Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Hitmarkers :/

OP SHAD0W BULL3T

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
Delta5931 wrote:
As for hitmarkers on guns... visual feedback is a thing that 343 seemed to either downplay substantially or outright ignore, and I am firmly in the camp of 'do we really need it though?'
This is why I think their pursuit of a T-rating is a bad thing. Part of the reason that Halo has always gotten M-ratings is because the games have had so much blood. Having zero blood at all, like Halo 5 does, means that hit markers are borderline required because there is otherwise no visual feedback once shields pop. I don't know if it's Microsoft making them shoot for a T-rating, or 343 themselves, but it needs to stop.
I agree there's defiantly no visual feedback for headshots or body shots in Halo 5 besides the hit markers. If they weren't there I'd have zero clue if I was hitting any of my shots. But like you said that's due to there being a lack of blood in the game, which was most likely done to get the T rating. I have no idea why they would want to market the game at a T rating. Definitely sounds like it's something to do with M$ and wanting to sell more copies. Which didn't work so well with Halo 5. I was really hoping for an M rating on Infinite. At least they could do is add a little blood or the option to toggle it. I really dislike the hit markers, but without them I don't think the game would be playable (unless they add blood or some other effect).
DIAGETIC! That's the word I was trying to remember when typing my previous comment. 'Diagetic' relates to feedback that is set within the fictional world. For example, the song "Old Stuff" in Halo 1 is diagetic because Fireteam Charlie are actually listening to it. The bright street signs, moving cameras, blinking lights, broken ATMs, public telephones, etc. in ODST are diagetic because they use the world itself to guide the player. The original (classic, not anniversary) Halo Trilogy relied heavily on diagetic signals, which I touched upon in my previous comment, to deliver feedback. Diagetic feedback is easily the superior and more engaging option when it comes to guiding a player. Non-diagetic elements can be assistive, but they're utterly redundant when there are more helpful and immersive feedback options available (I.e. stumbling, wailing enemies with shimmering shields and explosive pools of blood). WerepyreND hit the nail on the head. Hitmarkers are unnecessary clutter. They either distract the player from the superior diagetic effects at hand or they replace the diagetic option entirely. As I've already stated, hitmarkers have no place in a Halo game whatsoever, and it's a real shame that there are people working on the game who seem to believe otherwise.
For me, the one main thing I hated about the original games is the lack of hit and kill markers. they’re a necessity in all games at this point, not entirely sure why anyone could dislike them.
all they’d do is add to the game, why would you want them not in the game? It’s not like they change gameplay... at all...
C0BALT237 wrote:
For me, the one main thing I hated about the original games is the lack of hit and kill markers. they’re a necessity in all games at this point, not entirely sure why anyone could dislike them.
all they’d do is add to the game, why would you want them not in the game? It’s not like they change gameplay... at all...
the overall argument there is the immersion factor. some like them and others dont. You can argue that enemies "reactions" to bullets landing is the same feedback without the markers, same as shields popping, stumbling, etc.
C0BALT237 wrote:
For me, the one main thing I hated about the original games is the lack of hit and kill markers. they’re a necessity in all games at this point, not entirely sure why anyone could dislike them.
all they’d do is add to the game, why would you want them not in the game? It’s not like they change gameplay... at all...
I wouldn't say they're a necessity. Certainly helpful but making halo like every other shooter is kind of the route of it's problems.
Darwi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Darwi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Hitmarkers are at best redundant screen clutter and at worst an indicator that you have utterly failed to provide proper visual/audio feedback in a halo game. They serve no purpose and should be removed.
The visual feedback falls down in Halo 5 with the enhanced mobility, especially at a distance (only 800-900p resolution).

But I agree, audio hit-marking would work just as well.

Especially if the around the corner grenade audio hit-marker was the anguished wail of a chicken -yoink- camper. ;)
So they failed to provide proper audio/visual feedback. Trying to justifying. its addition due to resolution is laughable. If "enhanced mobility" is a contributing factor to hitmarkers(which is a questionable claim but I digress) all the more reason to remove "enhanced mobility" as well.

Also audio feedback does not = audio hitmarkers. Especially not for grenades, stop trying to justify getting free information for chucking explosives. You either know that and enemy is in a certain position in which case you do not need the hitmarkers or you don't know for certain in which case you don't deserve free information for guessing.
Halo 5 is only 800-900p. If you are presumably going for subtle visual clues in lieu of hit-markers then they will be difficult to see at distance... especially if players are thrusting etc. I prefer the consistency of the current hit-marker.

And if enhanced mobility stays (fingers crossed) then hit-markers are even more useful.

As for 'nading round blind corners. I don't see a huge problem with a different sound for grenade shrapnel vs Spartan armour or shields. Keep the campers honest. :)
Let's try this again. Ask yourself why I would laugh at you for suggesting that Halo 5 needs hitmarkers due to being "only" 800-900p and get back to me.

Using "enhanced mobility" as a justification for keeping hitmarkers is a perfect example of creating a problem to sell a solution.

Campers are not a serious issue in Halo. If you are constantly getting ambushed by "campers" that just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness on your part. Like I said you either know a player is in a particular position or you don't. You don't deserve free information for spamming explosives.
C0BALT237 wrote:
For me, the one main thing I hated about the original games is the lack of hit and kill markers. they’re a necessity in all games at this point, not entirely sure why anyone could dislike them.
all they’d do is add to the game, why would you want them not in the game? It’s not like they change gameplay... at all...
Thats false. Grenades, for example, have become easier to use as a result of hitmarkers. Grenades used to be for the purpose of flushing people out or as a surprise mechanic. You didn't know their effectiveness until you rounded a corner. Grenades in Halo 4 and Halo 5 let you know that an enemy is around the corner regardless of whether you get a kill, which eliminates surprise attacks.

Other I would also argue it makes the player sloppy and reliant on hitmarkers instead of using their senses or intuition. It's become less important to observe and watch your opponent for tells that they're being damaged and more if the screen is telling you that you've landed a hit. Its not something that's needed if there's proper Audio-Visual feedback to doing damage to an opponent.
I understand people like them of course, and the ping noise upon kill, but we should have a setting to turn them off across campaign and multiplayer. This way we can please those who do like them, and those who don’t (^^)b.
In multiplayer that would just put those who turn them off at a disadvantage I’d reckon.
Not me, I’m not playing cod, I’m playing halo. Those things are distracting to me.
Alright, well, while you wonder if your grenade did any damage, your opponent will be certain.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good point for a lot of people. But I know if my grenade hits because I’m good enough to. I don’t need hand holding, never did in the classic games, I don’t need it now either. It’s just annoying, if someone wants it on then let them, if someone wants it off then let them. It’s their fault if they can’t handle the “disadvantage.”
If you corner bounce a grenade against an enemy you can’t see and thus don’t know the position of, than you can’t possible know if you hit them without markers.
WerepyreND wrote:
Let's try this again. Ask yourself why I would laugh at you for suggesting that Halo 5 needs hitmarkers due to being "only" 800-900p and get back to me.
Still don't get the joke. Even with bolding of the '5'.

The suggestion was that the game should just use visual representation of hits. This suffers a bit with rapid movement, especially at distance, and the relatively low resolution of Halo 5 doesn't help. Infinite will likely play at 1440p - so it may be easier to see the flaring of the shields etc.

Quote:
Using "enhanced mobility" as a justification for keeping hitmarkers is a perfect example of creating a problem to sell a solution.
And for the fans of enhanced mobility there are the opposite trains of thought.

Quote:
Campers are not a serious issue in Halo. If you are constantly getting ambushed by "campers" that just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness on your part. Like I said you either know a player is in a particular position or you don't. You don't deserve free information for spamming explosives.
No, I don't deserve anything. But campers deserve less. :)
Darwi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Let's try this again. Ask yourself why I would laugh at you for suggesting that Halo 5 needs hitmarkers due to being "only" 800-900p and get back to me.
Still don't get the joke. Even with bolding of the '5'.

The suggestion was that the game should just use visual representation of hits. This suffers a bit with rapid movement, especially at distance, and the relatively low resolution of Halo 5 doesn't help. Infinite will likely play at 1440p - so it may be easier to see the flaring of the shields etc.

Quote:
Using "enhanced mobility" as a justification for keeping hitmarkers is a perfect example of creating a problem to sell a solution.
And for the fans of enhanced mobility the opposite also holds true.

Quote:
Campers are not a serious issue in Halo. If you are constantly getting ambushed by "campers" that just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness on your part. Like I said you either know a player is in a particular position or you don't. You don't deserve free information for spamming explosives.
No, I don't deserve anything. But campers deserve less. :)
I would have figured that highlighting the 5th entry in a long running series would have been enough of a clue. The claim is absurd because the game on the original xbox at a resolution of a whopping 480p doesn't have significant issues with hit indication but apparently the 5th(and 4th) entry at a much higher resolution apparently does. Its absurd.

As for "enhanced mobility" the opposite would only hold true if the lack of "enhanced mobility" could actually be considered a problem in the first place. There wasn't a problem to "fix" to begin with.

Honest to god campers are easy to deal with in Halo and as a result we don't need to add explosive hitmarkers(visual or audio) to deal with them. If you are having that much trouble with "campers" in Halo you are either mistaking "camping" for map control or you are simply blaming "camping" for your own lack of awareness.
WerepyreND wrote:
I would have figured that highlighting the 5th entry in a long running series would have been enough of a clue. The claim is absurd because the game on the original xbox at a resolution of a whopping 480p doesn't have significant issues with hit indication but apparently the 5th(and 4th) entry at a much higher resolution apparently does. Its absurd.
Fair enough... but I still stand by the combination of speed / distance / resolution as being an issue to clearly indicate you've hit someone. It's not horrendous or game breaking in any way... but I personally welcome the confirmation with a hit-marker. It's a little quality of life addition.

WerepyreND wrote:
As for "enhanced mobility" the opposite would only hold true if the lack of "enhanced mobility" could actually be considered a problem in the first place. There wasn't a problem to "fix" to begin with.
Nope, there wasn't a problem to begin with. But keep in mind that not everybody thinks there is a problem now either.

WerepyreND wrote:
Honest to god campers are easy to deal with in Halo and as a result we don't need to add explosive hitmarkers(visual or audio) to deal with them. If you are having that much trouble with "campers" in Halo you are either mistaking "camping" for map control or you are simply blaming "camping" for your own lack of awareness.
Yep. Campers are easy to deal with. It's just more fun to lob your little Spartan sonars in their general direction.
Darwi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
I would have figured that highlighting the 5th entry in a long running series would have been enough of a clue. The claim is absurd because the game on the original xbox at a resolution of a whopping 480p doesn't have significant issues with hit indication but apparently the 5th(and 4th) entry at a much higher resolution apparently does. Its absurd.
Fair enough... but I still stand by the combination of speed / distance / resolution as being an issue to clearly indicate you've hit someone. It's not horrendous or game breaking in any way... but I personally welcome the confirmation with a hit-marker. It's a little quality of life addition.
It really isn't though, even putting aside Halo we already have modern examples of games without hitmarkers like PUBG which has very clear bloodshots to indicate hits at much farther distances than Halo has ever had. Devs could make clear hit indications in 2001 at 480p and they could have done so in 2015 at 800p. They failed at their jobs plain and simple. This isn't even a debate you are just standing by a claim that is demonstrably false.
Quote:
Nope, there wasn't a problem to begin with. But keep in mind that not everybody thinks there is a problem now either.
Sure, but that isn't the point, my issue was you using an issue introduced by one controversial mechanic to justify another controvertial mechanic. Its selling solutions to a problem that they created in the first place.
Quote:
Yep. Campers are easy to deal with. It's just more fun to lob your little Spartan sonars in their general direction.
It isn't fun when players who know what they are doing get sonar grenades as well. Explosive hitmarkers don't exist in a vacuum to deal with "campers" while disappearing in every other circumstance.
WerepyreND wrote:
It really isn't though, even putting aside Halo we already have modern examples of games without hitmarkers like PUBG which has very clear bloodshots to indicate hits at much farther distances than Halo has ever had. Devs could make clear hit indications in 2001 at 480p and they could have done so in 2015 at 800p. They failed at their jobs plain and simple. This isn't even a debate you are just standing by a claim that is demonstrably false.
Except they aren't the same cup of tea are they? The plodding movement of Halo CE vs the (beautiful) chaos of Halo 5. I couldn't even begin to imagine how blurry a Spartan thrusting behind cover at distance would be at 480p?

Quote:
It isn't fun when players who know what they are doing get sonar grenades as well. Explosive hitmarkers don't exist in a vacuum to deal with "campers" while disappearing in every other circumstance.
I throw a grenade around a corner and find someone lurking there. That's heaps of fun. It's even more fun if they don't move and the second grenades wipes the floor with them. Sadly that doesn't happen too often. :(

I do, however, assume that 343 will fix this 'glitch' going forward. It was fun while it lasted.
I like hitmarkers but I understand why some people don’t. The only thing that hitmarkers drastically changed in my opinion is how you can find out where enemies are with grenades. That’s kinda busted but otherwise, they don’t bother me.
Tresor564 wrote:
Bump I personally like them but the more player choice the better there should be and option to remove them or add them
What can you possibly like about hitmarkers?They totally ruin the gameplay for me.Only hitmarker i could take is a grenade one.
The grenade one is the worst one. You shouldn't be able to toss a grenade around a corner and know whether or not it hit someone... smh
Darwi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
It really isn't though, even putting aside Halo we already have modern examples of games without hitmarkers like PUBG which has very clear bloodshots to indicate hits at much farther distances than Halo has ever had. Devs could make clear hit indications in 2001 at 480p and they could have done so in 2015 at 800p. They failed at their jobs plain and simple. This isn't even a debate you are just standing by a claim that is demonstrably false.
Except they aren't the same cup of tea are they? The plodding movement of Halo CE vs the (beautiful) chaos of Halo 5. I couldn't even begin to imagine how blurry a Spartan thrusting behind cover at distance would be at 480p?
Forget thrust, if seeing at a distance is that impossible at 480p then BTB must have been unplayable even at CE's "plodding" speed, funny how 16 people crammed together on 4 different screens just to play a "blurry" game. Its a wonder shooters like Unreal Tournament were ever able to take in the 90s when the movement speed was even faster than Halo 5 with its own dodge and other movement mechanics to boot.

Even if we were to accept the premise that Halo 5 style movement would be "blurry" and a subpar experience at 480p(which we know isn't true) a Halo game with 14 years of technological development behind it should be able to create much better visual feedback due to the higher fidelity and resolution even at higher speeds and at longer distances. You are just pulling excuses out of thin air at this point.
Quote:
I throw a grenade around a corner and find someone lurking there. That's heaps of fun. It's even more fun if they don't move and the second grenades wipes the floor with them. Sadly that doesn't happen too often. :(
I do, however, assume that 343 will fix this 'glitch' going forward. It was fun while it lasted.
Its not a "glitch" its a deliberate design choice. A design choice that has been and is exploited by any halfway decent player to the detriment of the game as a whole. 343 gets to own their own choices and their consequences.
Delta5931 wrote:
C0BALT237 wrote:
For me, the one main thing I hated about the original games is the lack of hit and kill markers. they’re a necessity in all games at this point, not entirely sure why anyone could dislike them.
all they’d do is add to the game, why would you want them not in the game? It’s not like they change gameplay... at all...
Thats false. Grenades, for example, have become easier to use as a result of hitmarkers. Grenades used to be for the purpose of flushing people out or as a surprise mechanic. You didn't know their effectiveness until you rounded a corner. Grenades in Halo 4 and Halo 5 let you know that an enemy is around the corner regardless of whether you get a kill, which eliminates surprise attacks.

Other I would also argue it makes the player sloppy and reliant on hitmarkers instead of using their senses or intuition. It's become less important to observe and watch your opponent for tells that they're being damaged and more if the screen is telling you that you've landed a hit. Its not something that's needed if there's proper Audio-Visual feedback to doing damage to an opponent.
I would argue that it is absolutely needed.
Halo has been a game with little to no audio or visual cues for this. For a game like overwatch, where there is an audible sound effect on hit and a visible healthbar, hitmarkers aren’t needed, but they are there anyway, because they don’t take away from the game at all. Same with a game like destiny, where there are damage numbers and visible health bars, or to the contrary, a game like sea of thieves, which has absolutely no way to tell if you ever hit something or not. Both have hitmarkers, and no one complains about it.
But in halo, lets take halo CE’s magnum for an example: despite being completely overpowered, it also has garbage accuracy, meaning you have no way to tell if you’re hitting your shots. You can have your crosshair directly on an opponent’s head, and no matter how many bullets you fire, their shield may never break. From your opponent’s perspective, they get a red flash whenever you hit, and they might think you’re either a terrible shot or not aiming at them. However, from your perspective, it looks like they have a near infinite shield bar, since the only two cues you get are when your first shot hits, their shields appear, and when you’ve hit them enough, their shields break. Nothing else. No blood splatter, no sound effect, no additional flaring. Just you, aimlessly firing at your opponent. (And them firing back)
This is even more prominent if you try and shoot at a vehicle, particularly in halo 3. For a mongoose, the suspension might bounce a bit, but for a banshee, tank, warthog even, it seems like your bullets are doing nothing. A new player could empty multiple magazines into a banshee flying around, and then come to the conclusion that vehicles are invincible. If you do the same in halo 5, you can actually tell that you’re doing something.
And what kind of argument is “it makes grenades too easy to use”? Being able to tell that your grenade didn’t just go off a cliff is “too easy”? How is that a bad thing?!
C0BALT237 wrote:
Delta5931 wrote:
C0BALT237 wrote:
For me, the one main thing I hated about the original games is the lack of hit and kill markers. they’re a necessity in all games at this point, not entirely sure why anyone could dislike them.
all they’d do is add to the game, why would you want them not in the game? It’s not like they change gameplay... at all...
Thats false. Grenades, for example, have become easier to use as a result of hitmarkers. Grenades used to be for the purpose of flushing people out or as a surprise mechanic. You didn't know their effectiveness until you rounded a corner. Grenades in Halo 4 and Halo 5 let you know that an enemy is around the corner regardless of whether you get a kill, which eliminates surprise attacks.

Other I would also argue it makes the player sloppy and reliant on hitmarkers instead of using their senses or intuition. It's become less important to observe and watch your opponent for tells that they're being damaged and more if the screen is telling you that you've landed a hit. Its not something that's needed if there's proper Audio-Visual feedback to doing damage to an opponent.
I would argue that it is absolutely needed.
Halo has been a game with little to no audio or visual cues for this. For a game like overwatch, where there is an audible sound effect on hit and a visible healthbar, hitmarkers aren’t needed, but they are there anyway, because they don’t take away from the game at all. Same with a game like destiny, where there are damage numbers and visible health bars, or to the contrary, a game like sea of thieves, which has absolutely no way to tell if you ever hit something or not. Both have hitmarkers, and no one complains about it.But in halo, lets take halo CE’s magnum for an example: despite being completely overpowered, it also has garbage accuracy, meaning you have no way to tell if you’re hitting your shots. You can have your crosshair directly on an opponent’s head, and no matter how many bullets you fire, their shield may never break. From your opponent’s perspective, they get a red flash whenever you hit, and they might think you’re either a terrible shot or not aiming at them. However, from your perspective, it looks like they have a near infinite shield bar, since the only two cues you get are when your first shot hits, their shields appear, and when you’ve hit them enough, their shields break. Nothing else. No blood splatter, no sound effect, no additional flaring. Just you, aimlessly firing at your opponent. (And them firing back)
This is even more prominent if you try and shoot at a vehicle, particularly in halo 3. For a mongoose, the suspension might bounce a bit, but for a banshee, tank, warthog even, it seems like your bullets are doing nothing. A new player could empty multiple magazines into a banshee flying around, and then come to the conclusion that vehicles are invincible. If you do the same in halo 5, you can actually tell that you’re doing something.
And what kind of argument is “it makes grenades too easy to use”? Being able to tell that your grenade didn’t just go off a cliff is “too easy”? How is that a bad thing?!
First off, using Halo CE as an example is a poor choice. That game is not designed to be played competitively. Now, I've bolded those parts because they're basically complete fabrications in the context of Halo 2 and Halo 3, as well as Reach. In all three of those games, which are designed to be played competitively, shield flares are obvious when you're hitting your target as well as when you're doing health damage (blood splatter). Shields will also noticeably drop and the enemy will be covered in what look like little bolts of lightning when shields drop. There's also an audible noise when shields are depleted in Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo Reach that you can use at closer ranges to determine if shields are down. There's also flinching, that Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo Reach all use when you're doing damage to the opponent regardless of shield strength. Using your eyes and ears to determine if you're doing damage is an important skill that hitmarkers mask as being unimportant. The same argument that no one complained about hitmarkers in those games can be applied to Halo. I would argue that no one really wanted hitmarkers until 343 started making Call of Halo and slapped them in with reckless abandon.

Vehicles will noticeably have "dust" fly off of them and there's an audible noise when a vehicle is damaged past certain breakpoints. The idea that a new player would assume vehicles are invincible because they're using a weapon that's not designed to destroy vehicles (small arms) is laughable at best. I have never heard of this as a legitimate complaint from new players.

Now, for grenades. First, you can use your eyes to determine if your grenade has gone too far. Second, grenades will also make a noise when they explode as well as a slight visual disturbance when the grenade goes off. Third, the reason that hitmarkers being applied to grenades is something I'll criticize, is because they're being used less as "Flush out enemies" and more as "Are there enemies in there?" like a sort of sensor grenade. Someone else in this thread already pointed out that sticking out a grenade and staying around a corner lets you set up effective ambushes, even if the grenade does damage to you when there aren't hitmarkers. Hitmarkers also makes the motion tracker dramatically less important, because if the grenade detonates close enough to an opponent, you will see them on the motion tracker.
I actually find the hit marker pretty satisfying, but I understand why people don't like it. I wouldn't really care if it was removed, but I probably would still use it even if there was an option to turn it off
Same, the Hitmarker sound when you kill an enemy Spartan with a headshot is very pleasing for me. I understand that for most of us who grew up with Halo it can be pretty weird seeing Hitmarkers and Hitmarker Kill Sounds in Halo but I believe that having these elements is good for newer players that are getting into Halo.
Delta5931 wrote:
C0BALT237 wrote:
Delta5931 wrote:
C0BALT237 wrote:
For me, the one main thing I hated about the original games is the lack of hit and kill markers. they’re a necessity in all games at this point, not entirely sure why anyone could dislike them.
all they’d do is add to the game, why would you want them not in the game? It’s not like they change gameplay... at all...
First off, using Halo CE as an example is a poor choice. That game is not designed to be played competitively. Now, I've bolded those parts because they're basically complete fabrications in the context of Halo 2 and Halo 3, as well as Reach. In all three of those games, which are designed to be played competitively, shield flares are obvious when you're hitting your target as well as when you're doing health damage (blood splatter). Shields will also noticeably drop and the enemy will be covered in what look like little bolts of lightning when shields drop. There's also an audible noise when shields are depleted in Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo Reach that you can use at closer ranges to determine if shields are down. There's also flinching, that Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo Reach all use when you're doing damage to the opponent regardless of shield strength. Using your eyes and ears to determine if you're doing damage is an important skill that hitmarkers mask as being unimportant. The same argument that no one complained about hitmarkers in those games can be applied to Halo. I would argue that no one really wanted hitmarkers until 343 started making Call of Halo and slapped them in with reckless abandon.

Vehicles will noticeably have "dust" fly off of them and there's an audible noise when a vehicle is damaged past certain breakpoints. The idea that a new player would assume vehicles are invincible because they're using a weapon that's not designed to destroy vehicles (small arms) is laughable at best. I have never heard of this as a legitimate complaint from new players.

Now, for grenades. First, you can use your eyes to determine if your grenade has gone too far. Second, grenades will also make a noise when they explode as well as a slight visual disturbance when the grenade goes off. Third, the reason that hitmarkers being applied to grenades is something I'll criticize, is because they're being used less as "Flush out enemies" and more as "Are there enemies in there?" like a sort of sensor grenade. Someone else in this thread already pointed out that sticking out a grenade and staying around a corner lets you set up effective ambushes, even if the grenade does damage to you when there aren't hitmarkers. Hitmarkers also makes the motion tracker dramatically less important, because if the grenade detonates close enough to an opponent, you will see them on the motion tracker.
How convenient that Halo CE isn’t built competitively now even tho back then it kicked off Esports on console...

At distance, these cues that keep repeating don’t appear. At certain distances, shield flares don’t appear, the electricity doesn’t render, and flinch isn’t properly conveyed. “Dust appearing on a vehicle”, take a shot at any vehicle at range and tell me in all honesty if you can see much less hear anything coming from it. Noticeable dust disappears after 20m anything after that is hopeful dreaming.

In every halo there has been grenade spamming doesn’t matter if it’s a new player or a veteran. People have always chucked grenades around corners or down halls to check if someone is there, that isn’t an issue of hit markers. Again, unless you’re near the hallway, or corner, you won’t get a motion sensor trip, nor will you hear the sound of their shield bursting over the explosion of the grenade, it doesn’t matter how good of a player you are, unless you have wall hacks you are not getting any kind of indicator of wether your grenade hit or was wasted unless the person is sitting at the mouth of the hallway like a dip.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5