Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Idea to take from GOW, Tac-com and overview map

OP Oside 38

Since playing GOW 5, one of the things that I really like from the game that I think will greatly benefit Halo multiplayer is the tac-com and overview map. As someone who doesn’t play a lot of multiplayer, I have a hard time remembering all the maps and weapon placement, I love how Gears has an overview map that you can use to see where the spawn points are as well as weapon placements and locations. Naturally I think the Halo is a different game so because of the way maps in general work, with different elevations and bigger maps overall, an overview map might not work so well.
What could work is a Tac-com, where you can easily see where the rest of your team is, as well as locations of power weapon placements and respawn timer. I know some maps and game modes announce where and when the weapons will appear, but that is not true for all game types and maps. Sometimes playing online in Halo 5, I feel like I’m at a disadvantage because the enemy know where to look for power ups and power weapons. But as for me I don’t even know which weapons spawn on which map.
Of course I dont think all weapons should be marked on the tac-com, since some maps have different types of weapons lying around. But the bigger most important weapons should be marked. Other advantages to having a tac-com is because people know where and when a weapon will spawn it might funnel more people to those locations and have a bigger drawn out battle.
Could something like this work in Halo? Is it something that should be looked into? Or applied in some other way?
Would fit in the lore with the VISR providing data and such...and we do kind of have weapon spawn point data thanks to the pads.
0
To know the Lore is to know Halo
"Dont be spoiled, dont start a fight. Always be careful, here at night. Because the Spartans might come, in suits that weigh half a ton. And they'll steal from you all you gots, just like they did from Colonel Watts."
Halo could definitely learn a thing or two from Gears right now! Yeah, having an overhead map display prior to MP matches would be great. I'm less sold on real-time in-game waypoints and spawn indicators, but maybe in Casual playlists that would be fine, too.
That's a big no from me.
One of the most relevant things in Halo's learning curve is learning where and when power weapons spawn.
I don't see a valid reason to remove this aspect from the learning curve.
IMO it is a step into the wrong direction helping "lazy" or unwilling players with additions of this kind.
Halo could definitely learn a thing or two from Gears right now! Yeah, having an overhead map display prior to MP matches would be great. I'm less sold on real-time in-game waypoints and spawn indicators, but maybe in Casual playlists that would be fine, too.
I've got to ask what thing or two halo can learn from gears 5? , I played the campaign a couple of times through and had a brief look at mp and the micro transactionstore season pass system . I not going to bash gears overall it was an ok game but I'm honestly at a genuine loss as what halo could learn or could implement that would enhance a halo experience moving into the future .
To me, the biggest thing Halo can take from Gears 4 and 5 is an element of better embracing and building on the legacy of the older games. Gears 4 was just basically The Coalition proving to the world that they could make a GOW game as well as Epic did without trying to redefine what everyone thought of when you mentioned the series. Gears 5 is starting to make changes to the gameplay (none of these are particularly bad in my opinion, but they've done themselves a massive favor in adding/changing only a bit at a time so they can scale away from negative alterations). The stories of Gears 4 and 5 are also a lot more resonant with the original Gears trilogy than Halo 4 and 5 are with Halo CE-3. At least to me, they're tonally a lot more familiar without feeling like rehashes.

Halo Infinite will hopefully finally be 343i's proof to the world that they can make a great Halo game in the vein of the original series, rather than trying to blow the whole world away with their cool new ideas both mechanically and narratively like they did in Halo 4 and 5. None of the deviations from the classic Halo universe feel very earned in these games to me, because 343 didn't lay the groundwork for a comfort-food proof of their "worthiness" to handle the series like the Coalition did with Gears of War 4. The Anniversary games are the closest thing 343i has done to this, but they've outsourced most of the graphical refinishing work on those and I can't give them credit for having made the games in the first place.

All just my opinions, of course. I've just been considerably more impressed with the Coalition's handling of the Gears games and universe than I have with 343i's of Halo. Which is too bad, since I like the Halo games and universe more.
To me, the biggest thing Halo can take from Gears 4 and 5 is an element of better embracing and building on the legacy of the older games. Gears 4 was just basically The Coalition proving to the world that they could make a GOW game as well as Epic did without trying to redefine what everyone thought of when you mentioned the series. Gears 5 is starting to make changes to the gameplay (none of these are particularly bad in my opinion, but they've done themselves a massive favor in adding/changing only a bit at a time so they can scale away from negative alterations). The stories of Gears 4 and 5 are also a lot more resonant with the original Gears trilogy than Halo 4 and 5 are with Halo CE-3. At least to me, they're tonally a lot more familiar without feeling like rehashes.

Halo Infinite will hopefully finally be 343i's proof to the world that they can make a great Halo game in the vein of the original series, rather than trying to blow the whole world away with their cool new ideas both mechanically and narratively like they did in Halo 4 and 5. None of the deviations from the classic Halo universe feel very earned in these games to me, because 343 didn't lay the groundwork for a comfort-food proof of their "worthiness" to handle the series like the Coalition did with Gears of War 4. The Anniversary games are the closest thing 343i has done to this, but they've outsourced most of the graphical refinishing work on those and I can't give them credit for having made the games in the first place.

All just my opinions, of course. I've just been considerably more impressed with the Coalition's handling of the Gears games and universe than I have with 343i's of Halo. Which is too bad, since I like the Halo games and universe more.
i agree that halo and gears of war have a very similar background story.... great trilogy followed by a controversial prequel which added mechanics to be more like other games (although i don't mind reach or gow judgement)
but the new developers went different ways... the coalition was trying to make a GOW game true to the OGs (and succeding with that imo), while 343 was going all in on trying to appeal to other shooters.

but i still see similarities (good and bad), like the lootboxes implemented in h5 and gow4, and the narative structure not following a trillogy anymore..also the anouncment of open world elements in infinite (like in gears 5), which i think are atributed to the xbox game pass, to artificially lenghten the campaign. there are many more similarities and i think halo infinite will bring out even more. i also think this is part to microsoft being the publisher of both and i count microsoft definatly to the greedy publishers like EA and ubisoft.

the thing halo should take from GoW is, to stay true to the original games in my opinion.
I gotta be honest, no. I don’t like maps. I don’t like markers, waypoints, timers and directionals. It’s spoils the whole idea of knowing the game and it draws way more attention to the power weapon locations and makes them constant fight locations based on a timer instead of based on instinct or knowledge, and reveals potential map tricks that are really should be earned advantages from time spent playing, not just showed to people. To me and I’m sure others that’s kind of a massive part of what used to make Halo different and made it both more fun and competitive.
@WSerg Fair points for the most part. I don't mean to overly glorify the current state of GoW; as you say, it shares a handful of Halo's modern issues. But I do think it has fewer problems and, as we agree, feels more true to the classic games in the series than Halo does at this point (hopefully Infinite can correct this to some extent).

I don't believe Microsoft is as pernicious in their revenue strategies and business practices as are EA and Activision, personally. They worst they've ever been in my living memory (specifically in the console gaming market) was 2012-2015 in the lead up to, launch, and initial strategy for the Xbox One. Tons of mistakes and lost potential there. They got seriously cocky about all the goodwill the 360 had over the PS3 and made some blatantly poor decisions accordingly.

Still, I think MS deserves some credit at this point. They've been spending the past handful of years with an extraordinarily pro-consumer strategy with elements like Game Pass, Backwards Compatibility, and even simpler things like Xbox Design Lab. Phil Spencer has been trying to mend fences ever since he took the helm and stopped forcing prospective buyers to adopt Kinect if they wanted to go next-gen. The Coalition has demonstrated this improved attitude with Gears 4 and 5, too. 343i hasn't really had a chance to show us what MS's more player-friendly direction means for Halo, yet. I'm hoping Infinite blows us all away on this front.
[...]I don't believe Microsoft is as pernicious in their revenue strategies and business practices as are EA and Activision, personally. They worst they've ever been in my living memory (specifically in the console gaming market) was 2012-2015 in the lead up to, launch, and initial strategy for the Xbox One. Tons of mistakes and lost potential there. They got seriously cocky about all the goodwill the 360 had over the PS3 and made some blatantly poor decisions accordingly.

Still, I think MS deserves some credit at this point. They've been spending the past handful of years with an extraordinarily pro-consumer strategy with elements like Game Pass, Backwards Compatibility, and even simpler things like Xbox Design Lab. Phil Spencer has been trying to mend fences ever since he took the helm and stopped forcing prospective buyers to adopt Kinect if they wanted to go next-gen. The Coalition has demonstrated this improved attitude with Gears 4 and 5, too. 343i hasn't really had a chance to show us what MS's more player-friendly direction means for Halo, yet. I'm hoping Infinite blows us all away on this front.
it's true MS is improving, but it is still pushing forward with MT systems. we shouldn't forget that they added lootboxes (with pay2win elements) to their top games as well (halo 5, gow4, halo wars 2). we shouldn't be to quick to forget that and i still get the feeling, that monetizations is their top priority instead of making a good game. a clue for that is, that MTs were confirmed before anything else for halo infinite and even gow5 has a lot of monetization.
if we compare it with sony, sony is releasing good games without forced mictrotransactions (god of war, spiderman...). yes, sony isn't the best company as well and both companies have their pros and cons.

backward compatibility was a necessary move for the xbox or there would be even less exclusives. also i'm still wondering, why halo 1 and 2 aren't back.comp., since MS claimed that the right holders only have to agree to it. my guess is, that MS wants to force MCC that way.

for the game pass: i think it is great, but it holds the rist of games being unnecasseryly stretched out to lenghten game time (skipper parts in gears 5), since i belive the revenue created is tied to time spend with the game.

i know, i'm pesimistic here, but i think at this point, history tells us we have to be very careful with the games industry and i still think MS doesn't have a good consumer friendly track record with microtransactions. and the industry is very creative with trying to convince people that it is a good thing for the players.

... ok, after reading my post again, i realize, i went way of topic here... sorry...

to go back to topic at least for the end: i only want 343 to take from gears 5, that they go back to halos roots. for the tac com... maybe in the campaign when you get lost.
for MP: overview maps in loading screens, like in MCC couldn't hurt i guess.
WSerg wrote:
[...]I don't believe Microsoft is as pernicious in their revenue strategies and business practices as are EA and Activision, personally. They worst they've ever been in my living memory (specifically in the console gaming market) was 2012-2015 in the lead up to, launch, and initial strategy for the Xbox One. Tons of mistakes and lost potential there. They got seriously cocky about all the goodwill the 360 had over the PS3 and made some blatantly poor decisions accordingly.

Still, I think MS deserves some credit at this point. They've been spending the past handful of years with an extraordinarily pro-consumer strategy with elements like Game Pass, Backwards Compatibility, and even simpler things like Xbox Design Lab. Phil Spencer has been trying to mend fences ever since he took the helm and stopped forcing prospective buyers to adopt Kinect if they wanted to go next-gen. The Coalition has demonstrated this improved attitude with Gears 4 and 5, too. 343i hasn't really had a chance to show us what MS's more player-friendly direction means for Halo, yet. I'm hoping Infinite blows us all away on this front.
it's true MS is improving, but it is still pushing forward with MT systems. we shouldn't forget that they added lootboxes (with pay2win elements) to their top games as well (halo 5, gow4, halo wars 2). we shouldn't be to quick to forget that and i still get the feeling, that monetizations is their top priority instead of making a good game. a clue for that is, that MTs were confirmed before anything else for halo infinite and even gow5 has a lot of monetization.
if we compare it with sony, sony is releasing good games without forced mictrotransactions (god of war, spiderman...). yes, sony isn't the best company as well and both companies have their pros and cons.

backward compatibility was a necessary move for the xbox or there would be even less exclusives. also i'm still wondering, why halo 1 and 2 aren't back.comp., since MS claimed that the right holders only have to agree to it. my guess is, that MS wants to force MCC that way.

for the game pass: i think it is great, but it holds the rist of games being unnecasseryly stretched out to lenghten game time (skipper parts in gears 5), since i belive the revenue created is tied to time spend with the game.

i know, i'm pesimistic here, but i think at this point, history tells us we have to be very careful with the games industry and i still think MS doesn't have a good consumer friendly track record with microtransactions. and the industry is very creative with trying to convince people that it is a good thing for the players.

... ok, after reading my post again, i realize, i went way of topic here... sorry...

to go back to topic at least for the end: i only want 343 to take from gears 5, that they go back to halos roots. for the tac com... maybe in the campaign when you get lost.
for MP: overview maps in loading screens, like in MCC couldn't hurt i guess.
Good discussion guys , you both bring up some interesting and valid points a lot of which I'm in agreement with in regard to Gow5 and infinite , also the broader landscape with big daddy MS and the game pass system . After playing the coalitions GOW 4 and 5 and initially really enjoying them , I've come to the conclusion of lots of style but not a lot of substance . I feel quite similarly about The 343i haio's

Coalition and 343i as first party MS developers have both inherited strong iPs but the more I'm seeing of both devs in the current AAA space and the agregious monetisation direction the more I'm inclined to think both francishes should've remained untouched . I have no issue with remasters as the titles already hold up on their strengths and graphical upgrades are always appreciated , both companies did a great job of outsourcing this work to other studios .

I recently started playing through bungies destiny and couldn't help but think here is a developer that you could never accuse of following the trends of others . Not perfect by any means but certaintly forward thinking industry trailblazers .
I think the comparison to Sony's first party stable on MT's is a bit off since Sony's first party presence is mainly in the form of single-player narrative driven games rather than MS's focus on games in the first party that have strong online components. The single player space isn't as rife with potential for MT's to accomplish their goal of raking in extra revenue, but the MT model has become an industry wide solution in big multi-player games to offset the refusal of consumers to pay more than about 60USD for a game when inflation has rendered that cost well below what's effectively profitable to motivate devs to continue to make these insanely huge games. It's crumby, but MS isn't as awful with their implementation as, for example, EA/Dice has been with SWBF2 (which itself isn't nearly as bad as it was at launch).

I'm just convinced for myself at this point that MT's are a fact of life in AAA multiplayer games from now until a whole new model (probably subscription based) becomes viable, so I don't feel like MS deserves any special excoriation for occupying that space.

But, good point to all that we've deviated from the thread topic a good deal! I do think inclusion if some of GoW's elements can seriously benefit Halo Infinite.