I'm fine with the dashing. I don't care that CoD did it, more mobility in an FPS is always desired.
The apparent emphasis being placed on sitting at cover and aiming down sights rubs me the wrong way. Yes there have always been weapons in Halo that you can sight down but watching that gameplay it looks like every firefight is going to come down to stopping, aiming down sights, and waiting for someone to peak. I already get this gameplay in CoD and Battlefield. What's different, Halo's signature time to kill and a handful of "special" abilities?
I have absolutely no plans on getting an Xbone and therefore have not played nor will likely ever play the next-gen Halo games so my opinion might not mean much but if I was a more diehard fan of the series I'd be atleast a little disappointed about the Roads Not Traveled.
The thing is, from what I've heard, "aiming" doesn't even improve your accuracy, it just makes farther shots easier by zooming in slightly. It has the same accuracy as hip firing. Plus, if you get shot, you're knocked out of it.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;46466147]The thing is, from what I've heard, "aiming" doesn't even improve your accuracy, it just makes farther shots easier by zooming in slightly. It has the same accuracy as hip firing. [/QUOTE]
I don't really see how this is possible. That means guns are either extremely accurate from the hip (which would be okay I guess) or weapons are bullet hoses even when aimed down sights, which means the mobility loss from aiming is pointless.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;46466147]Plus, if you get shot, you're knocked out of it.[/QUOTE]
That sounds awful.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46466311]I don't really see how this is possible. That means guns are either extremely accurate from the hip (which would be okay I guess) or weapons are bullet hoses even when aimed down sights, which means the mobility loss from aiming is pointless.
That sounds awful.[/QUOTE]
It makes the gun moving tighter.
what the fuck did they do to the energy sword
[editline]11th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=GaLm;46465353]they got rid of ordinance drops[/QUOTE]
In the multiplayer gameplay an announcer said something like "10 seconds to heavy weapons"
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46466395]what the fuck did they do to the energy sword
[editline]11th November 2014[/editline]
In the multiplayer gameplay an announcer said something like "10 seconds to heavy weapons"[/QUOTE]
Its for when power weapons spawn on the map like sniper rifle or rocket launcher. I think it might be only for the round based game mode.
Yep. 1:36 "Power weapons in 10 seconds"
[editline]3[/editline]
I sorta hope that isn't the case because I remember in Halo 1-2-3 weapons would be there no matter what. Idk what they're doing with that.
looks exactly like halo 4 tbh
[QUOTE=General J;46466516]looks exactly like halo 4 tbh[/QUOTE]
The aesthetic maybe, but not the gameplay.
They seemed to have gotten rid of Loadouts.
Honestly i'm excited for the multiplayer. It's different. We've had how many Halo games with pretty much the same multiplayer experience? Not to mention, the MCC just came out today. If you want old halo multiplayer feel, go play the actual old halo multiplayer that was just remade. There isn't really much of a point for them to try to remake the halo 2 / halo 3 multiplayer feel in a brand new halo game when they were just re-released and are going to be swamped, they might as well try something new and change it up to be more fast paced instead of the clunky feeling that the game traditionally had. People in this thread are such downers when anyone tries to do something out of the box
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;46465067]except the fact that it's turning into CoD
this is literally Advanced Warfare with a Halo skin, which does not a Halo game make[/QUOTE]
This just in: ironsights and sprinting now = CoD, and you can't put them in your game without it being a dirty CoD clone
Also Advanced Warfare invented jetpacks/boosts
Honestly lets be real here. The only reason why a shooter in 2014 would release without any kind of sprinting or ironsight/zoom mechanics (which were ALREADY IN PRETTY MUCH EVERY HALO GAME, but just without any iron sights being physically rendered because those games came out before that was a widespread thing) is if it is pandering to nostalgia. Pandering to nostalgia alone is weak design, no matter what creative field you are in, unless the entire goal of what you are creating is to entice nostalgia.
The notion that a series can't evolve or iterate on itself to keep up to date (or even innovate) on current trends in design is completely absurd. Because most of the time, the current trend was born from someone looking at the old ways of doing things and going "Huh, you know what? It feels way better and much more logical to go about things this way." Thats how gameplay evolves over the ages. Halo 5 ignoring this and just sticking 100% to being like the early Halo games would be dumb.
That said, there is an argument to be made on reiterating on a series's own roots to feel like a logical evolution of the series, versus becoming a clone of something else. Half Life 2 from Half Life 1 is a perfect example of this. Both games play radically different and have different feels to them, yet at the same time you can tell they are apart of the same series due to how the game is structured and how it plays. There is enough familiarity there to act as a touchstone to its roots, and there are a lot of similarities in how both games were designed despite HL2 being a clear evolution over HL1. Personally for me, nothing that any of you are complaining about is what makes halo "halo", and I don't see anything wrong with iterating on the formula to acknowledge current trend as long as it still acknowledges its roots too. Which you honestly can't tell from quick dev preview footage shown here, but to me it still comes off as halo-esque.
And I guess I feel that way because for me Halo's defining features as a franchise weren't UH YOU CAN'T SPRINT and UH YOU CAN'T ZOOM IN AND USE IRONSIGHTS. If those are the defining features of the franchise for you, you might need to re-evaluate what [I]actually[/I] made those games classics.
[QUOTE=KorJax;46466576] (which were ALREADY IN PRETTY MUCH EVERY HALO GAME, but just without any iron sights being physically rendered because those games came out before that was a widespread thing).[/QUOTE]
Eh, no, the only guns with zoom were the Pistol, BR, DMR, Sniper, Carbine and Beamrifle.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;46466753]Eh, no, the only guns with zoom were the Pistol, BR, DMR, Sniper, Carbine and Beamrifle.[/QUOTE]
Halo 2, 3, reach, and 4 all had a zoom function when not using a scoped weapon. Firing took you out of zoom.
[QUOTE=lxmach1;46466851]Halo 2, 3, reach, and 4 all had a zoom function when not using a scoped weapon. Firing took you out of zoom.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was talking about guns with usable though, which is what Halo 5 has.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;46465827]More isn't always better 343 Studios.. Halo 3/Reach were just perfect multiplayer wise.[/QUOTE]
You fucking fickel hive mind mother fuckers
Reach was the most hated Halo when it came out and now it's just conveniently perfect
How could you even fucking pretend to forget?
It wasn't even that long ago.
[editline]12th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46466311]I don't really see how this is possible. That means guns are either extremely accurate from the hip (which would be okay I guess) or weapons are bullet hoses even when aimed down sights, which means the mobility loss from aiming is pointless.
That sounds awful.[/QUOTE]
Forge's nudge for aiming weapons. It slows down your view and zooms like 10 percent or less (for the non-optics weapons)
I mean look at the fucking pistol sights. He moves the pistol tho the center of the screen, the screen barely zooms in, and the sensitivity goes down. It's "percision mode" i'd go as far as to say it's a feature console features should have had for a while. It's not Mouse levels of control, but it's more than fighting with a thumbstick's deadzone to move the crosshair slower while still being able to make sweeping macro movements.
[QUOTE=double D;46462159]First video is Advanced Warfare lmao[/QUOTE]
Wait, I check back and what the fuck is this?
I thought Advanced Warfare was the first to go completely off topic and wannabe Halo and Titanfall?
[QUOTE=Talvy;46467458]Wait, I check back and what the fuck is this?
I thought Advanced Warfare was the first to go completely off topic and copy Halo and Titanfall?[/QUOTE]
AW is nothing like previous Halo games.
The thing is they completely changed the theme from a war game to a space lasergun lightshow, kinda like battlefield turned into some cops n' robbers APB. Don't do that - just make a new title.
[QUOTE=Talvy;46467553]kinda like battlefield turned into some cops n' robbers APB. Don't do that - just make a new title.[/QUOTE]
Hardline is just a spin off made by a separate company, they're still going to be making normal Military Shooters.
friendly reminder that any game that has sprinting and ironsights are a CoD clone, so Battlefield 3 and 4? Yeah those are copies, and so are the ARMA games
that's not how it fucking works
Halo 5 looks good, and I appreciate that it looks good. And the iron sights are no different than the zoom function on the M6C/M6G/M6H and the BR55/BR85 in previous games
The ground slam attack feels so out of place.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;46467639]The ground slam attack feels so out of place.[/QUOTE]
Looks satisfying to pull off tho.
To me, Halo was the natural evolution of the arcadey shooter, not quite Quake, not quite UT, and it didn't [I]need[/I] to evolve, it had it's own playstyle that I adored. H4 destroyed that by just being shite in general and trying to add new things in (poorly), and this just looks worse. In 'evolving' the gameplay as you call it, they just made it more indistinguishable from other modern shooters.
It's not like they even have the great story and artstyle anymore, because 343i have NO FUCKING CLUE how to write a continuing story, are are completely incapable of keeping a consistent artstyle.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;46467639]The ground slam attack feels so out of place.[/QUOTE]
4 tons + gravity + down thrusters? sounds like a perfect setup for being able devestate something by goomba stomping it
I didn't think Halo 4 was that bad, and although I had my complaints, I put in a good amount of time in war games. It still felt like Halo, and the game play changes just made it a bit more balanced for all players, plus, the level of customization allowed for different play styles.
From what these trailers have shown, Halo 5 is just going to be a miss-match of new and conflicting features. What I feel from the stuff shown so far:
-Guns don't sound very satisfying, sound as if they are pellet guns
-This whole focus on mobility looks as its going to lead to long, drawn out gun fights, with people darting all around (at least its better than that damn booster pack in 4, thing didn't do shit in the multiplayer)
-Smart scope system is interesting, and I did like how they mentioned that if people feel as if they need to do it all the time means they failed, but overall, its going to make all non-precision weaponry clunky to use
-Sword is going to be OP? With the mobility enhanced, its going to be a whole lot harder to avoid being shanked (unless they bring back Reach's melee cancel)
-That charge better not be an instant kill, otherwise it looks like it would be way too good
-Stomp feels way out of place, not to mention it makes you a huge target for the charge time
-Is it just me or did that battle rifle at 3:11 look like it did little to no damage
Overall, until the community gets their hands on the beta come December 29(?), all we can do is speculate. And please stop comparing the game to CoD. The fights still look like they take a decent amount of time, meaning the player with the better aim and movement will win, not who has the better gun or who shot first, not to mention it looks like they kept in the shields/health system. 343 is trying to take the game out of its comfort zone, and let them do that. If the game sucks, feel free to shout "I told you so!" Just remember that people will still play it, and people will find a way to enjoy it.
Can someone provide me with examples of good gun sounds? I've seen many complaints on many games recently that the guns didn't sound good, and I honestly can't tell what a good or bad gun sound is.
[QUOTE=Geiger;46467957]Can someone provide me with examples of good gun sounds? I've seen many complaints on many games recently that the guns didn't sound good, and I honestly can't tell what a good or bad gun sound is.[/QUOTE]
RDR had some really good gun sounds.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByjflMpl77M[/media]
I think when people say bad gun sounds in many cases it's because the guns sound weak.
I would've been fine with the dashing stuff, but everything else is kinda bad.
Also the aesthetics are really bad.
[video=youtube;NaZKnweWtaQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaZKnweWtaQ[/video]
[QUOTE=Zeos;46467759]To me, Halo was the natural evolution of the arcadey shooter, not quite Quake, not quite UT, and it didn't [I]need[/I] to evolve, it had it's own playstyle that I adored. H4 destroyed that by just being shite in general and trying to add new things in (poorly), and this just looks worse. In 'evolving' the gameplay as you call it, they just made it more indistinguishable from other modern shooters.
It's not like they even have the great story and artstyle anymore, because 343i have NO FUCKING CLUE how to write a continuing story, are are completely incapable of keeping a consistent artstyle.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much what you just said is you're okay with rehashing games over and over. As i said before, if you want the old Halo style of play, [b]go play the old halo games that were just re-released with updated graphics.[/b] Believe it or not there's some people who get bored of having the same shit rehashed for over 10 years and want developers to take risks and change things around and see how they work. I'd rather have one game be full of interesting changes and big risks, than 5 games that each tried something a [i]little[/i] different but were more or less rehashes of the same thing because they were too afraid of people bitching about it. If it turns out I don't enjoy the Halo 5 multiplayer, I can go back to the ones I do enjoy. That's the glory of free will
[QUOTE=Pandamox;46468032]Pretty much what you just said is you're okay with rehashing games over and over. As i said before, if you want the old Halo style of play, [B]go play the old halo games that were just re-released with updated graphics.[/B] Believe it or not there's some people who get bored of having the same shit rehashed for over 10 years and want developers to take risks and change things around and see how they work. I'd rather have one game be full of interesting changes and big risks, than 5 games that each tried something a [I]little[/I] different but were more or less rehashes of the same thing because they were too afraid of people bitching about it. If it turns out I don't enjoy the Halo 5 multiplayer, I can go back to the ones I do enjoy. That's the glory of free will[/QUOTE]
Heres the problem, their previous innovation ended up with the wonderful pile of dog shit that Halo 4 was, and now here we have them again doing a shitton of changes that look suspiciously JUST LIKE COD.
It doesn't really matter if 'B-B-BUT THE GAMEPLAY IS BETTER, ADS DOESNT IMPROVE YOUR AIM!11!' when they've completely changed the gameplay of what made halo great, they made it 50x twitchier and faster with little booster packs, air dodges, climbing, ground pounds, constant sprint, and other bullshit.
To quote a friend, "It looks like a good game, something I'd probably buy on sale or something for like 30 bucks, but this honestly isn't halo anymore."
Call it innovation, call it whatever you want, but this isn't really halo anymore and at this point 343 is just using the cleaned out husk of halo to sell the game.
Oh and free will or not, if you don't end up liking Halo 5 you're going to be down 59.99$
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
