Never really bothered me. I started with lower-screen reticules, even though I played Halo PC right after playing a bit of Halo 2 with some friends. Either way, I just up my sensitivity to 5 and can feel just fine.
Printable View
Never really bothered me. I started with lower-screen reticules, even though I played Halo PC right after playing a bit of Halo 2 with some friends. Either way, I just up my sensitivity to 5 and can feel just fine.
It's not about controller sensitivity at all. It's about the awkward angle the character is looking at from your perspective when you raise the reticle to where it should be in the first place.
I'm just glad to get some symmetric, beautiful, and wide open maps with some side routes again unlike the shit that was in Reach.
It's popular because it's really easy for newbies to get straight into the action and rack up some kills. There's little to no tactics involved in playing Gulch other than "run to the center, strafe back and forth"Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I can honestly and with a straight face say the same for the rest of the series, and the same for Call of Duty, and the same for Battlefield 3...
Notice a pattern here?
I'm not understanding what you're getting at. Can you please explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
The reticule location is not an issue in gameplay. It's really just cosmetic to be quite honest and yes controller sensitivity makes it a lot easier for each individual to move the reticule. That's kind of the point of the controller sensitivity in the first place. If you think a game is trash for that one feature not being exactly as you want it when everything is looking solid, then you need to ponder your gameplay design philosophies.
the whole debate could be circumvented with an option to keep the reticle at the center of the screen or lower. for the way i play shooters, having a lower reticle like that would impact how i play, because i run around with my crosshairs at head level. if the reticle is lower, then i end up looking higher, and as a result, i would have more difficulty moving around. i wasnt kidding about that indepth analysis i was talking about before. if i had some kind of trainer to move the reticle in bad company 2 or metro or something, i could use those images as an explanation of how reticle position affects gameplay.
its not a huge impact, but the result is that you end up with a lot more of your screen being focused up high where you dont need to look. seeing all the jumping that goes on in halo, maybe looking into the sky isnt such a bad thing in that specific game. for something like bad company 2, having a lower reticule would be unnecessary and cumbersome. the point is that it isnt just an aesthetic choice.
again, though, an option would keep everyone happy.
Pssssst heeeeyyyyyyyy! Stop bitching about reticle positions and watch this, there's evil afoot...
Well... it's a mech....
Valhalla looks fucking awesome though.
Oh for the love of...are you fucking kidding me?
This isn't Halo anymore. I don't care what any of you say. This isn't Halo.