Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I always thought the "Thanks for Playing" was a nice touch, and I agree that I don't see it as often.

The super-secret ending of Chrono Trigger is probably my favorite.

Marvel vs Capcom 3's score tally at the end of an Arcade run says Thanks for Playing (in actual audio, not letters)

of course theres no actual scoreboard so you cant tell if you did "better"

I miss typing "AAA" (although in MvC2 this would change it to CAP)

kenshin620 wrote:Marvel vs Capcom 3's score tally at the end of an Arcade run says Thanks for Playing (in actual audio, not letters)

of course theres no actual scoreboard so you cant tell if you did "better"

I miss typing "AAA" (although in MvC2 this would change it to CAP)

Resisting the urge to nerd rage at what 2d fighting has become. If you scored underneath someone with CAP then it would default to COM.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:Marvel vs Capcom 3's score tally at the end of an Arcade run says Thanks for Playing (in actual audio, not letters)

of course theres no actual scoreboard so you cant tell if you did "better"

I miss typing "AAA" (although in MvC2 this would change it to CAP)

Resisting the urge to nerd rage at what 2d fighting has become. If you scored underneath someone with CAP then it would default to COM.

Aren't fighting games in 3D now it's just they still retain the side to side view.

dogma wrote:Throw in poor weapon balance, and its just not that good.

The weapon balance after CE was okay. THe problem may be that Halo has a more old school style. Some weapons are purposely more powerful than others with the intention that taking them forms part of the metagame.

Floaty though is actually a pretty good word for the games physics.

dogma wrote:

metallifan wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:I promise there aren't really that many of them... and mute works wonders so you don't have to listen to them.

Could've fooled me. I -tried- to play Halo 2's MP. I managed to hold out for three games before my ears were ringing and my urge to kill was just barely contained. No thanks

Its not just that, the shooting mechanics themselves are just...poor. And I'm not saying this as some kind of PC snob, though I am a bit of that, because some of my favorite multiplayer shooters are on consoles (Killzone 2 and 3, Resistance 2 and 3, Project Snowblind). But the controls and physics in Halo, all of them, are overly forgiving and floaty, for lack of a better word. Throw in poor weapon balance, and its just not that good.

Jumps are intentionally floaty, and I'm not really sure how physics can be "forgiving".

Weapon balance isn't poor, I can kill anyone with a DMR/BR that doesn't have a power weapon (rockets, sniper, sword, etc) if I can out-gun them. Maybe if you're charging with an AR and expect to win all the time you think the balance is poor. I find the shooting in Halo to be tighter than most console FPSs I've played.

LordofHats wrote:
The weapon balance after CE was okay. THe problem may be that Halo has a more old school style. Some weapons are purposely more powerful than others with the intention that taking them forms part of the metagame.

Well, sure, but that's a valid argument in any situation where X is awful, and Y is awesome. In essence, it isn't a bad game because there is a huge discrepancy between X and Y, its just because the developers wanted players to take Y; which raises the question "Why does X exist?"

And keep in mind I'm not talking about the rocket launcher being better than the pistol, I'm talking about the needler being useless despite being spawned at about the same rate, on most settings, as the plasma rifle. Good old school games expressed a use for every weapon, no Halo game has done this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:
Jumps are intentionally floaty...

Yes, but intentionality has no bearing on quality.

If I intentionally poured 3 pounds of salt on the eggs that I served you, you wouldn't claim they were of quality because I intended to do it.

daedalus-templarius wrote:
...and I'm not really sure how physics can be "forgiving".

Every Halo game fails to punish the player for being shot, except in the sense that he loses life. Compare this to something like Tribes, or Killzone, where the impact either reduces speed or kills momentum. A forgiving physics engine is fine, if the game is sufficiently fast-paced (for example, any UT game), but Halo is not.

daedalus-templarius wrote:
Weapon balance isn't poor, I can kill anyone with a DMR/BR that doesn't have a power weapon (rockets, sniper, sword, etc) if I can out-gun them.

The fact that you listed 3 power weapons, and added etc., indicates that weapon balance is poor.

Actually, in Reach, the Needler is devastating.

However, the plasma rifle/plasma repeater still aren't amazing, but they are on about equal terms with the AR.

In H3 there were quite a few useless weapons; but that was something they wanted to fix in Reach.

You aren't punished for getting shot because the skillgap = exchanging fire with your opponent to see who can score a kill first. If you were punished for being shot, Halo would be like every other military shooter where whoever gets the jump wins (mostly).

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Resisting the urge to nerd rage at what 2d fighting has become

YEA! I mean come on! There was nothing like using Optimus Prime going against Solid Snake, Simon Belmont, Bomberman, and others!

But noooooo these days no one wants to have mindless fun....

kenshin620 wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Resisting the urge to nerd rage at what 2d fighting has become

YEA! I mean come on! There was nothing like using Optimus Prime going against Solid Snake, Simon Belmont, Bomberman, and others!

But noooooo these days no one wants to have mindless fun....

That's not a 2d fighting game.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Actually, in Reach, the Needler is devastating.

It can easily be defeated by circle strafing.

daedalus-templarius wrote:
In H3 there were quite a few useless weapons; but that was something they wanted to fix in Reach.

That may be so, but they failed to do so.

daedalus-templarius wrote:
You aren't punished for getting shot because the skillgap = exchanging fire with your opponent to see who can score a kill first. If you were punished for being shot, Halo would be like every other military shooter where whoever gets the jump wins (mostly).

Someone has never played Modern Warfare (1 only), or Tribes (1 and 2) in which dropping movement restrictions is a huge part of any 1v1 conflict.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Weapon balance isn't poor, I can kill anyone with a DMR/BR that doesn't have a power weapon (rockets, sniper, sword, etc) if I can out-gun them. Maybe if you're charging with an AR and expect to win all the time you think the balance is poor. I find the shooting in Halo to be tighter than most console FPSs I've played.

Ok, so you can kill anyone with a DMR/BR, but can you do the same with the Assault Rifle?

Good Weapon Balance means that no matter what gun someone has, the person who is the better shot gets the victory.

Thanks for the $60... WE MEAN.. uh... um Playing... Yeah.

Yeah,I loved when games said thank you.

Weekend evening, You're fighting a really emotional final boss battle,the story has reached the climax,and BOOM....you win, you sit back,all the weight has been lifted,you watch the end cut scene with a smile,the credits roll and you reflect on the journey to that point. Admire the music as the credits come to a close and finally "The End" and "Thank you for playing".

No better feeling.

Speaking of this, I was actually thanked personally in the credits by the team that made Silent Hill: Shattered Memories because of my regular involvement with the Silent Hill Heaven Forum and feedback I had given them. I've always been very proud of that.

Out of most of the games that I actually finish, I do see quite a few of them thanking the player somewhere in the credits. You just have to look a bit harder now, since credits tend to be so much longer than they used to be.

dogma wrote:

Someone has never played Modern Warfare (1 only), or Tribes (1 and 2) in which dropping movement restrictions is a huge part of any 1v1 conflict.

So different games do things different, surprising. And yes, I've played Tribes 1 and 2 pretty extensively, and I wouldn't say aerial spinfusor battles are much like DMR fights.

Ok, so you can kill anyone with a DMR/BR, but can you do the same with the Assault Rifle?

Good Weapon Balance means that no matter what gun someone has, the person who is the better shot gets the victory.

If I have a rocket launcher in Quake 3 and my opponent has a machine-gun, I will win; I guess it had horribly imbalanced weapons too. And yes, depending on range, you can win pretty easily with the AR; but its totally dependent on the distance of your opponent.

What the hell game is your weapon no factor in a fight? Whatever gun you have? That totally ruins any sort of map control for better weapons, something that has been in A LOT of games. The only games I can think of that do this are military shooters, and they have nothing in common with arena shooters. Hell, it isn't even like BFBC2; if I have a Semi-auto sniper rifle, I will still lose in close range to someone carrying an LMG more often than not, even if my aim is massively better.

I think it's more a case of people never watching the credits.

Soladrin wrote:I think it's more a case of people never watching the credits.

Credits? What are those? Are we supposed to skip them?

because gaming is now ADD, and the story of a game is short as hell. Gaming today is all about online play and awards and . I can't buy games anymore, sonce I really don't get into online play, and you can beat games in 8 hours these days, on hard.


Sad it is, I remember taking weeks to find a Dungeon in The Legend of Zelda.

DIDM wrote:because gaming is now ADD, and the story of a game is short as hell. Gaming today is all about online play and awards and . I can't buy games anymore, sonce I really don't get into online play, and you can beat games in 8 hours these days, on hard.


Sad it is, I remember taking weeks to find a Dungeon in The Legend of Zelda.

You should play Dragon Age 1 & 2, and Mass Effect 1 & 2. Sounds like it would be right up your alley, and ME2 is probably the best game ever made.

Karon wrote:

DIDM wrote:because gaming is now ADD, and the story of a game is short as hell. Gaming today is all about online play and awards and . I can't buy games anymore, sonce I really don't get into online play, and you can beat games in 8 hours these days, on hard.


Sad it is, I remember taking weeks to find a Dungeon in The Legend of Zelda.

You should play Dragon Age 1 & 2, and Mass Effect 1 & 2. Sounds like it would be right up your alley, and ME2 is probably the best game ever made.

thanks, will check them out


I am ADD, and I can't stand how short modern games tend to be

DIDM wrote:

Karon wrote:

DIDM wrote:because gaming is now ADD, and the story of a game is short as hell. Gaming today is all about online play and awards and . I can't buy games anymore, sonce I really don't get into online play, and you can beat games in 8 hours these days, on hard.


Sad it is, I remember taking weeks to find a Dungeon in The Legend of Zelda.

You should play Dragon Age 1 & 2, and Mass Effect 1 & 2. Sounds like it would be right up your alley, and ME2 is probably the best game ever made.

thanks, will check them out


I am ADD, and I can't stand how short modern games tend to be

Then please, name some old games that last so much longer? Because I keep hearing this argument being thrown around, but no one can actually name anything apart from a few well known games that actually had proper length.

There's always been games with gak lenght.

Yeah, to be fair game length has always been an issue since well, games.

I have a friend who thinks Goldenaxe is among the best of games, and he also bemoans the short time span of "modern games".

He completes Goldenaxe in under an hour or something.

daedalus-templarius wrote:
So different games do things different, surprising. And yes, I've played Tribes 1 and 2 pretty extensively, and I wouldn't say aerial spinfusor battles are much like DMR fights.

You're confusing explicitly different mechanics with how well those mechanics are implemented. Halo is a badly implemented hybrid of a high-intensity old-school shooter like Q2, and something like MW. Tribes is a well implemented speed shooter with a robust physics system, and the addition of a third dimension via the jet pack.

daedalus-templarius wrote:
If I have a rocket launcher in Quake 3 and my opponent has a machine-gun, I will win; I guess it had horribly imbalanced weapons too. And yes, depending on range, you can win pretty easily with the AR; but its totally dependent on the distance of your opponent.

You should have attributed the quote to Slarg32, rather than making it appear as though you were responding to me.

daedalus-templarius wrote:
What the hell game is your weapon no factor in a fight? Whatever gun you have? That totally ruins any sort of map control for better weapons, something that has been in A LOT of games.

You're confusing X being better than Y in al situations for X being better than Y in specific situations. A weapon can impact a fight without being explicitly superior in all fights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:
Good Weapon Balance means that no matter what gun someone has, the person who is the better shot gets the victory.

Or better at map control, movement control (in games where it exists), etc. This all further connects up with map design.

Soladrin wrote:

DIDM wrote:

Karon wrote:

DIDM wrote:because gaming is now ADD, and the story of a game is short as hell. Gaming today is all about online play and awards and . I can't buy games anymore, sonce I really don't get into online play, and you can beat games in 8 hours these days, on hard.


Sad it is, I remember taking weeks to find a Dungeon in The Legend of Zelda.

You should play Dragon Age 1 & 2, and Mass Effect 1 & 2. Sounds like it would be right up your alley, and ME2 is probably the best game ever made.

thanks, will check them out


I am ADD, and I can't stand how short modern games tend to be

Then please, name some old games that last so much longer? Because I keep hearing this argument being thrown around, but no one can actually name anything apart from a few well known games that actually had proper length.

There's always been games with gak lenght.

Legend of Dragoon
Secret of Mana
Front Mission 3
Super Mario RPG Legend of the Seven Stars.


To name a few.

Final Fantasy 3
Illusion of Gaia
Super Mario World
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past.

To name a few more.

Shining Force
Shining in the Darkness
Phantasy Star 1~4
Sword of Vermillion
Zillion

LordofHats wrote:His name was known well before Halo 3. I think very few Halo fans weren't aware his name was John in younger demographics. He's the main character of almost every Halo book and multi-media product up to that point. Besides, what's wrong with John? There are lots of great Johns. Pope John, John the Apostle, King John, John Smith, Johnny Test, Jon Jones

And come on people. Halo 3 wasn't horrible. It just wasn't as good ... But Cortana was pretty bad. A mission that never should have made it past alpha *shakes head*

Cortana calls him John in CE


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Weapon balance isn't poor, I can kill anyone with a DMR/BR that doesn't have a power weapon (rockets, sniper, sword, etc) if I can out-gun them. Maybe if you're charging with an AR and expect to win all the time you think the balance is poor. I find the shooting in Halo to be tighter than most console FPSs I've played.

Ok, so you can kill anyone with a DMR/BR, but can you do the same with the Assault Rifle?

Good Weapon Balance means that no matter what gun someone has, the person who is the better shot gets the victory.

The guns in halo are not supposed to be equally good at everything. The AR/Repeater is better than the DMR/Needle Rifle up close and the DMR will beat the AR at range. Halo does not have multi purpose guns other than power weapons and learning when to use the different guns is how you get better at the game.

a lot of iApp Games have a 'thanks for playing' somewhere.

Rodeo game's Hunters: episode 1 does have a Thanks for playing easteregg.

dogma wrote:

You're confusing explicitly different mechanics with how well those mechanics are implemented. Halo is a badly implemented hybrid of a high-intensity old-school shooter like Q2, and something like MW. Tribes is a well implemented speed shooter with a robust physics system, and the addition of a third dimension via the jet pack.

You should have attributed the quote to Slarg32, rather than making it appear as though you were responding to me.


You're confusing X being better than Y in all situations for X being better than Y in specific situations. A weapon can impact a fight without being explicitly superior in all fights.

We will just have to agree to disagree on the 'goodness' of the design implementation of gameplay in Halo, I like it, and so do a lot of other people (however, they did reduce movement speed and strafe acceleration far too much in Reach imo, therefore making it even slower than it was. Halo 2 wasn't really very slow)

Sorry, I was just quoting quickly.

The rocket launcher isn't always better, at long range, you can easily take out someone shooting rockets with a DMR or sniper, as long as you can hit them while dodging pretty slow moving rockets. You can easily take out someone with a sword with a pistol or DMR at medium range as long as you kill them before they get close. The DMR is the all-around-gun, its always a good primary to have(just like the BR in H2 and H3 and the Pistol in HCE), whereas your secondary can be a more specific range-determined weapon like a shotgun or sword. Using specific guns in specific situations is what makes you a good player. Someone who drops their DMR for a rocket launcher, leaving them with only rockets and an AR, is going to get picked apart at range.