change

Change. Change, change. Everyone wants change. Or seems to want change. But do we really want change. And if so, why do we want change. Will everything really be better with change, or do we just think it will all get better. Everyone and everything does it, but it’s not always for the better is it. So then how do we know the changes we make will be better, maybe they will be worse. No one wants worse, but then how do we manage the changes to see to it, they are for the better, and not for the worse. Fortunately there is a way to see, to tell, is it better or is it worse. We can simply try small incremental changes in matchmaking playlists and track them by there pop counts to judge there success. There are many of us here glad to give feedback. Why do we have to make large changes between games, and systems. When we could simply add a few playlist options and see if we enjoy them…

Halo needs to add not change

Add weapons, improve upon forge, improve upon theater, improve custom game options, more maps. Improve graphics. More vehicles. There are so many possibilities to improve Halo while also keeping it fundamentally the same.

> 2535429822741091;2:
> Halo needs to add not change
>
> Add weapons, improve upon forge, improve upon theater, improve custom game options, more maps. Improve graphics. More vehicles. There are so many possibilities to improve Halo while also keeping it fundamentally the same.

I agree it’s just accrued to me that once MCC is up and running correctly they have a built in petree dish to test changes without the built in expenses of producing what you think will fly and then the crash, burn, do again pattern the have been trying since reach.

> 2535429822741091;2:
> Halo needs to add not change
>
> Add weapons, improve upon forge, improve upon theater, improve custom game options, more maps. Improve graphics. More vehicles. There are so many possibilities to improve Halo while also keeping it fundamentally the same.

Isn’t that what’s expected to be in a sequel?

> 2533274913947627;4:
> > 2535429822741091;2:
> > Halo needs to add not change
> >
> > Add weapons, improve upon forge, improve upon theater, improve custom game options, more maps. Improve graphics. More vehicles. There are so many possibilities to improve Halo while also keeping it fundamentally the same.
>
>
> Isn’t that what’s expected to be in a sequel?

Ha exactly! And thats all i really want; improvements in every aspect of current things, more weapons and vehicles and all past maps reskinned with new maps.

However 343 and Bungie both are guilty of throwing in game changing mechanics that alter gameplay to the point where it can be considered “broken” in comparison.

Bungie was doing good up till reach. Reach had bloom, AAs, sprint (altho an AA, i put that in a game breaking class of its own), bad ranking system, everyone gets a medal, ect. Reach was a step in the wrong direction (as typical as that phrase has become on these forums). Although reach stayed alive because custom games, TU fixed the game much quicker than Halo 4s TU, ect.

As paladin one says above; 343 is doing trial and error with their “modernizing”; ie nearly everything new added to halo 4 had to be removed because it sucked. But by the time they removed it Halo 4s population was small and Halos reputation got tarnished within.

I believe some of these flashy gimmicks in Halo 5 will have to be taken out quite quickly. Killcams, super nades, super slow Base player speeds. (Sprint should be too but i doubt that ever happens)

> 2535429822741091;5:
> > 2533274913947627;4:
> > > 2535429822741091;2:
> > > Halo needs to add not change
> > >
> > > Add weapons, improve upon forge, improve upon theater, improve custom game options, more maps. Improve graphics. More vehicles. There are so many possibilities to improve Halo while also keeping it fundamentally the same.
> >
> >
> >
> > Isn’t that what’s expected to be in a sequel?
>
>
> Ha exactly! And thats all i really want; improvements in every aspect of current things, more weapons and vehicles and all past maps reskinned with new maps.
>
> However 343 and Bungie both are guilty of throwing in game changing mechanics that alter gameplay to the point where it can be considered “broken” in comparison.
>
> Bungie was doing good up till reach. Reach had bloom, AAs, sprint (altho an AA, i put that in a game breaking class of its own), bad ranking system, everyone gets a medal, ect. Reach was a step in the wrong direction (as typical as that phrase has become on these forums). Although reach stayed alive because custom games, TU fixed the game much quicker than Halo 4s TU, ect.
>
> As paladin one says above; 343 is doing trial and error with their “modernizing”; ie nearly everything new added to halo 4 had to be removed because it sucked. But by the time they removed it Halo 4s population was small and Halos reputation got tarnished within.
>
> I believe some of these flashy gimmicks in Halo 5 will have to be taken out quite quickly. Killcams, super nades, super slow Base player speeds. (Sprint should be too but i doubt that ever happens)

I agree completely.

Change for the sake of change is simply bad game design, it didn’t work with Halo: Reach, it didn’t work with Halo 4, and I doubt it will work well with Halo 5 too. There are many other area’s 343i can update the game without changing the fundamentals of what makes Halo play like Halo.

Preach!!!

Yet base player traits are easy to adjust. Think of the time and money Microsoft would have saved if they had just created sample playlists from halo3s base player traits mix. Moved forward with the favorites, then added the new ideas not to the game itself. But to the base player traits list to sample in the playlists of the next gen game. Ie equipment, abilities, and SPRINT, could have been sample tested in a playlist. Rather than building it into the campaign and then just being stuck with it when it sucks.

Take out ads and sprint and I’d be fine with halo 5. Also if 343 wants to “modernize”/change halo, then they should be creative and innovative and not just copy mechanics from other games.

If a country and world are going to change, you can sure as hell bet industries will change along with companies, studios, and video games. That’s life. Halo 5 needed to be changed from the previous 2 in the least.

> 2533274800962187;10:
> If a country and world are going to change, you can sure as hell bet industries will change along with companies, studios, and video games. That’s life. Halo 5 needed to be changed from the previous 2 in the least.

What Halo 5 needs to be is a better game than the previous Halos. How you accomplish that end goal isn’t important, what is important is actually accomplishing that goal.

IF changes make the game worse, then those changes shouldn’t be made to begin with. Change is a tool, not the end goal.

> 2533274819302824;11:
> > 2533274800962187;10:
> > If a country and world are going to change, you can sure as hell bet industries will change along with companies, studios, and video games. That’s life. Halo 5 needed to be changed from the previous 2 in the least.
>
>
> What Halo 5 needs to be is a better game than the previous Halos. How you accomplish that end goal isn’t important, what is important is actually accomplishing that goal.
>
> IF changes make the game worse, then those changes shouldn’t be made to begin with. Change is a tool, not the end goal.

Exactly; Im good with beneficial changes, ha changes that makes a game pretty much die in 2 months im not cool with

> 2533274819302824;11:
> > 2533274800962187;10:
> > If a country and world are going to change, you can sure as hell bet industries will change along with companies, studios, and video games. That’s life. Halo 5 needed to be changed from the previous 2 in the least.
>
>
> What Halo 5 needs to be is a better game than the previous Halos. How you accomplish that end goal isn’t important, what is important is actually accomplishing that goal.
>
> IF changes make the game worse, then those changes shouldn’t be made to begin with. Change is a tool, not the end goal.

So much this.

Yup, never said it had to be bad, just that it’s the way of things. I always hope it’s good. But people seeing good and bad changes seem to be subjective anyways to what individuals want personally. just how people see things.

Change is nice, but when those changes are making it more like the CoD then this is a bad thing. What’s the point of getting this when we already got CoD? And how are these changes really going to win anyone over for long?

The problem is when are changes for people who play the game two months…

> 2533274811231902;1:
> Change. Change, change. Everyone wants change. Or seems to want change. But do we really want change. And if so, why do we want change. Will everything really be better with change, or do we just think it will all get better. Everyone and everything does it, but it’s not always for the better is it. So then how do we know the changes we make will be better, maybe they will be worse. No one wants worse, but then how do we manage the changes to see to it, they are for the better, and not for the worse. Fortunately there is a way to see, to tell, is it better or is it worse. We can simply try small incremental changes in matchmaking playlists and track them by there pop counts to judge there success. There are many of us here glad to give feedback. Why do we have to make large changes between games, and systems. When we could simply add a few playlist options and see if we enjoy them…

There are different types of change.

Let’s say that you eat cheese pizza everyday, its your favorite food and you love it, but you want to spice it up a little. Would you rather eat pepperoni pizza, margherita pizza, prosciutto with fresh mozzarella, or rocks. In this metaphor, with 343’s changes, we’re not even eating pizza anymore, just rocks.

Change for the sake of change is stupid. Every change must have meaning within the current core gameplay, otherwise it’s bloat.

If 343 want their own identity, they should have created their own IP. If you ride the coattails of a successful IP, be prepared for people to actually want to play an evolution of the version of the IP that was last successful. This seems like very simple logic.