Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, SMARTAN 427 said:

  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.

You really have to play Doom Eternal. They really, really improved weapon variety and how important it is to use the right tool and swap when needed. That game is easily my GoTY so far. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, NAK said:

 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. 

Well, Ubisofts "own" engine that "they built themselves" Dunia, is actually just built on top of Crytech. Its Crytech with some nice tools and optimizations. 

 

CDPR is a fair example. But they're a MASSIVE team who release a game every 5 years and operates in Poland where the cost of development is 1/3rd the US and are coming off the Witcher 3's 30+ million sales. This is all to say, they have a LOT of luxuries that other game devs can't afford. Also, as good as Cyberpunk looks... Itd probably look better and be made faster in Unreal lol the days are coming to a close where proprietary engines are a thing. I give them another 10 years max if Epic continues development the way they have been. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/26/2020 at 9:06 AM, Shekkles said:

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!).

Not at all. If the game designed levels where it’s almost impossible to get through without using the sniper, and you have to figure out how and when to use it, then that would be strategy. (Like how in chess you have to use all your pieces to play well) But you can get through CE’s campaign only ever using the AR and pistol without much difficulty. The sniper is there, but since you never have to use it then it’s inconsequential. In my opinion being given options isn’t strategy if they aren’t pertinent. I’m not saying 343 would pull this off well, but if pulled off well it’d improve the game a lot.

And it’s not like Halo’s identify is married to this limit, like it is to the golden triangle. At least for the campaign I can see it working.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/26/2020 at 6:49 AM, SpitFlame said:

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.

Nope. Part of what keeps Halo CE's gameplay refreshing is the fact that encounter, geometry, and level design are different in how you need to approach them. Range, weapons at hand, enemy composition, and geometry all play key roles in deciding how the player must dissect the encounter. 

Take one of my favorite parts, the outdoor gravlift battle on T&R. The difficulty comes from how ridiculously quickly enemy waves spawn, and how quickly an unprepared player can be overwhelmed. Your strongest weapons available at this point are the sniper rifle and the plasma pistol. You have to carefully nade each wave as they come down, and precisely snipe the wave's leader elite + one or two accompanying jackals before they advance and drown you in fire without any good cover, and with ill-equipped weapons. If the player simply had a shotgun or magnum in his back pocket that he could use, it would ruin all the tension and difficulty of the encounter. 

It would, in effect, cause encounter homogenization. No encounter can be too unique, because then it will either fall far below the difficulty curve due to the availability of every weapon at hand, regardless of ammo scarcity. Every encounter would be the same, because the player more or less has all the weapons, and the encounter has to still provide a level of challenge. 

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.

Nope lol. Play T&R on legendary without the sniper rifle. Play Two Betrayals without rockets or shotgun. Play Halo without the pistol. Play the Library without the shotgun. 

You have to use the aforementioned weapons in their respective missions, else you're gonna be dying an incredible amount. 

 

>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 isn't a matter of risk/reward, it's a matter of making the player think carefully about what he should use, and forcing him to adapt to a certain playstyle if he uses a certain weapon combination. Another key aspect I mentioned, is that the developer can force a certain level of competency with a specific, situationally-specific difficult weapon to use. This is what leads to special moments in campaign, like sniping 4 zealots in a row when they all corner you with swords in a narrow section, or taking out a banshee with a precise, anticipated, long range shot. 

>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.

 

It's really not. Sprint forces a dilemma that didn't need to and didn't exist at all. Two weapon limits in Halo, serve a very important role in encounter design. 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

As far as community-created campaign goes, the following are necessary if you want anything substantial:

• Ability to create custom level geometry and texture said geometry. 

• Ability to freely populate the user made levels with enemy and allied AI, as well as give them their own custom pathfinding and any additional unique behaviors. 

• Ability to freely populate the user made levels with weapons and powerups, as well as the ability to manipulate the weapons' properties much like in Assembly. 

• Custom player objectives, control over how/when/where enemies and allies spawn, audio/animation importing, and the ability to modify enemy classes. 

Not gonna happen but it would be absolutely incredible if it did. You could have several tens, if not even hundreds of custom community-made campaigns and firefight maps. Imagine, an SPV3 like-remaster made within the game's own campaign creation tools. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SpitFlame said:

Not at all. If the game designed levels where it’s almost impossible to get through without using the sniper, and you have to figure out how and when to use it, then that would be strategy. (Like how in chess you have to use all your pieces to play well) But you can get through CE’s campaign only ever using the AR and pistol without much difficulty. The sniper is there, but since you never have to use it then it’s inconsequential. In my opinion being given options isn’t strategy if they aren’t pertinent. I’m not saying 343 would pull this off well, but if pulled off well it’d improve the game a lot.

And it’s not like Halo’s identify is married to this limit, like it is to the golden triangle. At least for the campaign I can see it working.

I can understand that. I prefer being given the choice of if to use it rather than when to use it, but that is personal preference (also I love Halo 1/2/3 a lot so I obviously love the existing formula).

Also I wouldn't trust 343 whatsoever to make a change this big without stuffing it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm more excited for sub-objectives, side missions, self-intersecting levels, and intelligent allied AI coordination to be implemented in Halo. It won't be in Infinite; maybe we'll see it by the next major Halo release or possibly the one after that. 

Imagine something like Outskirts, combined with aspects of Halo. Five pelicans worth of troops scattered across the city, save them and rally as many as possible. Failing to save one group of marines means that they will not appear to assist you in a later, much larger scale, tougher encounter (like the scarab fight at the end of Metropolis). Or, saving a group means that they'll receive an aerial cache of weapons, like a sniper rifle and a rocket launcher. Or, rescuing the final group of marines gives you access to a pelican or a hornet, and allows you to fight a large scale vehicle encounter in an aerial vehicle, instead of doing the same encounter in tense and protracted infantry to vehicle combat. 

Now, imagine something like this for nearly every mission in a game. It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of what I described; the general idea is that beating an encounter/enemy in a particular manner gives the player access to some things that he would not have otherwise. 

Killing enemies within a certain time limit causes a stronger enemy with a better weapon to spawn, whose weapon you can take and wreak havoc with after shanking him. Or, killing all the high ranking officer enemies within a certain time period will prevent the game from spawning enemies in vehicles into your current encounter. Killing a certain enemy and stealing a keycard-like item from him opens a door that allows you to take a faster route through a mission. 

Coordinating intelligent allied AI would be the best, though. Marines, ODSTs, Spartans, and other allied soldiers can be either mass-directed or individually ordered to carry out a task by the player, with a high level of specificity. You can order marines to hold a position with the level of aggressiveness as to which they should hold said position, to concentrate fire on a target/targets, to advance to a specified position, to flee from a group of enemies, and even things like alerting a specific ally to an enemy about to flank him. Imagine, being able to take a few marine snipers into hidden cliffs, fixing their position there, and fixing their attention to a larger group of marines defending another section.

Combine this with self-intersecting levels: you take a huge gorge with a large amount of allies, and you set said allies to defend the gorge. You leave to complete another objective required to progress through the mission, and return to see another huge battle taking place between new enemies and the marines that you had left before to hold the gorge. 

Aside from the sheer amount of creativity, replayability, and fun that the player can have with this, it frees up a ton of room for smarter enemies, stronger enemies, much larger enemy squads, and more elaborate battles. Shame that it won't happen on current gen hardware though. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SpitFlame said:

Not at all. If the game designed levels where it’s almost impossible to get through without using the sniper, and you have to figure out how and when to use it, then that would be strategy. (Like how in chess you have to use all your pieces to play well) But you can get through CE’s campaign only ever using the AR and pistol without much difficulty. The sniper is there, but since you never have to use it then it’s inconsequential. In my opinion being given options isn’t strategy if they aren’t pertinent. I’m not saying 343 would pull this off well, but if pulled off well it’d improve the game a lot.

And it’s not like Halo’s identify is married to this limit, like it is to the golden triangle. At least for the campaign I can see it working.

I think to take this further it would be more interesting to have various locations to begin a mission from and being able to select a loadout to compliment what you're trying to do. So rather than having to have a sniper rifle at points it would be more like you choose another route to tackle the entire mission from if you don't wish to use one. We're never really presented with options that change the entire mission structure though so that's basically just a pipe dream. 

Like imagine a Halo campaign where its more open world and you can choose to tackle what would've previously been a level in any order and what you do along with the order that you do it in changes the entire landscape of the campaign so the next area is different than it would've been had you done things in a different order. So rather than really micro choices like "Do I pick up the sniper rifle?" the strategy is macro in the sense of changing the course of the overall campaign drastically. I think that's a lot more achievable from a balancing pov since its hard to control for how good or bad a player will be since you already know 2 days after you make the route that requires a sniper rifle some dude flips a warthog to throw himself onto a building and runs through the level without fighting anything

Share this post


Link to post

Seeing people talk about holding 3 weapons at a time, because that is totally going to happen now.
On top of that limiting one to the starting gun which is already the most boring in many of these games given most kills are made by that gun alone which didn't require any map presence to even obtain, but oh well it's Halo I guess, better only pretend items matter a lot when it comes to map control.

I don't expect much at this stage, the campaign "trailer" thingy doesn't matter to me personally, if I fight space crabs, walking ballsacks or chrome transformers with orange lights doesn't really matter if the campaign's enemy and level designs stay boring and linear to appeal to thumbless Timmy who never played a shooter before.

Not saying the game has zero potential but show me some gameplay and actually talk what changed and most importantly why. I don't want to hear just next gen blabbering, Halo has been driven into the ground over the last decade and I want some good arguments why I would want to play the newest title other than "it's the master chief bro" or other nostalgia BS that doesn't translate into the gameplay...

Also fuck right off with crossplay if controllers have UNSC advanced targeting systems (tm) build into them again.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Warlord Wossman said:

Seeing people talk about holding 3 weapons at a time, because that is totally going to happen now.

Technically, it already has.  Support weapons like the H3 Missile Pod allowed the player to carry three weapons.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Technically, it already has.  Support weapons like the H3 Missile Pod allowed the player to carry three weapons.  

You have to drop it tho to even access the other 2, that's like juggling a gun on the ground to bring it with you.
Sure you are technically right but those 3rd person weapons are jank at best imo.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

On the subject of whether or not it's "strategic" to have two weapons, I always felt like ODST did this best since it lacked a proper utility weapon. In previous games, when you can mow down most threats with the pistol/BR/DMR, it can feel like the second slot is reserved for power weapons or the plasma pistol if you want to noob combo all the time. But in ODST, throwing down either the silenced SMG or automag feels like you're giving up one half of a utility weapon for another benefit.

Of course there's the carbine, but the fact that its purely a pickup you get from enemies makes it feel like a precious commodity. Enough so that it can feel like a waste to use up its ammo just to clean up grunts or jackals.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

@AlphaBenson A PvE only game like ODST can follow a different set of rules compared to a multiplayer game, with regard to weapon balance.  ODST arguably has a more interesting sandbox than other Halo games for reasons including the one you’ve given; how the “utility” is split between two weapons so picking up a new weapon deprives the player of some of his “base” weapon abilities.  

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, you can change things around to accommodate both gamemodes. What makes for a solid multiplayer experience doesn't always translate well to singleplayer, and vice versa.

I actually played Halo 3's multiplayer purely from ODST's mythic disc, and I honestly didn't find it that jarring. Perhaps what helped was how the weapons that were shared between ODST and 3 tended to behave the exact same, while the silenced SMG and automag were clearly different variations of their counterparts in Halo 3.

343 has stated in the past that they want all the experiences to be consistent, but I feel like nobody expects the campaign to be a "training mode" or anything for PvP anyway. There's no enemy Spartan that bounces frag grenades off corners at you, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, AlphaBenson said:

I mean, you can change things around to accommodate both gamemodes. What makes for a solid multiplayer experience doesn't always translate well to singleplayer, and vice versa.

I actually played Halo 3's multiplayer purely from ODST's mythic disc, and I honestly didn't find it that jarring. Perhaps what helped was how the weapons that were shared between ODST and 3 tended to behave the exact same, while the silenced SMG and automag were clearly different variations of their counterparts in Halo 3.

343 has stated in the past that they want all the experiences to be consistent, but I feel like nobody expects the campaign to be a "training mode" or anything for PvP anyway. There's no enemy Spartan that bounces frag grenades off corners at you, after all.

Unless they shit the bed and do a spartan civil war spin off O_o;

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Boyo said:

@Warlord Wossman A dedicated weapon drop mechanic, yay or nay?  

Yes, I feel like especially with the 2 weapon system it wouldn't be all that broken, you can pick up rocket launcher and sniper then drop one for your teammate which leaves you with a single gun. People already do that so we just removed the necessity of going to some pointless assault rifle (or whatever else) on the map just to execute the weapon drop. You would probably limit weapon drop to people with 2 guns, just to prevent new players from spamming the weapon drop key and ending up walking around with fists, it's a fair trade off I would say.

But generally for weapons we need to see a sort of redesign if the game wants to make a little more sense individually, if we just accept that people will shoot each other with super easy to aim BR's and all other weapons are somewhat situational or just exist because "well this is the rocket launcher type weapon of faction X, we need it for the campaign" it's gonna stay the same it has always been.
There is a lot of potential even beyond 4v4 to make a fun game, I feel like ideally Halo should try getting inspired by Unreal Tournament a bit while not entirely throwing away their formula, and ofc look back at what made CE such a nice game - biased you might say but that's what opinions are for.

Call of Duty moved on from this entire "advanced movement" jank btw so I hope they stop shoving it into their game, if you want something like a thrusterpack simply make it a powerup that gives you the ability to thrust with a small but fair cooldown for 30 seconds while keeping the ability to shoot and maybe coupling it with increased air control to make it interesting overall. I am not saying a powerup like this fits every map, the point is you can do cool stuff when it comes to map pickups and they should feel like they help the player instead of working against them (dumb animation when picking up a single layer overshield aka. t-shirt).

If we want a strong starting gun make it hard to aim, you can always slap some full auto AR onto the casual modes to keep it accessible for people who get mad if they have to learn much before they can play. Halo is insanely boring if the "competitive" mode is just 8 dudes shooting each other with easy to aim BR's on a midship clone and then you have that single item which respawns every 3 minutes that might end up getting the winning team 5 of the 50 kills they needed to win the game. I would like to see more room based map designs that require more strategy to master than "get up on both towers and melt them" and generally a game that challenges the brain a bit more if you want to do well, probably a lot more I could ramble on about but this post is already too long.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Warlord Wossman said:

other weapons are somewhat situational or just exist because "well this is the rocket launcher type weapon of faction X, we need it for the campaign"

What do you think would be an interesting design for another faction’s power weapon?  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Boyo said:

What do you think would be an interesting design for another faction’s power weapon?  

I think the way to really go about this is design all the weapons for your game prior to assigning factions. I know 343 probably doesn't do that because they are interested in specific weapons "feeling" like alien technology so they probably do it the other way around, but that def ends up with a rifle for all factions, a rocket launcher for all factions, a shotgun for all factions etc. to the point where it just doesn't feel unique anymore but more like a (mostly visual) reskin of a certain set of guns.
What I said would be closer to just giving designers the chance to come up with a ton of weapons - more standard and funky - in a testing environment where they can purely focus on the weapons gameplay and behavior. This way you end up with a wide variety of guns that can play really differently and now you can start filtering out what works and what doesn't work, implement tweaks and finally decide if you want to assign a weapon to a specific faction. At this stage artists can ofc express their ideas how to keep the gameplay of the selected weapon while making it related to the faction that should get it. Sounds like a lengthy process but should end up with more cool guns than "oh now we need to make rifles for each one of the X factions" because those will probably all just be slight variations gameplay wise with another skin slapped onto them...

Ultimately I think there would be nothing wrong with a more asymmetrical approach to the weapon sandbox, you don't need equivalent weapon types for absolutely any faction in the game, and while you have to keep some of the guns that have always been in the series to not make fans complain you could easily rework what some of them do, maybe even introduce interesting behaviors like shooting a charged plasma pistol shot with a regular plasma pistol shot to make it detonate midair, kind of like the shock rifle from UT.

We did kinda tried moving into that direction with our Halo Reach mod nobody played, idk if you seen the video, we were limited by what modding could achieve for sure but moving into a direction that makes guns feel like they are all worth depending on the situation you use them in while keeping them unique is def something that has been lacking since Halo CE even:

 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Warlord Wossman said:

Ultimately I think there would be nothing wrong with a more asymmetrical approach to the weapon sandbox, you don't need equivalent weapon types for absolutely any faction in the game

I agree with a more asymmetric approach to weapon design but I do think each major faction needs a weapon in each class (pistol, rifle, auto, CQC, ranged, power).  Granted, these are soft boundaries but they help give shape to the sandbox.  For example, here is my pistol class.  They’re all pistols class weapons but none of them are reskins.  
 

Magnum 

RT semi automatically fires bullets that kill in 4 shots (1.0 seconds) with a bleedthrough headshot or in 7 bodyshots (2.0 seconds).  AP rounds deal increased damage to vehicles and occupants.  

LT activates a 2x scope.  

X reloads the 12 round magazine.   

 

Plasma Pistol 

RT semi automatically fires plasma bolts that kill infantry in 9 shots (1.6 seconds) and momentarily slow an impacted vehicle.  

LT overcharges the weapon.  Once overcharged, RT alt fires an overcharge shot that deshields infantry and stuns vehicles.  

X toggles alt fire between overcharging and emitting a disc shaped Plasma Shield around the weapon.  Primary fire plasma bolts can still be fired through a hole in the center of the shield.  

 

Mauler 

RT semi automatically fires diamond-shaped volleys of 9 molten pellets ([email protected]) that can ricochet off a hard surface but fizzle out once past medium range.  

LT semi automatically fires Bruteshot rounds that kill in 2 direct hits.  

X reloads the shared 8 round magazine.  

 

Boltshot 

RT semi automatically fires projectiles that kill in 7 shots (1.5 seconds) with a headshot.  

LT charges an alt fire shot.  Once charged, RT fires a projectile that begins rapidly dropping once past close range (charging a shot for too long automatically fires it).  

X toggles between alt firing a projectile that kills in one headshot regardless of shield level or a projectile that teleports the user to its point of impact.  

Share this post


Link to post

The thing I really meant is you can design exactly the weapons that you are talking about and decide after that they all get pistol models ingame. Ultimately these all being "pistols" just came down to what weapon model you want them to have.
I just feel like worrying about the weapon balance before going "oh this could be a pistol, and this a rifle" could positively impact the weapon sandbox because then you design the functionality unbiased from knowing what will be a pistol or a rifle or whatever really.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@Warlord Wossman You're absolutely right.  One of my goals when designing the sandbox was to have a fairly tight low to mid tier weapon sandbox and a wide power weapon sandbox.  While this may seem counter intuitive, it allows there to be a known, constant, “regular” sandbox with each map having its own unique power weapons.  

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Boyo said:

@Warlord Wossman You're absolutely right.  One of my goals when designing the sandbox was to have a fairly tight low to mid tier weapon sandbox and a wide power weapon sandbox.  While this may seem counter intuitive, it allows there to be a known, constant, “regular” sandbox with each map having its own unique power weapons.  

This is a good idea.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Besides your usual rocket launcher or sniper rifle that respawn roughly once per month there is not much going on, so I do agree with more power weapons.
During the time we playtested the maps of the reach mod having a lot of power weapons was great fun, stuff like knocking somebody in the air with a concussion rifle and your teammate finishing them with the sniper, people using the railgun (brute focus rifle from the video) to counter overshields or even somebody using a camo to sneak up with a shotgun, it felt like it breaks up the stale utility vs utility gunfights and actually introduces more tactical decisions based on items on the map rather than just being in the right position to teamshot people with your starting gun.
I know Halo is not a true arena shooter and more of a hybrid but if we already have weapons on the maps and powerups those should really play a major role and not just be the 2 or 3 rocket launcher kills every 3 minutes on sanctuary CTF that slightly offsets positioning for the other 7 players shooting each other with BR's...

  • 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.