I miss Halo being what it was. This is what is known as nostalgia.
In this community, the term has developed a negative connotation because a group of people who are okay with what Halo has developed into over the years will argue against those who argue that the old formulas were superior, and this has occurred all throughout Halo’s lifetime. Arguments have occurred over and over about “what should be done” for both sides of the argument. But I think that up to a certain point, people were more okay with what was going on despite some things that could have simply been done better.
I would argue that that point is when AA’s became a thing which lead halo down the path it is at currently with SA’s taking their place. The issue is that most of the additions aren’t altogether unique and many shooters have mechanics like them that make them less pertinent. Whether this was down as a reaction or as a legitimate change for the better, Halo is no longer the trendsetter it used to be, and there is no argument against the fact that Halo is behind the curve, perhaps because of it.
Really, the fundamental issue as it stands is that modern Halo’s identity simply isn’t that unique, which makes it easier for other games to take its place.
The reason people keep trying to create alternatives to modern Halo by making grassroots returns to classic Halo is because classic Halo is still unique for what it is: there aren’t really any simple competitive shooters out there anymore that exist within the current generation of gaming. People might argue MCC takes place in that void, but MCC is merely the past with a poorly maintained H2A multiplayer that wasn’t going to go anywhere without proper support in the first place.
What the people who desire classic Halo want is not stagnation. Changes that occur in Halo that support its identity are perfectly fine, as seen in vehicle boarding and dual wielding.
The changes that keep Halo a simple competitive shooter, whose depth is determined by environmental stigma and not based on some abilities that other games arguably pull off better, is what future Halo development should aim for because this will ultimately maintain an identity unique in the market and allow for trends to be set because, honestly, these types of changes in the shooter market simply aren’t being looked at.
The multitude of potential game modes, the variety in map interactions, different types of maps and player environments (developer created or otherwise) different types of weapons and equipment and vehicles are all things that can be changed and manipulated and thrown around because they don’t inherently change Halo as a game but they do change the player experience. And, above all else, these things can, without drastically changing how Halo is played, be removed.
I would argue that recent changes in the Halo formula infringed upon this notion because, despite the fact that you can turn off SA’s, the entire game was manufactured down to a map design level with them in mind, and, therefore, there is a fundamental problem with playing Halo in its original state.
The bottom line is that everything that came before, everything that is now, and everything that comes later should be looked at with the idea in mind “does this make for a simple competitive shooter” and “can we remove this without harming the rest of the game?” Because while I believe that sometimes risks should be taken, it is so easy with a game like Halo to make changes that don’t involve risking the fate of the entire franchise, because Halo is not as popular as it once was and people are getting tired of it not living up to its legendary name. I don’t expect that changes to Halo that don’t infringe upon its identity to be easy to make in time, but those are the things that Halo needs to survive and I would encourage more creativity in that respect.