No More Agreeing to Disagree

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Ok, here is a bright idea. Although I do feel like a good majority of the forum community has moved past it, let me remind everyone else arguing over a competitive vs. casual gameplay that the issue is not whether or not Halo will go back to a more Halo 3 style of gameplay or stick with the Halo 4 gameplay. At this point, jumping straight back to Halo 3 will be too large of a leap. Halo will lose all, although probably less in numbers, Halo 4 gameplay style supporters. We need to understand that it is no use arguing over which style was better anymore and find a way to merge the two. Keep in mind that all though Halo 4 did not excite previous Halo players it did bring in quite a few new players that enjoyed the game. Now that a majority of Halo 3 players have left and have probably given up on Halo, we still need to keep the casual Halo 4 type players happy.

So stop arguing and compromise. The Halo universe does not revovle an individual player’s wants so be willing when you post to bend to the other posters requests. THe bend may be slight or it could be halfway or even more than halfway but if both sides agree on it then it becomes 343’s fault if it is not in the game. As long as the Halo community can clearly give 343 a rough blue print of what we all can play and still enjoy, then we will have a Halo game that we ENJOY.

Keep in mind that you will not get everything you want. That is ok. We have to find a balance so that both the casual and the competitive communities are happy with the next Halo game. It may not be 100% to their liking but as long as it say 70 - 90% to their liking and they can cope with all 100% of it then both sides stay happy.

Again note that I do believe a great majority of the forums have realized this. But those threads that are demonizing the other sides stance, please STOP. It is annoying. Learn to share and to get along and not to PICK AT EVERY PIECE OF A PERSON’S POST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. Get along or go back to 2012 when everyone was panicking about Halo 4.

2

While I appreciate the general idea behind this post, which promotes respectful discussions, I’m not sure it was completely necessary, as the grand majority of the users already act in a civil manner. In addition, if somebody wants to create a thread discussing why their preferred Halo gameplay should be kept for the next Halo game, why can’t they do so? I’m pretty certain that people understand that not everybody can be happy with one style of gameplay, which also means that some people won’t be happy with a merged style either. People have the freedom to express their own opinions on here, whether it be pro-Halo 4 or not.

After all, if people aren’t going to post opinions that are very different from others’, what would there be to talk about? People aren’t arguing, they’re having interesting debates that constantly bring up new points worth discussing. If somebody wants to pick at everybody’s point in a post, why can’t they? Unless they’re purposefully seeking trouble and trying to create a flame war, I don’t see the issue. After all, forums are meant for interacting with other members, and people should have the right to do so.

Furthermore, I must point out that I quite dislike your use of the words competitive and casual. You’re automatically assuming that every player fits into one of those two extreme categories, and that every “competitive” player prefers Halo 3 over Halo 4, and that every “casual” player prefers Halo 4 to Halo 3.

As a player who considers myself to be more social/casual player, I very much prefer the classic Halo 1-Halo 3 balanced gameplay over Halo 4’s. I don’t like people assuming that I’m a bigger fan of Halo 4 simply because I’m not competitive. That’s not fair to me, or any other players who are like me.

3

What I personally dislike about the Casual vs. Competitive discussion is that it lumps everyone into one side or the other. Remember, the majority of gamers were casual during Halo 3’s days, and the majority are casual now. I, as a ‘casual’, personally prefer the gameplay of 2/3/Reach(even with AA’s due to most of them being balanced) as opposed to Halo 4’s class based one. Heck, the 'casual’s are what kept Halo 3 at the top of the chart. A casual, by definition, is one who plays for fun; however, that is not to say that they necessarily enjoy things that are too easy. If a casual likes a game and it has high replay-ability, they will stick around, as with what has happened with Halo 4.

4

> What I personally dislike about the Casual vs. Competitive discussion is that it lumps everyone into one side or the other. Remember, the majority of gamers were casual during Halo 3’s days, and the majority are casual now. I, as a ‘casual’, personally prefer the gameplay of 2/3/Reach(even with AA’s due to most of them being balanced) as opposed to Halo 4’s class based one. Heck, the 'casual’s are what kept Halo 3 at the top of the chart. A casual, by definition, is one who plays for fun; however, that is not to say that they necessarily enjoy things that are too easy. If a casual likes a game and it has high replay-ability, they will stick around, as with what has happened with Halo 4.

Precisely, you understand! I, a social player, do not particularly care whether I win or lose, and I won’t ever get upset over the game, whether it be players doing badly or not playing solely to win. My kill/death ratio doesn’t matter to me, all I want to do is have some fun.

However, while that is true, I also like a challenge and a good atmosphere. I don’t want the game to give me free stuff simply for playing, nor do I want to play a game that’s inherently imbalanced due to unqeual spawns or unpredictability. Halo 1-3 and Reach were simple, balanced and fun. Halo 4, on the other hand, is quite imblanced, with a ton of pointless gimmicks, far too easy and unchallenging. Just because I’m not a competitive player, it does not mean that I want a game like that, not at all.

5

Define competitive. Define casual.

As for ‘unpredictability’, lets discuss this some more. To start, people seem to confuse the words “unpredictable” and “unknowable”. Frankly, if we are on a CQC map, I don’t know that my opponent is going to choose an AR, but I can pretty easily predict he is based on the circumstances.

And how much weight does predictability actually have on the game? One of our most important skills is aiming, or in other words, countering strafe. Strafe itself is for the most part random. Our most important skill is derived from a random mechanic.

What differentiates the randomness of strafe from the randomness of ordnance then? The ability of the player to react and actually do something to overcome the situation.

Frankly, armor abilities are the same thing. If someone launches a hologram, you can still examine it and determine if it’s fake or not. If someone uses thruster pack, you can re-adjust your aim. If someone uses armor lock you can react by retreating or waiting it out. But if an entire team gets lucky with their ordnance, the only viable reaction is to die. This is where the line is drawn, when player action becomes meaningless and randomness becomes everything. At this point the game is no longer a game.

Yes, I did mention armor lock. Do note I aim only discussing prediction and reaction, I’m not discussing the impact of those specific items on the game as a whole.

Essentially, what I’m getting at is a few things. Competitive gameplay is more than just “what Halo 2 says goes” and several games that are RADICALLY different in ideals from Halo are still considered competitive. Imagine that. I’m also putting emphasis on the fact that reactionary skills play a large role in many genres, FPS included.

Things that are praised as being staples of competitive gameplay really deserve more analyzing than they currently get. The competitive discussion around here doesn’t seem interested in the pursuit of actual competitive gamplay, rather it’s focused on keeping up pre-established norms without question.

6

> As a player who considers myself to be more social/casual player, I very much prefer the classic Halo 1-Halo 3 balanced gameplay over Halo 4’s. I don’t like people assuming that I’m a bigger fan of Halo 4 simply because I’m not competitive. That’s not fair to me, or any other players who are like me.

Ah an interesting paradox we have here Hotrod! I on the other hand much prefer the varied and interesting gameplay of halo 4, and I consider myself fairly competitive. My friends and I all coordinate loadouts together, share ordnance packages, callout enemies, and form strategies for each map and gametype.

For instance my job is to contol the center of the map as long as possible with the aid of active camo and AA effeciency, and to utilize sensor to be aware of every opponents positions at all times and call them out constantly. These are the sorts of things we do.

Anyways goes to show classic vs. contemporary and casual vs. competitive are independent of eachother.

7

> > As a player who considers myself to be more social/casual player, I very much prefer the classic Halo 1-Halo 3 balanced gameplay over Halo 4’s. I don’t like people assuming that I’m a bigger fan of Halo 4 simply because I’m not competitive. That’s not fair to me, or any other players who are like me.
>
> Ah an interesting paradox we have here Hotrod! I on the other hand much prefer the varied and interesting gameplay of halo 4, and I consider myself fairly competitive. My friends and I all coordinate loadouts together, share ordnance packages, callout enemies, and form strategies for each map and gametype.
>
> For instance my job is to contol the center of the map as long as possible with the aid of active camo and AA effeciency, and to utilize sensor to be aware of every opponents positions at all times and call them out constantly. These are the sorts of things we do.
>
> Anyways goes to show classic vs. contemporary and casual vs. competitive are independent of eachother.

Sammy, for all the times we’ve disagreed, I am glad to say that for once we see eye to eye on something! This is exactly what I’m trying to explain. You’re a competitive player, and in your eyes, Halo 4 is a more competitive game for a variety of reasons and more enjoyable. And I, the social gamer, prefer earlier Halo games’ way of doing things.

It’s interesting to see the ways you’ve shown that Halo 4 can be competitive. If both teams are coordinating together and planning ahead, they can use the options given to players in the game to form a strategy to try to take out the enemies as efficiently as possible. It’s similar to games like Dota/League of Legends, where despite the differences between the players, there is indeed the possibility for some competition-geared gameplay. While it’s not what I or others may want from the game, it’s still there for those who do want that style of gameplay to enjoy.

In this situation, I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you on this matter. I don’t think there’s any way either of us can find a perfect middle ground that would make us both happy. But you’re right, this discussion does indeed show that classic vs. contemporary and casual vs. competitive are two very different discussions.

8

> Anyways goes to show classic vs. contemporary and casual vs. competitive are independent of eachother.

Yes, no.

Classic and Competitive are not necessarily mutually inclusive. But that doesn’t mean new additions are all good either.

Halo 4 presents a new strategy (camp in middle with camo). But how difficult is this strategy to execute compared to how rewarding it is? Not very.

Just because you add a new strategy doesn’t automatically make the game more competitive. In fact the above is simply reducing the skill gap of the game. As said before, not all strategies are equal in worth.

Remember zerg rushing from starcraft? Same reward, way easier, way broken.

9

> > > As a player who considers myself to be more social/casual player, I very much prefer the classic Halo 1-Halo 3 balanced gameplay over Halo 4’s. I don’t like people assuming that I’m a bigger fan of Halo 4 simply because I’m not competitive. That’s not fair to me, or any other players who are like me.
> >
> > Ah an interesting paradox we have here Hotrod! I on the other hand much prefer the varied and interesting gameplay of halo 4, and I consider myself fairly competitive. My friends and I all coordinate loadouts together, share ordnance packages, callout enemies, and form strategies for each map and gametype.
> >
> > For instance my job is to contol the center of the map as long as possible with the aid of active camo and AA effeciency, and to utilize sensor to be aware of every opponents positions at all times and call them out constantly. These are the sorts of things we do.
> >
> > Anyways goes to show classic vs. contemporary and casual vs. competitive are independent of eachother.
>
> Sammy, for all the times we’ve disagreed, I am glad to say that for once we see eye to eye on something! This is exactly what I’m trying to explain. You’re a competitive player, and in your eyes, Halo 4 is a more competitive game for a variety of reasons and more enjoyable. And I, the social gamer, prefer earlier Halo games’ way of doing things.
>
> It’s interesting to see the ways you’ve shown that Halo 4 can be competitive. If both teams are coordinating together and planning ahead, they can use the options given to players in the game to form a strategy to try to take out the enemies as efficiently as possible. It’s similar to games like Dota/League of Legends, where despite the differences between the players, there is indeed the possibility for some competition-geared gameplay. While it’s not what I or others may want from the game, it’s still there for those who do want that style of gameplay to enjoy.
>
> In this situation, I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you on this matter. I don’t think there’s any way either of us can find a perfect middle ground that would make us both happy. But you’re right, this discussion does indeed show that classic vs. contemporary and casual vs. competitive are two very different discussions.

Classic vs. contemporary is simply a matter of gameplay settings. Is it classic? Halo 123/legendary style or is contemporary, reach and h4 infinity. Even so the dividing line between the two is quite vague and open to debate. Someone may consider vanilla reach to be classic at this point, while another considers only plasma pistol start halo CE to qualify as classic.

Casual vs. competitive, if that theoretical notion holds any grounds in reality at all, is a reference to a person’s outlook. Do they play the game primarily to do their own thing, or do they play to win, doing everything in their power to keep improving while organizing with like minded players. Again, nowhere near set in stone. Someone may think that only players who travel and attend high profile tournaments are competitive. Someone else may define anyone who makes an attempt to win competitive.

10

I’m a casual and competitive player. Being a casual…I try to have the most fun as I can. Competitively…I’ve switched up my play style…now I’m going to take full advantage of the equipment available…whether it’s frowned down upon…or not. Not helping me kill people if I’m purposefully limiting myself.

11

> So stop arguing and compromise.

Plot twist: Halo 4 itself was a compromise, which is why it failed:

> Halo 4 would have been much better off if it embraced either arena shooter same starts or full-fledged classes. Full custom loadouts did not work well in Halo 4 because they did not clearly separate roles.
>
> In class-based games, classes must have certain abilities that other classes don’t (with a significant amount of power): only Healers can heal others, only tanks can take massive amounts of damage, and only DPS can deal massive amounts of damage. The classes must be balanced so that each of their exclusive abilities are necessary–you must have all of them to function effectively.
>
> Halo 4 didn’t have this. The loadout options were only buffs, not essential abilities. Teams did not have to coordinate loadouts because each and every one of them is capable of taking on any role at any time and only be slightly more or less effective. Because the effort it takes to coordinate loadouts is not balanced enough by advantages gained, having classes was not only optional, it was almost inconsequential. To make everything worse, players’ loadouts were hidden, so no one could ever know how to effectively complement (as a teammate) or counter (as an opponent) them. As a result, loadouts added to the game randomness and not strategy, chaos and not structure.

> We have to find a balance so that both the casual and the competitive communities are happy with the next Halo game.

Plot twist #2: Halo CE-3 was that perfect balance. Halo 3 had social playlists for players who wanted to relax and play for fun, and then ranked playlists for players who wanted to play with a prize on the line (skill rank). Both of these types of players were playing with the exact same gametype settings. If you were slightly more “casual,” there were playlists like Action Sack and Multi-Team which contained fun mini-games. If you were slightly more competitive, there was the MLG playlist, which featured gametypes that only slightly differed from the gametypes in the mainstream playlists.

This idea that casual players = Infinity settings is baloney and needs to be left behind. The small number of players currently playing Halo 4 does not represent the “casual” population. There are many casual players who do not like randomness with their Halo, and not only are these players not represented by the stereotypes mentioned in these discussions, but I would also argue they represent a large portion of players who would play/have played Halo. Infinity settings vs. classic settings is a matter of gameplay preference, not competitive/casual mindset.