Which is better, "Halo: Reach" or "Call of Duty: Black Ops?" If you have an argument, post it here. For example, "Call of Duty: Black Ops" is cross-console, while "Halo: Reach" is exclusively for Xbox 360. However, "Call of Duty: Black Ops" has a lot of blood and cursing, while "Halo: Reach" has less blood and almost no swearing. "Halo: Reach" has a "forge" mode so you can make your own multiplayer maps and share them and play on them with friends. "Call of Duty: Black Ops" does not have this feature. Also, "Halo: Reach" has countless multiplayer game types and even more sub-types. So, which is better? Post your arguments and facts about each game in this thread, please.
i like reach better cause forge is plain amazing
Personally, I prefer "Halo: Reach" because of forge and the outstanding multiplayer in general. Even the co-op is amazing.
I prefer Reach, but this is like comparing apples to carrots.
Reach is better. You have futuristic weapons and vehicles, while Black Ops has modern day weapons.
both equal: black ops has zombies while reach has firefight
(Dec. 22, 2010 2:51 PM)Thresher Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer Reach, but this is like comparing apples to carrots.
No it's not. They're both FPS games, and slight differences in presentation or gameplay doesn't allow comparisons to just not exist. People will compare Sonic Colors to Mario Galaxy even though both are dramatically different games within the platforming genre, and as an outisder to the FPS genre both CoD and Halo look very similar to me in their gameplay. One's a sci-fi shooter, and the other is a military shooter. Both with run and gun attitudes. This isn't Portal and Halo, the differences between the two don't seem exactly large.
(Dec. 22, 2010 5:18 PM)Ra Wrote: [ -> ]both equal: black ops has zombies while reach has firefight
Reach has both, actually
I like "Call Of Duty Black Ops" because of the Zombies and the story.
I like the story line form black ops and the customization feature on multiplayer, so black ops wins for this one. Although if you were comparing modern warfare to reach or halo 3, halo would win.
I'd say black ops because it's really easy
Online mode try it. Zombies is easy if u have a good strategy. And I heard people say infection was easy and there's an invisisble elite somewhere!
Black ops was such a dissapointment for me. Graphics were terrible, but story line wasn't half bad.
Caught on that Mason's russian friend wasn't alive before half way lol.
But Reach had graphics, multiplayer, co-op, FORGE!! and overall it was just better.
IMO, reach would be better and have more sales if it was available on consoles other than just the Xbox 360...
HALOOO REEEAAACHHH ISSSS AAAWWWWEEEESSSOOOMMMMEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Dec. 22, 2010 11:41 PM)ZE12O Wrote: [ -> ]Black ops was such a dissapointment for me. Graphics were terrible, but story line wasn't half bad.
Caught on that Mason's russian friend wasn't alive before half way lol.
But Reach had graphics, multiplayer, co-op, FORGE!! and overall it was just better.
http://gamingbolt.com/halo-reach-versus-...comparison your post is very exaggerated
Halo Reach for me. Forge World and a much more flexible online experience which outweighs the other Halo online experiences.
pokemon XD
Lol halo reach
i say black ops love the multi player modes
(Dec. 22, 2010 11:37 PM)Ra Wrote: [ -> ]Online mode try it. Zombies is easy if u have a good strategy. And I heard people say infection was easy and there's an invisisble elite somewhere!
I actually know where the invisible elite is, and he has a datapad (he was probably going to school
). If you can manage to kill him, you can grab the datapad and his weapons. If you have the right armor ability, you can turn invisible too! It's this kind of thing that makes Halo: Reach a great game.
(Dec. 22, 2010 5:58 PM)To Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec. 22, 2010 2:51 PM)Thresher Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer Reach, but this is like comparing apples to carrots.
No it's not. They're both FPS games, and slight differences in presentation or gameplay doesn't allow comparisons to just not exist. People will compare Sonic Colors to Mario Galaxy even though both are dramatically different games within the platforming genre, and as an outisder to the FPS genre both CoD and Halo look very similar to me in their gameplay. One's a sci-fi shooter, and the other is a military shooter. Both with run and gun attitudes. This isn't Portal and Halo, the differences between the two don't seem exactly large.
The only things they have in common are the fact that they are both FPS games, they both have Team deathmatch and they both have CTF.
I think Halo Reach is way better, i have been a halo fan since it 1st came out
(Dec. 23, 2010 8:11 AM)Thresher Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec. 22, 2010 5:58 PM)To Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec. 22, 2010 2:51 PM)Thresher Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer Reach, but this is like comparing apples to carrots.
No it's not. They're both FPS games, and slight differences in presentation or gameplay doesn't allow comparisons to just not exist. People will compare Sonic Colors to Mario Galaxy even though both are dramatically different games within the platforming genre, and as an outisder to the FPS genre both CoD and Halo look very similar to me in their gameplay. One's a sci-fi shooter, and the other is a military shooter. Both with run and gun attitudes. This isn't Portal and Halo, the differences between the two don't seem exactly large.
The only things they have in common are the fact that they are both FPS games, they both have Team deathmatch and they both have CTF.
It would be a lot easier if you list the differences, because as I mentioned, I'm an outsider, and outside of space marines vs. army soliders, I don't see a vast difference.