"I'm not interested in whether a design satisfies the market at the time. I want games that are timeless. I don't care about games that you do or don't have time for. I just care that they are worth your time." Absolute bars
The sentiment of the quote is great, but is really impossible in practice. There are very very very few games that have shown themselves to be truly long lasting, games NEED to be made to satisfy the market, or they won't survive. They need to be more than that to stay relevant, though. But the probability of a game not being made for the current market becoming popular 5, 10, however many years later isn't really possible The last part is the only real applicable part for me, games being worth your time means so much more than a game being timeless, I can play a game and have an absolute blast for 20 hours, that's worth it sometimes. Other games I can enjoy 10 times that, and both games can be great, just different. SM64? Great game, no sane person would disagree, but have I played it as much as cs? League? Halo? How about less permanent games, like assassin's Creed? Ghostrunner? Outer wilds? Also great games imo, but some won't be great forever,
@@EggsOverSteezythe issue with older games is most people aren't capital G Gamers like back in the day. They want more easy times, to blitz through and only play it once. Flash over content. In essense those who don't prioritize gameplay density and quality. So these older games still play well and still are amazing even when I play them without nostalgia because I never played them before. But most people today are apprehensive about playing the older more adventurous games that in my oppinion had many attributes that let you sink your teeth in that modern games have abandoned. To put it simply modern gamers have gotten addicted to junk food (live service games and that model in general is the easiest way to see this but its occuring across the board) so when they have to eat something genuinely good and healthy, its not as tasty so why. And the itch for more of that sugary goodness is always there pulling them away. But just like with sugar if you cut yourself off for a while and eat some good food for a long while, trying to go back will make you sick with how disgusting it feels. There are timeless games, but just like with classical works of music not everyone has the taste for it, regardless of the undeniable quality and ingenuity of it.
@@EggsOverSteezythat’s not true absolutely whatsoever. The only reason Halo has a fan base right now is because of the original Halos which were not satisfying a market, but creating new passionate experiences within the FPS genre. And it was so timeless that even today when Halo is more worried about catering and satisfying the market Halo still has plenty of diehard fans after 2 decades. What you’re doing is standing in front of an apple then telling me an apple isn’t there.
I'm back. I spent a long time on this one but let me know if I'm a bit rusty. Would love some feedback because I have more on the way! P.S. Regarding my lack of content. The past year has been very challenging. My wife and I lost a baby, my grandfather passed away suddenly, and now most recently a company I thought I would be able to work for and build a career in collapsed after 75 years of business. So yea....I lost my job. However, I try to view everything as an opportunity. I have another little one on the way, and I have a window of time that I have decided to take in order to pursue my passion of games and content creation. This video represents my first project of that effort and I hope the best is yet to come. I am officially active and giving this my best shot. I will be uploading frequently and will be streaming regularly as well so your support will mean the world to me. Thank you for those who have waited patiently, and for those who are new here....welcome... this is going to be a lot of fun!
Man I’m really sorry for what you’ve been through, wishing you better days ahead and that the way forward is illuminated Thanks for making this video, it’s great! Love your commentaries and insight on game design
Heartbreaking news. I'm so sorry to hear of your loss. I hope your wife is doing better and I hope things get better for you. Sending positive vibes. ❤
I wish you nothing but the best. I'm so sorry for what you've been through and I hope you can get back on your feet stronger than ever. Keep on keeping on dude, you got this!
@@eduardogears5259 yeah came off a little mean there, deleted it already. i still think it's ridiculous to say "that stinks" to somebody's baby dying but i didnt need to be as agressive about it, he still expressed some kind of empathy afterall lol.
Frankly, if a traffic cone flew across the map and splattered someone during a high-stakes tournament match, it'd be one of competitive Halo's highlights. I'll never accept a neutered physics engine, regardless of the skill level I'm playing at.
The reason Infinite, and other games, sterilize much of their complexity is because of the idea of Emergence. Emergence is a phenomenon that arises from complexity in the form of new unattainable aspects that only exist with the foundation of said complexity. The more complex an entity is, and how this complexity interacts with itself, the more emergence occurs. When you have aspects such as Emergence, which is currently an aspect being studied at the cutting edge of theoretical physics, many times the outcomes are unpredictable and/or are highly malleable within the constrained rules of the entity (the game). Games like Infinite, which derive all of their monetization and design off of predictable behaviors and expectations, are essentially compromised by Emergence. This is why modern gaming has this sense of constraint and predictability. Modern game devs are too obsessed with games functioning EXACTLY the way they expect because, frankly, their livelihood us predicated upon it.
@@suntzu6122your comment doesn't make sense. You say he's using the term ceiling wrong but then say solved games have a ceiling. At this point, how can you even use it wrong?
This is why I don’t touch multiplayer games anymore, because every game is filled with people who think everything is a competition and I’m tired of everyone using metas and the most boring strats to get wins. Like what’s more fun to fight against? someone using a non meta weapon and being on a even playing field or the person running around In the newest cod with that one marksman rifle that one shots to the chest and has the handling of a pistol while having pinpoint accuracy with no stock and a sawed off barrel. Also that gun was introduced in mw2 so they have had more than enough time to fix it but they won’t. (Or maybe they have I don’t play cod anymore) Although I doubt they did since cod seems morally objected from balancing op weapons or at least until the next season comes out and a new op weapon is introduced to ramp up the battle pass sales
Honestly it’s the beta people that complain to much that changed this industry into sh*t. Think about it. They complained it’s to hard so SBMM was created so all the betas can play with each other
I'm really glad you went on that rant about the physics. You mentioned Quake and Rocket League but also Smash melee is very physics based. Physics can make a game even more competitive if used correctly.
@@FavynTube but melee made their game insanely "sterile" by banning almost every stage and turning items off, they made the game cater to the competitive aspect in the same way 343 does it for infinite, maybe in a better way sure, but i can't say if it is or not
@EggsOverSteezy I think we are conflating two things. Melee didn't ban anything. Melee is what it is, it's not in active development. The COMMUNITY coming together and agreeing on competitive formats is not the same as 343 the DEVELOPER altering the design itself.
@@FavynTube it doesn't matter who banned them? The action is the same, skimming parts of the game to make it more competitive. The COMMUNITY (pros and creators) have called for many of the nerfs we've gotten. Drop combo gone, weapon nerfs, sandbox/map tuning, even changing the starting weapon. I'm sure even more would be stripped if the pros (aka similar situation to melee) had full control over the ruleset
30:47 This is exactly how I feel about Infinite's sandbox. Because every gun has borderline hitscan velocity and reticles are super tight, it means any gun hit you at any point on the map. Engagement distance is a joke in Infinite. Meanwhile, a group of my friends and I went back to Halo 3 and I noticed that I couldn't reliably engage at every distance with most weapons: the AR required me to engage at close to medium ranges to deal reasonable, the BR couldn't snipe people, and the SMG melted but only if I was right in their face. It felt nice to slow the game down and have to actually plan out my engagements: Should I fire now or wait until I'm closer? What if I shoot too early and alert him or he sees me on the motion sensor? Shooting early could land me a couple extra shots and give me an advantage... But speaking of slowing the game down, I wish 343 would bring back momentum. I can't stand that strafing in Infinite feels like there's weight or friction to your character. It's so easy to spam left and right and call it skill when in reality all you're doing is just being a nuissance. I'm not fighting the tactical skill of my opponent, I'm fighting aim sensitivity and how fast they can click A and D or flick their analogue stick left and right. Meanwhile, in Halo 3, if you strafe you have to choose how you will strafe to mess with your opponent. There's deliberate decisions being made, not spamming. The same for crouching. 343 needs to bring back the feature of not being able to crouch while in motion to negate crouch spammers. These people aren't skilled, they're just annoying. Hell, I almost never die to them because they're easy tp predict, so I have to ask why we even need it. Because it isn't an actual skill to mash a button.
Also with there being more momentum, Sniping feels more coinflippy and less about raw aiming skill. The S7 feels slightly impotent in infinite due to this reasoning. ironically the Shock rifile which is not a power weapon feels more consistent even at long long distance due to being a a "triple burst projectile" but its ironically faster then the S7s projectile. hate to say it because this sandbox is all ready limited enough but shock rifle might need a nerf and S7 a hitscan buff if 343 is adamant on the strafe speed being as slippery as it is.
@@keonkla The sniper is way more consistent imo lol. The shock fires 3 projectiles that must hit the head to one hit kill. Literally gotta lead the shot.
2, 3, & reach could be a sweatfest where you fall off the edge of your seat. But they also excelled at being couch co-op or couch goof around multi-player. 343 just doesnt understand the depths of halos legacy. The gravity of halos greatness.
Halo CE, 2 and 3 are correct But not Reach Reach and halo 4 were bad competitively because of Bloom, Armour abilities Halo 5 was bad casually always sweaty Halo Infinite seems to find a good balance but it has SBMM and still not enough cool casual weapons like Brute shot
@@TifffanyTaylor Why are you saying that Halo Reach wasn't competitive because of Bloom Bloom made gunfights RNG This is fine casually but not competitively
You are, very unironically, sounding a lot like the original Bungie Devs when they talked about game design. They never worried about casual vs competitive, they cared about the integrity of their physics, weapons, and vehicles. The one point not discussed in this video was how much control you use to keep (not using the terms “casual” and “competitive“) high-skilled and low-skilled players separated. How do you determine that a player is higher skilled than another? Should those higher skilled players be allowed to interact with much lower skilled players, and vice versa? Personally, I think Halo 3 answered this question almost perfectly, and the systems to evaluate and separate (or not) high-skilled and low-skilled players have only deteriorated in every iteration of the game since Halo 3. Yes, including Halo Reach.
Titanfall 2 may have been the father of modern movement games, but the crackheads seem to have taken all the wrong lessons from it. You can reach speeds over 90 miles an hour, but what you do after that must be carefully considered, because of physics. Newton's first: An object in motion must remain in motion. If you want to stop, you need to find a path to touch the ground, which could be dozens of meters away. If you want to engage a laterally moving target, you'd better synchronize your direction with theirs so they're not zipping across your screen faster than the motion blur can even compensate for. If you want to turn, you either need a perpendicular or curved wall, and it's not enough just to know where it is. You have to be able to visualize and execute how to get there efficiently. Anyone can watch a TH-cam tutorial and be slide hopping, air strafing, and wall kicking in minutes, but getting all that under control and not crashing into things is like learning to fly a fighter jet, which is not too far off from what you're actually doing. Compare this to movement in COD now and the design philosophy is the polar opposite. If you reload, sprint, turn, or jump at the wrong time you can almost instantly cancel out and correct yourself. In fact, it's almost impossible to make a mistake because you can reset to your default state at any time by either double tapping Y, or double tapping B. But the crackheads have somehow got it through their heads that this requires more skill, in fact it's the *only* thing that requires skill because of how dexterous it is. Sure, rapid inputs is a talent in the same way playing drums is, but when the reward is being able to do anything at any time then everyone essentially becomes a slide cancelling turret and there's no such thing as a bad play, therefore there's no such thing as a good play and there's no competition. Movement shooters are about intentionality, physics, and route planning
Hey man. I just wanted to say I’m sorry for the recent tragedies you’ve faced in your life. I hope grinding content creation can provide some light in your life in this moment and I wish you and your family all the best. Love your videos and I’m glad to see you back, Favyn!
YES. I love the way you explained projectile weapons instead of hitscan. It makes lower skill players safer to actually move around because it requires more skill in aiming without forcing each gun to have recoil. It’s the best way to make a gun not be too powerful outside of their intended range. This is exactly why I’ve always been a big advocate that most guns in most FPS games should be projectile based. Entirely the reason I think Halo 3 managed to be so great for casual players AND for pros. It’s honestly one of the main things I want out of my Halo multiplayer. Halo 3 was near perfect and I think people don’t realize just how big a role the slower projectile based weapons had on that
projectile based weapons are annoying, and to counter near hitscan strafe is crazy good in infinite, the whole point is weird like "nerf this aspect and buff the opposite aspect" thats just bringing it to the same equilibrium, but adding slow projectiles (annoying imo) and slowing the movement down. hitscan feels better, and with most maps even the furthest distance isnt far enough to justify slower projectile speed without doing it just as a nerf to having good aim. on some maps you already lose aa and magnetism before hitting the max range of a map, and theres bloom on top of that, so no if you think about it for a second ranged combat already has enough to make it harder, if you get shit on its not the games fault in that case
@@EggsOverSteezyhalo 3 br does it best imo. Any slower and it ought to pack a punch. But i like projectiles since it can add some interplay and yomi to movement.
@@tbc1880 the problem is the whole game slows down, and every other gun needs to be adjusted in a similar way, how it is now movement is just hella buffed to compensate
@@EggsOverSteezy slower gameplay gives you more time to think and stategize against your opponents. Gundam battle operations 2 has that kind of pacing most of the time.
Only a minute in and that's exactly what I've been thinking for the past 7 years about what made me like games like Halo 3 so much. Easy to pick up but hard to master. Also just read your comment and I'm sorry to hear about your recent hardships, my heart goes out to you and your family. But I'm glad to see you back and pursuing your creative passions.
I entirely disagree, Halo 3 was easy to pick up and master, mastery mostly came down to map knowledge. Now you need to learn drop sliding and recoil management and how to trivialize verticality by clambering up everything and how to use the grapple to break every map in half and which weapons have a fucking chance of spawning at which weapon rack. Like can this shit just all fuck off? Halo 3 was simple, you shoot, you strafe, and you don’t have to fucking guess which weapon will be where or have to worry about a bunch of twitch shooter bullshit. The difference between low and high tier Halo CE-3 gameplay is very subtle, while the difference between low and high tier Halo 5 or Infinite gameplay is a fucking smear, it’s like the difference between MW2 2009 gameplay and MW2 2022 gameplay.
I've been playing competitive Project M for over a decade. It was designed with competitive play in mind, but it's honestly just super fun all around, even compared to SSB Brawl, whuch it's based on. It's got a wide skill gap (albeit a higher skill floor than modern SSB games), some wacky/fun items and special game modes unique to it, a bunch of really cool stages both simple and complex, and alternate costumes out the wazoo! If an official title had everything it had without all the weird compromises that every game in the franchise seems to have, it'd be heralded as one of the all-time greats. Sure, in theory it was built by competitive players with a competitive target demographic, but much like you say here, they put strong design that could be loved by anyone first.
This is why I'll always love Halo 3. Bungie just focused on making a good game and both casual and competitive players had their spaces to have fun the way they wanted to. Make a good game and let the players themselves do the work of creating their own casual and competitive elements by experimenting with the sandbox or the quality map design. It also helps to have Playlists dedicated specifically to each (ex. Ranked and Action Sack) to give people a clear choice of what to play. I also think the matchmaking system plays into this discussion and how modern PvP games have f-ed up their matchmaking systems is negatively impacting the games as a whole in my opinion
Regarding aim assist, nobody was really complaining about it until cross-play with PC lol. PC players went from "console players are plebs that can't hold a candle to our skillsets" to "aim assist is legal aim bot" I do miss the old days of gaming though, COD4, WAW, Halo 2 & 3, GOW, R6 Vegas. Good days.
AIm assist has gotten worse to compensate for the increased speed in a lot of these games. Playing on controller used to be considered a massive disadvantage, but now the assists are so high they are favored over MnK for some games
I feel like the classic games were close to "design nirvana" than Infinite. They were super easy to play, yet had lots of things to learn outside of just using the movement stick and crosshair placement. Yet Infinite has the opposite going on where it speeds things up to make it "higher skill and interesting", then adds strange aim assist to compensate, and it makes the game just feel fucking weird to play which doesn't help the casual player base at all. And as a result kind of "caps off" the skill ceiling for better players while also limiting the game in a lot of other aspects.
I'm glad more people are talking about this because I've felt there's a lack of middle ground. A big reason I quit gaming is because my friends kept asking "didn't you read the patch notes" for too many games. I mostly played games just to socialize with friends, so I liked multiplayer as a "semi-casual" player. Especially since I moved a lot growing up. Hell no I didn't read fucking patch notes. If I wanted to read, I'd pick up a book and enjoy myself. Plus, I can't play games as consistently as an adult. That means everytime I come back to a game after a hiatus, I have to relearn it somewhat because of all the god damn updates.
The whole idea of casual/competitive being a hard dichotomy is disproven by the fact that competitive Grifball exists. Make something fun that a lot of people want to play, and some of those people will figure out how to play it more competitively (including making custom settings and rulesets which your game should facilitate as much as possible for this reason).
Best part? If u simply make your game with intuitive and elegant with huuuge skill gap and add mmr everyone wins. Casual players are incapable of giving a f about mechanics and comp players can play pros vs pros.
Not a single great FPS game was ever created "with the competitive crowd in mind", as many devs & publishers tried to bs us over the last decade or so. If the game is fun to play, has enough depth (skill ceiling) and stands out enough - the competitiveness will occur organically, you simply can't force it, something 343i is painfully unaware, unfortunately.
Liked your segment on physics, like nade jumping in Halo and stuff. I hate it when devs won't allow anything unintended. Meanwhile, Smash Melee's *_entire competitive scene_* relies on playing the game in a way it was NEVER meant to be played. That should be proof enough that sometimes you need to let the players decide how to play your game. Instead of chasing after a "perfect" or "consistent" product, devs need to ask themselves "should we actually remove this? Does this actually break the game?" So many of these little accidents add so much unintentional depth to game mechanics and honestly don't break anything unless you're very stubborn about how your game is "supposed to be played" like the creator of Smash is.
Wow when you put it like that it makes so much sense. I always feel so stressed and sweaty playing newer titles because i feel like im about to just be lazered at any given moment. I was wondering why I felt so much more relaxed playing halo 3, and why it is always so evergreen and fun. The fun physics, less shreddy weapons, a more floaty feeling movement and tamed/tempered movement speed and underrated beautiful art direction and sound design. Youre really good at saying the subconscious thoughts in the back of my head.
What separates competitive design elements from casual design elements? 1. Skill gap type mechanics. Mechanics that give you an edge if you master. 2. Skill based match making. The development team decides what players to match you against in social and ranked playlists. Social might as well be considered ranked
Halo is a casual game now wym?? You didnt notice the 80 percent strafe speed? Why would 343 not want strafing in a comp fps???? They arent making a comp fps.
I have to say out of all the points including the physics manipulation with rocket league... I still love above all else the ability to launch weapons with grenades in cs2/csgo. When I cannot reach an awp that is down long on dust or someone tossed a long rifle onto somewhere you can't reach a nade just works. This culling of skill expression is the equivalent of participation trophies in schools when I was growing up. I miss the days where competition was encouraged, and that every single person was not a winner. That there was a distinct line between winners, and losers without the need to castrate competition. This is sadly a part of something far bigger within western society unfortunately just like politics leaking into video games as a whole. The removal of even leaderboards initially for BF2042 was insane, and to see them trying to make everything accessible to everyone is not the way to go. Imagine Dark souls/Souls like games but easy enough for your cousins 5 year old son to play? Would it still be a dark souls game? Bring back games like Jak and Daxter, or the Burnout series. Where things weren't made for everyone, and we had solid competitive games along with our casual games. STOP TRYING TO MAKE CHOCOLATE MILK TASTE LIKE FUCKING ORANGE JUICE!
I would say you _are_ advocating for competitive games. A competitive game is in my mind one where you simply get out in accordance to what you put in. But that can take many forms, and I applaud you for calling out this snobbery that says physics, vehicle combat, projectile weapons, and even stuff like players shadows, are inherently anti-competitive. No, they're just fun competitive! Funpetitive? I've also noticed what you point out, that games create these systems that fight each other, deteriorating the experience in the process. Why do we have muh realistic graphics, or tons of flashy effects, when you're gonna tack on ugly indicators to compensate for the poor visibility? Why is movement so fast you need aim assist on controller to hit anything? It's beyond comprehension at times. Great vid!
This is why story Campaigns are important for multiplayer games. It is (or should be) proof of concept for multiplayer mechanics. If the campaign is FUN with a catchy gameplay loop, it should stay true when you add real players instead of bots. Make a fun game that stands on its own.
On the "map variety" point, I think one additional argument in its favor is that it helps keep a play session fresh and interesting. Maps can force you to use different weapons and adopt different play styles, and so map variety makes it easy to just play for hours at a time. But when EVERY map is some mid-sized 3-lane map, that session runs out of steam like an hour in, even if in isolation I'd take every one of those mid-sized 3-lanes over the "weirder" ones
I'd like to bring in that physics jank in fps also worked incredibly well competitively with TF2 with advance minipulation of it like Rocket jumping, sticky jumping, flare jumping, trimping, and rocket surfing. Anyway i'd very much say the ridiculous Physics in Halo 2 and beyond is an integral part of the series identity, same with sniper ricochet.
Every halo game with a hitscan BR has guaranteed that ANY big team battle map, being out in the open is an instant death sentence. halo 3 is the only halo game where BTB you can actually traverse the map
Almost 10 minutes in, I know this is a general discussion about game design framed through Halo particularly, but man does it feel REALLY specific to Overwatch.
just real quick. to call out the community. when that dude at 343 said they were a competitive game at heart everyone flipped on him. But at the same time they flipped shit when reach came out for being too casual and even more so with halo 4. Then they flipped shit at halo 5 for being too tryhard. which is it guys. make up your damn mind. Edit: i must say its refreshing to see someone say similar points to my argument. Thanks Favyn
My favorite Halo mini-game of all time was a mode called Hoglaunch in Halo: Reach. There was essentially a driving range where three players would arrange a bunch of fusion coils behind a Warthog then try to launch it as far as possible (with a player in it to trigger a score zone) without straying too far left or right. 3 players per team would be launching hogs while the fourth player manned a Gauss Hog turret and tried to knock the other team's hog off course. It was absolutely hilarious, and it makes me mess how fantastic Halo's physics were back then.
Literally only 5 minutes in and you've managed to word what I've been thinking for years while listening to every side of Halo and CoD make arguments that sound like fallacies.
Fantastic video, you make clear sense of all these ideas. 343 and so many Halo fans need to watch this. Fun is fun, no matter what it’s intended to be. Game elements shouldn’t be thrown into categories of “competitive” or “casual” so simply, and devs shouldn’t be limiting fun based on a category. As long as there’s a balance, things will sort themselves out naturally.
1:26 Master Chief in a wheel chair is just so funny lmao But also, I don't think Halo was ever "hardcore"? Like, Reach was my first Halo game when I was 11 and I had SO much fun as a casual. It was just *fun.* Anything can be competitive, but it needs to be fun in order to have people who want to play it that way.
At best Halo 2 was the the most hardcore since it had all the exploits and the BR was almost a hitscan weapon. Even then you could still play Halo 2 without needing to sweat.
I don't understand this sentiment especially when people who played Halo in its prime say it (for reference I was 13 when Halo reach was out, so not much older than you). Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo Reach had a large group of people who cared about ranks, stats, and their service records. To start with Halo 2, bungie literally made ranked matchmaking with their 1-50 ranking system. Halo 2 didn't have anything robust as forge so what do you think people spent a majority of their time doing? You can search ranked 24/7 at any skill level during Halo 2, 3 and Reach and get put into a instant match. Sure people played those honor rule custom games like zombies here and there but the main feature suite of Halo 2 was matchmaking, especially ranked and events like Halo 2 Challenge. Even things you wouldn't expect such as ranked BTB were super popular, it wasn't just hardcore ranked 4v4. This bled into Halo 3, and I can tell you for a fact almost everyone wanted to be a level 50 in that game. I know people who would sell level 50 accounts that paid off their entire college tuition doing that. Also during Halo 3 people got super into stats and community websites like Halocharts and Halotracker started to rank you on their own leaderboards. People cared so much about their service record and things like win/loss rate etc. Halo 3 again had super popular random ranked playlists, and also had ranked weekend playlists like ranked living dead (yes seriously and people had some really unique strategies) and griffball were people tried to hit 50 in the limited time period that the playlist was out. When Reach came out it was one of the first games (maybe only league of legends beat it?) made that used the seasonal division ranking system that every game uses today. Reach ranked was less well received (due to the new ranking system, which ironically one of the reasons that it was made was so that people would stop selling level 50 accounts) but there was a community of people playing arena and I was one of them. To say Halo was never hardcore is misconstruing a large population of players who played the game everyday and enjoyed the competitive ranked environment from 2 to Reach. You can't just say that as you are wiping away a large group of players (especially in 2 and 3). Just like I would never say Halo wasn't just fun wacky custom games, because I was there and just like everyone else did both. Some people just preferred the ranked environment over the fun custom games. Just because you didn't partake in an aspect of the experience that was Halo doesn't mean you can think it was nonexistent. These people liked leveling up, hitting max rank in as many playlists as they can, being at the top of the leader board and having an insane service record. That was their avenue to take Halo serious or "hardcore" and it is apart of Halo's identity. This doesn't even scratch the surface of MLG and professional gaming, this was just people like you and me trying to hit level 50 in Halo 2 or Onyx 1% in Halo Reach. Halo matchmaking was truly something special and nothing like it will ever exist again.
I have always felt that the "Competitive Vs Casual" arguments seen online were pointless and taking away from real conversations that could actually help a game. I just never really knew how to articulate why I felt that way and certainly hadn't gone this far in depth with it. This is a great video, and I hope this stance on the topic can eventually take over the conversation going forward.
Good to see you post again after some time! Genuinely, the way you narrate and construct your arguments/points is still so captivating. Looking forward to future vids, mate.
This was wonderfully cathartic to listen to (and quite hilarious at times!). You have a gift for explaining things I've felt for a long time, but haven't been able to identify and put into words. Thanks for a great video!~
Between this and Laper's vid on how Lethal Company blew up because of pure social fun and how absent that is from modern Halo/Cod/etc. I sense a blueprint forming for how this discussion can go forward. "Casual" effectively replaced "Social" in the public eye. But given this vid, when I really think about Social, I think it actually describes this missing harmony between both ends of the spectrum. In a social environment, you should be able to relax casually, but at the same time, the natural competitiveness of PvP itself should be allowed to shine. You can shoot the shit with your buddies, and when things get intense, you're all able to get excited when you pull that win. People always want a single word for this stuff, I think we'd ought to redefine "Social" as this. It is neither just casual or just competitive, it is the harmony of both that allows FUN to flourish. From design, to player interaction.
Really loved your point about how “consistency” is treated as if it’s the holy grail of a competitive experience. What it really means is that every game is just going to play out the same way, which is exactly how you LOSE long term players, who just get bored of it and quit. Soo many things are compromised for the sake of consistency. Interesting map gimmicks and more UNIQUE maps, hilarious physics interactions.. you know, the parts that make something fun in the first place? A game being fun above all else is what draws in a competitive scene. Even FORTNITE of all things has a ranked mode on it. Just look at smash bros melee. The more I learn about that game the more it sounds like the most broken game ever made and yet it has one of the most prolific competitive scenes out there. A competitive community can’t be forced into existence, they gather naturally around something that has, like you said, integrity, not the charade of a “consistent” environment. Anyway that’s why halo infinite needed playable elites to succeed.
Welcome back! Fantastic video. Sorry to hear about your baby. My wife and I went through the same thing. Glad to hear the great news that she's healthy and you have a new one on the way.
Asmongold reacting to video game trailer. 400k views, Favyn with the well articulated planned and written discussion piece 1k views. Man the world really do be fucked up
Hopefully the video picks up and has legs! It's still early. As for reaction videos I welcome them as long as they're meaningfully added to and transformative, of course!
As someone who played in MLG events and thought that competitive halo settings were 1000x times better than the social settings, I hate Halo esports now. I think this video finally put it into words for me. Momentum and good physics creates a much better sandbox than grappling hooks and clambering. Allow for some damn player creativity developers.
in many ways actually. So lets say a game got easier because devs made lets say getting around the map easier. AKA sprint in halo. This helps not as good players get out of jams where as in h2 or h3 they would have died. Because in those games you had to be more methodical about your approach, there wasnt sprinting or equipment that was easy to use or readily avaliable to get you out of a bad spot. But now take that same instance and apply to a really good player, suddenly the game got much much harder for the not so good player because when you add a bunch of QoL like that to where it dumbs the game down good players can take advantage of it as well. Now this example doesnt work 1to1 in every video game, but dumbing down a game can make it easier for a good player to frag harder because the barrier for them to get kills and dominate also went down which means that even above average players will also dominate even harder. This can make more matches feel like a curb stomp more frequently but for players to really do that in the old days you had to be pretty damn good. @@riisky2411
@@riisky2411 everyone is running the same setups/doing the same "meta" things. This video didn't touch on one key aspect which does directly tie into the "causal" vs "competitive" issue, which is the way SBMM is handled, particularly in call of duty where it's overly sweaty because the game seems to link above average players with sweaty try hards. Or you get a team full of players who cant shoot or play the objective and the other team can, means you end up having to play sweaty/try hard yourself to try and level the playing field. Bascially there's a lot to it, and while COD has always had it's sweat lords, you could still go many games without playing any. Now it's every game and the game does everything it can to get you a 1.0 k/d and 1.0 w/l.
@@riisky2411it sounds unintuitive but i get it. If youre a pro at h1 and h2 you dont want to play casual halo (3+) at all. And NO. Mcc is NOT halo 1 or 2. Thats vista.
TLDR: Comp design is about balance and being very straight forward. Casual design is about experiences and a rock-paper-scissors, and usually has more layers to it. I host IRL Nerf wars on the casual level because they're some of my favorite events, but I absolutely love being in comp tournaments too. But my favorites are always being competitive in a causal sense. So, before I really go into the video, I have plenty of experience with competitive elements vs. casual, both in game and IRL. Comp at its core is all about giving the most balance possible to truly show "who is the best", and the easiest way to do so is cutting out all of the more difficult elements to balance, such as asymmetric maps, more niche but highly effective weapons (rocket launchers, DMRS, shotguns), and really clamps down on rulesets. In any airsoft, paintball or Nerf comp, the principle is largely the same. Your fields are highly symmetric, all weapon systems used are regulated by velocity of projectiles, components that can be used, or even the amount of ammo that can be carried. It's very bare bones, but it also requires extremely quick split-second actions, team communication, and really knowing your role and weapon, along with layouts and lanes of sight. Whereas, casual is highly opened ended, none of what was previously mentioned really *fully* makes for a good casual experience because it removes all of the interesting moments and *competitive* moments you can have in a less strict atmosphere. In games, that would mean highly asymmetrical maps, with clear strong points, that one side might have that both teams are fighting for (MW2's Estate), or one game, you'll get a rocket man clearing objectives, blowing out campers, and doing their team a favor, while you'll have a meta man running through enemy lines causing chaos. But the best casual experiences offer a rock-paper-scissors, not a balance. One thing might be truly powerful, but something will absolutely outclass it, and the process repeats with yet another element. In casual IRL shooting sports, that means you can have someone with a highly tuned sniper, the idiot with a terrible weapon who is running into the line of fire but also might do a whole lot of damage, and on other extremes, someone carrying as much weapons as physically possible on their body to see how hard it is to be Joel by the end of TLOU. Or even a dude running around in a speedo to break your brain... But that's the whole thing about casual, there are more experiences to casual games/events that comp can't offer you. If this just sounds like incoherent rambling... sorry about that... lol.
I literally told a new halo player yesterday if they want to practice illusion 24/7 is the best way because its "babys first map" 3 lanes. Clear simple sight lines. A middle lane that teaches not to push at disadvantage. To use utility and clear out camping sites with nades. Ample nades on map btw. Snipers spawn in power positions that are also easy to flank and team shot. Has man canons to teach interactivity. Its literally a tutorial. Favyn literally seems to be in my head with every vid it genuinely frightens me how close our thinking is.
At it's core, the curse of 'Competitive VS Casual' is in the minds of the players. Hopefully your message here helps others break free of the black and white thinking that's been eating away at the industry for far too long.
What’s hilarious is that with developers trying to design anything that’s ‘competitively designed’ as sterile as possible with no variety or anything that stands out It makes actually getting and holding an audience to watch the esports players pretty damn hard if every bloody match just plays out exactly the same way every time no matter the map and sandbox because everything is designed in the exact same way. If watching one game means you’ve pretty much seen them all why watch any more. It’s pretty obvious a game has failed to make an interesting esports scene to begin with if they have to start offering unique cosmetics for running the stream in the background to bump up viewer numbers rather than the game actually being fun and engaging to watch the best players engage in a variety of a sandbox and cool maps in interesting ways.
Welcome back. Really glad to see you double down on your skill/accessibility/pressure arguments. People need to know there is more to skill expression than pinpoint aim with a hitscan rifle & and crackhead movement tech. Map knowledge System knowledge Ingenuity Strategy All these avenues modern fps have basically abandoned. Sick of feeling like I have to snort a line of coke to not get TTK'd for peeking my head out of a corner. One thing I'm kinda iffy on is removal of physics "to make it competitive" I think that might be bullshit. Not in the sense of not being correct, but that it's a straight lie by 343. I think 343 neutered physics in Infinite because they saw how busted their netcode was and how much worse physics would make it look. I'm saying "competitive balance" to me feels like an excuse to hide the severity of infinite's garbo netcode. Either way, great vid as always.
Been saying since before H:I released that 343 will straight up lie and blame anything but their own design choices/limitations when it comes to those choices getting criticized. From blaming the UI for not being able to handle a team Slayer playlist when it was obvious that the issue was their challenge/progression system, to blaming 'competitive integrity' for removing assassinations when H5 had solved any issues with this already by having them toggle-able. 343s ethos for years has been to say whatever they think makes them look good at the time and blame the players whenever possible.
Lemme just remind everybody that Infinite is the only Halo in which the double BR burst+melee no longer grants a kill (except for Comp.) Let that sink in...
This video is very insightful to me. I've been planning on making my own fps shooter for a more casual player base, but now I see that maybe my definition of casual isn't casual at all.
Been making the same case as many of these points for years as to why I have an aversion to modern arena style shooters. I know the video was already starting to run long, but another great talking point on this subject is how much of an abysmal thing Skill Based Match Making has become in recent. It may have been a good idea at some point, and definitely still should have a home in competitive playlists, but one of the biggest factors that killed Halo Infinite imo is the inclusion of this across all playlists. Especially when the same rating is more or less used on both ranked and casual playlists. It leads to balancing that isn't very fun, like putting a very high MMR player with lower MMR players and expecting them to carry the difference. Or puts someone who is used to the more casual approach to the game in a lobby where they become a liability in ranked. Bad for both sides & without an enormous player base (which neither Halo 5 nor Infinite even come close to even at lifetime peaks); it seems to have no shot at having a positive outcome. On thing about the video that I found to be a low point was the plasma grenade/physics point. While I wholeheartedly agree with the statements made about the importance of the physics, I do feel that the plasma grenades specifically being the method of launching a weapon off of the weapon pad is a bit of a nitpicky or even poor example. I don't believe that frag grenades were ever that great at weapon launching in the Bungie games either. The explosives on Lockout are primarily how I remember interactions like that happening in older Halo games. The plasma grenade launching is something that makes sense with the weapon pad system. It requires you to obtain plasma grenades from your side of the map to do the launch rather than just spawning with the tools needed to do it. It was absolutely not an oversight or contrivance (as was alluded to in that rant). To the contrary it was quite deliberate, I believe the Combat Evolved medal is proof of that. Not a huge deal and fully agree this level of tinkering does limit player expression in some ways. Just felt that whole portion was less important that the lack of grenade jumping, the interaction of physics on objects other than equipment and the pitiful force of the gravity hammer are much stronger points.
Thanks for watching! As for the weapon launching section. It was more so pointing out the INCONSISTENCY. weapon launching was always niche and while everything was affected by physics impulses, usually you need situational circumstances to launch it significantly. I'm aware that it was most likely done on purpose and said as much but it is certainly a contrivance. Even if you pick up a fusion coil and throw it at a pad it won't create an impulse. Main point is they are overcurating every interaction and should just build the system logically and let us figure it out
One of the worst things to happen in gaming discourse is the bastardization of a word like _"accessibility"_ and it irks me to no end. What was once a term that meant making the medium more open for people of all ages, experiences, disabilities, & backgrounds to *engage* with the systems? It has been reduced to simply standardizing art into a product for everyone (and thus no one) rather than for anyone. It's a good thing to make a game easy to learn, but hard to master. It's also a good thing to make a game accessible to say color blind people, helping them to engage with the medium. Accessibility should be making a game easier to access, not limiting its mechanics/design to make it easier to play.
I think Team Fortress 2 is a perfect example of competitive game design. The Rocket Launcher is a perfect example of how physics can enhance a game. You can find people that do these complex and impressive rocket jumps that take hundreds to even thousands of hours to master, and as for those facing off against the Soldier, they can also use the rockets to surf them to safety, or as a counter against enemy Soldiers. The game is also so well designed that the maps have to be well designed and can't follow the boring, three lane map design that most games do these days, or else it sucks. You need to have places for Engies to work well, you need to have places where Spies can hide, and you need flank routes for classes like Scout to work well. This is a way to have players play their way while also having the game be unique. Movement mechanics also change class by class. Scout is the fastest character, with the ability to double jump, and so he's balanced by making him have low health and a weapon that forces him to get close to enemies in order to deal great damage. Soldier is slow, but is able to rocket jump and has 200 health. There are so many examples of how classes can move around the map and how they're balanced around it, that it would take a long to list out, but each class has weapons or items that help them with movement. It makes something like crouch jumping look like child's play. At the end of the day, does Team Fortress 2 have issues? Of course. The game hasn't had a major Valve made update in years, some weapons just make others obsolete, and the bot problem, obviously, but I think that a lot of games can learn from Team Fortress 2 in how it designs it's maps and weapons. I know there is this growing community of guys who see Team Fortress 2 as this casual game that was never meant for a competitive audience, but I think that counteracts how the game was designed.
As much as people hated the game at the time, CoD AW had quite a few dynamic maps that completely changed the layout. Then some of the H2A maps, they were hit/miss in their implementation (the Lockout one was kinda too strong IMO, and Ascension's kinda made you a sitting duck), but I enjoyed the dynamic elements to spice up experiences I played tons of times before.
Man I never questioned the idea that games were on a spectrum of competitive vs casual, or that those concepts were at odds. I mean I knew there were games like Halo 3 that managed to appeal to both, but I never thought about how that dichotomy could be false and actually harmful to good game design before.
Halo is both casual and competitive, but it's their Skill Based Match Making system that intentionally forces players to try harder than they want to just to get a win by putting you with teammates who aren't as good as you, which curates a competitive environment. It's not a "mindset" when the game literally forces you to be competitive.
I miss quake. It's fast, every weapon has a purpose, maps are vertical as shit and force you to think differently, but it still has room for goofy stuff. If they make a Quake 6... they're gonna ruin it. 😮💨
The problem with quake (and old arena shooters in general) is that verticality and some of the tech implemented is a pain to manage on sticks. It's why quake never did well on console. Fortunately, controllers have evolved since the 90s, and now it's possible to play these old shooters on controller without the need for aim assist at all.
While it's not a shooter, I think a game that pulls this off very well is Chivalry 2. It's friendly to new players but also has very deep skill based mechanics which are hard to master. It also has dynamic maps with many interactive elements that work in tandem with it's gameplay. In its main gamemode, attackers have to complete a series of changing objectives while defenders try to stop them, and each objective the attackers complete progresses the map. I highly recommend it if you haven't tried it, and would love to hear your thoughts on it.
When you said, "Ironically, making guns super easy to use, only hurts the casual players more" I stopped working & just smiled cuz I realized that you aren't just some random dweb that thinks he knows what only "BO KNOWS", but you are actually BO FRFR...you is HIM LOL Goodshit
Wow, this is a fascinating video. It's actually amazing how you managed to almost perfectly describe the design degradation that I felt was happening in a lot of FPS games. I love your prospective here, and at this point I'm fully on your side. Extremely well put together man, amazing job!
There’s no game out there that can match the skill sets as Halo. Yes halo was built for fun but it has grown into The most Competitive FPS game out there.
I mean, the part that people leave out was "what" fun it was built for. "The goal of Halo 2’s level system is first and foremost to help you find the most enjoyable games possible. Games that are neck and neck, where the only sure way to win is by playing above your abilities, be it through better planning, more focus, improved team communication, whatever. But it’s fun to not be so serious all the time. That’s what custom games are for, or the Training Grounds playlist if you don’t have enough Friends online to form a custom game. But we believe that games that challenge you to rise above your current abilities are the most enjoyable and the most rewarding." - Bungie 2004 - 2010. Defined by Bungie right there, the "fun" in Halo was always " Games that are neck and neck, where the only sure way to win is by playing above your abilities, be it through better planning, more focus, improved team communication". At what point does the Halo Community acknowledge that them removing these aspects from most playlists removed the "fun" that most people got from Halo?
I feel like this pertains to all art; just FOCUS on making it GOOD. I felt that with music, where I’d focus on tick of the box content, promo, and DIY production instead of just making good music first and THEN putting it out there
Multiplayer games are like Ponzi schemes. There needs to be a flow a new players for older players to beat and feel good against. Once that flow stops or the new players are too good people start calling the game sweaty.
Halo is a mix of both. Its simple to understand really. You can tweak its competitiveness depending on the sandbox that is offered to you. You want BR/DMR starts with weapons scattered in strategic locations? Or tweak the headshot multiplier where everyone dies in 1 headshot? Sure its as sweaty as its gets But if you want each player spawning with random weapons, a sniper free for all, One dude with A TON of health against the entire lobby, a zombie infection horde, or a capture the flag game where you are all in narrow one lane maps? This balance is what makes Halo....Halo. It all depends on the sandbox
@@FavynTube Seen people try to guilt by association him on social media when it bring up what happened with the guy. Infuriating! Hope he's doing well for himself!
Mind if I ask who the designer is? My team is working on some maps for a project, it might come in handy to check out his levels or get in touch with him.
Competitive players don't care whether strafing is viable or the map is interactive, they only care about what's objectively the best strategy. To use your Gears of War example, the meta of that stadium map will probably be everybody ignores the middle, and ignores the cool falling scoreboard unless they can gauruntee that they'll get the advantage from it.
I love your videos! Your topics are ahead of their time, like you're digging up ancient relics of game design and explaining how the industry lost its way. Modern devs are confused, they haven't found the truth yet but if they see your videos they will understand ^_^
i’ve been waiting for a favyn upload for so long. thanks for a new video, i love listening to you and i usually agree w you. love your writing and oratory skills, thanks again favyn
Great video! I think you also need to talk about SBMM which in addition to all the points you made has a huge effect on the competitive/casual experience.
The issue I think is that casual players can’t understand your logic, they want to feel like a super soldier and move super fast, they don’t like slow. This was in fact a overused discussion point to justify Halo 4 sprint: “I am a spartan, why shouldn’t I be able to sPriNt?” Just imagine a discussion with a casual player: would you like a game where you soldier is fast or slow? It’s an extremely superficial and stupid question, but of course everyone would say fast, it sounds so much fun!
I think there's a bit of confusion when it comes to terminology here. The word "casual" here is pretty much exclusively refering to noobs, however the term can also (as is often the case in TF2 discourse) be used to refer to people who play for fun rather than to win, or simply non-esport players. "Competetive" on the other hand is used to both mean "highly skilled players" and esport. The best highlight of this confused terminology is with the two 343 quotes. When they said the game was "too competetive" they mean that it favored skilled players too much. Later when they say that Halo was always about competetive play they are refering to esport. However, in both cases the argument that the developers is actually making has nothing to do with skill expression, it has to do with controlling the experience. The developers believe that they need to control the experience in such a way that new players will have a "good" or "rewarding" experience by simplifying the game to lower the skill floor and giving them cheap easy kills respectively. Later when arguing in favor of esport, they argue against mechanics they can't control, such as physics. This is because in the eyes of the developers esports have to be a finely balanced numbers game that can be tweak so that all variables are perfectly balanced to ensure "fairness". The issue here is that 1. Concessions made for the sake of maximum retention of new players are neither fun nor fair. 2. Concessions made in order to keep the game "fair" at a top 1% competetive esport level are sterilizing and not fun either. What these developers fail to realise is that engineered esports always fail because of this, just look at what happened to Overwatch, every single change made was made in service of the competetive meta and the result is that everyone hates it and the competetive league died. I think the whole issue stems from the fact that these developers look at games like Counter Strike and League of Legends and try to emulate their sterile, point and klick numbers game and apply that mind set to a game formula that simply doesn't work like that. Ironically making a good game that's fun and has lots of options for creative skill expression can often lead to a game becoming an esport despite not being perfectly balanced. Perfect examples of this are Super Smash Bros (Melee being a particularily good example with wave dashes etc) and Quake and TF2. TF2 is an especially good example of "competetive vs casual" because the actual competetive esport scene for the game has their own ruleset that bans a ton of weapons while, reducing the number of players and effectively cutting the game in half as many classes aren't even viable at all (or barely viable) for competetive play. Valve tried and failed (miserably) to bridge the gap between casual and competetive play and the result was a lot of weapons being rebalanced, some deserved, other not, some weapons that used to be completely dominant got nerfed into the ground and became useless, some goofy weapons that were never a problem were nerfed into the ground (RIP caber) and some already fairly well balanced weapons were nerfed into the ground specifically because they'd be overpowered in competetive play. Not that any of that mattered to competetive players as they would continue to enforce the exact same weapon bans and continued with the exact same meta as they always had. The lesson all devs should learn is to make a fun game and then give the players the freedom to tweak their experience to fit their needs. Should a competetive scene arise it will then sort itself out using weapon bans and other tools you make available to them to adjust the experience to ensure the balance for their esport. As for making a game more accessible to new players it's probably easiest if the game is designed in such a way that low skill players can feel like they're contributing in some way even if they're bad. For FPS games having objectives that aren't just based on K/D ratio does the trick. Anyone can push the payload or stand on a point in TF2 or Overwatch and feel like they are meaningfully contributing to their team regardless of if they have a 0/10 K/D.
Let's tackle this a different way, as it'll just get excessively long if I replied to each point directly. I'm not going to 'defend' Favyn, but I will specify the likely intent and correct some misconceptions. Casual - A player playing a video game occasionally. Casual FPS Player - A player who casually plays only FPS games. Casual "Halo" fan - A player who wants an easy, simpler, and less competitive experience based on their unique custom game they enjoy playing. Competitive Player - A player looking for a more competitive oriented game, where winning provides low-stakes reward, losing removes said reward, and the method of winning is determined by your individual capability as both a player and/or a team. Typically gravites toward a "Ranked" playlist and usually only enjoys Low-Stakrs competition. Competitive Esports Player - A player looking for an even more competitive oriented game, and has a strive to succeed and win with high stakes on the line. Typically a player looking to compete in tournaments at every stride, and views Matchmaking as mundane, boring, and lacks the drive that they need. Favyn would likely be referring to the latter entry. The first entry depicts a player who doesn't even play games, but uses it to waste time. This is not the typical audience of an FPS, this is the audience of a game like God of War. FPS casual Players, noted in the second entry, are typically players who want a competitive FPS experience, with the reward strictly from winning, and are provided intrinsic value from learning and improving. They would prefer low stakes competition to higher stakes. A Competitive player is someone who plays video games for the sake of looking for competition. This is as simple as "any multiplayer game that is player verses player, where the determining factor is their skill". This is not reduced to only video games -- bowling is a competitive game, so is pool/billiards, so is darts or even tetris. Mortal Kombat, for example, as a popular one. They would prefer low stakes competition to higher stakes. A Competitive Esports player is someone who not just plays a game for the sake of competition, but does so at high stakes; Money or large gambles on the line. The typical modern FPS is geared toward the "FPS Casual" player, which is why even Fornite has a Ranked playlist. Halo, contrary to every Community members lies, was always geared toward the "Competitive player", as it defined this genre entirely. Halo was always a competitive oriented low-stakes competition multiplayer game, and matchmaking solidified this in 2004. (10+ Ranked Playlists, less than 4 unranked offerings, focusing on the reward for winning and a punishment for losing, as the primary method of progression). With these out of the way, let's tackle the next section: How to make a "good multiplayer fps". This is going to depend on the intention behind the series. Halo, by extension, was always designed, in it's multiplayer, to be "competitive". Let's defined what competitive is, in a gaming standpoint from 2001: The notion of which two or more human players are engaged in a situation where the winner is determined by skill, rather than luck. Halo was not a Player-Verses-Environment multiplayer in 2001, nor was it a multiplayer designed around it's "capability of creating unique custom games" (This wasn't even that possible until Halo Reach). It's derived games were always set as the simplistic notion of "Play for fun, win by skill, improve for fun". Here is a quote from Bungie: "The goal of Halo 2’s level system is first and foremost to help you find the most enjoyable games possible. Games that are neck and neck, where the only sure way to win is by playing above your abilities, be it through better planning, more focus, improved team communication, whatever. But it’s fun to not be so serious all the time. That’s what custom games are for, or the Training Grounds playlist if you don’t have enough Friends online to form a custom game. But we believe that games that challenge you to rise above your current abilities are the most enjoyable and the most rewarding." - Bungie 2004 - 2010. "The lesson all devs should learn is to make a fun game and then give the players the freedom to tweak their experience to fit their needs." This is what a custom game is for. Not matchmaking nor the base multiplayer. This already exists in almost every video game in question -- the difference is that the target demographic for the player who argues your claim, is never at the front and center (Because they're a niche audience). Halo Infinite's Social is an example of this. "Should a competetive scene arise it will then sort itself out" Halo's competitive scene only disabled radar in 2002, and in 2004 was fully supported by Bungie in official Bungie determined design settings that, again, mirrored vanilla gameplay. By this definition, the problem that exists here is truly that most don't grasp Halo's core identity was always as a competitive game, and the capability of you "playing another way" was there, but it was never front and center, not anymore than MLG was...and MLG was far more popular. "..that low skill players can feel like they're contributing in some way.." The problem here is the notion of "low skilled players". Low skilled players simply need to only be in a lobby equal to their skill level. The problem with modern SBMM is the handicap mechanisms based in the principle you describe. We force low skilled players in higher skilled lobbies, quite often, in order to make them "feel" like they're contributing. It's putting together 8 people, but 3 are handicap, so you just divide all of the people together instead of separating the handicap, like what would usually happen. OW's major problem was never really "catering to competitive" either. It was trying to adhere to "both" sides. You can't have foundational gameplay do that. The gameplay must adhere to the basic notion of the core gameplay. If the core gameplay is "too competitive", then the solution for those players is, just like Bungie stated, go play a custom game, or another game in general. Catering to "everyone" is impossible when the lines between these are so far away.
37:15 this part does such a good job putting into words the issues I have with modern game design that I’ve never been able to pin down. Once you pointed it out, it seems so incredibly obvious, and yet the language that everyone online and in the industry uses seems to suggest that that majority of people don’t understand this.
Thank you for saying this. Funnily enough, giving a game more competitive integrity makes it more casually enjoyable for me. That's not to say I agree with every decision made in the name of competitive viability, but if a game is well designed, its competitive integrity won't hinder the casual aspect.
Games need to be built so when I try I win and if I lose to variance its too casual and if i lose to skill its too competitive. All games should be balanced around me the main character.
Ironically, that's how most SBMM operate. I'm aware Favyn did a video on SBMM, I have yet to watch it however I may consider this after this video. I've watched a few of his in the past, but never cared for this content and viewed it more as "I have opinions and I am incapable of bending my knee to counters to the argument." As for the sarcasm, It's actually more of a representation of current day SBMM, particularly for Halo Infinite. The notion is to provide every player an even win-ratio, something that wasn't originally intended for Halo. This idea was directly to provide players incapable of winning, the chance of winning far more often than they would, and would drive players who "are use to winning more than 50%" to play more due to the push of them losing. There's an actual study about gambling that comes into affect here. The gambler isn't drawn to winning or losing, both provide them the same satisfaction. The gambler is addicted to the potential outcome at the end, and the closer that outcome comes to unpredictable, the more favorable that is for the gambler. Halo Infinite tried to replicate that in it's matchmaking solution, which was not just frowned upon by the previous sbmm creator Joshua Menke, but also by internal developers -- but I'm not going to discuss why it was implimented. I'll say that the notion is to provide players incapable of winning, "more chance of winning", and it targets, in particular, the absolute worst players at the spectrum, not the best. The consequential downfall of this solution is it's imbalance it creates. Since it's entirely artificial (You aren't grabbing people based on skill, at all), it's designed in a way to make the game less competitive. In turn, that makes the game more competitive, since you can get MintBlitz on the opposing team as as Silver 1 at any chance and occurrence. And 9/10 times, that's the problem with "Social", and why Ranked Matchmaking was absurdly broken for over a year and a half. Current CSR Matchmaking is applied to part of Ranked gameplay, but it's only meant to mitigate the problem, rather than resolve it. 343 is looking to resolve this issue in the future, however from what I understand, it will be a risky negative publicity...in order to bring a lot more people back to the game.
Halo CE being said as highly competitive lol but there was no sprint mechanic or abilities. Idk but the first 3, Reach and ODST had a complete different type of environment. 343’s 4v4 area is currently what I see as the most strange choice for a Halo. And makes it feel more competitive then ever.
The way plasmas are able to launch and frags can’t is definitely intentional. You get a medal when you launch a weapon and catch it. I find it kind of interesting that it works this way as well because it makes protecting the plasma spawn more of a power weapon on some maps. I found a line up that I use and it changed the way me and my friends played the map. Not trying to self promo but it’s the only vid on my channel if you wanna see it. I know some people just make claims without proof.
Exactly. If they were trying to make it fun there would be voice and text chat available in all game modes. Proximity chat would be available in all game modes. Not just available, the option to turn it off wouldn't exist, so you have to just deal with the fact that when you're close to somebody you're going to hear them talking. There would be a post game lobby, players would be able to stay together. All the fun stats like who killed who the most would still be there. It's not just competitive versus non-competitive, it's also them trying to remove the human component that could be fun but also could potentially be offensive or negative, so they just remove it to make sure the player is in a politically correct and sterile gaming environment. Sucks balls.
343 has got the formula wrong. Despite Infinite being an objectively good multiplayer, it feels much more one dimensional than the Bungie games. They think they need to dial down physics, neuter map creativity and create fluid/variable movement in aid of competitive play. Yet, classic halo did none of these things whilst somehow being more competitively capable than its younger counterpart. Whilst I know most ex Bungie devs aren’t working on Halo anymore, I think 343 need to step back and really take time to understand why the classic Halo formula worked so well.
Say what you will, but there's a reason Fortnite is the biggest and most profitable game for going on seven years now. The game has fully mastered both the casual and competitive experience, ultimately catering to just about every player out there. Halo 3 was precisely that during its run from 2007-2012.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bzivN4KDg-k/mqdefault.jpg)
"I'm not interested in whether a design satisfies the market at the time. I want games that are timeless. I don't care about games that you do or don't have time for. I just care that they are worth your time."
Absolute bars
Oh hey man didn’t expect you here, love your vids.
omg hi kelski
The sentiment of the quote is great, but is really impossible in practice. There are very very very few games that have shown themselves to be truly long lasting, games NEED to be made to satisfy the market, or they won't survive. They need to be more than that to stay relevant, though. But the probability of a game not being made for the current market becoming popular 5, 10, however many years later isn't really possible
The last part is the only real applicable part for me, games being worth your time means so much more than a game being timeless, I can play a game and have an absolute blast for 20 hours, that's worth it sometimes. Other games I can enjoy 10 times that, and both games can be great, just different.
SM64? Great game, no sane person would disagree, but have I played it as much as cs? League? Halo? How about less permanent games, like assassin's Creed? Ghostrunner? Outer wilds? Also great games imo, but some won't be great forever,
@@EggsOverSteezythe issue with older games is most people aren't capital G Gamers like back in the day. They want more easy times, to blitz through and only play it once. Flash over content. In essense those who don't prioritize gameplay density and quality.
So these older games still play well and still are amazing even when I play them without nostalgia because I never played them before. But most people today are apprehensive about playing the older more adventurous games that in my oppinion had many attributes that let you sink your teeth in that modern games have abandoned.
To put it simply modern gamers have gotten addicted to junk food (live service games and that model in general is the easiest way to see this but its occuring across the board) so when they have to eat something genuinely good and healthy, its not as tasty so why. And the itch for more of that sugary goodness is always there pulling them away. But just like with sugar if you cut yourself off for a while and eat some good food for a long while, trying to go back will make you sick with how disgusting it feels. There are timeless games, but just like with classical works of music not everyone has the taste for it, regardless of the undeniable quality and ingenuity of it.
@@EggsOverSteezythat’s not true absolutely whatsoever. The only reason Halo has a fan base right now is because of the original Halos which were not satisfying a market, but creating new passionate experiences within the FPS genre. And it was so timeless that even today when Halo is more worried about catering and satisfying the market Halo still has plenty of diehard fans after 2 decades. What you’re doing is standing in front of an apple then telling me an apple isn’t there.
I'm back. I spent a long time on this one but let me know if I'm a bit rusty. Would love some feedback because I have more on the way!
P.S. Regarding my lack of content.
The past year has been very challenging. My wife and I lost a baby, my grandfather passed away suddenly, and now most recently a company I thought I would be able to work for and build a career in collapsed after 75 years of business. So yea....I lost my job.
However, I try to view everything as an opportunity. I have another little one on the way, and I have a window of time that I have decided to take in order to pursue my passion of games and content creation. This video represents my first project of that effort and I hope the best is yet to come. I am officially active and giving this my best shot. I will be uploading frequently and will be streaming regularly as well so your support will mean the world to me.
Thank you for those who have waited patiently, and for those who are new here....welcome... this is going to be a lot of fun!
That stinks dude....
But welcome back.
Man I’m really sorry for what you’ve been through, wishing you better days ahead and that the way forward is illuminated
Thanks for making this video, it’s great! Love your commentaries and insight on game design
Heartbreaking news. I'm so sorry to hear of your loss. I hope your wife is doing better and I hope things get better for you. Sending positive vibes. ❤
I wish you nothing but the best. I'm so sorry for what you've been through and I hope you can get back on your feet stronger than ever.
Keep on keeping on dude, you got this!
@@eduardogears5259 yeah came off a little mean there, deleted it already. i still think it's ridiculous to say "that stinks" to somebody's baby dying but i didnt need to be as agressive about it, he still expressed some kind of empathy afterall lol.
Oh cool you found your TH-cam password again 👍
Stupid ass 2 factor be closin accounts
😂🤣
yey
😂
"What the hell happened here" - Buck Former ODST- Spartan
Frankly, if a traffic cone flew across the map and splattered someone during a high-stakes tournament match, it'd be one of competitive Halo's highlights. I'll never accept a neutered physics engine, regardless of the skill level I'm playing at.
Flukes happen. One time a pigeon got hit by a pitch in the middle of a game.
We didn't ban pigeons lol
The reason Infinite, and other games, sterilize much of their complexity is because of the idea of Emergence. Emergence is a phenomenon that arises from complexity in the form of new unattainable aspects that only exist with the foundation of said complexity. The more complex an entity is, and how this complexity interacts with itself, the more emergence occurs.
When you have aspects such as Emergence, which is currently an aspect being studied at the cutting edge of theoretical physics, many times the outcomes are unpredictable and/or are highly malleable within the constrained rules of the entity (the game). Games like Infinite, which derive all of their monetization and design off of predictable behaviors and expectations, are essentially compromised by Emergence. This is why modern gaming has this sense of constraint and predictability.
Modern game devs are too obsessed with games functioning EXACTLY the way they expect because, frankly, their livelihood us predicated upon it.
Favyn has awakened from his slumber to spread eldritch knowledge once again.
Halo 3 has a fantastic gap between the skill floor and ceiling. It's how I fell in love with it so quickly, but stuck around so long to master it.
Halo CE has the biggest gap between skill floor and ceiling, in the entire series. It's perfect. \*chef's kiss*
Stop saying ceiling. Its a defined word and youre using it wrong.
If a game is solved it has a ceiling. Tic tac toe has ceiling.
@@suntzu6122your comment doesn't make sense. You say he's using the term ceiling wrong but then say solved games have a ceiling.
At this point, how can you even use it wrong?
I've said before and I'll say it again.
"Competition is a mindset."
You can make Pong competitive if you want.
People made Smash competitive, despite Nintendo's emphasis on it being a party game.
@@343ishill bro even in brawl when nintendo added TRIPPING freaking tripping.
@@Knight62708Tripping was the worst thing ever....still my favorite Smash Bros and the latter Smash Bros games just didn't hit the same.
This is why I don’t touch multiplayer games anymore, because every game is filled with people who think everything is a competition and I’m tired of everyone using metas and the most boring strats to get wins.
Like what’s more fun to fight against? someone using a non meta weapon and being on a even playing field or the person running around In the newest cod with that one marksman rifle that one shots to the chest and has the handling of a pistol while having pinpoint accuracy with no stock and a sawed off barrel. Also that gun was introduced in mw2 so they have had more than enough time to fix it but they won’t.
(Or maybe they have I don’t play cod anymore)
Although I doubt they did since cod seems morally objected from balancing op weapons or at least until the next season comes out and a new op weapon is introduced to ramp up the battle pass sales
Honestly it’s the beta people that complain to much that changed this industry into sh*t. Think about it. They complained it’s to hard so SBMM was created so all the betas can play with each other
I'm really glad you went on that rant about the physics. You mentioned Quake and Rocket League but also Smash melee is very physics based. Physics can make a game even more competitive if used correctly.
I would use smash in almost every video I make if I wasn't afraid of Nintendo coming in and striking me down lol
@@FavynTube Understandable
@@FavynTube but melee made their game insanely "sterile" by banning almost every stage and turning items off, they made the game cater to the competitive aspect in the same way 343 does it for infinite, maybe in a better way sure, but i can't say if it is or not
@EggsOverSteezy
I think we are conflating two things. Melee didn't ban anything. Melee is what it is, it's not in active development. The COMMUNITY coming together and agreeing on competitive formats is not the same as 343 the DEVELOPER altering the design itself.
@@FavynTube it doesn't matter who banned them? The action is the same, skimming parts of the game to make it more competitive. The COMMUNITY (pros and creators) have called for many of the nerfs we've gotten. Drop combo gone, weapon nerfs, sandbox/map tuning, even changing the starting weapon. I'm sure even more would be stripped if the pros (aka similar situation to melee) had full control over the ruleset
30:47 This is exactly how I feel about Infinite's sandbox. Because every gun has borderline hitscan velocity and reticles are super tight, it means any gun hit you at any point on the map. Engagement distance is a joke in Infinite. Meanwhile, a group of my friends and I went back to Halo 3 and I noticed that I couldn't reliably engage at every distance with most weapons: the AR required me to engage at close to medium ranges to deal reasonable, the BR couldn't snipe people, and the SMG melted but only if I was right in their face. It felt nice to slow the game down and have to actually plan out my engagements:
Should I fire now or wait until I'm closer? What if I shoot too early and alert him or he sees me on the motion sensor? Shooting early could land me a couple extra shots and give me an advantage...
But speaking of slowing the game down, I wish 343 would bring back momentum. I can't stand that strafing in Infinite feels like there's weight or friction to your character. It's so easy to spam left and right and call it skill when in reality all you're doing is just being a nuissance. I'm not fighting the tactical skill of my opponent, I'm fighting aim sensitivity and how fast they can click A and D or flick their analogue stick left and right. Meanwhile, in Halo 3, if you strafe you have to choose how you will strafe to mess with your opponent. There's deliberate decisions being made, not spamming. The same for crouching. 343 needs to bring back the feature of not being able to crouch while in motion to negate crouch spammers. These people aren't skilled, they're just annoying. Hell, I almost never die to them because they're easy tp predict, so I have to ask why we even need it. Because it isn't an actual skill to mash a button.
Also with there being more momentum, Sniping feels more coinflippy and less about raw aiming skill. The S7 feels slightly impotent in infinite due to this reasoning. ironically the Shock rifile which is not a power weapon feels more consistent even at long long distance due to being a a "triple burst projectile" but its ironically faster then the S7s projectile.
hate to say it because this sandbox is all ready limited enough but shock rifle might need a nerf and S7 a hitscan buff if 343 is adamant on the strafe speed being as slippery as it is.
@@keonkla The sniper is way more consistent imo lol. The shock fires 3 projectiles that must hit the head to one hit kill. Literally gotta lead the shot.
Halo was built to be fun first and foremost. It wasn’t necessarily “casual”. The competitive scene just came about naturally. 👍
2, 3, & reach could be a sweatfest where you fall off the edge of your seat. But they also excelled at being couch co-op or couch goof around multi-player. 343 just doesnt understand the depths of halos legacy. The gravity of halos greatness.
Halo CE, 2 and 3 are correct
But not Reach
Reach and halo 4 were bad competitively because of Bloom, Armour abilities
Halo 5 was bad casually always sweaty
Halo Infinite seems to find a good balance but it has SBMM and still not enough cool casual weapons like Brute shot
@joerowland2625 sure Joe. Whatever you say 🤔
@@joerowland2625bloom is bad but you can still sweat hard in them.
@@TifffanyTaylor Why are you saying that
Halo Reach wasn't competitive because of Bloom
Bloom made gunfights RNG
This is fine casually but not competitively
@@tbc1880 No you can't
Bloom makes every gunfight RNG
Anyway
Everyone hated halo Reach Bloom
Nobody wants it to return
You are, very unironically, sounding a lot like the original Bungie Devs when they talked about game design. They never worried about casual vs competitive, they cared about the integrity of their physics, weapons, and vehicles.
The one point not discussed in this video was how much control you use to keep (not using the terms “casual” and “competitive“) high-skilled and low-skilled players separated. How do you determine that a player is higher skilled than another? Should those higher skilled players be allowed to interact with much lower skilled players, and vice versa?
Personally, I think Halo 3 answered this question almost perfectly, and the systems to evaluate and separate (or not) high-skilled and low-skilled players have only deteriorated in every iteration of the game since Halo 3. Yes, including Halo Reach.
Titanfall 2 may have been the father of modern movement games, but the crackheads seem to have taken all the wrong lessons from it. You can reach speeds over 90 miles an hour, but what you do after that must be carefully considered, because of physics. Newton's first: An object in motion must remain in motion. If you want to stop, you need to find a path to touch the ground, which could be dozens of meters away. If you want to engage a laterally moving target, you'd better synchronize your direction with theirs so they're not zipping across your screen faster than the motion blur can even compensate for. If you want to turn, you either need a perpendicular or curved wall, and it's not enough just to know where it is. You have to be able to visualize and execute how to get there efficiently. Anyone can watch a TH-cam tutorial and be slide hopping, air strafing, and wall kicking in minutes, but getting all that under control and not crashing into things is like learning to fly a fighter jet, which is not too far off from what you're actually doing. Compare this to movement in COD now and the design philosophy is the polar opposite. If you reload, sprint, turn, or jump at the wrong time you can almost instantly cancel out and correct yourself. In fact, it's almost impossible to make a mistake because you can reset to your default state at any time by either double tapping Y, or double tapping B. But the crackheads have somehow got it through their heads that this requires more skill, in fact it's the *only* thing that requires skill because of how dexterous it is. Sure, rapid inputs is a talent in the same way playing drums is, but when the reward is being able to do anything at any time then everyone essentially becomes a slide cancelling turret and there's no such thing as a bad play, therefore there's no such thing as a good play and there's no competition. Movement shooters are about intentionality, physics, and route planning
Hey man. I just wanted to say I’m sorry for the recent tragedies you’ve faced in your life. I hope grinding content creation can provide some light in your life in this moment and I wish you and your family all the best. Love your videos and I’m glad to see you back, Favyn!
YES. I love the way you explained projectile weapons instead of hitscan. It makes lower skill players safer to actually move around because it requires more skill in aiming without forcing each gun to have recoil. It’s the best way to make a gun not be too powerful outside of their intended range. This is exactly why I’ve always been a big advocate that most guns in most FPS games should be projectile based. Entirely the reason I think Halo 3 managed to be so great for casual players AND for pros. It’s honestly one of the main things I want out of my Halo multiplayer. Halo 3 was near perfect and I think people don’t realize just how big a role the slower projectile based weapons had on that
projectile based weapons are annoying, and to counter near hitscan strafe is crazy good in infinite, the whole point is weird like "nerf this aspect and buff the opposite aspect" thats just bringing it to the same equilibrium, but adding slow projectiles (annoying imo) and slowing the movement down. hitscan feels better, and with most maps even the furthest distance isnt far enough to justify slower projectile speed without doing it just as a nerf to having good aim. on some maps you already lose aa and magnetism before hitting the max range of a map, and theres bloom on top of that, so no if you think about it for a second ranged combat already has enough to make it harder, if you get shit on its not the games fault in that case
@@EggsOverSteezyhalo 3 br does it best imo. Any slower and it ought to pack a punch. But i like projectiles since it can add some interplay and yomi to movement.
@@tbc1880 the problem is the whole game slows down, and every other gun needs to be adjusted in a similar way, how it is now movement is just hella buffed to compensate
@@EggsOverSteezy slower gameplay gives you more time to think and stategize against your opponents. Gundam battle operations 2 has that kind of pacing most of the time.
@@tbc1880 ok, and tac shooters are slower, arena shooters are faster, what's your point?
Only a minute in and that's exactly what I've been thinking for the past 7 years about what made me like games like Halo 3 so much. Easy to pick up but hard to master.
Also just read your comment and I'm sorry to hear about your recent hardships, my heart goes out to you and your family. But I'm glad to see you back and pursuing your creative passions.
I entirely disagree, Halo 3 was easy to pick up and master, mastery mostly came down to map knowledge. Now you need to learn drop sliding and recoil management and how to trivialize verticality by clambering up everything and how to use the grapple to break every map in half and which weapons have a fucking chance of spawning at which weapon rack. Like can this shit just all fuck off? Halo 3 was simple, you shoot, you strafe, and you don’t have to fucking guess which weapon will be where or have to worry about a bunch of twitch shooter bullshit. The difference between low and high tier Halo CE-3 gameplay is very subtle, while the difference between low and high tier Halo 5 or Infinite gameplay is a fucking smear, it’s like the difference between MW2 2009 gameplay and MW2 2022 gameplay.
I've been playing competitive Project M for over a decade. It was designed with competitive play in mind, but it's honestly just super fun all around, even compared to SSB Brawl, whuch it's based on. It's got a wide skill gap (albeit a higher skill floor than modern SSB games), some wacky/fun items and special game modes unique to it, a bunch of really cool stages both simple and complex, and alternate costumes out the wazoo! If an official title had everything it had without all the weird compromises that every game in the franchise seems to have, it'd be heralded as one of the all-time greats.
Sure, in theory it was built by competitive players with a competitive target demographic, but much like you say here, they put strong design that could be loved by anyone first.
Finally.
A Halo centric video that I can care to watch, because I'm certain the opinion in it isn't *going to change* by _next. f•cking. week._
This is why I'll always love Halo 3. Bungie just focused on making a good game and both casual and competitive players had their spaces to have fun the way they wanted to. Make a good game and let the players themselves do the work of creating their own casual and competitive elements by experimenting with the sandbox or the quality map design. It also helps to have Playlists dedicated specifically to each (ex. Ranked and Action Sack) to give people a clear choice of what to play. I also think the matchmaking system plays into this discussion and how modern PvP games have f-ed up their matchmaking systems is negatively impacting the games as a whole in my opinion
Regarding aim assist, nobody was really complaining about it until cross-play with PC lol. PC players went from "console players are plebs that can't hold a candle to our skillsets" to "aim assist is legal aim bot" I do miss the old days of gaming though, COD4, WAW, Halo 2 & 3, GOW, R6 Vegas. Good days.
AIm assist has gotten worse to compensate for the increased speed in a lot of these games.
Playing on controller used to be considered a massive disadvantage, but now the assists are so high they are favored over MnK for some games
I feel like the classic games were close to "design nirvana" than Infinite. They were super easy to play, yet had lots of things to learn outside of just using the movement stick and crosshair placement. Yet Infinite has the opposite going on where it speeds things up to make it "higher skill and interesting", then adds strange aim assist to compensate, and it makes the game just feel fucking weird to play which doesn't help the casual player base at all. And as a result kind of "caps off" the skill ceiling for better players while also limiting the game in a lot of other aspects.
THE RETURN OF THE KING
Lord of the Rings?
I'm glad more people are talking about this because I've felt there's a lack of middle ground. A big reason I quit gaming is because my friends kept asking "didn't you read the patch notes" for too many games.
I mostly played games just to socialize with friends, so I liked multiplayer as a "semi-casual" player. Especially since I moved a lot growing up. Hell no I didn't read fucking patch notes. If I wanted to read, I'd pick up a book and enjoy myself. Plus, I can't play games as consistently as an adult. That means everytime I come back to a game after a hiatus, I have to relearn it somewhat because of all the god damn updates.
This man seriously just has the best game design takes I’ve ever heard
The whole idea of casual/competitive being a hard dichotomy is disproven by the fact that competitive Grifball exists. Make something fun that a lot of people want to play, and some of those people will figure out how to play it more competitively (including making custom settings and rulesets which your game should facilitate as much as possible for this reason).
Best part? If u simply make your game with intuitive and elegant with huuuge skill gap and add mmr everyone wins. Casual players are incapable of giving a f about mechanics and comp players can play pros vs pros.
The fact they STILL havent figured out "Excellent social design = a design for everyone"
Exactly!
Not a single great FPS game was ever created "with the competitive crowd in mind", as many devs & publishers tried to bs us over the last decade or so.
If the game is fun to play, has enough depth (skill ceiling) and stands out enough - the competitiveness will occur organically, you simply can't force it, something 343i is painfully unaware, unfortunately.
Liked your segment on physics, like nade jumping in Halo and stuff. I hate it when devs won't allow anything unintended. Meanwhile, Smash Melee's *_entire competitive scene_* relies on playing the game in a way it was NEVER meant to be played. That should be proof enough that sometimes you need to let the players decide how to play your game.
Instead of chasing after a "perfect" or "consistent" product, devs need to ask themselves "should we actually remove this? Does this actually break the game?" So many of these little accidents add so much unintentional depth to game mechanics and honestly don't break anything unless you're very stubborn about how your game is "supposed to be played" like the creator of Smash is.
Wow when you put it like that it makes so much sense. I always feel so stressed and sweaty playing newer titles because i feel like im about to just be lazered at any given moment. I was wondering why I felt so much more relaxed playing halo 3, and why it is always so evergreen and fun. The fun physics, less shreddy weapons, a more floaty feeling movement and tamed/tempered movement speed and underrated beautiful art direction and sound design. Youre really good at saying the subconscious thoughts in the back of my head.
What separates competitive design elements from casual design elements? 1. Skill gap type mechanics. Mechanics that give you an edge if you master. 2. Skill based match making. The development team decides what players to match you against in social and ranked playlists. Social might as well be considered ranked
This is so nice to listen to after hearing all the illogical casual Halo talk on Twitter 😭
Halo is a casual game now wym?? You didnt notice the 80 percent strafe speed? Why would 343 not want strafing in a comp fps???? They arent making a comp fps.
I have to say out of all the points including the physics manipulation with rocket league... I still love above all else the ability to launch weapons with grenades in cs2/csgo. When I cannot reach an awp that is down long on dust or someone tossed a long rifle onto somewhere you can't reach a nade just works. This culling of skill expression is the equivalent of participation trophies in schools when I was growing up.
I miss the days where competition was encouraged, and that every single person was not a winner. That there was a distinct line between winners, and losers without the need to castrate competition. This is sadly a part of something far bigger within western society unfortunately just like politics leaking into video games as a whole. The removal of even leaderboards initially for BF2042 was insane, and to see them trying to make everything accessible to everyone is not the way to go. Imagine Dark souls/Souls like games but easy enough for your cousins 5 year old son to play? Would it still be a dark souls game?
Bring back games like Jak and Daxter, or the Burnout series. Where things weren't made for everyone, and we had solid competitive games along with our casual games. STOP TRYING TO MAKE CHOCOLATE MILK TASTE LIKE FUCKING ORANGE JUICE!
I would say you _are_ advocating for competitive games. A competitive game is in my mind one where you simply get out in accordance to what you put in. But that can take many forms, and I applaud you for calling out this snobbery that says physics, vehicle combat, projectile weapons, and even stuff like players shadows, are inherently anti-competitive. No, they're just fun competitive! Funpetitive?
I've also noticed what you point out, that games create these systems that fight each other, deteriorating the experience in the process. Why do we have muh realistic graphics, or tons of flashy effects, when you're gonna tack on ugly indicators to compensate for the poor visibility? Why is movement so fast you need aim assist on controller to hit anything? It's beyond comprehension at times.
Great vid!
This is why story Campaigns are important for multiplayer games. It is (or should be) proof of concept for multiplayer mechanics. If the campaign is FUN with a catchy gameplay loop, it should stay true when you add real players instead of bots. Make a fun game that stands on its own.
On the "map variety" point, I think one additional argument in its favor is that it helps keep a play session fresh and interesting. Maps can force you to use different weapons and adopt different play styles, and so map variety makes it easy to just play for hours at a time. But when EVERY map is some mid-sized 3-lane map, that session runs out of steam like an hour in, even if in isolation I'd take every one of those mid-sized 3-lanes over the "weirder" ones
I'd like to bring in that physics jank in fps also worked incredibly well competitively with TF2 with advance minipulation of it like Rocket jumping, sticky jumping, flare jumping, trimping, and rocket surfing. Anyway i'd very much say the ridiculous Physics in Halo 2 and beyond is an integral part of the series identity, same with sniper ricochet.
Every halo game with a hitscan BR has guaranteed that ANY big team battle map, being out in the open is an instant death sentence. halo 3 is the only halo game where BTB you can actually traverse the map
Almost 10 minutes in, I know this is a general discussion about game design framed through Halo particularly, but man does it feel REALLY specific to Overwatch.
Definitely a big reason I tried to broaden it to games in general.
It really is a widespread issue!
just real quick. to call out the community. when that dude at 343 said they were a competitive game at heart everyone flipped on him. But at the same time they flipped shit when reach came out for being too casual and even more so with halo 4. Then they flipped shit at halo 5 for being too tryhard. which is it guys. make up your damn mind.
Edit: i must say its refreshing to see someone say similar points to my argument. Thanks Favyn
My favorite Halo mini-game of all time was a mode called Hoglaunch in Halo: Reach. There was essentially a driving range where three players would arrange a bunch of fusion coils behind a Warthog then try to launch it as far as possible (with a player in it to trigger a score zone) without straying too far left or right. 3 players per team would be launching hogs while the fourth player manned a Gauss Hog turret and tried to knock the other team's hog off course. It was absolutely hilarious, and it makes me mess how fantastic Halo's physics were back then.
Literally only 5 minutes in and you've managed to word what I've been thinking for years while listening to every side of Halo and CoD make arguments that sound like fallacies.
Fantastic video, you make clear sense of all these ideas. 343 and so many Halo fans need to watch this.
Fun is fun, no matter what it’s intended to be. Game elements shouldn’t be thrown into categories of “competitive” or “casual” so simply, and devs shouldn’t be limiting fun based on a category. As long as there’s a balance, things will sort themselves out naturally.
1:26 Master Chief in a wheel chair is just so funny lmao
But also, I don't think Halo was ever "hardcore"? Like, Reach was my first Halo game when I was 11 and I had SO much fun as a casual.
It was just *fun.* Anything can be competitive, but it needs to be fun in order to have people who want to play it that way.
At best Halo 2 was the the most hardcore since it had all the exploits and the BR was almost a hitscan weapon. Even then you could still play Halo 2 without needing to sweat.
I don't understand this sentiment especially when people who played Halo in its prime say it (for reference I was 13 when Halo reach was out, so not much older than you). Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo Reach had a large group of people who cared about ranks, stats, and their service records. To start with Halo 2, bungie literally made ranked matchmaking with their 1-50 ranking system. Halo 2 didn't have anything robust as forge so what do you think people spent a majority of their time doing? You can search ranked 24/7 at any skill level during Halo 2, 3 and Reach and get put into a instant match. Sure people played those honor rule custom games like zombies here and there but the main feature suite of Halo 2 was matchmaking, especially ranked and events like Halo 2 Challenge. Even things you wouldn't expect such as ranked BTB were super popular, it wasn't just hardcore ranked 4v4. This bled into Halo 3, and I can tell you for a fact almost everyone wanted to be a level 50 in that game. I know people who would sell level 50 accounts that paid off their entire college tuition doing that. Also during Halo 3 people got super into stats and community websites like Halocharts and Halotracker started to rank you on their own leaderboards. People cared so much about their service record and things like win/loss rate etc. Halo 3 again had super popular random ranked playlists, and also had ranked weekend playlists like ranked living dead (yes seriously and people had some really unique strategies) and griffball were people tried to hit 50 in the limited time period that the playlist was out. When Reach came out it was one of the first games (maybe only league of legends beat it?) made that used the seasonal division ranking system that every game uses today. Reach ranked was less well received (due to the new ranking system, which ironically one of the reasons that it was made was so that people would stop selling level 50 accounts) but there was a community of people playing arena and I was one of them.
To say Halo was never hardcore is misconstruing a large population of players who played the game everyday and enjoyed the competitive ranked environment from 2 to Reach. You can't just say that as you are wiping away a large group of players (especially in 2 and 3). Just like I would never say Halo wasn't just fun wacky custom games, because I was there and just like everyone else did both. Some people just preferred the ranked environment over the fun custom games. Just because you didn't partake in an aspect of the experience that was Halo doesn't mean you can think it was nonexistent. These people liked leveling up, hitting max rank in as many playlists as they can, being at the top of the leader board and having an insane service record. That was their avenue to take Halo serious or "hardcore" and it is apart of Halo's identity. This doesn't even scratch the surface of MLG and professional gaming, this was just people like you and me trying to hit level 50 in Halo 2 or Onyx 1% in Halo Reach. Halo matchmaking was truly something special and nothing like it will ever exist again.
I have always felt that the "Competitive Vs Casual" arguments seen online were pointless and taking away from real conversations that could actually help a game. I just never really knew how to articulate why I felt that way and certainly hadn't gone this far in depth with it.
This is a great video, and I hope this stance on the topic can eventually take over the conversation going forward.
Good to see you post again after some time!
Genuinely, the way you narrate and construct your arguments/points is still so captivating. Looking forward to future vids, mate.
This was wonderfully cathartic to listen to (and quite hilarious at times!). You have a gift for explaining things I've felt for a long time, but haven't been able to identify and put into words. Thanks for a great video!~
Between this and Laper's vid on how Lethal Company blew up because of pure social fun and how absent that is from modern Halo/Cod/etc. I sense a blueprint forming for how this discussion can go forward.
"Casual" effectively replaced "Social" in the public eye. But given this vid, when I really think about Social, I think it actually describes this missing harmony between both ends of the spectrum.
In a social environment, you should be able to relax casually, but at the same time, the natural competitiveness of PvP itself should be allowed to shine. You can shoot the shit with your buddies, and when things get intense, you're all able to get excited when you pull that win.
People always want a single word for this stuff, I think we'd ought to redefine "Social" as this. It is neither just casual or just competitive, it is the harmony of both that allows FUN to flourish. From design, to player interaction.
Really loved your point about how “consistency” is treated as if it’s the holy grail of a competitive experience. What it really means is that every game is just going to play out the same way, which is exactly how you LOSE long term players, who just get bored of it and quit. Soo many things are compromised for the sake of consistency. Interesting map gimmicks and more UNIQUE maps, hilarious physics interactions.. you know, the parts that make something fun in the first place?
A game being fun above all else is what draws in a competitive scene. Even FORTNITE of all things has a ranked mode on it. Just look at smash bros melee. The more I learn about that game the more it sounds like the most broken game ever made and yet it has one of the most prolific competitive scenes out there. A competitive community can’t be forced into existence, they gather naturally around something that has, like you said, integrity, not the charade of a “consistent” environment.
Anyway that’s why halo infinite needed playable elites to succeed.
Welcome back! Fantastic video. Sorry to hear about your baby. My wife and I went through the same thing. Glad to hear the great news that she's healthy and you have a new one on the way.
Asmongold reacting to video game trailer. 400k views, Favyn with the well articulated planned and written discussion piece 1k views.
Man the world really do be fucked up
Hopefully the video picks up and has legs! It's still early.
As for reaction videos I welcome them as long as they're meaningfully added to and transformative, of course!
As someone who played in MLG events and thought that competitive halo settings were 1000x times better than the social settings, I hate Halo esports now. I think this video finally put it into words for me. Momentum and good physics creates a much better sandbox than grappling hooks and clambering. Allow for some damn player creativity developers.
100% agree. The dumbing down of the skill gap has also made games more sweaty, causing a lot more unneeded stress in the game.
How does a smaller dumbed down skill gap make a game more sweaty?
in many ways actually. So lets say a game got easier because devs made lets say getting around the map easier. AKA sprint in halo. This helps not as good players get out of jams where as in h2 or h3 they would have died. Because in those games you had to be more methodical about your approach, there wasnt sprinting or equipment that was easy to use or readily avaliable to get you out of a bad spot. But now take that same instance and apply to a really good player, suddenly the game got much much harder for the not so good player because when you add a bunch of QoL like that to where it dumbs the game down good players can take advantage of it as well. Now this example doesnt work 1to1 in every video game, but dumbing down a game can make it easier for a good player to frag harder because the barrier for them to get kills and dominate also went down which means that even above average players will also dominate even harder. This can make more matches feel like a curb stomp more frequently but for players to really do that in the old days you had to be pretty damn good. @@riisky2411
@@riisky2411 everyone is running the same setups/doing the same "meta" things. This video didn't touch on one key aspect which does directly tie into the "causal" vs "competitive" issue, which is the way SBMM is handled, particularly in call of duty where it's overly sweaty because the game seems to link above average players with sweaty try hards. Or you get a team full of players who cant shoot or play the objective and the other team can, means you end up having to play sweaty/try hard yourself to try and level the playing field. Bascially there's a lot to it, and while COD has always had it's sweat lords, you could still go many games without playing any. Now it's every game and the game does everything it can to get you a 1.0 k/d and 1.0 w/l.
@@riisky2411it sounds unintuitive but i get it.
If youre a pro at h1 and h2 you dont want to play casual halo (3+) at all.
And NO. Mcc is NOT halo 1 or 2. Thats vista.
@@riisky2411for example apex and aim assist, everyone and their mom can one clip
TLDR: Comp design is about balance and being very straight forward. Casual design is about experiences and a rock-paper-scissors, and usually has more layers to it.
I host IRL Nerf wars on the casual level because they're some of my favorite events, but I absolutely love being in comp tournaments too. But my favorites are always being competitive in a causal sense.
So, before I really go into the video, I have plenty of experience with competitive elements vs. casual, both in game and IRL.
Comp at its core is all about giving the most balance possible to truly show "who is the best", and the easiest way to do so is cutting out all of the more difficult elements to balance, such as asymmetric maps, more niche but highly effective weapons (rocket launchers, DMRS, shotguns), and really clamps down on rulesets.
In any airsoft, paintball or Nerf comp, the principle is largely the same. Your fields are highly symmetric, all weapon systems used are regulated by velocity of projectiles, components that can be used, or even the amount of ammo that can be carried. It's very bare bones, but it also requires extremely quick split-second actions, team communication, and really knowing your role and weapon, along with layouts and lanes of sight.
Whereas, casual is highly opened ended, none of what was previously mentioned really *fully* makes for a good casual experience because it removes all of the interesting moments and *competitive* moments you can have in a less strict atmosphere. In games, that would mean highly asymmetrical maps, with clear strong points, that one side might have that both teams are fighting for (MW2's Estate), or one game, you'll get a rocket man clearing objectives, blowing out campers, and doing their team a favor, while you'll have a meta man running through enemy lines causing chaos. But the best casual experiences offer a rock-paper-scissors, not a balance. One thing might be truly powerful, but something will absolutely outclass it, and the process repeats with yet another element.
In casual IRL shooting sports, that means you can have someone with a highly tuned sniper, the idiot with a terrible weapon who is running into the line of fire but also might do a whole lot of damage, and on other extremes, someone carrying as much weapons as physically possible on their body to see how hard it is to be Joel by the end of TLOU. Or even a dude running around in a speedo to break your brain... But that's the whole thing about casual, there are more experiences to casual games/events that comp can't offer you.
If this just sounds like incoherent rambling... sorry about that... lol.
I literally told a new halo player yesterday if they want to practice illusion 24/7 is the best way because its "babys first map" 3 lanes. Clear simple sight lines. A middle lane that teaches not to push at disadvantage. To use utility and clear out camping sites with nades. Ample nades on map btw. Snipers spawn in power positions that are also easy to flank and team shot. Has man canons to teach interactivity. Its literally a tutorial. Favyn literally seems to be in my head with every vid it genuinely frightens me how close our thinking is.
At it's core, the curse of 'Competitive VS Casual' is in the minds of the players. Hopefully your message here helps others break free of the black and white thinking that's been eating away at the industry for far too long.
What’s hilarious is that with developers trying to design anything that’s ‘competitively designed’ as sterile as possible with no variety or anything that stands out
It makes actually getting and holding an audience to watch the esports players pretty damn hard if every bloody match just plays out exactly the same way every time no matter the map and sandbox because everything is designed in the exact same way. If watching one game means you’ve pretty much seen them all why watch any more.
It’s pretty obvious a game has failed to make an interesting esports scene to begin with if they have to start offering unique cosmetics for running the stream in the background to bump up viewer numbers rather than the game actually being fun and engaging to watch the best players engage in a variety of a sandbox and cool maps in interesting ways.
Welcome back.
Really glad to see you double down on your skill/accessibility/pressure arguments.
People need to know there is more to skill expression than pinpoint aim with a hitscan rifle & and crackhead movement tech.
Map knowledge
System knowledge
Ingenuity
Strategy
All these avenues modern fps have basically abandoned. Sick of feeling like I have to snort a line of coke to not get TTK'd for peeking my head out of a corner.
One thing I'm kinda iffy on is removal of physics "to make it competitive"
I think that might be bullshit. Not in the sense of not being correct, but that it's a straight lie by 343. I think 343 neutered physics in Infinite because they saw how busted their netcode was and how much worse physics would make it look. I'm saying "competitive balance" to me feels like an excuse to hide the severity of infinite's garbo netcode.
Either way, great vid as always.
Been saying since before H:I released that 343 will straight up lie and blame anything but their own design choices/limitations when it comes to those choices getting criticized. From blaming the UI for not being able to handle a team Slayer playlist when it was obvious that the issue was their challenge/progression system, to blaming 'competitive integrity' for removing assassinations when H5 had solved any issues with this already by having them toggle-able.
343s ethos for years has been to say whatever they think makes them look good at the time and blame the players whenever possible.
Lemme just remind everybody that Infinite is the only Halo in which the double BR burst+melee no longer grants a kill (except for Comp.)
Let that sink in...
This video is very insightful to me. I've been planning on making my own fps shooter for a more casual player base, but now I see that maybe my definition of casual isn't casual at all.
Been making the same case as many of these points for years as to why I have an aversion to modern arena style shooters. I know the video was already starting to run long, but another great talking point on this subject is how much of an abysmal thing Skill Based Match Making has become in recent. It may have been a good idea at some point, and definitely still should have a home in competitive playlists, but one of the biggest factors that killed Halo Infinite imo is the inclusion of this across all playlists. Especially when the same rating is more or less used on both ranked and casual playlists. It leads to balancing that isn't very fun, like putting a very high MMR player with lower MMR players and expecting them to carry the difference. Or puts someone who is used to the more casual approach to the game in a lobby where they become a liability in ranked. Bad for both sides & without an enormous player base (which neither Halo 5 nor Infinite even come close to even at lifetime peaks); it seems to have no shot at having a positive outcome.
On thing about the video that I found to be a low point was the plasma grenade/physics point. While I wholeheartedly agree with the statements made about the importance of the physics, I do feel that the plasma grenades specifically being the method of launching a weapon off of the weapon pad is a bit of a nitpicky or even poor example. I don't believe that frag grenades were ever that great at weapon launching in the Bungie games either. The explosives on Lockout are primarily how I remember interactions like that happening in older Halo games.
The plasma grenade launching is something that makes sense with the weapon pad system. It requires you to obtain plasma grenades from your side of the map to do the launch rather than just spawning with the tools needed to do it. It was absolutely not an oversight or contrivance (as was alluded to in that rant). To the contrary it was quite deliberate, I believe the Combat Evolved medal is proof of that. Not a huge deal and fully agree this level of tinkering does limit player expression in some ways. Just felt that whole portion was less important that the lack of grenade jumping, the interaction of physics on objects other than equipment and the pitiful force of the gravity hammer are much stronger points.
Thanks for watching!
As for the weapon launching section. It was more so pointing out the INCONSISTENCY. weapon launching was always niche and while everything was affected by physics impulses, usually you need situational circumstances to launch it significantly.
I'm aware that it was most likely done on purpose and said as much but it is certainly a contrivance.
Even if you pick up a fusion coil and throw it at a pad it won't create an impulse. Main point is they are overcurating every interaction and should just build the system logically and let us figure it out
@@FavynTube agreed, it does really show just how in the weeds they are getting with controlling every interaction in a detrimental way.
One of the worst things to happen in gaming discourse is the bastardization of a word like _"accessibility"_ and it irks me to no end.
What was once a term that meant making the medium more open for people of all ages, experiences, disabilities, & backgrounds to *engage* with the systems? It has been reduced to simply standardizing art into a product for everyone (and thus no one) rather than for anyone.
It's a good thing to make a game easy to learn, but hard to master. It's also a good thing to make a game accessible to say color blind people, helping them to engage with the medium. Accessibility should be making a game easier to access, not limiting its mechanics/design to make it easier to play.
I think Team Fortress 2 is a perfect example of competitive game design. The Rocket Launcher is a perfect example of how physics can enhance a game. You can find people that do these complex and impressive rocket jumps that take hundreds to even thousands of hours to master, and as for those facing off against the Soldier, they can also use the rockets to surf them to safety, or as a counter against enemy Soldiers.
The game is also so well designed that the maps have to be well designed and can't follow the boring, three lane map design that most games do these days, or else it sucks. You need to have places for Engies to work well, you need to have places where Spies can hide, and you need flank routes for classes like Scout to work well. This is a way to have players play their way while also having the game be unique.
Movement mechanics also change class by class. Scout is the fastest character, with the ability to double jump, and so he's balanced by making him have low health and a weapon that forces him to get close to enemies in order to deal great damage. Soldier is slow, but is able to rocket jump and has 200 health. There are so many examples of how classes can move around the map and how they're balanced around it, that it would take a long to list out, but each class has weapons or items that help them with movement. It makes something like crouch jumping look like child's play.
At the end of the day, does Team Fortress 2 have issues? Of course. The game hasn't had a major Valve made update in years, some weapons just make others obsolete, and the bot problem, obviously, but I think that a lot of games can learn from Team Fortress 2 in how it designs it's maps and weapons. I know there is this growing community of guys who see Team Fortress 2 as this casual game that was never meant for a competitive audience, but I think that counteracts how the game was designed.
Favyn coming out of nowhere with an upload like: "I return to you now, at the turn of the tide".
As much as people hated the game at the time, CoD AW had quite a few dynamic maps that completely changed the layout. Then some of the H2A maps, they were hit/miss in their implementation (the Lockout one was kinda too strong IMO, and Ascension's kinda made you a sitting duck), but I enjoyed the dynamic elements to spice up experiences I played tons of times before.
Man I never questioned the idea that games were on a spectrum of competitive vs casual, or that those concepts were at odds. I mean I knew there were games like Halo 3 that managed to appeal to both, but I never thought about how that dichotomy could be false and actually harmful to good game design before.
Modern game design is a prime example of trying to please everyone ends up pleasing no one
THE KING IS BACK
Halo is both casual and competitive, but it's their Skill Based Match Making system that intentionally forces players to try harder than they want to just to get a win by putting you with teammates who aren't as good as you, which curates a competitive environment. It's not a "mindset" when the game literally forces you to be competitive.
I miss quake. It's fast, every weapon has a purpose, maps are vertical as shit and force you to think differently, but it still has room for goofy stuff.
If they make a Quake 6... they're gonna ruin it. 😮💨
The problem with quake (and old arena shooters in general) is that verticality and some of the tech implemented is a pain to manage on sticks. It's why quake never did well on console.
Fortunately, controllers have evolved since the 90s, and now it's possible to play these old shooters on controller without the need for aim assist at all.
While it's not a shooter, I think a game that pulls this off very well is Chivalry 2. It's friendly to new players but also has very deep skill based mechanics which are hard to master. It also has dynamic maps with many interactive elements that work in tandem with it's gameplay. In its main gamemode, attackers have to complete a series of changing objectives while defenders try to stop them, and each objective the attackers complete progresses the map. I highly recommend it if you haven't tried it, and would love to hear your thoughts on it.
When you said,
"Ironically, making guns super easy to use, only hurts the casual players more"
I stopped working & just smiled cuz I realized that you aren't just some random dweb that thinks he knows what only "BO KNOWS", but you are actually BO FRFR...you is HIM LOL
Goodshit
Wow, this is a fascinating video. It's actually amazing how you managed to almost perfectly describe the design degradation that I felt was happening in a lot of FPS games. I love your prospective here, and at this point I'm fully on your side. Extremely well put together man, amazing job!
There’s no game out there that can match the skill sets as Halo. Yes halo was built for fun but it has grown into The most Competitive FPS game out there.
I mean, the part that people leave out was "what" fun it was built for.
"The goal of Halo 2’s level system is first and foremost to help you find the most enjoyable games possible. Games that are neck and neck, where the only sure way to win is by playing above your abilities, be it through better planning, more focus, improved team communication, whatever. But it’s fun to not be so serious all the time. That’s what custom games are for, or the Training Grounds playlist if you don’t have enough Friends online to form a custom game. But we believe that games that challenge you to rise above your current abilities are the most enjoyable and the most rewarding."
- Bungie 2004 - 2010.
Defined by Bungie right there, the "fun" in Halo was always " Games that are neck and neck, where the only sure way to win is by playing above your abilities, be it through better planning, more focus, improved team communication".
At what point does the Halo Community acknowledge that them removing these aspects from most playlists removed the "fun" that most people got from Halo?
I feel like this pertains to all art; just FOCUS on making it GOOD. I felt that with music, where I’d focus on tick of the box content, promo, and DIY production instead of just making good music first and THEN putting it out there
Multiplayer games are like Ponzi schemes. There needs to be a flow a new players for older players to beat and feel good against. Once that flow stops or the new players are too good people start calling the game sweaty.
Hell yeah, happy to see an new upload from you. You absolutely nailed this topic.
Halo is a mix of both. Its simple to understand really. You can tweak its competitiveness depending on the sandbox that is offered to you.
You want BR/DMR starts with weapons scattered in strategic locations? Or tweak the headshot multiplier where everyone dies in 1 headshot? Sure its as sweaty as its gets
But if you want each player spawning with random weapons, a sniper free for all, One dude with A TON of health against the entire lobby, a zombie infection horde, or a capture the flag game where you are all in narrow one lane maps?
This balance is what makes Halo....Halo. It all depends on the sandbox
Remember when 343 hired a fan map designer, then fired him for saying their map design sucked BEFORE being hired?
Yes he's a good friend of mine actually.
And he 100% knows his shit too
@@FavynTube Seen people try to guilt by association him on social media when it bring up what happened with the guy. Infuriating! Hope he's doing well for himself!
Mind if I ask who the designer is? My team is working on some maps for a project, it might come in handy to check out his levels or get in touch with him.
Competitive players don't care whether strafing is viable or the map is interactive, they only care about what's objectively the best strategy.
To use your Gears of War example, the meta of that stadium map will probably be everybody ignores the middle, and ignores the cool falling scoreboard unless they can gauruntee that they'll get the advantage from it.
Power weapon is underneath. Also has a delay before it can be triggered. Comp players optimize the parts of the game with the most integrity
I love your videos! Your topics are ahead of their time, like you're digging up ancient relics of game design and explaining how the industry lost its way. Modern devs are confused, they haven't found the truth yet but if they see your videos they will understand ^_^
i’ve been waiting for a favyn upload for so long. thanks for a new video, i love listening to you and i usually agree w you. love your writing and oratory skills, thanks again favyn
The voice of Halo is back baby!
Sorry it's due to dreadful circumstances, but I'm glad you are going full stream ahead. Looking forward to it.
Great video! I think you also need to talk about SBMM which in addition to all the points you made has a huge effect on the competitive/casual experience.
The here to have fun do goals vs “I don’t have a life so this is my life”
The issue I think is that casual players can’t understand your logic, they want to feel like a super soldier and move super fast, they don’t like slow.
This was in fact a overused discussion point to justify Halo 4 sprint: “I am a spartan, why shouldn’t I be able to sPriNt?”
Just imagine a discussion with a casual player: would you like a game where you soldier is fast or slow?
It’s an extremely superficial and stupid question, but of course everyone would say fast, it sounds so much fun!
The situation with the chase of a golden intersection between casual and competitive reminds me somehow of how game industry in general looks like.
I think there's a bit of confusion when it comes to terminology here.
The word "casual" here is pretty much exclusively refering to noobs, however the term can also (as is often the case in TF2 discourse) be used to refer to people who play for fun rather than to win, or simply non-esport players.
"Competetive" on the other hand is used to both mean "highly skilled players" and esport.
The best highlight of this confused terminology is with the two 343 quotes. When they said the game was "too competetive" they mean that it favored skilled players too much. Later when they say that Halo was always about competetive play they are refering to esport.
However, in both cases the argument that the developers is actually making has nothing to do with skill expression, it has to do with controlling the experience.
The developers believe that they need to control the experience in such a way that new players will have a "good" or "rewarding" experience by simplifying the game to lower the skill floor and giving them cheap easy kills respectively.
Later when arguing in favor of esport, they argue against mechanics they can't control, such as physics. This is because in the eyes of the developers esports have to be a finely balanced numbers game that can be tweak so that all variables are perfectly balanced to ensure "fairness".
The issue here is that
1. Concessions made for the sake of maximum retention of new players are neither fun nor fair.
2. Concessions made in order to keep the game "fair" at a top 1% competetive esport level are sterilizing and not fun either.
What these developers fail to realise is that engineered esports always fail because of this, just look at what happened to Overwatch, every single change made was made in service of the competetive meta and the result is that everyone hates it and the competetive league died.
I think the whole issue stems from the fact that these developers look at games like Counter Strike and League of Legends and try to emulate their sterile, point and klick numbers game and apply that mind set to a game formula that simply doesn't work like that.
Ironically making a good game that's fun and has lots of options for creative skill expression can often lead to a game becoming an esport despite not being perfectly balanced. Perfect examples of this are Super Smash Bros (Melee being a particularily good example with wave dashes etc) and Quake and TF2.
TF2 is an especially good example of "competetive vs casual" because the actual competetive esport scene for the game has their own ruleset that bans a ton of weapons while, reducing the number of players and effectively cutting the game in half as many classes aren't even viable at all (or barely viable) for competetive play. Valve tried and failed (miserably) to bridge the gap between casual and competetive play and the result was a lot of weapons being rebalanced, some deserved, other not, some weapons that used to be completely dominant got nerfed into the ground and became useless, some goofy weapons that were never a problem were nerfed into the ground (RIP caber) and some already fairly well balanced weapons were nerfed into the ground specifically because they'd be overpowered in competetive play. Not that any of that mattered to competetive players as they would continue to enforce the exact same weapon bans and continued with the exact same meta as they always had.
The lesson all devs should learn is to make a fun game and then give the players the freedom to tweak their experience to fit their needs. Should a competetive scene arise it will then sort itself out using weapon bans and other tools you make available to them to adjust the experience to ensure the balance for their esport.
As for making a game more accessible to new players it's probably easiest if the game is designed in such a way that low skill players can feel like they're contributing in some way even if they're bad. For FPS games having objectives that aren't just based on K/D ratio does the trick. Anyone can push the payload or stand on a point in TF2 or Overwatch and feel like they are meaningfully contributing to their team regardless of if they have a 0/10 K/D.
Let's tackle this a different way, as it'll just get excessively long if I replied to each point directly. I'm not going to 'defend' Favyn, but I will specify the likely intent and correct some misconceptions.
Casual - A player playing a video game occasionally.
Casual FPS Player - A player who casually plays only FPS games.
Casual "Halo" fan - A player who wants an easy, simpler, and less competitive experience based on their unique custom game they enjoy playing.
Competitive Player - A player looking for a more competitive oriented game, where winning provides low-stakes reward, losing removes said reward, and the method of winning is determined by your individual capability as both a player and/or a team. Typically gravites toward a "Ranked" playlist and usually only enjoys Low-Stakrs competition.
Competitive Esports Player - A player looking for an even more competitive oriented game, and has a strive to succeed and win with high stakes on the line. Typically a player looking to compete in tournaments at every stride, and views Matchmaking as mundane, boring, and lacks the drive that they need.
Favyn would likely be referring to the latter entry.
The first entry depicts a player who doesn't even play games, but uses it to waste time. This is not the typical audience of an FPS, this is the audience of a game like God of War.
FPS casual Players, noted in the second entry, are typically players who want a competitive FPS experience, with the reward strictly from winning, and are provided intrinsic value from learning and improving. They would prefer low stakes competition to higher stakes.
A Competitive player is someone who plays video games for the sake of looking for competition. This is as simple as "any multiplayer game that is player verses player, where the determining factor is their skill". This is not reduced to only video games -- bowling is a competitive game, so is pool/billiards, so is darts or even tetris. Mortal Kombat, for example, as a popular one. They would prefer low stakes competition to higher stakes.
A Competitive Esports player is someone who not just plays a game for the sake of competition, but does so at high stakes; Money or large gambles on the line.
The typical modern FPS is geared toward the "FPS Casual" player, which is why even Fornite has a Ranked playlist. Halo, contrary to every Community members lies, was always geared toward the "Competitive player", as it defined this genre entirely. Halo was always a competitive oriented low-stakes competition multiplayer game, and matchmaking solidified this in 2004. (10+ Ranked Playlists, less than 4 unranked offerings, focusing on the reward for winning and a punishment for losing, as the primary method of progression).
With these out of the way, let's tackle the next section:
How to make a "good multiplayer fps". This is going to depend on the intention behind the series.
Halo, by extension, was always designed, in it's multiplayer, to be "competitive".
Let's defined what competitive is, in a gaming standpoint from 2001:
The notion of which two or more human players are engaged in a situation where the winner is determined by skill, rather than luck.
Halo was not a Player-Verses-Environment multiplayer in 2001, nor was it a multiplayer designed around it's "capability of creating unique custom games" (This wasn't even that possible until Halo Reach). It's derived games were always set as the simplistic notion of "Play for fun, win by skill, improve for fun".
Here is a quote from Bungie:
"The goal of Halo 2’s level system is first and foremost to help you find the most enjoyable games possible. Games that are neck and neck, where the only sure way to win is by playing above your abilities, be it through better planning, more focus, improved team communication, whatever. But it’s fun to not be so serious all the time. That’s what custom games are for, or the Training Grounds playlist if you don’t have enough Friends online to form a custom game. But we believe that games that challenge you to rise above your current abilities are the most enjoyable and the most rewarding."
- Bungie 2004 - 2010.
"The lesson all devs should learn is to make a fun game and then give the players the freedom to tweak their experience to fit their needs."
This is what a custom game is for. Not matchmaking nor the base multiplayer. This already exists in almost every video game in question -- the difference is that the target demographic for the player who argues your claim, is never at the front and center (Because they're a niche audience). Halo Infinite's Social is an example of this.
"Should a competetive scene arise it will then sort itself out"
Halo's competitive scene only disabled radar in 2002, and in 2004 was fully supported by Bungie in official Bungie determined design settings that, again, mirrored vanilla gameplay.
By this definition, the problem that exists here is truly that most don't grasp Halo's core identity was always as a competitive game, and the capability of you "playing another way" was there, but it was never front and center, not anymore than MLG was...and MLG was far more popular.
"..that low skill players can feel like they're contributing in some way.."
The problem here is the notion of "low skilled players". Low skilled players simply need to only be in a lobby equal to their skill level. The problem with modern SBMM is the handicap mechanisms based in the principle you describe. We force low skilled players in higher skilled lobbies, quite often, in order to make them "feel" like they're contributing. It's putting together 8 people, but 3 are handicap, so you just divide all of the people together instead of separating the handicap, like what would usually happen.
OW's major problem was never really "catering to competitive" either. It was trying to adhere to "both" sides. You can't have foundational gameplay do that. The gameplay must adhere to the basic notion of the core gameplay. If the core gameplay is "too competitive", then the solution for those players is, just like Bungie stated, go play a custom game, or another game in general. Catering to "everyone" is impossible when the lines between these are so far away.
37:15 this part does such a good job putting into words the issues I have with modern game design that I’ve never been able to pin down. Once you pointed it out, it seems so incredibly obvious, and yet the language that everyone online and in the industry uses seems to suggest that that majority of people don’t understand this.
Thank you for saying this. Funnily enough, giving a game more competitive integrity makes it more casually enjoyable for me. That's not to say I agree with every decision made in the name of competitive viability, but if a game is well designed, its competitive integrity won't hinder the casual aspect.
Games need to be built so when I try I win and if I lose to variance its too casual and if i lose to skill its too competitive. All games should be balanced around me the main character.
Ironically, that's how most SBMM operate. I'm aware Favyn did a video on SBMM, I have yet to watch it however I may consider this after this video. I've watched a few of his in the past, but never cared for this content and viewed it more as "I have opinions and I am incapable of bending my knee to counters to the argument."
As for the sarcasm, It's actually more of a representation of current day SBMM, particularly for Halo Infinite.
The notion is to provide every player an even win-ratio, something that wasn't originally intended for Halo. This idea was directly to provide players incapable of winning, the chance of winning far more often than they would, and would drive players who "are use to winning more than 50%" to play more due to the push of them losing.
There's an actual study about gambling that comes into affect here. The gambler isn't drawn to winning or losing, both provide them the same satisfaction. The gambler is addicted to the potential outcome at the end, and the closer that outcome comes to unpredictable, the more favorable that is for the gambler.
Halo Infinite tried to replicate that in it's matchmaking solution, which was not just frowned upon by the previous sbmm creator Joshua Menke, but also by internal developers -- but I'm not going to discuss why it was implimented.
I'll say that the notion is to provide players incapable of winning, "more chance of winning", and it targets, in particular, the absolute worst players at the spectrum, not the best.
The consequential downfall of this solution is it's imbalance it creates. Since it's entirely artificial (You aren't grabbing people based on skill, at all), it's designed in a way to make the game less competitive.
In turn, that makes the game more competitive, since you can get MintBlitz on the opposing team as as Silver 1 at any chance and occurrence. And 9/10 times, that's the problem with "Social", and why Ranked Matchmaking was absurdly broken for over a year and a half.
Current CSR Matchmaking is applied to part of Ranked gameplay, but it's only meant to mitigate the problem, rather than resolve it.
343 is looking to resolve this issue in the future, however from what I understand, it will be a risky negative publicity...in order to bring a lot more people back to the game.
Halo CE being said as highly competitive lol but there was no sprint mechanic or abilities. Idk but the first 3, Reach and ODST had a complete different type of environment. 343’s 4v4 area is currently what I see as the most strange choice for a Halo. And makes it feel more competitive then ever.
The way plasmas are able to launch and frags can’t is definitely intentional. You get a medal when you launch a weapon and catch it. I find it kind of interesting that it works this way as well because it makes protecting the plasma spawn more of a power weapon on some maps. I found a line up that I use and it changed the way me and my friends played the map. Not trying to self promo but it’s the only vid on my channel if you wanna see it. I know some people just make claims without proof.
Yea I assumed it was but there's also a lot of oversights.
For instance thrown fusion coils can't launch so it's weird
@@FavynTube For sure i see what you mean. I enjoyed the video and agreed with everything else. Hope to see more!!!
Listening to Favyn speak is like splashing your face with cold water
Fun fact: You can stop a skewer shot with a repulsar if timed correctly.
Which is cool!
Exactly. If they were trying to make it fun there would be voice and text chat available in all game modes. Proximity chat would be available in all game modes. Not just available, the option to turn it off wouldn't exist, so you have to just deal with the fact that when you're close to somebody you're going to hear them talking. There would be a post game lobby, players would be able to stay together. All the fun stats like who killed who the most would still be there. It's not just competitive versus non-competitive, it's also them trying to remove the human component that could be fun but also could potentially be offensive or negative, so they just remove it to make sure the player is in a politically correct and sterile gaming environment. Sucks balls.
"it is a MISTAKE to think that casual or competitive design are mutually exclusive or that they conflict with each other." thank you SO MUCH.
Fav and BDobbins coming back from the dead in the same week? The stars must've aligned
343 has got the formula wrong. Despite Infinite being an objectively good multiplayer, it feels much more one dimensional than the Bungie games. They think they need to dial down physics, neuter map creativity and create fluid/variable movement in aid of competitive play. Yet, classic halo did none of these things whilst somehow being more competitively capable than its younger counterpart. Whilst I know most ex Bungie devs aren’t working on Halo anymore, I think 343 need to step back and really take time to understand why the classic Halo formula worked so well.
Say what you will, but there's a reason Fortnite is the biggest and most profitable game for going on seven years now. The game has fully mastered both the casual and competitive experience, ultimately catering to just about every player out there. Halo 3 was precisely that during its run from 2007-2012.
17:40… Thank you, this is exactly 343’s problem in a nutshell… They over-think and over-design as a result.