Would new mechanics in Campaign bother you?

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

What I have noticed in almost ALL games of all genres is that when it comes to what gameplay mechanics or features developers add into the campaign, for the most part people seem okay with it. I can say that I have yet to see any bad gameplay when it comes to the campaign, Halo has actually done some nice “firsts” for itself in terms of when in Halo: Reach there was many new things along with Halo 4.

Halo: Reach had an amazing New Alexandria mission which was my favorite and it was almost entirely air focused and it worked well. It also had a couple nice Easter Eggs in the mission also.

Halo: Reach had the MAC Cannon.

Halo: Reach had the Sabre

Halo 4 had the first mission where there was some button prompts, a mission with an official Pelican to fly, and Mission 8 Midnight where you can fly a Broadsword.

Halo 5: ???

Anyways, would 343i experimenting or having fun with the mechanics in Halo 5’s campaign bother you at all? Would you prefer it?

2

Well,

The Falcon mission in Reach, New Alexandria, is not a “mechanic”, it’s a mission. There are no mechanics in that mission that aren’t available otherwise in the game. The falcon is an asset.

The MAC cannon is just a specific vehicle, so not much more than an asset. Not a mechanic.

The space mission on the other hand, that’s closer to a “proper” mechanic. But that would more be the zero gravity and that the sabre doesn’t turn around like the banshee, it’s moving, tilting, twisting and turning in a true 3 dimensional manner. The sabre itself again isn’t a mechanic, it’s an asset.

Halo 4’s stuff then

“Button prompts”, I’m guessing you mean quick time events. Yes, you could label them as “mechanics”, but I wouldn’t actually count them as “mechanics” in a playable manner. They’re more scripted events that require player input. We climb up in the first and last mission, but only in those segments, there are no other places in the campaign where you can go up to whatever, grab a ledge and then climb up. As you could for instance board a vehicle.

The Pelican is yet another asset we’re given to use, it’s not a mechanic.

The Broadsword I’d say is the same again as Reach’s sabre.

With that out of the way.

I’m fine with asset experimentation in the campaign, but from a player mechanical point of view I want the campaign and multiplayer to be the same. If we sprint in the campaign, sprint needs to be in multiplayer, if we don’t sprint in MP, then we don’t sprint in Campaign. That’s to make a unison gameplay mechanical experience. Putting in specific player mechanics in one mode and not another will just not make the game consistent through and through, not to mention potential problems with controller layouts.

I also do not want QTE’s anymore. They’re lazy ways to have the player “play” the game in order to perform actions he/she will never be able to do either way. I see no reason why those Beacons when we released the Didact had to be QTE’s, uneccessary button mashing to progress into something we’re going to progress into either way.

Then the climbing, no use. Either we mess up and die completely and have to restart, or we do it and win.

3

I would be fine with new mechanics as long as they improve our gameplay expeirence.

4

I have to agree with Naqser, most of these are not examples of gameplay mechanics, but assets and mission design. I’m all for unique encounters and power, campaign specific weapons and vehicles. The mission designers should come up with new and interesting mission structures, encounters, and objectives. After all, that’s the whole core of the replay value of campaign.

However, when it comes to actual mechanics – that is, mission independent player abilities – I have to say: no. I don’t think it’s a good idea to drastically separate campaign and multiplayer mechanics. It creates a discrepancy between the game modes which just leaves players asking: why can’t we have this in multiplayer?

It’s easy enough to design a weapon or a vehicle for which it’s obvious why it isn’t in multiplayer. For instance, it’s obvious enough that the Target Locator in Halo Reach is too powerful for multiplayer, and while there are always some players who want it, it’s easy enough for most to understand that it’s vastly more powerful than any other power weapon. When it comes to mechanics, it’s difficult to design a mechanic that doesn’t turn the campaign into a walk in the park, but is still too obviously unfit for multiplayer.

Also, when it comes to QTE’s: you either give the player full control of the situation, or you give them a cut scene with no control. I don’t think QTEs add anything meaningful to gameplay. There is nothing to be gained by forcing the player to push buttons before the cutscene can proceed.

5

meh, personally i dont play fps games to drive around vehicles. id rather stay on foot 100% of the time.

if you are speaking of adding new things to the campaign that is combat oriented and keeps me out of vehicles im down.

6

actually piolt a scarab. crawling across the land inside that thing would be so cool

7

I actually enjoy those missions maybe driving some form of forerunner vehicle could be cool.

8

I would be bothered by mechanics added into the campaign, simply because it is not competitive multiplayer. Too many people try and use the campaign as a dumping ground for mechanics that don’t get much support from the multiplayer community.

Balance matters in a single player campaign just as much as it does in multiplayer. The specific concerns may differ slightly, but thoughtful design is always important for creating a fun and repayable game. Throwing things like dual wielding and sprint into the campaign alone and expecting everything to work out ‘because single player’ is silly and that sort of mentality leads to bad game design.

One off mechanics are a completely separate discussion as that has much more to do with mission and level design which is much more flexible. The designers can play around with the rules in those instances precisely because they are limited in nature. Introducing the sprint mechanic affects the entire game, having a section where(for example) the MC breaks into a full run to escape an exploding ship is self contained and only requires attention for that specific segment.

Thoughtful design and balancing is the reason that ODST has a much stronger and more interesting sandbox than Halo 3 despite both of them being virtually the same.

9

I think I get what you mean. I’d like to see more interaction with vehicles, as well. But other than new things, I want them to improve on existing ones. Take that space battle but make it the best of Reach’s ‘big space’ and 4’s linear progression.

On a smaller level, I’d love to see more third person shots, especially around a new or improved melee.

10

As long as they are well-thought out, and fit with the storyline nicely. I’d be up for varying campaign experiences.

11

I don’t mind new mechanics if they enhance the core, rather than changing it entirely, same with multiplayer.

For Halo 5, I would like a “commander” system that allows you to give out orders to NPC allies, considering you are the Master Chief. I would also like character-boarding, like to finish off a Hunter (after you depleted most of its health) you would have to jump on their exposed back and either plant a grenade in it, or tear some of the Lekgolo worms out, and you would also be able to fly around on Sentinels and use its beam to slaughter enemies (only if you’re able to jump on top of it which would be hard to do). Also, I wouldn’t mind huge-scale battles (something that was going to be in Halo 3), as well as sea-combat and a mission where we can drive a Scarab (speaking of vehicles, bring back space-combat). All these features would fit well into Halo’s core gameplay, and would enhance it rather than changing it.

12

Personally, I think any mechanics that exist in the campaign should be in MP. This has how its been for every Halo thus far, and I wouldn’t want that changed. It’s disconnecting when mechanics exist in a game’s campaign but not the MP, in that the playerbase feels like they’ve been teased or cheated. With that said, I’d say to just focus on solid gameplay mechanics regarding MP, and let the campaign feature new things (assets, not mechanics) like vehicles, large scaled battles, night-time missions, sneak missions, etc., that make us want to play it as much or more than the MP.