Game Design and Halo4 - it's not just balance

Games Other Halo
1

The following blocks of text are designed to make you think but if you can’t be bothered to read through all of this (and I don’t judge!) then just skip to the questions at the end.

As always on the forums AA, loadouts and balance are constantly being debated. I have no problem with this. Usually my threads are a response to another thread or comment, which in my opinion is incorrect or I disagree with; but in this case my thread is a follow up to a comment which rose a valid point. Somebody had asked why armour lock was overpowered or ruined the game (I could have made a 7000 word thread about that, consisting of me just -Yoinking!- however) the reply was: ‘that it was similar to a pause button for the game, it also took the fun out of splatting somebody in a ghost’.

Fun. Fun is not something often discussed on the forums - partly because it is so hard to define and is strongly linked with what has been know to be called as ‘the Halo feel’ (also impossible to define). But I feel like it is important to recognise why we (not just us on the forums) play games. We play them to enjoy ourselves and this (to a certain extent) contradicts balance (particularly with MM). We all play to win and we all love feeling powerful.

Many people like Halo for its ‘level playing field’ and balance. But I can pretty much grantee that everybody on the forums is good at Halo and where there is winners, there has to be losers. What if you were bad at the game? What if you could not longer rely on skill to pull you through? You are now in the position of the average noob. Without the satisfaction of killing opponents where do you get your enjoyment from?

Hence the problem with balance. This is why CoD survives -it gives noobs a chance to win. A constant steam of satisfaction. You could argue that this is a good thing for Halo -it promotes skill- but with no fresh players coming into the mix then Halo will shrink until it is gone. It is important to note that multiplayer balance does not always mean that it will be fun. Some imbalances have to exist to make the game fun.

However it terms of ‘fun’ Halo4 is looking like a ‘mixed bag’ (pardon the cliché). On the one hand you have faster gameplay giving noobs more of a chance, but on the other hand you have AA which have caused problems in the past: AL, sprinting/jetpacking to safety ect.

Usually I answer questions and fix people’s flawed logic but tonight I will ask the community some questions:

To what extent does balance interfere with fun?
How will noobs deal with Halo4?
Is Halo too challenging when compared to other multiplayer experiences?
To what extent do AA get in-front of gameplay and fun?
How did the other Halo’s and Reach make you have fun?
And finally and most importantly: We all started as noobs, what made you stick with Halo?

-> Side Note: This is just an idea, I am not suggesting that Halo needs to be more like CoD or imbalance=great it is merely a exercise to make people think. I would really like to see some ideas and responses.

Answer what you think you can handle and discuss. Even if you don’t post a response just take a minuet to think about what I’ve asked.

As always thanks for reading another block of text, cheers!

Better to be red than dead.

2

I like this thread already.

In my mind:

Everyone starts as a noob. They enjoy immersing themselves in an experience where they get to do/be something they’re not (why I hate sports games so much, just go play them). As they continue to play, they explore the sandbox and are told what to do to complete the objective. They enjoy the straight up part of the intended experience. For Halo, killing other players. Then, something interesting happens, as players accumulate play-time, some players change. They no-longer appreciate the simplicity of the game. For halo: Run, Shoot. Instead they attach to “deeper” parts of the game: Tactics, Co-ordination, Knowledge etc, that supplement the core game experience, Slay opponents. There is an initial “fun” to killing opponents, but this “fun” is for noobs. It requires little of anything, and really should not be catered to as much as it is. Instead, the focus should be on drawing a player out of simplicity and into the full experience of Halo.

In my mind, the best way to do this: Give noobs a bunch of tools that they will enjoy, but ensure (especially if they are in competitive multiplayer) they are all under-powered marginally. These maybe standard, on-first-glance overpowered weapons, but are one dimensional (again, marginally), so that as players use them continually they ease into a more complex existence in the game. (I would hope most of this is campaign) This gets players to glimpse the greater experience and strive for superiority.

Therefore all balancing should be done with the utmost care to actually balance the game. Imbalances should lie within the skills of the superior. A perfect sniper-rifle wielding pro has no weakness if he can hit a headshot instantly (cept rockets firing round corners, cue ricochet argument). That being said, balance doesn’t mean every gun performs with the same success in all circumstances. Obviously shortrange weapons don’t beat longrange weapons in long range circumstances. Every weapon should do its best to promote skill primarily.

When players are starting out online, they should find some initial “fun” to attach to, but be immersed in “higher elements” slowly so that by osmosis, they start to shift their focus. It is these higher elements that extreme care should be taken in designing and balancing. This being said, there still should be some “fun” in shooting people. IE death animations make no difference to MLG, but still should be in the game. Its an immersive experience.

Now to answer questions based on my stance.

To what extent does balance interfere with fun?

It shouldn’t really, true “fun” should be within the bounds of balance. Out-thinking, outskilling, and out-teamworking should be on the player to accomplish, not the game.

Giving players options on what to start with should create roles, that if selected appropriately and used correctly are balanced.

How will noobs deal with Halo4?

Hopefully they join Halo 4, see something they like and after the initial simple “fun”, play the game with a curiosity asking questions like: How did you guys manage to kill me so fast and know where I was? Teamshot + forcing spawns.

Is Halo too challenging when compared to other multiplayer experiences?

No. Its fine. All mechanics aren’t inherently difficult. Easy to learn, difficult to master (hopefully true in Halo 4).

To what extent do AA get in-front of gameplay and fun?

In an Ideal game, they don’t. You add something like AAs so that players have simple “fun”, as well as giving players options so that they may engage other players on a thinking level: He’s using ProVision, so I’ll use Holo and screw with him while I flank.

Rock, Paper, Scissors is only so “fun”. Its hard to please Humans without a relatively high degree of complexity.

How did the other Halo’s and Reach make you have fun?

After my initial experience with H2 and being wowed by the cool sandbox. I went back and played the first halo as well as got serious with the H2 multiplayer. From then on, I appreciated the little things: A good flank, a fake, remaining mobile, a well set trap, to further my enjoyment of the game.

We all started as noobs, what made you stick with Halo?

It was and is simple “fun”. It was and is complex “fun”. It allows me to be a player with a style I like. It rewards me for a variety of skills, and encourages active thinking and deeper persuing of game mechanics to master. (as well as I LOVE sneaking up on people or laying a great trap)

3

> We all play to win and we all love feeling powerful.

Only certain types of people are entertained by being a god squishing ants. For everyone else, it’s boring.

> What if you were bad at the game? What if you could not longer rely on skill to pull you through? You are now in the position of the average noob. Without the satisfaction of killing opponents where do you get your enjoyment from?

Ideally, the TrueSkill system will bring their TrueSkill down until they meet people they can beat.

> AA which have caused problems in the past: AL, sprinting/jetpacking to safety ect.

All of which have been edited.

AL has become Hardlight Shield and it’s now directional damage immunity only, temporary might I add, at the cost of offensive ability and movement speed.

Sprint now gets slowed by being shot at, everyone spawns with it, maps are designed with it in mind.

Jetpack has basically been replaced by Evade, and it’s a one shot only ability.

> To what extent does balance interfere with fun?

I don’t think it does.

It’s only the “balance” that a few champion which interferes with fun. And it’s not balance as it is catering to specific gameplay styles.

> How will noobs deal with Halo4?

Play the game, probably lose a bit at first until all the higher players get leveled out, then play the game. They’ll win, they’ll lose, hopefully they stick around to use all the stuff they have and see that the pool goes deeper.

> Is Halo too challenging when compared to other multiplayer experiences?

I haven’t found it so.

I find Gears more challenging but I haven’t become accustomed to it yet really.

> To what extent do AA get in-front of gameplay and fun?

When AAs are like speedbumps, that’s when there’s a problem.

With AL, a Sword User can go from nearly having a kill to dead in a fraction of a second.

> How did the other Halo’s and Reach make you have fun?

I first had fun with CE just -Yoink- around, shooting Rockets at people and cross mapping them with the Tank.

H2 and H3? The OMG DID YOU SEE THAT?! moments. In H3 I scored a Double Kill shooting a Fusion Coil.

> We all started as noobs, what made you stick with Halo?

Those ODYST moments, Forge, Theater, the Story, the Setting.

4

Directly aimed at xXSciophobiaXx

Firstly, thank you good sir for being the first person with the balls to actually reply to this thread! And secondly, thanks for such a thorough response. This is a well thought-out and detailed summary of why people enjoy the game. Furthermore you have answered all of my questions and have made me consider your points. I do agree with all of them and I am now considering as to how Reach did not meet your ‘criteria’ and why it is regarded so negatively (which will take some time).

I hope that there are more people like you on the forums and that other players learn from your example. Can’t wait for Halo 4!

5

Aimed at Methew

Thanks for your response. There are some things in your post I do and some things I don’t agree on.

Firstly I do believe that all players do take some satisfaction from winning and ‘squishing ants’ as you so brutally put it. It is certain that most players (especially on the forums) do play to win.

Next: Yes, I hope that 343 does make a true-skill system which works and is fair. Then people might stick with Halo -otherwise I have no doubt that Halo will fall like a lead ballon.

Jetpack has not yet been confirmed. In one Spartan Ops video something similar can be seen. The replacement your referring to is thruster pack which is replacing evade not jetpack. So it is still unknown if jetpack is still there or not. I hope it is there for the campaign to add some variety but as for the multiplayer…we’ll see I guess.

The questions:

  1. Correct
  2. I think it is to a certain degree. CoD has become the norm. meaning that MM expectations have fallen considerably. Another great thing which CoD has done for the world.
  3. Agreed. AA need to follow the flow of the game. With sprint fixed and AL gone perhaps AA could work. Pro vis and Hardlight shield still look a bit…iffy? And jetpack is unconfirmed.
  4. Gotta love those OMG hax! moments.
  5. Like that you mentioned Forge.

Nice one! Once again thanks for replying.

6

Totally agree and well said, I’ve said similar things for ages mate.

  1. Look at Mario Kart and the first place slow down or last place blue shell awards.

  2. Look at real life Golf and handicaps.

  3. Look at Formula One and car limitations.

  4. Look at T-ball vs. professional Baseball.

All of these reward the “hardcore or skilled” but enable the “new or less-skilled” players to thrive. For online multiplayer there is nothing wrong with giving the “lesser players” a helping hand to unbalance the “more skilled” approx. 1 or 2 times out of 10.

For ranked competitive or LAN tournament play there must settings and playlists to cater for a level playing field where this is not the case.

My main issue is 343i and Bungie always tried to cater for both of these but I think 343i are on the money a lot more and players/forum posters seem to not grasp the difference between playlists and settings for this threads exact reasons.

7

> Totally agree and well said, I’ve said similar things for ages mate.
>
> 1. Look at Mario Kart and the first place slow down or last place blue shell awards.
>
> 2. Look at real life Golf and handicaps.
>
> 3. Look at Formula One and car limitations.
>
> 4. Look at T-ball vs. professional Baseball.
>
>
> All of these reward the “hardcore or skilled” but enable the “new or less-skilled” players to thrive. For online multiplayer there is nothing wrong with giving the “lesser players” a helping hand to unbalance the “more skilled” approx. 1 or 2 times out of 10.
>
> For ranked competitive or LAN tournament play there must settings and playlists to cater for a level playing field where this is not the case.
>
> My main issue is 343i and Bungie always tried to cater for both of these but I think 343i are on the money a lot more and players/forum posters seem to not grasp the difference between playlists and settings for this threads exact reasons.

Thanks

As Mathew mentioned, a lot of these problems can be solved via a good trueskill system (one of the reasons I was so annoyed when 1-50 was confirmed not to be returning). The noobs need to be given a chance otherwise Halo will never grow.

8

> Jetpack has not yet been confirmed. In one Spartan Ops video something similar can be seen. The replacement your referring to is thruster pack which is replacing evade not jetpack. So it is still unknown if jetpack is still there or not. I hope it is there for the campaign to add some variety but as for the multiplayer…we’ll see I guess.

I doubt that 343 is going to make H4 with both Thruster Packs and Jetpacks.

Given AL’s mutation into HLS, it seems that they have indeed taken some of the criticism aimed at Reach to heart.

> one of the reasons I was so annoyed when 1-50 was confirmed not to be returning

We don’t need 1-50 to have accurate matching. Only an accurate TrueSkill system. And TrueSkill has shown it can be accurate.

9

> Aimed at Methew
>
> Thanks for your response. There are some things in your post I do and some things I don’t agree on.
>
> Firstly I do believe that all players do take some satisfaction from winning and ‘squishing ants’ as you so brutally put it. It is certain that most players (especially on the forums) do play to win.

I know this part wasn’t aimed at me but I thought I’d put this out there as I reply. One of my minor pet peeves is with the “God squishing ants” personality types.

I have a friend who I play Smash Bros Brawl Plus with. A lot. He plays Ike. Who, like many characters, can punish missed moves or tech chases, etc. Ike however, in a comparatively similar situation just annihilates characters (he’s really powerful). But, he doesn’t have a lot of depth. He essentially punishes miss-steps and is rewarded heavily for guessing correctly in 50-50 scenarios. But theres not much else. Not too many mindgames. No difficulty gap in performing combos or edgeguarding (he can just hold and release B and kill quite a few characters). And yet my friend continues to play him. Why? because he wins games, and blasts opponents off the screen. Now, the characters I pick in the game I pick based on playstyle, chasing, agression, combo-potential, options, positional ability, edgeguarding etc, and all sorts of interesting qualities that I enjoy. He picks Ike for… “squishing ants”.

I do not get satisfaction from performing the expected goal (winning), if it is easy or menial. I PREFER to take the harder route. I always play low-tier characters. I would rather Out-think upstream for lack of a better word to achieve my goal. In halo, im not a fan of the rocket launcher (I still pick it up, because it helps my team), as it is an “ant-squisher” in my mind. The weapon is insanely good. But I don’t feel there is a tremendous skill to it, so P much prefer snipe.

I think there are personality types out there like me who don’t enjoy squishing ants, and it actually dissatisfies them, if the have to resort to simple, mindless dominance.
In a sense, I prefer to earn my wins by means that I agree with.

Ant-Squishers are a minor nuisance, as I can see how it appeals. But I don’t equate play-to-win with play-to-abuse-less-fun-aspects.

There are moves and techniques in SmashBros, that I mostly avoid because while they produce a good result(a win), they don’t take the path to getting there that I agree with.

> I do agree with all of them and I am now considering as to how Reach did not meet your ‘criteria’ and why it is regarded so negatively (which will take some time).

Meh, Reach is alright. Its not my favourite halo, but again it has some aspects I really enjoy. It has all the right things, implemented incorrectly and in insufficient amounts I think.

10

All this talk of ‘squishing ants’ is reminding me of a online game called Insectinator (if you haven’t heard of it then don’t worry - it’s -Yoink-). The point of Insectinator is to squish bugs - you have a time limit but otherwise you are invincible. I hated this game. I feel no satisfaction from beating it or winning. However going back to my original point - we all enjoy winning/some sort of winning.

We all enjoy winning in a sense, that feeling of accomplishment beating an opponent. I may have hated winning Insectigator but I enjoy winning a game of Halo. Perhaps it is not true that everybody enjoys winning all the time but we all enjoy winning something; just some of us we feel like we have to earn our victory.

As for this whole ‘squishing ants’ concept which was derived from ‘we all enjoy feeling powerful’ we all do. Every human enjoys a feeling of power - it is built into our very nature, within our DNA. Once again, perhaps we just need to fight a difficult enough opponent to get a ‘power rush’.

11

Alright. I can see what you’re saying. I took the paragraph

> Fun. Fun is not something often discussed on the forums - partly because it is so hard to define and is strongly linked with what has been know to be called as ‘the Halo feel’ (also impossible to define). But I feel like it is important to recognise why we (not just us on the forums) play games. We play them to enjoy ourselves and this (to a certain extent) contradicts balance (particularly with MM). We all play to win and we all love feeling powerful.

to be about game balance. If Standard Halo had 25% movement speed and 1 Rocketlauncher with infinite ammo, Even if I was damn good at getting rockets and killing the “juggernaut” who had rockets, I wouldn’t enjoy the game. Im sure the player with rockets would “feel powerful” but if that was me, I wouldn’t enjoy the game. There are aspects to “feeling powerful” that I can appreciate but its certainly not one of my top-satisfaction-suppliers.

A broken game, regardless of whether or not I “feel powerful” won’t make me enjoy the game.

Thats my personality type, and what I was trying to get across with my response.

Off topic:

I wonder how ingrained the loving of power is into the human condition and our “DNA”. If you look at the kings and queens, positions of power were obviously coveted highly, but it was just a vicious cycle of murder and replacement. I wonder if people often misread their desire for safety and contentment by aiming to secure power. The saying is “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I wonder why “we” like it so much. (Im not SO sure I’m in that group)

12

> And finally and most importantly: We all started as noobs, what made you stick with Halo?**

Because it was consistent and balanced and it rewarded me for my efforts in a meaningful way.

13

> Totally agree and well said, I’ve said similar things for ages mate.
>
> 1. Look at Mario Kart and the first place slow down or last place blue shell awards.
>
> 2. Look at real life Golf and handicaps.
>
> 3. Look at Formula One and car limitations.
>
> 4. Look at T-ball vs. professional Baseball.
>
>
> All of these reward the “hardcore or skilled” but enable the “new or less-skilled” players to thrive. For online multiplayer there is nothing wrong with giving the “lesser players” a helping hand to unbalance the “more skilled” approx. 1 or 2 times out of 10.

MATCH PLAYERS ACCORDING TO SKILL.

Wow, now you don’t have to dumb down any aspect of the game.

Must be like theoretical astrophysics or something according to how no developer follows that philosophy.

14

> To what extent does balance interfere with fun?
> How will noobs deal with Halo4?
> Is Halo too challenging when compared to other multiplayer experiences?
> To what extent do AA get in-front of gameplay and fun?
> How did the other Halo’s and Reach make you have fun?
> And finally and most importantly: We all started as noobs, what made you stick with Halo?
>
> Better to be red than dead.

  1. When intelligent gameplay is sacrificed for “balance” that’s when I have a problem with it. I’m trying to think of a specific instance of this, but nothing comes to mind right off the bat (the analogy of the sword user who gets shut down by the AL guy in Reach is kinda in the right direction, but personally I was fine with AL even in its original form)

  2. I think they’ll deal with it the same way they’ve dealt with past Halos: by either falling in love with it because they had an awesome time with their friends, or going, “Meh,” because they got pubstomped too much and didn’t enjoy it (I think everyone has a different tolerance level on that one, for one of my friends it was about 15 minutes, and for me to a certain extent it was a couple years ;-P).

  3. I don’t think so at all. I think there is a larger skill gap in Halo than most shooters, and where you get introduced into that gap a lot of times determines how challenging it is for you. I have friends who pick up the controller after not playing for a year and dominate, whereas it can take me 2 or 3 games to even get warmed up.

  4. Honestly I think AA just served to complement different people’s playstyles. For me, Sprint gave me the maneuvering and positioning power I like to have. For my friend, the verticality (not a real word) that Jetpack gave was exactly what he was looking for, and for another of my friends Armor Lock perfectly complemented his playstyle (read: didn’t make him OP, just made it more fun). So I would say that while it changed the gameplay, I don’t think it got in the way of it. On the competitive front is the only place I saw AAs cause real problems and even then, a lot of the problems they were having were more from not knowing how to effectively counter than from the gaps introduced by the AAs themselves. Personally, I think with more time investment, AAs would have gained more traction in the competitive scene (though with their focus, places like MLG might never be satisfied on that front).

  5. I always go back to the golden triad of gun/melee/grenade is what kept me coming back. Sure, other games have had those things, other games have tried to improve upon those things, but Halo has always been the top dog for me. Even AAs didn’t really ruin those core mechanics for me.

  6. What made me stick to Halo was that it fit all of the criteria for my ideal shooter, has a great story, and I came into the skill gap at a point where I picked it up quickly and had fun and even beat people early on.

And yes, I agree on the redness :wink:

15

> MATCH PLAYERS ACCORDING TO SKILL.
>
> Wow, now you don’t have to dumb down any aspect of the game.
>
> Must be like theoretical astrophysics or something according to how no developer follows that philosophy.

Yeah, in many ways it is a very difficult thing to do. There’s a reason for this: players. In Halo 3 3 out of 10 matches (on a good day) were evenly balanced for me; the rest of the time I was either destroying the other team or struggling to spawn. Why? Because the 1-50 system was so easy to break that nobody really bothered to actually level properly (the number of 50s I pubstomped from my weakling 39 position is downright disturbing). Everyone wanted to be at the top instead of being interested in being matched up with people of similar skill.

In Halo: Reach, that number was brought up to maybe 5-6 out of 10 (which is good) but then those 4 that didn’t fit were a lot more painful. That said, the fact that I got credits and could still level up regardless was a lot more fulfilling for me than having a number next to my name that meant less and less as the game progressed.

I like TrueSkill, I think when it has the time to work and people aren’t doing everything in their power to break it, it works well. But at the same time, it still isn’t foolproof.

16

> > MATCH PLAYERS ACCORDING TO SKILL.
> >
> > Wow, now you don’t have to dumb down any aspect of the game.
> >
> > Must be like theoretical astrophysics or something according to how no developer follows that philosophy.
>
> Yeah, in many ways it is a very difficult thing to do. There’s a reason for this: players. In Halo 3 3 out of 10 matches (on a good day) were evenly balanced for me; the rest of the time I was either destroying the other team or struggling to spawn. Why? Because the 1-50 system was so easy to break that nobody really bothered to actually level properly (the number of 50s I pubstomped from my weakling 39 position is downright disturbing). Everyone wanted to be at the top instead of being interested in being matched up with people of similar skill.
>
> In Halo: Reach, that number was brought up to maybe 5-6 out of 10 (which is good) but then those 4 that didn’t fit were a lot more painful. That said, the fact that I got credits and could still level up regardless was a lot more fulfilling for me than having a number next to my name that meant less and less as the game progressed.
>
> I like TrueSkill, I think when it has the time to work and people aren’t doing everything in their power to break it, it works well. But at the same time, it still isn’t foolproof.

Yeah, so don’t make a visible ranking system.

Just MATCH players according to SKILL.

It is disturbingly simple to do.

17

> Yeah, so don’t make a visible ranking system.
>
> Just MATCH players according to SKILL.
>
> It is disturbingly simple to do.

Is it? Is that why nobody has done it yet?

18

> Jetpack has basically been replaced by Evade, and it’s a one shot only ability.

No, Thurster Pack and Jetpack are both in.

19

To be honest, I disagree with the part where some imbalances are needed to make the game fun. Granted, not everything will be completely balanced out at release, and I expect that. However, effort is needed to get there so that players are more likely to understand the game better, such as “This gun can’t be used that way at that distance.” or, “Use Jetpack to fly around for long periods of time often results with you getting shot down.”

As fun as Halo 2 was, I, at the very least, do not want to end up with Halo 2’s weapon sandbox, where the plasma pistol got removed due to the massive homing function it has with its over-charged shot, or the weapons were just not dealing enough damage to kill players when compared to the BR. I want them all to be fun, and useful. Unless a power weapon is involved, I want to know what is the -Yoink!- whenever I ask that question. :stuck_out_tongue:

Without further ado, I’ll answer the questions as well since others are doing it. For gits and shiggles:

1- To me, imbalances is what makes the game not fun. If I’m told “this will happen”, this better happen. If the answer is, “We forgot to mention this sucks. Use that.”, I find it crappy, and misleading.

2-Hopefully, the game is easy to learn. If you don’t mislead players, they’ll learn what to use. Add an effective matchmaking system, and they’ll stay paired up with players of similar skill, and find it fun.

3- Not compared to BF3 to be honest. In that game, player responsibility has a much greater role in that game than it does here. For example, I often hop into a match, and find out that hardly anyone spots in the match. I swap to my Recon, pull out the MAV, and spot for them. Next thing I know, I’m getting wins left and right because I am doing a job nobody seems to bother to do.

Though Halo does have challenging things in the game, they seem to be more relying on Map control and weapon knowledge being the big factors of a match. You don’t know where things are, and have no idea how to use the guns, and you’ll find yourself getting blown up every few seconds after you respawn.

3- Depends on what they do. Will edit it later.

4- The games offers ways to understand what is happening. Theater mode is one very effective tool of learning how to get better. Don’t know what happened? Get in theater mode, follow the guy and find out.

Reach added in a reticle bloom. Even though it was not done right, it at least helped players understand when to either let go of the trigger, or stop shooting, to get more accurate. Compared to other Halos, it helps answer alot of What the eff moments.

5- It was easy to learn, and hard to master. Plus, it was a fun game. That’s it.

20

> Is Halo too challenging when compared to other multiplayer experiences?
>
> To what extent do AA get in-front of gameplay and fun?
>
> How did the other Halo’s and Reach make you have fun?
>
> And finally and most importantly: We all started as noobs, what made you stick with Halo?**

Nice thread, I will bite.

> How will noobs deal with Halo4?

Much better than Reach and past Halos as the Infinity game-types and change to customizable load-outs with the inclusion of ordinance drops, will make it a whole lot more similar to what they might be used with other popular shooters and make the learning curve easier. I for one have always thought Halo could be picked up and played by anyone and they would have fun, but 343 is making sure anyone will be able to do that with H4.

> Is Halo too challenging when compared to other multiplayer experiences?

No, but I am biased with this answer as I grew up playing video-games before easy modes and hand-holding was a necessity in the games design. To the average shooter fan who has not experienced Halo he may find it unfamiliar and not as instantly satisfying as others.

> To what extent do AA get in-front of gameplay and fun?

In Reach, there is many times where AA’s overshadowed core gameplay and broke maps. It created a reliance on the AA’s(See slow movement speed and sprint) and created some really gimmicky gameplay.

I honestly did not Reach’s AA’s at all, I thought they broke the even playing field of the game and broke the flow of traditional gameplay.

The very few instances where I enjoyed AA’s, was on MLG game-types as map pick-ups where they were not being spammed for advantages and were not a part of the Golden Triangle system of combat Halo is known for. To me, they kind of destroyed the strategic and simplicity aspects of the game.

> How did the other Halo’s and Reach make you have fun?

Well, I started out like alot of oldschool Halo players playing it at LAN’s with friends which naturally created bonds and fond experiences playing the game. I was not very experienced with console shooters(I had only up until that casually played Golden-eye), but I remember having fun with the ease of the gameplay and really the personal feeling of the game. I remember taunting my brother as I head-shotted him across Blood Gulch, and experimenting with the different type of vehicle and weapons. The game was simply fun, it worked, and it didnt try to be a clone of another shooter it had its own unique soul.

In later Halo’s I developed my skills and found that playing in a serious clan could be really fun which I did in H2. I loved to be able to try and get better at the game, and explore the depths of the gameplay. I wasnt just playing on a shallow level like I had at first, I was dissecting the game as I played and it was cool to be able to compete at a high level with other clans. I then found out about the MLG Halo 2 scene from my clan members, and took a real liking to the settings which really just suited my liking for fast and aggressive type gameplay. I found the community and players to be really cool, and I even attended some MLG events as a teenager in H2 close to where I live, in which I competed and spectated. My love for the game only grew from there, and it was only with Halo Reach that I really fell out of love with the game. I am hoping Halo 4 brings back my passion for Halo =)

> And finally and most importantly: We all started as noobs, what made you stick with Halo?[
[/quote]
/size]**
>
> The fact that my brothers and my friends all played, and the gameplay was fresh and exciting to me. As a noob, I simply liked the act of playing with my family and hanging out while enjoying some Frags. As I continued to play more, it became like a sport to me to improve my skills, and a social meeting place with my friends and family. When I got into MLG, my passion for the game only increased as I found a whole new aspect of the game to experiment with and follow. I can say for certain, the H2 community was my all time favorite community and the most fun game experience I ever had. Its sad that certain aspects of H2 didnt carry over into future Halo’s as that game was just a 10 on the fun scale.