The Instigator
Jaxsor
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
BarbieSoFetch
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Will Halo 5 be a fun game?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Jaxsor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 73688
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

Jaxsor

Pro

I belive Halo 5: Guardians will most likely be fun after the Arena Multiplayer Beta. The Spartan Abilities are indeed different, and the kill times are much quicker than Halo 2, 3, or 4. However, the faster kill times harken back to Halo: Combat Evolved, where three shots to the head from a magnum was enough for a kill. The kill times in CE were very fast, and it was exciting and an adrenaline rush to try to outmatch your enemy while staying alive, despite how quickly you could be cut down. However, Halo 5 has something CE did not in this respect. It has much better weapon balancing, and every weapon in Halo 5 is useful and deadly, unlike some of CE's weapons. (Assault Rifle, I'm looking squarely at you.) The abilities such as clamber, slide, and ground pound don't make huge impacts, but feel welcome enough. Sprint has been widely talked about, and that's another debate entirely. The only ability I really dislike is Charge, as it hinders assassinations and melees, making those things too rare. Does anyone disagree with me? If so, feel free to debate me.
BarbieSoFetch

Con

I personally do not like Halo. I mean Halo Reach was fun but their downfall followed shortly after. I mean yes, I will most likely buy it, but it most likely not be fun. Halo 4 was horrible, no one talked, there wasn't anything new. The thing that annoyed me most was the huge robot things that could shoot bullets and missiles. Plus, I personally think COD is the best. And not to mention, Halo hasn't had anything new. The graphics have stayed the same and it's just not that fun. Also, with all the times playing Halo, I get bored and frustrated very easily. They should change the control layout. One thing I also have an issue with is the campaign. I hate the concepts. After about 20 min of playing I usually get bored and annoyed with the silence.
Debate Round No. 1
Jaxsor

Pro

Well, in that case, you and I have very different backgrounds on Halo. I've enjoyed it thoroughly since five years ago. Ergo, we will likely not see eye-to-eye on this one. You brought up the campaign, while I didn't. It seems like this time, it's getting very morally ambiguous, with this idea that the Master Chief may be a traitor, but also the idea that there's a hidden truth that we must find, that has been very well built up to without revealing it. I can't know all about the campaign, but it seems that the story will have some weight to it, be intriguing, and be possibly even tense. Plus, with the new abilities of Halo 5, fighting the Covenant will be even more fun, like charging and landing a ground pound on a pack of Grunts, using thrusters to narrowly avoid a plasma grenade or rocket, I could go on and on about the possibilities. Suffice it to say, I don't think it will be disappointing.
BarbieSoFetch

Con

That caught me by surprise. That genuinely made my day xD! I mean you went all fan girl on me for a second. Anyway, I personally don't play the campaign much, mainly Multilayer. But come on, Halo hasn't made anything appealing to the whole gaming community. I mean yeah of course people like you are going to get all hype, but they need to make Halo enjoyable for people who play a lot of COD, GTAV, etc. People who own Destiny, Far Cry, Titanfall, etc. will mostly be the people buying it. And one of the reason I believe Halo won't be that "fun", is because the graphics! What I'm more interested in is the more modern kind of stuff. My cousins are really geeks when it comes to Halo and I don't understand how they could be so into it! It's hard to quickscope, and since I am more used to COD there aren't any vehicles (accept for WAW). So when the Halo maps include Banshees, Ghosts, and the robot suits piss me off. It gives everyone an unfair advantage. Plus they need to really consider building a more structured game when it comes to variety in weapons, perks, style, etc. Don't get me wrong, the avatars can be really bad*ss, but that's kinda it. Also, they need to improve the maps! They are too small and all have the same theme. It really does just get boring, and the fact that all the people on Halo are complete p*ssies and when they do talk, they have sh*tty connect mics or horrible mics. In Halo 4, I couldn't get past the first campaign, it's just annoying. I don't have the patience for sh*tty graphics, quiet lobbies, bad weapons, bad perks, bad maps, and bad everything. Although I do enjoy CAP the Flag and Grifball.
Debate Round No. 2
Jaxsor

Pro

There is something you do not seem to understand about Halo. Halo has always been an arena styled shooter. It gives you equal starts, then lets you find power weapons and vehicles to tip the odds in your favor. COD is a twitch shooter, which gives everyone different stuff, and whoever shoots first wins. In Halo, fights last longer, and can turn around if a player knows how to survive the ambush, even with the shortened kill times. If it's variety you're talking about, Halo's main source of variety is Forge and Custom Games. Friends can get together and create maps, from a simple arena style map for Team Slayer, to a Big Team Battle map chock full of vehicles to fight with, to full blown ramps for vehicles to go down in Infection mode that just speed you up again and again as you teleport back to the top, and zombies with Gravity Hammers try to hit you, causing you to fly around in hilarious ways. COD will never have such variety, as it depends on this formula of "see someone, shoot them before they can react," and something like vehicles would get in the way of that. In WAW, vehicles were horribly unbalanced because the infantry have no real means to fight back. Halo, however, has vehicle boarding, so infantry can take vehicles for themselves, or destroy a tank focused on someone else. It just requires teamwork, and skill. This is not fun to you, because you are used to being your own lone wolf badass in COD, and suddenly having to coordinate and worry about teammates is not fun because of that.

You don't seem to understand that catering too much to other games' audiences will not work for Halo's arena style, that also can be morphed into custom maps and games that are very interesting. They tried this in Halo 4, and it turned out badly. Perks, loadouts, nor killstreaks benefit Halo's gameplay, and as such, you will likely never find satisfaction in Halo.

You say the graphics are bad, but I get the feeling you have not seen Halo 2: Anniversary. It runs at 60 frames per second, very smoothly and crisply, at 1080p. Halo 5's beta was 720p 60fps, but first of all, it's a beta. Second of all, if it has to be 720p to accommodate custom games to blow our minds, then I'm absolutely fine with it, as long as it runs at 60fps. You seem to think graphics are huge in determining quality, but graphics are just superficial. You could have a pretty looking game that plays like sh*t would you be saying the same thing?

The main point is, you don't appear to understand Halo's arena style, and instead prefer the simplicity of COD. You don't have to like Halo, but you can't wish that it catered to your ideal kind of fun in a game when that ideal compromises the very foundation of the game you want changed. Thank you for accepting my debate, let the voting begin once you respond.

(And FYI, before you say communication is impossible in Halo, that's why they have the Spartans talk in Multiplayer for Halo 5.)
BarbieSoFetch

Con

Okay, let me start from the bottom and work my way up. I never said communication is impossible in Halo. I have been in games with some people who talk, but very rarely. You just have to assume they are all in a party. By the way, I am a Microsoft user, never played first person shooters on PlayStation. So I am not sure if the option of starting a private party is in PlayStation. Anyway, I do understand that Halo has a different style, than COD or Battlefield or other games. I guess it's just my personal preference when it comes to physical appearance. I am more of a modern gamer. The one who likes those more realistic graphics. Halo is more of a fantasy game. And either I haven't seen all the "advanced weaponry", or y'all only play Halo. I don't think the guns are that...well, advanced.

So, in COD (using a more infamous game for example) there are so many creative ways you can take advantage of the actual advanced guns. You can trickshot, quickscope, or simple use the guns realistically. It's what makes the game fun. And COD has so many weapons. In Halo, it is impossible to trickshot, quickscope, etc. Unless of course you are highly skilled. I have tried so many times to quickscope in Halo, but the only thing that is stopping me is the firing rate and zoom rate. I think it is so slow, I just can't deal with it. Plus, there isn't much of a variety when it comes to snipers. Well non that are completely, fast. And I do not like the frags and stuff (forgot what they were called).

Not to mention, it takes a very long time to kill someone. Like, say if I were using a sniper, I could shoot the person 2 times and it wouldn't kill them. The power isn't strong at all. And then they'll have very overpowered weaponry. I would give examples but over the years I have forgotten what the guns names are.

So like you were saying, if you haven't played WAW, there is one map that has a tank in it. So, I wasn't talking about the campaign. So, in Halo infected isn't very fun, it gets a little old. In zombies all they do is come at you with swords (from what I remember). They need to give a more intense game mode for zombies. More like COD, not saying to copy them exactly but to get a little more complex. In AW, exo-zombies is so much fun. Plus there are new maps. I love the idea and everything. As the rounds advanced, the hell-hounds are better, and they make different types of zombies. I just think there will be so many kids wanting to buy BO3 instead. Or they might buy Halo 5 and then buy BO3 because the release of BO3 is a month after Halo 5's release. All I am say is, they really need to hit hard to make this a good one.

And yes, I know the graphics have improved a lot! That's what happens with every game. All I am saying is make it more complex and modern with the maps. Make new game modes like SnD. That would be really fun on Halo. Improve the weaponry, etc. And one thing I do like about Halo, it that it takes it's time. Instead of releasing the game year after year. Plus the campaigns are good including the Easter eggs. Something I'm surprised you didn't mention. Also, to gain more appeal and make more money, add gun textures! That's something that can step Halo up a notch. But then again, it's all based on preference. There is no way to tell whether or not Halo 5 will be good. I just think it will be like all the other Halos.

Thanks for your time. Lol, I actually had fun with this debate. It brought me back to Halo Reach memories. Anyway, lol thnx!
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by deathwish188 2 years ago
deathwish188
Good debaters do not use improper language, it is ok to shorten up words, but you Don't see someone trying their best to win a debate when they use improper language, The voters will not vote for them. If someone was running for president and gave a speech, swearing about something in the process, no one will vote for them
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 2 years ago
BarbieSoFetch
I censored the words out for a reason. If you can't handle it, then get off this website. I enjoy how you sampled my "inappropriate" language. I don't see how I spelled that incorrectly. And there are actually parts where I used some words in the wrong context as well. But my opponent did too. And please explain how censoring those words made my grammar "improper". And when you try to call someone out, next time use amateur in the correct context. You can't just say, "...it just made you look amateur." Like, what does that even mean? LMAO (it's an abbreviation if you didn't know that)
Posted by Jaxsor 2 years ago
Jaxsor
I actually think that'd fall more under conduct.
Posted by deathwish188 2 years ago
deathwish188
It's just more of the things you said, such as p*sses, s*itty that made your grammar improper, PRO did not use this kind of language, it just made you look amateur
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 2 years ago
BarbieSoFetch
Please do put the examples of where I used incorrect grammar. Don't just say I had incorrect grammar. And "xD" or abbreviations shouldn't be counted. God, actually explain yourself next time, okay? You just stating my opponent DEFINITELY had better grammar doesn't say anything. Try offering evidence instead of being arrogant. I actually want to understand where I got off on the grammar.
Posted by deathwish188 2 years ago
deathwish188
I guess neither of you win then.
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 2 years ago
BarbieSoFetch
Ah yes, predicted issues. Everyone who votes should highly take into consideration the fact that preference should not show the upper hand in this debate. It's merely, who you thought invoked your voting decision. Who had the better arguments and etc. And people who are friends with me or my opponent, please analyze BOTH of our arguments. And if you favor, or do not favor Halo, please do the same and analyze both of our arguments. Also, thank you to @bluesteel for handling the situation properly.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
===============================================================
>deathwish188 // Moderator action: removed<

4 points to Pro (arguments, conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I love halo and I agree with pros arguments

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Failure to explain conduct. (2) Failure to explain *why* on arguments; you cannot merely state *that* Pro had better arguments. (3) Implied that voter chose the side he already agreed with before the debate, without evaluating the debate in an unbiased (tabula rasa) manner).
================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
=============================================================
>austinwells1118 // Moderator action: removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: yeah go Jaime

[*Reason for removal*] Obvious vote bomb.
=============================================================
Posted by deathwish188 2 years ago
deathwish188
That, as well as because pro is my friend, and because I truly feel like he had better arguments, so all 3 of those things.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by deathwish188 2 years ago
deathwish188
JaxsorBarbieSoFetchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro definitely had the most proper spelling and grammar