Jump to content


Photo

H3DA

Halo 3

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#1 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 07:34 PM

I just closed on my house, so apart from trading a much needed vacation for some hard work cleaning and renovating my home over the last few days, I created this database:

Halo 3 Data Archive

To take care of the time-draining commentary and banter that The Ring 360 had, I've simply created a very easy-to-use database for all things Halo 3. Granted, these are going to be things confirmed by Bungie only - not speculation and not rumour - but it's still quite interesting to browse. In fact, this database is almost entirely identical to the information found at Bungie.Net specifically on purpose.

Down the road, that may change, but as of now, it can be used as a quick-link directory for information concerning weapons, maps, campaign and other interesting aspects of Halo 3, all archived starting over a year ago. It is meant to be used as a point of reference, not a springboard, so there won't be any comments or message board attached to this one. I will include any other documentation we can find as well, from articles in various publications to interviews on other sites. Gamble, Blaze, or anyone else for that matter, contact me via the PM here if something new concerning Halo 3 pops up on your radar. I'll try to check and update daily, so thanks in advance...

#2 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 20 July 2006 - 11:50 AM

I figure this is as good a thread as any for commentary on the H3DA, so here goes:

This is a much-talked about issue across the multitude of Halo forums and has been a serious issue of debate between Halo: Combat Evolved purists and Halo 2 fans. Bungie claimed that their change of the human sidearm from the M6D Pistol, which was extremely powerful and offered a zoom feature, to the sterile and effeminate M6C Magnum, which offered little in terms of cover, was an effort toward balance. They want other weapons to shine and it makes sense when you look at it from that perspective. Many matches of Halo: Combat Evolved turned into 'pistols only' because it was such a powerful weapon. It was the equalizer. It's hitting strength, accuracy and versatility, made it equal to any other weapon, including Sniper Rifles and Rocket Launchers.

I disagree. The pistol is not equal to any other weapon. It merely has a fighting chance against all of them. In Halo 2, if you see a guy with the rockets, just stop moving and end the suffering. In Halo 1, the rockets, a shotgun - they meant likely death, but there was always the chance for a miraculous 3 shot to turn the tables. In Halo 2, if you spawn on a large map like Coag or Containment and notice a speck on the horizon with a rifle in hand, again just stop moving and end the suffering. Don't worry, if you're lucky, the auto aim will end things quickly, but there's nothing you can do with your battle rifle, whose bullets inexplicably disappear after a certain distance. They don't drop, eventually falling because of gravity. Nope. They just disappear. Since when does my battle RIFLE offer me no hope of at least keeping someone wielding a sniper RIFLE from zooming in. Since Bungie put a max distance on it, that's when. In Halo 1, in the same spawn situation, you're still pretty much fucked, but you always have a chance, zoom in with that pistol and pray that you lead your target well enough to knock him out of his zoom. In Halo 2, if someone shoots you first in a br duel, stop moving and end the suffering. No matter how you strafe, you're not going to make the other guy miss enough to turn the tables. In Halo 1, if you're hit with the first shot, DANCE motherfucker, like your life depends on it. The slow speed of the pistol's bullet means that no kill is a guarantee when you strafe well or put some distance between yourself and your assailant. Getting the idea? The pistol is not the all-powerful weapon, it's just the one that gives you a fighting chance in all situations, whereas the BR is worthless at close and long distances (the exception being B-X-R :bun: as illustrated in the very professional looking graphic below)

Posted Image

In addition, I've never had a Halo game turn into "pistols only." Ever. The pistol always provides a solid means for getting kills, but to truly take control of a match, other weapons are necessary. Let me offer some examples:

On Hang Em High, the team that controls the rockets wins. End of story. It's why I always win ;). I have a hard time on XBC because I can't adjust my pistol to the bullet lag, and yet I always win on Hang Em because I just follow a minute long cycle that takes me back by camo and rockets (which respawn every two minutes). For most of the game I don't even carry a pistol because the AR as a secondary let's me return to active camo faster.

On Rat Race, a map that would seem to be nothing but pistols for the most part, the person who makes the trek to the shotgun (or grenades it to himself) is the person who usually goes on a run and takes the lead.

Chill Out is interesting because for such a small map, the other weapons are of the utmost importance. The shotgun leads to huge runs in the close quarters, and the rockets are absolutely devastating. Effective close-range snipers can frustrate a team as well, but another unsung hero on this map is the plasma rifle right in front of the teleporter... the freezing power is not to be underestimated in stopping enemies before they teleport or neutralizing enemies in the cramped room to which the teleporter leads.

Every map offers a similar story- effective use of the other weapons is what can turn a Halo 1 game, but the pistol's greatness is that it is useful when nothing else is available, and it has a chance in every combat situation, no matter how stacked the odds are.


1) The Flood

Hah! Unfortunately for OXM, the Flood will remain in Halo 3. Why? Well, they're more intrinsically connected to the story of Halo than the humans or the Covenant, because, they not only reside on the Halo installations but the Halo installations exist because of them.

Now, we will admit that they should be changed and altered and their portion of the game should be minimal. It would be nice to see more variation in their combat forms and better environments to kill them in. They're less scary and more annoying than anything else, whether we're talking about Halo: Combat Evolved's endless Library level or the horribly designed The Arbiter and Oracle missions. The fewer Flood-related missions the better, but don't completely remove the reason the story exists in the first place.

Amen. Preach it, brother. No boss battles either, damn it.

In Halo: Combat Evolved, missions like 'Halo,' 'Silent Cartographer,' 'Assault On The Control Room,' and 'Two Betrayals,' had very large environments to play with. Players could effectively choose the direction they took and if they couldn't the sheer scale of the environment made it seem non-linear. Halo 2 seemed to remove that aspect. The game was extremely linear and it robbed the Halo series of some much needed free-roaming, open-ended game play.

Yes it did. Yes sir. God damn it, what a frustrating campaign between the flood, the bosses, and the on-rails level design... FUCK


Essentially, we want to see Halo: Combat Evolved's hit/firing/melee system implemented in Halo 3. It was fair and it was far more difficult to exploit.

That includes non-disappearing and slower moving bullets from "ranged" (ha, battle rifle how dare you call yourself that) guns. Also, if lunge melees remain in the game, I will have all the proof I need that every member of Bungie's staff is, beyond all shadow of a doubt, retarded.


7) Multiplayer Scale Changes

No thanks. Big Team Battle is already unfun enough. The reason why vehicles were so fun in campaign is that there was plenty of readily available fodder for the explodenating and ensplatterating. With 16 players on huge maps, there just is not enough fodder to go around. The mechanic doesn't work the same. And if Bungie focuses on getting combat to work for 24 to 32 people you can fucking forget about fun maps in the style of Lockout. Still, I love the idea of huge, intricate maps like Cape Arrowhead. I just can't enjoy their implementation within Halo games to date, although Halo 1 did a much better job (see pistol; effectiveness). Maps like Turf and Backwash got me so excited because of the possibility of a sprawling and atmospheric swamp and a complex maze of a city. Instead, they're dinky levels, but gameplay on both maps "works" within Halo 2's structure/weapon set. Containment, however, offers the epic scale I was hoping for on those two maps, but the gameplay just turned out completely awkward.... If there's something like Cape Arrowhead in Halo 3, you can rest assured that I will pursue no objectives. Fuck teamwork and trying on a map that big. I'll either play defense and kill anything that moves, or I'll disappear into the city and cut down foes as they try, those toolboxes.


They should consider doing a 'mini-series prequel' which lies apart from the story of the Master Chief, Cortana and the Halo rings. This would cover the story of a group of four Spartans and their final stand against the Covenant on the fortress planet, Reach, which occurs right before the discovery of Alpha Halo (Installation 04, or the first Halo in the series).

OMG SO GOOD I WOULD LITERALLY DIE OF HAPPINESS. I know we've talked about this before, but it's still SOOOOOO awesome...


Top Ten list looked fantastic, and the more I consider it, the more I love your UI. Is there some way we can leak it to try and put the ideas on Bungie's radar? Or have you already done that, you sly dog?

To that list I would add:

1) A not quite co-op, not quite multiplayer grinder mode, much like GRAW's co-op offers, where enemies just keep on coming, spawned randomly around a map. Don't use the campaign maps for this, and I'd prefer not to see the multiplayer maps in this either. Just Cape Arrowhead-sized maps in varying locales (snow, desert, forest, omg spaceshipz, etc.), full of baddies for the players to deal with. Bungie could get really creative here... some of the possibilities are just mind-blowingly awesome. Seriously, just copy GRAW. It would turn out even better in a Halo. OMG SEX.

2) The pistol.

#3 Vanwadilion

Vanwadilion

    Rainbow!!

  • Veteran
  • 2,694 posts

Posted 20 July 2006 - 05:47 PM

I couldn't agree more with most of that, but I still kind of like lunge melees. Even though they're often frustrating, for me they've been more fun than not. I swear I never used melee in Halo 1 multiplayer. Because the pistol was THE weapon, a lot of the battles took place at mid range distances and the melee in Halo 1 was not effective unless you were literally on top of your foe- so melee was basically ineffective in H1. I would always find it comical when my friends would try to melee me, and I would just step back or sideways a bit, and TSK those dumbasses. I think there needs to be some kind of change however, so hopefully Bungie can come up with something that will still allow melee to be an important fixture to the game. PS has a game's balance ever been scrutinized more than Halo's? I've played dozens of multiplayer shooters, and I don't think most of them even come close to the balance you get when you play MLG rules on H2 (and I don't think I need to mention the balance in Halo:CE, oh wait, I kind of just did). It's funny to think how critical people are of Halo when I never hear anything about games likd CoD2, GRAW, or any other multi shooter.

#4 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 20 July 2006 - 08:07 PM

Ah, so Mr Vaginarous' blog is read. Just kidding. I'm actually getting a good response from it, so I'm quite happy and I wish I had more time to dedicate to the content. Speaking of that, I'm hoping that Ivan and I can sit down. We wanted to do some public things concerning hosting/website stuff with The Ephorate, but we have nothing set in stone. Eventually, I'd like to see a podcast or something and have some of you guys, particularly you 'Cuse (yeah, when I used the term 'Halo purist' I was referring to you) and some others.

I believe Halo 3 will be the biggest game of this generation, regardless of the console. It deserves a blog that covers everything important and that's what I'm trying to do.

So, 'Cuse, on your rant I'm going to address the two disagreement points. I'll admit that I don't currently play Halo: Combat Evolved anywhere near to the amount you do (I probably should), but I will try to address the two things you called me out on:

1) When saying that the M6D was 'equal' to all other weapons, I wasn't trying to imply that it has the same, indentical efficacy as the other weapons or that it was all-powerful. I understand the pistol's limitations and even though Halo's weapon set isn't as disparate as Halo 2's, there's nothing similar about the Needler/Plasma Pistol weapons and the Shotgun/Sniper Rifle weapons. So, it would be impossible for them to be 'equal.'

I was saying that the M6D worked so well that it could, effectively, defy any weapon out there. Everytime? No. Absolutely not. Most of the time? Depending on the map and circumstances, possibly. In that way, it was the 'equalizer,' because like you said, it gives control back to the player's hands and not into weapon location. This could be mostly given to map, weapon location, and starting weapon. My point was that comparatively, between Halo and Halo 2, the power weapons are more powerful and more aggressive in Halo 2 (than in Halo), yet there is no common weapon which can seriously challenge them.

So, I think we're talking the same line, but my use of 'equal' is what caused confusion. My incorrect use, I suppose. However, I will disagree with the 'need' of having the M6D return. There are alternative options and I suggested one. I think it could work, possibly even better. Having the new Assault Rifle have some of the best elements in all three camps (MA5B, BR55, and M6D) might seem like a recipe for weapon isolation (forcing players not to care about the other weapons), but I think if it was replacing the BR55 into Halo 2's current and unbalanced weapon list, it would fit incredibly well.

2) Out of curiousity, before I even go into any of the 'large map' thing, have you ever played a Battlefield game? Or the Star Wars Battlefront games? Let me know and then I'll respond.

#5 BRASH

BRASH

    Shook Amon Tobin's Hand

  • Member
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 20 July 2006 - 08:39 PM

EDIT: I should read one's full post before making my own. :[
I got your back, Dual.
Slowly becoming your entertainment dictator.

I hates me some sports games.

#6 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 09:46 AM

haha BRASH. Vokiferous- I haven't played a whole lot of the Battlefield series, but I played for like 15 minutes on the PC at a LAN center before I was like: "Fuck this. Who wants to play a game where you run for 5 minutes to get into a battle that lasts 2 seconds, only to start again?" I'm more of an infantry guy myself, and that got really old, really quickly, on Battlefield 1942. Then I bought the BF2 demo for Xbox 1, and downloaded the one for 360 as well. After a little bit of play time with both, I can honestly say that they are very fun games, but with teams and maps that big, coordination was a huge problem. I did what I wanted. Team objectives? Nah. Not with that much chaos. Although it would probably be better if the Ephorate was playing together... although maybe not... I had an easier time enjoying that one, and 5 minute running times were lowered with the switch to fewer people that the console brought (maybe 2 minutes - w00t?). I think my main problem is that I just don't do vehicles. Don't get me wrong, driving the Warthog is hella fun, especially in Halo 1, but, to me, it's not fun in Multiplayer. Tanks, ghosts, warthogs, those are things for me to explodenate with stickys, rockets, and mad snipe headsh0ts, so I do enjoy vehicular combat, just not when I'm sitting in a vehicle myself. One thing I will say for the Battlefield series is that it brings that "epic" feeling, that sense of grandeur, scale, shit-is-hitting-the-fan-all-around-me-what-the-fuck-should-I-do experience that hasn't been replicated for me in Halo multiplayer yet. Nothing quite compares to stepping out into the snow on AotCR and seeing your marines being nailed by grunts in turrets, a bunch of elites and jackals, and holy-shit-a-wraith-get-the-fuck-down. And OMG the end of Two Betrayals when 3 Wraiths are all like "Bitch, step the fuck back." And Master Chief is all like "lol pwnt." Even Silent Cartographer's beach landing is a good example, although I think people hype that one way out of proportion (Dudes. There's like 6 guys waiting on the beach. Give me Normandy, except with needlers and carbines.) If Bungie's going to go the Battlefield route for multiplayer, I honestly won't mind, as long as they find a way to keep the action fast-paced, the way I like my Halo. Battlefield: Halo will instantly be awesome for two reasons - the controls and physics are a lot cooler than, well, the real life that EA was trying to replicate, and the universe is just a hell of a lot cooler (vehicles, weapons, characters, locales, etc.) My long-winded and not quite well worded point is this. If Battlefield Halo means epic moments like the ones from (HALO 1)'s campaign that I just mentioned, or some of the combat on Outskirts (mmm... easily the best level in Halo 2's railfest, although I enjoy Delta Halo, as well), then hell yes bring it on. But what I don't want is to have all these dead spots where I have to run for a mile and a half to find someone to shoot at. Make the scale big, but at the same time, make it "cramped" for lack of a better word. I want action, not run run run run run lol run run shit I got shot by a sniper beep beep boop run run run run run this isnt fun anymore run run GOD DAMN IT WHERE'D THAT TANK COME FROM start quit game throw controller kick puppy punch baby.

#7 mattacus

mattacus

    I get the sneaking sense that Gamble is NOT a douche.

  • Veteran
  • 3,518 posts
  • Xbox LIVE:Old Mattacus
  • Steam:oldmattacus

Posted 21 July 2006 - 06:04 PM

the time-draining commentary and banter

Whoever could you be talking about?

:ban: P.S. My wife thinks that this website could use less profanity and more dancing bananas, btw.

#8 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 06:08 PM

I definitely see your point and I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. There is something inherently disjointed about Halo 2's multiplayer on maps like Waterworks, Containment and even, despite it's open nature, Coagulation. The maps do end up feeling awkward and like you addressed in your post, it's no fun to hike for five minutes only to be rewarded with another hike when you get tag-teamed by five campers during an objective gametype. There are some key features I think the Battlefield series has been getting right since 1942 was released (which still remains one of my favorite memories of online gaming), but there are a lot of failures. And, to add onto the failures of considering a large-scale gametype for the Halo universe, it's quite easy to see why Halo thrives as a 4v4 multiplayer arena. Anything over that typically becomes convuluted and overbearing. It's one reason I hate FFA. The KILL+DIE+KILL+DIE scenarios get old quick. I'm not saying you can't be skilled at FFA, but it's not a fair fight thanks to the sheer randomness of luck grenades, horrible respawns, kill stealing, and the general chaos/lack of strategy. Team games for Slayer and objective-based gametypes are what work well for me and I think Matchmaking speaks loud and clear that this is the way Halo should be played. That being said, I believe there's a sizeable push to get large vehicles like the Pelican in Halo 3. With this push from the fan community, there are a few approaches Bungie could take. They could, of course, ignore the requests for this vehicle to be put into the game. It wouldn't be the first time. They could also implement as a campaign-only vehicle, allowing multiplayer to remain untouched. Or, they could add it to multiplayer. If they did, we'd need bigger maps, larger gametypes and a serious look at how they would need to balance combat in the Halo mechanics and features. You mentioned vehicles not being your fortay and that may well be true, but I think everyone has a soft spot for it deep down inside. It was one of the first things that stood out about the first game for me and it's still a driving influence. Vehicle control seemed not only revolutionary and fluid, but essential and it worked well in engendering teamwork. Perfect Example: A few nights ago on Zanzibar I yanked the Warthog off the beach and threw it through the wheel at Ivan, stopping just short of killing him. He hopped in with the flag and I used the left side of the vehicle to stop the other team from taking him out and drove my ass off to the cap stand. That's just one of a million moments we (as a group) have had where vehicles just add that brilliant touch to the game play. If it could be effectively harnessed into a single gametype selection and implemented well, I believe this could be an amazing experience. To really create a gametype that was vehicle-based, like the Iron Fisticuff version I mentioned in my Halo 3 bullshit last year, there needs to be (1) dedicated servers, (2) voice-channels for party-based fireteams, (3) an efficient respawn system, (4) large maps with unlimited vehicles provided in large quantities, (5) location-based objective scenarios similar to Territories, (6) and numerous bases rather than the typical two. I'd go into detail, but I don't want to bore anyone. Suffice it to say, this would be very large scale (think Pelicans/Phantoms and Longswords/Seraphs) and would allow for single-minded roaming, but it could support and effectively translate the common 4v4/5v5 team-based games that we're used to, but this time with the ambience and vibe of a real war...because it would be real and not part of the background. Would it change the game play irrevocably? It's possible. I believe we'll still see this...maybe in the form of an MMO or possibly just as a strictly multiplayer-based game from Bungie or another developer working with Bungie in the future. Either way, I'm interested.

#9 JCTucker

JCTucker

    Likes everyone as a person.

  • Veteran
  • 3,067 posts
  • Xbox LIVE:JCTucker
  • PSN:Poor_Judgment

Posted 21 July 2006 - 06:36 PM

One thing I love about the BF games is loading up with your squad of other users online in a chopper or Jeep and hightailin' it to the drop zone. It would be awesome to get an automatic kill frenzy if you nail a Pelican with 2 rockets, too.

#10 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 09:51 PM

:ban: P.S. My wife thinks that this website could use less profanity and more dancing bananas, btw.

BITCH WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH MY DANCING BUNNY? HUH??? :bun:

Voc, I was there for that cap, and I agree- vehicles do add something special, and Halo without vehicles wouldn't be the same (that cap was leet, by the way, like a god damn heist movie), I just am not the type of person who typically hops in one for extended periods of time. If I'm left with the Wraith, I feel more awkward than I did at middle school dances... I know this isn't what we're discussing, but I have to say it: Halo 1's vehicle physics, from handling to huge, action movie-like explosions 20 feet into the air, just felt better. Give me the Halo 1 warthog any day. Now that was a fun vehicle to drive. On Silent Cartographer where you meet up with a circle of jackals on the beach, I love jumping my warthog into the crowd and then skidding it around in a circle, trying to hit all 7 or so of them. The first time I got them all, I looked like this: :ban: Happy now, Mrs. Mattacus?

#11 DualX

DualX
  • Veteran
  • 3,204 posts
  • Location:youtube.com/dualx2

Posted 22 July 2006 - 11:26 AM

I would honestly like Halo with Battlefield type maps and player count. I mean isn't Halo about a war? War involves lots of people. Why not have that war type feeling online?

With larger maps like this, they could make more places for the teams to go to for their objective. Allowing to the player to choose where they spawn, and those points would increase where they would be able to spawn on the point of a completed objective.

Here's an interesting thing I found that I would also find badass if they were to add this into Halo 3.

think... capture the flag is just... a terribly stupid idea =)

why not have giant maps, where the goal is to battle past smaller objectives, to reach a larger installation and bomb it...

but a bomb that destroys an entire structure and permanently disfigures the map in a big way.

the goal would be to destroy multiple structures on each teams side...

these could be parallel in structure like sidewinder, or more assault/defense based like zanibar.

i know this has been done, but it think it'd be cooler if, say there were multiple smaller installations forming a defense for a larger, ultimate goal.

bigger battles with larger and more complex objectives in mind rather than just one tiny installation,

battles that change drastically over time because of the destruction of the environments, ie the obliterated outpost collapses to become a make shift base camp for invaders, ie dilapitated foxhole.

imagine nuking an installation, only to have the rubble form and entirely different battlefield... that would be -blam!-in.



#12 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 23 July 2006 - 12:24 PM

Posted Image
2 Things I learned from this pic:
1) The level in the Halo 3 trailer? Yeah. It should have been in Halo 2.
2) In its Halo 2 planning at least, it as intended to feature both the Chief and the Arbiter (Dervish was his nickname during most of the planning for the game)
3) zomgwtfgimme I can't wait to see what's on/in the Ark...

#13 mattacus

mattacus

    I get the sneaking sense that Gamble is NOT a douche.

  • Veteran
  • 3,518 posts
  • Xbox LIVE:Old Mattacus
  • Steam:oldmattacus

Posted 23 July 2006 - 03:26 PM

Besides the scale/pacing problems of H2 larger maps, the one thing that absolutely killed vehicular combat for me in that game is the Rocket. If you take out the tracking ability, but leave in the ability for vehicles to be destroyed, they become useful but not metal cages of death. They were going for balance, but totally shifted it in the wrong direction. Your cap on Zanzibar sounds cool, but if the wrong guy had the rocket, you both would have been assploded before you could turn around. And that's the way it turns out nine times out of ten. That sounds a little unbalanced to me.

#14 Jironimo

Jironimo

    Hunter Master Race

  • Admin
  • 3,928 posts

Posted 23 July 2006 - 04:40 PM

2 Things I learned from this pic:
1) The level in the Halo 3 trailer? Yeah. It should have been in Halo 2.
2) In its Halo 2 planning at least, it as intended to feature both the Chief and the Arbiter (Dervish was his nickname during most of the planning for the game)
3) zomgwtfgimme I can't wait to see what's on/in the Ark...

Man, didn't you read the rampancy.net article we linked in the microsoft vs. bungie thread? That's one of the most interesting articles I've read about Halo, and it gives many clues as to the length of the original Halo 2. Bungie wanted to make the game almost twice as long as what it ended up being, microsoft said no and they had to cuts. Halo 2 was then planned by Bungie to be almost 20 chapters long instead, but remember that Joseph Staten admitted at his Northwestern University alumni conference that the 3 final playable levels were cut at the very end because they had no time to tweak them, debug, and playtest them. This means we have a long-ass Halo 3 instore for us, maybe even the length of Halo CE and 2 together.

#15 Jironimo

Jironimo

    Hunter Master Race

  • Admin
  • 3,928 posts

Posted 23 July 2006 - 04:55 PM

Sorry for the double post, but check the front page of HBO. Forget linking H3DA in your sig, it's not been introduced to the world the way it should be. You can thank me later.

Here's the link: http://halo.bungie.o...html?item=16244

#16 SharpeWolfe

SharpeWolfe

    Heavy Vehicle Specialist S25

  • Veteran
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 28 July 2006 - 09:40 PM

hey Voc...I enjoyed the audio companion with your H3DA update this week...works pretty well...
Posted Image

#17 BRASH

BRASH

    Shook Amon Tobin's Hand

  • Member
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 29 July 2006 - 12:53 AM

I have to agree. It makes it much more engaging for the reader. If it's not a hassle to put those up, I'd recommend doing it as often as conveniently possible. Maybe once every friday. Other people out there are podcasting about the updates too, but I think if you compile your most important points and theories and spare excessive filler, you could attract some attention to your blog.
I got your back, Dual.
Slowly becoming your entertainment dictator.

I hates me some sports games.

#18 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 29 July 2006 - 03:57 AM

Thanks. The only problems with Blogger's audio posts are that they only allow for five minutes (so it can only be a preview, I'd like to do the whole thing...possibly with a guest) and that I have to do them from my cellphone (the quality isn't the best)

Brash, I know you weren't the lobby when we first breached the subject, but we're really planning for a full-on Halo 3 website in the next few weeks. Ivan and I are currently working on hosting and blogging software...he may have even purchased the hosting already.

Our goal is to have a weekly podcast/blogcast session on Halo 3. We haven't ironed out the details, but I think we can actively include people in the clan for this and conduct it in the Halo 2 lobby for the time being. We just need to figure out a way to forward the in-lobby audio to a computer and record it there. If anyone has ideas, let me know.

Check out TXB's Review of the Halo 3 pertinent information. The people who run this site are idiots sometimes...Bungie was talking about Halo 2 during the entire quoted segment.

#19 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 31 July 2006 - 09:25 AM

We expect new multiplayer screens and details soon.

I was actually thinking about this the other day, and I don't expect anything for a while. Bungie being a part of the Microsoft stable means that they'll have to be careful not to step on/dampen/squash Gears of War's hype. Add to that Bungie's penchant for closed-fisted secrecy, and well, I'm just not hopeful, that's all.

Would be sweet, though.

Internal Multiplayer Tests

1) Bungie does not have nearly enough people for this to be a sufficient test of, well, anything.
-Network code? Nope. Remember how they were all excited about Matchmaking but then when Nov. 9 came around, Matchmaking moved hella slow because it was testing all possible connections?
-Glitches? The more people you have, the better your odds, and well, it kind of helps to be good at your own game (see: #2, below), since a lot of the things people have enjoyed so far seem to have been, well, accidental (see: Halo 1).
2) In order to test the limits of a game, you have to be GOOD at an aspect of it. HIH is good at tricking (breaking the game), MLG is good at playing the game with jaw-dropping skill and pushing the maps the farthest they can go strategy-wise (pwning). Bungie is good at... neither. They just make the game. And if you had any doubts about the skill of Bungie, look no further my friend. They're bad. Really bad. Notice how these legendary HIH tricking names are also terrible at Multiplayer, no matter how good they are at getting on the top of levels and breaking the engine in other ways.




The solution, then, is as follows:

A LARGE-SCALE test, involving Bungie employees, Plebeians (kind of like the Microsoft internal test last time), hardcore tricksters (HIH), and skilled players (MLG). char, who owned the Microsoft beta last time is not good. Most of the guys in our clan could compete with him. And he was SO GOOD, according to Bungie, that he inspired a "Kill char" contest? Testing a game's competitiveness is clearly important: you need better players. If you're hoping to find exploits, normal players won't cut it either. They just won't find the game-crippling exploits the way a dedicated guy like Frogblast, who knows the ins and outs of the Halo system, could. And as far as privacy goes, two points: Non-disclosure agreements provide all sorts of avenues for getting back at people who leak info, especially since the people who would be likely to do it would be big names (Who the fuck is Kunae? He was relatively anonymous online. But I sure as hell know the OGREs and Frogblast, and could track them down a lot easier.) And, as Microsoft has proven countless times recently (cough- Xbox 360 -cough), "leaks" to help fan the flames of enthusiasm can be a VERY effective tool.

Christ, why do I feel a growing sense of unease now that I see Bungie getting ready to implement the same testing procedures as last time? IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT, I ALWAYS SAY. You know, as in Halo 1. It wasn't broken, I promise. However, your bunk-ass testing procedures that fucked up large quantities of the gameplay experience in Halo 2? They were broken. Yet you're not fixing them? You can't be serious..... Fuck.

#20 Syracuse022

Syracuse022

    Build My Gallows High, Baby

  • Veteran
  • 4,164 posts

Posted 31 July 2006 - 11:27 AM

Or maybe they're just intending to do what they did last time... you know, the Nov. 9th beta test for Halo 2? When all of the problems and the busted-ass gameplay was discovered? Is that what we'll do again this time? Help them iron out the kinks after the retail release? Great business model, guys. I can't wait for Halo 3 1.1



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Halo 3

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq