Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Frankie's Back. With an update ;-) | |
| Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 6/7/11 3:22 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Frankie's Back. With an update ;-) (Cody Miller) : That's the one thing EVERYBODY wanted! No, it isn't. The Internet is great at creating a series of self-maintaining echo chambers that feed into everybody's confirmation bias. HBO is not Halo playerbase at large. Just because you and some number of people you converse with on a regular basis, or a selection of gaming sites you read periodically have a significant population that want this does not make it "everybody". It doesn't even necessarily make it a majority, or even a significant portion. The fact that each game sold more copies as time went on and the game's design moved further and further from the original-- to the point that elements of the past two titles multiplayer modes incorporate design decisions that are diametrically opposed to those made (intentionally or unintentionally) in the original should underscore the idea that the segment that pines for H1 on XBL with all-original gameplay is a minority. : Okay, how about I directly oppose the statement that the feature
Time for matchmaking to work is inversely proportional to the number of available players in a playlist. If you consider that the target market for H1 multiplayer is already represented by those currently playing Reach MP, then the more popular Anniversary is, the worse performance will be on Reach. It's probably not zero sum, though-- in the sense that a few thousands of players migrating from Reach probably hurt Reach playlists more than they would benefit Anniversary, though, because there's likely a point of critical mass involved. At smaller player populations, Anniversary would have many fewer playlists than Reach or Halo 3 had, and probably still have longer waits. You'd have to cut the Reach population in half and split it between Anniversary and Reach in order to equalize performance and variety, and it's very likely at that point that matchmaking would not work acceptably on either game. That's what I mean by negatively affecting both games. There is probably no scenario in which both games function acceptably AND the investment is worth making in authoring and supporting separate, incompatible H1 competitive multiplayer. But hey, I doubt Frankie or anybody else has put some serious thought into this. They made the decision by shooting at a dart board-- or just because he hates you. I also disagree (in opposite ways) with the design decisions they've made on Anniversary, but that doesn't mean I think they're crazy or stupid, but the outrage I'm reading in the thread is that people think it's unconscionable, incomprehensible, and reprehensible that this decision has been made, when in fact it's rational, understandable, and predictable. It wouldn't because the sheer number of
: Cannot be achieved without ruining the game? Two words: Halo PC. Nobody
Actually it never felt like Halo to me, but that's another topic, and is likely a perspective that is peculiar to me. : Halo PC. Halo PC was the same engine running at higher resolutions on different hardware. The comparison is not analogous. This is also purely anecdotal, but it also always felt to me like on the same connections, PC Halo was a lot laggier than any version of Halo ever was on XBL.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |