To all those crying about change. There is a distinct difference. The RIGHT changes are occurring this time. Change is good. Change is needed!
For me, personally. It’s like 343 went into my head. And is creating what I always wanted to see after H3.
343 is picking up the ball where Bungie dropped it. Need I remind everyone how fast Halo fell of the competitive scene. After 3. There was a reason for that, Halo Multiplayer had grown stale.
The truth is, if everyone wanted no spread. If everyone wanted no ADS, if everyone wanted no sprint. Halo would be as popular as it was at the height of Halo 3’s popularity.
So the debate can rage on. The trolls can scowl under their bridges. But history is all you need to see the facts.
Either you’re going to play the game, get good or your’re not. That’s all there is to it.
The funny thing is I’ve been around since CE and all the Halo 2 kids are complaining about Halo 5 saying it’s not “real” Halo when “real” Halo is Halo CE. To me, Halo 2 is not original Halo. Halo 2 has the lowest individual skill gap of the original 3 and the kids only like it because the only requirement to be good at it is to watch a few Youtube videos and pal around with your team mates.
Having actually tried the preview, Halo 5 is a solid game that requires a lot of skill. Yes, it will be easy at first as the game determines your CSR, but then the game suddenly gets much harder.
The least aim assist since Halo CE, the most individual skill since Halo 3, and the most skill-requiring medals ever added to any Halo game. Halo 5 is good, but the little boys want it to copy Halo 2 100% because Halo 2 is easy.
I keep seeing the buzzwords “Halo needs change/to evolve!” but then not see any factual evidence provided alongside said claims.
There’s change that is beneficial and then there’s change for the sake of change. A lot of Halo 5’s design decisions feel like they follow the latter (“Smart Scope” being a prime example), for me.
> 2533274881015020;3:
> I keep seeing the buzzwords “Halo needs change/to evolve!” but then not see any factual evidence provided alongside said claims.
>
> There’s change that is beneficial and then there’s change for the sake of change. A lot of Halo 5’s design decisions feel like they follow the latter (“Smart Scope” being a prime example), for me.
Please. If Halo 5 included ADS as nothing more than an aesthetic change without automatic weapons being buffed, H2 fanboys would still complain. It is a nice visual change. They didn’t “need” to change a lot of things when Halo 2 and Halo 3 were being made. They could have kept the CE graphics, too. The CE graphics worked, after all - no need to change them.
Now if you say that ADS is copied from Call of Duty, then we can have a discussion about how changing absolutely nothing is a registered Call of Duty trademark.
> 2535425310804235;4:
> > 2533274881015020;3:
> > I keep seeing the buzzwords “Halo needs change/to evolve!” but then not see any factual evidence provided alongside said claims.
> >
> > There’s change that is beneficial and then there’s change for the sake of change. A lot of Halo 5’s design decisions feel like they follow the latter (“Smart Scope” being a prime example), for me.
>
>
>
> Please. If Halo 5 included ADS as nothing more than an aesthetic change without automatic weapons being buffed, H2 fanboys would still complain. It is a nice visual change. They didn’t “need” to change a lot of things when Halo 2 and Halo 3 were being made. They could have kept the CE graphics, too. The CE graphics worked, after all - no need to change them.
>
> Now if you say that ADS is copied from Call of Duty, then we can have a discussion about how changing absolutely nothing is a registered Call of Duty trademark.
Careful, you’re beginning to generalise those who dislike the specific changes that are being applied to Halo 5. Not everyone who dislikes thing such as sprint are Halo 2 fans (in truth I like Halo CE and Halo 3 more).
That would be naught but an assumption - not that it doesn’t change anything, because it does (and it has been proven to substantially increase the Assault Rifle’s accuracy, for instance).
> 2533274881015020;6:
> > 2535425310804235;4:
> > > 2533274881015020;3:
> > > I keep seeing the buzzwords “Halo needs change/to evolve!” but then not see any factual evidence provided alongside said claims.
> > >
> > > There’s change that is beneficial and then there’s change for the sake of change. A lot of Halo 5’s design decisions feel like they follow the latter (“Smart Scope” being a prime example), for me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please. If Halo 5 included ADS as nothing more than an aesthetic change without automatic weapons being buffed, H2 fanboys would still complain. It is a nice visual change. They didn’t “need” to change a lot of things when Halo 2 and Halo 3 were being made. They could have kept the CE graphics, too. The CE graphics worked, after all - no need to change them.
> >
> > Now if you say that ADS is copied from Call of Duty, then we can have a discussion about how changing absolutely nothing is a registered Call of Duty trademark.
>
>
> Careful, you’re beginning to generalise those who dislike the specific changes that are being applied to Halo 5. Not everyone who dislikes thing such as sprint are Halo 2 fans (in truth I like Halo CE and Halo 3 more).
>
> That would be naught but an assumption - not that it doesn’t change anything, because it does (and it has been proven to substantially increase the Assault Rifle’s accuracy, for instance).
If you think that is substantial then I am amazed. Sure, the first few shots are more accurate, but after the first ten the spread goes back to normal spread. I’m not trying to justify it, I’m just saying that the increase is miniscule compared to every other game with full ADS. and, oh yeah, descope is back.
> 2533274857398125;8:
> > 2533274881015020;6:
> > > 2535425310804235;4:
> > > > 2533274881015020;3:
> > > > I keep seeing the buzzwords “Halo needs change/to evolve!” but then not see any factual evidence provided alongside said claims.
> > > >
> > > > There’s change that is beneficial and then there’s change for the sake of change. A lot of Halo 5’s design decisions feel like they follow the latter (“Smart Scope” being a prime example), for me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please. If Halo 5 included ADS as nothing more than an aesthetic change without automatic weapons being buffed, H2 fanboys would still complain. It is a nice visual change. They didn’t “need” to change a lot of things when Halo 2 and Halo 3 were being made. They could have kept the CE graphics, too. The CE graphics worked, after all - no need to change them.
> > >
> > > Now if you say that ADS is copied from Call of Duty, then we can have a discussion about how changing absolutely nothing is a registered Call of Duty trademark.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Careful, you’re beginning to generalise those who dislike the specific changes that are being applied to Halo 5. Not everyone who dislikes thing such as sprint are Halo 2 fans (in truth I like Halo CE and Halo 3 more).
> >
> > That would be naught but an assumption - not that it doesn’t change anything, because it does (and it has been proven to substantially increase the Assault Rifle’s accuracy, for instance).
>
>
>
> If you think that is substantial then I am amazed. Sure, the first few shots are more accurate, but after the first ten the spread goes back to normal spread. I’m not trying to justify it, I’m just saying that the increase is miniscule compared to every other game with full ADS. and, oh yeah, descope is back.
It is substantial because the AR while in Smart Scope isn’t affected by bloom. And yay, whoop. De-scope which should’ve been there from the start (because it was - in Halo CE).
> 2533274881015020;9:
> *It doesn’t need change for the sake of change.
>
> That is the point that you’re missing.
And yet, every year call of duty relases with little change and people go bananas, calling it the worst franchise ever, and now it seems that call of duty is beginning to go downhill.
If the Halo 5 stayed completely to true to the original titles, sure you would be happy, and most likely I would be happy because I’m happy as long as halo lives on, but there would be an entirely new set of haters.
Halo fell fast out of the competitive scene because Halo Reach was not a competitive game. Not because it was “stale”. If stagnation was the problem, then the MCC wouldn’t have stirred new live into competitive Halo.
> 2533274881015020;6:
> Careful, you’re beginning to generalise those who dislike the specific changes that are being applied to Halo 5. Not everyone who dislikes thing such as sprint are Halo 2 fans (in truth I like Halo CE and Halo 3 more).
>
> That would be naught but an assumption - not that it doesn’t change anything, because it does (and it has been proven to substantially increase the Assault Rifle’s accuracy, for instance).
I don’t mean to generalize, but those who want nothing to change are generally people who’ve only been around since Halo 2 and think that being able to google stuff makes them good. Halo 2 was a BIG change from Halo CE, which was a huge success already. Nothing needed to change, but they changed it anyway and that’s why Halo became so popular.
The point is to introduce change that makes the game play better and look better. Certainly this is subjective, but the common thing to do on these forums is to slam any change, no matter what it is. Having played the beta myself, most of the changes are very well-balanced.
> 2533274857398125;11:
> > 2533274881015020;9:
> > *It doesn’t need change for the sake of change.
> >
> > That is the point that you’re missing.
>
>
> And yet, every year call of duty relases with little change and people go bananas, calling it the worst franchise ever, and now it seems that call of duty is beginning to go downhill.
>
> If the Halo 5 stayed completely to true to the original titles, sure you would be happy, and most likely I would be happy because I’m happy as long as halo lives on, but there would be an entirely new set of haters.
Except when you’re talking about Call of Duty, we start to talk about a completely different development cycle and design ideology.
But that’s the thing - it doesn’t have to be a clone. You can make a sequel build upon its predecessors without trying to completely reinvent the wheel.
> 2535425310804235;13:
> > 2533274881015020;6:
> > Careful, you’re beginning to generalise those who dislike the specific changes that are being applied to Halo 5. Not everyone who dislikes thing such as sprint are Halo 2 fans (in truth I like Halo CE and Halo 3 more).
> >
> > That would be naught but an assumption - not that it doesn’t change anything, because it does (and it has been proven to substantially increase the Assault Rifle’s accuracy, for instance).
>
>
> I don’t mean to generalize, but those who want nothing to change are generally people who’ve only been around since Halo 2 and think that being able to google stuff makes them good. Halo 2 was a BIG change from Halo CE, which was a huge success already. Nothing needed to change, but they changed it anyway and that’s why Halo became so popular.
>
> The point is to introduce change that makes the game play better and look better. Certainly this is subjective, but the common thing to do on these forums is to slam any change, no matter what it is. Having played the beta myself, most of the changes are very well-balanced.
Thankfully I started playing since Halo’s inception. I liked Halo 2’s campaign, but I found its competitive aspect to be garbage (unbalanced asymmetric maps, SMG starts, etc).
The most I can agree with is that there are some parts in discussions which can be subjective, but there are game mechanics that can be objectively criticised as bad.
> 2533274881015020;14:
> > 2533274857398125;11:
> > > 2533274881015020;9:
> > > *It doesn’t need change for the sake of change.
> > >
> > > That is the point that you’re missing.
> >
> >
> >
> > And yet, every year call of duty relases with little change and people go bananas, calling it the worst franchise ever, and now it seems that call of duty is beginning to go downhill.
> >
> > If the Halo 5 stayed completely to true to the original titles, sure you would be happy, and most likely I would be happy because I’m happy as long as halo lives on, but there would be an entirely new set of haters.
>
>
> Except when you’re talking about Call of Duty, we start to talk about a completely different development cycle and design ideology.
>
> But that’s the thing - it doesn’t have to be a clone. You can make a sequel build upon its predecessors without trying to completely reinvent the wheel.
Which is what Halo 5 does. Please have an open mind when you play the beta. Unless you think “building upon” it means nothing more than new maps and new weapons.
> 2535425310804235;16:
> > 2533274881015020;14:
> > > 2533274857398125;11:
> > > > 2533274881015020;9:
> > > > *It doesn’t need change for the sake of change.
> > > >
> > > > That is the point that you’re missing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And yet, every year call of duty relases with little change and people go bananas, calling it the worst franchise ever, and now it seems that call of duty is beginning to go downhill.
> > >
> > > If the Halo 5 stayed completely to true to the original titles, sure you would be happy, and most likely I would be happy because I’m happy as long as halo lives on, but there would be an entirely new set of haters.
> >
> >
> >
> > Except when you’re talking about Call of Duty, we start to talk about a completely different development cycle and design ideology.
> >
> > But that’s the thing - it doesn’t have to be a clone. You can make a sequel build upon its predecessors without trying to completely reinvent the wheel.
>
>
> Which is what Halo 5 does. Please have an open mind when you play the beta. Unless you think “building upon” it means nothing more than new maps and new weapons.
I’ve already played 2 Halo games with sprint. I can see already that it doesn’t benefit Halo’s gameplay from experience. Now add the sprint nerf and the already slow shield recharge times get even slower. I can definitely see this becoming exceedingly frustrating very quickly. This is one such mechanic that tries to reinvent the wheel as opposed to being beneficial to Halo’s gameplay.
There are hundreds of hours’ worth of footage for me to objectively criticise - and in roughly five days I’ll be able to have firsthand experience to reaffirm what I’ve been saying.
I don’t think it’s that much of “reinventing the wheel”. I mean, H2 successfully added a new layer over CE. Dual wielding, boarding, health that regenerates, refinining the hand cannon to 4 shot kills. H3 refined dual wielding, it’s greatest addition was the amount of weapons and vehicles added to the sandbox. Somewhat of a new layer added was the equipment. Still pretty minor though.
The next layer that Reach added was where things went downhill. Armor abilities, the beginning of the decline. Reach also removed quite a bit from the sand box. Halo 4 was more of an extension of Reach, like H3 to H2. Unfortunately, I think it mistook Reach’s direction as the ‘right’ direction leading to, well, Halo 4.
H5 looks like it’s peeling everything after H3 off, replacing H4 and Reach’s addition with what it could and should have been. It is once again adding a new layer over Halo’s core gameplay without skewing the game too much. It still plays like Halo, but Halo with higher but balanced mobility. I think we are simply still recovering from 4 years of the ‘new Halos’ and still worried about how we are going to stray even more from the 2004 to 2009 era. If a H5 style game was released in place of Reach 4 years ago, it would probably have done and amazing job.
I agree with the OP, but I’ve already said that H5 is looking like what H4 should have been.
We’ve only seen ranked Arena gameplay though, so there’s still the possibility there’s loadouts, personal ordinance and all the other negatives of H4 which make the gameplay entirely unbalanced.
Special mention to the Boltshot though. I hate being able to spawn with one shot kill weapons. Stupid idea!
