I am assuming no load outs? You have pick other weapons off the ground? I am really hoping that is the case. To me, that is why halo 4 was not as good as halo 2 or 3. I don’t think load outs is a good look for halo. If halo is as successful as it once was its because it is it’s own game. Reach was down right bad, it was almost like a futuristic cod. Halo 4 was a step in the right direction. This MCC is amazing. What I think 343 should do is see what game is played the most and why? I don’t think it will be 4. I think it will be 2 and 3
I was told, back when Reach was released, that everyone starts off with the same abilities, so it’s the familiarity with the map and decisions players make that earn them points/kills.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
> What I think 343 should do is see what game is played the most and why? I don’t think it will be 4. I think it will be 2 and 3
As Frankie said in an IGN interview during E3, 343i knows how people feel about Halo 1, 2, 3, and 4, so they wouldn’t be learning anything new from the population spikes. The Halo 5 beta will determine the future of the next game. Below is a link to prove this claim: http://youtu.be/EYxlqHMHxA0?t=16m44s
OT: Arena shooters refer to equal starts with no random elements. Just think about the original trilogies multiplayer.
Also I’m moving this to the Halo 5: Guardians forums as I see this being more a discussion of Arena gameplay.
it’s the genre of FPS that Halo came from, like Quake.
Halo’s always been kinda a hybrid between arena shooters and modern shooters. since it was designed for consoles it doesn’t play quite as fast.
several of the indicators of an arena shooter: teleporters, powerups, power weapons, map pickups, freedom of movement.
you can see how that fits most of Halo.
arena shooters are kinda out of style right now, I’ve heard someone describe Halo as the “closest living relative” of them. (though some do still exist, like Tribes Ascend or Shootmania)
Sounds good Austin. Sorry for posting under the wrong board. So what I’m gathering is that arena style means no load outs? Or everyone has equal opportunity with loadouts
> Sounds good Austin. Sorry for posting under the wrong board. So what I’m gathering is that arena style means no load outs? Or everyone has equal opportunity with loadouts
No big, it happens, you had bits and pieces about Halo 5 and MCC but its suited best here.
Arena style may or may not mean no load outs. I don’t believe there is any confirmation load outs are gone, all we know for sure is armor abilities are gone which is a step in the right direction in my opinion of course. Arena style means if you start with a battle rifle, so do I and so does everyone else in the game. Weapons will be placed all throughout the multiplayer maps and players need to find them and then use them to try and gain map control. As I said, look at the original trilogy to see what arena style multiplayer looks like.
Wait, I’m confused. You say Loadouts are bad for Halo, then say Reach is the worst and that Halo 4 was a step in the right direction?
Halo 4 still had loadouts but the gameplay was much better. Reach had loadouts as well however I did not like the movement and armor lock. It didnt “feel” like halo. Halo 4 felt more like halo. Yes, it still had loadouts and to me it was part reach and part the “old halo”. IMO, halo has to be its own game, thats what it got the name and thats what made it fun. It should not try to be other games, with the loadouts, it seems more of a futuristic call of duty than anything, especially with reach. Halo 4 was a step in the right direction. I still think the maps on halo 4 were lacking, there were no lockouts or the pit. Haven was okay, but if that map were in halo 3 or halo 2, it would have been second tier IMO, not the best in the game. I love the idea of arena style. Make people pick up their weapons. Make people earn it. I would even be fine with sprint on the game, if it was something that you pick up. People hated armor lock but halo 3 had the bubble shield which was basically armor lock except you had to pick it up. Also, I know players could still hit you by running into the bubble shield but at least you had to pick it up. Heck, have a jet pack on a few maps, but make someone earn it, just not select it.
> OT: Arena shooters refer to equal starts with no random elements. Just think about the original trilogies multiplayer.
Sorry but your definition doesn’t make sense. Customization options (like custom loadouts) has anything to do with “arena” shooters? Then how it’s that for vast majority of nowadays gamers Call of Duty represents “arena style”, as opposed to bigger, team-oriented games like Battlefield?
No random elements? Then poor Quake isn’t arena shooter! It has 100% random respawn points (I’ve seen Quakecon matches where final output was affected by this feature), and damage for it’s rocket laucher vary between 100 and 120% by random. It’s actually if BR in Halo was 4 or 5sk based on random factor. Yet to this day Quake 1 is considered as one of the most competitive arena shooters in history.
Frankie is more likely than not referring to what the Halo community considers to define “arena shooter”, and not the term in general.
I.e. the original trilogy.
> Frankie is more likely than not referring to what the Halo community considers to define “arena shooter”, and not the term in general.
Well, there is another possiblity. Halo isn’t online juggernaut, like it was few years ago. Is it because it’s Halo, or because it stopped to be Halo?
Or maybe arena shooters in general are losing their popularity to other genres? Call of Duty (which is considered “arena shooter”) is somehow holding up (like Starcraft for dying genre of RTS) but it’s losing it’s former hype. Titanfall tried to be “the next big thing” but it looks that it’s nowhere near of some much more “epic”, next gen franchises (like Destiny) or even Battlefield.
After what happened to Halo 4 it wouldn’t be surprise if next game’s multiplayer was some Borderlands-ripoff, or some MMO, or some epic, team-based 32v32 game a’la Battlefield (because eventually, btb in Halo 4 was at least twice as popular as 4v4 playlists).
Yes, from small, Halo-only perspective it would be some kind of heresy, but from wider point of view, it would have sense. However what Frankie said, ment they’ll make another try for arena-style action. That’s why Halo 5 beta is coming out 10 months before full game. This way they have enough time to literally try every feature one-by-one and check what actually is more popular amongst people, who still prefer online shooters with less-scoped but more competitive, face-to-face action.
> Then how it’s that for vast majority of nowadays gamers Call of Duty represents “arena style”,
The Xbox Live Marketplace description of Section 8: Prejudice says that it’s an “arena shooter,” yet it has CoD-esque loadouts and aim-down sights. So if CoD, Section 8, and Halo are all arena shooters, then I have no idea what’s not an arena shooter. Based on that, it would seem that every shooter is an arena shooter.
My understanding is that in general internet lingo, games with same starting weapons and abilities, a reticle/crosshair as opposed to ADS, and relatively long kill times (like the Halo trilogy and Quake) are “arena shooters” and games with loadouts, ADS, and kill times that around somewhere around 0.5 seconds (CoD and its many wannabes) are “military shooters” or “twitch shooters.”
Some games like have elements from both categories, so of course it’s not a perfect description, but it works for the most part.
Personally, I would define “arena shooter” as a fair and balanced shooter with a main focus on small sized battles, in which every individual is technically equal in his/her overall abilities, meaning I can do everything the next player can do at spawn (in one or the other way), and in which advantages are gained via individual skills or collective skills (team play) and via what the map offers you (terrain and items).
I would consider a class based shooter (with set/non-customizable classes and not more classes than team members) in which the opposing teams (instead of individuals) are technically equal to each other in their overall abilities at spawn an arena shooter as well though.
When the individuals are all equal in their abilities than it just allows more flexibility within a team in my opinion and it is of course easier to balance.
Arena shooters have large skill gaps for both aiming and movement, with on-map weapons and powerups. This contrasts with twitch shooters, which have loadouts and very small aiming/movement skill gaps, thus putting the emphasis on who reacts first.
Note that the system isn’t binary; it’s more akin to covalent/ionic bonding, with most real-life examples existing on a spectrum between the two. Halo’s movement speed has always been too slow for it to be a pure arena shooter. Hopefully 343 fix this while they’re removing all the unwanted twitch paraphernalia they stuffed into Halo 4.
Also note that neither term is protected or officially defined, meaning 343’s talk of making Halo 5 an “arena shooter” could be bollocks.
> My understanding is that in general internet lingo, games with same starting weapons and abilities and a reticle/crosshair as opposed to ADS (like the Halo trilogy and Quake) are “arena shooters” and games with loadouts and ADS (CoD and its many wannabes) are “military shooters” or “ADS shooters.”
>
> Some games like have elements from both categories, so of course it’s not a perfect description, but it works for the most part.
Genre is one thing, and theme is another. For online gaming “military shooters” are rather theme than genre. E.g. Modern Warfare plays totally different than Battlefield.
In any media genres and sub-genres is very blurry and fast-evolving matter. Can anyone give 100% clear definition of e.g. horror (genre) slasher (sub-genre) movie? Nope.
For me arena shooters are these fps, where you’re able to play 1-on-1 duels - things like control scheme or theme are rather small stuff. I still can do it in Call of Duty (MW3 even had some free, small maps added just for it). If some game cannot give me any mano-a-mano option, there is no “arena” in it. It’s that simple.
> Wait, I’m confused. You say Loadouts are bad for Halo, then say Reach is the worst and that Halo 4 was a step in the right direction?
It is only bad for those that don’t like loadouts…
If you enjoy them, then it is good!
I got no problem either way.
I just hope that the game’s MP resonates with a lot of the fans.
We need to make a distinction between a concept and the implementation of that concept. I don’t like hard and fast rules, especially at the expense of forward thinking.
AA’s, being something abnormal and sorely unbalanced, are pretty much agreed by all to be not in Halo’s arena. But no one had problems with H3’s equipment.
Equipment which lets you do something similar but as a one-off or temporarily reusable thing accessible via map pickup.
So there, if we took Halo 4’s hologram and made it as map equipment, would that still be an arena feature?
Consider the loadout question… Halo 4’s loaouts were overburdened with nonsense. AA’s, 2 kinds of perks, and 2 1SK weapons. Add to that a poorly tested rifle and automatic selection. H4 loadouts were a bad feature for Halo’s arena, to be sure.
But what if loadouts were simply primary and secondary weapon? And those weapons precluded one-shot things like plasma grenades and H4’s boltshot? The starts wouldn’t be equal, exactly, but would this implementation be so bad? Players would get to pick a starting weapon that suits their play style, and the limited options means less variance and room for inequality.
Basically, I feel loadouts could work in a Halo 5 Arena game… but we can’t use Halo 4’s loadouts or weapons sandbox.
Very little is confirmed, but from what has been confirmed we can safely assume that starting with a weapon of choice is gone… Forever, which is a good thing obviously.
After that, it’s any one’s guess what the game play will be like. I’d expect sprint to stay, but we will have to see.
>
When you have a concept then it contains fundamental ideas. They do not dictate how the final execution has to look like of course but they are nonetheless guidelines to which you stay true and contain elements which you try to (successfully) incorporate in one or the other way.
When we now have the concept of “arena shooter” as an element of Halo’s multiplayer formula (what is basically just another concept) and say one fundamental idea of said concept is “equal starts” and you then implement a loadout system what creates unequal starts, then you simply did not stay true to your concept and your final product actually represents anything but not really “arena shooter”.
That isn’t to say that arena shooter and loadouts in that specific case inherently do not go together but when “equal starts” is a part of the concept (what Frankie touched on) and you want to execute that with a loadout system then the loadout system eventually has to offer equal starts in one or the other way.
Equal starts, weapons in map. Other than this there really isn’t a lot that defines arena shooter. Main thing is fairness whereas games like call of duty rely on what u have unlocked and what u can call in.