{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/24/2013 6:15:45 PM
7
I love how people say duel wielding cluttered the sandbox with weapons that were useless by themselves. Since when has 1 SMG been useless? That gun will destroy and AR at close range. And the Spiker and plasma rifle were extremely powerful at close range when coupled with a melee. I think the problem is you guys are noobs and never figured out how to use them properly.
English
-
[quote]Since when has 1 SMG been useless?[/quote]Since the weapon was first introduced! One SMG on its own was a severely nerfed version of the AR from Halo 1. The recoil meant you had to treat it differently than any other weapon, which would be understandable if it was there when you used two at a time but instead it was ALWAYS present. Even when holding two at once, the damage output was only marginally better than the much more flexible assault rifle and not as strong as the true close-range firearm of choice, the shotgun. And you have to put up with extra hassle accessing your grenades, melee and weapon switching just for that? Not worth it.
-
You obviously never figured out how to use it correctly.
-
"If someone disagrees with me, then clearly they are bad at the game and should get better!" - Killing Game Design Discussions since the dawn of the internet ...Yeah guy, if you want to defend dual wielding, you might want to start by actually understanding people's arguments fully rather than creating a strawman that you can attack.
-
Ok then explain to me how those weapons are useless
-
It's not so much that they're useless as it is that're functionally redundant. The full argument takes quite a bit of elaboration, but the spark notes version of it is that there isn't much reason to have dual wieldable weapons when you could have a strong single wieldable weapon. Dual wieldables would be either overpowered or overly versatile if they were strong both when they are single wielded and dual wielded, the way they've been traditionally programmed is that they aren't quite half weapons on their own, but they're not as strong as the dedicated single wieldable weapons or otherwise when dual wielded they would outcompete the dedicated single wieldable weapons. FPS Dual Wielding can have great game feel, but due to the limitations of the first person perspective, it comes off as clunky and it feels like there isn't much reason to dual wield given the clunkyness. Halo's method of dual wielding definitely doesn't work well, I feel it would be better if you picked up dual wieldables or swapped to them as a pair rather than having to juggle the spare.
-
So you're basically arguing that halo should have a smaller weapon sandbox because weapons which perform similarly to other weapons are "redundant" and unneeded. Lol Can you please explain to me why duel wielding has no place in halo? If you don't like the mechanic and feel that it is clunky and poorly implemented feel free to never use it. It's that simple.
-
[quote]So you're basically arguing that halo should have a smaller weapon sandbox because weapons which perform similarly to other weapons are "redundant" and unneeded. Lol[/quote]Lol if you like, but that's what Halo has always tried to do for the most part. It's not like Call of Duty or Destiny where there are fifty flavors of Battle Rifle that adds a lot of indistinct weapon choices to the game. It's an arena shooter, there should be clear decisions on which weapons are the best to use in which situations, if you feel that Halo shouldn't be like that to move forward as a series that's a different discussion altogether, but that's where Halo's roots have traditionally been. [quote]Can you please explain to me why duel wielding has no place in halo? If you don't like the mechanic and feel that it is clunky and poorly implemented feel free to never use it. It's that simple.[/quote]Do you mind if I use Destiny for example? Destiny has these really cool hand cannon revolver pistols that presumably pack a big punch in a small package. It wouldn't be easy to create a weapon of that fantasy in a game that supports Halo-style dual wielding because of the obvious disconnects that are created. You can dual wield other weapons of that size, but the designers don't want you to dual wield a revolver of that power because it would dominate the sandbox, it really creates an awkward situation for both the designers and the players where one side doesn't get what they want. Either it's "Why can't we dual wield revolvers when we can dual wield these other weapons? This seems inconsistant" or "Why does the power of these revolvers drop so suddenly when they are dual wielded? This seems inconsistant". You just can't win, so it almost seems like an easier route to either take out the revolver or take out dual wielding. You'll notice in Halo that the scoped pistol couldn't exist so long as there was dual wielding in the game, once they removed dual wielding in ODST onwards, the scoped pistol returned, I definitely think the aforementioned scenario was the reason for that. I wouldn't say that Dual wielding has NO place in Halo, but you can see the sort of problems it creates between balancing different fantasies like the scoped pistol that you don't want to be dual wielded but it so obviously looks like it could be dual wielded. Does that sorta make sense? It's a bit rambly because it's always difficult to articulate game design ideas, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
