Don't think of Halo 4 as a Halo game

Games Other Halo
#1

Think of it as a Spiritual Successor, as Valhalla is to Blood Gulch

Halo was originally inspired by Unreal Tournament/Quake’s style of gameplay. It’s a simple formula comprised of 3 main facets of combat, as well as abilities on the map that you fight for control over. That was the foundation and uniqueness that Halo built upon, and that’s why many players–myself included–came to love the series.

But I’m sure you’re all aware at this point that Halo 4 continues Reach’s deviation away from this formula. Enhancements on the map and equality are being replaced with player controlled and personal enhancements and augmentations, which is a trend being seen in most FPS’s in today’s gaming age. We cannot blame the industry for moving in a new direction; that doesn’t mean though that we don’t have a right to be dissatisfied with it.

For me personally, I strongly dislike the direction Halo 4 is going. However, once you start looking at the game as a ‘spin-off’ to the Halo formula (and forget the perversion that was Reach), you may begin to appreciate it for what it can potentially be. As a standalone title, Halo 4 (or which I’m beginning to refer to as simply “FOUR”) looks like a good game. It’s fast-paced, has good graphics, a wealth of depth to its gameplay and additional content, and it may even be a well balanced game at release day. I’m sure many of us will be able to enjoy FOUR even though it’s not in the style of UT Halo that we’ve grown with.

The main point I’m making is to look at this game without the expectations of UT Halo. Look at FOUR and its successors in the Reclaimer trilogy as a spiritual successor or a spin off, and it’ll begin to look a lot better. I promise :slight_smile:

Or you can continue to rage at how lousy of a Halo game it is and then you’ll never give it a chance. The Unreal Tournament formula is outdated and it’s not coming back, so if you aren’t willing to move forward, you might have to retire shooters altogether.

> People have an expectation from Halo as they do for any game. We expect Halo to be the way it has been since its inception. We expect Halo to follow the UT style gameplay that it was founded upon. Additions to this formula are welcomed. Things that take away from this formula, clutter it, or pollute it are looked down upon.
>
> CoD players would be pissed if you all of a sudden had shields in CoD. They’d also be pissed if you could jump really high and if kill times were doubled. Fans of Super Smash Bros would be pissed if it all of a sudden became a 1v1 game like Tekken or Mortal Kombat instead of the 4 player sandbox like game it is now.
>
> Bottom line is each game has a formula and fans are fans of said game because they like that formula.
>
> When you start to deviate from that formula in such a way that it is next to nonexistent, it shouldn’t even be considered the same unless you think of it as a spinoff. Halo Wars was a Spin Off. That didn’t make it a bad game, but it made it a spin off because it was made outside of the traditional Halo formula.
>
> Halo 4 is much the same way. Literally everything in this game so far (kill cams, kill streaks, instant spawn, join in progress, custom loadouts, perks, etc.) deviate away from the traditional Halo formula. That doesn’t make it a bad game, but it makes it a spin off because it’s made outside of the traditional Halo formula.
>
> It’s quite simple logic.

#2

Or you could look at it for what it is.

A new game in a new trilogy made by a new developer.

People can’t honestly expect Halo 4 to be like Bungie’s Halos. A new developer will logically have different views on the franchise and will have different ideas on how to move it forward. 343i have said repeatedly that they are making their Halo. This is 343i’s Halo, a new developer, new game, new trilogy, a new Halo.

Yes, it is still Halo. It has Chief and Cortana and Forerunners, and Spartans and Assault Rifles and Frag Grenades, but it is a relatively new Halo. A new step forward.w

#3

Well . . . thank you for not flaming. I can also say myself that I’m worried about some of these changes but for now I’m still optimistic (I’m a naturally hopeful person).

Regardless . . . the word Halo is still in the title, making it a Halo game haha. Even Reach was Halo: Reach . . . whether or not you consider it a halo game.

The way I see it, as long as grenades and explosives aren’t too powerful, and players don’t start spawning with ultimate tracking Plasma Pistols + BR’s, I’ll be fine with whatever.

#4

> Or you could look at it for what it is.
>
> A new game in a new trilogy made by a new developer.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point. People have an expectation from Halo as they do for any game. We expect Halo to be the way it has been since its inception. We expect Halo to follow the UT style gameplay that it was founded upon. Additions to this formula are welcomed. Things that take away from this formula, clutter it, or pollute it are looked down upon.

CoD players would be pissed if you all of a sudden had shields in CoD. They’d also be pissed if you could jump really high and if kill times were doubled. Fans of Super Smash Bros would be pissed if it all of a sudden became a 1v1 game like Tekken or Mortal Kombat instead of the 4 player sandbox like game it is now.

Bottom line is each game has a formula and fans are fans of said game because they like that formula.

When you start to deviate from that formula in such a way that it is next to nonexistent, it shouldn’t even be considered the same unless you think of it as a spinoff. Halo Wars was a Spin Off. That didn’t make it a bad game, but it made it a spin off because it was made outside of the traditional Halo formula.

Halo 4 is much the same way. Literally everything in this game so far (kill cams, kill streaks, instant spawn, join in progress, custom loadouts, perks, etc.) deviate away from the traditional Halo formula. That doesn’t make it a bad game, but it makes it a spin off because it’s made outside of the traditional Halo formula.

It’s quite simple logic.

#5

Great post :slight_smile:

I agree that it may be, in some aspects, a disappointing “halo” game to some people because it does deviate from the original standards halo was built upon in the original trilogy, but in it’s own right may still be a good game.

I agree in part, but I still believe it will be a great Halo experience for me, personally. There’s an element in halo that I can see in halo 4 that hasn’t been altered or changed to fit in with the new gaming age, and it’s very hard to describe, but it has to do with the functionality and general gameplay in halo that I don’t see in other games. I’d much rather 4 or 5 shot some noobs in the heat of battle, jumping high and being a spartan than I would be an ordinary soldier and it take 2 blunt seconds and a twitch of my finger to ki somebody, that’s why I still love halo, and why I’m still looking forward to halo 4 as a halo game.

#6

Im going to be happy pretty much no matter how halo 4 is.

#7

> Halo was originally inspired by Unreal Tournament/Quake’s style of gameplay. It’s a simple formula comprised of 3 main facets of combat, as well as abilities on the map that you fight for control over. That was the foundation and uniqueness that Halo built upon, and that’s why many players–myself included–came to love the series.
>
> But I’m sure you’re all aware at this point that Halo 4 continues Reach’s deviation away from this formula. Enhancements on the map and equality are being replaced with player controlled and personal enhancements and augmentations, which is a trend being seen in most FPS’s in today’s gaming age. We cannot blame the industry for moving in a new direction; that doesn’t mean though that we don’t have a right to be dissatisfied with it.
>
> For me personally, I strongly dislike the direction Halo 4 is going. However, once you start looking at the game as a ‘spin-off’ to the Halo formula (and forget the perversion that was Reach), you may begin to appreciate it for what it can potentially be. As a standalone title, Halo 4 (or which I’m beginning to refer to as simply “FOUR”) looks like a good game. It’s fast-paced, has good graphics, a wealth of depth to its gameplay and additional content, and it may even be a well balanced game at release day. I’m sure many of us will be able to enjoy FOUR even though it’s not in the style of UT Halo that we’ve grown with.
>
> The main point I’m making is to look at this game without the expectations of UT Halo. Look at FOUR and its successors in the Reclaimer trilogy as a spin off, and it’ll begin to look a lot better. I promise :slight_smile:
>
> Or you can continue to rage at how lousy of a Halo game it is and then you’ll never give it a chance. The Unreal Tournament formula is outdated and it’s not coming back, so if you aren’t willing to move forward, you might have to retire shooters altogether.

Is…is this a Goat, with three legs I see? My lord, I have not seen your ideas of thinking since the days of Bungie.

Still love seeing your posts, as they always are close to how I feel about the discussion at hand, or give me a new perspective. This is an example of that.

I will still see it as a Halo, but more of a successor or a spin-off than a true sequel. That doesn’t mean I’m not looking forward to it though :slight_smile:

#8

> -snip-

I agree with you. It’s still got that base element of Halo in it. However, it’s a completely different twist on it, which is why I’d consider it a spin-off. It’ll still play “like” Halo; 343i said it feels ‘like’ Halo. But it’s not traditional Halo because of all the differences.

It could be good. It could be bad. Hell it could be the next big thing out there. But you’ll never know for sure if you keep comparing it to UT traditional Halo’s 1 2 and 3. That will just close your mind.

#9

> > Or you could look at it for what it is.
> >
> > A new game in a new trilogy made by a new developer.
>
> You seem to be misunderstanding the point. People have an expectation from Halo as they do for any game. We expect Halo to be the way it has been since its inception. We expect Halo to follow the UT style gameplay that it was founded upon. Additions to this formula are welcomed. Things that take away from this formula, clutter it, or pollute it are looked down upon.
>
> CoD players would be pissed if you all of a sudden had shields in CoD. They’d also be pissed if you could jump really high and if kill times were doubled. Fans of Super Smash Bros would be pissed if it all of a sudden became a 1v1 game like Tekken or Mortal Kombat instead of the 4 player sandbox like game it is now.
>
> Bottom line is each game has a formula and fans are fans of said game because they like that formula.
>
> When you start to deviate from that formula in such a way that it is next to nonexistent, it shouldn’t even be considered the same unless you think of it as a spinoff. Halo Wars was a Spin Off. That didn’t make it a bad game, but it made it a spin off because it was made outside of the traditional Halo formula.
>
> Halo 4 is much the same way. Literally everything in this game so far (kill cams, kill streaks, instant spawn, join in progress, custom loadouts, perks, etc.) deviate away from the traditional Halo formula. That doesn’t make it a bad game, but it makes it a spin off because it’s made outside of the traditional Halo formula.
>
> It’s quite simple logic.

I understand. But others need to understand as well that this is 343i’s Halo.

People also need to realize that Halo is still there. It isn’t an entirely different game yet. It isn’t a spin-off either, its the first game in the Reclaimer Trilogy. Not Bungie’s original trilogy.
The Chief is there, the story is richer than its been. Halo multiplayer is there too, and not just in classic. You’re still Spartans, and you’re still running around maps capturing flags and killing enemies for points.
Don’t judge a book by its cover. On top, Halo 4 may seem like quite a different game. AAs and Specializations etc, but it is Halo underneath. Its not gone, not covered completely. I’m just generalizing, to the people that are acting as if Halo is gone in the game. Which it isn’t.

A different approach to Halo, yes. As expected, though.

#10

> -snip-

Again, I agree. I’m more directing my post to those who’d say “Hey, this wasn’t in Halo!” or “You shouldn’t be able to do that in Halo!”.

Well guess what? This is sort of a new spin on Halo, so take it as it is

#11

This man has somehow managed to grab the words out of my throat, than make them beautiful.

It’s basically what I’m exactly thinking at this point. The point where I want to say to 343 to call it a different game, or to put a different title, and not act like it’s a sequel of Halo 3.

You don’t put Halo in front of our faces when we expect a sequel to an Arena game, you call it something else because it’s a whole different idea of how the game plays. It’s NOT making Halo their own, it’s taking a class-based game and putting the Halo “feel” and name onto it.

I don’t think anyone would expect the whole style of a game to change in a sequel. It’s a HUGE change, and when I heard that Halo 4 was coming out, I was expecting the normal Halo Arena style I was use to. It said Halo 4 after all, once again, a SEQUEL to Halo 3. But alas, I was duped, and my dreams of playing Halo that way I liked it was crushed when March 5th came.

#12

> > -snip-
>
> Again, I agree. I’m more directing my post to those who’d say “Hey, this wasn’t in Halo!” or “You shouldn’t be able to do that in Halo!”.
>
> Well guess what? This is sort of a new spin on Halo, so take it as it is

All right then. We are agreed.

Spiritual Successor?
Blood Gulch to Valhalla?
I guess… that works as a good comparison.

#13

Although I’m treating Halo 4 as a Halo game, I respect the way you did that. For skeptics, it’s the perfect way to think about it.

I know Halo 4 isn’t 100% Halo, but for me, it’s close enough.

#14

> > > -snip-
> >
> > Again, I agree. I’m more directing my post to those who’d say “Hey, this wasn’t in Halo!” or “You shouldn’t be able to do that in Halo!”.
> >
> > Well guess what? This is sort of a new spin on Halo, so take it as it is
>
> All right then. We are agreed.
>
> Spiritual Successor?
> Blood Gulch to Valhalla?
> I guess… that works as a good comparison.

Not really…

Both are different maps, but there’s no new way for weapons to appear on each or something else just as drastic.

#15

> Although I’m treating Halo 4 as a Halo game, I respect the way you did that. For skeptics, it’s the perfect way to think about it.
>
> I know Halo 4 isn’t 100% Halo, but for me, it’s close enough.

The title is a marketing tactic used to attract attention to the thread. My real title is the first line of the OP.

#16

i don’t see that halo is deviating from its core, what i see is that things i are being built upon the core with the net result of creating different gameplay, how ever if you remove all this “crap” then it will be what we’ve grown to know as halo.

#17

I guess according to you goat all halo has is the multiplayer nothing else. For me I don’t mind the change I will give it a chance and play it before complaining. I am sorry you just want the same multiplayer experience with new maps and weapons but that’s not going to happen. But unlike you I love Halos campaign and its universe. The fact that 343i is linking two new trilogy of books into the game as well as references to the past is awesome. I loved bungies Halos but you have to remember all that was planned was the first one on the mac, the idea of a trilogy was never thought of in the beginning. And as much as I may not care for reaches multiplayer that does not mean they should scrap what bungie did, they should improve it and it is actually showing. Sorry but reach loadouts where really show horned in due to Armour abilities at least 343 is making them have a reason. And real quick this is my opinion and I take you as a logical person reading and responding to you post on bnet but sometimes I swear people just jump on games that are not out. I would understand if this was like your post on reach because you played it, but just seeing a few glimpse and having not all the info there is no way you will no how the game will control or how the gameplay will play out. To be honest everyone here acts like pre Sonic 4 and think that the game will be the equivalent of Sonic 06. Yes I used sonic refernces because both fanbases are the same, they will say a game is the worst game ever when it appears they never played a bad game in you life. Goat if Halo Reach is the worst game you played then how many games have you played? I mean what games do you own because your rating system must not account for the worst the hobby has to offer.

#18

Halo’s “formula” has gradually changed per sequel. Of course it’s not going to be anything like the original Halos. Especially since each one is so different from the other. Sure, the changes weren’t as abrupt and drastic as Halo 3 to Reach or Reach to Halo 4, but it’s a developing series. Franchises change; formulas develop new variables, ESPECIALLY when it’s part of a new trilogy being developed by a new company. It’s still the same game, just with more variables. If you don’t like that, then boo-hoo, get over it. It’s not a spin-off, it’s Halo.

Enough of this annoying crap, too. These posts are so unnecessary.

#19

> Think of it as a Spiritual Successor, as Valhalla is to Blood Gulch

Just because the MP may deviate from what you’ve grown to like doesn’t invalidate H4 as a Halo game and instead makes it a spin off. There are many factors that contribute to making a Halo game a Halo game. MP is only one aspect of it. The story, universe, machinability, Forge, all of these things make a Halo game a Halo game.

As for the MP specifically? Way I look at it is like this:

H4 could be pure to it’s original ideals. And it would die as a franchise as a result. Twitch arena shooters of old like Quake and UT are long and forgotten by the current generation. I’m of the age where I almost missed them. I got a chance to play them on the downswing.

The other thing that Halo could do is change to fit the times. Halo was never just a Quake/UT reskin anyways. What with it’s slower kill times, slower movement speed and limited weapon capacity. It took an exsisting concept and put their spin on it. And after playing other shooters, all of their CoD aspects aren’t so utterly and completely bad. Which is why I’m willing to let the franchise sacrifice it’s purity, take the current popular trend and put their spin on it (just like Bungie originally did) and just roll with the punches. This way the franchise gets a shot at living and I get a chance to play Halo for the next decade and have some fun.

If the only thing that matters to you about Halo is the MP and how it stays true to it’s Quake/UT roots then the franchise is not heading in the direction you want it to go, and 343 isn’t going to turn the ship 180 degrees just to drive it into the shore.

And meaning no disrespect, there’s the door.

You’re best option is to buy a gaming computer and start playing Quake and UT with what community it has left.

#20

Then why are 343 disgracing the name of Halo by putting “Halo” in the title? Reach shouldn’t have been called “Halo” either to be honest.