Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
Re: You have an odd definition of "update" then... | |
Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net> | Date: 6/14/11 4:47 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: You have an odd definition of "update" then... (uberfoop) : Actually, I would say that Halo 1 tries to avoid the entire idea of : "power weapon." Players shouldn't be screwed over and relegated : to only fighting effectively against other unfortunate players simply : because they didn't spawn near the rockets or the banshee. Hey, you used the term first. This is a debate I won't really engage in because I hardly play multiplayer these days and never did enough to become exceptionally proficient. I would, however, say that while most people recognize the unfairness of gaining an advantage due to a fortunate spawn point, there is also something to be said for gaining an advantage through territorial awareness and quick navigation. Halo 1 multiplayer, more often than not, is a waveform that collapses into proficiency with three headshot pistol kills, and all else reduced to statistical noise-- due to the strengthening of the pistol in campaign far beyond any reasonable or justifiable specification. It's a hand cannon. It was not intended to give anyone a fighting chance against a rocket launcher. Halo 1's multiplayer balance, and the role that the pistol played in it, was almost entirely accidental, something which Bungie eventually came clean about. And, of course, people refuse to accept that because it conflicts with their beliefs about what makes Halo 1 good. This is
That's usual, and was done with other key items in both Halo 2 and Halo 3. There's usually a key item or power weapon spawning near the center of, say, Blood Gulch/Coagulation. : I'm not sure sure that those things are so separable, though. Those other
Yes, and those things were changed by Bungie. Deliberately. As undesirable. : For a simple example, take some of the things I mentioned directly in that
A shotgun is not supposed to be a long-range weapon. It's supposed to be a camping nuisance :) : This is one simple gameplay design/balancing circle that is completely
Yes, they are enormous. And intentional. Having taken deliberate effort to remove those elements, why would anyone agree to put them back? I'm sort of amazed, because people tend to understand this, and then discard it. They'll point out all the differences between Halo 1 and later games, as evidence of why Halo 1 deserves a separate release. If they thought that Bungie, or 343i, or Microsoft, or anybody else agreed with them that the bits of Halo 1 that were different, and got changed, were actually better, why were they removed or changed? : I dunno. At some level, I think HPC's online community momentum even in its
Counter-Strike has a vibrant multiplayer community and staying power on the PC. Halo really doesn't. : Also, I don't think any amount of "it wouldn't become as popular"
Perhaps, but since the point of multiplayer modes *is to be popular* I don't think that argument is going to be any more persuasive with those who make that call than it is with me :) : //===================== : Hmm. Interestingly, I would probably be screwed more, on a k-d level, than
This, I think, is largely subjective and is probably worth some study. I'm also pretty rubbish at multiplayer, and in addition I have 250ms of lag, minimum, because of my location. It's very frustrating. Lots of things feel unfair-- in any version of the game. One might simplify the scenario, and describe Halo 1 as highly deterministic, and, say, Halo 3 or Reach as less deterministic. What I've experienced is that losing 15-0, even in the sure knowledge that I "deserve" it for whatever value of "deserve" holds true for the Halo engine, is not particularly enjoyable, and not an activity I would long persist in-- except in a LAN environment. This is one of the reasons why I think Halo 1 thrived in a LAN environment. People show up, in person, carrying equipment, and commit to spending time playing with people they know at a game they love. While the environment can also be highly competitive, there are other incentives. Whereas people online can easily get frustrated and drop right out of a game, shut the console off, and go away. They don't necessarily know their opponents. They've taken no extraordinary measures to participate. Logging in and logging off are easy. The less deterministic versions of the game, that allow for more chance events or events that feel random, probably mean I lose 10-5 instead of 15-0, and I feel better about those five kills I may have gotten (some cheaply) than I feel bad about five of my ten deaths being cheaper (or luckier) than any of the 15 in the game of Halo 1. Some people picked up on the nature of this in the Halo 2 experience, and I think it was very, very intentional. Winners need losers to beat up on, which means losers need to keep playing. Halo 1, I think, does not give enough losers enough reason to keep playing. You may be an exception, but your rationale would not, for instance, apply to me : Though I suppose that actually gives your side of the popularity issue
Yes. I've discussed this at length with Cody over the years. Halo multiplayer, as currently implemented, is neither strictly a game of skill nor strictly a game of chance. It has elements of both, and both of those elements I think are integral to its success, longevity, and the breadth of its appeal. Many of the elements that were present in Halo 1, and less prominent in later iterations, I think were in part responsible for the franchise's increasing, rather than decreasing popularity from Halo 1-Halo 3.
|
|
Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |