Halo: Combat Evolved Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why Halo 3 beats Halo 1. *spoilers?*
  • Subject: Why Halo 3 beats Halo 1. *spoilers?*
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Why Halo 3 beats Halo 1. *spoilers?*

Posted by: Botolf
You really have to look long and hard at the game to find problems? :-/

I guess that was a problem with the original. The problems are too hard to find. They definitely fixed that in Halo 2, but they made it way too easy to find the problems. Halo 3 is a good balance between the two.

Stuff changes in sequels, it's just what happens. Devs aren't content to let their games just become empty clones of their precursors, so they try to fix what they think is bad, and add what they think is good. Creating a game designed from the start to "be like Halo 1" would probably suffer from "more of the same" feel.
Of course stuff is going to change, but often times it changes for the worse. That's what happened with Halo 2. They changed too much.

  • 01.21.2008 1:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
I guess that was a problem with the original. The problems are too hard to find. They definitely fixed that in Halo 2, but they made it way too easy to find the problems. Halo 3 is a good balance between the two.

Here's two major flaws that are readily apparent:

1. Repetition (It's everywhere in the campaign, and brings down many levels)
2. Gun Balance (Pistol + Heavies for the hundredth time in the same kind of battle gets dull, the other weapons don't see nearly enough use)

No, those two weren't exactly hard to find ;)

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
Of course stuff is going to change, but often times it changes for the worse. That's what happened with Halo 2. They changed too much.

Sure, they changed up how you the gunplay operated in ways (dual-wielding), but I feel they implemented it in a way that made it fun to use, and made it still felt like Halo. A big change with the campaign was the whole dual-character setup, it could have worked, but it really fell apart (ie Storyline dancing around so much it was difficult at times to get a proper perspective of events, cliffhanger that ended the game took any form of resolution out of the thing, etc).

  • 01.21.2008 2:04 PM PDT

Long live the Last Refuge!

you didn't take into accont halo PC which came out two years after halo 1 for the xbox and had online multiplayer. So until you play halo PC multiplayer you can't say why halo 1 is wors then halo 3. Anyway you put halo 1 had better levels, better story, great cutsences, alot of great maps, and a online multiplayer that still is enjoyed by 100s today.

[Edited on 01.21.2008 2:17 PM PST]

  • 01.21.2008 2:17 PM PDT

Posted by: Botolf
Here's two major flaws that are readily apparent:

1. Repetition (It's everywhere in the campaign, and brings down many levels)
2. Gun Balance (Pistol + Heavies for the hundredth time in the same kind of battle gets dull, the other weapons don't see nearly enough use)

No, those two weren't exactly hard to find ;)

Other than the library, I don't think the campaign was overly repetitive. That being said, I don't play much campaign. I tend to prefer to multiplayer.

While unbalanced, I think the weapons worked pretty well. I would not want them to be changed. Everyone spawns with the pistol, and I think that's pretty fair. It's a great weapon, and I think it's one of the strengths of the game.

Sure, they changed up how you the gunplay operated in ways (dual-wielding), but I feel they implemented it in a way that made it fun to use, and made it still felt like Halo.

I would disagree. I would say that it made the game less fun, and it made it no longer feel like Halo.
A big change with the campaign was the whole dual-character setup, it could have worked, but it really fell apart (ie Storyline dancing around so much it was difficult at times to get a proper perspective of events, cliffhanger that ended the game took any form of resolution out of the thing, etc).
Again, I don't play the campaign too much, but I didn't like that idea at all. I found the part with the Arbiter much less interesting, and I just wanted to finish them quickly.

I also didn't like the fully recharging health system, and the lack of fall damage. I didn't like vehicle damage, and vehicles that always respawn. Vehicle control was an important part of games in Halo, and that's kinda difficult when they respawn. The lack of an assault rifle made the game much less enjoyable. The glitches in the game are pretty annoying.

  • 01.21.2008 3:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Botolf
Stuff changes in sequels, it's just what happens. Devs aren't content to let their games just become empty clones of their precursors, so they try to fix what they think is bad, and add what they think is good. Creating a game designed from the start to "be like Halo 1" would probably suffer from "more of the same" feel.
Ironically, Halo 3 is more of the same of Halo 2. :)Posted by: Botolf
2. Gun Balance (Pistol + Heavies for the hundredth time in the same kind of battle gets dull, the other weapons don't see nearly enough use)
I don't know about you, but the sniper rifle, assault rifle, and shotgun see plenty of use.Posted by: SentientGiraffe
I also didn't like the fully recharging health system, and the lack of fall damage. I didn't like vehicle damage, and vehicles that always respawn. Vehicle control was an important part of games in Halo, and that's kinda difficult when they respawn. The lack of an assault rifle made the game much less enjoyable. The glitches in the game are pretty annoying.
You do have an assault rifle in Halo 2. It's called a SMG. :P

I don't find the glitches annoying, but the first game was ridden with exploits as well.

  • 01.21.2008 6:11 PM PDT

Posted by: Master Kim
Posted by: SentientGiraffe
I also didn't like the fully recharging health system, and the lack of fall damage. I didn't like vehicle damage, and vehicles that always respawn. Vehicle control was an important part of games in Halo, and that's kinda difficult when they respawn. The lack of an assault rifle made the game much less enjoyable. The glitches in the game are pretty annoying.
You do have an assault rifle in Halo 2. It's called a SMG. :P

Would you say Halo 3 has two kinds of Assault Rifles? :)

According to: Wikipedia
Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.



I don't find the glitches annoying, but the first game was ridden with exploits as well.
I generally found the exploits in the Xbox version of Halo: CE to be less annoying than those of Halo 2. That is of course just my opinion.

[Edited on 01.22.2008 12:14 AM PST]

  • 01.21.2008 10:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
Other than the library, I don't think the campaign was overly repetitive. That being said, I don't play much campaign. I tend to prefer to multiplayer.

While unbalanced, I think the weapons worked pretty well. I would not want them to be changed. Everyone spawns with the pistol, and I think that's pretty fair. It's a great weapon, and I think it's one of the strengths of the game.

After playing through the campaign a few times, it becomes child's play to spot all the reuse. The Library stands out because of the sheer torrent of it, but it 's far from alone.

The weapons were unbalanced, but still worked well? I wouldn't call that working well at all :p

I would disagree. I would say that it made the game less fun, and it made it no longer feel like Halo.
Halo's far bigger than the number of guns you carry, mate ;)

Again, I don't play the campaign too much, but I didn't like that idea at all. I found the part with the Arbiter much less interesting, and I just wanted to finish them quickly.
I'm neutral between the Arbiter and The Chief segments, both had fun missions.

I also didn't like the fully recharging health system, and the lack of fall damage. I didn't like vehicle damage, and vehicles that always respawn. Vehicle control was an important part of games in Halo, and that's kinda difficult when they respawn. The lack of an assault rifle made the game much less enjoyable. The glitches in the game are pretty annoying.
The newer health system and fall damage, meh, how could I be bothered to miss something so trivial? I don't have to hunt for med-packs, and I have a few new vertical paths through levels, not much game-shaking change there. I liked the AR, though, SMG didn't fill the void, glad to see it return in Halo 3. I haven't run across the major glitches, but ya, utter nuisance.




Posted by: Master Kim
Ironically, Halo 3 is more of the same of Halo 2. :)

Oh so many people would disagree with you, I'd be one of them ;)

I don't know about you, but the sniper rifle, assault rifle, and shotgun see plenty of use.
Exaggeration on my part, of course. But the point was that the pistol and a select few weapons surface way too often in combat, it gets dull.

Hop into any HPC server, and see what I mean. I can't stand a large dose of vanilla H1 multiplayer anymore, I've found more balance and variety in custom content, funnily enough.

  • 01.21.2008 11:06 PM PDT

Posted by: Botolf
The weapons were unbalanced, but still worked well? I wouldn't call that working well at all :p

Balance isn't what makes the game work. I find that an even playing field is a much better system for making a game work. Spawning with an incredibly powerful mid-range weapon works quite well. Surprising enough, I find that it works better than spawning as target practice.

Halo's far bigger than the number of guns you carry, mate ;)

Agreed. The pistol was a defining weapon of Halo, but it was of course removed. This was probably at least partially due to dual-wielding capabilities. Grenades and melees are important, but they of course are incompatible with dual wielding. 3 ways to kill are reduced to one, unless of course you just use the BR, Rocket Launcher, Sniper Rifle, and Shotgun. Then it's pretty much like Halo: CE, except that you're missing the AR. The BR is also inferior to the pistol. You basically have a system that poorly emulates its predecessor. It now no longer feels like Halo, but rather, it feels like a poor imitation of Halo. Of course you often times spawn with SMG, which means you're pretty much screwed when you're fighting someone with a real weapon. You could always find another dual-wieldable weapon, but then it doesn't even feel like a poor imitation of Halo. It just feels like an average FPS, with nothing original to offer. As it turns out, dual-wielding is much more than just the number of guns you carry.

The newer health system and fall damage, meh, how could I be bothered to miss something so trivial? I don't have to hunt for med-packs, and I have a few new vertical paths through levels, not much game-shaking change there. I liked the AR, though, SMG didn't fill the void, glad to see it return in Halo 3. I haven't run across the major glitches, but ya, utter nuisance.

Well it also contributes to the game feeling less like Halo. The health system was a defining attribute of the game. Non-rechargeable health reduces streaks, and discourages camping. A lot of times campers will take some damage without dying. This can happen repeatedly in a fully recharging health system. Fall damage prevents someone from running away from a fight, and jumping off platforms.
[But the point was that the pistol and a select few weapons surface way too often in combat, it gets dull.
There aren't that many weapons in Halo to begin with. This is part of amazing unpolished simplicity of the game. Anyway, I think I use them all except the plasma pistol and needler.

  • 01.22.2008 12:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
Agreed. The pistol was a defining weapon of Halo, but it was of course removed. This was probably at least partially due to dual-wielding capabilities. Grenades and melees are important, but they of course are incompatible with dual wielding. 3 ways to kill are reduced to one, unless of course you just use the BR, Rocket Launcher, Sniper Rifle, and Shotgun. Then it's pretty much like Halo: CE, except that you're missing the AR. The BR is also inferior to the pistol. You basically have a system that poorly emulates its predecessor. It now no longer feels like Halo, but rather, it feels like a poor imitation of Halo. Of course you often times spawn with SMG, which means you're pretty much screwed when you're fighting someone with a real weapon. You could always find another dual-wieldable weapon, but then it doesn't even feel like a poor imitation of Halo. It just feels like an average FPS, with nothing original to offer. As it turns out, dual-wielding is much more than just the number of guns you carry.

I'm glad the pistol was toned down, I didn't like it much (No, I don't suck with the thing, I just hate what the thing does to balance, and it being a top weapon, in the form of a frieking pistol).

Grenades and melee are incompatible with d-wielding for balance reasons, of course, where's the fun in going up against a guy emptying two SMGs into your face, while chucking nades and meleeing like he's some kind of wizard? :p

Agreed on the stupidity of SMG spawns, <3 H3 AR spawns.

While the balance issues with dual-wielding are apparent, I think it was a valuable addition to the game because it changed the way you thought about gunplay and weapon choice, you could now sacrifice melee and grenades for an advantage in balanced, simultaneous firepower (ie, Plasma rifle mixed with an SMG). More options to approaching combat > less.

Well it also contributes to the game feeling less like Halo. The health system was a defining attribute of the game. Non-rechargeable health reduces streaks, and discourages camping. A lot of times campers will take some damage without dying. This can happen repeatedly in a fully recharging health system. Fall damage prevents someone from running away from a fight, and jumping off platforms.
I think you're nitpicking, health packs and fall damage are hardly defining attributes of Halo, they're conventions passed onto it by countless previous games. Yes, their removal adds a few slight negatives to play, but I'd argue they're balanced out by the good things they add.

You say health packs limited sprees -> I say their removal removes an element of tedium
You say fall damage prevented people from bailing from a fight -> I say its removal opens up more movement lanes within levels, and more options to combat

Just as a note (slightly related), I don't think running from a fight or camping is "noobish" behavior. Camping? You're being rewarded for patience and fighting on your own terms. Running? Running from a fight where you're outmatched or risk losing to your opponent isn't dishonorable, it's the smart thing to do. Recognizing times when you can't achieve victory should prompt an effort to find cover or evade an opponent, "going down with the ship" might sound cool, but it has no practical purpose in-game (Of course, jumping off the level to run out the clock is different, because it's intentional abuse of the game's scoring systems).

There aren't that many weapons in Halo to begin with. This is part of amazing unpolished simplicity of the game. Anyway, I think I use them all except the plasma pistol and needler.
You'd be the minority, then, there's not much incentive to vary your arsenal much, and it plagues the game in multiplayer. Sure, it's still fun to pull up Blood Gulch once in a while, but the never-ending pistol wars, etc, really kill the mood :(.

[Edited on 01.22.2008 12:14 PM PST]

  • 01.22.2008 12:13 PM PDT

Posted by: Botolf
I'm glad the pistol was toned down, I didn't like it much (No, I don't suck with the thing, I just hate what the thing does to balance, and it being a top weapon, in the form of a frieking pistol).

That's understandable. I'm just saying that if a lot of people like it, it's not a flaw; it is simply preference.

Grenades and melee are incompatible with d-wielding for balance reasons, of course, where's the fun in going up against a guy emptying two SMGs into your face, while chucking nades and meleeing like he's some kind of wizard? :p
I'm sorry; I'm not totally following what you're saying.

While the balance issues with dual-wielding are apparent, I think it was a valuable addition to the game because it changed the way you thought about gunplay and weapon choice, you could now sacrifice melee and grenades for an advantage in balanced, simultaneous firepower (ie, Plasma rifle mixed with an SMG). More options to approaching combat > less.
Grenades and melees weren't all that useful at that point. Single-wielding an SMG, and using grenades and melees, was not sufficient to defeat an SMG/Plasma Pistol combo. There was no general purpose non-dual-wieldable weapon.

I think you're nitpicking, health packs and fall damage are hardly defining attributes of Halo, they're conventions passed onto it by countless previous games. Yes, their removal adds a few slight negatives to play, but I'd argue they're balanced out by the good things they add.
Fall damage is not a defining attribute, but I still think the health system is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of other FPSes with charging shields, 100% efficient at reducing damage, and non-recharging health.

You say health packs limited sprees -> I say their removal removes an element of tedium
The same could be said if they removed reloading, and removed the need for ammo. I don't really see how it's tedious; health packs are readily available. Anyway, I don't find it as important in slayer as I do objective-based games.
You say fall damage prevented people from bailing from a fight -> I say its removal opens up more movement lanes within levels, and more options to combat
The vast majority of movement lanes are still available. You just lose health by taking some of them. Most of them aren't an instant kill. It requires you to be a bit more clever about how you land. You can crouch the landing to reduce the damage, and that adds an additional layer of skill. You could also land on an incline or an overshield to remove the damage altogether. A lot of maps allow you to land on multiple levels on the way down. I didn't feel restricted in the Xbox version of Halo. The maps were designed to account for it.


Just as a note (slightly related), I don't think running from a fight or camping is "noobish" behavior. Camping? You're being rewarded for patience and fighting on your own terms. Running? Running from a fight where you're outmatched or risk losing to your opponent isn't dishonorable, it's the smart thing to do. Recognizing times when you can't achieve victory should prompt an effort to find cover or evade an opponent, "going down with the ship" might sound cool, but it has no practical purpose in-game (Of course, jumping off the level to run out the clock is different, because it's intentional abuse of the game's scoring systems).

Running from a fight is not noobish. It's the smart thing to do, but I don't think it should be too easy to do. The noobishness of camping varies. Camping with a mauler or sword, at the top of a grav lift in Construct, is kinda noobish. Also, more than anything, it's just annoying. It removes "movement lanes." It's especially annoying when they're kind of essential. It adds "an element of tedium."

  • 01.22.2008 3:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
That's understandable. I'm just saying that if a lot of people like it, it's not a flaw; it is simply preference.

Pistol as a powerhouse is preference, ya, but its effect on balance is more debatable.

I'm sorry; I'm not totally following what you're saying.
Being able to wield two guns is an advantage, being able to throw grenades and melee while doing it doesn't make much sense, from a balance perspective. You have to balance an advantage with disadvantages.

While the balance issues with dual-wielding are apparent, I think it was a valuable addition to the game because it changed the way you thought about gunplay and weapon choice, you could now sacrifice melee and grenades for an advantage in balanced, simultaneous firepower (ie, Plasma rifle mixed with an SMG). More options to approaching combat > less.

Grenades and melees weren't all that useful at that point. Single-wielding an SMG, and using grenades and melees, was not sufficient to defeat an SMG/Plasma Pistol combo. There was no general purpose non-dual-wieldable weapon.
Yes, but the concept isn't inherently flawed. If some weapons make the concept behave funky, then it's time to tweak the balance a bit.

Fall damage is not a defining attribute, but I still think the health system is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of other FPSes with charging shields, 100% efficient at reducing damage, and non-recharging health.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than a few shooters with recharging energy shields, especially sci-fi ones. I know for sure that non-recharging health is used everywhere in games, though.

The same could be said if they removed reloading, and removed the need for ammo. I don't really see how it's tedious; health packs are readily available. Anyway, I don't find it as important in slayer as I do objective-based games.
Er, no, a health pack isn't a fundamental component of the game's gunplay like reloading and ammunition refills are. The reason I don't have a problem with removing them is because they're "fluff", they don't play a vital role in the gameplay mechanics, and don't really have many redeemable qualities.

The vast majority of movement lanes are still available. You just lose health by taking some of them. Most of them aren't an instant kill. It requires you to be a bit more clever about how you land. You can crouch the landing to reduce the damage, and that adds an additional layer of skill. You could also land on an incline or an overshield to remove the damage altogether. A lot of maps allow you to land on multiple levels on the way down. I didn't feel restricted in the Xbox version of Halo. The maps were designed to account for it.
Many non-lethal pathways are restricted because nobody likes to take damage before getting into a fight, it's shooting yourself in the foot. If you want to regain the health, you'll no doubt have to retreat, find a health pack, then realize the shortcut wasn't worth it. Later Halos just simplified things to the point where you could say "If I can drop down there, I can do so without having to fuss with killing or damaging myself, and hunting for med-packs if things go wrong". All the vertical movement lanes are now open unconditionally, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I like the idea of the battlefield constantly being a zone of 3 useful dimensions, not the typical 2.

Running from a fight is not noobish. It's the smart thing to do, but I don't think it should be too easy to do. The noobishness of camping varies. Camping with a mauler or sword, at the top of a grav lift in Construct, is kinda noobish. Also, more than anything, it's just annoying. It removes "movement lanes." It's especially annoying when they're kind of essential. It adds "an element of tedium."
So we agree on some things, but disagree on others. My view is that whatever tactic you come up with (aside from cheating, abuse of game elements, glitching, etc) is fair game. If camping in a lane of high traffic with a powerful weapon nets you a lot of kills, good for you. You understand the weapon spawns and the map, and you used it to your advantage. It's no more "noobish" than any of the other favoured fighting styles, and requires patience. Shouldn't patience be rewarded?

  • 01.22.2008 3:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ugh, these posts aren't getting any shorter. If you wish to continue discussing this, I'm cutting down on size :p

  • 01.22.2008 3:50 PM PDT

Posted by: Botolf
Being able to wield two guns is an advantage, being able to throw grenades and melee while doing it doesn't make much sense, from a balance perspective. You have to balance an advantage with disadvantages.

I agree that it doesn't make much sense, but it would be better if there was just no dual-wielding. Then there would be nothing to tweak and balance beyond the regular two-handed weapons.

Yes, but the concept isn't inherently flawed. If some weapons make the concept behave funky, then it's time to tweak the balance a bit.
Halo 3 has them tweaked pretty well, but people don't dual wield all that much anymore, as a result. Good tweaking of the system just tends to result in dual wielding not being used. Which is fine with me, but it seems like an unnecessary feature at this point.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than a few shooters with recharging energy shields, especially sci-fi ones. I know for sure that non-recharging health is used everywhere in games, though.
I'm speaking of the hybrid health system that combines the two.

Er, no, a health pack isn't a fundamental component of the game's gunplay like reloading and ammunition refills are. The reason I don't have a problem with removing them is because they're "fluff", they don't play a vital role in the gameplay mechanics, and don't really have many redeemable qualities.
However, it is a fundamental element of the game's health system, and without a health system, there isn't much reason to be using guns. I wouldn't have a major problem with the health kits being removed, but I don't like all damage to automatically be recovered. If there is damage that isn't recovered automatically, people tend to expect health kits. Again, in slayer, it doesn't matter too much; if there's a battle, normally there's a winner. However, if you have a flag carrier who is almost killed, but manages to escape, his health will fully recharge. Potentially, this allows him another escape, if he's confronted again, even if he's taken more than enough damage to die. Given, successfully fleeing from an attacker should be rewarded, but not by given completely recharged health.

Many non-lethal pathways are restricted because nobody likes to take damage before getting into a fight, it's shooting yourself in the foot. If you want to regain the health, you'll no doubt have to retreat, find a health pack, then realize the shortcut wasn't worth it.

If landed correctly, much of the time you won't lose more than your shield.
Later Halos just simplified things to the point where you could say "If I can drop down there, I can do so without having to fuss with killing or damaging myself, and hunting for med-packs if things go wrong". All the vertical movement lanes are now open unconditionally, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I like the idea of the battlefield constantly being a zone of 3 useful dimensions, not the typical 2.
They simplified things to make it a less skilled game. Obviously there is still some skill involved, but it mainly comes from being able to use a gun well. Being able to fall without injuring yourself, or being able to manage your health are no longer necessary. It seems more like, "I can mindlessly drop down here without considering any consequences of doing so. I don't have to use any skill or find an actual way down, because I can fall from near infinite heights, unless the game doesn't want me to go somewhere. "
So we agree on some things, but disagree on others. My view is that whatever tactic you come up with (aside from cheating, abuse of game elements, glitching, etc) is fair game.
It's certainly fair, but it doesn't make it any less noobish or lame. It certainly doesn't make it any less annoying, and it definitely shouldn't be encouraged by the game.
If camping in a lane of high traffic with a powerful weapon nets you a lot of kills, good for you. You understand the weapon spawns and the map, and you used it to your advantage.
That's not exactly complicated. You could learn them pretty easily if you really wanted to spend your time camping.
It's no more "noobish" than any of the other favoured fighting styles, and requires patience.
That's not really the case. While there are other fighting styles that are noobish, most aren't to the same extent. Waiting takes no skill; it only takes patience.
Shouldn't patience be rewarded?
It should not be rewarded in a deathmatch game, with respawns. If it used for the purpose of eliminating your enemies or achieving a particular objective, then it should be rewarded. If it's simply to rack up kills, while disrupting the natural flow of the game, it should not be rewarded.

  • 01.22.2008 8:07 PM PDT

Posted by: Botolf
Ugh, these posts aren't getting any shorter. If you wish to continue discussing this, I'm cutting down on size :p

That's fine. I suspect that I'll respond accordingly. I think we're mostly discussing opinions that aren't going to change, anyway.

  • 01.22.2008 8:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ok, limiting myself to one paragraph, these posts are getting out of control :p

Posted by: SentientGiraffeHowever, it is a fundamental element of the game's health system, and without a health system, there isn't much reason to be using guns. I wouldn't have a major problem with the health kits being removed, but I don't like all damage to automatically be recovered. If there is damage that isn't recovered automatically, people tend to expect health kits. Again, in slayer, it doesn't matter too much; if there's a battle, normally there's a winner. However, if you have a flag carrier who is almost killed, but manages to escape, his health will fully recharge. Potentially, this allows him another escape, if he's confronted again, even if he's taken more than enough damage to die. Given, successfully fleeing from an attacker should be rewarded, but not by given completely recharged health.
Kind of a recent realization of mine, but the actual health system in the game is nothing more than a clone of the energy shields, with the distinction it doesn't refill automatically. If I was trying to get into the game designer's mindset, I could understand why it was ushered into a less visible role, it's an extra layer of complexity on the UI and the game that can be modified and hidden with marginal effect.

Anyways, in combat, the chance of living to escape again with static health versus recharge health isn't all that different. I would agree with your complaints if the health recharged quickly enough to prolong an immediate fight with the enemy (ie health suddenly zooms back up in the middle of another reload, and you become frustrated).

  • 01.22.2008 11:57 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Posted by: Botolf
[Posted by: BadJMan
Posted by: Botolf
Posted by: SentientGiraffe
True, but why play the sequels when the original is so close to perfection?

In my opinion, the sequels fixed many problems that plagued the original. Close to perfection? Hardly.

They did fix problems that the original had.

They also discarded all the stuff that made it good.

I prefer halo 3 to halo 2, because I hated the problems halo 2 had. But even halo 2 had good points, and they binned those in halo 3. Same approach again. Each sequel addressed the problems of the last one, but inexplicably got rid of the stuff that worked well.

Stuff changes in sequels, it's just what happens. Devs aren't content to let their games just become empty clones of their precursors, so they try to fix what they think is bad, and add what they think is good. Creating a game designed from the start to "be like Halo 1" would probably suffer from "more of the same" feel.

Yeah, stuff changes in sequels. The idea is to either replace the bad with the good, or the good with the better - or at least, a different kind of good.

They did fine at replacing the bad with the good. But they replaced the good with the bad in some cases. That's not what they're after I would think.

Of course sequels change. And by saying they binned a lot of good stuff from each predecessor when making it's sequel, I am in no way saying that any of the sequels should have been designed from the start to be like halo 1. But they would have been much better off building on what had worked and making changes from there. Not starting over using only a list of what needed to be fixed.

  • 01.23.2008 2:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
Posted by: Master Kim
Posted by: SentientGiraffe
I also didn't like the fully recharging health system, and the lack of fall damage. I didn't like vehicle damage, and vehicles that always respawn. Vehicle control was an important part of games in Halo, and that's kinda difficult when they respawn. The lack of an assault rifle made the game much less enjoyable. The glitches in the game are pretty annoying.
You do have an assault rifle in Halo 2. It's called a SMG. :P

Would you say Halo 3 has two kinds of Assault Rifles? :)
No. The SMG is still plays like the AR from the first game and the MA5C is a new weapon altogether where the similarities to the first weapon's AR is purely cosmetic and it actually makes for a good starting weapon.Posted by: Botolf
I also didn't like the fully recharging health system, and the lack of fall damage. I didn't like vehicle damage, and vehicles that always respawn. Vehicle control was an important part of games in Halo, and that's kinda difficult when they respawn. The lack of an assault rifle made the game much less enjoyable. The glitches in the game are pretty annoying.
The newer health system and fall damage, meh, how could I be bothered to miss something so trivial? I don't have to hunt for med-packs
Which is either a positive change or a game changing design flaw.
Posted by: Botolf
and I have a few new vertical paths through levels, not much game-shaking change there. I liked the AR, though, SMG didn't fill the void, glad to see it return in Halo 3. I haven't run across the major glitches, but ya, utter nuisance.

Posted by: Botolf
Posted by: Master Kim
Ironically, Halo 3 is more of the same of Halo 2. :)

Oh so many people would disagree with you, I'd be one of them ;)
I exaggerated there, but allow me to elaborate. Aside from number of new features (Holy crap, it's a "bubble" shield!), new variety, less auto-aim, and so forth, I'm still stuck with the problem of dual-wielded guns, an annoying albeit improved lunge associated with melees, an Energy Sword that still takes relatively little skill to kill people, and once again, new vehicles and weapons have altered the game play of the previous game and added a whole bunch of stuff we didn't need.

A slightly irrelevant point: Halo's game play design of having several useful weapons with a unique role instead of having a bunch of weapons that are the same worked out pretty well. Granted, it wasn't perfect, but it worked great, with only ten weapons (if you include the fuel rod gun from the PC version). In Halo 3, you have a bunch of new content which adds variety, yes, but also unnecessary imbalances that we really didn't need. Not all of them are horrible, but there are now essentially eight new weapons, not including the equipment, Spike grenade, firebomb, along with the retarded pistol and the Needler and other weapon changes. Variety is good, but too much without offsetting the game play is not good. Plus, in terms of style and design, do we need a Brute shotgun, Brute SMG, or Brute sword? I'm glad they're not making a Halo 4, because then Bungie might decide to make a Brute sniper rifle, Brute Needler, Brute Spartan Laser, Brute BR, Brute Ghost, Brute aircraft, Brute elephants, gah! Also, regarding vehicles, did we need a Mongoose or a UNSC Banshee? Does making a weapon with a nearly identical counter-part doesn't make for good game play? The Spartan Laser was an interesting addition that I liked because there is no other weapon like it. Halo 2 gave us the Covenant Warthog, the Spectre. In Halo 3, Bungie removed the Spectre and added the Prowler, AKA, the Brute Spectre. See a pattern here?
Posted by: Botolf
I don't know about you, but the sniper rifle, assault rifle, and shotgun see plenty of use.
Exaggeration on my part, of course. But the point was that the pistol and a select few weapons surface way too often in combat, it gets dull.

Hop into any HPC server, and see what I mean. I can't stand a large dose of vanilla H1 multiplayer anymore, I've found more balance and variety in custom content, funnily enough.
Last time I checked, that sniper rifle and shotty was still pretty popular. :)

I'm in favor in bringing down the size of these posts myself.

[Edited on 01.23.2008 2:35 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2008 2:29 PM PDT

Posted by: Master Kim
No. The SMG is still plays like the AR from the first game and the MA5C is a new weapon altogether where the similarities to the first weapon's AR is purely cosmetic and it actually makes for a good starting weapon.
While the SMG is clearly the intended replacement to the assault rifle, it's not a solid weapon without dual-wielding. It's not a good two-handed standalone weapon. The two ARs, not only look the same, but serve a similar purpose. The SMG falls very short of acting as an assault rifle.
Variety is good, but too much without offsetting the game play is not good. Plus, in terms of style and design, do we need a Brute shotgun, Brute SMG, or Brute sword? I'm glad they're not making a Halo 4, because then Bungie might decide to make a Brute sniper rifle, Brute Needler, Brute Spartan Laser, Brute BR, Brute Ghost, Brute aircraft, Brute elephants, gah!
The Chopper kinda seems like a Brute Ghost, already. Although it's not as close as the other comparisons. At least they got rid of the Brute plasma rifle; I think that was the worst of this.

Also, regarding vehicles, did we need a Mongoose or a UNSC Banshee?
No, but admittedly, I do like them.

  • 01.23.2008 8:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Master Kim
I exaggerated there, but allow me to elaborate. Aside from number of new features (Holy crap, it's a "bubble" shield!), new variety, less auto-aim, and so forth, I'm still stuck with the problem of dual-wielded guns, an annoying albeit improved lunge associated with melees, an Energy Sword that still takes relatively little skill to kill people, and once again, new vehicles and weapons have altered the game play of the previous game and added a whole bunch of stuff we didn't need.


"Holy crap, it's a bubble shields": Hey now, don't go dissing mah equipmentz! D: (New layer of battle tactics to leverage in combat)

Dual-wielding: I'll agree with you if you think it was a overrused in Halo 2, but from what I've heard, it's less prevalent (Generally, not using maulers as an example).

Lunge: I like lunge, it makes melee a frequent thing. On Halo PC, you get used to seeing next to no meleeing happening during a match.

Energy Sword: It's a power weapon, it's supposed to be potent, just like rockets, sniper rifle, fuel rod cannon, etc. This time around, though, it's toned down (Slower readying time, ammunition limit).

New vehicles & weapons: Sure, we don't "need" them, but they're good for freshening things up and widening the array of arsenal. Is being able to kill with dozens of new toys bad in a shooter sequel? :p

[Edited on 01.23.2008 11:37 PM PST]

  • 01.23.2008 11:35 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Posted by: Botolf
Dual-wielding: I'll agree with you if you think it was a overrused in Halo 2, but from what I've heard, it's less prevalent (Generally, not using maulers as an example).

Woah. Hold on there. From what you've heard??

  • 01.24.2008 2:51 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SentientGiraffe
Posted by: Master Kim
No. The SMG is still plays like the AR from the first game and the MA5C is a new weapon altogether where the similarities to the first weapon's AR is purely cosmetic and it actually makes for a good starting weapon.
While the SMG is clearly the intended replacement to the assault rifle, it's not a solid weapon without dual-wielding. It's not a good two-handed standalone weapon. The two ARs, not only look the same, but serve a similar purpose. The SMG falls very short of acting as an assault rifle.
No, I mean the SMG was like the assault rifle in the first game in terms of accuracy and rate of fire, as in, it wasn't a very good starting weapon. Neither the MA5B nor the SMG were good starting weapons and they behaved in similar ways. The AR from the first game and the one from the third game are very different, in terms of clip size, damage, and accuracy.
Posted by: SentientGiraffe
Also, regarding vehicles, did we need a Mongoose or a UNSC Banshee?
No, but admittedly, I do like them.
Okay, me too. :)

  • 01.24.2008 3:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: BadJMan
Posted by: Botolf
Dual-wielding: I'll agree with you if you think it was a overrused in Halo 2, but from what I've heard, it's less prevalent (Generally, not using maulers as an example).

Woah. Hold on there. From what you've heard??

The forums make a lot of noise, so yes.

  • 01.24.2008 11:25 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

And what about from what you've seen? From playing the game? Surely that's more relevant.

  • 01.25.2008 3:47 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I haven't had the chance to play much multiplayer, but the AR spawn seems to de-emphasize it in a way (It's quite potent, so it's not as if you're scrambling like a lunatic to replace it with something right away). The fact that there's more strong single-wielded weapons in the game than at any other time in the series seems to contribute as well.

  • 01.25.2008 11:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Aw, screw it, I have to keep quoting individual lines for emphasis.
Posted by: Botolf
"Holy crap, it's a bubble shields": Hey now, don't go dissing mah equipmentz! D: (New layer of battle tactics to leverage in combat)
No, I think the new equipment is interesting as well, but it didn't seem "Halo" to me.
Posted by: Botolf
Dual-wielding: I'll agree with you if you think it was a overrused in Halo 2, but from what I've heard, it's less prevalent (Generally, not using maulers as an example).
It's still over powered and still easy for me to bring players down with dual SMGs; people don't often dual-wield Maulers because you can simply get away with just firing and meleeing.
Posted by: Botolf
Lunge: I like lunge, it makes melee a frequent thing. On Halo PC, you get used to seeing next to no meleeing happening during a match.
That's because the netcode not only forces you to lead your shots, but your melees as well; everything aside from movement. Although melees are much more frequently used in the sequels than the first game, it's still a component of game play. Also, Halo 2 and 3 made meleeing take much less skill, but mostly Halo 3. Melees used to be a calculated risk, something to reward the player for taking the alternative, because that's what it was: An alternative way to kill somebody, or as a weapon of last resort.

Halo 2 introduced the lunge and the Energy Sword, which was terrible when your melees didn't connect with the enemy (and that can happen without the problems of latency) and you paid for it, by either him somehow magically beating you down when it appears that you meleed first or the lunge inadvertently threw you off the map. Halo 3 corrected that with a more accurate melee system that lunged straighter at people, which I liked, but why did Bungie make it so damned powerful? It takes two melees to kill people in Halo 3. Two melees. What the Hell is that? Now, in close quarters combat, it's not really so much an alternative as it is the only way you'd want to attack your opponent.
Posted by: Botolf
Energy Sword: It's a power weapon, it's supposed to be potent, just like rockets, sniper rifle, fuel rod cannon, etc. This time around, though, it's toned down (Slower readying time, ammunition limit).
Which is great, but the sword is still the sword and it takes significantly less skill to use than the other weapons (except heavies are heavies).
Posted by: Botolf
New vehicles & weapons: Sure, we don't "need" them, but they're good for freshening things up and widening the array of arsenal. Is being able to kill with dozens of new toys bad in a shooter sequel? :p
It is when you're talking about consistent, balanced game play. Plus, most of the new weapons and vehicles don't even cut it for me not only game play-wise but stylistically; I'm sorry, but I can't really appreciate Brute iterations of old weapons. Nothing's wrong with new weapons or vehicles, but too much to bite without any distinct flavor doesn't really do much for the game design.

  • 01.25.2008 7:30 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3