Which game take more planning and strategy when playing an objective based gametype
Halo 3
Side Score: 5
|
 |
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
Weapons, powerups and vehicles add a whole other level of planning stratgey and tactics than what CoD4 offers with it's weapons(which contrary to H3, all have the same effect) and perks. The environment never changes.
CoD4 simply offers walking around and shooting at one another. Thats not a this game is better than that game. Just saying that their different. Side: Halo 3
|
the objective based game play of CoD4 is incredibly in-depth, take a game of search and destroy; if defending, you have to plan ahead as to whom will defend what points, and how they will do that, and when attacking you must plan when to plant the bomb, who will plant the bomb, etc. In a one sided assault game on halo 3, the strategy is (if attacking) to all swarm toward the objective, with maybe one person staying back to snipe, and (if defending) to camp the objective and wait for the aforementioned swarm. As such, i must favor CoD4 for this debate, as it take a considerable amount more planning than Halo 3 Side: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty 4 is much more fun to play and is probably the best game ever. Here's a rundown of their awards:
More than 18 perfect score reviews More than 40 combined Editors' choice, Game of the Year awards (US) Nominated for 10 Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences awards (including Game of the Year) GameBump's own Best Shooter of 2007 Now how can you argue against that? Side: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
|
