Support NeoGAF

[Tawpgun]

I love sprint because whatever the base speed of the game sometimes you just want to have that extra burst of speed, that little extra oomph. Games without it just feel like they're missing something.

Please no. Not in my Haloz.

 

[Louis Wu]

We need a new term for "hardcore" or not casual. Louis Wu pretty much thinks we want pistola and walshy as project leads

I was actually directing comments SPECIFICALLY at bobs - I've seen him talk about what he likes more in Halo 3, and almost every time he's talked about it, the voice in my head is going 'ew, that's what I HATED'. We just have different things we like about games.

Schooly D posted this in our forum today, in response to a thread about what 'hardcore' actually means. I think it's pretty good.

 

[NullPointer]

Please no. Not in my Haloz.

Master Chief can sprint in the books. nuff said.

 

[Striker]

Master Chief can sprint in the books. nuff said.

He sprinted in Halo 2's campaign getting away from the Covenant. Doesn't mean it should apply to the gameplay.

 

[Hitmonchan107]

Everybody likes winning, but not everyone likes winning using the same weapons or gametypes. The competitive types (like most of HaloGAF) like having the go-to weapon of choice and dominating power weapons, while the social types like having a wider weapon sandbox to enjoy.

It's more than just "play to win" and "play for fun." There's only a few people who have a fun time losing. It's all in how you win and the experiences you have in winning.

People shouldn't be punished for not liking certain things.

And ranks are stressful. Sometimes you just want to hop in and play without consequences, but you'd still like to play in a certain way.

Maybe we shouldn't call it competitive and social, because that's a little bit deceiving.

Let me break down my plan a little more:

Hardcore: (For those who like DMR starts, no AAs, etc.)
Ranked
Not Ranked
Snipers/SWAT

Competitive: (For those who don't mind AR starts, AAs, etc.)
Ranked
Not Ranked

Social:
Grifball
Action Sack

 

[NullPointer]

He sprinted in Halo 2's campaign getting away from the Covenant. Doesn't mean it should apply to the gameplay.

I always get pissed when I see characters do things in cinematics, ads and the like when you can't do them in game. That's just something that urks me personally.

But I'd also say one of the main reasons so many people gave Reach a try was because of sprint.

 

[darthbob]

I always get pissed when I see characters do things in cinematics, ads and the like when you can't do them in game. That's just something that urks me personally.

But I'd also say one of the main reasons so many people gave Reach a try was because of sprint.

I see what you did there.

 

[Havok]

I always get pissed when I see characters do things in cinematics, ads and the like when you can't do them in game. That's just something that urks me personally.

In that case, you must hate this series for not letting you surf down to Earth on a door/space pickle.

 

[Rickenslacker]

I don't like sprint in games. Well, I usually don't play FPS games with sprint because I avoid the "realistic" ones, but in Halo I liked the controlled pace of everyone's movement. I feel that with sprint I want to use it when I have it, and I'm always paranoid of people running up behind me.

 

[The Librarian]

You take the word gimmick as a negative. It's a broken solution when half of the items are mere useless or forbidden.

I'm not taking the word gimmick as anything. I'm trying to get you to describe what is gimmicky about equipment and AAs, and you're not succeeding. In your next sentence, you describe equipment as a "broken solution." A broken solution to what? What was equipment a solution to?

The trip mine even had its difficulties. The only ones that worked the way they were truly intended were bubble, regen, grav lift, and power drainer. Two of those slowed down the gameplay and gave second lives to players who should have died, one had a massive radius in removing EMP, and grav lift was the only one that wasn't problematic. Then there's things like fast respawn timers, multiple amounts, etc.

All you're doing is listing your problems with equipment, and to a greater extent, how they weren't implemented properly. You're not telling me, "Because equipment did X and X, they're gimmicks! And here's why."

Overshield and camo were in neutral spots and spread out in distinct locations. If equipment were utilized this way, I would see your argument. Instead they were placed everywhere and there were no battles whoever who got what, or earned it. That alone makes them different than the original powerups and why they're inferior in design for gameplay purposes.

They were sometimes used this way. Regenerator and bubble shield on Valhalla, trip mine on Avalanche, energy drainer on The Pit. But overall, equipment was treated more like power weapons than power ups, which could be the source of your problem with them. In that case, it's not that they're gimmicks, it's that they weren't implemented properly.

How does the AR work in comparison to dual wielding? You see more people clamoring for BR/DMR starts because the starting weapon (AR) is such a poor one against superior weapons.

Please. There were no more people running trying to find a BR in Halo 2 than there were in Halo 3. Except in Halo 3, you saw less dual-wielding, which was a good thing. The AR in Halo 3 and Reach work just as well, if not better, than dual-wielding SMGs.

It was something that worked. The SMG/PR worked great in close quarters and didn't make a person feel handicapped or helpless against a BR user. They served their purpose, and that's why I liked it.

It didn't work because it hampered two of the three core mechanics in Halo. Any feeling for not being helpless against a BR user (which the AR is great against in close quarters) was probably due to wielding two (2!) guns.

I love sprint because whatever the base speed of the game sometimes you just want to have that extra burst of speed, that little extra oomph. Games without it just feel like they're missing something.

Halo never, never felt like it needed sprint. I think that's one of my main problems with the AA.

 

[cory021]

I'm still surprised Abridged was selected as a winner of the Forgetacular contest and put into matchmaking. It's just another Alaska-Montana map out of 1000s of maps in that same place, and there is nothing special about it.

 

[Havok]

I'm still surprised Abridged was selected as a winner of the Forgetacular contest and put into matchmaking. It's just another Alaska-Montana map out of 1000s of maps in that same place, and there is nothing special about it.

It's especially bad. Does that count?

 

[NullPointer]

In that case, you must hate this series for not letting you surf down to Earth on a door/space pickle.

Pretty much every game is guilty of it, so my hate is graded on a curve.

Halo never, never felt like it needed sprint. I think that's one of my main problems with the AA.

For you core players I don't doubt it. I'm talking about everybody else out there.

 

[senador]

Please no. Not in my Haloz.

Its funny to see things like this. More and more I am seeing that everyone views Halo in very different, but similar ways. Halo is mine too, and I'd love Sprint to stay.

I actually like the more grounded feel of Reach. The slower speed and lower jump height is nice. I feel less floaty and like I have more control. Throw Sprint in and its perfect. I love being able to Sprint jump over things, or clear short distances quickly. I think it leads to interesting encounters since everyone isn't at a constant pace all the time.

If Halo 4 is to return to "roots" (what are the roots? every game has been different), I'd hope that movement is between Reach and 3. I just want the inertia adjusted, so strafing exists again.

For you core players I don't doubt it. I'm talking about everybody else out there.

I'm a core player, I'm not as good as others here though. I never felt like past Halos needed Sprint, but now that I've had it, boy do I love it. I'd accept not having it, or having it tweaked (shorter burst, longer cooldown), but I'd welcome it in Halo 4.

 

[thezerofire]

Its funny to see things like this. More and more I am seeing that everyone views Halo in very different, but similar ways. Halo is mine too, and I'd love Sprint to stay.

I actually like the more grounded feel of Reach. The slower speed and lower jump height is nice. I feel less floaty and like I have more control. Throw Sprint in and its perfect. I love being able to Sprint jump over things, or clear short distances quickly. I think it leads to interesting encounters since everyone isn't at a constant pace all the time.

If Halo 4 is too return to "roots" (what are the roots? every game has been different), I'd hope that movement is between Reach and 3. I just want the inertia adjusted, so strafing exists again.




I'm a core player, I'm not as good as others here though. I never felt like past Halos needed Sprint, but now that I've had it, boy do I love it.

haha I definitely disagree on the staying grounded stuff, I loved working a jump into my strafe. But it does highlight how many different perspectives there are in halo players

 

[darthbob]

If Halo 4 is too return to "roots" (what are the roots? every game has been different), I'd hope that movement is between Reach and 3. I just want the inertia adjusted, so strafing exists again.

I'd imagine that'd be Halo CE.

2 Weapons, 2 Grenade Types, 8 Grenades, no AAs, OP starting weapon, indestructible vehicles, etc.

 

[NullPointer]

I'm a core player, I'm not as good as others here though. I never felt like past Halos needed Sprint, but now that I've had it, boy do I love it.

Yep - we're in the same boat. But on this forum in particular I tend to feel like the odd man out.

 

[senador]

haha I definitely disagree on the staying grounded stuff, I loved working a jump into my strafe. But it does highlight how many different perspectives there are in halo players

Heh, I like to do that too. The main problem for me is not being able to strafe, but I attribute that more to the inertia than movement speed.

In the end its all Halo, and I'll play it. The only thing I'd absolutely want out of future games is hitscan.

 

[Domino Theory]

Yep - we're in the same boat. But on this forum in particular I tend to feel like the odd man out.

I like sprint, but not at the expense of my native movement speed and the fact that there is no delay between coming off sprint and using a CQC weapon/melee (both of which Reach has for the sake of sprinting).

 

[thezerofire]

I like sprint, but not at the expense of my native movement speed and the fact that there is no delay between coming off sprint and using a CQC weapon/melee (both of which Reach has for the sake of sprinting).

that's probably my least favorite part about sprint. leads to too many double-beatdown kills

 

[darthbob]

that's probably my least favorite part about sprint. leads to too many double-beatdown kills

Then use armor lock or evade. :lol

 

[The Librarian]

This may be stupid reasoning, I admit, but another problem I have with sprint is that it seems to say, "Me too!"

 

[Striker]

I'd imagine that'd be Halo CE.

2 Weapons, 2 Grenade Types, 8 Grenades, no AAs, OP starting weapon, indestructible vehicles, etc.

Not entirely. Two weapons, faster base speed, high jumps but just enough gravity, vehicle health tied to the driver, melee bleed through, hitscan, no AA/equipment (whether they tie in some with powerups, that's another discussion), etc.

Please. There were no more people running trying to find a BR in Halo 2 than there were in Halo 3. Except in Halo 3, you saw less dual-wielding, which was a good thing. The AR in Halo 3 and Reach work just as well, if not better, than dual-wielding SMGs.

I'm not repeating what I said, and you just say the usual shit. Rinse and repeat. Moving on.

BR starts were about the same, perhaps more in Halo 2 because of larger maps. There wasn't a dedicated sticky on Bnet for SMG/BR like there was for the AR. It was a poor starting weapon because outside help from a melee or grenade, you were going to get killed unless the other player was using a spiker or magnum. Against a superior weapon, it was a handicapped weapon without any help. A SMG/PR user is capable of taking down multiple players and BR users without the help of any grenades or melee. It's a much stronger weapon in close quarters, really not even close to me and I've had to use both considering I played mostly Team Skirmish in Halo 2 and Team Objective in Halo 3. The Reach AR is stronger in close quarters, but still not to the degree of a consistent multi-kill weapon.

Most common kills in Halo 3 resulted in AR spray and melee. If you find that fun, we're on different wavelengths.

 

[feel]

Sprint is not necesary with a fast base speed. Sucks not being able to plan if you should engage an unaware enemy with the four/five shot, or let him go and get a better drop on him based on how far he is from the nearest cover, knowing exactly how long it will take him to get there. So stupid seeing people run away like pussies when they're being dominated in a fight. Just nuke it out of Halo along with other AAs. Keep hologram, make into some sort of limited uses pick-up, that one's awesome.


edit-

V V V

wow how could I forget the worst thing, people hiding with swords/hammers and then rushing at you while you backpedal at half the speed... uuuggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh kill it 343, kill it!​

 

[The Real Napsta]

The only reason Reach needs sprint is because the base player speed is so damn slow.

Sprint is my favorite armor ability, i use it almost exclusively. (love abusing evade though)

I don't want sprint in Halo 4, I want fast(er) base player speeds.

Sprint just breaks too many things:

Sprint and double beat
sprint and sword
sprint and hammer
sprint and shotgun

 

[Risen]

This is good stuff.

YOU, I'd buy a game from.

LOL! Now if only 343 would consult me for Halo 4 Multi-player!

As an aside:

Anyone up for some games?

 

[ElRenoRaven]

I'd imagine that'd be Halo CE.

2 Weapons, 2 Grenade Types, 8 Grenades, no AAs, OP starting weapon, indestructible vehicles, etc.

I wouldn't mind that to be honest. Honestly Halo 3 I felt was perfect except the equipment and the damn Spartan laser. It made vehicles useless. Just bring back the fall damage Give the rocket limited lock on for air vehicles only and in my opinion that would be the perfect Halo after you also added a toggle for indestructable vehicles if the gamers want it.

Sometimes you really don't have to change things. I do think that every game it's been changed just for the sake of change.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

In spite of me being one of the "hardcore" - and my post above... I agree in as much as an entire game centered around a fractional subset of the population likely fails - for the very reasons you outline. It's perfect logic...

and yet in a game where a developer listens to hardcore folks, there will be things more casual players aren't even aware are a problem until matched against higher skilled folks will be fixed. There is nothing in your opinion that can't be fixed with proper matchmaking, proper playlist apportionment, and proper playlist content.

And nothing but benefit to the casual players in truly hearing and responding to the hardcore community... not to the extent that a game is created solely for the hardcore, merely to the extent that imbalance issues are fixed before they drive away a population, and to the extent that likes are truly placed with likes in game types they wish to be placed within.

At the end of the day it is ever only a problem of perspective. Your reply above didn't go far enough...

The hardcore saying "that doesn't work" says so and follows with "because":

Bloom doesn't work because it increases the connection gap more than the skill gap.

The spawn system doesn't work because of x map geometry.

That map doesn't work because it does not encourage movement and has an area that once controlled ends the game.

And so on...

The typical casual player says "I don't like that" - not because of an inability to see any of the above, but because their perspective is not as fine tuned as the hardcore. Neither are wrong in any way.

A game centered entirely around either will not be enjoyed be either party, however, a game where the developer listens to the hardcore can indeed be made better for all.

This is kind of my point. I wish I could clarify my opinion to this degree.

I was actually directing comments SPECIFICALLY at bobs - I've seen him talk about what he likes more in Halo 3, and almost every time he's talked about it, the voice in my head is going 'ew, that's what I HATED'. We just have different things we like about games.

I agree with you here, there are things I dislike about Reach SIMPLY because they go against what I enjoyed about Halo 3 but I hope you haven't misjudged me here. I enjoyed Social Halo 3 a lot, and I enjoyed the more casual experience. I feel like im stuck in the middle, in that I can have fun in just about any mode of Halo 3 except Grifball . Im quite interested in getting into specifics? I know that I am quite clear that I dislike bloom and that I LOVE clinical gameplay, im much more about the BR than I am about the AR but thats not to say I dont have fun mucking about with a pro pipe.

As far a the bar chart goes, I kinda think I fit into all of those boxes, it really does depend who I am playing with.

I get the feeling we are on totally different wavelengths in terms of what we are discussing here. You seem to be saying that the game should be designed for the casual crowd and that new additions are good, even if they dont please the hardcores. I am kind of agreeing with you, but saying that any new additions need to be strong enough to still appease the hardcore following. At the end of the day its all about brand identity, and the core experience is critical to that, if a Halo game doesnt give me that Halo experience at its core then I might aswell be playing any other game.

 

[xxjuicesxx]

Again Wu, you just argued the games success has to be purely business arguing against my point but providing no real proof. which it does not. Yes a company has to make some money but after that there is many different incentives. Intrinsic/Extrinsic values and the such, there's something you actually learn in business school.

Furthermore, you didn't present anything that shows that casuals won't play any settings given because they DO care, because they don't care. I see this a lot too that players with guests don't even actually vote, I see it quite a bit actually. So catering to hardcore players would prove a better result since both groups would then be happy.

 

[NullPointer]

So catering to hardcore players would prove a better result since both groups would then be happy.

That's a rare feat, and for the life of me I'm having trouble coming up with examples of that working out.

The only game I can think of on the consoles that managed to balance hardcore and casuals was COD4. Of course there will be endless bitching regardless, but its an almost impossible tightrope to walk.

 

[Rickenslacker]

That's a rare feat, and for the life of me I'm having trouble coming up with examples of that working out.

The only game I can think of on the consoles that managed to balance hardcore and casuals was COD4. Of course there will be endless bitching regardless, but its an almost impossible tightrope to walk.

Halo CE/2?

 

[darthbob]

Halo CE/2?

lolno

Pistol in Halo CE isn't really a casual weapon, and in Halo 2, there is a good distinction between casual and hardcore: SMG vs BR

 

[NullPointer]

Halo CE/2?

Maybe. I'm not as sure as others here that those games would work out so well if they released nowadays (all other things being equal). But you're probably right - I wasn't too into multiplayer on the consoles at the time.

I do miss Halo 2's big team battle though. I sucked to high hell, but it was always a fun romp.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

That's a rare feat, and for the life of me I'm having trouble coming up with examples of that working out.

The only game I can think of on the consoles that managed to balance hardcore and casuals was COD4. Of course there will be endless bitching regardless, but its an almost impossible tightrope to walk.

Halo 3 did it pretty well from my point of view. Sure there was that dodgy grey area with second accounters ruining low level matchmaking, but whenever I went to a friends house and watched them play Halo 3 it seemed perfectly tuned for them. I think the problem is that beyond the extreme casual level where players are starting to use the BR and starting to get a little competative matchmaking broke down, but in very high terms the casual/ hardcore divide worked pretty well in Halo 3.

Infact it almost worked too well, im sure that style of gameplay put some casual players off initially. I know I have friends who didnt really enjoy Halo until I showed them the BR and explained that it was a 4 shot kill blah blah blah, it was almost like they had been playing a totally different game.

 

[Louis Wu]

I get the feeling we are on totally different wavelengths in terms of what we are discussing here. You seem to be saying that the game should be designed for the casual crowd and that new additions are good, even if they dont please the hardcores.

lol - we're DEFINITELY talking on different wavelengths.

I haven't been talking at ALL about how the game should be designed - I've been talking about WHY certain decisions are made, and whose opinions count most when making them.

NONE of this is about my personal opinion (other than my statement that I enjoy Reach).

I enjoyed Halo 3, as well. I just didn't play quite as much of it as I play of Reach. (5500 games over 3 years, vs 3200 games in 10 months.)

I think new additions are NECESSARY if you're going to get people to buy your game - otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep playing the old one? I don't know if they're good or bad - I think some are good and some are bad, but that's irrelevant, really, to the point that they NEED to be included.

And I think the casual gamer needs to be grabbed out of the gate, or he's lost, while the hardcore fan can be TAUGHT what's good about your game over time, because he's going to stick around long enough to learn it. Again - this doesn't say that one group is better than the other - only that one has to TREAT them differently.

My comments about your likes and dislikes (as I understand them) are a complete side topic to all this. I wish I could remember details, now; I'd have to go back and look at old posts of yours, and that's much harder without the built-in GAF search functions. I just remember that each time you discussed it, I had a pretty visceral reaction to your comments.

 

[Rickenslacker]

lolno

Pistol in Halo CE isn't really a casual weapon, and in Halo 2, there is a good distinction between casual and hardcore: SMG vs BR

That doesn't mean that the game doesn't appeal to both crowds. How can you disagree that a game can get as big as Halo did without it? I'm a self-proclaimed casual and I love the pistol. In fact the power of it and the way you start with it makes it even more casual friendly, you don't have to learn the maps intricately and start with a weapon you can kill with.

 

[thezerofire]

lolno

Pistol in Halo CE isn't really a casual weapon, and in Halo 2, there is a good distinction between casual and hardcore: SMG vs BR

yeah but there are places for all of halo's weapons in CE. a shotgun will beat a pistol at point blank range every time. a sniper can take out someone with a pistol at a range where you can barely see each other.

and if everyone sucks with a pistol, everyone is still equal

 

[The Librarian]

BR starts were about the same, perhaps more in Halo 2 because of larger maps. There wasn't a dedicated sticky on Bnet for SMG/BR like there was for the AR.

I don't understand what that means or how it is relevant.

It was a poor starting weapon because outside help from a melee or grenade,

Whether or not it was a poor starting weapon, that was the whole point of the AR: To make players use grenades and melee more.

you were going to get killed unless the other player was using a spiker or magnum.

I'm assuming you're talking about close quarters here. If not, you would get owned with an SMG even more so against the BR and Carbine at medium range than with an AR. Close quarters, the AR was quite effective against the Carbine and BR in Halo 3, and it's even more effective in close range in Reach.

Against a superior weapon, it was a handicapped weapon without any help.

Ignoring the fact that this can be applied to many other weapons in the Halo sandbox, this describes the SMG (dual wield or no) as well.

A SMG/PR user is capable of taking down multiple players and BR users without the help of any grenades or melee.

Are you purposefully misremembering the game? Because I never, nor ever saw people in my time playing Halo 2, went on killing sprees regularly with only the SMG and the pistol. They're not multi-kill weapons; they're too slow, weak, and imprecise. It didn't happen (unless you were going up against really bad players). It takes a considerable amount of ammo and time to kill three people with dual wield SMGs at very close range.

It's a much stronger weapon in close quarters, really not even close to me and I've had to use both considering I played mostly Team Skirmish in Halo 2 and Team Objective in Halo 3.The Reach AR is stronger in close quarters, but still not to the degree of a consistent multi-kill weapon.

I never played much TO or Team Skirmish, I don't think, but in the games I played I felt more confident with the AR in Halo 3 than the SMG in Halo 2.

Most common kills in Halo 3 resulted in AR spray and melee. If you find that fun, we're on different wavelengths.

Did it not take 3 melee kills to kill someone in Halo 2? If only took two like in Halo 3, you would've seen the same thing with the SMG. And if you're right that the SMG in Halo 2 was a stronger close quarters weapon, you probably would have seen more of it.

 

[darthbob]

That doesn't mean that the game doesn't appeal to both crowds. How can you disagree that a game can get as big as Halo did without it? I'm a self-proclaimed casual and I love the pistol. In fact the power of it and the way you start with it makes it even more casual friendly, you don't have to learn the maps intricately and start with a weapon you can kill with.

In this regard, Halo CE works well when everyone is on the same skill level then.

People good with the pistol will trounce people who aren't entirely skilled at the game. Every. Single. Time.

It creates a dynamic where it's not fun for people with different skill gaps to play with each other. Hence, TrueSkill is needed, and then we get to the excellent game that is Halo 3.

 

[Havok]

I know I have friends who didnt really enjoy Halo until I showed them the BR and explained that it was a 4 shot kill blah blah blah, it was almost like they had been playing a totally different game.

This is a problem with the way the games have taught weapon mechanics to new players. There is zero official documentation within the game to teach players to always have a headshot-capable weapon, to use plasma to strip shields, the way that frags arm, the melee shield delimiter, etc. There should be a new players' guide in the start menu, with FMV assistance that just shows people the basics behind the shield and weapon/melee mechanics. The lack of any system like this (no, the manual doesn't count, because we've been conditioned by 3-page black and white legal spiel manuals that manuals are worthless this generation) has led to all sorts of misconceptions about the game. The AR rush is something that's been touted by journalists who aren't familiar with mid-to-high level play as a staple of the series. That could all go away. If there's anything that this generation's shooters have taught us, it's that new kids need to be spoonfed information or else they take the easy way out.

Are you purposefully misremembering the game? Because I never, nor ever saw people in my time playing Halo 2, went on killing sprees regularly with only the SMG and the pistol. They're not multi-kill weapons; they're too slow, weak, and imprecise. It didn't happen (unless you were going up against really bad players). It takes a considerable amount of ammo and time to kill three people with dual wield SMGs at very close range.

An SMG/Plasma Rifle combo was really very powerful, especially before the 1.1 update. Three players would be pushing it, but two was absolutely doable without reloading. I don't think that the SMG was a perfect starting weapon, and it caused a bunch of issues, but neither was the AR. In a nutshell, forcing spawning players to use grenades and melee doesn't work well in practice, because those guys pinging them with BRs have those same grenades and melee at their disposal along with a vastly superior weapon. It's a kind of busted system with no easy solution.

 

[Devin Olsen]

I was actually directing comments SPECIFICALLY at bobs - I've seen him talk about what he likes more in Halo 3, and almost every time he's talked about it, the voice in my head is going 'ew, that's what I HATED'. We just have different things we like about games.

Schooly D posted this in our forum today, in response to a thread about what 'hardcore' actually means. I think it's pretty good.

I would LOVE to see where he gets his numbers from. I highly, highly doubt that the five groups split so evenly as he has illustrated in his little pyramid.

 

[NullPointer]

How can you disagree that a game can get as big as Halo did without it?

There's more to Halo's success than the gameplay formula. They also set the standard for console FPS controls and conventions and had timing on their side.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I would LOVE to see where he gets his numbers from. I highly, highly doubt that the five groups split so evenly as he has illustrated in his little pyramid.

I think the intent is not to be precise, but rather to convey a general sense of proportionality. I'd make tweaks here and there - my top segments would be a wee bit bigger - but I think he's still pretty close to the mark.

 

[Domino Theory]

lolno

Pistol in Halo CE isn't really a casual weapon, and in Halo 2, there is a good distinction between casual and hardcore: SMG vs BR

A weapon doesn't dictate its distinction as casual or hardcore. Casual players love powerful weapons just as much as hardcore players do. And I used dual SMGs a lot in Halo 2 because it was effective at close range, that doesn't make me a casual player.

 

[Rickenslacker]

In this regard, Halo CE works well when everyone is on the same skill level then.

People good with the pistol will trounce people who aren't entirely skilled at the game. Every. Single. Time.

It creates a dynamic where it's not fun for people with different skill gaps to play with each other. Hence, TrueSkill is needed, and then we get to the excellent game that is Halo 3.

Competition is always relative and that's why I like competitive games. But I mean that these iterations of Halo are what the hardcore contingent enjoy the most, and there wasn't a single Halo game that didn't appeal to casuals.

There's more to Halo's success than the gameplay formula. They also set the standard for console FPS controls and conventions and had timing on their side.

I think there's way more to it than that. There was TimeSplitters a year before Halo and on a more popular console, the PS2. I would say the conventions they set a standard for on the console space are due to its gameplay formula. You're right though, right time and right place. Still, it's undeniable that the game jived with the casuals. It would be impossible to have that kind of explosive success without them.

 

[Rickenslacker]

DP

 

[thezerofire]

I think there's way more to it than that. There was TimeSplitters a year before Halo and on a more popular console, the PS2. I would say the conventions they set a standard for on the console space are due to its gameplay formula. You're right though, right time and right place. Still, it's undeniable that the game jived with the casuals. It would be impossible to have that kind of explosive success without them.

Speaking as a casual myself during Halo CE, we had no idea what the shit we were doing. We couldn't aim right, move around right, none of that. But we learned how, because we were forced to. Once someone got good with a pistol, everyone had to get good with it to keep up. Now, however, you never need to really get good with a DMR to be decent at Reach. There is nothing to force you to get better. My two cents on the matter.

 

[Kuroyume]

Sprint doesn't work well in Halo as long as you have that retarded melee lock on.

Playing classic gives you a good idea of how much better it would be to move around if they went back to what it was in the older games. It's really obnoxious how they've stripped away the speed and replaced it with new vehicles (like the mongoose), mancannons, and sprint to account for change. Really want to see that change with Halo 4.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

lol - we're DEFINITELY talking on different wavelengths.

I haven't been talking at ALL about how the game should be designed - I've been talking about WHY certain decisions are made, and whose opinions count most when making them.

NONE of this is about my personal opinion (other than my statement that I enjoy Reach).

I enjoyed Halo 3, as well. I just didn't play quite as much of it as I play of Reach. (5500 games over 3 years, vs 3200 games in 10 months.)

I think new additions are NECESSARY if you're going to get people to buy your game - otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep playing the old one? I don't know if they're good or bad - I think some are good and some are bad, but that's irrelevant, really, to the point that they NEED to be included.

And I think the casual gamer needs to be grabbed out of the gate, or he's lost, while the hardcore fan can be TAUGHT what's good about your game over time, because he's going to stick around long enough to learn it. Again - this doesn't say that one group is better than the other - only that one has to TREAT them differently.

My comments about your likes and dislikes (as I understand them) are a complete side topic to all this. I wish I could remember details, now; I'd have to go back and look at old posts of yours, and that's much harder without the built-in GAF search functions. I just remember that each time you discussed it, I had a pretty visceral reaction to your comments.

WHY certain decisions are made, and whose opinions count most when making them.

This is the central key point to the whole discussion, and sure it makes business sense to cater for the mass market If I had my money on the line and a product as sellable as Halo I would absolutely cater for the mass market.

The issue I personally have with Reach is, I feel that it diluted the brand a little, it doesnt provide me with what I play Halo for to the extent that I would like. Thats where me and you totally differ, and just to be clear even if I haven't explicitly stated it, of course all of my posts are simply my own opinions. I know your trying to avoid going down that road in this conversation but at the end of the day when designing something like Reach and deciding on who to cater for its opinions that are important. By that I mean you have to understand the different subset of opinions when designing your game to cater for a specific audience.

Now, I am going to branch out and say that Reach rocked the boat, not only on GAF and I know that personally a lot of the guys I know are only into Reach primarily for the ranking up rat race. I am not going to say that this is evidence that Reach went too far, maybe the online forums are just the vocal minority. The problem is though, when even the loyal fans are saying the changes went too far you risk losing those guys for projects down the road. When you say that Reach is catering for the mass market is that for the right reasons? Sure its making money but is it a good quality product or is it just taking advantage of the gamers love of filling up bars?

I do feel though that the casual fan would have been pleased with Reach even if they didn’t quite veer from the traditional formulae as much. Now that’s not to say I don’t agree with you, the mass market do need more eye candy to bring them in but I feel as though you cant just treat the hardcore crowd as animals who will keep coming back for the next piece of meat. You have to keep some sort of consistency to the experience or you risk losing them. As a business it may not actually hurt to lose a vocal minority, but just purely typing this as a fan im hoping that’s not how they think. I really dont believe that a hardcore fan will be happy to learn the new mechanics and stay for the long run if he doesn't enjoy those new mechanics.

I think new additions are NECESSARY if you're going to get people to buy your game - otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep playing the old one? I don't know if they're good or bad - I think some are good and some are bad, but that's irrelevant, really, to the point that they NEED to be included.

New additions absolutely need to be included, but they also absolutely need to be good additions, otherwise you are potentially mixing bad eggs into the sandbox which will just drag the quality down. Again, if your ambition is just to make money, flashy additions do the trick, but if you actually care about the quality of the gameplay you want to add stuff that’s going to work well within the sandbox. Sure people want to advance and have new stuff to play with, but if that stuff is rotten then moving forward isnt going to be much fun. Halo 3 equipment in my opinion was fun, and I was quite happy to play with them, AA's are not so much fun and so I dont enjoy them. Moving forward just for the sake of it isnt always the best option.

Im kinda disappointed that my opinions can have that opinion on anyone Wu, as much as I love my competitive Halo im pretty happy with a causal experience, I guess we just totally differ in what that means to us?

 

[The Librarian]

An SMG/Plasma Rifle combo was really very powerful, especially before the 1.1 update. Three players would be pushing it, but two was absolutely doable without reloading. I don't think that the SMG was a perfect starting weapon, and it caused a bunch of issues, but neither was the AR. In a nutshell, forcing spawning players to use grenades and melee doesn't work well in practice, because those guys pinging them with BRs have those same grenades and melee at their disposal along with a vastly superior weapon. It's a kind of busted system with no easy solution.

Fair enough all around. I was looking at the game at how it ended up (i.e., around 2006 and onward). I have no experience with the game prior to the 1.1 update. It may have been true that you could go on with multi-kills while dual wielding when the game first came out, but that's now how it was at the end of its life.

I guess it comes down to what problems you prefer over others. From what we've been discussing, Reach's starting combo works the best.