Jump to content

Ling Ling

Member
  • Content Count

    810
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ling Ling

  • Birthday 08/12/2014

Recent Profile Visitors

21,724 profile views
  1. I know you're probably not totally serious, but this is actually a very common and interesting phenomena in language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term
  2. Looks like the project died when the kickstarter failed. https://store.steampowered.com/app/545180/Muffled_Warfare__Echolocation_Shooter/ This has a similar gimmick, but relies more heavily on it and doesn't seem as Quake-lite.
  3. Seeing as the last 3 or so mainline Halo games exist, I'd say being stupid is irrelevant to whether or not a mechanic makes it into a modern Halo game. Sometimes I'd rather see an off-the-wall weapon idea than a discussion/rant about the billionth or so compromise to whatever movement system/gimmick creeps its way into the next game. It gives this forum some variety.
  4. That's...literally the point. It's fundamentally the same, but slightly different. "Refined" as in "not totally destroyed from the ground up to make way for my vision of the game". Tweaked would be a better description. Again, you're deep in an "us vs them" mindset. Would an opposite stat-change work? What if the TU made armor lock last 12 seconds? 12 minutes? Infinite minutes? Is there a linear relationship between the length of the armor lock ability and the enjoyment it has for these players you're attempting to defend? We both know the answer is no. Maybe some players like the concept of loadouts, but want them to be balanced relative to each other. That's a pretty clear example of someone who doesn't want "competitive" Halo, but might also want the TU. In the case of Invasion specifically, those are my genuine beliefs. I do not want Invasion to be like competitive Halo, I want loadouts and bloom and AA's and elites in that mode. I think the TU makes the mode better. The best version of "loadout Halo" is not necessarily the one that appeared at the game's launch. You attempt to defend the idea that there are players who would enjoy the default experience better than the competitive vision of Halo, which is an appreciable point of view, but simultaneously do not acknowledge that these players might enjoy the default experience for more reasons than those settings simply being what they were first exposed to.
  5. I understand your perspective, but I think its weird to think of the TU as some sort of zero-sum game between two camps of players. I consider the TU is a refinement of the core Reach gameplay more than I consider it some kind of compromise for the comp players. The actual "compromise" that came out of the TU was letting us make ZB gametypes for own separate gametypes. I'm literally buying Reach on PC for the sole purpose of armor locking vehicles to death in an Invasion playlist, as well as playing the campaign. I think TU makes the game somewhat more enjoyable casually while still maintaining the core Loadout/Bloom/AA experience.
  6. Some BTB people didn't like ZB; poorly designed "open field" maps (Hemorrhage) play even worse without bloom or projectile weapons. In an ideal world maps like Hemorrhage would just be thrown in the trash where they belong, but the chances of that happening now is exactly zero. Too much of Reach's BTB sandbox/map pool is already designed around bloom existing. Universal 85% is probably more plausible.
  7. I think many people have the underlying assumption that once you reach H3 Sniper on arena map levels, the small distances and projectile speed would essentially make aiming pseudo-hitscan, and therefore redundant to the conversation. I think addressing that assumption would move everyone closer to being on the same page. Judging distance happens all the time in 3D video games, partly visual, partly map knowledge, and basically any competitive shooter game with projectile mechanics emphasize this at high levels. The best Demoman players in TF2, for example, are insanely quick at accurately arcing pipes in 3D space at any angle imaginable against any target that could be at a number of velocities, and its an aspect that really separates players at even the highest levels. I think "bullet" projectiles can be used in a similar way with the right projectile speeds and map distances, and might actually give the Halo sandbox an excuse to have its 6 or so rifle-like weapons actually have meaningful differences.
  8. 343 probably won't, although I'd expect to see some mods that accomplish that.
  9. MCC banked on the nostalgia for the older Halo's for its success, sure. However, it's potential audience is limited to people who have remained in the Xbox ecosystem for as long as that game came out. The main draw of porting MCC to PC is its sheer ubiquity; regardless of why you left the ecosystem, playing Halo 3 (or whatever your nostalgia beckons) again for a small price on Steam without paying for the console and XLive and all that other stuff will be what draws people back in. The barrier to indulging in a game of Halo 3 after selling your console X years ago will never be smaller. I don't have concrete evidence, but anecdotally, this seems to describe a lot of people.
  10. I think if you're at risk of burning out / you already play MCC on Xbone routinely, you're not the target audience for MCC PC. However, I think the biggest perks for people like us is that we can put Halo on hardware more portable than an Xbone, and modding for this installment is probably going to be a big thing.
  11. A big problem with Halo 4 is that the Didact's motivations are wrapped in a 5 minute long cutscene that literally just "expositions" the entire pre-firing universe. Anyone who has purely been playing the games has no idea humanity even existed before the firing, outside of some subtle references in the games and terminals, which makes the cutscene confusing for newcomers and casual players. The sad thing is I think a slight change in dialogue could have fixed that, but as you'll notice, dialogue is the underlying theme of my criticisms. This is where I feel like I get lost with a lot of people that liked Halo 4's campaign. At a high level, Halo 4 has a very interesting plot. Chief and Cortana get stranded on an unknown Forerunner world, they face a mysterious threat, they meet up with a single human ship, remnant Covenant threats, blah blah blah; I have a few specific criticisms (the Genesong thing is soooooo unnecessary), but its a sufficiently Halo plot, whatever that means. The problem comes in the execution and claims about its execution. For one, my strongest criticism is the dialogue. Its terrible across the board. Nothing about it is believable or convincing. It feels like it was dubbed from a different language. There's nothing inventive, at all, about Cortana's rampancy. There's so many interesting instances of "ai goes bad" in all of fiction, and they decided to go with having Jen Taylor scream her lines in every other cutscene. I could not even imagine a less creative way of demonstrating rampancy. The performance poisons everything else. Chief is apparently at least partially motivated by Cortana's random existential statements and yelling, and considering its a major aspect of his "development", it does a number on my ability to suspend my disbelief. Everything Del Rio says is absolutely hilarious. I couldn't take him seriously to save my life. He's not "Del Rio", he's "antagonizing strict commanding officer" from every piece of fiction that even slightly borrows from that trope. Lasky and every other human character basically don't contribute to the plot or Chief's character development. Within just the context of Halo 4, the Didact is an OK villain. His motivations aren't particularly interesting and basically boil down to being...xenophobic and/or crazy(?) because of the pre-firing wars; he's irrational. There's nothing really wrong with that, but in comparison to the Covenant or the Gravemind, whose motivations have at least some layers and complications, the way he's presented in Halo 4 just isn't that interesting. Its bad that it takes it material seriously if its not so serious aspects were stronger. Bathos and dumb one-liners were frankly the original's greatest strength in terms of writing, outside of just having a generally interesting universe and plot. Abandoning them would require strong dialogue and characters to take its place, and I don't think that happened. I see no reason to praise an attempt at a serious story if it wasn't a good attempt. *Cortana begins dubstep screaming* Halo 4 definitely had this, and I appreciate Halo 4 for what it is. But I think its reported depth and quality is massively overblown.
  12. The positivity towards Halo 4's story is baffling to me. Its paper-thin melodrama wrapped in a terrible artstyle with awful dialogue and terrible pacing, and is largely void of the self-awareness and levity of the original trilogy. When combined with the gameplay, I'd be quick to say that Halo 5 has a better multiplayer than Halo 4 has a campaign, which isn't something I'd claim lightly.
  13. I think you guys are overthinking Fortnite's success. Fortnite's mechanical complexity probably has little to do with its success; it derives its success from being a fulfilling and unique social experience, a story with stakes and real people. All battle royale type games strive for this experience, it just so happens that Fortnite was one of the first to reach a level of quality that spread to consoles while not also being incompetently made. Its not necessarily popular because its "great", its popular because its "good enough" to embody the experience people want to have. Skill floor is a meaningful factor in how well a BR game does, but Fortnite's runaway success as a social experience is a massive confounding variable in our judgement of how a "casual" audience responds to higher skill floors.
  14. It doesn't require too great a deal of cognitive dissonance to both remain critical of 343 and criticize others for creating content that they perceive as nonconstructive. The cold, hard reality of software development is that project scope isn't always what it initially appears to be. Requirements change. Higher-ups change their minds. This sentiment is why game companies like Valve don't communicate virtually at all with their sub-communities. Has Postums actually explicitly called someone a sweaty tryhard, or are you extrapolating from 343's past interactions with the community? Do you think there is any causality between the impolite discourse and said asinine decisions?
×

Important Information

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