There have been FAR too many threads saying that CoD4 is better than Halo 3. WELL, ITS NOT. Here's why.
I will show all of you exactly why Halo is superior in every aspect to Call Of Duty 4.
- Gameplay
- Graphics
- Campaign
- Multiplayer
And so it begins: Call Of Duty 4 is a fast, ruthless and unforgiving game. It forces you to play by the rules - "Shoot down the sights", "Stick close to cover" and "Play like a team"! It is unfortunate that some, if not all of these are either unenforced or too strictly involved. It never consistently strikes a balance between realism and arcadism. This is opposite to Halo 3, where the rules of play are uniformly loose enough to very generally dictate both how the truly good players play and how the comically casual play. Call of Duty 4 on the other hand isn't about anything other than a random mashing of playtypes that always comes out looking like vomit. There's no rhythm to it; no formula to success. Call of Duy 4's gameplay is so spastic and random that it can be headache inducing at times. And don't pull out the "oh bu bu but that's what real war is like!" - It doesn't matter. This is a game, and games are supposed to be game-like.
Graphically, Call Of Duty 4 is far from stunning. Muddy textures, inconsistent effects work and undeniable 'meh'-ness are all present in this game. This game doesn't look any better than Far Cry back in 2004 (save player models). It lacks the clean, recognizable look of better games (Halo). Just watching a gameplay video, you'd be hard-pressed to discern this from 2005's Battlefield 2. Call Of Duty simply doesn't have distinct visuals - it is literally undeniable. And then comes the 'but 60 fps!' remarks. After playing games in 30 fps for so long, I've come to realize this: games that run at 60 frames per second do not look nearly as cinematic or involving as games at 30 fps do. Call Of Duty 4 doesn't look very cinematic as opposed to Halo 3's movie-like sheen. I thought it was supposed to feel like a great war movie. Why doesn't it look like one?
Call Of Duty 4's campaign mode is fun. It's really fun, for that matter. But when all is said and done with the Marines part in Iraq, it just feels like "...well that was pointless..." because it is. Fighting in Iraq isn't purposeful in this story. You don't have enough time to get attached to your allies like you do with Captain Price, and when you all die due to that nuclear blast, there is no emotional pain or longing to be with your allies again, rendering the whole set of Marine missions utterly meaningless. The fighting with Soap and the S.A.S. is great though, with some really intense moments. However this too lacks any real meat because it is so damn short. Minus the Marines part, the campaign is quite literally 4 hours long! This is inexcusable, especially next to Halo 3's mighty 10+ hours of play when by yourself. And everything in Halo actually has a point, too.
Last but not least is the moderately enjoyable, luck and experience based multiplayer of CoD4. Notice how I didn't mention skill. No one is actually good at the multiplayer (please don't take that too literally, as I know some of you will). It's all luck, all who-sees-who-first and who's got the better guns (aka who's been playing more Search and Destroy). Yes, in Call Of Duty 4, the 'better' players get the better guns. That's what we call counter-intuitive. It puts me, the guy who has enjoyed CoD4 along with Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect for the past few weeks, at a disadvantage. You might say, "Well they've played more! They deserve better weapons!" Well, that is true - they've played the game longer than me, they deserve better weapons than me. This would all be fine and dandy if I was never matched up with them in the game's ameteur (the only word to describe it) matchmaking system! But I'm not! I'm a level 31 Captain and I'm in games with level 54 prestige players! This isn't right! At least in Halo we are all technically on an even playing field (equipment wise). And then, when we aren't of the same skill (in Halo), we don't get matched up with eachother. This is all 'complemented' (heh) by CoD4's terribly dull and unexciting choice of maps to play on. They're all either Middle Eastern City or Russian/Armenian Countryside, and they get old after you've figured out where to camp and where not to go. It's a luxury to go back to Halo's visually and mechanically unique map choice after being dragged through these bore-fests 10 times.
Now all in all, Call Of Duty 4 isn't a bad game - but never, EVER mix this up: it's not as good as Halo 3. There you go, Call Of Duty 4 has been Dissected and Destroyed.
*kicks Halo haters in the balls and runs*
Uncle_Uzi
Sorry to break your heart but I think more people are enjouying COD4. Yes halo 3 is a good game but damn it got tiring fast and its real slow paced. I got tired of it after a week and its sitting there collecting dust while cod4 is getting most of my time. Just love catching ppl camping and stabbing them in the back with a knife or setting a remote charge on him and blowing him up. :)
Log in to comment