Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

CramCycle

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's weird that they are implementing it. Must mean the Halo engines have been building upon the Halo 1 tech just like Source is built upon Half-Lifes modified quake engine still. Looks like it's going to be a straight prettied up port, warts and all

It will be running the original Halo game and then running another set of code in parallel which updates the graphics as the game is running as far as I understand which is why you can switch between the two views while playing.

AFAIK:pac:

NeoKubrick

CramCycle wrote: »

Please stop use this term, it makes no sense in relation to most sinc=gle player FPSs. It makes sense in terms of alot of mutliplayer and racing games :pac::pac::pac:

Neither do you apparently, please define circular for the masses.

Well, because you don't understand the term is not a good reason to stop using it.

You claim that I misunderstand 'linear', but previous, imply, that racing games have circular level design. The majority of racing games have linear level design: a linear and connected track. The subtle but important point is that the game mechanics operate on the linear track and that if the player trails off of it, the player is punished. There is nothing 'circular' about most racing games' tracks. Circular level design is the opposite of linear level design: area is the opposite of corridor in level design. Circular level design in singleplayer FPS is not only applicable, but also a base requirement for interesting combat encounters; that is why almost every good competitive multiplayer map in any FPS game is based in an area with multiple paths, not a long linear corridor. 'Circular' level design enables players to flank and encircle the opposition with paths and rewards movement and aggression; 'linear' level design doesn't enable flanking and rewards camping and defensive play and has only one path. 'Circular' level design isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Shiminay wrote: »

[...] You are not communicating this circular design thing effectively, maybe you can clarify further. [...]

See above.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And I have played it so stop being stupid about it.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

But you didn't have any PC gaming experience from that time did you?

Yes, I did and as proven in this thread, you are in no position to question someone's PC gaming experience.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And the self proclaimed AI expert shows that when it comes to AI and coding he doesn't know his arse from his elbow. [...]

Yeah, you don't understand game AI: too busy with arses and elbows. "Binary choice" does not equal "Binary logic switches"; the tool programmers use is Boolean logic which is pointing out the necessary, but should be redundant, obvious for you. Game AI developers use high-level programming languages that implement higher representation of systems than "binary choice": Finite State Machines, Hierarchical Finite State Machines, Behaviour Trees and Planners. Subsumption is a reactive architecture: senses input from its environment and based upon internal logic or a simple mapping associated with that input, actuates an action if not subsumed by a higher priority action. This is not "binary choice": this is called 'logical implication' (A = Shield Low, B = Retreat: If A, B; A → . There is no "choice" and further, AI typically have more than two behaviours to choose from, not "binary". You demonstratively don't even know what a Subsumption architecture is; therefore, you are in no position to claim how high-level Halo: Combat Evolved's is. There is no "binary choice" in the context of game AI, or Halo: Combat Evolved's.

Operation Flashpoint's AI was broken more often than not: you are grasping at straws.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

So I was right then. It is a good article however Halo certainly wasn't the first game to construct it's AI in that way since AI has always been constructed in the same way just layering complexity on it as it advanced.

No, Halo 2 was the first game to use Behaviour Trees, because Damian Isla, lead AI programmer for Halo 2 development, pioneered Behaviour Trees for the game AI industry. Game AI has not always been constructed in the exact same way: Finite State Machines, Hierarchical Finite State Machines, Behaviour Trees, Neural Nets, and Planners (GOAP).

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Good AI disguises this. Halo doesn't and therefore the AI lacks the surprises you get from games with good AI like Half-Life or Fear. [...]

Shiminay wrote: »

I would personally disagree that obvious AI is a good thing too btw, if it's easy to predict then it becomes a "by the numbers" exercise and that does not make for exciting game play because if you can predict with a reasonable amount of accuracy how a CPU controlled enemy will react, making this "obvious" as you've said is a poor design choice. I personally found the behaviour of the AI in Half-Life and in particular Op Flash more challenging to play against.

Good AI doesn't disguise its cause-and-effect behaviour; it attempts to make it obvious to the player. If the player cannot understand what the AI-character is doing and why it is doing it, the player cannot construct a behavioral model for that AI-character; thus, the player cannot predict what the AI-character will do and the game mechanics degrade to reactive (reacting to and shooting the unpredictable AI) for the player. The AI in Half-Life don't surprise the player and Valve AI programmers specifically restrained the AI's ability both in Half-Life and Half-Life 2 to only react to the player when seen by the player. FEAR scripts constant enemy chatter to keep the player informed.

An unpredictable and entirely random AI-character with 100% accuracy may be challenging but it is the worst AI design in a First-Person Shooter. The single mechanic it enables is reaction aiming: testing execution and consistency. That isn't interesting or fun. The goal of game AI is not the goal of academic AI: game AI's purpose is to create interesting experiences for the player.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm sorry, and I agree with some of your points, but that one is absolute rubbish. To claim effectively that 'tight pacing' is prattle in gaming is significantly underselling gaming as an artform. [...]

Universal 'Pace' only exists if there is a definitive length in the piece; Film and Music have a definitive length. Half Life 2 and Halo don't have definitive length, because the player is in control of the 'pace'; the player is a variable. It is impossible to quantify for every player because different players will have different experiences of the length of time with said games. You could play and finish a section of a Half-Life 2 in two hours and I, in thirty minutes and another person, in one hour, and therefore, the 'pace' of that section is one thing to you, another, to me etc. To state this plain fact is not to undersell the medium; the medium gives authorship to the player and that is a strength of the medium, not a weakness. However, it gives up 'pacing' (in most cases) which is a weakness that developers cannot mitigate for other than creating good mechanics, AI and levels, consistently.

Half-Life 2 was neither "well-paced" nor "poor pacing". It was just a great game with a high consistency of good mechanics. In Halo, The Library level wasn't "poor pacing": it was, especially relative to the engaging combat that preceded it, a poor mechanic with linear level design.

Half-Life 2 and Halo are structured from two different game designs. Half-Life 2 is designed in-breadth: it has myriad mechanics and it rolls out these throughout the game consistently but the mechanics are not explored deeply. Halo is designed in-depth: it has a few mechanics and it repeats these mechanics throughout the game and explores them deeply ("30 seconds of fun"). There are exceptions in both. A good analogy in the difference between the two would be the Mario series and the Zelda series. Mario has, for the most part, one mechanic (Jump) and that mechanic is explored deeply throughout the game (it too, like Halo, changes-up but it's exceptional); the Zelda series has countless mechanics and they are rolled out in dungeons, mini-games etc. One structure is not inherently superior than the other. Halo's combat was far superior to Half-Life 2's and Half-Life 2's diversity in mechanics was far superior to Halo's.

Jazzy wrote: »

do you feel threatened or something by Halo not being as good as you think it is or something? there is pretty much overwhelming evidence on this thread that it isnt the champion of gaming that it is to you.

Well, I can direct the same question at you. Do you feel threatened or something by Halo not being as bad as you think it is or something? If you think that's a ridiculous question, then try to imagine how ridiculous your question really is. I don't see the point in your disingenuous exaggerations of my argument for Halo or my explanations of the regenerating mechanics or your trivializing them. It smacks of avoidance and also, you invoke that the majority in this thread don't agree, which is idiotic. Agreement has no relation to the validity of an argument. You could bring forty dunces in to this thread to agree with you and it would make your argument no less right or wrong - Madonna fans or not.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Yes, I did and as proven in this thread, you are in no position to question someone's PC gaming experience.

I'm calling BS.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Yeah, you don't understand game AI: too busy with arses and elbows. "Binary choice" does not equal "Binary logic switches"; the tool programmers use is Boolean logic which is pointing out the necessary, but should be redundant, obvious for you. Game AI developers use high-level programming languages that implement higher representation of systems than "binary choice": Finite State Machines, Hierarchical Finite State Machines, Behaviour Trees and Planners. Subsumption is a reactive architecture: senses input from its environment and based upon internal logic or a simple mapping associated with that input, actuates an action if not subsumed by a higher priority action. This is not "binary choice": this is called 'logical implication' (A = Shield Low, B = Retreat: If A, B; A → . There is no "choice" and further, AI typically have more than two behaviours to choose from, not "binary". You demonstratively don't even know what a Subsumption architecture is; therefore, you are in no position to claim how high-level Halo: Combat Evolved's is. There is no "binary choice" in the context of game AI, or Halo: Combat Evolved's.

You should read up on all those buzz words you are using and take a look at what they actual mean before throwing them out there. You haven't a clue.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

No, Halo 2 was the first game to use Behaviour Trees, because Damian Isla, lead AI programmer for Halo 2 development, pioneered Behaviour Trees for the game AI industry. Game AI has not always been constructed in the exact same way: Finite State Machines, Hierarchical Finite State Machines, Behaviour Trees, Neural Nets, and Planners (GOAP).

And where did you read that because it's absolute bull. I'm sure there's a few people on boards that will argue that they must be the pioneer of this sort of AI since they had been doing the same thing with FPS game editors back in the 90's. All videogame AI is built on the same behaviour tree's all the way back into the 80's. All that changes is the complexity. Halo 1's AI was built the same as Halo 2's as were games before it. It's not just the AI, games design works in the same process trees as well.

CramCycle

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Well, because you don't understand the term is not a good reason to stop using it.

It didn't make any sense because you weren't explaining it.

You claim that I misunderstand 'linear', but previous, imply, that racing games have circular level design. The majority of racing games have linear level design: a linear and connected track. The subtle but important point is that the game mechanics operate on the linear track and that if the player trails off of it, the player is punished. There is nothing 'circular' about most racing games' tracks. Circular level design is the opposite of linear level design: area is the opposite of corridor in level design. Circular level design in singleplayer FPS is not only applicable, but also a base requirement for interesting combat encounters; that is why almost every good competitive multiplayer map in any FPS game is based in an area with multiple paths, not a long linear corridor. 'Circular' level design enables players to flank and encircle the opposition with paths and rewards movement and aggression; 'linear' level design doesn't enable flanking and rewards camping and defensive play and has only one path. 'Circular' level design isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Its still linear, don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing (I enjoyed HALO, not the best game ever but an enjoyable romp at the time), but linear implies that there is a route from A to B which you must follow, complete certain tasks, in a certain order, that is what most (obviously not everyone) understands linear gaming to be, feel free to correct me. Circular implies you start at A and you finish at A and I have never heard the term or any game player or designer use it before, except in a completely different context to how you use it.

For example, you have a level where your objective is to get from point A to B, there are 3 gates you must walk through, you can only walk through the gates in one particular order before you get to the endpoint. You can leave all the space you want to strafe.

I can also see what you are doing referring to the multiplayer. Obviously most multiplayer is not linear, but we were all talking about the single player AFAIK.

Basically having a big open area in the middle of a level does not make it non linear if there is only one way to get to the end.

My comment about the racing games was obviously a joke because you kept saying circular with no context so I'll leave that aside.

Also Google "Boolean" you clearly have no idea,

johnny_ultimate

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Universal 'Pace' only exists if there is a definitive length in the piece; Film and Music have a definitive length. Half Life 2 and Halo don't have definitive length, because the player is in control of the 'pace'; the player is a variable. It is impossible to quantify for every player because different players will have different experiences of the length of time with said games. You could play and finish a section of a Half-Life 2 in two hours and I, in thirty minutes and another person, in one hour, and therefore, the 'pace' of that section is one thing to you, another, to me etc. To state this plain fact is not to undersell the medium; the medium gives authorship to the player and that is a strength of the medium, not a weakness. However, it gives up 'pacing' (in most cases) which is a weakness that developers cannot mitigate for other than creating good mechanics, AI and levels, consistently.

Half-Life 2 was neither "well-paced" nor "poor pacing". It was just a great game with a high consistency of good mechanics. In Halo, The Library level wasn't "poor pacing": it was, especially relative to the engaging combat that preceded it, a poor mechanic with linear level design.

Half-Life 2 and Halo are structured from two different game designs. Half-Life 2 is designed in-breadth: it has myriad mechanics and it rolls out these throughout the game consistently but the mechanics are not explored deeply. Halo is designed in-depth: it has a few mechanics and it repeats these mechanics throughout the game and explores them deeply ("30 seconds of fun"). There are exceptions in both. A good analogy in the difference between the two would be the Mario series and the Zelda series. Mario has, for the most part, one mechanic (Jump) and that mechanic is explored deeply throughout the game (it too, like Halo, changes-up but it's exceptional); the Zelda series has countless mechanics and they are rolled out in dungeons, mini-games etc. One structure is not inherently superior than the other. Halo's combat was far superior to Half-Life 2's and Half-Life 2's diversity in mechanics was far superior to Halo's.

You can try and detract from the main argument with pseudo-intellectual waffle and thinly veiled insults all you want, but it's still rubbish. I'm not talking about mechanics - I accept they're completely different between our two examples. Yes, pacing is complicated in gaming but it's not non-existent. In open world, fighting (although one could argue a good Street Fighter match is one that moves along at a steady pace) and multiplayer games, it certainly is hard and potentially futile to define. In 'linear' single player gaming it isn't. There's a start and an end point, and a strictly defined amount of content in between. The game designer's job is to try and get the player from start to end. This is done by carefully directing the experience, by ensuring the typical player (a majority, ones who won't stay in an area cleared of enemies an hour ago simply jumping on the spot) is kept moving through the story. Yes, player ability comes into play - like when a player reaches a difficult spot and has to restart a number of times. It's the designers job to ensure this only happens when they want it to. You don't have to call it pacing if you don't want (difficulty curve, whatever) but that's what it is - directing the speed of a game. And yes pacing differs between different games, as it does in film and music - a 20 minute classical composition is hardly comparable to a 3 minute pop-song, much the same way the pacing of 2001 isn't comparable with that of Star Wars. Indeed, attention spans differ between people radically, which complicates matters even further. Different strokes and all that.

Indeed, Valve are well known as particularly awesome pacers. They focus test to death - one article recently pointed out that if a playtester stared at a wall for a second too long in Portal 2, they either put an arrow on it or got rid if it all together. Everything's there for a reason. It's pretty much the equivalent of a director removing a scene from the film if the majority of a test audience starts yawning during it, or an ending being changed in post-production because it doesn't make much sense in context. By your own argument, literature shouldn't be considered 'well paced' either. It has a definite 'amount of content' but depends on the reader's speed and ability. But there's certainly a comparison between a well paced page turner and a lazy thriller with no sense of urgency or structure. To carefully 'direct' the audience's attention is one of an artist's most important jobs.

There are many types of games where you'll find the majority of players will take a similar time to get through the game. And the more engaged they're kept throughout, the more favourable they'll be. Naughty Dog barely miss a beat with Uncharted 2 - I've heard few complain they were bored, although the 'yeti' section is certainly weaker than the others. Bungie missed beats with Halo, ensuring a large amount of the audience was bored silly. Pacing doesn't apply to all games in the same way, but it does to a lot. And Halo is one where poor pacing is a notable flaw. You can try and distract with irrelevant tangents all you want, but to ignore that seems to me like you're just arguing for arguing sake. And looking at the way you're engaging with debate with others, well I can certainly confirm my suspicions. [/participation in discussion]

Jazzy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Well, I can direct the same question at you. Do you feel threatened or something by Halo not being as bad as you think it is or something? If you think that's a ridiculous question, then try to imagine how ridiculous your question really is. I don't see the point in your disingenuous exaggerations of my argument for Halo or my explanations of the regenerating mechanics or your trivializing them. It smacks of avoidance and also, you invoke that the majority in this thread don't agree, which is idiotic. Agreement has no relation to the validity of an argument. You could bring forty dunces in to this thread to agree with you and it would make your argument no less right or wrong - Madonna fans or not.

avoidance of what? the fact that you have built Halo up to be this awe inspiring super game and we all have to accept this as fact due to its recharging shield, 'circular' level design and masterful AI? bollocks. it was great for its time and a lot of fun but its not a patch on true classics. what it will go down for is being the first great FPS on the console and the step after goldeneye. apparantly that isnt good enough to you because, and this is the elephant in the room, you are a massive overly biased fanboy of the series. I can see it now, sitting there with a monocle on discussing the merits of guilty spark 343's dialogue comparison to Dr Strangelove himself while sipping on a cappuccino thinking "by god, im a genius, they are both just discussing the wiping out of humanity.. bungie must have loved the work of kubrick!". the reality being that you just got caught up in the hype of a video game and the marketing and cant let go because it would somehow devalue your mental image of yourself

also - its pretty hilarious that every time you reply theres 3 or 4 of us right there proving you wrong but no, apparantly we are idiots for not acknowledging the greatness that is Halo Combat Evolved. what about the ****ty narrative, we havent touched on that yet. was it written in a circular, rectangular or oval pattern or what word are you going to come up with to defend this particular weakness of your fave game?

hooradiation

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And where did you read that because it's absolute bull. I'm sure there's a few people on boards that will argue that they must be the pioneer of this sort of AI since they had been doing the same thing with FPS game editors back in the 90's. All videogame AI is built on the same behaviour tree's all the way back into the 80's. All that changes is the complexity. Halo 1's AI was built the same as Halo 2's as were games before it. It's not just the AI, games design works in the same process trees as well.

oh for the love of god. Every time you pretend you know what your talking about when it comes to technical issues it's gets even more maddening.

While the behaviour trees in games are closer to hierarchical finite state machines than true behaviour trees it's a load of bullshit to claim that it's "just" a more complex FSM.
It's a lot more than that and the flexibility alone that behaviour trees give over a standard FSM makes a mockery of your insistence that it's "simply more complex".

The work done by the AI team at halo on this system is important. They created a scalable, efficient method of using this idea in games, and their work is still important within the industry today.
There is a good goddamn reason that Damian Isla is the man that gives talks on this very subject and not anyone from boards who mucked about with game editors in the 90's.

And if you stopped trying to be diametrically opposed to NeoKubrick on every goddamn point you'd realise what a utter nonsense you're peddling.

man, fuck this noise, I'm out.

CramCycle

WIN - my little brother found my original HALO disc and is bringing it up to me on Monday.

Since the anniversary edition is still using the same game underneath all the gloss, do you think they will release a patch at any stage in the future to update it for anyone who managed to not scratch their disc to sh1t or trade it in?

Obviously not straight away but does anyone think it will be done in the future (a few months/a year down the line).

Jazzy

hooradiation wrote: »

man, fuck this noise, I'm out.

this sh1t just got real

Twilightning

This thread:



Call it a day guys, really.

Healium

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's weird that they are implementing it. Must mean the Halo engines have been building upon the Halo 1 tech just like Source is built upon Half-Lifes modified quake engine still. Looks like it's going to be a straight prettied up port, warts and all

Well, that's the point. It's supposed to be warts and all. They're simply updating the game to HD, and hopefully introducing new people to the franchise. Halo 2 is ok, because it actually runs in 720p. If they messed with the original at all, the fans would go crazy. While it might be an awful level, I can't wait to go through the library in HD That awful, awful library. But it's iconic at this stage. I like how 343 aren't touching the original game at all.

I don't think it's weird. I think it's a fantastic addition. The ability to switch between two engines with the push of a button is gonna be awesome

CramCycle wrote: »

WIN - my little brother found my original HALO disc and is bringing it up to me on Monday.

Since the anniversary edition is still using the same game underneath all the gloss, do you think they will release a patch at any stage in the future to update it for anyone who managed to not scratch their disc to sh1t or trade it in?

Obviously not straight away but does anyone think it will be done in the future (a few months/a year down the line).

I think you're missing the point of Anniversary... :pac:

There is absolutely no way in hell that that will happen. EVER. This game will be running two engines simultaneously, including a HD graphics engine. The original Xbox could in no way handle this, and I'm not even sure if you can get patches since the original Xbox LIVE shut down.

The whole point of Anniversary is that you're getting two games for one. If you want to play through the game as-is, with the original graphics, you can do that (albeit with a nice, improved 360 controller instead of that giant original one). If you want to play the game in HD, you can do that. If you want to flick between them, go for it. This game will be absolutely no different from the disc you currently have, unless you switch to HD graphics

johnny_ultimate

The whole point of Anniversary is that you're getting two games for one. If you want to play through the game as-is, with the original graphics, you can do that (albeit with a nice, improved 360 controller instead of that giant original one). If you want to play the game in HD, you can do that. If you want to flick between them, go for it. This game will be absolutely no different from the disc you currently have, unless you switch to HD graphics

In fairness, you aren't getting two games, you're getting one with an optional coat of paint :pac:

Retr0gamer

Yeah it's very disappointing. A bit like the Ocarina of Time release on the 3DS. There's lots of scope there from ironing out problems with the originals and making them better games but it's squandered.

Retr0gamer

hooradiation wrote: »

While the behaviour trees in games are closer to hierarchical finite state machines than true behaviour trees it's a load of bullshit to claim that it's "just" a more complex FSM.
It's a lot more than that and the flexibility alone that behaviour trees give over a standard FSM makes a mockery of your insistence that it's "simply more complex".

The work done by the AI team at halo on this system is important. They created a scalable, efficient method of using this idea in games, and their work is still important within the industry today.
There is a good goddamn reason that Damian Isla is the man that gives talks on this very subject and not anyone from boards who mucked about with game editors in the 90's.

Behaviour trees to me just seem like a way to plan out and implement functions that have been used in AI for years. It just looks like the way anyone coding AI would build their AI with any organisational skill. It seems like a buzzword for the proper planning, organisation and implementation of AI code rather than something completely new and is something that any AI coder should be doing anyway. I'm genuinely interested here.

chopperbyrne

I'm still waiting for a proper explanation of how Halos level design is circular.

Giving room to flank and strafe enemies does not make a lick of difference to your linear progress through the levels.

Linearity is not a bad thing, it's pretty much vital in most games, but there wasn't enough variety in a lot of Halos levels to disguise the linearity.

o1s1n

The only thing that's circular here is this thread. A nauseous merry-go-round which for some annoying reason I can't stop reading.

DesperateDan

People may disagree with Edge, and I would consider myself an Edge fanboy (I have genuinely never been led astray in the 10 years I've been reading), but this article sums up many points about CE in a pretty informed manner. I would agree with every point in it and its well worth a read if you haven't seen it before.

Regarding the anniversary edition my mind is split in two, its the beginning of Microsoft raping the already dry Halo cow, but a neat idea and one I will certainly purchase.

CramCycle

Healium wrote: »

There is absolutely no way in hell that that will happen. EVER. This game will be running two engines simultaneously, including a HD graphics engine. The original Xbox could in no way handle this, and I'm not even sure if you can get patches since the original Xbox LIVE shut down.

Sorry, I meant it for the PC version, I don't see why they couldn't for a small fee in a couple of months as DLC.

CORaven

Healium wrote: »

Ok, so it's going to be one disc. The classic maps are built for Reach, and they'll be putting out a patch/title update for Reach that'll let 343 give it a more classic feel

So they will be changing the multiplayer in Reach, to something I may dislike?

NeoKubrick

chopperbyrne wrote: »

I'm still waiting for a proper explanation of how Halos level design is circular. Giving room to flank and strafe enemies does not make a lick of difference to your linear progress through the levels.

CramCycle wrote: »

Its still linear, don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing (I enjoyed HALO, not the best game ever but an enjoyable romp at the time), but linear implies that there is a route from A to B which you must follow, complete certain tasks, in a certain order, that is what most (obviously not everyone) understands linear gaming to be, feel free to correct me.
Circular implies you start at A and you finish at A and I have never heard the term or any game player or designer use it before, except in a completely different context to how you use it. [...]
Also Google "Boolean" you clearly have no idea,

You slightly misunderstood the discussion, then. What you are referring to is linear progression and linear objectives, not level design. The discussion pertains to the space in which Halo: Combat Evolved plays, not its sequentiality in either progression (player starts at A and ends at or objectives/tasks (to end at B, player has to do X and then Y). To use an extreme examples to prove the point: in Oblivion, a task is traveling from Chorrol (A) to Anvil (B). The progression in that task is linear but the map design is non-linear and therefore the path is non-linear. In Oblivion, the main story is linear but the mechanics are non-linear (sword, magic, stealth etc.): because the story is linear does not mean that it is linear gaming.

'Linear' refers to sequential design: a straight line, a corridor, no alternative, no options. 'Circular' refers to design that the player can retreat back to the entry point of the room/area without retreating on the same path and is not a corridor and it has alternative and options. This 'Circular' level design is where the majority of the encounters in the game take place.

By suggesting that I google "Boolean", CramCycle, I assume that you don't understand "Boolean logic" or any of these C programming operators (||, &&, !: logical OR, AND, NOT, respectively) or how Boolean logic relates to both the hardware and software of a computer.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You should read up on all those buzz words you are using and take a look at what they actual mean before throwing them out there. You haven't a clue.
[...]

Don't be intentionally vague to avoid explaining yourself: name which "buzz" words I have misused. It's clear that you're not only talking about a subject without any knowledge or experience, but attempting to be an authority on a subject with superficial and incomplete knowledge (again).

Damian Isla pioneered the Behaviour Directed Acrylic Graph in Halo 2, which the game AI industry commonly refers to as Behaviour Trees. It may surprise him and everyone else in the industry to learn that people (from Boards no less!) were using the same system, that he formulated and codified during the development of Halo 2, in the 80s and the 90s. Hierarchical Finite State Machines (HFSM) were not formalized until 1987 and were not used in the game industry until the 90s. Behaviour Trees is a synthesis of HFSM, scripts and planners; therefore, your claim is an impossibility. Game AI and game design was not built upon the same behaviour trees back to the 80s. The most popular implementation of game design and game AI was/is the design pattern, Finite State Machine.

Jazzy wrote: »

[...] also - its pretty hilarious that every time you reply theres 3 or 4 of us right there proving you wrong

"Bollocks". If your argument had any substantial proof or logic, you wouldn't be now abandoning it and lowering yourself to childish insults and ridicule and attempting to focus on the person rather than the argument. That's avoidance. You spent your last previous posts claiming how the regenerating shield wasn't a "big deal" and ignoring its mechanics when explained to you but previously claimed it had a "legacy". It's ironic and hypocritical that you cannot let go that Halo: Combat Evolved is much more sophisticated than you assumed and thought, but claim that I cannot let go because of the hype.

In fact, it would be the opposite. I bought an Xbox, because of the hype for Halo: Combat Evolved (didn't everyone buy the console for that reason?) and was underwhelmed by it. It wasn't until procrastinating study for exams a couple years later that I picked it up again, played it on higher difficulty settings and liked it. Then years later, analyzing the game design to understand why I liked it so much.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

[...] Yes, pacing is complicated in gaming but it's not non-existent. [...] You don't have to call it pacing if you don't want (difficulty curve, whatever) but that's what it is - directing the speed of a game.

I don't think you read my response to you, because there was no insults in my previous post to you (explicit or "thinly-veiled" and hypocritical of you to say so considering your "illogical rabid fandom" comment) and the majority of the response specifically responds to your error in attributing universal pacing to games that cannot, by definition of their form, possess it and the minority to your error in claiming that games that have broad and many mechanics are superior to deep and few. I did not claim that 'Pacing' in games is non-existent, only that the requirement, definitive length in time (not "content"), for universal pacing to exist Halo: Combat Evolved and Half-Life 2 do not have.

The difference between literature and gaming is obvious: literature does not give its readers an exam at the end of every page and prevent its readers from unlocking the next page if they do not pass the exam. Any claims that either game has good or bad "pacing" does not apply, universally, because players have authorship and the player's motivation, perception and ability are variables that the developer cannot control. In the aforementioned games, the player, not the developer, directs the speed of the game and that is dependent upon the player's motivation ("I'll stop playing at this point" / "Going to bed"), perception ("I don't know where to go" / "I don't know what to do") and ability ("I can't get past this part" / "It's too difficult"). Valve understand this, and this understanding that the player has the authorship is one of the reasons that they playtest for "fun" (not "focus testing"), constantly. A game designer's job is to create games that are fun. This goal is achieved by game mechanics, not "pacing".

chopperbyrne

NeoKubrick wrote: »

'Linear' refers to sequential design: a straight line, a corridor, no alternative, no options. 'Circular' refers to design that the player can retreat back to the entry point of the room/area without retreating on the same path and is not a corridor and it has alternative and options. This 'Circular' level design is where the majority of the encounters in the game take place.

I was giving you the benefit of doubt, but that is a ludicrous definition.

Retr0gamer

You should give over with the circular design stuff. You've pulled that phrase out of your arse just to have an excuse to moan about something.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Damian Isla pioneered the Behaviour Directed Acrylic Graph in Halo 2, which the game AI industry commonly refers to as Behaviour Trees. It may surprise him and everyone else in the industry to learn that people (from Boards no less!) were using the same system, that he formulated and codified during the development of Halo 2, in the 80s and the 90s. Hierarchical Finite State Machines (HFSM) were not formalized until 1987 and were not used in the game industry until the 90s. Behaviour Trees is a synthesis of HFSM, scripts and planners; therefore, your claim is an impossibility. Game AI and game design was not built upon the same behaviour trees back to the 80s. The most popular implementation of game design and game AI was/is the design pattern, Finite State Machine.

It seems to me than Damian Isla put a name to 'Behaviour Trees' rather than inventing them. They just seem like a way of organising scripts and logic processes in an efficient manner by reusing code in an efficient way. It doesn't seem special to me, it's just good coding. Just like with the 30 second cycle it doesn't seem to me like Bungie pioneered anything but just were one of the few that opened up to the development community about design and coding. It looks very similar to me to the way programmers of old would reuse as much code as possible to save memory. I find it hard to believe that programmers weren't organising their code in an efficient manner like this before Halo 2, i seems the obvious way to do it if memory restrictions aren't a problem.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

In fact, it would be the opposite. I bought an Xbox, because of the hype for Halo: Combat Evolved (didn't everyone buy the console for that reason?) and was underwhelmed by it. It wasn't until procrastinating study for exams a couple years later that I picked it up again, played it on higher difficulty settings and liked it. Then years later, analyzing the game design to understand why I liked it so much.

Sounds like you fell for the hype machine. 'The literature says I must like it so it has to be good'.

Jazzy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

"Bollocks". If your argument had any substantial proof or logic, you wouldn't be now abandoning it and lowering yourself to childish insults and ridicule and attempting to focus on the person rather than the argument. That's avoidance. You spent your last previous posts claiming how the regenerating shield wasn't a "big deal" and ignoring its mechanics when explained to you but previously claimed it had a "legacy". It's ironic and hypocritical that you cannot let go that Halo: Combat Evolved is much more sophisticated than you assumed and thought, but claim that I cannot let go because of the hype.

In fact, it would be the opposite. I bought an Xbox, because of the hype for Halo: Combat Evolved (didn't everyone buy the console for that reason?) and was underwhelmed by it. It wasn't until procrastinating study for exams a couple years later that I picked it up again, played it on higher difficulty settings and liked it. Then years later, analyzing the game design to understand why I liked it so much.

proof and logic such as writing a ton of words trying to explain "circular" game design and dressing basic FPS combat up as this marvellous fantastic ode to video games?
the mechanics of the shield are incredibly simple and dont really add much, you are imagining they add far more because you love Halo so much.
its legacy in console shooters is that of regenerating health in pretty much every game. not so true of the CoD franchise because IIRC they had that in CoD 1 on the PC.

so, you used Halo on an exam and are pretty much believing your own misguided judgements and thoughts and you cant possibly be wrong because as we have seen before, you are an intellectual.

OR

you are just talking absolute crap because you are a fanboy and are such a fanboy that you have pretty much made things up in your head that arent there because your ego cant deal with being wrong because you honestly believe that you are that smart. i once read an article of yours were you compared the film Lolita to some esports scene, thats not smart, thats retarded. same thing applies here, just because you believe you cannot be wrong you make up this big fantasy where something small like a recharging shield is a massive deal and how running through corridors is in fact running through a "circular" level. i know you dont like this but often people hate the truth when its laid out in front of them

johnny_ultimate

Just FYI NeoKubrick, lest I be misinterpreted (since I did promise to bow out)

1. I am aware you didnt insult me, but you did with others. And the fandom comment was directed at the XBL crew as opposed to you who can at least partially explain why you like the game.

2. You are putting words in my mouth. I adore plenty of games with limited mechanics. Vanquish and Death Smiles are two recent favourites. I feel both these examples get the most out of their design unlike Halo.

3. I feel literature also can effectively test an audience. A sentence with certain words could hold a reader back from continuing or understanding the meaning. I'd also personally feel you overestimate the authorship a player has in Halo or HL2.

Also, I do not deny aspects of Halo were innovative and important. The weapons, the AI, the shield, the vehicles. Others - the level design, the story - I have issues with, and ones that IMO hold it back.

Anyway, just some clarifications. And now I'm officially out, since this has become little other than a frustrating war of pedantry

RolandIRL

As much as i enjoyed Halo, it did have its flaws. it'll be disappointing if they just go with a straight remake without changing anything but the graphics. Look at Tomb Raider: Anniversary...very similar to the original, but different mechanics and a few tweaks to the level design made it challenging enough for people who had played the original like me.

NeoKubrick

chopperbyrne wrote: »

I was giving you the benefit of doubt, but that is a ludicrous definition.

It isn't. It explains that level design, accurately: "'Circular' refers to design that the player can retreat back to the entry point of the room/area without retreating on the same path".

johnny_ultimate wrote:

1. I am aware you didnt insult me, but you did with others. [...]

Well, I have always played the ball, not the man, in this thread. If you are not prepared to callout others who have directly insulted (because they are moderators, long-standing members etc.), then you shouldn't be prepared to callout anyone. You judged Halo on the basis of its repetitive mechanics and compared it to Half-Life 2 and I responded to that by noting the difference between that game's design and Half-Life 2's which are different. Apologies if I extended this to mean that you did not rate the design. Literature does not test its reader. The reader can fail to understand a word, but there is no barrier to the next sentence, paragraph, page et cetera. If a player does not have the ability to pass a section in a game, then, normally, the player cannot continue to the next section. The pace in Halo and Half-Life 2 is ultimately in the authorship of the player. That's not an overestimation: it's just the reality of the structure of both games. I presumed that by the absence of an argument, you would understand that I agreed with most of post relating to the developer's role.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You should give over with the circular design stuff. You've pulled that phrase out of your arse just to have an excuse to moan about something. [...]

No, it's a principle of good FPS level design. That last comment was a joke, or at least I assume it was. Do you remember posting a Eurogamer review to validate your opinion? 'The literature says I must like it so it has to be good', indeed.

Where's hooradiation when you need him? The main bulk of your post reads like superficial knowledge of AI and programming; you implicitly assume that game AI is easy and obvious to code which it is not. Damian Isla pioneered the Behaviour DAG/Trees in his development for Halo 2; his paper on it is highly influential and widely cited. Behaviour trees wouldn't seem special to you, because you are not a AI programmer or a coder and therefore do not understand AI programming. To those that do, Behaviour Trees were/are superior to the standard and current, at the time, AI systems and therefore AI programmers have adopted them en masse.

Jazzy wrote: »

you are just talking absolute crap because you are a fanboy [...]

That's nice logic, chief: completely reversible. You're trying so very hard to distance this argument away from the point, and closer to the person. If your argument was superior and it made any sense, and it doesn't, you wouldn't have to lower yourself to childish personal attacks and irrelevant shit (The article you are referring to was about an employee of an esports company who left because the owner was alleged to have flirted with a minor. Get it? No?). You did the exact same in Charlie Brooker thread to which I made the other point you've proven again: "you always make sure that you have someone to agree with when replying to me in a thread for confirmation bias". You even explicitly prove this in your last post: "that every time you reply theres 3 or 4 of us right there proving you wrong".

The fact is that you did not know the design of the regenerating shield in Halo and assumed it was "noobish". I explained it to you and rather than accept it or modify your opinion, you still insisted that it was small and simple and not a "big deal". Health mechanics in games are not small or simple: they affect the whole balance of a game. And you are now throwing a tantrum and screaming about "fanboy", because you were wrong and can't accept it.

The irony of it all is that you pontificate about "ego" and "truth" in the same post.

Jazzy

i didnt know the design of the shield in Halo?

yes, im thick and you are a genius. please, do tell us more about circular level design

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

The main bulk of your post reads like superficial knowledge of AI and programming; you implicitly assume that game AI is easy and obvious to code which it is not. Damian Isla pioneered the Behaviour DAG/Trees in his development for Halo 2; his paper on it is highly influential and widely cited. Behaviour trees wouldn't seem special to you, because you are not a AI programmer or a coder and therefore do not understand AI programming. To those that do, Behaviour Trees were/are superior to the standard and current, at the time, AI systems and therefore AI programmers have adopted them en masse.

I'm just trying to find out what's so special about them, I'm interested. They just look like decision trees or HFSM with feedback loops making them more efficient and easier to design. The combination of FSM and scripts isn't exactly unique either. Each node is just a FSM or script. Looks more like efficient coding than anything else.

CramCycle

NeoKubrick wrote: »

You slightly misunderstood the discussion, then. What you are referring to is linear progression and linear objectives, not level design. The discussion pertains to the space in which Halo: Combat Evolved plays, not its sequentiality in either progression (player starts at A and ends at or objectives/tasks (to end at B, player has to do X and then Y). To use an extreme examples to prove the point: in Oblivion, a task is traveling from Chorrol (A) to Anvil (B). The progression in that task is linear but the map design is non-linear and therefore the path is non-linear. In Oblivion, the main story is linear but the mechanics are non-linear (sword, magic, stealth etc.): because the story is linear does not mean that it is linear gaming.

True but the level design in HALO is linear, there are not multiple paths, if you can't see this then this discussion is pointless because you seem unable to see what almost everyone else can in this instance.

As for Oblivion, I haven't got round. to playing it so I can't comment (I have it though and may get back in a few months if i ever get round to it) but if your argument was good enough HALO should be enough.

Can you post up a link to "circular game play", I have heard of circular game design whereby an object/skill/force is designed before the level and the level is built up around to suit this item, but that is a design term and even then you can still have linear gameplay, maybe someone else mentioned the shield and the HALO level design and circular on a google search and you got confused?

'Linear' refers to sequential design: a straight line, a corridor, no alternative, no options. 'Circular' refers to design that the player can retreat back to the entry point of the room/area without retreating on the same path and is not a corridor and it has alternative and options. This 'Circular' level design is where the majority of the encounters in the game take place.

Circular still does not exist in the popular lexicon but if this is its definition then it still does not include HALO, there are one or two points where there might be two doors into the same room but they are very close to each other and make little or no difference to the level design, they are only there to make it more believable (what kind of designer would only have one door into a hanger?). HALO stilll does not give you options such as multiple paths to the endpoint or even different endpoints, it is always the same path, there are no rooms you can by pass if I recall correctly, to get to end of the game you have to go through every set piece in a defined order, there are no choices.

By suggesting that I google "Boolean", CramCycle, I assume that you don't understand "Boolean logic" or any of these C programming operators (||, &&, !: logical OR, AND, NOT, respectively) or how Boolean logic relates to both the hardware and software of a computer.

I do. I haven't done any programming for quite a few years, so I expect anyone on here who does to be out of my league but I did program in C and what I was suggesting is that you google Boolean logic and find out for yourself what it is based on but as someone else has pointed out, it is over simplifying it although it would have been covered in any first year mathmatics course in college. Knowing how to program in C does mean you understand whats going on underneath the code.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Just FYI NeoKubrick, lest I be misinterpreted (since I did promise to bow out)
....
Anyway, just some clarifications. And now I'm officially out, since this has become little other than a frustrating war of pedantry

Me too, I get were Neokubrick is trying to come from, I even went on a google search to find anything that I did not know about in regards to circular game play but I couldn't, I don't agree with his stance but if he comes back with a better argument then I'll review my stance otherwise I'm calling it a day.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It isn't. It explains that level design, accurately: "'Circular' refers to design that the player can retreat back to the entry point of the room/area without retreating on the same path".

Thats still linear gaming if your "different" paths are just walking down different sides of the same room.

Duke 3D done the sort of level design that you keep referring to as circular design (long before HALO) and made it possible to have multiple paths from the start to the finish on a couple of levels. HALO did not have this, HALO had one defined path, fair enough some areas were large but there were not multiple paths, there was one path that you could drive either side off but you could never truly go off the path.

Well, I have always played the ball, not the man, in this thread. If you are not prepared to callout others who have directly insulted (because they are moderators, long-standing members etc.), then you shouldn't be prepared to callout anyone. You judged Halo on the basis of its repetitive mechanics and compared it to Half-Life 2 and I responded to that by noting the difference between that game's design and Half-Life 2's which are different. Apologies if I extended this to mean that you did not rate the design. Literature does not test its reader. The reader can fail to understand a word, but there is no barrier to the next sentence, paragraph, page et cetera. If a player does not have the ability to pass a section in a game, then, normally, the player cannot continue to the next section. The pace in Halo and Half-Life 2 is ultimately in the authorship of the player. That's not an overestimation: it's just the reality of the structure of both games. I presumed that by the absence of an argument, you would understand that I agreed with most of post relating to the developer's role.

Read Ulysses and get back to me :pac::pac::pac:

And just for the pure ignorance of it all, do the shortcuts in Mario kart make it more of a circular game? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

johnny_ultimate

CramCycle wrote: »

Thats still linear gaming if your "different" paths are just walking down different sides of the same room.

Duke 3D done the sort of level design that you keep referring to as circular design (long before HALO) and made it possible to have multiple paths from the start to the finish on a couple of levels. HALO did not have this, HALO had one defined path, fair enough some areas were large but there were not multiple paths, there was one path that you could drive either side off but you could never truly go off the path.

I'm breaking my vow of silence again (curse my itchy typing fingers!), but this pretty much sums it up for me. This isn't arguing with anyone in particular, just a final summation of how I feel about shall we say 'controlled' game design. Games like Halo may have very open arenas, but they're still 'closed in' by designer's very specific specifications. You're tied to their rules - stuff like what weapon you pick are predefined by the level designer's decisions - it's why powerful weapons usually only appear when you really need them, and then in very limited quantities. Within that, you have limited freedom of tactics of choice, but a freedom that has been dictated by someone else. Ultimately, you can't 'break' Halo or Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 or whatever unless you find a glitch or hack or mod. You're given tools to deal with the task, and those tools have been very specifically placed. Many newer and bigger games provide more choice - say in Just Cause 2, where you can either use the items scattered around the local area to complete a task, or drive across the huge world map, find a jumbo jet, hijack the jumbo jet and crash it into the objective - but still predefined choice. The more subtle and honed this handholding is, the more effective the illusion. RPGs again give players even more ability for customisation of tactics compared to FPS (something like STALKER blurring the lines). This is no fault of the FPS, it's the limits of technology and design, and often times the more open the game the less fulfilling the core mechanics are (compare the shooting of Just Cause 2 to Halo and the latter emerges a clear winner). Of course, we're getting ever closer to blurring those lines, but there's no shame in a tightly designed experience.

A path may branch, but you will still ultimately end up at the same goal. In Halo, you're fighting in a carefully designed battlefield battling a specifically determined amount of enemies (the AI cleverly adapting depending on the player's approach) with a pre-determined set of tools (you can't use a Warthog in the Library, to take one example, as the game strictly ensures you can't break these rules). When you're done with a combat situation, you usually can't return to the arena later in the game - a cliff, for example, may impede backtracking. In that sense, it is most definitely linear, and I certainly don't consider linear a bad word in this circumstance.

Now done. I'd ban myself from posting in here again if I could :P