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

I've only found three skulls so far >.>

Either I suck at finding skulls or they're really well hidden...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

I've only found three skulls so far >.>

Either I suck at finding skulls or they're really well hidden...

---

What's your Gamertag?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcap

On multiple occasions, both Bungie and 343i have publicly referred to the campaign levels by the internal names.

---

Modacity is neither Bungie or 343I.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcap

On multiple occasions, both Bungie and 343i have publicly referred to the campaign levels by the internal names.

---

I stand corrected. But, it's like they come up with these non-names so they won't get attached to them and then they wind up getting attached to them anyway.

I'm still not comfortable using that nomenclature. Even if I knew off the top of my head what they all meant, I still wouldn't call them by those alphanumeric handles. I didn't work on the game for years and crunch like a motherfucker like they did, to the point where it was stapled into my cortex.

It's kind of like civilians walking around saying "I'm Oscar Mike." all the time. If you're in the military, that jargon serves a purpose and you're immersed in it, so it becomes natural. But out of context, it's kind of cringe-inducing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Though the "Anniversary" gametypes with the Halo 1 pistol have removed armour abilities, which should make some people happy.

---

It should, but from what I saw the Pistol doesn't come anywhere close to being like the H1 pistol. Still only 8 shots, slow ass ROF and bloom :\

I seem to recall being promised edited weapons and physics in Anniversary MP to make it feel more like H1. What happened to that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

I disagree. 3 and Reach are quite slower than H1 and 2 due to the massive damage nerf to all weapons.

But that's not the point. The point is if you didn't like Reach before, you're not going to like Anniversary MP. It does nothing to fix any of the game's problems.

---

I think the tiny maps of Halo 2, 3, and Reach all made the multiplayer a high speed, twitch-shooting clusterfuck. Halo 1 multiplayer has a very deliberate and calculated pace. That said, yeah. Reach multiplayer is permanently broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

I think the tiny maps of Halo 2, 3, and Reach all made the multiplayer a high speed, twitch-shooting clusterfuck. Halo 1 multiplayer has a very deliberate and calculated pace. That said, yeah. Reach multiplayer is permanently broken.

---

It really depends. On the big, vehicular maps which have always been more popular on HPC, yes the pace is slower. Take Halo 1 and put it on Chiron or Prisoner though, and it gets quite a bit twitchier.

Chiron is missing from HA10. I demand a refund.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Chiron is missing from HA10. I demand a refund.

---

Haven't you heard? They hate teleporters...

There are 3 Call of Duty games above Reach in terms of Xbox Live activity. The ball was dropped, clearly.

I was trying to come up with a list of post-Halo 1 mechanics that I didn't miss while playing Anniversary, but it was easier and faster just to list the things I DO miss.

1) Boarding
2) Updated vehicle controls (tank controls for scorpion, boosting, Banshee maneuvers)
3) Swapping weapons with marines

That's about it. Checkpointing could have been better. And the magnetism problem people were mentioning. But shit like dual wielding, equipment, armor abilities, the newer weapons and enemies, invincible companions -- can't say I miss any of that stuff.

What about you guys?

I miss sprinting.

I also miss having the game on PC with an editor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

There are 3 Call of Duty games above Reach in terms of Xbox Live activity. The ball was dropped, clearly.

I was trying to come up with a list of post-Halo 1 mechanics that I didn't miss while playing Anniversary, but it was easier and faster just to list the things I DO miss.

1) Boarding
2) Updated vehicle controls (tank controls for scorpion, boosting, Banshee maneuvers)
3) Swapping weapons with marines

That's about it. Checkpointing could have been better. And the magnetism problem people were mentioning. But shit like dual wielding, equipment, armor abilities, the newer weapons and enemies, invincible companions -- can't say I miss any of that stuff.

What about you guys?

---

Agreed. I was standing next to a enemy occupied ghost, and I apparently mistaken the game for reach and tried pressing the boarding button. The ghost instead turned towards me and ran me over...

^That too korn.

i feel like referencing the activity of people playing cod games is kind of inane considering how ridiculously well it sells. comparing anything to it is going to make the thing that isnt cod look bad.

as far as the multiplayer is concerned, did they increase the range on the shotgun? i know i talk about this a lot, but even on that fly-through video posted above, i was seeing places in the remade maps that did not have shotguns at all, when in the originals there were shotguns. like hangem high for example. there are 2 shotguns in that little tunnel room that overlooks the ground, but in anniversary, unless i just missed it completely, there isnt a single shotgun in there. i feel like they did all this stuff to make sure the pistol is as similar to its halo 1 counterpart, but ignored the shotgun completely, which makes a HUGE difference in how the game plays, at least on vehicle maps.

This game is so glitchy. First, a30 Halo failed to load. Then the game only allowed selecting levels up to a50 Truth and Reconciliation, despite making it all the way to b30 The Silent Cartographer. Then falling through bsp geometry. Then network desynchronization twice, where the non-host would see everyone frozen in place, but the host could still play just fine.

Also, the game's menus are really awful.

Lol, Arteen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

I miss sprinting.

I also miss having the game on PC with an editor.

---

I'm for sprinting as a normal part of the control scheme. I'm not a fan of it as an armor ability.

And maybe it's me, but I feel like I'm booking through Halo 1. I don't know what the actual movement speed numbers are, or how they compare, but there is definitely a sense of speed to Halo 1 that Reach is lacking. It feels to me like Halo 1's max speed is roughly the same as Reach's sprint speed, except you don't lower your weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donut

i feel like referencing the activity of people playing cod games is kind of inane considering how ridiculously well it sells. comparing anything to it is going to make the thing that isnt cod look bad.

---

You have a point, but Halo 3 hung in there pretty well with CoD 4. Also, the CoD playerbase which is spread out over multiple games is also spread out over multiple platforms. I guess it's an accomplishment that Reach beats out CoD 4 and World at War. I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arteen

This game is so glitchy. First, a30 Halo failed to load. Then the game only allowed selecting levels up to a50 Truth and Reconciliation, despite making it all the way to b30 The Silent Cartographer. Then falling through bsp geometry. Then network desynchronization twice, where the non-host would see everyone frozen in place, but the host could still play just fine.

Also, the game's menus are really awful.

---

whoa, I actually know what you're talking about!!

it's crazy!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

I'm for sprinting as a normal part of the control scheme. I'm not a fan of it as an armor ability.

And maybe it's me, but I feel like I'm booking through Halo 1. I don't know what the actual movement speed numbers are, or how they compare, but there is definitely a sense of speed to Halo 1 that Reach is lacking. It feels to me like Halo 1's max speed is roughly the same as Reach's sprint speed, except you don't lower your weapon.


You have a point, but Halo 3 hung in there pretty well with CoD 4. Also, the CoD playerbase which is spread out over multiple games is also spread out over multiple platforms. I guess it's an accomplishment that Reach beats out CoD 4 and World at War. I guess.

---

willing to bet that's because the crosshair's centered in the screen and you see more of the ground going by as you walk

Good call. I hadn't considered that. Sounds very plausible.

So, it's settled then? Low crosshairs are dumb?

Yes. Always have been, always will be. Death to 343I if they continue using that "feature."

Also, run speed is higher in Halo 1. They did say that they slowed you down in Reach because Spartan IIIs are not as bad-ass as Spartan IIs. You also jump way higher, obviously.

You mean, putting the fiction ahead of the gameplay actually made the game less fun to play? Say whaaaaaaaaat?

Somebody start an Occupy 343 thread. Let's get an agenda going. I'll absolutely take a teargas canister to the family jewels to get my message across.

343I are less than 1% of Halo players yet they control 100% of what goes into Halo. This isn't right! #occupy343industries

Bobblehob: it's terribly noticeable. It amplifies the effect of the already narrow field of view, it makes aiming awkward, especially for headshots, and it makes the weapon origins strange.

I seriously did not even notice the difference with the crosshair placement until I really started playing Reach, and even then It didn't really bother me.

I still don't understand why people are complaining about it tbh, it is almost unnoticeable.

And as far as player count goes, COD games have almost always had more players playing them, I mean in 2009 when MW2 came out, its numbers where High above that of Halo 3, even though Halo 3 is a superior game. Same with Black Ops and Reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Bobblehob: it's terribly noticeable. It amplifies the effect of the already narrow field of view, it makes aiming awkward, especially for headshots, and it makes the weapon origins strange.

---

I disagree, having played a total of about 14 days of reach since it has been out, as well as playing through the CE campaign atleast 20 times, as well as a few hundred hours of multiplayer, I really have not noticed it much. It definitely has never been noticeable enough frustrate or even bother me.

Maybe I'm biased, since I played Halo: Combat Evolved's campaign likely way over 200 times over the decade, and countless hours in multiplayer, on both platforms. But Halo 2 immediately threw me off balance with the low reticle position, and it has been awkward ever since. This isn't a case of "players need to adapt," it's a case of stupid, unnecessary design decision. I can't think of another shooter that does the same thing, and there's likely a reason for that.

Does anyone really know why they did it? And also, its not necessarily a stupid design decision, especially because most people don't even notice in the first place. Its not that big of a deal :P

I didn't even realise it was lower :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

There are 3 Call of Duty games above Reach in terms of Xbox Live activity. The ball was dropped, clearly.

I was trying to come up with a list of post-Halo 1 mechanics that I didn't miss while playing Anniversary, but it was easier and faster just to list the things I DO miss.

1) Boarding
2) Updated vehicle controls (tank controls for scorpion, boosting, Banshee maneuvers)
3) Swapping weapons with marines

That's about it. Checkpointing could have been better. And the magnetism problem people were mentioning. But shit like dual wielding, equipment, armor abilities, the newer weapons and enemies, invincible companions -- can't say I miss any of that stuff.

What about you guys?

---

It'd have to be the tank controls for the scorpion for me as well. The last time I played through the campaign it was so frustrating not being able to drive in one direction and shoot in another. Swapping weapons is great but iirc marines would sometimes kill you if they had a rocket launcher in the side seat of the warthog. Having 4 marines with 4 rocket launchers on a tank would be pretty boss though.

^
Like in Halo 2? Probably one of the game's few highlights: keeping all your rocket marines alive while on the Scorpion...holy boss, that was awesome carnage.

The low reticle pushes the combat horizon into a very cluttered section of screen real estate. Your weapon and its muzzle flash are totally in the way. That's why I walk around aiming at the ground, so I have an unobstructed view of the field. Of course, that puts me at a disadvantage when I have to quickly raise up to start fighting, but I could never get comfortable walking around with the crosshairs up and trying to look around my gun.

The only reason they do it is because their art direction wants you looking at more of the sky and less of the ground. So, they're better able to justify the time and money they put into the environments at the cost of my comfort playing their game. I don't appreciate it and Anniversary just reinforces my feelings on the subject.

Its not as if they moved it half the way down the screen or something, its really not that big of a difference, you guys make it seem as if it is a conspiracy against you or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

^
Like in Halo 2? Probably one of the game's few highlights: keeping all your rocket marines alive while on the Scorpion...holy boss, that was awesome carnage.

---

Especially with the low gravity skull on. There was nothing quite like having a marine shoot a rocket at a ghost on the bridge and have it miss, curve around, come back and hit on the side launching it a hundred feet in the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

...Halo 2 immediately threw me off balance with the low reticle position, and it has been awkward ever since. This isn't a case of "players need to adapt," it's a case of stupid, unnecessary design decision. I can't think of another shooter that does the same thing, and there's likely a reason for that.

---

Other games don't do it because they aren't Halo. Halo is innovative. Things like FP legs, more complex overlays (such as looking up/down) and multiple melee animations started (to what I can recall) in Halo 2. Same goes for the reticule placement, and I honestly think it was a great idea. It allows for a lower weapon origin that makes the gun look more like it's in your hands/against your shoulder (such as in Halo 3, which some of you may complain looked "stupid" but I honestly thought it looked great aesthetic-wise). It also allowed you to see more since the gun was lower and not covering so much of the screen.

Overall I just felt great paired along with Halo, and it's just another thing that makes Halo so unique among this slew of "Modern FPS games" these days.

Can't tell if trolling...

Clearly you have never played Tribes. Body parts rendered in first-person view is nothing new. Looking up and down has been around for almost two decades now and did not start with Halo. Multiple melee animations? Really? That kind of thing just comes with the technology advancements and is such a gimmick that it isn't even worth pointing out.

There are THREE things that Halo innovated:
1. Regenerating armour (which got mutilated into regenerating health all over the industry)
2. Limited weapon inventory (two guns, must manage strengths/weaknesses)
3. First-person shooter controls on console (copied by every other FPS on console ever since)

Everything else is a load of bologna. It doesn't make it look like it's in my hands, against my shoulder. It makes it look like it's in my hands, pressed under my arm-pit. If I'm staring straight ahead, I don't expect by gun to be pointing at crotch-level, thank you very much (not unless we get bonus points for nut-shots). We don't get to see more, because the FoV is still narrow, and all the guns just got bigger and bigger as the series progressed. But even then, guns obscuring the screen was never really an issue in any Halo game.

E: Fourth innovation: smooth combination of vehicle and infantry play.

He isn't trolling, you are just worrying way way too much about this xP

Maybe I am, but it legitimately makes the game hard to play for me. It's not like it's some minor detail that makes it annoying to play (like hit-scan or aim assist; I'm completely OK with bloom), it's borderline game-breaking. Why have a low cross-hair that makes some players uncomfortable when you can have a centered one that everyone is used to? Gears is centered, Battlefield is centered, Half-Life is centered, Quake is centered, Unreal Tournament is centered, and Halo: Combat Evolved is centered. I don't hear any complaints about cross-hair placement in ANY of those games. Ever.

Call of Duty is centred.

Not sure if that's proving my point or trying to say that centered is bad. Either way, Call of Duty is the biggest multiplayer hit this side of World of Warcraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

The low reticle pushes the combat horizon into a very cluttered section of screen real estate. Your weapon and its muzzle flash are totally in the way. That's why I walk around aiming at the ground, so I have an unobstructed view of the field. Of course, that puts me at a disadvantage when I have to quickly raise up to start fighting, but I could never get comfortable walking around with the crosshairs up and trying to look around my gun.

The only reason they do it is because their art direction wants you looking at more of the sky and less of the ground. So, they're better able to justify the time and money they put into the environments at the cost of my comfort playing their game. I don't appreciate it and Anniversary just reinforces my feelings on the subject.

---

I heard it was to prevent bullets from coming from the character's head.

either way I agree it's stupid and unnecessary, though I've grown used to it at this point.

I was just watching some gameplay footage of Halo 2, 3, and Reach and the issue is really no more complicated than it makes me uncomfortable. It's like I'm being pinned to the ground or something. In fact, that's the feeling exactly.

That, in addition to the weapons creating blind spots to the immediate right of the reticle. And in addition to the "slow" feeling of that perspective shift.

Look, I'm no fan of CoD, but even I must admit it "feels" good. That's a big reason it's so popular, because it feels "right" to a large number of people. I haven't felt competent at a Halo game since Halo 1. I thought it was just because I was getting old and blind, but now I realize it's because they don't feel as good as they used to (in terms of infantry combat).

I feel like a fucking ninja playing Anniversary.

Don't forget about the AI system Warsaw, which at the time was pretty amazing. I think Halo was the first to do 1 button grenades and melee, too.

But yeah, it's amazing just how much more fun this game is than its successors. Every time I notice some little detail I liked about Halo 1, I found myself thinking 'WHY DID THEY EVER CHANGE THAT?!'

Also, this is the only Halo game where an enemy with a sword elicits a reaction of 'aw FUCK a sword!' and not 'ooo, I get a sword!'

Sword Elites were kind of scary in Reach, because of those cheap bloated-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt shields of theirs. But really, it didn't matter that they had a sword; they could whack you with a pez dispenser and it would kill you in that game.

By the way, I'm glad swords disappear. Versus the Flood, I'll take 360-degree shotgun/pistol sprees over skill-free auto-lunging with a sword. Actually, I'll take a shotgun that works over the unreliable "point blank blast might instakill or it might do fuck-all -- your guess is as good as mine" versions they've been peddling.

Man, you guys are ridiculous.

They've got fair points. Hammer Brutes in H3 were scary because of the invincibility. H3 and H1 are my favorites of the series, H2 is downright awful and reach is a pretty poor entry to the franchise.

Don't forget Hammer Chieftains in ODST, especially when there were 2-3 of them coming at you in Firefight... Scary shit...

And yeah, I missed the powerful Halo 1 weapons. The shotgun is amazing, or should I say reliable? Looking at you Mister Halo 3 Shotgun that was worthless...

I meant ridiculous more talking about the reticle centering thing :P

Also, since when was the shotgun in H3 worthless, it may not have had as long range, but it still blew the shit out of everything.

The Halo 3 shotgun has always been worthless. The Halo 1 shotgun had good range and damage, the Halo 3 shotgun had poor damage and even poorer range.

EDIT: I forgot to mention its incredible shallow magazine capacity.

@Bobblehob: No they don't. It's almost like you're shooting bird-shot from an 8 gauge in Halo 2, 3, ODST, and Reach. I also NEVER clenched in Halo 1, but I always clench in the others. That's due to the shotgun's behaviour.

The shotgun was either an all-in gun or a fuck it all gun in Halo 2, 3, ODST, and Reach. That is to say, when you fired, you had to be so close that the target was a sure goner or you should just not bother. In Combat Evolved, you could begin an engagement from a somewhat medium range with the shotgun and close in. You could cut down several Flood combat forms from 20 metres away while the charged at you. Try that in Halo 2 and tell me how it goes.

Speaking of Flood, they were only ever "The Flood" in Halo: Combat Evolved for several reasons. First, they didn't have a retarded fungus/flower talking for them to make them comical; they were feral and that facelessness made then scary. Second they came in swarms. None of the other Halo games can compare when talking about the vast mobs of infection forms you had to deal with on a regular basis (Halo 3 had a few exceptions), and the combat forms were the most aggressive here than in any other entry. I'll be damned if that fucker didn't just hit me in the face and then rocket me at point blank. Also, fuck pure forms. Terribad idea that didn't really fit with the nature of the Flood.

@Masters: remember how the gold elites in the first game would always blindside the shit out of you? Those fuckers were scary with plasma rifles, let alone swords.

Yuss, nostalgia!

I'll actually disagree on the Halo 2 Gravemind. He was more shades of gray than he was in Halo 3 where he turned into a typical, maniacally laughing evil-doer. He was calm and cryptic and that's what I enjoyed. When he started raging in 3 I just stopped caring. Halo 2 added more to their fear factor with "High Charity" and a little bit from "The Oracle". The first time I stepped into the lower levels of High Charity after dealing with the few flood on top and the brutes, I just froze. The lower corridors had gone dark, green mist was everywhere, the ambient gurgling and hissing just freaked me out.

I agree with Teek. The areas where your on the flood infested high charity in Halo 2 were awesome. I thought Halo 2 was actually an awesome game campaign wise.

I am not impressed with what they did to the bridges on AOTCR. They could have done more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TVTyrant

I agree with Teek. The areas where your on the flood infested high charity in Halo 2 were awesome. I thought Halo 2 was actually an awesome game campaign wise.

---

We've had this debate, over whether or not Halo 2 had a good campaign. I'm not going to restart it, I'll just say that it was very polarizing. I will concede that Gravemind was alright in Halo 2, but I still prefer the feral Flood (even though organized Flood are obviously a bigger threat and SHOULD be scarrier). As for that segment of the game on High Charity: fuck it, it was (and still is) pitch black on my TV and I was just swearing at the screen because my flashlight would neither stay on nor penetrate deeper than two feet. Blind combat is not fun combat.

Fake E: Also, Flood had no freaky music in Halo 2. They got their own damn theme piece in Halo: Combat Evolved! A theme that was not in ANY of the other games.

Man, the flood in h2 were scary as shit, I can remember the noises they made, especially in the second library level where you play as the Arbiter, hearing those bastards screaming as a ton of them came to attack was just one of those moments that made that game so much fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

I meant ridiculous more talking about the reticle centering thing :P

Also, since when was the shotgun in H3 worthless, it may not have had as long range, but it still blew the shit out of everything.

---

It's not ridiculous. Do you know why FPS is not a popular genre in Japan? It's because the perspective makes a significant portion of their population ill. Lots of people have trouble with 3D in TV and movies. Point is, the human brain is skeptical and sensitive to being "fooled". You can't dismiss seemingly small details when it comes to stuff like this. You might be in the 80% that feels comfortable playing the games, but if that number can be 90% by returning to a centered perspective, then that is a correction that needs to be made.

There's also the fact that people don't often know what they want until it's given to them. I think even that 80% (a number I pulled from my ass) that claim they don't mind the lower crosshairs would gain benefit from a centered screen. They just wouldn't realize it.

By the way, if you were in shotgun range in H3, you were better off just doing a melee attack. Easier, more consistent damage, more reliable. ::sigh::

The only returning soundtrack I recall is this one:


A variant of it played as you were escaping in The Oracle. What' was excessively irritating is that it was NOT on either of the Halo 2 soundtracks. vOv

you are talking strictly flood themes, right?
E: imma hop on this reticle bandwagon. i specifically recall being uncomfortable with halo 2, and now that i think about it, halo 3 sometimes too. i dont know if i would attribute that to a lower reticle, but its a problem i never had with halo 1 xbox's 90 degree FOV.

cant say i ever had the issue with reach though. did reach have a centered reticle?
E: no it does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

It's not ridiculous. Do you know why FPS is not a popular genre in Japan? It's because the perspective makes a significant portion of their population ill. Lots of people have trouble with 3D in TV and movies. Point is, the human brain is skeptical and sensitive to being "fooled". You can't dismiss seemingly small details when it comes to stuff like this. You might be in the 80% that feels comfortable playing the games, but if that number can be 90% by returning to a centered perspective, then that is a correction that needs to be made.

There's also the fact that people don't often know what they want until it's given to them. I think even that 80% (a number I pulled from my ass) that claim they don't mind the lower crosshairs would gain benefit from a centered screen. They just wouldn't realize it.

By the way, if you were in shotgun range in H3, you were better off just doing a melee attack. Easier, more consistent damage, more reliable. ::sigh::

---

It is completely ridiculous. If the issue of having the Reticle in the center of the screen was really that serious of a turn off to people who played Halo, then there would have actually been some mention of it by this point, and depending on how serious the complaint was, Bungie would have done something. As you may have noticed, there are plenty of us here who have played the games for years and years, from CE to Reach and haven't even noticed the difference, much less been turned off of a game because of it. This isn't a seemingly small detail, this is a miniscule ridiculous detail.

As far as the H3 shotgun goes, I never had trouble hitting things with it at close range. TBH when it was at close range, it was more consistent than the CE shotgun. Also... If you seriously think doing a melee attack against someone in H3 is better than a close up shotgun blast, you must be out of your mind. If you ever go back to playing H3 online, do yourself a favor and never try to melee someone with a shotgun.

I always thought the h3 shotty was pretty decent. H3 was nearly perfect imo, it's my favorite out of the series when excluding custom edition.

It has been mentioned, Bobble. As is the Bungie way since Halo 2, they throw complaints out the window if you aren't an MLG representative. And did you just seriously call the Halo 3 shotgun more reliable than the Combat Evolved one? Hell. No. Not a chance in hell. The CE one was infallible to the point of the mass numbers of unskilled players bitching, and that's why they nerfed it so badly in all subsequent titles. Granted, I'm not in the "melee instead of shotgun" camp, but in no way was the Halo 3 shotgun better than the original. There is as close to zero possibility as you can get of you being in the right on this point, because the evidence is in the sequels.


@Teek: Not it. That's the bridge music in Halo 1. I'm talking about "Devils... Monsters..." See below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpOVKbM7vlA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

It is completely ridiculous. If the issue of having the Reticle in the center of the screen was really that serious of a turn off to people who played Halo, then there would have actually been some mention of it by this point, and depending on how serious the complaint was, Bungie would have done something. As you may have noticed, there are plenty of us here who have played the games for years and years, from CE to Reach and haven't even noticed the difference, much less been turned off of a game because of it. This isn't a seemingly small detail, this is a miniscule ridiculous detail.

As far as the H3 shotgun goes, I never had trouble hitting things with it at close range. TBH when it was at close range, it was more consistent than the CE shotgun. Also... If you seriously think doing a melee attack against someone in H3 is better than a close up shotgun blast, you must be out of your mind. If you ever go back to playing H3 online, do yourself a favor and never try to melee someone with a shotgun.

---

It's irrelevant whether it's a "serious" problem. If it makes even a 1% difference -- even 1% of 1% -- it is stubborn and foolish to keep doing the offset per5spective. Feel and comfort trumps aesthetic vanity. Every time.

There is a term in medicine called, "sub-clinical". That is when someone is ill, but not to a noticeable degree. They lack the frame of reference to know how they should feel and they attribute the symptoms that present to some other condition.

I am proposing that the adverse effects of the offset perspective have been "subclinical" and that steps should be taken to correct the problem. You can disagree, but I am being perfectly rational, ie. not ridiculous.

Also, I wasn't talking about multiplayer. I was talking about Flood combat. But there's a whole other discussion about whether Bungie should be trying to tune the weapons to be identical in each mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejburke

It's irrelevant whether it's a "serious" problem. If it makes even a 1% difference -- even 1% of 1% -- it is stubborn and foolish to keep doing the offset per5spective. Feel and comfort trumps aesthetic vanity. Every time. There is a term in medicine called, "sub-clinical". That is when someone is ill, but not to a noticeable degree. They lack the frame of reference to know how they should feel and they attribute the symptoms that present to some other condition. I am proposing that the adverse effects of the offset perspective have been "subclinical" and that steps should be taken to correct the problem. You can disagree, but I am being perfectly rational, ie. not ridiculous. Also, I wasn't talking about multiplayer. I was talking about Flood combat. But there's a whole other discussion about whether Bungie should be trying to tune the weapons to be identical in each mode.

---

What... This is ridiculous, no one is going to waste the time if it makes 1% of 1% of a difference. It isn't stubborn and foolish, you are blowing an unbelievably minor issue, way out of proportion. Also, if you can actually find the purpose of lowering the reticle, formally stated somewhere I might believe you, but until then, don't continue with your aesthetic vanity claims.

In Halo 3 the shotgun vs flood was still one of the most effective weapons, if any flood form, excluding the pure forms, was close to you, and you fired the shotgun, not only did it kill what you aimed at, it ripped the body to shreds, so that no infection forms could re-animate it. In CE the shotgun has the frightening ability to clip and randomly miss vital parts of flood you aim at, either popping limbs or not killing things it should have.

It's kind of hard for a weapon in Halo 3 to NOT be effective against the flood when they drop into giblets when they take like 3 bullets from any weapon in the game.

The flood lost their appeal in 3 because they didn't swarm as much as they did in 1 and they were piss easy to fight.

@ Warsaw: I know...Shadows was the only song to come back. They traded devils...monsters... for a dry and lackluster song.

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.

wait wait, what? are you saying halo 3's shotgun was good for engaging multiple enemies with a single shot? because thats just not an accurate statement. halo 1's shotgun, by everything both you and i have said, is far superior for that, and im not just talking flood here.

ill be home in 2 days. if i need to break out the xbox and record my own footage to show you what i mean then i will do it. i have this discussion enough anyway.
E: @ bobble
E2: i just re-read that. you didnt just call my argument invalid, did you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeeKup

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

---

i know :(, i felt bad even posting it. i just literally could not find any other shotgun examples, let alone ones with a steady frame rate

I want our cinematic and Sgt Johnson mustache gripe sessions back :mech:

not cereal

And you can totally one-shot Flood with the pistol in Halo 1. They'll probably get back up, but to say there is no range to Halo 1 Flood combat is, in fact, ridiculous. As in, completely contrary to facts. Not "ridiculous" by your definition, which is, "I don't think so, bro." The Library c20 and 343GS c10 were long-range Flood levels where the pistol got a lot of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donut

wait wait, what? are you saying halo 3's shotgun was good for engaging multiple enemies with a single shot? because thats just not an accurate statement. halo 1's shotgun, by everything both you and i have said, is far superior for that, and im not just talking flood here.

ill be home in 2 days. if i need to break out the xbox and record my own footage to show you what i mean then i will do it. i have this discussion enough anyway.
E: @ bobble
E2: i just re-read that. you didnt just call my argument invalid, did you?

i know :(, i felt bad even posting it. i just literally could not find any other shotgun examples, let alone ones with a steady frame rate

---

Nah, I was referring to the last thing Warsaw said, where he stated "Your argument is invalid"

As for what you said about the Shotguns, our original discussion was about its effectiveness against flood, not in multiplayer games, and my contention is that it at close range, is just as effective in H3 as it is in CE, but not at longer ranges. I also said that the weapon was balanced a little more because there are many other options in h3 when it comes to killing flood, whereas in CE, the shotgun really is the only effective choice. I can recall killing multiple enemies with one blast on H3 flood levels on a regular basis. But, always having to have another weapon like the mauler or plasma rifle handy because of the small shell capacity.

Quote:

---

And you can totally one-shot Flood with the pistol in Halo 1. They'll probably get back up, but to say there is no range to Halo 1 Flood combat is, in fact, ridiculous. As in, completely contrary to facts. Not "ridiculous" by your definition, which is, "I don't think so, bro." The Library and 343GS were long-range Flood levels where the pistol got a lot of work.

---

No, my definition of ridiculous is an over-reaction on your part towards a slight difference in reticle position in the game, when there is no evidence to support your claim. You say that it might just be what causes people to dislike the game more, or that it might just be what hurts peoples eyes, or that it might just have some sort of hidden destructive power that slowly melts someones brain, where as moving it a cm towards the top of the screen instantly cures all these troubles.

Also, you defeated your own argument about the pistol within the first sentence, you shoot them in the head, and they get back up. In H3, you use a BR or Carbine and shoot them in the head, and they don't get back up. Simple as that. Where the pistol could sometimes be effective, it pales in comparison to the shotgun in CE, whereas the other choices in H3 were more balanced and gave the player more options.

Cool story, make things up that are entirely not true and spout it as fact. It's not an opinion, what I declared in my last post. I just described how the gun and its targets actually behave in the game. You also, again, failed to think your argument through. The pistol was a fantastic tool against the Flood in CE, it's actually my preferred weapon against them. The Assault Rifle works wonders up close. The Plasma Rifle and Plasma Pistol are glorious at medium-long range AND up close. The only terrible weapons are the Needler and the Rocket Launcher. The shotgun was not the end-all, be-all of anti-Flood combat, it still runs out quick with the way Halo CE's combat works and it still has an appreciably long reload. The CE iteration could hit more targets at once than the Halo 2/3/Reach one could ever hope to. I've never once gotten a double kill with the H3 shotty that wasn't the result of the two forms being lined up. I get triple kills and even quadruple kills in CE at 20, 30 metres out.

At any rate, we are arguing over which iteration is the better, more reliable weapon. In light of that fact, you just shot yourself in the foot with the lower ammunition capacity, shit range, and slow reload that you are trying to tout are the result of a feature in Halo 3, a feature I have never experienced in the game. And if we are going to go with your argument that the shotgun in Halo CE was the penultimate gun for Flood combat, well...yeah, I don't even need to go any further.

I don't think you played the first game much after maybe one or two playthroughs. You have no idea how to use the weapons, and you have a very limited perspective on how to approach combat. If you have played it more, you didn't learn much.

PS: Why are we only focusing on Flood combat while talking about the usefulness of the shotgun? The CE one was also brilliant against Sentinels and Covenant. The Halo 2/3 one was not. The Reach one was mediocre against Covenant.

P.P.S. So you are allowed to just flat out call peoples' arguments invalid with no back-up, and I can't call yours invalid even after providing ample evidence? You know, the part where you triple-posted, and one of the posts said "Your argument is invalid" and nothing else? And then you deleted it? You can't call people self-righteous without yourself being one and the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Cool story, make up shit that's entirely not true and spout it as fact. It's not an opinion. I just described how the gun and its targets actually behave in the game. You also, again, failed to think your argument through. The pistol was a fantastic tool against the Flood in CE, it's actually my prefered weapon against them. The Assault Rifle works wonders up close. The Plasma Rifle and Plasma Pistol are glorious at medium-long range AND up close. The only terrible weapons are the Needler and the Rocket Launcher. The shotgun was not the end-all, be-all of anti-Flood combat, it still runs it and it still has an appreciably long reload. The CE iteration could hit more targets at once than the Halo 2/3/Reach one could ever hope to. I've never once gotten a double kill with the H3 shotty that wasn't the result of the two forms being lined up. I get triple kills and even quadruple kills in CE at 20, 30 metres out.

At any rate, we are arguing over which iteration is the better, more reliable weapon. In light of that fact, you just shot yourself in the foot with the lower ammunition capacity, shit range, and slow reload that you are trying to tout are the result of a feature in Halo 3, a feature I have never experienced in the game. And if we are going to go with your argument that the shotgun in Halo CE was the penultimate gun for Flood combat, well...yeah, I don't even need to go any further.

I don't think you played the first game much after maybe one or two playthroughs. You have no idea how to use the weapons, and you have a very limited perspective on how to approach combat. If you have played it more, you didn't learn much.

PS: Why are we only focusing on Flood combat while talking about the usefulness of the shotgun? The CE one was also brilliant against Sentinels and Covenant. The Halo 2/3 one was not. The Reach one was mediocre against covenant.

---

Are you out of your mind? I have played through the CE campaign 30+ times over the past 6 years since I was introduced to Halo. The pistol is somewhat effective at longer ranges, but is only good against small numbers of exposed enemies, the ar and plasma rifle are average against flood, increasing as the range decreases, the needler is moderately effective. If you somehow think that the shotgun is not the main weapon that was given to the player for use against the Flood, then why is it that it doesn't even appear in the campaign before the first level that the Flood appears in hmm?

My argument which you conveniently ignored once again, is that the H3 shotgun was and is just as effective against flood at close range as that of the CE shotgun, but because of the balancing worked into the game, it has a longer reload and smaller shell capacity because there are so many other weapons to be used in its place, some of which can outperform the shotgun, whereas in CE the shotgun is by far the best anti flood weapon.

And I've played it 200+ times over the last 10 years, because I'm a whore for games with single player. Want to fight about it? Yes, it is the anti-Flood gun as prescribed by Bungie, but that doesn't mean it is the best at it. I find it far easier to dispatch the Flood with a couple of well placed grenades and a few M6D rounds/MA5B bursts to mop up. It actually uses less shots for the same kill ratio, and ammunition is more abundant.

I'm not ignoring your argument because I'm being stubborn, I'm ignoring it because it is irrelevant to the real debate, which is whether or not the shotgun was at its best in CE in all aspects. You got so hung up on the Flood argument and I was dumb enough to go along with it for two novels posts. Hell, I only mentioned that I liked the Flood better as enemies in the first game, and didn't even mention the shotgun in that one post.

Oh-ho, look at you, you questioned the amount of time I had spent playing the game, so I told you, then you decided to make it into a pissing match.

The CE shotgun is the most effective single weapon to use against the flood in the entire game, period. Others may do the job in tandem very well, I am not disputing that, but the shotgun remains.

My original argument/disagreement with what you said is that at close range the H3 shotgun is just as effective as its CE counterpart, and you brought up the use of it against the flood as an example, after which I used the same example to base my posts. You actually replied to a post of mine aimed at someone else when the H3 shotgun was brought into the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

No, my definition of ridiculous is an over-reaction on your part towards a slight difference in reticle position in the game, when there is no evidence to support your claim. You say that it might just be what causes people to dislike the game more, or that it might just be what hurts peoples eyes, or that it might just have some sort of hidden destructive power that slowly melts someones brain, where as moving it a cm towards the top of the screen instantly cures all these troubles.

---

You want me to prove my hypothesis? I never claimed I could do that. I never claimed I was right. I CAN and HAVE presented evidence that back up its plausibility.

Exhibit A: The most popular FPS's in the world right now use a centered perspective.

Exhibit B: The most well-liked Halo game uses a centered perspective.

Exhibit C: The popularity of Halo is waning.

Exhibit D: Entertainment must adapt to the human mind, the human mind will not adapt to entertainment.

I am building a case. I can't outright prove a correlation. But it stands to reason that there would be no harm in and potentially something to gain from restoring the reticle to the center. It is strategically sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

Also, you defeated your own argument about the pistol within the first sentence, you shoot them in the head, and they get back up. In H3, you use a BR or Carbine and shoot them in the head, and they don't get back up. Simple as that. Where the pistol could sometimes be effective, it pales in comparison to the shotgun in CE, whereas the other choices in H3 were more balanced and gave the player more options.

---

I have a new hypothesis: you are from a different planet and you're playing different games.

A Flood knocked down with the BR or Carbine in H3 will get back up if an infection form gets to it. It's the same fucking thing as knocking a Flood down with the pistol in Halo 1, except there's no infection mechanic going on. The reanimation is handled by an invisible dice roll.

What you present as evidence for your claim is much more likely a result of one of many other factors. Every FPS excluding Halo has center targeting that I have seen, yet many of those FPS's are not nearly as popular as Halo is.

As far as CE being the most popular Halo game, that is debatable, but I don't have numbers to support anything so I won't continue on that route.

The popularity of most game series wanes after a large number of releases, and also considering that a fairly large amount of the fan base couldn't handle the more noticable changes in Reach's multiplayer, I think there is a much much more plausible explaination for this point.

As for the last one, I don't know how to respond to it, considering just how vague it is. It seems far more likely that people would respond negatively to a much more noticeable visual stimuli, like bright and or strobing lights, as well as brighter, and luminescent colors(all of which have been known to cause epileptic seizures in some), rather than the simple position of a small circle on the screen.

It is far more reasonable to assume that other factors caused these things that you consider the reticle position to be a factor in.

As far as the H3 flood infection is concerned, it is possible to prevent the reanimation of the flood that you kill with a head shot, by disposing of infection forms, the two situations are not the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

It seems far more likely that people would respond negatively to a much more noticeable visual stimuli, like bright and or strobing lights, as well as brighter, and luminescent colors(all of which have been known to cause epileptic seizures in some), rather than the simple position of a small circle on the screen.

---

It is not the "simple position of a small circle". The vanishing line is lowered to coincide with the reticle. Every polygon in the scene is drawn differently because of the shift in perspective. And yes, the human brain can pick out this difference. And yes, the human brain can disagree with what it sees. Consciously or unconsciously. My hypothesis has a basis in established facts which you seem blissfully unaware of.

Does anybody know if there's a CE mod where someone tried to lower the reticle? With all the attempts made to recreate Halo 2 or 3 with CE, you'd think someone would have. Although, as I said, it ain't as simple as drawing a UI element a little bit further down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

I want our cinematic and Sgt Johnson mustache gripe sessions back :mech:

not cereal

---

All of Cortana's animations are nothing but derp. Why use mocap ever even? I didn't hear any Warthogs crash in the hangar on a10. What happened to the longsword?! Who are you and what happened to Captain Keyes. Proto-gravemind. TELEPORTATION RINGS! Foehammer is a statue. Halo didn't blow up properly. Why is there sound in space?! The infection form that jumped on the marine doesn't move when the other marine picks it up. The Chief runs weird. GUILTY SPARK'S LIGHTNING!

There's some topics for a gripe session. Additionally: Cereal

Johnson's 'stache. It deserves to be a meme.

http://images.cheezburger.com/comple...b33b6e0c42.jpg

ARE YOU A WIZARD!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeeKup

ARE YOU A WIZARD!?

---

No. I'm one of those icky straights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobblehob

My original argument/disagreement with what you said is that at close range the H3 shotgun is just as effective as its CE counterpart, and you brought up the use of it against the flood as an example, after which I used the same example to base my posts. You actually replied to a post of mine aimed at someone else when the H3 shotgun was brought into the argument.

---

H1 Shotgun can kill a Major Elite in 2 hits on Legendary.

H3 Shotgun can't kill a Brute minor in 1 hit on Normal.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

H1 Shotgun can kill a Major Elite in 2 hits on Legendary.

H3 Shotgun can't kill a Brute minor in 1 hit on Normal.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

---

Actually, the H3 Shotgun can. However, though the damage hasn't really changed, the range has. In other words, both are equal in power, but the distance at which they can hit the enemy has been shortened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

Actually, the H3 Shotgun can. However, though the damage hasn't really changed, the range has. In other words, both are equal in power, but the distance at which they can hit the enemy has been shortened.

---

Bullshit, compete bullshit. I've shoved the barrel of the Shotgun into the torso of a Brute Minor and pulled, only for him to still be alive and raging.

Psst, Brutes aren't Elites.

Sorry to bring this back up, but this damn thread moves so fast I didn't have the time to reply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Can't tell if trolling...

---

I wasn't trolling, though I was decently tired so I admit I slapped some stuff together probably and it seems you horribly misunderstood me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

Clearly you have never played Tribes. Body parts rendered in first-person view is nothing new. Looking up and down has been around for almost two decades now and did not start with Halo. Multiple melee animations? Really? That kind of thing just comes with the technology advancements and is such a gimmick that it isn't even worth pointing out.

---

Seeing as I'm fairly young (hell I'm 16, yeah what a shocker) I haven't really played many of the older games you have. I was 9 when Halo 2 was out and it's probably one of the first games I remember playing on the Xbox/anything in general aside from my Gameboy and Pokemon Blue.

My main point I was trying to get across in my post was how innovative Halo was first-person wise with the animation system. It was just a lot more fluid/less rugged than other games around that time (again, from what I can remember). And I wasn't stating that Halo was the first game that allowed you to look up, I meant the first game I can recall where the overlays took it into account and moved the origin around.

Again, just trying to get across the point of Halo making big strides in the FP department. Multiple melee animations, while being a "gimmick," was still another stride (and again, maybe other games did it beforehand but my point still sorta stands).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sever

Bullshit, compete bullshit. I've shoved the barrel of the Shotgun into the torso of a Brute Minor and pulled, only for him to still be alive and raging.

---

Really? I've done the exact same and knocked him off his feet....regardless, the Brute Major can be taken down with two shots from the shotgun at closer range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkHalo003

Actually, the H3 Shotgun can. However, though the damage hasn't really changed, the range has. In other words, both are equal in power, but the distance at which they can hit the enemy has been shortened.

---

I am talking about at point blank. I can't recall ever killing any brute in 1 hit at any range in H3. And you might kill that Brute Major in 2 hits on Normal, but good luck doing anything to him on Legendary. The difference between Minor and Major brutes is almost negligible anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =sw=warlord

Psst, Brutes aren't Elites.

---

In Halo 3 they basically are, and either way they're the primary enemies of the game. What does that say about the shotgun if it can't even kill your most basic enemy in 1 hit on NORMAL?

at this point, you guys should have your own thread

The sniper contrail shooting up in the air when I shoot a reflective surface is fucking hilarious

Playing this game makes me have to laugh at all the people who complained about Halo 2 having "too much auto aim"...

though it's hilarious how the red reticule with the pistol in campaign doesn't guarantee a headshot. It seems to be random and nothing but luck to hit a headshot at a long distance

multiplayer videos

I think I broke it.

So now Johnson is Asian...nice...

And he also has a 3rd eye.

The campaign's checkpoints are complete bullshit as always

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t3h m00kz

though it's hilarious how the red reticule with the pistol in campaign doesn't guarantee a headshot. It seems to be random and nothing but luck to hit a headshot at a long distance

---

Halo 1's head hitboxes are smaller, and the Pistol isn't 100% accurate.

Therefore, randomness and luck