TOFUM4ST3R said:
INF1NIT3 D00M said:
I wonder, how long does it take halo players to grasp Gears of War's cover mechanic? Perhaps you could win a few matches after 20 rounds?
Well, considering I (used) play Halo (busy playing Valve games and Fallout 3 now), it must probably take the average Halo player the most of .00000001 seconds to grasp the cover mechanic, and 1 match to find out the game not about cover and primarily about shotgun blindfire and host advantage. (Talking about GeoW1 here.)
Well, I WAS trying to mess with drollins32 because he has views different to mine, but it seems that between TOFUM4ST3R and Eldritch Warlord I am doomed to be endlessly quoted and my parades sentenced to be rained upon.
TOFUM4ST3R, your quote was particularly sobering. I could almost hear the whiny 5th grade two-little-kids-arguing-over-games voice with which that post was written.
In response, I say:
NUH-UH! Halo sucks! I got a million billion kills in one round of gears on my first try. youre just a big stupid head! Ima go tell my mom on you!
Now, being (a little) more rational:
I played Gears of War until the disc cried for me to stop, and never once did I come across anything resembling a host advantage. Also, the definition seems to change from person to person.
And now to continue making my point that Halo is Teh UNkool and that GEarZ ROXXoRz!:
Halo is nowhere near as balanced as Gears of war is, and I found that tweaking weapon spawns in Gears of War is much faster and easier. The bare-bones layout of the multiplayer in gears trumps Halo any day because there is a perfect balance of weapons, spawn points, and map symmetry. The maps are asymmetrical, but with enough similarities to be fair to both sides. spawn locations switch each round, and all players spawn with enough weapons to last the round and no weapon REALLY beats another, much like rock paper scissors. When you look at halo, there is serious overkill in everything. Youre unstoppable in campaign mode and when you go online that makes the game into something of a race for the biggest gun. It seems that skill factors in less than in other games, because regardless of skill, whoever gets to rocketspawn first, wins.
I think it all comes down to simplicity. many people on here have said that Halo is simpler than other games, and Im starting to believe it. In CoD4 you need to think tactically, using the environment and whatever weapons you have to achieve a goal. In gears, you need to work as a squad to win. In Rainbow six vegas, you need to be a better swat team to win (honestly I usually play terrorist hunt and dont play deathmatch very often). All these games require constant thinking and input, and Halo simply doesnt work that way. I think people go into the game expecting a First Person Shooter in which tactics are necessary to win. Instead, Halo is a Ferst Persun Shutr with an emphasis on teabagging. You dont need intelligence, you need firepower. You dont need strategy, you need reflexes. Its a game rather than a simulated battlefield. I think that people go into it being told that Halo is a great shooter, which it might be, but nobody tells them what KIND of shooter it is. I think that deep down this is what disappoints people.
Myself however, Im crap at it. Im TERRIBLE at Halo 3. I invite you to look up my stats, its pathetic. I think that also has a big effect on my view of Halo. Here is this genre at which Im usually very proficient, but one game continues to mock me and cause me to question my abilities. How could I not hate that which makes me question my gaming identity? If a guy who calls himself INF1NIT3 D00M (to make up for my masculinity, Im told) cant get a kill in Halo 3, does it really matter If he is a beast at Call of Duty 4? I would say yes, but in the end, Halo is the one game I cannot master, a little pet peeve I choose to ignore and ridicule...
