> > > 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”
> > > > Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
> >
> > 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.
>
> News Flash, Halo 2 stayed 100% true to the Halo core, while managing to do more “right” than it did “wrong”, which is why many of us consider it the best in the series even though cheaters where a dime-a-dozen. Where you got Halo 2 from is a mystery to me when you quoted my post.
>
> So…they can’t do new things and add to the game without abandoning it? So Halo 2, Halo 3, and ODST was a fluke in the Matrix and the only options are to re-release Halo 3 or continue Reach’s trend of not providing a Halo experience? Because my post was saying abandoning the game’s core is not the same as evolution even though many people try to make it out to be.
>
> Actually forget that question for a moment. Someone explain to me when Halo stop growing in fan base? Explain to me when Halo (pre-Reach) wasn’t the top of Xbox? Once you do that then start bringing up this fantasy situation where Halo needs to mimic other games just enough to attract their fan base in order to survive.
Halo was strong mainly because COD4 wasn’t around yet, and Xbox 360 games weren’t released so quicly either.
Halo 3 was indeed the best game out there for many, since it was the game most bought when they got their 360. Halo 3 had so much glory because it didn’t have the competition it has today. There were no Modern Warfares, Assassins Creeds, Battlefields, Minecrafts or whatever other popular title you want to point since 2008.
The fact that fewer people played Reach does not immediately signify that it was a worse game (although it was). It means that gamers now have more games and options to pick from.
Besides, Halo’s formula was getting stale. Bungie failed with Armor Abilities, but they were a legit shot in order to attract new fanbase.
> > > > 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.
The reason Halo isn’t the juggernaut it once was isn’t because it didn’t evolve, it’s because it did. The changes made to Reach drove away such a large amount of the population that less than 6 month into the game Reach was struggling to pull the same population that Halo 3 had after being out for more than 2 years.
Halo doesn’t need to “evolve” to keep fans interested. It just needs to be Halo…and taking all of the poorly implemented ideas from Reach and exaggerating them isnt going to help, it’s going to drive away even more people.
by using these “useless perks” as you would call it, is it useless to say…
1)if only i had a little bit more shields to headshot kill my opponent
2)accidently fall off the map, use thrusters to push myself just enough to get back in
3)get to the second story without going the long way
4)get to my team faster to help me get my perfection
perks aren’t useless, that’s why they’re called perks.
Id rather deal with perks than killstreaks in a halo game.
> by using these “useless perks” as you would call it, is it useless to say…
> 1)if only i had a little bit more shields to headshot kill my opponent
> 2)accidently fall off the map, use thrusters to push myself just enough to get back in
> 3)get to the second story without going the long way
> 4)get to my team faster to help me get my perfection
>
> perks aren’t useless, that’s why they’re called perks.
They’re “Useless” because they have no place in a Halo game.
> > by using these “useless perks” as you would call it, is it useless to say…
> > 1)if only i had a little bit more shields to headshot kill my opponent
> > 2)accidently fall off the map, use thrusters to push myself just enough to get back in
> > 3)get to the second story without going the long way
> > 4)get to my team faster to help me get my perfection
> >
> > perks aren’t useless, that’s why they’re called perks.
>
> They’re “Useless” because they have no place in a Halo game.
your statement doesn’t apply to the idea of a useless perk to the person that made this thread.
> Don’t wont perks. Don’t want loadouts. I want to play Halo.
Just wait and see before you say that, why follow the crowd and be like soooo many others that say the same thing? we don’t even know how the HALO 4 ones are going to work.
I have a big question for every one.
Where did 343i come out and say there are going to be perks in Halo 4, please link me to that, and they must use the word “perks” in their statement.
If you can’t link me, then you guys are over reacting.
No, I want game changing abilities and powers. Something that really spices gameplay up.
Like Reach AAs.
> 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.
Welcome to Gaming: 2012, where nothing is “original” and everything is bound to get “ripped off.”
That being said, Halo Reach and Halo 4 have not “ripped off” CoD with their perk/loadout system. The systems in Halo (loadouts) work independently from CoD’s mechanic, and while they are similar in concept they are unique in execution. Halo Reach does not have “perks” in the manner that CoD or Assassin’s Creed multiplayer does, they have “Loadouts.”
You want blatant ripoffs? While it’s a great game, Darksiders has a portal gauntlet/gun. Not even kidding. It makes two portals (on a limited surface,) and the portals are even orange and blue.
> The reason Halo isn’t the juggernaut it once was isn’t because it didn’t evolve, it’s because it did.
No, it’s because after Halo: CE and Halo 2, other games started catching on.
> I’m not against change or evolution of the series
Yes you are, thats exactly what you are. Youre just another Halo Fundamentalist, stuck in your dogma and you want everyone else to be to. Plenty of them around here. You still feel the need to try and disclaim this though, because you know its wrong.
Also, there are no new idea in gaming, everything is built off previous innovation. Thats why things generally get better as time goes on. Welcome to human culture, enjoy your stay.
I don’t want perks, period.
Do you really want to waste you time and energy complaining about useless perks?
Well i dont really care, it wont make much of a difference.
> > I’m not against change or evolution of the series
>
> Yes you are, thats exactly what you are. Youre just another Halo Fundamentalist, stuck in your dogma and you want everyone else to be to. Plenty of them around here. You still feel the need to try and disclaim this though, because you know its wrong.
Well, us Halo fundamentalist seem to know a lot more about what’s good for competitive gaming than those of you who just want to turn Halo into another CoD. We Halo fundamentalist seem to know a lot more about what’s good for competitive gaming than those of you who simply want to break the balance of the game so that rather than having to get better to be able to keep up with better players, you can just let flawed mechanics give you the illusion that you’re better than you are.
> Also, there are no new idea in gaming, everything is built off previous innovation. Thats why things generally get better as time goes on. Welcome to human culture, enjoy your stay.
Things generally get better as time goes on, eh? The (lack of) population in Reach disagrees…
> 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.
Thanks for the heartburn.
> > > > 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”
symmetry =/= balance
Asymmetry=/= imbalance
NO
but its not going to change in the next few months.
Only time will tell what 343 does with HALO 4
In regards to your title, no because useless perks are, wait for it…
…useless.
I don’t know what will be in Halo 4 though. I don’t like speculating on things that have only a little knowledge released.