Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

Because design logic is objective.

When it comes from randoms who have no training, yes. When it comes to what the discussion was about, which is the look of armor, yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you are, but Sal1ent was not. The quote from Sal1ent that you are objecting to was restricted solely to the aesthetic design of the armor. Nothing else.

Still a valid question since halo 5 is riddled with non-aesthetic design choices which are objectively illogical.

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't the idea for breakout come from Paintball? Don't know a lot about professional paintball, but I'm pretty sure they have a flag on the other teams side that you need to capture to win. Even when you get out the whole other team, you still need to capture the flag. I think that could work with breakout. I honestly think it could work without an objective, but adding a flag to both sides and you need to capture it within the time limit or something would make it even better. Maybe even do 1 flag? I don't know, just throwing some ideas out there. But I love breakout as a gametype and think it is exactly what halo and HCS needs to spice up the game. 

 

On another note, fuck stronghold.

Share this post


Link to post

To me, adding breakout to as competitive variant is like adding SWAT...not what people want to watch. It's a niche experience that appeals to CoD players and casual Halo players, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be enjoyable at a pro level. Sure it has a skill gap, but not in the same way traditional Halo does. I'd much rather see a gametype introduced that's aligned with traditional bomb/SnD but with core Halo gameplay.

 

So you want 1 bomb assault in HCS?

Share this post


Link to post

To me, adding breakout to as competitive variant is like adding SWAT...not what people want to watch. It's a niche experience that appeals to CoD players and casual Halo players, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be enjoyable at a pro level. Sure it has a skill gap, but not in the same way traditional Halo does. I'd much rather see a gametype introduced that's aligned with traditional bomb/SnD but with core Halo gameplay.

Come on man, Breakout is nothing like SWAT.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Still a valid question since halo 5 is riddled with non-aesthetic design choices which are objectively illogical.

Keep trying...

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

It wouldn't be exactly the same thing, but couldnt you add an objective (flag) to the map and have 2 different win conditions? Either capture the flag, or exterminate the other team. Then add a long respawn timer (30 seconds). This would mean you cant completely ignore the objective, because exterminating the other team would be much more difficult.

 

I feel like that could really add some extra dimension to the game without detracting from the round based theme. Each round would be longer obviously, so maybe play to 3 wins instead of 5.

Share this post


Link to post

It wouldn't be exactly the same thing, but couldnt you add an objective (flag) to the map and have 2 different win conditions? Either capture the flag, or exterminate the other team. Then add a long respawn timer (30 seconds). This would mean you cant completely ignore the objective, because exterminating the other team would be much more difficult.

 

I feel like that could really add some extra dimension to the game without detracting from the round based theme. Each round would be longer obviously, so maybe play to 3 wins instead of 5.

1. It has to be a new gametype, we can't just slap capture the flag onto it.

2. It's 1 life, no re spawn timer.

Share this post


Link to post

1. It has to be a new gametype, we can't just slap capture the flag onto it.

2. It's 1 life, no re spawn timer.

 

Why does it have to be that? I understand what Breakout was on the beta, I'm just trying to provide an alternative gametype idea. It definitely has similarities, but having 2 different possible win conditions is new. Maybe its not a flag. maybe each team has 3 nodes on their base that need to be activated (3 second activation). Very long respawns to allow for possible exterminations but also allow for the objective to be completed.

 

The problem with an objective on standard Breakout (or like in paintball) is that it's virtually pointless. Why try and capture the flag when you can just push any man advantage you have to take down the opponents.

Share this post


Link to post

Why does it have to be that? I understand what Breakout was on the beta, I'm just trying to provide an alternative gametype idea. It definitely has similarities, but having 2 different possible win conditions is new. Maybe its not a flag. maybe each team has 3 nodes on their base that need to be activated (3 second activation). Very long respawns to allow for possible exterminations but also allow for the objective to be completed.

 

The problem with an objective on standard Breakout (or like in paintball) is that it's virtually pointless. Why try and capture the flag when you can just push any man advantage you have to take down the opponents.

For one thing, developing a game mode takes a lot of time, play testing, and changes. What your suggesting isn't Breakout, it's an entirely different gametype.

 

As you've probably noticed, Breakout maps were designed in specific for this game mode. Slapping on an objective would require the maps to be reworked and the rules/specifics of the game mode to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post

Give us the default player traits and I can see Breakout as a better competitive gametype than TS.

I'd like to see how default traits play but I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post

Still a valid question since halo 5 is riddled with non-aesthetic design choices which are objectively illogical.

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.

 

When it comes to competitiveness, there are some objective conclusions that can be drawn.  Metrics for competitiveness can be defined.  For example, define "competitiveness" as the degree to which individual playing ability (and/or teamwork) determine the outcome of a match.  Then the evaluation metric is simple:  Game settings where the same players (and/or teams) regularly win regardless of game conditions are objectively more competitive than games where the outcome is more uncertain.  PoD in Halo 4 leads to more uncertain outcomes than without PoD, so we could objectively conclude that the PoD feature makes the game less competitive.  Whether a game is offensively or defensively oriented or whether it is biased toward team or individual performance makes no statement on the competitiveness of the game, although all of us certainly have our preferences.

 

To take this a step further, I personally share your desire for no sprint.  I can (like you and others) show that including sprint objectively affects certain aspects of the game.  We might be able to show that it makes the game more defense-oriented (but perhaps not, as sprinting has many offensive uses as well - such as positioning).  But neither you nor I can show that it objectively makes the game "less competitive".  To do that, we would have to demonstrate that including sprint means the top players win less frequently than without it (and with no other changes to the game or settings).  I am unaware of any such data.  This is further complicated by the fact that the top players in a sprint-enabled game may be different than the top players in a no-sprint game because the inclusion of sprint may alter the ideal skillset required for top performance.  Simply because Player A is ranked #1 in a no-sprint game and is ranked #143 in a sprint game does not necessarily mean that the sprint game is less competitive.  If Player B is ranked #1 in a sprint game with a higher winning percentage than Player A in the no-sprint game, then we have one piece of evidence indicating the opposite.  An objective conclusion about sprint's effect on competitiveness would require a statistical study, preferably with sprint as the only variable.

 

The data we have at our disposal only allows us to draw one objective conclusion:  gameplay changes when sprint is included, and we can define how it changes.  That is an objective fact.  Everything beyond that is subjective.

 

_____________________

 

P.S.  In chess (which originated c. 280 - 550 AD), the queen was originally restricted to be able to move only one square diagonally and bishops were able to move three squares diagonally (not more, not less).  This restriction in movement led to chess games taking days to complete due to the careful planning required to capture pieces or mate an opponent.  Sometime in the middle of the 15th century, a variant of the game appeared in which queens could move any number of spaces in any direction, while bishops could move any number of spaces diagonally.  This variant was derogatorily termed "madwoman's chess" or "mad queen's chess".  Games that used to take days of planning could now be completed in hours. 

 

Did this change reduce the "competitiveness" of the game?  I'm sure some - if not most - argued as much.  After all, it removed a whole layer of planning and careful execution that had been previously required.  On the other hand, it introduced a whole new set of tactics associated with having an extremely powerful piece.  Gradually, the "mad queen's chess" became "queen's chess" and finally "chess", as its popularity vastly overtook that of the old version.

 

Did the rule change fundamentally change the way the game was played?  Absolutely - and far more fundamentally than sprint in FPSs.  But did it make the game objectively less competitive?  Given that higher ranked players almost never lose to lower-ranked players with an ELO rating difference of 300 or more (win rate of ~95%), one might say that chess is objectively highly competitive.  It is difficult to imagine the old version being more so.

  • Upvote (+1) 9
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

For one thing, developing a game mode takes a lot of time, play testing, and changes. What your suggesting isn't Breakout, it's an entirely different gametype.

 

As you've probably noticed, Breakout maps were designed in specific for this game mode. Slapping on an objective would require the maps to be reworked and the rules/specifics of the game mode to be changed.

 

What's the point of this discussion then? To just talk about how awesomesauce or terrible Breakout is, without discussing ways to potentially change it?

Share this post


Link to post

What's the point of this discussion then? To just talk about how awesomesauce or terrible Breakout is, without discussing ways to potentially change it?

Based on the first post it is about whether breakout would be a viable competitive game type. I think suggesting changes that might make it more competitive is appropriate given the topic. Suggesting changes that completely alter the game type so it is a complete new game type is not what the thread is about.

 

I think

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed. in H5 we don't use the same number for both - these are tracked separately and we take into account other factors like parties/lone wolves to affect match. Overall your breakdown makes sense and for the most part our goals are aligned.

@bolded, can't this be done to a certain extent for ranks? I remember how frustrating it was in H3 to drop 35-40 kills in a TS game, get MVP, and lose because the randoms I had were just that bad. I'd rank down despite having the best performance in the game. For a long time, I wished the MVP system catered to people who have bad teammates.

 

On top of that, if everyone is pushing for most kills or objective scoring during a match to obtain MVP, it'll demotivate stat padding overall (less frustrating for noobs), and result in a much more representative rank for people who contribute a lot to wins. I'm sure top performance can be tracked and factored in some manner (base multiplier in case of a win, counts as a regular win in case of loss).

 

Or you could bring back the MVP system, similar to how it was in H3. Not sure it can happen, but I'm sure a fair amount of people would be in favor of it if you made a poll of some sort. It could add to the postgame report which could use the extra stuff right now.

 

Though if it did happen, in objective modes there would be the potential problem of people betraying for objective points. Some sort of system would have to be put in place to prevent it.

Share this post


Link to post

Based on the first post it is about whether breakout would be a viable competitive game type. I think suggesting changes that might make it more competitive is appropriate given the topic. Suggesting changes that completely alter the game type so it is a complete new game type is not what the thread is about.

 

I think

 

That's fair enough. I guess I didn't think the suggestions were so drastic that it completely changes everything about the gametype, but I can see that viewpoint.

 

Basically the proposed changes is because I think that to make it an engaging gametype for viewers as well as the players I think there needs to be more movement and less stagnate stalemates. To do that you need to have something worth moving for. That's the idea of an objective of some sort. But if you can also just eliminate the other team, adding an objective doesn't do much and can kind of be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd consider Breakout if it had default traits and an objective (alternating sides with an objective near the spawn point, invisible to opponent unless carrier is killed, can't be returned, needs to be planted at 1 of 2 potential points on a neutral area of the map). Right now it's looking a lot like the mode @@Frankie had in mind when he said he wanted to make SWAT a default mode.

 

Strongholds is the definite objective mode to go. It promotes controlling areas, rotating around the map while keeping track of weapons, making coordinated pushes to various areas rather than holding neutral and spawn killing. I think of it as similar to how you hold down areas and make pushes on Lockout TS but isn't as slow paced as Lockout TS would be.

 

It's constant pushing rather than waiting for a weapon or for the time to run out as the clock is always ticking in favor of whoever is in control, and the more the losing team waits, the harder it makes it to come back. It would allow to use most asymmetric maps too, as long as the 3 control zones are placed at about the same distance from both teams' starting point and power weapons don't spawn at the start of the game. Overall it would be similar to Oddball, but without having one person less fighting and ball resets.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

It's the truth.

 

If there was a video played to students of video game art and design, Halo 4 would be the "how not to do it" video. So massively over designed with absolutely no logic to any of the designs... That "helioskrill" is no different, terribly over designed...

 

WARNING: Personal opinions ahead.

 

If those armors weren't supposed to be Spartans in a Halo game, I would have liked most of them much more. I absolutely believe that they weren't that bad until placed in context. I'm a big fan of "over designed" armors, like Ninja Gaiden's Fiend armor and Vanquish's armors. Then again I'm also a big anime/Japanese action game fan. My biggest issue with Halo 4's armors were that they seemed stuck in this weird limbo where some of them wanted to be crazy and some tame: but none of them went full-on like Hayabusa armor and none of them were simple enough to be old-style Halo armor. They got stuck in Halo uncanny valley.

 

Still, the Didact's armor, man. Loved it. Please have a version of it for use in multiplayer.

 

mqdefault.jpg

 

Oh, and if they ever have cheesy crossover armor from Ninja Gaiden again . . . just sayin' . . .

 

500px-NG2_Art_Char_Ryu_Costume_4_Fiend_B

Share this post


Link to post

That doesn't really look overdesigned. Except for the helmet it's just some nerd in rags.

Share this post


Link to post

What's the point of this discussion then? To just talk about how awesomesauce or terrible Breakout is, without discussing ways to potentially change it?

Pretty much, yeah. I'm sure 343 is open to tweaks and changes but not an entire rework for the mode.

 

I'm more interested in discussing it's competitive viability in its current state.

 

@ was pretty spot on.

Share this post


Link to post

I mean 30 fps looks more cinematic and more like you're watching a film. Films are done in 30 fps. With 60 fps, motion looks unnaturally smooth and makes the game look more obviously like a video game and not real life.

 

Its hard to explain, but film students will know what I'm talking about. Look at Halo 3's cinematics now that they are in 60 fps. They look cheezy and "too smooth". Go watch them at 30 fps on the 360 and you can see how much better it looks.

 

Again I'm only saying 60 fps looks cheezy/cheap when it has no motion blur. When you introduce motion blur like BF4 does, you get a more realistic look. 

 

I should also restate that I am not suggesting Halo goes back to 30 fps. I like the feel of 60 fps but the look of 30 fps is more cinematic/realistic.

 

 

Watch this and compare each side.  MAKE SURE YOU WATCH IT IN MAXIMUM QUALITY. The right side is smoother, but it looks "uncanny" and is clearly a video game. The left side looks more realistic as the 30 fps more closely represents the 24 fps quality of film. Many prefer the smoothness of 60 fps, and for shooters its 100 times better. However, if we are talking realism, 30 fps wins hands down. Again, 60 fps would look just as realistic but it requires extra post processing techniques to achieve it. 

 

 

Actually 24fps is more cinematic! lol

 

 

 

60fps films require much more work and people don't know how to film them under the right conditions so they look a bit weird more of the time. 

 

 

Objectively 60fps/120fps is better for games, however, high frame rate cinematics within the games I can see where you are coming from. Once everything becomes 60fps+ you will adjust and it will become normal. I think the right side is better, I've seen so much high frame stuff its normal for me lol.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Sal1ent How many maps can we expect for 4v4 Arena Multiplayer at launch?

Assuming each map gets a remix, we'll see either 2 or 4 more Arena maps. For breakout, since it's a forge canvas, I'd guess 2-4 as well.

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.