Support NeoGAF

[Arhal_Katarn]

How does picking up a device allow you to sprint?

A device that increases energy output to the mjonir i would think.

 

[broony]

I'm not one to panic or freak out over a couple of muddy cell phone snaps of a(pre?) alpha build of a couple levels. Like some, however, I was perhaps guilty of HOPING to see some things changed for Reach, and those screens - muddy as they are - don't yet depict the graphical changes I was looking for. I'm talking about style more so than resolution or even textures really.

Specifically, the trapezoid Geometrical shaped look to everything - even things that are supposed to be organic. I can't think of a better way to describe it. Those plain grey ledges and ramps that look like they were pasted in with a compass and protractor. Rocky outcroppings and mountain ledges that look like lifeless 3d geometrics shapes with level flat surfaces.

I wanted Reach to look a little more Organic, a little more real. Bungie *appears* to have chosen not to deviate from that type of art direction - and that's their prerogative. Straight lines and sterility. I'm sure the game will look WAY better than Halo 3, and way better than we can appreciate from these photos. But it doesn't look *different*. That's the only thing that kinda lets me down.

I think Bungie said recently that they were done or close to being done with the play spaces, meaning they had the core geometry done and it is now going to be 'dressed'.

So they need that big ramp there or that cliff face here but they have had no polish or embelishment, no final textures. So the scene will have that core geometry on release but it will look nothing like that. What they will be working on now is making it looks like a real world location(I know it's in outer space ; ) ). I wouldn't worry about it not looking organic on release.

I guess the reactions in the thread are why developers consider leaks to be so damaging. So far you have people looking at the screens and saying the graphics/engine sucks, reading the gameplay notes and deciding there is no inovation and then to top it off getting the first three levels spolied to some degree.

Bungie must be pretty mad right now and I wouldn't be suprised if this is damaging development as they will have to put certain things on hold, like testing, until they find the guy who leaked it.

My first impressions, all things considered, is that it looks pretty cool.

 

[The Lamonster]

well said /\

 

[*Guaraná]

Tamburello

RiP Senna...

 

[KingJ2002]

Meh... imo... the Halo universe has always had a clean look to it... it gives it it's sci-fi feel. I honestly want Halo: Reach to be more on par with Killzone 2 when it comes to use of effects and what have you... and if this game still needs to be "dressed up" then i can assume it should look amazing.

I'm actually kind of mad it leaked... it still far off and it gives away the surprise of looking at something new.

even when looking at new screens when it unveils... it just destroys anticipation... and gives you a "meh... seen it" attitude.

I guess with this leak... bungie will have to come with an really epic trailer at unveiling to show the growth.

 

[Proelite]

I really hope they have at least 12 v 12 in mp. 3 squads vs 3 squads would be nice, but they should aim for 4 squads vs 4 squads.

 

[GloveSlap]

Well, that would officially suck if they made a longer delay between sniper rifle shots. Bah, it would be terrible.

That was actually the part in the impressions that i liked the most. The sniper is kind of cheap the way it is now, they have to either slow down the shots or make the clip 2 rounds. Its just way to easy to body shot people to death from any distance. The sniper should be all about 1-shot kills via headshot, if you miss that one shot then you failed and the person gets away or you die.

 

[The Librarian]

That was actually the part in the impressions that i liked the most. The sniper is kind of cheap the way it is now, they have to either slow down the shots or make the clip 2 rounds. Its just way to easy to body shot people to death from any distance. The sniper should be all about 1-shot kills via headshot, if you miss that one shot then you failed and the person gets away or you die.

Agreed with the bold. No scopes are also kind of cheap too, I think.

 

[NorrenRadd]

I'm excited just looking at pictures. Trying to stay away from any context/story so that I don't spoil it.

Thanks for the clarification thing about the engine. Believe it or not, that giant picture got my attention and answered my question immediately Thanks.

 

[Fire4444]

"Perks"?

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Red Faction: Guerrilla's "backpack" system yet? That's what it sounds like.

 

[RebornYeti]

Dang, I read the mission spoilers. I did the same for ODST and I wasn't as excited for it as I was before I had spoiled it for myself.

That's it, I'm going on a media blackout from here on out. I need the same excitement for Reach as I had for Halo 3.

 

[DiabolicalBagel]

That was actually the part in the impressions that i liked the most. The sniper is kind of cheap the way it is now, they have to either slow down the shots or make the clip 2 rounds. Its just way to easy to body shot people to death from any distance. The sniper should be all about 1-shot kills via headshot, if you miss that one shot then you failed and the person gets away or you die.

Yeah, that is exactly what we need to do; let's ruin one of the few weapons used exclusively by people who can actually aim. The shot delay with the sniper is fine the way it is right now and the magazine is small enough as it stands.
Two AR shots and a melee can kill and here you are complaining about 2 .50 cal rounds being cheap? Really?

 

[AdventureRacing]

Instead, despite being early alpha shots, one of the environments looks like its just an empty futuristic carpark with random mountains as a backdrop. It all just looks too clean to be believable as a war rather than just action figures shooting at each other.

Yes they most likely are early alpha shots and they are blurry cell phone pics so trying to make judgments about what the game will look like is silly.

Meh... imo... the Halo universe has always had a clean look to it... it gives it it's sci-fi feel. I honestly want Halo: Reach to be more on par with Killzone 2 when it comes to use of effects and what have you... and if this game still needs to be "dressed up" then i can assume it should look amazing.

There is no way reach will look as good as KZ2. The battles in halo are on a much larger scale and i just don't think they would be able to achieve the same level of graphics.

I also wonder what sort of affect having split screen co-op has. When KZ2 was being released and people (myself included) were disappointed in the lack of co-op people were saying that it would have affected the final product to have it in the game.

If reach is a huge step up graphically from halo 3 will they need to alter the visuals in order to get split screen to work?

 

[op_ivy]

Yeah, that is exactly what we need to do; let's ruin one of the few weapons used exclusively by people who can actually aim. The shot delay with the sniper is fine the way it is right now and the magazine is small enough as it stands.
Two AR shots and a melee can kill and here you are complaining about 2 .50 cal rounds being cheap? Really?

yes, i agree with these 2 bungie. please ruin the sniper rifle

 

[Slightly Live]

The Mission details sound a blast. Looks like something familar with a flavour of differant and a seasoning of awesome.

 

[radrelic]

The mission details leaked sound like Bungie are copying and pasting from Halo 1.

I hope there's more to these missions than just being Halo 1 retreads.

 

[backflip10019]

Agreed with the bold. No scopes are also kind of cheap too, I think.

How the hell are no scopes cheap? If you're talented enough to shoot someone in the face without scoping then power to you. If not, then get better and stop using an AR.

 

[Phatcorns]

Can someone explain who the hell this guy is and how he got all this info and screens?

 

[CrazedArabMan]

Agreed with the bold. No scopes are also kind of cheap too, I think.

No, they're cheap in games that are "realistic" like CoD, Halo they're not, they take skill and you are a Spartan who can handle a weapon like that, not a regular human.

 

[The Lamonster]

Can someone explain who the hell this guy is and how he got all this info and screens?

TOM MORELLO

Spoiler

got famous from guitar hero 3

 

[Zeouterlimits]

Agreed with the bold. No scopes are also kind of cheap too, I think.

Yeah, sorry, have to agree with Backflip here, what are you thinking?
Can you 'clarify'?

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

The mission details leaked sound like Bungie are copying and pasting from Halo 1.

I hope there's more to these missions than just being Halo 1 retreads.

That's if they're even true. I haven't read the last page or so, but the guy giving information, and the person who actually took the pictures can be two separate people.

For all we know, this guy could just be making shit up that sounds good.

But, for the sake of argument, we'll say the mission details are real. And if that's the case, I'm sure they won't just be copy/paste of Halo 1 missions. If anything it'll be like the last mission of Halo 3. More of a homage to the missions, rather than a complete copy. Make it feel similar, but obviously very different.

 

[imtehman]

halo should put in jet packs with disc launchers, now that would be one awesome game.

 

[The Librarian]

Yeah, sorry, have to agree with Tashi here, what are you thinking?
Can you 'clarify'?

Tashi...? Most no-scopes are insane luck anyway. I think it's cheap that I have to die at close range without having a chance of fighting back from a weapon that is meant for long-range combat.

 

[jstevenson]

Bungie held take-home playtests last week, where tons of employees took a dev kit home for feedback and to test the net code over PartnerNet on home connections. My guess: One of the participants has a friend over to show him teh sweet new Halos. "Friend" snaps cell phone pics while he's over. And here we are.

My guess is that it was the usability lab. Very early outside playtester brought in. Had to be trying to sneak photos of it.

We had a big leak on RCF2 we managed to clamp down before it spread outside of the PS.com boards/Insom boards that happened the same way with a focus tester (not photos, but lots o details).

SO between having that happen on ACIT, and Surfer Girl on R2 - I definitely feel for them. :-(

 

[Sai-kun]

Agreed with the bold. No scopes are also kind of cheap too, I think.

ahahaha oh wow.

getthefuckout.gif

You kidding, Dax? Please be.

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

Tashi...? Most no-scopes are insane luck anyway. I think it's cheap that I have to die at close range without having a chance of fighting back from a weapon that is meant for long-range combat.

Really?

So, just because you have a weapon meant for close range, you should automatically win because the person you're fighting doesn't? If the person you're going against is skilled enough to hit you once or twice with a sniper, you deserve that death.

Also, something different. I haven't played Halo 3 multiplayer in quite a while, but doesn't it take like...6 AR bullets, and a melee to kill someone?

 

[The Librarian]

Really?

So, just because you have a weapon meant for close range, you should automatically win because the person you're fighting doesn't?

Where did I say that? You're able to carry two weapons for a reason.

If the person you're going against is skilled enough to hit you once or twice with a sniper, you deserve that death.

The vast majority of no-scopes in CQC is plain and simple luck. I said no-scopes, not two shots to the body.

 

[NullPointer]

Fuck HD. I want a 60 fps Halo.

I don't think that'll ever happen, and given the scope of Halo combat it seems like an unrealistic goal.

If Halo: Reach has locked 30fps with a clean look, it'll get a far better reception than Halo 3 and ODST. Save 60fps for re-mastered versions of previous Halo games on new hardware.

 

[backflip10019]

Tashi...? Most no-scopes are insane luck anyway. I think it's cheap that I have to die at close range without having a chance of fighting back from a weapon that is meant for long-range combat.

Alright, maybe at the level at which you are playing, no scopes are "insane luck." At higher levels, however, they are useful when you're being pounded by a BR from mid-range or close range and don't have time to switch weapons. I'd say that I hit with about 25% of the no scope shots that I take, ipso facto it's not "insane luck."

 

[Ajemsuhgao]

Where did I say that? You're able to carry two weapons for a reason.

The vast majority of no-scopes in CQC is plain and simple luck. I said no-scopes, not two shots to the body.

I still don't see how it's cheap.

"Where did I say that? You're able to carry two weapons for a reason."
Nevermind the fact that in the time it takes to switch weapons, you'll most likely be dead...

If I have a sniper and someone comes up to me, the ONLY time I ever switch weapons is if I have a shotgun or rocket launcher.

 

[Magni]

Where did I say that? You're able to carry two weapons for a reason.

The vast majority of no-scopes in CQC is plain and simple luck. I said no-scopes, not two shots to the body.

If it's simple luck, then how about you and I 1v1 no-scopes only. Should be a pretty close seeing as every duel we'd each have 50% chance of getting the lucky shot first, right?

smh Dax, smh

 

[Tashi]

Lol the Sniper in Halo 3 is not a cheap gun. I will give it to you, no-scoping in Halo 3 is easier than it was in Halo 2 but that doesn't mean it's cheap or easy to do at all. The Halo 3 sniper rate was already slowed down from Halo 2 and the ability to sweep snipe has been dramatically decreased. The sniper is fine the way it is.

2 bullets per clip and slower rate of fire, fuck that. That thing is basically useless then.

Most no-scopes are insane luck anyway. I think it's cheap that I have to die at close range without having a chance of fighting back from a weapon that is meant for long-range combat.

If you're running up to a sniper to kill him and he still has his sniper out, you have the advantage, not just a change of fighting back. Now, if you run up to him with a shotgun and run straight at him and you get no-scoped, you got raped. If you do the same with an AR, you got raped. If you run up with a BR and start strafing back and forth, and you get no scoped, you got raped even harder. If you run in for a beat down on the sniper guy and he no scope beats you down or just domes you, you're an idiot. If you jump at him and get no-scoped, you're an idiot.

You just gotta tip your hat and say, "Nice play, I got raped".

 

[theignoramus]

They should just make Halo Crysis, or whatever combination of those two words sounds best. Replace the north koreans with the covenant, the random island with a random island on a halo. The special forces with some random spartan, speed/strength/shields premanently on but only cloack/shield would drain energy. Kind of silly how well it fits.

Why not license CryEngine 3 for Halo? Crytek's console tech demo looked several software generations beyond anything Bungie has produced on Xbox 360.

 

[Ramirez]

Can Dax go back to where ever he's been for the past month please.

 

[clashfan]

I think Bungie needs to concentrate on single player for Reach. Halo 2 and 3 have been too focused on multiplayer.

 

[backflip10019]

I think Bungie needs to concentrate on single player for Reach. Halo 2 and 3 have been too focused on multiplayer.

Didn't we just have a single player only expansion, i.e. ODST? Bungie will never focus primarily on campaign because that's not where the lasting power of the game comes from. Most Halo players don't even buy the game for campaign; they buy it and continue to play it for the multiplayer only.

While some might want Bungie to spend more time on the campaign, face it, it isn't going to happen.

Can Dax go back to where ever he's been for the past month please.

Seconded.

 

[The Librarian]

Alright, maybe at the level at which you are playing, no scopes are "insane luck." At higher levels, however, they are useful when you're being pounded by a BR from mid-range or close range and don't have time to switch weapons. I'd say that I hit with about 25% of the no scope shots that I take, ipso facto it's not "insane luck."

Alright. Let's take your word for it that it's not "insane luck" on higher levels. I still think it's cheap, skilled or otherwise. If we're in close-quarters, and I have an AR, Mauler, SMG, Plasma Rifle, etc, I should have a fair chance of winning: not die from some cheap one-hit kill.

I still don't see how it's cheap.

Because they're able to kill you in one-shot with a weapon that is for long-range combat. Body shots I don't mind, because I have a chance to stick them or perhaps do enough damage for a teammate to finish the job. No-scopes on the other hand... Do you see people killing other with the shotgun in one hit from long-range? No.

If it's simple luck, then how about you and I 1v1 no-scopes only. Should be a pretty close seeing as every duel we'd each have 50% chance of getting the lucky shot first, right?

smh Dax, smh

Your percentage is off. There are many factors that come into play when hitting a target, not just how many people there are.

Didn't we just have a single player only expansion, i.e. ODST? Bungie will never focus primarily on campaign because that's not where the lasting power of the game comes from. Most Halo players don't even buy the game for campaign; they buy it and continue to play it for the multiplayer only.

While some might want Bungie to spend more time on the campaign, face it, it isn't going to happen.

Bungie's general theme is people "buy the game for the campaign and stay for the multiplayer."

 

[Slightly Live]

I think the split between single and multi in Halo 2 and 3 are perfect. I'd be happy if they did the same with Reach.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

I think the split between single and multi in Halo 2 and 3 are perfect. I'd be happy if they did the same with Reach.

I feel almost the exact same.

I could do with a return to Halo 2's narrative for Reach (infact if it's similar in structure/quality to Halo 3 I'll be really disappointed in Bungie)

 

[Tashi]

Alright. Let's take your word for it that it's not "insane luck" on higher levels. I still think it's cheap, skilled or otherwise. If we're in close-quarters, and I have an AR, Mauler, SMG, Plasma Rifle, etc, I should have a fair chance of winning: not die from some cheap one-hit kill.


Because they're able to kill you in one-shot with a weapon that is for long-range combat. Body shots I don't mind, because I have a chance to stick them or perhaps do enough damage for a teammate to finish the job. No-scopes on the other hand... Do you see people killing other with the shotgun in one hit from long-range? No.


Your percentage is off. There are many factors that come into play when hitting a target, not just how many people there are.


Bungie's general theme is people "buy the game for the campaign and stay for the multiplayer."

YOU HAVE EVEN MORE THAN A FAIR CHANCE, YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE

 

[backflip10019]

Alright. Let's take your word for it that it's not "insane luck" on higher levels. I still think it's cheap, skilled or otherwise. If we're in close-quarters, and I have an AR, Mauler, SMG, Plasma Rifle, etc, I should have a fair chance of winning: not die from some cheap one-hit kill.

Your logic doesn't make sense. You have more than a fair chance of winning a battle up close against someone with a sniper. As long as you use whatever weapon you have efficiently and use some strategy, you should have the upper hand as long as the other play is not extremely skilled.

Think of it the other way around also: why shouldn't the player using a long range weapon have a fair chance of defending himself from someone charging him with a close range weapon? Is it fair for him to just die every time he is caught unaware? No, it's not. No scopes are not cheap.

Bungie's general theme is people "buy the game for the campaign and stay for the multiplayer."

That's fine, but I don't think that more people really care about the campaign than the multiplayer. Just go online and join a matchmaking game and see how many people have finished the campaign. I'm guessing the number is far fewer than you would expect.

 

[scoobs]

I'm partially hyped for this game, I really wanna know more about the teamwork aspect of the game.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

Thanks for the info.

 

[SimpleDesign]

I hope it comes on two disks with the same set up as ODST. I wouldn't want Bungie trying to cram everything onto a single DVD.

 

[The Librarian]

YOU HAVE EVEN MORE THAN A FAIR CHANCE, YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE

Do I, though? If no-scopes are a learned way of killing, and people can accomplish the feat with relative easy effort (moderate or otherwise), to the point where one can become good at it, how do I have the advantage?

Your logic doesn't make sense. You have more than a fair chance of winning a battle up close against someone with a sniper. As long as you use whatever weapon you have efficiently and use some strategy, you should have the upper hand as long as the other play is not extremely skilled.

Which makes it cheap, then.

Think of it the other way around also: why shouldn't the player using a long range weapon have a fair chance of defending himself from someone charging him with a close range weapon? Is it fair for him to just die every time he is caught unaware? No, it's not. No scopes are not cheap.

I'd consider two-shots to the body as fair, not one critical hit.

For you, think of if the other way around: Why shouldn't the player who's using a close-range weapon have a fair chance of defending himself from someone shooting at him far away with a long-range weapon? It goes both ways.

 

[backflip10019]

I'm not even going to bother arguing anymore. This is going nowhere.

 

[Vast Inspiration]

I guess the complaint is that a weapon like the shotgun is 100% useless long range, but a weapon like the sniper is always useful no matter what the range. Which I can sort of understand...but it takes A LOT of skill to kill someone short range with a sniper, so stop complaining.

 

[The Librarian]

I guess the complaint is that a weapon like the shotgun is 100% useless long range, but a weapon like the sniper is always useful no matter what the range. Which I can sort of understand...but it takes A LOT of skill to kill someone short range with a sniper, so stop complaining.

Well, then there should be a way to take out someone long-range with a shotgun in a way that takes a lot of skill.

 

[Ten-Song]

Think of it the other way around also: why shouldn't the player using a long range weapon have a fair chance of defending himself from someone charging him with a close range weapon? Is it fair for him to just die every time he is caught unaware? No, it's not. No scopes are not cheap.

A player that chooses a long range weapon should always be at a disadvantage close range, that's the give and take of choosing a long range weapon. I don't think a player that lets himself get caught off guard while holding a sniper rifle should have even odds against someone with a mid to close range weapon that gets the drop on them.