• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Halo |OT13|

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Lamonster

Member
Aug 12, 2007
39,656
3
1,110
36
St. Louis
For lack of a better word, Halo 4's multiplayer 'ends' when you hit 130 unless you think it's fun to grind for unlocks.

This is why a skill rank as a leveling ceiling was important in Halo 3.

Honestly the whole multiplayer progression seems incredibly shortsighted.
ugh. I feel like my quest to play this multiplayer on a daily basis will end abruptly when I hit SR130.

It basically works the same way as achieving Inheritor in Reach. Unless you want to go for 100% commendation completion.
Just to get some duplicate armor pieces that I'll never use? Naw.
 

Striker

Member
Dec 26, 2006
32,007
0
1,045
www.bigblueinteractive.com
For lack of a better word, Halo 4's multiplayer 'ends' when you hit 130 unless you think it's fun to grind for unlocks.

This is why a skill rank as a leveling ceiling was important in Halo 3.
You mean where once you hit 50 it became locked on your Service Record? A better ceiling would be something you keep climbing and the bar is so high not many will reach it. Locking a rank or something as short as the H4 is currently is a bit unfortunate.

Halo 4's UI has issues with responsiveness and that's one of my primary concerns. Granted the lack of gametype info and whatnot is obvious, but that is certainly another one, as is the giant baseball cards that are not necessary.

Even an early version of Halo 2's interface is far above the one we have now:
 

Dirtbag

Member
Jul 31, 2006
13,194
0
0
New Orleans / Los Angeles
For lack of a better word, Halo 4's multiplayer 'ends' when you hit 130 unless you think it's fun to grind for unlocks.

This is why a skill rank as a leveling ceiling was important in Halo 3.

Honestly the whole multiplayer progression seems incredibly shortsighted.
Seems like they were pretty realistic to me.

Multiplayer progression is fucking bullshit and doesnt belong in halo.
 

The Lamonster

Member
Aug 12, 2007
39,656
3
1,110
36
St. Louis
The Lamonster said:
ugh. I feel like my quest to play this multiplayer on a daily basis will end abruptly when I hit SR130.
remember when you used to play halo because it was fun
I do play Halo 4 because it's fun. I was saying I won't play it on a daily basis anymore once I hit SR130. I'll probably play it a great deal less often because while the game is fun, working toward a goal is a great motivator and makes the game even more fun.

for an example see: the entire genre of MMO...and yes, NeoGAF, I do realize Halo is an FPS.
 

OverHeat

Member
Jan 15, 2006
5,925
22
1,365
39
Quebec city
I do play Halo 4 because it's fun. I was saying I won't play it on a daily basis anymore once I hit SR130. I'll probably play it a great deal less often because while the game is fun, working toward a goal is a great motivator and makes the game even more fun.

for an example see: the entire genre of MMO
Prestige mode is coming ;)
 

The Lamonster

Member
Aug 12, 2007
39,656
3
1,110
36
St. Louis
I agree completely but Pandora's box has been opened. It is going to take something drastic to get shooters out of this multiplayer progression rut.
I am a huge fan of multiplayer progression. I love unlocking shit and customizing my character and emblems, etc.

Just want to make sure some of you realize we don't all have the same opinion about it.

Prestige mode is coming ;)
If that means start from 0 for no reason with no rewards count me out. If it means start from 0 with a bunch of awesome new bonuses like brand new armor or something, count me IN.
 

Merguson

Banned
Aug 24, 2007
7,163
0
0
I don't have any problem with multiplayer progression as long as it's totally cosmetic.

Go crazy with emblems, armor parts, weapon skins, whatever. Unlocking something such as a rocket launcher in any multiplayer game is a problem for me.
 

squidhands

Member
Mar 16, 2009
8,169
0
0
Austin, TX
twitter.com
I think 'bad' only really applies when comparing it to Bungie.net. There's a lot of stuff it does that I don't like, really... but all of it, judged on its own, is okay - at worst it's mediocre, and it does a lot of things right. When held up against what came before it, though... yeah, it's 'bad'. And that makes me sad. :(
It may not be fair to compare what 343 has done with what Bungie did so well (and crafted over several games), but I can't help it. Waypoint feels like they purposely hired people who had never used or seen bnet before in a bizarre attempt at putting the 343 stamp on things instead of just sticking with the familiar and what worked extremely well. It also seems that the stats are made for tablets and/or smartglass instead of a normal web browser, which I really don't like at all. I feel like I have to stumble around on the site just to find out that I can't find exactly what I want, or that it's in a completely different area that where I'm looking.

remember when you used to play halo because it was fun
I only play Halo (and videogames as a whole) to have fun.
 

IHaveIce

Banned
Jun 24, 2012
12,185
1
0
I don't have any problem with multiplayer progression as long as it's totally cosmetic.

Go crazy with emblems, armor parts, weapon skins, whatever. Unlocking something such as a rocket launcher in any multiplayer game is a problem for me.
Perks are already the wrong way in my opinion.

Wetwork and Stability are real gamechangers
 

User 73706

Banned
Aug 3, 2010
20,496
1
0
24
Mary Esther, FL
It may not be fair to compare what 343 has done with what Bungie did so well (and crafted over several games), but I can't help it. Waypoint feels like they purposely hired people who had never used or seen bnet before in a bizarre attempt at putting the 343 stamp on things instead of just sticking with the familiar and what worked extremely well. It also seems that the stats are made for tablets and/or smartglass instead of a normal web browser, which I really don't like at all. I feel like I have to stumble around on the site just to find out that I can't find exactly what I want, or that it's in a completely different area that where I'm looking.

I only play Halo (and videogames as a whole) to have fun.
Are you kidding? I play for the promise of getting to buy on-disc DLC! It's visceral and makes me feel like a part of the whole experience. I love stimulating Microsoft's economy until it defecits all over my face.
 

Caja 117

Member
Apr 14, 2012
5,569
0
425
So any new information about any TU? I do have to give my thanks to 343, because of them i discovered Battlefield 3.
 

Tashi

343i Lead Esports Producer
Jun 16, 2008
26,370
0
0
WA
www.HaloWaypoint.com
I played BF3 for the first time last week. First on console. I thought it was pretty cool. Maps were huge, riding the mongoose and capturing points was fun. Kind of felt like most of my time spent was looking around for people though and not engaging with them.

Then 5 minutes later I played on PC. Holy shit. Fucking bonkers. Not even just graphically. It really is just a big battlefield. Then again though, I prefer controller over mouse and keyboard for shooters. Also, using a out of game browser to search for a match just made me say, "what? Seriously?"
 

ncsuDuncan

Member
Apr 9, 2010
4,383
0
0
Battlefield 3 is pretty great (though I play it on PC).

Every time I come back to Halo 4 and try to build something in Forge...

RETURN TO BATTLEFIELD​
 

Steelyuhas

Member
Apr 22, 2010
17,217
0
0
I find it baffling that, through Spartan Ops and Palmer's wretched dialog, 343 managed to make Kat the better female character. I don't know what the plans are for Palmer's character, but I hope that the quality of the writing for her takes an enormous turn for the better that they just kill her so I don't have to listen to her talk anymore.
fixed
Waypoint won't give me overall totals (!$##@!@!@$%^$%#) so I guess i have to build them for myself.
HOWHOWHOWHOW is this a thing? You cannot check your overall weapon totals, that should be the first functionality check on the list!

How do you not build your online stats for Halo 4 on what Bungie did, or even on your own stats pages for Reach? 343's stats pages for Reach are still much better than Halo 4's stats app. Not only is Halo 4's stats app missing lots of key basic stats that I want to look at, but the design is one of the most baffling things I've ever tried to navigate.
I think 'bad' only really applies when comparing it to Bungie.net. There's a lot of stuff it does that I don't like, really... but all of it, judged on its own, is okay - at worst it's mediocre, and it does a lot of things right. When held up against what came before it, though... yeah, it's 'bad'. And that makes me sad. :(
Disagree, it's bad regardless of any comparison you make.

Also, while I'm ranting might as well mention their native mobile apps. Three months after launch and no updates to WP, iOS, or Android apps for Halo 4 functionality. Do they not have a web/mobile development team?
 

Caja 117

Member
Apr 14, 2012
5,569
0
425
Worst framerate, less players, etc could go on and on.
so, just because of that i have bad taste is games? At the end both areare the same game, is like telling me that just because i like skyrim on console i have bad taste in games.
 

Steelyuhas

Member
Apr 22, 2010
17,217
0
0
Also, because Wu calculated the number of times he's been killed by a boltshot, I thought I'd do the same, but alas Waypoint decided that was not a good idea. This happened when view my stats, lol:
 

OverHeat

Member
Jan 15, 2006
5,925
22
1,365
39
Quebec city
so, just because of that i have bad taste is games? At the end both areare the same game, is like telling me that just because i like skyrim on console i have bad taste in games.
Majority of maps or made for more player then 24... Imagine playing 4 vs 4 slayer on map like the full forge world map in reach....barf
 

Caja 117

Member
Apr 14, 2012
5,569
0
425
Majority of maps or made for more player then 24... Imagine playing 4 vs 4 slayer on map like the full forge world map in reach....barf
You are just blowing things out of proportions. I dont have a gaming PC, and what i played so far Have been fun, with my group of friends that also play it on console.

Dont judge me because i cant invest in both console and gaming PC
 

Overdoziz

Banned
Nov 8, 2011
14,939
0
0
Majority of maps or made for more player then 24... Imagine playing 4 vs 4 slayer on map like the full forge world map in reach....barf
That's why you either play Rush, or you use vehicles when playing Conquest on big maps. I won't deny that a few maps are on the large side, but it's definitely not as bad as you're describing it. The only maps that I feel are really too big for console are the ones in the Armored Kill map pack which should've never been released console in its current state. For Rush pretty much all maps are fine in terms of size, though. For Conquest I'd say only the Armored Kill maps (DLC), Wake Island (DLC), Caspian Border, Op. Firestorm and Kharg Island are too big. And the last three of those are easily manageable with vehicles. The maps in the newest mappack Aftermath are probably some of the best maps in the game and are excellent for 24 players.
 

IHaveIce

Banned
Jun 24, 2012
12,185
1
0
After your talk I think I will play some Battlefield 3 again. Hooray at downloading updates on the PS3 it will take at least a day :(
 

MrGreencastle

Member
Dec 5, 2011
4,855
0
425
Have you used IE10?

Also using Windows 8.
Have you used Windows 8?

That's why you either play Rush, or you use vehicles when playing Conquest on big maps. I won't deny that a few maps are on the large side, but it's definitely not as bad as you're describing it. The only maps that I feel are really too big for console are the ones in the Armored Kill map pack which should've never been released console in its current state. For Rush pretty much all maps are fine in terms of size, though. For Conquest I'd say only the Armored Kill maps (DLC), Wake Island (DLC), Caspian Border, Op. Firestorm and Kharg Island are too big. And the last three of those are easily manageable with vehicles. The maps in the newest mappack Aftermath are probably some of the best maps in the game and are excellent for 24 players.
I've been so tempted to pick up the Premium pass for BF3 on PC. But since I bought the game for $60, I've been waiting for a good deal. I missed it the other day for $30 :(
Are the Aftermath maps that good?

Also, not sure if you're aware, but a few of the maps, like Caspian Border, are slightly smaller to account for less players. The borders of the maps were made closer, with some of the outer bases inaccessible. At least, I'm almost 100% sure that's the case.
 

Caja 117

Member
Apr 14, 2012
5,569
0
425
And i wasn't looking for a debate on which battlefield is better, is the fact that Halo current configuration in the matchmaking games are not fun for me, so i just jumped to another game that i happen to find more entertaining than halo 4.

This type of game also shows why a weapon unlock system doesnt work well in halo, the amount of weapons are countless, while halo weapon sandbox is limited (and should stay that way)
 

Moa

Member
Mar 18, 2012
2,932
0
430
Have you used IE10?



Have you used Windows 8?



I've been so tempted to pick up the Premium pass for BF3 on PC. But since I bought the game for $60, I've been waiting for a good deal. I missed it the other day for $30 :(
Are the Aftermath maps that good?

Also, not sure if you're aware, but a few of the maps, like Caspian Border, are slightly smaller to account for less players. The borders of the maps were made closer, with some of the outer bases inaccessible. At least, I'm almost 100% sure that's the case.
On a pre-release version of Windows 8, yes, I didn't like it.

Windows 8 has both IE9 & IE10, just IE10 is an app.

I was mainly kidding with my picture of IE9, it has become a better browser since IE6 & 7.
 

MrGreencastle

Member
Dec 5, 2011
4,855
0
425
On a pre-release version of Windows 8, yes, I didn't like it.

Windows 8 has both IE9 & IE10, just IE10 is an app.

I was mainly kidding with my picture of IE9, it has become a better browser since IE6 & 7.
That is not true at all. IE 10 is the desktop browser, too.
 

Steelyuhas

Member
Apr 22, 2010
17,217
0
0
Yes. It is the worst windows system I have used since ME. The design is not intuitive. Also, people are adopting it slower than Vista. The market doesn't like it either.
The adoption rate is slow larger due to OEM's failing to have devices ready for launch. There were very few, and many that even were available had small about of units shipped, and because they didn't have the product to fill demand anyways, haven't marketed their products much.

Me personally, I've used Windows 8 as my main OS since June. Yes, it took me an hour or so to get used to how it works, and then there was no looking bad. When getting on a Win 7 machine now, I immediately want Windows 8.

On a pre-release version of Windows 8, yes, I didn't like it.

Windows 8 has both IE9 & IE10, just IE10 is an app.

I was mainly kidding with my picture of IE9, it has become a better browser since IE6 & 7.
There is no IE9 on Windows 8, and IE version's on pre-release versions is not final.

The pic you posted is IE10.
 

TheOddOne

Member
Jan 13, 2008
38,638
0
0
Netherlands
Can the Plasma Grenade please be removed from custom loadouts? People use it way too much to get cheap kills. Keep it only in the Ordnance system. Kthankbye.
 

Reagan's BR

Banned
Jul 4, 2011
3,886
0
0
The adoption rate is slow larger due to OEM's failing to have devices ready for launch. There were very few, and many that even were available had small about of units shipped, and because they didn't have the product to fill demand anyways, haven't marketed their products much.

Me personally, I've used Windows 8 as my main OS since June. Yes, it took me an hour or so to get used to how it works, and then there was no looking bad. When getting on a Win 7 machine now, I immediately want Windows 8.
The thing was designed for tablets. The tablets are selling that well either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.