Support NeoGAF

[Louis Wu]

The issue is they called out the competitive community for basically caring for a series a lot of us love.

The issue is that ONE GUY called your community out - and the response is to tar and feather AN ENTIRE GROUP because you're not happy with what that one guys says.

RUL doesn't speak for me - but neither do you. I speak for me. And I think you're wrong when you say that doing things your way wouldn't affect me.

Depending on how precise the stat tracking can get, to compromise for shitty maps, maybe there could be a "map leaderboard" option? For example, let's say Reach uses Duncan's UI and the options are Invasion on Uncaged, SWAT Potato on Overlook, and Team Slayer DMRs on Refuge. Due to unknown reasons, everyone gets the votes to make a net zero across the board. But on the overall leaderboard for the playlist HaloGAF Hijinks:
Uncaged Invasion is #58.
Overlook SWAT Potato is #49.
Refuge TS DMRs is #4.

So even though Uncaged Invasion is on the top of the list, Refuge is more popularly played, and as a result it would be selected instead.

This sort of system means popular gametypes get played exclusively, over time - because they show up more and more, and win more and more, so that even people who LIKE them get sick of them.

I like variety - any system that gives additional weight to popular choices decreases that variety, over time, until there's none left.

I'm not sure you can classify yourself as "casual" Wu. You've played over 4,000 games of competitive multiplayer in Reach.

My friends who play Halo casually don't like Reach, but for reasons that are completely different from "the AR is too powerful" or "the pistol's clip is too shallow". They dislike Reach because of things like armor lock, weak maps, slow movement, and terrible vehicle combat. If Halo 4 fixes those issues, they will be happy. Casuals do care differently but most of the changes that hardcore Halo fans argue over are changes that my casual friends wouldn't notice or wouldn't care about.

I classify myself as casual because having fun while I'm playing is far more important than whether I win or lose, or whether I go positive or not. This single factor puts me at odds with the average competitive player, whose DEFINITION of fun includes winning, to some degree. (If they're not winning, they're not having fun.)

My K/D is low enough (1.13, I think) that I don't count as 'good' (though I've been given numbers on the percentage of players in Halo MM whose K/D is below 1, so maybe I AM 'good', just not in the smaller communities I hang out in) and my enjoyment of the vast majority of games I play puts me in the same general group as the "unthinking masses" who eat everything they're fed without discrimination. (The difference is, I DO discriminate - I simply happen to enjoy what I'm playing.)

I guess the real problem is that there aren't really two sides to this - there are an infinite number of sides, and grouping them is like herding cats. It makes discussing the problem a tough nut to crack - but it's not made any easier by people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is simply not thinking clearly.

 

[heckfu]

Ideally, we'd actually have decent maps to pick from, that way there wouldn't be as many unacceptable maps. In Reach, most of the maps were literally unplayable; that makes a voting system hard to swallow.

I don't see anything wrong with the Reach voting system or the CoD style of voting system (pretty similar), but the maps were so terrible that it threw a wrench in it.

I think you may not know the meaning of this word.

 

[op_ivy]

You would then be matched up with representatives of the 90% of Halo players who have selected Sword Base as one of their favorite maps.

sorry, meant to say it would influence the choices that come up in voting. but you do raise a very good point. if the majority of reach players ALWAYS seem to vote for uncaged, pinnacle, and asylum when they show up in reach, there would be a good likely hood that those would be at the top of most peoples picks in the options.

i still like the idea of no voting at all to ensure a good mix of maps played. and yeah, i remember even in halo 2 sometimes that meant you seemed to play the same map over and over anyways

but, since i seriously doubt it would be removed, i'm also for invisible voting. i like the idea that whoever is in charge of matchmaking could make changes (lol) to map frequency based on actual hard voting data.

 

[Ken]

I classify myself as casual because having fun while I'm playing is far more important than whether I win or lose, or whether I go positive or not.

I classify myself as casual/recreation in my XBL profile.

XBL still wants to pair me up against "pro" and "underground (?)" people.

:'(

 

[Der Flatulator]

3:00:00:00.00

Spoiler

[ v2 ]

 

[ncsuDuncan]

So where does the veto come in play, after the voting round? Not sure if I'd want to draw out the voting any longer than it already is in Reach.

There is only one voting round, you have a short time to hit A to vote on one option and/or X to veto one option. After the voting round ends, the total number of votes and vetoes for each option is shown. The voting shouldn't take any longer than it does in Reach.

I think you may not know the meaning of this word.

Inconceivable!

 

[BigShow36]

I classify myself as casual because having fun while I'm playing is far more important than whether I win or lose, or whether I go positive or not. This single factor puts me at odds with the average competitive player, whose DEFINITION of fun includes winning, to some degree. (If they're not winning, they're not having fun.)

My K/D is low enough (1.13, I think) that I don't count as 'good' (though I've been given numbers on the percentage of players in Halo MM whose K/D is below 1, so maybe I AM 'good', just not in the smaller communities I hang out in) and my enjoyment of the vast majority of games I play puts me in the same general group as the "unthinking masses" who eat everything they're fed without discrimination. (The difference is, I DO discriminate - I simply happen to enjoy what I'm playing.)

I guess the real problem is that there aren't really two sides to this - there are an infinite number of sides, and grouping them is like herding cats. It makes discussing the problem a tough nut to crack - but it's not made any easier by people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is simply not thinking clearly.

Competitive players play to have fun as well. If you don't care about winning or losing or K/D, then why does it bother you so much when we attempt to remove unskillful elements and replace them with more balanced ones?

My fun does not hinge on winning or losing, it hinges on me feeling like winning or losing was based solely on my team and I's decisions and abilities throughout the match. I haven't had that since Halo CE.

We have single player for solo fun and co-op modes for friendly fun. Why can't the competitive mode actually be competitive? We're all playing competitive multiplayer because its fun to compete against other players. What's not fun is competiting in a frustrating, unbalanced environment.

I think you may not know the meaning of this word.

Inconceivable.

 

[Toddler]

The issue is that ONE GUY called your community out - and the response is to tar and feather AN ENTIRE GROUP because you're not happy with what that one guys says.

RUL doesn't speak for me - but neither do you. I speak for me. And I think you're wrong when you say that doing things your way wouldn't affect me.


This sort of system means popular gametypes get played exclusively, over time - because they show up more and more, and win more and more, so that even people who LIKE them get sick of them.

I like variety - any system that gives additional weight to popular choices decreases that variety, over time, until there's none left.


I classify myself as casual because having fun while I'm playing is far more important than whether I win or lose, or whether I go positive or not. This single factor puts me at odds with the average competitive player, whose DEFINITION of fun includes winning, to some degree. (If they're not winning, they're not having fun.)

My K/D is low enough (1.13, I think) that I don't count as 'good' (though I've been given numbers on the percentage of players in Halo MM whose K/D is below 1, so maybe I AM 'good', just not in the smaller communities I hang out in) and my enjoyment of the vast majority of games I play puts me in the same general group as the "unthinking masses" who eat everything they're fed without discrimination. (The difference is, I DO discriminate - I simply happen to enjoy what I'm playing.)

I guess the real problem is that there aren't really two sides to this - there are an infinite number of sides, and grouping them is like herding cats. It makes discussing the problem a tough nut to crack - but it's not made any easier by people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is simply not thinking clearly.

I find it hard to disagree with any of this.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

I classify myself as casual because having fun while I'm playing is far more important than whether I win or lose, or whether I go positive or not. This single factor puts me at odds with the average competitive player, whose DEFINITION of fun includes winning, to some degree. (If they're not winning, they're not having fun.)

My K/D is low enough (1.13, I think) that I don't count as 'good' (though I've been given numbers on the percentage of players in Halo MM whose K/D is below 1, so maybe I AM 'good', just not in the smaller communities I hang out in) and my enjoyment of the vast majority of games I play puts me in the same general group as the "unthinking masses" who eat everything they're fed without discrimination. (The difference is, I DO discriminate - I simply happen to enjoy what I'm playing.)

I guess the real problem is that there aren't really two sides to this - there are an infinite number of sides, and grouping them is like herding cats. It makes discussing the problem a tough nut to crack - but it's not made any easier by people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is simply not thinking clearly.

While I certainly see where you are coming from, I think I would classify a competitive player as someone who enjoys a more competitive style of game win or lose. Losing a game 49-50 is probably more fun than winning a game 50-10 for most competitive players. I would say winning or simply being good at a game won't keep competitive players interested if they dont like that game.

I would still say your more 'competitive' than 90% of people in matchmaking, but it's not as simple as being competitive or not competitive, your by far more informed than most in matchmaking. We need more classifications than just the binary noob vs pro lol

 

[Louis Wu]

Competitive players play to have fun as well. If you don't care about winning or losing or K/D, then why does it bother you so much when we attempt to remove unskillful elements and replace them with more balanced ones?

rofl - because what you remove MAKES THE GAME LESS FUN FOR ME. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[CyReN]

The issue is that ONE GUY called your community out - and the response is to tar and feather AN ENTIRE GROUP because you're not happy with what that one guys says.

RUL doesn't speak for me - but neither do you. I speak for me. And I think you're wrong when you say that doing things your way wouldn't affect me.

It may be one guy, but it's a channel with 12k subs which is pretty big for a Halo focused channel. MLG/Competitive Halo players have had some serious "bad boy" kind of image (I tried to think of something not corny lol) in the Halo community, and a lot of us have worked to not go back to this. I just hate to see some of our hard work be tarnished because of what could be considered ignorant opinions by this guy/channel.

If it's anything we've tried to reach out to them to get them on Social Skirmish or any kind of show to discuss the video to clean up the misconceptions but they've declined.

 

[BigShow36]

rofl - because what you remove MAKES THE GAME LESS FUN FOR ME. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because there's always going to be one group or another who is unhappy about adding or removing something. We can't please everyone, that's why we have different options for playing mulitplayer in the form of campaign co-op, firefight, invasion, etc.

What you want in the game MAKES THE GAME LESS FUN FOR ME as well. So how do we reconcile that? You claim not to care about k/d or losing, so how does increasing the skill-gap make the game less fun?

COMPETITIVE multiplayer should attempt to be as COMPETITIVELY balanced as possible. We need to look at it from that standpoint, or else how to you even begin balancing the experience?

All I want is a fast strafe, low aim-assist and a utility weapon that's difficult to use. You can have whatever you want as long as I can turn that off. Sure, there are a bunch of other things that I'd love to have, but they aren't necessary. How does that stuff affect you?

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Oh you guys.

 

[Spawnling]

rofl - because what you remove MAKES THE GAME LESS FUN FOR ME. Why is that so hard to understand?

Then there should be a ranking system that reflects winning. As you said, a casual gamer (such as yourself) doesn't necessarily "care" about winning/losing. That doesn't define "fun" for you. Your primary concern is going into matchmaking with a bunch of friends and having a good time.

I feel that the silent majority have the same process. Why not add actual ranks based on winning losing in Matchmaking to enforce winning? Casuals don't done need that incentive to win, they're going to do what they want regardless. For highly competitive players, they want to strive and get the best rank they can.

I don't think removing game elements is the solution globally, that's why 343 and Bungie creates hoppers so players can play whatever gamemode/playlist they want, but adding something to achieve for players that want too, would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Hydranockz]

Because adding ranks doesn't increase the pressure felt by anyone...

 

[Overdoziz]

I think anyone who votes for AR starts ever should be banned from Halo. That way normal people can enjoy the game properly. Everybody wins.

 

[Louis Wu]

While I certainly see where you are coming from, I think I would classify a competitive player as someone who enjoys a more competitive style of game win or lose. Losing a game 49-50 is probably more fun than winning a game 50-10 for most competitive players. I would say winning or simply being good at a game won't keep competitive players interested if they dont like that game.

This isn't what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about people who quit playing because they have a series of games where they are carrying their team, points-wise, but are still losing. They think, "what's the point of playing?"

Occasionally, this gets to me, too, but usually I'm perfectly fine trying to do my OWN best - even if my team loses. I'm okay going way the hell negative if my carrying of the objective serves a purpose. I'm okay with my team losing if I've played at my own capacity. I'm okay getting destroyed if my team is joking about it, or if I manage a double-kill against guys who are clearly way out of my league, or if I've picked a meta-goal I can work on until the game's over. I'm not saying I enjoy EVERY game I play - I doubt there's anyone who can say this. I'm saying I enjoy MOST of them, for a variety of reasons - and this is something competitive players don't say very often. (Just read GAF if you don't believe me. )

It may be one guy, but it's a channel with 12k subs which is pretty big for a Halo focused channel. MLG/Competitive Halo players have had some serious "bad boy" kind of image (I tried to think of something not corny lol) in the Halo community, and a lot of us have worked to not go back to this. I just hate to see some of our hard work be tarnished because of what could be considered ignorant opinions by this guy.

I've been really impressed with u4ixx's stuff - and part of why is BECAUSE he goes out of his way not to disparage people who think differently than he does. Spend 5 minutes in the MLG forums, and you realize that he's an outlier. I think what you guys are doing is fantastic - but you are NOT representative of the competitive community.

All I want is a fast strafe, low aim-assist and a utility weapon that's difficult to use. You can have whatever you want as long as I can turn that off. Sure, there are a bunch of other things that I'd love to have, but they aren't necessary. How does that stuff affect you?

I'm not sure I understand - you want to be able to turn off your own aim assist... but you don't mind if I leave mine on?

 

[BigShow36]

I'm not sure I understand - you want to be able to turn off your own aim assist... but you don't mind if I leave mine on?

I want my aim assist to be reasonable for everyone in the game that I'm playing. Essentially I want the aiming to be a challenge and I want the game to be fair; its the same reason the basketball hoop shouldn't be 30 feet in diameter.

You shouldn't care one way or the other because you don't care about k/d or winning.

 

[Bregmann Roche]

I guess the real problem is that there aren't really two sides to this - there are an infinite number of sides, and grouping them is like herding cats. It makes discussing the problem a tough nut to crack - but it's not made any easier by people who assume that anyone who disagrees with them is simply not thinking clearly.

Which is why the Halo community needs to reframe this debate as something other than blainsquad vs. casuals, because the people that are arguing on the "casual" side are not casual players. They are just as serious about the game as the pros/tryhards/notheckfus are, they just have a different vision of what the game should be.

As for your point about there being infinite sides to this, I disagree. I think there are likely as many sides to this as there are opinions of what a good Halo game entails, but I think there is enough overlap with those opinions that the number of sides to the argument can become something manageable and that, through game design or playlist management, Halo 4 can be a Halo game that pleases "casuals", "fun-seekers", "competitives" and MLG types.

 

[Hydranockz]

You shouldn't care one way or the other

Awesome assumption time? Awesome assumption time.

 

[Louis Wu]

I want my aim assist to be reasonable for everyone in the game that I'm playing. Essentially I want the aiming to be a challenge and I want the game to be fair.

You shouldn't care one way or the other because you don't care about k/d or winning.

I love how when I say that my primary reason for playing isn't winning or getting a high K/D, that suddenly I don't care about those things. Is the whole world so black and white to you?

You said that the things you want wouldn't affect me. Then you said that you want to lower the aim-assist. How can you even BEGIN to believe that wouldn't affect me?

 

[squidhands]

There is only one voting round, you have a short time to hit A to vote on one option and/or X to veto one option. After the voting round ends, the total number of votes and vetoes for each option is shown. The voting shouldn't take any longer than it does in Reach.

Okay, I understand now. So basically you get to vote for the game/map you want the most, and vote against the ones you want the least in the same voting screen (green button for, red button against maybe?), all of which is hidden until right before the game/map loads.

I like it.

 

[CyReN]

I've been really impressed with u4ixx's stuff - and part of why is BECAUSE he goes out of his way not to disparage people who think differently than he does. Spend 5 minutes in the MLG forums, and you realize that he's an outlier. I think what you guys are doing is fantastic - but you are NOT representative of the competitive community.

Thanks, means a lot and glad you and others here like it.

For the competitive part, yes the site isn't mainly focused on it but I believe we have a lot of merit in the competitive space with various former and current pros with their content and shows. I really wish I could say that MLG is the competitive Halo home but that ship has sailed since after Columbus with non existent coverage through their content, forums, and somewhat support with the online tourney. Maybe it will change after Anaheim but time will tell.

 

[Ken]

Someone play Halo with me. LoL is too painful.

 

[op_ivy]

Occasionally, this gets to me, too, but usually I'm perfectly fine trying to do my OWN best - even if my team loses. I'm okay going way the hell negative if my carrying of the objective serves a purpose. I'm okay with my team losing if I've played at my own capacity. I'm okay getting destroyed if my team is joking about it, or if I manage a double-kill against guys who are clearly way out of my league, or if I've picked a meta-goal I can work on until the game's over. I'm not saying I enjoy EVERY game I play - I doubt there's anyone who can say this. I'm saying I enjoy MOST of them, for a variety of reasons - and this is something competitive players don't say very often. (Just read GAF if you don't believe me. )

you sound a lot more mature than most halo players.

Spoiler

not an age related joke!

 

[BigShow36]

I love how when I say that my primary reason for playing isn't winning or getting a high K/D, that suddenly I don't care about those things. Is the whole world so black and white to you?

You said that the things you want wouldn't affect me. Then you said that you want to lower the aim-assist. How can you even BEGIN to believe that wouldn't affect me?

I love how you said competitive players don't play for fun. Is the world so black and white to you? /sarcasm

In terms of aim assist, where do you draw the line? There's someone out there who wants the game to aim for them; should we do that too? This is competitive multiplayer; if you don't want to be challenged then you shouldn't be playing it. The challenge of competiting against other players is really the heart of what's "fun" about competitive mp.

In competitive game modes, I have no problem affecting you when it comes to lowering the aim assist. I feel that there needs to be a significant shooting skill involved with a competitive FPS. I don't demand that they increase the basketball hoop to 50-feet wide because I can't hit every shot or play at the highest level.

 

[Franklinator]

I'm pretty much like you, Wu. I have a deep understanding of the game, am not particularly good at it, and play for fun.

 

[Louis Wu]

Where do you draw the line? There's someone out there who wants the game to aim for them. Should we do that too? This is competitive multiplayer; if you don't want to be challenged then you shouldn't be playing it.

I don't have to draw the line - Bungie drew it for me. I'm fine with where they drew it. You're not - I get that. But you're telling me what YOU want - they did a bunch of testing, and came up with a compromise that works for a large spectrum of gamers.

You're right - there are ABSOLUTELY gamers out there who would like MORE aim-assist. (I'm not one of them.) They're as unhappy as you are.

On this particular bell curve, though, you (and they) are more than one standard deviation out. Sorry.

 

[kylej]

What I think could go a long way for the "hardcore" community is more gametypes tailored to them outside of MLG. In Halo 3, even at level 50 Team Slayer, you had to play a Narrows gametype with randomized spawns and AR starts. That shouldn't happen.

I think future Halo games should have "smart" matchmaking. Imagine Team Slayer has a big cauldron of gametypes. You've got AR starts with radar, BR starts with radar, then BR starts without radar. As you raise your TrueSkill per playlist (or gain a higher numerical rank ala Halo 3), the matchmaking system should start tailoring different gametypes to different skills. So, if I'm a level 50 in Halo 3, matchmaking should more heavily weight BR starts with no radar or BR starts to my group.

 

[Bregmann Roche]

I want my aim assist to be reasonable for everyone in the game that I'm playing. Essentially I want the aiming to be a challenge and I want the game to be fair; its the same reason the basketball hoop shouldn't be 30 feet in diameter.

You shouldn't care one way or the other because you don't care about k/d or winning.

He still cares about having an intelligible experience within the game. If a brand new Halo player starts up Multiplayer and his/her reticule is all over the place and none of their shots (from their single shot, not-automatic, small reticule, no-bloom, low aim-assisted, hitscan weapon) are hitting any players, why would they want to continue to play the game? To use your basketball analogy: when kids start out they play on a shorter hoop for a reason. Furthermore they don't play against a wall (campaign co-op/firefight) they play against other kids.

What I think could go a long way for the "hardcore" community is more gametypes tailored to them outside of MLG. In Halo 3, even at level 50 Team Slayer, you had to play a Narrows gametype with randomized spawns and AR starts. That shouldn't happen.

I think future Halo games should have "smart" matchmaking. Imagine Team Slayer has a big cauldron of gametypes. You've got AR starts with radar, BR starts with radar, then BR starts without radar. As you raise your TrueSkill per playlist (or gain a higher numerical rank ala Halo 3), the matchmaking system should start tailoring different gametypes to different skills. So, if I'm a level 50 in Halo 3, matchmaking should more heavily weight BR starts with no radar or BR starts to my group.

I don't think the exact details of this are ideal, but the fundamentals of it are a good starting point for playlist management. The issue will always be TrueSkill crapping out and dropping higher skilled players down or lifting lower skilled players up. I'm not talking dropping 50s into games with 48s but rather 48s dropping to 40s etc.

 

[kylej]

I don't have to draw the line - Bungie drew it for me. I'm fine with where they drew it. You're not - I get that. But you're telling me what YOU want - they did a bunch of testing, and came up with a compromise that works for a large spectrum of gamers.

Did you ever want bloom reduced?

 

[op_ivy]

What I think could go a long way for the "hardcore" community is more gametypes tailored to them outside of MLG. In Halo 3, even at level 50 Team Slayer, you had to play a Narrows gametype with randomized spawns and AR starts. That shouldn't happen.

I think future Halo games should have "smart" matchmaking. Imagine Team Slayer has a big cauldron of gametypes. You've got AR starts with radar, BR starts with radar, then BR starts without radar. As you raise your TrueSkill per playlist (or gain a higher numerical rank ala Halo 3), the matchmaking system should start tailoring different gametypes to different skills. So, if I'm a level 50 in Halo 3, matchmaking should more heavily weight BR starts with no radar or BR starts to my group.

that would be kind of terrible (for a lot of people) though, as just because you are skilled doesnt mean you want to play BR + no radar.

 

[Der Flatulator]

I'm pretty much like you, Wu. I have a deep understanding of the game, am not particularly good at it, and play for fun.

Me too.

I could go on a rant about less options = better game, but I won't. Devs want the game to play in a specific way.

• 10 people go to an ice-cream shop. There are 3 flavors. Chocolate, Strawberry, and Vanilla. Each of them chose a flavor, 90% of them are happy with their decision after the ice-cream is consumed
• 10 people go to an ice-cream shop. There are 30 flavors. Chocolate, Strawberry, and Vanilla, and every other flavor under the sun ('cept not melted). Each of them chose a flavor, 30% of them are happy with their decision after the ice-cream is consumed, as most of them see another person with a flavor that looks just a little bit better than what they chose.

 

[Bregmann Roche]

that would be kind of terrible (for a lot of people) though, as just because you are skilled doesnt mean you want to play BR + no radar.

You would still theoretically have an out though, either through voting options, OR by jumping into a different playlist. I think kyle's system would be more of a system of refinement rather than creating hard limits on what players could play in matchmaking.

For example: a 50 would have a 5% chance of AR starts, Armor Lock, and radar on Sword Base, while they would have a 40% chance of DMR starts, Sprint only, no radar on Midship 3.0.

 

[CyReN]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2012-e3-2012/730801

 

[Hey You]

Monday, don't miss the fist 10 minutes of Xbox briefing for Halo 4 world premiere. Sneak peek from my visit to 343: http://t.co/c7S5c51v

https://twitter.com/geoffkeighley/statuses/208606590880849920

Edit: damn

 

[thezerofire]

This isn't what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about people who quit playing because they have a series of games where they are carrying their team, points-wise, but are still losing. They think, "what's the point of playing?"

Occasionally, this gets to me, too, but usually I'm perfectly fine trying to do my OWN best - even if my team loses. I'm okay going way the hell negative if my carrying of the objective serves a purpose. I'm okay with my team losing if I've played at my own

I would say this is still an issue of a competitive game or not, not necessarily a win/lose situation. It's not a competitive game if you go +15 and your teammates combine for -26 and you lose. It's frustrating getting a bunch of games where you can't compete despite playing at the top of your game

 

[op_ivy]

You would still theoretically have an out though, either through voting options, OR by jumping into a different playlist. I think kyle's system would be more of a system of refinement rather than creating hard limits on what players could play in matchmaking.

For example: a 50 would have a 5% chance of AR starts, Armor Lock, and radar on Sword Base, while they would have a 40% chance of DMR starts, Sprint only, no radar on Midship 3.0.

ok, down with that, i think.

 

[Poker Face]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2012-e3-2012/730801

hoping it's not just campaign :/

 

[Louis Wu]

Did you ever want bloom reduced?

To be honest, I have more problem with the fact that playlists have different amount of bloom than I do with the actual AMOUNT. I'm fine with full bloom, I'm fine with TU bloom, I'm fine with zero bloom. (I like this the least of the three - but I still like it.) What I have trouble with is adjusting game-to-game.

 

[wwm0nkey]

hoping it's not just campaign :/

I HIGHLY doubt that it is just SP content.

 

[CyReN]

I HIGHLY doubt that it is just SP content.

You will see all 3 next week, just campaign for the live show from the sounds of it.

 

[ElzarTheBam]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2012-e3-2012/730801

 

[Fracas]

Going to spoiler tag it, just in case:

Spoiler

Who is that guy chief is next to multiple times in the vid? And is that a spartan with them? (31 sec mark)

 

[Spawnling]

I just want to be out skilled by another player, not by game mechanics.

 

[CyReN]

Premium quality as usual.

 

[Im_So_Pringles]

E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3!!!

Spoiler

E3!

Edit: Holy shit that screencap looks freaking amazing :O

 

[Genesis Knight]

Regardless of what I think about the MP changes, so far the campaign graphics look excellent.

 

[Havok]

.i still like the idea of no voting at all to ensure a good mix of maps played. and yeah, i remember even in halo 2 sometimes that meant you seemed to play the same map over and over anyways

I'd like to see them experiment with this in select playlists. I think in a lot of ways, the expanded voting has encouraged a sort of all-or-nothing gambling culture where people just try and get the best maps over and over, and end up avoiding certain maps altogether. Then those people don't end up knowing how to play those maps when they end up forced into it through a bad roll and they get more frustrated. I wouldn't have voted for something like Colossus back in the day, not over the other maps in that game, but I'll be damned if I didn't learn how to play it and came to respect it on it's own merits. Right now, I have a hard time playing Boardwalk because I avoid it like the plague. I suspect that if the game forced me to actually learn its tricks, I'd dislike it less. Seems to me like removing the vote makes the process less instantly gratifying, but maybe more rewarding over the lifespan of the game. The H3 veto system might have served the same purpose if it had handled map/gametype distinguishing better, but alas.

 

[Syphon Filter]

Surprised that is how Microsoft wants to kick off the conference, thought they would wait a bit. 10 min is a nice lengthy demo too.