Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Who is playtesting Halo3 for balance?
  • Subject: Who is playtesting Halo3 for balance?
Subject: Who is playtesting Halo3 for balance?

It's fun when we win and funny when we lose: Le Mediocrity
OR
Come take your verbal beating like a man in THE CAVE

Posted by: Usedtabe
http://www.myspace.com/usedtabe
there's some on there, pics section

Post injury.....uploading pre


*sigh* You actually did it. Sheesh. Talk about posting ridiculous -blam!- in a playtest thread...

  • 06.19.2006 10:43 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: RhythmKiller
This is ridiculous. The game clearly should be tested by all different types of gamer and points raised from each can be taken into consideration. To suggest anything else is nothing more than arrogance and selfishness.


Who would you want to develop a new drug that cures a cold? Some guy who's had a cold before, a high school chemist, or an expert in medicine?


Bungie are the ones developing the drug.

  • 06.19.2006 10:43 AM PDT

Its called an analogy, its meant to compare two similiar situations or items...

  • 06.19.2006 10:45 AM PDT

Death by figure skater.

Posted by: RhythmKiller
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: RhythmKiller
This is ridiculous. The game clearly should be tested by all different types of gamer and points raised from each can be taken into consideration. To suggest anything else is nothing more than arrogance and selfishness.


Who would you want to develop a new drug that cures a cold? Some guy who's had a cold before, a high school chemist, or an expert in medicine?


Bungie are the ones developing the drug.


I'll happily test it for effectiveness. :)

  • 06.19.2006 10:46 AM PDT

And Caer Bannog, you do realize that you blocked me from sending you PM's after I embarrassed you the other day, right? So sending me PM's wont get you a response unless you unblock me.

  • 06.19.2006 10:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
And Caer Bannog, you do realize that you blocked me from sending you PM's after I embarrassed you the other day, right? So sending me PM's wont get you a response unless you unblock me.


Quit trying to harass me. It won't work, I will not sleep with you.

  • 06.19.2006 10:52 AM PDT

Posted by: Caer Bannog
Posted by: TheBigShow
And Caer Bannog, you do realize that you blocked me from sending you PM's after I embarrassed you the other day, right? So sending me PM's wont get you a response unless you unblock me.


Quit trying to harass me. It won't work, I will not sleep with you.


You're the one who keeps sending me PM's that I cant reply to. Im sure you like it better (as you just said in your last PM) because it makes you feel like you are actually winning an argument, albiet one against yourself.

  • 06.19.2006 10:55 AM PDT

It's fun when we win and funny when we lose: Le Mediocrity
OR
Come take your verbal beating like a man in THE CAVE

Posted by: OksanaBayul
...I'd accept any scenario that puts a guy who's studied the game in the playtesting room. You could take 100 casual gamers, and just give me one competetive player and I'd take it at this point.


This is about the right ratio I think. But the last line is the problem (if I'm reading it correctly). If the 100 casual gamers say "This is a great feature. It's fun!" and the "pro" gamer says: "but it shifts balance too much" ... you would take the opinion of the "pro". Not smart business and not good for the game as a whole. The "pro" can tell you what's balanced, but his perspective on fun is skewed because his idea of fun relies on a perfectly balanced game.

Note: Part of the reason my fellow average Joes are flaming is 1) the guy who likes to post pictures of himself is on the Balance side and 2) there will be no clear winner to this debate anyway ... so they're having fun at your (collective) expense.

  • 06.19.2006 10:57 AM PDT

Posted by: Wiltron
Note: Part of the reason my fellow average Joes are flaming is 1) the guy who likes to post pictures of himself is on the Balance side and 2) there will be no clear winner to this debate anyway ... so they're having fun at your (collective) expense.


Wow, then retards must have fun 24/7

  • 06.19.2006 11:00 AM PDT

Death by figure skater.

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: Caer Bannog
Posted by: TheBigShow
And Caer Bannog, you do realize that you blocked me from sending you PM's after I embarrassed you the other day, right? So sending me PM's wont get you a response unless you unblock me.


Quit trying to harass me. It won't work, I will not sleep with you.


You're the one who keeps sending me PM's that I cant reply to. Im sure you like it better (as you just said in your last PM) because it makes you feel like you are actually winning an argument, albiet one against yourself.


This is all so childish. Tom, you say you're making a mature game, but unfortunately, nothing but children seem to be playing it and posting on your forum.

Back on topic please.

  • 06.19.2006 11:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

i betcha that the playtesting will become one of the temp jobs

  • 06.19.2006 11:04 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
Its called an analogy, its meant to compare two similiar situations or items...


and not a very good one. See with a vacine there are two clear outcomes. Either it won't work or it will. When making a video game there are about half a billion outcomes, none of which are correct.


If you don't understand how to use anaologies then just don't use them....like a pig on a tight rope.

[Edited on 6/19/2006]

  • 06.19.2006 11:08 AM PDT

Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Its called an analogy, its meant to compare two similiar situations or items...


and not a very good one. See with a vacine there are two clear outcomes. Either it won't work or it will. When making a video game there are about half a billion outcomes, none of which are correct.


If you don't understand how to use anaologies then just don't use them....like a pig on a tight rope.


Actually, there are infinite outcomes when creating a new drug. It works well or it doesnt or anywhere in between, just like a video game. You're pretty good at arguing about something you know nothing about though.

  • 06.19.2006 11:12 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Its called an analogy, its meant to compare two similiar situations or items...


and not a very good one. See with a vacine there are two clear outcomes. Either it won't work or it will. When making a video game there are about half a billion outcomes, none of which are correct.


If you don't understand how to use anaologies then just don't use them....like a pig on a tight rope.


Actually, there are infinite outcomes when creating a new drug. It works well or it doesnt or anywhere in between, just like a video game. You're pretty good at arguing about something you know nothing about though.



Intresting, you rarely hear about the Smallpox vaccine only working on a select few....

and last I checked the Polio one wasn't resisted by anyone.

[Edited on 6/19/2006]

  • 06.19.2006 11:13 AM PDT

::balances::

  • 06.19.2006 11:16 AM PDT

Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Its called an analogy, its meant to compare two similiar situations or items...


and not a very good one. See with a vacine there are two clear outcomes. Either it won't work or it will. When making a video game there are about half a billion outcomes, none of which are correct.


If you don't understand how to use anaologies then just don't use them....like a pig on a tight rope.


Actually, there are infinite outcomes when creating a new drug. It works well or it doesnt or anywhere in between, just like a video game. You're pretty good at arguing about something you know nothing about though.



Intresting, you rarely hear about the Smallpox vaccine only working on a select few....


You need to take a reading comprehension class, or maybe a critical thinking class.

Here, I will spell it out for you so you can read it and still not understand:

A drug has varying degrees of effectiveness, i.e. degrees of success; some drugs work better than other drugs, better on some people, etc.
A video game is very similar; some people enjoy it more than others based on a variety of factors, just like the effectiveness of a drug.

  • 06.19.2006 11:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Its called an analogy, its meant to compare two similiar situations or items...


and not a very good one. See with a vacine there are two clear outcomes. Either it won't work or it will. When making a video game there are about half a billion outcomes, none of which are correct.


If you don't understand how to use anaologies then just don't use them....like a pig on a tight rope.


Actually, there are infinite outcomes when creating a new drug. It works well or it doesnt or anywhere in between, just like a video game. You're pretty good at arguing about something you know nothing about though.



Intresting, you rarely hear about the Smallpox vaccine only working on a select few....


You need to take a reading comprehension class, or maybe a critical thinking class.

Here, I will spell it out for you so you can read it and still not understand:

A drug has varying degrees of effectiveness, i.e. degrees of success; some drugs work better than other drugs, better on some people, etc.


oh yeah because the FDA would would pass a drug that didn't do what it was supposed to.

  • 06.19.2006 11:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

He's right. Especially in development of a drug, the number of different outcomes are ridiculous. Also, very few vaccines work 100% in everyone that uses them. Some people's bodies reject the vaccine.You can learn that in a 8 month course for pharmacy technicians

  • 06.19.2006 11:19 AM PDT

Did I call that or what? Complete lack of understanding, I dont know why I even bother responding anymore.

  • 06.19.2006 11:20 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Its called an analogy, its meant to compare two similiar situations or items...


and not a very good one. See with a vacine there are two clear outcomes. Either it won't work or it will. When making a video game there are about half a billion outcomes, none of which are correct.


If you don't understand how to use anaologies then just don't use them....like a pig on a tight rope.


Actually, there are infinite outcomes when creating a new drug. It works well or it doesnt or anywhere in between, just like a video game. You're pretty good at arguing about something you know nothing about though.



Intresting, you rarely hear about the Smallpox vaccine only working on a select few....


You need to take a reading comprehension class, or maybe a critical thinking class.

Here, I will spell it out for you so you can read it and still not understand:

A drug has varying degrees of effectiveness, i.e. degrees of success; some drugs work better than other drugs, better on some people, etc.


oh yeah because the FDA would would pass a drug that didn't do what it was supposed to.


Nobody said it didn't do what it was supposed to...just not in every situation. Again, only a few vaccines work every time...especially considering viruses and bacteria evolve and become immune to conventional medicine

  • 06.19.2006 11:22 AM PDT

Death by figure skater.

Posted by: Wiltron
Posted by: OksanaBayul
...I'd accept any scenario that puts a guy who's studied the game in the playtesting room. You could take 100 casual gamers, and just give me one competetive player and I'd take it at this point.


This is about the right ratio I think. But the last line is the problem (if I'm reading it correctly). If the 100 casual gamers say "This is a great feature. It's fun!" and the "pro" gamer says: "but it shifts balance too much" ... you would take the opinion of the "pro". Not smart business and not good for the game as a whole. The "pro" can tell you what's balanced, but his perspective on fun is skewed because his idea of fun relies on a perfectly balanced game.

Note: Part of the reason my fellow average Joes are flaming is 1) the guy who likes to post pictures of himself is on the Balance side and 2) there will be no clear winner to this debate anyway ... so they're having fun at your (collective) expense.


That's cool, I'd just like one guy in the room to at the very least make Bungie aware of some balance issues. Bungie can decide whatever they want after that of course, it's their game. But I'd feel better knowing that at least one guy in the room was looking for some of the things I see. I don't think I'm asking for too much.

If they do let random people play the game in the test phase, just give me one competitive gamer of some repute in the room. :)

  • 06.19.2006 11:22 AM PDT

It's fun when we win and funny when we lose: Le Mediocrity
OR
Come take your verbal beating like a man in THE CAVE

If they could represent each group with a proportional number of testers I'd be OK with it.

*You always lose me with your last line. This case is no exception. ;)

  • 06.19.2006 11:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Usedtabe
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: KoinOperatedBoy
Posted by: TheBigShow
Its called an analogy, its meant to compare two similiar situations or items...


and not a very good one. See with a vacine there are two clear outcomes. Either it won't work or it will. When making a video game there are about half a billion outcomes, none of which are correct.


If you don't understand how to use anaologies then just don't use them....like a pig on a tight rope.


Actually, there are infinite outcomes when creating a new drug. It works well or it doesnt or anywhere in between, just like a video game. You're pretty good at arguing about something you know nothing about though.



Intresting, you rarely hear about the Smallpox vaccine only working on a select few....


You need to take a reading comprehension class, or maybe a critical thinking class.

Here, I will spell it out for you so you can read it and still not understand:

A drug has varying degrees of effectiveness, i.e. degrees of success; some drugs work better than other drugs, better on some people, etc.


oh yeah because the FDA would would pass a drug that didn't do what it was supposed to.


Nobody said it didn't do what it was supposed to...just not in every situation. Again, only a few vaccines work every time...especially considering viruses and bacteria evolve and become immune to conventional medicine


Regardless because the end result will still be acheived. Therefore his analogy still doesn't hold water.

  • 06.19.2006 11:30 AM PDT

Death by figure skater.

LOL! This thread sure derails in a hurry. I have to laugh.

  • 06.19.2006 11:34 AM PDT