Jump to content

Gobias

Member
  • Content Count

    2,263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Gobias

  1. You would have to make the projectiles way slower than previous Halo games, like I said in my first post. McCree 1v1s are probably only satisfying in context of how much more bland the rest of the game is. I can’t refute anyone’s experience of having fun with it, but I believe there is much more compelling gameplay to be had on PC. Complexity is fine if it’s relatively easy to understand. Aiming with a stick isn’t much harder to understand than aiming with a mouse. It’s just much more difficult mechanically. This adds the opportunity for hitscan or fast-projectile weapons that are inherently hard to use, bullet magnetism that can make projectile weapons harder to use at close range, and a greater emphasis on placing shots instead of just aiming. Having your gun’s actual direction differ from your on-screen reticle like in Halo CE isn’t as simple as normal aiming, but it, but it makes shooting way more satisfying and interesting. The headshot mechanic doesn’t add much depth to pistol battles, but it sure as hell makes them more fun. And I haven’t heard a good solution for making sure the sniper isn’t broken with a mouse. The controller adds more opportunity for interesting weapons in a game like Halo that’s not focused on traversal movement.
  2. Maybe it’s just me, but clicking on other players with a high rate of fire semi-auto just isn’t very interesting. It’s barely interesting doing it with a slow-firing weapon like the railgun or the stakegun (fast projectile sniper) from pre-release Reflex. There needs to be more, imo; otherwise it’s just a boring version of Unreal Tournament with regenerating health. Not very appealing. Also, you can’t deny that console aiming is more complex than mouse aiming. Mouse aiming can be completely muscle memory, but controller aiming always requires timing. I think this complexity adds a certain character to the feel of shooting that is well suited to a slow game like Halo. Whether or not the mouse as an input method is “fine,” the controller will always have more potential to be fun, given appropriate aim assist and bullet magnetism mechanics. Edit: Just to clarify, I’m not saying a controller would necessarily make other PC games more fun. It’s just much better suited for Halo. But in Quake, for example, the weapons people complain about the most are the railgun, machine gun, and lightning gun, in that order. All hitscan weapons that can feel overbearing if made too powerful because they’re not very interesting to aim/shoot. The lightning gun isn’t that boring imo because you have to lead it over your target when moving your mouse because of the intermittent instantiation of the lightning cells, but games like Warsow, Reflex Arena, and Quake Champions have boring true hitscan, raycast LGs with no such limitation.
  3. Spamming any of Halo’s utility weapons with mouse and keyboard feels like shit. It even feels awkward with the Enforcer in Unreal Tournament. Sitri’s point about PC shooters generally not having spammy semi-autos is relevant because there’s a reason they don’t... it’s not satisfying. As he said, there would need to be at least some retooling of those weapons. Slower rate of fire, relatively slow projectiles, and 100% velocity inheritance. For Halo’s shooting to feel compelling with m+k, it would need to be less about clicking on the enemies and more about placing your shots. Console Halo should return to this as well, but it’s even more important for m+k because there isn’t as much depth to aiming—there are at least two degrees of depth with a controller because aim position is dependent on stick deflection and time, whereas it’s completely dependent on the mouse’s relative position. In Halo CE, there’s arguably a third degree of depth because the speed of your aim determines how much you have to lead over your target as a result of the 180 glitch.
  4. Do we really have to complain about the MCC in this thread, in 2018?
  5. “Yeah, but then viewers would be confused by having different respawn times in slayer and objective modes. The gaming environment is different now. We can’t risk not appealing to that group.” The universal respawn time is a classic example of achieving nothing while trying to compromise with everything.
  6. Back in the day, developers’ only chance to get you hooked was to make the gameplay addictive. I think that was a better experience as a whole. Now they add incentives to grind and gamble. They often don’t respect your time and they don’t even respect the merit of their own games enough to let you decide for yourself if it deserves your time. It probably stems from the glut of games released today as well as the fear of being different.
  7. It's probably just me. I can't look at a shooter game any other way. When I say it felt like just another military shooter, I meant how it felt to move and shoot. And obviously that's going to be the case since they want really accessible gameplay, but my first impressions of a game depend a lot on the basics. It's the same reason I knew I didn't like Lawbreakers in the Alpha when most of the characters felt sluggish. I'm sure the it's a fun experience, but even if I consistently got in the top 10 in FFA I don't think it would have much meaning for me. I get more excited thinking about a 2012 iPhone ripoff of Halo/Quake that no one plays anymore, because it felt really good to move around. Anyway, I made sort of a drive-by elitest post in the first place and probably shouldn't have been a Negative Nancy. From what I've seen, Fortnite looks like a much better-crafted experience than Battlegrounds, although I think first-person would be a great addition. I just have a hard time not being competitive at all times.
  8. Tried it at a friend’s house. It felt like just another generic military shooter except with no control over my weapons/equipment. Sure, I guess for some people it’s fun to hide in a bush, wait for everyone to kill each other, bait a supply drop, and be the last one standing (I watched my friend do this). But I prefer games that reward you for moving, which is probably why I have about 15 arena FPS games on my computer. The Battle Royale trend is kind of interesting. All of the stuff that people complain about is intentionally designed into the game: camping in third-person, random weapon drops, unfair/unpredictable battles. And then you just force people together in a ring and hope it works. It’s the opposite of what FPS started out as and yet it’s the biggest and most hype-inducing experience out there. It’s like the lottery... you might not have been into it in the past, but once it blows up you know it’s a big thing and it’s all everyone is talking about.
  9. Damn those clips were sick. A good variety too. I need to start playing PC again since I haven't played on that map that uses the Timberland palette, and I want to try out the Bloodrun remake (Atlas, I think?).
  10. There's a pretty good GDC talk from Jaime Griesemer about how the design of the Halo campaigns kind of revolved around the plasma rifle: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014704/Design-in-Detail-Tuning-the . Lots of little tidbits plus some points that make you think about modern Halo in comparison. I took some notes on it a while ago in case people want the highlights--I was looking for some good quotes from a Halo designer to put in a giant post of mine I never finished. I also included some notes from a GDC talk about the sniper rifle RoF change from H2 to H3, and the quotes are pretty golden when you think about H5. I think I did this right after the semester ended, so I was still in note-taking mode.
  11. Thanks for your input. I managed to get five copies by buying a four-pack for me and three others and subsequently buying a single copy for the last person. Apparently they don't let you buy packs if you already own the game because people would keep them in stock after sales end and sell them off at a profit, which already happens with single copies a fair bit
  12. I still have hope for Diabotical. But I wish there had been a larger effort to make a pure arena game. Lawbreakers currently has fewer players than UT 2k4 or even ’99. Quake Champs made a really bad first impression because of both game design and performance. Toxikk launched with so few maps. All of them had poor marketing, except maybe QC but the concept of the game was panned in that case. And yet there are more AFPS games on the way. INSIGHT, Arms of Telos, and arguably Midair. I don’t know what the solution is at this point. Maybe there needs to be a really simple arena-style game. Something with easy movement and hard weapons. Perhaps a focus on free-for-all modes instead of team games or duel.
  13. I'm a big fan of AI-controlled enemies that can be defeated quickly if you get into a flow. Halo 1 does it really well, in part because of the weapons. You don't have constant access to an easy hitscan rifle. On Legendary the Covenant have really powerful weapons, but you can also dodge pretty effectively. There's evidence that players believe stronger AI are smarter. You can make the AI satisfying to defeat by making them appear smart, but not to the point of frustration. For instance, in at least the old Halo games, the AI is programmed not to be as tough when you're trying to run away or hide. They're not relentless. Side note: I've believed for a long time that loadout customization or classes make every scenario less fun than it could be in multiplayer because you can't design optimally around multiple weapons and abilities. I've never played Destiny, but maybe the ability to customize your playstyle increases the rate at which you habituate to fighting the enemies in single player.
  14. Question: I’m trying to buy a game on Steam for myself and four others. There is a four-pack on steam for super cheap. Is it possible to buy the four-pack for myself and three others and subsequently purchase a single copy as a gift for the last person? I know you can’t buy a pack after you already own the game.
  15. It wasn’t rushed. They just didn’t complete what they wanted in the time they were given.
  16. “Halo needs to evolve, Halo 3 was so slow” Ok why not just have a faster base movement speed, better strafe acceleration, and a higher field of view instead of sprint/thrust? “Lol now I know you’re a Halo hater, you just want Halo 2.5 [insert ridiculing GIF]”
  17. Yep. Enhanced mobility has a very narrow target audience. At a low level, the extra button presses and the complicated control scheme make it harder to try to move fluidly. At a high level, you can do fewer combinations of actions simultaneously than if you just had a faster base movement speed and a higher jump. At all levels, your mind is being taxed by having to use the abilities, and there’s evidence that more complicated manual tasks reduce critical thinking effectiveness. Movement abilities don’t just dumb down the game by being crutches. They dumb down the playerbase by being redundant drains on our mental resources. Halo should be about fighting against players instead of fighting against the game.
  18. It took me 4 or 5 replays before I could see a slight shimmer for a fraction of a second. I guess it’s a good thing camo is harder to see on MCC (for the most part) since the weapons are so much easier. But of course the camo glitches negate this.
  19. But just imagine if you had spent that time on writing over 9,000 words about how to fix Halo. Think of the impact you could have made
  20. “MCC works fine for me though.”- Someone who only plays Halo 4
  21. The key benefit of projectiles is an easy way to implement scalable bullet magnetism (not aim assist like Halo 5 because that’s legitimately jarring). CE is great because you have relatively equal difficulty at short and long range, with a sweet spot in the middle. At long range there’s a ton of b-mag, but your opponent has time to strafe away if you don’t lead your trajectories correctly. At short range you have almost no b-mag and travel time, and you have to whip your reticle further past them for your gun to lag onto them in time. Halo 5 does this but with aim assist instead of bullet magnetism. The result is shooting that is forgiving at all ranges, but that feels bad in close and long range because of aim assit changes at close range and a terrible zoom for the Magnum. If Halo CE’s bullet magnetism system could be added to a hitscan Halo game with a dependence on distance instead of time, that would be an acceptable compromise.
  22. In the case of Quake, I don't think you can make the claim that casuals wouldn't have fun with it because it was already dying by the time the modern casual gamer on PC was invented. It's a decently fun game at any level if you're playing with roughly equivalent skill levels. The modern casual expects the entry into a game on a social level to be effortless, and arena shooters have never been accessible in that way because of lack of infrastructure, lack of population, or both. So I would say that Quake's failure to appeal to modern casuals is not caused by how competitive it is at a high level. There's just been no good attempt to bring them in, and it might never happen. I don't know much about Gunz, but it looks like a game that only becomes fun when you cease being a casual player. And I think it's silly to bring up Starcraft because it's not the same type of game or audience. As for Halo CE, I see what you're saying, in a sense. The movement skill gap is obviously outclassed by many PC shooters. The gun skill requirement is less. But the relative outcomes of engagements still have good distinction between good and great players. There are choices made for the game to be extremely accessible in omparison to those PC shooters, but the competitiveness of the game isn't lowered by much as a result, and the skill ceiling is not in sight. On top of this, the creative potential in Halo 1 destroys what Quake has for team gametypes (although it's a close call for Quakeworld), if not duel, and I would wager the same against Gunz, Unreal Tournament, and Tribes. The spawn system and grenade physics create a significant skill gap at a high level, whereas movement mechanics in PC shooters don't have a huge amount of impact on the skill gap at a high level even if the skill cap is extremely high. For instance, Smilecythe has the best movement skill in any arena shooter by far, yet he isn't at the top in any of the larger games (I'm counting Reflex as large) because other factors are more important if you want to get by at that level. My point is, making a game accessible doesn't need to have a large negative impact on competitiveness. Does that mean I would remove advanced movement techniques from Quake to make it more accessible since (in my opinion) it doesn't have the largest effect on high level play? No, and that's because the movement helps make the game more fun at a high level, not just more competitive. And I don't think Quake would get any more fun for casuals if you removed those mechanics. Just an example. Trimming the fat in the weapon sandbox would make designing it so much easier. Having more than two or three precision weapons makes it much less feasible to make them function somewhat distinctly without wreaking havoc on the balance of the sandbox. Same with having more than one or two automatic weapons with random spread and high magnetism, or having more than one or two power weapons that give you free kills. Every sequel has more and more weapons fit into the same number of roles or fewer.
  23. Quality isn’t the only factor. Accessibility is almost as important these days. Quake is the least accessible type of shooter out there, and all of the Quake clones have varying levels of quality, which is partly dependent on the low starting population. (We’ll see where Diabotical takes the formula.) Halo 5 does not excel in either category. This is upsetting because Halo CE was high quality and very accessible. Hence my recent forum posts.
  24. I introduced my real life friends to Halo 1 and they thought it was super fun despite the skill gap (i.e. me winning almost every game). We now play CE exclusively for more than two players instead of Smash 4. I then introduced them to Halo 2. Immediately they were saying it kind of sucked. They felt it was really slow in comparison—the kill times, movement speed, field of view, everything. They were also confused why almost every weapon was useless and why the sniper and BR were so easy. Another problem was the reduced visual clarity, which was compounded by the lower FoV. I can only imagine how they would have felt about any other game in the series. The “thirty seconds of fun” quote was about the following: do something for thirty seconds, then move onto the next thing. You’re forced to move on because of the need to reload, recharge shields/health, find more grenades, or get a new weapon. I think it works so well in CE multiplayer because things actually reset since battles are resolved quickly. You’re not wasting time trying to track down some guy that ran away. Conversely, you don’t waste time trying to run away. You kill or are killed and you move on. And there’s always a powerup coming up soon to start it all over again.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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