its kinda fun... but its not halo

I enjoy playing a mindless game like CoD or lone-wolf Battlefield every once in a while, and I think this fulfills that need. It IS mindless, though, and it isn’t very much like Halo, so I don’t see it being my multiplayer of choice as Halos 1-3 are objectively better games.

Halo’s 1-3 aren’t objectively better games.
There’s no objective criteria for judging the quality of art.

That said, I would rather play Halo Ce, Halo 2, or Battlefield 4 than play Halo 5.
Which I am doing.

> 2533274819302824;2:
> Halo’s 1-3 aren’t objectively better games.
> There’s no objective criteria for judging the quality of art.
>
> That said, I would rather play Halo Ce, Halo 2, or Battlefield 4 than play Halo 5.
> Which I am…

You mean BrokenField 4?

> 2533274896651902;3:
> You mean BrokenField 4?

I don’t know about the Xbox, but I play it on the PC, and I’ve never ran into any problems. Like, at all.

> 2533274819302824;2:
> There’s no objective criteria for judging the quality of art.

Wrong on both accounts. Yes there is, and games aren’t purely just art.

There have been things that have been claimed to be “art” but are nothing more than pretentious rubbish (You’d know this if you went through art school in University). Games, however, aren’t just art. While they may be considered the “ultimate artform” (as they draw from several mediums - sound, visual design, etc), they can also be criticized for being games that play badly, have bad hardware support, or are buggy and unoptimized, or even outright fail at what they were designed to be/have conflicting mechanics that negatively impact on its gameplay.

> 2533274881015020;5:
> Wrong on both accounts. Yes there is, and games aren’t purely just art.
>
> There have been things that have been claimed to be “art” but are nothing more than pretentious rubbish (You’d know this if you went through art school in University). Games, however, aren’t just art. While they may be considered the “ultimate artform” (as they draw from several mediums - sound, visual design, etc), they can also be criticized for being games that play badly, have bad hardware support, or are buggy and unoptimized, or even outright fail at what they were designed to be/have conflicting mechanics that negatively impact on its gameplay.

Edit: Actually I’m unsure how to feel about that but I lean towards disagreeing there’s any objective criteria for what is and isn’t considered art.

Of course you can judge a game based on if it functions or not, but besides that everything else is subjective.

What one person considers terrible gameplay, someone else might actually enjoy.
Those 10k people that enjoy Halo 4 are still 10k people that enjoy Halo 4.

You can criticize Halo 4 because you believe it plays badly, that doesn’t make it objectively a bad game.

Because of the post above being edited, I’ll leave the following as a spoiler for posterity:

If I still had all my references that point to examples of what isn’t art, I’d take my time to go through pages worth of documents to outline exactly why “art is what the viewer makes of it” isn’t necessarily correct. It’s not an authority fallacy whatsoever, but rather that it has been explained time and time again that while anyone can make art not everything can be art.

The only subjectivity is when someone likes something or not. Objectively a game can be considered to be bad and have bad gameplay regardless of the subjective opinion of the person who may or may not like the game in question. It takes someone who is not ignorant of design and criticism to understand why a particular game may be bad.

> 2533274819302824;2:
> Halo’s 1-3 aren’t objectively better games.

Yes they are. That’s like saying “Caddilacs aren’t objectively better cars than Ford Escorts”. We all know they are. Sure there may be some boneheads who would argue Ford Escorts (Halo4/5 ) are better but they are just full of it.

Halo CE, 2, and 3 are by far better than Halo 4 and Halo 5. It is not even close

> 2533274819302824;6:
> Edit: Actually I’m unsure how to feel about that but I lean towards disagreeing there’s any objective criteria for what is and isn’t considered art.
>
> Of course you can judge a game based on if it functions or not, but besides that everything else is subjective.
>
> What one person considers terrible gameplay, someone else might actually enjoy.
> Those 10k people that enjoy Halo 4 are still 10k people that enjoy Halo 4.
>
> You can criticize Halo 4 because you believe it plays badly, that doesn’t make it objectively a bad game.

Right, cause Halo 4 that originally had 400K people playing on the day of release went shot straight down to 30K and continues to plummet to today which is less than 5K. Can I say that was all in less than a year that the population dropped so hard? Compare that to Halo 3 which was such a huge success and managed to maintain 200K people years later and still going strong. It’s even more playable than Halo 4 as of now.

So in short, Halo 4 IS a bad game regardless.

> Right, cause Halo 4 that originally had 400K people playing on the day of release went shot straight down to 30K and continues to plummet to today which is less than 5K. Can I say that was all in less than a year that the population dropped so hard? Compare that to Halo 3 which was such a huge success and managed to maintain 200K people years later and still going strong. It’s even more playable than Halo 4 as of now.
>
> So in short, Halo 4 IS a bad game regardless.

Using that logic the best shooter ever made would be a Call of Duty game, while Halo 3 sucks because no one is playing it.

Or Justin Bieber makes amazing music while whatever band you listen to is probably terrible in comparison.

Or so on.

Popularity =/= Quality

> Yes they are. That’s like saying "Caddilacs aren’t objectively better cars than Ford Escorts"Halo CE, 2, and 3 are by far better than Halo 4 and Halo 5. It is not even close

What makes them objectively better?

I consider Halo Ce miles ahead of any other Halo game, but I’m not going to pass off my opinion as fact.

> 2533274819302824;10:
> Popularity =/= Quality

I wouldn’t so much say popularity but rather how well it has managed to retain a playerbase thanks to it having more robust mechanics and game design. Conversely Halo 4’s mechanics and game design was a mess, and (while yes, it can be considered a correlation), as a result Halo 4’s population drained pretty quickly.

Also, guys, please don’t come up with analogies that try to compare videogames to cars. They never work.

What is “objectively good game design”?

More importantly, who is the authority that determines the objective standards of game design?

I’m not convinced something like that actually exists.

> 2533274881015020;7:
> If I still had all my references that point to examples of what isn’t art, I’d take my time to go through pages worth of documents to outline exactly why “art is what the viewer makes of it” isn’t necessarily correct. It’s not an authority fallacy whatsoever, but rather that it has been explained time and time again that while anyone can make art not everything can be art.
>
> The only subjectivity is when someone likes something or not. Objectively a game can be considered to be bad and have bad gameplay regardless of the subjective opinion of the person who may or may not like the game in question. It takes someone who is not ignorant of design and criticism to understand why a particular game may be bad.

Exactly. A more enjoyable game is not the same thing as a better game. For example, I had tons of fun playing Ride To Hell: Retribution, but had very little playing Red Dead: Redemption. Red Dead is undoubtably a better game, but I still had less fun.

> 2533274819302824;10:
> > Right, cause Halo 4 that originally had 400K people playing on the day of release went shot straight down to 30K and continues to plummet to today which is less than 5K. Can I say that was all in less than a year that the population dropped so hard? Compare that to Halo 3 which was such a huge success and managed to maintain 200K people years later and still going strong. It’s even more playable than Halo 4 as of now.
> >
> > So in short, Halo 4 IS a bad game regardless.
>
>
> Using that logic the best shooter ever made would be a Call of Duty game, while Halo 3 sucks because no one is playing it.
>
> Popularity =/= Quality
>
>
>
> > Yes they are. That’s like saying "Caddilacs aren’t objectively better cars than Ford Escorts"Halo CE, 2, and 3 are by far better than Halo 4 and Halo 5. It is not even close
>
>
> What makes them objectively better?
>
> I consider Halo Ce miles ahead of any other Halo game, but I’m not going to pass off my opinion as fact.

I consider Halo 2 miles ahead but I still completely understand why someone may like CE or 3 better. But there is no way someone who played CE, who played halo 2 online on the Xbox, and who played Halo 3 on the 360 could say Halo 4 is better unless there is some reason such as they aren’t bad at halo 4 like the others (which really doesn’t make Halo 4 the better game jsut because you don’t suck at it) but those are the sort of reasons I am sure 99% of people who like Halo 4 prefer it over the others.

Objectively just means based on unbiased facts. Well the fact that Halo 2 and 3’s player populations lasted much much longer than halo 4’s is UNBIASED proof they are objectively better.

All 3 are widely considered some of the best games of all time. You don’t hear anyone say Halo 4 is the best multiplayer of all time. Halo 2 and 3 had strong populations. Better variety of playlists (Social and Ranked). Better Ranks (Skill and progression in halo 3). Better features (Theater Halo 3 Clan feature in Halo 2). Halo 2 and 3 actually thrived in MLG pro tournamnets being the main game with huge prizes. I know a few of those are subjective but it comes to a point when things pile up so high that you have no choice to say A is better than B.

I’m not going to continue arguing about it though. They are jsut better games. I don’t give a damn if 5,000 people like Halo 4 that isn’t -Yoink- compared to the hundreds of thousands who loved Halo CE23

> 2533274819302824;12:
> What is “objectively good game design”?
>
> More importantly, who is the authority that determines the objective standards of game design?
>
> I’m not convinced something like that actually exists.

You act as if nothing can be objectively better. One can argue 1 dollar is better than 1 million doallrs because the one dollar is lighter to carry that doesn’t mean it is better. My yacht (Halo CE, 2, and 3) is objectively better than your dingy(Halo4). Sure YOU could make some BS points on why you thinki your dingy is better but my yacht is still objectivdely better based on a million differnt unbiased things(POP numbers, features, playlists).

In terms of carry weight, $1 is objectively better.
In terms of monetary value, a million dollars is objectively better.

Things can be objective. What I’m debating is that there’s no objective way to judge game quality.
Apples have the objective quality of being rich in nutrients and the subjective quality of being tasty or gross.

If someone considers a game to be good, then to them it’s a good game.

You can’t just say “lol your opinion is objectively wrong”. It’s an opinion.

Eh, whatever. This isn’t really getting anywhere and is off-topic regardless.

> 2535416519117528;15:
> > 2533274819302824;12:
> > What is “objectively good game design”?
> >
> > More importantly, who is the authority that determines the objective standards of game design?
> >
> > I’m not convinced something like that actually exists.
>
>
>
> You act as if nothing can be objectively better. One can argue 1 dollar is better than 1 million doallrs because the one dollar is lighter to carry that doesn’t mean it is better. My yacht (Halo CE, 2, and 3) is objectively better than your dingy(Halo4). Sure YOU could make some BS points on why you thinki your dingy is better but my yacht is still objectivdely better based on a million differnt unbiased things(POP numbers, features, playlists).

Its more comparable to a yacht that has a good engine and ok seats and runs good or a yacht that has better seats and a built in cup holder with a average engine.

Just because you don’t like the one with better seats doesn’t mean it doesn’t run at least pretty well.

> 2533274819302824;12:
> What is “objectively good game design”?

There is no way to describe “objectively good game design” off the bat, but with sequels, we can compare. There is at least one game in the series that is objectively good, to compare it to, and at the least it’s more objective than comparing something from another series or genre.

Two games can’t be compared without breaking them down into mechanics first though, so you have to get specific; separate each mechanic into categories, then compare the overall effectiveness of one mechanic, to the same mechanic in the other game, based on the mechanic’s: improvements, convenience (how easily it is performed), innovative quality or execution, (how well it coincides with the rest of the game/sandbox) if it’s a new mechanic. Once you do this with every mechanic in the game, you have a good idea of how well the game is designed. Not a perfect one, but one that is more objective than subjective, and relies on a decent amount of facts.

That’s my $0.02, at least…

> 2533274819302824;16:
> In terms of carry weight, $1 is objectively better.
> In terms of monetary value, a million dollars is objectively better.
>
> Things can be objective. What I’m debating is that there’s no objective way to judge game quality.
> Apples have the objective quality of being rich in nutrients and the subjective quality of being tasty or gross.
>
> If someone considers a game to be good, then to them it’s a good game.
>
> You can’t just say “lol your opinion is objectively wrong”. It’s an opinion.
>
> Eh, whatever. This isn’t really getting anywhere and is off-topic regardless.

while i agree with your position (post-modernism) there are many flaws to their design, like in H4 when you could see the seams between the ground planes on many of the maps, or the poorly functioning user interface, or the poor attempt at skybox design where you can see part of paris (google images) on skyline etc.

functionally and mechanically they are inferior. to me it’s much like comparing fender stratocasters to a knock-off brand who makes the same guitar. it feels like they attempt to make a game with the same functional and mechanical quality but fall short in many small ways.

> 2533274819302824;16:
> In terms of carry weight, $1 is objectively better.
> In terms of monetary value, a million dollars is objectively better.
>
> Things can be objective. What I’m debating is that there’s no objective way to judge game quality.
> Apples have the objective quality of being rich in nutrients and the subjective quality of being tasty or gross.
>
> If someone considers a game to be good, then to them it’s a good game.
>
> You can’t just say “lol your opinion is objectively wrong”. It’s an opinion.
>
> Eh, whatever. This isn’t really getting anywhere and is off-topic regardless.

art isn’t objective, but when art has a clear goal and it is pulled off with less control or intent then people will rate that work as inferior. simple can be gracious, like calvin and hobbes. many people have tried to be the next calvin and hobbes but fail to do so, as their intention is to be like calvin and hobbes. if you know what i’m saying