Armor abilities

LUKEPOWA wrote:

Stardriver907 wrote:

No one today is going to get excited about playing a brand new game that doesn't offer anything more than what CE did.

Prove it.

he can't. 343 have to revive the og community then get new players. who says halo 3 was halo ce.

Unknown wrote:

It's more like the game, especially out of combat, flows differently rather than being slower. Armor and Spartan Abilities can work in Halo's original gameplay flow, but they need to be treated similarly to the other aspects of the game. Halo was simple at its core, back when it first released, and any changes to that simplicity completely changes the game.

Halo's multiplayer was all about the tools given to the player (maps, weapons, vehicles, power ups, etc.) rather than being about the player, like Halo 4 and 5 was designed to be. Reach is arguable for this aspect of design, but with the way Bungie presented AAs to us in their ViDocs and interviews, they just wanted them to be another tool for the players rather than a necessity.

Something people seem to forget (or ignore). The Reach Armor Abilities were not supposed to be considered essential for victory, any more so than using guns and grenades. No player was ever forced to use an Ability. Some players felt pressured to use something because they knew everyone on the opposing team would be using something and that would give them an unfair advantage. It was still quite possible in any given Reach match for a single player to carry a team without resorting to using any Abilities. But, instead of proving how little having an Ability really meant, and possibly proving that they were unnecessary gimmicks, they just called them unnecessary gimmicks and pledged to stop playing until they were removed.

Halo's initial simplicity was due to available technology. It was not a choice. Halo 2 could easily have been exactly like CE, yet it wasn't. Was that a mistake? Did Bungie screw everything up right then and there? Did they compound their error by changing things even more with Halo 3? After all, any change to Halo CE's simplicity completely changed the game, right? Yet, the game got more popular with every new release and, as I mentioned before, people perceived that Reach was going to be the way things were going to be, even though it was a spinoff with no rules, just like ODST, thus ending the streak. Was Bungie trying to drive veteran players away (as many speculated) or were they just trying to stay ahead of the competition that was getting more heavy with every release? Every other game out there was gunning for Halo's spot. Was Bungie supposed to just keep re-releasing Halo CE?

343i could have either tweaked the Halo 3 engine for Halo 4 or tweaked the Reach engine to recreate Halo 3 gameplay, yet they chose to make a new engine and have their new game resemble Reach more than any other Halo title. The same could be said for Halo 5. All at the risk of alienating veteran players. Well, the veteran players don't seem to be very happy, but the Halo franchise seems to be doing better than ever. I don't currently have an Xbox, but my understanding is that if you want a match you generally don't have to wait long, and isn't that what matters?

LUKEPOWA wrote:

Prove it.

It is speculation. Only facts can be proven, and since Halo Infinite hasn't even been written yet, it's going to be hard to find facts. So I guess challenging me to prove something that I said might happen makes it seem like you have trapped me in a corner, when in fact no corner exists and I'm not trapped in any way. Like trying to kill me with a gun with blanks in it. There was a boom when you pulled the trigger but that's about it.

Hope you found the noise fulfilling, though.

Biccy Thiccy wrote:

If you are trying to mention what I mean, I am talking about sprint, and spartan charge, and that boost thing
and when the movement is really fast (Like in Halo 5) I really wonder why it'd artificially speed up gameplay which would ruin maps,

imagine in 'The Pit' if you could sprint, oh yeah Halo 4s remake. And it was a complete and udder disaster, everyone would get regens and try to take the rocket launcher by spamming regen or sprinting through a regen to it, it was just a button combo match at high ranks, or hope nobody camps the corner by it with a bolt shot

Yeah, everyone had a cow when the Pit remake became available (see what I did there?) but who seriously believed a Halo 3 map would work in Halo 4? You point out The Pit, but all the remakes sucked in Halo 4. One could argue that all the Halo 4 multiplayer maps sucked, period. That was one of the reasons I stuck with Spartan Ops. The maps fit the mechanics, which were the campaign mechanics. The multiplayer mechanics were awkward because they were still trying to make Halo 3 style maps. It was like being 18 and trying to wear clothes you wore in 5th grade. You grew up. You need clothes that fit, in a contemporary style that won't get you laughed at.

So, do Abilities slow down gameplay, and is that a bad thing?

Stardriver907 wrote:

Halo's initial simplicity was due to available technology.

And I've asked before what kind of technological advances were made between 2001 and now which has allowed, which mechanics exactly? Outside of graphical advancements.

Naqser wrote:

And I've asked before what kind of technological advances were made between 2001 and now which has allowed, which mechanics exactly? Outside of graphical advancements.

All I know for certain is that every new game claimed in one way or another to be techically superior and claims were made that things in the new game weren't possible in the older games. If they lied about that and Bungie could have given us the equivalent of Halo 5 back in 2001 then I guess that means (A) we are all chumps and (B) any claims made by 343i that there is something that is technologically not possible now is -Yoink- because there has never been anything that was not possible. If there have indeed not been any technological advances since the original Xbox then this new SlipSpace engine is just a bunch of hooey and not significantly different from what Bungie originally wrote. There should be no talk here about "classic" gameplay because that should be the only gameplay the game is or was ever capable of.

Yeah, you got me there, pal. All this time it's just been graphics.

Unknown wrote:

I should have clarified that I was referring to controls when writing about simplicity. Technology does not dictate how complex a game can be, both in controls and mechanics. ...Thinking about it more, despite Bungie wanting AAs in Reach to be tools rather than necessities, their implementation of AAs worked against that design philosophy due to being available all the time, without any long-lasting limitations. Had they been treated like a mixture of weapons and equipment, needing to be picked up again to use at full capacity, then I could leave Reach out of that "control complexity" list.

In a match that is not expected to exceed fifteen minutes what use is a tool that only works once? Those Reach Jet Packs were huge. Why would I put one on if I only got one half--Yoinked!- jump out of it and then had to fight over it to use it again?

The Reach AA's were designed to be the kinds of tools UNSC military personnel would use on the battlefield, not assets a gamer would use in a tournament. As such each and every one was brilliant, and no wonder tournament players despise them to this day. Remember, Bungie did not cater to the esports players. They were making a military style sci-fi game that was hopefully like no other. They didn't care if the esports community was upset. Reach was my favorite Halo game of all time if for no other reason than having esport players quit the game if they saw me use a Jet Pack. Nothing was more satisfying than seeing a trash-talking ranked player get confused by a Hologram and then die. Or watching a "skilled" player stand and wait for my Armor Lock to discharge and they get killed by my teammates. Gameplay "ruined"? That's not how I saw it.

Quote:

...Population-wise, Halo doesn't seem to be doing better than ever. ...We don't have any solid evidence for MCC or 5's population, but compare any old, yet active, website's amount of articles about Halo from 2008-2012 and compare them from 2013-2017. There aren't as many articles about Halo now.

That's the thing. there's no solid evidence to support either position. How popular is Halo 5 compared to Halo CE? Does that really matter? What's important to me is that if I buy a game to play online with other players, there better be other players out there. How many? Enough to get a match in ten minutes or less. I don't currently have an Xbox. I don't know how long it would take me to get a BTB or Warzone match, which is what I would most likely be after. I don't care what the current total player count is or if Halo is doing better or worse than Battlefront. All I want is a match when I'm ready to play. I have had a lot of good times playing a lot of games online that were not popular by anyone's standard. I played those games until getting a match became impossible and the developer stopped supporting it. Most notable example of that would be Chromehounds. Another great example would be MechAssault (343i you remember that game, don't you). If I only played the most popular games, I'd be playing a lot of games I don't like.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure why Halo was so popular, seeing as how so many of the other games I liked were not, so I guess the reasons other people liked it are different from the reasons I liked it. I continue to like it when so many people go out of their way to make it clear that they do not or no longer like it. That is sad. I'm not happy with the art style changes or the lack of depth in the campaigns that I had grown accustomed to before Halo 4, but I don't hate what happened. I accept it for what it is and I expect 343i to survive, adapt and overcome, not go backwards.

That's kind of a Marine thing to do, though, and 343i doesn't seem to want to embrace that mentality.

Naqser wrote:

Stardriver907 wrote:

Naqser wrote:

And I've asked before what kind of technological advances were made between 2001 and now which has allowed, which mechanics exactly? Outside of graphical advancements.

All I know for certain is that every new game claimed in one way or another to be techically superior and claims were made that things in the new game weren't possible in the older games. If they lied about that and Bungie could have given us the equivalent of Halo 5 back in 2001 then I guess that means (A) we are all chumps and (B) any claims made by 343i that there is something that is technologically not possible now is -Yoink- because there has never been anything that was not possible. If there have indeed not been any technological advances since the original Xbox then this new SlipSpace engine is just a bunch of hooey and not significantly different from what Bungie originally wrote. There should be no talk here about "classic" gameplay because that should be the only gameplay the game is or was ever capable of.

Yeah, you got me there, pal. All this time it's just been graphics.

Did you look into in what way the new game was technologically superior?
I mean, if you're certain, then it wouldn't be difficult to point out a number of gameplay mechanics which wouldn't have been possible in 2001, which are in use today.

Because what you describe most certainly sounds like graphic advancements. New methods of rendering and so forth to decrease gpu, cpu, RAM and whatnot load.

Um, no, I did not. It was not something I cared about then, and not much has changed. Feel free to look yourself if it's that important. Is that what SlipSpace is supposed to do? New rendering? Better use of RAM? Why bother if all it gets you is better graphics? If Halo 2 was not superior to CE in any way, why didn't CE have dual wielding or hijacking? Why couldn't you move from the warthog driver seat to the gunner position directly in CE if it were possible? Gameplay reasons? You tell me. Which game featured assassinations? Was that CE? I forget. Those were graphic enhancements?

I mean, hijacking was a huge thing for many of us in Halo 2 but tournament games don't have vehicles so I guess only casuals could appreciate it. I can't imagine why Bungie would have withheld hijacking in CE if it was possible. Or Thrust, since Master Chief's armor had a thruster pack that was "inoperable" in that game. Or Clamber. THAT might've come in handy when the Flood showed up. Not to mention, Sprint. If they could have done it all then, why didn't they? Didn't want to show all their cards with the first game? Playing it cool and doling it out one game at a time? Does that mean we can never, ever look forward to a time when we can Sprint in one direction and shoot in another because they just can't coax any mechanics out of the Xbox One that couldn't happen with the original Xbox? Why do I need a new Xbox if my old 360 can get the job done? Oh yeah. Graphics.

If technology is not the reason, then what is?

Stardriver907 wrote:

Naqser wrote:

Stardriver907 wrote:

Naqser wrote:

And I've asked before what kind of technological advances were made between 2001 and now which has allowed, which mechanics exactly? Outside of graphical advancements.

All I know for certain is that every new game claimed in one way or another to be techically superior and claims were made that things in the new game weren't possible in the older games. If they lied about that and Bungie could have given us the equivalent of Halo 5 back in 2001 then I guess that means (A) we are all chumps and (B) any claims made by 343i that there is something that is technologically not possible now is -Yoink- because there has never been anything that was not possible. If there have indeed not been any technological advances since the original Xbox then this new SlipSpace engine is just a bunch of hooey and not significantly different from what Bungie originally wrote. There should be no talk here about "classic" gameplay because that should be the only gameplay the game is or was ever capable of.

Yeah, you got me there, pal. All this time it's just been graphics.

Did you look into in what way the new game was technologically superior?
I mean, if you're certain, then it wouldn't be difficult to point out a number of gameplay mechanics which wouldn't have been possible in 2001, which are in use today.

Because what you describe most certainly sounds like graphic advancements. New methods of rendering and so forth to decrease gpu, cpu, RAM and whatnot load.

Um, no, I did not. It was not something I cared about then, and not much has changed. Feel free to look yourself if it's that important. Is that what SlipSpace is supposed to do? New rendering? Better use of RAM? Why bother if all it gets you is better graphics? If Halo 2 was not superior to CE in any way, why didn't CE have dual wielding or hijacking? Why couldn't you move from the warthog driver seat to the gunner position directly in CE if it were possible? Gameplay reasons? You tell me. Which game featured assassinations? Was that CE? I forget. Those were graphic enhancements?

I mean, hijacking was a huge thing for many of us in Halo 2 but tournament games don't have vehicles so I guess only casuals could appreciate it. I can't imagine why Bungie would have withheld hijacking in CE if it was possible. Or Thrust, since Master Chief's armor had a thruster pack that was "inoperable" in that game. Or Clamber. THAT might've come in handy when the Flood showed up. Not to mention, Sprint. If they could have done it all then, why didn't they? Didn't want to show all their cards with the first game? Playing it cool and doling it out one game at a time? Does that mean we can never, ever look forward to a time when we can Sprint in one direction and shoot in another because they just can't coax any mechanics out of the Xbox One that couldn't happen with the original Xbox? Why do I need a new Xbox if my old 360 can get the job done? Oh yeah. Graphics.

If technology is not the reason, then what is?

You made the claim, I'm asking for examples, it's not my job to go search for things you don't want to provide to back your own claim up.

Why couldn't you do anything of those things in Halo CE but do them in Halo 2?
As was pointed out already, and each as plausible as the other:
A: Didn't think of it
B: Didn't think it fit into the game
C: Lack of resources.

Something being possible to implement, is entirely different from choosing to actually implement it.
Assassinations were in Halo Reach, but you don't need to look further than say Gears of War or even simple beat 'em ups to see "cinematic" takedowns.

Hijacking: As early as GTA 1, a top down shooter. But closer and perhaps more "relevant", GTA 3 which released in 2000, a year prior to Halo CE.

Thrust: Closest thing I can think of which I'm familiar with is the quick evade of Unreal Tournament, 1998 I believe? Highly doubt it'd be impossible to rework it to function like thrusters do.

Clamber: Tomb Raider, first one in 1996?

Sprint: The first Turbo function was in Doom 1993/94, if that doesn't suffice due to big differencs, we can take the Day of Defeat mod for Half Life which had a sprint function with a visible stamina meter.

Let's see some more:

Equipment / AA: Giants Citizen Kabuto, the year is 2000. Duke Nukem 3D, even earlier.

Regenerating health and shields: Zerg and Protoss in Starcraft.

Now dual wielding, that's a tough one. Though I'd point to Diablo 2 for that one, Barbarian and Assassin classes.

However, why aren't we proning, corner leaning, or wall hugging? Did other studios from a decade ago, even earlier, have "technology" too advanced for Halo on an Xbox One?

Being able to do something, is another thing than coming up with something to do, which too is a different thing than thinking it is a good idea to do.
Then you also need the resources for it.

But yes, essentially the driving reason is advances in the graphics. AI also benefit from the better hardware, but in terms of mechanics, your next advancement is VR and the body motion controll thing. There you may have mechanics not available without the VR tools. Perhaps you can surprise me though, can you think of a mechanic for Halo 9? Which you think couldn't be done now, as long as we keep Halo 9 non-VR. You have normal controllers, and an Xbox with better hardware.

Sprinting in one direction and shooting in another? What? Doom 1993/94?
What technological advancement is needed to sprint in one direction and shoot in another? Why can't it be done now?
Then again, I wonder, MASC equipped mech could most likely do it in MWO. Though not omnidirectional due to torso twist limitations. An Urbanmech with MASC could do it though. But they can't have MASC.

EternalChampion wrote:

I H4Q3R I wrote:

Mr Sir 81 wrote:

Spartans are super soldiers. We should have abilities right off the spawn. Yet there should be special abilities that you can pick up, ie. Camo, over shield, damage boost, sprint... But the Jet Pack, Armor Lock, type things... I don't know how I feel about that.

I completely agree with you but "most" of the comunity want sprint removed.

Sprint is good, but should go back to limited fatigue sprint.

I agree, sprinting is literally the fastest way to travel on legs. Spartans have legs, so they should sprint. But I've never found anything in the Canon to suggest that Spartans can sprint forever. Besides, if you can do it forever, then it is not technically sprinting.

Naqser wrote:

Now dual wielding, that's a tough one. Though I'd point to Diablo 2 for that one, Barbarian and Assassin classes.

FYI, Bungie's Marathon series had dual wielding. Anno 1994. Was not included in Halo CE. For whatever reason...
Carry on.

Random Speeds = Sprint/No sprint/Thruster lead to nerfed grenades and more button pressing and less aiming.

Halo was based on the golden triangle of Guns, Grenades, and Melee. Sprint= putting your gun DOWN = slowing gameplay

Also with the addition of all the movement weapons have to be buffed so they can be balanced vs movement. Maps have to be increased to deal with movement. Why? Just so you can have the animation? Move the normal speed to sprint speed, and the game automatically becomes faster and more players aiming. Increase strafe speed, and you dont nerf grenades with thruster. Increase jump height = no need for clamber. Slide is a moving crouch, just keep crouch and buff its movement speed with crouched. Charge and GroundPound need to go, no button should kill or causes a melee knowback in Halo and never has. Melee is the only exception, and should not be the main focus of killing With this you can now make sniper take skill, headshots take more skill, go back to playing actual Halo. What you see in Halo 5 is a mirage of things jammed together to make you think you moving faster, yet without those mechanics and buffing movement speed you keep the same speed create a faster paced game, and all maps can be relatively smaller and better without dead spaces everywhere. Sprint is not needed and most players know that, Pros know that. Abilities are not needed as they can be a function within the games movement without actually being there. The changes I made above will create a better game visually for young and old.

343 tried to get CoD type players interested in Halo. CoD is not Halo, Halo taking mechanics of CoD does not gain Halo players it killed the 100k it had in H3 and gained very few from CoD. Halo was on top of the charts for 10 years while using the golden triangle... and it can today by using the same formula, just needs to take the speed of the game into account. Younger generation players want more hectic gameplay, create both within a balance sandbox and increase the gun skill. KEEP THE GUNS UP!!

<blockquote class="box-quote" data-username="Naqser" data-postid="75">
<blockquote class="box-quote specific specific74" data-username="Woodsman907" data-postid="74">
<blockquote class="box-quote specific specific65" data-username="EternalChampion" data-postid="65">
<blockquote class="box-quote specific specific9" data-username="Warmaster987609" data-postid="9">
<blockquote class="box-quote specific specific8" data-username="Mr Sir 81" data-postid="8">
<p>Spartans are super soldiers. We should have abilities right off the spawn. Yet there should be special abilities that you can pick up, ie. Camo, over shield, damage boost, sprint... But the Jet Pack, Armor Lock, type things... I don't know how I feel about that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I completely agree with you but "most" of the comunity want sprint removed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sprint is good, but should go back to limited fatigue sprint.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree, sprinting is literally the fastest way to travel on legs. Spartans have legs, so they should sprint. But I've never found anything in the Canon to suggest that Spartans can sprint <em>forever.</em> Besides, if you can do it forever, then it is not technically sprinting.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Proning is the best way to decrease your visible area towards an enemy.</p>
<p>A mirror is the best way to check around a corner without exposing yourself. Corner leaning the best way to fire around a corner ( disregarding built in Scope Link ).<br /><br />But sure, nerf sprint more.</p>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
Spartans can and should be able to do all that stuff too.