[tiger227]

Whats better, you decide, i like halo reach

[Muerte]

  Haven't played either of them.  Tell me what makes one better than the other.

[tiger227]

Gameplay, duhh 

[blacksite117]

i fell that halo reach is the better of the 2

black ops is completely unoriginal in every way, zombies was ripped from WAW, the DOA zombie mode is based off of games like smash tv, the story is basically a repeat of WAW with MW2 references thrown in, the multiplayer bots are completly idiotic even though there based off of players from MW2, and i find the killstreaks to be lacking in every way. but despite all this they did have the most epic tailer for thier multiplayer, but ill let you look that up.

halo reach is completely original, new character upgraded everything, armor abilities, invasion, firefight generator defence, stockpile and all the other game modes, forge world, new game engine, the impostering technique, assinations all of this is eith new or updated theres not even a halo in sight for this game, on top of that it has a gripping storyline in a campaign i happily play over and over again (especially nights of solace the space mission), and for the added replay factor bungie added daily and weekly chalenges, as well as dynamic armor upgrading which changes in game as you buy more stuff.

i speak having played on both.

[Muerte]

Gameplay, duhh 

  A little more specic?  What is the difference between the game play of the two systems.

[chaoticpsyche]

The graphics I used to play my friends ps3 when I was still navy and I just recently had a friend over who had a 360, I like the ps3 however I honestly would choose the 360.

[ViciouslyMe]

I have to go with Black Ops. Halo Reach was fun, but isn't something that I can continuously play. To be honest, after the first few weeks of having it, it lost its "luster" so to speak. Black Ops has more weaspons (which, variety is always nice, of course), and it takes more skill to kill. s2k? And while both games have had an ever increasing amount of "campers", I'd say they're a lot easier to deal with in Black Ops. Though I do like assassinating in Reach.

[blacksite117]

if killing with skill is what you want the pre-order bulletstorm.

[ViciouslyMe]

Oh don't worry, been keeping my eye on that one for a while. And, so far, it does look impressive. Then again, its easy to make something look impressive. We'll see if it lives up to atleast most of the hype.

hmm, Black ops give a better approximation for a fire fight. Reach on the other hand a vehicle advantage, and the areas reflect this.


And I believe that it is unfair to bring originality to a game comparison/discussion. We are talking about which is the better experience, and how much appeal originality vs functionality holds. As game experience isn't always being newer and edgier, sometimes a comfortable well planned game trumps a new cutting edge game, due to the familiarity we derive from the experience.


For example. Dynasty warriors. Tekken. ANY GAME IN A SERIES.


Sure innovation is a wonderful thing and it does help keep games from getting old. BUUT Its not everything. Cause you know, there are times when On the rails gaming trumps the freedom of a sandbox game out of sheer plot adherence.


SO

HALO REACH: Favors vastly differing playing styles, Scifi fans, Has vehicles(tanks, atv's, jeeps, aircraft), supersoldiers, Personal shields, But a somewhat less rewarding multiplayer experience.

And Medal of honor:BLACK OPS: For those looking for a tom clancyish novel in a game, Russian communist hijinks, a more story lined approach, familiar guns, multiple grenade varieties, Micro managing, more highlighted class differences.And  VICTOR REZZZNOOOVVVV!!!!





And yes i do like Black Ops better than halo........ cause I'm better at it..... Marginally.

[ViciouslyMe]

Good point, can't forget the return of Reznov. One great character for sure.

[Muerte]

hmm, Black ops give a better approximation for a fire fight. Reach on the other hand a vehicle advantage, and the areas reflect this.


And I believe that it is unfair to bring originality to a game comparison/discussion. We are talking about which is the better experience, and how much appeal originality vs functionality holds. As game experience isn't always being newer and edgier, sometimes a comfortable well planned game trumps a new cutting edge game, due to the familiarity we derive from the experience.


For example. Dynasty warriors. Tekken. ANY GAME IN A SERIES.


Sure innovation is a wonderful thing and it does help keep games from getting old. BUUT Its not everything. Cause you know, there are times when On the rails gaming trumps the freedom of a sandbox game out of sheer plot adherence.


SO

HALO REACH: Favors vastly differing playing styles, Scifi fans, Has vehicles(tanks, atv's, jeeps, aircraft), supersoldiers, Personal shields, But a somewhat less rewarding multiplayer experience.

And Medal of honor:BLACK OPS: For those looking for a tom clancyish novel in a game, Russian communist hijinks, a more story lined approach, familiar guns, multiple grenade varieties, Micro managing, more highlighted class differences.And  VICTOR REZZZNOOOVVVV!!!!





And yes i do like Black Ops better than halo........ cause I'm better at it..... Marginally.

  Now that is an answer I can use.