Jump to content

MultiLockOn

Member
  • Content Count

    3,292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

About MultiLockOn

  • Rank
    Edge Lord
  • Birthday 12/02/1988

Recent Profile Visitors

25,729 profile views
  1. Hard times on beyond. Chief doesn't pay the bills anymore.
  2. Waypoint has been training Reamis for years before they loosed him on us.
  3. I can't even comprehend the way your brain works
  4. Stop using the words "classic" and "modern" and replace them with "good" and "bad" because that's exactly what it is. "I would prefer a good Halo, but we're not ever getting that again...I believe people are just passed the well designed scope of things and etc." Let me say something that isn't really a well agreed upon or discussed sentiment but I think it's true nontheless; nobody cares if a franchise changes or "loses its identity" if it's for the better. To be honest, brand identity is worthless if your identity sucked in the first place. People aren't mad Halo 'changed', what people are actually upset about whether or not they realize it, is that Halo was good, and now it's bad. If Halo completely changed and was better, no one would give a shit. The new God of War is fairly critically acclaimed, and despite the claims that it's "still God of War but modernized!" that's completely bunk. The classic God of War games were shallow shitty side scrolling button mashing beat 'em ups. The new one is knock-off Dark Souls (big improvement). It's better, ergo nobody cares. Fallout used to be a turn based top-down game. And although they were excellent for their genre, the change to now an open world FPS RPG exploration game is infinitely better. Even if they're bad for the new genre's standards, it's still an improvement over being a good turn based top-down. People complained about CoD being futuristic EXCEPT Black Ops 3 had the best player retention in the CoD franchise following MW2. It just so happened what people actually didn't like was how poorly designed Advanced Warfare and Infinite Warfare was. In the right package, nobody really minded the advanced movement. BO3 was awesome. By the way; does anybody dislike ODST? No? Even though it changed the Health Model, jump height, lethality, campaign formula? No, no one cares. Because it was good. Reach changed shit and it was bad. I'd be open to Halo changing, hell I don't even like playing clasic Halo anymore and haven't in months because I want actual movement skill in my games and the classic trilogy doesn't really offer that in a meaningful way. Halo 5 tried it, and implemented it but in a really stupid and damaging way to a million other things. I highly, highly doubt anyone here would give a shit what Halo changed so long as it was for the better.
  5. Do you know how strongly I feel about you.
  6. You're like, getting it and not getting it at the same time lol. Everythings usefulness should be completely relative to it's difficulty. I say "usefulness" because that's a very open ended description that leaves room for creativity. If you want specifics, I'd say Apex is not a well balanced sandbox. Most best players are just hunting for r99s or whatever the best auto is because gambling that the other enemy player with a wingman will miss 1 shot and then die is a pretty safe gamble. It doesn't help that the wingman has been nerfed like 6 times since launch. You're better off almost always playing the safer route in apex.
  7. Well people really have no idea what they actually want so that doesn't really mean anything to me. I've seen a lot of devs arbitrarily shift the sandbox all the time for the sake of "variety" and "mixing up the sandbox" and every time it's a disaster. Auto Rifles usually aren't very good in Destiny, Bungie buffed them for the sake of variety and I swear to god day 1, the first time I was killed by the ridiculous overtuned exotic ARs in that game it was as annoying as being killed by it 5 months later. There is nothing fun about variety if it's not actually balanced right, which I've never actually seen done outside Halo and the classic arena shooters. And the player retention numbers will back that up every time; face to face, 1 skillful weapon will trump a sandbox of garbage every time. If you can get variety with the proper balance then, sure go for it. But every time I see that excuse it's in defense of something that is obviously broken.
  8. Weapon does not equal playstyle. I hear this so much. You can be passive with a sniper, you can be aggressive with a sniper. Halo having a dominant utility weapon doesn't mean 1 playstyle. Also, that being said. There's nothing wrong with 1 playstyle being viable, so long as that playstyle is skillful to execute on. I'd take that over H5's sandbox.
  9. this is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen I legit expected nothing from them. This is worse than nothing. I would have rather had nothing.
  10. The flashlight revealing camo'd players might be one of the best ideas I've heard from the Halo community.
  11. You need to think for like 4 seconds before you make a post. Sniping in Destiny (on console as well) is piss easy and it's 30 fps. Sniping in MCC at 120 FPS with a controller is harder in CE, why is that. Aim assist. Do you actually think if I gave you 600 fps the gun would become proportionately easier to shoot. The H5 sniper and the CE sniper are the same strength, both kill in 1 head, 2 body. One is a thousand times more annoying to die to because it's easy. You rarely get frustrated when you're killed or beaten by someone who did something very difficult to accomplish it. The frustration comes from being cheated, knowing you're a better player and you unfairly died when you shouldn't have, in this case it's to a weapon that aims itself (everything in H5), I agree it's actually difficult to give an example of a weapon that's fun to actively fight against because you're right; there aren't many good examples because games generally blow. The best example I can give is dueling an enemy in sekiro where you sit there and actually have a back and forth sword fight. Obviously that's a single player game but there's no reason you couldn't take those same mechanics and translate them to MP, or more importantly - the principles. A skill based weapon should probably have an equally skill based counter.
  12. I downvoted you for your conclusion - "look you can’t create a weapon that’s effective+ fun that’s also not frustrating to fight against" This just isn't true. A weapon is only frustrating to fight against if it's bullshit, it could be as strong as it needs to be so long as it's equally difficult to use. The difficult of the sniper had nothing to do with 30 fps it just had lower aim assist. The fun comes from engaging with the enemy and outsmarting / outplaying them, weapons are just a vehicle to get there. It's not so much about "I just died to X weapon that was super fun" so much as it is the entire encounter and game is fun, and the times that you LOSE shouldn't be so obnoxious that it takes away from the joy you felt otherwise. I can lose a smash bros melee match and still have a lot of fun because there wasn't a slew of stupid shit screwing me over constantly. The negatives shouldn't be stronger than the positives. Also if your combat is designed well then fighting against weapons is fun because the counter to weapons are interesting and skillful.
  13. I mean, it makes sense for Cod. In the same way would expect that a game that is exceptionally well designed to have a long and healthy life span (and you WOULDN'T want to short it by releasing a sequel too early) COD is a shallow experience that thrives on instant gratification. The yearly releases honestly suit the appeal of what want and desire out of Call of Duty games. It doesn't have staying power. Just equate the yearly release of Cod to what Fortnite does with its big seasonal updates. It's just something to look forward to in a franchise that doesn't have much else to offer (except zombies)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.