> 2594261035368257;129:
> > 2533274923562209;110:
> > > 2533274867266391;102:
> > > > 2533274923562209;34:
> > > > > 2594261035368257;33:
> > > > > > 2533274873873545;2:
> > > > > > All games have their flaws. The Halo community has trouble letting go of nostalgia. Believe me there are things I’d change but there are a bunch of people who just need to accept developers go for current market trends. Like it or not. We need more constructive criticisms not just boo hoo this isn’t Halo 3.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This made me lol… considering it’s in reference to a game series that’s actually known for setting the bar so high because it started out not following market trends.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually halo did follow a trend when it was first created. It really isn’t that unique if you look at it considering it’s a hybrid of quake and unreal that followed how doom setup it’s maps in CE. Back then there were very few fps that do what CoD does today, because games back then were more arena focused. More game had map pickups, were symmetrical based, had a health and armor system (for CE it was health and shields), and had no redundant sandbox where each weapon filled a niche. Really you could even look at halos success simply being luck cuz it was also originally meant to be an rts and not a fps.
> > > >
> > > > In short, I just disagree on it not following trends cuz it did so back then, it stayed relevant simply cuz those other arena games stopped being made or did drastically change which eventually made halo standout.
>
>
> In return, I can just as easily say it’s not my problem if you’re just going to ignore some of the very things you admit were unique to Halo (or perhaps downplay them).
>
> Let’s see, recharging shield, vehicle play being “expanded upon”, what else was there that you didn’t mention… how about you were “limited” to carrying 2 weapons, as opposed to having a weapon wheel where you literally had to open the wheel and choose a “fist” just to melee. Was there such a thing as a sticky grenade/plasma grenade in any other games? I’m thinking no. Ape Escape was, I believe, the first consumer video game to use dual thumbsticks… but Halo has been often touted as the first to perfect the control scheme.
>
> Regardless, you can downplay the very things you have admitted as being unique to HCE in order to make your point, but that doesn’t change the fact that those things were unique… in some circles they are called revolutionary.
>
> Pointing to all the things HCE did that were like other games does not dismiss, nor diminish what it did that was unique. Which was my point from the beginning. Those things it did differently weren’t following some marketing scheme… and even if unintentionally… they created one.
For the record, I wasn’t making my post (most likely the post TEXX was referencing) to belittle Tac0’s opinion or agree with TEXX, but to show that while Halo did add some unique things to the shooter genre, it wasn’t completely unique, as it did borrow heavily from other shooter at the time, like TEXX had stated. I simply made my post to enlighten both sides of the argument and show that Halo was a unique mix of unique mechanics barely if ever seen before in FPS games and staple mechanics that had been tried and true for FPS games for a while. With that said, I don’t think it was doing that to follow a trend. It was just trying to be its own thing.
Bungie knew that simply creating a game that played exactly the same as everyone else on the market would essentially make their game a flop, and since they were hired by Microsoft to make Halo as a system seller for their, at the time, new Xbox console, that wouldn’t fly. Bungie created the formula that we know and love for Halo games by combining unique features with tried and true mechanics for FPS games and it worked for Halo. It sold well and got 2 sequels, each more popular than the last. Why were they popular? Because they had a formula that worked and they stuck to it, all the while adding new mechanics and features as well as tweaking the gameplay (for better or worse, it really is just a matter of opinion) a tad, but not completely trying to reinvent it. Even Reach didn’t as radically change the game like people said it did. The Armor Abilities were annoying and had a negative affect on general gameplay, yes, but the map design and basic gameplay were pretty much left in tact.
Unfortunately, the negative affects of AAs and other things like lack of damage bleed in melee and bloom made people not like the game as it started to stray from the formula, choosing to add new mechanics for the sake of making Halo slightly resemble the competition in order to better compete with it rather than build upon and improve where Halo 3 went wrong (mainly weapon sandbox balancing and hit detection issues). Then 343 were tasked to make Halo games, and instead of making games that built upon and improved and/or perfected Halo 3’s formula, they decided to opt for pushing Halo into the direction that would take it closer to its competition and make it no longer stand on its own.
Now it relied on adding features like custom loadouts, killcams, perks, X to respawn, etc. instead. We, the fans, rallied against this meathod of making Halo games, and got things changed for the better, but 343 haven’t necessarily gone al the way with moving Halo back into the direction that it should have gone. Now it seems like it is in some sort of midlife crisis where it wants to be classic, but it wants to have modern mechanics to appeal to the broader audience that, before 343 took over, wouldn’t have necessarily been interested in Halo. Some people like that, but others don’t. Now we are in such a divided state that people can’t seem to come to a conclusion on anything. We’d rather bicker and stick our fingers in our ears pretending that the other side isn’t talking (though, from personal experience, it seems the pro Halo5/343 side does this more than the anti Halo 5/343 side).