Jump to content

Calvarok

Member
  • Content Count

    1,001
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Something I really like campaign-wise is that they seem to have made a version of promethean knight that is more on an elite's level, less bullet spongey, and the old bullet-spongey knights are now being used for mini bossfights, like Hunters. I think people will like fighting them more when it's rarer. Also I didn't have as much of a problem with the old DMR scope as some folks, but I must admit that the new one looks much more comfortable to shoot through.
  2. I wonder how exactly they're going to handle the AI being useful in combat and not-dying. Obviously there's the whole "you don't want them to beat the game for the player", as well as the more complicated abilities they have to use. Spartan NPCs in Halo 4 couldn't jump or use armor abilities, but I guess they built this new engine w/ player-level AI in mind. And then the whole death thing: I feel like gears-style revives might be the best way to handle that, but I can see a lot of people complaining. Straight up respawning would feel silly, and invincibility can lead to some weird situations as Reach showed. One thing I was already wondering about was how they were going to beef up enemies to counter all the new abilities spartans have. Those abilities combined with four times as many spartans makes me think we'll be fighting a whole lot of enemies. at once. EDIT: remember, "in-engine" doesn't mean "that's how it will actually look when running in the game". In-engine assets are created at super high levels of detail so they can reduce detail as needed to improve performance, since they don't know exactly how detailed they will be able to make it in the final game until it's well underway, and assets take a long time to make so they need to start creating them before they're ready to implement them.
  3. It is very funny to reply to a somewhat considered joke with a boilerplate and uncritical goof. Nice reddit-level commenting skills, bro. Re: current goings-on, it is fine if you think that ranks should have been in the game, but not having them in is obviously a choice, not an outright mistake or failing. You can't fail at something you do not try to do. The majority of Halo 4 is exactly what it was intended to be, which is very different than if it were mostly accidental how it turned out. Which is why Halo 5 was able to take a hard left turn based mostly on a change in design philosophy: the ability to do so was never in question. EDIT: more lore/campaign stuff. I had been thinking pretty much since the end of Halo 4 that they would be trying to introduce more and more new factions of enemies for us to fight, each of them existing separately from the covenant and having their own structure. I don't know why it didn't really occur to me that doing that is kind of a terrible idea. Destiny is basically an example of where that can go: how uninteresting and generalized each faction becomes as the game has to support more of them. It really does make more sense to add more variety to a single faction than to try to make multiple stand on their own. It allows you to do new things rather than making sure all the bases are covered: instead of needing to re-invent the Elite, you already have Elites and can make something else. In the case of something like The Flood, there should never have been an attempt to make them an ordinary enemy in the first place. They should exist as more of a dynamic set-piece hindering your path to an objective and complicating ordinary engagements. It frees them of needing to conform to typical Halo combat dynamics, and they also feel more like what they are supposed to be thematically: an unrelenting force that can only be stopped through performing big-picture actions. If The Terror Of The Galaxy can be stopped by shooting it in the head with a gun, it's just a space zombie. Instead it could be a writhing mass of tentacles and corpses you have to evade: a map hazard that could work in multiplayer.
  4. Lore for 343's Halo is based on Star Wars: -Halo 4 was "A New Hope", which was a fairly well-recieved movie that had flaws which irked a lot of discerning folks. -MCC is "The Empire Strikes Back", a moment of celebration marred by a series of unfortunate events, but ending on a hopeful look to the future. (Halo 5 Beta) - Halo 5 is "The Return of the Jedi", a noble battle to survive, the results of which are yet to be known. - Halo 6 is "The Force Awakens". we don't know shit about it except there will probably be a black guy in it. EDIT: All Halo forums are the prequels. (i liked some of the prequels but they were intolerable for most. (get it?))
  5. It seems like there is a lot of stuff going on. I suspect I know what they are going for with the 117/Locke split: Chief can be at the center of the big conflicts that drive the narrative, while Locke arrives to take stock of the aftermath: make you understand the cost. This is the kind of thing that ODST did really well and would have helped out Reach a whole lot. Halo 2's parallel protagonist approach just kind of makes it worse: now you have no relatable context for twice as many things. I'm interested to see what the Didact and his buddies will look and behave like now, since Escalation basically gave them free reign to entirely reboot him. I'm betting that they'll all be designed mostly as rarer Hunter-level enemies and bosses, and more often be directly supported by Covenant. The concept that he's lacking resources could be good way to justify him getting beaten back and the focus the ending on ONI's reformation. Then in Halo 6 there can be the actual final showdown against him at full strength, complicated by the return of The Flood.
  6. this is months old but I haven't visited the site for a while. Reading over my post I think it's pretty clear I wasn't saying that Halo was as fast as UT, but that the mechanics of a flag not hindering movement or lethality are similar to how that works in UT CTF. Since flag-juggling is basically a primitive form of sprint, it would make sense to allow full movement, since you could sprint with the flag and thus unify those two mechanics. (I am half-joking, you could do a lot with a hands-free flag that modifies the player's sprint behavior)
  7. I'd imagine they'd either go for H2 style flag dropping or go completely in the other direction: no flag on screen, you move freely and have all your weapons. Similar to older arena shooters. But I think the first option is more likely.
  8. How is this comment relevant to my discussion of the motion tracker, proven to work since Halo 1? (two separate counts of avoiding the actual thing being discussed to defensively bring up the typical wedge issues. this isn't debate, this is politics)
  9. how is this comment relevant to my discussion of the motion tracker, proven to work since Halo 1?
  10. "This thing that has always been in Halo sucks" "why don't we change it similarly to how this other game solved the same problem?" "Fuck off, keep Halo like Halo, we don't need more change." Ohhhhhh, I see! 343 just has to make changes to core parts of the game without ever simultaneously replicating anything that has been thought up in the history of one of the longest-running genres in video games. piece of cake, after all when has taking inspiration from anything ever resulted in something good? Tarantino? Who's that? Sports? nah, pretty sure the rules for those developed in a vacuum. In all seriousness, I hope you guys aren't hurting too bad from playing the beta/knowing that it exists. I can only imagine how frustrating basically every aspect of it must be, to folks with your tastes. I think it's pretty cool tho.
  11. h2a forge pieces are causing performance issues? seemed fine for me from the bits I've tinkered around with. I remember Reach not being too hot FR-wise (plus the dumb motion blur that made me feel kinda sick), is it really preferable? Halo 5 forge though... man, I keep forgetting those maps aren't just normal ones with slightly barer aesthetics. Hope I see some cool stuff from you folks when you get your hands on it, even if they don't include the option to play as spartans with stiff backs and technophobia.
  12. yup. we are long past the point of pretty much every basic idea in a shooter being done before. all that's left is to take old concepts and do them in new ways. I was watching Advanced Warfare recently, and it's pretty weird to see so many of the same basic concepts as Halo 5 but designed in such a totally different way. the boost in CoD is basically a double jump, while in Halo it's an airdash. the difference basically means in Halo you have to use your old skills of navigating the environment combined with your new ability to move in a way you haven't before, while in CoD it just makes jumping up to places really easy. That's the main thrust of the differences: in CoD, you get increased power without consequence. In Halo, you get new skills that you need to master.
  13. Halo 4 was criticized by the mainstream for being too much like old Halo. Almost every review of the Master Chief Collection mentioned how weird and old-fashioned it felt to not be able to sprint in the first three games. You guys freak out at the smallest changes, but most people want 100x more drastic changes. Sprint adds what a reloading mechanic does: a physical tradeoff based on a realistic model of how something works. Halo could have been balanced to work without reloading, and removing that mechanic would have made the game simpler, and cut down on the amount of time the player is unable to shoot. It allows you to reload without throwing out what's left in the mag, because it's balanced to allow players to easily reset to equal footing in terms of firable shots. You accept it without question, not because it is the most efficient and simple form of design (it isn't), but because it is something you're used to, you're comfortable with, it feels grounded in the game world, and you are used to it being a factor in Halo's combat. Games are not about reaching an objectively efficient form of conveying abstract types of gameplay. Maybe that is the kind of game you're into, but Halo has never been that. Halo has always been a simulation of a set of easily understandable actions designed to immerse players in the fantasy of being a futuristic soldier. When a designer blogged about balancing plasma stun and invis mechanics in Halo 1, he repeatedly brought up how he took his inspiration from how he imagined Covenant technology would work, and how they would use it. Everything about Halo is based on communicating a fantasy. People who like Halo like it for some part of how it communicates that fantasy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to solely enjoy gameplay mechanics without any of their context, because in that case you're just talking about code interacting with code. A programmer can appreciate code, but they can't enjoy the result of it without comprehending any of the context of what it is. Even a game about controlling a blue dot on a black background to dodge asteroids is only possible for a human to appreciate if they can understand and enjoy the concept on a basic level. EVERY game mechanic is arbitrary, EVERY game mechanic doesn't need to exist. But humans tend to enjoy ones that play into easily relatable fantasies, so most big budget games are specifically designed around adapting said fantasies into a balanced and interesting structure. ALL THAT SAID, it is perfectly valid to fall in love with a certain set of mechanics, and to not be interested in more complex or simply different versions of them. Thing is, time is fleeting, expectations change, and people want what is old to feel new again. That's just the way things go, and spending all your time obsessing over it isn't going to change that. Don't continue to occasionally hook up with your ex after you've fallen out of love with them, go find someone new.
  14. video games rarely show off themselves in their entirety until very close to launch, and even then leave a lot of stuff for people to find. With a project that is segmented into multiple games, the exact same thing is happening, only due to the collective nature of the project, the stuff they've shown is only representative of several facets of the full package. Most of the main polish work for a project is done very close to release. things like H2A and halo 3 were singled out to have portions of them accelerated so they could be presentable to the public earlier. This is the case for everything that was shown at E3 and gamescom. none of those games were just sitting around, completely finished and looking that good in every level and mode. The nature of this project is such that it's not possible to get something representative of the entire package ready to show way ahead of time, and everything is even more down to the wire on account of how many plates are being spun. the modern system of previews breaks down here. creating a visual target for e3 is extra money and time, but if you showed people where you are now they'd react like they did when EA did that at their press conference. people want to see what a game will look like when it comes out, and games don't look like that for a very very long time in a natural dev process. Remember back when screenshots were all we got to see of games before they came out? maybe a tv commercial around launch week if it was huge? some of those games turned out pretty alright. maybe this one will. maybe it won't. it's not like there isn't going to be a billion videos and breakdowns of every conceivable part of it as soon as it comes out. it will be Known.
  15. this looks so much better. very streamlined and efficient. And changing background themes would be great!
×

Important Information

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