Jump to content
iWatty

Top 10 Halo Players of All Time

Recommended Posts

This is what it would have looked like if I wanted to troll: This genuinely is my top ten though. All players Listed were competitive for more than a single game and whose relevancy spanned more than 5 years unlike many other player on other lists that I have seen. To be the best HALO player, surely your career has to span  more than just a single title, noone whose success revolves around 1 title should be anywhere near the top 10.

 

(1) Cant not put Ogre 2 here, 40 event wins bonkers, has been around since the start of halo and is still competing.

(2) Igoturpistola - Kid has been competing since 2007 in halo 2 ffa's. He has 18 event wins total, including two ffa wins. The kid is a wizard

(3) Retrospectively I am going to give 3rd place to Walshy. 5 ffa wins, 3 2v2 wins, 30 4v4 events wins mainly in halo 1 & 2 but still remained competitive in halo 3.

(4) Cannot forget about Ogre 1, 2 ffa wins, 3 2v2 wins, has 33 4v4 events wins under his belt, only reason he is not higher is due to longevity of career.

(5) Loosing out on the top 4 is Roy, 13 4v4 events wins, has been considered a top 5 player ever since halo 3 and is still competing at the highest level.

(6) Everyone can agree that T2 belongs in the top ten, 10 events wins, has been around since the start and is still competing, On a Dr Pepper Bottle.

(7) Jokes aside Lunchbox warrants a top 10 spot, has been competing since halo 2 and has 12 4v4 event wins to his name including one in Halo 5.

(8) Ever present Snipedown, he has 17 4v4 events wins is still competing to this day and is still considered one of the best players in the game. 

(9) Realistically Lethul deserves a top 10 spot, he is 2nd on the all time earners for fps console gamers just behind Karma and has dominated the last two titles.

(10)King Heinz  deserves to be top 10, has won an event in halo 3, reach, 4 and H2A, and placed in the top 8 at halo worlds, that is crazy. 10 4v4 wins total.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is what it would have looked like if I wanted to troll: This genuinely is my top ten though. All players Listed were competitive for more than a single game and whose relevancy spanned more than 5 years unlike many other player on other lists that I have seen. To be the best HALO player, surely your career has span more than just a single title, noone whose success revolves around 1 title should be anywhere near the top 10.

 

(1) Cant not put Ogre 2 here, 40 event wins bonkers, has been around since the start of halo and is still competing.

(2) Igoturpistola - Kid has been competing since 2007 in halo 2 ffa's. He has 18 event wins total, including two ffa wins. The kid is a wizard

(3) Retrospectively I am going to give 3rd place to Walshy. 5 ffa wins, 3 2v2 wins, 30 4v4 events wins mainly in halo 1 & 2 but still remained competitive in halo 3.

(4) Cannot forget about Ogre 1, 2 ffa wins, 3 2v2 wins, has 33 4v4 events wins under his belt, only reason he is not higher is due to longevity of career.

(5) Loosing out on the top 4 is Roy, 13 4v4 events wins, has been considered a top 5 player ever since halo 3 and is still competing at the highest level.

(6) Everyone can agree that T2 belongs in the top ten, 10 events wins, has been around since the start and is still competing, On a Dr Pepper Bottle.

(7) Jokes aside Lunchbox warrants a top 10 spot, has been competing since halo 2 and has 12 4v4 event wins to his name including one in Halo 5.

(8) Ever present Snipedown, he has 17 4v4 events wins is still competing to this day and is still considered one of the best players in the game. 

(9) Realistically Lethul deserves a top 10 spot, he is 2nd on the all time earners for fps console gamers just behind Karma and has dominated the last two titles.

(10)King Heinz  deserves to be top 10, has won an event in halo 3, reach, 4 and H2A, and placed in the top 8 at halo worlds, that is crazy. 10 4v4 wins total.

This list is much better than the one that included ace and naded.   :simms:

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This list is much better than the one that included ace and naded.   :simms:

Agreed that was a list which i gave no real thought to, this one i took the time to at least think about the ten that were deserving (and heinz and snipedown have done more than ace and naded although i would still have them in my top 20)

Share this post


Link to post

Wasn't an attempt at trolling. I was just highlighting how much of a circle jerk this thread is. I will let you guys go back to reminiscing about the halo 1/halo 2 era. And please @@BlackShadow you are kidding nobody everything you know and you learnt was through looking it up on halopedia, you are just reading off a stat sheet lol, you are no expert (neither am I) so your opinion means jack shit. With that said I will let the circle jerking continue. The players you say i am  ignorant about with the exception of FIS were relevant for 4 years maximum, so a game and year at most, 4 fucking years out of 14+, not exactly a great statistic there now is it,

Reddit+is+one+huge+circle+jerk+the+can+t

@@Smee mee

 

I don't see how this thread is a circle jerk.  Most of the people here are simply trying to make intelligent arguments about why they feel certain players should be on their personal top 10 GOAT lists.  Yes there are going to be a difference of ideas, that's how an opinionated conversation works.  After talking with a lot of you guys, my mind has actually changed on the placements of certain pros on my list.  When basic facts are presented in front of me, I don't ignore them and call it a "circle jerk", I take it into consideration and leave myself with an open mind.  And you are sadly mistaken about me, I know what I know about competitive Halo because I was there, I've been a part of the scene for a decade now. I've actually watched the streams of the events I'm talking about, I've watched the players compete during the eras I'm talking about.  If you've read all of my posts ITT, you'll see that I have a vast understanding of the concepts I'm discussing.  
 
Halopedia actually got a lot of their information from http://www.thehaloforum.com/articles/site-announcements/video-on-demand and esportsearnings.com; their database is good but still missing a lot of info.  And I don't read off a stat sheet, I'm recalling when these things happened.  Although I admit I do refer back to those sites from time to time.  I don't really consider myself an expert because no one is paying me to do this.  But when you come into a thread like this spouting nonsense and making posting about topics you obviously have a smidgen of knowledge about, most rational people are going to call you out.  I understand where you're coming from, I get what you mean when you say that someone who was only a top player for 4 years during one or two games should have the same GOAT consideration as someone else has has been competing for longer and for more Halo games.  But one thing I think you're seriously failing to realize is the lifespan of these titles.  Let's take a look; Halo CE was played competitively from 2002-2004, Halo 2 was played competitively from 2005-2007, and Halo 3 was played competitively from 2008-2010. That's 3 full years for each title.  Now let's look at the installments that came out after.  Halo Reach was played competitively from April 2011 until October of 2012.  Halo 4 was played competitively from November of 2012 until July of 2014.  And H2A was played competitively from August 2014 until July of 2015.  Simply put, these games you're putting so much weight and emphasis on don't deserve it because they were only played for such a short amount of time at a high level.  

Share this post


Link to post

Most people who did lists had players who were dominant for at least two games. Only a few hardcore fanboys listed people relevant in one title. And we gave very good reasoning as to why H:R-H5 matter far less in rankings of GOATs.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Dallas, Columbus and Raleigh were the only competitive events (for Pros) in Reach. At the top a few players emerged that can be considered for this list -- Formal, Snakebite, Royal 2, Lethul, etc. In Halo 4, there was zero competition. In H2A it was still very much the same. Halo 5 is growing pretty big but its too soon to be putting anyone in the top 10, lol. Frosty might be headed in that direction.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Dallas, Columbus and Raleigh were the only competitive events (for Pros) in Reach. At the top a few players emerged that can be considered for this list -- Formal, Snakebite, Royal 2, Lethul, etc. In Halo 4, there was zero competition. In H2A it was still very much the same. Halo 5 is growing pretty big but its too soon to be putting anyone in the top 10, lol. Frosty might be headed in that direction.

 

What was wrong with Orlando, D.C. and Providence?  Or the 2012 winter event?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Orlando was dead it seemed and Providence was basically just for the Championships with a bonus AM bracket for whoever wanted to go. DC was only for amateurs. (but it was insanely stacked with talent)

 

What was wrong with Orlando, D.C. and Providence?  Or the 2012 winter event?

 

What I basically mean is that Halo 3 had a lot of people contesting the top players for the top spots. (Goofys noscope on SK anyone?) In Reach and in Halo 4 you basically didn't see this at all. I think the most notable names are Blaze, Formal, Lethul, Adrenaline, Amish Acorns, Snakebite, Dersky, Tizoxic, Destin and Royal 2. However, these players had already been near the top in Halo 3 already. They were knocking on the door and had the population stayed the same they probably would've rose to the top regardless of the competition. I support @@VinnyMendoza statement. The true greats competed during the early H1 era up to the beginning of Halo 3.

 

Take Gandhi for instance. He's possibly one of the greatest snipers to ever play the game. He's up there with the Ogres, Formal, Royal 2 or Snipedown for sure! He was barely practicing Halo 3 and still managed to defeat Tsquared, Legit, Elamite and Neighbor at the 2008 opener alongside Shockwav3, Karma and Ghos7ayame. (loved that series) CbN improved on their placing at the next event in San Diego where they beat Under the Influence, Fatal Images (Nadeds team) and Believe the Hype (Cloud, Pistola, Heinz and Mudvayne). I believe they placed 4th. Once he was losing his focus on gaming he stayed around the top 8-12 before he retired which is pretty impressive considering the rising stars that year. 

 

People seem to forget these tiny details about the players that actually can be considered top 10 worthy.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Orlando was dead it seemed and Providence was basically just for the Championships with a bonus AM bracket for whoever wanted to go. DC was only for amateurs. (but it was insanely stacked with talent)

 

 

What I basically mean is that Halo 3 had a lot of people contesting the top players for the top spots. (Goofys noscope on SK anyone?) In Reach and in Halo 4 you basically didn't see this at all. I think the most notable names are Blaze, Formal, Lethul, Adrenaline, Amish Acorns, Snakebite, Dersky, Tizoxic, Destin and Royal 2. However, these players had already been near the top in Halo 3 already. They were knocking on the door and had the population stayed the same they probably would've rose to the top regardless of the competition. I support @@VinnyMendoza statement. The true greats competed during the early H1 era up to the beginning of Halo 3.

 

Take Gandhi for instance. He's possibly one of the greatest snipers to ever play the game. He's up there with the Ogres, Formal, Royal 2 or Snipedown for sure! He was barely practicing Halo 3 and still managed to defeat Tsquared, Legit, Elamite and Neighbor at the 2008 opener alongside Shockwav3, Karma and Ghos7ayame. (loved that series) CbN improved on their placing at the next event in San Diego where they beat Under the Influence, Fatal Images (Nadeds team) and Believe the Hype (Cloud, Pistola, Heinz and Mudvayne). I believe they placed 4th. Once he was losing his focus on gaming he stayed around the top 8-12 before he retired which is pretty impressive considering the rising stars that year. 

 

People seem to forget these tiny details about the players that actually can be considered top 10 worthy.

Ok so Gandhi was successful in one title, then placed okay one year into halo 3 (despite the fact Carbon dropped him), and you think he is top 10 worthy? I get that a lot of people weight the original trilogy more heavily, but by that accord gandhi still only has 3 - 4 event wins. Granted he remained top 4 throughout the entire halo 2 but come on he should not be in top ten halo players of all time. He accomplished something in a singular title, out of 7. I don't care what kind of weight you place on halo 2 and it's supposedly more intense competition (I think halo 3 had the most btw, and it is no coincidence that a lot of players quit/fell off) those numbers will not add up. Gandhi was a fantastic player for our scene and a great personality and will always be a halo legend but it is debatable whether he has a place in top 20 halo players let alone the top 10.

 

Halo is more than the original trilogy, people may not like it but halo has moved away from that style and format. We will never really see those open bracket tournaments anymore, hell cod hardly ever see's them anymore, so to discredit modern games due to lack of teams is nonsense, (with the exception of reach and halo 4). However, I would like to point out that there is a common characteristic that the best players in any sport have, can you guess it? Adaptable. pLayers like gandhi were good at a single iteration but once the gameplay mechanics moved in a way where he wasn't satisfied, he quit, he stopped grinding and you guys want someone like that in the top ten. That is hardly goat-like characteristics. 

 

Snipedown, Heinz, Pistola, Naded, RyaNoob, Roy, Lunchbox, Victory X, Elamite Warrior, APG and Ogre 2 have competed across multiple halo titles and have always been at the top, They have adapted and adapted well to each version, regardless of how they feel about the game mechanics, those kinds of players warrant a place in the top 10 much more than players who just gave up when the mechanics changed.  Anyone who failed to adapt to a new title does not as there only good at a single iteration/style.

 

Halo is far more than halo 1,2 and 3. And despite how we may feel with regards the changes that have been made , you cannot ignore modern games or the achievements of those who still have the heart and the desire to compete.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care what kind of weight you place on halo 2 and it's supposedly more intense competition (I think halo 3 had the most btw, and it is no coincidence that a lot of players quit/fell off)

 

It really is hilarious. All of these excuses about players "losing their drive" and such. Yeah, the competition got stronger and these guys who had been winning against scrubs in the grassroots era could no longer compete for prize money, so they lost their drive. No shit.

 

Look at a top 8 from any event in 05 or 06 and compare it to 07 and beyond. The pattern of veterans slipping off, being more or less usurped by the "new breed" is obvious.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

So "shit games" is now an objective fact and is a legit argument to use in gauging success/greatness in an esport?

 

I'm supposed to hold guys who won backyard LAN tournaments in Halo CE against whoever showed up, over the guys who just won a 2.5 million dollar event after a gruelling season open to everyone in the world, because some people deem Halo 5 a shit game and some people hold Halo CE in an unhealthily high regard?

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is what it would have looked like if I wanted to troll: This genuinely is my top ten though. All players Listed were competitive for more than a single game and whose relevancy spanned more than 5 years unlike many other player on other lists that I have seen. To be the best HALO player, surely your career has to span more than just a single title, noone whose success revolves around 1 title should be anywhere near the top 10.

 

(1) Cant not put Ogre 2 here, 40 event wins bonkers, has been around since the start of halo and is still competing.

(2) Igoturpistola - Kid has been competing since 2007 in halo 2 ffa's. He has 18 event wins total, including two ffa wins. The kid is a wizard

(3) Retrospectively I am going to give 3rd place to Walshy. 5 ffa wins, 3 2v2 wins, 30 4v4 events wins mainly in halo 1 & 2 but still remained competitive in halo 3.

(4) Cannot forget about Ogre 1, 2 ffa wins, 3 2v2 wins, has 33 4v4 events wins under his belt, only reason he is not higher is due to longevity of career.

(5) Loosing out on the top 4 is Roy, 13 4v4 events wins, has been considered a top 5 player ever since halo 3 and is still competing at the highest level.

(6) Everyone can agree that T2 belongs in the top ten, 10 events wins, has been around since the start and is still competing, On a Dr Pepper Bottle.

(7) Jokes aside Lunchbox warrants a top 10 spot, has been competing since halo 2 and has 12 4v4 event wins to his name including one in Halo 5.

(8) Ever present Snipedown, he has 17 4v4 events wins is still competing to this day and is still considered one of the best players in the game.

(9) Realistically Lethul deserves a top 10 spot, he is 2nd on the all time earners for fps console gamers just behind Karma and has dominated the last two titles.

(10)King Heinz deserves to be top 10, has won an event in halo 3, reach, 4 and H2A, and placed in the top 8 at halo worlds, that is crazy. 10 4v4 wins total.

Is this counting h4 wins?

 

@@ahawowow

 

H5 wins obviously count for something, but I'm not going to hold a game with radar and super strong autos (among other things) in the same esteem as a game that had more competitive settings and more teams competing. By the way, the h4 global championship had a lot of money in it but I trust you wouldn't rank that higher than an event win in h3

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

An open season of barely anyone still playing.

 

 

Yes, they are nearly objectively shit games that can't even stay in the top 10 games played which would be considered major failure just 5 years ago.

 

Only a couple fanboys who weren't serious put pure CE players top 10. Most lists have players who enjoyed success through halo 3 and beyond.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

An open season of barely anyone still playing.

 

 

Yes, they are nearly objectively shit games that can't even stay in the top 10 games played which would be considered major failure just 5 years ago.

 

Only a couple fanboys who weren't serious put pure CE players top 10. Most lists have players who enjoyed success through halo 3 and beyond.

The game us objectively shit because of how many people play it? So does that mean Shadowrun was shit? Also, the NA qualifiers had a good turnout. 500+ teams in the first ones IIRC. Obviously the pro league will get less attention due to the much much smaller prize pools.

 

And yeah, I know no one put pure CE players in their top 10, but I don't see why, from an objective standpoint, I should consider guys like Gandhi and StrongSide any higher on the totem pole than guys such as Roybox and Lethul.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

but I don't see why, from an objective standpoint, I should consider guys like Gandhi and StrongSide any higher on the totem pole than guys such as Roybox

Pretty sure almost everyone put roybox in or near the top 5.  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

No, I'm saying a game that was megapopular and loses its base that fast means something is wrong with the new gameplay. And it's been discussed to death here how it's bad. Radar alone makes it bad. High bullet magnetism and hitscan is objectively less skillful.

 

I agree, gandhi and Strongside probably don't deserve to be higher than lethul or roybox.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

No, I'm saying a game that was megapopular and loses its base that fast means something is wrong with the new gameplay.

 

All this means is that something else came out which became more compelling to play; namely Call of Duty.  Why did CoD thrive? Because its ease-of-play and instant gratification mechanics scooped up the young-casual demographic which is what ultimately drives online user-base.  Sometimes things just stop being "popular" organically.

 

I also believe that for whatever reason the general population prefers "real-world" shooters as opposed to "futuristic" shooters; hence why you saw the same thing happen on the PC side with games like Quake and Unreal Tournament falling off with the rise of Counter-Strike and then Counter-Strike Source.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

There were a ton of people who stopped caring from title to title. This isn't exclusive for Halo 2 to Halo 3 or Halo 3 to Reach. Yeah, I'm sure that there are a good number of people who couldn't keep up but there were also a ton of people who didn't care. I'd say the majority of pro players during Halo 1 had hated Halo 2 when it came out. There are a ton of interviews with pro players and almost all of them praise CE and trash Halo 2, from T2 to Xena to Shockwav3.

 

Also there were a bunch of open tournaments during the early seasons. I think everyone knows that but often I forget just how much there was to do or prove yourself in. FFA's, 1v1s, 2v2s and 4v4 tournaments all taking place in the early years. Hell, Philly 05 was a grueling 4 day event.

 

 

Lastly, I think the criteria in determining these rankings varies from list to list. I gave my list and my reasons. It was more than pure skill and tournament wins, even though that's factored in.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

They could have kept competing but why bother playing shit games? I wouldn't and didn't.

I dunno, if I were in their shoes I wouldn't turn down free money, seeing as they were so much better than the rest of the competition.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I dunno, if I were in their shoes I wouldn't turn down free money, seeing as they were so much better than the rest of the competition.

Because it's NOT "free". They would have to keep practicing. Would you force yourself to play a bad game for 80 hours a week to not even earn enough money to retire on, and forgo a normal lucrative career?

 

They were highly skilled players but they saw it was a waste of time. People with a high competitive drive like that can usually make more money doing other things.

Share this post


Link to post

All this means is that something else came out which became more compelling to play; namely Call of Duty. Why did CoD thrive? Because its ease-of-play and instant gratification mechanics scooped up the young-casual demographic which is what ultimately drives online user-base. Sometimes things just stop being "popular" organically.

 

I also believe that for whatever reason the general population prefers "real-world" shooters as opposed to "futuristic" shooters; hence why you saw the same thing happen on the PC side with games like Quake and Unreal Tournament falling off with the rise of Counter-Strike and then Counter-Strike Source.

CS takes skill and has been popular for almost two decades. AND This "futuristic shooter killer" was released before halo actually became literally the biggest console shooter ever and stayed on top for a decade. Your logic is poorly constructed.

 

Also, halo 3 directly competed with cod4 and did not falter. Competition has little to do with it.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is what it would have looked like if I wanted to troll: This genuinely is my top ten though. All players Listed were competitive for more than a single game and whose relevancy spanned more than 5 years unlike many other player on other lists that I have seen. To be the best HALO player, surely your career has to span  more than just a single title, noone whose success revolves around 1 title should be anywhere near the top 10.

 

(1) Cant not put Ogre 2 here, 40 event wins bonkers, has been around since the start of halo and is still competing.

(2) Igoturpistola - Kid has been competing since 2007 in halo 2 ffa's. He has 18 event wins total, including two ffa wins. The kid is a wizard

(3) Retrospectively I am going to give 3rd place to Walshy. 5 ffa wins, 3 2v2 wins, 30 4v4 events wins mainly in halo 1 & 2 but still remained competitive in halo 3.

(4) Cannot forget about Ogre 1, 2 ffa wins, 3 2v2 wins, has 33 4v4 events wins under his belt, only reason he is not higher is due to longevity of career.

(5) Loosing out on the top 4 is Roy, 13 4v4 events wins, has been considered a top 5 player ever since halo 3 and is still competing at the highest level.

(6) Everyone can agree that T2 belongs in the top ten, 10 events wins, has been around since the start and is still competing, On a Dr Pepper Bottle.

(7) Jokes aside Lunchbox warrants a top 10 spot, has been competing since halo 2 and has 12 4v4 event wins to his name including one in Halo 5.

(8) Ever present Snipedown, he has 17 4v4 events wins is still competing to this day and is still considered one of the best players in the game. 

(9) Realistically Lethul deserves a top 10 spot, he is 2nd on the all time earners for fps console gamers just behind Karma and has dominated the last two titles.

(10)King Heinz  deserves to be top 10, has won an event in halo 3, reach, 4 and H2A, and placed in the top 8 at halo worlds, that is crazy. 10 4v4 wins total.

 

See this is a much much better list IMO.  Ogre 2 actually has closer to 54 event wins when you count up all of his 4v4, 2v2, FFA, and 1v1 tournament placings.  And I believe Pistola has closer to 20 wins altogether, but with his performances in H2A and H5, I don't think I would put him as 2nd of all time.  It's hard to accurately state Walshy's numbers just because much of the information from early in his career is lost but those places sound about right.  I do think Heinz is a top player but I have trouble putting him in my top 10 because he has never won a world or national championship.  

 

Orlando was dead it seemed and Providence was basically just for the Championships with a bonus AM bracket for whoever wanted to go. DC was only for amateurs. (but it was insanely stacked with talent)

 

 

What I basically mean is that Halo 3 had a lot of people contesting the top players for the top spots. (Goofys noscope on SK anyone?) In Reach and in Halo 4 you basically didn't see this at all. I think the most notable names are Blaze, Formal, Lethul, Adrenaline, Amish Acorns, Snakebite, Dersky, Tizoxic, Destin and Royal 2. However, these players had already been near the top in Halo 3 already. They were knocking on the door and had the population stayed the same they probably would've rose to the top regardless of the competition. I support @@VinnyMendoza statement. The true greats competed during the early H1 era up to the beginning of Halo 3.

 

Take Gandhi for instance. He's possibly one of the greatest snipers to ever play the game. He's up there with the Ogres, Formal, Royal 2 or Snipedown for sure! He was barely practicing Halo 3 and still managed to defeat Tsquared, Legit, Elamite and Neighbor at the 2008 opener alongside Shockwav3, Karma and Ghos7ayame. (loved that series) CbN improved on their placing at the next event in San Diego where they beat Under the Influence, Fatal Images (Nadeds team) and Believe the Hype (Cloud, Pistola, Heinz and Mudvayne). I believe they placed 4th. Once he was losing his focus on gaming he stayed around the top 8-12 before he retired which is pretty impressive considering the rising stars that year. 

 

People seem to forget these tiny details about the players that actually can be considered top 10 worthy.

 

Pretty much this.  If you weren't around during that time, if you never watched the streams for all the events, you'll find it difficult to understand how disgusting those players were back in the day.

 

 

Ok so Gandhi was successful in one title, then placed okay one year into halo 3 (despite the fact Carbon dropped him), and you think he is top 10 worthy? I get that a lot of people weight the original trilogy more heavily, but by that accord gandhi still only has 3 - 4 event wins. Granted he remained top 4 throughout the entire halo 2 but come on he should not be in top ten halo players of all time. He accomplished something in a singular title, out of 7. I don't care what kind of weight you place on halo 2 and it's supposedly more intense competition (I think halo 3 had the most btw, and it is no coincidence that a lot of players quit/fell off) those numbers will not add up. Gandhi was a fantastic player for our scene and a great personality and will always be a halo legend but it is debatable whether he has a place in top 20 halo players let alone the top 10.

 

Halo is more than the original trilogy, people may not like it but halo has moved away from that style and format. We will never really see those open bracket tournaments anymore, hell cod hardly ever see's them anymore, so to discredit modern games due to lack of teams is nonsense, (with the exception of reach and halo 4). However, I would like to point out that there is a common characteristic that the best players in any sport have, can you guess it? Adaptable. pLayers like gandhi were good at a single iteration but once the gameplay mechanics moved in a way where he wasn't satisfied, he quit, he stopped grinding and you guys want someone like that in the top ten. That is hardly goat-like characteristics. 

 

Snipedown, Heinz, Pistola, Naded, RyaNoob, Roy, Lunchbox, Victory X, Elamite Warrior, APG and Ogre 2 have competed across multiple halo titles and have always been at the top, They have adapted and adapted well to each version, regardless of how they feel about the game mechanics, those kinds of players warrant a place in the top 10 much more than players who just gave up when the mechanics changed.  Anyone who failed to adapt to a new title does not as there only good at a single iteration/style.

 

Halo is far more than halo 1,2 and 3. And despite how we may feel with regards the changes that have been made , you cannot ignore modern games or the achievements of those who still have the heart and the desire to compete.

 

I think you may be confusing the ability to adapt with the motivation to compete in games with a smaller skill gap, less depth, less intrigue, less entertainment, etc.  If we're not going to fault players who were too young to compete in the earlier Halo games, I'm not going to fault pros who felt that way about the later iterations of Halo.  Again this was during a time when being a professional gamer wasn't a realistic idea unless you were consistently getting 1st or 2nd place.  As I've said before, people weren't making money from Youtube ads, Twitch subs, or online events like they can today.  Twitter wasn't a thing back then, and reliable sponsorships were extremely difficult to come by.  You couldn't market yourself like you can in 2016.  This has less to do with adaptability, and more to do with the scene at the time and the awful Halo games being released.  Also Gandhi won 6 events, not 3, but again I personally don't have him in my top 10 list.  

 

It really is hilarious. All of these excuses about players "losing their drive" and such. Yeah, the competition got stronger and these guys who had been winning against scrubs in the grassroots era could no longer compete for prize money, so they lost their drive. No shit.

 

Look at a top 8 from any event in 05 or 06 and compare it to 07 and beyond. The pattern of veterans slipping off, being more or less usurped by the "new breed" is obvious.

You do realize that the prize money for MLG events was exact same per event spanning from 2006 until 2012 right?  And actually it dwindled year by year because MLG started to hold less and less events as the years continued during that span.  The "grassroots" era of Halo arguably ended by 2006.  What exact facts and statistics can you show to prove that the "competition got stronger" over the years?  Who are these "scrubs" you're referring to?  It honestly sounds like you have never watched a Halo tournament from those earlier years

 

So "shit games" is now an objective fact and is a legit argument to use in gauging success/greatness in an esport?

 

I'm supposed to hold guys who won backyard LAN tournaments in Halo CE against whoever showed up, over the guys who just won a 2.5 million dollar event after a gruelling season open to everyone in the world, because some people deem Halo 5 a shit game and some people hold Halo CE in an unhealthily high regard?

Replace "shit games" with "significantly less skillful games" and there's your answer.

 

Define "grueling season"?  I've only seen a couple of H5 LAN events that were invite only with a whole bunch of online ladders and qualifiers.  And most intelligent people aren't going to give much validation to anything that happens in an online tournament with regards to Halo.  But the CE LANs you're referring to took place in like 2002, maybe 2003.  I agree in saying that the HWC we just saw definitely outweighs most of that stuff if compared directly.  

 

The game us objectively shit because of how many people play it? So does that mean Shadowrun was shit? Also, the NA qualifiers had a good turnout. 500+ teams in the first ones IIRC. Obviously the pro league will get less attention due to the much much smaller prize pools.

 

And yeah, I know no one put pure CE players in their top 10, but I don't see why, from an objective standpoint, I should consider guys like Gandhi and StrongSide any higher on the totem pole than guys such as Roybox and Lethul.

 

Personally I wouldn't but at least acknowledge why others might choose to do.  

 

 

Because it's NOT "free". They would have to keep practicing. Would you force yourself to play a bad game for 80 hours a week to not even earn enough money to retire on, and forgo a normal lucrative career?

 

They were highly skilled players but they saw it was a waste of time. People with a high competitive drive like that can usually make more money doing other things.

This is the point I've been trying to make.  Just because you're good at something, it doesn't mean you have to continue doing it when the activity no longer becomes fruitful or engaging to you.

 

 

 

CS takes skill and has been popular for almost two decades. AND This "futuristic shooter killer" was released before halo actually became literally the biggest console shooter ever and stayed on top for a decade. Your logic is poorly constructed.

 

Also, halo 3 directly competed with cod4 and did not falter. Competition has little to do with it.

 

Agreed, the reason why these Halo games have a short competitive lifespan and an even shorter casual lifespan if because there isn't much there to hold their attention.  If a Halo game came out that had a similar amount of depth, skill gap, and replay value as the first 2-3 games, people would play it for 3+ years.  If the game is well designed, if it is entertaining, and most importantly, if it takes a very long time to be the best at, then people will play it for years even with other new popular titles coming out every holiday season.  This is our reality, we haven't have a truly competitive Halo game in like a decade and that's why our scene is laughable compared to what it used to be.  It doesn't matter how much money Microsoft throws at the next big global Halo tournament.  People aren't going to take interest, nor tune in on Twitch if there is shit like radar, sprint, no de-scoping, clamber, thruster, etc.  

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

CS takes skill and has been popular for almost two decades. 

 

Quake took even more pure mechanical skill than CS, so why the sudden death of "arena FPS" games (like Quake) on the PC in favour of a game like CS?

 

 

AND This "futuristic shooter killer" was released before halo actually became literally the biggest console shooter ever and stayed on top for a decade. Your logic is poorly constructed.

 

Bro; a significant part of Halo's "boom in popularity" came from the fact that it was literally the only good FPS on a console at the time.  It filled a void that hadn't been touched at all since Goldeneye/Perfect Dark's time had passed with the N64, and it was a market that was just waiting to explode.  Nintendo had already began moving towards their kid-friendly games, and Sony was too busy spamming Final Fantasy and other jRPG's which were a colossal money-maker for them at the time.  Subsequently, you saw a massive influx of FPS games for the PS2 in the next few years to try and cash in on Halo CE's success.  Three years later, Halo 2 basically creates online multiplayer as we know it today on console (backed by Microsoft's online service which was miles ahead of Sony's).  So what really happened? Halo CE basically cashed in on a sleeping giant (FPS on console) by being at the right placed at the right time, and then the next game basically cashed in on the future of console gaming (online play) by creating something that blew everyone away from a technical/infrastructure standpoint.

 

Halo was a great game; but don't be naive in failing to see the factors behind its monumental growth in popularity, which literally came out of nowhere.

 

 

 

Also, halo 3 directly competed with cod4 and did not falter. Competition has little to do with it.

 

This is a comically simplistic view of the situation.  Halo 3 was the peak of Halo popularity whereas CoD4 was only the BEGINNING of CoD's rise.  The reality of that comparison is that Halo was already beginning to fall back whereas CoD was on the rise at a rapid pace.  So yes, while on the surface it appeared that Halo was still at the forefront, the reality behind the scenes was that one was clearly plateaud and beginning to lose its draw, whereas the other was on the forefront of blowing up.  Do you seriously believe that ONE GAME (Reach) was the deciding factor behind Halo literally flopping overnight? Of course not, don't be silly.  CoD has had two games in a row now (and a third upcoming) which alienated "core fans" wants/needs (AW and BO3), and you haven't seen an overnight death for the franchise as a result, have you? The game is losing popularity, but that was bound to happen anyway as there was always going to be a burnout-factor with CoD's yearly model.

 

The reason why Reach borrowed so many CoD mechanics (EXP based ranks, collecting armour/gear, classes, etc) is because Bungie already KNEW that this was the direction which the casual demographic was moving towards.  Even coming off of Halo 3's success, they already knew that the CoD model was going to inevitably be the winning model moving forward.  This alone kills your "Yeah well H3 was still popular while CoD4 was out" argument: the studio behind Halo itself SAW the market shifting, and they REACTED.  They didn't just wake up one morning and decide that Halo needed classes and experience grinding.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quake took even more pure mechanical skill than CS, so why the sudden death of "arena FPS" games (like Quake) on the PC in favour of a game like CS?

 

 

 

Bro; a significant part of Halo's "boom in popularity" came from the fact that it was literally the only good FPS on a console at the time.  It filled a void that hadn't been touched at all since Goldeneye/Perfect Dark's time had passed with the N64, and it was a market that was just waiting to explode.  Nintendo had already began moving towards their kid-friendly games, and Sony was too busy spamming Final Fantasy and other jRPG's which were a colossal money-maker for them at the time.  Subsequently, you saw a massive influx of FPS games for the PS2 in the next few years to try and cash in on Halo CE's success.  Three years later, Halo 2 basically creates online multiplayer as we know it today on console (backed by Microsoft's online service which was miles ahead of Sony's).  So what really happened? Halo CE basically cashed in on a sleeping giant (FPS on console) by being at the right placed at the right time, and then the next game basically cashed in on the future of console gaming (online play) by creating something that blew everyone away from a technical/infrastructure standpoint.

 

Halo was a great game; but don't be naive in failing to see the factors behind its monumental growth in popularity, which literally came out of nowhere.

 

 

 

This is a comically simplistic view of the situation.  Halo 3 was the peak of Halo popularity whereas CoD4 was only the BEGINNING of CoD's rise.  The reality of that comparison is that Halo was already beginning to fall back whereas CoD was on the rise at a rapid pace.  So yes, while on the surface it appeared that Halo was still at the forefront, the reality behind the scenes was that one was clearly plateaud and beginning to lose its draw, whereas the other was on the forefront of blowing up.  Do you seriously believe that ONE GAME (Reach) was the deciding factor behind Halo literally flopping overnight? Of course not, don't be silly.  CoD has had two games in a row now (and a third upcoming) which alienated "core fans" wants/needs (AW and BO3), and you haven't seen an overnight death for the franchise as a result, have you? The game is losing popularity, but that was bound to happen anyway as there was always going to be a burnout-factor with CoD's yearly model.

 

The reason why Reach borrowed so many CoD mechanics (EXP based ranks, collecting armour/gear, classes, etc) is because Bungie already KNEW that this was the direction which the casual demographic was moving towards.  Even coming off of Halo 3's success, they already knew that the CoD model was going to inevitably be the winning model moving forward.  This alone kills your "Yeah well H3 was still popular while CoD4 was out" argument: the studio behind Halo itself SAW the market shifting, and they REACTED.  They didn't just wake up one morning and decide that Halo needed classes and experience grinding.

 

Yes, those "dead" games that kept selling and getting sequels well into the late 2000s like Unreal Tournament, Quake, Doom, Painkiller, etc etc...

 

Bro, the point is that futuristic vs grounded has no basis in whether a game is popular or not. Sure Halo capitalized on a market, but if it mattered that much whether a game was realistic or sci-fi, Sony would have funded a more realistic shooter instead of KIllzone or Resistance to be the "Halo killer". A game is popular because it plays well and is mechanically deep. If sci-fi was not a good setting then why do devs keep going back to the well successfully with it? Unreal, Doom, Halo, Quake... hell Overwatch had 10 million beta players, do you think it is grounded in realism too? How many single player games are there that are sci fi? Bioshock, Fallout, Dead Space, Alien Isolation, dude I could go on for days here.

 

 

 

COD4 was the "beginning" of the rise? COD2 and 3 sold close to Halo 3's numbers. COD4 sold over 15 million copies just on consoles. It was extremely popular, yet Halo 3 AND Reach both retained their player counts during this intense console FPS competition.

 

 

Just because a developer makes a decision doesn't mean they are following the market or that it is the correct decision. Following what the market is doing and abandoning your niche is not smart. That side of the market is already filled by COD and they will keep playing COD, not jump to Halo Would you say Halo 4 aping COD was a smart decision? Do you think it would have had even LESS players if it retained its classic Halo feel and mechanics? Then why did they go back on many of their "advancements" in Halo 5? Why did they bother announcing MCC as this giant awesome release at E3 if people don't play games like that anymore? MCC would have sold even better than it did if it wasn't a gigantic piece of shit at launch and if it wasn't on a dead console. I remember tons of Halo communities were losing their shit when MCC was announced and it sold very well despite how buggy it was. If it wasn't buggy I can only imagine how well it would have sold... and this is for a RE-RELEASE. The want is still there for classic Halo games.

 

Doom 4 also returned to classic tropes and it's been far more successful than Doom 3 was too.

 

There is a market for both styles of games. Perhaps realistic shooters are a little more popular, but one does not kill the other. In fact many people play both styles. I loved COD4 and so did many of my friends who played Halo.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

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 & Privacy Policy.