Jump to content

Cadillac

Member
  • Content Count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cadillac

  • Birthday 10/20/1986
  1. So I found the video. My description of what to look for was terrible so it's no wonder nobody knew what I was talking about. Anyway there was a tweet from HCS that said, "Today we're celebrating #15YearsOfHalo! Who do you think is greatest Halo: Combat Evolved player of all time?" I remember this video giving me the impression that Ogre 1 and Ogre 2 were clearly the best and that Ogre 1 might have had a little edge in the early days. Although I played a lot of CE back in the early days with friends and through XBC I didn't really know of the competitive scene until the end of Halo 1. I thought I was good, but wouldn't actually become any good until Halo 2. Point being that most people, including those tweeting responses, don't really know who the best player was early on. I think this video gives good insight into that question which is why I was looking for it.
  2. Although I appreciate the help and did enjoy this documentary, this unfortunately isn't it. I vaguely remember it but I feel like it really only covered the Halo CE years. Also this video has always given me a lot of nostalgia so I'll share it
  3. I'm looking for a video of the early days of competitive Halo. Kinda like a documentary. I cant remember the name of it. I believe it was first posted on the Halo Council forums a few years back. Help please
  4. This except I would probably rate H3 one or two points higher. I'm 29 and I've played every Halo game semi competitively. I wouldn't have given Halo 5 a rating yet because I've been struggling to find the time to play it. Getting old and having responsibilities sucks. Wish I would have gotten in here and posted this before Ogre came in. It would have validated my opinion. Now it just looks like I'm copying his.
  5. I'm a bit surprised that more people didn't just say "nothing." The nostalgia for CE can get out of control sometimes. It is pretty damn near perfect though. Jump delay Grav lifts and ramps in place of some ladders OS visibility when picked up Waypoint improvements of H2 (flag countdown timer, unique symbols, etc) There are more but those are some that I would prefer as well as some I didn't see mentioned frequently.
  6. I disagree with your thoughts on teamshooting. You say that "working together and teamshooting should be two different things." In Halo 2 and 3 are they not? Aside from the control that a teammate has over spawning in CE how else are the two players working together in that game that wouldn't be possible in Halo 2 or Halo 3? The occasional nading of a weapon or powerup to a teammate? Aside from that I can't think of a single example. I'm definitely not saying that the skill gap in Halo 2 or 3 is greater than that of CE just that the skill was in a different part of the game. The teamshooting required in Halo 2/3 did nothing but add to the meta of those games. They didn't force, but encouraged players to time their encounters and balance their pushes. Halo 2 and 3 also lengthened the duration of individual battles which (not accounting for other factors) will ensure the more skilled player wins more frequently. If quick kill times are better and teamshooting regular players is a negative aspect then why not just take shields out of Halo? Your answer to this question is going to be exactly what I'm describing above. So really what we're talking about is balance. Where is the sweet spot for kill times in Halo? I personally believe that Halo CE, 2, and 3 are all in an acceptable area when it comes to this. When Reach came out and introduced sprint and armor abilities these additions lengthened battles to an unacceptable level. Basically a battle required teamshooting or the opponent was going to sprint out of the bad situation he put himself in. Sometimes even when teamshooting the player would escape. What I'm saying is that clearly there is a point on both ends that isn't reasonable. A 1 shot Halo game with extremely quick kill times wouldn't be good and neither would a 10 shot Halo where it's basically impossible to kill an enemy. In Halo CE teamshooting was both possible and helpful but it was slightly less emphasized. In Halo 2 and Halo 3 teamshooting was both possible and helpful but it was more emphasized. I can only imagine how good a Halo game would be that had a utility weapon as skilled as the pistol and the static spawn timers of CE but required the timing and coordination of four players working together that Halo 2 and Halo 3 required. I think it's called Shadowrun (sorta kidding). I don't disagree with the bold but most of that is disconnected from teamshooting. What I'm saying is that there's no reason we can't have a Halo game where teamshooting is helpful and we can nade down powerups/skillful utility/static timers/good strafing. The great thing that teamshooting adds to the game is a chemistry aspect. The unpredictability and human nature adds infinite depth to the meta. It's like playing basketball, or hockey, or soccer and when the players are good together the whole thing just starts to flow. Still, no matter how good you are there are always going to communication errors.
  7. I too spent a great deal of money on an XB1 and MCC. It's still the only game I own for my XB1. There's no chance that I'll buy Halo 5 at launch. I've learned my lesson and I'll take a wait and see approach this time. Maybe I'll pick it up used sometime after launch.
  8. No, you're really reaching here. I'm saying to ask the general population of Halo players. You want to specifically ask those who have a clear bias. I know why you mentioned forgers but that wouldn't stop it from suffering from selection bias. What difference does the players knowing the maps make? From an actual quality perspective? Not much. However, from a game design standpoint it's very meaningful. It's especially meaningful when the game in question is inherently competitive. When I wrote about community agreement I was bringing up an entirely separate issue with forge. First there's the issue of playing and testing the huge number of maps. Then there's the issue of selection and sorting in a way where the good maps can be found. This will create more issues because there will no doubt be disagreement about what maps are "good." It's all fine that we now have hundreds of thousands of options but it doesn't improve the experience if nobody knows or cares to know the vast majority of these creations. If you can't see how a mass of low quality maps, with perhaps a few average maps mixed in, don't help Halo then I don't know what else to say. If forge were creating a ton of high quality maps or if aesthetics (you questioned this above also) didn't matter then our competitive settings wouldn't still be overwhelmingly dominated by developer made maps. You say that you could go into every single Halo 3 map and make "improvements" but what you fail to understand is that you're going to make what you see as improvements. Then we run into that issue of community agreement once again. Also, I'm not advocating for the complete removal of forge, just for it to be nerfed to it's original state. I think it should have the ability to change weapon spawns, player spawns, and small adjustments like adding a crate. Last, you make some statements about Reach that are just flat out wrong. Of the 11 gametypes 7 were played on developer made maps. Another 3 were forge remakes of developer made maps (The Pit and Sanc). Only 1 was an original forge creation (Nexus). If anything, this proves my point. This is in a game that launched with 8 developer made maps (8! Can you imagine Bungie justifying that without the forge crap they released?). Most would generally agree that the developer made maps were some of the worst in the series. Even in this scenario where the competitive community had fewer dev maps than ever, fewer dev maps specifically tailored for competition, mass agreement on the low quality of dev maps, and years of forging in the most robust forge to date developer maps STILL dominated the competitive settings. I don't want to dumb my argument down like that because I think it has been much more broad with many subtle, but important, points. That said I will respond to some of this. 1. Once again I don't believe custom game numbers have merit. I too have a lot of custom games. The vast majority of those games were spent loading and reloading forge. I know and agree with what you're saying about Halo having a pretty robust forge community. That said, I don't believe it matters. Forging itself is not Halo. Perhaps 343 should make a seperate game in the vein of minecraft? I don't know what to tell people who just really enjoy the act of building things in forge? I got my share of enjoyment out of it, but Halo isn't, and I don't want it to be, a game where people sit around and make things. I had some fun playing race in CE but that doesn't mean that Halo 2 needed to keep race or that it was some vital aspect to the core of the game. 2. Yes, thats precisely what I assume. Once again, I know that at the very least it justifies having fewer launch maps. I don't believe there's a chance in hell that it would have been acceptable for Halo Reach to launch with 8 maps if forge weren't included. Reviewers would have slammed the game. 10 maps in Halo 4 without forge? Barely acceptable. I agree that the vast majority of Halo 3 DLC maps were pretty bad. That said I would have gladly traded Foundry and Sandbox to see what we would have gotten instead. Just as with Reach, on the whole, developer made maps offered players of Halo 3 much more than forge did. 3. Forge maps haven't compensated for a lack of dev maps. You keep saying that you believe they can, but the reality is that they haven't. 4. I mean honestly if you feel that way then why do you still play the game? Most OG Halo players that feel like that have quit. I think Halo 2 had great maps in Midship, Lockout, and Sanctuary. Beaver Creek and Warlock were improvements on their predecessors. Although not a great design in general Elongation was also an improvement on it's predecessor. Ivory Tower was fun to play at times. While I personally don't think Halo 3 had a lot of great maps it did have a lot of good maps such as The Pit, Narrows, Construct, Citadel, and Guardian. But this is where we get back to my point on agreement. We can hardly agree on what dev maps are the best, how are we supposed to come to terms on hundreds of thousands of creations? While I also enjoyed playing Powerhouse I think that Zealot was the best Reach launch map. I also think that Haven was a good Halo 4 map.
  9. 1. Asking forgers would give you a very biased group. That's like asking baseball players if they like Mike Trout or Lionel Messi more. As for "what kind of argument is this," I understand that peoples favorite maps doesn't necessarily measure quality, but what other objective measurement could be taken? I'm not saying it's great data, but at the very least it would show maps that people enjoy. 2. Doesn't this present an inherent argument against forge? What good has it done in the past if the vast majority of players don't know the maps and don't care to know them? Doesn't that prove how little value forge has had over the years? @@Ling Ling asked, "why put yourself at the mercy of the developer?" The issue is that you're going to be at the mercy of some authority anyway. This community can't agree on whether the BR or the DMR should be the starting weapon. We can't agree on maps and game types when there are 13 developer made maps. What makes anybody think that there will be agreement when there are thousands upon thousands of options? In the past I have been just as displeased with the decisions of MLG, Ghost, Nexy (?), etc as I have with the developer. Not to mention the issues you run into with pros and map/game type selection. It becomes easier to be a pro when you have some say in the maps and you can tailor the game types to suit your skills.
  10. That's because it's not an argument I was making. You have a knack for arguing against points that nobody has brought up. I never said that we would get higher quality maps. What I said is that we have to assume that we would get more maps. Several of my reasons for believing this have already been stated. I suppose you could extrapolate and assume that I believe that more maps would equal higher quality but I don't see how that would be the case. Typically more work and less focus equals lower quality. That said, sometimes when you throw enough darts at the wall a few will pop balloons. But, since you seem so intent on getting into this, I will tell you my thoughts. Looking at the past we have had much more luck with developer made maps than we've had with forge. In fact a great deal of the "successful" forge maps have been remakes of designs that were already developer made. If we asked random Halo players what their favorite maps are we would unanimously get answers of developer made maps. This is true despite the fact that we are pitting a handful of developers against every forger ever. We are pitting less than 100 maps against hundreds of thousands (millions?) of creations. Personally I don't think that an argument for forge based on quality is a strong one. This isn't meant as an insult to forgers or to anyone in this community. I won't hesitate to say that I do believe the vast majority of maps forged are complete trash and empowering your average casual does nothing to help with the map situation in the game. That said, I do believe that given the right tools there are some people who could create high quality maps. So while I've advocated for a number of things in this thread that center around nerfing forge if that isn't the route then it needs to be a full fledge editor in the vein that hootspa is advocating. Me noting that correlation does not imply causation was just me saying that I'm aware that because these two things happen together doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other. That said, if you notice a trend you might want to take a good look at it. If you took 6 shots of vodka and vomited maybe it was the vodka? It doesn't necessarily have to be, but a prudent observer would be inclined to make that connection.
  11. Straw man of the year. Who said developer content was always valuable? I'll just quote this because I feel like I've already stated my opinion: "6. I have to assume it does. Correlation does not imply causation, but there has been a correlation between how robust forge is and the number of multiplayer maps at launch. I assume that some amount of time and resources are being spent on forge that could have been dedicated to multiplayer maps. At the very least it is used as justification for a lack of content. Also, I find it ironic that you point out that these people aren't professional map designers but you're essentially advocating for turning every average Joe into a map designer." I would add that I'm not sure about the magnitude of time and resources needed for forge. That's beyond the scope of my knowledge, but unless you have some expertise (which I assume you don't or you would have added it) I think that you are basically forced to conclude exactly what I conclude above. Relative to previous titles Reach did not have the same longevity. Especially when you consider the install base of the Xbox and the number of copies and potential customers. Weird how nobody will argue this when they're arguing against sprint but now it's changed.
  12. Whats that? Deez nuts! lol sorry, couldn't help myself. I feel like I should know the answer, but I don't. I understand it was a different time. Very little competition as far as online shooters. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but I honestly don't think we can attribute the lifespan of Halo 3 to forge.
  13. Do you remember when Halo 2 launched? It took like 5 melees to kill someone. The BR was a complete disaster. People played 3 years of MM spawning on maps like Relic with an SMG. But you think that lack of competition and boring montages are what kills a game?
×

Important Information

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