Changing Halo does NOT work, STOP.

Games Other Halo
#1

Why was CoD successful. IT DOES NOT CHANGE. They improve on what they have, add better graphics, but the general gameplay is not extremely different from the last!

Why is the iPhone successful? It’s pretty much the same thing every release, except they ADD new things that are better! (heck iPhone 6 was just longer than iPhone 5 and people snapped it up like crazy)

Why is Halo changing negatively? We HAD good features, why did you throw them out and put in bad ones? Building a new game is about taking what you had and making it better, NOT taking what you had, throwing more than half of it out, and implementing a bunch of bad features:

Weapon Spawns WORKED. There was nothing wrong with it. Ordnance promotes randomness and luck, because you never know what you’re gonna get. Why did you remove something that worked?

The Big X over a dead teammate worked. You removed it and put it on the radar. Why did you remove something that worked?

Why did you add a whole bunch of useless medals? It worked without them! I don’t need a “kill” medal, I can just look at my kills for that! Adding a whole bunch of useless features…

Why did you add insta-respawn? Regular respawn worked! Insta-respawn ruins gameplay and allows players to finish up kills they could not win. Insta-respanws reduces the amount of skill to play the game.

Armor Abilities. Some are good, some are bad. They are not very well thought.
Sprint. Sprint is OK, but it is not HALO.

There are so many more…

I don’t get it. Most of everything that is successful does not CHANGE. It just gets BETTER. It improves on what it had, fixes what may have been slow or broken, and comes out still working like the last one, but with new and interesting features. You guys all say “Oh, you want a Halo 2/3 clone?”

Yes, most of us would be perfectly happy with that. Why? Because every single one of you who buys an iPhone is basically buying a slightly better version of the last. Every one of you who buys CoD is buying a slightly better version of the last CoD. Every one of you who buys a computer basically is buying just a better version of the last computer. They don’t revamp the mouse and the keyboard! Guess what? That WORKS. Not throwing half the good implementations out of the window and implementing a bunch of useless features. Some work, such as throwing the oddball. THAT is a great feature! But there are way more bad implementations than good.

I love Halo, I loved playing H2 and H3. It started going downhill with Reach. I thought HW was a slight step in the right direction, but then we have all these ordnance weapon waypointers, etc… I want to see an actual Halo game, not some weir thing with a Halo skin over it.

#2

what is this i don’t even…

You forgot Coke in your cherry picked “omg all things change r baaaad!” list.

#3

A lot of people are in the same boat as you are. Yes they did lose a lot of fans due to this, but there is a reason why I stick with it. It’s their first game, they have room for improvement and I believe they will do that. The game is playable by means, trust me there is things I don’t like about the game and I could make a post about it and rant. But what we need to do as Halo fans is stand up and make our voices known to 343 Industrires and to fix these, but allow them to be creative and let them do their own thing. Sometimes there are going to be things that you will not like but other’s will. :slight_smile:

#4

Halo CE is released. It is a simple game with only a few weapons and a few vehicles.

Halo 2 is released. It adds new features like boarding vehicles and dual wielding, and it keeps most of the old weapons and vehicles while inventing new ones.

Halo 3 is released. It keeps almost everything from Halo 2, adds even more vehicles and weapons, adds Forge, eventually adds Firefight, adds new gamemodes and makes some modes such as Infection official. Halo 3 was amazing because it was filled to the brim with content.

You see the pattern here? These games built and built on each other. They were the same basic game, but they added and re-invented content.

This is what Reach should have done (and to be fair, it did in some aspects like Forge). This is what Halo 4 should have done.

Ever since Halo 3, the sandbox has been twisted and trimmed down for no real reason.

#5

I shall agree, but people are going to dislike how you pointed out any type of 343s wrongdoing.

#6

it makes me laugh at how many people think change was needed in order to improve halo.

you can thank all of those people for the declining population in the halo community.

“CHANGE IS GOOD GUYS! YOU PEOPLE JUST CANT ADAPT”

change is fine only when implemented correctly which halo 4 failed to do as seen with the HUGE population decline 3 months into its release i mean look its where reach was towards the end of its life(population wise) already.

its sad that 343 managed to mess up this bad.

#7

I’m sorry but your argument is not logical. Halo has changed quite radically with each incarnation, and that has been the key to its success. Halo 2 was very different from Halo 1, and Halo 3 was very different from Halo 2. Each built off the predecessor, but changed the way the game was played each time.

There were questionable calls in each incarnation of Halo, yes, but those calls lead to success in most cases.

#8

CoD is successful not because it doesn’t change, but because it’s a very simple game that appeals to everyone (that doesn’t have a brain).

Halo should change and improve, yet not too much. I only find some of the things in Halo 4 to be a drastic change, but it’s honestly good-ol’ Halo at its core.

#9

> YOU PEOPLE JUST CANT ADAPT"

That’s exactly what my girlfriend says to me when we argue about Halo 4. :stuck_out_tongue: She loves the game.

#10

> I’m sorry but your argument is not logical. Halo has changed quite radically with each incarnation, and that has been the key to its success. Halo 2 was very different from Halo 1, and Halo 3 was very different from Halo 2. Each built off the predecessor, but changed the way the game was played each time.
>
> There were questionable calls in each incarnation of Halo, yes, but those calls lead to success in most cases.

Adding new weapons, new gamemodes, and new vehicles is not radical change.

It is building on a core, not changing that core. Compare adding RAM to a PC versus switching to a Mac.

The only real (arguably) radical change was when Halo 2 introduced dual wielding and removed the HP system, which were both good features in my opinion, and were carried to Halo 3.

Improving on the formula was key to its success, not throwing that formula out the window or going half-way with it.

Removing content is not “building on the predecessor” in any form. It’s the exact opposite.

#11

> Adding new weapons, new gamemodes, and new vehicles is not radical change.
>
> It is building on a core, not changing that core. Compare adding RAM to a PC versus switching to a Mac.
>
> The only real radical change was when Halo 2 introduced dual wielding and removed the HP system, which were both good features in my opinion, and were carried to Halo 3.
>
> Improving on the formula was key to its success, not throwing that formula out the window or going half-way with it.

So its not radical change that everyone has a problem with, its whether or not they like that radical change. Got it.

#12

> > Adding new weapons, new gamemodes, and new vehicles is not radical change.
> >
> > It is building on a core, not changing that core. Compare adding RAM to a PC versus switching to a Mac.
> >
> > The only real radical change was when Halo 2 introduced dual wielding and removed the HP system, which were both good features in my opinion, and were carried to Halo 3.
> >
> > Improving on the formula was key to its success, not throwing that formula out the window or going half-way with it.
>
> So its not radical change that everyone has a problem with, its whether or not they like that radical change. Got it.

Forgot to say arguably, but I digress.

Dual wielding and no health meter doesn’t make Halo any less of an Arena Shooter. You could also disable dual wielding.

Some people view it as more radical than I do I’m sure.

The changes Halo Reach and Halo 4 made are far more radical in comparison, I think most people can agree on that point.

#13

All the “pro change” people all ignore the elephant in the room. COD

Been mostly the same since 2007 with yearly releases. As soon as Halo changed in 2010 it became the #1 uncontested game from then on. Atleast H3 kept the #2 spot for post nov 2009 till may 2010

#14

> I’m sorry but your argument is not logical. Halo has changed quite radically with each incarnation, and that has been the key to its success. Halo 2 was very different from Halo 1, and Halo 3 was very different from Halo 2. Each built off the predecessor, but changed the way the game was played each time.
>
> There were questionable calls in each incarnation of Halo, yes, but those calls lead to success in most cases.

Not really. They merely added and improved upon features. They added new weapons, vehicles, maps, and grenades… They added the equipment you could throw. The switched back and forth between projectile travel time and hit-scan, but that isn’t a huge problem.

Then Reach came. Sprinting, AAs, etc, a HUGE change. They got rid of the most important working system, the visible rank 1-50, and they got rid of a ranked vs social playlist.

Then Halo 4. They got rid of map weapon drops and added ordnance which ruined it further.

AAs and sprint could be implemented without trouble, but Halo is better without them. I don’t have a problem with AAs and sprint, but they are not implemeneted effectively.

Also, loadouts and perks? These do not work at all.

#15

Guise, Guise

Every detail are super srs.

#16

> CoD is successful not because it doesn’t change, but because it’s a very simple game that appeals to everyone (that doesn’t have a brain).
>
> Halo should change and improve, yet not too much. <mark>I only find some of the things in Halo 4 to be a drastic change, but it’s honestly good-ol’ Halo at its core.</mark>

THIS! I’ve been waiting to see if anyone else felt the same way, because I think the game’s core gameplay is fantastic. The problem is that many of the layers over it have been changed heavily. Random drops detract from that “Halo” feel, in my opinion, because they don’t really promote map movement. The same is true of personal ordinance, but I’d be fine if it stays, as long as it’s tuned.

#17

They should have kept it similar to halo 3. You get everything with halo 3, the social aspect, competitive aspect etc. I hope this update fixes at least some of the issues with halo 4.
RIP good ole days

#18

> I’m sorry but your argument is not logical. Halo has changed quite radically with each incarnation, and that has been the key to its success. Halo 2 was very different from Halo 1, and Halo 3 was very different from Halo 2. Each built off the predecessor, but changed the way the game was played each time.
>
> There were questionable calls in each incarnation of Halo, yes, but those calls lead to success in most cases.

Except Halo 4 stripped a bunch of features that previous Halo games had.

#19

I agree 100% with the OP. Games don’t need drastic change to be fun or successful. The most glaring example of this is chess. It’s been the same game for hundreds of years. Yet, people still to this day play it fanatically for decades throughout their lives. Same board, same pieces, same colors.

Nothing about it changes and it’s easily one of the most engaging skill based games in existance. It’s a game that’s fun for everyone from the most hardcore player to the most casual. There’ve been other gimmicky takes on it but they’re never as popular as the good, old fashioned chess.

It’s the same with more physical games like sports. People have played and continued to watch basketball their whole lives without the game changing in any major way. There’s rule changes every once in a while when something is blatantly affecting the game negatively but that’s about it.

How may people do you think would continue to watch basketball if in the next season they decided to randomly toss an extra ball on the court from time to time? Or added a penalty box for fouls? Or made the team in the lead play with lead shoes so the losing team had a better chance to come back? They’d lose the vast, vast majority of their fans immediately, and every single sponsor would see the massive decline and pull funds before the NBA knew what was happening.

So what makes anyone think it could be possible that adding game-breaking armor abilities, default sprint, random ordinance drops, randomized weapons on map, loadouts, perks, instant respawns, or completely decimating classic gametypes could ever make real, long time fans happy? I can’t even fathom what kind of idiot it would take to come up with the thought it would be a good idea to do just that. It defies logic. Yet, at least one of the people working for 343 IS that idiot and probably thinks they did a good job…

They did do a good job. At destroying everything that made Halo what it was for over a decade.

#20

> All the “pro change” people all ignore the elephant in the room. COD
>
>
> Been mostly the same since 2007 with yearly releases. As soon as Halo changed in 2010 it became the #1 uncontested game from then on. Atleast H3 kept the #2 spot for post nov 2009 till may 2010

I’ve always thought second place was a good place to be :slight_smile: Still on top without a lot of bragging rights