> 2533274801973487;1261:
> “Immersion” (Can’t find the link, it’s on TB somewhere…)
Link.
[deleted]
> 2533274825830455;1257:
> > 2535430289047128;1242:
> > Do you at least agree on this? That its not about specific mechanics as long as they don’t change the philosophies. If not why?
>
> I mean, it’s just a matter of semantics. However, a word of warning, making it a question of what the philosophy is muddies the waters. After all, if you say that a game is classic as long as it adheres to the same philosophy as the old one did, you also have to prescribe a philosophy to the old game. And there’s no unique philosophy that you can prescribe to the original game. Whatever philosophy you think the original game adheres to might not be the philosophy the developers had in mind when they made the game. And if it’s not the same, what value does the philosophy you prescribe to the game have over any other?
>
> For example, if I wanted to play devil’s advocate, I could make the argument that Halo 5 is not in conflict with the philosophy of the classic Halo games. I coukd either prescribe my own arbitrary philosophy, which is perhaps less convincing, or I could point out that if you look at how the people who worked on CE talk about the design, it’s not in any way apparent that they would be unaccepting of Spartan Abilities or that Spartan Abilities are in conflict with their philosophy.
>
> So, attaching a game being “classic” or not to something as vague as the philosophy of the game inherently makes the question of whether a given game is “classic” equally vague.
>
> Going back to DOOM, the issue is that if we argue that DOOM 2016 is true to the spirit of DOOM, and that it’s what the original team would’ve done if they were making the game in 2016, we could equally well argue the same about Halo CE and 5. We could argue that just as DOOM 2016 is a sufficiently modernized version of DOOM, so Halo 5 is a sufficiently modernized version of Halo CE (speaking purely in terms of gameplay, of course).
>
> That’s why I don’t believe DOOM 2016 makes as convincing example of a “classic” game as you think. Either you make it about the mechanics, which makes it hard to consider it “classic”, or you make it about philosophy, which makes it vague what exactly is “classic”.
I didn’t say DOOM 2016 was what DOOM would’ve been. I was saying it didn’t contradict the og game’s philosophies which I stated. In fact, what I said DOOM would’ve been now was actually Brutal DOOM, which added a 3d environment, jumping, and a reticle. As for what I mean by philosophies… The dictionary definition, of course. As what EVERYONE who speaks English legally goes by. Now, I’ve also stated classic Halo’s philosophies, and they are not modern Halo’s: fast-paced, button comboing gameplay where muscle memory, good aim and twitchy reacting are needed to survive with a high ttk, the last one being the only one similar to the classics. And like I said, this difference has nothing to do with tech, either. Otherwise Battefront 2 would have no heroes. Henceforth, the water is clear.
Halo needs to not worry about returning to old style game play, sprinting I think is a good thing. The people wanting no sprint, are players with rose tinted views of past great games, but games need to evolve. If Halo Infinite has no sprint or speed movements, I fear we will not get the newer players who will feel the movement is clunky and old fashioned. Halo fans need to be open to new ideas from developers and not bash them relentlessly for trying new things.
> 2535430289047128;1264:
> I didn’t say DOOM 2016 was what DOOM would’ve been. I was saying it didn’t contradict the og game’s philosophies which I stated. In fact, what I said DOOM would’ve been now was actually Brutal DOOM, which added a 3d environment, jumping, and a reticle. As for what I mean by philosophies… The dictionary definition, of course. As what EVERYONE who speaks English legally goes by. Now, I’ve also stated classic Halo’s philosophies, and they are not modern Halo’s: fast-paced, button comboing gameplay where muscle memory, good aim and twitchy reacting are needed to survive with a high ttk, the last one being the only one similar to the classics. And like I said, this difference has nothing to do with tech, either. Otherwise Battefront 2 would have no heroes. Henceforth, the water is clear.
It was never unclear to me what you mean by the word “philosophy”, so I have no idea why you would bring that up. What I did say, however, is that there are various different philosophies that you can prescribe to any game, so why should we prefer yours? I’m quite sure that “fast-paced, button comboing gameplay where muscle memory, good aim and twitchy reacting are needed to survive with a high ttk” (which, by the way, sounds compatible with Halo 5 to me) was not the primary thing in the minds of the Bungie designers when they were making CE, so I would argue that that was not the philosophy the game was designed with.
> 2535424787895804;1265:
> Halo needs to not worry about returning to old style game play, sprinting I think is a good thing. The people wanting no sprint, are players with rose tinted views of past great games, but games need to evolve. If Halo Infinite has no sprint or speed movements, I fear we will not get the newer players who will feel the movement is clunky and old fashioned. Halo fans need to be open to new ideas from developers and not bash them relentlessly for trying new things.
Disregarding the buzzword, which haven’t been seen for a while, who says fans of old oppose change overall? Or is it a universal law that opposing one new thing means you oppose all new things?
Clunky movement and old fashioned?
Is that how you feel when fighting another player in Halo 5? Clunky and old fashioned? Cause I doubt you’re fighting while sprinting and clambering.
Also, speed movements?
Interesting that a feature such as Sprint is regarded as something new, and not old fashion as one of its first appearances in its currentish form was around 1998.
Clamber with Tomb Raider 1996
Evade / Thrusters in Unreal Tournament, 1998?
Open to new ideas? If you go back a few pages you’ll see a longer post by me tangenting just that.
I’ve had plenty of threads regarding different ideas I’ve had for Halo, new modes, mechanic alterations, new mechanics and so forth, I think I had one with 10+ pages, which was how I’d change random ordnance in Halo 4 while keeping it. Another may have gone to 8-9 pages. Other than that few of the threads garner much attention. I could go make a new thread for a weapon, or a new mode right now, but it’d die fast. Simply because there isn’t enough public interest in the forums to discuss ideas by random forum users.
As far as “bashing them for trying new things”, people will always complain, it is their right. I’m not happy with the direction Halo has taken, I will voice my thoughts and concerns, seeing as I want another direction for Halo than the current one.
PS: Should we on the premesis of “not bashing them for trying new things”, not voice concerns about microtransactions and similar mechanics?
[deleted]
> 2533274825830455;1266:
> > 2535430289047128;1264:
> > I didn’t say DOOM 2016 was what DOOM would’ve been. I was saying it didn’t contradict the og game’s philosophies which I stated. In fact, what I said DOOM would’ve been now was actually Brutal DOOM, which added a 3d environment, jumping, and a reticle. As for what I mean by philosophies… The dictionary definition, of course. As what EVERYONE who speaks English legally goes by. Now, I’ve also stated classic Halo’s philosophies, and they are not modern Halo’s: fast-paced, button comboing gameplay where muscle memory, good aim and twitchy reacting are needed to survive with a high ttk, the last one being the only one similar to the classics. And like I said, this difference has nothing to do with tech, either. Otherwise Battefront 2 would have no heroes. Henceforth, the water is clear.
>
> It was never unclear to me what you mean by the word “philosophy”, so I have no idea why you would bring that up. What I did say, however, is that there are various different philosophies that you can prescribe to any game, so why should we prefer yours? I’m quite sure that “fast-paced, button comboing gameplay where muscle memory, good aim and twitchy reacting are needed to survive with a high ttk” (which, by the way, sounds compatible with Halo 5 to me) was not the primary thing in the minds of the Bungie designers when they were making CE, so I would argue that that was not the philosophy the game was designed with.
If you have some quotes from Bungo on or a link to a vid of them discussing their philosophies of Halo CE’s gameplay mechanics then we could go by those. But, those who are experienced in the mechanics can probably describe them accurately. Now, as for classic Halos having similar philophies to modern’s, well the closest classic to 5 would be 2 with the button combos. But those were accidental glitches, therefore don’t count. If you’re thinking of fair starts, arena battlefields, ect. then that is a similarity between 5 and 1 except they aren’t mechanical similarities. They’re environmental. I’m debating mechanical differences.
If you want, you can give your take on each game’s philosophies as well.
My point was not to pick on fans or to get into negative conversation, I was just giving my opinion. I was just trying to point out that game developers in trying to improve often have to make changes.
> 2535430289047128;1269:
> If you have some quotes from Bungo on or a link to a vid of them discussing their philosophies of Halo CE’s gameplay mechanics then we could go by those. But, those who are experienced in the mechanics can probably describe them accurately. Now, as for classic Halos having similar philophies to modern’s, well the closest classic to 5 would be 2 with the button combos. But those were accidental glitches, therefore don’t count. If you’re thinking of fair starts, arena battlefields, ect. then that is a similarity between 5 and 1 except they aren’t mechanical similarities. They’re environmental. I’m debating mechanical differences.
>
> If you want, you can give your take on each game’s philosophies as well.
I’m not really going to make any claims about what Bungie’s design philosophy was, because I’m not qualified for obvious reasons. All I can say is that based on what I’ve read, heard, and seen, what you stated seems to me not have been the number one thing in the minds of the designers. But if you want to get some insight into the design process of CE, I can refer you to the Hardy LeBel interview I linked earlier, as well as this three part interview with Jason Jones. Hardy also did some Q&A sessions himself which are also worth checking out. As I said, there’s nothing in these I can quote and conclude “Bungie’s design philosophy was definitely this, this, and this”, because at the end of the day these are just snippets of opinions of individual people, and a lot of it is open for interpretation.
I don’t really understand why you put so much emphasis on differences in mechanics, considering we’re discussing design philosophy. if your design philosophy can’t branch into a variety of different gameplays with different mechanics, what you have is not so much a philosophy, but a blueprint for a game. Few posts ago you wanted to discuss philosophies, now you’re back to debating specific mechanics. Which one is it? Is it the philosophy you care about, or do you want to go back to discussing how DOOM 2016 had a bunch of mechanics the original didn’t have?
I don’t have my own philosophies for specific games. Heck, I don’t even have a complete philosophy for Halo in the abstract. What I have are some philosophical principles which I think are important. For example, I’m pretty big on simple design, I think movement for the sake of movement is a much more important part of Halo than people appreciate, I think map design is more important for movement than what movement mechanics ther are. I think different Halo games succeed and fail with these in various ways. But no, if you ask me “what is the philosophy of Halo 3?”, for example, I will not have an answer.
> 2535424787895804;1270:
> My point was not to pick on fans or to get into negative conversation, I was just giving my opinion. I was just trying to point out that game developers in trying to improve often have to make changes.
It’s never been about the idea that fans of the classic movement were/are against changes… it’s about how the changes made affect the gameplay. Halo 2 made changes that affected gameplay, without question, compared to CE and H3 did the same compared to H2. The idea that “The people wanting no sprint, are players with rose tinted views of past great games, but games need to evolve.” comes across as biased and dismissive, not to mention ignorant of the changes throughout the first 3 titles and “Halo fans need to be open to new ideas from developers and not bash them relentlessly for trying new things.” most certainly does not paint them in a flattering light.
I think one of the biggest problems with Halo in general is that one of Bungies’ simplest concepts just got lost in the shuffle of changes. They wanted people to have fun… they wanted gameplay to be fun to the point that people weren’t really bothered that much if they got killed because they were having too much fun to dwell on it. IMO H5 is the polar opposite of that concept… and it’s also the one I played least before just throwing my arms in the air and walking away… in large part because the fun just wasn’t there anymore. It was replaced with a series of twitchy button push mechanics that emphasizes sweaty fingers dancing around controller buttons, as opposed to prior titles’ concept of focusing on tactically adaptive thinking, where the twitchiness needs to happen in your brain and your thoughts need to dance around the environment to get an advantage.
> 2533274825830455;1271:
> > 2535430289047128;1269:
> > If you have some quotes from Bungo on or a link to a vid of them discussing their philosophies of Halo CE’s gameplay mechanics then we could go by those. But, those who are experienced in the mechanics can probably describe them accurately. Now, as for classic Halos having similar philophies to modern’s, well the closest classic to 5 would be 2 with the button combos. But those were accidental glitches, therefore don’t count. If you’re thinking of fair starts, arena battlefields, ect. then that is a similarity between 5 and 1 except they aren’t mechanical similarities. They’re environmental. I’m debating mechanical differences.
> >
> > If you want, you can give your take on each game’s philosophies as well.
>
> I’m not really going to make any claims about what Bungie’s design philosophy was, because I’m not qualified for obvious reasons. All I can say is that based on what I’ve read, heard, and seen, what you stated seems to me not have been the number one thing in the minds of the designers. But if you want to get some insight into the design process of CE, I can refer you to the Hardy LeBel interview I linked earlier, as well as this three part interview with Jason Jones. Hardy also did some Q&A sessions himself which are also worth checking out. As I said, there’s nothing in these I can quote and conclude “Bungie’s design philosophy was definitely this, this, and this”, because at the end of the day these are just snippets of opinions of individual people, and a lot of it is open for interpretation.
>
> I don’t really understand why you put so much emphasis on differences in mechanics, considering we’re discussing design philosophy. if your design philosophy can’t branch into a variety of different gameplays with different mechanics, what you have is not so much a philosophy, but a blueprint for a game. Few posts ago you wanted to discuss philosophies, now you’re back to debating specific mechanics. Which one is it? Is it the philosophy you care about, or do you want to go back to discussing how DOOM 2016 had a bunch of mechanics the original didn’t have?
>
> I don’t have my own philosophies for specific games. Heck, I don’t even have a complete philosophy for Halo in the abstract. What I have are some philosophical principles which I think are important. For example, I’m pretty big on simple design, I think movement for the sake of movement is a much more important part of Halo than people appreciate, I think map design is more important for movement than what movement mechanics ther are. I think different Halo games succeed and fail with these in various ways. But no, if you ask me “what is the philosophy of Halo 3?”, for example, I will not have an answer.
For one, as long as someone has good understanding of what game mechanics are, they can makes guesses at a game’s mechanical philosophies. They may have a chance at being wrong and if confirmed otherwise then they should shut up, but hypotheses are fine. Two, at this point we’ve gotten off-track a bit: the point is, old Halo was slow and simple, new Halo is fast and complex. This is relative to other shooters. If you can prove that wrong, congrats, but I bet you can’t. Henceforth, we classic fans are mad because the games’ mechanics are simply opposite in a simple sense. Again, one’s slow and simple, other’s fast and complex.
> 2535430289047128;1273:
> For one, as long as someone has good understanding of what game mechanics are, they can makes guesses at a game’s mechanical philosophies. They may have a chance at being wrong and if confirmed otherwise then they should shut up, but hypotheses are fine
Of course hypotheses are fine, as long as you don’t confuse them with the real thing and start describing your own opinions as if they were the developers’.
> 2535430289047128;1273:
> old Halo was slow and simple, new Halo is fast and complex
I think you may find that many classic fans would disagree with the first half of this comparison, namely that classic Halo was slow. There seems to be significant consensus that the gameplay of Halo 5 isn’t significantly faster than that of the classic games. And of course, regarding movement speed, most classic fans seem quite fine with bumping it up from the original trilogy. So, I would say that classic fans who think slowness is an important defining characteristic of classic Halo (or even that it is a defining characteristic of classic Halo) seem to be in the minority.
I’m in favor of going back to an older style of gameplay with the exception of movement. Clambering is a godsend and sprint feels good as long as the maps are not made artificially bigger.
> 2533274825830455;1274:
> > 2535430289047128;1273:
> > For one, as long as someone has good understanding of what game mechanics are, they can makes guesses at a game’s mechanical philosophies. They may have a chance at being wrong and if confirmed otherwise then they should shut up, but hypotheses are fine
>
> Of course hypotheses are fine, as long as you don’t confuse them with the real thing and start describing your own opinions as if they were the developers’.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535430289047128;1273:
> > old Halo was slow and simple, new Halo is fast and complex
>
> I think you may find that many classic fans would disagree with the first half of this comparison, namely that classic Halo was slow. There seems to be significant consensus that the gameplay of Halo 5 isn’t significantly faster than that of the classic games. And of course, regarding movement speed, most classic fans seem quite fine with bumping it up from the original trilogy. So, I would say that classic fans who think slowness is an important defining characteristic of classic Halo (or even that it is a defining characteristic of classic Halo) seem to be in the minority.
You may be right… But I then still think we shouldn’t add a boost. Halo 2 A is about the speed I’d prefer, but as long as its not 5’s E sword speed I’d be fine too. Come to think of it, I think you may be right about the speed factor. Its just sprint and thrusters and sliding… Too different for me. In assume I speak for most classic fans when saying that.
> 2533274825830455;1274:
> > 2535430289047128;1273:
> > For one, as long as someone has good understanding of what game mechanics are, they can makes guesses at a game’s mechanical philosophies. They may have a chance at being wrong and if confirmed otherwise then they should shut up, but hypotheses are fine
>
> Of course hypotheses are fine, as long as you don’t confuse them with the real thing and start describing your own opinions as if they were the developers’.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535430289047128;1273:
> > old Halo was slow and simple, new Halo is fast and complex
>
> I think you may find that many classic fans would disagree with the first half of this comparison, namely that classic Halo was slow. There seems to be significant consensus that the gameplay of Halo 5 isn’t significantly faster than that of the classic games. And of course, regarding movement speed, most classic fans seem quite fine with bumping it up from the original trilogy. So, I would say that classic fans who think slowness is an important defining characteristic of classic Halo (or even that it is a defining characteristic of classic Halo) seem to be in the minority.
You know what? You’ve convinced me the speed isn’t the problem. Congrats, not many can say they’ve changed such a rooted opinion of mine.
> 2533274846307559;1275:
> I’m in favor of going back to an older style of gameplay with the exception of movement. Clambering is a godsend and sprint feels good as long as the maps are not made artificially bigger.
Sprint does affect map size, especially the smaller ones. For example, Truth vs Midship, max speed and along the same routes would yield close to the same time to travel.
Clamber is a second chance jump, and a slightly higher jump height. Any ledge you’re not supposed to get over will be higher than clamber activation distance to it, or a barrier will be in place to prevent you from clambering that ledge.
Simple solution to the traditional halo versus progressive halo dilemma:
Split Halo into 2 games, both with 4 year development cycles. Alternate releases every 2 years.
Game 1 = Traditional Halo
No sprint
No abilities
Follows story of Master Chief
Classic game-play/mechanics
Game 2 = Progressive Halo
Abilities
New stuff
Follows other spartans and explores other stories within the Halo universe
This solution gives devs plenty of time to produce a good game. It lets 343 do whatever they want with Halo. They can add abilities, add new shenanigans, whatever. Traditional Halo fans are appeased and proponents of a more progressive halo get what they want as well. The Halo universe is more than big enough to have two different halo games. The Progressive Halo game would need a different name than Halo, but that’s not really a huge deal imo.
> 2533274804182731;1279:
> Simple solution to the traditional halo versus progressive halo dilemma:
>
> Split Halo into 2 games, both with 4 year development cycles. Alternate releases every 2 years.
>
> Game 1 = Traditional HaloNo sprint
> No abilities
> Follows story of Master Chief
> Classic game-play/mechanics
>
> Game 2 = Progressive HaloAbilities
> New stuff
> Follows other spartans and explores other stories within the Halo universe
>
> This solution gives devs plenty of time to produce a good game. It lets 343 do whatever they want with Halo. They can add abilities, add new shenanigans, whatever. Traditional Halo fans are appeased and proponents of a more progressive halo get what they want as well. The Halo universe is more than big enough to have two different halo games. The Progressive Halo game would need a different name than Halo, but that’s not really a huge deal imo.
A ok with that. Like I said, I enjoy 5s gameplay more than 3s, its just I don’t think one should replace the other as they’re so different.
> 2535430289047128;1280:
> > 2533274804182731;1279:
> > Simple solution to the traditional halo versus progressive halo dilemma:
> >
> > Split Halo into 2 games, both with 4 year development cycles. Alternate releases every 2 years.
> >
> > Game 1 = Traditional HaloNo sprint
> > No abilities
> > Follows story of Master Chief
> > Classic game-play/mechanics
> >
> > Game 2 = Progressive HaloAbilities
> > New stuff
> > Follows other spartans and explores other stories within the Halo universe
> >
> > This solution gives devs plenty of time to produce a good game. It lets 343 do whatever they want with Halo. They can add abilities, add new shenanigans, whatever. Traditional Halo fans are appeased and proponents of a more progressive halo get what they want as well. The Halo universe is more than big enough to have two different halo games. The Progressive Halo game would need a different name than Halo, but that’s not really a huge deal imo.
>
> A ok with that. Like I said, I enjoy 5s gameplay more than 3s, its just I don’t think one should replace the other as they’re so different.
And let Progressive Halo take Locke with them while we keep the Chief lol.