fzdw11

Loved Halo 2 and 3 each respectively, however didn't have XBox Live when 2 was out, so never had the opportunity to play it there. Played it a ton over LANs, though. Just about every weekend there was a LAN at somebody's house. Did the same thing with CE. Didn't want to purchase it again when it came out for PC, though, so that's that. Halo 3 was similar in experience. Didn't get Live until I think late 2009, but tons of LAN's prior to that. But, from the time I had Live till Reach came out (and I didn't jump on the Reach bandwagon until Christmas 2010), I got in 466 games playing roughly on average one night a week. 466 games, most of which were social due to my gf (now wife) wanting to play, and her not having a Live account. What few ranked games I did play (64 total), got me to a lowly high skill of 14 in Lone Wolves with maybe less than 25 of my ranked matches being played there. (Checked numbers on b.net, didn't count total games played in Lone Wolves since it's not available easily enough.) As for playing recently, the most recent experiences in each was going back through the campaigns on Legendary, since it was something I never got around to doing, but no MM. So to answer your question about higher-end/competitively, no, never had the opportunity to really delve into it.

Thank you. Until we see more actual gameplay, until we play the game for ourselves, we don't know what it's going to be like.

But it is absolutely about what weapon you are using. Why should a weapon that's designed for optimal use at mid/long to long ranges beat out a weapon designed specifically for short to short/mid range? The AR at long range is near worthless, the DMR will tear them apart. On the flip side of that, the DMR at short range isn't nearly as worthless as the AR is at long range, but the AR should still win, and most of the time does as long as the person knows how to aim and shoot. As for the rest, I can respect that you didn't enjoy Reach. That's your opinion and everybody is entitled to one. I think you and I have gone back and forth on this quite a bit, actually. While Halo did drift, like I stated previously, to me it still felt like Halo. Was it the same Halo? Absolutely not, it was a new Halo. One that I personally liked better.

Hm. I... that's an interesting one. Not many I can think of. I-Ninja - Namco

Who says the game is bad? You? A few others? See, I love when people claim that the game is bad. If it was so bad, I wouldn't be seeing people online at all times of the day. I wouldn't be able to jump into matchmaking and have a game in under a minute (usually less than 30 seconds to find a full game). I wouldn't see new people starting to play the game on a near daily basis, new recruits who are just dipping their toes into matchmaking for the first time. Obviously new players when you see them play. Reach is only a "flop" to those who don't like it. I guarantee you that Bungie and Microsoft didn't see Reach as a flop.

The bloom for a BR would have been the same as the DMR, the only difference, instead of 1 shot being spread throughout the bloom, you would have 3 shots. As for the DMR being slower, giving the people with an assault rifle a chance, is this: the DMR was meant to be a mid/long to long range weapon. It was not designed to substitute the automatic weapons for short to short/mid range. People trying to spam the DMR in close quarters when their opponent has an AR are just asking to be killed. You switch over to a weapon better suited to that type of combat. Yes, people adapted to the changes in Halo 2 and Halo 3. they loved the games. Reach fell short because, unlike in Halo 2 and Halo 3, people refused to accept the changes. Not because they were "bad" and not because "AL is overpowered". People refused because they felt Halo drifted too far off the beaten path that they knew and loved. They never wanted Reach to succeed, because they couldn't adapt to the new play style. And yes, Reach has a new play style, one that was never seen in a prior Halo game. And you also put it right on the shoulders of the people in your last two sentences. "People who left Halo were looking for a new game. That's exactly how I ended up getting CoD." Why were people looking for a new game?

Empire: Total War - Sega

All good choices Theorix, and to go along with that... Aliens Genre: Science Fiction

Here's the thing that kills me, and this is not directed at you, so don't take it that way, you just happened to touch upon it. From Halo 1 to Halo 2, they changed the game. They got rid of the assault rifle, added the BR, added the SMG, included duel wielding. Added the energy sword, which we only saw in CE, never could use. Added other weapons as well. All of these things changed how CE played, and made Halo 2 what it was and is. People adapted and loved Halo 2. From Halo 2 to Halo 3, they nerfed duel wielding of the needler (because lets face it, it was a powerful combo), added "equipment", adjusted other weapons, etc. etc., trying to make a better game. But, in doing so, they yet again changed how the game played. Yes, there were minor things, and for the most part, the game played the same, but the addition of equipment did change how the game was played. People adapted and loved Halo 3. You see where this is going? Then you go from Halo 3 to Reach. They took away equipment, took away power ups, took away everybody's beloved BR. Added Armor Abilities, a new feature that also changed how the game was played, added in "bloom", which like Twin has said, was always a part of the game, just never visible until now. But they also added in a weapon that, the first shot, no matter what, always hit where the center circle was. Always. And if you paced it just right, you could knock somebody off fairly quickly. As quick as somebody spamming the trigger with ZB? Absolutely not, but again, that's beside the point. The point is, the game play changed. Yet, for some reason, people didn't adapt. Is it because it's a bad game? Or is it because people are starting to move on from Halo? And again, Constantly, this isn't directed at you. Just throwing it out there. Edit: Opps, forgot to but the not in there. Sorry bout that!

Contra - Konami

17

But there is more to games than just K/D. What about objective based games? Shouldn't you be awarded for completing the objective? Wins should still be incorporated as well. I could lose every game I play, be the only member of my team with a positive K/D, and still rank up. I use the same argument in reverse, as well. I could be terrible, but the other members of my team are great, and we win a lot, so I rank up even though I did poor. Definitely agree that it should be a mix between 2, 3 & Reach, but finding the right mix is the challenge. The real question though, is what is 343 really thinking about this?

Whoa there, wait a minute! She'd kill you the first chance she got. Just look what she does to 6! On a serious note, definitely the Warthog.

While some of the classics would be awesome to have back, you can't expect them to update and release another map pack to be played in Reach multiplayer. I would love them if they did, but with all the work happening on Halo 4, it won't happen.

Seriously? Next time use the edit post button and edit your original post. 5 posts in less than 20 minutes in the same thread is just a bit much. As for your comments, well.. let's see. I like more BTB maps, always enjoy them, but they need to have a nice balance between BTB and more mid-sized maps. Can't go overboard on one or the other. Armor Abilities, I hope, will be very well balanced, and the map design will take them into consideration. Since they are building the maps from the ground up (supposedly) and not recycling areas from the campaign, they can take all of that into consideration. The second post, not much to say, and not really relevant to this topic. Definitely want more armor customization, more color choices, more armor, etc. Don't know how the "spartain points" are going to work yet, so we'll just have to wait and see what they are going to be primarily used for. Commands are, eh. That's why you use a mic. As for Halo 3 maps, while I loved them, I don't want to see them in Halo 4. I want new and exciting maps that we've never played on before. Maybe do a map pack with some of the classic maps later on down the road, but definitely no reimagining of existing maps. Elephant being back would be awesome. Spawning on a mongoose is an interesting idea, and kind of takes from BF3 where you can spawn in a vehicle. Don't mind this so much, but definitely not Halo. Now it becomes whoever can change their spawn quicker to be in the tank.

Definitely welcome! Great place to come and discuss all things Halo (with a spattering of other topics as well). People are great and always helpful.

I never really got into the Starcraft 2 ranking system, only ever just played with friends, so I'm not sure how it would work in a Halo setting. I know it's set up in Divisions, but how they are decided, I don't know. Could you elaborate more, Mr. Biggles?

Trying to allow PC and XBox players to play against one another is a simple reason why it has never happened. The PC gamer will always win in a game vs. an XBox. You have more control, better accuracy, lots of things that won't make it fair. If I'm not mistaken, Bungie tested this theory on a previous game. Now, as for the game being released on PC, I think it would appease a lot of PC gamers, but will it hurt their sales on the XBox? If you have both, would you go for the PC version or the XBox version?

Wow, old thread is old. Anyways, I've posted this a few times over the past 2 weeks or so, and I still think it's a valid point. Feel free to tell me why it's not, or why it wouldn't be better. Halo 2's ranking and Halo 3's ranking were both flawed. Reach's ranking is flawed even more. No sort of ranking system should be based soley on wins, and no form of ranking system should be based on simply how much you play. A good ranking system would combine Wins, along with other items. K/D or KA/D for example, as well as objective based items (such as flag captures, Oddball Time, KotH time, etc). While winning alone is not enough (I could be a terrible player, but play with 3 awesome players that win the game for me every time, do I deserve a high rank?), basing it on what Reach did by "just playing" was definitely the wrong way to go.

From the screen shot of what appears to be the DMR in GI, it has the same clip size it does now (15). I don't remember seeing a BR clip size, but I could just not remember the number from the video if it was shown. My guess though, is that it would be more like the size of Halo 3's.

But measuring a player based soley on wins is stupid, too. Because a player could go 5 - 15 with 5 assists, but the team could still win. It needs to be a combination of everything for a proper ranking system to be effective. Halo 2 and Halo 3's ranking system wasn't perfect, but neither is Reach's. It needs to be tweaked to count for more than just wins, but wins should still be one of the most important factors. Kills and Deaths should still play a role in ranking, as well as other factors (such as flag captures, oddball time, KotH time, etc). You can't base something strictly on Wins, and you can't base something strictly on "just participating" either.

Here's the thread where it's being discussed. http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/7497-introduction-to-the-official-343i-community-map-pack/ It would be nice, but the focus right now is on Halo 4. With it coming out in less than a year, what purpose would they serve by making a new map pack for the game that Halo 4 is going to replace?

It IS the pistol and grenade launcher. They are two different colors because one is fully rendered in the Announcement Trailer, and the one from the First Look isn't finished. It's the same scene, one finished, one not finished. Look at the Chief's stance, his motions. It is the same weapon.

First and foremost, I never said Reach was better than Halo 2 or 3, and I don't remember seeing it being said. I liked both 2 and 3, and still go back and play them when I have the itch to do so. Personally, I like the feel of Reach more though. It plays better, in my opinion. Bloom I could care less about, either way. I like ZB, I like the TU 85%, and I like the normal 100%. Yes, there are times that you get spammed, but in my personal experience, that has been few and far between. Most of the time, it's just somebody that paced their shots better. The armor abilities I think added a different touch to the game that was needed after Halo 3. While I don't particularly like Armor Lock, I don't think it's overpowered. Simply put (and this isn't coming from you or this thread, it's from another thread where it popped up), armor lock does not allow shields to regenerate if a person goes into while being shot. Period. It acts as a temporary shield that only prolongs the inevitable. And while the argument has always been "he can call team mates for help" - - that just leads me to ask, why aren't you calling team mates for help, too? Jetpack may have broken some maps, but then the maps weren't designed from scratch, like 343 is claiming Halo 4's are. If they are including jetpack (from GI), then I would hope that they are building the maps with that in mind as well. I like the weapon selection in Reach, though I could do without the focus rifle and would have much rather seen the beam rifle back (and hopefully Halo 4 fulfills this hope). Again, this is just my personal opinion. Take it with a grain of salt if that's what you wish.

Nobody should step aside, regardless of when they started playing Halo. You have your opinions, other people have theirs and that's that. Oh, and Halo 3 was far from perfect. Same with Halo 2.