Halo vs. Call of Duty vs. Counter Strike

[phoenixfire]

Wanting to know which series you like better, place your opinions here!

I chose Call of Duty because of it's more realistic gameplay, variety of guns, epic campaigns, and even more epic multiplayer. Plus, it is more "historically" correct.
Second comes Halo, because aliens are always cool and futuristic campaigns never get old + Vehicles!
To be honest, I never played Counter-Strike

 

[Ironside]

I like CoD best, though it's a long time back that I played it.
We play Counter-Strike a lot in school.
Never even played Halo.

 

[Skycraft]

1. Doesn't this go in General Gaming section?
2. I'm not a big fan of either three but I'd say Call of Duty 'cos of Nazi Zombies.

 

[Geazergimli2]

1I'm not a big fan of either three but I'd say Call of Duty 'cos of Nazi Zombies.

Agreed...Only reason i got Black ops... Other than that and the campaign.. Competitive sucks still... COD4 was best by far

 

[phoenixfire]

IMO MW was a failure, and how does competitive suck in Black Ops? Please explain

 

[Geazergimli2]

How can u honestly say that MW was a failure when its the only one in the entire series that won a load of awards...Every map is as horrible as they were in MW2... weapons seem to all suck besides the Galil or whatever that gun's called.. they keep added some more stupid killstreak abilities... still a load a noob tubers.. and there is just something about MW2 and BO that makes me mad everytime i play online....i know this is my opinion but all of my friends think this way too... we just see as a new game that "everyone plays.." so we play it too.. i played about 5 competitive games and hated every game i played i honestly tried to like it.. even the matches where u play against AI was still boring... but zombies... is fun i guess

 

[Ganondorf]

Reaction

...Counter's the only one I play/played, but still I go with Halo.

 

[phoenixfire]

How can u honestly say that MW was a failure when its the only one in the entire series that won a load of awards...Every map is as horrible as they were in MW2... weapons seem to all suck besides the Galil or whatever that gun's called.. they keep added some more stupid killstreak abilities... still a load a noob tubers.. and there is just something about MW2 and BO that makes me mad everytime i play online....i know this is my opinion but all of my friends think this way too... we just see as a new game that "everyone plays.." so we play it too.. i played about 5 competitive games and hated every game i played i honestly tried to like it.. even the matches where u play against AI was still boring... but zombies... is fun i guess

I didn't like it? Honestly, you can't change my opinion. the AK47 and AK74, most of the snipers, half the other SMGs, 3/4 of the assault rifles, and almos tall the Light Machine Guns are good, so don't say the Galil is the only good one because you suck with them. The killstreaks can all be easily eliminated, and you can play Barebones if you dont like them. As for multiplayer, I only tend to play Free-For-All or Domination, the others are kind of boring.

 

[Raven0]

the CoD nazi zombies felt like a serious rip-off of wolfenstein but w/a

IMO the Unreal Tournament series represents the best the FPS genre has to offer

 

[Skycraft]

IMO the Unreal Tournament series represents the best the FPS genre has to offer

That, and Metroid Prime. ;D

 

[Ganondorf]

the CoD nazi zombies felt like a serious rip-off of wolfenstein but w/a

IMO the Unreal Tournament series represents the best the FPS genre has to offer

Just like that! Actually really surprised I don't see UT and Quake on this list...

 

[Tyranid]

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is still the greatest online FPS ever.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Halo: "JUMP AND SHOOT JUMP AND SHOOT"

CoD: "QUICK TURN AROUND. OOPS TOO LATE."

Goldeneye wii ftw.

 

[phoenixfire]

Its not that hard to turn around in CoD. You do know you can set the speed of camera movement/turning around right? Also, Halo, although you got it partially right, does require some strategy.

 

[Gausslander]

How can u honestly say that MW was a failure when its the only one in the entire series that won a load of awards...Every map is as horrible as they were in MW2... weapons seem to all suck besides the Galil or whatever that gun's called.. they keep added some more stupid killstreak abilities... still a load a noob tubers.. and there is just something about MW2 and BO that makes me mad everytime i play online....i know this is my opinion but all of my friends think this way too... we just see as a new game that "everyone plays.." so we play it too.. i played about 5 competitive games and hated every game i played i honestly tried to like it.. even the matches where u play against AI was still boring... but zombies... is fun i guess

It sounds like you're too young to be good at/appreciate the true balance of Black Ops. The Galil is good, but so are most all of the weapons. I have a 1.30 k/d with the PM63 alone, which is rumored to be terrible.

There are no more noob tubers... I don't know why you even included that in your comment. They made the grenade launcher weaker and increased its cost to that of 2.5 weapons, so no one bothers even using it. Take it from me, I've played 500+ competitive matches and have 10,000+ kills and 7,000 deaths, I know the game better than any other I've had.

The balance is the best in the series, the maps are much more balanced and open, so you are not always limited to dying in a tight corridor. Even Nuketown has spawns that are protected from grenade launchers, so the idea that its maps are as bad or worse than MW2's is laughable. Also, comparing it to that game in general is laughable, as they were made by two completely different developers.

All-in-all, I loved WaW, and Black Ops is just an improvement over it in most every way (although I do prefer the WW2 setting). I can't see why anyone would think Modern Warfare better than Black Ops other than the fact that it was the first to use the create-a-class/gain levels and unlock weapons formula.

I always find it funny when people bring up the same arguments from MW2 and imply that BO has the exact same ones... it just means that they haven't even bothered playing it and getting good at it. It seems you just played it, sucked at it, and gave up. Which, although common, is foolish and does not give you the right to imply it has faults that are no longer present with this release of the series.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Its not that hard to turn around in CoD. You do know you can set the speed of camera movement/turning around right?

I was referring to the very fast kill time. Ofc I personally think that thats what makes COD great, but the map design kind of messes this up, as each map is so claustrophobic its insane.

Also, Halo, although you got it partially right, does require some strategy.

The problem is it takes SO long to die. The best players just strafe around you and jump...its strategic but it looks ridiculous.

 

[Celaquil]

Halo all the way.

- Mainly because of the story.

 

[Cihparg]

Halo for 2000+, Goldeneye for 1900+.

 

[Fussiler1]

Wanting to know which series you like better, place your opinions here!

I chose Call of Duty because of it's more realistic gameplay, variety of guns, epic campaigns, and even more epic multiplayer. Plus, it is more "historically" correct.
Second comes Halo, because aliens are always cool and futuristic campaigns never get old + Vehicles!
To be honest, I never played Counter-Strike

CoD realistic?

what

the

fuck

 

[Geazergimli2]

It sounds like you're too young to be good at/appreciate the true balance of Black Ops. The Galil is good, but so are most all of the weapons. I have a 1.30 k/d with the PM63 alone, which is rumored to be terrible.

There are no more noob tubers... I don't know why you even included that in your comment. They made the grenade launcher weaker and increased its cost to that of 2.5 weapons, so no one bothers even using it. Take it from me, I've played 500+ competitive matches and have 10,000+ kills and 7,000 deaths, I know the game better than any other I've had.

The balance is the best in the series, the maps are much more balanced and open, so you are not always limited to dying in a tight corridor. Even Nuketown has spawns that are protected from grenade launchers, so the idea that its maps are as bad or worse than MW2's is laughable. Also, comparing it to that game in general is laughable, as they were made by two completely different developers.

All-in-all, I loved WaW, and Black Ops is just an improvement over it in most every way (although I do prefer the WW2 setting). I can't see why anyone would think Modern Warfare better than Black Ops other than the fact that it was the first to use the create-a-class/gain levels and unlock weapons formula.

I always find it funny when people bring up the same arguments from MW2 and imply that BO has the exact same ones... it just means that they haven't even bothered playing it and getting good at it. It seems you just played it, sucked at it, and gave up. Which, although common, is foolish and does not give you the right to imply it has faults that are no longer present with this release of the series.

I highly doubt age has anything to do with it... its more of an opinion and my opinion stands... COD MW2 & BO sucks... but since people are pulling in other FPS's i guess i can say that Unreal Tournament is a very fun FPS, better then the items stated in the poll...

But im just gonna say that Halo youst to be my favorite FPS Halo & Halo 2... but halo 3 was too slow, i absolutely hated it... (could be because im youst to unreal tournament speed), and halo reach... don't even want to talk about that

Counterstrike is fun... but it seems that when u play multiplayer, all you find is people who are super good at the game hehe

This is my honest opinion take it as you want

 

[phoenixfire]

CoD realistic?

what

the

fuck

CoD is just about as realistic as a game can get.
It has actual guns, not "Assault Rifle", "Shotgun", or "Sniper"
It is based on historical events (partially for Black Ops)
Real "armies' like Spetnaz, Tropas, NVA, SOG, etc.
Realistic-looking units and their own set names (in campaign)

 

[Geazergimli2]

CoD is just about as realistic as a game can get.
It has actual guns, not "Assault Rifle", "Shotgun", or "Sniper"
It is based on historical events (partially for Black Ops)
Real "armies' like Spetnaz, Tropas, NVA, SOG, etc.
Realistic-looking units and their own set names (in campaign)

if u want realistic, try Rainbow Six Vegas 2... sure ne game could be realistic if your putting it in terms of history...

 

[Gausslander]

I highly doubt age has anything to do with it... its more of an opinion and my opinion stands... COD MW2 & BO sucks... but since people are pulling in other FPS's i guess i can say that Unreal Tournament is a very fun FPS, better then the items stated in the poll...

But im just gonna say that Halo youst to be my favorite FPS Halo & Halo 2... but halo 3 was too slow, i absolutely hated it... (could be because im youst to unreal tournament speed), and halo reach... don't even want to talk about that

Counterstrike is fun... but it seems that when u play multiplayer, all you find is people who are super good at the game hehe

This is my honest opinion take it as you want

There you go again. No actual reasons for it sucking -- your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Halo is too slow, CoD too fast? Maybe shooters just aren't for you.

 

[Coolty44]

CoD is just about as realistic as a game can get.
It has actual guns, not "Assault Rifle", "Shotgun", or "Sniper"
It is based on historical events (partially for Black Ops)
Real "armies' like Spetnaz, Tropas, NVA, SOG, etc.
Realistic-looking units and their own set names (in campaign)

No, when you break down all the guns in the respected classes, you'll find that the only differences is :Iron sights, ROF, reload and recoil. Almost everything else statistically is the same.

If you want a game that aims for realism, you wont aim any higher then Bad Company 2. Combined with destructible environment, 3 different forms of warfare, and excellent weapon balance, you can't find any multi-platform game that pulls it off better.

 

[Mr. Bob]

AHEM. ALLOW ME TO CALL BULLSHIT.

Realistic? Cod? HA. Historical? HA. Realistic gameplay? ULTRA HA.

Atleast battlefield has semi realistic gameplay.

But, the most realistic of all is:

America's Army 3. And it sucks. Why? Because, it is realistic.

THAT IS ALL.

 

[phoenixfire]

@coolty Your first sentence made absolutely no sense. Differences from what? And exactly what is statistically the same? All the guns?
Every gun is COMPLETELY different, and no gun is nearly the same. I agree Bad Company 2 is a good game, though.
Don't even try to prove me wrong, I've tried all of them.

@Mr. Bob I call bullshit on your post. CoD is indeed realistic and historical. What did you think World At War was about? An alien invasion? Or what about Black Ops? Zombie invasion? Gameplay is indeed realistic, as I have already listed the points that create the environment.

 

[Mr. Bob]

I HEREBY COUNTER THE COUNTER BULLSHITTING.

Wait so Cod is realistic because you get "real weapons"? lol. Of course its realistic when your comparing a modern military game to a game about aliens raping earth and a giant floating asshole in space.

Now compare it to basically any other modern military shooter.

In CoD the "real guns" have the real names but are about as real as the tanks are in battlefield online. They dont function as the actual gun in question. Which, in my opinion is fine. Just dont tell me running around firing a minigun from the hip is in any way a real scenario. Also, half the guns in question aren't even used by most militaries. If it was THAT realistic they'd all be using m4s and m4 variants. (Aka america's army 3) Add to this that there has never been a single battle in history in any way similar to CoD team deathmatch play. "So it looks like we are stuck in this tiny little map here. K GO RUN AROUND. IF YOU SEE A BAD GUY, SHOOT HIM!"

Also, being in a modern setting doesn't make it historical. If it did, than any Tom Clancy movie ever can be called 'historical'.

I REST MY VERY ANTI-FANBOY CASE.

Oh also yes. The guns are almost exactly the same.

 

[phoenixfire]

Lol? Where'd you get that image? The reason most militaries don't use them are because they are based in the time period. And to be honest, I'd rather play Call of Duty then some game with a shitload of aliens where you can use but 7 guns and not much else. Also, please stop "BULLSHITTING" our opinions. This thread isn't created to troll, its for people's opinions.

 

[GhostThruster]

The person who guesses what I voted for without looking in the results gets a cookie.

@Mr. Bob: Even so, CoD is realistic compared to most other games. And usually, we describe things from an average. So, you would call a 8 ft guy tall, even though he's short compared to a giraffe. Same thing with CoD. It's alot more realistic than alot of the other games (ESPECIALLY Unreal Tournament).

 

[Mr. Bob]

Thats the point. Your comparing a modern military shooter to sci fi games...No shit its going to be more 'realistic'. They aren't comparable. Its not an issue of averages. You have to compare things to their element otherwise the comparison is useless.

Lol? Where'd you get that image? The reason most militaries don't use them are because they are based in the time period. And to be honest, I'd rather play Call of Duty then some game with a shitload of aliens where you can use but 7 guns and not much else. Also, please stop "BULLSHITTING" our opinions. This thread isn't created to troll, its for people's opinions.

No. P90 is still a used weapon. As well as the ak. As well as well...all of them. Its military specific though. Thus, not realistic.

Keep in mind, I generally hate ultra realism in games. The best example is america's army 3. If it was as realistic as a game could get, it would get boring as hell.

3RD OF THE BULLSHIT SERIES

 

[The Reborn Devil]

UT3 > Any of those

The Norwegian military plays a modded version of UT3 and Microsoft Flight Simulator (combined into one game) when they simulate war.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Personally, I think Metroid Prime as a whole series takes the cake here. Ofc, if you want multiplayer youd play goldeneye wii.

/me likes shooting with a wii mote.

 

[Pyritie]

they're all shit

 

[Fussiler1]

CoD is just about as realistic as a game can get.
It has actual guns, not "Assault Rifle", "Shotgun", or "Sniper"
It is based on historical events (partially for Black Ops)
Real "armies' like Spetnaz, Tropas, NVA, SOG, etc.
Realistic-looking units and their own set names (in campaign)

seems like others already answered this

 

[phoenixfire]

I never said they didn't use them today. I said some were use in that time period and that is why militaries dont use them today. The guns are military-specific in the campaign, just not in multiplayer, which would be nearly impossible since sides are randomly chosen and different each map. However, maybe they could have a lot of similar guns from different militaries to solve this problem

seems like others already answered this

They did not prove a valid argument to me against that.

 

[ragingspeedhorn]

Fuck Call of Duty. The King is Back, Baby!

 

[Geazergimli2]

Maybe i'm not really feeling any joy playing these "Modern Combat" kind of games... cause i don't feel any sense of joy when i play CS, MW2, BO, BC2... but i do when i play games like Unreal Tournament and Halo (at least 1 and 2)... i'll even through SW : Republic Commando in there and Resistance : Fall of Man... those games were awesome , and i couldn't be any happier with my selection

 

[Mr. Bob]

I never said they didn't use them today. I said some were use in that time period and that is why militaries dont use them today. The guns are military-specific in the campaign, just not in multiplayer, which would be nearly impossible since sides are randomly chosen and different each map. However, maybe they could have a lot of similar guns from different militaries to solve this problem

No, there was never a time when the ground forces of any country used the p90...or well...half the others. Its not time specific either. Its just pure fantasy. And no its not impossible. America's Army does it fine. It just isn't as much fun.

 

[Devine]

COD > CS > anything

 

[phoenixfire]

No, there was never a time when the ground forces of any country used the p90...or well...half the others. Its not time specific either. Its just pure fantasy. And no its not impossible. America's Army does it fine. It just isn't as much fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90
It is used by over 40 countries, and if you say wiki is a bad source, I can find a lot of others.

 

[Skycraft]

Metroid Prime + Duke Nukem = Mind Blown.

 

[Mr. Bob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90
It is used by over 40 countries, and if you say wiki is a bad source, I can find a lot of others.

Now look at what forces use them. Note how I said military ground forces. So, unless your playing as an over sized tactical squad doing what tactical teams...wouldn't do, or your playing as the texas police force, then yeah. No.

Point being, its unrealistic as fuck compared to other military shooters. But thats fine as a lot of the more hyper realistic shooters tend to be not as fun. (aka Americas Army.)

 

[phoenixfire]

Stop brinigng up America's Army. We all know you damn hate it.
P-90s are used by special forces, which, for most CoD games, you are.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Stop brinigng up America's Army. We all know you damn hate it.
P-90s are used by special forces, which, for most CoD games, you are.

AH BUT YOU SEE...

If you make it special forces then it becomes EVEN MORE unrealistic. Because, the multiplayer scenarios are nothing like a real scenario. (aka rainbow six)

So either way. If its ground forces than its unrealistic because of the weaponry and the multiplayer maps. If its special forces its unrealistic because of the multiplayer gameplay in general and the lack of tactical shit.

DID I MENTION HOW MUCH I DISLIKE AMERICA'S ARMY 3?

 

[phoenixfire]

How do special forces make it even more unrealistic? Do you really think in multiplayer real life a normal militaruy would have 6 people trying to blow something up? Special forces would.

And if you bring multiplayer in, then in my opinion Halo completely will lose. The Halo multiplayer is nothing compared to CoD's and Halo used to be my favorite game, me hating CoD.

 

[Mr. Bob]

How do special forces make it even more unrealistic? Do you really think in multiplayer real life a normal militaruy would have 6 people trying to blow something up? Special forces would.

Um no. Not at all.

 

[Zpider]

Battlefield

 

[leet.firefox]

Weapons as light as a feather, limited recoil, no jamming, unlimited sprint, perfect vision, completely cramped and linear levels, ability to take multiple gunshot wounds and then just sit in the corner to magically regenerate, and laughably terrible plots with major loopholes does not a "realistic" game make.

If you want to play a shooter for "realism" then try out the ARMA, Delta Force, and Operation Flashpoint series. Even those barely scratch the surface of what actual combat is like, but at least they put some effort into it. Don't even try to label Call of Duty games as "realistic". Doing so is an insult to anyone who has ever served in the armed forces. Realism was never in the developer's mind during the creation process. Having fun, however, was. Any battle in real life is much, much, much, much slower and methodical. Because, believe it or not, humans are not mindless NPCs that run straight into enemy fire and take cover at the same exact spot in the same exact position they just saw their buddies head get blown off at. I know Call of Duty games like to portray otherwise, but most soldiers don't actually want to die.

http://thebrigade.com/2010/12/20/so-ya-think-your-call-of-duty-game-is-intense-heres-the-real-thing-video/ This video isn't a completely accurate depiction of warfare, as it is only one battle and the soldier whose helmet the camera was attached to is being an asshat and running around and firing too close to friendlies.But it's enough to show that Call of Duty doesn't have shit on the real deal.

I don't care if you people argue about which online shooter is the most fun (Bad Company 2, obviously) but please don't bring up realism and video games in the same thought.

 

[phoenixfire]

Weapons as light as a feather, limited recoil, no jamming, unlimited sprint, perfect vision, completely cramped and linear levels, ability to take multiple gunshot wounds and then just sit in the corner to magically regenerate, and laughably terrible plots with major loopholes does not a "realistic" game make.

If you want to play a shooter for "realism" then try out the ARMA, Delta Force, and Operation Flashpoint series. Even those barely scratch the surface of what actual combat is like, but at least they put some effort into it. Don't even try to label Call of Duty games as "realistic". Doing so is an insult to anyone who has ever served in the armed forces. Realism was never in the developer's mind during the creation process. Having fun, however, was. Any battle in real life is much, much, much, much slower and methodical. Because, believe it or not, humans are not mindless NPCs that run straight into enemy fire and take cover at the same exact spot in the same exact position they just saw their buddies head get blown off at. I know Call of Duty games like to portray otherwise, but most soldiers don't actually want to die.

http://thebrigade.com/2010/12/20/so-ya-think-your-call-of-duty-game-is-intense-heres-the-real-thing-video/ This video isn't a completely accurate depiction of warfare, as it is only one battle and the soldier whose helmet the camera was attached to is being an asshat and running around and firing too close to friendlies.But it's enough to show that Call of Duty doesn't have shit on the real deal.

I don't care if you people argue about which online shooter is the most fun (Bad Company 2, obviously) but please don't bring up realism and video games in the same thought.

Weapons as light as feathers? What? Try not using SMGs. I find the recoil terrible on multiple weapons (AK47 as an example), and you can definately "jam." Sprint is limited to an extent, also varied on weapons and perks, and whats that about perfect vision and cramped levels? Black Ops has none of that. You regenerate in most games (Also in Halo, Mass Effect, and many others, although they are more futuristic). The plot? Terrible? What the hell are you on?

It is realistic for video games, but video games can't be exactly completely realistic with noobs.
Also the video you posted is obviously not from Afghanistan, or real life. The whole thing itself looks slightly animated. Plus, that soldier is being a dumbass if he's not behind cover during all this and just standing randomly while everybody else is lieing down. I can list many other reasons I foudn this video a fake, but please, look at it yourself.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Weapons as light as feathers? What? Try not using SMGs. I find the recoil terrible on multiple weapons (AK47 as an example), and you can definately "jam." Sprint is limited to an extent, also varied on weapons and perks, and whats that about perfect vision and cramped levels? Black Ops has none of that. You regenerate in most games (Also in Halo, Mass Effect, and many others, although they are more futuristic). The plot? Terrible? What the hell are you on?

lol I love how you just compared CoD, to halo and mass effect. I'm getting the feeling you've never played any other modern military shooter. Also, a lot of the weapons they fire from the hip cant be fired from the hip lest everyone playing is a heavy from tf2. Also, running whilst holding some of these weapons is ridiculous as well.

And yeah the plot is kinda sucky. This arena is one arena you can compare to different elements.

It is realistic for video games, but video games can't be exactly completely realistic with noobs.

Americas army, any Battlefield game, and basically all the rainbow six games do it quite well. Hell even counterstrike was more realistic.

Also the video you posted is obviously not from Afghanistan, or real life. The whole thing itself looks slightly animated. Plus, that soldier is being a dumbass if he's not behind cover during all this and just standing randomly while everybody else is lieing down. I can list many other reasons I foudn this video a fake, but please, look at it yourself.

Your assuming his head line is at the camera. The camera is actually attached to his helmet on top, and is not representative of his eye height.

As leet already said, combat in CoD is just about as far from realistic as you can get. Its supposed to be fun not hyper real. The idea of free roaming a small chunk of city looking for enemies is very unrealistic. Also the lack of squad tactics, and tactics in general. Also, in CoD a firefight with one other person often lasts around 5 seconds. This is because your both running around franticly, and whoever pulls off a shot first survives. In a real situation you would be in a firefight with someone for long periods of time. Often, without knowing where the other person is. The reason its not like this in CoD is because they value fun over realism.

We aren't arguing with you about which one is the most fun. We are talking about realism. Which none of the choices have. Fun and realism dont have to go hand in hand.