• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Halo |OT 23| Thruster is Love, Thruster is Life

Booshka

Member
I love the amount of ball breaking that has been going on in this thread lately, can't do it in a broken party trying to play broken Halo, so recreate that shit talk in the thread. Actually entertaining and genuine for a change.

Blame 343.
 
This place is toxic. One might say it has been poisoned..

Hmm.. There's a certain aura about this place; something feels different, fascinating, even.
 

Hubble

Member
Mind blown....who knew???

Apparently the guy who quoted me did not.

Why wouldn't the AR beat out a BR at close range? Sure it's an unskilled weapon, but that's the point. It's inaccurate at range, spray and pray, if you're close enough, you're getting filled up with bullets. BR is still viable though and if you watched some pros play, even in close battles as people are trying to AR or SMG them, they're still pulling off BR or DMR kills.
.

I already said it in this thread but in a nutshell: If the BR is more difficult to use close range then why should it not win the battle? That makes no sense especially in a competitive game.


I played the beta so I know how the weapons operate. In my opinion, the AR is way too close to a BR at close rangle, that I am seeing a lot of AR wins or way too many close battles. I felt you literally had to land every shot of a BR/DMR with no room for error but not be good with the AR and win punishing the good player. Don't even bring up the SMG. The SMG is OP and a killing machine.
 

jem0208

Member
Apparently the guy who quoted me did not.



I already said it in this thread but in a nutshell: If the BR is more difficult to use close range then why should it not win the battle? That makes no sense especially in a competitive game.


I played the beta so I know how the weapons operate. In my opinion, the AR is way too close to a BR at close rangle, that I am seeing a lot of AR wins or way too many close battles. I felt you literally had to land every shot of a BR/DMR with no room for error but not be good with the AR and win punishing the good player. Don't even bring up the SMG. The SMG is OP and a killing machine.

The SMG is fantastic. It's like the SAW from 4.
 

jem0208

Member
This isn't a good thing.

A viable AR/SMG is needed against the BR, but like he said, one missed shot and you've pretty much lost the battle.

Unless you get the drop on someone it's not that easy to get a kill. Its range is very low.

If you have a BR and see someone holding an SMG you know that you need to keep your distance and find a more suitable CQ weapon or find a position where you can take him out from a distance.
 

Madness

Member
I already said it in this thread but in a nutshell: If the BR is more difficult to use close range then why should it not win the battle? That makes no sense especially in a competitive game.

I played the beta so I know how the weapons operate. In my opinion, the AR is way too close to a BR at close rangle, that I am seeing a lot of AR wins or way too many close battles. I felt you literally had to land every shot of a BR/DMR with no room for error but not be good with the AR and win punishing the good player. Don't even bring up the SMG. The SMG is OP and a killing machine.

I'm going to disagree. It's one thing to be upset at the fact that ADS makes the automatic weapons much stronger over hipfire, but I can't get behind the idea that just because the BR is a more skilled weapon to use, it should dominate other weapons at every range. The sandbox will heavily suffer with that suggestion. AR would essentially be useless so why even keep it in the game? Each weapon fits a specific role, especially with regards to range (close, mid, long). One of the big issues with BR vs AR in the beta is the fact that there was flinch on hipfire. So it was very hard visually to focus on the targets head while you're getting shredded.

I'm curious to hear what others think though.
 

King Leo

Neo Member
I already said it in this thread but in a nutshell: If the BR is more difficult to use close range then why should it not win the battle? That makes no sense especially in a competitive game.


I played the beta so I know how the weapons operate. In my opinion, the AR is way too close to a BR at close rangle, that I am seeing a lot of AR wins or way too many close battles. I felt you literally had to land every shot of a BR/DMR with no room for error but not be good with the AR and win punishing the good player. Don't even bring up the SMG. The SMG is OP and a killing machine.

In that case, why should a shotgun, sword, or any power weapon win a battle? They aren't that skilled to use. A balanced weapon sandbox isn't weird at all. If a BR player keeps getting wrecked by AR's, that's not the gun's fault - it's his fault for being stubborn. I can agree the AR range when scoped needs a nerf though.
 
Daaamn that kid is trying so hard to shit on H5. I have no problem with sprint and the new smart scope stuff. Finally an AR that's completely viable for newer players, and sprints new mechanic really makes you have to think about it's use. And if I get away by running and none of your teammates cleaned me up maybe I didn't deserve to lose that fight after all.

It just seems like everyone wants Halo 2 sequels forever. I was hoping the MCC would absolve that urge. Sadly, not so much.
 

Impala26

Member
Daaamn that kid is trying so hard to shit on H5. I have no problem with sprint and the new smart scope stuff. Finally an AR that's completely viable for newer players, and sprints new mechanic really makes you have to think about it's use. And if I get away by running and none of your teammates cleaned me up maybe I didn't deserve to lose that fight after all.

It just seems like everyone wants Halo 2 sequels forever. I was hoping the MCC would absolve that urge. Sadly, not so much.

I see this as an issue around here too. My take is that I have a soft spot for each and every Halo game that's come out to date to some extent (save Wars and Spartan Assault, neither of which I've really played much of). So when someone says "classic Halo" or "feels like Halo" it's honestly such a subjective thing. Obviously there are unchanging staples--two weapon max, recharging shields, Grunts/Jackals/Hunters as enemies, etc.--but MCC has shown me that there actually is a sizeable amount of variation between the games. As such, the definitive "Halo Experience" will vary from person to person.

I do think game series need to evolve and grow over time. Could you imagine if Super Mario, Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy games existed today as essentially simple up-rezed versions of their original incarnations? Sports video game franchises are the only examples I can think of that are virtually the same games as nearly two decades ago. That said, change can be good and energizing to a franchise (see ship battles in Assassin's Creed IV), but they can also be misguided and/or polarizing (see removal of map weapons in favor of loadouts and personal ordnance in Halo 4). Halo 5 based on my Beta impressions felt like a natural evolution of the franchise to me--familiar but new, different but fun. It felt like a more natural Halo game than Halo 4 ever did. So while the fanbase' ire toward 343I is somewhat warranted due to Halo 4's state, I still find folks' predisposition to jump all over them for literally every small thing is excessive.

Halo 5 is certainly 343's baby, but I have respect for them for at least obliquely acknowledging that Halo 4 wasn't the game fans wanted it to be. So far it seems like they're at least ATTEMPTING to be proactive about incorporating fan and pro player feedback into Halo 5 (current minimal communication notwithstanding).
 
Angry that he did something you could never even think of? Also dem icicle snipes

slylol.gif
 

jem0208

Member
I see this as an issue around here too. My take is that I have a soft spot for each and every Halo game that's come out to date to some extent (save Wars and Spartan Assault, neither of which I've really played much of). So when someone says "classic Halo" or "feels like Halo" it's honestly such a subjective thing. Obviously there are unchanging staples--two weapon max, recharging shields, Grunts/Jackals/Hunters as enemies, etc.--but MCC has shown me that there actually is a sizeable amount of variation between the games. As such, the definitive "Halo Experience" will vary from person to person.

I do think game series need to evolve and grow over time. Could you imagine if Super Mario, Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy games existed today as essentially simple up-rezed versions of their original incarnations? Sports video game franchises are the only examples I can think of that are virtually the same games as nearly two decades ago. That said, change can be good and energizing to a franchise (see ship battles in Assassin's Creed IV), but they can also be misguided and/or polarizing (see removal of map weapons in favor of loadouts and personal ordnance in Halo 4). Halo 5 based on my Beta impressions felt like a natural evolution of the franchise to me--familiar but new, different but fun. It felt like a more natural Halo game than Halo 4 ever did. So while the fanbase' ire toward 343I is somewhat warranted due to Halo 4's state, I still find folks' predisposition to jump all over them for literally every small thing is excessive.

Halo 5 is certainly 343's baby, but I have respect for them for at least obliquely acknowledging that Halo 4 wasn't the game fans wanted it to be. So far it seems like they're at least ATTEMPTING to be proactive about incorporating fan and pro player feedback into Halo 5 (current minimal communication notwithstanding).

Good post.
 

btags

Member
Bungie was a PC company bought by Microsoft. They made PC games e.g., Halo was presented by Steve Jobs. There console games (Halo 1-3) were heavily PC influenced if not PC games, especially drawn from competitive ones as its roots. Halo was originally intended to be released for PC and Macintosh until Microsoft bought them. Pretty obvious.

I knew this, but I wouldn't really say bungie has "competitive pc roots." Marathon was basically a quake knock off and didn't garner near as large a competitive scene.
 

Madness

Member
Daaamn that kid is trying so hard to shit on H5. I have no problem with sprint and the new smart scope stuff. Finally an AR that's completely viable for newer players, and sprints new mechanic really makes you have to think about it's use. And if I get away by running and none of your teammates cleaned me up maybe I didn't deserve to lose that fight after all.

It just seems like everyone wants Halo 2 sequels forever. I was hoping the MCC would absolve that urge. Sadly, not so much.

You would have lost the fight had you not sprinted away, think about that.

The new sprint mechanic doesn't make you think about anything except that you can sprint away, and oh wait, here's a new 3 second white bar we have to wait to go down before we can rejoin the action. If anything, you're still running from fights, there is now even more cat and mouse chases/escapes when coupled with thruster, and the nerf mechanic literally delays gunfights as you wait even longer for shields to recharge.

An AR that's viable for new players isn't the issue. An AR that is one of the more dominant weapons in the game at close to mid, is unskilled to use, and gets even deadlier with ADS is the issue.

Just because you don't see an issue with sprint or ADS, doesn't mean there aren't any. And no, we don't want Halo 2 forever. If you're referring to classic style game play, we haven't gotten that in a mainstream Halo release since 2007. The "Halo-needs-to-evolve" crowd has been rewarded with their changes in the last two main games, soon to be three this November.

I was hoping the failures that were Reach and Halo 4 would absolve that urge for massive change to the base game play, sadly, not so much.
 

Tomash

Member
Halo 5 is certainly 343's baby, but I have respect for them for at least obliquely acknowledging that Halo 4 wasn't the game fans wanted it to be.

Halo 4 wasn't the game anyone wanted it to be, I come from CoD and this is my view on some 4's systems:
Ordnance drops - killstreak rewards in CoD are fair because they are easily countered, with perks, equipment, AA lock-on launchers. You can also just kill a guy on a killstreak to prevent him from getting anything. How do you counter ordnance drops, power weapons like Forerunner Cannon? By quitting the game, that's how.

Loadouts - 7 primary weapons, and only one of them useful pre-turbo update. Being able to spawn with a shotgun as a secondary weapon. Again, having shotgun as a starting weapon is fair in CoD because all other weapons kill in a blink of an eye. Useless perks, dumbest progression system I've ever seen, ugly cosmetical rewards. Only good thing about 4's loadouts is no more AR starts.

Killstreak rewards and loadouts are bad idea on their own, but they were also horribly implemented in Halo 4. They forgot about one thing, balance.
 

dwells

Member
Wait, is the above post about Halo 1 - 3 being good because they're "PC games" and using "P2P" as evidence for real, or some sort of high parody?
 
You look at that Halo 3 video a few pages back and go look at Halo 5 and tell me why people are upset. it's literally Halo in name only. The one thing that also made 3 great and slowed down with Reach was the almost zero gravity for vehicles. It made for some absolute crazy BTB shit which I feel is a lot more "realistic" now but not as fun IMO.
 

daedalius

Member
Loadouts - 7 primary weapons, and only one of them useful pre-turbo update. Being able to spawn with a shotgun as a secondary weapon. Again, having shotgun as a starting weapon is fair in CoD because all other weapons kill in a blink of an eye. Useless perks, dumbest progression system I've ever seen, ugly cosmetical rewards. Only good thing about 4's loadouts is no more AR starts.

I mean, I assume you're talking about the boltshot, right?

Because you couldn't actually spawn with a shotgun.

Yea, the DMR being the only precision weapon that was useful before the turbo update was preeeeettty dumb.
 

jem0208

Member
Halo 4 wasn't the game anyone wanted it to be, I come from CoD and this is my view on some 4's systems:
Ordnance drops - killstreak rewards in CoD are fair because they are easily countered, with perks, equipment, AA lock-on launchers. You can also just kill a guy on a killstreak to prevent him from getting anything. How do you counter ordnance drops, power weapons like Forerunner Cannon? By quitting the game, that's how.

Loadouts - 7 primary weapons, and only one of them useful pre-turbo update. Being able to spawn with a shotgun as a secondary weapon. Again, having shotgun as a starting weapon is fair in CoD because all other weapons kill in a blink of an eye. Useless perks, dumbest progression system I've ever seen, ugly cosmetical rewards. Only good thing about 4's loadouts is no more AR starts.

Killstreak rewards and loadouts are bad idea on their own, but they were also horribly implemented in Halo 4. They forgot about one thing, balance.

Halo 4 on the MCC is great. Weapons on maps and no ordnance drops fixes most of the problems for me.
 
Halo 4 wasn't the game anyone wanted it to be, I come from CoD and this is my view on some 4's systems:
Ordnance drops - killstreak rewards in CoD are fair because they are easily countered, with perks, equipment, AA lock-on launchers. You can also just kill a guy on a killstreak to prevent him from getting anything. How do you counter ordnance drops, power weapons like Forerunner Cannon? By quitting the game, that's how.

Loadouts - 7 primary weapons, and only one of them useful pre-turbo update. Being able to spawn with a shotgun as a secondary weapon. Again, having shotgun as a starting weapon is fair in CoD because all other weapons kill in a blink of an eye. Useless perks, dumbest progression system I've ever seen, ugly cosmetical rewards. Only good thing about 4's loadouts is no more AR starts.

Killstreak rewards and loadouts are bad idea on their own, but they were also horribly implemented in Halo 4. They forgot about one thing, balance.

Or being able to spawn with Plasma Pistols. Pretty much rendered vehicles useless in BTB.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Or being able to spawn with Plasma Pistols. Pretty much rendered vehicles useless in BTB.

On playing through all the games on MCC, I think the bigger issue was the frailty of vehicles in general. Sure, getting plasma pistoled was annoying, but the vehicles are like tissue paper, which made getting EMPed a much bigger deal than it probably would have been otherwise.
 

daedalius

Member
On playing through all the games on MCC, I think the bigger issue was the frailty of vehicles in general. Sure, getting plasma pistoled was annoying, but the vehicles are like tissue paper, which made getting EMPed a much bigger deal than it probably would have been otherwise.

Halo 3 hog is a wrecking machine if there aren't proper weapons on map to take care of it.
 

Mdot

Member
I guess no mention of the beta test yet, huh? The party issues and lag on H2A/H3 maps are still ruining the experience for me.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Halo 3 hog is a wrecking machine if there aren't proper weapons on map to take care of it.

Yep. My feeling playing the multiplayer is that vehicles got more powerful until Reach, where they took a substantial nosedive that Halo 4 alleviated in some ways but severely compounded in others.

To me the best option is to make vehicles powerful but craft maps that don't make pedestrian movement forced into killing fields; in that respect I think Halo 4 did well, although they probably went too far in closing up vehicle routes.

Either way, there's so much that goes into vehicle balance. "Spawning with plasma pistols" is certainly an easy complaint but I don't think it really acknowledges all the factors involved.
 

King Leo

Neo Member
The beta was a mix of classic and modern. I enjoyed it. Maybe I'm just getting older, but I'm fine with this direction now. Whenever people bash H5, they just give reasons why it's not Halo 2/3. Well no shit. Who's to say this style of Halo can't be competitive? It's already miles ahead of H4 with the return of equal starts, static timers, weapon balance, map control, and emphasis on teamwork. On top of that.. a spectator mode, its own eSports league, a competitive tier system..

Oh, but sprint and smart scope, right? It's automatically shit. I could understand all the hate for H4, but not this. Once/when/if MCC is fixed, no doubt I'll be enjoying the classics. But I'm ready for Halo to move on to a more "modern" take. It's inevitable anyway.

inb4scrandycasual
 

Mdot

Member
The beta was a mix of classic and modern. I enjoyed it. Maybe I'm just getting older, but I'm fine with this direction now. Whenever people bash H5, they just give reasons why it's not Halo 2/3. Well no shit. Who's to say this style of Halo can't be competitive? It's already miles ahead of H4 with the return of equal starts, static timers, weapon balance, map control, and emphasis on teamwork. On top of that.. a spectator mode, its own eSports league, a competitive tier system..

Oh, but sprint and smart scope, right? It's automatically shit. I could understand all the hate for H4, but not this. Once/when/if MCC is fixed, no doubt I'll be enjoying the classics. But I'm ready for Halo to move on to a more "modern" take. It's inevitable anyway.

inb4scrandycasual

I enjoyed the beta and my biggest gripe, which hopefully will be fixed, is just weapon balancing. The SMG was just the bane of my existence. I could deal with the others staying as is, but a tweak is sorely needed for the SMG imo.
 

RowdyReverb

Member
Can 343i please blatantly copy the Hotwire mode from Battlefield: Hardline for BTB? That shit is too fun. It would be like that one-off KotH game type where the Warthog was the hill, but with multiple hills.
 

Leyasu

Banned
The beta was a mix of classic and modern. I enjoyed it. Maybe I'm just getting older, but I'm fine with this direction now. Whenever people bash H5, they just give reasons why it's not Halo 2/3. Well no shit. Who's to say this style of Halo can't be competitive? It's already miles ahead of H4 with the return of equal starts, static timers, weapon balance, map control, and emphasis on teamwork. On top of that.. a spectator mode, its own eSports league, a competitive tier system..

Oh, but sprint and smart scope, right? It's automatically shit. I could understand all the hate for H4, but not this. Once/when/if MCC is fixed, no doubt I'll be enjoying the classics. But I'm ready for Halo to move on to a more "modern" take. It's inevitable anyway.

inb4scrandycasual

I bought my og xbox for halo, and have loved the series. But the beta was something else. Those few week were the best halo that I have played... The game was amazing!

There are some things I want to see implemented before I buy it though. If they put in what I want, then I can see me playing this exclusively until halo 6 drops.

The MCC is a mess beyond compare. But fuck me they have something special on their hands with halo 5.
 
Top Bottom