Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [62 votes]: Should Halo: Reach be made using the Halo 3 Engine?
  • Poll [62 votes]: Should Halo: Reach be made using the Halo 3 Engine?
Subject: Will or Should Halo: Reach feature the Halo 3 Engine?

One of the few and the proud, a Mythic Conqueror, I am.

Poll: Should Halo: Reach be made using the Halo 3 Engine?  [closed]
Yes:  6%
(4 Votes)
No:  94%
(58 Votes)
Total Votes: 62

Please say it is an entirely new engine, and here is why. Because there is an enormous lack of flexibility with the Halo 3 engine. Case and point below:

(This was posted in response to a claim by Urk that matchmaking will not be featured in ODST's Firefight mode because it is based off of the "campaign networking model;" I consider the argument relevant)Here is the reason there won't be matchmaking in Firefight:

Because the Halo 3 engine is the least flexible game engine to date! Think about it for a second. In Halo 3 you cannot rewind a campaign film or make a film clip in campaign. There have been numerous occasions where Bungie has said that implementing a new weapon can alter the game structure entirely. What?!

They have also said that no new armor can be implemented. Feeling a little lack of flexibility in the engine yet? But wait, now there is this! Now suddenly they cannot put a matchmaking system into a "campaign networking model."

Here is a roundabout solution to that problem. Put a matchmaking system in, but instead of going into a game it forms a party similar to the press 'x' function available in post game. Then migrate the party over to the "campaign networking model." It really isn't that hard. Basically, they would be skipping the game portion of matchmaking, forcing the matchmade players to form a party, then migrating the party to the Firefight lobby with a simple "goto" command.

It can be done. Maybe, however, the Halo 3 engine really is that unflexible and contorted.
Do we want this lack of functionality to be in Halo: Reach or do we want a new engine with greater functionality and potential?

Discuss.

  • 06.23.2009 7:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No. I'd like a new engine with new gaming capabilities.

  • 06.23.2009 7:08 PM PDT

I love the part where he says it really isn't that hard.

lol, it is. I doubt he knows much about programming.

But yeah, Halo Reach should use a different engine.

  • 06.23.2009 8:38 PM PDT

I don't join any group that spams me in PM so don't try it.
SPAM applies to anything that is copy and pasted, it is very obvious when you do so don't say you wrote it. Also if you argue with me on the nature of things contained in this signature, you will be blocked and never removed. If you send to me in XBox live you will be Avoided, Blocked, and a complaint will be filed for harassment.

Posted by: IX MA3LS7ROM XI
I love the part where he says it really isn't that hard.

lol, it is. I doubt he knows much about programming.

But yeah, Halo Reach should use a different engine.

Quite

  • 06.23.2009 8:43 PM PDT

PEANUT-BUTTER SLAP!

Considering the fact that they've made a new engine for every full game so far and the now obvious limitations of the Halo 3 engine, i don't see why they'd keep it.

  • 06.23.2009 8:50 PM PDT

I don't join any group that spams me in PM so don't try it.
SPAM applies to anything that is copy and pasted, it is very obvious when you do so don't say you wrote it. Also if you argue with me on the nature of things contained in this signature, you will be blocked and never removed. If you send to me in XBox live you will be Avoided, Blocked, and a complaint will be filed for harassment.

Why would any company continue to use the same engine? That's not progress. It's one of the reasons I am shunning ODST and holding off buying it as long as I can.

[Edited on 06.23.2009 9:03 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2009 8:56 PM PDT

Posted by: Dexomega
Why would any company continue to use the same engine? That's not progress. It's one of the reasons I am shunning ODST and holding off buying it as long as I can.


WHY?! It's considered an expansion of Halo 3 anyway. Should be fun! Come on, you know you'll like firefight!

[Edited on 06.23.2009 9:11 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2009 9:10 PM PDT

I don't join any group that spams me in PM so don't try it.
SPAM applies to anything that is copy and pasted, it is very obvious when you do so don't say you wrote it. Also if you argue with me on the nature of things contained in this signature, you will be blocked and never removed. If you send to me in XBox live you will be Avoided, Blocked, and a complaint will be filed for harassment.

No, I'm sorry. Firefight is Bungie bowing to the players. It is something I have been dreading. I won't deny Firefight will be, "fun"? However it will also be tremendously overhyped, as it already is. Thanks every gaming reviewer in the word. *looks at IGN and spits*

  • 06.23.2009 9:15 PM PDT

Posted by: Dexomega
No, I'm sorry. Firefight is Bungie bowing to the players. It is something I have been dreading. I won't deny Firefight will be, "fun"? However it will also be tremendously overhyped, as it already is. Thanks every gaming reviewer in the word. *looks at IGN and spits*


Sorry you feel that way... to each his own.

  • 06.23.2009 9:20 PM PDT

One of the few and the proud, a Mythic Conqueror, I am.

Posted by: IX MA3LS7ROM XI
I love the part where he says it really isn't that hard.

lol, it is. I doubt he knows much about programming.

But yeah, Halo Reach should use a different engine.
Granted, I don't know much about programming on Halo 3's engine, but it would be the same code they used for multiplayer matchmaking with the "game portion" taken out. With a forced migration to Firefight.

Think of it this way. The code would temporarily take game control away from the player and replacement code would be put in to act as if the player had given the command to go to Firefight. If this is hard then so is everything else. At that point we need a new place where we start calling things "hard."

  • 06.24.2009 6:28 AM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

I want a new engine with new capabilites and game play.

  • 06.24.2009 6:37 AM PDT

Member of team Master Theory.

17th Mythic Conqueror of Halo 3.
5th Mythic Conqueror of ODST.
If you would like to know more about Mythic difficulty please go to this thread. Thank you.

Please do not send me "recruitment messages" as I'm not interested in joining any groups currently.

The Halo 3 engine isn't too bad, but considering it's now coming up to 2 years old I think we could do with a newer engine. Preferably one that doesn't have a floor which is hungry for weapons. ;-)

  • 06.24.2009 6:43 AM PDT

GRAVITY CAT NOT AMUSED
Process initiated : Attempting to give a damn

Process stopping : Unable to give a damn, stopping

Process failed : Damn not given

It should have an engine that can support an entire Halo installation but still be on a console.

  • 06.24.2009 6:50 AM PDT

One of the few and the proud, a Mythic Conqueror, I am.

Posted by: Master Megatron
The graphics engine is fine, it's the rest of it that has the issue. Bungie needs to think about what players may want, and design a more flexible system in order to maximize its lifespan and potential. If they don't, they're either lazy or don't have the nads to tell Microsoft "We need more time." Release dates get pushed back all the time in the games industry, and while the players don't like it, good products come out if appropriate time is given. Look at the Half-Life series. Valve constantly delays installments to that, and it blows Halo away.

Of course, delaying a game only works if you don't spend the time giving each other piggyback rides, though. I'm looking at you, 3DRealms.
Exactly. A company can increase the life-span of their games by years if they make an engine plexible enough to take on new and exciting features. By charging money for certain features, as they do now with less impressive changes, they could make a lot of money with a lot less work than it takes to make a whole new game.

  • 06.24.2009 2:07 PM PDT

Harbinger of Death

I very much doubt it will be. The fact that there is going to be a beta suggests that there will be a new engine, or that they are really pushing the old one to its limits.

  • 06.24.2009 3:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: VMidnightShadeV
Please say it is an entirely new engine, and here is why. Because there is an enormous lack of flexibility with the Halo 3 engine. Case and point below:

(This was posted in response to a claim by Urk that matchmaking will not be featured in ODST's Firefight mode because it is based off of the "campaign networking model;" I consider the argument relevant)Here is the reason there won't be matchmaking in Firefight:

Because the Halo 3 engine is the least flexible game engine to date! Think about it for a second. In Halo 3 you cannot rewind a campaign film or make a film clip in campaign. There have been numerous occasions where Bungie has said that implementing a new weapon can alter the game structure entirely. What?!

They have also said that no new armor can be implemented. Feeling a little lack of flexibility in the engine yet? But wait, now there is this! Now suddenly they cannot put a matchmaking system into a "campaign networking model."

Here is a roundabout solution to that problem. Put a matchmaking system in, but instead of going into a game it forms a party similar to the press 'x' function available in post game. Then migrate the party over to the "campaign networking model." It really isn't that hard. Basically, they would be skipping the game portion of matchmaking, forcing the matchmade players to form a party, then migrating the party to the Firefight lobby with a simple "goto" command.

It can be done. Maybe, however, the Halo 3 engine really is that unflexible and contorted.
Do we want this lack of functionality to be in Halo: Reach or do we want a new engine with greater functionality and potential?

Discuss.


You are quite ignorant about programming I assume. They can't expand on the engine because the expansions you list here are not things they anticipated to be expanded upon, you can't take every last Halo 3 game disc and rewrite the code that's there.

  • 06.24.2009 4:47 PM PDT

I am an Xbox Live Ambassador so feel free to hit me up with any questions via PM :)

Follow me Twitter: @TheBestTheyHad

Posted by: Sky I99
No. I'd like a new engine with new gaming capabilities.

I agree.

  • 06.24.2009 5:19 PM PDT

Posted by: VMidnightShadeV
Posted by: IX MA3LS7ROM XI
I love the part where he says it really isn't that hard.

lol, it is. I doubt he knows much about programming.

But yeah, Halo Reach should use a different engine.
Granted, I don't know much about programming on Halo 3's engine, but it would be the same code they used for multiplayer matchmaking with the "game portion" taken out. With a forced migration to Firefight.

Think of it this way. The code would temporarily take game control away from the player and replacement code would be put in to act as if the player had given the command to go to Firefight. If this is hard then so is everything else. At that point we need a new place where we start calling things "hard."


Things just aren't that simple. Doing something like that (taking control away) is not meant to happen at any part in the game. What if one of the players leave? Many things could happen, control could be given to the remaining players, the game could crash, variables like that are what make programming hard. It isn't the function itself most of the time, it's the variables that could hinder the player's experience that make programming time consuming and "hard."

Although, the feeling you get when you solve something like that makes you want to really continue programming, no matter the the difficulty of the task at hand :D

  • 06.24.2009 10:46 PM PDT