The most realistic recent FPS is ArmA 2, but it's also arguably one of the hardest to get into.
True, Operation Flashpoint itself was as realistic as it could get at its time.
I think the graphics and gameplay involved in BF3 is better for Realism though as you don't control or tell squad members what to do so directly. If it were you and 31 other players on TeamSpeak, Skype or Ventrillo (64 maximum players on PC), then it would be very realistic I think.
Unless BF3 knows that is very rare, and gotten marines in the game to communicate, familiar to Battlefield Bad Company 2. You could press the Spot / Communicate Button on teammates to ask for one of their specialties (Assault - Ammo, Engineer - Repair, Medic - Medical Attention).
If they enhance this in BF3, like adding more classes like in BF2 to push on that a bit, that would be great.
Plus more classes makes for more realism I think. I'm not too sure how they'll be split and I don't know if that is true anyway, this is just my opinion. - H
I would personally vote for Halo. The CoD series looks great but I find the stories and details behind the game to be deep and quite interesting in comparison.
I prefer games which are more in our times
As others have mentioned above, the CoD series isn't as realistic to our times as it may seem.
...weird aliens guns and st00f.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I have to disagree. I think the weapons, vehicles and abilities are excellent and have been designed in precise detail by Bungie.
vehicles and abilities are excellent and have been designed in precise detail by Bungie.
I agree, not just that, but there are probably maps you could find that have Human weapons only. Role playing? Fun? I don't know, but I can't see why there wouldn't be.
Call of Duty Why? Because: more gun variety, more grenades, more online-offline maps, and scince when does Halo let you go up against wave after wave of zombies? NEVER. Also, the storylines are better. Halo is all "aliens attack Earth, big green Spartan comes in, everything go Ka-Boom"
Because: more gun variety, more grenades, more online-offline maps, and scince when does Halo let you go up against wave after wave of zombies? NEVER. Also, the storylines are better. Halo is all "aliens attack Earth, big green Spartan comes in, everything go Ka-Boom"
I could sum the CoD games generic storyline up, but I won't
More variety in guns? Fair enough. More grenades? Er... Semtex = Sticky Frag = Frag
Correct? unless you mean somethings like equipment, tomahawks, C4, throwing knives etc.
and scince when does Halo let you go up against wave after wave of zombies?
Firefight and Nazi Zombies are both good in their own right - I prefer Zombies, to be honest since Firefight is like a Multiplayer Campaign. They're both great, and I think they're about equal in terms of worth.
The storylines though? CoD is always on and off with this stuff, and MW2's storyline is so flawed and stupid I cannot believe they made up such a thing.
CoD Black Ops? They made it seem all misguided and unknown when really it was pretty obvious if they didn't say half the crap they said.
CoD4? Dang awesome.
The Halo lore is rich, from what I'm told. I don't know much about it, mind you.
What I meant was, you can play with friends (which isn't necessarily online but it is "multiple players", and the encounters aren't unfamiliar to that of a Halo campaign, it's just in one set location.
Oh, but there's also no story.
The whole argument is pointless though since come October, Battlefield 3 will revolutionize the meaning of FPS shooters.
Don't get your hopes up, it will add a great deal to existing features, the only new ones are dragging friends to safety and mounting weapons on terrain.
Fighter jets, 64-player maps and going prone will be a welcome change from their Bad Company console orientation mind you The last game that had that (that was also Battlefield) was made about... yeah, 6 years ago lol.
BF3 will revolutionize it for new players - and I hope bring Computers back into the prime gaming platform. Crysis 2 however is much more unique than other shooters. Personally I prefer adaption through Crysis 2 but it doesn't go so well in Multiplayer, but BF3 the adaption is the enviroment.
It's cool because: In Crysis 2 you adapt to the enviroment around you. In Battlefield 3 you have the enviroment adapt for you.
Okay, please let me elaborate What I meant was, you can play with friends (which isn't necessarily online but it is "multiple players", and the encounters aren't unfamiliar to that of a Halo campaign, it's just in one set location. Oh, but there's also no story.
What he said, multiplayer campaign is multiplayer campaign. You should known that the true campaign has not only a local multiplayer option, but also an online multiplayer option for campaign.
As to which is my favorite, I gotta go with Halo, for three reasons. 1. Halo was more revolutionary 2. Halo takes more skill--iron sights have corrupted FPS gaming forever. 3. The futuristic feel of Halo just gets me more enthralled in the experience.
After all, who wants to be running around somewhere that has already been visited countless times? The Cold War, the War on Terror, and, of course, WWII have all been done multiple times. I'm afraid that CoD's source material has been overdone.
I would mostly pick Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 because the gameplay is awesome, and the weapons are advanced. To bad you didn't add Homefront, because I would have picked that.
halo isnt skill. halo is jump a lot shoot at them and melee. the extreme armor also gives those that are hit first the opportunity to jump and kill the other person which takes out the 'surprise' element and throws it all into whoever jumps the most.
