Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

chopperbyrne

NeoKubrick wrote: »

There is no strawman argument. You said these: "lets face it the original Halo had a lot of long boring corridors" / "had a lot of long boring corridors" / "These sections I'm referring to are still quite linear and enclosed". Are you going to stop posting childish insults and concede that these are all obviously wrong or continue persisting with these ignorant claims?

He's not wrong about that at all.

Huge chunks of Halo:CE are long, boring, identical corridors.

That's just fact.

Jazzy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

You are only deluding yourself, Retr0gamer: one example from many. If there was no point, then you wouldn't even reply (as I do when posts reach a certain threshold: example). However, that was just a cheap, petty insult and deflection and a substitute for answering my post.

There is no strawman argument. You said these: "lets face it the original Halo had a lot of long boring corridors" / "had a lot of long boring corridors" / "These sections I'm referring to are still quite linear and enclosed". Are you going to stop posting childish insults and concede that these are all obviously wrong or continue persisting with these ignorant claims?



The Flood didn't only appear in two levels in Halo 3; they appeared in four levels and were the predominate enemy in three.

so Im guessing you hold Halo 1 up as a masterpiece of gaming or some such? is it your gaming version of 2001? Halo had some great open areas but that wasnt the case for most of the game. it was mostly slogging through corridors to get to the next great bit.
as far as being a 'classic' goes it certainly is that, but to hold it in the same regard as say Deus Ex, Half-Life 2 & Bioshock is a bit silly

NeoKubrick

chopperbyrne wrote: »

He's not wrong about that at all.

Huge chunks of Halo:CE are long, boring, identical corridors.

That's just fact.

It isn't fact; it's a claim and there is no support for "huge chunks" of "Halo had had a lot of long boring corridors". Where specifically do these "huge chunks" of "long boring corridors" exist that dominate the majority of the game? 'Linear' level design was the exception, not the rule.

Jazzy wrote: »

so Im guessing you hold Halo 1 up as a masterpiece of gaming or some such? is it your gaming version of 2001? [...] to hold it in the same regard as say Deus Ex, Half-Life 2 & Bioshock is a bit silly

There are only two games I would definitively claim were masterpieces (Half-Life 2 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) and a few others which would be debatable (choice of Mario game and none of which would be any of the Halo games or Deus Ex or, in particular, BioShock). It's not silly to hold in the highest regard a game which advanced and revolutionized combat in a combat-oriented genre when previous most developers did not want to solve the hard problem of game AI and were either subverting genre conventions (Deus Ex, System Shock 2, No One Lives Forever...), shaping point-and-click realistic shooters (Operation Flashpoint, Rainbow Six...) or avoiding AI completely with competitive multiplayer (Counter-Strike, Tribes, UT, Quake III: Arena...) to carve out a niche in the genre.

Jazzy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

There are only two games I would definitively claim were masterpieces (Half-Life 2 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) and a few others which would be debatable (choice of Mario game and none of which would be any of the Halo games or Deus Ex or, in particular, BioShock). It's not silly to hold in the highest regard a game which advanced and revolutionized combat in a combat-oriented genre when previous most developers did not want to solve the hard problem of game AI and were either subverting genre conventions (Deus Ex, System Shock 2, No One Lives Forever...), shaping point-and-click realistic shooters (Operation Flashpoint, Rainbow Six...) or avoiding AI completely with competitive multiplayer (Counter-Strike, Tribes, UT, Quake III: Arena...) to carve out a niche in the genre.

bollocks. the special ops in half-life in 1998 were pretty much the same as the big silly guys in halo in terms of A.I. in 2001.
revolutionised combat? bull****, was the same stuff that had been going for years - just a bit more fun and mental with the vehicles. it was basically goldeneye gameplay wise, bit more playable though. big ass 16 player games were frickin awesome, its saving grace tbh. the 'single player' if played as such was crap. the tank bit and the plane bit (what were they called again?) were awesome but there was a lot of bull**** in between. goldeneye provided much more of a challenge but that isnt really much of a point. hmmmm, yeah im still stuck on your revolutionised combat bit. i actually cant see how, unless you mean recharging your shield which made combat well, noobish

oh and hang on - didnt the 2nd level (big outdoors one with a lot of warthog action) contain defending 3 similar bases in the exact same style? was fun when first played but kinda ****ty and annoying after. "circular" level design. well my arse has been designed with a circular mentality and jean paul gaultier says its the best arse in the business with a really solid backline and great curve work

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It isn't fact; it's a claim and there is no support for "huge chunks" of "Halo had had a lot of long boring corridors". Where specifically do these "huge chunks" of "long boring corridors" exist that dominate the majority of the game? 'Linear' level design was the exception, not the rule.

You're just completely twisting what I said to suit your own little agenda and not even attempting to focus on the original point I was trying to make. I'm not denying that there weren't flanking oppurtunities in these corridors, it would be pretty terrible design if there weren't. It doesn't change my original fact that these corridors are samey due to their copy and pasted art asset nature and the game isn't at it's best in these situations and there's far too many of them. I'd call the corridors of games like Call of Duty, Half-life 2 and other such games as well linear despite having as much, as much as I hate to use the stupid phrase, 'circular design' as Halo's samey corridors. Of course you can dey this if you want despite all the evidence being there. It's what I'd expect from some one who blindly denies that the tribes series had recharging shields well before Halo despite video evidence.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

There are only two games I would definitively claim were masterpieces (Half-Life 2 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) and a few others which would be debatable (choice of Mario game and none of which would be any of the Halo games or Deus Ex or, in particular, BioShock). It's not silly to hold in the highest regard a game which advanced and revolutionized combat in a combat-oriented genre when previous most developers did not want to solve the hard problem of game AI and were either subverting genre conventions (Deus Ex, System Shock 2, No One Lives Forever...), shaping point-and-click realistic shooters (Operation Flashpoint, Rainbow Six...) or avoiding AI completely with competitive multiplayer (Counter-Strike, Tribes, UT, Quake III: Arena...) to carve out a niche in the genre.

How would you know when you had no experience of PC gaming before Halo? Games like Operation flashpoint was doing things with AI and vehicles well before Halo.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're just completely twisting what I said [...]

There's no one twisting what you said: "a lot of the game takes place in tight enclosed corridors". These are your words; so, own them. You so far have failed to point to where the majority of the game takes place in "tight enclosed corridors" and when asked to either provide evidence or concede, you declined to do either and started throwing your toys out of your pram and insulting. Where is the evidence that "a lot of the game takes place in tight enclosed corridors"? As I have already said, your personal definition of 'linear' is irrelevant to the standard and actual definition. The majority of Halo: Combat Evolved's level design is not linear; it is certainly not the case that all or most of it is linear. Your other point is that there are a lot of reused assets. Yes, they were but you are confusing level design with level aesthetics. And you claimed that Tribes' recharge mechanic was the same as Halo's implementation: it wasn't. One was an optional mechanic of the game and the other was a core mechanic.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

How would you know when you had no experience of PC gaming before Halo? Games like Operation flashpoint was doing things with AI and vehicles well before Halo.

Well, that's just an ignorant and delusional assumption on your part and in keeping with your agenda to lower the debate to gibberish and childish insults. It's hypocritical of you to ever question anyone's PC gaming experience (you're currently claiming that you had experience of PC gaming while, simultaneously you claimed that Halo was the best example of a FPS, remember?). What was Operation Flashpoint doing with AI? What was the underlying architecture and design of the artificial intelligence in Operation Flashpoint? Have you played the game, or grasping at straws, again?

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

There's no one twisting what you said: "a lot of the game takes place in tight enclosed corridors". These are your words; so, own them. You so far have failed to point to where the majority of the game takes place in "tight enclosed corridors" and when asked to either provide evidence or concede, you declined to do either and started throwing your toys out of your pram and insulting. Where is the evidence that "a lot of the game takes place in tight enclosed corridors"? As I have already said, your personal definition of 'linear' is irrelevant to the standard and actual definition. The majority of Halo: Combat Evolved's level design is not linear; it is certainly not the case that all or most of it is linear. Your other point is that there are a lot of reused assets. Yes, they were but you are confusing level design with level aesthetics.

My original point wasn't about whether it was linear or circular design or any other stupid buzz word you picked up. It wasn't about level or game design. It was about how the game could be improved in the remake by changing some of the bad parts of the game. However you zone in on one word I mention, take it far too literally, argue about your own personal definition of the word and use it as your chance to turn the thread into a pissing contest to amuse yourself like you do with every other thread were someone says something even slightly negative about Halo. It seesm you're just on a crusade at the moment to inflate your ego with your petty little non-argument. The linear areas I'm talking about do sometimes open up to give flanking oppurtunities but this is nothing special in FPS games and you're still moving to the one exit in that area.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Well, that's just an ignorant and delusional assumption on your part and in keeping with your agenda to lower the debate to gibberish and childish insults. It's hypocritical of you to ever question anyone's PC gaming experience (you're currently claiming that you had experience of PC gaming while, simultaneously you claimed that Halo was the best example of a FPS, remember?). What was Operation Flashpoint doing with AI? What was the underlying architecture and design of the artificial intelligence in Operation Flashpoint? Have you played the game, or grasping at straws, again?

I'm not wrong though am I? I played operation flashpoint back at release and then again a few months ago when I found it as a budget reease with the expansion, have been playing PC games since about 1997. I'm not simultaneously claiming that I have experience with PC games and claiming Halo is the best example of a FPS because that quote is not only taken from 7 years ago it's also taken totally out of context by yourself to meet your own agenda and ignore everything else in the post.

Jazzy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

And you claimed that Tribes' recharge mechanic was the same as Halo's implementation: it wasn't. One was an optional mechanic of the game and the other was a core mechanic.

id like to add a big "so what" to this. the recharging shield wasnt that big a deal and if you are talking about its legacy to games it aint a good one

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

My original point wasn't about whether it was linear or circular design or any other stupid buzz word you picked up. It wasn't about level or game design [...]

That's a poor signal-to-noise ratio.

Your original point was about level design: "Complete level redesign would really help this game because lets face it the original Halo had a lot of long boring corridors". So, own your words. When you were told that this was incorrect, you condescendingly said, "You just don't remember the game properly" and you have continued that childish discrediting since, because you cannot respond to my argument in any other way. You look ridiculous now climbing your high-horse after all that mud-slinging and talking about "crusade", "ego", and "petty", and a "pissing contest".

If a player has more than one path to follow in a specific part of a level, then that part is not linear; your personal definition is irrelevant. You are correct: "Operation flashpoint was doing things with AI". Virtually, every game in existence was: Doom was "doing things with AI". I asked you to elaborate on what Operation Flashpoint was doing in my previous post and you failed to.

You claimed previously that anyone with experience of PC gaming would not rate Halo: Combat Evolved. In 2004, you claimed that it's "the best example of a FPS since Half Life and Deus Ex" and that "the PC FPS games before it were terrible and repetitive crap" (there's no context other than the context you placed these comments in). Now, you're claiming that you had experience of PC gaming. These claims contradict each other and I suggest that you remember that the next time you call in to question anyone else's PC gaming experience.

Jazzy wrote: »

the recharging shield wasnt that big a deal and if you are talking about its legacy to games it aint a good one

Well, it was and it is no criticism of a mechanic that inferior developers don't understand how to use it but use it anyway. For game designers, the problem with regenerating health is that it is no silver-bullet and it is not modular. In Halo: Combat Evolved, regenerating shields was a mechanic that fit the combat design. With an infinite supply of shields, shields had no value to the player and were used as a resource for moving, flanking etc. to more advantageous positions. This mechanic does not penalize players for aggressive play, but encourages player movement. Combat brilliancies are intrinsic rewards, because there is no extrinsic reward as in the finite health mechanic where a player succeeds in battle with his '100' health intact. So, in the Halo series, regenerating shields encourage movement.

In Halo, there is a brief flash whenever you are hit and audio cue when your shields are depleted. Contrast this with the implementation of regeneration in the Call of Duty series. Whenever a player is hit, there is a smattering of blood displayed on-screen and the screen becomes more bloodshot for each hit and obscures your view until your health returns to normal and whenever a player is hit, there is a jolt to the screen which throws your aim off. Therefore, each time the player is hit, the player's performance is reduced. This conditions the player to camp, because there is no benefit to movement; you can be safe and shoot from cover and play whack-a-mole. So, in the Call of Duty series, regenerating health discourages movement.

The implementation in the Call of Duty series conflicts with the inherent design of regenerating health and most design implementations of regenerating health do. There are further important implementations for regenerating health: in Halo, the main enemy, Elites, have regenerating shields, too. This is important for flow in encounters: if the player doesn't press his advantage when his enemy is weak, he'll lose his advantage and the battle will reset and this encourages aggressive play, again and complements the design of the mechanic. And then there is the dodging meta-game (strafing between enemy plasma bolts) in Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 which is only enabled because the player is not irrevocably penalized when hit.

Regeneration health does have a common design solution in that it's economical for designers: it removes health packs and their placement in levels and designers don't need to balance levels relative to the expected 'health' of the player. I assume that this is the primary reason it is used in games.

Retr0gamer

All you've really proven is your pedantry for what linear means to you. The corridors might open up into a bit of an arena, that's nothing special. It's still a dragon quest 'but thou must!' scenario where whatever you do your still going to the same place.

You might understand about operation flashpoint if you had played it back then. It had friendly AI, enemy AI that used vehicles and worked together in a squad. It also operated in an actual sandbox as opposed to Halo.

And you are and still continuing to take that quote out of context. I saidit was the best FPS since Deus Ex meaning there was much better FPS games before it in my opinion. Around 2000 the PC was getting some pretty shocking FPS games like Soldier of Fortune which was what I was referring to. The AI also wasn't as obvious about the binary choices it was making like Halo was. And one last thing, the quote was made in january 2004, get over it. I was in the middle of some final year exams so really had the time to think about what was better than Halo at the time especially considering I forgot all about the far superior Op Flash.

As for people with PC experience at the time not rating Halo. So far I've been proven right. Read the thread that you keep dragging that quote up from or even read this thread. Nobody there with PC experience seems to think the game was as amazing as you did, a person with no PC experience before Halo. Even Terrorfirmer who had lots of PC experience around the time who likes the game, which is fair enough, seems to think that the game wasn't anything special.

johnny_ultimate

We're forgetting the core point here:

The library is a really ****ing awful level.

Jazzy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Well, it was and it is no criticism of a mechanic that inferior developers don't understand how to use it but use it anyway. For game designers, the problem with regenerating health is that it is no silver-bullet and it is not modular. In Halo: Combat Evolved, regenerating shields was a mechanic that fit the combat design. With an infinite supply of shields, shields had no value to the player and were used as a resource for moving, flanking etc. to more advantageous positions. This mechanic does not penalize players for aggressive play, but encourages player movement. Combat brilliancies are intrinsic rewards, because there is no extrinsic reward as in the finite health mechanic where a player succeeds in battle with his '100' health intact. So, in the Halo series, regenerating shields encourage movement.

In Halo, there is a brief flash whenever you are hit and audio cue when your shields are depleted. Contrast this with the implementation of regeneration in the Call of Duty series. Whenever a player is hit, there is a smattering of blood displayed on-screen and the screen becomes more bloodshot for each hit and obscures your view until your health returns to normal and whenever a player is hit, there is a jolt to the screen which throws your aim off. Therefore, each time the player is hit, the player's performance is reduced. This conditions the player to camp, because there is no benefit to movement; you can be safe and shoot from cover and play whack-a-mole. So, in the Call of Duty series, regenerating health discourages movement.

The implementation in the Call of Duty series conflicts with the inherent design of regenerating health and most design implementations of regenerating health do. There are further important implementations for regenerating health: in Halo, the main enemy, Elites, have regenerating shields, too. This is important for flow in encounters: if the player doesn't press his advantage when his enemy is weak, he'll lose his advantage and the battle will reset and this encourages aggressive play, again and complements the design of the mechanic. And then there is the dodging meta-game (strafing between enemy plasma bolts) in Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 which is only enabled because the player is not irrevocably penalized when hit.

Regeneration health does have a common design solution in that it's economical for designers: it removes health packs and their placement in levels and designers don't need to balance levels relative to the expected 'health' of the player. I assume that this is the primary reason it is used in games.

you are essentially referring to a game mechanic that had been around ages before in games... namely Quake and namely its multiplayer. being able to move about the map because you have an armour / health advantage or being forced to play a defensive game until you are able to take advantage. the armours respawn in an exact time after they are picked up so you can recharge, as do health packs. it very much is the exact same mechanic but just dumbed down and simplified so its easier to use on the console. you dont really have to manage your armour as much and your mistakes are punished far far less in Halo, i imagine this is in compensation for the gimped movement when compared to PC interface. you are right though, it does fit nicely with Halo's combat but thats about it. well thought out for its purpose but doesnt really offer much more then that, hence it not being that big a deal.

also - the 'dodging meta game' has been around a long long time. namely since Doom.

the actual combat in Halo fitted nicely with the console and the pad and it was definately the next level in how to do FPS on a console but it wasnt really that good. there were a few interesting enemies but every fps game has those. as i said - it was the vehicle sections which really made the game. they were pretty awesome and imo, they were definately the most innovative and fun thing about the game. large scale set pieces like the tank level and the warthog run on the last level were truly brilliant but in between these great sections it was extremely run of the mill and the story did f-all to keep you interested, it was more the promise of another big set piece. heck, even when you get the banshee you have to stop and grind a corridor every other minute, which is just teasing tbh

InvisibleBadger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

We're forgetting the core point here:

The library is a really ****ing awful level.

This.
Halo is one of my favorite games, but the library is painful.

As for all the willy-waving in this thread......oh dear

CramCycle

NeoKubrick wrote: »

'Linear' level design was the exception, not the rule.

Not trying to start an argument here :pac: but what levels in Halo had alternative paths that you could take? Even in the large open areas (which were awesome) there was still always a clear beeline target to head for with maybe one or two minor exceptions were you zig zagged slightly.

That said I love Halo but it was linear, as someone else asked, whats wrong with that if it works for the game?

Zombrex

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It isn't fact; it's a claim and there is no support for "huge chunks" of "Halo had had a lot of long boring corridors". Where specifically do these "huge chunks" of "long boring corridors" exist that dominate the majority of the game? 'Linear' level design was the exception, not the rule.

Sorry mate but you must have been playing a different game.

Just look at the Halo walk throughs on Youtube. Enter room, clear room, enter corridor, clear corridor, enter new room that looks exactly like old room, clear room, enter corridor that looks exactly like previous corridor.

Repeat until eyes bleed. The open space no-linear levels in Halo are the exception, not the rule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUc6JmTRkuI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OTd4oUuusg

The most damning evidence? Pick a random point on those walk throughs. I bet you won't have a clue where that is compared to any other point, cause all the levels look the exact same. The corridor at the start of walk through 12 is the same corridor at the end of 13, a good 20 minutes later. Not even Doom did that.

Retr0gamer

Legendary looks like a boring pain in the arse like I remembered it.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And you are and still continuing to take that quote out of context. I saidit was the best FPS since Deus Ex meaning there was much better FPS games before it in my opinion.

No, you didn't. Read: "the best example of a FPS since Half Life and Deus Ex". Half-Life was released in 1998 - meaning that from 1998 to 2001, there were only two games, Deus Ex and Half-Life, which you claimed were as good as Halo: Combat Evolved. Do you have a personal definition of the conjunctive 'And', too? You go on to claim: "The PC FPS games before it were terrible and repetitive crap. Halo was the best FPS money could buy until Metroid Prime came out".

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for people with PC experience at the time not rating Halo. So far I've been proven right.

Heh

You claim now that you had PC experience. So, you had PC experience, by your admission, and then claimed in 2004 that Halo: Combat Evolved was the "the best example of a FPS since Half Life and Deus Ex" and "Halo was the best FPS money could buy until Metroid Prime came out". Therefore, you, yourself, proved your own claim wrong, because you had PC experience and at one time, rated Halo: Combat Evolved. If that was not ridiculous enough, you claim: "Nobody there with PC experience seems to think the game was as amazing as you did". Yes, there is someone there that thought the game was as amazing as I did and now he claims that he had previous PC experience. Keep ridiculing yourself by claiming that I had no PC gaming experience before I made the argument that Halo's combat and AI was revolutionary.

Clearly, you don't understand Operation Flashpoint's AI design (and your explanation of its AI reads more like a tidbit on the back of game box for advertising than it is an analysis), Halo's AI design or in general, game AI design. What are "binary choices" supposed to mean? The Halo series is based upon a reactive AI architecture. "Binary choices" makes no sense in the context of game AI, let alone reactive AI architectures. Which is more plausible? That you didn't understand Operation Flashpoint back when you played it and seldom understand it now or that you didn't remember how it was "far superior" to a game you were claiming was the best example of a FPS?

I thought for a second while reading your post, you were going to use the excuse that your dog ate your Operation Flashpoint disc.

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry mate but you must have been playing a different game.

Repeat until eyes bleed. The open space no-linear levels in Halo are the exception, not the rule.

Limited exceptions don't break a rule and parts of Truth & Reconciliation are the exception in the game, which is why you posted that level and that specific part of the level (the level starts in an open area). There is no basis for any claim that "long boring corridors" dominated the majority of the game, which was the original claim that was disputed. Look through all of the levels rather than pick a specific sample that proves that there were linear corridors, because the argument is that these linear corridors dominated the majority of the game, not whether they exist in the game.

Halo: Combat Evolved has ten levels. Four levels (Halo, Silent Cartographer, Assault on the Control Room, and Two Betrayals) are open and circular; three levels (Truth and Reconciliation, 343 Guilty Spark, and Keyes) have one half in the open and another half in an enclosed space with open areas and linear corridors; two levels (The Pillar of Autumn and The Maw) alternated between linear sections and open areas; one level was dominated by long linear corridors (The Library). So, where specifically do these "linear" levels exist that make the rule, not the exception?

CramCycle wrote: »

That said I love Halo but it was linear, as someone else asked, whats wrong with that if it works for the game?

Halo: Combat Evolved had a linear story and bar a couple of exceptions, linear objectives, but it could not be said of the game that it had linear level design. It doesn't work for the game, because the worst level in the game is the one level dominated by linear corridors.

Jazzy wrote: »

you are essentially referring to a game mechanic that had been around ages before in games... namely Quake and namely its multiplayer. [...]

You misinterpret the point: the regenerating shield mechanic facilitated and encouraged movement, aggressive play, good flow in encounters and the dodging meta-game; it didn't invent these mechanics, because they are the base characteristics of a good First-person Shooter. Multiplayer and singleplayer are two different beasts. It's relatively easy to facilitate movement and aggressive play and good flow in encounters in multiplayer, because players are always going to optimize their chances of winning. Developers can exploit this need for advantage to place, as you say, armour, health, superior weapons throughout the map to encourage movement and aggressive play et cetera. The problem is much more complex in singleplayer.

Retr0gamer

From 1998 to 2001 there was System Shock 2 and the Thief series but I hadn't played them then. It's an old necro post, get over it. You can factor in the benefits of hindsight and experience as well. Anyway Halo probably was the best example of a dumb FPS since Half-Life. It's still a good game. However calling it revolutionary in terms of game design and AI is a bit far fetched considering that games like Operation Flashpoint and the Allied Assault demo showed that other games were on the same level and Monolith were doing some pretty progressive stuff with AI back then. AI design was slowly advancing, there was no revolution.

I feel I understand Operation Flashpoints AI more by the virtue that I've actually played it. As for binary choices, it's pretty rich coming from someone that claims to know so much about AI design that they don't know what a binary choice is when all computer programming and logic works on it. 1's and 0's. Elites shield is up, goto agressive AI routine. Elites shield is down, goto stand there roaring stupidly so the player can kill you. It was obvious what the AI was doing in Halo whereas a good AI will surprise you. I guess I'm right saying that you had no PC experience before

chopperbyrne

Can we get a Retr0gamer Vs NeoKubrick subforum please?

We could start a new topic each week. Much cheaper than the cinema.

Korvanica

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Can we get a Retr0gamer Vs NeoKubrick subforum please?

We could start a new topic each week. Much cheaper than the cinema.

Good Idea.. Can you two go to the COD forum and argue about black ops? I'd love to read that... (may I also suggest GOW or WOW)

I for one am looking forward to halo remake myself. Loved the original, bit skeptical about them using the Reach engine..

OMFG whats that? ^^^ something about the Halo Remake?!!! in THIS thread? :eek::eek::eek: From reading this thread i could have sworn it was about the original Halos level design.... Sorry about that...:rolleyes:

Zombrex

NeoKubrick wrote: »

There is no basis for any claim that "long boring corridors" dominated the majority of the game, which was the original claim that was disputed. Look through all of the levels rather than pick a specific sample that proves that there were linear corridors, because the argument is that these linear corridors dominated the majority of the game, not whether they exist in the game.

The original claim was that the game had a lot of long boring corridors. By "a lot" I would imagine Retro meant an annoyingly large amount.

You seem to be on a sliding scale from saying it didn't have any except in the Library

The only level of ten levels where long linear corridors dominated the game was The Library.

to now saying yes there were a lot but they were still in the minority compared to the levels that were open and non-linear.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Halo: Combat Evolved has ten levels. Four levels (Halo, Silent Cartographer, Assault on the Control Room, and Two Betrayals) are open and circular; three levels (Truth and Reconciliation, 343 Guilty Spark, and Keyes) have one half in the open and another half in an enclosed space with open areas and linear corridors; two levels (The Pillar of Autumn and The Maw) alternated between linear sections and open areas; one level was dominated by long linear corridors (The Library). So, where specifically do these "linear" levels exist that make the rule, not the exception?

Like Retro said you are just remembering the game wrong.

Lets take one of the four levels you mention as "open and circular". They certainly have bits that are open and circular, but they also have bits that are long boring corridors, as the helpful Youtube video demonstrates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDCr7Vocww

That is the last 10 minutes of the level, which was about 40 minutes in total. So a good 1/4 of one of your hallowed open and circular levels is actually long boring corridors.

Retr0gamer

Silent Cartographer isn't too bad at all but some levels like Assault on the control room have an awful lot of enclosed corridors connecting the open areas.

johnny_ultimate

The problem with Halo - and one they've admittedly gradually improved upon as the series progresses - is not the linearity. Because linearity in itself isn't a bad thing. It's that they fail to do much of note with the linearity.

Compare it to Half-Life 2, where you're constantly being funneled between very different locales - indeed, the game even resembles survival horror during the Ravenholm level. There was never a moment in Half-Life 2 where I felt bored of the locale - and if I was ever getting to that point, Valve would soon introduce a new gameplay trick or location to toy around with. Same with Stranger's Wrath, a game heavily inspired by Halo. There was a point near the middle of the game when, despite the large variety of weaponary and tactical options open to the player, I questioned if it was just going to be the same pattern for another five or six hours. But no - Oddworld Creations drastically reshuffle the playstyle at the midway point, to the game's credit.

In Halo, that does not happen. There are moment when the game screeches to a halt as you're stuck in painfully repetitive environments. It's been a few years since I played the game, and couldn't accurately commentate on many of the levels, but I do remember that the game become a straight up chore at the worst of times - the Library obviously being the example most will use, and one that refuses to purge itself from my brain. Turning corners to find what is in many cases almost exactly the same room you were just in? And then, to add insult to injury, having to do it backwards? This isn't compelling gameplay, and a flaw better games have managed to avoid. Pacing is a concern regularly ignored by games trying to buff up running times out of some misconceived concept of how long a game should be. And Halo - with moments where the game artificially increases the running time through repetition - is not a well paced game.

I do like the game - ideas like open are combat and vehicular combat were well implemented and ones improved upon by the sequel. But being honest Halo 3, and to a greater extent Reach, was the first time I felt the game was become tightly paced - and even then, the lack of variety in both the spaceship levels (with a very uninspiring design that the franchise has spent an awful lot of time repeating) and outdoor levels does occasionally creep in. As the games have gone on, the quality:blubber ratio has increased, even if still far from the cries masterpiece its fans bizarrely yell from mountaintops. Indeed, it's perhaps this illogical rabid fandom that stirs up such passion in critics of the series. But Halo and Halo 2 saw the franchise at its worst (although haven't played the much criticsed Halo ODST) in singleplayer. Indeed, multiplayer is the only place where the strengths of Halo - a balanced weapon selection, level design, armour system - has been allowed to truly shine.

Zombrex

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Silent Cartographer isn't too bad at all but some levels like Assault on the control room have an awful lot of enclosed corridors connecting the open areas.

I found it pretty bad, tbh. Found it a poor ending to a good start in the level. But then I found Halo poor in general. But ssshh, don't tell anyone

Zombrex

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Turning corners to find what is in many cases almost exactly the same room you were just in? And then, to add insult to injury, having to do it backwards?

Nail on the head tbh. Even the large open areas were often copied and pasted in a series. You fight in a big open space, go into a bottleneck corridor, emerge into an identical open space, fight through that to a bottleneck corridor repeat. Then do the whole game backwards.

Halo negated on of the key aspects of FPS, exploration. You want to see what the next area is going to be like, you want to see what cool new stuff the level designers have come up with. Halo the cool new stuff is the previous room rotated 90 degrees. How exciting.

Retr0gamer

The corridors in the snow level got so bad that the only way I knew I wasn't in the same corridor I'd already walked through was because of the arrows on the ground.

I remember Edge hyping up the amazing beach landing sequence. I was expecting something like the beach landing from Allied Assault and then being halfway through the snow level only then realising that I'd already played through it.

Jazzy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

You misinterpret the point: the regenerating shield mechanic facilitated and encouraged movement, aggressive play, good flow in encounters and the dodging meta-game; it didn't invent these mechanics, because they are the base characteristics of a good First-person Shooter. Multiplayer and singleplayer are two different beasts. It's relatively easy to facilitate movement and aggressive play and good flow in encounters in multiplayer, because players are always going to optimize their chances of winning. Developers can exploit this need for advantage to place, as you say, armour, health, superior weapons throughout the map to encourage movement and aggressive play et cetera. The problem is much more complex in singleplayer.

well as you said, aggressive play, good flow and encouraging movement are base characteristics in good FPS games. the recharging shield suited halo and its combat well, but thats it. the actual combat wasnt really that good. the weapons seemed either ridiculously feeble or stupidly over-powered, there was f-all variety in enemies and the tactics for winning were too few. it was only when the game opened up into a vehicle section or a big set piece that the combat was actually good and then your shield tended to count for dick all. i dont really get why you think the shield is a big deal, its like saying the HEV suit in half life was a big deal. it just wasnt, it was a nice feature in the game but thats pretty much it

ríomhaire

I hate how the Halo games got darker with the sequels. I don't mean the tone or story, just actually darker. Everything was crisp and easy to spot in the first one. I could tell the difference between all the enemies at a glance as well as their rank. I played an hour of Reach and I was squinting to tell the difference between difference between different Elites and what guns they were holding on a 40" screen (split-screen that is, but still probably bigger than the TV I played CE on).

Also they nerfed all the guns. Shotgun at point blank was one of my favourite ways to kill Elites in CE, tried it in 2 and it didn't even make them flinch, they just immediately punched me over the head and killed me. Needler and plasma pistol got huge nerfs too and the Assault Rifle replaced with the crappy SMG that was only decent when you dual-wielded them and then not at the same range that he Assault Rifle was good at. They also added Brutes and Drones and sniper-Jackals, none of which were not fun to fight. Halo 2 was such a let-down.

Zombrex

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The corridors in the snow level got so bad that the only way I knew I wasn't in the same corridor I'd already walked through was because of the arrows on the ground.

I remember Edge hyping up the amazing beach landing sequence. I was expecting something like the beach landing from Allied Assault and then being halfway through the snow level only then realising that I'd already played through it.

lol, exact same thing happened to me. Played the entire game on the PC waiting for this amazing level, never happened. Had to read online to find out where it was supposed to be and then was like "Is that it?!" when found out.

What ever about Edge over hyping Halo in general, the over hyping of the beach landing is utterly ridiculous. You are doing little more than running up a hill with enemies shooting at you.

Jazzy

Wicknight wrote: »

What ever about Edge over hyping Halo in general, the over hyping of the beach landing is utterly ridiculous. You are doing little more than running up a hill with enemies shooting at you.

im convinced Edge actually lived in bungies arsehole for about 5 years