For most of the past few years the bulk of my attention has been on Halo's campaign play: story, characters, and settings. Partly it's my choice, since it is where my interest in Halo lies, but partly due to circumstances. For most of the past seven years, the Internet connections I had access to were unsuitable for online play.
Recent events, however, have conspired to bring my attention back to online play. The first is the upcoming Halo 3 multiplayer public beta. True to form, it appears that Bungie will have multiplayer ready to show the world before the campaign is finished; so between now and when the beta test ends, most Halo 3 discussion will probably focus on multiplayer aspects.
The second thing is that I finally have a reasonably priced Internet connection that makes it possible to participate in Halo 2 matches. While I still have more latency and less skill than a below-average Halo 2 player, for me, participation is the thing. I've already missed out on far too much.
The last thing was that during a discussion of an entirely different subject, my attention was drawn to Halo2sucks.com.
This is not normally a site I would pay much attention to. There's something incongruous about reading a site that labels Bungie "sellouts" and proudly (if largely incoherently) claims that Halo 1 is better than Halo 2 and this inevitably leads to the conclusion that Halo 2 sucks.
However, then I began to feel that simply dismissing all the points the site tries to make simply because of the presentation was prejudicial; and despite the fear of directing attention somewhere it's not warranted, I felt a need to address some of the points the site raised. Then I discovered what really bothered contributors to that site. More on that near the end.
Pistol Whore With A Heart Of Gold
Halo 1's pistol figures heavily into many of they "key points" that bolster the site's assertion that Halo 2 sucks. In fact, it's treated as a foregone conclusion that the absence of the pistol, or an equivalent weapon, is proof that the game sucks.
They do spend some time defusing counter-arguments defending Bungie's removal of the pistol. Chief among these are that the pistol overpowered for a sidearm. This is countered nicely by the fact that the pistol's appearance and nature as a pistol is entirely arbitrary; Bungie could have called it a bananagun for all anybody cared. All that is important are the technical specifications of the gun: accuracy, firepower, rate of fire, ammunition capacity. They argue that Bungie could have solved this issue just by reskinning the pistol as a rifle. Instead, they gave us the Battle Rifle, a very different gun than Halo 1's pistol; less accurate, less powerful.
An SMG For You And Me
Part of the objections of Halo2sucks.com isn't just that the pistol is gone. The Battle Rifle may be the pistol's closest equivalent, but for many gametypes, it's not the standard spawn weapon, as it was in Halo 1. That has changed over the years, as the matchmaking game types on XBL evolved over time. What was the default spawn weapon was the SMG: a weakened, but dual-wieldable, version of Halo 1's assault rifle. This weapon is what has led to criticisms of Halo 2 being a game for "noobs"; a weapon that sprays in a wide arc at short range and requires little or no skill to operate, and that encourages players to simply rush at each other immediately upon spawning and engage in close quarters combat. The one who firest first usually wins.
The SMG's role in various combinations does not impress the authors of Halo2sucks.com. The use of the plasma pistol (which drains the shields) and the SMG or magnum pistol to issue the coup de grace is discounted and reviled as the "noob combo" because it also allegedly requires no skill to execute. The plasma burst homes in on enemies, and the SMG's spread is so wide at close range that all you have to do is be there and pull the trigger to have a good chance of getting a kill. The same goes for the many variations on that technique. Using a grenade instead of the pistol seems to garner somewhat more respect given that the player must at least throw the grenade accurately; and the absolutely deterministic physics that Halo uses for grenade tosses seems to please them. Spartans always toss grenades at the same speed, so if you aim accurately at a given spot, the grenade will always go there. Above all, this predictability seems to be what is valued in Halo 1's weaponry as compared to Halo 2's.
It Was Self Defense
The powerful pistol as a spawn weapon was justified, say the authors, for newly spawned players to defend themselves against the power weapons: the sniper rifle and the rocket launcher. While they have respect for the sniper, since like the pistol, it requires precision aiming, the rocket launcher is another "noob weapon" that requires little skill to use. That it has tradeoffs: low ammunition capacity and long reloading time, seems not to matter.
What is ignored in this argument is that by providing the pistol as a default weapon-- a weapon that requires precision aiming (which also, incidentally, requires low latency to use effectively) any level of success in Halo 1 multiplayer all but required a minimum level of proficiency with it. You might have your other favorite weapons: sniper, rocket launcher, shotgun. But you don't spawn with it. You're going to have to go get it, and to defend yourself while you go get it all you have is your pistol. Everyone else has one, too, which for the authors of Halo2sucks.com, means it is fair. Fair the way showroom stock car races are supposed to be fair: a contest of driver against driver where the machinery is irrelevant because everybody has the same. That's one definition of fair and it's one way to play the game. I think if Bungie wanted that, though, there would have been only one weapon in Halo 1, and it would have been the pistol. It's not, and I don't think they did.
If you can't get a three-headshot kill on your opponents while you're on the way to pick up your shotgun, your sniper, or your rocket launcher, then chances are, you may hardly ever get those weapons. In the hands of a pistol expert, it is indeed an equalizer against those wielding power weapons, only one of which, the sniper, the pistol expert has any respect for whatsoever. Because the pistol is the pistol expert's favorite weapon, it would be unfair to make him traverse the map to get one while holding another, weaker weapon. If the pistol is your weaker weapon: suck it up, say the authors of Halo2sucks.
Jealousy
Halo 2 turned the tables on those pistol experts. They don't have a strong weapon to spawn with, and if someone else has gotten the power weapons already, they may possibly die before they get one back.
One argument against the pro-pistol, anti-Halo 2 crowd has been that they aren't good at the sequel and are therefore jealous. Not so, they say. We're also good at Halo 2. I'm inclined to believe them. I'm also inclined to wonder what the problem is, then. Part of it really is, I think, that for these players, the pistol was not just a solid spawn weapon and a decent counter against the power weapons. It was their favorite weapon. Since it gave you a decent chance against the power weapons, going for any other weapon was essentially optional: you could go it alone with the pistol and some grenades, and many players did. If you picked up a power weapon, you might choose not even to use it: at least it was out of your opponents' hands. If you're a pistol virtuoso and you've got the rocket launcher, anybody less skilled than you with the pistol is probably out of luck. If they can't aim a pistol, it's likely they can't use a sniper well, either, and in any case, a good player would also stay under cover. You'll never get close enough with a shotgun unless the pistolier gets careless.
Experiences like that are what I remember most from 2003, when after a long hiatus, I had a chance to play some Halo 1 multiplayer. I remember a lot of deaths. I remember 2 player games that went 50-1 against me because I couldn't get the three-headshot pistol kill with any reliability whatsoever. That was the game, says Halo2Sucks. Deal with it, and it's a shame Halo 2 isn't the same way.
Dressed To Skill
The word that comes up over and over again is "skill". Weapons that require skill, and a scoring system that rewards skill, are good. That is why Halo 1 is good and Halo 2... well, sucks.
Skill, in this case, almost exclusively means the ability to aim; specifically, the ability to aim a weapon that requires pinpoint accuracy, one that has a small reticle and very little spread over a long distance. A gun that does the same thing each and every time you pull the trigger. A gun that gives you deterministic control over the events in a game. A gun that gives the host most skilled player in the game his just reward.
That's when it hit me what Halo2Sucks is really about. I wondered why I hadn't seen it before. The site even has a graphic that they say explains exactly what is wrong with Halo 2, when what it really explains is why they're upset. This "skill comparison meter" illustrates the idea that the gap between the worst possible player and the best possible player in Halo 2 has been dramatically foreshortened. Since Halo 1 can't play on Xbox Live and there is no persistent, reliable store for Halo 1 multiplayer statistics, it is likely there will never be an objective way to test this assertion. Still, it seems reasonable to me and to many others, and I have never seen anyone object to it.
Staring at that picture, I thought about the implications, and where I fit into that-- squarely somewhere slightly above "noob" and probably far short of "intermediate". According to that graphic, in a Halo 1 game against "professionals", as they put it, I don't stand a chance. They're right about that. Even against fairly decent players, I never stood a chance. One on one, with pistols, on any map, I was dead to rights every time. Perhaps with practice that would have changed, but likely never enough to alter the end result, and probably not enough to change the score much.
Enter Halo 2. Everybody starts with a weak weapon in many matches. The BR is now, arguably, a "power weapon" but it takes one more headshot to kill, at best, and is less accurate at long distances than Halo 1's pistol was. That's enough to give players dual-wielding, or even with weapons like Halo 2's weakened shotgun a fair chance.
And chance is what is at the heart of Halo2sucks. Chance as the opposite of skill: introduction of elements other than the bare ability to focus a tiny reticle on a distant target consistently and repeatedly. A lucky grenade bounce. Getting in an early few shots with a pair of SMGs and doing the dance of death until somebody drops. Two shotguns going toe to toe, point blank range, and the seemingly random nature of the gun's spread, rather than precise aim, deciding the outcome.
Of course, these small differences wash out over the course of a game, or indeed over many games. These guys don't hate Halo 2 because they are bad at it. The best a player like me is going to get, even over the long haul, is a few kills. Instead of losing 50-1, I'll lose 25 to 10; and I often do.
After rereading the site, and staring at that graphic, and recollecting my own experiences online, I realized that is the problem. Although they never come out and say it, here is the essential complaint of Halo2Sucks.com:
Halo 2 insufficiently rewards, in terms of kills and kills to death ratio, confirmed superior skill.
By allowing inferior players to exploit random elements to gain a few kills and narrow the superior player's margin of victory, Halo 2 has destroyed the meritocracy of Halo 1 and become, in the minds of these players, unfair. Unfair because the final score is not indicative, proportionally, of how much better they are than you. If their score is 30 and yours is 10, then they win, but they don't win by enough, because they are more than three times better than you. They know this, because Halo 1 told them.
All's Fair In Love And Halo
What Bungie did was narrow the gap between the best and worst online players. The authors of Halo2Sucks.com bemoan this as ruining the game. It didn't ruin it. It made the game what it is. If Halo 2 online played like Halo 1, nobody on the "skill comparison meter" below the halfway point between "Professional" and "Intermediate" would even bother to play. There would be no point. The margin of victory within each individual encounter would be measured in terms of thousandths of a second, according to who lands that third crucial pistol headshot first. The timing required would be so precise that only the host would have any chance at all, all other things being equal. Even as it stands, I'm convinced that hosts win the cast majority of Halo 2 online matches. If Bungie, or anyone else, has data that refutes that, I'd love to see it.
Halo 2 creates conditions under which a lagged player, an inferior player, or both-- can get enough kills that they feel like they might be able to win. They probably won't ever win consistently enough to gain a high rank, or to threaten the superiority of the truly skilled; but enough to keep playing the game. I think Bungie recognized this. This is why Halo 2's weapons are the way they are. It's not perfect. I think Bungie itself knows that there are still some adjustments that could be made. I think they recognize that the bullet-hose as a spawn weapon is not the best answer; but they also know that a three-shot kill weapon as a default spawn is also not the answer. Halo 3's default weapon, the new Assault Rifle, will apparently not do headshots. Which means it will not appease Halo2Sucks.com and other Halo 1 pistol fans. I think that's a recognition, though, that whatever flaws there may have been in the execution of Halo 2's weapon balance, the philosophy was sound. Weapons should all have their uses, and allow for different playstyles and player choice. They should also give a fighting chance to inferior players-- a chance to at least feel as if they are participating.
Halo2Sucks calls that selling out: dumbing down the game for the masses to make more money.
I say: thank you, Bungie. Thank you for recognizing that most people have more fun playing games like Halo than they have any right to, given their level of skill; and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
- You can't post comments
Comments
N1NJ4
Im sure every time bungie
Im sure every time bungie makes a game, they are as interested as the rest of us to see what happens in the long run. Im sure anyone that made halo or halo 2 could have a discussion with a pro and not have a clue about the various strategies that they were describing, even though they created the game. I doubt during testing of halo 1 the testers ran around using the pistol everywhere. Nobody does that when they first pick up the game. A very limited number of testers in a limited amount of time are not going to find the best startegies. For one, it takes a lot of time for the millions of people that play the game to find them, and on top of that, the testers main concerns are much more important. Really any developer of a multiplayer game just has to make their best guess at what balanced gameplay is. The plasma br combo didn't become popular until about a year into halo 2s life. Odds are bungie didn't expect it to be one of the most often used weapon combos in the game.
Im sure the inventor of basketball didn't invent all of the plays people use today.
Bungie gives us a playground that they believe will be fun to play on. It is up to the players to do what they can with what they are given. Every weapon is just a way to defeat another player. You should probably use the ones that work best. Who cares if the smg is weak? You don't have to use them. Any spawn is only a short distance away from a better weapon, or at least one you can combo with.
Could one playground be better than the other? Of course. The emergent behaviours of players could end up being a bit more enjoyable. It can be someone's job to think about balance for 3 years straight, and they won't even approach the good that 2 million people can do in a minute. I don't think of halo 2 as dumbed down. I believe that it requires an entire different set of skills. Those people who relied on their speed and accuracy more than anything are obviously going to be upset, because where they once dominated, they will now fail. They either need to stop living in the past or go and live in the past. It is no good attempting to conform the present to their expectations.
Yeah, Bungie did a good job. The halo2sucks people are just upset that they didn't get a game completely based on aiming.
Anonymous (not verified)
Generalize much?
In reply to: Im sure every time bungieSo, by your logic, Bungie should just let their product lay as it is? They shouldn't even try to fix some of the most blatantly obvious exploits in the game? Tell me; do you know of a basketball play that can win you the game in under two seconds? You'd think if there was, then the rules of basketball would have to be changed to compensate with the imbalance. Bungie did no such thing with BXR (and all those other lovely button combos) and the PP+BR combo. You can't simply deny these imbalances because "Bungie was just trying to make a game everyone to have fun in." I know I'm not always having fun if I spawn and two seconds later I'm dead because some kid PP+BR'ed me. What's even worse is when he runs around and says, "Har har, this is my first time playing."
That's one of our main complaints; how one can simply touch the controller for the first time and be just as big of a threat than any other player out there, despite the time spent with the game. Most FPS formulas have a steep learning curve so things never get boring as there's usually something to improve on. With Halo 2, all you needed to do was to know how to shoot, switch weapons, dual wield, and throw grenades. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I can see what Bungie was trying to do; they were trying to improve on the faults from Halo 1, but in the process they some how failed on many fronts to do so. It's like they improved on some and then screwed up even more on others. So you ask who cares the SMG is weak? I do. Any person with common sense should as well. If you spawn with it, I think I would care big time. But, what's this? Not use it? Ah, of course! This is always a simple solution to things we don't like in Halo 2. "Don't like the sword? Don't use it!" "Don't like the pistol? Don't use it!" Don't like being the only one who sees the many flaws of Halo 2? Stop playing!" Of course! Conform! I hear that's the way to go nowadays.
Excuse me if my sarcasm isn't to your liking, but it surely gets the point across. No gaming developer should make a weapon that should be ignored or considered "useless," such as the needler. One of our talking points was to let Bungie know that we weren't going to conform and just avert our eyes from the shining beacon of truth. Halo 2 could've been much better than it was, but it wasn't, and instead of improving on it in updates, Bungie found that the majority of the community was happy. Of course, when this community is over run by seven-year-olds screaming in their microphones (while crying at the same time) who are also modding, bridging, and standbying, and are also the same kids who exploit every bit of the game, then why would they change it? Majority rules, right? If they fixed the many faults then those kids would start complaining. "Hey! What happened here? I can't get head shots with the sniper any more! I actually have to aim now!"
To end this bit of rant, I will leave you with this; why is it when someone ever talks about fixing something or pointing out the faults of something they are somehow "longing for the past?" We are not all the same at halo2sucks.com; many of us just want a formula that works. We don't want our "precious pistols" back; we want a general weapon that you can spawn with and have a chance with, such as a rifle of some sorts (check out any other FPS out there like FEAR and the assault rifle to see what I mean). In all these years I still don't understand why we are labeled as "haters" simply because we want the game to shine brighter than any other FPS out there. Yes, Bungie wishes people to have fun while playing Halo, but you can also have skill and fun in the same game and make it work. It has been done before, after all. I only hope that anyone that comes across the site again doesn't just blatantly categorize all into one group without actually taking a look.
-Agamemnon, moderator and member at halo2sucks.com
narcogen
Haters?
In reply to: Generalize much?[quote=Anonymous]
So, by your logic, Bungie should just let their product lay as it is? They shouldn't even try to fix some of the most blatantly obvious exploits in the game? Tell me; do you know of a basketball play that can win you the game in under two seconds? You'd think if there was, then the rules of basketball would have to be changed to compensate with the imbalance. Bungie did no such thing with BXR (and all those other lovely button combos) and the PP+BR combo. You can't simply deny these imbalances because "Bungie was just trying to make a game everyone to have fun in." I know I'm not always having fun if I spawn and two seconds later I'm dead because some kid PP+BR'ed me. What's even worse is when he runs around and says, "Har har, this is my first time playing."
That's one of our main complaints; how one can simply touch the controller for the first time and be just as big of a threat than any other player out there, despite the time spent with the game. Most FPS formulas have a steep learning curve so things never get boring as there's usually something to improve on. With Halo 2, all you needed to do was to know how to shoot, switch weapons, dual wield, and throw grenades. Lather, rinse, repeat.[/quote]
Wow. I must really suck then, because I've played at least two dozen games on XBL and somehow I'm not a level 40 yet.
One thing that seems to shine through in the H2S forum is a dislike of inexperienced players. Without them, who are you better than?
There seems to be an unshakeable belief that if the game was working properly, a superior player would hardly ever be killed by an inferior player. Why, then, would the inferior player waste his time playing?
[snip]
[quote=Anonymous]
To end this bit of rant, I will leave you with this; why is it when someone ever talks about fixing something or pointing out the faults of something they are somehow "longing for the past?" We are not all the same at halo2sucks.com; many of us just want a formula that works. We don't want our "precious pistols" back; we want a general weapon that you can spawn with and have a chance with, such as a rifle of some sorts (check out any other FPS out there like FEAR and the assault rifle to see what I mean). In all these years I still don't understand why we are labeled as "haters" simply because we want the game to shine brighter than any other FPS out there. Yes, Bungie wishes people to have fun while playing Halo, but you can also have skill and fun in the same game and make it work. It has been done before, after all. I only hope that anyone that comes across the site again doesn't just blatantly categorize all into one group without actually taking a look.
-Agamemnon, moderator and member at halo2sucks.com[/quote]
You're moderating the forum at a site called "Halo2Sucks" and then you wonder why you're labeled "haters"?
The front page, the forum index, and a large number of user sigs proudly proclaim the slogan "H1 > H2" and yet you feel that to say you're living in the past is somehow an unfair characterization?
You say "you can also have skill and fun in the same game and make it work" as if that is not what Halo 2 is.
If skill played no part in Halo 2, then sooner or later everyone's matchmaking levels would flatten out. If the outcome was truly random, then you could say skill has no role.
Skill-- in particular, the ability to get three consecutive headshots at range-- has less of a role in H2 than it did in H1.
Halo 2, while it has many flaws, is, at its base, a compromise between a game that requires skill but also has an element of chance.
A large number of the users don't seem to be looking for a compromise. They're rejecting the one they got, and they want a return to a deterministic model where the one who lines up the kill shots first wins, every time-- no chance involved.
Rampant for over se7en years.
VVV
Not compromise but rather Balance
In reply to: Haters?I don't know really what to say to Agam. We lock heads so much it probably doesn't need to spill out in here. It just goes to show that even our members don't all agree.
I think I'll just respond to Narc.
[quote=narcogen]
A large number of the users don't seem to be looking for a compromise. They're rejecting the one they got, and they want a return to a deterministic model where the one who lines up the kill shots first wins, every time-- no chance involved.
Rampant for over se7en years.[/quote]
That may be a little unfair to draw that conclusion. Like I have stated earlier Agam is probably even in the minority with the whole "Balance weapon" theory. With me it's a point that I really don't think exists. A game doesn't have to have a balance weapon like the pistol to work. There are probably more people that think my way at H2S then those that think Agams. The pistol was in essence broken and it was only good because it brought balance to the game.
Because of this I would much rather Halo 3 not have the pistol or the like but instead make weaponry more equal and therefore not allow the "rock, paper, scissors" scenario of Halo 2 to continue.
narcogen
Freelance Spartans
Louis Wu brings up a good point that I missed:
If not the same argument, then perhaps another facet of the same argument. The H2S guys might allege that any increased focus on teamwork in Halo 2 was, as is many of the other changes in the game, unintentional. I think that unlikely. Given the lengths that Bungie went to in creating its party system-- something not yet replicated in any Xbox or even Xbox 360 game to date, something Microsoft execs themselves lament-- I think it likely Bungie wanted and expected players to prefer playing together rather than separately, and this informed some of the gameplay changes they made.
If anything, I think perhaps some of those changes need to be pushed further instead of rolled back. Too many players seem to go into team games, especially objective team games, with getting the highest number of individual kills foremost in their minds. While this certainly can contribute to achieving objectives, it is often emphasized at the exclusion of all else. Perhaps changes could be made to the way statistics are reported and scores are recorded to discourage this; placing more emphasis on objective-related kills (killing flag/ball carriers and hill kings, but not counting other kills at all) or perhaps inventing some new stats.
Everybody's experienced having a teammate save you by taking down a guy who was about to kill you. Perhaps the engine can somehow track that under "saves" and reward teammates who stick together and help each other out over those who are trying to freelance, Halo 1-style.
Rampant for over se7en years.
SteelGaribaldi
Tracking saves in objective games.
In reply to: Freelance SpartansI'd really like to have carrier-saves (and saves of snipers, rocketmen, hill-holders, tankers, etc) in my post-game stats. I too often find myself going 5 and 18 in objective games, but if my 5 kills were crucial game-saving kills, my ego might feel be a bit less bruised.
Hey, maybe a Distraction medal - occupying half the other team away from their base while our guy gets the flag. Because my mid-field deaths are all part of an intricate plan. ... Yeah, I wish.
Matt
Paradox
Why is it that so many of these self-proclaimed "professionals" don't have any professionalism?
Tiger Woods is a professional golfer but you don't see him frothing at the mouth on PebbleBeachSucks.com or accusing the Titleist golf ball company of being "sellout faggots."
Anyway, kudos on another spot-on rant. Pity that people who ought to read it probably never will.
-Matt
PS: "Tiger Woods," "Titleist" and "Pebble Beach" are the only three golf-related proper nouns I know.
narcogen
Handicapped
In reply to: Paradox[quote=Matt]
Anyway, kudos on another spot-on rant. Pity that people who ought to read it probably never will.
-Matt
PS: "Tiger Woods," "Titleist" and "Pebble Beach" are the only three golf-related proper nouns I know. [/quote]
Thanks. And I can add one to the list: "handicap".
Rampant for over se7en years.
Anonymous (not verified)
Reply: Paradox
In reply to: Paradoxnarcogen
Disagree with main points?
In reply to: Reply: ParadoxActually, where is the disagreement with the main point?
Nobody seems to have even picked out the main point, despite the fact that I put it in bold italics.
Here it is again, a one-sentence summary of the old, outdated content I found at H2S:
Halo 2 insufficiently rewards, in terms of kills and kills to death ratio, confirmed superior skill.
The primary point of my disagreement is that any injustices H2 does create are:
For the purpose of making sure inexperienced players are not so thoroughly humiliated that playing is no longer fun;
Tend to be canceled out over time
In short, people who used to win 50-1 in H1 are winning 30-10 because noobs are getting ten free kills on them due to lag, spray and pray, unpredictable weapons etc. This pisses some people off.
I've seen that same idea, rephrased, not only in the H2S forum, but right here in this thread!
Am I still mischaracterizing?
Rampant for over se7en years.
Anonymous (not verified)
Reply: "Meh" and "Disagree with main points?"
In reply to: Disagree with main points?[quote=Matt]When H2S first came to my attention, the forum was an echo chamber in which a handful of people repeated three words - noob, sellout, and fag - ad infinitum. If things have gotten better, congratulations! It only took you guys two years to catch up to the rest of the Halo fan community in terms of basic decency.[/quote]
Actually, I joined about a year after Halo 2 came out, and even by then, I think that almost everybody was quite respectful of Bungie, or at least they weren't calling them really vulgar terms. By the way, if you compared the community of Halo2Sucks.com forum members to the rest of the Halo community, the Halo2Sucks.com would win by a long shot. I can't even begin to count the amount of racism and vulgarity that I've heard on Halo 2 on Xbox Live.
[quote=Matt]There aren't that many. They just seem more numerous than they are because they're unsigned.[/quote]
At least six of the twelve people who posted a reply from this are those that disagreed with some of what was in this article, and at least five of them are actually from Halo2Sucks.com.
[quote=narcogen]Actually, where is the disagreement with the main point?
Nobody seems to have even picked out the main point, despite the fact that I put it in bold italics.
Here it is again, a one-sentence summary of the old, outdated content I found at H2S:
Halo 2 insufficiently rewards, in terms of kills and kills to death ratio, confirmed superior skill.
[/quote]
That's not even my point. The point is that at least half of the people who actually replied to this article disagree with much of it, and five of them are members of Halo2Sucks.com, and so many of the people who are reading this article should be reading it according to the first person to whom I was replying.
Matt
Meh Reloaded
In reply to: Reply: "Meh" and "Disagree with main points?"[quote]Actually, I joined about a year after Halo 2 came out, and even by then, I think that almost everybody was quite respectful of Bungie, or at least they weren't calling them really vulgar terms.[/quote]
I don't believe this at all, but I'm not going to waste any time digging through the archives for evidence.
[quote]if you compared the community of Halo2Sucks.com forum members to the rest of the Halo community, the Halo2Sucks.com would win by a long shot. I can't even begin to count the amount of racism and vulgarity that I've heard on Halo 2 on Xbox Live.[/quote]
That must be why I said "the Halo fan community" and not "every knuckle-dragger on Live." I was talking about sites like this one and HBO, where the signal-to-noise ratio has historically been much higher than at H2S.
[quote]At least six of the twelve people who posted a reply...[/quote]
Why do you assume that every anonymous post is from a different person?
-Matt
Anonymous (not verified)
Reply
In reply to: Meh Reloaded[quote=Matt]I don't believe this at all, but I'm not going to waste any time digging through the archives for evidence.[/quote]
There were a few people here and there that were pretty rude to Bungie, but there are people like that in every fan community and so on.
[quote=Matt]That must be why I said "the Halo fan community" and not "every knuckle-dragger on Live." I was talking about sites like this one and HBO, where the signal-to-noise ratio has historically been much higher than at H2S.[/quote]
I see now, and I'm inclined to agree that the communities at these fan sites were better than what the community of Halo2Sucks.com used to be before I joined, but right now, the community at Halo2Sucks.com is as good or is at least about as good as the communities at the other Bungie fansites.
[quote=Matt]Why do you assume that every anonymous post is from a different person?[/quote]
I'm not doing that. That's why I said that at least six of the twelve people disagreed with this article. I'm one anonymous poster, there's another anonymous poster that posted significantly differently from everybody else here, and then the other anonymous posters signed their names at the bottom of their posts so that I could see that they were different people. Then, the rest of the people who disagreed with it signed on as something other than anonymous.
narcogen
Vulgarity?
In reply to: Reply: "Meh" and "Disagree with main points?"[quote=Anonymous]
Actually, I joined about a year after Halo 2 came out, and even by then, I think that almost everybody was quite respectful of Bungie, or at least they weren't calling them really vulgar terms. By the way, if you compared the community of Halo2Sucks.com forum members to the rest of the Halo community, the Halo2Sucks.com would win by a long shot. I can't even begin to count the amount of racism and vulgarity that I've heard on Halo 2 on Xbox Live.
[/quote]
From the H2S forum today:
Yup. No vulgar language towards Bungie there. No sirree. No spelling, either, but hey...
Rampant for over se7en years.
Emn1ty
That was below the belt
In reply to: Vulgarity?There may not be a perfect community, and bungie.net has its fair share of immature members as well. But did you really have to point that out? If you want, how about also pointing out some of the more common posts on our site that display our good side, rather than the one post that probably shows up every 2 weeks.
narcogen
Some people are never satisfied.
In reply to: That was below the beltYou know, I write a rather moderate critique, if I do say so myself, based on the content of Halo2Sucks.com, and I get taken to task for somehow not already knowing that the site was old and out of control, and that I should, instead, have visited the forum, which I am told is better, and more updated.
A former Bungie employee posts in the thread that H2S' input into the process of making the Halo games was minimal, and insinuates that this was due, at least in part, to rude treatment of Bungie and Bungie employees at that site.
Some posters deny that this is true; they say that since they've been members Bungie is treated respectfully, and that same person casts doubt on the veracity of the Bungie employee, saying they don't ever believe things were really that bad.
Then I click the "posts since last visit" and notice that of the three posts since I last looked yesterday, one of them says Frankie is a ho who can't write articles. If that's only written once every two weeks I guess I got awful lucky it was posted less than 12 hours since I last browsed the forum. If that's so, then I'll see, because I intend to be a regular reader.
I'm sure Frankie's literary ability is a topic up for grabs like any other, but since the topic in that part of the thread was civility, or the lack of it, I thought it quite relevant.
So, what am I missing now? Is there some double-super-secret forum behind the curtain where all the polite discourse happens?
I'm no prude. I brought it up because Bungie personnel were told, right here, that they were liars for saying H2S forum members were rude.
As for Bungie.net... with all due respect, is that what you want to compare yourself to?
Rampant for over se7en years.
Anonymous (not verified)
Coincidentally...
In reply to: Some people are never satisfied.[quote=narcogen]Then I click the "posts since last visit" and notice that of the three posts since I last looked yesterday, one of them says Frankie is a ho who can't write articles. If that's only written once every two weeks I guess I got awful lucky it was posted less than 12 hours since I last browsed the forum. If that's so, then I'll see, because I intend to be a regular reader.[/quote]
I don't usually feel very comfortable interrupting other people's arguments, but for the record, I did do a search of certain terms on Halo2Sucks.com and, while you may find it hard to believe, that really literally was pretty much the only thing that anybody said negatively about Bungie for a few weeks. I even searched the word "Bungie" and nothing came up. You can see for yourself if you're curious or if you don't believe me. The list of the other words for which I searched included the words bitch, bitches, homo, gay, ass, asshole, jackass, sucks, Frankie, Shishka, and, finally, Bungie.
narcogen
Thanks
In reply to: Coincidentally...That reminds me, I have to turn the word filter module back on... :)
Rampant for over se7en years.
VVV
Memebers in all forums are rude
In reply to: Some people are never satisfied.[quote=narcogen]
A former Bungie employee posts in the thread that H2S' input into the process of making the Halo games was minimal, and insinuates that this was due, at least in part, to rude treatment of Bungie and Bungie employees at that site.
Then I click the "posts since last visit" and notice that of the three posts since I last looked yesterday, one of them says Frankie is a ho who can't write articles. If that's only written once every two weeks I guess I got awful lucky it was posted less than 12 hours since I last browsed the forum. If that's so, then I'll see, because I intend to be a regular reader.
Rampant for over se7en years.[/quote]
Memebers in all forums are rude. I need not remind you of all the rudeness at Bungies forums to prove my point. Unfortunately the consequence of an open forum is not lost on me. Is it lost on you?
As for our input. It would be highly unlikely that Bungie would ever admit a great amount of input of recognition of Halo2sucks in regards to improving their product. However a small amount of recognition by this person you are referring to is a sure sign that our time and effort is not wasted.
There has been many things wrong with the way some of our members have conducted themselves however not nearly as much as members of Bungies own forum. I'll search from that post and take appropriate action. I didn't see it today.
narcogen
Good to hear
In reply to: Memebers in all forums are rudeThat's good to hear. Perhaps it was just a coincidence that it popped up today, then.
As far as Bungie forums go-- well, those forums are huge, and pretty much open to anybody. Even given the number of people they attempt to remove for bad behavior, that still leaves a lot left over.
The HBO forum, though, is something else. While the signal to noise ratio sometimes does drop because of its size and the numbers of new users coming in over the years, it tends to assimilate people fairly quickly and produce generally polite, if sometimes contentious, discussions.
I'd also think that the smaller a community is, the easier it would be to moderate, and thus the fewer such problems it would have.
Rampant for over se7en years.
Matt
Terminal Hubris
In reply to: Memebers in all forums are rude[quote]As for our input. It would be highly unlikely that Bungie would ever admit a great amount of input of recognition of Halo2sucks in regards to improving their product.[/quote]
It's also highly unlikely they would admit the involvement of Smokey the Bear or the ghost of Walt Disney. The amount of actual help they received from all three sources is probably about the same.
[quote]However a small amount of recognition by this person you are referring to is a sure sign that our time and effort is not wasted.[/quote]
Recognition? I said your contributions were negligible at best. Do you know what "negligible" means?
-Matt
Anton P Nym
No, *I'm* the one with the mind-control lasers.
In reply to: Terminal Hubris[quote=Matt][quote]As for our input. It would be highly unlikely that Bungie would ever admit a great amount of input of recognition of Halo2sucks in regards to improving their product.[/quote]
It's also highly unlikely they would admit the involvement of Smokey the Bear or the ghost of Walt Disney. The amount of actual help they received from all three sources is probably about the same.[/quote]
Indeed, I have a superior claim on influencing Bungie; I asked for a horn on the Warthog when playing on a HaloPC BungieCTF server after running over the nth teammate to run out in front of me that night. That was in November '03, if I recall correctly. A year later, we received hornage.
Bow before my might, puny mortals.
-- Steve is of course fully aware of the meaning of negligible, and how it applies to his influence upon game design.
VVV
Not your comment.
In reply to: Terminal Hubris[quote=Matt][quote]As for our input. It would be highly unlikely that Bungie would ever admit a great amount of input of recognition of Halo2sucks in regards to improving their product.[/quote]
It's also highly unlikely they would admit the involvement of Smokey the Bear or the ghost of Walt Disney. The amount of actual help they received from all three sources is probably about the same.
[quote]However a small amount of recognition by this person you are referring to is a sure sign that our time and effort is not wasted.[/quote]
Recognition? I said your contributions were negligible at best. Do you know what "negligible" means?
-Matt
[/quote]
I normally don't reply or even acknowledge people like yourself. Your attitude has not gone unnoticed on me. If you would read me comment again it might give you a clearer understanding of who I was talking about.
narcogen
Which People?
In reply to: Not your comment.[quote=VVV]
I normally don't reply or even acknowledge people like yourself. Your attitude has not gone unnoticed on me. If you would read me comment again it might give you a clearer understanding of who I was talking about.[/quote]
Which people? Developers?
Rampant for over se7en years.
VVV
No.
In reply to: Which People?[quote=narcogen][quote=VVV]
I normally don't reply or even acknowledge people like yourself. Your attitude has not gone unnoticed on me. If you would read me comment again it might give you a clearer understanding of who I was talking about.[/quote]
Which people? Developers?
Rampant for over se7en years.[/quote]
I was referring to this. Is Matt this "former employee"?
"A former Bungie employee posts in the thread that H2S' input into the process of making the Halo games was minimal, and insinuates that this was due, at least in part, to rude treatment of Bungie and Bungie employees at that site."
Anton P Nym
Umm...
In reply to: No.[quote=VVV]Is Matt this "former employee"?[/quote]
Yes. Matt worked at Bungie before going to Wideload... for a while he did the Bungie Updates, like Frankie does now.
I'm inclined to trust his judgement as to what influenced Bungie's design decisions.
-- Steve saw the earlier post, but was literally at a loss for words on how to respond until now.
VVV
Well
In reply to: Umm...[quote=Anton P Nym][quote=VVV]Is Matt this "former employee"?[/quote]
Yes. Matt worked at Bungie before going to Wideload... for a while he did the Bungie Updates, like Frankie does now.
I'm inclined to trust his judgement as to what influenced Bungie's design decisions.
-- Steve saw the earlier post, but was literally at a loss for words on how to respond until now.[/quote]
Well that answers as many questions as it raises. No wonder H2S seemed to strike a nerve with him. I could sense hostility from the start.
"Negligable" you say Matt. You may very well call it that, and yes I know what the word means. However since you're a former employee the question should be raised. When did you stop working for them? Not that the answer really means anything anyway. As a matter a fact don't worry about it. It needs no reply.
For you see the simple fact that Bungie knows of us, recognizes us and is aware of our grievances is enough for me. We're there in the back of their heads. YOU KNOW IT!!!
Oh and as for all that talk about how we've treated them. Yes, I TOTALLY agree with you. However it pales in significance to how their very own members have and continue to treat them at their own forum.
Anonymous (not verified)
Reply: Vulgarity
In reply to: Vulgarity?[quote=narcogen]From the H2S forum today:
Yup. No vulgar language towards Bungie there. No sirree. No spelling, either, but hey...
Rampant for over se7en years.[/quote]
Nothing's perfect, and one rude, poorly constructed post once in a blue moon hardly shines a whole new light in front of the community for Halo 2 on Xbox Live. Notice how I said that almost everybody was quite respectful of Bungie and that almost everybody wasn't calling them really vulgar names.
narcogen
XBL?
In reply to: Reply: VulgarityAs Matt asked... is the rallying cry you want to use "we're better than XBL"? Wouldn't it make more sense to use some other basis for comparison?
Once in a blue moon? I don't know.. after reading a lot of recent threads, I'm not sure I entirely agree. It's not a big issue, of course. But at some point it was brought up that the site didn't exist just to vent bile at Bungie, but to constructively criticize the game. I'm not really sure what part of that goal is served by posts like this.
If it really is just venting.. well, that's fine, that's part of what the Internet is for. I thought the site was supposed to be about more than that, though.
Rampant for over se7en years.
Anonymous (not verified)
Reply
In reply to: XBL?I know that saying that we're better than Xbox Live isn't really saying much, but my point is more that we're a lot better than the community of Halo 2 on Xbox Live, and about as good as the rest of the Halo community. Also, that really was the first vulgar thing that was said negatively about Bungie for quite a while.
Matt
Meh.
In reply to: Reply: Paradox[quote]Nobody's frothing at the mouth about anything[/quote]
Not at R.net, no. I was speaking of my general experience with H2S, from the days when people (including myself) still visited it from time to time.
[quote]hardly anybody's calling anybody a faggot.[/quote]
Hardly anybody visits the site anymore, so that's not much of an argument.
When H2S first came to my attention, the forum was an echo chamber in which a handful of people repeated three words - noob, sellout, and fag - ad infinitum. If things have gotten better, congratulations! It only took you guys two years to catch up to the rest of the Halo fan community in terms of basic decency.
[quote]Also, if the people who should be reading this the most never will be reading this, then there wouldn't be so many responses that disagree with the main points of the article.[/quote]
There aren't that many. They just seem more numerous than they are because they're unsigned.
-Matt
RC Master
Shortening the gap
Wow. Great post Narc.
I'd already sort-of figured this a while back, that the gap between average and awesome players is much shorter in Halo 2 than 1, but really forgot about it all. Thank you for putting it so well.
Emn1ty
Blurred field, or Fine Line?
In reply to: Shortening the gapMany of you have said that Halo 2 has a much smaller divide between "professional" and "intermediate" players. This may have been true on the game's release, but is that a good thing? I think not. The large blurring of skill in Halo 2 means that the starter players can win against much more experience players by luck alone. This really frustrates the more experience players due to the simple fact that their 1 year of game play means nothing against someone who has only been playing for 2 months.
Now, the current XBL has a much different kind of divide, and that divide is made by one of the flaws of Halo 2. Glitches. Super-Bouncing and Button Glitching make a very thin and defined line between good and bad players. There is literally a wall you hit in how high a level you can achieve without learning those glitches. A game should never require someone to use such methods to get better at the game, and that is exactly what halo 2's current online community requires.
I also invite you, as a long time member of Halo2sucks.com, to visit our community and interact with them. They will welcome you and discuss with you in a coherent and intelligent fashion. I find you will see the experience as enlightening.
Emn1ty - Halo2sucks.com member
narcogen
Nail On Head
In reply to: Blurred field, or Fine Line?[quote=Emn1ty]Many of you have said that Halo 2 has a much smaller divide between "professional" and "intermediate" players. This may have been true on the game's release, but is that a good thing? I think not. The large blurring of skill in Halo 2 means that the starter players can win against much more experience players by luck alone. This really frustrates the more experience players due to the simple fact that their 1 year of game play means nothing against someone who has only been playing for 2 months.[/quote]
You have, essentially, made my point for me. We don't disagree on the facts. We differ in the interpretation. That little bit of randomness that sometimes works in the favor of the less skilled player makes it possible for someone who is losing at the game to at least feel like they are not being utterly dominated. Any sizeable population will always have more average or below average players than elite players.
My point was that if Halo 2's online combat was entirely deterministic, and if some of the changes I saw suggested in those pages were made, especially regarding the pistol, then it is very likely that a great number of beginners would give up before improving much, and that furthermore, players of limited ability, having advanced to a low or average rank in matchmaking, would find the experience of rising to the level of their own limits so unpleasant that they might very well quit, also. What you'd have then would be only the intermediate or better players (and especially those with the least latency).
Those who remain might find that game more enjoyable than they find Halo 2 currently, but my point was, I think there would be fewer of them.
[quote=Emn1ty]Now, the current XBL has a much different kind of divide, and that divide is made by one of the flaws of Halo 2. Glitches. Super-Bouncing and Button Glitching make a very thin and defined line between good and bad players. There is literally a wall you hit in how high a level you can achieve without learning those glitches. A game should never require someone to use such methods to get better at the game, and that is exactly what halo 2's current online community requires.[/quote]
You'll get no argument from me there. Those are major flaws, and I'm hoping Bungie does everything possible so that those kinds of problems aren't re-created in Halo 3. I doubt it'll be perfect; I'm sure someone, at sometime, will find something to exploit that others find unfair.
[quote=Emn1ty]I also invite you, as a long time member of Halo2sucks.com, to visit our community and interact with them. They will welcome you and discuss with you in a coherent and intelligent fashion. I find you will see the experience as enlightening.
Emn1ty - Halo2sucks.com member[/quote]
I'm working on that-- I've registered but the system doesn't seem to let me login. Hopefully that glitch, too, can be rectified soon :)
Rampant for over se7en years.
Anton P Nym
Halo 2 is a game, not a dominance display.
In reply to: Blurred field, or Fine Line?[quote=Emn1ty]The large blurring of skill in Halo 2 means that the starter players can win against much more experience players by luck alone. This really frustrates the more experience players due to the simple fact that their 1 year of game play means nothing against someone who has only been playing for 2 months.[/quote]
This, in my head, translates to, "I can't pwn n00bs. Therefor it sucks."
Pfeh.
Setting aside the idea that the ranking system is expressly designed to prevent such big mismatches in skill level, and that ranks aren't readings from an e-testaclometer, it's still in my opinion a very petty reason to dislike a game.
It's also, frankly, flat-out wrong that experience means "nothing". Margins of victory may possibly be narrower in a particular game, and this may lead to the occasional upset in a game, but overall knowledge and experience WILL be reflected in a player's overall win-loss record. Just as it is in poker. Just as it is in golf. Just as it is in football.
If some players get frustrated that they can't enter a game and be confident of winning by a wide margin against other players with lower rank numbers in that particular game, then in my opinion the flaw is in those players and not the game.
-- Steve would hold this "meritocracy" point of view in more sympathy if he hadn't seen it displayed so often by those who gained more enjoyment out of humiliating other players than from the gameplay itself.
Emn1ty
It always comes to this
In reply to: Halo 2 is a game, not a dominance display.[quote=Anton P Nym]
This, in my head, translates to, "I can't pwn n00bs. Therefor it sucks."
Pfeh.
Setting aside the idea that the ranking system is expressly designed to prevent such big mismatches in skill level, and that ranks aren't readings from an e-testaclometer, it's still in my opinion a very petty reason to dislike a game.
It's also, frankly, flat-out wrong that experience means "nothing". Margins of victory may possibly be narrower in a particular game, and this may lead to the occasional upset in a game, but overall knowledge and experience WILL be reflected in a player's overall win-loss record. Just as it is in poker. Just as it is in golf. Just as it is in football.
If some players get frustrated that they can't enter a game and be confident of winning by a wide margin against other players with lower rank numbers in that particular game, then in my opinion the flaw is in those players and not the game.
-- Steve would hold this "meritocracy" point of view in more sympathy if he hadn't seen it displayed so often by those who gained more enjoyment out of humiliating other players than from the gameplay itself.[/quote]
It seems to me that whenever someone talks of losing to a newer player or talks about something they don't like about a game, there is always at least one person who assumes that we just complain because we aren't good at the game. That is not true at all, and is a poor argument against what I am trying to say.
The sheer amount of assistance halo 2 gives to the newer players can defeat any plan a more experienced player may put out. I may be able to come up behind a player, but due to the large amount of lunge and homing abilities I may just fly past him and slide off, thus making me incredibly vulnerable despite my previous advantage. This has happened to me countless times. Other things of this sort is the Aim Assist. If you are trying to shoot a guy with no shields on the other team, and another more oblivious player walks but two feet in front of you, your aim is thrown off by the incredible magnetism given to your weapon, allowing the other player to regain shields, and now you are outnumbered 2 to 1.
The game is made so simplistic and easy that it throws off advanced tactics and supports more straightforward ones, meaning newer players can at times play better than the more experienced ones due to the fact that their plans can have a wrench easily thrown into them out of no fault of the either team, just from mechanics alone. These random factors create such an unpredictable game that it really isn't possible to separate a level 30 from a level 18, because the 30 most likely got luckier than the 18, but is just as good at the game.
It seems to me that whenever someone talks of losing to a newer player or talks about something they don't like about a game, there is always at least one person who assumes that we just complain because we aren't good at the game. That is not true at all, and is a poor argument against what I am trying to say.[/quote]
You have quite completely, and perhaps intentionally, misconstrued Steve's argument by replacing a relative statement with an absolute one.
He is not saying you are not good at the game. I am not saying you are not good at the game. I am not saying that people who want the return of the pistol and believe H1>H2 are not all better than me by a large margin.
The question is this: to what degree do you want the game to recognize your superiority? Must that superior skill be recognized every time, in every situation? Must the universe of Halo 2 be so completely different from the real world that accidents and luck do not ever occur?
[quote=Emn1ty]The sheer amount of assistance halo 2 gives to the newer players can defeat any plan a more experienced player may put out. I may be able to come up behind a player, but due to the large amount of lunge and homing abilities I may just fly past him and slide off, thus making me incredibly vulnerable despite my previous advantage.[/quote]
This needs adjustment. First, as an inexperienced, lesser-skilled player, I can say this: Halo 2 gives me no such assistance. If it did, I'd be a level 40, because I need all the help I can get.
What it does do is create certain circumstances in which an advantage, whether one of skill, position, or weapon superiority-- may be negated, either by random chance, or by the execution of a tactic or use of a weapon that requires less skill.
You've also failed to take into account that this is a two-way street; as a noob, if I am clever enough to manage to sneak up behind a very good player to attempt an assassination kill, I may also miss, for the same reasons you point out. Either both situations are unfair, or neither of them is. The relative skill of the players in question, in this scenario, is irrelevant. All that is being said is that certain actions, in practice, especially given factors such as latency, are not entirely deterministic; or, rather, do not appear to be entirely deterministic.
[quote=Emn1ty]This has happened to me countless times.[/quote]
Me, also. In fact, I'm betting it's happened to me more than it happens to you. In fact, almost every scenario where it is claimed a kill was gotten by luck, rather than skill, happens just about as often to bad players as to good ones. In fact, more often.
Your argument is coming down to be exactly what the thrust of my article was, and exactly what Steve said above: if you are of the opinion that you are of higher skill than your opponent, you will not be satisfied with the outcome unless the game recognizes your superior skill input in every situation and grants you a kill. Any situation where luck awards a kill to an inexperienced player seems to be unacceptable to you.
This game you want to play? It's not for me. It's not for the majority of Halo 2 players. They have games like that; games that are unforgiving, with steep learning curves, that are entirely deterministic.
I am not saying Halo 2's weapon balance is perfect. I believe it to be deeply flawed. What I disagree with is what I see as the end goal. Until latency can be completely eliminated, I don't think the element of chance should be, either.
[quote=Emn1ty]Other things of this sort is the Aim Assist. If you are trying to shoot a guy with no shields on the other team, and another more oblivious player walks but two feet in front of you, your aim is thrown off by the incredible magnetism given to your weapon, allowing the other player to regain shields, and now you are outnumbered 2 to 1.[/quote]
And how does this occur to skilled players more often than unskilled ones? Heck, this happens to me in campaign.
[quote=Emn1ty]The game is made so simplistic and easy that it throws off advanced tactics and supports more straightforward ones, meaning newer players can at times play better than the more experienced ones due to the fact that their plans can have a wrench easily thrown into them out of no fault of the either team, just from mechanics alone.[/quote]
Here's a newsflash for you: Halo is not a tactical shooter. It's not intended to be. Please do not try and make it one. There are tactical shooters; plenty of them. Feel free to play one.
Or, the flipside of the argument, which is that if simpler tactics work better than complex ones: use the simple ones. Are you playing to win, or to demonstrate your superior skill and tactics? If a team of highly skilled players with a complex plan are thwarted by the application of a simple and straightforward plan by lesser-skilled players, you cannot possily say they were defeated "of no fault of either team". It is not the mechanics of the game. It is player choice.
[quote=Emn1ty]These random factors create such an unpredictable game that it really isn't possible to separate a level 30 from a level 18, because the 30 most likely got luckier than the 18, but is just as good at the game.[/quote]
It creates enough unpredictability that you may not necessariliy be able to discern the difference between a level 18 and a level 30 within the context of a single game or group of games. Over a long period of time, it is possible to discern it. The game itself has made this determination.
If what you are trying to say is that two players of equal innate skill may be ranked 18 and another 30, and the difference is luck: I say, bull. Luck is just that; it affects everybody more or less equally. There's only one factor operating in the game that could conspire to make such a distinction: latency. Nothing else. If you're saying two identical twins could be separated at birth and one gets a 30 rank and the other 18, then the difference is who got host, not who got lucky. Unless we want to define "lucky" as "host", which I wouldn't object to. Host gets a working sword and a working shotgun. Unless H3 has a dedicated server system (which it won't) this is always going to operate as a factor; one player is playing on the server with no latency.
Rampant for over se7en years.
Emn1ty
I was replying to his "I
In reply to: Luck and Skill.I was replying to his "I cant pwn noobs so the game sucks", which almost directly suggests that I'm complaining about not being able to win. He may not be saying Im not good at the game, but it could sure be taken in that way.
This isn't an argument that skilled players have more accidents, just that the amount of experience doesn't matter in this game because the only tactic you can use is a direct one. What good is playing the game if the same old tactic works every time, and the only thing that must be improved is your reaction time? Halo may not be a tactical shooter such as SOCOM or GRAW, but tactics are a large part of the game despite that. If you have ever played a single MLG tournament game, you can see how tactics come into play. There are teams that force spawn you to certain areas to gain more kills faster and render you immobile. There are teams that will take several sides of the map and have a near unbreakable offense and defense if they get any form of foothold.
Now when it comes to luck, I am not saying luck should be removed entirely, in fact, that is impossible to do because luck factors in just on the player's side rather than the game's mechanics. The main point is that Halo 2 is too random. When I can kill someone with a hit to the back, I expect that to happen every time if it is noticeably executed. To have the random chance of either killing them or sliding off (or even falling just inches short) is in no way fair, for experienced or inexperienced players.
I may have displayed my opinion in too extreme a fashion, but in no way do I want this to be implemented so absolutely as to deter newer players from playing. What I want is a game where I wont have to experience hitting a guy in the back six times only to fall short each time and fly past him on the last. These things happen much too consistently for the game to be a level playing field or even determine a players true skill. This line is even more blurred now that killing an opponent is as simple as pressing two buttons in a certain order. Skill has now diminished in Halo 2 to who can press a certain series of buttons faster than their opponent.
In any case, Halo 2 Online as it is today is a mess as I see it, and nothing can redeem it.
narcogen
How much is enough?
In reply to: I was replying to his "I[quote=Emn1ty]I was replying to his "I cant pwn noobs so the game sucks", which almost directly suggests that I'm complaining about not being able to win. He may not be saying Im not good at the game, but it could sure be taken in that way.[/quote]
I think it says something that you consider the phrase "pwn noobs" to be synonymous with winning. Again, that's the point we're both making.
Steve probably considers it to mean something closer to "completely and consistently obliterate and humiliate a vastly inferior competitor". In fact, I think that is probably closer to the common usage.
To say "you can't pwn noobs" as an accusation that you cannot play the game well would be silly, as a simple exchange of gamertags could address that once and for all. The point is, how dominant do you need to be in the game before you are satisfied that things are fair?
Lets try and nail it down. Let's say your a 30 and I'm a rank amateur, a 1. We play slayer on lockout. How many kills am I allowed to get, and in what manner, before it crosses the threshold beyond what you consider fair?
[quote=Emn1ty]This isn't an argument that skilled players have more accidents, just that the amount of experience doesn't matter in this game because the only tactic you can use is a direct one. What good is playing the game if the same old tactic works every time, and the only thing that must be improved is your reaction time?[/quote]
What is the execution of skill in Halo 1, if not purely reflex? Aim at head, pull trigger, repeat. First to three hits wins. At mid-range there is no other tactic unless you have a sniper rifle; no other weapon can deliver enough damage at the same range as the pistol to counter it.
[quote=Emn1ty]Halo may not be a tactical shooter such as SOCOM or GRAW, but tactics are a large part of the game despite that. If you have ever played a single MLG tournament game, you can see how tactics come into play. There are teams that force spawn you to certain areas to gain more kills faster and render you immobile. There are teams that will take several sides of the map and have a near unbreakable offense and defense if they get any form of foothold.[/quote]
As they say, it's not how well the bear dances, it's that it does it at all. I've no doubt that at a high enough skill level Halo can be made into some sort of tactical shooter. I do not think the vast majority of players fall into this category. They have neither the talent, nor the inclination, to turn what is supposed to be an enjoyable pastime into a full-time profession.
[quote=Emn1ty]Now when it comes to luck, I am not saying luck should be removed entirely, in fact, that is impossible to do because luck factors in just on the player's side rather than the game's mechanics. The main point is that Halo 2 is too random. When I can kill someone with a hit to the back, I expect that to happen every time if it is noticeably executed. To have the random chance of either killing them or sliding off (or even falling just inches short) is in no way fair, for experienced or inexperienced players.[/quote]
Every time. Deterministic. No luck. To have random events affect all players equally is fair-- just as the pistol is "balanced" so long as everyone gets one. The exception, as I pointed out, is host, since bad luck affects them significantly less often.
[quote=Emn1ty]I may have displayed my opinion in too extreme a fashion, but in no way do I want this to be implemented so absolutely as to deter newer players from playing. What I want is a game where I wont have to experience hitting a guy in the back six times only to fall short each time and fly past him on the last. These things happen much too consistently for the game to be a level playing field or even determine a players true skill. This line is even more blurred now that killing an opponent is as simple as pressing two buttons in a certain order. Skill has now diminished in Halo 2 to who can press a certain series of buttons faster than their opponent. [/quote]
Honestly, I think it's in your imagination-- not that it has diminished to that point, but that it was ever anything but that to start with. There seems to be this perception that whatever rank a person has, it is not a true reflection of the user's skill. The reason for this, is kills lost to inferior players due to dumb luck and faulty game mechanics. I think there is only one person in the game who can actually say this truthfully, though, and that would be the single highest ranked player in the game.
There's a cognitive dissonance here somewhere. You are skilled, and able to play the game. You have a rank higher than mine. However, your rank is not reflective of your skill, because Halo 2 rewards players without skill with kills that they do not deserve. I also have a rank. It is low. Perhaps none of the kills I got were deserved; I stole them from players above me by exploiting Halo 2's nondeterministic physics, faulty gameplay mechanics, and shallow tactical depth.
What is the factor that prevents me from doing so and achieving the same rank as you? What is the factor that prevents you from doing so and achieving an even higher ranking than you have, assuming you are not personally the highest ranked player? What is that factor if it is not skill? If that factor is not skill, and the rate at which unskillful kills can be had by the use of simplistic tactics, imbalanced weapons, or sheer dumb luck is equal for all players, then what is it? If those opportunities exist, then every player of every rank is a "noob" compared to someone else, who is exploiting these flaws in the game and accruing unearned kills and unfair ranks.
[quote=Emn1ty]In any case, Halo 2 Online as it is today is a mess as I see it, and nothing can redeem it.[/quote]
Actually, I don't say it's not a mess either. It's a question of what needs to be done to change that, and what is a desirable result. While not claiming that you have the intent to drive me and other less-skilled, less-experienced players from the game, what I can say is that you seem to be driven from a desire not just to enjoy the game, but to create a set of circumstances in which it would be impossible for me to enjoy the game without being significantly more skilled than I am, and by the impression that a game that allows me to enjoy myself at a lower level of skill because Halo 2 throws me (and indeed everyone) a bit of good or bad fortune at random makes you so irretrievably happy that you also enjoy the game.
The difference here is that with Halo 2, I'm enjoying losing the game, while you're not enjoying winning it.
Let's turn that "you can't pwn noobs" thing around. I understand that what most people understand that to mean is that the players who want a return to H1 style play are sore losers.
They aren't. Because they aren't losing.
They are sore winners. No matter how much they win, they believe they ought to be winning more; more often, more decisively, more completely. Seemingly random events that steal a kill here or there sometimes, in the short term, prevent that.
Is it really that worth getting upset over? If we play a 1x1 and you beat me, which you would do, is a 25-0 victory with all sniper headshots all that would make you happy? If we do an SMG dance in the middle of the map and through some freak chance I land my melee and you miss yours, and I kill you once-- is the game unfair?
Because that, to be honest, is my experience of Xbox Live. Not so much sore losers. Sore winners. Lots of them.
You seem like a nice guy. I wouldn't have thought you'd be one of them; you don't strike me as being one of them. But the things you say are very, very close to the very point I made in the article: that merely winning is not enough for you. You are winning more than less-skilled players... just not winning by enough to please you.
Rampant for over se7en years.
Emn1ty
The question isn't the
In reply to: How much is enough?The question isn't the number of kills, but how they are achieved. If I cant kill someone with 5 hits to the back, yet he can kill me every single time with the same maneuver, is that fair. Regardless of level or skill, this is not fair. I am one of those who don't care about winning, but play for the challenge. If I cant kill someone after 5 tries, I get a little frustrated, not that I am not winning, but because a legitimate kill was denied to me. But, i do see what you are saying and i see your point of view. I just dont think I am accurately describing what I think.
narcogen
Exaggeration?
In reply to: The question isn't the[quote=Emn1ty]The question isn't the number of kills, but how they are achieved. If I cant kill someone with 5 hits to the back, yet he can kill me every single time with the same maneuver, is that fair.[/quote]
Aren't you exaggerating? I realize that's how it feels when it happens. Sometimes I feel like the weapon people use against me is somehow magically more effective than the gun I'm holding, even when it's the same gun.
But unless he's host, that player is having the exact same experience with regards to other players.
You're saying that the mechanics of Halo 2 are such that an inferior player can kill you every time with one maneuver, and you can never do so?
I see only three possible responses to this:
[quote=Emn1ty]Regardless of level or skill, this is not fair. I am one of those who don't care about winning, but play for the challenge. If I cant kill someone after 5 tries, I get a little frustrated, not that I am not winning, but because a legitimate kill was denied to me.[/quote]
That's it again. We're describing the exact same thing, just in different words.
Your words:
[quote=Emn1ty]
I get a little frustrated, not that I am not winning, but because a legitimate kill was denied to me.
[/quote]
My words:
[quote=narcogen]
Halo 2 insufficiently rewards, in terms of kills and kills to death ratio, confirmed superior skill.[/quote]
In other words, you are winning, but not by enough kills, since some kills you decided the game owed you were not forthcoming.
You are winning... but winning is not enough.
[quote=Emn1ty]
But, i do see what you are saying and i see your point of view. I just dont think I am accurately describing what I think.
[/quote]
Actually, I think you are-- I think it's just a question that I think what you think isn't the way things should be. ;)
Rampant for over se7en years.
Anton P Nym
"Skill" vs. "Sportsmanship"
In reply to: It always comes to this[quote=Emn1ty]It seems to me that whenever someone talks of losing to a newer player or talks about something they don't like about a game, there is always at least one person who assumes that we just complain because we aren't good at the game. That is not true at all, and is a poor argument against what I am trying to say.[/quote]
You completely misunderstood my point.
What I said was that the statement translates in my head to "I can't pwn n00bs"... the intended meaning of my translation was "the game does not allow me to beat up on less-experienced players to my satisfaction." It's the implied complaint that Halo 2 doesn't allow the gameplay equivalent of 6th-graders beating up on kindergarteners because it grants the kindergarteners a chance at landing a lucky punch or two, and therefor doesn't allow certain hypercompetitive types to derive pleasure from this "superiority".
I wasn't impuning your game-playing skill; I was impuning your motives for complaining. That you interpreted my post as slighting your "skillz" is a telling point of projection, indeed.
-- Steve will reiterate; Halo 2 is a game, and not a slightly more advanced version of Bonobos flashing their testes at each other.