Halo Reach is a beta

If you really want to look at it that way dude then every game that has a sequel or is part of a franchise is a beta.

Because when you have a continuation of something like that people are always making adjustments and introducing new things to try out that might not make it in the next one.

 

Actually, game "betas" are just marketing demos, in which the publisher and then fanboys hide behind the "bug" excuse. Beta is when all content is complete, not 1 out of 1000 features. Therefore the crysis, battlefield, halo, betas are all demos.

However, beta is content complete, but still not bug tested. Your argument states that halo reach feels unfinished, and therefore is not a beta. As somebody who has beta tested many actual betas, such as SIs Football Manager Live, it really pisses me off at just how trivialised and marketed these "betas" are.

 

I still think it's a very odd way to look at it, and personally don't agree at all.

I don't think Bungie had any real interest in laying ground work for 343 with Reach. They definitely care about the Halo franchise, but I think you're implying that there's some unified effort behind the franchise as a whole that transcends the fact that two different developers were/will be responsible for Reach and Halo 4. I think it misses the nature of how these things are done to assume that Bungie would defer making the exact game they wanted in favour of carrying across some beta - final release approach with the transition to 343.

Halo 2 was massively different to CE, do you remember the fan reactions then? By your logic, you could just as well argue that Halo 2 was a beta for Halo 3, but it still doesn't make it the case.

I think your idea that Reach in any way lays the ground work for Halo 4 (not just that, but this specific aim supersedes it being an actual full game in its own right) is kinda ridiculous tbh. Halo 4 looks to have made massive deviations from the Halo formula, to the point where it leaves Reach almost as distant as it does the rest of the franchise, so I don't see why you're drawing such a strong link between them.

What are the actual links you're referring to? You only state two: new weapons and AAs. New weapons has been a theme with every Halo so far, so I don't see that as a difference maker at all. AAs were definitely new, but so was equipment in Halo 3. Bungie felt they had to try new things, and I think the only logic one can infer from your post is that, instead of thinking up a new mechanic and trying it out, Bungie's entire implementation of AAs served as a test to see what 343 could do with the idea. Again, I think that's pretty ridiculous.

Waylander is right. Previous games serve as both inspirations and lessons when it comes to making a new title in the franchise, but to argue that there's any kind of beta mindset when making a current title, specifically looking forward to the next one, implies a lack of finality and faith in the current title. But this goes even further, since you're implying that one developer would essentially throw its own parting Halo game under the bus for the sake of the newer developers having something to work with, which would be senseless. That's not how game development works. I think suggesting such an approach when one developer was making both the "beta" and "final" games would be outlandish enough, but suggesting it during a developer transition within a franchise? Sorry, but no. Developers do not deliberately make half baked games so that other developers can learn from and expand upon them, especially when it's their final game within the franchise that defined them, and at a time when they need to solidify their reputation as they move away from that franchise in to uncharted waters. It would be suicide.

I also don't see this manifesting with Halo 4 and how it's shaping up right now, since it looks totally different to Reach in so many ways that I think that, even if this were true, Reach would have been worthless as any kind of beta.

Sorry, not buying it personally.

 

Oh yeah totally, I don't personally see developers acting with that mentality, but it's still an interesting angle and wasn't trying to totally shoot your idea down in terms of the links between the two (though I realise I sounded pretty strong, reading back). I was more just conveying the reasons I'm not personally convinced at this stage, but also trying to encourage discourse on the links you see between the two games.

As something that's just occurred to me now, I definitely think that 343 have taken the new "chunky" aesthetic in Reach and run with it. I know that's not a balance or mechanic link, but I still definitely see similarities there, with the more bulky and pronounced shields, solid single shot sounds (DMR, Sniper etc.) and really percussive sounds in general (melees, shield pops, general sounds of physical contact with nade throws, footfalls, ricochets and so on).

Whilst I may never be convinced of a deliberate approach by Bungie to lay ground work for Halo 4, I definitely think it's interesting to look at how subsequent titles in a franchise link in to and draw from previous ones. I think this case is of particular interest because it's rare that we get to see a franchise being handed off like this, and assess how aspects are either carried over/drawn from or moved away from. I don't think the IW/Treyarch dynamic with CoD is quite the same, as Trey aren't taking over the franchise in the long term but rather filling the gaps in between, and they're giving much less leeway as a result.

 

Yeah, it certainly seemed like an odd note on which to end their Halo tenure. I'm still in two minds about it, as I think the choices they made with many underlying mechanics (single shot weapons, hit scan, how they designed the netcode) were a real step up, but other things like AAs were really not to my tastes and are too deeply embedded within the game to ignore.

 

What I find so funny about your argument (in addition to all the stuff stated above as to why it's complete bs) is that developers rarely test new things in a beta. It's just to catch bugs and advertise the game.

 

Simply put: No.

It was a good game. There were loads of new features added even though some aren't as good as they thought. Why waste all that time and money on a full game as a "beta"? That's a retardedly massive waste of resources. Beta's are meant to test things out. Reach was not a test for H4. They are worlds apart in both core mechanics and gameplay.

Disproved in one point: H4 is being made by a different company.

Your idea is so far-fetched I simply believe you're looking for attention right now. Please leave the crazy world you're in and come back to some sort of reality.

 

I wouldn't think of those as "choices" made by Bungie- A single shot weapon was necessary for bloom, and even if they made it so that bloom set in after the third shot of every burst, it wouldn't be intuitive to have such a different feature be placed on a "BR" that is the same in the burst aspect. I wouldn't consider hit scan as a step up because it was in H2 multiplayer, and forcing players to lead their shots (also causing latency to affect bullets) while pacing would not simply be too difficult, but it would cause players to be too frustrated about hit registration because of the two (three, if you count latency) factors that could cause a miss. I wonder if bullets seemed to disappear in H2 due to netcode design, or if H3's problems were really just because they chose to have bullet trajectories be transmitted instead of "hit" (apply damage) signals- I've noticed during many all yellow bar Reach matches that DMR shots could be counted on, though there was a delay the shields to glow or the target to die after I shot. I still didn't have to lead a moving target or aim differently. When I used grenades or slow projectiles, though, there was a delay before they even appeared. This seems to be consistent with the idea that hitscan solves most of the problems of latency or a weak connection.

 

If you were on Facebook, no one would give a **** about your rants. If you tried to post anything like that, you would be laughed right off their walls. Halo: Reach is not a beta, it's a full game. It's simple. I don't know why people are trying to configure it when you're just seeking attention.

 

I'm pretty sure the decision to use a single shot weapon came first, and then bloom was settled on as a way to balance that and stop it being a god weapon, so I still think the specific choice to go with a single shot weapon is a valid consideration.

As for hitscan, you're right that it was in Halo 2, but I guess what I was trying to say that the combined decisions regarding netcode design and how to address networking were a step up from how that overall aspect worked out in Halo 2 and Halo 3. The online mechanic experience overall in Reach (with the exception of the gaping kill trade window) is, imo, the best to date in the Halo franchise.

Also, just as a side note, I remember the same issue with nades taking a while to throw on a bad connection in Halo 3. Not sure if you were talking about this as an issue specific to Reach, or just relating it to this point in particular but acknowledging it as a wider Halo online issue, but I just thought I'd point that out because few people seem to mention it with respect to Halo 3.

 

Bungie had a beta for 343's game? Okay.

 

I just want to put in my 2 cents, I don't think it was a beta by any stretch of the imagination.

I will point out what I think the problem is, i use to have so many ideas on what could of been done better in reach and one was been able to buy different weapons with credits in main menu areas(like when your editing your spartan and friends spartans) instead of just holding a DMR all time.

But then I came to an epiphany that the halo games are just a game the next game in a series of games its not gonna be perfect and there not some ground breaking perfect holy grail of games in every aspect. (which is how I biasly felt about halo games)

I use to hate COD for making a game each year thinking why don't they just wait and put all the best features into one game and make a game every 5yrs+ and make a "ground breaking perfect holy grail of games in every aspect" which most games in general aren't there just fun games and that's all i except from a game now. If its amazing its amazing but I don't require a game to be "ground breaking perfect holy grail of games in every aspect" It just has to be enjoyable.

Halo 4 wont be perfect neither will Halo 5,6,7. They will be enjoyable, wishing they did more is fine but diminishing the value of the game based on expectations or potential isn't imo.

 

Why do you think that the decision to use a single shot weapon came first? They already had a no-bloom (well, not the Reach amount of bloom) pistol in H3 that was carried over to Reach for a single shot weapon. Also, if they wanted to prevent a single shot weapon from being too powerful they could have adjusted its ROF and damage per bullet. You also probably read my response to the idea that bloom was used to decrease a hitscan DMR's effectiveness at long range (crouch/scope). The fact that the bloom for the H3 equivalent weapons that already had very slight bloom (AR, pistol, carbine to NR, and a completely new plasma repeater- pr not in the same category) was increased to the level of DMR bloom, where you had to pace at every range and thus the reticle had to reflect bloom, meant that they probably thought of bloom as the new thing to spice up the entire sandbox (or at least the main rifle, in which case the old slight bloom equivalents shouldn't be left as they were) as opposed to the single shot feature spicing up the main rifle. I don't think that something that became as pervasive as bloom was simply an alternative to decreasing the ROF or the damage per bullet, unless a Bungie designer said so.

Right, nades had a delay during laggy games in H3 and Reach because they couldn't be hitscan- if I understand this correctly- the thrower's xbox could only transmit the direction and place from which he threw the grenade as data over the internet, which had to travel to the host's xbox and back to everyone's xboxes. The time that this took (well, the one-way trip to the host, anyway) was called "latency" by Bungie on their site a long time ago. Bullets, which could travel (in-game speedwise, not information over internet wise) instantly if the game designer wants them to, can be hitscan, in which case the shooter's xbox determines whether the shot is a hit or a miss based on what information it has (not the host's). It sends that signal to the host, thus the accuracy of the shot cannot be affected by latency. I was wondering if the netcode was partially responsible for the perfect hit registration in Reach, as you suggested, or if the factor respinsible was just Reach's hitscan method of transmitting hit signals. The non-hitscan grenade example seemed to be a way to control for the effect of hitscan, but then the factor of exactly how laggy the game is is another variable, which can't necessarily be eliminated by netcode design. From a google search on netcode one site showed a bunch of parameters of how much information (bytes, updates, etc.) per time was planned on being sent/received, which- if I understand this correctly- are subject to the other limiting factors which we refer to collectively as (good or bad) "connection", which of course varies from player to player and thus match to match. I didn't play H2 multiplayer; all I know about it I learned from others. Do you remember shots disappearing when you played Halo 2?

@WWWilliam- did you type that you wanted Reach to allow different spawning weapons based on credits from the main menu? Isn't having played for longer enough of an advantage? Also, H4 seems to be doing this with perks, supposedly under the reasoning that players are to be "rewarded" simply for playing (perhaps to sell map packs?), but if a player isn't enthralled by the game soon after he/she starts playing it, I can't imagine them sticking around for those perks. If anything, it just makes the starting experience less interesting (if the perks are interesting).