I hope you die painfully. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the omega man117 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JohnyRL Fall Damage. (to much) Aesthetics: After playing anniversary it hit me how dry and lifeless the original was. Thats just how i see it. Yea the health system was tedious. Not that i dont like health, i thought reach did it well, having at least SOME damage repair itself, and not needing a health pack after taking one PP shot unshielded. Repetitive environments. Other than that it was a great game and one of the best halo's.[/quote] Is this game too hard? Do you have the attention span of a fly? You may wish to try Call of Duty. [/quote]

I had a few dislikes, some agreeing with yours. I really hated the insta-splatter BS. Not just that...but trying to get the Bandana Skull. But then again for that great of a reward does come a challenge eh? What I really hated though...is the reptition of enemies and (what seems like) endless waves of enemies (like on The Library). Don't get me wrong, love the story, and love the concept behind it. But imo, Bungie just goes overkill on the enemies on some levels and it's pretty irritating. Keep in mind though that I'm on Legendary, so if you're more avid on like Normal, you're a lot less peeved I'd imagine. I also hate how you can't use Swords and drive Wraiths >:( That's about it...oh and how Keyes just goes out into the open in Truth and Reconciliation (?) and dies like 2 seconds later....

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the omega man117 Deal with it. This isn't COD. Learn to drive.[/quote] "Deal with it." isn't a proper response when trying to defend something. It just shows you have no good reasoning behind your defense other than bias. Actually, "CoD" could either point towards the franchise or the first game. Either way the first game had a health pack system like Halo: Combat Evolved. Therefore saying "This isn't CoD" is a bit ironic. Another thing being that Halo 2 introduced the regenerating health system and CoD2 was inspired by Halo 2 to use it. It's his personal opinion that the vehicles had poor controlling. While I respectfully disagree with him, it's the same sort of thing as the "Deal with it." comeback. All it shows is that you have absolutely no good reasoning as to why he is wrong. In the end, you're making Halo: Combat Evolved fans look terrible. If you're going to be elitist about the game at least post with intelligence like the others do. Every game has flaws and if you can't accept that Halo: Combat Evolved has them then you have your head shoved up your ass. (This brought to you by someone who believes Combat Evolved is the best out of the Halo franchise. If you don't like it, [i]"Deal with it."[/i]) [Edited on 12.21.2011 9:44 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx Every game has flaws and if you can't accept that Halo: Combat Evolved has them then you have your head shoved up your ass.)[/quote] Here's the thing doc. CEA is a 10 year old game. It killed the HL/Quake/UT type games and established a new generation of games. So, if we are going to criticize it, we have to criticize it as a 10 year old game competing with games before it. And when you do that, CE comes close to near flawless. Yes it had repetitive corridors, but so did EVERY GAME of that generation. Yes it may have had poor vehicle control, but comparatively, it was just amazing that vehicles controlled as well as they did. The fact it plays like a modern game 10 years down the line is a testament to its greatness. This is all coming from a guy whose favorite Halo game is Halo 3 (purely because of the SP - I never got a real chance to play MP), but CE fans are the master race of Halo fans. Criticizing it like you would any other Halo game is stupid.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Azygos Vein [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx Every game has flaws and if you can't accept that Halo: Combat Evolved has them then you have your head shoved up your ass.)[/quote] Here's the thing doc. CEA is a 10 year old game. It killed the HL/Quake/UT type games and established a new generation of games. So, if we are going to criticize it, we have to criticize it as a 10 year old game competing with games before it. And when you do that, CE comes close to near flawless. Yes it had repetitive corridors, but so did EVERY GAME of that generation. Yes it may have had poor vehicle control, but comparatively, it was just amazing that vehicles controlled as well as they did. The fact it plays like a modern game 10 years down the line is a testament to its greatness.[/quote]Now this is much better. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Azygos Vein but CE fans are the master race of Halo fans.[/quote]But this has that elitist attitude. There is no master race of Halo fans. The only master race are Halo pros, which are divided into 4 categories: general Legendary, skillful Legendary (i.e. melee only, pacifist), tricking (i.e. T2T), and speedrunner (Forerunner) Legendary

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Azygos Vein[/quote]Here's the thing, Vein. I've probably put more time into Halo: Combat Evolved than you have on all the Halos combined. I love the game to death and every person who knows me (Online or real life) knows it. This game is absolutely amazing, but nothing is perfect. If you can critique a game that shows you aren't a blind idiot. Is criticizing certain points of the game hating on it? No. Do I in the least dislike Halo at all? No. Do I dislike parts of it? Yes. There is absolutely no perfect game and someone shouldn't hate on someone else for stating their dislikes of the game. It shows you're an irrational fan boy to the game. Am I talking about Combat Evolved Anniversary? Who the hell here is talking about Combat Evolved Anniversary? This is about the original Combat Evolved. I'm critiquing it with the same ideas I had when this game was modern. [quote]This is all coming from a guy whose favorite Halo game is Halo 3 (purely because of the SP - I never got a real chance to play MP), but CE fans are the master race of Halo fans. Criticizing it like you would any other Halo game is stupid.[/quote]... So you're telling me that you never "got a chance" at playing Halo 3's multiplayer (Which you can. It's still very much alive) yet you're going to rant at me, someone who has been playing Combat Evolved for 10 years, saying I don't know what I'm talking about? You're also going to say that Halo: Combat Evolved elitists are the master race even though you're more of a Halo 3 fan? If you idolize Combat Evolved elitists then that means you idolize me due to the fact I am one. (Though I am much more forgiving than the others) Halo isn't close to perfect and no other game out there is close either. Saying that Halo killed Half-Life/Quake/Unreal Tournament is idiotic. There are more people on Half-Life mods (Things like Counter-Strike 1.6, Source, and Team Fortress 2) than there are people on Halo 3, Halo 2, and Halo: Combat Evolved. I'm fairly sure Unreal Tournament 1999 and Quake Live have more players on it than Halo: Combat Evolved for PC. Even if they didn't have more players this would be like saying "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare killed Halo and those sorts of games. Therefore it's nearly flawless." [Edited on 12.22.2011 8:01 AM PST]

You guys are seriously fighting over a basic opinion that Halo CE is flawless? Lol...seriously? You guys are just bickering back and forth in an argument that's not gonna subside until the next person just ignores the other. It looks like you're just trying to see who's e--blam!- is larger than the other's.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Renro[/quote]This is what I don't understand about some forum posters. The point in having a forum is discussion. If you don't like that this is what is happening here then don't get on forums. I stated my opinion on the subject and defended other people to share their opinion. After doing that, this guy came in treating me like I didn't know what I was talking about while he was flaunting around idiotic ideas. I have a right to say how I feel about it and discuss what he said. I like doing this, so why would I want to stop it? [Edited on 12.22.2011 9:24 AM PST]

although there were some nonfavorable features. theres only 1 i wanted gone. when you jump out of a Warthog for 1 split second you vew Chief in 3rd person. and it throws me off when i would jump out and try to kill some guys that way

L2Read Doc. You managed to misconstrue my message and turn it against me and I am not going to waste my time retorting every single point. But on Halo 3 - it is the funnest Halo game I have played, that I admit. But fun alone does not carry a game into legendary status or make it the better game. CE had much more replay value than H3 could ever have. CE had much better balance than H3. CE was more challenging than H3. And the beat goes on. What H3 does have over CE is set pieces that are integral to the modern generation of shooters (see every shooter made these days). H3 integrated these things very well. Alot of things did not feel like a set piece and the ones that did, did not overstay their welcome (unlike Reach).

What did I misconstrue!? I never claimed you said anything you didn't. When did this become a discussion about which Halo is better? I was just saying it's a tad weird you're going on saying that Halo: Combat Evovled elitists are the master race whenever you don't even believe it's the best one. The point I'm making is that [i]none[/i] of this is pointed towards Halo: Combat Evolved in a bad way. It's simply asking people what things we [i]would[/i] change if we had the chance. Constructive criticism. The thing that Omega was doing was blind allegiance. Trying to defend the game (Poorly I might add) from anyone who thinks it had [i]any[/i] flaws what so ever. He was also insulting people with it as well. By the way, the "whole new generation" of games Halo: Combat Evolved brought wasn't a good thing. You know what was so revolutionary about Halo: Combat Evolved? The thing that Frankie even stated made Halo: Combat Evolved the hit it was on the Xbox? Aim Assist. A system inside the game that holds your hand. Makes it easier for any person to just waltz in and get some kills. It ruined competitive gaming as we know it by allowing people to think it was still competitive even with the game holding your hand like you're a toddler. It lead to the modern hand holding that is all over the place today. (Specifically the new Call of Duty games) There. There is a giant flaw that puts this game no where [i]near[/i] flawless. Any PC gamer could have told you this looking at Halo: Combat Evolved when it first came out. When it was fresh. It's an amazing game, but simply due to the idea of aim assist, it took competitive gaming by the throat just to slit it. (^P.S. That in fact [i]was[/i] pointed at Halo: Combat Evolved in a bad way. After all of this bull-blam!- about it being flawless/nearly flawless I couldn't help it.) [Edited on 12.22.2011 2:32 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx By the way, the "whole new generation" of games Halo: Combat Evolved brought wasn't a good thing. You know what was so revolutionary about Halo: Combat Evolved? The thing that Frankie even stated made Halo: Combat Evolved the hit it was on the Xbox? Aim Assist. A system inside the game that holds your hand. Makes it easier for any person to just waltz in and get some kills. It ruined competitive gaming as we know it by allowing people to think it was still competitive even with the game holding your hand like you're a toddler. It lead to the modern hand holding that is all over the place today. (Specifically the new Call of Duty games) There. There is a giant flaw that puts this game no where [i]near[/i] flawless. Any PC gamer could have told you this looking at Halo: Combat Evolved when it first came out. When it was fresh. It's an amazing game, but simply due to the idea of aim assist, it took competitive gaming by the throat just to slit it. (^P.S. That in fact [i]was[/i] pointed at Halo: Combat Evolved in a bad way. After all of this bull-blam!- about it being flawless/nearly flawless I couldn't help it.)[/quote] How is that an [i]intrinsic flaw[/i], as opposed to an issue of application since? It keeps the interface smooth, and if kept under control, doesn't really squash competitiveness at all (Halo 1's MP skill gap is far too large for it to be accused of doing a lot of hand-holding). Obviously many PC gamers would call it a bad thing. But PC gamers usually look at it from the M&K perspective, which is an interface that the aim assist was never designed for. Asking M&K devotees what they think of aim assist is like asking someone what they think of you after dumping beef jerky into their cake batter. The problem isn't that the jerky is bad; it's that you put it into cake batter. [Edited on 12.22.2011 3:03 PM PST]

Halo: Combat Evolved had [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMcK8NcvYJY]massive aim assist[/url]. It was not well controlled what so ever. Anything that helps you aim like that is terrible. If a controller isn't a good device without something in the game holding your hand through it then you shouldn't be playing FPS games competitively on consoles that force you to use a controller. If aim assist is the Jerky then the cake batter is competitive First-Person Shooters. There's nothing else to it. Halo: Combat Evolved only has a large skill-gap when compared to games that came out after the "revolution" of Aim Assist it created. Look at the games that were before it: Counter-Strike, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, etc. Every single one of those games have a higher skill gap. I learned how to play FPS games with a controller. I can play Halo PC and [i]win[/i] with a controller without aim assist. I know what I'm talking about. Do you think that baseball would be as competitive if bats were magnetized towards the baseballs? Do you think baseball would be as competitive if the balls were magnetized to the inside of the hoop/rim? If not, then why the hell would you think it makes a difference when being applied to FPS gaming? Simply put, if you feel the hardware you use isn't good enough without something having to assist your aim, use better hardware. (I [i]do[/i] want to make this clear, though: I have absolutely no problem with aim assist in casual First-Person Shooting. Like I've said countless times, I love the Halo series. It's my favorite to play for fun. I just don't think it's a proper competitive title with aim assist.) [Edited on 12.22.2011 3:40 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx Halo: Combat Evolved had [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMcK8NcvYJY]massive aim assist[/url].[/quote] Okay, I'd like to point something out before someone goes off and argues that Reach has less reticle magnetism than Halo 1: Reach's reticle magnetism is variable, and activates much more strongly when it thinks you're trying to target something. This is so that the game feels and functions a little cleaner. And when it does ratchet itself up, the reticle magnetism is insane, practically totally locked onto the target. I don't have anything on hand to prove this aside from anecdotal experiences; sometimes in Reach, the game accidentally locks on a target, and when that happens you pretty much fully lose control for a moment. But of course this is all irrelevant to the issue at hand. What [i]is[/i] relevant is this: [quote]Halo: Combat Evolved only has a large skill-gap when compared to games that came out after the "revolution" of Aim Assist it created. Look at the games that were before it: Counter-Strike, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, etc. Every single one of those games have a higher skill gap.[/quote] To which I respond that it doesn't really matter, because even if they do have larger skill gaps than Halo 1, Halo 1's is still more than enormous. My experience has been somewhat unfortunately limited, but in casual games of CE I've been shut out and I've shut people out. [quote]I learned how to play FPS games with a controller. I can play Halo PC and [i]win[/i] with a controller without aim assist.[/quote] Hmm. Without aim assist in general, or just without reticle magnetism? HPC still has bullet magnetism. Regardless, this really just means that you're obscenely good with a gamepad. [quote]Do you think that baseball would be as competitive if bats were magnetized towards the baseballs? Do you think baseball would be as competitive if the balls were magnetized to the inside of the hoop/rim?[/quote] I would say that it depends on whether other factors are changed. [quote]Simply put, if you feel the hardware you use isn't good enough without something having to assist your aim, use better hardware.[/quote] What if I find dual stick gamepad controls to be more comfortable to use than M&K despite their limitations? Hardware that allows for better precision more easier is not intrinsically better for gameplay; it just means that the less precise stuff needs to make considerations to keep things equal, ie gumming the aim when close to the target to make for finer movements, which is pretty much exactly what Halo does. //===================== Now, look. I don't think Halo 1's aim assist system is particularly perfect. The reticle magnetism is a little clumsy when a lot of targets are on-screen, and the bullet magnetism is downright bizarre for non-precision weapons. But it's not a total lock-on system that entirely aims for you, and the best players out there don't seem to consistently go around 3sk'ing. [Edited on 12.22.2011 7:35 PM PST]

No matter how you put it, it still helps you. Also, if you want evidence that I'm not actually amazing with a controller then just look at my Reach stats. I'm no where near amazing with controllers. Another thing is that most of the matches that I've beaten people in with the controller are Team Sniper matches. There's no bullet magnetism with the Halo: Combat Evolved Sniper Rifle. I understand that controllers aren't ideal for precision and aim assist helps with that. My problem is that if the hardware isn't precise enough then there should be adjustments to the hardware, not the software. If they could find a way to make controllers more precise instead of limiting the skill gap by implementing something that helps you aim that would be much better. Until then I honestly can't see console FPS games (With aim assist) as deserving of competitive play. The hardware simply isn't up to the task and aim assist just masks it making people feel like they're better than they really are. I can only see true competitive play in a game where there is absolutely no hand holding what so ever no matter what equipment you're using. That's the way any competitive game/sport should be. When it comes to being competitive with your friends I couldn't care less, but when it comes to tournament play/prize money, it shouldn't exist.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx I understand that controllers aren't ideal for precision and aim assist helps with that. My problem is that if the hardware isn't precise enough then there should be adjustments to the hardware, not the software. If they could find a way to make controllers more precise instead of limiting the skill gap by implementing something that helps you aim that would be much better. Until then I honestly can't see console FPS games (With aim assist) as deserving of competitive play.[/quote] Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises here, though. If a hardware setup is otherwise nice and comfortable, what's [i]wrong[/i] with using software compensation for the shortcomings? As long as a sizable skill gap is still there, which in many games it is, why is it any less competitive than an M&K-based assist-free game with a similar skill gap? If you want to convince the people who think that many console shooters are competitive, you're going to have to quality that logical jump with more than a flat assertion. Do you [i]actually[/i] dislike aim assist on principle, or are you just annoyed with the last generation of shooters with excessively high levels of assistance? [Edited on 12.22.2011 11:14 PM PST]

When did I say that it had to be Keyboard/Mouse based? I've only ever said it had to be without aim assist. Also, I'm not just annoyed with recent shooters doing it. I'm annoyed with every shooter that does it. I played Halo: Combat Evolved over Xlink Kai recently and it was ridiculous. If we were going to talk about which hardware (At the moment) is better for competitive play, I would have to say keyboard/mouse. Think about what you said. You're giving up precision for it to be comfortable. Does that not sound extremely casual to you? A mouse gives you absolute freedom of movement. You can go however fast/slow as you want. That makes it to where you can do still like [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKs6myXmRr0]this[/url]. You can't play stuff like Quake III Arena with a controller properly. That's because it's a game based on a much higher skill gap that isn't harmed by the controller/aim assist combo. The only reason you think Halo has a high skill ceiling is because you probably only known console competitive gaming. That's the problem when it comes to these discussions. Who do you think has more authority to talk about these things? People who are comfortable with both forms/Play them both regularly or someone that has probably rarely played with a keyboard/mouse on truly skillful PC shooters? Even though of what I just said, I'd still be happy with just taking away aim assist on controllers. Making a better controller instead of relying on software to assist the player. You still can't get the insanely high skill ceiling without a keyboard/mouse. [Edited on 12.23.2011 6:07 AM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx [quote]Posted by: chickenlittle 2. No true online multiplayer.[/quote]I hate when people discount Halo PC when talking about online multiplayer. As if the only real way for a game to have online multiplayer is through Xbox Live. Then again that's exactly what Microsoft tried so hard to convince everyone, wasn't it?[/quote]I have Halo PC. I also have Halo CE. I still play both. I say no true online multiplayer because the original game didn't ship with it, and the PC versions have ungodly amounts of lag. It's bearable, I can adapt, but that doesn't mean it's good.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx When did I say that it had to be Keyboard/Mouse based?[/quote] Considering that the vast majority of people who demand no aim assist would also find using a gamepad without assist to be extremely obnoxious, I consider it implied. [quote]If we were going to talk about which hardware (At the moment) is better for competitive play, I would have to say keyboard/mouse. Think about what you said. You're giving up precision for it to be comfortable. Does that not sound extremely casual to you?[/quote] Not just to be comfortable; I was using that as one justification for preferring it. It's a qualitatively different sort of gameplay. Kind of irrelevant either way, though. Plenty of sports through the ages have forced various kinds of handicaps and oddities, and whether they've been more comfortable or not has largely been subjective anyway; many M&K users find gamepads to be absolutely clumsy and obnoxious on a basic level. //============== Now, let's see... [b]Here's your conclusion that we were discussing:[/b] [quote]You still can't get the insanely high skill ceiling without a keyboard/mouse.[/quote] [b]And here are your supporting points:[/b] [quote]I played Halo: Combat Evolved over Xlink Kai recently and it was ridiculous.[/quote] Okay, how was it ridiculous? Was everyone performing similarly well, and good execution not resulting in decent success, or what? You haven't really explained anything here. (Anyway, of course it's going to be ridiculous in some way or another; you're tunneling a game built only for LAN play over the internet. Using that as a testbed or demonstrator for anything is tenuous.) [quote]A mouse gives you absolute freedom of movement. You can go however fast/slow as you want. That makes it to where you can do still like [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKs6myXmRr0]this[/url]. You can't play stuff like Quake III Arena with a controller properly. That's because it's a game based on a much higher skill gap that isn't harmed by the controller/aim assist combo.[/quote] I agree with the first half. I'm fully aware that M&K enables sorts of gameplay that aren't viable with a controller; the only classic shooter I've been playing recently is Marathon, and even with its awful mouse support (and its also having been designed to support keyboard-only play) I can see that. But I'm failing to see how this implies a skill gap difference in and of itself. As far as I can see, it simply means that Quake was designed in such a way that, understanding that its interface makes many things easier than a gamepad would, it forces players to do more "difficult" things, because it [i]has[/i] to in order to maintain a high skill gap. (Obviously the designers wouldn't have looked at it from that angle, since the comparison would have been with some sort of PC competitive base point rather than a gamepad, but it a comparison discussion like this, that's what it boils down to.) [quote]The only reason you think Halo has a high skill ceiling is because you probably only known console competitive gaming. That's the problem when it comes to these discussions. Who do you think has more authority to talk about these things? People who are comfortable with both forms/Play them both regularly or someone that has probably rarely played with a keyboard/mouse on truly skillful PC shooters?[/quote] Probably someone who is comfortable with both. And, if you fall into that group as you claim to do, you should be especially qualified to explain this stuff. And so I fall back to my older statement: Justify the logical leap you've made. [Edited on 12.23.2011 11:57 AM PST]

By "Ridiculous" I meant that it was ridiculously easy to get shots in at people with it. That "Lock-On" effect you were talking about on Reach seemed to come into effect for me while playing it. (I found it easy being host or joiner) The way Quake was developed to suit Mouse/Keyboard playing was in the pace of the movement. Players can go at much higher speeds and lots of the guns require extreme precision to hit someone. When creating a game with the thoughts of gamepads in mind they have to slow down the movement speeds which makes it far easier to get a hit on someone. Definitely without aim assist. Using a mouse/keyboard does not automatically gain you higher precision. As many people have stated in the past, it's difficult to learn to use the keyboard/mouse. It's something you have to work towards and it's a skill that has a high skill ceiling in its self. Just because someone has a mouse/keyboard doesn't mean they'll ever be able to pull off amazing shots like in that montage I linked earlier. It brings out the full possibilities for skill gaps in First-Person Shooting. Would you rather watch a sport where everyone has handicapped equipment that causes the game to not show its full potential versus a sport where the game is to its absolute potential with the best equipment they can get? Would you rather watch the Special Olympics or would you rather watch the Olympics? Would you rather watch a race consisting of lawn mowers or a race consisting of super cars like Lamborghinis? (Ironically, Lamborghini was started as a Lawn Mower manufacturer. I didn't even think about that while first typing this out xD) [Edited on 12.23.2011 3:17 PM PST]

[quote]Using a mouse/keyboard does not automatically gain you higher precision. As many people have stated in the past, it's difficult to learn to use the keyboard/mouse. It's something you have to work towards and it's a skill that has a high skill ceiling in its self. Just because someone has a mouse/keyboard doesn't mean they'll ever be able to pull off amazing shots like in that montage I linked earlier.[/quote] I'm fully aware of this. If you want me to use obnoxiously precise terminology (which I'm going to have to ratchet up a bit with this post in general to get this discussion to actually go anywhere), here goes: Someone with a given level of experience and skill with M&K will typically aim far more precisely than someone with comparable levels of experience and skill with a gamepad. [quote]The way Quake was developed to suit Mouse/Keyboard playing was in the pace of the movement. Players can go at much higher speeds and lots of the guns require extreme precision to hit someone. When creating a game with the thoughts of gamepads in mind they have to slow down the movement speeds which makes it far easier to get a hit on someone.[/quote] Okay. So, to compensate for the difficulty with gamepad aiming, they have to slow the game down (or do other stuff) to compensate. So far we're on the same page. However, why do you immediately jump to the conclusion that this necessarily makes it easier to hit someone than with an M&K-based faster-paced game? If we acknowledge that it's a compensation mechanism for a game which would otherwise be [i]more difficult than our basepoint[/i], why do you claim that there can't be a point along that compensation curve where it is [i]similar to our basepoint[/i], as opposed to always making games [i]easier than that basepoint[/i]? Which also ties into this: [quote]It brings out the full possibilities for skill gaps in First-Person Shooting.[/quote] But if a gamepad makes it more difficult to be precise, than wouldn't a game like Quake, if played on a gamepad, actually tend to have a higher skill gap than if played on M&K? Which means that even if aim assist and movement speed difficulty compensation decrease the skill gap, couldn't a hypothetical game be envisioned which, using a gamepad, could have both some aim assist and somewhat slower movement than Quake yet still have just as large a skill gap as vanilla Quake? Look, this is the basic thing that you need to justify. We both acknowledge that a gamepad is hard to be precise with compared to a keyboard+mouse (which implies that it's harder to hit enemies with), and we both acknowledge that compensation mechanisms like slower games and aim assist decrease the skill gap by making it easier to hit enemies. Your argument that console games with slower movement and aim assist will always necessarily have lower skill gaps, then, relies on the notion that there if no combination of movement speed and aim assist that still leaves it as hard to hit enemies as an assist-free M&K game. And this you have still not justified (Though on the plus side, we're zeroing in on, or at least viewing other angles of, the core issue! That's good, and it's a lot more than most internet discussions accomplish.). //===================== [quote]Would you rather watch a sport where everyone has handicapped equipment that causes the game to not show its full potential versus a sport where the game is to its absolute potential with the best equipment they can get? Would you rather watch the Special Olympics or would you rather watch the Olympics? Would you rather watch a race consisting of lawn mowers or a race consisting of super cars like Lamborghinis? (Ironically, Lamborghini was started as a Lawn Mower manufacturer. I didn't even think about that while first typing this out xD)[/quote] I don't really care, actually*. Most sports systems actually have bans for the highest-performance equipment, and I'm not just talking about performance-enhancing drugs and stuff. Even Formula One racing has limitations on stuff like engine RPMs, swimmers are limited in how much of their bodies can be covered by their suits, baseball players have limitations on what bats they can use, and so on and so forth. *As long as we ignore that "causes the game to not show its full potential" clause. [Edited on 12.23.2011 11:09 PM PST]

What I meant before with the increased skill ceiling with the Mouse/Keyboard alone was that there was a great skill gap both ways. It's much easier for someone to pick up a controller and start playing than it is on a keyboard/mouse. The inherit difficulty of simply using these devices along with the reward once you're great at it is what makes the skill gap enormous. Not just the end result. It is easier to hit something with a Mouse/Keyboard on a game like Quake III Arena. You ought to download the Xbox Live Arcade version of it and see how bad it is. If you lowered the movement speed and added aim assist to compensate for gamepads it wouldn't be as skillful due to many things. For one thing it wouldn't even be Quake anymore. Another thing would be the what I was talking about with the Mouse/Keyboard having a greater skill gap both ways by its self. In regards to if it would be the same level of skill if you took away the skillful things in the game to compensate for a gamepad, then no. If using a gamepad would be more skillful then let it make the game have a higher skill gap. If you compensate it makes it easier for just anyone to pick up and play. Limiting Formula One engines and limiting the amount of area a wet suit can cover are better suited analogies to not letting people use keybinds/macros. Making them use a controller instead of a keyboard/mouse would be the equivalent of telling them to use a metal ping-pong paddle instead of a Tennis racket while playing Tennis.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] InvasionImminent [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] blade246 Not much, but the fall damage and the delayed jumping was quite annoying just as it was in the original Halo 1. But what annoyed me the most was the change from the Halo: Reach assault rifle model to the Halo 1 assault rifle model. It made me quite sad when I found out that it was just a place holder. :-([/quote] I really liked the Reach assault rifle aesthetically :( [/quote] I like the Halo CE/3 AR look better. It looks exaggerated and unnecessary in Reach. OT: Some things I didn't like. Hmm.. The jump delay I didn't like. I didn't like how there was no midranged rifle weapon lol I can't really think of anything else.

[quote]In regards to if it would be the same level of skill if you took away the skillful things in the game to compensate for a gamepad, then no. If using a gamepad would be more skillful then let it make the game have a higher skill gap. If you compensate it makes it easier for just anyone to pick up and play.[/quote] Let me rephrase my question. Suppose game A is constructed in such a way that it has a much larger skill gap than game B. Suppose someone comes along and slows down the movement in game A, and adds a bit of aim assist to it, which reduces the skill gap. Will game A now necessarily have a smaller skill gap than game B, and why? Why couldn't game A's skill gap not possibly still be a bit higher than, or the same as, game B's? [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx What I meant before with the increased skill ceiling with the Mouse/Keyboard alone was that there was a great skill gap both ways. It's much easier for someone to pick up a controller and start playing than it is on a keyboard/mouse. The inherit difficulty of simply using these devices along with the reward once you're great at it is what makes the skill gap enormous. Not just the end result.[/quote] This argument seems to depend on the following (admittedly informally stated) proposition: [i]If something is easy to pick up the basics of (or get comfortable with, or whatever), the skill of users of that thing will not vary as as greatly as if that thing was not as easy to pick up.[/i] I can't accept this without justification, at least not in a general sense. It does not seem intuitively self-evident, and it suffers from some uncomfortable implications. For instance, it suggests that the much less general ("less general" since in colloquial use it is aimed primarily with learning curve, without consideration toward things such as talent) statement of "easy to learn, hard to master" cannot be accurately applied to anything. [quote]Limiting Formula One engines and limiting the amount of area a wet suit can cover are better suited analogies to not letting people use keybinds/macros. Making them use a controller instead of a keyboard/mouse would be the equivalent of telling them to use a metal ping-pong paddle instead of a Tennis racket while playing Tennis.[/quote] Nah. keybind/macro limitations are more akin to F1's traction control limitations. And there's nothing wrong with ping-pong paddles; people do play games akin to tennis with them. And how do they keep it reasonable? By using a smaller court, a court which the paddle sweeps out a proportionally greater area of. In a sense, it's not dissimilar from the use of assist or slower movement to make console shooters make sense.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sdnomdE Let me rephrase my question. Suppose game A is constructed in such a way that it has a much larger skill gap than game B. Suppose someone comes along and slows down the movement in game A, and adds a bit of aim assist to it, which reduces the skill gap. Will game A now necessarily have a smaller skill gap than game B, and why? Why couldn't game A's skill gap not possibly still be a bit higher than, or the same as, game B's?[/quote]How does it not have a smaller skill gap? If you reduce the very thing that gives that game skill then you're directly reducing the skill gap. If people move slower and you add aim assist people will have a much easier time hitting another person. That means that someone who would have a much harder time hitting someone before would find it much easier while the guy who was extremely proficient at it would be finding it slightly easier. For the most part the guy extremely proficient at it would notice it more on how much easier it was for other people to kill him than he would on himself. I don't see how someone can't see how that effectively decreases the skill gap. [quote]I can't accept this without justification, at least not in a general sense. It does not seem intuitively self-evident, and it suffers from some uncomfortable implications. For instance, it suggests that the much less general ("less general" since in colloquial use it is aimed primarily with learning curve, without consideration toward things such as talent) statement of "easy to learn, hard to master" cannot be accurately applied to anything.[/quote]Talent is natural. Skill is obtained. If you have talent then it's easier for you to gain skill. A wider learning curve is proportionate to a wider skill gap. If it's harder for someone to use something then that means there is a much larger range of skill towards it. If someone picks up a sniper rifle and aims it down range to hit a target they will surely miss the target their first time. They will have to learn how to use it and become proficient with it. Now, if that same person were to have started with a long bow shooting a target the same distance they would have to learn how to use it as well. It would be much harder and would take a lot more to become proficient at it. Therefore there would be a wider skill gap to it. That's how it works.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx How does it not have a smaller skill gap? If you reduce the very thing that gives that game skill then you're directly reducing the skill gap. If people move slower and you add aim assist people will have a much easier time hitting another person. That means that someone who would have a much harder time hitting someone before would find it much easier while the guy who was extremely proficient at it would be finding it slightly easier. For the most part the guy extremely proficient at it would notice it more on how much easier it was for other people to kill him than he would on himself. I don't see how someone can't see how that effectively decreases the skill gap.[/quote] What are you arguing against? I agree that slower movement and higher assist tends to decrease the skill gap, and I've been agreeing with that throughout our entire discussion, and my argument wouldn't make any sense if I didn't acknowledge that. Read my post again. [quote]If it's harder for someone to use something then that means there is a much larger range of skill towards it.[/quote] Equivocation. You're using different meanings of the infinitive "to use." If you mean "to use competently," (or "to use skillfully") then yes, it holds. But you qualified the application of "to use" with a description of how K+M is unwieldy to new users and how new users can pick up a gamepad quickly, which means you meant it in the sense of "to use comfortably," which says nothing about the skill with which it's being comfortably used. Chess, for instance, is very easy to learn the basic mechanics of. You don't have to be brilliant to quickly learn what the different pieces do. That is, it's easy to learn to use Chess' interface comfortably. But becoming comfortable with the mechanics doesn't make you a chessmaster, and there are still massive skill differences between people who pay chess, because being able to use it comfortably and being able to use it competently are two entirely different things. You tend to have to do the former before tackling the latter, but the difficulty of mastering the former says absolutely nothing about the difficulty of mastering the latter.