This game seems like it is going to be fantastic, 343 is really putting so much effort in. First, we have the Campaign, which I’m sure will be exciting and interesting, as well as emotional. I’m confident the story will be awesome. Next, the size and gameplay of the Campaign looks amazing, huge battles over large landscapes. Another massive positive to the Campaign is that Josh Holmes confirmed it to be twice as long as Halo 4!! Next is the Multiplayer, which seems to really be going back to the Halo roots, but also moving forward in the right direction. Another awesome addition is the two distinct Multiplayer modes, Arena and Warzone. The Spartan abilities, revive, Artemis, and more seem like very good additions to the game. Maybe this is just me getting excited, but I think this game has a good chance of being among the best in the series if it’s as awesome as it’s looking so far. Do you think this game could be among the best in the series?
Yes, it has all the potential to be the best in the series and hell maybe forge will put the game over the top. Who knows. Of course the game may completely fail but lets look on the brighter side of things this close to launch.
I think it could certainly be the best halo game ever. Less than 3 months left to wait, hang in there guys.
The beta was already better than Halo 4 and Reach. And the thought that campaign will actually last me awhile makes me salivate. And the Invasion-esque Warzone mode detailed shortly after E3 has me giddy. If there’s anything holding this game back (I dont care about split-screen, the lack of guests in MP will be a welcome change for me) is the lack of in-between MP/Campaign content like Firefight or Spartan Ops.
It can be. We’ll see on release date.
I’d love to see a little more from forge and customs before making that verdict, but it definitely has the potential. But even from back in the beta forge was looking to be pretty good. We can assume forge will have all the things from past games, plus being able to fully color blocks, alter some sort of time of day setting, at least on one forge canvas, and we saw a lot of new pieces. Not to mention that the incomplete forge canvas from the beta was already sizing up to be pretty big. So even though we haven’t seen anything recent, forge fans already have a bit to be excited about.
It very well can be; the foundation is yet. The campaign being great seems to be a given. Multiplayer going back to its roots is a big win, as is the new Warzone mode. In my opinion, multiplayer’s real success depends on the level of post-launch support 343 gives the game to keep things fresh.
Obviously.
I’m divided on this topic.
Overall art style and plot direction…it feels very alien from the Halo I grew up with, almost unrecognizable at points. I don’t even know what to make out of Coliseum. I use the same old “it doesn’t look Forerunner” rhetoric a lot, but this seriously doesn’t look remotely Forerunner at all. To be blunt it doesn’t even look real, it looks like a caricature of a stereotypical videogame arena, though maybe that’s the point given its namesake. But anyways, put certain media of Halo 3 and Halo 5 side by side, and at first glance I wouldn’t even be able to tell that the latter is a Halo title.
Though the same screenshot makes it evident they are trying to get back to some of the defining aspects of Halo’s genre. You can see elevation and clever jumps purposefully built into the map. The gameplay itself is like classic gameplay with a few new elements, which is the direction they should’ve taken to begin with. Sprint still remains but has been significantly reduced in its importance. The other abilities are still problematic as well but not without their own charm. I can’t honestly say that their new direction lacks potential. A lot of the new ideas Halo 5 brings to the table are actually quite interesting.
Then there’s the “we’re going out of our way to define ourselves” things like Warzone and the Squad System which ultimately don’t sway my opinion one way or the other. Yeah, they’re neat ideas, but I could easily live without them.
TLDR:
As a game Halo 5 has solid foundations and potential, but I can’t bring myself to call it the best Halo when I’m not even sure I can consider it a Halo.
Not to mention the less insightful low-blows I could’ve taken like “NO SPLITSCREEN THEREFORE AUTOMATICALLY TERRIBLE”.
we havent seen anything with the campaign except confirmed Blue Team, not sure if itll be better than the previous but who knows. The MP on the other hand, thats gonna be amazing, still kinda wished it had Firefight though
It definitely has the potential to be one of the best. We’ll know for sure soon.
im good with everything but i want 1080p60fps cos all of xbox one’s other blockbusters are doing it and halo2a mp did it and i want a unsc air vehicle
It might just be the best Halo yet.
> 2533274819302824;9:
> I’m divided on this topic.
>
> Overall art style and plot direction…it feels very alien from the Halo I grew up with, almost unrecognizable at points. I don’t even know what to make out of Coliseum. I use the same old “it doesn’t look Forerunner” rhetoric a lot, but this seriously doesn’t look remotely Forerunner at all. To be blunt it doesn’t even look real, it looks like a caricature of a stereotypical videogame arena, though maybe that’s the point given its namesake. But anyways, put certain media of Halo 3 and Halo 5 side by side, and at first glance I wouldn’t even be able to tell that the latter is a Halo title.
>
> Though the same screenshot makes it evident they are trying to get back to some of the defining aspects of Halo’s genre. You can see elevation and clever jumps purposefully built into the map. The gameplay itself is like classic gameplay with a few new elements, which is the direction they should’ve taken to begin with. Sprint still remains but has been significantly reduced in its importance. The other abilities are still problematic as well but not without their own charm. I can’t honestly say that their new direction lacks potential. A lot of the new ideas Halo 5 brings to the table are actually quite interesting.
>
> Then there’s the “we’re going out of our way to define ourselves” things like Warzone and the Squad System which ultimately don’t sway my opinion one way or the other. Yeah, they’re neat ideas, but I could easily live without them.
>
> TLDR:
> As a game Halo 5 has solid foundations and potential, but I can’t bring myself to call it the best Halo when I’m not even sure I can consider it a Halo.
>
> Not to mention the less insightful low-blows I could’ve taken like “NO SPLITSCREEN THEREFORE AUTOMATICALLY TERRIBLE”.
I think the reasons you may not see this as Halo is because the art direction took a big turn and 343 has purposefully made the game “feel the same but different”.
I know that doesn’t help explain much and it’s very hard to explain but that’s what might be your reason for feeling it’s not Halo.
as a person who really dislikes 343 halo i don’t like halo 5 the way the developer intended, go figure.
my love for halo 1 - reach wasn’t because of reasons that i could predict prior to the release of the game, as the main experiences i got out of the game were the competitive and sandbox elements ( by sandbox i mean pushing gameplay in ways that were not intended and being able to really mould the experience into something far from the “core” experience, eg - most custom games, tricks, unique playstyles, glitches, pushing physics into different places) neither of these 2 elements were directly intended by the developer.
i know based off my experience in the beta and the footage post beta that i won’t enjoy warzone and i’m losing interest in the competitive experience 343 are trying to market towards a player like me. however there are always things the developer did not intend for and they can sometimes make the experience for some people. i don’t believe halo 5 is on par to be the best but ways the community could take the game not intended could really liven up the experience.
As many have already said, it definitely has the potential to be. The campaign is shaping up to be fantastic though it all hinges on the squad mechanics working. MP seems to have something for (almost) everyone. It’s just about the execution and a smooth launch (note I didn’t say perfect because due to the nature of technology, someone somewhere will have a problem and there’s always teething problems with any new launch)
> 2533274833600810;14:
> > 2533274819302824;9:
> > I’m divided on this topic.
> >
> > Overall art style and plot direction…it feels very alien from the Halo I grew up with, almost unrecognizable at points. I don’t even know what to make out of Coliseum. I use the same old “it doesn’t look Forerunner” rhetoric a lot, but this seriously doesn’t look remotely Forerunner at all. To be blunt it doesn’t even look real, it looks like a caricature of a stereotypical videogame arena, though maybe that’s the point given its namesake. But anyways, put certain media of Halo 3 and Halo 5 side by side, and at first glance I wouldn’t even be able to tell that the latter is a Halo title.
> >
> > Though the same screenshot makes it evident they are trying to get back to some of the defining aspects of Halo’s genre. You can see elevation and clever jumps purposefully built into the map. The gameplay itself is like classic gameplay with a few new elements, which is the direction they should’ve taken to begin with. Sprint still remains but has been significantly reduced in its importance. The other abilities are still problematic as well but not without their own charm. I can’t honestly say that their new direction lacks potential. A lot of the new ideas Halo 5 brings to the table are actually quite interesting.
> >
> > Then there’s the “we’re going out of our way to define ourselves” things like Warzone and the Squad System which ultimately don’t sway my opinion one way or the other. Yeah, they’re neat ideas, but I could easily live without them.
> >
> > TLDR:
> > As a game Halo 5 has solid foundations and potential, but I can’t bring myself to call it the best Halo when I’m not even sure I can consider it a Halo.
> >
> > Not to mention the less insightful low-blows I could’ve taken like “NO SPLITSCREEN THEREFORE AUTOMATICALLY TERRIBLE”.
>
>
> I think the reasons you may not see this as Halo is because the art direction took a big turn and 343 has purposefully made the game “feel the same but different”.
>
> I know that doesn’t help explain much and it’s very hard to explain but that’s what might be your reason for feeling it’s not Halo.
i can’t speak for ramirez but its got to the point where aesthetic and mechanic design principles feel like too much of a departure. aesthetics prior h4 feeling clean and clear and mechanics feeling smooth, controlled and methodical. maybe ramirez fees different, though that’s my 2c.
> 2533274836395701;17:
> > 2533274833600810;14:
> > > 2533274819302824;9:
> > >
> >
> >
> > I think the reasons you may not see this as Halo is because the art direction took a big turn and 343 has purposefully made the game “feel the same but different”.
> >
> > I know that doesn’t help explain much and it’s very hard to explain but that’s what might be your reason for feeling it’s not Halo.
>
>
> i can’t speak for ramirez but its got to the point where aesthetic and mechanic design principles feel like too much of a departure. aesthetics prior h4 feeling clean and clear and mechanics feeling smooth, controlled and methodical. maybe ramirez fees different, though that’s my 2c.
This is where I think it’s just our opinions because I never saw Classic Halo’s clean look as a huge thing. I always saw it as a lack of detail that wasn’t quite possible to reach at the time. Armor looked like plastic and jumping felt as smooth as jumping on the moon. Halo Reach armor looked how Halo 3’s should have, in my opinion.
As far as my preferences go, I generally like the new look. I had a big break from Halo after Reach and once 4 came out I was ready for a new take on the series that had, as far as I was concerned, exhausted it’s visual appeal. Halo Reach was the pinnacle of Classic Halo’s art and I didn’t feel like I wanted to go back after that. It felt like I’d seen the furthest that Halo’s art direction could be taken and it was starting to look downright cartoony in comparison to other big name shooters that were beginning to establish themselves.
343’s Halo went for a more mature and photo-realistic approach and it just felt right to me. Halo always had a fairly serious story, saving the galaxy from space zombies and characters having relationships with emotions (Chief and Cortana). So the new look fit in and made me feel like this time “it was for real” lol. I don’t hate the old look, I just support the new look and I personally believe that it was a necessary step in making another beginning to Halo that would be relevant in a new era of gaming.
Right now, a step up from Halo 4 is all I see. Nothing shown this far has given me a reason to believe that Halo 5 would be exceptional in any way. It definitely corrected some things I didn’t like, but it also carried over some things I didn’t like, and it has some new things I don’t like. Overall, it’s an improvement, but nowhere near where I’d want it to be.
> I always saw it as a lack of detail that wasn’t quite possible to reach at the time.
in terms of tech specs that will always improve, however looking at objects in h3 and reach you’ll find there are more imperfections and minor details on textures than h4 or 5. many of the textures in new games are repeating and lack asymmetrical / minor details.
> Armor looked like plastic and jumping felt as smooth as jumping on the moon.
h4 and 5 objects in general are called out for looking plastic / clay like, that isn’t subjective. as an animator who models and textures things, the objects in 343 halo have the same properties as plastic. anyone trying to refute this, open 5 tabs and google wet clay, plastic, halo 5 multiplayer, halo reach multiplayer and halo 3 multiplayer and decide. armour models have always looked slightly plastic, though now in h5 they look completely plastic and so does the terrain in every map.
the jumping felt like moon jumping in halo 3, the rest were fine.
> Halo Reach was the pinnacle of Classic Halo’s art
that isn’t clear cut, h3 had a distinct and polished art style too. they both have positives.
> It felt like I’d seen the furthest that Halo’s art direction could be taken and it was starting to look downright cartoony in comparison to other big name shooters that were beginning to establish themselves.
should we try to compare or differentiate. if halo conforms to other franchises qualities then what is the selling point and the interesting factor that separates the franchise from the rest? aren’t you for evolution? based on my opinion i’m told i don’t want change, what i want is further differentiation, that’s more change than most people asking for others to accept change imo
> 343’s Halo went for a more mature and photo-realistic approach and it just felt right to me
no offense zoom but based on every topic you’ve ever created it’s only further cementing that you really weren’t that big on classic halo and preferred most elements that can be found in other shooters. to the point where battlefield, destiny and cod have most of the elements you’re looking for and halo from 2001 - 2012 having very very little.