Halo Is the entire Halo series as we know it becoming old and out of date?

ShockBolt21

Master
Feb 1, 2013
1,097
346
166
USA- Eastern Time Zone
To be honest, I think that there are several elements in the game that make the entire concept of Halo feel kinda dated- elements that have been in every game in the series and are now seen as constants in halo games by the community- things that haven't and will not change. Regarding Halo 4, the game is smooth, the animations are great, and the graphics are very nice, all of which give the game a more modern feel than the previous titles. However, there are some aspects of the entire Halo series, even in Halo 4, that kinda make it feel like something from eight years ago. As much as we're used to having these elements in Halo, I think that they need to go, especially as we move into the next console generation. These elements include...

-Bullet travel time. Sure the companies have the excuse that guns from 500 years into the future may be able to shoot that fast, but the only reason that Halo ever had hitscan weapons is because, back during the creation of the first Halos, our technology wasn't good enough to effectively program actual flying projectiles for every weapon and incorporate them smoothly into the game. However, Bungie and 343 stuck with the idea, and now we still have several weapons in Halo 4 that fire at the speed of light. This might be OK for just the sniper rifle, as it could end up like that 500 years from now, but they shouldn't have it for so many other guns as well. I hope to see 343 incorporate proper bullet travel time with the next titles.

-Aiming stability. The companies behind Halo can excuse the Spartans' flawless aim by pointing out that they're genetically enhanced super soldier, but this was another concept born in Halo's early days that stuck with the franchise to today, despite the fact that we now have the ability to improve them. In Halo, a spartan snipes by awkwardly juggling back and forth in a tap-dance-like movement to avoid enemy fire, but still manages to retain perfect accuracy and achieve smooth, clean headshots. Many halo players, like Psychoduck, fight each other with BRs while jumping and moving in these same motions, and they are afraid to stand still or entrench themselves behind cover (like an actual soldier would) for fear of getting shot. Does any of this sound the least bit realistic? No, and it doesn't even feel like a fight. I've played mobile games (Trigger Fist) that felt more like a battle than Halo. I think that this could be improved by reducing players' accuracy while they're moving, automatically slow players down when they start shooting, providing a slight accuracy bonus while crouched, and things like that. Hopefully this will be changed in future Halo games.

-Sound effects. In my opinion, Halo's sound effects have never really been all that good at all. There are a few nice sounds, like the rumble of a fuel rod gun's explosion in the distance, but the sounds of Halo don't really blend well- they don't engulf you and make you feel like you're in a battlefield. Many of the sounds are just really crappy, like the sound of the Battle Rifle or the banshee bomb explosion when you hear it from a certain angle. Seriously, just take another look at this video, and pay attention to the sound. If you call this the sound of war, the sound of a battlefield, then you have no idea what a battle would sound like (Battlefield 3 could give you a better idea). But the sound effects, and Halo's audio overall, don't sound remotely realistic and are certainly not up to par with many other modern games. Hopefully 343 will also address this issue as we move into next generation gaming and Halo 5.

Overall, Halo has a bit of catching up to do if it wants to keep up with the other games of today. When you compare Halo with a game like Battlefield 3, sure you are entitled to the opinion that Halo is more fun, and you can point out that Halo offers many things that Battlefield doesn't, like Forge, custom games, theater, etcetera. But from a little bit of time playing both games, you'll quickly realize that battlefield is clearly more advanced and capable. It sets a great example for modern and future games- everything is smooth, the graphics are incredible, the objects have realistic physics and react to forces applied onto them, the maps are huge, and detail has been put into every last corner of every environment, and every last line of code. The sound effects are wonderful and really add a new aspect of depth into the player's experience- every gun (which there are many of) makes its own unique sound, each adding diversity to the sound of the battle. You can hear everything, including background noise (built into the map), the sound of your feet crunching into the gravel as you move, your player breathing, his equipment rustling... and not only are the sounds all there, but they're very well refined and they sound amazing. The game overall is extremely realistic and has reached levels that Halo couldn't dream of achieving if things don't change.

Also, I think that Halo should be a third person games. Those feel much better and more realistic, and are often more interactive. Players aren't locked into the same position through every mode in the entire game with their guns pointed forwards. I don't necessarily expect anyone to agree with this, nor do I expect this to actually be implemented into the Halo series, as much as I'd love to see it.

If Halo doesn't change and start modernizing soon, it will begin to lag further and further behind the other franchises, especially with the progression into next generation consoles. However, there is one thing that people need to realize. If Halo is to evolve, things will need to change. A lot. 343 is under extreme pressure to create a game that will really satisfy the community, but currently, the majority of the community is urging the company to bring the franchise to a more classic style, which means to regress- to move backward. 343 may not modernize Halo because they may be afraid of us- they may fear that with more changes to the game, there will come more rage and disapproval from the community, just as there was- and is- with Halo 4. Instead, Halo 5 may end up feeling more like Halo Reach or halo 3 than a brand new improved game, which is NOT a good thing, especially as the rest of the gaming community continues to move forward in time and technology (people need to understand that while Halo 3 was great for its time, it is beginning to show its age).

My overall point is that Halo really feels like an 'arcade' shooter, with a lack of realisticness and versatility. I think it's time we change this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RogerDodger
I agree with Shoe's post onthe other thread about the halo games. For anyone who hasn't seen this discussion on the other thread then here is what Shoe said

Flying Shoe ILR said:
Shockbolt, there are more things to consider than realism when it comes to the things you mentioned. Just because something is realistic does not mean it would be at all fun to play, nor fit Halo's theme. Halo is a sic-fi space shooter using an array of advanced fantastical weaponry and super-suits, expecting everything to be ultra-realistic doesn't make sense.

More importantly though, gameplay would be completely changed from what Halo is. Removing strafing as a legitimate strategy, changing hitscan to bullet lag, making the game into a cover based shooter– this would change the gameplay style so dramatically it could barely be called Halo at that point. Halo gameplay has evolved over the years subtly, completely changing it would (and in some ways has) kill off most of the community. There is only so far you can stray from where Halo started before you are no longer playing a Halo game at all. You might as well just make a new game entirely by the time you have applied the changes you are talking about.

Edit: Duck would suggest that you play Operation Flashpoint or Ghost Recon if you want a play style like this.

Its a fair point to be made though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xAudienceofone

theSpinCycle

Adept
Dec 31, 2012
194
97
43
36
Inclusion or disclusion of travel time has more to do with latency than anything.

Apart from that, what you're basically saying seems to be something like "Halo won't work because it's not realistic, and it's out of date because it's not realistic." Are you saying that realistic games are "in" now, that the Halo series has always been out of date, or something else that I missed there?
 
Inclusion or disclusion of travel time has more to do with latency than anything.

Apart from that, what you're basically saying seems to be something like "Halo won't work because it's not realistic, and it's out of date because it's not realistic." Are you saying that realistic games are "in" now, that the Halo series has always been out of date, or something else that I missed there?
Im not him but thats also my perspective on his thoughts, and thats more or less the gist of it.
 

SOLIDSNAKEee

Salad Snack
Jan 26, 2013
1,216
828
312
Ireland
It sets a great example for modern and future games- everything is smooth, the graphics are incredible, the objects have realistic physics and react to forces applied onto them, the maps are huge, and detail has been put into every last corner of every environment, and every last line of code. The sound effects are wonderful and really add a new aspect of depth into the player's experience- every gun (which there are many of) makes its own unique sound, each adding diversity to the sound of the battle. You can hear everything, including background noise (built into the map), the sound of your feet crunching into the gravel as you move, your player breathing, his equipment rustling... and not only are the sounds all there, but they're very well refined and they sound amazing. The game overall is extremely realistic and has reached levels that Halo couldn't dream of achieving if things don't change.


To call you out on "the objects have realistic physics" and the detail put into "every last line of code". Battlefield has only recently ( with the entry of BF4 ) added realistic physics to vehicles. By this I mean the vehicle can flip or crash and they've even decided to add in select damage on parts of the vehicle ( shooting out a tired etc ). Sure you can blow things up but thats with the power of the frostbite 2 and soon to be frostbite 2 engine. Halo is a fps sure but saying the code is bad or lacks what another fps can offer is just silly.

People would also like to see certain features ( keep that in mind, it'll be important in the future ) from other games like Halo 3's custom games which are by far the best in the series and Reach's forging system. Now I'm agreed on Halo needing to evolve to become something better but with that said it shouldn't abandon its roots from its origin. Also if the next Halo titles are to evolve then they need to be balanced with weapon tuning and such as we all know the the DMR> any other gun prior to the update basically destroyed any other spawn weapon.

Speaking of weapons the majority of the community dislikes having to cycle through several weapons, yeah its awesome in other games but with that being said we'd only need them to help players find a unique loadout but then that would bring along balancing problems.

But hey that's just my opinion ;).
 

ShockBolt21

Master
Feb 1, 2013
1,097
346
166
USA- Eastern Time Zone
...Halo 3's custom games which are by far the best in the series and Reach's forging system.
Halo 3 only had the best customs because there were a few extra customizable options. I'm sure that they'll bring them back, with more, come the next Halo title. Also, I'm pretty sure Halo 4's forge is easily superior to that of Reach- I don't really see how anyone can argue against that.
To call you out on "the objects have realistic physics" and the detail put into "every last line of code". Battlefield has only recently ( with the entry of BF4 ) added realistic physics to vehicles. By this I mean the vehicle can flip or crash and they've even decided to add in select damage on parts of the vehicle ( shooting out a tired etc ). Sure you can blow things up but thats with the power of the frostbite 2 and soon to be frostbite 2 engine. Halo is a fps sure but saying the code is bad or lacks what another fps can offer is just silly.
What you say about the vehicles is true- some things that Halo did extremely well are vehicle physics, vehicle damage, and the physics of dead bodies (they can be thrown around by explosions, and the deaths are realistic). But I still think that battlefield is a bit better than Halo in terms of graphics, environmental detail, sound quality, and of course the interactive destructible environments, so I think it's a little further in the right direction.

...what you're basically saying seems to be something like "Halo won't work because it's not realistic, and it's out of date because it's not realistic." Are you saying that realistic games are "in" now, that the Halo series has always been out of date...
Part of what I bean by "realistic" is not how well the game resembles real life today, but how real the game feels, if you understand what I mean. For example, hearing your boots crunch into the ground and your character breathing harder is more realistic than not hearing anything at all while you sprint, because the former makes you feel more like you're really in the character's position. It's more immersive, and it feels more real. This would mean that increasing the overall quality of the game (sound, graphics, environment, physics, etc) would naturally make it more realistic by this definition. As for strafe and bullet travel time, the reason they make the game feel less immersive for me is because older games tend to have these traits while the more modern ones have been able to remove them, or maybe it's just less realistic and does not make me feel like I'm playing as an actual person firing a real rifle.
 

ShockBolt21

Master
Feb 1, 2013
1,097
346
166
USA- Eastern Time Zone
Halo was lost when Halo 3 ended and Halo Reach was in Dev.
...You're serious? I still can't believe how people can still like that game over 4, even to this day. The only problems with Halo 4 are issues with the balance, and when it comes to customs, that doesn't even matter. Halo 4 also added countless improvements to the game that make it more fun, both in matchmaking and in customs. H4 was the first halo game where I could actually stand staying in matchmaking for more than a few games.
 

xAudienceofone

Just Another Guru
Jan 17, 2013
288
219
68
NY, USA
www.adamcbassett.com
I never much cared for Halo. I only got Halo 3 because it was $20 and some friends had it. I only got Halo Reach when I saw the forge world video, and I only got Halo 4 for forge 1.2. Honest;y, I don't see Halo dying, I just see it changing. Customs makes many of these changes irrelevant, because I can play however I want. I don't enjoy matchmaking in Halo 4 any more than I did in 3, though both are superior to Reach's matchmaking.

That being said, I don't see much benefit to anything you suggest. Sure, better sounds would be nice, but as for the rest: meh. I see no need for any of this, nor do I specifically dislike the idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HAUNTEDSNAKEee

RogerDodger

Master
Jan 20, 2013
954
472
390
USA
Eh, I was going to requote everything. Better to just state each point of importance individually. NOTE: Not trying to contradict you, but that's just what I think.

In the case of bullet physics, Halo (and other games, too) trade realism for consistency. I believe it's better this way. Lag becomes less of a scapegoat. Although admittedly, playing sniper in BF3 is a good bit of fun.

Aiming stability can really affect gun fights. I don't know what Halo can gain from variable recoil and countermeasures, when it already has reticule bloom. If anything, they should take the automatics and give them less bloom, while giving precisions more. There's no need for comprehensive and organic code for recoil. Ever see the Den Kirson forums? Take a look at this thread and this one. If you want to bother with "co-variance matrices" to learn which gun is best, then it's too complicated.

Sound effects... meh. Buy a headset, problem solved. Things are more important.

With attention to the seemingly direct comparison to BattleField as the prime shooter of today, that may be the case. Here's one thing that BF is not: Halo. I like Halo, not just for it was, but for what it is right now. And I don't believe it needs to "evolve" into the newest Pokemon either. There are still many fundamental issues with Halo that have not been resolved. Through continuing innovation in the loyal direction it has created thus far (barring some stipulations in H4), it's possible to make a better Halo in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOLIDSNAKEee

SOLIDSNAKEee

Salad Snack
Jan 26, 2013
1,216
828
312
Ireland
Halo 3 only had the best customs because there were a few extra customizable options. I'm sure that they'll bring them back, with more, come the next Halo title. Also, I'm pretty sure Halo 4's forge is easily superior to that of Reach- I don't really see how anyone can argue against that.
Halo 3 had the best customs, not because it had "few extra customizable options" but because it gave me those epic memories where if I remember them they can still make me laugh.Reach and H4 lacked this, so I maintain my point Halo Reach's forge with maybe a few Forge Worlds with different environments ( snow , desert , urban etc ), considering that it'll be on the Xbox One.Also, I can argue this as I know alot of forgers who prefer the fine editing that was in Reach that is now gone in Halo 4. I can argue this as Reach's Forge World gave forges alot more space to make maps work better. I can argue this as Halo 4 removed human aerial vehicles and other custom game options such as Juggernaut or even back tracking to have VIP taken out from Halo Reach ( considering that this was/still is a very important gametype for custom games.

What you say about the vehicles is true- some things that Halo did extremely well are vehicle physics, vehicle damage, and the physics of dead bodies (they can be thrown around by explosions, and the deaths are realistic). But I still think that battlefield is a bit better than Halo in terms of graphics, environmental detail, sound quality, and of course the interactive destructible environments, so I think it's a little further in the right direction.
You see there you go again, comparing BF to Halo.They're two completely different games and yes I can understand your point and where you're coming from and why you'd like to see some of these features implemented into Halo but realistically speaking some of it ( such as X amount of new AR's ) won't fit into the canon, match making or the community itself.With that being said I can understand the destructibility of the environment but thats with the power of the frostbite engine which I've already mentioned.This would also further imbalance the online experience that we would have and it would just be turning Halo in another game entirely. 343i has already tried mixing up Halo and the community did not respond well to these changes.

Part of what I bean by "realistic" is not how well the game resembles real life today, but how real the game feels, if you understand what I mean. For example, hearing your boots crunch into the ground and your character breathing harder is more realistic than not hearing anything at all while you sprint, because the former makes you feel more like you're really in the character's position. It's more immersive, and it feels more real. This would mean that increasing the overall quality of the game (sound, graphics, environment, physics, etc) would naturally make it more realistic by this definition. As for strafe and bullet travel time, the reason they make the game feel less immersive for me is because older games tend to have these traits while the more modern ones have been able to remove them, or maybe it's just less realistic and does not make me feel like I'm playing as an actual person firing a real rifle.

The Mjolnir armours were meant to be able to be stealthy as well as effective in high combat situations. Also with the traits being mentioned such as strafing, you need to understand that the Spartans are super soilders how have been trained to do this to avoid enemy fire, though sometimes it is a little unrealistic but Halo is a sci fi type game and it makes its work.

As for hearing the footsteps of your own character even more so now would just be a bad idea, plus I prefer blowing shit up to listening to my own footsteps. Also immersive experiences vary on the player, for example I love a good story arch and I loved Spartan Ops but lot of other people did not enjoy it.So again an immersive experience should involve the player with the simplest of things for example, Skyrim has puzzles every time you entered a certain type of dungeon it would involve the player with simple or even sometimes challenging puzzles.Now I'm not saying Halo should have puzzles but I'm using this as an example for immersive experiences.
 

BigStack

Server Caretaker
Staff member
Dec 23, 2012
536
531
433
...You're serious? I still can't believe how people can still like that game over 4, even to this day. The only problems with Halo 4 are issues with the balance, and when it comes to customs, that doesn't even matter. Halo 4 also added countless improvements to the game that make it more fun, both in matchmaking and in customs. H4 was the first halo game where I could actually stand staying in matchmaking for more than a few games.
Havent played H4 in a long time. BF3 is able to slightly entertain me. Halo 3 Ive played a lot. Create a new 1 month take it to a 50 and make another. I remember when halo was fun and you had a goal to reach.
 

theSpinCycle

Adept
Dec 31, 2012
194
97
43
36
Also, I'm pretty sure Halo 4's forge is easily superior to that of Reach- I don't really see how anyone can argue against that.

Easy.

1. H4 Camera worse than Reach (throws you around the map when it tries to move you a certain distance from a piece you're placing into solid geometry; this happens pretty often - happened to me once today and I don't really forge anymore).
2. Pieces are much more tapered and often have holes in them when tiled (Wall Coliseum, Tunnels Short and Long, Block 2x2 talls are the first offenders that come to mind)
3. Poorer water (no water on any map but Forge Island, and Forge Island's is opaque, doesn't give us the option to put sand underneath, and doesn't really react to the player)
4. H4 Off Host glitch - makes it very difficult to coforge - when you're offhost and load up a map in forge, colors won't load properly and objects will be shifted from their proper positions
5. noisyyyyyyy (apart from Forge Island, on which the white is arguably worse than Reach's gray - at least we had different shades of gray..)
6. Purple FX and Rock Arch (most useful in their categories respectively) both removed
7. Dynamic lighting glitches and worries - makes indoor spaces look very bland, especially on Forge Island where you get Reach syndrome x2
8. No good flat ground (Forge Islands aren't even flat.. annoying for symmetrical maps)
9. Unnecessary polygons added - more lag worries (5x1 thin, 2x2 tall, brace large, wall coliseum, and the bottoms of bridge pieces are the prime offenders)
10. Some textures on Forge Island have part of the Ravine texture that shouldn't be there (ahem corner 45s)

I could go on and on, but the point is made. It is possible to make a strong case that Reach's forge is better than Halo 4's.

Part of what I bean by "realistic" is not how well the game resembles real life today, but how real the game feels, if you understand what I mean. For example, hearing your boots crunch into the ground and your character breathing harder is more realistic than not hearing anything at all while you sprint, because the former makes you feel more like you're really in the character's position. It's more immersive, and it feels more real. This would mean that increasing the overall quality of the game (sound, graphics, environment, physics, etc) would naturally make it more realistic by this definition. As for strafe and bullet travel time, the reason they make the game feel less immersive for me is because older games tend to have these traits while the more modern ones have been able to remove them, or maybe it's just less realistic and does not make me feel like I'm playing as an actual person firing a real rifle.

First part: Makes sense.
Second part: Been able to remove them? The biggest issue I have with this is the assumption that strafing and bullet travel time are bad. Not sure if this is a misinterpretation.

...You're serious? I still can't believe how people can still like that game over 4, even to this day. The only problems with Halo 4 are issues with the balance, and when it comes to customs, that doesn't even matter. Halo 4 also added countless improvements to the game that make it more fun, both in matchmaking and in customs. H4 was the first halo game where I could actually stand staying in matchmaking for more than a few games.

I'll give you that non-TU Reach matchmaking is awful. But Halo 4 vCoD Infinity Slayer isn't? And the matchmaking in all earlier Halos was worse than aforementioned Halo vCoD?

Balance (assuming you mean weapon balance) is certainly not the only problem or even the biggest problem in Halo 4. We need in-game ranks, a spectator mode, multiplayer theater back, and a spawning system that isn't absolutely awful (ridiculous that the team spawn influencer is bigger than the enemy's - it's a big part of why you can spawn with an enemy in your face.. unfair and frustrating for both players). The quality of the Reach menus and medals was also quite nice. Halo 4 has an awfully cluttered HUD as well (getting a distraction, revenge, kill, and/or comeback kill causes text to pop up in the center of your screen? a distraction, revenge, kill, and comeback kill are even worth medals?? If having those pop up constantly is not distracting, I don't even know what is..)
 
  • Like
Reactions: xAudienceofone

ShockBolt21

Master
Feb 1, 2013
1,097
346
166
USA- Eastern Time Zone
I've had minor issues with the camera in both Halo 4 and reach, but I've never been "thrown around the map" as you said was possible. Either way it's a very small issue that exists in both games, and from my experience it is no worse in 4 than it is in Reach, and I can easily get around it.

Yeah the pieces have holes, but any good forger shouldn't have a problem covering them up or choosing a better piece for the purpose without holes. The holes are very small and I rarely notice them. But I think that 343 did a really good job making the objects look better. I like the detail on blocks when viewed from a medium distance, and white is far better than grey, which I don't think is even arguable. I know there are some who disagree, but you'd have to see a Reach map made entirely out of building blocks and directly compare it to a 4 map of similar design to truly realize how great the improvement is. In general, all of H4's colors are richer- the green grass is greener, the rocks are a richer shade of brown, even the yellow streaks of bullets appear deeper, and the water isn't too bad in my opinion- it looks all right from afar, and up close it gives off a really nice mist effect. Its opacity lets you add blocks or grids of any kind underneath it and give players and vehicles the appearance that they're actually walking/driving on the water.

As for the noise, it isn't that loud (can be adjusted, of course), and personally I like listening to it while I forge instead of building in complete silence.

Sure they took out Rock Arch, but they added many new ones. And not to mention all of their other additions, all of which have proven to be extremely useful (the entire Dominion category, canvas-specific objects, trait zones, gravity volumes).

Dynamic lighting is a significant improvement to forge. Personally, I've never had any problems with lighting. Not one. I love it when I forge a closed space, and when I switch to human the room darkens as the shadows appear and the sunlight pours in through the windows, which would always make it look so much better.

Forge island is pretty much as flat land as you'll ever need- certainly more flat than any area on Reach by far.

But anyway, you did bring up a few good points that I never considered, like the co forging issue. But I still think that 4 forge is far better, in terms of both accessibility (ease of use) and capability. There are a few small issues and bugs that may get in the way a bit that I didn't consider in that previous statement you quoted, but still not not nearly enough to make Reach's forge actually better.

...The biggest issue I have with this is the assumption that strafing and bullet travel time are bad. Not sure if this is a misinterpretation.
I figured you wouldn't completely understand- it's hard to find the right words to fully explain it. Really I'm just trying to say that I find the game more immersive when the player movements are realistic and he actually moves like a human being, and can't fire with pinpoint accuracy while tap-dancing.

Balance (assuming you mean weapon balance) is certainly not the only problem or even the biggest problem in Halo 4. We need in-game ranks, a spectator mode, multiplayer theater back, and a spawning system that isn't absolutely awful (ridiculous that the team spawn influencer is bigger than the enemy's - it's a big part of why you can spawn with an enemy in your face.. unfair and frustrating for both players). The quality of the Reach menus and medals was also quite nice. Halo 4 has an awfully cluttered HUD as well (getting a distraction, revenge, kill, and/or comeback kill causes text to pop up in the center of your screen? a distraction, revenge, kill, and comeback kill are even worth medals?? If having those pop up constantly is not distracting, I don't even know what is..)
In-game ranking... SR and CSR, right? Also, I'd prefer to have the words in my face, but I perfectly understand why you don't like them. But really the only significant issue you mentioned is the spawning, but that's not as bad when you're playing objective games like CTF.

Halo vCoD? The 2 games are still very different, and will always be. Neither the combat or the feel of the 2 games are even closely alike. Sure you have loadouts and occasionally a killcam, but does that really make them more similar by any amount worth mentioning? The killcam in Halo 4 is some bullshit, sure, but its not hard to ignore and can be skipped/turned off. The loadouts significantly enhance the gameplay.


Sound effects... meh. Buy a headset, problem solved. Things are more important.
If you really feel this way, then you probably have never played a game with really good sound quality. This aesthetic element goes hand-in-hand with visual graphics, making you really feel like you're in the game and creating a much more immersive and enjoyable experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theSpinCycle

xAudienceofone

Just Another Guru
Jan 17, 2013
288
219
68
NY, USA
www.adamcbassett.com
I feel it would be good to carry on discussion of your forge-related responses to Spin's list that I 100% agree with (with some small exception when regarding water in trhat it helps reduce max-object lag and such).

I've had minor issues with the camera in both Halo 4 and reach, but I've never been "thrown around the map" as you said was possible. Either way it's a very small issue that exists in both games, and from my experience it is no worse in 4 than it is in Reach, and I can easily get around it.

I feel constantly launched around simply by spawning a piece. It's annoying and makes forge slightly less enjoyable. This happened in Reach too, but less so. That being said, I can live with it.

Yeah the pieces have holes, but any good forger shouldn't have a problem covering them up or choosing a better piece for the purpose without holes. The holes are very small and I rarely notice them. But I think that 343 did a really good job making the objects look better. I like the detail on blocks when viewed from a medium distance, and white is far better than grey, which I don't think is even arguable. I know there are some who disagree, but you'd have to see a Reach map made entirely out of building blocks and directly compare it to a 4 map of similar design to truly realize how great the improvement is. In general, all of H4's colors are richer- the green grass is greener, the rocks are a richer shade of brown, even the yellow streaks of bullets appear deeper, and the water isn't too bad in my opinion- it looks all right from afar, and up close it gives off a really nice mist effect. Its opacity lets you add blocks or grids of any kind underneath it and give players and vehicles the appearance that they're actually walking/driving on the water.

•We shouldn't have to cover up holes in our maps.
•The detail can look good, but more often just results in a mess. This means that my maps need to be small so that I can organize the textures, and therefore my longing to make anything bigger than a 2v2 is already defeated.
•I can argue white is worse than grey. We had multiple shades of grey from 10% to 80% or 90%. We have White and light beige in FI. If we had a range from white to black, I could agree with you, but as it stands, I cannot stand the canvas in FI.
•The colors are indeed pretty, but so were all of Forge World's natural colors. I find it all generally equal in this stance.
•Yes, water looks fine from afar. However, up close, it's a canvas of blue that kills you. The mist is nice, but it would be nicer if it looks like water. That being said, I do like that it reduces opportunity for lag imposed by too many forge objects.

As for the noise, it isn't that loud (can be adjusted, of course), and personally I like listening to it while I forge instead of building in complete silence.

He was talking about noisy textures, but yes, forge sounds are obnoxious. I don't much care though, as I mute the TV and play music. I actually do that with most games. It's gotten me killed a few times.

Sure they took out Rock Arch, but they added many new ones. And not to mention all of their other additions, all of which have proven to be extremely useful (the entire Dominion category, canvas-specific objects, trait zones, gravity volumes).

Well as for rocks, its touch to use the Ravine ones and I don't see why they just outright removed the others from that. The other 2 origional canvases added no new rocks, and only FI added new and good rocks, but could still have used arch. They needed to add Dominion because of the gametype, so I won't pat anyone on the back for that. Traitzones are good, despite the fact that 'unchanged' means 'unchanged from infinity slayer vanilla' and gravity volumes are meh. I can see a use for minigames...

Dynamic lighting is a significant improvement to forge. Personally, I've never had any problems with lighting. Not one. I love it when I forge a closed space, and when I switch to human the room darkens as the shadows appear and the sunlight pours in through the windows, which would always make it look so much better.

I never have had issues with lighting, I actually like it. However, the forged indoor areas shadows and teh lights in general could have been so much better.

Forge island is pretty much as flat land as you'll ever need- certainly more flat than any area on Reach by far.

Yeah, I'll agree with this. It's too flat in my view. I don't see your issue with it, Spin...

^my two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theSpinCycle

ShockBolt21

Master
Feb 1, 2013
1,097
346
166
USA- Eastern Time Zone
Halo 3 had the best customs, not because it had "few extra customizable options" but because it gave me those epic memories where if I remember them they can still make me laugh.Reach and H4 lacked this, so I maintain my point Halo Reach's forge with maybe a few Forge Worlds with different environments ( snow , desert , urban etc ), considering that it'll be on the Xbox One.Also, I can argue this as I know alot of forgers who prefer the fine editing that was in Reach that is now gone in Halo 4. I can argue this as Reach's Forge World gave forges alot more space to make maps work better. I can argue this as Halo 4 removed human aerial vehicles and other custom game options such as Juggernaut or even back tracking to have VIP taken out from Halo Reach ( considering that this was/still is a very important gametype for custom games.
Not trying to be a bitch, but it seems like you just said "Halo 3 customs are better because I had more fun playing them." You didn't really say why you had more fun or what actually makes 3 a better game

The removal of human aircraft sucks- I don't know why they did that. I feel like they could have done a beautiful job with the falcon in Halo 4. And yes, they removed some gametypes and added new ones- whether you prefer 4's (Extraction, Dominion, Regicide, etc) or Reach's (Juggernaut, Invasion, IP, etc) is completely a matter of opinion.
You see there you go again, comparing BF to Halo.They're two completely different games...
Yeah, sorry. I use Battlefield as a comperison because, while it is far from perfect and isn't necessarily more fun than Halo, it contains the most elements of a modern, realistic, detailed video game, which is exactly what I was trying to explain. I don't want to see H5 end up more similar to Battlefield than it is to H4, and 'm not saying incorporate everything from that game into Halo, but I'm just referencing a few key features from Battlefield that I'd like to see in Halo, such as player movement and bullet dynamics. I don't want to see more assault rifles in Halo- you don't need more than one.

The Mjolnir armours were meant to be able to be stealthy as well as effective in high combat situations. Also with the traits being mentioned such as strafing, you need to understand that the Spartans are super soilders how have been trained to do this to avoid enemy fire, though sometimes it is a little unrealistic but Halo is a sci fi type game and it makes its work.

As for hearing the footsteps of your own character even more so now would just be a bad idea, plus I prefer blowing shit up to listening to my own footsteps. Also immersive experiences vary on the player, for example I love a good story arch and I loved Spartan Ops but lot of other people did not enjoy it.So again an immersive experience should involve the player with the simplest of things for example, Skyrim has puzzles every time you entered a certain type of dungeon it would involve the player with simple or even sometimes challenging puzzles.Now I'm not saying Halo should have puzzles but I'm using this as an example for immersive experiences.
Sure they have an excuse/explanation for its lack of realisticness, and I understand that, but that's not the point. Currently, in modern 2013 warfare, soldiers can fight and kill each other from 200 meters away with just their assault rifles. That's several times the length of Ragnarok, but in Halo you need to be right in the enemy's face to do anything with the assault rifle. Real life battles take place from extremely long ranges, and there's no reason that in 500 years we'll be back to close range like we were during the medieval days. And also, the soldiers aren't jumping and strafing and freaking tap-dancing while they're fighting, and battles also require strategy, tactical thinking, planning, teamwork, and coordination. So when I get a kill in Halo just by sprinting into battle, getting up in someone's face, jumping around and killing them with one long clip-emptying burst of my assault rifle, without using strategy or coordination or any of those skills, it just doesn't feel right. And when I do try to play it smart, crouching and moving silently around enemy lines, staying behind cover, playing as tactically as I can get, it's extremely frustrating when I get killed by someone who sprints into my face and is jumping around out in the open using no tactics or any of the aforementioned skills while he destroys me with his BR in three seconds. It took me so long to sneak into that position, but he comes, finishes me, and is gone all in the blink of an eye, no matter how tactical or stealthy I try to be. Sure halo takes skill, but... come on.