Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [22 votes]: should the sniper have a reticule when not zoomed in
  • Poll [22 votes]: should the sniper have a reticule when not zoomed in
Subject: should the sniper have a reticule when not zoomed in
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Poll: should the sniper have a reticule when not zoomed in  [closed]
yes:  55%
(12 Votes)
no:  41%
(9 Votes)
should be optional:  5%
(1 Votes)
Total Votes: 22

should the sniper have a reticule when not zoomed in

  • 11.14.2009 11:25 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Food62
  • user homepage:

What about the inbred house potatoes?!


.

Yes. Why would it not?

  • 11.14.2009 11:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

on most other combat games they dont have reticules

  • 11.14.2009 11:27 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: Food62
  • user homepage:

What about the inbred house potatoes?!


.

Posted by: adam4472
on most other combat games they dont have reticules



So? Halo has always had the reticule on the sniper rifle, why would they stop having it just because some other games do not?

  • 11.14.2009 11:29 AM PDT

(;3=

Posted by: adam4472
on most other combat games they dont have reticules


this is like a parent answer "Halo isn't those other games"

  • 11.14.2009 11:30 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: JFKES
  • user homepage:

"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me"

- Batman

It would stop stupid no-scoping.

  • 11.14.2009 11:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

they should definitely make it optional

  • 11.14.2009 11:33 AM PDT

And though you fight to stay alive
Your body starts to shiver
For no mere mortal can resist
The evil of the thriller

Posted by: Food63
Posted by: adam4472
on most other combat games they dont have reticules



So? Halo has always had the reticule on the sniper rifle, why would they stop having it just because some other games do not?

I think it has more to do with how the sniper can outperform the shotgun even at close range unless it's at melee range.


It takes skill to no scope though.

[Edited on 11.14.2009 11:50 AM PST]

  • 11.14.2009 11:33 AM PDT

Yes i guess... Its true that most combat games doesn't have one but Halo has always had one, why to remove it?

  • 11.14.2009 11:34 AM PDT

Posted by: Big Black Bear
What are we supposed to be discussing here?


"Nothing in the 'Verse can stop me."

If you want no reticule put Blind on.
If you want it off in MM then quityour-blam!-en.

  • 11.14.2009 11:37 AM PDT

All reticles are permanent. As reticles are placed onto the visors of Spartans/Marines/ODST because of their helmets and the technology. WHy not take away the reticles from third person shooters? Because they shouldn't technically be able to see reticles.

And no-scoping isn't stupid. Just because you are -blam!- at it doesn't mean it's stupid. It takes skill to be able to no scope.

  • 11.14.2009 11:41 AM PDT

.:. îXî - $ìgñ øf thé GøÐz .:.


My Profile - iXi Gaming


Î ũňķñ{ǾẄŃ} ū

lol @ the people voting no. You guys mad at no scopes???

  • 11.14.2009 11:42 AM PDT

Posted by: Orange Blob
All reticles are permanent. As reticles are placed onto the visors of Spartans/Marines/ODST because of their helmets and the technology. WHy not take away the reticles from third person shooters? Because they shouldn't technically be able to see reticles.

And no-scoping isn't stupid. Just because you are -blam!- at it doesn't mean it's stupid. It takes skill to be able to no scope.


i totaly agree

  • 11.14.2009 11:45 AM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Posted by: billanizer
Posted by: Orange Blob
All reticles are permanent. As reticles are placed onto the visors of Spartans/Marines/ODST because of their helmets and the technology. WHy not take away the reticles from third person shooters? Because they shouldn't technically be able to see reticles.

And no-scoping isn't stupid. Just because you are -blam!- at it doesn't mean it's stupid. It takes skill to be able to no scope.


i totaly agree
It is either skill, in which case you were legitimately outmatched, or it was luck, in which case you simply got unlucky.

  • 11.14.2009 11:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: adam4472
should the sniper have a reticule when not zoomed in

I'm tempted to say no.

More than once I've called bull-blam!- when I go to beatdown a Sniper only to eat a bodyshot followed by a stock-to-the-forehead desert.

But it just means I have to not engage Snipers in their avenue of attack and flank them in all instances.

[Edited on 11.14.2009 12:02 PM PST]

  • 11.14.2009 11:59 AM PDT

Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Posted by: billanizer
Posted by: Orange Blob
All reticles are permanent. As reticles are placed onto the visors of Spartans/Marines/ODST because of their helmets and the technology. WHy not take away the reticles from third person shooters? Because they shouldn't technically be able to see reticles.

And no-scoping isn't stupid. Just because you are -blam!- at it doesn't mean it's stupid. It takes skill to be able to no scope.


i totaly agree
It is either skill, in which case you were legitimately outmatched, or it was luck, in which case you simply got unlucky.


I kind of got what you meant. But it's still a little confusing.

  • 11.14.2009 12:02 PM PDT