Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

The Heretic was the only one saying anything. And for some reason he attacked an Arbiter who put his gun down to listen. Kinda invalidating his own point and pushing the idea he's just sabotaging the religion. 343GS didn't warn him of anything because he was interrupted both times he spoke.

But, if ya wanna let it die, that's fine.

"Oracle? Great Journey? Why do you meddlers keep insisting on using such inaccurate verbiage?" I think he got enough out even after being interrupted. I would think that an oracle hanging around with a heretic would be supporting his claims to some degree.

I don't think there is anything I can say, even with providing supporting evidence, that would make you change your mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still waiting for actual ranks for halo4. They'll deliver any day now

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

A contrarian is to consensus as a vampire is to sunlight.

It’s an exercise in futility, friends. Debate for the journey, because there damn sure won’t be a destination.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Terminator 2 was a dumpster fire.  Terminator 3 is clearly the superior film.  

  • WutFace (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Well, yeah, that was more so my point. That the thing you spoke on was more so probability. Not exactly an opinion or a matter of trust. Performance. Over promises and your reaction to them. Maybe I'm not explaining it properly, or thoroughly. 

 

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. It really boils down to how you define the term 'ready' in relation to how the game will launch.

In my opinion if the game launches with the mouse input delay, audio issues and servers latency that were all present in the flight (not to mention any number of unforeseen issues *cough* MCC launch) then the game is absolutely not in a 'ready' state for launch, and whether you think these things will be fixed or not is dependent on your trust in their abilities, which in my case, and once again is my opinion based on the past, is not a whole lot of trust and more so a healthy dose of skepticism.

4 hours ago, Hard Way said:

A contrarian is to consensus as a vampire is to sunlight.

It’s an exercise in futility, friends. Debate for the journey, because there damn sure won’t be a destination.

I really should stop after I already said I would, but I'm also way more curious than I am disciplined. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Mow said:

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. It really boils down to how you define the term 'ready' in relation to how the game will launch.

In my opinion if the game launches with the mouse input delay, audio issues and servers latency that were all present in the flight then the game is absolutely not in a 'ready' state for launch, and whether you think these things will be fixed or not is dependent of your trust in their abilities, which in my case, and once again is my opinion based on the past, is not a whole lot of trust and more so skepticism.

I really should stop after I already said I would, but I'm also way more curious than I am disciplined. 

Yup. You couldn't sell cars with unresponsive steering or indicators that come on a second after you switch them on. The gaming industry is such bollocks.

 

Edit; then again, they probably would if you could patch cars.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Reach launching with mouse aiming being bad is already a dumpster fire. If there are essentially issues outside of that (crashes, people getting kicked by anitcheat for being good, severe frame drops), it just compounds how bad it is. The approach of "waiting till it's ready" obviously meant "wait till it's ready, unless we miss the holidays" 

 

 

Also Halo 2 story was better than Halo 4 or 5's 

  • Like (+1) 9

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that halo online has better mouse input says something about the current team making the pc version.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Nokt said:

"Oracle? Great Journey? Why do you meddlers keep insisting on using such inaccurate verbiage?" I think he got enough out even after being interrupted. I would think that an oracle hanging around with a heretic would be supporting his claims to some degree.

I don't think there is anything I can say, even with providing supporting evidence, that would make you change your mind.

 

He's only saying inaccurate. It's like someone using a word improperly, but the meaning of it is caught and intact. So you remind them the word is wrong but the end result is the same. The sentence focuses on the words being wrong, not how they're wrong. When they could've just had him open with that when pressed. You'd think a "robot" (Heavy ass airquotes, teehee) designed to be efficient, optimal, and mostly unbiased would skip the mockery portion and move to explaining or asking a question based on the prior engagement. As he does almost everywhere else in the series, barring the time they needed a twist.  

And nah, I don't think association inherently means anything in this context. Given 343 opens with his job description, and the entire mission set was done around the Halo ring's remains. The Covenant were in a Forerunner facility. The conclusion there being the Covenant hung out with the oracle, not the other way around. The implication being wildly different than 343 hanging around a Covenant ship by choice, like in CEA's terminals.

4 hours ago, Mow said:

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. It really boils down to how you define the term 'ready' in relation to how the game will launch.

In my opinion if the game launches with the mouse input delay, audio issues and servers latency that were all present in the flight (not to mention any number of unforeseen issues *cough* MCC launch) then the game is absolutely not in a 'ready' state for launch, and whether you think these things will be fixed or not is dependent on your trust in their abilities, which in my case, and once again is my opinion based on the past, is not a whole lot of trust and more so a healthy dose of skepticism.

Okay. I don't have much else to respond with, lol.

7 hours ago, Hard Way said:

A contrarian is to consensus as a vampire is to sunlight.

It’s an exercise in futility, friends. Debate for the journey, because there damn sure won’t be a destination.

Hey, sick, a useless post from you. Again. A for effort, but I'm glad I live in your mind enough to warrant your social initiation and time. Keep it up. Or don't. Whatever works.

1 hour ago, OG Nick said:

Also Halo 2 story was better than Halo 4 or 5's 

Okay, but why? What qualities make it better. Are we defining "better" by what we enjoy, or the actual inherent traits of something and comparing qualities there.

  • Salt (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So after reading the post on why they removed the ability to uncap FPS, they came up with a SOLUTION(temporary I understand) to make it 60fps capped, because majority complaining about mouse input were playing 60> FPS. Now I’m hoping for release this won’t be the case and they even said it probably wont(tbh I could care less about uncapped as long as I can hit 144 FPS, now I understand for those on 240 FPS but let’s face it, most pc gamers own 144 monitors anyway) but it’ll come back in some experimental way. Summit already wasn’t able to compete against controller players whatsoever. In destiny 2, or apex legends, games with considerable amount of aim assist that gives them the ability to fight against M+K users on a decent to equal level(though mouse still dominates). They cannot expect people to not complain(more so than they already have).

people already don’t want controllers o have aim assist because they’re too stupid to realize it’s not the controller it’s the aiming inputs and lack of raw input in general. ATM YES controller is an advantage but it wouldn’t be if the inputs worked. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Boyo said:

Terminator 2 was a dumpster fire.  Terminator 3 is clearly the superior film.  

Ok but you can't do that

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

He's only saying inaccurate. It's like someone using a word improperly, but the meaning of it is caught and intact. So you remind them the word is wrong but the end result is the same. The sentence focuses on the words being wrong, not how they're wrong. When they could've just had him open with that when pressed. You'd think a "robot" (Heavy ass airquotes, teehee) designed to be efficient, optimal, and mostly unbiased would skip the mockery portion and move to explaining or asking a question based on the prior engagement. As he does almost everywhere else in the series, barring the time they needed a twist.  

And nah, I don't think association inherently means anything in this context. Given 343 opens with his job description, and the entire mission set was done around the Halo ring's remains. The Covenant were in a Forerunner facility. The conclusion there being the Covenant hung out with the oracle, not the other way around. The implication being wildly different than 343 hanging around a Covenant ship by choice, like in CEA's terminals.

Except there is a whole lot more to that sentence other than the use of the word inaccurate.
343GS specifically calls out 2 major parts of their religion prior to saying its inaccurate. 343GS is not an oracle and Halo is not apart of the great journey.
343GS also calls the Covenant meddlers, which means they are interfering. Kind of hard to interfere with firing the Halo rings when their intended purpose to send you on the great journey, no?

What purpose would 343GS have to hang around with the heretic? Him being at the facility with them, sure not that meaningful. Him following the heretic side by side and answering his questions about the purpose of Halo. 343GS doesn't even contradict a single thing the heretic said when he told the Arbiter what the true purpose of Halo. Instead he asks him if he has more questions. Might set off at least one little tiny flag in the back of his head?

The Arbiter doesn't even do anything crazy after all of this, the rebellion started without him because he was kicked down a hole. All he does is join it and decides to take the heed that he has been told by 2 oracles, a demon, and a gravemind and find out himself. The very first thing he does when he confronts Tartarus is ask 343GS the intended purpose of the Halo rings. He gets told bluntly then and there that the Great Journey is a lie, 343GS even offers to show him relevant data that would no doubt back up his words.

The Arbiter is contrasting Tartarus. Tartarus is who Thel 'Vadam was in Halo CE. He is the chosen one, given the command of all of the Covenants fleet. Its a lot easier to blinded by faith when your faith isn't constantly putting you down. They spend the entire game putting the Arbiter down. Giving him the mark of shame, constantly reminding him of his failure, sending him on suicide missions, kicking the elites out of the guard, eventually kicking them out entirely, and trying to kill them/you.

The Arbiter just doesn't flip 180° out of nowhere. There is nothing shocking or unbelievable about the Arbiter changing his mind.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Nokt said:

Except there is a whole lot more to that sentence other than the use of the word inaccurate.
343GS specifically calls out 2 major parts of their religion prior to saying its inaccurate. 343GS is not an oracle and Halo is not apart of the great journey.
343GS also calls the Covenant meddlers, which means they are interfering. Kind of hard to interfere with firing the Halo rings when their intended purpose to send you on the great journey, no?

What purpose would 343GS have to hang around with the heretic? Him being at the facility with them, sure not that meaningful. Him following the heretic side by side and answering his questions about the purpose of Halo. 343GS doesn't even contradict a single thing the heretic said when he told the Arbiter what the true purpose of Halo. Instead he asks him if he has more questions. Might set off at least one little tiny flag in the back of his head?

The Arbiter doesn't even do anything crazy after all of this, the rebellion started without him because he was kicked down a hole. All he does is join it and decides to take the heed that he has been told by 2 oracles, a demon, and a gravemind and find out himself. The very first thing he does when he confronts Tartarus is ask 343GS the intended purpose of the Halo rings. He gets told bluntly then and there that the Great Journey is a lie, 343GS even offers to show him relevant data that would no doubt back up his words.

The Arbiter is contrasting Tartarus. Tartarus is who Thel 'Vadam was in Halo CE. He is the chosen one, given the command of all of the Covenants fleet. Its a lot easier to blinded by faith when your faith isn't constantly putting you down. They spend the entire game putting the Arbiter down. Giving him the mark of shame, constantly reminding him of his failure, sending him on suicide missions, kicking the elites out of the guard, eventually kicking them out entirely, and trying to kill them/you.

The Arbiter just doesn't flip 180° out of nowhere. There is nothing shocking or unbelievable about the Arbiter changing his mind.

I counter inaccurate doesn't inherently mean wrong or act as a callout when he doesn't actually get the time to explain why. Refer to above. And what purpose would 343 have to engage with a Covenant AI. No real purpose. He does it for entertainment and knowledge gains, to a point. It wouldn't be surprising for 343 to hang around with a non-hostile Covenant faction to fill a knowledge base. On that, as I said, 343 asking the Arbiter if he had questions was good, and it prompted him to put his gun down, but that was essentially invalidated once Refumee fired on him for whatever reason. You basically gave off the impression of a trap for knowledge. Meaning even if the question was good, or, rather, could've led somewhere as the question on its own does nothing, the act is nullified once hostility comes into play. Again, 343 isn't given the time to actually explain or potentially show anything. It's all essentially teenage girl mindgame antics, lol. Because he's playing a dialogue game of vague terms and phrases. Which is my whole issue. I don't think the vague terms and phrases used would immediately convert or even begin to convert someone so diehard in their religion, regardless of who they are. We look at this from a different lens as an audience.

Towards the ending with Tartarus. My whole issue with that sequence specifically is that there's a step missing with the phrasing they use. The phrasing that the Arbiter uses is to answer a question with a question to Tartarus. He isn't asking 343 what the ring does for his knowledge. The "is it" he uses before asking implies almost directly that he already knows their purpose and is asking it to counter Tartarus as a gotcha, because Tartarus called him a heretic and the ring question was his counter. Have the monitor explain what he knows because if the Arbiter explained it, he wouldn't be believed. With emphasis on that because the game gives the Arbiter a smug tone for that statement, and even animates a half shrug for him.

And barring that, again, character relations matter in making someone believe something entirely new in a realistic or grounded fashion. People in a religion don't just listen to anyone, and put emphasis on some over others, and completely will not listen to some people or organizations outright. I don't really care he was told by multiple people. Of the four groups telling him shit, two are again, mortal enemies, and we had two monitors who couldn't actually explain anything.

However, I think this entire, multi-day debate is actually the perfect reason I don't believe the Arbiter would follow through on this. You and I could go, and have been going back and forth, forever. We have arguments, we have beliefs, standards, ideals, ideologies. And we argue with them and won't budge. We're arguing something related to the writing of a sci-fi series spanning a few decades, not really the biggest deal on the planet. And what we think works, and what doesn't. Based on how we perceive it, potentially when and how we experienced it, external factors coming into play to push one perception over another, etc. If we can't even convert each other on something as simple as this, writing tangents worth of paragraphs in depth explaining specific scenarios and why or why they wouldn't work based on specific writing prompts or dialogue choices, how do you think a few basic discussions are just gonna swap the Arbiter from pure religious fervor to a state of disbelief? You can count the interactions the Arbiter had with detractors to his religion on one hand, and his responses number in the single digits. Most of which are one liners, and snarky responses. With that said, our talk in a nutshell is a pretty big reason I don't believe the Arbiter would do things as he did. If we can't do it with the quality and quantity of info we push, I don't believe a much more grave, serious matter would be overcome with much less, when the stakes are fundamentally higher for the characters we argue for.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TheIcePrincess said:

I counter inaccurate doesn't inherently mean wrong or act as a callout when he doesn't actually get the time to explain why. Refer to above. And what purpose would 343 have to engage with a Covenant AI. No real purpose. He does it for entertainment and knowledge gains, to a point. It wouldn't be surprising for 343 to hang around with a non-hostile Covenant faction to fill a knowledge base. On that, as I said, 343 asking the Arbiter if he had questions was good, and it prompted him to put his gun down, but that was essentially invalidated once Refumee fired on him for whatever reason. You basically gave off the impression of a trap for knowledge. Meaning even if the question was good, or, rather, could've led somewhere as the question on its own does nothing, the act is nullified once hostility comes into play. Again, 343 isn't given the time to actually explain or potentially show anything. It's all essentially teenage girl mindgame antics, lol. Because he's playing a dialogue game of vague terms and phrases. Which is my whole issue. I don't think the vague terms and phrases used would immediately convert or even begin to convert someone so diehard in their religion, regardless of who they are. We look at this from a different lens as an audience.

Towards the ending with Tartarus. My whole issue with that sequence specifically is that there's a step missing with the phrasing they use. The phrasing that the Arbiter uses is to answer a question with a question to Tartarus. He isn't asking 343 what the ring does for his knowledge. The "is it" he uses before asking implies almost directly that he already knows their purpose and is asking it to counter Tartarus as a gotcha, because Tartarus called him a heretic and the ring question was his counter. Have the monitor explain what he knows because if the Arbiter explained it, he wouldn't be believed. With emphasis on that because the game gives the Arbiter a smug tone for that statement, and even animates a half shrug for him.

And barring that, again, character relations matter in making someone believe something entirely new in a realistic or grounded fashion. People in a religion don't just listen to anyone, and put emphasis on some over others, and completely will not listen to some people or organizations outright. I don't really care he was told by multiple people. Of the four groups telling him shit, two are again, mortal enemies, and we had two monitors who couldn't actually explain anything.

However, I think this entire, multi-day debate is actually the perfect reason I don't believe the Arbiter would follow through on this. You and I could go, and have been going back and forth, forever. We have arguments, we have beliefs, standards, ideals, ideologies. And we argue with them and won't budge. We're arguing something related to the writing of a sci-fi series spanning a few decades, not really the biggest deal on the planet. And what we think works, and what doesn't. Based on how we perceive it, potentially when and how we experienced it, external factors coming into play to push one perception over another, etc. If we can't even convert each other on something as simple as this, writing tangents worth of paragraphs in depth explaining specific scenarios and why or why they wouldn't work based on specific writing prompts or dialogue choices, how do you think a few basic discussions are just gonna swap the Arbiter from pure religious fervor to a state of disbelief? You can count the interactions the Arbiter had with detractors to his religion on one hand, and his responses number in the single digits. Most of which are one liners, and snarky responses. With that said, our talk in a nutshell is a pretty big reason I don't believe the Arbiter would do things as he did. If we can't do it with the quality and quantity of info we push, I don't believe a much more grave, serious matter would be overcome with much less, when the stakes are fundamentally higher for the characters we argue for.

Regardless of if I agree or disagree you bring lots of discussion but do all your posts need to be several paragraphs long of like 10 sentences each? Can't you shorten up your points a bit to be more efficient. 

Half the time I can't even bother to finish reading your post bec your 1 post is longer than all other posts combined on a single page. Call me lazy if you like but being able to get your point across without it being overbearing is a writing skill too.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, JordanB said:

Regardless of if I agree or disagree you bring lots of discussion but do all your posts need to be several paragraphs long of like 10 sentences each? Can't you shorten up your points a bit to be more efficient. 

Half the time I can't even bother to finish reading your post bec your 1 post is longer than all other posts combined on a single page. Call me lazy if you like but being able to get your point across without it being overbearing is a writing skill too.

Lol some people here have a problem with doing that . Looking at you @MultiLockOn no offense man your post are long as hell.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not trying to say I'm opposed to long posts either. When it's every time on something that's gone back and forth for a few days now I don't think it's really necessary unless we're bringing up brand new things. 

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, JordanB said:

Regardless of if I agree or disagree you bring lots of discussion but do all your posts need to be several paragraphs long of like 10 sentences each? Can't you shorten up your points a bit to be more efficient. 

Half the time I can't even bother to finish reading your post bec your 1 post is longer than all other posts combined on a single page. Call me lazy if you like but being able to get your point across without it being overbearing is a writing skill too.

Y-e-s? I write a lot because I lay out every thought on something I feel. To have a proper debate and conversation. It's not about being efficient, or rushing, or being curt. It's about writing thoroughly, akin to an essay. To flesh out what I feel and leave no room for potential miscommunication or error since I mostly debate, and rarely offer or want to offer useless, single-sentence, trite posts of "nothing". With the format I use, getting proper information out and conveying it well is all I need to do. As such, why in the world would I screw over my points because you don't bother to, or don't want to read them. Not to be rude, but it's not my problem you don't want to read, and I'm not gonna neuter my point to service your needs. It's just a disservice to me.

Likewise, I would say, even if one cared about the skill in concise writing, or focused on it here, there's also a skill in weeding through perceived fluff. And breaking down large points, properly. Being able to understand something to argue back. 

I'd literally just say scroll past. No one needs to read my shit if it's that much a problem. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Y’all need to learn how to convert your stream of thought into “here’s what I believe, here’s why I believe it”.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Y-e-s? I write a lot because I lay out every thought on something I feel. To have a proper debate and conversation. It's not about being efficient, or rushing, or being curt. It's about writing thoroughly, akin to an essay. To flesh out what I feel and leave no room for potential miscommunication or error since I mostly debate, and rarely offer or want to offer useless, single-sentence, trite posts of "nothing". With the format I use, getting proper information out and conveying it well is all I need to do. As such, why in the world would I screw over my points because you don't bother to, or don't want to read them. Not to be rude, but it's not my problem you don't want to read, and I'm not gonna neuter my point to service your needs. It's just a disservice to me.

Likewise, I would say, even if one cared about the skill in concise writing, or focused on it here, there's also a skill in weeding through perceived fluff. And breaking down large points, properly. Being able to understand something to argue back. 

I'd literally just say scroll past. No one needs to read my shit if it's that much a problem. 

But when what you’re saying is so long it takes time to figure out the message of your writing. A skilled writer is able to display their message in a couple paragraphs(5 sentences each). When someone feels the need to write long essays like yourself, reading it eventually becomes dull, and by the time someone’s read it, they now need to look back just to see what point you were trying to display.

laziness or not,  it doesn’t escape the fact that when I’m debating someone it’s nice, if I can make a quick reply, not take several long minutes reading.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Y’all need to learn how to convert your stream of thought into “here’s what I believe, here’s why I believe it”.  

That’s an over simplification of just saying this is my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Arlong said:

That’s an over simplification of just saying this is my opinion. 

This is my opinion.  The following points are why I hold this opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Y’all need to learn how to convert your stream of thought into “here’s what I believe, here’s why I believe it”.  

Not gonna dumb myself down for your needs. Again.

Just now, Arlong said:

But when what you’re saying is so long it takes time to figure out the message of your writing. A skilled writer is able to display their message in a couple paragraphs(5 sentences each). When someone feels the need to write long essays like yourself, reading it eventually becomes dull, and by the time someone’s read it, they now need to look back just to see what point you were trying to display.

laziness or not,  it doesn’t escape the fact that when I’m debating someone it’s nice, if I can make a quick reply, not take several long minutes reading.

Writing skill isn't objective there. It's relative. Not every topic requires 5 sentences, and some others require more than 5. Ultimately, as I said, I don't really care if it's dull. The point of a debate (to me) isn't to be an entertaining ball of fluff. It's to write out the points as I see them. If one doesn't like that, or is bored, they're always free to scroll past posts. No one needs to read my shit.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Not gonna dumb myself down for your needs. Again.

Writing skill isn't objective there. It's relative. Not every topic requires 5 sentences, and some others require more than 5. Ultimately, as I said, I don't really care if it's dull. The point of a debate (to me) isn't to be an entertaining ball of fluff. It's to write out the points as I see them. If one doesn't like that, or is bored, they're always free to scroll past posts. No one needs to read my shit.

When someone says something is dull it means it’s never ending and therefore the knowledge at times becomes useless 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Arlong said:

When someone says something is dull it means it’s never ending and therefore the knowledge at times becomes useless 

It doesn't. The knowledge's validity remains the same, regardless of whether or not people are bored by it.

  • Like (+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.