Posted by: hellstorm5
Like in my previous post, I understand the progression of a game with minor tweaks...You say that, then go right on to say 'but having any of these 'tweaks' means it isn't the same game.' Equipment is not a 'little tweak.' And if you're counting it as one, then you are required by your own logic to count Armor Abilities as one.
Stop putting words in my mouth.I am not. I am making the connections that YOUR logic is saying, and if you cannot understand the concept of logic then you should not be here.
Anselm says God exists because he is the greatest conceivable being. Atheists can say they understand the concept of God, but he does not exist. But existing in reality is greater than existing only in thought. SO if they understand what the actual concept of God is, then they cannot say he does not exist because if they can imagine a God that DOES exist in reality, then he must exist in reality.
The rebuttal is that by this logic, if there was an Island dubbed the 'Greatest Conceivable Lost Island' that was perfect in every way... as in, no island could ever be imagined that is greater than it, then it also has to exist by that same logic.
That is not putting words in Anselm's mouth. It is making a logical connection BASED on his words. And if you can't understand that, again, you should not be on this forum. Stop saying anything that proves you wrong is 'putting words in your mouth.' Not only does it not help your case at all, but it's just plain irritating to hear such a fallacy.
Halo 1, the first Halo, might have had health, but again, one of the few minor tweaks in the progression of a game. As for ODST, irrelevant, I meant multiplayer. As for Halo 3, there wasn't enough health to show.In Halo 3 a regular player had 70 points of shield and 45 points of Health. That is a good deal of health. So don't say 'Halo 3 didn't have enough.' You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You say that Halo 2 got rid of health and that's OK because it's just a tweak. Then you claim that adding it back is unacceptable and means the game that does so is 'Not Halo.' This is completely contradictory and asinine at best. And ODST is most certain NOT irrelevant, and don't you dare try to argue that further. THAT is a desperate attempt to count off a perfectly valid point with absolutely no logical backing behind it.
Well let's think about this... Halo 1 didn't have a ranking system, which is fine since it's the first game so Halo 1 is irrelevant, but each game after that at least needed some skill to rank up. Halo: Reach takes NO skill to rank up. Stop putting words in my mouth.Halo: Reach uses the same ranking system used in Halo 3. The difference is that it follows the model of Social Playlists, where you cannot see the trueskill number and the matching requirements are far more lax. So if your argument is regarding how we are matched, then again you have proved you have no idea what you are talking about.
Halo: Reach uses a visible system based on experience. This system has absolutely no impact on how you are matched whatsoever. An Inheritor will get matched with a recruit as long as neither have played in that particular playlist before. But this is also similar to the post-TU2 Halo 3 update. So again by your logic, you're saying Halo 3 is not Halo either since it uses this model.
Of course, my previous statement is still perfectly valid because each claim you made of 'oh it still takes skill' still shows how each system has been altered. Halo: Reach stays with Halo 3 in that regard.
Halo 1 was the only one to have fall damage, but those maps were different, and at least you didn't get stunned. As for ODST, I'm still talking about multiplayer.Halo: CE had fall damage as did Halo 3: ODST. So no, Halo: CE was not the only one. The 'maps' have absolutely no relevance and I'm shocked you would even mention that. You might as well say 'Halo: CE was the only one to have fall damage, but the chair in front of me is brown.'
ODST is relevant.
Halo 1 had the pistol, yes, no bloom.Bloom is a Halo: Reach mechanic. One that hardly means Halo: Reach is 'not Halo.' Idiotic to say otherwise, to be frank.
Again, progression of the game took it to the BR and kept the pistol. Soo essentially, you're wrong.... What? You're saying that replacing the one shot with a 3 shot weapon that accomplishes the exact same thing isn't changing the game. But you're also saying that taking away the three shot weapon and putting back in a one shot weapon is completely changing the game. You are completely contradicting yourself, and even if this did constitute 'such a huge change,' it's still asinine to suggest that this means Halo: Reach is 'not Halo.'
Hey guess what mate? Progression of the game took it to the DMR and kept the pistol. So essentially, you're wrong.
Stop putting words in my mouth.I typed up a very detailed explanation as to why that statement is idiotic in any logical setting. Please read it.
Compared to over an average of over 50% (up to 90%) head shot to normal kill ratio in Reach, they were very rare.Where are you making these numbers up from? From your own service record? Because you have 822 kills with the sniper rifle and only 356 headshots. That is a 43%. So actually by your logic, it has gotten even HARDER to get headshots!
:O
[Edited on 01.10.2012 1:17 PM PST]