Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Tyco said:

I'm pretty sure Microsoft gave them permission to use a little exra juice too. I remember distinctly all the Xbox 360s functions running like pure ass when Halo 4 was running.

The worst part about Halo 4, above everything else, is that they got given Reach's UI and didn't use it.

  • Like (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/19/2021 at 8:50 PM, Boyo said:

One pushes the match forward by securing a kill.  The other prolongs an engagement with no benefit to the flow of the match.  

Getting an OS off in a fight is likely a more surefire way to kill your opponent than even switching to a rocket, and that really should be incredibly obvious.

This means that both scenarios are good for "flow" as you describe, because they both result in a secured kill. So, really, this reply is a completely false dischotomy and isn't at all an explanation as to why what currently exists is good (swapping to stowed weapons) but what is new is bad (activating stowed powerups). They both result in a won fight.

I don't like the lack of predictability with either thing, and that's the point. We stretch to great lengths to play devils advocate when it comes to something that already exists in Halo, but take the complete opposite path in the case of this "new" system, one that isn't a new game design at all within Halo. We can argue all day long that swapping to a weapon you picked up is coMpLeTeLy different than activating a powerup you picked up, but it's clearly, evidently, distinctly, plainly and undoubtedly not. Both should be talked about.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Xandrith said:

Getting an OS off in a fight is likely a more surefire way to kill your opponent than even switching to a rocket, and that really should be incredibly obvious.

 

1 hour ago, Xandrith said:

We can argue all day long that swapping to a weapon you picked up is coMpLeTeLy different than activating a powerup you picked up, but it's clearly, evidently, distinctly, plainly and undoubtedly not.

Instead of simply telling me that something is incredibly obvious, show me why that’s true.  Alternatively, continue stringing longer and longer lists of synonyms together in order to keep not making your point.  

  • Toxic (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Xandrith said:

We stretch to great lengths to play devils advocate when it comes to something that already exists in Halo, but take the complete opposite path in the case of this "new" system,

You hit the nail on the head here.

It feels like whenever I think I understand what Halo is about, there's always someone here who goes "No actually this is bad because X Y Z" and I rarely ever see the most vocal critics here give their thoughts on how they'd change something beyond just ditching the new mechanic all together because "it's not Halo". It's kind of like people give four times as much mind to what the game shouldn't be over what it could be.

But then I'm just bitching about bitching and that's lame, so here's a thought.

It seems to me that there's a relatively unspoken but shared sentiment among our hyper competitive crowd that Halo must not only enable skilled gameplay, but moreover a very particular kind of skill in which the hyper competitiveness has sprung from.

And that's raw motor ability skill with a couple dashes of teamwork ability, and even then some people greatly prefer CE and H2 over later entries because of the greater potential given to the player over the team.

Out BR the opponent, fight for power ups/weapons, land some sick MLG snipes, and call out the enemy. (and listen for call outs too, if you somehow can, past the sounds of your own voice, the game, and three teammates all talking over each other all the time (i mean i was never able to but i am kind of hard of hearing)). Virtually every single engagement is distilled, or dare I say, dumbed down to a very small number of factors.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, per se. I can totally see the appeal in a more, shall we say, visceral and primal feel to a mode. I hope there's room for that in Infinite. But skill, to me, extends beyond raw aiming ability and cycling around a map whenever a timer goes off. (Those timers that people use are a good reflection of the fact that people are less interested in the cerebral aspect and more in the visceral.) Yet, a more contemplative and cerebral gameplay flow may be so alien to some hyper competitive people that they wouldn't even want to consider it a kind of skill at all, at first glance.

Now I'm definitely not advocating for armor lock or jetpacks over here in competitive settings. In any playlist at all, for that matter. Lock that shit behind Customs. (It's coming, too. The latest Inside Infinite really nailed home the point that Infinite will be an evolving game.)

A good example of a cerebral gameplay mechanic is the motion detector. Which, while having been a ubiquitous feature across every single mainline entry to the series and thus ergo a bonafide "Halo thing", is always disabled in competitive settings. I know all the arguments against it, how everyone justifies eschewing a core gameplay element that's been around from the start; it enables camping, it slows down gameplay, and it reduces the need for teamwork.

Well, if nothing else, has the thought ever crossed anyone's minds here that "true Halo" is a slower and more methodical game than the kind of thing that they're so determined to mold it into?

Even so, yes, the motion detector can enable this dynamic wherein you trade your capacity to assist your team with focus fire and callouts and map pickup acquisitions for the ability to ambush an enemy.

...Lots of people these days want to call that "camping" because they always mean it in a prejorative manner because they feel it's "cheap". Really, though, they just can't see past their own nose. In a high ranked match where both teams are sweating and trying hard (and with proper map flow with well balanced weapon/equipment respawn times), you're not going to be able to camp for long. An individual is reducing their team's gathering potential by a whole assed 25%. Even no more than 45 seconds later, there's a not insignificant chance that someone rockets your ass out of your hideyhole with the very rockets you could have acquired if you didn't hunker down.

Maybe it slows down the game. And so what? The speed of the flow of a match has almost always been a non-starter for me. Very few times in my thousands of matches have I ever stopped to think, "Wow, the enemy team is camping. This is boring." I'm aware that some of the concern is based around how engaging this is for spectators. I understand that. But, for better or worse, Halo's time as a mega popular eSport is long gone, and if it ever comes around again, it's not going to be the Halo of yore. This isn't 2004-2011 anymore. Hot take here, but Halo's time in the MLG limelight had some downsides. One of them was the fixation on how engaging it is to watch Halo, which I feel goes hand in hand with my earlier diatribe that people care too much about having their favorite flavor be the most popular flavor. Maybe an even hotter take, but I don't really care to watch Halo. It's a game. I want to play the game, not watch it. Although maybe I might enjoy competitive play more if it wasn't so monotonous.

And as far as the reduction in teamwork goes, I think with the above considered, that's also largely a nonstarter. An individual can ambush an enemy without a call out, but the other three people are a man-down for their synergies. And on the topic of teamwork, what's to be said for someone like me who borders on sensory overload when they're hard of hearing and also sensitive to noise? It's both very difficult and unpleasant for me to endure an endless stream of frantic team chatter, battle sounds, and my own attempts to communicate. In years past I've essentially been shit out of luck if I wanted to try ranked 4v4, if for no other reason, solo queue is almost always a masochistic endeavor. But I'm not trying to be a victim here because I understand that game design needs to have a somewhat meta level to it when you're accounting for accessibility. It's a kind of thing that's difficult to ameliorate with any end-user functionality.

 

My ultimate point here is that I find traditionally competitive Halo to be too visceral and not cerebral enough for my liking. I've said it before but it's worth noting that Reach (TU) and H4 (Turbo, NOT fuckwit Infinity garbo) engaged me a lot more than the original trilogy did in spite of it being more frustrating. I definitely don't think the casual/social settings of Reach and H4 are shining examples of some golden ratio of cerebral:visceral but they still had a good deal more weighting to the cerebral side. Perhaps overly so, even. But, the bottom line is that I had more fun, even if I got more frustrated.

And I think that's the Big Problem when it comes to game design in competitive settings, especially Halo. How do you hybridize cerebral and visceral game design while minimizing frustrations? The dilemma, to me, is that too much weighting to visceral becomes boring because it's the same old same old. Buck would say that you know the music, but it's so often the same old song and dance. Too much weighting to cerebral causes too much frustrations on the people who get outplayed, because there's a good chance that they have lost the engagement before it even began; the aggressor has a blindsiding Ace in their hole.

 

 

...So I guess I kind of typed out an impromptu blog post. But that's been on my mind for a long time.

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

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Faeyrin said:

has the thought ever crossed anyone's minds here that "true Halo" is a slower and more methodical game than the kind of thing that they're so determined to mold it into?

Corner camping with a Shotgun is true Halo.  Waiting for the next red dot to appear while I stare at 5% of my screen is true Halo.  

 

9 minutes ago, Faeyrin said:

what's to be said for someone like me who borders on sensory overload when they're hard of hearing and also sensitive to noise?

Go take a nice relaxing bath.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boyo said:

 

Instead of simply telling me that something is incredibly obvious, show me why that’s true.  Alternatively, continue stringing longer and longer lists of synonyms together in order to keep not making your point.  

Oh Boyo. Can you not even agree that a person with OS kills a person without OS basically every single time in a 1v1? Have you ever played Halo my man? Straight up, if I had to pick one item to ensure that I win a 1v1 fight, it would be OS probably over any weapon except maybe like an incineration cannon. It's an absolutely free win against one other player and I don't think I have to convince anyone here of that, because we all play the game and know that it's true from experience after experience. How is it that something like this is even a topic right now?

 

 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Xandrith said:

Oh Boyo. Can you not even agree that a person with OS kills a person without OS basically every single time in a 1v1? Have you ever played Halo my man? Straight up, if I had to pick one item to ensure that I win a 1v1 fight, it would be OS probably over any weapon except maybe like an incineration cannon. It's an absolutely free win against one other player and I don't think I have to convince anyone here of that, because we all play the game and know that it's true from experience after experience. How is it that something like this is even a topic right now?

 

Why are you coming at me instead of making your point?  I’m trying to humor you here but you’re beginning to bore me.  State your opinion and provide supporting arguments or fuck off.  

  • Downvote (-1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Boyo said:

Why are you coming at me instead of making your point?  I’m trying to humor you here but you’re beginning to bore me.  State your opinion and provide supporting arguments or fuck off.  

If you really want proof my friend, we could load up some 1v1's in which I get an OS and you do not, and see how many times I can "secure a kill" on you.

Or, you know, instead we could use our brains for 1.5 seconds and just guess what would happen. I don't pretend to understand how your brain works but I am supremely confident that you could make an assessment as to how that would inevitably play out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Why are you coming at me instead of making your point?  I’m trying to humor you here but you’re beginning to bore me.  State your opinion and provide supporting arguments or fuck off.  

I wasn't even in this particular conversation but it's clear to me.

A stored OS is functionally similiar to a stored weapon. Decrying the prior but maintaining the latter makes no sense. Earlier, someone else said that someone could stow an OS and keep to their spawn and only use it when they're about to die, and that'd be stagnant gameplay. But you can do the exact same thing with a power weapon.

In reality, being able to store a power-up synergizes into simplicity, which is what people here seem to clamor for. It integrates every pickup into the same framework. If you pick something up, you have it available to use when you want. Weapons, equipment, and now power-ups.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Xandrith said:

If you really want proof my friend, we could load up some 1v1's in which I get an OS and you do not, and see how many times I can "secure a kill" on you.

Or, you know, instead we could use our brains for 1.5 seconds and just guess what would happen. I don't pretend to understand how your brain works but I am supremely confident that you could make an assessment as to how that would inevitably play out.

 

Pocket power-ups provide a net benefit to gameplay because _____________________.  
 

Please fill in the blank. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Faeyrin said:

I wasn't even in this particular conversation but it's clear to me.

A stored OS is functionally similiar to a stored weapon. Decrying the prior but maintaining the latter makes no sense. Earlier, someone else said that someone could stow an OS and keep to their spawn and only use it when they're about to die, and that'd be stagnant gameplay. But you can do the exact same thing with a power weapon.

One resolves a conflict. The other prolongs it.  What benefit to gameplay does prolonging the engagement provide?  
 

Quote

In reality, being able to store a power-up synergizes into simplicity, which is what people here seem to clamor for. It integrates every pickup into the same framework. If you pick something up, you have it available to use when you want. Weapons, equipment, and now power-ups.

How does treating power-ups like power weapons benefit gameplay?  

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Pocket power-ups provide a net benefit to gameplay because _____________________.  
 

Please fill in the blank. 

They don't. Are you under the impression that I like this system? I have said from the beginning that I don't like it, but that the problem with it is principally the same as the problem I have with someone pulling a sword out of their ass and killing me. I like neither. I dislike both. Both should be addressed, not just the new thing.

 

Beyond that, the last few messages have been about how you said (referring to the difference between swapping to a weapon vs activating an OS) and I quote, "One pushes the match forward by securing a kill.  The other prolongs an engagement with no benefit to the flow of the match."

Then what I tried to point out is that an overshield activated mid fight absolutely WOULD secure a kill, even more effectively than most weapons, thereby (according to your reasoning) pocket OS benefits flow by resolving the conflict just like switching weapons would, as the OS player would kill the other easily.

 

And of course after that we got lost, thanks to your addiction to asking pointless questions that have obvious answers over and over and over and over and

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Pocket power-ups provide a net benefit to gameplay because _____________________.  
 

Please fill in the blank. 

As I put in my edit above (i need to think more on my posts, i'm not used to traditional forums being this active lol): In reality, being able to store a power-up synergizes into simplicity, which is what people here seem to clamor for. It integrates every pickup into the same framework. If you pick something up, you have it available to use when you want. Weapons, equipment, and now power-ups.

10 minutes ago, Boyo said:

One resolves a conflict. The other prolongs it.  What benefit to gameplay does prolonging the engagement provide?  

This is another false dilemma, as Xandrith had pointed out earlier with something else. The insinuation here is that some predefined length of time for conflict duration is proper game design, and anything on either side of the bounds is bad design. Otherwise you wouldn't ponder the pros and cons of length to a conflict.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Xandrith said:

Then what I tried to point out is that an overshield activated mid fight absolutely WOULD secure a kill, even more effectively than most weapons, thereby (according to your reasoning) pocket OS benefits flow by resolving the conflict just like switching weapons would, as the OS player would kill the other easily.

How does giving one player increased shields resolve a conflict more effectively than weapons that, you know, actually kill?  

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Faeyrin said:

In reality, being able to store a power-up synergizes into simplicity, which is what people here seem to clamor for. It integrates every pickup into the same framework. If you pick something up, you have it available to use when you want. Weapons, equipment, and now power-ups.

Why is this a good thing?  

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Boyo said:

How does giving one player increased shields resolve a conflict more effectively than weapons that, you know, actually kill?  

Because to win a fight you must live. OS makes you effectively invincible in a 1v1 scenario, which is why even against power weapons it probably has the advantage.

Am I really explaining to you right now why an overshield helps one person kill another in Halo

This has been a massive waste of time

 

Anyways, the brute cyclone cannon is a multi-leveled mobile ballista that

  • Simms (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Xandrith said:

Because to win a fight you must live. OS makes you effectively invincible in a 1v1 scenario, which is why even against power weapons it probably has the advantage.

Am I really explaining to you right now why an overshield helps one person kill another in Halo? Man I really don't think I have the patience for this anymore!

 

Anyways, the brute cyclone cannon is a multi-leveled mobile ballista that

But the conflict would have been resolved quicker and earlier if he couldn’t activate his invincibility item, correct?  What’s the benefit of prolonging the engagement?  

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Shekkles said:

Who said anything about being upset?

Also lets not fill the thread with this bullshit.

idk its been the best conversation in like 4 days on here.

12 hours ago, NavG123 said:

How would you feel about a sentinel beam that can link to a nearby power source using the reload button? Once tethered, the user can only move in a limited radius but his weapon now fires a powerful anti-vehicle beam that doesn't overheat as rapidly.

So... Orisa's ult?

11 hours ago, Faeyrin said:

Halo 4 looked how it did on the 360.

That should be a testament to at least the talent of the graphics team, but a lot more than just artist work goes into graphics. They had to optimize that shit to a painstaking degree to make it look that good on a console that had less than one gigabyte of RAM. I remember being particularly blown away by the cutscene on the Infinity where Cortana flips shit and Chief tells Del Rio to go kick rocks. The lighting was especially impressive. And that said, I have confidence in 343i at least making Infinite look very good on the Xbone. (The downside is that 343i design doesn't entail much out-of-map stuff. Makes map breaking a lot less fun.)

They also made it much more of a corridor shooter than prior entries.  not that I minded too much, the Halo campaign has always been fine and never my primary focus anyway.

 

Side note, reading about some of the glitches they are working on fixing in the game right now, I hope they selectively leave some alone.  well in the campaign anyway, as long as it doesn't break the progression.  let players find them and fuck around.

Share this post


Link to post

Lemon already kinda stole the thunder but yeah to add to what he said...

 

Storing power weapons for future cycles is a problem that should be addressed, but I understand why it isn't. At this point players will think it's pretty weird and unintuitive if we change how ammo works. 

 

Ideally rockets should perhaps disappear at the rate of one every 30 seconds. This incentivizes players to use them before the next cycle. 

 

Picking up and storing OS and Camo isn't "synergy" when you can just fucking walk over it and instantly activate it, and we've been doing that for 14 years up to Halo 5. How isn't that the simplest, most intuitive way to use it? 

 

This is an eSports forum for a game with a long history of how it should be played at eSports events. Coming in here and saying we should slow the game down when MLG Halo has always been about speeding up movement and 90+% of the community wants Halo to be a faster paced game that incentivizes movement is pretty ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to claim it's more cerebral to sit in a corner with an AR staring at radar waiting for the opponent to make mistakes, rather than being forced to make quick strategic decisions. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Lemon has good thoughts, but both you and Boyo are blatantly strawmanning my point about camping. There is action in inaction. A pro and con to every play. A sacrifice for every decision. That doesn't just apply to Halo or even games -- that's a fundamental of existence.

Also, who said that this is explicitly an eSports forum? At the very least, this section of it is clearly called "general discussion". It was definitely born out of the MLG scene, sure, and the temperament clearly leans toward competitive play. Don't get me wrong, I'm a very competitive person.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Faeyrin said:

Lemon has good thoughts, but both you and Boyo are blatantly strawmanning my point about camping. There is action in inaction. A pro and con to every play. A sacrifice for every decision.

Could you explain to me what this actually fucking means please?  
 

And this time baby make it BULLEEEEET POOOOOINTS  

  • Downvote (-1) 1

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.