Destiny

it might just be me, but pacing in games with a single core mechanic (such as combat) are very hard to do right from a LD perspective. I got combat fatigue from playing halo because there was too much combat, which is probably not the intention of the developers. it seems a given that combat should just be combat and in these run of the mill fps times, nobody really gives a fuck about good gameplay anymore as long as shit sells. brands have taken the place of good games.

i don't want every game to be emergent like stealth games, but something as simple as a counterweight to the combat mechanic seems necessary. i don't think i would have played half-life 1 to the end if it wasn't for the amazing pacing and balance between combat and puzzles throughout the game.

Quote from Sentura

it might just be me, but pacing in games with a single core mechanic (such as combat) are very hard to do right from a LD perspective. I got combat fatigue from playing halo because there was too much combat, which is probably not the intention of the developers. it seems a given that combat should just be combat and in these run of the mill fps times, nobody really gives a fuck about good gameplay anymore as long as shit sells. brands have taken the place of good games.

i don't want every game to be emergent like stealth games, but something as simple as a counterweight to the combat mechanic seems necessary. i don't think i would have played half-life 1 to the end if it wasn't for the amazing pacing and balance between combat and puzzles throughout the game.

hl2 was amazing at this imo. it's something i didn't realize until i looked back on it, those boating missions were crucial to the pace.

valve really got good at it with episode 2 though. that's a perfectly paced game, especially at the end when you're screaming for mercy

Quote from Sentura

it might just be me, but pacing in games with a single core mechanic (such as combat) are very hard to do right from a LD perspective. I got combat fatigue from playing halo because there was too much combat, which is probably not the intention of the developers. it seems a given that combat should just be combat and in these run of the mill fps times, nobody really gives a fuck about good gameplay anymore as long as shit sells. brands have taken the place of good games.

i don't want every game to be emergent like stealth games, but something as simple as a counterweight to the combat mechanic seems necessary. i don't think i would have played half-life 1 to the end if it wasn't for the amazing pacing and balance between combat and puzzles throughout the game.

What about a game where combat is the sole focus?

IE : Godhand, Bayonetta, SF4, Vanquish etc?

If Godhand had puzzle solving I would like it much less.

I think if you make a sufficiently deep combat system then it can be appealing.

EDIT: When I reflect on that post I can't think of a FPS that fits that criteria. Doom was great but even that had the key and maze mechanism (shallow as it is). Not sure what to think about that...

i never played godhand or bayonetta, i know that titles like DMC have had puzzles in every game. But another point to raise for these games is that combat becomes a puzzle like element, since you have to think about how to maximize your output. back when i played DMC3/4, i always pushed myself to use different weapons and abilities all the time to get a higher rank score for an encounter. things like the sense of urgency to switch between weapons and abilities and the fact that you can customize your abilities for points made those types of games this for alleviated some of the pressure of combat fatigue. in e.g. halo, you don't have that option, because ultimately the weapons all behave the same, minus some very slight damage changes and encounter weapons being a bit more powerful. the game depth is flat, the new weaponry you achieve differs very little throughout the game, and that as a stand alone core mechanic just won't work.

Quote from AlexM

Well first off I played through the first 2 extensively and played maybe 15 mins of 3 and no 4. Played singleplayer, coop and multiplayer.

I'll just make a quick list of the things that annoyed me the most:

1) The library level in Halo1. This has to be one of the worst levels I've ever played. I thought the game was broken or something the first time I played it.

2) I didn't like the feel of most of the weapons.

3) Level design in general was boring for me. It was basically fight a bunch of guys to get to the next checkpoint.

4) Gamepads

5) Multiplayer competitive was merely ok. I much preferred countless hl mods or quake dm.

6) Characters were boring. It was like some kind of generic all-story. I don't really like a story that much in my FPSes unless it's a game like system shock which arguably might not be considered an FPS.

7) The streets level in Halo2 also stood out to me as boring (though not nearly as bad as the library).

Regenerating health.

9) Floaty jump physics.

Those would be off the top of my head. The level design would be the thing that annoyed me the most. Usually if the level design is not great I just forget about it. In this case with levels like the library they were so bad I actually remember them.

Anyways bear in mind I'm one of those old man grumpus FPS players who still loves Doom today. I play Brutal Doom a ton. I also love the quake dm's, So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Display More

I agree with 1, 6 and 7. I don't see any inherent issues with having "floaty jump physics".

The statement "It was basically fight a bunch of guys to get to the next checkpoint." doesn't make much sense. This is what the vast majority of FPSs are about, and most of them work quite well despite it. You could easily take the same statement with any other genre. The difference is, when you compare Halo to most other shooter-campaigns, is that you're given a lot more freedom in the level design. If you play the same checkpoint over and over it wouldn't get boring because of; intelligent enemies, diverse game elements (banshees, tanks, ghosts, variety of weapons) and most importantly the open-ended approach to it. When you replay levels you're unlikely to get very similar playthroughs (unlike other FPSs), or you're at least not restricted by having to play them the same way. Halo allows for a lot more creativity than most shooters. This was even more fun with co-op and vehicles. I agree, though, that some levels like Library and Cortana were absolute shit.

I also thought the weapon design was fairly characteristic/interesting and had a good feel to them. The multiplayer maps were quite good (at least in Halo 3) and the ease of using the matchmaking/playing multiplayer is still far better than most MP-games. The difficulty of finding a decent game, with 2-3 of your friends, can be fucking ridiculous sometimes with some games out there (looking at you, L4D).

Halo is far from being one of my favorite games. I rarely enjoy/play FPSs except for a few: HL2, TF2 and L4D2 (which i now realize is only valve games, lol). Still, I think when you compare Halo to the FPS-standard it's a lot better than barely decent.

Quote from csyver

The statement "It was basically fight a bunch of guys to get to the next checkpoint." doesn't make much sense. This is what the vast majority of FPSs are about, and most of them work quite well despite it.

see my previous posts

Quote from csyver

.The statement "It was basically fight a bunch of guys to get to the next checkpoint." doesn't make much sense. This is what the vast majority of FPSs are about, and most of them work quite well despite it. You could easily take the same statement with any other genre. The difference is, when you compare Halo to most other shooter-campaigns, is that you're given a lot more freedom in the level design. If you play the same checkpoint over and over it wouldn't get boring because of; intelligent enemies, diverse game elements (banshees, tanks, ghosts, variety of weapons) and most importantly the open-ended approach to it. When you replay levels you're unlikely to get very similar playthroughs (unlike other FPSs), or you're at least not restricted by having to play them the same way. Halo allows for a lot more creativity than most shooters. This was even more fun with co-op and vehicles. I agree, though, that some levels like Library and Cortana were absolute shit.

Just because the vast majority of FPS'es employ this technique doesn't necessarily mean it's a great design technique. I don't particularly like the fact COD etc does this either. In fact I really only play COD for the multiplayer.

Compare it to something like doom where you have a more environment littered with secrets and variable paths through the level. That's what I like. Sure you could argue the keys cause the wide design to have some linearity, but not to the extreme that halo does.

I wasn't making an appeal to popularity argument... My opinion was first and foremost that it can work. I'm not saying this is in any way optimal design, I'm saying that Halo is, in comparison to the standard of FPS, one of the better ones.

The combat in Halo was mixed with enough variation with vehicle-driven levels, stimulating pace (pure sniping/stealth parts to the diametrically opposite) and game elements (not to mention you could do this co-op). I didn't experience any combat fatigue at all with this game. If it was like

Quote

Compare it to something like doom where you have a more environment littered with secrets and variable paths through the level. That's what I like.

that's exactly what you have. you do have variable paths in terms of how to solve the level by combat ("sandbox-based" combat). see my point about replayability

Quote

in e.g. halo, you don't have that option, because ultimately the weapons all behave the same, minus some very slight damage changes and encounter weapons being a bit more powerful. the game depth is flat, the new weaponry you achieve differs very little throughout the game, and that as a stand alone core mechanic just won't work.

(e.g.) Brute shot, gravity hammer, needler, carbine+sniper, spike/plasma grenades and 5 different vehicles. These do not behave the same and are differentiated between a lot more than "slight damage changes". When you play on a higher difficulty level you do appreciate the different applications of each weapon.

I think it's weird how you're so easily accepting DMCs arsenal as a puzzle element, but you're unable to see the same for Halo's broad combat-options and level design... I mean, DMC is all about fighting a bunch of guys to get to the next checkpoint.

I have to plain disagree with the doom vs halo comparison there. Mind you as i said I primarily played halo1 and halo2. If it's changed in halo3+ then I really can't comment.

I would call those games the opposite of sandbox combat.

i wouldn't call halo a good fps at all. compare it with half life.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1902…_production.php

it is Bungie, so the art approach is great, but still i'm nog buying this game at this point

Definitely intrigued.

intersteller squad of roguelike "special" operatives fighting against intergalatic crime syndicate and or empire who wants to take the giant ball away from earth.

I thought that was awful, expected more from that game. Reminded me of those chinese cgi videogames, lol. I'm sure the gameplay will be better however.

Disappointing trailer.

yeah not quite sure what to think of it really, just ... odd? ;O

Yeah that didn't show much, however their Destiny presentation at GDC was pretty interesting. Still not sold on it yet but I'll be watching. Real question is if the next-gen versions will be more than up-res'd versions of their current-gen counterparts. Methinks no...

Thumbs up for Esposito btw.

Oh my god... that e3 demo was pretty fucking coooooool! I wasnt Halo's biggest fan, but Bungie really nailed it with Destiny.