-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Halo |OT| She's Gone, Sir
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Basically it is from the Halo Nation (wikia group), who recently has merged with Halopedia. The old Halo Nation discord was somewhat of a cesspool, which Halopedia was hoping would die off as the merger was completed and people were migrated to a new discord with actual rules and standards of conduct. They released a public statement regarding it earlier today.
Basically it is from the Halo Nation (wikia group), who recently has merged with Halopedia. The old Halo Nation discord was somewhat of a cesspool, which Halopedia was hoping would die off as the merger was completed and people were migrated to a new discord with actual rules and standards of conduct. They released a public statement regarding it earlier today.
Well, I can't argue with the clarity or content of that. Also the addendum sounds like the exact sh*t that happens to me when something breaks and I have to fix it. So I sympathize. I yelled at my lazy child today for not getting out of bed till because she was "sick" and then when I was done "parenting" she exorcist barfed everywhere. Guilt, puke, responsibility. A HEADY COCKTAIL.
Question for you Halo fans
What Faction do you consider to be the main antagonist of the series?
The Covenant or the Flood?
What Faction do you consider to be the main antagonist of the series?
The Covenant or the Flood?
ONI comes to mind first, then after that maybe the Flood.
Tricky question. Pre-Halo 4, the Covies were the franchise's main enemies, post-Halo 4 it is difficult to determine the main enemy anymore (human-factions? Forerunners? Covie remnants? Others?). But one could argue the Flood is that in the game trilogy. Then again the Covies are always the first and foremost threat, with the Flood coming to mess things only later.
It's got to be the Covenant. At least in the Bungie titles.
The Flood was obviously always a threat but they were generally seen a side problem whilst trying to deal with the convenant. The fact that you even ally with the Flood on a few occasions shows that.
Halo 4 onwards and things obviously change a bit.
Discord Link
Since people ask occasionally for invites to HaloEra Discord, and since we are getting Halos on PCs, we figured it might be a good idea just to add invite here.
This invite is for Era members only, don't share it elsewhere. Outsiders can get in case by case basis.
Please say hello and/or state who you are on Era in case your Discord nick's different!
EDIT Link updated to direct to rules rather than the void where admins live.
Hidden content
Please say hello and/or state who you are on Era in case your Discord nick's different!
EDIT Link updated to direct to rules rather than the void where admins live.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Hidden to me in the quote? So i suppose it works?
I'll check with another logged out browser...
EDIT it works
I think they are both main antagonists... they both had the goals that would end humanity along with the rest of sentient life.
It's true that we teamed with the Flood a few times, but that's only because the the rings would have been fired otherwise.
Last edited:
Both threatened the galaxy for different reasons, but I'd say the Covenant were the more active threat whereas the Flood were looming.
OP
OP
I'd say the Flood. The Covenant were fighting a war of religion and oppression - something nasty, but explicable. In the end, some of them even ended up turning face.
The Flood are just in this entirely different league. Even in CE, there was this sense, watching Elites get taken down by waves of infection forms, that now you're seeing the real threat.
The Flood are definitely the main antagonist. Tp put it into perspective, let's say the Covenant never even formed and things were for the most part peaceful. Now imagine if the UNSC or any other sentient faction accidentally came across the Flood.
The flood are probably the most dangerous entity in the universe but that doesn't mean they're the primary antagonist.
I hear heroin has a pretty big userbase, too, and that's been around even longer. Speaking of drugs, Candy Crush Saga probably has a fuckload of players, but I'm not going to say it's a better game than Mario 64.
Halo 5 is not a very casual-friendly game, so the repeat player base is smaller, and it lacks a real "hooking" mechanisms like prestige modes to motivate people to keep playing. Halo 5 hasn't had huge content updates, either, like an ODST or Halo:CEA equivalent (not that I'm happy about it).
Halo 3 came out at exactly the right time in terms of Halo-zeitgeist, had well-timed DLC and expansions, and didn't face serious competition until well after release with MW2. If MCC has taught us anything, it shouldn't be that Halo 3 was popular because of the base gameplay.
I'd argue they are. The Covenant while flawed beliefs can be reasoned with in certain cases. The Flood though only has one purpose and that is to consume all sentient life.
The Covenant are just the doctrine-blinded assholes who enable the real threat of the Flood to ever occur. Now that role is being usurped by Cortana and her minions.
What's the current state of the ex-covenant faction. I really couldn't bring myself to keep up after H5, but now I'm starting to get that itch again.
As much as I fucking hate Halo 3 and immensely prefer Halo 5, there's something to said about the former's surface level simplicity. That's what allows a game to be enjoyable without prior investment. It's a quality that the current dominant FPS' enjoy.
People always want to suggest Halo3 didn't have competition, but that just isn't true. Many other big FPS games came out during Halo3's reign, but people still played Halo 3, warts and all.
And it's not like people were playing Halo 3 INSTEAD of those other games. They were playing Halo IN ADDITION to those games- even after MW2 came out and had been out for some time. THAT is why Halo 3 remained so popular for so long- people kept returning to it even though other good shooters were emerging. This is a characteristic that this franchise lost as surface-level simplicity was lost in the attempt to incorporate mechanics from Halo's contemporaries. I don't think this is a coincidence, and it's a disservice to what Halo3 got right and the competing games that came out in that time frame to attritbute H3's lasting success primarily to circumstance.
Hooking mechanisms and DLC expansions mean nothing if people don't actually want to play the game.
As much as I fucking hate Halo 3 and immensely prefer Halo 5, there's something to said about the former's surface level simplicity. That's what allows a game to be enjoyable without prior investment. It's a quality that the current dominant FPS' enjoy.
People always want to suggest Halo3 didn't have competition, but that just isn't true. Many other big FPS games came out during Halo3's reign, but people still played Halo 3, warts and all.
And it's not like people were playing Halo 3 INSTEAD of those other games. They were playing Halo IN ADDITION to those games- even after MW2 came out and had been out for some time. THAT is why Halo 3 remained so popular for so long- people kept returning to it even though other good shooters were emerging. This is a characteristic that this franchise lost as surface-level simplicity was lost in the attempt to incorporate mechanics from Halo's contemporaries. I don't think this is a coincidence, and it's a disservice to what Halo3 got right and the competing games that came out in that time frame to attritbute H3's lasting success primarily to circumstance.
Hooking mechanisms and DLC expansions mean nothing if people don't actually want to play the game.
Last edited:
OP
OP
I'd put it more like... H3 had time and, like you said, qualities like a more approachable combat loop, that let it get hooks in people before the competition really hit, so even after MW2 entered the market people kept going back to it. H5 is tougher to play and there were other games available right then and there, so it didn't grow the kind of core audience that would keep playing it even as new stuff came out, since it never really had people's undivided attention in the same way.
Maybe if Infinite makes the next Xbox launch lineup and really blows peoples' socks off it'll get a similar chance, considering the currently kinda dire state of the competition other than Fortnite.
I'm not sure I agree with the bolded. One of the most popular FPS titles in the world right now is RS Siege. That game is ridiculously complex.
super agree man, defintely alot of LoTr style (literally just walking around) but great stuff in there for sure
The balkanization of the former Covenant races in the post Halo 3 environment is honestly one of the most interesting things to happen in Halo to me. I love reading about and experiencing stuff like the Servants of the Abiding Truth, The Banished, Sangheilios, and even human sub-factions like Gao and Venezia. It allows for such interesting events that don't have to be end-of-the-galaxy level scenarios. I want to see how these groups try to work out their place in the galaxy without the San'Shyuum controlling their every move. It's a shame that the Created storyline is interrupting that, but once that is over I think we'll get to see some really interesting stuff come out of that setting, we have to some extent with several novels and Halo Wars 2.
Personally, Halo 3's benefit to me is that it was (mostly) a fixed Halo 2. Those of us coming in from the modfest that was H2 online, plus the 360 actually selling way more units than the OXbox meant Halo 3 had both a hungry dedicated base from 2 and a whole bunch of newcomers coming in on the 360, the game also didn't dramatically change via updates so it didn't lose a lot of people from churn.
Now, of course today you couldn't release Halo 3 in the same form (slow player investment feedback, limited player customization, etc) but it was the right game at the right time.
Halo 2 got extremely lucky that it basically had zero competition in the console space. If H2 had come out in 2007 instead of halo 3, it would have absolutely tanked because people wouldn't have tolerated the level of cheating/modding/etc it had. nothing else was really competing for time with it in the console space for online though, so going through the cheated games was worth it for the good ones.
I've said it before but it really felt like people never actually got to play Halo 2 online. They mostly had to play a metaH2 to counter the exploits , people making paths through skyboxes, etc. Whatever sandbox was intended was never really played.
games that have problems like that get dropped hard these days.
Now, of course today you couldn't release Halo 3 in the same form (slow player investment feedback, limited player customization, etc) but it was the right game at the right time.
Halo 2 got extremely lucky that it basically had zero competition in the console space. If H2 had come out in 2007 instead of halo 3, it would have absolutely tanked because people wouldn't have tolerated the level of cheating/modding/etc it had. nothing else was really competing for time with it in the console space for online though, so going through the cheated games was worth it for the good ones.
I've said it before but it really felt like people never actually got to play Halo 2 online. They mostly had to play a metaH2 to counter the exploits , people making paths through skyboxes, etc. Whatever sandbox was intended was never really played.
games that have problems like that get dropped hard these days.
It IS complex, complexity is good for long term engagement because it gives the player something to strive to master.
What isn't good so good is surface level complexity. Halo inherently has that compared to most other shooters because of the long kill times, and the increase in basic mechanics brought on by having an additional pillar amplifies that.
So many people will attest that no matter how long they've been away from the old Halo's they can pick them up and almost immediately feel comfortable. That isn't the case for many H5 players. Hell if I take a week off I'm trash
though I'm pretty trash regardless
Agreed. This is my biggest disappointment with the Created. We already had some interesting factions with damn near Game of Thrones levels of mutual and conflicting interests - and they seemingly through it all away for a contrived US against the robots plot line.
Hopefully , my suspicions don't come through.
What I mean is that Siege is far more complex compared to Halo 5., even on a surface level.
I'd argue the likes of Overwatch is also more complex than H5 in the same way.
Before you can even begin to play Overwatch/Siege you need to have an understanding of multiple different characters and their various unique abilities. You need to know which characters work in which situations and levels. You need to know how their various abilities interact with your team mates and the enemies etc.
Knowing how to thrust and clamber is fucking easy compared to that.
Also, due to the one life mechanic in Siege you need to have a solid understanding of the map design and objective system before you can even start to have fun. Compared to Halo 5 where you can jump into a match of super fiesta or standard slayer and just wander about killing people without much worry. H5's map design is also far simpler than the likes of Siege with most maps being small and symmetric.
H5 may be more complex than older Halos but compared to the current market I'd say it's relatively easy to pick up and play.
Last edited:
Nah, I don't think you need to understand all that to enjoy those games. Most people will pick a class, quickly understand they basics of the character they chose, quickly enjoy themselves, then start to learn nuance from there.
They are just like fighting games in that sense- it's fun long before you learn the ins and outs of your character and how they compare to the rest of the roster.
Halo 5 has similar base movement mechanics to most modern shooters, but changes how they function in the name of balance, and does so in ways that aren't immediately clear and are jarring when jumping back and forth from game to game.
Learning maps is no more crucial for fun in Siege compared to Halo imo - the fun in either case comes from the combat loop, but it's crucial to getting good in any game.
Last edited:
The basics of a single character is just as, if not more complex than the basics of H5. There are far more new mechanics to learn for a single Overwatch character than there is in H5. Also what happens if someone selects your character before you do? You need to understand at least 2 characters (ideally more) otherwise there's a real chance you'll get screwed.
The only difference H5 has with regards to it's main mechanics which could maybe be considered jarring is the sprint/shield mechanic. However, that's not a mechanic which actively limits a player's ability to move around and play. You're not required to understand that mechanic to utilise the core mechanics of the game. Sprinting is still sprinting.
I'd argue descope would be far more jarring to a new player and that was fine in older Halos.
Is it too late to sign up for The MCC Reach testing on Xbox?
(also what was that image of a Grunt constellation on booting up the MCC and where can I DL it?)
(also what was that image of a Grunt constellation on booting up the MCC and where can I DL it?)
In overwatch/seige You don't need to be an expert on a character to begin having fun with them. You need have a basic understanding of their archetype, their weapon and their special - which takes minutes. You learn pretty quickly if a character feels good . Learning the nuance of a character is what takes time- but you're having fun long before that point.
These are the things that I think make Halo 5 initially jarring, some of which are inherent to Halo.
Long Kill times
Descope
When you Sprint, it immediately looks like you are sprinting, but you aren't actually sprinting until 1s later
If you take damage while trying to start sprinting, it takes another second before you can sprint
If you start Sprint before your shield starts recharging, the timer resets and doesn't begin until you stop sprinting
Thrust doesn't break melee lunge
Thrust takes 4s to recharge
Melees take longer to register if you are airborne.
Scoping while airborne makes you float.
The aiming is a little weird
These aren't areas of depth that people can spare to learn over course of their playtime. These are basic mechanics that have a direct impact on how the game feels the moment you pick it up for the first time or after a period of time.
I'm in the camp that people exaggerate how complicated Halo 5 is, even when compared to previous games. What's more of a concern and a deterrent to newcomers is how good Halo veterans are along with the gameplay design in general when compared to the rest of the market. That's why the game needs to improve with matchmaking to find fair matches.
If your aim is true (-Hanzo 2016) and you understand the basics of Halo multiplayer (descope, weapon spawns, etc.), then the additions brought in Halo 5 like spartan charge and ground pound are not some wildly complicated concepts to grasp. One of the more complicated systems is not regaining shield while sprinting, but even that is intuitive thanks to the visual feedback of the little yellow line under your shield.
Battle Royale games I'd say are more complicated than Halo 5, yet they're vastly popular. I think that's an easy stance to argue. Item management systems are intimidating when jumping between BR games. Material management and building in Fortnite, attachments in Blackout and Apex, etc., all more complicated than Halo 5 imo.
If your aim is true (-Hanzo 2016) and you understand the basics of Halo multiplayer (descope, weapon spawns, etc.), then the additions brought in Halo 5 like spartan charge and ground pound are not some wildly complicated concepts to grasp. One of the more complicated systems is not regaining shield while sprinting, but even that is intuitive thanks to the visual feedback of the little yellow line under your shield.
Battle Royale games I'd say are more complicated than Halo 5, yet they're vastly popular. I think that's an easy stance to argue. Item management systems are intimidating when jumping between BR games. Material management and building in Fortnite, attachments in Blackout and Apex, etc., all more complicated than Halo 5 imo.
Last edited:
Why to you think Halo veterans in Halo 5 would create a less inviting atmosphere than Halo veterans in any other Halo game. It's true, having a general understanding of Halo makes getting comfortable with Halo 5 easier, but that's true of any sequel that incorporates what came before it.
But let's say there are two prototypes of the next Halo game. Option 1 replicates Halo 5s base movement mechanics. Option 2 has a single move speed and none of the delays and timers linking the health, movement and offensive systems. It should be obvious which one will be most easily grasped by a newcomers - the one that is the most simple on a basic mechanical level.
BR games ARE more complicated overall. But the basic actions -moving and dealing damage - couldn't be more simple. I can't build for shit in Fornite- but I can run, hide and take cheap potshots with the best of them, which is good enough for some top finishes.
PS that little yellow line under your health is neccisary because not regaining shield while sprinting ISN'T intuitive. They added that visual feedback to counter the natural confusion brought on by that balancing decision.
I never said it did. I think more to the point of why Halo 3 was so popular, if that's where you're going with this, is simply due to circumstance with the series at that point in time rather than due to its gameplay design, which IIRC you'd agree with. It's likely not because of how amazing the gameplay is in comparison to the first two games, at least not in retrospect when we have TMCC to make immediate comparisons.
Yes that's true, but the level of complication added with systems brought in from Halo 5 isn't some monumental thing to grasp.
If you're arguing that you don't need to utilize several of the more complicated systems in BR games to perform well, the same can be argued for Halo 5. You don't need to use spartan charge or ground pound to be effective either, nor do you really need to even sprint if your positioning and general understanding of the game is good enough.
Umm, I don't really know how to respond to this. I mean, sure? The system exists though and it's not really fair to say it wouldn't be intuitive without it because that's not how the game was originally designed.
As a tangent, Halo 2 and 3 only had shields on display, but they had an invisible health system as well. So that's another point in H5's favor if we're discussing intuitive design. The lack of displaying health in Halo 2 and 3 "isn't intuitive" when compared to Halo 5. We can further go into specifics, but I'm not really interested in splitting hairs here lol. I just think people exaggerate with this notion that Halo 5 is too complicated, and that being the most important factor as to why it wasn't as popular as previous entries.
Last edited:
You're right, you don't need to be an expert on the various abilities of a character to enjoy playing Overwatch.
Just like in Halo 5, you don't need to be an expert on the various intricacies of how sprint works to play and enjoy the game. All you really need to know is which button to press. None of those mechanics you've listed are actually required to be fully understood to play and enjoy Halo 5*. Hell, I've spent hundreds of hours playing Halo 5 at a high diamond to low Onyx level and I didn't know that thrusting didn't break melee lunge.
The actual core mechanics required to be understood to play Halo 5 would take no longer to learn than you're average Overwatch character. The thing is that once you've got a basic understanding of how to play you already know the abilities and limitations of every other player. Halo 5 is a simple game relative to the vast majority of other FPS titles. Once you get to grips with the controls you can hop into a super fiesta match and you're basically good to go.
Even the likes of Fortnite is way more complex on the surface than Halo 5. Understanding how building works, collecting materials, managing your inventory, the various shield and health mechanics etc. That's complicated. That takes a fair amount of time to get to grips with.
*Besides perhaps long kill times but every player will have learnt that within seconds of their first match. The kill times are also far simpler in Halo because they're consistent across every player and weapon. Kill times are significantly more complex in Overwatch than H5. In Overwatch each character outputs vastly different levels of damage and has vastly different amounts of health. If understanding kill times is required to enjoy a game then it must take fucking hours for anyone to enjoy Overwatch.
If you're arguing that you don't need to understand building to be competent at Fortnite then you certainly do not need to understand the various mechanics you listed for Halo 5.
Building is a core element of Fortnite. If you don't know how to build then you basically don't know how to play the game. That's like not knowing how to throw a grenade in Halo.
Last edited:
I actually addressed this very sentiment a few posts up:
In short, I think it's ridiculous to attribute H3s success primarily to circumstance. Circumstance alone wouldn't carry it for 3 years at the top of Xbox live, despite all the other great games that came out after H3
"Monumental" is loaded. I don't argue that the systems are some insurmountable challenge... just that when the core systems of any shooter - moving, dealing damage, and taking damage - are unnecessarily obtuse it makes the game harder to get a feel for initially AND harder to come back to after time. This reality weakens it's ability to compete for players limited time.
This isn't my argument at all. It's not some forced need to use these features that adds complex. It's the byproduct of attempts to balance them. They don't work as you'd initially expect. Tapping sprint, clamber, thrust, or melee buttons is simple. But being able to manage the timers, delays, and codependencies incorporated to balance these mechanics isn't something that comes naturally, nor is any of it intuitive.
without a doubt most FPS players are familiar with the idea that health regents automatically. So there's no reason to think that Halo 5 being the first and only game to tie regen to sprinting would be something that feels intuitive or instinctive - it initially feels foreign - which explains the decision to use a meter to explicitly present a link between the two systems.
I'm not sure why you think slapping more meters makes something more "intuitive". Intuitive design implies that a concept is understood without explanation. Meters literally exist to explain gamestates that otherwise would not be obvious.
I never needed to see a health meter in any Halo, and still don't need one in H5 because I know that after my shield pops, I'm very close to death. The health meter is a luxury. The 1s sprint delay, the regen delay caused by sprint, the thrust recharge- that stuff would be tough to manage w/o a meter - because it isn't intuitive.
Simply knowing which button to press doesn't make the game fun. When you press the sprint button you don't sprint. That's weird. You trigger an animation that looks like you are sprinting, and a 1s long check to determine if you are eligible to actually sprint.
understanding this is essential - otherwise, the action on screen will differ from what the player expects. This impacts how the game feels. When something as basic as core movement requires such relearning, it's naturally going to act as a barrier to new comers and players who also play other games.
I agree, building in Fortnite is, ultimately , complex as hell. But moving and shooting is not- which are the foremost player actions in any shooter.
I do not know how to build well in fortnite. But I can take a month long break, pick it up, and immediately move and shoot as if I never left - largely well enough to compensate for my refusal to learn how to build. Just like I can pickup Halo 2 or 3, and immediately feel right at home. But I can't say the same for Halo 5, and that's because core systems, are counter-intuitive. so I have to reinitiate - which is a lot to ask of a gamer in such a competitive shooter landscape.
Last edited:
You are significantly overstating the effect and requirement to learn those mechanics on a player's ability to enjoy the game.
If you genuinely struggle to pick up and play H5 then that sucks for you I guess. It's never been an issue for me and I can't say that I've ever seen anyone argue the same point. Besides complaints about the supposedly wonky aiming.
On a side note: I'd argue that the audiovisual cues of the sprint acceleration is actually very intuitive.
If you genuinely struggle to pick up and play H5 then that sucks for you I guess. It's never been an issue for me and I can't say that I've ever seen anyone argue the same point. Besides complaints about the supposedly wonky aiming.
On a side note: I'd argue that the audiovisual cues of the sprint acceleration is actually very intuitive.
i think its wonky because it never has been consistent. I think almost everyone in the halo threads changed their advanced controller set up when they gave us that option. deadzones, accelleration, etc.
if it wasnt wonky we could have just left it on default. i believe 343 even acknowledged the issue? came out with a 2nd update too if i remember correctly.
the only time i had great aiming without any changes was during the beta. its not "supposedly", it was an issue and talked about in many patch notes.
otherwise h5 is ded, gimmie infinite
if it wasnt wonky we could have just left it on default. i believe 343 even acknowledged the issue? came out with a 2nd update too if i remember correctly.
the only time i had great aiming without any changes was during the beta. its not "supposedly", it was an issue and talked about in many patch notes.
otherwise h5 is ded, gimmie infinite
I'm not though- I think a lot of people find Halo5 to be enjoyable, including me. But it really doesn't "click" until the various timers, delays, and codependencies become second nature. And I think it's obvious it would "click" faster for more people if those things didn't exist.
As fun as it has been for me, I don't think the having these counter-intuitive wrinkles on basic mechanics - mechanics that work in more readily obvious ways in other games - does Halo 5 any favors with new comers or players who return from other games - two crucial groups for maintaining a playerbase in the face of stiff competition.
I find it hard to believe you've never heard people mentioning how hard h5 is to get back into. I've seen in echoed plenty here and in the other place.
As far as audiovisual cues - I've long held that they are one of Halo 5s strong points. (The glare from opponent sniper rifles, the flashlights on shotguns, the "tick" when you get an assist, the spartan chatter, the thrusters etc... all excellent) But good audio doesn't make sprint acceleration an intuitive mechanic. It means that the developer found a great way to present information that isn't otherwise easily understood. That's a testament to great A/V design, not an intuitive movement system .
Last edited:
"Hard to jump back into" is a common thing among any competitive shooter, so I don't think that's really a strong point against Halo 5. Same was mentioned for TMCC around here and other places, so I mean..
"Hard to jump back into" is a common thing among any competitive shooter, so I don't think that's really a strong point against Halo 5. Same was mentioned for TMCC around here and other places, so I mean..
Sure man w/e, but I'm talking about people specifically referencing H5 being hard to get reaclimated to compared to other shooters and other Halo's.
Last edited:
Linking sprint to shield regen and delaying sprint to check for damage are both counter-intuitive. They are not what one would naturally expect when playing a game.
Understanding the concept of acceleration doesn't change that. I assumed the bolded is what you meant by "sprint acceleration". If you are simply referring to the concept of velocity ramping up over time - you're right that's not unintuitive. Most games won't have player speed shift from 0 to max in an instant. You don't even need strong A/V to sell that.
- Status