The crysis series is better than the halo series.
Debate Rounds (2)
I personally prefer crysis over most videogame series out there honestly first person shooters are a little bit boring but crysis always has something new and better graphics than any other game. The cryengine 4 system that crysis 2 for xbox and ps3 runs on is the most advanced graphcs and gameplay available. From a multitude of different weapons with the same diversity as halo but with the attachment value of Call of Duty games the customization values never end. With that being said halo is very basic. It has been nearly the same since halo 2. All recent halo games such as : Halo Reach or Halo 3 have been all too similar to halo 2's multiplayer. They even run on the same server. Crysis, however, is run on a P to P server. This enables a player to find a game no matter their nat type but on halo the dedicated servers will pause and search a selected number of games in your community. Crysis is also a series that was started on the pc and moved to console games when they were offered a contract with microsoft for 22 million dollars this is only from one system and the ps3 contract results have not yet been released. Halo which has a system specific contract has only recievedi in total roughly 30 million dollars where crysis has built a lkjsignificant financial foundation on every system.
Second the story line of crysis gives you multiple replays from complete stealth and to power where as halo will only ever have master chief or another large bulky genetically altered human that will kill hundreds of people and never take a scratch or needing to adapt. If you have played halo reach you will know that it was a strongly overated dissapointment. Plus everyone has had a complaint about the dissapointingly bad driving and over all capability of the halo marine but in crysis marines actually do more than point a gun at a target and miss every shot or drive the vehicle you are opperating into a fire zone. Then when you take into fact that the crysis environment is almost completely destructable where halo sappling trees can stop a warthog at full force.
We the pro firmly believe that the crysis series (crysis - pc, crysis wars - pc, crysis warhead - pc, and crysis 2 - all systems) if by far superior to the halo series. Please vote PRO.
Pro makes several points for some of the major criteria in which modern video games of this type are judged:
I would like to respond to each contention, but first put into context the claim that Crysis is a ‘better series' as a whole than Halo. To do this let us look at the entire series and more importantly, the longevity of the series.
The Crysis Series:
Crysis PC Released 2007
Crysis 2 PC/360/ps3
Crysis Warhead PC
Crysis wars PC
The Halo Series:
Halo CE Xbox Released 2001
Halo 2 Xbox
Halo 3 360
Halo Wars 360
Halo Reach 360
(Not included: 2 Halo PC ports)
While this doesn't show Halo is the better series, it puts into context the comparisons. Halo is now a 10 year old series that has seen many successful iterations. I will go further into the significance of this as I deal with each issue.
My opponent states that: "Crysis always has something new and better graphics than any other game" –
My opponent fails to point out what ‘new' things Crysis offers, but is indeed correct about the quality of Crysis' graphics. Crysis graphics on PC were so good that many PC owners didn't have the specs to play the game. (Not ‘better' than a console standard.)
Now that Crysis 2 is on xbox 360 and PS3 many new players will get to experience the game, and Pro is accurate about its graphical fidelity. However, my opponent fails to take the entire series into account and while the 4 games of the Crysis series certainly have had good graphics, that alone does not make the series better. I'll add that for its time, the original Halo was no slouch in graphics (nor is the latest version), as some FHM columnist wrote about the original,
-"Stunning graphics – from the individual blades of grass underfoot to the eye-popping 3D – married to crystal sound and gameplay more addictive than a Class A drug make for one lethal time-killing package."
The next issue deals with diversity of game mechanics and multiplayer, but are all regarding the general issue of innovation.
-"With that being said halo is very basic. It has been nearly the same since halo 2."
The argument here is with the entire series and though it may be correct that Halo's most recent games have not innovated with regards to multiplayer and gameplay, you must once again look at the entire volume in its time. When Halo and xbox were in its infancy, it was the series that set the standard for online console FPS multiplayer, and continued to raise the bar with each successive release. (Actual innovation makes the Halo series better.)
Much of Halo's success can be directly attributed to its multiplayer and the growth of xbox live. Though the conventions of a decade old series may no longer be as innovative as a game released just recently, its massive sales success can be directly attributed to its quality, and to a fan base that feels (over the past 10 years) it has been the best multiplayer experience available.
Your next argument looks at system exclusivity. It is true that Crysis is multiplatform but you fail to show why that makes it better. The Halo series has thrived being an Xbox exclusive and so I can conclude exclusivity has been part of making it a better and more successful series.
Next my opponent contends on the quality of the Crysis story by saying it provides multiple replays. While this is certainly a plus for any video game, the greater tangible success (which I think makes it a 'better' series) can be seen from other uses of that property. Halo's story for example, has inspired several novels and a film in production hell.
My opponent concludes that Halo:Reach is a disappointment and suffers from AI and graphical issues. Though it may be true, no point was made that it reflects on the quality of whole series.
I believe the burden of proof is on Pro to show that Crysis is the better series, something he has failed to do.
Though I have refuted every point, I will specify the reasons why Halo is the better series:
1) Longevity of the series
2) Popularity (online users and sales)
3) Fun (based on longevity and popularity of the series)
Pro has failed to prove that "The Crysis series is better than the Halo series" and so you must vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 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: Extremely strong second round from Con and very well presented for ease of reading. There should have been at least one additional round for Pro to defend his assertion.
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.