Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
So I've never played a COD game, and I think the last non-Halo shooter I played online was the first Gears of War, so take the following with as much salt as you'd like. But I don't really get why people think Halo 4 was so unbalanced. Yes, you could customize your starting weapon and yes, there were armor abilities and perks, but these were still things that everybody had access to.* If you're losing badly against somebody using say, the DMR, heat vision, and the faster weapon swapping perk, there was nothing stopping you from giving yourself the exact same loadout in the next game (in fact, can't you edit loadouts mid-game?). There are more layers of choice, but it's not like anybody has more choices than anyone else.
To me, an unbalanced game would be one where spending lots and lots of time playing would give you access to something clearly superior, like a sniper rifle start or a third perk slot. From what I've heard, COD does something like that, where kids with lots of time to spend playing gain some game breaking advantage. Halo 4 did nothing of the sort.
So if you'd prefer a game with fewer choices, that's a valid point of view. But I'm not convinced balance or fairness has much to do with what turned folks off of Halo 4.
*Yes, when you first start playing Halo 4 you have to play a few matches to unlock stuff. But IIRC, I had everything I wanted within the first day or two of playing. A few weeks in, the need to unlock anything new was a distant memory.