Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

I don't really care for the mountains of posts I see here, and find it baffling at how people perceive themselves to devs.

For the last ten years, there has been poor design ethic and lethargy in the AAA industry. Halo is not the only series that has seen atrocities to its name. People have seen and experienced this, some more than others, and it should come to no one's surprise that the thought of "I could design something better" crosses people's minds.

There is a good Halo formula knocking around in the forum discussions, even amidst the jagoffs and the complainers, the misfits and the old guard. Most of us acknowledge what was wrong with the original trilogy, and have given out thoughts of objective improvements to those games, and some of us even went so far as to make a bit of them a reality (GoldPro from Reach, Promod from Halo 4, Evolved and Mythic from Halo 5).

Can you honestly write to me, or to anyone else in this forum, that you haven't stopped playing mid game and went "What was that? It should be like this" or "That was bullshit, why is that there"?  Not even in the context of Halo games, just any game. 

 

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, TheIcePrincess said:

No, we have a hypothesis for its degradation. It's nothing concrete to this point. You could just as well argue Halo suffered from series burnout that, say, Call of Duty never did because the former is harder to access and the latter is easy to jump into and play. And the two happened to come together at a time where Halo began to peter out and Call of Duty rose hardcore in the following years. And it could very well be likely. I dunno if it's true, and I'm not arguing it AS true. But I'd be nuts to say it was true or the reason, even if I believed it 100%.

So you're saying that there's absolutely no possible way to actually assert why the franchise is dying without being "arrogant" because of some Hegelian invective in which human beings can never truly know anything and causality is the universe's greatest magic act.

Got it.

2 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

However, if you refuse to play, just don't join in the first place and instigate. Least then you won't waste my time. 

You are trying to lure people into a 27th argument over Halo 5 and it's pretty fucking shameless at this point.

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

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

You are trying to lure people into a 27th argument over Halo 5 and it's pretty fucking shameless at this point.

2 + 7 = 9. 9/3 = 3.

3 sides to a triangle.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Shekkles said:

2 + 7 = 9. 9/3 = 3.

3 sides to a triangle.

3x2 = Halo 6

Six = the number of Def Leppard members, almost

Def Leppard for next Halo game confirmed

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Cursed Lemon said:

3x2 = Halo 6

Six = the number of Def Leppard members, almost

Def Leppard for next Halo game confirmed

Leppard sounds like Leopard. Leopard is a cat. Kat is a character in Halo. Halo: Infinite main character Kat confirmed.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

H5 was not a good quality triple A launch. 

 

Source: All the other triple A games

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, OG Nick said:

H5 was not a good quality triple A launch. 

 

Source: All the other triple A games

Halo 5 has worse graphics than Halo: Reach. I thought it was rose tinting but it's really not.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Again, that's popularity. That isn't proof of anything past "people like this", which we can apply to anything. As I said in my original post, popular things can be garbage, AND varied, lol. Which was my other point. It means effectively nothing on our level, and doesn't actually affect anything tangible to a player until you dip below 1K, where matchmaking performance tanks or suffers. That's about as much effect as you'll ever get, barring "I want my favorite thing to be popular" and having the resulting unpopularity hurting your feelings.

Which lead into how I don't really care for the mountains of posts I see here, and find it baffling at how people perceive themselves to devs. These posts are written by people who don't really grind or play the new games, and as a result of the lack of time put in, obviously don't understand them, and just wanna change from them. Why take that seriously? Likewise, why would I feel or be inclined to feel someone somehow knows more than devs, while sitting in that boat, too. I'm not saying you must be a pro, or you must dedicate your life to a game, or that being the former grants you knowledge. I'm just saying, there's a tangible difference in people's thought patterns here in what they post, and how things actually play out. And as a result, I can't really this seriously. And see it as arrogant.

I also can't take just calling my viewpoint baseless seriously. You didn't argue anything. You just said "everything" without saying anything, lol.

It’s still fair to recognize the moment when sprint and other stuff was added halos population and popularity started declining.  Sure halos always had stuff that may of seemed off. Equipment for example but unlike abilities equipment didn’t screw up on. I’d be ok with sprint in halo if the ability to run away from gun fights was basically impossible(thus my solution is no sprint if you’re damaged). I don’t enjoy halo 5, my halo experience began in h3, but I loved reach. Part of me hates h5 mostly for the aim mechanics, if they weren’t so bad I probably see myself liking the game.

id also say a difference about h5, is its not a game some noob could pick up and do even half decent, but in previous halos it was so simple you knew how to do everything within like 1-2 game’s. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

So you're saying that there's absolutely no possible way to actually assert why the franchise is dying without being "arrogant" because of some Hegelian invective in which human beings can never truly know anything and causality is the universe's greatest magic act.

Got it.

You are trying to lure people into a 27th argument over Halo 5 and it's pretty fucking shameless at this point.

I only called thinking you're better or proclaiming to know you're better than the devs (With the current context) arrogant. I didn't say debating this specific hypothesis was arrogant. Re-read.

And to a point, yes. I just said there's no way we currently know specifically as to why things went down as they did. It'd be possible to truly assert it if we had empirical evidence. We don't, though. It's almost all a guess, without any proper evidence at this point. It could've been game quality, it could've been its time to die, it could've been competition. It could've been all three, or none of them. I do not know for sure. That's all I'm saying, and to proclaim you know as such is a jump to a conclusion. Why Halo died is less certain and engraved in stone (hahaa) than the dinosaur's extinction, and even then we have more theories that things compounded during said extinction that could've killed them faster, slower, or had things not occurred as they did, not killed them at all, or, guaranteed it past a possible recovery, even in an apocalyptic scenario. If we're still 100% trying to nail down the steps of extinction with a species in the real world with tangible evidence, how in the hell are we gonna start with Halo when all we have to go off of is essentially anecdotal. 

And you can't say I lured you. I responded to you when you pressed me. Don't misrepresent anything. I'll even quote the posts, lol. 

3 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Furthermore, I still don't think you (general term) know better than any dev. Which was my whole thing. That's arrogant to presume so. 

3 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

And that's a wonderfully baseless opinion in the face of absolutely everything.

3 hours ago, TheIcePrincess said:

I also can't take just calling my viewpoint baseless seriously. You didn't argue anything. You just said "everything" without saying anything, lol.

2 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

This, like Halo 5, is a game I refuse to play.

You responded to my point, and claimed it was baseless. I said you didn't argue anything, and you said you wouldn't even go on. You jumped in and tried to start something and wouldn't respond when I called you on it. You tried to initiate the argument. I just reiterated my earlier point to Basu, which had nothing to do with Halo 5. And in response to you, grew into the ethics behind thinking you're better than someone else when you don't even play the game they design yet suggest changes for it or criticisms to it. Could've been 4 or 5. The point was just basic. 

13 minutes ago, Arlong said:

It’s still fair to recognize the moment when sprint and other stuff was added halos population and popularity started declining.  Sure halos always had stuff that may of seemed off. Equipment for example but unlike abilities equipment didn’t screw up on. I’d be ok with sprint in halo if the ability to run away from gun fights was basically impossible(thus my solution is no sprint if you’re damaged). I don’t enjoy halo 5, my halo experience began in h3, but I loved reach. Part of me hates h5 mostly for the aim mechanics, if they weren’t so bad I probably see myself liking the game.

Correlation is not causation. Reach started the fall (hahaa) in 2010, right after the enormous wave of popularity with MW2 and Black Ops 1's arrival.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Salt (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Larry Sizemore said:

Stop clogging up the thread with this trash.

I want to agree with you but like... what do we talk about? There's zero information. If it gets heated I'll cull it down but it's just basic debate.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Shekkles said:

Halo 5 has worse graphics than Halo: Reach. I thought it was rose tinting but it's really not.

If by worse you mean ugly by comparison, then I would agree. They turned up the shiny factor way too much and, in addition to some other factors involved, simultaneously created an uninteresting atmosphere and a sensory overload. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Three Six Xero said:

If by worse you mean ugly by comparison, then I would agree. They turned up the shiny factor way too much and, in addition to some other factors involved, simultaneously created an uninteresting atmosphere and a sensory overload. 

There's barely a bullet decal in sight. Blood effects are scarce. Textures are worse. Shiny plastic garbage. Yuck/10

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanted to pop in and say that titsnfall failed because the game has fundamentally sucks. It sold fine, just didn't hold any players. 

 

Also comparing the general sales of 2 different products is not a good way to deny quality, aka CoD sells a lot and is bad therefore Halos declining numbers aren't indicative of anything. The theme and general presentation of your game will generally determine what your total possible outreach might be, and within that you can better judge how your quality stands. Call of duty is usually a grounded modern military shooter, halo is a stylized sci fi shooter. Just by that premise ALONE call of duty has unbelievably greater reach than Halo ever could. What you can do pretty easily is look at the sales numbers within the franchise sequels, or more accurately reference the player retention. Halo 5 hasn't done too hot on either front.

 

Cods sales and player retention shattered between infinite warfare and WW2. That should imply those are bad games. 

Titanfall sold a lot (generally speaking) and had garbage retention. 

 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Not to mention that Titanfall 2 was a victim of EA smelling blood in the water at the time with Infinite Warfare's massive backlash and forcing it to compete with Battlefield 1. It's place in the market at the time was poor and many of its gameplay dynamics from Titanfall 1 were lackluster in comparison, especially at launch.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, The Tyco said:

Not to mention that Titanfall 2 was a victim of EA smelling blood in the water at the time with Infinite Warfare's massive backlash and forcing it to compete with Battlefield 1. It's place in the market at the time was poor and many of its gameplay dynamics from Titanfall 1 were lackluster in comparison, especially at launch.

They would have been better off basically re-releasing Titanfall 1 with a new campaign in March. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think people calling something a good or bad game is pretty vague. Like sure I can get on my FPS mechanical elitism shit and immediately put fortnite, CoD, etc in the trash. That doesn't mean they're bad games though. Really popularity, within reason, is what defines a games success and quality in broad terms. That doesn't mean your individual opinion of the game changes or that you must feel its enjoyable. It just means that you have to stop and admit that they made something great and most people enjoy it. They won with those games regardless of how anyone feels about it in terms of greatness or success. 

You can create a technical masterpiece and sell fuck all because the game wasn't actually fun to most people. It really always comes back to fun with games. Its subjective and while opinions vary the best way to quantify it broadly is how popular the game is assuming it was accessible. Everything else really is irrelevant. This is why people trying to compare games and say something is objectively bad or to rank series that way always come across as really stupid. Sure you can have an opinion and enjoy things however you want but any objective metrics will have the commonly derided games like CoD absolutely crushing 

Its relevant for Halo because people offer suggestions leaning towards this hyper competitive arena FPS and we're never getting that. If you're developing Halo you're swinging for Halo 3 numbers or better we just have people choosing the direction for that poorly and its why you see trend chasing or poorly implemented mechanics. All they had to do is ask what made Halo fun and why it worked before and proceed from there. 343 could build houses with the bricks they shoot trying to steal mechanics and look everywhere but where Halo was actually successful.

Their job is to capture the emotion of playing Halo if they're trying to harness the series nostalgia and move forward with it and it'll never happen with the direction we've been going. Maybe they'll luck into something new and great like this but they probably won't. Most games fail to become something like the first trilogy of Halo games

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

When asked about his participation in “JAWS: The Revenge”, Michael Caine famously replied, "I have never seen the film, but by all accounts it was terrible. However I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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