Halo: Anniversary - The Halo 1 remake (fuck anyone who calls it "halo ce" remake)

The Halo 3 shotgun required you to put yourself in immediate danger to work properly. The CE one did not. It didn't have to hit vital organs, because it would blow limbs off from a distance and if the arms (sometimes only the beating arm is necessary) are gone, you're fine. But let's not also forget that each pellet seemed to do roughly equivalent damage to the pistol, which means that when shots did connect with the torso, that form was going down in one or two pellet hits. It may get back up, just like with the pistol, but you just keep putting shells down range. Not a problem when you have 72 of them. The challenge came in metering out your ammo and maneuvering so you don't get yourself mobbed on the reload. At the ranges the Halo 3 shotgun is effective, the CE one does just as well at and has a faster recover time to boot. No, Flood combat in Halo 3 was a pain in the ass because it either forced you to get within melee range to deal damage with your best anti-Flood guns, or it pelted you from afar, impervious to any good anti-Flood gun, which you would be carrying because you are fighting the Flood. And the Needler doesn't lock at range.

And you can't bring cadaver shredding into the comparison, because there was no reinfection mechanic in CE. It doesn't matter if the shotty shreds the body or not because it doesn't have to.

Your shotgun argument is thus invalid on all counts.

As for the cross-hair: you call it a minor issue, but did you ever stop to consider that it may be a contributor to Halo's condition as a relatively unpopular multiplayer game on Xbox Live compared to the competition? People may feel like something is wrong with the game, but can't put their finger on it. Also, if 89% are happy, but you can get 90% happy if you center it, it's worth it to center it. I fail to see how you fail to see the logic in that idea. We're not suggesting they patch the game, as nice as that would be, but for future installments.

E: I feel compelled to ask this. Bobblehob, did you even play the first Halo game in any real capacity?

bobble i sometimes wonder if you like to just go against the grain. i dont mean to belittle you, so please dont read this as me telling you off or anything, but what ejburke posted is really less opinion and more fact. in terms of the brain being fooled and not explicitly understanding what the perspective issue is, hes completely right.

like i just said, i never knew why halo 2 and 3 felt so odd to play. i adjusted to it, but even now sometimes when i play it ill feel a little claustrophobic. that never happens to me with halo 1. until now, i knew there was an issue, but i couldnt put my finger on WHAT the issue was. is it the lower reticle? i dont know. im not saying for a fact that it is, but there could very well be a connection.

as for shotguns, im going to show you what the issue is (spoilered for space):

ignore the first 3 kills, because those guys all had their shields down. watch the 4th kill. he had to follow up with a melee to get the kill at THAT range?

i cant even tell whats happening for the first couple kills, but he needs melees to finish most of them. thats besides the point though, look at that last kill. had to shoot him 3 times at a close range.

this isnt the clip i was looking for but this is another good example. look at this, half the time he has to melee to get the kill. its totally inconsistent.

as for halo 1,

this footage is absolutely painful to watch, but the guy does use a shotgun the whole game. its really the only decent halo 1 shotgun footage i can find. ill get on and record some if this video doesnt end up working. watch at 4:30. thats the least grenade spamy example i can find in this video.

i apologize for the lack of halo 1 shotgun footage. if its really unbearable, i can get online and try to record some.
E: gee i guess i shouldnt forget to mention what comparison im making here. my bad. the idea isnt that the halo 1 shotgun kills consistently at a greater range, its that it DOES ANYTHING at a greater range. that guy in that video really isnt very good, but i assure you i have very seldom had to follow up a shotgun kill in halo 1 with a melee, mainly because im so rarely in melee distance when it comes to shotguns in halo 1. thats the point here. i can engage the target from something other than point blank range and get RESULTS.

...it's late but I think I'm going to go replay 343 Guilty Spark and The Library in Anniversary. c:

I loved the Library! Two Betrayals was the shitty level, in my book. That said, Halo 1's trash is Halo 2's treasure.

E: You weren't kidding when you said that was painful to watch, Donut. Holy damn.

Who else got :flaccid: when hearnig Rock in a Hard Place?

By the way that was a god-awful example for the Shotgun argument. Get some footage from someone good.

wow. yeah that guitar solo :gonk:
also, pale rider? i dont like the new one. the strings just dont have enough power to convey the situation like the original imo.

I don't like any of the new ones. I'll just stick with the old ones. Also, for RAFSTW, it sounded more like a vocalist going "nanana naaaaa" in the background than strings. I don't know, this is whole soundtrack is one case where legit instruments kill it, though that's also the fault of the arrangement.

E: Where the fuck is my Pillar of Autumnmn music!? You know, the "Perilous Journey" song, the one they also used during the *awesome* Mongoose section of The Ark in Halo 3? I'm not seeing it in the new shit.

Your argument is invalid, because my opinion is different from yours and because I said so, cool logic there bro. H3 flood combat was not entirely based on short range combat, unlike that of CE, a battle rifle or carbine was a similarly effective weapon to combat the flood because of the ability to kill with single headshots. In CE the flood combat is entirely reliant on the shotgun. In H3 the shotgun had an extremely effective close range radius, higher than that of the CE shotgun, but because of that ability, the ability to take down multiple combat forms with a single shot at close range, it also had a slower reload time, and a smaller shell capacity, forcing the player to supplement it with one of the other fairly effective weapons to use against them.

In short, the main difference between the two games is that the shotgun is basically the only single weapon that gives you a chance against the flood, where as in H3, while it is still just as effective with each individual shot, it was given a smaller shell capacity to balance it and encourage the use of one of the many other effective weapons.

@Donut, Yes, I go against the grain of this forum on a regular basis, partially because I believe differently, and partially because a lot of the people on this forum are ridiculous self-righteous :P

The Flood in Halo 3 fall apart if you sneeze in their general direction. And I have first-hand experience that a point blank blast with the shotgun may or may not do a damn thing to them.

Best anti-Flood weapon in Halo 3: Brute Shot (melee)

Regarding the reticle position, you've got no right to criticize my argument, when yours is, "Dude, nobody cares."

Not that I'm comparing myself to Jason Jones, but if you ran into him 12 years ago (as your current self, but without knowledge of later games) and he told you he was going to "fix" FPS health, would you have replied, "That's ridiculous! Nobody complains about health! Everybody loves Half-Life!". Perhaps now you can see how your short-sighted mentality gets us nowhere. But perhaps not.