Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

Imagine a moment, if you will, Halo: Infinite is not sprintyboi Halo. It comes out and is full classic, modernized with deep customization, UI, servers, stats, netcode and graphics. You move like you're in Halo 2, you shoot like you're in Halo 1, it looks like Halo 3.

Then, a month later, Bad Company 3 is released. It's the perfect sequel and you can now play two perfect shooters just like it's 2010 all over again. No more deciding between a myriad of dogshit AAA shooter launches that get forgotten after a month. 

Ah, what a day.

Reality is the next Battlefield will be buggy as fuck, rushed and shit. Halo: Infinite will be sprinyboi with two old music tracks and the old chief armour SeE wE cAn MaKe ClAsSiC HaLo ToO

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Toxic (+1) 1
  • Salt (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stoppabl3 said:

That would be beyond clunky. Just rip the band aid off, take out sprint and up the movement speed. So many years of development and money wasted tinkering with a mechanic that just doesn’t work. 

Hey this is 343 we’re talking here, they’re too SCARED to do that.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Larry Sizemore said:

Halo 1 pistol checkmates sprint. Just saying.

Reach SWAT was actually pretty fun with sprint.  When you can punish a stupid push with instant death, sprint isn’t so bad.  When you add Energy Shields on top of sprint is when it gets stupid imo.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Shekkles said:

Imagine a moment, if you will, Halo: Infinite is not sprintyboi Halo. It comes out and is full classic, modernized with deep customization, UI, servers, stats, netcode and graphics. You move like you're in Halo 2, you shoot like you're in Halo 1, it looks like Halo 3.

Then, a month later, Bad Company 3 is released. It's the perfect sequel and you can now play two perfect shooters just like it's 2010 all over again. No more deciding between a myriad of dogshit AAA shooter launches that get forgotten after a month. 

Ah, what a day.

Reality is the next Battlefield will be buggy as fuck, rushed and shit. Halo: Infinite will be sprinyboi with two old music tracks and the old chief armour SeE wE cAn MaKe ClAsSiC HaLo ToO

Cries in Splinter Cell. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Hully said:

Cries in Splinter Cell. 

Splinter Cell isn't a shooter. I'd like to see GRAW 3 and not Ubisoft's Generic Sandbox Game #44

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Shekkles said:

Splinter Cell isn't a shooter. I'd like to see GRAW 3 and now Ubisoft's Generic Sandbox Game #44

SvM is 50% shooter, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hully said:

SvM is 50% shooter, lol.

I never really played it, was it good? 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Shekkles said:

I never really played it, was it good? 

Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory SvM are up there with CE, H2, and CoD4 as my favorite multiplayer games of all time. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Shekkles said:

Imagine a moment, if you will, Halo: Infinite is not sprintyboi Halo. It comes out and is full classic, modernized with deep customization, UI, servers, stats, netcode and graphics. You move like you're in Halo 2, you shoot like you're in Halo 1, it looks like Halo 3.

Then, a month later, Bad Company 3 is released. It's the perfect sequel and you can now play two perfect shooters just like it's 2010 all over again. No more deciding between a myriad of dogshit AAA shooter launches that get forgotten after a month. 

Ah, what a day.

Reality is the next Battlefield will be buggy as fuck, rushed and shit. Halo: Infinite will be sprinyboi with two old music tracks and the old chief armour SeE wE cAn MaKe ClAsSiC HaLo ToO

At this point, a good Halo game would just be a bonus. I've waited too long and pretty much moved on from the franchise. My heart isn't in it anymore. R6 Siege fulfills all of my competitive FPS needs these days. A truly one of a kind game.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, TeeJaY said:

At this point, a good Halo game would just be a bonus. I've waited too long and pretty much moved on from the franchise. My heart isn't in it anymore. R6 Siege fulfills all of my competitive FPS needs these days. A truly one of a kind game.

Yeah that's about right. I've moved on from gaming in general really. Games feel like work these days, not hobbies.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/8/2019 at 2:54 AM, calberto said:

Using buttoms might have been a bad example but, at least to me, having a different FOV is rather similar to having a different sensitivity. In both cases you're trading ease of aim for speed in one case and awareness in the other. To answer your thought experiment, at least for me, this scenario is just as fair/frustrating as having one team with a forced 1-sensitivity vs. one team with a forced 10-sensitivity. But noone complains about a 1-10 sensitivity range.

Don't get me wrong I understand you point of view and I knew about the implications of a high vs. low FOV but I feel like your blowing the consequences a slider would have on the actual "everyday-gameplay" out of proportion a little. I mean even if it's a valid concern, you don't need to have such a huge range you pruposed, being able to choose from 75°-95° might help out a little already.

Again, I get you concern but is there any data supporting the fear that players cannot handle this change? After all it's just a matter of what you're used to. It might be wierd for a couple of games but after that, playing a low FOV should feel off.

As for CQB...does it really feel personal now? There is no real interaction, just a player model and your arms performing a punch. As long as we're keeping this system, there will allways be a "disconnect" and it will never really feel personal. If each melee would trigger a in-depth animation of an actual interaction with the other player modell (basically every melee would trigger a 1st-person assassination-like animation) it might change but that would drastically alter Halos gameplay as well.

Your example relating sensitivity to FOV options is a good one that I don't have a great answer for honestly. I'll say I think there are certain expectations that people go into video games with that when absent, are jarring. I would never launch a PC game WITHOUT an FOV slider because it's borderline heresy at this point to do that, it's expected. The PC space is understood that it's anything but controlled as is, so many variables between hardware versions. You really just have to give people that option.

 

I don't think console games are at that point yet where certain features are expected to be visible to be toggled due to the nature of the fixed hardware and an understanding that you are purchasing a console version, and as such omitting an FOV slider isn't a sin.  That's changed over the past several years as there's been efforts to provide console games with the same options PC  ports have but as I've mentioned, I don't think that's necessarily always a good thing. 

 

I'll also say I think sensitivity preferences leans closer to a physical, mechanical comfort than it does simple making a mental decision. In my eyes choosing an FOV has more to do with making a mental decision than it does appeal to your physical needs, unless it's sitting in the low 60's like Destiny; in which case I'm right there with you. 

 

Every now and then a title comes out that's so inspired and focused, and usually these go hand-in-hand with fixed control schemes as well. I'll point out that Rainbow 6 Siege only really has one control scheme outside of trigger swapping I believe, as does Dark Souls. Did this frustrate me? Absolutely, I remember saying both developers were incompetent when I went to recreate bumper jumper and couldn't. But as time went I've grown to appreciate the decision and what it means to the holistic experience. I know without a doubt when I watch a good dark souls player free-cam roll around and kill bosses that he's doing that weird index finger claw thing as me because the roll is on B, and it's ALWAYS on B. They didn't change it to a bumper because they couldn't, and out of that sprouts a general understood skill that everyone who's played the game can relate to. Same argument goes for lack of difficulty options, being that it's an understood experience and we all know what we're in for. And in my eyes, the same goes for FOV. One experience, for everyone. 

 

 

Now this also is easier to appreciate when it's done by a game with a passionate and unified vision. When I'm playing Call of Duty 16 and there's only A button jump I'll probably get frustrated, because how dare you make me confirm to your stupid ideologies, right. It's all context. 

 

"

Don't get me wrong I understand you point of view and I knew about the implications of a high vs. low FOV but I feel like your blowing the consequences a slider would have on the actual "everyday-gameplay" out of proportion a little. I mean even if it's a valid concern, you don't need to have such a huge range you pruposed, being able to choose from 75°-95° might help out a little already.

Again, I get you concern but is there any data supporting the fear that players cannot handle this change? After all it's just a matter of what you're used to. It might be wierd for a couple of games but after that, playing a low FOV should feel off.

As for CQB...does it really feel personal now? There is no real interaction, just a player model and your arms performing a punch. As long as we're keeping this system, there will allways be a "disconnect" and it will never really feel personal. If each melee would trigger a in-depth animation of an actual interaction with the other player modell (basically every melee would trigger a 1st-person assassination-like animation) it might change but that would drastically alter Halos gameplay as well."

 

I don't necessarily think you're wrong when you say small deviance is okay, I'm just presenting other factors to consider and maybe it'll mean something to you. What will individually have an impact on gameplay is a very, very nebulous and difficult thing to gauge. There are so many tiny unnoticeable decisions Bungie made all throughout Halo that when viewed together paint a beautiful picture whether or not you consciously notice them. Did you know when you slowly look down in Destiny your camera will actually move slightly move forward as it would if you were to lean forward in real life? It doesn't just rotate down like most games but moves on a small arc path to give a realistic paralax effect because the character is actually mounted on the skeleton. As far as I'm aware no other game does that and there's likely a million other obscure elements to Destiny that I couldn't put into words but paint the image that I see in my head when I play that game. The lowered reticle in Halo has a lot of gameplay ramifications such as preventing head glitching but it also allows weapons to sit on your screen in a natural angle not awkwardly pointing up and center WHILE not taking up the whole screen. Not many games do that because not many games use lowered reticle so it presents a very distinct 1p character model view. A fixed FOV in Halo has painted the same exact picture of The Pit in every person's mind who is reading this post, we all have the same understand of the space and how far geometry is from you, what angles you can cover.. And that is something to appreciate. Just to reiterate, a lower fixed FOV provides a much better sense of depth which is really important for slow moving projectiles like grenades, and I don't need to tell you how important that is to a game like Halo.

 

No I doubt there's user research detailing player experience but if there was would you even trust it. There are so many variables within that question, at some point I think any person in charge of a product just has to trust their intuition and make the call they believe will sit right with their experience. 

 

By CQB feeling personal I just meant that when you get into melee range with someone in Halo 3 it definitely feels like they're right in front of you, they encompass your viewport. I remember when Reach came out I felt like everything was so much further from me, even if I could punch it. Probably a combination of a larger FOV and smaller character models. This is kind of a difficult concept to explain but you could imagine the picture of being in the head of a gigantic gundam in the old G Gundam shows. When the other gundam was immediately in front of you they would appear MASSIVE, because they were. Essentially the effect is that if you scale the player models up AND the environment with them, the only thing that changes is the space they take up on your screen being that you can get infinitely close to something. I think it would help the shooting and feeling that you were in a space with other players. Not just shooting small dots on your screen.  

 

Excuse the length and formatting I'm on my phone on a layover and bored

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/7/2019 at 11:22 PM, Shekkles said:

I feel all modern games are designed to be time sinks (and therefore money sinks). Whereas old Halo games I could pick up, play for 30 minutes, be satisfied. I could also spent 8 hours if I choose.

But modern games have this constant grind towards something even if it's just a win. I tried Apex but I was so focused on winning that I forgot to have fun. Sounds stupid but after about 20 hours I realised I wasn't actually enjoying the game, I was just playing it and trying to win. 

Going back and playing MCC, I feel that enjoyment come back. I don't play for XP, unlocks, ranks (though I could) or to justify the $40 hat I bought. I just play because it's fun.

I came to that same conclusion when I realized that I was still launching MCC despite it lacking any XP level system or meaningful ranking I cared for. If you're opening the game it's to play a game, not build progress.

 

It's the only shooter I really play for fun outside of Gears. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MultiLockOn said:

 

In the end oft he day I wouldn’t even mind a fixed FOV all that much. All your points about the goal to have a unified artistical experience for everyone make a lot of sense. But I’d still prefer to see more games with a higher FOV. Nothing too crazy either I’d probably be fine with something around 90° for a game like halo. Up until now I was simply under the impression that a slider would be the easiest way to achieve this.

 

Quote

Did you know when you slowly look down in Destiny your camera will actually move slightly move forward as it would if you were to lean forward in real life?

Thats pretty cool. I didn't really like Destiny (not a fan of loot shooters) and only played the first for a couple of games because it was part of my console bundle but not enough to actually notice those little things.

 

Quote

The lowered reticle in Halo has a lot of gameplay ramifications such as preventing head glitching but it also allows weapons to sit on your screen in a natural angle not awkwardly pointing up and center WHILE not taking up the whole screen

Again pretty neat I'd love to see more talking about those things. I might have just missed this but I didn't know about the reasoning behind this but it makes a lot more sense now.

 

Quote

No I doubt there's user research detailing player experience but if there was would you even trust it.

If it's done properly I see no reason not to trust it. In the end I'd still agree with you that a studio should go with their intuition/vision, we're talking about a creative product here. I was just actaully curious if there is some data. 

 

Quote

This is kind of a difficult concept to explain

I think I get what you mean now and I see the problem you're were talking about. I mean, I wouldn't know a solution for that either.

 

On a side note, I've not been here all that regularly lately and I hope you don't mind me asking but who do you work for these days?

 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, calberto said:

In the end oft he day I wouldn’t even mind a fixed FOV all that much. All your points about the goal to have a unified artistical experience for everyone make a lot of sense. But I’d still prefer to see more games with a higher FOV. Nothing too crazy either I’d probably be fine with something around 90° for a game like halo. Up until now I was simply under the impression that a slider would be the easiest way to achieve this.

 

Thats pretty cool. I didn't really like Destiny (not a fan of loot shooters) and only played the first for a couple of games because it was part of my console bundle but not enough to actually notice those little things.

 

Again pretty neat I'd love to see more talking about those things. I might have just missed this but I didn't know about the reasoning behind this but it makes a lot more sense now.

 

If it's done properly I see no reason not to trust it. In the end I'd still agree with you that a studio should go with their intuition/vision, we're talking about a creative product here. I was just actaully curious if there is some data. 

 

I think I get what you mean now and I see the problem you're were talking about. I mean, I wouldn't know a solution for that either.

 

On a side note, I've not been here all that regularly lately and I hope you don't mind me asking but who do you work for these days?

 

I'm actually getting flown out to NC to meet with a game studio right now haha, I'm meeting with a few studios these next few days to hopefully pull the trigger on the right one. 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Halo 3 had an fov of 55 on 4:3 and 72 on 720/1089. It also has split screen of 92. 

 

Halo 2 had a fov of 60 something on 4:3 and 78 on 720p. It also had 44 on split 4:3. 

Halo ce and odst has a fov if 70 on single and 108 on split. Ce has a fov of 90 single on mcc. 

Theres been options to choose from and its fine. I also want to comment that i went to an h3 event and sucked because i was a god on 4:3  but the event was in 16:9. I didnt know why i couldnt aim at the time. It was only like two years later that i learned fov makes a difference in aiming and that input lag exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Riddler said:

Halo 3 had an fov of 55 on 4:3 and 72 on 720/1089. It also has split screen of 92. 

 

Halo 2 had a fov of 60 something on 4:3 and 78 on 720p. It also had 44 on split 4:3. 

Halo ce and odst has a fov if 70 on single and 108 on split. Ce has a fov of 90 single on mcc. 

Theres been options to choose from and its fine. I also want to comment that i went to an h3 event and sucked because i was a god on 4:3  but the event was in 16:9. I didnt know why i couldnt aim at the time. It was only like two years later that i learned fov makes a difference in aiming and that input lag exists. 

That's funny because i remember preferring the way Halo 3 "felt" when playing split screen and never really put 2 and 2 together. 

I had a similar experience at a Halo 3 tournament at my college back in the day.  I was used to playing on a large  4:3 tube TV and the tournament was on whatever TVs people brought.  We got stuck on some widescreen LCD with wicked ghosting and input lag.  it was awful.  I lugged my 60 pound tube TV to the next one and bought one of those Sony Trinitron TVs that MLG used shortly after that.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Apoll0 said:

That's funny because i remember preferring the way Halo 3 "felt" when playing split screen and never really put 2 and 2 together. 

I had a similar experience at a Halo 3 tournament at my college back in the day.  I was used to playing on a large  4:3 tube TV and the tournament was on whatever TVs people brought.  We got stuck on some widescreen LCD with wicked ghosting and input lag.  it was awful.  I lugged my 60 pound tube TV to the next one and bought one of those Sony Trinitron TVs that MLG used shortly after that.

I just lucked out. When i was a lee lad my dad let me pick out my tv amongst like 50 at the store as long as it was under $200 or whatever. I picked a toshiba 20” and as it turns out those, wegas, and txrs are basically the cream of the crop for crts. The same tvs are at the ce beachlan today and the va lans in the latter half of the 2010s. I could have picked a laggy lcd lol. It wasnt until the end of 2010 that i got an lcd and was like wtf is this. I just thought every tv needed adjusting but even after months i still couldnt aim. I just told myself it was because i didnt play as much. My circle of friends always called it hd lag but i thought it was just bs. Now i know more (thanks to the interwebs and smashbros documentation and ce documentation) and it does make sense as crts that supported 720p did in fact lag on all resolutions because of the processing or that people generally got lcds to support hd and thats even laggier. Its just not hd lag, its input lag. It just hd supported tvs had more input lag back then. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Riddler said:

I just lucked out. When i was a lee lad my dad let me pick out my tv amongst like 50 at the store as long as it was under $200 or whatever. I picked a toshiba 20” and as it turns out those, wegas, and txrs are basically the cream of the crop for crts. The same tvs are at the ce beachlan today and the va lans in the latter half of the 2010s. I could have picked a laggy lcd lol. It wasnt until the end of 2010 that i got an lcd and was like wtf is this. I just thought every tv needed adjusting but even after months i still couldnt aim. I just told myself it was because i didnt play as much. My circle of friends always called it hd lag but i thought it was just bs. Now i know more (thanks to the interwebs and smashbros documentation and ce documentation) and it does make sense as crts that supported 720p did in fact lag on all resolutions because of the processing or that people generally got lcds to support hd and thats even laggier. Its just not hd lag, its input lag. It just hd supported tvs had more input lag back then. 

I still have my 20" tv in my parents house.  We're at the starting stages of building a house right now so when we're done and have more space, i'll have to grab it and my old xbox and set it up it the man dungeon.  LAN parties at my place guys, 2021

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Apoll0 said:

 LAN parties at my place guys, 2021

Oh wait...

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/8/2019 at 2:54 AM, calberto said:

Using buttoms might have been a bad example but, at least to me, having a different FOV is rather similar to having a different sensitivity. In both cases you're trading ease of aim for speed in one case and awareness in the other. To answer your thought experiment, at least for me, this scenario is just as fair/frustrating as having one team with a forced 1-sensitivity vs. one team with a forced 10-sensitivity. But noone complains about a 1-10 sensitivity range.

Don't get me wrong I understand you point of view and I knew about the implications of a high vs. low FOV but I feel like your blowing the consequences a slider would have on the actual "everyday-gameplay" out of proportion a little. I mean even if it's a valid concern, you don't need to have such a huge range you pruposed, being able to choose from 75°-95° might help out a little already.

Again, I get you concern but is there any data supporting the fear that players cannot handle this change? After all it's just a matter of what you're used to. It might be wierd for a couple of games but after that, playing a low FOV should feel off.

As for CQB...does it really feel personal now? There is no real interaction, just a player model and your arms performing a punch. As long as we're keeping this system, there will allways be a "disconnect" and it will never really feel personal. If each melee would trigger a in-depth animation of an actual interaction with the other player modell (basically every melee would trigger a 1st-person assassination-like animation) it might change but that would drastically alter Halos gameplay as well.

I just want to take this opportunity to point out something I've been thinking about lately, and while it's not on the topic of FOV, it is relevant to what I've highlighted green in the post above. In that segment, you've essentially mirrored the sentiment that I believe most people hold regarding 'immersion', and to be frank, I don't think it means what we think it means.

If the goal of 'immersion' is to dissolve all barriers between the player and the experience so that they become inseparable, then I think we can all agree on that definition, and I think we all want that experience. 

The question then becomes, how do we get there? Well first, You must consider the players limited inputs. Unless we're talking VR, we're essentially clicking buttons when we play a game, and we only have so many of them. Something like a thumbstick transcends this paradigm, allowing for partial inputs and infinitely granular directional control (which is why thumbsticks are far superior to WASD for movement, but that's a topic for another discussion). The point is, we're limited.

The next point to consider is just how incredibly sensitive the human mind is to our own faculty. Whenever we have a muscle twitch, we instantly notice it, and instantly focus on it, because it's a part of me that has seemingly violated the sovereignty over my own body that we all assume we have and almost always do have. That's why multiple sclerosis is such a horrifying disease to think about. The thought of losing control over my own 'inputs' is a scary one to say the least.

So then, put the two together. If we're limited by our controls, and our every fiber is tuned to recognize foreign inputs, then a game designer must be extremely careful not to surpass our limitations if he wishes to maintain immersion as previously defined. For example, we could look at your own ideas to make Halo more 'personal' with more in-depth melee animations. In my opinion, this could just as easily have the opposite effect and disconnect the player from the experience. Think about Battlefield, or the new MW game. Both games selling points are immersion, but they've conflated immersion with realism, and sport a million and one little animations, a ton of screen shake/bounce, and even blurred vision at times. The problem with these adornments, while realistic, go beyond my inputs and happen on their own. Like the muscle spasm earlier spoken about, they stick out, and every single happening that I didn't have anything to do with, everything that happens on my screen that surpasses my limited inputs is just another spasm, another reminder that I'm indeed playing a game, and that much of what is actually happening on screen has little to do with my will for it or against it. These reminders become especially offensive when the in-game system that goes beyond the player also happens to get in the way. Flinch and screen shake making me miss my shots comes to mind, and yes, I'm salty about it.

To come full circle back to a post I made in the MCC thread, I think this is all why Halo 2 feels so good. The game does what I want it to do, and nothing more. I also think this is why Battlefield always felt clunky after playing COD games and even Halo. And yes, that's why Modern Warfare felt like shit.

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/8/2019 at 9:05 PM, Shekkles said:

I never really played it, was it good? 

Chaos Theory is right up there with CE when it comes to 2v2. It's seriously fucking amazing. Sooo underrated.

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.