Mezz Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 After seeing the release of the videos last week of matchmaking gameplay for Halo 4 my heart sank. I saw the same old jet packs, the same old speedy running guys, everything I hated about Reach's matchmaking. I absolutely HATE having classes in matchmaking. There should be two options, elites and spartans THATS IT! Make it like Halo 2 and Halo 3's matchmaking, where it was actually enjoyable. People wondered why Reach couldn't hold a population over 100,000 throughout the first year, when Halo 3 averaged well over 350,000. These games thrive on competitive matchmaking, not temporary campaign players. If the matchmaking isn't good the game fails, its that simple. And if 343 industries puts classes in matchmaking again Halo 4 will fail just as bad as Reach did. I still play Halo 3 to this day because I can't stand Reach. This is just my opinion and although I believe it will never get seen by someone important enough to make a change I couldn't help but get my voice out somewhere. Heres to another 2 years of waiting and getting my hopes up only to be yet again disappointed. CHEERS 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockGazm Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 In my vision, I can see loads of threads based on what you've just stated. P.s Wrong forum. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACHINEGUN DRO Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Plz I'm beging you not to put armor abilities it mestup halo reach it still was a good game I think it would be better with out armor abilities like the no sprint playlist in mlg so just keep halo 4 like halo 3 it had overall better ratings than reach did so do the world a favor and not put armor abilities thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iTz KeeFy Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 What video did you see? The halo 4 gameplay vidoc was just released today, so there is no way you saw it last week. There also was no jetpack in the video from what I remember. You should link the video you saw, im curious if your taking about the thruster pack in the first halo 4 trailer. That isnt a jetpack, it is a thruster pack only used when master chief is in space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezz Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 What video did you see? The halo 4 gameplay vidoc was just released today, so there is no way you saw it last week. There also was no jetpack in the video from what I remember. You should link the video you saw, im curious if your taking about the thruster pack in the first halo 4 trailer. That isnt a jetpack, it is a thruster pack only used when master chief is in space. search halo4follower on youtube I watched his vids like a week ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezz Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 In my vision, I can see loads of threads based on what you've just stated. P.s Wrong forum. thanks man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iTz KeeFy Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 search halo4follower on youtube I watched his vids like a week ago Yea, I have seen that video. That is a thruster pack not a jetpack so we are good there. You should watch the video released today. The BR is back in halo 4! Here is the link so you can see for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezz Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Yea, I have seen that video. That is a thruster pack not a jetpack so we are good there. You should watch the video released today. The BR is back in halo 4! Here is the link so you can see for yourself. thanks man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4sT3r Ch13f S117 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I hate the Armour abilities and Halo3 is better in my opinion but Reach does not suck and I think and hope Halo 4 will be awesome. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SangMan Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Hey man even if you feel that Armor Abilities ruined reach why take it out completely? You don't have to play in playlists that use those abilities. Why not suggest that there should be better playlist options in Halo 4 matchmaking instead of just addressing what seems to be the impossible, even if they don't keep every armor ability something is to be gained from Reach's "mistakes". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezz Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Hey man even if you feel that Armor Abilities ruined reach why take it out completely? You don't have to play in playlists that use those abilities. Why not suggest that there should be better playlist options in Halo 4 matchmaking instead of just addressing what seems to be the impossible, even if they don't keep every armor ability something is to be gained from Reach's "mistakes". I just wish they would do away with classes in matchmaking completely, if I wanted to play Call of Duty I would.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxTHE WILLYxX Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I liked some parts of halo reach matchmaking. But halo 3's was better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lᴜᴋᴇ Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Finished your rant? Halo Reach isn't a bad game. In my opinion it is the best Halo. Armour abilities add a new, tactical, and fun element to the game, especially after the TU evened things out a little. And most likely there will not be Armour Abilities in Halo 4. If you look closely at the MP gameplay, there are three "Grenade slots." Two maybe for your standard plasmas and frags, one for equipment? Which would negate the use of armour abilities. Either way, I'm buying the game, and that is the only time I am going to find out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezz Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Finished your rant? Halo Reach isn't a bad game. In my opinion it is the best Halo. Armour abilities add a new, tactical, and fun element to the game, especially after the TU evened things out a little. And most likely there will not be Armour Abilities in Halo 4. If you look closely at the MP gameplay, there are three "Grenade slots." Two maybe for your standard plasmas and frags, one for equipment? Which would negate the use of armour abilities. Either way, I'm buying the game, and that is the only time I am going to find out. Well where do I start with this post. The only way to keep a game competitive is to keep it simple, by adding different classes you are limiting equality thus making it harder to develop skill when each player doesn't start out the same. You are also potentialy limiting what each player can do in terms of individually impacting the game when you get too specific making each class so diverse from one another. It wasn't good for Reach and it won't be good for Halo 4, I am aware there are people that enjoy Reach thats obvious, but what I also think was obvious is that there were alot of disappointed people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lᴜᴋᴇ Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 The only way to keep a game competitive is to keep it simple Not true at all. Simple =/= How competitive a game is. I do agree many people were dissapointed with Reach, however a lot of people don't play competitively. I play for fun with my friends, and I play to win, this doesnt mean I dislike game modes that are not simple. I can see what you are saying, but I have to say I feel that custom load outs with Halo 4 would not be a bad thing. Definitely a level playing field shows off skill but it does not create a more competitive environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezz Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Not true at all. Simple =/= How competitive a game is. I do agree many people were dissapointed with Reach, however a lot of people don't play competitively. I play for fun with my friends, and I play to win, this doesnt mean I dislike game modes that are not simple. I can see what you are saying, but I have to say I feel that custom load outs with Halo 4 would not be a bad thing. Definitely a level playing field shows off skill but it does not create a more competitive environment. How is this not true think about the more complex you make a game the more options and possibilities there are to play it, thus minimizing skill and elivating luck. Ex. If I'm someone who is walking on the ground and theres a guy hovering 25 feet above my head who is already at an advantage? How about leveling the playing field from the start and letting TRUE SKill determine the outcome of the game, not who was what class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastershmike Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Plz I'm beging you not to put armor abilities it mestup halo reach it still was a good game I think it would be better with out armor abilities like the no sprint playlist in mlg so just keep halo 4 like halo 3 it had overall better ratings than reach did so do the world a favor and not put armor abilities thank you Armor ability's were great they were the best thing in halo reach matchmaking. There going to put a jet pack and sprint but honestly I hope they do put all of them in especially armor lock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandiBunni Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 How is this not true think about the more complex you make a game the more options and possibilities there are to play it, thus minimizing skill and elivating luck. Ex. If I'm someone who is walking on the ground and theres a guy hovering 25 feet above my head who is already at an advantage? How about leveling the playing field from the start and letting TRUE SKill determine the outcome of the game, not who was what class. Excuse me? Adding more options and possibilities minimizes skill? That's absolutely wrong. The more options there are, the more mechanics and possibilities there are, the more skill that is required. The simpler a game is, the less skill it requires compared to something that requires the user to learn and effectively use multiple (if not more advanced) mechanics. Take a game like DOOM. It's about as simple as you can get. Are you going to tell me it requires more skill than something like Battlefield 3? By your logic, that something requires less skill and relies more on luck the more advanced it gets, you're saying just that. You know what true skill is? True skill is being able to effectively use every mechanic of the game to outplay and dominate your opponent. It's being able to use the features a game gives you to perform better than someone else. That's true skill. True skill is not taking out multiple features that the game provides and limiting yourself to just a handful. It takes far more skill to effectively use everything in something like Reach than it is to simply limit yourself to a DMR, sprint, and perhaps one grenade. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaxx Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Excuse me? Adding more options and possibilities minimizes skill? That's absolutely wrong. The more options there are, the more mechanics and possibilities there are, the more skill that is required. The simpler a game is, the less skill it requires compared to something that requires the user to learn and effectively use multiple (if not more advanced) mechanics. Take a game like DOOM. It's about as simple as you can get. Are you going to tell me it requires more skill than something like Battlefield 3? By your logic, that something requires less skill and relies more on luck the more advanced it gets, you're saying just that. You know what true skill is? True skill is being able to effectively use every mechanic of the game to outplay and dominate your opponent. It's being able to use the features a game gives you to perform better than someone else. That's true skill. True skill is not taking out multiple features that the game provides and limiting yourself to just a handful. It takes far more skill to effectively use everything in something like Reach than it is to simply limit yourself to a DMR, sprint, and perhaps one grenade. That is true, but many people like how halo 3 was, simple but good, and it worked well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezz Posted March 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Excuse me? Adding more options and possibilities minimizes skill? That's absolutely wrong. The more options there are, the more mechanics and possibilities there are, the more skill that is required. The simpler a game is, the less skill it requires compared to something that requires the user to learn and effectively use multiple (if not more advanced) mechanics. Take a game like DOOM. It's about as simple as you can get. Are you going to tell me it requires more skill than something like Battlefield 3? By your logic, that something requires less skill and relies more on luck the more advanced it gets, you're saying just that. You know what true skill is? True skill is being able to effectively use every mechanic of the game to outplay and dominate your opponent. It's being able to use the features a game gives you to perform better than someone else. That's true skill. True skill is not taking out multiple features that the game provides and limiting yourself to just a handful. It takes far more skill to effectively use everything in something like Reach than it is to simply limit yourself to a DMR, sprint, and perhaps one grenade. Sorry babe but I still believe your dead wrong. When you add more things to the game you take out equality, which leads to advantages and disadvantages not by skill rather by what you have, this isn't the halo I know and love. Level the playing field give everyone a battle rifle and let skill determine the outcome of the game. Make it so what matters most in the game is not what you have but what you can do with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandiBunni Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Sorry babe but I still believe your dead wrong. When you add more things to the game you take out equality, which leads to advantages and disadvantages not by skill rather by what you have, this isn't the halo I know and love. Level the playing field give everyone a battle rifle and let skill determine the outcome of the game. Make it so what matters most in the game is not what you have but what you can do with it. Adding more things to a game doesn't mean that you're sacrificing equality. When you have a more advanced game, you have to take into account more options, tactics, gameplay styles, etc. The simpler a game is, the less you have to factor in when you play. Which, to me, means that you don't have to have as much skill to play it. When a game is more advanced than another, that means that there is more to take into account when playing. More than you have to learn, more than you have to find counters for, more that you have to adapt to, more that you have to deal with on a game by game basis. You're honestly telling me you think something as simple as DOOM requires more skill than something like Battlefield? Just because it's simpler? Play something like DOOM. Take a look at how basic and bare bones it is. Then go to something like Battlefield, where there are a multitude of things to learn and deal with while playing. After playing a decent amount of time for both, come back to me and try to honestly tell me DOOM is the more skill demanding game. That it requires more thought and planning and teamwork than something like Battlefield. Here's another example if you're tired of that one. Take checkers and chess. Which do you think requires more skill? By your logic, checkers would require more skill because it's simpler, not as advanced as chess. But in my opinion, because of how complex chess is in comparison to checkers, it requires more skill. That's also an example of being more advanced without sacrificing equality. Also, why don't you show me some respect by not calling me babe? I don't know you on a personal level, and neither you me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZB-85 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 You go girl... Mystic I'm sure that they won't ruin matchmaking. If everyone stops whining and complainig about " what if they ruin matchmaking" then you won't be dissapointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Okay... First of all, Reach wasn't a terrible game, the AA's and custom loadouts that were added in game gave Halo gameplay more options and tactics when in a fight. Second, Halo 4 will be very different from Reach, consider the fact that Halo 4 takes place Years after Reach by which the Technology of weapons and vehicles will be much different adding a new perspective on gameplay, whether it from social enjoyment or competitive styles. Lastly, show respect. Regards, Ashlynn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezz Posted March 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Also, why don't you show me some respect by not calling me babe? I don't know you on a personal level, and neither you me. lol ok the babe was uncalled for im sorry, let me just say I hope I'm not as disappointed as I was with reach when Halo 4 comes out even though I get the feeling I will be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absolute Dog Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Sorry babe but I still believe your dead wrong. When you add more things to the game you take out equality, which leads to advantages and disadvantages not by skill rather by what you have, this isn't the halo I know and love. Level the playing field give everyone a battle rifle and let skill determine the outcome of the game. Make it so what matters most in the game is not what you have but what you can do with it. Mezz you were doing fine post wise until you used the "babe" reference. It is condescending and an inappropriate comment towards a female member in the manner you used it. I don't expect to see it or anything like that again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.