Bloody Initiate
-
Posts
541 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Halo Articles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Books
Movies
Everything posted by Bloody Initiate
-
Halo a competitive or noncompetitve game
Bloody Initiate replied to Thescary monste's topic in Halo 4
To ease your nerves I figured the question posed by the thread concerned primarily default Halo 4. When speaking of default Halo 4, you can look at how the game plays and read so far into it, then you kind of run out of game. By that I mean you reach a point of no longer being able to explain outcomes outside of things like "This team got much better ordnance." The only definition I've been able to come up with so far of "being good" at a game is tied to how much you can influence the game within its programmed boundaries. A good player can exert more influence, manifest their will more, etc. That power of control that's possible, combined with the resistance from another player, creates competing powers. That's where I assume this thread's definition of "competitive" comes from. In default Halo 4 the amount of influence you can exert is decreased and so you just sort of need more players to help you, which is still very competitive, especially so when you consider that team play is what the finest Halo players possess. However when you're looking at your individual ability to influence the game, to get "good," and to compete against players doing the same thing, that's where questions like this thread's come from *I think*. As for competitive spirit, etc., you're right that's all stuff you bring to the game. You can make game settings and such that allow for more and more nuanced plays, but default Halo 4 is a bit light on those depths. There's a good reason the first thing I did in my post was define the term as I was going to use it, because without doing that you can go in all kinds of semantic directions. -
I enjoy that song but the video took almost 30 seconds to get to the gameplay and the gameplay focused a bit too much on assassinations and lucky breaks.
-
I don't really relate the departure of MLG to the conclusion of Halo. When Halo dies I think it's more likely to be from its continued mismanagement, which you think is demonstrated in the MLG severance, but I think is demonstrated in the way they started trying to make it another game. When you start imitating more than innovating you don't have a lot of time left, but ONLY if you keep that up. It still has lots of chances to be saved, Halo 4 may be pretty bad but they have the money for Halo 5 and the customers for it too. Basically 343 inherited a lot of slack because Halo will get a lot of slack. If they get smart and fix their direction problems they could easily make an extremely good Halo 5. Hell they could have made Halo 4 good. I don't think it's as hard as people pretend when you have so much to draw upon. That's why it's so upsetting that they did so badly, because it was easy to do it right. Look to CoD for your example, they change barely anything, just new maps, weapons, and kill streaks. People still buy these games that are lazily made (I hear that they're lazy... from their fans). They know they have a solid formula so they don't **** with it. Too bad Halo's directors haven't had that wisdom and confidence. There are lots of ways for Halo to succeed as a franchise and not nearly as many for it to fail. It just has a lot of steam, so even if people stop playing it they'll look up reviews and stuff for the next Halo game to see if they should get back into it. There's just a lot of potential left, the only real likely "killer" of Halo will be some corporate BS like them selling and scrapping the title or a bankrupt filing, Halo won't be killed by anything related to gaming. MLG's actions just don't have a whole lot of bearing on the matter. Someone posted that same article over at waypoint and honestly it's not much more impressive than a well-written forum post. I've read stuff like that dozens of times written by people who weren't paid to write it, I wouldn't be surprised if that dude was making an easy living reading good forum posts and then plagiarizing them. I'm not saying that's what he's doing, just that his article is that irrelevant.
-
Games are supposed to be fun, if you're not having fun you should do something else that you enjoy. Free time is limited enough in life, so use it wisely. A buddy of mine gets bored of games more quickly than me, and while this often annoys, I envied him when he said he was done with the Halo franchise before 4 came out. I wish I abandoned it that easily. Instead I stick around thinking I can make things better by informing people if nothing else.
-
Yeah you've used several words that have different definitions. Boosting is when you cooperate with your enemies to achieve goals. This is often done by getting two friends with 4 controllers and going into a 4v4 playlist, attacking idle guests. Another way this is often done is in FFA playlists where you get more enemies to kill quickly (So you can make multikills faster). It's also common in games like Grifball where players begin with a powerful killing capacity. Farming is when you take advantage of a sort of cost/benefit analysis of automated game features. You can't really "farm" players, because they tend to change what they're doing which defeats the purpose. But you could "farm" Spartan Ops missions because they keep coming up, have a limited time investment (low cost) and a high experience reward (high benefit). Farming is investing minimum time and resources in a game for maximum rewards. Cheating is when you alter the game or take advantage of known exploits (Like super-jumping in Halo 2, people say "it's in the game" and so it's not cheating, but the Xbox Live definition of cheating is much less flexible). I think you made this thread about boosting, specifically getting with other players and sort of taking turns bending over to accomplish goals (Like commendations) or just bringing guests. I think boosting is a pretty lame way to get achievements and commendations, and not only have I never been THAT much of a completionist I've also never thought it was necessary. Aside from finding the skulls I got all my achievements and medals in Halo 3 legitimately, it wasn't THAT hard (Although the two deaths from the grave took me forever, and it was a very funny achievement to fail to get). Generally before DLC boosting for achievements didn't really apply in Halo Reach or Halo 4 because they didn't have as many matchmaking achievements. However DLC brought those achievements and the boosters came back out. For some people though having that list complete is more important than striving to complete it, and while I don't agree with their practices I've never felt they were hurting my game. I never really understood why people got so upset about boosting, because while I think it's a bit pathetic it's not really hurting anyone. Until Halo 4 you didn't really gain any in-game advantage from completing everything, and boosting is less practical than farming in Halo 4, farming REALLY doesn't hurt anyone. I may not really sympathize with boosters and I may think they pursue a fool's errand, but they're generally not hurting anyone. Also I was actually OK at Halo 3 and Halo Reach, so things like perfections which seemed very hard to obtain I obtained legitimately with enough patience. I wasn't getting perfections every day or anything, but they came to me if I played normally for long enough. I know someone who had a very hard time getting a perfection though, never got one on his own tag (He got his first one as someone's guest) and he boosted for it right before Reach came out. I don't approve, but I don't really care either. Cheating is a different story, I don't know how you'd cheat in this game to get an achievement (Mod so you have an invincible Mantis to get your stomps?) but cheating is always bad, and never OK imo.
-
Ok, then I recommend going fishstick + lightrifle. Often when I am fighting mid-range with a DMR and I need to land that last shot I'll scope in to make sure of it, this is a new phenomenon with Halo 4 because this is the first Halo game where getting hit doesn't knock you out of scope. This enhances the power of the fishstick controller setting and the light rifle. So when you change controller schemes I suggest you change weapons too. When scoped the light rifle is the best marksman rifle hands down. Later you might even consider putting the stability perk on most of your loadouts so that you can really focus on scoped combat. The reason I suspect you're having a hard time finding what's comfortable is because your'e ONLY switching controller schemes, but what you need to do is switch controller scheme AND loadouts to match it. When I switched to bumper jumper I took the jet pack out of all loadouts because it was no longer practical, and focused on AAs that didn't need me to aim (Regen field, autosentry, Promethean Vision). The idea is to make sure your loadouts don't interfere with your controls. So try Fishstick + Lightrifle, allow for the fact that you're getting used to two new things instead of one (So give it a bit more time to decide if you like it or not) and then make your decision. I don't know what sensitivity you play at, but you might want to try someting high. I play on 7 and don't have a big problem with accuracy, but I've been playing Halo and other shooters for a very long time so I've probably developed pretty fine control. You will definitely want a higher sensitivity to make up for the slower scoped sensitivity though. Also adjust your play style a bit to compensate, try to engage enemies as soon as you see them and don't move toward them as much. Let them come to you. Also remember the scoped lightrifle takes 3 shots to drop shields and 2 shots to the body afterward to kill them, which means you can land 3 shots and then it's OK to de-scope for the headshot if that's more comfortable. http://www.scufgaming.com/us/ I had to google it, but there you go.
-
Began w/Default but switched to bumper jumper. The decision was based on losing enough fights for stupid reasons that I thought I needed more dimensions to my strafe. Since then I figured out that I'm just bad at Halo 4.
-
The sniper rifle is much much better than other loadout weapons, I'm not sure why you think making it a loadout weapon would be a good idea. Every game would become team snipers. I know if I had the choice to have a sniper rifle off the start I'd rarely choose anything else. This is especially true when you remember that camo is also available in loadouts, so every game would become camo snipers.
-
I'm flattered you think my posts would be the ones to see. For actually getting things done I advise going over to Halo waypoint every now and then and putting a word in for this or that. That forum is a nightmare and most of the best material gets pushed down into oblivion, but I hang my hope on quantity. Good point differentiating between complaints and concerns btw, I have some very deep concerns about Halo, and not nearly as many complaints (Complaints include: The hammer sounds incredibly stupid in Grifball. Concerns include: Did you guys notice how ordnance in BTB decides matches as much if not more than player behavior?)
-
Halo a competitive or noncompetitve game
Bloody Initiate replied to Thescary monste's topic in Halo 4
When defining "competitive" as a game which rewards competitive gameplay and gives it room to expand into its own field, I don't think Halo 4 is especially competitive. I was witnessing it just last night when playing with some people and they kept trying to figure out how they had failed to win in a certain map. To me it was obvious: In one game 6 out of 8 of the members of the other team got themselves some kind of sniper rifle. The longest range weapon I got via ordnance was a Spartan Laser. In another game the enemy team sent almost every body to capture the most important part of the map, we sent 3-4 guys, which was solid, but not enough. We lost that point on the map and suffered the rest of the game for it. My teammates were thinking they'd done something wrong in the first game, failed to push at one point and failed to communicate at the other, but really the enemy team just got awesome ordnance and we got $#!T. In the second game we made the mistake of first failing to push hard enough and then failing to run away from our failed push (The enemy team also got awesome ordnance again, two binary rifles together pretty early in the game, but even without that ordnance we would have lost). Once again my teammates were thinking how they'd failed to do this detail and that one, but it wasn't that detailed. We lost the one thing you need on that map, and we didn't get it back. Halo 4 is much simpler than previous Halos, so there isn't really room for the upper echelons of competitive strategy. For that reason, using that definition of "competitive" I would say it's not an especially competitive game, but I think there's plenty of room for competition where you make it and really it's not as simple as "yes" or "no." -
The scoped lightrifle has a faster kill time and fewer shots to kill than any other marksman rifle. The magnum actually has a faster kill time than all the marksman rifles, but it's not as accurate and can't place the shots as quickly at a distance without suffering crippling bloom. If you want to keep trolling feel free, this post will be the last time I waste time acknowledging your existence in this thread. Post something productive and I'll spend the time responding appropriately.
-
Well now you've started on the road we're on, you just not as far along. You may be content to never go as far along, and that's fine, everyone is different. Just please don't dismiss other people's thoughts on the matter so comfortably, because while you think the game's problems are but a few flaws, I see a lot of flaws that aren't going to be fixed, ever. Or if they are finally fixed it will be a question of "Why did it take so long to fix that obvious problem? Why when you did all these other things that required more effort, did you not fix this simple thing?" Or finally "Why did you think this was a good idea in the first place?" The Carbine IS garbage, the boltshot IS a bit crazy, and Exile is absolutely absurd. I don't really object to your list, I just have a much bigger one than you do. Everyone is different after all. I just ask that instead of posting pointless jabs that don't really add to the discussion, you make an effort to actually argue a point. Your statement that Halo 4 isn't complete garbage is a broad start to a potentially helpful post. I tend to look at Halo 4 and see a game which sacrificed a lot of its identity to copy gimmicks from other games, and even outside its imitation it fails to make simple gestures of competence, like NOT having a map that's so idiotic as Exile. That's not a problem created by it copying CoD or any other copycat problem, that's a question of basic competence of map design. How could anyone be so stupid as to think a Gauss at spawn for one team is balanced? The question, and more importantly the feeling and thinking behind it, generally sum up my feelings about Halo 4. How could anyone be so stupid as to think they can make a good game by _________, _________, ________, and _________? Fill in the blanks with Halo 4 design decisions, and you have the question that's hounded me for months now. You don't just have a question, you have a whole video game created on flawed thinking. Just so we're clear I don't want to be this negative, I don't enjoy complaining this much, and I don't like feeling the way I do about Halo 4. I just wanted to have a game I could enjoy playing online for awhile, and it ran out of juice almost as soon as the new-game smell went away.
-
To being with: I agree with the jist of your post. However it doesn't take 7-9 headshots to kill, it takes 7 shots to the shield and an 8th to the head. Not trying to be nitpicky, but it's an easy fact to remember and it helps to know them in discussions of weapon balance. I otherwise agree completely. I think a 10% damage boost puts it just about where you'd want to be with a Carbine. It originally took 6 shots to kill when it was introduced in Halo 2, then they raised it to 7 because 6 was too good. With that in mind I'd be fine with it returning to the 7-shot level. Assuming no other weapons receive a boost the 7-shot carbine kills noticeably faster than the BR but is still harder to use.
-
Quite the opposite, I'm completely underwhelmed by the game. It doesn't spark fiery anger in me, it introduces a slump of disappointment. Eventually that disappointment leads to an anger that could be called overreacting, but are you really going to argue for a map where one team gets a Gauss Hog at their spawn and the other one gets... to run? Using Exile just as an example, and assuming you won't be silly enough to argue that it's balanced, are you really going to defend the developer that still hasn't fixed it even though they've taken the time to introduce new playlists, maps, and gametypes? They could put whole new maps in, but they couldn't balance one? You can spend as much energy as you like pretending that those of us criticizing the game are simply a bunch of drama queens, but eventually you have to admit that some of the moves 343 made are stupid to the point of insanity. OR you can NOT admit it and reveal to all of us that you don't actually have the capacity to speak intelligently on the topic. I'm not saying you can't speak intelligently on the topic, I'm saying that certain statements dismiss people from discussions, like saying the world is flat and the holocaust didn't happen. You meet those people and you think quietly: "This guy's a nut." People ignoring the blatant failing that is Exile get a similar reaction, although not nearly as emotional as you might get for denying the holocaust. So using only that map as my example, do you argue that we're just overreacting? Even when you think of all the other updates the game has received? (Btw I never vote for it anymore, and I "play smart" as much as possible. It still comes up sometimes, and sometimes I still get outvoted even with a party, and of course I'm on red team)
-
It's almost exactly that for me. I have two things keeping me here: I joined a clan in Halo 3 that has stubbornly focused on Halo ever since, even though Reach and 4 aren't really very good and BF3 would be a better focus for their style of play (Vehicle focus). I also got my brother Halo 4 for Christmas because he asked for it, and I can't stand the idea of getting someone a game and then not being there to play with them when they finally get online. I've been the only guy playing a game too much, and it eventually just drains the fun out of it. If you get someoone a multiplayer game or some Xbox Live for christmas, you're practically taking the gift back if you aren't there to play with them. Sadly his job keeps him from playing a lot, so it's unlikely anyone will be online when he finally gets time anyway. As soon as enough of my clan members give up on Halo and my bro finally plays it and decides it sucks, I don't know what other game I'll play but I have a stack of them ready to go. The frustrating thing is everyone seems both more and less decisive than me, they're more decisive in that they don't get on to play it, but less decisive in their certainty that it won't get any better. They are less prepared to dismiss it entirely, but don't realize that subconsciously they kinda already have. If only I hadn't already played BF3 for a solid 6 months or so alone I'd have more patience for going back to it, but playing alone really drags after awhile, even if you're doing well. I got my other brother BF3 for Christmas, so when he finally decides whether he wants to overcome that game's steep learning curve I'll have a squadmate. Until then nobody is playing games I have other than Halo 4. I end up playing for the Halo that was rather than the Halo that is, because it just isn't a very good game even when I try to look at it objectively.
-
Boltshot > Magnum Scoped Lightrifle > All other primaries Pulse Grenade... Ok you're right about the Pulse Grenade. It would be fine if you could start with two... Not really seeing the UNSC making a great showing here.
-
Lol that would be AWESOME to get paid to talk **** about Halo 4. I'd be one of their finest agent provocateurs! Oh man would that be nice! Too bad no one is paying me to do this I also find the idea that Activision would be intimidated by Halo 4 amusing. They are very secure in their throne at the top of console shooters, of course it wouldn't be the first time the people on top were unnecessarily paranoid, good ol' Nixon and many before him taught us that. I think when you see your fellow Titan start doing impressions of you to make money you've pretty much won though, the nastiest blows Halo suffered were dealt by its stewards.
-
Well you could fight each other in the original Borderlands, MMOs that allow PVP all fit the model you describe, in the game Dark Souls you can invade other players' worlds as they play through the story (Just BOOM, now I'm here, time to fight), you can also duel other players or work with them in Dark Souls, the game Phantom Dust for the original Xbox let you combine 3rd person arena gameplay with a sort of card-battle system, and as you say a lot of shooters are moving toward a sort of RPG development system where you are rewarded with new weapons and abilities for your soldier. I think the original idea was to reward players for investing time in the game, where previously in Halo the only rewards you got for investing time were sharper skills and in Halo 3 you got some armor. In Halo Reach you got more armor, and finally in Halo 4 the final perks are awarded through time investment. The problem with that system is exactly what people say it is, you can gain a very real edge from those systems, and suddenly the game is giving players who have played for awhile a mechanical edge over new ones. Ever played Battlefield 3? It is an excellent game, but it's more than a little guilty of having that high, punishing learning curve. When you first start out in that game you have very few guns to pick from and all but one are using iron sights. Everyone else who has played a bit has acquired scopes for their weapons. The guns in that game also have noticeable recoil that you have to learn to control. People who have played a bit will have more tools for managing their recoil. There is also nowhere in the original game to practice flying jets, people eventually rented servers and designated them for practice, but that's reliant on their generosity. As the game shipped no one could practice flying jets except in multiplayer, so when you finally get in one you're crashing constantly and experienced pilots can knock you out of the sky without you ever having a chance. They already went through their crashing noob phase, and now they have missiles that lock on and air radar that keeps them from losing track of you. So in addition to experience, they have a mechanical advantage. I've heard that all the Battlefield games have that steep punishing learning curve, and once you get over it BF3 is really pretty incredible, but it sucks being new to the game.
-
I think in previous Halos the recharge delay was about 4 seconds and the recharge rate was about 3 seconds. If I'm remembering that right you're looking at only a second difference in the TOTAL time, but 2 seconds more one-shot is seriously deadly. In this game I'd prefer a 3 or 4 second recharge delay, preferrably 3 in gametypes designed for smaller maps at least. That gives the enemy time to press you but doesn't let them simply swear a blood oath their grandchildren will fulfill.
-
Take note that in standard Halo 4 Grifball you have shields. In original Grifball you didn't, which is why people got wiped out so easy by the shock wave (Which is still present, but won't make as big a dent in a shielded target). You have to actually hit the guy with the hammer. Also the hammer has never been especially reliable, it doesn't have a parry like the sword does which allows for some limitation of host advantage. Thus connection matters more. I don't like Grifball, but if you have the idea in your head that there is some consistent performance to be had I'm not sure what Grifball you ever played. You can get a team together and get good together, but you will never find the hammers very consistent. Also the sound it makes when someone else swings it is ridiculous.
-
If I'm AFK I want the game to boot me, I don't want my spartan to stand their helplessly screwing up my team. At the very least he's free points to their score, and at the very worst they design a spawn trap based on him. Boot me if I'm AFK, and deduct 3000 experience from my total for quitting a game. If something was important enough for me to just drop the controller, I don't care, or if there was lag keeping me from playing, I don't care. Boot me and penalize me as if I quit.
-
I actually killed a carbine guy the other day specifically because he had a carbine. I think my shield was a bit weakened and I was about to dive for cover when I realized the guy had a carbine, so I just stepped out and killed him. I wasn't really afraid of anyone who had to land 8 shots to my 5. People underestimate the influence of confidence on gameplay. Blue team on Exile, for example, will often swarm red team hard doing a lot of damage just because they know they've got the Gauss behind them. The Gauss won't even be in the fight, and blue team will just overwhelm red team because they're confident about their odds. A sad underdog will read that and think "OVERconfident, heheheh!" but really the amount of times confidence gets you killed is probably significantly lower than the amount of times it gets you kills. Sometimes you get underestimated and shove it in their faces, but a lot of times a bunch of confident players turn into a teamshotting swarm.
-
This has been done a bunch of times actually. When you let characters develop enough you get a paper rock scissors game where one build simply has much better odds of beating another. The consistent trend of Halo gameplay, even in Halo 4, is that you can't get an incredible edge over someone before you pick up the controller (By that I mean YOU beat your enemies, not your character). People don't like the perks and AAs and stuff adding that unpredictable element, but generally they grant only slight edges. What you're talking about is a game where spartans can develop differently enough that the edges won't be as slight. As I said a bunch of games have done that though, you probably didn't notice because generally that model doesn't produce the kind of high quality gameplay. The more you put into the multiplayer arena the less consistent and polished it becomes. I don't know how to explain that better, perhaps it's something I'm particularly good at noticing, but it's like games get grainier the more they stuff into their multiplayer. The programming isn't as clean, the graphics are more disconnected, the animations more jerky. The smoothness that stood out to me when I first played Halo is not present in games like you describe. The simple fact is that more = harder for coders. The more variables you introduce into multiplayer the harder it is to make sure they all work properly, and work together properly. In games with a lot of multiplayer options you notice certain options sort of sag too, like a weapon won't be very good at all or it will be broken good (Beyond complaints about the DMR). Everything fits together a little bit less when you have more pieces.
-
Yeah I knew there wasn't a lot of new ground left to break. That's why my focus shifted as I posted the OP, because I hadn't thought about the setting for Halo 4's release much. I think it could have been a much better game rather easily, and I think its numbers would be better, but I'm not sure they'd bridge the gap 343 and MS wanted.
-
No I think it was removed so you'd die more easily, even if it wasn't, only an extremely dim-witted person would fail to figure out that was the consequence. Also you play as the chief in campaign, so I don't see a distinction. He's gotten weaker in every game.
