I’ve understood most other complaints about Reach; bloom, armor lock, etc.
But I’ve never understood people (especially “MLG” types) throwing fits over how Reach “isn’t competitive”. So, for those who agree that it is not, or have never thought to google this themselves, I have supplied the definition of competitive.
So if its about competing with others to win a certain objective…I’d say that makes any multiplayer game competitive.
I’m just curious. How’s this game not competitive?
The game is competitive.
The people who cry about it want the DMR/BR to rule the sandbox, just like in every other Halo game. I’ve come to the conclusion that people who whine about the game on these forums just suck at Reach and Halo in general - I pretty much just accept that and move on.
any game that has a feature that is one person fighting with another, whether that be from collecting the most items to getting the most kills is competitive.
i’ve been saying this for awhile now.
It is a misuse of the word “competitive” and really refers to mechanics and settings that are currently considered ideal for a FPS competition.
A stick could be placed in a circle and two players could be told to retrieve it first at all cost and that would be a “competitive” envirioment.
Exactly. I’ve always been confused by this complaint. Why don’t they pick a term for it that makes sense?
> Exactly. I’ve always been confused by this complaint. Why don’t they pick a term for it that makes sense?
i think “intense” would be better.
> > Exactly. I’ve always been confused by this complaint. Why don’t they pick a term for it that makes sense?
>
> i think “intense” would be better.
I would say restricted and antiquated, but that is a completely uninformed opinion and being as I have never participated, does not hold much sway.
That’d be more tolerable…as well as logical. Lolz.
lol how can you claim to understand why people dislike bloom and AL, then link this definition:
"well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price. "
And then say you don’t understand MLG’s complaints. LOL!
And then roll in the MLG haters calling MLG players bad, or Reach haters bad. Priceless thread is priceless.
> > > Exactly. I’ve always been confused by this complaint. Why don’t they pick a term for it that makes sense?
> >
> > i think “intense” would be better.
>
> I would say restricted and antiquated, but that is a completely uninformed opinion and being as I have never participated, does not hold much sway.
hm… what i think the people are looking for is intense gameplay and reach isn’t as intense as previous halos, but, they couldn’t find the word for it and just used competitive as a replacement.
just my opinion though.
> lol how can you claim to understand why people dislike bloom and AL, then link this definition:
> "well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price. "
>
> And then say you don’t understand MLG’s complaints. LOL!
>
> And then roll in the MLG haters calling MLG players bad, or Reach haters bad. Priceless thread is priceless.
uhm, that is open to interpretation, to me that means a feature of a product that allows people to fight it out or provide a good amount of competition to it’s competitors.
like MS Vs Apple.
> lol how can you claim to understand why people dislike bloom and AL, then link this definition:
> "well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price. "
>
> And then say you don’t understand MLG’s complaints. LOL!
>
> And then roll in the MLG haters calling MLG players bad, or Reach haters bad. Priceless thread is priceless.
My thoughts exactly.
OT, a game of rock paper scizzors could be played competitively. Would it be popular? NO its random if you win or lose. You could call it a competitive game, but you would be wrong. Reach added so much randomness and game-breaking mechanics, and that is why people don’t call it competitive.
> > > > Exactly. I’ve always been confused by this complaint. Why don’t they pick a term for it that makes sense?
> > >
> > > i think “intense” would be better.
> >
> > I would say restricted and antiquated, but that is a completely uninformed opinion and being as I have never participated, does not hold much sway.
>
> hm… what i think the people are looking for is intense gameplay and reach isn’t as intense as previous halos, but, they couldn’t find the word for it and just used competitive as a replacement.
>
> just my opinion though.
Everything is open to interpretation, subjectively.
The premise is he does not understand why MLG or other players call Reach un-competitive.
But I understand why they think that, and I think he does. So what is the point? MLG has all the tools to play the game the way they want to, so I don’t see the need to patronize.
I do agree that intense may be a better global word, but lets face it, we all know what they mean and this thread is destined to become a flame war.
> > > > > Exactly. I’ve always been confused by this complaint. Why don’t they pick a term for it that makes sense?
> > > >
> > > > i think “intense” would be better.
> > >
> > > I would say restricted and antiquated, but that is a completely uninformed opinion and being as I have never participated, does not hold much sway.
> >
> > hm… what i think the people are looking for is intense gameplay and reach isn’t as intense as previous halos, but, they couldn’t find the word for it and just used competitive as a replacement.
> >
> > just my opinion though.
>
> Everything is open to interpretation, subjectively.
>
> The premise is he does not understand why MLG or other players call Reach un-competitive.
>
> But I understand why they think that, and I think he does. So what is the point? MLG has all the tools to play the game the way they want to, so I don’t see the need to patronize.
>
> I do agree that intense may be a better global word, but lets face it, we all know what they mean and this thread is destined to become a flame war.
yea, i guess we all do understand what they mean sort of but the issue lies with the poor choice of words, because of the poor choice of words it leaves people confused and start to question what they are actually saying.
i wasn’t even sure myself so i started a topic on this in the general section and the replies where, well… conflicting, it showed to me that no one has a real definition to how they are actually using it and instead are interpreting it in there own way.
You said that competing is to try to win an objective. That’s the problem: winning doesn’t matter in this game. You only get like a 200 or so “performance bonus” for winning, and that’s the only real difference between going +40 and winning and going -40 and losing.
It doesn’t matter if you win or lose: you rank up either way.
Thats the linear credit progression system. It means nothing, you get credits just for showing up, everyone knows that. Whats your point?
I assure you, winning or losing does affect your trueskill, you just cant see the number. You have no clue what youre talking about.
> The premise is he does not understand why MLG or other players call Reach un-competitive.
I was always of the opinion that you could define an MLG player by how much he fellates his midrifle and then screams at eveyone else to play the game his way.
Now, maybe I’m just being twisted here, but doesn’t everyone have their own idea of ‘competitive’? I personally enjoy just having a few casual games and not minding whether I win or lose as long as I compete - or, if you want to be nitpicky, I could be called a participant. Meanwhile, other people concentrate solely upon winning the game and treat the game as a competition - vis a vis, competitors.
This is why I want MLG tryhards more than ever to have their own section of each Halo game to tamper with to their heart’s content, while leaving the rest of the original core gameplay untouched for the rest of us to enjoy.
And yes, you may have detected a slight underlying current of MLG loathing. I suppose it’s only justified given that competitive gaming has thrown Halo - a casual game by design - to the dogs.
> The game is competitive.
>
> The people who cry about it want the DMR/BR to rule the sandbox, just like in every other Halo game. I’ve come to the conclusion that people who whine about the game on these forums just suck at Reach and Halo in general - I pretty much just accept that and move on.
They still rule the sandbox, even with its terribad bloom. statement invalid.
> Thats the linear credit progression system. It means nothing, you get credits just for showing up, everyone knows that. Whats your point?
>
> I assure you, winning or losing does affect your trueskill, you just cant see the number. You have no clue what youre talking about.
The credits are the only reward you get. Since the OP said that competition is playing for a reward, that’s what I brought up.
And don’t you dare say that Truskill works. It clearly doesn’t, and you saying it does clearly show that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
lol Reach defense force kids still believe true skill works in this game? While it’s debatable this game is competitive or not (i believe it can be but it’s a rather meh experience on the standard settings), you have to be insane to think that it does work. It’s not hidden, rather it’s non existent for the sake of speeding up search times. Call me paranoid but just because 343/Bungie say’s it’s there doesn’t exactly mean it is. There is absolutely no reason to have it hidden in the first place, give me 10 reasons why it should be and I’ll hack you a a legit shiny solar power Charizard. 
It fit’s in the whole “everyone is a winner in this game” theme that Bungie was going for. Who needs ranks and true skill when search times can be faster and everyone can have fun! If you go -40 while barely touching the controller, you’ll get rewarded for that too! 
>.>