Friendly reminder that H5 doesn't use a new engine

Could only make the title so long but my preferred topic title would have been “Friendly reminder that Halo 5 does not run on a brand new engine ‘built from the ground up for Xbox One’ or anything of the sort”.

I still see excuses for the gametypes not being out at launch being attributed to the game being on a new console / new engine, which is entirely false. Recently this was confirmed by Grimbrother One in a tweet. The engine is not brand new, but heavily modified, such has been the case with every Halo game since the very first. Every time a new Halo game is being made, the engine is reworked to support better graphics, more guns, scripts, modes, etc. This is the exact same case for Halo 5; nothing different to warrant a lack of gametypes besides possibly two things; time constraints, or time gating. Time constraints being that they wanted to change the gametypes slightly and not port them directly from Halo 4 but did not have the time, and time gating meaning the gametypes are either already finished or completely ignored until post-launch to release them later to “generate hype” or to extend the life of the game.

For the record and for those who don’t know-- Halo 3 was the first Halo on the Xbox 360, a brand new console. Halo 3 had more gametypes and other features than Halo 2, adding VIP, way more custom game options, Forge, Theater, Campaign Scoring, 4-player Co-Op, toggle skulls, armor customization, more emblems, more ranking, and more weapons/vehicles. While Halo 5 does have most of those features, it goes to show that coming onto a new console (Xbox > Xbox 360 / Xbox 360 > Xbox One) does not hinder the content of the game, in fact it helps expand upon it, which Halo 5 does not do. Halo: Reach also had a massive amount of improvements compared to Halo 3, and despite being on the same console, Bungie explicitly stated they had to rework the entire engine to support their vision for the game. Even with the rework, we had, again, more features and content than the previous games, not less. More customization, more gametypes, and just in general more everything.

Halo 4 is the first game to start removing or “dumbing” down the game, and this started under 343’s tenure. This has very little to do with the engine, as in Halo 4’s code, we see scattered remains of Halo Reach, including the Target Locator, the Energy Sword, Noble Team, and the DMR.

So please, before you think and write that Halo 5 is some brand new engine, it is not. It is literally the same engine since Combat Evolved, tweaked, just like Halo 4 was a tweak of Reach, Reach was a tweak of 3, 3 was a tweak of 2, and 2 was a tweak of CE. Come up with another excuse to support the lack of content at launch and even going forward. I think it’s also worth noting that 343, as developers, have a duty to program and code, and if something is too difficult for them because “coding is hard”, then they should not be developers, since developing is too difficult for them. The excuse that “making a gametype is hard work” is about the same as “making a game is hard work”. If its too hard for you, maybe this isn’t the career path you should be taking.

Tl;dr : Halo 5 uses the same engine and there’s no reason we should have such barebones content in this game. Discuss why I’m totally wrong and you’re totally right because you think you know more than me.

I came here expecting this to be another “let’s hate on 343 for no reason thread”, but then I read the tweet.

Okay, you piqued my interest.

Stop dwelling on the past and enjoy the game.

> 2533274875982754;3:
> Stop dwelling on the past and enjoy the game.

That’s such a “sweep this under the rug” response. Its not something in the past if its an issue still plaguing the current iteration of Halo.

Just because you’re okay with this doesn’t make it okay overall.

Ignoring a red flag now, will lead to more in the future

> 2533274875982754;3:
> Stop dwelling on the past and enjoy the game.

343’s the one using an old engine

> 2533274856723140;4:
> > 2533274875982754;3:
> > Stop dwelling on the past and enjoy the game.
>
>
> That’s such a “sweep this under the rug” response. Its not something in the past if its an issue still plaguing the current iteration of Halo.
>
> Just because you’re okay with this doesn’t make it okay overall.

Funny that the past games were more complete at launch and the campaigns and story were fleshed out. Anyone that’s okay with game modes that launched with past entries in this series not being in this game until months after the game launch that’s just pathetic. As the OP said Halo CE was the first game in the series it was complete with no missing features and being on new hardware . Halo 2 pushed the original Xbox to its graphical limit and also had online multiplayer over Xbox Live yet launched with even more modes. Halo 3 was on Xbox 360 and Bungie had to deal with HD for the first team yet more modes and features were there at launch. Halo Reach they redid the whole engine yet it was complete at launch. I mean what’s the excuse now? Matter of fact as everyone knows most game work is done on PC’s if not all and matter of fact what do PC’s and the Xbox One have in common X86. There pretty much compatible unlike the Xbox 360 which was not X86 based yet the game there were more complete.

Sorry, but I didn’t see in that tweet where he said it was the same engine as Halo CE. In the past, all signs have pointed to “New Engine”, and that tweet could be interpreted many ways. It could be a SIMILAR engine, yet different enough that roadblocks were hit and whatnot. It could be the "same engine in the sense that Source is like the old Quake engine, seeing as how Gold Source (which later turned into Source) was a heavily modded Quake.

Isn’t it weird to think that Destiny and Halo 5 both came from the Blam! engine?

There have been a couple of times where the engine’s been essentially “rebuilt”. Obviously for Halo 2. Then Reach. Then Halo 5. So really, Destiny and Halo 5 both run on heavily modified Reach engines.

> 2533274875982754;3:
> Stop dwelling on the past and enjoy the game.

It looks like 343 is dwelling in the past while “fanboys” claim otherwise. The programming done on PCs are not nearly as compatible on the 360 as the X1 yet were here receiving less content and the explanation is a new game built from the ground up. When you can expose this line of thinking as beyond flawed we can start to acknowledge the lack of effort in the modern iteration of our franchise. In doing so we can demand a better product. Ask more of your favorite franchise not less.

Lost me at Reach was an improvement from H3… Actually no it wasn’t and it was the cause of the downfall of Halo.

> 2533274816788253;11:
> Lost me at Reach was an improvement from H3… Actually no it wasn’t and it was the cause of the downfall of Halo.

The issue is on content and the ability to produce it. Reach did improve on content, lets not go all non sequitur here.

Also I am not all that savy on how to make games but my guess is warzone has the most to do with it. Warzone seemed to be a massive undertaking and to make 24 players and enemy AIs all work together took quite a lot.

Well, 343 claims the reason so many game modes weren’t available at launch was because they changed so much about the engine that they couldn’t have just ported everything over. That’s what they said in a Community Update, if I remember correctly.

Your right about a heavily modified engine and about the time constraints! It could be that they had to remove splitscreen which may have caused loads of problems and bugs and having to add 60fps, also since Warzone is 24 players they may have had to re write some code! But honestly why cant they tell us what happened cause im starting to think that they had a really big problem during development. This is only an idea so please don’t start flaming me

Since Halo 4, 343’s greatest issue has been content balance. We got a super-casual game with Halo 4 and, while it was missing some things, they argued that their team was still forming and getting adjusted. Fair enough. That pushed them to return to gameplay that was much more familiar and emphasized arena Halo. That’s great; however, they just shafted the casual community with this game. Social playlists from past games were wonderful for laid back playing, and their attempt at completely replacing Big Team Battle with Warzone was a bit of a loss for everyone until it was reinstated.

I fear that the addition of REQs and Warzone killed much of the possibility for more quality content at launch. We’ve had a huge gametype shortage and didn’t even have Forge right away; the customs community is just now getting the staple Infection!

We used to get a mix of content that served every niche in the community; 343 really seems too just focus on one at a time.

> 2533274816788253;11:
> Lost me at Reach was an improvement from H3… Actually no it wasn’t and it was the cause of the downfall of Halo.

I’m going based on fact, no opinion. Reach had an improved Forge, full customizable Firefight as well as multiplayer, more armor customization, a larger scale campaign (story being irrelevant). Everything was improved upon compared to Halo 3. Nothing was removed.

> 2533274816788253;13:
> Also I am not all that savy on how to make games but my guess is warzone has the most to do with it. Warzone seemed to be a massive undertaking and to make 24 players and enemy AIs all work together took quite a lot.

Warzone is just another one-shot “large scale battle” mode. Started with Reach with Invasion, then Dominion in Halo 4. Its an undertaking, sure, they had all the stepping stones to make it, with things like Invasion and Dominion pushing attack/defend modes with increasing tiers (improving loadouts in Reach as well as weapon / vehicle drops, resupply and fortifies in Dominion, and REQ levels in Warzone), and Spartan Ops / Firefight / Co-Op campaign showing we can have AI in a multiplayer environment. Its just a matter of using the netcode and cloud to manage it all. Titanfall also has AI interlaced with PvP, and that was out long before Halo 5. There’s more games that do that as well, I think League of Legends is one of them.

No offense, but even you claim you’re not savvy with the technical aspects of developing games; I don’t think you have much basis to make any kind of argument either way.

> Halo: Reach also had a massive amount of improvements compared to Halo 3

You mean the lack of competitive play, Bloom, and the god-awful Armor Lock?

Reach was where the downfall all started, it couldn’t match up to Halo 3.

> 2533274808210415;8:
> Sorry, but I didn’t see in that tweet where he said it was the same engine as Halo CE. In the past, all signs have pointed to “New Engine”, and that tweet could be interpreted many ways. It could be a SIMILAR engine, yet different enough that roadblocks were hit and whatnot. It could be the "same engine in the sense that Source is like the old Quake engine, seeing as how Gold Source (which later turned into Source) was a heavily modded Quake.

We know for a fact that every Halo game runs on the Blam engine, which was the codename for Halo before it was released (back during the Macworld reveal, even). Its not a similar engine, like for example the Frostbite engine and its constant new versions, but the same exact one.

Look at Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, and Super Mario Galaxy. All are on different consoles and admittedly spread years apart, but they all run on the same extremely modified and improved game engine.

I feel like, even if it was a similar engine, 343 had to know the gametypes would not port over properly, if that’s indeed the case. If that did happen, they had a whole development cycle to rectify it. Instead they waited until post-launch. Then that opens the debate of “Should Halo 5 have been delayed?” which I won’t get into because it’s extremely opinion-based and there’s no right or wrong answer.

> 2533274856723140;17:
> > 2533274816788253;11:
> > Lost me at Reach was an improvement from H3… Actually no it wasn’t and it was the cause of the downfall of Halo.
>
>
> I’m going based on fact, no opinion. Reach had an improved Forge, full customizable Firefight as well as multiplayer, more armor customization, a larger scale campaign (story being irrelevant). Everything was improved upon compared to Halo 3. Nothing was removed.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274816788253;13:
> > Also I am not all that savy on how to make games but my guess is warzone has the most to do with it. Warzone seemed to be a massive undertaking and to make 24 players and enemy AIs all work together took quite a lot.
>
>
> Warzone is just another one-shot “large scale battle” mode. Started with Reach with Invasion, then Dominion in Halo 4. Its an undertaking, sure, they had all the stepping stones to make it, with things like Invasion and Dominion pushing attack/defend modes with increasing tiers (improving loadouts in Reach as well as weapon / vehicle drops, resupply and fortifies in Dominion, and REQ levels in Warzone), and Spartan Ops / Firefight / Co-Op campaign showing we can have AI in a multiplayer environment. Its just a matter of using the netcode and cloud to manage it all. Titanfall also has AI interlaced with PvP, and that was out long before Halo 5. There’s more games that do that as well, I think League of Legends is one of them.
>
> No offense, but even you claim you’re not savvy with the technical aspects of developing games; I don’t think you have much basis to make any kind of argument either way.

Reach’s campaign wasn’t that bug IMO… it was also lame to me relying on crap AI…Also I don’t know this supposed source… what makes him creditable? Did he work for 343 at any time during H5 development?