Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Why Halo's Objective Gametypes Suck - Part 1 | |
| Posted By: Apirishin <apirishin1@gmail.com> | Date: 3/20/12 10:04 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Why Halo's Objective Gametypes Suck - Part 1 (Revenant1988) I think one thing worth emphasizing is that the specific map on which an objective gametype takes place makes a HUGE difference in how it plays out. I understand the need to discuss "objective gametypes" in the abstract, without tying a specific objective gametype to a specific map because the conversation would become far too unwieldly in dealing with all the permutations, but I think it's a given that some maps simply play better than others. To wit... A BTB game on Hemorrhage (flag, assault...even plain old slayer, it doesn't really matter). Your team comes out on top in the initial vehicle combat at the start of the match. If the other teams' spawns are bad and your Wraith and maybe a Hog survives, the game is basically over. It's rare to spawn in the base on Hemorrhage (on all gametypes...not really sure why), and while concentrated fire from foot soldiers can take down vehicles, one or two people don't really stand a chance. On top of this, since objective gametypes got rid of Armor Lock (which I think was the right move overall), you have NO DEFENSE against vehicles in open combat. Even with TU AL you're still kind of screwed because it drains so fast. Combine this with your awful foot-speed using anything but Sprint and you're doubly screwed. I can't count the number of games I've played on that map where the game was essentially over within the first 90-120 seconds. The problem is that the map is basically a giant rectangle, and it enables players to eliminate the other team and then keep them down for good if they know what they're doing (and don't even get me started on how ridiculously (more) overpowered the sniper rifle becomes when you hit that point). To me, the problem here is the map. The map is just not well-suited to how Reach plays on any gametype (or how it can play in the hands of competent players). Too much open space, too much forcing movement around the perimeter of the map, not enough cover, takes too long to move from place to place, too easy to get stomped and have no chance at coming back...we all know the reasons. So how about approaching this exercise from a slightly different angle? What objective gametype and map combinations work well, and why is this the case? Using this approach might help tease out the qualities that make both the gametype and the map successful. I'm just not sure how much sense it makes to separate the one from the other. I think they're necessarily linked and inseparable when it comes to discussing the merits.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |