halo combat evolved mp Vs. bf1942

[Xen_spartan-117]

halo lacks realisim yes...but one thing that battlefield lacks in a VERY BIG WAY is physics....lemme explain...
in battlefield...when you throw a grenade or hit a car with a rocket launcher ...it blows up...realistic yes...but...say if its in the blast radius...the vehicle is sent out of control...it keeps going its original path...in halo however...when a car is struck with a grenade or rocket launcher it is hurled into the air....which should normally happen if it occured                    

[Xen_spartan-117]

and halo is close range,long range and vehicle combat...the reason why you cant play halo probably because your so used to sniping and vehicle usage in battlefield which halo isnt fullt about...halo is about foot soldier combat more than battlefield...cuz unlike  halo...the only tactics you need to use in bf 1942 have to take place during a ctf or control the area games..... halo requires skill to take out a man with a bigger gun and vehicles....in battlefield 1942 ...whoever has the biggest gun...well wins..which is BORING AND LAME

__________________________________________
I HATE SnIpERIoS JooBIos                    

[Xen_spartan-117]

and halo is close range,long range and vehicle combat...the reason why you cant play halo probably because your so used to sniping and vehicle usage in battlefield which halo isnt fullt about...halo is about foot soldier combat more than battlefield...cuz unlike  halo...the only tactics you need to use in bf 1942 have to take place during a ctf or control the area games..... halo requires skill to take out a man with a bigger gun and vehicles....in battlefield 1942 ...whoever has the biggest gun...well wins..which is BORING AND LAME

__________________________________________
I HATE SnIpERIoS JooBIos                    

[Anonymous]

i prefer halo
both games are fun
but the gameplay physics in halo are just perfect                    

[zaibatsu]

I am very sorry to disapoint you xen sparten, but you have it all wrong. The man with the bigger gun does not always win in bf. That game is specifically taylored so that nothing, absolutley nothing has the advantage. You get in a plane, get gunned down bu machine guns and flak. Get in a ship, subs and bombers get you. Tanks are weak to other tanks, rocket men, exp packs, nothing is superior.

Dont talk about physics either, bf has it all worked out. Ill admit, the parachute opening at 5 feet cuts it a bit short, but that is understood. The people have a feel of realism to them. I tried halo, but the lasers were tiresome. Too fake. Charge up some big green ball. Whats that? Cannot contest with Bf.                    

[Xen_spartan-117]

ok you've been playing bf longer than i have but i have much more experience with first person shooters and its physics.....now in halo it has its own sort of realisim...lets see HALO IS IN THE 25th CENTURY...secondly...the character you play as in single and multplayer mode better known as master chief (the dreadest character ever made) has plasma shields...which will preety much EXIST IN THE 25th century....has super enhanced flexibilities...and strength...not only that...he wears an armor called mjolnir battle suit which is made up of titanium....so from a 25th century perspective of a spartan....thats realism....besides battlefield 1942  pvp combat BLOWS....and everyone uses a vehicle to kill someone...how boring is that...                    

[Xen_spartan-117]

and not only that...people said halo is only man to man combat....in some cases it is...but so what? halo is easy and dread enough to be all-round something battlefield 1942 LACKS.....and to top it off....if you cant beat someone in man- to - man combat...well... i adivse you not to play any other first person out there... cuz it means you  truly a joob...



Chief look downward from the starship from the jump-off onto the covie carrier....he thinks about everything he has done that comes down to this moment....of greatness....
Cortana felt nervous "what if you miss...."  
He nods and replies  with an emotionless face,"i wont"                    

[zaibatsu]

I am very sorry, but you are telking absolute rubbish.
You cannot talk about "realsim" and "physics" in a game that is set in the 25th century. IT HASNT HAPPENED YET! There is no possible way you can discuss what is or isn't real in that game. So too bad.

Battlefield on the other hand has no jetpacks, lasers or super jumps, so is far more realistic and down to earth on so many more levels.
What are you trying to say battlefield not being well rounded?!?
By elimininating the single player, they have focused on the multiplayer, perfecting it. No pvp combat?!? You on crack? That is the beauty of battlefield. Decision. You can very well fight hand to hand if you like, just pay the consequenses when you get bombed.
You obviously do not know this game at all.

What is this about how i should not play any other fps?!? Jus cuz i dont like lasers and plasma dosn't mean i suck at them you know. I'll more than give you a run for your money. People will back me up on that.

Can't contest!                    

[TrinireturnofGamez]

HALO: graphics card whore, looks like crap on anything but a radeon or a REALLY hi end geforce .
BF1942:RAM whore , looks okay on most cards but needs at least 256mb to play and host .
 

  in my eyes RTCW: ET is de best multiplayer FPS..... WWII like BF, no planes to fly , small and plays fast , graphics are ALOT better than halo on low end cards. you guys should dump dem resource hogs and get ET!!                    

[zaibatsu]

The reason you play battlefield is because of the vehicles. Playing another game then comparing it to battlefield would be kinda pontless.                    

[Ickori]

Battle field by far obviously, there is no comparison.
I back whatever zaibatsu says and where the hell is twister and dura to cuss up these men.
Yeah and xen you whoop my @ss in halo once down euro boy, jah!!!!!!!!!!!