Jump to content

Silos

Staff
  • Content Count

    1,544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

About Silos

  • Rank
    Resident Speed Runner
  • Birthday 03/26/1995

Recent Profile Visitors

10,525 profile views
  1. This might be a woosh moment for me, but that's Seattle where 343 is located. Tashi took that photo while out for a run and said it's not supposed to be a tease about event location.
  2. I wonder where this influx is coming from. This happened to me a lot at the start of MCC, but recently in a Facebook Halo 1 group I'm in there's been an influx of people saying they've started receiving messages accusing them of cheating again.
  3. Not to try and nitpick arguments, but I want to explore our definition of crowd control a little more. I'm generally on board for "character not controlling the way I inputted" to be bad, and is usually what I'd define crowd control as. But there's a few exceptions that I believe I'm either okay with, or maybe should fall under a different definition in which case I'd have to change my definition. I'm just going to list a few examples, I'm generally asking for each one "Is this crowd control or something else?" and "Is this bad?" Explosives that push you in one direction or another. The general purpose is to do damage but in a game like Quake or Halo, I've definitely had times where an enemy blast pushed me in a direction I didn't intend, usually the most frustrating being when it pushes me off the map. Hit stun in CS or Valorant. I'm not sure if those game communities use a different phrase for this effect. But basically if you take damage, you move slower. While I do think this is less of an issue in a game where you can die virtually instantly. Things like molotovs have a greater effect than what I believe Xandrith had in mind when he suggested the plasma burn effect on the ground. Similar to the stun effect in H1, but you can still look around with the same speed as before. Cypher's trip mines in Valorant. basically you can place a wire between two walls and if somebody walks into it they're slowed and can only move a few feet away until they destroy it. I'm kind of okay with all three of them, although in a game like Vanquish when the enemies made me literally unable to move I got frustrated. Now in these three examples, you can still look around with the same effectiveness, so maybe that's the difference? But I'd still consider "not moving effectively" to be crowd control.
  4. First of all, I appreciate the very detailed post. I debated leaving some of the general points in the quote, but didn't want it to look like I was cherry picking and I didn't really know what to isolate so I just snipped it all. I strongly agree with what you said about complexity versus depth, I used to think elegance was the most important thing in game design as an outsider looking in, and while my views have changed I'm still a big fan of trimming out the fat of a game whenever possible. So I strongly agree with everything you said regarding as much skill and depth as possible while limiting complexity. If I went back to my original post, I talked about limiting lives as a way to make the game feel more exciting. If I was to rewrite it now and after reading what you wrote, I think I would focus more on the question of "Is the Halo formula engaging" instead of focusing on limited lives, in which case I think skill set like you suggested is a major factor for it being engaging but I'm not entirely sure that's enough. When I think about playing Halo 1, specifically my experiences in a lan setting, and I think about a map like Prisoner. I'm taking in my screen, my teammate's screen, trying to nade spawns, keeping an eye on the clock, and then actually fighting opponents. It's a lot and I find there's an interesting build up and release that I hear usually applied to horror movies, where things are going okay but slowly spin out of control until I die and then the pressure is released. There's a lot of skills in play that I have to think about and mechanically do, and to suggest I'm not engaged definitely sounds foolish. It's also a game where I felt myself fall in love with it more and more as I got better. You mentioned Dark Souls and the new Dooms as single player examples and I want to build on what you wrote with a personal experience in a more casual game. Specifically the 3D Mario games. I don't think any of them are hard to complete, sure there's definitely some difficult levels or objectives but I don't think many people who regularly play games would struggle to complete a 3D Mario game. My favorite was Mario 64 for a very long time because it had the widest set of options for movement and many ways to traverse a level, anybody who has seen a speedrun knows the game looks very different as you get better compared to playing it for the first time. Mario Sunshine was alright, Galaxy though was slow, and the linear Mario 3D Land didn't appeal to me at all. Mario Odyssey on the other hand had wide open levels and fast movement, and while there was objectives to collect every fifteen feet, I felt like I could fly through those levels like I could in Mario 64 and it's now either my favorite or second favorite because I am utilizing some of the same skills I liked so much from Mario 64. Anyway, this is all a long winded way of saying I mostly agree with you, potentially some more self reflection into different games I play could turn me over completely but I would definitely need to think more. I didn't want to forget to respond to this so I thought I'd write out where my current thoughts are at. One specific area I'm struggling with this conversation is what if people don't stick around long enough to find the joy of developing the skillset? This is kind of what I was referring to earlier when I suggested that I'm not sure skillset is enough. Random hyper specific example, but if somebody played ten games of Halo 3 Guardian and in them all eight players ran top middle and shot each other with BRs every life, I don't think they would stick around very long after that session. I guess this is part of having the skill floor low enough where people graduate out of the hyper casual style as soon as possible; or maybe Halo games are just too complex and do a bad job explaining how to play multiplayer to its fanbase? I'm not sure, I have the opinion that a lot of Halo players do stuff like I suggested, even the regulars, which is why I think "artificially" increasing intensity can help. The intensity of seeing zombies run by the door in infection, or the intensity when you spawn with the best weapons in fiesta and you want to get a big multi kill, or the intensity of knowing you can only die once. Kind of artificial, not necessarily increasing the skill gap, but very popular for casual players and can help keep them in the game until they develop the skills needed to appreciate the rest of the game.
  5. I agree a lot of the games have been subpar at launch. I mean Reach performed well but the introduction of abilities could be alienating (and bad abilities). Halo 4 is... Well Halo 4, same with MCC. Halo 5 had aiming issues, otherwise it functioned well but didn't launch with many "important" features like forge, firefight, or regular BTB. The point with the limited lives is that battles feel intense, and intensity helps keep you engaged, although there's other ways to accomplish this intensity and keep you engaged. Large scale games like Battlefield accomplish this by sheer volume. Overwatch I think accomplishes it by having every fight being a coordinated dance with twelve people involved. Battle royales and games like Counterstrike use limited lives. Do you not feel intense gunfights is something desired by multiplayer shooter fans? If so, which Halo games do you feel had the most intense gunfights and which ones had the least? If you feel it's not important, that's fine. I'm curious what shooters you're playing at the moment though that apparently aren't intense and still keep you coming back for more? Personally, I think skill based matchmaking actually helps with this. 50-49 games are infinitely more interesting than 50-20 blowouts, you're also more likely to see the game tied or close throughout the entire match. I think skilled players will also find the game to feel more intense due to fighting over power ups more frequently where less skilled players won't be aware that they're coming up. So while some of that helps, I'm not sure if it's enough.
  6. I love that Ghandi went on to do Rogue Company, I think it's really cool. What do you think the reason is? I think there's an argument that nobody has given it an honest try that doesn't compromise on gameplay elements and with decent funding for quite a while. But I'm curious if there's a more nuanced take I might be overlooking.
  7. I wonder if Halo struggles to keep a population due to the current "culture" of shooters. For a little context, I played a variety of shooters over the last few weeks. Diabotical, Quake Champions, Call of Duty Warzone, Halo 5, Valorant, and a little Quake World last night. Anyway, when I think big shooters right now I think of Counterstrike, Valorant, Call of Duty Warzone, and Fortnite. All of them are incredibly intense in the way that your life matters. Dying in a battle royale knocks you out of the game unless you're revived. CS and Valorant you're only gone for one round, but you're still out for the round and you can be killed virtually instantly. Point is, life and death matters in those games and every firefight you're in feels tense. I'm wondering if this resonates with shooter fans. I don't know, I'm wondering if a ten to fifteen minute game to fifty kills where you're expected to die frequently just feels numbing to a lot of people who play multiplayer shooters. I guess Overwatch would be the exception to this, but Overwatch has so many other elements other than being "just a shooter" where I feel the audience is a little separated from general shooter fans. EDIT: I guess normal Call of Duty is another exception. It still has the almost instant kill times and I think the annual release helps keep it feel fresh. If you play the game by yourself you can still kill effectively even without another teammate helping you in most of your fights.
  8. This is really interesting to me and something I haven't put thought into before. Before we discuss the nitty gritty of some of these things, I just want to say I completely agree with the auto-callout being based on "on screen presence" kind of bites. I thought maybe a better way of handling it would be if you landed damage (not explosive or otherwise around the corner damage, but reticule on person visual damage) then an auto-callout would be made. I have a feeling you may be against that as well based on it still being free information which is fine but I think it would at least be better. What I like about what you suggested is that I think awareness would have to be improved and I think awareness is an interesting skill. I also think "meaningful communication" would have to be improved. One thing I sometimes struggle with in these conversations is that people say communication is a skill, but memorizing callouts on a map and then saying "basement window" when you see an enemy there isn't that interesting to me so I usually lean on the side of give everybody as much information as possible since making simple callouts I think is kind of boring. I never had the idea that communication being boring was potentially due to too much information though. Where if you know an ally's position and the direction they're moving, you can easily figure out which side to pinch from and the timing to approach once you know where the opponent is. Compared to what you suggested, if I hear just a callout I don't necessarily know the best plan of attack without knowing my teammate's position, which means our timing for the collapsing could be out of sync as well. So we'd have to coordinate better and communication would become more important. While I do think it's possible to have better communication than simple callouts (Frosty is great at this in H5), I think most players especially in random lobbies default to just making callouts and I think what you suggested would force that to improve. Is there any other aspect of the game you think would change? I'm trying to think if this would effect the pace of the game or if that would stay roughly the same, but I kind of feel it would have to be tried to know for sure. Also what would your thoughts be about the general LAN experience and screen watching in that environment? Would you be in favor of separating players so they can't see each other's screens?
  9. What do you mean? New multiplayer launches tomorrow, they even have a Ninja skin and a BR mode to go with Blood Gulch. Weird that they skipped playable elites in favor of getting Iron Man in the game, but I respect it.
  10. I'm with you. Where I'm kind of at now is that I'm pretty sure I like a certain "flow" of PVP FPS multiplayer and as long as that flow is in tact I have a good time. Not that other games can't still be good having a different flow, it's just not necessarily my thing. For me; as long as I have to move frequently, have "interesting" encounters, preferably equal starts, and hopefully some way to make sure I can get kills effectively then I usually have a good time. Halo 1, Halo 5, Gears, Diabotical, Duke Nukem 3D, Valorant, even Call of Duty Warzone to some extent (yeah yeah, random battle royale nonsense is in there, everything else is in tact though although there's definitely some droughts of no interesting encounters at all) all meet that description and I've had fun with all of them in recent memory. I don't even care about the "skill gap" much anymore, I just want the game to flow well. Games like Battlefield and Star Wars Battlefront offer a different type of experience that's just as valid, but usually I get bored quicker with them so I only play them rarely. Where will Halo Infinite lie? I'm not really sure, but even if it has all these abilities I don't see why I couldn't enjoy it as much as Halo 5 unless those few "rules" I have are broken, in which case I'll laugh at it with some friends as we play it for one or two nights and move back to the other games we were enjoying.
  11. What's a commando? I see one more little icon on the platform by all the metal squares on the wall (a little bit up and left of the center of the image). Is that a commando, and what does that do?
  12. Is that supposed to be camo in the bottom middle of the map in front of the generator looking thing?
  13. I mean, we're at a standstill then. I can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that I'm right other than speak about my and others experiences, and you strongly disagree and think we're not really understanding in game issues. We notice them in other Halos, but either H1's is more subtle or we're blind to it. I think you have to understand where some of these others are coming from though. Earlier you claimed "Nade tricks bruh stfu you can do just as much as those in other games". There's like one in Halo 2, they're technically possible in Halo 5 but they're very rare to see and are used almost exclusively for just getting a weapon away from the opposing team, and unless somebody can correct me they're not possible in any other Halo. So by definition technically you "can" do them in other games. But you can't do them in all, and you'll almost never see them in other games, in fact I bet most pros don't even have consistent setups to nade weapons to themselves in Halo 5 because it's almost a non-factor. Kind of like how almost every fighting game out there have infinite combos or 100% combos, but for the most part they're effectively not in the game since they get so little use (with some games definitely being exceptions to the rule). The point is. Aphex makes a point about nade tricks, you may not like nade tricks in which case you could take that angle to argue with him. Instead, you decided to just state something that's basically wrong. So you don't seem to have much experience with the franchise, and you have admitted that you have little experience with Halo 1. So you're wrong about nade tricks, and then you state that Halo 1 has issues registering shots. Why would anybody believe anything you have to say regarding how Halo 1 shoots when you claim you don't play it and you also don't really understand other mechanics of the game? I don't mind trying to re-interpret unpopular opinions because I have some myself. But despite the numerous times I've stuck up for Halo 5 or Halo Reach on this forum I have never once received the backlash you have received on your posts. If you're just baiting, that's fine it's whatever. I was able to write my post about the nuance of competitive Halo culture and how certain values were decided on years ago, a post I've thought about for a while. But if you're honestly thinking people here just don't like outside opinions, you're wrong.
  14. In MCC, inconsistent nonsense plays a part I 100% agree. Playing on LAN though, legit missing. I would feel confident in it because if I line up my shot and strafe in the same direction the other person is moving, I don't think I've ever had an instant where one or two bullets hit and the rest missed.
  15. People have mentioned the difference in "average bullets to kill" before. Time to kill can be an effective measure as well. Do you not think this is a good way to measure difficulty, and if not how you would you measure difficulty? I do think the level of the player you're playing against can change this metric, for example I think if I get matched against platinums in Halo 5 I'll land a lot more perfect kills than if I matched against Frosty. But in my experience, I miss a lot more in Halo 1 than I miss in any other Halo game despite the fact that I have to shoot more often to get a kill in other Halos.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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