Jump to content

MrGreenWithAGun

Member
  • Content Count

    4,293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

9,402 profile views
  1. I agree with you. I am saying why make two games out of one? Having two different games in one, according to 343, breaks "immersion" (like, ya, ah, well, ok). Having rank play much different deserves its own title. Call it Halo MP. Yes, I agree. (Sorry for the confusing grammar.)
  2. lol, you missed where I was going with that. Why have any of that if you take it out for ranked?
  3. i completely agree with your view here, but that wasn't the earlier quote.
  4. Where did 6 go? Did they lose it? Did I miss it?
  5. Well we could restrict Sprint to social, lol... you see where I am going??
  6. I recall a conversation about a half second kill time some time back. I recall being told that if I ever tried the CE magnum I would enjoy it. And that was true. But I still don't think a game with such a high kill time is the best experience. Save a single head shot sniper and things along those lines, most gun fights should take time or you reduce the game to CoD drop when you get shot, and that seems shallow and (for me) leads to a frustrating experience.
  7. Then your demonstration of clamber was misleading, wasn't it? It was to show how you don't need to combine various mechanics around the avatar, but simply use what is built into the avatar. As for your argument of cascading impact on level design, that could be argued for any mechanic. Your comment is clearly through the prism of wanting the game to be Halo. Anyone can talk up Halo because they learn from someone else's work. New IP relies more on a solid understanding of game design theory, and is my goal to be able to grasp and explain. In other words, you don't need to learn theory to say what you like in Halo and why. You DO need to understand and be able to articulate theory if you are trying to teach someone without shackling your conversation on a single title. I could show you how lightning could split a tree with a light show. That's very different than explaining how to create the lightning. You showed how mechanics were used to bring about an outcome. That's very different from defining a novel collective of mechanics and demonstrating new outcomes that give value to why you chose those mechanics. (Novel is the operative word. Anyone can replicate a proven formula like Halo. Someone that can come up with novel mechanics that give rise to truly cool outcomes demonstrates some understanding of the theories of game design you are pointing us toward.) So here is the $M question... do you think the successful mechanics found in early Halo was a fluke of nature, a role of the dice, a hit on the slot machine by Bungie? Or do you think they knew what they wanted and what they came up with was what they were shooting for?
  8. I get what Boyo is saying. I am still viewing your video. I agree designers really need to think fully of their title's foundation (what will make it fun and interesting for longevity) and that the weapons, sandbox, etc, are all means to that end. it is an interesting exercise to IDENTIFY what makes Halo successful theoretically, but your video doesn't really lay any vision for developers to achieve those goals without creating yet another Halo CE, 2, or 3. (I mean, we don't need another CoD, we don't need another Halo, we need fresh IP, yes?) When you say Clamber breaks the clutch play on Orbital, I would disagree. If Orbital had a higher walkway, Clamber would be incorporated with the mongoose, physics, jump, etc., to pull off the clutch play. So Clamber is not the issue, it is a means to the end. Pointing to the Orbital example is like pointing to how lightning hits a tree and makes an amazing explosive sound and light show, yet doesn't do anything to explain how to make the lightning in the first place, which I think is necessary to point a development team toward. I would instruct a development team that their target goal for art and graphics is H3 or Reach. I would explain that the graphics are richly detailed, yet the art is not noisy. The environments are generally bright, crisp, and clear. That would tell them what to aim for and give them samples to refer to. Saying a new title should be easy to pick up but difficult to master doesn't do anything like that. What targets do you define as easy entry? What targets do you define as difficult to master? How would I as a developer understand how to implement your targets in a completely new IP? I agree with this. Pointing to something to say that a theory has been realized doesn't explain how it was realized, how it was implemented. On the other hand, it may be that early Halo demonstrates easy entry and difficulty mastering to a degree that is obvious that it doesn't really require much explaining how to get there. The risk is that you don't see the concepts but look only at the implementation and wind up implementing yet another Halo. It won't get you to understand how to create fresh IP with all new implementations. This discussion has made me think in the theoretical at the beginning of game design.
  9. I think what he was saying is that the theory or idea driving the game design will be the foundation for success, the implementation details are merely what give it unique character within the industry.
  10. I created a video for 343 and CA on how to improve forge for H5. I honestly don't know if they based any of their decisions on my video or they came up with the improvements themselves. But I was surprised that so many of my items were included. Having said that, regarding 343 not frequenting TB for feedback any longer (if that is accurate?), perhaps the question should be, "Is TB a target audience for 343 any longer?" I honestly love Halo, even if it is bad. I would play H4 before most any other game, but it is my least favorite. It feels the most foreign of all of them. Just the armor suits alone seems different enough that it begins to not feel like Halo any longer. When you compare the success of MP only games like Overwatch, Fortnite, and Apex Legends, it seems like development of a story line is not really necessary for a strong ROI these days. But I believe that a story presented through a trilogy of titles would lead players in MP matches to feel more connected with their avatar. That connection I believe is one of the factors that has made Halo a legend. (And the music didn't hurt it either.) But it's the first title of the trilogy that needs to sell the trilogy.
  11. Because it isn't fun? Perhaps the question you need to ask is why is Halo no longer fun? If by 1-life modes you mean you don't respawn, then I can't see how anyone finds that fun. I am not saying they don't, I just don't see how they can. It is frustrating to die and then have to wait to the end of the game and then wait in a lobby yet again to get into a new match. Can you define in very specific terms what you mean by [whatever kind of] "loop" that Halo doesn't exhibit? The key reason Halo is fun for me and CoD and other modern shooters are not is in Halo you don't drop when you are shot. You can keep going and turn the fire fight around. It's the difference between a game of chess, where you are constantly rethinking your long term strategy with every countermove made by your opponent; and checkers, where you essentially have no strategy. That said, I have always thought that CoD is popular because people can enjoy winning even if they have no skill. I would rather lose due to a lack of skill and constantly feel like there is room for improvement than to grind through a crap shoot of who got the drop on who this time. The only draw back is that if the skill match system is failing, then you can get frustrated feeling like you cannot turn the match around. I do think that low skill entry with high skill goal is attractive, but only as long as the game play is fun. I agree complexity is a killer. That is why I prefer H3 over H4 or H5. I wouldn't mind H3 with the only addition of clamber. But I would remove all the rest. The more I play MCC PC, the more I find myself coming back to H3 and Reach 4v4 slayer and objectives. I love the CE magnum and sniper, but I am repulsed at the spawn system in CE and H2. I find myself spawning in front of people who are just waiting for someone to spawn in front of them. Again, no chess, just bad luck.
  12. the only PC MCC crash I have had appears to be with the menu system in mid game, and only once since December. I don't know what happened, I just restarted the game a found a new match. It also seems to have a strong hint of H4 art in it. It looks.... hmmm.... what shall I say?... flat come to mind...
  13. HCE textures are so bland that you can easily see players at range which helps make the entire level feel smaller -- you can more quickly see the details of players at range like they were closer to you. H3 and Reach had the best textures and colors for the balance between quality art and lack of visual noise. The art in H3 has not been surpassed with any Halo title since, and the graphics were well thought out. H2A art took a big step back while the graphics were enriched with noise. In addition, the lighting dynamic range is excessive. Shrine is the worst - there are many areas that are simply too dark that they slow aim and movement on a map that is otherwise very bright. H4 graphics were a step back from H3, but the art was the worst of all titles. Those artists were throwing colors around with what appeared to be no real thought. Reach art was on par with H3, but the colors were more dynamic. Healthy targets for a modern shooter would include H3 graphics and H3 art to keep the game feeling modern while minimizing visual noise.
  14. Where are you getting those stats? I miss pop counters in lobby...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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