User blog comment:Damac1214/Why Call of Duty is Call of Duty, Fallout is Fallout, Halo is Halo, and that they aren't going to be changing anytime soon/@comment-4377201-20130312191631

I agree with the Halo part. I like CoD (obviously) but I started on Halo 3 and have always love the true competitiveness of it. Sure there were people deranking and trying to boost just to get a 50, only to be hazed anyways for being "a bad 50". It didn't matter because when I wanted to compete I could compete in the ranked playlists. Team Slayer was my face with Snipers and MLG as the next ones. When I feel off my game I play some social for less pressuring play.

When I played Reach with the armor abilities and sprint, I didn't really like it. Add in the fact grenades blew up fast and the melee recovery was like a tenth of a second it wasn't too far from panic knifers in CoD (something I don't like). Halo to me is competitive not only in knowing you're playing worthy opponents most of the time but because it takes more prolonged accuracy. CoD is very fast paced and simply being very alert and having quick reflexes give you a huge advantage. Quick reflexes won't help too much when you need to accurately shoot someone 5 times in the head or at least finishing the last shot on the head. It took real accuracy to be effective with a BR, I wasn't getting killed by opponents who are clearly inferior to me because they use "easy kills" very often. People could just use armor lock when almost dead or sprint at me with a gravity hammer or sword to get an easy one (can still do so on Halo 4 though).

I think Reach is still good but just great example of a game that was trying to be too innovative. I don't think any of the CoDs have really done that yet (for better and worse). As the title says though, game A should be game A and game B should be game B and so on.