> 2533274880481816;6281:
> > 2533274923562209;6280:
> > > 2535422208277142;6278:
> > > i personally think that removing sprint from halo would make it worse. this is because there are missions with time limits where sprint is necessary, and also it is very useful in battles when you need to run between cover but overall it is just useful in general. if you don’t like sprint, don’t use it but a lot of people think it improves the game so removing it would probably be a mistake. by the way, just because an extra speed option has been added to the game doesn’t mean it is not halo anymore. halo 5 is still halo and personally i think it is one of the best.
> >
> >
> > You had timers in the games that didn’t have sprint as well, par times? Having sprint won’t just magically make you beat the times, being mindful of your play style while contuosly moving forward without stopping for a ten minute gunfight is what would get you to be the time, not sprint. There’s even videos of speed runs showing people bearing the par times long before they’re even near the last minute mark.
> >
> > As for “it’d make halo worse”. To me that’s highly debatable but can’t be proven until 343 does it. I’ve argued going back to no sprint won’t just guarantee a spike in sales but at the same time there’s nothing saying that it can’t happen. We simply won’t know until 343 does it. Judging by 343s priorities, they probably won’t do it untill they have no choice if the sales keep dipping game by game to where it’ll eventually sell just a few million copies. H5 to many is lucky that it’s even hit the 5 million mark, but 343 is good at marketing. “We’re going back to halos roots”, then you had master chief being the villain which actually did make for a good story when they advertised it but then they pulled a 180 when you play the game. Point being many liked what 343 advertised so they figured why not give them another chance, and after h5 their chances are dwindling.
>
>
> Well thats not true because taken away sprint could decline sales or not affect them and there are people who make classic maps or reimagine them and in customs and you can take all armor abilities off or not use sprint
What’s not true? That halo would benefit in sales with sprint gone? I never said it would, I said no one will ever know until 343 tries. We also won’t know if it’ll hurt the sales as well untill they try a no sprint halo. Giving a no sprint halo will anwser everything, that’s if 343 keeps everything the same but removes sprint only. It’s hard to justify a no sprint halo will help sales if 343 decides to add other -Yoink- in the process of doing so.
> 2533274923562209;6282:
> > 2533274880481816;6281:
> > > 2533274923562209;6280:
> > > > 2535422208277142;6278:
> > > > i personally think that removing sprint from halo would make it worse. this is because there are missions with time limits where sprint is necessary, and also it is very useful in battles when you need to run between cover but overall it is just useful in general. if you don’t like sprint, don’t use it but a lot of people think it improves the game so removing it would probably be a mistake. by the way, just because an extra speed option has been added to the game doesn’t mean it is not halo anymore. halo 5 is still halo and personally i think it is one of the best.
> > >
> > >
> > > You had timers in the games that didn’t have sprint as well, par times? Having sprint won’t just magically make you beat the times, being mindful of your play style while contuosly moving forward without stopping for a ten minute gunfight is what would get you to be the time, not sprint. There’s even videos of speed runs showing people bearing the par times long before they’re even near the last minute mark.
> > >
> > > As for “it’d make halo worse”. To me that’s highly debatable but can’t be proven until 343 does it. I’ve argued going back to no sprint won’t just guarantee a spike in sales but at the same time there’s nothing saying that it can’t happen. We simply won’t know until 343 does it. Judging by 343s priorities, they probably won’t do it untill they have no choice if the sales keep dipping game by game to where it’ll eventually sell just a few million copies. H5 to many is lucky that it’s even hit the 5 million mark, but 343 is good at marketing. “We’re going back to halos roots”, then you had master chief being the villain which actually did make for a good story when they advertised it but then they pulled a 180 when you play the game. Point being many liked what 343 advertised so they figured why not give them another chance, and after h5 their chances are dwindling.
> >
> >
> > Well thats not true because taken away sprint could decline sales or not affect them and there are people who make classic maps or reimagine them and in customs and you can take all armor abilities off or not use sprint
>
>
> What’s not true? That halo would benefit in sales with sprint gone? I never said it would, I said no one will ever know until 343 tries. We also won’t know if it’ll hurt the sales as well untill they try a no sprint halo. Giving a no sprint halo will anwser everything, that’s if 343 keeps everything the same but removes sprint only. It’s hard to justify a no sprint halo will help sales if 343 decides to add other -Yoink- in the process of doing so.
Well they can keep sprint and then make playlists from the ones now and have classic with maps that support classic playlist like classic ctf, slayer, classic infection etc
> 2533274880481816;6283:
> > 2533274923562209;6282:
> > > 2533274880481816;6281:
> > > > 2533274923562209;6280:
> > > > > 2535422208277142;6278:
> > > > > i personally think that removing sprint from halo would make it worse. this is because there are missions with time limits where sprint is necessary, and also it is very useful in battles when you need to run between cover but overall it is just useful in general. if you don’t like sprint, don’t use it but a lot of people think it improves the game so removing it would probably be a mistake. by the way, just because an extra speed option has been added to the game doesn’t mean it is not halo anymore. halo 5 is still halo and personally i think it is one of the best.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You had timers in the games that didn’t have sprint as well, par times? Having sprint won’t just magically make you beat the times, being mindful of your play style while contuosly moving forward without stopping for a ten minute gunfight is what would get you to be the time, not sprint. There’s even videos of speed runs showing people bearing the par times long before they’re even near the last minute mark.
> > > >
> > > > As for “it’d make halo worse”. To me that’s highly debatable but can’t be proven until 343 does it. I’ve argued going back to no sprint won’t just guarantee a spike in sales but at the same time there’s nothing saying that it can’t happen. We simply won’t know until 343 does it. Judging by 343s priorities, they probably won’t do it untill they have no choice if the sales keep dipping game by game to where it’ll eventually sell just a few million copies. H5 to many is lucky that it’s even hit the 5 million mark, but 343 is good at marketing. “We’re going back to halos roots”, then you had master chief being the villain which actually did make for a good story when they advertised it but then they pulled a 180 when you play the game. Point being many liked what 343 advertised so they figured why not give them another chance, and after h5 their chances are dwindling.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well thats not true because taken away sprint could decline sales or not affect them and there are people who make classic maps or reimagine them and in customs and you can take all armor abilities off or not use sprint
> >
> >
> > What’s not true? That halo would benefit in sales with sprint gone? I never said it would, I said no one will ever know until 343 tries. We also won’t know if it’ll hurt the sales as well untill they try a no sprint halo. Giving a no sprint halo will anwser everything, that’s if 343 keeps everything the same but removes sprint only. It’s hard to justify a no sprint halo will help sales if 343 decides to add other -Yoink- in the process of doing so.
>
>
> Well they can keep sprint and then make playlists from the ones now and have classic with maps that support classic playlist like classic ctf, slayer, classic infection etc
Or they can keep sprint out of the default settings and make an “extras” playlist for you guys.
> 2533274895603860;6274:
> > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> >
> >
> > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> >
> > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
>
>
> Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
This makes me think about the boss fights in h5. As far as I can tell you shoot them a bunch and they die. Rather, why not use the new abilities (complexity) to create a variety of ways to attack and defeat the bosses (depth)?
> 2533274855279867;6285:
> > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > >
> > >
> > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > >
> > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
>
>
> This makes me think about the boss fights in h5. As far as I can tell you shoot them a bunch and they die. Rather, why not use the new abilities (complexity) to create a variety of ways to attack and defeat the bosses (depth)?
> 2535426262519166;6286:
> > 2533274855279867;6285:
> > > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > > >
> > > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
> >
> >
> > This makes me think about the boss fights in h5. As far as I can tell you shoot them a bunch and they die. Rather, why not use the new abilities (complexity) to create a variety of ways to attack and defeat the bosses (depth)?
>
>
> Because this game was made by 343.
In their defense fps boss fights are hard to do. But although not perfect h2 at least had decent boss fights so that’s not a great excuse
> 2533274855279867;6285:
> > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > >
> > >
> > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > >
> > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
>
>
> This makes me think about the boss fights in h5. As far as I can tell you shoot them a bunch and they die. Rather, why not use the new abilities (complexity) to create a variety of ways to attack and defeat the bosses (depth)?
Also disabling hijacking limited the variety even more. What is so great thing about Firefight that 343 was like “it is biggest expansion ever” and celebrating its launch by releasing Halo 5 for free.
Isn’t Firefight suppose to be survival mode that other games have it as zombie mode? I thought Firefight was added to compete those survival zombie games. When it became boss fight…
> 2533274895603860;6274:
> > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> >
> >
> > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> >
> > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
>
>
> Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
You don’t understand. Mechanics that add to the games complexity might take some depth out of the game. Like clamber. If were to add clamber to CE, you could find new and interesting routes. But it would take all the skill out of trick-jumps, make bad positions easier to escape and devalue power positions. That’s bad game design…
I wrote about thread about how 343 could compromise sprint, but it got locked and monitor told me to discuss it right here. This is my ideal to sprint as neutral player on the topic. What do you guys think?
My ideal to sprint:
Players never lower their weapon, which means players can shoot, melee, and grenade while sprinting. - When “sprinting”, players go faster obviously. - When “sprinting”, the sensitivity becomes lowest setting in the game to make hard to turn or look around, which makes player heading to pretty much one direction. (maybe even lower than the lowest sensitivity. As a player who uses 1~2 sensitivity, it is not hard for me to turn or look around, so I think it has to be lower than the lowest sensitivity. There should be specific low sensitivity for this.) - If player melee enemy player while sprinting, that player goes to assassination animation for about three seconds. The player who has been assassinated have two seconds to survive from the assassination, if teammate saves that player by killing the player who tried to assassinate. This will replace Spartan Charge and will have consequence for doing it. - If player pressed crouch button, it goes to slide like it is now. - The shield recharge bit slower while sprinting.
> 2535454426512730;6290:
> I wrote about thread about how 343 could compromise sprint, but it got locked and monitor told me to discuss it right here. This is my ideal to sprint as neutral player on the topic. What do you guys think?
>
> My ideal to sprint:
>
> - Players never lower their weapon, which means players can shoot, melee, and grenade while sprinting.
> - When “sprinting”, players go faster obviously.
> - When “sprinting”, the sensitivity becomes lowest setting in the game to make hard to turn or look around, which makes player heading to pretty much one direction. (maybe even lower than the lowest sensitivity. As a player who uses 1~2 sensitivity, it is not hard for me to turn or look around, so I think it has to be lower than the lowest sensitivity. There should be specific low sensitivity for this.)
> - If player melee enemy player while sprinting, that player goes to assassination animation for about three seconds. The player who has been assassinated have two seconds to survive from the assassination, if teammate saves that player by killing the player who tried to assassinate. This will replace Spartan Charge and will have consequence for doing it.
> - If player pressed crouch button, it goes to slide like it is now.
> - The shield recharge bit slower while sprinting.
It’s a good idea, but there is bigger problem with sprint that needs to be taken care of first.
This is the problem: In H2 we had a fan- favourite map called sanctuary. The reason everyone loved sanctuary, was because the map had good flow. The way that the flow worked on sanctuary was as follows: The ring structure could counter the enemy snipe-hut, the enemy snipe-hut could counter rocks, carbine or yard and carbine could counter ring. This was fun map-flow. So in reach we made a 1:1 copy of sanctuary and we had sprint. What we found out was that your-carbine/yard was now a counter to the enemy snipe-hut and your base was now a counter to the ring structure. This broke map flow and that is the biggest problem with sprint. It can also be seen in H5 truth vs mid-ship. I think we must solve that before we start thinking about nerfing the easy escape- aspect of sprint.
> 2533274943854776;6289:
> > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
>
>
> You don’t understand. Mechanics that add to the games complexity might take some depth out of the game. Like clamber. If were to add clamber to CE, you could find new and interesting routes. But it would take all the skill out of trick-jumps, make bad positions easier to escape and devalue power positions. That’s bad game design…
> 2533274943854776;6291:
> > 2535454426512730;6290:
> > I wrote about thread about how 343 could compromise sprint, but it got locked and monitor told me to discuss it right here. This is my ideal to sprint as neutral player on the topic. What do you guys think?
> >
> > My ideal to sprint:
> >
> > - Players never lower their weapon, which means players can shoot, melee, and grenade while sprinting.
> > - When “sprinting”, players go faster obviously.
> > - When “sprinting”, the sensitivity becomes lowest setting in the game to make hard to turn or look around, which makes player heading to pretty much one direction. (maybe even lower than the lowest sensitivity. As a player who uses 1~2 sensitivity, it is not hard for me to turn or look around, so I think it has to be lower than the lowest sensitivity. There should be specific low sensitivity for this.)
> > - If player melee enemy player while sprinting, that player goes to assassination animation for about three seconds. The player who has been assassinated have two seconds to survive from the assassination, if teammate saves that player by killing the player who tried to assassinate. This will replace Spartan Charge and will have consequence for doing it.
> > - If player pressed crouch button, it goes to slide like it is now.
> > - The shield recharge bit slower while sprinting.
>
>
> It’s a good idea, but there is bigger problem with sprint that needs to be taken care of first.
> This is the problem: In H2 we had a fan- favourite map called sanctuary. The reason everyone loved sanctuary, was because the map had good flow. The way that the flow worked on sanctuary was as follows: The ring structure could counter the enemy snipe-hut, the enemy snipe-hut could counter rocks, carbine or yard and carbine could counter ring. This was fun map-flow. So in reach we made a 1:1 copy of sanctuary and we had sprint. What we found out was that your-carbine/yard was now a counter to the enemy snipe-hut and your base was now a counter to the ring structure. This broke map flow and that is the biggest problem with sprint. It can also be seen in H5 truth vs mid-ship. I think we must solve that before we start thinking about nerfing the easy escape- aspect of sprint.
That broke the flow of map because people played on the map with new mechanics that is never designed for new mechanics. Whether 343 decides to go tradition or new, they will most likely design map around the mechanic they are using. I think he has good suggestions, but we all want sprint to be gone forever.
> 2533274943854776;6289:
> > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > >
> > >
> > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > >
> > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
>
>
> You don’t understand. Mechanics that add to the games complexity might take some depth out of the game. Like clamber. If were to add clamber to CE, you could find new and interesting routes. But it would take all the skill out of trick-jumps, make bad positions easier to escape and devalue power positions. That’s bad game design…
is it bad? You say things like “devalue power positions” with no way of measuring the actual impact clamber would have on the game. Losing one bit of skill might emphasize gunplay more, or create more intensity in battles because players can more readily engage an enemy entrenched in an easily defended position… who knows?
> 2535456165221911;6288:
> > 2533274855279867;6285:
> > > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > > >
> > > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
> >
> >
> > This makes me think about the boss fights in h5. As far as I can tell you shoot them a bunch and they die. Rather, why not use the new abilities (complexity) to create a variety of ways to attack and defeat the bosses (depth)?
>
>
> Also disabling hijacking limited the variety even more. What is so great thing about Firefight that 343 was like “it is biggest expansion ever” and celebrating its launch by releasing Halo 5 for free.
> Isn’t Firefight suppose to be survival mode that other games have it as zombie mode? I thought Firefight was added to compete those survival zombie games. When it became boss fight…
I always felt Firefight was a way to recreate that final moment in Reach where Noble Six was eventually overwhelmed. Players could edit settings, increase difficulty, adjust loadouts… This new mode is Firefight in name only. It gets away with it because of mild structural similarities.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
How has this troll/hate thread not been locked yet?
> 2535442956515589;6296:
> This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
> *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> How has this troll/hate thread not been locked yet?
How is this a troll post? Can you justify your statement?
> 2533274855279867;6295:
> > 2535456165221911;6288:
> > > 2533274855279867;6285:
> > > > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
> > >
> > >
> > > This makes me think about the boss fights in h5. As far as I can tell you shoot them a bunch and they die. Rather, why not use the new abilities (complexity) to create a variety of ways to attack and defeat the bosses (depth)?
> >
> >
> > Also disabling hijacking limited the variety even more. What is so great thing about Firefight that 343 was like “it is biggest expansion ever” and celebrating its launch by releasing Halo 5 for free.
> > Isn’t Firefight suppose to be survival mode that other games have it as zombie mode? I thought Firefight was added to compete those survival zombie games. When it became boss fight…
>
>
> I always felt Firefight was a way to recreate that final moment in Reach where Noble Six was eventually overwhelmed. Players could edit settings, increase difficulty, adjust loadouts… This new mode is Firefight in name only. It gets away with it because of mild structural similarities.
It was funny to see that 343 was very passionated about Warzone Firefight’s release. I can’t believe they made zero map for this mode or at least reduce the map size/tweak some areas.
> 2535456165221911;6297:
> > 2535442956515589;6296:
> > This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
> > *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> > How has this troll/hate thread not been locked yet?
>
>
> How is this a troll post? Can you justify your statement?
The title of this thread alone is a cry for attention, Halo isn’t about not having sprint, it’s about innovating the series in a way that adds a unique touch to it that makes it different, here’s how Halo’s Sprint when introduced (Reach) differs from CoD’s Sprint:
Halo Sprint was not built in for most gamemodes
Halo Sprint was not infinite, it had about a 15 second timer
Halo maps were not made to revolve solely around sprint.
Now see I can agree Halo 5’s sprint system should go, I think if anything we should have Reach’s sprint system, as it was well better made. Your sprint meter runs out, you need to let it recharge, you corner yourself oh well, you need to make a jump too far to normally make, sprint jump to the rescue! The thing is Halo 5’s sprint is unbalanced BECAUSE the gameplay revolves around it.
> 2535442956515589;6299:
> > 2535456165221911;6297:
> > > 2535442956515589;6296:
> > > This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
> > > *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> > > How has this troll/hate thread not been locked yet?
> >
> >
> > How is this a troll post? Can you justify your statement?
>
>
> The title of this thread alone is a cry for attention, Halo isn’t about not having sprint, it’s about innovating the series in a way that adds a unique touch to it that makes it different, here’s how Halo’s Sprint when introduced (Reach) differs from CoD’s Sprint:
>
> 1) Halo Sprint was not built in for most gamemodes
>
> 2) Halo Sprint was not infinite, it had about a 15 second timer
>
> 3) Halo maps were not made to revolve solely around sprint.
>
> Now see I can agree Halo 5’s sprint system should go, I think if anything we should have Reach’s sprint system, as it was well better made. Your sprint meter runs out, you need to let it recharge, you corner yourself oh well, you need to make a jump too far to normally make, sprint jump to the rescue! The thing is Halo 5’s sprint is unbalanced BECAUSE the gameplay revolves around it.
You want sprint to be removed from Halo, if it is going to be like Halo 5’s. Reguardless of your side, you shouldn’t just call people or post troll when it’s just about they expressing their opinion. I still don’t see how this is a troll post.
> 2533274855279867;6294:
> > 2533274943854776;6289:
> > > 2533274895603860;6274:
> > > > 2533274825830455;6258:
> > > > > 2533274895603860;6250:
> > > > > I never meant to imply that, should you add more complexity, you’ll get more depth, so I agree with what you mean on efficiency. Let me re-word this briefly: more complexity = more potential depth. A game like CoD is extremely complex, but it’s gameplay is pretty shallow and I’ve criticized its static map design before; however, with proper execution, complexity compliments depth. Dwarf Fortress and EVE Online: both infamously complex, both considered by many to be some of the deepest game ever made, far surpassing Halo’s league. In other words, make CE more complex, and you have the opportunity for it to be even deeper than what it actually is. Like I said, depth is dependent on complexity, so of course it’s a byproduct. A good developer will pursue complexity, not for its own sake, but to utilize it for more optional combinations of actions within as little outside intervention as possible (i.e. depth).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But precisely the problem with complexity is that you aren’t guaranteed to get more depth with more complexity. Haphazardly adding more complex mechanics in hopes of adding more depth is bad design. What you want to do is to optimize the ratio of depth to complexity. The ideal game is the “minimal game”, which has as much depth with as few mechanics as possible. The reason why we prefer the minimal game over haphazard complexity is that we ultimately value strategic thinking, skill, and creativity over rote memorization. And it’s limitations that foster creativity.
> > > >
> > > > Could Halo CE be deeper with additional complexity? Sure, it could be. But it’s also likely that the added complexity would hardly be worth the minimal amount of depth it adds. A good developer won’t pursue complexity. A good developer will pursue the minimal game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, of course, don’t include more mechanics in the hopes you’ll randomly improve your game—only work with complexity if you know what you’re doing (e.g. Dishonored). The philosophy I live by is: there are no bad ideas, only bad executions. You may only get a bit of depth with additional complexity, but a skilled developer will double the depth with a bit of complexity. In practice, by industry obligation, you’re gonna have to make your sequels bigger, so might as well try and utilize the new mechanics to give players more options. After all, depth is the ability to think creatively and work around empirical rules with what you have.
> >
> >
> > You don’t understand. Mechanics that add to the games complexity might take some depth out of the game. Like clamber. If were to add clamber to CE, you could find new and interesting routes. But it would take all the skill out of trick-jumps, make bad positions easier to escape and devalue power positions. That’s bad game design…
>
>
> is it bad? You say things like “devalue power positions” with no way of measuring the actual impact clamber would have on the game. Losing one bit of skill might emphasize gunplay more, or create more intensity in battles because players can more readily engage an enemy entrenched in an easily defended position… who knows?
It’s not necessarily bad. But let me us Damnation as an example. If I remember correctly, the over- shield on Damnation comes up every 30 seconds. This overshield is at the lowest point of the map. It is a very dangerous position, because you can shoot at it from top cat, s-room, red, waterfall and pit. To get away from it, you had to either land a grenade jump or fight your way out room by room. But if we had clamber, that grenade jump wouldn’t be necessary and you could just claimb up. So clamber obviously takes something away from the game. But there is no evidence to proof that it adds to the game. Adding something to the game doesn’t mean that the game will be worse. But with clamber, you know, the game is designed for jumps to be hard. But yeah, who knows?