Jump to content

ARUKET

Member
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,623 profile views
  1. People like Reach because of everything other than its core gameplay, oddly enough. People like the campaign, firefight, the art direction, the customization, the social features, Forge World & custom games, and all the fun there was to be had with those things. This is part of why Halo 3 is so venerated as well, though 3 had better core gameplay and a far more active competitive scene than Reach, which made it more well rounded. Even by today's standards, Reach is an extremely robust and complete shooter. Really, what other shooter has as much content and replayability (all tied together flawlessly by the snappy and intuitive UI, no less)? Since 343 took over, not only have the gameplay decisions been extremely controversial, but many auxiliary features have been removed or gutted. I think even Halo 4, being as bad as it was, would have still held a community for longer if the forge wasn't so bad and all the custom variants & options from Reach were present. Hell, I remember spending hours hunting down and downloading a ton of forge maps and custom games for Halo 5 to try and relive those Reach-esque glory days of minigame lobbies with the boys... only to find out 343 had completely broken forge in an update and all content creators would have to save and re-upload their maps & variants after the next patch. I was so demoralized by this that I never even tried again. Reach was THE definitive template for a Halo game and this is the primary reason why it is so fondly remembered despite the extremely controversial gameplay decisions. For Halo to return to form, it doesn't only need to have a well-executed classic gameplay formula, it needs to be at least as feature complete as Reach was, and all of these things need to work better than they ever have before. On top of that, they probably have to include most of the extra things that have been put in since then such as Warzone and spectator mode, AND whatever new stuff they have cooking up.
  2. xbox u just posted cringe bro !!!
  3. Titanfall 1's core gameplay was much better than 2's, but 2 is still a great game. They made a lot of weird dumb changes just for the sake of it. You could attribute the lack of longevity of the game (though this is a little overblown - you can still find matches on Xbox no problem) to many things but I don't think the core gameplay is one of them.
  4. Yes please. This idea of an open world Halo sounds like a nightmare. Halo is a very simple game and there is mechanically not enough going on to support an open world format without totally rehauling everything into some kind of Far Cry experience with a Halo skin. What you are suggesting fits into Halo's style of gameplay far, far better. A larger level with drastically different paths and setpieces depending on your route, more varied mission objectives, and secrets beyond just terminals would be so cool. Having missions with a ton of ways to complete them and different things to see actually makes sense with Halo's DNA, not fucking RPG elements. (Really?)
  5. It seems like the common ground on both sides of the debate is that lead only really makes sense at long distances because it's unintuitive and arguably random at close/medium ranges where most engagements take place. So why not use a system like the new Insurgency does? I haven't played it but I watched a video about it a while back, so anyone who is more familiar with the game, feel free to correct me on this. The way it works, as I recall, is that at most ranges, the game uses hitscan, but after a certain distance, you have to lead. This is indicated to the player by applying a slight blur effect to enemies who are out of hitscan range. The same effect could be achieved in Halo with the red reticle. In my opinion it's the best of both worlds, especially in a PC context where pure hitscan without recoil or spread is just going to make large maps extremely oppressive to play on (think Halo 4 Valhalla)
  6. This shit is so cursed. I can't believe this was ever in the game.
  7. >"I think they're afraid to innovate it" oh man
  8. I don't wanna die on this hill because I really don't care for Epitaph in particular but I just think it's interesting when developers will make a map that encourages/forces a style of gameplay that is different than what is offered on another map. I wouldn't want every single map to play similarly to Sanctuary or Midship just because those are the most well suited type of maps for Halo. Even if it's a swing and a miss, I prefer that they at least take a swing. At worst, you don't have to play on it, but in this instance those who do like being forced into chaos with melees and stickies have a map to play on. It's not the same as thruster because a base trait is going to be with you everywhere.
  9. Do you think that necessarily makes it a bad map? I think it's interesting that by design it forces you to play differently than most other maps, even if that style of gameplay is not to your liking.
  10. Everyone is talking shit about Epitaph because of the shield doors which I of course agree with, but what did you guys think of the version without shield doors? Epilogue I think it was called. I wanted to love the map because it's so aesthetically pleasing but it still feels rather awkward to play on. Felt it was an ok enough FFA map, don't think I ever played it in any other context
  11. Holy shit dude. I cannot believe the fucking balls on this guy.
  12. Oh man. I've been dreading this exact tweet for a very long time. Part of reddit/waypoint's way of "compromising" with 343 despite a lot of them actually disliking the company as much as we do is spreading this forced meme: Halo 4's campaign is really good, but the multiplayer was bad, and Halo 5 campaign was bad, but the multiplayer was really good! Now I don't know who thought it was to boil down complex problems and in depth criticisms of the campaign and multiplayer of both games to "4 gud story bad MP nd 5 gud MP bad story" but it's evident that enough people have said it enough times that it looks like we might get another tonally bizarre Halo 4 melodrama campaign and Halo 5: 2 for the multiplayer. Does this actually address any grievances anyone has had with Halo over the past 10 years? Not really, but let's just keep saying it guys, Halo 4 MP bad Campaign good, Halo 5 MP good Campaign bad! Halo 4 MP bad Campaign good, Halo 5 MP good Campaign bad!
  13. The problems with sprint in arena maps are still present and possibly exacerbated in BTB. The maps are huge and engagement distances are all fucked up. I honestly think people only remember 4's BTB as fondly as they do because it was good relative to the disaster of the traditional 4v4 experience. Compared to Halo 3's BTB it wasn't anything special and the armor abilities & spawning with stickies made it way too chaotic. I also didn't like how the DMR being so effective cross-map made Valhalla from a favorite BTB map into a base vs. base DMR war with a large death zone in the middle. Halo 5's BTB is just a nightmare from top to bottom and as such it is basically not even a feature of the game in my mind
  14. 2 holds up perfectly fine. Sure the presentation is very dated but if you were to update the multiplayer to have the graphics, animations, visual feedback, etc. of something like Reach, but with the exact same gameplay, there'd be nothing dated about it. Same with CE honestly. It's not the gameplay of these titles that puts people off.
×

Important Information

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