Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Reamis25 said:

Umm actually that’s wrong. The play styles and the environment that comes with removing radar is huge. No game out there has different settings, that go as far as gameplay differences. Cod simply removes some camping like utilities like claymores, and a few guns. But no gameplay difference. Over watch the difference between social is each team gets a turn, but overall gameplay is the same. League of legends rank you can ban X amount of champions, gameplay is the same. The base settings are the same for everything. Same applies to CS. 

"Gameplay Differences" ≠ "Major Confusion". A casual player who has only played casual settings is not going to suffer from major confusion if they switch to settings without radar. When the game boots up, they will say "oh, hey, there's no radar here," and that will be the extent of the confusion.

I think you're misinterpreting the purpose of "universal settings." The players in the target audience for "universal settings" are not going to change their gameplay style simply because radar is out of the settings—not at first, at least. If you're actively strategizing and adjusting your gameplay based on the inclusion of radar, you were already queued into the competitive community.

Edit: Also:

Quote

Same applies to CS. 

Dude, what? You don't need to buy armor or defusal kits in casual CS. If you don't think that drastically alters gameplay, you're out of your mind.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wait, your hard on for universal settings doesn’t apply to radar, you fucking hypocrites?  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Competitive settings are needed. The definition of competitive doesnt need to be construed.

-

There is no arguement here whether or not no radar is more competitive then radar.

Share this post


Link to post

Smash proves you can have a successful competitive scene while changing/removing some of the core elements of the casual experience. Items in those games are at least as impactful as radar in Halo, and they've had no issue banning them.

There probably is some boundary you cross into the game becoming too divergent (Reach v7 maybe), but that has more to do with the vanilla game sucking than the competitive community choosing bad settings.

  • Like (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Released said:

There probably is some boundary you cross into the game becoming too divergent (Reach v7 maybe)

I'd say H3 v2 and on falls into this category with the changes MLG made to player movement & damage settings/taking out equipment (all which improved the game). 

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Released said:

Smash proves you can have a successful competitive scene while changing/removing some of the core elements of the casual experience. Items in those games are at least as impactful as radar in Halo, and they've had no issue banning them.

There probably is some boundary you cross into the game becoming too divergent (Reach v7 maybe), but that has more to do with the vanilla game sucking than the competitive community choosing bad settings.

I've been thinking about this a bit recently and I disagree with your conclusion. I think it's more about convincing people that the other gameplay style is worth playing. Using Smash as an example, I think the dumbed down core of the game is running at each other and the excitement of being knocked off stage and trying to recover. I think the casual Halo experience at its core is about holding forward with your trigger held down while approaching hot zones of the map with lots of action, stumbling on different weapons and power ups on your way. I think the competitive experience is about angles and control.

Therefore removing something like radar isn't necessarily just a small change, it changes the way the game is played to be a different experience. The more things we tweak to change the most popular style, the less likely we will be to convince people that our style is worth playing.

I think Super Fiesta and Husky Raid are good examples of what I'm talking about. Super Fiesta is very different in terms of settings to both casual and competitive Halo. But the casual community latched on to it and it was at least for a time, and maybe still now, the most popular gametype in Halo 5. Husky Raid is also incredibly popular, despite being even more different to casual Halo settings where the design of the maps is like nothing else. But it offers the same experience that casual Halo offers. Instead of using whatever weapons you happen to stumble upon, something I suggested casual players like, you'll just be given different weapons on every spawn which is kind of the same as randomly coming across one but it makes the weapon pool even more diverse because it's guaranteed. In something like Husky Raid, there's no question where the action will be on the map, you don't have to look at your radar to see where the excitement is, you literally just move forward and you will be there.

Despite them being wildly different, casual fans transitioned to those gametypes instead of the competitive gametypes in Halo 5. I would have to guess that the competitive experience is boring to fans of the casual experience.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Warlord Wossman said:

If it's so important than maybe have no radar in casual and competitive? Easy, consistent, works better.

Oj that be great too but the realistic option is the advanced radar, since many in the halo community believe radar to be a staple feature of halo 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, ShmaltzyLatkes said:

Dude, what? You don't need to buy armor or defusal kits in casual CS. If you don't think that drastically alters gameplay, you're out of your mind.

Isn’t casual and competitive SND(the normal mode for cs) the same 

Share this post


Link to post

Radar is totally fine in casual baby modes. Modes that you play because you've met your sweat quota for the week.

Share this post


Link to post

Changing the core game from radar to no-radar was never an issue in Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, or 4. The esports and competitive population will always be the smallest overall. It's directly related to the popularity of the game as a whole. We don't need to appease the casual fans. They will be interested and play our settings regardless

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Knighty Knight said:

Changing the core game from radar to no-radar was never an issue in Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, or 4. The esports and competitive population will always be the smallest overall. It's directly related to the popularity of the game as a whole. We don't need to appease the casual fans. They will be interested and play our settings regardless

Or they won't play it at all. In which case it'd be foolish to cater to them.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Knighty Knight said:

Changing the core game from radar to no-radar was never an issue in Halo 1, 2, 3, Reach, or 4. The esports and competitive population will always be the smallest overall. It's directly related to the popularity of the game as a whole. We don't need to appease the casual fans. They will be interested and play our settings regardless

You pretending that the advanced radar which I’ll add works like call of duty’s will have a negative impact on the game. I’ve played no radar in h5 and advanced and there’s no gameplay difference 

  • Downvote (-1) 3
  • WutFace (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Settings need to stop being fucking watered down so that the gap between 2 year old thumbless Timmy and top-level amateurs is squashed into nonexistence. 

You can make high level players play doubles on Battle Creek, and they'll have fun. 

You can make Timmy and his melee tool of destruction friends play doubles on Battle Creek, and they'll also have fun. 

You can make Timmy and his friends play base Reach, and they'll have fun. 

You make anyone with opposable thumbs play the same settings on base Reach, and their head implodes after a certain time period. 

Halo doesn't have a problem with "social vs sweaty", it has a problem with idiotic devs who think everyone dicking around with ARs and plasma grenades is balanced. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Why did H2 and H3 do so well as an eSport? Was it an "in the right place at the right time" sort of thing?

Share this post


Link to post

Are you asking why people attended and competed in H3 tournaments? Is this really a question? You had to be there.

  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TeeJaY said:

Why did H2 and H3 do so well as an eSport? Was it an "in the right place at the right time" sort of thing?

It was literally the beginning of turning top esports players into ROCKSTARS. It's now a trend that is becoming even bigger but that feeling was unforgettable and can't be topped. 
 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Reamis25 said:

Isn’t casual and competitive SND(the normal mode for cs) the same 

You don't have much experience playing CS, do you? Abstractly, casual and competitive settings are "the same" in CS insofar as (i) there are two teams, one defending, one attacking, and (ii) you have to purchase weapons and utility between rounds with money you earn from kills and/or round win/loss bonuses. The weapons and utility available for purchase are also essentially the same. But that's really where the similarities end; you basically don't have to worry about the economy in casual settings at all. In casual, you spawn with full armor and—on CT side—with defusal kits each round. In competitive, you have to buy those each round (I'm simplifying here), which eats into the amount of money you have to spend on weapons/utility. On top of that, the rewards you get for frags and round wins/losses are totally different, making it difficult to save money for the weapons you and your team need in competitive.

Your confusion about this actually emphasizes my point—CS achieves "universal settings" as I would describe that term. Casual players, like yourself, can float between the two without perceiving any major differences. When you run around the map, the game is still "playing" the same. Map angles are the same, weapons function the same, etc. Only "competitive" players notice and value the differences since the "core" elements are the same. Yet those differences are essential to the game. The econ meta is a central component of the CS skill gap.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, _Synapse said:

Settings need to stop being fucking watered down so that the gap between 2 year old thumbless Timmy and top-level amateurs is squashed into nonexistence. 

You can make high level players play doubles on Battle Creek, and they'll have fun. 

You can make Timmy and his melee tool of destruction friends play doubles on Battle Creek, and they'll also have fun. 

You can make Timmy and his friends play base Reach, and they'll have fun. 

You make anyone with opposable thumbs play the same settings on base Reach, and their head implodes after a certain time period. 

Halo doesn't have a problem with "social vs sweaty", it has a problem with idiotic devs who think everyone dicking around with ARs and plasma grenades is balanced. 

The problem here is that Halo is not meant to be a competitive game highlighting skill differences between players, it's basically the opposite.
Since console shooters got more popular and stuff like CoD4 and Halo 2 became more mainstream the industry understood that people don't play your game if it's tough to do well in, the wider audience might play only a few hours per day if they even play daily to begin with - they want to relax and play some games after work.
So yeah if you made a shooter for the masses you had to completely negate the skillgap between people so everybody felt like they were effective killing others, if they didn't there were a bunch of other big shooters on the market that gave them exactly that feeling.

Competitive shooters always were on PC and still are, at the time people played Quake 3 Arena and Counter Strike, games that required a lot of brain power and mechanical skill to become really good at and consoles approached shooters the opposite way to cover all the masses of people who didn't want to feel like playing in a tournament.
That didn't stop people from having tournaments tho, if you have a game with bigger population people want to go against each other and that was the basis for all the Halo esports stuff. Today a lot of game devs also balance their games around low tier players but abuse esports for marketing and staying relevant by just throwing some money on it, you can bet people will play if there is money, no matter if your game was designed to play the best in competition or not - look at Halo 5 I guess.

6 hours ago, TeeJaY said:

Why did H2 and H3 do so well as an eSport? Was it an "in the right place at the right time" sort of thing?

The only reason games ever do well as an esport is because they have a large population which naturally leads to more people being interested in competition within said game, even if pros mostly care about money (which is fair tho).
Esports were more or less kickstarted by Quake, the earliest Quakecons didn't even have price pools it was people just going against each other but as soon as money got involved these communities grew. The sad part is that once there was enough money devs and publishers became interested because there was a profit to make, so it went from really community driven to "hey we made this game which is balanced around casual play to appeal to a wide audience but we have tournaments with a lot of money because we spend a few percent of our margin on esports to keep the game relevant", with that in mind many games can be esports, no matter if build for high skill ceiling competition or not.
Esports are becoming more and more like actual sports in general, the more money there is it transforms into a business where bean counters make every call, so the focus shifts from the actual competition to generating cash, not saying this could have turned out differently but people using population size as an argument for a good esport seem to forget that it's because there is more money involved in games with a lot of people willing to pay for stuff and not because those games are crafted for the most skillful competition possible.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think Halo excels when you have the greatest amount of Utility and Freedom with the least amount of Controller input possible. That simplicity is what made it so popular and actually work on a controller in the first place and I think the lack of it is the main problem Halo 5 has. 

You do that right and the different settings between game modes (which are inevitable now) won't matter that much.

 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Warlord Wossman said:

The problem he is that Halo is not meant to be a competitive game highlighting skill differences between players, it's basically the opposite.
Since console shooters got more popular and stuff like CoD4 and Halo 2 became more mainstream the industry understood that people don't play your game if it's tough to do well in, the wider audience might play only a few hours per day if they even play daily to begin with - they want to relax and play some games after work.
So yeah if you made a shooter for the masses you had to completely negate the skillgap between people so everybody felt like they were effective killing others, if they didn't there were a bunch of other big shooters on the market that gave them exactly that feeling.

Competitive shooters always were on PC and still are, at the time people played Quake 3 Arena and Counter Strike, games that required a lot of brain power and mechanical skill to become really good at and consoles approached shooters the opposite way to cover all the masses of people who didn't want to feel like playing in a tournament.
That didn't stop people from having tournaments tho, if you have a game with bigger population people want to go against each other and that was the basis for all the Halo esports stuff. Today a lot of game devs also balance their games around low tier players but abuse esports for marketing and staying relevant by just throwing some money on it, you can bet people will play if there is money, no matter if your game was designed to play the best in competition or not - look at Halo 5 I guess.

The only reason games ever do well as an esport is because they have a large population which naturally leads to more people being interested in competition within said game, even if pros mostly care about money (which is fair tho).
Esports were more or less kickstarted by Quake, the earliest Quakecons didn't even have price pools it was people just going against each other but as soon as money got involved these communities grew. The sad part is that once there was enough money devs and publishers became interested because there was a profit to make, so it went from really community driven to "hey we made this game which is balanced around casual play to appeal to a wide audience but we have tournaments with a lot of money because we spend a few percent of our margin on esports to keep the game relevant", with that in mind many games can be esports, no matter if build for high skill ceiling competition or not.
Esports are becoming more and more like actual sports in general, the more money there is it transforms into a business where bean counters make every call, so the focus shifts from the actual competition to generating cash, not saying this could have turned out differently but people using population size as an argument for a good esport seem to forget that it's because there is more money involved in games with a lot of people willing to pay for stuff and not because those games are crafted for the most skillful competition possible.

In the words of Hardy Lebel, the designer for halo ce mp, has said that halo was designed to be a party game. Like Mario party with shooter mechanics. I agree with him.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Mr Grim said:

In the words of Hardy Lebel, the designer for halo ce mp, has said that halo was designed to be a party game. Like Mario party with shooter mechanics. I agree with him.

Yeah I would agree with him too, what is remarkable tho is that the mp of CE still holds itself surprisingly well if you consider the design philosophy he had when going into it. You can tell he knew what he was doing, not saying that makes the game a brilliant esports title or anything, but the overall game feels very balanced and well rounded compared to later titles in the series where the focus increasingly shifted towards gimmicks and the effective gameplay when trying to win suffered from becoming extremely obvious for players because the focus was (like in CE) on the casual side of things but seemingly with less thought put into the rest.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NAK said:

I think Halo excels when you have the greatest amount of Utility and Freedom with the least amount of Controller input possible. That simplicity is what made it so popular and actually work on a controller in the first place and I think the lack of it is the main problem Halo 5 has. 

You do that right and the different settings between game modes (which are inevitable now) won't matter that much.

 

Let’s unpack this:  most utility and freedom with the least amount of controller input.  The classic movement model obviously represents these ideals better than Halo 5’s whack-a-mole style of button-press based movement.  
 

Regarding combat, the classic model wins here as well.  Simply fire your weapon, no need to stop sprinting or aim down sights to achieve maximum effectiveness.  
 

Here’s what I am wondering.  The Plasma Pistol fires both its primary fire plasma bolts as well as its secondary fire, overcharge shot with RT.  Is this in line with our stated goal of “most utility and freedom with least amount of controller input”?  On one hand, you could say yes, the PP has all these functions packed onto a single button so you are getting lots of utility out of one button but what about freedom?  You could argue that the player would have more freedom if these attacks were activated by their own independent buttons, because primary fire bolts could be fired on trigger-pull instead of trigger-release (because the game normally needs a moment to figure out if you are trying to activate primary fire or secondary fire with RT).

Share this post


Link to post

Xbox Live 12 month subscription is taken down on the Microsoft website. Will be interesting to see if they actually go with free multiplayer next gen. I'm not expecting it but there has been rumors of it

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.