This is more about visual changes to the game than the mechanics. Sometimes the way some responds to change confuses me. Changes in vehicle and guns specially. Master Chiefs “new” look in halo 4 etc.
Let’s start with chief armor (only segment that will touch the new mechanics). If you’re one of the ppl who dint like the change, because he was floating in space. I can agree with you there. The whole nano thing was just to shut ppl up. The ones I don’t get are the “why change the iconic look”. This goes with weapons and vehicles. It’s a military shooter! Ironically halo CE and 3 take place in 2 years if I’m not mistaken, 2552 -2553. So yess were at war facing possible extinction who is really worrying about upgrading guns or design.
Halo 4 starts 4 years after the events of halo 3. Every year a car gets a new model that’s just common sense. Now I don’t say that to say opinions are irrelevant. You might prefer the 2010 look over the redesigned 2015 because your human and have an opinion, but to demand they go back because it’s iconic?
Some TV shows change opening theme after couple seasons. Halos theme changes for good season (the guy no longer works on halo!) and we want someone’s head on a spike.
For the sake of having a different feel while playing the two different campaigns I hope MC awoled right after halo 4.
Because if he hung around for a bit I expect him to have been fully upgraded.
If I’m in charge and I have all these cocky (but good) ex marines running around in the fancy new tech. I would already have one ready for my biggest asset.
The legendary ending in halo 4 when MC is getting stripped of his armour BOOM right there I’d slap the new generation on him!
Tony stark has passed MARK 40 because he needs to stay a head of the game (and always gets destroyed lol). As long as they keep it red and gold ppl don’t lose their -Yoink- . Same could be said for MC keep the helmet and keep the green and I’m good.
Why would he still be using armour he was using in halo 2 when these no bodies running around with all the new toys!?
There was a thread about , his dare 343 change the look of the pelican, lol ehh guys how dare they keep it the same?.
It’s not guarantee you like the new model over the old one but let’s not act like we were robbed. -yoink-changes all the time, why would that be different in a videos games timeline.
Artistic changes shouldn’t be cause for controversy, unless it’s something utterly stupid like making Chief’s armor purple. You’re analogy about different car models coming along is spot on, and the new Pelican (any vehicle for that matter) is subject to the same logic. 4 years would be a long time to go without coming up with new vehicle models.
The hardest aesthetic change to justify is Chief’s armor in Halo 4. But when it comes down to it, you - the consumer - just have to realize that this isn’t Bungie’s Halo, it’s 343’s. You can’t expect a new studio with different artistic visions to cling to old art styles in some areas, but reimagine in others. The best they can do is be respectful to the original design while making it their own, which is exactly what 343 has done.
> So yess were at war facing possible extinction who is really worrying about upgrading guns or design.
You do realize that the gun and vehicle models for many of the weapons spanning the time between Halo Reach and Halo 3 are different right? For example, the assault rifle has MA37 in Reach and the Spartan games while 3, ODST, and much of the extended universe uses the MA5C. This goes for almost every weapon and vehicle on both the human and Covenant sides. I understand what you are trying to say but, the example is a horrible one.
Also the designs aren’t huge overalls, they are small changes. Are gas canisters on the back of a Warthog really that big of a deal? It’s not like they added the much needed roof to the thing
> 2533274810150284;2:
> Poorly written, but well thought out.
>
> Artistic changes shouldn’t be cause for controversy, unless it’s something utterly stupid like making Chief’s armor purple. You’re analogy about different car models coming along is spot on, and the new Pelican (any vehicle for that matter) is subject to the same logic. 4 years would be a long time to go without coming up with new vehicle models.
>
> The hardest aesthetic change to justify is Chief’s armor in Halo 4. But when it comes down to it, you - the consumer - just have to realize that this isn’t Bungie’s Halo, it’s 343’s. You can’t expect a new studio with different artistic visions to cling to old art styles in some areas, but reimagine in others. The best they can do is be respectful to the original design while making it their own, which is exactly what 343 has done.
> 2533274883849234;3:
> > So yess were at war facing possible extinction who is really worrying about upgrading guns or design.
>
>
> You do realize that the gun and vehicle models for many of the weapons spanning the time between Halo Reach and Halo 3 are different right? For example, the assault rifle has MA37 in Reach and the Spartan games while 3, ODST, and much of the extended universe uses the MA5C. This goes for almost every weapon and vehicle on both the human and Covenant sides. I understand what you are trying to say but, the example is a horrible one.
>
> Also the designs aren’t huge overalls, they are small changes. Are gas canisters on the back of a Warthog really that big of a deal? It’s not like they added the much needed roof to the thing
I know they aren’t the exact same weapons. The reason why I used weapons from 1 to 3 is because how a lot of ppl here like to use those guns, to mention how bungie never moved away from what we know. But in that small window and the situation of the war the changes would be minor. Compared to what 343 did IE to the shotgun it’s like ppl fail to realize 4 years (of “peace” and reflection on how humanity might have felt outgunned) had passed since halo 3’ shotgun
> 2533274810150284;2:
> Poorly written, but well thought out.
>
> Artistic changes shouldn’t be cause for controversy, unless it’s something utterly stupid like making Chief’s armor purple. You’re analogy about different car models coming along is spot on, and the new Pelican (any vehicle for that matter) is subject to the same logic. 4 years would be a long time to go without coming up with new vehicle models.
>
> The hardest aesthetic change to justify is Chief’s armor in Halo 4. But when it comes down to it, you - the consumer - just have to realize that this isn’t Bungie’s Halo, it’s 343’s. You can’t expect a new studio with different artistic visions to cling to old art styles in some areas, but reimagine in others. The best they can do is be respectful to the original design while making it their own, which is exactly what 343 has done.
Don’t milltary vehicles need years of planning, development, and distribution? A new version of an M1 Abrams battle tank probably won’t see light in a decade or two. There are still vehicles in service even from the last century dating back to the 50’s.
> 2535471906694096;6:
> > 2533274810150284;2:
> > Poorly written, but well thought out.
> >
> > Artistic changes shouldn’t be cause for controversy, unless it’s something utterly stupid like making Chief’s armor purple. You’re analogy about different car models coming along is spot on, and the new Pelican (any vehicle for that matter) is subject to the same logic. 4 years would be a long time to go without coming up with new vehicle models.
> >
> > The hardest aesthetic change to justify is Chief’s armor in Halo 4. But when it comes down to it, you - the consumer - just have to realize that this isn’t Bungie’s Halo, it’s 343’s. You can’t expect a new studio with different artistic visions to cling to old art styles in some areas, but reimagine in others. The best they can do is be respectful to the original design while making it their own, which is exactly what 343 has done.
>
>
> Don’t milltary vehicles need years of planning, development, and distribution? A new version of an M1 Abrams battle tank probably won’t see light in a decade or two. There are still vehicles in service even from the last century dating back to the 50’s.
They have new Spartan armor u don’t see why they wouldn’t have a new tank. And again were talking “2557”
> 2533274835305187;9:
> > 2535471906694096;6:
> > > 2533274810150284;2:
> > > Poorly written, but well thought out.
> > >
> > > Artistic changes shouldn’t be cause for controversy, unless it’s something utterly stupid like making Chief’s armor purple. You’re analogy about different car models coming along is spot on, and the new Pelican (any vehicle for that matter) is subject to the same logic. 4 years would be a long time to go without coming up with new vehicle models.
> > >
> > > The hardest aesthetic change to justify is Chief’s armor in Halo 4. But when it comes down to it, you - the consumer - just have to realize that this isn’t Bungie’s Halo, it’s 343’s. You can’t expect a new studio with different artistic visions to cling to old art styles in some areas, but reimagine in others. The best they can do is be respectful to the original design while making it their own, which is exactly what 343 has done.
> >
> >
> > Don’t milltary vehicles need years of planning, development, and distribution? A new version of an M1 Abrams battle tank probably won’t see light in a decade or two. There are still vehicles in service even from the last century dating back to the 50’s.
>
>
> They have new Spartan armor u don’t see why they wouldn’t have a new tank. And again were talking “2557”
With games, some designs may hold a special place is some gamers hearts, changing them for the sake of change can make them pretty mad if done poorly.
I personally found it incredibly dumb that humanity had all this new tech and such after one of the most expensive and catastrophic wars it has ever had. They should still be trying to recover, not the top dogs of the galaxy. Sure, proto type weapons here and there, but funds for a whole spartan program? That seems a bit off.
> 2533274898131165;11:
> With games, some designs may hold a special place is some gamers hearts, changing them for the sake of change can make them pretty mad if done poorly.
>
> I personally found it incredibly dumb that humanity had all this new tech and such after one of the most expensive and catastrophic wars it has ever had. They should still be trying to recover, not the top dogs of the galaxy. Sure, proto type weapons here and there, but funds for a whole spartan program? That seems a bit off.
Perhaps there was a rise on global taxes that raised the funds in the military. That and maybe the Sangheilios donated some of those funds; after all, people keep saying their planet weighs twice as much as earth, so there £s should also be worth twice as much.
I’ll have to admit that I did not like most of the new aesthetics, the lensflare reminded me of JJTrek like a Vietnam flashback and without certain iconic looks of weapons, armors or vehicles I lost some of the old familiar Halo feeling. And that’s not even touching on some of the new sounds like the lawnmower-warthog. But in the end I got over it. Yes, they were off-putting, but it’s not like the original trilogy didn’t have its fair share of designs that rubbed me the wrong way, like the ulgy vulture-look of the Arbiter’s armor. In the end, while I don’t like the new designs, I don’t take issues with them per se.
What I do take issues with is when these changes make completely no sense in the context of the universe. For example, why do Grunts suddenly have an additional toe? Did the species somehow evolve within the last five years between 2552 and 2557? How on earth does the wreckage of the Forward Unto Dawn carry equipment that was only invented after the ship was missing? How do they have the new UNSC logo on all machinery when the it was changed after 2553? And as to the armors: Why is the Mjolnir-GEN2 only plated on less than 50% of its surface when it’s supposed to be superior armor? Why was the only place where new plating was added the backside of the Spartans’ fingers, so they can get stuck more easily in the already smaller-sized trigger-compartment of their firearms?
It saddens me that no thought process went into these kind of things on the developer’s side instead of just making what “looks cool”. At the very least they could have added multiple designs for the weapons and vehicles, some that come from the FUD and others that the Infinity carried on board. Seeing as many 3D-models from Halo Reach are still on disc anyways, this should not have been that big a problem…
> 2535471906694096;6:
> > 2533274810150284;2:
> > Poorly written, but well thought out.
> >
> > Artistic changes shouldn’t be cause for controversy, unless it’s something utterly stupid like making Chief’s armor purple. You’re analogy about different car models coming along is spot on, and the new Pelican (any vehicle for that matter) is subject to the same logic. 4 years would be a long time to go without coming up with new vehicle models.
> >
> > The hardest aesthetic change to justify is Chief’s armor in Halo 4. But when it comes down to it, you - the consumer - just have to realize that this isn’t Bungie’s Halo, it’s 343’s. You can’t expect a new studio with different artistic visions to cling to old art styles in some areas, but reimagine in others. The best they can do is be respectful to the original design while making it their own, which is exactly what 343 has done.
>
>
> Don’t milltary vehicles need years of planning, development, and distribution? A new version of an M1 Abrams battle tank probably won’t see light in a decade or two. There are still vehicles in service even from the last century dating back to the 50’s.
This is all true enough, but I was using the “new models” point as a secondary argument, like the nanobot explanation for Chief’s armor. It’s just a throwaway explanation for what is really just a different artistic direction. My main argument is that everything has simply been an aesthetic change, because Halo is under new management that has a new artistic vision. The way I see it, if everything looks good and has respect for the original design, what’s the sense in complaining that it’s different?
Visual changes are the least of any gamers worry, I think. I mean Reach took a more “realistic” look than any other halos, but that’s not the reason that it’s not my favorite.
> 2533274813499353;15:
> Visual changes are the least of any gamers worry, I think. I mean Reach took a more “realistic” look than any other halos, but that’s not the reason that it’s not my favorite.
Except for the ADS animations we can agree on yes? It’s just wrong from a gameplay and lore perspective.
“ironically, Halo CE - 3 takes place in 2 two years”
Why is this ironic?
OT: In the real work there are many versions of each weapon and vehicle existing at the same time so different versions of each weapon and vehicle have never bothered me.
The change to his suit was the laziest change. If they had him change or upgrade to combat the Prometheans once he was on Infinity it would have felt more natural. Hell even having him change 5 minutes in by visiting the armoury on Forward until Dawn. Spartans were known to modify their armour. This would have been the first time we saw Chief do it.
The only other thing to actually complain about is the graphical presentation of the MP. This is more to do with personal preference though. Not everyone liked Halo’s “Toy” art, some loved it. It’s not really about not liking change. I never like Gear’s bulky people, or realistic graphics either. Then you look at a franchise like Zelda and through changing art styles it has its fans and critics of all styles.
Ps. They were many versions of the movie iron man suit that fans disliked. To the average consumer it all looked the same, but to the people who are really invested in to the lore and universe they found lots to complain about. This is common to every superhero film. In fact people were actually relieved by Deapools classic outfit. I heard many say that it’s refreshing to see another person’s work stay so faithful to the original.
> 2533274835305187;5:
> > 2533274883849234;3:
> > > So yess were at war facing possible extinction who is really worrying about upgrading guns or design.
> >
> >
> > You do realize that the gun and vehicle models for many of the weapons spanning the time between Halo Reach and Halo 3 are different right? For example, the assault rifle has MA37 in Reach and the Spartan games while 3, ODST, and much of the extended universe uses the MA5C. This goes for almost every weapon and vehicle on both the human and Covenant sides. I understand what you are trying to say but, the example is a horrible one.
> >
> > Also the designs aren’t huge overalls, they are small changes. Are gas canisters on the back of a Warthog really that big of a deal? It’s not like they added the much needed roof to the thing
>
>
> I know they aren’t the exact same weapons. The reason why I used weapons from 1 to 3 is because how a lot of ppl here like to use those guns, to mention how bungie never moved away from what we know. But in that small window and the situation of the war the changes would be minor. Compared to what 343 did IE to the shotgun it’s like ppl fail to realize 4 years (of “peace” and reflection on how humanity might have felt outgunned) had passed since halo 3’ shotgun
Bungie changed plenty concerning weapons, just as much if not more than 343i. Take a look at the pistol and AR. These weapons change far more for the AR I Reach and the Pistols in Halo 2. Then there’s the change from AR, Pistol to SMG, BR in Halo 2.
The AR is near identical from 3 to 4 and is identical from 4 to 5. Same with the pistol and a whole host of other weapons.
Your argument that weapons or vehicles,didn’t change until 343i came in is wrong.
> 2533274883849234;3:
> > So yess were at war facing possible extinction who is really worrying about upgrading guns or design.
>
>
> You do realize that the gun and vehicle models for many of the weapons spanning the time between Halo Reach and Halo 3 are different right? For example, the assault rifle has MA37 in Reach and the Spartan games while 3, ODST, and much of the extended universe uses the MA5C. This goes for almost every weapon and vehicle on both the human and Covenant sides. I understand what you are trying to say but, the example is a horrible one.
>
> Also the designs aren’t huge overalls, they are small changes. Are gas canisters on the back of a Warthog really that big of a deal? It’s not like they added the much needed roof to the thing
The MA37 was army issue. Not marines. it is still part of the MA5 family though
well, i’m open to certain changes. sprinting gives you more mobility to escape combat or to pursue a target. i’m 50/50 about the ADS part though. I mean sure, it sure looks like COD by appearance but the aiming mechanics did not change…btw the assault rifle ADS looks real good, that ammo counter dropping down is real intense