Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, MultiLockOn said:

Choosing your favorite color is subjective.  What saturation the colors should be within an environment to sell a unified tone and message is not.  Making a hell map would be better done with harsh reds than soft pinks. That's the line of reasoning here. Im willing to bet many years down the road not a single person is going to remember what Ragnorak looked like. Valhalla is burned into your memory the moment you see it

Yes based on your cultural and religious beliefs you believe hell to be a deep red color. Based on movie and art portrayals throughout your life. But what about other cultures? Other experiences? What if there is a culture out there that views hell as a completely different thing than you? Better question WHAT makes hell red? Why do you believe it to be red? It's something that doesn't exist in any tangible form yet you have a clear vision for what it should look like. But does every single person around the globe believe This? If a blind man visualized hell what would it look like?

Also no depends on the game you played and loved more. As well as what you see on social media or online. If every post was a "remember this" post showing h3 yea you'll think on it more. Because of alllllllllll the factors in life. This isn't objective in any way. 

And to further the point I think the h4 Valhalla looks better. So explain that to me. Am I wrong?

Look man I don't know why I'm responding lol. This isn't even a real debate. You're trying to find objective truth in things where it literally does not exist. It's like you want to prove you have the "right" answer to things that are almost all circumstantial things that depend heavily on the factors that occurred during ones life. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Thonking (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The whole point of art is that it's subjective. Like wtf have I been reading this last page?

  • Fire (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Basu said:

I see, apologies.

Most of these aren't compelling arguments though. I'm not sure what analogue sticks and aim assist is doing on this list. How is this different from any other Halo? You can also play on PC if it really bothers you that much.

Lead, well I'm not getting into that argument again. I mean yeah projectile sucks in this case because of the terrible hitreg on CE online, but not because "movement is random and inconsistent".

Spread, yes we all aknowledge it exists and it's terrible and should get deleted.

This is also true for every weapon in Halo though? A single pixel will determine hits or miss yeah, that's how hitboxes work.

It's still a shit argument, because you're attacking his Halo skill as much as his argument that the gun is too easy. It's also a fucking custom game lol, come on now. If you showed VOD of Snipedown missing all his shots for an entire series then yeah you'd have some actual evidence that the gun is too hard.

Should be sorry. >:( Super angry face.

But in seriousness. Analogue sticks and aim assist tie into leading, and bullet sway, and having to adapt to it. When you have to lead off target, and you're being tugged to your target, it just results in unintuitive, if not purely jank aiming, and makes actually trying to lead and get sway that much harder on sticks that aren't at all precise, especially on the original hardware. To the point where you missing could boil down to multiple factors you may not be able to pinpoint when you try to reflect on your missed shots. I would entirely play on PC if I cared, but my issues still work with a primary competitive platform, that being the console itself.

Towards pixels. My issue is that in red reticle range, your bullets are inconsistently hitting and missing a still target. And again, referring to earlier, this is a vacuum. Where you don't account for leading, sway, spread, movement, your own movement, distance, etc. If I can't hit a target that is standing still, but then suddenly three them inexplicably, that 's gonna carry over to an actual game and result in more inconsistency. Not saying EVERY encounter is that. But it doesn't need to be to be a factor we know about. This won't happen in Halo 5. You either miss, or you don't. You won't miss a magnum shot in RRR, then suddenly hit one, and likewise out of it. When you hit the range that grants you a strike, nothing will change that. Can't say the same for other Halos, but they're not in my argument.

Third, no, I'm not attacking his skill. I'm not saying "he's bad, let's laugh", because in that same sentence I put myself on blast. I'm saying the dude goosed, just like I did. Right after he the weapon was easy. If it was easy, we'd be having the game's lifespan being an essential average of performances from every player. It wouldn't be some people being stomped on, others doing myeh, then others doing good, great, and so on. With some players improving from the bottom to become competent. Yet here we are, with clear skill differences. My point was to show that by showing that the person who claimed it couldn't do well against certain people. There is obviously some skill to it. Which is my issue. It could be harder, yes, but even as it is, it has a curve to it. 

13 minutes ago, MultiLockOn said:

For games, I could honestly give two shits if someone told me that they loved Halo 4 and hated the rest of the Halo's and I was being rude for disregarding their opinions - it means nothing to me.  Because the game was bad, and if it wasn't bad it would've held players better.  it really is as simple as that sometimes.  And I'm willing to bet that outside of the odd one in a million, all those people who claim they LOVED Halo 4, didn't actually love Halo 4.  They might have thought they loved Halo 4, but in all reality they likely played less than the other more devoted fans who hated it. You ever notice it's the turds on reddit who come in and say "Hey I FOR ONE LOVED Halo 4, I just came back to it after not playing it for a year and I ad a TON of fun. You guys complain too much." Well, if you loved it so much why did you stop playing lmao it's like driving through Pasadena to get Roscoes Chicken and Waffles and going "yeah this place is pretty good" and then never coming back. If it was truly good, they would've stayed.  If Titanfall was truly the best FPS of the generation, people would have kept playing it. But they didn't, because it's not a good game at the fundamental level (at least from what I believe) because it undermines the principles of integrity. Good things invite us to stay, to listen to them over and over and over and each time it doesn't get stale but instead you understand it better.

I'm sure many people out there would tell you that top picture is subjetively better but I dont think it is.  I think Halo 3's has colors that are more defined, a clearly palatable emotional tone, I can hear the picture. Halo 4's is just visual noise.  And it wouldn't matter to me if someone swore they loved the Halo 4 version more, deep down in their psyche their mind wouldn't.

Yeah, Halo 4's GOTC. I know. Underrated, underloved.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, HeX Reapers said:

The whole point of art is that it's subjective. Like wtf have I been reading this last page?

And yet practically every world class artist throughout history has denied that.  You could not find me a modern day or classical industry leading composer who believes that.  Basically nobody at the top of any artistic field actually preaches subjectivity.  It's easy to do exactly what you just did (and have done for years on Forgehub) which is drop in, boldly make a sassy remark in subjectivity, and then leave. But the higher up in any field you get you pretty quickly find out there's a guiding set of principles that lay the foundations for success in every market and medium.  Whether or not YOU are capable of recognizing it is irrelevant, you're free to believe you love or hate something.  But taking a step back and viewing the success and retention of any piece of work over the years will show the same principles and rules guide all success.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I have nothing positive to say so here's a badly made meme.

5my7g1.jpg

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, careh said:

I have nothing positive to say so here's a badly made meme.

5my7g1.jpg

Just saying, that render is the Halo 3 magnum. Not CE's, lmao.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, MultiLockOn said:

And yet practically every world class artist throughout history has denied that.  You could not find me a modern day or classical industry leading composer who believes that.  Basically nobody at the top of any artistic field actually preaches subjectivity.  It's easy to do exactly what you just did (and have done for years on Forgehub) which is drop in, boldly make a sassy remark in subjectivity, and then leave. But the higher up in any field you get you pretty quickly find out there's a guiding set of principles that lay the foundations for success in every market and medium.  Whether or not YOU are capable of recognizing it is irrelevant, you're free to believe you love or hate something.  But taking a step back and viewing the success and retention of any piece of work over the years will show the same principles and rules guide all success.

Did I seriously traumatize you THAT badly?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

In conclusion:

H5 magnum. More lethal? No. More skillful? No. More consistent? Sure. Can you prefer it? Sure. 

The end.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I called it bullet sway because Hardy Lebel called it bullet sway when he spoke about implementing it.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MultiLockOn said:

Post about art and music and games oh my

 

First of all, great post. Your post reminded me of a book I started reading once called "Theory of Fun for Game Design" and I was wondering if you read it? The conclusion reached in that book, or at least from the parts I read, is similar to what you posted or kind of explains what you posted.

The theory was that people find "fun" when they see patterns in things. Using tic tac toe as an example, when you first play it you see lots of patterns and strategies quickly, the game is fun for a short while. Then you realize the game is always the same and there's not too many strategies, the patterns become routine, and the game becomes boring.

That book changed the way I look at things I enjoy or find fun, and I feel a lot of things you mentioned could potentially be explained by the idea that "people find fun in patterns". I never played Titanfall, so I don't want to act like I know the actual reasons, but what if the game didn't have enough depth to carry forward a long lifespan? You play the game, learn the new movement, enjoy calling down titans, there's lots to learn and you're rapidly seeing new things, everything is great. But then games start feeling the same, it feels like there's little counterplay, and you slowly grow bored and move on to something else. Rainbow Six Siege when you first play it feels like you're just dying instantly, it almost feels random. But you slowly learn the different operators, different angles and strategies for taking a bomb site, and the game slowly gets better and better as you learn more.

For music. A catchy pop song you can immediately get the melody, you understand the tone of the song, you get the rhythm. Everybody enjoys a catchy pop song but you may grow tired and move on to another song quickly. Orchestral music is tough to understand at first, certain elements are hidden or seemingly drowned out by other parts of the orchestra. But as you listen to it you catch the flutes in the background, it slowly dawns on you the rhythm of the song, and as you recognize more parts by listening to it you appreciate it more and more.

I could say the same thing about art and the ratios you mentioned. I believe I've described pretty well what I mean though.

So yeah. Have you read the book? Does the idea I pitch sound like it makes sense and could potentially apply to what you described or do you think there's a different reason for what you're describing?

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Silos said:

First of all, great post. Your post reminded me of a book I started reading once called "Theory of Fun for Game Design" and I was wondering if you read it? The conclusion reached in that book, or at least from the parts I read, is similar to what you posted or kind of explains what you posted.

The theory was that people find "fun" when they see patterns in things. Using tic tac toe as an example, when you first play it you see lots of patterns and strategies quickly, the game is fun for a short while. Then you realize the game is always the same and there's not too many strategies, the patterns become routine, and the game becomes boring.

That book changed the way I look at things I enjoy or find fun, and I feel a lot of things you mentioned could potentially be explained by the idea that "people find fun in patterns". I never played Titanfall, so I don't want to act like I know the actual reasons, but what if the game didn't have enough depth to carry forward a long lifespan? You play the game, learn the new movement, enjoy calling down titans, there's lots to learn and you're rapidly seeing new things, everything is great. But then games start feeling the same, it feels like there's little counterplay, and you slowly grow bored and move on to something else. Rainbow Six Siege when you first play it feels like you're just dying instantly, it almost feels random. But you slowly learn the different operators, different angles and strategies for taking a bomb site, and the game slowly gets better and better as you learn more.

For music. A catchy pop song you can immediately get the melody, you understand the tone of the song, you get the rhythm. Everybody enjoys a catchy pop song but you may grow tired and move on to another song quickly. Orchestral music is tough to understand at first, certain elements are hidden or seemingly drowned out by other parts of the orchestra. But as you listen to it you catch the flutes in the background, it slowly dawns on you the rhythm of the song, and as you recognize more parts by listening to it you appreciate it more and more.

I could say the same thing about art and the ratios you mentioned. I believe I've described pretty well what I mean though.

So yeah. Have you read the book? Does the idea I pitch sound like it makes sense and could potentially apply to what you described or do you think there's a different reason for what you're describing?

I have not read the book no, there's many books on game design but I haven't read any of them.  I have read many on general philosophy and music and art though, more than I care to admit.

 

Regarding the patterns thing, there's a really common belief in the industry that patterns (or, loops as I'm sure you've heard them called) are what make up the heart of a good game.  You have no idea how many times during Black Ops 4 development I heard "Oh that's such a fun loop" when speaking about the inevitable 30 seconds after every gunfight you have to sit there and press heal, then press reload, then run back in.  Bungie called them gameplay loops, or "30 seconds of fun" but it was very, very broadly defined as a general gunfight.  Not necessarily a sequence of buttons to be pressed.  But the industry has taken that term and coined and pressed it onto every imaginable angle and game.  In Overwatch how some characters clearly have buttons that are to be pressed in a certain order, like with Genji you dash>shuriken>melee>reflect every single time in that order because it's the correct order to animation cancel so it's done in the fastest progression.  I, personally, despise gameplay loops and the whole idea behind it.  In the same way we all dislike Halo 5 for having blatant weapon upgrades because even beyond the imbalance issues, why wouldn't you? It's not a choice, it's already made for you, you should get that weapon. You would be wrong if you didn't.  It's the correct move.  And to me that is the epitome of shallow, hallow, predetermined game design.  You're not making your own decisions, you're not thinking. You're not reacting.  You're not outsmarting the other player, you're just doing what the developer is telling you to do.  And that's a very dangerous road to set down.

 

I played Anthem the other day for the first time knowing it's a bad game.  Most of the complaints I've heard as to why it failed came from bugs or poor reward systems.  But I don't know if that's what would really kill the game despite what most people online are consciously saying they disliked.  I realized after 2 missions (at which point I stopped) that I had pressed the same 3 buttons in the same order like 50 times.  It took me all of 2 minutes to discover the sequence.  It wasn't fun, or rewarding, or addicting, it was just obnoxious and mind fumblingly dull. But I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt those bioware designers were sitting there saying "oH mAn wHaT a FuN lOoP".  

I think the best forms of design are the ones that leave nothing decided for you at all. Maps that don't have a "correct" way to play them but are balanced to the point where you're simply reading the enemy player and reacting to them, not just following the sequence and "correct" answer the map has laid out for you (Lockout, Guardian).  A weapon sandbox where you can look at every single weapon and be like, "Yeah..I could probably exclusively use that this match and do well, but I also really want to use this gun".  That was what the first day of Apex felt like until every realized the wingman and spitfire were the best. I don't think there's anything more rewarding, lasting, and addicting then just letting the player solve their own problems in whatever way is the correct way in that exact moment.


The problem is most devs are so wrapped up in their bullshit that they don't even see how ridiculous they are.  I was talking to a Halo dev who was saying Fortnite is successful because of its combat loop. I asked, What loop. The response was "Ya know, dropping in, farming, killing people, then winning."  Like that's not even a loop that's the whole damn match, I had to laugh out loud at how ridiculous that was because Fortnite might be the most non-predetermined formula I've ever seen.  There are matches where there's 20 minutess of you just trying to outrun the storm. There are matches where you do nothing.  There are matches where you go on a massive kill spree. There are matches where you're material stacked from farming.  There are matches you just hide.  It is probably the least determined formula I've ever seen in a game (and also happens to be the biggest game on the planet) but people just love to attribute whatever their current understanding is to some random element to the game and attribute it to that. Just like Greenskull tweeted that Fortnite is succesful because of the RNG, people love RNG. It's nonsense.

 

There's a lot to be said on the matter of complexity and depth as you've touched on as well but that's another topic for another time lol. But like everything else, some of the greatest works are also starkly simple.  Complexity doesn't mean depth, as we've all seen in Halo 5.  Michael Jackson's songs are brutally simple sometimes, but there's still an almost undefinable element to them that separates his work to make it timeless compared to every other pop artist.  His level of fame doesn't happen by accident, and if you ever look at how he curated his beats and stuff behind the scenes you see he actually has a ruthless understanding of music theory, the guy knew it all. Some of the biggest EDM songs if that's your scene are sampled from classical Mozart and Beethoven.  Do most of the people listening to it know that? Probably not.  But it's clearly resonating all the same. 

  • Like (+1) 8
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This entire conversation is dumb because we haven't had an official (NHE excluded) perfect utility weapon that doesn't have at least one design feature in it that holds it back.

 

Sure, the CE magnum is more lethal with a wider range of TTK's rewarding better aim much more than other games, but the spread can occasionally be a problem.

Sure, the Halo 5 magnum is the first utility we've had with no bloom, no spread, and with shots that go exactly where you aim, but with very little difference between a Perfect kill (5SK) and a worst case scenario kill (7SK) it leaves you very little room to outplay more than 1 opponent or keep any momentum going if you have to stop to recharge your shields after every gunfight. 

 

Both guns are probably the better utility weapons we've had in the franchise, but they have silly little things holding them back from being perfect. 

CE magnum would be better without spread (Done in NHE, and it looks awesome), and the Halo 5 Magnum would be better if perfect kill was 4SK and worst case was 8/9SK. Projectile vs Hitscan is largely opinion based (I'm in favour of projectile, I think it would be perfect with a single shot, 4SK utility without bloom, spread, and bullet swing, which I now know exists.)

 

Side note: Can we call Bullet Sway, Bullet Swing instead just so its clearly differentiated from scope sway.

Share this post


Link to post

Wait, I haven't been following this thread, are there people saying the H5 pistol is more skillful than CE's? Just, wow. If that's the case.

 

The premier competitive Halo forums sure have fallen.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, TeeJaY said:

Why did you quote me then? If nobody has an issue with the statement "the CE pistol is more skillful than the H5 magnum" then what are we even arguing about. My proof is in the numbers. I have no burden of proof.

You misread my post. I said Beast and Kelly weren't actively claiming that the CE Magnum is less skillful than the H5 Magnum. That doesn't mean they agree that it is more skillful. And yes, you do have a burden of proof when claiming that it is objectively more skillful, you just think you've already met it with "the numbers". What numbers are you even referring to? That people tend to miss more shots on NHE than in Halo 5? So what? That doesn't necessarily mean they are missing because it's more skillful, so it proves nothing in itself. This leads right back into the hitscan vs projectile debate, so unless you wanna start that up again (which I really don't), the conversation has to end here.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hard Way said:

I think the H5 magnum is a pretty damn good weapon, especially compared to the rest of the series. It definitely has its drawbacks, but I think it's unfair to shit on it for being too easy. Outside of that magic range where your pistol just auto-locks and you get the easiest perfect of your life (which is probably what people refer to when they say it's too easy), ease would never be my primary complaint with the weapon. Pistol fights in H5 were, in my experience, pretty damn hard most of the time, and good players could really shine with it in gunfights.  I think ease is an unfair criticism of the weapon most of the time.

My issues with the weapon had more to do with my distaste for thrust, TTK, needing to choose between moving and shooting, H5's wonky aiming in general and how you almost had to play H5 exclusively to manage it, mag size/shots to kill ratio, spammy-feeling RoF, and dynamic RRR aim assist. I felt like I was fighting the game most of the time just to get kills that would be fairly routine in every other Halo. It was frustrating and stressful, and it's why I didn't really push very hard to rank up in H5. In one of the first seasons, I remember playing Arena with a decent to4. We pushed into Onyx and we were getting good, competitive games consistently. I just didn't have fun. I don't like what the game turns into at a high level, and I don't like what's expected of me. Evolved helped with that a lot the few times I played it, but H5's shitty aiming was still unavoidable.

But if you cut the H5 magnum out and insert it into any other Halo, I think it'd be a pretty fun utility. I'd have very few complaints (maybe use the version with the bigger magazine).

That said, I like the H1 pistol a lot more.  If you were to make a pros and cons list of each, the big headliner pro for H5 is consistency. The gun hits what you point at, and thats awesome (especially compared to the rest of the series).  However, H1 matches its consistency 100% if you play the game correctly (LAN, NHE).  Dead even, 100% exact match. The gun shoots what you're pointing at. But let's assume you're not playing NHE, and instead just OG. Okay, now you're dealing with .2 degree spread. It only affects crossmap shots. It's rarely the reason someone misses. But it's still bullshit. That's why we got rid of it.  That said, the headliner pro for the H5 magnum is clinging to a .2 degree spread advantage as it's biggest selling point, in exchange for losing a great deal of individual power and shooting depth (none of which is random, btw). Now go even further and compare it to MCC. No comparison, MCC pistol is bullshit. I won't defend it. The gun fucking does what it wants. I can help mitigate the randomness by aiming correctly, but I don't have any control, really. If you want to shit on the MCC pistol, go right ahead, but it's kind of a useless argument.

But when you compare it to NHE, you get the same consistency, but you also get leading (which I enjoy accounting for and is in no way random), bullet sway/momentum (ditto), the ability to get a 4x multikill without reloading, a fast enough TTK to decimate enemies you have flanked, and a level of aim assist that feels just right. It's got a fast perfect and a high average, because there are many things you have to account for. That makes shooting fun, when you get a feel for your weapon and you're accounting for everything just right and dropping people like flies. That level of power would be OP and pretty lame if you didn't have to account for all those extra things (see "Halo One" pistol), but it's satisfying af when you do.  I feel like I need to stress this; doing well with the pistol in NHE isn't random, nor is it inconsistent. It's just difficult. It's barely random on OG, to the point where the Ogres never dropped a series while teaming together. People like Gintron and Killer N had reputations for having an inhuman pistol. Getting hung up on .2 degree spread is not seeing the forest for the trees.

Now, I can understand people's frustrations with it. The reticle is unintuitive af. It seems, due to its size, that it would either be really random or really easy, and the way bullet magnetism manifests itself lends credence to that. But that's only an issue until someone shows you how to shoot with it. Don't aim with the middle of the circle. Aim with the actual circle. That's where you get your bullet magnetism. A lot of the inconsistency you're encountering will cease to exist once you're shooting correctly. Once you start using different parts of the circle to shoot depending on the lead you need, it's actually pretty fuckin fun, and totally unique to H1. Unfortunately, its unintuitive as all hell, and mid-reticle bullet magnetism can get pretty screwy, as we saw in Kelly's clip. I have a clip too in my video about the H1 weapons (timestamped), where I have a player within my red reticle where most of my shots miss. This was shot on OG disc (emulated on 360).

As much as I enjoy shooting with the edges of the reticle, I acknowledge that it's offputting to people that don't know to do it, and that bullet magnetism within the reticle can get weird sometimes. I just want to emphasize that this goes away if you're shooting correctly.

 

But to wrap it up so I can go do something else, the H5 utility is a fun weapon and if it returned as the utility in future games (minus all the extraneous factors surrounding it), I'd be cool with that. It's one of the better utilities so far, for sure, and gunfights in H5 have a great deal of room to shine. I would prefer it as a 4sk though.  I just think it pales in comparison to the H1 pistol. Consistency on LAN was barely a factor at any point, and has completely ceased to be now. Meanwhile, you have awesome individual power that's held in check only by one's ability to master it's shooting depth, which is entirely possible. Lot's and lots of great players have been able to do it consistently, and I can do it too when I catch fire. To me it's no comparison, but I've been fortunate enough to play the game the optimal way with really great players and teachers. Not everyone is so lucky.

My gosh the aiming really is bad. I hate that feeling of fighting with my aim. Can someone here tell me if aiming is better on the Xbox one S or X or is it the same as my Xbox OG. Played it yesterday and instantly deleted the game(I do this at times) .

why is aiming like that in CE? It makes far more sense for shots to be most powerful in the center no? It’s stuff like that is why I want reticule customization settings, not just for CE but every halo. 

Is there a specific reason for 4sk? Could they not give us a 5sk pistol with a TTK of 0.9s? 

Share this post


Link to post

Halo politics are serious business :lxthul:

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Arlong said:

My gosh the aiming really is bad. I hate that feeling of fighting with my aim. Can someone here tell me if aiming is better on the Xbox one S or X or is it the same as my Xbox OG. Played it yesterday and instantly deleted the game(I do this at times) .

why is aiming like that in CE? It makes far more sense for shots to be most powerful in the center no? It’s stuff like that is why I want reticule customization settings, not just for CE but every halo. 

Is there a specific reason for 4sk? Could they not give us a 5sk pistol with a TTK of 0.9s? 

I think it was @Gobias that articulated it really well a while back. But basically the goal is to reduce TTK, but also make misses matter. The RoF would need to be REALLY fast for a 5sk to have a .9s TTK, to the point where a missed shot wouldn’t hold much weight.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Hard Way said:

I think it was @Gobias that articulated it really well a while back. But basically the goal is to reduce TTK, but also make misses matter. The RoF would need to be REALLY fast for a 5sk to have a .9s TTK, to the point where a missed shot wouldn’t hold much weight.

Ahhh I see. 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Mythik Nick said:

That people tend to miss more shots on NHE than in Halo 5? So what? That doesn't necessarily mean they are missing because it's more skillful, 

Yes it does? The NHE magnum is 100% consistent in its aiming mechanics. As in, no randomness.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, TeeJaY said:

Yes it does? The NHE magnum is 100% consistent in its aiming mechanics. As in, no randomness.

Do you still have lead and bullet sway?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Do you still have lead and bullet sway?

Yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Then don't lie to me, lmao.

I can understand the bullet sway but why is leading a form of randomness?  I only ask this because in h5 the CE mag is beyond easy because it’s hitscan. It may be consistent but that doesn’t make it great.

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.