I've been reading on the forums on Bungie.net and came across this post. Unlike almost every other post on there, it's actually pretty well thought-out and well-written. It summarizes the problems in the game, and gives reasons WHY they're a problem. I'm not sure I agree with his thoughts about competitive gaming, and while he makes great points about the guns being too weak, it also seems like deep down, he just wants the Battle Rifle back. I'm also fine with the speed and jump height. Anyway, this is mostly for Amateria and 3N3MY, but of course anyone who played the Beta can relate. It's a little long, too, but give it a read.
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=44376218&postRepeater1-p=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What a well-written post. After reading a few of the public responses, its a shame that the community is so stupid.
ReplyDeleteAside from him just raving about how wonderful the BR is in every bit of subtext he wrote, I'm in almost total agreement. Less about the benefit of changing these features, but more of how these various attributes affect the game play.
His point about the armor abilities and how they encourage a sort of random encounter decision basis of who comes out on top, or how the jet pack takes away from effective map planning, are well received. I just hope they get tweaking, because despite the jet pack discouraging competitive play, it's still fun to use.
Do we, as individuals or collectively, agree with his overall thesis though? His frustration was with how these new features discourage competitive play, probably on the MLG level - are any of us looking for that experience in an online game? I'd like to say I would, but not being skilled enough to find success in that arena, I think I'd rather just enjoy the experience as competitively as I can, rather than hate it until I get better.
It was a good read, but I think he is biased towards his own agenda obviously.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the game is geared toward noobs and all, but some of his points seem contradictory. He talks about teamwork being subtle and now it's just a hail of bullets from more than one person, but isn't that always the case?
I agree that the CE Pistol was the ultimate gun as it could be used in every situation and maybe the BR was too, but the health system was so beyond repair by the time of the BR that it didn't matter IMHO.
He complains about it taking too long to kill someone and then goes on to talk about how fast you die in other parts.
He talks about the unbalance of the weapons, but talks about how it's good to have control of power weapons. Isn't that unbalanced? Holding down a base with the rocket, turret and spartan laser is a total shitstorm for whoever is facing it. Not balanced at all. It makes the game more about item control than skill which is a LONG running complaint with me since HALO 2.
He has some good points, but just seems to want more HALO 3.
Reach is a mess, but at least they got rid of dual weilding.
Make no mistake about it, I play these games to win. I don't ever go into a Halo match (or any other competitive game) ONLY thinking, "Well, I hope this is fun." I want to win every game I play. However, I CAN still have fun if I don't win. For instance, if it's a really good match where the score is close or going back and forth the whole time and I end up losing, I'll still consider that fun.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to Amateria's question, though, on if I REALLY want to be competitive in online play, I guess my answer has to be no. I think that in order to be really competitive in one game, one has to put HUGE amounts of time into it AND learn to use all of the game's mechanics AND be really good in all aspects of the game. Those first 2, I just don't want to do, while the 3rd just doesn't apply to me. I'll take my personal experience with Halo 3 to illustrate. I feel like I was good at Halo 3, but had weaknesses (I'm bad at sniping). I also HATED the 'equipment' in the game, even though very often it can be used to save one's life, etc. I very rarely used it as I feel like it's 'cheap,' much how I feel about the Armor Lock in Reach. I remember saying that I loved the Cold Storage map in Halo 3 until people started throwing equipment around in there and screwing it all up. I also have never liked the energy swords and almost never pick them up. Even if I manage to kill a guy who's coming at me with a sword, I'll just leave it there on the ground as opposed to picking it up, which most people do. I think it's this refusal to adapt to the new mechanics of the game that kept me from stepping my game up to being an elite player in Halo 3 and that's ok with me because I'm going to play the game how I feel it should be played and not employ 'cheap' tactics to make me 'better.' It's kind of like my refusal to use the Akimbo 1887s and Commando perk in Modern Warfare 2. That's just me, though. What's everyone else think?
I'm the same way Salad. I definitely enjoy to win, but to play for the sake of getting better, probably not for me.
ReplyDeleteI think your observation about yourself is probably true, but it's hard to blame you. Without adapting to the play style of the game, anyone would give themselves a much harder uphill climb than it would have been anyways. I do sleep better at night though knowing that my time in MW2 wasn't dominated by me using the 1887's.
I really liked that guys article and how the game isn't a competitive one by design. It's not that it's not fun. Flying across the map, meleeing a guy from behind midair is great fun, but it's unbecoming of a competitive game.