There’s a monster thread raging about the community’s split over Halo’s movement mechanics. While the campaign will have to pick a side (undoubtedly frustrating the other), multiplayer could easily sidestep the whole problem by having a classic hopper at launch. I’ve been saying this since Reach, but neither Bungie or 343 took this option from the beginning. It’s always so frustrating too, because I’ve had conversations with many people about Reach, H4, and Guardians having the ability to cater to both camps, and when I tell people classic hoppers were introduced, the reply was invariably always the same-- they had already stopped playing. Halo’s potential player base is quite large, large enough that it could only help if they had a few permanent hoppers that sated the bulk of old-school gamers. Classic modes for 4v4 Slayer, 4v4 Objective, and FFA would go a long way in extending the life for people who do not like the new mechanics. If they are unpopular, then 343 can change course with minimal effort… Or they can refuse to do this for the forth game in a row, and if it dies early, I’ll just point it out again. That’s my wager. Prove me wrong.
> 2533274792942447;1:
> There’s a monster thread raging about the community’s split over Halo’s movement mechanics. While the campaign will have to pick a side (undoubtedly frustrating the other), multiplayer could easily sidestep the whole problem by having a classic hopper at launch. I’ve been saying this since Reach, but neither Bungie or 343 took this option from the beginning. It’s always so frustrating too, because I’ve had conversations with many people about Reach, H4, and Guardians having the ability to cater to both camps, and when I tell people classic hoppers were introduced, the reply was invariably always the same-- they had already stopped playing. Halo’s potential player base is quite large, large enough that it could only help if they had a few permanent hoppers that sated the bulk of old-school gamers. Classic modes for 4v4 Slayer, 4v4 Objective, and FFA would go a long way in extending the life for people who do not like the new mechanics. If they are unpopular, then 343 can change course with minimal effort… Or they can refuse to do this for the forth game in a row, and if it dies early, I’ll just point it out again. That’s my wager. Prove me wrong.
The problem with this idea , is they have to develop two different sets of maps for the game. As it is we have gotten diminishing returns with each iteration using more Forge maps over development maps with each release. If they go this route , you may get seven to ten maps for each style at launch supplemented later by mostly forge creations. As much as I don’t like AMM (Advanced Movement Mechanics) , the only way for Infinite to succeed is to pick a path and let the cards fall. Trying to cater to both sides will end with a subpar product that leaves everyone unhappy.
Look at the maps for H5G. They are all stretched to accommodate sprint , have certain jumps that require the use of clamber or several button presses in conjuction to avoid it , and almost all of them have long , wide open spaces to use both ground-pound and spartan charge. All of the maps were built to be advantageous of the current move-set , how would classic mechanics play on a map with clamber only jumps , and sprint stretched hallways?
What in the name of food -Yoink!- are ‘Hoppers’ in the context of Halo MP?
> 2533274818084099;3:
> What in the name of food -Yoink!- are ‘Hoppers’ in the context of Halo MP?
Matchmaking playlists.
Unfortunately this isn’t a viable option.
Every aspect of the game (map design, weapon balancing, etc.) is designed around certain movement mechanics. You’re asking 343i to literally create two separate games. It’s preferable to build one game very well than build two mediocre games.
Simply accept that 343i can’t please both groups of people. Some people want basically Halo 2 with better graphics. Others want an iterative improvement on Halo 5 with some of the mechanics removed or tweaked.
Whatever option 343i chooses (which we’ll hopefully see soon enough…beta where the hell are you?), one of the groups will scream and stamp its feet about how “dumb” 343i is. Who cares. There are other games for those people to play.
But what people fundamentally need to understand is that nothing is going to make Halo the most dominant multiplayer game on earth as if it was 2007. Part of Halo’s dominance back during Halo 2/3 was that it simply wasn’t competing against many other games. Halo Infinite could be objectively the best Halo game ever created but it still won’t turn back the clock to 2007. Today we have BRs, hero shooters, MOBAs, deck-builders, etc. Halo 2 was competing against…StarCraft and CS as all the other arena shooters (Unreal, Quake) had already fallen off.
> 2533274935834633;5:
> But what people fundamentally need to understand is that nothing is going to make Halo the most dominant multiplayer game on earth as if it was 2007.
This statement is correct…
> 2533274935834633;5:
> Part of Halo’s dominance back during Halo 2/3 was that it simply wasn’t competing against many other games.
…while this statement is hilariously wrong.
> 2533274935834633;5:
> Halo 2 was competing against…StarCraft and CS as all the other arena shooters (Unreal, Quake) had already fallen off.
Halo 2 was released in 2004, earlier you were talking about 2007. Which one is it?
But fine, I’ll humor you.
Halo 2 was competing (if you include other platforms and genres, which you apparently do as you’re naming StarCraft) against Unreal Tournament 2004 (“fallen off” my -Yoink-, that game won more awards than Halo 2 in the same year), Star Wars Battlefront (and Battlefront 2 merely one year later) World of Warcraft, Splinter Cell: Double Agent/Chaos Theory (which one was the one with the popular multiplayer mode?), Battlefield 2 (and it’s predecessors before that), Age of Empires 3 and even the first Xbox 360 games towards the end of its life cycle. And that’s only counting newly released multiplayer titles.
> 2533274935834633;5:
> Unfortunately this isn’t a viable option.
>
> Every aspect of the game (map design, weapon balancing, etc.) is designed around certain movement mechanics. You’re asking 343i to literally create two separate games. It’s preferable to build one game very well than build two mediocre games.
>
> Simply accept that 343i can’t please both groups of people. Some people want basically Halo 2 with better graphics. Others want an iterative improvement on Halo 5 with some of the mechanics removed or tweaked.
>
> Whatever option 343i chooses (which we’ll hopefully see soon enough…beta where the hell are you?), one of the groups will scream and stamp its feet about how “dumb” 343i is. Who cares. There are other games for those people to play.
>
> But what people fundamentally need to understand is that nothing is going to make Halo the most dominant multiplayer game on earth as if it was 2007. Part of Halo’s dominance back during Halo 2/3 was that it simply wasn’t competing against many other games. Halo Infinite could be objectively the best Halo game ever created but it still won’t turn back the clock to 2007. Today we have BRs, hero shooters, MOBAs, deck-builders, etc. Halo 2 was competing against…StarCraft and CS as all the other arena shooters (Unreal, Quake) had already fallen off.
Well, to be honest, Halo has always had a mix of small, medium, and large maps even as early as Halo: CE. CE had a problem of having a lot of large maps with only a few small maps, though while the maps were large, they also seemed rather small because you could often see from one side to the other if they were large maps.
Hang’Em High was one such map. Both teams could see each other from spawn and there were very few areas to hide. Prisoner was a medium sized map with a few levels to make it seem big. Chiron TL-34 was I suppose the smallest map in Halo: CE mostly because it featured a bunch of teleporters that sent you god knows where half the time you went in them. Battle Creek was medium sized and Chill Out was strange because it featured many cramped areas but then opened into larger rooms.
Halo 2 was roughly the same, more or less, it had small maps, large maps, and in between maps. Same goes for Halo 3 and even 4, Reach had maps for just about everything that weren’t forge made. But Halo 5 either just took what already existed (Truth which was a remake of Midship (Halo 2)/Zealot (Reach)) and redid it or focused more on forge made maps as they offered more forge friendly zones for all kinds of maps to let the community explore.
So I guess what my point is; if Halo can continue the trend of making small, medium, and large maps, then the smaller maps can focus more on being classic friendly while the medium and larger maps can be more mobility/ability friendly. Sure, you won’t have large scale BTB games with classic movements, but a lot of people prefer the games with 8-10 players anyway from what I’ve seen. Could be wrong.
It’s not a viable option at all! I’m sorry OP, but it’s really not… Unless you want them making Halo Infinite for 10 years! LoL
As others have said and to make this short, 343I would have to have separate maps for both play styles and weapons amongst other things. That’s a huge undertaking. 343I would literally be making two different games in one and would end up doing more harm then good, unless like I said they develop this game for 10 years or so lol 343I just need to take Halo in x direction and stick with it. If it does poorly go to the there style for the next game and see how it does in comparison.