Halo 4 Discussion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIspQ1NmGf4

 

model looks fine, they just need to fix the textures and shaders

 

His neck looks super skinny though.

And yes I know, necks tend to look skinny when in a helmet. I ride motorcycles and I often wear a helmet when doing so. It just looks odd.

EDIT: Doe Chief's voice sound a bit different to anyone else? Like they wanted him to sound older or something?

 

Leaks broski, they are right. Some options may be fixed but ATM apparently you can't even turn off insta-spawn in slayer. It's there but it doesn't work (like broken king in Reach).

One point I think u4iX made that was amazing is: the HUD is great. I had never, ever thought of it like this before so I'm completely glad my mind is opened to this now but he pointed out that due to the fact that Halo 4 doesn't have a spectator mode, it can be really difficult to watch as a viewer and know what exactly is going on, especially if you aren't extremely familiar with Halo. Having just written a paper on this actually, it's extremely important for viewers to be conveyed enough information so they can understand the same level of tension being felt by the players, which is what makes it more or less entertaining to watch. Previously, without them being told constantly where the flag was and knowing the map layout, they wouldn't be able to fully grasp just how close the other team was to capping and winning the game. With waypoints that messaged will be conveyed a lot better. Spectators will now have an idea of when power weapons spawn so they'll know what players are contesting over, they get a better idea when things are achieved with the pop up text like carrier kill, etc. This now leaves the announcers to focus more on the "action" and leads to a more exciting cast.

All of this is amazing for Halo because the viewer entertainment is what has lead to the success of Starcraft and LoL as E-sports. When something gets to that huge level of success it gets way more money thrown at it (sponsored events, community outreach) and the developers start adding more options in to help out the E-sport (more options are always good).

This was great, I'm so happy I listened just for this eye-opener.

 

Definitely different. I think they want it to seem like he's aging and past his prime despite the fact that he spent the five years between h3 and h4 in cryo.

 

Well that's disappointing was hoping people with leaks just didn't search the custom game options with a fine enough comb.

I think the HUD is pretty horrible from a Esports perspective(obviously flag indicators are a plus but don't think that needs a 20min rant from u4ix its a simple point) only pic I could find comparing, In 4 the HUD is more transparent,Also health bars are hidden in 4, Scores are more clear in Reach 1kill=1point, 1kill=100 points is unnecessarily complicating it,Ammo is less clear in 4,score board is harder to read.


Good to see Esports is attempting to be catered to(even though as a non streamer and rare esport watcher i understand benefits)

 

I was just watching that Halo 4 Gameplay Launch trailer, and i thought by myself, some of the campaign missions would actually make better forge maps then we have now. If you watch the video at 0:10, or the desert area with the mammoth, i really wish we could forge in a desert area like that
For anyone who did not watch it yet, here :

Halo 4 - Gameplay Trailer - YouTube

 

So I found a video of Extraction. I can't post it because it's leaked, but if you want to watch it, it's on Dailymotion uploaded by a guy named T-BaggingSpartan.

 

"Health bars are hidden" is a bit misleading. The health system is different, like it was in 2 and 3.

 

Map packs already detailed.

 

There's something obnoxious about that. Obviously DLC has always been a way to wring more money out of the player base, but at least in the past there was a sense that it was additional content being developed after (in some cases well after) the game shipped, and providing something that couldn't feasibly have been included on the disc for space or dev resource reasons.

This makes it pretty clear that at least the lion's share of the work on these is already done, and they're blatantly just asking us to pay extra for a more robust multiplayer experience. Might have always been basically true, but now it's just laid out on the table.

It's getting more and more tempting for me to just stick with single player games where the DLC is truly optional and actually feels like new content. I mean, I wasn't missing anything by playing Red Dead and not buying the Undead Nightmare DLC - but if I DID buy Undead Nightmare, it was basically an entirely new game set in the same world, rather than just some multiplayer bonus **** that ultimately felt like it wasn't worth the money. (Though to be fair to 343, Rockstar did have some DLC like that for Red Dead's multiplayer - but I happily ignored it, since multiplayer in that game was just something to screw around in occasionally.)

 

:O

Pause at 2:40

Gametype: Escort. Is that VIP, or did 343i track something down that bungie hated and left, or couldn't make work?

 

They're only giving you bonus stuff for the map packs if you buy them like that?

Dear god, why would anyone buy the LE. I have to go change my pre-order.

EDIT:

Apparently they give you the "pass" when you get the LE... hmm. Still thinking about changing it.

 

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the development timescale vs. the vanilla game was pretty similar in Reach, they're just accelerating the hype around it because A) it fits in with the supposed accelerated release and thus hype cycle B) they want to sell the wargame pass and C) other people are doing it

You can know the name and environment of a map without having done much as to the design, particularly if testing and tweaking forms much of the dev timescale (as I imagine it does simply based on how most people forge). I initially had the same reaction as you, obnoxious being the right word, but the more I think about it the more I realise that in terms of actual development timescales it doesn't inherently mean things have changed that much. Considering development stopped and the game went gold a little while ago, and (from the sound of it at least) these are still very much in the works, it seems like more of a change in approach to publicity, and at worst its in line with the increased dev cycle that we all knew was coming anyway.

I'm still kinda put off simply by this change in approach to the whole idea, at least some pretence of DLC as an addition to a complete game, rather than forming part of a rollout plan that's existed from very early on, makes me feel better, though I realise that's pretty illogical if the facts of the matter remain the same in terms of release dates. The timescale does seem a bit quick for DLC release, but tbh I can't really remember Reach's to compare how it stacks up.

I know what you're saying, but to focus (perhaps too much) on one thing you said: the DLC is optional with Halo imo, much to its detriment in terms of actually playing it. I guess the real fact of the matter is that DLC should be optional, but online MP games are inherently bad at dealing with that. Either the people who buy the DLC lose out a la Reach, or those who don't lose out a la Halo 3. One makes DLC not worth buying, the other makes it mandatory which is fundamentally unfair imo. Single player games don't suffer this and so can actually do DLC properly, with Skyrim as a perfect example since it's a really substantial game without any extra content.

Much as it makes the whole process much more plain, I think the wargames pass might actually help this. The more people they can get to buy DLC, the more we'll get to play it. The pass (and also its inclusion in the LE) is great for this since it doesn't just guarantee a purchase, it guarantees 3 (either all of the DLC or the bulk of it). That could make the whole thing work better, though it's still a less than desirable situation imo. The sad fact is that the only alternative is a subscription based service, which has the disadvantage that it's inevitably more expensive and tends to come alongside initial game purchases as well, nearly negating the actual upsides.

 

They were far more spread out. Reach shipped in mid-September, and the map packs came out Nov 30, March 15, and Nov 15 (the last being Anniversary - it was more than a year after Reach was released).

I think that's a good way to explain it, yeah. Reach's DLC is technically optional but if you play multiplayer as much as I did, the on-disc maps start to feel very limiting after just a few months; you need that DLC to keep the experience fresh. And like you suggest, it's so hard to integrate it into multiplayer without negatively affecting the overall experience for both DLC and non-DLC players. Personally I don't think they've ever figured it out; the multiplayer of all Halo games since the advent of DLC has suffered for its existence. Single player games usually have DLC that truly feels optional and like a separate experience, and it also seems like more effort is expended to give players something worth the money. I don't play too many single player games, but as an avowed Rockstar fan I was quite happy with the DLC mission packs (or whatever you'd call them) for both Red Dead Redemption and GTA4. They were what I want DLC to be: a standalone experience that adds on to the main game for hardcore fans, but is by no means mandatory. And once you play through all the hours of extra content you really feel that it was worth the bucks, and that there's no way they had that stuff all planned and developed before the main title even shipped.

With the first Halo 4 map pack coming in just a couple of months, I don't feel that way at all about it. The next thing is going to be on-disc DLC that you pay to unlock - yes I know this already exists, but they're just going to start doing it brazenly with a wide array of games, and the end result will be that the game you buy is just the first step in a multi-tier subscription that ends up costing you a hundred dollars instead of sixty.

The more I think about it, the more I truly love the idea I had recently: they should stop selling map packs, and instead sell just these three things: single player expansions; aesthetic junk (weapon and armor skins, actual armor pieces, custom emblems, etc.) for anybody that wants them; and a pseudo-dev kit for advanced map makers who want something more than forge. Then they could cherrypick the best user-created maps and release FREE map packs subsidized by the cost of the dev kit, and if they feel like releasing a couple of their own new maps in there for free, do that too. That lets them sustain revenue (but in another way), upgrade forge for those of us who are really serious about it, and integrate DLC into matchmaking (because if it's free, they can make having it mandatory for any playlist that uses it).

 

gears seems to do a good job implementing multiplayer DLC. maybe its just that basically everyone who plays gears buys the DLC, im not sure. but whenever i play gears 3 i always get a good mix of maps, from the ones that shipped with the game through all DLC packs.
and gears 3 had the "season pass" that you could purchase in the beginning which would give you access to every dlc once it came out, so maybe that strategy does work well.

 

Fair enough, can't argue with that. Anniversary was an interesting one through being so late but coming alongside another release, but then Halo 3 kept them going for a good while as well so I guess Halo 4 is the out-of-whack one here.

Yup, Rockstar games being another great example (yet another reason why I'm so goddamn psyched for GTA 5). That expansion pack vibe is exactly what I want as well, I was fine with it back in my PC playing youth and I still am, since I don't feel cheated either buying it or not buying it.

Well the first one is due in December, so even if we give a generous estimate of late December, that's still under 2 months from initial release, so yeah I take your point.

Absolutely wonderful idea. Halo is never going to be the franchise that does it though, it's too driven by a publisher for that to ever happen. But it's a wonderful model which comes as close to a PC scene as is possible on a console.

 

Have any of you seen the Mass Effect 3 approach to DLC? I thought I would throw it out there, as it is interesting how they have conducted it. Team Fortress 2 and other free to play games have done similar things.

Focusing on Mass Effect (because it's console), they have used small sales to gain money. If you want, you can buy packs of items with your money in real life: the packs however are no different than the ones you get with in game credits. So people can pay, but they don't have to. Similarly, they have used singleplayer weapon packs and skin packs at low prices to gain some extra money. The new multiplaer DLC is completely free, and obtained at random (aside from maps and new enemy factions) through the aforementioned packs.

Single player DLC is not free, rather it is around 15$ (USD) to add on to that. This is where the majority of DLC money comes from I believe.

So if you have the money you can try your luck with matchmaking packs, or use in game credits. If you love SP, you can go ahead an invest in that just like always. Personally I love this system, and it is recognized more so in the F2P PC games. TF2 is well known to have begun this with their micro-transactions. You can buy any weapon or cosmetic item for the most part, but this can all come to you in random drops too. or you can craft what you want out of in game weapons/hats/metal. There is never any pressure to spend your money, but there is always the option. TF2 now makes more money than it did when it was a 'pay to play' game.

Its just another way to deal with DLC, and thought that you may find this interesting due to the recent conversation.

Back to Halo, I just realized how soon it comes out. It's kind of ridiculous. Still, despite my concerns, looking at these videos have made me excited once more. The game just looks fun. Not quite the same, but very fun. Considering I wasn't a big fan of Halo 3, that might be a good thing.

 

The Wargames pass was the only bit of LE I cared about, and now I'll just get it separately. So yeah, I agree, and I can see how people who were in to the armour would feel pretty put out on that front too.