You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I was certainly a bit naive to think that Bungie would somehow fix all the glaring problems with Halo 2 and at the same time not add to the problems it’s game play has. On reflection of this I should have realized what we would get simply by the fact that Halo 3 was always going to be a mod of Halo 2.

Three years in the making and I somehow can’t quite fathom what the hell these guys did with all that time, money and resources. Halo 3 looks great. It’s packed with extra features, but what good is the best looking car on the street when it runs like a Yugo.

Weapons.

Like most areas of Halo 3 it’s just Halo 2 with some very basic and ordinary upgrades. Now don’t get me wrong, many changes are very good. However they were so glaring how could they not have been fixed. Take the Shotgun as an example. The weapon failed so miserably in Halo 2 it would have been inconceivable to think that Bungie couldn’t fix this weapon.

There are many weapons that have been made how they should have in Halo 2. The sniper now feels so much better thanks to decreased auto aim and weapon recoil. The Needler is actually useful and feels well balanced with ranges of dominance and uselessness. Looking at these weapons alone makes me smile a bit. Bungie must just need a couple of chances to get it right.

While some things have been improved beyond doubt it’s the simple addition of new weapons into the fold that has meant for every step forwards Bungie takes they seem to take a step back.

An underlying problem with game play for Halo 2 was the “spray” weapon component. Duel wielding and an over abundance of automatic spray weaponry meant a change in game play from Halo 1. This change caused a decrease in the diversity of most encounters between players. The distance between fights decreased for the most part. Well, certainly when playing the game as Bungie intended.

Bungie tried hard to overcome this obvious problem. Duel wielding was weakened. The sword was balanced better and a new and improved starting weapon in the Assault Rifle was brought back and improved on from Halo 1.

It was about this time that Bungie started making some negative steps in weapons for Halo 3. Of all the weapons they added and could have tried out they made one decision which undid every right decision they made up to this point in time. Enter the Mauler.

On its own the Mauler is bad enough. Added liberally around default map set ups and coupled with a melee system that is broken it’s really just another Shotgun with a different skin.

Other weapons add something to the game play at times and take away at others. To couple with the Sword we now have a giant hammer all the more increasing this close counter fighting and camping style that Bungie seems to like. All the more decreasing the skill level of a game already lacking in creative game play.

One thing that makes me want to get on a plane and visit these guys is the new pistol. Trying to appeal to the disgruntled fans of Halo 1 is something. Adding a completely useless weapon into the game is another. Shame Bungie, shame.

Melee

The rule of three was something that I now firmly believe Bungie stumbled upon with Halo 1. After all just look at Halo 2 as it was released originally (pre update 1.1). This just confirmed that Bungie had no idea how this supposed “rule” worked.

The melee system is wrong in Halo 3. Too many kills are being achieved by melee and too many weapons are being over powered by it like the Mauler. A randomness which a game like Halo 3 doesn’t need has now been added.

How can anyone really believe it works? It’s now to powerful and means kill times with many combinations of weapons and melee is too small.

Maps

From the transition of Halo 1 to Halo 2 I was disappointed. Now I’m just furious. Halo 3’s maps are boring. There’s no other word to describe them. They lack any sort of creativeness that Bungie once had and it’s sad to say they are much worse then Halo 2.

Problems exist in many areas but in the end they just aren’t diverse enough as a whole and don’t offer diverse enough game play individually.

I found it amazing that Bungie could now fully do away with teleporters. Restricting game play options and board travel considerably. Halo 2 was already butchered in this area but Halo 3 has been killed completely. Not one teleporter in any map and at the same time they add this feature to Forge. It’s like my wife wearing lingerie and then telling me not to touch her. It’s the biggest gaming tease I’ve ever witnessed.

What has happened is most maps have been repetitive to travel over and lost so much in terms of game play options that it’s enough to make me cry. The maps are dull and like most things Bungie they get obsessed with something so much they think its better then anything else. How on earth can they kill of the teleporter and then think Shield doors add to game play. All they do is scream CAMP. A word that I would have thought Bungie would try hard to get rid of when people think of Halo 3.

Bungie also shows that they don’t know how to properly incorporate multi leveled maps in Halo 3. Construct is so big that the game play becomes painful. Getting from top to bottom is either a long walk or a death defying grav lift. It just doesn’t work.

You can’t run, but you can hide.

Finally here it is. Perhaps the most frustrating problem with Halo 3. It’s strange that you moved fast in Halo 1 but jumper low. Then moved about the same speed in Halo 2 but jumped high. Now you move slowest of all but jump like you’re on the moon. What is up with this crap? How on earth did they think this would improve game play?

It’s too late to fix the jumping aspect. Many of the maps it’s quite necessary to navigate. However the speed in which you move is quite obviously broken. It restricts game play in terms of evasion for a start. It also makes camping an even more attractive alternative way to much of the time.

I think Bungie might have done this as something to compensate for the decreased AA. They seem to be hell bent on keeping the game easy when it would have still been easy enough and much more enjoyable had speed be at about 120%. Again Bungie gives us this option in custom games like a tease.

Conclusion

Bungie referred to the problems with Halo 2 as lack of a “polishing” period. In all honesty I still see none of it here. All I see is a lot of work done on graphic (which are amazing) and a huge amount of work on features like Forge, Theater and web site stats etc. I would like to see the beak up of Bungie staff and exactly how many people are in which basket. Because quite simply the game play and multi player team either is under staffed or a bunch of bad Halo players who think getting a kill with the Spartan Laser means you’re good. The only polishing I can tell happened at Bungie involved their dominate hands down each others pants.

Many things should have been different. A health bar added to the shield like Halo 1. Or at least an increased shield with only the BR, Carbine and Snipers damage increased. These changes would have made a difference in the melee and weapon set and decreased the effectiveness of things like the AR six shot and melee kill which is a real problem.

What can be changed? Not a lot now. Some of it’s right there in game options and Forge but becomes irrelevant because of Bungies obsession with making us play the game their way. We were once baited with promises of “XBL Public” a way in which we could play the setting we liked publicly with others outside of our friends list. However like most great Bungie promises this fell though.

We can increase the speed, decrease gravity. We can nurf Maulers and hammers from the map. We can even change respawns and add teleporters. We just can’t play like this outside of our friends list.

Shame!

0
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I think your central point is correct. Whatever it is that you liked about Halo 1 was not something Bungie ever intended to put in.

You don't really want the best Halo possible, you want some other game-- something I wouldn't even recognize as Halo.


Rampant for over se7en years.

N1NJ4's picture
N1NJ4
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2005
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I think I agree with narc... what is this rule of three you speak of? Also, no need to complain about the defaults. Keep in mind that Bungie could easily go in and add a teleporter to whatever map on whatever playlist they want thanks to forge. Teleporters are by no means excluded from making appearances in any of the maps we know in the future.

You complain about the melee system. Im not sure how accurately I read, but it seems like most complaints about this stem from confusion about how the mechanics of halo 3 are different from those of halo 2. I couldn't go into details, but I am somewhat sure that there is some weirdness due to Bungie removing the host advantage. I don't think there is any for them to display it properly, but you have to just trust that the person that pressed the button first wins.

Your point is taken about the mauler, but keep in mind once again that everything apart from actual map geometry can be changed in the matchmaking playlists. If Bungie feels that the mauler is applied too liberally about some of the maps, Im sure they will not hesitate to cut back a bit.

There are two big problems with your argument. The first is that you are still stuck on halo 1. Thats great. Go play halo 1. The second is that no matter how much testing Bungie does, they will never be able to approach the "testing" that gets done by everybody on XBL even over a couple of days. What they can do is track stats and use them to improve playlists. I guarantee you those shiny new heatmaps will be used to see what weapons may need to be cut back on or moved. If you think about it, forge is the best thing they possibly could have spent their time on. The defaults for now were their best approximation of good maps. Would you rather they come up with a slightly better approximation? Or would you rather Bungie give themselves the chance to view the playing habits over billions of games and then have the ability to change everything at their own will? Forgive me, but duh.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

By "rule of three" I think he means guns, grenades, and melee-- the relative balance between all three that make up characteristic Halo gameplay.

As for the melee system, I think there is the common complaint, which is that the Halo 3 wrinkle (most health wins on simultaneous melees) is unfair. This, I think, is largely a problem of people knowing too much about how the game works. They are assuming this "simultaneous melee" code is coming into play far more often than it actually does, and assuming that it is the reason for their deaths more often than it actually is.

As for host advantage... let's be clear here, Bungie cannot remove that except by switching to a dedicated server architecture, which I think is not feasible on Xbox Live for any number of reasons. As long as there is a host, there are advantages that player will have that simply cannot be removed. The more latency to the host a player has, the more of a disadvantage he or she is at. Bungie can attempt to minimize it, but that's all.

I think the bottom line is that VVV considers certain things broken that the majority of Halo players don't, and as a result, he'd have traded away the advanced features in order to have those things addressed. I think the issue is that those things have been left alone by design, not by accident or through incompetence, and that the accident is that a certain portion of the Halo 1 fan population liked the game for reasons that were very, very different from those of the majority.


Rampant for over se7en years.

N1NJ4's picture
N1NJ4
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2005
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Hrm, the thing I was thinking of when I said that was this...

frankie wrote:

Situation: Two people melee almost simultaneously and one wins.

Display: One melee fails, then, a fraction of a second later, your opponent's, succeeds.

This looks worse than it is, sometimes because of network conditions. You'll have to take our word for it that in spite of the apparent gap in time and animation, the two strikes were effectively simultaneous. The problem is for most people that it looks bad and is dissatisfying. But we do appreciate the frustration this causes and we are looking into it. As many have noted, the alternative, host advantage, is not preferable.

So, either they came up with something to eliminate (at least to some extent) host advantage (perhaps timestamping?), or frankie is full of it... heh. Anyways I tend to agree that removing host advantage completly is probably impossible, but there are a lot of people at bungie that know a whole lot more about netcode for games than I do, so my guess is they made a pretty good go at it.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

N1NJ4 wrote:

Hrm, the thing I was thinking of when I said that was this...

frankie wrote:

Situation: Two people melee almost simultaneously and one wins.

Display: One melee fails, then, a fraction of a second later, your opponent's, succeeds.

This looks worse than it is, sometimes because of network conditions. You'll have to take our word for it that in spite of the apparent gap in time and animation, the two strikes were effectively simultaneous. The problem is for most people that it looks bad and is dissatisfying. But we do appreciate the frustration this causes and we are looking into it. As many have noted, the alternative, host advantage, is not preferable.

So, either they came up with something to eliminate (at least to some extent) host advantage (perhaps timestamping?), or frankie is full of it... heh.

Not necessarily. And while I have no way of ruling it out, somehow I suspect timestamps aren't being used, as these might represent too many avenues for manipulation, and give heavily lagged players an advantage, and offer more incentive for unnaturally altering one's network connection.

However, more important is the idea of revisionist history. It's bad enough now when, to lagged players, it seems that first one thing happens, and then something entirely different (sometimes opposite) happens. In heavy lag, you can throw a stickynade, see it bounce off, then see it stick and explode. The bounce I think is caused by your client needing to somehow display something even though it does not have an authoritative answer from the server about what happened to that grenade. When it finally gets the answer, the grenade warps from its apparent position to its real position in an unsettling way.

Right now, mostly it is the lagged player who experiences this-- it colors their interactions with all players and objects. To the rest of the players, it seems to affect only their interactions with the lagged player-- and even then, most of these events will be resolved in their favor.

Timestamping would project the effects of warping from the lagged player onto the host. To the host, it would appear at first as if they had won the melee battle. Then, a packet would arrive late from a lagged client, but tagged with a timestamp indicating that the lagged player actually meleed first, and it arrived late only because of the lag.

The server now has to reverse itself somehow. So either it can't display the results of actions to its player or other players in the game until it has a response from all relevant clients, or it has to display seemingly contradictory actions, or it does what it does now-- which is discard those packets and send an updated world state to the lagged client.

In short, the idea of timestamps would transform Halo's network architecture from client-server to peer to peer (with respect to events that are timestamped). The network performance of the entire game would become equal to the network performance of the slowest client.

Somehow I don't think Bungie has done that or will do that.

N1NJ4 wrote:

Anyways I tend to agree that removing host advantage completly is probably impossible, but there are a lot of people at bungie that know a whole lot more about netcode for games than I do, so my guess is they made a pretty good go at it.

It's not a question of what anybody knows, or working hard. It's sort of like saying that since NASA has lots of really smart people who know more about physics than I do, I won't rule out the possibility that they'll find a way to negate the effects of gravity.

All any game designer can do in a network action game is decide how their architecture will apportion the effects of lag. In client-server, the clients all bear the entirety of the burden of their own lag. In peer to peer, the entire network bears the burden of the cumulative lag in the system. That's the only way to "eliminate" host advantage. In a peer to peer system, there is no host, so there is no advantage, but every player in the game experiences it with the cumulative lag the system accrues, since updates are passed around in a ring from the first client to the last before coming back.


Rampant for over se7en years.

N1NJ4's picture
N1NJ4
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2005
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

narcogen wrote:
N1NJ4 wrote:
frankie wrote:

...But we do appreciate the frustration this causes and we are looking into it. As many have noted, the alternative, host advantage, is not preferable.

So, either they came up with something to eliminate (at least to some extent) host advantage (perhaps timestamping?), or frankie is full of it... heh.

Not necessarily...

Ok, timestamping was just the first thing that came to mind. My main point was that Frankie seems to be implying that they somehow found a way around giving the host advantage, at least in situations where the lag is somewhat low. My guess is that many of the calculations change depending on client ping. What do you think he meant?

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

N1NJ4 wrote:
narcogen wrote:
N1NJ4 wrote:
frankie wrote:

...But we do appreciate the frustration this causes and we are looking into it. As many have noted, the alternative, host advantage, is not preferable.

So, either they came up with something to eliminate (at least to some extent) host advantage (perhaps timestamping?), or frankie is full of it... heh.

Not necessarily...

Ok, timestamping was just the first thing that came to mind. My main point was that Frankie seems to be implying that they somehow found a way around giving the host advantage, at least in situations where the lag is somewhat low. My guess is that many of the calculations change depending on client ping. What do you think he meant?

Not sure. Frankie's not a programmer, so perhaps all he knew was that 1) there was a problem with melees w/r/t host advantage (first to melee wins, host always melees first) and that 2) the current system was put in place to address that problem.

Addressing a melee problem does not and cannot negate host advantage. However, since it resolves simultaneous melees by another tiebreaker (total health) at least it means that all other things being equal, the host does not necessarily win.

It may be that under identical conditions, in Halo 2 this was the case. I'm not sure. All other things being equal, it may be true.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I was linked here by a friend.

I think that the hardcore Halo faithful are still standing around waiting for another "Halo 1" to come around.

Stop waiting. That bus is never coming.

The job of any gaming company is to make money. The original Halo sold basketloads - but Bungie needed to reach a broader audience. Halo 2 was wider open and now so is Halo 3.

Don't kid yourself. Bungie isn't making games to appease the several hundred hardcore Halo 1 fans out there that believe it was the best game ever made.

They're making games because it makes money - and puts food on the table of the people that work there.

I personally disagree with most of what was written above. I like Halo 3. I don't think the mele system is broken. I DO think the mauler needs a bit of a damage decrease, but I do NOT think that we should crank up the damage to a Battle Rifle or Carbine to "compensate" for anything.

Further, now you complain that there's no default teleporters on the maps? I really cannot understand this argument. There are many - MANY - more unique ways to get around the map - more SAFE ways than using a teleporter. I can camp outside a teleporter and kill you every time you come through it with my shotgun (which I feel is balanced perfectly). What I can't do is predict which lift you're going to come up on Construct.

Further - I think Shield doors are a blast. They add a whole new dynamic to the game. If you think someone's camping in the room, don't go in. I could hide around the corner of one of those doors whether the shield was there or not - and still get plenty of kills.

Like it or not the evolution of Halo will evolve. For the most part, Halo 3 is a breath of fresh air to 99% of the Halo Nation that's played Halo 2 to death.

So, my advice is to simply step back from your mindset that Halo 3 should have been "Halo v1.5" and realize that it's not - and never would have been/will be.

Every game in an iteration must evolve. If they had kept everything from Halo 1, odds are the same people that whine about Halo 3 would be whining that "there's nothing new in Halo 3".

Every game must evolve. Every gamer must evolve with it.

If you feel that Halo 1 is "superior", then feel free to go play that. The rest of us will be on Halo 3.

Having fun.

Remember - video games are supposed to be FUN. When's the last time you played for fun?

- LordGideon
PraetoriaGuard

VVV's picture
VVV
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2007
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

I was linked here by a friend.

I think that the hardcore Halo faithful are still standing around waiting for another "Halo 1" to come around.

The job of any gaming company is to make money. The original Halo sold basketloads - but Bungie needed to reach a broader audience. Halo 2 was wider open and now so is Halo 3.

Not waiting around for another Halo 1 at all. Yes the idea in any business is to make money. I've said it before and I'll say it again that making the game more competitive and fixing glaring game play mechanic problems would do just this.

Quote:

Don't kid yourself. Bungie isn't making games to appease the several hundred hardcore Halo 1 fans out there that believe it was the best game ever made.

Remember - video games are supposed to be FUN. When's the last time you played for fun?

- LordGideon
PraetoriaGuard

I don't believe that Halo 1 is the best game ever made. I also don't believe it perfect, far from it. It was balanced with game play mechanics that worked.

It was also FUN, the ONLY reason I play video games!!!

Anton P Nym wrote:

I could pile on a bunch more, or even go through a tedious point-by-point analysis, but after dozens of iterations of the same post over the past four years I've frankly grown bored with rebutting "there is no game but Halo 1 and I am it's prophet" posts.

Go play the game you prefer with your like-minded friends, as I shall with mine.

-- Steve'll get on with what needs to get done now.

I tell you what Steve, next time you see an article on here by me STOP. Restrain yourself and don't hit the read button. If that fails don't reply, at least not with crap.

I find it ever amazing that I can be considered a "fanboy" by some here. Considering I don't hold Halo 1 up to the light as the greatest game ever or even close. I am all to aware of it's faults and downfalls.

A fanboy is not someone like me. He/she is someone who will defend something with NO admittance of faults or imperfections. I see these people existing in the Halo community just as you do.

Anonymous wrote:

Hell if I'm reading the entirity of this crap.

The MELEE system is retardedly overpowered. VVV isn't saying that the only skillful way to kill someone is with range weapons. He's saying that the game is far too prone and prodded toward close combat. For two reasons.

First because of the whole melee being OVERFUCKINGPOWERED thing. And because there is WAAAY too many shotguns on maps. Guardian is a lamefest for corner camping. It's hard to actually get into an AIM oriented face off in this game. Anyone that thinks the AR beat-down isn't insane at 6 shots + melee, I pity you, and what it says about your methods.

Look through the records sometime hip-cats. There ARE far too many contests decided by beat-downs. It's a matter of what's effective, hence what's encouraged. That's tantamount to IDIOT-FRIENDLY. Which this game is.

-HZQI

QFT. Thanks my good friend.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

VVV wrote:

Not waiting around for another Halo 1 at all. Yes the idea in any business is to make money. I've said it before and I'll say it again that making the game more competitive and fixing glaring game play mechanic problems would do just this.

All I can say here is that I am continually amazed at the number of people who think that because certain gameplay issues are evident (or apparently evident) to them that means these issues are glaring, especially when there are players who might not even admit that they exist.

At the same time, those same people usually assert that no matter how popular or successful the game in question already is, that addressing the things they identify as issues, in the manner they suggest, would only make the game even more popular and successful.

I think this line of reasoning has two flaws. One, I think that in the case of Halo, each game has progressively sold more copies than the last (we probably have to let Halo 3 sell for awhile longer before that comes to pass, but certainly the initial results indicate this will eventually happen). In addition, in terms of unit sales compared to the installed base of compatible hardware (first the Xbox and then the Xbox 360) each Halo game has been about as popular as a game can be, in terms of the percentage of console owners who buy it. About the only way to get a higher ratio of games sold to consoles sold is to bundle the game with the console.

In short, I think there is extremely little room for the Halo series to be more popular or more successful, at least in purely economic terms.

Secondly, I think it's naive to assume that the changes suggested could only have a positive effect. This is another problem with the arguments that have as their central point the idea that Halo 3 (and before it Halo 2) rewarded unskilful play. The majority of players are unskilled. The game has quite obviously been designed to try and give players an enjoyable experience regardless of skill level. Part of that is the matchmaking system, trying to assign ratings to players and then match them with players of equal ranking. However, since a single monolithic number cannot realistically describe all the nuances of any player's style, it will never be completely perfect no matter how many games you play, and no matter how accurate it gets, the game will not ever be, nor do I think it is trying to be, nor do I think it should be trying to be, solely a mechanism for measuring a player's skill.

To wit, if you think that given Player A with skill level Z, and Player B with skill level Y, where Z > X, that all other things being equal with no overt mistakes made by either player, that A should beat B in every match, and in every encounter-- you are never going to get this result. Partially it is because the game does allow random things to happen sometimes. It is become some weapons, and some situations, require more skill than others. It is because some encounters are decided by factors that players may not consider based purely on skill.

Over time it is probably fair to say that A will beat B in most encounters, and in most matches. If that fails to happen, the ratings of the two players will adjust themselves to reflect how often it happens.

When going over these same concepts in the "Halo2sucks" discussions, I phrased those complaints as boiling down to an impression by certain players that Halo 2 failed to sufficiently reward demonstrated player skill. The complaints about Halo 3 seem to be crystallizing around the same grain of sand.

As a response, I think I would say:

Halo is neither purely, nor merely, a device for measuring your skill at playing Halo.

There are a small group of people who, were this the case, would no doubt be singing the game's praises to the sky instead of grumbling about minutiae. I think there might also be a rather large segment of players on the other side of the skill range who would quickly wander away to other games.

VVV wrote:

I find it ever amazing that I can be considered a "fanboy" by some here. Considering I don't hold Halo 1 up to the light as the greatest game ever or even close. I am all to aware of it's faults and downfalls.

A fanboy is not someone like me. He/she is someone who will defend something with NO admittance of faults or imperfections. I see these people existing in the Halo community just as you do.

Anonymous wrote:

Hell if I'm reading the entirity of this crap.

The MELEE system is retardedly overpowered. VVV isn't saying that the only skillful way to kill someone is with range weapons. He's saying that the game is far too prone and prodded toward close combat. For two reasons.

First because of the whole melee being OVERFUCKINGPOWERED thing. And because there is WAAAY too many shotguns on maps. Guardian is a lamefest for corner camping. It's hard to actually get into an AIM oriented face off in this game. Anyone that thinks the AR beat-down isn't insane at 6 shots + melee, I pity you, and what it says about your methods.

Look through the records sometime hip-cats. There ARE far too many contests decided by beat-downs. It's a matter of what's effective, hence what's encouraged. That's tantamount to IDIOT-FRIENDLY. Which this game is.

-HZQI

QFT. Thanks my good friend.

"Far too many" is a pretty subjective thing, I think. Frankly I think there's some logic to it. Once two spartans get close enough to each other for a melee strike, frankly I think the encounter should end there. The idea of two ponderous, yet graceful and terribly beweaponed killing machines coming within arm's reach of one another with neither one able to finish the other off seems a mite anti-climactic to me. I can see encounters failing to end one way or the other when ranged weapons are in use, and I can see the unrealistic aspects of a melee strike being such an apparently dominant weapon.

I think this is just a statistical anomaly, and does not represent the relative strength of the melee strike compared to other weapons so much as it does the play style of the majority of players.

Is the melee strike a good counter to a sniper rifle from across the map? No, not really.

Is it effective against a rocket launcher? Nope, not really.

How close do I have to get to an opponent before I can make a successful melee lunge-- and how many BR or AR shots can an opponent put into me before I reach it?

The number of melee kills compared to other weapons is actually no measure of the power of the melee strike compared to other weapons, or compared to Halo 2. It is an indication of the number of encounters that end when opponents close within melee range. If you don't want your encounters decided by melee strikes one way or the other, do not close to melee range. Do not allow opponents to get that close. Do not rush towards opponents looking for that melee strike.

It seems to me that if someone is rushing towards you, and you are backing away, the opponent will never land an unfair melee strike, and if you have better aim and/or a better ranged weapon, that your opponent will either die or be forced to break off the encounter.

Please note that I am not saying anything whatsoever about the relative skill of the players involved, or stating that the strategies people are using are wrong, or that that way of playing is better than what people are doing. Bungie has said they are looking into the complaints regarding melee encounters, so perhaps it is possible that something is not working as intended-- I don't know.

However, I still would say that 1) it makes sense for an encounter to be decided, one way or another, once two opponents close within melee range, and that 2) the way Bungie has stated the system decides simultaneous melee strikes-- most health wins-- seems fair to me in principle. Since the player with the most health at that point would be, logically, the one who took the least damage from the ranged weapon portion of the encounter prior to the melee strike, I fail to see how it is not evidence of superior playing skill, all other things being equal.

Most of the melee complaints seem to revolve around collections of anecdotal complaints that usually are variations on the theme of me and my opponent meleed around the same time (perhaps one slightly before or slightly after) and although I think, for reasons X, Y and Z that I should have won, the opposite happened sprinkled liberally with a few examples of my opponent should have won, but instead I did in order to lend an air of credibility to the complaint.

I've yet to see a collection of references or game films that demonstrate flaws in the melee system that cannot be explained by simple consequences of lag, most of which are unavoidable, as unpleasant as they are. That does not mean such evidence does not exist-- simply that the party in the best position to review such evidence is probably Bungie, looking at the data generated by all the games, rather than individual players or groups of players who have their own perspective on how the game should work.

Or, if you want to be a tad bit more pessimistic (but no less accurate), look at it this way: 1) most people are idiots. 2) All halo players are people. 3) ergo, most Halo players are idiots. 4) winning is fun, 5) losing is not fun, 7) people tend to do things when they at least have a chance at having fun some of the time, Cool ergo, in order to remain popular with most of its players, most of its players need to have at least a chance for enough success to keep them playing, most of the time, all other things being equal.

You call that "idiot-friendly". I call it good design.


Rampant for over se7en years.

VVV's picture
VVV
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2007
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

narcogen wrote:
VVV wrote:

Not waiting around for another Halo 1 at all. Yes the idea in any business is to make money. I've said it before and I'll say it again that making the game more competitive and fixing glaring game play mechanic problems would do just this.

All I can say here is that I am continually amazed at the number of people who think that because certain gameplay issues are evident (or apparently evident) to them that means these issues are glaring, especially when there are players who might not even admit that they exist.

At the same time, those same people usually assert that no matter how popular or successful the game in question already is, that addressing the things they identify as issues, in the manner they suggest, would only make the game even more popular and successful.

I think this line of reasoning has two flaws. One, I think that in the case of Halo, each game has progressively sold more copies than the last (we probably have to let Halo 3 sell for awhile longer before that comes to pass, but certainly the initial results indicate this will eventually happen). In addition, in terms of unit sales compared to the installed base of compatible hardware (first the Xbox and then the Xbox 360) each Halo game has been about as popular as a game can be, in terms of the percentage of console owners who buy it. About the only way to get a higher ratio of games sold to consoles sold is to bundle the game with the console.

In short, I think there is extremely little room for the Halo series to be more popular or more successful, at least in purely economic terms.

What we have here is really quite simple. However as much as I have pointed this out in the past to people of your belief I haven't really gotten very far. Meh but I will make the relevent points anyway.

Firstly it's very relevent to consider first the popularity of Halo 1. Consider this in reflection to the nature of the game. The game was very highly skill based and as such the difference in skill between the worst and best players is a lot higher then that in Halo 2 and 3. However Halo 1 is a massive reason for Halo 2 and 3's success. It started the ball rolling in the franchise and in terms of copies sold for XBOX consoles at the time has both Halo 2 and 3 covered.

What that indicates is that a game with a high level of skill does not necessarily mean players of low skill are turned off. It can also indicate that the game appeals to what even you called a broarder market and player base.

Another thing to consider in this discussion is that in the end copies sold are just numbers and in terms of XBOX numbers may have less relevence in areas that both you and I would highlight in terms of proving our point. For instance Halo 2 sold 2.4 million copies on the first day. Why? This is the question to ask. It also sold 6 million copies within about 8 weeks of release. The incredible rate of sale in such a short term of release and this high percentage of overall sales compared to the end amount of 8 million is reflective of various things.

Firstly Halo 1. The game is after all Halo 2 and therefore much of it's success is achieved by that alone and the success of the original. Secondly and more importantly the quality and quantity of decent games (competition) available for purchase at the time of release and even now with Halo 3 is something that XBOX has always struggled for. A true reflection of gaming today. Probably the saddest part of all this.

Quote:

Secondly, I think it's naive to assume that the changes suggested could only have a positive effect. This is another problem with the arguments that have as their central point the idea that Halo 3 (and before it Halo 2) rewarded unskilful play. The majority of players are unskilled. The game has quite obviously been designed to try and give players an enjoyable experience regardless of skill level. Part of that is the matchmaking system, trying to assign ratings to players and then match them with players of equal ranking. However, since a single monolithic number cannot realistically describe all the nuances of any player's style, it will never be completely perfect no matter how many games you play, and no matter how accurate it gets, the game will not ever be, nor do I think it is trying to be, nor do I think it should be trying to be, solely a mechanism for measuring a player's skill.

To wit, if you think that given Player A with skill level Z, and Player B with skill level Y, where Z > X, that all other things being equal with no overt mistakes made by either player, that A should beat B in every match, and in every encounter-- you are never going to get this result. Partially it is because the game does allow random things to happen sometimes. It is become some weapons, and some situations, require more skill than others. It is because some encounters are decided by factors that players may not consider based purely on skill.

Over time it is probably fair to say that A will beat B in most encounters, and in most matches. If that fails to happen, the ratings of the two players will adjust themselves to reflect how often it happens.

When going over these same concepts in the "Halo2sucks" discussions, I phrased those complaints as boiling down to an impression by certain players that Halo 2 failed to sufficiently reward demonstrated player skill. The complaints about Halo 3 seem to be crystallizing around the same grain of sand.

As a response, I think I would say:

Halo is neither purely, nor merely, a device for measuring your skill at playing Halo.

There are a small group of people who, were this the case, would no doubt be singing the game's praises to the sky instead of grumbling about minutiae. I think there might also be a rather large segment of players on the other side of the skill range who would quickly wander away to other games.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Halo in all 3 of it's forms has something much more then X > Z. It has a learning curve. Although this varies in all three games the ability to overcome a better player is something that can always be achieved. I play better players at all three games and although they win most of the time the joy is adapting, learning and out thinking your opponent to overcome short falls such as aim.

Your example is something that may be right if the following were true. You are better then me and we are placed in a square room with just a BR each and no nades or melee ability. Then yeah sure you have me. Thankfully none of the Halo games are like that. I believe you have simplified an argument for the wrong reasons.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

narcogen wrote:
VVV wrote:

"Far too many" is a pretty subjective thing, I think. Frankly I think there's some logic to it. Once two spartans get close enough to each other for a melee strike, frankly I think the encounter should end there. The idea of two ponderous, yet graceful and terribly beweaponed killing machines coming within arm's reach of one another with neither one able to finish the other off seems a mite anti-climactic to me. I can see encounters failing to end one way or the other when ranged weapons are in use, and I can see the unrealistic aspects of a melee strike being such an apparently dominant weapon.

I think this is just a statistical anomaly, and does not represent the relative strength of the melee strike compared to other weapons so much as it does the play style of the majority of players.

Is the melee strike a good counter to a sniper rifle from across the map? No, not really.

Is it effective against a rocket launcher? Nope, not really.

How close do I have to get to an opponent before I can make a successful melee lunge-- and how many BR or AR shots can an opponent put into me before I reach it?

The number of melee kills compared to other weapons is actually no measure of the power of the melee strike compared to other weapons, or compared to Halo 2. It is an indication of the number of encounters that end when opponents close within melee range. If you don't want your encounters decided by melee strikes one way or the other, do not close to melee range. Do not allow opponents to get that close. Do not rush towards opponents looking for that melee strike.

It seems to me that if someone is rushing towards you, and you are backing away, the opponent will never land an unfair melee strike, and if you have better aim and/or a better ranged weapon, that your opponent will either die or be forced to break off the encounter.

Please note that I am not saying anything whatsoever about the relative skill of the players involved, or stating that the strategies people are using are wrong, or that that way of playing is better than what people are doing. Bungie has said they are looking into the complaints regarding melee encounters, so perhaps it is possible that something is not working as intended-- I don't know.

However, I still would say that 1) it makes sense for an encounter to be decided, one way or another, once two opponents close within melee range, and that 2) the way Bungie has stated the system decides simultaneous melee strikes-- most health wins-- seems fair to me in principle. Since the player with the most health at that point would be, logically, the one who took the least damage from the ranged weapon portion of the encounter prior to the melee strike, I fail to see how it is not evidence of superior playing skill, all other things being equal.

Most of the melee complaints seem to revolve around collections of anecdotal complaints that usually are variations on the theme of me and my opponent meleed around the same time (perhaps one slightly before or slightly after) and although I think, for reasons X, Y and Z that I should have won, the opposite happened sprinkled liberally with a few examples of my opponent should have won, but instead I did in order to lend an air of credibility to the complaint.

I've yet to see a collection of references or game films that demonstrate flaws in the melee system that cannot be explained by simple consequences of lag, most of which are unavoidable, as unpleasant as they are. That does not mean such evidence does not exist-- simply that the party in the best position to review such evidence is probably Bungie, looking at the data generated by all the games, rather than individual players or groups of players who have their own perspective on how the game should work.

Or, if you want to be a tad bit more pessimistic (but no less accurate), look at it this way: 1) most people are idiots. 2) All halo players are people. 3) ergo, most Halo players are idiots. 4) winning is fun, 5) losing is not fun, 7) people tend to do things when they at least have a chance at having fun some of the time, Cool ergo, in order to remain popular with most of its players, most of its players need to have at least a chance for enough success to keep them playing, most of the time, all other things being equal.

You call that "idiot-friendly". I call it good design.


Rampant for over se7en years.

I dig your capacity for retort, even if your reasoning is misguided in it's shortcomings of consideration.

You took a very winding path to constantly refer to the fact of: "If two spartans are within striking range". Well... duh. Exactly. Your naive attatchment to results instead of means entire disregards the way the behaviour alters in accordance with effectiveness. I'd summise that you're probably right. Most people aren't exceptional of thought (by statistical rationale, they can't be). People, at one time or another are going to find themselves in a contest of fisticuffs. The problem that emerges with the melee being so grossly overpowered, is that it overencourages combat at that range. If it was depowered to a more reasonable level, people would still melee, just as they did in Halo 2, with it's significantly less powerful strike. Halo 2's melee power is spot on. It's just the degree of auto-aim-lunge, and excessive range and speed that are the problem. People in a mid-to-short type of scenario should have balanced options to consider. What they do instead is charge like morons for their idiot friendly result, ultimately eliminating the majority of mid/short ranged contests. It's taking a large margin of the shooting, out of the shooting game. Aside from being plainly, obviously, patently silly.

You call it good design? So was HALO 2 1.0 good design too? With it's 6 hit beat-downs? Is there anything Bungie does that you don't semantically excuse? Which beat down is best? HALO 1? HALO 2 ver 1.0? 1.2? HALO 3? Oh, there's a way to explain the genius of them all right? Not. To reiterate: The density of the heavy beat-downs bestowing death at modest hands is half the problem. Effectiveness influences behaviour. The prominent behaviour is stupid. Because stupid tends to work in this game. Now, you're certain to say, "Oh, b,b,b,but if they're doing what works, it's not stupid. Yes. It is". If Chess had a special square on the board, and the first one to get there was rewarded with all his pieces as queens. It would work to your favour, but that doesn't make it right. Melee has it's place, and it's not in the hail-mary hands of headless chickens.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

I dig your capacity for retort, even if your reasoning is misguided in it's shortcomings of consideration.

Please. Let's remain civil. Attempting to make attacks on one's ability to argue, rather than the argument itself, is the first step on the slippery slope down into ad hominem attacks. Apart from being groundless, it's tactless. Let's stay up here on the hill, shall we?

Anonymous wrote:

You took a very winding path to constantly refer to the fact of: "If two spartans are within striking range". Well... duh. Exactly. Your naive attatchment to results instead of means entire disregards the way the behaviour alters in accordance with effectiveness. I'd summise that you're probably right. Most people aren't exceptional of thought (by statistical rationale, they can't be). People, at one time or another are going to find themselves in a contest of fisticuffs. The problem that emerges with the melee being so grossly overpowered, is that it overencourages combat at that range. If it was depowered to a more reasonable level, people would still melee, just as they did in Halo 2, with it's significantly less powerful strike. Halo 2's melee power is spot on. It's just the degree of auto-aim-lunge, and excessive range and speed that are the problem. People in a mid-to-short type of scenario should have balanced options to consider. What they do instead is charge like morons for their idiot friendly result, ultimately eliminating the majority of mid/short ranged contests. It's taking a large margin of the shooting, out of the shooting game. Aside from being plainly, obviously, patently silly.

I think you are greatly exaggerating the degree to which these consequences alters play style. I don't believe melee encounters happen any more often in Halo 3 than in Halo 2. They simply come to an end more quickly in Halo 3 than in Halo 2, with the first melee strike itself. There were, are, and will be players who simply run right at the target, and those who play a craftier game.

What it comes down to, again, is that those who are simply running right at the target are being rewarded with a kill more often than you think they should.

Anonymous wrote:

You call it good design? So was HALO 2 1.0 good design too? With it's 6 hit beat-downs? Is there anything Bungie does that you don't semantically excuse?

Have you read a single word I've ever written about Halo 2 outside of this thread? I believe if you do you'll find the answer to these questions.

Anonymous wrote:

Which beat down is best? HALO 1? HALO 2 ver 1.0? 1.2? HALO 3? Oh, there's a way to explain the genius of them all right?

You are proceeding from the false assumption that there are objective answers to these questions, about which implementation of the melee strike is best, about which game's implementation of multiplayer is best.

At the very least, there is probably an infinite continuum of appropriate values for melee strength and range, within the context of the rest of the game's weapons. You point out the rather weak melee of Halo 2 prior to the 1.1 AU and I'd say that this was recognized and corrected as a bug.

If there is a flaw in all the other implementations I'd say it's not melee strength, but the lunge. I thought Halo 2 had too much, and I think Halo 3 still has too much.

Anonymous wrote:

Not. To reiterate: The density of the heavy beat-downs bestowing death at modest hands is half the problem. Effectiveness influences behaviour. The prominent behaviour is stupid. Because stupid tends to work in this game.

There I'm afraid you've betrayed your real argument again. In your opinion the game is rewarding "modest hands" too much.

Anonymous wrote:

Now, you're certain to say, "Oh, b,b,b,but if they're doing what works, it's not stupid. Yes. It is". If Chess had a special square on the board, and the first one to get there was rewarded with all his pieces as queens. It would work to your favour, but that doesn't make it right.

If that was the way chess worked, it would be chess. In fact, all you've described is a special case of pawn promotion. I've never played a variation like that, but there are many variations of chess-- multiple board variations like bug house-- that would appear to pervert the nature of the game from the perspective of a purist but have their own system of checks and balances that don't ruin the game, but change it. Some of those variations, also, change the range of behaviors that are rewarded and encouraged as well as those that are punished and discouraged. They allow for tactics and circumstances that sometimes permit less skilled players to execute successful maneuvers against superior players, in some cases, enough to extract a victory.

You're arguing as if there is an idealized form of the game called "Halo" like something out of Plato's cave, and that the earthly implementations of it need to be judged on their compliance to this mold. It is false. It does not exist. You're arguing that if Halo was a bit more like this, or a bit less like that, it would somehow be more Halo, or less Halo. It's bunk. The ultimate measure of what Halo is comes in the form of the games that are released, not an imaginary ideal. The measure of how good each of those implementations are comes in many forms, one of which might be deemed a utilitarian measure of "the most fun for the most people".

I can imagine a range, the far side of which is a game that is exact and unforgiving in its determinism and an excellent tool for measuring skills such as aim. I can imagine another side of that range, in which Halo has a "press X to win" button and the first player to hit it wins. At those extremes, the greatest fun is not served. The former is enjoyable for far too few players because only a small percentage will ever be good enough to succeed and the population of players will be insufficient. The latter is enjoyable for far too few players because the sense of accomplishment is ruined by the gross nature of player input.

Halo 2 and Halo 3 both fall somewhere in the broad middle. You seemingly want to drag it towards the former a bit, fearing that it is already too close to the latter. My point is that it is not nearly as close to that as you say; but I'll admit that a game that aspires to wide adoption it probably needs to be closer to the latter than the former.

I'll reiterate my central point: allowing for situations in which a less skilled player may sometimes kill a better skilled player does not, in and of itself, constitute a flaw in a game's design.

Perhaps there is a problem with the melee system. Perhaps Bungie will address it, tell us what they think it was, and how they intend to change it. I doubt it will be as simple as reducing it in strength, as most of the substantive complaints have been about timing rather than strength.

Anonymous wrote:

Melee has it's place, and it's not in the hail-mary hands of headless chickens.

Your utter disdain for the less skilled, your expressed desire to see that they have no fun at all because they do not deserve to-- even a few kills that generally do not change the ultimate outcome of any individual game, let alone a significant enough number of games to affect player ratings-- does nothing to convince me that you have the correct answer to the questions of how to design an action game that is popular with millions of people with greatly varying levels of skill.


Rampant for over se7en years.

ShadowOfTheVoid's picture
ShadowOfTheVoid
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2007
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Hi, everyone! Time for me to put in my two cents.

Personally, I can understand where VVV is coming from, and while I don't agree with everything he says, he makes some good points.

The Mauler really needs some tweaking. There really isn't much incentive to dual-wield them, as you're more likely to garner a kill with the single Mauler+melee combo. When dual-wielding them, you need to be very close and fire two well-placed blasts from both guns to get an instant kill. OTOH, a single Mauler will do enough damage in one blast at close range that a follow-up melee will outright kill an enemy. The ease in which the Mauler+melee combo can be pulled off is a consequence of the melee system, which is another thing VVV complained about. Simply put, a single Mauler needs to do less damage than it does. A weapon that commonplace and easy to use shouldn't be that strong, esp. considering it's dual-wieldable.

Back to the melees. I think VVV is a bit off the mark with this. He rightly realizes there's a problem, but I think he's wrong in ascertaining what exactly the flaws in the melee system is. The problem is not their power, range, or host advantage. Melees are about the same strength and range as they've always been, and host advantage will be a problem in online gaming, well, forever (speed of light, and all). The problem lies in the fact that the melees still lunge. The lunge is computer-guided, meaning that once the enemy is within range, all the player has to do is hit B, and the player is automatically hurled bodily into their enemy. Also, the lunge has an unusually wide angle, as you can lunge almost sideways (you can lunge at an enemy who's only partially visible at the very edge of your field of view). First introduced in Halo 2, the lunge was wildly random, and was known for frequently failing, bouncing off of enemies, hurling the melee-er off ledges, and the like. Random BS = bad gameplay. In Halo 3, now that the randomness element is gone, it's made even more clear just how flawed the melee lunge is. There's almost no chance of missing a melee. There's still no element of timing or skill whatsoever, as the computer is doing most of the work. The only thing the player has to do is be in range (<4.87 meters away and the enemy within your FoV). It's no wonder so many players are so keen on using a single Mauler. You are almost guaranteed a kill, as that lunge isn't going to miss. I say "almost" because Halo 3's melees introduced their own random element with the "who has more health" system for simultaneous melees. It's often impossible to be sure if you've done more damage than your opponent (particularly if you both have comparable weapons and started shooting at about the same time), so it's a crapshoot as to who survives in the event of simultaneous melees.

Halo 1's melees were as close to perfect as you can get. There was no lunge. Rather, the melees had enough range that a lunge wasn't needed. There was a short, narrow, area affect directly in front of the player. If the player timed his melee right, he'd do damage. If not, he missed. It was 100% the player. If two players were both close enough to death for a single punch to kill them and they meleed each other at the same time, it didn't matter who had more health. They both died. There was no element of randomness nor any computer assistance in Halo 1's melee system.

Regardless of whether they connect at random (like in Halo 2) or are guaranteed to hit (like in Halo 3), the very concept of the melee lunge is flawed. The best we could hope for in Halo 3 is that Bungie ditches the "who has more health" system and makes it to where if both players are weak enough to die from a melee and they both smack each other, they both die. Simple as that.

narcogen wrote:

Or, if you want to be a tad bit more pessimistic (but no less accurate), look at it this way: 1) most people are idiots. 2) All halo players are people. 3) ergo, most Halo players are idiots. 4) winning is fun, 5) losing is not fun, 7) people tend to do things when they at least have a chance at having fun some of the time, ergo, in order to remain popular with most of its players, most of its players need to have at least a chance for enough success to keep them playing, most of the time, all other things being equal.

You call that "idiot-friendly". I call it good design.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, narcogen (have we ever before?). There are ways of "giving people a chance," but reducing the skill level by removing fall damage, bumping up the auto-aim (in Halo 2), and placing more emphasis on spamfire (among other things) is not the way. We do have ranking systems on XBL, after all. Players with lesser skill will tend to stay in the lower ranks, facing other people of similar skill, while better players will attain higher ranks and fight people close to their own skill level. With proper playlist and rank system design, everyone would be happy. Novices and less skilled players won't be turned off and driven away by constant losses as they'd be facing people their own skill level (at least once the more skilled players have risen in rank after game lauch and any future rank resets) and thus would have better odds of winning.

Halo has sometimes been described as "easy to learn, hard to master" and this was more the case in Halo 1 than in 2 or 3. IMO, the overall gameplay was more demanding and required more skill to master, but Halo 2 was, to put it bluntly, "dumbed down." You and everyone else knows the exact reasons why I feel this way, so I won't go into it here. Halo 3 is an improvement, but it's still not up to par with the first game, for reasons I'll explain in my upcoming review of the game. Despite the overall greater skill required to get good at Halo 1, that didn't keep it from being popular with even novice players. Even the worst players at all the LANs I attended had fun. In the three years between the launch of Halo 1 and Halo 2, I don't recall hearing people clamoring for the removal of fall damage (even you, like me, have defended fall damage), or for lunging melees, or for the addition of dual wielding, or for homing capabilities for rockets, or a plasma pistol charged shot that could not be dodged, or for an increase in auto aim, or for the replacement of the pistol with something that's essentially a more accurate & headshot-capable version of the AR, or any of the other crap I and others like me have bitched about in the past. Halo 2 could've been Halo 1 with better physics and graphics (things the sequel did improve on) and a few minor tweaks but otherwise played the same, and it still would have sold, and with a well-designed matchmaking system stratifying players into ranks based on skill, people ranging from the greenest noobies to the most hardcore veterans would still have flocked to XBL in droves and kept coming back for more. Bungie didn't have to do what they did to the combat, but they did anyway, and unfortunately some of that was carried over to Halo 3. Why they changed so much of the core gameplay, we'll probably never know. But it sure as hell wasn't something necessary they had to do to attract more people. Most people were going to buy it anyway, and they probably didn't even know it was going to be much different from Halo 1, if at all.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.

P.S.: Sorry if any of this came across as incoherent. It's 7:00, I'm tired, and I need to get some sleep.

VVV's picture
VVV
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2007
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Wow, a lot of replys. Many of them deserve an answer and many have great counter points and arguments which need acknowledgement. I have been insanely busy since posting this and therefore haven't checked for responses until now.

However I haven't the time at present to get to a long response so bear with me and by tomorrow I will do just that. Thanks everyone for taking the time to read.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

And here's my biggest problem with Halo 3:

N1NJ4 wrote:

Keep in mind that Bungie could easily go in and add a teleporter to whatever map on whatever playlist they want thanks to forge.

N1NJ4 wrote:

If Bungie feels that the mauler is applied too liberally about some of the maps, Im sure they will not hesitate to cut back a bit.

N1NJ4 wrote:

Or would you rather Bungie give themselves the chance to view the playing habits over billions of games and then have the ability to change everything at their own will?

It's always about what Bungie wants. What about what the players want? We have all these customization options and Forge, but no way to use them effectively due to the lack of Custom Game Broadcasting. Hell, we can't even play on XBC anymore now that they introduced this 30 ms latency limit. We are literally forced to play Matchmaking, and in turn we're forced to play the game the way Bungie wants us to, rather than the way we want to. I don't know about you, but I've gotten real tired of vetoing maps and gametypes on a daily basis and usually being forced to play it anyway. What if I don't want to play FFA oddball, ever? What if I don't want to play on Snowbound? Doesn't matter; Bungie doesn't care what I want.

It's for this reason alone that I've stopped playing Halo 3. I can't play it the way I want to, so I have trouble getting any enjoyment out of the game.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

And here's my biggest problem with Halo 3:

N1NJ4 wrote:

Keep in mind that Bungie could easily go in and add a teleporter to whatever map on whatever playlist they want thanks to forge.

N1NJ4 wrote:

If Bungie feels that the mauler is applied too liberally about some of the maps, Im sure they will not hesitate to cut back a bit.

N1NJ4 wrote:

Or would you rather Bungie give themselves the chance to view the playing habits over billions of games and then have the ability to change everything at their own will?

It's always about what Bungie wants. What about what the players want?

Let's not play word games. All of the above options were cited to show that the game is flexible enough to change with the needs of the community, even if these changes must be initiated from Bungie's side.

Anonymous wrote:

We have all these customization options and Forge, but no way to use them effectively due to the lack of Custom Game Broadcasting.

Yup. And that, of course, is the spearhead of Bungie's conspiracy to make you play game variations you don't want-- not a sign of anything really silly, of course... like the idea that it was tried and didn't work well.

Custom game broadcasting is, essentially, giving users a chance to build their own matchmmaking hoppers. The effectiveness of any hopper in quickly getting people into a game is directly proportional to the number of players in that hopper. Which is to say, the time it takes to find a match is inversely proportional to the players in the hopper.

Halo 3 only has a handful of hoppers right now, and they choose not to duplicate some (like having BTB both ranked and unranked) because that makes both playlists too small to match people quickly enough. The idea of people proliferating hundreds of very specific custom games into their own hoppers would probably prevent a lot of people from successfully getting matches in those hoppers. If Bungie simply created one hopper for all custom games, you'd just get endless streams of vetoes (and a lot of lousy game types).

Halo 3 already has an effective "custom games broadcasting" system that works well and does not interfere with regular matchmmaking. It's called your friends list.

Anonymous wrote:

Hell, we can't even play on XBC anymore now that they introduced this 30 ms latency limit.

What? What are you talking about? My connection has ten times that amount of latency without using XBC and I can still get in games. What 30ms limit are you talking about?

Anonymous wrote:

We are literally forced to play Matchmaking, and in turn we're forced to play the game the way Bungie wants us to, rather than the way we want to. I don't know about you, but I've gotten real tired of vetoing maps and gametypes on a daily basis and usually being forced to play it anyway. What if I don't want to play FFA oddball, ever? What if I don't want to play on Snowbound? Doesn't matter; Bungie doesn't care what I want.

It's not Bungie that doesn't care what you want. It's the rest of the playing population. You are completely free to make whatever custom games you want and invite your friends into those games. You aren't ever forced to use matchmaking, ever, if you don't want.

If you don't have a friends list or can't be bothered to build one, then you're dependent on Bungie's matchmaking system to find you a match. Once you've done that, yes, you're subject to the system that Bungie has set up in order to serve the most players, most of the time-- not to cater to the whims of the fringe or to shatter the playerbase into a million tiny fragments all with their own specific favorite gametypes and maps they play to the exclusion of all others.

Anonymous wrote:

It's for this reason alone that I've stopped playing Halo 3. I can't play it the way I want to, so I have trouble getting any enjoyment out of the game.

I'm sure we'll miss you. You sound like a really fun guy.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Hell if I'm reading the entirity of this crap.

The MELEE system is retardedly overpowered. VVV isn't saying that the only skillful way to kill someone is with range weapons. He's saying that the game is far too prone and prodded toward close combat. For two reasons.

First because of the whole melee being OVERFUCKINGPOWERED thing. And because there is WAAAY too many shotguns on maps. Guardian is a lamefest for corner camping. It's hard to actually get into an AIM oriented face off in this game. Anyone that thinks the AR beat-down isn't insane at 6 shots + melee, I pity you, and what it says about your methods.

Look through the records sometime hip-cats. There ARE far too many contests decided by beat-downs. It's a matter of what's effective, hence what's encouraged. That's tantamount to IDIOT-FRIENDLY. Which this game is.

-HZQI

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

HZQI, thanks for bringing some sense to this H3-fanboy-ridden thread. H1 is, and will always be, a superior game. H2 is a P.O.S. and H3 is really nothing more than that same P.O.S. with a bit more polish. Is H3 a better game than H2? Sure it is. Is H3 a better game than H1? Not on your life.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I hate to say it, but he's right. As much as I hate to admit it. As much as I denied it when playing the beta. Halo 3 is WAY too much like Halo 2. Neither present half of the fun of playing halo CE. Heck, I'd take playing Halo over XBConnect over Halo 2/3 on XBL if there were enough of a base of players there.

It's hard for me to admit. Because, I promised all of my friends who gave up on Halo after the second installment that Halo 3 would be the answer. I was sure that they had fixed the problems. I was sure it would be different. It's a shame that I can't honestly say that any more. Halo 3 will still have a strong rotation in my 360. But, it will never be the kind of game Halo CE was.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

What's wrong w/ adding another shotgun in another skin? Do you dislike it because it 'encourages' close quarters combat? Personally I believe it encourages combat at a distance... if you opponent has a mauler/shotty then stay back & aim = win, charge in = lose.

Also, I believe you mean dual wielding, not duel wielding. The former refers to holding two weapons, the latter would refer to holding a weapon in one-on-one combat.

-- DogCow (moof!)

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

If you could actually shoot enemies in the head with the new pistol, you'd realize it's not useless.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

If you could actually shoot enemies in the head with the new pistol, you'd realize it's not useless.

i agree with the guy above about the pistol, if you shot someone in the head you'd be ok with it, if you learned that its a dual weapon and picked up two of them and learned the correct trigger pull timing (instead of pulling it as fast as you could i.e. battle rifle) AND learned that you should be shooting at the players head, THEN you'd be good with the pistol, sorry it takes some practice and you can't just scope in with an obviously overpowered weapon and get your kill, learn some new tactics.

as for shield doors, i think they are great also. there's nothing better than seeing the team that is winning camping on the other side and going suicide on them. one time i had my friend stick me with a plasma grenade and i ran in and threw all my grenades as fast as i could (only got off two frag grenades) to take down their sheilds and then the plasma went off killing 3 of the 4. my only regret is that i couldn't yell "praise allah" right before it went off. want to talk about some fun? take the lead that way, thats real fun.

oh and halo 1 was quite possibly in my opinion the worst game in the trilogy BECAUSE of the pistol. the only way to go back and fix it is to give it a new skin and call it some sort of rifle.... oh wait i think they basically did that. way to go bungie.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Agreed.

I think VVV is right about the Maulers use in close quarters- but not for long.

Pretty soon people are going to realise to keep the f**k away from the guy with the shotgun/ Mauler, and the weapon will begin to be passed up, Like the SMG in Halo 2.

Personally, I frickin love Duel Maulers, and think their a great addition to Halo 3- but if Im against someone who knows what their doing, I won't last 5 seconds with them- If your clever a guy with a shotty is easy to kill. If your not, well thats your problem :>

The More Deluded

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I am having trouble formulating a response to this, since I don't want to sound like a fanboy, nor do I want to write a wall of text. I think it boils down to: Obviously you do not like this game, nor did you like the 2nd game, Bungie can't please everyone. For every person that thinks the game is a failure, there are thousands online at that moment enjoying what they feel is a great game. Enjoy playing other games than halo, maybe I will run into you in COD4... if not, good luck to you anyways!

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I really don't know what you were expecting on 09/25/07, but Halo 1 was released many years ago. The people(s) that made the point that video games are first and foremost are a business are absolutely correct, period. Explanations and excuses can be made but when it comes right down to it, money fuels business not gameplay. As much as I enjoy playing Halo, I get my "professional gaming" fix from the PC. I play RTS games in a competitive manner, not Halo. I don't think it was ever Bungie's intention with the Halo series for it to be a tournament style game like counter-strike or starcraft, so my advice would be to stop treating it like it is.

-slikZ

Compton's picture
Compton
Offline
Joined: 01/25/2005
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Oh how fun it is to delve into the age old "If Halo 1 would only have my children debate". As much as it usually bothers me to see this kind of argument I found myself looking at it from a different perspective. What if by advocating how amazing Halo 1 is over the other iterations people were actually attempting to explain what elements of Halo 1 they wish were in the other games?

If I look at it from that respect I agree with some of your points. I will explain:

Mauler: The thing that bothers me about the mauler is that it has the ability to beat a shotgun and the hammer in close range fights. Now I am not saying that it happens EVERY time, but I know that I win close range shotty fights with the mauler probably 60% of the time or more. I would say that I win the mauler vs. hammer fight with the mauler almost 70% of the time. Now I know that the hammer is intended to be a power weapon so why is a dual-weildable weapon winning the fight even half the time?

Timing/Speed of the game: Halo 3 does feel much slower then the past games which is not too big of a deal except that it takes away some of the intensity for me. My biggest timing issue has to do with switching weapons. Now I understand the reasoning behind carrying two weapons; ideally, one carries a medium to long range weapon and another short range weapon to compliment their range. The problems occurs when you are in a medium range fight with someone and then the fight crosses over into the realm of short range and you have to switch weapons. It feels like it takes an eternity to switch to your other weapon and then actually fire it. The most glaring example of this I feel is with the sword. Now it maybe because of balance issues, but it gets irritating when you switch to the sword and you have to wait for it to crack and for your character to rotate it just slightly before you can lunge. By the time I complete that process at very close range I have usually been shot a few times and then meleed to death. Another thing that seems to screw me is equipment, specifically the bubble shield and the re generator. It seems like every time I am in a fight and I know that I need to use it I hit X and then it deploys .5 seconds after I die.

Weapons: My only complaint about the weapons is that I often feel like I am playing an elaborate version of "Paper, Scissor, Rock" but with about 30 elements instead of 3. Now I understand that is where strategy comes into play. I mean if I am standing out in the open and I get attacked by a BR or Carbine and I am dual-weilding maulers then I deserve my fate. However, in those instances when I come around a corner and I am engaged in a medium range fight and the other guy has a rocket launcher I am pretty much screwed. I guess the best way to describe what I am saying is that many of the fights victors seem predetermined based on the weapon in your hands rather then the actions of the person holding the weapon. (After thinking about this it is obvious that I am still not quite sure how to articulate this.) All I know is that something just kind of feels off to me.

At the end of the day I miss certain elements of the previous versions, but I still really enjoy this game too. If nothing else I think one of the biggest assets about Halo as a FPS is that it is very customizable. If you don't like something you have the ability to tailor the game to what you want it to be. I only wish that my own personal blend would be more the the majority view as apposed to my own.

-Compton

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I really disagree with a lot of your points. Why is it that people feel that the only skillful way to kill somebody is with a BR or sniper and everything else is just random or lucky? If you chase me around a corner with your BR and I drop you with a mauler-melee it is because you were stupid enough to chase me around a corner, not because it wasn't skillful for me to lure you around the corner to give myself an advantage. Some supposed Halo "fans" just don't get what this game is supposed to be. It is not supposed to be a professional paintball simulator where every map is just one room with objects scattered for cover and nothing but BRs and snipers. There are paintball games out there that would be a better measure of "skill" as you and others define it but the problem with them is that they are boring. What makes Halo 3 fun for millions of gamers is the variance of gameplay. This is what you call "randomness". It is not fun for most people to just play the same 3 maps (Warlock, Sanctuary, and Midship) with nothing but BRs. Don't get me wrong, I like those maps and I love the BR. I'll pick up a BR over pretty much every other weapon in the game because it is pretty much guaranteed kills when in my hands but I also like close encounters and in those situations, I'd rather have the mauler than the BR and I'm glad for that variety.
As for trying to avoid camping. You can bitch about camping all you want but with the exception of an open level (with no structures or bases) it is impossible to avoid. Camping is simply good strategy and without any skill to back it up, you can try to camp all you want but decent players are going to be able to remove you from your camping spot anyways. The shield doors add a new level of strategy to the game. They allow new methods of laying traps. The only place where I see it as a problem is in team slayer games on Snowbound where a good 4 person team with an early lead can hold the inside of one of the bases indefinitely and never get removed. In free for all game types, this simply is not a problem.
The bottom line is that millions of people would not have any desire to play the game you describe and it would get about as many people playing as the paintball games do currently. The majority of people like having to choose 2 weapons that they are good with and having to adapt their strategy according to their positioning on varying map layouts. While Halo 3 is not perfect (and never could be perfect to everybody anyways - I really dislike the new melee system), it is a product designed to make money. Money is made by serving the majority, not the vocal minority and the majority of people like constantly changing gameplay or "randomness" as you call it.

kapowaz's picture
kapowaz
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2007
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Hmm. I think there's some of what you say that rings true for me, but overall I feel we've come to different outcomes. Like Narcogen says, I think that Halo: Combat Evolved had some sort of 'secret sauce' that changed recipe in Halo 2 and (to an extent) remains unfound in Halo 3. I agree that combat has been made far more close-quarters in both Halo 2 and Halo 3, but where the dual-wielding felt imbalanced (to me) in Halo 2, it feels a lot more natural in Halo 3 and there are clear benefits to retaining a single weapon that could be dual wielded. I do miss the larger-scale battles that occurred in Halo on maps like Sidewinder and Blood Gulch, but if anything my criticisms towards Halo 3 would be at the shortage of maps that support those battles rather than that the mechanics of play are actually broken when on larger maps (much though I loved the pistol in Halo, I think making it a little bit more difficult to pop somebody off in three shots was a wise decision).

I don't know as I absolutely dislike it, but the melee in Halo 3 does strike me as overpowered, so I'd agree there. I have to wonder just how close-quarter encounters would change if a melee couldn't be used to top-up the damage you inflict with real weapons but was instead a 'last resort' when you run out of ammo (as it was in Halo); currently it's far more effective to use a melee before you run out of ammo, which does strike me as somewhat odd.

Your comments regarding the pistol do feel fair to me; I can't say I've ever found a useful purpose for the pistol. Bereft of both zoom and the damage it used to cause, even dual-wielded it is a pretty tame option (the same goes for the plasma pistol, unless you're on a map with vehicles). Consequently it did feel like it was put in there more for the Halo: CE fans to cheer at, and then ignore. A shame, although they've probably covered all the options with the other weapons.

Ultimately though, for me the most important question was whether or not Halo 3 was fun. I didn't enjoy Halo 2 multiplayer at all, so whatever it was they changed about Halo 3 that makes me keep coming back was obviously enough to negate the changes in style that has taken place since the original game.

DogCowDave's picture
DogCowDave
Offline
Joined: 10/01/2007
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

kapowaz wrote:

I don't know as I absolutely dislike it, but the melee in Halo 3 does strike me as overpowered, so I'd agree there. I have to wonder just how close-quarter encounters would change if a melee couldn't be used to top-up the damage you inflict with real weapons but was instead a 'last resort' when you run out of ammo (as it was in Halo); currently it's far more effective to use a melee before you run out of ammo, which does strike me as somewhat odd.

The melee was an integral part of my Halo 1 experience. I found it very effective in Halo 1, I could do more damage in a short amount of time with it. I would use it to finish off people in close quarters. In fact I moved from the normal button layout to boxer and then finally to greenthumb to improve my melee (and keep grenade) accuracy & speed.

-- DogCow

Anton P Nym's picture
Anton P Nym
Offline
Joined: 08/06/2004
If you want to play Halo 1, go play Halo 1.

I could pile on a bunch more, or even go through a tedious point-by-point analysis, but after dozens of iterations of the same post over the past four years I've frankly grown bored with rebutting "there is no game but Halo 1 and I am it's prophet" posts.

Go play the game you prefer with your like-minded friends, as I shall with mine.

-- Steve'll get on with what needs to get done now.

Jim Shorts's picture
Jim Shorts
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2007
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

As much as I enjoy the Halo series, my least favorite is Halo 3.

I don't play Matchmaking, it's basically pointless.

I still play 1 and have just as much fun playing 2.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I just have one small statement. I see a lot of "points", but not a lot of backing them up. "Shame"

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

You can take the same map and 2 people will disagree on if it was a good map or not depending on their gameplay style. Those who like Resistance:FOM are more likely to like fast-paced games where you enter combat immediately and there are few camping spots. Those who like more extended gameplay probably prefer the Battlefield or Tribes games. It all depends on your preference.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Yeah, I mean honestly. A box canyon was the epiphany of originality. How could Halo 3 ever compare to that?

Perhaps I can put some perspective on this....I'm not like most players, I only discovered Halo 1 about two years ago, and never played Halo 2 up until a few months ago. I have, however, religiously played Halo 1. And you know? Halo 1 is boring. I mean, yes, it's an amazing game, but after awhile you realize the only good maps in the game are still getting old, because they are all so bland in design. Usually you can switch to one you haven't played in awhile and still have fun, but on maps like Death Island I find myself cringing everytime it comes up. And melee was broken in Halo 1. I have never used it; tried, and I think maybe once I managed to actually hit someone, but that was it. I think the fact that it's actually useful in Halo 3 is probably a good thing. Every time I play Halo 3 it feels like what Halo 1 should have been. True, the pistol doesn't have a scope, but if you can learn to aim it feels just like the old one. Honestly though, the Battle Rifle has much more of a "punch" to it anyway, and I've always enjoyed shooting it more. And I will never understand what the problem with the Mauler is. It's a short range weapon. Yes. Problem? You can't just have a match of snipers every game, it gets old. Perhaps you just don't get the "fun" portion of Halo, where you aren't supposed to take it so seriously. I mean, c'mon, a giant hammer? It's silly, but hey, it's fun to hit people with. Plain and simple.

It's just a game, have some freaking fun.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I completely agree with the author of that article. Halo 3 sucks compared to H1. Halo 3 is nothing more than H2 with a shiny new coat of paint.

Bungie said they were going to make H3 more like H1. What a crock of crap. Let's review:

1. H3 still has the sword.
2. H3 still has H2's crappy physics engine.
3. H3 still has no health bar.
4. H3 still has no fall damage.
5. H3 still has dual wielding.
6. H3 still does NOT have H1's pistol, which is by far the most balanced weapon in the Halo universe.

H3 is 90% H2 and 10% H1. H3 is better than H2, but that's not saying much.

Here is the universal Halo Equation:

H1 > H3 > H2

Anton P Nym's picture
Anton P Nym
Offline
Joined: 08/06/2004
Stop confusing your personal taste for fact

Your "universal Halo Equation" ain't universal. The sooner you and your ilk realise this, the sooner my homicidal rage will subside.

-- Steve'll remind folks that there are people who like eating grasshoppers; it may not match your taste, but a LOT of people disagree with the "H1 uber alles" theory.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: Stop confusing your personal taste for fact

Anton P Nym wrote:

Your "universal Halo Equation" ain't universal. The sooner you and your ilk realise this, the sooner my homicidal rage will subside.

Um, actually yeah it is. The sooner you and YOUR ilk realize this, the sooner your head will emerge from your ass. H1 is a better game than H3. Live it, learn it, internalize it, for it is the truth.

Anton P Nym's picture
Anton P Nym
Offline
Joined: 08/06/2004
Re: Stop confusing your personal taste for fact

Anonymous wrote:
Anton P Nym wrote:

Your "universal Halo Equation" ain't universal. The sooner you and your ilk realise this, the sooner my homicidal rage will subside.

Um, actually yeah it is. The sooner you and YOUR ilk realize this, the sooner your head will emerge from your ass. H1 is a better game than H3. Live it, learn it, internalize it, for it is the truth.

Grow up, child. It's not universal as, demonstrated by the replies to this rant, a great many players disagree with your "universal" opinion.

You have your opinion, and I respect that. I don't respect your assumption that your opinion should apply as some sort of law of nature... it is, indeed, your head that is rectally impacted.

-- Steve's mightily tired of the infantile mentality demonstrated by all too many posters in the Internet. Get weaned, people, and stop whining for Momma's milk.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

I completely agree with the author of that article. Halo 3 sucks compared to H1. Halo 3 is nothing more than H2 with a shiny new coat of paint.

Bungie said they were going to make H3 more like H1. What a crock of crap. Let's review:

1. H3 still has the sword.
2. H3 still has H2's crappy physics engine.
3. H3 still has no health bar.
4. H3 still has no fall damage.
5. H3 still has dual wielding.
6. H3 still does NOT have H1's pistol, which is by far the most balanced weapon in the Halo universe.

H3 is 90% H2 and 10% H1. H3 is better than H2, but that's not saying much.

Here is the universal Halo Equation:

H1 > H3 > H2

I believe that the remarks about Halo 3's being more similar to Halo 1 than Halo 2 was in the context of a discussion about environmental design-- not physics or damage model, which are the only aspects of the game you've pointed out.

Halo 2 was neither the first nor last game to use the Havok physics code. A rather large number of games do. While it certainly had unique and fun aspects, Bungie decided Halo was about weapon choices, wide open spaces, vehicles and story-- and not about simulating surfaces made out of springs.

It's a tradeoff I'll take, and gladly.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

narcogen wrote:

I believe that the remarks about Halo 3's being more similar to Halo 1 than Halo 2 was in the context of a discussion about environmental design-- not physics or damage model, which are the only aspects of the game you've pointed out.

Well, sorry to tell you, but you're WRONG. They said they were making it more like Halo 1, and they sure as hell weren't just talking about "environmental design". Quit splitting hairs and making stuff up just so suit your phallacious argument.

Also, look at my list again: I pointed out far more aspects than "physics or damage model". You must've overlooked items 1, 5 and 6 from my list, which, funny enough, is fully HALF of the list. Get some reading comprehension skills and try again.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:
narcogen wrote:

I believe that the remarks about Halo 3's being more similar to Halo 1 than Halo 2 was in the context of a discussion about environmental design-- not physics or damage model, which are the only aspects of the game you've pointed out.

Well, sorry to tell you, but you're WRONG. They said they were making it more like Halo 1, and they sure as hell weren't just talking about "environmental design". Quit splitting hairs and making stuff up just so suit your phallacious argument.

Please cite a source such as a link. I believe the only time this ever came up was in an interview with Frankie that specifically regarded level design-- wide open areas, nonlinear encounters. If you've got any reference to Halo 1 outside that context please feel free to share it.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, look at my list again: I pointed out far more aspects than "physics or damage model". You must've overlooked items 1, 5 and 6 from my list, which, funny enough, is fully HALF of the list. Get some reading comprehension skills and try again.

My reading comprehension skills are just fine. You mentioned the sword, the pistol, and dual wielding. All of those relate to weapons and anything relating to weapons that isn't cosmetic is essentially the damage model: how much damage over time each weapon does.

I don't think anybody could have interpreted anything Bungie ever said about Halo 3 to indicate that the sword was going to be removed, the Halo 1 pistol was going to return, or that dual wielding would be removed. Dual wielding has been deemphasized a bit in the current weapon lineup, but that's about it.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

narcogen wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

I completely agree with the author of that article. Halo 3 sucks compared to H1. Halo 3 is nothing more than H2 with a shiny new coat of paint.

Bungie said they were going to make H3 more like H1. What a crock of crap. Let's review:

1. H3 still has the sword.
2. H3 still has H2's crappy physics engine.
3. H3 still has no health bar.
4. H3 still has no fall damage.
5. H3 still has dual wielding.
6. H3 still does NOT have H1's pistol, which is by far the most balanced weapon in the Halo universe.

H3 is 90% H2 and 10% H1. H3 is better than H2, but that's not saying much.

Here is the universal Halo Equation:

H1 > H3 > H2

Halo 2 was neither the first nor last game to use the Havok physics code. A rather large number of games do. While it certainly had unique and fun aspects, Bungie decided Halo was about weapon choices, wide open spaces, vehicles and story-- and not about simulating surfaces made out of springs.

It's a tradeoff I'll take, and gladly.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Way to sidestep my argument. You did not address one of the points I layed out above. All you did was say, "Halo 2 was neither the first nor last game to use the Havok physics code." Yeah, thanks for clearing that up, Sherlock. Go back and re-read what I wrote and you'll see that never ONCE did I dispute that H2 uses that crappy engine. I know it does -- many games do. I'm saying that it's a WEAKER engine that doesn't lend itself to fun like H1's engine does.

"A tradeoff?" Um, hate to tell you, but H1 had all of those things: weapon choices, wide open spaces, vehicles and story. The only difference is that H1 did them far better than H2 or H3.

Go play more H3. Then, when the poop clears from your tiny head, come back here and we'll talk. Laughing out loud 'Till then, I shall waste no more time here. This thread has gone on long enough, anyhow.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

Way to sidestep my argument.

Tell you what, sparky. You make an argument, and then I'll decide whether I need to sidestep it or not. You haven't presented an argument. You've trotted out a laundry list of things you don't like. That's not the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

You did not address one of the points I layed out above.

You didn't make any points. You listed a bunch of things that are in Halo 2 and Halo 3. In a comparison between Halo 3 and Halo 1 you mentioned physics without reference to the fact that physics were changed between Halo 1 and Halo 2, meaning you failed to provide the proper context for a discussion of physics engines.

Why it is you think that your judgement of Halo 1's homemade physics engine is superior to the judgement of those who created it, however, is somewhat of a mystery to me. If you care to actually make an argument, please go ahead and explain this.

Anonymous wrote:

All you did was say, "Halo 2 was neither the first nor last game to use the Havok physics code." Yeah, thanks for clearing that up, Sherlock. Go back and re-read what I wrote and you'll see that never ONCE did I dispute that H2 uses that crappy engine. I know it does -- many games do. I'm saying that it's a WEAKER engine that doesn't lend itself to fun like H1's engine does.

Gee, you're right. What are all those developers thinking, throwing money at a comprehensive piece of middleware. Surely they should have been buying Bungie's physics engine for Halo 1, the one even Bungie decided wasn't good enough to keep using! Maybe you know something about the engine that they don't? If so, please enlighten us.

Anonymous wrote:

"A tradeoff?" Um, hate to tell you, but H1 had all of those things: weapon choices, wide open spaces, vehicles and story. The only difference is that H1 did them far better than H2 or H3.

I think you're a little young to be indulging in nostalgia. There are many was in which Halo 1 was special, and many ways in which Halo 2 had problems that took away from the advantages it gained in other areas. I am personally of the opinion that with Halo 3 Bungie came very close to striking an excellent balance between the good elements of both games.

Anonymous wrote:

Go play more H3. Then, when the poop clears from your tiny head, come back here and we'll talk. Laughing out loud 'Till then, I shall waste no more time here. This thread has gone on long enough, anyhow.

I play Halo 3 about as much as I am able-- just as I've played countless hours of Halo 1 and Halo 2 as well. I think I have a pretty good handle on the better points-- and the flaws, as well-- of all three games. All you've presented so far is the same tired rhetoric that does little to dispel the impression that you liked the first game because it was first and simply dislike change.

If there is a more detailed process of reasoning behind your complains, please, feel free to waste some time explaining. If you don't wish to do so, then I don't suppose there will be much to miss from your absence.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

It always brings a smile to my face, VVV, whenever you talk about Halo3's maps. Since all it took was the words "choke point" in the old Vidoc before the beta to make up your mind about the maps.

As for the rest, all I'm seeing is opinionated assertions. You're entitled to it. Anyone has every right to feel that Halo3 didn't deliver what he hoped it would (whatever that may be), but in the end opinionated rhetoric is all it is. And it should be more apparent than ever that what you may have hoped for in Halo1 was never intended from the very beginning.

End Bringer

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

While both H2 and H3 have noticeable flaws in basic game design, I believe that the only truly unforgivable flaw lies within the Halo 3 melee system, which rewards the players with slower reflexes.

Picture a typical scenario: two players (player 1 and player 2) with AR's see each other and start firing simultaneously, running towards each other.
As they near each other, let's suppose that they are both at a point where they have exactly no shield (no health damage) and are within melee range.
Let's say player 1 has faster reflexes and launches a melee attack, which should easily kill the unshielded player 2. However, as player 1 is in the act of the melee lunge, player 2 gets off a few more shots, dealing some health damage.
Player 2 then melee attacks, just as player 1 finishes his melee lunge and makes contact. So, although player 1 melee attacked first, the attacks will register at about the same time since player 2 did not have to lunge. The health melee system then calls the attacks simultaneous and grants player 2 the victory.

And trust me, this has nothing to do with host, or XBL, or anything else, my brother and I have tested it split screen multiple times, to make sure that this is as messed up as it sounds.
Phew.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Or maybe, you could look at it as the second player being smart enough to realize if he pumps in a few more bullets he is more likely to win a melee battle. It's just changing your strategy, that's all.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

While both H2 and H3 have noticeable flaws in basic game design, I believe that the only truly unforgivable flaw lies within the Halo 3 melee system, which rewards the players with slower reflexes.

Picture a typical scenario: two players (player 1 and player 2) with AR's see each other and start firing simultaneously, running towards each other.
As they near each other, let's suppose that they are both at a point where they have exactly no shield (no health damage) and are within melee range.
Let's say player 1 has faster reflexes and launches a melee attack, which should easily kill the unshielded player 2. However, as player 1 is in the act of the melee lunge, player 2 gets off a few more shots, dealing some health damage.
Player 2 then melee attacks, just as player 1 finishes his melee lunge and makes contact. So, although player 1 melee attacked first, the attacks will register at about the same time since player 2 did not have to lunge. The health melee system then calls the attacks simultaneous and grants player 2 the victory.

And trust me, this has nothing to do with host, or XBL, or anything else, my brother and I have tested it split screen multiple times, to make sure that this is as messed up as it sounds.
Phew.

All you're basically saying is that Halo 3 fails to reward you with a melee kill when you melee from too far away. Which is what you're doing. If you're trading off the chance to get in a few more bullets to do no damage while you lunge, you are meleeing too early.

You're not losing to a player with slower reflexes. You're losing to a player with better timing.

Trust me. I have poor reflexes. I don't win encounters like the one you describe above. Of course, I also have lag, so that might be part of it as well. On top of that, my 360 is dead. Which doesn't have anything to do with anything, really, I just thought I'd mention it.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

narcogen wrote:

All you're basically saying is that Halo 3 fails to reward you with a melee kill when you melee from too far away. Which is what you're doing. If you're trading off the chance to get in a few more bullets to do no damage while you lunge, you are meleeing too early.

(Same person here)
Sooo... you are saying I should wait until I see the other person lunging towards me, then hit B in that 10 milisecond time window? Wish me luck...

I dunno. I guess I just don't understand why it was changed. There never seems to be any host issues for me in terms of melee attacks in H2. Why did they fix something that wasn't broken?

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

The mauler isn't a bad weapon when balanced with the map and its other weapons. On most maps it is great, but one has a big problem, Guardian, I have played numerous games were the opposite side has spawned at the base with the invisibility, shotgun, 2-3 mauler ( can't remember), the shotgun and the hammer is closer. IF they then are one the bottom level you, can't snipe them, and the only way you can attack them is if you are above them or next to them.

The melee system is fine, as now it has removed a little more host advantage, were in Halo 2 who hit first one. Also the mauler thing is no different to the BXR from Halo 2 as it still requires practice to perfect.

Also the pistol is fine, it is a Far-king PISTOL after all, not some super weapon. It is a great weapon as a last resort. Try playing SWAT with it and you will see how effective it actually is.

- A slightly biased gamer

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:
narcogen wrote:

All you're basically saying is that Halo 3 fails to reward you with a melee kill when you melee from too far away. Which is what you're doing. If you're trading off the chance to get in a few more bullets to do no damage while you lunge, you are meleeing too early.

(Same person here)
Sooo... you are saying I should wait until I see the other person lunging towards me, then hit B in that 10 milisecond time window? Wish me luck...

If they can do it to you, then you can do it to them. It may not even be necessary to be so precise. Just delaying a little bit might help.

Anonymous wrote:

I dunno. I guess I just don't understand why it was changed. There never seems to be any host issues for me in terms of melee attacks in H2. Why did they fix something that wasn't broken?

Just because something wasn't broken from your perspective does not mean it did not need changing.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

i have looked at some of the crap that you kids have posted. WHAT THE HELL? you kids need a life!!! go get a girl frind, hell go see a movie with someone. i mean F look at all this crap, its at least enough to make a book. by the way dont respond to me and say you have one, we all know thats a lie. I mean we all have some time on are hands, and most of you use your hand to bern that time, hell im not going to lie i do to, "again dont respon to me saying you dont, again we all know thats a lie". hell i have a life i have fun i hang out with my old frinds from high school. any ways im at school right now with time to bern and trying to block the sound of my teacher voice out, im in the computor lab, go figure right. ok i think this is the most i have ever written about asssssss like you and for this topic about halo. i have played the game and like it, whene ever im not swampt with home work or doing some chick. i make sure i make time for halo, or other games. i think halo #1 is the best game the guns are great and so are the maps. im not going to lie, there is halo 2,3 they may be better looking and have better grafics but there is so much more to a game than this, there is the story line and halo has a good one being fiction and all. this is a example im not going to list the hole dame thing there is just to dam much. back to halo #1 i think they should remake it just so you can play it on live, this may sound stuiped and most likely is. but i frankly dont give a f!!!!!! in care. it will not be the best seller like the old one but people will buy, what kind of people you say. the hard core halo fans kind. but if halo 3 is the last halo and i hope its not it would be a great good by present. hell who knows halo wars is coming may be thats where the halo sage contiuse. who knows right who cares any way, it may seem that i do but really im bord out of my F!! in mind. and with nothing eals to do i find my self talking with you cry baybes about your issues with halo and some crap about some BR problum. what ever the F that means, hear is my saying "Dont like it than move on" wicth i will be using right now, plus my teacher is looking at me, ow crap she comming tword me, may be errors no time fix by.......

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

i have looked at some of the crap that you kids have posted. WHAT THE HELL? you kids need a life!!! go get a girl frind, hell go see a movie with someone. i mean F look at all this crap, its at least enough to make a book. by the way dont respond to me and say you have one, we all know thats a lie. I mean we all have some time on are hands, and most of you use your hand to bern that time, hell im not going to lie i do to, "again dont respon to me saying you dont, again we all know thats a lie". hell i have a life i have fun i hang out with my old frinds from high school. any ways im at school right now with time to bern and trying to block the sound of my teacher voice out, im in the computor lab, go figure right.

Interesting story. What community college are you attending?


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

narcogen wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

i have looked at some of the crap that you kids have posted. WHAT THE HELL? you kids need a life!!! go get a girl frind, hell go see a movie with someone. i mean F look at all this crap, its at least enough to make a book. by the way dont respond to me and say you have one, we all know thats a lie. I mean we all have some time on are hands, and most of you use your hand to bern that time, hell im not going to lie i do to, "again dont respon to me saying you dont, again we all know thats a lie". hell i have a life i have fun i hang out with my old frinds from high school. any ways im at school right now with time to bern and trying to block the sound of my teacher voice out, im in the computor lab, go figure right.

Interesting story. What community college are you attending?


Rampant for over se7en years.

cant say using school computer, what i can say is what classes i am taking, first criminal procedure, astronomy and math. but you still most likely dont believe me and if you dont than i dont give a F!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

i have looked at some of the crap that you kids have posted. WHAT THE HELL? you kids need a life!!! go get a girl frind, hell go see a movie with someone. i mean F look at all this crap, its at least enough to make a book. by the way dont respond to me and say you have one, we all know thats a lie. I mean we all have some time on are hands, and most of you use your hand to bern that time, hell im not going to lie i do to, "again dont respon to me saying you dont, again we all know thats a lie". hell i have a life i have fun i hang out with my old frinds from high school. any ways im at school right now with time to bern and trying to block the sound of my teacher voice out, im in the computor lab, go figure right. ok i think this is the most i have ever written about asssssss like you and for this topic about halo. i have played the game and like it, whene ever im not swampt with home work or doing some chick. i make sure i make time for halo, or other games. i think halo #1 is the best game the guns are great and so are the maps. im not going to lie, there is halo 2,3 they may be better looking and have better grafics but there is so much more to a game than this, there is the story line and halo has a good one being fiction and all. this is a example im not going to list the hole dame thing there is just to dam much. back to halo #1 i think they should remake it just so you can play it on live, this may sound stuiped and most likely is. but i frankly dont give a f!!!!!! in care. it will not be the best seller like the old one but people will buy, what kind of people you say. the hard core halo fans kind. but if halo 3 is the last halo and i hope its not it would be a great good by present. hell who knows halo wars is coming may be thats where the halo sage contiuse. who knows right who cares any way, it may seem that i do but really im bord out of my F!! in mind. and with nothing eals to do i find my self talking with you cry baybes about your issues with halo and some crap about some BR problum. what ever the F that means, hear is my saying "Dont like it than move on" wicth i will be using right now, plus my teacher is looking at me, ow crap she comming tword me, may be errors no time fix by.......

You sir lie. I cannot believe that you are attending a post secondary educational facility.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

i have looked at some of the crap that you kids have posted. WHAT THE HELL? you kids need a life!!! go get a girl frind, hell go see a movie with someone. i mean F look at all this crap, its at least enough to make a book. by the way dont respond to me and say you have one, we all know thats a lie. I mean we all have some time on are hands, and most of you use your hand to bern that time, hell im not going to lie i do to, "again dont respon to me saying you dont, again we all know thats a lie". hell i have a life i have fun i hang out with my old frinds from high school. any ways im at school right now with time to bern and trying to block the sound of my teacher voice out, im in the computor lab, go figure right. ok i think this is the most i have ever written about asssssss like you and for this topic about halo. i have played the game and like it, whene ever im not swampt with home work or doing some chick. i make sure i make time for halo, or other games. i think halo #1 is the best game the guns are great and so are the maps. im not going to lie, there is halo 2,3 they may be better looking and have better grafics but there is so much more to a game than this, there is the story line and halo has a good one being fiction and all. this is a example im not going to list the hole dame thing there is just to dam much. back to halo #1 i think they should remake it just so you can play it on live, this may sound stuiped and most likely is. but i frankly dont give a f!!!!!! in care. it will not be the best seller like the old one but people will buy, what kind of people you say. the hard core halo fans kind. but if halo 3 is the last halo and i hope its not it would be a great good by present. hell who knows halo wars is coming may be thats where the halo sage contiuse. who knows right who cares any way, it may seem that i do but really im bord out of my F!! in mind. and with nothing eals to do i find my self talking with you cry baybes about your issues with halo and some crap about some BR problum. what ever the F that means, hear is my saying "Dont like it than move on" wicth i will be using right now, plus my teacher is looking at me, ow crap she comming tword me, may be errors no time fix by.......

You sir lie. I cannot believe that you are attending a post secondary educational facility.

no lie. i am 100% truthful i do go to college. by the way how long did you take to look up all those fancy words? asssse hole

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

You just dislike Halo3 is because your lack of strategy, perhaps even overall skill. Halo1 had many multiplayer flaws, the pistol wasn't even a proper pistol. You say Halo3's maps are boring? Look at those from Halo1 for example: Chiron=Irritating, boring no-one ever plays it. Boarding Action= sniper level=boring. Of course it had very good maps as well, also being reused in Halo2, but to avoid being repetitive, they were used as an inspirational source for Halo3.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I hate people. Not really, but it's people like that idiotic Halo 1 fanboy that make me feel that way. Your personal taste is not law, just like mine isn't. In fact, I'm amazed at how relatively civil Narc has been in response to you. And as to the "college" kid, you don't give an F*** for our opinions? Good for you. We don't give one for your's either.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

I hate people. Not really, but it's people like that idiotic Halo 1 fanboy that make me feel that way. Your personal taste is not law, just like mine isn't. In fact, I'm amazed at how relatively civil Narc has been in response to you. And as to the "college" kid, you don't give an F*** for our opinions? Good for you. We don't give one for your's either.

You are so right I dont care I stumbled on to this fun field land and love arguing with people like you, so hear goes round one. I am still coming here because like I said I love to argue. If you notice I have defended my self against other assssse hole like you. But you only give so much ammunition against yourself. All i can say is if you dont give an F!!! about my opinions? than why bother telling me when i all ready said i dont give a F about what you think about my opinions. what i am doing right here is wasting time telling you, U just wasted your own time, funny right, not really. what i am now doing right hear is picking a fight not defending my opinions. i want to clear that with you, and with everyone else, some of you cant read that well or under stand text. this is true but i will not name names. like this ace hole, i believe opinions are ment to be criticize aginst and im all for it, but whene one says he dose not care like me dont bother me, but if it is to ask me something or tell me a fact that is the truth than go for it.i know you will write back saying "you are an idiot" or "stupid" hell may be that "i am right" ha ha ha. you will be the only ice hole i will be responding to about this you are the last, O great queen of ice holes. the funny thing about this is it could have been all avoided if you had just said "I"(dont give one for yours either). if you wish to fix your little mistake than do it.

Matt's picture
Matt
Offline
Joined: 01/16/2002
In Summary...

Anonymous wrote:

what i am doing right here is wasting time telling you, U just wasted your own time, funny right, not really.

If anyone's coming to this thread late and looking for a quick summary of the whole thing, Anonymous just nailed it. Kudos!

-Matt

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
O.O

OMG THE INSANITY!

VVV...chill, man. Or become a game designer.

Steve...rock on!

"Universal Equation" Guy...have you ever played Risk???

Narc...your logic is undeniable.

"College" Kid...May-B if u yoozd proprr gramr without run on centansiz peepal wood thinc u wer in colej.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: O.O

Anonymous wrote:

OMG THE INSANITY!

VVV...chill, man. Or become a game designer.

Steve...rock on!

"Universal Equation" Guy...have you ever played Risk???

Narc...your logic is undeniable.

"College" Kid...May-B if u yoozd proprr gramr without run on centansiz peepal wood thinc u wer in colej.

asssse i don't care no time dip shitttttteeeeyyyy

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Your being way to critical of things that are not necessarily broken, you just don't like them. To say camping is encouraged is ridiculous, campers are not a threat, they are an inconveniance. Campers don't win games, they can get some kills but whether you like to hear it or not you can still toss some grenades or a power drainer around the corner and kill them rather easily in their stationary position. As for the pistol i'm glad you don't have much to say about that, because a small arms weapon with long range rifle capabilities with a kick more than the highest caliber bullets have is ridiculous no matter what you say, Battle Rifles/Carbines make everything fine for the pistol complainers they just won't admit it. As for anything you say about melees in Halo CE being better than the ones in Halo 2/3, thats pure shit. You had a melee range of over 3 yards in Halo CE, nothing cool there, i sure can't reach 10 feet away and knock someone out. As for saying Halo CE map design was more creative, thats crap too. The only way it was creative was because it was the first of the series, the designs were plagued with unfinished terrain and linear canyon like design to keep you going where they wanted, and teleporters...... well if you dont like camping I don't see how you can like teleporters at all. Your stuck in the past buddy, on a game that was only half a game then microsoft said "We like what you have here, but we need twice as much in about a month for our systems release. Do it or your through!"
What you seem to want is indeed not something more like Halo CE, but the perfect game tailored to just your needs and whoever agrees with you (Fuck the majority of the world right what does what they think mean anyways pshhhft!).
You sure like to complain about things and have very little to back them up.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

this is a great article on most parts, something i would love to send straight to bungie.
but there are still key things you have to think about too, ok when bungie came up with halo 1 they were working out of a basement untill their idea got out there. They were creating a game they thought they would like, and it spread because of those ideas. now that they are a big company, they have to appeal to everybody which means make it simpler and so easy a kid with downsyndrom can be easily entertained!

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I agree for the most part but i dont mind the pistol. at least its better than halo 2s. teleporters were fun and the mauler is ridiculous.and i liked the old BR better too.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Instead of getting into the whole Halo 1 vs. Halo 2/3 argument, let's leave it at this:

Halo 1 and Halo 2/3 play very differently. Halo 2 and 3 are obviously different from each other, but they play more similarly with each other than with Halo 1. Because different people will prefer different styles of play, there are strong contingents of players out there that love Halo 3 much more than Halo 1 and vice versa.

The point of all this is that currently, the only options in the series for playing over XBox Live are Halo 2 and 3. A large number of people prefer to play Halo 1, but they have no option for doing so in a relatively smooth online experience. The only way this issue gets resolved is if Microsoft/Bungie contract with a third-party developer to rework Halo 1's netcode to be compatible with XBox Live and also assume responsibility for maintaining its online experience as Bungie has with Halo 2 and 3. This way, nobody will complain about how Halo 3 is broken, etc., they can simply play the game and style that they prefer.

Moreover, this allows for diversification in the product to reach a greater number of players. Also, if it is expected that the demand in terms of number of players for a re-worked Halo 1 is small, it is fairly evident that the demand of those fewer players is strong enough that they would be willing to pay a greater amount than $60 or even pay a monthly charge for online play.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

Instead of getting into the whole Halo 1 vs. Halo 2/3 argument, let's leave it at this:

Halo 1 and Halo 2/3 play very differently. Halo 2 and 3 are obviously different from each other, but they play more similarly with each other than with Halo 1. Because different people will prefer different styles of play, there are strong contingents of players out there that love Halo 3 much more than Halo 1 and vice versa.

Can't argue with that. I've also recently seen people arguing for Halo 2 as the best of the series, people who think Halo 1 is somehow lacking in something, and that Halo 3 pales in comparison. That comes as a surprise to me, but there is no accounting for personal preference.

Anonymous wrote:

The point of all this is that currently, the only options in the series for playing over XBox Live are Halo 2 and 3. A large number of people prefer to play Halo 1, but they have no option for doing so in a relatively smooth online experience. The only way this issue gets resolved is if Microsoft/Bungie contract with a third-party developer to rework Halo 1's netcode to be compatible with XBox Live and also assume responsibility for maintaining its online experience as Bungie has with Halo 2 and 3. This way, nobody will complain about how Halo 3 is broken, etc., they can simply play the game and style that they prefer.

Firstly, I think we both know that is, in all likelihood, not going to happen.

Secondly, I doubt it would alter the level of complaining one jot. Having gotten XBL code some fans would certainly also want a graphic upgrade. Others would want features backported, like boarding. More would want additional options, like vehicle destructibility. Just as some fans want classic maps like Sidewinder ported to Halo 2 or Halo 3, some would start to want Halo 2 and Halo 3 maps they like backported to Halo 1, or just additional new maps.

Then would come the arguments about which of the three games is the best measure of skill, and tiresome tracks about how the #1 Halo 1 player is better at Halo 1 than the top players of the other games because Halo 1 is a more skilful game... ad infinitum.

Anonymous wrote:

Moreover, this allows for diversification in the product to reach a greater number of players.

As a game that is owned by roughly half of all the people who have a console capable of playing it, Halo 2 and Halo 3 have been, and continue to be, about as successful and popular as any individual title has any reasonable expectation of being. This is another example of the "just do what I think is best and obviously it will be financially rewarded" fallacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, if it is expected that the demand in terms of number of players for a re-worked Halo 1 is small, it is fairly evident that the demand of those fewer players is strong enough that they would be willing to pay a greater amount than $60 or even pay a monthly charge for online play.

You've really, really got to be kidding me. There are significant portions of the community that are complaining that $10 is too much to pay for a downloadable version of Halo 1 that has no additional features. Putting in additional features would raise the price. Now you're suggesting people would pay over six times that amount to get those features, or possibly pay an additional monthly fee?

You're dreaming. Ultimately it would never be looked upon as a good value. No matter how many new features were put in at a certain price point, there would always be a significant number of people who claimed that their pet feature X could've been implemented cheaply and easily and that Bungie is simply ripping people off by giving them an old game without feature X and charging too much for it.

Bungie saves their efforts for making new games, not upgrading old ones. On balance, I respect that.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Apologies for this repeat, but I see no edit button to repair a botched post.

And the first sentence is not an attack on you. It's a cold illumination. You've based an entire retort around a premise which becomes mostly irrelevent when the bigger picture is considered. The bigger picture you didn't consider. The change of behaviour that accompanies a shift into superior design.

narcogen wrote:

"Far too many" is a pretty subjective thing, I think. Frankly I think there's some logic to it. Once two spartans get close enough to each other for a melee strike, frankly I think the encounter should end there.

I think this is just a statistical anomaly, and does not represent the relative strength of the melee strike compared to other weapons so much as it does the play style of the majority of players.

Is the melee strike a good counter to a sniper rifle from across the map? No, not really.

Is it effective against a rocket launcher? Nope, not really.

How close do I have to get to an opponent before I can make a successful melee lunge-- and how many BR or AR shots can an opponent put into me before I reach it?

The number of melee kills compared to other weapons is actually no measure of the power of the melee strike compared to other weapons, or compared to Halo 2. It is an indication of the number of encounters that end when opponents close within melee range. If you don't want your encounters decided by melee strikes one way or the other, do not close to melee range. Do not allow opponents to get that close. Do not rush towards opponents looking for that melee strike.

It seems to me that if someone is rushing towards you, and you are backing away, the opponent will never land an unfair melee strike, and if you have better aim and/or a better ranged weapon, that your opponent will either die or be forced to break off the encounter.

Please note that I am not saying anything whatsoever about the relative skill of the players involved, or stating that the strategies people are using are wrong,

Bungie has said they are looking into the complaints regarding melee encounters, so perhaps it is possible that something is not working as intended-- I don't know.

Most of the melee complaints seem to revolve around collections of anecdotal complaints that usually are variations on the theme of me and my opponent meleed around the same time

individual players or groups of players who have their own perspective on how the game should work.

Or, if you want to be a tad bit more pessimistic (but no less accurate), look at it this way: 1) most people are idiots. 2) All halo players are people. 3) ergo, most Halo players are idiots. 4) winning is fun, 5) losing is not fun, 7) people tend to do things when they at least have a chance at having fun some of the time, Cool ergo, in order to remain popular with most of its players, most of its players need to have at least a chance for enough success to keep them playing,

You call that "idiot-friendly". I call it good design.


Rampant for over se7en years.

I dig your capacity for retort, even if your reasoning is misguided in it's shortcomings of consideration.

You took a very winding path to constantly refer to the fact of: "If two spartans are within striking range". Well... duh. Exactly. Your naive attatchment to results instead of means entire disregards the way the behaviour alters in accordance with effectiveness. I'd summise that you're probably right. Most people aren't exceptional of thought (by statistical rationale, they can't be). People, at one time or another are going to find themselves in a contest of fisticuffs. The problem that emerges with the melee being so grossly overpowered, is that it overencourages combat at that range. If it was depowered to a more reasonable level, people would still melee, just as they did in Halo 2, with it's significantly less powerful strike. Halo 2's melee power is spot on. It's just the degree of auto-aim-lunge, and excessive range and speed that are the problem. People in a mid-to-short type of scenario should have balanced options to consider. What they do instead is charge like morons for their idiot friendly result, ultimately eliminating the majority of mid/short ranged contests. It's taking a large margin of the shooting, out of the shooting game. Aside from being plainly, obviously, patently silly.

Have you considered the other dimensions of a melee encounter? Even before people discovered the BXR, they would sometimes open up with a thud, which in turn takes the shield, then there is two options. If you've opened with a "rule of three" thumper, you have only a follow up melee (delayed) or a headshot (harder but faster) to kill. These encounters would generally have there risk versus reward play out more dimensionally. One tries for the follow up melee but gets headshotted in time. Neither once to be headshotted before follow up, so it's the contest for the fastest headshot. As a summary you have the two common distinctions of melee encounter. The spray-melee, or the melee-domeshot. HALO 3 not only generates a push for close combat, and generates a push for a certain type of melee combat. It's heinously one-dimensional. Spray-thwack. Forgetting whether it's idiot-friendly, it's repetetively dull in it's wooden commonality. It, is, bad, design. You seem to think that if you alter the effectiveness of the weapons, that behaviour stays the same, and the results differ. Hugely straying from reality. If the melee was changed even a little, so that it required no shield to beat them down (or even just the little fraction on the bottom to tip the scales against a headshot, but retain a respectable melee-ratio), ergo required a more reasonable figure like 10 clean shots (or even tweak the shield to resist 11 bullets) two changes in behaviour would be overwhelming relief to the flow of the game. Instead of always charging and stabbing manically at the melee button, they'd be more considerate about what's going to be effective in their scenario, which may well be shooting it out. If they want to ambush with their spray-melee, they'll still retain an edge, but a more reasonable degree of counter will be plausible against campy playstyles (With a 1.9 ratio, under lag, campers don't haunt me, this is about design), it will cause an influx of reevaulation of options. Rush? Don't rush? Grenade? Got BR? Maybe I should get even closer (more difficult than just CHARGING) and go for the melee first, then spray or headshot finish. This unending diatribe is merely to illustrate that the game will unavoidable readjust itself to for more interesting patterns of behaviour if there isn't so much emphasis on the melee. Besides, what the hell ever happened to the rule of three anyway? Was it discarded purely to not confuse, and impliment the far inferior most-health system? Here's how you keep the rule-of-three and your health system, Bungie. You make it so that the program is capable of recognizing health into the negative degrees. Say if someone has 10% health, and someone deals a 60% blow, then they have -50% health. Obviously anyway into the health negatives is death. Now two players strike in unison, one has 10% health, the other has 5% health. Instead of the player with five simply losing, the system considers it's awareness of the damage dealt. For example: If the player with 10% is backing away, then he's only inflicting rule one of three. Standing melee. and inflicting say 70% shield damage. Target drops to -65% health. The other player though is running and jumping, rule three of three, and inflicts 90% damage with his blow, dropping the opponent to -80% health. With the greater health prevailing, he is the victor, even though he had less health in the moment. Do that, keep the rule of three and the unison melee, narrow it's window to actually be in unison, and rework the melees back to proper power. Yay, solution. But no, we have HALO 3 with it's standing melee, being more powerful than HALO 2's rule-of-three leap.

You call it good design? So was HALO 2 1.0 good design too? With it's 6 hit beat-downs? Is there anything Bungie does that you don't semantically excuse? Which beat down is best? HALO 1? HALO 2 ver 1.0? 1.2? HALO 3? Oh, there's a way to explain the genius of them all right? Not. To reiterate: The density of the heavy beat-downs bestowing death at modest hands is half the problem. Effectiveness influences behaviour. The prominent behaviour is stupid. Because stupid tends to work in this game. Now, you're certain to say, "Oh, b,b,b,but if they're doing what works, it's not stupid. Yes. It is". If Chess had a special square on the board, and the first one to get there was rewarded with all his pieces as queens. It would work to your favour, but that doesn't make it right.

Or, consider this. What if it took two clips of every weapon to kill, but you can kill with one melee. If people still played, would they bother with pesky bullets, or just run up to each other swinging and hoping? Does this extreme illustration not make irrefutable, the impact that broken design has on behaviour?

Melee has it's place, and it's not in the hail-mary hands of headless chickens. Fact is, that melee isn't a hard task to even perform really, which is all the more reason the it should remain in balanced check. It would help if the auto-aim wasn't so absurd, that good connection couldn't actually melee up (with vertical auto-aim) and hit you in the back as you show and are punished for the good sense to evade.

Broken? Yes, broken.

You keep referring to the way that people like to feel like they're having fun by being in balanced games, and having some wins. Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but isn't that precisely the purpose of the ranking system? Or is it just there for bragging rights. Wouldn't that system suffice, if it had, you know... Good design?

No probs either VVV. Props for a solid analysis.

Think that tidies it all up. Sorry for the botch.

-Hzqi

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

Apologies for this repeat, but I see no edit button to repair a botched post.

No apologies needed. However, since you're posting anonymously, the site doesn't know who you are, and so doesn't know you should have the privileges to edit your own post.

Anonymous wrote:

And the first sentence is not an attack on you. It's a cold illumination. You've based an entire retort around a premise which becomes mostly irrelevent when the bigger picture is considered. The bigger picture you didn't consider. The change of behaviour that accompanies a shift into superior design.

It's not a cold illumination to try and tell someone they've missed the point. That is a matter of opinion. We disagree on what the essential point is-- or, rather, whether or not the essential point is a good or bad thing.

This is the argument over Halo 2 all over again. When it was made over Halo 2, I suggested that while many things might be changed, that some of the essential parts of Halo 2's design that many fans of Halo 1 so objected to would very likely remain, because despite strenuous statements to the contrary, they were not errors or lapses in judgment but conscious design decisions.

As mentioned in the post above, I essentially deny that the alternatives suggested here are superior, or that the design choices in question are having or would have a significant impact on player style. I am focusing on the results, rather than the means, since the initial complaint was one of results-- too many melee kills compared to other weapons-- and because I believe this is the desired result of a conscious design decision: the idea that close range encounters should end more quickly and decisively.

I'm going to try now and snip out the old content and leave the new to respond to.

Anonymous wrote:

Have you considered the other dimensions of a melee encounter? Even before people discovered the BXR, they would sometimes open up with a thud, which in turn takes the shield, then there is two options. If you've opened with a "rule of three" thumper, you have only a follow up melee (delayed) or a headshot (harder but faster) to kill. These encounters would generally have there risk versus reward play out more dimensionally. One tries for the follow up melee but gets headshotted in time. Neither once to be headshotted before follow up, so it's the contest for the fastest headshot. As a summary you have the two common distinctions of melee encounter. The spray-melee, or the melee-domeshot.

You seem to be making my argument for me. I'm also not exactly sure how it is that having a balanced close quarters combat scenario discourages close play, since compared to Halo 3's simpler scenario, it is suggested that it encourages it.

Anonymous wrote:

HALO 3 not only generates a push for close combat, and generates a push for a certain type of melee combat. It's heinously one-dimensional. Spray-thwack. Forgetting whether it's idiot-friendly, it's repetetively dull in it's wooden commonality. It, is, bad, design.

Because simpler is always bad? Frankly, the idea of two lumbering titanics playing out a close range chess match like this, while it may be entertaining, seems patently ridiculous. Too often in Halo 2 opponents would get that close to each other and then there would still be no resolution-- or, more commonly, a third party, not involved in the conflict, would end up getting both kills.

The longer that encounter takes to play out, the greater the chance that somebody who is merely a bystander will reap the results. In this way I'd say Halo 3 is less discouraging to those who charge into the fray, and gives slightly less time for other opportunistic players.

Anonymous wrote:

You seem to think that if you alter the effectiveness of the weapons, that behaviour stays the same, and the results differ. Hugely straying from reality. If the melee was changed even a little, so that it required no shield to beat them down (or even just the little fraction on the bottom to tip the scales against a headshot, but retain a respectable melee-ratio), ergo required a more reasonable figure like 10 clean shots (or even tweak the shield to resist 11 bullets) two changes in behaviour would be overwhelming relief to the flow of the game.

All that would do is lengthen the close scenario unrealistically and grant additional free kills to uninvolved players.

I'd suggest that what is ridiculous is the idea that there are weapons that can kill instantly from long range (sniper rifle, rocket launcher) and weapons that can kill nearly instantly from reasonably close range (shotgun) but that once you are within arm's reach, more player input is required rather than less. That is extremely counter-intuitive.

In fact, it seems to me that if design influences behavior, the reaction of smart Halo 3 players should be to avoid close quarters combat. If the more powerful melee of Halo 3 means that less skill is required to get kills because fewer options are available that require evaluation and the single best option available requires less skill to execute, then it is in the best interest of the skilled player to see that encounters end at midrange before opponents can get within striking distance, because melee encounters are essentially a tossup.

It's supposed to be a tossup. If a player can get that close, they should have a reasonable chance of killing you. All other things being equal, the player who took the least damage up until that point wins, which would be the player that made the best choices and executed them at long or medium range.

The idea that the melee strike should be so weak as to give a skilled player an additional chance at making a point-blank headshot is, to my way of thinking, ridiculous. Once two players are at that close range the encounter should end quickly and decisively so the game can continue, not devolve into some kind of a minigame where skills best applied at mid or long range like headshots can be used as an ace in the hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Instead of always charging and stabbing manically at the melee button, they'd be more considerate about what's going to be effective in their scenario, which may well be shooting it out. If they want to ambush with their spray-melee, they'll still retain an edge, but a more reasonable degree of counter will be plausible against campy playstyles (With a 1.9 ratio, under lag, campers don't haunt me, this is about design), it will cause an influx of reevaulation of options. Rush? Don't rush? Grenade? Got BR? Maybe I should get even closer (more difficult than just CHARGING) and go for the melee first, then spray or headshot finish. This unending diatribe is merely to illustrate that the game will unavoidable readjust itself to for more interesting patterns of behaviour if there isn't so much emphasis on the melee. Besides, what the hell ever happened to the rule of three anyway? Was it discarded purely to not confuse, and impliment the far inferior most-health system? Here's how you keep the rule-of-three and your health system, Bungie. You make it so that the program is capable of recognizing health into the negative degrees. Say if someone has 10% health, and someone deals a 60% blow, then they have -50% health. Obviously anyway into the health negatives is death. Now two players strike in unison, one has 10% health, the other has 5% health. Instead of the player with five simply losing, the system considers it's awareness of the damage dealt. For example: If the player with 10% is backing away, then he's only inflicting rule one of three. Standing melee. and inflicting say 70% shield damage. Target drops to -65% health. The other player though is running and jumping, rule three of three, and inflicts 90% damage with his blow, dropping the opponent to -80% health. With the greater health prevailing, he is the victor, even though he had less health in the moment. Do that, keep the rule of three and the unison melee, narrow it's window to actually be in unison, and rework the melees back to proper power. Yay, solution. But no, we have HALO 3 with it's standing melee, being more powerful than HALO 2's rule-of-three leap.

To my own personal preference, anything that does not encourage players to bounce around the map like Quake bunnies, despite weighing a ton, is a good thing. I still think player jumps are too high. So if that means that leaping melees are no longer stronger than standing melees, that's fine by me.

Running melees being stronger than standing melees makes sense to me, but to be honest outside of intentionally testing it I don't see Halo 3 players standing still very often at close range unless they are backed into a corner, or someone is making an assassination attempt.

I can appreciate the subtleties of the system you've outlined above, but I am not at all convinced it would be happening enough to significantly alter play style (especially given that in order for this design choice to influence player style, a significant number of players would have to be aware of not only how the system worked and how it led to the eventual result, but the fact that the melee in question was simultaneous-- often difficult to discern except under ideal conditions. Plenty of melees are going to look simultaneous to lagged players that aren't and vice-versa. It would be difficult for anyone to actually determine, outside of testing in split screen games, when this scenario was coming into effect; and if the results under those conditions varied too much it would simply become useless for most players.


Rampant for over se7en years.

VVV's picture
VVV
Offline
Joined: 02/18/2007
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Narcogen, you have incorrectly edited in my name for a post that should be credited to Hzqi. The third last one. Although this debate is drawing to an end I am going to find an interesting post I saw a couple of days ago on b.net about the melee situation. I tend to agree with Hzqi and will have some final analysis to add in due course. It was perhaps (melee) something I didn't quite expand on enough in my original post.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

I think I've fixed the attribution.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

narcogen wrote:

No apologies needed. However, since you're posting anonymously, the site doesn't know who you are, and so doesn't know you should have the privileges to edit your own post.

It's not a cold illumination to try and tell someone they've missed the point. That is a matter of opinion. We disagree on what the essential point is-- or, rather, whether or not the essential point is a good or bad thing.

As mentioned in the post above, I essentially deny that the alternatives suggested here are superior, or that the design choices in question are having or would have a significant impact on player style. I am focusing on the results, rather than the means, since the initial complaint was one of results-- too many melee kills compared to other weapons-- and because I believe this is the desired result of a conscious design decision: the idea that close range encounters should end more quickly and decisively.

You seem to be making my argument for me. I'm also not exactly sure how it is that having a balanced close quarters combat scenario discourages close play, since compared to Halo 3's simpler scenario, it is suggested that it encourages it.

Because simpler is always bad? Frankly, the idea of two lumbering titanics playing out a close range chess match like this, while it may be entertaining, seems patently ridiculous. Too often in Halo 2 opponents would get that close to each other and then there would still be no resolution-- or, more commonly, a third party, not involved in the conflict, would end up getting both kills.

The longer that encounter takes to play out, the greater the chance that somebody who is merely a bystander will reap the results. In this way I'd say Halo 3 is less discouraging to those who charge into the fray, and gives slightly less time for other opportunistic players.

All that would do is lengthen the close scenario unrealistically and grant additional free kills to uninvolved players.

I'd suggest that what is ridiculous is the idea that there are weapons that can kill instantly from long range (sniper rifle, rocket launcher) and weapons that can kill nearly instantly from reasonably close range (shotgun) but that once you are within arm's reach, more player input is required rather than less. That is extremely counter-intuitive.

In fact, it seems to me that if design influences behavior, the reaction of smart Halo 3 players should be to avoid close quarters combat. If the more powerful melee of Halo 3 means that less skill is required to get kills because fewer options are available that require evaluation and the single best option available requires less skill to execute, then it is in the best interest of the skilled player to see that encounters end at midrange before opponents can get within striking distance, because melee encounters are essentially a tossup.

It's supposed to be a tossup. If a player can get that close, they should have a reasonable chance of killing you. All other things being equal, the player who took the least damage up until that point wins, which would be the player that made the best choices and executed them at long or medium range.

The idea that the melee strike should be so weak as to give a skilled player an additional chance at making a point-blank headshot is, to my way of thinking, ridiculous. Once two players are at that close range the encounter should end quickly and decisively so the game can continue, not devolve into some kind of a minigame where skills best applied at mid or long range like headshots can be used as an ace in the hole.

To my own personal preference, anything that does not encourage players to bounce around the map like Quake bunnies, despite weighing a ton, is a good thing. I still think player jumps are too high. So if that means that leaping melees are no longer stronger than standing melees, that's fine by me.

Running melees being stronger than standing melees makes sense to me, but to be honest outside of intentionally testing it I don't see Halo 3 players standing still very often at close range unless they are backed into a corner, or someone is making an assassination attempt.

I can appreciate the subtleties of the system you've outlined above, but I am not at all convinced it would be happening enough to significantly alter play style (especially given that in order for this design choice to influence player style, a significant number of players would have to be aware of not only how the system worked and how it led to the eventual result, but the fact that the melee in question was simultaneous-- often difficult to discern except under ideal conditions. Plenty of melees are going to look simultaneous to lagged players that aren't and vice-versa. It would be difficult for anyone to actually determine, outside of testing in split screen games, when this scenario was coming into effect; and if the results under those conditions varied too much it would simply become useless for most players.

Point taken then. Perhaps you did consider that altering design will alter behaviour and simply doubted it. In a lot of cases I think you'd be correct, for the larger pattern of the herd, I think you'd be mistaken. There are people out there who never get take the hint the universe is stabbing in their forehead. Even if it took three clips and ten beat-downs, it'd be pretty redundant to pilfer oxygen questioning their methods. The general wilderbeast population tends to react to a heads up.

You know, we actually found two things we agree on. I too, think that Halo 2 and 3's jump is drastically overdoing it. And game-flow that aids reduction in vulture kills are handy. I don't think vulture is a burnable sin, but a legitimate tactic, but it's best when things don't totally play to it.

You were crafty in pointing out moments where you thought I was making your point for you. Well, right back at you. You keep recommending that players steer clear of close range combat if it's such a problem. Well, that's generally what I do. My kills by BR are four times that of my melee kills. Even though I was often agressive in this range in Halo 1 and 2. It's not because I can't scrap. It's because the whole process has been stripped palid. There is far less impression that superior skill can make at that range anymore, so I mostly just don't go there. Firstly, does that not show that I've altered my behaviour based upon design? And, is it right that I'm inspired to not engaged in this aspect of the game anymore, because it sucks tailpipe?

You seem to have alluded that I've assumed on a few axioms. Again. Right back at you. Slow down? That axiom would be that I'm pro-slow. No. I'm pro-dimension. I'm pro-fun! Can't you just, tell? The problem with juggernaut THWACKS isn't just that they're fast, it's that they're so effective, that they make one attitude of play so effective that it squashes optional mentallity into the periphery. CHARGE-SPRAY-THUD!! Who'da thunk it? Adding four or five bullets to the required amount to engage melee, wouldn't slow down close quarters combat generally. It would only make that method take longer, and only fractionally longer at that. Balance is in the details. Curbing the sharp edge off of that approach makes the greater multitude of close range methods suddenly enticing. Skulking your way into ambush range, and opening up without being seen (one step down from an assasination) is more challenging than blasting up and swinging, without recourse. And that split second you're talking about where players do the quickstep dance of death jive? You make it sound as if they play Rock, Paper, Scissors for five minutes then turn to the judges for a score. It's all over in a snappy rhythm. It just plays out in a much more interesting manner. I've always taken exception to HALO 2's melee, for how easy they were made to land. Now we have easy landing with decisive low denominators. The infantilisation of close-range combat is complete. Yes, we agree that vulture killing is best at a moderate level, but more stimulating, lateral encounters don't exacerbate that quandry. To readress something. The only reason some encounters in HALO 2 became so comically drawn-out, isn't because of the melee damage, it's because of a combination of the crappy moon-jump and the lame ass lunge melee. Jump, lunge, miss, Huh! Where the? Jump, turn, turn, jump, lunge, miss, RUN AWAY!!! That's not a power with the basically immaculate power dealt. The thing to fix was the ghastly jumping, and the design of the melee itself so people didn't get lost like blind tourists. Actually, I think I see how this works now. "Maybe if we make the melee the tool of armageddon, it will lessen the occurance of the jumping, humping mating ritual and people won't notice our crap calibrations so much".

Back onto the jumping I fail to see how the technique of leaping around people to evade and attack them is a point of contention though. Especially if the jump were made reasonable. HALO 3 is an odd beast. It goes from one acknowledgement of momentum to the other. Weight and momentum were accounted for when you melee in HALO 2, yet grenades flew the same way regardless of it. Now that they've added depth to the nade toss in 3, they've squandered the deepening by flattening the melee.

Speed? Forget that repurcussion. 6 bullets from AR? Takes how long? You think 4 more is going to be like "Dull and Dulled Down Action", the directors cut? All design and all balance are trades, some of them miniscule. That micron will expand incentives. There's also the performance factor. Because it's only six bullets, it really compresses the hit-miss demands. "Oh well, I missed three of my nine bullets. Thwack!". Make it ten bullets and it exponentially (or at least incrimentally) increases the likelyhood that they'll screw up. Nine bullets, three miss = success. Thirteen bullets, only three miss = far less likely. Expand the laws of probability on it, and someone who misses 3 in 9 (missing are a third of total execution) is going to need not 9, but 15 bullets (a third of total execution) to be successful, thoroughly, and rightly deadening the chances of rough aim. 6 additional bullets to 9. Yet, the guy with the perfectly tight AR goes from just 6 bullets to 10. There's the other ways that it's become linear, but another way is that reduced demand, makes squat window for error. 6 bullets? Auto-aim lunge? Hey, BONUS! There's also the Plasma-Rifle factor. Everyone that knows HALO, knows that since the stun was removed, that swiftly raping shields is the domain of the PR. HALO 2 required almost total annihilation of shield for melee, which the PR served efficiently in four shots. It's slow only flesh, so... If the AR does it in six, six high-speed, what more purpose the idiosyncrisy of PR. First it's stun is taken? Now it's shield advantage? It's made to jostle alongside the spiker that has almost identical performance traits (RoF, Projectile Speed) Wraith's are given mannable turrets, Scorpian's turret is made mannable, while losing it's ability to attach passengers (cmon, what's cooler piggybacking on a tank), Brute-Shot is detuned into just a weak rocket launcher, Shotguns multiply like coat-hangers, Ghost and Banshee lose their weak spots, another sword dressed up as a caveman club (with a fabulous feature which is ineffective compare to just clubbing seals with it). Imagine how cool the Grav Hammer would be, if instead of being a second sword, it could be whipped out instantly, and it's actually distinctive feature was emphasised (You know, defecting grenades, rockets and flipping vehicles, bouncing people around. Want to design it well? Ramp up the range of the gravity field, REMOVE the lunge), carbine that was already, just a gun, that gets made even crapper, mass confusion in Bungie as to how best to tune the Magnum, which is apparantly unacceptable at five slow shots when dualled, so it confounds the laws of even internal logic, by inexplicably becoming 7 shots dualled, even though at five, it's significantly slower to kill than other pairs in it's range. What is this? The holocaust of distinction? Is there no end to the design HOMOGENY? If you call this good design, then, sorry, my idea of it seriously questions yours. Their are good design points in this game (Spartan Laser, Missile Pod), but for most beauty spots, there's a dirty great wart.

Point is taken about the way that a crappy close-range system not necessarily encouraging close-range combat. I'll revise. It encourages idiots, and ruins close range combat for everyone else. It's both a lure and a deterrent. This is probably an abberation besides the fact, but I've been in FFA's with players, not won, then looked at the "Weapon of coice" (HAND. Which is a perfect symbol of the result), talked these players in a friendly 1 v 1, smashed the fuck out of them, and further questioned the game. This is just universal, that sometimes it can be harder for a good player to beat a ordinary player when there's a bunch of really, really crap players running around, than it is to compete with a room of good players, because the tards are constantly, randomly feeding them kills.

I'm not anti-melee. I don't mind that a certain degree of encounters are melee-based, I dig it. What I do mind is seeing this players with their little Eagles, checking their stats and seeing melee either as, or near to their primary weapon, and... knowing how those encounters played out. By the way, Bungie's melee hasn't lessened host advantage, it's increased. I've got footage of being AR beat down, after getting off the shotgun. That's how stupid it is. The only reason that would happen in HALO 2 was because the Shotgun always screwed up. Now it's because the AR beat-down is sometimes faster than my lag window. In fact, I guess you're on to something with me. Unless melee numbers are inordinantly high, which they generally are, it's not so much the numbers that bother me, it's the show of reliance on something crap, that bugs me. I maintain my stance the design is affecting behaviour. That's actually worse than my origional position. It's a moron's paradise, and smart man's bermuda triangle.

By the way, a headshot SHOULD be an ace in the hole. What the hell is dimension if not partly risk vs reward? One man chooses to follow up with a headshot, the other gambles on a second melee, but the headshot risk pays off? THAT is interesting. If a player gets the drop, they should have the advantage. Pay special mind to the word AD-VAN-TAGE. It implies the opportunity for recourse.

By the way, the subtleties of the Rule-of Free produce the required scenarios all the time. Like if someone is facing of the Lockout sniper tower, and you go leaping over the shortcut. They have no position to be moving forward, so your element of surprise give you an upper-hand. Even if they melee back, your momentum is power. At this point they have to make a decision. They obviously can't just trade blows, because they'll lose. Do they have a sniper? No scope? If they keep backing away, they'll give room for another "rule-of-two" melee which will kill them. Should they at this point "press" to restrict their momentum, melee back, and bank on the headshot to save them? Well, because of the deeper design scheme, the "possibility" exists. Narrow or not. Dimension is possibility. HALO 3's wooden mechanics have consigned the possibility side of close-combat to hellfire. I suspect by now I'm rambling.

Either way, I enjoy intelligent opposition. Debate is interesting and productive in my opinion. You've actually made a far stronger case for your position than I suspected you would. Nice discourse.

-Hzqi

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

While we're discussing the "numbers" of kills by melee aspect. it occured to me that certain stances seem contradictory. How about alighting this view upon it. you said something to the effect of, failing to see how making close range encounters deeper would discourage the close range. Well, lets put this another way. It will encourage the strong, and it SHOULD discourage the weak. The strong are the minority. The overall trend should be against idiots simply charging around in pursuit of their nano-second melee kill. As VVV once said, the melee power, has turned the AR into the "melee precursor".

To put things into a broader frame. HALO has always been about strategy, but... Strategy should never be all. Strategy should only be a tip of a hat in your favour, that then demands you exercise skill on your part to take advantage of your strategic advantage. HALO 2 started the trend of position being decisive. HALO 3 actually backed it off at the mid-range, and ramped it up at the short range. Again, improving one thing while ruining another (nades and melees?).

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

While I'm on the PS train.

You inferred that I'm a n00b-loathing elitist. As I seemed to flaunt some rancid contempt for anyone that isn't uber-1337. Talking about how I want to deprive them of fun and kills. Look, I don't give a crap if they're having fun, or getting kills, as long as they're not killing me. Sure, everyone gets killed, but being killed by players you know are crap is really grating. Is it elitist? No. You keep talking around the point made about skill level. You keep referring to the idea that the game was dumbed down to make it fun for the mediocre. Again: What point then the ranking system? Do we really need to comprimise sophisticated design to benifit all and sundry? Where I'm from they call that... Sell. Out. To hell with that. If you're appealing to the marketplace with your design, you're a crap designer. You should be appealing to your own sense of design. Roger Federer would split my butt in twain if I ever stepped on the court with him. Does that mean that the height of the net needs to be lowered to 12 inches so that I can have "fun"? There are oodles of passtimes out there that are designed from a pure standpoint of best mechanics. I got one... GOLF! Golf is hard. Period. Yet, millions of people still swarm to the courses of the world, for the fun of their own attrition. This kind of placating design sensibility doesn't benifit all-comers. It just deludes them and insults them without knowing. I find your point of accomodating the masses a fallacy. How the hell you even concluded this influence as laudable, when you consider that both games have their success ROOTED in the mainstream penetration of HALO 1, escapes me. HALO 1 generated the hype, and HALO 2 would have been huuuge, regardless over whether it was diluted from it's heritage. Do ya see the mechanical web of contradiction in that premise? Bill Hicks was right. Marketing is a scourge, and it's disease ridden paws are even contaminating the game scene. Think what you want. I'll be the one over in the corner designing a better tomorrow, knowing the truth and bracing for it's ascendency.

Hail BUNGIE. The game scene's own Metallica.

Peace.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

While I'm on the PS train.

You inferred that I'm a n00b-loathing elitist. As I seemed to flaunt some rancid contempt for anyone that isn't uber-1337. Talking about how I want to deprive them of fun and kills. Look, I don't give a crap if they're having fun, or getting kills, as long as they're not killing me.

Yes, I understand that your view of how the mechanics of the game work or don't work is subjective relative to whether or not you've been killed by a player you deem to be of lesser skill (despite the fact that the ranking system would seem to indicate they are of roughly equal skill). That was more or less my point, yes.

On the other hand, you don't have to care if those people are having fun. But those people are Bungie's customers. They can and do care. They have not put in a "press here to win if you're a noob" button, which is how a select few seem to perceive it. It's far from that. There are, however, portions of the game that are more accessible than others, and situations in which certain player skills are worth more than in others. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, everyone gets killed, but being killed by players you know are crap is really grating. Is it elitist? No.

Getting grated isn't elitist. Believing that you're better than them when the only indications that matter disagree with you-- that's elitist. If they are killing you more than you are killing them, then they ARE better than you are at Halo as implemented. If they aren't killing you more often than you are killing them, then what's your beef? It becomes the complaint of a sore loser-- someone who won but didn't win by enough because the loser got in a couple "cheap kills".

I can't think of any competetive endeavor where, at times, things of equal value on the scoreboard were achieved with different levels of effort. An empty-net goal is not as hard to get as one scored five on five. It's still one point. Changing the rules to make it worth half a point is not the answer.

Anonymous wrote:

You keep talking around the point made about skill level. You keep referring to the idea that the game was dumbed down to make it fun for the mediocre. Again: What point then the ranking system? Do we really need to comprimise sophisticated design to benifit all and sundry? Where I'm from they call that... Sell. Out. To hell with that. If you're appealing to the marketplace with your design, you're a crap designer. You should be appealing to your own sense of design.

Let's turn it around the other way. The elite players are probably the top ten, maybe twenty percent. The rest are, as you say, mediocre. Why should the game's mechanics be tuned to cater to the enjoyment of the minority-- who paid no less for their copy of Halo 3 than you did?

Sell out? They are making an entertainment product.

Anonymous wrote:

Roger Federer would split my butt in twain if I ever stepped on the court with him. Does that mean that the height of the net needs to be lowered to 12 inches so that I can have "fun"? There are oodles of passtimes out there that are designed from a pure standpoint of best mechanics.

This comparison keeps getting made and it is invalid every time. XBL is not intended for professional competition. If that's what you want, play MLG gametypes within the context of MLG events. Xbox Live is not a professional tour. If you go down to your municipal tennis courts to hit the ball around you're going to find people who can't serve down the T at 100 mph, who can't hit a two handed backhander down the alley with consistency, and don't always keep score or even, strictly speaking, follow all the rules. That's because they are balancing competition with fun. Because the rules of tennis in this context are interpreted entirely by the players, they can do this. Halo on XBL does not work that way. It has one set of rules, interpreted by the game engine and enforced consistently for all players in all situations, so the ruleset has to be structured in such a way that it is appropriate for the widest possible set of circumstances.

In any case, what you and others are actually lobbying for is the removal of luck. As if Roger Federer were to run the table on me, and then at match point I get a lucky net cord and he appeals to the umpire on the grounds that this point didn't count because I was merely lucky and not good. One, it's not fair, and two, it wouldn't change the result anyway. I'd still lose.

Anonymous wrote:

I got one... GOLF! Golf is hard. Period. Yet, millions of people still swarm to the courses of the world, for the fun of their own attrition. This kind of placating design sensibility doesn't benifit all-comers. It just deludes them and insults them without knowing. I find your point of accomodating the masses a fallacy.

Golf also incorporates the idea of a handicap to allow players of differing skill levels to compete on an even playing field. That exists in Halo but only within the larger context of the rating system-- where a win by a level 1 against a level 40 will raise his level more than if he beat another level 1.

I tell you what: I'll agree that Halo's combat mechanics should be deepened and made entirely deterministic, as well as expand the resolution of Halo's ranking system to accomodate the necessary distinctions, and let matchmaking connect players of wider ranges, if the point value of a kill is handicapped based on player rating. How's that sound?

I tend to think many wouldn't like that. Think of Halo's close quarters combat as an alternative to that. It allows for a simple strategy that can be executed by players of lesser skill, but makes the result more dependent on luck. Just as often it can go against the lesser skilled player as it can with them, and the better players can choose to avoid the situation if they desire. Seems fair to me, and is in keeping with the idea of Halo being easy to learn, but hard to master. I'd say Halo 1 was hard to learn and hard to master.

Anonymous wrote:

How the hell you even concluded this influence as laudable, when you consider that both games have their success ROOTED in the mainstream penetration of HALO 1, escapes me. HALO 1 generated the hype, and HALO 2 would have been huuuge, regardless over whether it was diluted from it's heritage. Do ya see the mechanical web of contradiction in that premise? Bill Hicks was right. Marketing is a scourge, and it's disease ridden paws are even contaminating the game scene. Think what you want. I'll be the one over in the corner designing a better tomorrow, knowing the truth and bracing for it's ascendency.

The answer to what is, in your mind, an insoluble conundrum is, in fact, very simple:

Halo 1's mainstream success was, largely, not due to the aspects of the game that you prize so much, but rather for other reasons entirely. The fact that each game has been, to date, more successful than the last also bears this out. There is nothing inherently superior about the design concepts you laud and those you deride. There is no objective standard here. Fun is inalienably subjective.

Halo 1 had no Xbox Live. The audience for its multiplayer was necessarily limited by this fact. Despite the attention paid to multiplayer and the popularity of LANfest events, I'll wager that the majority of Halo 1 owners may never have attended one. I hardly think the success of the Halo franchise would be what it is today if it was a multiplayer-only game. So to a large extent, while multiplayer support of some kind is considered mandatory for games these days, and Halo is often held up as a best of breed in terms of features, it does not necessarily follow at all that further iterations of Halo's multiplayer modes needed to limit the degree to which they varied from the original because of the game's popularity, because a large portion of the game's popularity had very little to do with multiplayer.

Going from Halo 2 to Halo 3, it's much easier to argue that the appeal of the game's multiplayer had more to do with it. Support for Xbox Live meant more people had access to competetive multiplayer. In other words, if there was an economically successful model for the implementation of online play for Halo to be emulated by a sequel, it was Halo 2's, not Halo 1's. Your viewpoint is essentially in the minority of the minority; I doubt Bungie can deliver a game that both pleases you in all respects and is successful.

Anonymous wrote:

Hail BUNGIE. The game scene's own Metallica.

Peace.

I never liked Metallica so I've really no idea what that's intended to mean.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

The thing is here, is that I think you've mistaken me for someone who isn't capable at short-range. Gross error. You made reference to me thinking that it's designed badly because it doesn't play to my strengths. That's a big -> ? It doesn't play to anyone's strengths. Not enough of them anyway. Not strengths of spontaneous mental or or physical dexterity. The only skill (that I agree is a skill) that it plays to is planning.

What probably would have help is if I'd remarked that melee is too prominently relied upon, and this is coming from someone who prized melee as a key aspect in rounding out their play. I don't avoid melee because I'm not capable of performing the skills that acquire kills. I avoid it, because the drastic reduction in skill, leaves little headroom for superior performance, hence it's a crappy bet to hedge. Like I said before, it's ruined the game for those that are good at that range, by limiting the way they can outperform those that aren't. I'll give you a comparative. There was widespread disgust when HALO 2 first released over how much the sniper had been simplified. Not only did it discard the flight of the bullet, so that it no longer required judgement of range and movement. It also had some wacky things going on with it's larger hitboxes, that played right into the hands of swipes, even moreso. It was renamed the "Swiper Rifle". HALO 3 has a few problems with the registration of headshots, but from a design standpoint, the 3 Rifle is a step to be applauded all the way in the right direction. The hitboxes are cleaner, and it kicks like a bitch, demanding that you retrace your aim after a round, and slowers it's RoF shade, which has hugely upped the emphasis on headshots, and reduced the dependence on bodyshotting. Bodyshots are fine, but this redressed tweak is a far superior balance. A balance of the order I'm talking about with the melee combat. I love the close range scrap factor. It's a mistake to presume that someone doesn't like the hand dealt to a field of play, therefore they're not good at it. It's not one of their strengths. You rightly pointed out a long way back: "If it's a problem, avoid it", yes, it's an area best avoided most of the time, by anyone good at the game. Unless they're acting completely on the ambush. There are three general ranges in HALO. Long, Medium, Short. Long and medium play to planning and skill. Short now only plays to planning. The majority of skill factor has been squeezed out of it.

When you give your excessive example (That I'd already considered) about the presumed gradient of more is better (20 bullets + melee?), you alluded to the idea of a sweet spot in design. I agree with the notion of the sweet spot. There is such a thing as too many, as there is too few. I contend that it's far from the sweet spot.

You also seem to think that I think we should all be running around the same way. With the same weapon ratios, and the same personality in our game. Also far from true. I'm all about people developing there own style of play. My design sensibility allows far more allocation to that concept, because the greater range of personality emerges in a balanced scenario. If one method of play is overwhelming in odds against another, then it provides an unbalanced influence. It prods a player in a direction more than allows them. It casts linear light. Instead of composing shades of grey, we have have black and white attitudes. We have dunces tearing around that are always getting outshot, but they've worked out they have a shot if they bank on these moments: Black. And we have players that have worked out that skill isn't rewarded in this range, so they try to remove the opportunity to be killed by an idiot, and give the range a general wide birth. This doesn't personalise techniques. It polarises them.

Broken? OK, concession. I'll give you that one. Broken does mean- not working as intended. If it's what Bungie intended, then the situation is worse than if it were a failed implimentation. Here's a better word than Broken: Shit. They intended it to be shit. Why would they intend shit? Because most of the people designing the game, suck at it. Most.

You stated: It's not the designers job to eliminate the possibilities of an outcome. That's exactly what they've done.

The Gravity Hammer doesn't emphasise it's design strength. You say it's gravity field "seems" large. It isn't. Pick one up, have a friend fire a rocket at you and try to deflect it. The window is so narrow, that in the context of the ease of other options in the game, it's thoroughly impractical. We're not talking slim, we're talking Calista Flockhart. It seems half the time the you can press at exactly the same time, with a different result. I'm all for skill factors, but this pinhole window, again, fails to emphasise the design strengths of the device so that people will employ it. Why think different with something painfully tricky when you can walk up and smack them in your sleep?

By "crap calibrations" I can't possibly have meant the damage model, because it was in reference to HALO 3 covering up all the failings of 2. The failings of 2 were definitely not the damage model. The calibrations were that you could lunge from about 2 football fields, at the speed of light, within about 75 degrees of accuracy. And when to people lunge at remotely skewed angles or times, they miss each other and go flying all over the place. It was a glorious farce of Lurch and Search. BUNGIE never even installed any kind of failsafe into this crapshoot, that might stop you sometime within the intercontinental journey imparted by the force of the melee speed. I've been flung haplessly off the map countless times, for the heinous sin of trusting the trusty melee. It's either getting you kills cheaply, or getting you killed. Two "at leasts". At least the damage model of HALO 2 allowed room for quick judgement, and employable skill based solutions. At least HALO 3 doesn't cast you into purgatory.

You're bound to shrug to this and say, meh, but a variety of the best and most brutal players in my country have stated the crappy melee systems as one of the key contributions to their decision to walk away from the game. DoS (DoS Death), Dom (Dommie Darko), Sisqo (Sisqo). They like a lot of things, but some things are too "bland" to stomach. Dom particularly loathes it (melee). One of my best friends on Live Liquid Armor (and Liquid Armour) and another one of the best players in the country. It's not that he can't do it. He just thinks it's crap. I'm not trying to namedrop for cred. I'm merely illustrating a point. These are players who can well do what's required to "excel" at the melee business. And they think it's garbage. Sisqo actually told me something that really stuck in my head: Dude, I liked the Beta way better than this. As did Doddus. Another top-tier player. Want to discuss it with all the best players? They agree that the melee snacks on ballsacks.

You make it sound as if it's great because it plays to some peoples "strengths". Well I know the players with the "strengths", and the only ones who think it's great our the ones who suck at close quarters. And that's how this kind of thing works. When you dilute something and compress the skill ceiling, people that used to get raped at it suddenly experience some success. "Oh golly, love the new melee thing Bungie". "I'll be darned if it's not a win some lose some gamble, but hell!! I actually win some now!!". No, it's not the "scrappers" that think it's great. It's the suddenly elevated button mashers that like it. The outcry is so vast from the veteren side of HALO, that Bungie is "looking into it" more urgently than any design bone that's ever been picked. Maybe they'll rethink the strength and the window of opportunity in the "most-health" system.

At least we agree about our dubiousness over lunges generally. I'm comforted that you concede the lunacy of the Magnum design. I never presumed you were a zealot, and this reassures it. Don't mind the spirit of a lunge, but the execution is way off. Melee should be a swing, period. A lunge should be performed by some special action (yay, that would expand close quarters), should thrust at a reasonable speed, and should be locked in it's direction, not at it's target. It should actually require aim and timing.

In spite of goofing off, and the lag of Satan, I've managed to recently drag my K/D ratio up to 1.9. It's more like a "sore winner". I even still succeed at melee combat. But I used to enjoy melee combat. My beef is crap, wooden design.

Your interpretation of the tennis analogy is way off. Whether or not they are having a social hit, and whether or not they are playing at an intense level, the net is still the same height, and the opportunity still remains for them to hit at great speed and perform amazing passing shots, if they were capable. Would that running backhand down the line still be amazing if the net was an inch off the ground? Chess and Tennis are entertainment too. But they're designed by people that understand a sweet spot in that design. HALO doesn't have to be designed to suit a minority. I already said that when I said it doesn't have to be designed to suit anybody. It just has to be well designed. Good design benefits the entertainment value of a product, for players at every level. Otherwise they may as well quit and watch tellytubbies.

Lobbying the removal of luck? Luck is when someone leaps out and frightens you with a sniper in your hands, you flinch and take their head off with it (some skill attribute? anyway). You're comparing the incidence of a humourous rarity (net court) with an incessantly mundane mechanic?

Again you've misconstrewed the analogy. Golf incorporates a handicap in the the structure of amateur tournaments. It's not fundamental to the design of the game. What equates their is... A HANDICAP!!! Just like the one that was available in HALO 2 in the start menu. So that you could, if you chose to, arrange a game with your lesser friends with a fighting chance by lessening your inflicted damange, while increasing theirs. True handicap. Not "handicapped" design.

HALO sales never peaked on release, like the games it leant it's name to. In fact they got off modest ground. The sales of HALO 1 swelled, and they swelled on the basis of word of mouth. Both single and multiplayer aspects contributed, but... To underestimate the impact that it's supremely regarded multiplayer had on it's fortunes is a severe misstep. There's a flipside. Many players play ONLY multiplayer, and almost never bother with campaign. The fun of multiplayer is what really set fire to the HALO craze. Run your idea vs mine by a few people and see who agrees. You also fail to acknowledge split-screen. Starting out, it's the only way I had to play. Before we grew out into LAN events.

Handicapped damage to corrolate to ranking? Sounds like the crappest idea ever. Let Matchmaking sort them out.

As for what's "cool". It's great to see HALO 3 with the antannae back on the hogs, but really... Riding Tanks FTW!

Name is Hzqi. Pronounced Hurts-Key.

Same as XBox Live account.

Metallica wore accusations of following the scent of dollar bills instead of their own muse. BUNGIE never had to follow the dollar bills. Had they solemnly resolved to design it purely, the dimishment in success wouldn't rate. "People" don't even notice this shit we're talking about. They just pick it up and play it. If they lose, they get matched up with lower ranks. And keep playing.

Design first.

PS, this CAPTCHA forum screener is retarded.

-Hzqi

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

The thing is here, is that I think you've mistaken me for someone who isn't capable at short-range. Gross error. You made reference to me thinking that it's designed badly because it doesn't play to my strengths.

Sigh. No, actually, I haven't. Because neither my opinion, nor any of my arguments, are based on attaching credibility to an assessment of a player's skill in any particular area of the game. All I've merely stated is that if there's an area of the game you do not find enjoyable, you can choose to avoid it other than insist that it is "good design" to work the way you'd prefer. There are no absolutes here. What we're discussing here is a fairly gross approximation of combat, so gross that an awful lot of simplification is going on. As such, portions of it will not work realistically, and some will provide either more, or less, complexity, flexibility, and depth compared to others.

Anonymous wrote:

That's a big -> ? It doesn't play to anyone's strengths. Not enough of them anyway. Not strengths of spontaneous mental or or physical dexterity. The only skill (that I agree is a skill) that it plays to is planning.

In my opinion that is sufficient. In fact, it's a skill that's vastly undervalued, not just by Halo 3, but by most shooters. Then again, they are not strategy games first and foremost, so that's to be expected. Still I don't think the balance in Halo 3 (as compared to the previous games) is objectionable.

Anonymous wrote:

What probably would have help is if I'd remarked that melee is too prominently relied upon, and this is coming from someone who prized melee as a key aspect in rounding out their play. I don't avoid melee because I'm not capable of performing the skills that acquire kills. I avoid it, because the drastic reduction in skill, leaves little headroom for superior performance, hence it's a crappy bet to hedge. Like I said before, it's ruined the game for those that are good at that range, by limiting the way they can outperform those that aren't.

Yes-- and in case you hadn't caught it in any of the many posts above in which I said essentially the same thing-- that's perfectly fine with me. Meaning by point of diminishing returns. This is one of several ways in which the game acknowledges who is doing better at executing certain things, but puts a cap on how much advantage can be squeezed from that. This is not necessarily bad design.

Anonymous wrote:

I'll give you a comparative. There was widespread disgust when HALO 2 first released over how much the sniper had been simplified.

Let's be honest here. There was a loud burst of disgust from an extremely narrow band of the community. I happen to agree with your assessment of the weapon, and I'll stipulate to your description of it, which is accurate. But you are clearly taking a rather rarefied section of the community and making it much larger than it really is (or else just assuming that because it consists of better players, it is more important-- which I don't agree with at all).

Anonymous wrote:

Not only did it discard the flight of the bullet, so that it no longer required judgement of range and movement. It also had some wacky things going on with it's larger hitboxes, that played right into the hands of swipes, even moreso. It was renamed the "Swiper Rifle". HALO 3 has a few problems with the registration of headshots, but from a design standpoint, the 3 Rifle is a step to be applauded all the way in the right direction. The hitboxes are cleaner, and it kicks like a bitch, demanding that you retrace your aim after a round, and slowers it's RoF shade, which has hugely upped the emphasis on headshots, and reduced the dependence on bodyshotting. Bodyshots are fine, but this redressed tweak is a far superior balance. A balance of the order I'm talking about with the melee combat. I love the close range scrap factor. It's a mistake to presume that someone doesn't like the hand dealt to a field of play, therefore they're not good at it.

Suggesting that you avoid a certain portion of the game you find to your dislike is not tantamount to critizing your ability at it; I've no ambition whatsoever to do that, and it has no bearing on the discussion. You're presuming a statement I haven't made. Then again, with people who believe they are really that much better than something than others, they usually assume that people who don't agree with them are either inferior, or challenging their own ability. I find it interesting that this always comes up in these discussions even though I've never, ever presented myself as a better player in any area than those I've been discussing it with. I find that curious.

Anonymous wrote:

It's not one of their strengths. You rightly pointed out a long way back: "If it's a problem, avoid it", yes, it's an area best avoided most of the time, by anyone good at the game. Unless they're acting completely on the ambush. There are three general ranges in HALO. Long, Medium, Short. Long and medium play to planning and skill. Short now only plays to planning. The majority of skill factor has been squeezed out of it.

Again I'm not arguing that, I'm just suggesting that within the context of the game it is not unrealistic or inappropriate.

Anonymous wrote:

When you give your excessive example (That I'd already considered) about the presumed gradient of more is better (20 bullets + melee?), you alluded to the idea of a sweet spot in design. I agree with the notion of the sweet spot. There is such a thing as too many, as there is too few. I contend that it's far from the sweet spot.

And I content that it isn't. Even if we just agree to disagree the difference is what-- five AR rounds? Which take a tiny of a fraction of a second to fire?

Anonymous wrote:

You also seem to think that I think we should all be running around the same way. With the same weapon ratios, and the same personality in our game. Also far from true. I'm all about people developing there own style of play. My design sensibility allows far more allocation to that concept, because the greater range of personality emerges in a balanced scenario.

I'm not sure where you get that from. Your design suggestion (which as far as I can tell amounts to "weaken melee strike, elmininate lunge" leads to slightly greater short range combat depth. I agree it would lead to that. I just also think it's unnecessary and a bit silly. The depth it adds is in only one of the three phases of the game, and emphasizes skills that are inappropriate for that range.

Anonymous wrote:

If one method of play is overwhelming in odds against another, then it provides an unbalanced influence. It prods a player in a direction more than allows them. It casts linear light. Instead of composing shades of grey, we have have black and white attitudes. We have dunces tearing around that are always getting outshot, but they've worked out they have a shot if they bank on these moments: Black. And we have players that have worked out that skill isn't rewarded in this range, so they try to remove the opportunity to be killed by an idiot, and give the range a general wide birth. This doesn't personalise techniques. It polarises them.

It is not necessary to have such a wide range of choices in all phases of the game; that's my point. Especially when some of those choices are inappropriate. I contend giving a victim of a melee strike a chance to live past the blow to deliver a sniper headshot to his attacker is about as appropriate as allowing a player to lunge halfway across a map to melee a distant sniper. They're both ridiculous, and both should be prevented.

Anonymous wrote:

Broken? OK, concession. I'll give you that one. Broken does mean- not working as intended. If it's what Bungie intended, then the situation is worse than if it were a failed implimentation. Here's a better word than Broken: Shit. They intended it to be shit. Why would they intend shit? Because most of the people designing the game, suck at it. Most.

Let's say I agree. So what? I've already conceded that most of the players who bought the game are not the elite. If you're looking for me to pucker up and kiss your ass-- let's say I concede that they're not as good as you. Will that make you happy?

How about if I go on to say that that fact matters not one bit? Halo 3 is not a way of measuring your dick. That's what all this seems to be about. You know how big your dick is, but Halo 3's ruler seems to show other people's dicks as closer in size to yours than you really think is true. Get over it, please.

Anonymous wrote:

You stated: It's not the designers job to eliminate the possibilities of an outcome. That's exactly what they've done.

You're purposefully misunderstanding me now. What I said is that it is not the designer's job to ensure that the successful application of a particular set of skills always results in a positive consequence. Most of the time, yes. Which it does. A few field-levelling situations (easily avoidable) does not ruin or break the game. You've got such a narrow definition of what qualifies as "good design" within this context that I'm fairly sure you'll have to design your own game to get it. Which would be cool.

Anonymous wrote:

The Gravity Hammer doesn't emphasise it's design strength. You say it's gravity field "seems" large. It isn't. Pick one up, have a friend fire a rocket at you and try to deflect it. The window is so narrow, that in the context of the ease of other options in the game, it's thoroughly impractical. We're not talking slim, we're talking Calista Flockhart. It seems half the time the you can press at exactly the same time, with a different result. I'm all for skill factors, but this pinhole window, again, fails to emphasise the design strengths of the device so that people will employ it. Why think different with something painfully tricky when you can walk up and smack them in your sleep?

I don't think deflecting a rocket with a grav hammer is supposed to be easy or something that happens often, but something that happens once in a great while that makes people say "wow" when it happens. That the weapon does not do this in a way that is reliably repeatable also does not necessarily strike me as a flaw.

Anonymous wrote:

By "crap calibrations" I can't possibly have meant the damage model, because it was in reference to HALO 3 covering up all the failings of 2. The failings of 2 were definitely not the damage model. The calibrations were that you could lunge from about 2 football fields, at the speed of light, within about 75 degrees of accuracy. And when to people lunge at remotely skewed angles or times, they miss each other and go flying all over the place. It was a glorious farce of Lurch and Search. BUNGIE never even installed any kind of failsafe into this crapshoot, that might stop you sometime within the intercontinental journey imparted by the force of the melee speed. I've been flung haplessly off the map countless times, for the heinous sin of trusting the trusty melee. It's either getting you kills cheaply, or getting you killed. Two "at leasts". At least the damage model of HALO 2 allowed room for quick judgement, and employable skill based solutions. At least HALO 3 doesn't cast you into purgatory.

We both feel the same way about lunge so there's little to add to that.

Anonymous wrote:

You're bound to shrug to this and say, meh, but a variety of the best and most brutal players in my country have stated the crappy melee systems as one of the key contributions to their decision to walk away from the game. DoS (DoS Death), Dom (Dommie Darko), Sisqo (Sisqo). They like a lot of things, but some things are too "bland" to stomach. Dom particularly loathes it (melee). One of my best friends on Live Liquid Armor (and Liquid Armour) and another one of the best players in the country. It's not that he can't do it. He just thinks it's crap. I'm not trying to namedrop for cred. I'm merely illustrating a point. These are players who can well do what's required to "excel" at the melee business. And they think it's garbage. Sisqo actually told me something that really stuck in my head: Dude, I liked the Beta way better than this. As did Doddus. Another top-tier player. Want to discuss it with all the best players? They agree that the melee snacks on ballsacks.

You'll probably find this shocking, but I don't necessarily think that the credibility of one's opinion of the game rises proportionally with one's ability. In fact, I think designing a game that caters to the best players is something Bungie should not do, and I think we'd both agree has not done. The difference is you think they should, and I think they shouldn't.

Anonymous wrote:

You make it sound as if it's great because it plays to some peoples "strengths". Well I know the players with the "strengths", and the only ones who think it's great our the ones who suck at close quarters. And that's how this kind of thing works. When you dilute something and compress the skill ceiling, people that used to get raped at it suddenly experience some success. "Oh golly, love the new melee thing Bungie". "I'll be darned if it's not a win some lose some gamble, but hell!! I actually win some now!!". No, it's not the "scrappers" that think it's great. It's the suddenly elevated button mashers that like it. The outcry is so vast from the veteren side of HALO, that Bungie is "looking into it" more urgently than any design bone that's ever been picked. Maybe they'll rethink the strength and the window of opportunity in the "most-health" system.

Vast outcry? More urgently? I think you're really, really attaching far more importance and attention to the issue than it is getting, or than it deserves. Maybe the system is broken-- I don't have nearly enough data on the number of games required, or the kind of setup to tell what's due to lag and what isn't. So perhaps there is something terribly wrong and Bungie will find what it is and fix it. All I'm saying is that if that is not the case, that what has been done-- that the close quarters game has been flattened-- may have been the result of an intentional design decision; that you and some not insignificant number of seasoned players disagree with it does not necessarily make it bad, and that there are any number of several possible reasons why it was done.

Anonymous wrote:

At least we agree about our dubiousness over lunges generally. I'm comforted that you concede the lunacy of the Magnum design. I never presumed you were a zealot, and this reassures it. Don't mind the spirit of a lunge, but the execution is way off. Melee should be a swing, period. A lunge should be performed by some special action (yay, that would expand close quarters), should thrust at a reasonable speed, and should be locked in it's direction, not at it's target. It should actually require aim and timing.

I think an extra button press for lunge is being unnecessarily complex in this phase of the game. If Bungie were to add another control to Halo it'd make more sense for it to be glance, or dash, or prone position, or any other of a number of things that would be useful in more phases of the game than the lunge.

On the magnum, I agree that its dual wielding behavior is the result of a perceived need to have some kind of tradeoff, but it is one that is so bald that it completely breaks verisimilitude. Even so it still makes more sense than Halo 1's hand cannon. But let's not go there.

Anonymous wrote:

In spite of goofing off, and the lag of Satan, I've managed to recently drag my K/D ratio up to 1.9. It's more like a "sore winner". I even still succeed at melee combat. But I used to enjoy melee combat. My beef is crap, wooden design.

I think "sore winner" is exactly how I characterized the argument-- and in the end analysis I think it's the one that fits.

As a side note-- I think you really, really don't know what true lag of Satan is. Post a typical ping and we can measure those dicks.

Anonymous wrote:

Your interpretation of the tennis analogy is way off. Whether or not they are having a social hit, and whether or not they are playing at an intense level, the net is still the same height, and the opportunity still remains for them to hit at great speed and perform amazing passing shots, if they were capable. Would that running backhand down the line still be amazing if the net was an inch off the ground? Chess and Tennis are entertainment too. But they're designed by people that understand a sweet spot in that design. HALO doesn't have to be designed to suit a minority. I already said that when I said it doesn't have to be designed to suit anybody. It just has to be well designed. Good design benefits the entertainment value of a product, for players at every level. Otherwise they may as well quit and watch tellytubbies.

Just because the physical dimensions of the court and the net are the same for a casual hit and a professional match does not mean that other factors are equal. Social players will routinely ignore foot faults, allow for double bounces, play out balls in the interest of keeping a rally moving instead of stopping play, and doing any number of dozens of other things that are technically speaking against the rules.

Again you're failing to recognize that it is even possible that there is a difference between what IS good design and what YOU THINK good design is; therefore you don't consider your suggestions to be catering to you, but just catering to "good design" which ought to be good enough for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Lobbying the removal of luck? Luck is when someone leaps out and frightens you with a sniper in your hands, you flinch and take their head off with it (some skill attribute? anyway). You're comparing the incidence of a humourous rarity (net court) with an incessantly mundane mechanic?

It's only incessantly mundane in your opinion. And yes, you are lobbying against it because the result depends more on luck than skill. That's the entirety of your point. It's directly analogous. The scenario you describe above is skill-based, not luck based. Being surprised and making a reflex action is not "luck".

Anonymous wrote:

Again you've misconstrewed the analogy. Golf incorporates a handicap in the the structure of amateur tournaments. It's not fundamental to the design of the game.

It is fundamental to the players' experience of the game, given that it is integral to the way most people play golf, either in amateur tournaments or merely social play. The difference here is that, as in the golf and tennis examples, these additional rules that alter the experience of the game are applied by the people playing because they have the flexibility to do so.

I suggested that the game do this automatically in the scoring and you didn't like that idea. I happen to like it a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

HALO sales never peaked on release, like the games it leant it's name to. In fact they got off modest ground. The sales of HALO 1 swelled, and they swelled on the basis of word of mouth.

That's got zero to do with Halo's sales curve. Halo was a launch title for Microsoft's first iteration of a game console. It couldn't have the kind of first-day sales that Halo 2 and Halo 3 had. There was no installed base of consoles to buy the game in that kind of volume. Even so, it was the biggest single seller from day one and continued to be. The game was hyped back til 1999 before Bungie was purchased, before anybody had heard of an Xbox

Anonymous wrote:

Both single and multiplayer aspects contributed, but... To underestimate the impact that it's supremely regarded multiplayer had on it's fortunes is a severe misstep. There's a flipside. Many players play ONLY multiplayer, and almost never bother with campaign.

If you ask me, that's the aberration. Even now less than half of all 360 owners even have XBL Gold. Sure they may be playing splitscreen, but if you ask me, it's a pretty poor way to play except on the largest of screens, and it certainly doesn't offer anything like the multiplayer experience that XBL has.

Anonymous wrote:

The fun of multiplayer is what really set fire to the HALO craze. Run your idea vs mine by a few people and see who agrees. You also fail to acknowledge split-screen. Starting out, it's the only way I had to play. Before we grew out into LAN events.

The plural of anecdote is not data. I think, again, you're extrapolating your own personal experience of the game and trying to generalize it to everyone. Personally I think if Halo 1 had no campaign, but XBL multiplayer, the game today would be about as relevant and popular as Shadowrun is.

Which is to say, not at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Handicapped damage to corrolate to ranking? Sounds like the crappest idea ever. Let Matchmaking sort them out.

Sounds brilliant to me. Takes the stress of matchmaking anyway, and makes competition more pleasurable and less cutthroat. Now the object is to play better than you did yesterday-- if everyone does so, then nothing is changed. As far as online gaming as a social activity, it's a far more desirable scenario.

As for what's "cool". It's great to see HALO 3 with the antannae back on the hogs, but really... Riding Tanks FTW!

Name is Hzqi. Pronounced Hurts-Key.

Same as XBox Live account.

Anonymous wrote:

Metallica wore accusations of following the scent of dollar bills instead of their own muse.

As does nearly every single group or individual engaged in a creative endeavor who eventually meets with significant financial success.

Anonymous wrote:

BUNGIE never had to follow the dollar bills.

No? Why the heck not? Were they all born rich already, and they didn't bother to tell us?

Anonymous wrote:

Had they solemnly resolved to design it purely, the dimishment in success wouldn't rate. "People" don't even notice this shit we're talking about. They just pick it up and play it. If they lose, they get matched up with lower ranks. And keep playing.

I think that's another fallacy. I honestly think that if Bungie had tuned the game to meet the requirements of some of the purists, the game would certainly be less fun to play for more average players, even if they were not willing or able to express exactly why this was so.

Anonymous wrote:

Design first.

PS, this CAPTCHA forum screener is retarded.

-Hzqi

Again-- if you register an account, you don't have to use the captcha. The captcha is there to stop the spambots, which it does. It's designed to.


Rampant for over se7en years.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Re: You can't run but you can hide. Halo 3 is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

Point taken then. Perhaps you did consider that altering design will alter behaviour and simply doubted it. In a lot of cases I think you'd be correct, for the larger pattern of the herd, I think you'd be mistaken. There are people out there who never get take the hint the universe is stabbing in their forehead. Even if it took three clips and ten beat-downs, it'd be pretty redundant to pilfer oxygen questioning their methods. The general wilderbeast population tends to react to a heads up.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say design cannot or does not alter behavior. I would probably say that there is a limit to how much it can be altered, and that to some extent the prevalence of melee as the dominant "tool of destruction" attests to this limit.

Anonymous wrote:

You know, we actually found two things we agree on. I too, think that Halo 2 and 3's jump is drastically overdoing it. And game-flow that aids reduction in vulture kills are handy. I don't think vulture is a burnable sin, but a legitimate tactic, but it's best when things don't totally play to it.

The vulture style of play, as well as camping, I think are both completely legitimate. The jumping I've always found objectionable for a couple of reasons. One, is that from an aesthetic perspective, it often just looks ridiculous. When a character makes an individual large jump to reach another location, or at a dramatic moment, it can seem appealing, but so far no one seems to have bothered to put in a design limitation that prevents that single Herculean leap from turning into bunny hopping. I'd love to see a game put in an increasing refractory period after consecutive jumps, or perhaps diminishing the length of consecutive jumps to limit the usefulness of this as a tactic.

I'm certainly no stickler for realism, but along with strafing, bunny-hopping always just struck me as wrong. I can't imagine real people in a real firefight bounding across the battlefield like that. I know everything doesn't have to be realistic, but for me, the jumping just goes too far. I enjoy the ability to set gravity much, much higher in custom games.

Anonymous wrote:

You were crafty in pointing out moments where you thought I was making your point for you. Well, right back at you. You keep recommending that players steer clear of close range combat if it's such a problem. Well, that's generally what I do. My kills by BR are four times that of my melee kills. Even though I was often agressive in this range in Halo 1 and 2. It's not because I can't scrap. It's because the whole process has been stripped palid. There is far less impression that superior skill can make at that range anymore, so I mostly just don't go there. Firstly, does that not show that I've altered my behaviour based upon design? And, is it right that I'm inspired to not engaged in this aspect of the game anymore, because it sucks tailpipe?

Just because it discourages you does not mean it sucks tailpipe. It means that portion of the game does not play to your strengths in any way. Not every part of the game design has to. There are games of skill, games of luck, and games that involve both elements. In such games players will avoid situations that do not play to their strengths, and if they are overmatched in all areas will roll the dice. In most cases, you have a choice of engaging them in those situations or not. That strikes me as a sufficiently deep design to be both satisfying and accessible. You seem to want a design that is equally deep at all points and minimizes the influence of luck at all points. My essential answer to that is that this is not fun for as many people as you think. Because it is fun for you does not mean it is fun for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

You seem to have alluded that I've assumed on a few axioms. Again. Right back at you. Slow down? That axiom would be that I'm pro-slow. No. I'm pro-dimension. I'm pro-fun! Can't you just, tell? The problem with juggernaut THWACKS isn't just that they're fast, it's that they're so effective, that they make one attitude of play so effective that it squashes optional mentallity into the periphery. CHARGE-SPRAY-THUD!! Who'da thunk it? Adding four or five bullets to the required amount to engage melee, wouldn't slow down close quarters combat generally. It would only make that method take longer, and only fractionally longer at that. Balance is in the details. Curbing the sharp edge off of that approach makes the greater multitude of close range methods suddenly enticing. Skulking your way into ambush range, and opening up without being seen (one step down from an assasination) is more challenging than blasting up and swinging, without recourse. And that split second you're talking about where players do the quickstep dance of death jive? You make it sound as if they play Rock, Paper, Scissors for five minutes then turn to the judges for a score. It's all over in a snappy rhythm. It just plays out in a much more interesting manner. I've always taken exception to HALO 2's melee, for how easy they were made to land. Now we have easy landing with decisive low denominators. The infantilisation of close-range combat is complete. Yes, we agree that vulture killing is best at a moderate level, but more stimulating, lateral encounters don't exacerbate that quandry. To readress something. The only reason some encounters in HALO 2 became so comically drawn-out, isn't because of the melee damage, it's because of a combination of the crappy moon-jump and the lame ass lunge melee. Jump, lunge, miss, Huh! Where the? Jump, turn, turn, jump, lunge, miss, RUN AWAY!!! That's not a power with the basically immaculate power dealt. The thing to fix was the ghastly jumping, and the design of the melee itself so people didn't get lost like blind tourists. Actually, I think I see how this works now. "Maybe if we make the melee the tool of armageddon, it will lessen the occurance of the jumping, humping mating ritual and people won't notice our crap calibrations so much".

Not sure what you mean by "crap calibrations" here exactly, unless you mean the damage model itself. Sounds to me as if you think this sort of happened by accident somehow and was not an intentional design decision. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It strikes me as increasing verisimilitude and flattening the learning curve slightly to have required skill to execute damage scale inversely with distance. This shifts the balance in some parts of the game, some of the time, towards positional advantage and away from the execution of weapons fire. This is hardly the end of the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Back onto the jumping I fail to see how the technique of leaping around people to evade and attack them is a point of contention though. Especially if the jump were made reasonable. HALO 3 is an odd beast. It goes from one acknowledgement of momentum to the other. Weight and momentum were accounted for when you melee in HALO 2, yet grenades flew the same way regardless of it. Now that they've added depth to the nade toss in 3, they've squandered the deepening by flattening the melee.

Again I think it's just verisimilitude. It makes sense to me that a moving object imparts more momentum than a standing object (within a given frame of reference). Why a leaping object should impart more I really can't imagine. Especially since I don't think Halo 2 make a distinction between objects leaping up, which from the moment of takeoff should be decelerating due to gravity, and objects falling from the apex of the leap, which should be accelerating due to gravity. Maybe it did, I never did any experiments on that to find out. It seems reasonable to me that perhaps making that distinction makes things unnecessarily complex and that flattening the melee damage model is an acceptable alternative.

With grenades it's an easier thing-- of course it should affect the toss, and now it does, which I find gratifying, even if it does bother me that such a basic mechanic changed so much in each game. To some extent I miss the ease with which it was possible to make some truly long-distance sticks in Halo 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Speed? Forget that repurcussion. 6 bullets from AR? Takes how long? You think 4 more is going to be like "Dull and Dulled Down Action", the directors cut? All design and all balance are trades, some of them miniscule. That micron will expand incentives. There's also the performance factor. Because it's only six bullets, it really compresses the hit-miss demands. "Oh well, I missed three of my nine bullets. Thwack!". Make it ten bullets and it exponentially (or at least incrimentally) increases the likelyhood that they'll screw up. Nine bullets, three miss = success. Thirteen bullets, only three miss = far less likely. Expand the laws of probability on it, and someone who misses 3 in 9 (missing are a third of total execution) is going to need not 9, but 15 bullets (a third of total execution) to be successful, thoroughly, and rightly deadening the chances of rough aim. 6 additional bullets to 9. Yet, the guy with the perfectly tight AR goes from just 6 bullets to 10. There's the other ways that it's become linear, but another way is that reduced demand, makes squat window for error.

There is a limit to how broad and how deep the game should need to be. All you are arguing here for is the creation of more scenarios to evaluate (which can be, but is not necessarily, a better thing) and more opportunities to measure the player's skill. You're suggesting that this is necessarily better to measure this more often.

If this is all you consider, you can justify increasing these requirements to almost any arbitrary level. If requiring six shots before death is bad and ten shots is good, then twenty shots would be even better and thirty better still. If that makes the game too slow, just increase the weapon's rate of fire. If that makes it too easy, increase the player's movement speed. If that makes things too easy, then narrow the weapon's spread.

You'll end up with a game where very fast players fire a rapid-fire weapon that deals an awful lot of damage very quickly. The game has become one-dimensional. It is about aiming and pulling the trigger. You might as well play Duck Hunt at this point.

This is an exaggeration, of course-- but all I'm saying is that there should be a point of diminishing returns on certain skills. Increasing the value of pinpoint weapon accuracy at ranges of less than a meter makes no sense to me.

In a broader sense, I would suggest that increasing the resolution of the skill measuring system in this way is not necessarily always superior design, because the ultimate point of Halo is not, as I said, to measure one's ability to play Halo in general or the ability to aim a reticle in specific. These are only some out of many factors. If they were the only factors, I don't believe Halo would not be as popular a game as it is. There is a portion of the upper range of players who simply either don't believe or accept this, or deny that it should ever be considered in the game's design.

Anonymous wrote:

6 bullets? Auto-aim lunge? Hey, BONUS! There's also the Plasma-Rifle factor. Everyone that knows HALO, knows that since the stun was removed, that swiftly raping shields is the domain of the PR. HALO 2 required almost total annihilation of shield for melee, which the PR served efficiently in four shots. It's slow only flesh, so... If the AR does it in six, six high-speed, what more purpose the idiosyncrisy of PR. First it's stun is taken? Now it's shield advantage? It's made to jostle alongside the spiker that has almost identical performance traits (RoF, Projectile Speed) Wraith's are given mannable turrets, Scorpian's turret is made mannable, while losing it's ability to attach passengers (cmon, what's cooler piggybacking on a tank), Brute-Shot is detuned into just a weak rocket launcher, Shotguns multiply like coat-hangers, Ghost and Banshee lose their weak spots, another sword dressed up as a caveman club (with a fabulous feature which is ineffective compare to just clubbing seals with it). Imagine how cool the Grav Hammer would be, if instead of being a second sword, it could be whipped out instantly, and it's actually distinctive feature was emphasised (You know, defecting grenades, rockets and flipping vehicles, bouncing people around. Want to design it well? Ramp up the range of the gravity field, REMOVE the lunge), carbine that was already, just a gun, that gets made even crapper, mass confusion in Bungie as to how best to tune the Magnum, which is apparantly unacceptable at five slow shots when dualled, so it confounds the laws of even internal logic, by inexplicably becoming 7 shots dualled, even though at five, it's significantly slower to kill than other pairs in it's range. What is this? The holocaust of distinction? Is there no end to the design HOMOGENY? If you call this good design, then, sorry, my idea of it seriously questions yours. Their are good design points in this game (Spartan Laser, Missile Pod), but for most beauty spots, there's a dirty great wart.

Quickly: riding on tanks was cool but pointless.

Not sure why the Ghost's weak point was removed, I sort of liked it.

The grav hammer is good for the things you mentioned, and the range already seems pretty darn large to me.

I loathe the lunge in nearly all its forms, I wouldn't mind it being completely removed. With the increased strength of the melee attack I don't think the player needs the extra help. It made sense with the weaker melee attacks in the earlier games, but now it doesn't anymore.

Yes, the Magnum is weird. Why dualling it with another weapon is better than dualling with another Magnum is really beyond me. That one does make me scratch my head.

Anonymous wrote:

Point is taken about the way that a crappy close-range system not necessarily encouraging close-range combat. I'll revise. It encourages idiots, and ruins close range combat for everyone else. It's both a lure and a deterrent. This is probably an abberation besides the fact, but I've been in FFA's with players, not won, then looked at the "Weapon of coice" (HAND. Which is a perfect symbol of the result), talked these players in a friendly 1 v 1, smashed the fuck out of them, and further questioned the game. This is just universal, that sometimes it can be harder for a good player to beat a ordinary player when there's a bunch of really, really crap players running around, than it is to compete with a room of good players, because the tards are constantly, randomly feeding them kills.

I'll point again at the parable of the talents and my earlier statements: that the real issue is a perceived insufficient reward for player skill. You say close quarters combat encourages idiots and ruins the game for better players. I say it evens the odds. Halo is not a device for measuring Halo skill. It is a play experience. More often than not, demonstrated skill wins out. It is not the designers job to eliminate all possibilities of any other outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not anti-melee. I don't mind that a certain degree of encounters are melee-based, I dig it. What I do mind is seeing this players with their little Eagles, checking their stats and seeing melee either as, or near to their primary weapon, and... knowing how those encounters played out. By the way, Bungie's melee hasn't lessened host advantage, it's increased. I've got footage of being AR beat down, after getting off the shotgun. That's how stupid it is. The only reason that would happen in HALO 2 was because the Shotgun always screwed up. Now it's because the AR beat-down is sometimes faster than my lag window. In fact, I guess you're on to something with me. Unless melee numbers are inordinantly high, which they generally are, it's not so much the numbers that bother me, it's the show of reliance on something crap, that bugs me. I maintain my stance the design is affecting behaviour. That's actually worse than my origional position. It's a moron's paradise, and smart man's bermuda triangle.

So again it's not about you, your play, your kills, or your skill. You feel that your hard-earned, skilfull kills should be worth more than the (usually fewer) kills that players you consider less skilful get by rolling the dice and sometimes getting lucky in the melee sweepstakes. Cry me a river, man. You may be running around insistent that your level X is worth more than another player's level X because they got there with a higher percentage of their kills gotten in a way that you consider less skilful. Whether it is or not isn't really the point. The point is that just because you believe it is so doesn't make it so, and were the game to be changed to address things that you would prefer to operate in a different way does not mean that it would be "fixed" any more than it can now be considered "broken".

I suppose that one word is really why I've bothered to keep with this discussion this long. Because to me, "broken" means "not working as intended". I think the essential problem here is that you believe Halo should be doing something it never intended to do, which is to measure one's ability to execute on a narrow skill set and reward that execution with a number of kills in which each kill is of equal value.

Anonymous wrote:

By the way, a headshot SHOULD be an ace in the hole. What the hell is dimension if not partly risk vs reward? One man chooses to follow up with a headshot, the other gambles on a second melee, but the headshot risk pays off? THAT is interesting. If a player gets the drop, they should have the advantage. Pay special mind to the word AD-VAN-TAGE. It implies the opportunity for recourse.

By the way, the subtleties of the Rule-of Free produce the required scenarios all the time. Like if someone is facing of the Lockout sniper tower, and you go leaping over the shortcut. They have no position to be moving forward, so your element of surprise give you an upper-hand. Even if they melee back, your momentum is power. At this point they have to make a decision. They obviously can't just trade blows, because they'll lose. Do they have a sniper? No scope? If they keep backing away, they'll give room for another "rule-of-two" melee which will kill them. Should they at this point "press" to restrict their momentum, melee back, and bank on the headshot to save them? Well, because of the deeper design scheme, the "possibility" exists. Narrow or not. Dimension is possibility. HALO 3's wooden mechanics have consigned the possibility side of close-combat to hellfire. I suspect by now I'm rambling.

There should, however, with regard to certain skills, be a point of diminishing returns and the opportunities for recourse they represent, or the end result is a flattening rather than a deepening of the game.

If you're good at headshots with rifles at long and medium range, the ability to make a close-up headshot is essentially an offer to play again, double or nothing. If a player approaching you does not have a long or medium range weapon and you do, but somehow manages to get close enough to you and land a melee after doing some damage to you with a weapon, I don't think the target in this question should be left with enough health to offer to play again, "double or nothing" in a contest in which it is already established that he has an advantage in. The target either already had a chance to land those headshots before the player came in range, or else was in a position that did not allow for it, in which case he made a positional error that lead to his death. The ability to land headshots consistently is an important skill but one that, in my opinion, Halo 3 already sufficiently rewards in the situations in which it is appropriate. It is not an appropriate or believable response as a follow-up to a melee attack. Again, I don't consider "realism" the ultimate authority on anything, but in a vision with a bit more realism than Halo, the idea of getting a headshot with a sniper rifle against a guy who is close enough to wrap his hands around your throat is pretty silly. Sure, Halo does not simulate real life to that extent; it doesn't need to and doesn't try to. However, I would say that there is a need to recognize the idea that within a certain range, different skill sets should come into play. Sniping is not a useful skill at less than one meter. It shouldn't be treated as such. At that range, any two players in the game are essentially supposed to be represented by extremely strong and well-trained soldiers, more or less equally dangerous with whatever weapon they happen to be holding, and the one who attacks first wins; all other things being equal, the healthiest wins. This strikes me as a fair representation of what I would imagine would happen in this fictional universe if it were real.

To summarize that wall of text, I'll agree-- the stronger melee flattens the nature of extremely close quarters combat. All I'm suggesting is that within the context of Halo combat, as implemented, it makes sense for melee combat to be flatter in nature than midrange combat.

Anonymous wrote:

Either way, I enjoy intelligent opposition. Debate is interesting and productive in my opinion. You've actually made a far stronger case for your position than I suspected you would. Nice discourse.

-Hzqi

Fun for me also. Thanks. Register an account so the site can stop calling you "anonymous" and I'll stop mixing your argument up with the others' Smiling


Rampant for over se7en years.

narcogen's picture
narcogen
Offline
Joined: 05/26/1999
Hold off til next time.

This page of comments has gotten really, really long and most of it ended up focusing on just one aspect of VVV's article-- melee encounters.

Since VVV and others have said they're working on new articles based on some of the comments here, I'm going to close comments on this entry to keep the page from getting any longer, and we can pick up the discussion when the new piece is posted.


Rampant for over se7en years.

Syndicate content