All in favor of formally naming Halo 4's forge Forge 2.1 (or anything but 3 for that matter, say 1.9 if you'd like), say aye. BTW, does anyone know what the Waypoint people are saying about the precision movement and bumps under bridge pieces? I don't poke around there much, but I have a feeling..
Probably that no one used the former and the latter will make forging way easier. I don't go back there either. It made me sad every time, so I stopped. I do know for a fact that just about everyone who brought up the lack of precision controls was whined at for whining. I don't even need to check for that. I also still don't understand why not even a single starting or DLC map has a Covy theme. Why?
I think with all the tools they have added. 3 brand spanking new forge maps. New textures that aren't grey and ugly for all of Reaches pieces and brand new ones. I think i have to give them more credit than just Forge 2.1 lets try Forge 2.3 because in all honesty, These new snaps is pretty damn good in my eyes even if we don't have super precision like Reach's.
I'd say that dynamic lighting, snapping, and duping is helpful enough to deserve the name "Forge 3.0"
Nope. Reach forge and 4's forge to me is most comparable to Foundry and Sandbox. Some new stuff, but not enough of a change to core things to really be a full upgrade. Now from halo 3 forge to reach is more like Launch maps to Foundry. That was a massive change to core things.
I would assume that there is a lack of covie structures in campaign, so they probably thought it would take too much time for them to make only a handful of maps covenant.
I think we are judging forge from the maps. And really, who actually used all of forge world? We get the same featureset as reach, but with a few tweaks. Forge 2.5
why is everyone so intent on assigning it a number? i don't think i remember 343 ever referring to it as anything other than "forge" or "halo 4's forge"
Lets just all agree it's a step down in terms of frame-rate, a step up in terms of visula appeal of forge pieces, a step down in terms of useability (lack of precision controls), and a serious step down in terms of imagination.
never. the game is not released yet, and no one has done proper testing of framerate. when i say 'proper testing' i mean forging a map that would have had framerate problems in reach, and then testing for framerate with split screen play and full party of players, etc, etc
Nowhere really. Some obviously well qualified person who completely legitimately got a leaked version of the game through some completely legit torrent site made some passing comments regarding frame rate. But you know internet, rabble rabble rabble, all is lost. While I don't doubt that frame rate issues can still exist, I extremely doubt they are any worse than Reach which wouldn't make it a "step down", just a continuance of the same problem.
You are absolutely correct. 343i has yet to confirm that maps have really shitty frame rate problems. I mean, that's the first thing they'd want to mention in their press junket. Oh, Reach had frame-rate issues in 2 player split screen on default maps? I was not aware of this.