Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Wait, what? | |
| Posted By: RC Master | Date: 10/11/11 5:42 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Wait, what? (General Vagueness) : I didn't say it wasn't what they were considering adding elsewhere, I asked : who was "pushing" it to be applied 343 are. Because they're the ones that made the gametype. : everywhere. No-one said this. Who said this? : my response to that is that it's a beta; if it doesn't work or people don't
There has already been 3 multiplayer Halo games where it was tested in a variety of forms with various weapons and abilites and the decision was taken to remove bleed-through based upon all that experience. Reach had a full, sucessful and fun beta that didn't indicate the bleed-through needed to be put back in. : It was taken out because Bungie wanted it that way. It's a matter of
It's really not though. Reach's system is mechanically more clear-cut than bleed-through. It's better in affordance and reliability and all that good stuff. : and if you can make both preferences available and have them
Jees, we're in a thread that is dicussing the fact that bleed-through has a proper glitch associated with it. If fixing that isn't a simple matter then bleed-through is even worse here, mechanically, than it was in previous games. : I won't fault 343i for making the game act the way they
But they're not. Or at least aren't coming off that way; they're coming off as pandering. No clear vision... blah blah - I've said this before. They're not universal changes, and if 85% really represents exactly what 343i thinks Reach should play like, the inclusion of bleed-through is just like 'WTF?' to me and Fyrewulff at least.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |