Another "Halo 3" as Halo 5? Isn't that...

I’ve seen so many people wanting another Halo 3, or are mad that it “isn’t Halo”.

For example, when armor abilities came around, even sprint, so many people freaked out, they still do to this day. But I also see the same people make fun of Call of Duty for sticking to it’s roots.

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to ask for more original Halo roots, while at the same time laughing at other series, like Call of Duty doing the same thing?

It just seems a bit conflicting.

I don’t think it’s so much about COD sticking to its roots, but Halo copying another franchise and ignoring its roots.

I haven’t ever played COD, so I’m not one to talk, but apparently things like loadouts and sprint and perks have been done elsewhere (especially COD). Thus, people believe they shouldn’t be a part of Halo.

Which is both a good thing and a bad thing. As a long time Halo player who has never played COD, I always liked the idea of custom loadouts and AAs (not perks), and thought they would be a fine addition to Halo if executed properly. Keep that Combat Evolving is my motto.

I’m more liberal than some of the conservatives around here… I’ll happily steal a good idea from elsewhere if its executed properly in Halo. After all, there are so few genuinely new ideas out there these days. I think it’s safe to say Halo 4 could have done some of these things in a manner more concurrent with classic Halo, but they instead missed the mark.

It’s not easy moving forward and looking backward at the same time. I trust 343 got the worst of it out of their system with Halo 4, and Guardians will introduce even newer concepts while still being true to the franchise’s origins.

i don’t think it is wise to create such a topic, which obviously only acts as a flame bait.

I haven’t seen many people criticizing Halo for breaking out of its roots while at the same time, criticizing Call of Duty for never changing, but yes, it’s every hypocritical and quite ridiculous.

> Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to ask for more original Halo roots, while at the same time laughing at other series, like Call of Duty doing the same thing?

Only a fool would laugh at the very thing that has helped CoD maintain its success. It found something that worked well and stuck with it to make it better. Halo should have done the same.

It’s not a matter of “preference.” It’s not a matter of wanting Halo 3 Anniversary every three years. It’s a matter of quality. Sprint simply does not work well with Halo’s movement-oriented combat. Armor Abilities and custom loadouts simply do not work very well with Halo’s long kill times. Therefore, if you add (or keep) these features, you sacrifice quality.

It would be better for 343i to introduce new mechanics and features–perhaps, for example, “Spartan abilities”–that keep the gameplay new and interesting while still maintaining quality and likeness of Halo. Halo 2 did it with vehicle boarding and dual-wielding. Halo 3 did it with with Equipment and man cannons. Halo: Reach did it with visible spread (albeit way too much) and matchmade Campaign and Firefight. Halo 4 did it with Spartan Ops (albeit way too repetitive) and Ricochet. Halo 5 can do it too.

Nobody wants another Halo 3, but they do want what was great from past games like Halo 3 and evolving it. Just like how Halo 2 was a more evolved CE and how 3 was a more evolved Halo 2. Take what was great about the past titles and work from there. That doesn’t mean bigger maps to accommodate for sprint which also isn’t needed if you have small 4v4 maps, great base speed, and a better Field of View. You don’t need things like perks and custom loadouts as they add variables which are unneeded in an arena shooter.

Halo 3 wasn’t successful just because of gameplay but because of features like Forge and Theater. Why not, instead of trying to make something Halo isn’t by changing the core gameplay, we look at adding in features that can increase the longevity of the franchise? Bringing back clans, add in a spectator mode, improve forge, etc.

We already have the wheel so there’s no need to hop back into the shop and reinvent it. Let’s make it last longer with improved features and not experiment with things we know will only make it break.

> Nobody wants another Halo 3, but they do want what was great from past games like Halo 3 and evolving it. Just like how Halo 2 was a more evolved CE and how 3 was a more evolved Halo 2. Take what was great about the past titles and work from there. That doesn’t mean bigger maps to accommodate for sprint which also isn’t needed if you have small 4v4 maps, great base speed, and a better Field of View. You don’t need things like perks and custom loadouts as they add variables which are unneeded in an arena shooter.
>
>
> Halo 3 wasn’t successful just because of gameplay but because of features like Forge and Theater. Why not, instead of trying to make something Halo isn’t by changing the core gameplay, we look at adding in features that can increase the longevity of the franchise? Bringing back clans, add in a spectator mode, improve forge, etc.
>
> We already have the wheel so there’s no need to hop back into the shop and reinvent it. Let’s make it last longer with improved features and not experiment with things we know will only make it break.

“Nobody”… obviously there are people out there that want another Halo 3. But I really liked your comment.

Halo 3 was a huge success, there is a chunk of the community that favors Halo 3. There indeed are problems with it just like any Halo, but I think I speak for some when I say Halo 3 was the best. Halo 1 was new, Halo 2 built upon that, and Halo 3 also built upon that, but I think all the talk is about which direction everything should go in.

It’s sort of a tedious topic, but I believe 343 Industries tried to do what Bungie did with each Halo they created.

3 Pillars of a new Halo (in my book)

-Improve: Build upon previous features

So no one is complaining about improvement, such as better Forge, better tools, better graphics, ect. Check.

-Remove: Take out what was bad

This ticks off the community when their features are removed, for me it was Assault, VIP, precise editing in Forge. None of those were needed to taken out, as they were all improvements, but also additions at one point.

-Add: New revolutionary features

This portion also includes Armor abilities, sprint, spartan ops. This pretty much is what the community has trouble with most, I think.

TL;DR Improvements are typically good. Removing things are annoying to some, but adding new things I think are the biggest problem with the Halo community.

It is, but I have yet to find a new Call of Duty that was on par or better than Cod4 or Mw2.

I quit playing call of duty during MW3’s reign, but I did not buy Black Ops, which was the game before it. Though I have not played the newer “Duties,” there seems to be a general consensus that the newer games have been getting worse, stated by its community.

My thing is that you must build upon the things that already work, and then focus attention to ideas or features that have not been favored/successful as much.

It’s much easier for cod community to have mixed feelings about the nxt new game, because they have to deal with a plethora of perks, streaks, weapons, etc. It’s so easy to find something Op in cod, people will abuse it, complain and keep playing lol.

> Removing things are annoying to some, but adding new things I think are the biggest problem with the Halo community.

When they don’t work well in the game then yes people tend to be upset. Obviously there have been new things in the past that were received well within the community like forge or vehicle boarding. Features that have changed the gameplay to the point where the game plays far from its predecessors is when you start to have a problem.

I actually agree with what you’re saying here. People don’t often criticize COD for its game play its mostly criticized because it is the same game released every year for 60 bucks.

What I specifically don’t want Halo to do is become the same exact thing release after release. THIS is what COD does, this is what I specifically want to avoid. There are things in COD, believe it or not, that could potentially make Halo better. Some people seem to hate many of Halo 4’s features because they are from COD or COD-like, not because they actually take away from the game.

That said there were additions that did not really improve Halo 4 compared to previous Halos. I personally thought they were fine and I could still play the game and have fun, but I am willing to admit that perks, plasma grenades, boltshot and POD do make the game a little frustrating.

Fortunately we’re already getting Halo 3 with dedicated servers at 60fps on the Xbox One (so I can finally retire THIS), so if Halo 5 turns out not to please everybody all of the time forever and ever amen, you can just play Halo 3 in the MCC and fondly relive all of times you pwnd no0bs with yer bros.

> > Removing things are annoying to some, but adding new things I think are the biggest problem with the Halo community.
>
> When they don’t work well in the game then yes people tend to be upset. Obviously there have been new things in the past that were received well within the community like forge or vehicle boarding. Features that have changed the gameplay to the point where the game plays far from its predecessors is when you start to have a problem.

Completely agree. I’m so split on sprint, so many up, and downsides of it. Just my thought on it.

Cod is hated on because they release the exact same game every year. There’s a clear difference between sticking to its roots and rehashing a game over and over again.

Things like armor abilities, sprint, custom loadouts, random ordnance, etc. are hated on because it is detrimental to the smooth, simplistic core gameplay that people play Halo for. When I pick up Halo, I want to play a Halo game, not a battlefield/Cod/Gow ripoff. When something was obviously borrowed from other franchises due its popularity (sprint, custom loadouts, killcam, etc.), then it loses its appeal and uniqueness. It’s not fun. It taints the gameplay because it doesn’t work well. That is why people hate the changes in reach and 4. Because when it doesn’t work, it needs to be removed. Simple as that.

People will always hate on CoD just because it’s the popular thing to hate on.
Not always for valid or consistent reasons.

Its even come to the point where the people who play CoD are demonized.

The difference is,CoD is released every year. Not once every2 or 3 years.
Played 1 CoD, you’ve played them all.

There is a difference between criticizing CoD for ‘being the same’ year to year and respecting it for sticking to its roots long term.

CoD is a yearly franchise and generally when you compare two adjacent years next to each other there is not a whole lot of changes. This is what people generally complain about with incremental changes and then charging 60+DLC.

However what people are not complainging about is how CoD sticks to its roots over time. There might not be a whole lot different from one year to the next but compare say CoD4 to BO2 and there is a healthy amount of change.

And as far as call of duty goes it did not really have a consistent multiplayer identity at first. CoD 1 was much more old school with health packs and older inventory, CoD2 implemented a lot of the ‘modern’ features from Halo 2 such as health regen, dedicated grenade/melee buttons, CoD3 was class based with vehicles, it was not until CoD4 that they really found their niche and so far they have stuck to it.

Halo found its niche from the start and had originally stuck to it. People don’t hate things in Halo simply because they are new or that they come from other things.

Many of the ‘new’ things get a lot of flack because they are flat out broken/don’t work(Pods), or because it takes Halo away from its original niche. I don’t see anyone complain about extraction or the addition of new forge tools(though obviously people take issue with the removal of them though). The campaign was generally well received and while Spartan Ops was ultimately disappointing for many, I don’t think many people disliked the idea of Spartan Ops, just its implementation.

There are well documented reasons for why many of the new mechanics are disliked. Some people are not as concise or well-reasoned with their arguments as others, but that does not invalidate the entire argument.

> Nobody wants another Halo 3, but they do want what was great from past games like Halo 3 and evolving it. Just like how Halo 2 was a more evolved CE and how 3 was a more evolved Halo 2. Take what was great about the past titles and work from there. That doesn’t mean bigger maps to accommodate for sprint which also isn’t needed if you have small 4v4 maps, great base speed, and a better Field of View. You don’t need things like perks and custom loadouts as they add variables which are unneeded in an arena shooter.
>
>
> Halo 3 wasn’t successful just because of gameplay but because of features like Forge and Theater. Why not, instead of trying to make something Halo isn’t by changing the core gameplay, we look at adding in features that can increase the longevity of the franchise? Bringing back clans, add in a spectator mode, improve forge, etc.
>
> We already have the wheel so there’s no need to hop back into the shop and reinvent it. Let’s make it last longer with improved features and not experiment with things we know will only make it break.

I want another Halo 3…
Best game ever made.

> > Nobody wants another Halo 3, but they do want what was great from past games like Halo 3 and evolving it. Just like how Halo 2 was a more evolved CE and how 3 was a more evolved Halo 2. Take what was great about the past titles and work from there. That doesn’t mean bigger maps to accommodate for sprint which also isn’t needed if you have small 4v4 maps, great base speed, and a better Field of View. You don’t need things like perks and custom loadouts as they add variables which are unneeded in an arena shooter.
> >
> >
> > Halo 3 wasn’t successful just because of gameplay but because of features like Forge and Theater. Why not, instead of trying to make something Halo isn’t by changing the core gameplay, we look at adding in features that can increase the longevity of the franchise? Bringing back clans, add in a spectator mode, improve forge, etc.
> >
> > We already have the wheel so there’s no need to hop back into the shop and reinvent it. Let’s make it last longer with improved features and not experiment with things we know will only make it break.
>
> I want another Halo 3…
> Best game ever made.

November 11th

Nice generalization, OP.

There’s nothing wrong with what COD does. It caught lightning in a bottle with COD4 and so it kept that formula for future games.

Why can’t Halo do the same? For god’s sake, we just want Halo. No armor abilities, no sprint, no custom loadouts, no perks, equal starts. Is that too much to ask?

I agree with you OP on the idea that some people in this community can be hypocritical in their views towards CoD… That being said, the issues I have with ‘post Halo 3 games’ are that they simply incorporated bad features, such as armor abilities, bloom, poor weapon balancing, etc… (I’m fine with sprint btw).

Halo can improve and continue to be unique without adding crap features; for example, Halo 3 was a huge jump from Halo 2, yet it made simple tweeks in gameplay (ie. equipment, new weapons, dynamic maps), while making giant leaps in features (ie. Forge, theater, vast custom game improvements). The past two major Halo installments did the exact opposite by making risky leaps in the core gameplay, while not adding fun/unique new features (besides firefight… which, by the way, was added in the Halo 3 spin-off game ODST). This is the problem.