Support NeoGAF

[Reagan's BR]

Halo 3 after 3 months of release: 4.82m units in the US.

Halo Reach after 13 months of release: 4.75m units in the US.

Discuss.

Several things happened.

Halo 3 was super hyped and was coming out after the immense success of Halo 2, which was able to retain players despite a new console generation and Gears of War later on. Halo 2 had something about it (maps? weapons? we could speculate on this, but in reality it was a combination of everything) that made it fun to play over and over again. Halo 3 was similar in that it was fun initially but it failed in the long term to captivate people the way that Halo 2 did. At the same time COD4 was released and ushered in a new style of FPS. COD's addictive and fun style of gameplay caused it to gain momentum. When 2009 rolled around the Halo series had a small over priced, and poorly promoted expansion being released (ODST) while the COD series had a new full game coming out (MW2). Fast forward to 2010. Halo has a new title coming out that is severely under promoted and once again there is a new COD title coming out at the same time. Because the COD series has momentum it sells well. Because the Halo series lost its momentum in 2008 or 09 it does not sell well and coupled with poor gameplay (in terms of the series as a whole) it fails to catch on in the long term.

In short, people all bought Halo 3 expecting it to be Halo 2 in HD with an enlarged sandbox and new maps. (I wish it was) Unfortunately Halo 3 was not this but was still fun for the most part. It sold well but failed to hold on to its audience in the long term. Plus COD came in and took up most of the market.

What can we learn?

1. Halo 2 was awesome. Halo 3 was good but not Halo 2.
Lesson Learned: Don't fix what is nearly perfect; rather, remove the imperfections and expand your product.

2. COD has offered a consistent product year after year.
Lesson Learned: Make sure your product stays close to its roots. Reach was a departure from the core Halo gameplay; it did not do well. In addition, expansions should be sold as such, not as full $60 titles. (Hopefully CEA will get people to bite).

3. Halo 3 and the COD titles were hyped. Reach was not.
Lesson Learned: Hype sells games. Live action trailers, tv spots, preredendered trailers, and cross promotion with food is essential to making sure your AAA title moves more units than its predecessor. I want to see Halo 4 everywhere. Viral ads, on TV, on the radio, in print, on billboards, in the movies, at the game store, on my soda, on my chips, at the fast food joint, on the internet, at sporting events. EVERYWHERE.

It has been said that COD might fall apart by releasing so often. Maybe. The hype for the MW series has definitely been greater than the hype for the Treyarch titles. Honestly 2-3 years is the ideal time frame for game sequels. This window gives time for people to get hooked and have a good amount of fun, does not over saturate the market, allows for the hype to reset its self, and makes sure that there is enough time to provide the consumer with a quality product that will satisfy their needs and make them come back for more in the future.

Just my thoughts.

 

[kylej]

1. Halo 2 was awesome. Halo 3 was good but not Halo 2.
Lesson Learned: Don't fix what is nearly perfect; rather, remove the imperfections and expand your product.

Wasn't the final Bungie viddoc about how Halo 2 sucked and how proud they are of Reach? Thank dear sweet lord above that this franchise is out of their hands. Destiny to be the next Hellgate: London.

 

[Kujo]

Halo 2 >>> Reach (except for netcode)

 

[Tunavi]

Halo lost the throne in 09.

 

[Ramirez]

People moved onto CoD and other titles way before Reach came out.

Halo 3 never dropped to a 6th activity spot after its first year, more choices, blah blah blah, whatever, still never happened.

Bnet shows 330K in the past 24 hours(wasn't it getting like 6-700K/24 hours maybe just a month ago?), that's pretty low for a Halo game this early in its life, regardless of how you want to spin it. I think a lot of people were just like me, playing Reach because there was nothing else of interest out yet, and that time has come. Be interesting to see if CEA can do anything to pull the numbers back up, I doubt it.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Wasn't the final Bungie viddoc about how Halo 2 sucked and how proud they are of Reach? Thank dear sweet lord above that this franchise is out of their hands. Destiny to be the next Hellgate: London.

Can you imagine a world without Halo: Reach?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM#t=13s

 

[erpg]

13.7, is it possible that it sold just 1.2 million from March to September? Or maybe Ubisoft only added 360+PS3 sales for this chart. The Reach number seems like it'd be pretty accurate though.

Maybe I'm overestimating the US' percentage of WW sales, but when something like RDR hits 12M WW, I find it hard to believe their piece of the pie is less than 33%. But I'm comparing company numbers (Take Two) to NPD numbers (Ubisoft) there, and NPD didn't start getting accurate Wal-Mart/Sams Club information until 5 months ago, a small portion of the 21 months in that chart.

There's no doubt that Halo's been massively cannibalized by third parties. I just don't trust those numbers.

 

[Reagan's BR]

Wasn't the final Bungie viddoc about how Halo 2 sucked and how proud they are of Reach? Thank dear sweet lord above that this franchise is out of their hands. Destiny to be the next Hellgate: London.

Yeah....

I think part of the reason why Halo 2 and Halo 1 were so great is because they were pressed for time so anything that wasn't going to directly contribute to the fun had to be cut.

Plus, with Halo 2 they were super ambitious and they set their goals so high they couldn't reach them which is why they were disappointed. With 3 and Reach they knew not to get to ambitious and set their sights lower so they would not be disappointed when they couldn't get everything done. Ironically when they had higher ambitions and were disappointed when they could not reach their goal they delivered a better product.

 

[Havok]

Halo 3 never dropped to a 6th activity spot after its first year, more choices, blah blah blah, whatever, still never happened.

Call of Duty also wasn't nearly as strong at that point. Black Ops pulls incredible sales numbers even now, being in the top ten of the NPD for almost a year after its release. You can't just eliminate the pull that other astronomically more popular games have had on the series' popularity. The competition is tougher than ever now, and Reach continuing to drop the ball isn't helping anything. By the end of Halo 3's life (really around the Modern Warfare 2 era), it was starting to get pretty dire in playlists that weren't Social Slayer. I remember waiting 45 minutes for a Squad Battle game before we gave up because nobody gave a shit anymore.

 

[darthbob]

Wasn't the final Bungie viddoc about how Halo 2 sucked and how proud they are of Reach? Thank dear sweet lord above that this franchise is out of their hands. Destiny to be the next Hellgate: London.

Halo 2 SP was pretty godawful.

 

[Tashi]

I'm convinced that it's because CoD is easy and noob friendly.

 

[Kuroyume]

Halo 3 was so disappointing that it killed any momentum for the next game. Surprising Halo Reach managed to get that close so far given how terrible Halo 3 is... Also, it's worth mentioning that the competition is much better right now. Back then there was a year old Gears game going against it and then COD 4 a bit later. It was following a tremendously great game in H2. H2 was beating Gears on the charts before they decided to take the XBOX games out of the 360 charts. It was that good. So obviously fans went crazy for H3 thinking they were getting something better than H2. That explains those numbers for H3. The fact that Reach isn't that good also doesn't help things.

 

[Reagan's BR]

What people want Halo 4 to be: Halo 2 in HD with all of the new features from Reach and 3 such as theater and forge.

 

[kylej]

Halo 2 SP was pretty godawful.

I would be more than happy if every Halo game in the future dropped the campaign and went multiplayer only. The story is boring, and it takes up lots of resources that could be put into ballin' netcode, ballin' maps, and ballin' playlist management. Cortana, blue, big tits, rampant, big Halo rings in the sky, popcorn enemies, black dude with cigar, monkeys with hammers, big aliens with teeth, humans getting blained, little aliens that make lame quips as they die. That's all I know about Halo campaigns. Imagine a world with no campaign and 20 kick-ass original maps, plus perfect remakes of your favorites from H2 and H3. I'll pay double.

What people want Halo 4 to be: Halo 2 in HD with all of the new features from Reach and 3 such as theater and forge.

Yep. Except Forge 1.01 (alpha) is a joke. Halo 4 map editor needs to be like Far Cry 2. And the whole thing locked 60fps. My skin would fuse to my sofa because I'd never stop playing.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Halo 2 SP was pretty godawful.

I thought it's singleplayer was pretty good minus the legendary difficulty and it's sudden cliffhanger ending. IF they had just left it at them asking spark where the ark was then it would have been fine.

Multiplayer wise though I'll agree it was not great. The insane auto aim, rocket lock on, sword lunge with endless energy, requirement to duel wield to remotely be competitive made for a really subpar Multiplayer. I really think Halo 3 nailed the multiplayer perfectly minus the equipment and spartan laser.

 

[Tashi]

What people want Halo 4 to be: Halo 2 in HD with all of the new features from Reach and 3 such as theater and forge.

Minus the glitches, ranking system, dual wielding, useless guns, matchmaking system and so on.

 

[Trasher]

Minus the glitches, ranking system, dual wielding, useless guns, matchmaking system and so on.

So...

?

I'm in!

 

[Slightly Live]

Several things happened.

Halo 3 was super hyped and was coming out after the immense success of Halo 2, which was able to retain players despite a new console generation and Gears of War later on. Halo 2 had something about it (maps? weapons? we could speculate on this, but in reality it was a combination of everything) that made it fun to play over and over again. Halo 3 was similar in that it was fun initially but it failed in the long term to captivate people the way that Halo 2 did. At the same time COD4 was released and ushered in a new style of FPS. COD's addictive and fun style of gameplay caused it to gain momentum. When 2009 rolled around the Halo series had a small over priced, and poorly promoted expansion being released (ODST) while the COD series had a new full game coming out (MW2). Fast forward to 2010. Halo has a new title coming out that is severely under promoted and once again there is a new COD title coming out at the same time. Because the COD series has momentum it sells well. Because the Halo series lost its momentum in 2008 or 09 it does not sell well and coupled with poor gameplay (in terms of the series as a whole) it fails to catch on in the long term.

In short, people all bought Halo 3 expecting it to be Halo 2 in HD with an enlarged sandbox and new maps. (I wish it was) Unfortunately Halo 3 was not this but was still fun for the most part. It sold well but failed to hold on to its audience in the long term. Plus COD came in and took up most of the market.

What can we learn?

1. Halo 2 was awesome. Halo 3 was good but not Halo 2.
Lesson Learned: Don't fix what is nearly perfect; rather, remove the imperfections and expand your product.

2. COD has offered a consistent product year after year.
Lesson Learned: Make sure your product stays close to its roots. Reach was a departure from the core Halo gameplay; it did not do well. In addition, expansions should be sold as such, not as full $60 titles. (Hopefully CEA will get people to bite).

3. Halo 3 and the COD titles were hyped. Reach was not.
Lesson Learned: Hype sells games. Live action trailers, tv spots, preredendered trailers, and cross promotion with food is essential to making sure your AAA title moves more units than its predecessor. I want to see Halo 4 everywhere. Viral ads, on TV, on the radio, in print, on billboards, in the movies, at the game store, on my soda, on my chips, at the fast food joint, on the internet, at sporting events. EVERYWHERE.

It has been said that COD might fall apart by releasing so often. Maybe. The hype for the MW series has definitely been greater than the hype for the Treyarch titles. Honestly 2-3 years is the ideal time frame for game sequels. This window gives time for people to get hooked and have a good amount of fun, does not over saturate the market, allows for the hype to reset its self, and makes sure that there is enough time to provide the consumer with a quality product that will satisfy their needs and make them come back for more in the future.

Just my thoughts.

Those are some lovely rose tinted specs. Where can I grab a pair? =)

I get the love for Halo 2, I really do but your entire post is riddled with your own sense of disappointment with Halo 3 - which wasn't shared by the majority of players.

You claim Halo 3 failed to capture players in the long run and praise COD4 for ushering in a new style of FPS. This is absurd though. Halo 4 performed exceptionally well in face of COD4 - I remember reading the Live activity charts each month and seeing COD4 and Halo 3 seesaw back and forth for the top position.

Halo 3's map packs also sold amazing well too - I remember a claim from an Microsoft dude that said that one of the DLC packs was still selling hundreds of copies per day a year after it was released (something along those lines). That's a testament to the muscle Halo 3 had at retainer players and maintaining it's online population.

What damaged Halo 3 was the Mythic fiasco. Without getting into details, the fragmented and delayed release of the Mythic maps starved Halo 3's online population of fresh content for over an entire year. It lost momentum in this post release stage because of the content drought - in contrast the COD franchise thundered onward with WAW and MW2.

Halo Wars and ODST saw the eventual injection of Halo 3's final DLC but by then it was too late as Halo 3 was in the shadow of Reach. At this point in any game's lifespan the population is expected to start reducing and when you consider the torrent of COD games, GOW2 and the starvation of content, well everyone knew how things stood.

Halo 3 was solid in every regard. Sales. Population numbers over time. Popular DLC releases. Mistakes were made and lessons were learned.

So get your head out of your ass if you think Halo 3 under performed. You may have liked Halo 2's multiplayer better and that's your own preference. Saying Halo 3 disappointed fans is just stupid.

Your list of "lessons learned" are a joke. Clearly they must be. =P

1) Halo was the natural and logical progression of the Halo sandbox and a perfect conclusion to momentum started in CE. The sandbox of the trilogy is almost a perfect example of logical gameplay improvements that, for the most part, function really well and reflect the growth of the franchise.

Reach however, in my opinion, utterly disrupted the sandbox. I think this was an intentional designed choice but one I think simply didn't work.

I think even the most ardent Halo 2 fan would take Halo 3's sandbox over the sandbox presented in Reach any day of the week.

2) Halo should never offer a yearly product no matter how consistent. Never.

3) I agree about Reach's marketing not being up to the scale of Halo 3 but I do not think it's fair to base Halo 4's marketing expectations on what we got with Reach.

Halo. Master Chief. Galaxy Spanning Adventure. Halo 4 will be an event, not a launch. Just like Halo 2 and 3 before it. Mark my words.

 

[The Librarian]

I'm convinced that it's because CoD is easy and noob friendly.

CoD's core gameplay is very unremarkable in every way. It's the leveling, upgrades, RPG-like components, and constant rewarding of the player that keeps people coming back. It's addicting.

Stealth edit:
Also, Barlow's assessment is flawed in many ways I think, but Dani seems to have taken care of properly responding.

 

[Tashi]

So...

?

I'm in!

:lol I actually was playing this a few months ago at my friends house, holy shit. I didn't know how to move or change guns or pick up new ones. It was fucking insane. I was just running around with my hands out the whole time. Then we played Mario Kart awwwwww yeaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Ramirez]

I remember waiting 45 minutes for a Squad Battle game before we gave up because nobody gave a shit anymore.

This had more to do with the awful ranking system than the population. I couldn't even find a game by myself in SB when I hit 40, the entire population was like 1-20, this is why people are crazy for wanting that system back in its exact Halo 3 form.

Why can't Halo have all of the stuff CoD has? There's really no reason they can't add stuff like gun skins, custom tags, etc.

 

[Retro]

What I want from Halo 4: (Since we're rattling off what the perfect return to Halo might be...)

• Terrain-editing and component texture-swapping in Forge.
• Better skill matching in multiplayer.
• A huge single-player campaign, alone on an eerie, empty Forerunner-built planet.
• A sandbox with more variety and usefulness in the weapons/vehicles.
• Better use of vehicles, at that, especially in Multiplayer.
• A compromise between Halo 3's Items and Reach's AAs in terms of not breaking the game too much but still being an interesting choice. Maybe blend them into the weapons for maximum effect.
• A pony.

I'm convinced that it's because CoD is easy and noob friendly.

You say that jokingly (or trolling-ly, perhaps), but that's the entire reason World of Warcraft has succeeded despite there being more than a few MMOs with better graphics, better worlds, better class balance and more interesting gameplay.

WoW continues to be the #1 MMO because it's easy to pick up, presses all the right buttons and can run on a high-end toaster.

 

[Trasher]

:lol I actually was playing this a few months ago at my friends house, holy shit. I didn't know how to move or change guns or pick up new ones. It was fucking insane. I was just running around with my hands out the whole time. Then we played Mario Kart awwwwww yeaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Those are some lovely rose tinted specs. Where can I grab a pair? =)

I get the love for Halo 2, I really do but your entire post is riddled with your own sense of disappointment with Halo 3 - which wasn't shared by the majority of players.

You claim Halo 3 failed to capture players in the long run and praise COD4 for ushering in a new style of FPS. This is absurd though. Halo 4 performed exceptionally well in face of COD4 - I remember reading the Live activity charts each month and seeing COD4 and Halo 3 seesaw back and forth for the top position.

Halo 3's map packs also sold amazing well too - I remember a claim from an Microsoft dude that said that one of the DLC packs was still selling hundreds of copies per day a year after it was released (something along those lines). That's a testament to the muscle Halo 3 had at retainer players and maintaining it's online population.

What damaged Halo 3 was the Mythic fiasco. Without getting into details, the fragmented and delayed release of the Mythic maps starved Halo 3's online population of fresh content for over an entire year. It lost momentum in this post release stage because of the content drought - in contrast the COD franchise thundered onward with WAW and MW2.

Halo Wars and ODST saw the eventual injection of Halo 3's final DLC but by then it was too late as Halo 3 was in the shadow of Reach. At this point in any game's lifespan the population is expected to start reducing and when you consider the torrent of COD games, GOW2 and the starvation of content, well everyone knew how things stood.

Halo 3 was solid in every regard. Sales. Population numbers over time. Popular DLC releases. Mistakes were made and lessons were learned.

So get your head out of your ass if you think Halo 3 under performed. You may have liked Halo 2's multiplayer better and that's your own preference. Saying Halo 3 disappointed fans is just stupid.

Your list of "lessons learned" are a joke. Clearly they must be. =P

1) Halo was the natural and logical progression of the Halo sandbox and a perfect conclusion to momentum started in CE. The sandbox of the trilogy is almost a perfect example of logical gameplay improvements that, for the most part, function really well and reflect the growth of the franchise.

Reach however, in my opinion, utterly disrupted the sandbox. I think this was an intentional designed choice but one I think simply didn't work.

I think even the most ardent Halo 2 fan would take Halo 3's sandbox over the sandbox presented in Reach any day of the week.

2) Halo should never offer a yearly product no matter how consistent. Never.

3) I agree about Reach's marketing not being up to the scale of Halo 3 but I do not think it's fair to base Halo 4's marketing expectations on what we got with Reach.

Halo. Master Chief. Galaxy Spanning Adventure. Halo 4 will be an event, not a launch. Just like Halo 2 and 3 before it. Mark my words.

Goddamn!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Gives standing ovation*

 

[Tashi]

CoD's core gameplay is very unremarkable in every way. It's the leveling, upgrades, RPG-like components, and constant rewarding of the player that keeps people coming back. It's addicting.

Stealth edit:
Also, Barlow's assessment is flawed in many ways I think, but Dani seems to have taken care of properly responding.

Of course that's part of it but I'm telling you, it's because my brothers who don't play games besides CoD once in a while can go into matchmaking and go even or positive in those games. If I give them Halo and throw them into matchmaking, I would be surprised if they got a single kill. It's an easy game. All that other fluff just makes them feel better about themselves.

 

[Tashi]

What I want from Halo 4: (Since we're rattling off what the perfect return to Halo is...)

• Terrain-editing and component texture-swapping in Forge.
• Better skill matching in multiplayer.
• A huge single-player campaign, alone on an eerie, empty Forerunner-built planet.
• A sandbox with more variety and usefulness in the weapons/vehicles.
• Better use of vehicles, at that, especially in Multiplayer.
• A compromise between Halo 3's Items and Reach's AAs in terms of not breaking the game too much but still being an interesting choice. Maybe blend them into the weapons for maximum effect.
• A pony.

You say that jokingly (or trolling-ly, perhaps), but that's the entire reason World of Warcraft has succeeded despite there being more than a few MMOs with better graphics, better worlds, better class balance and more interesting gameplay.

WoW continues to be the #1 MMO because it's easy to pick up, presses all the right buttons and can run on a high-end toaster.

I'm not trolling at all. I'm actually convinced that that is why the game is so popular.

 

[Tunavi]

All that other fluff just makes them feel better about themselves.

Isn't that what video games should do? Reach has cut 10 years off the life expectancy of half of the people on this forum because it's frustrated us so much

The thing that bothers me about the franchise is that people keep buying the same exact game every single year.

 

[Retro]

I'm not trolling at all. I'm actually convinced that that is why the game is so popular.

Then we're on the same page. I just didn't want to toss out the comparison if you were just saying it for "Teh Lulz".

 

[Striker]

Multiplayer wise though I'll agree it was not great. The insane auto aim, rocket lock on, sword lunge with endless energy, requirement to duel wield to remotely be competitive made for a really subpar Multiplayer. I really think Halo 3 nailed the multiplayer perfectly minus the equipment and spartan laser.

 

[daedalius]

I enjoyed your rebuttal Dani.

I'd probably play H3 now instead of Reach if the populations weren't so bad.

Well, at least until CEA which will hopefully bring back some magic.

 

[Karl2177]

So I just finished up the MW3 campaign. Earlier I said Reach's campaign was poor. I don't take that back, but this was honestly the worst campaign I've ever played, even over Black Ops.

For those Reach/H3 numbers, H3 didn't have to compete with the active Call of Duty fan base. Halo 3 was also a marketing juggernaut that got almost everyone pumped for the game. People also trust the Call of Duty name now to release a quality* product every year, and they knew everyone else will flock to it. With ODST, the Halo name wasn't trusted to release a quality* multiplayer game. This hurt Reach, because people weren't sure if they were just getting the multiplayer suite of Halo 3 again. Probably because it wasn't Master Chief or a numbered Halo game.

*I say quality even if I do or don't think the product was good or not. It's the average consumer, which we also know votes for ARs on Uncaged and Snipers on Hemorrhage.

 

[kylej]

Of course that's part of it but I'm telling you, it's because my brothers who don't play games besides CoD once in a while can go into matchmaking and go even or positive in those games. If I give them Halo and throw them into matchmaking, I would be surprised if they got a single kill. It's an easy game. All that other fluff just makes them feel better about themselves.

Uh, your brothers go positive in CoD because they play CoD. Of course they'd get wrecked in Halo, they don't play it. One on one battles may take less time, but there are entirely different strategies one has to use in CoD vs Halo, and the same ideas of map control and spawn trapping apply.

The e-penis stroking of Halo fans over CoD is really weird to me. They're both auto-aim baby games compared to true FPS games on PC.

 

[Ramirez]

Uh, your brothers go positive in CoD because they play CoD. Of course they'd get wrecked in Halo, they don't play it. One on one battles may take less time, but there are entirely different strategies one has to use in CoD vs Halo, and the same ideas of map control and spawn trapping apply.

I don't agree with this at all, you take any good Halo player in here and they'd poop on kids in CoD whether they played it every day or not. You take the best CoD players on GAF and put them in Reach and I'd be willing to bet they'd be pretty average. Such a huge difference in kill times, it's the thing I think most people hate about Halo.

You guys see the rumor about the next Xbox coming out next year? Thoughts?

I find it hard to believe they'd release a new console with Halo 4 coming out in the same time frame. Especially since Mattrick was quick to point out Halo 4 was the start of a new trilogy on the 360. I guess there could always be a Twilight Princess scenario, but I don't see what MS gains by launching Halo 4 on 360 and not taking advantage of their new consoles power with a port, not to mention Halo 4 would make people buy the next one immediately.

Whatever the case, I'm ready for something new, these consoles are way past their prime at this point.

 

[Slightly Live]

Thanks guys.

Halo 3 was not perfect by means. Nor was the handling of the game post release. When folks started positing that Halo 3 started some kind of "franchise decline", contrary to some really clear facts and evidence, it's a bit riling. Facts are indisputable.

In future, the public will hopefully get a better understanding of Reach performance and hopefully then we'll be in a position to say exactly what impact Reach has had. I don't think we're in the best position to do that right now - and certainly not in a position to start pointing fingers at Halo 3.

I just hope 343 are making the right decisions for Halo 4 and refrain from any possible knee-jerk reactions...

 

[Tashi]

I don't agree with this at all, you take any good Halo player in here and they'd poop on kids in CoD whether they played it every day or not. You take the best CoD players on GAF and put them in Reach and I'd be willing to bet they'd be pretty average. Such a huge difference in kill times, it's the thing I think most people hate about Halo.

This is it.

Regardless of how different the games may appear to be, you move with the left stick, aim with the right and shoot with the right trigger. That goes for every fucking FPS game on consoles.

I really don't think there's going to be a new console the same year Halo 4 is released. It would completely shit on the very creation of the 343 industries. Makes no sense. I think it's just another rumor.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I think Halo 2 nailed map design, but the stuff he mentioned did make it a mess at times. I strongly prefer Halo 3's gameplay for a host of reasons.

Halo 2's level designers were on some wicked good stuff at the time.

 

[Trasher]

Uh, your brothers go positive in CoD because they play CoD. Of course they'd get wrecked in Halo, they don't play it. One on one battles may take less time, but there are entirely different strategies one has to use in CoD vs Halo, and the same ideas of map control and spawn trapping apply.

The e-penis stroking of Halo fans over CoD is really weird to me. They're both auto-aim baby games compared to true FPS games on PC.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

I think Halo 2 nailed map design, but the stuff he mentioned did make it a mess at times. I strongly prefer Halo 3's gameplay for a host of reasons.

Halo 2's level designers were on some wicked good stuff at the time.

Yea Halo 2 I'll give every bit of credit it earned map wise. It had some truly amazing maps. I'd say map wise Halo 2 did have some of my favorites without a doubt.

 

[kylej]

I don't agree with this at all, you take any good Halo player in here and they'd poop on kids in CoD whether they played it every day or not. You take the best CoD players on GAF and put them in Reach and I'd be willing to bet they'd be pretty average. Such a huge difference in kill times, it's the thing I think most people hate about Halo.

They'd be pretty average for a little bit as would a great Halo player playing CoD for the first time. I pretty much walk over kids in Halo but would get shit on by nerds who play MLG all day, likewise I dump on kids in CoD but would get donged on by people who are legitimately great at the game. Aim and reaction time don't just disappear because a game takes less time to kill.

I mean, assemble the best players from HaloGAF, we'll play MW2 or Blops, and I guarantee my buddies and I will completely run train on everyone here. It's might be more rewarding, and it might be a slightly different skillset, but it's really not any easier than Halo.

The average level of skill in CoD, however, is so hilariously low that it makes for a super relaxing game. The people playing the game are BTB-levels of bad.

.

Talking about the traditional PC fps ie Q3A or CS.

 

[Tashi]

They'd be pretty average for a little bit as would a great Halo player playing CoD for the first time. I pretty much walk over kids in Halo but would get shit on by nerds who play MLG all day, likewise I dump on kids in CoD but would get donged on by people who are legitimately great at the game. Aim and reaction time don't just disappear because a game takes less time to kill.

I mean, assemble the best players from HaloGAF, we'll play MW2 or Blops, and I guarantee my buddies and I will completely run train on everyone here. It's might be more rewarding, and it might be a slightly different skillset, but it's really not any easier than Halo.



Talking about the traditional PC fps ie Q3A or CS.

I don't buy that.

 

[kylej]

I don't buy that.

Ok bro, keep thinking Halo is an elite, hardcore FPS game and CoD is for babies, I don't really care. I play and enjoy both.

 

[Trasher]

Talking about the traditional PC fps ie Q3A or CS.

lol I know. Just trollin!

 

[Tashi]

Ok bro, keep thinking Halo is an elite, hardcore FPS game and CoD is for babies, I don't really care. I play and enjoy both.

Bro, I used to play CS. And I got my shit pushed in all day in that game. I'm not a fuckin idiot. I think though, as far as console shooters are concerned, CoD is a much easier game than Halo. You know what? There's no fucking argument, it is an easier game. You can't convince me otherwise. I go in that game with a low ass rank and shit on kids with multiple prestiges.

 

[Ramirez]

Ok bro, keep thinking Halo is an elite, hardcore FPS game and CoD is for babies, I don't really care. I play and enjoy both.

It's not even about a Halo VS. CoD thing for me, I don't play either at the moment, but I think you have to be pretty dense not to realize killing people and getting satisfaction is a million times easier in CoD compared to Halo. There's a reason it's so popular, c'mon now!

 

[Sai-kun]

Ok bro, keep thinking Halo is an elite, hardcore FPS game and CoD is for babies, I don't really care. I play and enjoy both.

CoD is way easier than Halo. No debate.

 

[Kujo]

Halo 3 killed Objective and BTB (my favourites), or a certain playlist manager at least. I had fun with it the first year, but being out of the US, the non hitscan weapons and suboptimal netcode made it frustrating to play against other countries

H2 had hitscan right? It just felt better to me

 

[Trasher]

CoD is way easier than Halo. No debate.

It's really a matter of opinion. I find Halo easier to play. Too much shit going on in CoD that you can't really control.

 

[kylej]

It's not even about a Halo VS. CoD thing for me, I don't play either at the moment, but I think you have to be pretty dense not to realize killing people and getting satisfaction is a million times easier in CoD compared to Halo. There's a reason it's so popular, c'mon now!

Sure, you can kill people faster in CoD and it is more satisfying. You guys are hung up on how fast you can kill somebody in CoD vs Halo and thinking that makes it an easier game. Yeah, it's 'easier' to kill someone, but it's also not the same goddamn game as Halo. Playing CoD well, against skilled opponents, has vastly different variables, rule sets and requirements compared to playing Halo well. Competitively, I don't find one to be easier than the other, you just die and respawn faster in CoD. If HaloGAF went into CoD, with their sick Halo skillz, and played a good team, they would get their shit pushed in so far it would come out their eyeballs. Just because there are more retarded 8 year olds in CoD matchmaking to play against, does not mean the game taken at an objective level is any easier than Halo. All are free to disagree.

I go in that game with a low ass rank and shit on kids with multiple prestiges.

Of course. Prestige is time, not skill based. Most people with high prestiges in CoD games are young kids with too much time on their hands who don't give a shit.

 

[A27_StarWolf]

It's really a matter of opinion. I find Halo easier to play. Too much shit going on in CoD that you can't really control.

So there is far more luck in COD then.

 

[Tashi]

Sure, you can kill people faster in CoD and it is more satisfying. You guys are hung up on how fast you can kill somebody in CoD vs Halo and thinking that makes it an easier game. Yeah, it's 'easier' to kill someone, but it's also not the same goddamn game as Halo. Playing CoD well, against skilled opponents, has vastly different variables, rule sets and requirements compared to playing Halo well. Competitively, I don't find one to be easier than the other, you just die and respawn faster in CoD. If HaloGAF went into CoD, with their sick Halo skillz, and played a good team, they would get their shit pushed in so far it would come out their eyeballs. Just because there are more retarded 8 year olds in CoD matchmaking to play against, does not mean the game taken at an objective level is any easier than Halo. All are free to disagree.



Of course. Prestige is time, not skill based. Most people with high prestiges in CoD games are young kids with too much time on their hands who don't give a shit.

:lol yea but you would think after all that time these kids would be good hahahaha I know I would be.

But regardless of what the different rule sets may be and how they're different. It is easier for a player to go into CoD matchmaking and get results. That's why I believe CoD is sooo popular.