Last night, I fired up Halo: Reach for the first time in several weeks. I think it was something of a coping mechanism, since I know I’m going to be holding out on Call of Duty: Black Ops until around Christmas. It was pretty nuts to see everyone on my friends list in the new CoD, and meanwhile I was playing the classic space marine scenario.
The funny thing is, I had a lot more fun than I expected to, even though I’m itching for Black Ops more than I can say. One of the things I’ve always loved about Halo is the ability to have these isolated little firefights, epic stand-offs between you and one other player that feels separated from the rest of the match. The only reason this is possible is because of the way the game’s health system works. I remember Goldeneye playing much the same way back in the old days.
It seems that as time goes on, more shooters go in a different direction. Like Counter-Strike, the health in CoD pretty much works on the “one shot, one kill” method, which is a big part of what makes it so addictive I think. The ability to respawn and immediately jump back into the fray and rack up more kills has a lot of appeal to it, for a totally different reason than a shooter like Gears of War or Halo.
Thinking about these two styles of play, I thought I’d make a poll to see what you guys think. Got a preference?
Loading ...
It’s a hard call, as both can be really fun under the right circumstances.
To be honest, I like the CSS style – a little bit of health, but recoil to make long fire fights long and elecrifying.
I’m kind of on the fence about this one, but I’m leaning towards longer fights with more health. This is the Battlefield way of doing things, and that formula is a lot of fun.
I can’t deny that the quick-kill method leads to some frenetic matches, but I prefer bigger, grander fights.
This is definitely a hard decision. I think the poll needs another option “depends on mood” because some days i’d prefer the fast(er) pace of a one shot game like Call of Duty, and others a game of halo.
In general however I would have to say longer shootouts with health tend to be more memorable for me. They are more tension building usually culminating in one awesome move that makes you feel like a ninja. On the other hand running into a firefight and killing the other team with a few well placed shots in a couple seconds makes you feel like the ultimate bad-ass. This is a harder decision than I had anticipated.
Might be a bit biased by the way I’ve been destroyed in Black Ops multiplayer lately, but I’m finding myself more inclined to pop in Reach for optimum multiplayer enjoyment.
Well, I prefer Counter-Strike’s method; a bajillion shots to the body, one shot to the head. I lean more towards One Shot One Kill, though, since I’m going to die anyway. Whenever I have a lot of health and so do my enemies, I tend to screw up because I get outwitted or something when they can see me coming. So basically I’m going to die anyway and die quickly, might as well not give me enemy lots of health. And yes, I do call bullshit when I get shot twice in the stomach and die, yet I have to empty a clip into a guy.
I personally like a mix between the two, Neither one shot nor long shootout with a lot of health. I like when it is like 2, 3 shots.
but then I mostly play tf2 which is longer with health, so I guess it depends on how I feel at that moment.
Until Reach this was a no brainer, but I still think I prefer the fewer bullets method.
50/50 when I voted! I like less health in multiplayer shooters. Why? I’m not too sure. I still enjoy Halo, but CoD’s blisteringly fast pace really strikes a cord with my gaming preferences and BFBC2’s “one mistake and you and your squad are fucked” gameplay suit the 1S1K.