Yes, you should have created a poll since you want to know so much. ;)

To me, they each have their pluses and minuses. One thing I'd like to say is no one should accuse any of them from "copying" or any other such ridiculous nonsense. Survivial game modes have been around almost as long as video games themselves so this accusation does not make any sense whatsoever.

Horde Pros: Extremely wide variety of maps. Every MP map can be used for Horde plus 4 different difficulty modes to play with. Cons: The ramp-up difficulty is set and doesn't change. Once you know what to expect, it gets easier.

Nazi Zombie Pros: Upgrading weapons and building defenses is cool plus gambling on a power weapon is fun too. Headshots are awesome. Cons: Two maps in total? Seriously? Come on, needs a lot more variety. (unless I'm wrong but pretty sure I'm not.)

Halo FireFight Pros: Diverse map selection. Difficulty is more random because of the skulls plus the difficulty levels, wide variety of weapons and enemies plus you have the potential of using vehicles to roam around in. Having respawns and resource management is a plus. Cons: I would love to be able to add a 5th player.

Overall, I've had more fun with FireFight but I honestly enjoy the time I've spent in all 3. I can not honestly compare L4D's because I haven't played it yet although one day soon I hope to.

Gears really disappointed me. I heard lots of good things about it, but then when I played it, I realised that it was actually bull****. Multiplayer was terrible. The health system and combat system make one big mess. You shoot a person for ages but he doesn't die, and in the end he just does a roll or flip to cover and kills you. And how can you do big flips when you can't even do a small jump?

The game seems completely based on blood and guts and has no point except killing.

[QUOTE="a55a55inx"]

actually... I've never even heard Bungie saying that it is going to be an FPS. I'm sure that it's a different game with a new engine... otherwise we wouldn't even need a beta.

Beta's are for the devs to test and improve networking connections and stability... It has nothing to do with gameplay

Good. They ran out of fresh and interesting ideas like 3 games ago.

Alter_Echo

[QUOTE="IFBB-PRO"]

To all the kids who respond to original poster "don't be cheap it's just pocket change". Well let me educate you on making money 101.when you take 4 dollars from one person then yes its pocket change but when you do this kind of business to millions of Xbox live owners now MS is making millions on so called "pocket change".

There are lots of people (i am one of them) who probably will never buy anything on xbox live accept shadow complex. That's 4-5 extra dollars that ms gets to keep that i will never use again. Now multiply that by 400,000 people on xbox live who are in my situation. Now ms made over million dollars from people like me.

in my opinion people who flame original poster are kids who did not learn value of a dollar yet.

[QUOTE="d4v1dbow13"]

While i agree with people saying the single player mode is ok, i don't understand how i have my facts mixed as other members are saying. I was excited to play this title being a fan of the other wolfensteins so i bought the game on launch day after viewing many reviews that only cover the singleplayer for some reason, only to find many problems with the MP experience. If someone sold you, say a automobile, and two wheels didnt'work would you be mad you bought it for full price? Just because the "norm" for a new videogame is $60, doens't mean all games are worth it. I'm just stating my opinion and you guys are entitled to your own, but dont accuse me of being misinformed.

So you admit you only read reviews about the single-player and that was enough for you. Thats your fault. Its your fault for not waiting to hear reviews about the multiplayer.

And as for your car-buying analogy - I wouldn't buy a car that I had never test drove and done a ton of research on. The two examples are not comparable, sorry.