Halo has "a lot to learn" from COD4 News

Halo a simulation?


















LOL

I dunno I think I enjoyed Halo3 more in single player. H3 hooked me 100% in single player while I STILL have not finished COD4 (yes I know), I never even think of going into SP when COD4 goes in the 360 the MP is just too good!

No, no no, don't do more scripted games. I much prefer the replayability of a title where the individual elements can act indepentendly,. so you get a different battle unfolding each time, not just the same ambush or dramatic moment. Halo 3 outfoxed me so many times by changing the way enemies approached and reacted to things, but CoD4 is just the same game every time.

No, they don't!

COD is great the first time round, on normal difficulty. But once you get it into it, once you start jumping the difficulty up, you can see the whole thing is one massive trick. The constant respawns just blow the reality of the situation out the door, the trickery required to keep the pressure on fails massively as you get deeper into the game.

Halo, despite some minor flaws, felt far more nature, and contrary to COD, as you went up the difficulty levels became more realistic, and more natural. Everything right up to the first major flood level is an amazing experience.

I traded COD4 in after 3 weeks. I still have Halo 3.

As for seasidebaz, all games are simulations.

To be honest.. I am against scripted set pieces. I prefer AI that creates these "set pieces" by itself because it is smart. Guess we are not there yet ;)

I prefer the Halo 3 approach actually.. I can play levels again and have fun while in COD4 that doesn't work so well.

It's a killing simulator.

Spot the dumbass. Hint: his name rhymes with beabidesaz.

Yeah, sorry, I missed the bit where Bungie studied real aliens in a distant galaxy in order to create a simulation of intergalactic warfare.

Also, I don't think I'll be buying any diamonds in a hurry. If Bejewelled is a simulation, that means every time I place 3 or more diamonds together.... POW! gone.

Best get out of this thread now, the Halo Defence Force have picked up on me saying bad things about their big gay leader ;)

What's wrong with scripted? It doesn't make it any less fun to see and play. Most of the cool stuff in HL2 is scripted.

At the very worst, COD4´s scripting forces the player into anticipating it in order to get through specific situations. For me, there are some points in the game, especially on Veteran difficulty, where the rigid scripting completely ruined the immersion.

Lukus 0
Seasidebaz 74398437289432

he wins

@seasidebaz

Wow, you really are a dumbass. You still don't get it.
Hint: It has nothing to do with realism.

Are there ANY games where the set-pieces aren't scripted? I'm sure the enemy wouldn't spontaneously think to jump in a couple of Scarabs, fly in and take out the surrounding environment in any one place more than another. If they just randomly decided to upgrade to heavy artillery and tanks because it seemed a good idea then judging the difficulty curve would be impossible.

I can't wait for plasma grenades spawning at my feet from out of nowhere.

And bottlenecks of never-ending Covenant.

for me, the perfect game would be a combo of H3 SP and COD4 MP.


now that I would buy on day one.

"Sure, said Isla, there are plenty of scenes in the Halo that are scripted, in-game moments - but, "A lot of time players don't experience it, or they don't see the thing going on, or they maybe don't experience it in quite the same way we expected them to.""

Surely this is what is great about Halo? I like COD4 but it's scripted to buggery and beyond. I'd much rather games moved in the direction of Halo than COD4 (although Halo1 was probably stronger in this regard than the sequels).

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! COD4 may have forced the player to witness some scenes, but Halo 3 was FAR more memorable for the way it played out due to the freeform AI.

for me, the perfect game would be a combo of H3 SP and COD4 MP.

For me, the forge and Duck Hunt and theatre is better than a perks system which means anyone who hasn't been playing for hours a day since the beginning doesn't have a hope in hell.

I think Halo has always been an extremely simulation driven game... Simulation, I think, adds replayability

So apparently I'm a dumbass for reading this line here. Simulation was a very silly word to say, as it implies a computer representation of a physical system. PHYSICAL being the operative word. Last time I checked, there were no physical aliens, no physical Spartan armour, no physical ecosystems on other planets... No intergalactic struggle for power... In fact nothing that would imply simulation of any kind. I think what he meant to say is that everything is AI driven, so scripting screws everything up.

So no, it's not a simulation. It's just some very good AI, and that's all. (not even that good, in some cases... When I played it, there were quite a few times the enemy would just be hanging around waiting for me to step in the right spot to set off their AI...)

I hated COD4 singleplayer (the grenades sucks). I did finish it on veteran but in order to do so you had to memorise where all the spawning enemies would pop up. Halo 3 on Legendary was a much better experience imo.

I was thinking the exact opposite (edit: to the Bungie guy). If COD could have the Halo approach - just put all the elements in a landscape and let a situation evolve - it would be a much better game.

What the hell are you on about?! Halo is fine the way it is.

As long as they don't turn Halo into scripted spawn fest with magical lines to cross known as COD4 i am fine with "learning".

but, you know, COD4 was GOTY... so all games have to be like that now

Having played both games, I thought CoD 4 was a better and more memorable game than Halo 3 and in the former's favour I did actually complete it, something I still haven't got round to doing with the latter!

I don't play these kinds of games online normally, stripped of the storylines, I find most FPSs insanely repetitive and bordering on pointless unless they're fast and pack in loads of different maps and game types like Unreal Tournament III, which is about the only FPS I do enjoy online but even that isn't something I'd play for hours on end.

I do feel that the FPS genre desperately needs some new ideas though as moving from one setpiece to another killing things does get wearing once you've played X number of similar games. I'd like to see a mix of adventuring/exploring, puzzle-solving and shooting in equal measures in these kinds of games instead of just endless shooting while following a linear path through the game. In other words I'd like to see the FPS genre evolve in a First Person Adventure one which combines elements other than mindless shooting.

Well it wasn't my GOTY nor many other self-respecting gamers!

I found COD4 extremly 90'ish in its core design. When I can stop the spawning of enemies by simply pushing forward to reach a invisible goal, then the design is flawed. COD4 had some great moments (the first sniping mission springs to mind, and the escort mission in the ruins of tjernobyl too) but at the same time I reckon Halo3 will have a place in my gaming hearth that COD4 could only dream of reaching.

That said, I think it is obvious that Halo3 is not the 'perfect' game, and thus Bungie can and should learn from other great games.

Seasidebaz - I'm sure he didn't mean 'simulation' in the same narrowminded fashion as you do.

Well if he didn't mean that kind of simulation,will someone please enlighten me? Cos so far all that's happening is everyone seems to be agreeing with him.... Or does "simulation" in this context mean "some things moving around under the power of the CPU"? Oh no, wait, scripting does that as well...

I found Halo 2 more fun than COD4's single player... and I'm starting to come around to the same way of thinking for its multiplayer.
I think part of COD4's mp draw is appealing to the WOW stat grinding fanatic in us all.

He's an AI programmer. Simulation in that context means that the AI's are designed to only be aware of things that a real person would be aware of in that situation, and make decisions accordingly, as opposed to an omniscient AI that knows your position even if nothing could have spotted you.

@seasidebaz

I'm not jumping on your case here. Some posters on here are just peeved 'cos you insulted their first love (though tbh, you kind of asked for it).

Anyway, you said "as it implies a computer representation of a physical system. PHYSICAL being the operative word". Physical in that sense does not mean "actual physical object of the type named", i.e. an alien, but rather it refers to a system that appears to behave according to the laws of physics.

It doesn't really matter whether aliens or goblins or space marines are the subjects involved, rather it is more important whether things like gravity and inertia are realistically simulated. Something like Halo is more of a physical simulation in that sense than a 2D shooter might be.

HOWEVER, Damian Isla didn't use the term "physical simulation". He just said simulation, which leaves the definition unqualified. You could simulate brainwaves, or emotions, or surface texture, or lighting (admitedly, some of those things still fall under the mantle of a physical simulation). So you were strawmanning a little when you decided to state that Halo was not a "physical simulation".

On the subject at hand, I would be very wary of looking at CoD4 and drawing too many comparisons. Halo and CoD4 are really quite different games and what works well in one may not work as well in another.

It is interesting and relevant I think (at the risk of sounding a little patronising) that the guy making the statement about how Halo could learn from COD4's heavy use of scripting is the lead AI programmer, and not one of the lead designers.

The set pieces in COD4 were in fairness brilliant, particularly the Chernobyl level.

Seaside, if you can't understand what the developer means when he says simulation with regards to the AI then you must lack basic reasoning skills. Or you're purposefully misunderstanding his interpretation for the sake of a crap troll attempt. Well done. And well done for the "big gay leader" comment too. That was truly pitiful.

I still don't agree that there's a real simulation of anything in particular going on, and I can honestly say that during level 3 of halo 3 (was that the one where there was lots of driving?) I could predict exactly where the enemies would come from, what they would do, and in which order to dispatch them. In fact, pretty much every level up to there too, but that was the one I kept dying on and so it made it all the more obvious. The entire thing felt scripted.

I just really don't get where this simulation business comes from. Unless it's directly related to Bungie's ethos of "30 seconds of fun... repeated", and if it really IS fun they're trying to simulate, then it's one simulation that's failed for me.

The way that Isla uses the term "simulation" here, is not meaning "as close to the real world as possible", but the way it is used in physics and mathematical simulations: You set some rules and initial conditions, and then let it play out by itself. That's exactly what Halo (for the most part) does in its battles.

@Lukus: seems you don't understand either or you'd have told me.

I think by "simulation" he meant that objects in the world behave roughly as you'd expect them to, so if you shoot a barrel, it falls down and rolls across the floor.

Halo 3 succeeded by basically throwing elements against each other (AI, physics, objects, etc), and the "simulation" of their behaviour and the world worked out the outcome. So battles might be different if you play through twice.

Kinda thought that was obvious, to be honest...

@seasidebaz

"I still don't agree that there's a real simulation of anything in particular going on"

I think the problem here is that you just don't understand what a simulation really is. Either that, or you are just pretending to misunderstand so that you can continue to insult Halo. If you didn't enjoy Halo, fair enough, but are you interested in a proper discussion about it or do you just want to fling poo?


"I could predict exactly where the enemies would come from, what they would do, and in which order to dispatch them"

Honestly, that is completely irrelevant. A simulation can be entirely predictable, just like real life. For example, physics is very predictable, so I wouldn't expect a realistic physics simulation to be any different.

>Kinda thought that was obvious, to be honest...

Yeah I think we have fallen for seasidebaz trap and are wasting time replying to his posts.

@Zomoniac, I disagree, the perks system doesnt make it unplayable for noobs. My mate is poor at shooters, he started playing COD4 3 months ago, and he now loves it.

All I know is that as a one player game i didn't enjoy Halo at all, but enjoyed playing it co-op, whilst CoD4 I loved one player. so they could learn from CoD4 in that they should make the one player mode actually playable

/applauds all the people who actually understand what the guys talking about

@kangarootoo:

Part of the reason I didn't like Halo is because it is predictable. Bungie were saying pre-release that the enemy is super intelligent, and can get you with a pincer movement, and can do this that and the other, then when it came to me playing they did none of that. They stood there until you got close enough or shot at them then the AI would kick in exactly the same routines as it had done before. Yeah there were variations, and enemies aren't completely on rails, but why make such a complex AI model when scripting would have worked just as well?

Another reason I didn't like Halo was the godawful freezing on Level 3. Thought my xbox was broken it froze up that many times. And the Flood levels were terrible. And the absolute arse of a story. But apart from that, Halo IS quite a good game. In multiplayer. As long as shotty snipers doesn't exist anymore ;)

I believe Seaside misunderstood what simulation was meant in the article (look at his first post - LOL that says it all), then just stuck to his guns stubbornly or if it is truly his view that Halo doesnt do 'simulation' very well, then he is entiled to the view but would be quite a minority!

I second that we would not want see MORE scripted battles, as would degrade the gaming experience on successive playthroughs as other have said. Simulated based AI is far more fun and challenging if done well, that what I always loved about Halo nevermind the story, characters, weapons etc. It the simulated AI that made the game for me, as you can approach it differently to get the different results. Some moments are truly unique and difficult to repeat!

Other games does AI, but Bungie did it in a way that others want to emulate them. Still it is great for them to look at other games and say yes we would want to do scripted combats as well as they can. Scripted can be great, especially if you was only planning to play the game once!

Afterall war/combat is never that predictable!

I like Halo 3 and COD 4 but I thought the AI in Halo 3 was far superior.

Silly comment to make. I like Halo's lack of major scripting...I like Call of Duty's scripted nature. That's what both of them have always been to me and, from what I can tell, many others. While I'm well aware that change can be good, I think that a Call of Duty without scripting and a Halo with major scripting would be bizarre.

@ seasidebaz

definition of simulation

1. imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.
2. the act or process of pretending; feigning.
3. an assumption or imitation of a particular appearance or form; counterfeit; sham.
4. Psychiatry. a conscious attempt to feign some mental or physical disorder to escape punishment or to gain a desired objective.
5. the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, esp. a computer program designed for the purpose.

Clearly, point 4 has no value here. However, the fact remains, that Halo is simulated representation of a theorized alien conflict on theorized alien planets. The fact that we have no quantitative evidence on alien eco systems or aliens themselves does not mean that it is not a simulation. Simulations are MEANT to simulate events that may not occur naturally, in order to test events, people, places, and products

You've backed yourself into a corner here, and you're refusing to admit. You look like a dick.

This game is a shooter, its an FPS, but its also a simulator of humans would combat a hostile entity, on an intergalactic level. Bungie could be wrong on every single detail, but its still a simulator because they've used the best information they have at hand.

I'm kind of staggered that even the detractors of Halo 3 can't see that in terms of a console shooter, there aren't really any that add up to offering the same kind of open, freeform shooting it does on any particular level outside of it. Beyond the story, the design which you may or may not like (including the weapons etc.), it's the only console shooter - until FC2 at least, and may be bioshock to a lesser extent - which offers epic, emergent gameplay where you're at the mercy of the AI rather than merely being tunnelled along. In fact that the sequences where you are being tunnelled along - the flood level - are the weakest shows how well programmed the freeform levels are. They themselves add up to epic struggles on the later AI settings (if you're not playing it on a harder skill level, it's really not the same game in any way) in amongst set-pieces happening around you in a far more effective way that repeated scripts.

I thought that the power of COD4 only really came from the fact the action was clearly directed. The two most memorable SP sections were the assasination, the coup and the nuclear explosion, and non of those offered much in terms of gameplay. As soon as you're being tunnelled around and the spawn points crop up, the limitations of the game as a single player experience (bear in mind H3 also offers emergent gameplay to more than one play, locally and otherwise) are all too evident.

Naturally, enjoyment is a subjective thing. But it's worth noting the postives in discussions like these outside of personal feeling, and frankly it's quite easy to see that maybe looking to COD4 could also be a step backwards. Both offer different things. Personally I find unlockables are a way to unbalance a game, even if it's in the players head - even if it shows a progression outside of ranking. It makes it hard to dip into a game only a couple of weeks after release and puts people off. But that's my theory...