Call of Duty 4 vs. Halo 3 (Multiplayer)

      I know I’m a bit late on this whole Call of Duty vs. Halo type article, but I had to comment on them. I’ve been playing both frequently these past few weeks and I’ve noticed many distinct advantages and disadvantages. Oh yeah and a disclaimer to all you fanboys: I’ve played both nearly the same amount of time, which is about 30-40 hours, so I definitely know what I’m talking about.

Let’s start out with the way you play with friends: the matchmaking system.  This system is almost equal for both parties.  Both games have great party systems that match you and your friends up with people with around the same skill level.  Of course, you always get the random game with the super-elite, ultra hardcore man in the basement, but what game’s matchmaking doesn’t do that.  One advantage Halo does have over Call of Duty is that it supports split-screen play online.  I know I have wanted to play Call of Duty with my brother on the same TV multiple times, but have had to resort to playing Halo 3 because of the lack of a split screen online play feature.  It’s weird that Call of Duty 3 had this feature, yet Call of Duty 4 doesn’t (yes, I know they were made by two different developers).\

Now, the leveling system.  This one goes to Call of Duty 4 easily.  The whole ranking up by EXP and having challenges to unlock EXP is brilliant.  It always makes the next level seem just in grasp and never leaves you frustrated that you can’t reach the next level.  And the fact that you unlock new weapons and upgrades just adds to the “5 more minutes” factor.  Even if you do horribly in a match, your guaranteed some bonus points afterwards that go towards your next level.  Halo really needs a revamp in this area.  The number leveling up thing is too random and the fact that you can go down in levels discourages many gamers, myself included.  I sometimes feel I shouldn’t play ranked matches alone because I might go down in level.  There should never be any factor in a game that doesn’t make me want to play it.

The weapon balancing issue was a slightly trickier subject, but still quite easy to distinguish a winner.  Halo 3 has much better balancing of weapons, with the default weapon, the assault rifle, able to kill most weapons and the power weapons scattered around the map.   They have almost perfected that area after three iterations of the game.  In Call of Duty, the M16 with a red dot site dominates all the competition.  That gun can take out every single gun in the game at most ranges.  Fortunately, it is available at the start of the leveling process so everyone can use it.  Unfortunately, it is mostly used by clan gamers, who are good enough without an elite gun.  Normal gamers are focused on leveling up and try to use all of the guns to get the challenges.

The quality of levels was a strange topic.  Call of Duty has better levels than Halo, but both games’ levels aren’t great.  Call of Duty 4’s levels don’t vary in appearance as much, but they play a lot better.  There is always perfect spots for great, intense firefights.  Halo 3’s levels look a lot prettier, but play worse.  They are all generic in the way they play with wide open spaces in most of the maps.  Of course, there are a few gems in both packs, such as Crossfire and High Ground, but overall, they aren’t great.  Hopefully, some new downloadable content will fix that.

The only one of these that really matters is this one: longevity and re-playability (that’s what she said).  If you play a game’s multiplayer for a long time, you know it has to be good.  Adding up Call of Duty 4’s leveling system and actual levels makes it much more re-playable.  You will be hooked on Call of Duty’s multiplayer far longer than Halo 3’s.  The only reason I play it online anymore is that I have to play with someone on the same screen and obviously I can’t do that in Call of Duty.  If you want a game that is crazily fun and addicting get Call of Duty 4.  Halo 3 has very good multiplayer, but it just isn’t as good as Call of Duty’s.