Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

Atleast in the context of Halo 1-3 and Reach, the first three have identical ( yes you read that correctly) move speed and Reach has minimally slower speed. ( 97.7% of h1-3)

Dont believe me? Google is your friend.

 

Now I'm not 100% sure on this but I'd be willing to bet Halo 4 and Halo 5 are exactly the same as either h1-3 speed or Reach, because it certainly felt that way, and there really is no good reason to believe anything else, disregarding all the people screaming OH MY GOD THEY HALVED THE MOVEMENT SPEED TO PUT IN SPRINT trying to tell you otherwise.

 

In a way its revealing as to why none of the "competitive" settings really made much of a difference in the end.

Even if the core movement was kept the same for every game, the massive difference in map size and scale would have contributed to movement feeling slower or faster, in the same way it makes the same FOV look bigger or smaller.

 

Halo 2 maps had a massively smaller size and scale compared to the Halo 5 maps. Truth is a humungous version of midship, it takes a lot longer to traverse the map without sprint compared to H2. Its one of the reason its kills map design, because the remakes are so ridiculously large compared to the originals, they cant possibly play the same, or move around the same.

 

I remember reading someone say " Halo 4 is the worst looking Halo" and I cringe because this is exactly how a few bad apples make the voices of reason unheard to devs.

 

No shit Halo 4 is a garbage competitive title but if you think H4, a game that arguably got the most of the 360 in HD looks better graphically than OG H2, I have an appointment at the eye doctor waiting for you.

 

-rant out

Halo 4 was without a doubt the worst designed halo, and its clay-like graphics make it look pretty awful imo.  Halo 2 had first gen graphics with a basic look but is a lot easier to look at. Halo 3 took this to the next level with next gen by making everything look equally as simple but with nex-gen lighting, anti-aliasing and textures that didnt interfere with gameplay, perception or visibility. It made it look spot on. Halo 4 looks far from spot on and thats why people criticise the looks of it.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Halo 4 in some regards looked really nice, while in other facets (or forge type palets) looked really poor.  It was markedly better than Halo Reach.

 

Halo 3 is surely the standard for how a Halo game is supposed to look.  Even 8 years later the game looks gorgeous from an aesthetic standpoint. 

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Atleast in the context of Halo 1-3 and Reach, the first three have identical ( yes you read that correctly) move speed and Reach has minimally slower speed. ( 97.7% of h1-3)

Dont believe me? Google is your friend.

 

Really? If you make a claim, back it up, don't just tell people to google it.

 

 

 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Well, uh, Halo 3 probably has the slowest base movement of them all.

Not true. It has the lowest FOV, 70 on widescreen. Movement speed is the same throughout the OG trilogy.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not true. It has the lowest FOV, 70 on widescreen. Movement speed is the same throughout the OG trilogy.

 

...Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure that a wider FOV makes it so you appear to move slower. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Really? If you make a claim, back it up, don't just tell people to google it.

 

From YouTube comments (lol).

 

 

If you have the right software you can pull run speeds directly from the game files, the speeds are 2.25 units per second in H1-3 and 2.2 units per second in Reach, which is hardly any difference, which I then confirmed in the video by running 100 units in each halo and comparing the time it took, those speeds were confirmed to be correct, something that is different is acceleration which is 9.75 in H1, 9.6 in H2-3 and 8.5 in Reach, which is why strafing has been getting worse.

 

 

Seems legit to me. Interesting note about the strafe for sure. It always surprises me how crisp the strafing is in H2 after I've played the newer titles.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

...Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure that a wider FOV makes it so you appear to move slower. 

 

 

Isn't it the other way around? 

 

A wider FOV like 90 makes things appear faster while a shorter FOV like 70 makes things shorter.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't it the other way around? 

 

A wider FOV like 90 makes things appear faster while a shorter FOV like 70 makes things shorter.

nah, other way around. Smaller FOV = less room for objects to be seen = things being in your FOV for a shorter period of time = things + you looks like move quicker

  • Downvote (-1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

all FPS games in general should be played in a 90+ FOV. Anything below 80 is borderline criminal.

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't it the other way around? 

 

A wider FOV like 90 makes things appear faster while a shorter FOV like 70 makes things shorter.

Yeah wider FOV seems faster, if any of you have minecraft, go from 30 fov (lowest) and run around then go to "quake pro" fov (highest) and run around. Unless I'm missing something here.

Share this post


Link to post

I think you're all talking about both look speed and walk speed. I think they appear opposite of the other with regards to different FOVs.

 

ie, super widescreen looks slow and walks fast

Share this post


Link to post

...Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure that a wider FOV makes it so you appear to move slower.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I remember reading someone say " Halo 4 is the worst looking Halo" and I cringe because this is exactly how a few bad apples make the voices of reason unheard to devs.

 

No shit Halo 4 is a garbage competitive title but if you think H4, a game that arguably got the most of the 360 in HD looks better graphically than OG H2, I have an appointment at the eye doctor waiting for you.

 

-rant out

 

You know there's a difference between aesthetics and graphics, right? That's why Halo CEA looks like shit to a lot of people especially old Halo vets. It's not an upgrade, it's a completely different aesthetic. Halo 2 Anniversary campaign nailed it though, that game looks gorgeous.

 

Not saying Halo 4 looks bad exactly, I can just see why they would say that. Graphically in 60 FPS it looks pretty good if you ask me, though it's pretty barebones in style.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Hmm. I guess I was wrong, but it's also interesting the discrepancies between just changing the camera position (what you're seeing here) and going from 4:3 to 16:9. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm. I guess I was wrong, but it's also interesting the discrepancies between just changing the camera position (what you're seeing here) and going from 4:3 to 16:9. 

 

 

I was looking for that video.

 

For full 1080p 16:9 games 90 should be the minimal value, a higher FOV in Halo alone could help save strafing lol. 

Share this post


Link to post

It's actually fairly amazing how much FOV affects gameplay. Not just what you can see, but how it feels to walk around and aim. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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