I kind of agree with his overall point, but not really the individual points or how he explained things. Since the thread is so long, and he's not replying anymore, I thought I'd start a thread of my own thoughts (but use that one as a reference).
Going into this game, this is how I ranked the games (multiplayer):
2/3 > CE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Reach
I absolutely hated Reach; too many changes and it just didn't feel like Halo anymore. The gameplay felt very random and chaotic (I could go on and on, but I'll just sum it up like that).
So far, Halo 4 seems to keep with a lot of the general direction that Reach took the series, but it does it a lot better and is actually a pretty enjoyable game (though, still not as good as 1-3). With that being said, it's still just too different. I wouldn't say that there's "no skill involved". I think overall, the more skilled players tend to win, but not nearly as consistently as in 1-3.
The problem is that there's too much going on in the game. It's never a "fair fight", I think that's why OP of that other thread felt like no skill was involved. In Halo 1-3, everybody started with the same weapons, there were a few additional weapons scattered around the map, and a couple power weapons/power-ups that either team had an equal chance of obtaining. It was a very level playing field. Now, everybody is starting with different weapons, different armor abilities right off the start, power-ups/power weapons from ordinances at random times, it's crazy. At least in the older games, you pretty much could always know what power weapons were out there, and when new ones would be dropping. Now, there's no way to know and at any moment, somebody could come around a corner and one-shot you with something they got from an ordinance drop that you knew nothing about. It just makes for really random/chaotic gameplay, and I think that's the problem. Sure, it's fun, but the randomness really diminishes the competitive aspects of the game. Halo 1-3 were fun too, but still very competitive and the better player won 99.9% of the time, in an even fight.
You could argue that being able to still do well in a more random environment like that takes skill as well, and I agree. But I think the only way to really find the better Halo player/team is to put them on a completely level playing field and see who wins.
Beyond that, the maps have really been lacking since Halo 3. This guy really summed up well how I feel about good vs bad maps: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/632877-halo-4/64618122
The main thing is it needs to be symmetrical with even/un-cluttered terrain. Obviously, there can be exceptions, but most of the time, that is what works. The only map I'm REALLY liking so far is Haven.
I don't mind if you disagree with me. Insults will just be ignored, but I'm always up for mature discussion, so let me know what you think!
To be honest, I find Big Team to be unplayable thanks to ordnance. I grabbed the sniper rifle at the beginning on Ragnarok and busted everyone up, and my ordnance drop game me another sniper rifle as a reward... Any time I hop in a vehicle, at least one person on the other team has a spartan laser. The whole match. It's just that ordnance really messes with any sort of flow or strategy. Previously, we could take down the guy with the spartan laser or rockets and then be safe to use vehicles. Now, we have no idea how many goddamn spartan lasers the team is packing. I once saw the other team have three of the damn things at once.
And then sometimes ordnance drops me nothing but useless things while the other team gets the best things in the world; sometimes it's the reverse. Not much fun for either side if the RNG creates large imbalances in rewards.
I much prefer Slayer and Slayer Pro to that mess, and the chaos is more controlled in Slayer. At any rate, I'm not enjoying the multiplayer very much at all, and it's not growing on me either.
Invading world of the guilty as spirit of vengeance The guilty pay the price.
I hate Square-Activision's FFXIII and its slew of cash-in spin-offs & sequels
Yeah, having no clue what weapons are out there makes it random/luck-based.
I'm probably going to gravitate more and more toward Slayer Pro.
Sure, it's fun, but the randomness really diminishes the competitive aspects of the game.
Aaand this is why I love Halo 4. It's fun! Although I always strive to win my matches and would prefer to win all my matches, I'm by no means am a "competitive player," in today's definition of that word anyway.
While I do agree with you're point about the randomness of the ordnance drop and what not, and sometimes to do annoyed how I sometimes get the worse ordnance choices while the opposing team seems to get great weapons, I just deal with it any move on. No biggie.
I kind of agree with you TC, but the reality is that competitive play sorta died off with Halo 3. MLG and competitive types will always IMO be trying to get the game back to H2/H3 gameplay, for the reasons you stated.
I honestly was not expecting to like the changes H4 brought to the table, but I've been pleasantly surprised. Sure ordinance drops are random, but I've found that to not be too unbalanced. Occasionally you find one team get something like a pair of sniper rifles and a rocket launcher while your team got nothing but needlers and speed boosts, but that doesn't seem to happen too often. Loadouts don't seem to unbalance things too much either.
I think that the faster pace + improved DMR + ordinance drops + good maps + instant respawn have contributed to make H4 as much fun to play as any Halo game. And the game is still much more competitive than Reach, as the balance and pacing of the game have been fixed. It's just different. It's the biggest change to the series since the jump from CE --> 2.
It's too early to tell if it will have the longevity of H2/H3, but if they put in a visible ranking system, I think it will.
i7-2600k @ 4.8 Ghz | 2x MSI 7970 Lightning @ 1200/1800 | 8 GB DDR3-1600 RAM
Currently Playing: Halo 4, Sleeping Dogs || GT: The Ownage
Halo 1 & 2 were masterpieces...3 was good but not as good, the rest of the series has been a let down
Team Mexico Baby!
Personally I am enjoying the MP.
A couple of my thoughts regarding the changes are:
-MLG and those types of players are a very small segment and thus not the main focus.
-The majority today wants loadouts. The start with the same gun and find weapons is just not as popular anymore amongst the majority of players.
-Majority of players want to be rewarded for doing good, hence ordinance.
-You need to attract more/young fans to maintain the market position and earning power.
-Developers need to get with the times (to a certain degree) or run the risk of losing relevancy and becoming a niche title. If that were to happen it would mean less money would be able to be devoted to development and lower profits.
Given these points I think they did a good job of updating and still keeping it Halo. At least the spawns are better than COD.
sew182 posted...Sure, it's fun, but the randomness really diminishes the competitive aspects of the game.
To clarify, I'm not some highly skilled MLG pro or anything. I'd say I'm in the 60-70th percentile, at least for Halo 2/3. Halo 2/3 were fun to me largely because of the competitiveness, but they were still just fun to play in general.
I feel like I can never kill more than 1 person in a straight fight. It's over if there's 2 people shooting me. There was always a way to win in Halo 1/2/3 but not anymore. Ordnance are really unbalanced as well.
"Let's pump it up to 11!" -Peter Moore, E3 07
Add user to Ignore List after reporting