Support NeoGAF

[GavinGT]

This whole multiplayer debacle makes me seriously worry about how Microsoft and 343i will handle the franchise moving forward. I mean, they opted not to include the one feature that would have made a remake of a ten year old game meaningful. Considering that 343 is an unproven studio and it just recently inherited this enormous franchise from a renowned developer, I would have expected them to be more attentive to the desires of their new fans.

I'm sure that there are plenty of passionate Halo fans at 343i. But it seems as though Microsoft executives were the ones making all the crucial decisions here, choosing which features to include and which to axe in order to maximize profits and minimize development time. There's no way anyone but a cold, calculating businessman would decide to remake an already serviceable campaign rather than to give everyone the Live functionality that was supposed to be included in the original game and was unceremoniously yanked over ten years ago.

 

[Izayoi]

Surely it's not that low? Halo games have never fallen below the Top 3 most played games on XBL and I can't imagine the population of the whole of XBL being that barren...

Well, Black Ops often has over a 1,000,000 people on at a time, which is more than Halo has unique players in 24 hours. Most of Xbox Live's population is there. There are multiple playlists in Black Ops with populations higher than all of Reach.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

This whole multiplayer debacle makes me seriously worry about how Microsoft and 343i will handle the franchise moving forward. I mean, they opted not to include the one feature that would have made a remake of a ten year old game meaningful. Considering that 343 is an unproven studio and it just recently inherited this enormous franchise from a renowned developer, I would have expected them to be more attentive to the desires of their new fans.

I'm sure that there are plenty of passionate Halo fans at 343i. But it seems as though Microsoft executives were the ones making all the crucial decisions here, choosing which features to include and which to axe in order to maximize profits and minimize development time. There's no way anyone but a cold, calculating businessman would decide to remake an already serviceable campaign rather than to give everyone the Live functionality that was supposed to be included in the original game and was unceremoniously yanked over ten years ago.

Or, they opted to not push the remake back into 2012 because of extended dev time, they opted to not shoe horn netcode into a game that didnt originally have it (and as said the game would behave differently with it).

As a very devoted halo fan the lack of mutliplayer in the remake isnt that big of a deal for me.
Hell im not even that much of a fan of ce multiplayer. im not going to get into why cause i would be here all year debating it over with fans.

Id rather see how 343 manage reach until halo 4.

 

[Izayoi]

Hell im not even that much of a fan of ce multiplayer.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[Woorloog]

And therein lies the problem.

How is that a problem?
BTW, i don't like it either (it revolves way too much around one weapon and other playstyles are not really feasible). (Nor do i like Halo 2's MP really (godly maps though and same console splitscreen with 2 or 3 friends was a lot of fun), the glitches ruined it for me.)

EDIT; personally i'm not at all surprised at the lack of MP in CEA. Reach MP and only a year later or so we're getting yet another Halo MP.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

And therein lies the problem.

Thats in relation to halo 2, yeah it was fun at LAN's but that was back in 2001, Its pretty common thought between the community that Halo 2 was the pinnacle of multiplayer for the series and its what made both xbox live and halo what it is today.

Halo CE's multiplayer for alot of people was the added bonus to the campaign, Alot of (not all) of the praise CE got was because of the single player.

The multiplayer of halo while good for its time is at this point very dated. It seems alot of people have forgotten what things like the running animation looked like in CE, if you shipped a game with animations like that today it would be laughed at.

Things like the 3shot magnum where removed for balance reasons, despite claims by people against it it was unbalanced. They whole of CE's multiplayer is rife with glitches and overpowered and underpowered weapons.

 

[GavinGT]

Or, they opted to not push the remake back into 2012 because of extended dev time

It's not like they're going to do another remake five years from now. This is it and they fucked up the part that mattered to most of us.

they opted to not shoe horn netcode into a game that didnt originally have it (and as said the game would behave differently with it).

You mean they opted to shoehorn Halo's multiplayer into Reach.

And Frankie's statement about the game behaving differently if it were online is nothing but a convenient excuse. XBConnect and Gamespy Arcade users could tell you otherwise.

As a very devoted halo fan the lack of mutliplayer in the remake isnt that big of a deal for me. Hell im not even that much of a fan of ce multiplayer.

Probably because you haven't experienced it correctly. I could understand how you might have gotten a bad impression from it if -

• you only played local multiplayer with a few friends on a single box
• you only had a small group to play with
• you never got the hang of it and couldn't compete
• you only experienced the multiplayer in Halo PC
• you never played on XBConnect

im not going to get into why cause i would be here all year debating it over with fans.

Yes, leave this issue to the people that care. You know, the ones that have been waiting ten years for something and then get a huge pie in the face instead.

 

[thezerofire]

personally I think balance is overrated. I would much rather have fun than subscribe to what Bungie has declared "balanced": AR starts in Halo 3 and Halo Reach as a whole.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

I played Both XB Connect And PC and i also played alot of LAN's i could more than hold my own.

For me the fact remains Halo CE is a dated multiplayer, if it could compete with multiplayer games of today then Halo PC would be thriving it simply isnt with below 200 people playing.

The multiplayer in CE was broken, yes many accepted and adapted to the broken qualitys but it was still broken, It was dominated by a single weapon, full to the brim with out of maps and into object glitches and poor animations.

It would of been the Perfect Dark/Goldeneye scenario again where parts of the community are jumping around screaming "best multiplayer ... ever" and then it gets a remake and the multiplayer portion of the game is dead after 2 weeks.

Halo 4 is due out 2012 and for all we know could have the greatest mutliplayer in the series to date.

Im thinking that alot of people have a case of "rose tinted glasses".

 

[GavinGT]

Its pretty common thought between the community that Halo 2 was the pinnacle of multiplayer for the series and its what made both xbox live and halo what it is today.

There is most certainly not any consensus on which which the better multiplayer. If it were voted upon, I'm sure Halo 2 would win, if only because most people never adequately experienced Halo's multiplayer due to Live functionality being removed prior to release.

Halo CE's multiplayer for alot of people was the added bonus to the campaign, Alot of (not all) of the praise CE got was because of the single player.

The reviews focused mainly on the campaign, no doubt, but the real lasting value was in the multiplayer. I, like many others, played the hell out of the Halo campaign. I must have played it exclusively for six months, experimenting with various glitches and such. But then we discovered XBConnect, and soon my friends were coming over every day and enjoying endless games of Blood Gulch CTF. This lasted for years and years.

The multiplayer of halo while good for its time is at this point very dated. It seems alot of people have forgotten what things like the running animation looked like in CE, if you shipped a game with animations like that today it would be laughed at.

The graphics, while slightly dated, are still totally serviceable. But the gameplay is still top notch and hardly feels dated. If anything, it's the bare levels that make it look dated.

Things like the 3shot magnum where removed for balance reasons, despite claims by people against it it was unbalanced. They whole of CE's multiplayer is rife with glitches and overpowered and underpowered weapons.

The pistol balanced the race to the power weapons, vehicles, and power-ups. Even at a professional gaming level, where balance issues would typically glare through, you'll find that the pistol is well liked. As far as glitches, there was nothing that couldn't be easily patched.

 

[GavinGT]

For me the fact remains Halo CE is a dated multiplayer, if it could compete with multiplayer games of today then Halo PC would be thriving it simply isnt with below 200 people playing.

Halo PC has some of the most busted netcode of any game I've ever played.

The multiplayer in CE was broken, yes many accepted and adapted to the broken qualitys but it was still broken, It was dominated by a single weapon, full to the brim with out of maps and into object glitches and poor animations.

All of those glitches are easily fixed, and even in the original they were rarely a problem because they were difficult to execute in the midst of a game. The only real problem was the infinite ammo glitch, and that was easily patched for Halo PC.

As far as weapons, I used basically the entire arsenal except for Needler. I can't say the same for Halo 2, as dual wielded weapons were to be avoided like the plague.

Halo 4 is due out 2012 and for all we know could have the greatest mutliplayer in the series to date.

That's rich.

Im thinking that alot of people have a case of "rose tinted glasses".

Nope. I just had a six-player LAN party last night with Halo PC. Yep, still love it!

 

[StalkerUKCG]

The Reach community would not of jumped over to halo ce:a it would be dead in the water or have a few thousand people on it after 2 month. (all speculation but neither xbc or ce have a huge player count and sales of a remake despite what game it is will always be lower than a full title, this wont get nearly the marketing push halo 4 will, its nothing more than a side project ala ODST)


Why would any company in their right mind want to invest time and money into developing a mutliplayer thats unlikely to bloom when they are already in charge of a stable mutliplayer environment with an established player base. Reach hasnt even been out a year yet and your wanting them to throw it away so that you can replay a mutliplayer you have been playing for the past 10 years, not to mention still have multiple ways to play both online and offline.

Your getting the next best thing, 7 multi-player maps for the series in the current environment that has an established player base. with added theater and forge on top


Look at it like this.

When any player buys the game it still has a multiplayer portion on that disk, so once they wanna play online they click that option and moments later are in an online match in beaver creek. So you have potentially all the xbox live enabled players of that game adding to the current amount of reach players. If they shipped the game with ce multiplayer then you have a split player base which is something that bungie when they where in charge of the series said multiple times they didnt want.

Classic ++ playlist could solve all the problems with reach. (or most)

 

[DimetappWUT]

What annoys me about some of Bungie's, and now 343's employees (especially Frankie) is that they act as if the Halo 1 pistol was the cheapest weapon ever. Whenever the pistol is mentioned, they never fail to mention 3 shot kills across the map, but they always forget to add that it was one of the hardest weapons in any Halo to master. They forget about having to lead, and that the direction of your strafe will also alter your lead, even on splitscreen 1v1. Halo 1's running and strafe speed allows good players to use very effective strafes during battles, making it hard to hit them. They also forget that pretty much every other gun in Halo 1 (except the needler) was very powerful in their own situations. Add this all together, and you won't be getting a three shot kill a majority of cases, unless you're playing someone who runs in a straight line out in the open

Other weapons are definitely used in Halo, it's just that the pistol has the ability to good utility weapon you can use to get power weapons and keep in your back pocket, if you have the skill to use it effectively.
I mean, watch this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeqdU2ejJVw

Patch and Ogre 2 are absolutely godly.

Winning teams kill stats:
Rocket: 14
Pistol: 13
Frags: 3
Melee: 5 (shotgun + melee, 3 double melees, backsmack) 
Shotgun: 6
Sniper: 8
Plasma rifle: 1

Also remember that each player is timing the constant respawn rate of the weapons and powerups, and they're spawning their team mates in helpful spawn points.

Sure, on more open maps the pistol will be used more, but that's the same with any Halo (BR, DMR). It's just that Halo 1 the pistol has the POTENTIAL to kill quickly, but it's definitely not a guaranteed three shot every time. The average would most likely be a 5 or 6 shot. Even pros couldn't three shot consistantly against a good strafing opponent.

IMO, the biggest benefit of the remake would have been online multiplayer (not with the netcode for PC, as that was supposedly done to allow 56k players play). Yeah, it would have introduced latency, but anyone who expects a p2p game to run like LAN when playing online is pretty silly. I understand that the host will have an advantage, but I wouldn't care. I'd still have an enormous amount of fun playing it.

 

[Striker]

Well, Black Ops often has over a 1,000,000 people on at a time, which is more than Halo has unique players in 24 hours. Most of Xbox Live's population is there. There are multiple playlists in Black Ops with populations higher than all of Reach.

Reach is approaching 800,000 now. It's been in the 700's for a while. I thought that is what the poster was asking about, not necessarily Halo 3's 24-count.

I also don't believe Reach takes in account guests that play, as they did not with Halo 3.

 

[ido]

The Reach community would not of jumped over to halo ce:a it would be dead in the water or have a few thousand people on it after 2 month. (all speculation but neither xbc or ce have a huge player count and sales of a remake despite what game it is will always be lower than a full title, this wont get nearly the marketing push halo 4 will, its nothing more than a side project ala ODST)

You are cheerleading for Reach and Halo 4 WAY too much here, and you're making completely nebulous statements about CE that you cannot possibly verify to be true. Why would CE be dead in the water if released after 2 months? Xbox Connect is not all that accessible to people compared to Live, so why would you even use XBC's numbers as an argument on the popularity of CE? It's ridiculous.

And please, stop bringing up Halo PC as if you have hit some kind of debate treasure trove. Halo is first and foremost a console shooter... it does not quite feel the same on a PC, and you can't even use a controller properly on Halo PC(analog/digital issues). Halo PC had shitty netcode as well. It's just not a fair argument, so stop repeating yourself.

Why would any company in their right mind want to invest time and money into developing a mutliplayer thats unlikely to bloom when they are already in charge of a stable mutliplayer environment with an established player base. Reach hasnt even been out a year yet and your wanting them to throw it away so that you can replay a mutliplayer you have been playing for the past 10 years, not to mention still have multiple ways to play both online and offline.

If it's unlikely to bloom, why do you think it would "splinter" the community? You contradict yourself here, and you're showing your true colors. YOU didn't like CE. How again is it a BAD idea to include the original CE multiplayer in a remake? I honestly cannot believe you are arguing FOR less features. Developers must love customers like you... cheerleading for remakes that lack content that they originally included.

Your getting the next best thing, 7 multi-player maps for the series in the current environment that has an established player base. with added theater and forge on top

That is not the "next best thing" ... I don't like Reach. You could give me 500 Reach maps and it wouldn't satisfy me... because I do not like Reach.

When any player buys the game it still has a multiplayer portion on that disk, so once they wanna play online they click that option and moments later are in an online match in beaver creek. So you have potentially all the xbox live enabled players of that game adding to the current amount of reach players. If they shipped the game with ce multiplayer then you have a split player base which is something that bungie when they where in charge of the series said multiple times they didnt want.

Classic ++ playlist could solve all the problems with reach. (or most)

Stop. Just stop. If I wanted to play Reach, I would play it. If I want to play CE MP, I would buy that game(if they did it the right way). I think your problem is you can't grasp that not everyone wants to play Reach. Those that do want to play Reach CAN PLAY REACH. Nothing is stopping them, and the game is thriving on Live as we speak.

 

[MrBig]

This whole multiplayer debacle makes me seriously worry about how Microsoft and 343i will handle the franchise moving forward. I mean, they opted not to include the one feature that would have made a remake of a ten year old game meaningful. Considering that 343 is an unproven studio and it just recently inherited this enormous franchise from a renowned developer, I would have expected them to be more attentive to the desires of their new fans.

I'm sure that there are plenty of passionate Halo fans at 343i. But it seems as though Microsoft executives were the ones making all the crucial decisions here, choosing which features to include and which to axe in order to maximize profits and minimize development time. There's no way anyone but a cold, calculating businessman would decide to remake an already serviceable campaign rather than to give everyone the Live functionality that was supposed to be included in the original game and was unceremoniously yanked over ten years ago.

This is a fan tribute made to appease calls for a HD campaign that have been around since Halo 3's launch. Because, believe it or not, there are people who spend as much time playing and dissecting the campaign as you do in mp. I don't share that passion but I can still appreciate and respect it. You view of something is not the only one that exists. The multiplayer was not everyone's favorite part of Halo. Back in the Halo 1's days I spent just as much time in co-op as I did throwing LAN parties. Halo 1's multiplayer is still playable in multiple forms at this very second. If you want to play it go play it. And hey, you know how everyone wishes forge was better? You can make real maps in Halo PC using actual dev tools. You can make all the weapons and maps as pretty as you like. That whole calculating, cold businessman remark is just absolutely ridiculous. Live was never a part of H1, and was never planned to be. Live did not even exist when the game was released. Do you really think that they would make a campaign only game, of which many people have already played, and expect it to make as much money as the next blockbuster? No, and I'm surprised that the people at 343 were even able to convince MS to let them make this. The only thing that will draw in your standard Halo mp fan will be the 7 new maps that are included.

If you're going to complain, at least get your facts straight or you'll just make yourself a fool.

To be fair I agree with him. Your post was basically to say... go play Halo CE, but that isnt really a good alternative to Halo 1 over Live with a controller. Least of all because they buggered up the netcode.

To be honest I think some suit at MS decided that it would be more cost effective to cut Halo CE multiplayer as they didnt want to waste the resources put into Reach's multiplayer. Its a pretty reasonable way to look at it from a business perspective, but from a fans perspective it doesnt highlight that they have our best interests in mind.

My post was to say that I am incredibly tired of people believing they are entitled to something that they didn't even know they could be getting a month ago. He is acting as if Halo PC isn't even a viable option, and as someone who spent hundreds of hours making content for it, and thousands of hours playing it, I certainly have to disagree.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

This is a fan tribute made to appease calls for a HD campaign that have been around since Halo 3's launch. Halo 1's multiplayer is still playable in multiple forms at this very second. If you want to play it go play it. And hey, you know how everyone wishes forge was better? You can make real maps in Halo PC using actual dev tools. You can make all the weapons and maps as pretty as you like. That whole calculating, cold businessman remark is just absolutely ridiculous. Live was never a part of H1, and was never planned to be. Live did not even exist when the game was released. Do you really think that they would make a campaign only game, of which many people have already played, and expect it to make as much money as the next blockbuster? No, and I'm surprised that the people at 343 were even able to convince MS to let them make this. The only thing that will draw in your standard Halo mp fan will be the 7 new maps that are included.

If you're going to complain, at least get your facts straight or you'll just make yourself a fool.

To be fair I agree with him. Your post was basically to say... go play Halo CE, but that isnt really a good alternative to Halo 1 over Live with a controller. Least of all because they buggered up the netcode.

To be honest I think some suit at MS decided that it would be more cost effective to cut Halo CE multiplayer as they didnt want to waste the resources put into Reach's multiplayer. Its a pretty reasonable way to look at it from a business perspective, but from a fans perspective it doesnt highlight that they have our best interests in mind.

 

[squidhands]

I'm inside the US, and I consistently get slideshows in 4 person firefight. My internet isn't too bad either. Maybe I just get matched up with people outside the US.

I always choose 'Good Connection', 'Language', and 'Skill' to get me the best possible experience, and the waiting time is negligible. Try that if you haven't.

 

[ido]

My post was to say that I am incredibly tired of people believing they are entitled to something that they didn't even know they could be getting a month ago. He is acting as if Halo PC isn't even a viable option, and as someone who spent hundreds of hours making content for it, and thousands of hours playing it, I certainly have to disagree.

Halo PC ISN'T a viable option. It cannot be played with a controller correctly, and the netcode is shit. It's better than nothing, of course. I would argue that a decent XBC connection is better, though. And I seriously doubt you have spent thousands(plural) of hours playing Halo PC. If you honestly have, it is extremely difficult to imagine why you wouldn't want this amazing multiplayer experience brought to Live.

And stop using the word entitled. We are expressing our opinion on a gaming forum. You act as if this is some kind of fringe request or something. We are still the consumers, you do realize that right? It's not at all strange to voice a criticism or complaint, especially when it is a perfectly valid complaint.

 

[MrBig]

Halo PC ISN'T a viable option. It cannot be played with a controller correctly, and the netcode is shit. It's better than nothing, of course. I would argue that a decent XBC connection is better, though. And I seriously doubt you have spent thousands(plural) of hours playing Halo PC. If you honestly have, it is extremely difficult to imagine why you wouldn't want this amazing multiplayer experience brought to Live.

But the thing is, I have spent much more time than that. The netcode is not shit. But since it was required to design around 56k connection there is a huge latency discrepancy. What's the result of that? the player model appears behind the collision model. Go play BC2 and you'll see the same thing, the latency is designed around an average latency of 100 ms, so the collision model is moved ahead of the player model. It may not look correct, but it actually is, and is consistent. If you know how to compensate and spent any amount of time actually trying to learn how to play it you would know this.

For me, I don't want Halo 1's mp remade, I want Halo 2's mp remade, because there is no real community for that on pc. Does that make my opinion wrong?

 

[scar tissue]

It seems alot of people have forgotten what things like the running animation looked like in CE, if you shipped a game with animations like that today it would be laughed at.

that is exactly what is happening here.
those lazy fucks didn't even bother to change the animations for anniversary.
RAGE.

 

[DimetappWUT]

CE's third person animations were pretty clunky at times, but I think the first person melee animations were easily the best of the series. They actually looked like they'd do damage.

 

[ido]

But the thing is, I have spent much more time than that. The netcode is not shit. But since it was required to design around 56k connection there is a huge latency discrepancy. What's the result of that? the player model appears behind the collision model. Go play BC2 and you'll see the same thing, the latency is designed around an average latency of 100 ms, so the collision model is moved ahead of the player model. It may not look correct, but it actually is, and is consistent. If you know how to compensate and spent any amount of time actually trying to learn how to play it you would know this.

Yes, I played Halo PC plenty. I'm not hardcore enough to say I played it for thousands of hours or anything. I think that's stretching it a little, but if you really want to claim that, by all means. I cannot fathom a person who is very much a fan of CE argue FOR a remake shipped without the original MP.

And I am fully aware of the way Halo PC plays... you heavily lead your shots, basically. It does not feel the same as it does on Xbox. It even feels different than XBC, of which I have also played quite a lot.

For me, I don't want Halo 1's mp remade, I want Halo 2's mp remade, because there is no real community for that on pc. Does that make my opinion wrong?

No, but I could not give a shit less about Halo 2 or a Halo 2 remake. This thread, however, is about a remake of Halo CE... Now, if they announced a remake of HD Halo 2 your opinions would mean more. Right now we are discussing a REAL future product and our disappointments with it. You can call it whatever you want, but they are neglecting the entire original MP portion of CE and giving us a very butchered MP experience instead.

 

[urk]

Reach is approaching 800,000 now. It's been in the 700's for a while. I thought that is what the poster was asking about, not necessarily Halo 3's 24-count.

I also don't believe Reach takes in account guests that play, as they did not with Halo 3.

The in-game counts aren't comparable. Reach's population is a snapshot of all players on "right now." The team made significant improvements to out player presence services for Reach. The increased accuracy has ironically created a lot of confusion about the player population, which is surprisingly healthy given the LIVE ecosystem. Rumors of Reach's demise are, of course, greatly exaggerated.

Halo 3, and most other titles, are windowed to take into account populations over much longer spans of time. SOP. 24-hour counts, and Xbox LIVE activity both paint a much clearer picture of Reach's present day player base compared with Halo 3's.

Also, the Halo pistol was a joy to use. I don't know where the idea of our collective, consensual hatred of it stems from. Stories about its inception (even within the studio) range from happy accident to a glitch in the campaign damage model carrying over to multiplayer. The reality as I've heard it from people who were in the room is that Jones intentionally increased the damage in the final moments, even though some of his designers weren't happy with the call.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

The in-game counts aren't comparable. Reach's population is a snapshot of all players on "right now." The team made significant improvements to out player presence services for Reach. The increased accuracy has ironically created a lot of confusion about the player population, which is surprisingly healthy given the LIVE ecosystem. Rumors of Reach's demise are, of course, greatly exaggerated.

Halo 3, and most other titles, are windowed to take into account populations over much longer spans of time. SOP. 24-hour counts, and Xbox LIVE activity both paint a much clearer picture of Reach's present day player base compared with Halo 3's.

Also, the Halo pistol was a joy to use. I don't know where the idea of our collective, consensual hatred of it stems from. Stories about its inception (even within the studio) range from happy accident to a glitch in the campaign damage model carrying over to multiplayer. The reality as I've heard it from people who were in the room is that Jones intentionally increased the damage in the final moments, even though some of his designers weren't happy with the call.

And personally I think Jason made the right call. I really think the pistol hate has been way way overblown through the years. I honestly never had a problem dealing with a pistol user.

 

[ido]

I had more fun using the Halo 1 pistol than any other weapon, in any other Halo game to date. It was just really really fun to use.

 

[Izayoi]

The Pistol was the best weapon to ever come out of the Halo series, right above the Sniper Rifle. The fact that it's gone means that every game after just hasn't felt the same. The Battle Rifle was decent, but completely impotent at range, and the DMR is also decent, but just doesn't feel right. I still don't understand why Bungie never made the M6D available as an optional weapon only available in custom games.

And personally I think Jason made the right call. I really think the pistol hate has been way way overblown through the years. I honestly never had a problem dealing with a pistol user.

Yup. Jason definitely made the right decision. The Pistol is part of what made CE's multiplayer the best in the series (along with many other things).

 

[wwm0nkey]

Fun > Balance

 

[ido]

Fun > Balance

Completely agree, even though I really don't think the pistol was unbalanced. Every other weapon in Halo 1 was pretty beastly in the right situation. People call it a three-shot kill as if everyone could do that with ease. Even the pros did not three shot all that often. It was more often a four or five shot kill, which was still awesome because you could still kill two people in one clip. I loved that damn pistol.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

Fun > Balance

Balance = Fun.

 

[Izayoi]

Completely agree, even though I really don't think the pistol was unbalanced. Every other weapon in Halo 1 was pretty beastly in the right situation. People call it a three-shot kill as if everyone could do that with ease. Even the pros did not three shot all that often. It was more often a four or five shot kill, which was still awesome because you could still kill two people in one clip. I loved that damn pistol.

That's the approach I like. How about instead of nerfs we just buff everything? If they had buffed the Battle Rifle instead of nerfing the Carbine, imagine how much better Halo 3's multiplayer would've been. The whole "nerf, nerf, nerf" trend because casuals can't handle powerful weapons is infuriating.

Balance = Fun.

You've already made it abundantly clear that your opinion is wrong and does not matter, no need to reinforce that.

 

[Blue Ninja]

You've already made it abundantly clear that your opinion is wrong and does not matter, no need to reinforce that.

You've already made it abundantly clear you see your opinion as the only correct one without paying heed to others', no need to reinforce that.

Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he's not entitled to his own opinion. Plainly telling him "he's wrong" is obnoxious, to say the least.

 

[Izayoi]

You've already made it abundantly clear you see your opinion as the only correct one without paying heed to others', no need to reinforce that.

Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he's not entitled to his own opinion. Plainly telling him "he's wrong" is obnoxious, to say the least.

But he is wrong, what else is there to say? Balance does not always equal fun. Are you saying that statement is incorrect? He's making a ridiculous blanket statement and here you are defending it.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

You've already made it abundantly clear that your opinion is wrong and does not matter, no need to reinforce that.

Wow really? your going to go from a healthy debate into attacking people?.

Sorry to tell you this but opinions cant be wrong, its the nature of an opinion.

Your all acting as if im the biggest hater of halo around, when in fact i love every entry in the series have followed it since day one and have invested a massive amount of time and money into it, following and taking part of every offshoot of the community from modding to glicthing to egg hunting to competitive multiplayer to speed running and much more.

I said in relation to H2 i didnt like halo 1's multiplayer, im not the biggest fan of reachs either but it really isnt viable to spend the time,effort and money needed to add multiplayer to a game that has a predicted focused online life of less than a year, (and even less than that when the extended dev time is took into account) not to mention the question of it is at all possible for two engines to be running in a large multiplayer environment.

Given Halo CE MP id play it id invest alot of my gaming time to it(provided the glicthes where fixed) my point is we arnt getting it, crying about that wont make a bit of difference.

What we are getting is nothing to turn our noses up at, even if you dont like reach currently the Classic ++ playlist could change everything.


Btw, i didnt say balance would ALWAYS equal fun, i meant it as balance is genrally what creates a fun play environment, if your happy spawning infront of the guy in the unbalanced infinite ammo flying vehicle and getting killed constantly by all means go for it but thats not what i consider fun.

 

[Blue Ninja]

But he is wrong, what else is there to say? Balance does not always equal fun. Are you saying that statement is incorrect? He's making a ridiculous blanket statement and here you are defending it.

I'm not stating my opinion on the matter, I'm stating that he's entitled to his own opinion. "You're opinion is bad and you should feel bad" isn't exactly a great discussion move.

I personally think a multiplayer game needs a certain amount of balancing, as long as it doesn't ruin the fun. You play games for fun. Balancing only has to be used to improve upon it.

 

[Recarpo]

But he is wrong, what else is there to say? Balance does not always equal fun. Are you saying that statement is incorrect? He's making a ridiculous blanket statement and here you are defending it.

It's his opinion. Don't agree with it all you want but to say his opinion is wrong, especially about settings in a game, is a bit silly don't you think?

 

[The Librarian]

You've already made it abundantly clear that your opinion is wrong and does not matter, no need to reinforce that.

"But recent events have made it abundantly clear that the Elites can no longer guarantee our safety."

 

[Blue Ninja]

"But recent events have made it abundantly clear that the Elites can no longer guarantee our safety."

"I shall relay your... decision to the Council."

 

[ido]

Sorry to tell you this but opinions cant be wrong, its the nature of an opinion.

Not to be pedantic here, but yes they can. If it is your opinion that the Earth is actually flat... then you are wrong.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

Not to be pedantic here, but yes they can. If it is your opinion that the Earth is actually flat... then you are wrong.

Your splitting hairs, an opinion can be wrong when its proven wrong. Can you prove that balance in some (if not most) cases does not equal fun?

I can back up why balance equals fun, an unbalanced environment gets alot of complaints people feel they are not being treat fair or on equal footing, you only complain when having fun if your from bizzaro world and 2+2 is 3.5mm headphone jack.

In my opinion i very rarely have fun in a unbalanced playing field, you cant prove i do have fun in that environment.

 

[ido]

Your splitting hairs, an opinion can be wrong when its proven wrong. Can you prove that balance in some (if not most) cases does not equal fun?

There is nothing to prove... fun is subjective.

People yell and scream that Marvel vs. Capcom 2 was completely unbalanced... but it is, in my opinion, the best fighting game of all time. Saying "Balance = Fun" is too nebulous a statement to even really matter, because it's not always true. Balance CAN equal fun, but it's not necessary by any means.

 

[urk]

That's the approach I like. How about instead of nerfs we just buff everything? If they had buffed the Battle Rifle instead of nerfing the Carbine, imagine how much better Halo 3's multiplayer would've been. The whole "nerf, nerf, nerf" trend because casuals can't handle powerful weapons is infuriating.


You've already made it abundantly clear that your opinion is wrong and does not matter, no need to reinforce that.

Nerfing typically happens when a weapon is performing outside of its role. Damage reduction is one of the lesser used methods to reign a weapon in. More often, cadence, clip size, or accuracy might be tinkered with instead.

It's also a misconception that weapons get powered down to accommodate poor players. Higher lethality can actually be a boon to lesser skilled players. The weaker the weapon, the longer the combat cycle. The longer the combat cycle, the greater the potential for hand-eye coordination and weapon mastery to come into play.

If it took ten perfect headshots to kill an opponent, skilled players would be incredibly dominant. If it only took two to the body, the playing field would become more level. Of course, there are all kinds of nuanced systems that can be layered in to impact these very crude generalities.

 

[StalkerUKCG]

There is nothing to prove... fun is subjective.

People yell and scream that Marvel vs. Capcom 2 was completely unbalanced... but it is, in my opinion, the best fighting game of all time. Saying "Balance = Fun" is too nebulous a statement to even really matter, because it's not always true. Balance CAN equal fun, but it's not necessary by any means.

Didnt say it was, my point was if i had the choice id want a balanced game its the situations in which more than not fun is had, This is all besides the point.

Campaign looks great, No multiplayer is a shame but for me the maps make up for it in some small way, its just a shame some people here cant ignore reachs faults and enjoy the good elements of it.

 

[GavinGT]

Because, believe it or not, there are people who spend as much time playing and dissecting the campaign as you do in mp.

There's practically no way anyone could spend more time in Halo's campaign than I did. I literally exhausted every possibility, found every glitch, made it to every hidden spot. I just have no desire to relive that in HD. It would add nothing to the experience.

Halo 1's multiplayer is still playable in multiple forms at this very second.

....poorly.

If you want to play it go play it.

Guess what? I do. I play Halo PC all the time. The netcode was so shitty that it prompted me to spend $80 a month for better internet. Guess what? It still sucks online. XBConnect provided a smoother experience ten years ago. Too bad Microsoft effectively killed off XBC when it put in a 50-ping limit on system link games for 360. It's no wonder nobody uses it any more.

You can make real maps in Halo PC using actual dev tools. You can make all the weapons and maps as pretty as you like.

Which is pointless if you can't enjoy the game due to netcode.

Live was never a part of H1, and was never planned to be. Live did not even exist when the game was released.

If you're going to complain, at least get your facts straight or you'll just make yourself a fool.

No, you get your fucking facts straight. Of course Halo was supposed to have Live functionality. Live was supposed to be ready for the Xbox's launch, but then Microsoft announced it was being pushed back and Halo would ship without an online component.

My post was to say that I am incredibly tired of people believing they are entitled to something that they didn't even know they could be getting a month ago.

These rumors have been circling around for years now. We all knew it would happen eventually. We just didn't know Microsoft would do it so hamfistedly.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Nerfing typically happens when a weapon is performing outside of its role. Damage reduction is one of the lesser used methods to reign a weapon in. More often, cadence, clip size, or accuracy might be tinkered with instead.

It's also a misconception that weapons get powered down to accommodate poor players. Higher lethality can actually be a boon to lesser skilled players. The weaker the weapon, the longer the combat cycle. The longer the combat cycle, the greater the potential for hand-eye coordination and weapon mastery to come into play.

If it took ten perfect headshots to kill an opponent, skilled players would be incredibly dominant. If it only took two to the body, the playing field would become more level. Of course, there are all kinds of nuanced systems that can be layered in to impact these very crude generalities.

I know your just vaguely explaining nerfing, and so I really hope I got the wrong end of the stick here, but your post worries me beyond belief. Do you guys take into account the fact that Halo isnt just a 1v1 game? If it took 10 shots to kill someone the more skilled players would win all the 1v1's but would find the general experience of ever trying to kill anyone frustrating. Infact just with the 5sk with bloom the experience is pretty awful when you take into account things like Evade/ Armour Lock/ Teammates/ Enemies coming in to clean up/ Cover... etc etc

Also... I think that what the hardcore players really want is a fun competitive experience - toning down the 'fun' to balance things out is counter productive.

 

[Slightly Live]

No, you get your fucking facts straight. Of course Halo was supposed to have Live functionality. Live was supposed to be ready for the Xbox's launch, but then Microsoft announced it was being pushed back and Halo would ship without an online component.

Any sources for these claims?

 

[StalkerUKCG]

Any sources for these claims?

"According to the team, Microsoft is still working out its online launch strategy, and that will determine exactly what we can expect from the online aspects of Halo" thats all i can find relating to it thats from a IGN article dated march 2001.

It seem to imply microsoft would of liked halo 1 to have online but development of xbox live and halo didnt blend well, instead unreal was made the xbl flagship title till halo 2 came out.

How far actually development of online in ce got is anyones guess, the article also states that bungies focus was on the single player "But one thing's for sure, the Xbox version of the game is definitely focusing on the single player aspects, and the team was definitely downplaying the network and teamplay aspects"

 

[Slightly Live]

"According to the team, Microsoft is still working out its online launch strategy, and that will determine exactly what we can expect from the online aspects of Halo" thats all i can find relating to it thats from a IGN article dated march 2001.

It seem to imply microsoft would of liked halo 1 to have online but development of xbox live and halo didnt blend well, instead unreal was made the xbl flagship title till halo 2 came out.

How far actually development of online in ce got is anyones guess, the article also states that bungies focus was on the single player "But one thing's for sure, the Xbox version of the game is definitely focusing on the single player aspects, and the team was definitely downplaying the network and teamplay aspects"

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20533

Read that. Bungie cut multiplayer from Halo after Microsoft bought them then did a u-turn when two guys at Bungie pretty much built rebuilt multiplayer themselves.

Multiplayer was not a main consideration during Halo's development. It wasn't given even a fraction of the attention, care or resources that the campaign did or had. And the guys that made it barely had a clue as they were learning as they worked almost. Multiplayer was pretty much a lucky fluke.

So the dude claiming Halo CE's multiplayer was originally meant to have Live is talking shit.

 

[Tawpgun]

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20533

Read that. Bungie cut multiplayer from Halo after Microsoft bought them then did a u-turn when two guys at Bungie pretty much built rebuilt multiplayer themselves.

Multiplayer was not a main consideration during Halo's development. It wasn't given even a fraction of the attention, care or resources that the campaign did or had. And the guys that made it barely had a clue as they were learning as they worked almost. Multiplayer was pretty much a lucky fluke.

So the dude claiming Halo CE's multiplayer was originally meant to have Live is talking shit.

Smackdown.

What a fantastic fluke it was.

But at the same time, it wasn't. It was really common sense.

Halo's multiplayer didn't have any of the modern gimmicks and flash current shooters do now. Every weapon had its role and everything was implemented as it was in campaign. Simple and it works.

Now there's a ton of more shit to balance. I'd love if Halo 4 shipped with a classic mode, where it was simple and concise gameplay.

 

[urk]

I know your just vaguely explaining nerfing, and so I really hope I got the wrong end of the stick here, but your post worries me beyond belief.

I'm not a designer. No need to worry. I was just using exaggerate examples to demonstrate how reducing the lethality of weapons isn't an effective way to appeal to casuals.