I know that halo is meant to have an arena combat style feel to its multiplayer. However, the setting for halo is so epic with all the large scale wars and so on. I know halo is nothing like battlefield 3 in its game play, but i think there could be a potential for larger games with more tactical elements.
For example, invasion in Reach. We all know it was a pile of crap but the concept is good. Similar to rush in battlefield, it had points to capture and the battle escalated as the points where captured. IMO its only downfall was that the maps where pathetic and there simply weren’t enough players to make it feel epic.
If halo 4 had 32 player MP with maps designed especially for large scale combat, would it work? I think it would give alot of credibility for the pelican to be in in MP considering it would actually have a use and wouldn’t be too big for the maps.
Halo has the best vehicle warfare of any game I have played. The problem with BF is that vehicles are flimsy, anyone can pick up an rpg and blow it up, making them pretty worthless.
I obviously don’t want halo 4 to be a BF clone, but if it had large maps with emphasis on objectives and vehicle warfare then i think it would be awesome.
Had you put exactly the same idea forward without mentioning Battlefield, you would have got twice the support you’re going to get, and none of the fanboy flaming.
Sadly, there will be people who don’t read past the world Battlefield and base their decision on nothing but that. Really, it’s not even that similar to Battlefield, it’s more of an enhanced Big Team/Invasion mixture.
> Had you put exactly the same idea forward without mentioning Battlefield, you would have got twice the support you’re going to get, and none of the fanboy flaming.
>
> Sadly, there will be people who don’t read past the world Battlefield and base their decision on nothing but that. Really, it’s not even that similar to Battlefield, it’s more of an enhanced Big Team/Invasion mixture.
Exactly! Here’s how they operate:
Fanboy: Sees Battlefield & Halo in the same sentence Clicks and hates
But I agree, if Battlefield wasn’t in the title I GUARANTEE most people would give nothing but praise.
> > Had you put exactly the same idea forward without mentioning Battlefield, you would have got twice the support you’re going to get, and none of the fanboy flaming.
> >
> > Sadly, there will be people who don’t read past the world Battlefield and base their decision on nothing but that. Really, it’s not even that similar to Battlefield, it’s more of an enhanced Big Team/Invasion mixture.
>
> Exactly! Here’s how they operate:
>
> Fanboy: Sees Battlefield & Halo in the same sentence
> Clicks and hates
>
> But I agree, if Battlefield wasn’t in the title I GUARANTEE that everyone would nothing but praise.
No, because there’s been various topics like this and my response is relatively the same. I don’t like large scale ‘war-fare’ type games, that’s why I don’t play 'em and instead play games like Halo and Quake, derp.
> > > Had you put exactly the same idea forward without mentioning Battlefield, you would have got twice the support you’re going to get, and none of the fanboy flaming.
> > >
> > > Sadly, there will be people who don’t read past the world Battlefield and base their decision on nothing but that. Really, it’s not even that similar to Battlefield, it’s more of an enhanced Big Team/Invasion mixture.
> >
> > Exactly! Here’s how they operate:
> >
> > Fanboy: Sees Battlefield & Halo in the same sentence
> > Clicks and hates
> >
> > But I agree, if Battlefield wasn’t in the title I GUARANTEE that everyone would nothing but praise.
>
> No, because there’s been various topics like this and my response is relatively the same. I don’t like large scale ‘war-fare’ type games, that’s why I don’t play 'em and instead play games like Halo and Quake, derp.
>
> Different games cater to different audiences.
Fair enough, but surely you wouldn’t have anything against the gametype being made for those that would play it?
> > > > Had you put exactly the same idea forward without mentioning Battlefield, you would have got twice the support you’re going to get, and none of the fanboy flaming.
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, there will be people who don’t read past the world Battlefield and base their decision on nothing but that. Really, it’s not even that similar to Battlefield, it’s more of an enhanced Big Team/Invasion mixture.
> > >
> > > Exactly! Here’s how they operate:
> > >
> > > Fanboy: Sees Battlefield & Halo in the same sentence
> > > Clicks and hates
> > >
> > > But I agree, if Battlefield wasn’t in the title I GUARANTEE that everyone would nothing but praise.
> >
> > No, because there’s been various topics like this and my response is relatively the same. I don’t like large scale ‘war-fare’ type games, that’s why I don’t play 'em and instead play games like Halo and Quake, derp.
> >
> > Different games cater to different audiences.
>
> Fair enough, but surely you wouldn’t have anything against the gametype being made for those that would play it?
Yes I would, because it takes dev time away from other aspects and deters from what Halo originally is (and its original MP fan base). A mash up of a car, motorbike and plane would be cool for sure, but it’s nothing but a novelty really and wouldn’t beat a well crafted, fine tuned racing care who’s sole purpose is speed.
> > > Had you put exactly the same idea forward without mentioning Battlefield, you would have got twice the support you’re going to get, and none of the fanboy flaming.
> > >
> > > Sadly, there will be people who don’t read past the world Battlefield and base their decision on nothing but that. Really, it’s not even that similar to Battlefield, it’s more of an enhanced Big Team/Invasion mixture.
> >
> > Exactly! Here’s how they operate:
> >
> > Fanboy: Sees Battlefield & Halo in the same sentence
> > Clicks and hates
> >
> > But I agree, if Battlefield wasn’t in the title I GUARANTEE that everyone would nothing but praise.
>
> No, because there’s been various topics like this and my response is relatively the same. I don’t like large scale ‘war-fare’ type games, that’s why I don’t play 'em and instead play games like Halo and Quake, derp.
>
> Different games cater to different audiences.
> Halo has the best vehicle warfare of any game I have played. The problem with BF is that vehicles are flimsy, anyone can pick up an rpg and blow it up, making them pretty worthless.
Anyone who can pick up an RPG can repair that vehicle too, and vehicles like tanks just eat up RPG’s. From what I’ve experienced, the vehicle play in halo is similar to that of battlefield, but either way, it really just comes down to whether 343 wants to invest in dedicated servers to even attempt to handle 32 player multiplayer.
I don’t enjoy BTB and I don’t enjoy Battle Field. Too many people want to turn Halo into a large scale war game. Halo is an ARENA shooter or at least it used to be…
You give me the vibe of some people who don’t like any innovation. I can definitely see where you are coming from, Cheesy, but Halo’s core already has a great formula, and I have hope 343i won’t devote so much time to shake up the foundation of gameplay, only improving it. With the saved time from not messing stuff up they could add another facet of gameplay that is self contained and anyone can enjoy.
Well, I took the time to read everything you said OP and I completely agree with you. And it’s really nothing like battlefield, just a bigger BTB. There really should exist a game type that emphasizes vehicle-based large-scale combat, because lets face it: Halo has some fun vehicles and we never get to use them.
> > > > Had you put exactly the same idea forward without mentioning Battlefield, you would have got twice the support you’re going to get, and none of the fanboy flaming.
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, there will be people who don’t read past the world Battlefield and base their decision on nothing but that. Really, it’s not even that similar to Battlefield, it’s more of an enhanced Big Team/Invasion mixture.
> > >
> > > Exactly! Here’s how they operate:
> > >
> > > Fanboy: Sees Battlefield & Halo in the same sentence
> > > Clicks and hates
> > >
> > > But I agree, if Battlefield wasn’t in the title I GUARANTEE that everyone would nothing but praise.
> >
> > No, because there’s been various topics like this and my response is relatively the same. I don’t like large scale ‘war-fare’ type games, that’s why I don’t play 'em and instead play games like Halo and Quake, derp.
> >
> > Different games cater to different audiences.
>
> OK, well…you’re an exception.
I am a second exception. How many of us till we are the rule?
> I am a second exception. How many of us till we are the rule?
For a start, you’ll need a coherent explanation of what you have against the idea, or people won’t think of you as anything more than a group of nostalgia-fueled change-haters.
> > I am a second exception. How many of us till we are the rule?
>
> For a start, you’ll need a coherent explanation of what you have against the idea, or people won’t think of you as anything more than a group of nostalgia-fueled change-haters.
