Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Boyo said:

How do you think allowing players to carry all the weapons would affect individual weapon design and overall sandbox balance?  Is a utility weapon even necessary anymore when players can carry a unique weapon for every specific circumstance?  

Keep in mind that the two weapon limit was implemented because of the limitations of a console controller. It was never about good design. It became a popular trend after Halo blew up and other shooters like CoD started doing it. The problem is that it affects how the game is played. Because the developers can never know which two weapons you’ll be holding, they have to design generic level and enemy encounters to always be the same, keeping in mind only the two weapons you spawn with. While in other shooters without this limit, there can be way more strategy and variety since you have access to everything. I can’t speak for multiplayer, but it would certainly improve the campaign as far as I can tell.

Would it really affect the utility weapon though? The point of the utility weapon (or a good one anyway) is that it can be used in all scenarios. But if it does affect it, you could always do what BioShock 2 did and have a weapon limit in the multiplayer.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ehh, I think there's value in limiting the number of weapons you can hold at a given time in a team-based shooter. You're forced to spread the weapons around, rather than stack one player with all of them. I know that's the meta strategy to being with, but I can picture solo queuing becoming a nightmare if players can just stack every weapon on their person. It's already tough to stop xx L33T_Sn1p3s 69 xx from running the T2 combo. I'd rather not let him also take the shotgun, railgun, and sword.

Plus, it's not like every PC shooter runs with an unlimited weapon wheel. CS limits you to two weapons, for example. I get that it's a different context than an arena shooter like Quake, but claiming the limitations of controllers is the only reason we have two weapons today isn't totally accurate.

Edit: I'll add that in the campaign context, there's value in introducing a probability calculation: is it worth carrying this weapon or this one? You force the player to evaluate, based on the situation, what weapon combination is going to be more valuable as you progress through the level. This is more of a subjective preference, so I can see why one might prefer a weapon wheel in the campaign. But to me, I think having to make that decision adds a bit more depth to the gameplay/makes it more interesting.

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

I have no idea who the Created or Banished are. Can someone tell me if I need to watch Halo 5's cutscenes, or would that be the equivalent of watching The Last Jedi?
- - -
If Halo Infinite keeps the current broken weapon sandbox with brainlessly good weapons everywhere, the two gun limit has merit. If you have one rocket left, there is no risk to keeping the launcher in your back pocket if you can hold more than two guns. And Quinn's "random rocket" argument starts to make sense. People throw in comparisons to Quake without realizing that just about everything in those games requires more skill than just about anything in Halo and is simply designed better, and it all falls apart above 2v2 because of the chaos. I can guarantee the same people who complain about not being able to anticipate someone's armor ability would also complain about this.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I would like it if halo campaign was built with req points in mind. Now these points can be achieved two ways. 1. Kills, or two money that’s founded on the map and stations. A cool feature I think should be added(not just guns and vehicles, perks, etc(anything that was in original h5) would be to hire marines, ODSTs, and Spartans. You can hire 10 marines for 1000 points(this is just a random number but to put in hindsight I want these numbers to be seen as difficult to achieve/ be high) 5 odsts 5000, and One Spartan 10000. These AI will/ should be COMPETENT. The reasons for amount should be obvious HP difference . 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/25/2020 at 12:11 PM, Cursed Lemon said:

Didn't the Banished already get their asses kicked in Halo Wars 2? Is that not canon?

Not exactly. All you achieved in HW2 was destroying the one ship they took with them to go to the Ark, meaning that the ones on the Ark were stranded and couldn't get free. The fight on the Ark is still currently ongoing. 

 

However, the Banished are a pretty large faction and its confirmed there are more of them in the galaxy, they aren't all on the Ark. So Infinite will be against the Banished, but they'll be new characters and leaders, unless Infinite takes us back to the Ark.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Even in terms of campaign, I am still not convinced on being able to carry all weapons either. Although I wouldn't be opposed to holding Y for a third like in Destiny or Titanfall.

I don't have much experience with old arena shooters, but from playing Doom 2016, as good as it was, with it's awesome gameplay loop, I never felt like I had any real pressing strategy decisions to make. Could just run in since I had everything.

I feel like when it comes to Halo this is another thing where less is more. Due to the weapon limit, you have to think about what set of weapons will be best for your current situation, and then have to play around those strengths and limitations. Such as dip, ducking and dodging with a shotgun, or sitting back picking things off with a sniper.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Reamis25 said:

I would like it if halo campaign was built with req points in mind. Now these points can be achieved two ways. 1. Kills, or two money that’s founded on the map and stations. A cool feature I think should be added(not just guns and vehicles, perks, etc(anything that was in original h5) would be to hire marines, ODSTs, and Spartans. You can hire 10 marines for 1000 points(this is just a random number but to put in hindsight I want these numbers to be seen as difficult to achieve/ be high) 5 odsts 5000, and One Spartan 10000. These AI will/ should be COMPETENT. The reasons for amount should be obvious HP difference . 

I disagree with this for campaign, however I can imagine this would be fricken wicked in a Warzone/Firefight hybrid. Like you have to defend a large area against huge assaults and you can spawn in allied tanks/marines/ODSTs etcetera. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of carrying more weapons, remember the Item Storage Box from Super Mario World (an extra item is stored in there and the user can take it when he needs it)?  What if Halo implemented a similar system using teleportation technology?  

If an item is available, Down on the D pad makes it appear in your hands.  “Chief, I put a Rocket Launcher in the teleporter bay for you”.  Presses Down.  A Rocket Launcher appears in the player’s hands (demoting his primary weapon to secondary and temporarily disabling the secondary weapon).   

The Campaign could have a character that befriends Chief and leaves him gifts like the little sisters in Bioshock.  It would create someone to talk to chief and make the player like them cuz they give you cool shit.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Shekkles said:

I disagree with this for campaign, however I can imagine this would be fricken wicked in a Warzone/Firefight hybrid. Like you have to defend a large area against huge assaults and you can spawn in allied tanks/marines/ODSTs etcetera. 

I’ve played games where such mechanics were necessary or else fighting the mobs solo was very hard. Halos never had hard mobs to fight, but legendary is an exception.

Share this post


Link to post

Lopsided games 

If enough players quit the match due to a significant score difference, the leading team is automatically awarded the win and the rules are modified for the remainder of the match.  Instead of desperately searching for the last two enemies in big team slayer, you’re suddenly playing fiesta ffa against everyone left in the match.  

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Boyo said:

Lopsided games 

If enough players quit the match due to a significant score difference, the leading team is automatically awarded the win and the rules are modified for the remainder of the match.  Instead of desperately searching for the last two enemies in big team slayer, you’re suddenly playing fiesta ffa against everyone left in the match.  

In social this would be absolutely hilarious. 2 players quit on one team and all of a sudden it turns to FFA fiesta.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Boyo said:

Lopsided games 

If enough players quit the match due to a significant score difference, the leading team is automatically awarded the win and the rules are modified for the remainder of the match.  Instead of desperately searching for the last two enemies in big team slayer, you’re suddenly playing fiesta ffa against everyone left in the match.  

In a game of Team Doubles if one player quits, it should turn into a 1v1 where the team of 2 take turns playing. 

  • Thonking (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, MaceX42 said:

In a game of Team Doubles if one player quits, it should turn into a 1v1 where the team of 2 take turns playing. 

I used to do this a lot in Halo 2 1v1s. Have 8 people in the game but only 2 can be spawned at a time. I don't know why that stopped being a thing.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jake Teh Nub said:

I used to do this a lot in Halo 2 1v1s. Have 8 people in the game but only 2 can be spawned at a time. I don't know why that stopped being a thing.

Cutthroat was a really fun gametype in H2.

There was something similar I use to play in Halo 3 too, but its name eludes me.
The map was sectioned off into cubes and 2 players would spawn per cube. After a set amount of time a ramp would appear to the neighbor cube and your next fight. Rinse and repeat until you have a champion.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Nokt said:

Cutthroat was a really fun gametype in H2.

There was something similar I use to play in Halo 3 too, but its name eludes me.
The map was sectioned off into cubes and 2 players would spawn per cube. After a set amount of time a ramp would appear to the neighbor cube and your next fight. Rinse and repeat until you have a champion.

It’s called coliseum in h3s case. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Shekkles said:

Now, the developer put that sniper there knowing full well that the player would pick it up and use it. But, the player doesn't have to either. That's the beauty of Halo 1: literally every weapon, except to be honest the needler, is useful. They made the weapons sandbox so perfectly that sprinkling power weapons around the levels became a choice not a necessity and that is interesting, dynamic game design. It's the exact opposite of what you say: Having access to a rocket launcher all the time to counter vehicles is not strategy. You don't even think about it. You just see a vehicle, press "rocket launcher" button and boom. Vehicle dead. Zero thought. Having access to a rocket launcher in the last encounter you played and choosing not to pick it up because you think you'd be better off with Magnum/Sniper is strategy.

I just wanna respond here. CE’s campaign (its level design, enemies, etc) was built with two weapons in mind, so I doubt only inserting a weapon wheel without changing anything else would work. I’m saying it should change. With a weapon wheel you’d have enemies or vehicles that are immune to rockets, or you make rocket ammo scarce so you might save it for tougher enemies in later levels instead of wasting them. You’d have to redesign the game around it. If you’ve ever played BioShock 1, none of the weapons are OP because they all have different uses, and you need to use all of them to get through the game. You do have to think, and there is tactics involved. Hardly any two encounters is the same in that game. Then they added a two weapon limit in BioShock Infinite and almost everyone hated it.

Meanwhile in Halo this strategy you talk about is completely illusionary: you use the sniper because it’s fun or because it’s there to use, not because the game design makes you use it. On that note, I very much disagree with this argument that a two weapon limit adds strategy because you have to pick only two guns to carry. This is no different than the people defending sprint who say it adds strategy because you have to choose between going fast and lowering your weapon or being able to shoot, as if it were a risk/reward system. It’s still bad; you want to be able to shoot at all times. And I want to have access to all weapons at all times.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1
  • WutFace (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've never played Bioshock. And I keep thinking to older MGS games (which are not shooters so not quite valid in this argument). Along with maybe looter-shooter/RPGs where you can just switch out your loadout at will. Doom 2016 once again is the most recent and relevant experience for me (007: Nightfire from back in the day also comes to mind).

I guess it is just a different kind of experience. Having everything easily on hand for when you need it really exacerbates 'press Y to win' type of gameplay with no repercussions or trade-offs IMO. Which I guess is good or bad depending on preference, but IMO it is kinda not the best.

I'm sure simply being out of ammo can present a similar situation, but not having access to the quick and easy weapon for a situation can help breed creativity using what you do have. You don't have a sniper, so you are going to have to weave your way through fire and cover to close enough to use something else. You don't have a shotgun, so you will have to be extra passive and on the run from enemies chasing you.

I really like vehicle hijacking being added since H2. While not always implemented into an encounter well, this adds another way to deal with vehicles when you don't have designated Anti-Armor weapons. You can do so anytime, but you have to risk getting close, and know the vehicle movements to get close enough. You are also then rewarded with a vehicle to turn the tide if so. Instead of just always boringly shooting it to death over time with only small-arms.

Also keep in mind that Halo also has hotkeys for melee and grenades, instead of having to switch to them, often when out of everything else. The melee is an infinite ammo shotgun-esqe sudden burst damage tool in CQC to compliment whatever ranged weapon you have. Grenades are your anti-crowd nuke weapon, or supplemental anti-hard target arcing rocket launcher. Especially in CE. Bringing up the Golden Triangle of Halo, with your gun, grenade, and melee (gun, shotgun, and grenade launcher), you are already generally equipped to potentially handle any enemy type. The variety of guns only helps to augment how you play Halo and use or enhance the above.

Also, having to make trade-offs adds to replayability IMO. Because of the limiting playstyle associated with each weapon, it is like playing a psuedo-class-based game where everytime you switch weapons, you switch classes or even a mix thereof. Which changes the experience completely for the same encounters.  As opposed to having everything like in Doom 2016 or similar games, where you simply 'press Y' in any situation that you need it, and you don't really feel the need to do any differently the next time.

Let's not forget that Halo is/was it's own unique hybrid.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SpitFlame said:

CE’s campaign (its level design, enemies, etc) was built with two weapons in mind, so I doubt only inserting a weapon wheel without changing anything else would work.

Exactly.

1 hour ago, SpitFlame said:

With a weapon wheel you’d have enemies or vehicles that are immune to rockets, or you make rocket ammo scarce so you might save it for tougher enemies in later levels instead of wasting them. 

Halo already has this by having anti-vehicle weaponry located near vehicle areas. That is the same argument as having rocket ammo near vehicle areas, except you don't break Halo's core weapon design. By even stating this you have dramatically weakened your point of view. Additonally, thanks to that fact that we DON'T have acces to anti-vehicle weapons all the time we have the following innovations built around players who choose not to use anti-vehcile weapons to counter vehicles:

- Sticky grenades
- Boarding
- Plasma EMP (and then grenade launcher EMP)

These innovations were made to increase the players ability to counter vehicles without the need for power weapons. This is great game design. Having "rocket proof vehicles" is just ridiculous. Why even have anti-vehicle weapons if there are anti-anti-vehicle weapon vehicles. What's next? Headshot proof snipers you can't snipe in return? That's bad game design.

1 hour ago, SpitFlame said:

You’d have to redesign the game around it.

Yeah every time 343 redesign the game around unnecesary things they add in, the game suffers enourmously. Here's a list of some examples:

- Forced co-op (4 players means enemies are more numerous, but at the cost of CPU, making encounters rely on large amount of dumb AI and making them dull)
- Armour abilities (All enemies have lock on, hitscan or one-hit kill weapons to cater for the players moving everwhere. Once again, AI is dumb so these were shortcuts to make the game balanced. So you can move everywhere but enemies can't miss you...)
- 60fps (the game focused so hard to get this on shitty Xbox One hardware that it lost AI intelligence and graphical fidelity. Once again, dumb AI = poor encounter design)

Now imagine 343's lazy design decisions with the player further empowered with access every weapon in the game all the time.

1 hour ago, SpitFlame said:

Meanwhile in Halo this strategy you talk about is completely illusionary: you use the sniper because it’s fun or because it’s there to use, not because the game design makes you use it. 

This sentence seems to contradict itself? You literally made my point: that you don't have to use it. The game allows options, each different, each effective in different ways. But not so many options that everything is generic (that's you, Ghost Recon Wildlands!).

1 hour ago, SpitFlame said:

 This is no different than the people defending sprint who say it adds strategy because you have to choose between going fast and lowering your weapon or being able to shoot, as if it were a risk/reward system. It’s still bad; you want to be able to shoot at all times. And I want to have access to all weapons at all times.

I don't know what point you're trying to make here, it doesn't make sense. Sprint ruins gameplay by expanding maps and taking power away from the player (unable to shoot + more distance to cover) whilst pretending it is actually empowering the player (spartan go zoomzoom). That is the danger of sprint. It is not beneficial, it is garbage.

That is not even remotely related to the weapon sandbox, nor is the reasoning similar. If you see snipers in the distance and some squads close by, you just pull out the sniper and shoot the close ones then switch to whatever other guns you need (remember, you have all of them) and shoot the close ones. Done. Piece of piss.

But in Halo you have two weapons. There is a dead marine with a sniper, but you are worried if you pick it up and kill the enemies in the distance then the close ones will rush you. You can beat most of them but the shielded elites are hard to kill with your other gun. So do you decide to use plasma for shields and bullets for flesh and try and dodge the snipers in the distance, or do you snipe the others and try and hold off the close ones without plasma to take their shields off?

  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just want a return to a more classic gameplay experience. It doesn't mean I want a carbon copy of CE. But I want a gameplay experience that makes it seem like I'm playing a good classic Halo again.

The last thing I want is for 343 to change something as drastic as how many weapons you can carry - regardless of if it is just Campaign only (and let's be realistic, it wouldn't just be campaign only anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JordanB said:

I just want a return to a more classic gameplay experience. It doesn't mean I want a carbon copy of CE. But I want a gameplay experience that makes it seem like I'm playing a good classic Halo again.

The last thing I want is for 343 to change something as drastic as how many weapons you can carry - regardless of if it is just Campaign only (and let's be realistic, it wouldn't just be campaign only anyway).

Isn’t this was doom 4 did? 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/25/2020 at 11:32 AM, MultiLockOn said:

Well EA does that with Frostbite where it's company wide, it's still nowhere near Unreal Engine. And they've invested a LOT of time and money into it. If EA and Dice can't make an engine quite as good as Unreal I sure don't expect 343 to. 

I guess it just depends on your definition of new. Like the new Modern Warfare, 343 probably rewrote some lighting things, added more accurate light bounces, maybe a few tools for them to use while they develop the game, and called it a day and gave the engine a name. You'll still be able to tell in movement that everything about it resembles the engine we know now. 

True (Frostbite reliance has probably hurt EA more than it has helped), I assumed, probably wrongly, that Microsoft actually took the plunge to invest completely in their own game engine. Has it officially been said what Slipspace is based on? It would make more sense to use some of the old code than building something entirely new, but my understanding of the ins-and-outs of game engines is pretty low level. 

My assumption after hearing the rumors about how much Microsoft spent on Infinite was that they either spent the money to buy rights to use code/infrastructure they wanted to use or hired some of the best in the business to do it for them. 

I think Ubisoft and CDPR are good examples of companies that have been iterating on their own engines over time and it is starting to pay off for them. Hell, half of Ubisoft games can be viewed as tech demos/proof of concept of new systems they have been developing. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, NAK said:

Hell, half of Ubisoft games can be viewed as tech demos/proof of concept of new systems they have been developing. 

Yet all their games since 2014 are exactly the same to the point where they delayed releasing new titles to address this.

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.