Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

IGN is so big, do these mentions ever translate into noticeable growth? Say, for example, in 1-3 days range? Just curious. 

It truly does. When the 100 days article started picking up steam, we had constant big numbers on the site for at least a week and it became one of our best articles of all time. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

It truly does. When the 100 days article started picking up steam, we had constant big numbers on the site for at least a week and it became one of our best articles of all time. 

:walshy:

 

That's so fucking cool. I'm sure this won't spark AS big of a traffic spike (because that article was amazing), but this is still awesome. Since I've joined, this site has grown immensely. 

 

:beyond:  :beyond:  :beyond:

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Dude, 1/2 of their marketing has focused on equal starts. IF they ever mention the word loadouts again, people will riot, justifiably or not. 

You understand how many rioters will pop up if they aren't able to use the BR? In Halo 4, people wanted the 5sk BR with the 3 hour kill time over the DMR despite the DMR being an actual reasonable starting weapon and the BR just being a shitty incarnation of the weapon. They wanted it so much that despite it being clear that the DMR took more skill, was more consistent, had a faster kill time, and was a lethal weapon at range, people wanted the BR because of its name and therefore, got a 5sk BR in the official tournament settings for multiple versions. 

Share this post


Link to post

The larger part of the community doesn't care about HCS game modes and the people who do are accustomed to having a BR off spawn. 

This is a moot point to justify hurting the skill gap. I could say I'm used to rocket starts and begin to advocate for rocket starts off spawn. What gives?

 

Unless the BR has a lot less bullet magnetism, I don't see the point. Even then, it still would be easier because of the stronger scope and burst fire, but that's whatever I guess.

 

I have not seen any real world examples of a game with a long range effective weapon have the "slow potshotty gameplay" people keep talking about. The only examples I can think off are because of the map rather than the weapon (lockout, penance). 

 

Also, I am not advocating DMR starts anyway. Only BR or Carbine. 

First off, like Zip said, loadouts are out of the question. Halo 5 is attempting to go back to an arena focus. Loadouts would be 100% counter-intuitive.

 

Second, what I quoted. Earlier in this thread, I linked a YouTube video of BR starts on Orion, and even an average player knew it wasn't a good idea to push up when everyone has a BR. It's much safer AND easier to sit back, despite how it leads to boring games. You have to take into consideration that a lot of the Halo 5 maps are like this; designed to accommodate the new movement options (infinite sprint, sprint jump + thrusters, clamber, etc.) and this results in most maps having long, dangerous stretches and wide open spaces. Now, I'm not going to debate whether it's a good thing or not, however, you have to realize it is the norm for most Halo 5 maps. Therefore, this means, on average, people are engaging one another at a much greater distance.

 

You would think having a weapon which is much more powerful at range helps alleviating issues that stem from this, but let me ask you, how do you ever fight back when you're getting painted from across the map and your target takes up a few pixels of your screen? You can't just turn around and try to out gun them if their weapon is too easy-of-use and proficient at range (much like the BR or the DMR). In most cases, by the time you line up the shot, you're dead. What's the next best option? Camping back and not pushing too far from cover in order to stand at chance at lining up the shot on someone who gets the jump on you from far away. This is a problem because in the previous Halo games, you had small stretches between cover, whereas in Halo 5, on some maps, you can travel quite a distance before finding something to hide behind.

 

CE is nothing close to this because despite having a weapon with an optimal kill time of 0.6s. The game didn't use hitscan, the gun was limited to a 2x scope, and strafing and crouching were both very responsive. It's easy enough to dodge shots at range (though not necessarily shoot back at the same time). You can hit someone out of descope and stand a very good chance at fighting back. This isn't the case in Halo 5 because you're fighting from so far away, it's not even a viable option most of the time.

 

From here, there's two options. Remake an entire map pool through Forge, or make it possible for people to move around the map by having a weapon which is much harder and skillful to use at range. I don't mean harder as in random like the H3 BR either, I mean harder as in weaker scope, RRR, etc.

 

I'm sure people will say it's backwards and contradictory, and I even sat there myself for quite some time trying to make sense of this, but allowing people to get easy crossmap kills will hurt the game and the overall pace more than it does good.

 

EDIT: had to correct wording on a few things.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

First off, like Zip said, loadouts are out of the question. Halo 5 is attempting to go back to an arena focus. Loadouts would be 100% counter-intuitive.

 

Second, what I quoted. Earlier in this thread, I linked a YouTube video of BR starts on Orion, and even an average player knew it wasn't a good idea to push up when everyone has a BR. It's much safer AND easier to sit back, despite how it leads to boring games. You have to take into consideration that a lot of the Halo 5 maps are like this; designed to accommodate the new movement options (infinite sprint, sprint jump + thrusters, clamber, etc.) and this results in most maps having long, dangerous stretches and wide open spaces. Now, I'm not going to debate whether it's a good thing or not, however, you have to realize it is the norm for most Halo 5 maps. Therefore, this means, on average, people are engaging one another at a much greater distance.

 

Orion? The forge map from schitnzel? Was it pro level gameplay? Are you aware that Orion is essentially construct? Are you aware that Orion is a huge ass map with an incredibly open sight line across the entire map and places to easily camp? 

 

You would think having a weapon which is much more powerful at range helps alleviating issues that stem from this, but let me ask you, how do you ever fight back when you're getting painted from across the map and your target takes up a few pixels of your screen? You can't just turn around and try to out gun them if their weapon is too easy-of-use and proficient at range (much like the BR or the DMR). In most cases, by the time you line up the shot, you're dead. What's the next best option? Camping back and not pushing too far from cover in order to stand at chance at lining up the shot on someone who gets the jump on you from far away. This is a problem because in the previous Halo games, you had small stretches between cover, whereas in Halo 5, on some maps, you can travel quite a distance before finding something to hide behind.

 

This game has sprint. Map movement will not be a problem. The maps also are cramped with LOS restricting structures. The game is not going to have campy play and I never had a single campy game in the beta except during AR/Pistol starts on empire where they just camped the base and killed people rushing in.

 

CE is nothing close to this because despite having a weapon with an optimal kill time of 0.6s. The game didn't use hitscan, the gun was limited to a 2x scope, and strafing and crouching were both very responsive. It's easy enough to dodge shots at range (though not necessarily shoot back at the same time). You can hit someone out of descope and stand a very good chance at fighting back. This isn't the case in Halo 5 because you're fighting from so far away, it's not even a viable option most of the time.

 

CE was balanced out by the bullet time yes. However, it isn't like the BR is a lazer pointer. It has spread just like it did in Halo 2 (it has more than H2 actually) meaning it isn't going to 4sk someone every time across vahalla. Furthermore, the Halo 1 pistol was way better at range than any BR ever has even with bullet travel time. This isn't speculation. The BR isn't a DMR and you keep arguing as if it is. 

 

From here, there's two options. Remake an entire map pool through Forge, or make it possible for people to move around the map by having a weapon which is much harder and skillful to use at range. I don't mean harder as in random like the H3 BR either, I mean harder as in weaker scope, RRR, etc.

 

Baseless point since the maps are all very LOS restrictive as I pointed out earlier. 

 

I'm sure people will say it's backwards and contradictory, and I even sat there myself for quite some time trying to make sense of this, but allowing people to get easy crossmap kills will hurt the game and the overall pace more than it does good.

 

Again, not DMR. Again, maps are super cluttered with LOS blockers. Again, sprint. 

 

Furthermore, if what you are saying WERE true, then the team that gets the DMRs and BRs early in the game can essentially auto win by holding one location and the Pistol team has no way of fighting back, so even if you flawed argument that is based on no evidence were true, you are still hypothetically advocating a bad idea. Under you assumption, essentially every game becomes Derelict from Halo 1 where one team gets an insurmountable advantage at the start by winning the opening rush.  

 

EDIT: had to correct wording on a few things.

Bold

Share this post


Link to post

Also, using loadouts is too outside of expectations but spawning someone without a BR which is the primary weapon we have used for 11 years (not counting reach which has a single shot BR essentially) and caused a huge divide between BR and DMR people back when the BR was a fucking 5 shot is not?

Share this post


Link to post

It truly does. When the 100 days article started picking up steam, we had constant big numbers on the site for at least a week and it became one of our best articles of all time.

I'm sure the 200 days article will be even bigger in magnitude.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoy this myth that compromising competitive settings is going to make us successful. Anybody remember "We have decided to reinstate sprint for version 2 of the MLG settings to allow the settings to better appeal to casual players and spectators"? When something is not an objectively good element for play and you keep it in, it does not grow the scene. It never has. There isn't a single time in any competitive game that I can think of someone adding bullshit mechanics to the game and it becoming a more successful game. Under this logic, Brawl would have been more successful than Melee because it appealed to casuals more, or having items on during play would grow the scene. Hell this logic means that Mario Kart is the most successful competitive game of all time. Oh wait, no. That is mario party. Casual games inherently don't become competitive games because of the fact that they are not designed to do that. When you add mechanics that do not appeal to the people who want to compete, you HURT your scene even if it is slightly more appealing to casuals because player retention is more important. A casual can eventually find a hardcore experience fun because of it's merits (or they aren't the type to ever find it good), but a lost competitive player will never come back. 

 

I think if you look at the biggest eSports right now (LoL, DotA, SC, CS:GO, etc.) one of the biggest things they have in common with each other is that everyone plays the same game. There isn't a big change in settings for the 'competitive' players and the 'casuals'. I truly believe that if Halo has ANY chance of blowing up, then the game has to be largely the same for casuals and competitive players. This allows an easy transition for casual players to start watching streams of Pro's and instantly recognize everything they're seeing.

 

 

In the end, it's all preference. Saying one is more skilled than the other is fine but that doesn't always translate to being more enjoyable. I just didn't have fun week 1 but I loved week 2. I want to enjoy the game just like anyone else so getting rid of BR starts will lead to me playing much much less.

 

 

Can you definitively say you wouldn't have fun if the Pistol was buffed and you felt more comfortable with it? Or is your enjoyment in the game strictly dependent on whether or not you get to use the weapon that is called 'Battle Rifle'? 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
 

Bold

 

Not everyone who picks up a BR or a DMR will always be in a good position to make use of it... and even if it was the case, then, assuming you're off respawn, you just have to be careful until you pick off (whether it's through a good push, teamshot or coordinated execution) the main threats, somewhat treating them like power weapons users.

 

Furthermore, if what you are saying WERE true, then the team that gets the DMRs and BRs early in the game can essentially auto win by holding one location and the Pistol team has no way of fighting back, so even if you flawed argument that is based on no evidence were true, you are still hypothetically advocating a bad idea. Under you assumption, essentially every game becomes Derelict from Halo 1 where one team gets an insurmountable advantage at the start by winning the opening rush.  

 

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Players can fight back with the pistol, once again, I'm just advocating for players to spawn with the more difficult weapon to use at range, not one that makes it impossible to engage players using different weapons.

 

 

However, it isn't like the BR is a lazer pointer. 

 

e12f14bbc76d366a883aecebe184fe67.gif

 

I don't know what the hell it is, but I know what a problem is when I see one.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm in agreement that the Halo sandbox could have more variety but how much can you really get out of multiple rifles / pistols? They already sit within their respective ranges / damage outputs, they just have the potential to be outclassed by better niche weapons.

 

Counter-Strike is a really good example of both extremes working well in their own ways. CS 1.6 has a LOT of redundancy, there are lots of pistols / smgs / rifles / snipers / shotguns that are considered useless in a practical sense - what you end up with once you ignore the guns on the outside is a very streamlined hierarchy. CSGO on the other hand seeks to reduce this redundancy as much as possible (for inclusion and also for monetizing reasons) so that the majority of the weapons that were completely discarded in 1.6 now have their own place in the game. There are positives and negatives for both and having played both at a reasonably high level I would be hard pressed to say objectively which is the better approach.

 

At the end of the day, even if they've created the assets I'm not going to be upset if no one ever picks up the Carbine again.

The cool thing that would never happen is to balance or tweak each weapon to be unique to a specific map or two. Give Eden a DMR, Empire a BR, and Truth a Carbine. If it doesn't serve a distinct purpose, limit the amount of maps it appears on.

Then the sandbox would appear much more streamlined while still offering variety and making each map feel unique. However, the problem with this is people missing out on their favorite guns.

 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think if you look at the biggest eSports right now (LoL, DotA, SC, CS:GO, etc.) one of the biggest things they have in common with each other is that everyone plays the same game. There isn't a big change in settings for the 'competitive' players and the 'casuals'. I truly believe that if Halo has ANY chance of blowing up, then the game has to be largely the same for casuals and competitive players. This allows an easy transition for casual players to start watching streams of Pro's and instantly recognize everything they're seeing.

 

So then in Halo 2, MLG should have used SMG starts on foundation right? And Halo 1 we should have used the plasma pistol right? And Halo 3 we should have used the AR right? And Halo reach we should have kept the game with bloom and AR starts right? 

 

Halo isn't, and has never been, like LoL, DotA, StarCraft, or Counterstrike. Those games were built to be competitive. They were designed with the same philosophies that we used when constructing gametypes for Halo since the beginning. Halo isn't and has never been designed that way. It has always been designed with the same philosophy of CoD and Smash Bros: Get the widest appeal of the casual market. 

 

CoD bans bullshit options and levels, and Smash Bros removes items and bans half the levels. 

 

If what you were saying were true, this would be the wrong way to go but I dare you to try to hold a national smash tournament with Items on High and the stage list being poke floats, hyrule temple, flat zone, big blue, and the stupid scrolling ice climbers stage. Let's see how successful that is. 

 

And before you try the old "343i says they are making this game with competitive gamers in mind" spiel, let me remind you of a fun fact: 

 

Halo 1: No focus on competitive gamers. 

Halo 2: Almost no focus on competitive gamers.

Halo 3: Almost no focus on competitive gamers.

Halo Reach: Stated multiple times that it was being made with competitive players in mind. 

Halo 4: Stated extensively that it was the most competitive gamer focused game in the franchise. 

 

 

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Players can fight back with the pistol, once again, I'm just advocating for players to spawn with the more difficult weapon to use at range, not one that makes it impossible to engage players using different weapons.

 

Of course it is a fallacy. I directly stated that "if what you are saying WERE true," blah blah blah. The point was that it was based on a false presumption. That is why I made it. To point out absurdity. 

 

 

 

I don't know what the hell it is, but I know what a problem is when I see one.

*States extensively that the problem with the BR is how good it is at range. 

*Shows a clip of a weakened enemy at mid range get his shield dropped by the last bullet hitting while the player is within the reticule

*Expects that to be evidence that the BR is too good at range

 

Also if you are going to pick and choose which of my points to pay attention to and which to ignore then we aren't having an actual debate. I assume since you completely ignored all of my reference to sprint, LOS, and Orion that you agree with me. If not please say why those points are invalid. 

Share this post


Link to post

Can you definitively say you wouldn't have fun if the Pistol was buffed and you felt more comfortable with it? Or is your enjoyment in the game strictly dependent on whether or not you get to use the weapon that is called 'Battle Rifle'? 

A bit condescending in your last sentence there, man. I enjoy the way the BR in the beta felt in my hands. It had nothing to do with it being called "Battle Rifle" or it being a rifle at all. It just felt better to me. The pistol had a massive skill gap and was amazing I just prefer to spawn with that BR assuming it has less aim magnetism at launch. With a buff I'm sure the pistol would be a great starting weapon but I definitely enjoy the BR more as of now. It's impossible for me to speak on how I would feel once it's buffed without playing with it first. I've been playing since H1 and I love each game in the series. I'm not a BR "thumper". It's possible that some people just have different preferences.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a moot point to justify hurting the skill gap. I could say I'm used to rocket starts and begin to advocate for rocket starts off spawn. What gives?

 

Unless the BR has a lot less bullet magnetism, I don't see the point. Even then, it still would be easier because of the stronger scope and burst fire, but that's whatever I guess.

I'm not even speaking on the subject of skill gaps. I'm speaking on my enjoyment of the game with a BR being much higher than with a pistol. People need to realize that not everyone prefers the same settings. It's just not possible to please everyone with one universal gametype and I accept that. Either way I will just sprint and thrust to the nearest BR if AR/pistol starts become the norm. I ENJOYED BR STARTS MORE THAN AR/PISTOL IN THE BETA. Maybe a buffed pistol in my hands will change my mind. Sorry for double post.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure the 200 days article will be even bigger in magnitude.

:wutface:

Share this post


Link to post

We need to have an AMA with @@Sal1ent

He's probably super busy. I can see him doing one post launch though. He seems like a cool enough guy :P

Share this post


Link to post

I know he's busy, just would like half an hour to answer all the questions he getsz

Share this post


Link to post

It'd be nice to do an AMA with someone at every company who had a hand in MCC. Too many chefs stirring the pot.

Share this post


Link to post

A bit condescending in your last sentence there, man. I enjoy the way the BR in the beta felt in my hands. It had nothing to do with it being called "Battle Rifle" or it being a rifle at all. It just felt better to me. The pistol had a massive skill gap and was amazing I just prefer to spawn with that BR assuming it has less aim magnetism at launch. With a buff I'm sure the pistol would be a great starting weapon but I definitely enjoy the BR more as of now. It's impossible for me to speak on how I would feel once it's buffed without playing with it first. I've been playing since H1 and I love each game in the series. I'm not a BR "thumper". It's possible that some people just have different preferences.

 

I apologize if it sounded condescending. I just meant your statement that 'if it's not BR starts, I will play much much less' lead me to believe you only cared that it was a battle rifle (likely BR or DMR). It didn't seem to matter whether or not the pistol was buffed in a way that made you feel comfortable, because it still wouldn't be the battle rifle which you've become accustomed too.

Share this post


Link to post

If the pistol were objectively the best utility weapon I would be all for it, but this game needs utility. With the maps being bigger on average than ever, I don't think that we should be starting with a weapon that has the shortest effective range in the series (outside of H3 BR). I don't think that having a good utility is less important than starting with a spray and pray weapon either.

 

I am going to be honest here: I don't give a fuck if casuals like the competitive settings or not. They won't, but if they did, I wouldn't care. I want the game to be objectively good as a competitive game. Not judged to be good by thumbless morons who are going to leave as soon as CoD BlackModernWarOps 27 comes out. If they are the kind of people who might like competitive settings, not having an AR on spawn isn't going to change that (especially since 343i is probably going to have non-AR start gametypes anyway).

 

Let's be real honest right now. Do any of you honestly think sacrificing competitive merit for shitty gimmicky mechanics is ever going to make Halo successful? Because that is what we were promised since the day MLG v2 came out and I am still waiting. The one time they decided to move away from this idea was H2A which is the best Halo experience to come out since Halo 3 (arguably Halo 2). I am not talking about whether you think pistol AR is more competitive as that is a matter of taste. I mean do you think it is better to make the game objectively shittier so that people who do not care about competitive halo are slightly more likely to play? If so, I ask you this: Why did you get into competitive halo? According to the logic presented, none of us should care about competitive halo because we were all casuals at one point and out of the box settings is the only way to get us on board. That reasoning doesn't make any sense. We started playing competitively because we wanted to compete and we figured out for ourselves that Chrion TL 34 is not good for competition. We weren't driven away by not spawning with an SMG and we sure as hell weren't driven away by playing on smaller maps with a good utility weapon being the focus over pointless variety. Anybody who is the kind of person to actually want to compete will not be driven away by these things. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Of course it is a fallacy. I directly stated that "if what you are saying WERE true," blah blah blah. The point was that it was based on a false presumption. That is why I made it. To point out absurdity. 

 

*States extensively that the problem with the BR is how good it is at range. 

*Shows a clip of a weakened enemy at mid range get his shield dropped by the last bullet hitting while the player is within the reticule

*Expects that to be evidence that the BR is too good at range

 

Also if you are going to pick and choose which of my points to pay attention to and which to ignore then we aren't having an actual debate. I assume since you completely ignored all of my reference to sprint, LOS, and Orion that you agree with me. If not please say why those points are invalid. 

I disagree with what you said on Orion because most of the Halo 5 maps are wide and feature long stretches and that's no secret -- the devs have acknowledged this fact themselves and this is why the movement speed is getting buffed post-beta. It's not exclusive to Orion just because YOU associate it to another bad map with a similar problem (Construct).

 

What you said about long stretches being OK because sprint is in the game is a terrible point. We both know that being forced to sprint to transition from one area to another is horrible for the game. People should be able to shoot back, but if we follow your train of thought, then the sole viable manner of moving from A to B is sprint, which at this point, there's a good chance competitive settings won't even use anyway.

 

Anyhow, most of the points you've stated bringing it up are just exaggerations... in no way Halo 2 SMG starts (automatic designed to be dual-wielded, insane recoil, not headshot capable, requires little skill to use) are comparable to having the Halo 5 pistol (headshot capable, quick TTK, zoom-able, powerful on its own). Also, using a fallacy to point out I said something absurd is not just senseless, but on top of that, claiming I said something absurd without proof is another fallacy (argumentum ad lapidem). 

 

As for the BR clip I posted, it is evidence of the insane amount of bullet magnetism the BR has, which translates to an increased ease-of-use at range. The reticle wasn't even red and the bullets connected. It flashes red for a split second AFTER the player is done shooting.

 

But yeah, more importantly, I can only repeat the same things over and over before getting tired of it. I've essentially said all I have to say on the matter, so at this point it's easier to just agree to disagree. This conversation is headed a bunch of different places that don't have much to do with Halo 5 itself and how the game plays, but rather a multitude of irrelevant topics based on historical evidence.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So then in Halo 2, MLG should have used SMG starts on foundation right? And Halo 1 we should have used the plasma pistol right? And Halo 3 we should have used the AR right? And Halo reach we should have kept the game with bloom and AR starts right? 

 

Halo isn't, and has never been, like LoL, DotA, StarCraft, or Counterstrike. Those games were built to be competitive. They were designed with the same philosophies that we used when constructing gametypes for Halo since the beginning. Halo isn't and has never been designed that way. It has always been designed with the same philosophy of CoD and Smash Bros: Get the widest appeal of the casual market. 

 

CoD bans bullshit options and levels, and Smash Bros removes items and bans half the levels. 

 

If what you were saying were true, this would be the wrong way to go but I dare you to try to hold a national smash tournament with Items on High and the stage list being poke floats, hyrule temple, flat zone, big blue, and the stupid scrolling ice climbers stage. Let's see how successful that is. 

 

And before you try the old "343i says they are making this game with competitive gamers in mind" spiel, let me remind you of a fun fact: 

 

Halo 1: No focus on competitive gamers. 

Halo 2: Almost no focus on competitive gamers.

Halo 3: Almost no focus on competitive gamers.

Halo Reach: Stated multiple times that it was being made with competitive players in mind. 

Halo 4: Stated extensively that it was the most competitive gamer focused game in the franchise. 

 

You're creating a straw man. I'm not saying 'oh 343 says they're making it competitive' or that MLG should have used default settings. I mean...Midship default on H2C is about the least competitive setting ever. And you're right, those games (CS, SC, DotA, LoL) were developed from a competitive standpoint. I'm just saying that I believe having casual and competitive play be similar is important for growth as an eSport. It's ONE factor, not the only factor. It's still obviously important that the game is competitive. I believe we have an opportunity for the game to be both competitive, and appealing to casuals. With the right balance of starting weapons that is achievable and shouldn't be dismissed just for the sake of maintaining the status quo (BR starts). A pistol buffed properly, with a sufficient learning curve, would allow skilled players to still defeat unskilled players in CQB, without being strictly better in nearly all facets like a BR has been in comparison to AR or SMG in Halo's past.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I apologize if it sounded condescending. I just meant your statement that 'if it's not BR starts, I will play much much less' lead me to believe you only cared that it was a battle rifle (likely BR or DMR). It didn't seem to matter whether or not the pistol was buffed in a way that made you feel comfortable, because it still wouldn't be the battle rifle which you've become accustomed too.

No I'm down for pistol starts if the pistol feels better than the BR. I'm open for anything really. I just enjoyed the beta BR more than the beta pistol by a long shot. I think a pistol buff will help but I'm not sure it'll be as enjoyable. I won't know until I try out both in the final game. I may be in the minority but I loved the way BR starts played in the beta. I hate that the aim magnetism is so high but that's easily fixed before launch. I still regularly play H1 and enjoy each game in the series to some degree. Halo 1 pistol is hands down my favorite weapon but I find that I have more fun with the Halo 2/2A BR or Halo 3 on LAN. I really don't care what the default settings are set to. Even if I don't like the weapon I can always find a BR on map easily. I think the game needs to be the same in both casual and competitive settings so viewers and less competitive players can still follow the gameplay on stream. However, I would rather see a BR aim magnetism nerf with AR secondaries than AR/Pistol as of now. Maybe I will be swayed by the pistol buff. Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post

To further this point, logically, now that almost nobody in the competitive sphere plays smash with items on, or on gimmicky stages, it should be growing at a slower pace than 2006 when MLG ran maps like rainbow cruise, corneria, peach's castle, mute city, and kongo jungle. Those casual friendly maps should have allowed 06 smash to be much more prolific than current smash. 

 

However, we see the contrary. Now that smash only has 6 stages and the meta has developed to where only 8ish characters are viable to win major tournaments rather than the 14 or so from MLG days, we have seen melee grow at a rate that is faster than it ever has. Literally nobody in the competitive sphere plays casual settings anymore and it is growing exponentially faster than when it did. It is growing faster than when Gamecubes were new, copies of melee were easy to find, and gamecube controllers didn't have to be imported from japan.

 

Even if all that doesn't matter, look at what the most popular smash is right now. Do you think it is the new one that has brawl-ish mechanics or melee which focused on hardcore technical skill? Which one has a bigger competitive following and gets more people at tournaments?

 

Did you guess the new one? Because if so you are wrong. Melee got over 1000 people at APEX, while smash 4 got around 700.  

 

EDIT: Rainbow Cruize

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.