Jump to content

Ramirez77

Member
  • Content Count

    1,487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ramirez77

  1. I won't say cutscenes are bad when used properly. Using them too often, especially when it's not necessary to do so, is awful though. Ironically games like Half Life and Bioshock manage to have more storytelling than games like CoD while using almost no cutscenes at all. Because in most cases you can just as effectively deliver story through dialogue, scenery details, etc. that don't pull the player out of interacting with the rest of the game. I think where the modern campaign shooter really falls apart though is in level, sandbox, and enemy design, which is something he only briefly mentions. Every good campaign shooter I can think of has: -Thought provoking level design. Could be non-linear pathing. Could just be something simple like the presence of puzzles. -A tiered sandbox with weak-but-readily-available tools and powerful-but-hard-to-maintain tools. This forces the player to make thoughtful use of their gear and adds another level of depth to the game. Also makes difficulty less static and gives them some reasonable control over it. -Varied enemies with unique attacks, health, AI, etc. Quake, Half Life, Resident Evil 4, Left 4 Dead, Bioshock, Halo...all very different games yet they share many of these common points. Call of Duty fails on literally all of these points. Bland and linear levels. Every weapon you can obtain is extremely powerful, extremely versatile and has tons of ammo so there's no thought put into it. Enemies are all generic hitscan military doods with no real room for counterplay and not very difficult to take down either.
  2. There are at least fifteen battle royale games that have released in the past year or are planned to release within the next year. I expect to see tons of crashing and burning in the near future and we've already seen some of that with games like Radical Heights falling flat on their face. The problem is none of these BR games offer any unique angle over their competition. Aside from notable exceptions like Egress they're all extremely similar. Eyeroll inducing article aside, who would a Halo BR mode appeal to and what would it's angle be? Fortnite but substitute building with vehicles, and hidden behind a $60 price tag for a game that only the small remainder of Halo fans will buy anyways? Was pleasantly surprised with Todd Howard's comments when asked about BR for Fallout 76. At least someone in the industry gets it.
  3. The M6D doesn't just use .50 cal rounds. It uses armor penetrating .50cal rounds with a high explosive tip that is triggered on impact. There is plenty of in-lore justification for it's power. Aside from that I find it more immersive anyways, not less. What better way to show off supersoldier capabilities than have someone accurately land ranged shots with just a pistol? It feels badass and gives the game a cowboy duels in space vibe. 0.6s falls between two extremes of being just slow enough to allow reaction while still fast enough to speed fights along, make reversals possible, and prevent people from just leisurely strolling away from combat. With instant killtimes, you're dead before you can turn around. With 1.2s+ killtimes there's a massive difference between how long it takes you to kill one of them vs how they can (almost) instantly shoot you to death. With 0.6s killtimes it's nowhere as significant.
  4. Don't forget building, but yeah basically. Obviously not recreating the competitive merit of Quake here but the goal is to eliminate the random aspects of the core game while still keeping the experience more or less the same.
  5. Played Fortnite for maybe thirty hours with some friends. It was...okay? Not really something I have any desire to keep playing. I won't call it garbage since I can respect that it's a unique take on it's genre and has developer effort put into it...but I don't think it nearly deserves to be as popular as it is either. I don't get how people can play it so long without getting bored, is it the skins? On the topic of competitively merit, I think if somewhat re-designed Battle Royale could be competitively viable. Two small teams on a symmetrical map that is roughly 1/4th the size of the current map (so large enough for the teams to evade each other but not large enough for it to take hours for them to find each other). Weapons have no RNG mechanics, loot (guns, trees, etc.) always spawn the same in the same locations. Two buses, one per team, fly across the map parallel to each other in opposite directions.. Plenty of decision making on where to land and what items to prioritize, but the actual map and loot is 100% consistent from game to game.
  6. Ce style sandbox. Balance adjusted weapons, non-recharging health, Medkits, no melee lunge. Radar set to Ally-Only by default. More complicated maps that aren't just a barrage of two-level donuts and lanes. Map pickups could be innovated to expand the strategy of the game and add modern abilities without throwing Halo's core gameplay under the bus. Some random ideas for Equipment off the top of my head: Likewise for Powerups: Miscellaneous Additions:
  7. Controlling the items on the map. Sort of, not really compared to games with a much wider diversity of essential items, more depth to combining those items, and faster spawn times, e.g. Quake. Map Knowledge / Route Prediction / Positioning / Situational Awareness / etc. Sort of, comparatively weak. Maps are far too simple, specific killtimes and recharging health allow more mistakes, radar removes the need to pay attention, etc. Class / Ability / Item utilization and counterplay. Nades are pretty much the one and only thing here consistent across all the games. An expendable resource with a variety of uses. Otherwise not really applicable to Halo. No classes, guns are mostly straightforward with no thought required for operation. Knowing when and how to use advanced tech. Ce, H2, H5 Player Spawn Control. It varies from game to game, but yes. All I can think of at the moment.
  8. Most campaigns don't care about delivering a good gameplay experience because they can sell themselves on their story. You play through the story for eight hours completely engrossed in that, then never touch the game again because the actual gameplay was easy and lacking in depth. I totally understand buying the games for their story alone (and I do this), but at the same time I completely agree that 90% of the time they're play once then never again. This isn't always the case though. There are a few campaign games I'll play over and over again because the actual gameplay is solid. Quake 1 and Halo Ce being some good examples. Because they have enough difficulty, enough depth to their maps and gameplay, so on to be interesting each playthrough. Unlike linear military shooter #350189.
  9. I just mean it's beneficial to have that controller when you have four or five abilities (not including melee or jumping which makes it six or seven) and aiming to all deal with simultaneously. Ex. Genji, Soldier 76 Unlike Siege where items are mostly used outside of firefights and you really only have to worry about aiming down sights and firing.
  10. I don't get the love for Halo 4's campaign. It just strikes me as people trying to find anything positive to say about the game. I have no interest in Cortana melodrama, take that away and you're left with just a confused, stumbling mess of a story that relies on terminals and extended universe to fully comprehend, or characters that rely on them to relate to. Prometheans are annoying to fight due to tons of HP and teleporting, and when they die it's not satisfying at all, you're just shooting bullets that bounce off slabs of metal doing nothing until they eventually poof out of existence. Missions are linear. Del Rio was a pointless antagonist and him being demoted essentially just for following protocol and daring to challenge the Chief is pretty dumb. Especially considering how he was actually vindicated in Halo 5. Too many borrowed aesthetic elements and not enough of anything recognizably Halo. The ending has you flying your x-wing ship through a trench of defenses to end up getting force choked by the bad guy who ends up falling off a bridge into a pit, all while very star wars esque music plays. Come the fuck on. The only positive things I can think of to say about it are that Mammoth and Mantis segments were pretty cool and the stakes felt high at certain times. Oh and I guess , not gonna lie that was very well executed. Beyond that though I have absolutely no desire to play the game ever again.
  11. I think it depends on the game. In Siege, CoD, etc. precise sticks and extra buttons don't really matter, but good sound quality is absolutely essential. In Halo 5, Overwatch, etc. soundwhoring isn't as important but the convoluted control schemes will be a nuisance with a regular controller. But uh, get both? Could just pick up a SCUF and one of these.
  12. Just because 343i has moronic ideas about what is and isn't immersive doesn't mean immersion in itself isn't still important. It should apply to every aspect of the game where reasonable. What is so hard to comprehend? I don't like my immersion being shattered by skins that are completely out of place. I can dislike a skin but still not be bothered by it so long as it's fitting. You can have skins that stand out yet still adhere to the basic theme of the universe. Having Olive or Timmy is one thing (worth pointing out they're relatively subtle too). I don't really mind the occasional radical skin. The game being overflowing to the brim with skins that completely shit on any kind of recognizable theme is something different entirely. It's never just one goofy skin. The games always succumb to clown party extraordinaire and I despise it. God forbid I want a game with a recognizable, consistent theme and an ounce of artistic integrity. How pretentious of me. They wouldn't do it because it would cut into their sales. The consumers would be pissed if other people could prevent themselves from seeing their "stand out" golden dildo gun. But yes I do agree completely with this idea.
  13. "Don't like it, don't use it" isn't a valid argument where cosmetics are concerned because I'm still forced to look at other people wearing that ugly garbage. Like shit dude why not just add unicorn fursuits and let you run around as a CoD marine and what not? Don't like it, don't use it, who cares about immersion? All about that cosmetic microtransaction cash flow.
  14. I wouldn't use either. I hate weapon skins in most games. They usually look completely gharish and unfitting to the game they're in. This and this stand out from the default look and from traditional weapon camouflage, but they still look reasonable. Nice, subtle skins with the main colors being typical gun colors and flashy colors only used for accenting. I'd even say something like this is still within reason. Meanwhile what the fuck is this, this, this or this?
  15. Imagine the amount of content possible if developers weren't obsessed with pushing graphics. Studios are big enough now that they could easily put out a game that has the level of detail of Halo Ce yet has a hundred campaign missions and multiplayer maps each. Instead we gotta have more and more level of detail, because the difference between 1440p and 4k textures is SO noticeable on a distant TV as you move through the map at high speeds and as they're buried beneath pointless motion blur mechanics...sarcasm. I'm not saying games should go back to that level of detail. Just that at some point you're making giant sacrifices to filesize and available content only to get barely distinguishable diminishing returns in graphics. Uh, no. He's not. Minecraft has 8-bit textures and extremely low poly counts. That's low detail graphics. ART STYLE would be comparing a 8-bit minecraft texture pack to a completely different 8-bit texture pack. If your point is 60fps, HD resolution, etc...then ALL of the MCC games have that too and Halo 3 isn't special in that regard. I thought Halo 2 had decent writing. Halo Ce had basically no story at all, and Halo 3 was just shit. I don't get how Cortana went from being a minor sidekick to the center of the Halo universe in one game. And now she's the leader of an alien invasion force? It's ridiculous.
  16. I've played Arcane Dimensions (among other Quoth-based mods). The map designs are excellent and I love the new and surprisingly fitting additions, but I just think it's funny to say DooM has bad gunplay yet ignore the flaws with Quake's gunplay which definitely isn't winning any awards and which Arcane Dimensions only partially addresses. I'd recommend the Nehahra mod myelf. The lengthy cutscenes are annoying but the AI is far more intelligent. They strafe during combat, they utilize cover, they have more attacks available, and generally die faster. I was blown away because it fixed a ton of what I thought was lacking about Quake 1's combat after playing it. To get back to DooM though...yeah it's a lot slower than, well, DooM. The game feels like it was primarily designed for consoles and that probably held it back from what it could've been. The combat also doesn't tend to ramp up until you get locked into a small wave-based arena, which kinda sucks. Still pretty much the best modern console campaign games have to offer.
  17. Apparently so is shooting a Death Knight with a super shotgun six times as it walks at you in a straight line. "Actual gunplay." Come on dude. There are definitely better campaign shooters than DooM4 out there. I will say it's the first genuinely good campaign shooter we've seen in a long time, good ones have been extremely rare after like 2011. It doesn't get in your face with constant exposition interrupting gameplay, the upgrade and lore log systems are a nice touch, and the gunplay is still pretty solid with or without the execution system. The level designs are...okay? They're better than average but still complete shit compared to DooM1, DooM2, or Quake 1. Overall still pretty good game.
  18. I don't see Master Chief as central to Halo's identity at all. Especially since for most of the games he's just a silent protagonist that's barely present. Reach has no Chief and yet no one would tell you that the Campaign doesn't feel like a Halo story. I don't have a problem with them getting rid of the Chief (aside from killing him off for no reason). I have a problem with them getting rid of every other identifiable element of the franchise. Flood is gone. Covenant is slowly being phased out in favor of Prometheans. Prometheans look nothing like the Bungie games have established Forerunner machinery to look like. Chief or not I'm no longer playing Halo, I'm playing some generic vs Robots game. @@lofike accidental neg.
  19. Sprint isn't needed for anything. All BTB needs: -Vehicles, particularly transport vehicles. -Mancannons / Teleporters -Maps with actually good infantry pathing like Sidewinder/Avalanche or Danger Canyon instead of large fields from one end to the other players are forced to walk straight across like Sandtrap or Blood Gulch. -Reworked spawn system (spawn near teammate, spawn at location, etc). -Faster BMS wouldn't hurt. You add sprint to BTB and not to arena people are just gonna be like "did muh spartan forget how to run hurr durr".
  20. A port that is given the MCC treatment (60fps, resolution/anti-aliasing boost, etc) would be fine. A complete graphical overhaul...yeah, no. Reach has a very distinctive art style and I don't trust 343i not to shit all over it.
  21. How I perceive most open world games. Like if you took every Quake level, threw them on a grid, and just generated terrain between those levels. What point is being served exactly in not just going straight from level to level? That question is exactly why most open world games come with a fast travel system. People would rather skip all the pointless open space and get right down to the actual levels. Then since the missions are designed to be repeated several times they're generally far more limited in what you can do with them. I.e. I can't jump out of an exploding building and have the rubble block my way back because I'm going to need to revisit that place several times for fetch quests. They're generally of lower quality too since focus is spent developing other playspaces in the game. Like shooting up a Vault is fun but nowhere near as deep as the typical DooM1 map is.
  22. Expansive levels with actual structure to them are good. I.e. The Silent Cartographer, Two Betrayals, The Ark Open world is generally a gimmick and I hope the game isn't heading that direction. You just end up with tons of poorly designed blank space with nothing to actually do in except spend time crossing, and poor mission structure. Personally though I feel like any good campaign should have variety. Giant vehicle levels, enclosed indoor levels, flood missions, deathrun missions, so on.
  23. Well, holy shit. Some very good signs in that trailer and article. So much speculation running through my head right now. Though it would nice if they told us anything about the game at all.
  24. It would have several hurdles to leap to be worth it. -343i is really bad when it comes to updating their games within a reasonable time span. It took them two years just to add a classic playlist and a year just to add Oddball. Oh, then there's the half assed "remix" maps they released slowly over time as well. They need to be way, WAY faster than that for a continuous delivery product to work. -They still need reasons for people to buy the game either way (in this case, reasons to keep playing and thus keep buying skins). The major difference with individual games is if I don't like the latest version of Halo I can always go back and play an older one and/or wait for something better. This isn't the case with a continuous update product unless it has (tons of) legacy playlists. The core foundation also needs to be good and built to last the very first time or else you're just stuck with shit for the next decade. CSGO, not League of Legends. This is something Halo has always struggled with since both Bungie and 343i's design philosophy has been "we don't know what to do with this franchise, let's throw shit at the wall and see what sticks." -They would need a good flow of skins to get people to keep financing the game. The problem is their artists are frankly horrible. Almost none of the armor in Halo 5 looks good outside of remakes of armor from Halo Reach, and their weapon skins aren't very good either.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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