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

Quote:

---

Microsoft's freshly-formed internal Halo studio, 343 Industries, is working on a Halo: Combat Evolved remake.

That's according to "industry chatter" reported in the new Games Master magazine, which writes that the updated game could run on the Halo: Reach engine and arrive ahead of a full Halo 3 sequel in late 2012.

http://cdn.medialib.computerandvideo...0_thumb300.jpg
If true, the remade Halo: Combat Evolved could release on the original's tenth anniversary, which falls on November, 2011.

Microsoft has previously expressed interest in adopting an annual release model for the Halo series, and this would certainly fit that nicely.

Plus, when asked, UK Xbox boss boss Stephen McGill seemed to be in favour of a remake, telling Eurogamer earlier this month: "I imagine it's a good idea".

"I think some people want to go back to older games and see them revisited and I think a lot of developers want to see that too," he said.

We're certainly up for this. Are you, CVG massive?

For the full story and a huge 2011 preview blowout Buy Games Master 233 online and have it delivered to your door.

---

Source

YES I WANT HALO 3 1

Hell yes, finally a halo game worth playing again! lolz, where cmt failed bungie shall finish the job. Now if only this is for PC also, which shouldn't be too far fetched since Microsoft isn't clenching onto their hands anymore

Yeah, I saw that a while ago. Damn, it's gonna be awesome! I wonder if they're going to use weapons and enemies from Reach, or do an actual remake of Halo 1 with all of it's original content?

YESS!! I SO EXITED NOW! REECH WAEPONS ON HALO CP!!!!!!!!!

Not too excited, but it would be cool.
If it was announced for PC, I would be like this :woop:


This post was written by a person which doesn't own an X360.

u dont have xbox
how old r u u so poor lol.

I'd be interested in a Halo 1 remake. On the one hand the original is classic, and I don't think a remake could ever completely replace it. However, it would be amazing to see Alpha Halo in current gen graphics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siliconmaster

I'd be interested in a Halo 1 remake. On the one hand the original is classic, and I don't think a remake could ever completely replace it. However, it would be amazing to see Alpha Halo in current gen graphics.

---

Like Sillicon said, I don't think it would ever replace the original, just how the new Goldeneye on Wii will never replace the original for N64. That said it would be fun to play as long as they are true to the original game.

Also this was discussed, in the Reach thread.

If it had XBL support i'd buy it, otherwise i'd only rent it to play through the campaign once or twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timo

If it had XBL support i'd buy it, otherwise i'd only rent it to play through the campaign once or twice.

---

If they do like they did with ODST, they'll probably keep Reach's multiplayer (on the same disc with all the current map packs) and have a new campaign.

iv heard people talking about this. theyre saying stuff like "i want there to be a battle rifle or dmr" and "i want to see brutes and drivable wraiths".

really, if there are reach guns, its not a halo 1 remake. if the vehicles and characters are different (drastically and gameplay wise, not like texture wise), it is not a halo 1 remake. if you add stuff like melee lunge and the new melee system we have now in reach, it isnt a halo 1 remake (because the core gameplay is different).
not to sound like a purist, but the more they start changing big things like characters, gun damage and new guns, how vehicles handle, melee damage an lunging, the less halo 1 it is and the more halo-1's-maps-and-story-adapted-to-halo-reach it becomes.

that all being said, if they can manage to recreate the maps (possibly the pc ones too), weapons, vehicles, and the core gameplay elements the way they were in halo 1, add live support (without the leading, preferably :v:), and basically not butcher it into a different game than halo 1, i would buy it in a heartbeat.

fake e: all of the stuff i mentioned up there is just what iv heard people asking for, not things that have been announced. so dont fret yet.
real e: and it would be fucking criminal not to implement live support for this. thats like dangling what all us diehard halo pc/ce fans have been wondering about for years right in front of us, then lighting on fire and slapping us in the balls with arguably the most important part.

I'm really torn between whether I want it to be a true Halo 1 remake or a "halo-1's-maps-and-story-adapted-to-halo-reach" like mentionned by Donut. I mean, both would be really great in their own ways. Then again, vehicle boarding seems like a must this time around, as does drivable Wraiths.

What do you think would sell better anyway? A true remake with nothing changed but updated graphics, or a reimagination of Halo 1 with all new Halo Reach features?

I'd be perfectly fine with a Halo 1 with improved graphics and just a few of Reach's gameplay mechanics added in. Vehicle boarding, for instance, and drivable wraiths. They can keep out dual wielding, and I'd rather keep out armor abilities. However, I honestly wouldn't be too adverse to keeping a sprint function in. That did always frustrate me sometimes in the earlier games. Even moreso going back to them after playing Reach.

if they do remake it, they better include all the perks the PC version came with for multiplayer. especially the epic maps

The FRG would be the new(?) grenade launcher of XBL :argh:

bungie's games have always had hundreds of customizable options, so i think if theyre going to implement vehicle boarding (which, imo, would throw off the balance of multiplayer), there should be an option to disable it. like a "real classic" setting where it is literally halo 1 with improved graphics. im thinking even changing the vehicle physics would be obnoxious, since there were some strategies that revolved around being able to jump a ghost off of a warthog.

I would LOVE to see forge on Halo 1! That would be...epic!

:tinfoil:

Basically they need to leave the game's AI, Weapon schematics, vehicle schematics, and general simplicity alone while changing the visuals. Oh and Scarabs. Lots and lots of Scarabs....

IIRC, Frankie pretty much dismissed this idea the FIRST time it was brought up (this article wasn't the first). HBO covered both articles in their news.

I was desperately hoping we'd get to play The Pillar of Autumn again when the credits started playing on reach (the 3rd time I beat the campaign, wtf?).

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DELTA_011692

Hell yes, finally a halo game worth playing again! lolz, where cmt failed bungie shall finish the job. Now if only this is for PC also, which shouldn't be too far fetched since Microsoft isn't clenching onto their hands anymore

---

343 Industries is not Bungie. Bungie is done with Halo...for now. Microsoft is clenching on 343 Industries.

I welcome this, but mainly just visual changes and certain gameplay mechanics added from Reach as many others have stated. I hope all the weapons stay the same and maybe add the BR, Carbine, and brute shot.

I'm fine with them improving the AI because, let's face it, all of us here can bum-rush through Halo 1 on Legendary without even blinking twice and we can mop up an entire room of grunts, elites, and Jackals in a single graceful, drawn-out action.

As for other game-play mechanics and stuff:
-No two hit melee
-No melee lunge
-No dual wielding
-Boarding is OK, though it better not be too easy
-I'm fine with adding a DMR-type weapon in, otherwise they better make that AR pinpoint accuracy when burst-fired.
-No hitscan
-Three shot kill (when combined with true ballistic projectiles, it actually takes skill to pull off)
-Reworked levels are fine as long as they A.)are bigger B.) still fit with the original ideas and C.) are actually open like the originals and not tunnels with occasional alcoves.
-Grunts speak English again
-Elites don't speak English
-Elites don't have those fucking ridiculous looking head-pieces that they have in Reach
-Sprint, but that's it for abilities

I have a better idea: leave Halo 1 alone, release Reach for the PC with an editing kit and let people play the games they want to play. Problem solved!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

I have a better idea: leave Halo 1 alone, release Reach for the PC with an editing kit and let people play create the games they want to play. Problem solved!

---

ftfy

:)

orite, tyvm +fakerep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

I have a better idea: leave Halo 1 alone, release Reach for the PC with an editing kit and let people play the games they want to play. Problem solved!

---

id be happy with h3 for pc...but i like your idea better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghk

id be happy with h3 for pc...but i like your idea better

---

I would be happy with both on PC :)

to be honest i really hope they don't release them for PC because after the monstrous fail of halo2 i don't even wan tto see what they will do to Halo 3 or Reach

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

I have a better idea: leave Halo 1 alone, release Reach for the PC with an editing kit and let people play the games they want to play. Problem solved!

---

What if the game people want to play is a Halo 1 remake with the Reach engine on the 360? ;)

poop on them....theyve had h3,halo wars,odst,and reach all to themselves while us pc'ers have been stuck in halo purgatory
yes...thats right....i dont have an xbox

Hmm, well I'd be happy either way but I'm not too sure how the Reach engine would run on my computer. Probably quite well, but still... I like my 360 controller and Xbox live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Probably quite well, but still... I like my 360 controller and Xbox live.

---

1) USB 360 controller
2) G4WL :downs:

And depending on how different some of the platform specific definitions are in the Reach engine for 360 vs PC, someone could probably port any mods to the 360, so there.

Yeah...but all 4 of my controllers are wireless and I don't have the money/desire to go buy a 5th 360 controller :P

And Xbox Live > G4WL

Still, if it did come out only on PC I would be extremely happy about it, and even better if it comes out on both PC and 360. I'm just saying that the 360 offers more than the PC does in some aspects that I find important, notably split-screen playing and not having to worry about performance issues related to hardware.

I'll buy it if they leave the original gameplay untouched save for bug fixes. IMO, the more Bungie tried to fix Halo, the more they fucked it up. Other long standing series have seen a much needed return to form lately (mario, sonic), it would be nice to see the same happen to Halo.


Also this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

What if the game people want to play is a Halo 1 remake with the Reach engine on the 360? ;)

---

And this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

I was desperately hoping we'd get to play The Pillar of Autumn again when the credits started playing on reach (the 3rd time I beat the campaign, wtf?).

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY

---

People want this, it could be accomplished with minimal effort, and would make a fuckton of money. I see no reason for it not to happen.

I would like to see some gameplay changes such as assassinations or armor abilities.
If I wanted to play the same Halo 1 I'd play the original. Better graphics aren't good enough of a selling point for me.

After all, I'd love to experience the Halo CE campaign in an all new way.

Armor abilities and bloom are more of a frustrating addition than they are fun. I complain more about them then I actually cheer out of joy. And even when I use them succesfully it feels cheap.
Most people in my friendslist exhibit similar behaviour. Some of the more hardcore players even went so far as to sell Halo Reach...just because the game feels so random now.

My point is that I don't want to see the original Halo fucked up in a similar way. Halo 1 + Bloom + Armor Abilities = disgusting.

I believe it's more likely they will release Halo 4 on the next Xbox console, not sure why, but my guess is they are severely limited in what upgrades they can make on the Halo game,
Bungie couldn't make a Halo 3 game with more content than it already has, ODST and Reach are evident of this.

I bet 343 Industries would be lazy like Bungie and use the Lockstep/synchronous model netcode for co-op modes. -_-

I really would like Halo 3 for PC, with a full EK and upgrades to the game engine in general to adjust console limits for the PC, and upgrade the distributed model netcode for full campaign support. /wishlist. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shock120

I bet 343 Industries would be lazy like Bungie and use the Lockstep/synchronous model netcode for co-op modes. -_-

---

Please tell me you weren't being serious when you posted this. Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

Please tell me you weren't being serious when you posted this. Please.

---

I'm hoping for them to actually work on it.
I assumed when Bungie said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bungie

Q. Isn’t there a really quick and easy way for Bungie to crank out a patch that would remove the effects of latency altogether?

A. Unfortunately not. There is a lot of work that goes in to making our distributed multiplayer model run as well as it does. The messages that are passed around to keep the machines states up to date are crafted to minimize bandwidth and support the needed functionality. We simply have never hooked up distributed messages to a lot of the awesomeness that exists in Firefight and co-op campaign. Things like cinematics, AI, combat dialog, let alone making it all run smoothly on a 256K up host. It would be a lot of work, and we are super focused on Reach at the moment. :)

---

I thought they would've sorted it out for Halo Reach. :'(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L0d3x

Armor abilities and bloom are more of a frustrating addition than they are fun. I complain more about them then I actually cheer out of joy. And even when I use them succesfully it feels cheap.
Most people in my friendslist exhibit similar behaviour. Some of the more hardcore players even went so far as to sell Halo Reach...just because the game feels so random now.

My point is that I don't want to see the original Halo fucked up in a similar way. Halo 1 + Bloom + Armor Abilities = disgusting.

---

Are you me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

I'll buy it if they leave the original gameplay untouched save for bug fixes. IMO, the more Bungie tried to fix Halo, the more they fucked it up. Other long standing series have seen a much needed return to form lately (mario, sonic), it would be nice to see the same happen to Halo.

---

Boarding, boost, mele lunge are all things that I thought really improved the Halo series. I'd love to see a H1 remake that incorporated all the best features of the sequels.

ps. Assassinations and armour abilities are cool. If you're playing halo for serious competition, you're playing it for the wrong reasons.

I doubt it. We're probably going to be waiting for Bungie's next game and then making a Halo 1 mod out of if it comes out on PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

Boarding, boost, mele lunge are all things that I thought really improved the Halo series. I'd love to see a H1 remake that incorporated all the best features of the sequels.

ps. Assassinations and armour abilities are cool. If you're playing halo for serious competition, you're playing it for the wrong reasons.

---

No. Just...no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

mele lunge

---

What in fucks name is wrong with you?

Quote:

---

ps. Assassinations and armour abilities are cool. If you're playing halo for serious competition, you're playing it for the wrong reasons.

---

Which is why there is a dedicated MLG playlist. Did I forget to mention Halo was one of the reasons that MLG was founded in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeeKup

Did I forget to mention Halo was one of the reasons that MLG was founded in the first place?

---

An unfortunate turn of events, I must say. Now they own Bungie.

MLG being founded on the Halo series is the great irony of the organisation. The game's certainly fun to watch but there's no great skill differentiation like you see with a good competitive game.

What's wrong with melee lunge? I like wacking people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

An unfortunate turn of events, I must say. Now they own Bungie.

---

Indeed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

"mele lunge"

---

IMHO: This is the worst part of the newer Halo games!

For some reason, I always remember this scene when encountering melee freaks on Halo 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc

:guns101:

Melee lunge wouldn't be so bad if the damage was reduced. Then again, having no melee lunge would be even better.

If this thing comes out, it's going to ruin the nostalgia goggles forever.

"Wait, this plays a lot like its sequels, and not like the magic-infused daydream I remembered it as? :ohdear:"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by POQPrince

IMHO: This is the worst part of the newer Halo games!

For some reason, I always remember this scene when encountering melee freaks on Halo 3

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Melee lunge wouldn't be so bad if the damage was reduced. Then again, having no melee lunge would be even better.

---

Wait so you hate it because it makes melee useful?

im curious, why are people asking for a DMR for a halo 1 remake? i thought the pistol did that job pretty well.
as far as melee lunge goes, it just feels like bungie pushing their "holy trinity" of guns, melee, and grenades. melee is something youre supposed to fall back on, not a primary weapon. it just feels like people rely on them way too much.

also,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

If you're playing halo for serious competition, you're playing it for the wrong reasons.

---

this is not an excuse to butcher the remake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

What's wrong with melee lunge? I like wacking people.

---

Me too. However, the novelty and satisfaction that are part of the reward of whacking people disappears when it becomes your primary weapon. I like having a reason to use or even carry my guns, thank you. Melee was never supposed to be a weapon to replace your gun, it was supposed to be a finishing move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donut

im curious, why are people asking for a DMR for a halo 1 remake? i thought the pistol did that job pretty well.

---

Because all the kids on the Bungie forums think the pistol would be like the one in Reach instead of the 3sk monster it's supposed to be.
I wish they brought back the pistol like how it was in Halo 1. It was a mid-range headshot weapon, like the BR and DMR, but it was actually FUN, and it took skill to use effectively... *nostalgia*

If they let you get close enough to whack them, I don't see the issue vOv I use all of the options (melee/grenade/gun) as my primary damage dealer for different situations. Grenades let you hurt people you can't see directly, guns help at any range (even point blank) and melee is great if you get close enough (and quite fun vOv).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donut

this is not an excuse to butcher the remake.

---

What I'm saying is that Halo 1 was never a serious game either (sorry clanfags!) and nobody should expect it to be.

The problem is that now "close enough" is far enough away to be using mid-range weapons effectively. What the fuck?

It's not fun spawning and getting whacked to death within 10 seconds. It's also not fun getting the drop on someone and then being killed because you opened with guns instead of a punch. Basically, whoever gets the first punch wins in Halo now, which is bullshit.

Like I said, melee was originally supposed to be a finisher, used when you were almost done taking out health but ran out of ammunition (generally in both guns) or were up real close and wanted some finesse added to your kill. Now it's just a tool used by wankers who don't feel like learning how to aim straight. If you are stupid enough to throw a punch ten metres out, you should not be rewarded by dashing five to ten metres and smacking me in the gut. What you should get is a smattering of bullets to the face and me T-bagging your lifeless shell.

im curious about your reasoning. what about halo 1 makes it less suited for competitive play compared to halo 2,3, or reach?

btw what exactly do you mean by competitive play? are you talking about public matches or something like MLG and clan wars?
E: @ n00b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donut

im curious about your reasoning. what about halo 1 makes it less suited for competitive play compared to halo 2,3, or reach?

btw what exactly do you mean by competitive play? are you talking about public matches or something like MLG and clan wars?
E: @ n00b

---

It's no less competitive than the other games. None of them are well made for serious competitive play. That's what makes organisations such as MLG such a joke (but then, this is the same group who runs WoW PvP tournaments so whatever :allears:). The requirements for pinpoint accuracy and wired reflexes just aren't there like with other games proper competitive games (eg quake, starcraft, etc).

Competitive play is something which puts such a heavy emphasis on skill that there's a pretty obvious distinction between superior players and mere mortals such as ourselves (and then between these pros and true demigods). I play Halo for simple fun. I play SC for a true test of skill (even though I'm horribad!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

The problem is that now "close enough" is far enough away to be using mid-range weapons effectively. What the fuck?

It's not fun spawning and getting whacked to death within 10 seconds. It's also not fun getting the drop on someone and then being killed because you opened with guns instead of a punch. Basically, whoever gets the first punch wins in Halo now, which is bullshit.

Like I said, melee was originally supposed to be a finisher, used when you were almost done taking out health but ran out of ammunition (generally in both guns) or were up real close and wanted some finesse added to your kill. Now it's just a tool used by wankers who don't feel like learning how to aim straight. If you are stupid enough to throw a punch ten metres out, you should not be rewarded by dashing five to ten metres and smacking me in the gut. What you should get is a smattering of bullets to the face and me T-bagging your lifeless shell.

---

Where was it stated that melee was a finisher? You've obviously never seen me play H1. I deliberately run at people to get into melee range. The addition of lunge helps that playstyle so I'm totally cool with it :downs:

Mid range weapons are ofcourse going to be useful at close range but I mustn't be playing the same game as you if you're saying the lunge in this game extends past 3-4 meters. Dying from melee is just as legitimate as dying from a sniper on the other side of the map.

It'd be interesting to see what it looks like but I honestly don't give two shits if it isn't on PC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

Where was it stated that melee was a finisher? You've obviously never seen me play H1. I deliberately run at people to get into melee range. The addition of lunge helps that playstyle so I'm totally cool with it :downs:

Mid range weapons are ofcourse going to be useful at close range but I mustn't be playing the same game as you if you're saying the lunge in this game extends past 3-4 meters. Dying from melee is just as legitimate as dying from a sniper on the other side of the map.

---

So you are the type of player I mercilessly gunned down and blew up with grenades in Halo 1 for being a retard trying to get into melee range all of the time? There's a reason it's not a very efficient play style in the first game. It's evident in the way melee works in the first game that it was supposed to be a finisher. It doesn't do enough damage to bring down all of a player's health in a single blow, to say nothing of depleting shields. The fact that it lacked lunge meant you had to actually consider when it was appropriate to use it and when it wasn't. Appropriate situations are assassinations, weakening moves, and finishing moves. By itself, it's nearly worthless. Now all you have to do is get within 10 metres and smash "B". Yeah. That takes skill. It also makes it NOT fun for those who don't like the button-masher melee play style. Your type is not the only playstyle, hth. :v:

It isn't legitimate unless they were within 1.5 metres. You can't dash 4-5 metres in a blink of an eye and clobber me in real life, and since certain games (such as Halo) are supposed to be roughly analogous of reality, why should it work there? Bullshit. You want to play as a melee-type, then you can be crafty in your movements and actually put some effort into playing. As it is , you are basically spoon-fed your kills.

Don't give a crap about consoles, haven't even played Reach yet because I just don't care. Heck, I didn't even realize it was released until I saw a Facebook post from my friend saying he beat it.

PC or bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by POQPrince

IMHO: This is the worst part of every new fps!

---

I don't know about you guys, but I'm sick to death of every new FPS having overpowered melee attacks with massive lunge (looking at you, call of duty). It was a terrible idea to start with, and it's terrible now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

I don't know about you guys, but I'm sick to death of every new FPS having overpowered melee attacks with massive lunge (looking at you, call of duty). It was a terrible idea to start with, and it's terrible now.

---

Call of Duty didn't really have 1 hit melee kills/knife kills until CoD 4. Well I noticed one hit kills in CoD 4 and above, anything below I remember having to melee 2 or 3 times with the but of your gun since CoD 1-3 did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rook

It'd be interesting to see what it looks like but I honestly don't give two shits if it isn't on PC.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

I don't know about you guys, but I'm sick to death of every new FPS having overpowered melee attacks with massive lunge (looking at you, call of duty). It was a terrible idea to start with, and it's terrible now.

---

Long range melee insta-kills are fucking retarded. I'm not denying this. (unless it's an entire weapon slot taken for it, aka - Energy Sword)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

So you are the type of player I mercilessly gunned down and blew up with grenades in Halo 1 for being a retard trying to get into melee range all of the time?
If you're suggesting I ran straight at people and didn't fire my gun on the way in, you just went full retard.

There's a reason it's not a very efficient play style in the first game. lol It's evident in the way melee works in the first game that it was supposed to be a finisher. It doesn't do enough damage to bring down all of a player's health in a single blow, to say nothing of depleting shields. Jump + Whack more or less drops shields and it's fun to do! The fact that it lacked lunge meant you had to actually consider when it was appropriate to use it and when it wasn't. Appropriate situations are assassinations, weakening moves, and finishing moves. Hence the focus on using it to finish people or better yet, make them backpedal into a delicious nade-friendly corner :q: By itself, it's nearly worthless. Now all you have to do is get within 10 metres and smash "B". Yeah. That takes skill. Halo isn't about skill silly! It also makes it NOT fun for those who don't like the button-masher melee play style. Your type is not the only playstyle, hth. :v: No but it's the one favoured by increased melee range so of course I'm going to have a positive subjective opinion about it :downs:

Lets say for sake of argument that I was instead a DMR whore (and in fact this is true for any open area I find myself in where there's no practical way to abuse melee). I'm going to 1- Believe having long range precision fire weapons (dohoho console controllers) is a good thing and 2 - Want to use this tactic in a setting which favours it over other styles. If you want it to work in all settings then apparently you're incapable of adapting and you must be some kind of baddy D:

It isn't legitimate unless they were within 1.5 metres. You can't dash 4-5 metres in a blink of an eye and clobber me in real life, and since certain games (such as Halo) are supposed to be roughly analogous of reality, why should it work there? Bullshit. I don't know about you but I'm not a brain washed augmented super soldier in a state of the art performance enhancing suit built 500 years in the future! You want to play as a melee-type, then you can be crafty in your movements and actually put some effort into playing. As it is , you are basically spoon-fed your kills.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

Long range melee insta-kills are fucking retarded. I'm not denying this. (unless it's an entire weapon slot taken for it, aka - Energy Sword)

---

That's just the point: Melee has become the weapon of choice for Halo 3+ on the consoles. It is one of the reasons that I hardly play Multiplayer on the Xbox 360 -- which is the main reason I bought the console to begin with. If you are playing a small map...melees sometimes account for half of all kills.

Melees should be in kiddy games like Super Smash Brothers...and NOT Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield Bad Company, etc... Those who rely on them as a kill strategy are almost as annoying as this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u3Ga2KV_TY

:hist101:

Awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

Long range melee insta-kills are fucking retarded. I'm not denying this. (unless it's an entire weapon slot taken for it, aka - Energy Sword)

---

A game doesn't have to be about skill to take skill. Why don't they just auto-lock my crosshairs onto every target and shoot for me while they are at it?


You missed the part about everyone else also being augmented super-soldiers wearing state of the art performance-enhancing suits built 500 years in the future. You also didn't put two and two together with everything else. If you are firing your gun while trying to close for a melee finish, that is not a melee play-style. That's using melee the way it was originally intended. Also, if you smack me with full shields in Halo 1, I still have at least 25% left, which means I still have a good chance to kill you. That means you just went full retard for trying to hit me when I had full shields up because now you are going to get a plasma to the face or a shotgun blast to the gut. Furthermore, they didn't give it a focus on being a finisher for all subsequent games, they took that focus away. It's so powerful now all you have to do is run up to anybody who doesn't have a 1-hit-kill weapon and smack him twice in rapid succession (because not only did they overpower melee, they also made the attacks very fast). That's not a finisher.

Not to sound conceited, but there is no one gun or playstyle I whore in Halo, because that is boring. I would say that I have a more objective view of the game because of that. When a game that stresses having options forces everyone to adopt the same play style to have any chance of winning, that means it's broken. Even close quarters maps force you to either be a melee whore or a DMR spammer. You want to roll with a plasma repeater, assault rifle, shotgun, sniper rifle, needler, concussion rifle, etc.? Fuck you, you can be dead!

That shit is why I don't play Reach online anymore. It's not fun. I can go on melee streaks, but I don't enjoy it. I want to have a reason to hear those beautiful gunshot sounds that they worked on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

I don't know about you guys, but I'm sick to death of every new FPS having overpowered melee attacks with massive lunge (looking at you, call of duty). It was a terrible idea to start with, and it's terrible now.

---

agreed...and what with that dumb ass perk that lets you melee someone from 10 ft away...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

A game doesn't have to be about skill to take skill. Why don't they just auto-lock my crosshairs onto every target and shoot for me while they are at it?


You missed the part about everyone else also being augmented super-soldiers wearing state of the art performance-enhancing suits built 500 years in the future. You also didn't put two and two together with everything else. If you are firing your gun while trying to close for a melee finish, that is not a melee play-style. That's using melee the way it was originally intended. Also, if you smack me with full shields in Halo 1, I still have at least 25% left, which means I still have a good chance to kill you. That means you just went full retard for trying to hit me when I had full shields up because now you are going to get a plasma to the face or a shotgun blast to the gut. Furthermore, they didn't give it a focus on being a finisher for all subsequent games, they took that focus away. It's so powerful now all you have to do is run up to anybody who doesn't have a 1-hit-kill weapon and smack him twice in rapid succession (because not only did they overpower melee, they also made the attacks very fast). That's not a finisher.

Not to sound conceited, but there is no one gun or playstyle I whore in Halo, because that is boring. I would say that I have a more objective view of the game because of that. When a game that stresses having options forces everyone to adopt the same play style to have any chance of winning, that means it's broken. Even close quarters maps force you to either be a melee whore or a DMR spammer. You want to roll with a plasma repeater, assault rifle, shotgun, sniper rifle, needler, concussion rifle, etc.? Fuck you, you can be dead!

That shit is why I don't play Reach online anymore. It's not fun. I can go on melee streaks, but I don't enjoy it. I want to have a reason to hear those beautiful gunshot sounds that they worked on.

---

I love you.

n00b im looking at your argument, and im not seeing anything specific. youre telling me aiming isnt as difficult as it is in quake (and id agree with that), but there is still an emphasis on team based gameplay if youre really going for competitive play. im looking for what SPECIFIC things in halo 1 make it unsuitable for competitive play.

responses like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

Now all you have to do is get within 10 metres and smash "B". Yeah. That takes skill. Halo isn't about skill silly! It also makes it NOT fun for those who don't like the button-masher melee play style. Your type is not the only playstyle, hth. :v: No but it's the one favoured by increased melee range so of course I'm going to have a positive subjective opinion about it :downs:

---

are ridiculous in this conversation. we are talking about melee lunge and increased damage turning it into a primary weapon. you even admitted that you ABUSE melee in any situation that allows it. im not insulting the way you choose to play, but the fact that melee is abusable that way in the first place is the issue we are talking about here.
again, im not attacking your choice of gameplay style, im criticizing the fact that the melee one you choose exists. like i said before, just because you think halo isnt about skill doesnt mean the game should have these over-powered "noob friendly" alternatives to aiming.

I doubt this will happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

A game doesn't have to be about skill to take skill. Didn't say it takes no skill. I was saying the skill-curve isn't as steep and the skill ceiling is lower. Why don't they just auto-lock my crosshairs onto every target and shoot for me while they are at it?

You missed the part about everyone else also being augmented super-soldiers wearing state of the art performance-enhancing suits built 500 years in the future. what the hell are you saying here? You also didn't put two and two together with everything else. If you are firing your gun while trying to close for a melee finish, that is not a melee play-style. I never said it was a finisher :S That's using melee the way it was originally intended. Also, if you smack me with full shields in Halo 1, I still have at least 25% left, which means I still have a good chance to kill you. The time taken by the melee animation (on appropriate weapons) is well worth the un-used firing time. That means you just went full retard for trying to hit me when I had full shields up because now you are going to get a plasma to the face or a shotgun blast to the gut. EVERYBODY KNOWS ITS SMART TO MELEE SOMEBODY WITH A SHOTGUN :neckbeard: Furthermore, they didn't give it a focus on being a finisher for all subsequent games, they took that focus away. It's so powerful now all you have to do is run up to anybody Who let you run at them who doesn't have a 1-hit-kill weapon and smack him twice in rapid succession (because not only did they overpower melee, they also made the attacks very fast). That's not a finisher. Really never felt like a finisher to me so vOv

Not to sound conceited, but there is no one gun or playstyle I whore in Halo, because that is boring. As would any competent player, I imagine you have a preferred one though. I would say that I have a more objective view of the game because of that. When a game that stresses having options forces everyone to adopt the same play style to have any chance of winning, that means it's broken. Even close quarters maps force you to either be a melee whore or a DMR spammer. You want to roll with a plasma repeater, assault rifle, shotgun, sniper rifle, needler, concussion rifle, etc.? Fuck you, you can be dead! I do anyway though. Never played reach on LIVE but at LAN's I use most guns vOv It's not like melee is weapon-specific anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donut

n00b im looking at your argument, and im not seeing anything specific. youre telling me aiming isnt as difficult as it is in quake (and id agree with that) intentional? , but there is still an emphasis on team based gameplay if youre really going for competitive play. im looking for what SPECIFIC things in halo 1 make it unsuitable for competitive play.

I'm not really being specific. You can play anything competitively but I'm saying there's better suited alternatives compared to Halo.

responses like this:
:quote:
are ridiculous in this conversation. we are talking about melee lunge and increased damage turning it into a primary weapon. you even admitted that you ABUSE melee in any situation that allows it. im not insulting the way you choose to play, but the fact that melee is abusable that way in the first place is the issue we are talking about here.
again, im not attacking your choice of gameplay style, im criticising the fact that the melee one you choose exists. like i said before, just because you think halo isnt about skill doesn't mean the game should have these over-powered "noob friendly" alternatives to aiming.

---

I suppose what the addition of melee lunge did to the Halo series is effectively give all players an additional 3rd close range weapon. A melee attack is still inferior to purpose built short range weapons however. If somebody tries to go melee with somebody who's holding a shotgun, that's pretty obviously a bad move. But if you've got nothing else to use properly at that range and no way out, it's quite appropriate.

To use it effectively as a primary however, you have to deliberaly close that gap and target people you can get away with it on. I exaggerated when I said my playstyle was all about it. It's more that I'd much prefer use melee at close range given the opportunity. It's just more fun for me :p

Abuse was used in the same way one would abuse any weapon, like running people over in Banshees, it's just the nature of the game. It may be easier for some players to get kills by mainly using melee as a primary weapon but they'll obviously never do as well as people who get a solid grasp of all aspects (eg, using guns!). It's never felt cheap to me to be killed by melee because I let them get that close and I'd have done the same thing given the chance.

This got written over a few hours so hopefully it's not too sporadic :v:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan094

Call of Duty didn't really have 1 hit melee kills/knife kills until CoD 4. Well I noticed one hit kills in CoD 4 and above, anything below I remember having to melee 2 or 3 times with the but of your gun since CoD 1-3 did that.

---

I said every NEW fps, also CoD has had 1 hit kill melees at least since CoD 2, the lunge didn't get started till 4 though.

n00b1n8R, go re-read the post before your last one very slowly, then re-read mine. If you still can't see what the relation of my response is, then I don't really have anything more to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b1n8R

It's never felt cheap to me to be killed by melee because I let them get that close and I'd have done the same thing given the chance.

---

Melee lunge only makes it worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

n00b1n8R, go re-read the post before your last one very slowly, then re-read mine. If you still can't see what the relation of my response is, then I don't really have anything more to say.

---

Ok, just a sec

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shock120

This.

---

uh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilation

Melee lunge only makes it worse.

---

But saying it's a bad thing is entirely subjective. I let them do it, it's entirely my fault.

I miss in Halo 1 when you could hit Melee, Grenade, Melee (BLB) and kill someone instantly.

I miss in Halo 2 how you could melee, reload, melee,(BXB) or melee, reload, and shoot(BXR) with any headshot weapon.

Oh wait, Halo has always had ways to abuse melee.

I think the problem you guys have with melee is that you're all just butthurt about the assassination animations. Keep an eye on that radar, or use armor lock and teamwork to avoid melee deaths. Take the game less seriously and you'll have a LOT more fun with it.

Or go play Counter Strike.

The competitive play comes into place when you have crazy awesome teamwork. Halo puts so much emphasis on how strong the player is, and makes you FEEL strong, so you feel like you don't really NEED a team. But if you're rolling with a proper team who can assist fire and call stuff out properly it changes everything.

Same thing in Halo 3, same thing in Halo 2, same thing in Halo 1. That's where the competitive play is and the skill curve is, is just with teamwork.

That being said, I don't care enough about Reach to dedicate the time to become that great at it, because that's just stressful. I just shoot kids, punch kids, and toss nades at em. Don't get all butthurt when you get beat down because YOU didn't check your radar, or because YOU didn't adapt to the situation. It's YOUR fault that you died, not Bungie's. If you see someone coming up to you to melee you, guess what?... YOU CAN PUNCH THEM TOO.

tl;dr
From an actual design standpoint...

I'd say the melee lunge is there because it's very difficult to tell precise distances in 3D space when you see this 3D space on a 2D plane. Your brain can't use it's normal ways of determining distance using depth and so you have to rely on size of objects in relation to the objects around them which is a lot less accurate. The lunge helps bridge that gap and that's why it's become so successful and common of a gameplay mechanic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llama Juice

From an actual design standpoint...

I'd say the melee lunge is there because it's very difficult to tell precise distances in 3D space when you see this 3D space on a 2D plane. Your brain can't use it's normal ways of determining distance using depth and so you have to rely on size of objects in relation to the objects around them which is a lot less accurate. The lunge helps bridge that gap and that's why it's become so successful and common of a gameplay mechanic.

---

I don't know.

I agree with others that it is the addition of the lunge that makes the melee so...disappointing. The lunge melee in Halo 3+ seems to almost be like the energy sword in Halo 2 -- but with no need to actually hold the sword. I was shocked when I first began playing Halo 3 multiplayer and got lunge melee'ed to death in small maps. There doesn't seem to be any real need for close range weapons if you can just run around lunge meleeing people to death (and the lunge melee is more effective).

Don't get me wrong: I don't mind the lunge or the melee. I just wish that they were more...realistic. Perhaps the lunge strike could be at a smaller distance...and the melee not so powerful unless you jump and strike in the neck? IMHO, these one melee strike kills of enemy that are WEARING SPARTAN ARMOUR is just silly.

:eng101:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR

I doubt this will happen.

---

i doubt your face will happen, but it did so this game is more than likely to be re-released for the now period and ruined ;)

llama, the things you listed for halo 1 and 2 were glitches. melee lunge is not a glitch, its an intended feature. i know you can melee, throw a grenade, then melee right away again in halo 1, but that wasnt intentional. this conversation is about INTENTIONAL things bungie has done with melee.

speaking of which, it would be nice to see that glitch fixed if they do make this.

Besides, I have never been killed by that glitch (Halo 1), ever. Why? Because the fucker who tried to do it was already out of shields and half health before he finally got into range to do it. He was then beat to death by my assault rifle butt.

In Halo 1, EVERYTHING had a counter if you kept your wits. In all the subsequent titles, you have set situations that you can't get out of even with creative thinking. Over-engineering. I think I've said this before.

Also, I love the assassination animations. Those have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

In Halo 1, EVERYTHING had a counter if you kept your wits. In all the subsequent titles, you have set situations that you can't get out of even with creative thinking. Over-engineering. I think I've said this before.

---

What do you mean by a counter? :S This isn't scissors paper rock mate.

You could get out of any situation in Halo 1 if you were quick on your feet or made creative use of your resources. Halo 2-Reach actually IS a glorified Rock-Paper-Scissors. You have this and he has that? You win. He has this and you have that? He wins.

Explain how to get out of being corned by a guy with a rocket in Halo 1.
Explain how you having a needler lets you creatively deal with somebody with a sniper at long range.

There were always situations where one person was favoured. Being good at the game meant positioning yourself into those favourable positions more often than most. Same with any game :downs:

No 1: Easy. Jump. If you time it properly, the rocket will only do half damage. I'm assuming you've already been shooting at him this whole time, so you should be able to knock him down with a well-placed grenade or shot to the head.

Sniper at long range? L2 strafe erratically. Take potshots at him when you can to de-scope him while you close. Best course of action is to simply get out of sight and flank. Because the sniper in Halo 1 wasn't an instant hit to the head, you can actually do this.

All that is academic though. You are choosing to ignore the point. You can't get out of any situation in the newer Halos. You either have scissors to paper or you die.

Or you have armor lock and a teammate to help you.

The game becomes something entirely different when you actually use teamwork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warsaw

All that is academic though. You are choosing to ignore the point. You can't get out of any situation in the newer Halos. You either have scissors to paper or you die.

---

I honestly think you're the one ignoring the point. There's no more of a P/S/R system in Reach as there is in any other Halo game. It just sounds like you're making excuses for refusing to adapt to a sequel not being identical. If it's a problem for everybody, it's a problem for nobody.

(not that it was a problem for me and many others to begin with!)

ill probably stand alone on this one, but i think reach is alot more fair than halo 3 with that paper scissors rock situation. it might just be because i havent played it as much as i played 3, but i found myself in so many situations in 3 where a ghost was viciously destroying everything, and the only hope of stopping it is either to stick it (which wont kill it on last resort, because lol spike grenades are terrible) or EMP it. or on sand trap if somebody grabs the laser and one of their team mates is in a vehicle, you are absolutely fucked, unless you can get like 3 plasmas stuck to their vehicle. trip mines are useless. at least in reach the sniper rifle can do a decent amount of damage to vehicles and armor lock allows you to have a built in defense against some vehicle whoring.

im with warsaw on halo 1's weapon balance though. everybody spawned with a pistol, and damage to vehicles leaked to the driver (and the pistol was very potent in that regard). if youre getting sniped and cant do anything to the other person, its because theyre on the other side of the map, which usually means you can use the map to your advantage and break the line of sight. if the sniper gets any closer, you can pistol them. dont have a pistol? assault rifle burst firing or the shotgun can atleast cause minimal damage to pop them out of the scope. you could throw a grenade too, but the point is, unless its an extreme situation like rockets in the corner or needler vs sniiper (and if you do that second one without keeping something better as a secondary, you deserve to get killed), you can usually improvise until you can get closer to do some real damage.
in halo 3, the assault rifle just didnt hit past a certain distance, and sometimes you just couldnt get a battle rifle to try to scope pop somebody whos sniping. basically, unless you had a battle rifle or carbine, you were fucked. whats the difference? in quite a few gametypes you dont start with brs, and most other weapons (looking at you shotgun) just dont do anything past a certain range. like i said, i havent really played enough reach to know exactly if this happens the same way in reach, but it suffices to say that sort of thing just doesnt happen in halo 1 unless youre at extreme range.

thats addressing the sniper situation. i could go on about weapon changes, since the shotgun nerfing is a whole rant on its own. as far as a sequel being different, thats perfectly fine, but the issue here is if they put those new gameplay mechanics into this remake.

E: and llama definitely has a valid point. having somebody to watch your back and shoot targets with in halo completely changes how you use weapons and what you use. everything i typed is from a solo perspective.

Don't touch halo 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEEhunter

Don't touch halo 1.

---

So many people would pay to have a remake of Halo 1, whether it's touched or not. It's a logical business choice on their part to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEEhunter

Don't touch halo 1.

---

+rep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donut

it might just be because i havent played it as much as i played 3,

---

That would probably explain it, then. You don't have the same experience with the older game as me, and so we aren't seeing the same thing. Suffice it to say, were you an oldfag on Halo 1, you might notice that when you made the transition to the newer games, everything got easy. There was no more having to try at the game to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEEhunter

Don't touch halo 1.

---

CMT did :ohdear:

This thread has been going no where for 2 pages (w/ 20ppp). Can't you guys just agree to fucking disagree? Just face that neither of you will change the other's mind and get on with you lives.

Korn... welcome to Modacity/the internet/forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kornman00

CMT did :ohdear:

This thread has been going no where for 2 pages (w/ 20ppp). Can't you guys just agree to fucking disagree? Just face that neither of you will change the other's mind and get on with you lives.

---

Just because you'll never agree, doesn't mean there's nothing to be gained from arguing. Without conflict, there is only stagnation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky

Without conflict, there is only stagnation.

---

Without conflict, there is peace.

I believe the proper term would be Competition instead of conflict. The more ideas that are bounced off and discussed the more progress and change can be made.

I'm all for seeing a remake. We'll always have our classic game, but I want to see some fresh ideas brought into it. Basically what korn said about CMT.