It's probably old on here, but is Halo really Halo anymore?

#21CorndogburglarPosted 12/11/2012 7:39:45 AM
ArcGuard posted...
VauntX posted...
It always bugs me when people try to make that point. There's innovation that works and then there's innovation that roflstomps all over the formula that made people love the game in the first place.

For instance, when I first heard that waypoints were being put into the game, I wasn't all that against them. Cool, I thought, now newer players can get on board with the power weapon aspect of the game and everybody benefits. Neat idea. Innovation that works. Then I heard that they were taking out static spawns and I was just absolutely dumbfounded. They removed an aspect of the game that was present in every. single. previous. Halo. game. There innovation didn't even improve on the original idea. It just butchered it.

Too much innovation, and you destroy what you had originally and end up with a confused and tangled mess that satisfies nobody. Right now, we have a system where dead bodies stay on the map longer than dropped weapons. Absolute madness.


But, the question is, was removing those static spawns better for the game as a whole? I say yes. It was always a BIG hindrance to new/not as good players. Older players knew exactly where weapons spawned. They could time when they'd respawn after they dropped them. they'd control the map with these power weapons and just farm newer players.

With this system, there are STILL spawns on the map. And things DO keep respawning (contrary to popular belief), but some of them are random. So it makes it much less advantageous to camp power weapons, as all that might come might be grenades or a BR.



Basically, just because every other halo did something, doesn't mean it was the best course of action. Things slowly change over time with each iteration. I felt armor abilities added a good aspect to the game. It removed another barrier between new/old (Where older players knew exactly where and what the power-ups were in H3, and the new players wouldn't have one and old players would.



But does this play like a Halo game? I say yes. I know there are many who agree. Does this play strictly like Halo 3? (Thank god,) no. But Halo 3 was not the only halo. This build upon the good aspects of all the old Halos.

If it wasn't supposed to build, and if change wasn't good, we'd still be playing Halo 1. And I wouldn't be playing.


^ THIS.

I agree wholefartedly.
---
Everyone said it a was a miracle when Jesus hit that grand slam in the bottom of the 9th. I just thought it was a lucky shot.
#22VauntXPosted 12/11/2012 7:41:48 AM
The old system is a self-perpetuating system. If you get behind, you stay behind. Once you control the map, it's game over.

No, no and no. The opposing team could still make a push back and frequently did so. Between two equally matched teams, map control tended to shift back and forth as the game went on. The distribution of weapons and powerups ensured that no team ever had dominant control over every aspect of the map, unless they were seriously outplaying their opponents.
#23DSquariusPosted 12/11/2012 7:46:52 AM
VauntX posted...
The old system is a self-perpetuating system. If you get behind, you stay behind. Once you control the map, it's game over.

No, no and no. The opposing team could still make a push back and frequently did so. Between two equally matched teams, map control tended to shift back and forth as the game went on. The distribution of weapons and powerups ensured that no team ever had dominant control over every aspect of the map, unless they were seriously outplaying their opponents.


I agree 100% with this.

If both teams were equal in skill the power shifted back and forth throughout the match. I hate to use this as an example, but MLG matches play out like this most of the time.

If they're dominating the power weapons they deserve to as they are clearly the better team.
---
Get at me
Xbox Live : DSquarius
#24VaharPosted 12/11/2012 7:47:50 AM
I dont see the big deal omg random spawns, omg sprint and perks and armor abilities. Must not be halo.

Camo runs out pretty quick, especially when your moving. Promethean vision lets you see an outline of cloaked player

Riot shield has slow maneuverability, toss a grenade, get behind him. Much easier to deal with than reaches armor lock

Thrusters is like evade...cept u dont go as far and cant double press like evade.

My point is that u can get around armor abilities if you know how they work.
and imo perks dont turn the tables that much. Unlimited sprint? So what i can still shoot you in the head. Quick reload? Lemme switch to my secondary before you start reloading.

And for the spawns. It gets rid of that so called map control where (like in reach) hide in a room with shotguns/swords and makes you participate on the field more often

After all is said and done...yes it is still halo, it might not be classic halo, but it is definatly still halo
#25CKnightPosted 12/11/2012 7:48:03 AM
Balancing the game for the average player is more important than MLG and making a game where only the most skilled dominates. The mediocre to average player needs to be thrown a bone or the community will shrink, become alienating to anyone new who doesnt have tons of hours logged into the game already.

The community would be nothing but a handful of elite douche bags.

I love when devs makes games more accessible.

I can compete fine in past Halos but I don't want to have to go full throttle every time I play online.
#26KSU-Wildcat(Topic Creator)Posted 12/11/2012 7:49:26 AM
Couldn't agree more, Vaunt. Had a game on Adrift last night where we lost by about 5 or 6 (wait... 50 or 60 (you know, since it's points, not kills, even though your actual points aren't tallied up, just kills... wait, what?)) where we fell behind a bit early by three or four and were forced to attack them in their ONE corner the entire time. One of their players left to go to their main hallway (with his infinite sprint) to get the random rocket launcher that spawned. We couldn't truly organize a legitimate attack seeing how that's hard when the enemy, you know, can see you through walls. They know EXACTLY where you're coming from, and had their snipers, rail guns, etc., dropped right on top of them. Why the hell would they leave? There was no point.
#27DSquariusPosted 12/11/2012 7:55:50 AM
CKnight posted...
Balancing the game for the average player is more important than MLG and making a game where only the most skilled dominates. The mediocre to average player needs to be thrown a bone or the community will shrink, become alienating to anyone new who doesnt have tons of hours logged into the game already.

The community would be nothing but a handful of elite douche bags.

I love when devs makes games more accessible.

I can compete fine in past Halos but I don't want to have to go full throttle every time I play online.


Was the community only a handful of elite douche bags in previous Halos?

That's what trueskill is for. The mediocre to average should be playing just that.
---
Get at me
Xbox Live : DSquarius
#28ArcGuardPosted 12/11/2012 7:58:31 AM
VauntX posted...
The old system is a self-perpetuating system. If you get behind, you stay behind. Once you control the map, it's game over.

No, no and no. The opposing team could still make a push back and frequently did so. Between two equally matched teams, map control tended to shift back and forth as the game went on. The distribution of weapons and powerups ensured that no team ever had dominant control over every aspect of the map, unless they were seriously outplaying their opponents.

For god's sake, would you learn how to properly quote? It's maddening.

That's not true at all. If you're talking about the super pinnacle equal playing field? Maybe it was possible, but even then it was not likely. If a weapon is more powerful, and skill is equal, than the team with more power is going to win. That is how math works.

p=power, s=skill.

Assuming
s1=s2, then the only factor is p.

s1+p1=s2+p2. If p1>p2, s1+p1>s2+p2. Therefore, team one wins. Because they had equal skill, but unequal power. And obviously is skill is equal, there'd be no way that team one could lose if they had more power. Unless power weapons do not increase power, but then controlling them would have no affect on gameplay.

(tl;dr - skill cannot be equal or the team who had the better power would always win anyway)



But in everything other than the top, we know the team with more skill is obviously going to get and hold the power weapons. Creating a game where if your team isn't the most "skilled" you automatically lose.


At which point, you might as well just compare Skill Numbers before the game even starts, because the team with the lower skill numbers is going to lose anyway. What's the point in letting the game play out?

If the average player cannot remain competitive because their team did not control the map and they did not get the power weapons at the start, then I don't feel the game is very well balanced regardless...
#29BigRobb2389Posted 12/11/2012 8:04:08 AM
I think infinity slayer is more fun than the standard halo affair.

Is it as balanced? no probably not. lol, but for just a multiplayer fps game, its great.

Overall, the mechanics in place lend themselves to more tactical gameplay. teamwork is more important than ever.

With a few tweaks this game can be great, amazing in fact. The glaring one IS the Boltshot, Its range is too great, that is all there really is to it, it just messes with close quarters combat, and on some gametypes it just is too much. The DMR could also be toned down a bit. Not being able to turn off sprint is pretty disappointing and I hope to god they fix that.

Honestly, the foundation they have in place is solid, very very solid. The armor abilities are balanced, atleast more than they were in Reach.

one complaint I've flipped on recently is the range the guns function at. Originally I didn't like it, not at all really. All it really does though, is change the distance at which fights take place, the maps, for the most part, have enough cover to make engagements fair. Even Ragnarok, the sightlines are long, but it still works, it just goes back to what I said about things being more tactical. The pace may be a bit slower on maps with long sightlines, but if you play smart and patient, it still works great, you just get punished a bit more for stupid decisions.

The thing is though, the game still plays fast, even chaotic on maps and in gametypes that are made for it.

That is why I love Halo, it can be so many different things. It can play so many different ways. The tools just have to be there and the pieces just have to fit. They are close, just a few tweaks and additions and this game will live up to its full potential, and it has a lot of potential.

So, yea, This is still Halo,
---
http://www.last.fm/user/BigRobb/
#30Vincent_CorePosted 12/11/2012 8:12:44 AM
No, Halo 4 feels nothing like halo. Still fun to play.
---
Learn to fight against your weak side and you'll naturally become stronger.