Support NeoGAF

[Im_So_Pringles]

One of the things I love about the level "Halo" is the fact that all the level's skyboxes are loaded from the start, and they're pretty easy to find. :lol



Yes, this is where all cutscenes take place. Kind of disappointing at first, huh? :lol

Somehow, though, the ones from the start of the level are proving a lot more elusive than the ones from the ending.

Woah woah woah. How do you do this? I'd love to be able to do this myself. This kind of stuff is like porn for 3D artsists.

 

[MrBig]

Reflection was probably the wrong word. The way the visors shine and glisten in Halo 3 looks way better than how dull and flat they look in Reach.

They're all just cube maps. Instead of going for the Halo 3 route of taking an HDR cubemap of each specific map for the visor reflection they went the halo 1 route and just did a generic gloss thing. It's outdated and ugly, but H3's isn't any better. There's no way for the 360 to render SSR for 16 visors at once so that won't be happening this gen.

 

[stephen08]

If I don't intend on winning, then why am I playing?

Spoiler

Fun!

FTFY

Playing competitively should be intuitive with map design, weapon choices, spawning etc. If the game inspires camping, that's a problem with the design. If the game makes it too easy to control an area with skewed spawning, that's a problem with the design. If the game doesn't balance out the weapons, that's a problem with the design.

One can have fun and desire a more competitive well thought out game. They are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah it's best if the most competitively viable strategy is also the most fun, but it's not in some cases so what do you do? If your answer is to have less fun in order to win the match then I feel bad for you.

 

[xxjuicesxx]

Trying to dong, get the fuck on Halo people.

 

[Booshka]

Need 2 or 3 for TS and SS respectively. Send message to Booshka for an invite.

 

[wwm0nkey]

Trying to dong, get the fuck on Halo people.

No I want to complain about it more

(would get on but my tritton to controller wire crapped out and I have to order a new one)

 

[feel]

I'm up for Halo 3 customs on Saturday if forge maps are kept somewhat to a minimum.

Sometimes when I read GAF I get this sinking really depressing feeling that all of you have trophy cabinets full of little ass short participation trophies and not a single one that says #1.

And yours has no trophies at all because all you cared about was about excelling at bad videogames against lower skilled competitors.

 

[Devolution]

Yeah it's best if the most competitively viable strategy is also the most fun, but it's not in some cases so what do you do? If your answer is to have less fun in order to win the match then I feel bad for you.

I don't but we've hit a generation that is more likely to play in a sort of cheap but win-gratifying way, then one that plays to play. It's not just a Reach thing either. Go play a fighter online and tell me how fun that is with all the turtling and such. If a game doesn't specifically have ways to balance that out, then there's not much a decent player who doesn't want to deal with that shit can do.

 

[Plywood]

Reflection was probably the wrong word. The way the visors shine and glisten in Halo 3 looks way better than how dull and flat they look in Reach.

Oh then I agree.

 

[thezerofire]

Guys, you're arguing about what's fun with a guy who never got a 45 in Halo 3. There is no way you guys will be able to relate. He clearly doesn't share the same view of what's fun as you.

 

[stephen08]

Guys, you're arguing about what's fun with a guy who never got a 45 in Halo 3 and has a video named Armor Lock in his fileshare. There is no way you guys will be able to relate.

Did you watch the video?

I don't but we've hit a generation that is more likely to play in a sort of cheap but win-gratifying way, then one that plays to play. It's not just a Reach thing either. Go play a fighter online and tell me how fun that is with all the turtling and such. If a game doesn't specifically have ways to balance that out, then there's not much a decent player who doesn't want to deal with that shit can do.

This is exactly why I DON'T play fighters online against anyone but friends who I know won't do that. The majority of the time you are playing against a bunch of people thrown together. Camping lifts and shit is not essential to winning.

 

[thezerofire]

Did you watch the video?

I didn't, thanks for keeping me honest. I'll go edit that now. My first point still stands, however.

 

[Plywood]

Guys, you're arguing

That about sums it up.

Six OT's full of complaints.

Six!

 

[Farooq]

Reach is the best Halo MP game maps notwithstanding. It has it's flaws just like every other game in the series but they are getting overblown.

Stephen you can't say the issues with Reach are over blown.

If that were the case why would a newly configured developer spend precious resources (even if it was 1-2 dev's) on a TU?

I would think developing Halo 4 would be enough of a challenge for any developer let alone a team that has somewhat been recently put together.

The issues are there, they have been discussed to death. On B.net there is a topic everyday about armour lock, bloom or whatever other changes Bungie made to the formula. The OT thread here the topic has been discussed numerous times over and over again.

There is dissent, and there are issues. I don't see how you can say they are overblown.

 

[Karl2177]

Did you watch the video?

That video just pissed me the fuck off.

I'm down for H3 customs.

 

[senador]

Guys, you're arguing about what's fun with a guy who never got a 45 in Halo 3. There is no way you guys will be able to relate.

Bah, I hate this type of attitude. I never got that high either. So I don't get to post about what's fun or get to have an opinion?

This is why I don't care for ranks.

 

[Tunavi]

I can't wait for CEA.

 

[vhfive]

That about sums it up.

Six OT's full of complaints.

Six!

and it shows no sign of slowing either

 

[The Librarian]

and it shows no sign of slowing either

Luckily we have GAF or we'd overwhelm the Waypoint forums. :lol

 

[Rickenslacker]

I don't but we've hit a generation that is more likely to play in a sort of cheap but win-gratifying way, then one that plays to play. It's not just a Reach thing either. Go play a fighter online and tell me how fun that is with all the turtling and such. If a game doesn't specifically have ways to balance that out, then there's not much a decent player who doesn't want to deal with that shit can do.

I love playing fighters, but I don't care what a person's playstyle is. A person's playstyle is never an issue, but rather it's the game's problem for allowing it. In fighting games, anything goes, that's how you build the metagame, that's how you learn matchups, that's how you get better, that's how the game has depth.

But yeah, on the other hand there's nothing wrong with using anything at your disposal within the game to give you an advantage over the enemy. The thing here is it's just a shitty map for how one dimensional it is because of that.

 

[Stinkles]

Guys, you're arguing about what's fun with a guy who never got a 45 in Halo 3. There is no way you guys will be able to relate.

I never got to a 45 in Halo 3. And I know what's fun. The game requires a broad spectrum of players to enjoy it and for it to be enjoyable. The game needs to be fun and satisfying for "bad kids" as well as MLG Pros. It needs to appropriately match players with each other so that each is having the most enjoyable experience practical.

 

[thezerofire]

Bah, I hate this type of attitude. I never got that high either. So I don't get to post about what's fun or get to have an opinion?

This is why I don't care for ranks.

My point wasn't about how good or not he is, he played more uncompetitive games than he did competitive games, and so doesn't play the same way as people who prefer competitiveness.

I never got to a 45 in Halo 3. And I know what's fun. The game requires a broad spectrum of players to enjoy it and for it to be enjoyable. The game needs to be fun and satisfying for "bad kids" as well as MLG Pros. It needs to appropriately match players with each other so that each is having the most enjoyable experience practical.

Again, my point wasn't about how good he was, but about what he focused on. It was unclear I see.

 

[Gui_PT]

That about sums it up.

Six OT's full of complaints.

Six!

Someone should've made a Tshirt that said something like that for the neogaf store.

 

[Devolution]

This is exactly why I DON'T play fighters online against anyone but friends who I know won't do that. The majority of the time you are playing against a bunch of people thrown together. Camping lifts and shit is not essential to winning.

It can be given the circumstances. On a map like Swordbase the only way up is either the lifts or the ramps (which you can easily be team shot on). The blue spawns are the most atrocious I've seen in Reach. One is in the computer room, your only option really is one of the lifts, probably yellow. Or the other spawn which I don't recall the name of, but is underneath shotty, the options there are also open ramps or the yellow lift. And to get to the yellow lift, you even have to cross one of the open ramps. Couple this with the windows protecting the upper floors and you can't even nade people out.

It is not what I would consider a map with good flow or good spawns.

 

[wwm0nkey]

I never got to a 45 in Halo 3. And I know what's fun. The game requires a broad spectrum of players to enjoy it and for it to be enjoyable. The game needs to be fun and satisfying for "bad kids" as well as MLG Pros. It needs to appropriately match players with each other so that each is having the most enjoyable experience practical.

Trying to cater to both audiences must be a bitch lol

 

[stephen08]

I didn't, thanks for keeping me honest. I'll go edit that now. My first point still stands, however.

The 45? The vast majority of my games in Halo 3 were in Social specifically because of how much trash there was in ranked lists. Second accounts, the way the skill progressed etc.

Social was a much more enjoyable experience.

I would say the opinion to discard here is yours because you place so much value in 1 point of skill. So much so, that it's not worth arguing with people who don't meet that requirement. You hit 47. That's a world of difference from 44 right?

 

[thezerofire]

Again, to clear things up, as I wasn't clear the first time. For the people arguing with Stephen (myself included), you are of a different population than he is. You guys find different things fun. Trying to convince each other that the other's view is invalid is pointless. Some of us have complaints. Some of us don't.

The 45? The vast majority of my games in Halo 3 were in Social specifically because of how much trash there was in ranked lists. Second accounts, the way the skill progressed etc.

Social was a much more enjoyable experience.

I would say the opinion to discard here is yours because you place so much value in 1 point of skill. So much so, that it's not worth arguing with people who don't meet that requirement. You hit 47. That's a world of difference from 44 right?

Trust me, I know that. Hence why I never hit 50. I spent a good amount in Social Slayer too. And yeah, it wasn't a straight scale from 1-50. Things got significantly harder after 40, and specifically after 45.

 

[Farooq]

I never got to a 45 in Halo 3. And I know what's fun. The game requires a broad spectrum of players to enjoy it and for it to be enjoyable. The game needs to be fun and satisfying for "bad kids" as well as MLG Pros. It needs to appropriately match players with each other so that each is having the most enjoyable experience practical.

But when designing the core MP experience, what is your philosphy?

Do you design the game to have some depth? Or do you design the game to be accessible?

The two aren't mutually exclusive but there is a balance that has to met.

A highly competitive core MP can still have grifball and rocket race.

 

[Devolution]

I'm of the opinion it's easier to dumb a game down, then bring it up to competitive levels. I think the game should be designed around competition first. Then dumb said stuff down for other playlists. I'm sorry I used the word "dumb" it makes it sound inferior, it's not, but I hope you get what I mean.

 

[Rickenslacker]

I'm of the opinion it's easier to dumb a game down, then bring it up to competitive levels. I think the game should be designed around competition first. Then dumb said stuff down for other playlists. I'm sorry I used the word "dumb" it makes it sound inferior, it's not, but I hope you get what I mean.

Totally. I brought it up a long while back but look at Quake 3. Or even Counter-Strike, it allows for extremely high levels of competition while people can just mindlessly pub de_dust and have a casual time that way.

 

[Ramirez]

Sometimes when I read GAF I get this sinking really depressing feeling that all of you have trophy cabinets full of little ass short participation trophies and not a single one that says #1.

Dawg, my MVP plaque is displayed proudly back at my moms house, don't hate!

 

[squidhands]

what no

Reach wishes it could have Isolation, Snowbound, Epitaph or Orbital.

Armor Lock Party in the shotgun cave!

Honestly, I would take any of those maps in Reach.

Jesus... careful there. I would rather have a belly full of white dog crap over that.

Slower speed and jump height would make the map play much differently in Reach. Orbital was ahead of it's time, lol.

 

[senador]

My point wasn't about how good or not he is, he played more uncompetitive games than he did competitive games, and so doesn't play the same way as people who prefer competitiveness.

Gotcha. I get what you mean now, but the way you said it still doesn't seem right. A person who only got a 20 could still argue the same things you and others are arguing, he just didn't have the means to get to 45. Heh. This doesn't change the fact that I don't like ranks for similar reasons. I sucked at Halo 3 though, so whatever.

What do you mean by the grade 4 thing though?

 

[Ramirez]

Gotcha. I get what you mean now, but the way you said it still doesn't seem right. A person who only got a 20 could still argue the same things you and others are arguing, he just didn't have the means to get to 45. Heh. This doesn't change the fact that I don't like ranks for similar reasons. I sucked at Halo 3 though, so whatever.

What do you mean by the grade 4 thing though?

The bars of shame probably.

 

[Karl2177]

Gotcha. I get what you mean now, but the way you said it still doesn't seem right. A person who only got a 20 could still argue the same things you and others are arguing, he just didn't have the means to get to 45. Heh. This doesn't change the fact that I don't like ranks for similar reasons.

That would be me. I could give a fuck less about rank number in H3, but that doesn't mean I couldn't play a competitive game.

I'd love for rank to make a return to glory, but make it more akin to Starcraft 2's team ranking system. I'm Gold 4v4 random(meaning I went in alone for those that don't play), but I have a specific 4v4 team that's Silver.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Gotcha. I get what you mean now, but the way you said it still doesn't seem right. A person who only got a 20 could still argue the same things you and others are arguing, he just didn't have the means to get to 45. Heh. This doesn't change the fact that I don't like ranks for similar reasons. I sucked at Halo 3 though, so whatever.

What do you mean by the grade 4 thing though?

I posted this opinion on another forum and got a lot of hate for it, but im going to post it here anyway. In my opinion if you are a level 20 and you only play other level 20's in matchmaking. Then how would you know what the playstyle is like at level 45? In my opinion the game changes drastically when you move into the higher ranks. You literally haven't experianced the full spectrum of the game if you have never progressed past level 20. I have friends who never got past 20ish and when I watch the gameplay at theyre house its horrendous, its just AR's rushing eachother without any thought to tactics.

 

[Ken]

Do you design the game to have some depth? Or do you design the game to be accessible?

A game should be accessible enough for the majority of gamers to easily grasp and have fun with for a few weeks or months, but also include depth for players who want to play on a more competitive level for many months or years.

Unfortunately, the latter seems to have fallen out of some games for "business reasons" (Ghost Recon).

 

[thezerofire]

Gotcha. I get what you mean now, but the way you said it still doesn't seem right. A person who only got a 20 could still argue the same things you and others are arguing, he just didn't have the means to get to 45. Heh. This doesn't change the fact that I don't like ranks for similar reasons.

The point that I'm bringing up, and no one likes to acknowledge, is that there is a significant population disconnect from 1-44 and 45-and-up in Halo 3. In general (I cannot stress that enough) people below 45 were the ones who saw nothing wrong with AR starts and stuff like that. They play less competitive gametypes more than competitive gametypes. As an effect, it was usually people 45+ who had better understanding of the base way Halo 3 played, without custom settings.

I'm not trying to make this elitist, but I can't help which side of the population I'm on. There's room for both. I just don't think the two can really relate.

I posted this opinion on another forum and got a lot of hate for it, but im going to post it here anyway. In my opinion if you are a level 20 and you only play other level 20's in matchmaking. Then how would you know what the playstyle is like at level 45? In my opinion the game changes drastically when you move into the higher ranks. You literally haven't experianced the full spectrum of the game if you have never progressed past level 20. I have friends who never got past 20ish and when I watch the gameplay at theyre house its horrendous, its just AR's rushing eachother without any thought to tactics.

This too.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Slower speed and jump height would make the map play much differently in Reach. Orbital was ahead of it's time, lol.

Imagine Reach's grenades and player traits on Orbital. It would be...interesting.

 

[Devolution]

Sometimes when I read GAF I get this sinking really depressing feeling that all of you have trophy cabinets full of little ass short participation trophies and not a single one that says #1.

 

[Homeboyd]

That would be me. I could give a fuck less about rank number in H3, but that doesn't mean I couldn't play a competitive game.

I'd love for rank to make a return to glory, but make it more akin to Starcraft 2's team ranking system. I'm Gold 4v4 random(meaning I went in alone for those that don't play), but I have a specific 4v4 team that's Silver.

I like the sound of alone vs team ranks. I always play alone which of course puts me at a huge disadvantage to full teams. Yeah, it's my fault I choose to play alone... But it would be nice to see them differentiated somehow (perhaps like you mentioned).

 

[Devolution]

I like the sound of alone vs team ranks. I always play alone which of course puts me at a huge disadvantage to full teams. Yeah, it's my fault I choose to play alone... But it would be nice to see them differentiated somehow (perhaps like you mentioned).

There should be a team ranking and a solo ranking. Some games have incorporated this into their own competitions. One of the problems I foersee though is unless you're playing constantly with the game group, it might swing wildly, but even then it's no big deal unless the rankings are zero-sum.

 

[orznge]

I never got to a 45 in Halo 3. And I know what's fun. The game requires a broad spectrum of players to enjoy it and for it to be enjoyable. The game needs to be fun and satisfying for "bad kids" as well as MLG Pros. It needs to appropriately match players with each other so that each is having the most enjoyable experience practical.

With a matchmaking system in place to match players with others of similar skill, why has the skill ceiling of each subsequent game intentionally been reduced?

 

[senador]

I posted this opinion on another forum and got a lot of hate for it, but im going to post it here anyway. In my opinion if you are a level 20 and you only play other level 20's in matchmaking. Then how would you know what the playstyle is like at level 45? In my opinion the game changes drastically when you move into the higher ranks. You literally haven't experianced the full spectrum of the game if you have never progressed past level 20. I have friends who never got past 20ish and when I watch the gameplay at theyre house its horrendous, its just AR's rushing eachother without any thought to tactics.

That was an exaggeration. I didn't claim to know what it was like at 45 though. Just saying I think the level 45 argument isn't a good one. But like 45s, anyone can watch videos or play with friends that are higher rank and experience different levels of competitiveness.

The point that I'm bringing up, and no one likes to acknowledge, is that there is a significant population disconnect from 1-44 and 45-and-up in Halo 3. In general (I cannot stress that enough) people below 45 were the ones who saw nothing wrong with AR starts and stuff like that. They play less competitive gametypes more than competitive gametypes. As an effect, it was usually people 45+ who had better understanding of the base way Halo 3 played, without custom settings.

I'm not trying to make this elitist, but I can't help which side of the population I'm on. There's room for both. I just don't think the two can really relate

You are telling me that a few extra wins/win streaks change the whole way Halo 3 played even from a 40 or 43? That doesn't seem right.

Both of these arguments don't take into account those who play alone and didn't have a team to work with.

I'm not defending myself, I already said I sucked at Halo 3, I just think this argument blows and whether you admit it or not, it is basically throwing elitism around. I still <3 you guys though.

Edit: I will agree with and think that a better argument would be that those who mainly play or played social would be experiencing something different than those who play mainly ranked. Fuck the number itself.

 

[Farooq]

Totally. I brought it up a long while back but look at Quake 3. Or even Counter-Strike, it allows for extremely high levels of competition while people can just mindlessly pub de_dust and have a casual time that way.

Games with the right balance of depth and accessibility tend to have a longer lasting community than games with little or no depth.

Not to state the obvious, but what can you say.

PC and consoles are different though, it's harder to keep a community going on a game that has some years under it on the console...obviously.

 

[stephen08]

The point that I'm bringing up, and no one likes to acknowledge, is that there is a significant population disconnect from 1-44 and 45-and-up in Halo 3. In general (I cannot stress that enough) people below 45 were the ones who saw nothing wrong with AR starts and stuff like that. They play less competitive gametypes more than competitive gametypes. As an effect, it was usually people 45+ who had better understanding of the base way Halo 3 played, without custom settings.

I'm not trying to make this elitist, but I can't help which side of the population I'm on. There's room for both. I just don't think the two can really relate.


This too.

Funny how the two ranges disconnect right where I am at. It's almost like you are making this up as you go along!

Hilarious that you actually believe there is a world of difference between 44 and 47 though.

Stick through with your statement at least. What you were getting at was that I am bad and thus my opinion is worthless. When that wasn't taking you fell back to "Oh he enjoys different things".

Since A. One's skill at the game doesn't make their opinion of the game any more or less valuable and B. You are not too dissimilar in skill from me. You need to shut up until you have something of merit to say.

 

[thezerofire]

You are telling me that a few extra wins/win streaks change the whole way Halo 3 played even from a 40 or 43? That doesn't seem right.

Both of these arguments don't take into account those who play alone and didn't have a team to work with.

I'm not defending myself, I already said I sucked at Halo 3, I just think this argument blows and whether you admit it or not, it is basically throwing elitism around. I still <3 you guys though.

It's not the wins, it's the ability to get the wins against better people. You'd be amazed at how much the difficulty of winning ratchets up after 45. Even at 44 it's really hard to win if you don't have a good team around you.

That where the difference is, looking back at it. You can get to 44 easily on your own. To get past there, you really need a team. Playing with a cooperative team around you and against a cooperative team vs. playing on your own with random teammates is a completely different experience, yes.

Funny how the two ranges disconnect right where I am at. It's almost like you are making this up as you go along!

Hilarious that you actually believe there is a world of difference between 44 and 47 though.

Stick through with your statement at least. What you were getting at was that I am bad and thus my opinion is worthless. When that wasn't taking you fell back to "Oh he enjoys different things".

Since A. One's skill at the game doesn't make their opinion of the game any more or less valuable and B. You are not too dissimilar in skill from me. You need to shut up until you have something of merit to say.

This has been a very long discussion on b.net before this one, I wouldn't presume that I was making it up if I was you. Since you've never made it past 45, I wouldn't imagine you'd know if there was a difference. I do though, and there is.

And my original point was that the arguing was pointless, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. And I never said the opinion was worthless, I said that the people at higher levels had better knowledge of the game.

 

[Devolution]

I didn't agree with how he put it but zerofire was technically right. People with different philosophies about how a game should play will not see eye to eye on various issues. The job of developers is to provide groundwork so both casual and competitive style gaming can be achieved. With Reach, even MLG has hit several roadblocks in maintaining less randomness and overall competitive play. I don't think that can be denied. I also believe a fact that cannot be denied, is it's easier to open a game up to more accessible casual style play, then it is to take the same game and reduce its randomness down.

 

[senador]

It's not the wins, it's the ability to get the wins against better people. You'd be amazed at how much the difficulty of winning ratchets up after 45. Even at 44 it's really hard to win if you don't have a good team around you.

That where the difference is, looking back at it. You can get to 44 easily on your own. To get past there, you really need a team. Playing with a cooperative team around you and against a cooperative team vs. playing on your own with random teammates is a completely different experience, yes.

Cool. The difficulty and the people you play against changing makes sense. That doesn't mean someone a few levels lower or even a bunch lower can't relate to competitive Halo.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

That was an exaggeration. I didn't claim to know what it was like at 45 though. Just saying I think the level 45 argument isn't a good one. But like 45s, anyone can watch videos or play with friends that are higher rank and experience different levels of competitiveness.



You are telling me that a few extra wins/win streaks change the whole way Halo 3 played even from a 40 or 43? That doesn't seem right.

Both of these arguments don't take into account those who play alone and didn't have a team to work with.

I'm not defending myself, I already said I sucked at Halo 3, I just think this argument blows and whether you admit it or not, it is basically throwing elitism around. I still <3 you guys though.

Yeah true, but thats like watching professional sports, it might look a lot different to how you play football and you might appreciate that, but do you really take in what players are thinking? How certain things work out?

I know its not a popular opinion, and im pretty far removed from caring about what ranks people are, but when people analyse Halo at a high level without playing Halo at a high level they can miss out on things.

Theres a forum out there full of people who hate on people who play competitively, which is just as elitist as hating on people who play casually is it not? When I pointed out that all the hate for MLG was ironic, and that people playing at 50 high are basically experiencing a different game than those playing at like 30-40ish, I got hated on so badly it was unreal. My point was that if you have never played competitive Halo you cant call it stupid and disregard the difference. You also cant hate on people who enjoy the competitive side, Halo accommodates plenty of playstyles.

However im worried that unless 343 have people who really did enjoy the competitive side of Halo that side may be lost. I almost feel as though Bungie produced that gameplay by accident as a side effect of the gameplay they were going for. Thats just the vibe I get from watching vidocs and so on.