It's funny when people say H5 doesn't have ADS

Games Halo 5: Guardians
245

> 2533274810150284;242:
> It’s one thing to misunderstand it at first and confuse it for an actual complaint or serious statement, but when I correct you that it’s not, you should just freaking listen to me because I am the one who wrote it. I think I know what I meant when I wrote it. Just friggin’ trust me when I say it’s a joke instead of trying to convince me of the actual meaning of my own words.

Dude, nobody’s putting words in your mouth and nobody’s insulting you. (At least I’m not.) We get it. It was meant to be a joke. Now please understand when we say “I didn’t sound (read) like one to us, so please make it clearer next time!” That’s all there is to it. Now would you kindly stop hinting at our “reading (in)comprehension”, that’s low and you’re better than that.

246

Yes in halo 5 we physically (appear) to look down the sights of our weapons. But this Aiming down sights does not behave and have the negative effects of Ads in say cod. Can we move on now? Argument got stale months ago.

247

> 2533274863266427;246:
> Yes in halo 5 we physically (appear) to look down the sights of our weapons. But this Aiming down sights does not behave and have the negative effects of Ads in say cod. Can we move on now? Argument got stale months ago.

YES. But people are still going on with this ADS stuff for months. I blame on OP.

248

> 2533274801176260;240:
> > 2533274798578400;236:
> > That’s a hard line to toe and they have tried and failed with it once before (when halo 4 eliminated descope and introduced lots of flinch but retained traditional zoom).
>
>
> So you consider Halo 4 to have traditional zoom? Even though it has half of the criteria you mentioned neccessary for ADS? If so, where do you draw the line? Is it only ADS if it literally has everything on the checklist? Six out of eight? Five? Seven?
>
> EDIT: After giving it some thought, please let me rephrase that question:
> If a game came out that included every last point on your list but didn’t show the actual weapon outlines in favor of an increased FOV during aiming… would you still call it ADS? Since it fits all your criteria of “function” whereas “form” is irrelevant to you?

Woah. Back off son. chilllll out. “Traditional Zoom” here means, “traditional zoom animation.” I figured given the context, i didn’t need to specify. I suppose thats my fault though, I have been around here long enough that i should know better…

Halo 4 retained the traditional zooming animation where the visor’s video feed is the sight. It “looks” the same as previous titles, but in my opinion, is functionally much much different from H1/2/3/Reach. If you compare Halo 4 and 5 scoping to the original trilogy of games, Halo 4 “looks” almost like the previous titles, but Halo 5 actually “functions” like the previous titles. Except for zooming decreasing spread. They are nerfing that effect for halo 5, hopefully they do it enough to make it irrelevant.

249

Can a Moderator perhaps lock this? Yeah I get it, you think Smart Scope is ADS. So does a lot of people and a lot of people deny that. Let’s just agree to disagree. Complete and utter staleness.

My stance? Hell, its Smart Scope. Its in Lore. I’ll take it.

250

> 2533274801176260;245:
> > 2533274810150284;242:
> > It’s one thing to misunderstand it at first and confuse it for an actual complaint or serious statement, but when I correct you that it’s not, you should just freaking listen to me because I am the one who wrote it. I think I know what I meant when I wrote it. Just friggin’ trust me when I say it’s a joke instead of trying to convince me of the actual meaning of my own words.
>
>
> Dude, nobody’s putting words in your mouth and nobody’s insulting you. (At least I’m not.) We get it. It was meant to be a joke. Now please understand when we say “I didn’t sound (read) like one to us, so please make it clearer next time!” That’s all there is to it. Now would you kindly stop hinting at our “reading (in)comprehension”, that’s low and you’re better than that.

Did you even read the first two replies to my original post? Your replies haven’t been insulting at all, but the first two responses were straight up demonizing and I’m sick of it. I’m tired of making posts that include a specimen of satire, and people ignore the rest of the post and focus on their misunderstanding of that single part. Furthermore, I’m tired of explaining what the meaning was, and having the same people come at me about how “that can’t possibly be what you meant” or “no reasonable person would read it like that”. Nobody will just accept the explanation and say “okay, I misread it, my bad”, and that’s ludicrous.

Sorry if I sounded like I was hinting at miscomprehension, I was actually just stating it. As far as your “I didn’t read it that way, so please make it clearer next time” claim, that’s crap and you know it. Not a single person said anything like that; this whole situation would be a lot different if the miscommunication went down like your version, instead of the reality that people immediately jumped to crapping on me because they didn’t understand my words. They jumped right passed “can you elaborate?” and straight to accusations like “you’re wrong about this or that”, “you’re making blatantly false comparisons”, and “there’s no possible way to tell that you were joking because it didn’t sound like a joke”.

Just so you know, this isn’t directed at you. You seem to have a decent attitude about all this, but you’re victimizing the wrong crowd here. The fact is, if I say something that goes over someone’s head and they get uppity about it, then I proceed to explain what I actually meant, but they still act antagonistic about it - that’s their problem, not mine. And I’m tired of people treating me like I’m the one in the wrong for trying to correct those who misread parts of my posts.

251

> 2533274798578400;248:
> Halo 4 retained the traditional zooming animation where the visor’s video feed is the sight. It “looks” the same as previous titles, but in my opinion, is functionally much much different from H1/2/3/Reach. If you compare Halo 4 and 5 scoping to the original trilogy of games, Halo 4 “looks” almost like the previous titles, but Halo 5 actually “functions” like the previous titles. Except for zooming decreasing spread. They are nerfing that effect for halo 5, hopefully they do it enough to make it irrelevant.

Alright, fair enough. Even though I knew that already, at least we’re on the same page now. But you avoided the elephant in the room: If a game came out, that had

  • spread tightening
  • customizable visors
  • variable zoom speed
  • recoil reduction
  • range increase of aim-assist
  • no descope
  • flinch
  • reduced mobility
    while “actively aiming” (for the lack of a better term) but didn’t have the weapon outline on screen… would you still call it ADS?

Yes, It’s a bait question, but I’m trying to understand your position here. Because i feel like we have polar opposite opinions. To me, the definition of ADS lies solely in the “form” aspect, regardless of “function”. (Why require some arbitrary criteria from various other franchises while completely ignoring the only factor that is literally in the description?) If you’re aiming down sights, it’s ADS. Literally. To me[sic!] that’s all there is to it. Whereas to you, it seems, this is the only attribute that doesn’t seem to factor in.

So I’m asking you, if a mechanic had all properties that you mentioned, without the looks of it - would it still be ADS?

252

> 2533274810150284;250:
> > 2533274801176260;245:
> > > 2533274810150284;242:
> > > It’s one thing to misunderstand it at first and confuse it for an actual complaint or serious statement, but when I correct you that it’s not, you should just freaking listen to me because I am the one who wrote it. I think I know what I meant when I wrote it. Just friggin’ trust me when I say it’s a joke instead of trying to convince me of the actual meaning of my own words.
> >
> >
> > Dude, nobody’s putting words in your mouth and nobody’s insulting you. (At least I’m not.) We get it. It was meant to be a joke. Now please understand when we say “I didn’t sound (read) like one to us, so please make it clearer next time!” That’s all there is to it. Now would you kindly stop hinting at our “reading (in)comprehension”, that’s low and you’re better than that.
>
>
> Did you even read the first two replies to my original post? Your replies haven’t been insulting at all, but the first two responses were straight up demonizing and I’m sick of it. I’m tired of making posts that include a specimen of satire, and people ignore the rest of the post and focus on their misunderstanding of that single part. Furthermore, I’m tired of explaining what the meaning was, and having the same people come at me about how “that can’t possibly be what you meant” or “no reasonable person would read it like that”. Nobody will just accept the explanation and say “okay, I misread it, my bad”, and that’s ludicrous.
>
> Sorry if I sounded like I was hinting at miscomprehension, I was actually just stating it. As far as your “I didn’t read it that way, so please make it clearer next time” claim, that’s crap and you know it. Not a single person said anything like that; this whole situation would be a lot different if the miscommunication went down like your version, instead of the reality that people immediately jumped to crapping on me because they didn’t understand my words. They jumped right passed “can you elaborate?” and straight to accusations like “you’re wrong about this or that”, “you’re making blatantly false comparisons”, and “there’s no possible way to tell that you were joking because it didn’t sound like a joke”.
>
> Just so you know, this isn’t directed at you. You seem to have a decent attitude about all this, but you’re victimizing the wrong crowd here. The fact is, if I say something that goes over someone’s head and they get uppity about it, then I proceed to explain what I actually meant, but they still act antagonistic about it - that’s their problem, not mine. And I’m tired of people treating me like I’m the one in the wrong for trying to correct those who misread parts of my posts.

You use the word they an awful lot, especially for an exchange of > 3 offending posts. I never insulted you either, but rather meant to ensure that - yes - DARTH CEDIOUS did actually reply to the “not joke” part of your post. He replied to the entire thing - or his statements can be construed to be a response to your entire thing. After all, it is still ridiculous to assume anything about the way SWB plays right off the bat, regardless of whether it’ll be like Classic Battlefront or (for lack of a better term) Battlefield 4.5, based on the complete and total lack of information we have. That was my point. The logical statements you made were addressed by CEDIOUS, and he just used unfortunate verbiage before he…or anyone…knew it was a joke. Take out that one pernicious word - Battlefield 4.5 - and his reply to yours remains exactly the same. There we go. No one’s getting uptight over a joke and no one else is getting their reading comprehension insulted.

No one’s saying that it wasn’t a joke either, just that we couldn’t tell.

253

We’ll see how much 343 actually changes H5’s ads…

254

It Obviously Doesn’t Have It, Bloody Mate, So Stop Making These Bloody Pointless Threads, And Move On Mate, Halo 5 Is Bloody Perfect!

255

> 2533274884747088;254:
> It Obviously Doesn’t Have It, Bloody Mate, So Stop Making These Bloody Pointless Threads, And Move On Mate, Halo 5 Is Bloody Perfect!

I Think Your Bloody Opinion Is Bloody Subjective And To Many People, Halo 5 Isn’t Perfect. Case In Bloody Point.

256

> 2535421619942348;252:
> You use the word they an awful lot, especially for an exchange of > 3 offending posts. I never insulted you either, but rather meant to ensure that - yes - DARTH CEDIOUS did actually reply to the “not joke” part of your post. He replied to the entire thing - or his statements can be construed to be a response to your entire thing. After all, it is still ridiculous to assume anything about the way SWB plays right off the bat, regardless of whether it’ll be like Classic Battlefront or (for lack of a better term) Battlefield 4.5, based on the complete and total lack of information we have. That was my point. The logical statements you made were addressed by CEDIOUS, and he just used unfortunate verbiage before he…or anyone…knew it was a joke. Take out that one pernicious word - Battlefield 4.5 - and his reply to yours remains exactly the same. There we go. No one’s getting uptight over a joke and no one else is getting their reading comprehension insulted.
>
> No one’s saying that it wasn’t a joke either, just that we couldn’t tell.

> How do you know? Did you play it? From what we know (no ADS, reduced destruction, Heros, buddy-system) SWB looks to be far from beeing Battlefield 4.5 …that is nothing but an senseless bash against an other game that you can not back up with facts…

Yeah, that really sounds like a reply to all my points - which are all confirmed by the Battlefront devs to be accurate - and not just a reply to the final statement about “Battlefield 4.5 v2”.

He talks about nothing besides actual gameplay - referring to the lack of ADS, reduced destruction, Hero/buddy system - which none of my points even dealt with (barring the seamless third-to-first person view switching, which is also confirmed). I talked about stuff like the lack of Galactic Conquest and space battles, the general scope of the game that upsets me. I don’t see how any of that could be “senseless bashing without facts”, because it is all public knowledge that has been officially released by the developers. So the only thing he could have possibly been referring to was the “Battlefield 4.5 v2” remark, which he assumed was me actually claiming that it was going to be a copy of Battlefield 4, when in reality it was just a satirical jest about the “dumbing down” from the classic Battlefront style to better appeal to the Battlefield crowd.

It’s weird to me that you really believe he replied to all of my points, and not just the joke.

257

Call it whatever you want. ADS/Zoom/SmartScope. The zoom mechanic is subservient to the game play and Halo 5’s zoom mechanic is functionally closer to a traditional zoom then a COD-esque ADS. Who cares what its called, game play is what matters most.

Having all weapons zoom is a welcome change imo. Input output consistency is a good thing.

Cosmetic wise, lifting a weapon up and aiming down its sight is visually more appealing. I like seeing the weapon. It is a familiar and welcome feeling of holding a weapon close while you line up a shot. I felt more connected to the weapon and the playing space.

Zoom effecting bullet spread was introduced in Halo 3, and it has existed in each subsequent Halo title sense. Having said that, the H5 accuracy delta between hip and zoom is something I hope gets tightened up. It was subtle, but there was too much emphasis and necessity to zoom.

Descope is my only major issue with H5’s zoom mechanic. It’s visually jarring and annoying bouncing in-and-out-and-in-and-out of being zoomed. I hope there is a single descope upon shield drop. A change like that has multiple benefits. Its visually much more appealing from both a spectator and player standpoint. HCS competitions would look ridiculous with the in-and-out scope-descope-scope-descope. In addition, a single descope would be a clear visual alert that your shields are down, promoting intensity to the combative moment and engaging the player to make informed quick decisions.

258

Why can’t people just accept that SS is utterly pointless in having? Classic zooming was one of the more iconic things about the game franchise that we had since day 1, there was absolutely no need to remove it. The only reason they would have included a form of ADS is to cater to people that are used to it in other games, and after how angry people got about adopting COD elements for Halo 4 I find it downright insulting that 343 decided to add a feature like this anyways. At this point I just want 343 to stop and actually listen to what their Halo fans want.

It doesn’t even make sense to have it in the first place. 343 said they want things to be more lore based in the MP but then they go and make a feature that is technologically inferior to the classic way of scoping? Why? Then there is the problem of adding a scoping feature to automatics, which I am heavily against. It changes their entire nature to do so and to be honest I just don’t trust 343 to pull it off in a balanced, traditional Halo gameplay format.

259

> 2533274810150284;256:
> > 2535421619942348;252:
> > You use the word they an awful lot, especially for an exchange of > 3 offending posts. I never insulted you either, but rather meant to ensure that - yes - DARTH CEDIOUS did actually reply to the “not joke” part of your post. He replied to the entire thing - or his statements can be construed to be a response to your entire thing. After all, it is still ridiculous to assume anything about the way SWB plays right off the bat, regardless of whether it’ll be like Classic Battlefront or (for lack of a better term) Battlefield 4.5, based on the complete and total lack of information we have. That was my point. The logical statements you made were addressed by CEDIOUS, and he just used unfortunate verbiage before he…or anyone…knew it was a joke. Take out that one pernicious word - Battlefield 4.5 - and his reply to yours remains exactly the same. There we go. No one’s getting uptight over a joke and no one else is getting their reading comprehension insulted.
> >
> > No one’s saying that it wasn’t a joke either, just that we couldn’t tell.
>
>
>
>
> > How do you know? Did you play it? From what we know (no ADS, reduced destruction, Heros, buddy-system) SWB looks to be far from beeing Battlefield 4.5 …that is nothing but an senseless bash against an other game that you can not back up with facts…
>
>
> Yeah, that really sounds like a reply to all my points - which are all confirmed by the Battlefront devs to be accurate - and not just a reply to the final statement about “Battlefield 4.5 v2”.
>
> He talks about nothing besides actual gameplay - referring to the lack of ADS, reduced destruction, Hero/buddy system - which none of my points even dealt with (barring the seamless third-to-first person view switching, which is also confirmed). I talked about stuff like the lack of Galactic Conquest and space battles, the general scope of the game that upsets me. I don’t see how any of that could be “senseless bashing without facts”, because it is all public knowledge that has been officially released by the developers. So the only thing he could have possibly been referring to was the “Battlefield 4.5 v2” remark, which he assumed was me actually claiming that it was going to be a copy of Battlefield 4, when in reality it was just a satirical jest about the “dumbing down” from the classic Battlefront style to better appeal to the Battlefield crowd.
>
> It’s weird to me that you really believe he replied to all of my points, and not just the joke.

> DARTH CEDIOUS wrote:
>
>
> > d The Doctor b wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, not sure what Graham meant by “staying true to the roots and avoiding game fads”. Seamless in-game third-to-first person camera switching? No galactic conquest? No space battles? Loadout and character customization? DICE has botched Battlefront far worse than 343 has “botched” Halo.
> > Case in point: I have loved both franchises from the beginning, and I have preordered the LCE for Halo 5, but I will not even be buying Battlefront (aka Battlefield 4.5 v2).
>
>
> How do you know? Did you play it? From what we know (no ADS, reduced destruction, Heros, buddy-system) SWB looks to be far from beeing Battlefield 4.5 …that is nothing but an senseless bash against an other game that you can not back up with facts…

Allow me to break it down the way I envisioned it.

> Yeah, not sure what Graham meant by “staying true to the roots and avoiding game fads”. Seamless in-game third-to-first person camera switching? No galactic conquest? No space battles? Loadout and character customization?

These are all features that are confirmed not to be in SWB. (And it sucks major donkey balls)

> (no ADS, reduced destruction, Heros, buddy-system)

These are all features that are confirmed to be in SWB. (I’m not discerning between gametype and game mechanic for this, and I don’t think CEDIOUS would have either. Also, Loadout customization does mess with gameplay - especially classed based gameplay like the Original SWB and SWBII.)

You said:

> DICE has botched Battlefront far worse than 343 has “botched” Halo.

To which he directly replied:

> How do you know? Did you play it?

Now of course, we know…now…that the Battlefield 4.5 v2 thing was a joke that wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, so if we pull that word out and substitute it for a likely synonym:

> SWB looks to be far from beeing a disaster that doesn’t hold true to classic gameplay.

And then he says:

> …that is nothing but an senseless bash against an other game that you can not back up with facts…

Which, if I’m correct, is what this whole thing is about. I’ll admit, it’s in ill taste, and he didn’t know you didn’t want that part to be taken seriously - but I honestly can’t shake the feeling that, regardless of what we’ve heard (and we’ve heard some seriously unappealing stuff) I think we could at least wait until some gameplay is released before we have a strong opinion one way or another. He’s being a -Yoink,- but I think he has something approaching a point.

Now, regardless of whether or not he did it in a particularly compelling way, from my point of view, he did provide a response to every piece of your post.

260

> 2533274821180847;258:
> Why can’t people just accept that SS is utterly pointless in having? Classic zooming was one of the more iconic things about the game franchise that we had since day 1, there was absolutely no need to remove it. The only reason they would have included a form of ADS is to cater to people that are used to it in other games, and after how angry people got about adopting COD elements for Halo 4 I find it downright insulting that 343 decided to add a feature like this anyways. At this point I just want 343 to stop and actually listen to what their Halo fans want.
>
> It doesn’t even make sense to have it in the first place. 343 said they want things to be more lore based in the MP but then they go and make a feature that is technologically inferior to the classic way of scoping? Why? Then there is the problem of adding a scoping feature to automatics, which I am heavily against. It changes their entire nature to do so and to be honest I just don’t trust 343 to pull it off in a balanced, traditional Halo gameplay format.

Futbol! :smiley: +1’d.

261

> 2533274821180847;258:
> Why can’t people just accept that SS is utterly pointless in having? Classic zooming was one of the more iconic things about the game franchise that we had since day 1, there was absolutely no need to remove it. The only reason they would have included a form of ADS is to cater to people that are used to it in other games, and after how angry people got about adopting COD elements for Halo 4 I find it downright insulting that 343 decided to add a feature like this anyways. At this point I just want 343 to stop and actually listen to what their Halo fans want.
>
> It doesn’t even make sense to have it in the first place. 343 said they want things to be more lore based in the MP but then they go and make a feature that is technologically inferior to the classic way of scoping? Why? Then there is the problem of adding a scoping feature to automatics, which I am heavily against. It changes their entire nature to do so and to be honest I just don’t trust 343 to pull it off in a balanced, traditional Halo gameplay format.

To be clear,
You believe H4’ scoping is more more like CE through Reach than H5 is?
You believe the AR should not have a scope but also believe the game should follow lore with scopes on weapons?

262

> 2535421619942348;259:
> > 2533274810150284;256:
> > > 2535421619942348;252:
> > > You use the word they an awful lot, especially for an exchange of > 3 offending posts. I never insulted you either, but rather meant to ensure that - yes - DARTH CEDIOUS did actually reply to the “not joke” part of your post. He replied to the entire thing - or his statements can be construed to be a response to your entire thing. After all, it is still ridiculous to assume anything about the way SWB plays right off the bat, regardless of whether it’ll be like Classic Battlefront or (for lack of a better term) Battlefield 4.5, based on the complete and total lack of information we have. That was my point. The logical statements you made were addressed by CEDIOUS, and he just used unfortunate verbiage before he…or anyone…knew it was a joke. Take out that one pernicious word - Battlefield 4.5 - and his reply to yours remains exactly the same. There we go. No one’s getting uptight over a joke and no one else is getting their reading comprehension insulted.
> > >
> > > No one’s saying that it wasn’t a joke either, just that we couldn’t tell.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > How do you know? Did you play it? From what we know (no ADS, reduced destruction, Heros, buddy-system) SWB looks to be far from beeing Battlefield 4.5 …that is nothing but an senseless bash against an other game that you can not back up with facts…
> >
> >
> > Yeah, that really sounds like a reply to all my points - which are all confirmed by the Battlefront devs to be accurate - and not just a reply to the final statement about “Battlefield 4.5 v2”.
> >
> > He talks about nothing besides actual gameplay - referring to the lack of ADS, reduced destruction, Hero/buddy system - which none of my points even dealt with (barring the seamless third-to-first person view switching, which is also confirmed). I talked about stuff like the lack of Galactic Conquest and space battles, the general scope of the game that upsets me. I don’t see how any of that could be “senseless bashing without facts”, because it is all public knowledge that has been officially released by the developers. So the only thing he could have possibly been referring to was the “Battlefield 4.5 v2” remark, which he assumed was me actually claiming that it was going to be a copy of Battlefield 4, when in reality it was just a satirical jest about the “dumbing down” from the classic Battlefront style to better appeal to the Battlefield crowd.
> >
> > It’s weird to me that you really believe he replied to all of my points, and not just the joke.
>
>
>
>
> > DARTH CEDIOUS wrote:
> >
> >
> > > d The Doctor b wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, not sure what Graham meant by “staying true to the roots and avoiding game fads”. Seamless in-game third-to-first person camera switching? No galactic conquest? No space battles? Loadout and character customization? DICE has botched Battlefront far worse than 343 has “botched” Halo.
> > > Case in point: I have loved both franchises from the beginning, and I have preordered the LCE for Halo 5, but I will not even be buying Battlefront (aka Battlefield 4.5 v2).
> >
> >
> > How do you know? Did you play it? From what we know (no ADS, reduced destruction, Heros, buddy-system) SWB looks to be far from beeing Battlefield 4.5 …that is nothing but an senseless bash against an other game that you can not back up with facts…
>
>
> Allow me to break it down the way I envisioned it.
>
>
> > Yeah, not sure what Graham meant by “staying true to the roots and avoiding game fads”. Seamless in-game third-to-first person camera switching? No galactic conquest? No space battles? Loadout and character customization?
>
>
> These are all features that are confirmed not to be in SWB. (And it sucks major donkey balls)
>
>
> > (no ADS, reduced destruction, Heros, buddy-system)
>
>
> These are all features that are confirmed to be in SWB. (I’m not discerning between gametype and game mechanic for this, and I don’t think CEDIOUS would have either. Also, Loadout customization does mess with gameplay - especially classed based gameplay like the Original SWB and SWBII.)
>
> You said:
>
>
> > DICE has botched Battlefront far worse than 343 has “botched” Halo.
>
>
> To which he directly replied:
>
>
> > How do you know? Did you play it?
>
>
> Now of course, we know…now…that the Battlefield 4.5 v2 thing was a joke that wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, so if we pull that word out and substitute it for a likely synonym:
>
>
> > SWB looks to be far from beeing a disaster that doesn’t hold true to classic gameplay.
>
>
> And then he says:
>
>
> > …that is nothing but an senseless bash against an other game that you can not back up with facts…
>
>
> Which, if I’m correct, is what this whole thing is about. I’ll admit, it’s in ill taste, and he didn’t know you didn’t want that part to be taken seriously - but I honestly can’t shake the feeling that, regardless of what we’ve heard (and we’ve heard some seriously unappealing stuff) I think we could at least wait until some gameplay is released before we have a strong opinion one way or another. He’s being a -Yoink,- but I think he has something approaching a point.
>
> Now, regardless of whether or not he did it in a particularly compelling way, from my point of view, he did provide a response to every piece of your post.

OK, I just saw that this whole thing blow up some how…
Thank you for posting this L377UC3 I couldn’t have said it better! (eventough you called me whatever is hiding behind that -Yoink- .)
About that last part though…it might have been a little rough but thats is the danger of making jokes about “difficult” topics…the whole internet is filled with people who believe those stuff like “battlefield 4.5” and it gets me kinda cranky…
I have no problems with such jokes (and if I had seen this earlier I probably would have apologised for for that last part) but if they backfire because people don’t know you nor your “style of writing” and can not tell if you’re serious or not, just put it right and take the hit, don’t insult them telling them they need “a critical reading seminar” or they are lacking reading comprehension (or was that an joke as well?)

263

> 2533274886246836;244:
> > 2533274873310828;239:
> > > 2533274886246836;237:
> > > The feel of the game is pretty much the same (when it comes to aiming), but that doesn’t stop me from disliking the looks of it. Or the controls. I played with the Halo 4 controls during the beta, but there needs to be more classic control options for people who like to play with controls other than default
> >
> >
> > Oh dear more people are gathering pitchforks against the aesthetics.
> >
> > While I am not that bothered about it, I think I really need to see 343’s developmental process now.
>
>
> Did you even read what I said? I said I don’t like the looks of it. When did I ever say it was a big deal?

Oh I understand that pretty well. It is just that your response was added and calculated against my personal observational statistics.

Anyway, yes apparently the aesthetics are a big deal; identity crisis for some, rule of cool to others. Frankly speaking though, when you are a shooter archetype, nothing really becomes unique to you anymore.

PS: Just thought I share this funny story. When SS was first announced, I had a friend who was dismayed it wasn’t going to exactly be like CoD ADS. Strange world we live in, amirite?

264

Funny thing is that DICE has changed the Star Wars Battlefront gameplay (the first two were fantastic IMO) drastically and the player base had only minor outrage. Even though they are taking out major gameplay things like space combat and instant action, the players are optimistic and don’t say, “Blam! You DICE!” or issue death threats even though Star Wars fans are very zealous. Why? Because they aren’t narrow minded like many Halo players, and they like to have a happy community unlike Halo’s current community.