[Mantis]

more to add:
Theater mode( multiple ppl can watch at the same time)
spectator mode( this would be sick)
what do you guys think of 30/60 frames per second?

i know cod is 60 and halo is 30?

Discuss, is there any pro's and cons between the 2?

[Hopey]

I honestly believe the biggest problem with Reach is the maps. When I think of the other Halos, I remember the maps and how f***ing fun they were, I couldn't give a f**k if H3 had a DMR or BR(I would prefer BR but you get my point), the maps made the game fun. A BR wouldn't ''save'' Reach because the maps just suck. Maps>BR/DMR.

Anchor 9, Beaver Creek and a few other maps need to be added in. Go play the Anniversary play list and see how fun it is just because of the maps. My 2c.

[Beware]

Spectator mode above everything else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then ability to chose custom game lobby host.
Also from a streaming perspective Halo looks better compared to CoD because its less frames per second (this obviously isn't a concern for godly US internet, but for third world AUS internet it is a small factor).

[Slayerx]

Beaver Creek is and always has been a terrible map for competitive play.

brb Final Boss 50-4.

[Hopey]

Slayerx, on 02 February 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Beaver Creek is and always has been a terrible map for competitive play.

brb Final Boss 50-4.

Better then half the maps we have now.

[Pyroteq]

Mantis, on 02 February 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

do you guys think they will have a Beta?

Halo 4 wishlist:
Lobby host( the one who makes the lobby has host)
Ranking system
4/5 good maps with release of game
bring back the BR

Dedicated host option
Spectator mode
Smooth 60 FPS - No vertical sync
Less aim acceleration
Less movement acceleration
90 degree FOV
2X/10X sniper zoom
12 maps on release, at least 6 of those maps designed for 2-8 players. 2x 4 DLC map packs with at least 2 of those maps in each pack designed for 2-8 players.
Weapons and powerups on static spawns.
Pro players and players that have knowledge in competitive games to freakin' playtest it instead of 40 year old soccer mums.
Game more similar to Halo 1 so we can bring back 1v1's that actually mean something.

[Bulk]

Slayerx, on 02 February 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Beaver Creek is and always has been a terrible map for competitive play.

brb Final Boss 50-4.

Double jump roof strat at start of the game ftw.

[Blaze]

The maps we have now are perfectly fine, - minus the errors in them that result from being built in forge world - if bungie put the maps we have now in the box and they had proper skins no one would complain, it's just the fact that they all look the same.

[Pyroteq]

Mantis, on 02 February 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

same time)
spectator mode( this would be sick)
what do you guys think of 30/60 frames per second?

i know cod is 60 and halo is 30?

Discuss, is there any pro's and cons between the 2?

Anyone who is sane would ALWAYS choose a solid 60FPS over 30FPS. The graphics would take a hit, but who cares? CoD still looks nice but is so much smoother.

Go play CoD for a few hours and then play Halo Reach and it's like watching a slide show.

60FPS = Smoother aiming and more precise aiming, less blur, less frame rate lag - Since the frames need to take a bigger hit for it to become noticeable.

Beware, on 02 February 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Also from a streaming perspective Halo looks better compared to CoD because its less frames per second (this obviously isn't a concern for godly US internet, but for third world AUS internet it is a small factor).

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

When you stream the rendered video usually ends up as 30FPS regardless. A better frame rate on the original source can only make the final rendered product look better.

Quote

The maps we have now are perfectly fine, - minus the tiny errors in them that result from being built in forge world - if bungie put the maps we have now in the box and they had proper skins no one would complain, it's just the fact that they all look the same.

LMFAO, no.

Just no.

The maps are terrible. We're currently playing a remake of a horrible Halo 3 map (The Pit) which only ever got used in Halo 3 because all the maps in Halo 3 sucked as well.

All the forge maps suffer from rate rate issues (As if only getting 30FPS isn't bad enough already), the casual gamers aren't interested in MLG because the maps look terrible and it looks horrible from a spectator perspective. When people tune in and see people playing Lego Land they say "WTF" and switch over to CoD where the maps look like they weren't created by a 3 year old.

Not only that, but every map we play is symmetrical resulting in a stale game where every map pretty much plays out the same. In Halo 1 and Halo 2 there were plenty of good asymmetrical maps used which made games more interesting and the gameplay was 10X's more dynamic.

[Hopey]

BLaZe, on 02 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

The maps we have now are perfectly fine, - minus the tiny errors in them that result from being built in forge world - if bungie put the maps we have now in the box and they had proper skins no one would complain, it's just the fact that they all look the same.

[Lunar]

Pyroteq, on 02 February 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Game more similar to Halo 1 so we can bring back 1v1's that actually mean something.

there it is

[Beware]

Pyroteq, on 02 February 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

When you stream the rendered video usually ends up as 30FPS regardless. A better frame rate on the original source can only make the final rendered product look better.

When streaming both Halo and CoD on the same connection (my own - on the same settings) every time I have noticed Halo looks better (less pixelated) then CoD. I always attributed this to CoD having more frames per second (even though it doesn't run at a true 60 frames per second). What would of caused that? Even if you go look back at ACL Gold Coast rebroadcasts Halo looks better then CoD imo.

[Pyroteq]

Anyone that thinks current Forged maps are fine, watch this and pay attention to what Kurtiz says at the start. (His point on the "3 checks")

[Mental]

Pyroteq, on 02 February 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

What was your favorite Halo 3 map? I think the Reach maps just need colour, and maybe some trees or something and they'd look nice. I agree with Blaze.

[Blaze]

Pyroteq, on 02 February 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

All the forge maps suffer from rate rate issues, the casual gamers aren't interested in MLG because the maps look terrible and it looks horrible from a spectator perspective. When people tune in and see people playing Lego Land they say "WTF" and switch over to CoD where the maps look like they weren't created by a 3 year old.

BLaZe, on 02 February 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

The maps we have now are perfectly fine, - minus the errors in them that result from being built in forge world - if bungie put the maps we have now in the box and they had proper skins no one would complain, it's just the fact that they all look the same.

[Blaze]

Pyroteq, on 02 February 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

In Halo 1

I'm not going to bother now.

[Pyroteq]

BLaZe, on 02 February 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

I'm not going to bother now.

If you cannot see the reasoning in comparing a game to its prequel or sequel in a discussion based on how the game plays you are an idiot.

I use features of past games in the series to help base my opinions on. If you are not basing your opinions on anything you don't have a valid argument.

EDIT - Watch the video I posted above and try telling me the current maps are still fine.

[Blaze]

Pyroteq, on 02 February 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

EDIT - Watch the video I posted above and try telling me the current maps are still fine.

The video does nothing but prove my point, if the maps came out of the box like they are now, with their own unique skins, they would be perfectly fine.
I'll use his 3 points as an example;
#1 - Familiarity - I don't even need to explain this, it should be blatantly obvious, if they came out of the box like they are now, all the 'noobs' would be used to it.
#2 - Aesthetics - Again, if they came out of the box with their own unique skins there would be no problems.
#2.1 - Variation - There would be variation if bungie designed the maps, just like there has been in 'it's preqel or sequel'.
#3 - Function - There is function in all the maps we have now minus Oasis.

[Pyroteq]

BLaZe, on 02 February 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

The video does nothing but prove my point, if the maps came out of the box like they are now, with their own unique skins, they would be perfectly fine.
I'll use his 3 points as an example;
#1 - Familiarity - I don't even need to explain this, it should be blatantly obvious, if they came out of the box like they are now, all the 'noobs' would be used to it.
#2 - Aesthetics - Again, if they came out of the box with their own unique skins there would be no problems.
#2.1 - Variation - There would be variation if bungie designed the maps, just like there has been in 'it's preqel or sequel'.
#3 - Function - There is function in all the maps we have now minus Oasis.

There is little varation because they're all symmetrical maps that play too similar to each other. The Pit plays almost exactly the same as Sanctuary. Nexus plays similar to Oasis.

There needs to be asymmetrical maps involved to keep the game fresh as they play completely differently to symmetrical maps. A map like Prisoner requires teams to attack and defend during a Slayer gametype because of the map layout.

Take this for example. A game is drawn at 25-25 on The Pit. New rockets don't come up for another 2 minutes and OS is still a minute away as well. Where is the incentive for each team to move? Both teams can feel fine just sitting back and waiting for the opposition to come to them until the next fight over power weapons.

In Prisoner, one team would have the power position of the map on level 3. This requires the team spawning down the bottom to attack the other team regardless of whether they are in the lead or not. This leads to more interesting games.

[Blaze]

Pyroteq, on 02 February 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

There is little varation because they're all symmetrical maps that play too similar to each other. The Pit plays almost exactly the same as Sanctuary. Nexus plays similar to Oasis.

There needs to be asymmetrical maps involved to keep the game fresh as they play completely differently to symmetrical maps. A map like Prisoner requires teams to attack and defend during a Slayer gametype because of the map layout.

Take this for example. A game is drawn at 25-25 on The Pit. New rockets don't come up for another 2 minutes and OS is still a minute away as well. Where is the incentive for each team to move? Both teams can feel fine just sitting back and waiting for the opposition to come to them until the next fight over power weapons.

In Prisoner, one team would have the power position of the map on level 3. This requires the team spawning down the bottom to attack the other team regardless of whether they are in the lead or not. This leads to more interesting games.

Yes I agree, All it comes down to, is that when the developer of a game gives you something like forge world to create maps instead of making unique ones, you can only achieve '#3 - Function' and '#2.1 - Variation', however the problem with trying to achieve variation with forge world is that while the design of the map may alter, it's still going to look the same, and 2) when 90% of the maps they give you don't have function, the easiest way to create function to make it competitive is by making symmetrical maps.

Can you not see my point though? If the maps we have now had their own unique skins and came out of the box, they would be perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with having symmetrical maps. You would just need to have some different asymmetrical maps along with them that have more variation.