Support NeoGAF

[nephilimdj]

I think aim assist and bloom just don't go together, recoil is a better solution.

 

[clav]

So you guys enjoy the slower killing times? I would prefer the game to be a little faster.

No. I don't like my games to be a competition who can press the trigger faster than I can.

I remember that clearly in my Halo 2 online sessions. I would be 0.1 seconds off and a guy can just keep spamming BR fire which appeared to have zero recoil.

Once I started playing the game by playing trigger happy, I started getting better.

 

[The Antitype]

I think aim assist and bloom just don't go together, recoil is a better solution.

It would be pretty weird to have recoil on single-shot weapons though.

I mean, people complained about the slightest change in recoil in the sniper-rifles game-to-game, just cause it interfered with their ability to line up the next shot.

Remember, you would basically be stuck in a mini-animation after every shot that way.

Works for automatic weapons pretty well though.

So you guys enjoy the slower killing times? I would prefer the game to be a little faster.

I prefer the longer kill times, because they provide for longer, more dramatic back and forth fights.

In CoD, first person to see the other guy and pull the trigger basically wins every time.

Thanks to the damage modeling and recharging shields in Halo (as well as bloom), if somebody gets the drop on a great player, they can still fight their way back if they play smart, well, and use their weapon appropriately.

 

[KidA Seven]

No. I don't like my games to be a competition who can press the trigger faster than I can.

I remember that clearly in my Halo 2 online sessions. I would be 0.1 seconds off and a guy can just keep spamming BR fire which appeared to have zero recoil.

Once I started playing the game by playing trigger happy, I started getting better.

You couldn't spam the BR though. It had a fixed max firing rate.

 

[clav]

You couldn't spam the BR though. It had a fixed max firing rate.

Firing successive rounds didn't affect you aim where as in Reach it does. Reach punishes you for repeated firing as the accuracy gets worse.

Do you see my point now?

 

[Striker]

I prefer the longer kill times, because they provide for longer, more dramatic back and forth fights.

In CoD, first person to see the other guy and pull the trigger basically wins every time.

Thanks to the damage modeling and recharging shields in Halo (as well as bloom), if somebody gets the drop on a great player, they can still fight their way back if they play smart, well, and use their weapon appropriately.

Did you play much online in Halo 2?

 

[feel]

No. I don't like my games to be a competition who can press the trigger faster than I can.

I remember that clearly in my Halo 2 online sessions. I would be 0.1 seconds off and a guy can just keep spamming BR fire which appeared to have zero recoil.

Once I started playing the game by playing trigger happy, I started getting better.

But the rate of fire was the same for everyone with the BR, faster trigger finger didn't give you an advantage, it was slow to the point where everyone could keep up, it was all about knowing the exact milisecond the next set of 3 bullets would leave the rifle and getting the crosshair to the desired spot just in time.

 

[clav]

But the rate of fire was the same for everyone with the BR, and slow to the point where everyone could keep up, it was all about knowing the exact milisecond the next set of 3 bullets would leave the rifle, and getting the crosshair to the desired spot just in time.

Yes the rate of fire is the same and accurate. It then becomes a game who sees you first and stays on the crosshair the longest since there is no bloom.

Like I said, once I was trigger happy, that problem I had was solved.

Bloom makes me think about where to fire and when to fire.

Either way, I don't mind it, but I do prefer bloom or at least why that was included in the game as it adds another dimension.

 

[zethren]

So you guys enjoy the slower killing times? I would prefer the game to be a little faster.

I just like the idea of the pistol (for example) being used in the role of a pistol. It is useful at a close range and somewhat medium range depending on your trigger pulls. I like when you have to utilize each weapon in the sandbox in different scenarios. If someone gets close to me I would put the DMR away and pull out the pistol, because the reticule bloom ensures that the pistol is better suited in that particular scenario.

I get bored when a weapon becomes the end all be all Swiss army knife of the sandbox. You never got tired of how the BR was almost the only weapon anyone used in halo 2 and 3? People shot at their own team mates for the BR on the ground as if it were a power weapon. It just gets stale for me, personally. But I can also understand the annoyances that people feel with bloom. I just happen to be in the camp that isn't bothered by it.

 

[The Antitype]

You couldn't spam the BR though. It had a fixed max firing rate.

You're right. It had a max firing-rate with a spread you couldn't control. The place the first pellet landed was very rarely the place the last pellet landed.

There was a 'bloom' effect happening with every shot, you just didn't see it on the screen with a nice little icon.

In Reach, you control the spread of your shots. You can risk increasing the spread by firing very quickly, or you can keep your shots perfectly accurate by timing your shots. You have more control over what your weapon does.

Bloom makes me think about where to fire and when to fire.

EXACTLY.

Did you play much online in Halo 2?

A fair bit. I've played and enjoyed every Halo game more than the last though. Why?

 

[GloveSlap]

Bloom is terrible. It makes the game a chore to play and is just plain not fun. It doesn't help the balance in any way and turns the game into a dumbed down AR fest. It also makes it even harder to defend yourself against the power weapons because bloom doesn't affect them at all.

 

[GavinGT]

I don't think they needed the reticule bloom indicator in Reach at all. Halo's pistol had "bloom", but the game didn't need an indicator to tell you when to shoot because it was readily apparent from looking at the gun animation. The pistol would bob up and down with each shot, and the key was to not fire again until the pistol has returned to its default position. You could fire much faster by holding down the trigger, but you'd be sacrificing a lot of accuracy.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Bloom is not a fun game mechanic to grapple with. This is the first Halo game where I feel like the game mechanics are constantly fighting against me, and the first in which I get frustrated with the controls and mechanics.

The swap to bloom for precision weapons rather than the spread burst fire of the BR also enables firefights over much longer distances, which really hurts the combat in Reach's MP and at least as much damage to the campaign. It would be an enormous mistake to retain it for Halo 4.

 

[KidA Seven]

Yes the rate of fire is the same and accurate. It then becomes a game who sees you first and stays on the crosshair the longest since there is no bloom.

Like I said, once I was trigger happy, that problem I had was solved.

Bloom makes me think about where to fire and when to fire.

Spamming is effective in Reach though close to mid range. It should be like Shadowrun where spamming is a no go no matter what.

 

[Striker]

A fair bit. I've played and enjoyed every Halo game more than the last though. Why?

I was wondering, because you brought up kill speed and mentioned CoD for really no outright reason. CoD is a far different game. Halo games in the past, namely Halo 2 and Halo 1, were fast paced, and had fast kill times. First shot never meant you would get the kill. That always depended on the circumstances, ala weapons used, which map, and elevation.

The hitscan BR from my time browsing any forums never had gotten criticism. The main problem people had with that weapon was the button canceling, which enabled button combos. But that had nothing to do with the Halo 2 BR's shooting consistency and how balanced it was overall in the levels. I was disappointed they felt the need to change that going into Halo 3.

 

[Smeghead]

Yeah the DMR is basically a mini sniper that everyone has. The BR is not very effective long range.

Halo never really has been who can time a shot better, it's who can traverse/aim better. Bloom and Reach in general would be fine if it wasn't Halo, but it is and it doesn't belong imo.

It makes Halo feel less of an arena shooter which i don't like.

 

[The Antitype]

Spamming is effective in Reach though close to mid range. It should be like Shadowrun where spamming is a no go no matter what.

Agreed, Bungie could have tuned the bloom a bit better. And I don't know why they still can't right now, with an update.

To be honest though, it's not as though hammering out four body shots with the pistol/DMR then taking a breath in and nailing the headshot takes decades. It's an extra fraction of a second for a guaranteed kill instead of a chance at one.

 

[clav]

I was wondering, because you brought up kill speed and mentioned CoD for really no outright reason. CoD is a far different game. Halo games in the past, namely Halo 2 and Halo 1, were fast paced, and had fast kill times. First shot never meant you would get the kill. That always depended on the circumstances, ala weapons used, which map, and elevation.

The hitscan BR from my time browsing any forums never had gotten criticism. The main problem people had with that weapon was the button canceling, which enabled button combos. But that had nothing to do with the Halo 2 BR's shooting consistency and how balanced it was overall in the levels. I was disappointed they felt the need to change that going into Halo 3.

What?

I was tired of people doing BXR in Halo 2. That's what broke the game for me of people having an extra ammo burst, and I played it fairly. I still hold to that belief that first shot means you're screwed to this day online unless I'm host.

I understand the gameplay in Halo 1 and 2 were fast as when I go back to the Halo Reach classic playlist, it's still a fun time playing at a faster walk speed.

 

[feel]

You're right. It had a max firing-rate with a spread you couldn't control. The place the first pellet landed was very rarely the place the last pellet landed.

There was a 'bloom' effect happening with every shot, you just didn't see it on the screen with a nice little icon.

The bullets moved slowly through the air with a relatively big delay from the 1st to 2nd, and from 2nd to 3rd. If you calculated the first one and didn't move the reticule midburst to compensate for the enemy's movement, there was a big chance the 2nd and 3rd bullets missed the target, making you having to waste way more than the 10 needed bullets for downing a target "4shot".

Bloom is not a fun game mechanic to grapple with. This is the first Halo game where I feel like the game mechanics are constantly fighting against me, and the first in which I get frustrated with the controls and mechanics.

The swap to bloom for precision weapons rather than the spread burst fire of the BR also enables firefights over much longer distances, which really hurts the combat in Reach's MP and at least as much damage to the campaign. It would be an enormous mistake to retain it for Halo 4.

Ghaleon has spoken folks, no way 343 would go against his wishes, everything will be alright.

 

[Tunavi]

Bloom is not a fun game mechanic to grapple with. This is the first Halo game where I feel like the game mechanics are constantly fighting against me, and the first in which I get frustrated with the controls and mechanics.

The swap to bloom for precision weapons rather than the spread burst fire of the BR also enables firefights over much longer distances, which really hurts the combat in Reach's MP and at least as much damage to the campaign. It would be an enormous mistake to retain it for Halo 4.

Perfect explanation

 

[The Antitype]

The bullets moved slowly through the air with a relatively big delay from the 1st to 2nd, and from 2nd to 3rd. If you calculated the first one and didn't move the reticule midburst to compensate for the enemy's movement, there was a big chance the 2nd and 3rd bullets missed the target, making you having to waste way more than the 10 needed bullets for downing a target "4shot".

...you basically just reiterated what I said, didn't you?

I was wondering, because you brought up kill speed and mentioned CoD for really no outright reason. CoD is a far different game. Halo games in the past, namely Halo 2 and Halo 1, were fast paced, and had fast kill times. First shot never meant you would get the kill. That always depended on the circumstances, ala weapons used, which map, and elevation.

The hitscan BR from my time browsing any forums never had gotten criticism. The main problem people had with that weapon was the button canceling, which enabled button combos. But that had nothing to do with the Halo 2 BR's shooting consistency and how balanced it was overall in the levels. I was disappointed they felt the need to change that going into Halo 3.

I've never been one of those people that feels like the later Halo's are devastatingly slower than the first two. It's obviously noticeable, but not a huge deal to me. Halo feels like Halo to me, across all four games, and the length and drama of the battles feels similar to me across all four games. So when I think of short kill-times, I think of stuff like CS and CoD.

 

[The Xtortionist]

The bullets moved slowly through the air with a relatively big delay from the 1st to 2nd, and from 2nd to 3rd. If you calculated the first one and didn't move the reticule midburst to compensate for the enemy's movement, there was a big chance the 2nd and 3rd bullets missed the target, making you having to waste way more than the 10 needed bullets for downing a target "4shot".

Add the game's awful, terrible, horrible bullet refunding and the whole thing becomes a fucking joke.

You are talking about Halo 3 right?

 

[Striker]

What?

I was tired of people doing BXR in Halo 2. That's what broke the game for me of people having an extra ammo burst, and I played it fairly. I still hold to that belief that first shot means you're screwed to this day online unless I'm host.

I understand the gameplay in Halo 1 and 2 were fast as when I go back to the Halo Reach classic playlist, it's still a fun time playing at a faster walk speed.

BXR was based from button canceling. Talking strictly shooting consistency, there's been no other weapon in the Halo game that's been better. You feel you're fighting against something, whether bloom or the BR spread in Halo 3, rather than relying on simple aiming.

I also enjoy the Classic playlist. Only thing that bugs me about is is lack of variety, and I'm not talking about the aesthetics. Certain maps get higher appearances because they work so much better in CTF, Assault, and so on than others. Therefore you hardly see the Hang 'em High, Damnation, and Rat Race maps.

 

[Quicksilver4648]

I just to throw my name in the ring, I support the bloom in Reach and I have been an active player of Halo since Halo 2. I find it rewards players who take time to learn the weapon and its pacing. Players who grab the DMR and starts pulling the trigger like crazy get less accurate shots than the guy who times his perfectly.

And in regards to the whole multiplayer debate, I support 343's decision to integrate the maps into Reach and not split the multiplayer community. Others can disagree with me, and I am sure they do, but it is what I prefer.

 

[feel]

...you basically just reiterated what I said, didn't you?

No, you hinted that missing inside reticule shots from midrange was completely random like in Reach, and I was saying that it wasn't (completely).

 

[The Antitype]

No, you hinted that missing inside reticule shots from midrange was completely random like in Reach, and I was saying that it wasn't (completely).

Ah. Not random, no, but pretty close to being out of the player's control. Keeping the reticule steady over the target at MEDIUM range is possible, and results in 4-shots for talented players. Doing so at long-range, over a smaller target is much more difficult, so players missed a lot more shots.

I think that's a GOOD thing. I don't want a mid-range weapon to also be effective at long-range. The hit-scan BR was. It was an annoying, all-purpose weapon. Perfect at mid-range, able at long-range, and deadly at close range (melee+headshot). It dominated play, and the button combos only exacerbated the problem.

Bloom is not a fun game mechanic to grapple with. This is the first Halo game where I feel like the game mechanics are constantly fighting against me, and the first in which I get frustrated with the controls and mechanics.

The swap to bloom for precision weapons rather than the spread burst fire of the BR also enables firefights over much longer distances, which really hurts the combat in Reach's MP and at least as much damage to the campaign. It would be an enormous mistake to retain it for Halo 4.

Well, fun is subjective obviously. Otherwise we would all agree on this.

I disagree about the range issue though. The weapons only hurt the combat on maps that weren't designed with the Reach sandbox in mind. Pinnacle, Hemmo, Ivory Tower...the scale, layout, and navigation of these maps were designed with the Halo and Halo 2 sandbox in mind. With Reach's weapons and AAs, they're broken.

On maps made specifically for Reach, there's a ton of cover and varied terrain to break sight-lines, which allows for players to cross gaps without being torn apart by DMR fire. Likewise, the DMR is only really accurate at range if you slow down your shots, which gives players more time to get to cover.

I've experienced a wider range of combat in Reach than any other Halo. Halo 3 in particular felt dominated by mid-to-long range gunplay. In Reach, I always keep an AR or Shotgun on me, because long-range fire-fights can transition to short-range fights so quickly.

 

[Striker]

Hitscan BR was not great at long range. It's range was limited.

 

[The Antitype]

Hitscan BR was not great at long range. It's range was limited.

Not limited enough for me, then. It felt like it was second only to the sniper rifle in terms of effective range.

 

[Smeghead]

Not limited enough for me, then. It felt like it was second only to the sniper rifle in terms of effective range.

Eh? What would you consider long range? I'd call it from either side of grav lift on narrows.

The DMR is way more dominant long/medium range.

The only change i'd make for Halo 4 is have more options close range that would beat a BR ala Plasma Rifle and Pistol/SMG combo Halo 2

 

[The Antitype]

Eh? What would you consider long range? I'd call it from either side of grav lift on narrows.

The DMR is way more dominant long/medium range.

The only change i'd make for Halo 4 is have more options close range that would beat a BR ala Plasma Rifle and Pistol/SMG combo Halo 2

The time to score a four-shot kill with the BR at long-range in Halo 2 is the same as mid-range.

The DMR, at long range, where the timing for accurate shots is much slower, it can take anywhere from 50% to 100% longer to score the 5-shot kill.

The DMR is an effective anti-sniper weapon. It can kick a sniper out of scope, and it can also deal some damage, but unless you catch a guy WAY OUT in the open, you're not going to finish the kill at long-range.

 

[Striker]

Eh? What would you consider long range? I'd call it from either side of grav lift on narrows.

The DMR is way more dominant long/medium range.

The only change i'd make for Halo 4 is have more options close range that would beat a BR ala Plasma Rifle and Pistol/SMG combo Halo 2

With how Bungie made the AR so useless on its own against a BR/DMR wielder, that's what makes me miss dual wielding in Halo 2. You had a chance of destroying a BR user in close quarters with SMG/PR or SMG/Magnum because they had extremely fast kill times.

Antitype, the hitscan BR had limited range. Literally. Its shots would hit an invisible wall after certain length.

 

[feel]

Hitscan BR was not great at long range. It's range was limited.

I would want a Halo 3 BR with much faster bullet speed and smaller spread, so it's practically a Halo 2 BR that doesn't need artificial range limitations, but still can't dominate across a map because of the bit of leading required, that is useful enough to get snipers out of scope or kill far targets carelessly out in the open.

 

[KidA Seven]

Eh? What would you consider long range? I'd call it from either side of grav lift on narrows.

The DMR is way more dominant longe range/medium.

The only change i'd make for Halo 4 is have more options close range that would beat a BR ala Plasma Rifle and Pistol/SMG combo Halo 2

Changes I would like:

-bring back the CE plasma rifle stun effect
-AR or SMG be like the Shadowrun SMG.
-Keep mid range weapon single shot
-How about a damage modifier (like a volume control) for every weapon? Everyone would be happy.

 

[The Antitype]

With how Bungie made the AR so useless on its own against a BR/DMR wielder, that's what makes me miss dual wielding in Halo 2. You had a chance of destroying a BR user in close quarters with SMG/PR or SMG/Magnum because they had extremely fast kill times.

Antitype, the hitscan BR had limited range. Literally. Its shots would hit an invisible wall after certain length.

The AR shreds the DMR at close-range in Reach. Well, at least a the Silver/Gold level I play at. Things are probably different at Onyx, where every small issue gets magnified 100 times.

I know what you meant. I'm just saying that wall wasn't close enough. I haven't played the game in 5 years though, so my memory might be fuzzy.

All I know is, I don't snipe. I can't use sniper-rifles, I'm terrible at it. I never had problems dealing with snipers using the hit-scan BR.

 

[Smeghead]

The time to score a four-shot kill with the BR at long-range in Halo 2 is the same as mid-range.

The DMR, at long range, where the timing for accurate shots is much slower, it can take anywhere from 50% to 100% longer to score the 5-shot kill.

The DMR is an effective anti-sniper weapon. It can kick a sniper out of scope, and it can also deal some damage, but unless you catch a guy WAY OUT in the open, you're not going to finish the kill at long-range.

It works both ways.

I guess your long range isn't a long as i'm thing but anyway.

If the target is long range that makes the spread of the BR bullets less likely to hit therefore taking longer to kill, i wouldn't say as long as long as DMR but it's still a difference.

The only major difference for the DMR being a total dominating weapon is the improved pistol and AR, otherwise it would be as bad as halo 2/3.

 

[Slightly Live]

I'm surprised it took this long for the BR/DMR debate to surface.

 

[The Antitype]

It works both ways.

I guess your long range isn't a long as i'm thing but anyway.

If the target is long range that makes the spread of the BR bullets less likely to hit therefore taking longer to kill, i wouldn't say as long as long as DMR but it's still a difference.

The only major difference for the DMR being a total dominating weapon is the improved pistol and AR, otherwise it would be as bad as halo 2/3.

Right. And people complained about the spread in Halo 3, just like they complain about the bloom now.

I preferred the Halo 3 BR to the Halo 2 BR, because it felt more like a real weapon. It felt like physics were acting on the bullets, and that I could choose to take the weapon outside it's comfort zone, but I would pay the price for it in accuracy.

I feel the same way about bloom. I can choose to time shots and ensure 100% accuracy at all times at the cost of firing-speed, or I can choose to throw accuracy out the window, going for maximum firing-speed and take a chance on how many land.

Or I can do both (hammer out four shots, take time on the headshot).

I like having the option, but having consequences for my choices.

 

[Smeghead]

Right. And people complained about the spread in Halo 3, just like they complain about the bloom now.

I preferred the Halo 3 BR to the Halo 2 BR, because it felt more like a real weapon. It felt like physics were acting on the bullets, and that I could choose to take the weapon outside it's comfort zone, but I would pay the price for it in accuracy.

I feel the same way about bloom. I can choose to time shots and ensure 100% accuracy at all times at the cost of firing-speed, or I can choose to throw accuracy out the window, going for maximum firing-speed and take a chance on how many land.

Or I can do both (hammer out four shots, take time on the headshot).

I like having the option, but having consequences for my choices.

The BR spread is what i enjoy, it's all part of the skill.

I don't mind Reach mechanics as a palette cleanser. It makes for a nice change but i cannot play competitively (MLG) for long periods without getting bored, that's just me.

Where as in Halo 3 i get greater satisfaction playing MLG than i do Reach.I even played a handful of games yesterday, 4 years after launch and i still enjoy it more.

I would say that the regular playlists are much more fun on Reach though as more weapons are useful and it doesn't become a BR hunt.

Movement was waaaay more important in Halo 2/3 compared to Reach, and they certified that by decreasing the movement speed/jump height. It becomes much more an aiming/timing contest which personally i don't enjoy as much.

 

[KidA Seven]

The BR spread is what i enjoy, it's all part of the skill.

I disagree with that. I feel like a single shot weapon punishes you more for missing where as a burst can land you 2 out of 3 bullets. If you're talking about leading shots, then yes I agree it's good for competitive Halo.

 

[Smeghead]

I disagree with that. I feel like a single shot weapon punishes you more for missing where as a burst can land you 2 out of 3 bullets. If you're talking about leading shots, then yes I agree it's good for competitive Halo.

That's what i was referring to. A 4 shot takes alot more skill mid range than a 5 shot does in Reach which is probably one of the factors of why i enjoy it more, Reach feels alot easier.

 

[Steelyuhas]

Ok, if the nail four+headshot, they ALWAYS win. At close-medium range, when you have the time for perfectly-timed shots. If you miss the headshot, then you're kind of screwed.

At close-range, the AR wins.

But the AR SHOULD win at close range, otherwise it serves no purpose in the sandbox.

But yeah, I wouldn't mind a minor upgrade for the pistol damage or faster bloom recovery.

I liked how the AR and Pistol were balanced in the beta. The AR's is best used for clean up kills like it was in Halo CE, but the Pistol is pretty much the go to weapon of the two for a skilled player (and was rewarded for being good with the pistol).

Now of course, this doesn't mean the AR has to suck, but the pistol should be significantly better than it is now.

 

[Deputy Moonman]

Can someone explain to me what they like about the assault rifle? It wasn't the greatest weapon in Combat Evolved (only slightly better than using the needler), even if it did have a few uses. Then it was completely scrapped in Halo2. So in the first two installments of Halo, the assault rifle is more of a no-show weapon. At this point, why did anyone want it back? It was never really a core component of what people liked about Halo in my mind. It was a failure in Halo3 and in Reach it's just a cheap and easy way to get around having to deal with bloom. Perhaps that is my biggest gripe with bloom in reach. It's not consistent. Also, when people say, "the assault rifle should win at close range," I don't agree. Yes, maybe it should have an advantage at close range, but only at really close range. It should suck ass at distance, maybe even mid-distances. In reach, it's lethal from mid to close range, making it a classless weapon in my opinion when you consider that it suffers little from bloom.

 

[Xenon]

Ok I have to ask, WTF is Bloom? For the first few mentions I thought you people were discussing lighting... I'm tired =P

 

[Blue Ninja]

I'm surprised it took this long for the BR/DMR debate to surface.

And funnily enough, neither are in CEA.

 

[feel]

Can someone explain to me what they like about the assault rifle?

In Halo CE it was greatness, part of Master Chief's iconic image. Looked awesome and sounded incredible. Felt so good to spray the alien bastards with it and watch their colored blood fly, it's a scifi movie staple. I made a point of having it on screen as much as possible. Don't really like what they've done to it in Halo since, but it has its moments of usefulness.

 

[godhandiscen]

I guess I missed this.....not sure how promising it is:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-halo-anniversary/715783

Is the remastered graphics layer applied over Halo CE produced with the Reach engine? I mean, same resolution, lighting, AA solution, or a new graphics engine? I was confident it was the Reach engine, but then Dan states that the MP is different because it runs on the Reach engine, as if the SP campaign didn't. What is the deal?

 

[wwm0nkey]

I still think bloom is one thing that killed Reach for me and made it feel less like Halo. Bloom+AA's made kill times WAY to slow. In Halo 2 kill times where fast BUT you could still change up how the battle was going to to even if you where the first shot.

Again Bloom in games like Shadowrun is awesome, bloom can get the fuck out of my Halo though.

 

[scar tissue]

Thanks for the reply. I'd started to conclude this from other posts and tidbits, and as I did my (long) drive home, it began to bother me more and more.

To expand on a post I did on the HaloGAF thread, there are things in Halo 1 that won't stand up to scrutiny today, because they were a product of a rushed launch title for the Xbox. And there are things added to Halo over the course of the series that I'm going to miss dearly.

In Halo 1, physics were really limited, applied only to a few things. So those purple Covenant weapon crates (which do not actually hold weapons in Halo 1) might as well be trees; they can't move. No physics. In fact, there are no movable objects other than enemies, vehicles and weapons. No fusion cores to blow up, no bits of geometry to knock around, no debris from destroyed vehicles cluttering up the battle field (from the three vehicles that can be destroyed). It's a very static game. I don't think the very limited application of physics in Halo holds up well.

The impact of moving vehicles is binary; get touched by a Warthog moving at 5 mph and you don't get thumped and take a little damage, you die. Makes vehicle/infantry play fidgety and annoying. That should be fixed, but it sounds like it's not.

There are a lot of those things, which I think are archaic and to which I have no nostalgia attached.

But there's an even longer list of things added to the series that make it more fun, that will now be gone. Nothing to do with the Chief really - not how he moves or shoots or jumps or anything. Things like:

• Suicide Grunts, which are hilarious and dangerous.
  
• Ruptured methane tanks in Reach, sending Grunts flying, which are even more hilarious (and also dangerous).
  
• Fusion cores that go boom very nicely.
  
• Marines that can drive vehicles (not Kat - think The Storm in Halo 3). Driving a Warthog around is such a lonely affair in Halo.
  
• Friendly AI that's...not so hot. Taking "short controlled bursts" with the AR too far. They're like Emile in Reach, firing short bursts at powerful foes from very long distances. Halo's AI was remarkable for its time, but this sort of thing is unacceptable these days.
  
• Enemies limited to their zones; they won't come through doors or over certain thresholds over which their AI cannot navigate; friendly AI that turns off when you take them too far.
  
• Not being able to swap weapons with Marines.
  
• Not being able to use the Wraith.
  
• Not being able to board vehicles, to steal or destroy. This is not minor: I can't tell you how often I've wanted to steal the Wraith at the bottom of the titular Control Room and shell the living hell out of everyone on the way up. Vehicle thievery adds so much to the infantry/vehicle combat.
  
• Destructible vehicle states.

And so on. I have a list three times that long in my head. None of it has to do with the core gameplay of movement, jumping, guns, grenades.

Playing through Halo 1 these past few weeks with my eight year old, I was doing so dreaming of a truly remade Halo game. Because, to be honest, I'm bored playing Halo 1. I've played it to death. And the series has added so very much to the sandbox over time, so much to the AI set, so much to the strategic elements of the game, I think it's a big step back to lose them.

I get what you guys are doing withe the remake, and why. A remake is a lose-lose proposition. You have hoards of faithful that think the Halo 1 campaign is sacred and perfect (many of whom now work at 343). You have guys like me that love much of what Bungie did to the series over time. How do you please both groups? You can't. At least, not in one version of the Campaign.

Thus, the compromise: rigidly faithful gameplay, updated graphics (with a brilliant retro toggle). But I wish there was a gameplay toggle as well. Because I want to board Wraiths and steal Banshees, I want to swap weapons with Marines, I want to not get killed by the slightest touch of a moving vehicle, I want the decidedly static Halo 1 game world to be more malleable.

In today's inaugural 343 Halo Bulletin, Frankie wrote this:

But we couldn’t just remake it, there’d be no point. For starters, the game Bungie made in the first place is practically perfect, and it’s available, verbatim, on disc and Games on Demand for Xbox 360. It runs smoothly and at a higher resolution. ​

And he's right! I can - and do - play Halo 1 on my 360. It is a testament to Bungie's artistic and technical prowess that it looks and plays so well today, ten years later. But since I can put that game into my 360 right now, and it looks great....why buy a game that plays identically to it, but (has the option to) have a new coat of paint on it? I'm playing that already. I have no frothing desire to play this new version of Halo 1, because I was playing it last week. And I know about what it will look like, because I play Reach every day.

I wish you had a toggle not just to go from classic visuals, but to classic gameplay. So I could re-experience a great campaign with not just modern visuals, but physics, AI and gameplay. Then it would be the best of both worlds.

So I'm not excited for this new campaign. A new coat of paint does nothing - nada - for me.

Thank you for this post.

i'm so angry at the missed opportunity, and i have zero desire to play halo with a new coat of paint

 

[PooBone]

Rockets on Prisoner was great. Also a fun gametype for Prisoner, if you were playing over LAN instead of XBC and could convince everyone to follow the rules: Shotguns, with the rule that you had to immediately jump down to the bottom upon spawning. So much hilarity.

King of the Hill on Rat Race with infinite grenades. Pure insanity.

 

[scar tissue]

Bloom is the best thing to happen to Halo since vehicle jacking. I hope bloom is in Halo 4.
Not joking.
Come at me bro