Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

What pace do we want for multiplayer

OP BigWinkyy69

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
How about we don't need another Halo 5 ? The game has not graphically aged at all and will still be very playable for the next few years. Halo 3, on the other hand, has quite a bit. A classic driven-game seems totally fair at this point.
No duh, I mean what part of not a critical success did you not understand? Of course we do not need another Halo 5, nor do we need another Halo 4, 3, 2, Reach, or CE. Yeah I get it, people still play Halo 3 because it is still on the PC, People also still play the classic doom, but that doesn't make the new doom any worse. So yes you can improve on classic mechanics, you can also mess them up.
Halo 3 has never been on PC ... at least not officially. It will be after MCC finally makes it to PC this year though.
And yeah Halo 4 and Halo 5 are great examples of messing up classic mechanics. And also, the new Doom was a success with critics?

Halo 3 was the literal peak of the franchise financially, critically, the community was nowhere near as split, the list goes on. We do need another success that can match what Halo 3 did.
I think you rushed your response and broke your own defending argument
Doom 2016 is an excellent example of a game innovating and staying true to it's roots. The addition of snap map and campaign arcade was great too and enhanced my experience. The multiplayer got a mixed reception but overall it was a terrific addition to the franchise. Doom Eternal is my most anticipated game this year. I think Halo should do the same, go back to what made it great, innovate but keep it true to it's roots. Also, I really want to see FoV sliders added to Halo Infinite.
The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
How about we don't need another Halo 5 ? The game has not graphically aged at all and will still be very playable for the next few years. Halo 3, on the other hand, has quite a bit. A classic driven-game seems totally fair at this point.
No duh, I mean what part of not a critical success did you not understand? Of course we do not need another Halo 5, nor do we need another Halo 4, 3, 2, Reach, or CE. Yeah I get it, people still play Halo 3 because it is still on the PC, People also still play the classic doom, but that doesn't make the new doom any worse. So yes you can improve on classic mechanics, you can also mess them up.
Halo 3 has never been on PC ... at least not officially. It will be after MCC finally makes it to PC this year though.
And yeah Halo 4 and Halo 5 are great examples of messing up classic mechanics. And also, the new Doom was a success with critics?

Halo 3 was the literal peak of the franchise financially, critically, the community was nowhere near as split, the list goes on. We do need another success that can match what Halo 3 did.
I think you rushed your response and broke your own defending argument
MCC, but the point if H3 came out today, it wouldn't be the acclaimed success that it was. We don't need Halo 3.2
I'd say somewhere between Reach, Halo 3. I get the need for sprint but abilities with thrusters were more annoying in H5 due to cheap escapes. I just hope the weapon balancing and combat feels more like Halo 1-3 since found Halo 5's multiplayer very stressful to play.
ronnie42 wrote:
I'd say somewhere between Reach, Halo 3. I get the need for sprint but abilities with thrusters were more annoying in H5 due to cheap escapes. I just hope the weapon balancing and combat feels more like Halo 1-3 since found Halo 5's multiplayer very stressful to play.
I could not agree more. I honestly do not care about sprint being in the game. But thrusters, clamber and spartan abilities ruined Halo 5s multiplayer. I also dont like how in competitive multiplayer we basically were only allowed to use our pistols. Old Halo games had you using a bigger sandbox of weapons. Battle rifles, assault rifles sometimes, shotguns.
I have to say that I'm not actually all that picky about the pace of gameplay. I'm fine with anything from frantic Halo CE matches on small maps where you're literally in combat as soon as you spawn to those sluggish BTB matches where you can literally spend ten seconds running to combat if you get an appropriate spawn. To some extent in games I even tend to cherish those moments of silence, but that might just be me. But even not taking it to that extreme, I think it helps somewhat to have differently sized maps to create a bit of variation that can then be tuned per playlist by including/excluding different maps and tweaking their frequencies. However, generally speaking, I have the possibly unpopular opinion that it's actually good for pacing to not be in combat all the time.

When it comes to combat encounters specifically, I have a somewhat similar philosophy that variation is good. The typical encounter should be over moderately fast. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but about what a typical encounter lasts. But the weapons should on one hand be difficult enough that every now and then you get a kind of a drawn out encounter when either both players have a really goodd strafe, or alternatively both just suck at aiming. And then, on the other hand, the optimal kill times should be way faster than the typical encounter length so that every once in a while you get that really satisfying super fast perfect kill. I think the prospect of a really clean, fast kill that makes you feel powerful is more interesting than actually getting fast encounters constantly.

My last thought is a small theory I have on why some people feel the Halo 5 gameplay is too fast (and why others like it), even though in terms of time to death and such it seems to be about what you'd expect from a typical Halo game. The fact that the game has so many different abilities means that you're constantly pushing buttons as part of basic tasks like strafing and moving around the map. Even though you're not necessarily accomplishing any more as you would in a prior game, the higher number of actions per minute makes it feel like you are. Some people think it's fun, while others experience it very tasking. This is just a general thought, since when people ask for "slower" gameplay, I believe they tend to think about movement speed and kill times while not necessarily being conscious of the underlying issue.
ronnie42 wrote:
I'd say somewhere between Reach, Halo 3. I get the need for sprint but abilities with thrusters were more annoying in H5 due to cheap escapes. I just hope the weapon balancing and combat feels more like Halo 1-3 since found Halo 5's multiplayer very stressful to play.
I could not agree more. I honestly do not care about sprint being in the game. But thrusters, clamber and spartan abilities ruined Halo 5s multiplayer. I also dont like how in competitive multiplayer we basically were only allowed to use our pistols. Old Halo games had you using a bigger sandbox of weapons. Battle rifles, assault rifles sometimes, shotguns.
Yeh exactly while H5 it feels too obsessed with BR confrontations. I miss Halo being about adapting to different weapons, not about how many BR's are pinning me down.
tsassi wrote:
I have to say that I'm not actually all that picky about the pace of gameplay. I'm fine with anything from frantic Halo CE matches on small maps where you're literally in combat as soon as you spawn to those sluggish BTB matches where you can literally spend ten seconds running to combat if you get an appropriate spawn. To some extent in games I even tend to cherish those moments of silence, but that might just be me. But even not taking it to that extreme, I think it helps somewhat to have differently sized maps to create a bit of variation that can then be tuned per playlist by including/excluding different maps and tweaking their frequencies. However, generally speaking, I have the possibly unpopular opinion that it's actually good for pacing to not be in combat all the time.

When it comes to combat encounters specifically, I have a somewhat similar philosophy that variation is good. The typical encounter should be over moderately fast. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but about what a typical encounter lasts. But the weapons should on one hand be difficult enough that every now and then you get a kind of a drawn out encounter when either both players have a really goodd strafe, or alternatively both just suck at aiming. And then, on the other hand, the optimal kill times should be way faster than the typical encounter length so that every once in a while you get that really satisfying super fast perfect kill. I think the prospect of a really clean, fast kill that makes you feel powerful is more interesting than actually getting fast encounters constantly.

My last thought is a small theory I have on why some people feel the Halo 5 gameplay is too fast (and why others like it), even though in terms of time to death and such it seems to be about what you'd expect from a typical Halo game. The fact that the game has so many different abilities means that you're constantly pushing buttons as part of basic tasks like strafing and moving around the map. Even though you're not necessarily accomplishing any more as you would in a prior game, the higher number of actions per minute makes it feel like you are. Some people think it's fun, while others experience it very tasking. This is just a general thought, since when people ask for "slower" gameplay, I believe they tend to think about movement speed and kill times while not necessarily being conscious of the underlying issue.
This is something a lot of people don't think about. The actions per minute. You have to sprint, clamber, and thruster your way into every part of the map; this makes it feel so stressful. I like having a relatively slower engagement time. For example, when you play avalanche in Halo 3 you can be walking for 12-15 seconds before you encounter a BR fight. I like searching for a fight, and traversing the map in a strategic way. It makes every kill more satisfying. Halo 5 just has so much going on, a lot of people do not like it, including myself. When people say slower gameplay, we are not talking about movement speed, we are talking about not stressing out if someones going to jump up on the ledge and assassinate you, or getting a stronghold and someone ground pounds you.
The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
How about we don't need another Halo 5 ? The game has not graphically aged at all and will still be very playable for the next few years. Halo 3, on the other hand, has quite a bit. A classic driven-game seems totally fair at this point.
No duh, I mean what part of not a critical success did you not understand? Of course we do not need another Halo 5, nor do we need another Halo 4, 3, 2, Reach, or CE. Yeah I get it, people still play Halo 3 because it is still on the PC, People also still play the classic doom, but that doesn't make the new doom any worse. So yes you can improve on classic mechanics, you can also mess them up.
Halo 3 has never been on PC ... at least not officially. It will be after MCC finally makes it to PC this year though.
And yeah Halo 4 and Halo 5 are great examples of messing up classic mechanics. And also, the new Doom was a success with critics?

Halo 3 was the literal peak of the franchise financially, critically, the community was nowhere near as split, the list goes on. We do need another success that can match what Halo 3 did.
I think you rushed your response and broke your own defending argument
MCC, but the point if H3 came out today, it wouldn't be the acclaimed success that it was. We don't need Halo 3.2
I'd put money on it being a better success than Halo 4 and 5 combined. That game was magical. 12 years ago or now makes no difference
The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
How about we don't need another Halo 5 ? The game has not graphically aged at all and will still be very playable for the next few years. Halo 3, on the other hand, has quite a bit. A classic driven-game seems totally fair at this point.
No duh, I mean what part of not a critical success did you not understand? Of course we do not need another Halo 5, nor do we need another Halo 4, 3, 2, Reach, or CE. Yeah I get it, people still play Halo 3 because it is still on the PC, People also still play the classic doom, but that doesn't make the new doom any worse. So yes you can improve on classic mechanics, you can also mess them up.
Halo 3 has never been on PC ... at least not officially. It will be after MCC finally makes it to PC this year though.
And yeah Halo 4 and Halo 5 are great examples of messing up classic mechanics. And also, the new Doom was a success with critics?

Halo 3 was the literal peak of the franchise financially, critically, the community was nowhere near as split, the list goes on. We do need another success that can match what Halo 3 did.
I think you rushed your response and broke your own defending argument
MCC, but the point if H3 came out today, it wouldn't be the acclaimed success that it was. We don't need Halo 3.2
I'd put money on it being a better success than Halo 4 and 5 combined. That game was magical. 12 years ago or now makes no difference
I agree. I dont think it would do as well because of what 343 did to the franchise. But it would no doubt be everyones favorite halo game.
I don't care about the speed as much, I just don't want to be dripping in sweat after every match, that's how Super Fiesta becomes the most popular game mode in the game like it has in Halo 5. I want there to be an element of strategy in a game that punishes you for being a bad tactician instead of rewarding you like H5 does. Also, I want the social aspect to return. Halo 2 anniversary feels really good to me in terms of movement and game pacing by the way.
Mines a Mixture Of Reach & Halo 2, I wasn’t fond of Halo 5’s Gameplay mechanics
Well it doesn't matter, any recommendations will break down into a series of retaliatory arguments.
  • It is not Halo 3 so it is going to suck
  • It does not innovate with modern mechanics so it is going to suck
So do we want a new game or a decade old game. To be honest I don't like many of the new games, now mostly due to the exploitative business and monitization schemes, but I also don't care for the follow the trends (it was CoD now it is Fortenite) with attachments, ADS, and Spartan abilities. However I don't also see H3 as the greatest video game of all time, ever, the infantry vehicle balance seems to tilt too close to infantry with the abundance of anti-vehicle weapons, and the 4 different grenades (3 because incendiary grenades were never allowed due to the funky netcode) made inventory management a little more cumbersome than what Halo originally had.

But that is the thing, if you make suggest something that is not in H3 then YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO, yet if you suggest something that was not a part of H5 then YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO also, likewise if you suggest something from another Halo game that could be tweaked give it Hce H3 Reach, H5 it is also a given that you will recieve a response that equates to YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO.The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
Well halo 5 was really not a financial success first of all. Second of all nobody wants halo 3 with a new coat of paint, they just want a game that plays like halo should. A lot of people call back to halo 3 because it was the last game that felt like halo. I think reach was a good game and felt like halo but I can see the issues with it. But the same can't be said about 4 and 5. neither played or looked like halo.

When 343 took over they altered the game to appeal to other markets thunking they'd keep the current player base but also attract players from other audiences. BUT that just didn't work. The majority of the fanbase left after 4 and any fans they did attract didn't care that much about halo. With 5 they went farther down the rabbit hole and alienated more fans. 343 needs to go back to classic-esque gameplay and artsyle (Which they have done) in order to revive halo. The numbers don't lie
Mines a Mixture Of Reach & Halo 2, I wasn’t fond of Halo 5’s Gameplay mechanics
I like some of halo 5 mechanics clamber, and switching seat but I mainly prefer the classic way even the good old armor abilities long there no armor lock
The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
How about we don't need another Halo 5 ? The game has not graphically aged at all and will still be very playable for the next few years. Halo 3, on the other hand, has quite a bit. A classic driven-game seems totally fair at this point.
No duh, I mean what part of not a critical success did you not understand? Of course we do not need another Halo 5, nor do we need another Halo 4, 3, 2, Reach, or CE. Yeah I get it, people still play Halo 3 because it is still on the PC, People also still play the classic doom, but that doesn't make the new doom any worse. So yes you can improve on classic mechanics, you can also mess them up.
Halo 3 has never been on PC ... at least not officially. It will be after MCC finally makes it to PC this year though.
And yeah Halo 4 and Halo 5 are great examples of messing up classic mechanics. And also, the new Doom was a success with critics?

Halo 3 was the literal peak of the franchise financially, critically, the community was nowhere near as split, the list goes on. We do need another success that can match what Halo 3 did.
I think you rushed your response and broke your own defending argument
MCC, but the point if H3 came out today, it wouldn't be the acclaimed success that it was. We don't need Halo 3.2
If it was released today with a faster BSM and an improved FoV I wouldn't bet against it. On topic, I want quicker movement and faster TTK's, with a few drawn out encounters based on weapon choice, tassi hit the nail on the head imo.
The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
How about we don't need another Halo 5 ? The game has not graphically aged at all and will still be very playable for the next few years. Halo 3, on the other hand, has quite a bit. A classic driven-game seems totally fair at this point.
No duh, I mean what part of not a critical success did you not understand? Of course we do not need another Halo 5, nor do we need another Halo 4, 3, 2, Reach, or CE. Yeah I get it, people still play Halo 3 because it is still on the PC, People also still play the classic doom, but that doesn't make the new doom any worse. So yes you can improve on classic mechanics, you can also mess them up.
Halo 3 has never been on PC ... at least not officially. It will be after MCC finally makes it to PC this year though.
And yeah Halo 4 and Halo 5 are great examples of messing up classic mechanics. And also, the new Doom was a success with critics?

Halo 3 was the literal peak of the franchise financially, critically, the community was nowhere near as split, the list goes on. We do need another success that can match what Halo 3 did.
I think you rushed your response and broke your own defending argument
MCC, but the point if H3 came out today, it wouldn't be the acclaimed success that it was. We don't need Halo 3.2
I'd put money on it being a better success than Halo 4 and 5 combined. That game was magical. 12 years ago or now makes no difference
Well H4 and H5 were terrible in comparison. Pretty much this YouTube Tier list is pretty close to how I would rate the Halo games.
Well it doesn't matter, any recommendations will break down into a series of retaliatory arguments.
  • It is not Halo 3 so it is going to suck
  • It does not innovate with modern mechanics so it is going to suck
So do we want a new game or a decade old game. To be honest I don't like many of the new games, now mostly due to the exploitative business and monitization schemes, but I also don't care for the follow the trends (it was CoD now it is Fortenite) with attachments, ADS, and Spartan abilities. However I don't also see H3 as the greatest video game of all time, ever, the infantry vehicle balance seems to tilt too close to infantry with the abundance of anti-vehicle weapons, and the 4 different grenades (3 because incendiary grenades were never allowed due to the funky netcode) made inventory management a little more cumbersome than what Halo originally had.

But that is the thing, if you make suggest something that is not in H3 then YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO, yet if you suggest something that was not a part of H5 then YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO also, likewise if you suggest something from another Halo game that could be tweaked give it Hce H3 Reach, H5 it is also a given that you will recieve a response that equates to YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO.The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
Well halo 5 was really not a financial success first of all. Second of all nobody wants halo 3 with a new coat of paint, they just want a game that plays like halo should. A lot of people call back to halo 3 because it was the last game that felt like halo. I think reach was a good game and felt like halo but I can see the issues with it. But the same can't be said about 4 and 5. neither played or looked like halo.

When 343 took over they altered the game to appeal to other markets thunking they'd keep the current player base but also attract players from other audiences. BUT that just didn't work. The majority of the fanbase left after 4 and any fans they did attract didn't care that much about halo. With 5 they went farther down the rabbit hole and alienated more fans. 343 needs to go back to classic-esque gameplay and artsyle (Which they have done) in order to revive halo. The numbers don't lie
As much as I wish I could say Halo 5 made money it made a lot of money (just like every lootbox riddled game out there hunting all the whales to extinction). 343 needs to figure out a way to put Halo back as the leader of the fps trends but when they were placed in charge of their own game it was a copy of trends in the more popular games but as we all know that didn't tap into that fleeting market (and drove away much of their own). The MCC is 343's largest success and the word success is defines loosley. But I think it has the model of what the next halo game could be, more of a platform for the next halo game and spin-off games as well as Halo 6.
Infinite = Halo 3 with Thrusters and I’m happy.
ShotAces wrote:
Infinite = Halo 3 with Thrusters and I’m happy.
I dont mind that. If thats the solution to removing spartan abilities, and clambering then im perfectly fine with that.
I like H5's movement especially for bigger maps, but for smaller maps H2's felt perfect.
The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
How about we don't need another Halo 5 ? The game has not graphically aged at all and will still be very playable for the next few years. Halo 3, on the other hand, has quite a bit. A classic driven-game seems totally fair at this point.
No duh, I mean what part of not a critical success did you not understand? Of course we do not need another Halo 5, nor do we need another Halo 4, 3, 2, Reach, or CE. Yeah I get it, people still play Halo 3 because it is still on the PC, People also still play the classic doom, but that doesn't make the new doom any worse. So yes you can improve on classic mechanics, you can also mess them up.
Halo 3 has never been on PC ... at least not officially. It will be after MCC finally makes it to PC this year though.
And yeah Halo 4 and Halo 5 are great examples of messing up classic mechanics. And also, the new Doom was a success with critics?

Halo 3 was the literal peak of the franchise financially, critically, the community was nowhere near as split, the list goes on. We do need another success that can match what Halo 3 did.
I think you rushed your response and broke your own defending argument
MCC, but the point if H3 came out today, it wouldn't be the acclaimed success that it was. We don't need Halo 3.2
I'd put money on it being a better success than Halo 4 and 5 combined. That game was magical. 12 years ago or now makes no difference
Well H4 and H5 were terrible in comparison. Pretty much this YouTube Tier list is pretty close to how I would rate the Halo games.
Well it doesn't matter, any recommendations will break down into a series of retaliatory arguments.
  • It is not Halo 3 so it is going to suck
  • It does not innovate with modern mechanics so it is going to suck
So do we want a new game or a decade old game. To be honest I don't like many of the new games, now mostly due to the exploitative business and monitization schemes, but I also don't care for the follow the trends (it was CoD now it is Fortenite) with attachments, ADS, and Spartan abilities. However I don't also see H3 as the greatest video game of all time, ever, the infantry vehicle balance seems to tilt too close to infantry with the abundance of anti-vehicle weapons, and the 4 different grenades (3 because incendiary grenades were never allowed due to the funky netcode) made inventory management a little more cumbersome than what Halo originally had.

But that is the thing, if you make suggest something that is not in H3 then YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO, yet if you suggest something that was not a part of H5 then YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO also, likewise if you suggest something from another Halo game that could be tweaked give it Hce H3 Reach, H5 it is also a given that you will recieve a response that equates to YOU'RE A STUPID SCHIZNO.The H3 fanbois need to shut up, they have the MCC they can play H3 all they want, we do not need another H3. The H5 fanbois, it was not a critical success. Sure it was a financial success but that could be contributed to other things that did not necessarily increased the overall enjoyment of the game. We don't know what we want but we got a good idea of what we won't like.
Well halo 5 was really not a financial success first of all. Second of all nobody wants halo 3 with a new coat of paint, they just want a game that plays like halo should. A lot of people call back to halo 3 because it was the last game that felt like halo. I think reach was a good game and felt like halo but I can see the issues with it. But the same can't be said about 4 and 5. neither played or looked like halo.

When 343 took over they altered the game to appeal to other markets thunking they'd keep the current player base but also attract players from other audiences. BUT that just didn't work. The majority of the fanbase left after 4 and any fans they did attract didn't care that much about halo. With 5 they went farther down the rabbit hole and alienated more fans. 343 needs to go back to classic-esque gameplay and artsyle (Which they have done) in order to revive halo. The numbers don't lie
As much as I wish I could say Halo 5 made money it made a lot of money (just like every lootbox riddled game out there hunting all the whales to extinction). 343 needs to figure out a way to put Halo back as the leader of the fps trends but when they were placed in charge of their own game it was a copy of trends in the more popular games but as we all know that didn't tap into that fleeting market (and drove away much of their own). The MCC is 343's largest success and the word success is defines loosley. But I think it has the model of what the next halo game could be, more of a platform for the next halo game and spin-off games as well as Halo 6.
Someone else did this list along time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHPAh7T19i4
I would like the pace to be as it was in Halo 2/3,

I just don't like sprint, clamber, thrusters packs in Halo they just don't feel right, feel a little out of place,

I mean I have even been back recently played Halo 3 for a bit and then gone to Reach and H5 and I loved Reach's multiplayer but I still find that Halo 3 has my favourite movement... it just feels right.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2