jack shit

i struggle to wake up in the morning because i don't really like doing the "life" thing all that much

if anything, it's the urge to take a nice shower
a long, scalding shower

and of course, college is obligatory, but i only go two days in the week

i skimbatim

there really aren't many distinct personalities on this website

like, no one just EXUDES personality

Since nobody actually reads all of them,

i do

i'm just saying, if you stacked the two genres together, i would bet money on it that the fighting genre has a lot more going on in terms of strategy, or what's going on in the player's heads, and what you need to do in order to win

in other words, they're a lot harder to master

first, we need to establish some context. halo games are arena shooters, instead of reaction-based class shooters like cod. as such, in the original halo trilogy, everyone started on the same footing, effectively creating a completely egalitarian environment, which is very healthy for pure competition.

as it should be

i'm not gonna pat the game on the shoulder for doing what it should be doing anyway, though

in the best maps (usually symmetrical maps like citadel, heretic, and sandbox,) there are very powerful weapons and equipment. naturally, both teams want to control these power spawns. so right from the get go, we have a dynamic relationship between the two competing parties revolving around those spawns.

not all the maps are symmetrical, though
show me an FPS where every single map is symmetrical, and that'll be a feather in the FPS genre's cap

now this is where map control comes in. if your team "wins" the original engagement and either neutralizes or controls the power spawns, you have a leg up on your opponent, and you can use these advantages to spread your team around the map and consolidate your ability to zone the enemy out. map control is the absolute NUMBER ONE factor when it comes to winning in a competitive environment. this may seem unfair to the team which lost the opening rush, but id argue that bad players should be punished for mistakes, rather than being forgiven for incompetence.

i would agree, if losing the initial rush automatically meant that you are a "bad player" who needs to be "punished for mistakes"

losing isn't really a mistake, it's just the result of not having won

you can lose because of mistakes, of course, but what mistakes can you possibly make
...not having shot first? that's all i can think of

once you have map control, you are able to track the enemies wherever they go- enemy player spawns are extremely easy to predict and control in halo 3, so good teams can get map control and determine the pace of the game as long as they dont fuck up.

this doesn't really mean much in terms of combat, which is specifically what i was referring to
you're gonna have to show me other forms of combat

like, i know there's melee strikes and grenades and stuff
but again, that can kinda be chalked up to "who hits who first" and "who didn't dodge the grenade"

but i was explicitly referring to the combat, not anything else

the cool thing about these arena shooters is that, in the competitive environments, if you are on the losing side of the map control aspect, you still spawn with powerful, versatile weapons like the battle rifle. though the dominating team may control the power spawns, you still have all the tools you need to break their setup. this is accomplished through effective communication and teamshooting, which come naturally as a result of deliberate play.

i never really thought the battle rifle was all that special honestly, but that's another argument

i honestly think that's what it does come down to, though
if you're not "good" at an FPS game, you're not playing the game right

i mean, clearly

it's not that pro-players are "good"--everyone else just SUCKS
or, everyone else is just ignorant of how the game should be played, i should say

and i'm just making the argument that FPS games are very simple to master
but very few people care to do that for obvious reasons

would you like me to explain to you how competitive fps works? because it involves a LOT more variables than just who shoots first.

doubt it

feel free to try to explain though

fighting games are like FPS games in that regard, too, but fighters are actually one of my favorite genres because of a few key differences

you can actually train in fighting games and develop strategies that way, unlike FPS

this idea that people can be "better" or "worse" than someone at an FPS is asinine to me
you shot me before you did--that's it
there's no nuance there

if i shot you first, would that really make me a better player? because that's all it really takes to win--whoever shoots who first.
fighting games, i would argue, are a lot more sophisticated

if you lose, it wasn't just because someone hit a button before you did, unlike in an FPS
it was most likely due to a much larger number of factors, including dropping combos, your own poor execution, failing to use a better move at a better time, having a bad character matchup etc. etc.

the most nuance i get from FPS games in that regard is, "the gun you used sucked"
and how often are the guns fairly placed on the map anyway?

anyway, whatever, i just know people are gonna get all angry now
because i'm pointing out the most untouchable genre's flaws

calculated and thorough

but that's really general, and assuming all games are reduced to just problem solving mechanisms

i like to take my time developing strategies

flee is like a 6-7/10 member

according to you, we're all already killing babies by not having them, so

not necessarily, it's just a slight redundancy
i would chalk it up to a force of habit

What the fuck is "unnecessary abuse"? Is there "necessary abuse" in your mind or did you just word this wrong?

i think "unnecessary abuse" functions as a term, simply because "necessary abuse" is an oxymoron

because no abuse is necessary--that's why it's called abuse

However, I think that unnecessary abuse or maltreatment of animals shouldn't be there. Animals should be respected as living beings, but that shouldn't be treated as a right for an animal.

then what should it be treated as

seems like a semantic distinction