COD4 vs Halo3 waste of time?

[Randum]

So I have a number of podcasts I subscribe to and this one I'm listening to now have two shows to the comparison of Halo3 and COD4.
I might be in the minority but this just seems like a complete waste of time to compare these two, its like apples and oranges.
Modern warefare vs sci fi shooter??
I know you can compare on the grounds of a FPS....but I feel like they are two completely different games in terms of gameplay/atmosphere etc...
Multiplayer....between unloocks...perks....maps...gamemodes...halo isn't even close to this ...yet it still excels at its strengths.

 

[mugs]

You're right, they're very different games, and each has its own merits. And Halo 3 has a kick-ass stats site that should be a model for all future games.

But CoD 4 is better.

 

[tatteredpotato]

I suppose you could compare what aspects of the games make them good, but it really comes down to personal preference. Halo has always done an awesome job of having an unique feel. I know many people feel that Halo is just another shooter, but it definitely has a feel that I have not seen replicated in any other games. Halo also had a great idea with the medals and Double-Triple-Overkill / Killing Spree/Frenzy/Running Riot. Getting medals is part of what makes the halo multiplayer experience exciting. Also Halo 3 is very solid through and through, whereas COD4 always feels kinda buggy in the menus (gameplay is fine though).

COD4 did a good job of making things more realistic. A couple shots from medium to long range with your standard assault rifle is more than enough to kill an enemy in COD4, while that will do next to no damage in Halo. I'm not sure if I completely agree with the way unlockables were done in COD4. In theory you're giving the more experienced players better weapons and perks, but on the other hand it feels good to unlock things and makes you feel like you have accomplished something. Also the ranking system in COD4 is relative purely to how much you play and not how skilled you are. I like it at times because there are times I get quite angry at the Halo 3 ranking system, but in Halo when you see a level 50 you know the guy has some skill, but thats not necessarily the case in COD4 when you see a lvl. 55.

The two games have different gameplay styles as well. Halo is a game that hings on map control. Once a team has a certain number of the "power weapons" they can be hard to beat unless you find the right equipment to counter them. COD4 is more about one weapon do all... and you don't change weapons nearly as often. Halo provides for up close combat, but the higher bullet damage and one hit kill melee of COD4 discourages it.

So yes completely different games that will appeal to different people depending on your play style. I'm a Halo guy myself, but I still like to fire up COD4 every couple of days.

 

[Queasy]

It's no different than comparing the 2007 New England Patriots vs the undefeated Miami Dolphins team from the 70s. The differences between the two make comparison practically impossible but it is good debate material none the less.

 

[skace]

The point of comparing the 2 games is that they both function as multiplayer FPS games, and you are trying to give someone an idea of which they might enjoy without having to buy both and play each one for an hour. That doesn't necessarily mean one game has to "win", only that differences are highlighted and explained.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: skace
The point of comparing the 2 games is that they both function as multiplayer FPS games, and you are trying to give someone an idea of which they might enjoy without having to buy both and play each one for an hour. That doesn't necessarily mean one game has to "win", only that differences are highlighted and explained.

:thumbsup: Otherwise, most comparison discussions are a waste of time since they rely on a lot of subjectivity. Yet here we are. I like both and will continue to play both depending on what I feel like.

 

[Randum]

good points guys. I def like to hear pros and cons of games. And there is no "winner" for sure.. good point

 

[Injury]

It's more a discussion of game style instead of plot, setting, etc.

In any case it's still going to be a discussion based mostly on personal preference because "one man's trash is another's treasure"

 

[purbeast0]

i agree it's a stupid comparison and have been saying it since day 1.

halo is a much slower based game where team work is needed to get victories.

cod4 is a much faster paced game where you have to always be watching your shoulder or you will be killed instantly.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: skace
The point of comparing the 2 games is that they both function as multiplayer FPS games, and you are trying to give someone an idea of which they might enjoy without having to buy both and play each one for an hour. That doesn't necessarily mean one game has to "win", only that differences are highlighted and explained.

the problem is that the "comparisons" are never just that. they are always one person defending why one is better than the other.

you rarely hear people say that they are both great games in their own.

and i'm not talking about on this forum cause it's pretty mature on this forum. but go to any other gaming website and it's a completely different ballgame. it's one or the other - not both. the same goes for consoles.

 

[JoPh]

tf2 ftw

 

[EvilComputer92]

I hate games that use realistic weapons and movement in general. Rainbow Six Vegas being the only exception.

 

[Randum]

Originally posted by: EvilComputer92
I hate games that use realistic weapons and movement in general. Rainbow Six Vegas being the only exception.

not to get too far off topic but i def agree-i like furture sci fi weapons and RS V is a truly awesome game. great level design