Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

This is completely irrelevant. You seem to think I'm making the argument that this is going to happen overnight. I said 5-10 years.

 

In 2005 Australia launched ADSL2, capable of download speeds of 12Mbps, before that ADSL1 could only reach 1.5Mbps - 10x faster. Now many houses are connected with Fibre and get speeds of up to 100Mbps and that's likely to get upgraded to 1Gbps in the very near future. From ADSL1 to NBN Fibre is almost a 100x's increase in barely over a decade. Yes, a good percentage of the population hasn't caught up to those speeds yet but they will in just a few years.

 

Do you really think 10 years from now a data cap is going to prevent you from doing anything?

 

In the span of 10 years we've gone from 2G cell networks to 4G and Australia will have 5G next year. Want to know how fast that is?

 

In just over a decade our cell network speeds are going to be over 100x's faster than they were before the launch of 3G.

 

 

Irrelevant? This is the most important part of the equation. There is no doubt that the technology will exist to allow game streaming to be profitable. The question is whether or not the the political landscape will allow it. As technology has improved, the politics and economics of web access has gotten worse for consumers in the US. And THAT shows no signs of improvement anytime soon.

 

5G sounds amazing. But as long as Comcast can throttle users who are on “unlimited plans”, charge users extra for accessing services that Comcast isn’t partnered with, charge tech companies extra for access to customers on Comcast’s network, and block competing ISPs from operating in the same neighborhoods that Comcast services then it doesn’t make financial sense for a publisher to exclusively offer their products on streaming services. Comcast would have their entire business by the balls.

 

The increase in speed capability has literally NOTHING to do with the problem of data caps.

 

Yet.

 

See above!

 

Do you actually believe this? It literally takes no effort to put LAN into a game. Having online multiplayer is 100x's harder to put in the game. Fuck, indie studios with like a dozen devs can put LAN into a game.

 

Stardew Valley is a game made by a single guy and that game has LAN support.

 

CPU resources... what?

 

Effort has literally nothing to do with it. It’s about ROI. If you have to choose between adding LAN or guaranteeing high fidedlity online play at a smooth frame rate, you’ll choose the latter because a given player is going to care much more about online play than local LAN play.

 

As far as CPU resources, typically LAN means p2p networking. This means the game needs to be designed so that host console has the processing power to actually host the game. This means CPU that could be doing something else - is reserved for hosting duties, even for players that aren’t hosting. A dev has to weigh whether it’s worth designing a game that way for a feature that few will use, or optimize the game for hosting that is handled by a server.

 

And if no one was demanding these features it's kinda funny that 343 brought these features back for both Halo 5 and MCC as well as other devs back-flipping on LAN removal. CoD was one series and the GoW devs fought with Microsoft over it and won in the end.

 

LAN removal was done to push Xbox Live subscriptions and as a DRM measure since you could play pirated games over XBC and similar services.

 

Could it be that player demands for different franchises differ? Hmm.

 

And 343s flip flop on LAN just further proves my point. Demand will ultimately dictate how companies distribute games and what features they support - not adversion to ownership. 343 got caught following trends and thought variable Res/ Locked 60fps was more important than LAN, and didn’t see it worth while to launch with local server support. They were wrong, and demand from the player base has encouraged them to push for local server (which is actually SUPERIOR to standard client/host LAN) and vow to support local and LAN MP in the future. What more proof do you need to see that AAA isn’t going to dive all-in to 100% online at the expense of meeting player demand? not making a game the way fans want to play it is a terrible way to get people to seek your services.

 

Also COD and GoW are far less CPU intensive as the physics models are more simplistic (note: GoW gore isn’t handled by the hosts CPU). LAN was never “removed” from Xbox. That conspiracy theory makes no sense once you realize there was never anything stopping a game from having LAN and still requiring XBL.

 

 

Bro... Really?

 

https://www.vinjatvideogames.com/files/3419/products/9786880/final_fantasy_viii_platinum_01.jpg

 

http://ff7.fr/screen/achat5.png

 

Games have been coming on multiple discs/disks forever. Just off the top of my head Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Unreal Tournament 2004, World of Warcraft, Command & Conquer.

 

Holy shit, back in the early 90's pretty much every single game came on multiple floppy disks.

And? Does that change the fact that MCC couldn’t fit on a single disc? Does that change the fact that the vast majority of games can fit on a single disc? Does that change the fact that Xbox one OS storage solution couldn’t handle multi disc installations until after MCC, probably because their was little need to bother with it since most games weren’t nearly that big?

 

But anyway, I think you're missing my point a bit. I'm not saying ALL games will be subscription only. I expect smaller companies will always let you buy their games. I'm talking about big AAA franchises. Think GTA, Assassin's Creed, Madden, Forza, etc.

 

We'll probably see AA games rise up to take their place as games you can actually own.

 

I'm basically saying microtransactions have led to this. We've constantly seen publishers push this further and further. EA did it with Sim City. They claimed the game needed to be online for calculations to be done in the cloud. They were full of shit and were called out on this. Next time calculations WILL be done in the cloud and then they'll get us used to the idea that the games need to be online always. We won't be able to complain because... Hey, better games, right?

 

Then they will take the next step.

Your saying MTs lead to a lack of ownership. I’m saying there’s no correlation between the two. Companies don’t need MTs to push users to a subscription. They can just make an online game- which companies have been doing since long before MTs were prevailent.

 

If your argument is that there will be more online only games, then sure. But that’s not some distopian future- there will still be plenty of games that aren’t online only. If your argument is that there will be more games that require online connections for no reason, then sure. But that’s not some distopian future- there will still be plenty of games that don’t require online connections for no reason. Will there continue to be some predatory implementation of MTs? Will there be in an increase in games ACTUALLY built around a need for cloud-compute? Yup! But none of this is a signal of a Universal shift towards a specific, no ownership model. All signs point to their simply being more options. There’s literally 0 actionable evidence that the economics will exist for streaming or online-only to become as ubiquitous as you suggest- even if UBIsofts CEO suggests it. Mind you, this guy has every reason to want to cut out as many middle men as possible - but all signs point to console makers and retailers being much gentler middle men than American ISPs.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

lets be clear: Lootboxes are microtransactions, but not all microtransactions are lootboxes.  I think some people have taken what i said defending some implementations of microtransactions as having broader application than i intended.

 

Lootboxes are bad and nobody is arguing otherwise, but given the regulatory environment and customer utilization it makes perfect sense that companies would include them.  Its a companies prerogative to make money in any legal way they see fit.  Right now almost everywhere, lootboxes are legal.  Saying something makes sense from a business perspective is not the same as condoning it.  "Not Guilty" != "Innocent".

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don’t see the problem with everything being online. It’s 2018 not early 2000s where everyone is on dial up connection. Sure if it’s a single player game like say super Mario or whatever your bitchin makes sense. But if we’re talking games known for multiplayer cod,halo etc then why the fuck are you complaining? Like hunter said game companies are going to target the majority demographic, in halo or cod standards that’s the multiplayer Kids. Those who play nothing but campaign are in the minority and anyone smart will be able to tell you that trying to cater to the major and minor groups is a bad idea.

We now live in an era where “everything is online” or at least the majority. We have cell phones that let us search the internet,stream videos, etc etc you get the point.

Share this post


Link to post

I don’t see the problem with everything being online. It’s 2018 not early 2000s where everyone is on dial up connection. Sure if it’s a single player game like say super Mario or whatever your bitchin makes sense. But if we’re talking games known for multiplayer cod,halo etc then why the fuck are you complaining? Like hunter said game companies are going to target the majority demographic, in halo or cod standards that’s the multiplayer Kids. Those who play nothing but campaign are in the minority and anyone smart will be able to tell you that trying to cater to the major and minor groups is a bad idea.

We now live in an era where “everything is online” or at least the majority. We have cell phones that let us search the internet,stream videos, etc etc you get the point.

 

Having an internet connection isn't necessarily the problem.  People have internet access 90% of the time and it should be expected in an online multiplayer game anyways.

 

The problem is (a specific type of ) DRM, the thing forcing you to have an internet connection.  I get additional unwanted lag.  It's almost always the case where the game can't add custom user content (mods) nor can I play on custom servers due to everything having to be validated with the official servers in order for me to even play the game. I have to queue for things like tutorials, campaign, etc. that should just be offline accessible.  I can't sell my copy of the game to other players after I'm done with it (not to be confused with distributing illegal copies).  Basically I can't do anything with the content I paid for that isn't officially sanctioned, even if what I want to do is legal and harms no one.

 

And if we're talking about streaming games from a company owned device to your own device then that introduces it's own problems like input lag and subscription fees on top of the above.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Having an internet connection isn't necessarily the problem.  People have internet access 90% of the time and it should be expected in an online multiplayer game anyways.

 

The problem is (a specific type of ) DRM, the thing forcing you to have an internet connection.  I get additional unwanted lag.  It's almost always the case where the game can't add custom user content (mods) nor can I play on custom servers due to everything having to be validated with the official servers in order for me to even play the game. I have to queue for things like tutorials, campaign, etc. that should just be offline accessible.  I can't sell my copy of the game to other players after I'm done with it (not to be confused with distributing illegal copies).  Basically I can't do anything with the content I paid for that isn't officially sanctioned, even if what I want to do is legal and harms no one.

 

And if we're talking about streaming games from a company owned device to your own device then that introduces it's own problems like input lag and subscription fees on top of the above.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand what happens when those official servers go down, too? Be it by error, or the developer/publisher cutting support. Halo 5 will leave you with just the campaign. No customs, forge, theater, etc. Parts of the game I could still use on the X360's variants of Halo and even MCC. Granted, while that's an issue of entirely ridding yourself of P2P abilities, I think the end result's the same. A product you buy that can be taken from you whenever someone else deems it fit. Which is super dumb to me.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Y'all getting mad people can take away games you paid for? Stick to DRM free games that don't have a required online portion and read all the TOS so you don't get it taken away.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Y'all getting mad people can take away games you paid for? Stick to DRM free games that don't have a required online portion and read all the TOS so you don't get it taken away.

okay

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Effort has literally nothing to do with it. It’s about ROI. If you have to choose between adding LAN or guaranteeing high fidedlity online play at a smooth frame rate, you’ll choose the latter because a given player is going to care much more about online play than local LAN play.

 

As far as CPU resources, typically LAN means p2p networking. This means the game needs to be designed so that host console has the processing power to actually host the game. This means CPU that could be doing something else - is reserved for hosting duties, even for players that aren’t hosting. A dev has to weigh whether it’s worth designing a game that way for a feature that few will use, or optimize the game for hosting that is handled by a server.

 

It likely took more effort to remove LAN functionality from Halo 5 than it would've just to preserve it. 

 

Also, no one cares how hard the CPU is taxed. 

 

And 343s flip flop on LAN just further proves my point. Demand will ultimately dictate how companies distribute games and what features they support - not adversion to ownership. 343 got caught following trends and thought variable Res/ Locked 60fps was more important than LAN, and didn’t see it worth while to launch with local server support. They were wrong, and demand from the player base has encouraged them to push for local server (which is actually SUPERIOR to standard client/host LAN) and vow to support local and LAN MP in the future. What more proof do you need to see that AAA isn’t going to dive all-in to 100% online at the expense of meeting player demand? not making a game the way fans want to play it is a terrible way to get people to seek your services.

 

343 got "caught" because their game sold poorly compared to expectations (or desires, I guess) and the population is horrible for Microsoft's supposed flagship game franchise. If H5 blew the doors off in terms of sales but still fucked over the competitive crowd, they wouldn't be changing jack shit. They literally shipped a game intended to be an eSports title without LAN functionality. Don't act like 343 makes decisions using logic or brain power, their entire MO is being reactionary for the wrong reasons. Guess what the most successful part of H5 was? The fucking REQ system. Guess what's likely going to get pushed hardcore in H6? 

 

These companies don't work according to market demandThey work according to market manipulation. There is a huge difference. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

It likely took more effort to remove LAN functionality from Halo 5 than it would've just to preserve it.

 

Also, no one cares how hard the CPU is taxed.

 

 

343 got "caught" because their game sold poorly compared to expectations (or desires, I guess) and the population is horrible for Microsoft's supposed flagship game franchise. If H5 blew the doors off in terms of sales but still fucked over the competitive crowd, they wouldn't be changing jack shit. They literally shipped a game intended to be an eSports title without LAN functionality. Don't act like 343 makes decisions using logic or brain power, their entire MO is being reactionary for the wrong reasons. Guess what the most successful part of H5 was? The fucking REQ system. Guess what's likely going to get pushed hardcore in H6?

 

These companies don't work according to market demand. They work according to market manipulation. There is a huge difference.

This doesn’t make any sense. It didn’t “take effort” to remove LAN from halo 5, because Halo 5 has no P2P capability. You can’t remove something that doesn’t exist in the first place.

 

You don’t have to “care” how much a CPU is taxed. But designing a game to be hosted on the local machine costs local processing. you aren’t going to have local host, 60fps and a decent res on weakass Jaguars without cutting corners somewhere else.

 

Look at H5 Local Server min specs, then look at Xbox one’s cpu. Do the math, don’t be ignorant.

 

They chose to cut LAN, it obviously wasn’t the right choice, but it’s the one they made, likely based on what was happening in the industry around them, rather than focusing on what halo fans want (what else is new)

 

As far as your last 2 paragraphs ... ?!?!? Their game didn’t sell well, they got criticized for no split screen and for pushing esports with no LAN support. Then, They went back and added local servers, and vowed to support local MP in all future titles. That’s the literal definition of responding to demand.

 

The idea that companies don’t work off of market demand is so factually bankrupt that it’s really not worth responding to. They can try to manipulate until they are blue in the face, but if they aren’t selling what people want, people won’t buy it.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

They can try to manipulate until they are blue in the face, but if they aren’t selling what people want, people won’t buy it.

Halo 5 in a nutshell

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Halo Infinite is a long way away, but I'm hopeful we will get a good experience out of it. I've liked everything I've heard so far, which obviously isn't much.

 

I'd love if 343 completed some of the ideas it tried to flesh out in Halo 5.

 

- Standard Starts. I would LOVE for there to only be one setting that encompasses all Arena gametypes. To keep the settings uniform, I'm willing to even adopt the current HCS radar if it means getting a strong starting weapon off of every spawn. I'm fine with automatics in the mix as long as they don't overwhelm the extra difficulty of headshot weapons.

 

- Powerups. I sorta like 343 announcing power weapon spawns. I'd be okay with that mechanic coming back. I didn't think that way my entire Halo career, but I think in terms of general matchmaking, it's more skillful to fight over a weapon everyone knows is spawning, rather than just remembering what time it comes up. I also liked 343 putting more powerups on the map compared to recent Halo games. I think if they return to a passive activation for OS and Camo, rather than an activation button, I could get used to that in a good way.

 

- Pistol. I think they did a decent job in giving us a healthy starting weapon in Halo 5. Besides the horrid aiming, the gun wasn't overly easy to use compared to the BR/DMR combos we've had recently, and it certainly was accurate enough to get the job done. If they build on that and give us a weapon that's a little tougher on magnetism, coupled with a base speed boost, I think I can get behind that.

 

- Arena/Warzone split. I think this was the best decision they made in Halo 5. Giving players a grandiose and fun sandbox to use vehicles, custom weapons, and stuff like that in was brilliant. It was fun, especially Warzone Assault. I loved the action in that mode, and I would love it to return again. However for the default Warzone gametype they need to address how badly matches snowball. It's a detriment. If they end up giving Arena and Warzone different settings with movement and such, I wouldn't be upset. 

 

Unfortunately Halo 5 became unenjoyable for me each time I played it consistently. The reasons varied. One was the aiming. It took me so long to warm up with the shit aiming, it almost made me dread getting back into the game after I took like a week off from playing, so eventually I just don't come back. Secondly, the art style. Halo 5 was a bad looking game. The maps were very monotonous, the spartan models were terrible... lots of things to dislike. The visuals actively turned me off. The other big reason was thrust. Dear god do I hate thrust. I understand it can be a skillful manuever, and I understand it forces good players to miss shots. But goddamn do I hate how thrust fits into my control scheme, and I hate what it does to game flow. If there is one thing that could turn me off to Halo Infinite faster than anything else, it's seeing a thrust in a trailer. I pray that they just do away with the mechanic and instead up the default movement capabilities and let people miss shots the old fashioned way.

 

Anyways, as we get details on Halo Infinite, I can't wait to get in here and over analyze things like we used to in the old days. Hopefully 343 learns from the notable failures and almost successes of Halo 5, and it gives us a better game in the long run.

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This doesn’t make any sense. It didn’t “take effort” to remove LAN from halo 5, because Halo 5 has no P2P capability. You can’t remove something that doesn’t exist in the first place.

Huge chunks of code are always carried over to the next Halo installment, and LAN support is practically cut + paste, most of this code exists in pre-written libraries. 

 

They did not kill LAN support because it was too costly in man hours. That's ridiculous. 

 

You don’t have to “care” how much a CPU is taxed. But designing a game to be hosted on the local machine costs local processing. you aren’t going to have local host, 60fps and a decent res on weakass Jaguars without cutting corners somewhere else.

 

Look at H5 Local Server min specs, then look at Xbox one’s cpu. Do the math, don’t be ignorant.

What do you think is doing 95% of the work when you're playing Halo?

 

It's the GPU. Not the CPU. You don't even have to calculate for AI during multiplayer (except during Warzone, but who TF is going to LAN that), which is by far the largest chunk of processing done in an FPS (or any game, really). The CPU isn't doing shit.

 

Your point about rationing system resources and LAN support getting the axe because of it is silly. They did it to sell Xboxes, full stop. 

 

As far as your last 2 paragraphs ... ?!?!? Their game didn’t sell well, they got criticized for no split screen and for pushing esports with no LAN support. Then, They went back and added local servers, and vowed to support local MP in all future titles. That’s the literal definition of responding to demand.

 

The idea that companies don’t work off of market demand is so factually bankrupt that it’s really not worth responding to. They can try to manipulate until they are blue in the face, but if they aren’t selling what people want, people won’t buy it.

 

You posted that 343 flipped on LAN support because of Halo 5. That's nonsense. Lack of LAN support is not why Halo 5 tanked (although lack of split screen may have been a factor), so there is no reason for them to have flipped because of that - which illustrates that 343 doesn't make decisions based on whether or not they make sense or are actually objectively good for their player base. They will, however, stay true to their corporate hackery and push a moneymaking scheme full throttle in Infinite. That's not "demand", that's exploitation that people are tolerating. Of course, 343 might be a bad example here since they're consistently behind the curve on literally everything they do. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Huge chunks of code are always carried over to the next Halo installment, and LAN support is practically cut + paste, most of this code exists in pre-written libraries.

 

They did not kill LAN support because it was too costly in man hours. That's ridiculous.

 

 

What do you think is doing 95% of the work when you're playing Halo?

 

It's the GPU. Not the CPU. You don't even have to calculate for AI during multiplayer (except during Warzone, but who TF is going to LAN that), which is by far the largest chunk of processing done in an FPS (or any game, really). The CPU isn't doing shit.

 

Your point about rationing system resources and LAN support getting the axe because of it is complete bullshit. They did it to sell Xboxes, full stop.

 

 

You posted that 343 flipped on LAN support because of Halo 5. That's nonsense. Lack of LAN support is not why Halo 5 tanked (although lack of split screen may have been a factor), so there is no reason for them to have flipped because of that - which illustrates that 343 doesn't make decisions based on whether or not they make sense or are actually objectively good for their player base. They will, however, stay true to their corporate hackery and push a moneymaking scheme full throttle in Infinite. That's not "demand", that's exploitation that people are tolerating. Of course, 343 might be a bad example here since they're consistently behind the curve on literally everything they do.

I’m sorry man, you just have no idea what you are talking about.

 

First of all. Who said cutting LAN has anything to do with “too many man hours”.

 

It’s literally a question of what’s the best way to utilize our resources. If they decided dedicated servers will suffice for handling their game hosting needs, then they aren’t going to bother with figuring out how to downgrade the game so that one Xbox can handle all of the calculations for 15 other players at 60fps.

 

Yeah, GPU is great for handling non-networked physics, like a cloth flag waving, or non interactive debri falling. But players, projectiles, and vehicles need to have there states tracked, updated and validated by the host. and hosting is a CPU task. idea that the CPU “doesn’t do shit” is just ignorant nonsense.

 

when did I say 343 flipped LAN support because of halo 5? What does that even mean? You think They dropped LAN to sell xbox’s? How does that make sense? It takes the same amount of xboxes to run a LAN as is does to have everyone play online... before you go ther, it doesn’t make sense to say they dropped LAN to push xbl because there’s nothing stopping them from requiring live to access LAN feattres. They are going back to Supporting local MP because a lot of people were down on H5 expect to be able to play locally. Not having local MP hurt their bottom line, period.

 

Did I say they make decisions based on what’s objectively good for the player? No, they make decisions based on what they THINK players will respond positively to. If they are convinced gamers don’t really give a shit about split screen and LAN, then its no surprise they’d design around the things they believe gamers do give a shit about. The problems is 343 focuses too much on what gamers care about instead of what Halo fans care about.

Share this post


Link to post

I’m sorry man, you just have no idea what you are talking about.

 

First of all. Who said cutting LAN has anything to do with “too many man hours”.

 

It’s literally a question of what’s the best way to utilize our resources. If they decided dedicated servers will suffice for handling their game hosting needs, then they aren’t going to bother with figuring out how to downgrade the game so that one Xbox can handle all of the calculations for 15 other players at 60fps.

 

Yeah, GPU is great for handling non-networked physics, like a cloth flag waving, or non interactive debri falling. But players, projectiles, and vehicles need to have there states monitored and updated by the hosts CPU. The idea that the CPU “doesn’t do shit” is just ignorant nonsense.

Go play a game on your computer. Literally any game. Right now. Show me a CPU usage readout. Then tell me your CPU can't coordinate calls on top of that. We had fairly competent P2P-networked console multiplayer in 2004. That was a 733Mhz Pentium III, and that included LAN co-op. The CPU has almost nothing to do with framerate unless it's so garbage that it doesn't have the bandwidth to feed the GPU, and console games are extremely well optimized (well, most of the time). 

 

LAN was nooooooooooooooooooooooot dropped because of resource problems. 

 

when did I say 343 flipped LAN support because of halo 5? What does that even mean? They dropped LAN to sell xbox’s? How does that make sense? It takes the same amount of xboxes to run a LAN as is does to have everyone play online...

I misspoke. They dropped split screen to sell Xboxes, they dropped LAN to sell XBL subscriptions. Or at least, that's the only explanation that makes any sense whatsoever. 

 

So evil or irrationally incompetent, pick one I guess. 

 

Did I say they make decisions based on what’s objectively good for the player? No they make decisions based on what they THINK players will respond positively to. If they believe gamers don’t really give a shit about split screen and LAN, then they are going instead design around things gamers actually do give a shit about. The problems is 343 focuses too much on what gamers care about instead of what Halo fans care about.

 

A triple-A 2nd party game studio makes decisions based on money. 343 is just a special case, they make decisions based on money and stupid - take a game most renowned for its tournament scene and couch co-op and remove the functionality that drives both of those things.

 

Again, LAN wasn't the reason that Halo 5 didn't sell well. So why did they drop it? 

 

Because they were trying to get cute about it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Go play a game on your computer. Literally any game. Right now. Show me a CPU usage readout. Then tell me your CPU can't coordinate calls on top of that. We had fairly competent P2P-networked console multiplayer in 2004. That was a 733Mhz Pentium III, and that included LAN co-op. The CPU has almost nothing to do with framerate unless it's so garbage that it doesn't have the bandwidth to feed the GPU, and console games are extremely well optimized (well, most of the time).

 

I don’t know what to tell you bro... show me a game that uses the GPU to handle hosting and networked physics.

Console CPUs haven’t made a big enough leap this gen, and simulations are running at faster rates than they were in 2004.

 

Also, CPU can have plenty to do with framerate, especially when your using a dynamic resolution solution. But we aren’t just talking about framerate, we’re talking about the refresh rate of underlying systems and game logic.

 

As far as physics, This is how it typically works

There are two general cases for using a physics system in a game:

 

1: For gameplay. That is, using forces and collisions to move objects around. The physics system manages the location and movement of game objects.

2: For visualization, things like particle systems. These are pure-rendering things that don't affect gameplay.

Handling #1 on the GPU is a bad idea performance-wise. The problem is that you need to do a CPU->GPU->CPU round-trip. The CPU needs to manage where objects are, so that AI and other systems can manipulate it.

Therefore, the CPU may need to update the position of objects. The CPU also needs to read the positions of objects, as well as be notified of any collisions. So you can't just fire off some GPU "rendering" commands and then do something else; you need that information right now for AI and the like.

 

This forces a GPU/CPU synchronization. A GPU/CPU sync is one of the worst things you can do for performance. You want the GPU to operate as asynchronously as possible. Doing physics of type #1 on the GPU works against that.

 

Now, for #2 physics, things are different. In this case, the physics is completely subservient to the rendering of the object. It basically does physics solely to do rendering. Therefore, everything can effectively live on the GPU. For this, doing the physics on the GPU makes sense, because the AI and game engine don't care about any collisions or whathaveyou.

If the game needs physics results that effect the game logic And you need that data for other tasks so you can do a frame of game logic in 1/60 sec, there’s no sense relying on a handshake beteeen the two processors.

 

You’d use the GPU for asynchronous physics that don’t effect the gameplay, these are things that don’t have to be identical for every player (ragdolls, particle effects, fluid animations, etc)

 

LAN was nooooooooooooooooooooooot dropped because of resource problems.

“Problems” no. It’s 100% a resource management decision, though.

 

I misspoke. They dropped split screen to sell Xboxes]

If they Dropped split screen to sell Xbox’s, that means they underestimated split screen Halo as an Xbox selling point (ie they undervalued the demand of that feature.) and comparatively overestimated the draw of the Halo brand (which is hard to fathom given H4s legs and the utter failure of MCC)

 

If they dropped split screen because they Xbox one can barely run Halo5 for 1 player at 60fps, then that means they overestimated the demand for an uncompromizing 60fps engine.

 

Their priorities are quite obviously out of whack with the fan base. Companies make money by capitalizing on consumer demand. But thats hard to do if you don’t understand your consumer - which is 343s main issue. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

they dropped LAN to sell XBL subscriptions. Or at least, that's the only explanation that makes any sense whatsoever.

No, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever, because if they built in LAN, they could easily just require XBL to access the LAN option - just like they currently do to start a Local Server session, an H5:Forge session , or to run around a map by yourself - all for no technical reason whatsoever.

 

So evil or irrationally incompetent, pick one I guess.

 

 

Very poorly managed — leadership focused on how other franchises found success rather than how Halo found success. So yeah, incompetence.

 

A triple-A 2nd party game studio makes decisions based on money. 343 is just a special case, they make decisions based on money and stupid - take a game most renowned for its tournament scene and couch co-op and remove the functionality that drives both of those things.

Every company makes decisions based on money- to save money, to make money, and to get the best ROI. Sometimes they make the wrong decisions and lose money.

 

Again, LAN wasn't the reason that Halo 5 didn't sell well. So why did they drop it?

By your logic they dropped it so they could sell Xbox live. But LAN in no way impacts their ability to sell Xbox live. They dropped it because they prioritized other things.

 

Because they were trying to get cute about it.

Whatever that means

Share this post


Link to post

Halo Infinite is a long way away, but I'm hopeful we will get a good experience out of it. I've liked everything I've heard so far, which obviously isn't much.

 

I'd love if 343 completed some of the ideas it tried to flesh out in Halo 5.

 

- Standard Starts. I would LOVE for there to only be one setting that encompasses all Arena gametypes. To keep the settings uniform, I'm willing to even adopt the current HCS radar if it means getting a strong starting weapon off of every spawn. I'm fine with automatics in the mix as long as they don't overwhelm the extra difficulty of headshot weapons.

 

- Powerups. I sorta like 343 announcing power weapon spawns. I'd be okay with that mechanic coming back. I didn't think that way my entire Halo career, but I think in terms of general matchmaking, it's more skillful to fight over a weapon everyone knows is spawning, rather than just remembering what time it comes up. I also liked 343 putting more powerups on the map compared to recent Halo games. I think if they return to a passive activation for OS and Camo, rather than an activation button, I could get used to that in a good way.

 

- Pistol. I think they did a decent job in giving us a healthy starting weapon in Halo 5. Besides the horrid aiming, the gun wasn't overly easy to use compared to the BR/DMR combos we've had recently, and it certainly was accurate enough to get the job done. If they build on that and give us a weapon that's a little tougher on magnetism, coupled with a base speed boost, I think I can get behind that.

 

- Arena/Warzone split. I think this was the best decision they made in Halo 5. Giving players a grandiose and fun sandbox to use vehicles, custom weapons, and stuff like that in was brilliant. It was fun, especially Warzone Assault. I loved the action in that mode, and I would love it to return again. However for the default Warzone gametype they need to address how badly matches snowball. It's a detriment. If they end up giving Arena and Warzone different settings with movement and such, I wouldn't be upset. 

 

Unfortunately Halo 5 became unenjoyable for me each time I played it consistently. The reasons varied. One was the aiming. It took me so long to warm up with the shit aiming, it almost made me dread getting back into the game after I took like a week off from playing, so eventually I just don't come back. Secondly, the art style. Halo 5 was a bad looking game. The maps were very monotonous, the spartan models were terrible... lots of things to dislike. The visuals actively turned me off. The other big reason was thrust. Dear god do I hate thrust. I understand it can be a skillful manuever, and I understand it forces good players to miss shots. But goddamn do I hate how thrust fits into my control scheme, and I hate what it does to game flow. If there is one thing that could turn me off to Halo Infinite faster than anything else, it's seeing a thrust in a trailer. I pray that they just do away with the mechanic and instead up the default movement capabilities and let people miss shots the old fashioned way.

 

Anyways, as we get details on Halo Infinite, I can't wait to get in here and over analyze things like we used to in the old days. Hopefully 343 learns from the notable failures and almost successes of Halo 5, and it gives us a better game in the long run.

Great post, agree with everything.

 

 

Is it me, or is 343 playing it WAY to safe, with halo infinite? Like come on, all we got was a stupid concept art which tbh doesn’t tell us shit. We have no clue if we’re getting a beta this year, we have no idea if they even have anything that resembles gameplay done. A new engine is all we know of which again doesn’t tell us shit. Like how smooth is this games engine, what makes it different from the previous engine halo used for 15 years? Obviously it’s expected to be better, but in what ways?

 

You can say that once they actually show the game. It's too early for that talk. We don't even know when the game comes out yet. Is Bethesda playing it WAY to safe with The Elder Scrolls VI?

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't they say halo 5 had a new engine?

Much like every new Halo release, yes, lol. When they really should be saying they've just changed it a fuckload, since it's not entirely new.

Share this post


Link to post

Halo 5 is the first time I've really believed that new engine claim, at least. There were hints that it was different under the hood, such as the Scorpion physics not freaking out anymore if it flips over too much (like it had done every game before) and your Spartan taking very little damage from running into objects at full speed with vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post

What would you guys consider the quintessential core game modes? Doesn't matter if it's within a classic or modern environment, just interested in seeing what people would consider their ideal set up.

Share this post


Link to post

Much like every new Halo release, yes, lol. When they really should be saying they've just changed it a fuckload, since it's not entirely new.

right that's what I'm getting at. Like theyve said before that they built a completely new engine and that turned out to be bogus. So how much you wanna bet that the slipspace engine is basically what Bethesda's "creation" engine is to the gamebryo engine. Which is to say it's the damn same just modernized.

Share this post


Link to post

What would you guys consider the quintessential core game modes? Doesn't matter if it's within a classic or modern environment, just interested in seeing what people would consider their ideal set up.

CTF, CTF, CTF, CTF, CTF and CTF
  • Upvote (+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.