- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: RhythmKiller
I would say that Halo 3 just about beats Halo 1 for balance, and I'm not one of these goons who claims halo 1 was unbalanced either. Take AR vs BR in halo 3 against AR vs pistol in Halo 1. The AR vs BR fight is more balanced because the rate of fire is slower on the BR and the AR is more accurate, with respect to their halo 1 counterparts - meaning that particular standoff is better balanced than the equivalent in halo 1, just as an example.
Yes, the AR vs. BR standoff is more balanced, but only when you assume two things. One, that these two weapons are head-to-head at close to medium range (At long range in either game the AR will lose, and at close range the AR will win) Two, that each player is aiming with the greatest accuracy possible with their weapon. For this test the surplus of health/shield after the battle is the measuring stick for "balance."
In Halo 3 if you land all your BR headshots vs. an AR you will win with about 1/3 your shield. In Halo 1 if you land all your Pistol headshots for a TSK(three shot kill) you will probably have about 3/4 shield as well as health left. This question of balance, however, is more than just mechanics of the weapon. How often in Halo 3 do you actually make all headshots with the BR? Personally, with the enlarged hitboxes and the magnetism, I find it very difficult to miss a headshot let alone a shot at all in Halo 3. The same question applied to Halo 1's pistol? In Halo 1 it is actually very easy to miss the entire player- especially their head. Thus, let's say you miss twice with the BR at medium range. You will lose against the AR, it is almost impossible to miss with the AR. And if you miss twice with the Pistol? You still have the chance to win given your ability to land your shots and headshots henceforth. Halo 3 is biased towards the novice who deliberately chooses the less skillful weapon. Yes, the cost of accuracy and power is presented more evenly in Halo 3, but does it really make sense to reward the player who runs in, guns blazing, at a guy with the more accurate weapon? Thus is the case in Halo 3, but not Halo 1. This does not depict a balanced game but more a balanced paper-rock-scissors perspective. In Halo 1 the player who chooses the weapon more difficult to use has a better chance of winning based on his skill. Balance in a game is not just giving everyone the same aptitude, but letting the player himself play at his actual skill level.
So I guess the real question is this. In a game where supposedly all weapons and weapon fights should be equal, are the players themselves just as identical? In Halo 3 that is what Bungie has been striving for- increased hitboxes and magnetism allow most anyone to become that perfect player who doesn't miss a shot. As a result, the line between pro and novice becomes thinner and thinner. In Halo 1, if you could land TSKs on demand, you would be unstoppable.
Which is more fun? A game where you can progress yourself to the role of a juggernaut given your skill, or a game in which around every corner is a mirror image of yourself shooting back with the same accuracy and precision and the only thing that defines them is the weapon their holding (perhaps I should save 60$ and play rock then scissors every time)? In a perfect world where everyone is equal, Halo 3 would be superior to its predecessor. But, in a world where those who put in more effort and achieve the prowess; Halo 1 comes out superior.
***In actuality none of the 3 titles have an actual "starting weapon" - what makes the Halo titles great is that the starting weapon is determined by the person who makes the game type. I use the Halo 3 AR as an example because Bungie considers it the "ultimate starting weapon" and implement it in all their current matchmaking games. And I choose the pistol for Halo 1 because Bungie states that “it is a broken, overpowered weapon” thus recognizing it as Halo 1’s default starter.