…It will still have options that allow MLG or anyone else to change what they want to change.
Why does the game itself have to be built for competitive players? There are technically more casual players than competitive players, so building a game that focuses on pleasing casual fans (the larger portion of the Halo audience) is the smart thing to do.
Competitive players will still be able to do their own thing, but you also have to realize that they ARE the minority.
I’m not against competitive settings, but I don’t think the changes to Halo ruin the competitive aspect of the game, they just change it. If you’re going to be good at Halo 4, you have to be able to adjust to the Halo 4 gameplay. Otherwise, you’re not good at Halo 4. End of story.
If you make the game competitive everyone plays it. If you make the game casual everyone moves on to the next casual game. Developers don’t understand that some people are always going to move on to the next thing, so they need to focus on making the best product for people who will still be playing it 2 years after the last DLC pack.
> If you make the game competitive everyone plays it. If you make the game casual everyone moves on to the next casual game. Developers don’t understand that some people are always going to move on to the next thing, so they need to focus on making the best product for people who will still be playing it 2 years after the last DLC pack.
> Why does the game itself have to be built for competitive players?
The argument goes that you do it because the casuals will move on, and if you don’t you’ll be left with nobody as time goes on. If that’s the case, then it looks like Reach is the exception to the rule. 72k on about four hours ago.
The argument also ignores the possibility that tailoring the competitives will alienate the casuals.
It’s already a fact that Halo 4 won’t be bigger than Halo 3. There are simply too many other major titles out now that are taking away from sales. When Halo 3 came out, it was THE big title. Now, there are way more major shooters available. That alone will take away from the sales of Halo 4, and the length of time people continue to play. Contrary to what these “competitive” players believe, 1-50 will not change that.
> It’s already a fact that Halo 4 won’t be bigger than Halo 3. There are simply too many other major titles out now that are taking away from sales. When Halo 3 came out, it was THE big title. Now, there are way more major shooters available, and that alone will take away from the sales of Halo 4, and the length of time people continue to play. Contrary to what these “competitive” players believe, 1-50 will not change that.
And I think that’s exactly what happened to Reach. Everyone tries to make a case that Reach was a failure because the population sank a lot sooner and more drastically than Halo 3. But that’s only because of the sheer number of multiplayer shooters out now, gamers are spread thin. It’s not Reach’s fault. Don’t get me wrong, Reach is a horribly flawed game. But it’s still really fun. But there are a lot of other really fun games now.
> …It will still have options that allow MLG or anyone else to change what they want to change.
>
> Why does the game itself have to be built for competitive players? There are technically more casual players than competitive players, so building a game that focuses on pleasing casual fans (the larger portion of the Halo audience) is the smart thing to do.
>
> <mark>Competitive players will still be able to do their own thing, but you also have to realize that they ARE the minority.</mark>
>
> <mark>I’m not against competitive settings, but I don’t think the changes to Halo ruin the competitive aspect of the game, they just change it. If you’re going to be good at Halo 4, you have to be able to adjust to the Halo 4 gameplay. Otherwise, you’re not good at Halo 4. End of story</mark>.
Exactly, I know they dont take us seriously when we say that they need to adapt, but its true, if they cant adapt then they cant call themselves “skilled” players. There are exceptions like bloom, but Reach TU is perfect and its already known that the DMR/BR in H4 will have set rates of fire, only visual bloom to show how long until the next shot will be fired. Also its confirmed sprint will have a nerf so its harder for players to flee.
> and if Halo 4 is designed as solely a competitive game we’ll still be seeing endless threads of complaints from those “competitive” players.
You’re going to get a bunch of threads from competitive players any way you do it. Not just competitive players, but casuals too. People get frustrated when they aren’t good at a game. The first place to come to vent?
> If you make the game competitive everyone plays it. If you make the game casual everyone moves on to the next casual game. Developers don’t understand that some people are always going to move on to the next thing, so they need to focus on making the best product for people who will still be playing it 2 years after the last DLC pack.
Nope, developers need to make as much money as fast as possible, having games alive and well for 2 years is horrible, the server costs and patching is high, while DLc sales are low. Rushing out new sequels each year and throwing a ton of DLC the first 12 months is a brilliant idea that makes a lot of money.
“If you make the game competitive everyone plays it”, you say?
Well that’s qualified blam! and you know it, if you were right the MLG playlists would be the most popular one.
Games like Quake would be praised and played by everyone, while CoD would die. We all know that’s not true, Halo 3 can’t even stand a chance against Reach despite Reachs flaws. It seems that casual gamers are not as easy to please as you say, I see at least 3 popular Cod games, but no popular “other casual games”, how come?
Wouldn’t they all move on to the next, say Bf3? Crysis? Medal of Honour? The next CoD at least?
Just a small question, if casual games are so bad, how come MLG plays them and even have full support for these games, without customizing as much as they do in Halo?
It seems even the “most competitive” aka MLG, likes CoD better then Halo, even though CoD is more casual even then Reach.
The truth is:
Everyone plays a popular game advertised world wide, the easier the better.
Few player play a good game, the harder the worse. (population wise)
> > Halo 4 is the BIG title this year. Everyone and their grandma knows that.
>
> …despite the fact that a lot of people weren’t even aware it was being created and there’s a lot of complaints about them milking the franchise?
>
> Even Screwattack did a “Top 10 franchises that need to die” video with Halo being at the top, beating out CoD which was at number 4.
Using that same logic the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL are all being milked and we need to come up with newer better sports.
> > Halo 4 is the BIG title this year. Everyone and their grandma knows that.
>
> …despite the fact that a lot of people weren’t even aware it was being created and there’s a lot of complaints about them milking the franchise?
>
> Even Screwattack did a “Top 10 franchises that need to die” video with Halo being at the top, beating out CoD, which was at number 7.
Ouch. That’s harsh. Halo doesn’t need to die, it needs to get overhauled and refueled with the passionate gamemaking that Bungie had early on. And that’s exactly what 343 is trying to do with Halo 4.
And, for the record, I actually think BioShock Infinite is the big game everyone’s talking about this year. Well, except for the 90% of the gaming community that’s still obsessed with Skyrim.
> > If you make the game competitive everyone plays it. If you make the game casual everyone moves on to the next casual game. Developers don’t understand that some people are always going to move on to the next thing, so they need to focus on making the best product for people who will still be playing it 2 years after the last DLC pack.
>
> Nope, developers need to make as much money as fast as possible, having games alive and well for 2 years is horrible, the server costs and patching is high, while DLc sales are low. Rushing out new sequels each year and throwing a ton of DLC the first 12 months is a brilliant idea that makes a lot of money.
> “If you make the game competitive everyone plays it”, you say?
> Well that’s qualified blam! and you know it, if you were right the MLG playlists would be the most popular one.
> Games like Quake would be praised and played by everyone, while CoD would die. We all know that’s not true, Halo 3 can’t even stand a chance against Reach despite Reachs flaws. It seems that casual gamers are not as easy to please as you say, I see at least 3 popular Cod games, but no popular “other casual games”, how come?
> Wouldn’t they all move on to the next, say Bf3? Crysis? Medal of Honour? The next CoD at least?
> Just a small question, if casual games are so bad, how come MLG plays them and even have full support for these games, without customizing as much as they do in Halo?
> It seems even the “most competitive” aka MLG, likes CoD better then Halo, even though CoD is more casual even then Reach.
>
> The truth is:
> Everyone plays a popular game advertised world wide, the easier the better.
> Few player play a good game, the harder the worse. (population wise)
I’ll agree to disagree. Because the argument is quality vs. quantity. And no one wins that argument.
> > Halo 4 is the BIG title this year. Everyone and their grandma knows that.
>
> …despite the fact that a lot of people weren’t even aware it was being created and there’s a lot of complaints about them milking the franchise?
>
> Even Screwattack did a “Top 10 franchises that need to die” video with Halo being at the top, beating out CoD, which was at number 7.
Resident Evil is on game 6 and nobody seems to complain about that.
Who/what is Screwattack? Sounds like he/they don’t know what they’re talking about.
> > It’s already a fact that Halo 4 won’t be bigger than Halo 3. There are simply too many other major titles out now that are taking away from sales. When Halo 3 came out, it was THE big title. Now, there are way more major shooters available, and that alone will take away from the sales of Halo 4, and the length of time people continue to play. Contrary to what these “competitive” players believe, 1-50 will not change that.
>
> And I think that’s exactly what happened to Reach. Everyone tries to make a case that Reach was a failure because the population sank a lot sooner and more drastically than Halo 3. But that’s only because of the sheer number of multiplayer shooters out now, gamers are spread thin. It’s not Reach’s fault. Don’t get me wrong, <mark>Reach is a horribly flawed game</mark>. But it’s still really fun. But there are a lot of other really fun games now.
It isnt flawed nor was it, it just was the way it was. I could say that Halo 2 and 3 were flawed, but I dont because they were great the way they are. Just because you get killed by a lucky spammer every now and then(remember, you are SUPPOSED TO SPAM when an enemies body fills most of the circle) or see players use armor abilities to gain an advantage/avoid death doesnt mean it was flawed.
OT they just need to give MLG thier own playlist so all these so called “competitive” and “casual” players will get what they want
> > > Halo 4 is the BIG title this year. Everyone and their grandma knows that.
> >
> > …despite the fact that a lot of people weren’t even aware it was being created and there’s a lot of complaints about them milking the franchise?
> >
> > Even Screwattack did a “Top 10 franchises that need to die” video with Halo being at the top, beating out CoD which was at number 4.
>
> Using that same logic the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL are all being milked and we need to come up with newer better sports.
As far as sports games are concerned, all that needs to happen is the removal of exclusive licensing. This allows other games to use the NFL/MLB/NBA rosters and things like that. I play Madden and MLB every year, and they’re almost always the same. Reason being; they have no competition.
