HALO is the latest "has-been" in video games, plain and simple. The formula is getting old, and interest has been sucked dry. Call of Duty is guilty of recycling a formula, but changes and additions have made every game in the series exciting and new. Now, normally I wouldn't care about these two games going at it, but in the world of the internet, these two games are constantly placed beside each other in some messed up comparison.
I will take a hit for the team, and put an end to the final say about which is better. Gameplay, story, control scheme, online play, among other things will be the way in which I judge. Getting down to the roots of the gaming experience certainly helps one to differentiate these two seemingly alike games.
Firstly; Gameplay and control scheme. the control standards were certainly set by HALO, Bungie did a fine job of identifying what a nice controller map would look like, but the ultimate reward for this concept goes to Infinity Ward's Call of Duty. HALO requires a tap of the right stick to aim a scoped weapon (and a scoped weapon is the only weapon that can be aimed), where-as Call of Duty's aim feature come "standard" with all aspects of the game, and feels more "right". Call of Duty's cover feature also bests HALO's because in HALO cover is never really needed, it doesn't feel realistic.
The story is a huge aspect of every game (and TV show, and movie, and book). HALO grabs the story from the discount section of a science fiction book store. Aliens and humans alike need control of some outerspace laser than can destroy big things, non original. Call of Duty's story has reflected World War 1, World War 2, and a fictional take of the war in Iraq. With original characters living out real events, it feels more original than what it actually is (which in most cases is a copy of history). Whether you like aliens or human warfare more, everyone's opinion can go either way on this element, but personally, I think human warfare is an experience that feels more realistic.
Online play is an element that is always a hit or miss. HALO has a huge community of dedicated players, making it easy to find a match, and a wide variety of maps to explore and kill in. But let us also consider, HALO is a host for "power players", people who are simply so good, it makes the game not fun to play online. Leveling up is nice, but there's no reward for it, rather than just a cute number and symbol next your name. Call of Duty's online layout is much more user-friendly. Offers everybody a chance to level up (and you do ONLY level up, unlike HALO where you can go down a level for not being perfect), and the leveling up process is rewarding and feels fantastic. HALO online play is for people who want a raw challenge, in the worst way possible, and Call of Duty is for people who want a challenge, and for people who enjoy feeling significant (but not overpowering) online.
As for the art, and the sounds of both of the games, I truly think the graphics are equally brilliant on both sides of the spectrum. No real complaints there at all, both HALO and CoD are proficient in those two areas.
Pictured Above: HALO does look good, but that's no reason to buy it.
So, in conclusion, Call of Duty is just... Better. HALO is fine, but ultimately not on the same plane of video game.
My Ratings:
Call of Duty (series) - 9.5 out of 10
HALO (series) - 6 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment