PDA

View Full Version : Halo vs. Resistance


jedikiller723
September 19th, 2007, 08:32 PM
i was thinking what is so better about halo than resistance or what is better about resistance than halo

TheTaxidermist
September 19th, 2007, 10:43 PM
I've never played resistance, but I can tell you there is nothing special about Halo. I'm a big fan of Halo and even I don't see the big deal about it and why it's so popular.

dooganking
September 20th, 2007, 12:07 AM
i played resistance... it was a decent game but it just didn't seem to have the intangibles that halo had or at the very least didn't do them as well as halo...

Manbearpig
September 20th, 2007, 02:07 AM
Halo is nothing special. I mean its a good game, but all this crap about it being "So inovative" just isn't true. It did nothing new.

rtanger
September 20th, 2007, 01:10 PM
Hmmm. About the only place I've seen the words Halo and "so innovative" used in the same sentence is by the haters in an ironic fashion.
I don't think the game is in any way innovative except that it did a perfect console FPS better than anyone before, and pretty much wrote the rulebook on how to make the FPS playable on console at all.

If Resistance uses a sticky reticule, they owe a debt to Halo.
It's really that simple.

1337_Byte
September 20th, 2007, 11:00 PM
Resistance is really lame and I don't see how people think it's so good. Halo wins easily.

Manbearpig
September 20th, 2007, 11:08 PM
I've never played Resistence so I wouldn't know. However I find Halo doesn't meet the hype.

Phntmbanana
September 25th, 2007, 08:55 PM
I think that halo is better but resistance is far from "lame".
Resistance created the first Good fps on the PS3 along with being a very solid launch title. They did a great amount of things right and brought a few fresh ideas to the table. To say either is lame is wrong because they are both good games, and that is something that many games cannot accomplish.
Saying that, I really enjoyed Resistance a lot and continue to because of a very good online system. But halo is more enjoyable to the masses and even though resistance has a good base of players nothing can compare to the number of people who still play halo 2( and now halo 3).

Kester
September 26th, 2007, 05:13 AM
I see Halo in much the same light as Counter-Strike - A heavily over rated game, but none the less still fun to throw a couple of hours away on.

TheTaxidermist
September 26th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Yeah I can call Halo overrated. Does that mean I don't like it? I love Halo. Can't get enough of it. But there is no reason for people to be as hyped as they are for it. Halo was the first console FPS I could stand playing since Perfect Dark.

jedipoodoo547
September 30th, 2007, 07:49 AM
Let me just start off by saying that i am not a Halo hater. I own the games, novels, comics, etc, I would even be sleeping in Master Chief Underoos if they were available (lol). I also do not hate other games because of Halo.

I absolutely loved Resistance. The controls and level design are outstanding. Halo 3 single player (of what i played so far) is great, not outstanding.

I think there is room for both games, but i am starting to get the feeling that more emphasis was put into the multi-player experience and the single player portion played second fiddle in the process (even though they had 2 dev teams separately). Where as Resistance primary focus was on single player and it shows.

In the end i think that while the Halo story is over for now, i could see the game morphing into something like Shadowrun, where it will focus entirely on multi-player only and the Halo single player portion will go off into a different direction with a new story and characters (that are probably being developed now as we speak), as a separate game released later.

Hopefully Halo and Resistance will not have a case of sequilitus and only release titles every 3 or 4 years. Whatever the case, i will buy both games as long as the game play is good and they don't make too many of them.

Dr.Aaron
September 30th, 2007, 05:59 PM
I would'nt know about resistance but, halo 3 singleplayer has been good to me so far, and my dad has talked about the multiplayer being pretty good as well.

rtanger
October 1st, 2007, 02:01 PM
The multiplayer is much like Halo 2, with a smattering of the first, but all the stupid misbalancing aspects are gone--

No longer can a team snap up the rockets and snipers, and then drive around owning the other team completely for the rest of the match. I have yet to play a match that's gone completely one-sided. Big bonus.

Can't comment on Resistance multi, never gotten a chance to play it.

Flarty
October 1st, 2007, 07:36 PM
If Resistance uses a sticky reticule, they owe a debt to Halo.
It's really that simple.

it makes me laugh that no one realises they stole that off shadow warrior, the fps 3drealms developed after the release of duke 3d.

Kester
October 2nd, 2007, 04:21 AM
Goldeneye also has one. Halo was far from revolutionary in any way if you think about it.

Yes they brought all these elements together, in a well rounded package but I think the rapid growth in casual gamers just before the release of the xbox (mainly riding on the success of the N64), is the real reason Halo is known as all the things it is and is so widely popular. It was many peoples first taste of a real fps shooter and as such it will always hold a rosey place in a lot of peoples memories of gaming.

rtanger
October 2nd, 2007, 01:33 PM
I'm wondering if the difference between a "snap-to" reticule and a "sticky" reticule went unnnoticed...
But either way, I sort of agree with what you said, Kester, but that doesn't stand true for everyone. I was playing Half-Life Deathmatch (the epitome of 'real FPS shooter') long before I was playing Halo, but I don't remember one as fondly as the other. Care to guess which?
*hears screams of anguish coming from the general direction of Black Mesa*

Why people like the game(s) can't be nailed to a specific reason or a "that's why," that's one size fits all. Why do I like Halo? It's certainly nothing special, but it is a ton of fun. I don't know quite why, but there's something intangible to the underlying structure of the game that just makes it all work. Almost perfectly. No other console shooter can come close to matching Halo's particular brand of multiplayer action.
At least, in my opinion. Others may have different results.

intooblivion
October 3rd, 2007, 05:01 AM
The most fun I've had in halo are in tower of power, and pure sword/grenade matches. Otherwise it gets boring.

Also I made up a game with my friends, we had a name for it but I forgot it.

Midship + all brute shot and swords + grenades + no teams + king of the hill = the longest and most intense minute of your entire life.

noobman
October 4th, 2007, 12:30 PM
I only got to play about 1/2 an hour of Resistance, and although it's a pretty solid game, it's certainly no Halo.

On kester's point... I kind of agree. It had the most depth of any console FPS of its time, but in comparison to PC games it was pretty standard. It just took all the elements of your typical FPS, and did them really well.

BahamutBBob
October 4th, 2007, 04:49 PM
In the end i think that while the Halo story is over for now, i could see the game morphing into something like Shadowrun, where it will focus entirely on multi-player only and the Halo single player portion will go off into a different direction with a new story and characters (that are probably being developed now as we speak), as a separate game released later.
I wouldn't mind different characters, but

*SPOILERS*

Master Chief isn't dead, he's in a cryo sleep tube thingy in the back half of the Dawn, near some oddly glowing planet.

*/SPOILERS*

I wouldn't like Halo being a multiplayer-only game either. I'm much more into singleplayer than multi, so it would be a big loss to me. Basically, aside from the occasional RPG, I won't buy a multiplayer only game. Ever.
[/COLOR]

Kester
October 5th, 2007, 05:18 AM
I'm the same. I love an SP experience. MP only games don't have that.

jedipoodoo547
October 7th, 2007, 09:34 PM
I agree. It is single player only for me now. I never play multi-player, but it wasn't always that way for me. I did play multi-player when i first bought my original Xbox and played a little with the 360. I used to play Halo 2 multi-player constantly, but i was a miserable prick and not having any fun, so i stopped. Plus my girlfriend , close friends and family could see the change.

These were direct quotes from my Halo 2 clan leader. I only remember these because it is a constant reminder of why i stopped playing multi-player games in the first place. These are not experiences that i am sure are only isolated to me:

Clan leader- "You are a ranked level nine, our clan only wants level 10 soldiers, so I'm gonna have to boot ya!" My response- "I am sorry i don't play 24 hours, 7 days a week and actually have to work for a living to put food on the table, instead of trying to increase my totally useless in real life Halo 2 ranking."

Clan teammate in a Capture The Flag game- "Why did you only have 10 kills?" My response- "Because i thought the game is called Capture The Flag, not Slayer or Death-match, and i was going for the flag, not worried about kills."

My Clan teammate after our team won a ranked match and viewing stats in the lobby- "You f***ing c**t! :pshh:Why did you use the plasma sword? That was my f***ing weapon!" :pshh:


Now in Halo 3, you can get booted for not being a 5 star general..........lol. I have played with and against the most ignorant people in a game when i played Halo 2. I've witnessed players making fun of people with speech impediments and who were mentally challenged, to adult players screaming at little toddlers and women because it makes them feel superior (yeah right). :rofl::pshh:
It does not matter what multi-player game i play, the result is always the same, people are a-holes!

The point i was trying to make, is that games are much more enjoyable played alone (unless you are playing with friends once in a while). You can play at your own pace, enjoy the lush scenery from the beautiful graphics in games, and only curse at yourself (lol). :D

Manbearpig
October 8th, 2007, 01:03 PM
I always found that people who play Halo multiplayer for more than 2 hours need to be sterilized.

ninjalegend
January 24th, 2008, 04:02 AM
You know, I have a problem with both shooters. I wonder how in this day and age, why you can't duck and cover. It feels more like you are a jumping turret than a cyborg or infected super soldier.(look left, look right, hit button to make turret bend it's knees.) Jumping over things felt so cool with the mantle function in Gears. And close quarters combat never felt as good in a shooter as in drake's uncharted. Why is the only CQC moves the space marine/super soldier can do is gun but strike? (well, looks like I can flip a tank, but to throw this bad guy standing 12 inches away from? Out of the question!)

But out of the 2, I have to go with halo. Better weapon balance, and great vehicle combat.

TheTaxidermist
January 25th, 2008, 10:23 PM
If you've ever watched the bonus features for Halo 2 they tell you that to make a great game, you only need to make 30 seconds of fun. Then you multiply that 30 seconds of fun to fill out the game, yet still trying to make the game fresh the whole way through. I thought that was where Halo succeeded and why it is the smash hit that it was.

Brendon
January 25th, 2008, 10:49 PM
I'm amazed I didn't see this earlier.

Anyway, this is a hard choice, but assuming Resistance 2 doesn't completely screw up the series, I'll have to say Resistance is better. All Halo has on it is a better system for playing and starting multiplayer matches, and the new rank stuff in Halo 3. Everything else goes to Resistance.

bluseychris
January 25th, 2008, 11:15 PM
The great thing about Halo is that it was developed on MacOS. The Xbox shifiting game, developed on a Mac, HA! I want another Myth game Bungie.

jedipoodoo547
January 26th, 2008, 11:41 PM
Both games need more variety of enemies, especially Resistance. Hopefully Resistance 2 will address this.

Imho, i love them both, but i had more fun with Resistance. The game did not recycle levels and run out of steam 3/4 into the game (single-player) like Halo 3 did. Halo 3 is really for online multi-player, but it did have a great single player campaign, but it was forgettable, while Resistance has the best single-player campaign.

AydenV2
January 27th, 2008, 03:24 PM
Resistance by a long shot. I have beaten them both, as well as all the previous Halo games. Halo 3 was the same old thing, for a third time. Paying 60$ got me a few new weapons, nearly the same story from the previous games, and a TON of level backtracking.

Resistance on the other hand has a lot of new, innovative weapons in it's arsenal. The Chemical gun fires thru walls, the Bullseye can tag an enemy and fire around a corner ect. It's story is new and interesting. There is also no backtracking at all.

Resistance stomps Halo IMO.

jackattack502
January 29th, 2008, 11:07 PM
What i like about Halo is that the combat is constantly intense, and the substance the Halo has has been polished to the point of needing an obligatory lens flare accompanying it.

vincian
February 18th, 2008, 09:51 AM
Halo is more accessible. Fall of Man is a little bit more of a gamer's game while Halo, on the otherhand is mainsteam.

Also, more people own a 360 than a PS3... at least, people I know.