Halo 3

[XPYRYMYNT]

Originally Posted by fido123

There were countless games before that which had health that regenerated but it wasn't a shield. Who really gives a crap about what is making your health regenerate.





He said campaign was easy and it is. You can't really rate the difficulty of multilayer games because they are other people and not part of the game...this goes for ALL multilayer games.






When dumb shits say things like this, I die a little inside. That there is the most retarded argument known to man

Dumb****s, huh? By the way he said it was easy, then the next sentence started out talking about campaign led me to believe the previous sentences were about multiplayer. And I believe I'd be the most knowledgable one on these forums about FPS skill and what is a good competitive shooter. So considering none of you have any experience with Halo on a professionally competitive level, I can understand why you wouldn't say it's a good game. I admit that Halo 2 wasn't a very good game and I pretty much only played it for the money. As of now, I'd consider Halo 3 to be a well-balanced multiplayer game, though. Several of you have not much basis to bash it for. It just annoys me that the reasoning all of you have for Halo being a bad game is because it's popular. How does that make any sense? You're probably the same kind of people that dislike certain bands and musicians simply because they're popular.

[fido123]

Who says I don't like the mutliplayer in Halo3. Also I HIGHLY DOUBT you are an FPS guru. Don't just assume your the best FPS guy on these forums simply because you beat Halo campaign on Difficult okay?

[Squeek]

What makes you think you're the biggest expert on FPSes? Arrogance?

Why does competitive gaming matter at all? As I said in another thread, all that means is that you're playing with people who spend more time on one game than others. There's an upper limit to video games unlike real-life competition, like professional sports.

Where did I say "Halo is a bad game because it's popular"? I said Halo was a bad game because the campaign is pathetic. It's only worse in my opinion because the fanboys who try to justify the horrible campaign by claiming its originality are insistent that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Why does competitive gaming matter at all? As I said in another thread, all that means is that you're playing with people who spend more time on one game than others. There's an upper limit to video games unlike real-life competition, like professional sports.

Can't you apply 'Time spent = Experience" to sports as well as video games? I know there's also technique and stuff but that can also be applied.

[ShAiOnEi]

Halo 3<Metal Gear

[fido123]

Originally Posted by ShAiOnEi

Halo 3<Metal Gear

...please don't compare games that are nothing like each other.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by fido123

Can't you apply 'Time spent = Experience" to sports as well as video games? I know there's also technique and stuff but that can also be applied.

Yes, but you can play a sport all your life and still never fully master it.

Like I said, there's no upper limitation to sports. People are still hitting more home runs further distances, kicking field goals from farther and farther back, serving faster, etc.

I understand that moving your thumbs is part of the human body that continues to grow stronger every year, but thumb-movement isn't even remotely related to full-body strenuation that you experience from a contact sport.

[XPYRYMYNT]

Originally Posted by Squeek

What makes you think you're the biggest expert on FPSes? Arrogance?

Why does competitive gaming matter at all? As I said in another thread, all that means is that you're playing with people who spend more time on one game than others. There's an upper limit to video games unlike real-life competition, like professional sports.

Where did I say "Halo is a bad game because it's popular"? I said Halo was a bad game because the campaign is pathetic. It's only worse in my opinion because the fanboys who try to justify the horrible campaign by claiming its originality are insistent that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

...Says the uninformed one.

Any Halo player could tell you the campaign sucks. I never even played Halo 2's campaign. Halo's multiplayer, on the other hand, is easily in the top tier of games. Maybe it's not the best game, considering Bungie is wise to let it appeal to the masses, including the casual players.

And maybe the fact that I've won over $15,000 off of FPS's would lead me to believe I'm an "FPS guru". Ever heard of Major League Gaming? www.mlgpro.com. 2007 National Halo 2 Championships in Las Vegas were this past weekend. 1st place won $100,000. The 1st place team that won, along with 2 other team each have their own million dollar contracts with the League. I'm not quite as good as them, but I consistantly placed in the top 8/top 16 out of the 4,000-5,000 people who have attended the tournaments through my career of playing. Of the two and a half years I spent playing in national tourneys of Halo 2, I'm sure I noticed how competitively balanced the game is and what strategies and skill curves exist.

In my eyes, a good competitive game is a game in which the better team always wins. Where theres not enough extra random bull**** and luck to sway the game. The better team should always win. (ie. Baseball is a good sport in the sense that the Yankees consistantly won several World Series in a row [no, I'm not a Yankees fan], being the better team) This phenomena definately exists in Halo 2, for the placements of the top 8 teams has been extremely consistant. One team has been dominant, yet have been beaten. Other FPS that MLG have hosted in their tournaments such as Gears of War, Shadowrun, and Rainbow 6 Vegas, all of their top 8 placements have been virtually random. A different team seems to win each tournament. That's not an accurate depiction of who's the best.

And how can you say theres no upper limit when you haven't experienced such play for yourself. Everyone is continually improving how they understand the game and what they can do to counter others' understanding. The game is constantly evolving.

I don't know why I even bothered to type all this. We seem to agree on the fact that campaign sucks.

EDIT: I can't believe you just said what you said about thumbs. It's not a thumb game. It's a mind game. Yes, everyone can pretty much all shoot just as well as eachother. Nobody misses shots anymore. But it's the smarts that make a player better. If you know how to get the jump on a situation to have the first shot in a one on one situation, you will win that fight and give your team the upper hand during the time that person is respawning. Halo is so much more in depth than you'd think. The strategies and understanding of the spawn system take years to master.

[fido123]

Everything in your argument was valid and I agree with except for the fact that you think Squeak is being an Elitist and on a high horse. One thing I don't agree with is skill does not necessarily mean knowledge.

[XPYRYMYNT]

Originally Posted by fido123

Everything in your argument was valid and I agree with except for the fact that you think Squeak is being an Elitist and on a high horse. One thing I don't agree with is skill does not necessarily mean knowledge.

I don't necessarily mean knowledge, but the mind power to make the correct split second decisions during a high paced game to better your team. A player is forced to make thousands of these decisions in each match. That's the kind of thing that seperates the good from the best.

And I apologize if I made it sound as though Sqeek was an Elitist, I was just frustrated because I disliked his attitude in parts of his arguments. It appears there were misunderstandings, though. My bad.

[ddr_f4n]

Wow, arguement thread here...

Listen, everyone has their own opinion of this game. Squeek's opinion is that Halo 3 is terrible because of the bad campaign. IMO, I think the campaign was good, and really fun, especially with 4-player co-op. I think this game was directed more to LIVE players, as that is where most of the time spent in Halo 3 is, multiplayer. IMO, this game was great.

Everyone just state your opinion and stop arguing with others! Only fanboys do, and I hate fanboys.

[XPYRYMYNT]

Originally Posted by ddr_f4n

Wow, arguement thread here...

Listen, everyone has their own opinion of this game. Squeek's opinion is that Halo 3 is terrible because of the bad campaign. IMO, I think the campaign was good, and really fun, especially with 4-player co-op. I think this game was directed more to LIVE players, as that is where most of the time spent in Halo 3 is, multiplayer. IMO, this game was great.

Everyone just state your opinion and stop arguing with others! Only fanboys do, and I hate fanboys.

It's healthy to argue. Stretches your brain, opens your mind to other viewpoints and allows you to see something from another perspective. It really is a great thing.

[MagicCarpetRide]

He speaks the truth.
So Mr. Eli, What is happening to MLG now?
Is it going to change over to halo 3 starting next season and keep a halo 2 section, like there are other games played there.....

[Squeek]

So, I don't know what I'm talking about because my focus isn't as good as your focus? Basically, to you, Half-Life 2 sucks because it's not a multiplayer game?

I don't buy games to pwn noobs. Sorry. I buy games for stories. Halo has a horrible story. The books, without pictures, sound, or video, are hundreds of times better than the games.

And just because you win tournaments on FPSes doesn't make you a Guru. It makes you a competitive player. An FPS Guru is someone who's played every FPS ever made (or at least 90% of them) and can objectively compare every single one of them.

[masterhickle]

I hate fanboys. And band-wagoners.
.======.
..=====..
...====...
....===....
.....==.....
......=......
.....==.....
....===....
...====...
..=====..
.======.
That is all.



Can anyone tell that I'm really bored right now?

[tsugomaru]

Are you trying to say that our opinions don't have basis? All opinions don't need basis because in the end, they are all opinions. I have a friend who thinks every video game I talk about sucks until he actually plays them. I'd mention a video game, he'd say it probably sucks, and a week or two later, he tries them and at first, he'll continue to say it sucks. However, in a year or two, he'll remember the game as being good rather than bad. The interesting thing is, he has no basis for his opinions, but I never says his opinions are "wrong" because they aren't.

In this case, Squeek thinks Halo 3 is terrible because it has a terrible single player campaign. That's his opinion. I think Halo 3 terrible because I hate FPSs; once again, this is my opinion. No matter how highly you talk about the multiplayer claim backing your opinion with your made up credentials, it won't change our opinions. I can enjoy a game of Halo 3 when I'm with my friends however, but I feel it's because I'm enjoying my time with my friends rather than playing a game. Any game will become "interesting" when played with friends.

~Tsugomaru

[XPYRYMYNT]

Originally Posted by Squeek

So, I don't know what I'm talking about because my focus isn't as good as your focus? Basically, to you, Half-Life 2 sucks because it's not a multiplayer game?

I don't buy games to pwn noobs. Sorry. I buy games for stories. Halo has a horrible story. The books, without pictures, sound, or video, are hundreds of times better than the games.

And just because you win tournaments on FPSes doesn't make you a Guru. It makes you a competitive player. An FPS Guru is someone who's played every FPS ever made (or at least 90% of them) and can objectively compare every single one of them.

Oh. I watch movies for good stories. I play games for money. And I can easily tell how good an FPS is for competition without even playing it, but by watching the top players play it. So maybe I'm not the "FPS Guru", uber nerd of all FPS knowledge invented, but I do know what I'm talking about in regards to talent requiring games.

PS - I was unaware there was such a specific definition to the term "FPS Guru"

[Squeek]

guru

An advisor or teacher. The term, which comes from Hinduism, refers to a spiritual teacher. "Gu" means darkness, and "ru" means light; thus a guru turns ignorance into enlightenment. In the west, the term has been interpreted quite often as simply an expert in a field whether that person helps you learn or understand anything or not.

I just don't think you have a frame of reference here to call yourself a guru. You can't teach someone about every FPS ever made based solely on your competition experience

[XPYRYMYNT]

Originally Posted by Squeek

guru

An advisor or teacher. The term, which comes from Hinduism, refers to a spiritual teacher. "Gu" means darkness, and "ru" means light; thus a guru turns ignorance into enlightenment. In the west, the term has been interpreted quite often as simply an expert in a field whether that person helps you learn or understand anything or not.

Well, then, I could classify myself as a Competitive Gaming Guru.

And I never said a game sucks because theres no multiplayer. I still have respect for games that are simply played for fun and the experience of an amazing story line. I respect those who play games for said reasons as well. You're entitled to that opinion. I felt the same way about games about 3 years ago. It was all about fun and the adventure... but now I've played the hell out of games to the point where I despise playing them. Feels more like a job now. The only time I get enjoyment out of it is from playing the intense matches at the tournaments. Kind of a shame, really. My favorite game of all time is probably still Chrono Trigger, though.

[tsugomaru]

That defeats the purpose of games. If they weren't fun, I wouldn't play them.

~Tsugomaru