Princess Carl
Member
Edit: nvm you got it for me ^
-
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 Reach Reveal Thread - Matchmaking/Multiplayer Details Revealed
- Thread starter Slightly Live
- Start date
RebornYeti
Member
"My deciples, the 3rd Messiah reigns supreme. Halo Reach is just a better looking Halo 3."
This guy make my head hurt.
This guy make my head hurt.
Dedicated servers, dedicated servers, dedicated servers.
This is the one thing that Halo:Reach needs. Bungie keeps hammering us with "we listen to the fans, and this will be the definitive Halo experience"... yeah well if they are too lazy to give us dedicated servers in 2010, then I'm sort of at a loss for words. Bungie has made millions of dollars and they are labeled as a AAA developer. Why is it then that they haven't given us this crucial necessity of the modern gaming age for online shooters?
I'm still baffled that multi million dollar companies like EPIC with Gears of War, Infinity Ward with Call of Duty, and even DICE with Battlefield won't give console players dedicated servers. They've got the dough and forking it over should be pocket change for the most crisp and enjoyable online experience possible.
I almost feel the discussion of dedicated servers needs to be its very own topic here on Gaf to let developers know this is a MUST from 2010 and out to ensure your online isn't going to become a mess and a joke.
This is the one thing that Halo:Reach needs. Bungie keeps hammering us with "we listen to the fans, and this will be the definitive Halo experience"... yeah well if they are too lazy to give us dedicated servers in 2010, then I'm sort of at a loss for words. Bungie has made millions of dollars and they are labeled as a AAA developer. Why is it then that they haven't given us this crucial necessity of the modern gaming age for online shooters?
I'm still baffled that multi million dollar companies like EPIC with Gears of War, Infinity Ward with Call of Duty, and even DICE with Battlefield won't give console players dedicated servers. They've got the dough and forking it over should be pocket change for the most crisp and enjoyable online experience possible.
I almost feel the discussion of dedicated servers needs to be its very own topic here on Gaf to let developers know this is a MUST from 2010 and out to ensure your online isn't going to become a mess and a joke.
Princess Carl
Member
Schmitty said:
No it did not. Last Resort is bigger yet it felt so much smaller than Zanzibar.
Seriously, bring back the Halo 2 Big Team maps at least.
Sorry but its just not going to happen. It really isnt financially feasible, and not to mention the fact that 90% of the people who will play Reach won't know the difference.
One of the strengths of the Halo franchise is how long it takes to kill someone on average. This extended time requires you to stay perfect for a pretty good amount of time, and more often than not, will reward you for doing so, regardless of ping.
Its not perfect, but Halo does a great job of masking ping problems.
Princess Carl
Member
bishoptl said:
Maybe he didn't lurk enough before he started posting
Princess Carl
Member
zlatko said:
Its all good.
I mean of course, dedicated servers would be amazing; unfortunately, its just not feasible and more than likely won't happen.
Its fun to want nice things though
xDangerboy said:Its all good.
I mean of course, dedicated servers would be amazing; unfortunately, its just not feasible and more than likely won't happen.
Its fun to want nice things though
I'm confused by why it would not be feasible? As a multi-million dollar development studio the cost of dedicated servers for a game that will sell millions seems almost like pennies in their wallets to me.
I agree though that it probably won't happen, but I wish so much that it did.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Question. I haven't played ODST but I've been hearing good things (in this thread) about it. Should I give it a go? I plan to gamefly it for the Reach beta but I might buy it if its that good.
Didn't froman adress this in the podcast?
Dedicated servers are a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The only benefit is consistency, but it would be consistently bad if you're far away from the servers. That also makes it nigh impossible for somebody in another continent to ever get a good match.
Dedicated servers are a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The only benefit is consistency, but it would be consistently bad if you're far away from the servers. That also makes it nigh impossible for somebody in another continent to ever get a good match.
Stormtrooper30
Member
Hell, they ought to snatch a few of the Halo: CE and Halo 2 vista map editors sitting in their rooms and take em to the Studio to work their magic. Or maybe grab a couple dudes from Forge Hub. They could market it as the Community Map Pack.xDangerboy said:
Dedicated servers do not want. That means there is a cutoff date for MP support. I don't want my Halo Reach MP to go away when Bungie releases their next game. I'm already losing Halo 2.
DragoNZ DZ
Member
Foxy Fox 39 said:
IMO, absolutely. I'd strongly recommend gameflying it now. Whether you like it or not, you'll gamefly it for the Reach beta anyhow and most certainly won't play ODST during that time, so it might as well be now.
Hunters haven't been as interesting to fight since Halo: CE.
(Make absolutely certain that you don't need to go into a building as they come into the area on Legendary. You... might regret it. I had to rush as fast as possible up the building to get a good weapon, then back down to beat the Hunters to the doorway. The times when I failed that, things ended... poorly :lol )
CrazedArabMan
Member
-Yeti said:
I turned it off when he said "my disciples", guy needs some serious help.
Dude, I got an exterm in Gaf customs once with that thing. Hardcore 4 Lif3!big ander said:
I tried and actually did discuss things in a proper way, but the long well thought out responses get overlooked. No one puts any thought into the answers and life goes on. Since then I have come to the conclusion that the its best to keep my well thought out answers and proper analysis of things to myself because no matter what evidence is provided the same core people will ignore everything you have said. But in the mean time you can be cynical about Halo, and Bungie's miss management of the game and guess what.. people read those posts and respond as if we just insulted their family.
This thread is full of Sad times. Thank fully we have gotten Reach news in between otherwise this thread would be a clusterfuck.
I say lets have a GAF duke out session.. Team AR vs Team BR. ;p
I was out all day so I missed this topic, but my thoughts briefly:
I appreciate that Bungie builds out more of their game world in geometry than they have to. It creates a more much more convincing environment that other techniques I've seen, and makes the game more immersive. It's consistent with Bungie's overall design philosophy, which carries through to other aspects of the game. It also means when people break out of the invisible barriers, they have actual places to go, which is neat. Which leads me to...
...invisible barriers. Bungie has used, to varying degrees in each game, cliffs, pits, canyons, fall damage, kill zones and invisible barriers to keep players within the game world. Invisible walls are just one tool in the tool box, and I don't find them offensive. But I'd like to see them deployed less generously than they were in Halo 2 and to an extent Halo 3. It's largely a design issue: if the geometry looks explorable, it should be. Too many places in Tsavo Highway - for example - let players climb up a hill, but a barrier keeps you from the top, which otherwise looks perfectly climbable. This breaks the immersion and makes restrictions on player movement feel arbitrary. I'd rather see the grade become too steep to climb for all but the most devoted grenade jumpers. If people can get through after that - and someone will regardless - more power to them. They're obviously not doing it accidentally. So the barrier isn't needed.
The larger the core gameplay space, the harder it is to restrict players and have it feel natural. And designing confined spaces that feel open - a Halo hallmark - is hard. But stuff like canyons/cliffs breaks the immersion much less than an invisible wall blocking me from where I think I should otherwise be able to wander. If people are able, with great effort, to find ways over them, they're just going to find what they're looking for anyways: the edge of the game world.
I appreciate that Bungie builds out more of their game world in geometry than they have to. It creates a more much more convincing environment that other techniques I've seen, and makes the game more immersive. It's consistent with Bungie's overall design philosophy, which carries through to other aspects of the game. It also means when people break out of the invisible barriers, they have actual places to go, which is neat. Which leads me to...
...invisible barriers. Bungie has used, to varying degrees in each game, cliffs, pits, canyons, fall damage, kill zones and invisible barriers to keep players within the game world. Invisible walls are just one tool in the tool box, and I don't find them offensive. But I'd like to see them deployed less generously than they were in Halo 2 and to an extent Halo 3. It's largely a design issue: if the geometry looks explorable, it should be. Too many places in Tsavo Highway - for example - let players climb up a hill, but a barrier keeps you from the top, which otherwise looks perfectly climbable. This breaks the immersion and makes restrictions on player movement feel arbitrary. I'd rather see the grade become too steep to climb for all but the most devoted grenade jumpers. If people can get through after that - and someone will regardless - more power to them. They're obviously not doing it accidentally. So the barrier isn't needed.
The larger the core gameplay space, the harder it is to restrict players and have it feel natural. And designing confined spaces that feel open - a Halo hallmark - is hard. But stuff like canyons/cliffs breaks the immersion much less than an invisible wall blocking me from where I think I should otherwise be able to wander. If people are able, with great effort, to find ways over them, they're just going to find what they're looking for anyways: the edge of the game world.
CrazedArabMan
Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
I went back and heard that part. :lol :lol :lol
I pray that he is doing it as a joke, but then I slowly lost faith and actually realized he was doing it because it is what he believes, and then the world just got more screwed up.
He is the face of SDF!!!
ToyMachine228
Member
Schmitty said:
If we're talking about maps we want back...I have two words. Boarding Action. With the BR gone from Reach, it's the perfect time to bring it back.
Subtervotion
Member
-Yeti said:
I'd say CoD is the new kid on the block, not Killzone 2.
dilatedmuscle
Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
No it wont, Killzone 2 is the new halo so there is no need for a halo anymore...
NullPointer
Member
Dedicated servers + region servers + server filtering.xDangerboy said:
All of the above and you've got yourself a solution.
Syracuse022
Member
I agree with this post in every way. My feelings summed up exactly.GhaleonEB said:
Nothing frustrates me more than managing a clever jump or two only to find that my ingenuity has been stopped by an invisible and arbitrary force with no explanation in the otherwise well-defined laws of a game's universe. This is what Halo 1 did well, almost because of its limitations. Whether levels were set in impossibly tall canyons, inexplicably isolated islands, or on drastic cliffsides, they were situated in such a self-contained way that I could explore to my heart's content with nary an invisible wall to scratch my head about (with a few exceptions: the ocean in Silent Cartographer, for example). Are the more recent games' levels more believable in terms of setting? Sure, absolutely, but all that really means is this my suspension of disbelief takes even more of a hit when I encounter an invisible wall as the only obstacle to an area that should otherwise be open for exploration.
Infinitely tall or impossibly steep canyons >> invisible walls.
The former still allows me to suspend my disbelief even if it is clearly a "video game construct." The latter just ends up feeling like a jarring reminder that even if the scenery looks believable, I shouldn't buy into it (a sad thing to realize in a universe as interesting to explore as the one Bungie has created).
RSB
Banned
Invisible barriers are evil, and I hope Bungie gets back to the roots with Reach. The philosophy behind the level design in Halo: CE was perfect. I'll explain:
The levels in Halo: CE had plenty of barriers, but they were always natural barriers, like cliffs, mountains, etc. That method is perfect because it keeps "normal" players from going somewhere they aren't supposed to, but allows dedicated players (High Impact Halo FTW!!!) to find ways (usually involving lots and lots of grenades) to reach and explore those "secret" places. That way, everybody's happy
Bye
The levels in Halo: CE had plenty of barriers, but they were always natural barriers, like cliffs, mountains, etc. That method is perfect because it keeps "normal" players from going somewhere they aren't supposed to, but allows dedicated players (High Impact Halo FTW!!!) to find ways (usually involving lots and lots of grenades
) to reach and explore those "secret" places. That way, everybody's happy Bye
minasodaboy
Member
Syracuse022 said:
and for me, exploration, more than campaign scoring, is a big component of what motivates me to go back to campaign. bungie creates some amazing spaces to play in and after a while, i want to get lost in the levels.
hopefully for reach they can find a balance among a 'golden tripod' of level design:
-exploration
-encounters
-atmosphere
Ultimo hombre
Banned
-Yeti said:
Is that MikeB?
electricpirate
Member
DragoNZ DZ said:
I was in that section today. My god those things were hard.I ended up having to flit from building to building taking shots at their soft candy core with beam rifles till I went through 3 rifles. After that i managed to stick and shotgun my way to victory. Goddamn that was satisfying.
DragoNZ DZ
Member
RSB said:Invisible barriers are evil, and I hope Bungie gets back to the roots with Reach. The philosophy behind the level design in Halo: CE was perfect. I'll explain:
The levels in Halo: CE had plenty of barriers, but they were always natural barriers, like cliffs, mountains, etc. That method is perfect because it keeps "normal" players from going somewhere they aren't supposed to, but allows dedicated players (High Impact Halo FTW!!!) to find ways (usually involving lots and lots of grenades
Bye
I keep agreeing with you. It's starting to creep me the fuck out. :lol
electricpirate said:
Was for me as well. Definitely one of the defining moments of the game. (I was in the building at the far end of the bridge, the one with exactly one entrance =P )
The thing that's always bothered me most about the invisible walls isn't so much that I find a grenade jump or some other obscure way of getting somewhere I'm not supposed to. It's the fact that they say "Ok guys, there are these skull things for you to find! They're in really weird places that you'll have to use grenade jumps and other obscure ways of getting somewhere you normally wouldn't think you could go!" Then you get up on some tower or something and you're thinking "Surely there must be one up here!" but no, you're met with the cold hard truth that there is some sort of invisible wall not allowing you to go any further.GhaleonEB said:
I don't think it's anything to be up in arms over though, like some some people get. Yeah, the feeling of exploration and discovery was never quite the same after Halo CE. Some would say it's non-existent. I'll even concede that it can interfere with the overall experience of the campaign somewhat. But then, 5 minutes later, I'm jumping a Ghost off some ramp to get on top of a Scarab, taking on a squad of Grunts and Jackals led by an angry Gold-Armor Brute with a Brute Shot, and trying to get around the back and shoot out the fleshy backside of a massive walking death-tank. I'd say the invisible wall thing is negligible at best. Not suggesting that anyone here is saying it isn't, of course.
The ODST campaign really peaked early; that first mission is a masterpiece of pacing and encounter design. That last fight with the Hunters is just relentlessly intense, and is the first time they've really lived up to their name. Personal highlight: hiding behind a bus to recharge, and then getting plastered against the wall by said bus. The Hunters weren't fooled.NOKYARD said:
On a related note, I'm hoping for a Sadie's Story type of parallel narrative in Reach. With the ongoing invasion and the emphasis on the civilian side of Reach, it would be a natural addition.
metareferential
Member
GhaleonEB said:
I just discovered that we were born the exact same day.
I didn't know his voice was in the first Halo; I started replaying it yesterday, strange coincidence.
Now there's one more person remembering him, I guess.