Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why is REACH always held to such low regard?
  • Subject: Why is REACH always held to such low regard?
Subject: Why is REACH always held to such low regard?


Posted by: Hylebos
What if we don't believe that the overall gameplay is good?
It's a result of the devolution of the gaming community in that case- not anything to do with the game itself.

[quote]Perhaps you just don't have nearly as much passion for gaming as the rest of us do? I wouldn't call that a devolution at all. Nor is it bad that you aren't interested in delving deeper into game design, just don't knock those of us who do, regardless of how uncivil some people get while doing it.
It isn't a matter of not caring about game design. It's a matter of people nitpicking every little thing they can conceivably think of as being done 'better,' then raging about how it means a game is terrible and the likes. It's a devolution of the gaming community, no ifs ands or buts.

  • 12.05.2012 8:13 AM PDT

Perhaps you just don't have nearly as much passion for gaming as the rest of us do? I wouldn't call that a devolution at all.
No no, this community (at least the Flood) have devolved into a bunch of self entitled, whiny pricks whose only objective is to bash every single thing a new game has to offer. There are often decent arguments and valid complaints, but the majority are just mental turds with zero logic. And there's the hate bandwagon, which I'm aware it happened with pretty much every Halo since 2. I have seen several threads praising Reach and hating 4, the hypocrisy is just mind-numbing.

I was hoping that at least this Forum wouldn't devolve into a sea of idiocy again, like the Reach Forum. But, I again expected too much from the Flood.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 8:16 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 8:15 AM PDT

Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Hylebos
What if we don't believe that the overall gameplay is good?
It's a result of the devolution of the gaming community in that case- not anything to do with the game itself.
So if a game is legitimately bad and broken (see Sonic 06), that's not the game's fault, it's the community's fault for not ignoring their negative feelings?

It isn't a matter of not caring about game design. It's a matter of people nitpicking every little thing they can conceivably think of as being done 'better,'But that's just what game developers do on a day to day basis. They are constantly beating on their game with hammers and tempering it into a finely honed sword that will slay it's competitors. Is it bad that some of us are interested enough in game design to want to emulate the developers?

then raging about how it means a game is terrible and the likes.And this part is just hyperbole on the internet. Nothing new here.

  • 12.05.2012 8:23 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

ZomG, for those people wanting to know everything, this is not my Main tag anymore, (McCrash IS for Posting on B.net)

Original XbL Gamertag, zeDutchKreatiVz, as you guessed, Im Dutch/from Holland/Amsterdam.

...Also wTf happened to Halo.......*sighs*

OT; I dont like the randomness it had.

Reach = 2/5 (and that's being nice)
4 = 3'5/5

Reach;
Campaign I actually did not like so much
MM was bad, maps, bloom did not do much for me.

  • 12.05.2012 8:29 AM PDT

Posted by: Hylebos
But that's just what game developers do on a day to day basis. They are constantly beating on their game with hammers and tempering it into a finely honed sword that will slay it's competitors. Is it bad that some of us are interested enough in game design to want to emulate the developers?

I doubt how: "This game is a PoS, should have remade the previous one" is helping the developers to create something better, people will often be blinded by nostalgia, and they inadvertently make developers afraid of trying new ideas.

  • 12.05.2012 8:32 AM PDT

You know who I am.


Posted by: SKYDROME
Posted by: TheUseless0ne
Because people don't like varied, interesting, and balanced gameplay.

Because fights that are either:
-DMR then death
-DMR then escape
-Rush in an press melee like it's stopping you having a heart attack

are varied right?

Interesting because doing the same thing over and over again is interesting right? Because running off spawn to get the PW, then going to the control point of a map, each and every game, is interesting. Because all maps had fighting occur in only a few areas, and the rest were ignored. That's very interesting.

Because the ability to escape certain death, spawn with a sniper, break a perfect set-up without trying, and play on maps that give one team absolute advantage over the other are balanced right?

I had a lot of fun playing Reach. Because I worked out how to play the game, and then I just got to spend my time beating up on retards. That doesn't make it a good game.

What game where you playing? That sounds nothing like reach.

  • 12.05.2012 8:32 AM PDT

Posted by: Spartan H90
What game where you playing? That sounds nothing like reach.

Sadly, it sounds exactly like Reach. I can vow for him.

  • 12.05.2012 8:36 AM PDT

I really liked Reach but Halo 4 is better.

  • 12.05.2012 8:41 AM PDT

Posted by: Dreadnough7
Posted by: Hylebos
But that's just what game developers do on a day to day basis. They are constantly beating on their game with hammers and tempering it into a finely honed sword that will slay it's competitors. Is it bad that some of us are interested enough in game design to want to emulate the developers?

I doubt how: "This game is a PoS, should have remade the previous one" is helping the developers to create something better, people will often be blinded by nostalgia, and they inadvertently make developers afraid of trying new ideas.
I've long ago learned to look past people's ultimate conclusions ("This game is the antichrist!") to examine the core complaint and reasoning behind their idea ("I feel that Armor Lock slows the pace of the gameplay unneccessarily"). I imagine that Developers are able to do the same.

And if anything, developers are more afraid of trying new ideas because of the financial risk involved rather than fear of people not liking their new features. The fact of the matter is that change isn't neccessarily bad, bad change is bad, and I'd like to think most game developers can understand that.

Ultimately, there's absolutely nothing wrong with criticism, it can only improve the game, but that's entirely up to the developer to be able to sort through the noise and find the gems.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 8:45 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 8:43 AM PDT

Posted by: Hylebos
So if a game is legitimately bad and broken (see Sonic 06), that's not the game's fault, it's the community's fault for not ignoring their negative feelings?
No. But Halo: Reach was not and is not 'bad and broken.' The fact that you are implying otherwise demonstrates my point in its entirety.
But that's just what game developers do on a day to day basis. They are constantly beating on their game with hammers and tempering it into a finely honed sword that will slay it's competitors. Is it bad that some of us are interested enough in game design to want to emulate the developers?What's bad is pointing out nitpicky things and saying how it makes the game as a whole 'bad.' Then, focusing on ONLY the nitpicky things instead of any of the good? That's even worse. It's the clear devolution of the gaming community.

  • 12.05.2012 8:44 AM PDT

Expressing my strong liberal views without shame. Favorite quotes below:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"One starts to live when he can live outside himself."

- Albert Einstein

Reach fragmented one of the most critical junctures in the Halo canon with no regard. For this, I will always hold it to low regard.

  • 12.05.2012 8:45 AM PDT

So Says Shadroxon.

People didn't like Reach because it was different. I for one liked the additions, well, excet for armor lock.

But if that logic were to hold true, Halo 4 should be absolutely hated by everyone. It's not. This confuses me.

  • 12.05.2012 8:46 AM PDT

Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: Dreadnough7
Posted by: Hylebos
But that's just what game developers do on a day to day basis. They are constantly beating on their game with hammers and tempering it into a finely honed sword that will slay it's competitors. Is it bad that some of us are interested enough in game design to want to emulate the developers?

I doubt how: "This game is a PoS, should have remade the previous one" is helping the developers to create something better, people will often be blinded by nostalgia, and they inadvertently make developers afraid of trying new ideas.
I've long ago learned to look past people's ultimate conclusions ("This game is the antichrist!") to examine the core complaint and reasoning behind their idea ("I feel that Armor Lock slows the pace of the gameplay unneccessarily"). I imagine that Developers are able to do the same.

And if anything, developers are more afraid of trying new ideas because of the financial risk involved rather than fear of people not liking their new features. The fact of the matter is that change isn't neccessarily bad, bad change is bad, and I'd like to think most game developers can understand that.

Ultimately, there's absolutely nothing wrong with criticism, it can only improve the game, but that's entirely up to the developer to be able to sort through the noise and find the gems.

I disagree, there's negative criticism who doesn't bring anything to the table, and this forum has crap-loads of it. If someone complains about a game not having the Halo feel, that's something very vague and open to interpretation. Also there is inconsistent criticism and personal bias often gets in the way. I doubt criticism is that reliable when it comes to improving games.

  • 12.05.2012 8:52 AM PDT

Stop arguing over imaginary -blam!-. May as well argue over Santa Claus. There will never be proof that there is/was a god - and before people start saying "HERP DERP PROVE THERE WASN'T ONE ROFLOLOL" well, you are the people who made it up in the first place so we know there isn't one
What created the big bang then? A coalition of genetically modified TR-909s with extra distortion?

Banshee was incredibly overpowered, grenades were WMD's, reticule bloom, game breaking armor abilities, awful maps, etc

  • 12.05.2012 8:52 AM PDT

Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Hylebos
So if a game is legitimately bad and broken (see Sonic 06), that's not the game's fault, it's the community's fault for not ignoring their negative feelings?
No. But Halo: Reach was not and is not 'bad and broken.' The fact that you are implying otherwise demonstrates my point in its entirety.
Reach had a ton of redeeming qualities that makes me excited for Bungie's future games, mostly in the realms of networking, engineering, music, and technology. But that doesn't mean that I can simply ignore the emotions I'm feeling when I play the multiplayer or campaign. Reach is an okay game, but it could have been so very much more.

But that's just what game developers do on a day to day basis. They are constantly beating on their game with hammers and tempering it into a finely honed sword that will slay it's competitors. Is it bad that some of us are interested enough in game design to want to emulate the developers?What's bad is pointing out nitpicky things and saying how it makes the game as a whole 'bad.' Then, focusing on ONLY the nitpicky things instead of any of the good? That's even worse. It's the clear devolution of the gaming community.That's because simply praising the obvious positives gets dull really fast.

"Reach has amazing networking!"

"Yeah, I can agree with that."

"..."

"It's great how I don't drop matches as often as I did in Halo 3!"

"Oh yeah dude, totally."

"..."

"I wonder if there will be even better networking in their next game?"

"I imagine so."

"..."


...I just find the entire "This is a flaw / problem, what's the best way to fix it?" route of conversation to be ten times as deep and engaging. Perhaps that's just my mentality as a Computer Scientist, but having to diagnose the problem from my observations and then comparing possible solutions is fascinating.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 8:58 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 8:53 AM PDT

Expressing my strong liberal views without shame. Favorite quotes below:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"One starts to live when he can live outside himself."

- Albert Einstein


Posted by: Shadroxon
People didn't like Reach because it was different. I for one liked the additions, well, excet for armor lock.

But if that logic were to hold true, Halo 4 should be absolutely hated by everyone. It's not. This confuses me.

Your--and many others'--attempt to simplify great issues with a sweeping insinuation is not only dishonest but insulting.

  • 12.05.2012 8:53 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Heroic Member
  • gamertag: Swible
  • user homepage:


Posted by: TheUseless0ne
Because people don't like varied, interesting, and balanced gameplay.

  • 12.05.2012 8:54 AM PDT

I gaze upon the stars and see the majesty that is the universe.


EGO mos bulla astrum.


Posted by: TheUseless0ne
Because people don't like varied, interesting, and balanced gameplay.

  • 12.05.2012 8:55 AM PDT

Posted by: Dreadnough7
Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: Dreadnough7
Posted by: Hylebos
But that's just what game developers do on a day to day basis. They are constantly beating on their game with hammers and tempering it into a finely honed sword that will slay it's competitors. Is it bad that some of us are interested enough in game design to want to emulate the developers?

I doubt how: "This game is a PoS, should have remade the previous one" is helping the developers to create something better, people will often be blinded by nostalgia, and they inadvertently make developers afraid of trying new ideas.
I've long ago learned to look past people's ultimate conclusions ("This game is the antichrist!") to examine the core complaint and reasoning behind their idea ("I feel that Armor Lock slows the pace of the gameplay unneccessarily"). I imagine that Developers are able to do the same.

And if anything, developers are more afraid of trying new ideas because of the financial risk involved rather than fear of people not liking their new features. The fact of the matter is that change isn't neccessarily bad, bad change is bad, and I'd like to think most game developers can understand that.

Ultimately, there's absolutely nothing wrong with criticism, it can only improve the game, but that's entirely up to the developer to be able to sort through the noise and find the gems.

I disagree, there's negative criticism who doesn't bring anything to the table, and this forum has crap-loads of it. If someone complains about a game not having the Halo feel, that's something very vague and open to interpretation. Also there is inconsistent criticism and personal bias often gets in the way. I doubt criticism is that reliable when it comes to improving games.
And that's because you are unable to see that behind a crap and filth lies a diamond that can only be extracted if you get your hands dirty. If someones' complaint is vague, that's the point where you ask questions to dig deeper to the root of the matter.

Even a turd of a complaint can be polished if you approach it the right way.

Posted by: Shadroxon
People didn't like Reach because it was different. I for one liked the additions, well, excet for armor lock.

But if that logic were to hold true, Halo 4 should be absolutely hated by everyone. It's not. This confuses me.
You're confused because you are looking at the world far too simply. Change is not entirely bad or entirely good. Bad change is bad, and good change can be good. Not to mention, you're assuming that everyone who didn't like Reach simply because there was change (which is not true), and that everyone who didn't like Reach loves Halo 4 (which is also not true).

The world is not so black and white, introduce a bit more color to your thought processes.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 9:00 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 8:57 AM PDT

I gaze upon the stars and see the majesty that is the universe.


EGO mos bulla astrum.

There's also the fact that some people are stupid.

  • 12.05.2012 8:59 AM PDT

Wheres Meh Sniper?

Youtube page

I liked Halo Reach, not as much as other Halos but I still had fun with it.

  • 12.05.2012 8:59 AM PDT

So Says Shadroxon.


Posted by: Plasma Prestige

Posted by: Shadroxon
People didn't like Reach because it was different. I for one liked the additions, well, excet for armor lock.

But if that logic were to hold true, Halo 4 should be absolutely hated by everyone. It's not. This confuses me.

Your--and many others'--attempt to simplify great issues with a sweeping insinuation is not only dishonest but insulting.
Why can't I learn it's never safe to post in a Reach thread without a flame suit on?



[Edited on 12.05.2012 9:02 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 9:01 AM PDT

"You are the last of your kind: bred for combat, built for war. You're the master of any weapon, pilot of any vehicle, and fear no enemy"

Cause they mad, OP.

If you think Halo:Reach was bad, fine. But you can't hold Halo 4 on a higher regard.

  • 12.05.2012 9:01 AM PDT

Posted by: ArtooFeva
There's also the fact that some people are stupid.
And once the insults come out, that only shows that you don't have the ammo or the patience to defeat someone with logic and reasoning. How unfortunate.

  • 12.05.2012 9:01 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: TheUseless0ne
Because people don't like varied, interesting, and balanced gameplay.
4/10

  • 12.05.2012 9:02 AM PDT