So, we see that Infinite is taking us back to a Halo ring (praise the Lord), but with this comes some questions. Will the Halo ring level designs look similar to our Halo CE/3 versions?
Halo CE incredibly expansive and felt open world at times with the way you were able to explore.
343’s games have been quite a bit narrower in level design and are much more linear in the way they are played.
Also, with Halo 5, we saw a few levels that had a psuedo social atmosphere where you just hopped around looking for story details. Would you like to see these return? Do you think that this idea will be expanded upon in the level designs?
What kind of level design are you all looking for? Is the linear design better for pacing? Are the more open levels fun to explore, or kind of a drag to navigate? Let me know what you all think.
The more open and expansive, the better in my opinion, if 343 can pull it off correctly. I think something similar to ODST where it was a mixture of open world and missions could work. Perhaps we could also get another mission by mission campaign but each mission will be in large areas
> 2533274807746666;2:
> The more open and expansive, the better in my opinion, if 343 can pull it off correctly. I think something similar to ODST where it was a mixture of open world and missions could work. Perhaps we could also get another mission by mission campaign but each mission will be in large areas
I loved ODST, but to be honest I think the ‘open world’ bit could be a massive amount of development for relatively little gain: if they manage to donit right and fill it with lore-tid bits and things for achievement hunters and collectibles and suchlike then maybe, but if it’s at the expense of other levels then I’m not really keen. Nail the levels and the narrative first, then we can talk about the framing
> 2533275031939856;4:
> I want CE style level design. Linear but open ended.
I so hope we get CE type level design! While it could feel a bit barren at times, it absolutely sold the idea of being on a vast and mysterious alien world. The final shot of last years Slipspace engine demo was a clear homage to “Halo” from CE, so I think we could very well see the return of large scale levels.
> 2533274870884222;5:
> > 2533275031939856;4:
> > I want CE style level design. Linear but open ended.
>
> I so hope we get CE type level design! While it could feel a bit barren at times, it absolutely sold the idea of being on a vast and mysterious alien world. The final shot of last years Slipspace engine demo was a clear homage to “Halo” from CE, so I think we could very well see the return of large scale levels.
They did say an inspiration for Infinite is CE’s mystery and wonder, hopefully that translates to more explorable level design too.
Well there was a bit of a reason for the first Halo’s open levels. You see at first Halo was supposed to be an RTS much like Myth the Fallen Lords, where they got the AI for the UNSC and the Covenant set up, then they made it a 3rd person Open World Action Shooter. Thing is they couldn’t make the 3rd person shooting fit good in multiplayer without it devolving into a grenade spam fest. But the Open World Action shooter design is where they got their open and expanded levels. However it does come with some drawbacks. There is a lot of wasted level design space. Some of it you can reach (but never thought to look) some of it completely unassailable. Halo 2 was designed with the linear level structure that they ended up using for the first game from the ground up, which is why Halo 2 is a lot more claustrophobic (if that is the proper term) in their level set up. Halo 3 they did open it up a bit more, but not in a way that you could truly get lost in.
> 2666640315087182;7:
> Well there was a bit of a reason for the first Halo’s open levels. You see at first Halo was supposed to be an RTS much like Myth the Fallen Lords, where they got the AI for the UNSC and the Covenant set up, then they made it a 3rd person Open World Action Shooter. Thing is they couldn’t make the 3rd person shooting fit good in multiplayer without it devolving into a grenade spam fest. But the Open World Action shooter design is where they got their open and expanded levels. However it does come with some drawbacks. There is a lot of wasted level design space. Some of it you can reach (but never thought to look) some of it completely unassailable. Halo 2 was designed with the linear level structure that they ended up using for the first game from the ground up, which is why Halo 2 is a lot more claustrophobic (if that is the proper term) in their level set up. Halo 3 they did open it up a bit more, but not in a way that you could truly get lost in.
I’m fairly sure the timeline goes such that the levels of Halo CE were designed and built after Bungie was acquired by Microsoft, and Halo became an FPS. So, none of the pre-FPS stuff you’re talking about means anything for the level design.
> 2533274825830455;8:
> > 2666640315087182;7:
> > Well there was a bit of a reason for the first Halo’s open levels. You see at first Halo was supposed to be an RTS much like Myth the Fallen Lords, where they got the AI for the UNSC and the Covenant set up, then they made it a 3rd person Open World Action Shooter. Thing is they couldn’t make the 3rd person shooting fit good in multiplayer without it devolving into a grenade spam fest. But the Open World Action shooter design is where they got their open and expanded levels. However it does come with some drawbacks. There is a lot of wasted level design space. Some of it you can reach (but never thought to look) some of it completely unassailable. Halo 2 was designed with the linear level structure that they ended up using for the first game from the ground up, which is why Halo 2 is a lot more claustrophobic (if that is the proper term) in their level set up. Halo 3 they did open it up a bit more, but not in a way that you could truly get lost in.
>
> I’m fairly sure the timeline goes such that the levels of Halo CE were designed and built after Bungie was acquired by Microsoft, and Halo became an FPS. So, none of the pre-FPS stuff you’re talking about means anything for the level design.
It tells you why the levels were more expansive in the first game. They didn’t just threw away everything they made once they signed a contract with Microsoft. They made these open world levels then after it became a linear FPS they had to trim it down but the open world design was before the switch from 3rd person to 1st person.
Personally, given the name “Infinite,” I’d love to see a more vast and open-worlded appeal to the game. Not purely open-world, but something akin to how Destiny sets up their planets, but larger. It doesn’t feel like a directly linear path, but can be given waypoints in missions. Objects in missions could even be slightly randomized based on spawning and such to give more campaign variety. Static spawns and objectives get boring in campaign so seeing the enemy change things up is welcome in my eyes.
> 2666640315087182;9:
> > 2533274825830455;8:
> > > 2666640315087182;7:
> > > Well there was a bit of a reason for the first Halo’s open levels. You see at first Halo was supposed to be an RTS much like Myth the Fallen Lords, where they got the AI for the UNSC and the Covenant set up, then they made it a 3rd person Open World Action Shooter. Thing is they couldn’t make the 3rd person shooting fit good in multiplayer without it devolving into a grenade spam fest. But the Open World Action shooter design is where they got their open and expanded levels. However it does come with some drawbacks. There is a lot of wasted level design space. Some of it you can reach (but never thought to look) some of it completely unassailable. Halo 2 was designed with the linear level structure that they ended up using for the first game from the ground up, which is why Halo 2 is a lot more claustrophobic (if that is the proper term) in their level set up. Halo 3 they did open it up a bit more, but not in a way that you could truly get lost in.
> >
> > I’m fairly sure the timeline goes such that the levels of Halo CE were designed and built after Bungie was acquired by Microsoft, and Halo became an FPS. So, none of the pre-FPS stuff you’re talking about means anything for the level design.
>
> It tells you why the levels were more expansive in the first game. They didn’t just threw away everything they made once they signed a contract with Microsoft. They made these open world levels then after it became a linear FPS they had to trim it down but the open world design was before the switch from 3rd person to 1st person.
No, they didn’t throw away everything they had, but when they moved to Microsoft, what they had were the game engine, the basic gameplay, and some of the basic designs for characters, weapons, vehicles, and environmental art. If you look at the E3 2000 demo, the level is not recognizeable as any level from the final game, because they didn’t have the levels. They didn’t have any of the story which would’ve allowed them to do mission design. All that is post-Microsoft.
I can’t speak for Halo 5 since I’ve only done one playthrough, but Halo 4’s level design has never felt any different to me than the Bungie games. It’s definitely more on the linear side, but there’s a ton of inspiration from older titles.
> 2533274825830455;11:
> > 2666640315087182;9:
> > > 2533274825830455;8:
> > > > 2666640315087182;7:
> > > > Well there was a bit of a reason for the first Halo’s open levels. You see at first Halo was supposed to be an RTS much like Myth the Fallen Lords, where they got the AI for the UNSC and the Covenant set up, then they made it a 3rd person Open World Action Shooter. Thing is they couldn’t make the 3rd person shooting fit good in multiplayer without it devolving into a grenade spam fest. But the Open World Action shooter design is where they got their open and expanded levels. However it does come with some drawbacks. There is a lot of wasted level design space. Some of it you can reach (but never thought to look) some of it completely unassailable. Halo 2 was designed with the linear level structure that they ended up using for the first game from the ground up, which is why Halo 2 is a lot more claustrophobic (if that is the proper term) in their level set up. Halo 3 they did open it up a bit more, but not in a way that you could truly get lost in.
> > >
> > > I’m fairly sure the timeline goes such that the levels of Halo CE were designed and built after Bungie was acquired by Microsoft, and Halo became an FPS. So, none of the pre-FPS stuff you’re talking about means anything for the level design.
> >
> > It tells you why the levels were more expansive in the first game. They didn’t just threw away everything they made once they signed a contract with Microsoft. They made these open world levels then after it became a linear FPS they had to trim it down but the open world design was before the switch from 3rd person to 1st person.
>
> No, they didn’t throw away everything they had, but when they moved to Microsoft, what they had were the game engine, the basic gameplay, and some of the basic designs for characters, weapons, vehicles, and environmental art. If you look at the E3 2000 demo, the level is not recognizeable as any level from the final game, because they didn’t have the levels. They didn’t have any of the story which would’ve allowed them to do mission design. All that is post-Microsoft.
I’d say those levels are very recognizable. Of course it doesn’t look like the finished product, which is a good thing because those trailers were not that pretty even for the time. But for your video that is the landscape for what would become the Truth And Reconciliation desert.
Also taking a look at another pre-microsoft trailer (with the Bungie flag) you can see the landscape of what would later become the 2nd level in the game. Halo 1999 trailer
> 2666640315087182;13:
> > 2533274825830455;11:
> > > 2666640315087182;9:
> > > > 2533274825830455;8:
> > > > > 2666640315087182;7:
> > > > > Well there was a bit of a reason for the first Halo’s open levels. You see at first Halo was supposed to be an RTS much like Myth the Fallen Lords, where they got the AI for the UNSC and the Covenant set up, then they made it a 3rd person Open World Action Shooter. Thing is they couldn’t make the 3rd person shooting fit good in multiplayer without it devolving into a grenade spam fest. But the Open World Action shooter design is where they got their open and expanded levels. However it does come with some drawbacks. There is a lot of wasted level design space. Some of it you can reach (but never thought to look) some of it completely unassailable. Halo 2 was designed with the linear level structure that they ended up using for the first game from the ground up, which is why Halo 2 is a lot more claustrophobic (if that is the proper term) in their level set up. Halo 3 they did open it up a bit more, but not in a way that you could truly get lost in.
> > > >
> > > > I’m fairly sure the timeline goes such that the levels of Halo CE were designed and built after Bungie was acquired by Microsoft, and Halo became an FPS. So, none of the pre-FPS stuff you’re talking about means anything for the level design.
> > >
> > > It tells you why the levels were more expansive in the first game. They didn’t just threw away everything they made once they signed a contract with Microsoft. They made these open world levels then after it became a linear FPS they had to trim it down but the open world design was before the switch from 3rd person to 1st person.
> >
> > No, they didn’t throw away everything they had, but when they moved to Microsoft, what they had were the game engine, the basic gameplay, and some of the basic designs for characters, weapons, vehicles, and environmental art. If you look at the E3 2000 demo, the level is not recognizeable as any level from the final game, because they didn’t have the levels. They didn’t have any of the story which would’ve allowed them to do mission design. All that is post-Microsoft.
>
> I’d say those levels are very recognizable. Of course it doesn’t look like the finished product, which is a good thing because those trailers were not that pretty even for the time. But for your video that is the landscape for what would become the Truth And Reconciliation desert.
>
> Also taking a look at another pre-microsoft trailer (with the Bungie flag) you can see the landscape of what would later become the 2nd level in the game.
> Halo 1999 trailer
Yeah, that’s not how it works. You’re seeing something that isn’t actually there. Both the MacWorld and the E3 2000 demo levels are just landscapes made to showcase the game. When they started work on the actual levels, they would’ve first laid out the basic structure of the level on paper before putting down any geometry.
> 2535418288909351;12:
> I can’t speak for Halo 5 since I’ve only done one playthrough, but Halo 4’s level design has never felt any different to me than the Bungie games. It’s definitely more on the linear side, but there’s a ton of inspiration from older titles.
Halo 4 and Halo 3 are a night and day difference in terms of level design. Significantly less open levels in Halo 4.
in Halo 4 there are very linear and specific paths the player must follow.
In Halo 3, missions like The Ark, Covenant, Cortana all had very different choices available in how a player would like to navigate the level.
> 2533274823912857;15:
> Halo 4 and Halo 3 are a night and day difference in terms of level design. Significantly less open levels in Halo 4.
>
> in Halo 4 there are very linear and specific paths the player must follow.
> In Halo 3, missions like The Ark, Covenant, Cortana all had very different choices available in how a player would like to navigate the level.
I agree about Halo 4 being much more linear—that’s something I clarified in the original comment. With that being said, though, H4 still has sections of extremely derivative level design. Requiem takes a lot of inspiration from Assault on the Control Room; Shutdown is reminiscent of Regret and New Alexandria; and Composer has parallels with The Pillar of Autumn (CE version), Crow’s Nest, and NMPD HQ.
Even though H4’s campaign level design is the most linear we’ve seen since Halo 2, it’s still built with the Halo formula in mind.
> 2533275031939856;4:
> I want CE style level design. Linear but open ended.
Yep, this one right here.
I don’t like the obsession with making everything open world that’s been going rampant for a while, because most of the times it adds little to nothing to the game. Making a game open world for the sake of it usually means the exploration part is gonna be boring, repetitive, generic, poor.
> 2535426983406173;18:
> > 2533275031939856;4:
> > I want CE style level design. Linear but open ended.
>
> Yep, this one right here.
>
> I don’t like the obsession with making everything open world that’s been going rampant for a while, because most of the times it adds little to nothing to the game. Making a game open world for the sake of it usually means the exploration part is gonna be boring, repetitive, generic, poor.
Agreed. Though to be fair, open world could fit very well with Halo. I personally wouldn’t mind it if it happened and was good, but as of now I’d prefer something more CE/Reach style.
I personally thought Halo Reach had one of the best level designs. CE felt kinda empty and aimless, but led to the mystery and wonder of the world. Lots of Halo 2 levels were actually pretty limiting, and 3 found a decent balance.
Halo 4 had some of the most linear levels yet where you just had to fight down a straight path and could see the end of the level from the start. The campaign was a blast and had some better maps, but it felt claustrophobic.
Halo 5 felt the most linear yet.