How exactly is finding random people on the Internet different to finding random people through matchmaking?
We're not "taking it away" - we made a decision early in dev to focus on other features, following long conversations about the pros and cons of MM co-op. In the end it was decided that effort and time were better spent on other features you will use more.
It would be a nice to have but ultimately it's a resource balancing issue and there are more important features.
Although the next three pages are going to be about how vital it is.
Our AI players behave like "real" players, and are likely to be cleverer and more helpful than a lot of random "real" players. I think it will make more sense when you see how the AI works in practice.
Not dismissing the feature at all, just explaining the reasoning. We're not removing the option, it was never implemented to begin with.
Didn't have it in ODST. Reach had full firefight matchmaking, and I made heavy use of it.Not even Firefight in Halo Reach had matchmaking, as much as that sucked not having it.
No offense, but I feel like that shouldn't be your decision to make. Some people only want to play with real people, and prefer filling extra spots with strangers. I'd rather take the gamble on a stranger in Left 4 Dead than keep the bot.
Taking away choices from the player isn't always best. You don't know what's most important to everyone, and that's (and I truly mean no offense) how a decision like no split screen happens to begin with, by taking away options because you have an idea of how everyone should experience the game instead of building it to be experienced however the player chooses.
The exact same thing could be done with matchmaking.Way different. You have a filter to control who gets added based on what gear they have and their grimoire score and other factors. Also striking up convos in orbit and kicking people out who start flinging turds right away.
How exactly is finding random people on the Internet different to finding random people through matchmaking?
Reach had matchmaking for both campaign and Firefight.
Don't want to open up that can of worms, so suffice it to say that there is plenty of disagreement on that one.No raid matchmaking in Destiny says hi.
I'd love to see firefight get added. You'd think it would work pretty well on the Warzone maps.Why does 343 hate Firefight? It's only one of the best, most replayable co-op arcade-like experiences ever made. At least, offer it as post-release DLC, people.
I needed a laugh.No raid matchmaking in Destiny says hi. 343 made the right choice here.
Wat? If you can find one post where I dismissed split screen as some trivial thing, then have at it. We have never diminished or dismissed how important that is to folks.
Cause Bungie is infallible when it came to decisions regarding Destiny. I needed a laugh.
Honestly the effort which could be put into making matchmaking work in campaign would be far better spent on improving matchmaking for multiplayer.It's not vital, especially because you say AI is much improved, but cutting split screen for campaign and saying there is dedicated servers, but not allowing any sort of matchmaking is like one step forward, two steps back. Sometimes you just want to pair up with randoms to finish a level. We're not 10 year old kids. Halo is a 15 year old franchise whose fanbase is well into their 20's, 30's, and 40's. Let us decide if we want to play with ammo stealers and warthog crashers and diet racists.
Well that's the problem with the internet - inferring intent where non exists.
I agree with you, but I can't help but feel the bold is some snipe at split screen, in which case I take exception to that sentiment.
There are a ton of things they could do to ensure that is a quality experience, mainly restrictions on the matchmaking.Oh not all! However as someone who spent tons of time in Destiny raids I sure as shit would not want to rely on matchmaking for them. One Douchebag can easily fuck up 5 people's fun. Anyhow enough on Destiny. Can't wait till October 27th. Halo 5 and first Cavs game. What a day
There are a ton of things they could do to ensure that is a quality experience, mainly restrictions on the matchmaking.
1. The player must have a microphone connected
2. The player must have already completed the Raid at least one time through LFG means (ensures they know the fight)
3. The player must have 170 attack weapons
4. Etc.
Things like that would go a long way to make sure that you had good teammates matched up for a Raid.
Said it before, will say it again, 343i is the best thing to happen to Halo.
We're not "taking it away" - we made a decision early in dev to focus on other features, following long conversations about the pros and cons of MM co-op. In the end it was decided that effort and time were better spent on other features you will use more.
It would be a nice to have but ultimately it's a resource balancing issue and there are more important features.
Although the next three pages are going to be about how vital it is.
Our AI players behave like "real" players, and are likely to be cleverer and more helpful than a lot of random "real" players. I think it will make more sense when you see how the AI works in practice.
Not dismissing the feature at all, just explaining the reasoning. We're not removing the option, it was never implemented to begin with.
Reach co-op campaign matchmaking peaked
peaked
at around 200 players
I don't think anyone will use that feature. i did a couple times and each time that it wasn't a laggy mess, somebody was plasma stunning my vehicles.
i'll take the bots.
The footage looks absolutely phenomenal. It seems to be much more in line with what a lot of people want. I'm just overjoyed, because I personally loved Halo 4 and this looks like a step up yet.
You have to give 343 some credit for putting so much emphasis on 60 frames across the board and not compromising the vision they have. You can tell there were some stressful conversations about what needed to be implemented and what wasn't worth sacrificing performance for. Such as dynamic resolution, no split screen and no campaign matchmaking. People seem to think axing these things is some sort of diabolical corporate scheme, but it's more about prioritizing what can be done with the time, money and talent that is given to create the best potential product.
The team seems to be incredibly focused on doing more of what worked, and none of what didn't.
I want an Xbox One so badly now.
Should be some really good deals as we get head through October.
Should be some really good deals as we get head through October.
We're not "taking it away" - we made a decision early in dev to focus on other features, following long conversations about the pros and cons of MM co-op. In the end it was decided that effort and time were better spent on other features you will use more.
It would be a nice to have but ultimately it's a resource balancing issue and there are more important features.
Although the next three pages are going to be about how vital it is.
Our AI players behave like "real" players, and are likely to be cleverer and more helpful than a lot of random "real" players. I think it will make more sense when you see how the AI works in practice.
Not dismissing the feature at all, just explaining the reasoning. We're not removing the option, it was never implemented to begin with.
Whoa.
Maybe I haven't played enough next gen games, but have many made use of this dynamic resolution option? I don't mean like 1360x1080p for the whole game, but actually going from 1920x1080 to like 1280x720 to 1600x900 to that 800x720 resolution Jumper always mentioned to maintain 60fps at all parts. Is it jarring? I would think they'd do it in ways that it wouldn't even be noticeable except for people who paused to pixel peep or guys like digital foundry.
Maybe I haven't played enough next gen games, but have many made use of this dynamic resolution option? I don't mean like 1360x1080p for the whole game, but actually going from 1920x1080 to like 1280x720 to 1600x900 to that 800x720 resolution Jumper always mentioned to maintain 60fps at all parts. Is it jarring? I would think they'd do it in ways that it wouldn't even be noticeable except for people who paused to pixel peep or guys like digital foundry.
Haha, yeah. I'm going to take a close look for sure, budget willing. It's been an unusually rough year, so we'll see.
If I can't swing for it this year, though, well, I guess the game isn't going anywhere. Either way I'm pretty much sold on getting an X1 eventually.
EDIT:
I remember this being a feature of idTech 5, so I'd imagine its used in the latest Wolfenstein games, New Order and Old Blood in order to maintain 60fps.Maybe I haven't played enough next gen games, but have many made use of this dynamic resolution option?
Maybe I haven't played enough next gen games, but have many made use of this dynamic resolution option? I don't mean like 1360x1080p for the whole game, but actually going from 1920x1080 to like 1280x720 to 1600x900 to that 800x720 resolution Jumper always mentioned to maintain 60fps at all parts. Is it jarring? I would think they'd do it in ways that it wouldn't even be noticeable except for people who paused to pixel peep or guys like digital foundry.
Maybe I haven't played enough next gen games, but have many made use of this dynamic resolution option? I don't mean like 1360x1080p for the whole game, but actually going from 1920x1080 to like 1280x720 to 1600x900 to that 800x720 resolution Jumper always mentioned to maintain 60fps at all parts. Is it jarring? I would think they'd do it in ways that it wouldn't even be noticeable except for people who paused to pixel peep or guys like digital foundry.
Witcher 3 on XBone uses it, I can't think of another.
Inception