Halo: Reach Discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atty

You haven't played it and yet you are passing judgement.

---

These people are judging what they can. They're expressing initial thoughts based on what they've seen. They're allowed to do that, and it's no worse than blindly defending it, or having no thought on the matter whatsoever. It's topical discussion, and I don't see what's wrong with it. Some people may be mistaking the thought of "this looks terrible" with "this is terrible" . I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that they have definitively made up their mind on the quality of a game that isn't even out in public beta yet. That's just silly.

You're dumb.

Really, saying "you haven't played it so don't judge it" is absolutely the dumbest fucking argument you can make. What's wrong with drawing from prior experiences? You said the same dumb shit about Modern Warfare 2's lack of dedicated servers, saying "oh just wait to play it", despite our knowledge from experience of how P2P games SUCK and are filled with lag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atty

You haven't played it and yet you are passing judgement.

You are just wrong, trust me.

---

Oh yes, I believe you just because you said that. I am wrong.....NOT. There is nothing wrong with passing judgment on something when I know how it works already. Also, I damn sure don't need to play the game to know that I dislike the class system they have. Some people will, without a doubt, have an advantage over other players because of the classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadowSpartan

Some people will, without a doubt, have an advantage over other players because of the classes.

---

Except those people are then free to choose the exact same class, thereby nullifying any inequalities and returning the gameplay to a skill-based method. The loadouts look, for the most part, fairly well designed and balanced.

All the loadouts are really doing is saving you the extra 5 seconds it would have taken you to switch your assault rifle for a battle rifle, or anything else laying around in your base. The real game-changers are the abilities. And we'll probably get used to the whole system fairly quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcap

I don't care that I haven't played the game. It doesn't matter. I've played other class-based shooters and I avoid them at all costs. I fucking hate them. I realize that Reach isn't as bad as others, but it is still a step in the wrong direction and it's not Halo.

They should have just stuck to one "perk" (jetpack, sprint, armor lock) that you can specify in the lobby of every game. You can set it only once, and then you're stuck with it. In your profile you would have a default perk in case you don't choose one in the lobby.

---

Bolded in red for ignorance.

You know what? I don't care that you don't like classes! See? It's YOUR opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. However, the way you're flaunting it around like you're some kind of god that goes "this is how it is and it isnt any other way" is completely retarded. Unless you're going to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, it serves no use to complain about it. Want my opinion? I really like this load outs feature! It changes from h3s massive BR and assault rifle fest to a somewhat more organized chaos.

By the way, Modern Warfare 2 was not a bad game. They cranked it out in a year and a half, I didn't expect more from them. They had the same timeframe that ODST had. Was it a shitty idea to cut dedicated servers? Absolutely. You're complaining about such trivial little things, and on top of that, you're being a little 7 year old twat that thinks his opinion is the only one that matters. It's like you're saying that the sky isnt R 10 G 20 B 243 so it doesn't exist (thanks atty for bringing that to my attention). It's little trivial disagreements that should be discussed, not completely bickered over that degrades our community into YouTube comments daily "modern warfare 2 kicks halo reachs ass" "halo reach pwnzzr0rz" "no you"


BTW: Shadow, that wasn't really directed at you, it was more directed at jcap.

I'm not dropping any -rep, but I expect to see a nice list of -reps in my inbox just for disagreeing it and bringing it to your attention you're being a twat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcap

You're dumb.

Really, saying "you haven't played it so don't judge it" is absolutely the dumbest fucking argument you can make. What's wrong with drawing from prior experiences? You said the same dumb shit about Modern Warfare 2's lack of dedicated servers, saying "oh just wait to play it", despite our knowledge from experience of how P2P games SUCK and are filled with lag.

---

I did? What? I don't even play on PC so why would I care about dedicated servers? And I love MW:2.

Nothing like the "me first" argument.

"It doesn't affect me, why should I care about anyone else's problems?"

It was a bad move and ultimately made MW2 worse. Doesn't necessarily mean bad overall, but still. (I personally don't like MW2 myself, but there you go.)

But anyway: jcap has every right to hate a particular type of game and generalize to that degree. If someone hates "class-based" shooters, another one isn't suddenly going to make the "class-based" shooter good. However, I can't agree that it's objectively bad for those reasons. I can agree with jcap that "class-based" (yes, these quotes are for a reason, hold on) shooters executed in this manner are absolutely horrid, and seeing Halo move this far from its original working formula is upsetting. TF2 is the only game I've ever enjoyed because the classes are limited. There are actual limiting factors to what you can use. If you pick sniper, then you're going to hold on to that piss jar until you switch. Having a set of weapons that anyone can use without limits ruins the point of classes entirely. If someone is a dedicated sharpshooter, odds are you aren't going to see them carrying a grenade launcher.

So really, in my opinion (read that again and a-fucking-gain, it's an opinion, an opinion an opinion), this is still not a class-based shooter. Neither is MW2, or any game like these two. It's what I call the juggernaut-style gameplay (one guy knows how to use all weapons like a pro???) that Halo started with, only the developer (Bungie in this case) slapped on some "variety" in starting weapons. And, if the battle rifle shows anything about Bungie's weapon balancing, one class will be objectively the best and it won't really matter anyway.

TL;DR: It's not actually class-based. Calm the fuck down. Global perks/weapons a class-based game does not make. It just makes a diluted game.

Atty, I didn't mean "you" specifically, so sorry if it was too direct.


Rain,

There's a few things I'm worried about here which contribute to my opinion:
1. Usually when they add classes, they try to make literally every weapon the same. Weapon balance is a load of bullshit Jaime Griesemer needs to get fucked up the ass for. THOUGH, since they don't actually have any heavy weapon class (unlike other games which have a heavy class), maybe there is still some hope that every weapon won't be for pussies.
2. If you are in a CTF game, after your team scores once in an 16 player game, you can have 4 of your team mates camping inside of the base with their shotguns they get on spawn, while the other 4 people are in the field with their DMRs. If the shotgun guys die, then they call all respawn with DMRs and take out the flag carrier without ever needing to find a weapon. Instead of being "rewarded" for finding a weapon that hasn't been taken by another team mate or someone on the opposing team, you are given a list to choose from.
3. My biggest gripe is really the unfairness of being able to switch your loadout mid-game. Let's say you take the blue team's flag. You ran in with the armor lock and kill all the enemies. You are walking out of the base, meanwhile they all choose to respawn with the DMR and sprint loadout to catch you, and you can't do shit to counter them. There's no penalty for making the wrong decision. That's why I think you should have to make the decision at the beginning of the game, and then you are forced to live with it for the entire game.

I don't think this SUCKS and is going to kill the game. I do have some hope for it. It's not done exactly the way I had hoped, but it's not done the way I absolutely didn't want either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehoodedsmack

Except those people are then free to choose the exact same class, thereby nullifying any inequalities and returning the gameplay to a skill-based method. The loadouts look, for the most part, fairly well designed and balanced.

---

At the very beginning though, some people will have an advantage over others to get the power weapons. I don't see myself liking the class system anytime soon. We'll see what happens when the Beta rolls around though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRain

Unless you're going to actually, you know, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, it serves no use to complain about it.

---

How is he going to do anything? Bungie is the one developing the game so there's nothing any of us can do besides play the Beta and hope Bungie listens to the feedback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRain

Want my opinion? I really like this load outs feature! It changes from h3s massive BR and assault rifle fest to a somewhat more organized chaos.

---

If you are going to attack him based on his opinion, then why would he want your opinion on the matter? I personally see the classes doing more harm than good in multiplayer, but I will still play it because quite frankly I am bored with Halo 3. I just extremely dislike the fact people will start on different playing fields, and I really dislike that the armor abilities will be associated with certain weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRain

It's little trivial disagreements that should be discussed, not completely bickered over that degrades our community into YouTube comments daily "modern warfare 2 kicks halo reachs ass" "halo reach pwnzzr0rz" "no you"

---

You are the one who started it by telling people to shut their mouths.

fuck this is an awful decision!!

i wanted it to be the same game i've already played but different not something with different features!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boba

fuck this is an awful decision!!

i wanted it to be the same game i've already played but different not something with different features!!

---

This, pretty much.

I believe I said it before, (in this thread, actually), Bungie should just fucking drop the Halo IP already. They've done it to death, and every time they attempt to add in something new to alleviate the issues the fanbase is having with the game, the fanbase suddenly turns around and bites their heads off like they're a dog stuck in a bear trap or some shit.

Again I find myself looking forward to the changes, additions, and whatnot just to spite everyone crying about it. :realsmug:

In an RPG, if one mage is equipped with a fire spell and another is equipped with a lightning spell, does that make them a different class?

In other Halo games, if someone had a sniper rifle and another guy had a shotgun, they had a different tactical role. You could argue that they were different classes. In Halo 3, if someone had a bubble shield and another guy had an energy drainer, they had different tactical options. So, let's not pretend Halo was always some super-symmetric experience. No one would want to play a shooter where two guys spawned directly across from one another with the same weapon in a featureless box map. All Bungie has really done with the loadouts is change the equipment so that it's more useful and made it so that you don't have to spend the first couple of minutes after you spawn looking for a decent weapon that fits what you want to do.

A class-based shooter is a shooter that contrives teamwork by placing the distribution of key resources (health, ammo, repair) in the hands of players. Everything outside of that falls under the umbrella of nuance, tactics, and customization. It's the difference between a pizza that is built upon a slab of bread and a meal that comes with bread on the side.

Bungie isn't IW. They're not going to do stupid shit like rewarding kill streaks with even more kills, making games even more lopsided. These armor abilities aren't passive bullshit perks that require no skill or timing to use. And Bungie remains in strict control of what combination of abilities and weapons you can load out with. Give them half a chance.

I defended folks voicing concerns about features in this thread, but jcap just took it way beyond that, and I have to say: For fuck's sake, how can you possibly make that kind of judgement before you play the game?
It's one thing to say "gosh, Bungie, I don't like the art direction you're taking with the player models in this game. You seem to be losing touch with your roots and making a more generic shooter, which I wish you wouldn't do." It's quite another to say "God dammit, Bungie, this new feature which I haven't tried and still has months of tweaking left is going to totally break the game, and you owe it to me to make exactly the game I want."

One could argue that he's tried it in other games. Sometimes features can just be plain bad. Case in point: SecuROM/Ubisoft DRM.

One could also argue that, given you have the games and have then technically supported the developer (especially for what, 10 years now?), they do kinda owe it to those who have given them all this support to at least take in an opinion or two. If I buy every single Splinter Cell game since the first one and they put Ubisoft DRM on the latest one a few months before release, and it's clear that the system blows, I think I have every right to tell them to fuck themselves and take off the DRM before I pirate it just to have the game I wanted to buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar

I defended folks voicing concerns about features in this thread, but jcap just took it way beyond that, and I have to say: For fuck's sake, how can you possibly make that kind of judgement before you play the game?
It's one thing to say "gosh, Bungie, I don't like the art direction you're taking with the player models in this game. You seem to be losing touch with your roots and making a more generic shooter, which I wish you wouldn't do." It's quite another to say "God dammit, Bungie, this new feature which I haven't tried and still has months of tweaking left is going to totally break the game, and you owe it to me to make exactly the game I want."

---

Well, that's the internet. People take one extreme side or another. Being able to see issues from both sides is not well-practiced. Which is why most amateur podcasts are terrible, because people take internet discussion skills and use them when speaking aloud, making themselves look quite retarded in the process.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still not a fan of some of the art I'm seeing. And if they roll out a "Medic" armor ability or some passive armor ability that lets you shoot through walls at all times or shit a nuke every time you die, I'm going to bust out the screw face and point it squarely in Bungie's direction. But I don't think that will happen.

It'll be just like playing Halo Wars; you'll pick your type at the start of the game without knowing what your enemy has picked either. You all have the same types you chose from. However, when you die you'll be able to pick a different tactical class to use. Your enemy can do the same. It'll allow some game saving maneuvers if used right. Especially if some other players on your team aren't up for the cut.

I think jcap is just scared of change. Since he has no hands-on to fuel his case, he's basing everything off older games. Games which Bungie themselves have had the chance to play and figure strengths and weaknesses. He'll either realize he got carried away with his ranting after the game comes out, or won't admit he was wrong to jump the gun and continue his "class" hating while secretly actually enjoying it, especially when he gets matched up with shit players.

I for one, can't wait to play with some of this new stuff (and then voice any gripes). If I wanted the same shit, different day, I'd just boot up Halo 3.

I like everything I'm hearing so far, but I hope Bungie is willing to include some old-school gametypes with only one loadout and no armor abilities. Those can be fun too.

Also, jetpacks!

Reach isn't class-based, it is simply MODERN. Everything these days is going to have some degree of tactical customization. You can't call EVERYTHING a class-based shooter because of that reality. The label would retain no meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atty

No its not, they turned down the shotgun a bit and because of shield popping it requires more to kill someone. At least, thats what the update I read claimed.

I'm looking forward to this, you are all a bunch of insufferable twats and complain about the sky not being the proper shade of blue. Give it a chance, if then you don't like it, complain, but not before you've even seen a proper video for it being demonstrated, especially when you don't have all the facts. You are all so pathetic.

---

This and what frain said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar

I defended folks voicing concerns about features in this thread, but jcap just took it way beyond that, and I have to say: For fuck's sake, how can you possibly make that kind of judgement before you play the game?
It's one thing to say "gosh, Bungie, I don't like the art direction you're taking with the player models in this game. You seem to be losing touch with your roots and making a more generic shooter, which I wish you wouldn't do." It's quite another to say "God dammit, Bungie, this new feature which I haven't tried and still has months of tweaking left is going to totally break the game, and you owe it to me to make exactly the game I want."

---

You still don't understand my concerns, so shut up. I'm thinking about logical outcomes of games. I said I wasn't entirely scared of classes as much as their decisions to let you change mid-game.

I don't need to experience something to understand how it will play out.

I'm not afraid of change - I'm just afraid of change done stupid...and Bungie has a looooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggg history of that.

Except when you finally play it, you'll have the feel of all the game mechanics working at once. Experience. Otherwise you're just thinking how you want to think and otherwise possibly overlooking or forgetting some aspects. Also, Bungie likes to keep some things behind the curtain until release...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcap

You still don't understand my concerns, so shut up. I'm thinking about logical outcomes of games. I said I wasn't entirely scared of classes as much as their decisions to let you change mid-game.

I don't need to experience something to understand how it will play out.

I'm not afraid of change - I'm just afraid of change done stupid...and Bungie has a looooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggg history of that.

---

The way I see it, any change from Halo 3 is a good change. I'm sure others will share this opinion.

Halo 3 would have been perfect if they removed melee lunge and dual wielding. Reach looks gay.

you look gay :saddowns:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

Reach looks gay.

---

The reasons you provided are just SO true, I think you may be on to something :ohdear:


:nsmug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

Reach looks gay.

---

Reach looks okay to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

Halo 3 would have been perfect if they removed melee lunge and dual wielding. Reach looks gay.

---

I'm assuming the roman numeral in your title is your IQ, right? It would only be fair to somehow publicly warn us of your idiocy before we actually get around to reading your posts.

Please refrain from posting any more ideas, opinions, or even anything at all in the future, you'll save us a lot of satirical remarks.

You know, for a bunch of gaming enthusiasts and, for the most part, people dealing with on going projects and what-not, you're all really obstinate. I honestly feel like I'm on a forum with Henry Ford and his cronies, standing around a ball room with knee high socks and floor touching dresses on their wives talking about the good 'ol days of slave labor and plantations (those of you educated enough to understand that remark, +rep and <3).

im with atty on this one. FFs, the "selectable loadout" doesn't seem anywhere near a class based system. You're taking the scarce information at hand and making bold assertions in strict conservative format

Besides, if it does suck royally, its not like its going to be far out of the ballpark.

The way I see it, the loadouts are a great way to stop people from complaining about "AR starts" and "BR starts". This way, everybody gets what they want without changing any of the gameplay since it just saves us the few seconds it takes to go find a BR (DMR) or an AR (I know that has been mentioned a few times before in this thread) Also, it adds a new level of strategy to the game, because a single strategy will never work twice due to the fact that your team won't always start with the same weapons, and neither will the other team. So, the way I see it, they don't unbalance the game in the least bit, since none of the starting weapons are power weapons, and are all good and bad in their own areas.

In short : Loadouts sound like a good idea to make the game more interesting, and they get my seal of approval, since it doesn't seem to be unbalanced.

Also, they're not a mandatory part of the playlist. They can easily have "classic" SWAT where all you get to have are DMRs and Magnums. They're just adding an additional layer of customization. Something to keep the game from becoming so stale over time. Bungie Aerospace needs revenue to build that thar Giant Slingshot after all :downs:

I love the ability to pick your 'load-out' at the start of the game. The problem is you cannot select and choose the seperate items and make custom loadouts. Okay I can see Bungie might have done this so they can balance it out well. Say you could start with an energy sword, you dont want them to have the run technique because that would just demolish everyone. However, the ability that you cant select and choose want you want I feel limits what can be done, and it means you cant pick your favourites. Again, I like how you can select certain loadouts, I just wish you could customise these.

The other big question is, can you pick up any weapon thats on the ground? If you cant then we have a big issue.

Also, people should bitch and moan, whoever says "yeah well you cant do anything", your just being ignorant, why the fuck is Bungie handing out a beta? Its not just to gather data, its to get the views of the people that will be playing it day in day out. If they find bugs, people will let them know, if it turns out, that sniper rifle isnt balanced enough against elites then they will find it out from users complaining.

I'm still looking forward to reach, loadouts are a cool addition and I feel they will change the game dramatically, for the better. It will add that dynamic-ness of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Also, they're not a mandatory part of the playlist. They can easily have "classic" SWAT where all you get to have are DMRs and Magnums. They're just adding an additional layer of customization. Something to keep the game from becoming so stale over time. Bungie Aerospace needs revenue to build that thar Giant Slingshot after all :downs:

---

This.

Think of it like an expansion of the "Custom" or "Generic" weapons option...

Also, where's the threat to infract if this discussion on loadouts continues, eh? :raise:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

I love the ability to pick your 'load-out' at the start of the game. The problem is you cannot select and choose the seperate items and make custom loadouts. Okay I can see Bungie might have done this so they can balance it out well. Say you could start with an energy sword, you dont want them to have the run technique because that would just demolish everyone. However, the ability that you cant select and choose want you want I feel limits what can be done, and it means you cant pick your favourites. Again, I like how you can select certain loadouts, I just wish you could customise these.

---

I don't really see the problem with this. In the previous games, you didn't have any choice in spawn weapons. Now you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

The other big question is, can you pick up any weapon thats on the ground? If you cant then we have a big issue.

---

Of course you can pick up weapons off the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

Also, people should bitch and moan, whoever says "yeah well you cant do anything", your just being ignorant, why the fuck is Bungie handing out a beta? Its not just to gather data, its to get the views of the people that will be playing it day in day out. If they find bugs, people will let them know, if it turns out, that sniper rifle isnt balanced enough against elites then they will find it out from users complaining.

---

I'd prefer if people would whine after they had a chance to play the game.

I hope we still have a way to spawn with a random loadout like in the H3 Fiesta playlists. I'd love a gametype where everyone spawns as a random biped (Spartan or Elite) with a random armor ability and random starting weapons. It would be awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Limited

I love the ability to pick your 'load-out' at the start of the game. The problem is you cannot select and choose the seperate items and make custom loadouts. Okay I can see Bungie might have done this so they can balance it out well. Say you could start with an energy sword, you dont want them to have the run technique because that would just demolish everyone. However, the ability that you cant select and choose want you want I feel limits what can be done, and it means you cant pick your favourites. Again, I like how you can select certain loadouts, I just wish you could customise these.

---

Obviously, Bungie is aware of what other shooters have done with custom loadouts. They clearly have reasons for not going in that direction and I agree with their decision.

For one thing, if Bungie wants swords, hammers, and rockets as part of loadouts for a special gametype, they have the flexibility to implement that. If a certain gametype would be completely ruined if the jetpack were allowed, they can just take it out of the loadout options. They don't have to worry about making sure that every possible loadout combination is balanced in every situation. This system supports a huge variety of possibilities, not the least of which being the fact that you can make a fresh choice in almost every match, instead of being married to one optimal loadout combo for the majority of your time with the game.

I think it's great and solves many more problems than it introduces.

You can pick up weps off the ground. If you watch the video again, it says "Press X to pick up <whatever wep it was>" Which that right there, says the controls changed from H3.

Even with load outs, you have to realize that you can technically customize them in a sense. Want a sprint load out but you dont want a shotgun it comes with? Kill a guy with his DMR, pick the damn thing up, and don't die.

I was just making sure you can big any type of weapon up. I don't think it will effect the game much, I won't be screaming at my tv for not giving me X gun at the start. It would have been cool to fully customise load-outs though.

I'm completely with Mr. Burke on this one, it sounds like a problem-solving implementation to kill the time that in previous games would mean running around your base getting all the equipment you need to execute your plan of attack. Letting people choose between which basic weapons they start with means that more of the time in the match can be spent fighting, and that dying can be a less frustrating experience when you haven't invested so much time in your armory. I for one am excited about the more personalized and tactical game-play that can stem from variety in starting weapons. I feel like the majority of people will opt for the mid-range headshot-getting class (this is Halo after all) and aside from wasting less time seems like the experience will be pretty damn similar.

And yes, in case it satisfies one's twisted mind to know, I did like MW2 :/

From the sounds of it, you'll be able to configure them in your custom game types so when you're fragging it out at home you can set them to your heart's content.

For matchmaking, I think leaving it up to Bungie is the best compromise. That way they're like the refs. No one gets to step out of bounds and come in with an upper hand because they have a load-out which no one else has (doesn't have to just be super weapons). It also simplifies program logic since they don't have to check your load outs against invalid configs when you join a matchmaking playlist, and thus limiting your load outs (had they let you used custom load outs). Instead they lay down the law and tell the world how it's going down.

Don't likey? Go back to playing with your CoDs. I could careless for tatical nukes and C130s myself. (not trying to attack you Limited, sorry if it sounds like that)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Also, where's the threat to infract if this discussion on loadouts continues, eh? :raise:

---

Kinda hard to infract an admin (read: j-hop-on-pop, aka jpop, aka jcap) :-3

What it seems to me is less like Battlefield/CoD "classes" and more a way to make sure everybody starts on an equal playing field according to their playstyle. Some people would infinitely more comfortable with an AR, whereas others would prefer a DMR; this way, people gravitate towards what they play best with, and everyone's at an equal advantage. Likewise with armor abilities. All the weapons in loadouts are designed to be techincally equal (unlike H3's AR vs. BR), but their individual styles suit some players more than others. Everyone, in essence, is allowed to play at their best.

But for the weapons that actually are better, there's still the mad rush to the RL.

Either way, this is why they're having a beta in May; no doubt, something with the loadouts is going to be horribly fucking imbalanced, and they'll fix all those things accordingly.

The real question is... how will all this affect the sport sensation that is Grifball?

It will benefit it if anything. Think about it, you could have an "offensive" and "defensive" load out. One with the AA of sprint, another with maybe armor lock or hell...active camo if you're feeling frisky :3

I can only imagine what kind of new things millions of fans will be able to cook up with whatever new forge they offer plus all of the game type customization they have. Gonna be sweat sauce.

Forge (as seen in the April Fool's ViDoc) looks essentially the same, although admittedly it's hard to tell from the brief moments we take a glimpse at the Monitor's HUD.

I'm sure that they wouldn't let any spoils leak out while making their AF's joke. I don't even think they showed the forge object menu during the vid (I only watched it once and didn't pay much mind to it, AFs and all) That's the only thing visual that I can think that would have changed.

The hell did they do to the Banshee?

Dunno, but I like it.

Well, on the condition that the wings are animated so it looks like it's actually using the anti-grav pods to maneuver.

Best part of the update was the focus rifle tbh.

I'm lost as to why Bungie said the SMG was a shitty AR...I thought it was more powerful in every way. At the ranges you would use the AR anyways, the SMG is a more potent choice even without dual-wielding. I'm kind of sad to see it go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII

The hell did they do to the Banshee?

---

Lawl, more Reach fail.

Is it just me, or do the wings (if you can even call them that...stabilizers?) look like they're on adjustable joints? Maybe they move into the horizontal position when you get a certain height off the ground

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I'm lost as to why Bungie said the SMG was a shitty AR...I thought it was more powerful in every way. At the ranges you would use the AR anyways, the SMG is a more potent choice even without dual-wielding. I'm kind of sad to see it go.

---

Yeah, I'm gonna miss the sound of an SMG clip being rat-tat-tatted :(

Well actually, the sound of duel wielded SMGs. Sometimes I'd pick them up in game just to hear them burp some rounds off. Probably getting tagged in the process, but at least with the downs-satisfaction of hearing two SMGs going off :downs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Is it just me, or do the wings (if you can even call them that...stabilizers?) look like they're on adjustable joints? Maybe they move into the horizontal position when you get a certain height off the ground

---

That sorta reminds me of the Imperial Shuttles from Star Wars:

http://www.dragonslair.dk/dlCart/dli...ialShuttle.jpg

Albeit, more compact. Anyways, I like the new look.

The new look makes WAY more sense to me. I always wondered how those pairs of twigs/wings from the original games actually carried anything. Also, actual guns on the front! Woo!

The top... door, thing, does look a bit goofy though. Wonder why they de-smoothed it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Is it just me, or do the wings (if you can even call them that...stabilizers?) look like they're on adjustable joints? Maybe they move into the horizontal position when you get a certain height off the ground

---

If you look, the Banshee have had those in one form or another since halo 1, they just never actually served much use before.

At first I fucking hated the new look, now I love it. Though I'd like the wings longer and thinner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

If you look, the Banshee have had those in one form or another since halo 1, they just never actually served much use before.

---

no joints here

It looks like the bastard child of a Banshee and a Ghost.
Maybe it's the angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flibitijibibo

The new look makes WAY more sense to me. I always wondered how those pairs of twigs/wings from the original games actually carried anything. Also, actual guns on the front! Woo!

The top... door, thing, does look a bit goofy though. Wonder why they de-smoothed it?

---

Well don't Banshees still use anti-gravity technology like the Ghost and literally every ship? My bet is that they are just stabilizers, like Kornman said.

The only thing confusing me is...where's the thrusters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

no joints here

---

http://i42.tinypic.com/dbaeq.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

pic

---

He showed a screenshot of the Halo 3 banshee. I don't think you can compare it to Halo 1's banshee diffuse..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta4907

He showed a screenshot of the Halo 3 banshee. I don't think you can compare it to Halo 1's banshee diffuse..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

If you look, the Banshee have had those in one form or another since halo 1, they just never actually served much use before.

---

.

Stfu before i mention 'water'.

I think the new 'old' banshee design is KICK ASS. Although i dont get it in the whole scheme of things... as time has illegedely progressed in the Halo-verse.... shits got alot more dumbed down over time.
Like all the halo reach assets are kick ass complicated detail-wise and Halo 1 is starting to look more 'nintendo' than a game set before its later release prequal.

Of course the Reach assets have more detail, they couldn't do that back in Halo 1. If they could have they would have. The covenant and human technology definitely looks like it progresses chronologically even if there were different engine limitations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Con

Of course the Reach assets have more detail, they couldn't do that back in Halo 1. If they could have they would have. The covenant and human technology definitely looks like it progresses chronologically even if there were different engine limitations.

---

Nah, it's mostly just excuses to make uneeded changes to good concepts (there's a difference between upgrading the Banshee graphically and changing it all together). I wouldn't be surprised if less than half the original team that created Halo 1 still works at Bungie. Probably just a bunch of fresh employees with big paychecks trying to figure out how to best appease 13 year old gamers with 'rad' new gear!

Then again, these arguments are just as fruitless as the ones between old Star Wars and new Star Wars, everyone just looks dumb in the end.

Actually, a lot of the original team did leave Bungie after Halo 1's release. But still. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to change how something looks. I think the new AR, even though it is still technically an MA5B (M37 is its Army name), looks better. Sometimes they do good on the revamp, sometimes not so good. It looks to me like they've really trimmed up the Mk. V armour since the VGA trailer, and it looks good.

Point being, retcon is not always bad.

Look at the Grizzled Ancients of the Meet the Team. At lot of them still work there. However, most are tending to the Next Project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Con

Of course the Reach assets have more detail, they couldn't do that back in Halo 1. If they could have they would have. The covenant and human technology definitely looks like it progresses chronologically even if there were different engine limitations.

---

What I think is funny is how the weapons technology steadily moves backwards as the series progresses. On the human side for example, there's the shotgun. In Halo 1, it could 1 shot people at a considerable range. In Halo 2 the 1 shot kill range was toned down quite a bit, but you could still 2 shot people from a good distance. In Halo 3, the shotgun can 2 shot people from 3 inches away and 1 shot them if you're shoving it down their throat.

All in the name of game "balance" (meaning if it's not the all-purpose headshot machine, nerf the fuck out of it so the MLG kids won't cry about it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

What I think is funny is how the weapons technology steadily moves backwards as the series progresses. On the human side for example, there's the shotgun. In Halo 1, it could 1 shot people at a considerable range. In Halo 2 the 1 shot kill range was toned down quite a bit, but you could still 2 shot people from a good distance. In Halo 3, the shotgun can 2 shot people from 3 inches away and 1 shot them if you're shoving it down their throat.

---

Actually the Halo 3 shotgun is way better than the Halo 2 shotgun.

I can out BR kids in halo 2 who are point blank with the shotgun. It's pretty bad.

Yeah, iIrc the Halo 3 shotgun was pretty good, even on a bad connection. The Halo 2 shotgun felt like you were firing blanks.

Maybe to you kiddies, but I always felt like it was the other way around vOv

I raped with the Halo 2 shotgun. The Halo 3 one was damn near useless because you had to shove it in your opponent's eye socket for it to mean anything at all...and if he/she had a hammer, you were fucked anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I raped with the Halo 2 shotgun. The Halo 3 one was damn near useless because you had to shove it in your opponent's eye socket for it to mean anything at all...and if he/she had a hammer, you were fucked anyways.

---

yep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I raped with the Halo 2 shotgun. The Halo 3 one was damn near useless because you had to shove it in your opponent's eye socket for it to mean anything at all...and if he/she had a hammer, you were fucked anyways.

---

Yeah, who would have guessed that a shotgun is only effective at close range?

Who would have guessed that when confronted by an opponent with a MUCH better close range weapon, the shotgun would lose?

:allears:

Don't know if you guys have seen this yet or not. But here's an article talking about the upcoming beta and beta maps.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/108/1082381p1.html

>Swordbase, described as the child of Prisoner and Boarding Action

I fucking came.

Quote:

---

child of Prisoner

---

That's it, I'm buying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen

Yeah, who would have guessed that a shotgun is only effective at close range?

Who would have guessed that when confronted by an opponent with a MUCH better close range weapon, the shotgun would lose?

:allears:

---

Typically the average range of a shotgun is around 40-50 yards. For some odd reason or another video game developers (and some other misinformed individuals) seem to get the idea that shotguns are only effective for a good 5 feet. That really annoys me because that's completely and totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeeKup

Typically the average range of a shotgun is around 40-50 yards. For some odd reason or another video game developers (and some other misinformed individuals) seem to get the idea that shotguns are only effective for a good 5 feet. That really annoys me because that's completely and totally wrong.

---

It's in the best interest of gameplay that powerful weapons have their shortcomings. I'm sure we're all well aware that video games are no place for realism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehoodedsmack

It's in the best interest of gameplay that powerful weapons have their shortcomings. I'm sure we're all well aware that video games are no place for realism.

---

It's worse when Video games attempt to be even moderately realistic, and then use the "we're not realistic" excuse when they get it completely wrong. The fact that the game is close combat for most of the time is extremely unrealistic, and any attempts at being realistic are ludicrous. Not that what I'm saying matters.

Either way, thanks for reminding me of something when I get my tagset ready for my next project Teekup.

Agreeing with the three above posts. My question to the "powerful weapons have limits" thing though: Couldn't the shotgun just be a rare item like the rockets/stuff like that? Sure, it may not feel right after 10+ years of the shotgun being ranked with the normal stuff, but still.

Then again, like Dwood said, they can just admit that their game is unrealistic and be done with this stupid industry-ruining "HURR REALISTIC" idea and finally have a reason to be creative again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeeKup

Typically the average range of a shotgun is around 40-50 yards. For some odd reason or another video game developers (and some other misinformed individuals) seem to get the idea that shotguns are only effective for a good 5 feet.

---

Don't mean to get offtopic, but Just Cause 2 seems to acknowledge that 40-50 yards. The damn AI EATS my fucking health with shotguns, even when far away. Makes me want to cry

Also, if they wanted they could just as easily write off saying that some kind of round was used which gives it more instant UMPH! but at the sacrifice of range. That and they said that in previous games (or was it just Halo2 or 3?) the projectiles sometimes went outside the reticule? Something which DOESN'T happen in Reach.

In the end: artistic liberties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Don't mean to get offtopic, but Just Cause 2 seems to acknowledge that 40-50 yards. The damn AI EATS my fucking health with shotguns, even when far away. Makes me want to cry

Also, if they wanted they could just as easily write off saying that some kind of round was used which gives it more instant UMPH! but at the sacrifice of range. That and they said that in previous games (or was it just Halo2 or 3?) the projectiles sometimes went outside the reticule? Something which DOESN'T happen in Reach.

In the end: artistic liberties.

---

Only continuing this because there's nothing else to talk about.... I know it's like the water + gravity in vidya game argument but i'm bored. :P

Read only if you want to knwo the effect of Water and Gravity in a video game

Yeah but that explanation would be bunk because there's no real way to transfer power/force without transferring speed and size. I'd buy the "UMPH" argument if they used the "NEW TECH" argument but currently they're trying to explain human weapon behavior based on already existing tech. With already existing tech you'd have to basically have hollow bbs for that to work, which at that point there's nothing out of that because they're so light they'd do no damage or they'd go MUCH farther than 5 feet.

Artistic Liberties my rear end. If there were artistic Liberties the UNSC would have destroyed a covenant cruiser by repurposing their antigravity mechanisms.

God, the shotgun in Halo 3 was just terrible.
It took about 2 hits to kill someone at close range.
Even against The Flood and they've always been about a 1 hit kill at close range.

And on top of that the H3 shotgun looked retarded.

Artistic liberties to tell the story they came up with :/. I mean, come on, it's a game. Look at some of the explosions and effects used in Hollywood movies. It can be no different there.

Neither medium are true reality and thus no one should hold them to any such standards such as reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Don't mean to get offtopic, but Just Cause 2 seems to acknowledge that 40-50 yards. The damn AI EATS my fucking health with shotguns, even when far away. Makes me want to cry

Also, if they wanted they could just as easily write off saying that some kind of round was used which gives it more instant UMPH! but at the sacrifice of range. That and they said that in previous games (or was it just Halo2 or 3?) the projectiles sometimes went outside the reticule? Something which DOESN'T happen in Reach.

In the end: artistic liberties.

---

This.

What I was saying was just that I felt like the shotgun in Halo 3 had no merits. It was bad at medium range, and almost equally bad at point-blank. I just hope whatever they do in Halo: Reach, it maintains a useful position in the weapons lineup instead of being completely cast to the wayside in favour of the Hammer and the Sword. Because bullets are cooler. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

What I think is funny is how the weapons technology steadily moves backwards as the series progresses. On the human side for example, there's the shotgun. In Halo 1, it could 1 shot people at a considerable range. In Halo 2 the 1 shot kill range was toned down quite a bit, but you could still 2 shot people from a good distance. In Halo 3, the shotgun can 2 shot people from 3 inches away and 1 shot them if you're shoving it down their throat.

---

you obviously know nothing about shotguns in videogames. They realized how stupid it was to have a shotgun be able to 2 shot people from a good distance, so they toned it down for balance.


I mean shit, they have nukes in halo's story, but you don't use them in the game because that would be boring. I too prefer the halo 2 shotgun over the nerfed one. I was just defending a developers opinion. I was insisting that gameplay is better than realism. Realistically, a charged plasma pistol would fuck you up something horrible, and that would be boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathen

you obviously know nothing about shotguns in videogames. They realized how stupid it was to have a shotgun be able to 2 shot people from a good distance, so they toned it down for balance.


I mean shit, they have nukes in halo's story, but you don't use them in the game because that would be boring. I too prefer the halo 2 shotgun over the nerfed one. I was just defending a developers opinion. I was insisting that gameplay is better than realism. Realistically, a charged plasma pistol would fuck you up something horrible, and that would be boring.

---

Yeah shotguns being useful is totally stupid, every weapon should be helpless against the BR from 5 feet away good idea

p.s. way to get mad over rep

so the focus rifle...thoughts on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevlag

so the focus rifle...thoughts on that?

---

It looks awesome.
It's a battle sniper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

Yeah shotguns being useful is totally stupid, every weapon should be helpless against the BR from 5 feet away good idea

p.s. way to get mad over rep

---

PROTIP: Armor Lock

To the kids arguig about Halo 2 vs Halo 3 shotgun. Halo 2 was host dependent, good connection or host gave you incredible shotgun ability and Halo 3 is server side so everyone can use it the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevlag

so the focus rifle...thoughts on that?

---

kick-ass.

everything else(except the plasma repeater), suck-ass.

But 99% of the kills you got in Halo 3 were AR + Melee so the shotgun was always win.

And shotgun > sword and hammer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cagerrin

kick-ass.

everything else(except the plasma repeater), suck-ass.

---

is the repeater replacing the plasma rifle?

also anyone else notice the elites are wielding their weapons with BOTH hands, not just the larger ones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevlag

is the repeater replacing the plasma rifle?

also anyone else notice the elites are wielding their weapons with BOTH hands, not just the larger ones

---

In multiplayer, yes, because they wanted the elites to have a more powerful AR equivalent. In SP the plasma rifle will still be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siliconmaster

In multiplayer, yes, because they wanted the elites to have a more powerful AR equivalent. In SP the plasma rifle will still be there.

---

i see, so plasma rifle in SP and Repeater in MP?

I'm gonna be whoring the Plasma repeater in multiplayer...even as a Spartan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I'm gonna be whoring the Plasma repeater in multiplayer...even as a Spartan.

---

have fun, the AR looks good to me, as long as there is no longer any BR spam I'm ok

Nobody has any comments on the pistol?

Yes, surprised noticed nobody said anything. According to one of the latest updates, it zooms, kills in 5 shots, and headshots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I'm gonna be whoring the Plasma repeater in multiplayer...even as a Spartan.

---

Hell yes. _o/