Planetside 2 is superior to Halo (any entry available as of the time the debate was posted)
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: reasons for believing one is better and the other is worse
Round 3: rebuttal.
Round 4: further rebuttal. Please do research here and make sure any arguments stated haven't been countered before, as it taints votes.
May the best man win, or go and waste some money on Halo.(that is a joke, I am not that closed-minded)
Good afternoon to all of those who have come to spectate this debate of ours. So, let us get started. Planetside 2 is my choice of game that is better, and I will have to explain myself. I am sorry I didn't mention it in my opening statement, but we cannot simply use opinions. Some reasoning has to be behind it. Not a lot, but some as will be demonstrated in my first point.
Planetside 2 has enormous maps. You may be thinking 'How does that improve the overall gaming experience?' or 'How can you compare that to Halo's style of map' and I will now attempt to answer both of those. First of all, Planetside is based mainly around the use of strategy and tactics. You cannot have your fifth birthday, load up the game, and get into it killing hundreds of people. You have to plan how you are going to get in to the area, what you are going to do, and how you are going to get out, because if you take a one man transport for a 5 minute journey, it is going to be a hell of a walk back. The game is paced perfectly, as it rewards you for having good plans. If you get 3 full air transports, you can fly over a ground battle which has been distracting the enemy, and then take over the base. Larger maps give you more room to plan your attacks and have fun. For people new to the game, you may not realise the scale until you find yourself walking the width of 20 Halo maps to get home. If you still are following my train of thought, you will 'know' that the style of maps is better until my opponent counters it in Round 3.
Secondly, how can it be compared to Halo's style? Well, Halo maps appear to try and fail to allow for team work to occur. Look at the maps on Counter Strike, to see how team work and planning are essential to creating a good FPS on a small map. Larger maps allow for this, and then the mindless killing as well, whether it is 50 tank a side 'disagreements' or small scale sunderers, with 12 people in come to do a quick raid on a base and take it over as quickly as possible. The latter has much more balance on the mindless killing and therefore Planetside can do both effectively.
Next, on Planetside 2, the battles feel more immersive. There is a bigger impact from dying, and so medics and engineers become essential, and you can have really fun times, getting a team together and moving round the areas methodically. In Halo you are able to work alone, and kill nearly everyone, which makes the game feel dull and repetetive.
Next, is the air combat. In Planetside, every faction has a gunship, a transport and a one man fighter. My best experiences are piloting a transport with a strike team, when suddenly two fighters appear over the horizon. Being slow and not very manouverable, I can't avoid them so I have to ask the rest of the platoon (48 strong teams who you can talk to) to send in fighters, or send over some troops with anit air weaponary. Fights can occur anywhere, anytime and then you can have a full on 6 hour battle over a path between 2 areas.
The battle is literally endless. There is no way to capture the warpgates, so the battles have been going on since the launch in 2012 (of the open servers, not for beta or alpha testing). 6000 players have been endlessly battling it out on 3 continents and the battles can only develop, with tank columns pushing the line back. This makes the game so much more enjoyable for me.
Finally, in Planetside you can still do the things you can do in generic FPS games. You can take a small assault rifle or sniper rifle and own in one of the small walled of areas, which is the size of a COD map. You can defend areas which would otherwise be vulnerable when the main force leaves, building the immersion, and making it a more rounded game for everyone.
I have no big quarrels with Halo reach, as if don't have as much experience and can only compare as I have done above, not gnit-pick problems. I really hope this debate can be more civilised and enjoyable than the last one I was involved, as it spoils the fun.
A clarification: Per the rules, I will be arguing Halo Reach is better than Planetside 2, though I have enjoyed both.
I have played both games extensively, and I say Reach is better, and here is my reasoning:
Both games are futuristic FPS with available vehicles. Reach offers the options of playing by yourself or 2 player in a fictional storyline, cooperative 2 player against waves of AI, or local area network play with just friends. PS2 does not have those options. It offers only online multiplayer, which Halo also has. So if you don't want to have to deal with grievers, cheaters, aim bots, annoying children with their impossibly high pitched voices, crude comments, raging players, foul language, opponents way beyond your skill level, or children with high pitched voices who grieve, rage, use foul language and aimbots, and are STILL far beyond your skill level, you just have to mute or play a different game.
If you play Reach, if a weapon or ability is on the map, you can use it. In PS2, you get a few upgradable pieces of equipment to start with, and most good things need to be unlocked over the course of HUNDREDS OF SUCCESSFUL HOURS OF GAMEPLAY. That is, if you survive the first few seconds as infantry. I have had a hard time getting others to play PS2 with me because you die so fast. One-on-one combat ususally goes to the one with the fastest frame rate. Personal shields do little against small arms. Epic duels are rare.
If you don't want to spend hundreds of hours watching your credits CRAWL up to thrity so you can get a scope...that fits one gun...and can't be transferred to an identical weapon in another class...you can always pay exorbinant fees to Sony to get points. It used to be one cert was 1 cent, and one new gun limited to one class cost 1000 certs. That's $10 for one gun that can't be transferred between even a different class within the same profile, and has no accessories. I think it went down to $7.50 now. Whoopdeedoo.
One thing PS2 does do well is the enormous maps you can play on. However, the weapons available don't fit. There are practically no indirect fire weapons: They are almost exclusively line of sight. Stationary artillery emplacements and vehicle cannons have a slight drop, and so do small arms. There are grenades, and one faction has a TV remote guided shoulder launched missle, and a few Hellfire analogs, but that is the extent of it. No aircraft carry bombs, and with the massive armor and infantry engagements that take place, the military planners of this "future" seem to have no knowledge of mortars, basic artillery tactics, cruise missles, ballistic rocketry, or bombing. I'd probably still play if such things were available. Honestly, a late WWI division from any side of the war would wreak havoc on a PS2 map because they would have accurate artillery.
Reach is mostly confined to smaller maps that don't allow much indirect fire, and despite this, mortars are still available on one of the tanks, plus you can carry more than one grenade without upgrading. PS2 also lacks anti-materiel rifles, which in a game with so many tanks, leaves infantry at a big disadvantage.
Another thing PS2 lacks over Reach is variety. Yes, there are 3 distinctly different continents, and you can play as 3 different factions, but game types are just one, and there's no map editor. You can create all sorts of different games in Reach: Races, capture the flag, team, free for all, infection (everyone but one is one team, and there is one "zombie." Evertime they kill, that victim changes to the zombie team.), chess, headhunter, juggernaut, Bowling for Martians (the only way to kill people is to knock them off platforms by running aircraft into them). And with the variety of options in Forge (the editor) it's harder to get bored with Reach.
First of all, for the multiplayer, you mention griefers. Planetside 2 has a system where if you kill 2 friendly people within half an hour, then you get a half an hour block on all guns, forcing you to become a medic or engineer, or man a transport. Also, unlike Reach, these positions are given a lot of experience. I put a sundered I'm full view of an enemy base, and until a second one came in, I was getting 1000 experience every 20 seconds. Also, you can get over 100 experience per revive, which is easy. Screaming children don't use the mic where I have heard, which makes it a more pleasurable experience than reach. Then you mention cheaters, but it takes far more skill to get into the game without the launcher updating changed files, than to hack Reach on the xbox.
Next you mention the cert system. This has been updated, and now you receive 1 every minute, plus large bonuses for good gameplay. The station cash is still overpriced, but now you feel like you have earned the gun, and unless you have a single style you can work with, it won't unbalance the gameplay. I put certs into an aircraft tracking rocket launcher, some vehicles put certs into rocket pods. The combat can feel unbalanced but they spend twice as much, and become vulnerable. You say epic duels are rare, but 2 light assault soldiers can make entertainment for a watching squad. Their combat is fast paced and epic by these definitions. Paying for guns is only for spoilt children or rich people who want the benefits a higher level has from the go.
Artillery would make tanks useless. Air vehicles have the ability to equip anti tank bombs which can be fired, as well as anti infantry explosives. Infantry have rocket launchers which can take out a tank, not manoeuvrable, In 2 hits, and air targeting ones which can take out air vehicles in 2-3 successful hits. Anti aircraft flak is also available for the max mech suits and ground vehicles. Halo has a more limited selection of weapons to invest in. Vehicles are customisable in Planetside.
Then you mention game modes. PS2 has its variety in the different styles of take over. An AMP station and a tower require very different insertions, different escape methods and a different variety of ground troops. You can't take over an amp station with 4 max suits with engineers, backed up by 4 troops who cap the point. The planning and strategy is the game style. Halo, has the mindless killing. This in comparison, is not very enjoyable if you know how to get the most out of them both. Map editors don't suit first person shooters. They need cleverly planned and laid out balanced areas. The source engine is perfect for this, but using a controller means it is used for an hour or 2 of mucking about to the average player.
Sorry this was late. You need to go directly against round 2 now, and then permanently and solidly debunk these points in round 4, in a way where if I had another round I wouldn't be able to argue further. All of my sources so far are personal experience, and friends with more experience in Reach.
Pro claims that the enormous maps allow for strategy, tactics, teamwork, and large engagements as well as small.
This is true, but it is fallacious to claim that because large maps allow these, small ones do not. Smaller maps require different tactics and strategy, but when it comes down to short range engagements on an enormous map, tactics will be the same as they would on a small map. It's not the size of the map in that case, it's the distance between opponents in the engagement. A team with good planning, intel, and strategy will always fare well against an opponent who does not, regardless of the game. Lack of strategy is not the fault of the game, but the players. You do generally have more room to plan an attack in PS2, but that doesn't mean better, just different. A small engagement area requires different strategy, not no strategy. Teamwork is the same as strategy. It all depends on the players, not the game.
Waves upon waves of hapless foes mowed down by intellectual midgets.
My opponent characterizes Halo players as young or stupid. But all it takes to get PS2 is a free internet download. You need a job and money to BUY Halo. Which requires skill and many qualities only found in the...(ahem) betters of society. Furthermore, strategizing for "6 hours" in a video game for paupers would require us to ignore our obligations to society. High society. Can you imagine how bad it would be for George Clooney if folks like (yours truly) didn't show up to his premiers? Not to mention all the poor Little People who bag popcorn at the local theaters? How could they find the leisure time to download Planetside 2 for free? Why you ingrates ought to be kissing our many large luxurious rings for our contributions to the world. If we didn't play Halo, Planetside probably wouldn't exist because you couldn't afford the electricity to download it!
But in some seriousness, the waves of hapless foes mowed down by anyone argument holds little water. You can set the campaign to Easy or Normal, but there are many options for making it nearly impossibly hard. Other players in multiplayer Halo don't have difficulty settings, and that's the same way with PS2. You cannot mow down wave upon wave of other players in multiplayer unless you are really good, or they are really bad. Each engagement can be very entertaining, especially if you are sitting right next to them on the same console.
"Fights can occur anywhere, anytime and then you can have a full on 6 hour battle over a path between 2 areas."
Different, not better. A six hour battle in my experience in PS2 usually means a stalemate. Granted, that's where some of the best action is, and many good times, but it also can get repetitive and frustrating because there may be no leader with vision or command to advance the line. Sometimes it's nice to have a time limit on battles, like most Halo engagements. With those huge, long pitched battles, sometimes reinforcements or a tactical change results in advancement, many times, people just drop offline because they have to go to sleep or work, and the side with least attrition to the real world wins. With a time limit in Halo, people almost always stay to the end of the battle.
"The battle is literally endless. There is no way to capture the warpgates, so the battles have been going on since the launch in 2012 (of the open servers, not for beta or alpha testing). 6000 players have been endlessly battling it out on 3 continents and the battles can only develop, with tank columns pushing the line back. This makes the game so much more enjoyable for me."
An opinion. Valid, but it is personal, and does not make the game better for anyone but yourself.
"Finally, in Planetside you can still do the things you can do in generic FPS games. You can take a small assault rifle or sniper rifle and own in one of the small walled of areas, which is the size of a COD map. You can defend areas which would otherwise be vulnerable when the main force leaves, building the immersion, and making it a more rounded game for everyone."
I would argue that having more game types and settings would make a game more well rounded. You can also do generic FPS stuff in Halo. If the server is completely dominated by one faction in PS2, you can try to play, but don't expect to advance much. In Halo, you just start over with a new game or new game type if you get tired of it.
Also, teamwork is essential. The classes are balanced and a medic and engi are essential to keep even a small task force going.
Secondly, more children. Have halo bought by parents, and are tainting the playerbase. PS2 is lesser known, attracting a higher class of player in general (so far at least) no matter whether they can afford the time or free download. I fail to understand your argument for people spending time in PS2 instead of working, and why Halo isn't as addictive. Unlike Halo, you can leave at any time, without ruining the game for a team now short of a player, or missing the end.
The encounters usually have a platoon commander, with his own 12 man squad and 3 others. These encounters ARE the game, and provide longer, more thrilling and more exciting battles than halo games. This is because there are bombing raids, tank columns, lines of sunderers spawning everyone AT the action, small vehicles for harassing and then max suits with engineers and heavy and light assails wih medics. Much more immersive and involving.
In halo, if you get tired of a game mode it is because it is inadequate. The main multiplayer gamemode of TDM is where all the fun is at because people spend all of their time there. This means that they are more comparable. PS2 has more varying multiplayer, and is therefore more rounded.
Anything missed, misunderstood or disagreed with from round 4 can be tirelessly bickered over in the comments, thank you for this awesome debate, and I urge the floor to vote Pro because that is me and I can.
P.S. make the votes unbiased. If you agreed with me, put unbiased votes if you thought he was better and vice versa, I have lost 1 debate through favouritism and another by the same guy for a grudge. Thank you and good night.
I'd like to point out that much of Pro's arguments are centered around the strategic/tactical immersion, and battle size of PS2 over Halo, and how much he prefers that. This does make it a superior game... when it comes to strategic/tactical immersion. If this debate were about which game requires more strategic thinking, PS2 would inevitably be the winner. But the debate is simply over which game is superior. No qualifiers about how, so it must be assumed this is an overall judgement.
It is my judgement that Halo: Reach is overall a superior game because it has more to offer. PS2 really only provides one thing that Halo doesn't: Massive multiplayer battles on enormous maps. But Halo still provides countless game types because of the number of player controlled variables in making games and maps. You can even play game variants where there is no death, if you so choose. People have made race tracks and Rube Goldberg like devices in the map editor, spacecraft boarding action maps, and it goes on. PS2 has only one thing, which it does uniquely well: MMO FPS. Yet my contention still stands that if a real military strategist were to enter the world of PS2, they would immediately demand artillery and ballistic weaponry. This would not, as Pro contends, make tanks obsolete. Effective artillery was ubiquitous on the WWI battlefield when tanks were introduced, and they were a game changer, yet neither tanks nor artillery caused the other to disappear. They would add a much needed niche, requiring much skill and planning to be effective in PS2, exactly what Pro wants more of in a game.
I'd also like to remind the audience that lack of appeal to a certain age group (the very young) doesn't ruin a game, but it doesn't make it better. Risk is a simpler and faster game that has broader appeal and is far more successful than it's counterpart, Axis and Allies, and both are fine games, but Risk has far broader appeal, and it doesn't take an hour to set up. Considering so many more people know how to, and like to play Risk over Axis and Allies, though I like Axis and Allies, I'd have to say Risk is the superior game overall. I run into far fewer people with an aversion to Risk than Axis and Allies.
The same applies to Halo and Planetside 2. Both are good games. Halo has broader appeal and more versatility, and it does what it sets out to do well. Planetside 2 has limited appeal, does only one thing, yet is lacking in a very basic modern military function of ballistic weapons beyond some minor bullet drop.
I would argue that since the point of the game is to have fun, the game more people can have fun with is the better game, overall.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro certainly showed some good parts to PS2. "Superior" is a rather subjective standard, but I think that while Pro gave some nice compliments to PS2, and showed that it was good in one specific area, Con showed that there were more options and appeal to Reach, which seems to me to make it "superior". All other categories seemed equal. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.