Jump to content
CyReN

What's An Unpopular Halo Opinion You Have?

Recommended Posts

@cT, I fail to see how you can find any halo game better than Halo 4, with its sprint, flinch, and random ordnance; its intentionally designed for extreme unbalanced play Dominion; and the worse collection of maps ever. Well, I just don't get where you are coming from, that is all, but that is okay too.

 

@Hardway, I know, I agree, but that is the perfect world which doesn't exist yet - the master race is working on it I hear. In the mean time people want to play a game that they enjoy. If they find Halo 3 more fun than Halo 1 or 2, then it becomes their favorite game.

 

And in turn it becomes the best game for them, because it is a game that they enjoy best.

 

You can objectively say that Halo 1 or 2 is better than 3 or Reach. But your objectivity would be based upon how you want the game to play to satisfy your competitive skill level and your need to experience dominance in the game. Other players can say Halo 3 was the best objectively based upon the criteria they think is best. Halo 1 or 2 may have the best mechanics for competitive/eSports/MLG/ABC/XYZ halo, but i wonder why you or anyone feels that such criteria is the only criteria to be used in evaluating a game like halo?

 

What if Halo 1 was way too difficult? Would you have said it was poorly designed? A bad title in the series?

 

What if Halo 4 was the first title? Would you know how bad it was?

 

I am not saying you are wrong in your position, but consider the possibility that it is too narrow and rigid to be applied as you wish.

If someone likes Halo 3 the best, that's fine.  I hope they play the crap out of it and learn to love the intricacies of the game, and want to get better.  I want that for every player.

 

My problem is when you start with a game that has objectively better mechanics, and you water it down with each successive title, in an attempt to make the game easier.  That is not the solution!  If Halo 1 and 2 didn't have sticky aim, and shooting was like trying to shoot your teammates, then I could see someone saying that the game is too difficult.  But those games are not too difficult.  It's not hard to do the things that you want to do in those games.  What makes them "difficult" is that new players get matched against veterans, and they get absolutely crushed, and their misplaced anger falls on the game instead of the matchmaking.  If they're playing who they should be playing, the game is a ton of fun, and the skill ceiling allows for years of improvement and mastery.  That's a good thing!

 

A big skill gap, when paired with a good matchmaking system, drastically increases a game's longevity.  It also makes spectating the high end of the skill spectrum that much more entertaining.

 

My argument is not, "You should play Game A."  I don't care what game you like or play.  I'm just glad people are excited about Halo again.  My problem is when people actually want to make the game worse, so that they don't lose as badly to people they shouldn't even be playing against.  That's stupid.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
  • As long as it didn't become a huge campfest down low (which in 50 high TS it was kind of a gentlemen's agreement), I liked Boundless.
  • I think the Halo 3 BR's spread brought a more entertaining aspect to competitive. 
  • Halo 3 was the best Halo.
  • Isolation and Epilogue in Team Doubles was awesome. 
  • Amplified is good.
  • The Spiker was a good weapon.
  • 1v1's do meant shit (somewhat).
  • I also liked Construct.
  • I really liked H3 SWAT (with the BR spread), it was extremely competitive 50 high.
  • Countdown was the worst map ever.
  • MLG Sanc was eh.
  • I like Team Slayer.
  • At no point during Halo 3's life was Neighbor the best player in the game.
  • Going back to Reach now, I don't know how anyone played it (NBNS included).
  • There was nothing wrong with the Reach ranking system except that it could have had 1-50 included.

If I think of more I'll add them.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I hate this line of thinking.  No one needs the skill gap to shrink.  That is STUPID.  All they need is a skill matching system that protects them from unfair beatings, and shows them their progress as they gradually improve.

 

For a bad player to ask that all good players be limited (even ones they aren't even playing against) because they haven't learned the game yet is an incredibly selfish and short-sighted request.  If they're playing who they should be playing, the potential skill gap doesn't matter.  But instead, people would rather screw up the entire game for everyone just because they haven't put in the time or effort to get better.  Doesn't it seem unfair that Lvl 10 Timmy wants Lvl 50 games to suffer, just so that on the off chance the two groups play against each other (which shouldn't even happen to begin with), that he doesn't lose as bad as he might have?

 

That's what I think about when I see people in favor of a smaller skill gap.

Preach. 

Share this post


Link to post

 

What if Halo 1 was way too difficult? Would you have said it was poorly designed? A bad title in the series?

 

 

On the most basic level, Halo 1 would be worse if it were too difficult to shoot people with the pistol.  It would be the equivalent (albeit more competitive) of weakening it with more spread or less damage.  Aim assist exists to drive the pace of console shooters.  There needs to be a balance in order to have balance.

 

Also, if you're on mobile, you can still mention people like this but without the spaces: [ member = " MrGreenWithaGun " ]

Share this post


Link to post

@@Rolex I require some enlightenment on the BR's spread being entertaining and also what you mean by "the Spiker was a good weapon."  Interesting stuff, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Because it comes down to power to the individual to me over almost everything else. In Halo 3 you were the weakest of every game except maybe full bloom Reach, but even that is debatable because I could pick off a 1-shot at distances that would be an utter diceroll with the H3 BR.

 

Flinch sucks sure but not being able to kill someone that is standing out in the middle of nowhere simply because they're too far away is worse to me. Not being able to do ANYTHING against a vehicle is worse to me. Having every asshole in the universe be able to never miss a melee under any circumstances is worse to me. Spawning with an AR in most matchmaking playlists is worse to me. Having my reticle feel like I'm pulling it through clam chowder is worse to me.

 

As much as H4 sucks, I have power. I can spawn with a LR and destroy at range and I can do that in every playlist. As easy as they are, at least my guns shoot in a straight line. As much as the boltshot is completely idiotic at least I have some defense against melee rushing morons. I have a chance against vehicles, if they play stupidly, I win 1v1 every time.

 

I was decent at Halo 3 but I really didn't enjoy it. It did a few things very right, mostly player matching and sniping was harder than h2 for sure but they didn't realize that you cant weaken mid range without the whole game turning into rock/paper/scissors. Players were not individually powerful without a power weapon.

Thank you so much. ive been saying these things about h3 on these forums but i get neg bombed because im not as reputable as you are in this community. Glad you made this point across

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know the "which Halo sucked the most" debate will continue long after I'm dead, but just a friendly reminder that we will literally get to pick what Halo we want to play on XBL and play it in the best condition the games have ever seen in 61 days.

 

...besides Reach I guess. But for real though, H4 and Halo: Reach are much better games than everyone on here makes them out to be. Some aspects in both games are leaps and bounds beyond anything H3 ever dreamt of being.

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoy Halo 4 more then I liked reach. As for normal MM that is

(MLG might be a different story)

 

ODST was a blasty blast of a good time for what it was, all so ODST is 99% better then Reaches FF.

 

I believe Halo 3 Squad Battle took skill to reach level 50

Share this post


Link to post

I have always played Halo and only halo even if I don't love the game I stick with it and just keep playing I did it with Halo Reach and Halo 4 and if Halo 5 is not greatest I will still play it...

I'm not sure if that makes me stupid or just a huge fan of halo.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

@@Rolex I require some enlightenment on the BR's spread being entertaining and also what you mean by "the Spiker was a good weapon."  Interesting stuff, though.

When talking about the Halo 3 BR, using Halo 4 as an example is best, since it's the most recent game I've played where there is no spread on the BR...

 

In H4, I 4 shot people all the time. It's easy. In competitive, everyone can do it. It often comes down to who sees who first, or who is weaker from an encounter prior to the one they are in at that time. The BR spread made it more difficult to get a 4 shot at medium-long range, giving an opportunity for the person who is behind in the battle (as long as they lead their shots better). It gives them another chance. Now, I know some people will say they don't deserve another chance, that's the point of having a game that is all about skill and not randomness. But hey, I like it, and it was in the game whether you liked it or not, so hah. :P  

 

 

I love the spiker. It sounds cool, looks cool, and getting kills with it is funny. I took pride in being able to lead the shots very well. I'm not sure if a spiker-beat down actually killed faster than an AR-beat down, but I seemed to best someone almost every time I used it on them. Maybe it was that it disorients them, I don't know. That doesn't mean I think it should have been in MLG, but I'm definitely sad it was only in one Halo (or was it in Reach..? Don't remember). Anyway, as long as you only broke it out in the right situation, it was good. 

Share this post


Link to post

I believe Halo 3 Squad Battle took skill to reach level 50

Yeah, bridging host and/or host booting skills   :kappa:

 

Also +rep on your most recent post

Share this post


Link to post

 

  • As long as it didn't become a huge campfest down low (which in 50 high TS it was kind of a gentlemen's agreement), I liked Boundless.
  • I think the Halo 3 BR's spread brought a more entertaining aspect to competitive.
  • Halo 3 was the best Halo.
  • Isolation and Epilogue in Team Doubles was awesome.
  • Amplified is good.
  • The Spiker was a good weapon.
  • 1v1's do meant shit (somewhat).
  • I also liked Construct.
  • I really liked H3 SWAT (with the BR spread), it was extremely competitive 50 high.
  • Countdown was the worst map ever.
  • MLG Sanc was eh.
  • I like Team Slayer.
  • At no point during Halo 3's life was Neighbor the best player in the game.
  • Going back to Reach now, I don't know how anyone played it (NBNS included).
  • There was nothing wrong with the Reach ranking system except that it could have had 1-50 included.
If I think of more I'll add them.</p>

I smell a halo 3 kid.

 

Not a bad thing just saying.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, bridging host and/or host booting skills   :kappa:

 

Also +rep on your most recent post

 

Yeah i was able to get a few 50s in SQ without ever doing that or playing with people that did those things, i got cheated a TON of times/

and is was speaking from a standpoint that NO one was cheating i still think it was a difficult 50 to achieve

Share this post


Link to post

I got into squad late and got a 47. It woulda been higher but i could never get a game after that bc i could never find a lobby with 37 low. It really wasnt hard. 35-47 i swear i lost like three games. The only difficulty was finding legit games. The simplest tricks would give me the win like timing snipe/laser/vehicles and communicating this to my team.

Share this post


Link to post

When talking about the Halo 3 BR, using Halo 4 as an example is best, since it's the most recent game I've played where there is no spread on the BR...

 

In H4, I 4 shot people all the time. It's easy. In competitive, everyone can do it. It often comes down to who sees who first, or who is weaker from an encounter prior to the one they are in at that time. The BR spread made it more difficult to get a 4 shot at medium-long range, giving an opportunity for the person who is behind in the battle ...

Firstly as long as your opponent can aim as consistently as you it does come down to who sees who first (as opposed to other FPS).

 

But where does this level of predictable outcome become boring?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

When talking about the Halo 3 BR, using Halo 4 as an example is best, since it's the most recent game I've played where there is no spread on the BR...

 

In H4, I 4 shot people all the time. It's easy. In competitive, everyone can do it. It often comes down to who sees who first, or who is weaker from an encounter prior to the one they are in at that time. The BR spread made it more difficult to get a 4 shot at medium-long range, giving an opportunity for the person who is behind in the battle (as long as they lead their shots better). It gives them another chance. Now, I know some people will say they don't deserve another chance, that's the point of having a game that is all about skill and not randomness. But hey, I like it, and it was in the game whether you liked it or not, so hah. :P  

 

And this is why a Cadence mechanic (read: "something like Bloom") that doesn't introduce randomness is a great idea for a console shooter, such as the 'reverse bloom' (other people's name for it) I've recommended several times in the past...

 

Basically, when you haven't fired, your reticule is fairly large.  Anything that fills more than half your reticule gets hit.  As you fire, your reticule gets smaller, but it resets (like bloom) -- you can fire really fast and get the reticule down to almost a dot (requiring you to be pin-point accurate...like shooting teammates... in order to land shots.  Or, you can pace your shots to the pace of the reticule reset and rely on aim assist to get your kill.

 

This means even if you get first shot, the other person can turn and full-spam perfectly accurate shots and beat you if you decided to be careful and pace.  Or, if you're full-spamming and they're out-strafing you, you can miss and they kill you while they pace with superb strafe skills to wreck you.

 

 

It adds that excitement to gun battles, keeps aim assist a core part of the console shooter so people actually can hit shots, and adds a layer of skill differentiation where your manual dexterity and your confidence determine your potential in a gun battle.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

And this is why a Cadence mechanic (read: "something like Bloom") that doesn't introduce randomness is a great idea for a console shooter, such as the 'reverse bloom' (other people's name for it) I've recommended several times in the past...

 

Basically, when you haven't fired, your reticule is fairly large.  Anything that fills more than half your reticule gets hit.  As you fire, your reticule gets smaller, but it resets (like bloom) -- you can fire really fast and get the reticule down to almost a dot (requiring you to be pin-point accurate...like shooting teammates... in order to land shots.  Or, you can pace your shots to the pace of the reticule reset and rely on aim assist to get your kill.

 

This means even if you get first shot, the other person can turn and full-spam perfectly accurate shots and beat you if you decided to be careful and pace.  Or, if you're full-spamming and they're out-strafing you, you can miss and they kill you while they pace with superb strafe skills to wreck you.

 

 

It adds that excitement to gun battles, keeps aim assist a core part of the console shooter so people actually can hit shots, and adds a layer of skill differentiation where your manual dexterity and your confidence determine your potential in a gun battle.

 

This is a truly terrific idea.

Share this post


Link to post

When talking about the Halo 3 BR, using Halo 4 as an example is best, since it's the most recent game I've played where there is no spread on the BR...

 

In H4, I 4 shot people all the time. It's easy. In competitive, everyone can do it. It often comes down to who sees who first, or who is weaker from an encounter prior to the one they are in at that time. The BR spread made it more difficult to get a 4 shot at medium-long range, giving an opportunity for the person who is behind in the battle (as long as they lead their shots better). It gives them another chance. Now, I know some people will say they don't deserve another chance, that's the point of having a game that is all about skill and not randomness. But hey, I like it, and it was in the game whether you liked it or not, so hah. :P

 

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree that it is a good thing for a disadvantaged player to have the ability to win a 1 on 1 battle.  However, I do not think that it is good for a game to accomplish this because of poor core mechanics or weapon design, which is exactly how I would classify the BR spread in Halo 3.  

 

In my opinion, a well designed game that is competitive and balanced should never punish a player through randomness (H3 BR spread).  Instead, a well designed game should allow players to be punished when they are outplayed by their opposition. In my opinion, this means that the utility weapon in Halo should by somewhat difficult to use, and it should not be easy to consistently land all of your shots.  

 

This is one of the reasons why I believe that H:CE is the most competitive game in the Halo series, because landing three perfect shots on a moving target is difficult to achieve.  The difficulty of scoring a 3 shot kill in H:CE, gives more skilled players the opportunity to out-shoot (out-play) an opponent, even when they are at a disadvantage (weakened shields, sees their opponent second, etc.).

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I smell a halo 3 kid.

 

Not a bad thing just saying.

Yeeeeep  :maven:

 

Firstly as long as your opponent can aim as consistently as you it does come down to who sees who first (as opposed to other FPS).

 

But where does this level of predictable outcome become boring?

To viewers, it might. It dramatically reduces the amount of out-BR's

 

And this is why a Cadence mechanic (read: "something like Bloom") that doesn't introduce randomness is a great idea for a console shooter, such as the 'reverse bloom' (other people's name for it) I've recommended several times in the past...

 

Basically, when you haven't fired, your reticule is fairly large.  Anything that fills more than half your reticule gets hit.  As you fire, your reticule gets smaller, but it resets (like bloom) -- you can fire really fast and get the reticule down to almost a dot (requiring you to be pin-point accurate...like shooting teammates... in order to land shots.  Or, you can pace your shots to the pace of the reticule reset and rely on aim assist to get your kill.

 

This means even if you get first shot, the other person can turn and full-spam perfectly accurate shots and beat you if you decided to be careful and pace.  Or, if you're full-spamming and they're out-strafing you, you can miss and they kill you while they pace with superb strafe skills to wreck you.

 

 

It adds that excitement to gun battles, keeps aim assist a core part of the console shooter so people actually can hit shots, and adds a layer of skill differentiation where your manual dexterity and your confidence determine your potential in a gun battle.

Yes. I like this. A lot. 

 

In my opinion, a well designed game that is competitive and balanced should never punish a player through randomness (H3 BR spread).  Instead, a well designed game should allow players to be punished when they are outplayed by their opposition. In my opinion, this means that the utility weapon in Halo should by somewhat difficult to use, and it should not be easy to consistently land all of your shots.  

But the BR spread isn't random. It's just more difficult. And your idea of the utility weapon in Halo sounds a lot like the H3 BR. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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