sales2099 said:
Granted MW2 was arguably the peak when the series wasn't getting too stale (it really only took off in 2007 and 2008 COD was a WW2 shooter). 90+ is 90+. No need to sweat the numbers if its above that. Its all AAA so you still didnt refute my comment how Halo has quality and sales to back it up. But I will say this: Sales = Winner, not better. COD wins over Halo, but its all 360 so really, 360 wins. By comparison, the competition loses. And all though I do cite meta, quality is always in the eye of the beholder. Many gamers would argue that MW2 was a better game. Many would argue for Halo. When 2 games are above 90, any argument can have merit because they are both surpurb games. Point: "Better" is subjective when dealing in 90+ games. But clearly your citing the 360 version....cant give me any PS3 examples? :). Your really taking this to a different track. Halo mainline entries have 90+ quality and sell several millions. It can stand up to any PS3 exclusive like the LOU. |
Usually I do agree with you because you seem to have reasonable arguments and you think a lot like me but this time it just seems your saying what you're saying because it's on 360. When you look at todays Halo vs todays Call of Duty, Halo will win in quality everytime. MW2 vs Halo 3 was very similar sale wise and metacritic wise there for a lot of people will argue which one is better. As you said this was call of Duty at its peak. MW2 ran very smooth and brought in new features with new weapon streaks etc
It also didnt take very long for people to get mad at MW2 due to balancing problems and horribly designed maps. If reviewers would go back and review MW2 months after it was released it is very doubtful that it would have gotten a 94 where as Halo 3 still had bungies support years after the games release. That is the difference between a good and bad company.
Anyways, although I think call of duty is much better on 360 than it is on PS3 due to XBL being far superior over PSN Ps3 players still have Call of Duty so they are making profits as well. Maybe not as much as Microsoft, specially when it comes to DLC but I sa both sony and MSFT wins on that front.
Your best point though is Halo mainline entries always get above a 90 which shows the consistency of quality where as Call of Duy has become stale. Last of Us is very different from Halo and I'm looking forward to it as I've said before but the guy who said Halo was "Lucky" is just being ridiculous. Not because Halo sells more, but because both of these games will most likely have a 90+ metacritic but Halo will probably last for many people around 100's of hours, where Last of Us will only last around 20. As I said Halo has way more content than Last of Us so that is why it's not "Lucky".
