We've talked about this on Twitter now, but I honestly can't get excited for an E3 showing. I'm interested in the story, but we'll learn very little about that next week. We might get to see some weapons/vehicles, if any. But I'm just not very excited because I can't fathom what kind of surprises or new things they'd add.
I suppose that's a good thing, at best I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Maybe it's cause I'm more into PvP than the campaign, but any snippet will get me excited. New weapons, new vehicles, new maps, new enemy types, new story context, etc. Like I said tho, I'm expecting a full BTB Reboot blow out.
It's always funny to hear young people talk about feeling old.
Maybe it's cause I'm more into PvP than the campaign, but any snippet will get me excited. New weapons, new vehicles, new maps, new enemy types, new story context, etc. Like I said tho, I'm expecting a full BTB Reboot blow out.
Maybe. Only time I really played Halo multiplayer was during the Halo 3 days. I like playing it with friends, but that's it. Halo 4 wasn't even fun that way, let alone when played online. Halo 5 beta was a lot of fun, but most of my time with the game will be spent in singleplayer and co-op.
I dunno, campaign wise I'm interested in the story they're spinning, but we're not likely to get a lot more details on that until the game releases. It's gonna be a Halo campaign mode, so unless they come up with something extremely crazy next week I'm keeping my expectations tempered.
I gotta say, I'd be pretty disappointed if Halo Wars 2 got announced. I just give zero shits about that game and any potential sequel. I'd love to have a new Halo spin off game, but I want it to be one I'm actually interested in.
I dunno, campaign wise I'm interested in the story they're spinning, but we're not likely to get a lot more details on that until the game releases. It's gonna be a Halo campaign mode, so unless they come up with something extremely crazy next week I'm keeping my expectations tempered.
Yeah, I feel ya. If I was mostly into story / campaign stuff I wouldn't set my expectations too high either. Although who knows, there could be some surprises.
Yeah, I feel ya. If I was mostly into story / campaign stuff I wouldn't set my expectations too high either. Although who knows, there could be some surprises.
Got a rare hankering to actually play the Anniversary version of CE. Decided to use MCC.
Tried to start a level in anniversary mode, but after the load screen it's using classic music and graphics. The back button corrects the graphical discrepancy. But the music switch from the 360 version's in-game menu doesn't seem to be there in MCC.
Tried to do a quickstart, same issue.
Tried to start up another level, same issue.
Did a cold boot on the XB1 and tried again, same issue.
Yeah, I feel ya. If I was mostly into story / campaign stuff I wouldn't set my expectations too high either. Although who knows, there could be some surprises.
Yup. I've always felt using a player's W/L ratio as a measure of their personal skill seems rather inaccurate. It relies entirely on the assumption that matchmaking is completely fair, which it clearly isn't. A bad player could be carried through multiple tiers of ranking if he was lucky enough to be paired with very good team mates. The same is true for the reverse, a good player can get dragged down by poor teammates.
That's probably what happens, if you announce the release date and actually release the game on the same day out of nowhere. Also, it not being on the Xbox One/Xbox 360 is probably a mistake.
That's probably what happens, if you announce the release date and actually release the game on the same day out of nowhere. Also, it not being on the Xbox One/Xbox 360 is probably a mistake.
That's probably what happens, if you announce the release date and actually release the game on the same day out of nowhere. Also, it not being on the Xbox One/Xbox 360 is probably a mistake.
The greater importance of ranks in my opinion is conditioning players to care more for the team than their own individual stats. It's pretty difficult to do that with systems that value individual performance over the outcome of team-based gametypes.
It would be great to bring back stats for bullets fired, hit %, damage done, etc. because that gives a good idea of how effective each individual player was throughout a match.
Yep. I played it on my buddies Surface and it was pretty good. Missions were actually fun. Only thing I didn't like are the touch controls, but that doesn't say much.
I know and they are even bundling it with Spartan Assault on iOS. All that doesn't help, because they just released it in the middle of the MCC disaster.
Wasn't Spartan Assault a GWG title? Might affect those numbers.
Just finished ODST on legendary. Did anyone else not get the achievement for completing Uplink Reserve? I completed it on my first playthrough and it didn't pop up, and neither did it on my second playthrough. I did however get the partime achievement on the second time, and also got the achievements for finishing the game.
Good ranking systems are not given enough importance in multiplayer games. Granted not every multiplayer game is competitively viable so it's not always necessary. However in games like Halo? A good ranking system should be damn high on the priority list.
Yep. I played it on my buddies Surface and it was pretty good. Missions were actually fun. Only thing I didn't like are the touch controls, but that doesn't say much.
I know and they are even bundling it with Spartan Assault on iOS. All that doesn't help, because they just released it in the middle of the MCC disaster.
Wasn't Spartan Assault a GWG title? Might affect those numbers.
The Strike numbers are kinda low. Neither of these games are epic, but I actually think Spartan Assault is a better game, especially the XB1 version with the co-op mode. Strike is just too easy for a top down shooter arcade style game and provides very little challenge. You would figure most Halo fans would have bought these games on a Microsoft platform anyways, for the achievements.
If you jut put something out there without any kind of buzz or fanfare, don't expect it to sell. There was maybe a handful of hands on impressions around Aug/Sept, and once MCC had the massive backlash, Strike was pushed aside. Hell, they probably only released it cause its existence was public.
Yup. I've always felt using a player's W/L ratio as a measure of their personal skill seems rather inaccurate. It relies entirely on the assumption that matchmaking is completely fair, which it clearly isn't. A bad player could be carried through multiple tiers of ranking if he was lucky enough to be paired with very good team mates. The same is true for the reverse, a good player can get dragged down by poor teammates.
The priority behind using W/L isn't that it reflects personal skill (although in the long run it will). But more that it makes people care about each match and play with non-selfish mindsets. The lack of W/L skill ranks in Halo: Reach and Halo 4 really took a lot of the reason to try out of each match, and Reach's arena system resulted in very selfish play.
Ranks based on W/L actually makes me focus more on helping my teammates. Like in H2A, there was a pretty close match, and because of that I actually started moving with the "worst" player on the team to ensure we win. If the ranks were based on individual performance, I would not give a fuck about anyone else.
Got a rare hankering to actually play the Anniversary version of CE. Decided to use MCC.
Tried to start a level in anniversary mode, but after the load screen it's using classic music and graphics. The back button corrects the graphical discrepancy. But the music switch from the 360 version's in-game menu doesn't seem to be there in MCC.
Tried to do a quickstart, same issue.
Tried to start up another level, same issue.
Did a cold boot on the XB1 and tried again, same issue.
The priority behind using W/L isn't that it reflects personal skill (although in the long run it will). But more that it makes people care about each match and play with non-selfish mindsets. The lack of W/L skill ranks in Halo: Reach and Halo 4 really took a lot of the reason to try out of each match, and Reach's arena system resulted in very selfish play.
I do agree that wins should be heavily incentivised, perhaps more so than personal performance. However I feel like a better system would be one which takes both personal performance and W/L ratio into account.
I just find it quite backwards that a rank system, who's main purpose is to display a player's skill, doesn't actually take their skill into account at all.
Jem speaking the truth. I think the whole, people would play selfishly, let their teammates die, steal kills which is why we don't account for individual stats in ranks is definitely a bit overblown. Yeah you saw it in some degree in Arena in Reach, but I don't know, I agree win/loss and rank is used to gauge a player skill and yet may not accurately reflect it at all.
Jem speaking the truth. I think the whole, people would play selfishly, let their teammates die, steal kills which is why we don't account for individual stats in ranks is definitely a bit overblown. Yeah you saw it in some degree in Arena in Reach, but I don't know, I agree win/loss and rank is used to gauge a player skill and yet may not accurately reflect it at all.
It should be purely W/L. 343 have made a great decision there with respect to Halo 5. It's a team game and any measure of individual performance will open up competing against team mates which is not what the game is about. It's about creating the best possible team environment during the match. The ultimate goal is winning, that is what the game is about. If you don't win you shouldn't go up.
In a game where it's a necessity to teamshoot to be effective as a team and there is less power for an individual player to dominate a match, I think the right choice is to make rank based on W/L. If it was individual-based, there could be moments where the top player on a losing team may give up trying to take risks to overcome enemies holding power positions and instead play way more conservative.
Also, consider individual-based ranking systems from a lesser-skilled player's perspective. At the end of the day they know their ranks are based on their own performance, so they may care less about the outcome of a match since they know it will have less of an impact on their teammates' ranks. However, with a W/L ranking system that player may rethink their playstyle for the better of the team.
W/L ranking systems only encourage more teamwork, whereas individual-based systems may or may not lead to more selfish gameplay. And right now, I think what this franchise needs is more players who play for the team and not for themselves; it's for the greater good.
Like I've said a hojillion times. It should be based on W/L, but a good performance(lots of kills, few deaths, moderate-high assists, low allied assists) on a losing team shouldn't penalize you as much as the teammate who had a bad performance(low kills, high deaths, low assists, high allied assists).
