This is not a provocation, because there is nothing bad in casual game, and because i’m not a pro 
But, in many discussions emerges that casual gamers prefers the Halo 4 features (AA, loadout, perks ecc), while competitive players prefers old style gameplay. I think this is false.
I think (but i can err), that casual gamers was more fun in halo 2 or halo 3 that now in H4. It’s possible?
You can’t really differentiate between casuals and competitive players when you refer to the difference between Halo 2/3 and Halo 4.
It’s a difference between players who prefer the classic or “modern” experience.
There’s just a tendency towards casuals that prefer Halo 4 because competitive players have a better knowledge of the meta and prefer balance and strategy over randomness.
I play casually, and I think both of you guys are right in a way.
I enjoy the randomness of Halo 4 because you can’t anticipate everything. When it’s all laid out for you, simple & balanced, your actions become as calculated as an equation. It’s more about strategy and wits; which is what most players probably want.
I play a lot of the more competitive playlists in both Halo 3 & 4, but I’m at home in Action Sack simply because I enjoy the challenge of trying to overcome obstacles that I did not expect.
But that’s not to say I don’t have fun or that I’m not a force to be reckoned with in a balanced competitive playlist either. It all depends on my mood (or blood pressure.)
I think the biggest difference, and why you can’t really compare Halo 2 & 3 to 4 in that sense is what x cRi7iCaL xCeL was saying about modernity in video games.
Competitive players who honed their skills ten years ago with Halo 2 and never bothered to evolve or adapt over time tend to just slag off Halo 4 as a bad game when the reality is that they refused to grow out of their comfort zone.
(that’s obviously not everybody; I had a friend who told me that since he had gotten so good at Halo 3, he was worried about Reach coming out and that he wouldn’t be as good … and lo & behold, he hated it.)
> I play casually, and I think both of you guys are right in a way.
> I enjoy the randomness of Halo 4 because you can’t anticipate everything. When it’s all laid out for you, simple & balanced, your actions become as calculated as an equation. It’s more about strategy and wits; which is what most players probably want.
> I play a lot of the more competitive playlists in both Halo 3 & 4, but I’m at home in Action Sack simply because I enjoy the challenge of trying to overcome obstacles that I did not expect.
>
> But that’s not to say I don’t have fun or that I’m not a force to be reckoned with in a balanced competitive playlist either. It all depends on my mood (or blood pressure.)
>
> I think the biggest difference, and why you can’t really compare Halo 2 & 3 to 4 in that sense is what x cRi7iCaL xCeL was saying about modernity in video games.
> <mark>Competitive players who honed their skills ten years ago with Halo 2 and never bothered to evolve or adapt over time tend to just slag off Halo 4 as a bad game when the reality is that they refused to grow out of their comfort zone.</mark>
> (that’s obviously not everybody; I had a friend who told me that since he had gotten so good at Halo 3, he was worried about Reach coming out and that he wouldn’t be as good … and lo & behold, he hated it.)
I think that players who refuse to leave their comfort zone are in a minority in the competitive scene. The transition is something that most competitive players look forward to because it is like a new start.
The problem with Halo Reach and even more with Halo 4 was the randomness added to the meta. It’s hard to adapt to loadouts and there’s no particular way to evolve because there’s too much randomness. It’s like trying to improve your Roulette game, it’ only possible to a certain point but there’s a cap and it’s called chance.
Halo CE-3 have been like chess: somewhat predictable and hard to master.
Halo Reach/4 is like chess with every piece having 3 possible moves, getting another queen after beating 5 pieces and having the possibility to hide your king. (exaggeration!)
> > I play casually, and I think both of you guys are right in a way.
> > I enjoy the randomness of Halo 4 because you can’t anticipate everything. When it’s all laid out for you, simple & balanced, your actions become as calculated as an equation. It’s more about strategy and wits; which is what most players probably want.
> > I play a lot of the more competitive playlists in both Halo 3 & 4, but I’m at home in Action Sack simply because I enjoy the challenge of trying to overcome obstacles that I did not expect.
> >
> > But that’s not to say I don’t have fun or that I’m not a force to be reckoned with in a balanced competitive playlist either. It all depends on my mood (or blood pressure.)
> >
> > I think the biggest difference, and why you can’t really compare Halo 2 & 3 to 4 in that sense is what x cRi7iCaL xCeL was saying about modernity in video games.
> > <mark>Competitive players who honed their skills ten years ago with Halo 2 and never bothered to evolve or adapt over time tend to just slag off Halo 4 as a bad game when the reality is that they refused to grow out of their comfort zone.</mark>
> > (that’s obviously not everybody; I had a friend who told me that since he had gotten so good at Halo 3, he was worried about Reach coming out and that he wouldn’t be as good … and lo & behold, he hated it.)
>
> I think that players who refuse to leave their comfort zone are in a minority in the competitive scene. The transition is something that most competitive players look forward to because it is like a new start.
> The problem with Halo Reach and even more with Halo 4 was the randomness added to the meta. It’s hard to adapt to loadouts and there’s no particular way to evolve because there’s too much randomness. It’s like trying to improve your Roulette game, it’ only possible to a certain point but there’s a cap and it’s called chance.
>
> Halo CE-3 have been like chess: somewhat predictable and hard to master.
>
> Halo Reach/4 is like chess with every piece having 3 possible moves, getting another queen after beating 5 pieces and having the possibility to hide your king. (exaggeration!)
Good analogy!
I definitely consider myself to be more of a casual/social player. I don’t care whether I win or lose, don’t get mad over other players in our team being silly, don’t care about my K/D ratio, and just want to have some fun while playing some Halo. That being said, I do always try my best to do well, but I’m not phased if I don’t.
However, I most definitely prefer the gameplay of Halo 1-3, and even Reach. Even though I’m a social player, what has always attracted me about Halo’s multiplayer were the even starts between players, the lack of Sprint, the challenge brought upon having to fight over the map to gain advantages, as well as the good mix of vehicle and infantry combat. In essence, what makes Halo fun is that, when I kill a player, or when I get killed by a player, it’s because I know that the winner earned that kill. The winner outplayed the guy who was defeated, be it by having superior skills, by outsmarting them, or simply by earning that power weapon they used by timing its respawn time on the map. Whatever it was the winner did, they earned it, since everybody started out equally.
In classic Halo, there was no Sprint, so people couldn’t just run away when they felt like not dying. The maps were therefore not designed around Sprint, and ended up being much better constructed. Of course, Bungie’s maps were always amazing, especially in Halo 1-3. What we have in Halo 4 simply cannot compare. The additions added in Halo 4 : Sprint, Ordnance Drops, flinch, perks… It ruins what made Halo fun and special to me. The game favours the lucky over the skilled, and has many elements of unpredictability (perks, armour abilities, ordnance) that make things unfair and unbalanced. The winner of the battle is no longer the better player, but simply the guy who happened to get better ordnance, or who just happened to have the right perks to counter what the other guy had. Or maybe they had that silly vehicle eject perk. If I blow up a vehicle with 3 guys in it, I deserve to get the 3 kills, no? Vehicle combat has been completely destroyed due to a combination of this, and the ability to spawn with Plasma Pistols and Plasma Grenades… The game simply is not fun. It’s too complex, too broken. Halo 1-3, and even Reach, were far simpler, and very good and enjoyable games.
In short, Halo has always stood out as being different from the competition, which was what made it popular in the first place. Now, 343i has taken out everything that made it different, and just turned it into a Call of Duty wanna be. It’s not special anymore, it’s not Halo.
> I think that players who refuse to leave their comfort zone are in a minority in the competitive scene. The transition is something that most competitive players look forward to because it is like a new start.
> The problem with Halo Reach and even more with Halo 4 was the randomness added to the meta. It’s hard to adapt to loadouts and there’s no particular way to evolve because there’s too much randomness. It’s like trying to improve your Roulette game, it’ only possible to a certain point but there’s a cap and it’s called chance.
>
> Halo CE-3 have been like chess: somewhat predictable and hard to master.
>
> Halo Reach/4 is like chess with every piece having 3 possible moves, getting another queen after beating 5 pieces and having the possibility to hide your king. (exaggeration!)
i agree.
I remember in head to head in Halo Reach, frustration for amor lock… if i’m more skilled i can’t kill you, but your friends kill me easy because my shield are low…
and it’s the same for other thinks, camo, jet pack…overshiled, extradamange…
this is not laziness to evolve… it’s not just…
As a “casual” player, I prefer aspects of both:
I prefer Halo 1-3’s chess like gameplay, making move to at least keep the power weapons out of the hands of people willing to blow my head off with them, the vehicle combat(mainly 3’s vehicles) being incredibly fun to drive and fight in, and the consistency of the guns makes it easy to learn but hard to master.
I like Halo 4’s loadout system CONCEPT, as it keeps me from picking the gametype and make me focus more on the map I want to play on. If balanced, it bring out more weapons to play with and actually use more so than previous games that focused on the BR, the power weapons and very little else of the sandbox.
Personally, clean the loadout system, improve Halo 3’s netcode up to allow projectile gunplay in BTB, allow players Classic gameplay at the START, and add on new ideas that don’t go against how the game plays out and I’d be happy.
> As a “casual” player, I prefer aspects of both:
>
>
> I prefer Halo 1-3’s chess like gameplay, making move to at least keep the power weapons out of the hands of people willing to blow my head off with them, the vehicle combat(mainly 3’s vehicles) being incredibly fun to drive and fight in, and the consistency of the guns makes it easy to learn but hard to master.
>
>
> <mark>I like Halo 4’s loadout system CONCEPT, as it keeps me from picking the gametype and make me focus more on the map I want to play on. If balanced, it bring out more weapons to play with and actually use more so than previous games that focused on the BR, the power weapons and very little else of the sandbox.</mark>
>
>
>
> Personally, clean the loadout system, improve Halo 3’s netcode up to allow projectile gunplay in BTB, allow players Classic gameplay at the START, and add on new ideas that don’t go against how the game plays out and I’d be happy.
I have to agree here, I like the idea of Loadouts that were brought in Halo 4. However, they went way too far with them. We don’t need perks, or armour abilities, or grenade choices. If it were up to me, we’d get to pick our primary weapons, and that’s it. I like being able to spawn with a Carbine and Storm Rifle over a BR, as the weapons are nicely balanced with one another.
But even then, the choices should be limited. We shouldn’t be able to spawn with long-range weapons like the DMR and Light Rifle, those should be placed on-map for players to find on their own. Same goes for grenades and armour abilities. I like having some diversity, but not to the point where it creates an imbalance.
In Halo 5, they should follow the path taken in Halo 3 where it comes to having Ranked and Social playlists. Both playlists would play exactly the same and have the same elements, though Social would allow players to choose with their weapon of choice, while Ranked forces BR starts.
imho, the biggest problem is not the loadout system, because br, dmr, carabine can be equilibrate… BR 4 or 5 shots for example…
I don’t like the killing spree bonus: extradamange, overshiled, or power weapons… too many super-player in game…so, skill factor is secondary almost…
> I don’t like the killing spree bonus: extradamange, overshiled, or power weapons… too many super-player in game…so, skill factor is secondary almost…
No, not almost. Exactly.
I commented in another thread about how in Halo 3 multiplayer I spent more time dying than playing, which gave me the incentive to learn how to be the one doing the killing. I didn’t turn into a pro, but studying my games, learning how the weapons worked, learning the maps, in short all the things better players end up learning, helped me enjoy the game. In Halo 4 none of that helps. The people killing you may be skilled or not. The skilled ones are using precision weapons and some knowhow, the rest are using Rocket Launchers and Incineration Cannons. It’s not that I’m dying any more or less than anyone else, it’s that now getting a Power Weapon is the point, at least in BTB. In the past, Power Weapons were rare, the good players were going to get them first anyway, so you learned to survive without them. Now, just manage a few kills and the conveyor belt starts rolling. It’s like FireFight Arcade, and I hated that game.
> I definitely consider myself to be more of a casual/social player. I don’t care whether I win or lose, don’t get mad over other players in our team being silly, don’t care about my K/D ratio, and just want to have some fun while playing some Halo. That being said, I do always try my best to do well, but I’m not phased if I don’t.
>
> However, I most definitely prefer the gameplay of Halo 1-3, and even Reach. Even though I’m a social player, what has always attracted me about Halo’s multiplayer were the even starts between players, the lack of Sprint, the challenge brought upon having to fight over the map to gain advantages, as well as the good mix of vehicle and infantry combat. In essence, what makes Halo fun is that, when I kill a player, or when I get killed by a player, it’s because I know that the winner earned that kill. The winner outplayed the guy who was defeated, be it by having superior skills, by outsmarting them, or simply by earning that power weapon they used by timing its respawn time on the map. Whatever it was the winner did, they earned it, since everybody started out equally.
>
> In classic Halo, there was no Sprint, so people couldn’t just run away when they felt like not dying. The maps were therefore not designed around Sprint, and ended up being much better constructed. Of course, Bungie’s maps were always amazing, especially in Halo 1-3. What we have in Halo 4 simply cannot compare. The additions added in Halo 4 : Sprint, Ordnance Drops, flinch, perks… It ruins what made Halo fun and special to me. The game favours the lucky over the skilled, and has many elements of unpredictability (perks, armour abilities, ordnance) that make things unfair and unbalanced. The winner of the battle is no longer the better player, but simply the guy who happened to get better ordnance, or who just happened to have the right perks to counter what the other guy had. Or maybe they had that silly vehicle eject perk. If I blow up a vehicle with 3 guys in it, I deserve to get the 3 kills, no? Vehicle combat has been completely destroyed due to a combination of this, and the ability to spawn with Plasma Pistols and Plasma Grenades… The game simply is not fun. It’s too complex, too broken. Halo 1-3, and even Reach, were far simpler, and very good and enjoyable games.
>
> In short, Halo has always stood out as being different from the competition, which was what made it popular in the first place. Now, 343i has taken out everything that made it different, and just turned it into a Call of Duty wanna be. It’s not special anymore, it’s not Halo.
Agree.
Halo 4 is a great game, but it lacks what Halo Ce-3 had. But i think Halo 4 is an improvement on REACH. But some of its new features (PERKS & PODS) were bad.
IMO Halo 3 has been the best Halo Multi-player experience, and Halo 2 had the best maps. What made Halo 3 so great, was it was Halo 2 with all the problems removed. The only new addition was Equipment, which was not game breaking like AA have been.
Halo 2/3 were not made to be competitive, they were not made for the casual gamer. They were made to be a great game which appealed to both groups and both groups had their playlist. Eveyeone was happy.
Halo REACH and Halo 4 have failed in this regard. And I am sure 343 will try theior best to get it right for Halo 5. Halo 4 showed much potential in the multi-player. IMO, only a few changes are needed and we have the perfect Halo. The H4 campaign was great and really look forward to the next one.
And I would classify myself as casual gamer, but also like games to be competitive. I want the Halo Arena Shooter back.
> > As a “casual” player, I prefer aspects of both:
> >
> >
> > I prefer Halo 1-3’s chess like gameplay, making move to at least keep the power weapons out of the hands of people willing to blow my head off with them, the vehicle combat(mainly 3’s vehicles) being incredibly fun to drive and fight in, and the consistency of the guns makes it easy to learn but hard to master.
> >
> >
> > <mark>I like Halo 4’s loadout system CONCEPT, as it keeps me from picking the gametype and make me focus more on the map I want to play on. If balanced, it bring out more weapons to play with and actually use more so than previous games that focused on the BR, the power weapons and very little else of the sandbox.</mark>
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally, clean the loadout system, improve Halo 3’s netcode up to allow projectile gunplay in BTB, allow players Classic gameplay at the START, and add on new ideas that don’t go against how the game plays out and I’d be happy.
>
> I have to agree here, I like the idea of Loadouts that were brought in Halo 4. However, they went way too far with them. We don’t need perks, or armour abilities, or grenade choices. If it were up to me, we’d get to pick our primary weapons, and that’s it. I like being able to spawn with a Carbine and Storm Rifle over a BR, as the weapons are nicely balanced with one another.
>
> But even then, the choices should be limited. We shouldn’t be able to spawn with long-range weapons like the DMR and Light Rifle, those should be placed on-map for players to find on their own. Same goes for grenades and armour abilities. I like having some diversity, but not to the point where it creates an imbalance.
>
> In Halo 5, they should follow the path taken in Halo 3 where it comes to having Ranked and Social playlists. Both playlists would play exactly the same and have the same elements, though Social would allow players to choose with their weapon of choice, while Ranked forces BR starts.
Totally agree Hotrod.
You are on a winner with those changes.
> The game simply is not fun. It’s too complex, too broken. Halo 1-3, and even Reach, were far simpler, and very good and enjoyable games.
>
> In short, Halo has always stood out as being different from the competition, which was what made it popular in the first place. Now, 343i has taken out everything that made it different, and just turned it into a Call of Duty wanna be. It’s not special anymore, it’s not Halo.
Well said my friend.
I totally agree with pretty much everything you said. Halo was soooooo good because of the potential for the player to grow. It sounds backwards because compared to H4, H1-H3 were ridiculously simple. But that’s what was so magical. There were so many things that you could improve on.
The obvious things would be accuracy, position on the map, weapon choice, and other things that everyone learns weather its H4 or cod. I played halo for 5 or 6 years and was pretty good, prob in the 50th percentile of all players, and I really felt like I had capped out. But then a friend told me to tuck my head when I was retreating while my shields were down. (this was before sprint) Then another friend told me I should use the BR because it was the most versatile weapon and you could kill in 5 shots (if your shots were perfect). Over time I learned to stop charging into battles and putting myself in bad positions. I also learned to move more fluidly and hug corners and walls to move around the map faster. Then I learned about spawn times for power-ups and power weapons.
I know that I haven’t made the strongest argument and I could use 8000 characters rambling about how I improved over the years in Halo. And I totally understand that most players don’t care about being the best Halo player around, but I really do feel like these “modern” games with their progressive leveling and loadouts have never even come close to the experience I had playing classic Halo games and really being able to develop my play-style.