Why Halo 5 Needs a Custom Game Browser

[Wpns Grade NG]

 

 

 

A custom game browser in Halo 5 would truly benefit the game, making the custom games aspect of the shooter more popular, more accessible, and user friendly. Many people cannot fully experience the enjoyment of playing custom games because they do not have enough people to start a custom lobby. A custom game browser would make it easier for solo and new players to witness some of the coolest community game modes that they could have previously been missing out on.

[BATMAN]

I like the idea. I hope that it will be as easy as you believe it would be, but I will hold my skepticism to myself for now. For the most part, I stay in the dark when it comes to a new game coming out simply because Reach was completely spoiled for me thanks to a forum post that I was ignorant enough to think was harmless.

I think a custom game browser would be lovely; Somewhat similar to Battlefield 3 in its prime, easy to avoid the terribad servers and awesomely simple to find the dope servers. I'm pretty sure it'd be a tad difficult for it to work out as easily as it seems, but I'm gonna wait it all out 'til it's released. Sure, I don't enjoy some of the decisions they've made for the sake of "quality" (in reference to removal of split-screen), but I'm willing to just wait it out to find out for myself.

 

Solid idea, though. Can't wait to see if it's implemented or not.

[Silent Orbis]

YES. 'NUFF SAID.

[Fishy]

I like the idea and all. But there's also as much negatives as there is positives. 

 

Broken down to a small number. What if I'm testing a map and people join? Of course that would be great to test with more people, but it could also impact the  testing entirely and they're just there to mess around with you.

 

Actually, to make this simple. We have no idea who we're playing with and what they're like. They could be nice, friendly, helpful people or they could be rude, trolling, arrogant folk who are just there to mess around because they're bored.

 

However, this would be a risk thing. I don't want it too happen, unless I can get more options on the type of person joining. Ex: Player Reputation

[Silent Orbis]

I like the idea and all. But there's also as much negatives as there is positives. 

 

Broken down to a small number. What if I'm testing a map and people join? Of course that would be great to test with more people, but it could also impact the  testing entirely and they're just there to mess around with you.

 

Actually, to make this simple. We have no idea who we're playing with and what they're like. They could be nice, friendly, helpful people or they could be rude, trolling, arrogant folk who are just there to mess around because they're bored.

 

However, this would be a risk thing. I don't want it too happen, unless I can get more options on the type of person joining. Ex: Player Reputation

Set lobby to private? I think it would be fine if we had options such as that. Maybe you could set filters like good rep. But tbh private lobbies would be your solution for tests, rather than actually playing customs for fun.

[Twinreaper]

I can see how this idea is a good thing, but on a console, it isn't likely to happen at all for Halo. It's not about that it can't be done, but more about that the console engine doesn't support it.

 

Speaking in ter!ms of how it handles on PC is not a good comparison, nor is comparing it to other franchoses. In both cases, Halo for the PC platform undergoes changes to the netcode to support a additional server which hosts a master lists of available lobbies. Halo on the console is designed to be easier to navigate and form parties, rather than host a server or match and require friends to search or locate that server.

 

As it was mentioned before, imagine how many private or public lobbies you would have to scroll through to find one? Yes adding a search feature would make that task easier, but in reality, using a thumbstick and virtual keyboard is a lot of hassle. On top of that, if it is a private lobby, then what is the point? You invite only the people you want anyway?

 

I think in theory the idea is applicable to the console side, but in practice...it isn't. Spend any great amount of time using this feature on current PC or console titles that support it, then tell me it is a 100% great concept and worth the additional engine re-write to support.

[BaconShelf]

 

I can see how this idea is a good thing, but on a console, it isn't likely to happen at all for Halo. It's not about that it can't be done, but more about that the console engine doesn't support it.

 

Speaking in ter!ms of how it handles on PC is not a good comparison, nor is comparing it to other franchoses. In both cases, Halo for the PC platform undergoes changes to the netcode to support a additional server which hosts a master lists of available lobbies. Halo on the console is designed to be easier to navigate and form parties, rather than host a server or match and require friends to search or locate that server.

 

As it was mentioned before, imagine how many private or public lobbies you would have to scroll through to find one? Yes adding a search feature would make that task easier, but in reality, using a thumbstick and virtual keyboard is a lot of hassle. On top of that, if it is a private lobby, then what is the point? You invite only the people you want anyway?

 

I think in theory the idea is applicable to the console side, but in practice...it isn't. Spend any great amount of time using this feature on current PC or console titles that support it, then tell me it is a 100% great concept and worth the additional engine re-write to support.

 

It works extremely well on Battlefield 3 and 4 on console. AFAIK, they work very much the same as PC versions of the game.

 

It's possible.

[Twinreaper]

I did not say that it was "impossible" to incorporate into Halo for console. What I 'am sayiñg is that compared to other franchises, Halo is the most sparatic and chaotic fps game in terms of multiplayer. As I said, comparing how other titles and their PC counterpart operate and not an easy nor accurate comparison. If you are going to compare them, you need to run both side by side to see yourself, not just guess at it.

 

I've done this many times with games like Crysis and Farcry. Both do have similar attributes, but the PC experience generally generates a mich more fluid and enjoyable game hopping matchmaking time. The other noticeable difference and frankly the most drastic of differences is the incorporation of Live.

 

Live is not present on PC titles except Microsoft games directly tied to the Live service. Most or all utilize Steam, Origin or another 3rd party service and lack a friend list system that works like Live does. Also keep in mind that games like Battlefield or others non-1st party to Microsoft, do NOT have their games hosted on Microsoft Live servers. Co trary to what you may believe, any company that produces a multiplayer game, hosts the servers themselves and simply uses Live as a tunneling service to access them.

 

I don't know exactly why people think Live is a sta d alone hosting service. It isn't, it's a layered access protocol to gain entrance into the games you want. If Live was a standalone hosting service, then I myself would be required to host a Live layer service when I play games like Halo 2 Vista. I can bypass the Live service altogether and host a game without it.

[Fishy]

It works extremely well on Battlefield 3 and 4 on console. AFAIK, they work very much the same as PC versions of the game.

 

It's possible.

Actually that's a very good point, EA can run it on their servers. 343 should be able to do the same thing.

 

Although DICE sorta builds it on top of a server browser, more than trying to add it in.

 

Nonetheless, it's highly possible 343 can. They'll just screw it up as well. It'll be like BF4 before the patches.