Height variance was always a huge draw for Halo maps, not really present in maps other than UT and the like. Fall damage really changed up that mechanic. I don't think Bungie realized just how profoundly these small changes could effect gameplay on a large, if a bit ambiguous, scale.
i thought we already knew it was present during e3, but that article said they took it out. could be wrong
I noticed something after watching that video: the Spartans don't make any noise whenever they fall, die, etc like they used to in previous halos. The whole thing just seems eerily quiet to me. Maybe that will be fixed before November?
As far as Noble Six's jump from orbit goes: He had a re-entry pack thing. As far as Master Chief's: he does whatever the **** he wants.
For all the animation and sounds and movements, you have to keep in mind that this is all pretty early footage. A ton of polish is probably going to be layered onto this game int he next 18 weeks.
Yes. There was a whole thread where we went over this. Noble 6 had a re-entry pack that he got from the sabre. Master Chief surfed on a forerunner door.
Why? It makes perfect sense and requires more player awareness. You have to know your surroundings and how to judge fall distances. Besides, in Reach you can fall ~20 feet without taking damage. If your learn to crouch at the right time, you can fall much further without taking much, or any, damage. Fall damage doesn't cripple maps with larger height variances as much as you are depicting. You shouldn't be able to fall 75-100 feet and be 100% a-okay, even if you are a Spartan. Taking a bit of damage that regenerates is completely fair and conducive to game-play as a whole. PS. Donald Glover will never be Spiderman. Get over it.
Like I already said, the article's source is a video made with footage from E3. In this video MLGBravo (who was at E3 playing the game) mentioned he didn't notice fall damage. He asked a 343 developer about it who responded with "Did you notice any fall damage?". I'm guessing the developer just didn't know if it was in the E3 build or not. Anyway, Bravo didn't notice any so he figured it wasn't in. Later after he watches his own video he saw that there is indeed fall damage in the E3 build and he corrected himself in the comment section. The article is really terrible and people should just watch the video instead.
What the... The first Halo game (CE) had fall damage. More of it than any subsequent Halo game. This was the same game with Damnation, Prisoner and Hang 'em High in it. I'm pretty sure they knew very well how fall damage would affect gameplay.
My opinion is that there should be fall damage on by default.. with the option to turn it off for certain gametypes and other customs. Nutduster has the best statement of why it should be kept in. The people that dont want it, obviously fall to their death a lot. LOLZ
I don't think you need both - one or the other would do. Stun or a little shield poppage, makes no real difference to me. Both punish the player somewhat and make them temporarily easier to kill so they can't just drop from their high perch and then scamper away.
Exactly, stun is the thing that kills fall damage. Especially when the game was already as slow as Reach. Regardless, FD is just something stupid I'd rather not have in the game, it hardly affects any decisions and proves to be more of an annoyance than anything else.
CE was awesome. No arguing. But when the average person (read: Not people that are super nostalgic competitive mlg players) thinks about halo, halo 2 and 3 gameplay is pretty much the standard for the series.
Have to agree with this. Sure, fall damage was in the original Halo, but you need to remember that there was no online mulitplayer at this time. Halo 2 was a huge success in large part due to its multiplayer, which didn't have fall damage. I think most people would agree that Halo 2 and 3's multiplayers were the most competitive, both of which - no fall damage. So people were accustomed to it. Then it Reach they brought it back, adding a whole new element to the gameplay as a whole. I for one think it should be taken out completely. Players have to rely on their judgement if a fall will stun them and inflict damage, which is not always precise. It just adds an unneeded gameplay aspect in my opinion. But I guess 343i disagrees :/
That's not really the point though. What you said before was that you didn't think Bungie realized how much fall damage would affect gameplay. My point is that they surely did realize it: the original game had more fall damage than Reach. And yes, while it wasn't an online game (at least not initially), it had a healthy LAN community and quickly became an MLG favorite. The game was played to death, both casually and competitively, and Bungie has to have gotten a ton of feedback at that time about how fall damage worked. Between that and the Reach beta, I have no doubt that they had plenty of information from which to make an informed decision about whether to have fall damage in Reach. Personally I'd say the jetpack made fall damage almost mandatory - jetpack is too powerful to not have some kind of built-in disadvantage (apart from how exposed you sometimes are when flying). Yes, sometimes fall damage and stun slows the game down in a specific way (though I would argue the effect is brief and seldom). But it also speeds it up in a specific way, which is that people who are hurt and stunned by a fall are easier to kill. Running away is one of the chief things that slows a game down, and one of the main reasons to intentionally fall from a great height is to get away from danger. Falling from sniper catwalk on Penance, or any of the exposed parts of Sword Base's top level, or the third level of Countdown - all are great ways to avoid dying unless fall damage penalizes you. I can't help but feel that the main reason many people oppose fall damage of any kind is that it just annoys them to not be able to do whatever, and go wherever, they want in-game.