Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Most of the major sponsors have partnered with Twitch. That's where MLG messed up. MLG's inability to partner with the biggest sponsors is really killing them right now. Them trying to monopolize streaming could very well be what hurts them the most

 

 

I doubt owning the rights to a major title is going to hurt 

Share this post


Link to post

Just did the bridge drop on AotCR for the first time. Frustrating but satisfying to just stroll around the level with no enemies in sight.

Share this post


Link to post

Just did the bridge drop on AotCR for the first time. Frustrating but satisfying to just stroll around the level with no enemies in sight.

 

I forgot, can you use a Banshee without loading the enemies after reaching a certain altitude? That's the only worrying thing about putting in all that effort is to accidentally screw myself lol.

Share this post


Link to post

I forgot, can you use a Banshee without loading the enemies after reaching a certain altitude? That's the only worrying thing about putting in all that effort is to accidentally screw myself lol.

 

Not sure. The bridge is your best bet, just watch out for that fuckin banshee that likes to ruin your day by killing you inches away from pulling it off

Share this post


Link to post

Just did the bridge drop on AotCR for the first time. Frustrating but satisfying to just stroll around the level with no enemies in sight.

I was trying that the other day, I could make it down to the second ledge with a 10% success rate, and the 3 times I tried to slide down onto the ground, it killed me. I gave up and ran it through normally in 14 minutes lol.

 

Naked Eli makes all these tricks look so easy.

Share this post


Link to post

Watching the last game of the finals of Gfinity right now. I saw the losers bracket finals before that. Honestly, the level or quality of competition in these Halo 2 games are so so much higher than anything we've seen in Halo 4 or Reach (maybe without v7) it's incredible.

 

I really hope H2A will be given just one more map pack then it's back to the standard we were used to in the H3 days.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Watching the last game of the finals of Gfinity right now. I saw the losers bracket finals before that. Honestly, the level or quality of competition in these Halo 2 games are so so much higher than anything we've seen in Halo 4 or Reach (maybe without v7) it's incredible.

 

I really hope H2A will be given just one more map pack then it's back to the standard we were used to in the H3 days.

 

glad some other people are watching. it is very solid. watching these teams and different strategies.

Share this post


Link to post

Microsoft related rant:

 

Got an original Xbox for christmas when it came out and enjoyed some great titles. Madden/NFL Fever, Project Gotham Racing, Dead Or Alive 3, Halo CE. I then got the Xbox Live "DEMO", not even the beta. I played Whacked! and MotoGP before it launched and picked up Whacked! and continued my Microsoft gaming experience. From there things just got better, the games I enjoyed at this time were just way more enjoyable than what I've dealt with for the past couple years.

 

I've said this before but I had Unreal Championship, Midtown Madness 3, Mech Assault, Crimson Skies, Rainbow Six 3, Ghost Recon, RBS3 Black Arrow, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Halo 2 etc, and plenty of other fun but decent games in the mix like CS for xbox. I chose this brand because their vision at the time catered to the "hardcore" gamer, which I guess is an oxymoron in the grand scheme of console gaming. Regardless, I was young, and they clearly marketed themselves with hardcore action based games, and offered a wide range of them.

 

 

Now what? Not just now, but what happened after Gears 1? I stuck out Halo 2 on xbox until eventually getting the 360 for Gears, which was a great condensed, slow, console shooter. Despite the ease of Gears and Halo 3, they were still fun competitive games. The only other game at this time was Shadowrun which I didn't buy due to my involvement in Halo 3.  So around 07 we get Halo 3, Gears 1 and Shadowrun, and that's where the decline starts. CoD gets popular at this time but isn't nearly as popular as it was, and those early versions of modern warfare were pretty decent and filled a different void in the shooter genre.

 

Now my complaint is what has happened from there out? Where did the Microsoft go that supported various great titles? Each game that gets released in the series is worse than the last version. From Unreal, Quake, Halo to Gears, hell even the Rainbow Six Vegas series was trash compared to the original games. That may have been one of the first games to try and appeal to battlefield/cod players. That's the developers faults sure, but clearly their vision changed from being a company for hardcore gamers, and became more family and entertainment based. So from there, I've been stuck with the shittiest, basic, boring shooters that completely lack innovation. I've seriously attempted everything out there on Xbox, and there have been some gems but none of them got any real support.

 

Gotham City Imposters, Section 9 Prejudice, Nexiuz, Murder Miners, Perfect Dark Arcade, Quake Arcade Arena, Monday Night Combat, Shadowrun, Rekoil:Liberation, Takedown: Red Sabre, Hybrid, Special Forces: Team X, and even CounterStrike Go.

 

All of these were fun concepts or games that just FLAT OUT SUCKED. They got no support, and despite that, some were incredibly deep shooters that took way more skill than the versions of Halo we had gotten. Monday Night Combat, Shadowrun were really amazing skill based console shooters. Thats from 07 all the way till 2014. I've had maybe 12 games in the last 7 years that were "different" shooters. Out of that list, and excluding CS:GO, only two of those games had long shelve lives, so I had 2 real games in the last 7 years which I feel is pathetic.

 

My only pure enjoyment right now is playing Halo CE through customs. I've had some great 4v4 Halo 2 customs too which are pretty fun, but CE is the saving grace of why I still have my Xbox One. If they don't fix this by xmas, I'm just going to invest in a gaming PC. No matter how bad the new Unreal is, I guarantee that I can enjoy the alpha version more than I enjoy any version of MCC on xbox one.

 

 

TL;DR - Microsoft's vision of gaming is a joke. Their developers suck, the company itself is obviously uninspiring, and money hungry. Either waiting till Xmas for MCC to be fixed, or heae that Black Tusk Studios plans on releasing a Gears Collection, which to me shows we'll never see Microsoft feature a shooter that requires a brain to play.

Share this post


Link to post

Microsoft related rant:

 

Got an original Xbox for christmas when it came out and enjoyed some great titles. Madden/NFL Fever, Project Gotham Racing, Dead Or Alive 3, Halo CE. I then got the Xbox Live "DEMO", not even the beta. I played Whacked! and MotoGP before it launched and picked up Whacked! and continued my Microsoft gaming experience. From there things just got better, the games I enjoyed at this time were just way more enjoyable than what I've dealt with for the past couple years.

 

I've said this before but I had Unreal Championship, Midtown Madness 3, Mech Assault, Crimson Skies, Rainbow Six 3, Ghost Recon, RBS3 Black Arrow, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Halo 2 etc, and plenty of other fun but decent games in the mix like CS for xbox. I chose this brand because their vision at the time catered to the "hardcore" gamer, which I guess is an oxymoron in the grand scheme of console gaming. Regardless, I was young, and they clearly marketed themselves with hardcore action based games, and offered a wide range of them.

 

 

Now what? Not just now, but what happened after Gears 1? I stuck out Halo 2 on xbox until eventually getting the 360 for Gears, which was a great condensed, slow, console shooter. Despite the ease of Gears and Halo 3, they were still fun competitive games. The only other game at this time was Shadowrun which I didn't buy due to my involvement in Halo 3. So around 07 we get Halo 3, Gears 1 and Shadowrun, and that's where the decline starts. CoD gets popular at this time but isn't nearly as popular as it was, and those early versions of modern warfare were pretty decent and filled a different void in the shooter genre.

 

Now my complaint is what has happened from there out? Where did the Microsoft go that supported various great titles? Each game that gets released in the series is worse than the last version. From Unreal, Quake, Halo to Gears, hell even the Rainbow Six Vegas series was trash compared to the original games. That may have been one of the first games to try and appeal to battlefield/cod players. That's the developers faults sure, but clearly their vision changed from being a company for hardcore gamers, and became more family and entertainment based. So from there, I've been stuck with the shittiest, basic, boring shooters that completely lack innovation. I've seriously attempted everything out there on Xbox, and there have been some gems but none of them got any real support.

 

Gotham City Imposters, Section 9 Prejudice, Nexiuz, Murder Miners, Perfect Dark Arcade, Quake Arcade Arena, Monday Night Combat, Shadowrun, Rekoil:Liberation, Takedown: Red Sabre, Hybrid, Special Forces: Team X, and even CounterStrike Go.

 

All of these were fun concepts or games that just FLAT OUT SUCKED. They got no support, and despite that, some were incredibly deep shooters that took way more skill than the versions of Halo we had gotten. Monday Night Combat, Shadowrun were really amazing skill based console shooters. Thats from 07 all the way till 2014. I've had maybe 12 games in the last 7 years that were "different" shooters. Out of that list, and excluding CS:GO, only two of those games had long shelve lives, so I had 2 real games in the last 7 years which I feel is pathetic.

 

My only pure enjoyment right now is playing Halo CE through customs. I've had some great 4v4 Halo 2 customs too which are pretty fun, but CE is the saving grace of why I still have my Xbox One. If they don't fix this by xmas, I'm just going to invest in a gaming PC. No matter how bad the new Unreal is, I guarantee that I can enjoy the alpha version more than I enjoy any version of MCC on xbox one.

 

 

TL;DR - Microsoft's vision of gaming is a joke. Their developers suck, the company itself is obviously uninspiring, and money hungry. Either waiting till Xmas for MCC to be fixed, or heae that Black Tusk Studios plans on releasing a Gears Collection, which to me shows we'll never see Microsoft feature a shooter that requires a brain to play.

There's a thing called "sales", and the original Xbox, along with many of the games that you listed didn't perform very well at that. It's unfortunate, but that's the world we live in. Also, it's gaming in general, not specific to MS.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a thing called "sales", and the original Xbox, along with many of the games that you listed didn't perform very well at that. It's unfortunate, but that's the world we live in. Also, it's gaming in general, not specific to MS.

 

The fact that I haven't even heard of half these games either...

 

The argument of games getting "worse" depends on the person, it's more likely the first game you are going to get into will be your favourite.

 

Side note, what Gears did Quinn work on? If it was Judgement, the man should not be working on Halo, cos Judgement killed Gears pretty much, game was the definition of "watered down"

Share this post


Link to post

There's a thing called "sales", and the original Xbox, along with many of the games that you listed didn't perform very well at that. It's unfortunate, but that's the world we live in. Also, it's gaming in general, not specific to MS.

 

Sales from then compared to now of course are going to be different. The number of people who owned an xbox in 2003/5 compared to how many owned a 360 in 07 is astronomical.

 

And while it is the gaming genre in general, look at Nintendo. They've established their brand, and gamers love them for that. Hell, PC elitists even tip their fedora's to Nintendo because they do console gaming right. Look at Microsoft's established brand today, and compare it to what I describe when they started. It's 90% more entertainment, fitness, and family based compared to back then. Not a bad idea in the market from a business standpoint, but not what I bought into over a decade ago. And yes, while I do know things change, that's why I'm pretty fed up at this point and willing to drop Xbox all together despite how great Halo CE is, due to their direction of gaming and my needs. This is just from a FPS standpoint, but I'm sure there are some extreme rare fans out there that hate Microsoft for similar reasons.

 

Also the timeframe I stated was an interesting time for gaming. It was really the standard of online gaming for consoles, and another reason I went with that. Socom II was great on PS2, but what else would I play.

 

Hell, I just went on twitter to see Phil Spencer responded to a tweet asking to see a Gears Collection, but specifically, a cross over Gears / Halo game. One that makes Gears a FPS and Halo a TPS just for fun. While Phil says it'd be very hard to pull off successfully, he still thinks it's a great idea. That shit worries me. I really can't trust Microsoft's gaming decisions anymore.

 

 

The fact that I haven't even heard of half these games either...

 

The argument of games getting "worse" depends on the person, it's more likely the first game you are going to get into will be your favourite.

 

Side note, what Gears did Quinn work on? If it was Judgement, the man should not be working on Halo, cos Judgement killed Gears pretty much, game was the definition of "watered down"

 
He did work on Judgement I think, but regardless I don't think he should be working on competitive Halo because from time to time, he says some things that just don't make sense. I will always cite his decision against dropping the flag. Basically he feels that if he goes and cuts off the flag carrier, and the flag carrier whips out rockets and kills quinn, it's "random", which is 100% wrong. The flag carrier did not randomly spawn with rockets. Ordanance didn't randomly drop it at his feet. Quinn and his team failed to get rockets, failed to protect their flag, and failed to prevent the flag cap. This is most likely all a result of that team obtaining rockets like they should. This type of thinking is the opposite of what we need in competitive gaming. It is a minor factor that causes games to be played a certain way, and offer little variables in situations. There's less to think about, and simply more to react to. Now you don't have to worry about the flag guy killing you with rockets, just go push him aggressively since he's slow and has a bad weapon.
 
Those games I listed earlier from early days of Xbox do contain a great deal of nostalgia for me. I think that besides that, I can list objective points of each game which made them better shooters competitively. It's hard to do that for a "fun" standpoint. Each game I mentioned had it's own identity though. Ghost Recon did not feel like Rainbow Six 3 in the slightest bit. Neither of these games felt like Splinter Cell. In fact games were indeed simpler back then on the surface level, but were often hard and required a lot of skill. Rainbow Six 3 or Black Arrow was as close as we got to a console version of CS, where it was incredibly hard yet a single player could dominate multiple players. It sounds arrogant but maybe ask @@Hitman what gaming was like back then.
 
Objectively, Unreal is a great arena shooter, and better than most of what we received afterwards. Quite a bit of auto-aim and magnetism, but it had extremely fast movement. Mech Assault was an amazing game, and I enjoyed it more than the sequel. It's essentially a class based shooter when you think about it, and that's somewhat a rarity. The game was incredibly balanced and due to some glitches, the small, weak, fast mechs were able to do A LOT against their dominate counter-parts. The game required a lot of strategy and knowledge, especially for objective gametypes. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is often regarded as one of the best original xbox games. That level of 2v2 gameplay is so deep and fun, I suggest looking up some videos. There was a failed kickstarted attempt for project stealth that would have been great.
 
The other non shooter games were pretty fun too. Whacked an "arena" based, third person gameshow that combined a lot of elements together and game modes. It combined a wide range of goofy weapons, with some melee based weapons, tons of power-ups on goofy levels. Another great game that probably didn't sell so well, but was also an XBL launch title. Anyone who played Midtown Madness 3 online would tell you that it was the best racing game to simply goof off on. It was hilarious, but not the best racer.
 
Games to me were innovating, and developers who are innovative are the ones who go under. I think the xbox brand was better at providing better quality and a wider range of titles. Games that I mentioned for 07-2014 had potential, just no support. Even before Uber came out against M$'s update policies, they received no love after the summer of arcade sales despite breaking 100,000 sales. Shadowrun is the red-headed step child of the company, and in general the whole indie/arcade program was set-up to fail in the first place. That's the biggest reason why most of these niche innovative games failed, and while AAA games like CoD and Halo flourish.

What have we had to learn from CoD4 to the next CoD? What about Halo 2 to Halo 3, then onward to Halo 4? I'd argue that each year we are receiving a game that is stripped of depth and versatility. Halo CE was great, Halo 2 was good too, but all you had to do in Halo 3 was push, point, shoot, and kinda worry about a weapon/powerup every 2 minutes. Any time you get into an engagement, how many options do you have? There are no button glitches, and the skill gap comes from teamshooting and other basic team elements. I don't mean to knock the Halo series down, because it has been a lot of fun. I just think there's literally nothing left to figure out in later Halos. It's the same meta, same guns, same style maps, that require the same type of skill across Halo 3 to 4. CoD is the same way, just learn the new choke points and spawns per map.

 
I figured out how to dominate Titanfall during the beta. I have to admit Titanfall was a lot of fun to me because I was able to control a big portion of the game. Even in a titan I found myself taking out 2 mechs by myself. It combined some features from Halo and CoD but mixes them in a good way that makes the game seem like it has it's own identity. Games now a days are combining concepts, mechanics, ideas and do so in ways that make the game watered down. Anytime anyone says, "well Halo dev's are trying to be innovative and add features for depth" I want to die. Copying ideas that seem cool and attempting to force them into your game are NOT innovative. They simply water your games core down and force you to balance out the game on tons of factors rather than just a few. Maps now have to be centered around sprint, mantle, and ground pound. Maps are huge because of this and we now have to compensate the sandbox for a game that is centered around sprint and abilities.
 
I can just keep going and going, and the only place I'll be going is nowhere. Microsoft at least created an illusion of caring about hardcore gamers when they launched. Now, they could care less since they got our money. Apparently we all grew up to be 10 year old children who are incredibly fat and need to do Zumba to lose weight. If not 10, we're 15 and have heroin like withdraw from CoD. My whole point is that developers now a days don't give a shit about creating great deep game that we can figure out and enjoy. Games are now tell you everything to do, or play in a way that forces you into certain actions because there's simply no other way to play. Go try to be a support player on Halo 3 the pit and you'll find your useless.
 
I have no hope for Halo 5, especially when they told me it would be more of an Arena Shooter. I saw footage of a one life game-type... that had loadouts? and featured combat that was reminiscent of Destiny/CoD/Halo. Simple bait and switch strategies, and movement abilities that seem like advanced movement techniques for defensive actions. Where does the depth come from? People are citing theres lower auto-aim, which is good but not enough. I'd rather play Unreal Championship with the added auto-aim/bullet magnetism mechanics than play what I've witnessed from Halo 5 guardians. When we had to adapt to Halo in the past, we had to adapt from 2v2s to 4v4s and from single shot weapons to burst fire weapons. High individual skill to high team skill, and from constant weapon/power-up control to more strategic team set-ups and team shooting. From there it was adapting to a slower paced game, with a weapon that was less effective. We adapted to this watered down version of a game, and dealt with it. From there, we haven't added anything that makes the game deeper, and instead of asking how we can make Halo more of a chess match, they're asking how they can make the game appeal to as many people as possible.
 
343 doesn't have a clue of what competitive Halo should be like. The ones who do have no real say in the stake of the game.
Xbox as a brand is a terrible brand, with a terrible console by todays standards. If you are a young person, it's geared a bit more towards you. If you love the kinnect, you're golden. Theres even some pretty good single player games but plenty have had bad launches or overall were lack-luster. Other than that, I think their vision of the xbox brand is pretty bad. I understand it's all about sales to them, but I don't think it's hard to make sales a priority while actually making it seem like you care about your customers and brand.
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Side note, what Gears did Quinn work on? If it was Judgement, the man should not be working on Halo, cos Judgement killed Gears pretty much, game was the definition of "watered down"

He worked on Gears 3.

Share this post


Link to post

Sales from then compared to now of course are going to be different. The number of people who owned an xbox in 2003/5 compared to how many owned a 360 in 07 is astronomical.

 

And while it is the gaming genre in general, look at Nintendo. They've established their brand, and gamers love them for that. Hell, PC elitists even tip their fedora's to Nintendo because they do console gaming right. Look at Microsoft's established brand today, and compare it to what I describe when they started. It's 90% more entertainment, fitness, and family based compared to back then. Not a bad idea in the market from a business standpoint, but not what I bought into over a decade ago. And yes, while I do know things change, that's why I'm pretty fed up at this point and willing to drop Xbox all together despite how great Halo CE is, due to their direction of gaming and my needs. This is just from a FPS standpoint, but I'm sure there are some extreme rare fans out there that hate Microsoft for similar reasons.

 

Also the timeframe I stated was an interesting time for gaming. It was really the standard of online gaming for consoles, and another reason I went with that. Socom II was great on PS2, but what else would I play.

 

Hell, I just went on twitter to see Phil Spencer responded to a tweet asking to see a Gears Collection, but specifically, a cross over Gears / Halo game. One that makes Gears a FPS and Halo a TPS just for fun. While Phil says it'd be very hard to pull off successfully, he still thinks it's a great idea. That shit worries me. I really can't trust Microsoft's gaming decisions anymore.

 

Not all games are going to be uber sweaty diehard competitive you know...

 

Phil Spencer is the sole reason why Xbox is still relevant right now. Pretty sure he knows what he is doing.

Share this post


Link to post

PBS is wrong. He worked on Judgement.

WE ARE ALL SCREWED

Quinn is about to kill another of my favourite franchises... I cannot even deal

Share this post


Link to post

Sales from then compared to now of course are going to be different. The number of people who owned an xbox in 2003/5 compared to how many owned a 360 in 07 is astronomical.

 

And while it is the gaming genre in general, look at Nintendo. They've established their brand, and gamers love them for that. Hell, PC elitists even tip their fedora's to Nintendo because they do console gaming right. Look at Microsoft's established brand today, and compare it to what I describe when they started. It's 90% more entertainment, fitness, and family based compared to back then. Not a bad idea in the market from a business standpoint, but not what I bought into over a decade ago. And yes, while I do know things change, that's why I'm pretty fed up at this point and willing to drop Xbox all together despite how great Halo CE is, due to their direction of gaming and my needs. This is just from a FPS standpoint, but I'm sure there are some extreme rare fans out there that hate Microsoft for similar reasons.

 

Also the timeframe I stated was an interesting time for gaming. It was really the standard of online gaming for consoles, and another reason I went with that. Socom II was great on PS2, but what else would I play.

 

Hell, I just went on twitter to see Phil Spencer responded to a tweet asking to see a Gears Collection, but specifically, a cross over Gears / Halo game. One that makes Gears a FPS and Halo a TPS just for fun. While Phil says it'd be very hard to pull off successfully, he still thinks it's a great idea. That shit worries me. I really can't trust Microsoft's gaming decisions anymore.

I would definitely disagree with the fitness and family games point. Sure they marketed I a bit when the Kinect was new, but the only family games that I know of that they've released the past 6 months are some music game called Fantasia or something and Project Spark, but there could be more of that I can't remember. I cant recall a single fitness game over the past year other than Kinect Sports and Xbox Fitness(If that is even defined as a game). I'd hate to break it to you, but no publisher is focusing strictly on hardcore games anymore. The market just isn't there for the risk in the modern world. I would love for somebody to lead the charge and set an example, but games continue to get more and more expensive to develop.

Share this post


Link to post

Even if he did work on Gears 3, that's still not impressive. GoW3 isn't a bad game, but it sure in hell wasn't a game Gears fan were happy with.

 

The focus from close quarter/small map playstyle to long range/large map playstyle in Gears 3 took away what made GoW unique. Every iteration in that series made it more generic.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

PBS is wrong. He worked on Judgement.

Actually, he did work on Gears 3. I don't know the extension of his involvement on Judgement considering that the vast majority of the game was developed by People Can Fly. Also, Quinn left Epic a bit before Judgement was released.

Share this post


Link to post

Not all games are going to be uber sweaty diehard competitive you know...

 

Phil Spencer is the sole reason why Xbox is still relevant right now. Pretty sure he knows what he is doing.

 

None of those games I mentioned were designed for "e-sports" like todays games are. None of them were designed with the intention of deep competitive play. It's just that deep competitive gameplay was figured out by the community. The game simply allowed for it, rather than was designed for it. It's gonna be hard to picture unless you've played the titles I've played. Halo CE is one of the most accessible games to play, or was at one point. It was just like goldeneye where you can get 2-4 friends, sit on a couch and have a GREAT time. There was no XBL back then, and I didn't even go to H1 tournaments. I can argue my whole time on CE prior to Halo 2 was purely casual. Yeah I played to win, but didn't know settings or glitches etc. The game was simply designed in a manner that respected players intelligence. You'll have to read Hardy Lebel's blog and listen to his reasons behind his decisions. They're simple decisions that create different areas or versatility that lets the player explore options. Would you ever drop your BR for a plamsa rifle in ANY Halo? Probably not, but there are times it would happen in CE and be beneficial.

 

Monday Night Combat is one of the deepest, hardest, team based shooter I've played on console. The developers who made it, don't have the slightest clue as to how it ended up like this. When they made the game they wanted it to be a fun shooter, and had no idea that they accidentally made something so incredibly balanced and deep. They don't even understand what they're looking at when watching high levels of gameplay. When the game launched with the sale, it got over 100,000 buys for an arcade game which is huge. The bright colors, humor, and concept of the game drove casuals in. The bad tutorial and explanation of the game drove people away, but casuals still were able to find success with certain characters.

 

The only game that was designed intentionally to be competitive was Shadowrun. It failed for numerous reasons though, too many to go over. Besides this, all the other games were designed around a core concept of their game. Halo is made around so many different factors that it struggles to find an identity, and instead plateaus as a combination of multiple games that offer very little innovation in completing an objective. Again, my issue is that there is no innovation in games, and games are made in a way where there is NOTHING to figure out. For over 7 years now.

 

What did we have to learn in Halo 3 compared to Halo 2? How to contribute to your team while being incredibly weak? How to insta-splode stickys? I learned a crazy new teleport on Shadowrun a couple months ago on Temple Grounds, and just recently learned how to nade down camo from Plasma Pistol spawn on Damny in Halo CE. When I invest my time in a game, I enjoy improving more so than I care about my rank, experience or levels.

 

I know not all games have to be ultra competitive, but even the games that could have some competitive merit are being merged with other types of shooters to create a very bland, watered down experience of a shooter.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

WE ARE ALL SCREWED

Quinn is about to kill another of my favourite franchises... I cannot even deal

 

What he did to Halo 4, and the innovations for Halo 5 are more promising than anything I've seen changed in Halo previously.

Share this post


Link to post

What he did to Halo 4, and the innovations for Halo 5 are more promising than anything I've seen changed in Halo previously.

 

What did he do for Halo 4? I don't know his role on the "flagnum" but I know his opinion of it and and already stated why I think his opinion on it hurts competitive Halo. Objectively he is wrong when he says a flag guy whipping out rockets is "random".

 

I also do not really consider the slide, mantle, or ground pound innovative. Maybe that's because they stated early on about brining Halo 5 back to it's Arena roots. I thought Halo 3's equipment was literally as "innovative" as it got and all it did was prove equipment didn't really have a great place in balanced Halo. It had some uses and was fun, but not great for competitive Halo.

 

Why do you feel that these features that are present in multiple other games are "innovative" towards Halo? I feel they're simply attempting to refine all these other concepts and abilities within Halo, which to me causes an issue of creating the rest of your game around these "innovative" ideas. While I mostly site competitive gameplay, I also don't think their additions create a great casual atmosphere either but I can be mistaken. Maybe these features that are already in plenty of other games will actually succeed within Halo's concept. Maybe they will integrate Halo and CoD better than they did with Halo 4, but it's just a big pet peeve of mine.

Share this post


Link to post

What did he do for Halo 4? I don't know his role on the "flagnum" but I know his opinion of it and and already stated why I think his opinion on it hurts competitive Halo. Objectively he is wrong when he says a flag guy whipping out rockets is "random".

 

I also do not really consider the slide, mantle, or ground pound innovative. Maybe that's because they stated early on about brining Halo 5 back to it's Arena roots. I thought Halo 3's equipment was literally as "innovative" as it got and all it did was prove equipment didn't really have a great place in balanced Halo. It had some uses and was fun, but not great for competitive Halo.

 

Why do you feel that these features that are present in multiple other games are "innovative" towards Halo? I feel they're simply attempting to refine all these other concepts and abilities within Halo, which to me causes an issue of creating the rest of your game around these "innovative" ideas. While I mostly site competitive gameplay, I also don't think their additions create a great casual atmosphere either but I can be mistaken. Maybe these features that are already in plenty of other games will actually succeed within Halo's concept. Maybe they will integrate Halo and CoD better than they did with Halo 4, but it's just a big pet peeve of mine.

 

Quinn was hired after Halo 4's launch. He revamped all of Halo 4's maps for the Turbo update (Respawning Ordnances, nearly all ordnances removed, weapons added on map for pickup, spawning improved), as well as balanced the sandbox (arguably a job very well done).

 

Halo 5 was never advertised as bringing Halo back to its roots. It was advertised as recreating and revitalizing Halo as an Arena shooter. 4v4, Skill-based, equal starts, map control, weapon control, etc.

 

Anything added to Halo is innovating. Innovating is changing something by adding new things to it. It just so happens that these new additions are offensive combat abilities, so is that really that bad?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that I haven't even heard of half these games either...

 

The argument of games getting "worse" depends on the person, it's more likely the first game you are going to get into will be your favourite.

Many of the Xbox's games turned out to be cult classics more than anything.

 

The only games that you can really point to being both great and popular were games with recognizable labels, like KoTOR and Halo.

 

But I'll tell you what, I'd give plenty of a pretty penny to see an HD remake of JSRF, Mechassault, Republic Commando, and Defender 2002. Besides Republic Commando, they were all fantastically well done but not exactly the most adverted games (Republic Commando was different because it had Star Wars on it, so naturally the label helped its name).

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.