Would you be happy if...

…the graphics of the next Halo FPS aren’t updated from Reach, and instead 343 put all their effort into greater customisation and a better Campaign?

I mean, look at Reach. Those visuals aren’t bad, in fact they’re pretty damn impressive. But split-screen is a joke, the campaign chugs… the limit of the 360 was reached in Halo 3, so any advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.

A huge amount of time is put into designing graphics. Think of all the things Bungie cut from the Campaign we saw at PAX. The Warthog army was reduced from a mission to a cutscene, the second, larger space sequence was cut entirely, the global battle was also removed. If they’d been able to spend all their development time on making the game, rather than fiddling with the graphics and physics, they also would have been able to put a proper storyline in (because let’s be honest, Reach didn’t have a very strong or complicated plot. Go here, blow this up, go there, blow that up).

Customisation has always been a huge part of Halo, it’s what made Halo 3 great, and there were so many possibilities not included in Reach:

  • Individual weapon damage modifiers
  • AA modifiers (thrust and duration of Jetpack, whether Armour Lock has the shield drain, how invisible you go with Camo and whether or not you jam radar)
  • Aggression of AI in Firefight
  • Copy and Paste in Forge
  • Multiple object skins in Forge
  • Better Theater mode (join clips together, add basic FX, basically go one better than Black Ops)
  • Forging Firefight maps
  • Placing AI in custom maps
  • Placing auto-turrets, switches, weather FX in Forge
  • All weapons and vehicles from all Halo games placeable in Forge
  • More terrain and scenic Forge options
  • Optional Flood character models for Infection
  • Flood Firefight

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head, there’s far bigger and better lists on Bnet.

So what do you think? Would you be happy if 343 went crazy with the customisation instead of upgrading the graphics and physics?

> I think the limit of the 360 is being reached, and any further advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.

I just read to this point …

> > I think the limit of the 360 is being reached, and any further advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.
>
> I just read to this point …

Can you explain any further? Reach improved graphics from Halo 3, and to compensate they had to severely reduce the texturing and frame rate for split-screen, and it still chugged. Proof that the graphics being updated require cutbacks elsewhere.

> > > I think the limit of the 360 is being reached, and any further advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.
> >
> > I just read to this point …
>
> Can you explain any further? Reach improved graphics from Halo 3, and to compensate they had to severely reduce the texturing and frame rate for split-screen, and it still chugged. Proof that the graphics being updated require cutbacks elsewhere.

They didn’t. Any game has always had a crappy splitscreen,(because you’re rendering two separate cameras that still need to interact with the same processing), because other than Halo 1, it was never meant for splitscreen.

> > > > I think the limit of the 360 is being reached, and any further advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.
> > >
> > > I just read to this point …
> >
> > Can you explain any further? Reach improved graphics from Halo 3, and to compensate they had to severely reduce the texturing and frame rate for split-screen, and it still chugged. Proof that the graphics being updated require cutbacks elsewhere.
>
> They didn’t. Any game has always had a crappy splitscreen,(because you’re rendering two separate cameras that still need to interact with the same processing), because other than Halo 1, it was never meant for splitscreen.

Reach is significantly worse to the point of unplayable, whereas there was no noticeable drop in quality in Halo 3 with 4-player splitscreen. There was huge raging over this in Bnet, and Bungie eventually explained that to improve in some areas meant others would have to be cut, which was half the inspiration for this thread.

> > > > > I think the limit of the 360 is being reached, and any further advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > I just read to this point …
> > >
> > > Can you explain any further? Reach improved graphics from Halo 3, and to compensate they had to severely reduce the texturing and frame rate for split-screen, and it still chugged. Proof that the graphics being updated require cutbacks elsewhere.
> >
> > They didn’t. Any game has always had a crappy splitscreen,(because you’re rendering two separate cameras that still need to interact with the same processing), because other than Halo 1, it was never meant for splitscreen.
>
> Reach is significantly worse to the point of unplayable, whereas there was no noticeable drop in quality in Halo 3 with 4-player splitscreen. There was huge raging over this in Bnet, and Bungie eventually explained that to improve in some areas meant others would have to be cut, which was half the inspiration for this thread.

It wasn’t meant for splitscreen in the first place. It was highly noticeable too in Halo 3, it’s just that the screen would become so small the you wouldn’t notice/care.

Moving on, is there any chance that the actual idea of the thread can be discussed, rather than one small point being argued to death?

I like your ideas. But I’d also like to see the graphics advance as well. Reach looks good, but I think it could look even better.

> Moving on, is there any chance that the actual idea of the thread can be discussed, rather than one small point being argued to death?

No, it’s my job.

I think Halo Reach would have been 10 times better if it was on a brand new system. When it comes to how much can be on one game for the xbox 360, Halo 3 went to the limit. That didn’t allow Halo Reach to push it any farther.

> I think Halo Reach would have been 10 times better if it was on a brand new system. When it comes to how much can be on one game for the xbox 360, Halo 3 went to the limit. That didn’t allow Halo Reach to push it any farther.

Sadly I don’t think Microsoft are bringing out a new console any time soon, and obviously they won’t let Halo on anything else. While a PC version would be awesome, I don’t see it happening.

> > I think the limit of the 360 is being reached, and any further advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.
>
> I just read to this point …

Me too.
Halo 3 already reached the Xbox 360’s limit.

If you want more options and more objects, then the only most likely solution is if Halo games are released for the PC and made specifically for PC hardware.
PC has more RAM than Xbox 360. :stuck_out_tongue:

And yes, Microsoft is more against Halo being on PC than anything else.

> > > I think the limit of the 360 is being reached, and any further advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.
> >
> > I just read to this point …
>
> Me too.
> Halo 3 already reached the Xbox 360’s limit.
>
> If you want more options and more objects, then the only most likely solution is if Halo games are released for the PC and made specifically for PC hardware.
> PC has more RAM than Xbox 360. :stuck_out_tongue:
>
> And yes, Microsoft is more against Halo being on PC than anything else.

Made specifically for PCs with higher end hardware, thereby reducing the possible audience and cutting off a large portion of the community. And losing money. Good for -Yoink!-, good for us in this case.

The PC discussion needs to mellow out. It’s a crappy situation one way or the other, Microsoft is -Yoink!- if they do, -Yoink!- if they don’t. If they do everyone will be very upset because of the antipiracy measures because after all, they want to make money. There will be tons of tiny nags that will drive PC players nuts because it’s a console game. On the other hand, if they just toss it out and let people do what they want they make no money and have no reason whatsoever to support it, and then people will complain because it gets no support.

> The PC discussion needs to mellow out. It’s a crappy situation one way or the other, Microsoft is -Yoink!- if they do, -Yoink!- if they don’t. If they do everyone will be very upset because of the antipiracy measures because after all, they want to make money. There will be tons of tiny nags that will drive PC players nuts because it’s a console game. On the other hand, if they just toss it out and let people do what they want they make no money and have no reason whatsoever to support it, and then people will complain because it gets no support.

now that microsoft has windows live, made it so you can use a 360 controller for pc games, and are supposedly working on a way for pc and 360 players to play online together (of course that’s just the big rumor that’s been going around the past 3 years) i wouldn’t be suprised if there’s something comming for the pc again… however I think it would probably be a pc exclusive if they chose to do another one on pc and more like Halo Wars than the fps games… who knows, if they think it will bring them money they’ll do it. I highly doubt that microsoft cares about the series fan base enough to stop them from making a good profit at the end of the year.

A couple years back I remembered a video stating that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony agreed to not put another console out until 2013. This causes some side-effects, games keep hitting their limits and the developers for console game feels closed in and can’t do what they wanted to do. Bungie really wanted a huge space battle that you could see but until microsoft can come out with a new console or have a major hardware update for the console I don’t see it happening.

> > > I think the limit of the 360 is being reached, and any further advance will require cutbacks elsewhere.
> >
> > I just read to this point …
>
> Me too.
> Halo 3 already reached the Xbox 360’s limit.

Alright, alright, I’ve edited the OP. You can calm down now.

> A couple years back I remembered a video stating that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony agreed to not put another console out until 2013. This causes some side-effects, games keep hitting their limits and the developers for console game feels closed in and can’t do what they wanted to do. Bungie really wanted a huge space battle that you could see but until microsoft can come out with a new console or have a major hardware update for the console I don’t see it happening.

Yup, just found an article saying there will be no new consoles from any of the big 3 until at least 2013. Apparently it’s because as developers get more used to a console they are quicker at making games for it, which means less money has to be invested in the game development cycle, and so profits are bigger.
-Yoink- you, -Yoink!-.

> > A couple years back I remembered a video stating that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony agreed to not put another console out until 2013. This causes some side-effects, games keep hitting their limits and the developers for console game feels closed in and can’t do what they wanted to do. Bungie really wanted a huge space battle that you could see but until microsoft can come out with a new console or have a major hardware update for the console I don’t see it happening.
>
> Yup, just found an article saying there will be no new consoles from any of the big 3 until at least 2013. Apparently it’s because as developers get more used to a console they are quicker at making games for it, which means less money has to be invested in the game development cycle, and so profits are bigger.
> Yoink! you, -Yoink!-.

You’re forgetting that as developers get more used to and efficient at programming for the existing consoles, not only do they make games faster, they also make better games.

Yes.

Graphics are no longer the Halo series’ strong point, nor should it be an area 343 attempts to [re-]dominate. Graphics no longer turns heads, all they do is make game development cumbersome and inefficient. What I want as a consumer is variety (in an otherwise monotonous industry of slightly polished sequels); I’m certainly not alone.

Edit: Variety isn’t synonymous for randomness btw :wink: