- ghostvirus
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Posted by; A random forum poster
Posted by; ghostvirus
This apple is brown, and rotten. This orange on the other hand, is in relatively average shape. So the orange is definitely the preferable option. ----------You can't compare apples and oranges. You're so dumb.
Posted by: MLG Cheehwawa
If the game takes as little skill as in H3, the casual majority is pleased. Cool, right? The hardcore gamer is pretty much left in the dust (sure you can change some stuff around, but the weapon balance can't be adjusted, so we're stuck with what we get).
If the game took more skill than H2/H3, then the hardcore minority is pleased, AND SO IS THE CASUAL MAJORITY. Wait, what the hell did I just say? Oh yeah!
If the game takes more skill, the ranking system works, so the guy who is bad at aiming is matched up against someone just as bad at aiming as him, so he is not getting killed too fast (as he would be when the game takes less skill because the ranking system is then less accurate) and he is having just as much fun as he did in the noob-friendly Halo games.
See? If the game takes more fun, EVERYONE is happy. Not just one group. Stop being selfish :)
Im sorry, but logic like this won't coinvince anyone, in any position to influence the direction of Halo: Reach.
Ignoring your baseless, and fundamentally flawed arguement that the game takes no skill. And steping into a hypothetical world, where neither Halo 3, or 2 take skill.
Your logic is still broken. Its fundamentally contradictory. It states the ranking system is broken, because no skill is required. Then states, players that have no skill will fair better when the game takes more skill. Because they won't get matched with as many players better than them. If the game takes little to no skill, by extention it wouldn't matter who you played.
To further explain what I mean.You have two situations, in your arguement. The one outright stated, and the one implied.
The one outright stated, describes a world where noobs get matched with players way better than them. And inturn get owned. Which you infer to be a sign of a game lacking skill. Which makes no sense at all.
The implied world, is one where good players aren't as high of a level as they should be. Because they get owned by, what are implied to be inferior players.
These two worlds, these two generalizations, are contradicting in nature. They are incompatible. If you put the two worlds together. You have a world where noobs "get killed too fast" by better players, because "better" players are a lower rank than they should be, because noobs can hold their own against them.
Simplifiying it further, to make the contradiction clear as day.
The cause of "inferior" getting owned, by your arguement is that inferior don't get owned when they should.
You don't solve this paradox, by saying, Okay I guess a more hardcore game will lead to inferior players getting owned more afterall. You solve it, by throwing your ego down the drain. And realizing, Halo 3 clearly, and undeniably takes skill. And a lot more of it than most games.
There is a reason, why so many people make second accounts. Because there is a wide range of skill levels in Halo 3.
The fact of the matter is, I don't see anything that suggests the game takes little to no skill. I see a bunch of players, who aren't as good as their ego leads them to believe. Who create webs of flawed logic, to compensate for that.
[Edited on 09.17.2009 1:34 PM PDT]