Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

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.

Yeah, and this argument completely glosses over how artistic integrity and themes are present in more areas than just the paint on your damn weapon. Maps, weapons themselves, interactive elements (Flags, etc) are some areas where that consistency is, and can't be affected by this. And they happen to be the most notable to a player. This argument hinges on weapon and character skins and designs being so comically overblown in terms of design to where they somehow break a setting. Or the alternative, where there's ONLY over the top skins, which isn't the case for either scenario with regards to Halo

 

Just a little jab, but no skins in Halo will ever fit the universe. Let alone ones that should realistically break a narrative fourth wall given multiplayer's canonical nature, tied with real world team emblems and skins. If you understand immersion and Halo to that point, your grasp on it should be gone, regardless of how nice a skin may look. MC skins look beautiful. Perfect use of light-outlining and black shiny metal to accentuate detailing on normally busy weapon designs. They don't fit the universe at all. Nothing looks like them, and they stick out like a sore thumb. They just look fucken' cool.

 

And that boils down into how it's hard to comprehend how the skin on a weapon is the thing to break immersion. Because skins are almost never about immersion. Key thing. It's about making your weapon look good to you. I don't get this idea that skins need to cater to immersion when that's just not their purpose in game. It's the same in almost every single game with them, and only more so meant for a rule of cool to Halo, in spite of how they may break the universe and its immersive rules.

 

You have every other element on point. Map design, how it looks aesthetically, how characters may look, how weapons themselves look, regardless of skins, how interactive elements look, how things are lit, how metal looks, and so on. All nailed down to the smallest detail to be universally consistent with other in game aspects (Like campaign) for the sake of a 15 minute deathmatch. But a hypothetically rainbow pistol is what drops that immersive stuff, and fucks the camel's ass breaks the camel's back. That is what gets me.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get how that's intrusive, lol. It's just a bunch of whacky colors on character models. I use the color blast shit all the time since they actually have some unique flair to them. Same for the trippy skin sets. Doesn't affect anyone but me given you can see me coming a mile away in any mode where it matters. Then again, third person shooters will always have that problem, but that's a different convo. Again, not like multiplayer is canon and somehow taking itself super seriously. It's like Halo. You could argue that making the player's Spartan a bright pink or purple shade goes against any sense of art style and breaks it, given it contradicts every single thing about the established art style and where it comes from. But it doesn't. Sure doesn't get to me in FFA, or make me go "Wow, that breaks established rules in the universe and thus this color shouldn't exist as an option, just because it breaks rules that don't apply to this section of the game".

 

Basically, so what if they look like they came from a hippie festival. I love the colors on them, and they don't actually impact the game past a liking of it. Same applies to Halo. If someone wants bright pink and yellow for their character, who am I to stop them when I loosen up my universe consistency for the sake of a good multiplayer experience.

 

I understand that it doesn't affect gameplay, thank God. But theres a difference between Gears' Color Blast/Trippy/neon skins, and what Halo allows players to do. Theres a certain "pop" that the Gears skins have that just make it stick out like a sore thumb. You're more in tune with art style and customization than I am. I know that you see what I'm talking about. There's this whole Gears universe represented in the map, character models and weapons, and then there's this color-vomit sticking out from the awesome art style and atmosphere the devs have created. Halo's pink and purple armor colors aren't like that. They don't "pop". They're not fucking glowing neon. They just happen to be pink/purple, and that's fine. My issue isn't with the color. It's in how God damn much it sticks out, and feels separate from everything it touches. I'm not any more happy with the neon green skins than the pink/purple ones.

 

I hope that helps illustrate where I'm coming from. I love Gears' art style and atmosphere even more than Halo's. It's my favorite lore game, period. And some of the customization options just make a mockery of the amazing work they've done around it. It's a very preventable shame. Would you be upset if they got rid of the most garish and unfitting skins, and stuck to stuff that is reasonable within the context of the art style/universe?

 

Hell, I'm not even opposed to shit that doesn't make sense. The Christmas sweater on the locust skin is hilarious. I don't mind it at all. Probably because it doesn't fucking glow. I feel like this isn't a difficult compromise to reign in.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that it doesn't affect gameplay, thank God. But theres a difference between Gears' Color Blast/Trippy/neon skins, and what Halo allows players to do. Theres a certain "pop" that the Gears skins have that just make it stick out like a sore thumb. You're more in tune with art style and customization than I am. I know that you see what I'm talking about. There's this whole Gears universe represented in the map, character models and weapons, and then there's this color-vomit sticking out from the awesome art style and atmosphere the devs have created. Halo's pink and purple armor colors aren't like that. They don't "pop". They're not fucking glowing neon. They just happen to be pink/purple, and that's fine. My issue isn't with the color. It's in how God damn much it sticks out, and feels separate from everything it touches. I'm not any more happy with the neon green skins than the pink/purple ones.

 

I hope that helps illustrate where I'm coming from. I love Gears' art style and atmosphere even more than Halo's. It's my favorite lore game, period. And some of the customization options just make a mockery of the amazing work they've done around it. It's a very preventable shame. Would you be upset if they got rid of the most garish and unfitting skins, and stuck to stuff that is reasonable within the context of the art style/universe?

 

Hell, I'm not even opposed to shit that doesn't make sense. The Christmas sweater on the locust skin is hilarious. I don't mind it at all. Probably because it doesn't fucking glow. I feel like this isn't a difficult compromise to reign in.

No, I get where it comes from, I just disagree with the notion that it has a giant impact, and I think having fun with the universe and going a bit (Or a lot, depending on perspective) wacky where it doesn't matter is just fine. My only issue being shit like Zombie characters only because making "Zombie Dom" felt like a bit of a poor taste jab at a character, EVEN if it's not exclusive to him.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

No, I get where it comes from, I just disagree with the notion that it has a giant impact, and I think having fun with the universe and going a bit (Or a lot, depending on perspective) wacky where it doesn't matter is just fine. My only issue being shit like Zombie characters only because making "Zombie Dom" felt like a bit of a poor taste jab at a character, EVEN if it's not exclusive to him.

 

I can't help but chuckle because I would notice his glowing neon green gnasher well before I even noticed it was the zombie dom skin.

 

That said I can sympathize with your sentiment because the Dom/Maria storyline tugs at my heart strings hard.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah it really does make you wonder what the hell they were working on up to this point.  No way it could just be the engine after 3 years.

 

I'd say slipspace has a lot of modules and a lot of intergration with azure. They'd be working pretty hard on all of that. 

 

Additionally, I'd say Halo Infinite is well past pre-production and in full production, so they'd be ramping up the team size. I'd say Infinite as an entity has been in full production for just under now, with my previous post detailing that they scrapped Halo 6 to renew the franchise. I believe we'll have more than one Halo game announced before Infinite released. I think they've roadmapped up to 2030.

 

This is all conjecture of course.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd think its worth pointing out that often skins are very obviously different intentionally. That's why people want them a lot of the time. I'm sure there's also space for the aesthetically different but still within the atmosphere of the game angle that many people would enjoy but the same is true for the very obvious and different skins. 

Share this post


Link to post

In multiplayer, the things that make me "immersed" are good movement and aim mechanics, good weapon feedback and good level design.  I couldn't care less about what armor or skin someone is wearing, as long as they don't screw with the actual hitboxes or give the illusion of a different hitbox.  I don't even care if these crazy skins make it into campaign.  If you're someone that doesn't like that, don't equip them when you're playing campaign.  I only need to be immersed once when i play the campaign, the first time.  After that its all achievement hunting anyway.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Ramirez77

 

I can't really dispute that beyond my personal opinion and I'm already in the boat where I don't care about my skins of if anyone else can see them. I never picked my armor or skin based off what others are going to be looking at, even though I know they will. I've always picked what I liked and never really thought about what others are looking at.

 

Maybe others here can chime in. Does this really matter? Nobody would be able to tell who has the force model setting on. It could be everyone in the lobby or it could be nobody.

 

I think my opinion is a bit different or out of touch. It makes no sense to me that someone given the ability to customize their own look gets that upset that their opponents have the option to normalize the models.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

@@Ramirez77

 

I can't really dispute that beyond my personal opinion and I'm already in the boat where I don't care about my skins of if anyone else can see them. I never picked my armor or skin based off what others are going to be looking at, even though I know they will. I've always picked what I liked and never really thought about what others are looking at.

 

Maybe others here can chime in. Does this really matter? Nobody would be able to tell who has the force model setting on. It could be everyone in the lobby or it could be nobody.

 

I think my opinion is a bit different or out of touch. It makes no sense to me that someone given the ability to customize their own look gets that upset that their opponents have the option to normalize the models.

 

This is how everybody wins.

Share this post


Link to post

Fun fact the DICE developers announced that force default skin will be in BF:V but can only be used in tournaments, while the general population gets fucked. That's pretty much what NOT to do lol.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Ramirez77

 

I can't really dispute that beyond my personal opinion and I'm already in the boat where I don't care about my skins of if anyone else can see them. I never picked my armor or skin based off what others are going to be looking at, even though I know they will. I've always picked what I liked and never really thought about what others are looking at.

 

Maybe others here can chime in. Does this really matter? Nobody would be able to tell who has the force model setting on. It could be everyone in the lobby or it could be nobody.

 

I think my opinion is a bit different or out of touch. It makes no sense to me that someone given the ability to customize their own look gets that upset that their opponents have the option to normalize the models.

I think it is out of touch. Min models is a dated concept in that modern audiences are willing to fully engage in these cosmetic systems so why would developers give players a way to disengage. It is passed the point where cosmetic consumption is feverish and noticeable, now it is just a part of modern gaming. Players buy into the culture of these systems; kids roll fake loot crate apps, players gamble with skins on 3rd party sites, people buy 'signed' pro skins for thousands of dollars, the worlds biggest streamers play with the skin of the day or in some cases even get their own skins.

 

I agree the GoW skins are garish as fuck and too far but it's actually a failure of the developer. Those skins are both too sickly for a lot of players to stomach and for the audience that likes 'bold' pushes it to the limit diminishing future sales - how do you move past neon?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is out of touch. Min models is a dated concept in that modern audiences are willing to fully engage in these cosmetic systems so why would developers give players a way to disengage. It is passed the point where cosmetic consumption is feverish and noticeable, now it is just a part of modern gaming. Players buy into the culture of these systems; kids roll fake loot crate apps, players gamble with skins on 3rd party sites, people buy 'signed' pro skins for thousands of dollars, the worlds biggest streamers play with the skin of the day or in some cases even get their own skins.

 

I agree the GoW skins are garish as fuck and too far but it's actually a failure of the developer. Those skins are both too sickly for a lot of players to stomach and for the audience that likes 'bold' pushes it to the limit diminishing future sales - how do you move past neon?

 

I mean while I do feel like my opinion is a bit out of touch I don't believe I'll be convinced that having no forced model option is objectively better. It seems like the argument against having to look at someone's cosmetic choices are "so what? it's not giving anyone an advantage or breaking the game. It's that person's choice to use what they want" I honestly feel like I could apply that same sentence in favor of forcing models.

 

It's not a mandatory setting but an option if people want it. Players who have unique customizations will still see them on their screen but have literally no way of telling if their opponent is seeing their fancy armor or a stock model. Since that player has no idea how does that even effect them?

 

All those skins you are talking about still exist and would be equipped. Would you not buy that pro skin for $1,000 knowing the other person may or may not see it? If this seriously changes a players mind then I'm not sure dropping thousands on a pro skin is worth it unless you are literally paying money for the attention.

 

Sure, it makes developers more money. I understand that, but that's not my argument.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I mean while I do feel like my opinion is a bit out of touch I don't believe I'll be convinced that having no forced model option is objectively better. It seems like the argument against having to look at someone's cosmetic choices are "so what? it's not giving anyone an advantage or breaking the game. It's that person's choice to use what they want" I honestly feel like I could apply that same sentence in favor of forcing models.

 

It's not a mandatory setting but an option if people want it. Players who have unique customizations will still see them on their screen but have literally no way of telling if their opponent is seeing their fancy armor or a stock model. Since that player has no idea how does that even effect them?

 

All those skins you are talking about still exist and would be equipped. Would you not buy that pro skin for $1,000 knowing the other person may or may not see it? If this seriously changes a players mind then I'm not sure dropping thousands on a pro skin is worth it unless you are literally paying money for the attention.

 

Sure, it makes developers more money. I understand that, but that's not my argument.

It isn't about being objectively better, I've used forced models in both CS and Quake for years it's just acknowledging that it's a different time. Things with current cosmetics are so ingrained that I bet a forced model option doesn't even occur to a lot of newer players. There simply isn't an appetite for forced models from the general player base and obviously it's constant cosmetic advertising for developers.

Share this post


Link to post

It isn't about being objectively better, I've used forced models in both CS and Quake for years it's just acknowledging that it's a different time. Things with current cosmetics are so ingrained that I bet a forced model option doesn't even occur to a lot of newer players. There simply isn't an appetite for forced models from the general player base and obviously it's constant cosmetic advertising for developers.

 

Gotcha. I mean I do agree with what you are saying. I never sat down and tested thoroughly the various quake models and their jumping animations but I swear there were times where I might shoot a limb and it does nothing because it's not tied to the models hitbox. I don't really believe that is an issue really in today's games so there's really no need to enforce it. If they include something like this, great, if they don't I don't really care either.

 

I will say though that for Halo 5 in particular that when I was competing, a teammate of mine would always use the helmet that had the giant unicorn horn. There were a handful of times where I was going over game film/scrims and noticed that teams would spot him while he was crouching staying alive behind something waiting for us to spawn.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

People buy cosmetics to show them off in many cases.

 

If people could turn them off then it would disincentivize cosmetic purchases.

 

You think devs would allow that? Lolllllll

Share this post


Link to post

People buy cosmetics to show them off in many cases.

 

If people could turn them off then it would disincentivize cosmetic purchases.

 

You think devs would allow that? Lolllllll

its not like it’s an option that gamers request. Like a forced model option? According to you guys quake does it but who plays quake anyway these days? Damn I barely heard anything about quake champions.

Share this post


Link to post

People buy cosmetics to show them off in many cases.

 

If people could turn them off then it would disincentivize cosmetic purchases.

 

You think devs would allow that? Lolllllll

I think most people buy cosmetics to make characters look good to themselves. How would people know if another player turned them off? I’m sure people would just assume most people can see them by default.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

People buy cosmetics to show them off in many cases.

 

If people could turn them off then it would disincentivize cosmetic purchases.

 

You think devs would allow that? Lolllllll

I think your looking too deep into this. I would assume most people who use cosmetics are doing it for themselves to see it, not other people. Some might aye but unless a person says "Hey I can't see your Neon Purple gun" then I don't anyone would actually notice.

Share this post


Link to post

I think most people buy cosmetics to make characters look good to themselves. How would people know if another player turned them off? I’m sure people would just assume most people can see them by default.

could you see fortnite implementing this feature, I know I don’t.

Share this post


Link to post

Priority list of Halo issues:

 

1) "Advanced" mobility

2) Missing features

.

.

7) speed/ease of updates

.

.

45) "but the magnum is just a sidearm herp de derp"

.

.

67) Playable elites

.

.

99) Black undersuits

.

.

105) Force Default Models

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

I only like to see the gun model so i can tell what i have out from my periphery without actually looking at the corner of the hud.

That's what custom reticle's are for

 

In UT2K4 I found a good way was to use a basic crosshair for most guns and then just change the colour.

 

Green = Link Gun (since it fires green projectiles)

Purple = Shock Rifle (I think you see where I'm going with this

 

Then for projectile weapons like the Bio Cannon/Flak Cannon I'd just choose a different looking reticle

 

This way you could always instantly tell what weapon you had equipped without having to look at the corner of the screen.

 

-EDIT: Holy crap the emoticon set on this site is ugly. Why are they like 3 lines of text high? What happened to the good old simple phpbb emoticons that didn't look like crap high school girls add to their snapchats and whatever the fuck they do these days? I had to remove it, it was embarrassing to attach to a post I wrote.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

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.