Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About MultiLockOn

  • Rank
    Edge Lord
  • Birthday 12/02/1988

Recent Profile Visitors

21,861 profile views
  1. You could probably come up with a hundred reasons as to why you like the mechanic, and I could list a thousand benefits of sprint. At the end of the day the idea of something that is just blatantly better than something else, is wrong. All the benefits you listed for the power glove are solving problems that don't exist, I've sat in a dozen design meetings just like that where handfuls of wacky ideas are thrown out that accomplish XYZ. Before you start listing out things it does right I think you need to look and see if it breaks something in the process first. And a lot of things break by introducing what is essentially an ultimate ability.
  2. I imagine that would largely depend on the kill times of the sandbox, movement speed, difficulty in shooting, and health model. Non recharging health means it doesn't matter if you skip a hundred yards away after I shoot you, the shot still mattered. Right? I think the short answer here is you can just tell when you've been cheated. It's inherent to your soul to recognize that kinda stuff. When you're routinely repositioning, getting shots on someone and they repeatedly just back off and survive you know there's an issue. Possibly with the map, but game design takes higher precedent over level design so that's where most problems need to be addressed.
  3. This is actually true, human reaction time & average controller turning sens don't scale with the kill times even if every other aspect of the sandbox is tuned accordingly. It's probably worth deciding where exactly that perfect balance is between a perfect fast kill that you can still have SOME degree of reaction too, but not too much to correct errors without penalties. Too short of a perfect kill time is definitely a thing, just like too long. Not saying this to push a stance btw, just worth thinking about. I think the .6s of CE is probably right on the money of what I think is healthy, any shorter would probably be problematic. I think I could live with up to .8 though. 1s is where I can start getting away with some stuff that I shouldn't.
  4. Yeah writing the code for a projectile that dynamically changes speed would not be hard, I'm not an engineer by any means but I'm pretty sure even I could write the logic for that. Don't needles in H2 slow down after a certain distance? The H5 hydra when initially fired have a low launch speed, and then once they begin changing their arc to correct with the tracking they launch into a much higher projectile speed. This isn't difficult stuff.
  5. I think they have something comparable in warzone, spnkr ex or spankr prime I think. Ah, I see. Yeah that's a little tougher. Roadhogs secondary fire in OW fires a single slug that travels a short distance and then air bursts into pellets. The initial slug travel is projectile and then when it bursts (I believe) the pellets are hitscan for their full range until they disappear. That's a good projectile to hitscan example unless someone would like to correct me on it.
  6. Didn't realize that they updated it. My mistake, I was wrong.
  7. First of all, in MP SMG's are projectile in BO4. Second. Every projectile gun is hitscan for the first tick of whatever its defined movement speed. If your bullets travel at 100' units per tick, then up to 100 units they're hitscan. Third, Halo has had a mix? All the hitscan Halos have the covenant plasma weaponry and things like rockets that are projectile.
  8. I'm actually getting flown out to NC to meet with a game studio right now haha, I'm meeting with a few studios these next few days to hopefully pull the trigger on the right one.
  9. I came to that same conclusion when I realized that I was still launching MCC despite it lacking any XP level system or meaningful ranking I cared for. If you're opening the game it's to play a game, not build progress. It's the only shooter I really play for fun outside of Gears.
  10. Your example relating sensitivity to FOV options is a good one that I don't have a great answer for honestly. I'll say I think there are certain expectations that people go into video games with that when absent, are jarring. I would never launch a PC game WITHOUT an FOV slider because it's borderline heresy at this point to do that, it's expected. The PC space is understood that it's anything but controlled as is, so many variables between hardware versions. You really just have to give people that option. I don't think console games are at that point yet where certain features are expected to be visible to be toggled due to the nature of the fixed hardware and an understanding that you are purchasing a console version, and as such omitting an FOV slider isn't a sin. That's changed over the past several years as there's been efforts to provide console games with the same options PC ports have but as I've mentioned, I don't think that's necessarily always a good thing. I'll also say I think sensitivity preferences leans closer to a physical, mechanical comfort than it does simple making a mental decision. In my eyes choosing an FOV has more to do with making a mental decision than it does appeal to your physical needs, unless it's sitting in the low 60's like Destiny; in which case I'm right there with you. Every now and then a title comes out that's so inspired and focused, and usually these go hand-in-hand with fixed control schemes as well. I'll point out that Rainbow 6 Siege only really has one control scheme outside of trigger swapping I believe, as does Dark Souls. Did this frustrate me? Absolutely, I remember saying both developers were incompetent when I went to recreate bumper jumper and couldn't. But as time went I've grown to appreciate the decision and what it means to the holistic experience. I know without a doubt when I watch a good dark souls player free-cam roll around and kill bosses that he's doing that weird index finger claw thing as me because the roll is on B, and it's ALWAYS on B. They didn't change it to a bumper because they couldn't, and out of that sprouts a general understood skill that everyone who's played the game can relate to. Same argument goes for lack of difficulty options, being that it's an understood experience and we all know what we're in for. And in my eyes, the same goes for FOV. One experience, for everyone. Now this also is easier to appreciate when it's done by a game with a passionate and unified vision. When I'm playing Call of Duty 16 and there's only A button jump I'll probably get frustrated, because how dare you make me confirm to your stupid ideologies, right. It's all context. " 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." I don't necessarily think you're wrong when you say small deviance is okay, I'm just presenting other factors to consider and maybe it'll mean something to you. What will individually have an impact on gameplay is a very, very nebulous and difficult thing to gauge. There are so many tiny unnoticeable decisions Bungie made all throughout Halo that when viewed together paint a beautiful picture whether or not you consciously notice them. Did you know when you slowly look down in Destiny your camera will actually move slightly move forward as it would if you were to lean forward in real life? It doesn't just rotate down like most games but moves on a small arc path to give a realistic paralax effect because the character is actually mounted on the skeleton. As far as I'm aware no other game does that and there's likely a million other obscure elements to Destiny that I couldn't put into words but paint the image that I see in my head when I play that game. The lowered reticle in Halo has a lot of gameplay ramifications such as preventing head glitching but it also allows weapons to sit on your screen in a natural angle not awkwardly pointing up and center WHILE not taking up the whole screen. Not many games do that because not many games use lowered reticle so it presents a very distinct 1p character model view. A fixed FOV in Halo has painted the same exact picture of The Pit in every person's mind who is reading this post, we all have the same understand of the space and how far geometry is from you, what angles you can cover.. And that is something to appreciate. Just to reiterate, a lower fixed FOV provides a much better sense of depth which is really important for slow moving projectiles like grenades, and I don't need to tell you how important that is to a game like Halo. No I doubt there's user research detailing player experience but if there was would you even trust it. There are so many variables within that question, at some point I think any person in charge of a product just has to trust their intuition and make the call they believe will sit right with their experience. By CQB feeling personal I just meant that when you get into melee range with someone in Halo 3 it definitely feels like they're right in front of you, they encompass your viewport. I remember when Reach came out I felt like everything was so much further from me, even if I could punch it. Probably a combination of a larger FOV and smaller character models. This is kind of a difficult concept to explain but you could imagine the picture of being in the head of a gigantic gundam in the old G Gundam shows. When the other gundam was immediately in front of you they would appear MASSIVE, because they were. Essentially the effect is that if you scale the player models up AND the environment with them, the only thing that changes is the space they take up on your screen being that you can get infinitely close to something. I think it would help the shooting and feeling that you were in a space with other players. Not just shooting small dots on your screen. Excuse the length and formatting I'm on my phone on a layover and bored
  11. For the record if it was my call I'd probably choose something between 85-95. It's just worth pointing out the advantages of low fov as its something I despised for years until more recently after giving it some thought.
  12. I believe he's referring to the responsiveness of the game. It has crazy fast response time for inputs, jumping, switching weapons, all that.
  13. 1: That's the problem, it shouldn't be a choice. There are a lot of aspects of gaming that assumes an even playing field. This new Modern Warfare beta had 4 different aim assist settings ranging from minor to majorly assisted. Tell me why that's possibly a good thing. There's no point offering players choices if the choice they're being forced to make has no information surrounding it. This same phenomenon bothers me with the amount of advanced aim settings in Titanfall, Apex, and even Halo 5 where they allow you to tinker with the radial deadzone, axial deadzone, aim curves, aim acceleration, aim assistance, X and Y sensitivity individually.. at some point it leaves you wondering every time you lose a gunfight "Maybe if I spent another 3 days tinkering with my aim I would have won that fight". That's not a good thing because there's no scenario where that isn't going to be true, you'll never truly know if you're playing at your capacity or if the opponent was. If I chose to play on 120 FOV in titanfall and lost a 1 on 1 gunfight with someone, it would probably make me think "damn, I should've just dropped my FOV and they would've been way easier to shoot at from that distance, they were probably on 80" and I was on a low FOV in a fight and get shot by angle that I probably could have seen on a higher FOV I'll have similar reservations. There's no scenario left where it's not going to bother me. It's a lose-lose. I'd rather lock everyone to a similar playing field and get rid of that feeling entirely. 2: It's easy to say that from your position but a huge aspect of Halo, and probably every game you love, comes from the thousands and thousands of tiny artistic decisions made every day during development that you will never come to appreciate. Taking a quick gander over at Splitgate will tell you exactly how far you can fall without the proper artistic direction and how unappealing your game can become. The below are youtube screengrabs of Reach gameplay at 70 FOV and 120 FOV respectively. That yellow structure in front of the player is not that far, only a few feet. A sprint jump could probably pretty easily make it, but you would have no idea looking at that bottom shot. It might as well be across the battlefield. And while you might not be experiencing this phenomena looking at the shot it's probably because you already have an understanding of the space. That FOV frankly makes everything look a little silly and unbelievable and the larger your FOV becomes, the less the space between two items becomes difficult to distinguish. Take a gander at narrow depth of field photography to understand what I'm talking about, it gives you a really strong understanding of spacial depth in a 2d image that otherwise you couldn't possibly have because it's not a real 3 dimensional space. Low FOV has a lot of merits that lend itself into that, I'd imagine if Halo had historically used a much higher FOV the average player would have a much harder time placing greandes and predicting arcs because of it. 3: Again you're making these bold claims when you're taking for granted thousands of decisions made for you that you've already benefited off of. Console aiming is difficult with thumbsticks. Anything you can do to make that more comfortable is going to be a benefit, Bungie did this with Halo and players have always appeared pretty large on the screen because of this. Another wonderful side effect is that Halo is basically the only console game I'm aware of where people actively and intentionally go for headshots - that's not a coincidence. While there are a number of things that can play into that including flinch, gun control, health model, etc. a huge benefactor is the simple fact that characters in Halo are very large on your screen which is a combination of low FOV and large character models. Destiny shares this effect thanks to it's stupidly low 60's which I'll agree is too much. Compare this to Titanfall, Battlefield, whatever really, most games make you feel like you're shooting at ants. I'm not saying I want Halo 3 FoV again, but there are a lot of benefits to dropping it below 100 and locking everyone to an even playing field. 4: Why is that not a positive. You can look up players on Quake playing with 360 FoV, or in other words - they're unflankable. I think we can agree that extreme is not a good thing correct? So there is a degree to which you should be able to be outmaneuvered outside of your FoV. The smaller the FOV, the better you can use the small scale environment to reposition. It's just a question as to where to draw that line. There are many times I've rounded a corner in Halo / Destiny just far enough out of their site where I could jump backwards over them without entering their FOV, it's a positional move that would never happen in other titles. Again, it's a fuzzy line and I'm just saying it's worth considering. " Most of these points irk me because it seems to only benefit basically no one. Low fov does 3 things. 1, cause motion sickness, 2, irks me because of option 4 because now I can’t kill this guy because he moved a sleight inch off my screen so now he gets to live. And 3rd it causes sensitivities to feel slow or faster than needed. " I'm going to ignore the bit about motion sickness because that's hardly relevant to anyone anymore-so than high FOV having the same effect. The second complaint about someone being out of your field of view is going to happen regardless unless you're literally playing on 360 FOV. How possible it is is entirely dependent on the jump height, movement speed, and field of view. You might as well cater to skill. Halo 5 has this terrible inverse effect where people essentially bait the back-thrust ninja (which is obnoxious) and even if you know it's coming there's nothing you can do about it because you can't peg your sticks hard enough to reverse your aim before they backsmack you. That's what happens when you have fast movement/ slow console aiming / low fov. Bad combination in my opinion. Halo 1-3 don't really have that happen because the movement is fairly paced and predictable; if the field of view was sitting between 90-100 in those games I'd imagine you'd get trapped in a lot of corners or through doorways without any chance of repositioning sometimes because the movement would be too slow for the high FOV. 1: Button layouts give everyone the same tools, you can just choose how to place them on your remote. You don't have access to anything anyone else doesn't have in the middle of combat. Higher FOV doesn't do this, you're basically always trading off ease of aiming for awareness. This is not a decision that can be actively adjusted or compensated for in a fight, meaning there's no correct solution. Everyone is winning and losing at different times no matter what they choose. Not ideal if you ask me. In a perfect world developers would be smart enough to make the best control scheme the default, in Halo this would place something like Bumper Jumper as standard in place of A-Jumping. As for Elite controllers and better peripherals; again a big part of these are accessing tools you already have; only better. Meaning you're just using the same controls and tools everyone has, but you have access to them in a way that normal controllers can't provide. Ideally the standard controller would have paddles, which won't happen for manufacturing reasons, which would help players play at the level that they're actually capable of reaching within the product when they're not limited by hardware constraints. But ultimately yes, it's a paid and direct advantage. But I as a developer have no control over that so I there's nothing I can do to deal with it, even if I could control that - what would you recommend; detecting advanced peripherals and ignoring inputs from paddles? All I can control as a developer is my own product and I don't see an issue with providing as controlled of an environment as I could. If it were up to me I wouldn't even have control over advanced aim settings in Halo. Just a single 1-10 field (which works better when the regular aim settings for the game don't suck). To be honest the idea of paid peripherals like Elite controllers bother me less than an FoV slider in Halo. With one I know, flat out - I will be better if I get that controller. There's no question, no ambiguity, no haziness or guessing to it. With the other, I'm left after every kill whether I would've hit that final shot if I just succumbed to 60 FOV to blow up their character model. That to me is much more frustrating as its an unsolvable problem. 2: Oh you absolutely could, just keep in mind as FOV goes up the depth perception goes down. I'd imagine general grenade accuracy globally would drop a few percent as it would become more difficult to gauge distance with a ~20 degree FOV jump in Halo. Character models would be much smaller on your screen so global accuracy would probably drop for weapons on console, less so on PC. Close quarter combat would "feel" less personal. Honestly the entire perception of the game would change, and you could dynamically scale the character models to counter a lot of these effects as you feel necessary. So a higher FOV, but a 1ft growth to your character model might bring back some ease for intentional shot placement, at the cost of perceived speed as your head would be further from the ground. Just stuff like that to keep in mind. Checking 90 degree corners would become a no-brainer as you just bury yourself backwards and look dead center between them to catch view of both hallways meaning your personal player awareness wouldn't have to be as high. Thought experiment for everyone in the opposite camp rooting for high FOV - if you spawned into a 1 life mode in any game, Halo or otherwise, and yourself and your entire team would would be forced into a beloved 110 FOV whereas the opponents across the map were forced into 60 FOV (neither team has a choice on their FOV, it's assigned to you on Red vs Blue); would you feel comfortable believing that this was a fair match? When you lose a gunfight because you left them 1 shot and missed the final bullet and they killed you, and repeated that process for your entire team as each of you lost by 1 bullet - do you still believe that's fair? Or is there an imbalance because you were forced into a high FOV while they were given low FOV which is favorable for aiming. If you were on the low FOV team and an enemy began shooting you just outside of your frame of vision thus losing you the fight - was that still a fair fight? Asking questions of the player when there is no context surrounding the question is bad game design in my belief - flat out. Giving FOV sliders and different aim assist options is like choosing a character at the start of an Overwatch match. If I choose a Pharah and get sniped immediately by a Widowmaker; would you look at me and say "Yeah man you made the wrong choice" as if there was ever anything to base it off of. Okay next time I'll choose Genji hoping they choose Widowmaker so I can play as a counter but oh! They didn't! Wrong choice again. It's a ridiculous idea that I think is plaguing a lot of AAA games right now; don't give me options and ask things of me that I have nothing to base my decision off of. It's no different than flipping a coin, it's random.
  14. It uses a variant of source engine. Also the primary reason for FoV lock on console games has nothing to do with performance but retaining a distinct visual look. I used to be in the "every game should be at least 90 fov and have full FoV slider control" camp but not anymore honestly. Maybe it's just because I've been in the industry long enough that ridiculous developer reasoning is getting to me but 1: I don't like the idea of one player being able to cover more angles than you because they chose a higher FoV. 2: High FoV ruins the visual character of the game imo. Things that should look very close suddenly look very far and things that are far away are more difficult to perceive depth between one another. Watch some Reach gameplay where people are bouncing between the fov's - it makes the game look ridiculous. Kinda throws all the work your artists do out the window when the edges start warping it just looks silly. 3: Smaller fov makes objects larger on screen and makes targets easier to aim at, BIG plus for controllers. 4: Repositioning in a fight is infinitely more possible with small fov when it comes to out manoeuvring people, jumping over them, etc. I imagine the reason ninja backsmacks were so successful in H3 is because the fov is so low that jumping out of frame is trivial. There's obviously a point this becomes ridiculous in both directions, I can't stand Destiny 2's console fov because you're being attacked from angles you can't possibly check, but 120 fov starts to become a little too forgiving I think. 5: some performance benefits, but not a lot.

Important Information

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