Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by arglactable

  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.
  13. Ok. Random spread projectile pea shooter Halo 3 is not an improvement over Halo 5 for HCS and H2A with a couple of decent forge maps would have been a vastly superior option for "Classic Halo" competitions.
  14. Thanks for verifying that she didn't say that and you made it up. Carry on with your well-adjusted adult tantrum about console FPS games.
  15. I don't see a direct quote there. Is that because you pulled that straw man out of your ass?
  16. Or you could not pollute the ranked playlist selection with idiotic garbage like SWAT and Snipers and instead promote an improved version of the customs browser that arrived in Halo 5 far too late to matter. Bring back the XP for playing customs like in Reach. Maybe even provide a bonus for playing/hosting public lobbies. You don't need a playlist for everything.
  17. H5 AR literally melts. Lmao. Did you play that game?
  18. It sure was fascinating to see how many different and useless ways people could rephrase exactly the same reductive principles without ever introducing new information. I'm sure we could have gone in circles for weeks.
  19. It's incredible that after the incredibly specific and exhaustive arguments made about EXACTLY this, you still think you can say that incredibly reductive summations of complex design choices are "objectively" more competitive/skillful. Part of the problem is that no one has bothered to define what exactly they believe "competitive" means. Yet another huge assumption that is treated as a given. So, let me provide a simple working definition: Immediately, we already have a problem. The better player absolutely will not win 100% of the time in any game, so we have to settle for "most of the time." And beyond that how do you define a better player? How do you quantify or measure that? Different players have different subjective strengths. Different strengths will provide more or less of an advantage in different scenarios. Different strengths will be affected more or less by tuning various aspects of the game. Absurd mechanical skill won't help you if you're facing the wrong direction. Smart positioning and situational awareness won't mean much if you miss your shots. Skill is not a single, simple variable that can be controlled for. We've already covered the draw backs of projectile models and the fact that people seem to only think of lead in terms of a target moving in a straight line at a constant speed. I'm not going to break down the problem with consistently tracking pseudo-random movement with projectile travel. You can watch plenty of clips of high level PC players waving their cross hair back and forth in the middle of an enemy strafe instead of actually tracking their target. There are no big brain lead adjustments involved. In Quake, the plasma gun is not more mechanically demanding than the lightning gun. That is a fact. "Less auto-aim" is not a clear cut issue either. Or rather "aim assist," which covers a number of different systems used in console games. If we were talking about a binary (on or off), this would be more clear cut. With PC controls, that is a clear cut issue. No aim assist is obviously more competitive. Even that is simplistic because aiming difficulty in general is a multivariate problem. But aim assist in console games is a RANGE of values in turn affected by non-assist tuning values (player and weapon properties chief among them). No aim assist is not viable with console controls. Pure aim-lock is not desirable for obvious reasons. But determining the ideal middle ground for a given game is an exceedingly complex problem and there is absolutely no way to objectively measure the success or failure of a given aim assist tuning. Part of the reason is that it is effectively impossible to clearly define what that means. There is tangential data that can be measured empirically. There is also plenty of qualitative information that can be used to inform that decision. But there are no metrics that correlate exactly to anything resembling "optimal competitive viability." I think part of the fundamental misunderstanding here is that difficulty is relative. Creating a compelling challenge isn't just about making it as hard as possible. You can't just say "I want players to fail at this X% of the time" and call it balanced. It's a subjective design goal for every game, because there is no way to quantify difficulty in any consistent way, even assuming all players are the same (and they aren't). That's why platformers will still let players jump a certain distance beyond an edge. That's why enemy AI has to strike a balance between being smart and SEEMING fair. That's why aim assist is used for input devices that suck for shooters. These are all things that ease the challenge for players to make the game more satisfying for the target audience. These sorts of concessions exist in all kinds of "hard" games. Making something more difficult doesn't inherently make it more competitive. Silly extremes like aiming with the face buttons or playing a game without vital visual information demonstrate this point pretty clearly. If you make it so hard or ambiguous that everyone is struggling to perform basic actions consistently, it's not going to be a compelling competitive game. This is why I have brought up consistency more than once and why abstruse, unintuitive bullshit like "bullet sway" is an awful, awful idea for a competitive game. Making a game technically "harder" in a way that even the best players will not meaningfully account for is in no way an objective improvement to the skill ceiling. You could make a game so impossibly difficult that it might as well be random, but would that be a very competitive game? No. So the issue becomes how difficult do you want the game to be? And in what ways? For what kind of audience? That is not an objective line of reasoning.
  20. This is correct, yes, but it doesn't really have any impact at all on the argument I was making. I suspect you knew exactly what I intended. "Good design" can't be expressed as a mathematical proof OR as a repeatable, falsifiable theory. At best, you can establish vague principles, but those are still intrinsically dependent on culture, experience, and personal preference.

Important Information

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