As long as there is a setting that functions like a refined version of Reach assassination detection, I'd like this. Most of the timeI assassinate for the fun of it, but when I see it will cost me a life or another kill I'll simply beat down. With an on/off it wouldn't allow for players to judge based on situation for those who want to assassinate within reason. EDIT: On another note, the MLG reaction to Halo 4 MP slightly eased my concern. Still waiting for cold, hard gameplay. Hopefully E3.
Well, looking at this, I figured that a positive reaction from a higher member in the community looked slightly more promising. However, most of the comments afterwards seem to echo what I would have expected to see. Still, it helps to see that he thought it still played like Halo. Most if not all of the hard info we already know even if you haven't seen this (from my understanding it's fairly old at this point), but it was the personal reaction from a competitive player that helped. I know, it isn't much but I'm wandering through their forums more now. Slightly.
I don't mean to spark up this debate here as it's been had often enough over at MLG, but suffice it to say that KC's opinion does not necessarily equate with that of the wider community. Aside from said differences, I hope I don't sound too cynical when I say that KC possibly doesn't feel at such liberty to speak as frankly as a random member of the MLG community might. Basically, I'd bet that he has a somewhat more developed opinion of the game than he covered in his article. Whether his lack of detail on certain things (I can't imagine him having nothing to say on the subject of the power weapon spawn changes) comes from focusing on that which he liked, or from a friendly request from 343 to not going to massive detail on every aspect of what he saw, isn't clear.
I understand that; it's a perfectly valid point. Still, I don't think that all of that information was forced and I beleive it should at least be considered that an MLG player had good things to say about the game. He certainly doesn't represent the entire community, but other reactions seem to have similar positive remarks as well. I also recall a precious reaction from someone in the MLG community who got a sneak peek before any info was released saying that the game still felt like Halo...I don't think I could find it again though. Even if this is controlled to a degree by 343, which it most certainly is, I don't see it as a reason to write off these accounts entirely. Once again, I'm still not satisfied, but at least these reports give a little respite from the slew of so-far unfortunate sounding turns for competitive play.
Skybox is just a generic video game term - almost all Halo campaign levels and multiplayer maps have a skybox.
Yeah that's true. MLG opinion seems to swing even moreso than over here with all the staggered tidbits of info, so it's hard to say what the majority view is at current. But I'd definitely say that there's a distinct difference in tone between the initial replies (which fall in the initial stages of "Oh, KC seems impressed, well it can't be that bad then") and how discussion progressed later in that thread and in others that started around the same time. I definitely get the strong impression from all reports, either positive or skeptical, that the basic in game mechanics feel like Halo. Movement and shooting sound good, despite odd StK numbers right now, but it's the stuff on top of that which is causing concern. Whilst a good deal of discussion at MLG is based around what the Circuit gametypes could be, there's still a strong movement (and I agree with it) saying that too strong a sense of fragmentation between vanilla and eSports isn't healthy, especially for the latter. I'm sure people on the other side of the equation can relate, as it's been a common theme in MLG-critical arguments that the gametypes are too much of a deviation from default.
This is something I've harped on quite a bit. I feel like MLG and the out-of-the-box Halo experience were as far apart in Reach as they've ever been, and judging by the reactions to most of the news about H4, I'm concerned that the chasm will actually grow wider, amazing as that is. It's already to the point that I don't even dip my toes into MLG any more - and I used to attend some MLG events back in the days of CE. Nowadays, MLG play just feels weird and off to me. The movement is distracting, the aim feels off (probably because of the movement thing), the maps are all radically different if I've even set foot on them before, no trackers, no armor abilities... it's basically like playing a different title completely, and I end up sucking and being frustrated. But in a larger sense, I think fragmenting the game that seriously is just bad for the community and the game itself. In CE, the only real argument to be had was trackers or no trackers. Now it's every-damn-thing, and many MLG players are frequently guilty of looking down their noses at anything that smells like vanilla ("This map doesn't have drop spawns? OMG you're such a scrub"). It keeps casuals from experimenting with MLG; it even keeps guys like me, who think of ourselves as basically competitive players, out of the MLG playlists; and it polarizes conversation about the game to such an extent that Bungie.net and the Waypoint forums have basically become intolerable places to be.
knowledge of what? im just wondering if i missed something in the article. possible precursors as an enemy?
Reading the man's detaling of playing H4 (current build) on that MLG link given a page or two ago makes me happy. I didnt really see anything bad about that at all. The vision AA didnt sound bad and seeing that your enemy is around the corner doesn't mean you win the fight. Hologram always made me happy, because it took skill to use well. Sprint I can deal with, and it was said the maps are well made so sprint must work fine with them. Really the AA were my biggest concern but that has been quelled a bit.
120% speed does make a big difference to aiming, it gives the illusion of less reticle magnetism in mid range strafe battles and you generally have to adjust your reticle movement and twitch speed. I actually quite enjoy playing MLG when I do it occasionally, in basic terms anyway. Getting stomped on by teams and constant quitters kinda put a bad slant on things but I like ZBNS even though it's a big culture shock coming from TU playlists. ZB just takes me a little while to get comfortable spamming, and NS actually started permeating in to my regular play style from the first time I played V7 and watched good players using the settings. I'm less Sprint happy now and get caught out less because of it. However, the enjoyment I get out of it despite the big difference in gameplay is a surprise even to me based on how I normally react to any such change, and I still agree that deeper and deeper fragmentation is a bad thing. But how do you get there? MLG or any competitive Halo isn't going to accept all the changes the game sees, when a game which is used for an eSport isn't made with eSport potential being at least heavily involved in design direction, it's always gonna end up this way. If the majority of the player base isn't focused on the game as an eSport or at least inherently competitive, there's no reason to choose that focus in design. I think Halo is a phenomenon in more ways than already appreciated in that it's probably the most successful title to be used as an eSport without an explicit support in catering to that purpose when designing further iterations. RTS games like SC are self explanatory in that sense, but even the well known competitive shooters (console or PC) and fighters, even racers, display a clear developer mentality of catering to competitive value, and considering it a priority in maintaining the franchise.
Whew. I'm glad to hear that I'm not just imagining that. I've commented on it before when playing a couple MLG games with Overdoziz, and he basically gave me the non-verbal, you're-crazy response, but I think I'm just extremely sensitive to small changes that I often can't even verbalize what changed or what is bugging me. I play so much better when I'm comfortable with the game - as soon as it starts feeling off, it completely throws me. (I think I need to approach the game a little more intellectually, but I'm really not sure how after ten years of doing it the other way.) That's the conundrum in a nutshell, and basically I don't think there's an answer to it. 343/Bungie will obviously focus on the fanbase that pays for the game to be made, and it's not MLG or even non-MLG hardcore competitives. They try to put in settings to make those guys happy, but the result is the fragmentation we're talking about. Honestly, I kind of think the "casualization" of the game is inevitable, and it might actually work out the best for all concerned if 343 gave up on that market and MLG took Halo off the competitive circuit. It would put a small dent in sales, but it might be better for the health of the game and its community in the long run. There's almost nothing there any more but bad blood, anyway; that thread Scorch linked to is just one of many examples.
In response to both Pegasi and ND, regarding fragmenting the community: I think we can all agree that fragmenting the community is a bad thing. Unfortunately, it seems that devolpers seek to capture the more casual audience by instituting by making the game friendlier through gimmicks and things like the ordinance drops. Obviously, these things aren't going to be favored in high competitive play so odds are MLG will see them removed if possible. Looking beyond that, the current Reach playlists managed by 343 and the information 343 has released about the new playlists in Halo 4 seem to hint that more fractures will be developing all throughout the community, not just between MLG, competitive and casual. 343's handling of Reach so far seems to suggest they don't understand how the fractured community could hurt them given the variation in base gametypes across different playlists already. Couple this history with the "Oh, this addition will only be in some playlists" and "There will be designated classic Halo as well" statements I see in a lot of the info reveals and I forsee only worse fragmentation. Honestly, I'm not sure what would be worse: rediculously divided playlists with population spread but options for all thin or a line drawn by 343 keeping everyone in relatively the same boat stuck with vanilla Halo 4. Making the rift between the competitive vets and the casuals bigger and dividing up those two groups further will most likely do more harm than good. Look at the population of half or Reach's playlists. Some are lucky to see 600.