You always hear game devs talking about ways they gear games toward the “casual gamer”. What aspect of Halo 4 was tailored to the competitive/serious gamer?
I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
> I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly.
Not the whole game, just certain aspects of it. Are there any aspects of Halo 4 that cater to the competitive/serious halo players out there?
> Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
Well Halo 4 missed that mark. With random factors like Ordinance and Specializations, balance is pretty much thrown out the window. Frankly, if they had a playlist with more traditional Halo settings and another with Infinity settings, I think that would’ve appealed to more people.
On a business stand point you’d think that they would WANT to cater to as MANY people as possible, because that way you get numerous communities/playstyles which would mean more sales.
> I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
>
> That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
>
> Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
You cannot design a good game with designing it with a specific target market in mind. It is the first rule for any designer in any field. If you do try and design a game without a specific target market in mind you end up with nobody truly investing in your game - basically Resident Evil 6.
> > I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
> >
> > That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
> >
> > Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
>
> You cannot design a good game with designing it with a specific target market in mind. It is the first rule for any designer in any field. If you do try and design a game without a specific target in mind you end up with nobody truly investing in your game - basically Resident Evil 6.
Or they could just design a game to be deep, want to know why Halo CE-3 were so good? They didn’t have a set player base in mind, they just made the game to be fun, it just so happened to be that the original Halo’s generated and supported competitive play, but crazy levels of fun for everyone.
Halo 4? They tried to cater to a different crowd, not the Halo crowd, but the “not so serious” kind of people. Halo fans, both competitive Halo players and the more chilled Halo players make this game, not the people that just want to play for 30mins on a Friday night then go back to Call of Duty.
> > I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly.
>
> Not the whole game, just certain aspects of it. Are there any aspects of Halo 4 that cater to the competitive/serious halo players out there?
No, what I’m saying is a well-designed game can please both casual and competitive players alike through balance and fairness within variety.
I don’t believe Halo 4 did that. I don’t believe it was with intent to snub players who are particular about balance and fairness, though. I obviously don’t have any empirical evidence to support that. It’s just a feeling that I don’t think 343’s intent was to hang competitive players out to dry.
> > > I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
> > >
> > > That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
> > >
> > > Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
> >
> > You cannot design a good game with designing it with a specific target market in mind. It is the first rule for any designer in any field. If you do try and design a game without a specific target in mind you end up with nobody truly investing in your game - basically Resident Evil 6.
>
> Or they could just design a game to be deep, want to know why Halo CE-3 were so good? They didn’t have a set player base in mind, they just made the game to be fun, it just so happened to be that the original Halo’s generated and supported competitive play, but crazy levels of fun for everyone.
>
> Halo 4? They tried to cater to a different crowd, not the Halo crowd, but the “not so serious” kind of people. Halo fans, competitive or not, make this game, not the people that just want to play for 30mins on a Friday night.
Unknowingly Bungie struck gold. They designed their game to be ‘fun’ and unknowingly hit a massive niche in the market. It was a fluke nothing more. The majority of game are designed with a target market in mind. Their ‘fun’ design was still aimed at certain groups of people.
> > > > I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
> > > >
> > > > Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
> > >
> > > You cannot design a good game with designing it with a specific target market in mind. It is the first rule for any designer in any field. If you do try and design a game without a specific target in mind you end up with nobody truly investing in your game - basically Resident Evil 6.
> >
> > Or they could just design a game to be deep, want to know why Halo CE-3 were so good? They didn’t have a set player base in mind, they just made the game to be fun, it just so happened to be that the original Halo’s generated and supported competitive play, but crazy levels of fun for everyone.
> >
> > Halo 4? They tried to cater to a different crowd, not the Halo crowd, but the “not so serious” kind of people. Halo fans, competitive or not, make this game, not the people that just want to play for 30mins on a Friday night.
>
> Unknowingly Bungie struck gold. They designed their game to be ‘fun’ and unknowingly hit a massive niche in the market. It was a fluke nothing more. The majority of game are designed with a target market in mind. Their ‘fun’ design was still aimed at certain groups of people.
Games of TODAY are designed with set people in mind, this was not the case 6-7 Years ago.
The fact that they struck Gold, and 343 then decided not to continue using said Gold, just goes to show they are not worthy of producing a Game with as much Calibre as Halo.
Thank you for clarifying. I don’t believe it was their intent was to hang us out to dry but the competitive/serious halo players are definitely being neglected as far as I can tell.
I appreciate the responses but i also do not want to leave the original topic.
Again, for anyone that’s just joining us. What aspects of Halo 4 were tailored to the competitive/serious gamers?
> > I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
> >
> > That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
> >
> > Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
>
> You cannot design a good game with designing it with a specific target market in mind. It is the first rule for any designer in any field. If you do try and design a game without a specific target market in mind you end up with nobody truly investing in your game - basically Resident Evil 6.
I fully understand the concept of knowing your audience. Knowing your audience and narrowing focus, however, are very different.
I’m a firm believer in that, if you make a Halo game based on the fundamentals of the series and carefully implement enhancements that complement the game to modernize it (increasing variety without sacrificing balance and fairness), any player who would potentially play a game within this genre would be pleased.
Let’s look at something specific: ordnance. Presumably, ordnance was implemented to increase variety, but 343 did it in such a way that it came at the expense of balance and fairness. Now, ordnance could be implemented in such a way that they are fun, fair, and balanced, but it requires first understanding that competitive folks don’t dislike ordnance because of what it is. They dislike it because of how it was implemented. Carelessly. At the expense of balance and fairness.
Once you understand that, solutions to the problem should be pretty easy to see, and you’ll also see that, while these solutions serve competitive folks, they also serve casual folks.
So now, we have ordnance, which was presumably conceived to narrow the focus of the game on casuals, and with a few snaps of our fingers, we’ve again widened this portion of the game’s appeal to everyone without sacrificing their original appeal.
Basically, what I’m saying is your creative team (people who conceive the story, its art, the assets, etc.) determine how wide your appeal is. Your design team maximizes appeal within that audience.
IMO, there are several areas in Halo 4 where the design team could have maximized appeal within the sci-fi FPS genre without compromising anything.
> Let’s look at something specific: ordnance. Presumably, ordnance was implemented to increase variety, but 343 did it in such a way that it came at the expense of balance and fairness. Now, ordnance could be implemented in such a way that they are fun, fair, and balanced, but it requires first understanding that competitive folks don’t dislike ordnance because of what it is. They dislike it because of how it was implemented. Carelessly. At the expense of balance and fairness.
Well put
None, but like a few people have said. A game can be catered towards harcore/competitive players and still be fun for casuals, but will not work vice versa. A great example would be CoD. For years the developers have catered towards the large masses and made a game not so good for the competitive side. They finally catered towards the competitive side by adding a skill based ranking system, a playlist with setting suited for competitive play, a spectator mode, and balanced weapons. The game is the best selling out of all the games in the franchise. I believe if 343i would listen to us with H5 it would be the best Halo. Also, this false notion that competitive players want a stripped down version of the game is absurd. We want nothing more than a fun competitive game that we don’t have to strip down. I’ve been into the “esports” scene of Halo for around 4 years. As much as I love competitive 4v4 I still love the story behind the game. I still love the fun gametypes in customs. I still love Halo as a whole. I want nothing more than a game that is fun for everybody that. I am getting tired of having to play a stipped down version of the game because devs just won’t listen. I’m done trusting 343i because they “know” Halo. 343i needs to start trusting us all because we are Halo. Sorry for going on a rant. 
> > > I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
> > >
> > > That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
> > >
> > > Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
> >
> > You cannot design a good game with designing it with a specific target market in mind. It is the first rule for any designer in any field. If you do try and design a game without a specific target market in mind you end up with nobody truly investing in your game - basically Resident Evil 6.
>
> I fully understand the concept of knowing your audience. Knowing your audience and narrowing focus, however, are very different.
>
> I’m a firm believer in that, if you make a Halo game based on the fundamentals of the series and carefully implement enhancements that complement the game to modernize it (increasing variety without sacrificing balance and fairness), any player who would potentially play a game within this genre would be pleased.
>
> Let’s look at something specific: ordnance. Presumably, ordnance was implemented to increase variety, but 343 did it in such a way that it came at the expense of balance and fairness. Now, ordnance could be implemented in such a way that they are fun, fair, and balanced, but it requires first understanding that competitive folks don’t dislike ordnance because of what it is. They dislike it because of how it was implemented. Carelessly. At the expense of balance and fairness.
>
> Once you understand that, solutions to the problem should be pretty easy to see, and you’ll also see that, while these solutions serve competitive folks, they also serve casual folks.
>
> So now, we have ordnance, which was presumably conceived to narrow the focus of the game on casuals, and with a few snaps of our fingers, we’ve again widened this portion of the game’s appeal to everyone without sacrificing their original appeal.
>
> Basically, what I’m saying is your creative team (people who conceive the story, its art, the assets, etc.) determine how wide your appeal is. Your design team maximizes appeal within that audience.
>
> IMO, there are several areas in Halo 4 where the design team could have maximized appeal within the sci-fi FPS genre without compromising anything.
Ah. There is a BIG difference between narrowing an audience and aiming for a target market. I now see what you mean however it is important not to expand your market too much otherwise it will loose sight of what originally made it good (once again Resident Evil 6).
> > > > I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
> > > >
> > > > Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
> > >
> > > You cannot design a good game with designing it with a specific target market in mind. It is the first rule for any designer in any field. If you do try and design a game without a specific target market in mind you end up with nobody truly investing in your game - basically Resident Evil 6.
> >
> > I fully understand the concept of knowing your audience. Knowing your audience and narrowing focus, however, are very different.
> >
> > I’m a firm believer in that, if you make a Halo game based on the fundamentals of the series and carefully implement enhancements that complement the game to modernize it (increasing variety without sacrificing balance and fairness), any player who would potentially play a game within this genre would be pleased.
> >
> > Let’s look at something specific: ordnance. Presumably, ordnance was implemented to increase variety, but 343 did it in such a way that it came at the expense of balance and fairness. Now, ordnance could be implemented in such a way that they are fun, fair, and balanced, but it requires first understanding that competitive folks don’t dislike ordnance because of what it is. They dislike it because of how it was implemented. Carelessly. At the expense of balance and fairness.
> >
> > Once you understand that, solutions to the problem should be pretty easy to see, and you’ll also see that, while these solutions serve competitive folks, they also serve casual folks.
> >
> > So now, we have ordnance, which was presumably conceived to narrow the focus of the game on casuals, and with a few snaps of our fingers, we’ve again widened this portion of the game’s appeal to everyone without sacrificing their original appeal.
> >
> > Basically, what I’m saying is your creative team (people who conceive the story, its art, the assets, etc.) determine how wide your appeal is. Your design team maximizes appeal within that audience.
> >
> > IMO, there are several areas in Halo 4 where the design team could have maximized appeal within the sci-fi FPS genre without compromising anything.
>
> Ah. There is a BIG difference between narrowing an audience and aiming for a target market. I now see what you mean however it is important not to expand your market too much <mark>otherwise it will loose sight of what originally made it good</mark> (once again Resident Evil 6).
Which is exactly what has happened…
> > > > > I think the concept that a developer designed a game for a particular crowd is silly. Developers make games to be fun for as many people as possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, I think balance and fairness in games is good for everyone, and those things are not mutually exclusive with variety.
> > > > >
> > > > > Meaning, we can have a game that offers variety while also being balanced and fair.
> > > >
> > > > You cannot design a good game with designing it with a specific target market in mind. It is the first rule for any designer in any field. If you do try and design a game without a specific target in mind you end up with nobody truly investing in your game - basically Resident Evil 6.
> > >
> > > Or they could just design a game to be deep, want to know why Halo CE-3 were so good? They didn’t have a set player base in mind, they just made the game to be fun, it just so happened to be that the original Halo’s generated and supported competitive play, but crazy levels of fun for everyone.
> > >
> > > Halo 4? They tried to cater to a different crowd, not the Halo crowd, but the “not so serious” kind of people. Halo fans, competitive or not, make this game, not the people that just want to play for 30mins on a Friday night.
> >
> > Unknowingly Bungie struck gold. They designed their game to be ‘fun’ and unknowingly hit a massive niche in the market. It was a fluke nothing more. The majority of game are designed with a target market in mind. Their ‘fun’ design was still aimed at certain groups of people.
>
> Games of TODAY are designed with set people in mind, this was not the case 6-7 Years ago.
>
> The fact that they struck Gold, and 343 then decided not to continue using said Gold, just goes to show they are not worthy of producing a Game with as much Calibre as Halo.
The most annoying thing is that the gold is still there but some dimwit has painted over it with the gritty grey of modern gaming.
> The most annoying thing is that the gold is still there but some dimwit has painted over it with the gritty grey of modern gaming.
I would love to know who or what collective of people partook in the figurative painting of halo. They managed to knock halo from its foothold in the market and cleared the way for COD to get even bigger.
I feel like whether or not they mistakenly left the competitive gamer out of the picture, they’re not making a push to balance the game. Instead I get a new episode of Grind Ops, or another matchmaking gametype. They’re throwing in a competitive game type, but if you look at the patch the only statistic change is nerfing the range on the boltshot. For a company that was more than willing to throw so many mechanics in a game, they’re not at all eager to balance any of it.
Some people like to think that the definition of “casual” is, “not my opinion”.