Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Unless they struck some special deal, Microsoft would want no part of paying royalty fees to Epic when they have their own engine.
  2. Even if the multiplayer has sprint, the sprint looked quite slow. The worst part about sprint in the past is that even if they wanted to, 343 could never really turn it off because the maps were still just completely stretched out and it's not viable to do only forge maps. But with the sprint being so close to the normal speed, that hopefully means the effect on the maps has been minimal and the path to a no sprint multiplayer is much more conceivable. And the only thing that matters with the graphics is that they looked relatively clean. Dirty COD style maps like Ghost Town do not belong in Halo. Less detail the better.
  3. The ability to tweak "feel" is one the most important parts of a console shooter that differentiates it from a PC shooter. It is a legitimate way to create variety in your sandbox, although yes obviously since Halo 4 they have relied on it too much due to redundancy of mid range rifles. But Halo is first and foremost a console shooter, and different aim assist values at different ranges is an important part of balance in any console shooter. And Halo has historically (and even to this day) done a better job of it than any other shooter.
  4. On its face Armor Lock is probably the worst of all time, but as you point out the cancers of Sprint and ADS have been very far reaching and as such have definitely had a worse impact than Armor Lock across games in general.
  5. I don't think just making a better flare animation will ever achieve the same level of feedback hitmarkers do. I just think categorically, anything on the player model is potentially problematic because it can be obfuscated by a number of things, like smoke from grenades/explosions. Or maybe my teammates are shooting the opponent at the same time. Or maybe he has overshield and the flare isn't as visible because of that. Moving hit feedback into the UI just makes for a cleaner more consistent feedback loop. Or maybe I'm ADS zoomed in and there is a weapon model covering up half of my screen.
  6. Yeah, as you point out, shield flare is related but really separate mechanic. It provides you information even without shooting. Shield popping is also really a different mechanic as hitmarkers don't tell you when your opponents shields have popped. You have to rely on the animation on the opponents player model. The lighting/art style in Halo 5 hurts the visual acuity of shield flare, along with such a plethora of armor types. There is just a lot of noise on player models and in the maps in general. Hitmarkers are definitely needed in Halo 5 for this reason. But, even if they simplified the art style and streamlined it for gameplay purposes and made flare much more viable in the process, I still think hitmarkers provide that extra bit of hit feedback that is oh so important to making the shooting experience feel "good", which STEP 1 in making a good FPS.
  7. Shields flare/popping and hitmarkers are categorically the same for weapons. It all falls under the umbrella of hit feedback. Hit feedback has to be minimalist enough to not distract you, but "loud" enough to reinforce your shooting (both audio and visual). I feel like shields flare and popping wasn't quite enough messaging, and the hitmarkers and sound feedback in Halo 5 is the perfect balance. The centrality of the hitmarkers on the screen are vital in my opinion. Sure your enemy is on screen when you are shooting him so you should be able to see his shields flare, but relying on a enemy player model animation just seems too variable to really make the shooting feels crisp (shield popping is pretty noisy, but flare is way too subtle in my opinion). It's a delicate balance. Plus I'm not sure if shield flare is a client side thing (which it might be because it usually seems like it is responding to bullet tracers, which are obviously a client approximation), but if it is, hitmarkers serve a vital role in letting you know you actual did or did not hit that guy according to the server.
  8. It's easily the most competitively viable shooter on consoles right now. Obviously it plays pretty differently from classic Halo, but if you liked Reach, I would say Halo 5 is a huge step up from how it played. Though even with sprint (and all the other design pillars of Halo that sprint has infected), Halo 5 plays closest to classic Halo than any other game on the market right now (save obviously for the MCC).
  9. Based on what they were talking about in the Optic video when heavy aim was brought up, I think it would be worthwhile to try and stress the CPU/GPU by not only testing multiple players in the game, but to specifically test Observers being in the game. That's what the tournament staff member seems to think will make a difference. https://youtu.be/FA9P6DpIFBI?t=12m35s
  10. And here I was expecting some niche montage about 1v1s lol. But nevertheless I appreciated the lack of over done transition animations and that suicide by rocketing you own AR broke me.
  11. Theoretically (and so far practically) it is impossible for a game to play "the same" on one console as it does on another. You will always have slight differences in frame rate and the like (not to mention controller input differences), and especially if you are susceptible to such things it will always "feel" different.
  12. Your rocket example isn't very good because the detriment to firing a rocket blind is huge. You just wasted a rocket. You seem to think the game shouldn't reward blind "random" actions, which is of course impossible for a game to do. The game can't determine what was random and what was purposeful. However your logic makes more sense with actual grenades, because grenades are no where near as costly as rockets to use. I don't think we need to worry about the game rewarding or not rewarding rockets that are shot just to gain information, because that is almost always already a poor decision, since rockets have a much better use. But since grenades are so plentiful during gameplay, the impact of them as position information gatherers is much more significant and should give designers more pause before adding hitmarkers. I think it interesting to note that as you point out, without grenade hitmarkers, getting a callout almost always meant throwing all of your grenades right away. With hitmarkers though, you may be incentivized to only throw one, wait, and then throw another. As much you tried to avoid the word "camp" your scenario is basically "Isn't it cool when people counter-flank camp around corners and punch you in the back?" Anyways, the scenario you have presented is a little different than the one in the OP, but it is definitely something to consider. In the OP example, the general position (depending on how accurate the callout was) is already known. But in this case, players are simply guessing about where a player is based on knowledge about how a map plays, not a callout. In that case a grenade hitmarker is providing way more information. However, even with grenade hitmarkers, player still have to use "common map knowledge and awareness" because they have to know where to throw the grenades. As long as there is a cost to throwing a grenade, map awareness is still going to be a vital skill. Heck even if a player had unlimited grenades, there is still the cost of the throw animation. I'm interested in how you think a player could have smarter "thoughts" and give more "effort" to get the information hitmarkers provide? Changing your position to get a sightline to the called out player is a completely different decision than choosing to throw a grenade. I don't think anyone is arguing it's hard to take out (code wise obviously very easy, determining how it affects the rest of the sandbox would take longer but still not that big of a deal.) However, if you think hitmarkers are "VERY" impactful, what adjectives would you use to describe sprint's effect on the game? "it takes skill away from a Halo game" It's almost as if I disagree with this part of your statement, and made a post on TeamBeyond to drive discussion and argument around this very point so as to see what other people think. At first I thought the "DAE total ImmERZIOn" posts were a joke, then you showed up. The best is when people post talking about how Lebel is the GOAT and CE is the most deep skillful game ever, but if you play them they suck. And then they go post about how Overwatch is so much funzorbs. Even with the COD crap that has infested Halo since Reach, every single Halo sequel has been the closest thing to Halo CE during each game's market lifetime. Nothing else out there emulates Halo CE to the degree that 2, 3, Reach, 4 (even 4), and 5 do. This is exactly right and I think this is the right way to think about it. How does the meta of no hitmarkers vs hitmarkers play out across lots of different gameplay scenarios? This is interesting. It's almost an "immersion" based argument, but I see where you are coming from. Essentially if you can "see" a player (meaning you know where they are), you should be able to shoot a player. This is a compelling line of thought that I usually bring up when discussing sprint. I don't think you can say it takes no cognizance and it's simply "instinct". For good players it is instinct because they have learned the map and understand where opponents are usually hiding. But of course as the skill gap increases, your opponents know that you know. And then you know that they know that you know. And so on.. This "look" argument is similar to the one directly above. Essentially claiming direct visual contact should be the primary (or perhaps only? Depends on what you think about soundwhoring) way of learning where players are. Be interested as well to hear what you think about the indicators on your teammates head that show they are under fire? Same question as above: what do you think about the indicators on your teammates head that show they are under fire? I believe there is a law about online Halo arguments similar to Godwin's Law about Hitler, except this one is called Lethul's Law. Lethul's Law states that in any sufficiently long argument about Halo, a "1v1 me bro" challenge will be issued by someone eventually, and that someone has at that point essentially lost the argument. "Hey Lethul, Huke is better than you." "1v1 me bro". "Hey Lethul, no one likes your awkward face. People think Snipedown is cool." "1v1 me BRO" "Hey Lethul, you like boys and you've never touched a girl." "1v1 me bro. :wutface:"
  13. Obviously they change the gameplay. Grenades can now be used to learn information about opponents even though you can't see them. When you see these hitmarkers, you know now where an enemy is, and roughly how much damage you did. But it's not in any way game breaking like sprint. Halo still plays like Halo with grenade hitmarkers and I like using this bit of feedback in making gameplay decisions. A change in the gameplay isn't necessarily a drop off in skill. For example, take our good buddies Paul the Pro and Nicky the Noob. In the case without grenade hitmarkers, say our players get a callout that someone is hurt somewhere on the map and they throw a grenade. Now Paul may throw a better, more accurate grenade (he is a pro after all), but since he can't actually see where the enemy is hiding, he is just hoping that his grenade landed close to the enemy and did damage. Nicky is hoping in the exact same way. Neither of them have access to the information that hitmarkers provide. In what way is Paul able to exhibit his skill over Nicky in this case? If instead they got information from hitmarkers, Paul, being the pro that he is, will definitely be able to use this information better than Nicky. Utilizing feedback and making intelligently informed decisions on the fly is a key skill in any real time game. Obviously it changes the way you approach different gameplay scenarios, but I don't see how giving players access to information they otherwise wouldn't have had whatsoever is lowering the skill gap.
  14. Not sure if you noticed but this is TeamBeyond not some Quake fan site. Halo is not a "classic arena shooter". Halo is Halo. People hated DOOM because it played like Halo (albeit with loadouts and random powerups as I pointed out). Like I said, nor do I think a whole sale dev change is the answer. Halo 6 is already deep in the throes of production at this point. But I think a spinoff multiplayer only game would definitely be in Certain Affinity's wheelhouse. How was H2A trash? Forget all the failures of 343 in regards to the online experience, the gameplay of H2A is the closest thing we have had to the Halo formula since Halo 3.
  15. I don't think I have to say much to defend the idea that at this point it is extremely clear 343 doesn't possess either the understanding, ability, and/or inclination to recreate classic Halo gameplay. And with Josh Holmes recent departure (who I thought seemed to be generally competent, despite some disagreements I had with him over particularly the issue of sprint), I have lost all hope 343 will ever be able to return Halo to its former throne. I see no possible way that we as fans of a true Halo experience will ever be able to convince the higher ups at 343 that a return to roots is what the franchise needs. If we haven't done it in the 5 years since 343 took over, it will never happen. But that's not to say there are not other avenues. Recently I saw this petition: https://www.change.org/p/microsoft-let-certain-affinity-work-on-halo-6-multiplayer And at first I was as sceptical as you probably are right now. The people who worked on the hot garbage that was the DOOM multiplayer are the answer to bring back classic Halo? But the more I thought about, the more I begin to think this could actually work. The strongest thing Certain Affinity has going for them is they are probably the only studio that Microsoft doesn't own but still trusts to work on Halo. Microsoft entrusted them with the biggest part of the MCC in Halo 2 Anniversary and personally I think they knocked it out of the park. Don't let 343's failings on the matchmaking side of things detract from the fact that H2A played really well. It's ridiculous to think Microsoft is just going to scrap 343 and Halo 6. It's also ridiculous to think Certain Affinity could take on the full development of a game the size and scope of a traditional Halo installment. But an idea I have read a lot on these forums and elsewhere is a that of a smaller scale, multiplayer only experience that harkens back to classic Halo. And that's exactly what Halo 2 Anniversary was. But it's not like they actually created anything new, you say. They just gave us a slightly different Halo 2. I would agree, but at the very least it shows they respect Halo, which is more than you can say for 343. We don't need something so worried about being new that it deviates from what makes Halo Halo. Like any Halo fan, I worship at the feet of Hardy Lebel. But here on TeamBeyond I sometimes see a lukewarm reaction to who I see as another face on the Mt Rushmore of Halo, that being the CEO of Certain Affinity, Max Hoberman. Halo 2 was not a happy accident any more than CE was. The man created Lockout and a number of other classic maps. I think it's safe to say he understands Halo and what's special about it. At the very least he understands what makes a good map, something 343 has been extremely lacking in. He was one of the only guys at Bungie that recognized the magic of CE and had to convince the higher ups there to even have arena style multiplayer during Halo 2's development cycle. https://youtu.be/qQQbGq8TnR8?t=14m40s Still not convinced and think Halo 2 was just a happy accident (just like I was before doing some more digging)? Apparently, according to his company's page http://www.certainaffinity.com/company/ he was the online lead for Halo 3 and Bungie basically just implemented his vision after he left. And while sure it's annoying these days to see Halo 3 kiddies vote for ARs on Valhalla in the MCC, I think it's important to not have a retroactive knee jerk reaction and try to act like Halo 3 was some steaming pile like 4 or 5. Halo 3 was a good game. It was a Halo game. The beginning of the downfall (Halo:Reach) coinciding with Hoberman no longer being at Bungie is not a coincidence. If you still have reservations because of DOOM, recognize this one thing: for all its other issues, the game doesn't have sprint. Crazy no? I remember a certain 343 studio representative telling me modern shooters required sprint, no ifs ands or buts about it. The sad thing is, I'm not sure how many designers are left out there that understand how to make maps and gameplay that don't involve sprint, but I can promise you Hoberman is one. Strip away the loadouts and the random powerups and DOOM actually plays really well. 343 isn't going anywhere and I don't think its possible for us to affect change there. But I think it's very possible that together we can affect Microsoft to, at the very least, let someone else like Certain Affinity take a shot at something that plays like actual Halo. And with the way Hoberman is tweeting recently, it almost looks like Certain Affinity and Microsoft are testing the waters to see if there is any interest. So get out there. Sign the petition. Tweet at Hoberman, Microsoft, 343 and whoever else. It's our time Halo Nation: Let's Make Halo Great Again.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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