I agree that the masses can be unreliable. However, its the quantity of casuals that pay the bills. So to speak.
I think one example I can give for feedback from casuals is. Classic King of the hill where every uncontested second gets a point is more geared for casual objective fun and rewarding effort. New king of the hill is designed for esports competition. New koth is less rewarding for casuals because their efforts in the hill are voided if they don’t cap it.
I personally think there is a place for both. Classic KotH for Social, and new KotH for Ranked.
No their goal is to make things fair. Which is fine but some of the most fun maps in halos history weren’t made to be perfectly symmetrical. Halo hasn’t had map gimmicks since Halo 3. If all you want is fair play then you’ll make a great competitive game that will never grow because it has a terrible onboarding process. The game has to be fun before competitive otherwise you’ll never get new players.
You can keep the interns competitive team but they should have no say on 80% of things and just get to make calls on what makes it to the competitive scene. Not every decision should take into account the competitive scene. Make fun maps. Make fun gimmicks. Make the game fun.
Would someone actually give concrete examples of this supposed competitive bias that y’all seem to believe exists?
One comment by a 343 dev about Halo being competitive game(which it is but I digress) and you have turned that into the scapegoat for all this game’s many issues. Infinite is not a game you get if Halo pro’s have significant sway in the development process.
This is honestly a baffling talking points that have cropped up in recent years that 343 has somehow made Halo “too competitive” which is just laughable. The extent of 343’s competitive focus has been little more than the marketing potential that tournaments with large prize pools can bring.
The pro team in 5 had to fight just to get descope back and you really think they had any meaningful influence on Infinite? Sprinty, high bloom, high aim assist Infinite?
So far the only thing anyone seems to have pointed to is a lack of gimmicky maps. And honestly that’s not down to some competitive focus, its just because its the safe, less risky option. 343’s maps lack bold design for the same reason so many COD games are filled with nothing but the same 3 lane maps. They’d rather have a mediocre slate of maps then take a risk they might make truly bad one. I don’t agree with that of course, but lets not pretend the bland maps are down so some serious commitment to competitive map design on 343’s part.
True but you wont be relying solely on player provided info. Theres also the data collected by the larger sample size of players with a more diverse range of skill levels and that data is accurate to the player base in the wild as opposed to the curated pro player sample in house.
Its not a perfect solution but it is not without merit.
Early access is not model i love but it seems to have staying power.
Im not convinced that is actually the case. If it were please explain how the most successful entries are the least concerned with balance?
Or how once balance became a core design goal once sage took the reigns that the series’ longevity started to deteriorate.
Obviously there are exterior factors but theres a clear connection between both events.
I think your arguments would be far better received if you showed a little more civility. I seldom see you on a thread without being needlessly dismissive to others instead of actually engaging and making a sloid case for your arguments.
Even when I fully agree with you. Its not uncommon for you to opt to hurt your stance by taking a more personal offensive approach to conversations.
Who do you think is playing?
Or perhaps more important, who do you think needs to be in order for it to be successful and thrive long term?
Edits: @WerepyreND I think said bias is far older than the comments made in the roadmap vidoc.
For me it began in reach.
Heres an excerpt from a thread titled: " "
Not accurate though is it? you derived fun from victory.
But there are people, myself and many of my long time friends included who played halo purely because of how chaotic and fun it was(is/can be).
We did not need to kick anyones caboose to be enjoying the game and many customs were built around creating chaos not competition as the core fun factor.
The same is true of the weapon and vehicle sandbox.
Like I have said before on here there are countless times where a friend or I have opted to do the most idiotic thing possible in a given moment because it was going to result in something chaotic and fun in that moment but likely not serve us victory.
The main mode of halo has always been social.
The name is there with good reason.
And features like forge, halo 2s much missed proximity chat. No fall damage in mp etc. Were all built with social implementation in mind.
Hardy designed CE MP to be a party game.
And to say that a win state means something isnt a party game is down right erroneous. Win states make a game a game.
Mario party and smash are party games but by the nature of some being competitive they can become competitively focused despite the core design not being intended as such and thats the qualia, people are attempting to express.
Its a fundamental design philosophy and one that can support a much wider base than a competitive focus simply by its nature.
In H2 Max was all about streamlining and catering to many with what they had.
It was still explicitly a party game philosophy. To replicate to fun of being in a room with friends or a LAN party online.
Then Max/Tyson and Jamie decided H3 was about adding more variables into that base. While refining the experience.
When the core creative leads are the “one dev” it is not a question of narrative.
Its a question of intent and the reality of project goals.
Its hardly a grand conspiracy that reach onward had a very different approach to sandbox design and that the popularity of those titles are not as universal as the prior games. Its very relevant then that Harve was long gone by reach, Max was after starting CA and obviously a very big peice of the puzzle in Jamie had gone to sony for infamous projects.
And when trying to isolate reason as to why Reach onward was such a departure, down to its art direction, it is far from absurd to consider core franchise direction to be a major component of a change in experience. And new i tent that didn’t quite understand what halo was at its core.
Luke smith is not a good example of this type of argument.
Hell, man was a kotaku journalist at the time halo2 launched and he was very critical of the game to boot.
He was a community and journalism liaison during halo 3 and eventually became an artist.
I believe he was even an art director post halo at bungie although dont cite me there.
I didnt hang aroung much on the forums and message boards later into reach or during destiny
But a well knwown fact is Smith was a very competitive person/player. Ie the example is one of a person who had zero impact or say on the fundimental design philosophy of any halo title and who brings a distinct bias in being a player who sees games purely as competitive.
You are basically making the argument that one could dismiss evolution because a critic stated its an afront to god.
Darwin and Wallace both outlined their thesises and intent but many peers tried to force it back into a creationist mold upon publication.
Yet regardless of ones stance the fact remains that Charles’ and Alfred’s intentions were not based in the same philosophy as those peers and so any statements put forward by them to the contrary have no bearing on the reality of the situation.
(Sorry very odd analogy but its what came to mind so I went with it.)
But many of us can separate the 2 and enjoy to play for the social aspect as much as the competition.
And could do so because ranked and social differed greatly and MLG rules were a different game entirely.
It was great because it catered to such a diverse commu ity and wasnt like any of its contemporaries by design.
I think some think (not saying you do) that this argument means to undermine halos competitive qualities but it is really out to determine the essential nature of halo Nd how it can be iterated and expanded on in a way that supports all facets of the community.
Halo is a party game set in an arena that is true but arenas were not the focus mearly the medium of delivery and theres much to be learned from that.
Particularly in a space over stuffed with competitively designed fps games.
I think to reduce halo to being thought of as an Arena Shooter is not just a mistake but a disservice to the franchise, its legacy and the community that grew from the success of the trilogy.
Edit: statements rplied to for ref:
I think this debate is one of the more interesting in our community as of late because it cuts so deep and has so much nuance in every term used as well as varied colloquial usage of said terms. Its fascinating to me.
But ive yet to find a truely great argument against the hypothesis of halos lacking direction being a mistake in philosophy. From my perspective halo has certainly been a party game first and foremost in the mp space since its inception.
END QUOTE.
I dont think its a matter of bias as it is more one of philosophy and design goals.
Personally I certainly feel there was something specifical lost when jamie departed from the franchise and his approach to halos 30 seconds was a key element in what made the franchise distinct.
I dont believe any of those who filled his role ever managed to replicate it. Be it intentional or otherwise.
Sandbox and gameplay design underwent an evolution that seems to be more in keeping with modern FPS design logic the industry took as standard post the rise of COD4MW.
Prior to, balance while obviously important was subservient to fun.
As online gaming became more mainstream and interface literacy started to become more homogeneous and an assumed skill in the casual market halos most marketable aspects were effectively cannibalised.
But in response to this the series seemed to follow the path of its contemporaries rather than stick to its foundingnprinciples and forge ahead with that identity.
Similarly to how Doom 2016, a game i feel had a better mp suite than most seem to feel.
Or Quake champions who wanted to be classic quake but wasnt willing to avoid trends and became a chimera of sorts.
These titles by lacking confidence in the franchises identities failed to capture either new or legacy audiences and, at least from my perspective, the same is true for infinite.
Perhaps im entirely wrong. And if so.
Ill gladly learn why that is.
Hope to see some well articulated rebuttles below.
Peace out.
343i needs to understand that competition doesn’t happen if the base game itself isn’t fun to play for people. Pretty sure every sport in the world started out with a few guys tossing a ball around in one way or another.
I don’t really care what people think of me here, though. I have every right to be a dismissive todger if I want - I’m almost 30, and got a lot more to worry about than what Halo fans you can’t make happy, think of me. I mean.
I’m a transgender, WLW, furry, leftist. Doesn’t matter what I do “right”, my person. I WILL be hated here, and that’s just how it rolls, so there’s not much point in making myself look the part of the hero or something by being virtuous by somebody else’s standards. I protect my family, friends, donate to charity when I can and help out people when they ask for it.
I just don’t need to appear virtuous. Don’t got time.
Frankly, competitive players and casual players, but comp players are pretty dedicated and TEND to be your core playerbase. As someone who used to be a professional (and widely respected) gamer in the Star Wars Squadrons scene… We kept the game alive nearly single handedly. Casuals, the game was never really for them to understand and play thoroughly. Whether that’s good or bad it’s ultimately true.
That’s actually not entirely true, I used to lead a fairly casual clan in 2010-2012 called the 2401st, maybe you saw our ads in the file share. We didn’t play comp but we focused on BTB, a fairly casual mode and we took it seriously, but we were large in part, pretty laid back. My members wouldn’t tell you that then, but my former little brother, well, the stuff he got into? My clan was a cakewalk by comparison, haha.
No we don’t need to. I love casual fun in Halo.
But it needs to be balanced competitively first.
Look, you’ve got this big huge reply, and I respect it - maybe I’ll give it a read-over sometime, but I still haven’t had breakfast, coffee, and the wife is out with her mom getting stuff at the asian market. I look forward to that taro bubble tea in a can, it’s good stuff.
I wanna’ talk about all this with you at some point, Hel, maybe 1-1, idk. You seem okay. Sorry that sometimes I don’t. But there’s a lot of mouths on here that ain’t sayin’ much so I don’t respect most of 'em. That’s how it is.
I didnt mean to imply you had to be virtuous or pander to others beliefs/sensibilities. Nor that you have to care.
Although civility is something the tos at least on paper is supposedly expected of us all.
Honestly a persons indentity/politics etc. Dont really have any bearing on my reading of a halo related take unless the topic explicitly entails those topics.
I just thought it might be more time efficient if excess animosity is just left unsaid.
As you said you are 30 and have better things to do.
Might be beneficial to not bother.
We all got more to worry about.
I dont feel like getting personally directed serves any of us in the end.
In the end we are here for some escapism.
That said you do you.
But I know im doing much better now im dropping that stuff from my replies and just focusing on the game discourse itself.
And please dont let yourself fall into the mind set that being a trans lefty necessitates people see you as wrong.
Cause that sucks and it aint true and we got to move beyond that mindset as a community. Its a mentality thats hurting far too many. I know it aint easy.
As for the comp thing.
Ya so the pros maintain a game post life cycle for sure.
But the core playerbase, especially considering halo as a franchise by fact of volume is casual.
And that casual base is far more important the more time passes as its the avenue by which the hardcore base will be expanded and maintained.
If we cater to an ever dwindling population of niche players we cannot expect to last.
This is coming from a person who is still a regular UT2004 and Quake3 player and a big TF2northstar fan.
We may keep games “alive” but we cannot make them succeed.
I dont agree with the notion the ge was never for the casual market though.
Particularly when its a product specifically built for a mass appeal like a halo or star wars project would be.
Oh my god.
The 2401st? Im familiar with ye haha.
As for needing to be competitive and balanced first.
I just dont believe that is true.
Halo CE, 2 and 3 are some of the least balanced mp games ive played and they remajn the high points of the franchise. 2/3s dual wield is an absolute mess.
But also an absolute blast.
Pro h2/3 ignores the vast majority of the sandbox because the br is more viable in most situations.
So honeslty i believe fun specifically in halo should supercede competitive balancing.
Anyways. Opinions are like traumas we all have our own.
Stay safe
It may have no bearing to you, but that ashton fellow refuses to use anything but he, so yeah lol.
We could talk about that over coffee sometimes, it’s largely true in very libertarian-heavy gamer spaces, but that’s getting too close to politics chat and I’ve had a stern talking to before by mods about that.
No you are correct about this - but without us, the games do die outright.
Yep. We made the rounds a long time ago. Went by SPARTAN A362 back then. I believe my average K/D was um. What. 0.50-0.45, lol. I was… Not good at the game.
Bigots gonna bigot babe.
Learned long time ago they aint worth my time or attention.
Im far too glamorous to dive into the sewers with the cretins.
Bet you are also.
But im getting off topic so um guess ill leave it there.
The entire concept is that things should be removed if they don’t fit into the competitive sandbox. Classics like the M6D, DMR, and SMG have been removed because they don’t fill a specific niche in the sandbox.
Objectively, there are many who would be happy to see these guns in the game, but we don’t get them, cause “SaNDbOx DunDRuNdaNcyYY!!!”
For 1 there is still noticable redundancy in the Infinite sandbox so once again we have an instance where what 343 says and what 343 does are two entirely different things.
And 2 that’s not a “competitive” design philosophy its just good design philosophy to make the best use of time and resources. There is only so much time that any dev team has to design, implement and balance parts of the sandbox that they should be spent and more unique options rather than stuffing the sandbox full of reskins that offer next to nothing new to the game outside of aesthetics.
So again there is still nothing concrete to back up the notion that 343 is too “competitively focused” because the claim has always been nonsense.
As for the redundancy thing.
It combined with the choices to remove many of the legacy items that either could be seen as op or lacking competitive viability does indeed suggest a conscious choice to support competitive design over casual fun.
Can you provide a good argument as to how it does not?
Becuase my perspective leaves me seeing your denial as the stance lacking solid evidence.
You may well be correct but so far I dont see any good reasoning as tk how that is?
The problem with your argument is that you are projecting a “competitive” motive to issues that come down to time, resources and general design.
Do you think that it is realistic to expect that every installment of every Halo game include every weapon from prior installments on top of adding new ones?
If you don’t, how do you go about making those cuts and where? If you have if you have only 1 slot left and your choices are between a palate swapped version of something that is already in the game or something that doesn’t have a direct equivalent?
Why would it be a “competitive” decision to choose adds a new dimension to the game with a more unique option as opposed to a “legacy” which adds nothing outside of some aesthetic variety at best? Keep in mind that Unique =/ Inherently competitive or viable.
And once again, I would point out that despite what 343 has said, they have demonstrably not fixed redundancy issues within the Halo sandbox and in some ways have made it worse.
This is not me defending the sandbox as it stands, because I believe the Infinite sandbox is insidiously bad for a variety of reasons.
My problem is that you and others are attributing 343’s bad decisions to some “competitive” bogeyman and not only is that not helpful, its actually detrimental to fixing the problems at hand.
How much balance is needed to be fun? It’s incredible how games like Goldeneye, SSB, Halo:CE (the list goes on) had horribly unbalanced maps, characters, and weapons, and somehow managed to be endlessly fun games.
But yes, please lecture us pleebs on how fun is achieved.
I mean some of these weapons can screw with the social sandbox as well. Take one of the most asked for returning weapons, the DMR. Might be a fun bit of Reach nostalgia, but that gun turned every map with even decent sightlines into a plink fest. People already dislike maps like Behemoth for their openness to ranged spam, and adding a weapon that is going to do its guaranteed full damage so long as you hit your target will only make it worse.
343 seems to be attempting to address that specific concern and how much it blends in with the BR otherwise by removing the DMR’s scope, but we’ll have to see how much that stomps on the commando’s toes instead. Not like anyone has tried to put in the effort to learn that weapon though.
For a multibillion dollar franchise like Halo to be viably competitive and fun, the sandbox needs to be tight. Especially since they are trying VERY hard to shoot for the Esports scene right now.
You don’t know what you’re talking about so I’m not really going to address this point any further.
Nothing to learn, it’s basically unusable. You had to learn in LSS but generally speaking it doesn’t compete with the AR or BR. It’s the bloom’s fault.
One of the main reasons why Halo has been failing over the years is because from Halo 4 and up they all feel Competitive 1st, Casual 2nd, Fun 3rd and everything is basically the same experience with minimal changes here and there. For example
Halo 4 - The Multiplayer experience had Loadouts and a horrible weapon progression system but gameplay experience was basically BR Starts most of the time. You had a choice to use other weapons but those weapons weren’t even close to as powerful to the BR which lead to everyone using it all the time. Which literally canceled out all levels of that Casual experience.
Halo 2 Anniversary - The Multiplayer experience in this game was a complete let down at the very beginning and to date. The weapons don’t deal out the same experience from the original Halo 2 Classic Xbox version in the slightest bit. Anything that’s not for HCS damage wise is ridiculous weak to the point no one going to use it. Then the big Casual thing in Halo 2 multiplayer was Dual Wielding, but that is more of a light show and less of a damage one. Then the Battle Rifle was basically taken out of Halo 4 and reskin for H2A which yet again dominate the battlefield all the time.
But what made things even worse was the Elite experience wasn’t kept in design for the maps or weapons. The door ways, ceiling, and cover doesn’t work with Elites. The Melee Attack doesn’t even land half the time and the Energy Sword lunge distance is shorter for Elite players then Spartan players.
343 had a perfect opportunity test things out with players by making it so Headshot damage isn’t effective on Elite players because there body frame is wider which would easily lead to more players using the Elites like in Halo 3. But since they didn’t do anything of the such Elite players die extremely fast to the point its rare to come across one to date. Then biggest problem was all the maps from the past weren’t even remade and to this very day still has a lack of content.
Halo 5 - In this Multiplayer experience 343 tried to make everyone feel like a super soldier but as a Spartan with updated mechanics for a Modern Halo game. In some most ways this was ok at least in my opinion. But I know for most fans that like H3 and Reach and nothing else will disagree. While the weapon experience was fun, and all the weapons were useful for killing. But the game was setup to be competitive all the times which lead to overtime the Magnum becoming OP and the casual thing not so much anymore.
Halo 5 Warzone was a good idea and a interesting way to expand the casual community with a new mode that could become something amazing with a completely different level of gameplay that wouldn’t effect the experience for arena multiplayer. But unfortunately it was done with competitive gaming in mind which is what killed the mode. Which is why it wasn’t as successful as it could have been.
But that’s enough of the past.
The thing is that Halo as the potential to be a amazing shooter at the top of the latter again. But making the game where it pays more attention to competitive gameplay more than casual is literally not going to work for most people in the shooter genre. Call of Duty literally does just the opposite and it’s the reason why so many people play the game. Having a place for everyone to enjoy brings more people to the game not less.
So by having only Arena gameplay experience with that same UNSC Armory dominating everything else gameplay and not making things make since in the game isn’t going bring people to the game but push them away. Halo can still have Arena Multiplayer but it needs another mode to play that’s a completely different gameplay experience.
Am I never mentioned cuts or resource management inbmy initial argument so thats explicitly false.
I think you may have not read the comment I referred to before you responded.
I am actually in favour of the reduction although i feel it was handled poorly when we consider what was cut and what was replaced, particularly in relation to the marketing rhetoric around the game.
But also you misunderstood the reduction was not why people use it as an argument for the competitive design philosophy. Rather its how they built the sandbox that took the place of prior games’
Which in its design is pretty clearly built to be more viable across the board.
Why would it be a “competitive” decision to choose adds a new dimension to the game with a more unique option as opposed to a “legacy” which adds nothing outside of some aesthetic variety at best? Keep in mind that Unique =/ Inherently competitive or viable.
It isnt particularly unique nor is there any new dimension.
They wanted to specify existing elements by tying them to particularly weapin sets. They made the bounce trait once found in multiple weapons in a single sandbox and tied it to one weapon. They layered the ubiquitous in halo trackingnprojctile on it.
They removed the stun trait from plasma as a reason to create a new sub class that is built to replace power drain, incendiary, promethean nades, splinter cannons as area denial and group devision tools.
Legacy provided these options already.
Further legacy had the avenue for the most interesting and unique avenue to updare the weapon sandbox.
Dual wield. Explicitly cut for being too hard to balance.
Because balance was prioritised over fun.
Ill directed you to the aforementioned comment on that.
Please take the time to read that shiuld you wish to reply.
I also do not think the where and what do we cut argument is a good one at face value but thats actually a whole other topic in my mind than what we are discussing here.
to the point no one going to use it. Then the big Casual thing in Halo 2 multiplayer was Dual Wielding, but that is more of a light show and less of a damage one. Then the Battle Rifle was basically taken out of Halo 4 and reskin for H2A which yet again dominate the battlefield all the time.