Planetside 2 is superior to Halo (any entry available as of the time the debate was posted)

A clarification: Per the rules, I will be arguing Halo Reach is better than Planetside 2, though I have enjoyed both.I have played both games extensively, and I say Reach is better, and here is my reasoning:Both games are futuristic FPS with available vehicles. Reach offers the options of playing by yourself or 2 player in a fictional storyline, cooperative 2 player against waves of AI, or local area network play with just friends. PS2 does not have those options. It offers only online multiplayer, which Halo also has. So if you don't want to have to deal with grievers, cheaters, aim bots, annoying children with their impossibly high pitched voices, crude comments, raging players, foul language, opponents way beyond your skill level, or children with high pitched voices who grieve, rage, use foul language and aimbots, and are STILL far beyond your skill level, you just have to mute or play a different game.If you play Reach, if a weapon or ability is on the map, you can use it. In PS2, you get a few upgradable pieces of equipment to start with, and most good things need to be unlocked over the course of HUNDREDS OF SUCCESSFUL HOURS OF GAMEPLAY. That is, if you survive the first few seconds as infantry. I have had a hard time getting others to play PS2 with me because you die so fast. One-on-one combat ususally goes to the one with the fastest frame rate. Personal shields do little against small arms. Epic duels are rare.If you don't want to spend hundreds of hours watching your credits CRAWL up to thrity so you can get a scope...that fits one gun...and can't be transferred to an identical weapon in another class...you can always pay exorbinant fees to Sony to get points. It used to be one cert was 1 cent, and one new gun limited to one class cost 1000 certs. That's $10 for one gun that can't be transferred between even a different class within the same profile, and has no accessories. I think it went down to $7.50 now. Whoopdeedoo.One thing PS2 does do well is the enormous maps you can play on. However, the weapons available don't fit. There are practically no indirect fire weapons: They are almost exclusively line of sight. Stationary artillery emplacements and vehicle cannons have a slight drop, and so do small arms. There are grenades, and one faction has a TV remote guided shoulder launched missle, and a few Hellfire analogs, but that is the extent of it. No aircraft carry bombs, and with the massive armor and infantry engagements that take place, the military planners of this "future" seem to have no knowledge of mortars, basic artillery tactics, cruise missles, ballistic rocketry, or bombing. I'd probably still play if such things were available. Honestly, a late WWI division from any side of the war would wreak havoc on a PS2 map because they would have accurate artillery.Reach is mostly confined to smaller maps that don't allow much indirect fire, and despite this, mortars are still available on one of the tanks, plus you can carry more than one grenade without upgrading. PS2 also lacks anti-materiel rifles, which in a game with so many tanks, leaves infantry at a big disadvantage.Another thing PS2 lacks over Reach is variety. Yes, there are 3 distinctly different continents, and you can play as 3 different factions, but game types are just one, and there's no map editor. You can create all sorts of different games in Reach: Races, capture the flag, team, free for all, infection (everyone but one is one team, and there is one "zombie." Evertime they kill, that victim changes to the zombie team.), chess, headhunter, juggernaut, Bowling for Martians (the only way to kill people is to knock them off platforms by running aircraft into them). And with the variety of options in Forge (the editor) it's harder to get bored with Reach.