Jump to content
Joseph

Frank O'Connor confirms Armor Abilities removed from Halo 5

Recommended Posts

I dont think 343 has a clue what Arena aspects make a good arena game, so better just throw the word around all over the place and hope people fall for it.

 

And yes I agree, that leak from ages ago suggested big massive BF style Halo battles, which goes full ******. Its not in the beta probably because its not ready yet. I imagine there will be 2 betas.

 

 

Even if they get the Arena style playlist dead on - I think it the other playlists give them the freedom to massively diverge from the Halo formula.

 

What do you think most of the population will play? 

 

They'll play the shit version because it's more "fun" and "extreme."  But it's going to suck and they'll abandon it. They might try Arena style a few times and find it too difficult because it's nothing like the other version - too many "tryhards." 

 

Then the next CoD or Battlefield comes out and H5 gets traded in at Gamestop.

 

We'll have a tiny population playing core Halo and loving it... but it won't be enough interest to restart a good Pro league. And the devs will think... "Why did we go this way? Our population still died in a few months."

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

 

They'll play the shit version because it's more "fun" and "extreme."  But it's going to suck and they'll abandon it. They might try Arena style a few times and find it too difficult because it's nothing like the other version - too many "tryhards." 

 

Then the next CoD or Battlefield comes out and H5 gets traded in at Gamestop.

 

We'll have a tiny population playing core Halo and loving it... but it won't be enough interest to restart a good Pro league. And the devs will think... "Why did we go this way? Our population still died in a few months."

 

A good ranking system that would challenge people and pair them up against similar skill would fix this. Sure it might be different that the Halo Battlefield thing that was let loose a while ago, but if there is fair gameplay for everyone, why would people leave?

 

Did people leave and quit playing H3 when they were stomped in the MLG playlist? No, they played TS or Doubles where they could play against less "tryhards" at higher levels. But it was the same game in terms of mechanics so it was an easy transition between the different playlists and it wasn't "alienating." 

Share this post


Link to post

I dont think 343 has a clue what Arena aspects make a good arena game, so better just throw the word around all over the place and hope people fall for it.

 

Hey, if it worked two years ago.

 

"Halo 4 is purpose built for competitive play!!"

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, if it worked two years ago.

 

"Halo 4 is purpose built for competitive play!!"

 

+1'ing you all over this board.

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only person that thinks AAs being completely removed is a BAD idea?

 

 

 

While I want AAs removed from 90% of matchmaking playlists I think they still have a place in an Invasion style playlist and of course in Action Sack.

 

Halo isn't just for the competitive community. So long as AAs aren't presented as the "default" experience but as a fringe way to play I don't see them harming Halo.

 

But my biggest problem is 343i removing features. They did the same thing in Halo 4 and it was regarded as a mistake. Why are we applauding it now?

 

Removal of AAs hurts the machinima community - allowing them to do LESS than they could in previous games. There are also a lot of kids who play custom games almost exclusively, the biggest section of these is the custom Infection kids. They make all kinds of crazy Infection game types and other mini-games. Should those players be stripped of a way they enjoy Halo?

1)This isn't waypoint and Machinima isn't an important part of Halo. Lore based video content I've only seen done with Halo and SC2, and in neither case has it been something the majority of the fanbase has seen, let alone cared about. I frankly couldn't give any fewer shits about the opportunity for 13 year olds to voice some silly character with a pitch range about 3 octaves lower than they can actually speak, and yell about some fucking dino invasion or whatever it is that they like to do in machinimas. Like dyb. It's not like they can't do their stuff without armorabilities anyway. Give me one important instance where an AA allows an effect otherwise unachievable.

 

2) What minigames have been made that actually benefit from armor abilities, let alone relied on it completely?

 

The armor lock maze blocking infection thing where you can't jump and are supposed to block entrances for the others or whatever? That one where you evade to stop yourself getting splattered by vehicles on some ramp?

 

Those are all shit anyway and the AAs were never well implemented. On the other hand, there's infection, race, dodgeball, grifball, tornado moshpit and all that shit that still works perfectly fine without it. Actually give me one example of a custom gametype that utilised AAs well? Actually I've sort of got one. The MKG Forge forum extermination objective gametype with classes, even though it ended up just being a poor imitation of Shadowrun without headshot capability.

 

And all that effort for something so peripheral and unpopular to begin with. I say make a good game instead.

 

A dumb mini game can be fun for a few hours. A good Halo game can be fun for 20 years.

 

Edit: I just remembered SaltyKoalaBears's various low grav gametypes, which were kind of fun and indeed relied on the jetpack, but they suffered from the lack of depth in aerial movement because the jet pack was never built to simulate amazing aerial fast paced superhero battles. You have little control and poor mobility, and this is what all the AA minigames suffered from. Armor abilities that only roughly fit the function envisioned by the gametyoe creator and it never really works as well as you'd like it.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm honestly still skeptical about this statement, I still believe that "spartan abilities" are  going to be another gimmicky, game breaking feature.

At this point we just have to wait and see what the H5 beta has in store.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Sarlin

 

I never said any of it was good - or worth playing or watching.  But that's not the point, the point is that there are people out there who enjoy Halo in a much different way than you and I do.

 

There are tools and options that are expected to be in the game and they will be disappointed if they are removed. Are those people dumbshits? Yes... so what? Are idiot kids who have clan battles with unlimited promethean vision any less entitled to the game than you are?

 

So long as a feature isn't mandatory or pushed into the legitimate playlists - there's no reason for it to not be included in Halo. Shit, they could include Mario mushrooms that balloon your spartan up to 3X size - so long as it's only in custom games. It can't hurt you if you never play it.

 

 

 

A few gametypes with AAs.

 

ProVision "Booeyman":           

Jetpack "Dino Blasters":          

Hardlight Shield "Shields Up": 

 

idk... those seem fun. What's the harm? I'm not asking for a round of "Shields Up" at the next UGC event. Just let people fuck around.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, if it worked two years ago.

 

"Halo 4 is purpose built for competitive play!!"

Your definition of competitive isn't what they were meaning.

 

When Frank said that in the ViDoc, he was talking about War Games Multiplayer in general.

 

Cooperative Multiplayer - think Spartan Ops/Firefight

Competitive Multiplayer - think War Games/Customs

 

They wanted to make a big deal about how the maps were made for multiplayer, rather than copying environments from the Campaign (which Halo: Reach did, a lot.)

 

Quinn himself clarified this on the forums.

 

"There is a lot of ambiguity around the word competitive. To clear this up a bit. When people outside of the MLG or eSports realm say competitive, they are strictly referring to PvP multiplayer. Not LANs, tournaments, and playing with a team to win money.

 

Competitive MP = PvP

Cooperative MP = PvE

 

eSports = Our definition of "Competitive"

 

So the reason I believe they talked about the on-disc maps the way they did was b/c if you remember, Reach launched with SP levels as re-purposed MP maps and a slew of gray Forge maps. The H4 on-disc maps were purposefully built for competitive MP much like previous Halos were. I think they were using that as a positive message to the core fans. "This time around we're going to have maps designed from the ground up for MP and not taken from SP.""

 

http://teambeyond.net/forum/index.php?/topic/3220-v5-discussion-thread/page-123&do=findComment&comment=85538

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I dont think 343 has a clue what Arena aspects make a good arena game

"Arena means what you'd expect - competitive focus, level playing field, map control. Spartan abilities are player mechanics not loadout AAs." - Brad Welch

 

sounds like a "clue" to me. no need to exaggerate.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Arena means what you'd expect - competitive focus, level playing field, map control. Spartan abilities are player mechanics not loadout AAs." - Brad Welch

 

sounds like a "clue" to me. no need to exaggerate.

Halo 4 maps are designed with competitive in mind.

 

Great, they know what it is, demonstrate what it is.

Share this post


Link to post

Your definition of competitive isn't what they were meaning.

 

When Frank said that in the ViDoc, he was talking about War Games Multiplayer in general.

 

Cooperative Multiplayer - think Spartan Ops/Firefight

Competitive Multiplayer - think War Games/Customs

 

They wanted to make a big deal about how the maps were made for multiplayer, rather than copying environments from the Campaign (which Halo: Reach did, a lot.)

 

Quinn himself clarified this on the forums.

 

"There is a lot of ambiguity around the word competitive. To clear this up a bit. When people outside of the MLG or eSports realm say competitive, they are strictly referring to PvP multiplayer. Not LANs, tournaments, and playing with a team to win money.

 

Competitive MP = PvP

Cooperative MP = PvE

 

eSports = Our definition of "Competitive"

 

So the reason I believe they talked about the on-disc maps the way they did was b/c if you remember, Reach launched with SP levels as re-purposed MP maps and a slew of gray Forge maps. The H4 on-disc maps were purposefully built for competitive MP much like previous Halos were. I think they were using that as a positive message to the core fans. "This time around we're going to have maps designed from the ground up for MP and not taken from SP.""

 

http://teambeyond.net/forum/index.php?/topic/3220-v5-discussion-thread/page-123&do=findComment&comment=85538

 

So it was PR spin, though.

 

And I'm pretty sure you have it backwards with Reach's maps, with the possible exception of Spire (which was shit either way). They were designed for multiplayer and then placed in camapign afterward. You can kind of tell while playing; the Powerhouse and Sword Base sections of campaign have a very tacked-on feel to them, not natural at all. I guess I could be wrong though and the devs have said otherwise somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
They'll play the shit version because it's more "fun" and "extreme."  But it's going to suck and they'll abandon it. They might try Arena style a few times and find it too difficult because it's nothing like the other version - too many "tryhards."

That seems like a contradiction. They will consider it to be "fun" and something that "sucks" at the same time?

 

Also, competitive Halo isn't hard to learn, it's just difficult to master. So there's no reason to think that they'll find Arena gameplay to be too difficult.

If they are finding anything too difficult, it will be as a result of there not being an appropriate system in place to make sure that people are matched agaisnt players of a similar skill level.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

That seems like a contradiction. They will consider it to be "fun" and something that "sucks" at the same time?

 

Also, competitive Halo isn't hard to learn, it's just difficult to master. So there's no reason to think that they'll find Arena gameplay to be too difficult.

If they are finding anything too difficult, it will be as a result of there not being an appropriate system in place to make sure that people are matched agaisnt players of a similar skill level.

 

 

Not at the same time, one after the next. And people won't know why it sucks.

 

If you described the changes in Halo 4 to a casual player they might sound super great. And the first few games they might seem cool too. After a while they think - "This game sucks ass." but they don't know why.  We know what is good and bad, but the Halo noob or casual has no idea - they just think "Fucking sweet dude, I can jetpack all over the place."

 

This is why Titanfall was so appealing to people, it sounds awesome. Fucking wall running and double jumps and Mechs. But it isn't awesome.

 

So players will try classic Halo second to the "new" shit (if there are two types present) and it will seem less appealing. They won't get the hang of it quickly and it will seem limited by comparison. Giving up comes shortly after that.

 

 

This is from an interview with ex-Activision and Respawn dev

 

For Titanfall, Alderman continued working on the accessible approach, noting that the team mixed in elements such as double-jumps to play in to the sci-fi theme, and liked to make it hard for players to go back to what they'd played before. "Like if you play a game after Modern Warfare and it doesn't have sprint or bullet penetration, you really notice," he says. "... Those kinds of things are features that we like to get into the game."

 

 

For this reasons players don't like to "downgrade" to an experience with LESS than what they are used to - even if that change is better for gameplay. It's bad enough between differenet games but when two radically different styles are in ONE game, there's no way there will be any crossover from "Battlefield Halo" to "Arena Halo."

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Not at the same time, one after the next. And people won't know why it sucks.

 

If you described the changes in Halo 4 to a casual player they might sound super great. And the first few games they might seem cool too. After a while they think - "This game sucks ass." but they don't know why.  We know what is good and bad, but the Halo noob or casual has no idea - they just think "Fucking sweet dude, I can jetpack all over the place."

 

This is why Titanfall was so appealing to people, it sounds awesome. Fucking wall running and double jumps and Mechs. But it isn't awesome.

 

So players will try classic Halo second to the "new" shit (if there are two types present) and it will seem less appealing. They won't get the hang of it quickly and it will seem limited by comparison. Giving up comes shortly after that.

 

 

This is from an interview with ex-Activision and Respawn dev

 

For Titanfall, Alderman continued working on the accessible approach, noting that the team mixed in elements such as double-jumps to play in to the sci-fi theme, and liked to make it hard for players to go back to what they'd played before. "Like if you play a game after Modern Warfare and it doesn't have sprint or bullet penetration, you really notice," he says. "... Those kinds of things are features that we like to get into the game."

 

 

For this reasons players don't like to "downgrade" to an experience with LESS than what they are used to - even if that change is better for gameplay. It's bad enough between differenet games but when two radically different styles are in ONE game, there's no way there will be any crossover from "Battlefield Halo" to "Arena Halo."

Post of the year... biggest reason why I hope 343 doesn't get too competitive with H5 (like CE levels). They'll feel forced to cater to casuals more. As long as it's close to H2 skill-gap wise, we should be fine. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

If you described the changes in Halo 4 to a casual player they might sound super great. And the first few games they might seem cool too. After a while they think - "This game sucks ass." but they don't know why.  We know what is good and bad, but the Halo noob or casual has no idea - they just think "Fucking sweet dude, I can jetpack all over the place."

Ah I see what you mean and I totally agree. What you mean is that they will think it sounds like it will be fun, as opposed to they will actually find it fun. It's like with sprint; the idea that sprint could be a bad thing seems completely counter-intuitive because why would an extra ability that works in other games be bad for Halo? But the ways in which it hurts gameplay are not obvious to the average player who doesn't look very deeply into these things.

 

So players will try classic Halo second to the "new" shit (if there are two types present) and it will seem less appealing. They won't get the hang of it quickly and it will seem limited by comparison. Giving up comes shortly after that.

I think it depends on what the differences actually are, and on whether or not the new or the classic stuff makes up the majority of the multiplayer experience.

If we are talking about a situation where there is 'new' Halo (like Infinity), but it is only one little experimental playlist somewhere at the bottom of the list and it isn't talked about a whole lot from 343, and then the main playlists are more aligned with traditional Halo, then I would imagine that the traditional playlists would get more action. If it was the other way round, then I would imagine it would be the single, not-spoken-about traditional playlist that was getting no love.

Share this post


Link to post

Not at the same time, one after the next. And people won't know why it sucks.

 

If you described the changes in Halo 4 to a casual player they might sound super great. And the first few games they might seem cool too. After a while they think - "This game sucks ass." but they don't know why.  We know what is good and bad, but the Halo noob or casual has no idea - they just think "Fucking sweet dude, I can jetpack all over the place."

 

This is why Titanfall was so appealing to people, it sounds awesome. Fucking wall running and double jumps and Mechs. But it isn't awesome.

 

So players will try classic Halo second to the "new" shit (if there are two types present) and it will seem less appealing. They won't get the hang of it quickly and it will seem limited by comparison. Giving up comes shortly after that.

 

 

This is from an interview with ex-Activision and Respawn dev

 

For Titanfall, Alderman continued working on the accessible approach, noting that the team mixed in elements such as double-jumps to play in to the sci-fi theme, and liked to make it hard for players to go back to what they'd played before. "Like if you play a game after Modern Warfare and it doesn't have sprint or bullet penetration, you really notice," he says. "... Those kinds of things are features that we like to get into the game."

 

 

For this reasons players don't like to "downgrade" to an experience with LESS than what they are used to - even if that change is better for gameplay. It's bad enough between differenet games but when two radically different styles are in ONE game, there's no way there will be any crossover from "Battlefield Halo" to "Arena Halo."

To be fair wall running and double jumps were awesome. The problem for me was, the lack of playlists. It was a set 6v6, if it had a more competitive mindset and went with 2v2, 4v4, 6v6, with smaller maps, this game would have been a lot different.

But instead they went as casual as possible.

Mechs obviously creates a problem with smaller maps which is most likely the reason they took the route they did.

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 & Privacy Policy.