-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Official Halo 3: ODST Thread
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
The Librarian
Banned
Who said anything about not trying? I didn't say hard achievements aren't something that shouldn't be around, I'm saying achievements tied to unfair requirements are something that shouldn't be around. I'm saying that as a player, when I see an achievement I know I can't do, it feels like I've been cheapened slightly. Why include a feature in the game if not everyone can use it or meet its fullest potential? That doesn't make sense.PedroLumpy said:
An achievement should be fun first and foremost, but it also should be fair. That's usually what campaign achievements are (unlike MP achievements). Veteran is neither fun nor fair, and it's why I noted it as an exception. I wasn't trying to "troll" CoD4, just what I think is a bad example of achievement implementation because of what Veteran is.
GhaleonEB said:
Essentially, yeah.
Sweet.
Dax01 said:
I would agree with you if you HAD to play through on Veteran to complete the game or something; but, you don't. Achievements are there for people who want to get them, people who play veteran know exactly what they're getting into and they continue to do so through their own choice.
Flag games are great, just two suggestions for a future update:
a- Objectives should only 1HK in FFA, coupled with a little bit of lag and the quasi-H2 Sword lunge they have, it's just not fun.
b- Flag return should be much shorter. When the opposing team can spawn three times before the flag is returned, there's a problem.
Other than that, Multi Flag BRs (of course) on Citadel and Heretic is great =)
a- Objectives should only 1HK in FFA, coupled with a little bit of lag and the quasi-H2 Sword lunge they have, it's just not fun.
b- Flag return should be much shorter. When the opposing team can spawn three times before the flag is returned, there's a problem.
Other than that, Multi Flag BRs (of course) on Citadel and Heretic is great =)
PedroLumpy
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Well yes, I only bother with achievements if it's fun, so do you, so does Dax most likely, and you Dax and I don't find Veteran fun. But there is some poor soul out there who may find it fun. Let that guy have his fun and achievement. The entire point I was making was that it was a flaw from a fundamental design perspective of the game, which we weren't talking about, but not an achievement design flaw, which we were talking about.
I mean I got Mile High Club, kinda wanted to see what the fuss was about, but there was no fucking way I was going to do the whole campaign. But it's nice that it's there, I can make fun of my friends who got the achievements for that.
One of the most basic purposes of achievements is that you can show you accomplished something (Insert Xbox360 flyer kid here), along with the other stuff you were talking about earlier.
Dax01 said:
Yeah the whole not trying thing was entirely serious, sorry about that. But seriously, being able to distinguish yourself is one of the few useful things achievements do, I definitely don't think every single player achievement should be achieveable by an average, or even a good player. It can vary from game to game, but imagine something like Ninja Gaiden where the achievement doesn't distinguish between Ninja Dog and Master Ninja difficulty, that's crazy talk.
Essentially this is wrong (IMO! don't panic!). I'd be nice if we lived in a perfect world where every game had a brilliantly done difficulty curve, but we don't. Some games are just gonna have cheap AI, cheap health, cheap damage etc etc etc, but that doesn't make the accomplishment less of an achievement.Dax01 said:
Self Induced
Member
Veteran can be lots of fun and I enjoy the challenge. I'm looking forward to doing it all over again with MW2. The fact that I know many other people can't do it makes it even more fun (which isn't true - with enough perseverance, anyone can beat these games on Veteran, although it may test the patience of some more than others).Dax01 said:
Fairness doesn't have anything to do with it (unless the achievement itself is broken, of course) because its just a challenge set forth by the developer. Not everyone can overcome all challenges.
I understand that. I don't think Dax picked the best example for that reason, but I was trying to dovetail that into his (muddied) broader point.PedroLumpy said:
Right. I've never advocated getting rid of "progression/completion" achievements, as I call them, and I didn't in the current discussion. My point was, there is lots of room for more interesting achievements in ODST of the Crackdown variety, and Bungie didn't take advantage of the opportunity. I'm fine with progression achievements in general, but ODST has far too many, and far too few "fun" ones partly as a consequence.PedroLumpy said:
For instance, the game awards you with progress for not only beating a flashback mission, but starting one (finding the clue). You have achievements for picking up a health pack, getting the VISR map, swapping weapons with an NPC and shooting the Needler (again - it's a tweaked repeat from Halo 3). And yet nothing in Firefight aside from Endure and get 200k points on each map.
That's my specific lament here.
PedroLumpy
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Well yeah, that's why I wasn't arguing with you originally 'cause that's all fine.
The Librarian
Banned
PedroLumpy said:
The reason why I related Veteran difficulty to MP achievements in saying what kind of achievements should and shouldn't be in a game was because they have something in common: luck. Some MP achievements in Halo 3 require luck, and that's bullshit (can we all agree on that?). When I played through Veteran in CoD4, I only got past some parts through sheer luck. Like the ferris wheel part at the end of "One Shot, One Kill." What's the best thing to do? Hide in the dinky shack and hope as much as you can that the enemies don't throw grenades into the building.
Games like Ninja Gaiden are a good example of what you're saying, but that's a totally different genre than FPS, which is what I was mainly thinking of when I made that comment. Hell, I beat NGII on the lowest difficulty, and when I restarted the game on the next difficulty, it was only half-way through the first level before my hands started to hurt. At that point, I stopped playing and haven't tried since.
Right. I understand that no difficulty is perfect, but there are those difficulties that are more perfect than others. They can always be improved, but it's the best the developer can do in a certain amount of time. While no difficulty system is perfect, it should be perfect enough so that any player can do an achievement relating to that difficulty given enough effort (i.e., no luck involved).
Fairness has everything to do with it. If a difficulty is fair, luck isn't needed, and luck is even needed at some parts in Veteran. That's why most people don't like MP achievements, and that's why I was relating Veteran to MP achievements.Self Induced said:
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Striker said:
Yeah, I tried it, it's better but there are still some flagrant issues. Default Pit? WTF?
---
Alright, I mostly play the Hardcore playlists (any idea why they removed the name?), so I'll limit my suggestions to these playlists. Most of my gripes with TS, TD, LW, etc date from over a year ago, when I decided to quit playing them since I wasn't having any fun (has the situation been improved?), so I wont comment on them.
Some changes/fixes are impossible in H3, but I'm gonna list them anyways since I hope they'll be fixed for Reach (providing it offers a similar MP experience).
Hardcore playlists: Team Snipers, Team SWAT, and MLG
These three playlists offer a very raw Halo experience: lightning fast reflexes and team communication should be the most important here. Which I why I suggest implementing 110% speed and no radar across all three playlists. Furthermore, equipment, which slows down gameplay, shouldn't be featured in these playlists either.
Team Snipers
A globally satisfying playlist. Main problems are, as already stated before, RADAR and equipment. Most maps are good (I haven't played Snipes on the new maps yet however), but Standoff is a total clusterfuck. It should be removed from the playlist IMO.
For Reach: Much better netcode and hit detection (this is essential for every playlist, and is one of H3's biggest deceptions MP-wise). Sniping loses most of it's fun when a whole clip won't finish off a non-moving one-shot enemy.
Team SWAT
This is the playlist that needs the highest speed boost, 110% minimum, even 125% works. Equipement needs to go, as do grenades. The point of SWAT is quick headshots, not grenade spamming/hiding in bubble shields.
For Reach: 'Player model' in the Custom Game Options. Not only would this be helpful for the MLG and SWAT playlists (no Elites), but it could have been a welcome setting in other modes such as Infection for example. I don't know why it wasn't included in H3 (lack of time? did no one think about it?), but I hope it'll be there in Reach.
Map wise, the biggest offender is Rat's Nest. Halo 3's netcode + long range BR fights don't mix well, and this becomes very apparent in SWAT where all players are, supposedly, one-shot.
MLG
The gametypes/maps are MLG's so nothing to say to Bungie concerning that, but it's be nice if 3v3 games were not accepted in this playlist. Once again, netcode/hit detection improvements and removing Elites would also be welcome, but obviously impossible to realize for Halo 3.
---
tldr; Hardcore playlists, are great, but could be greater, now in H3, and starting next Spring in Reach (?).
Feedback?
xxjuicesxx
Member
All of you really need to grow some fucking balls. Really. An achievement means you've ACHIEVED. You've done something that you should be proud of, having achievements anybody can get is lame and in no way an achievement. Every single one of Halos achievements are worthless as shit.
The main problem is completing games, everyone has begun to think its their right to be able to load a game up and get EVERY achievement, those people are little sallies.
If you can't get one, fucking figure out WHY and then try again. Its a game of overcoming what you thought you couldn't do. Trying different things until you figure out what works. Are any of you at a disadvantage? No, we're all just using our heads to press buttons on a controller. If you have one hand then yea otherwise stfu.
tl:dr? ..Discover you can do things you didn't think you could, stop being bitches.
The main problem is completing games, everyone has begun to think its their right to be able to load a game up and get EVERY achievement, those people are little sallies.
If you can't get one, fucking figure out WHY and then try again. Its a game of overcoming what you thought you couldn't do. Trying different things until you figure out what works. Are any of you at a disadvantage? No, we're all just using our heads to press buttons on a controller. If you have one hand then yea otherwise stfu.
tl:dr? ..Discover you can do things you didn't think you could, stop being bitches.
PedroLumpy
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Well frankly, that would be better than a fair amount of achievements.
Dax01 said:
Yeah, but again almost all games have really shitty difficulty curves that take luck. Halo is one of the few games I'll bump up in difficulty because it gets more interesting in some ways. Most games just works out to be being luckier or taking longer, there's no interesting change in how you play. If we're gonna take luck outa the equation almost all difficulty achievements will go out the window.
For example when I did Mile High club I was in full trial and error mode, just doing it over and over. When I finally got it was I lucky? Yes. But was I better than when I first started? Yes. Thus despite luck being involved I did achieve something.
The Librarian
Banned
The kind of luck I'm referring to is what I described for "One Shot, One Kill" near the end with the Ferris Wheel. Out of all the games I've played, I've never had to do anything like that.PedroLumpy said:
xxjuicesxx
Member
Blueblur1 said:
Butthurt much dude?
(We should all just talk in one word sentences that attack others to get our point across. Its progressive is what it is really.)
I thought that gamerscore points were rewards for achieving certain goals in games. There is no rule, that I know of, that mandates how difficult they have to be. Now, I'm not advocating simple achievements (I did jump on the Avatar bandwagon, thoughEazyB said:
) or that the average player should be able to scoop all 1000 points in a game within a handful of days like during a rental period. What I do believe is that they shouldn't be ridiculously difficult or nearly impossible to earn without being some assistance from Lady Luck. Two for One and Mongoose Mowdown are two achievements that would only occur by luck, cheating or completely altering the way you play in hopes of finding some poor saps will spawn in front of you (Lady Luck again!). Fun fact: That's how I got both of 'em! That's not fun. And then there are achievements like Seriously ... that require an unhealthy amount of hours for only 50 points. You might say, "Well, those are an important 50 points! That's completely respectable." Oh course, you might think that but then every other person will likely respond with, "Dude, how long has it been since you've seen the Sun? How many hours did you waste?" at which point that achievement doesn't seem so precious anymore. Regardless, you're free to have your own opinion.
I will say that for someone who doesn't seem to care for achievements, you sure do have a lot of them. Three times as many as I do in fact. :lol
In our very first try, me and 3 other friends just made it all the way to the fourth wave of the fourth set, with the last set to go for the Endure Achievement, then a friend (or maybe the game) lags out, sending us all back to the lobby except for the one friend, who left the party chat and game lobby, but wasn't disconnected from Live.
Almost exactly 2 hours with a minute to go, what the FUCK man.
I'm going to bed.
Almost exactly 2 hours with a minute to go, what the FUCK man.
I'm going to bed.
JetBlackPanda
Member
Skilotonn said:
I feel ya! I had the same thing happen to me twice (within minutes of beating the 4th set) the only thing I can say is make sure everyone playing is using game chat and not in a live party, since I started doing this I have had very little problems.
Let me set a scene for you. You're sitting with some friends and you're all having a discussion about something that interests you. Then you see me walk over to you and your friends expecting me to weigh on on the discussion. Instead of addressing you and your friends in a manner that you would expect -- you know, with some courtesy -- I call you and your friends morons, idiots, bitches, etc. and do my best to invalidate your opinions without giving it any thought. Wouldn't you then not care about what I have to say? Wouldn't you think I am the moron and probably not worth listening to?xxjuicesxx said:
Guess what? I pretty much described the kind of thing you do every few pages. You just did a few posts ago and it really didn't contribute anything to the conversation. So if I were you, I wouldn't act so surprised when someone doesn't respond too kindly to yet another asinine post you made.
You're the one who first proposed that was some rule which mandates how difficult they have to be:Blueblur1 said:
Difficult achievements don't have to be extremely situational or lucky. I agree that achievements like Two for One are lame and I'd rather not see them. That said, I love the fact that there are achievements like the one in Trails HD that are nearly impossible and only 11 or 500k have gotten it. It's something actually worthy of showing off.Blueblur1 said:Now, I'm not advocating simple achievements (I did jump on the Avatar bandwagon, though
IMO there are two good types of achievements. Those that make you do something you'd not think of doing ordinarily like the Annual achievement and those that are hard enough to warrant showing off. Achievements like "Beat the campaign on default difficulty" shouldn't exist as they're worthless and accomplish none of the above.
I really wish there weren't points associated with the achievements. I think the points are the sole reason players feel like they should be able to get all of them and while the lack of points would make achievements less attractive for a good chunk of the XBL userbase, those still interested in them will be in a better mindset. The developers would then have a lot less pressure to put so many poor achievements up there.
Who said I didn't care for achievements. I only think many of them are lame. A friend and I used to have an achievement point contest going (Avatar!) but we lost interest in that after Halo 3 came out and wanted to keep playing that instead of renting more games.Blueblur1 said:
The only Achievements that people give a crap about in Halo 3 and ODST are ones that have very difficult pre-reqs, and are actually satisfying to get.
Those are the vidmasters. Recon isn't the only reason they are valuable. They are worth the effort.
Speaking of which, anyone want to go for that one, all ghosts, end of Halo 3, Iron on?
GT: Ember512
Those are the vidmasters. Recon isn't the only reason they are valuable. They are worth the effort.
Speaking of which, anyone want to go for that one, all ghosts, end of Halo 3, Iron on?
GT: Ember512
Neverender
Member
I'm guessing they took those playlists out of HC as to not alienate new comers who bought ODST thinking they weren't 'hardcore' enough.MagniHarvald said:
StUnNeR H2K
Member
The one thing I hate about achievements... is the specific achievements that require you or promote you to do something different in order to achieve it.
I'm first of all not a fan of multiplayer achievements that ask you do something specific... i.e. Sword Spree, Shotgun Spree or Splatter Spree that appear on the new maps. I don't think they are difficult, but I do feel that it ruins the gaming experience when someone changes the way they play in order to obtain them. In other words someone who wouldn't regularly kill with a shotgun/sword/ghost will have to purposely use them in order to get them. This doesn't mean that they suck with those weapons, they just prefer not to use them for whatever reason.
Now someone can argue that by being a jack of all trades and using all your resources in multiplayer that someone will eventually get those type of achievements, but how many people intentionally do it just to obtain them? I know the first few games on Longshore that I played everyone was team killing each other to get in a ghost. It really ruined the gaming experience... I've seen the same thing in other games, i.e. when they added achievements to World of Warcraft so many people started screwing around in PvP battlegrounds just to get some achievements, which in turn can have an effect on the rest of the players by causing the group to lose and wasting the time of others who are in the game to win.
In general I think achievements are fun, but achievements in multiplayer need to be less focused on doing something 'random' and more focused on games objectives... example "obtain a lifetime total X amount of kills in ranked playlists" or "win a ranked multi-flag game in under X min on X map". Make the specific achievements like getting a shotgun spree or sniper spree in Legendary Single player where it shows more as to what you do as an individual and doesn't rely on teammates to help you get an achievement or affect other players in the game.
In general I like to see more single player campaign achievements then multiplayer. This way when you go play multiplayer you just play to have fun or win and not just to get achievements, or having to deal with teammates that are running around trying to get achievements instead of trying to help win.
I'm first of all not a fan of multiplayer achievements that ask you do something specific... i.e. Sword Spree, Shotgun Spree or Splatter Spree that appear on the new maps. I don't think they are difficult, but I do feel that it ruins the gaming experience when someone changes the way they play in order to obtain them. In other words someone who wouldn't regularly kill with a shotgun/sword/ghost will have to purposely use them in order to get them. This doesn't mean that they suck with those weapons, they just prefer not to use them for whatever reason.
Now someone can argue that by being a jack of all trades and using all your resources in multiplayer that someone will eventually get those type of achievements, but how many people intentionally do it just to obtain them? I know the first few games on Longshore that I played everyone was team killing each other to get in a ghost. It really ruined the gaming experience... I've seen the same thing in other games, i.e. when they added achievements to World of Warcraft so many people started screwing around in PvP battlegrounds just to get some achievements, which in turn can have an effect on the rest of the players by causing the group to lose and wasting the time of others who are in the game to win.
In general I think achievements are fun, but achievements in multiplayer need to be less focused on doing something 'random' and more focused on games objectives... example "obtain a lifetime total X amount of kills in ranked playlists" or "win a ranked multi-flag game in under X min on X map". Make the specific achievements like getting a shotgun spree or sniper spree in Legendary Single player where it shows more as to what you do as an individual and doesn't rely on teammates to help you get an achievement or affect other players in the game.
In general I like to see more single player campaign achievements then multiplayer. This way when you go play multiplayer you just play to have fun or win and not just to get achievements, or having to deal with teammates that are running around trying to get achievements instead of trying to help win.
Vast Inspiration
Banned
And why do you think Bungie didn't put in different types of "fun" achievements in Firefight? Believe me, Bungie did it on purpose. If you create achievements for multiplayer that affect the behaviour of a player, you have fucked your multiplayer. Do you realzie how annoying it would be if you were playing Firefight and every player was trying to get 10 melee kills in row, or hogging the warthog to get a dozen splatters, or getting killionaire with a hammer, etc...GhaleonEB said:
Multiplayer should NEVER have achievements that affect the way the game is played. Thats why Bungie only made duration-related achievements. If you play long enough, you'll get them, but how you get there is up to you.
Now, do I agree that Bungie could have made single player achievements more creative and fun...most definitely. It would be fun to play levels again and try them differently. In fact, playing single player levels with various skulls (which are only in multiplayer) on would be great.
kylej said:
Yea why can't I get an achievement every time I get just the dirtiest quick scope on someone?
There should be medals for quick scopes and no scopes too. I can't imagine that they would be harder to track than medals such as multikills. Every time you scope in, start a timer and if the difference in time between when you scoped in and when the head shot was achieved is less than 1/4 of a second or less (never really measured a quick scope lol) you get a medal. Same goes for no scope. If a sniping headshot is achieved, you check to see if the sniper was scoped in the instant that the kill is achieved and then a No scope medal is awarded. That way, you can even have custom game types where no scopes are the only way you can get kills and are not honor based. You can even have the game detect you if are in mid air or not either. Annnnnnd now I'm rambling.
My only real issue with online achievements are when you get into a game and a bunch of idiots are "boosting".
i.e. instead of actually trying to play the game, they are instead trying to get achievements.
You also run into things like team-mates running around in mongooses instead of trying to work towards winning.
Most of them are ok and take some real skill to get. But there are some that force you to play the game in ways contrary to winning, and those piss me off.
i.e. instead of actually trying to play the game, they are instead trying to get achievements.
You also run into things like team-mates running around in mongooses instead of trying to work towards winning.
Most of them are ok and take some real skill to get. But there are some that force you to play the game in ways contrary to winning, and those piss me off.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Didn't Bungie make the newer Mythic achievements easier to get than the default Halo 3 ones? Some of the default achievements, like Two for One and Mongoose Mowdown, have such a limited range and narrow accessibility, so they purposely made the Mythic and ODST ones easier (obtainable in ranked solo play only versus social party play potential).
The problem with achievements, from my limited point of view, that completion achievements are the standard (beat game, get gamerscore). These achievements usually have very high gamerpoints associated with them too *out of a total for a game) and the harder ones usually have a smaller number attached, meaning the majority of folks are rewarded greatly for just playing the game and folks that seek out the harder to earn stuff are rewarded with very little.
I think if achievements should reward the player (I honestly don't think there should be gamerpoints at all, but...) then it should attach high value to the more difficult achievements.
With Reach coming up, I hope they keep the achievements in line with Mythic and ODST and away from the default Halo 3 ones, although I'm pretty sure we'll see more completion based stuff with high amounts of gamerscore attached.
I think you are wrong. Firefight has no matchmaking, therefore you only play with actual people you know from your friend's list. If more Firefight achievements were added, it would only lend to the lifetime of that mode. I already know a lot of folks that have had their fill with that mode. I'm pretty sure if they found out there was a bucket of achievements brought in the challenege different playstyles (like those you mentioned) they'd be back and playing for longer and having a heck of fun.
Multiplayer achievements only suck when you are forced to compete with strangers. You cannot predict whether a guy on your team is trying to help the team or help themselves and that does hurt co-operative competitive multiplayer.
The problem with achievements, from my limited point of view, that completion achievements are the standard (beat game, get gamerscore). These achievements usually have very high gamerpoints associated with them too *out of a total for a game) and the harder ones usually have a smaller number attached, meaning the majority of folks are rewarded greatly for just playing the game and folks that seek out the harder to earn stuff are rewarded with very little.
I think if achievements should reward the player (I honestly don't think there should be gamerpoints at all, but...) then it should attach high value to the more difficult achievements.
With Reach coming up, I hope they keep the achievements in line with Mythic and ODST and away from the default Halo 3 ones, although I'm pretty sure we'll see more completion based stuff with high amounts of gamerscore attached.
Vast Inspiration said:
I think you are wrong. Firefight has no matchmaking, therefore you only play with actual people you know from your friend's list. If more Firefight achievements were added, it would only lend to the lifetime of that mode. I already know a lot of folks that have had their fill with that mode. I'm pretty sure if they found out there was a bucket of achievements brought in the challenege different playstyles (like those you mentioned) they'd be back and playing for longer and having a heck of fun.
Multiplayer achievements only suck when you are forced to compete with strangers. You cannot predict whether a guy on your team is trying to help the team or help themselves and that does hurt co-operative competitive multiplayer.