The Debate To End All Debates

I think you should be comparing Splinter Cell and Metal Gear Solid. What does Halo have to do with Splinter Cell, other than it being on the XBOX?

"English, motherf**ker, do you speak it?"

Let's see... Splinter Cell isn't even an FPS, so why we'd compare it to Halo is an open question. One's a game about blasting the bejeezus out of everything, one's about slipping through to your objective without anyone knowing you were there. Apples and oranges.

As to the Sam Fisher vs. 47 question, my vote definitely goes to Sam. Better gadgets.

Er... you do realise that Splinter Cell is neither a "shoot 'em up" or a first person shooter? It's a STEALTH game, or a 'sneak 'em up, if you prefer'. It's incomparable to Halo, because it's from a completley differnt genre. It's like trying to compare Love Actually and Lord of the Rings (take any one from the three). They're both great in their own ways, but they are not directly comparable, and therfore this is a pointless argument. Calling it "The debate to end all debates" is stupid. I want my money back!

However, from the simpler perspective of their both being games, it is inescapable to conclude that Halo is a much better game, I agree. However, it is not the same type of game and cannot be said to be a better FPS than Splinter Cell, because, as I said, Splinter Cell is not an FPS. Idiot.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think Splinter Cell is the greatest game ever created.

Best wishes,
- James C.

www.orioles.co.nr

There's no debate in my opinion. Halo and Splinter Cell shouldn't even be compared because they aren't the same kind of game. I enjoy playing Splinter Cell more than I enjoy playing Halo though.

Best wishes,
- James C.

www.orioles.co.nr

Well to say which is better you need to compare them. So here it goes:

Splinter Cell tends to be on a near future but is from things that could be happening today, which means it's realistic (What the hell? It is Clancy!) Halo tends to be for a, lets say more of a "future" than near future, and we don't even know if is possible. It's sci fi (which I like don't get me wrong). The gameplays of both are different, but in SC you need to do the change on camera so it adjust to the gamplay, meaning there's a wider variety of choices and moves than that of Halo. Both of the games guide you to use your instincts but while in Halo you have to keep running to not be shot, in SC you have to know when to run and when to stop.. meaning it's harder and directs you to use your brain. In Halo there's always an opportunity to act, in SC you need to wait for the opportunity or create one, and you need to take your chance once that door is open or else you deserve a bullet. Halo has a more wider variety of weaponry than SC but considering that SC is a Stealth game... how would Lambert put this: "Your gun should be your last resort. Invisibility is your vest weapon." I think that pretty much summarizes it, lol. The storyline from Halo is amazing but it's needs to be more deepened. The storyline from SC... there's always something new, and in some cases they complement each other. In one you have Master Chief who's a big guy all muscles and luck and at the other you have Sam who's 5'10'' muscles but mostly brains, and depends more in his strategy or approach than in his guns.

Some of the things... not all.

Personal opinion, Halo is a great game but I like SC better 'cause is not just run and shoot, you have to think, and you even learn stuff. The characters, I like Sam better cause it's more real, more human (even if he is one of the coldest soldiers there is in gaming). People can identify with the character, while Master Chief tends to be... Spartan 117, there's not much to him. He's just a weapon. Halo has sold so much 'cause it was one of the first games for when the Xbox came out... but I'd rather go with Far Cry on PC than Halo. Anyways I'll stick with SC for this one, though Halo remains close to heart. My respects to Master Chief.