What is better?
Halo Reach
54.9% (124)
54.9% (124)
Modern Warfare 3
8% (18)
8% (18)
Battlefield 3
36.7% (83)
36.7% (83)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Poll: What is better, Halo, CoD or Battlefield?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Kahunaburger:
Only one of these three games has jetpacks in it.

I was going to mention the Aliens but Jetpacks make just about everything win by default.

I voted Halo though, by the way you can distinguish between enemies and allies. I know enough about Call of Duty 4.75 (having played Call of Duty 4.5) to know that the enemies are difficult to distinguish from allies (especially since your allies had a tendency to back-stab you at the end of levels). I've only played Battlefield 3's multiplayer but I can safely bet there aren't any neon-aliens to kill in it.

In BF3 you can crash jets into helicopters mid-air.

In Halo you can pile-drive another space soldier and send him plummeting to the ground via jetpack.

In MW3, you can throw grenades and break windows.

You be the judge.

CoD has perks.

BF has destruction physics and vehicles.

Halo has jet packs

TimeSplitters: Future Perfect has laser wielding snow men on flying carpets and zombie/ninja/ Robocop monkeys.

imageimage

Looks like a win to me.

Time to be highly contrary (and betray my age). Quake 2 is best, obviously.

To put it this way: Halo is better than CoD and Battlefield. But Halo: Reach is not better than MW3 or BF3. All of those games are shit.

Taken in what I consider their prime, being Halo 3, CoD4, and Bad Company 2, Halo wins out and then Bad Company 2 and CoD4 tie.

For kicks compare the percentages in the poll to game sales/online playtime. Something doesn't add up or Escapist has a strangely focused fanbase.

ArmA II PLOX

Out of those three... Probably Halo. Haven't played it in years, actually, but it was the most enjoyable game out of those three. Battlefield 3 is great, don't get me wrong, but there's just something special about getting that Killionaire medal in Grifball for the 12th time in a day.

PaganFury:
For kicks compare the percentages in the poll to game sales/online playtime. Something doesn't add up or Escapist has a strangely focused fanbase.

Gaming sites never were and never will be any sort of representation o gamer market. Maybe if You would add all the different communities together You would get ~10-15% of total number of people playing games.

Which is better?
Battlefield 3
Which is more fun?
Halo Reach

Havent played Reach.
But MW3 i found to be absolutely horrible.. you couldnt actually pay me to play any more of that game.
So BF3 wins by default. It helps that i do find it fun to play though.

Dont you mean which is least deformed...

Feel free to rage me now.

I don't have a 360.

I rented both BF3 & MW3.

One rental let me play every part of the game.
The other rental only let me play it's lame campaign unless I pay an extra $10.

Guess which one I bought.
Just saying that BF3 may very well be the better game overall but this whole online pass thing is really retarded.

Halo is the only one with a decent single player and multi player. Also you can simply do more with halo. The most fun iv'e ever had with anygame is halo 3 (this should be series but Reach is still the best)custom games and Reach is only second to that because it is younger and doesnt have as many awesome games. Anyone who has spent an entire season playing little but custom games on halo 3 with friends will know that there is nothing that can ever be made to beat it.

Jegsimmons:

ZehMadScientist:

All three games' campaigns sucked,

.....
.....
Halo's campaigned....sucked? I know there are differences in opinion...but....HUH!?

Halo Reach's campaign was short, boring, clichéd, ugh ugh ugh. As I've said before, it just turned into CoD ft. Aliens (Halo's been like that since around Halo 3 really). I actually like Reach for its multiplayer but I miss the days of Halo CE and Halo 2 where I'd spend hours as this lone spartan fighting through unsuspecting hoards of aliens in all these different, beautiful and often creepy settings.

I voted Halo Reach just on the premise of it being in the Halo series.

I prefer Halo as a series, though I didn't care for Reach at all.

Halo: Reach.

Even Yahtzee said it wasn't bad. He put CoD and Battlefield in his Worst Games of 2011 list. Ha!

The only one I have played is halo reach

but I can assume all three of them dont do much to add to their games (online wise as thats the only thing I can look in a game as I have no idea how to review a story/campaign).

I would only consider halo reach better as its easier to have fun, its got the open worldness of battlefield but not too realistic combat so you can mess around in warthogs and ghosts and still feel like your helping your team by being a distraction so they dont get shot at.

Battlefield is a lot bigger and probably more vechical wise a lot more fun but as soon as you exit a vechical im betting it can be a bore as I remember having to walk a few kilometers to the battlefield after my chopper or jeep crashed. But the combat is a lot more tactical than say modern warfare 2 or 3 which became an akimbo assault rifle and shotgun fest and everythings a little too fast pased and messy.

Kahunaburger:
Only one of these three games has jetpacks in it.

And actually balanced guns and high amounts of color thus spitting in the face of fps criticizers saying how "all fps's are the same"

We are totally on the same page here.

Halo is the better game franchise

Pretty much anything is better than Halo.

RagTagBand:
Pretty much anything is better than Halo.

RagTagBand:
Pretty much anything is better than Halo.

So sonic on the 360 is better?

Nice trolling

Jegsimmons:
the obvious choice is Halo for its innovation, stunning art work, great gameplay, and actual characters written in the story
Battlefield is a good second with a top notch multiplayer aspect that forces team work over personal point systems plus some very good innovations that even halo took note from (ei, battle recorder becoming theater mode)
Call Of Duty.....less said the better.

Not only did you ninja me but you are of the few people to actually be on my opinion

Halo is the best (in every aspect for shooter design)
Then battlefield (though I do love it, but only when it is not killing me because I attempt to do well)
Then call of duty

ZehMadScientist:

Jegsimmons:

ZehMadScientist:

All three games' campaigns sucked,

.....
.....
Halo's campaigned....sucked? I know there are differences in opinion...but....HUH!?

Yeah, well, it wasn't really that deep of a game. You shoot aliens, story sends you to another location and you shoot more aliens. I do admit that there were some fun parts where you an shoot aliens with bigger guns that usual, but it all boils down to the same thing. If anything, Reach's ending was masterfully done.

Really, I played Halo for its multiplayer.

Or maybe I've had enough of them campaigns after completing them all on Legendary...

Shooting things in FPS? The nerve of these devs!

You realize that is all any FPS does... Ever...

Terminate421:

Jegsimmons:
the obvious choice is Halo for its innovation, stunning art work, great gameplay, and actual characters written in the story
Battlefield is a good second with a top notch multiplayer aspect that forces team work over personal point systems plus some very good innovations that even halo took note from (ei, battle recorder becoming theater mode)
Call Of Duty.....less said the better.

Not only did you ninja me but you are of the few people to actually be on my opinion

Halo is the best (in every aspect for shooter design)
Then battlefield (though I do love it, but only when it is not killing me because I attempt to do well)
Then call of duty

INTERNET HIGH FIVE OF AWESOME SAUCE IN A BOTTLE SHARK AND GORILLA STYLE!!!!
image

Terminate421:

RagTagBand:
Pretty much anything is better than Halo.

RagTagBand:
Pretty much anything is better than Halo.

So sonic on the 360 is better?

Nice trolling

Do you understand what Trolling is? Its not, as you seem to believe, "Have an opinion different to mine".

And No, Sonic on the 360 isn't better, but This poll is implicitly about FPS's and I've not played an FPS which bored me more than Halo.

Thus Anything (ie any FPS) is better than halo.

If your brain cannot fathom someone seriously holding that opinion, then feel free to never leave your moms basement.

Jegsimmons:

Terminate421:

Jegsimmons:
the obvious choice is Halo for its innovation, stunning art work, great gameplay, and actual characters written in the story
Battlefield is a good second with a top notch multiplayer aspect that forces team work over personal point systems plus some very good innovations that even halo took note from (ei, battle recorder becoming theater mode)
Call Of Duty.....less said the better.

Not only did you ninja me but you are of the few people to actually be on my opinion

Halo is the best (in every aspect for shooter design)
Then battlefield (though I do love it, but only when it is not killing me because I attempt to do well)
Then call of duty

INTERNET HIGH FIVE OF AWESOME SAUCE IN A BOTTLE SHARK AND GORILLA STYLE!!!!
image

I agree with these two. While I do love BF and CoD, Halo just is better overall compared to the other two. Plus it's got better lore and characters I actually care a bit about.

RagTagBand:

Terminate421:

RagTagBand:
Pretty much anything is better than Halo.

RagTagBand:
Pretty much anything is better than Halo.

So sonic on the 360 is better?

Nice trolling

Do you understand what Trolling is? Its not, as you seem to believe, "Have an opinion different to mine".

And No, Sonic on the 360 isn't better, but This poll is implicitly about FPS's and I've not played an FPS which bored me more than Halo.

Thus Anything (ie any FPS) is better than halo.

If your brain cannot fathom someone seriously holding that opinion, then feel free to never leave your moms basement.

You never implied other fps's are better than Halo, of you would have said "I don't like halo" I would have been fine, that's your opinion, but instead it was a flat unsupported comment that sounds like you were trolling.

Also, resorting to insults is quite childish, it's like the people bashing bioware for day one DLC

Team Fortress 2...

Because I like my stuff quirky and with really funny accents, instead of funny accents that are meant to be taken seriously.

I'd say CoD is better.
And by CoD I mean either CoD1 or CoD2.

Did I just say a 9 year old and a 6 year old game are better than the newest game in its own series and all of its competitors?

Yes, I did.

Deal with it.

CS 1.6. Fuckin great fun with my friends because we play it since ~2000 and are a good team together. It is actually deeper than those three thanks to the money system and better map design for the thing it wants to accomplis: 5on5 competitive play. And for one it is one of the best games to watch because it is round based and until the objecitve is complete / 1 team dead / time up no one respawns.

As far as which *series* I prefer, I definitely like Halo because of its deep story and overall gameplay.

That said, Halo Reach sucked giant donkey dick, and was not a good Halo game at all. It completely destroyed the story and was just...terrible. Multiplayer, single player, it was just all subpar compared to its predecessors.

Of these games specifically, I'd say Battlefield 3, despite the myriads of problems it has, like not being able to leave between rounds, and having a 7-second window after dying where you can't change your class (seriously, the fuck, DICE, this is gaming 101 you're failing at).

NO NO NO NO NO!!

Oh sweet lord people, run while you can! Try and avoid the flames going everywhere! Grab everything you can and fleeeeeeee!! Fleeeeeeeee the flamewar!

Half Li-
I mean Halo Reach, since it's colorful and fun :P

Personally I think Halo Reach has got to be the best multiplayer game I ever bought, something about it just clicks.

I'll blindly vote in your poll poll before going on my rant: Halo Reach, the only game I can play without raging at how bad it is.

It is slightly annoying that it is always these three games that get compared to each other. Its always "Halo franchise vs. CoD franchise" or "CoD vs. Battlefield". I can kind of understand that they are all FPS games, that most people who like one can like another, but I still don't get it.

Halo is set in the far advanced future where the greatest soldiers ever made fight against an alien race bent on the annihilation of the human race. It uses futuristic technology like spartan lasers, plasma swords, and fucking energy shields. So when someone says they want to compare Halo to any other shooter that is not set in a future 400+ years from now, where an alien race is trying on a religious crusade to exterminate humanity, I usually assume they think "that game has guns in it, and so does that one! THEY MUST BE THE SAME GAME THEN". So everyone, please stop comparing Halo to "realistic" shooters. Halo doesn't do anything to try and be realistic, while CoD and BF try their damnedest to be hyper realistic.

Halo is also different because only one developer has worked on the Halo games to date. CoD jumps between Infinity Ward and Treyarch, creating very different games, and Battlefield (does something different, but I can't recall what) which makes Battlefield 2: Bad Company, different from Battlefield 3.
All the Halo games are relatively the same in that they behave the same. Yes there are different guns, slightly different physics, but if you have played Halo: CE and jump to Halo Reach, you can pick up the game very quickly. CoD doesn't work like that though. If you have played CoD4 religiously and switch to MW3 or Black Ops, it is hard to get the feel for the game again. Bad Company (apparently) doesn't play the same way as Battlefield 3, so even then you would have a bit of difficulty adapting.

Finally, the scope of the games is different.
Halo has small to large sized maps, is very team based, every player is essentially the same (same gear and weapons), and the objectives require a competent team (don't even dare to say they don't).
CoD has always focussed on small to medium sized maps, can be team based but allows a lone wolf to reap havoc on the enemy, every player is different from every other player (different gear, weapons, even perks), and the objectives don't always require a competent team (it helps to have one though).
Battlefield has always had stupidly huge maps, is very team based, and every player has a similarity to every other player (there are set classes in Battlefield), the objectives also require a fairly competent team.

Halo is closest to Gears imo. CoD is closest to TF2 (if you take out killstreaks). Battlefield is closest to... Probably Time Splitters 2.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked