Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About SpitFlame

  • Birthday 08/30/1999

Recent Profile Visitors

2,088 profile views
  1. Not at all. If the game designed levels where it’s almost impossible to get through without using the sniper, and you have to figure out how and when to use it, then that would be strategy. (Like how in chess you have to use all your pieces to play well) But you can get through CE’s campaign only ever using the AR and pistol without much difficulty. The sniper is there, but since you never have to use it then it’s inconsequential. In my opinion being given options isn’t strategy if they aren’t pertinent. I’m not saying 343 would pull this off well, but if pulled off well it’d improve the game a lot. And it’s not like Halo’s identify is married to this limit, like it is to the golden triangle. At least for the campaign I can see it working.
  2. I just wanna respond here. CE’s campaign (its level design, enemies, etc) was built with two weapons in mind, so I doubt only inserting a weapon wheel without changing anything else would work. I’m saying it should change. With a weapon wheel you’d have enemies or vehicles that are immune to rockets, or you make rocket ammo scarce so you might save it for tougher enemies in later levels instead of wasting them. You’d have to redesign the game around it. If you’ve ever played BioShock 1, none of the weapons are OP because they all have different uses, and you need to use all of them to get through the game. You do have to think, and there is tactics involved. Hardly any two encounters is the same in that game. Then they added a two weapon limit in BioShock Infinite and almost everyone hated it. Meanwhile in Halo this strategy you talk about is completely illusionary: you use the sniper because it’s fun or because it’s there to use, not because the game design makes you use it. On that note, I very much disagree with this argument that a two weapon limit adds strategy because you have to pick only two guns to carry. This is no different than the people defending sprint who say it adds strategy because you have to choose between going fast and lowering your weapon or being able to shoot, as if it were a risk/reward system. It’s still bad; you want to be able to shoot at all times. And I want to have access to all weapons at all times.
  3. Just wanna clarity I was only ever talking about the campaign.
  4. Keep in mind that the two weapon limit was implemented because of the limitations of a console controller. It was never about good design. It became a popular trend after Halo blew up and other shooters like CoD started doing it. The problem is that it affects how the game is played. Because the developers can never know which two weapons you’ll be holding, they have to design generic level and enemy encounters to always be the same, keeping in mind only the two weapons you spawn with. While in other shooters without this limit, there can be way more strategy and variety since you have access to everything. I can’t speak for multiplayer, but it would certainly improve the campaign as far as I can tell. Would it really affect the utility weapon though? The point of the utility weapon (or a good one anyway) is that it can be used in all scenarios. But if it does affect it, you could always do what BioShock 2 did and have a weapon limit in the multiplayer.
  5. As in cancelling a reload? Sure, I don’t see why not. Could be that you activate the wheel by holding down the Y button.
  6. Halo Infinite is on PC so hotkeys would work there. As for consoles, why wouldn’t a weapon wheel work? Doom is much faster paced and it had a wheel for the console version.
  7. More than 2, that’s for sure. Maybe all the UNSC ones. Dude, haven’t you ever played a shooter where you could carry many weapons? Doom, BioShock, etc. You have a weapons wheel or hotkeys. I realize the limit happened because Halo was a console exclusive, which is part of the reason why shooters are better on PC.
  8. The worst thing Halo ever did was popularize the two-weapon slot limit.
  9. Anyone who unironically thinks the Bungie games had good writing need to play Mass Effect or KOTOR. Get some standards, people. @MultiLockOn Since we’re on this topic, I’d consider the Silmarillion to be Tolkien’s true masterpiece. I’m much more a fan of darker, more serious and tragic stories. Morgoth is best villain, Feanor is a cunt, and Beren is peak manliness.
  10. I actually agree with a surprising amount of what you said. Subverting tropes for the sake of it doesn't automatically equal good writing. With that in mind I prefer LOTR a lot more over GoT. People praise GoT for being dark and violent, with constant death and incest and everything, but Children of Hurin did all of that first, and imo did it better. It's like the OG GoT. There's a lot of value to traditions and conventions. Things like the hero's journey, good vs evil plots—these are great tools to use. I'm not for deconstructing these things, but I'm not against it either. Tolkien does things conventionally, but he does it well. So long as the story is interesting, I don't care what methods or literary techniques the writer is employing. But for real tho, I'm not a fan of creative writing classes at all. They all teach you to use a minimalist writing style where any sentence longer than 2 lines is bad and every colour of every curtain must be foreshadowing or symbolism. God forbid the characters stop to relax and talk about something that isn't relevant to saving the world. It's why I like Witcher 3 so much. When famous writers break the rules it's genius, when you do it it's a failing grade. I'm just saying, most "great writers" throughout history didn't have any formal education in storytelling. Btw if you are a real LOTR fan, you should know that Morgoth was a way better villain than Sauron. Morgoth was technically two-dimensional, but he was entertaining as fuck, so it's okay. Most importantly, Morgoth got shit done. It took all of the Valar to defeat him in the weakened state iirc, and even then he was outsmarting everyone else. Sauron... well he just sat on a throne or something and got dunked on by two Hobbits. Which is a shame, because Sauron was a much better character in the Silmarillion. @Cursed Lemon raises a good point. Villains like the Flood or the orcs work because they're a collective mass of destruction and not any individual characters. Once you start giving the characters individuality then you should start making them more interesting.
  11. I was finally free from the discussion, and you dragged me back. Why?!?!? JK anyway, I’ll just say that there’s really no one single set of rules for what makes good writing, not any narrow rule set anyway. As long as the plot surprises you (I.e. isn’t stale, repetitive, etc) and the characters act in believable and interesting ways (doesn’t mean they have to have all that much character development, like Aragorn) then everything else can be changed. These were the things I was focusing on in my original post. btw to clarify something: I do think Sauron is a shit villain. I don’t care what excuses people use to convince themselves otherwise. Wild Hunt in W3 were also bad. So was the Didactic if you didn’t read the books. I don’t know why writing villains is so hard.
  12. What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know

Important Information

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