An argument I see often is that Halo has to become modern. I ask, “Why?” Why does it have to be modern? It just seems that if there is statistical evidence, such as population counts, and long and technical essays written often on this forum about how Halo should not change, then there would be at least a modicum of factual evidence or well thought out, lengthy, technical arguments as to why it should change. All I ever see is “It won’t sell” or “It’s too dated.” Explain your reasoning and how you came to that conclusion, and you will create actual debate that will result in something other than the bickering everyone has seen a million times. If someone would like to be the first to point me to some sort of data that would suggest that Halo is better off changing or a piece of well written literature that explains these arguments in depth, I would be happy to analyze the document presented. Up until this point, however, I have been unable to find a detailed rebuttal to those who posit that Halo shouldn’t change, and I’m beginning to think it doesn’t exist.
Honestly, what do you expect to get out of the forums? It’s not like this is the Council of Elders where everyone has a rough draft of what they want to say. And if anyone does, they’re obviously biased towards classic Halo because, hey, it’s a Halo forum where anyone that has a pc (everyone) and likes Halo can drop a line.
There isn’t any serious or unbiased debaters on here because it’s Halo, a video game. There’s a million other interesting things that can and are being discussed instead by intelligent, unbiased adults.
TLDR: That argument you’re looking for probably does exist but due to the fact that 99% of all posters on these forums are biased towards classic halo, you’re not likely to find it.
[deleted]
> 2533274836665383;3:
> > 2533274833600810;2:
> > Honestly, what do you expect to get out of the forums? It’s not like this is the Council of Elders where everyone has a rough draft of what they want to say. And if anyone does, they’re obviously biased towards classic Halo because, hey, it’s a Halo forum where anyone that has a pc (everyone) and likes Halo can drop a line.
> >
> > There isn’t any serious or unbiased debaters on here because it’s Halo, a video game. There’s a million other interesting things that can and are being discussed instead by intelligent, unbiased adults.
> >
> > TLDR: That argument you’re looking for probably does exist but due to the fact that 99% of all posters on these forums are biased towards classic halo, you’re not likely to find it.
>
>
> By ‘biased towards’ you mean ‘prefer’ right? But you used the word biased because it carries a more negative connotation.
>
> In regards to the OP, we’re not going to get detailed reasons as to why Halo needs to change its gameplay. Everyone knows its all down giving the game wider appeal and maximising initial sales. No one wants to sit there and try to justify that on gameplay terms, even if they love the changes.
My point is this, though: they say that it widens appeal and maximizes sales, but there is no empirical proof or expansive logical reasoning. People say that it will happen, but provide no evidence.
> 2533274833600810;2:
> Honestly, what do you expect to get out of the forums? It’s not like this is the Council of Elders where everyone has a rough draft of what they want to say. And if anyone does, they’re obviously biased towards classic Halo because, hey, it’s a Halo forum where anyone that has a pc (everyone) and likes Halo can drop a line.
>
> There isn’t any serious or unbiased debaters on here because it’s Halo, a video game. There’s a million other interesting things that can and are being discussed instead by intelligent, unbiased adults.
>
> TLDR: That argument you’re looking for probably does exist but due to the fact that 99% of all posters on these forums are biased towards classic halo, you’re not likely to find it.
I’m not asking for everyone to have a rough draft, I’m asking where the one guy who does and supports changes is. This is also a very serious matter, as 343i’s future as a company and all the employees involved with the process have a vested stake in how well H5 is recieved through sales and population (to sell DLC to). I’m not asking for the impossible, or even the improbable (I assume, as many people HAVE indeed done such a thing, just in opposition to changes), I’m just asking for a well-informed and articulate person to provide a convincing viewpoint, because “It has to do this” is not going to change somebody’s mind. I’m aware it probably exists, but I want to know what it is.
EDIT: Proof that people care? There is a 12,000 word essay written about how these changes negatively affect this game on the front page of this forum (If you’re wondering, it’s the one about twitch mechanics). I’m not sure about you, but that seems like at least some people take it seriously to me.
I can’t find any evidence games “need to change”. Battlefield has their community in uproar because of the changes, while CS GO has one of the largest online communities and has pretty much stayed true it its original game mechanics.
I am all for change, but not totally reworking the mechanics of a game to play completely differently to the games which made the franchise huge in the first place.
> 2533274840212973;4:
> My point is this, though: they say that it widens appeal and maximizes sales, but there is no empirical proof or expansive logical reasoning. People say that it will happen, but provide no evidence.
The thing is, while we have 2 games that indicate a “modern” Halo can’t work nowadays in the exhausted FPS market, we have absolutely no evidence that a classic one won’t, too.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why Halo 4, released 5 years after Halo 3 and 2 years after Reach to a larger fanbase (a lot of Xbox units were sold during that time) with a better advertisement campaign and higher budget, hasn’t been able to maintain the population as much as 3 or Reach did? Halo 3 managed to be on XBL’s top played games from 2007 to 2010, witnessing the releases of GoW 1/2/3, CoD 3/MW/WaW/MW2, GTA IV, BF BC/BC2, etc… and even managed to top 4’s activity on November 7th 2013.
Also, it’s still not even close to Halo 3’s sales (nearly 12 mil copy).
[deleted]
I find these kind of arguments to be about as useful as trying to figure out the meaning to life. It doesn’t matter. Honestly no one has the ability to know how well halo would do if it continues this path or went back to the past. In my opinion the only arguments worth having are arguments about balances or problems that happen in that game. As an example I don’t mean arguments such as “how sprint destroys halo” or anything of that nature.
I will openly admit i’m biased. Because i’m tired of people trying to cram what halo “should be” into their ideal box. Halo was built from the ground up to be flexible. Custom games are a clear example of this. But everyone is so fixated on their own idea of what halo is that none of the arguments are constructive. None of them get anywhere. Arguments that that involve population, modernization, what “belongs” in halo, etc don’t do anyone any benefit. Video games are not philosophical ideals. So arguments about milking or things I stated above I feel are straw man arguments…things used to fluff up arguments to try and win people over through clever verbiage and not clear unbiased facts. Probably the biggest annoyances for me are constantly used buzz words or saying something breaks something or something is broken. It’s just hyperbull.
Anyway didn’t mean to go off there. Basically If you want to argue with me about how sprint gives one map side an advantage or how clamber can be abused to get some where not intended that’s fine by me. I look at each game as it’s own. The only time I compare multiplayer games to their past versions is if they changed how a feature worked. For example I think comparing sprint as a passive ability in this game to reach as an active ability in the past is a fair comparison to make.
A non fair one would be to compare sprint in halo to halo games that didn’t have sprint. They are in the same series. But they are designed differently so I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.
Because Microsoft still want Halo to be a system seller and sell a Gazillion copies. Sales are king. When Halo was first released it revolutionised certain game mechanics such as recharging health, two weapons and the quick grenade system.Sure enough it got the scorn from the Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament crowd but rarely will a popular shooter make do without these things. 343 just don’t want to take a step back, perhaps they need to find the big new thing that will progress. Who knows?
> 2533274850926786;6:
> I can’t find any evidence games “need to change”. Battlefield has their community in uproar because of the changes, while CS GO has one of the largest online communities and has pretty much stayed true it its original game mechanics.
>
> I am all for change, but not totally reworking the mechanics of a game to play completely differently to the games which made the franchise huge in the first place.
I agree, I can’t find it either. I’m a scientist, and as such I have been taught to use logic and reasoning. So far, I have seen a lot of theories and not a lot of proof from the side supporting these changes, with a lot of evidence against it. That says something.
> 2535422112705145;9:
> I find these kind of arguments to be about as useful as trying to figure out the meaning to life. It doesn’t matter. Honestly no one has the ability to know how well halo would do if it continues this path or went back to the past. In my opinion the only arguments worth having are arguments about balances or problems that happen in that game. As an example I don’t mean arguments such as “how sprint destroys halo” or anything of that nature.
>
> I will openly admit i’m biased. Because i’m tired of people trying to cram what halo “should be” into their ideal box. Halo was built from the ground up to be flexible. Custom games are a clear example of this. But everyone is so fixated on their own idea of what halo is that none of the arguments are constructive. None of them get anywhere. Arguments that that involve population, modernization, what “belongs” in halo, etc don’t do anyone any benefit. Video games are not philosophical ideals. So arguments about milking or things I stated above I feel are straw man arguments…things used to fluff up arguments to try and win people over through clever verbiage and not clear unbiased facts. Probably the biggest annoyances for me are constantly used buzz words or saying something breaks something or something is broken. It’s just hyperbull.
>
> Anyway didn’t mean to go off there. Basically If you want to argue with me about how sprint gives one map side an advantage or how clamber can be abused to get some where not intended that’s fine by me. I look at each game as it’s own. The only time I compare multiplayer games to their past versions is if they changed how a feature worked. For example I think comparing sprint as a passive ability in this game to reach as an active ability in the past is a fair comparison to make.
>
> A non fair one would be to compare sprint in halo to halo games that didn’t have sprint. They are in the same series. But they are designed differently so I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.
This isn’t an argument about sprint or the new features. This is me asking “Where is the proof?” for all the common arguments such as Halo has to change to sell/to remain relevant/etc.
> 2533274840212973;1:
> An argument I see often is that Halo has to become modern. I ask, “Why?” Why does it have to be modern? It just seems that if there is statistical evidence, such as population counts, and long and technical essays written often on this forum about how Halo should not change, then there would be at least a modicum of factual evidence or well thought out, lengthy, technical arguments as to why it should change. All I ever see is “It won’t sell” or “It’s too dated.” Explain your reasoning and how you came to that conclusion, and you will create actual debate that will result in something other than the bickering everyone has seen a million times. If someone would like to be the first to point me to some sort of data that would suggest that Halo is better off changing or a piece of well written literature that explains these arguments in depth, I would be happy to analyze the document presented. Up until this point, however, I have been unable to find a detailed rebuttal to those who posit that Halo shouldn’t change, and I’m beginning to think it doesn’t exist.
So you want someone to explain logically and clearly why change is a good thing? Let me go over it, and I won’t say “it won’t sell” or “it’s too dated.” After all, we agree that any Halo fan would be happy with a game that plays like the old ones. Halo has always changed. Each Halo has made a huge graphical improvement over the last and it has always had some of the top graphics of it’s time. Halo 2 made changes like dual wielding and hijacking vehicles. The pace of Halo 3 was notably slower than the first two. Halo Reach had armor abilities. Halo 4 was Halo 4. Changes to the gameplay have existed throughout the whole series and every time it’s either good or bad. Changes in Halo 2 and 3 are accepted as the game “defining itself” and changes now are “disrupting the formula.” The reason games should change is so that each game should feel like a fresh experience.
Why? Isn’t the fact that people love the old games reason enough not to change? The problem here is that each Halo game is unique. The reason Halo is able to release a game every 3 years instead of an every year release is that it never gets old. People want the game to feel the same but are permissive to some change. The problem with that is that too little change will make the Halo feel of the gameplay feel stagnant-like Call of Duty. With enough change each time, the lifespan of a Halo game can reach that 3 year goal.
Another thing that Halo has always done very well is innovate. To this day, there is no other AAA shooter game that feels like Halo. And now the chorus shouts that Halo 5 is stealing gameplay mechanics straight from Call of Duty. From someone who has played the beta extensively, the game feels nothing like Call of Duty. Many people claim that the changes in the other Halo games (2-Reach, or 2-4) haven’t changed the feel of the game but that now, in Halo 5, the feel of the game has drastically changed. My question to them is have you played the Halo 5 beta? I already said that I have and the game feels just like a Halo game. Twitch mechanics do not exist in the game, headshots and throwing grenades are as important as ever, teamwork is more important than ever, precision weapons win over spray and pray (especially in the final game when flinch is removed). Halo 5 is Halo, and the changes should be accepted. It’s not because the old gameplay feels old, it doesn’t. The reason it doesn’t is because the new gameplay feels new; because there is significant change in each Halo game that never gives you the same experience twice. Similar, but not the same. And Halo 5 is similar. The changes in Halo 5 are not as radical as they look on youtube, they fit naturally offering some of the smoothest gameplay to date.
I hope this has answered your question.
> 2533274886246836;13:
> Changes in Halo 2 and 3 are accepted as the game “defining itself” and changes now are “disrupting the formula.” The reason games should change is so that each game should feel like a fresh experience.
Here is the point you are missing. Changes from Halo CE to Halo 3 didn’t alter the style or type of shooter that Halo was on a fundamental level. The games played differently than each other, but the core principles of Halo were not compromised.
What you fail to understand is the mechanisms being used in Halo 5 are compromising the principles that Halo was built on. If you think Halo is like a jelly substance that you can just mold into whatever you want then that is fine. But if you think Halo provided a unique experience then you will have to accept that Halo’s identity is now being threatened.
343’s direction with Halo is clear and you don’t have to be Nostradamus to see the future. Halo will become a game that sells with (hopefully) a great campaign and the multiplayer will offer a generic experience comparable with the alternatives. This will allow 343 to continue to pump out games with no need to actually be creative or innovative. The evidence in Halo 4 and Halo 5 Beta give you insight. In Halo 4 we had things like ordnance drops and killstreaks. In Halo 5 we now have Clamber, Ground Pound, ADS, etc. These are things that fundamentally change the style and type of shooter that Halo is. This isn’t an opinion or preference.
Halo was once a game that allowed for as close to an arena-like experience you could get on consoles (under the right circumstances). Instead of the game being based on speed and twitch like traditional arena shooters, the gunplay in Halo was based around steady aim and shot-making consistency with a more methodical approach. This allowed for Halo to adapt much easier to the console due to the controller. Intentionally or not, this style of gunplay also allowed for great tactical depth and team-play truly thrived as well. it didn’t matter if it was 1v1, 2v2, 4v4, or epic Big Team Battle matches.
The mechanisms 343 is using come from non-arena twitch-aim and spray shooters. 343 has been inspired by the trendiest of trendy console shooters. They could have looked towards games like Counter-Strike or traditional arena shooters on PC to be inspired. But they didn’t. They wanted to homogenize Halo so that the totality of the experience was similar to other console shooters. They have been blinded by their goal of “increased accessibility” and the sneaky truth is that as a whole, casuals will be turned off by what is being done in Halo 5. The totality of the experience will feel too similar to the alternatives that now there will be no reason for non-attached gamers to stick with Halo for more than a month.
> 2533274886246836;13:
> > 2533274840212973;1:
> > An argument I see often is that Halo has to become modern. I ask, “Why?” Why does it have to be modern? It just seems that if there is statistical evidence, such as population counts, and long and technical essays written often on this forum about how Halo should not change, then there would be at least a modicum of factual evidence or well thought out, lengthy, technical arguments as to why it should change. All I ever see is “It won’t sell” or “It’s too dated.” Explain your reasoning and how you came to that conclusion, and you will create actual debate that will result in something other than the bickering everyone has seen a million times. If someone would like to be the first to point me to some sort of data that would suggest that Halo is better off changing or a piece of well written literature that explains these arguments in depth, I would be happy to analyze the document presented. Up until this point, however, I have been unable to find a detailed rebuttal to those who posit that Halo shouldn’t change, and I’m beginning to think it doesn’t exist.
>
>
> So you want someone to explain logically and clearly why change is a good thing? Let me go over it, and I won’t say “it won’t sell” or “it’s too dated.” After all, we agree that any Halo fan would be happy with a game that plays like the old ones. Halo has always changed. Each Halo has made a huge graphical improvement over the last and it has always had some of the top graphics of it’s time. Halo 2 made changes like dual wielding and hijacking vehicles. The pace of Halo 3 was notably slower than the first two. Halo Reach had armor abilities. Halo 4 was Halo 4. Changes to the gameplay have existed throughout the whole series and every time it’s either good or bad. Changes in Halo 2 and 3 are accepted as the game “defining itself” and changes now are “disrupting the formula.” The reason games should change is so that each game should feel like a fresh experience.
> Why? Isn’t the fact that people love the old games reason enough not to change? The problem here is that each Halo game is unique. The reason Halo is able to release a game every 3 years instead of an every year release is that it never gets old. People want the game to feel the same but are permissive to some change. The problem with that is that too little change will make the Halo feel of the gameplay feel stagnant-like Call of Duty. With enough change each time, the lifespan of a Halo game can reach that 3 year goal.
> Another thing that Halo has always done very well is innovate. To this day, there is no other AAA shooter game that feels like Halo. And now the chorus shouts that Halo 5 is stealing gameplay mechanics straight from Call of Duty. From someone who has played the beta extensively, the game feels nothing like Call of Duty. Many people claim that the changes in the other Halo games (2-Reach, or 2-4) haven’t changed the feel of the game but that now, in Halo 5, the feel of the game has drastically changed. My question to them is have you played the Halo 5 beta? I already said that I have and the game feels just like a Halo game. Twitch mechanics do not exist in the game, headshots and throwing grenades are as important as ever, teamwork is more important than ever, precision weapons win over spray and pray (especially in the final game when flinch is removed). Halo 5 is Halo, and the changes should be accepted. It’s not because the old gameplay feels old, it doesn’t. The reason it doesn’t is because the new gameplay feels new; because there is significant change in each Halo game that never gives you the same experience twice. Similar, but not the same. And Halo 5 is similar. The changes in Halo 5 are not as radical as they look on youtube, they fit naturally offering some of the smoothest gameplay to date.
> I hope this has answered your question.
To answer your question, I have played the beta, and it was a mess for reasons that don’t necessarily include gameplay haha. You say that Halo will stagnate it it doesn’t change. Where is the proof of this? The transition between Halo 2 and 3 (according to most people) was the least change in the series, and they were the most popular and most beloved games! People played what you would consider stagnation for 6 years and over 2 console generations the most, while any changes have been met with criticism and decline. There is pretty empirical proof that NOT changing the formula will be BETTER than changing it (population counts, sales, especially in the percentage of sold copies to owned consoles, the dropping of Halo from MLG, etc.), and I again ask, where is your proof?
Who knows.
Every quantifiable stat suggests the movement towards “modernising” Halo has done nothing but hurt it.
Online population - massive drop
Sales attach rate(number of sales of a game compared to number of owners of the consoles that can play the game)- dropped
Popularity of esports -near extinction.
Online popularity(websise article hits and comments)- Massive decline
> 2578176750968640;10:
> Because Microsoft still want Halo to be a system seller and sell a Gazillion copies. Sales are king.
What they are doing is doing the opposite of those things.
I don’t offer any sources or proof of anything, but my personal opinion is thus: I am glad Halo is changing a lot. It feels refreshed to me. I would buy it no matter what, but I love the changes. Will probably mean more playtime from me then if they made less changes/ stayed “truer to classic halo” or however you want to phrase it.
You’re seeing this issue playing out across so many triple-A titles right now. There is a raging battle for the soul of _______ (insert name of favorite FPS here). Even new games like Destiny and Titanfall are not immune to the “casual 13 year old gamer as game designer” phenomena. People don’t seem to want to play anything anymore, they just want to criticize everything. Hence declining populations in Halo, Call of Duty, and yes, even in the newest titles like Destiny and Titanfall. Re-treads like MCC seem to be giving some people a temporary refuge from the future, but it’s hard to say how that will work out in the long run (even if all issues are fixed) since the studio and publisher have a vested interest in getting you into the new game, not the old one. I guess that’s it in a nutshell: If they aren’t changing the game in some way (so they would say) then they’re not giving you any incentive to stop playing the old title and move on to the new one. I guess it really does all boil down to $.
> 2533274873843883;19:
> You’re seeing this issue playing out across so many triple-A titles right now. There is a raging battle for the soul of _______ (insert name of favorite FPS here). Even new games like Destiny and Titanfall are not immune to the “casual 13 year old gamer as game designer” phenomena. People don’t seem to want to play anything anymore, they just want to criticize everything. Hence declining populations in Halo, Call of Duty, and yes, even in the newest titles like Destiny and Titanfall. Re-treads like MCC seem to be giving some people a temporary refuge from the future, but it’s hard to say how that will work out in the long run (even if all issues are fixed) since the studio and publisher have a vested interest in getting you into the new game, not the old one. I guess that’s it in a nutshell: If they aren’t changing the game in some way (so they would say) then they’re not giving you any incentive to stop playing the old title and move on to the new one. I guess it really does all boil down to $.
This is happening because the AAA game space has become beyond generic. Mainly because of the massive expenses associated with making AAA games these days. Safe bets are the only bets that are being made by AAA publishers and devs. The problem is, gamers don’t want safe bets. Whether Halo needs change is up for debate. IMO what is not up for debate is whether or not Halo needs to conform to current gaming trends. Which is what it has been doing.
Games like titanfall, watch dogs, destiny come out to a collective sigh of MEHHHHHH because they feel like a mash up/remix of every other game in the genre that we’ve all played.
I personally think the biggest reason people want classic Halo MP is due to the fact that at this point, classic Halo MP would feel very fresh and different. The masses stopped playing Halo 3 in 2008. That’s 7 years ago. We haven’t played a game like that in SEVEN YEARS. We will have been playing a game like H5, a day before H5 comes out.