On December 05 2011 12:47 Node wrote: What is bloom? I've seen it mentioned a few times in this thread. I mean, I know about the graphic effect, but I don't see how that could possibly make a game significantly worse. (the last Halo I played was 3, and I never took it remotely seriously)
Basically when you shoot your reticule gets larger with each shot. Its a retarded feature that was added in reach (along with things like sprint) that was supposed to make the game more like call of duty.
As for the video where they talk about SC, I think a better video is the best debate video, there they actually discuss the problems with halo reach. There's a fundamental problem with halo where the game itself is bad, I honestly think they would have had more success with halo 3. They also talk about other problems in the scene, things like the pros not being dedicated enough.
On December 05 2011 12:47 Node wrote: What is bloom? I've seen it mentioned a few times in this thread. I mean, I know about the graphic effect, but I don't see how that could possibly make a game significantly worse. (the last Halo I played was 3, and I never took it remotely seriously)
Its really hard to explain how large of an effect small things have on a game like an FPS. SC2 is so much more significantly different from SC1 than Reach is from Halo 3, but FPS games are so much more simplistic in idea, and the smallest changes are noticeable. I guess I would just compare it to Counterstrike 1.6 and CS Source. The average person would be like "I don't see the problem. Its just a new counterstrike with better graphics. The same thing. Why isn't it as competitive"?
Its the same thing with Halo: Reach. Bloom makes the game more random and less based on skill.
This is going to be my only post in the thread, so if you reply to me, don't expect me to reply back.
I think bloom is a GOOD thing. It may make the DMR a little more random than the BR, but that's a good thing. The BR was TOO good. Ever notice how in their stats, almost everyone in Halo 3 had the BR as their most used weapon?
With bloom nerfing the DMR, now players have to be good with all weapons instead of just the BR.
On December 05 2011 13:35 Millitron wrote: This is going to be my only post in the thread, so if you reply to me, don't expect me to reply back.
I think bloom is a GOOD thing. It may make the DMR a little more random than the BR, but that's a good thing. The BR was TOO good. Ever notice how in their stats, almost everyone in Halo 3 had the BR as their most used weapon?
With bloom nerfing the DMR, now players have to be good with all weapons instead of just the BR.
The whole point of playing competitively is cause you don't want games to be random..
My most used in Halo 3/ Halo Reach is Br/DMR respectively, cause that was the primary weapon of the gametypes I chose to play. And yes it's strong once your used to it..
Even with bloom, if you have any talent the DMR/Carbine far surpass the smgs..
The smgs and pistols and needler etc are cool weapons etc, but they don't belong in MLG.
On December 05 2011 12:47 Node wrote: What is bloom? I've seen it mentioned a few times in this thread. I mean, I know about the graphic effect, but I don't see how that could possibly make a game significantly worse. (the last Halo I played was 3, and I never took it remotely seriously)
Basically when you shoot your reticule gets larger with each shot. Its a retarded feature that was added in reach (along with things like sprint) that was supposed to make the game more like call of duty.
As for the video where they talk about SC, I think a better video is the best debate video, there they actually discuss the problems with halo reach. There's a fundamental problem with halo where the game itself is bad, I honestly think they would have had more success with halo 3. They also talk about other problems in the scene, things like the pros not being dedicated enough.
The thing is there's nothing pushing them. 1 league where all the pros practice just as little as they do does not encourage improvement. And I also dislike Reach, they made it more fun for the non-hardcore (extreme, ESPORTS hardcore, not just gamers) but made the game a lot less competitive.
Having not followed Halo that closely the last few years, I find this thread very funny with the anti-Reach comments. I played Halo: CE -very- heavily, and when Halo 2 came out, everyone shit all over it. The pistol now sucked. The new vehicles were lame. The new rocket launcher was terrible. The sniper rifle didn't aim correctly. All the weapons felt weak and clearly catered to causal bads who couldn't handle the 3-shot pistol kills. It wasn't until Halo 3 that the Halo 1 community finally accepted Halo 2.
As you can guess, this new Halo 1 + Halo 2 community started hating on Halo 3. All of my friends starting telling me how Halo 3 was such a shitty game that required no skill.
Now a few years later, I come into this thread and see people attacking Halo: Reach and saying "Halo 1/2/3 were awesome" and I can't help but laugh pretty hard.
Prediction: Halo 4 will suck, but Halo: Reach will magically become amazing.
On December 05 2011 13:35 Millitron wrote: This is going to be my only post in the thread, so if you reply to me, don't expect me to reply back.
I think bloom is a GOOD thing. It may make the DMR a little more random than the BR, but that's a good thing. The BR was TOO good. Ever notice how in their stats, almost everyone in Halo 3 had the BR as their most used weapon?
With bloom nerfing the DMR, now players have to be good with all weapons instead of just the BR.
The whole point of playing competitively is cause you don't want games to be random..
My most used in Halo 3/ Halo Reach is Br/DMR respectively, cause that was the primary weapon of the gametypes I chose to play. And yes it's strong once your used to it..
Even with bloom, if you have any talent the DMR/Carbine far surpass the smgs..
The smgs and pistols and needler etc are cool weapons etc, but they don't belong in MLG.
No bloom and with bleedthrough, the pistol is a power weapon. The needle rifle also suddenly becomes a lot more useful.
On December 05 2011 14:24 dcemuser wrote: Having not followed Halo that closely the last few years, I find this thread very funny with the anti-Reach comments. I played Halo: CE -very- heavily, and when Halo 2 came out, everyone shit all over it. The pistol now sucked. The new vehicles were lame. The new rocket launcher was terrible. The sniper rifle didn't aim correctly. All the weapons felt weak and clearly catered to causal bads who couldn't handle the 3-shot pistol kills. It wasn't until Halo 3 that the Halo 1 community finally accepted Halo 2.
As you can guess, this new Halo 1 + Halo 2 community started hating on Halo 3. All of my friends starting telling me how Halo 3 was such a shitty game that required no skill.
Now a few years later, I come into this thread and see people attacking Halo: Reach and saying "Halo 1/2/3 were awesome" and I can't help but laugh hysterically.
Prediction: Halo 4 will suck, but Halo: Reach will magically become amazing.
I'm guessing you've never played Reach or 3 then. The difference is humongous, the difference between 2 and 3 had mostly to do with weapons (they didn't use equipment in halo 3 mlg, so it should be irrelevant). But the difference between reach and 3 is huge. Even if you ignore all aspects of gameplay, they even took a step back with the matchmaking. They took out the old rank system and instead substituted it with a flawed new one (which doesn't work for objective games). Theres literally no reason to play halo reach, no way of marking improvement, nothing to work towards, and all the maps look gray.
On December 05 2011 14:24 dcemuser wrote: Having not followed Halo that closely the last few years, I find this thread very funny with the anti-Reach comments. I played Halo: CE -very- heavily, and when Halo 2 came out, everyone shit all over it. The pistol now sucked. The new vehicles were lame. The new rocket launcher was terrible. The sniper rifle didn't aim correctly. All the weapons felt weak and clearly catered to causal bads who couldn't handle the 3-shot pistol kills. It wasn't until Halo 3 that the Halo 1 community finally accepted Halo 2.
As you can guess, this new Halo 1 + Halo 2 community started hating on Halo 3. All of my friends starting telling me how Halo 3 was such a shitty game that required no skill.
Now a few years later, I come into this thread and see people attacking Halo: Reach and saying "Halo 1/2/3 were awesome" and I can't help but laugh pretty hard.
Prediction: Halo 4 will suck, but Halo: Reach will magically become amazing.
Everyone did, because with every game it gets worse, making the previous game look tolerable. CE>2>3>>>>>>Reach for me, Reach was such a huge departure...3 was playable, but if I had my way everyone would still be playing CE.
On December 05 2011 14:24 dcemuser wrote: Having not followed Halo that closely the last few years, I find this thread very funny with the anti-Reach comments. I played Halo: CE -very- heavily, and when Halo 2 came out, everyone shit all over it. The pistol now sucked. The new vehicles were lame. The new rocket launcher was terrible. The sniper rifle didn't aim correctly. All the weapons felt weak and clearly catered to causal bads who couldn't handle the 3-shot pistol kills. It wasn't until Halo 3 that the Halo 1 community finally accepted Halo 2.
As you can guess, this new Halo 1 + Halo 2 community started hating on Halo 3. All of my friends starting telling me how Halo 3 was such a shitty game that required no skill.
Now a few years later, I come into this thread and see people attacking Halo: Reach and saying "Halo 1/2/3 were awesome" and I can't help but laugh hysterically.
Prediction: Halo 4 will suck, but Halo: Reach will magically become amazing.
I'm guessing you've never played Reach or 3 then. The difference is humongous, the difference between 2 and 3 had mostly to do with weapons (they didn't use equipment in halo 3 mlg, so it should be irrelevant). But the difference between reach and 3 is huge. Even if you ignore all aspects of gameplay, they even took a step back with the matchmaking. They took out the old rank system and instead substituted it with a flawed new one (which doesn't work for objective games). Theres literally no reason to play halo reach, no way of marking improvement, nothing to work towards, and all the maps look gray.
Why do they not use equipment in competitive matches? It seems like they could be extremely useful and make the gameplay a lot more exciting & technical.
Hey guys, I want to get the Great Debate featured as an event on the TL calandar. How do I do that? I know that it doesn't have a lot to do with SC2, but recently the MOBA weekly, a show very similar to this, was featured on the TL events calandar. This is like the same thing. What do I do?
Tom "Ogre 2" Ryan is the greatest Halo player of all time. His consistency puts any Brood War Bonjwa to shame. MLG has had 57 events to date. Ogre 2 has 29 1st place wins and 10 2nd place finishes. He also missed 7 events, so making it to the finals of 38 out of 50 attended events is pretty incredible.
I find that a bit of a weird statement to make. Not sure you can really make that kind of comparison between Brood War and Halo. Whatever, I guess.
Yeah, I actually had to just stop reading after that little ridiculous comment.
Tom "Ogre 2" Ryan is the greatest Halo player of all time. His consistency puts any Brood War Bonjwa to shame. MLG has had 57 events to date. Ogre 2 has 29 1st place wins and 10 2nd place finishes. He also missed 7 events, so making it to the finals of 38 out of 50 attended events is pretty incredible.
I find that a bit of a weird statement to make. Not sure you can really make that kind of comparison between Brood War and Halo. Whatever, I guess.
Yeah, I actually had to just stop reading after that little ridiculous comment.
Oh, calm down. Look at the statistics. I don't care if you think you can't compare Halo to Brood War. Statistically, he DOES in fact put any Brood War bonjwa to shame. In the same way, the fricking Boston Celtics have a more consistent record than any bonjwa. Are you mad about that too? Should I not make the comparison?
But I changed the wording of that so you won't get as butthurt about the bonjwas of a game that you most likely didn't play.
To be honest, the Bonjwas were usually godlike for small periods of time. Like 6 months or so to one or two years. SC:BW meta changes much faster than something simple like a FPS. Same thing with MOBA.
Though you really shouldn't take a cheap shot at the primary audience like that.
Tom "Ogre 2" Ryan is the greatest Halo player of all time. His consistency puts any Brood War Bonjwa to shame. MLG has had 57 events to date. Ogre 2 has 29 1st place wins and 10 2nd place finishes. He also missed 7 events, so making it to the finals of 38 out of 50 attended events is pretty incredible.
I find that a bit of a weird statement to make. Not sure you can really make that kind of comparison between Brood War and Halo. Whatever, I guess.
Yeah, I actually had to just stop reading after that little ridiculous comment.
There's nothing wrong with that comment.. just putting things into perspective for people who haven't played Halo
(post above me) cheap shot? You know it wasn't meant in that way. Let's just move on..
Tom "Ogre 2" Ryan is the greatest Halo player of all time. His consistency puts any Brood War Bonjwa to shame. MLG has had 57 events to date. Ogre 2 has 29 1st place wins and 10 2nd place finishes. He also missed 7 events, so making it to the finals of 38 out of 50 attended events is pretty incredible.
I find that a bit of a weird statement to make. Not sure you can really make that kind of comparison between Brood War and Halo. Whatever, I guess.
Yeah, I actually had to just stop reading after that little ridiculous comment.
Oh, calm down. Look at the statistics. I don't care if you think you can't compare Halo to Brood War. Statistically, he DOES in fact put any Brood War bonjwa to shame. In the same way, the fricking Boston Celtics have a more consistent record than any bonjwa. Are you mad about that too? Should I not make the comparison?
But I changed the wording of that so you won't get as butthurt about the bonjwas of a game that you most likely didn't play.
Yeah, and if I go play a bunch of 4th graders in basketball, my top finishes would put Ogre 2 to shame. You really don't see how bad of a statistic that is? Brood War was infinitely bigger than Halo ever dreamed of being, imagine 100 other Ogre 2's at those MLGs and then tell me he would have placed in the top 2 as many times as he did. That is what BW was/is. You can't compare being consistent in one game to being consistent in another game, especially Halo to BW, without being called out on your bullshit.
edit - Believe it or not, it wasn't my intention to shit on Halo or to prop up BW when I came into this thread. Ogre 2 is undoubtedly a great player and dominated his game thoroughly. I just thought it was a bad comparison that's it. Didn't mean to derail the thread.
On December 06 2011 04:51 GeneralissimoNero wrote:
On December 06 2011 04:46 Charger wrote:
On November 23 2011 06:57 MasterKush wrote:
Tom "Ogre 2" Ryan is the greatest Halo player of all time. His consistency puts any Brood War Bonjwa to shame. MLG has had 57 events to date. Ogre 2 has 29 1st place wins and 10 2nd place finishes. He also missed 7 events, so making it to the finals of 38 out of 50 attended events is pretty incredible.
I find that a bit of a weird statement to make. Not sure you can really make that kind of comparison between Brood War and Halo. Whatever, I guess.
Yeah, I actually had to just stop reading after that little ridiculous comment.
Oh, calm down. Look at the statistics. I don't care if you think you can't compare Halo to Brood War. Statistically, he DOES in fact put any Brood War bonjwa to shame. In the same way, the fricking Boston Celtics have a more consistent record than any bonjwa. Are you mad about that too? Should I not make the comparison?
But I changed the wording of that so you won't get as butthurt about the bonjwas of a game that you most likely didn't play.
Yeah, and if I go play a bunch of 4th graders in basketball, my top finishes would put Ogre 2 to shame. You really don't see how bad of a statistic that is? Brood War was infinitely bigger than Halo ever dreamed of being, imagine 100 other Ogre 2's at those MLGs and then tell me he would have placed in the top 2 as many times as he did. That is what BW was/is. You can't compare being consistent in one game to being consistent in another game, especially Halo to BW, without being called out on your bullshit.
Wayne Gretsky is like Michael Jordan. There. I just compared two players, from two different games. I still can't believe you're so mad about that little comment man. I'm TRYING to put Halo in perspective to Starcraft players. I have the picture of Ogre 2 with Boxer there for a reason. To draw the comparison.
Edit- I get where you're coming from now. Sorry, but my original intention for the thread was to give a basic introduction of Halo to the TL community, who plays mainly starcraft. My main post has a lot of comparisons in it, and maybe that comparison was just one that is a little bit of a touchy subject.
EPT
