- RhythmKiller
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Posted by: CAVX
Posted by: RhythmKiller
Posted by: CAVX
Posted by: RhythmKiller
One more time - if you don't want to hear criticism, you're the one in the wrong place, not them.
Well that doesn't make sense. This whole time, you've been telling him how useless his thread is for criticizing what people post about. And now, you tell him that he shouldn't be on these forums if he can't take criticism. That's a little contradictory.
Not really - you're missing out the whole 'pertaining to halo 2' crux of the entire matter.
Which means that for them, the weapon sucks. But in terms of the game, it's still very good.
....or...... maybe it isn't. Which means that maybe only for you, it's still very good. See?
This thread is about Halo 2. It's a reply (or, as the OP called it, a "counter-rant") to people complaining about weapons. That pertains to Halo 2.
I never said that a weapon is or is not good for me. But even if it was, that would mean that the weapon isn't bad or useless. Looking at the game from a general view of all the gamers tends to prove that every weapon is at times useful and at other times a nuisance to most players, which, in my opinion, makes every weapon "good."
If we're arguing "good" in terms of power, then yes, some weapons aren't "good." But they are still capable, and they keep the balance. If every weapon was good, then no one would need to fight over power weapons, and so much game strategy would be taken away (as well as variety). Any weapon can win over any other weapon. Some are less powerful, some takes less "skill," and some are a little overpowered. But that's what creates the balance. It's what makes players want the more powerful weapons the most. And it's why players switch weapons in the first place.
So it's not even close to a matter of personal opinion in the long run. But yes, you can still say that a weapon sucks. I can't stop you.
It IS a matter of personal opinion. You believe the system you outlined to be the best way for it to work. I may not. Don't try and tell me you are more right than I am.
But anyway that isn't important, valid complaints about a weapon aren't based on the assumption they should all be totally equal. Here's an example.
I think the SMG sucks. Not because it is supposed be less powerful than the BR. But rather, because not a single bullet lands in the centre of the reticle. It's an inbuilt handicap to shooting accuracy which I find to be an awful thing for gameplay, maybe it would be better off firing normally. People should be rewarded for accurate shooting, not punished. So the weapon spreads; ok. But to actually fire consistently away from the centre of the reticle? I don't like that.
And if I don't like it, I'll say so, right here in the exact place such criticism is meant to be raised. And no amount of offended fans is going to stop me.
[Edited on 05.22.2007 3:24 AM PDT]