Halo is becoming cod # 1292

I don’t particularly use the statement, but I’m tired of seeing the poor arguments for / against it. So I’m going to post my 2¢.

When people say halo is becoming cod, it is because there are more and more similarities. These similarities don’t make the two games exactly alike, but they certainly bring them closer together.

Lets turn the tables, what if COD started implementing some long time Halo mechanics. Assume cod stopped letting you pick your weapon on spawn. Instead you were given a default m16 and you could pick up more powerful weapons like mp7 and ACR on the map after fighting for them. Instead of perks being given to you at spawn, you had to find them on the map and could only use them for a certain time period (a power up of sorts). Sprint is removed and faster base movement speed is left to compensate. All killstreaks are removed and instead you get a shiny medal to compensate you for your hard work rather than more free kills. Now imagine spawn time was no longer as soon as you mashed x, but only after your 5 second wait period was up. Teams were balanced based on skill level and there was no join in session. (I could continue but I think you get the point by now)

Would you start to see more of a resemblance between halo and cod? Would cod kids start saying that cod was becoming halo? Wouldn’t a lot of cod fans be furious?

To beat CoD, Halo needs to be Halo. Halo 3 Lived through TWO Modern warfares (CoD4 + Mw2). So Halo already has the calibre to beat CoD, we just need to build from Halo 3 not Reach, and NOT use the same features that broke that game in Halo 4.

> To beat CoD, Halo needs to be Halo. Halo 3 Lived through TWO Modern warfares (CoD4 + Mw2). So Halo already has the calibre to beat CoD, we just need to build from Halo 3 not Reach, and NOT use the same features that broke that game in Halo 4.

It’s pretty obvious that reach was a negative direction for halo because of its game breaking changes. Somehow 343i doesn’t see it, but I’m still holding back for a ranked “classic” playlist until i shun this game.

> > To beat CoD, Halo needs to be Halo. Halo 3 Lived through TWO Modern warfares (CoD4 + Mw2). So Halo already has the calibre to beat CoD, we just need to build from Halo 3 not Reach, and NOT use the same features that broke that game in Halo 4.
>
> It’s pretty obvious that reach was a negative direction for halo because of its game breaking changes. Somehow 343i doesn’t see it, but I’m still holding back for a ranked “classic” playlist until i shun this game.

“Halo 3 lived through TWO Modern Warfares (CoD4 + MW2)” - Yeah, and there’s been a total of 5 “modern” Call of Duty’s since. (Modern as in the CoD4 formula.) Halo: Reach has been healthily competing with CoD since it came out. Yeah, it’s not #1, but it isn’t getting totally snuffed out. In an age dominated by Call of Duty, games like Battlefield 3 and Halo: Reach are still healthy contenders.

Also, if you think Halo can “beat” Call of Duty by going back to Halo 3, you are either ignorant or naive. Call of Duty is the highest grossing piece of ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA in HISTORY, let alone the highest grossing video game franchise in history. Every year it beats it’s own records. Call of Duty is a bullet train. The only thing that can stop it is ActiVision itself. They would have to stop releasing Call of Duty games and shut down the servers. Even then it would take years for the next record-breaker to come around.

You people need to stop thinking about beating Call of Duty. Because that’s all you apparently care about.

To start off thanks for explaining why you think Halo is becoming like CoD instead of just screaming and throwing a tantrum. I personally don’t mind the modifications by 343 (provided that they work well-unlike Reach) but I can understand those who feel the way you do. If CoD did suddenly do what you’re suggesting then yes I would feel that way however I would also understand that CoD has been the same way for years and perhaps it is time for the game to evolve. If the game developers want to take that step then that’s their choice but if gameplay-wise this strategy fails then I would be very annoyed.

We’ll just have to wait and see if the new modifications work or not and if 343 put in a classic Halo playlist.

The game your describing is old school mode in CoD4, and I would actually like to play a CoD like that, something refreshing. Oh wait…

> > > To beat CoD, Halo needs to be Halo. Halo 3 Lived through TWO Modern warfares (CoD4 + Mw2). So Halo already has the calibre to beat CoD, we just need to build from Halo 3 not Reach, and NOT use the same features that broke that game in Halo 4.
> >
> > It’s pretty obvious that reach was a negative direction for halo because of its game breaking changes. Somehow 343i doesn’t see it, but I’m still holding back for a ranked “classic” playlist until i shun this game.
>
> “Halo 3 lived through TWO Modern Warfares (CoD4 + MW2)” - Yeah, and there’s been a total of 5 “modern” Call of Duty’s since. (Modern as in the CoD4 formula.) Halo: Reach has been healthily competing with CoD since it came out. Yeah, it’s not #1, but it isn’t getting totally snuffed out. In an age dominated by Call of Duty, games like Battlefield 3 and Halo: Reach are still healthy contenders.
>
> Also, if you think Halo can “beat” Call of Duty by going back to Halo 3, you are either ignorant or naive. Call of Duty is the highest grossing piece of ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA in HISTORY, let alone the highest grossing video game franchise in history. Every year it beats it’s own records. Call of Duty is a bullet train. The only thing that can stop it is ActiVision itself. They would have to stop releasing Call of Duty games and shut down the servers. Even then it would take years for the next record-breaker to come around.
>
> You people need to stop thinking about beating Call of Duty. Because that’s all you apparently care about.

The fact of the matter is that halo 1-3 were the most popular xbox games (they used to hold cods position) until reach came out. Halo 3 at 2 years old was beating mw2, and reach is still losing to mw2 to this very date. Halo reach still hasn’t sold as much as halo 3 and the population is lower than halo 3. All of this is despite the fact that the gaming community is probably 2x the size it was when halo 3 was out and around. I’m not absolutely saying that halo needs to dethrone cod. I’m just saying, it had the throne for a long time, and only lost population and was dethroned after the release of halo reach.

Is it even worth fighting about anymore? Really, people, really?

> > > > To beat CoD, Halo needs to be Halo. Halo 3 Lived through TWO Modern warfares (CoD4 + Mw2). So Halo already has the calibre to beat CoD, we just need to build from Halo 3 not Reach, and NOT use the same features that broke that game in Halo 4.
> > >
> > > It’s pretty obvious that reach was a negative direction for halo because of its game breaking changes. Somehow 343i doesn’t see it, but I’m still holding back for a ranked “classic” playlist until i shun this game.
> >
> > “Halo 3 lived through TWO Modern Warfares (CoD4 + MW2)” - Yeah, and there’s been a total of 5 “modern” Call of Duty’s since. (Modern as in the CoD4 formula.) Halo: Reach has been healthily competing with CoD since it came out. Yeah, it’s not #1, but it isn’t getting totally snuffed out. In an age dominated by Call of Duty, games like Battlefield 3 and Halo: Reach are still healthy contenders.
> >
> > Also, if you think Halo can “beat” Call of Duty by going back to Halo 3, you are either ignorant or naive. Call of Duty is the highest grossing piece of ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA in HISTORY, let alone the highest grossing video game franchise in history. Every year it beats it’s own records. Call of Duty is a bullet train. The only thing that can stop it is ActiVision itself. They would have to stop releasing Call of Duty games and shut down the servers. Even then it would take years for the next record-breaker to come around.
> >
> > You people need to stop thinking about beating Call of Duty. Because that’s all you apparently care about.
>
> The fact of the matter is that halo 1-3 were the most popular xbox games (they used to hold cods position) until reach came out. Halo 3 at 2 years old was beating mw2, and reach is still losing to mw2 to this very date. Halo reach still hasn’t sold as much as halo 3 and the population is lower than halo 3. All of this is despite the fact that the gaming community is probably 2x the size it was when halo 3 was out and around. I’m not absolutely saying that halo needs to dethrone cod. I’m just saying, it had the throne for a long time, and only lost population and was dethroned after the release of halo reach.

No, whether or not Halo: Reach came out, Halo would have lost population. Halo: Reach wasn’t the deciding factor whether or not Call of Duty was going to the top. Halo was losing population as soon as CoD4, W@W, and MW2 were coming out, gradually. MW2 was the last nail in the coffin. MW2 made the formula more casual-friendly, adding more weapons, attachments, perks, killstreaks, etc… That’s when CoD REALLY took off. It wouldn’t have mattered if Halo: Reach was or wasn’t released, because as long as there’s a new CoD coming out every year, people will just flock to it.

> Is it even worth fighting about anymore? Really, people, really?

I posted a viable “walk in our shoes” kind of argument in a calm manner for those that run around screaming all the time (yes from both sides). So calm down.

> I don’t particularly use the statement, but I’m tired of seeing the poor arguments for / against it. So I’m going to post my 2¢.
>
> When people say halo is becoming cod, it is because there are more and more similarities. These similarities don’t make the two games exactly alike, but they certainly bring them closer together.
>
> Lets turn the tables, what if COD started implementing some long time Halo mechanics. Assume cod stopped letting you pick your weapon on spawn. Instead you were given a default m16 and you could pick up more powerful weapons like mp7 and ACR on the map after fighting for them. Instead of perks being given to you at spawn, you had to find them on the map and could only use them for a certain time period (a power up of sorts). Sprint is removed and faster base movement speed is left to compensate. All killstreaks are removed and instead you get a shiny medal to compensate you for your hard work rather than more free kills. Now imagine spawn time was no longer as soon as you mashed x, but only after your 5 second wait period was up. Teams were balanced based on skill level and there was no join in session. (I could continue but I think you get the point by now)
>
> Would you start to see more of a resemblance between halo and cod? Would cod kids start saying that cod was becoming halo? Wouldn’t a lot of cod fans be furious?

I honestly think they’re picking up some ideas from GoW3 instead of CoD(seeing that Gears of War is a game that is very similar to Halo in terms of how the game turns out).

What I think may happen with Weapon Loadouts could more likely be this:

-We pick 2 of (at least) 4: AR, Magnum, BR, DMR. We’ll pick them based on our personal preferences and what the map encourages. This gives the devs more room to use the new weapons they’ll be introducing without littering the map, and avoid those fights where you’ll lose because some idiot thought it’s a great idea to hog the only 2 BRs on your side, and rush the enemy base.

-Grenades: We may pick 1 of 2 selections: Frag, and possibly 1 of the new grenades. Starting with Plasma, or something similar, only encourages rushing. Leaving them on the field to be picked up gives players something to fight over.

-Mods: No clue. Rumors have been said that Frankie is not allowing weapon modifications. Unfortunately, Game Informer did a terrible job explaining it, so I have no idea how this will turn out.

-Armor Ability: Use based on your preferred playstyle, weapon setup, or what you feel could be best for the map. Not many details were given due to the lack of information from Game Informer, and no full list is present at this time. Therefore, it could be anything from Reach, to possibly anything.

In my opinion, they seem to be more likely go in the Gears of War direction in terms of load outs. Yes, my claim is just as baseless as yours. However, CoD doesn’t play like Halo. Neither does GoW, but the way the matches playout with players fighting for power weapons like in Halo, using weapons that have effective ranges like in Halo, and now having a form of a loadout system, I feel this is where Halo is going at least with Loadouts.

> No, whether or not Halo: Reach came out, Halo would have lost population. Halo: Reach wasn’t the deciding factor whether or not Call of Duty was going to the top. Halo was losing population as soon as CoD4, W@W, and MW2 were coming out, gradually. MW2 was the last nail in the coffin. MW2 made the formula more casual-friendly, adding more weapons, attachments, perks, killstreaks, etc… That’s when CoD REALLY took off. It wouldn’t have mattered if Halo: Reach was or wasn’t released, because as long as there’s a new CoD coming out every year, people will just flock to it.

Halo 3 beat mw2 for 2 years running. Reach is currently losing to it even though its a far newer game vs a far older game. Must mean something. And halo NEVER lost population from 1-3, only with reach. You can look at it however you want, because i don’t have 100% solid evidence that reach is what killed the halo franchise. But reaches fingerprints were found on the gun that killed halo, and it’s only logical to assume that reach did it.

> > I don’t particularly use the statement, but I’m tired of seeing the poor arguments for / against it. So I’m going to post my 2¢.
> >
> > When people say halo is becoming cod, it is because there are more and more similarities. These similarities don’t make the two games exactly alike, but they certainly bring them closer together.
> >
> > Lets turn the tables, what if COD started implementing some long time Halo mechanics. Assume cod stopped letting you pick your weapon on spawn. Instead you were given a default m16 and you could pick up more powerful weapons like mp7 and ACR on the map after fighting for them. Instead of perks being given to you at spawn, you had to find them on the map and could only use them for a certain time period (a power up of sorts). Sprint is removed and faster base movement speed is left to compensate. All killstreaks are removed and instead you get a shiny medal to compensate you for your hard work rather than more free kills. Now imagine spawn time was no longer as soon as you mashed x, but only after your 5 second wait period was up. Teams were balanced based on skill level and there was no join in session. (I could continue but I think you get the point by now)
> >
> > Would you start to see more of a resemblance between halo and cod? Would cod kids start saying that cod was becoming halo? Wouldn’t a lot of cod fans be furious?
>
> I honestly think they’re picking up some ideas from GoW3 instead of CoD(seeing that Gears of War is a game that is very similar to Halo in terms of how the game turns out).
>
> What I think may happen with Weapon Loadouts could more likely be this:
>
> -We pick 2 of (at least) 4: AR, Magnum, BR, DMR. We’ll pick them based on our personal preferences and what the map encourages. This gives the devs more room to use the new weapons they’ll be introducing without littering the map, and avoid those fights where you’ll lose because some idiot thought it’s a great idea to hog the only 2 BRs on your side, and rush the enemy base.
>
> -Grenades: We may pick 1 of 2 selections: Frag, and possibly 1 of the new grenades. Starting with Plasma, or something similar, only encourages rushing. Leaving them on the field to be picked up gives players something to fight over.
>
> -Mods: No clue. Rumors have been said that Frankie is not allowing weapon modifications. Unfortunately, Game Informer did a terrible job explaining it, so I have no idea how this will turn out.
>
> -Armor Ability: Use based on your preferred playstyle, weapon setup, or what you feel could be best for the map. Not many details were given due to the lack of information from Game Informer, and no full list is present at this time. Therefore, it could be anything from Reach, to possibly anything.
>
>
> In my opinion, they seem to be more likely go in the Gears of War direction in terms of load outs. Yes, my claim is just as baseless as yours. However, CoD doesn’t play like Halo. Neither does GoW, but the way the matches playout with players fighting for power weapons like in Halo, using weapons that have effective ranges like in Halo, and now having a form of a loadout system, I feel this is where Halo is going at least with Loadouts.

I’ll agree that some of the additions seem to be more like GOW such as loadouts, but armor abilities are definitely more comparable to cod. The rest is pretty neutral as far as between the two games. I’m not even trying to argue the subject much tbh. I’m just trying to get a valid opinion out there instead of “SPARTAN OPS R LIKE SPECIAL OPS”

Although i’d much rather play a game like GOW then COD :slight_smile:

> The fact of the matter is that halo 1-3 were the most popular xbox games (they used to hold cods position) until reach came out. Halo 3 at 2 years old was beating mw2, and reach is still losing to mw2 to this very date. Halo reach still hasn’t sold as much as halo 3 and the population is lower than halo 3. All of this is despite the fact that the gaming community is probably 2x the size it was when halo 3 was out and around. I’m not absolutely saying that halo needs to dethrone cod. I’m just saying, it had the throne for a long time, and only lost population and was dethroned after the release of halo reach.

You’re confusing coincidence and causation. You’re using a coincidence and supposing it as fact. You’re implying that Call of Duty was able to grow and capture the market because Halo: Reach was (in your opinion) a bad game. The shift in focus to Call of Duty by many gamers and new gamers was because it was new and easily accessible. The Call of Duty beast is popular for the same reason big budget action movies are more popular than big budget sci-fi action movies.

> > > > To beat CoD, Halo needs to be Halo. Halo 3 Lived through TWO Modern warfares (CoD4 + Mw2). So Halo already has the calibre to beat CoD, we just need to build from Halo 3 not Reach, and NOT use the same features that broke that game in Halo 4.
> > >
> > > It’s pretty obvious that reach was a negative direction for halo because of its game breaking changes. Somehow 343i doesn’t see it, but I’m still holding back for a ranked “classic” playlist until i shun this game.
> >
> > “Halo 3 lived through TWO Modern Warfares (CoD4 + MW2)” - Yeah, and there’s been a total of 5 “modern” Call of Duty’s since. (Modern as in the CoD4 formula.) Halo: Reach has been healthily competing with CoD since it came out. Yeah, it’s not #1, but it isn’t getting totally snuffed out. In an age dominated by Call of Duty, games like Battlefield 3 and Halo: Reach are still healthy contenders.
> >
> > Also, if you think Halo can “beat” Call of Duty by going back to Halo 3, you are either ignorant or naive. Call of Duty is the highest grossing piece of ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA in HISTORY, let alone the highest grossing video game franchise in history. Every year it beats it’s own records. Call of Duty is a bullet train. The only thing that can stop it is ActiVision itself. They would have to stop releasing Call of Duty games and shut down the servers. Even then it would take years for the next record-breaker to come around.
> >
> > You people need to stop thinking about beating Call of Duty. Because that’s all you apparently care about.
>
> The fact of the matter is that halo 1-3 were the most popular xbox games (they used to hold cods position) until reach came out. Halo 3 at 2 years old was beating mw2, and reach is still losing to mw2 to this very date. Halo reach still hasn’t sold as much as halo 3 <mark>and the population is lower than halo 3</mark>. All of this is despite the fact that the gaming community is probably 2x the size it was when halo 3 was out and around. I’m not absolutely saying that halo needs to dethrone cod. I’m just saying, it had the throne for a long time, and only lost population and was dethroned after the release of halo reach.

Sold more? Yes. Higher population? No.

> Sold more? Yes. Higher population? No.

Halo reach had more players online than halo 3 for the first 5 months based on the time from release. However reach lost the majority of its population and relative to time released the population has been lower than halo 3’s since. Take into consideration the massive increase in household xbox’s and halo reach is a sorry excuse for a halo game.

> > The fact of the matter is that halo 1-3 were the most popular xbox games (they used to hold cods position) until reach came out. Halo 3 at 2 years old was beating mw2, and reach is still losing to mw2 to this very date. Halo reach still hasn’t sold as much as halo 3 and the population is lower than halo 3. All of this is despite the fact that the gaming community is probably 2x the size it was when halo 3 was out and around. I’m not absolutely saying that halo needs to dethrone cod. I’m just saying, it had the throne for a long time, and only lost population and was dethroned after the release of halo reach.
>
> You’re confusing coincidence and causation. You’re using a coincidence and supposing it as fact. You’re implying that Call of Duty was able to grow and capture the market because Halo: Reach was (in your opinion) a bad game. The shift in focus to Call of Duty by many gamers and new gamers was because it was new and easily accessible. The Call of Duty beast is popular for the same reason big budget action movies are more popular than big budget sci-fi action movies.

Not really true, in the fact that halo reach is losing to a game that halo 3 demolished even as an old game. I’m not going to continue arguing this because like i said, neither side has 100% proof, but the information that does exist suggests that halo reach was FAR less popular than halo 3, let alone its competitors. In retrospect, halo 3 stomped everything that came out up until years after its release.

CoD already HAS implemented things from Halo. Regenerating health (Shields), Theater mode, game-types, and burst weapons.

> CoD already HAS implemented things from Halo. Regenerating health (Shields), Theater mode, game-types, and burst weapons.

These aren’t game changing in anyway. They may be similar, but it doesn’t make the gameplay more similar to halo.

Except for (shields) which i can’t argue atm because I’m not sure when and how they implemented them. So I’ll give you that one. Relative to the similarities that are being implemented in halos gameplay, I would say that halo is using far more cod-like elements. Don’t take my post the wrong way. I’m not trying to sit here and say COD=HALO and if that’s what you got for it than you read it wrong or didn’t read it.

> Would you start to see more of a resemblance between halo and cod? Would cod kids start saying that cod was becoming halo? Wouldn’t a lot of cod fans be furious?

Yes, because 2 games are NOT supposed to be the same. That’s the whole point of having 2 different games. With the way this industry is heading, all games are gonna be ‘CoD’ in a couple years.