Terminate421 said:
That honestly makes no sense. Halo wins because you play it longer (Multiplayer, Forge, Firefight, AND Campaign)
Half-life just has loading screens and a physics engine (And the gravity gun but then Halo has the gravity hammer)
To prevent people from attacking me, lets just say they are both awesome. K?
You may play it longer, but not everyone else does. I've invested maybe 1/100th the time in Halo related games then I have in Half-Life related games. Especially since the multiplayer in Halo is rather bland and boring.
You can't start a rather obvious flame attempt and then say, "Don't attack me!" That is exactly what you want.
Also, comparing the gravity gun to the gravity hammer? [muffled laugh]
I can't shake the feeling this is all coming from someone that is currently enamored with Reach and the undeserved monstrosity of a hype machine built up around it. I won't knock someone for liking a game I don't, but saying the reason your game of choice is "better" is because it has a campaign mode and multplayer mode and that mine is worse because it has "load screens" is laughable at best.
Still, I'll play along.
Both have singleplayer campaigns. One would argue, however, that one that's designed solely to tell a good story as opposed to being as straight forward as possible so they can add co-op players with ease makes for a better tale.
Halo may have Forge, but Half-Life fans have had Garry's Mod for years and it's still the quintessential sand-box game. Anyone that's played it wouldn't argue that.
Firefight is pretty much nothing more than a clone of Gears of War's Horde mode or Left 4 Dead's Survival mode.
Okay. Rant's gone on long enough. The last thing I want to do is derail this hilarious thread any further.