Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Recent Profile Visitors

1,204 profile views
  1. H2's movement speed was crisp and responsive—arguably the best pure strafe mechanics in the series (though there's room to claim that, absent input delay, CE's was better). The fact that "it wasn't hard to hit someone at all" is a function of the BR and the obscene amount of bullet magnetism. Even with that bullet magnetism, H2's strafe is far better than H3's. I'm mainly targeting your claim that strafing can't be "good" unless there's zero movement inertia. I'd agree that the game's mechanics should get as close to that mark as possible, but it's a bit ridiculous to claim thats the only way Halo's strafe can be "good".
  2. Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but @_Synapse seems to be arguing that the focus shouldn't be what the community wants, i.e., the "majority"; that the "majority" does not understand how the game functions. He's castigating reliance on argumentum ad populum. Him then suggesting that Halo should take more influence from CE is not hypocritical to that stance, as he does not invoke "popular sentiment" in his argument. He never argues "people need to stop bringing up what way halo should be," as you put it. That's a complete straw man of his argument.
  3. This is a bit tangental to your point, but I actually think building community infrastructure to lobby more persuasively for changes is something that could be extremely beneficial. Well-worded, well-reasoned, and well-organized/coordinated petitions, video content, etc. are sure to be more effective than our current mishmash of crude YouTube rants and forum complaints. The problem is that building this infrastructure would take a lot of time and effort, and there's no real point in putting in that time and effort if the game is ass to begin with. You need a robust and populous community to make those efforts pay off. Halo does not have a robust and populous community at the moment; we need a good game to draw people in. So, if the game has serious issues off the bat, we'll never have the community population to make those investments worthwhile. I, for one, would love to start making content, draft more formal-ish petitions, etc., but if the game has sprint and Spartan Abilities again, I'm probably not even going to buy/play it, much less spend my limited free time putting those things together.
  4. Can't speak directly to your experiences, but I think there is hardly anything unique about toxicity within the Halo community. It might be more apparent, given that there are only like ten people still playing this game. When the community is that small, the issues are more noticeable; its a self-selection thing. But I'd hardly describe it as a "culture" of bullying and toxicity, especially when you look at gaming as a whole.
  5. You're right. I should clarify that I don't think BTB's purpose should be a testing ground for 4v4. I only meant to suggest that 343 should take advantage of the freedom that BTB provides to explore creative ideas, and if some appear to work, they can consider them for the 4v4 setting.
  6. I mean this is a fair criticism. BTB certainly does take some advantage of the expanded options the Halo universe offers, but there is room for more. Off the top of my head, destructive environments/dynamic map elements would play far better in a BTB setting. "Trait zones" like quick sand or ice would play far better in a BTB setting. I think there's room for more Invasion-inspired gametypes—imagine CTF, but you have Assault-like bombs available to arm and blast holes in certain areas of the map to open up new vehicle routes. If we want to talk more discrete things, like weapons and sandbox items, I've always thought a movable/rotatable man cannon—not just a grav lift from H3, but an actual man cannon—could be an interesting addition. In general, I think BTB should be the area where 343/the developer experiments the most with what the Halo universe provides. Gameplay in BTB is less static and less defined, so there's less risk in "ruining" the experience. It allows them to test ideas and if they seem to work, then maybe they can consider bringing them into 4v4.
  7. You shouldn't cater movement mechanics around BTB, as the BTB universe provides alternative methods for traversing the map and condensing the gameplay. Vehicles let you move faster. Man canons can launch you to specific places. Teleporters, well, teleport you. Specific weapons help you battle other players from longer distances. The point of BTB is to take advantage of these external features, not to simply provide a bigger 4v4 experience. I'm not saying Doom-level speeds can't work in Halo (mostly because I haven't played Doom), but if your reasoning for adopting such speeds over H2's speed and strafe—which, I think it's fairly safe to say, are almost universally accepted in the Halo community as the best in the franchise—is that it improves the BTB experience, you're starting from the wrong place. A game's core mechanics should be balanced around its premier experience, and in Halo that's 4v4.
  8. This is why I just never bothered getting good at the game. Don't need to smurf if I'm just ass in general.
  9. It has been 15 years and I still don't understand Gemini.
  10. Ehh, I think there's value in limiting the number of weapons you can hold at a given time in a team-based shooter. You're forced to spread the weapons around, rather than stack one player with all of them. I know that's the meta strategy to being with, but I can picture solo queuing becoming a nightmare if players can just stack every weapon on their person. It's already tough to stop xx L33T_Sn1p3s 69 xx from running the T2 combo. I'd rather not let him also take the shotgun, railgun, and sword. Plus, it's not like every PC shooter runs with an unlimited weapon wheel. CS limits you to two weapons, for example. I get that it's a different context than an arena shooter like Quake, but claiming the limitations of controllers is the only reason we have two weapons today isn't totally accurate. Edit: I'll add that in the campaign context, there's value in introducing a probability calculation: is it worth carrying this weapon or this one? You force the player to evaluate, based on the situation, what weapon combination is going to be more valuable as you progress through the level. This is more of a subjective preference, so I can see why one might prefer a weapon wheel in the campaign. But to me, I think having to make that decision adds a bit more depth to the gameplay/makes it more interesting.
  11. I don't care whether it's a BR, a Pistol, or some other semi-automatic rifle: all I want is a utility weapon that doesn't sound like a carnival BB gun.

Important Information

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