefield 2.

Neither save your money
-Reach is fun to start with, but after a while feels bland and the ranks are far too hard too get up
-Black Ops wasn't ever really fun for me, it was good but feels stiiff and it's not really annoying just boring when everybody camps
I would suggest Bioshock(1 or 2), Gears of War(1 or2) or even Bulletstorm

Never played Reach, I got pretty tired of the whole Halo franchise after 3. Once ODST and Halo Wars came around, I left and never came back.

Black Ops is pretty good, not the best FPS game I've ever played, but its a decent one. I agree, CoD: 4 and Battlefield 2 were definitely better though.

they both are ok at best but if i had to pick one it would be halo reach for having a learning curve to it's multiplayer and somewhat intresting theme for single player

At 1/17/11 08:05 PM, snico1995 wrote: Halo Reach all the way, requires a lot more skill and is, in my opinion, more fun.

YES

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

right when i saw your name i ignored your post because it most likely ignorant.

At 1/16/11 11:04 PM, Samen wrote: 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).

Reach was the worst Halo to date if you ask me, especially in terms of multiplayer...

this again?..

well I consider Halo: Reach to be the better game. the multiplayer is balanced and offers more variety than black ops does. Halo has the potential to do a lot, just like forge, and thanks to the ingame physics there's a lot of shits and giggles as you play

CoD black ops is a very solid game, and better than modern warfare 2, but the game gets very stale for me, it doesn't have all the things in halo to keep you in

Black Ops was such as an awesome Call of Duty compared to MW2 (which sucked IMO) while Halo Reach was an absolute failure compared to Halo 3. So, Black Ops is better IMO.

Both series are out played. Reach had a good campaign along with Black Ops. COD had good MP but it is frustrating while Reach was evenly good and more relaxed. In my opinion Reach was a little better.

Both are average (maybe even below average games) in my opinion.
If I was to pick one though, I would pick Halo reach for having more then just "Shoot every enemy in a linear level)

But both games are terrible and have the most worst fanbase known to gaming,.

I'll recommend you go with Black Ops. I have both games and I play Black Ops much more than Halo Reach. They're both good, so I don't think you can go wrong with whichever one you choose but I think you'll have more fun on Black Ops.

Jus my .02 but if you want a good story Halo... If you want better multiplayer and even jus the gameplay in the campaign then COD Bungie has a much better story wirting team but like someone else on here said I dont like playing Competitive shooter and have to empty a mag and half of .223 rounds into someone to kill em. And with Reach specifically that damn DMR is in like every game mode now. If halo let ppl make classes and unlock shit like COD and for god sakes let me aim down my sights I would loove it but no the multiplayer has to suck so BLACK OPS ALL THE WAY

Neither. They were both overrated shooters.

neither of them perfect dark is better

At 3/7/11 02:40 PM, TheSouthernTower wrote: Neither. They were both overrated shooters.

you mean overrated series

At 1/17/11 01:03 AM, RiuTenshin wrote: 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.

0/10

I'd go with Reach. But I mean MW3 is coming out in a few months Im waiting for that personally.

call of duty just because its point and shoot instead of POINT SHOOT ROLL MOVE SHOOT RELOA- dead. But halo reach story is better than blacks ops they need to fix that. everything else is just opinion

Meh, I like both, my general argument is this:

If I come up behind someone on COD Black Ops(CODBLOPS) they're dead, if I come behind people in halo they can turn around an shotgun me before I kill them. D: Halo is based to much around skill in my opinion. I like CODBLOPS more online but Halo more in story.

I have played both but only reach to a smaller extent.

Reach was definitely the best halo game I played(I have played 1, 3 and ODST a little just for the record) and thats alot considering I usually don't like halo and I actually liked this one a little. But I still like black ops better. I don't own reach my friend does but I do own black ops.

thank you some body that thinks

i go with both

Halo, it requires more skill to play and I think its funner. But black ops is still of course good, but in my opionion not as good as halo.

Halo is cheaper.

/fred

I though BlOps Campaign was better, as I hated Reaches one. But multiplayer is so much better on Reach.

The campaign of Reach cant be even worse than the one from Black Ops.

It had the worst campaign ive ever played.