I totally agree with the fact that SF4's online interface is the worst, however, I would hardly consider SF4's online system matchmaking, since you can choose to be host or as guest you have an arbitrary choice of who you want to play with. I say arbitrary because by the time you even access the information of each of your choices, your opportunity to chose them is already closed. Capcom found a "perfect" balance between manual-host and matchmaking that would guarantee the worst possible online experience.SF4 is the worst ive seen with matchmaking. 3 games to choose from and they fill instantly and have different extremes of skill.
MuscleCarMan
vlam's forum posts
I don't see a problem with matchmaking, if executed well. I find that in many games, a lack of matchmaking normally results in a lack of general variety in the maps or gametype. There usually ends up being 1 or 2 'favorite' maps or gametypes and those are normally the only matches found. Less popular maps that are still enjoyable to many, are left unplayed. Sure, manual-host systems allow deeper customization of the match by the host, however, that freedom comes at the expense of other players' familiarity with the match, when taken to extremes. I think the whole Gears 2 matchmaking was conceptually brilliant. However, the Gears 2 online team lacked the proper skills and experience with the matchmaking architecture to make it run smoothly. Having a voting system for 2 variables (map and gametype) is a great way of ensuring variety without sacrificing player interest/familiarity. If finding games in Gears 2, worked with the efficiency of Halo 3 (in its prime), it would have been a great online experience, in my opinion. Another factor to consider is that joining games with friends is a pain in the ass without matchmaking. It's hard to find good games that have the perfect number of players. Even if you find the right people, you usually end up having one guy as host the whole time, unless everyone agrees to quit and join a new host every few games, which not only is a pain in the ass for everyone, but also not a likely scenario.
On the other hand, matchmaking is a fairly new system, not too many people in the industry are masters at creating such online interfaces, so there are bound to be problems. However, with time I believe that they will find a nice balance in the benefits of matchmaking and manual host/custom games. We just have to be patient and not jump to conclusions; claiming that matchmaking sucks altogether and we should always stick with the old.
Anyway, this is just my opinion.
I definitely like Halo better, but I feel like it's a thing of preference, not which game is actually better. However, the comments about Halo being a better package is pretty clear. The 4 player online co-op is one of the funnest things, especially when you enable skulls to switch up the gameplay. Forge is also revolutionary for console FPS. Films, and a diverse campaign...Yea, the package is more filling, but it still all comes down to taste.
When COD4 came out, I got it and stopped playin' Halo for about a month. However, COD4 got old to me, because I don't like FPSs where it takes one to two bullets to kill someone or die. It takes the diversity out of how an encounter can go down, and how many decisions I have to make when I'm aware of an opponent. For the most part, I felt that COD4 was about placing yourself in a good place before you even know where the opponent is, so that you see him first. That and team communication, though team communication is a plus in both games. I see Halo rounding out between coordinated team strategies and micro-encounters. I like my battles more personal.
If you've played Starcraft and Warcraft 3, you can kind of make the same comparison....Kind of. Warcraft 3 had more focus on micro management of units, whereas Starcraft focused more on managing armies. Battles contained less units and took longer with WC, but you had to pay attention to every aspect of unit placement and actions. SC battles were larger and quicker, and outcomes were based more on building the base and amassing the right units. So this mediocre analogy is just trying to say, though these games may share the same genre, they focus on different aspects. Both great games. Fanboys are idiots. Anyone can come up with an argument for why their favorite game or console is better, but such arguments are meaningless when applied to such subjective topics. Just state what you like and don't like, cuz that's what it all comes down to. If we were talking about physics or mathematics, we could arrive at a conclusion with a correct answer, however, we're talking about Videogames.
Log in to comment