Why I think Halo 4 is better then Halo 3 (MP)

Games Other Halo
1

It’s better by the smallest straw possible. This is of course entirely just an opinion. I fail to see how in the hell I would state it’s better game as a fact…interview every player on earth? A poll is just averages… Anywho, I feel then need to begin with that so some people will at least hear me out, I guess.

Now, they are very different games, very different mindsets/strategies are required when playing them. There are different pros and cos to them, which is mainly how I have weighed out this opinion.

Halo 3

Pros:

Stealth was an actual thing. This included anything from stairstabs to sneaking halfway across a map to a vantage point, to remaining hidden around enemy territory.

Game was very solid. Power weapons and vehicles were rare, all players started the exact same, symmetrical maps almost everywhere and deduction of any form of “special abilities/powers” meant little to no chaos, much more co-ordinated and organised.

Medals were only awarded for very strictly skilled things, such as multiple kills, perfections, or kill streaks. No such thing as “You killed a guy lol 10 medals.” They were also very colourful, large and alluring rather then all tiny and black. All this meant that when you got them, you felt really good. You felt a great sense of achievement and success.

Pro/cons based on opinion:

The game was slower, more strategic. You had to use cover, it was impossible to ever be out in the open, everything required patience, timing and some form of plan. This was caused by no sprint, slow movement, vehicles/power weapons being a little rare, and most levels just being very empty, basic, and vanilla. Slow is also sometimes a negative word, and some can find this setup boring/ not their idea of fun, which is perfectly fair.

Ranking. Some hated the fact you can lose your progress. Others thought it was a testament to skill, which I thought too until I realised a lot of it is luck, to do with who you’re matched against/with. As well as this, there’s the fact people assemble skilled teams in order to make sure their team has no noobs, while the other team might. I know for a fact my highest rank was/is 36, yet I have been much better then many 45-50’s because of these facts.

Cons:

One weapon in the game. Well, a lot more if you count power weapons, but sadly as those are a rare sight/occasional, this game really just feels like “BR: The Mother -Blam!-ing game.” (P.S, Hope you like repetitive gameplay cus you ain’t seeing nothing but Valhalla br’s)

Halo 4

Pros:

Graphics. Everything from the hud slightly wobbling, to the lighting, to just the obvious look of armour, guns, vehicles, ect. Okay, one came out way after the other. But we aren’t time travelling here. We’re comparing two games, in their current states, one verses the other how they are the only way we can play them, which is right now. And…gotta say, lighting changing to objects placed in forge…yes please.

Sound, same as above.

Added gundam. Okay, so this could possibly be a Pro/con, but really the thing’s balanced. It’s often added where a tank would have been instead anyway and it’s slow reload/bad accuracy/missile delay when compared to the tank or warthog makes it a simple addition. Heres a new vehicle, it’s basically a tank with changed attributes, something to have fun with.

What’s that? You’re telling me…that…I can use weapons…that…AREN’T THE BR? THE…AR IS ACTUALLY USEABLE? Sweet jesus. …Oh…well…it seems it’s still worse then the br in lots of ways but…ah hell, it can kill something.

New gametypes.

A-A-A-A-Armour customisation.

Commendations/specialisations. Gives you something to do.

Pro/cons based on opinion:

Loadouts. No real explanation needed. It adds a hint of randomness, chaos, variety, fun to do with unlocking and getting good with different weapons/abilities. Some love all this, some despise it.

Ordinance: Same as above.

Running: Close to being a con for screwing up stealth, given you cannot follow a target who is running but… well…there are honestly moments where the game feels it needs it. Hiking along an empty road to get to the fight can be boring. It adds a sense of quickened combat/flow, which is what a lot of people find fun. Nothing about it really stuffs up the game or makes it unfair in any way, given any situation where you’re annoyed someone used sprint, remember as can you.

Different maps.

Cons:

No hornet. We have the mech, but still.

Only a few symmetrical maps. Remember, symmetrical guarantees fairness while anything else merely runs a chance at it.

No DLC/domination playlist. 343’s reasoning is broken, given many playlists exist with 100 or so players every day. Shows a lack of experience/capability.

Medals. We’ve already been over this but “Distraction!” is one of the funniest things in a video game to date. It is impossible not to giggle when it is announced like some bad–Yoink- achievement.

Okay, so by now you, no doubt, would have come to the conclusion I am the type of gamer who likes faster paced, comical, slightly chaotic games. And, despite me originally loving halo 3 and hating 4, this is true. Something in TF2 caused this…anywho, this is the reason I would choose one over the other. It is also for this reason I believe it especially impossible to say one is strictly “better” as any form of fact, given it comes down to the player’s interests and they both have good and bad things about them.

2

Go play Cold Storage with MLG settings (110% speed, 110% damage).
Tell me the game still needs sprint after.

Parts of Halo 3 were slow, sprint had nothing to do with it.

> Medals. We’ve already been over this but “Distraction!” is one of the funniest things in a video game to date. It is impossible not to giggle when it is announced like some bad–Yoink!- achievement.

I do like “comeback kill” though, the game is basically telling you that you suck to your face.

3

i think they will keep sprint. its too old school to leave it out. how can halo attract new players without sprint? every game now has sprint.

4

> Halo 3
>
> Cons:
>
> One weapon in the game. Well, a lot more if you count power weapons, but sadly as those are a rare sight/occasional, this game really just feels like “BR: The Mother -Blam!-ing game.” (P.S, <mark>Hope you like repetitive gameplay cus you ain’t seeing nothing but Valhalla br’s</mark>)

OK I had to comment on this.

The BR was the staple weapon of both Halo 2 and 3, since it was the jack-of-all-trades at mid-long range for these games (where many people prefer their combat). Personally I preferred the Carbine with its faster rate of fire, but you get what I mean. The main automatics in Halo 3 (AR, Plasma Rifle, Spiker, SMG) behaved exactly how they should: best used in close-mid quarters. It makes more sense to use an all round mid range precision weapons than it does to use a close range bullet spread weapons in a game where being tactical, not getting too close and using team work is the key to success. If you find yourself in a close range battle where there is less bullet spread, then you switch to your automatic weapon (unless you have the Shotgun/Mauler which should go without saying).

Not sure what game mode you’re playing but I get a wide variety of maps whenever I play Halo 3, no matter what game type I choose. Sand Trap, Construct, Last Resort, Rats Nest, Avalanche, Longshore - you name it I’ve played it at least once or twice in the past month. I get a fair mix of shipped and DLC maps, so I can honestly say that Halo 3 is far from being repetitive.

Halo 4 on the other hand…you mainly get a choice of Infinity Slayer, Infinity Slayer or Infinity Slayer (unless you search in a playlist made for a specific game type) on either Exile, Ragnarok or Haven (sometime the occasional Settler). Add in the ordinance factor and there goes the need for tactics and teamwork, since everybody gets a power weapon delivered to their feet and run off like they’re Rambo (only to be killed a few seconds later by an enemy who has their own weapon and get tea-bagged for their trouble).That just about sums up Halo 4 when it comes to War Games.

5

Welp, you (would) make a fair point about different weapons at different ranges, the only problem is mid-long range is 90% of maps, and that the br’s combination with frag grenades is more effective then any other weapon. Also, even at close range, the br still kills faster then the ar and a few other weapons in halo 3, so…nuff said. You can say it was “The solid rifle everyone used,” doesn’t change the fact that it was…well, all that was used.

At the end of the day, you can try to use any other non power weapon in halo 3 and will work maybe 10% of the time, against people tracking headshots and spamming that right trigger like no tomorrow. You play One weapon: The game, or you lose. While I’m not going to act like the br and dmr aren’t all around more reliable then other stock weps in halo 4 as well, it is MUCH less so, with the ar actually killing faster in close range, therefore having a purpose and actual proper tuning.

And I can guarantee you, social slayer being the only team playlist left with people on it, (while halo 4 still has about 5 or so) all I EVER see is “BRs on Valhalla/sometimes Last resort” just about 99% of the game. There is no occupied big team battle left, and so vehicles might as well not exist on halo 3. Why? Cus the only one you see is the warthog, and why the hell would anyone hop in that well you have a weapon that kills in 3 seconds at almost any range.

And yes, how you say “People run in like it’s rambo and don’t plan things out,” many people LOVE this type of gameplay, being fast, exciting, and their choice of fun, which is of course the purpose of a video game. Halo 3 had more strategy, I know that for a fact, but it was very slow and boring for a lot of it. This coming from someone with years logged on the damn thing. And it’s not like there’s no degree of skill. You still have to aim, use grenades, drive, shoot, evade, pay attention to the radar and predict spawns/movement just the same. If you really think skill’s out of halo 4, I just ask you to play swat or team snipers.

Adding in “get killed by your own weapon and t bagged” doesn’t help prove a point. It just makes it sound like you order ordinance when it isn’t safe, which would be your own doing, and t bagging was just as prevalent in halo 3 from the same degree of dumb stuff.

You’re perfectly allowed to prefer halo 3’s gameplay, but acting like the br isn’t the only stock weapon used 99% of the time, and acting like halo 3’s 3 populated game lists beat halo 4’s 6-8 is cray-cray. I’m talking about variety within both the games, of course.

6

> i think they will keep sprint. its too old school to leave it out. how can halo attract new players without sprint? every game now has sprint.

Have your parents ever told you the saying, “If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?”.

If you move fast all the time you don’t need sprint, and the mess of problems it brings to Halo.

7

I really enjoy Halo 3 still Halo 4 brought back the good ole health bar and the BR didn’t like that about reach.

8

Fair opinion OP! Personally, I love them both, and also dislike parts about each of them, but that’s life! We’re not robots after all

9

Well, don’t forget how the Carbine was close to the BR. In perfect hands, the Carbine was even better. But over the internet, it got screwed, sadly.

Um, H3 wasn’t exactly slow, imo. Sure, it was not a mass battle of seven Spartans in one spot at the same time, but hell, did I have to fight in BR duels at times. That was the point about not having sprint, you got actually punished for being killed in battle. And the victorious player could recharge his shields.
You already named it strategic, and that sums it up. Actually, since you had to think things through and position yourself and the team, there was never bordeom for me.

But the most important point you forgot is hitscan.
This breaks the whole debate.
Sure, on LAN I will so play H3, but because netcode is bad and no hitscan, I’m at a constant disadvantage and it gets frustrating very fast shooting that guy eight times and he’s still alive.
Meh.

Merry Chris’mas!
(^_^)

10

10 reasons why I think Halo 3 is better. This is my opinion and feel free to disagree with it if you want to.

  1. Projectiles
  2. No Sprint
  3. Better maps
  4. No ordinance
  5. No loadouts
  6. Descope
  7. Less power weapons and 1sk weapons
  8. In game ranking system
  9. You have to win to rank up
  10. Proximity voice

Halo 4 has potential to be a great game but the negatives stand out to much.

11

> Adding in “<mark>get killed by your own weapon and t bagged</mark>” doesn’t help prove a point. It just makes it sound like you order ordinance when it isn’t safe, which would be your own doing, and t bagging was just as prevalent in halo 3 from the same degree of dumb stuff.

I respect your opinion on this, but I never said the part of your quote that I highlighted. I said that an enemy can kill you with THEIR OWN power weapon. This was to highlight the fact that 2 of the core factors that made Halo what it is are more or less completely gone: Map control and power weapon control. These were 2 of the staple factors that help give Halo the fair and balanced game play it had for 10 years (with the addition of everyone having equal weapon starts). Halo 4’s new radical and unbalanced starts at launch is what drove the majority of the fanbase away, and by the time of the weapon tuning and title updates these fans were gone and not coming back.

> 10 reasons why I think Halo 3 is better. This is my opinion and feel free to disagree with it if you want to.
>
> 1. Projectiles Yes
> 2. No Sprint Not that big of a deal for larger maps
> 3. Better maps HELL Yes. Halo 3 had the most memorable maps for me
> 4. No ordinance Yes. Power weapons should be fought for
> 5. No loadouts Yes. Equal starts are balanced and fair
> 6. Descope Yes
> 7. Less power weapons and 1sk weapons HELL Yess. Way too many in Halo 4
> 8. In game ranking system Was nice to see my progress but not really bothered either way
> 9. You have to win to rank up Yes. No rewards for losing
> 10. Proximity voice Not too bothered by this
>
>
> Halo 4 has potential to be a great game but the negatives stand out to much.

12

H3 awesome in its day but now unplayable. H4 superior ‘now’ IMO. Do dislike POD, perks and AA not being pickups.

H4 way better pacing (H3 is grossly slow), graphics and hit registration.

13

> 1. Projectiles

This can only come from an American who had the advantage of being close to the host, or hosting himself.
(-_-)

I tell you, projectiles were a pain in the *ss for people like me back then. Never was there even ground and so many should-have-been-dead-people got away.
This isn’t even something to argue about. Projectiles with bad netcode and host-client system are an absolute no-go.

14

> > 1. Projectiles
>
> This can only come from an American who had the advantage of being close to the host, or hosting himself.
> (-_-)
>
> I tell you, projectiles were a pain in the *ss for people like me back then. Never was there even ground and so many should-have-been-dead-people got away.
> This isn’t even something to argue about. Projectiles with bad netcode and host-client system are an absolute no-go.

Let me ask you this: Halo 5 on XBox One with dedicated servers; no lag, no hosting problems, none of what you’ve mentioned … hitscan or projectile?

15

Sprint isn’t necessarily a con. If you add trick jumps to it, you can still catch people off-guard.

16

> Halo 3The game was slower, more strategic. You had to use cover, it was impossible to ever be out in the open, everything required patience, timing and some form of plan. <mark>This was caused by no sprint</mark>, slow movement, vehicles/power weapons being a little rare, and most levels just being very empty, basic, and vanilla. Slow is also sometimes a negative word, and some can find this setup boring/ not their idea of fun, which is perfectly fair.

Sure, then again increased movement speed would have fixed it easier and with none of the problems sprint comes with.

> Ranking. Some hated the fact you can lose your progress. Others thought it was a testament to skill, which I thought too until I realised a lot of it is luck, to do with who you’re matched against/with. As well as this, there’s the fact people assemble skilled teams in order to make sure their team has no noobs, while the other team might. I know for a fact my highest rank was/is 36, yet I have been much better then many 45-50’s because of these facts.

Here’s how Skill ranks work. You do everything in your power to win. That’s how you rank up, what’s in your power then? Getting a team together to play with. If you can’t do that then you aren’t either trying hard enough or belong where you do becuase you can’t get a team to rank up with. Simple as that. Who you play against should also be a challenge.

The teams “making sure there are no noobs on their team” were doing it right. Can you say the same thing about your own actions if you didn’t assemble the best team possible?

> Halo 4
>
> Pros:
>
> New gametypes.

I can’t understand how this is under Pros.

We’ve got 5 new game modes
-Regicide, which is a ViP variant anyway
-Extraction, territory variation
-Dominion, another territory game mode
-Griffball, and this has gotten it’s own game mode
-Ricochet, grifballesque gamemode which got it’s own whole game mode?

Flood is Infection either way, just a little different.

On the whole, not a lot to cheer for in my opinion seeing as we lost some truly “unique” game modes.

-Assault
-Invasion
-Headhunter
-Juggernaught
-Race
-ViP
-Territory

I wouldn’t say they’re pros if a big chunk of other game modes were lost.

> Cons:
>
> Only a few symmetrical maps. Remember, symmetrical guarantees fairness while anything else merely runs a chance at it.

How can this be under cons if Ordnance is under opinionated pros/cons.

It’s quite clear that Ordnance ruins the “fairness” of a match.

17

Here’s how Skill ranks work. You do everything in your power to win. That’s how you rank up, what’s in your power then? Getting a team together to play with. If you can’t do that then you aren’t either trying hard enough or belong where you do becuase you can’t get a team to rank up with. Simple as that. Who you play against should also be a challenge.

The teams “making sure there are no noobs on their team” were doing it right. Can you say the same thing about your own actions if you didn’t assemble the best team possible?

MAJOR, MAJOR flaw in this thinking.

Ok, so you rank up, do awesome, ect, with your team. Did you ever stop to think you were versing unassembled teams with an assembled one, therefore instantly meaning that you were at an an unfair advantage and not actually earning your place?

I got to rank 35 purely by myself, often working with absolute noobs, and like I said, this is the reason I can kick many a 45-50’s -Yoink- most days.

How can this be under cons if Ordnance is under opinionated pros/cons.

It’s quite clear that Ordnance ruins the “fairness” of a match.

How? It takes all players the same amount of kills to get ordinance, unless they get the perk, which then means they are minus a perk other players might have. What is unfair about it? Is one player automatically given his ordinance? No. Does it have any possible way of being better then others? No.

It is absolutely fair. Fair is when both opponents are given an equal playing field. What about ordinance favours one player to another in a hypothetical situation. Both have equal chance of being shown good or bad weapons in theirs. In a roll where a player gets a good selection, they will also get a crap one. All are treated equally in it.

With a non symmetrical map, some players may be more out in the open, with others given cover/sniping towers. THAT is not treating all equal.

18

> How? It takes all players the same amount of kills to get ordinance, unless they get the perk, which then means they are minus a perk other players might have. What is unfair about it? Is one player automatically given his ordinance? No. Does it have any possible way of being better then others? No.
>
> It is absolutely fair. Fair is when both opponents are given an equal playing field. What about ordinance favours one player to another in a hypothetical situation. Both have equal chance of being shown good or bad weapons in theirs. In a roll where a player gets a good selection, they will also get a crap one. All are treated equally in it.
>
> With a non symmetrical map, some players may be more out in the open, with others given cover/sniping towers. THAT is not treating all equal.

There’s nothing fair about the enemy getting Sniper Rifle, Shotgun, OS in their ordnance while I get Frags, Sticky Detonator, Speed Boost.

The only thing fair in that situation is the odds, but that can be said about asymmetric maps as well.

“All players use the same spawn points, all players have the same chance of spawning at any given spawn point, regardless if its in the open or not.”

Who gives a -Yoink- if all players have equal chances on a dice roll? How it impacts the game is far more important. It wouldn’t be fair for me to die 10x and the enemy to die 5x in the game even though we both have the same 10% chance to die the moment we spawn.

> Ok, so you rank up, do awesome, ect, with your team. Did you ever stop to think you were versing unassembled teams with an assembled one, therefore instantly meaning that you were at an an unfair advantage and not actually earning your place?

There’s no consistency in your logic.

“You have the same chances to form a team as anyone else. Going up against teams is your own fault. Not being able to form a team is based on hypothetical situations in the real world.”

^That’s the statement you would be making if you were trying to be consistent.

19

> How? It takes all players the same amount of kills to get ordinance, unless they get the perk, which then means they are minus a perk other players might have. What is unfair about it? Is one player automatically given his ordinance? No. Does it have any possible way of being better then others? No.
>
> It is absolutely fair. Fair is when both opponents are given an equal playing field. What about ordinance favours one player to another in a hypothetical situation. Both have equal chance of being shown good or bad weapons in theirs. In a roll where a player gets a good selection, they will also get a crap one. All are treated equally in it.

You know what the difference is between Infinity Slayer games where I go +10 and games where I go -2? In the games where I go +10, I got 2 SAWs in my PODs instead of my opponents. In the games where I go -2, my opponents got multiple SAWs in their PODs instead of me.

If PODs dropped the same things every time, I wouldn’t disagree with you. However, because some drops are either better or more map-appropriate than others, PODs are imbalanced.

20

> MAJOR, MAJOR flaw in this thinking.
>
> Ok, so you rank up, do awesome, ect, with your team. Did you ever stop to think you were versing unassembled teams with an assembled one, therefore instantly meaning that you were at an an unfair advantage and not actually earning your place?
>
> I got to rank 35 purely by myself, often working with absolute noobs, and like I said, this is the reason I can kick many a 45-50’s -Yoink!- most days.

You still don’t understand.

Skill rank was about winning, if you couldn’t win because of those you were playing with then that’s your own problem. Yes, you can’t influence who you play against, but it’s not luck who you play with as you have means to affect that. You yourself can get together a team to play with. The game does not restrict team parties to one player.

So, if the problem that you can’t rank up is your team, you can never ever blame the game as it allows you to directly influence who you play with. If you however are incapable of getting together a team to play with then that’s your own problem, not the game’s. You belong in 35 because of that aspect.

You being able to win against 45-50’s on many occasions doesn’t prove anything other than that you’d be capable to get to that rank with a proper team, but you can’t get there because you’re not prepared to do what it takes to get there.

Those 45-50’s are obviously doing something right as they got to that rank even though you beat them. As it’s a team game it’d be quite clear to you that they might be better at team work than you are and thus earned it as they either function well within a random team or could get together a good team to play with. A well functioning team of avarage team players will do a lot better than a team of good lone wolves.

You see, winning is about getting an advantage, that’s why you rush rockets on Pitfall and Vertigo, that’s why you rush Laser on Ragnarok, because both weapons provide a huge advantage.

Anyone looking to win will look for all the advantages possible to get, and a well functioning team to play with is an advantage, it’s not an unfair advantage either. If having a better team to play with is an unfair advantage then so is being better overall.

> How? It takes all players the same amount of kills to get ordinance, unless they get the perk, which then means they are minus a perk other players might have. What is unfair about it? Is one player automatically given his ordinance? No. Does it have any possible way of being better then others? No.

Ah yes, kills. Not a single kill is required for ordnance, not ordinance, ordnance. It’s score based, meaning that you can do whatever you want not required a kill to get points and you’ll still get a delivery.

All the chances of getting whatever weapons is the same for all players, although some have the reroll perk for the drops. Either way, that’s fair, all the chances. However it becomes “unfair” when the roll is done and your options show up. I mean, as opposed to fighting for a statically spawned weapon against your opponent which the better player will win, how is playing really bad and then getting the perfect drop fair against the other player who gets two drops and both are useless in his/her situation?

"Yeah but the bad player will lose his/her drop fast. That always happens to me when I play against them so I get the drop and it’s fair. I won it from him.

Did I say bad player? No, I said played bad, not bad player. A good player can have a bad time until his/her drop lands and the golden opportunity shines upon the drop. I’ve had plenty of bad games where my first drop turned the whole match around in our favour because our opponent’s drops were bad for their sitaution. There was only so much they could do against my Binary Rifle with their Sticky detonators, speed boosts, saws and frag grenades, especially when I got ammo refill after ammo refill in my consecutive drops for my Binary.

“But the chances are always the same for all players so it’s fair”

Yes I know, that however doesn’t change that all players get different equipment that are differently suitable for each and everyone’s situation.

> It is absolutely fair. Fair is when both opponents are given an equal playing field. What about ordinance favours one player to another in a hypothetical situation. Both have equal chance of being shown good or bad weapons in theirs. In a roll where a player gets a good selection, they will also get a crap one. All are treated equally in it.

Ordnance does not practice “equal playing field”, only by the chances of different weapons and equipment. Not in the actual delivery.

Also, one ordnance drop does not affect the other drops. All drops are individual. I can get a laser, binary and damage boost in my first drop, and still get a laser, beam rifle and a damage boost in my second and then in my third get a Binary Rifle, beam rifle and a damage boost.

Furthermore, which equipment and weapon is good or not is based on the player’s sitaution, not a measurement of the ordnance combined power. A SAW on Ragnarok is quite useless in most areas but can cause devestation at the right time. Same with the sniper, while it’s usefull most of the times it can still be useless. As the game can’t possibly check what situation the player is in and what equipment he/she may need to do good with, it can’t possibly give “a good and then a bad drop”. That would go against the whole point of having an equal chance of getting weapons and equipment. Which is as said, the only fair thing about it.

> With a non symmetrical map, some players may be more out in the open, with others given cover/sniping towers. THAT is not treating all equal.

And giving a player who’s out in the open a SAW, Frags and a speed boost against a player who’s in a sniper position a new Sniper, Damage boost and a second sniper choice is fair? Especially when none of those players have any chance of contending the other’s drop.