Which game has more balanced multiplayer?
Halo: Reach
44.7% (109)
44.7% (109)
Call of Duty: Black Ops
9% (22)
9% (22)
Dawn of War II (I hate shooters)
2.5% (6)
2.5% (6)
Why are you still arguing about this?
24.2% (59)
24.2% (59)
NEW: Other
17.2% (42)
17.2% (42)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Most Balanced Multiplayer - Halo: Reach vs Call of Duty: Black Ops

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

NOTE: I picked Call of Duty: Black Ops to be nice to the Call of Duty series seeing as it finally did away with Stopping Power, the most overpowered perk OF ALL TIME.

SECOND NOTE: If you have any suggestions for a game with more balanced multiplayer, tell me all about it. As a college student, I have little money to blow on games.

I can never get past the age-old battle between Halo fans and Call of Duty fans. As a solid Halo player, it is my personal opinion that Halo possesses a much more balanced multiplayer system. You ask for an argument?

Halo's balance lies solely in player skill and weapons, with each weapon having its own strengths, weaknesses, and counters.

For example: The Energy Sword may be an instant kill, but its short range renders the user vulnerable to long-range attacks and the glow of the sword makes it harder for a player to hide around a corner (although it still happens).

I find that Call of Duty relies too much on proper perk combinations and AI assistance to be called a balanced game. I mean, sure you have to EARN the killstreaks but its just not fair when the opposing team gets AI-controlled dogs that know where everybody is and how to get at them. And I'm sick and tired of being killed by someone that has a billion more perks and weapons then I do. Halo puts all of its weapons out in the open where everyone can use them rather than give powerful weapons to the players with the most time on their hands so the strong get stronger and the weak get stronger at a much slower pace. Also, the Armor Abilities of Reach are limited powerups that do nothing to enhance damage output while also possessing very balanced pros and cons. If you don't know what I'm talking about, play Reach and run into the enemy base and use Armor Lock. Count how many grenades you catch when you come out. Everything about Call of Duty is to make the weapons more powerful so the player has to rely much less on their skill.

Granted, the credit system kind of fixes that problem, but you still need UNLOCK weapons and then PURCHASE them rather than let everyone race to them and may the best man win.

I'm not saying that Call of Duty has bad multiplayer, but after all the crap that went down in Modern Warfare 2 I'm not sure anyone can really say that Call of Duty possesses truly balanced multiplayer anymore.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Shooting down annoying helichoppers with a friggin' tank made my whole gaming YEAR. You wanna talk about catharsis?

I've played both Halo titles and CoD titles, I find Battlefield to be more balanced then both series. Hope I didnt hi-jack your topic.

I don't find Black Ops to be balanced,

But I don't find Halo to be fun.

So I'll stick with neither.

Call of Duty 4 on Hardcore is utterly balanced. End of.

Spookimitsu:
Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

It wasn't what I had in mind, but I've had no sleep since 3pm yesterday, so I don't really care. I'll agree only because I've only played Battlefield: Bad Company 1 (which had awesome character dialogue, in my opinion).

I get the feeling that not everyone is reading the entire argument and that I've been watching far more Zero Punctuation than the recommended amount, which is probably once per week.

Crysis 2 demo. I've never had any problems with killing anyone, and no weapon felt under or overpowered.

Upping damage and removing HUD doesn't remove perks, but I do remember Stopping Power being less severe in Modern Warfare 1. Guess I should've included an "other" category.

Blackops has killing streaks that enable you to get 10-60 kills instantly, and I've seen people rack up 500 kills in a single match by standing behind the enemy team's spawn point and just backstabbing the entire enemy team the instant they respawned. That's more broken than anything Reach has to offer.

I voted for Black Ops because i find that any game that gives you a fighting chance against multiple opponents to be more balanced. In reach if the opposing team outnumbers you, you are screwed. They will camp on the powerful instant kill weapons so you will have zero chance to get them. In Black Ops, all the weapons are useful and you can be just as deadly from spawn as someone that has been alive for 5 minutes, that is the definition of balance.

Black Ops is massively unbalanced. If you want a truly great online experience, go with Bad Company 2, Battlefield 2 or Battlefield: 2142.

Senaro:
Blackops has killing streaks that enable you to get 10-60 kills instantly, and I've seen people rack up 500 kills in a single match by standing behind the enemy team's spawn point and just backstabbing the entire enemy team the instant they respawned. That's more broken than anything Reach has to offer.

That was revealed to be people exploiting the game as a group, and they were all banned.

flipsalty:
I voted for Black Ops because i find that any game that gives you a fighting chance against multiple opponents to be more balanced. In reach if the opposing team outnumbers you, you are screwed. They will camp on the powerful instant kill weapons so you will have zero chance to get them. In Black Ops, all the weapons are useful and you can be just as deadly from spawn as someone that has been alive for 5 minutes, that is the definition of balance.

I'll be honest: I never thought about Black Ops in that sense. And that reminds me of just the other night when our team had all the vehicles...

love em both. havent had cod enough to get up there with the perks. love halo and all the playlists, forge and whatnot. i love them both though.

Gah, I havn't played either sadly. Although I was so happy when I heard they'd removed stopping power and quick-scoping. Halo would seem more balanced in general, but all too often it comes down to who has the better weapon over who has the better skill in my experience.

Shadowrun had a well balanced multiplayer, but strangely it was balanced by players mutually conceding that 2 of the "perks" were overpowered, and almost all boycotting said perks.

Shadowrun...played it, but never got into it. Mostly because I got it so late (two plus years) that I figured I'd be dead in three steps. It was an interesting concept, indeed.

I'm voting for Black Ops. In both BO and CoD4, I see people using a whole different range of perks and weapons. I would put BO above CoD4 because of map design. In CoD4, there are certain implied strong points on most maps that if you or your team controls, you can dominate. Ever since World at War and beyond, those have more or less been done away with.

jhamre:
I can never get past the age-old battle between Halo fans and Call of Duty fans. As a solid Halo player, it is my personal opinion that Halo possesses a much more balanced multiplayer system. You ask for an argument?

Halo's balance lies solely in player skill and weapons, with each weapon having its own strengths, weaknesses, and counters.

For example: The Energy Sword may be an instant kill, but its short range renders the user vulnerable to long-range attacks and the glow of the sword makes it harder for a player to hide around a corner (although it still happens).

I find that Call of Duty relies too much on proper perk combinations and AI assistance to be called a balanced game. I mean, sure you have to EARN the killstreaks but its just not fair when the opposing team gets AI-controlled dogs that know where everybody is and how to get at them. And I'm sick and tired of being killed by someone that has a billion more perks and weapons then I do. Halo puts all of its weapons out in the open where everyone can use them rather than give powerful weapons to the players with the most time on their hands so the strong get stronger and the weak get stronger at a much slower pace. Also, the Armor Abilities of Reach are limited powerups that do nothing to enhance damage output while also possessing very balanced pros and cons. If you don't know what I'm talking about, play Reach and run into the enemy base and use Armor Lock. Count how many grenades you catch when you come out. Everything about Call of Duty is to make the weapons more powerful so the player has to rely much less on their skill.

Granted, the credit system kind of fixes that problem, but you still need UNLOCK weapons and then PURCHASE them rather than let everyone race to them and may the best man win.

I'm not saying that Call of Duty has bad multiplayer, but after all the crap that went down in Modern Warfare 2 I'm not sure anyone can really say that Call of Duty possesses truly balanced multiplayer anymore.

It hasn't had balanced competitive multiplayer since the first Modern Warfare, and CoD points in Black Ops are redundant because you still have to get to a certain level for each weapon, preventing you from finding out what you like the most because you have to get to level 34 to get the gun that fits your style of play, Trayarch doesn't even need to get rid of leveling, but they could at least have all weapons except for those secret ones that you need to buy a certain number of weapons to unlock unlocked from the start.

Calcium:
Shadowrun had a well balanced multiplayer, but strangely it was balanced by players mutually conceding that 2 of the "perks" were overpowered, and almost all boycotting said perks.

Which? O.o

I never personally found any of the perks to be overpowered...

OT: Halo personally fares better in my eyes, the balancing comes from how good you are with a weapon and the fact it has a very limited amount of shots. Sure people complain about the sword being overpowered because it's a one hit kill, however it only works in close range and only has around 10 kills in it before it's useless.

GamesB2:

Calcium:
Shadowrun had a well balanced multiplayer, but strangely it was balanced by players mutually conceding that 2 of the "perks" were overpowered, and almost all boycotting said perks.

Which? O.o

I never personally found any of the perks to be overpowered...

The two I'm referring to are Enhanced Vision and Smartlink, although I'm likely being too hard on EV.

I was normally Human: Glider + Wired Reflexes + Teleport but when someone on the other side starts using EV I always gave myself EV and let them think they were creeping up on me. Very satisfying. Smoke also blocked it so I guess I'm just whining about EV in all fairness. Still; the majority of matches I played had no opponents using it.

Smartlink though I'll maintain was overpowered. It's accuracy boost, auto-targetting and additional zoom level made it far too strong. Like EV it was a perk I didn't see many others using despite it's strength. I'll let minigun Trolls away with it though... and perhaps Dwarfs as they didn't have much going for them.

Damn it, now I want to play Shadowrun.

BFBC2 > Reach = BlOps

BlOps... Need I say..? That video on Demolition about that guy racking up 500kills explains it all

Reach... You get a power weapon = insta win, also, armour lock is just cheap =-="

Calcium:
The two I'm referring to are Enhanced Vision and Smartlink, although I'm likely being too hard on EV.

I was normally Human: Glider + Wired Reflexes + Teleport but when someone on the other side starts using EV I always gave myself EV and let them think they were creeping up on me. Very satisfying. Smoke also blocked it so I guess I'm just whining about EV in all fairness. Still; the majority of matches I played had no opponents using it.

Smartlink though I'll maintain was overpowered. It's accuracy boost, auto-targetting and additional zoom level made it far too strong. Like EV it was a perk I didn't see many others using despite it's strength. I'll let minigun Trolls away with it though... and perhaps Dwarfs as they didn't have much going for them.

Damn it, now I want to play Shadowrun.

Hmm I never found Enhanced Vision to be particularly overpowered, it was rarely used (IMO) because it was a waste of money and magic slots. Seeing through walls isn't that much of an advantage when everyone knows you can and haven't wasted all their magic/tech/money.

Also I thought that Smartlink had its fair place, it didn't grant you that much of an advantage, with the money spent on Smartlink someone could easily have bought Smoke and counter any hope you had of using them.
Plus the laser eyes gave it away massively so no one could sit round a corner in double zoom waiting for an ambush.
Finally of course it used up valuable magic slots.

Elves could only really get away with around two of the techs(Wired Reflexes and Glider)... the others were a massive waste of magic points.

Plus my favourite class was Elf with Katana, Resurrect, Teleport and Wired Reflexes.

Oh god... this thread is just itching for flaming and hate. Though so far its been civil.

I find Reach to be more balanced of the two. Black Ops has way to many overpowered weapons/killstreaks and horrid spawning. At least with Reach I can spawn far away and not cheaply die. The only imbalance it has are the Banshee (needs its dodge and bomb nerfed) and the occasional players quitting.

Halo is definately more balanced, you may have the power weapons but they're in the middle of the map so everyone has a fair chance at getting them and they only have 2 clips tops, black ops lets you spawn with high explosive weapons and anti-material weapons every game.

DoW2 was a funny one. I don't know how it is right now, but when I played it...

I've never played a more imbalanced game. Holy F, they really, really, really screwed up with the balancing. Remember unstoppable 'nids or the SM blob?
Oh, also when I could make wraithguards and simply just win games.

I'm sure Relic has come around to balancing it by now though. It's a shame that it took so long before they got off GFWL.

OT: I have nothing to contribute :)

I'd say counter strike.
I know its old and shit but I like the multiplayer where the player is not governed by some kind of variable.

Udyrfrykte:
OT: I have nothing to contribute :)

Not a problem. I'm just as open to any form of discussion as the next person.

Halo Reach isn't that balanced in my opinion as the whole game revolves around the DMR. Then again CoD has always been unblanced so I'm gonna have to go with Bad Company 2.

Most FPSs are just bland shit copies of each other now...and they're never going to be completely balanced, 3rd-person shooters for the win!

Reach is alot more balanced when it comes to weapons.

When you start a new match, all players are the same.
Its up to you to find better weapons.

with COD, once you unlock the best weapon, you can start every game with it. Meaning new people to the game dont have as much of a chance.

GamesB2:

Calcium:
snip

Hmm I never found Enhanced Vision to be particularly overpowered, it was rarely used (IMO) because it was a waste of money and magic slots. Seeing through walls isn't that much of an advantage when everyone knows you can and haven't wasted all their magic/tech/money.

Also I thought that Smartlink had its fair place, it didn't grant you that much of an advantage, with the money spent on Smartlink someone could easily have bought Smoke and counter any hope you had of using them.
Plus the laser eyes gave it away massively so no one could sit round a corner in double zoom waiting for an ambush.
Finally of course it used up valuable magic slots.

Elves could only really get away with around two of the techs(Wired Reflexes and Glider)... the others were a massive waste of magic points.

Plus my favourite class was Elf with Katana, Resurrect, Teleport and Wired Reflexes.

For a human EV could be strong with the Human tech bonus but I'll admit that my dislike for it stems mainly from my plastyle of trying to flank with a katana. Really messes it up when they know you're sneaking up on them.

As for Smartlink, newer players would keep it on constantly but more experienced players would only activate it in battle. If it was truely constant it may have been more balanced. As for Smoke, it does counter it, but it slows magic regeneration. Also when used actively it'll set your speed somewhere between a Human and a Dwarf, but as the slower magic regneration cripples Dwarfs further, I only found it useful as a Troll (Full Magic Troll was my second favourite setup).

And JUST played my first game of Shadowrun in about 8 months or longer: Top of the match with 5600 points. :D

Also sorry for deviating so far from the topic OP. xD

Black Ops is extremely unbalanced. Loads of guns are either over powered (FAMAS, AK74u) or overpowered. (Almost all other weapons than assault rifles.)

It'd say go for Halo if you want balance, because with a game like CoD the developers really can't be arsed to change everything to not make things sucky. That's one good thing about Bungie, they let their prefences get in the way of good game design.

L3m0n_L1m3:
I don't find Black Ops to be balanced,

But I don't find Halo to be fun.

So I'll stick with neither.

This, I find neither games MP to be that fun now. But I would say Halo Reach does seem a bit fair easier to balance than COD.

jhamre:
Shadowrun...played it, but never got into it. Mostly because I got it so late (two plus years) that I figured I'd be dead in three steps. It was an interesting concept, indeed.

It does have a much larger learning curve compared to other FPS's, and with no single player I don't suppose it's very easy to learn without taking multiple massive beatings. I hadn't played it in so long as I thought I'd be rubbish, that it may be dead, and that it may lose it's nostalgia.

I only just played a match an hour ago though and it found 4 games; I was surprised it didn't take longer connecting but perhaps there's more Vista players than before.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked