One of my mate's xbox is broken so he said I could borrow his copy of ODST. He has not downloaded the beta, so I think it will work if I put it in my xbox then download it.
Will go pick it up either tomorrow or wednesday. I am having alot of fun on BFBC2 but would like a change of pace.
Halo: Reach
(44 posts) (4 voices)-
GrimTalos
MemberPosted 2 years ago # | -
GrimTalos
MemberWell I just played 3 games of it.
2 FFAs I manged to get 3rd on both and then a Invasion game where I got a 15 kill streak and 25 kills over all.I have not tried many of the guns and only used the spirit armour power.
It is very hard to get use to after BFBC and right now I dont think it will pull me away from that game.
I dont know it just feels so dated and odd playing it. The guns feel crap adn the sound is pretty awful. Each time I meet an opponent its the same thing, fire,nade,jump either fire more or melee.
I did like halo 3 but I think I may have outgrown it.Will be on tonight for some more team games to see.
Posted 2 years ago # | -
I'll give you some games if I can pull myself away from APB tonight.
Posted 2 years ago # | -
GrimTalos
MemberI played for another hour. Had a go at arena and some more invasion. Still pretty disappointed, I went on to BFBC2 for a quick round afterwards and it just felt so much better.
All my team slayer games where on swordbase which is a very dull level. Nades rule supreme and who every has the shotgun generally won I saw.
I think I am just bored of the Halo MP style, it just feels dumb. You just run at your enemy holding down the trigger then melee.
Posted 2 years ago # | -
I think that's over simplifying how Halo is played, especially at a competitive level. Sure, if you're just a casual then you won't know any better so you'll run in guns blazing and then ending it all with a melee attack.
Every match has a meta-game involving a territories style objective, or simply put - controlling the key weapon locations in each map. You need to control the power weapons and use them to aid your team as much as possible. You also need to know how to counter what an enemy has, if someone ha a DMR and you're rushing toward them thinking you'll just spray and then melee, you're going to die.
The combat is just as deep as a Battlefield or Call of Duty game, you're just sticking to a very strict rock/paper/scissors concept in your play style, which can be done in any FPS. It's like saying COD's combat is dull because all you do is shoot, people rarely use knives or grenades in comparison to guns because any gun can basically kill you in 2-3 shots, so why waste time waiting for a grenade fuse or risk running up to someone's face?
I'm not saying this as a big Halo fan, but as someone who follows various games competitively just to see what's happening, the MLG scene for Halo is very interesting, and if you actually read the advice pros give about maps, you'll understand there are many layers to Halo's MP, and although it's not vastly deeper than COD or BF, it's also not more shallow.
Posted 2 years ago # | -
GrimTalos
MemberI agree I was over simplifying it but for me there is no point talking about "competitive games" or that "competivtive level" as that is not want I play. Each week I can only play about 2-4 hours of xbox so all I am going to do is play matchmaking.
I know there is alot more effort in Halo such as Map control I know that, in one team slayer match we got both the shotgun and that plasma launcher thing on Sword base and we owned we never let the enemy get them and there where at a disadvantage all game.
I also know that you cant rush a DMR as you will die, you need to know what your enemy has and how you can counter that. Nade placement plays a good roll in halo ( i think at least 70% of my kills where nades)But even if I add all of those in it still seems simpler than say competitive BF games which are the only game I actually played at a competitive level in clan matches on a ladder, and tournaments with actually prizes.
I really did like Halo 3 and clocked up alot of time on it, but I just cant get into this one.
Posted 2 years ago # | -
I don't think I can 'get into' any Halo at this point, because the competitive level requirements are just not my style of play, otherwise I think the multiplayer is awesome if it's your cup of tea.
I play Halo like I play COD, and that is not a smart thing to do, but the reason I'm good at COD is because I possessed the correct mindset from the start. I didn't have to adapt to the game's rules, the game's rules were already 90% aligned with my play style to begin with.
Halo on the other hand has me forcing myself to not do things I want to do, because I can't win if I play how I want to play, instead I have to optimise my actions to stand a chance of winning and these actions are usually just boring to me.
When I'm searching for my next big game to play religiously, one of the most important things I look for is how well it fits my play-style from the start. It's like trying on gloves, the one that's closest to fitting on my hand perfectly is the one I'll be wearing most.
Anyway, can you provide me with some examples as to why you find competitive BF so much deeper than Halo's multiplayer? I can't think of anything but maybe you remember something that I've long forgotten.
Posted 2 years ago # | -
GrimTalos
MemberI think it was just the scale and planning that went into clan game. Maybe the same amount of playing goes into a Halo game.
I remember one clan game we had on BF2 ( as it was an awesome game). We had 4 squads each with a different objective. One squad(A) job was to take the blackhawk and parachute on to flag A and hold the enemy there as long as possible. While the blackhawk circled around being a mobile spawn point.
One squad (B) brought up the armour from the spawn to flag B and capture C on the way.
Another squad (C) mounted up in Humvees and had rushed to Flag B to hold it before the armour came.
Two members of squad (C) where then tasked with putting mines on the road and to lay in wait with anti tank guns for when the enemy finally took A and tried to push to B.The Last squad was picked up by the blackhawk and where dropped to where we need them most.
Most of the time this was the enemy home base to stale them and steal all there tanks.Most games worked like that, one set of people on armour, 1 set to guard the middle points with armour support and the other two squads to stall the enemy and recapture any points past the middle which where lost. But it depended on the map lay out. Alot of BF clan games are won in the air as the jets where pretty powerful.
I suppose with a Halo game you have to plan who is going to camp which weapons, where the chok points are etc. So mostly like a halo player will say its has just as many tactics as BF as there is also flag running etc. I just think with BF you have to think of more things.
But I always felt BF was a bit deeper maybe just due to the scale of it and the amount of tricks and traps you could employ. Also the different classes you had to mix such as anti tank,medics etc
But then I am a bf fanboy at heart so will most like be biased.
I also have nothing to base it against as BF and to a less extent CSS are the only games I have played competitively.But I think like you said BF and COD sort of just fit my style of play.
Halo forces you in to close range really, which I dont like. I know the DMR is a mid range weapon but with shields and spirit I have yet to die to any mid range attacks.
Posted 2 years ago # | -
Battlefield 2 had huge maps, and most of the 'planning' you speak of is only needed because the maps are so massive. Take away the large number of players and the map size, and the scale of tactics you used are impossible to do. I love Battlefield for its large maps and players, but the game is boring to me unless I'm playing with a clan, which is why I don't play BFBC2 even though it's a pretty awesome game.
When you take away Battlefield's size, it's forced to use the same tactics players from a Halo or Call of Duty match would be using. Rush the objective, this guy will back us up long range, you two rush in with SMGs, last person get in the tank or on the gun emplacement etc.
Speaking of Battlefield, I would have played it a lot more if PunkBuster wasn't such a massive piece of shit. There was a mod called Project Reality which was the sole reason I purchased a copy of BF2, and I could not enjoy the game since PunkBuster would boot me from servers all the fucking time. I'm on the APB beta lately and they use PunkBuster too, and guess what? It's still randomly booting many players from the game servers, fortunately it actually lets you play a bit before you get booted and have to log back in, so it's not as fucked as BF2 but still really annoying.
Anyway, I agree that Battlefield has more tactical depth than Halo and even Call of Duty, but this is purely due to the large maps and number of players on each team. It would be unfair to exclude Battlefield's biggest feature just to make the comparison fair, but at the same time it's unfair to demand so much from games that focus on battles of a much smaller scale in terms of maps, player count and combat range.
Here's a YouTube search for MLG pro tips videos:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mlg+halo+3+tips&aq=9
Posted 2 years ago # | -
GrimTalos
MemberI hate punkbuster, I could not play BF2142 due to it. Would just boot me all the time, loss of packets or something.
Project Reality was great fun but you needed a good squad for that even more than normal BF2.Just watched the first video on the playlist and did not really change my opinion on competitive Halo.
Posted 2 years ago # |
Reply
You must log in to post.