Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Calvarok

What elements from classic arena shooters should Halo 5 adopt?

Recommended Posts

Weird that melees came up, cause I don't know if they're a notable element from any classic arena shooter.

 

I think they should be less powerful fwiw, especially if they continue being so easy to land. Also I'd love it if momentum-based damage modifiers and the ability to crouch and jump out of a melee were brought back to lend some much needed depth to the system.

 

Weapons that can control space in interesting ways.

Watch some Quake or UT and then watch Halo. You'll notice that Halo doesn't have as much placement of explosives and weapons with wide hitboxes to control space. Halo 1's grenades do come somewhat close, though.

I've always said that Halo's weapons fall nicely into utility weapons, niche weapons, and power weapons. I feel that more of Halo's niche weapons should be designed to control space in interesting ways. Follow in the footsteps of weapons like the Pro Pipe or something that makes sense for Halo (aka, compliment the utility weapons instead of overpowering them or replacing them).

I've always thought of the "niche" weapons as an element Halo really failed to make much use of. Through all 5 games, I'd say the that the H1 plasma rifle is the only interesting weapon that isn't a 1-hit kill power weapon or a utility weapon. One that could control space would definitely be pretty cool.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

so do you mean one-hit kills?  or 1 br shot + melee = kill?

One hit Kill, it would reward players because Melee kills are hard to get in pretty much all FPS

Share this post


Link to post

One hit Kill, it would reward players because Melee kills are hard to get in pretty much all FPS

doesn't it just make getting them easier in this one?

Share this post


Link to post

Halo 1 Pistol,Range always Beats Melee, therefore rewarding players if they can Melee an Opponent

but doesn't that mean that ranged doesn't always beat melee?  why is the player being rewarded with an instant-kill for forgoing the process of more precise aiming?  previous halo games have awarded instant-kills for people who take advantage of unaware players or ninja them, because that adds up to a more skillful process than the base melee.  this sounds like it's meant to remove that layer of depth in exchange for instant player gratification.  not that one-hit kill melees can't have depth, but that your motivations in this case seem to be the removal of it.  (not meant as derogatory, just trying to understand your PoV)

 

How would you address potential double-melees?  how would big team battle have to change to account for the effectiveness of rushing a location with too many players to effectively take out with ranged weapons?

Share this post


Link to post

Overall, a faster base movement speed(slightly quicker than H2) so we dont need sprint and strafing is more effective and a wider variety of weapons than hitscan weaponry in comp play. Also more items on the map in dynamic/vulnerable positions like H1 so people cant just "hold-top mid" and camp with the snipe/rockets and destroy the other team.

 

I dont know why it has been so hard to replicate these essential Arena shooter elements in Halo MP the last few titles(got most of them right the first time+second time to an extent), they have done nothing but destroy them and that is why the game is at its dullest and least attractive state game-play and population wise its ever been.

 

The absolutely ******** perception of DM shooters from modern day shooter players being about unrealistic looking dudes mindlessly bunny-hopping around with huge guns, putting 100's of bullets into each other before one of them drops dead is partly to blame. Those are the scrubs getting neg 1 kill and shit in ranked MM I imagine IMO.

 

Arena shooters are complex games that reward precision and decision making over spray and pray, prioritization of items/enemies(depending on prediction of health) and power positions, intelligent movement depending on current player health and enemy status/movement, creativity though physics and movement, and have delicate glass-like balance in flow and Sandbox that can be easily broken by those who dont respect or understand the complex fine-oiled machine they are dealing with. Its not out of line to say, some key 343 MP devs on H4 did not understand or respect the multi-layered machine of Halo MP the first time-around.

I can really sympathize on how you feel.  I felt the exact same way back years ago.  But in all honesty the reason why they have done what they did is to try to maximize profits.  The people in charge of the gaming industry as a whole anymore aren't gamers.  They're first and foremost businessmen.  And if I  was a businessman if someone told me the major differences between arena shooters and arcade modern shooters.. I would definitely fund the project that was making the arcade progressive shooter and screw the arena shooter. 

 

Why?  Because all I would care about is making a profit.  If I invested a ton of money into a company, I expect as much of a profit as possible.  If I invested hundreds of thousands to millions worth of dollars into something, morality has left the building and I better get my profit no matter the cost.  Ethics be damned once that much money is on the line.  That's the issue.  Once a ton of money becomes on the line.  No one cares about the ethics or morals of the situation.  Its either profit or people are getting laid off and sometimes worse.  I remember when EA tried to take Richard Garriot's (Lord British maker of the Ultima Series) home away.  Because they didn't like how he got tired of how bad they destroyed Ultima and left.

 

That's the reason why arena shooters have been shafted for the past decade or more.  Arena shooters by their very nature alienate anyone who isn't good.  It basically tells the vast majority people they are better players out there and most people don't want to hear that or accept it.  Even with a matchmaking system in place, it doesn't work all the time and you will get destroyed by better players.  If people wanted arena shooters, they still would be number one.  But casuals got tired of losing and thus when modern shooters like CoD 4 came, they left in droves.  Showing businessmen what to invest in.  If you really want to blame someone, you should be blaming the gaming communities themselves.  If they wanted arena shooters to remain top dog, they should of ignored CoD 4 and still played Halo, Quake, UT etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I can really sympathize on how you feel.  I felt the exact same way back years ago.  But in all honesty the reason why they have done what they did is to try to maximize profits.  The people in charge of the gaming industry as a whole anymore aren't gamers.  They're first and foremost businessmen.  And if I  was a businessman if someone told me the major differences between arena shooters and arcade modern shooters.. I would definitely fund the project that was making the arcade progressive shooter and screw the arena shooter. 

 

Why?  Because all I would care about is making a profit.  If I invested a ton of money into a company, I expect as much of a profit as possible.  If I invested hundreds of thousands to millions worth of dollars into something, morality has left the building and I better get my profit no matter the cost.  Ethics be damned once that much money is on the line.  That's the issue.  Once a ton of money becomes on the line.  No one cares about the ethics or morals of the situation.  Its either profit or people are getting laid off.

 

That's the reason why arena shooters have been shafted for the past decade or more.  Arena shooters by their very nature alienate anyone who isn't good.  It basically tells people they are better players out there and most people don't want to hear that or accept it.  If people wanted arena shooters, they still would be number one.  But casuals got tired of losing and thus when modern shooters like CoD 4 came, they left in droves.  Showing businessmen what to invest in.

yes, in the end it's the businessmen who sign off on things.  but devs themselves couldn't survive if they all only were in it for the money. (many many many jobs pay better than game dev, and with more reasonable hours)  they pitch things to the businessmen because they think that gamers will actually like it, and they base that off what they ask for.

 

and let's face it, many shooter fans for a long time have just been asking for CoD.  That's changing, and that's why you see dev's focus change, because there's finally a large enough interest in other things again that they can afford to cater to more different audiences.

 

because that's the issue with these huge AAA games: they can't just rely on niches.  their costs are beyond 3 giant hollywood movies, they need to appeal to a large group.

 

and that's why having different scales of publishers and devs and games is good, because niches can be catered to without fear of bankrupting entire corporations.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Nahdudefkthat.

Yeah, this game will always be designed for casuals who play on gamepads. PC and console is 100% mutually exclusive because the PC version would of course have to have a different aiming system. Sad but true...

  • Downvote (-1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, this game will always be designed for casuals who play on gamepads. PC and console is 100% mutually exclusive because the PC version would of course have to have a different aiming system. Sad but true...

no-one's saying it's impossible for a PC version to be made, but it does seem a bit silly to allow kb+m for the console version.  the whole point of consoles is that everyone's supposed to be on equal footing, not to mention that it's supposed to be playable from a couch, without a desk or flat surface in front of you.

Share this post


Link to post

no-one's saying it's impossible for a PC version to be made, but it does seem a bit silly to allow kb+m for the console version.  the whole point of consoles is that everyone's supposed to be on equal footing, not to mention that it's supposed to be playable from a couch, without a desk or flat surface in front of you.

 

The only adult console gamers that I know own Xbox 360 and PS4. The Ps4 ones are about that because that System and parent company are not as bad as M$. They have fun and have a nice console. Xb1 on the other hand is literally a horrible investment and Its difficult to just accept that your favorite game franchise of all time is bound to an absolutely horrid platform.

 

Saying Halo for PC is like saying CS Go for consoles. I will agree with the dude there.

  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

The only adult console gamers that I know own Xbox 360 and PS4. The Ps4 ones are about that because that System and parent company are not as bad as M$. They have fun and have a nice console. Xb1 on the other hand is literally a horrible investment and Its difficult to just accept that your favorite game franchise of all time is bound to an absolutely horrid platform.

 

Saying Halo for PC is like saying CS Go for consoles. I will agree with the dude there.

well I disagree with your perception of sony and the difference between the ps4 and xb1 entirely.

 

the xb1 is a little less powerful, has a little better interface, has a few more features, and has a better upcoming exclusive lineup.   besides that, they both have access to the majority of third party games coming out, and plenty of indie support.  I don't see choosing between them as being differentiated by much more than what your fav exclusives are.  all of the major issues people had with XB1 have been addressed, including the price difference due to mandatory kinect.  people who bring up the other minor factors have usually already made up their minds, and thus are trying to make them seem bigger than they are.

 

clearly there's no point in persuing this conversation, given that.

Share this post


Link to post

oh, and clearly MS lost a lot of mindshare with their original policies and marketing, and obviously PS4 is doing better than them right now.  but compared to the 360 launch, it's still a massive improvement.  and the generation isn't over yet: last time Sony was the one talking shit that everyone disliked.  but MS turned their message and direction for XB1 around a lot faster than the PS3 did.  we'll see how it all shakes out.

 

EDIT: and what the heck did any of what you said have to do with gamepads?  you do realize the PS4 doesn't support kb+m, right?

 

anyways, sorry for getting us offtopic.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Calvarok  Don't let this guy troll you.  Just look at his post history lol, all of his posts are bashing consoles.

 

Anyway, I am completely against one-hit kill Melees in Halo.  The kill times required for that to be okay are too fast for Halo, IMO.  Melee combos are fine, because they require multiple hits from the attacker and opportunities to dodge and counter-attack from the defender.  Maybe some kind of up-close knife attack with a small hitbox that can headshot could work, but I honesty don't think it will mesh well with Halo.  There's definitely potential there, though.  I just think it would require such drastic changes to what Halo is that you'd may as well make it an entirely new game.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Calvarok  Don't let this guy troll you.  Just look at his post history lol, all of his posts are bashing consoles.

 

Anyway, I am completely against one-hit kill Melees in Halo.  The kill times required for that to be okay are too fast for Halo, IMO.  Melee combos are fine, because they require multiple hits from the attacker and opportunities to dodge and counter-attack from the defender.  Maybe some kind of up-close knife attack with a small hitbox that can headshot could work, but I honesty don't think it will mesh well with Halo.  There's definitely potential there, though.  I just think it would require such drastic changes to what Halo is that you'd may as well make it an entirely new game.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a drastically different melee system as long as it still serves the core goals of what halo combat is about.  if approaches to creating that feel and gameplay loop never change or are iterated on, then you could argue that there's not much point in making sequels.

 

I must admit that I don't really have many ideas for how melee could change or be improved without making everything feel really different, though.  the only idea I've really had is making it more like some of the melee-focused fps games on the market now, where the hitbox of your attack animation is where damage is done.  no need for lunge to correct your aim of the deceptively small area that a punch actually effects.  could also make stuff like swords and grav-hammers powerful based on the extended reach they give you rather than extra lunge, makes positioning more important and those weapons less OP.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think there's anything wrong with a drastically different melee system as long as it still serves the core goals of what halo combat is about.  if approaches to creating that feel and gameplay loop never change or are iterated on, then you could argue that there's not much point in making sequels.

 

I must admit that I don't really have many ideas for how melee could change or be improved without making everything feel really different, though.  the only idea I've really had is making it more like some of the melee-focused fps games on the market now, where the hitbox of your attack animation is where damage is done.  no need for lunge to correct your aim of the deceptively small area that a punch actually effects.  could also make stuff like swords and grav-hammers powerful based on the extended reach they give you rather than extra lunge, makes positioning more important and those weapons less OP.

 

Well, you could have the nrmal beatdown system, but if someone holds down the melee button, they charge up a big strong punch that one-shots, but is harder to land.  Like a falcon punch or something lol.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, you could have the nrmal beatdown system, but if someone holds down the melee button, they charge up a big strong punch that one-shots, but is harder to land.  Like a falcon punch or something lol.

hmm.  isn't that kinda like a boltshot?

Share this post


Link to post

curious, would a PC release of Halo make buying a microsoft console less appealing to you?  or would you buy and play both versions of the game?

I would have it for both, on xbox one I could play the MCC with my friends and play other competitive players where the main competitive player base is. On the other hand I could play it on PC for the graphics which is something I love about PC. Play MCC on PC for the mods and other enhancements. Not so much multiplayer cause mouse and keyboard dominates, id rather play MP on console.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 



One hit Kill, it would reward players because Melee kills are hard to get in pretty much all FPS

I just.. what?

 

I literally saw players in both Halo 3 and Halo Reach who had melee as their overall most used tool of destruction. Melees are seriously like the least difficult thing in the entire game and are already incredibly overpowered for how easy they are.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

hmm.  isn't that kinda like a boltshot?

well

1. if it was like h2-3's melee system, a bullet wouldn't trade with a melee

2. boltshot wasn't a charge weapon, it was a charge then hold. a spartan laser would be an example of just a charge because you cant hold the charge like the boltshot or railgun

 

i dont want it in the game, i'm just saying it doesn't have to be the boltshot.

Share this post


Link to post

I just.. what?

 

I literally saw players in both Halo 3 and Halo Reach who had melee as their overall most used tool of destruction. Melees are seriously like the least difficult thing in the entire game and are already incredibly overpowered for how easy they are.

 

Yeah because every halo after Halo CE has melee lunge. Take that away, its definitely harder.

Share this post


Link to post

The ones it's had all along, minus the bullshit that Reach and Halo 4 introduced.

 

If they really MUST have custom loadouts, though, they certainly need some cleaning up.

 

Precision utilitarian weapon selection for primary (In other words, weapons like the BR, DMR, Carbine, Magnum, whatever).

Basic sandbox weapon for secondary (AR, Plasma Rifle, but not weapons like the Needler or Plasma Pistol).

No fucking perks.

 

Ranked play has preset equipment for spawns.

Only spawn with frags.

Only spawn with whatever-they-brand-armor-abilities (just because they said no armor abilities, doesn't mean you won't see something equally as stupid) according to map/gametype.

 

 

I can dream all I want, though, can't I?

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah because every halo after Halo CE has melee lunge. Take that away, its definitely harder.

its pretty easy in halo ce, even on 80ping off host.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

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