Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Newbie Post: Starting about Halo 2's Animation
  • Subject: Newbie Post: Starting about Halo 2's Animation
Subject: Newbie Post: Starting about Halo 2's Animation
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

While the ingame graphics to Halo 2 do look excellent from what was demo'd at E3 2003, I noticed that some of the rougher edges of animation from Halo: Combat Evolved had not been addressed. For instance, when the Master Chief drop kicks the brute off of the ghost, the brute sort of breaks from a fallling back animation seuqnece into a standing sequence--in mid-air, dropping to the ground.

There are many instances of this kind of rough animation sequence transition in Halo, and I was wondering if Bungie would try resolving some of these issues. Which begs another question, one that is being asked possibly out of ignorance: does Halo 2 use the same engine as Halo: Combat Evolved? It sure seems that way and I have read on multiple boards that some viewers think Halo 2 looks little removed from Halo: Combat Evolved. Yes, I understand that the stronger effects (such as the lighting) in Halo 2 are less appreciated until they are taken away, and I have tried to explain to this people online as well, but ultimately, the demo may have felt like Halo 1.5 regardless of this argument.

I'm not a really knowledgeable guy, truth be told, about game development, no matter what I try. I read developer diaries, interviews, and am learning how to model and animate in 3D Studio Max and Maya Composer as part of my research this year abroad in Japan, but even a glance at the Halo 2 Making of Documentary has me convinced that the people at Bungie are among the top of their fields. Thus, I am thinking that if even they cannot even out some of these sorts of rough edges, well...

Also, about the dual submachine guns. Sure it would feel cool using them initially, but from the demo, they seemed weak, and sounded like rock poppers. I personally wonder if they'll end up like the Assault Rifle in Halo: Comabt Evolved--cool, but useless (read: obsolete given the rest of the available arsenal) against difficult opposition.

I guess I am not sure where I am going with this discussion, except to state that I hope Bungie addresses these smaller issues in the midst of making the game bigger, bolder, and broader.

I don't want to come off as a troll or something of the like, but Halo: Combat Evolved really changed the way I looked at the potential of console fps's (as it did for many others). It achieved things with me as a player and as an audience that I had never fathomed games could accomplish. I am simply hoping that Halo 2 is more than a blockbuster hit; that, as a sequel, it becomes something that can bring back the joy of the first Halo as well as carry it further. An example of something that is not desired would be Mario Sunshine on the Nintendo Gamecube.

Other random appending thoughts:

- In the Discovery Channel's "X-Factor: Inside Microsoft's XBox" documentary, it was mentioned that Halo 2 would take on a more three-dimensional style of gameplay--less open areas and slopes, more above and below combat. This sounds great.

- The idea of having multiple looks for multiple warthogs seems a little hokey to me, especially if the hogs behave similarly in all environments. Personally, I love the look of the warthog as it is, while the other models look...less revolutionary, to say the least. To me, the warthog is an icon of Halo's excellence--a perfect example of how a vehicular component to a game should be implemented.

- Brutes. They look freaking awesome, rendered, bump-mapped, textured, and every stage in between. But other than a vicious hijacking capability, what distinguishes them from, well, the rest of the Covenant? In Halo: Combat Evolved, there existed four basic types of Convenant foes--grunts, elites, jackals, and hunters. Each was distinct from the others, served specific gameplay purposes, and the four species combined were more than enough to permutate into hours of gameplay that never felt repetitive. Facing two elites and two grunts was different than facing one elite and four grunts, for example. Now, the demo did not have a chance to show much, but it seemed that the brutes looked like monkey elites, without shields. I am wondering when we'll learn about why Bungie decided to add this race into the Halo universe, to speak nothing of the Prophets.

- The ghosts. I love the way they work in Halo 2. Period. That faster rate of fire is sharp, fear-inspiring, and just plain badass.

- Anti-vehicular turrets on warthogs. Sure, many people complained that the Warthog wasn't armed particularly well given its defensive failings, but will the armor-piercing turrets making obsolete the miniguns? I mean, if those things can lay waste to tanks, then imagine how quickly they'd mow down enemies, especially in multiplayer. Hell, they'd destroy banshees in a heartbeat, I imagine. I wonder how Bungie will balance the two armament types...

- I read that enemies and friendlies will exhibit more characteristic behaviors--that elites would be catlike, jackals bird-like, and that marines would kick over tables as makeshift cover and so on. I really hoep Bungie capitalizes on this idea if it has even a glimmer of hope of being assimilated seamlessly into the gameplay--supported by real-time lighting, we could have skirmishes play out like a scene from Aliens, but more hectic, not to mention more fun.

- According to the E3 2003 demo, there was low gravity on Earth. I'm just wondering how that'll work out in the final game. That is, I can see how the argument that the demo was meant to remain familiar to veteran Halo fans holds, but since the final game will have missions on Earth..well..it'd be nice if Bungie could find a way for Earth gravity to coexist with low-grav space levels without one standing above the other...

I think I'll stop now. These are just the rancom musings of a dork who is having a difficult time readjusting to school life in Japan, after some six weeks of spring break.

[Edited on 4/13/2004 8:16:20 AM]

  • 04.13.2004 8:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Wow you realy deserve a cookie for making suck a big text to complain about animation of a game that is still in production.

Clap clap clap

  • 04.13.2004 8:18 AM PDT

Firstly, about the gripe with the brute's animation: They said that brute animations were under-developed when the demo was shown, so it is natural that they look a little stiff and crap. So assuage those fears!

- Anti-vehicular turrets on warthogs... if those things can lay waste to tanks, then imagine how quickly they'd mow down enemies, especially in multiplayer. Hell, they'd destroy banshees in a heartbeat, I imagine. I wonder how Bungie will balance the two armament types...

The cannon on the warthog is a MAC - Magnetic Accelerator Cannon - It fires large bullet-type things at high velocity, and it is the velocity that makes it so lethal against vehicles. However, it is useless against single soldiers since you need to be so accurate. That is how it is balanced.

- Reiginko

  • 04.13.2004 8:21 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Good post, and you bring up alot of excellent points

  • 04.13.2004 8:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Thanks for the quick replies--especially you, Reiginko. Your explanation of the MAC really helped clarify a few webs in the noggin'.

  • 04.13.2004 8:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

dont forget that the e3 demo is 1 year old and the game is still in development.....

  • 04.13.2004 8:28 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yeah, for sure. I thought about that as well. Then again, I also go to thinking that Bungie would have to dedicate much more resources towards development of the online/multiplayer aspect of the game. My worries are that some little things will be given less attention in favor of bigger changes, and while of course that's common sense in a way, for me it's often the little things that make me forget that I'm playing a game facing a television screen.

  • 04.13.2004 8:31 AM PDT

My worries are that some little things will be given less attention in favor of bigger changes

Don't you worry, Bungie has always known the importance of the little things in games. :)

- Reiginko

  • 04.13.2004 8:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I dont think the multiplayer is priority number 1

  • 04.13.2004 8:36 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

i don't think anything is priority one. i think everythings been treated equally to make a well rounded game.

  • 04.13.2004 8:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I thought the new gun on the Warthog was a Gauss-gun?

How are you going to know if the Brutes won't have their own specific traits. You only saw them a few seconds in the E3 demo. I think you're judging way too fast for a game that is still in development for approx. half a year and it was even less progressed a year back when the demo was released (of course).

[Edited on 4/13/2004 8:47:26 AM]

  • 04.13.2004 8:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

good point

  • 04.13.2004 8:48 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yeah, I think that Bungie is basically trying to balance everything out. I can remember very few times in Halo: Combat Evolved, in which one gun or vehicle was so badly balanced that I wanted to just quit. Like the Ghost, for instance. It stuns you, but in the one player or co-op levels, it was sooooo easy to destroy it. Not to mention how easy it is to kill someone in a Ghost. (Apposed to how hard it is to kill someone in a Banshee.) So, I really believe that everything will be balanced.

Also, Frankie mentions the programming of the dual-wielding about fifty times, and most of the time he says stuff about trying to make it balanced. (Like the in-ablility to throw grenades, etc.)



[Edited on 4/13/2004 8:55:42 AM]

  • 04.13.2004 8:52 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yes, but this is what was shown in the demo: Brutes don't take much to go down--they are not hunters, and they don't seem to have much more life than an elite. Their rifles may or may not be very powerful (the demo had the player running at god mode; infinite life), but they fire too slowly to be assault rifle calibur, yet too quickly to be of hunter quality destruction. Thus, I am led to speculate (key word: just speculate), that they will be some sort of middle ground weapon. I personally don't like the idea of muddling up the divergence between between the two--Halo: Combat Evolved made the good move by having less weapons which were more distinguished in of themselves, thus leading to each weapon's specific uses and capabilities. A middle ground woudl water down this quality.

My question isn't really about the brutes' specific traits, but their existence in general. Why are they there? They SEEM like a middle ground between elites and hunters to this sole opinion's observations, and all I am stating is that if these observations end up holding true to the final product, I personally for one would not like that too much. Thus, I would prefer and hope that Brutes have some sort of special trait--perhaps something that complements a new trait in the gameplay environment, which is being expanded for Halo 2. My own fervent hope is that Brutes will play some heavy part in the three-dimensional combat aforementioned in the inital post of this topic. Perhaps, since other species will use stairways and ladders to get up and down, brutes will eb teh heavy ninja-like juggernaughts that will leap down from above or from below while the elites and grunts lay down suppressing fire. Or something like that--think the flood, but with character. I'm just guessing on a limb here, of course.

  • 04.13.2004 8:58 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

i hope bungie keep a good balance of all the weapon....

There was some flaw in halo 1 like the needler...

  • 04.13.2004 9:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Also, about the dual-wielding. I don't know about you, but wouldn't it be cool to actually dual wield the submachine guns? As in, to be able to direct two seperate lines of fire? When I first heard of the idea (before it was confirmed), I imagined Bungie letting you stand still, then using both joypads to shoot in two directions. Imagine the tactics that could come with this in multiplayer--one guy standing at a fork in the road, laying suppressive fire in both directions, allowing a partner to move up--so that pairs would no longer fear crosses in paths. Of course, I am sure everyone could come up with ten reasons why such a system wouldn't work--so I doubt anything like this will be realized in the game.

What I am saying about the dual-wielding then, is that--is it really dual wielding in spirit? Sure, maybe Bungie could do something like have dual-submachine guns be more powerful, at the cost of not being able to grenade on the fly (since both hands are occupied holding weapons), but having a single reticule that's so wide (like the assault rifle in Halo: Combat Evolved) seems like a step back, one that offsets the setp forward with the new rifle, which behanes more like the pistol from the first Halo instead. I can think of five ideas right of the bat about how they could be implemented into the game, and balanced, but they all seem kind of half-assed to me after another minute of thought. Perhaps I'm just not an especially imaginative guy, and I believe Bungie is far more capable--I am stating that I hope that one of my hackneyed ideas does not become manifested int eh final product.

I suppose what I am saying is that I hope taht the legendary Bungie talent and vision comes through with the right balance of creativity and applicability, as well as accessibility--that the first Halo accomplished so well; I hope that Halo 2 will be the step up that I so passionately desire it to be.

As I said, perhaps I'm jsut being silly and paranoid during the twilight hours of the evening as I find myself engrossed in reading posts on this board. Which is odd, since I almost never post on forums, certainly not consistently...crap.

  • 04.13.2004 9:07 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

How would you control that

  • 04.13.2004 9:12 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

...if you're referring to the idea of standing still and shooting in two directions, well I'm not sure, I haven't thought that far, but of course I have thought about it at least a little. I'm no a game designer yet (oh, but one day).

What I imagined was one of the following:
1) You could make it so that in order to use grenades from dual-wielding, that you'd have to switch weapons before being allowed to use grenades. This makes some sense from a gameplay perspective since it would in effect force gamers to have a slower time to bring out the booms from a dual-wielding position. This would also free up the left shoulder button for grenading (referring to default controls here). Thus, you could have the player hold the left trigger to stand still and individually aim the submachine guns, using the right trigger to fire. This would ultimately lead to a player holding down both triggers while swinging the joypads in two separate sets of directions. Hectic, could be fun. However, this method of control scheme is pretty hashy, utilitarian, and not very refined.

2) If you want to control the time it takes to go from dual-wielding to whatever stance is required to pull out a grenade concretely and definitely (as in, not leave any of the timing and process up to the gamer), then that would mean pulling the left trigger, and having the Master Chief go through some set of animations before he chucks a grenade where the palyer desires, taking as long as the programmers and designers decide. In this case, my first thoughts head towards the directional pad--perhaps the player could tap the pad in any direction to signal that he wishes to stand still and wield the guns individually, and then tap it again for the reticules to recenter and for the palyer to move. However, in my experience games that try to use the directional pad as much as they employ the use of the joypads tend to suffer from control frustrations. You don't the player to have an experience where he says "crud why aren't I moving? Oh, damned, forgot to tap the d-pad again to unlock my standing position." So, burying that idea, I would say, have the right joypad click in to signal the standing position. Since the submachineguns cannot zoom (at least to my knowledge they cannot), the clicking function could be utilized for this very feature idea. Even this isn't perfect, however, since if I were a designer I wouldn't be too hot about the notion of one button or one clicking action sporting more than one function. I would like the buttons to be as distinct as possible. Of course, even Halo: Combat Evolved had the X button do three things (reload, pick up weapons, and activate various things), so having the right joypad click perform two functions isn't THAT much of a stretch. Still, if possible it's a stretch I wouldn't like to make. My last idea would be to have the B button (melee in default) be the standing idea. This would mean that while dual-wielding submachineguns one cannot melee, and it would still have the problem of multifunction buttons. So that idea is out, as well.

As I said, I have not thought that deeply about it yet. I'm not developing Halo 2, so I feel that there isn't much point for me to speculate too far into these things. Just an idea, is all.

[Edited on 4/13/2004 9:31:08 AM]

  • 04.13.2004 9:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

About the Brutes, they were said to be tough as hell (I'm sure I've read it somewhere), however in the demo they go down extremely quick. Which leads me to believe that they were just in the demo for show basically.

They look just as weak as a Grunt, Grunts would be better though (smaller targets). Hehe. Hopefully we'll get to see how they really are, weapon and toughness-wise.

  • 04.13.2004 9:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yea they look like grunts with big weapon and hair everywhere

[Edited on 4/13/2004 9:32:59 AM]

  • 04.13.2004 9:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yeah. I have faith that Bungie will do SOMETHING with them, even if it's to remove them from the game completely. I am simply asking what everyone else thinks the story on the brutes will ultimately be.

Having watched the Evolution of Halo video, I am beyond doubt that Bungie is a studio that has the good sense to remove and modify mercilessly, without compromise for overal balance, flow, and fun.

  • 04.13.2004 9:33 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

What part of JP are you in?

  • 04.13.2004 9:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Just think a boy from the south was able to read all that and comprehend it all. Anyway, I like to say that you brought a lot of interesting points to the table. All of which are ginuine. But don't worry you it'll be alright in the end you'll see.

  • 04.13.2004 9:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Was in Tokyo for a few months at first, but now I'm in Osaka, in the Kansai area of Honshu. I'm typing this from my little lab/office room at Osaka University, in fact.

  • 04.13.2004 7:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I just saw the new Halo 2 screenshot (hours after everyone, I'm sure, due to the time difference here on the other side of the freaking globe). It clearly shows the possibility of holding two different weapons being held at once.

Great, cool, but doesn't this kind of defeat at least half of the tactical component that was so defining of Halo: Combat Evolved? I'm referring to having to pick which two weapons the players chooses to carry at once carefully. Now, while I am sure there still exists some strategy in choosing which two weapons to carry, there is no longer any timing involved--say, carrying a Convenant Assault Rifle to drain shields and stun, and then finishing off a target with an assault rifle or pistol.

Perhaps the shot was for multiplayer mode only, which, featuring a much more fast-paced type of skirmish gameplay, could benefit more greatly from such a feature?

I should probably mention that I for one am not a big John Woo fan. I appreciated how Halo: Combat Evolved had litttle instances of realism in it in addition to the more comic-like action elements involved. Holding two weapons and unleashing the Matrix doesn't seem like the greatest image in the world to me; seems a little tacky, even.

But hey, that's not to say it couldn't work for certain--I liked holding the two pistols in Max Payne games for certain reasons, perhaps Bungie seriously has a plan for the dual-wielding feature it just has not anounced or revealed yet?

  • 04.13.2004 7:27 PM PDT