GDC: Halo 4 Post Mortem starts right now.
- Thread starter dragonelite
- Start date
To Halo 4's credit, the penultimate level is a pretty solid storytelling achievement. It's well-written and well-paced, and the gameplay flows well enough for it to be enjoyable.
Though if the particular thing you referenced actually had much of an impact on me, it was in terms of its symbolic punctuation on the PC/players own situation. Feelings felt toward that character at that moment are, in and of themselves, sort of irrelevant. It's the interaction of things that makes it good.
It's absolutely true that previous games were sparse on character use, and it's also true that most of the time Halo 3's writing is quite bad (though there are a few moments where it suddenly 180's into being insanely appropriate and good, but whatever). The thing is, Bungie's games only rarely relied on character drive. Heck, Halo 1 is basically Battleship Potemkin in terms of the sorts of things it pulls narrative drive from. In Halo 3's case, it could absolutely have benefitted from better-written (and voice acted) villains, but there's a lot it's doing that is completely unaffected by these problems. And when all is said and done I think I actually do like Halo 3's storytelling quite a lot more than 4's. Halo 4's storytelling feels too busy for its own good, and also makes many missteps (including one or two that I would argue easily beat "to war" in terms of killing the moment) in addition to just plain not doing much with the things it brings to the table.
In terms of gameplay, I thought the broadsword section was easily one of the most poorly-executed sections in any Halo game.
The visual design made the gameplay feel very clunky. It's extremely busy, consisting of a soup of orange highlights, and the camera didn't feel well-suited for some of the obstacle designs.
It's also insanely buggy, with enough visual/collision matching problems to make Halo Anniversary blush. On my first playthrough, there was a spot where I got a checkpoint an instant before running into an invisible wall, and I had to wait for it to kill me five times or so before being reverted to the previous checkpoint. Oh yeah, this happened again when I got back to that spot. It was only on my third time to the spot that the game finally decided to let me through, though I didn't do anything differently that I was aware of.
The music was great, and the exposition was handled reasonably well, but the stuff I was doing was just plain nowhere near as good as it could have been.
I absolutely agree that Halo isn't just about wide-open stuff, but it's also absolutely not true that Bungie's 360 games were just about wide-open stuff. Heck, ODST even has a tank section where you're mostly constrained down a very small corridor. Reach arguably does suffer from being a bunch of roundish arenas connected by hallways, and that's probably a source of the complaints that it's "too firefighty," but it still has a huge amount of variety in scale and some corridor fighting.
In any case, I can't agree at all with the idea that the difference is just 343i being smarter with their design. If that's the case, why is the Halo 4 encounter that references The Ark's fight to the Cartographer building just a big wide ramp with a cluster of wraiths parked at one end? Halo 4 actually does have some big areas with reasonable enemy counts, and they're almost always lacking in interesting design and direction. The Banshee sections are especially bad, actually managing to feel strongly restrictive, and consisting entirely of "shoot at whatever is shooting you" followed by "spin in tight circles with the occasional stop to blast one of the infantry that's standing around that you can't see very well because there's not enough contrast".
Halo 4 isn't? I don't know if you've logged on recently, but have you seen the number of people playing the game?
http://halocharts.com/2012/chart/dailypeakpopulation/all
Mister Negative
Member
if you don't think the franchise is dying you need to take a look at the online population
God the funniest thing about this is that the initial massive drop in population happens exactly when you would expect it to. The release of BLOPS2.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
the primary reason why the forerunner were annoying to fight was because they're fundementally the same enemy kit as the covenant. The elites have a dive/roll similar to the tp movement, they have similar shields, and engineers are pretty much the same as the floaty forerunner, with skirmishers being the equivelent of the dogs.
Say what you will about the flood, but the primary reason why the flood was included was because it was a fundementally different approach to combat. Bungie understood that to keep the 5 minutes of fun and sandbox concept in check you need to constantly change the battle field with weapons, vehicles and enemies. Even in odst they add invisible brutes, snipers and engineers to create vareity. After the flood it was shifted again via covie flood(3way) battles, this forced the player to make choices over which weapons to take into combat. No longer could you just pistol everything to death (the pistol is garbage against the flood), your limited weapon count mattered. In halo 4 there's never a need to pick up any weapon other then scope weapons because the combat mechanics never change to require it(which seems like the only "additions" they made to the sandbox were more scoped weapons). 343 completely lost sight of the design principles which halo was built on in order to produce content which could be sold in MP, and to play catch-up to the carrot on a stick mechanics of other popular shooters.
This extends into multiplayer, no longer is the game one of equality, but one of who has the right load-out and weapon kit. You get punished if you're good with a scoped weapon because you can't just pick up ammo that has been placed on the map, you now have to fuck around with shitty weapon drops, and perks. They actively punish players who are good and limit how those players should play, how this is good game design is well beyond me.
single player wise, halo 4 is the most boring, linear, and directed of the bunch. It's by far the least memorable for me, everything beyond the graphics (to a degree) was a step in the wrong direction. The game has a lot more content, and barely any of that is something which i want to experience. I congradulate 343 on ruining my favorite franchise.
edit: story wise halo 4 was a joke, they ruined cortana's personality so they could fetishize her as the weak bimbo who needs help constantly, when she clearly should've become the primary villian. The next 3 games would've been so much more interesting if cortana had become corrupted.
Say what you will about the flood, but the primary reason why the flood was included was because it was a fundementally different approach to combat. Bungie understood that to keep the 5 minutes of fun and sandbox concept in check you need to constantly change the battle field with weapons, vehicles and enemies. Even in odst they add invisible brutes, snipers and engineers to create vareity. After the flood it was shifted again via covie flood(3way) battles, this forced the player to make choices over which weapons to take into combat. No longer could you just pistol everything to death (the pistol is garbage against the flood), your limited weapon count mattered. In halo 4 there's never a need to pick up any weapon other then scope weapons because the combat mechanics never change to require it(which seems like the only "additions" they made to the sandbox were more scoped weapons). 343 completely lost sight of the design principles which halo was built on in order to produce content which could be sold in MP, and to play catch-up to the carrot on a stick mechanics of other popular shooters.
This extends into multiplayer, no longer is the game one of equality, but one of who has the right load-out and weapon kit. You get punished if you're good with a scoped weapon because you can't just pick up ammo that has been placed on the map, you now have to fuck around with shitty weapon drops, and perks. They actively punish players who are good and limit how those players should play, how this is good game design is well beyond me.
single player wise, halo 4 is the most boring, linear, and directed of the bunch. It's by far the least memorable for me, everything beyond the graphics (to a degree) was a step in the wrong direction. The game has a lot more content, and barely any of that is something which i want to experience. I congradulate 343 on ruining my favorite franchise.
edit: story wise halo 4 was a joke, they ruined cortana's personality so they could fetishize her as the weak bimbo who needs help constantly, when she clearly should've become the primary villian. The next 3 games would've been so much more interesting if cortana had become corrupted.
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
I'm sure Halo 4 coming at the tail end of an almost decade long generation that already featured 3 other entries and the continued popularity COD and the massive rise of BF3 can't be attributed to any of the decline... it's due totally to all those millions of gamers that enjoy playing with a timer so they can get to an overshield first that 343 has left out in the cold.
Yeah, absolutely nothing to do with all of the other dumb shit they added. The fact that it plays nothing like Halo games of yore has LITERALLY ZERO impact on old fans, I'm sure.
Give me a break, dude.
King Beyond the wall
Member
As a long term halo fan who has read and played the shit out of every halo product, besides halo 4 (which I gave up on), I completely and 100% agree.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
RIP in peace Halo
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Del Rio being an asshole doesn't make the storytelling and performances not good. He was an ass, sure, but his character is apart of one of the most intense and well done story scenes in Halo's history. The Master Chief denying that order the way he did and Del Rio getting so pissed by it, even going so far as to suggest an arrest of the Master Chief, was brilliantly handled.
I cited that scientist interaction because it's a sign of just how much this game "gets it" that even such an encounter could be handled so effectively and memorably. Palmer is a grunt, but then are we really and truly surprised to see your typical grunt in a Halo game? I noticed a slight typo in your post. Didact bad? I think you mean badass?
But, seriously, I enjoyed the Didact as an enemy more than any other enemy or pseudo rival Halo has ever produced for the Master Chief. The Didact was a very great villain. In fact, he's the best that a Halo campaign has ever produced, which probably isn't saying much, but I don't think Halo 4 is exactly at fault for giving the franchise something it needed. I think the Didact was largely meant to display, to some extent, that even humanities greatest hero can be powerless before an even greater force. The Master Chief isn't commonly man handled like that by anyone or anything if he's not somehow already starting out with a tactical disadvantage. With the Didact they were essentially saying that the Chief's tactical disadvantage was something that which he had no control over, he was merely human. However, the strong undertone of the game that I felt was delivered really well through a number of ways, and the Didact played a key role in this, was that humanity is something much more than what we've come to know them to be, and the Didact for all his power feared this. There is something about humanity that, for whatever reason, the flood or whatever is truly responsible for the flood, favors, and they want humanity to grow and prosper in preparation for something. The Didact remembers his conversation with the Primordial and he knows that thing was hinting strongly at something. I fully expect we're going to see Precursors in future Halo games. In a funny way, the Librarian's intents seem ironically aligned with the floods or maybe the Precursor's own. She, too, wants humanity to grow and prosper. It's what a more dangerous enemy lurking likely wants, but she probably understands that there is no hope for anybody or anything unless humanity grows powerful enough. I felt the other Spartans were treated almost exactly as what I expected them to be, grunts with Mjolnir armor following orders. It was a great contrast for the larger than life vibe surrounding the Master Chief. Hell, I'm onboard with 343's vision for the future of Halo's campaign. They had an impossible task to do in taking over one of the biggest franchises out there, and I think they outdid themselves. It's my opinion that they made the best Halo campaign experience ever put together, and that they managed to do for the franchise what I think Bungie was largely unable to do since the franchise hit the 360. This isn't about 343's graphical talent or anything of the such, but they made a Halo campaign experience that, as incredible as Bungie's games were, and I take nothing away from them, Bungie simply didn't match with any of their 360 efforts. I know people will disagree, but this is my own opinion. Halo Reach is the best overall game that Bungie has made this gen. It dances circles around Halo 3, and it did so without all the same hype and plot related advantages that Halo 3 practically fell on top of thanks in large part to Bungie's previously excellent efforts setting the stage just right. What should have been one of the greatest gaming experiences this generation mostly ended up as forgettable. 343 did what they had to do. Why should they be afraid to make changes or take creative risks with a franchise that they now bare the ultimate responsibility for? I respect Bungie and thoroughly enjoyed their games, and am looking forward to Destiny, but people are placing them on a pedestal as if 343 are flawed or ineffective in ways that Bungie never was. All you would have to do is take a good hard look at Halo 3's campaign to know that this is far from true. Bungie made mistakes, too. Serious mistakes.
In conclusion, I respect everybody's opinion on this, and obviously there's a range of opinions, some who like some things, some who hate specific things, and some that just hate everything about Halo 4. My main intent while giving my opinion of Halo 4 is that 343's work isn't entirely hated. They've won some people over. As it stands now, if not for a guarantee of a followup to their previous effort, I may not have any reason at all to want the new xbox, because three's a lot of things that, while I enjoy, I'm just fine being without. Barring an announced sequel to Blue Dragon, new Mistwalker jrpgs or new game announcements that I just must have, I have no significant reason to want the next Xbox besides more Halo. So I think 343 did a good job.
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
Yes the completely similar gameplay between Halo 1 and Reach, that doesn't vary wildly at all and isn't completely subjective and the fanbase doesn't actively split hairs over on which incarnation is the defacto best.
I'd argue that they should add a true dedicated "Halo Classic" mode, but I doubt they could ever find a happy balance between whatever version you liked the best and whatever version I liked best.
Halo 4 has it's problems, but I can't say those problems are any worse than Reach... but that's my own opinion.
You're right, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it, as we all are, just know that you are in the extreme minority with your opinion, especially amongst longtime fans of the series.
Had you posted this in the Halo community OT, it would have made for better discussion.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
Did you ever question why there was such a massive change between reach and odst?
I'll give you a hint. ODST is what bungie wanted to do, reach is what microsoft wanted bungie to do.
Odst - streamlined, campaign focused.
reach - bloated, multiplayer focused.
Reach looked to introduce those cod aspects, the same ones which ultimately ruined the multiplayer game. I'm guessing that both reach and odst were a testing ground for features in destiny, and bungie has learned a lot from both, but ultimately, i dont think bungie wanted to see the same perk systems, and loadout systems we see in halo 4. Those elements just aren't appropriate for the halo sandbox.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Somehow I doubt I'm in the minority. Perhaps the minority involved in this discussion maybe.
Even so, I'm not a Halo MP gamer, and never have liked Halo's MP, so perhaps that's why the MP stuff doesn't bother me. And, I guess, secondly, I'm a very new Halo fan. I didn't actually properly play and beat the first two Halos until I already had a 360 for about a year. I wasn't an original Xbox owner, so Halo really meant nothing to me. What got me to buy an Xbox 360 was those two Mistwalker jrpgs, which I loved.What got me into Halo and got me to give the game a chance was reading the books. So I play Halo games for the story and campaign, and don't bother much with anything else outside of that. So by the very nature of how Halo 4's campaign was designed and executed, I feel like that was the Halo game I've been waiting for, and I'm eager to see where they take the followup, because there's lots of seeds planted for the next installment.
Somehow I doubt I'm in the minority. Perhaps the minority involved in this discussion maybe.
What got me into Halo and got me to give the game a chance was reading the books. So I play Halo games for the story and campaign, and don't bother much with anything else outside of that. So by the very nature of how Halo 4's campaign was designed and executed, I feel like that was the Halo game I've been waiting for, and I'm eager to see where they take the followup, because there's lots of seeds planted for the next installment.
Yeah but the story was badly written and really bad executed. Not using potential that was there and inventing new crap and leaving important information out of the game and was only accessible through books and terminals (that are only on waypoint)
The campaign itself looks pretty but has its problems, smaller levels, smaller fights and really bad AI for the enemies even on higher difficulty settings, they thought difficult means giving an enemy an oneshot weapon or power weapon and they are done.
Campaign features like scoring or campaign theater aren't even in the game.
Like already said you are entitled to your opinion but being a decade long Halo fan of fiction and games, Halo 4 seemed for me like they wanted too much and just failed really bad.
The Librarian
Banned
Nothing in Halo: Reach comes close to The Ark or The Covenant. Same goes for Halo 4.
Lol. You literally just made that up.
ODST was a fun game, but c'mon with the hyperbole and fictional conspiracy tales about Bungie's desires vs. MS.
I've again been a Halo fan since the big box at launch and one of biggest watershed moments in Halo history for me personally was day one of the Reach beta.
It's an unbelievable experience playing and seeing the reaction of how we all felt to have those loadout 'powers' for the first time.
Fast forward and Halo fans outside the internet that I play with literally love what Reach began and won't go backwards other than a few games for nostalgia.
My fave part of discussions like this and when you log off and play with actual core Halo fans they love what H4 has become and how the 'incentive' to progress and open the game up past 50 is finally beyond just a number and title.
Let the haters hate and never play again as they promise on Gaf. Lol.
Halo fans will still be playing and enjoying H4 for years and H5 will be welcomed with open arms when it arrives, just like every game prior.
SpartanN92
Banned
Halo 4 at least nailed chief and Cortana. They turned John into a person and not just a machine (Halo 3 had a few fleeting moments like that.)
H4 certainly has its flaws but it didn't come without its successes either.
I have high hopes for the future. Hopefully 343i has learned from their mistakes, and are moving on to creating an awesome Halo 5. The team has the talent, they have an excellent ip in which to show off what they can do. They simply need to extend those talents into creating Halo 5 not Halo with a lot of CoD mixed in.
H4 certainly has its flaws but it didn't come without its successes either.
I have high hopes for the future. Hopefully 343i has learned from their mistakes, and are moving on to creating an awesome Halo 5. The team has the talent, they have an excellent ip in which to show off what they can do. They simply need to extend those talents into creating Halo 5 not Halo with a lot of CoD mixed in.
yes you are right you know the only "actual halo core fans", seriously shut the eff up lol
I get that people for some reason welcome the change and love the new games but this makes me angry.
My friends who also were "actual core Halo fans" (what a dumb term and then use the word actual.. can't beleive it) and skipped weeks of school for Halo 2 and everything nowadays laugh if somebody asks them to play halo, some left directly after the Reach beta, some after Reach launch and the last ones I knew now with Halo 4.
Those were people who got Halo 2 at midnight, celebrated Halo CE lans like hell and you want to tell me these are not "actual core Halo fans" because they don't appreciate the dumbing down the franchise has lived through.
Damn. And of course Halo 5 will sell well, it is the brand name which will make the money.
And also there are quite a bit people that really never came back to the games
That core Halo base!
Seriously though what right do you have to say we are not part of the core base? I have bought every Halo game, book and even have quite a few art books. Hell I even bought the fucking Halo 3 Zune. I LOVED Halo and I hate what it has become oh but what do I know, Im not a core fan at all.
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
ODST was also not supposed to be a full game either, it wasn't a "tentpole" Halo release and that reflects in the narrative and the single-player design... I don't attribute that specfically to any more or less interference from MS.
No matter how we slice it, both ODST were contractual obligation games and suffered to a various degree because of that. I'm not going to attribute all the good to Bungie and the bad to MS, both contributed to the final product.
I'd argue the brutes in Halo 3 are just as bad as the enemies in Halo 4, and every Halo's multiplayer has and muddled multiplayer sandboxes filled with both hits and misses.
Personally, no Halo sequel has really capitalized on the best elements and promise of Halo 1, a wider-open sandbox battlefield in multiplayer that the OXM Halo 2 article painted.
Instead of incorporating COD-elements, I'd much rather see Battlefield-like battles, the Halo universe has the settings/vehicles/weapons to really have an expansive multiplayer experience instead of the standard deathmatch meat grinder.
ElRenoRaven
Member
People can believe all they want that the core is still there but they're not. Microsoft has alienated that base. I have no doubt in my mind that if Halo 5 were to release on the 360 it would sell worse then Halo 4 and possibly Halo 3 and Reach. I have absolutely zero doubt about that.
I'm fairly certain that Reach is what Bungie wanted to do in a technical sense. They pulled off arguably the best netcode on any console game. They pulled off some of the better graphics, although it did affect the frame rate at some points. Most of all, it had one of the largest feature sets on consoles. The design wasn't anything to phone home about though. I think ODST is what Bungie was aiming for in a design perspective. The design concept of Destiny sounds a lot like ODST on roids.
Now we're throwing around accusations that people aren't "true" fans again, huh? If we're measuring purely by money spent on the series there's a good chance I'm a "truer" fan than most of the people making such claims.
All 40,000 of them?
Nope. Never came close to claiming I know every one of the millions of core Halo millions fans. And nope I won't 'shut the eff up' because my opinion is different that yours.
But you definately are the one who made up the fictional story about Bungie and MS. lol
So what is your opinion on the fact that out of the "millions" of fans there are only 40k playing per day? Curious to hear your thoughts on that.
40k is the peak concurrent count, not a total unique user count. I get your point, but the number you're looking for is likely much higher than 40k.
Having said that, a good point of comparison would be that when the Reach concurrent online user count was stuck just before Halo 4 launched, it was at about 68k (I think this may have included non-matchmaking users, but I suspect that's a relatively small number two years into the game's life). That's just a few months' separation between the two numbers.
So in your opinion if 343i made Halo 4 exactly like you and only you like it, do you think there would be more?
Then show me the daily stats of every console shooter not named Call of Duty or Halo that's topping that 40K right now.
Do they have a daily user count at all?
Thats the thing, I am not saying only my ideas or what I want should be what Halo 4 is. I want Halo 4 to be different yes but not only what I want it to be.
There's no way to get a UU count, no. I think there might have been one on the bnet Reach matchmaking page at one point, there certainly was for Halo 3. The closest thing we get now is Major Nelson's rankings, which are based on unique users.
Almost a month ago.
When was the last ranking thing Major Nelson did?
Vincent Alexander
Member
Agreed. I was tired of getting my hopes up with each new CG trailer, for previous entries, that I would finally be getting some real character moments in Halo. And with each game, while I enjoyed them, I was constantly let down. Gameplay fun? Sure. Multiplayer a good time? Yep. But if you handed me a notepad and had me scribble down the plot sequences in Halo 2, 3, ODST or Reach, I would hardly fill a page---simply because good character moments burn into my memory the plot surrounding them.
HiredN00bs
Banned
Because Call of Duty is dead. Such a fallacious assertion.
I'm very clearly a Bungie fanboy, and I'll state it outright, but I have consumed every piece of the expanded universe, and I have invested more time and money and hope into Halo 4 than most people. The story is shit. The game is shit. It's just a mess. It's better than average in video games, but it is, without a doubt, the worst Halo game (yes, I'm counting Halo Wars) ever made and doesn't deserve to be counted alongside Bungie's games.Del Rio being an asshole doesn't make the storytelling and performances not good. He was an ass, sure, but his character is apart of one of the most intense and well done story scenes in Halo's history. The Master Chief denying that order the way he did and Del Rio getting so pissed by it, even going so far as to suggest an arrest of the Master Chief, was brilliantly handled.
I cited that scientist interaction because it's a sign of just how much this game "gets it" that even such an encounter could be handled so effectively and memorably. Palmer is a grunt, but then are we really and truly surprised to see your typical grunt in a Halo game? I noticed a slight typo in your post. Didact bad? I think you mean badass?
Hell, I'm onboard with 343's vision for the future of Halo's campaign. They had an impossible task to do in taking over one of the biggest franchises out there, and I think they outdid themselves. It's my opinion that they made the best Halo campaign experience ever put together, and that they managed to do for the franchise what I think Bungie was largely unable to do since the franchise hit the 360. This isn't about 343's graphical talent or anything of the such, but they made a Halo campaign experience that, as incredible as Bungie's games were, and I take nothing away from them, Bungie simply didn't match with any of their 360 efforts. I know people will disagree, but this is my own opinion. Halo Reach is the best overall game that Bungie has made this gen. It dances circles around Halo 3, and it did so without all the same hype and plot related advantages that Halo 3 practically fell on top of thanks in large part to Bungie's previously excellent efforts setting the stage just right. What should have been one of the greatest gaming experiences this generation mostly ended up as forgettable. 343 did what they had to do. Why should they be afraid to make changes or take creative risks with a franchise that they now bare the ultimate responsibility for? I respect Bungie and thoroughly enjoyed their games, and am looking forward to Destiny, but people are placing them on a pedestal as if 343 are flawed or ineffective in ways that Bungie never was. All you would have to do is take a good hard look at Halo 3's campaign to know that this is far from true. Bungie made mistakes, too. Serious mistakes.
In conclusion, I respect everybody's opinion on this, and obviously there's a range of opinions, some who like some things, some who hate specific things, and some that just hate everything about Halo 4. My main intent while giving my opinion of Halo 4 is that 343's work isn't entirely hated. They've won some people over. As it stands now, if not for a guarantee of a followup to their previous effort, I may not have any reason at all to want the new xbox, because three's a lot of things that, while I enjoy, I'm just fine being without. Barring an announced sequel to Blue Dragon, new Mistwalker jrpgs or new game announcements that I just must have, I have no significant reason to want the next Xbox besides more Halo. So I think 343 did a good job.
Halo 3 was a fucking amazing game that did nearly everything right and in some ways overreached with its grand design. I would be curious to know what faults you find with it, but they would have to amount to a tenth of the ones in Halo 4, and that's being generous to Halo 4.
NUTSHELL
THANK YOU
Synth_floyd
Banned
I thought they ruined Cortana in Halo 4. They turned her into a sexualized damsel in distress instead of what was an equal partner.
Not sure what this is based on but according to this graph: http://halocharts.com/2012/chart/dailypeakpopulation/all the H4 multiplayer population is at an all time low. I really hope that 343 takes this into consideration and takes out all the generic CoD gameplay elements that have made it such a bland and unenjoyable multiplayer experience.
Not sure what this is based on but according to this graph: http://halocharts.com/2012/chart/dailypeakpopulation/all the H4 multiplayer population is at an all time low. I really hope that 343 takes this into consideration and takes out all the generic CoD gameplay elements that have made it such a bland and unenjoyable multiplayer experience.
CoD series is the perfect example of an illusion of change. Multiplayer in COD4 to BLOPS2 has been changed around the edges where it doesn't really matter, but at the core they're nearly identical. Unlike the big shift with multi that happened in Halo Reach, and went even further down the rabbit hole in 4.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Halo 3's greatest sin was it's failure in plot-tension. There was some end-of-the-world shit going on, yet Bungie somehow did a terrible job of selling me on it. At no point did I feel like there was a massive war going on. And at no point did I feel like if I failed as Master Chief, the world was doomed. Perfect example of this tension done right? Mass Effect 1. Mass Effect had an on-the-edge-of-your-seat ending. It gave the feeling "If I fail, the world is fucked." What's even more impressive is they built up to this amazing climax in just one game. Halo 3 had 2 previous entries that paved the way. The door was there and all Halo 3 had to do was walk through.
Now this I can agree with. I didn't take it as bad as others though. I think her breaking down helped exhibit just how human she was. She feared death. Now if they could've accomplished this while keeping her a bit more rugged and tough like we're used to....that would've been gold.
Finished watching it, finally. It was both disappointing and illuminating, though I think most of the illumination for me was not what was intended. Since giving away Halo 4, I've kept up on 343's tending to the game and been looking for some signals as to where they might take things down the road. I disliked the game, but I won't rule out coming back to the series so long as I see signs that 343 recognized some of the mistakes with Halo 4.
The talk was enough to tell me that they, as least so far, have not. Granted the scope was pretty narrow, being mostly about the story. But in the Q&A as well as some of the side comments, Josh seemed to feel pretty strongly that things like the perk/unlocking system were something fans wanted. When in reality, the lack of those things were one of the defining aspects of Halo. The game was successful in part because it did not feature that stuff, not despite not featuring them. It's antithetical to what Halo is about. They still don't get that.
The entire discussion about the need to make the combat more accessible was dismaying. Halo has long been known for attracting a very diverse array of players. Any game that sells the millions it did needs to do that. As Juices once said over in HaloGAF threads, 343 is turning off Halo fans by chasing an audience they will never catch.
A few random observations:
Josh talked about "Creativity" as one of the goals for the game. To paraphrase, it was about empowering users to tell stories and share experiences. Which made the loss of theater mode in Campaign and Spartan Ops even more odd, since that was a big part of how Bungie facilitated that.
One of the pillars of the game was, "Total Combat Freedom". Which made me wonder how so many linear vehicle gauntlet set pieces made it into campaign.
So, the narrative was an onion. And also, a narrative pyramid. At the start of the talk, Josh talked about the challenge of taking on so many narrative threads, such as the books and comics and Forward Unto Dawn web series. And then spent some time talking about how messy it was to tie all that together. What wasn't mentioned was, maybe spinning all that complexity out and then tethering the game to it wasn't a good idea in the first place. He mentioned how they needed to make sure the stories were self contained, near the end, though without elaboration. My hope is they really treat the games as standalone entities, tied most closely to one another.
On the development front, they went down the path of new, experimental sci-fi weapons, and then pulled back and had the Promethean weapons mirror the standard classes (rifle, pistol, rockets, sniper, automatic bullet hose, shotgun). I thought that was a significant development failure and was interested to hear the conclusions drawn, when Josh called that success. I was surprised to see that kind of fall back called successful; I thought it showed a lack of creativity which only lead to redundant weaponry and a cluttered combat sandbox. But it did allow for more unlocks. (This was my view after playing the campaign, not just after watching the video.)
"First person interactions with the world." Is that what those 850 button presses were?
Also: QTE's are by definition not immersive. They are immersion breaking when used so jarringly and out of step with our accustomed interactions with the game.
The folks at 343 are passionate people who clearly care about Halo. But I think they've taken it down the wrong path, and I didn't see any signs they recognized that. Bummer.
The talk was enough to tell me that they, as least so far, have not. Granted the scope was pretty narrow, being mostly about the story. But in the Q&A as well as some of the side comments, Josh seemed to feel pretty strongly that things like the perk/unlocking system were something fans wanted. When in reality, the lack of those things were one of the defining aspects of Halo. The game was successful in part because it did not feature that stuff, not despite not featuring them. It's antithetical to what Halo is about. They still don't get that.
The entire discussion about the need to make the combat more accessible was dismaying. Halo has long been known for attracting a very diverse array of players. Any game that sells the millions it did needs to do that. As Juices once said over in HaloGAF threads, 343 is turning off Halo fans by chasing an audience they will never catch.
A few random observations:
Josh talked about "Creativity" as one of the goals for the game. To paraphrase, it was about empowering users to tell stories and share experiences. Which made the loss of theater mode in Campaign and Spartan Ops even more odd, since that was a big part of how Bungie facilitated that.
One of the pillars of the game was, "Total Combat Freedom". Which made me wonder how so many linear vehicle gauntlet set pieces made it into campaign.
So, the narrative was an onion. And also, a narrative pyramid. At the start of the talk, Josh talked about the challenge of taking on so many narrative threads, such as the books and comics and Forward Unto Dawn web series. And then spent some time talking about how messy it was to tie all that together. What wasn't mentioned was, maybe spinning all that complexity out and then tethering the game to it wasn't a good idea in the first place. He mentioned how they needed to make sure the stories were self contained, near the end, though without elaboration. My hope is they really treat the games as standalone entities, tied most closely to one another.
On the development front, they went down the path of new, experimental sci-fi weapons, and then pulled back and had the Promethean weapons mirror the standard classes (rifle, pistol, rockets, sniper, automatic bullet hose, shotgun). I thought that was a significant development failure and was interested to hear the conclusions drawn, when Josh called that success. I was surprised to see that kind of fall back called successful; I thought it showed a lack of creativity which only lead to redundant weaponry and a cluttered combat sandbox. But it did allow for more unlocks. (This was my view after playing the campaign, not just after watching the video.)
"First person interactions with the world." Is that what those 850 button presses were?
Also: QTE's are by definition not immersive. They are immersion breaking when used so jarringly and out of step with our accustomed interactions with the game.
The folks at 343 are passionate people who clearly care about Halo. But I think they've taken it down the wrong path, and I didn't see any signs they recognized that. Bummer.
I come from the competitive background in Halo, so guys did a reaction live-show about the panel (mostly the last 15 minutes).
Glad to see Josh apologize about the wheelchair picture along with hinting towards casual and competitive playlist being different. I hope 343 learned from this game after this panel with the reaction by a lot of the community.
ps: Good post btw Ghaleon, nice to see you talking Halo again.
Glad to see Josh apologize about the wheelchair picture along with hinting towards casual and competitive playlist being different. I hope 343 learned from this game after this panel with the reaction by a lot of the community.
ps: Good post btw Ghaleon, nice to see you talking Halo again.
Etrian Oddity
Member
I really came away from Halo 4 rather unimpressed apart from visual design.
I will concede though that the vistas, panoramas, and landscapes on the horizon were outright jaw-dropping.
I will concede though that the vistas, panoramas, and landscapes on the horizon were outright jaw-dropping.
343 needs to find a different way to balance the split between the competitive needs of the sandbox and the feedback loop you need to draw in new players and retain new players. Not a refinement of what is currently here, but a different approach. Some of the stuff they've curled back on, but much of the stuff, much of the important stuff, they've refused to budge, and I don't know if anything can be done beyond what's already been said with regards to trying to give them the message.
Like I said in an earlier post, it's difficult being a Halo fan right now with a lot of stuff changing, but at this point it's best to hope they will rebuild once again rather than iterating on a model that has some fundamental problems. I think 343 did an absolutely tremendous job of taking the reigns of the IP that seems otherwise impossible, but as we all can see, the wrong missteps in the wrong places can go a long way when it comes to player reception.
I'm both scared and excited with where Halo will go next, but I think the balance between the two is a bit too close for comfort.
You might have a point if this was some kind of on the spot story change that caused this but it was quite clear and known way before Halo 4 that the AI's only lived for so long and that Cortana was close to breaking down, if anything at the end of Halo 4 you were the damsel and she saved you.
Completely disagree, not only do I think 343 took the game into a better direction, I think they did a much better job making Halo 4 than Bungie ever could.
All these things. Post mortem because the damn horse just keeled over :\
What fun is that?
more good points. I didn't give one single fuck about the books. I thought they were a nice touch for a game that I love, but now it seems like they've hampered the creativity of the makers instead of inspiring it.
It's 44k at peak time, but it doesn't come close to mean that only 44K people played today, which Izayoi and wwmonkey tried to imply.
Again show me any shooter on any console near Black Ops 2 that is coming close to that concurrent number.
It is what it is. Those are the simply the peak numbers of gamers playing at that particular time.
The title will remain a staple on Xbox live until Halo 5 arrives.
But at the end of the day, COD simply rules online. Period.
This is crap, the reason Halo has any kind of a good lore is because of the books, every franchise that has existed for a while creates laws and rules that must be followed in the lore. If it weren't for these limitations or rules it wouldn't be Halo at all.
The books(Fall of Reach in particular) are pretty damn good and setup a great lore for the games to follow.
NullPointer
Member
I was thinking most of the same things you were while watching it. That talk was less a postmortem and more of a "secrets of our success". They seem oblivious or incapable of being forthright about why they chose the directions they did and whether those choices made sense.
The only flaws I saw them sort of admit related to the Didact and how "some players" didn't think his motivation was explained, and how the terminal content should have been within the game. Maybe I misunderstood but he seemed to say the real problem was that they never thought players wouldn't understand something so "simple and straightforward", which is just a backpat while dissing the criticism.
And like you I don't understand how QTEs are supposed to make something more immersive, They take the entire suite of control away from the player and funnel it into a single do-or-die action. Thats neither immersive nor interactive in any meaningful way.
And finally, making promethean weapons just analogues to existing weapons was one of the weakest design choices behind Halo 4. He should listen to that part of the talk again while considering the needler, a weapon that shows up just a few slides later. What weapon is just as analogous to the needler? Thats a weird ass weapon, that fires relatively slow, tracking needles and has a supercombine effect. I guess people were just smarter or more capable of grocking science fiction when Halo CE came out?
The only surprise in the talk was that 343 was surprised by how many people solo'd spartan ops. How many people solo'd previous campaigns? How many chose to solo firefight? Was this really unexpected?
I don't know, but I get a real sense that 343 lives in a bubble, and the requirements they're working with doesn't seem to be the kind of thing they can speak to openly and honestly. If you don't have that in a postmortem, its just another marketing exercise.
Yep. Its damn hard to imagine otherwise.
Game changing unlockables, XP popups, instant respawn, and full loadouts ala COD, along with Spartan Ops to try and migrate some predominant campaign players over to versus multiplayer (for Gold subscriptions and map packs).
Synth_floyd
Banned
I have no doubt that the 343 people love Halo but I don't think they know what to do with it. I'm not sure how corporate driven the decision making is there but virtually every decision made on Halo 4 sounds like they did some focus groups and decided to do what was popular and just copy what CoD (the most popular game on the market) does as well.
It reminds me of Resident Evil 6 which is another bland game that also seems like it was too "corporate driven."
It reminds me of Resident Evil 6 which is another bland game that also seems like it was too "corporate driven."
I'm glad the game is resonating with some. I loved Halo for years and and glad it's finding fans even if I am not one of them. For me they cut too many features I loved (campaign theater, custom options, Firefight) and built in too many internal contradictions (recharging shields are in direct conflict with instant respawn; the removal of asymmetric gametypes, but they made asymmetric maps; the way global and personal ordnance decimate game flow, etc.) And I disliked the campaign greatly, the only Halo campaign I had no desire to ever revisit.
A few more post-viewing thoughts.
I didn't go into the postmortem with a laundry list of issues hoping to see them addressed, but I was surprised at how few of them actually were. Josh talked about how tough it was to ramp the team at the same time they built the game, but didn't talk about any of the challenges that created. Halo 4 came in very hot, and shedding features along the way to landing. Features I cared deeply about, like theater for co-op modes, and the customization in Firefight that got cut in favor of Spartan Ops.
But something Josh said struck me as a bit odd. I'm one of those guys that played Spartan Ops solo. Josh said they were surprised at how many people played it that way, and that they had balanced it for 2-4 players.
Thing is, difficulty scaling based on player count was highly touted prior to launch, to make it more friendly to solo players. That feature was cut prior to launch. But that was left to solo players like me to discover, in a most unpleasant way. (Six jackal snipers in a clump, excessive waves of respawning Prometheans, rows of FRG-toting Elites, etc.) Seems to me a postmortem would be the place to talk about that kind of thing, especially since he brought it up. It would have fit in with the costs of building big game and studio at the same time. But that wasn't really what the talk was about.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
Oh, i completely agree, I just think that there are too many sudden shifts with the design scope of reach, that its hard for me to say that these decisions are wholly bungie. It's clear that beyond a few of the successes which came out of the game that bungie interests had shifted elsewhere and microsoft vision of halo had also shifted elsewhere. ODST seems to be far more in line with the design philosophy of bungie then reach.
the fundemental problem with cortana's development is that she's based on hasley, hasley at the beginning of the game is a stone cold bitch. Even at her age she understand sacrafice, and doesn't fear the repercussions of her work. She doesn't apollogize for her actions, and is completely calm and organized about herself. Cortana on the other hand is all over the place. There's no connection between the two characters, that's the most troubling thing. Hasley's unquestioning and undying willpower vs cortana's bipolarness. It would make far more sense to me if cortana did everything in her power to survive, because thats what hasley has done to ensure the survival of the human race through the spartan program.
Lore is fine, lore is usually in the background. I read a little bit of a couple of the books and they were good. Especially for video game books. But I don't think they should have any significance or influence on the direction of Halo going forward. Looking back, and fleshing out the world, fine, but I felt no major need to confront the enemies we ended up facing in 4. It was kind of a disappointment to me, and I feel like 343 felt obligated to put all this stuff in the games because they wanted to tie into the Forerunner stuff from the books.
It's a fun game, a relatively well put together world, but it isn't amazing anymore.