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

[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?

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

[Kornman00]

I want our cinematic and Sgt Johnson mustache gripe sessions back

not cereal

[ejburke]

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.

[Bobblehob]

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.

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.

[Warsaw]

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.

[Bobblehob]

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.

[Warsaw]

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.

[Bobblehob]

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.

[ejburke]

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.

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.

[Bobblehob]

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.