Do you guys really want unnoticeable perks in Halo 4, such as 101% speed, or 2-inches-higher jumps, or even 102% health?
Why even have perks then? And I know they are not called perks, but they work pretty much the same. Battlefield 3 calls them “specializations”, but they are just perks with another name.
Wouldn’t you guys want God-tier perks that let you fly or parkour or even climb walls? You could always remove said additions in some playlists, but the fact that they were in the game would be awesome, and much more noticeable than a puny 1% boost of speed or health.
Can’t tell if exceptional parody
Or just trolling
I don’t like the idea of any perks, but that’s just me.
EDIT: It might be fun in Firefight though, just not anywhere else.
Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
Don’t you have a bridge to guard?
> Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
You would still be playing Halo. Since whatever Halo 4 comes with is still Halo.
This is something I don’t get from Halo fans. They don’t want additions, they just want Halo CE with better graphics.
If they won’t have a noticeable affect on gameplay, they’re not worth implementing.
If they do, it will hurt Halo gameplay so badly. There’s no compromise.
I don’t want perks at all. However if I had to settle for any perks, it wouldn’t be these either, it would be things like longer motion sensor range, faster movement speed when crouched, longer turret use before overheating, faster shield recharging, ability to see other people’s health on your hud. Things that speed up the gameplay.
Keep in mind I said I’d rather have no perks at all, so don’t hate on me if these ideas are bad. I think their pretty good compared to faster running speed, more shields and faster reloads.
> > Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
>
> You would still be playing Halo. Since whatever Halo 4 comes with is still Halo.
>
> This is something I don’t get from Halo fans. They don’t want additions, they just want Halo CE with better graphics.
I’m not against change or evolution of the series, but changes to Halo games should be changes that can be implemented without changing the core fundamental gameplay. I don’t want changes to the series that are just blatantly ripped off from other games.
While it may not be true for all, there is a preference in gamers that makes them lean to either side of the Halo/CoD fence. Pulling ideas from CoD doesn’t bring CoD players to Halo; it drives Halo players away from Halo.
> I don’t want perks at all. However if I had to seettle for any perks, it wouldn’t be these either, it would be things like longer motion sensor range, faster movement speed when crouched, longer turret use before overheating, faster shield recharging, ability to see other people’s health on your hud. Things that speed up the gameplay.
>
> Keep in mind I said I’d rather have no perks at all, so don’t hate on me if these ideas are bad. I think their pretty good compared to faster running speed, more shields and faster reloads.
These are pretty good ideas. It’s nice to find someone who isn’t stuck in negation.
I agree they should speed up gameplay, but in a powerful way that makes COD and Battlefield players notice right away- Perks that make a name for themselves and are praised even outside Halo.
> > > Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
> >
> > You would still be playing Halo. Since whatever Halo 4 comes with is still Halo.
> >
> > This is something I don’t get from Halo fans. They don’t want additions, they just want Halo CE with better graphics.
>
> I’m not against change or evolution of the series, but changes to Halo games should be changes that can be implemented without changing the core fundamental gameplay. I don’t want changes to the series that are just blatantly ripped off from other games.
>
> While it may not be true for all, there is a preference in gamers that makes them lean to either side of the Halo/CoD fence. Pulling ideas from CoD doesn’t bring CoD players to Halo; it drives Halo players away from Halo.
It does bring COD players to Halo. Nevertheless, COD remains strong.
Halo isn’t the juggernaut it used to be. It needs to evolve to keep the interest of fans, and noticeable mechanics that players of other genres can easily see could be beneficial for the future of the franchise.
> > Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
>
> You would still be playing Halo. Since whatever Halo 4 comes with is still Halo.
>
> This is something I don’t get from Halo fans. They don’t want additions, they just want Halo CE with better graphics.
If they take shooting out and make it a plat former, is it still “Halo” just because it has Halo in its name? What I don’t get are people that think altering the game to where it is not “that game” anymore is the same as adding additions. Additions are nothing new to Halo games and they have always been Halo games. Making something that is effectively not “Halo” will upset fans that actually enjoy core-Halo game play. Hence why many are against Reach and worried about what Halo 4 will become.
Trying to say that is the same as CE with better graphics is a weak attempt at arguing. No other Halo game had issues delivering tons of additions and fresh new things while still playing like a Halo game. For a non-Halo related example, Resident Evil 5 wasn’t a bad game. It just wasn’t a Resident Evil game and many fans where upset about that. Difference is, Capcom doesn’t mind admitting they are abandoning the core of Resident Evil for RE 6 further than they did in RE 4and 5 (source: Resident Evil 6 Not being RE).
Difference with Halo from RE is that Halo is one of the biggest franchises in the entire industry and was growing, not shrinking.
No I don’t want perks, I don’t want armor abilities. I JUST WANT HALO BACK!!!
> > > > Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
>
> It does bring COD players to Halo. Nevertheless, COD remains strong.
>
> Halo isn’t the juggernaut it used to be. It needs to evolve to keep the interest of fans, and noticeable mechanics that players of other genres can easily see could be beneficial for the future of the franchise.
A) Gamers are not necessarily exclusive to one game and, if they are, it is because they simply prefer that game. Abandoning one for the die-hard of the other makes no sense. Especially since Halo was always on top. The only thing that happened between releases pre-Reach was both Halo and COD taking the crown from one another back and forth.
Halo isn’t the same because of Reach. Each Halo game did a great job of evolving while staying a Halo game. Abandoning the game does not equal evolution and seeing how no Halo game didn’t evolve from the previous, I fail to see how people can try to claim drastic departures are what the series need.
We have no idea how they work yet so i don’t have an opinion yet… They are not called perks and franky said himself that they would be balanced out and would be different from cods…
> > > > Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
> > >
> > > You would still be playing Halo. Since whatever Halo 4 comes with is still Halo.
> > >
> > > This is something I don’t get from Halo fans. They don’t want additions, they just want Halo CE with better graphics.
> >
> > I’m not against change or evolution of the series, but changes to Halo games should be changes that can be implemented without changing the core fundamental gameplay. I don’t want changes to the series that are just blatantly ripped off from other games.
> >
> > While it may not be true for all, there is a preference in gamers that makes them lean to either side of the Halo/CoD fence. Pulling ideas from CoD doesn’t bring CoD players to Halo; it drives Halo players away from Halo.
>
> It does bring COD players to Halo. Nevertheless, COD remains strong.
>
> Halo isn’t the juggernaut it used to be. It needs to evolve to keep the interest of fans, and noticeable mechanics that players of other genres can easily see could be beneficial for the future of the franchise.
lol wow… that was one game that didn’t overpower cod lol… ONE GAME… Halo 4 isn’t even out yet and the hype on it is huge.
> We have no idea how they work yet so i don’t have an opinion yet… They are not called perks and franky said himself that they would be balanced out and would be different from cods…
The thing is, is it really possible to 100% balance 2 “perks”. I don’t think it is, and that means one player will always have a built in advantage, however slight, before the game started.
> > > Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
> >
> > You would still be playing Halo. Since whatever Halo 4 comes with is still Halo.
> >
> > This is something I don’t get from Halo fans. They don’t want additions, they just want Halo CE with better graphics.
>
> If they take shooting out and make it a plat former, is it still “Halo” just because it has Halo in its name? What I don’t get are people that think altering the game to where it is not “that game” anymore is the same as adding additions. Additions are nothing new to Halo games and they have always been Halo games. Making something that is effectively not “Halo” will upset fans that actually enjoy core-Halo game play. Hence why many are against Reach and worried about what Halo 4 will become.
>
> Trying to say that is the same as CE with better graphics is a weak attempt at arguing. No other Halo game had issues delivering tons of additions and fresh new things while still playing like a Halo game. For a non-Halo related example, Resident Evil 5 wasn’t a bad game. It just wasn’t a Resident Evil game and many fans where upset about that. Difference is, Capcom doesn’t mind admitting they are abandoning the core of Resident Evil for RE 6 further than they did in RE 4and 5 (source: Resident Evil 6 Not being RE).
>
> Difference with Halo from RE is that Halo is one of the biggest franchises in the entire industry and was growing, not shrinking.
Didn’t you notice the HUGE change between Halo CE and Halo 2? You can barely compare both of those games when it comes to core mechanics.
And we still refer to Halo 2 as Halo. In fact, in my personal opinion, Halo 2 was the greatest Halo of them all because of how original, unique and striking it was. I don’t trick myself into believing that Reach was any “less Halo” than previous instalments. If it has “Halo” on the title, it is a Halo game. Like it or not, Halo fans will still play it.
Trying to take a step backwards and implement 2004 gameplay mechanics in a desperate attempt to cater to those who left Reach isn’t a smart move. Halo needs to make a name of its own in this ever-growing ocean of new titles and games, and it won’t accomplish that with silly and unnoticeable mechanics like “a little spped boost” or “little to no add-ons”.
Halo Reach had a big impact (although a bit negative) in the gaming community, but it raised enough hate for people to notice it. That’s where I’m trying to get. If 343 manages to implement mechanics that make the community talk about, maybe we will end up attracting more new fanbase than Reach’s current state.
> > We have no idea how they work yet so i don’t have an opinion yet… They are not called perks and franky said himself that they would be balanced out and would be different from cods…
>
> The thing is, is it really possible to 100% balance 2 “perks”. I don’t think it is, and that means one player will always have a built in advantage, however slight, before the game started.
if we all have it at the start then its balanced…
> > > We have no idea how they work yet so i don’t have an opinion yet… They are not called perks and franky said himself that they would be balanced out and would be different from cods…
> >
> > The thing is, is it really possible to 100% balance 2 “perks”. I don’t think it is, and that means one player will always have a built in advantage, however slight, before the game started.
>
> if we all have it at the start then its balanced…
“If we all spawn with Tactical Nukes, then they are balanced”