Support NeoGAF

[godhandiscen]

Ok, I have been hesistant to make this thread because of what it means, but as I make my slow progress through the CoD Black Ops campaign, I keep wondering about the answer to this question.

For the gamer who has played both of these games, it is obvious that CoD and Halo are very different when it comes to the SP player campaign. CoD offers an extremely cinematic experience through strongly scripted events. Meanwhile, Halo offers freedom, by using a very advanced AI system, that reacts with authenticity to almost anything the player throws at it, however, a sacrifice is made in the cinematic feel of the set pieces.

As a Halo fan, what would be your reaction if 343i (developers of the next Halo game) ditched Bungie's gameplay tradition and just delivered a cinematic experience that matched that of the live action commercials (aka, it played more like a CoD game)?

If you want to know the reason as to why Bungie's gameplay engine struggles with scripted set pieces, read this article.
http://www.bungie.net/images/Inside/publications/presentations/betterbattle.zip

 

[Nirolak]

While scripted sequences are a lot of fun to watch, I don't find them that much fun to play, so I would find this disappointing.

 

[Rahxephon91]

I'd rather Halo take Goldeneye's approach and have a set of objectives that you can do in order that can effect the primary objective.

What I like about Halo's sp is the bigger and open levels, I just think they need have more open ended gameplay then they already do.

So no I don't think they should make it like CoD's sp. That works for CoD and should be kept in CoD. We don't need more games taking that style. I rather they work on a sp mode that plays up on Halo's strengths, which is its open endess in how you tackle things.

 

[ohhthegore]

Id imagine most people wouldn't care since most people skip the single player portion of the game, maybe

 

[godhandiscen]

While scripted sequences are a lot of fun to watch, I don't find them that much fun to play, so I would find this disappointing.

I love Halo SP, but I would like to see at least one game (make it a spinoff if you want) have a go for the cinematic feeling. These days, I cannot invest much energy or time in games, and I have found the CoD SP player formula a nice change of pace that fits my current mood.

 

[UltimaPooh]

No. Never. and if it does please kill it with fire.

Halo is the better game when it comes to campaign... Call of Duty is mostly just running into a room and mowing down a bunch of bots who run into your fire and grenades.

Halo and more specifically Reach is an entirely different game that has your enemies react to the way you move around the level and lay down fire. Not to mention the levels are large and explorable, with an amazing sandbox that makes each weapon important at certain times as opposed to an AK-47 and an M-16 acting pretty similar to each other in COD, cause all your doing is mowing people down.

COD can be fun, but Halo is just the better game and I hope they never change it.

Now as for cinematics outside of the gameplay Halo could use a few of those, as well as giving you the sense of a massive battle while in game mode, but if they have to sacrifice the sandbox to do that, no thank you.

 

[Dresden]

Kill it with fire. CoD's formula is tired and dumb. We should be striving to move towards more open-ended gameplay in shooters, not the other way around.

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

I think Halo's approach to the campaign is superior.

I mean, at this point, CoD doesn't even really have AI.

 

[godhandiscen]

No. Never. and if it does please kill it with fire.

Halo is the better game when it comes to campaign... Call of Duty is mostly just running into a room and mowing down a bunch of bots who run into your fire and grenades.

Halo and more specifically Reach is an entirely different game that has your enemies react to the way you move around the level and lay down fire. Not to mention the levels are large and explorable, with an amazing sandbox that makes each weapon important at certain times as opposed to an AK-47 and an M-16 acting pretty similar to each other in COD, cause all your doing is mowing people down.

COD can be fun, but Halo is just the better game and I hope they never change it.

Now as for cinematics outside of the gameplay Halo could use a few of those, as well as giving you the sense of a massive battle while in game mode, but if they have to sacrifice the sandbox to do that, no thank you.

While I played MW2 and BO, I felt as if I was involved in massive battles, and even if Halo SP is the better game, it certainly lacks that inmersion. I feel that Bungie has been trying for ages to achieve that feeling the original Halo 2 gameplay trailer delivered, but they have never puleld it off.

 

[UltimaPooh]

When I played MW2 I felt as if I was involved in massive battles, and even if Halo SP is the better game, it certainly lacks that inmersion. I feel that Bungie has been trying for ages to achieve that feeling the original Halo 2 gameplay trailer delivered, but they have never puleld it off.

MW2 is probably the best one at doing that, but the levels were pretty closed aside from the suburbs, which had you running around doing different objectives. But Halo is still the more open game, and I would rather have that than having a bunch of cool stuff going on just outside of my boundaries that I couldn't participate in.

 

[_Alkaline_]

That's like going from being bludgeoned with a hammer to being molested by a pack of wolves.

 

[UltimaPooh]

That's like going from being bludgeoned with a hammer to being molested by a pack of wolves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSg7fjh4SEs

 

[godhandiscen]

MW2 is probably the best one at doing that, but the levels were pretty closed aside from the suburbs, which had you running around doing different objectives. But Halo is still the more open game, and I would rather have that than having a bunch of cool stuff going on just outside of my boundaries that I couldn't participate in.

Halo SP is fun, but how many dropships until it feels just like a long firefight level? Reach artifically lenghtens its encounters by dropping more and more enemies at you, and after 5 games, I am a bit tired of the formula, I want a faster pace.

 

[Vinterbird]

While I played MW2 and BO, I felt as if I was involved in massive battles, and even if Halo SP is the better game, it certainly lacks that inmersion. I feel that Bungie has been trying for ages to achieve that feeling the original Halo 2 gameplay trailer delivered, but they have never puleld it off.

Totally agree. Halo 3 never felt like an invasion, and Reach never had the "we're being over run by everything they've got". It's always more been akin to a small team of The Covenant on a picnic. If going more CoD would make it feel like a real war, then hell yes lets do it

 

[JordanLMiller]

Ok, I have been hesistant to make this thread because of what it means, but as I make my slow progress through the CoD Black Ops campaign, I keep wondering about the answer to this question.

For the gamer who has played both of these games, it is obvious that CoD and Halo are very different when it comes to the SP player campaign. CoD offers an extremely cinematic experience through strongly scripted events. Meanwhile, Halo offers freedom, by using a very advanced AI system, that reacts with authenticity to almost anything the player throws at it, however, a sacrifice is made in the cinematic feel of the set pieces.

As a Halo fan, what would be your reaction if 343i (developers of the next Halo game) ditched Bungie's gameplay tradition and just delivered a cinematic experience that matched that of the live action commercials (aka, it played more like a CoD game)?

If you want to know the reason as to why Bungie's gameplay engine struggles with scripted set pieces, read this article.
http://www.bungie.net/images/Inside/publications/presentations/betterbattle.zip

Ugh. No, if it's called Halo, it should play like Halo.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Halo SP is fun, but how many dropships until it feels just like a long firefight level? Reach artifically lenghtens its encounters by dropping more and more enemies at you, and after 5 games, I am a bit tired of the formula, I want a faster pace.

Some of the Dropships were a bit annoying but at least when you were done with them you were done with them. The weapons however provided you with multiple ways to take down certain challenges, and if you felt like it you could do it another way.

Black Ops has clones running down hallways continually until you physically move up. And the only weapons available to you were shotguns or automatics... not really a schmorgesborg of weapons to tackle a particular problem.

Totally agree. Halo 3 never felt like an invasion, and Reach never had the "we're being over run by everything they've got". It's always more been akin to a small team of The Covenant on a picnic. If going more CoD would make it feel like a real war, then hell yes lets do it

Mind you, you don't get to actually participate in the war. Yeah you can shoot at the guys but you can't run up to them and do whatever you want on the battle ground. Because that's what COD does... and Halo is about allowing you to do whatever. If they can't keep that mantra when it comes to huge battles then I say we're better off... and if I want to stare at huge battles that I have no stake in I'll play COD.

 

[godhandiscen]

Some of the Dropships were a bit annoying but at least when you were done with them you were done with them. The weapons however provided you with multiple ways to take down certain challenges, and if you felt like it you could do it another way.

Black Ops has clones running down hallways continually until you physically move up. And the only weapons available to you were shotguns or automatics... not really a schmorgesborg of weapons to tackle a particular problem.

By no means, I am saying CoD is superior, but CoD achieves that sensation of being in a massive battle that Halo lacks, and I would love to see a Halo game's take on this approach.

I fucking want something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_y3cbIV-Xg

Ugh. No, if it's called Halo, it should play like Halo.

Halo is also a big sci-fi universe that always remains in the dark due to the limited scope of the games. In a CoD game you get almost all aspects of the story, even if its a crappy story, you get exposed to most it.

 

[Red]

My answer? I wouldn't buy it.

 

[Nirolak]

By no means, I am saying CoD is superior, but CoD achieves that sensation of being in a massive battle that Halo lacks, and I would love to see a Halo game's take on this approach.

I fucking want something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_y3cbIV-Xg

I don't think what you're looking for is an entirely scripted game, but rather better event and level design.

You can still have reactive AI and non-infinite spawns in a game with engrossing level design and events.

 

[Guv_Bubbs]

Yeah what if?

 

[kuYuri]

Let Halo be Halo and CoD be CoD.

Although some AI in CoD wouldn't hurt.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

Halo maybe could use a few scripted sequences here and there to add some flavor, but if they ditched the sandbox style of combat it just wouldn't be halo anymore.

 

[Kujo]

Something that has been getting worse in Halo with each release is the shitty 'Firefight in a campaign' that plagues many levels. Even moreso with the latest 2 releases, you'll have areas where you just stay in and wait for dropship after dropship after dropship. It's boring and a lazy way to increase the length of the campaign.

At least in CoD you're usually continually moving forward, you feel like you're progressing. It's a bit too scripted at times, but I much prefer that then "hey stay in this spot for 25 minutes and fight wave after wave of the same enemies" (I'm looking at you 'The Package').

Halo is at it's best when it's a sandbox, when it gives you the tools to get from A to B and you just have to work out the best way to do that. But these levels are getting rarer. I hope 343i can get back to this way, instead of throwing a bunch of firefight and multiplayer maps together and calling it a day.

 

[godhandiscen]

I don't think what you're looking for is an entirely scripted game, but rather better event and level design.

You can still have reactive AI and non-infinite spawns in a game with engrossing level design and events.

Maybe you are right, but I did my research long time ago, and from what I can remember, the AI system has limitations regarding scripting of events. I guess 343i got some if not all of Bungie's technology, but I wonder if they will change aspects of the gameplay. If I could have both, I would be happy, but if I can't, then I would at least like to see how the other approach turns out.

Something that has been getting worse in Halo with each release is the shitty 'Firefight in a campaign' that plagues many levels. Even moreso with the latest 2 releases, you'll have areas where you just stay in and wait for dropship after dropship after dropship. It's boring and a lazy way to increase the length of the campaign.

At least in CoD you're usually continually moving forward, you feel like you're progressing. It's a bit too scripted at times, but I much prefer that then "hey stay in this spot for 25 minutes and fight wave after wave of the same enemies" (I'm looking at you 'The Package').

Halo is at it's best when it's a sandbox, when it gives you the tools to get from A to B and you just have to work out the best way to do that. But these levels are getting rarer. I hope 343i can get back to this way, instead of throwing a bunch of firefight and multiplayer maps together and calling it a day.

Completely agree. Also, for all the freedom the game offers, why the fuck I cannot gun down one of those dropships? I know its coming, even of my first playthrough, I already packed myself with rockets, but they don't do anything to the dropships. To beat the Covenant, I do not need rockets or anything, just the BR/DMR and a plasma pistol.

 

[Nirolak]

Maybe you are right, but I did my research long time ago, and from what I can remember, the AI system has limitations regarding scripting of events. I guess 343i got some if not all of Bungie's technology, but I wonder if they will change aspects of the gameplay. If I could have both, I would be happy, but if I can't, then I would at least like to see how the other approach turns out.

I thought 343i was actually rebuilding all the technology?

I think I remember Corrinne Yu going over how they were constructing a new engine for the 360 with some indirect implications that it would be far easier to upgrade it into a next generation engine when the time came.

I think mixing in some scripting with their current method would help a lot though, yeah. It's just changing it entirely in that direction brings in a whole new range of issues.

 

[Tashi]

I'm willing to try different stuff for campaign. Just don't mess with my multiplayer.

 

[eso76]

So, losing the sandbox/non-scripted approach which solely relies on some of the most impressive AI ever to give birth to the most amazing firefights and turning into a scripted events fest ?

The differences between Halo and Cod/other fps' are exactly what make Halo, that would be turning it in the opposite direction completely.

It's like Gran Turismo turning into Burnout
Elder's Scroll becoming more like God of War
Deus Ex playing more like Gears of War
GTA5 being a linear game with separate driving and shooting levels
eh.

Halo formula needs an update, maybe. Certainly not a reboot.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

more scripted sequences would be nice, I enjoyed some of the more forced events in halo reach as well, but they better not mess around with the overall scale of halo games. Worlds need to be big, weapons have to be unique, and encounters need to have that halo feel.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Completely agree. Also, for all the freedom the game offers, why the fuck I cannot gun down one of those dropships? I know its coming, even of my first playthrough, I already packed myself with rockets, but they don't do anything to the dropships. To beat the Covenant, I do not need rockets or anything, just the BR/DMR and a plasma pistol.

You could kill drop ships in Halo 3 (usually with a tank) and some in Reach. I dunno why you can't destroy all of them though.

 

[godhandiscen]

I thought 343i was actually rebuilding all the technology?

I think I remember Corrinne Yu going over how they were constructing a new engine for the 360 with some indirect implications that it would be far easier to upgrade it into a next generation engine when the time came.

I think mixing in some scripting with their current method would help a lot though, yeah. It's just changing it entirely in that direction brings in a whole new range of issues.

I remember the Channel 9 interview and Yu said she was becoming familiar with the 360 technology, but from the Halo thread, I got the impression that 343i had got a hold of the Bungie tech, so I don't really know. I hope you are right though.

You could kill drop ships in Halo 3 (usually with a tank) and some in Reach. I dunno why you can't destroy all of them though.

Yes, you could kill some, and it was inmensely satisfying, but even if you fail to kill this few vulnerable dropships, the consequences are meaningless as you are often in a tank, or in flight combat.

 

[UltimaPooh]

I remember the Channel 9 interview and Yu said she was becoming familiar with the 360 technology, but from the Halo thread, I got the impression that 343i had got a hold of the Bungie tech, so I don't really know. I hope you are right though.

Sounds like Frankie should tell us.

Eh Frankie?

 

[Jack Scofield]

Halo Reach's campaign consisted mostly of "go here and press a button." Ad nauseum. For supposedly being in a squad of super-soldiers, I expected more varied and interesting missions.

Call of Duty's campaign gets a lot of hate, but goddamn if it isn't a fun rollercoaster ride which I don't mind playing through multiple times. One minute I'm sneaking through a blizzard, next I'm gunning from an AC-130, then I'm sniping someone from a mile away, dodging falling helicopters from an EMP, riding a snowmobile down a mountain, lazing targets for a Stryker, breaching a Russian gulag, etc. It doesn't hurt that both COD4 and MW2 had incredible endings.

In any case, the core gameplay stays the same, but all the little variations keep the game from becoming stale. The short campaign length + fun setpieces cause me to come back to the game over and over again. And Captain Price is the coolest videogame character. I mean, check out his mustache. Goddamn.

But both series are fun in their own ways. Except for Black Ops.

EDIT: Bungie needs to take notes from IW regarding scripted sequences. You need to draw the players attention to important parts of the screen. On New Alexandria in Halo Reach, for example, you can completely miss it when the Covenant ships destroy parts of the city. That shouldn't happen.

 

[godhandiscen]

EDIT: Bungie needs to take notes from IW regarding scripted sequences. You need to draw the players attention to important parts of the screen. On New Alexandria in Halo Reach, for example, you can completely miss it when the Covenant ships destroy parts of the city. That shouldn't happen.

Bungie loves to leave these details for players to find out after multiple playthroughs. I find the idea noble, but considering I can only go through a game once or twice, I generally end up seeing these details only through shitty res youtube vids.

 

[Hartt951]

Something that has been getting worse in Halo with each release is the shitty 'Firefight in a campaign' that plagues many levels. Even moreso with the latest 2 releases, you'll have areas where you just stay in and wait for dropship after dropship after dropship. It's boring and a lazy way to increase the length of the campaign.

At least in CoD you're usually continually moving forward, you feel like you're progressing. It's a bit too scripted at times, but I much prefer that then "hey stay in this spot for 25 minutes and fight wave after wave of the same enemies" (I'm looking at you 'The Package').

Halo is at it's best when it's a sandbox, when it gives you the tools to get from A to B and you just have to work out the best way to do that. But these levels are getting rarer. I hope 343i can get back to this way, instead of throwing a bunch of firefight and multiplayer maps together and calling it a day.

I agree with this 100%. A lot of people say Reach was the best campaign for Halo, but I definitely disagree. The first two Halo's felt like so much more was happening and overall were just a lot funner. Halo 3 was pretty good at it too. Reach was fun, but it just felt lacking to me.

 

[Lostconfused]

I would think that it was the single worst thing that has ever happened to the Halo series.

 

[TacticalFox88]

In the COD campaign's it always gives you the feeling of everything is going to hell, and shits falling apart. MW2 is THE best example of that, and the Ranger missions are the best references. Reach on the other hand...wow.

"The Covenant are on Reach" In the most monotone uncaring voice ever. There was no panic in his voice AT ALL. This is REACH! Humanity's last military fortress. WTF?

Bungie never did get the Halo 1 spark back. It's a shame really. 9 years of continued downhill.

 

[KevinCow]

That would pretty much be the worst thing that could happen to the series. After five games of nearly identical gameplay against nearly identical enemies in very similar environments with a few tweaks here and there to the core gameplay and weapon and vehicle selection, they definitely need to do something to mix it up with the next game, but making it as linear and boring as CoD for the sake of making it more "cinematic" and adding "setpieces" would only be a step backwards.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

If the next Halo played like Call of Duty it would a remarkable lack of restraint on Microsoft and 343 Studios' part. Copying what is currently popular rather than sticking true to what defined your franchise identity is an extremely poor idea and isn't really going to get anyone anywhere meaningful.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

I never really thought about this before this thread, but I don't remember there being many "holy crap" moments in Reach or Halo 3, but there was plenty of those in Black Ops or the Modern Warfare games in the single player campaign.

And I do agree that the CoD games give you that sense of war and the feeling of impending doom than Halo. To me, Halo 3 and Reach, for example, felt more like, "okay, we passed that part, now let's get onto the next part and do it again," like a more casual stroll through the battleground with a bunch of friends, without feeling like the world's about to end.

I think with good game design and with talented developers who know how to craft a good campaign, a cinematic Halo game like Call of Duty can be done without sacrificing the classic Halo gameplay.

I enjoy both series very much, so why not a hybrid of the two? It doesn't have to stubbornly hold on to its roots all the time or play it safe just to appease the longtime fans. The next Halo game needs to take more risks, for better or for worse. Because if those live commercials and a possible Halo film is any indication, a massive war is going on but it sure doesn't really feel like it in the games.

It feels like M. Night Shayamalan's Signs where the huge alien invasion is happening in the background, but I'm fighting my own smaller battle on my farm. I want to be in that huge invasion in Halo 4!

 

[szaromir]

COD is NOTHING like a "real war". In a "real war" a squad can't kill hundreds of enemies in a span of 15 minutes, 50 of whom are contained in a small room. Operation Flashpoint/ArmA2 is more like it. COD is a frustrasting, badly scripted experience that needs to die.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

On a related note, does anyone feel that Epic got it right with Gears of War?

It provides a great cinematic experience, intensity, and the feeling that everything is going to hell and that immersion of war, while it has stretches of intense firefighting against a pretty smart AI like Halo.

I think the next Halo game should model more after the Gears of War series more than CoD.

Also, I think Vanquish is pretty awesome. Even though the AI isn't that great, the game is very intense and a huge rush.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

I never really thought about this before this thread, but I don't remember there being many "holy crap" moments in Reach or Halo 3, but there was plenty of those in Black Ops or the Modern Warfare games in the single player campaign.

Fighting Scarabs in Halo 3 (and related games) is pretty harrowing, I'd say. The massive explosion resulting from their defeat sure is pretty, too.

 

[HK-47]

Totally agree. Halo 3 never felt like an invasion, and Reach never had the "we're being over run by everything they've got". It's always more been akin to a small team of The Covenant on a picnic. If going more CoD would make it feel like a real war, then hell yes lets do it

Thats more a limit of the tech rather than a limit of the design.

 

[HK-47]

On a related note, does anyone feel that Epic got it right with Gears of War?

It provides a great cinematic experience, intensity, and the feeling that everything is going to hell and that immersion of war, while it has stretches of intense firefighting against a pretty smart AI like Halo.

I think the next Halo game should model more after the Gears of War series more than CoD.

Also, I think Vanquish is pretty awesome. Even though the AI isn't that great, the game is very intense and a huge rush.

Gears sort fucked it up with 2. It didnt feel nearly as dire a situation.

I think both Bungie and IW lost it over time.

Halo 1 and CoD 1&2 had much more satisfying SPs.

 

[NZNova]

I love how in Reach, if you pop up and shoot a couple guys in the head and then duck out of sight again, to circle around and take another shot from a different angle, every guy you kill is a tangible bit of progress toward clearing the encounter. I really enjoy that - whereas in CoD you can be stuck behind a bit of cover, pop up and shoot a few guys and it really makes no difference, because if you don't press forward to hit the next invisible checkpoint, another bunch of guys are just going to spawn in from a dead-end corridor to continue the fight ad nauseum.

So, no, please don't make Halo play like CoD. Bad idea.

 

[Lakitu]

Ugh, I'd rather take the feeling and tone of Halo: Reach over COD's scripted stuff anyday. The most I could play a COD SP campaign is twice, but with Halo, I could keep on replaying. There may be more 'blockbuster' moments but those get old really fast. Halo's approach to non-scripted encounters and set pieces make for a much more immersive experience to me. Something Halo: Reach did very well with.

I hope it's nothing like COD SP, and it continues to offer the freedom of the prior games while enhancing the series even more.

 

[szaromir]

Halo 1 and CoD 1&2 had much more satisfying SPs.

COD1&2 were rather craptastic, too, altough COD1 was probably the most fun in the series as there were no infinite respawns IIRC (or extremely rare)

 

[Ramirez]

I'm willing to try different stuff for campaign. Just don't mess with my multiplayer.

Bungie already beat them to that one.

 

[SapientWolf]

Halo Reach's campaign consisted mostly of "go here and press a button." Ad nauseum. For supposedly being in a squad of super-soldiers, I expected more varied and interesting missions.

Call of Duty's campaign gets a lot of hate, but goddamn if it isn't a fun rollercoaster ride which I don't mind playing through multiple times. One minute I'm sneaking through a blizzard, next I'm gunning from an AC-130, then I'm sniping someone from a mile away, dodging falling helicopters from an EMP, riding a snowmobile down a mountain, lazing targets for a Stryker, breaching a Russian gulag, etc. It doesn't hurt that both COD4 and MW2 had incredible endings.

In any case, the core gameplay stays the same, but all the little variations keep the game from becoming stale. The short campaign length + fun setpieces cause me to come back to the game over and over again. And Captain Price is the coolest videogame character. I mean, check out his mustache. Goddamn.

But both series are fun in their own ways. Except for Black Ops.

EDIT: Bungie needs to take notes from IW regarding scripted sequences. You need to draw the players attention to important parts of the screen. On New Alexandria in Halo Reach, for example, you can completely miss it when the Covenant ships destroy parts of the city. That shouldn't happen.

They do that by corralling the player through corridor-like environments. Rollercoasters don't let you go off the track.

 

[godhandiscen]

Bungie already beat them to that one.

It is still a good MP game. It would be ironic if 343i created a MP that played more like Halo, but after Reach, it is quite possible.

I love how in Reach, if you pop up and shoot a couple guys in the head and then duck out of sight again, to circle around and take another shot from a different angle, every guy you kill is a tangible bit of progress toward clearing the encounter. I really enjoy that - whereas in CoD you can be stuck behind a bit of cover, pop up and shoot a few guys and it really makes no difference, because if you don't press forward to hit the next invisible checkpoint, another bunch of guys are just going to spawn in from a dead-end corridor to continue the fight ad nauseum.

So, no, please don't make Halo play like CoD. Bad idea.

Yeah, but it was better when they would come after you. In Reach there was no sense of urgency. You could systematically kill each enemy one by one from a distance. In Halo 3 at least the Brute Chieftain would come after you at some point.