Scanning the forums, it seems like people want to return to old-school Halo. That’s fine by me, I love Halo 1-3. But it just seems that we want Halo 3 v2.0. It seems that new things will get bashed because old-school is better. But, look at other games like Battlefield and COD. Yes I don’t want things like loadouts but, each new game that they make introduces new things that replace old. Will the next generation really want to be sticking to old habits into the future?
> Scanning the forums, it seems like people want to return to old-school Halo. That’s fine by me, I love Halo 1-3. But it just seems that we want Halo 3 v2.0. It seems that new things will get bashed because old-school is better. But, look at other games like Battlefield and COD. Yes I don’t want things like loadouts but, each new game that they make introduces new things that replace old. Will the next generation really want to be sticking to old habits into the future?
On major issues like should halo be a arena shooter, and perks, PODs, loadouts, etcetera, No, most agree that halo should be an equal starts, arena shooter, and that loadouts hurt general gameplay.
On minor issues like Sprint, utility vs autos, and design aesthetic, YES, some people here will argue that Sprint ruins halo, that precisions should always be better than automatics, and that all armor should look one way and not another. These are all personal taste, but that doesn’t stop people from starting pages long arguments about them.
No one wants Halo 3 v2, we want a new Halo that adds new cool additions but sticks to it’s original formula at the same time.
> On major issues like should halo be a arena shooter, and perks, PODs, loadouts, etcetera, No. On minor issues like Sprint, utility vs autos, and design aesthetic, YES.
Nitpicking here, but sprint is a minor issue?
It seems a lot of people are. From what I’ve seen, people will likely complain about the way the announcer sounds, the way medals look. If the graphics look good, some people might say that they look too good, then other people will probably say the game doesn’t look good enough. Some people seem to want a near 2.0 version of a previous game.
What I expect from halo 5’s main base combat is the thruster pack like thing to be used a lot, lots of movement, agility, same starts. And that’ll probably be a lot of fun, performing maneuvers and so on in arena style. New abilities, new things. Arena fun.
But I also want things like loadouts , balanced, and other elements people seemingly irrationally completely dismiss. Loadouts + halo = my own combat style in halo universe, setting, and combat style.
> No one wants Halo 3 v2, we want a new Halo that adds new cool additions but sticks to it’s original formula at the same time.
>
>
>
> > On major issues like should halo be a arena shooter, and perks, PODs, loadouts, etcetera, No. On minor issues like Sprint, utility vs autos, and design aesthetic, YES.
>
> Nitpicking here, but sprint is a minor issue?
Yes, it unnecessarily changes gameplay, but it doesn’t inherently damage it like some around here claim. It’s just different.
> But it just seems that we want Halo 3 v2.0. It seems that new things will get bashed because old-school is better.
New things get bashed because they’re bad, not because they new. Coke tastes good, milk tastes good, but a coke-milk mix wouldn’t taste well at all. Likewise, Halo is fun and CoD is fun, but that doesn’t mean you can haphazardly copy-paste features that CoD has onto Halo and everything be great still. Changes need to be good changes. Halo 2 and Halo 3 both made mostly good changes and additions. Halo: Reach and Halo 4 didn’t.
Quick post before I need to poop
This “you’re only afraid of change/Halo needs to evolve” nonsense is a complete strawman arguement; we (the vast majority of us) don’t want a carbon copy of Halo 3. We want H5:G to build off of what made H2-3 good.
The only new features we want changed/removed are the ones we see as directly harmful to gameplay.
I hope this answers your question.
> Scanning the forums, it seems like people want to return to old-school Halo. That’s fine by me, I love Halo 1-3. But it just seems that we want Halo 3 v2.0. It seems that new things will get bashed because old-school is better. But, look at other games like Battlefield and COD. Yes I don’t want things like loadouts but, each new game that they make introduces new things that replace old. Will the next generation really want to be sticking to old habits into the future?
Change in general? Not really. If we are talking about changes to core game mechanics, like what Halo 4 did, then yes! We are afraid of that because they are more likely to not be fixed in comparison to a feature that can be disabled in the options menu or a spawn system that can be edited in Forge Mode.
They misconception is that CoD and Battlefield are replacing the old. They never do. They add in game mechanics that work WITH the old and compliment their gameplay. They don’t add in mechanics that interrupt the flow of the game.
Halo 4 changed not just how Team Slayer worked(in my opinion, for the worst), they changed many core gameplay mechanics that made things too overpowered, many things underpowered, and other elements that just downright discourages players to play the game due to how frustrating they can become. These are not gameplay elements, at least to me, that I look forward to.
Spartan Abilities, on the other hand, compliment the gameplay style of Halo. Since everyone gets the same Spartan Abilities, they do not break anything in relation to the game. It is one more thing to keep in mind when fighting players, but it is one more thing we also need to keep in mind to use whenever we need to. That keeps the game even.
Equipment from Halo 3 worked as well. Sure, not everyone can get them. But, they act as another type of map pick up that we will need to control in order to come out on top of a match. The only time they ever become overpowered is if the map isn’t properly built to accomidate them or the spawning needs to be adjusted in Forge Mode.
We welcome change, but only if it compliments the gameplay Halo is built upon. Call of Duty and Battlefield do not implement things that harm their gameplay experience intentionally. Halo 4 was a mess because they didn’t create things that compliment the core aspect and changed them for seemingly no real reason. If they understand what makes Halo “Halo”, they can be able to come up with ways to make new elements work and be innovative, instead of copy/paste and see how it works.
> > But it just seems that we want Halo 3 v2.0. It seems that new things will get bashed because old-school is better.
>
> New things get bashed because they’re bad, not because they new. Coke tastes good, milk tastes good, but a coke-milk mix wouldn’t taste well at all. Likewise, Halo is fun and CoD is fun, but that doesn’t mean you can haphazardly copy-paste features that CoD has onto Halo and everything be great still. Changes need to be good changes. Halo 2 and Halo 3 both made mostly good changes and additions. Halo: Reach and Halo 4 didn’t.
Good changes halo 2/3? It is debatable for many people. And a lot of things get bashed that aren’t instinctively bad. PODs would probably be a lot of fun in PVE for instance.
Halo 4 wasn’t all too finished up when they shipped it. A lot of the problems likely have to do with the development. Had they been already established, I’m pretty sure a lot of problems that halo 4 had probably wouldn’t be. Custom Loadouts and other elements can be quite fun. It’s not like having loadouts changes the game play to call of duty gameplay. It becomes something different. Halo 4 lacked the more core halo. But it doesn’t mean halo can’t have anything other than the main core only. Having both things would probably be very nice. More arena style gameplay with new additions, but also a more side, load out, personal style gameplay with balanced loadouts.
No one here is afraid of change.
Most however who oppose the changes that have been made to Halo does not like those changes because it moves Halo closer to something they do not wish to play. Or, moves Halo closer to a gaming experience they allready have in other shooters.
On another note, some of those changes may not be beneficial to the established gameplay.
Change is always necessary, but change for the sake of change, or change for the sake of grasping at a different audience, is not necessary change, at all.
There was a thread not long ago asking, “Why is new bad”, to those who do not like the changes, or additions, to Halo.
In the same manner, I’d like to ask, “Why is new good?”.
> > No one wants Halo 3 v2, we want a new Halo that adds new cool additions but sticks to it’s original formula at the same time.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On major issues like should halo be a arena shooter, and perks, PODs, loadouts, etcetera, No. On minor issues like Sprint, utility vs autos, and design aesthetic, YES.
> >
> > Nitpicking here, but sprint is a minor issue?
>
> Yes, it unnecessarily changes gameplay, but it doesn’t inherently damage it like some around here claim. It’s just different.
Define what constitues “doesn’t inherently damage it like some around here claim”. Because it’s far from a “minor issue”. It’s not an aesthetic, it’s a base player trait affecting map design, that’s far from a “minor” aspect.
Didn’t know Obama played Halo 
In all seriousness change doesn’t scare me. I’m afraid of change for the sake of change which for Halo usually ends up being bad change.
Not to slam my fellow peers on these forums - I respect the opinions of all, especially the elder statesmen.
But I wouldn’t look to these forums for forward-looking tolerance.
Me, I loved CE, 2, and 3. They were the greatest of their time. But I firmly believe the suns have set over their respective eras. Keep that Combat Evolving. And don’t dismiss the notion just because one title did it poorly. That’s my take.
It’s a mix of things… new releases and titles are always meet with strife. Haters are going to hate. And a lot of old fans didn’t like what happen with Reach and 4, they thought it ruined the ‘Halo feel’ of a game. They had good memories of the old Halo.
But there will always be the haters . There will always be the followers. There will be the people who say ‘meh’, the people who say ‘yay!’, the people who love any game, the newbies, the tryhards, the casuals, the old fans, the nostalgia huggers, etc etc etc. We are all part of this huge community.
Not every game is for everybody. Some may like this game more than others like that. What it boils down to in the end is ‘Do YOU like it?’
In a way, some my be ‘afraid to change’. They really liked the old Halo’s playstyle, and want that again. Some just didn’t like Halo 4. And some could care less.
So, my final answer here is (even though you know me as a Halo 4 optimist), Halo 4 built upon the things fans didn’t like about Halo Reach. Yes, the didn’t like the change. But they didn’t like that kind of change.
Go ahead, 343. Add new wild things to Halo! Gives us new weapons, mechanics, enemies, and Mountain Dew flavors! But when they (and Bungie) added things most didn’t like, and then kept them, then it became an issue.
If we are to be perfectly truthful about ourselves, whatever 343i decides to change will be excoriated on the forums by at least one person.
No change goes unscathed.
With that said, the most frequently complained about items in H4 have been denounced by such a large portion of the population that we can reasonably conclude that they were, indeed, bad changes. We can look to the H4 online numbers for confirmation of that conclusion.
> > No one wants Halo 3 v2, we want a new Halo that adds new cool additions but sticks to it’s original formula at the same time.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On major issues like should halo be a arena shooter, and perks, PODs, loadouts, etcetera, No. On minor issues like Sprint, utility vs autos, and design aesthetic, YES.
> >
> > Nitpicking here, but sprint is a minor issue?
>
> Yes, it unnecessarily changes gameplay, but it doesn’t inherently damage it like some around here claim. It’s just different.
I’d say it damages it because it makes it ridiculously less fun and competitive, it slows it down, and it makes maps sizes inadequate.
> Not to slam my fellow peers on these forums - I respect the opinions of all, especially the elder statesmen.
>
> <mark>But I wouldn’t look to these forums for forward-looking tolerance.</mark>
>
> Me, I loved CE, 2, and 3. They were the greatest of their time. But I firmly believe the suns have set over their respective eras. Keep that Combat Evolving. And don’t dismiss the notion just because one title did it poorly. That’s my take.
Because new ideas should always be reviewed under a light of myopic optimism.
Pfft, who needs skepticism anyways? [/Sarcasm]
We’re not afraid of change. We love change! Change can be amazing.
We’re afraid of horrible change. Reach and 4 had a lot of that. Like sprint.
> Scanning the forums, it seems like people want to return to old-school Halo. That’s fine by me, I love Halo 1-3. But it just seems <mark>that we want Halo 3 v2.0</mark>. It seems that new things will get bashed because old-school is better. But, look at other games like Battlefield and COD. Yes I don’t want things like loadouts but, each new game that they make introduces new things that replace old. Will the next generation really want to be sticking to old habits into the future?
Isn’t that what a sequel is?
A large expansion upon the previous game to an extend it is the same but with newly added features (not switching out one system for the other) to distinguish itself in the series.
At a certain point a game becomes hard to improve gameplay wise.
Pokemon is a nice example of this, over the years it introduced Triple Battle, Rotation Battles, the Wonder Launcher but the competitive community didn’t like those at all, Wonder Launcher is not present the generation after that due to all the negative feedback.
However minor addition that are balanced (like mega evolutions with a limit of one Mega Pokemon per team)were accepted by most of the competitive community albeit sometimes with some extra rules (like the exclusion of certain Mega Stones in Smogon since those Pokemon become too OP for their own good meaning less variety in teams).
Equipment were our Mega Stones in Halo 3, a simple addition with huge impact but balanced as you could only carry on at a time and still inside of the gameplay of Halo 2 by making them act like any pickup.
We need more ideas (minor and big) that work inside of Arena to fresh things up rather then taking ideas or systems from other games that just do not fit the Halo Sandbox to begin with.
The real question is what change do you people want?
> We’re not afraid of change. We love change! Change can be amazing.
>
> We’re afraid of horrible change. Reach and 4 had a lot of that. <mark>Like sprint.</mark>
Junky has a good point.
You love change you say? The only change I hear you saying you’ll ‘love’ is making sure that Halo 5 has no reminiscence of Halo Reach and 4. What do you want? I only see you complain and protest, and not bring up ideas on what you’d like to see new in the next Halo.
You say you love change. But really… can you tell me what?
(Looking back at this, this came off snarky, but I’m just asking for your ideas. You may have had a thread somewhere, I just haven’t seen it.)
And the sad truth is… we don’t know what we don’t like until it hits and is implemented in the game. This is why I’m glad for the Guardians BETA.