Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| 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: 6/15/11 4:57 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: You have an odd definition of "update" then... (uberfoop) : I think there's nowhere to go with this. : I'm arguing that getting owned badly in Halo 1 is not frustrating, both from
You are arguing that from your experience, getting owned in Halo 1 is not frustrating. I am arguing from my personal experience that it is. Those two cancel out. What is left is my theoretical argument, which explains how some people might find Halo 1 more frustrating than Halo Reach, while others don't, up against your theoretical argument, which says that all people should find losing at Halo 1 less frustrating than losing at Halo Reach. Actually all I am arguing is that more people would find it more frustrating to lose at Halo 1 than those who already find it frustrating to lose at Halo Reach, and that this was publicly acknowledged by Bungie over the years in several discussions about changes made to multiplayer since Halo 2, most of those relating to weapons, grenades, and melee attacks. : I also don't think that Cody's approach of self-improvement being the central
It's not, it's tangential to it at the moment, but if we keep going at it we'll get there, trust me :) Deterministic behavior with
No, deterministic behavior doesn't mean that player input is always the same. What it means is that when player input is the same, the result will always be the same. With respect to handling conflicts over the timing of apparently simultaneous events, Halo 1 is the most deterministic. By supplying a weapon that is nearly flawless in a wide range of situations, much wider than all others available, and giving that weapon a reliable three head shot kill, Halo 1 becomes deterministic with regards to aiming ability to the exclusion of all other skills: a player able to reliably complete this feat repeatedly will experience the same result. you don't
Reach doesn't have those either. What Halo 3 and Reach have are weapons that have more spread (and Reach provides feedback about the severity of that spread). There is also more apparent randomness in how simultaneous melees are resolved. It's not a grind on an
And if they're not? I think you're also construing "grind" and "treadmill" in gaming-specific ways that I don't mean. This is largely a reference to how much time is required to compensate for superior competition's talent or innate ability. if the lack of
I'm afraid I disagree. By and large it is possible to enjoy losses for the journey, but only to a point. Halo 1 multiplayer deployed on a WAN, in my opinion, would be far beyond that point for a larger portion of the online population than Reach is. : As a final note, if being of subpar shooting skill is such an issue for Halo
It absolutely is an issue for Halo 1-- much more so than any other game in the series. I think even those who disagree with me violently over just about every issue-- like Cody for instance-- would agree that Halo 1 rewards shooting skill more than any other Halo title, and more accurately represents the real gap in skills between players. We don't disagree on that; we disagree about whether or not that is a good thing to have in an online game. Cody largely considers this to be an absolute and unqualified good, whereas I consider it something better taken in moderation-- with Reach and Halo 3 being the moderated versions. As for why you would wish to advocate for unmodified Halo 1 multiplayer to be deployed on XBL while being outside the elite group of players that I most often find espousing this position, I wouldn't dare speculate. Perhaps you can expand on this yourself?
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |