PDA

View Full Version : Gears Of War Vs. Halo



I Am Stoner
12-30-2006, 01:22 PM
Now, this one for me is very tricky. I mean, halo is simply amazing, but Gears Of War takes shooters to the next level. I voted for Gears Of War because I love the cover system. None of this strafe and firing, just plain duck 'n' fire gameplay. I love it.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

Araciel
12-30-2006, 03:18 PM
halo is too simple to compare to gears of war.

Timerk
12-30-2006, 03:23 PM
It is kind of a moot point as they are both exclusive to the same system.

Dreddz
12-30-2006, 03:58 PM
I was borrowed Gears of War and thought it was pretty good, but I beat it in only a day, for this reason, I pick Halo.

Lionx
12-30-2006, 04:13 PM
Meh Halo is pretty broken in terms of multiplayer and stuff..Gears of War for me. Never saw whats so AWESOME about it to be a killer app like GoW.

Madame Adequate
12-30-2006, 04:46 PM
I think Gears of War is absolutely fantastic, but I'm going to have to go with Halo. Simply because I cannot remember a game with as amazing an opening as Halo had. Escaping the Pillar of Autumn, to me, signified that we'd reached the "next gen". So, in truth, there may be a nostalgic component there, but I don't consider it much of an insult to say "Not quite as good as Halo". That's like being "Not quite as large as Jupiter".

Odaisť Gaelach
12-30-2006, 05:16 PM
Halo is dull, repetitive and nonsensical. So it's Gears of War for me. :D

Madame Adequate
12-30-2006, 06:12 PM
Halo is dull, repetitive and nonsensical.

No.

Well, yes on repetitive, but when you find me a videogame that isn't I'll be suitably impressed.

Odaisť Gaelach
12-30-2006, 06:41 PM
No.

Well, yes on repetitive, but when you find me a videogame that isn't I'll be suitably impressed.

Tetris! No, wait! hang on...

What I meant by repetitive is that it brings you through about five or six identical rooms one after another. And it does this several times in the game - on the Halo itself, when you're being chased after the Flood, when you're on the Covenant ship...

I mean, backtracking is one thing, but when the level designers duplicate the same rooms and corridors over and over and over again, then it becomes a bit of a problem.

escobert
12-30-2006, 06:45 PM
I was borrowed Gears of War and thought it was pretty good, but I beat it in only a day, for this reason, I pick Halo.

What it took 1 1/2 days to beat Halo? :p

NINJA_Ryu
12-30-2006, 06:55 PM
Gears of war i like better for setting, and realism

Win!

IMO, its better because of the cover, story, weapons, and intresting boss fights.

Pike
12-30-2006, 06:59 PM
What I meant by repetitive is that it brings you through about five or six identical rooms one after another. And it does this several times in the game - on the Halo itself, when you're being chased after the Flood, when you're on the Covenant ship...

I mean, backtracking is one thing, but when the level designers duplicate the same rooms and corridors over and over and over again, then it becomes a bit of a problem.

The original Halo game did have a bit of an issue with stuff like that, yeah. But it was still a pretty fun playthrough, regardless (for me, anyway) and the multiplayer alone was amazing and fun and made it one of the games I played the most out of the entire last generation.

Haven't played Gears of War, so I can't say, but Halo was delicious.

JaytodaP
12-30-2006, 07:55 PM
Gears is the best online game i have ever played. Co-op is a blast with my brother and friends. Halo you have to listen to whiney kids scream and tell you it was your fault your team lost even though you had the most kills.

Madame Adequate
12-30-2006, 08:35 PM
No.

Well, yes on repetitive, but when you find me a videogame that isn't I'll be suitably impressed.

Tetris! No, wait! hang on...

What I meant by repetitive is that it brings you through about five or six identical rooms one after another. And it does this several times in the game - on the Halo itself, when you're being chased after the Flood, when you're on the Covenant ship...

I mean, backtracking is one thing, but when the level designers duplicate the same rooms and corridors over and over and over again, then it becomes a bit of a problem.

Eye candy hardly matters when people play Tetris so much even today! :p Whilst I can understand the point that was made, I felt that the variation between levels was plenty enough for me, and I was able to overlook repetition because the game was so good. A good game isn't one with a diverse set of circumstances, it's one which does whatever it does well - that's why the Dynasty Warriors games are so much fun, despite being more repetetive than boot camp.

Odaisť Gaelach
12-30-2006, 08:43 PM
Eye candy hardly matters when people play Tetris so much even today! :p Whilst I can understand the point that was made, I felt that the variation between levels was plenty enough for me, and I was able to overlook repetition because the game was so good. A good game isn't one with a diverse set of circumstances, it's one which does whatever it does well - that's why the Dynasty Warriors games are so much fun, despite being more repetetive than boot camp.

Well, for me, the game wasn't enough to make up for the levels. I drove me bonkers for a while, and then I realised: yes, this is a different room to the one that I was in just a few minutes ago. And the one before that. And the one before that!

But, to each their own. I don't like Halo because it made me go temporarily insane. :spin:

RiseToFall
12-30-2006, 09:58 PM
I haven't tried out Gears of War yet so I can't really make a comparison as of now. From what I saw though, these games look quite different from one another. In Halo, you can run and gun and still come out victorious (depending on your skill level), while in GoW it's all about the cover mechanic that the developers implemented. I guess it just depends on how you like to play the games. Plus I don't know if it's fare comparing a next-gen game like Gears with Halo.

Behold the Void
12-30-2006, 10:18 PM
I've never been a big fan of shooters, but what I've seen of Gears of War impresses me greatly.

Halo always bothered me in that you can just run out and shoot things and still have a good chance of coming out ahead. The fact that Gears of War REQUIRES you to make good use of cover is a definite plus in my eyes, and the way the cover system is built into the mechanics is top-notch.

VengefulRonin
12-31-2006, 12:18 AM
Halo 1 is great fun, Halo 2 is greater fun because you can play as the covenant and run around with an energy sword (which basically makes you a god). I havent played GoW...but from what i've seen and read about it, i'm gonna have to vote GoW, it just seems to have more in depth gameplay than Halo.

Halo = shoot, throw grenades, decide which weapon kills which enemy the fastest, make suicide runs and come out alive

GoW = duck and cover, pray to god you can survive an ememy assault

Madame Adequate
12-31-2006, 03:00 AM
I've never been a big fan of shooters, but what I've seen of Gears of War impresses me greatly.

Halo always bothered me in that you can just run out and shoot things and still have a good chance of coming out ahead.

Not on Legendary you can't. You do need to use tactics in Halo on higher difficulties, and it's not like GoW has a huge amount of tactics either - hide behind something big and bulletproof, lean out and shoot Locust, repeat. It's done incredibly well, but let's not make like it's a better game because it uses a different repetetive mechanic throughout.

XxSephirothxX
12-31-2006, 03:09 AM
I'll definitely admit Halo 1's campaign got repetitive and was even a bit boring in places. However, Bungie made up for that with a fantastic world with a deep, deep background, and improved upon the gameplay greatly in Halo 2. It has one of the best (and I don't know how it could be considered unbalanced, as it seemed pretty damn fair in the several hundred hours of playtime I put into Xbox Live--nearly every weapon combinatinon can be beaten by another if you're skilled enough.) multiplayer systems in any game I've played. I think Halo 2 is the most fun, perfect shooter I've ever played, and I can't wait for Halo 3. Halo's multiplayer is far better than Gears', as well, but the latter is still good fun.

Gears of War is a fantastic game, as well. However, it really doesn't require any more strategy than Halo did if you were playing on the higher difficulties. Epic did a fantastic job, overall, with the cover system, and it's such a different type of game it's almost unfair to compare the two. The pop out of cover and shoot system works really well, but in the end it's not some huge, eye-opening advancement that will change the way shooters work. You have to take cover in pretty much any shooter if you want to survive. Epic just made it a more important aspect of the gameplay. And made it cool.

Behold the Void
12-31-2006, 03:51 AM
I've never been a big fan of shooters, but what I've seen of Gears of War impresses me greatly.

Halo always bothered me in that you can just run out and shoot things and still have a good chance of coming out ahead.

Not on Legendary you can't. You do need to use tactics in Halo on higher difficulties, and it's not like GoW has a huge amount of tactics either - hide behind something big and bulletproof, lean out and shoot Locust, repeat. It's done incredibly well, but let's not make like it's a better game because it uses a different repetetive mechanic throughout.

I, personally, prefer Gears of War's mechanic for strategy over Halo. So in my opinion, I'd say that makes it the better game in my eyes, which is all that matters to me :)

As I said I'm not big on shooters. I've no intention of getting dragged into a major argument over which is better, I don't care enough.

Markus. D
12-31-2006, 04:06 AM
Gears of War.

:]

Ive never played a shooting game quite like it.

Duncan
01-01-2007, 03:15 PM
I'm going to pick GoW because it finally brought something new to the shooter. Halo was good, but not great. Halo was one of the first shooters that had a really good control scheme for the console and played well on the console, but having played numerous shooter on the PC prior to Halo's release, I was not all that impressed with the gameplay. GoW had added something that has been needed for a long time and that is the use of cover. I'm hoping that GoW marks the end of bunny hopping and circle-strafing.

Araciel
01-01-2007, 03:20 PM
ever heard of killswitch?

ah well..

Madame Adequate
01-01-2007, 04:03 PM
I, personally, prefer Gears of War's mechanic for strategy over Halo. So in my opinion, I'd say that makes it the better game in my eyes, which is all that matters to me :)

As I said I'm not big on shooters. I've no intention of getting dragged into a major argument over which is better, I don't care enough.

And that is all fair enough, you're more than entitled to hold that view and I can't find anything to disagree with, simply to say that I prefer Halo's mechanics. What I was objecting to was the idea that GoW has deeper tactics, when really it's just something new done well. xD

JKTrix
01-02-2007, 11:29 AM
The people who made Gears of War, Epic, have been making shooters for a long long time. Bungie has been making them for a while as well, but they don't have as many in their portfolio as Epic would.

They're both quite different games, and Halo is diverse enough to have an easy mode and a very very hard mode for the single player. Legendary on Halo is harder than Insane on GOW. If Halo used the cover dynamic, it would be a *very* different game.

Still, right now I can't choose fairly between the two :P I'll give Gears of War series a couple more years, because right now Halo would win on epic nostalgia. 16 player matches every week at my college, can't quite top that yet.

NeoCracker
01-02-2007, 11:37 AM
I've never been a big fan of shooters, but what I've seen of Gears of War impresses me greatly.

Halo always bothered me in that you can just run out and shoot things and still have a good chance of coming out ahead.

Not on Legendary you can't. You do need to use tactics in Halo on higher difficulties, and it's not like GoW has a huge amount of tactics either - hide behind something big and bulletproof, lean out and shoot Locust, repeat. It's done incredibly well, but let's not make like it's a better game because it uses a different repetetive mechanic throughout.
My friend Jake, a guy who wouldn't stand a chance against the average halo player in my area, or at least when he first started playing, played Halo on Legendary for his first play through. He did it with relative ease by just running around shooting the :skull::skull::skull::skull: out of everything.

Yet when He did this even me, who sucks at shooters, was just a bit worse then him. And all our friends were kicking his butt badly. The Campaign on Halo 1 and 2 are mind numbingly easy, even for people like me who suck at the game

I voted neither, as I havn't played Gears of War and Golden Eye 007 still humilates Halo in every aspect, except graphics.

Yew-Yevon
01-06-2007, 05:33 PM
I've never been a big fan of shooters, but what I've seen of Gears of War impresses me greatly.

Halo always bothered me in that you can just run out and shoot things and still have a good chance of coming out ahead.

Not on Legendary you can't. You do need to use tactics in Halo on higher difficulties, and it's not like GoW has a huge amount of tactics either - hide behind something big and bulletproof, lean out and shoot Locust, repeat. It's done incredibly well, but let's not make like it's a better game because it uses a different repetetive mechanic throughout.

not to get off topic, but Killzone's easy setting on ps2 is somwhat like Legendary setting on halo.

Roto13
01-06-2007, 06:04 PM
I haven't played Gears of War but I really don't like Halo at all, so I'm going to vote for GoW. :P

Elite Lord Sigma
01-06-2007, 08:26 PM
Gears of War, because even though the multiplayer doesn't have as many options (which can be fixed through the Download Center in the future), it's better than Halo 2's. In Halo 2, if you had a Rocket Laucher/Sniper Rifle or Sniper Rifle/Shotgun combo, you would practically be invincible, leading to lopsided matches. In Gears of War, those with skill still do best, but it works well enough so that somebody who's only just learned how to play won't get totally destroyed by an expert. Plus, all of the weapons are balanced better, too.

I Took the Red Pill
01-06-2007, 08:33 PM
ever heard of killswitch?

ah well..Yes, I do remember it. It had potential, but it was put together pretty crappily. Gears of War pulled off the whole take cover/shoot mechanics perfectly, while Killswitch was just sloppy and choppy.

XxSephirothxX
01-06-2007, 09:04 PM
Gears of War, because even though the multiplayer doesn't have as many options (which can be fixed through the Download Center in the future), it's better than Halo 2's. In Halo 2, if you had a Rocket Laucher/Sniper Rifle or Sniper Rifle/Shotgun combo, you would practically be invincible, leading to lopsided matches. In Gears of War, those with skill still do best, but it works well enough so that somebody who's only just learned how to play won't get totally destroyed by an expert. Plus, all of the weapons are balanced better, too.
I've been dominated by a sniper many times in Halo 2, definitely, but I don't think what you said is really accurate. With a little bit of teamwork, or even some luck, it's not at all hard to get up close to someone who had those combinations and quickly take them out with a plasma pistol/battle rifle, pp/smg, sword, or even plasma rifle/smg. Or grenades. There really is no weapon combination that makes you undefeatable, unless you're playing something like juggernaut, in which case a shotgun or a rocket launcher can be amazingly effective. Of course, if you're simply playing someone way better than you (which happened to me quite a lot :p) you can certainly be rendered virtually useless by a weapon such as a sniper rifle. But that's more a testament to the player's skill than the weapon's power.

I would say that the sniper rifle in Gears of War is actually more dangerous. With an active reload, you can down somebody with one hit to the body, and obviously kill them with a headshot. There aren't any other weapons in Gears that can compete with the Longshot's range. The only thing that comes close is the torque bow.

Elite Lord Sigma
01-06-2007, 09:09 PM
Gears of War, because even though the multiplayer doesn't have as many options (which can be fixed through the Download Center in the future), it's better than Halo 2's. In Halo 2, if you had a Rocket Laucher/Sniper Rifle or Sniper Rifle/Shotgun combo, you would practically be invincible, leading to lopsided matches. In Gears of War, those with skill still do best, but it works well enough so that somebody who's only just learned how to play won't get totally destroyed by an expert. Plus, all of the weapons are balanced better, too.
I've been dominated by a sniper many times in Halo 2, definitely, but I don't think what you said is really accurate. With a little bit of teamwork, or even some luck, it's not at all hard to get up close to someone who had those combinations and quickly take them out with a plasma pistol/battle rifle, pp/smg, sword, or even plasma rifle/smg. Or grenades. There really is no weapon combination that makes you undefeatable, unless you're playing something like juggernaut, in which case a shotgun or a rocket launcher can be amazingly effective. Of course, if you're simply playing someone way better than you (which happened to me quite a lot :p) you can certainly be rendered virtually useless by a weapon such as a sniper rifle. But that's more a testament to the player's skill than the weapon's power.

I would say that the sniper rifle in Gears of War is actually more dangerous. With an active reload, you can down somebody with one hit to the body, and obviously kill them with a headshot. There aren't any other weapons in Gears that can compete with the Longshot's range. The only thing that comes close is the torque bow.

True, but the Longshot doesn't have a crapload of ammo, and it can't shoot four times before it needs to reload like the Halo Sniper Rifle. And it's pretty much the same with the Halo Sniper Rifle. Two shots to the body and you're down. Not to mention due to the long reload time (even if you get an active reload), you can get closer to your foe while they reload, and take cover again. Also, unlike the Halo 2 Sniper Rifle, the Longshot is a piece of trash at short range, due to the different vision perspective and the good counters to it (such as the Gnasher and Lancer chainsaw).

On another note, I always get TO'd because I can never seem to find the Torque Bow on the map anywhere.

Madame Adequate
01-07-2007, 12:39 AM
My friend Jake, a guy who wouldn't stand a chance against the average halo player in my area, or at least when he first started playing, played Halo on Legendary for his first play through. He did it with relative ease by just running around shooting the :skull::skull::skull::skull: out of everything.

Either not on Legendary, or he's a lot better than he makes out. Halo 1's Legendary wasn't too bad, to be fair. So go play Halo 2 on Mythic.

ZeZipster
01-10-2007, 02:46 AM
Halo 2 is way older. I enjoyed Gears of War because it was the first next-gen game I really got into. I'll compare the two when Halo 3 comes out. Right now though, speaking after I've patched, I'm thinking Halo 2 might even beat it. Seriously, you get paired with a random team. It's a tactical game, and no one can use any tactics because they don't know who they're playing with. That really irks me.