Can anyone "define" Halo

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

I’ve been seeing a lot of Halo 5 fanboys and haters recently bringing up sprint for “who-knows-how-many’th” time, and it’s really annoying when I see someone try to define Halo as a basis to their argument. Fanboys use it to say “Combat Evolves, -Yoink-!” and haters use it to say, “Well actually Halo’s a game that shouldn’t have sprint 'cause CoD and Battlefield, and whatever.” (If I may specify, Fanboys are the people who throw out comments like “git gud” and haters are the ones who give out an argument just as good as the fanboys but the opposite most of the time)

Halo to me has always been a “Modern Shooter” now that I started to think about it. People say it’s an Arena shooter, but I say no. I reserve that title to DOOM and Quake, since the base walk speed is 50km/h, you can jump 10 feet in the air, and the starting weapons are Ok, but every weapon on the map is 10x better.

Halo paved the way for the modern shooter. It took that map control and power weapon aspect of the Arena shooters, and placed that with a more realistic movement, a cool single-player story mode, and a regenerating health system. CoD came out a year or 2 after, and all it did was remove shields and grant quick kills (I assume without map control and other -Yoink- but I don’t have the time to put everything here). It also wasn’t in space, and added a bunch of other guns that perform “differently” the same way the H2ABR and H5BR perform differently in game, it’s mostly aesthetic.

I’ve gotten off track, but what I’m trying to say, is that a lot of people say that Halo stands apart from modern shooters, even though it is one. It (possibly didn’t, I don’t know, but it was the first recognized) paved the way for all the modern shooters. My problem is that people try to excuse Halo as a big and bold game, that’s supposed to be the best shooter ever, because it’s not like CoD and all the other games that followed. “It’s supposed to be a niche game like Rainbow Six Siege and the new DOOM that’s coming out!” I don’t think it’s supposed to be that way, because Halo has always been a modern shooter. Now Halo isn’t that unique. Why? Because it started something big, something that people have started to drop, because people want to find new “Halo”'s. They want to find that one game, that’s so new, that puts a big twist on something that’s already been done. They want a new “Car” to be invented in the gaming industry, and I don’t know if anyone notices this.

Halo has been on a decline, so has CoD. Titanfall tried and failed. Rainbow Six drove away a ton of it’s customers with something that’s actually not that bad. I don’t know about Battlefield, but I feel like the people who don’t like seeing the “same” thing over and over again are attracted to that game. Destiny gets a ton of players monthly, probably to get that “good” loot that’s gonna be -Yoink- in a month.

Halo is part of a genre that’s no longer new.

2

“haters” and “fanboys” are such useless words. People can criticise and deffend all they want. Also, Favyn made a new vid on the whole sprint topic, my opinions are in line with his.

3

> 2533274975733797;2:
> “haters” and “fanboys” are such useless words. People can criticise and deffend all they want. Also, Favyn made a new vid on the whole sprint topic, my opinions are in line with his.

I’m talking about the people who don’t actually use anything to back up their arguments aside from excuses. Did you read past those words?

4

Many people can define Halo as they want it. I define it as an revamped arena shooter, a game that took the arena genre and revitalized it. I played the new UT that is in Alpha, I’m going to assume for a moment here that Quake and old UT was similar. Halo introduced the two weapon limit (which has been severely abused now), a slower BMS, and a large weapon sandbox. As it became more popular, it integrated Dual Wielding, Hijacking, and Equipment into the gameplay, improving upon it in my opinion. Then, Reach came along and screwed up the mechanics, implementing Armor abilities. Then 343i went and doubled down on Armor abilities, putting them in Halo 4, and again in Halo 5. Halo has gone from a revamped tactical arena shooter, to a modern twitch shooter.

But hey, that’s only my opinion. Everybody has their own opinions.

5

depends we all agree what genre it is but the problem and reason why theres so much arguing is because we cant agree how it should progress. 343 has their ideas, and we have our varied ideas. 343 knows its a bad idea if they stray to far from what we want. coughH4cough

6

> 2533274915643658;4:
> Many people can define Halo as they want it. I define it as an revamped arena shooter, a game that took the arena genre and revitalized it. I played the new UT that is in Alpha, I’m going to assume for a moment here that Quake and old UT was similar. Halo introduced the two weapon limit (which has been severely abused now), a slower BMS, and a large weapon sandbox. As it became more popular, it integrated Dual Wielding, Hijacking, and Equipment into the gameplay, improving upon it in my opinion. Then, Reach came along and screwed up the mechanics, implementing Armor abilities. Then 343i went and doubled down on Armor abilities, putting them in Halo 4, and again in Halo 5. Halo has gone from a revamped tactical arena shooter, to a modern twitch shooter.
>
> But hey, that’s only my opinion. Everybody has their own opinions.

That’s fair enough. You’ve explained your point, sure you may hate the game, but I don’t think there’s a problem with that if you actually say why. I used the term Hater and fanboys for reference to other people you may see around Waypoint.

7

> 2533274870591903;5:
> depends we all agree what genre it is but the problem and reason why theres so much arguing is because we cant agree how it should progress. 343 has their ideas, and we have our varied ideas. 343 knows its a bad idea if they stray to far from what we want. coughH4cough

Yes, but what I’m trying to say is a lot of people say that Halo’s supposed to be one of the best shooters around, and I think it’s time is coming to an end.

8

> 2533274845218535;6:
> > 2533274915643658;4:
> > Many people can define Halo as they want it. I define it as an revamped arena shooter, a game that took the arena genre and revitalized it. I played the new UT that is in Alpha, I’m going to assume for a moment here that Quake and old UT was similar. Halo introduced the two weapon limit (which has been severely abused now), a slower BMS, and a large weapon sandbox. As it became more popular, it integrated Dual Wielding, Hijacking, and Equipment into the gameplay, improving upon it in my opinion. Then, Reach came along and screwed up the mechanics, implementing Armor abilities. Then 343i went and doubled down on Armor abilities, putting them in Halo 4, and again in Halo 5. Halo has gone from a revamped tactical arena shooter, to a modern twitch shooter.
> >
> > But hey, that’s only my opinion. Everybody has their own opinions.
>
>
> That’s fair enough. You’ve explained your point, sure you may hate the game, but I don’t think there’s a problem with that if you actually say why. I used the term Hater and fanboys for reference to other people you may see around Waypoint.

I don’t hate it, but I definitely do not love it. There is too much wrong with it in my eyes to like it. And I’ll call out 343i on those wrongs every time I see them. I would rather be vocal and change the game for the good, than stay silent and watch it continue to be bad.

9

> 2533274845218535;1:
> …
>
> Halo has been on a decline, so has CoD. Titanfall tried and failed. Rainbow Six drove away a ton of it’s customers with something that’s actually not that bad. I don’t know about Battlefield, but I feel like the people who don’t like seeing the “same” thing over and over again are attracted to that game.

What makes these games in “a decline”? Is it their repeat performance high sales? How did Titanfall fail?

Using the phrase “I don’t know about Battlefield, but I feel” doesn’t give your argument any legs to stand on. I do like and play battlefield. I like BF4 a lot. Not because it’s different, but because it is what it is. It has the same community problems as Halo. People -Yoink- and moan about any changes (or lack of) that they don’t like.

10

> 2533274915643658;8:
> > 2533274845218535;6:
> > > 2533274915643658;4:
> > > Many people can define Halo as they want it. I define it as an revamped arena shooter, a game that took the arena genre and revitalized it. I played the new UT that is in Alpha, I’m going to assume for a moment here that Quake and old UT was similar. Halo introduced the two weapon limit (which has been severely abused now), a slower BMS, and a large weapon sandbox. As it became more popular, it integrated Dual Wielding, Hijacking, and Equipment into the gameplay, improving upon it in my opinion. Then, Reach came along and screwed up the mechanics, implementing Armor abilities. Then 343i went and doubled down on Armor abilities, putting them in Halo 4, and again in Halo 5. Halo has gone from a revamped tactical arena shooter, to a modern twitch shooter.
> > >
> > > But hey, that’s only my opinion. Everybody has their own opinions.
> >
> >
> > That’s fair enough. You’ve explained your point, sure you may hate the game, but I don’t think there’s a problem with that if you actually say why. I used the term Hater and fanboys for reference to other people you may see around Waypoint.
>
>
> I don’t hate it, but I definitely do not love it. There is too much wrong with it in my eyes to like it. And I’ll call out 343i on those wrongs every time I see them. I would rather be vocal and change the game for the good, than stay silent and watch it continue to be bad.

I think the whole thing with is is subjective, and dependent on how you perceive the franchise.

I personally thought Reach was worse for a few reasons, one of them being that the armor abilities were used one at a time and that (aside from jetpack) it was impossible to tell (and as a consequence, unable to anticipate) what the enemy was going to do, and that was a big part of what the older Halo’s did so well that COD cannot match. You basically knew what the enemy had on them, and it was often a constant. The properties and functions of some of those abilities didn’t sit well with me or the competitive community in addition.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved the game for what it offered (And how diverse those said offerings were), but after a while, there were many aspects of it that just pissed me off.

This particular issue I took with Reach, (And 4 as well) is mostly absent in Halo 5 (IMO) mostly due to how everyone starts off on the same footing in Arena. However, I have my own issues with the game relating to Art Style, some design choices, campaign, etc.

I don’t have much of a problem with the gameplay itself this time around.

11

It’s pretty easy. Super soldiers (spartans) + shooting aliens to save the galaxy and humanity = Halo… That’s it in a nutshell.

12

> 2533274809541057;9:
> > 2533274845218535;1:
> > …
> >
> > Halo has been on a decline, so has CoD. Titanfall tried and failed. Rainbow Six drove away a ton of it’s customers with something that’s actually not that bad. I don’t know about Battlefield, but I feel like the people who don’t like seeing the “same” thing over and over again are attracted to that game.
>
>
> What makes these games in “a decline”? Is it their repeat performance high sales? How did Titanfall fail?
>
> Using the phrase “I don’t know about Battlefield, but I feel” doesn’t give your argument any legs to stand on. I do like and play battlefield. I like BF4 a lot. Not because it’s different, but because it is what it is. It has the same community problems as Halo. People -Yoink- and moan about any changes (or lack of) that they don’t like.

I’ve been on Battlelog, a lot of people are criticizing the nerfs to most of the weapons on BF4. It’s rather funny honestly.

13

Several games from the early and even mid 2000’s were derived from arena shooters yet were not really arena shooters themselves. Timesplitters for example has the same multi-weapon, health and on-map pickup systems as its predecessors but without the speed or mobility (you can’t even jump in Timesplitters).

Halo was kind of a hybrid between the arena shooters of yore and the more recent tactical shooters of its time. Over time it started to alienate itself from its arena origins, and even now it continues to drift further and further from these games.

14

> 2533274809541057;9:
> > 2533274845218535;1:
> > …
> >
> > Halo has been on a decline, so has CoD. Titanfall tried and failed. Rainbow Six drove away a ton of it’s customers with something that’s actually not that bad. I don’t know about Battlefield, but I feel like the people who don’t like seeing the “same” thing over and over again are attracted to that game.
>
>
> What makes these games in “a decline”? Is it their repeat performance high sales? How did Titanfall fail?
>
> Using the phrase “I don’t know about Battlefield, but I feel” doesn’t give your argument any legs to stand on. I do like and play battlefield. I like BF4 a lot. Not because it’s different, but because it is what it is. It has the same community problems as Halo. People -Yoink- and moan about any changes (or lack of) that they don’t like.

People keep on bringing up that Halo’s been low in sales for the past while, so I thought I’d bring up CoD’s decline as well. I said Titanfall tried and failed because it tried and failed to be the new “Halo”. It was really fun to play, but like Rainbow Six Siege, it was a niche game. It wasn’t able to hold on to a good portion of it’s players. I didn’t mean to offend anyone by bringing up those games and Battlefield, but I meant that, sure, you may like BF4, but with the constant decline in other FPS’s, I’m thinking that Battlefield is also going to go through, or is going through, that stage.

I love Halo 5, but we see a ton of people who don’t, which is fine. But it shows that these games aren’t as popular as they once were.

15

Its a hybrid. It bridges the gap between classic Quake style arena shooters and modern Call Of Duty shooters.

Id argue that due to this Halo is relatively unique. Its a modern shooter that prioritizes a different skill set to anything currently on the xbox one (dont know what Dooms like, ill have to give the beta a blast). Is it a classic arena shooter ? Hell no. But IMO its unfair to class it with COD and Battlefield.

The GDC panel video that was recently posted highlights this quite well. It covers how modern shooters are relatively aggressive, first shot is king in COD. Halo on the other hand has almost a bating aspect to it. Drawing opponents into a trap, knowing when to let an opponent flee and when to push. That to me is the key separation of Halo from most shooters on the market.

16

> 2533274826920712;10:
> > 2533274915643658;8:
> > > 2533274845218535;6:
> > > > 2533274915643658;4:
> > > > Many people can define Halo as they want it. I define it as an revamped arena shooter, a game that took the arena genre and revitalized it. I played the new UT that is in Alpha, I’m going to assume for a moment here that Quake and old UT was similar. Halo introduced the two weapon limit (which has been severely abused now), a slower BMS, and a large weapon sandbox. As it became more popular, it integrated Dual Wielding, Hijacking, and Equipment into the gameplay, improving upon it in my opinion. Then, Reach came along and screwed up the mechanics, implementing Armor abilities. Then 343i went and doubled down on Armor abilities, putting them in Halo 4, and again in Halo 5. Halo has gone from a revamped tactical arena shooter, to a modern twitch shooter.
> > > >
> > > > But hey, that’s only my opinion. Everybody has their own opinions.
> > >
> > >
> > > That’s fair enough. You’ve explained your point, sure you may hate the game, but I don’t think there’s a problem with that if you actually say why. I used the term Hater and fanboys for reference to other people you may see around Waypoint.
> >
> >
> > I don’t hate it, but I definitely do not love it. There is too much wrong with it in my eyes to like it. And I’ll call out 343i on those wrongs every time I see them. I would rather be vocal and change the game for the good, than stay silent and watch it continue to be bad.
>
>
> I think the whole thing with is is subjective, and dependent on how you perceive the franchise.
>
> I personally thought Reach was worse for a few reasons, one of them being that the armor abilities were used one at a time and that (aside from jetpack) it was impossible to tell (and as a consequence, unable to anticipate) what the enemy was going to do, and that was a big part of what the older Halo’s did so well that COD cannot match. You basically knew what the enemy had on them, and it was often a constant. The properties and functions of some of those abilities didn’t sit well with me or the competitive community in addition.
>
> Don’t get me wrong, I loved the game for what it offered (And how diverse those said offerings were), but after a while, there were many aspects of it that just pissed me off.
>
> This particular issue I took with Reach, (And 4 as well) is mostly absent in Halo 5 (IMO) mostly due to how everyone starts off on the same footing in Arena. However, I have my own issues with the game relating to Art Style, some design choices, campaign, etc.
>
> I don’t have much of a problem with the gameplay itself this time around.

I have the same problems with Halo 5, but I made this post to see how people would react to it. I wanted to see if people felt the same way, understood where I was coming from, and see their opinions on the “issue”. To me this isn’t an issue, but I feel like the crazy popularity of FPS’s is going into decline because “everyone” has played at least one and wants to try something new.

17

> 2533274826317859;15:
> Its a hybrid. It bridges the gap between classic Quake style arena shooters and modern Call Of Duty shooters.
>
> Id argue that due to this Halo is relatively unique. Its a modern shooter that prioritizes a different skill set to anything currently on the xbox one (dont know what Dooms like, ill have to give the beta a blast). Is it a classic arena shooter ? Hell no. But IMO its unfair to class it with COD and Battlefield.
>
> The GDC panel video that was recently posted highlights this quite well. It covers how modern shooters are relatively aggressive, first shot is king in COD. Halo on the other hand has almost a bating aspect to it. Drawing opponents into a trap, knowing when to let an opponent flee and when to push. That to me is the key separation of Halo from most shooters on the market.

I’m saying it’s like CoD and Battlefield because it created elements of gameplay you’ll see in those games. Regenerating health, 2 weapons, more realistic movement, a greater variation of weapons, and so on.

Sure, it’s got higher kill times, but if that’s all that separates it from other shooters, than why is it such a problem to group these games together. You kill faster in CoD than Battlefield, and Battlefield is more tactical than Halo at times.

18

> 2533274826920712;10:
> > 2533274915643658;8:
> > > 2533274845218535;6:
> > > > 2533274915643658;4:
> > > > Many people can define Halo as they want it. I define it as an revamped arena shooter, a game that took the arena genre and revitalized it. I played the new UT that is in Alpha, I’m going to assume for a moment here that Quake and old UT was similar. Halo introduced the two weapon limit (which has been severely abused now), a slower BMS, and a large weapon sandbox. As it became more popular, it integrated Dual Wielding, Hijacking, and Equipment into the gameplay, improving upon it in my opinion. Then, Reach came along and screwed up the mechanics, implementing Armor abilities. Then 343i went and doubled down on Armor abilities, putting them in Halo 4, and again in Halo 5. Halo has gone from a revamped tactical arena shooter, to a modern twitch shooter.
> > > >
> > > > But hey, that’s only my opinion. Everybody has their own opinions.
> > >
> > >
> > > That’s fair enough. You’ve explained your point, sure you may hate the game, but I don’t think there’s a problem with that if you actually say why. I used the term Hater and fanboys for reference to other people you may see around Waypoint.
> >
> >
> > I don’t hate it, but I definitely do not love it. There is too much wrong with it in my eyes to like it. And I’ll call out 343i on those wrongs every time I see them. I would rather be vocal and change the game for the good, than stay silent and watch it continue to be bad.
>
>
> I think the whole thing with is is subjective, and dependent on how you perceive the franchise.
>
> I personally thought Reach was worse for a few reasons, one of them being that the armor abilities were used one at a time and that (aside from jetpack) it was impossible to tell (and as a consequence, unable to anticipate) what the enemy was going to do, and that was a big part of what the older Halo’s did so well that COD cannot match. You basically knew what the enemy had on them, and it was often a constant. The properties and functions of some of those abilities didn’t sit well with me or the competitive community in addition.
>
> Don’t get me wrong, I loved the game for what it offered (And how diverse those said offerings were), but after a while, there were many aspects of it that just pissed me off.
>
> This particular issue I took with Reach, (And 4 as well) is mostly absent in Halo 5 (IMO) mostly due to how everyone starts off on the same footing in Arena. However, I have my own issues with the game relating to Art Style, some design choices, campaign, etc.
>
> I don’t have much of a problem with the gameplay itself this time around.

See, I understand that, but I feel that in general, Armor abilities, whether they are the Halo Reach-4 iterations or Spartan Abilities, do not belong in an arena shooter. If you are going to sell me an arena shooter, it should not have alternate killing / evasion mechanics outside of melee and jump. I never saw anything wrong with the game mechanics of the older games, but I see a bunch of problems with this game.

This is all a bunch of irony for me, because I started my Halo online experience with Reach and Halo 4. I only got Halo 3 in 2011. Dat irony, huh?

19

> 2533274845218535;17:
> > 2533274826317859;15:
> > Its a hybrid. It bridges the gap between classic Quake style arena shooters and modern Call Of Duty shooters.
> >
> > Id argue that due to this Halo is relatively unique. Its a modern shooter that prioritizes a different skill set to anything currently on the xbox one (dont know what Dooms like, ill have to give the beta a blast). Is it a classic arena shooter ? Hell no. But IMO its unfair to class it with COD and Battlefield.
> >
> > The GDC panel video that was recently posted highlights this quite well. It covers how modern shooters are relatively aggressive, first shot is king in COD. Halo on the other hand has almost a bating aspect to it. Drawing opponents into a trap, knowing when to let an opponent flee and when to push. That to me is the key separation of Halo from most shooters on the market.
>
>
> I’m saying it’s like CoD and Battlefield because it created elements of gameplay you’ll see in those games. Regenerating health, 2 weapons, more realistic movement, a greater variation of weapons, and so on.
>
> Sure, it’s got higher kill times, but if that’s all that separates it from other shooters, than why is it such a problem to group these games together. You kill faster in CoD than Battlefield, and Battlefield is more tactical than Halo at times.

Except it’s not. Map design and sandbox design are completely different. Or well, at least they were completely different.

There’s no arena maps in CoD. There’s no homing, exploding crystal weapons in CoD.

20

> 2533274819302824;19:
> > 2533274845218535;17:
> > > 2533274826317859;15:
> > > Its a hybrid. It bridges the gap between classic Quake style arena shooters and modern Call Of Duty shooters.
> > >
> > > Id argue that due to this Halo is relatively unique. Its a modern shooter that prioritizes a different skill set to anything currently on the xbox one (dont know what Dooms like, ill have to give the beta a blast). Is it a classic arena shooter ? Hell no. But IMO its unfair to class it with COD and Battlefield.
> > >
> > > The GDC panel video that was recently posted highlights this quite well. It covers how modern shooters are relatively aggressive, first shot is king in COD. Halo on the other hand has almost a bating aspect to it. Drawing opponents into a trap, knowing when to let an opponent flee and when to push. That to me is the key separation of Halo from most shooters on the market.
> >
> >
> > I’m saying it’s like CoD and Battlefield because it created elements of gameplay you’ll see in those games. Regenerating health, 2 weapons, more realistic movement, a greater variation of weapons, and so on.
> >
> > Sure, it’s got higher kill times, but if that’s all that separates it from other shooters, than why is it such a problem to group these games together. You kill faster in CoD than Battlefield, and Battlefield is more tactical than Halo at times.
>
>
> Except it’s not. Map design and sandbox design are completely different. Or well, at least they were completely different.
>
> There’s no arena maps in CoD. There’s no homing, exploding crystal weapons in CoD.

I was saying that since they’re talking about JUST kill times. There’s definitely a lot more differences between the two, but going by the basics of each game, I think it’s fair to group them together. I played CoDWaW a ton on Hardcore TDM, and it was a lot more like Counter-Strike where you sit and wait. Guys running about with SMG’s had to be cautious, since DMRs dominated the field.