Seriously, that's your argument? By this logic, Left4Dead, Call of Duty, Uncharted 2 and every other multiplayer game under the sun should not have matchmaking because you might end up with some "screaming little kid" or "people who just drop out".Originally Posted by Evangel
So what you're saying is that to play multiplayer games, one must:
A) Have friends that own the same console.
B) Have friends that own the same game.
C) Have friends that want to play the same game online.
D) Have friends that want to play the same game at the same time.
E) Have enough friends that fit the above 4 criteria to play a proper match.
If and only if all 5 of these criteria are met can one then play multiplayer. Otherwise, one is shit out of luck. You're replacing a chance to encounter bad players with virtually no chance to play multiplayer at all. If this is the kind of mutliplayer experience you advocate, I highly suggest you don't pursue a career in game design. The Neo Gaffs would not be happy.
This is just poor and/or lazy game design. If the portion of the Halo 3 engine they used can't support matchmaking then it was a mistake to use that engine in the first place. If they want to justify charging full price for it, they shouldn't treat it like an expansion.
Last edited by Jin; 10-09-2009 at 09:46 AM.
Until now!
Check out Bungie.net's forums. 90% of the people there think the same way. Plus there is a "Classified" section for recruiting players. Most of which are very good. I've gotten the multiplayer Vidmasters with it's help and almost achieved Endure 5 times.
They only had a year to work on it, if you think you could do better, I would like to see the results.
Last edited by Evangel; 10-09-2009 at 10:07 PM.
Yet again, another amazing argument. It's not my job to make games so whether I could do better or not is irrelevant. You're missing, or ignoring, the key point that they are charging full price for something that you keep having to make excuses for as to why it is missing key features that a full priced game should have.
If you have to use something outside the game itself to play a good match, there's a problem. Also, I would wager that 90% of the people on Bungie's forums will like whatever Bungie tells them to like. You seem to be a fine example. It's not as if matchmaking would disallow you to only play with your friends. The 360 has a universal party system. There shouldn't be any reason why you still can't only play with your friends.Check out Bungie.net's forums. 90% of the people there think the same way. Plus there is a "Classified" section for recruiting players. Most of which are very good. I've gotten the multiplayer Vidmasters with it's help and almost achieved Endure 5 times.
Learn how to argue. If you're trying to say that you like the game so much that the obvious flaws don't bother you, then just say so. There's nothing wrong with that. I like plenty of games that have flaws. But don't try to claim that the flaws don't exist when they very clearly do.
Last edited by Jin; 10-10-2009 at 08:11 AM.
Until now!
Jesus dude, if you don't like the damn game then fine, don't bother buying it. Don't be flaming me or complaining about it on forums.
lol
Well you see Jin has all the reasons to argue about this. You seem to be the fan boy who will say everything is perfect the way it is when clearly it isn't. He never said he didn't like the game.
Also Jin wasn't flaming you or complaining, he was stating the obvious.
Last edited by loaf; 10-11-2009 at 03:01 AM.
I only played the demo but my brother has played and completed it and he says it sucks..... really badly!! But he likes halo 3 multiplayer.
Heaven & hell in one immortal demon hedgehog warrior
I've never said it was perfect, it's flaws can be worked around.
1) Lag - worst in Firefight, find people near you to play with, not that hard. Make new friends.
2) Short campaign - Bungie said that the campaign was originally only going to be 4 hours, it turned out to be 6, so everyone knew that it wasn't going to be as long as a normal game. To add on to this, as an upside, we get to play with new weapons, Halo: C.E. nostalgia, a new view mode (VISR) and actually at night in an open world map.
3) No Matchmaking for Firefight - I still stand by my reasons. I don't want to be on the 4th set of Firefight about to get endure when an annoying 8 year old player quits on purpose. The simple solution is go onto Bungie.net, get a forum name and start postin in the Classifieds section, you'll be surprised how many friends you'll get. My friend list tripled in size. If you are too lazy to try this then don't bother playing the game.
4) "$60 for an expansion" - What new game ISN'T $40-$60? With ODST, you get a campaign, new mode, all the DLC maps and new maps, and Reach Beta. That's a lot.
5) It's a fact that Bungie had only a year to make the game. In truth, there could not have been any game at all and we would have to wait until next year for Reach. Bungie stated that ODST was a project so they didn't have to lay anyone off while waiting to start work on Reach.
Am I happy that we got the game? Yes. Am I content with it having glitches? No, but they can be worked around.
Is that a good enough damn response for you?
Surely you jest. No one is flaming you. Pointing out that your arguments lack proper reasoning and are borderline nonsensical is not flaming. Calling you a whiny fanboy bitch would be flaming. See the difference?
And when did I say I didn't like the game? I believe my exact words were that it was a great game. All I've been complaining about is the price and seeing as how this thread was made to discuss our thoughts on the game, I have every right to complain about it. Because, you know, those are my thoughts. See where I'm going with this? The only difference between our posts is that I back my opinions up with modest reasoning whereas you blather on as if you have stock in Bungie and need to defend their every action without providing any form of well reasoned backing whatsoever and then get defensive when someone disagrees and points this fact out to you.
And Judging by your latest post, you plan to continue with that.
Last edited by Jin; 10-11-2009 at 09:43 AM.
Until now!
First he says expansion then a new game. I have never bought an expansion for more then 30 dollars at the most, they usually go for 20.
Hey did you know there is the feature in the game, called...Avoid This Player? Dunno if you knew about it. And I have maybe seen the same person twice in multiplayer. No more, no less.
So what if they had a year, I would have gladly waited for Reach. Hell if this was supposed to be a brand new full game, where is the new multiplayer. I would have enjoyed playing Halo multiplayer playing as ODSTs.
New weapons, who cares. Last new weapon they created was horrible, aka Hammer.To add on to this, as an upside, we get to play with new weapons, Halo: C.E. nostalgia, a new view mode (VISR) and actually at night in an open world map.
New view mode, nifty but I only used it in buildings.
Open world map is nice but they could have done it 10 times better, even with a year to make the game.
I'm pretty sure that none of the expansions for Fallout 3 required $60 to play.
If you have any experience playing halo then you should know that the lag for pretty much terrible no matter how good or bad of an internet connection you have. Hell, a lot of the times when I play with people that live in about a 20 minute radius of me tops (aka local people), XBL can still be squirrelly for people involved and not do things correctly, like drop packets, which can cause bullets to not register, etc. In a fps you can see how big of a problem this can be lol.
as for not having Firefight on Matchmaking, this is pretty absurd in my opinion. One of the main "get it!" factors involving this game was the new feature that is known as firefight, and now we can't even play it online with others? What kind of bs is that?
As for all of the features that come with ODST (new campaign/maps/mode/beta), even all of these together aren't enough to justify spending $60 on. Compared to halo1, nobody really plays or cares about anything on the halo campaign. You're probably going to say "hey now Rocky you can't prove that you're just bashing the game!!1" Well then, when you get online for halo 3, how many people do you see playing matchmaking compared to campaign? And, still to this day there are a few thousand people playing halo 2 matchmaking daily. Do you really think there are a couple thousand people playing the campaign mode daily? Not a chance. As for the mode, it could of been improved by adding it into matchmaking; after all that is what is making the halo franchise so popular is the streamlined use of online play, so why not build on that? The maps... this one is kind of a low blow for the competitive halo crowd, because let's be honest here, Heretic IS a great map. One of the best remakes yet for halo3 (blackout was fkn terrible, how can you make a map so bad that you can't even shoot across from one side of the map but you can on the other), and it will probably be used in competitive play, much like midship in halo 2. the fact that we have to play $60 because bungie decides to throw it in a "brand new game" that has nothing to do with halo 3 is a bunch of bullshit. And for the beta? yeah, I played the halo 3 beta. It had about 3 maps and two different matchmaking playlists that ran for about 2 weeks at best. I can't justify spending $60 on that either.
And for the record, bungie ****ed up the pistol yet again in ODST, I don't count a weapon "new" when it is been crapified from the original version.
†SOLDIER† - "Yep still better than you"CPC8: It's hard out here for a pimp.™
hahas, updated July 28th (oldie but goodie!):
(Updated April 13th 2013)Currently Playing: League of Legends, FTL, Dead Island, Borderlands 2, KotoR 2
Bungie: Why Halo 3: ODST Firefight Doesn’t Support Matchmaking | Kotaku Australia
Hopefully that helps with the discussion about no matchmaking in ODST FireFight. While unfortunate, I really do enjoy scheduling lan parties with my friends and getting together. The only downside is that they are not always available to play ODST. I end up having to wait for friends from other states/countries to log on xbox live for more than an hour.
The technical issue of adding matchmaking into FF is perfectly reasonable. I'm a little turned off by this fact. They could have addressed it by holding back the release date a month or two. I would have gladly waited that long.
Oh well, you get some and you lose some. >>;;
Last edited by Azuteor; 10-11-2009 at 12:19 PM.
I'm curious, if this were any company other than Bungie, would people be defending them? If EA or Activision, for example, decided to, in one year's time, make a spin off game based on 3 year old tech which actively limits the game's potential (ie no matchmaking in firefight, as an example), limited the campaign length to less than 8 hours, added in the exact same multiplayer as the original game it's based on with maps that any fan of the original game would already own and charged full price for admission, would people defend them? I think not. But because this is Bungie, we should apparently just thank our lucky stars that we're fortunate enough to be graced with another one of their games and ignore how they're* gouging us worse than a university book store.
*"They" most likely being Microsoft, not Bungie itself. I'm not sure who decided on the price, but I'd wager it was Microsoft.
Last edited by Jin; 10-11-2009 at 09:11 PM.
Until now!
I don't care what their excuse is for not having matchmaking for it. I still find it pointless to have it that way.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks