Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: There's pie in that thar sky | |
| Posted By: Slith | Date: 1/30/07 10:33 p.m. |
In Response To: Re: There's pie in that thar sky (Ragashingo) : I like Halo with realistic physics, not hilarious physics. Then you must have really disliked the physics in Halo 1. Personally, I found the physics in the first game to be extremely fun. Less so in the second. But liking the physics just because they're more realistic is silly. I didn't say I liked Halo 1's physics because they were or were not realistic, instead I laid out what in my opinion made it good, what my preferences were. No one has explained to me what makes Halo 2's physics so much greater than Halo 1. Honestly, instead of just saying the physics are better, can you at least try to explain why? [Though I expect I'm inviting a cop-out answer along the lines of "Halo 2's physics are better becuase there's no fall damage, because the vehicles don't flip over, because weapons don't bounce." ie- just the negatives of what I liked.] To further ratify what I like: The bouncing vehicles were fun. A rocket hits you, but doesn't kill you, and you go flying up into the air. It's like a rollercoaster ride. I don't mind the change in Halo 2 so much, I think the explosions are just a different way of doing things. But I still feel that the bouncyness of the vehicles greatly added to the fun you'd have in a game. When you throw out some of the seriousness, even the non-serious gamers can have a bit of fun. Which it is, just plain simple fun to see a warthog fly through the air. You don't get nearly the same excitement when a warthog blows up. Besides, you know how amazing it would be to have hogball in multiplayer? :D The fall damage I really, really, think was a bad idea. Everything I've heard said about it, describes it as being removed to make room for the sword. Not many people actually like the sword. But now, now it's not a battle of whether we have a sword or fall damage, but fall damage or no fall damage, and this is an argument I cannot win because both sides are too entrenched in their belief. Though I'll try and sway someone's opinion anyways. Fall damage might make things harder for a level designer, but it greatly changes the way a map is played. Say a player grabs the sniper and heads up to the top of a steep cliff or hill. If he falls to the ground, he's going to die or lose a fair bit of health. Surely you can see how this changes the gameplay. If said sniper jumps to the ground to quickly escape enemies, he's sacrificing some health for it. In Halo 2, that doesn't happen. The sniper takes no penalty for the quick action - there's absolutely no thinking involved. In a way it becomes monotonous, and reduced the tactics a player can employ to his advantage or disadvantage. Likewise, imagine two players having a gun battle on the side of a cliff, falling isn't enough to kill you, and if you can manage crouching in time, it won't hurt you. Player A jumps off the edge to escape Player B, Player B follows. Player A is not only hoping to escape from B, he's hoping he will survive the fall unscathed while B is hurt If B doesn't follow, Player A can make his escape. You can see why, in my eyes, the physics were better. The biggest argument against fall damage that I've seen has consisted of "Fall damage is too complicated - I want to go anywhere, and do anything without worrying about where I step." Which is absolutely silly. You may as well be arguing against maps like Lockout. Those were my two biggest gripes with the change in physics engines. It's something I feel Bungie really got wrong. Halo 2 served as an experiment for these things, Havok has shown itself, in my eyes, to be much less spectacular than the custom engine Bungie had in Halo, and I fear that the biggest reason they're not switching isn't based on gameplay, but because they're too entrenched in the software to change.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |