• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Halo |OT2| Hyper-Athletic Speed And Mass And Weight and Power

Wouldn't it be funny in a way if all those people jumping to conclusions end up being right? Yeah, that would be funny.

kanye-serious.gif
 
So my guess of no 1-50 because 343 says that there's a progression system, where you start as a recruit, and work your way up to gain new weapons and amor abilities, is the same as saying a new game that is an FPS is a race kart game because it has vehicles?

I'm sure 343 could do it like Bungie did in Halo 3, but I'm making an educated guess. Since most of the ideas that were presented in GI came from other games, I have no idea why they would keep 1-50 since no other current FPS (COD for example) that I know of uses a 1-50

No its like you unlock stuff as you play more and more experience wise. Instead of just being armor like in Reach.

Still theres a 1-50 Overdoziz-Onyx sort of ranked progression using skill as the quailifier instead of experience as above.

Obviously.

Basically it became obvious in Halo 3 that casuals cried way too hard when they couldn't hit 50 and get General status. The patch for EXP Generals was proof of this. The fact Reach continued this shows that its what developers like Bungie/343 need to do to be "fair" to everyone. These days kids just expect fairness. See the "Why didn't I get that job!? WAHHH Argument"
 

Magni

Member
The Pit, one of your favorite maps in the series, had attic spawns. But that's okay!

The only Halo 2 remakes that were done right were Reflection and Heretic. Reflection was sent to a game where the developer allowed jetpacks to roam free and ruin the experience. Heretic was great, but it came so late and I was already bored of Halo 3 so I barely played much on it.

It's fine remaking maps if they're done properly, or adjusted to the new style of gameplay. But we could get another Last Resort, Blackout, or Pinnacle, and that is something neither of us want. I'm sure we'll get remakes, I believe Frankie noted at one point we will anyways. Hopefully the new maps they're creating will be solid.

I completely forgot about The Pit's attic spawns :lol How did Bungie even let that go through after the clusterfuck that was Terminal?

Completely agree with you on the remakes.

Oh, and no multiplayer achievements because they're almost universally awful.

NO MP ACHIEVEMENTS

That's the one thing (along with 60FPS) you should copy from CoD!
 

Fuchsdh

Member
7 best Halo maps in no particular order.
-Epitaph
-Backwash
-Sword Base
-Isolation
-Chiron
-Infinity
-Gemini

You sir are very uncommon. Backwash and Infinity?

I loved Death Island, even though it was incredibly easy to just camp your opponent's base. Halo PC was just a lot of fun.


I completely forgot about The Pit's attic spawns :lol How did Bungie even let that go through after the clusterfuck that was Terminal?

Completely agree with you on the remakes.



NO MP ACHIEVEMENTS

That's the one thing (along with 60FPS) you should copy from CoD!

I'm fine with multi achievements, but a) they shouldn't be the biggest chunk of the achievement pie, and b) they should be possible to get without boosting.

Map-specific achievements should not exist. If DLC adds achievements, those achievements should be achievable on any map if the player has the DLC.

At least Reach was slightly less annoying than Halo 3 to get the proper maps due to the better voting system.
 
Basically it became obvious in Halo 3 that casuals cried way too hard when they couldn't hit 50 and get General status. The patch for EXP Generals was proof of this. The fact Reach continued this shows that its what developers like Bungie/343 need to do to be "fair" to everyone. These days kids just expect fairness. See the "Why didn't I get that job!? WAHHH Argument"
What is the purpose of player investment? What role do ranking systems play towards this purpose? What role do progression systems play?
 
NO MP ACHIEVEMENTS

That's the one thing (along with 60FPS) you should copy from CoD!
Yeah, I feel like devs copying CoD like to let that whiff over their head. It's never good. It'll always cause an alteration of player motivations. It will make for a worse experience. Stop doing it.

Or at least don't make MM a mandatory part of achieving it.
 
Halo is following the COD formula.

1) Three successful but similar games (Halo Trilogy and COD 1-3)
2) One subpar spinoff (Halo: Reach and Big Red One)
3) One game that changes the style of gameplay and introduces a new trilogy (Halo 4 and COD 4)

Conspiracy? I think not.

Next, Halo 5 and 6 will complete the trilogy but will not be revealed until Halo: Universe at War and Halo: ONI Ops are released both of which will contain a Fascist Flood Survival Mode.

Halo 6 will see the introduction of the Halo Waypoint Elite VIP Program. Expect Frankie to leave Microsoft with a group of rouge employees sometime around the release of Halo 5. Lawsuits will be had.
 

Arnie

Member
Honestly this game needs some sort of skill based ranking system as an aside to Spartan Points, otherwise it's losing a substantial amount of its audience. It's not just the uber competitive people who cared about 1-50 ranks, it's a lot of the general population too; my friends were by no means people who'd play in MLG or anything but they loved the ranking system and it was a great factor in why they stuck with the game.

What the 1-50 ranks did so well that the Arena ones failed to do was give you that instant hit of, if I lose I go down, if I win I go up. It was incredibly simple but incredibly powerful, and it almost forced you to have that one extra game to reclaim what you'd lost or reach that next number. If you're playing really well and you've won three on the bounce without going up, you're definitely playing on because you know the next level is right around the corner. Arena just never hit that feedback loop, or even got close.

I hope 343 understand how integral the ranks were to the Halo multiplayer experience, and it's definitely one of the reasons a lot of people dropped Reach so quickly (amongst others), anecdotally of course.
 

Woorloog

Banned
It's not just the uber competitive people who cared about 1-50 ranks, it's a lot of the general population too; my friends were by no means people who'd play in MLG or anything but they loved the ranking system and it was a great factor in why they stuck with the game.

Very much this. I never touched Arena in Reach after trying it in the beta. Didn't give enough feedback, i didn't really have any idea if i was good or not.
And Halo 3 had tighter limits on social side as well, TrueSkill was hidden but it was still used. The limits were loosened for Reach... Getting matched multiple times in a row against noobs is not fun.
 
What is the purpose of player investment? What role do ranking systems play towards this purpose? What role do progression systems play?

I dunno. Its like a whole position at game development companies now. It seems very important I guess, for multiple reasons?

No idea. I guess alotta times people feel they aren't moving up anywhere in their lives so its nice to get into a virtual world and be able to see their work pay off?



I say we call them Dong Dollars, or BlainerBucks
 

Arnie

Member
Very much this. I never touched Arena in Reach after trying it in the beta. Didn't give enough feedback, i didn't really have any idea if i was good or not.
And Halo 3 had tighter limits on social side as well, TrueSkill was hidden but it was still used. The limits were loosened for Reach... Getting matched multiple times in a row against noobs is not fun.

Matchmaking in Reach felt ridiculously unfair. At least in previous games you had some indication of why the system put you with who it did, and if your teammates were terrible you were left wondering how they ever managed to reach that rank, not cursing the systems ability. And if you were matched with evenly numbered teammates who all performed worse than you it was a kick up the arse to get to a higher rank, because this obviously wasn't your level.

The 1-50 system was simple, powerful and most importantly universal. Everyone knew what the numbers meant and how to achieve them. I'm not saying 343 should copy this system verbatim, but they should use it as the springboard for whatever skill based ranking system is in 4.

And I'm just going to assume that they aren't naive enough to think Spartan Points are enough. There has to be some ranking system that doesn't just account for time played, otherwise the reaction from the community will be far more vociferous than what happened post cover story.
 

Woorloog

Banned
The 1-50 system was simple, powerful and most importantly universal. Everyone knew what the numbers meant and how to achieve them. I'm not saying 343 should copy this system verbatim, but they should use it as the springboard for whatever skill based ranking system is in 4.

And I'm just going to assume that they aren't naive enough to think Spartan Points are enough. There has to be some ranking system that doesn't just account for time played, otherwise their hopes of getting Halo 4 to be as popular as 2-3 are dead on arrival.

Yeah, it should not be copied directly. TrueSkill had some issues... win 5-10 games, no level up. Lose one, lose one level right away. That was very frustrating. I've read the explanation of TrueSkill and maybe it does work correctly but it doesn't feel like that. Of course this only became an issue at higher levels.

One thing i'd love to see changed to Halo 4 is that playlist specific TrueSkill (assuming it is used, otherwise its replacement) is done away and replaced with universal TrueSkill. If you're good in one list, probabilities are you're good anywhere else. Of course there should be exceptions: Griffball is excluded from this, MLG/other HC lists should have their own specific True Skill which is used. But in general, no list-specific ratings.

We need dual progression system: Time played system like Reach has AND a system similar to Halo 2/3.
 
What is the purpose of player investment? What role do ranking systems play towards this purpose? What role do progression systems play?

Ranking systems and progression systems are like two different worlds, but they can both players with a goal to achieve. I think its fairly clear what the carrot on the stick is in terms of the progression system (unlocking stuff with Spartan Points), but now im curious to see if theres a ranking system, and how that works.

Truth be told I can live without a ranking system, I just hope the progression system isnt as long winded and downright random as Reach's is. If I can influence my progression rate by playing well (CoD style) I will be happy.

We need dual progression system: Time played system like Reach has AND a system similar to Halo 2/3.

CoD has a similar system to Reach, but rather than it being based on time played, its still based on kills etc. Thats a very individualistic system though and I think for Halo I would like it to be more team based. I.E. if your team wins you get a significant bonus, not the tiny bonus you get in reach.
 

Woorloog

Banned
CoD has a similar system to Reach, but rather than it being based on time played, its still based on kills etc. Thats a very individualistic system though and I think for Halo I would like it to be more team based. I.E. if your team wins you get a significant bonus, not the tiny bonus you get in reach.

Hmm, i should've written: A ranking system like Halo 2 or 3 and a progression system like Call of Duty. After reading your post, i realised i liked CODs system far more than Reach's...
 
Top Bottom