Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,548 profile views
  1. 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)
  2. This shit is so cursed. I can't believe this was ever in the game.
  3. >"I think they're afraid to innovate it" oh man
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. Holy shit dude. I cannot believe the fucking balls on this guy.
  8. 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!
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. "Our goals right now are making the game actually play, and feel like Halo before we dive into extra things." "We're actively aware of what feedback our internal builds lack and are working towards those. It's not something we've skipped on... Shields require fx and we've been short on any fx artists for a long time. I believe for a long time we tried seeking out for such an artist in the updates, but little avail." "At the moment we're in a pre-alpha state, so doing a roadmap wouldn't be advantageous to show the actual progress we're making with it. Putting a roadmap out right now would include simple things like "Tweaking bullet magnetism" or "Implementing vehicle physics" then again in two months they would reappear until we've got them to a point where the game feels like Halo to us. Then when we've got it there we put it out to all of you to test, break, and tell us what we did wrong until we nail that core gameplay loop that is required to make a Halo game."
  12. I always thought Reach had by far the best shield effects. Admittedly is made better by the fact that the weapons you use the most (DMR/Magnum/Needle Rifle) are single shot, but even when using the AR, you get the perfect amount of visual representation of how much damage you've done. The shield would grow, expanding to be further off the player, and pop like a balloon. This is how it's done in 4 and 5 as well but it's very exaggerated in Reach, the shields expand farther off the player and the pop is extremely obvious and satisfying. Furthermore, the effect stands out a lot against the rest of the game's graphics, which are not full of similar lighting effects blowing everything the fuck out.
  13. I'm kind of worried it will be an unsatisfying Halo 3 clone and then the brainlets in the Halo community will act all smug about our dissatisfaction with it.
  14. It's quite a leap to say people prefer competitive Halo 3 to 5 just because of nostalgia. I played a lot of Halo 3 when I was younger and it was the hot game, and I was aware of the big MLG scene, but I did not follow it at all. So I don't have any nostalgic attachment to "the glory days" whatsoever. That said, I had way more fun watching UGC than any Halo 5 tournament. I have almost zero investment in any players or storylines so if that makes Halo 5 more enjoyable to watch then I can't comment on it, but from a pure moment to moment gameplay standpoint, they're not even comparable
  15. I hang out in their discord sometimes. They are working hard on it (for free and in their spare time), but they're very very particular about what they show and when. They don't want to show something that is really rough for people to turn around and complain about how rough it is... so we end up waiting around. Silly as it is though, I still have more faith in these millennial memers than 343.

Important Information

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