Dear 343 and dear forums

Dear members of the forums stop backseet-driving 343 to make some random halo 2/halo 3 clone. Halo is good because of innovation. Not because of “going back to the classics” let 343 do their own thing.

Dear 343, innovation does not mean just coppying COD and stuff with bad ranking systems and sprint. Nor does it mean taking away good innovations such as epuiptment and duel wielding. Bloom was a good try on bungie’s part but obviously it didn’t work.

> Dear members of the forums stop backseet-driving 343 to make some random halo 2/halo 3 clone. Halo is good because of innovation. Not because of “going back to the classics” let 343 do their own thing.
>
>
> Dear 343, innovation does not mean just coppying COD and stuff with bad ranking systems and sprint. Nor does it mean taking away good innovations such as epuiptment and duel wielding. Bloom was a good try on bungie’s part but obviously it didn’t work.

True, halo is renowned for innovation, but all great sequels/prequels of a series does require suggestions from the community to make sure the people get both what they’ve always been wanting, and a great suprise and new experience. Its what most great games have done.

> > Dear members of the forums stop backseet-driving 343 to make some random halo 2/halo 3 clone. Halo is good because of innovation. Not because of “going back to the classics” let 343 do their own thing.
> >
> >
> > Dear 343, innovation does not mean just coppying COD and stuff with bad ranking systems and sprint. Nor does it mean taking away good innovations such as epuiptment and duel wielding. Bloom was a good try on bungie’s part but obviously
> >
> > > <mark>it didn’t work</mark>
> >
> > .

Halo was good because it had estabilished wonderful and working formula. If you come up with something like that, you don’t just start to tear it down, neither consciously nor unconciously. You start trying to preserve it instead and make it better.

Halo isn’t about innovation, neither is it about going back to the classics, both are simplified and false assumptions. Halo is about simple and well working gameplay with good story, beautiful enviroments, and lots of things for players to do. If any of the aforementioned aspects changes because of innovation, that innovation can be deemed detrimental to the series.

To concentrate on the gameplay aspect, this is what Reach did wrong, it brought innovation that was detrimental to what makes Halo multiplayer. The game changed the working of some of the core mechanics which led to not only different, but less competitive gameplay.

Of course I’m not denying the existence of good innovation. In fact, good innovation is what halo 4 should do. This so called good innovation can be defined with these questions:

Does it add skill?
Is it intuitive?
Does it keep the gameplay simple?
Does it have depth?
Is the player forced to use it?
Does it change core gameplay?

For the innovation to pass as “good”, answer to the first four questions should be “yes” and to the last two “no”. If we compare the new mechanics Reach added to the game, none of them really passes this, at all. Then if we take Halo 3 equipment, they pass about half of these questions. Both games are clear indications that something have been done wrong with the series.

So in certain sense Halo should innovate, but the develpers need to be careful about how they innovate. Otherwise we end up with a mediocre game that has very bad multiplayer. I’d rather not go through another of those.

> Dear members of the forums stop backseet-driving 343 to make some random halo 2/halo 3 clone. Halo is good because of innovation. Not because of “going back to the classics” let 343 do their own thing.
>
>
> Dear 343, innovation does not mean just coppying COD and stuff with bad ranking systems and sprint. Nor does it mean taking away good innovations such as epuiptment and duel wielding. Bloom was a good try on bungie’s part but obviously it didn’t work.

You are very wrong. If you are right, tell me why Halo 2 and Halo 3 were popular and Halo: Reach wasn’t? I’ll tell you, because they made it to much like CoD and they messed up the multiplayer and campaign overall.

Halo: Reach has barely any players after the first year. Halo 3 could hold at least 300,000 on the first two years. Look at the difference my friend. They need to make the Halo 4 multiplayer similar to that of Halo 2 and 3. The campaign needs excellent cut scenes like Halo 2. Halo 2 had the best cut scenes!

Bungie tried to make something new in Halo: Reach, and they failed. Also, how is bringing back a lot of the classic stuff random? The new stupid things they make are more random than my spawns on Modern Warfare 3.

It is really hard to tell what 343 is going to do but for some reason I feel like they are basically using the forums as a tool to see what pisses people off the most, while accepting that it is impossible to completely destroy any kind of complaining. I feel like they are not afraid of change but are smart enough to stay true to the competitive side of halo.

Every interview I have seen so far only points in that direction. Let’s hope they aren’t just good talkers.

I don’t really feel that the forum members are being back seat drivers, they are just afraid of the change for the worse that reach brought and thus want to stick with what worked in the past games.

Sure the game should be different and innivative but I would rather have a classic feel knowing that it is probably the best it is going to be then to play something that is super different and plays horibly (aka Reach), the deal is that halo must stick to the halo formula of power ups on the map, powerful vehicles, fast movement and high jumps, and if we are talking firefight and camppaign then firefight and campaign should be an actual challenge not a barrel fish shooting sescion and if you look at reach you will see that none of these are being followed and and the reason how the game sold copies because people expected a halo feel and th reason why no one plays reach anymore

> > Dear members of the forums stop backseet-driving 343 to make some random halo 2/halo 3 clone. Halo is good because of innovation. Not because of “going back to the classics” let 343 do their own thing.
> >
> >
> > Dear 343, innovation does not mean just coppying COD and stuff with bad ranking systems and sprint. Nor does it mean taking away good innovations such as epuiptment and duel wielding. Bloom was a good try on bungie’s part but obviously it didn’t work.
>
> You are very wrong. If you are right, tell me why Halo 2 and Halo 3 were popular and Halo: Reach wasn’t? I’ll tell you, because they made it to much like CoD and they messed up the multiplayer and campaign overall.
>
> Halo: Reach has barely any players after the first year. Halo 3 could hold at least 300,000 on the first two years. Look at the difference my friend. They need to make the Halo 4 multiplayer similar to that of Halo 2 and 3. The campaign needs excellent cut scenes like Halo 2. Halo 2 had the best cut scenes!
>
> Bungie tried to make something new in Halo: Reach, and they failed. Also, how is bringing back a lot of the classic stuff random? The new stupid things they make are more random than my spawns on Modern Warfare 3.

You do realize that he’s basically saying the same thing you just said right? Meaning your whole post is pretty much void.

Innovation is not the problem. Change like Reach is the problem.

Innovation =/= good

Halo always used to be the genre defining title - it needs to stay like that and introduce its own, new mechanics, not use older ones from other games that don’t actually fit with what halo is all about. AAs are a prime example of this, this guy explains perfectly how the AAs should have been approached.

I remember seeing the supposed ‘leak’ about the AIM mechanic - detailed here - and that sort of thing would actually be a pretty cool idea.

No-one here wants more overused perk systems, or killstreaks - 343i needs to inject something new that at the same time plays to what has always been Halo’s strengths.