Halo |OT13|

Status
Not open for further replies.
The worst part about personal ordinance is how it allows a camping team to remain entrenched in one position. Hell, it oftentimes encourages this behavior.

"Trying to take the middle area on Vortex? HA, good luck getting past the rockets, Incineration Cannons, Fuel Rods, and Binary Rifles the other team is holding. Here, take this Needler."
Its always been my common understanding that, on map, weapon spawns had always served for three purposes:
  • Ammo
  • Spawn Weight
  • Anti-camper
Toning down the system has created unwanted pulls in maps, leaving certain parts of maps unused. Every second that I enjoy Halo 4 there has been one sweeping error that keeps getting in the way of my fun.
 
so much of your post is just twisted to suit your agenda it isn't funny.

you talk about the drop in numbers from Reach on.

modern warfare released in 2007 with Halo 3. So technically Halo 3 is to blame for "allowing" CoD to take the players away.

What competition did Halo 2 have? Dumb argument.

also, that first section pistol vs pistol etc. What does that all even mean? Reach had loadouts
I thought I heard Chaos Theory's Spies vs. Mercs had a pretty decent population
 
so much of your post is just twisted to suit your agenda it isn't funny.

you talk about the drop in numbers from Reach on.

modern warfare released in 2007 with Halo 3. So technically Halo 3 is to blame for "allowing" CoD to take the players away.

What competition did Halo 2 have? Dumb argument.

also, that first section pistol vs pistol etc. What does that all even mean? Reach had loadouts and 3 had equipment soooooo....?
Oh yes because people post arguments in support of their position with data and sentences that dont support their argument? Huh?

The beginning was to display the majority of battles in each Halo. So I'm talking about in general the majority of battles in previous Halo's were of the same weapon. A lot of modes even forced that.

It didn't drop largely til Reach. Yes Halo 3 was when CoD took over, but there are still a ton of CoD games on the charts, where H2 is no longer even playable and H3, isn't on there and Reach is way down at the bottom, why are CoD games hanging on the list?

And I said the further back the less stuff they had, yes H3 had equipment which was single use it wasn't my favorite but it was far less offensive than AA's Reach implemented. All I'm saying is look at the additions of Halo's and the population decline and they have things in common. You can say they have nothing to do with it, but I think otherwise.
 
Its always been my common understanding that, on map, weapon spawns had always served for three purposes:
  • Ammo
  • Spawn Weight
  • Anti-camper
Toning down the system has created unwanted pulls in maps, leaving certain parts of maps unused. Every second that I enjoy Halo 4 there has been one sweeping error that keeps getting in the way of my fun.
The opposite can be said for fixed spawns and timers though, remember on Narrows you always had to rush rockets or on The Pit you always had to rush rockets/camo or take sniper and go OS battle. It's a good setup but it does get a bit stale after playing it many times.

When you factor in randoms vs. regulars these systems become imbalanced and lead to very lopsided games as well as quitters. I will concede that when two teams are matched well these classic systems work very well indeed. Although I've had similar high quality experiences with the Halo 4 systems as well, even in multiple playlists too. I guess that goes more to matching and teams than game settings.
 

Brolic Gaoler

formerly Alienshogun
News could not have me more flaccid.

I find it hilarious that people think they have to use an enhanced vocabulary to sound smart or be taken seriously. Who actually uses "pejorative" instead of "insult" or "discourse" instead of "discussion" in conversational language? You're not proving anything by using SAT words.
LOL, guys stop using big words this Enfinit kid is feeling inferior.
 
The opposite can be said for fixed spawns and timers though, remember on Narrows you always had to rush rockets or on The Pit you always had to rush rockets/camo or take sniper and go OS battle. It's a good setup but it does get a bit stale after playing it many times.

When you factor in randoms vs. regulars these systems become imbalanced and lead to very lopsided games as well as quitters. I will concede that when two teams are matched well these classic systems work very well indeed. Although I've had similar high quality experiences with the Halo 4 systems as well, even in multiple playlists too. I guess that goes more to matching and teams than game settings.
I personally have felt that a melding of ideas would work appropriately, finding locations to house weapons has certainly lead to a map design philosophy that isn't as prevalent in Halo 4. Remembering back to the Halo 3 vidoc there was discussion of hiding weapons and objectives under eye catching features in order to catch the players eye and maps were, in times, built around the setup (I still want that outhouse callout).

Lopsided games because of power weapon timing should be considered a lack of initiative and the trueskill not matching equals together. Limited ammo plus long spawn rates negate weapon spawns as win button but as an area of contention. Holding an area should be the main priorty when initiating a setup. Every Halo, except reach, seemed to always have those intense and insanely close matches that got the blood pumping. I can say that I've had plenty of these super close matches in Halo 4, but the basics like ammo management are always a limiting factor during encounters.
 
Oh yes because people post arguments in support of their position with data and sentences that dont support their argument? Huh?

The beginning was to display the majority of battles in each Halo. So I'm talking about in general the majority of battles in previous Halo's were of the same weapon. A lot of modes even forced that.

It didn't drop largely til Reach. Yes Halo 3 was when CoD took over, but there are still a ton of CoD games on the charts, where H2 is no longer even playable and H3, isn't on there and Reach is way down at the bottom, why are CoD games hanging on the list?

And I said the further back the less stuff they had, yes H3 had equipment which was single use it wasn't my favorite but it was far less offensive than AA's Reach implemented. All I'm saying is look at the additions of Halo's and the population decline and they have things in common. You can say they have nothing to do with it, but I think otherwise.
the problem is perspective.

you see the drop in numbers and blame change.

some people saw the drop in numbers as inevitable. CoD is where its at now. Its this generations counter strike.

CoD made adjustments to multiplayer, why didn't their numbers drop? Because the core is still there.

Here's where it gets juicy. The core is still there in Halo.

I think most people just don't want to admit that Halo isn't as popular as it once was.

That would be why 343 have made some of the changes they have. To see what gets people back.
 
the problem is perspective.

you see the drop in numbers and blame change.

some people saw the drop in numbers as inevitable. CoD is where its at now. Its this generations counter strike.

CoD made adjustments to multiplayer, why didn't their numbers drop? Because the core is still there.

Here's where it gets juicy. The core is still there in Halo.

I think most people just don't want to admit that Halo isn't as popular as it once was.

That would be why 343 have made some of the changes they have. To see what gets people back.
You're guessing now.

We don't know what they were thinking but the changes they made to Halo hurt it more then helped.
 
People won't listen to my reasons why people went to CoD over Halo. People just think CoD is more attractive to all the mindless idiots that want to shoot stuff and smoke weed. Its probably more to do with the reduced lag input, smooth framerate, that allows you to feel more a part of the game. I don't even wanna get that stuff started.
 
People won't listen to my reasons why people went to CoD over Halo. People just think CoD is more attractive to all the mindless idiots that want to shoot stuff and smoke weed. Its probably more to do with the reduced lag input, smooth framerate, that allows you to feel more a part of the game. I don't even wanna get that stuff started.
I think it's more a sign of the times. Younger generations want instant gratification more and more than previous generations. I'm not taking away from COD or bashing it per se but Halo using shields particularly means longer kill times, less I saw you first now you die, takes more practised skill, you sometimes have to out play an enemy 3 or 4 times in the one engagement and that's not even factoring in teamwork etc. To me the younger generations latch on to COD for instant gratification. We saw the same thing with Halo objective losing out to slayer population over time as well. Why? Less teams and more solo instant gratification.

There's also the major "real life military" that young US males go after more than sci-fi even.

That's my two cents for COD vs. Halo.

The oversized boots are a nice touch.
There were boots in those pictures? ;)

The argument that COD4 killed Halo 3 and Halo in general is silly if you look at the facts...

http://monstervine.com/2009/01/2008-xbox-live-activity/
Too much "If you're not first you're second" nah-saying. Seriously second on XBL is not a bad thing.
 
People won't listen to my reasons why people went to CoD over Halo. People just think CoD is more attractive to all the mindless idiots that want to shoot stuff and smoke weed. Its probably more to do with the reduced lag input, smooth framerate, that allows you to feel more a part of the game. I don't even wanna get that stuff started.
It sure wasn't map control from static ordnance spawns and timers.

60fps, Customized loadouts, game-changing unlockables, quick matchmaking and JIP, wildly imbalanced but fun killstreak awards, short kill-times so even the newbiest of noobs could take down a top player, multi-tiered XP progression and challenges, and simple, accessible gameplay are all good guesses though.
 
I think it's more a sign of the times. Younger generations want instant gratification more and more than previous generations. I'm not taking away from COD or bashing it per se but Halo using shields particularly means longer kill times, less I saw you first now you die, takes more practised skill, you sometimes have to out play an enemy 3 or 4 times in the one engagement and that's not even factoring in teamwork etc. To me the younger generations latch on to COD for instant gratification. We saw the same thing with Halo objective losing out to slayer population over time as well. Why? Less teams and more solo instant gratification.

There's also the major "real life military" that young US males go after more than sci-fi even.

That's my two cents for COD vs. Halo.



There were boots in those pictures? ;)



Too much "If you're not first you're second" nah-saying. Seriously second on XBL is not a bad thing.
I'm not really arguing about rankings on Xbox Live. My point is that Halo 3, which is the most classic and pure Halo game on the 360, managed to remain popular even with the release of two Call of Duty games after Halo 3 had already released. There is this idea that Halo wasn't modern enough and needed to change, but even after that "modern" gameplay had arrived with Call of Duty 4 and World at War, Halo 3 had the largest playerbase on Xbox Live. What is hurting Halo is not the fact it is not modern enough, it is the fact that the game has moved so far away from what made Halo unique, that hardcore and longtime fans are annoyed and don't like it, and the casual fans don't like it as much either if you look at the numbers.
 
I think it's more a sign of the times. Younger generations want instant gratification more and more than previous generations. I'm not taking away from COD or bashing it per se but Halo using shields particularly means longer kill times, less I saw you first now you die, takes more practised skill, you sometimes have to out play an enemy 3 or 4 times in the one engagement and that's not even factoring in teamwork etc. To me the younger generations latch on to COD for instant gratification. We saw the same thing with Halo objective losing out to slayer population over time as well. Why? Less teams and more solo instant gratification.

There's also the major "real life military" that young US males go after more than sci-fi even.

That's my two cents for COD vs. Halo.
I'm probably in the top 5% on here in terms of age, and I moved from Halo to CoD. The reason has nothing to do with instant gratification or anything like that for me; the reason is that I want to feel powerful as an individual player. Halo CE was perfect because your power was directly related to your ability. It hasn't been like that in a console game since.

Sure, CoD doesn't have the skill-gap that I crave, but neither does Halo anymore. I might as well play the game where I can be an effective individual.

The argument that CoD is "I saw you first so you die" and Halo isn't used to be sort of correct. However, now Halo is "I saw you first so you die unless your teammate is also nearby." Just because the engagement is longer doesn't mean it still isn't a "who-sees-who" first game. I would love to play a Halo game where it wasn't true, but that game doesn't exist for me to play online.
 
The argument that COD4 killed Halo 3 and Halo in general is silly if you look at the facts...
I dont think anyone said that. MW? I think was the CoD at the time overtook Halo 3 and they battled back and forth. Halo can compete. Reach failed so hard though. Halo can compete.

I don't buy the its a sign of the times either, 400,000 players played on day one. Halo failed to RETAIN those players, and I know why. I'd fix it too if I had the chance.
 
People won't listen to my reasons why people went to CoD over Halo. People just think CoD is more attractive to all the mindless idiots that want to shoot stuff and smoke weed. Its probably more to do with the reduced lag input, smooth framerate, that allows you to feel more a part of the game. I don't even wanna get that stuff started.
Who said that's not the case?

60 frames
The "feel" of CoD
positive reinforcement
real world weapons and scenarios

these plus more are reasons.

Sci fi is just not "in" right now.

Input lag? Halo doesn't have input lag.
 
I dont think anyone said that. MW? I think was the CoD at the time overtook Halo 3 and they battled back and forth. Halo can compete. Reach failed so hard though. Halo can compete.

I don't buy the its a sign of the times either, 400,000 players played on day one. Halo failed to RETAIN those players, and I know why. I'd fix it too if I had the chance.
Someone mentioned a few pages back I think that when Call of Duty 4 arrived, Halo began to drop, which isn't true.
 
The "not a Halo game" shit is hilarious. The core gameplay and gunplay, the foundation for any shooter including Halo, still plays like Halo. The gametypes still very much play like Halo. It still feels like Halo. It still for the most part flows like Halo MP does, at an accelerated and a bit more.. uncertain pace. A lot of the stuff they've added like personal ordnance and loadouts is in many ways evolutionary for Halo, it just hasn't been beta tested here. People would be bitching a lot less if the Boltshot was a little less powerful and the maps didn't skew towards DMR ranges.

Like I said, the hyperbole in this thread is baffling. People here really, deeply offended by Halo 4. The game has it's exorbitant amount of problems, but it still very damn well plays like Halo. This extends to the campaign as well.
I very much agree with this post.
 
People won't listen to my reasons why people went to CoD over Halo. People just think CoD is more attractive to all the mindless idiots that want to shoot stuff and smoke weed. Its probably more to do with the reduced lag input, smooth framerate, that allows you to feel more a part of the game. I don't even wanna get that stuff started.
Partially. But also because it´s much, much easier to get a kill in CoD, compared to halo. Any idiot can get a kill in CoD, it's just pointing the gun and shooting.

I have lot's of friends who got frustraded with prior Halo's because every weapon apart from precision weapons (headshot only) did almost nothing. CoD is more accecible and over the top.
 
Sci fi is just not "in" right now..
I think this is a big one. People always tried to talk down Halo to me because all you do is shoot aliens and "it's not realistic"... But they were happy to play CoD.

(Not saying that CoD is realistic, but in their mind it made more sense I guess)
 
I'm probably in the top 5% on here in terms of age, and I moved from Halo to CoD. The reason has nothing to do with instant gratification or anything like that for me; the reason is that I want to feel powerful as an individual player. Halo CE was perfect because your power was directly related to your ability. It hasn't been like that in a console game since.

Sure, CoD doesn't have the skill-gap that I crave, but neither does Halo anymore. I might as well play the game where I can be an effective individual.

The argument that CoD is "I saw you first so you die" and Halo isn't used to be sort of correct. However, now Halo is "I saw you first so you die unless your teammate is also nearby." Just because the engagement is longer doesn't mean it still isn't a "who-sees-who" first game. I would love to play a Halo game where it wasn't true, but that game doesn't exist for me to play online.
I would agree with 3 becoming more team focused and Reach even further down that track to losing that solo power player ability. I do think Halo 4 has turned that corner and is making solo play more impacting while rewarding team play still.

I just can never play COD due to the level of impact the more "progressed players" have and the nature of online play with a 1 headshot winning engagements. Too shit for an Aussie player that doesn't have a regular COD team. I've tried two CODS and only finished one campaign with less than 20 games of multiplayer total, why? I can't stand the game mechanics online.
 
CoD never killed the formula that worked, that's the big difference.
This.

And the undying argument that it's "more realistic"...

Also juices, I don't think you realize the influence the "swag" in CoD in the demographic of people my age. My friend criticized Halo for not having enough swag because they didn't include a weed emblem.
 

Brolic Gaoler

formerly Alienshogun
The gift and the curse, really. Gift to the masses, curse to those who can perceive stagnation and to all those who try to be ambitious with their games.
It's hard to think the series is stagnating when they have introduced things and improved upon them, even surpassing franchises that had them before hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.