fzdw11

Oh my wife would love this one.... she can't stand the game as is.

I can appreciate those things as well. I was pretty upset that the BR wasn't in Reach, but I got used to the DMR. Now, if I had a choice, I don't know which I would rather go for. I like the accuracy of the DMR, but I like the versatility of the BR. The ranking system in Reach is bad, no question about that. Play more to gain rank? No. But I've posted this in other threads to, that I don't think the Halo 2/3 way of only winning to rank up is a good answer, either. It needs to be more than strictly winning, but definitely not just by how much you play. You went positive on K/D in a game of slayer and your team wins? Great, here's some extra EXP. You went negative, but your team still won? Great, you get the Winning EXP, but nothing else. Same for objectives. Did you help secure the objective? Capture a flag? Ran with the oddball? Stood in the hill? Etc. Maps were definitely better in previous Halo's, no doubt. The maps in Reach do get repetetive. Would have loved to seen more maps designed from scratch. I do like the addition of the Annivarsary maps, though. As for buddies? Most of mine prefer Reach, though they've since moved on to BF3. For some reason I just can't get into that game. Dunno what it is. They even went out of their way to buy me a copy for by birthday, but for some reason it just doesn't do well with me.

It is a long post, but a good post that everybody should take to heart. It was a great message, and a good time for it to be posted.

I didn't take offense to the MLG comment, so no need to explain yourself. I know it's not true, so I don't let it get to me. But simply by my response, I'm biased, well that I can take issue with slightly. With your response to me, I could say that you are biased as well. So let's get beyond that. The whole point of this is to try and understand where the other person is coming from. You like competitive play better, I like non-competitive play better. We can agree on that. So down to the list! I'm glad to see that we both agree that you can learn the game while being competitive and non-competitive, because that is the truth. Yes, a competitive player may take extra time while not playing the game to watch videos, but that doesn't mean a non-competitive player doesn't or can't do the same. I for one watch videos when I have the opportunity, so I can better myself at the game. You touched on my #3 in your response to #2. The fun aspect. If you don't find if fun, that's your opinion and you're entitled to that. What features from Halo 3 do you find enjoyable that they made you keep coming back, if I may ask? As for #3, I know countless people that were CoD fanboys until MW3 came out. They saw the game trailers. They bought the game. They traded in the game, refusing to purchase another one because it was just a rehash of the previous games. Did everybody do that? Of course not, just like not everybody is going to give up on Halo. But it does happen, and will happen at some point, if the game isn't improved upon.

Agreed. Pointless thread. Edit: Ah, the first post was edited. No longer pointless.

I don't think so. I think the covies are just going to be a minor inconvenience in the long run, not the main enemy.

I fully agree. Slowing it down, watching it a few times, it really is only the blue guy losing his shields. At full speed, it definitely looks like a hologram, though. But like somebody else stated, Hologram was confirmed to be returning. So even though this isn't a shot of it, it's still going to be there. Love Hologram.

If I may ask, what has you so worried about 343? They scraped the music? Funny, I saw the video yesterday with them talking to the composors and producers, and if the music in the background was any indication, then I think the music is going to be great. Yeah, they don't have Marty anymore, but who's to say that it wasn't his choice to not continue with the series? Honestly, playable Elites, while fun at times, meh. I rarely used them, typically went with a spartan. And my friends? Out of all of those who play, only 1 ever choose to be an elite over a Spartan. I rarely saw elites in Matchmade games in Halo 3. Is taking out elites really that big of a deal? In my mind, no. Could they have left them in? Maybe, but why did they take them out? We don't know, they may have a good reason. As for "Spartan Ops" vs. "Spec Ops" - Yes, the names are similar. Yes, they have a similar function. But if you can't accept that without change, series tend to disappear in the night, then you could say goodbye to Halo regardless of whether you wanted it to go away or not. How is taking an item from another game (which, keep in mind, all game companies do), incorporating it into a new game and making it unique to that new game, a bad thing? We don't know how Spartan Ops is going to play. We're assuming it will be like Spec Ops from CoD, but that's just speculation. It's still too early and we don't have enough information to fully form an adequate opinion on what 343i is doing with the series. So until then, I have faith that they will do it justice.

My only problem with this is that's not the official 343i you tube channel, though? Where are they getting these supposed Halo 4 videos?

TimeSplitters

If I missed the whole point of the post (which you like to claim a lot, by the way, just saying), then why not make the point clear for me? What I took from it is pretty simple. Tell me if I'm wrong, and then tell me what you meant by it. When you play competitively, you get a really good understanding of the little nuances of the game. My refute? You can get the same by playing the game, regardless of being competitive or not. By adding features, the nuances that you claim you learn by playing competitively are destroyed. My refute? Competitive gamers giving up on things seems a bit hypocritical to me. Why would somebody that's "competitive" not try to better themselves and their play by learning how to use the new features to their advantage? They added these features that people who play competitively don't want to learn (adapt to), and that they don't find fun (which I have no problem with, mind. If you don't find it fun, you don't find it fun, that's your opinion.). My refute? Not adapting (changing things, adding features, etc) a franchise leads to the downfall of said franchise. If the game always stayed the same, people would become bored with it. So again, if I misunderstood, let me know where, cause I really am curious.

Madden 12

Never played Crysis 2, but by your statement I would assume it was good? What did you like about it?

Didn't take offense to it, just pointing out the flawed logic, is all. Rebuting what you had to say. Isn't that what a friendly debate is all about? So tell me, what did I flip around, and what point did I miss?

It's Reach's engine, but if you only have CEA, you can only play Anniversary, which takes away armor abilities, increases movement speed and jump height slightly, and makes the pistol the only true weapon.

Ah Ah, so we get right down to it then, don't we? So just because somebody doesn't play competitively means they don't learn to do those things anyway? And to say that those specific things are what makes the game awesome? Really? Learning the exact radius of an exploding grenade makes the game awesome? You've gotta be kidding me. This right here is why people call MLG silly, a waste of time, pointless, try hards. This. I can go back through Halo 2, and I still know what jumps I can make, what jumps I can't, etc. Learning a game isn't reserved strictly to competitive play. Does competitive play help you learn it, make you learn it? Absolutely, but just because somebody doesn't play competitively doesn't mean that they haven't learned it as well. And because these things are now "disrupted" by added features, the competitive player gives up? Isn't that being a hypocrite on the competitive players part? They are competitive, but these new features "changed how I play, so I'm not going to play. I give up." Adding features to a game tends to improve the game for the better. Now did Reach get everything right? No, of course not. They could have done things better, absolutely. But to give up on a game simply because you don't want to learn something new? I laugh at that "competitive" player. Not wanting to adapt is what causes the downfall of franchises. Not wanting to change a thing leads to the same game being produced year after year, and eventually the fans get frustrated by it. They stop finding enjoyment in it. They stop buying it. They're not as fun as they were in previous games. Because, in the end, it's not worth the time.

Drinking a can right now.

Quality will affect future sales of the game, not the initial purchase. If word gets out that a game is terrible prior to it's release, then maybe. But for the most part, if a game is highly anticipated, it's still going to sell really well upon release, and only dwindle sales later. The whole "population" thing, and this isn't just from you, mind, just boggles my mind. Sure, the population seems much smaller on Reach than at the height of Halo 3. But I still never have trouble finding games. Ever. So the population can't be that bad, in reality, can it?

Exactly, Krinn. What's "better" to me, may not be to you, or to anybody else. But none of that matters.

Loved Halo 2 and 3 each respectively, however didn't have XBox Live when 2 was out, so never had the opportunity to play it there. Played it a ton over LANs, though. Just about every weekend there was a LAN at somebody's house. Did the same thing with CE. Didn't want to purchase it again when it came out for PC, though, so that's that. Halo 3 was similar in experience. Didn't get Live until I think late 2009, but tons of LAN's prior to that. But, from the time I had Live till Reach came out (and I didn't jump on the Reach bandwagon until Christmas 2010), I got in 466 games playing roughly on average one night a week. 466 games, most of which were social due to my gf (now wife) wanting to play, and her not having a Live account. What few ranked games I did play (64 total), got me to a lowly high skill of 14 in Lone Wolves with maybe less than 25 of my ranked matches being played there. (Checked numbers on b.net, didn't count total games played in Lone Wolves since it's not available easily enough.) As for playing recently, the most recent experiences in each was going back through the campaigns on Legendary, since it was something I never got around to doing, but no MM. So to answer your question about higher-end/competitively, no, never had the opportunity to really delve into it.

Thank you. Until we see more actual gameplay, until we play the game for ourselves, we don't know what it's going to be like.

But it is absolutely about what weapon you are using. Why should a weapon that's designed for optimal use at mid/long to long ranges beat out a weapon designed specifically for short to short/mid range? The AR at long range is near worthless, the DMR will tear them apart. On the flip side of that, the DMR at short range isn't nearly as worthless as the AR is at long range, but the AR should still win, and most of the time does as long as the person knows how to aim and shoot. As for the rest, I can respect that you didn't enjoy Reach. That's your opinion and everybody is entitled to one. I think you and I have gone back and forth on this quite a bit, actually. While Halo did drift, like I stated previously, to me it still felt like Halo. Was it the same Halo? Absolutely not, it was a new Halo. One that I personally liked better.

Hm. I... that's an interesting one. Not many I can think of. I-Ninja - Namco

Who says the game is bad? You? A few others? See, I love when people claim that the game is bad. If it was so bad, I wouldn't be seeing people online at all times of the day. I wouldn't be able to jump into matchmaking and have a game in under a minute (usually less than 30 seconds to find a full game). I wouldn't see new people starting to play the game on a near daily basis, new recruits who are just dipping their toes into matchmaking for the first time. Obviously new players when you see them play. Reach is only a "flop" to those who don't like it. I guarantee you that Bungie and Microsoft didn't see Reach as a flop.

The bloom for a BR would have been the same as the DMR, the only difference, instead of 1 shot being spread throughout the bloom, you would have 3 shots. As for the DMR being slower, giving the people with an assault rifle a chance, is this: the DMR was meant to be a mid/long to long range weapon. It was not designed to substitute the automatic weapons for short to short/mid range. People trying to spam the DMR in close quarters when their opponent has an AR are just asking to be killed. You switch over to a weapon better suited to that type of combat. Yes, people adapted to the changes in Halo 2 and Halo 3. they loved the games. Reach fell short because, unlike in Halo 2 and Halo 3, people refused to accept the changes. Not because they were "bad" and not because "AL is overpowered". People refused because they felt Halo drifted too far off the beaten path that they knew and loved. They never wanted Reach to succeed, because they couldn't adapt to the new play style. And yes, Reach has a new play style, one that was never seen in a prior Halo game. And you also put it right on the shoulders of the people in your last two sentences. "People who left Halo were looking for a new game. That's exactly how I ended up getting CoD." Why were people looking for a new game?