Jump to content

calberto

Member
  • Content Count

    977
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. In the end oft he day I wouldn’t even mind a fixed FOV all that much. All your points about the goal to have a unified artistical experience for everyone make a lot of sense. But I’d still prefer to see more games with a higher FOV. Nothing too crazy either I’d probably be fine with something around 90° for a game like halo. Up until now I was simply under the impression that a slider would be the easiest way to achieve this. Thats pretty cool. I didn't really like Destiny (not a fan of loot shooters) and only played the first for a couple of games because it was part of my console bundle but not enough to actually notice those little things. Again pretty neat I'd love to see more talking about those things. I might have just missed this but I didn't know about the reasoning behind this but it makes a lot more sense now. If it's done properly I see no reason not to trust it. In the end I'd still agree with you that a studio should go with their intuition/vision, we're talking about a creative product here. I was just actaully curious if there is some data. I think I get what you mean now and I see the problem you're were talking about. I mean, I wouldn't know a solution for that either. On a side note, I've not been here all that regularly lately and I hope you don't mind me asking but who do you work for these days?
  2. Using buttoms might have been a bad example but, at least to me, having a different FOV is rather similar to having a different sensitivity. In both cases you're trading ease of aim for speed in one case and awareness in the other. To answer your thought experiment, at least for me, this scenario is just as fair/frustrating as having one team with a forced 1-sensitivity vs. one team with a forced 10-sensitivity. But noone complains about a 1-10 sensitivity range. Don't get me wrong I understand you point of view and I knew about the implications of a high vs. low FOV but I feel like your blowing the consequences a slider would have on the actual "everyday-gameplay" out of proportion a little. I mean even if it's a valid concern, you don't need to have such a huge range you pruposed, being able to choose from 75°-95° might help out a little already. Again, I get you concern but is there any data supporting the fear that players cannot handle this change? After all it's just a matter of what you're used to. It might be wierd for a couple of games but after that, playing a low FOV should feel off. As for CQB...does it really feel personal now? There is no real interaction, just a player model and your arms performing a punch. As long as we're keeping this system, there will allways be a "disconnect" and it will never really feel personal. If each melee would trigger a in-depth animation of an actual interaction with the other player modell (basically every melee would trigger a 1st-person assassination-like animation) it might change but that would drastically alter Halos gameplay as well.
  3. 1) Wouldn't that logic imply that any changeable controlls (bottum layout, sensitivity, Elite Controller, etc) should be axed in favor of an even playing field? 2) I can get behind that idea but still, why not desing a game with a fixed but slightly higher FOV in mind?
  4. why would you do this to you? It's a video game, it's sole purpose is to entertain you and if it fails to do so, why would you waste your time trying to like it? I hope to get into those flights at some point, if the game is just the same advanced mobility shooter with a classic art style, then I'm out...
  5. Guess we'll find out in a couple of weeks when they are having their MP test
  6. I was under the impression that it's just for this one mode, maybe horde as well at worst. I'd be surprised if it extends beyond PvE
  7. I still think the idea was good, the execution was bad
  8. I probably used a wrong translation but what I mean is playing a game because you enjoy the gameplay/because it's fun vs. playing a game because you want to achieve an external goal (getting the next REQ pack/loot drop, etc.). Every game has factors that contribute to each form of motivation but newer games rely on external motivation (loot etc) too much. Story missions are the very core of non-linear games... side quest: if it's a good/fun/intersting mission, make it part of the regular campaign, if it's just a way to increase playtime by 30min., then it's not really worth it anyway... if you want to include "cheap" side missions, replace them by stuff like Spartan Ops. Loot, as I said, playing for loot isn't even worth the time for me...
  9. What do non-linear/RPG campaigns add that increases their replayability? IMO a well designed linear campaign has a lot of replayability value, just maybe not for the externally motivated.. To this day, I have never played an open world/RPG game more than once but I regualry replay good linear cmapaigns/certain missions
  10. Why 2003? I'd assume Halos prime (in terms of popularity) was 2007/2008. (not that it would make a difference, things have changed since then as well..) We don't know how the gaming community would react to a new but classic Halo. Trends are not a linear progression, a classic Halo might be a return for us, but it is something new for many younger players. And keep in mind how much influence streamers/social media has right now, I don't follow many of those people but I got the feeling that many would be excited about classic Halo and this positive energy could easily transfer to the younger community
  11. Is there any word on adding a FOV slider to MCC on XB as well?
  12. People can praise Halo4 for bringing life to the chief, having more lore for the forerunners and all that all they want, in the end, it was the only Halo game I had to push myself to finish and it took me 6 years and an MCC achievement to play it again. Fighting robot bugs not only looked stupid, it played shit as well. The Didact, to me, was a boring antagonist. I just don't like those cheesy "evil super villain" stories. It didn't help that he looked like someone bleached an Oblivion Daedra that was equipped with jedi powers...
  13. If those people are so bad, why do you care about their "hardware disadvantage", a high framerate won't help if you suck. I get your frustration but, again, having "nothing but shitters" is most likely the result of the game having just very few good players left but a bunch of shitters because it's on game pass and without those shitters, you probabaly wouldn't be able to find games in social either... The situation sucks, I get that, but trying to make it worse for those who do enjoy splitscreen won't help you.
  14. @TheIcePrincess 2v4 games really isn't something that only happens when playing with/against splitscreen...I'd even argue that, if you're living in a low population area, splitscreen only helps you getting games faster. And going by my experience, most (not all!) splitscreen players are usually around the same skill as the main account, you get you fair share of thumbless idiots but you get those even without splitscreen... I'd guess removing the game from the game pass would help you more then removing splitscreen.
  15. Seeing kids having a meltdown over how "it's just a sidearm!!!!" kinda is my #1 argument for keeping the utility a pistol. BR/DMR/pistol/etc. skins for your utility would still be me favorite...
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.