Flinch isn't that bad...

[zRexx]

Okay, I will not deny that Halo 4 is a total abomination (at least outside the campaign). In fact, I strongly agree with that viewpoint and Ithere's no denying that Halo 4 was a dumbed down experience that focused way too much on catering to lazy noobs. I despise this game just as much as anyone else. However, I think some people go a little too far sometimes, like grasping at straws just to find any potential ammunition to throw at the game, without having any logical reasoning behind a few of these criticisms. I am in firm belief that the game did have some good elements to it. Although the good elements clearly didn't make up for the bad, we should at least still acknowledge what the game DOES have to offer. It has a solid campaign, an absolutely beautiful art style, satisfying gunplay (despite the aim assist), awesome weapon designs, and fun armor abilities (though let's be honest, they seriously should've been implemented as pickups because the loadouts are stupid).

 

One criticism particular that I hear is regarding the flinch mechanic, in that the reticule will fling in a random direction upon getting shot (essentially recoil). People downright bash this just on the sake that it's random. However, the difference between flinch, and other random-based mechanics such as ordnance, is that there's no unfair luck-based advantage or disadvantage that the randomness brings. It doesn't create an uneven playing field. It's not like ordnance where one player gets lucky and has a rocket launcher spawn right next to him out of randomness, while the other player is just forced to deal with it and is put at an unfair disadvantage for no actual reason. With flinch, all players receive the same exact amount of recoil. So when you get down to it, it really just comes down to which player is better at quickly adapting and re-adjusting their aim.

 

Adapting to random events, that's technically considered a skill. Again, it's not like either player has it easier for them. If it's a BR on BR fight, both players exhibit the same level of flinch, and their flinch direction has the same level of randomness. Both players are required to quickly adapt to the same type of scenario on both sides. One person said to me, "You can't adapt to randomness!", but that's not really true. You adapt to it as it happens. That's what adapting is, you're not always prepared for what's specifically going to happen the next moment (in this case, what direction your reticule will be flung), but you have to compensate for it while it's happening and learn to quickkly re-adjust your aim. Your mind has to quickly register "The reticule has gone left", and move your crosshair to the right to compensate for it. It's also called reflex. As long as both players experience the same level of challenge and are on an even playing field, what's really the issue here?

 

Now in another scenario, let's say that it's Light Rifle vs. DMR, but the DMR happens to have a smaller level of flinch (this is all hypothetical, I don't know the actual stats of which weapon has more flinch). Even in that case, the DMR takes a lot longer to kill than the Light Rifle, so although the Light Rifle exhibits much more flinch, the situation is still balanced. When it comes to different weapons with different amounts of flinch, it can easily be compensated for by using the other attributes to balance it out.

 

With de-scope on the other hand, you don't really need the skill of adapting. You're always going to know beforehand that you're going to get knocked out of scope, and so you're easily able to prepare it. There's nothing like "I can't always be prepared for everything, but I can learn how to adapt to a situation as it occurs, and use reflex to compensate for it." I'm a de-scope is a worse mechanic than flinch, but this is one thing that flinch really has in its favor when you really get down to it. De-scope has its own type of skill in that, when knocked out of scope, you have to keep your crosshair on the opponent while aiming from the hip (that is, until you can zoom in again). So when you get down to it, both features require a lot of skill, it's just different types of skill. Skill isn't really a black-and-white thing, it comes in many different forms. It's comparing apples to oranges, you can't really lay them out and compare them side-by-side because they're entirely different things. Each gameplay mechanic brings their own aspect of skill to the table. It's all just a matter of what fits your personal preference, there's nothing inherently wrong with either of these features.

 

One person who I argued with one said "A first person shooter mainly comes down to aiming and shooting. Flinch is broken because it changes the direction you aim in." So, he says a first person shooter is all about aiming, and I can't deny that, in fact I agree. That's actually why flinch can be seen as great. It makes it so you have to keep re-adjusting your aim. So if you want to get to technical about it, aiming actually plays a much bigger role with flinch, because you have to aim all over again after every hit you take, instead of being able to continuously keep your reticule on target. I mean, he got technical with his argument, so why can't I?

 

Unlike a number of other mechanics I see the devs trying to bring into Halo, including classes, ordnance, sprint, etc, flinch actually fits within the realms of Halo's original formula. Halo's gunplay had a strong emphasis on fine-tuned precision, more so than other games (especially compared to other arena shooters). So having to continuous re-adjust your aim to land headshots, I feel it captures the essence of Halo's roots perfectly. You see, most people target change. Unlike others, I'm perfectly content with a game series having new mechanics as long as (a) the changes aren't of poor design, and ( it stays true to the series' roots. Sure, it's a rare scenario where developers try to incorporate some moderate changes but not alter the core of the game (most of the changes in Halo Reach and Halo 4 fail to do this), but it can be done with a little creativity, and I actually encourage a game to change as long as it meets these standards. With Sprint, although they balanced it, it still doesn't stay faithful to what was originally Halo's core, But Flinch on the other hand? It really does nothing against Halo's nature and when you get down to it, there's nothing really broken about it.

 

(Also yes, I know about the stability perk. The reason I haven't brought that up is because I'm talking about flinch in itself, perks/classic are like an entirely different mechanic. But yes, stability did break the game in regards to flinch and should've never been in the game. Flinch as a mechanic, though, is perfectly fine when you get down to it. Most people I see complain about flinch are talking about the randomness, a complaint that I fully debunked here.)

[Unease Peanut]

I think being de-scoped is punishment enough for allowing yourself to get hit. Flinch even when de-scoped however is a bit too much. This makes it so that the guy who lands the first shot gets a huge upperhand as the opponent has more difficulty landing shots let alone finishing headshots.

The advantage you have for having the drop on someone is great enough, flinch just makes it that much harder to make a reversal.

[zRexx]

I think being de-scoped is punishment enough for allowing yourself to get hit. Flinch even when de-scoped however is a bit too much. This makes it so that the guy who lands the first shot gets a huge upperhand as the opponent has more difficulty landing shots let alone finishing headshots.

The advantage you have for having the drop on someone is great enough, flinch just makes it that much harder to make a reversal.

 

The reason I don't see it as too much punishment is because it constantly happens to both sides. It's not like you can't hit an enemy again as flinch keeps knocking you around, you can quickly re-adjust your aim and get some firepower in. I never really had that much of a problem in Halo 4 where I get shot first and the flinch ruins any chance of I have of fighting back, I can always re-adjust my aim and counter, your reticule doesn't move THAT slow. Really, it's more that Halo players are used to the old ways and have trouble getting used to it because it's an entirely different skillset at play. In fact, I had a little more trouble using descope because aiming that far from the hip is a little more difficult for me than quickly adapting to wherever my reticule gets flung. It all really just depends on what your strengths/weaknesses, that's what determines which is more challenging, neither is harder than the other. It's kind of like comparing apples to oranges, they're two entirely different skillsets involved.

[depressant]

I thinkflinch would be nice, as long as it's not to bad. You could have some flinch to where when you're shot, you don't land EVERY shot, but you don't miss every shot. Other fps games have flinch, and they could pull it off, and especially with Halo's Spartans and longer kill time, I think it would work.