For those who say Halo needs to "evolve"

Over the past few months I’ve seen the same reasoning for supporting sprint and spartan (armor) abilities. People have been claiming that Halo needs to “evolve” and thus must adopt these new traits. I will agree that you can’t release the same game over and over again. You need to add something new to the game. But even the popularity with H2A shows that this is not necessarily true.

Back on the game needs to “evolve”. I’d like to point out that there’s a large difference between a game evolving and just blatantly stealing ideas from other games to steal some of their consumer base. Evolving brings something new and fresh to the game. Things never seen before or modified slightly to feel fresh within the game’s sandbox. Taking ideas from other games feel like a copy and paste job making the game feel more similar to its competitors instead of establishing it’s own identity. Look at Halo 4. By no means one can say this is Halo evolving. This is Halo taking things from COD. Primarily everyone having sprint, loadouts, ordinance drops, no weapons on map, kill cams?, perks, etc. The list goes on and on. None of these felt original. This ended up being bad for the game. Going to reference the population drop here. It’s significant. Halo 5 is doing the same thing. Video.

Secondly, it’s funny people mention evolution. One thing that happens with evolution is that some mutations are not beneficial. Due to survival of the fittest, these mutations get tested and the less fit die off and get forgotten. Why should this not happen for Halo? Bungie started this with armor abilities/sprint and 343 continued this with Halo 4. Why shouldn’t 343 realize that this is a “bad mutation” and let it die off and return to the roots that the trilogy created?

There was another thread on here, although a troll thread, it has some merit. It asked why doesn’t Halo have horses? I ask why shouldn’t it have horses? I mean the game needs to evolve right? Why not evolve to have horses? This may be getting a little strawman but the point is Halo should not add features just to have them or every other game has them. Why not evolve Halo to be a 3rd person shooter or a top-down shooter? While we’re at it, just make it a MMORPG.

Lastly, what’s wrong with originality? So what if every other game has sprint. What if not having sprint (or any other feature X) is what made Halo great? Maybe people are drawn to Halo because it isn’t COD and want to play something different. Individuality is what sets games apart. What if people want to play old-school arena shooters like Quake in a new-school environment? Why shouldn’t Halo continue filling this niche? If it isn’t broken don’t fix it? Halo might be better off if it doesn’t evolve.

Reactions? I’d like to see something other than “sprint sucks”, “sprint is good for the game”, “just get used to it and adapt”, or “Halo 5 is having it, deal with it”.

This is so true.
A few examples of where not changing (or evolving) keeps the fan base alive:

  • Common sports e.g. football - These games have not changed for hundreds of years and each year the industry grows.- CoD - Still sells well (I know sales are in decline but its because they have sold like 10 games its getting repetative. Halo has only sold like 3 good ones so people are not fed up with it)- Disney films - Like the general idea is the same for every animated film good guy meets bad guy and good guy falls in love or has to over come some emotional internal struggle beats bad guy A few examples of where change (or evolve) has been detrimental to the existing fan base:

  • Classic movies - such as star wars and alien. The first 3 films were good then the franchises were tried to be reinvented and took a huge turn for the worst. Alien is now going back to its roots and so is starwars. Change to the existing mechanics of a game to suit the current market not only alienates existing players but also does not keep newer players interested. Halo was so different from every other shooter that’s why we all fell in love with it. Keeping a game to its original formula not only fills a niche corner of the shooter market where new players find a different experience but also where old players feel at home. The best Halo ever made would have been reach if it didn’t have aas and a better ranking system. The new graphics, forge, story, armor customization and multiplayer game modes. Is all a new Halo game needs to be innovative.

I am not getting Halo 5 because its a totally different game now and also I hate where the story is going. To me Master Chief is still floating towards a distant planet on the latter half of the Forward Unto Dawn.

Baseball and football have hardly remained unchanged.

Baseball today bears almost no resemblance to its roots. Here’s a few of the rule changes - each one of which substantially altered how a portion of the game was played - from the knickerbocker leagues to present:

> - The called strike was invented in 1858. There were caveats: The first pitch could not be a strike (unless swung on and missed), and the umpire had to issue at least one warning before calling a strike.
>
> - Catching a fair ball on the first bounce was an out until 1864. Catching a foul ball on the first bounce was an out until 1882 (National League) and 1885 (American League).
>
> - The number of balls to be given a walk was 8 until 1884 (when it became 6) and 1889 (when it became 4).
>
> - Overhand pitching was banned until 1884 (National League) and 1885 (American League).
>
> - Until 1886, batters could define their own strike zone by requesting a “high ball” or a “low ball” prior to stepping into the batter’s box.
>
> - In 1893, the pitching distance was increased from 50 feet (the current distance for Little League play) to 60 feet 6 inches.
>
> - Also in 1893, bats could no longer have a flat side.
>
> - In 1908, the sacrifice fly rule was adopted by both leagues.
>
> - In 1919, spitballs and other doctored balls were banned. This resulted in Babe Ruth going from 29 home runs in 1919 (an amazing feat for the time) to 54 in 1920.
>
> - In 1925, the minimum home run distance was set to 250 feet from 200 feet to reduce the number of home runs. It was further increased to 325 feet in 1959.
>
> - In 1969, the mound height was reduced by 33% (from 15 inches to 10 inches) and the strike zone shrunk to the modern zone (a shrink of about 30%) in an effort to liven up a wholly pitching-dominated game.
>
> - In 1973, the American League adopted the Designated Hitter rule for the same reason as above.

Football, likewise:

> - Touchdowns were four points until 1898, when they became 5, and 1912, when they became 6.
>
> - Field goals were five points until 1904, when they became 4 (yes, for the first 30 years after American football split from rugby, field goals were worth more than touchdowns), and 1909, when they became 3.
>
> - The forward pass was legalized from within the pocket (but not outside the pocket) in 1906.
>
> - In 1933, the NFL adopted its own rule book, distinct from college football, which included such new rules as actual inbounds lines, goal lines, and legalizing the forward pass from anywhere behind the line-of-scrimmage.
>
> - Playoffs for divisional ties were invented in 1941, along with overtime.
>
> - In 1950, unlimited substitutions (previously limited to 3 players) were allowed (imagine modern football without special teams, specialized defenses, or specialized offenses).
>
> - In 1951, offensive guards, tackles, and centers were prohibited from catching forward passes.
>
> - The facemask rule was invented in 1956.
>
> - The two-point conversion option was adopted in 1960.
>
> - The two-point conversion was removed in 1970.
>
> - In 1974, massive changes were made to speed up the game and add excitement for the fans. These changes included moving the goal posts, moving the kickoff point, changing punting team blocking rules to allow the possibility of punt returns (such as no longer being able to cream the returner before the ball arrived), greatly expanding the definition of pass interference (no longer able to chop-block receivers, for example), reducing the penalty yardage for almost all penalties, and changing blocking rules and hand usage.
>
> - In 1978, defenders could no longer contact receivers beyond 5 yards from the line of scrimmage.
>
> - In 1988, the 45-second play clock was adopted.
>
> - In 1994, the two point conversion was resurrected, along with a host of blocking rule changes.
>
> - In 1995, one-way radio communication to quarterbacks was authorized, fundamentally changing the complexity of offenses.
>
> - Instant replay with challenges adopted in 1999.
>
> - In 2002, slapping balls out of player’s hands was legalized, the game clock no longer stopped if the tackle was behind the line of scrimmage, and additional blocking rule changes.

Games, movies, literature . . . everything evolves over time based on the changing tastes of the society that partakes of them. Simply because George Lucas hosed up the Star Wars reboot and a completely different set of writers and production crew could not make a decent Alien 3 is not evidence that evolution is bad. Counterexamples can be provided, such as the Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager - which all outlasted the original’s 3 seasons - and the complete reboot directed by J. J. Abrams. And CoD is hardly unchanged . . . AW bears little resemblance to the first title in that franchise, and includes such Halo-esque items as thrusters and regenerating hit points. It’s just that each of the three CoD WWII games were similar . . . followed by evolution with the MW games, which were similar to each other . . . followed by evolution with AW. The evolution may have been less substantial than what happened with Halo 4, but the net effect over the years is that the current series in the CoD franchise (AW) is considerably different than the original game.

Halo has followed much the same path. Three games that were similar to each other (CE, 2, 3), followed by evolution (Reach / H4). The difference is that Reach and H4 were received far less favorably by Halo audiences than MW was by CoD fans. That indicates that the direction of the evolution in Reach / H4 was suboptimal. It does not indicate that continued reskins of H3 would retain the same popularity as the original.

Evolution is necessary for Halo to survive. That doesn’t mean that adding sprint or adding loadouts is thus by definition necessary, but something must change, and game mechanics cannot be sacrosanct. Does anyone think that a reskin of Doom without any significant changes to the game mechanics would be a financial success on anywhere near the scale of the original? How about Pac-Man? Or Pong? And though Mario references are often brought up, how does Mario Kart bear any resemblance to the original? Even the side-scrolling 2D game is substantially changed . . . the only mechanics in the original were jumping and running. Enemies could not be squashed, either. It was only when the mechanics were altered with Super Mario Bros and powerups added that the game attained any significant level of popularity. Super Mario 3D fundamentally changed the gameplay with a 3D field and free roam . . . and became the 3rd best selling DS title ever (9+ million sold).

I don’t say this to justify the inclusion of sprint, by the way. I still prefer no-sprint to sprint. I say this because the call to reskin the old games (i.e., MCC) has nowhere near the financial upside of evolution. It’s a safer option, certainly - reskins do actually sell. MCC has sold 2M copies so far in spite of the ongoing issues and being on a new platform. But even if it were on an existing platform and the launch was smooth, it still would fail to eclipse either Reach or H4, which sold more than 3X and 4X as many copies, respectively, during the first 10 weeks (when about 80% of sales occur) as did the MCC.

Blindly denying the need for evolution is as bad as blindly using the word “evolution” to declare every game change the next best thing since individually wrapped slices of cheese.

> 2533274971476153;3:
> A lot that I’m not going to quote.

I agree. I feel like the term evolve has been used too freely. There’s a difference between evolving and making incremental changes. Reach/4 were evolutions from the trilogy but I wouldn’t say two is an evolution of CE.

One could argue that those two games did far worse than the trilogy. Even in terms of sales. Both games were sold later into the consoles generation so a larger market right off the bat. Plus the gaming population has grown steadily since CE first came out. They might have made more money, but the populations dropped too much. Frankly, 343 doesn’t care. It’s more money in their pockets. They don’t care how the community fares.

I don’t feel like COD has evolved since MW. That was a huge evolution from 3 but since then it’s been just incremental changes that stay true to it’s form of gameplay. Halo should learn from this. COD is able to keep it’s fan base and population until next release. Halo changed its core gameplay and everyone was affected negatively. The older halo players felt alienated and the newer gamers left because let’s face it, COD is better than halo 4 and what the beta was.

Games do need to adapt to stay relevant but using “the need to evolve” as an excuse for stealing elements from other games that don’t belong is wrong.