so apparently I'm good at Halo - Page 2
Blogs > keepITup |
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
| ||
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
Can't get at you with vehicles, can't get at you on foot. | ||
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
Suc
Australia1569 Posts
But really, I haven't played a console shooter since 2006(?) and that was only one occasion during that year. | ||
illu
Canada2531 Posts
| ||
leejas
United States440 Posts
Fortunately SC still keeps it up in the RTS world. | ||
FaCE_1
Canada6154 Posts
On January 14 2010 19:19 Zoler wrote: I agree, Halo is pretty bad. Nothing else to say lol =) true | ||
FaCE_1
Canada6154 Posts
On January 14 2010 23:38 leejas wrote: I miss the days of Quake 3. I haven't played a shooter that fast paced in ages. Fortunately SC still keeps it up in the RTS world. soo true.. I mss too, the days when Iw as playing Team Fortress Classic like, non-stop. God this game was awesome (still awesome, just not payling as much as 3-4 years back ) | ||
Pengu1n
United States552 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 15 2010 00:28 Pengu1n wrote: lol of course your gonna get random kills in halo just like in sc you can cheese/get lucky and get some random wins. You think your good at halo because you took a few kills off some random newb? Thats like saying "apparently I'm good at StarCraft because i took a game off a c- kid on iccup who follows progaming and practices every day, even though i lost the series". It's still pretty obvious though that someone who's never played StarCraft regularly and only plays twice a year is almost never going to take a game off a C- player. Even if they're cheesing every game, a C- player has enough experience that he shouldn't lose outright to poorly executed, sub-D- cheese, and from there should be able to win. | ||
Nebula
England780 Posts
On January 14 2010 23:38 leejas wrote: I miss the days of Quake 3. I haven't played a shooter that fast paced in ages. Fortunately SC still keeps it up in the RTS world. Yeh man, i play QL but it's really just not the same as Q3. Console fps sickens me. Autoaim? Yeh, we call that cheating . =( Maybe i should write a guide on how to not suck at QL so we can get more players :D | ||
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On January 14 2010 19:30 zatic wrote: For someone who is completely ignorant towards consoles, how do you even play FPS on a console? How do you aim without a mouse? I can't really picture it. Everyone has played goldeneye on n64 right? It's kinda like that, it clumsy and bad compared to mouse and keyboard. It just takes some getting used to. | ||
keepITup
251 Posts
I'm not trying to bash Halo here, I think it's a very fine game. But on a competitive level I think it's pretty basic. Not that it can't be hilariously fun or anything, but I think that compared to other shooters Halo is much less demanding. I mean I watched the pro MLG videos and it's simply not impressive. Yeah they are good, they are faster and more accurate -- but the game is so limited that's about all you'll notice. if you told me they were amateur players I'd believe you too. would i be able to kill these guys? of course not, but that's not really what i'm getting at here. | ||
Chuiu
3470 Posts
| ||
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On January 14 2010 19:46 Bearigator wrote: As a former Halo player and a long time MLG fan, I can agree with you that Halo 3 lacks almost any depth as a 1v1 title. It does gain quite a bit of depth when played in a 4v4 setting, but still nothing close to a game like SC. Halo 3 was a game designed to limit competitive play. Bungie denies this vigorously, but it most long time competitive players agree. Smoothness of strafe, accurate weaponry (the BR does have spread within each 3 round burst), speed of movement and good maps are all lacking in Halo 3. From a competitive standpoint, it is by far the weakest game in the series. Halo 2 and Halo:CE were both much stronger games from a competitive standpoint. I will start by giving a brief overview of Halo:CE. It was the first truly 'mid paced' shooter for a console. It was not a tactical game like RB6 or CS, but it was clearly not on the speed of Quake or Unreal. The weapons killed very quickly, had almost no auto aim and required precise leading at range. 'Power weapons' were amazingly strong, but the starting weapon was powerful enough to allow you a fighting chance if you were good enough. The spawn system was simple in theory but in practice took a lot of game knowledge, awareness and talent to use to your advantage. The individual skill gap was massively high. Then came Halo 2. The game had slowed down. The beloved starting weapon of the first game had been taken away and replaced with a new competitive starting weapon, movement speed was slowed and grenades/melees were weakened. After a patch and creative glitch finding, the game managed to become competitively solid in its own right though. A slightly slower paced game, it was no longer possible for one player to simply out-skill an entire other team. As such, individual talent took a step back and stood beside teamwork as the most important factor. As things were figured out, such as the spawn system, how to collect weapons efficiently, etc, the game became more and more deep, eventually becoming a highly competitive 4v4 game, as well as a decent 1v1 game. Then came Halo 3. Bungie liked the direction towards teamwork that Halo 2 had taken, but did not seem to realize that they had already hit the ideal formula. Instead of sticking with the balance they had, they decided to remove many of the things which allowed individual players to shine, forcing the game more towards team play. 1v1 is no longer a valid gametype and 4v4 has become a different experience. Honestly, the game is damn near unrecognizable from the tower of individual skill that was Halo:CE. Instead the aspects of the game that allowed technical ability and individual thinking to shine were purposely stripped to try and force teamwork down everybodies throats. All in all, you are right. Halo 3 is an incredibly shallow game, largely because people seem to assume that you have to force teamwork as the defining feature of a game now days. Non-competitive (or casually competitive) gamers do not like getting completely stomped to the ground by somebody with vastly superior mechanics, so it was stripped from the game. The only thing I can really say is that I am sure that your friend would seem much more impressive if you watched him play or played against him as part of organized teams, since that is the only real measure of any sort of skill left in that game. Your Halo analysis is awful. Halo2 vs Halo3 Halo2 in itself had a retarded array of weapons that were extremely imbalanced. Although there are MLG presets for both games, the standard weapons in Halo2 were very imbalanced. The strength of the battle rifle in Halo2 raped god knows everything, the sniper was significantly more powerful, etc. Autoaim made the sniper rifle godly in nearly anyone's hands with possibly the most autoaim ever given to any FPS. Your friggin' targeting reticule STOPPED over the other person's body/head when aimed at it. You could have a massively delayed reaction in shooting and still get a headshot simply because your reticule stopped on their head. Halo3 toned down both the battle rifle and sniper rifle (aka autoaim) in Halo3, took away the plasma pistol/BR combo which plagued ladder matches, etc. The sword has also been toned down from it's previously insta-kill everything abilities. Since when has 1v1 EVER been a relatively valid gametype for FPS games? Even if so, as there are so many games right now I'm fully aware I'm not considering, Halo/Halo2/Halo3 were ALL designed as team games. Not for individual 1v1. | ||
| ||