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

I will now answer my opponent's arguments from R2: Pro claims that the enormous maps allow for strategy, tactics, teamwork, and large engagements as well as small. This is true, but it is fallacious to claim that because large maps allow these, small ones do not. Smaller maps require different tactics and strategy, but when it comes down to short range engagements on an enormous map, tactics will be the same as they would on a small map. It's not the size of the map in that case, it's the distance between opponents in the engagement. A team with good planning, intel, and strategy will always fare well against an opponent who does not, regardless of the game. Lack of strategy is not the fault of the game, but the players. You do generally have more room to plan an attack in PS2, but that doesn't mean better, just different. A small engagement area requires different strategy, not no strategy. Teamwork is the same as strategy. It all depends on the players, not the game. Waves upon waves of hapless foes mowed down by intellectual midgets. My opponent characterizes Halo players as young or stupid. But all it takes to get PS2 is a free internet download. You need a job and money to BUY Halo. Which requires skill and many qualities only found in the...(ahem) betters of society. Furthermore, strategizing for "6 hours" in a video game for paupers would require us to ignore our obligations to society. High society. Can you imagine how bad it would be for George Clooney if folks like (yours truly) didn't show up to his premiers? Not to mention all the poor Little People who bag popcorn at the local theaters? How could they find the leisure time to download Planetside 2 for free? Why you ingrates ought to be kissing our many large luxurious rings for our contributions to the world. If we didn't play Halo, Planetside probably wouldn't exist because you couldn't afford the electricity to download it! But in some seriousness, the waves of hapless foes mowed down by anyone argument holds little water. You can set the campaign to Easy or Normal, but there are many options for making it nearly impossibly hard. Other players in multiplayer Halo don't have difficulty settings, and that's the same way with PS2. You cannot mow down wave upon wave of other players in multiplayer unless you are really good, or they are really bad. Each engagement can be very entertaining, especially if you are sitting right next to them on the same console. "Fights can occur anywhere, anytime and then you can have a full on 6 hour battle over a path between 2 areas." Different, not better. A six hour battle in my experience in PS2 usually means a stalemate. Granted, that's where some of the best action is, and many good times, but it also can get repetitive and frustrating because there may be no leader with vision or command to advance the line. Sometimes it's nice to have a time limit on battles, like most Halo engagements. With those huge, long pitched battles, sometimes reinforcements or a tactical change results in advancement, many times, people just drop offline because they have to go to sleep or work, and the side with least attrition to the real world wins. With a time limit in Halo, people almost always stay to the end of the battle. "The battle is literally endless. There is no way to capture the warpgates, so the battles have been going on since the launch in 2012 (of the open servers, not for beta or alpha testing). 6000 players have been endlessly battling it out on 3 continents and the battles can only develop, with tank columns pushing the line back. This makes the game so much more enjoyable for me." An opinion. Valid, but it is personal, and does not make the game better for anyone but yourself. "Finally, in Planetside you can still do the things you can do in generic FPS games. You can take a small assault rifle or sniper rifle and own in one of the small walled of areas, which is the size of a COD map. You can defend areas which would otherwise be vulnerable when the main force leaves, building the immersion, and making it a more rounded game for everyone." I would argue that having more game types and settings would make a game more well rounded. You can also do generic FPS stuff in Halo. If the server is completely dominated by one faction in PS2, you can try to play, but don't expect to advance much. In Halo, you just start over with a new game or new game type if you get tired of it.