Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Why I Hate Glasslands
Posted By: Train Dodger <tmesisrevenge@gmail.com>	Date: 9/20/12 6:11 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Why I Hate Glasslands (Gravemind) : No. Just... no. I've liked reading your thoughts on Glasslands, but this is : where I'm going to have to disagree with you. Halo never claimed to be : realistic, and it isn't supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to be an : arcade-y sci-fi shooter with ray guns and deflector shields and FTL travel : and parasitic space zombies and weapons of galactic destruction. Just : because it has a detailed fictional universe doesn't mean that the game : mechanics have to conform either to the books or to real-world physics. : There's a reason why tropes like Gameplay & Story Segregation and : Acceptable Breaks from Reality exist. The efficacy of weapons have often : been described in the Halo fiction much differently than they are : portrayed in gameplay. A single plasma bolt has been described as capable : of inflicting horrific, gruesome, often fatal injuries. UNSC small arms : have sometimes been portrayed in the novels as being largely impotent : against Elite shields (though conversely the Zealot's shields in the : mid-level cutscene in Winter Contingency was shown as being quite weak, as : though enemy shield strength as depicted on Easy difficulty was : canonical). But some things, like the oddness of certain Covie weapons, : does have an excuse, as they really didn't know the full ins & outs of : their own Forerunner-derived technology. They're imitative (and arguably : quite poor at being so), not innovative, and that's largely for religious : reasons. : Even shooters that are ostensibly more "realistic" — your CODs and : Battlefields and so on — are often not all that realistic, either in terms : of tactics shown or efficacy of weapons (i.e., a 7.62 NATO rifle doing : almost the same per-shot damage as a 9 mm SMG). The reason this is is : because if you shoehorn every shooter into being totally completely 100% : realistic, they'll get boring real fast, and a lot of people probably : won't have fun. I grew up in the era of the Excuse Plot, where Mario and : Sonic and Mega Man ruled the day and the story was often the last thing on : our minds. We cared about fun back then, not realism or deep narratives. : An FPS developer shouldn't have to hobble themselves by some idealistic : notion of "realism" when they could instead make a fun gameplay : experience. "Gameplay > everything else," as I always say. I don't consider Battlefield or COD to be realistic. They both commit the same cardinal sins of firearm realism; making SMGs less powerful in terms of per-shot damage than pistols, for example. Submachine guns fire pistol calibers at a higher velocity than handguns, because their barrels are usually about twice as long (with the exception of some really short-barreled PDWs). Therefore, someone with an MP5 should technically be doing more damage per hit than someone with a Beretta 92 or Glock 17, and should be more accurate with single shots at long ranges thanks to the additional point of support provided by the weapon's stock. Delta Force, Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six and America's Army are all a lot closer to what I'd consider "realistic" shooters. See, the main problem with shooters today is that they tend to have an excessive focus on CQB. I mean, close quarters combat should be an option, but not the ONLY option. To be honest, most of these games put "assault rifle range" around 10 to 30 meters, and "sniper rifle range" at about 100 to 200 meters. In reality, assault rifles like the M4 Carbine are frequently used in real life to engage and kill targets that are tiny specks on the horizon 400 yards distant, and sniper rifles can kill at over 800 to 1000 yards and beyond. Sure, that slows the pacing a bit, and necessitates very large environments that were only recently enabled by advances in hardware, but I think it's about time we had more games that depicted the reality of modern warfare. It isn't a bunch of guys running right up to each other's faces with assault rifles. It's more like... taking potshots from behind sandbags at tiny muzzle flashes in the distance while keeping your head down in case of return fire. Y'know, I had this idea once for what I considered to be the "ultimate" game. It'd be a third-person RPG/Shooter for the Wii U with Red Steel-style motion controls, Ghost Recon-style realistic cover-based gunplay, Mass Effect-style activated powers, and hack-and-slash combo-chaining close combat like the kind found in Dynasty Warriors, only it'd have pretty much 100% realism despite the pseudo-fantasy setting. Metal Gear Online was one game that showed that you didn't have to sacrifice realistic shooting to have close combat maneuvers in the same game. The protagonist would have a healing factor built in as part of their backstory, otherwise they wouldn't be able to survive using the crazy tactics that they do. The weapons would be totally realistic, and sound and function just like their real-world counterparts, down to things like recoil and weapon handling. Rocket launchers like the RPG-7 would almost instantly hit their targets, even at long distances. Assault rifles would be accurate enough to reach out and touch someone up to 400 yards away with their single-shot firing mode or short bursts of fire from the prone position, or crouched while supported with a bipod or while braced against a low wall. By realistic sound effects, I mean those guns would have reverb out the ass, especially in outdoor environments. Each environment would, in fact, have bounding boxes that dictate the kinds of sound effects that should be used for that environment. So, for indoor combat, the reverb from firearms would be muffled and the report would be more severe and thudding. When you're between two vertical walls and fire your weapon, you'd get a rapid echo, or a slow echo when out in mountainous terrain, and so forth. If you want to know the kind of sound I'm going for, think the shootout scene from Heat. Seriously, how many video games in recent memory have even accomplished that level of realism with firearm sound effects? Only RSV, RSV2, BF:BC, BF:BC2 and BF3 come to mind. Halo has always been a pretty major sinner in that regard (though hardly alone), with guns that sound like a tumbling child trapped in a dryer at a laundromat. Too bassy, too deep, not enough reverb. Guns make a sharp *POP* that echoes all over the place. I don't wanna hear that excuse about how the sound is "above the threshold of pain" and "impossible for speakers to reproduce correctly". If a Hickok45 video playing on my computer can sound just right, then you better believe that a video game can too. There's no need for that foley-effects bullcrap we usually get. Anyway, back to the game concept. Players would be able to assign powers, combos and stance changes to their character, and then access them from a ring-type menu. Time would be slowed down with the menu open, but not paused, giving the player time to react and select their chosen powers, but not an infinite amount of time. Some of the powers available would be stance changes like different handgun grip styles, allowing players to - after learning the requisite skills - shift to different stances like the Weaver, the Modern Isosceles or Center-Axis Relock, and experience different weapon performance depending on their stances. For example, adopting the Weaver grip would give you high first-shot accuracy, but poor stability and recovery, making accurate rapid-fire shooting more difficult but allowing you to hit targets at longer ranges more easily. Switching to the Modern Isosceles would reduce your first-shot accuracy slightly, but improve stability, making it easier to accurately pump rounds into targets at close range. Center-Axis Relock would increase your rapid-fire stability to the point where you have almost no loss in accuracy, make it harder for enemies to disarm you and give you access to special melee attacks, at the cost of decreasing your first-shot accuracy even further, and so forth. The thing is, the enemies in the game wouldn't be so totally prescient and infallible that the player wouldn't be able to ever engage them in close combat. They would have complicated AI. They'd have a morale system. In fact, some of the activated powers would center around buffs and debuffs, using taunts and cheers to weaken opponents and strengthen allies. A provoked enemy might do something rash against their better judgment, and suffer for it. Also, enemies would be able to run out of ammunition if you tricked them into firing blindly. They're smart enough to conserve it, and instruct their allies to do so as well, but they have a finite amount. If they run out, and happen to be stupid enough to loudly announce that fact, then out comes the knife (or other chosen melee weapon), and you run up and hack them to pieces. Gotta watch out for their friends, though, who may still be armed appropriately and may shoot you in the back while you pull off your fancy finishers. CQB experts would also be favored for using stealth tactics, such as sneaking up on unaware opponents and working them over with their close-combat techniques. The RPG aspect of the game would use a point-buy system to assign skills/talents and attributes to the characters. In addition to their base attributes (y'know, the usual; strength, charisma, endurance, constitution, et cetera), each character would have three main derived stats; Health Points, Stamina Points, and Mental Points. Health would be lost from taking damage, Stamina would be used up when sprinting or using certain combat-related activated powers (or when exposed to stamina-sapping weapons like tear gas or flashbangs), and Mental points would be used for taunts/buffs and certain activated powers (and damaged by the player character witnessing things that sap their morale, like seeing an ally go down, or coming under attack by enemy close air support). All characters in the game would have these stats, including allies and enemies, and managing them would be key to survival. If you or your allies lose Health, you go down and need to be resuscitated (there's a short window of opportunity to save yourself if you have the right skill set, but if you're out of med kits, you can actually pull off something akin to last stand/martyrdom from COD, or even commit suicide as a final act of defiance before your enemies execute you; allies and NPC enemies can do this too, so watch out). If someone's SP runs out, they might collapse from exhaustion. If their MP runs out, they might go berserk, or lose their nerve (if this happens to the player, the character becomes more difficult to control and starts showing all the visible signs of a nervous breakdown when idle). The game would also have a very in-depth inventory system, with a grid-based inventory that forces you to take space into account, along with encumbrance. In order to get a larger grid, you'd have to wear items that give you more grid spaces, like backpacks, duffel bags and load-bearing vests. Every time items are transferred to or from your inventory, the character actually plays an animation that shows them performing the action in detail; no hammerspace or instant weapon swaps here. Same thing applies to your spare magazines. In fact, storage items like bags and pouches would have cloth dynamics and helper bones so you'd actually be able to see the objects stored inside them. Storage items would also react to physics. If you stuffed a vase inside a duffel bag, you'd actually see what appears to be a lopsided mass rolling around inside it, affecting the cloth dynamics of the bag. If you then tossed that bag off a rooftop, you'd hear a muffled crunch and then get "Broken Vase Fragments x1". Yes, it would be that realistic. If you keep your spare mags in your character's pocket instead of a vest pouch, you might actually see your character fumble a bit while the items snag on their clothing. The inventory system would allow for complex strategies, like using a vehicle as a moving loot base (when you get over-encumbered, return to the vehicle to drop off excess loot, and then continue onward), or using the inventory system to make a vehicle into a moving bomb by loading it with explosives (the game engine would actually keep track of the kinds of explosives; if you stuff it with ammunition and it explodes, you'd hear a staccato crackle and get the visual effect of a bunch of ammo cooking off over time, but if you stuff it with C4 and set it off with a remote detonator, you get one big boom). Also, every character - from allies to enemies - would have an inventory and would drop every single item on their person. No random loot drops. If it looks like they have it, then they do. You won't kill a dude who's carrying a fancy rifle, search him, and only find a fragmentation grenade. You'll see his clothes, his remaining ammo, and everything else (since enemies carry finite ammo and don't drop any if they use it all up, there's an incentive to efficiently take them out before they even spot you). Thing is, you won't have enough space to take it all with you, so you'd have to pick and choose. Also, if you blow them up, you risk damaging the items on their person, making their condition lower when you go to loot them. So you see, painstaking realism does not necessarily preclude fun. You just need to be willing to lay down some rules, and then stretch them, instead of forgoing a real-world grounding entirely. The only reason why most game developers don't go that route is because it's a tough one, involving tons and tons of research and specialized expertise and some very difficult game balancing decisions. Sometimes, it's a wasted effort, because most gamers can't even tell the difference. What's odd is that Fallout: New Vegas was actually quite realistic in terms of weapon performance and combat dynamics, but most people didn't even notice, because the unreal qualities of the setting made them fail to notice just how realistic it actually was.

Message Index

Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/17/12 10:22 p.m.
I agree with Williams, but I can see your points.	Rice	9/17/12 10:41 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Battuta	9/17/12 10:42 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Battuta	9/17/12 10:44 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/17/12 11:54 p.m.
On second thought...	Train Dodger	9/18/12 6:24 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	ZackDark	9/17/12 10:49 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	SonGoharotto	9/17/12 11:24 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Chewbaccawakka	9/17/12 11:29 p.m.
Correction.	Quirel	9/18/12 12:10 a.m.
Got it	ZackDark	9/18/12 12:26 a.m.
Re: Correction.	Chewbaccawakka	9/18/12 1:12 a.m.
Re: Correction.	Quirel	9/18/12 1:34 a.m.
Re: Correction.	Chewbaccawakka	9/18/12 1:48 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Battuta	9/17/12 11:32 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Beckx	9/18/12 9:40 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Vagueness	9/18/12 7:26 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/18/12 12:28 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Quirel	9/18/12 12:32 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	ZackDark	9/18/12 12:49 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Quirel	9/18/12 12:55 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	bluerunner	9/18/12 9:05 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	ZackDark	9/18/12 9:41 p.m.
Total war	Flynn J Taggart	9/18/12 12:36 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	SonGoharotto	9/17/12 11:19 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Jaydee	9/18/12 12:12 a.m.
On Halsey being demonized.	Rice	9/18/12 12:32 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	TDSpiral	9/18/12 12:33 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Hawki	9/18/12 1:49 a.m.
Projecting guilt	scarab	9/18/12 2:44 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	Jaydee	9/18/12 3:01 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	Hawki	9/18/12 3:12 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	scarab	9/18/12 3:52 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	Train Dodger	9/18/12 4:25 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	Quirel	9/18/12 9:41 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	Harmanimus	9/18/12 3:39 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	scarab	9/18/12 4:07 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	Hawki	9/18/12 4:46 a.m.
Re: Projecting guilt	Harmanimus	9/18/12 3:00 p.m.
More like projecting Quilt	bryan newman	9/18/12 4:52 a.m.
Re: More like projecting Quilt	Hawki	9/18/12 5:23 a.m.
Re: More like projecting Quilt	bryan newman	9/18/12 5:28 a.m.
Re: More like projecting Quilt	Hawki	9/18/12 5:34 a.m.
Re: More like projecting Quilt	scarab	9/18/12 1:20 p.m.
Re: More like projecting Quilt	Hawki	9/18/12 4:36 p.m.
Best Line of the Whole Debate	Hoovaloov	9/18/12 2:09 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Hawki	9/18/12 2:12 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Quirel	9/18/12 2:16 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Hoovaloov	9/18/12 2:22 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Train Dodger	9/18/12 2:25 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Hoovaloov	9/18/12 3:01 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	bluerunner	9/18/12 8:59 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Hawki	9/18/12 2:28 a.m.
Agree with all but the last sentence! *NM*	Lurono	9/18/12 2:43 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Hoovaloov	9/18/12 2:48 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Lurono	9/18/12 3:12 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Hoovaloov	9/18/12 3:29 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Lurono	9/18/12 9:35 p.m.
This: *NM*	thebruce0	9/18/12 9:01 a.m.
D'oh, attempt 2 :) This:	thebruce0	9/18/12 9:06 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Hoovaloov	9/18/12 2:18 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Train Dodger	9/18/12 2:40 a.m.
Re: Best Line of the Whole Debate	Lurono	9/18/12 2:55 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	scarab	9/18/12 3:22 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/18/12 3:54 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Archilen	9/18/12 3:38 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/18/12 11:45 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Archilen	9/19/12 9:14 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/19/12 11:36 a.m.
Corollary	Train Dodger	9/19/12 11:52 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Archilen	9/19/12 2:36 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/19/12 4:07 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	SonGoharotto	9/19/12 5:01 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/19/12 5:04 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Vagueness	9/19/12 7:15 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	ZackDark	9/19/12 7:19 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/19/12 7:56 p.m.
This is why Gameplay/Canon Segregation exists. *NM*	Rice	9/19/12 11:56 p.m.
Nope.	uberfoop	9/20/12 12:05 a.m.
To be fair to the UNSC...	SonGoharotto	9/20/12 12:19 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Quirel	9/20/12 1:02 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Gravemind	9/20/12 2:17 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/20/12 6:11 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Vagueness	9/20/12 9:32 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/20/12 11:13 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Vagueness	9/20/12 8:36 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Vagueness	9/20/12 9:09 p.m.
Parangosky in GoO.	Rice	9/25/12 4:19 a.m.
Also	Rice	9/25/12 5:26 a.m.
On matters of execution	davidfuchs	9/25/12 7:07 a.m.
Re: On matters of execution	General Battuta	9/25/12 2:46 p.m.
The Halsey Jaw Punch	Rice	9/26/12 2:26 a.m.
Re: The Halsey Jaw Punch	Subtank	9/26/12 5:06 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Vagueness	9/19/12 7:41 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	SonGoharotto	9/19/12 7:48 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Train Dodger	9/19/12 8:08 p.m.
Update To Original Thread	Train Dodger	9/18/12 9:04 p.m.
Re: Update To Original Thread	SonGoharotto	9/19/12 3:54 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	vlad3163	9/23/12 2:27 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	bryan newman	9/24/12 1:17 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Archilen	9/24/12 9:04 a.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Vagueness	9/24/12 3:20 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	General Vagueness	9/24/12 3:04 p.m.
Re: Why I Hate Glasslands	Tsudico	10/30/12 2:22 p.m.