What matters to you most - Fun or balance?

I see a lot of people saying that balance is the most important thing in Halo. While I agree that it is very important, it’s not the most important thing.

If all 343 needed to do was make Halo balanced, then we would just be spawned into a small box room with no cover with just a battle rifle and 1v1 only, with no interesting game mechanics besides walk, jump and shoot. That’s not very fun though is it? The whole point of playing a game is to have fun.

So how balanced does a game need to be? Answer: just enough for the better player to win the majority of the time. Enough to prevent players from becoming frequently frustrated with the game.

Halo 5 is balanced. We all start with the same abilities and weapons. That is as balanced as it gets. You wanna talk about skill gap? Sure that’s a whole new argument and Halo 5 still does take skill whether its 1v1 or team play. I’ve destroyed people because I was better and gotten destroyed by people because they were better. But the game is balanced, there is no arguing that.

Is Halo 5 fun? To me and anyone I’ve played with, yes it is. Fun is very subjective though. You can’t clearly determine something is fun just like you can’t say what’s funny or what’s attractive. From the reaction the beta got, I’d say it’s mostly positive and fun for most people. Of course, it can’t be fun for everyone, what is?

So what matters most at the end of the day to you?

Fun. That is why I play video games, and that is the biggest factor in longevity - anyone playing a game against their enjoyment is a masochistic.

That said, I prefer balanced starting conditions in a multiplayer game. What players do to leverage the situation is the key to success in the game, whether it be Halo, Smash Bros, or something else (just using the ones that appear popular in these sorts of discussions).

Fun: Campaign

Balance: Multiplayer

Fun all the way. The games that I have had the most fun with out of every game I have ever played are Titanfall, Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare, and Skyrim. You can’t really say Skyrim is balanced or unbalanced becuase it is a single player game. But while Titanfall and PvZ: GW aren’t balanced to the point of Halo, they are still incredibly fun.

Fun. If a game is fun, but broken, it is still enjoyable to play. If a game is boring, but perfectly balanced, is will be a chore to play. Ideally a game can be both, but if I had to choose one of the two it would be fun. I play games for fun, not to prove anything.

A fun Halo game to me is equal starts along with a competitive ranking system. That’s it. Give me casual modes too like Forge and Theater. So far, Halo 5 fills that role and more. Halo Reach and 4 did not.

Imagine if Halo 3 had no competitive ranking system. I sure as hell wouldn’t have played it for 3 years. It’s not all about the gameplay when it comes to a fun or successful Halo game, but that’s just my opinion.

Unfortunately, some people have a much more lengthy list of criteria when it comes to a fun Halo. I like to allow some wiggle room. :\

The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

Now different balances… That’s a different thing.

For one, there’s overall competitive balance which is not about a utility weapon, it’s about viable options.

How “hardcore” that competitive experience seeks to be determines the sub-rules and mechanics. Whether it’s a casual and laid back experience or intensely competitive, the fun comes from there almost always being a way to clutch victory from a defeat. In which way those tables can be turned… That’s the different tale and subjective to many.

Good balance breeds fun and a healthy population.

Poor balance breeds frustration and causes players to leave.

The BETA had both.

> 2533274833600810;1:
> I see a lot of people saying that balance is the most important thing in Halo. While I agree that it is very important, it’s not the most important thing.
>
> If all 343 needed to do was make Halo balanced, then we would just be spawned into a small box room with no cover with just a battle rifle and 1v1 only, with no interesting game mechanics besides walk, jump and shoot. That’s not very fun though is it? The whole point of playing a game is to have fun.
>
> So how balanced does a game need to be? Answer: just enough for the better player to win the majority of the time. Enough to prevent players from becoming frequently frustrated with the game.
>
> Halo 5 is balanced. We all start with the same abilities and weapons. That is as balanced as it gets. You wanna talk about skill gap? Sure that’s a whole new argument and Halo 5 still does take skill whether its 1v1 or team play. I’ve destroyed people because I was better and gotten destroyed by people because they were better. But the game is balanced, there is no arguing that.
>
> Is Halo 5 fun? To me and anyone I’ve played with, yes it is. Fun is very subjective though. You can’t clearly determine something is fun just like you can’t say what’s funny or what’s attractive. From the reaction the beta got, I’d say it’s mostly positive and fun for most people. Of course, it can’t be fun for everyone, what is?
>
> So what matters most at the end of the day to you?

Your question is misguided and show a lack of understanding.

Yes, it applies to probably 100 % of players that the most important thing for them is having fun. The difference is what players consider fun. What you don’t understand is that balance is a cause for fun. For instance, matching top end players with low end players is not going to be fun for anyone involved.

Your argument that complete balance is a br and no covers is just faulty. 343i could add how much cover and weapons they like, as long as it doesn’t give unfair advantage to one of the teams. That is why symmetrical maps are the best. The goal of each match is to win, and if your chance of success is partly detmined by which team you get dealt before match stary, then it isn’t balanced. I don’t think anyone likes the idea of getting worse odds right off the bat in a match; the only reason casual players don’t care is because they don’t know about it. Balance does not equate to less fun. You can have a completely balanced game alongside tons of dynamics. The only thing is to not give anyone unfair advantage. This is obvious when you consider what would happen if a team gets unfair advantage in football or any other competiton.

A good Balanced game equals a fun game.

Definitely fun over balance

You need balance to have fun.

Well actually, If everyone’s having fun in an unbalanced game then you don’t need balance.

I need balance in team slayer and amateur mlg playlists, but I wan’t my fun in BTB, grifball, living dead etc. Halo has it for sweaters and for casuals. I consider myself as a sweaty casual where balance only really matters to me in certain playlists

I prefer balanced games, but i can have fun perfectly with an unbalanced game

fun

I don’t see how they’re mutually exclusive. That being said, a game can be ‘balanced’ to the a T, but if it’s fun regardless of whatever else, that’s what brings me back. Games can be perpetually in a state of fine-tuning, but if the fun isn’t there for me anymore, I drop it. Sorta like with Counter Strike. It just wasn’t fun to me anymore.

Why are you implying that fun and balance are two different things? I find fun in balance, I don’t think balance is something a game should be without, it’s arguably the most important part, a game doesn’t have to be competitive to be balanced.

Halo five was fun and competitive, can’t wait to play the final product.