Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Hard Way said:

Campaign mission structure should try the Syphon Filter: Omega Strain approach. Missions are self contained (non open world). Each mission has several objectives, most of which are failable. Missions are non linear. You can tackle the objectives in any order you want, and figuring out the optimal order is part of the fun. You could even have different insertion points within the same mission. Let co op players start from different insertion points. Make “par times” and “par scores” a big fucking deal (leaderboards and unlocks). Make optional objectives from one mission have massive ramifications in a later mission (based on the most recent time you played the mission).

Oh, and you get one fucking life.

This still goes into the world of “what now” what now after I’ve done those missions? 

  • Toxic (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, calberto said:

What do non-linear/RPG campaigns add that increases their replayability?

IMO a well designed linear campaign has a lot of replayability value, just maybe not for the externally motivated..

To this day, I have never played an open world/RPG game more than once but I regualry replay good linear cmapaigns/certain missions

Story missions, side quest, loot to gain. Good examples of this are Spider-Man, god of war, and any open world game. 

What does externally motivated mean? 

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Most of what makes a game replayable is choice and challenge.

RPG mechanics (i.e. branching class systems) and open world levels are one way of introducing choice...IF they're executed well.  They're not some magic bullet that solves everything nor are they the only means of introducing choice.  I mean just see how most Skyrim playthroughs devolve into stealth-archer at some point or another.

A linear-mission shooter can be plenty replayable if, like say SPV3, it has plenty of minute to minute gameplay choices like what weapons you choose to deal with which encounters or which paths you decide to take to reach the end of the map.  Do I save my Sniper Rifle to kill the Zealot for their Void's Tear then swap my Sniper out for a Magnum to pair with the Tear for easy headshots?  Or do I instead swap the Sniper for the Shotgun, kill the Hunters with that, use their Fuel Rod to deal with everything else?  Do I take the long path around the island or try to brute force my way through the center?

The problem with MOST linear-mission shooters is they're instead more like CoD:  you walk down the same corridors shooting the same unchallenging AI with the same generic guns, you're never mentally stimulated or challenged, and it plays out nearly the same every single time.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Arlong said:

Story missions, side quest, loot to gain. Good examples of this are Spider-Man, god of war, and any open world game. 

What does externally motivated mean? 

Overbloated Checklist Crap that makes the Experience Consumably inflated with Noise compared to the refined and cohesive set pieces and enriched spectacle provided by a more linear product. you seem like who needs hours of immersive padding to justify your product. i lost this mentality years ago. I'd rather play a game that is enriched and finite than a game that mechanically dwells for the sake of time sync consumption and fake digital material worth. non essential activities are an occasion at best. Open world Service crap has mediocrity in the recipe and was better executed back in the day with limitations and ambition but even then every single open world game ever made has had complete excess crap that it doesnt need to a fault. You know how I unlocked all those Spider Man Costumes back on the Ps1 I played throught the main stage missions various times various difficulties and doing alternate things to get unlocks which then encouraged replaying it even further with the unlocks. Now i have to take fucking selfies and play as mary jane and stand and help a Fake spiderman not get graped by crooks for 10 minutes and then sit on the bus with everyone and take more selfies. a Spider Man Simulator is a Spider Man Simulator and Maybe the Former sounds redundant to you but to me anymore finite Quality isn't redundant, Quantity is.

I didn't even mention the Super Man 64 Ring dwelling. But i'll stop picking on insomniac 
 

  • Downvote (-1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Holy cow. Someone really hates when games make you explore to unlock things huh?

 

P.S. 'Open World' games like Witcher 3 shit on Halo campaigns. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Arlong said:

Story missions, side quest, loot to gain. Good examples of this are Spider-Man, god of war, and any open world game. 

What does externally motivated mean? 

I probably used a wrong translation but what I mean is playing a game because you enjoy the gameplay/because it's fun vs. playing a game because you want to achieve an external goal (getting the next REQ pack/loot drop, etc.). Every game has factors that contribute to each form of motivation but newer games rely on external motivation (loot etc) too much.

  • Story missions are the very core of non-linear games...
  • side quest: if it's a good/fun/intersting mission, make it part of the regular campaign, if it's just a way to increase playtime by 30min., then it's not really worth it anyway... if you want to include "cheap" side missions, replace them by stuff like Spartan Ops.
  • Loot, as I said, playing for loot isn't even worth the time for me...

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, calberto said:

I probably used a wrong translation but what I mean is playing a game because you enjoy the gameplay/because it's fun vs. playing a game because you want to achieve an external goal (getting the next REQ pack/loot drop, etc.). Every game has factors that contribute to each form of motivation but newer games rely on external motivation (loot etc) too much.

  • Story missions are the very core of non-linear games...
  • side quest: if it's a good/fun/intersting mission, make it part of the regular campaign, if it's just a way to increase playtime by 30min., then it's not really worth it anyway... if you want to include "cheap" side missions, replace them by stuff like Spartan Ops.
  • Loot, as I said, playing for loot isn't even worth the time for me...

Please not another repeat of Spartan ops

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, OG Nick said:

Holy cow. Someone really hates when games make you explore to unlock things huh?

 

P.S. 'Open World' games like Witcher 3 shit on Halo campaigns. 

There are very few open world games like The Witcher 3. In fact, only one comes to mind: The Witcher 3. Most open world games are not that.

Open world games are generally much more interesting in theory than they are in practice. To date, I can think of very few that actually manage to create consistently interesting content to match the scale of the map. What happens instead is that simplistic, modular mission formats are copy-pasted dozens of times with different dialogue and different waypoints. There is a distinct feeling in many of these games that the map was designed first and the content super-imposed on top of it. I think this tends to be far less memorable and by the time you've finished an open world game that takes a minimum of 30 hours to complete, there is little motivation to go back through the same forgettable missions again.

Open world games also tend to have an issue with direction and pacing, because they are designed in such a way as to mostly allow the player to do whatever they want whenever they want. This also negatively impacts their capacity for meaningful choice, because there are few consequences or trade-offs most of the time. You end up with awful mechanics like the level scaling in Elder Scrolls and Bethesda Fallout, which largely ruin any sense of difficulty balance or progression to create a world that revolves around the player's whims.

Self-contained levels allow for much more focused and finely tuned synergy of game systems and spaces. I hesitate to use the world "linear" in this case, because most open world content is fundamentally linear in structure. Good "linear" levels can account for multiple approaches and play-styles. The can force meaningful choices. They can offer multiple distinct paths. They can be interconnected in different ways. Approaching objectives in a different order can be a meaningful decision in a way that it generally is not in a wide open map.

I think the best case scenario for open world games is a systems/simulation-driven sandbox approach, but even that can largely be accomplished best by open ended level design on a more manageable scale (e.g. immersive sim games like Prey 2017). All open world tends to bring to the table is a lot of empty space and mandatory travel time (padding), which I think is largely acknowledged in open world game design, given the prevalence of fast travel. I don't consider the ability to fill that space with more bland content to be much of an advantage either.

I would be much more likely to replay the Resident Evil 2 remake than any of the Assassin's Creed games.

  • Like (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JordanB said:

Please not another repeat of Spartan ops

I still think the idea was good, the execution was bad

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, arglactable said:

There are very few open world games like The Witcher 3. In fact, only one comes to mind: The Witcher 3. Most open world games are not that.

Open world games are generally much more interesting in theory than they are in practice. To date, I can think of very few that actually manage to create consistently interesting content to match the scale of the map. What happens instead is that simplistic, modular mission formats are copy-pasted dozens of times with different dialogue and different waypoints. There is a distinct feeling in many of these games that the map was designed first and the content super-imposed on top of it. I think this tends to be far less memorable and by the time you've finished an open world game that takes a minimum of 30 hours to complete, there is little motivation to go back through the same forgettable missions again.

Open world games also tend to have an issue with direction and pacing, because they are designed in such a way as to mostly allow the player to do whatever they want whenever they want. This also negatively impacts their capacity for meaningful choice, because there are few consequences or trade-offs most of the time. You end up with awful mechanics like the level scaling in Elder Scrolls and Bethesda Fallout, which largely ruin any sense of difficulty balance or progression to create a world that revolves around the player's whims.

Self-contained levels allow for much more focused and finely tuned synergy of game systems and spaces. I hesitate to use the world "linear" in this case, because most open world content is fundamentally linear in structure. Good "linear" levels can account for multiple approaches and play-styles. The can force meaningful choices. They can offer multiple distinct paths. They can be interconnected in different ways. Approaching objectives in a different order can be a meaningful decision in a way that it generally is not in a wide open map.

I think the best case scenario for open world games is a systems/simulation-driven sandbox approach, but even that can largely be accomplished best by open ended level design on a more manageable scale (e.g. immersive sim games like Prey 2017). All open world tends to bring to the table is a lot of empty space and mandatory travel time (padding), which I think is largely acknowledged in open world game design, given the prevalence of fast travel. I don't consider the ability to fill that space with more bland content to be much of an advantage either.

I would be much more likely to replay the Resident Evil 2 remake than any of the Assassin's Creed games.

Ever played lord of the rings shadow of war or Mordor? 

Share this post


Link to post

Remind me again how people wanting to overhaul the Halo campaign into something like [insert cool, completely unrelated game here] is any better than NuBungie and 343 remaking Halo multiplayer into a class based shooter several years ago?

  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Larry Sizemore said:

Remind me again how people wanting to overhaul the Halo campaign into something like [insert cool, completely unrelated game here] is any better than NuBungie and 343 remaking Halo multiplayer into a class based shooter several years ago?

Because the campaign is one thing with classes, rpg elements that wouldn’t suck with them implemented that’s why. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Arlong said:

Because the campaign is one thing with classes, rpg elements that wouldn’t suck with them implemented that’s why. 

Want to bet? The two Halo campaigns that have dabbled in class-based combat - Reach and H5 - are the two worst campaigns in the series thus far. There is PLENTY of room to go wrong in that approach.

Somebody please explain to me why you would want to overhaul the format of campaign mode because reasons (d00d witcher 3!!1), when you crucified the devs (and rightfully so) for doing just that to Halo multiplayer. (And if you didnt tear 343 a new asshole for what they did with H4, then I'm inclined to chuck your opinion in the trash regardless.) TONS of people play and replay the Halo campaigns, and would be pissed off if it was converted (again) into something unrecognizable all because the devs were just too enamored with some other cool game they saw somewhere. There is an alarming lack of self-awareness on here right now.

  • Like (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Larry Sizemore said:

Remind me again how people wanting to overhaul the Halo campaign into something like [insert cool, completely unrelated game here] is any better than NuBungie and 343 remaking Halo multiplayer into a class based shooter several years ago?

The last three campaigns have sucked tremendously and people are looking for an easy way to fix it, so they think of the last good campaign game they played and then want to copy paste aspects of it to Halo. A very 343-esque approach to game design.

Can open-world work for Halo? Absolutely. But what was ever wrong with a guided mission + storyline structure? Nothing. The missions just became boring and stale, the enemy AI became pathetically stupid in recent games and the story became terrible because the writers suck and wanted to shoehorn in tons of flat characters for "fan service".

Can't we improve on those aspects before we throw linear missions into the garbage can?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Every time I see the words "open world" in a shooting game I immediately lose interest. It is impossible to make interesting, unique and story-driven encounters without a linear or "wide pipe" approach. Even GOOD open world shooters like Far Cry 3 use linear areas to completes story missions. The levels "Halo" and "The Silent Cartographer" are fantastic examples of "wide pipe" campaign design: Open enough to feel expansive, closed enough to remain interesting.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Halo 3 ODST was fantastic. But then again, that game was only semi open world (didn't truly become "open world" until 2 out of the 6 Mombasa Streets missions were complete), and didn't have a whole lot of real estate in the hub world compared to most games of that type. So it might be just as accurately described as "wide pipe". It was a small spin-off game that wasn't trying to blow people away with some big, stupid, gratingly epic, galactic scale nonsense, which Infinite will more than likely be trying to do (if it's open world) and will more than likely collapse under its own weight as a result.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Did people actually hate halo reach’s campaign? Like the only complaint I remember about it was “no MC” and that’s it. H4s campaign also wasn’t too bad. Now h5, that was really bad, gameplay and story wise.

Id like to see a quality reason to dislike halo reaches campaign because it was pretty fun to play. It also had that one weapon that would nuke stuff, which was cool. First halo campaign that ever had animals(I know ce originally was meant to have wildlife and it was cut out of the game, but it still counts as not having them in) , like honestly there were some exciting moments.  Also if you like “dark story” that campaign was dark as hell. All the Spartans dying, and then having a last stand was great. It also was fun how whatever armor/color we had on would be how our spartan looked. 

Oh and first halo game to have campaign match making so if you like to play coop(like me) it’s a struggle to get friends or fandoms to play with you, but reach made it so that wasn’t the case. Honestly 343 needs to add campaign MM back into halo.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked Reach’s campaign.  Designing Firefight arenas that double as campaign areas was genius.

Share this post


Link to post

I’m guilty of suggesting Halo reinvent the campaign wheel. Halos campaigns after CE have always been a one-off for me. I’ve had almost no reason to go back to them. I just really miss a certain type of mission structure in shooters that you don’t see anymore. I think it’d be cool to see Halo try it, but Larry makes a good point. It’s probably not worth the turbulence, even if they nail it. Someone else needs to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Hard Way said:

I’m guilty of suggesting Halo reinvent the campaign wheel. Halos campaigns after CE have always been a one-off for me. I’ve had almost no reason to go back to them. I just really miss a certain type of mission structure in shooters that you don’t see anymore. I think it’d be cool to see Halo try it, but Larry makes a good point. It’s probably not worth the turbulence, even if they nail it. Someone else needs to do it.

Could you describe what is it you’d like? CE campaign is fun I’ll give it that, but I personally enjoy h3&reach campaign the most, especially reach. 

17 minutes ago, Boyo said:

I liked Reach’s campaign.  Designing Firefight arenas that double as campaign areas was genius.

No doubt, it honestly was great. 

Share this post


Link to post

Reach was terrible. That was the first campaign to get really lazy with level and encounter design. Everything spawned at 12 o'clock straight ahead and would just wait for you to come to them. The only sound, consistent strategy in infantry battles was staying away and picking everyone off with the DMR, magnum or needle rifle (and remember those weapons had bloom, so this was extra fun). The sniper worked okay, but it had very limited ammo in every mission except Nightfall. That's honestly all the Reach sandbox had to offer. Close quarters combat wasn't an option unless you had a sword, which wasn't seen much in campaign. The shotgun was weak, the automatic weapons were unbelievably bad, and all major enemies were straight damage sponges. Explosives were nerfed - it took 4 rockets to kill a hunter on legendary. (In CE, H3 and ODST it takes 2, don't know about H2). When in doubt, just buff the enemies' health and call it a day. Good job, Bungie.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Larry Sizemore said:

Reach was terrible. That was the first campaign to get really lazy with level and encounter design. Everything spawned at 12 o'clock straight ahead and would just wait for you to come to them. The only sound, consistent strategy in infantry battles was staying away and picking everyone off with the DMR, magnum or needle rifle (and remember those weapons had bloom, so this was extra fun). The sniper worked okay, but it had very limited ammo in every mission except Nightfall. That's honestly all the Reach sandbox had to offer. Close quarters combat wasn't an option unless you had a sword, which wasn't seen much in campaign. The shotgun was weak, the automatic weapons were unbelievably bad, and all major enemies were straight damage sponges. Explosives were nerfed - it took 4 rockets to kill a hunter on legendary. (In CE, H3 and ODST it takes 2, don't know about H2). When in doubt, just buff the enemies' health and call it a day. Good job, Bungie.

Butt alert😂 in all seriousness I think you over exaggerated the sponge ness😅 

Share this post


Link to post

Also, the other members of Noble Team were absolutely useless in combat. Kat would always steal the warthog and drive it off a cliff. Jun would constantly blow your cover in Nightfall. The one mission that might have shaken things up and offered some stealth opportunities, ruined because of that bald shitfuck and his itchy trigger finger. Emile would try to shotgun people from across the map. Carter just didn't do shit in general. Jorge's turret was okay in the first mission, but in Tip of the Spear he would try to cross map people with it just like Emile. So much for tactical class-based combat.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Arlong said:

Butt alert😂 in all seriousness I think you over exaggerated the sponge ness😅 

I'm not over-exaggerating anything. Play the game on a difficulty higher than normal. You'll get your balls kicked in doing anything other than what I said - spamming with long range weapons.

Why is Reach good? All you mentioned above was a generic comment "exciting moments" (such as?) and praised it for having a dark story (which totally matters in a fucking video game). Sounds to me like Reach was your first Halo game.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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