Seriously?! You should be Chuck's bestfriend. I didn't get to play much Halo 2 because my XBL ran out just as MLG was beginning to take off. I'm sure if I renewed it during that time I would've been playing it much more than I did H3. H3 was my game, but that's not to say I didn't have fun in Reach. Just a whole lot less fun.
H2 was the only one I was good at Loved halo 2. Every single map. On the other discussions going on now, I have no qualms with whatever 343 adds to the game. Sometimes you really do have to treat every new game as just that, a new game. If you build a predisposed hatred toward some particular aspect that you wanted in the game or you thought should be handled better based on prior games then you're already eliminating any possibility for fun you might have had. To me halo 3 was as different from halo 2 as it could be as far as my thought processes went. The same goes for 2 from CE, Reach from 3 and now 4. After I play the game if the new additions prove to not be enjoyable, then I can speak of the quality of said game. While I have argued this in the past and some people make some fair cases that how things will go can be reasonably predicted based on prior experiences, that is still a cop out in my opinion to actually going through the experience first hand.
As did every Halo. Obviously MS wants to create a larger audience they always have. So your main point is there was casual iphone/kinect/casual shift in the gaming industry during that time, Sure that has happened, But I'm not certain it was a massive instant thing that happened imo it was more of a gradual evolving of the industry and I'm not sure how predominant it was during designing reach or how much it would of even effected the design if it happened after designing would of been to late to have major effects or if Bungie would of even taken that approach or even considered it. But that's just talking about why or how it happened assuming MS forced Bungie into making it extremely casual and game industry had a giant casual gamer boom during designing reach and decided to change there game accordingly. What I want to know is "What" in the game of Reach is changed and designed for casuals so much more drastically then any other halo has done to cater to casuals that's been so detrimental to the game? (inb4 AA's,Loadouts,Bloom opinions) As for halo 4 its basically is COD gameplay more casual then traditional Halo gameplay and that's a whole other beast.
well, it's not so much the gameplay that has changed. The gameplay has stayed mainly the same. It's just the way you spawn that has changed drastically. The whole basis of this argument is around the fact that equal starts is a core mechanic that defines halo. The question is whether or not choosing your weapons before you spawn will change this. Personally, I think players will mostly be on an equal battlefield, regardless of what weapon they choose. As for the gameplay itself, the only big differences halo 4 has from the "core" halo games is sprint and AAs (and some bloom, but barely). However, I feel that AA's fall under the same category as customizable loadouts, where you can just as easily choose the AA that YOU think is the best, thus, putting them on even levels. If you are using an AA that gives you a disadvantage, why use it? IT'S GIVING YOU A DISADVANTAGE!! the only reason you would be doing that is because the unlock system hasn't allowed you to use them yet, however, I remember from some of the videos that you rank up pretty quickly, so that shouldn't be a problem for most of the time you will be playing this game. As for sprint, I still have not read a single post clearly outlining the problems with sprint. The only difference I see in it is the fact that you have to be careful when you sprint if you want to get around faster, which, I believe is a good thing that punishes uninformed players or players who have bad knowledge of the map's lines of sight. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm taking an argumentative position on that specific thing, but I really don't see the reasoning behind hating sprint. Personally, I've never had a problem with it.
In terms of Halo's pre-Reach staple of even starts, that isn't the same as balanced starts. People have used a similar argument to the one you're making now, but it misses the point of that distinction. The very choice in itself is what changes this aspect, any discussion about whether the choices are balanced or not just becomes an assessment of how well 343 have done their job. The discussion about even starts isn't a value judgement, it's the difference between two styles of shooter. OK, a common point in competitive terms is how it works as a mechanic, one which increases speed at the cost of being able to shoot. In a competitive setting, sprint is inherently more useful as a defensive tool than it is as an offensive tool, for the simple reason that giving up the ability to shoot for speed when pushing isn't that useful, but is incredibly useful when running away. You can argue that chasing the person running away counts as being aggressive, but in this chase situation the chase-ee benefits more from the existence of sprint than the chaser, since they can deny the chaser the ability to shoot them if they want to keep up. Things which promote defensive play like this slow the game down and shift emphasis away from the skill sets generally agreed as more worthy of promoting in competitive gametypes. Don't get me wrong, as a mostly social player I enjoy the addition of sprint in the vanilla game, since it makes running around and finding as many people to kill quicker and easier, but that's because it's far from a competitive setting so I'm able to take advantage of it much more than I suffer from it. I stand by the argument that the competitive game is better off without it, much as I didn't think that for a while after Reach came out.
How do you even want me to respond to that? You threw out everything that makes my argument true? Other things you'll argue and say they're subjective. So I'll ask you the same question, but in terms of Halo 2 - Halo 3. What changes were made that are even remotely equivalent to the changes in Reach.
That's kinda my point. By and large, the situations where it's both safer and more useful to sprint are defensive ones. It definitely can be useful in an offensive role, but this only happens often when the skill gap is big enough so that one team isn't aware enough to punish the person abusing sprint and doing damage all over the map. Helping to prop up bad design aspects in competitive terms isn't an argument, it's simply a prompt to design better maps. This is another part of why I'm OK with it in the vanilla game, because there are inherently more varied maps, and frankly lots of huge ones, which are more prone to this kind of route. And that's fine, but the option to turn it off for when it becomes detrimental (in a competitive setting) is a big deal imo. That's an unrealistic argument though. Asylum is a beautiful example of how this mechanic works out in a competitive staple: the 2 base symm map. When someone pushes past half way and over reaches, they have sprint in their back pocket to get away back to their side. You can't just expect the team who would chase them to control the map better, as the enemy is running back to their own side. All they have to do is be able to sprint to Ring 1, or just drop off and Sprint away if they're on your Sniper Bridge or Carbine, and they're MUCH safer, and can't be chased without giving up the ability to shoot at them. In a 4v4 game where teams are anything close to even and are cooperating, you can't expect one team to control their own side and the enemy side enough to head off anyone running away. That's not how the game works. As I said, I actively enjoy it's addition because frankly it makes social stomping in a game with bad skill matching much more fun since I can just do more in a given amount of time and the majority of people aren't aware enough to punish me for it. What's important is having the option to turn it off where appropriate.
I have a complaint that isn't mind numbingly reposted: I've watched quite a bit of leaked footage and multiplayer stuff and uh my main annoyance: Jeff (The Announcer) who doesn't sound half as good as he used to, never shuts the **** up.
More casuals = more noobs More noobs = more noob stomping Casualizing the game seems good from that angle.
Just like the guitar solos in CoD. I don't want Jeff cheering me on when I lob a grenade into a base and kill a dude guarding his flag. I guess that has to do with the fact that we now seem to have medals for every single thing we accomplish. Meh.
As for sprint i didn't mind it as a AA because it could be used as a pickup (then comes down to map and gametype) but in MM with forced AA's when choosing sprint as a AA gained benefits and disadvantages by choosing it.(been able to escape, traverse the back routes faster then other players even on well designed maps etc but losing ability to jet pack evade or armor lock etc.) As a default game mechanic that everyone has is not a good idea imo would of preferred it to stay as a AA. That was the point, Because our ideas are mutually exclusive one of us has to be wrong and I obviously think I'm right till proven wrong(as every human does), I didn't think you would have an response or if you did I was curious to hear it (I like hearing other opinions then mine it widen my perspective and I could learn from my mistakes). Forge,Theater,Custom game options,Online multiplayer(that was intentionally designed for),Xbox 360 hardware capability's. Just to name a few big ones. You may disagree with individual points or think the subjective but point is there where within reason just about as many changes from 2-3 then 3-Reach. And saying reach is a crap casual game based on the massive amount of casual catering they did is unfair.
I thought we were just discussing the multiplayer sandbox? Because if not: firefight, campaign, armory, commendations, credits. Those are all very massive changes to Halo running on the same xbox 360 as Halo 3. And no, I'm not saying I have no response I was saying you were arbitrarily not allowing me to use much of what I would respond with. Armor abilities, bloom, loadouts are all very, very large changes whether or not you want to admit it. There is nothing like them in any of the past Halos. So what I responded with was: what do you think is so radically different in the Halo 3 multiplayer sandbox from Halo 2 that you can equate it to the Halo Reach changes. Then if I say inb4 equipment (which is honestly a natural expansion/alteration of the weapon sandbox, which happens in every shooter ever), then what else do you have? Also stop putting words in my mouth, I'm not calling Reach a crap, casual shooter (my opinion of it is irrelevant) that's not part of my argument at all.
I saw the new vidoc, looks nice, and got me excited for H4 until I remembered what they did to it. A lot of these decisions seem to be 343i just reaffirming their separation from bungie. *these are all based on all accusations, both confirmed and unconfirmed Pros -flood mode -Sops -more forge options/optimization (trait/gravity zones, simpler pieces) -forge shadow baking -more forge environments (most look promising) -new campaign? -new weapons (maybe) -jetpack nerf (It needed it) Cons -thruster pack (not too bad, but it looks to much like a scene from DBZ, also, floor friction=ouch) -removal of invasion (I don't really like what they replaced it with, Auto turrets=frustration) -The Mantis (not so bad, at least this is optional in custom games) -No coordinate system/fine tuning/geomerging (the new forge caters to the casual forger, and discourages the creativity that made it flourish) -Sticky flag and Auto pickup (like changing combat roles in a ctf game was really that hard) -the announcements are excessive/corny ("flagsassination", really? [sub]but if someone gets killed by the oddball, hearing "You got boned" would be hilarious[/sub]) -needing a power up to pick up grenades (last time I checked, only really old/obese people need help bending over) -emphasis on points (This is just degrading the honor system and general player's code, do I really need an incentive to help a team mate?) -no UNSC aerial vehicles (fuuuuuuuuu) -no firefight (though sops replaces it nicely, owait, you need XBL Gold to play it >.<)
But like, half of it, cause the other team that are getting their own side controlled are also playing MLG, you see? So you're overestimating one team and underestimating another, and since these are both hypothetical teams it doesn't make any sense to even assume any disparity between them at all, let alone such a lopsided one.
Why been able to pickup equipment allowed to be a natural expansion/alteration but been able to pickup AA's isn't? Gravlift/Jetpack Activecamo/Camo overshield/armorlock bubbleshield/dropshield etc. Why is bullet spread so much massively superior system then bloom(with options to turn down bloom to 75% or 0% while spread cant be turned off). Loadouts can be turned off so its not even a issue. Keep in mind Where only talking about the sandbox not how it was implemented in matchmaking. So it includes all possible gametypes made in custom games from race to MLG.
Way to steal my words, still can't believe all these videos going around with the entire campaign and stuff.