The laughable Guilty Spark fight in Halo 3, the predictable rail-shooting in Reach, and the use of QTEs in Halo 4 all have one thing in common. <mark>The player is forced to sit back and wait for the game to move on.</mark> Sure you can shoot and look around but that does not change what it is. I think these are needless additions that could be better represented with a cutscene.
Less obvious examples:
-elevators
-doors
While Halo 4 has it’s fair share of button pushing, in direct contrast, most of it’s doors are automated… which can actually be an inconvenience, especially when they end up shutting you in a room with little to none ammo and containing a bunch of enemies. As for elevators, you’d expect Forerunner elevators to come with sophisticated controls yet they have none. If you’ve played Halo 1, you might have tried taking a Hunter onto one of the elevators on Assault on the Control Room. Those elevators had manual switches… gave you a little control over the situation.
Lastly, wave battles. They are overused, often you have to kill the previous wave of enemies for more enemies to arrive. They disrupt speedruns. And they are often redundant (there are very few with “decorations”, like the Composer airlock fights and The Package Halsey’s lab defense). Halo should take an open world approach, where it is possible for enemies to freeroam.
> Lastly, wave battles. They are overused, often you have to kill the previous wave of enemies for more enemies to arrive. They disrupt speedruns. And they are often redundant (there are very few with “decorations”, like the Composer airlock fights and The Package Halsey’s lab defense). Halo should take an open world approach, where it is possible for enemies to freeroam.
I would love that approach as well, but if you were to go in that direction you would still need to have some wave battles. What you don’t seem to realize is that when you’re put into that situation you take on a very different role, DEFENSIVE. Strategy, playstyle, they need to be changed up just a bit which in a 8-10 hour linear campaign is absolutely necessary for the game not to feel incredibly samey (and thus much less playable, let alone replayable.) For an open world game the effect would surely be worse.
Despite what they might do for speed runs, fighting off waves of enemies (a la Truth and Reconciliation) is an integral part of this, or any other, shooter.
343i shouldn’t build this campaign with speed runs in mind. I disagree on just about all your points- I liked the GS battle and don’t mind elevators (but if they’re like in CE that would be better, admittedly) and don’t mind QTEs either (and come on, there were two in the game). Wave battles should return, they’ve been there in every Halo I remember and probably every other shooter too. They’re one of the standard objective types and they shouldn’t be omitted just because they obstruct speed runs.
I think 343i should build the game around their story and leave it as open as they can to add replayability. The campaign you suggest has 343i building a game with a focus on removing minor frustrations that only really become annoying once you’ve gone through a mission a dozen times, and that would undoubtedly limit the story and hurt the immersion and the general experience of the first playthrough and the story it presents.
ETA:
Your suggestions are completely arbitrary to the bulk of Halo’s Campsign players (which are likely to play the game once or twice) and things like opening doors and going up elevators do a lot to set the mood. As for the wave battles, the guy above me said it really well.
To sum it up, some things need to be restricting from a gameplay perspective to deliver a good game from a story perspective.
The game shouldn’t be designed around speed runs, and scripted events hardly prevent speed runs. Those sections take the same amount of time for everyone, meaning the other 90% is the differentiating factor.
A well designed campaign will have some button pushing, some wave fights, and plenty of open, organic feeling encounters.
> The game shouldn’t be designed around speed runs, and scripted events hardly prevent speed runs. Those sections take the same amount of time for everyone, meaning the other 90% is the differentiating factor.
>
> A well designed campaign will have some button pushing, some wave fights, and plenty of open, organic feeling encounters.
>
> Its the third point that Halo 4 came up short on.
Those sections don’t always take the same amount of time.
Yes I realize there should be a balance. Yes, it’s a shame Halo 4 neglected that.
> I would love that approach as well, but if you were to go in that direction you would still need to have some wave battles. What you don’t seem to realize is that when you’re put into that situation you take on a very different role, DEFENSIVE. Strategy, playstyle, they need to be changed up just a bit which in a 8-10 hour linear campaign is absolutely necessary for the game not to feel incredibly samey (and thus much less playable, let alone replayable.) For an open world game the effect would surely be worse.
>
> Despite what they might do for speed runs, fighting off waves of enemies (a la Truth and Reconciliation) is an integral part of this, or any other, shooter.
I do realize, I’ve done plenty of wave fights and emerged on top. I just don’t like being forced to attune to a certain play style for the remainder of a Campaign. I was assured we’d be able to implement various play styles. That is where Halo 4 fell short, it constantly frustrated such approaches.
For instance, instead of doing the battle at the Composer in a Mantis, I did it on foot and I felt more immersed that way. However, since the game was not made with this in mind, it took several attempts to get things to play out the way I wanted to.
Instead of imposing certain vehicles on us, they should give us more vehicle options. I was disappointed how we only could use a Mantis or Mongoose during the fight for the Infinity. I was especially disappointed how the Spartans that I just saved did not follow me and drive/ride those Mongooses. The Mongooses are explicitly there for Co-op yet they can be seen on Solo.
You do realize Truth and Reconciliation featured a special type of wave battle, where enemies would spawn regardless of what happened to the previous wave. This was also seen on Cairo Station, over a long period of time.
> I liked the GS battle and don’t mind elevators (but if they’re like in CE that would be better, admittedly) and don’t mind QTEs either (and come on, there were two in the game). Wave battles should return, they’ve been there in every Halo I remember and probably every other shooter too. They’re one of the standard objective types and they shouldn’t be omitted just because they obstruct speed runs.
How can you say that the GS battle was enjoyable? D:
QTEs may have been of poor quantity but they were of poorer quality. It doesn’t matter how many there are. If they aren’t implemented well, and designed with all game difficulties in mind, then they are absolutely pointless.
Wave battles should return, but they should not be a prominent type of battle as they are now (especially in Spartan Ops). I liked them in Halo 1 due to their rarity (except on The Library), which made them quite memorable. I was using speed runs as an example.
> I think 343i should build the game around their story and leave it as open as they can to add replayability. The campaign you suggest has 343i building a game with a focus on removing minor frustrations that only really become annoying once you’ve gone through a mission a dozen times, and that would undoubtedly limit the story and hurt the immersion and the general experience of the first playthrough and the story it presents.
<mark>Then why not just make a new difficulty completely dedicated to story presentation?</mark> I’d rather not see repeated playthroughs sacrificed just so the first playthrough can have a chance to shine. Halo 4 is severely lacking in replay value.
> Your suggestions are completely arbitrary to the bulk of Halo’s Campsign players (which are likely to play the game once or twice) and things like opening doors and going up elevators do a lot to set the mood. As for the wave battles, the guy above me said it really well.
>
> To sum it up, some things need to be restricting from a gameplay perspective to deliver a good game from a story perspective.
So 343i should pay more mind to players who will not even stick with Halo after they’re done with it? This sounds a lot like ‘casual catering’.
Gameplay should not be superseded by story, especially in a Halo game.
Hmm, when I think of wave battles, I think of the first structure on the level Halo in CE.
It’s a huge risk/reward situation. You can either hold out, protect the marines (or not) and get a hog or push through, and have to do the entire level on foot - as the hog drop is a scripted event that only occurs once you clear all the AI.
I think I’d like more of these situations - where facing the waves of enemies rewards the players that do so, but still allows a freedom of choice.
At the very least, doors and lifts shouldn’t be script dependent to open/move only once (Requiem…). If I want to backtrack though an entire mission to grab a weapon drop I deliberately left at the start, I should be able to do that.
That means controls on doors and lifts.
> Hmm, when I think of wave battles, I think of the first structure on the level Halo in CE.
> It’s a huge risk/reward situation. You can either hold out, protect the marines (or not) and get a hog or push through, and have to do the entire level on foot - as the hog drop is a scripted event that only occurs once you clear all the AI.
>
> I think I’d like more of these situations - where facing the waves of enemies rewards the players that do so, but still allows a freedom of choice.
>
> At the very least, doors and lifts shouldn’t be script dependent to open/move only once (Requiem…). If I want to backtrack though an entire mission to grab a weapon drop I deliberately left at the start, I should be able to do that.
> That means controls on doors and lifts.
Thank you for understanding where I’m coming from. That’s pretty much what I want.
Compared to Firefight, the rewards (ordnance drops, vehicle drops, etc.) in Spartan Ops are abysmal, often too late or too situational for practical use.
> Still think that QTE’s could allow for more cinematic moments during actual gameplay segments but that’s beside the point.
>
> I would have figured that you would have mentioned the Mammoth level. That was a big disappointment.
>
> I was expecting so much more from that level.
It’s acceptable for lower difficulties but on higher difficulties, it’s better to let cutscenes do their job. Compare Dawn to Halo 1 Pillar of Autumn. Pillar of Autumn was designed with all players in mind while Dawn is strictly geared towards newer players.
Despite Reclaimer’s atrocious combat pacing, I felt it was open enough. I would have preferred having a normal Target Locator and would have liked to see the Mammoth actually accomplish something instead of wasting it’s time shooting down AA cannons and letting us do all the work (often with little to none marine provisions). Like those shield barrier impediments.
> > I liked the GS battle and don’t mind elevators (but if they’re like in CE that would be better, admittedly) and don’t mind QTEs either (and come on, there were two in the game). Wave battles should return, they’ve been there in every Halo I remember and probably every other shooter too. They’re one of the standard objective types and they shouldn’t be omitted just because they obstruct speed runs.
>
> How can you say that the GS battle was enjoyable? D:
>
> QTEs may have been of poor quantity but they were of poorer quality. It doesn’t matter how many there are. If they aren’t implemented well, and designed with all game difficulties in mind, then they are absolutely pointless.
>
> Wave battles should return, but they should not be a prominent type of battle as they are now (especially in Spartan Ops). I liked them in Halo 1 due to their rarity (except on The Library), which made them quite memorable. I was using speed runs as an example.
>
>
>
> > I think 343i should build the game around their story and leave it as open as they can to add replayability. The campaign you suggest has 343i building a game with a focus on removing minor frustrations that only really become annoying once you’ve gone through a mission a dozen times, and that would undoubtedly limit the story and hurt the immersion and the general experience of the first playthrough and the story it presents.
>
> <mark>Then why not just make a new difficulty completely dedicated to story presentation?</mark> I’d rather not see repeated playthroughs sacrificed just so the first playthrough can have a chance to shine. Halo 4 is severely lacking in replay value.
>
>
>
> > Your suggestions are completely arbitrary to the bulk of Halo’s Campsign players (which are likely to play the game once or twice) and things like opening doors and going up elevators do a lot to set the mood. As for the wave battles, the guy above me said it really well.
> >
> > To sum it up, some things need to be restricting from a gameplay perspective to deliver a good game from a story perspective.
>
> So 343i should pay more mind to players who will not even stick with Halo after they’re done with it? This sounds a lot like ‘casual catering’.
>
> Gameplay should not be superseded by story, especially in a Halo game.
On that last point: players who actually play the Campaign over 5-10 times (like you) are an extremely small minority- probably between 1-5% of people who play Campaign (I didn’t do a survey, but it’s still glaringly obvious). I’m not saying that 343i should have story as the priority in all situations, I’m saying they should find the right balance. Some scenes should be entirely story oriented, other scenes should be entirely gameplay oriented. To say there’s a lot to improve from Halo 4 would be an understatement since, like you, I found the game too linear and restricting but the people 343i should have in mind are the ones that play the game twice, three times or maybe even 5-10 times (to take things to the extreme). That is where the bulk of the Campaign players are, and the quality of their experience should be prioritized. This means that story should have a large factor in the experience, and acknowledging that- some of what you suggest wouldn’t be optimal.
But in general the game has to be much more open IMO, no more corridors and canyons- they’re just barriers that limit the player. In terms of gameplay, I really hope the next Halo rewards exploration and allows a large variety of options to conquer gameplay situations (from multiple vehicle types to multiple weapons to multiple ways of taking down enemies- like the Scarabs in Halo 3- it should be made under a risk-reward mentality because that would make the game much more enjoyable and much more replayable. As I said, though, some sections of the game should be more linear in favor of better storytelling.
> > > Your suggestions are completely arbitrary to the bulk of Halo’s Campsign players (which are likely to play the game once or twice) and things like opening doors and going up elevators do a lot to set the mood. As for the wave battles, the guy above me said it really well.
> > >
> > > To sum it up, some things need to be restricting from a gameplay perspective to deliver a good game from a story perspective.
> >
> > So 343i should pay more mind to players who will not even stick with Halo after they’re done with it? This sounds a lot like ‘casual catering’.
> >
> > Gameplay should not be superseded by story, especially in a Halo game.
>
> On that last point: players who actually play the Campaign over 5-10 times (like you) are an extremely small minority- probably between 1-5% of people who play Campaign (I didn’t do a survey, but it’s still glaringly obvious).
>
> I’m not saying that 343i should have story as the priority in all situations, I’m saying they should find the right balance. Some scenes should be entirely story oriented, other scenes should be entirely gameplay oriented. To say there’s a lot to improve from Halo 4 would be an understatement since, like you, I found the game too linear and restricting but the people 343i should have in mind are the ones that play the game twice, three times or maybe even 5-10 times (to take things to the extreme). That is where the bulk of the Campaign players are, and the quality of their experience should be prioritized. This means that story should have a large factor in the experience, and acknowledging that- some of what you suggest wouldn’t be optimal.
>
> But in general the game has to be much more open IMO, no more corridors and canyons- they’re just barriers that limit the player. In terms of gameplay, I really hope the next Halo rewards exploration and allows a large variety of options to conquer gameplay situations (from multiple vehicle types to multiple weapons to multiple ways of taking down enemies- like the Scarabs in Halo 3- it should be made under a risk-reward mentality because that would make the game much more enjoyable and much more replayable.
>
> As I said, though, some sections of the game should be more linear in favor of better storytelling.
The minority you refer to are the ones that do an entire playthrough of the Campaign. I’m of the minority that replays a specific mission many times before moving onto the next.
So we’re on the same page, we just differ in our opinions of their approach. You make a compelling case this time, I can see 343i have put a lot of effort into crafting their story.
Absolutely. I’m glad we’ve come to terms. That was also an ideal summary of what I wanted to say.
> The laughable Guilty Spark fight in Halo 3, the predictable rail-shooting in Reach, and the use of QTEs in Halo 4 all have one thing in common. <mark>The player is forced to sit back and wait for the game to move on.</mark> Sure you can shoot and look around but that does not change what it is. I think these are needless additions that could be better represented with a cutscene.
>
> Less obvious examples:
>
> -elevators
> -doors
>
> While Halo 4 has it’s fair share of button pushing, in direct contrast, most of it’s doors are automated… which can actually be an inconvenience, especially when they end up shutting you in a room with little to none ammo and containing a bunch of enemies. As for elevators, you’d expect Forerunner elevators to come with sophisticated controls yet they have none. If you’ve played Halo 1, you might have tried taking a Hunter onto one of the elevators on Assault on the Control Room. Those elevators had manual switches… gave you a little control over the situation.
>
> Lastly, wave battles. They are overused, often you have to kill the previous wave of enemies for more enemies to arrive. They disrupt speedruns. And they are often redundant (there are very few with “decorations”, like the Composer airlock fights and The Package Halsey’s lab defense). Halo should take an open world approach, where it is possible for enemies to freeroam.
Trying to understand what you are getting at with this post.
Those things you listed all are made to make players feel more immersive. Would it of been better if you had a 10 second cutscene of MC standing around shooting 343, or if you had a sort of a “We got one shoot” type cutscene with the Rail canon. That is half the reason people hate QTE’s is because they take away from the immersion. You putting that as an example of players being forced to do somtime with others that make players feel more immersive than saying these don’t make us have that feeling is… is not hte best way to explain what you are saying.
So no doors or elevators. Just think about Halo with no doors or elevators. Every Halo game with neither of those things. Well i can say the scene in Halo 2 when you first see Hunters would be less climatic.
To my knowledge no Halo players move on to the next area unless they are as much ammo as possible. No one just says
“Okay just killed about 40 covies over there lets just leave these power weapons, possible spare ammo and shield vamping guns here i’ll just progress with the weapon i’ve used the entire game and haven’t found a single clip for.”
Also Forerunner tech is very sophisticated the lore behind it is that Reclaimers can just instantly know how to use them. An Elite might see this a Reclaimer will see this. Its kind of like saying you train a monkey to use a cell phone at birth and later in life that monkey knows a bit on how to use one compared to a monkey who has only seen cell phones and has no clue how to operate them. I don’t know why you would try to take a Hunter up an elevator when you could just kill it, if you had no ammo why are you engaging a Hunter normally when you do fight them in CE you have dead marines whos job was clearly to transport all the basses ammo to an off site location.
I’ve never had an issue with wave battles and i’m assuming what you have said about them is more personal than what the majority thinks about wave battles because looking at games that have wave modes which are typically a great feature people love wave modes because it gives you plenty to kill how you want to kill them without anything holding you back. That is why firefight and Horde mode are two legendary gamemodes and each one of the series wouldn’t be the same without them now. “COUGH! COUGH!”
I want to understand what you are saying but by the looks of it it seems like you just don’t want minor inconveniences, which we all can agree are well…lame. But these specifically are just yours and i doubt 343i will implement them unless everyone has been raging about it. Elevator rides are a good point in the game to tell some story since being in battle and explaining things is too hard for people to understand apparently. So those stopping points are key with the short attention span of todays people another reason why games must be faster. I say quality of quantity.
Also there is a difficulty if you just want to play for story. Take your pick
> QTEs may have been of poor quantity but they were of poorer quality. It doesn’t matter how many there are. If they aren’t implemented well, and designed with all game difficulties in mind, then they are absolutely pointless.
Agreed, though I think there is a place for QTE-style events.
Remember that section in Halo 4’s first level where you had to climb on the scaffolding and whatnot and dodge crates? IIRC that was strictly linear, making it no better than a QTE. Had it been open, though – dodging semi-randomized crates and following whatever path you wanted to do it – it would’ve been a neat break from standard gameplay.
> Wave battles should return, but they should not be a prominent type of battle as they are now (especially in Spartan Ops). I liked them in Halo 1 due to their rarity (except on The Library), which made them quite memorable.
Personally, I found Halo: Reach’s campaign much less enjoyable precisely because it had almost no wave battles, as opposed to Halo 3’s more frequent use of them.
Wave battles can make combat in an area feel less lacking. When there is noticeable variety between each wave (which vehicles can help to encourage), then things get even better. Of course, when a game is filled with samey wave battles, then problems arise.
> Gameplay should not be superseded by story, especially in a Halo game.
True, but nor should the story be neglected for gameplay. That was Halo 4’s biggest mistake, with almost every story element besides Chief and Cortana being done for the sake of justifying levels and gameplay. Del Rio was incompetent solely to justify the lack of reinforcements in the forest section and in late-game areas, for example.
> Still think that QTE’s could allow for more cinematic moments during actual gameplay segments but that’s beside the point.
>
> I would have figured that you would have mentioned the Mammoth level. That was a big disappointment.
>
> I was expecting so much more from that level.
YES. The Mammoth as it exists in Halo 4 should never have been a thing.
It’s a man-made Scarab, except it does nothing in any battle the player participates in, is slow as all hell, and therefore has literally no reason to exist. The entire Mammoth chunk of that mission was a slow, plodding, utter waste.
That was also an ideal summary of what I wanted to say.
