Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

(Imagine Halo Search and Destroy, full shields, on the disc maps – Empire, Eden, Pegasus... it would be heavenly.

 

 

 

1GRv8OP.jpg

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

30 fps may look more cinematic but in no way does it look more realistic.

 

That like saying a compressed mp3 sounds more realistic than a wave file.

 

It only seems realistic to YOU because you might be used to it.

 

60 fps is closer to reality objectively.

I knew someone would say this. Real life isn't in FPS at all, so no amount of fps can ever look completely realistic. 30 fps IS more realistic because when people look at screens, they expect to see real life shown in 30 (movie/tv quality). People don't view screens expecting to see real life captured in 60 fps. Right now, 95% of real life content that you view through a screen is 24/30 fps, not 60.

 

Until virtual reality is a common way to play video games, 60 fps will always look unrealistic/uncanny. 

Share this post


Link to post

If anyone remembers my posts supporting sprint/H2-5, they are along the same lines of what @@Maximus IL is saying. He is saying it much better.

Thanks.  Though . . . I actually prefer no-sprint.  ;)

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I love getting negged for being right. The whole 30 vs 60 fps is subjective.

 

My film classes have explained this better than I can. Why neg me because YOU don't understand where I'm coming from? some people are fucking idiots on these forums. I'm not talking out of my ass. Do some research if I can't make it clear enough for you.

 

Here's making it as simple as I possibly can for all the neg happy simpletons:

 

High quality, high production cinematography is filmed in 24 fps. This is almost the same as 30 fps. When you go to a movie, and see real life explosions, shooting, movement, people - anything - you are seeing it in 24 (30) fps. When film of REAL LIFE uses 60 fps, like most modern soap operas or low-budget independent films, you are seeing it in 60 fps. Don't ask me why 24 fps is the norm with big budget films, but it is. The type of film the 24 fps cameras operate on are worth over $100,000 because they record at an extremely high fidelity and utilize advanced technology to make the film look amazing. High movement on these high budget, 30 fps cameras leaves a sort of motion blur effect as well, something I will discuss in a bit.

 

Cheap, low budget shows use 60 fps, but film with low-quality cameras. There's almost no "blur" when the camera pans as well. Are you guys still with me? Case and point - high budget = 24 (30) fps, low budget = 60 fps.

 

Now, with video games, 30 fps gives the illusion that the game is simply a film/video of real life that you are viewing on a screen. 30 fps does not require motion blur because there is already a certain amount of "blur effect" caused by the 30 fps artifacting. 

 

In a 60 fps video game, everything starts to resemble the low-budget, low quality 60 fps cameras used in soap operas/low budget film. Thats what gives 60 fps its "cheesy" feeling.

 

The simpletons are now probably wondering now "why is he comparing video games to movies?". The reason is because when you view content on a screen, your brain automatically realizes that it is obviously not real life. Your brain can recognize that neither 30 fps or 60 on a screen is real life. The next, most realistic assumption that your brain can make is that what you are viewing is a video of real life. If you are playing a video game at 30 fps, with high graphical quality, your brain can sometimes assume you are simply watching a video of real life. Your brain recognizes the 30 fps being similar to the 24 fps used in film, and voila - you now think you're watching a film, not a video game.

 

In 60 fps video games, something tells your brain that this isn't a video of real life, because theres something uncanny about the 60 fps. Your brain already knows that you aren't in real life because you can see the screen in front of you. If its not real life, and its not video of real life, what is it? This is where the uncanny feeling comes from, and this feeling basically gets categorized perceptually as a video game. 

 

Realistic video games that use effects such as motion blur or depth of field aren't trying to trick your brain into thinking you are witnessing real life. They are trying to mimic camera/film effects, which makes you think you are watching a video of real life. Watch some John Carmack videos. He is the father of most modern gaming effects and will tell you what I have told you first hand. 

 

60 can look like high quality film if effects are used such as depth of field or motion blur. The unfortunate reality though is that 60 fps requires too much graphical capability from the Xbox One and doing 1080p + 60 fps + post processing would be nearly impossible. So between 30 fps with post processing, and 60 without, 30 fps wins hands down in terms of REALISM.

 

In the future, when virtual reality eliminates the need for screens, 60 fps will become more realistic. Again, I'm not pulling this out of my ass, I've studied film as my minor and have watched countless developer keynotes regarding graphics/realism. 

 

To conclude, I will state again that I do prefer 60 because it feels better in a video game. Its more responsive, and it is "smoother".

 

Think or do some research next time you go to click the neg button.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I knew someone would say this. Real life isn't in FPS at all, so no amount of fps can ever look completely realistic. 30 fps IS more realistic because when people look at screens, they expect to see real life shown in 30 (movie/tv quality). People don't view screens expecting to see real life captured in 60 fps. Right now, 95% of real life content that you view through a screen is 24/30 fps, not 60.

 

Until virtual reality is a common way to play video games, 60 fps will always look unrealistic/uncanny. 

Viewing 24-30fps is fine, but you're not actively controlling TV.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Say they add the CE pistol as a legendary weapon and we can make that the primary. Would it be better to do that than changing the weapon and health traits?

 

Then I'd do:

-1 AR, 1-2 SMGs, 1 BR/DMR/LR at each base (idea courtesy of @@Sitri)

-Add in an objective similar to TF2's Arena where if players are still alive after a certain time a hill will pop up

-Replace nades in middle with a power weapon or power up

Share this post


Link to post

Say they add the CE pistol as a legendary weapon and we can make that the primary. Would it be better to do that than changing the weapon and health traits?

 

Then I'd do:

-1 AR, 1-2 SMGs, 1 BR/DMR/LR at each base (idea courtesy of @@Sitri)

-Add in an objective similar to TF2's Arena where if players are still alive after a certain time a hill will pop up

-Replace nades in middle with a power weapon or power up

 

I'd like to see the CE Pistol as a Legendary weapon but I think the Standard Pistol needs a buff regardless. A 4sk pistol would make Breakout a lot better. I would also like to see Pistol only starts tested for Breakout (making the AR and BR pickups much more effective).

Share this post


Link to post

No, the queen and bishop being allowed to move any number of spaces in chess would be the equivalent of adding permanent jet packs to CE. I can think of like 5 places on the competitive CE maps where grenade jumping is done consistently while the two queens and four bishops in chess are considered in the majority of plays made.  

 

I'm not talking about the total impact on the game, I'm talking about the sacrifice to its competitive merit. 

Share this post


Link to post

About the 30vs60 fps, I highly prefer 60 fps. I went back to Reach last week (30 fps) and it was disgustingly choppy. Same for whenever I used to switch from CoD to Reach back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post

I gotta say, whoever's creating these new objective gametypes is pretty good :D. Extraction & Strongholds are good for competitive play, and Ricochet is just plain fun/silly. Only one that didn't really work out was Dominion.  

Share this post


Link to post

Reach was always the most choppy of the Halo games for some unexplained reason. It seemed like it was even worse if you were playing off of your hard drive, though I have no idea why that would be. 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not talking about the total impact on the game, I'm talking about the sacrifice to its competitive merit. 

Good, because that was the point.  The purpose of the example was to demonstrate that features can be added (or removed) that fundamentally change the way the game is played without making it uncompetitive.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Good, because that was the point.  The purpose of the example was to demonstrate that features can be added (or removed) that fundamentally change the way the game is played without making it uncompetitive.

Did anyone doubt this? There was a chess gametype in Reach that was probably the most competitive gametype in any Halo ever. Doesn't change the fact that it had basically nothing to do with Halo. The same with sprint for me, regardless of competitiveness, it takes away the core of Halo.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I love getting negged for being right. The whole 30 vs 60 fps is subjective.

 

My film classes have explained this better than I can. Why neg me because YOU don't understand where I'm coming from? some people are fucking idiots on these forums. I'm not talking out of my ass. Do some research if I can't make it clear enough for you.

Just as a minor point . . . some of the reason for the neg may be the absolute wording of your argument.  In the post prior to this, you stated that "30 fps IS more realistic" and, prior to that, "if we're talking realism, 30fps wins hands down", and so forth.  As you admit above, "the whole 30 vs. 60 fps is subjective".

 

While in the aggregate, most people might perceive 30 vs. 60 fps the way you do, some clearly do not.  You may not have elicited such a negative response had you kept your previous posts less absolute.

Share this post


Link to post

Good, because that was the point.  The purpose of the example was to demonstrate that features can be added (or removed) that fundamentally change the way the game is played without making it uncompetitive.

 

I'm pretty sure Aphex Twin never said otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post

Skill gap:  It's not as simple as that.  You can objectively show that in certain situations, those functions increase the defensive options available.  Increasing the defensive options available does not necessarily mean the skill gap has been decreased.

 

Skill gap is measured by the difference in performance between players of differing skills.  To determine if the skill gap has decreased, you need to look at the spread of player performance over time.  A game with zero skill gap has everyone (on average) performing the same, regardless of what they do . . . such flipping coins or dice.  As the skill gap increases, the difference in performance between players increases.  To say that thruster, etc., has reduced the skill gap you must show that including those features results in more players performing at the median.  In other words, you must show that there is less differentiation between the top players and bottom players.  My personal [unproven] opinion is that the inclusion of those abilities actually increases the differentiation between the top and bottom players, because there is a lot of creativity that can be applied to movement mechanics.

 

For teamwork, if you increase the individual ability of the players, you decrease their reliance on other players.  This will result in less teamwork for the vast majority of the player base.  The higher-level team meta of which you speak is understood and practiced by a small fraction of the player base.  So if Josh's goal is to increase the need for teamwork among the highest level players, then you have a valid point.  If Josh's goal is to increase the need for teamwork among the majority of the player base, then what he proposes is, indeed, a logical approach.

 

I agree with you on one aspect, though.  I prefer empowering the individual.  I think it is more fun.  That is a preference.

 

For increasing the pace of the game, sprint is not the only factor involved.  There are other reasons he has stated for including sprint.  He has decided that those reasons for the specific mechanic of sprint are more important than increasing the pace of the game.  To accomplish the goal of increasing the pace of the game, other mechanics were adjusted - like weapon RoF.  While increasing the pace of the game was one of his stated goals, it was not the only goal.  It is not a valid argument to take just one goal, ignore other stated goals, and maintain that every mechanic must be adjusted in a manner that helps achieve that single goal you selected.

 

I agree with you on one aspect here, as well.  I would prefer that sprint not be included.

 

I'm assuming you're talking specifically in regards to how halo has progressed over the years, and not in general with shooters? Also, I think others have found how Sprint negatively effects the pace of the game, while creating an illusion that it is speeding it up by allowing players to move around the map faster. Increased RoF is a nice bonus but hardly matters when everyone has so many mobility options that require a single button to press that allow you to escape. The thruster for example, what if it allows a greater base of unskilled players to stay alive and not get punished  than it does allow for top players to out maneuver each other, since despite the opportunities it can create still offer a "basic" advanced movement technique.

 

I just don't think 343 is looking at this through clear eyes. I'm not sure what their intention is, and I really do dislike the notion of individual power versus team power when it comes to Halo. Most who enjoy later Halos are completely fine with the forced method of teamwork, especially in Halo 3. I like to team shot and stuff, but when that's the most advanced form of teamwork you have an issue. You can very easily create both an individual and team skill gap within games that doesn't force the player to rely on his teammates weapon, but other aspects.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone doubt this? There was a chess gametype in Reach that was probably the most competitive gametype in any Halo ever. Doesn't change the fact that it had basically nothing to do with Halo. The same with sprint for me, regardless of competitiveness, it takes away the core of Halo.

Sure.  I likewise feel that sprint makes Halo feel very different than the earlier games.  I prefer the feel of the earlier games.  I will continue to argue for no-sprint.

 

What I won't say - which is how this discussion started - is that sprint is objectively bad because it makes the game less competitive.  That remark is common in the forums, but it is not necessarily true.  It may be true, but it also may well be false. 

 

I will continue to maintain my support for no-sprint games, but I will not go so far as to say "it is objectively proven".  When someone says that, the conversation on both sides stops being productive.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pretty sure Aphex Twin never said otherwise. 

 

You probably just missed it then:

 

"If we're talking about the skill gap, we can show that defensive options which forgive players for making mistakes (thruster, sprint, long kill times, etc...) objectively reduces the skill gap." [and he defined "competitive" in terms of the skill gap]

 

and earlier:

 

"Still a valid question since halo 5 is riddled with non-aesthetic design choices which are objectively illogical." [which I took to include sprint, though he later clarified as not being a reference to sprint; but by that time, we were well on our way with the sprint argument]

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Shields are still present in Breakout

 

What? There's no shields in Breakout, just your recharging visible health and no headshot multipliers. I'm not sure if there's some damage reduction involved as well, but I'm sure there's no shields.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm assuming you're talking specifically in regards to how halo has progressed over the years, and not in general with shooters? Also, I think others have found how Sprint negatively effects the pace of the game, while creating an illusion that it is speeding it up by allowing players to move around the map faster. Increased RoF is a nice bonus but hardly matters when everyone has so many mobility options that require a single button to press that allow you to escape. The thruster for example, what if it allows a greater base of unskilled players to stay alive and not get punished  than it does allow for top players to out maneuver each other, since despite the opportunities it can create still offer a "basic" advanced movement technique.

 

I just don't think 343 is looking at this through clear eyes. I'm not sure what their intention is, and I really do dislike the notion of individual power versus team power when it comes to Halo. Most who enjoy later Halos are completely fine with the forced method of teamwork, especially in Halo 3. I like to team shot and stuff, but when that's the most advanced form of teamwork you have an issue. You can very easily create both an individual and team skill gap within games that doesn't force the player to rely on his teammates weapon, but other aspects.

I am referring solely to the argument that sprint objectively reduces the competitiveness [i.e., skill gap] of the game.  I agree entirely that it slows pacing.  However, slow-paced games can be just as competitive as fast-paced ones.

 

On thruster, you compare apples and oranges.  In the first, yes, it gives lower skilled players more defensive capability.  In the second, though, you pit two high-skilled players against each other.  Different situation.  If the first comparison is high vs. low skill, so must the second comparison be.  In a battle of high vs. low skill, the low skill player is less likely to use the thruster at the opportune time than the high-skill player.  Halo 4 demonstrates this nicely.  Net advantage is still to the high skill player.  Moreover, in the battle for position, the high skill player is much more likely to use the thruster creatively to get to places faster or in a way that the low skill player does not anticipate.  Halo 4 proves this nicely as well.  So is the net effect of thruster to increase or decrease the skill gap?  I have one belief; you may have a different one.  What neither of us have is data, which means that neither of us can legitimately make a definitive statement.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sure.  I likewise feel that sprint makes Halo feel very different than the earlier games.  I prefer the feel of the earlier games.  I will continue to argue for no-sprint.

 

What I won't say - which is how this discussion started - is that sprint is objectively bad because it makes the game less competitive.  That remark is common in the forums, but it is not necessarily true.  It may be true, but it also may well be false. 

 

I will continue to maintain my support for no-sprint games, but I will not go so far as to say "it is objectively proven".  When someone says that, the conversation on both sides stops being productive.

 

But it is objectively counter-intuitive in every aspect of gameplay in a R+G Arena-style FPS with Regen shields. Any kind of Arena shooter, no matter the pace should never have sprint+ADS.  TF shouldn't, Halo shouldn't, Tribes shouldn't, and most certainly not Quake/UT or any old-school style Arena FPS. Halo wasn't build around sprint, every classic map is now obsolete because sprint exists in the game. Discouraging movement+shooting in tandem is discouraging the very nature of the game and has had a HUGE negative effect on combat balance/flow which is was an issue in the H5 beta where combat flow is dead in the water at high levels of play. Sprint+Smartscope(quasi-ADS) are straight pandering to the CoD audience no matter what Josh Holmes or Frankie tries to say to justify them. I am sorry, but there is no game-play justification for these mechanics.There is no good reason other than that for these mechanics to be forced into Halo after more than a decade of the game functioning perfect without them. Nobody in the core community asked for these mechanics and I dont believe Holmes' weak logic for including them.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

What? There's no shields in Breakout, just your recharging visible health and no headshot multipliers. I'm not sure if there's some damage reduction involved as well, but I'm sure there's no shields.

There are shields.

 

343 did something weird with the U.I. By making it appear as if there is only your health bar, but there are still shields present.

 

If there weren't shields, the BR would take 3 body shots to kill, which it doesn't.

 

Seems like the damage was increased on weapons and the U.I. Change is just contextual.

Share this post


Link to post

I love getting negged for being right. The whole 30 vs 60 fps is subjective.

 

My film classes have explained this better than I can. Why neg me because YOU don't understand where I'm coming from? some people are fucking idiots on these forums. I'm not talking out of my ass. Do some research if I can't make it clear enough for you.

 

Here's making it as simple as I possibly can for all the neg happy simpletons:

 

High quality, high production cinematography is filmed in 24 fps. This is almost the same as 30 fps. When you go to a movie, and see real life explosions, shooting, movement, people - anything - you are seeing it in 24 (30) fps. When film of REAL LIFE uses 60 fps, like most modern soap operas or low-budget independent films, you are seeing it in 60 fps. Don't ask me why 24 fps is the norm with big budget films, but it is. The type of film the 24 fps cameras operate on are worth over $100,000 because they record at an extremely high fidelity and utilize advanced technology to make the film look amazing. High movement on these high budget, 30 fps cameras leaves a sort of motion blur effect as well, something I will discuss in a bit.

 

Cheap, low budget shows use 60 fps, but film with low-quality cameras. There's almost no "blur" when the camera pans as well. Are you guys still with me? Case and point - high budget = 24 (30) fps, low budget = 60 fps.

 

Now, with video games, 30 fps gives the illusion that the game is simply a film/video of real life that you are viewing on a screen. 30 fps does not require motion blur because there is already a certain amount of "blur effect" caused by the 30 fps artifacting. 

 

In a 60 fps video game, everything starts to resemble the low-budget, low quality 60 fps cameras used in soap operas/low budget film. Thats what gives 60 fps its "cheesy" feeling.

 

The simpletons are now probably wondering now "why is he comparing video games to movies?". The reason is because when you view content on a screen, your brain automatically realizes that it is obviously not real life. Your brain can recognize that neither 30 fps or 60 on a screen is real life. The next, most realistic assumption that your brain can make is that what you are viewing is a video of real life. If you are playing a video game at 30 fps, with high graphical quality, your brain can sometimes assume you are simply watching a video of real life. Your brain recognizes the 30 fps being similar to the 24 fps used in film, and voila - you now think you're watching a film, not a video game.

 

In 60 fps video games, something tells your brain that this isn't a video of real life, because theres something uncanny about the 60 fps. Your brain already knows that you aren't in real life because you can see the screen in front of you. If its not real life, and its not video of real life, what is it? This is where the uncanny feeling comes from, and this feeling basically gets categorized perceptually as a video game. 

 

Realistic video games that use effects such as motion blur or depth of field aren't trying to trick your brain into thinking you are witnessing real life. They are trying to mimic camera/film effects, which makes you think you are watching a video of real life. Watch some John Carmack videos. He is the father of most modern gaming effects and will tell you what I have told you first hand. 

 

60 can look like high quality film if effects are used such as depth of field or motion blur. The unfortunate reality though is that 60 fps requires too much graphical capability from the Xbox One and doing 1080p + 60 fps + post processing would be nearly impossible. So between 30 fps with post processing, and 60 without, 30 fps wins hands down in terms of REALISM.

 

In the future, when virtual reality eliminates the need for screens, 60 fps will become more realistic. Again, I'm not pulling this out of my ass, I've studied film as my minor and have watched countless developer keynotes regarding graphics/realism. 

 

To conclude, I will state again that I do prefer 60 because it feels better in a video game. Its more responsive, and it is "smoother".

 

Think or do some research next time you go to click the neg button.

 

Lol.

 

 

Most gamers(PC) turn  off post-possessing because its shit, 

 

Just leave it at..

 

30fps good for videos(non gaming), cinematics, and movies

 

60fps/120fps games, competitive play.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

See, this is why i love 4chan system, all these rep whores who get extremely mad when someone neg them.

 

 

hi

 

these games have sprint tho, is just implemented in different ways, in UT4 for example, you have to hold forward for 3 seconds to start sprinting, but if you change directions you stop sprinting and go back to base movement, you don't notice this at first because base movement is already very fast.

 

That sprint mecanic has been suggested here and i think it would be cool to implement it in halo 5, but you know... why even waste your breath.

Share this post


Link to post

You probably just missed it then:

 

"If we're talking about the skill gap, we can show that defensive options which forgive players for making mistakes (thruster, sprint, long kill times, etc...) objectively reduces the skill gap." [and he defined "competitive" in terms of the skill gap]

 

and earlier:

 

"Still a valid question since halo 5 is riddled with non-aesthetic design choices which are objectively illogical." [which I took to include sprint, though he later clarified as not being a reference to sprint; but by that time, we were well on our way with the sprint argument]

They can be objectively shown not to result in the gameplay you want.  The desireability of the gameplay you want (no sprint, faster ttk, more emphasis on the individual) is a subjective opinion that others might not share.

If you're just being semantically picky with the use of the word "objective", then whatever, but Halo is not this giant mystery box of chaos theory. There are things that are very plainly bad for competitive play, such as bloom, and then there are things that can be determined to be bad for competitive play with minimal extrapolation, such as huge open maps in 4v4 play. Let me emphasize that nobody has ever offered an explanation as to why these things are good for competitive Halo, they've simply said that they "prefer it".

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.