Jump to content

TheIcePrincess

Member
  • Content Count

    5,528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by TheIcePrincess

  1. Arguably. Difference is I'm only speaking on older-style Halos. Not newer ones changing older mechanics. H2A is relevant to me since only because it's the older-style Halo 343i had involvement in. And it's a specific remake of an older Halo, allowing for a direct comparison of how they handle things. Whereas Halo 4 wasn't following up on Halo 2's original promise to include it. To the map, doesn't matter about praise. I don't really care. It existed for an identical purpose, it's gimmicky. You can argue they're a non-factor but that really only speaks to bias here, lol. H2A's can literally be summed up in the same way as Wetwork. Inconsequential and a pure non-factor. But in this case, one's brought up as inherently negative and gimmicky, and the other is being argued on the basis of it being a non-issue. Can't really pick and choose. It's a literal 1:1 gameplay mechanic. Is it gimmicky, bad, and somehow a point to prove they can't make a Halo, or is it really just a non-issue that is, at best, needless, and not really an issue in the long run and in the core gameplay loop.
  2. No one was talking about belonging, lol. I'm only saying they followed their original plans through, and as such do understand what they hell they're doing. Of course, with this last post I made, I forgot how Halo 2 did have "gimmicky falling rocks" on Wetwork. So H2A didn't add them as a fully new function. They already existed and H2A just executed them on the original arena maps they were intended for.
  3. If by long shot, you mean wading through shit, then yeah, better and still synonymous to the point that Halo doesn't have a good strafe and hasn't until Halo 5's settings enabled us to rocket around like freaks in spite of our joystick limits. Second, nade indicators aren't bad, lmao. Third, we know hitmarkers aren't bad for weapons, they're only funky for nades. Fourth, we also know gimmicky falling ice was part of Halo 2's development, and was included as part of the fact the game's a "director's cut" of the original title. Finally, you ignored the point. Older Halos always had easier guns and magnetism properties and again, always had a shit strafe. HOW shit is up for debate, but it's never been good, and we know this. And we also know Halo 2 specifically has one of the easiest spawn weapons on the planet with a wide-ass reticle, and generous magnetism with it. H2A literally just continued a trend in Halo's basic design. A pretty big part of basic design. Meaning they actually do understand how to make a classic Halo. And not just that, but in the case of the falling ice, they understand their actual original vision enough to capitalize on it and make it a reality.
  4. I don't, luckily. But I certainly recall older Halos having easier (At the most, inconsistent) weapons, and slow-ass strafes along with H2A. Almost as if their remasters carried over their basic gameplay elements to a tee, lmao.
  5. I'll take a whoosh for 500. Lotta this has buttfuck all to do with actual gameplay. And some of this isn't even exclusive to H2A. Like the strafe and mag properties which we know carry over to other older Halos. If anything, the gameplay flaws like that should make it more obvious they understand how to make an older-style Halo.
  6. No, I don't think I could. Mostly because I like varying things in what I listed across varying titles in varying contexts, lol. I don't have a "specific" thing I like for most things. The only thing I can elaborate on is how longer killtimes have more of a tendency to enable better players to dominate bots. Or, rather, show it better. Since you have a full second or so of fighting you can process. And learning that curve on its own is its own reward.
  7. How it can looks, how it feels, the type of gameplay it can enforce at its subjective best, and the gap between those who suck and those who're gods being much wider than some other games. Among other things.
  8. Depends on how said feature's implemented. If it's done better, people will stay, if it's done worse, they'll go. Although, I don't think that'd be the sole driving force. If you added a Halo gameplay feature to CoD, I don't think Halo players would stay or go solely based on that feature's implementation, they'd go because CoD itself is a wildly different beast, already. To the latter, I dunno, dude, lol. People don't watch good H3 tournaments, let alone play it.
  9. I never once said what they actually ended up doing was the good part, just the idea of broadening their staff horizons. Former's just a matter of perspective. Dunno what Infinite has to do with this, though. More so to the point, if it has things I like, and results in me playing it, then obviously it's something a Halo fan wants given I play games in the franchise and tend to enjoy them, lol. Are we gonna start this slippery slope of insinuating who's a true(er) fan and who isn't based on what they like, again? Barring the fact we, yunno, dunno anything about the game, so, lol.
  10. People take it out of context because they hear what they wanna hear, and what suits their points, regardless of how fallacious it is. See it time and time again in multiple environments, across multiple franchises. And I don't see why you wouldn't want a new perspective into things. How these players or designers see things may very well open up the mind to improvements or QoL fixes, rather than just catering to your smaller, niche group of gamers who're only used to what they've played, with large biases. Shifting territory is great with regards to actually improving yourself, or trying to find ways to do new things.
  11. Given they're the ultimate arbiter, they would've provided the instructions for the people with the tools to work. It's not like CA just gets freeroam, obviously there'd be guidelines for a remaster. Point being, they obviously know what they're doing if H2A is what we got. Whether or not they wanted to carry that forward is different than understanding how to do it.
  12. I'll never forget the amount of times this line was taken out of context to suit a point, and how many times that quote's been cleared up already here. When it didn't refer to tanking a franchise (Obviously), but also bringing in people who'd never worked on Halo to bring a fresh, outsider's perspective or potential new avenues of improvement into the series. But you'd never hear that here. Okay, what do they for sure not get about a "classic" Halo. These are the same people who worked on H2A. Pretty obvious they get it, and could imitate and improve upon it to a tee if they wanted to.
  13. Okay? Love it or hate it, the game turned out functional, and as it was going to. This far in dev, and this "close" to release, there isn't gonna be a major shift in direction or development. If it's gonna suck, it was gonna suck regardless. If it's good, it was good in spite of this. Halo 4 didn't turn into MCC, or anything. It was just something people didn't like. Much different than a dip in functionality.
  14. Former isn't a big deal. Happened with Halo 4. Game was great. To the microtransactions, unless they plan to do a weird extra currency thing for loot boxes for a loophole, we're not having microtransaction loot boxes, so AFAIC, it's fine.
  15. Maybe, maybe not. I didn't say that or imply you did. I was just saying the elements brought up seem like one time wonders. Or sometimes somethings you wouldn't notice unless you put a weird amount of emphasis on it. You know, like "those people" who think of High Ground as an intense beach assault map, lol. Tis like gameplay, if added emphasis on movement abilities doesn't make one feel like a Spartan, I don't think adding larpy elements to map design is gonna immerse you, more. You may as well shift the team elsewhere. Unless you can elaborate. There's a big difference, one notable one being AI don't just hinge on the nearest person to them. AI can choose a target far off, a closer one, or someone in between, especially vehicular and sniper based AI. So you being melted by an AI mid-gunfight usually isn't because of a "predictable" maneuver. You didn't have to get too close, could've been with a group, etc, and it could still kill you of all people. As it could likewise aim to your enemy mid-fight and nuke them, despite being closer to you. It's another pretty unpredictable element we don't need to add to the game. A cointoss in a gunfight in any area around AI. With no proper takeaway. The jar of honey example just feels like shooting an explosive barrel to kill someone with extra steps. Something we also know is cheesy shit, lol. Imagine not engaging someone in an actual fight but just luring an AI to them to fight them, so you could get an easier fight/cleanup. It isn't just 5's AI. Every single Halo in some way runs a poor extreme that makes PvPvE annoying. Where, again, it's a matter of being a literal laser, or just being an easy target. Obviously with "maybe" some effort (As if they didn't put effort into it now) behind it, they could make it work, but the past near two decades of Halo's AI being meh between two developers kinda says otherwise.
  16. Why do we want a random third party that can indiscriminately aimbot melt you in the middle of gunfights. Why do we want to make that not only capable of full pathfinding on a map, but also Legendary difficulty. Seriously, do me a favor and stand outside the fortress door on Stormbreak, holding the long sightline down the boxes and rails as the Baron spawns, and sit out there. It's dynamic, so it moves around a large area of the sky, contesting the middle, and will fucking kill you and anyone it sees, be you on ground or in the air. It's one of the most unfun things about the map. Even a normal Banshee is obnoxious. We know this wouldn't exactly be the most enjoyable gameplay experience BY experience. Halo's AI has never been good for this sort of thing. It runs the dumb gamut of being too easy to stomp, or a pure laser. One is pointless to add, the other is just aggravating to fight or be killed by. It also brings in the problem of forcing a solution on the user's end. The AI don't become a cool, dynamic, choice engagement, ala Turok's dinosaurs. They're guaranteed to be on your movement path in some way, so you're either gonna have to deal with them yourself, or hide from them. Which again, is a large issue with PvPvE. You have to take your attention away from flesh and blood, real people fighting you, to engage a computer. Or else you die by that computer if it so happens to reach you. Nothing about that gameplay loop is exciting. It's a chore at best, or cheesy at worst. And it's not consistent. Because an AI could kill you, and give you a free death, or give someone else that death. God forbid you fight Legendary AI. The only godsend of Warzone is a lot of AI combat is outside of the normal areas of combat and engagement, meaning you could go games without fighting them, bar some forced maps. Which on its own pushes the idea of true choice more. And properly segments combat without being intrusive or shit. And to step back a few days. Saying "just don't play this" is faulty-ass logic. What if I like and want a big team mode, and just happen to hate the vehicles in it, lol. What if that's the ONLY option for a big team mode, as has been the case for every single game in the franchise. On one hand, as much as I hate them, I would say, "hey, BTB Lite when", because vehicles aren't actually mandatory for a big team mode, as even CoD shows, but they don't "need" to be fully removed for the whackos who like them. On the other hand, handwaving off a dislike of vehicles with the option to not play doesn't just suddenly eliminate the flaws with vehicles [superb ease of use and power], nor does it actually solve my issue if I want a big team mode without this bullshit in it. Second, there are ways to target the driver on every vehicle but a Banshee, barring Reach's. But, surprise, they're insanely hard to hit, be it due to speed, how they move, etc. And results in superbly increased survivability. Which given their ease of use on top of it (Requiring power weapons to do any semblance of quick damage in most cases), parks them on an OP level in comparison to spawners, lol. Sure, they could design a bunch, and they could design them well. They haven't really done it thus far barring H4/H2A.
  17. Devastator would kick any Megazord's ass.
  18. No, I'm asking why we need a vehicle that just separates into two. Why not just have the one and cut out a middleman that'll probably be redundant, lol.
  19. Lotta this seems super larpy, and probably wouldn't be gameplay feasible. Or, at least, not in a way that would be "engaging" in the long term. Like, ship boarding, invasions, etc. That's a playspace, and there isn't really much you can do there past immersion. The question remains "why". Also, this. AI do this in Warzone, and it's one of the most aggravating things to ever occur in a gametype that's primarily PvP. It isn't fun being melted by or engaged by AI in the middle of a fight with people. It's just corny bullshit. Guarantee you it'd get old really fast.
×

Important Information

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