Jump to content
valaea

Rank All Halo Multiplayer Experiences on 1-10 Scale

Recommended Posts

H1 MCC (Never Played OG) - 8/10 Solid gameplay thats very determined on skill, enjoyable

H2 MCC (Never Played OG) - 8/10 Great with BR Starts

H3 - 8.5 - Played after reach came out, fun game and ranking system was good

HR - 8 - Funnest Halo in my opinion, community was great and good amount of playlists and content, invasion, firefight, Armor Lock and Bloom were annoying

HR TU - 9/10 TU and No bloom are great, 343 were idiots though for not implementing TU bloom in all the playlists though

H4 - 5/10 - Had a little bit of fun but a horrible halo game 

H5 Beta 8/10 - I could aim and ranking system was good

H5 4/10 - Cant aim, shitty playlists and microtransactions and no split screen

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

And positioning and teamwork is required in Halo 1 as well.

Correct. And since teamwork/positioning is not limited by individual's inability to distinguish themselves in CE, the game has a greater number of viable strategies relative to post-CE halo games which have those kinds of limitations.

 

Running a strategy which does not require your LOS to align with your teammate's for the teamshot is not the same thing as running out in the open.

Share this post


Link to post

Correct. And since teamwork/positioning is not limited by individual's inability to distinguish themselves in CE, the game has a greater number of viable strategies relative to post-CE halo games which have those kinds of limitations.

 

Running a strategy which does not require your LOS to align with your teammate's for the teamshot is not the same thing as running out in the open.

 

Some could argue it is a skill to move around the map while maintaining lines of sight for team support especially in objective gametypes.

 

By your logic couldn't sprint be a viable depth element because a player can move around the map faster which creates more scenarios and requires better map awareness?

Share this post


Link to post

Some could argue it is a skill to move around the map while maintaining lines of sight for team support especially in objective gametypes.

 

Sure. The discussion isn't whether or not that type of positioning takes skill, but rather whether or not forcing that type of positioning under all circumstances yields more objective depth/competitive merit than an alternative in which that type positioning is not forced under all circumstances. This is false and can be proven by measuring objective quantitative variables coded into the game.

 

Sprint limits individual's ability to distinguish themselves. So, no, you can not make a logical argument that it benefits the game's objective depth/competitive merit because you can traverse the map faster.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how coding in the game can measure whether that limitation makes the game lack competitive depth. What coding, exactly?

 

Is CE lacking in depth because players are forced to stay near spawn points that give their teammate a better spawn? In some cases forced to run in the open and die? How is that not limiting individuals but teamshot does?

 

I don't see how you can objectively state that sprint limits an individual either. They can get around the map faster or they can choose to go slower. The nature of how sprint affects the game is more nuanced and subjective.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Cursed LemondanVery interesting to think about how even starts could limit the depth of a game instead of further it. Id I'd think if a game were designed properly, even starts would be the epitome of endless depth, given that it's essentially a blank canvas to draw on at the start of every game.

 

I suppose that would come down to maps being well designed enough that there aren't end all strategies, and that different power weapons are balanced enough that it's more about a preference in play style rather than going for the strongest weapon (ie choosing between a shotgun or sniper). And most importantly a game that allows players to engage how they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how coding in the game can measure whether that limitation makes the game lack competitive depth. What coding, exactly?

 

As I've stated previously, the coding of numbers used for things like damage output, the distance your crosshairs can be off target while still landing bullets, melee lunge distance, etc... Coding in these quantifiable and measureable numbers into h2 limits an individual's ability to distinguish themselves, which reduces the amount of viable strategies relative to CE, thus decreasing the amount if objective depth/competitive merit in the game. This is all quantifiable, measurable, and objective.

 

The ability to manipulate team spawns in CE is nothing at all like forcing teamshooting in h2. If you aren't always teamshooting in h2, the meta punisheses you. In CE, the meta doesn't always force you to spawn your teammates in a certain position. The spawn points are littered throughout CE's maps, so you aren't forced to be in the same location every time you want to spawn your teammate somewhere, unlike in h2 where you always must run a pink tower setup on midship or a BR tower setup on lockout. This is all objective fact backed up quantifiabily. Removing team spawn manipulation from halo 2 is one way in which the game lost some objective depth/competitive merit.

 

Sprint is, objectivley speaking, a tool used to level the playing field, thus reducing the amount an individual can distinguish themselves and, hopefully you know by now how that affects the objective number of viable strategies in the game. Allowing players to escape battle quickly reduces the amount players can punish eachother. This is quantifiable, measurable, and objective.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

As I've stated previously, the coding of numbers used for things like damage output, the distance your crosshairs can be off target while still landing bullets, melee lunge distance, etc... Coding in these quantifiable and measureable numbers into h2 limits an individual's ability to distinguish themselves, which reduces the amount of viable strategies relative to CE, thus decreasing the amount if objective depth/competitive merit in the game. This is all quantifiable, measurable, and objective.

 

The ability to manipulate team spawns in CE is nothing at all like forcing teamshooting in h2. If you aren't always teamshooting in h2, the meta punisheses you. In CE, the meta doesn't always force you to spawn your teammates in a certain position. The spawn points are littered throughout CE's maps, so you aren't forced to be in the same location every time you want to spawn your teammate somewhere, unlike in h2 where you always must run a pink tower setup on midship or a BR tower setup on lockout. This is all objective fact backed up quantifiabily. Removing team spawn manipulation from halo 2 is one way in which the game lost some objective depth/competitive merit.

 

Sprint is, objectivley speaking, a tool used to level the playing field, thus reducing the amount an individual can distinguish themselves and, hopefully you know by now how that affects the objective number of viable strategies in the game. Allowing players to escape battle quickly reduces the amount players can punish eachother. This is quantifiable, measurable, and objective.

One could argue sprint being used to escape punishment is just another tool you need to get used to using as something that helps distinguish yourself as an individual. It makes the game more open.

 

The map problems you described are not necessarily problems with the game mechanics. If you built maps that limited camping and locked down sightlines. And again this is a problem with 4v4 gameplay but not 2v2. Go watch the chill out match from way back between stk and zyos's team where they were stalemated for a long time.

 

You keep saying it is objectively provable without providing the mathematical proof. That's what I want to see.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Cursed Lemon Very interesting to think about how even starts could limit the depth of a game instead of further it. Id I'd think if a game were designed properly, even starts would be the epitome of endless depth, given that it's essentially a blank canvas to draw on at the start of every game.

 

I suppose that would come down to maps being well designed enough that there aren't end all strategies, and that different power weapons are balanced enough that it's more about a preference in play style rather than going for the strongest weapon (ie choosing between a shotgun or sniper). And most importantly a game that allows players to engage how they see fit.

 

According to my personal definition of "depth", even starts will never bolster it, because depth involves layers of counters and style preferences. This is why games like MOBAs or fighting games will always have more depth than shooters, because they have a very wide variety of gameplay options that still work around a core concept. Now that doesn't mean that they're more skillful...because that's a different concept entirely. 

 

The thing that creates depth in shooters is gametypes, if anything. That's why we need multiple competitive game modes to keep the game interesting on the tournament circuit, and yet another reason 343 are dumb-butts for shipping the game with jack shit for gametypes. 

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

According to my personal definition of "depth", even starts will never bolster it, because depth involves layers of counters and style preferences. This is why games like MOBAs or fighting games will always have more depth than shooters, because they have a very wide variety of gameplay options that still work around a core concept. Now that doesn't mean that they're more skillful...because that's a different concept entirely.

 

The thing that creates depth in shooters is gametypes, if anything. That's why we need multiple competitive game modes to keep the game interesting on the tournament circuit, and yet another reason 343 are dumb-butts for shipping the game with jack shit for gametypes.

I would say the biggest problem in CE is all anyone plays is 2v2 slayer. There's only a few maps that work for 4v4 objectives like derelict koth and hang em High ctf.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would say the biggest problem in CE is all anyone plays is 2v2 slayer. There's only a few maps that work for 4v4 objectives like derelict koth and hang em High ctf.

 

The biggest problem with CE is its accessibility. Once you get people to play 2v2 slayer, they understand why it's got so much replay value. That's not to say that some maps specifically-tailored for 4v4 wouldn't be more than welcome.

Share this post


Link to post

I would say the biggest problem in CE is all anyone plays is 2v2 slayer. There's only a few maps that work for 4v4 objectives like derelict koth and hang em High ctf.

 

This is mostly because a lot of the objective gametypes in CE are kind of broken. 

 

If you seamlessly moved all the objective characteristics from H2 into H1, it would be beautiful. 

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

This is mostly because a lot of the objective gametypes in CE are kind of broken. 

 

If you seamlessly moved all the objective characteristics from H2 into H1, it would be beautiful. 

 

You've mentioned this before I believe. Is there anything comes to mind besides auto-flag-pickup and the fact that players can drive with the flag? Theoretically both these problems can be addressed on the PC version via server scripts.

Share this post


Link to post

Oddball physics, multitude of minor quality-of-life things (oddball respawn timer, flag gone indicators etc).

Share this post


Link to post

Player spawns and map sizes/layouts don't lend themselves well to it either. If the right custom maps were built with better spawning it could work.

Share this post


Link to post

Player spawns and map sizes/layouts don't lend themselves well to it either. If the right custom maps were built with better spawning it could work.

 

Exactly. Any map design-related issues can be fixed. And I'm not sure I'd put Oddball physics down as a main reason that objective gametypes aren't played. It's more of a minor gripe. The biggest issues I think are the player spawning system and the maps.

Share this post


Link to post

 

You keep saying it is objectively provable without providing the mathematical proof. That's what I want to see.

 

Please see the following video: 

 

 

This video shows objective differences in several of the game mechanics in H1 and H2 that I have been speaking about- melee lunge distance, the distance your corsshairs could be off target while still landing bullets, etc...

 

It does not dive too deep into the differences between damage output values between the games, but it has been well documented that H2's utility weapon takes twice as long to kill players as CE's, grenades are much less effective and have instant fuse times, etc... 

 

These differences are the result of quantifiable and measurable numbers (mathematical numbers) being coded into the game for these specific mechanics. We can objectively conclude that by analyzing these quantitative measurements that players are unable to distinguish themselves by as great of a degree as they can in CE.

 

For example, you aren't able to distinguish yourself as the more skilled melee player if if you have melee lunge (evens the playing field, makes meleeing easier for everyone) as opposed to a game in which there is no melee lunge. You can't distinguish yourself as the better shot when your bullets still land while off target (again, evens the playing field and makes landing bullets easier for everyone) as opposed to a game in which this is less apparent. You can't distinguish yourself as the better grenade thrower when fuse times are instant (again, evens the playing field and makes inflicting grenade damage easier for everyone) as opposed to a game where your grenade doesn't instantly detonate. 

 

All we need to do from here is apply logic- If you are unable to distinguish yourself from other players as an individual, it is never a viable to fight more than one opponent on your own. Never. 

 

Since it is never viable to take on more than one opponent on your own, it is only viable to position yourself such that your LOS align with your teammates- that way, you are always in a position to have more than one gun pointing at an opponent. Anything else is simply not viable. 

 

Because it is only ever viable to run a strategy in which your LOS aligns with your teammates, the number of viable strategies that can be executed is reduced as a result of this limitation when compared to a model in which this limitation does not exist (HCE). 

 

Because there are, objectively and logically speaking, a smaller number of viable strategies that can be executed under the "player distinguishment limitation" model (H2), the model which does not have this limitation (HCE) offers a greater amount of objective depth. 

 

And again this is a problem with 4v4 gameplay but not 2v2

 

 

I've just proven above, again, that the number of players in a game have nothing to do with the amount of viable strategies that can be executed in game. It has everything to do with a player's ability to distinguish themselves. 

 

One could argue sprint being used to escape punishment is just another tool you need to get used to using as something that helps distinguish yourself as an individual. It makes the game more open.

 

No, sprint limits a player's ability to distinguish themselves as the more skilled player when it comes to staying alive/escaping.

 

Much like how melee lunge reduces the amount a player can distinguish themselves as more skilled when it comes to meleeing (evens the playing field, makes meleeing easier for everyone), sprint also evens the playing field and makes escaping easier for everyone. 

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

Please see the following video: 

 

 

This video shows objective differences in several of the game mechanics in H1 and H2 that I have been speaking about- melee lunge distance, the distance your corsshairs could be off target while still landing bullets, etc...

 

It does not dive too deep into the differences between damage output values between the games, but it has been well documented that H2's utility weapon takes twice as long to kill players as CE's, grenades are much less effective and have instant fuse times, etc... 

 

These differences are the result of quantifiable and measurable numbers (mathematical numbers) being coded into the game for these specific mechanics. We can objectively conclude that by analyzing these quantitative measurements that players are unable to distinguish themselves by as great of a degree as they can in CE.

 

For example, you aren't able to distinguish yourself as the more skilled melee player if if you have melee lunge (evens the playing field, makes meleeing easier for everyone) as opposed to a game in which there is no melee lunge. You can't distinguish yourself as the better shot when your bullets still land while off target (again, evens the playing field and makes landing bullets easier for everyone) as opposed to a game in which this is less apparent. You can't distinguish yourself as the better grenade thrower when fuse times are instant (again, evens the playing field and makes inflicting grenade damage easier for everyone) as opposed to a game where your grenade doesn't instantly detonate. 

 

All we need to do from here is apply logic- If you are unable to distinguish yourself from other players as an individual, it is never a viable to fight more than one opponent on your own. Never. 

 

Since it is never viable to take on more than one opponent on your own, it is only viable to position yourself such that your LOS align with your teammates- that way, you are always in a position to have more than one gun pointing at an opponent. Anything else is simply not viable. 

 

Because it is only ever viable to run a strategy in which your LOS aligns with your teammates, the number of viable strategies that can be executed is reduced as a result of this limitation when compared to a model in which this limitation does not exist (HCE). 

 

Because there are, objectively and logically speaking, a smaller number of viable strategies that can be executed under the "player distinguishment limitation" model (H2), the model which does not have this limitation (HCE) offers a greater amount of objective depth. 

 

 

I've just proven above, again, that the number of players in a game have nothing to do with the amount of viable strategies that can be executed in game. It has everything to do with a player's ability to distinguish themselves. 

 

No, sprint limits a player's ability to distinguish themselves as the more skilled player when it comes to staying alive/escaping.

 

Much like how melee lunge reduces the amount a player can distinguish themselves as more skilled when it comes to meleeing (evens the playing field, makes meleeing easier for everyone), sprint also evens the playing field and makes escaping easier for everyone. 

 

I hope you are aware I am playing devil's advocate. I am fully aware of the differences between CE and 2 and was one of the biggest proponents of Halo 1 back in 2005-2007. I am actually 100% in agreement with most of your points concerning Halo 1 vs Halo 2.

 

I am only trying to prove to you that it is impossible to OBJECTIVELY claim one game is superior to another competitively. For instance you haven't even touched on depth of objective gametypes at all, which were not viable gametypes in Halo 1. How do you objectively compare the depth of 4v4 objective to 2v2 slayer? It's impossible because they are apples and oranges. You say it is impossible for individuals to distinguish themselves yet there were the classic Halo player roles in Halo 2 such as objective player, main slayer, and support. These things are not present in Halo 1. Everyone is just a slayer. So how do you objectively compare them? It's impossible.

When I'm talking about the amount of players in a game, it absolutely matters. When you have more space to move and make plays you are better able to distinguish yourself without getting instantly mowed down. This is true in Halo 1 4v4 as well which you did not address.

 

Also, your statement about TTK in Halo 1 vs 2 with utility weapon is factually incorrect. The average killtime in both games even disregarding button combos is about equal. The Halo 2 BR takes longer optimally, but the average TTK is about the same because most people can 4shot with a BR but nobody can 3 shot with a pistol even 50% of the time. Now when you factor in button combos it lowers the TTK much further below the Halo 1 pistol's TTK. Button combos allow players to distinguish themselves individually on a skill level that is 100% debatable and not mathematically provable. The main argument for Halo 1's utility is that shooters should place more emphasis on aim skill which feels better, looks better in esports and is more intuitive for players than button combos are.

 

Sprint can be used to rush up on opponents who have lower map awareness. You are better able to "distinguish" yourself with the sprint mechanic. Some players choose to be cautious and not use sprint. Other players choose to be aggressive and use them to traverse the map quickly. It is not simply a get out of jail card. Now I'm not advocating for sprint in Halo, obviously, but I'm just trying to show you that you cannot make a claim that more variety from the individual leads to "objectively" deeper gameplay. I would argue, SUBJECTIVELY, CE works better because the movement makes individuals MORE PREDICTABLE and restricts individuals, as it funnels people down certain paths that become intuitively predictable to especially experienced players who can learn to anticipate where people are likely to go and they aren't having to check their back every 3 seconds to make sure no one is sprinting up behind them. This sort of thing is impossible to objectively quantify from the code though.

 

 

I want to see mathematical proofs of every single facet of both games directly compared on a coding level which shows objectively that Halo CE is superior because that is your main argument.

 

The reality is is that this is impossible though, because you cannot compare mathematical numbers from two video games and make this claim because you are not accounting for emergent deep gameplay which a designer will try to account for but is not 100% foreseeable in most cases. Hardy Lebel had no idea that people would nade jump over the wall in Damnation for example which completely changes how the map is played. He also did not expect people to nade weapons perfectly to themselves. Somebody who wrote the damn code himself could not foresee the Halo 1 meta developing like it did. He guided it down a path and he was successful, but he definitely could not have objectively said at the time that this is the gameplay he was expecting to see. He said he is blown away by the community and meta that developed out of the game. So I don't see how a common player could say they could do what the designer couldn't.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

For instance you haven't even touched on depth of objective gametypes at all, which were not viable gametypes in Halo 1. How do you objectively compare the depth of 4v4 objective to 2v2 slayer? It's impossible because they are apples and oranges. You say it is impossible for individuals to distinguish themselves yet there were the classic Halo player roles in Halo 2 such as objective player, main slayer, and support. These things are not present in Halo 1. Everyone is just a slayer. So how do you objectively compare them? It's impossible.

When I'm talking about the amount of players in a game, it absolutely matters. When you have more space to move and make plays you are better able to distinguish yourself without getting instantly mowed down. This is true in Halo 1 4v4 as well which you did not address.

 

 

You are confused on several things here. 

 

We are discussing the depth of HCE vs Halo 2, that being, the maximum amount of depth CE offers relative to Halo 2. None of Halo 2's deepest gametypes, whether it be slayer, objective, 2v2 or 4v4 surpasses the deepest of CE. We can absolutely compare, say, 4v4 Midship CTF to, say, 2v2 Damnation TS and objectively conclude that the latter offers more depth than the former since the former has a mathematically smaller number of viable strategies than the latter. This holds true for any Halo 2 to Halo CE comparison due to the mathematical numbers used in the code for the game's mechanics. If these numbers in Halo 2 were to be programmed such that they were equal to Halo CE's, the number of viable strategies, in any of Halo 2's gametypes, with any number of players in game, would instantly increase, along with the game's objective depth. It all comes down to the numbers used in the code for these game mechanics (to be clear, the ones I've been discussing thus far & that were showcased in the video). 

 

I never said it was impossible for individuals to distinguish themselves in Halo 2. What I did say is that individuals can not distinguish themselves by as great of a margin as they can in Halo CE. Again, this is proven mathematically in the game code- the values used for determining utility weapon damage output for example are mathematically smaller in H2 relative to CE. The values used for determining the distance which your crosshairs could be off target while still landing bullets is mathematically greater in H2 than in CE. The list goes on. When individuals have these kinds of limitations to their ability to distinguish themselves, you start to see viable one-dimensional strategies overtake the meta (teamshooting), and player roles (main slayer, support, etc...) begin to force their way into the game as necessities- an extension of viable one-dimensional strategies.

 

The average killtime

 

You are confused here as well because I never brought up average kill times, but let's analyze this a bit. 

 

You are correct in saying that the average kill time between CE and H2 is rather similar, yet the minimum kill time with the Halo 2 BR is double that of the CE pistol (this is factually correct). It is clearly obvious in this example which model allows for greater player distinguishment in the shooting skill department. When the playing field for shooting skill is leveled, you will notice players being able to kill opponents in a window of time much closer the gun's minimum kill time. Since there is a greater difference between the H1 pistol's minimum kill time and average kill relative to the H2 BR's difference in average vs minimum kill time, the playing field is more even in the latter. When the playing field is more leveled (in other words, when it is easier for everyone), players can not distinguish themselves by as great of a margin. Therefore, CE allows players to distinguish themselves by a greater margin relative to H2 when it comes to shooting skill. You and I just used mathematical evidence to prove this. 

 

 

Sprint can be used to rush up on opponents who have lower map awareness. You are better able to "distinguish" yourself with the sprint mechanic. 

 

 

No, sprint also makes it easier to rush opponents as well. Much like how sprint levels the playing field for survival skills by making it easier for everyone to stay alive and reducing the amount by which a player can distinguish themselves with these skills, it also evens the playing field for rushing opponents by making it easier for everyone to rush opponents and therefore reduces the amount a player can distinguish themselves when it comes to this skill. 

 

There are no functions sprint serves which allows for players to distinguish themselves by a greater amount compared to a model in which there is no sprint. This is objective fact. 

 

 

I want to see mathematical proofs of every single facet of both games directly compared on a coding level which shows objectively that Halo CE is superior because that is your main argument.

 

 

What you need to do now is explain how this has not yet been shown.

 

Just to be clear, the discussion is that CE has a greater amount of depth relative to, not just H2, but every other Halo FPS game that has existed. This can be proven because the number of viable strategies in CE is mathematically larger than those in H2. This can be proven by showing that a strategy's viability is limited by individual's ability to distinguish themselves. We can prove that individuals can not distinguish themselves by as great of a degree in H2 as they can in CE by analyzing the numbers used for mechanics in the game's code- for example, the number used in Halo 2's game code to determine the distance which your crosshairs could be off target while still landing bullets is mathematically larger than the number used in Halo CE's game code for the same mechanic. It is objective that when this number is mathematically larger in the game's code, the playing field for shooting skill is leveled and shooting is easier for everyone. When shooting is easier for everyone, individuals can not distinguish themselves with shooting skill by as great of an amount. The same can be said for melee skill, grenade skill, strafe skill (not applicable to H2, but very applicable to every other Halo game), and so on.

 

Please explain how your criteria has not yet been met.  

 

you are not accounting for emergent deep gameplay which a designer will try to account for but is not 100% foreseeable in most cases.

 

This is irrelevant. Whether or not Hardy, for example, intended for the number used in CE's game code for the distance a power item travels after being hit by a grenade to be used for acquisition does not matter. It is part of the game regardless if he intended for it or not, and the number used in the game code to allow this for this type of item acquisition is objective and quantifiable. Ditto with button combos in H2. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

You have reduced your argument down to almost purely the aim skill between the two games now which makes it even easier for me because you posted many incorrect arguments. You keep arguing that the minimum killtime is lower with the CE pistol and the auto aim is lower when factually the BR quadshot has a lower minimum killtime and, subjectively, button combos can be argued as more difficult than aim skill required in CE. I don't see how it is possible to objectively argue which is more difficult.

 

 

For sprint or no sprint it doesn't make it just easier to rush opponents, it just gives more individual opportunities to distinguish yourself by giving greater ability to the individual. Those with greater map awareness will be able to stop rushers which allows them to distinguish themselves. How can you objectively argue otherwise? You can't, you can only subjectively argue it.

 

You actually haven't proven there are more viable strategies between the games because you only compared two game modes. Halo 2 competitive series requires skill and meta knowledge from iirc 5 different game modes which all require different skills to be successful at, provable by showing certain teams are better at certain gametypes. The comparison in the competitive depth knowledge between all of the slightly shallower game modes in halo 2 combined vs one deep mode in halo 1 is incomparable from an objective standpoint. You can certainly argue CE has a better base to tweak from to make 4v4 objective work vs trying to make halo 2 work for slayer. But the games as they are are incomparable objectively between which took more individual skill and depth knowledge.

 

Your argument against specialization is crap. In halo 1 slayer there is only one role, maybe two (some guys like to collect powerups as their skill, and this skill is still present in halo 2). Otherwise most people try to slay in similar ways. In halo 2 there are 3 roles and with 4 players on a team you can change the mix to emphasize more slaying or more pursuit of the objective or whatever. And within those roles people have different approaches towards their specialized goal. They are not one dimensional players.

 

There's things in the code that can be used determine what's objectively possible but there's always going to be subjectivity in what actually works in the game. Some things that are possible in the game code just aren't actually viable strategies in reality when you witness emergent gameplay. And you can only write subjectively about what works. The head games that happen against high level players sometimes fail spectacularly against new players who don't have habits ingrained in them for instance. You can't determine that from the code.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

This whole argument is kinda bullshit when you consider Forge in later halo games though. With Forge there are literally and infinite amount of variables with infinite created content. So objectively you'd have to say any game with Forge requires the most skill because there's limitless possibilities of maps and modes and adjusted weapon variables to be mindful of. I'd love to see your counter argument to this logic.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quad shotting with the BR is not faster than a perfect 3 with the Pistol. The Pistol kills in .6 seconds, the H2 BR kllls in 1.2 seconds. A quad shot is even with the Pistol at best. And while the average kill times are comparable, the H2 BR is more predictable because of the ease of use and longer kill time, which shortens the gap between players, and quading is situational and risky even for the very best players, and so it's still a team shot game. Killing in 3-4 shots (under a second) with the Pistol isn't situational or risky, it's just difficult, but still more feasible and in more situations than a quad shot, and so CE is more than just team shooting.

 

 

And saying that Forge gives a game objectively more depth is false. A map is really only as good as the game it's being played in, and giving a shallow game a ton of maps doesn't make it more skillful or "deep" than a more skillful game with few maps when the actual mechanics themselves are still inferior and will lead to more shallow gameplay regardless of the map.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quad shotting with the BR is not faster than a perfect 3 with the Pistol. The Pistol kills in .6 seconds, the H2 BR kllls in 1.2 seconds. A quad shot is even with the Pistol at best. And while the average kill times are comparable, the H2 BR is more predictable because of the ease of use and longer kill time, which shortens the gap between players, and quading is situational and risky even for the very best players, and so it's still a team shot game. Killing in 3-4 shots (under a second) with the Pistol isn't situational or risky, it's just difficult, but still more feasible and in more situations than a quad shot, and so CE is more than just team shooting.

 

 

And saying that Forge gives a game objectively more depth is false. A map is really only as good as the game it's being played in, and giving a shallow game a ton of maps doesn't make it more skillful or "deep" than a more skillful game with few maps when the actual mechanics themselves are still inferior and will lead to more shallow gameplay regardless of the map.

I'm pretty sure a quadshot is slightly faster than the pistol. I searched high and low for some ttk posts but no one had that stat unfortunately. I know it is pretty damn fast. Do you have any proof you found? As for the riskiness of it, again we are only comparing objectively what is possible from the game code, you heard aphex. The very elite could perform quadshots regularly enough that it would not be a major risk to try.

 

As for the second point, I don't think you are considering the magnitude of variables from Forge creations. You only mentioned maps in your counter argument but it's not just maps, you can adjust damage and movement and all kinds of settings. From an objective standpoint using the code from the game there are infinite variables to consider vs halo 1 which is locked down and restricted to a set amount of gametypes and maps. So clearly halo games using Forge would require omnipotent powers to be the very best you can possibly be at it, no human being can master infinite variables. Remember we are only talking about what is objectively possible from the game code, we are not operating in subjective rules placed on the game by Bungie online or MLG for tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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