Halo 5: Guardians

[slag]

Over simplification to the extreme. I shouldn't need 2nd Xbox to play with the person sitting next to me on the couch.

Yeah you should. Split screen sucks and should never come back.

 

[TeknoBug]

Split screen works well in LEGO games.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Yeah you should. Split screen sucks and should never come back.

I don't understand. If you find split screen so abhorrent you could always just not use it. There are situations where some people might want it though, so why not put it in?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Split screen works well in LEGO games.

Lego games have nowhere near the complexity of Halo when it comes to graphics and effects.

 

[slag]

I don't understand. If you find split screen so abhorrent you could always just not use it. There are situations where some people might want it though, so why not put it in?

My kids always want to split screen games to play together or against me and I dislike that option.

plus, if you like split screens, you're probably a virgin.

 

[SlitheryDee]

My kids always want to split screen games to play together or against me and I dislike that option.

plus, if you like split screens, you're probably a virgin.

You have a point. Wouldn't want to have a good time and bond with your children or anything.

I did manage to take care of the virginity thing some time ago though. Still not sure how I pulled that off.

 

[jdoggg12]

My kids always want to split screen games to play together or against me and I dislike that option.

plus, if you like split screens, you're probably a virgin.

Hahaha, now I understand your stance. It goes something like this...

"Wah boo sniff, I don't like this feature so no one should be able to do it."

This irritation* I felt came up because my daughter wanted to play with me and split-screen would've given me a chance to help by letting me see what she sees. I don't want her in another room playing because I want to bond over the game... high five when she gets a kill or show her what she could do better next time. She gets frustrated and I don't want her inexperience to scare her away from gaming.

That said, exclusives aside, without split screen it seems to me that there's barely any reason to get a console at this point. I don't need to delve into the graphical comparisons of PC/consoles... I guess people just don't understand that split-screen requires compromises. I'm ok with it... I don't need ridiculous graphics when me and my friends are playing together, we just want good gameplay mechanics (which Halo has nailed, yet again). I'm a PC gamer for the most part - you know, the platform where there's an established expectation of solo-play on a given station/monitor? I bought the Xbox One in the hopes of enjoying the experience that every Halo has offered up to this point: having 1-3 friends join me in the living room to battle each other or go into multiplayer and play as a unified team.

You have a point. Wouldn't want to have a good time and bond with your children or anything.

I did manage to take care of the virginity thing some time ago though. Still not sure how I pulled that off.

Hahaha, nice.


*yes, it's just an irritation. I'm over it. it is what it is. I never thought to look at split screen capability on the box b/c it was always a given, up to H4. At this point I'm simply amused by your disgust of split-screen. Also, the virgin comment cute too.

 

[Lil Frier]

I don't understand. If you find split screen so abhorrent you could always just not use it. There are situations where some people might want it though, so why not put it in?

Putting it in means lowering the graphical qualities of the game. Many don't want that trade-off, especially when you consider the single-player experience requires a variable resolution to keep the frame rate locked at 60.

Also, y'all are getting trolled to hell by slag.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Putting it in means lowering the graphical qualities of the game. Many don't want that trade-off, especially when you consider the single-player experience requires a variable resolution to keep the frame rate locked at 60.

Also, y'all are getting trolled to hell by slag.

Im not seeing the problem with that. I would expect lower quality graphics while split screen is being used. I expect it and I still think it's worth it. I'm looking at a fraction of the screen anyway. Of course I know I'm trading visual fidelity for split screen functionality. That's fine. Adding the option to play the game that way if I want to doesn't take away from the rest of the game. It's an extra feature on top of the game as it is. It's a net positive. That's why I don't understand your argument. The game isn't made any better by the lack of split screen, yet you're arguing as though it somehow is.

 

[Lil Frier]

Im not seeing the problem with that. I would expect lower quality graphics while split screen is being used. I expect it and I still think it's worth it. I'm looking at a fraction of the screen anyway. Of course I know I'm trading visual fidelity for split screen functionality. That's fine. Adding the option to play the game that way if I want to doesn't take away from the rest of the game. It's an extra feature on top of the game as it is. It's a net positive. That's why I don't understand your argument. The game isn't made any better by the lack of split screen, yet you're arguing as though it somehow is.

I'd like to see the proof to that last claim.

The game already can't handle 1080p consistently, dropping nearly to 720p at times. In split-screen, that'll be even worse. You have both the need to render twice AND the need to on-the-fly adjust the resolution twice. It's not just cutting back on visuals on one end, it's doing a lot of complex things multiple times. You have to also then handle the A.I. functionality on the console (for campaign) twice, while throwing in doubled renders and doubles resolution calculations. Neither you nor I know the taxing of the system that this game is pushing, between the visuals, A.I., physics, and resolution changes. You must honestly think 343 hates local gameplay or something to suggest that is is just a "turn the graphics down a little, no one will care."

Really, this amounts to they had to pick something, you didn't like the choice, and you're pulling this B.S. where the choice didn't have to be made without any basis for proof.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I'd like to see the proof to that last claim.

The game already can't handle 1080p consistently, dropping nearly to 720p at times. In split-screen, that'll be even worse. You have both the need to render twice AND the need to on-the-fly adjust the resolution twice. It's not just cutting back on visuals on one end, it's doing a lot of complex things multiple times. You have to also then handle the A.I. functionality on the console (for campaign) twice, while throwing in doubled renders and doubles resolution calculations. Neither you nor I know the taxing of the system that this game is pushing, between the visuals, A.I., physics, and resolution changes. You must honestly think 343 hates local gameplay or something to suggest that is is just a "turn the graphics down a little, no one will care."

Really, this amounts to they had to pick something, you didn't like the choice, and you're pulling this B.S. where the choice didn't have to be made without any basis for proof.

They have already said they're going to do it for Halo 6 due to the backlash for not doing it in this game. Clearly it's possible. You're still saying the same thing. "But it'll look bad"! Ok, let it look bad in split screen. I'm ok with that.

 

[TeknoBug]

I did manage to take care of the virginity thing some time ago though. Still not sure how I pulled that off.

lol thanks for the chuckle, needed that today.

 

[Lil Frier]

They have already said they're going to do it for Halo 6 due to the backlash for not doing it in this game. Clearly it's possible. You're still saying the same thing. "But it'll look bad"! Ok, let it look bad in split screen. I'm ok with that.

No, I didn't say it would look bad. I said they're already struggling with the resolution, and doing everything twice is going to make those challenges greater.

Oh, and having the optimizations of DX12 and a more-streamlined OS will benefit the game, along with general improvements to coding. So, in 2-3 years, getting the splitscreen added will be much easier than this time around.

 

[jdoggg12]

They have already said they're going to do it for Halo 6 due to the backlash for not doing it in this game. Clearly it's possible. You're still saying the same thing. "But it'll look bad"! Ok, let it look bad in split screen. I'm ok with that.

Totally agree.

Also - there are things to consider when you go to split screen. Look at the MCC - it doesn't use the full screen, it adds black borders on the side. So they're probabbly scaling it down to 720. Wouldn't it basically be drawing 2 screens at roughly 360*640?

Anywho, i'm glad the backlash came so quickly and forced them figure out a way to put it in halo 6.

 

[slag]

Hahaha, now I understand your stance. It goes something like this...

"Wah boo sniff, I don't like this feature so no one should be able to do it."

This irritation* I felt came up because my daughter wanted to play with me and split-screen would've given me a chance to help by letting me see what she sees. I don't want her in another room playing because I want to bond over the game... high five when she gets a kill or show her what she could do better next time. She gets frustrated and I don't want her inexperience to scare her away from gaming.

That said, exclusives aside, without split screen it seems to me that there's barely any reason to get a console at this point. I don't need to delve into the graphical comparisons of PC/consoles... I guess people just don't understand that split-screen requires compromises. I'm ok with it... I don't need ridiculous graphics when me and my friends are playing together, we just want good gameplay mechanics (which Halo has nailed, yet again). I'm a PC gamer for the most part - you know, the platform where there's an established expectation of solo-play on a given station/monitor? I bought the Xbox One in the hopes of enjoying the experience that every Halo has offered up to this point: having 1-3 friends join me in the living room to battle each other or go into multiplayer and play as a unified team.




Hahaha, nice.


*yes, it's just an irritation. I'm over it. it is what it is. I never thought to look at split screen capability on the box b/c it was always a given, up to H4. At this point I'm simply amused by your disgust of split-screen. Also, the virgin comment cute too.

Split screen makes the entire experience suck for everyone. You have half the screen or less to use, it takes away from the experience, and just generally sucks. I tried playing it with mario cart and couldn't stand it. That's the basis of my claim that it sucks and shouldn't even be there. Some people like it. Some people also like liver and onions, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it or even enjoy it. Plus, the people who developed the game, you know, the ones who know, said it would reduce the FPS to an unacceptable level, so yeah, ditch it, get rid of it, its an old way of doing things that needs to go away.

 

[Xonim]

I tried playing it with mario cart and couldn't stand it. That's the basis of my claim that it sucks and shouldn't even be there. Some people like it. Some people also like liver and onions, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it or even enjoy it.

So because you don't enjoy what many other people do, your feelings are that those people shouldn't even have the option of doing things the way they want to?

Got it. :thumbsdown:

 

[Lil Frier]

So because you don't enjoy what many other people do, your feelings are that those people shouldn't even have the option of doing things the way they want to?

Got it. :thumbsdown:

Any different than this crusade about how if you want visuals over splitscreen, you should have to make way for the splitscreen folks anyway?

 

[jdoggg12]

Any different than this crusade about how if you want visuals over splitscreen, you should have to make way for the splitscreen folks anyway?

The difference being that every Halo game to this point has had it. You know, as a core feature of the FPS games, if not the franchise.

The swift and enormous volume of backlash, this early in the game's life, shows that the fanbase feels passionately about it.

Probably my biggest issue with the split screen BS is that I strongly believe that this move was less about visual fidelity @ 60fps and more about an opportunity for a cash crab on what is guaranteed to be a smash hit. They know their fan base - they know that people love to play Halo together, either in co-op or multiplayer. If you force the "freeloaders" to need their own Xbone, copy of Halo AND a GOLD membership, (even just to play in the same household!!) they're effectively saying, "If you want to play Halo with anyone else, you're going to need to pony up for the paid subscription service".

I'm honestly interested to hear if you anti-split screeners honestly think that ^ isn't as much, or more, of the decision than the 60FPS messaging I keep hearing.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm honestly interested to hear if you anti-split screeners honestly think that ^ isn't as much, or more, of the decision than the 60FPS messaging I keep hearing.

I will say that the outrage over MCC frame rate was pretty big and I'm sure that played a role in their decision to keep the frame rate up as much as possible. MCC was atrocious at times and I don't know if it still is.

 

[Lil Frier]

The difference being that every Halo game to this point has had it. You know, as a core feature of the FPS games, if not the franchise.

The swift and enormous volume of backlash, this early in the game's life, shows that the fanbase feels passionately about it.

Probably my biggest issue with the split screen BS is that I strongly believe that this move was less about visual fidelity @ 60fps and more about an opportunity for a cash crab on what is guaranteed to be a smash hit. They know their fan base - they know that people love to play Halo together, either in co-op or multiplayer. If you force the "freeloaders" to need their own Xbone, copy of Halo AND a GOLD membership, (even just to play in the same household!!) they're effectively saying, "If you want to play Halo with anyone else, you're going to need to pony up for the paid subscription service".

I'm honestly interested to hear if you anti-split screeners honestly think that ^ isn't as much, or more, of the decision than the 60FPS messaging I keep hearing.

I don't think that theory holds much weight. Many people just didn't buy the game over this, and given how Phil Spencer jumped to stop the negative hype train on the One at the start, I think he has the common sense to not allow forcing hardware purchases to drive the flagship franchise of the brand.

I mean, really, look at the Halo 5 breakdown that was done by Digital Foundry. The game, in a single-player setting, varied its resolution from 1080p to almost 720p (it was some awkward resolution that mathed out to a similar pixel count). The game legitimately struggles with the physics and visuals at times as it is.

Like I said, this game also wouldn't be a simply matter of scaling resolution back. They'd double the A.I. computations on a console. They'd have a game struggling at 720p at times trying to catch and adjust itself TWICE, rather than just once, and then it'd be probably pushed through the upscaling process as well. I just think there would be too much overhead for the console to handle.

The real absurdity, I think, is that they didn't give the OPTION to leverage XBL Compute like Forza. Player-generated A.I. teammates, rather than the canned garbage, could have been a phenomenal feature to bring to the table, a Halofied version of Drivatars. That, and since you're already online for multiplayer, IDK why they wouldn't leverage it to offload the physics some and counter the need for the variable resolution all the time. Of, course, Forza lets you have canned A.I. while offline, so don't mistake my words for saying Halo 5 should have been an always-online title like Titanfall.

It just seems that the game was bungled a bit in the planning stages, it didn't leverage Microsoft's biggest feature for the One (XBLC), and it it horribly suffering from Microsoft's decision to go bottom-of-the-barrel with the parts.

I will say that the outrage over MCC frame rate was pretty big and I'm sure that played a role in their decision to keep the frame rate up as much as possible. MCC was atrocious at times and I don't know if it still is.

Honestly, I never felt TMCC's frame rate was annoyingly bad. The exception is that the Halo 4 Dominion maps were laughably bad. They, like with the 360, were Forge maps that ran like utter garbage. IDK what about Forge maps makes them so fundamentally bad, but they are an unplayable disaster online. How that trash got into the rotation, THEN STAYED THERE, is beyond me. They were bad on the 360, and I was hoping the One's hardware could brute force playable quality on those suckers, but no dice.

 

[smackababy]

Beat this last night. It wasn't terrible. I hate the "packs for loadout" garbage, but it looks like the common things are easy to get and have unlimited use in Warzone.

Haven't done a ton of multiplayer yet, but the little I did was decent.

 

[Lil Frier]

Beat this last night. It wasn't terrible. I hate the "packs for loadout" garbage, but it looks like the common things are easy to get and have unlimited use in Warzone.

Haven't done a ton of multiplayer yet, but the little I did was decent.

If you want a partner for multiplayer, I'm up for it, and I can give you a better rundown of Warzone. However, here's a quick explanation:

--Commons are obviously easier to get. It depends on the pack you buy, the drop rates.
--REQ points aren't TOO hard to get, if you're just playing multiplayer casually. I have about 105,000 points saved now, I don't bother to buy packs often. You get 800 or so in Arena (5-10 minutes) or about 2,000 in Warzone (15-25 minutes). The highest (Gold) packs are 10,000 points.
--You can't crank out any REQ stuff non-stop, exactly. Most everything has to be spawned, but there are loadout weapons (I've gotten Assault Rifle, Battle Rifle, and SMG ones) that you can use non-stop, but they are your starter weapons and require you to hit a certain level, depending on quality (I have a level 3 AR, a 3 and an 8 BR, and 4, 6, 3 SMGs, I think 3, 4, and 6).
--How you progress in levels, I'm not 100% sure. However, when you level up, you can call in better REQs, up to level 8, I think (I usually finish matches at 7). Just to give an example, say you're level 5. The biggest gun I can call in is a Saw. You can spend 5 points to get that, then you go back to 0 points. Your points will slowly regenerate up to your current level, so you can usually call in 2-3 of the lower-level stuff before you level up (for example, you can be level 4, call in a Needler for 3, then call in another Needler when the other 2 points regenerate).

Again, it's a bit of an awkward explanation, but you can see it easily in action when you play.

 

[blurredvision]

I mean, really, look at the Halo 5 breakdown that was done by Digital Foundry. The game, in a single-player setting, varied its resolution from 1080p to almost 720p (it was some awkward resolution that mathed out to a similar pixel count). The game legitimately struggles with the physics and visuals at times as it is.

Unfortunately, there are 3 main components that forums gamers are looking for in all the AAA titles; frame rate, visual fidelity and AI. To get more of one, you typically have to take away from the other 2. It's my opinion that you can typically cheat/get away with good AI (for the most part). The only way to get all 3 at their best in one game is to make a $1000 console (also known as a PC).

 

[slag]

I've been playing this on and off for the past month and it really seems like a long single player game which I like. Lots of fun, enemies are tougher than in the past, and the graphics are gorgeous. Zero slowdowns. I like the game, but am balancing this with fallout4 on the pc. Both are fun games but I'm enjoying Halo more because of what it is, a mindless shooter with a story line.

 

[Lil Frier]

I felt the exact opposite on the campaign. It was SUPER short, unless you hunt the collectibles without a guide while you're playing. On Heroic, a group of 3 and myself got through 10 of the 15 missions (2 are just walking, by the way) in about 4-5 hours. On Legendary, it's no longer than Halo 4. It also felt incredibly easy solo or in a 4-man group, though it seemed harder with just 2 people playing in co-op.

And yeah, I enjoy linear stuff more than open-world, in many cases. The open-world experiences make you trudge through a lot of mindless intro crap with no action for a long time, so you're not doing anything until maybe 5-10 hours in, the time getting through the entire linear campaign would take. Once you get into the game, it's great, but it takes forever. That, and I feel compelled to collect everything and carefully look over RPG elements, and I waste a lot of time doing nothing. Once that stuff is into a consistent habit, like in the middle of Skyrim, that can be entertaining, but when you're just starting out and feeling your way through the RPG elements, it's VERY boring.