I'm working my way through Orange Box and already played Bioshock and Ratchet & Clank. Which of these three games do you think I should tackle next? Is one significantly better than the other? I've never been much into online play if it matters. Thanks for your input.

play COD4 and forget about life for a while

Um...play whichever one you want? I'd hate to be in line behind you at Dunkin Donuts :)

COD 4 is the best game ever dropped in a tray.

If you don't own it at some point in your life you failed at video games.

Well, I for one think all three are awesome and did Halo first, but I do highly recommend the COD4 single player. Its a blast playing through on veteran (and frustrating as hell at the same time).

Looks like I'm going against the grain here but I would choose Mass Effect. I bought all 3 on the day they were released. I have finished the campaign in all 3 and played multiplayer a ton for COD4 and Halo 3 (I played in both betas as well). I say Mass Effect.

Mass Effect > COD4 > Halo 3

My vote is Mass Effect. If for little other reason than it being a (great) rpg. I'd recommend keeping a diverse portfolio :)

Mass Effect.

This surprises me a little bit. I'm new to the xbox side of gaming, but always thought that Halo was THE signature game to show off xbox's capabilities. Are just other games that much more impressive now? I'll have to find time to play Drake's Fortunes somewhere in between there, but my next game will definitely be on the xbox.

play COD4 and forget about life for a while

&

COD 4 is the best game ever dropped in a tray.

If you don't own it at some point in your life you failed at video games.

Are pretty much right on. I cant express to you how much I value COD4. I dream about it. Hell I was angry I couldnt take my 360 on business travel last week.

Its so addictive and satisfying if I bought a 360 or a PS3 and only played COD4. It would still be worth every single penny and I would have no regrets.

Okay, I'm sold on COD4. Is it as good on the PS3 as it is on the xbox? My brother loves COD4 and he's on a PS3; I can go either way, but if I was to play online with him obviously I'd need to play it on the PS3. Just wondering if the port is just as good as on the xbox.

Okay, I'm sold on COD4. Is it as good on the PS3 as it is on the xbox? My brother loves COD4 and he's on a PS3; I can go either way, but if I was to play online with him obviously I'd need to play it on the PS3. Just wondering if the port is just as good as on the xbox.

Be warned if you start CoD4 you won't touch another game in months, you may stop going to work, your wife/girlfriend will start sleeping around because you're too busy playing CoD4 to satisfy her, any pets or children you have will go hungry, and you won't give a damn because you'll be too addicted to CoD4.

That said the PS3 version is identical to the 360 version with the exception that it doesn't have rumble support for some reason (assuming you even have a DS3). Also if you care the 360 version obviously has achievements and the superior online service. If you wanna play it with your brother though you're not losing anything gameplaywise on the PS3 as both versions look immaculate and run at a silky smooth 60fps.

If you are planning on doing single campaign only, then I think you should re-think CoD4. CoD4 is a great game, but the campaign is good, nothing special or ground breaking. It is the same old CoD (like in CoD2 and 3) except in the modern era instead of WW2. The selling point of CoD4 is the multiplayer.

That being said, I would vote for Halo3. I think the story is/has been great, the game has an epic feel, you fly vehicles, you drive tanks, vehicles, there is much re-play in the metagames, and of course the real fun is in co-op campaign. Its the end of an epic saga, and if you played halo/Halo2 then you need to 'finish the fight'.

The Xbox port for CoD4 is teh same as the PS3 port. The graphics are outstanding. Keep in mind that there may be 3-4 times as many people playing CoD4 on the Xbox compared to the PS3 (thus more games for every game mode), and along with the great matchmaking and the ability to im/voice chat, it is very easy to join friends/clans/jump between games. The actual gameplay will be the same, but access to freinds, and the amount of games will be far greater on the Xbox.

CoD4 is a great game, but the campaign is good, nothing special or ground breaking. It is the same old CoD (like in CoD2 and 3) except in the modern era instead of WW2. The selling point of CoD4 is the multiplayer.

That being said, I would vote for Halo3.

LOLZ

I think all 3 games are a must have. That being the case if I bought all three today I would probably play them in this order.

Halo3 then COD4 and then Mass Effect.

I come to this through 2 rules I follow. Save the best for last AND get the shortest ones out of the way first. By this I mean I would probably...maybe...possibly rate COD4 better then Mass Effect but it is a much much shorter game if you are not into online (as you say). Then again I only played COD4 twice (so far) and have played Mass Effect 4 times ....and its about 30 hours longer...so maybe its the better game.

Halo3 is the weakest of the 3 games IMHO but it is still classic Halo and I still had a good time playing the campaign. Again, if you are into multiplayer then Halo would be a longer lasting game, if not then its a good game but not the greatest ever.

Halo 3 is a huge let down. I've clocked about equal amounts of time on Mass Effect and COD4. I would say COD4 because it's a shooter, and everyone loves shooters. If you have the time to sit down and play an RPG then that should be next.

COD4 single player is crap. Multiplayer is amazing.

Mass Effect single player is amazing.

Do you want to play by yourself, or with others?

How do you figure it's crap? Are you one of those "it's too short so it's crap"
people?

I *LOVE* my games to be short. As an example, Gears was excellent at only 5 hours long. Any longer and it would have out stayed it's welcome.

No, COD4 single player is crap due to plenty of other problems. A game like this needs a cover system these days. Standing in the middle of a doorway to toss a flashbang is rediculous, post Rainbow Six Vegas. The level where you have to fight through the level, and then do the same thing backwards is retarded. Hello, Halo 1 snow level. The audio mix is completly screwed up, making it very hard to hear the people that are giving you vocal commands. I could go on...

Like I said, multiplay is great! The single play campaign is just retarded.

COD then halo because those 2 are the shortest. then take your time in mass effect to take everything in.

I *LOVE* my games to be short. As an example, Gears was excellent at only 5 hours long. Any longer and it would have out stayed it's welcome.

No, COD4 single player is crap due to plenty of other problems. A game like this needs a cover system these days. Standing in the middle of a doorway to toss a flashbang is rediculous, post Rainbow Six Vegas. The level where you have to fight through the level, and then do the same thing backwards is retarded. Hello, Halo 1 snow level. The audio mix is completly screwed up, making it very hard to hear the people that are giving you vocal commands. I could go on...

Like I said, multiplay is great! The single play campaign is just retarded.

Sounds like you focus too much on minor annoyances instead of just enjoying the ride. Every game will have issues like this, it certainly doesn't make them bad as a whole. Plus I highly doubt the vast majority of people that have played it would classify it as "crap" either.

You trying to tell me Mass Effect has no playability quirks or bugs? Let's get real.

Mass Effect has buckets of bugs, but there is a fun enough game under there to put up with them.

You're a big fan of putting words into other people's mouths, huh? First I seem to have said that COD4 was too short, and now I'm saying that Mass Effect has no bugs? Too bad I said nothing even remotely close to these claims of yours! :)

I've never been much into online play if it matters. Thanks for your input.

It depends on if you want to try to get into online play, or you think you'll stick to single player no matter what game you get.

Halo3 and CoD4 are great for demonstrating to people how good online games can be on the 360. For my money, however, Mass Effect simply annihilates them in terms of the single player experience.

ME may not be for everyone (I mean, it is sic-fi after all), and if you're looking for a pure shooter, you will be disappointed with it. But if you give in to the universe of the game, buy into the story and the setting, and dig deep into what the game has to offer, ME is in a completely different class than the other two for the non-online multiplayer player.

Mass Effect has buckets of bugs, but there is a fun enough game under there to put up with them.

You're a big fan of putting words into other people's mouths, huh? First I seem to have said that COD4 was too short, and now I'm saying that Mass Effect has no bugs? Too bad I said nothing even remotely close to these claims of yours! :)

Apparently you are not a fan of reading comprehension. You clearly stated a playability issue (no cover system) and an audio bug/problem as some of your reasons for calling COD 4 crap. Yet, you called Mass Effect amazing even though everyone knows it has it's share of problems and playability issues. Why do you condemn COD 4 for it, yet in ME it doesn't matter?

Also, I asked you if you were one of the people who disliked COD 4 due to the short length of the SP campaign, not really putting words in your mouth pal. Get a clue.

Halo 3 if you played the first two, just so you can finish the story. CoD4 is literally nothing more than CoD2 with modern weapons. And yes, I realize Halo 3 isn't a huge upgrade over the first two either (excpet for the theater and Forge which IS a huge upgrade feature wise). I can't speak much for ME other than Kotor put me to sleep ever single time I tried to play it back in the day so I have no interest in ME.

Having played all the COD titles way more than I probably should have, I can easily say COD 4 offers so much more than COD 2 that they don't even really deserve to be compared to one another other than title and genre. I could fill this whole thread with the improvements/differences between the two. If you are a true fan of FPS you could easily tell, if you are not a fan then sure, it will seem like more of the same.

leave mass effect for last.

COD4 first, awesome game, but campaign is very short....a sad trend these days in gaming I'm afraid.

Halo3....if you haven't played any halo before, I'd suggest at least playing halo2 first.

For single player experiences ONLY, get Halo3 and COD4 out of the way first, 'cause Mass Effect will own you for hours. I beat COD4 on Hardened in ONE DAY (during the day, no less) and Halo3 took two, only because my 360 RRODed in the middle.

So rent both of those and knock them out over a weekend. Then buy Mass Effect and enjoy.

I'm wrapping up ME and about to go for Orange Box, so I'm doing what you are, just in reverse :)

I'm working my way through Orange Box and already played Bioshock and Ratchet & Clank. Which of these three games do you think I should tackle next? Is one significantly better than the other? I've never been much into online play if it matters. Thanks for your input.

All three are fantastic and vastly different games. The only connection between CoD4 and Halo 3 is the FPS genre. I highly recommend them all. If you don't care about MP, Mass Effect should be your first choice.

They all are good games. I would say ME is a definite buy no matter what (but it will still be a great game to play in 6 months). CoD4 is the "hot" game online right now, and certainly has a great MP aspect. The campaign is fun, not the best, but pretty well done IMHO. Halo is the last part in a trilogy. If you played the first two parts, than you'll probably want to pick up the last one. However, I personally feel that CoD4 has better MP (at least for me). Halo hasn't touched my 360 since I got CoD4 except to play some more of the campaign. 90% of the time CoD4 is already in the tray when I start up the 360.

All 3 are good games, if I could do it again I would have rented Halo3 just for the campaign. The new features like the forge and theater didn't really add anything for me (I could care less about the theater). The forge was a cool thing to play around with, and some people love it; however, the maps at release were already pretty limited (some of them were downright bad). I kinda wish they would have redone most/all of the maps from the previous Halo games and put them on like a $30 disc.

In any case, my personal suggestion would be to get CoD4 or ME depending on what you want (they are completely different styles of games). Rent H3 for the campaign, try out the MP, if you like it than buy it. It does fell A LOT like the same old Halo with better graphics... not that there is a problem with that... but many of us have played A LOT of H:CE and H2... I'm personally a bit bored with it :/

I just beat Halo 3 on Heroic, no co-op. Now, I never really played much campaign in Halo 1 or Halo 2, so the story didn't make much sense and wasn't particularly well delivered IMO. But the gameplay was very strong in most of the missions. It's very tight and smooth.

I actually still have Call of Duty 4 and Mass Effect to play through, so I can't say which is better. But I had a good time with Halo 3. I have heard that Call of Duty 4 is somewhat broken on higher difficulties, a poor experience on Veteran compared to CoD2 (similar to what I heard about Legendary in Halo 2 vs. Halo 1, but worse).

COD4 "multiplayer" you will forget about every other game!

Keep in mind your're going to have to play through Mass Effect twice to fully level up your character. You may want to get your first playthrough out of the way, then play one of the really good but short games, THEN, play your second playthrough-which you'll take really seriously because your character will be much better, and you'll have more options. I hate leveling up, and being forced to play through a story twice. It ruins all spotaneity. Playing it two times in row is overkill.

I've never played COD or Halo games before. Does it make sense to start with Halo 3 and COD4? Will I lose much not having the backstory? I just played through HL2 and episodes and just read the backstory on Wickipedia, so I don't feel like I have to go back and play HL 1, although maybe I should . . .

With COD4-no, it's a totally new story. But, with H3, there's alot of backstory with that one.

That said the PS3 version is identical to the 360 version with the exception that it doesn't have rumble support for some reason (assuming you even have a DS3). Also if you care the 360 version obviously has achievements and the superior online service. If you wanna play it with your brother though you're not losing anything gameplaywise on the PS3 as both versions look immaculate and run at a silky smooth 60fps.
i can't confirm this because i don't have both systems, but my friend was telling me yesterday that the PS3 doesn't have the Mercenary Team Deathmatch online multiplayer mode. i don't see why it wouldn't, but i'm just going by what he said, can anyone confirm this...

I've never played COD or Halo games before. Does it make sense to start with Halo 3 and COD4? Will I lose much not having the backstory? I just played through HL2 and episodes and just read the backstory on Wickipedia, so I don't feel like I have to go back and play HL 1, although maybe I should . . .

Realizing you probably dont have all the time in the world to go back and play old games, I would advise just looking up the story for the first 2 and reading through it online. Just Google "Halo 1 Story" and Halo 2 Story. Heck you'll probably understand it more reading it. I do agree the story in Halo 3 is not delivered that well, but its still a heckuvalot of fun.

[QUOTE=darklordjames;12971957]A game like this needs a cover system these days. Standing in the middle of a doorway to toss a flashbang is rediculous, post Rainbow Six Vegas. QUOTE]

COD4 is one of the best gaming experiences ever! However.....I totally agree with this statement, no cover system is just retarded especially considering how easy it is to get popped in this game. I believe it would have added to the game tremendously. They could have even upped the difficulty to compensate. And of course it's way too short. But beyond those things, utter perfection.

What's a 'cover' system?

the ability to take cover conveniently, like in gears or rainbow six

i guess GRAW has a cover system too, but it doesn't follow the definition, because it's not very convienient at all :D

[QUOTE=darklordjames;12971957]A game like this needs a cover system these days. Standing in the middle of a doorway to toss a flashbang is rediculous, post Rainbow Six Vegas. QUOTE]

COD4 is one of the best gaming experiences ever! However.....I totally agree with this statement, no cover system is just retarded especially considering how easy it is to get popped in this game. I believe it would have added to the game tremendously. They could have even upped the difficulty to compensate. And of course it's way too short. But beyond those things, utter perfection.

Completely agree...

I can't count the number of times I've been killed using a flashbang/grenade, or thinking I'm hidden against the wall and then boom.

I would also add that the perks need work. Getting shot in the head and yet you go down with your pistol and shoot back. Or, my personal favorite, dropping a grenade after stepping in front of a claymore...

i dont think last stand applies if you get hit by a registered head shot. like getting knifed... anything with an instant kill (presumably XXX damage) will bypass the last stand perk.

now martyrdom on the other hand, why isnt that realistic? with that perk we'll assume that you're running around with a grenade, and no safety pin.... you die and you lose control of motor functions, and if you have no control of motor functions, as soon as pressure is released from the striker lever, the striker hits the percussion cap and the chemical delay fuse is ignited.... the time delay from the chemical begins (2.5 seconds in COD4 grenades).

i dont think last stand applies if you get hit by a registered head shot. like getting knifed... anything with an instant kill (presumably XXX damage) will bypass the last stand perk.

now martyrdom on the other hand, why isnt that realistic? with that perk we'll assume that you're running around with a grenade, and no safety pin.... you die and you lose control of motor functions, and if you have no control of motor functions, as soon as pressure is released from the striker lever, the striker hits the percussion cap and the chemical delay fuse is ignited.... the time delay from the chemical begins (2.5 seconds in COD4 grenades).

If the guy has a grenade out, it's absolutely realistic. If the guy is shooting me back with a SAW, I'm going to gather his hands are full...

A cover system in CoD4 would've fundamentally changed the game at the very basic level. Including the multiplayer.

As I already said, the multiplayer is amazing exactly how it is. Furthermore, the multiplayer in this game would be ruined by a cover system. The type of single player campaign that they went for would have been greatly improved by the addition of a cover system though.

why do you think it would be ruined? cod4 basic fundamentals are just evolutions from rainbow six vegas, and rb6:v is the only game i can think of that i enjoyed more than COD4 online... i think it would benefit from a cover system, they'd obviously have to re-work the environments a little, but adding a cover system isnt THAT much different than crouching or going prone behind a rock/box/whatever.

i think a new style cover system where you can only see the direction you're looking (keeping first person) where you have to expose yourself to observe/target would work well.

the rb6v style is kind of unfair because you can camp out and see quite a bit around you from cover

As I already said, the multiplayer is amazing exactly how it is. Furthermore, the multiplayer in this game would be ruined by a cover system. The type of single player campaign that they went for would have been greatly improved by the addition of a cover system though.


A cover system like gears would be lame and it would slow the game down and ruin it. It's run and gun for the most part and not a tactical shooter, and you need to stay moving to keep the game progressing, not hiding and peeking around corners. You can duck behind things and go prone for some cover which works just fine. Also sacrificing the current controller layout to include a button that activates some sort of cover or lean option is not worth it.

If you can see them, they can see you, so you better shoot. Simple concept really.

A cover system like gears would be lame and it would slow the game down and ruin it. It's run and gun for the most part and not a tactical shooter, and you need to stay moving to keep the game progressing, not hiding and peeking around corners. You can duck behind things and go prone for some cover which works just fine. Also sacrificing the current controller layout to include a button that activates some sort of cover or lean option is not worth it.

If you can see them, they can see you, so you better shoot. Simple concept really.

I agree, and to me the COD4 style of cover (crouch, creep behind walls and just peek out) works much more fluidly and is more realistically then a more robotic type of cover system like Gears or R6V. Absolutely no need for a "cover system"

If you ask me what type of game I prefer, R6V by a mile. The cover system in that game is so tactically rich and dynamic. If Ubisoft revamps the lobby and progression system I will drop CoD4 like a hot rock. But CoD4 is a great game for what it is. It doesn't need a cover system.