I see a lot of posts, really everywhere, about how MLG shouldn’t be involved with a game’s design, weapon balance, item placement, and the like.
I like to think of competitive games as a square. Squares are considered both squares and rectangles. A game designed for the casual could be thought of as a rectangle. It is not necessarily a square, but it is sure a rectangle. Now replace the word “square” with “competitive,” and “rectangle” with “casual,” an I believe my point becomes clear.
Halo 2 and pre-patch Reach are fine examples of these. There was high amount of competition in Halo 2, the game had a very high skill ceiling, while minigames such as Zombies, Tower of Power, and the rest, had their roots in Halo 2. On the opposite side of the spectrum, many things added in Reach are simply unsuitable for high-level play. Reach is able to satisfy the casual group very well, but at the cost of alienating the competitive group.
Now may I ask, what is the matter with having a highly-competitive community like MLG design/balance a game for the high-level players. These decisions would help benefit everyone, and there is really no reason as to how they would not.
These are just players, they are not game designers. Granted, skilled players, but players nonetheless.
From my experience with MLG (which is extensive, I like to think), they tend to lean toward a sandbox where a single weapon (BR or post-TU DMR) can be used for any and all situations. This is not a sandbox. I want to see a game where every weapon is usefully and the mid-ranged weapon isn’t the utility weapon
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> They’re just bad people.
You are bad people. You just generalized an entire part of gaming population. I play MLG, I love MLG, it’s pretty much all I play, and guess what, I’m a nice guy. I never trash talk, I always say good game, and I have never quit out of a game early. So tell me, what makes me so much worse than the average gamer that runs in team slayer or any other playlist and is rude to everybody he meets and assumes that anybody who plays diffirently than him is ‘bad people’.
But thank you for your well thought out and valuable opinion. I admire you oh so much.
> The only reason why somebody would not want a game designed for competitive play is that that said person is completely ignorant on the subject.
>
> Competitive and casual gaming is like osmosis. <mark>One can play a competitive game casually, but one cannot play a casual game competitively</mark>.
MLG begs to differ. Did you know they have used COD Black Ops? COD, one of the most casual shooters on the market, being used for professional competition.
There is a big difference between a game designed for competitive play and a game designed by competitive players. Players are not designers, and just because they play competitively does not mean those players have any experience to make sound judgments on the nature of weapon and gameplay balance.
> 2. From my experience with MLG (which is extensive, I like to think), they tend to lean toward a sandbox where a single weapon (BR or post-TU DMR) can be used for any and all situations. This is not a sandbox.
Oh? Then what is a sandbox? This ought to be good.
> I want to see a game where every weapon is usefully
MLG’s sandbox does just that. It’s the developers fault if three-quarters of the sandbox they created is stuffed with redundant junk weapons.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the topic at hand.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> > They’re just bad people.
>
> You are bad people. You just generalized an entire part of gaming population. I play MLG, I love MLG, it’s pretty much all I play, and guess what, I’m a nice guy. I never trash talk, I always say good game, and I have never quit out of a game early. So tell me, what makes me so much worse than the average gamer that runs in team slayer or any other playlist and is rude to everybody he meets and assumes that anybody who plays diffirently than him is ‘bad people’.
>
> But thank you for your well thought out and valuable opinion. I admire you oh so much.
> 1. These are just players, they are not game designers. Granted, skilled players, but players nonetheless.
They know the game inside and out. They would not be designing the game 100% themselves, but what’s the matter with them guiding 343?
> 2. From my experience with MLG (which is extensive, I like to think), they tend to lean toward a sandbox where a single weapon (BR or post-TU DMR) can be used for any and all situations. This is not a sandbox. I want to see a game where every weapon is usefully and the mid-ranged weapon isn’t the utility weapon
That is untrue. Other weapons are simply not worth using.
> > 2. From my experience with MLG (which is extensive, I like to think), they tend to lean toward a sandbox where a single weapon (BR or post-TU DMR) can be used for any and all situations. This is not a sandbox.
>
> Oh? Then what is a sandbox? This ought to be good.
>
>
>
> > I want to see a game where every weapon is usefully
>
> MLG’s sandbox does just that. It’s the developers fault if three-quarters of the sandbox they created is stuffed with redundant junk weapons.
A sandbox, in terms of video games, is where everything has a “niche”, an ideal situation for that item’s use.
Now yes, it is the developer’s fault if most of the sandbox is useless or redundant. However, I cannot stand people wanting a return to a sandbox that was unbalanced. I’m talking Halo 2, Halo 3, and post-TU Reach. Prior to the TU, Reach was one of the most balance games to date. Yes, it had problems, but in most cases, each weapon filled a certain niche, with very little overlap.
> > The only reason why somebody would not want a game designed for competitive play is that that said person is completely ignorant on the subject.
> >
> > Competitive and casual gaming is like osmosis. <mark>One can play a competitive game casually, but one cannot play a casual game competitively</mark>.
>
> MLG begs to differ. Did you know they have used COD Black Ops? COD, one of the most casual shooters on the market, being used for professional competition.
>
> There is a big difference between a game designed for competitive play and a game designed by competitive players. Players are not designers, and just because they play competitively does not mean those players have any experience to make sound judgments on the nature of weapon and gameplay balance.
When refined, Call of Duty has the potential to be played competitively.
Because players know the game inside and out, and understand how everything functions, I think they do know how to balance a game out.
> > The only reason why somebody would not want a game designed for competitive play is that that said person is completely ignorant on the subject.
> >
> > Competitive and casual gaming is like osmosis. <mark>One can play a competitive game casually, but one cannot play a casual game competitively</mark>.
>
> MLG begs to differ. Did you know they have used COD Black Ops? COD, one of the most casual shooters on the market, being used for professional competition.
>
> There is a big difference between a game designed for competitive play and a game designed by competitive players. Players are not designers, and just because they play competitively does not mean those players have any experience to make sound judgments on the nature of weapon and gameplay balance.
I take it you’ve never played Search and Destroy? Something i like to think of as far from casual.
No one should be involved in a game’s design except for the game developer. Not me, not the community and not MLG.
It’s like that episode of The Simpsons where Homer’s long lost brother lets him design a car which ruins the company. What we want is not necessarily equivalent to what is a good idea.
This is why I’m glad 343i doesn’t read or care about these forums. They’re doing what THEY want to do and it will turn out to be a good game.
If it were up to the MLG or the community it would be a flat map like griffball where everyone had the Battle Rifle and spawned opposite to each other like the American Civil War.
> Now yes, it is the developer’s fault if most of the sandbox is useless or redundant. However, I cannot stand people wanting a return to a sandbox that was unbalanced. I’m talking Halo 2, Halo 3, and post-TU Reach. Prior to the TU, Reach was one of the most balance games to date. Yes, it had problems, but in most cases, each weapon filled a certain niche, with very little overlap.
Wrong. The DMR still reigned supreme, and destroyed every non-power weapon, regardless of niche. Who said anything of returning to any of the post-CE Halo titles? Those were all an unbalanced mess, I was just using Halo 2 as an example of a competitive game as a casual one.
Halo CE, in my fact, was the most balanced Halo title out. CE should be used as a guide for balancing Halo 4’s weapons.
> No one should be involved in a game’s design except for the game developer. Not me, not the community and not MLG.
>
> It’s like that episode of The Simpsons where Homer’s long lost brother lets him design a car which ruins the company. What we want is not necessarily equivalent to what is a good idea.
>
> This is why I’m glad 343i doesn’t read or care about these forums. They’re doing what THEY want to do and it will turn out to be a good game.
>
> If it were up to the MLG or the community it would be a flat map like griffball where everyone had the Battle Rifle and spawned opposite to each other like the American Civil War.
You’re kidding me right? Have you ever played an MLG made map?
> A sandbox, in terms of video games, is where everything has a “niche”, an ideal situation for that item’s use.
Very good. Now explain how MLG has that all wrong.
> Now yes, it is the developer’s fault if most of the sandbox is useless or redundant. However, I cannot stand people wanting a return to a sandbox that was unbalanced. I’m talking Halo 2, Halo 3, and post-TU Reach. Prior to the TU, Reach was one of the most balance games to date. Yes, it had problems, but in most cases, each weapon filled a certain niche, with very little overlap.
MLG ONLY gives input for the competitive settings they use for tournament play. They should have a say in what the competitive settings are like they are the face of competitive Halo and the largest Pro Gaming League in NA. The community,343, and MLG all benefit from being able to work together to achieve the best competitive settings. Alot of Developers have pro players and various Gaming leagues playtest and give feedback on their games, Bungie has done this ever since H2 to my knowledge and Sundance has said 343 is working with MLG so I assume they will be involved in play testing in one way or another. I find it funny that some people act like competitive games are a bad thing, everyone benefits from having a sound and balanced competitive game.
