That's a false equivalency, albeit a well researched one. Even at the expense of Halo's graphics (which would be unacceptable) it would still have been impossible to include ALL of these things in one game.Naqser wrote: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.Stardriver907 wrote: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?Naqser wrote:Did you look into in what way the new game was technologically superior?Stardriver907 wrote: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.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.
Yeah, you got me there, pal. All this time it's just been graphics.
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.
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?
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.
Spartans can shoot at maximum accuracy while sprinting. Why can't we do that ingame as well?Woodsman907 wrote:Spartans can and should be able to do all that stuff too.
A: I'm not really going to bother with the previous post unless you clean it up.Woodsman907 wrote:That's a false equivalency, albeit a well researched one. Even at the expense of Halo's graphics (which would be unacceptable) it would still have been impossible to include ALL of these things in one game.Naqser wrote: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.Stardriver907 wrote: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?Naqser wrote:Did you look into in what way the new game was technologically superior?Stardriver907 wrote: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.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.
Yeah, you got me there, pal. All this time it's just been graphics.
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.
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?
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.
B: Sure, pointing out different mechanics' appearances throughout the years pre-dating Halo CE for the question wether or not "technological advances" has enabled these mechanics, sure is a logical falacy.
Really? It'd be impossible?
Assassination: Triggered animation, quite like entering and exiting a vehicle. Just a different result.
Hijacking: Triggered animation, this IS entering a vehicle while a hostile occupy it, with a specific result.
Dual Wielding: This is an addition to character active inventory, a small HUD addition of an additional weapon and its ammo counter. Third person wise it's a slightly different weapon holding animation and an additional weapon attached to the left hand.
Equipment / AAs: Another inventory management thing. Easily just a second grenade inventory housing equipment / AAs, and a different key for activating them.
Sprint: Speed increase, other values lowered, firing disabled. Other animation.
Thrust: Forceful sidestep in a specific direction.
Please do share how all of these, would be so taxing for the GPU on the OG Xbox, that it couldn't be possible to have them all at the same time.
Seeing as most of them are graphically relying on a few new animations, and some on a few extra sprites, and they're not even frequent.
Who said that AAs only had to work once? I only mentioned equipment because that's the thing AAs are closest to. Why have power weapons if you can only use some of its ammunition and then had to fight over to use it again? Why do power weapons get a pass but AAs don't? They're inherently the same thing.Stardriver907 wrote: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?FightingChances 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.
Who said anything about tournaments? I don't care about competitive gameplay, just Custom Games and Forge. Halo 5's SAs work against creators in making newer gametypes because of how essential they are to the player in the base game. Had SAs been modular, like in Halo Reach, there would have been an insurmountable amount of options and possibilities for creators. Being able to enable and disable these settings does not count as modularity, since I can just as easily disable movement for one team in my own masochistic game mode. Without fixing the base game, we can't fix Custom Games. At least Forge isn't getting shafted like Customs...Quote: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.
What the -Yoink- are you on about with gameplay being "ruined?" I never said these changes ruined anything. You think I don't like Reach? Reach is what I want future games to be based off of. Bungie messed up with their implementation of AAs and Loadouts, which is why so many people are still against bringing them back in to Halo, but AAs and Loadouts can work in the classic gameplay style of Halo.
Also, Bungie just wanted to make a fun game, that's it. They didn't consciously want to make a "military style sci-fi game that was hopefully like no other." Look at their ViDocs and interviews. It's all about fun and getting a working game over everything else. One final note on this, but if Bungie truly didn't care for esports, then why was there an MLG playlist, with settings curated from the MLG community?
And I have not disputed that. When you made the statement that "Halo seems to be doing better than it ever has," I just wanted to clarify why that point does not appear to be true, no matter how you look at it. No amount of evidence that you can give me supports that it's doing better than ever, in terms of poularity. In terms of revenue, I can see how it's doing better than ever, based on Microsoft's statements. The only conclusion that we can bring, however, is that it's doing decently for itself. Halo 5 bringing in a bunch of revenue for Microsoft doesn't mean anything about its population because of the inclusion of non-limited microtransactions. Like I said, we can draw conclusions of how popular Halo is based on Google Trends, amount of website articles, and comparing populations of different games.Stardriver907 wrote: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.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.
Except it isn't. You're talking about game mechanics, which in most cases are not engine relevant. A better gaming engine means it's easier to program for, libraries are more accessible (Direct X for instance), you can create bigger worlds filled with more details due to more and faster memory, you can have more diversity in props and texture because loading times are reduced, AI pathfinding and code trees can become more complex, different physic engines can work together and so on. Like you see it isn't even a discussion about graphical output alone.Stardriver907 wrote:That's a false equivalency, [...]
THIS are the things that weren't possible before with older versions of the Halo engine (and H4 also runs on that software Btw, it even recycled assets from Reach), not climb or sprint. The reason why hijacking and such wasn't in HCE is obvious and other users already explained perfectly why that's the case. If you don't believe it was possible to introduce, well, mods for Costume Edition disproves you...
All mechanics would have been possible, it's just a mater of resources, time and manpower really. You want an example for something that is more or less only possible with todays tech? Battle Royal. Both netcode and CPU restrictions on the OG Xbox wouldn't make it possible to create a real time action game in a shared world context, not with decent graphics and framerates at least. Warzone might have been possible on a game like Halo 3 on the 360, but it would have been hard to pull off. Simply put, gaming mechanics are not AI, map sizes or physic engines!Stardriver907 wrote:Even at the expense of Halo's graphics (which would be unacceptable) it would still have been impossible to include ALL of these things in one game.
That doesn't really prove anything because that's not a new game and MCC wouldn't count because it was also bundled with three other games one of which being H4 which was modern Halo. We were referring to a new game with classic mechanics. That being said, CE Anniversary was the third best selling game during its first week in North America according to wiki so there was interest in the context of your example.Woodsman907 wrote:The only way to prove it would be to release CE again. Oh wait, that already happened.. twice.
My point was that if you're going to make exaggerated claims like no one is going to get excited about a game or buy it, then you should provide some proof or stop saying things like that.
What armor abilities? Probably some from halo 4 or reach
OP
Yea I think higher bms is better.FIipyn wrote: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!!
I think thrusters should stay as well.