Try and work heavier on the Campaign.

CoD is super busy trying to make their game all Multiplayer with a little bit of a story thrown in that 60% of the fans probably didn't even play for the first full week of the game, because they were trying to level up on MP. So, I think Halo should go an entirely different route, add a few little perks to the Multiplayer, add a few skulls and more customizable equipment, but focus mainly on revamping the Campaign.

Make the Campaign 20ish hours long and make it... exciting. The first Halo was great, then they realized that more people were playing for Multiplayer and started to slouch on the main aspect of it, the Campaign. I really hate it when people say that this game seems too stale and the same, this works for Bungie and it works for the fans, I love the sci-fi aspect. I don't want them changing up the scenery or the guns or the world, but I want them to act on what they've already been working for years to create.

Exit the game with some amazing gigantic battle or something. I never really read any of the books, but I'm sure there has to be a huge battle in there somewhere. I want something huge and epic plz.

how are these games not similar? both rpg/fps, both in the post apocolyptic wasteland, both free world killing raiders/scavenging.

imlolmon

The answer would better be, how are they similar? You're naming random things. One is a FPS/RPG that is mainly about looting. The other is an RPG with shooting mechanics and is story driven. Basically, one of them is a true RPG and the other one can more be related to a shooter than an actual role-playing game.

If you've played them both, you'd be able to tell a distinct difference right away. Not just the graphics.

Simalarities?! Hahahahahaha.

I love it when two things are somewhat pitched in the same type of atmosphere and people say that they're alike. These two games have no simalarities whatsoever, except for the fact that they are both in a fallout type landscape. That is where they begin and that is where they end. Besides, I didn't really like the whole grinding over and over aspect of Borderlands.

So, no. You can't compare these games at all. One is a pure Westernized RPG and the other is more of a hybrid of a few game types put together. It reminds me more of a shooter than anything. So, eh. Both are good in their own respects, but I enjoyed Fallout 3 more.

It didn't really have the action that FPS buffs will like, but it is enough for an RPG. I mean, it's much more of a story than an action game, but in some ways it works out better this way. The second one is probably going to have more action and will probably have a more refined shooting system, so I am sure you have nothing to worry about.

The one bad thing about the game is the crappy worlds, but they're also fixing that in the second.

This guy isn't the brightest bulb tbh

God Of War.

I played the first two on the PS2 and I just can't get in to the puzzle/fighting type games like that. Probably why I won't like Dante's Inferno either, if I had to really try to like this game though, I probably could force myself to beat them all. They're pretty cool though.

Mass Effect.

I like to think I enjoyed this game, but after seeing how crazily hyped up people make this game, I don't think I really enjoyed it as much as other people. I definately don't think it's anything near the best RPG ever and I could play it a bunch of times, but I can't respect it at all as a great role-playing game.

Assassins Creed (I not II)

This game was just bad. It was an interesting game, and the second one was great, but the first one was boring and you did the same thing over and over... it didn't really feel like it was worth it after a while and I stopped playing pretty quickly. So, yeah, not one of my favorites ever.

I demand a dollar for every time Halo was mentioned in here. :lol:

Anyone that played KOTOR will vote for that, it rivals that of the best games and the story is amazing for any game, but especially for a Star Wars game. The twist even rivals that of the twist in the actual movies. It was a great game all around. Much better than Mass Effect, I'll always like Mass Effect, but I find that it played too much like a story book and less like an actual RPG.

Now, Mass Effect 2 may just take the cake, but for now... It's KOTOR.

I know this question is weird and open to many areas of exploitation, but what I'm asking is very simple, why aren't RPGs better? I'm talking about Westernized RPGs, I haven't really played that many JRPGs, so I don't know much about them, but they're probably not the answer to my question either, and I hate turn-based any ways.

What I'm asking though is why aren't they more complex? Not... complex, but, why aren't they more open? I was just playing Mass Effect, as I was told this was one of the best role-playing games of the past few years and I was so disappointed. Everything felt so lifeless and plot-driven that it wasn't even fun. It was doing the same thing over and over, and everything stood in the same place, the story was all fine and everything... but, it just didn't feel like an RPG game. It didn't feel like I was in a world.

Then, I played Dragon Age: Origins recently as well, and while it was more open, there wasn't really anything to explore. You went to the cities and fought the dark spawn... it was all story driven too. Granted, some of the charaters moved around and it was a vast imporvement over Mass Effect, it was still not as open as I would have hoped. I mean, okay, it was WAY more RPG than Mass Effect, but it still wasn't anything special.

Now on to Fallout 3, this game was great and everything, you could explore and enter cities; everything moved and it didn't feel as much as a story, but as you taking the life of a man that was destined for an epic story. It was well done and what I think of when I think of RPG, but it still lacked in the over-all. There weren't as many quests as I had hoped and other than Megaton and the ship city, there really weren't any big cities to explore... and even those two cities were pretty small.

Now to the big kahuna, the game that I think most games should use as a blue-print. Oblivion. While this game lacked in a lot of the dialouge options, it was still awesome in the big run. There were around six cities, if I remember correctly to explore. Plus dungeons, and smaller cities, and over one-hundred full quests, not even including the main quest-line. This game was just crazy good, and if it was created in 2009 or 2010, it would have blown my mind. This game just makes me excited for what may be coming in the next few years.

My question though is, why do we have these games that only seem to be tools for telling a story? They're not really role playing, as trying to be a story book, and it really upsets me. I would much rather have games like Fallout or Oblivion over games like Mass Effect. Just my take though, and I'm sure quite a few will agree. So, why aren't more of these games created for us gamers to play? The expansiveness and quests should be the main focus, and then the story a very close second.

If an RPG takes less than 2 years to create, it shouldn't be allowed to grace our consoles. Just IMO.

Oh, I just read the OP again and I apologize. So, I will edit it now.

The Mabari War Hound would probably win. It just has that evil taint about it and is bad ass when it's killing people, the attack dogs on Call Of Duty would have to come in second, but really... they die very quickly and don't have to contend with demons and such.

My vote goes towards the Fable Dog losing first and War Hound ending as the victor.

1. Mabari War Hound

2. CoD Dogs

3. Fallout 3 Dog

4. Fable Dog