Do you guys want return to battlefield barriers in Halo 4? Personally I don’t want them at all but I can see some uses for them.
Now I don’t want them in Halo 4 because I enjoyed the days of Halo 2 where I could get out of all the campaign missions and get to cool places in multiplayer maps. You could do the same thing in Halo 3 but to a lesser amount. I can see how sometimes getting to some places in multiplayer is annoying or hurts gameplay, but I think we should be able to be rewarded for getting somewhere with an advantage instead of being told to go back to the battlefield that most of the time we’re still in. I think this applies more for Halo 4 because we no longer have the jetpack (I think). Also it’s always nice to be able to mess around in campaign.
I do also understand that sometimes it is necessary to have the barriers in the game so people won’t be able to leave the map completely. Such as going to another part of forgeworld and totally out of harms way. Over all I’m just saying if we do have the barriers in Halo 4 343i should limit them to only necessary places so we have some interesting places to reach, and I think they should take them out of campaign completely.
Anyways those are my thoughts, and please discuss.
I didn’t experience those days, but I heard from a lot of Halo veterans that it was amazing to have no barriers at all. They said it was awesome to go and explore the maps and have fun around. So I thought it would be better to not put any barriers in missions.
In Multiplayer, I would like invisible walls. “Return to Battlefield”-Barriers can be abused.
Along with you, the aspect I loved with Halo 2 was the exploration. I loved going around Delta Halo through the lake and to the tallest mountains, as with climbing the buildings on headlong. I hated how in Halo 3/ Reach they made the game much linear, where exploration was significently reduced, and kinda mad me real sad, because i was one of those glitchers back in the day.
I really hope they don’t inplant them, but I’m assuming they’ll reduce the exploration amount and leave us wanting more
I do agree we need them for forge. As for multiplayer I don’t think we should get out of the map either but I’m talking about getting on the buildings on headlong like was said and other things like that.
In multiplayer they serve a clear purpose, to prevent people from exploiting the map, however too much of a god thing is never good (lol), and one could be restrictive when it comes to using them so they don’t hurt the gameplay.
For campaign, I love to explore and go “out of bounds”, watch beautiful skyboxes and environments. I can still accept them if they’re there to prevent the game from crashing, or sometimes prevent you from getting lost, but still a skull should be able to turn them off (at least the “don’t get lost” ones). I personally wouldn’t mind if my exploration would crash the game or make force me to restart the mission (reach), that’s a price I’d gladly pay, but I also know that’s not true for everyone.
> I’ve never witnessed this ‘abuse of the soft kill zone’, so I don’t mind.
Really? Never had anyone jetpack up into a soft kill zone and fiddle around a bit, get their jetpack up… take a nap… eat a snack… 5 shot you then fly away? I have
> In multiplayer they serve a clear purpose, to prevent people from exploiting the map, however too much of a god thing is never good (lol), and one could be restrictive when it comes to using them so they don’t hurt the gameplay.
> For campaign, I love to explore and go “out of bounds”, watch beautiful skyboxes and environments. I can still accept them if they’re there to prevent the game from crashing, or sometimes prevent you from getting lost, but still a skull should be able to turn them off (at least the “don’t get lost” ones). I personally wouldn’t mind if my exploration would crash the game or make force me to restart the mission (reach), that’s a price I’d gladly pay, but I also know that’s not true for everyone.
Lost is a plausible reason but I can’t think of many locations where that can happen (maybe the murky waters on LNoS but why are they murky in the first place?).
Soft kill zone placement in the campaign is the game trying to be controlling, trying to force immersion, nothing more. And it’s very ridiculous (some spots don’t even need it). If the objective of soft kill zones was to stop players from accessing camping/sniping spots, it’s pretty futile since 90% of engagements are long range anyway.
I would like for them to be there for at least areas like Zealot’s top floor. I think it added more risk and reward for that spot: Want to escape and recharge your shields? Fine, but you got 10 seconds to plan your way back down or you’re dead anyways.
Most of the time, I’d like to see a invisible wall and ceiling though. I think it would be much more effective to keep players off spots that would be a bit OP without needing to make the map fugly.
^ Yep I’m with you on this. H2 had it right i my opinion. Breaking out of turf with the sword lunge trick or super bounce to ledge walk around invisible barrier. super fun to explore and yep you sometimes paid the price for exploration but all great explorers know the risks!
TO THE ARCTIC I SAY!
i liked halo 2’s lack of them, gave the games campaign a huge replay value, with out of map exploration and all (i did that for hours on delta halo xD)
