Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

I wonder, does anyone know if there is some technical reason they went with such a limited color pallet for armor?

 

Only design reason I can think of (and it's a bad one) is avoiding colors that blend with the maps too much.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder, does anyone know if there is some technical reason they went with such a limited color pallet for armor?

 

Only design reason I can think of (and it's a bad one) is avoiding colors that blend with the maps too much.

No idea. And that design reason sorta entirely falls through when you realize Halo: Online had a colorwheel for everything down to the hardlight present on some armor. It's just a random limitation.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not arguing that simply making an Arena shooter is a guaranteed success, but are you under the impression that the reluctance of triple-A devs to do anything counter to popular trends is the result of some greater knowledge about the state of the industry? I'm hardly shocked that taking anything resembling a risk is pretty rare, hence why Halo continues to chase the modern shooter audience instead of appealing to its own, despite the non-existence success of apparently playing it safe.

 

I'm not terribly familiar with Nexuiz (I played the original mod at one point), but just being a "good" game is not enough. I think that is pretty clear at this point. What makes a game a staple is the entirety of its experience. Did Nexuiz have skill ranks? Did it have a meaningful social progression system? Did it have robust community features? What is it offering aside from presumably decent core mechanics? Did it have any real marketing (I doubt it)? I have no idea. How is it appealing to people who aren't explicitly seeking out that kind of game and what reason does it provide long time arena fans to move on? I mean, I can look at a game like Reflex, which is a great game, and I can see no shortage of factors holding it back. As of now, it is a multiplayer-only alpha build. It has no match-making, no skill ranking, a pretty barebones progression system, and so on. A lot of that stuff is on the roadmap, but it isn't there now. It is the kind of game that pretty much only people looking for a Quake 3 CPMA-type experience are going to gravitate towards and god help some poor noob who hops into a game not knowing what to expect. This is the kind of limitation imposed by extremely small developers working on arena shooters as a passion project and using them to justify triple-A studios continuing to copy each other doesn't make much sense to me.

 

A studio like Id could make a game like that, with an incredible feature set around it, top notch visual and audio design, a marketing budget, and a brand name people know. That is a vastly different scenario from your example of some tiny developer I have never heard of remaking a Quake mod for XBLA. Will Quake Champions be that game? Maybe, but again I see a lack of faith in fully committing to an Arena shooter and instead cramming in a popular trend that no one asked for (thanks, Overwatch). If that game fails to live up to its legacy, is that another failure of Arena shooters or is it yet another example of major developers/publishers not having the balls to actually make an Arena shooter?

 

​And you don't see the point? Really? Because it is a niche in the current market that is not currently filled? Copying the most successful games doesn't seem to work very well (as the failed CoD and MOBA wannabes clearly attest to). Offering something unique in the current market always has potential, even if it ends up more of a hardcore niche like fighting games. You brought up Doom, which is fairly odd, given the reality of that game. The campaign was a kick-ass, balls-to-the-wall old school shooter and the multiplayer was compromised with almost H4-esque, completely out-of-place concessions. It was too hardcore for CoD players, and too much of a console kiddy game for PC players. So who the fuck was that going to appeal to? OF COURSE it died. Are you saying that was an intelligent direction for that series?

 

I feel like you have looked too far into what I wrote.

 

It's fair enough to say that no arena shooter has gotten the polish it deserves in regards to this age's standards. My whole point had to do with your first paragraph though. It's becoming more and more expensive for AAA developers to create quality games and wouldn't doubt that the majority of AAA developers feel a skillful arena shooter wouldn't be mainstream and not worth the time or money. 

 

I brought up Doom as a point in where the developers chose not to create a traditional arena experience for multiplayer. I didn't say anything was a good idea or w/e. I'm just pointing out how one of the pioneers of arena FPS didn't offer traditional multiplayer. I can only assume that it's because of market trends and trying to sell copies to the masses.

 

The whole, "I don't see the point" refers to how we can sit here and say it would be a success or it would fail, but ultimately no developer is going to risk the project so it seems pointless until anything happens to speculate.

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like you have looked too far into what I wrote.

 

It's fair enough to say that no arena shooter has gotten the polish it deserves in regards to this age's standards. My whole point had to do with your first paragraph though. It's becoming more and more expensive for AAA developers to create quality games and wouldn't doubt that the majority of AAA developers feel a skillful arena shooter wouldn't be mainstream and not worth the time or money.

 

I brought up Doom as a point in where the developers chose not to create a traditional arena experience for multiplayer. I didn't say anything was a good idea or w/e. I'm just pointing out how one of the pioneers of arena FPS didn't offer traditional multiplayer. I can only assume that it's because of market trends and trying to sell copies to the masses.

 

The whole, "I don't see the point" refers to how we can sit here and say it would be a success or it would fail, but ultimately no developer is going to risk the project so it seems pointless until anything happens to speculate.

Doom wasn't arena because ID outsourced it to Certain Affinity and let them do whatever they wanted. Nothing to do popularity of arena shooters. In fact I'm pretty sure they're doing it all in house for the next Doom game

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder, does anyone know if there is some technical reason they went with such a limited color pallet for armor?

There isn't.

 

 

Only design reason I can think of (and it's a bad one) is avoiding colors that blend with the maps too much.

 

Normally you restrict color palettes in games to prevent players from picking purposely ugly/"contrary to the art style" color combinations, but Halo has always allowed absurd colors/combinations, so I really don't know.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom wasn't arena because ID outsourced it to Certain Affinity and let them do whatever they wanted. Nothing to do popularity of arena shooters. In fact I'm pretty sure they're doing it all in house for the next Doom game

 

Do you happen to know why they chose to outsource it to Certain Affinity?

 

 

Was ID not in a position as a AAA studio to work on it themselves? Makes no sense to me that they would outsource it to them unless they knew that certain affinity churns out the "modern fps" feel quickly and with little effort.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone explain to me why Halo 5 isn't "competitive" or is "a casual game". I'm curious. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Do you happen to know why they chose to outsource it to Certain Affinity?

 

 

Was ID not in a position as a AAA studio to work on it themselves? Makes no sense to me that they would outsource it to them unless they knew that certain affinity churns out the "modern fps" feel quickly and with little effort.

I do, and it had everything to do with resources and time. For the campaign to be finished in the state and time it was finished is nothing short of a fucking miracle from the Lord himself. That game is a work of art and it was my understanding that crunch year at id involved ~14 hour work days. Certain Affinity was brought in because the game needed a multiplayer end and they could handle that almost independently.

 

Edit: source - Marty stratton,hugo, and a few other id guys did an ama on r/doom a few months back

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Someone explain to me why Halo 5 isn't "competitive" or is "a casual game". I'm curious. 

 

Well, here's my current take on things, and I'm fine with people challenging it because I'm not entirely sure about it myself:

 

We can agree that competitive can be defined as the sum of the amount of skill requirement, depth, and "balance" that a game has, right?

 

Then a casual game would be severely lacking in all of those things.

 

I view the competitive vs casual issue as a spectrum instead of a completely binary distinction, where no game is ever truly as competitive as it could potentially be, yet some games are obviously more competitive than others (i.e. compare a typical Counter-Strike match to a chaotic Shotguns-No-Shields match on a small map in Halo). Games that all fall towards the competitive extreme of the spectrum are simply referred to as "competitive", and obviously everyone is going to have their own subjective interpretation of how wide that extreme range is, or which games are more competitive than others.  Even Halo Ce might be considered "casual" to some diehard Quake CPMA fans, despite being widely accepted to be much more competitive than, say, vanilla Modern Warfare 2.

 

Halo 5 is competitive in its own right, there's a skillgap present, reasonable balance, and potential for competition.

What people mean is it's nowhere near as competitive as previous entries because the skill gap has been lowered significantly.

 

More powerful weapons that are easier to use (automatics) reduce the importance of precision aim.

More "get out of jail free cards" letting people survive mistakes.

High aim assist levels (relative to other games) meaning the aiming skillgap is reduced.

Other mechanics that reduce the importance of aim and decision making, like Spartan Charge.

Then of course if you go back as far as Ce or Halo 2 several depth-increasing aspects like glitches, weapon nading, etc. have either been removed or reduced in importance as well.

 

What's easier for people to say and more effectively delivers the point they want to make, even if it's somewhat hyperbolic?

 

"Halo 5 is competitive but not as competitive as the past Halo games and definitely not as competitive as other hardcore IP's"

 

OR

 

"Halo 5 is casual."

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Any article or any data at all on how big and popular arena shooter were "back in the day"? I'm curious about actual numbers.

 

The biggest early online shooters in terms of popularity until Half-life/CS 1.3 I believe. UT 99',UT2004, and Quake 3 and its mods were probably top 10 PC games in terms of the size of the playerbase for a LONG time though, probably until the mid/late 2000's. Alot of the longevity came from the various competitive leagues that used to run Quake and UT(for awhile at least) such as ESL, CPL, and WCG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games There are some Arena shooters on this list, although it has always been a niche genre its always been relevant in competitive leagues and such until recently. Not to mention the FPS genre and Western e-sports were founded on and built on Arena shooters.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Hard Way

 

when are you gonna make more videos on your channel man? you have such great previous content, if you get the chance you should definitely make more :)

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Hard Way

 

when are you gonna make more videos on your channel man? you have such great previous content, if you get the chance you should definitely make more :)

 

I wish I could pay him to make the same videos for Shadowrun that he did for CE...

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wish I could pay him to make the same videos for Shadowrun that he did for CE...

Tell Bum he needs to get on that man, hes way too good at the game to not make content for it

Share this post


Link to post

Halo CE still has the best campaign in the series.

 

If you cut it in half

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Halo CE still has the best campaign in the series.

Every Bungie campaign had it's ups and downs

 

I think Halo 2 definitely was the best though. Halo 2 told so much and expanded the covenant in a way no Halo since has.

 

The Arbiter was a great character with a fairly original character arc. There was alot of memorable lines and levels, and the sheer amount of location and gameplay variety was great.

 

It was the least polished as well though

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

https://www.reddit.com/r/halo/comments/5ktkuu/the_halo_megasurvey/

 

Thought you guys might be interested in this survey going on on r/halo.

"Which Halo games had the best implementation of Radar?" *

 

*Gleefully selecting every Halo game except Halo 5*

 

I also couldn't help but feel a bit depressed about the map design question. I don't think I felt inclined to select anything after Halo 2, because I'm realizing how quickly Bungie themselves dropped the ball on that one.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I will never understand people who shit on the H2 campaign but praise the H1 campaign. 

 

CE had more open maps to explore like missions 'Halo', 'Assault on the Control Room', and 'The Silent Cartographer' where none of this was in Halo 2.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I will never understand people who shit on the H2 campaign but praise the H1 campaign. 

H1 campaign was less linear and mysterious. Sure, you back track a bit but it feels very different the second time through. The enemies were more fun to fight and the overall gunplay was better. There were a lot of neat tricks you could pull off too, and not just skipping parts or getting on rooftops like in Halo 2. Legendary was challenging but not cheap like H2: see: Jackal Snipers. 

 

I could go on. 

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
  • Halo CE is great until the Library, which is only good in co-op. 
  • Halo 2 is epic and grindy in all the right ways, with intimate, grindy levels like Cairo Station and The Arbiter and bombastic levels like Delta Halo and The Great Journey being highlights. But it had some trashy Flood levels speckled throughout like Oracle, Quarantine Zone and High Charity
  • Halo 3 has the infamous Cortana level but is otherwise action packed throughout, with The Ark and The Covenant being the high points.
  • ODST is perfectly paced, with its weakest level being Kikowani station (unless you're one of those Mombasa Streets haters).
  • Reach's weakest levels are Nightfall and Tip of the Spear but the rest is well done. Long Night of Soalce is definitely a Top 5 Halo mission 
  • Halo 4 starts off decent, dips throughout the middle and then picks up with Composer and Midnight
  • Halo 5 for me is the only game where I like halves of the missions. Because you'll get a good first half and then they'll ruin it with a Warden battle. If the Prometheans weren't so awful to fight, this would probably be a solid Campaign. But fuck them and fuck those "town" missions. 

Basically ODST is the only game I can play start to finish and not want to skip levels. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I will never understand people who shit on the H2 campaign but praise the H1 campaign.

Halo 2 easily had the most linear campaign of the series, especially following CE which had a ton of exploration.

 

Mostly useless weapon sandbox in 2 outside of plasma pistol + headshot, whereas CE's weapons all had a good place in campaign (which is what they were originally designed and balanced for so it makes sense).

 

Bullet sponge brutes.

 

Cliff hanger ending.

 

CE had problems with a lot of backtracking and repetition but that's really where the problems end. That being said I think all 3 Halos had phenomenal single players and it would be a crime to downplay any of them.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I personally prefer linear campaigns to "go anywhere" stuff. Yes it was cool back in the day when it was new and exciting, but the most praised levels in the first game- Halo, Silent Cartographer and AOTC - are absolute slogs to get through now outside of co-op. The nostalgia can't carry me past it.  Sometimes I feel the same way about Mombasa Streets from ODST, but the atmosphere and gameplay at least sells it for me. 

 

I think the problem with Halo 2 moreso than the other games is that every level was super narrow.

Cairo Station is a series of rooms, Outskirts is a street, a small beach and then a series of tunnels, Metropolis is a bridge, a highway and then a walkway, The Arbiter is a series of hallways, The Oracle is a series of rooms, Delta Halo is a series of corridors, Regret is a series of bridges and chambers, Sacred Icon is a series of chambers, Gravemind and High Charity are all hallways, and even Uprising is a bunch of vehicle channels. 

 

It opens up with Quarantine Zone and The Great Journey at least, but you can always see the walls in your field of view. 

 

Halo 3 and Reach were both linear, but they had a great mix of indoor and outdoor spaces. You were actually part of the scale and scope in this game, whereas Halo 2 is just a bunch of rooms and the scale is in the background. Many of those rooms are grindy killboxes like The Oracle, and yea, when you can barely use the sandbox to kill anything, it can get repetitive pretty quick. I still find those levels endearing for that reason though; mixing and matching weapons to tackle the next bullet sponge was far more interesting in Halo 2 than it is in Halo 5. (Dual Plasma Rifles is life.)

  • Upvote (+1) 1

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.