Jump to content

arglactable

Member
  • Content Count

    1,994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Recent Profile Visitors

9,434 profile views
  1. Flinch: BAD Hit stun: GOOD I understand.
  2. What truly makes this forum special is the constant projection and complete lack of self-awareness.
  3. Well, yes, but that could perhaps be described more accurately as 15 years of pretending 4v4 Slayer is a worthwhile competitive game type.
  4. You think a game-type that literally forces players to throw themselves at a bunch of overpowered items is more dynamic than a gametype where their positioning is NOT dictated by a bunch of timers all but forcing them to certain areas of the map at certain times? More structured? Arguably. More dynamic? No. Where Halo players got the idea that no one would move without some nuke to pick up on the map, I will never know.
  5. OK, everyone. Back to pure, insufferable passive aggression or else the moderation team will no doubt be FORCED to delete a bunch of random posts and hand out a ban to someone they disagree with.
  6. How incredibly profound. Now just imagine how many perfect kills people could get with no movement at all. Really makes you think.
  7. lol. No. My point is that popularity has absolutely no useful correlation to quality. The Lord of the Rings is the seminal work of 20th century fantasy. It is a meticulously crafted modern (Catholic) mythology that has influenced countless works in multiple mediums. It made a compelling argument for genre fiction as legitimate literature instead of disposable entertainment. Harry Potter is a series of children's fantasy books that transitioned into young adult/teen fantasy part way through. It has been and continues to be a great gateway for young readers (especially the earlier books). It introduced them to a variety of mythology, values, and coming of age themes. For some reason, adults talk about it like it is comparable to more substantial, complex books that were not written for kids.
  8. I care roughly as much about the opinions of those millions as I care about the opinion of your average Lady Gaga fan regarding the work of Bach, which is to say... Not at all.
  9. There are very few open world games like The Witcher 3. In fact, only one comes to mind: The Witcher 3. Most open world games are not that. Open world games are generally much more interesting in theory than they are in practice. To date, I can think of very few that actually manage to create consistently interesting content to match the scale of the map. What happens instead is that simplistic, modular mission formats are copy-pasted dozens of times with different dialogue and different waypoints. There is a distinct feeling in many of these games that the map was designed first and the content super-imposed on top of it. I think this tends to be far less memorable and by the time you've finished an open world game that takes a minimum of 30 hours to complete, there is little motivation to go back through the same forgettable missions again. Open world games also tend to have an issue with direction and pacing, because they are designed in such a way as to mostly allow the player to do whatever they want whenever they want. This also negatively impacts their capacity for meaningful choice, because there are few consequences or trade-offs most of the time. You end up with awful mechanics like the level scaling in Elder Scrolls and Bethesda Fallout, which largely ruin any sense of difficulty balance or progression to create a world that revolves around the player's whims. Self-contained levels allow for much more focused and finely tuned synergy of game systems and spaces. I hesitate to use the world "linear" in this case, because most open world content is fundamentally linear in structure. Good "linear" levels can account for multiple approaches and play-styles. The can force meaningful choices. They can offer multiple distinct paths. They can be interconnected in different ways. Approaching objectives in a different order can be a meaningful decision in a way that it generally is not in a wide open map. I think the best case scenario for open world games is a systems/simulation-driven sandbox approach, but even that can largely be accomplished best by open ended level design on a more manageable scale (e.g. immersive sim games like Prey 2017). All open world tends to bring to the table is a lot of empty space and mandatory travel time (padding), which I think is largely acknowledged in open world game design, given the prevalence of fast travel. I don't consider the ability to fill that space with more bland content to be much of an advantage either. I would be much more likely to replay the Resident Evil 2 remake than any of the Assassin's Creed games.
  10. I definitely think MCC is important if they want to establish Halo as a relevant brand on PC. I just don't think it's going to have that much longevity as a multiplayer game, regardless of how competent the port is.
  11. The endless, tedious grind for loot is not interesting gameplay. It is ADDICTIVE gameplay. RPG mechanics in modern AAA games have been stripped down to a cheap, psychologically manipulative gimmick to manufacture engagement and addiction. I would much rather have interesting, complex sandbox levels that leverage the game's mechanics to their fullest than a paper thin excuse to replay the same corridor 100 times because I want a weapon to drop with marginally better stats.
  12. "343 shenanigans" have little to do with it. Anyone who thinks that MCC was ever going to have a huge population on PC long term is kidding themselves. Even if they released a perfect, feature complete port day one, that would not be the case. Tons of people will buy it. Most will probably play the campaigns. A smaller percentage will spend some time in multiplayer. A couple of weeks at most after launch, the population will level out at something modest as people go back to newer games with regular content and balance updates. If anything, releasing it piecemeal might be better for the population long term, because people will come back for the next campaign and the multiplayer population will surge back up for a while. The progression system they said they're working on could stabilize things as well. The best chance for a large, stable Halo population on PC is Halo: Infinite.
×

Important Information

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