User blog comment:Codfan/PS3 and Xbox 360 bitchers/@comment-1079585-20100205070931

"It's unrealistic, but you know what, it's fun."

Honestly, Halo and Call of Duty are pretty even when it comes to the realism department. Consider the following.

Halo has bullet physics. Call of Duty has hitscans that move at an infinite velocity in a perfectly straight line. Health regeneration is almost identical in both series, so CoD might as well have energy shields. Call of Duty, a modern game, makes up technology. The technology in Halo could actually exist by the 2500s. In Halo, you will fail miserably if you run around haphazardly without team organization. In CoD, you can own massively if you run around haphazardly without team organization. In Halo, you can't easily hit someone with most guns at long range. In CoD, every gun is perfectly accurate at infinite range while aiming down the sights.

I like CoD more (still love both), but don't compare it to Halo by saying that it is more realistic.

360 is better for CoD because it's getting the first two map packs earlier. Also, I love the 360 controller for shooters.

Otherwise, your analyses were great. I wasn't expecting you to know about the 360's superior GPU, although I'm surprised you didn't mention the PS3's Cell Processor.