Jump to content
HaloNut252

What do people mean when they say Halo is more competitive?

Recommended Posts

CoD has more competitors; therefore it is more competitive than Halo.

 

Halo rewards skillful prediction and execution more than CoD; therefore Halo is more competitive.

 

Competitive is a really vague term.

You could say husky raid is competitive because you have competitors. But I don't think it would fly. There is an unspoken and self evident concept of competitive sports. Goofying around never qualifies.

Share this post


Link to post

Halo pros are able to turn pro in COD the first event they went to, Cod Pros that have never played competitively in Halo will never be able to make the transition. Only thing competitive in COD is map rotation and teamwork and that's it. Nuff said   

Which Halo players placed pro their first event? I don't recall anyone doing that throughout the duration of Ghosts. My understanding of 'pro' is Top 12 or T8. Primal didn't do that, and the other teams where even farther from that.

Share this post


Link to post

Competitions should have the best of the best players playing.

 

CoD events it seems like there are new "pro" teams at every event, which leads us to believe the skill gap is not as high and almost anyone can go pro.

Halo events seemed to constantly have the same teams placing around the same areas, season by season, which would lead us to believe it was harder to place higher than some people (skill gap)

 

Edit: I'm not saying going pro is easy, on any game. 

 

But I know that halo pros went pro on ghosts season 1... I don't think Cod pros would be able to do the same with halo.

The top 8 teams are consistent in the cod scene. Top 12, you're getting the few top amateur teams that keep getting dropped/picked up by different orgs. Mostly the same players, just under a different brand. I wouldn't say new teams are placing pro that often in CoD. 

Share this post


Link to post

CoD pros could easily translate to being pro in Halo, that is because they would right away begin playing other Pros. 

 

That's why Formal and enable became pros in CoD.

  • Downvote (-1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

I think most people mean the game has a high skill gap when they refer to it as a good competitive game. CoD is popular and has more than enough people to pay attention to it when it's used in competition. But it has a painfully low skill gap, which is why most people say it's not competitive. There's just not much room to get very good at the game, despite what some would like to think.

 

Halo is a different story. If you're bad, and you go against someone who knows what they're doing, you'll be made to feel completely helpless and pathetic because the opportunity for someone to be a trillion times better than you is there. No matter how good the player is in CoD, they can never quite utilize what the game gives them to make you feel the same helplessness that you can feel in Halo.

Share this post


Link to post

COD to me was always a "see you first kill you first" type of game. The kill times are so short that you have little to no ability to evade or even counter if you are being shot first. In Halo it takes longer to kill opponents, requires gun-play accuracy in headshots for maximum effect and also incorporates patience and timing into its mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post

The top 8 teams are consistent in the cod scene. Top 12, you're getting the few top amateur teams that keep getting dropped/picked up by different orgs. Mostly the same players, just under a different brand. I wouldn't say new teams are placing pro that often in CoD. 

teams who won an event come in 8-12t all of the time. 

FaZe just did it.

Share this post


Link to post

You basically need to have an understanding of game design to understand what 'competitiveness' entails.

I think a lot of people try to argue what's 'competitive' or 'balanced' or 'deep' or 'skill gap' without really defining their terms.

  • e.g. people arguing that Halo 2 is deep because of button glitches, without going into what those button glitches actually mean in terms of a typical match.
  • e.g. people arguing that anything that makes playing the game more difficult makes it deeper. What if everyone had to play Halo with trackpads instead of thumbsticks, would that make the skill gap really big? Or would it just make for a shitty, un-fun game?

 

There's a couple of folks on here that are really good at mechanistic analysis of video games. cT comes to mind.

 

If you want to see a community that knows its shit in this regard, check out the FGC. They understand how to talk about their game mechanics, whether it be comeback mechanics, offensive options, defensive options, 50/50s, etc.

 

This ^ up here

 

Everyone throws around these static characteristics like saying, "well obviously burst fire is more skillful because you have to paint your target" without any thought to the holistic consequences of smashing all these different traits together in one cohesive game. 

 

It's just not that simple. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

You could say husky raid is competitive because you have competitors. But I don't think it would fly. There is an unspoken and self evident concept of competitive sports. Goofying around never qualifies.

Husky Raid is a poor example because it is based on randomness to facilitate aggressive pushes*. Randomness on that scale is antithetical to competition because it prevents skillful prediction and counterplay.

 

*That actually sounds really familiar.

Share this post


Link to post

Im surprised no one has mentioned anything about the vertical element Halo has over CoD, which is a fundamental reason Halo is more competitive.. Sure CoD has moments of vertical elements, but nowhere near the scale Halo does and it's fellow ArenaFPS games share.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree Halo is a much better game than CoD, but what do people mean when they say it's more competitive? Does that mean it requires more skill, or that there is a wider range of skill levels?

 

In my opinion it means this:  Halo is a much more competitive game because it is more strategy and teamwork in my opinion. CoD is mostly is mostly a who sees who first kinda game, granted you have drop shotting that takes skill. But halo you can't put yourself in a bad situation, you call out as a team, work together a lot more, team shot, and bait & switch. The skill gap in Halo is also strafing and shooting, remaining accurate while doing that. CoD you don't have to land multiple shots to kill your enemy. Halo you do. If you can out smart/out shoot your enemy you can still come out ahead. CoD if you get shot in the back, you're most likely dead. The skill gap in your shooting and gameplay is larger in halo by far. In my opinion of course.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

To add to what others have been pointing out. You also have to consider that every super competitive game started with a fun and popular experience in the first place. Halo CE was a game where you were supposed to just hang out with your friends and shoot shit and not worry about anything really. Super Smash Bros. started off as a party game. CoD started off by being just another shooter, but it was so easy to get into, it just blew up. Counter Strike was an accessible PC shooter, etc.

It doesn't pertain that much to what you're asking here, but it's not negligible that a game has to be popular for the competitive merit / skill gap factor to matter. 

No one cares if you're the best at a game 10 people compete in. However, if there's millions of people on it...

You get the point.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh jeesh, here we go again with the COD vs Halo and what game takes more skill debate.

 

They are different games, take a different type of strategy, skill and teamwork. (as pointed out in previous posts)

 

In my past experience, 98% of people who instinctly say, "COD takes no skill, anyone can be good at COD, etc."  Have ZERO knowledge of what true high level COD play requires.  It is far more than sitting in a corner trying to get a high k/d.

 

I have respect for COD, the grind that their pro's put out, the content, the interaction, the brand building, etc.

If anything Halo players (former pro's) need to take A LOT of notes from COD players and how their organizations operate.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Would everyone agree that whenever someone says game X is more competitive than game Y that the essence of what they are trying to indicate is that game X requires more demonstration of skill or requires demonstration of skill in more ways?

 

 

 

Oh jeesh, here we go again with the COD vs Halo and what game takes more skill debate.

 

They are different games, take a different type of strategy, skill and teamwork. (as pointed out in previous posts)

 

In my past experience, 98% of people who instinctly say, "COD takes no skill, anyone can be good at COD, etc."  Have ZERO knowledge of what true high level COD play requires.  It is far more than sitting in a corner trying to get a high k/d.

 

I have respect for COD, the grind that their pro's put out, the content, the interaction, the brand building, etc.

If anything Halo players (former pro's) need to take A LOT of notes from COD players and how their organizations operate.

 

But wouldn't you agree that the need to demonstrate skill to maintain aim over lengthy fire fights simply does not exist and due to the drop when shot game play it cannot exist?

Share this post


Link to post

It has the #1 fundamental all competitive games need. Equal starts.

 

CoD shit on this fundamental so hard, it's smell affected all other developers.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

It has the #1 fundamental all competitive games need. Equal starts.

 

CoD shit on this fundamental so hard, it's smell affected all other developers.

This isn't true. Many competitive games don't have equal starts. If you're talking specifically about FPS, then you need to go play Shadowrun.

 

Equal starts are necessary for arena shooters. That doesn't mean it needs to be applied to every other competitive game.

Share this post


Link to post

I have respect for COD, the grind that their pro's put out, the content, the interaction, the brand building, etc.

If anything Halo players (former pro's) need to take A LOT of notes from COD players and how their organizations operate.

I think that for a long time, Halo pros thought it was better for them to keep their tactics and strategies on the low in order to surprise people and operate more efficiently than the competition. It's a shame because it can translate into a lack of self-confidence (as in you're not confident enough to share your strategies because it might backfire against you).

 

I mean it's true to an extent, you don't wanna spoil ALL your beans, but a lot of pros would be doing much better if their desire to win didn't get in the way of creating content for fans and other competitive players. Pros care more about winning one single tournament than providing insightful and interesting commentaries to fans. Each Halo game has years upon years' worth of potential content if you bother looking into it.

 

Maybe it all just happened at a terrible time too, I do know that livestreaming blew up as Halo started losing in popularity, but still...

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just think most Halo players/ veteran FPS gamers in general look at CoD and they see a game that is chaotic at its core and that is what turns them off to it. On the flip side, that is what alot of people LOVE CoD for, not knowing what is going to happen next and for the unpredictable nature of the game.

 

Like take a really good Halo player(in a fundamentally sound competitive Halo title), you know that your aim/R+G skills alone will allow you to dominate 90+percent of the player-base in individual battles on a per matchly basis, that is instantly empowering as a player and knowing that your aim+strafe can keep on improving makes you want to keep playing and improving. You know that controlling the key points on the map, and rotating set-ups depending on PW/power-up times will allow your team to capture map control over lesser disorganized teams. You know that knowing all the snipe angles and grenade spots on Lockout instantly gives you an edge over the majority of the player-base. You know that by being a smart player knowing when to back down from a fight,(you can do this in Halo unlike most modern FPS), when to challenge, and just in general mastering the tactics of Halo combat you can have matches like Pistola and feel virtually untouchable by making smart combat decisions. 

 

I dont know about you, but I do not feel this empowerment in CoD and I rather feel like I am running around blind without intuitive ways to out-wit my enemies or out-skill them in individual battles. It leaves the game feeling shallow, which is probably why I can never play a CoD game for too long without getting bored. Not to single CoD out because I do not feel that empowerment in many modern FPS, but its why many oldschool FPS players see modern CoD in a negative light.

Share this post


Link to post

I just think most Halo players/ veteran FPS gamers in general look at CoD and they see a game that is chaotic at its core and that is what turns them off to it. On the flip side, that is what alot of people LOVE CoD for, not knowing what is going to happen next and for the unpredictable nature of the game.

 

Like take a really good Halo player(in a fundamentally sound competitive Halo title), you know that your aim/R+G skills alone will allow you to dominate 90+percent of the player-base in individual battles on a per matchly basis, that is instantly empowering as a player and knowing that your aim+strafe can keep on improving makes you want to keep playing and improving. You know that controlling the key points on the map, and rotating set-ups depending on PW/power-up times will allow your team to capture map control over lesser disorganized teams. You know that knowing all the snipe angles and grenade spots on Lockout instantly gives you an edge over the majority of the player-base. You know that by being a smart player knowing when to back down from a fight,(you can do this in Halo unlike most modern FPS), when to challenge, and just in general mastering the tactics of Halo combat you can have matches like Pistola and feel virtually untouchable by making smart combat decisions. 

 

I dont know about you, but I do not feel this empowerment in CoD and I rather feel like I am running around blind without intuitive ways to out-wit my enemies or out-skill them in individual battles. It leaves the game feeling shallow, which is probably why I can never play a CoD game for too long without getting bored. Not to single CoD out because I do not feel that empowerment in many modern FPS, but its why oldschool FPS players see CoD in a negative light.

That empowerment of the minority is why the majority left to play easier games though.  It's a double edged sword.  This isn't back when the only games online were hard and extremely skill based.  At that time, it didn't matter what game you chose to run away too... you were going to get destroyed by the superior competitive gamers.  Which is why matchmaking systems and other things were developed in the first place.  The empowerment the competitive gamer obtained came at the cost of hundreds and thousands of players he/she destroyed.

 

Now competitive gamers are forced to kiss casuals asses in order to play online matches in any game.  *sighs*  It's a sad time to be a competitive gamer, where back then we ruled the online gaming world through brute force.  Looking back at it now, if I knew what was going to happen I would of just done something else that would of rewarded me for the dedication.  Almost all the hours put in into getting good in Quake, UT, and Halo seems like nothing now, with casuals allowed to run away from paying their dues.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

That empowerment of the minority is why the majority left to play easier games though.  It's a double edged sword.  This isn't back when the only games online were hard and extremely skill based.  At that time, it didn't matter what game you chose to run away too... you were going to get destroyed by the superior competitive gamers.  Which is why matchmaking systems and other things were developed in the first place.  The empowerment the competitive gamer obtained came at the cost of hundreds and thousands of players he/she destroyed.

 

Now competitive gamers are forced to kiss casuals asses in order to play online matches in any game.  *sighs*  It's a sad time to be a competitive gamer, where back then we ruled the online gaming world through brute force.  Looking back at it now, if I knew what was going to happen I would of just done something else that would of rewarded me for the dedication.  Almost all the hours put in into getting good in Quake, UT, and Halo seems like nothing now, with casuals allowed to run away from paying their dues.

 

Yea, I know for sure I got DESTROYED playing Utk3/Utk4 back in the day when first learning to play, even when I played my way into a semi-good clan there were still players that could make me look like I was moving in slow motion. Halo 2 as well, how good you were basically determined your value as a player for those trying to reach their peak rank. You had your "hang-out/fun customs friends" but the players you played ranked/clan matches with was more about business than pleasure at times. I really do yearn for an FPS like that to replace that void in my gaming self, I am optimistic however Utk14 and MCC could bring back real player empowerment in FPS games.

Share this post


Link to post

Damn.

 

It's the truth though. The more people play a game, the further it gets pushed, the higher the meta, the more skill. Plus, the definition of competition = people to play against, so the more people, the more competition.

Share this post


Link to post

I regard Halo as more competitive (specifically the earlier ones) because of the fact that everyone starts equal on a balanced map, and it's up to knowledge, experience, tactics, reaction times and teamwork to achieve victory. No single attribute will work, but combined they create a skill gap that sorts the good players from the bad. No random weapon spawns, no random killstreaks, no abundance of overpowered weapons on the map at any one time. There's also a whole layer of skill in map control and navigating maps - particularly learning skill jumps that will enable you to dominate on maps like Lockout and Construct. Competitive Halo can be as much a game of strategy as a game of quick reactions and good aim, and that is what will always make it different to other titles in my opinion.

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.